New York Times Panicking
During the Thanksgiving week, The New York Times approved two op-ed articles to be published that have led some to believe the once-prestigious organization is running out of new and interesting content.
Instead the two articles only cemented the decades-long notion that the Times is no more than a “leftist propaganda rag”.
“The Climate Crisis? It’s Capitalism, Stupid” by a Benjamin Y. Fong, a quintessential progressive professor from Arizona is not a new take on anything. But, rather it is an old argument that reminiscent of the Orwellian idea “Two legs baaaad, four legs good”. Only, in this case it is interpreted in the age-old “Capitalism baaaad, Communism gooood”.
In the case of the article “Charles Manson Was Not a Product of the Counterculture”, ultra leftist author, Baynard Woods explicitly showed his lack of knowledge on many levels as he actually tried to link the recent-deceased Manson to Conservative-Libertarian movements. Though this article contains not a single shred of factual information or evidence, it could be considered a new idea. However, it is based on the same old leftist concept of attempting to redefine ideologies in order to fool the audience.
The anti-capitalism argument by Fong is a continuation of the “Climate change is the new communism” narrative. Sadly, the leftist professor, whom one would expect to use actual empirical data, instead used unproven, controversial theories regarding the Permian mass extinction that preceded the age of the Dinosaurs.
Based on another op-ed from the New York Times, Fong claimed that “we’re injecting” carbon dioxide into the atmosphere ten times faster than it was during Permian period, a time when the polar ice caps may not have existed. Yet, Fong’s attempt to sway an audience avoided reported net gains in ice-sheet growth overall. It also ignored the fact that all data indicate that CO2 levels are not the cause of heating in the atmosphere, but rather a result of an atmosphere that is heating.
The Charles Manson article, too, is riddled with perhaps even more fallacy than the article by Benjamin Fong. But, Baynard Woods’ attempt to lump Manson in with the Conservative ideology could be construed one of two ways.
Woods likely joined the more knowledgeable leftists in the deliberate propagandist process of blaming the right for what the left actually does. However, it is very possible the he is simply uninformed and actually believes what has been spoon-fed to him. Given his age and probable exposure to leftists in academia, the latter would not be a far-fetched notion.
Baynard Woods’ narrative attempting to label infamous killer Charles Manson to right wing thinking is a false notion that the leftist thinkers engage in on a continuous basis. Back when Manson committed the horrific murders, it was well known that he was a leftist. Hippy leftist such as himself were always known to be communist supporters.
Since 2016 especially, the left has attempted to label certain leftist racist groups as “alt-right”. In June of 2017, The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and other media outlets labeled all conservatives who marched in an anti-Sharia campaign as “White Supremacists” even though the protesters came from all walks of life. The President of the United States was lambasted in the media for not specifically “denouncing” only “alt-right” participants in the Charlottesville, VA protests, in spite of the fact that the racial event’s coordinator was a leftist posing as a white supremacist.
The link that Woods tried to use was the Swastika on Manson’s forehead. Woods either thinks, or wants his audience to think that the Nazi symbol is somehow connected to right of center thinking. This sort of misinformation perpetrated by the left forgets or doesn’t know that the Nazi movement in Germany was a leftist endeavor. It is also known that Hitler’s government officials used U.S. Democratic leftist segregation ideas when deciding how to deal with Germany’s Jewish population
Baynard Woods pointed out Manson’s racist beliefs against blacks as another indication of right wing thinking. However, historically and even now, the left has continuously engaged in racism at the highest levels.
From trying to perpetuate black slavery, to Jim Crowe laws, the KKK, and the continuous outward support for socialism and communism which aims to enslave entire populations, leftist ideologues are riddled with racist history.
Leftist pseudo-journalists like Woods have also tried to label Conservatives as “Fascists”, which is also a false notion. Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism in Italy was praised by extreme leftists of the time, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, for his form of leftist government.
Bengamin Fong, the professor, shows his devotion to communism. He not only quoted “Communism for Children” a propaganda manual disguised as a children’s book, but also engaged in the typical pseudo-intellectual anti-America capitalism arguments that have come to represent the left.
Fong alleged that the idea of pursuing profit damages the environment by making it “unsustainable”. Attacking profit has always been an argument for advancing communist ideas and only serves to galvanize the climate change debate as a political idea that can only result in hampering the freedom of citizens. His anti-profit statements demonstrate the exact reason why his audience should not listen to his position. His inability to understand how the economy works as well as how businesses operate is apparent—it goes without saying.
Both Benjamin Fong and Baynard Woods are extreme leftists armed with conjecture to support their talking points. While many in the younger generation, due to similar leftist indoctrinators in the school systems, may believe these authors, those with the ability to discern fact from fallacy can immediately identify it and disregard it as nonsense.
The New York Times, by approving the publication of these two propaganda pieces, clearly supports these extremist views. Op-ed articles are assumed to be opinionated but are respected and considered more often when used with supporting, empirical data. The idea is to allow the best and the brightest to present fact-based arguments in order to persuade the audience. In these two cases, it was the typical uninformed professor and the extreme wacko journalist that ruled the Times white space.
But, since these kind of articles are nothing new for the Times to post, it is almost an axiom that the there is simply no facts that actually support their arguments. Thus the “News” organization seems to have lost its ability to find informed, new, and refreshing information.