The Establishment Mouthpiece Undermining American Culture

And what you can do to fight it

Today we are seeing in real time a coordinated and concerted effort to undermine our Country’s history, traditions and institutions. It is part of the war waged in the “long march through institutions” that is the core of the campaign, in Barack Obama’s words, to “fundamentally transform[] the United States of America.” Nothing less than the total destruction of this country will be tolerated by those who are disciples of both totalitarian murderers from Mao Zedong to Che Guevera, and of the Ivy League sociologists, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.

A comprehensive discussion of this existential threat to Western Civilization would require a multi-volume study replete with hundreds of footnotes. My more modest aim here is to stimulate the reader’s thinking with some pertinent examples. Initially I had planned to focus on the Deep State’s capture of the Smithsonian Institution. But while preparing, my research led me to The New York Times’ 1619 Project. Rather than combine a discussion of both, I decided to address the 1619 Project first and will follow up with Part 2, discussing the capture of the Smithsonian Institution.

Regrettably, the attacks on our Country and its culture are so widespread that time and space do not permit a full discussion of even one limited example, such as the 1619 Project. This short article is just a starter that may alert you to some aspects that have escaped your notice and that, hopefully, may whet your interest.

The New York Times 1619 Project, an exercise in destructive anti-American propaganda

In 2019 The New York Times Magazine published The 1619 Project, a vile propaganda effort by its staff writer, Nickole Hannah-Jones. It is a collection of essays that seeks, in The Times’ words, “to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”

A falsified history

It leads off with an essay by Hannah-Jones bearing this caption:

Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.

When The New York Times writes that our “founding ideals,” were fraudulent, i.e., false when made, it is a declaration of war against the foundational principles that, while imperfectly executed, have remained out signposts for three hundred fifty years.

Hannah-Jones continues with this falsehood:

One of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies. . . .

At the time, there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, and the colonists were concerned that Britain might end slavery in the colonies.

Oops!

When rocked by the inevitable blow-back against Hannah-Jones and The Times’ false assertion that the desire to preserve slavery was a “primary reason” for the American Revolution, The Times appended a footnote seven months later that failed to acknowledge any error. The Times said only that it was making a “clarification” that its article had been “adjusted” “to make clear that a desire to protect slavery was among the motivations of some of the colonists who fought the Revolutionary War, not among the motivations of all of them.”

Nonsense. The Times’ “adjustment” obliterates Hannah-Jones’ original thesis — that protecting the institution of slavery was a primary reason for the Declaration of Independence that we celebrate every July 4. The Times’ “clarification” is that slavery was “among the motivations” of some colonists who fought in the war.

That is not a “clarification.” It is a retraction by another name to avoid having to confess error and undermine their culture war against our founding principles and history. It gutted Hannah-Jones’ central point that the very founding of our present Country was poisoned by slavery. But The Times just slips it, falsely claiming that it is a mere “clarification.”

What a bunch of dishonest hacks.

The 1619 Project’s attacks on our economic system

The next 1619 Project essay is by Matthew Desmond, an Ivy League sociology professor, formerly of Harvard, now at Princeton University. His contribution is captioned, “In order to understand the brutality of American capitalism you have to start on the plantation.” He goes by claiming that our system is nothing but “racist capitalism,” begat by slavery. And for him the most successful economic system in the history of the world and one that has benefited uncountable millions of citizens, black and white alike, is an economy that is “uniquely severe and unbridled.” That would be devestating if it were true. But it is another lie. A lie intended like many that we see today, to tear down our free market system and replace it with totalitarian control by government. Looking at you, Mayor Mamdani.

So you say our free enterprise system is “uniquely severe,” Professor? Some of the Kulaks of Ukraine or the peasants of Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba and other “socialist” paradises might like to have a word about that, if only they were still alive. This Cuban farmer would like a word, Professor.

So why is this poor farmer receiving last rites from a Catholic priest while members of the firing squad watch? He was just a farmer, but that means he likely was a landowner or perhaps just a poor small farmer. When Castro came to power, among other things he instituted what Bernie Sanders might characterize as “Democratic Socialist policies.” They included the seizure of all private land holdings larger than 167 acres and the transfer of massive amounts of land into state-run collectives. Although some smaller subsistence farmers were initially allowed to keep modest plots, they were heavily restricted and required to sell most of their harvests directly to the government at prices fixed by the government. This poor fellow had objected and refused to cooperate with the Castro regime.

So he was afforded socialist justice in the form of a brief four-minute trial led by Che Guevara. He was then immediately executed by the firing squad. Remember that the next time you see some fool wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt.

So, Professor Desmond, perhaps you should rethink your hatred of our “uniquely severe” economic system. But we know you will not because to do so might undercut the methods of your comrades waging your anti-American culture war.

And speaking of a “uniquely severe and unbridled” economic system, here we see a Chinese landlord. Landlords, as we all know, are dirty capitalists who must be punished. Right professor? Right Mayor Mandami?

This supercilious sociologist is smart enough to know that he is peddling unadultrated horse manure with his “uniquely severe and unbridled” description of the U.S. economy. But he thinks that is what it takes to sell their distorted ideas about this Country’s founding principles.

And what about the Chinese soldier about to murder the landlord? Why, he is just the forerunner of today’s middle managers. According to The Times’ Nobel laureate, Matthew Desmond, his brutality continues to infect the nation today because,

[w]hen an accountant depreciates an asset to save on taxes or when a midlevel manager spends an afternoon filling in rows and columns on an Excel spreadsheet, they are repeating business procedures whose roots twist back to slave-labor camps.

Brutal slave overseeers, einsatzgruppen, midlevel managers at Tesla, c’est les meme choses, n’est-ce pas?

And more . . . . even basketball

There is more, much more in the writings of the 1619 Project and its advocates that demonstrates their unfettered desire to tear down U.S. history, culture and traditions, along with its economic system, much as Professors Cloward and Piven urge. For example, you may not have realized it, but today NBA players are sufferring under the same “unbridled” (to use Prof. Desmond’s term) economic system as Mississippi field slaves were subjected to in 1860.

How is that, you ask? Simple. According to the 1619 Project, the NBA profits from a direct legacy of slavery. Now to be clear, the NBA is not opposed to slavery, per se, so it does not oppose slavery if it is exploited to make Nike sneakers in China. But in its 1619 sports essay The Times teaches that although its players may not be permitted to criticize forced labor or slavery in China, things are different here in the U.S. That is shown by the fact that as the 1619 Project teaches us, “In the NBA the very term ‘owner’ has come under fire as players, most of whom are black, assert self-determination.”

You can see it clearly now: In 1860 a Mississippi cotton plantation and its slaves were owned by . . . an “owner.” And today, the multi-millionaires who make their living runing up and down a basketball court also work for . . . an “owner.” Surely you can see the logic — they both work for “owners”therefore the legacy of slavery persists today, even in the NBA. Heck, they’re just like Desmond’s midlevel managers filling out spreadsheets. Every last one is just a holdover from the days of slavery.

You can’t make this up.

And so . . . .

The Times published the 1619 Project in 2019. But it is not just old, stale news. In its collection of essays that comprise the 1619 Project, The Times tells us that, “A re-education is necessary.” And the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are dutifully doing their share to propagagte it nationwide.

Here is Randi Weingarten, long-time President of the AFT:

We are trying to get these invaluable and nuanced lesson plans about the 1619 Project directly to educators when they need it most, to help students grapple with the complex reality of America’s past and present.

Although some states, such as Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, and Mississippi, have banned its the 1619 Project continues to exert its malevolent influence in other states today. It is a core feature in such large districts school districts as Chicago and the District of Columbia, and elsewhere.

So if you have a child, a grandchild or have another relative or friend with children in school, alert them to this fungus. Encourage them to find out if it is being taught in their district or in their classes. Confront teachers. Confront members of school boards. And when election time rolls around, make it a local issue. That is what you have the power to do.

And stay tuned for Part 2,