Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: NY Times Piles Hate on America with the 1619 Project

  1. #1

    Exclamation NY Times Piles Hate on America with the 1619 Project

    NY Times Piles Hate on America with the 1619 Project

    https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...-1619-project/

    Aug 20, 2019

    RUSH: We have some follow-ups from yesterday. I spent a lot of time, as you recall, yesterday on the New York Times attempting to rewrite American history and the founding of America as dating to 1619 when the slave trade arrived in North America. You talk about the state of modern-day journalism.

    And not only is the New York Times basically now preparing a series — it’s not even correct to say series of essays. The New York Times’ daily existence from now through Election Day 2020 will be devoted to the idea that all American greatness and exceptionalism is rooted in slavery. And the story that they ran yesterday is so chock-filled with lies about slavery, not just here, but in Great Britain — and the timing. It is all fake news.

    Erick Erickson did some historical research and wrote a piece about it that I’m gonna be quoting from later just nuking the entire New York Times story yesterday.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Okay. Yesterday I spent a lot of time, because it was a giant See, I Told You So. The New York Times has moved on to a new hoax. They have moved on to a new narrative. Every narrative — and it’s the end of journalism officially. The New York Times announced that there is no more journalism in the New York Times. There is simply agenda orientation and narrative advancement. And the New York Times has decided that America was not officially founded in 1776. And the Revolutionary War had nothing to do with America’s independence.

    America was actually founded in 1619. And, by the way, we’re coming up on the 400-year anniversary, you see. And what happened in 1619 is the first African slaves arrived for sale in what is now Virginia. And so the New York Times and their new premise, their new narrative is that the United States is a gigantic fraud. That the real story of the United States that’s taught is bogus. That America’s true past is one of immorality, injustice, racism, bigotry, homophobia.

    The premise is that everything great about America, American exceptionalism, all of America’s great achievements are essentially illegitimate because they would not have happened without slavery. This is the New York Times’ new premise. They preceded all this with a series of tweets six days ago saying that their project from now through the 2020 election would be to demonstrate that not a single American achievement would have happened were it not for the evil of slavery. And, therefore, everything about the United States is illegitimate.

    I made a big deal about it because it was a giant See, I Told You So. This has been a message I have been conveying to you in this audience for years about the left’s true intent. The transformation of America as Obama described it, the eight years of Obama were indeed a plan designed to make Americans believe that the greatness of America was not justified, that it was indefensible, that all of the great economic prosperity the American people have enjoyed was not really legitimate because it was so ill-gotten in so many ways.

    So the Obama people came up with this new term “the new normal.” “The new normal” is a steady declining economy that needs to be expertly managed, that Americans’ expectations need to be lowered, that the central ingredient of the American dream, that children will do better than their parents, is over.

    This is what Obama and his acolytes told the American people. Economic growth in excess of one, one and a half percent should never, ever be expected. He even had a name for this, “the new normal.” America in decline, a decline that we deserved, by the way, a rollback in prosperity and power that we deserved because it was achieved in inhumane, illegitimate ways.

    This has been the objective, it was the objective of the Obama administration and of the Democrat Party. And it dovetailed with their decision in November, in early 2010 to totally abandon white working-class voters as a primary ingredient of their constituency.

    The Democrat Party officially cast aside the white working class and instead attempted to build a massive majority built on all of the minorities they could find and combine together. Illegal immigrants, African-Americans, Hispanics, women, lesbians, gays, sexual, bisexual, transgender, the confused, whoever, all of these disparate groups, the victims of America, the victims of America’s unjust founding would become the constituency of the Democrat Party. That’s the decision they made.

    So along comes Donald Trump, who doesn’t want any part of this, has a slogan Make America Great Again. This is crazy! What do you mean, American decline? What do you mean new normal? There’s no need for this. It’s totally unnecessary. America is great, justifiably so, and we need to focus on being even greater.

    His victory alarmed and scared the entire liberal establishment worldwide who, in reality, want a declining America to further their globalist ambitions of eliminating the concept of nation states. You can’t succeed at that unless you eliminate the sovereignty of the United States. And you can’t do that unless you’ve got willing American leadership. And they had it with Barack Obama.

    The reason Donald Trump is hated and despised and feared is not just the Washington establishment. It is the worldwide globalist establishment. So in response to Trump, the New York Times, a leader in this globalist, “Let’s take America down a peg or two ’cause America doesn’t deserve her status” crowd has their new agenda that America’s true founding was when slaves first arrived, and everything that happened thereafter is basically criminal. The United States is a criminal state that has achieved its unwarranted power and prosperity on the backs of people of color.

    So we are faced with an active political opposition which has finally been honest about its intentions for the last 20 or 30 years, maybe even longer, and that is to destroy the United States as founded, take it down many notches in power and prosperity, on the premise that none of it has been deserved, that none of it has been warranted, that all of it is ill-gotten and all of the people who have benefited from this injustice of the American founding need to also be called out and punished: the white supremacists, the white nationalists, the white — essentially the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

    There’s only one problem – well, there’s more than one. But a primary problem the New York Times faces is that everything in their premise is a lie. Not a single bit of it is factually true.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: So Erick Erickson tackles this New York Times story at his website. “Another Egregious Factual Error in the New York Times’ 1619 Project. … Its first essay” in this effort by the Times “from Nikole Hannah-Jones … contains an outright falsehood.” Let me quote from her piece. “Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to…” By the way, you’re gonna freak when you hear this. This actually ran in the New York Times.

    This is in the first essay on this premise that America’s real founding coincides with the slave trade. Ready? (impression) “Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the [racism and slavery] that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere. In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade.”

    This is a crock of the first order! The Brits were not the leading edge! The colonists had no desire to separate from the king because they wanted slavery! The truth of the founding of America is that there was no way to put the 13 colonies together without acknowledging the need of the Southern states to be able to maintain their slavery positions. But every one of the Founding Fathers wrote of slavery in a condemning, critical way. “[T]he abolitionist movement in London,” and this is a point that Erick makes here, “did not take off … until after 1776…”



    Look it up! The name is William Wilberforce, and he was the leader of getting rid of slavery in Great Britain. Movies have been made about the efforts of William Wilberforce, spelled exactly like it sounds. But his movement to abolish slavery “did not take off … until after 1776 and it still dragged on well into the [1800s]. In fact, Massachusetts’ began considerations on abolishing the slave trade in 1767,” before the founding, “and voted again in both 1771 and 1774 to end its practice altogether,” even before our founding in Massachusetts.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Now, back to Erick Erickson’s piece. I was really time crunched so let me go over these dates again. The first factual error that the New York Times makes is that the primary reason the colonists decided to declare their independence was because they wanted slavery and the British king wouldn’t allow it.

    This is such a lie, I don’t know where to start with it. It is obscene, this lie, that America’s Revolutionary War was fought because the Brits would not allow us to — They were operating a slave state themselves. They didn’t get rid of it ’til long after we did. The abolitionist movement in London didn’t take effect until after we were founded in 1776. It dragged into the early 1800s.

    But let’s look at Massachusetts. Massachusetts began considerations on abolishing the slave trade in 1767. We were not founded ’til 1776. Practically 10 years before our founding, Massachusetts was making plans to get rid of it. They voted again in 1771 and 1774 to end slavery, the last time two years before the founding. The only reason it failed, the British government vetoed Massachusetts’ request.

    In other words, Massachusetts remained a slave state despite voting to get rid of it because the British overrode it with a veto before our revolution. And yet the New York Times is claiming that we revolted because the Brits wouldn’t let us keep slavery?

    Now, the second lie from Nikole Hannah-Jones is her statement about one of the primary reasons. She says that preserving slavery was a primary reason for our revolution. That is an out-and-out lie. The Continental Congress, 1774, pledged to end the slave trade, and in 1776 even southern states had agreed to abide by nonimportation of slaves from abroad. Take it from the founders on words who were writing before 1776 about slavery and the need to end it.

    This is so commonly known. This project at the New York Times is obscene. The advent of slavery and the relevance of slavery to the American founding, we were founded on the premise that slavery had to go and our founding documents were written in ways to permit that to happen, as the new nation aged. There were compromises that were needed to assemble the 13 colonies, some of them in the South, and allowing them to maintain the slave trade for a time was part of it. Nobody’s denying that.

    But this is an out-and-out series of lies from the New York Times that our founding, that our Declaration of Independence from Britain was because they wanted, the colonists wanted to protect slavery? The words of the Continental Congress, the words of the founders as written and published say the exact opposite.

    “Few even of the most enlightened Virginians were willing to declare, as Thomas Jefferson did in the instructions he wrote for his colony’s delegation to the Continental Congress that the rights of human nature are deeply wounded by this infamous practice.” These are the words of Jefferson. “The rights of human nature are deeply wounded by this infamous practice. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state.” That’s Bernard Bailyn writing in the ideological origins of the American Revolution.

    “Benjamin Rush, in a sweeping condemnation of slavery, ‘On Slave-Keeping’ (1773), begged ‘Ye advocates for American liberty’ to rouse themselves and ‘espouse the cause of humanity and general liberty.’ Bear a testimony, he wrote in the language of the Quakers, ‘against a vice which degrades human nature,’” talking about slavery.

    I mean, I don’t know how to properly characterize this. But anybody who has been taught even the slightest factual truth of our founding knows that this entire premise of the New York Times is criminally wrong, journalistic malpractice, criminally wrong. They’re literally just making up a new reality.

    And they’re not stopping at publishing this stuff in the paper. They’re now creating a public school curriculum, part of the so-called 1619 Project to be implemented in as many public schools as possible to coincide with this new hoax, this new project of theirs to convince people that the founding of America is not what they’ve always been told that it was.

    You have to marvel at the grandiose objectives of these people and you literally have to marvel at the willingness to out-and-out lie. Now, I’ll tell you what’s gonna happen here. If nature holds its course, the New York Times is the leading news organization in this country, and other news organizations dutifully follow it.

    And if the New York Times is literally gonna do this, if they’re gonna start a project here called 1619 that is designed to rewrite the founding of this country as something that did not happen when it was stated to happen, that it actually began with the slave trade and that everything that’s happened since 1619 is therefore unjust, indecent, and disqualifying, then every other news organization is gonna have to pick this up. Otherwise the New York Times is gonna be stranded and alone with it.

    Because whatever else the New York Times leads with: Trump-Russia collusion, Kavanaugh’s gotta go, whatever it is, the rest of the media, local newsrooms, national newspapers, local newspapers, they follow like puppy dogs the lead of the New York Times. The Democrat Party had better be very wary of this, because if the media, which I claim has been running the Democrat Party for a while now. The media is the intellectual energy or the foot soldier warriors. They are leading the party. They are providing the talking points. They are firing the weapons against us, their political enemy.

    If they really think that there is a presidential election to be won, just waiting to be won by convincing Americans that everything about their country is a lie, that it’s truly a horrible place, and that everything great, supposedly great is now disqualified because it wouldn’t have happened without slavery, they think that is going to prevail over the message behind Make America Great Again or Keep America Great Again?

    I have seen desperation. I have seen panic throughout my life professionally, personally, I’ve seen it. I know what it looks like. I’ve never seen this degree of panic. And some will say this is not panic. This is satanic. However you want to characterize this, this is an act of pure desperation. The idea that somebody somewhere thinks this is the way to amass a majority — and I’ll tell you why they think so. “Well, hey, Rush, it didn’t do badly for them in the midterms 2018. All this radical socialism, it didn’t hurt ’em then, it didn’t hurt ‘em winning some governorships back.”

    Well, all politics is local. Those were local districts, Democrat districts, but they weren’t carrying this message so much. They had not spelled it out. They were acting out. They had not spelled it out like the New York Times is now spelling out. We shall see. Won’t take long.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Oceania has always been a slave state and always will be.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    Ethnicity (or incorrectly "race") has replaced class in the Marxist canon.

    The Bolsheviks realized that "class struggle" is not going to sell well in a nation where even the most dimwitted of people can easily acquire $700 iPhones, enough food to make one morbidly obese inside of a few months and 60 inch flat screen TVs. Those a few points higher up on the IQ scale can easily afford a family sedan with more power, features and performance than that of a Maserati or Porsche from 30 years ago. They can afford a 6000 square foot McMansion if desired.

    All on easy credit terms.

    No, class envy won't sell.

    But ethnic envy, oh hell yeah, that sells by the bucketload.

    If you can't get the Bolshevik/Jacobin mob whipped up to "take the rich man's stuff" you sure as hell can get them whipped up to "take the white man's stuff".

    Especially after convincing them that everything that evil white man has, only exists because he enslaved your people.

    Brilliant plan, actually, in a Machiavellian way.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Ethnicity (or incorrectly "race") has replaced class in the Marxist canon.

    The Bolsheviks realized that "class struggle" is not going to sell well in a nation where even the most dimwitted of people can easily acquire $700 iPhones, enough food to make one morbidly obese inside of a few months and 60 inch flat screen TVs. Those a few points higher up on the IQ scale can easily afford a family sedan with more power, features and performance than that of a Maserati or Porsche from 30 years ago. They can afford a 6000 square foot McMansion if desired.

    All on easy credit terms.

    No, class envy won't sell.

    But ethnic envy, oh hell yeah, that sells by the bucketload.

    If you can't get the Bolshevik/Jacobin mob whipped up to "take the rich man's stuff" you sure as hell can get them whipped up to "take the white man's stuff".

    Especially after convincing them that everything that evil white man has, only exists because he enslaved your people.

    Brilliant plan, actually, in a Machiavellian way.
    KILL THE BOER!





    But it will backfire badly.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Ethnicity (or incorrectly "race") has replaced class in the Marxist canon.

    The Bolsheviks realized that "class struggle" is not going to sell well in a nation where even the most dimwitted of people can easily acquire $700 iPhones, enough food to make one morbidly obese inside of a few months and 60 inch flat screen TVs. Those a few points higher up on the IQ scale can easily afford a family sedan with more power, features and performance than that of a Maserati or Porsche from 30 years ago. They can afford a 6000 square foot McMansion if desired.

    All on easy credit terms.

    No, class envy won't sell.

    But ethnic envy, oh hell yeah, that sells by the bucketload.

    If you can't get the Bolshevik/Jacobin mob whipped up to "take the rich man's stuff" you sure as hell can get them whipped up to "take the white man's stuff".

    Especially after convincing them that everything that evil white man has, only exists because he enslaved your people.

    Brilliant plan, actually, in a Machiavellian way.
    FLIP THOSE FLAGS, THE NATION IS IN DISTRESS!


    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Ethnicity (or incorrectly "race") has replaced class in the Marxist canon.

    The Bolsheviks realized that "class struggle" is not going to sell well in a nation where even the most dimwitted of people can easily acquire $700 iPhones, enough food to make one morbidly obese inside of a few months and 60 inch flat screen TVs. Those a few points higher up on the IQ scale can easily afford a family sedan with more power, features and performance than that of a Maserati or Porsche from 30 years ago. They can afford a 6000 square foot McMansion if desired.

    All on easy credit terms.

    No, class envy won't sell.

    But ethnic envy, oh hell yeah, that sells by the bucketload.

    If you can't get the Bolshevik/Jacobin mob whipped up to "take the rich man's stuff" you sure as hell can get them whipped up to "take the white man's stuff".

    Especially after convincing them that everything that evil white man has, only exists because he enslaved your people.

    Brilliant plan, actually, in a Machiavellian way.
    I love how they have so many incubating schemes in play, whereas their opposition excitedly sniff each others' butts like dogs at a dog park. Makes me jealous.
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  8. #7
    If the NYT hates America so much maybe they should just leave.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    I love how they have so many incubating schemes in play, whereas their opposition excitedly sniff each others' butts like dogs at a dog park. Makes me jealous.
    And each one designed to enhance and consolidate power over us.

    And yes, exactly, while we, instead of rising up in furious anger and opposition, continue to circle jerk ourselves and mumble into our beards about "education".

    That's why they'll "win", unless "our" people get their heads out of their collective asses, and right $#@!ing quickly too.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Ethnicity (or incorrectly "race") has replaced class in the Marxist canon.

    The Bolsheviks realized that "class struggle" is not going to sell well in a nation where even the most dimwitted of people can easily acquire $700 iPhones, enough food to make one morbidly obese inside of a few months and 60 inch flat screen TVs. Those a few points higher up on the IQ scale can easily afford a family sedan with more power, features and performance than that of a Maserati or Porsche from 30 years ago. They can afford a 6000 square foot McMansion if desired.

    All on easy credit terms.

    No, class envy won't sell.

    But ethnic envy, oh hell yeah, that sells by the bucketload.

    If you can't get the Bolshevik/Jacobin mob whipped up to "take the rich man's stuff" you sure as hell can get them whipped up to "take the white man's stuff".

    Especially after convincing them that everything that evil white man has, only exists because he enslaved your people.

    Brilliant plan, actually, in a Machiavellian way.
    This alone is a reason to freeze all immigration until further notice.
    Until the enemy is no longer able to incite ethnicity wars any immigration is the importation of enemies.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #10
    Exclusive — Another New York Times Editor Made Racist, Anti-Semitic Comments

    https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...itic-comments/

    HARIS ALIC 22 Sep 2019

    Another high level employee of the New York Times made racist, antisemitic, and disparaging comments on social media.
    Jazmine Hughes, an associate editor of the New York Times Magazine, has made a series of racist and antisemitic comments on social media over a multi-year span. A number of the tweets came from Hughes’s personal account, which is associated with her Times email, after she was hired by the outlet in April 2015 and continued well into 2017.

    Breitbart News has been able to confirm the authenticity of the tweets, which are still visible on Hughes’s page at the time of the publication of this story. While Twitter has not officially verified Hughes’ account, her official New York Times website biography links to the account, confirming it is in fact hers.

    Hughes is a high-profile New York Times editor. Forbes highlighted her on its 2018 “30 Under 30” list of influential media figures. The business magazine even conducted a brief interview with her, where she promoted herself as a champion of “diverse storytelling,” in the words of Forbes.

    Hughes is only the latest Times employee to be exposed for making controversial and racially offensive statements. In recent months the paper has been rocked by multiple instances of such behavior at its top editorial ranks.


    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    WHO is Beth Israel and how does she have so many hospitals??? Like trust fund or lotto ticket or

    10
    8:07 PM - Mar 21, 2014
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    See Jazmine Hughes's other Tweets

    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    Replying to @jazzedloon
    If I'm at the deli and I don't thank the cashier by saying "have a nice day. Even though you white" y'all better call the $#@! out

    12
    10:49 PM - Mar 1, 2015
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    See Jazmine Hughes's other Tweets

    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    · Mar 24, 2015
    The Deadline article is trash. I'm not linking it here because you don't have to read it! Don't waste yr time with nonsense


    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    *a convo in 2100*
    1: yo why does Jaz still look so good
    2: she stopped paying attention to dumb white people back in 2015! No stress since

    47
    11:10 PM - Mar 24, 2015
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    See Jazmine Hughes's other Tweets

    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    · Mar 24, 2015
    Replying to @jazzedloon
    *a convo in 2100*
    1: yo why does Jaz still look so good
    2: she stopped paying attention to dumb white people back in 2015! No stress since


    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    Hi, my name is Jazmine Hughes, and my self-care regimen is 🚨🚨ignoring white nonsense🚨🚨

    58
    11:10 PM - Mar 24, 2015
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    See Jazmine Hughes's other Tweets

    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    · Jun 14, 2015
    BAE IS LITERALLY STANDING ON THE COAST OF MAINE WITH A CUP OF COFFEE THINKING ABOUT HOW GREAT AMERICA IS cc @Mallelis

    View image on Twitter

    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    Dating white people is a rich tapestry of somehow making fun of them for everything they do. Wouldn't trade it for the world

    98
    9:39 AM - Jun 14, 2015
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    17 people are talking about this

    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    no new white friends 2k15

    37
    8:55 PM - Jun 21, 2015
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    See Jazmine Hughes's other Tweets

    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    Every time Viola Davis stunts with her natural hair on TV is one fewer time I have to explain gravity and curls to a dumb white person SOOOO

    33
    10:29 PM - Sep 20, 2015
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    See Jazmine Hughes's other Tweets
    Although most of the tweets center around every day interactions, a few have pointed to political overtones. Hughes appears to have been particularly irate with white people for electing President Donald Trump. Late on election night 2016, shortly after it became clear that Trump had won the presidency, Hughes took to social media to state she had not been so angry at white people since having learned of Drake and Taylor Swift’s short but ill-fated relationship.


    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    And I thought I was mad at white people when it was rumored that Drake was dating Taylor

    149
    11:36 PM - Nov 8, 2016
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    16 people are talking about this
    Another tweet that Hughes sent in the days following the election seemed to imply she blamed white women for Trump’s victory — an argument the Times itself made the morning after the election.


    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    Replying to @Allisona15
    @Allisona15 good morning everyone except for white women, and especially and deliberately except for you

    26
    9:35 AM - Nov 11, 2016
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    See Jazmine Hughes's other Tweets
    Hughes continued making disparaging tweets about white people and Jews well into 2017. Her most recent came in June 2017, when the editor claimed, “Jews are inDEED good with money.”

    time and again i find myself reflecting on America's only good white woman, Katie Ledecky

    — Jazmine Hughes (@jazzedloon) May 19, 2017


    Jenna Weiss-Berman
    @WBJenna
    · Jun 30, 2017
    Replying to @frynaomifry
    I mean but like it's true we are very good savers


    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    honestly it was just a matter of time before jenna slid in to confirm that, yes, jews are inDEED good with money

    8
    3:54 PM - Jun 30, 2017
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    See Jazmine Hughes's other Tweets
    Even prior to joining the Times, Hughes had a history of controversial comments and writings. In February 2015, shortly before being hired by the Times, Hughes stated the “working title” of a piece she had just authored for the New Republic was, “What can take yr freedom, but can’t take a joke? White people.”


    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    · Feb 6, 2015
    My [white!] boyf read this and said "This is SO good! People are gonna get SO mad!" On white people jokes for @tnr: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...t-white-people


    Jazmine Hughes
    @jazzedloon
    My working title for this was "What can take yr freedom, but can't take a joke? White people" but that was (rightfully!) edited out

    263
    11:17 AM - Feb 6, 2015
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    46 people are talking about this
    The article in question discussed what Hughes saw as the “gentrification” of humor at “white people’s expense.” Hughes argued that “racialized humor is an instrument that people of color can use to placate themselves in the face of the overwhelming reality: It’s just better to be Caucasian.”

    “By making fun of white people, people of color can, in a small way, push back against stereotypes, opposing racial humor by inverting it,” Hughes wrote, claiming such jokes “gain membership in a club open to all people of color, a space impervious to white hegemony.”

    The article’s premise is that as white people become more aware of systematic inequalities, they begin to make light of their privilege in an effort to sympathize with communities of color. In most cases, however, Hughes argued such attempts at solidarity only reinforce the status quo at the expense of people of color.

    “This is how the party ends—with white people wanting in on the joke so badly that they create a separate category of ‘cool’ white people who mock their own whiteness in an effort at solidarity,” she wrote.

    The article appears to be the only one Hughes authored for the New Republic. Since joining the Times, she has occasionally written pieces centered on the intersection of race and culture.

    Her most recent project for the Times’ magazine was the 1619 Project, a comprehensive series of articles and essays arguing that slavery was the institution that fundamentally shaped the modern United States.

    The newspaper made a massive investment in the 1619 Project, through which it aimed to redefine America’s understanding of the history of slavery. Hughes was no small part of the newspaper’s work on this, as she was on the byline of one of two major feature pieces on the broadsheet print edition of the special.

    “The broadsheet special section has two components: A reported essay by Nikita Stewart, a reporter on The Times’s Metro desk, examining why Americans are so poorly educated on slavery, followed by a history of slavery written by Mary Elliott, curator of American slavery at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, and Jazmine Hughes, a writer and editor at The Times Magazine,” the Times wrote about how its 1619 Project feature came together, highlighting the critical role that Hughes played in its publication.

    It is unclear if the Times knew of Hughes’s prior controversial tweets before allowing her to undertake a project of such means. Representatives for the paper did not return requests for comment.

    The revelation of Hughes’ tweets come shortly after the Times declared it intended to hone in on racial issues leading up to the 2020 presidential race. Those efforts, though, have been severely undercut by multiple revelations concerning the paper’s staff using racist, anti-Semitic, and generally disparaging comments.

    Breitbart News reported in August that one of the outlet’s senior news desk editors, Tom Wright-Piersanti, had a history of making anti-Semitic and racist statements on his social media accounts spanning over years. Wright-Piersanti, who helps oversee the paper’s political coverage, apologized for the prior comments, but as of now is still employed by the Times even though the outlet is reportedly “reviewing next steps.”

    Two other individuals associated with the outlet, a fact checker Gina Cherelus and a recent addition to its editorial board — Sarah Jeong — have also been exposed for making racist comments. Jeong, in particular, has denigrated white people in the past, comparing them to dogs.

    The Times also published a series of antisemitic cartoons in its international print edition earlier this year, which the newspaper later retracted and then admitted were antisemitic. In response, the Times has still not identified the personnel responsible for the publication of the antisemitic cartoons or whether those people have been held accountable–but instead has decided to not publish any more cartoons because it cannot trust its staff to not publish more antisemitism.

    All of these incidents and more have amounted to what Breitbart News’ John Nolte has described as a humiliating year for the New York Times, after a summer of public meltdowns and serious institutional mistakes.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11

  13. #11
    The default response American response to the US decline seems to be denial, to attack the messenger, and to praise their beloved government overlords.


    Part of the reason that the US is rapidly collapsing now is that Americans are all thin-skinned control freaks and think the police state only applies to others, but that they are exempt from tyranny.


    Nazis are overjoyed when negroes are jailed for wearing baggy pants, but then racists are shocked when Fascists are arrested for using hate speech.


    Fascists scream with delight when Communists are arrested for wearing a mask, but then racists are stunned when Nazis are arrested for owning a gun.


    No one is safe in a police state. Billionaires, politicians, and the Gestapo could all be arrested. Dictators can be toppled.


    Americans say that they hate the elites, but then Americans turn around and embrace everything the Jews are selling.


    Americans insist that the globalists oppose immorality, illegal immigration, debt, the police state, and wars, but if the 1% controls
    Hollywood, the media, Wall Street, and the government then why is there immorality, illegal immigrants, debt, tyranny, and wars?


    If the ruling class controls everything and supported morality, balanced budgets, freedom, and peace then the USA today would look like the US did in 1960.


    If the elites oppose feminism then why do movies and the media praise females and criticize men?


    If the ruling class opposes population control then why are birth control, assisted suicide, and abortion legal?


    If the ruling powers support morality then why is morality mocked and homosexuality praised?


    Would the US have a debt if the globalists opposed debt?


    Would the USA be at war if the elites opposed wars?


    Do you honestly believe that the US would be a police state if the 1% supported the Bill of Rights?


    Jews, Nazis, and Commies all support immorality, illegal immigrants, debt, the police state, and wars and scream that they are different.

    Americans love groupthink and living in an echo chamber.


    Americans have absolutely no critical thinking skills, cannot see hypocrisy, do not recognize unintended consequences, do not know history, and deal with cognitive dissonance by using mental gymnastics and making up facts to match their narrative.


    Americans insist anyone who supports war, debt, and tyranny is normal and anyone who loves peace, balanced budgets, and freedom is a nutjob and should be censored, get an IRS audit, arrested, or killed.


    Americans scream a trade war ended the Great Depression.


    Americans insist Hitler was a saint and no one died during WWII.


    Americans scream the US never had black people before today.


    Americans swear that the US doesn't have any churches.


    Americans claim the US always had food stamps, TSA groping, CIA torture, checkpoints, and NSA wiretapping.


    Americans say the USA never had a balanced budget.


    Americans swear that the US has been at war every day since 1776.


    The US is collapsing into mass insanity.


    Absolutely disgusting.

  14. #12

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    They want a war so bad don't they.
    Yup, and now it looks like they are gonna get it.

    This was a powerful piece of propaganda...the addlepated masses bought this hook line and sinker.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11

  16. #14
    Historian Phil Magness on the 1619 Project Scandal:




    As the person who broke the story about the NYT's textual deletions from the 1619 Project, I'll offer a few thoughts on this response from the paper in the thread below.

    https://twitter.com/jakesilverstein/...78332098793473

    First is the matter of the deletion, the now infamous line about 1619 supplanting 1776 as our "true founding." The NYT is now depicting this as a relatively minor part of the web copy, and excusing @nhannahjones from culpability in it. This claim does not hold up under scrutiny.

    Web copy matters greatly in the digital age, and that is how most people encountered the 1619 Project. That's why the now-deleted line became an immediate flashpoint for controversy in August 2019 when it was first published.

    That line in fact dominated the first week of media coverage and criticism of the 1619 Project - so much that Nikole Hannah-Jones defended and repeated it in multiple public fora, including her now-deleted twitter feed and several tv interviews.

    In fact, Hannah-Jones was still using the deleted line in her public appearances as recently as January, as the Detroit News shows here.


    Jake Silverstein's downplaying of her connection to the line therefore fails. Even if she did not pen the web copy, she absolutely embraced it, repeated it, and championed it in her public presentations about the project ... until it suddenly vanished.

    Recall too that the only reason the deletion was noticed is a CNN appearance last month where Hannah-Jones denied ever having made the claim about 1619 being the true founding rather than 1776. This claim was easily refuted as I documented here:


    But it also revealed the NYT's willingness to surreptitiously revise its own account of the journalism behind the 1619 Project. And that led to the discovery of the alterations they made to the text. No matter the excuses made, those undisclosed edits breach journalistic ethics.

    But allow me to address another matter. Writing for the Times, Silverstein laments how the editing controversy distracts from the contents of the project and suggests that critics have unfairly seized on a minor line of text at the neglect of its substantive contributions.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. I was one of the 1st scholars to do a deep and measured historical analysis of the 1619 Project's errors, focusing on the Desmond article about slavery's economics - a subject on which I have published extensively.


    Over the next four months I followed the emerging debate closely, fact-checking both the 1619 Project's errors and where some of its historian critics had overstated their case.


    I also privately attempted to contact the Times twice in this period to point out 2 different unambiguous factual errors in the Desmond piece that warranted correction. In fact, Hannah-Jones herself directly suggested to me that I do so on her now-deleted twitter feed.

    How did the Times respond? Well, the 1st attempt was completely ignored. When I questioned NHJ about this she first denied ever receiving the request. Then she accused me of lying about sending it. Then, after I produced receipts of the email itself, she deleted the tweet.

    A few months later I identified another error in Desmond's piece where he had directly misrepresented a claim by one of his own cited sources. This time I emailed Silverstein, who declined to issue a correction and brushed it aside as a textual ambiguity.

    I document both errors in the Desmond piece here for those interested. They are clear-cut factual errors that remain unaddressed in the Times to this day.


    My own experience reflected a pattern for the Times that other scholars encountered. The paper similarly brushed aside a letter by 5 top historians, organized by Sean Wilentz in December.

    The paper completely dismissed another letter by 12 top civil war scholars in January, refusing to even print it. Their exchange with Silverstein is here.


    In the wake of these criticisms, Hannah-Jones became increasingly combative on twitter - regularly subjecting scholars who challenged the 1619 Project to a barrage of insults and verbal abuse. I experienced this myself, as did dozens of others.

    In my case, NHJ penned multiple personal attacks on my own scholarly qualifications to evaluate the project - this despite the fact that I have authored some 2 dozen scholarly works on slavery, slavery's economics, the civil war, and the history of racial discrimination.

    In fact, Hannah-Jones herself had even previously cited my work on Lincoln and colonization in defense of a contested claim in her 1619 Project essay (and she was factually right on that point). She stopped doing so once she realized that I was the author.

    As these examples reveal though, scrutinizers of the project such as myself made multiple substantive, nuanced, and in-depth critiques of its historical content. The NYT not only refused to engage them, its writers responded by blowing us off and attacking us personally.

    This set the stage for the events of the last month and, sadly, it took an outright scandal about secretive and undisclosed textual edits to one of its most controversial claims to force the newspaper's hand.

    Even acknowledging that scandal - and let's call it exactly what it is, a journalism scandal - continues to meet resistance at the Times, as seen in its own writer's guild revolt against Bret Stephens for daring to even mention it in his column.

    But the great tragedy here is not the criticism or tone of the debate - it's the shadow cast onto the entire project by the NYT's own dismissive and demeaning handling of substantive scholarly criticism in the wake of publication. And that, @jakesilverstein, is entirely on you.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 10-17-2020 at 07:57 PM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-15-2018, 10:09 PM
  2. One of those times I hate being a mother
    By kathy88 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-10-2012, 07:00 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-24-2010, 09:39 AM
  4. Questions about slavery,reparations and what happenned in 1619 are irrelevant.
    By blacksforronpaul in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 11:26 AM
  5. If you hate Ron Paul then you hate America
    By dude58677 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-30-2007, 06:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •