Deplorable has already been used up

The New York Times spent two years collaborating with the Democrats in trying to convince everyone that Donald Trump conspired with Russia. What can they do now, noses still raw from rubbing in the abject failure of their attempted coup? Take direction from the drove of Democrat presidential candidates; who are moving directly to a different way of trashing America to get at Trump: Fanning racial division.

Assisting in that effort, the Pink Lady is embarking on a project to convince Americans that the United States was founded on slavery, with side shots at capitalism. The Time’s effort is called the 1619 project, after the 400th anniversary of the first slave imported to the US. Which they will refer to as The Founding.
JOHN KASS: Robert Mueller crushed their dreams, so Democrats pivot to race.

After withering Twitter criticism over a headline above a story on Trump’s remarks after the recent back-to-back mass shootings, the Times changed the headline from ‘Trump urges unity vs racism’ to ‘Assailing Hate But Not Guns.’ This sent the newsroom into a navel gazing downward morale spiral. Not because of the change, but because someone could have lacked sufficient wokeness to sully the Times propaganda goals by posting the first headline at all. They had a staff meeting to discuss it.

The truly amazing leaked transcript of that meeting is up at Slate. Should you wish to give them a click, remove the ‘x’ at the end of that otherwise broken link. I include just one example of the discussion about the NYT pre-election plans.

Baquet is executive editor Dean Baquet. The exchange is prompted by an earlier question/answer (I paraphrase), “Why don’t we call Trump a racist more often?” The answer was, “There are more subtle and powerful ways to call him a racist.”

Staffer: Hello, I have another question about racism. I’m wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting. Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know? Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn’t racist. I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting. And so, to me, it’s less about the individual instances of racism, and sort of how we’re thinking about racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country. And I think particularly as we are launching a 1619 Project, I feel like that’s going to open us up to even more criticism from people who are like, “OK, well you’re saying this, and you’re producing this big project about this. But are you guys actually considering this in your daily reporting?”

Baquet: You know, it’s interesting, the argument you just made, to go back to the use of the word racist. I didn’t agree with all of this from [NPR’s] Keith Woods, [but] …his argument, which is pretty provocative, boils down to this: Pretty much everything is racist. His view is that a huge percentage of American conversation is racist, so why isolate this one comment from Donald Trump? His argument is that he could cite things that people say in their everyday lives that we don’t characterize that way, which is always interesting. You know, I don’t know how to answer that, other than I do think that that race has always played a huge part in the American story.

And I do think that race and understanding of race should be a part of how we cover the American story. Sometimes news organizations sort of forget that in the moment. But of course it should be. I mean, one reason we all signed off on the 1619 Project and made it so ambitious and expansive was to teach our readers to think a little bit more like that. Race in the next year—and I think this is, to be frank, what I would hope you come away from this discussion with—race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story. And I mean, race in terms of not only African Americans and their relationship with Donald Trump, but Latinos and immigration.”

So, a staffer asks if the NYT marching orders are, “When writing a story about anything, first and foremost consider how you can include racism as a fundamental characteristic of the United States.” And Baquet says, yes, but don’t be too obvious about it.

They act like this is a new idea, but I’m so old I can remember when they told us the words “Chicago,” and “golf” were racist.

Anyway, you will be hearing this a lot in the next year(s). So, here are two articles debunking the 1619 project that may assist you in refuting the histrionic flurry of statism and race baiting sure to come from Progressives with whom you may be trapped in an elevator.

Slavery Did Not Make America Rich
The Anti-Capitalist Ideology of Slavery

4 thoughts on “Deplorable has already been used up”

  1. I think it has more to do with get people to accept that some kind of payment has to be made to compensate the slavery victims. The Atlantic monthly had an article not to long ago regarding the plausibility of this thing happening. Just getting the idea percolating helps the acceptance window to move.

    1. Nick,

      I think 620,000 deaths in the Civil War was a significant gesture already. If a similar proportion of the population died today it would be 6 million.

      We will see reparations if the Progressives take the Senate and Presidency, and hold the House. It will not change anything for the better, but it will provide much opportunity for graft while they figure out whether someone of Jamaican ancestry, with a significant amount of caucasian DNA, and already wealthy and powerful… Kamala Harris, for example, should get some. And whether black or white or yellow or brown people who moved here after, say 1990, should pay the same amount as everyone else. It will simply accelerate and magnify victimhood claims and increase racial conflict.

      I’ll have to look up what happened when “40 acres and a mule” reparations were paid not long ago to get the details right, but it wasn’t pretty.

      The Haaretz article was interesting. Today, I see a different set of intellectuals channeling American anger toward other Americans, simultaneously lying about founding documents. Slavery didn’t start in America in 1619, it started with Native Americans. Slavery of all races was commonplace.

      There’s a whole series of posts there…

      1. History is about pointing fingers. Assignment of blame, victory, virtue or lack of it. The “sacrifice” is requested in allow camps. It might go by different names to different people in different cultures. Sometime generation is required to make dialogue possible. Total awareness of total reality is not possible in this somatic form. Generation is actually another form of reduction. Human being need to reduce stuff. Abstractization is simplification. Wars give people a illusion of important. Also it can be addictive. What I’m getting at is this: every generation needs to pay the price. For the gods they decide to sacrifice too. Pantheistic, materialistic politheystic. Ganeman has the right ideea.
        Și we will do history (repetition of mimetic exemples) until we tire of wandering. In the meantime pain is just a signal that sacrifice is requested. Even ” dieting” with it’s modern connotation is a version of religious beliefs in sacrifice going by another reason/justification.
        God bless!