Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘The New York Times’

New York Times Called for “Reality Czar” to Imprison Anyone they Claim is Stating Fake News? | Armstrong Economics

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2021

Martin Armstrong

The New York Times has called on President Biden to create a “Reality Czar” to shut down all dissent, which they immediately label conspiracy theories without any real investigation. In 1924, the New York Times was pushing that we were heading into a new Ice Age. Was that disinformation? CNN has called on cable companies to drop Fox News as if everything CNN says is the gospel.

The New York Times cheered Stalin and constantly reported that this was the way to the future – Stalinism. They seem to be preaching that again with a “Reality Czar” right out of Stalin’s handbook. They are supporting once again this move to a Marxist Utopia. The New York Times hid the truth about Stalin because they were in favor of Communism during the Great Depression. Stalin’s great economic miracle was achieved by taking all the food from Ukraine to pretend Communism was working in Russia causing over 7 million to starve to death.

I strongly recommend you watch the movie, Mr. Jones. This exposes the TRUE STORY of how the New York Times tried to support Communism in the United States back then, with their top journalist, Walter Duranty (1884-1957), who was their main man in Moscow. The New York Times promoted him to be awarded the Pulitzer Prize for reporting on how Communism was Utopia and our future. When Gareth Jones (1905-1935) in March 1933 reported this was all a lie, the truth finally began to appear.

It took the New York Times until 1990 to admit that their reporting covered up the truth about Stalin and the massive starvation in an effort, like Schwab, once again, to sell “equality” as our salvation. The New York Times covered up the more than 7 million people who died of starvation in the Ukraine famine. The New York Times wrote that their reporting on the Russian Revolution constituted “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper.” They never revoked his Pultizer Prize for writing fake news about Stalin.

The Homeland Security and the FBI both said that Russia’s hack of the DNC did not involve altering the vote. In fact, it was his own paper that reported on November 25, 2016: “The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.” So was four years of stating the Russians put Trump in the White House, not misinformation?


The constant lies the press has spun about Russia invading the US elections in 2016 and manipulations seem intent upon creating war, exactly as took place with the Spanish American War. We have returned to yellow journalism, which is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration. Pulitzer and Hearst went head to head. I remember grade school history class blaming the Spanish American War on fake news. There is one such story that male Spanish officials were strip-searching American woman tourists in Cuba looking for claimed messages from rebels. This was the front page of Hearst’s newspaper showing what has become known as “yellow journalism” whereby the illustration was by Frederic Remington published in the New York Journal, February 12th, 1897.

Hearst’s New York Journal was called out for this fake news by its rival Joseph Pulitzer’s, New York World,  reporting that this story was erroneous and its graphically illustrated strip-search of a woman aboard U.S. passenger steamer was fake. The Journal article was written by Richard Harding Davis, who reported that Spanish authorities boarded the U.S. steamer, the Olivette, as it prepared to leave Havana and searched several passengers for contraband. Among the passengers was a young Cuban woman named Clemencia Arango, whose brother was a leader in the insurgency against Spanish rule. The Journal’s article was ambiguous, implying the woman was strip-searched by men, which was created by the accompanying illustration of Frederic Remington.

The New York World attacked the Journal’s fake news, quoting Arango as denying that men had strip-searched her. That task, she said, had fallen to a matron, or “inspectress.” The Journalist Davis, in a letter to the World, then blamed Frederic Remington for having drawn “an imaginary picture” and insisted his dispatch had not reported that men had conducted the search.

Nevertheless, this story of the strip-search discredited the Journal as being unreliable and prone to publishing “fakes” and other thinly documented reports. Welcome to the present where the New York Times and Washington Post seem to be carrying on in the same unreliable manner as well as ABC, CBS, NBC, and of course – CNN.

Fake news is not limited to the United States. The press has joined the governments 100% around the world.  Journalism is dead. It is now all about just indoctrination. The New York Times wants a “Reality Czar” to imprison and fine anyone who dares to argue an opposite view? Welcome to Communism 3.0. They are destroying everything for their fictional Utopia.

The very foundation of democracy is to encourage a debate. But now, they just label the opposition as a conspiracy theory and condemn them. Since the New York Times supported Stalin and that whatever he did was for the greater good (see: film “Mr. Jones”), we should expect mainstream media to advocate terms of imprisonment for anyone who disagrees with their political views or objectives. The word is that Washington will keep the military in place into 2022. They will use every excuse to constantly extend their military encampment turning Washington into the US version of North Korea. There you join the military to get first dibs on the food. Here, you will be pushed to vaccinate or be denied employment and travel. This is what the New York Times supports.

This is shredding the Constitution and eliminating everything America once stood for. The press is finished. They have defeated the Constitution which they saw as the enemy. They now occupy Capitol Hill. They have become the enemy.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Let’s Abolish Those Presidential Medals of Freedom

Posted by M. C. on January 21, 2021

The war on terror made Presidential Medals of Freedom even more shameless. Retired colonel Andrew Bacevich observed, “After 9/11, the Medal of Freedom went from being irrelevant to somewhere between whimsical and fraudulent. Any correlation with freedom as such, never more than tenuous in the first place, dissolved altogether.”

James Bovard

The Washington Post is outraged that Donald Trump has sullied one of Washington’s most hallowed honors—Presidential Medals of Freedom. After the White House announced plans to bestow the medals on two Republican members of Congress and a football coach, the Post thundered that “Trump just underlines his own unworthiness when he makes a mockery of the Medal of Freedom….This president cannot be trusted to hand out medals.”

The Post editorial concluded with the obligatory uplift of the season: “Thankfully, the Oval Office will soon be occupied by a president—himself a rightful recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom—who understands and will honor the traditions of the presidency.” Did Biden receive the Medal of Freedom for taking the lead in enacting the 1994 crime bill, which the New York Times reported helped spawn “the explosion of the prison population”? Did Biden receive the medal for helping Barack Obama win reelection in 2012 by telling black voters that Mitt Romney would “put you all back in chains”? No, he simply received it for being Obama’s vice president, pocketing the award shortly before Obama left office. But from the Post’s view, the fact that Biden received a Washington honorific that included the name “freedom” proves that he is honorable.

Presidential Medals of Freedom have long been far more squalid than the Washington Post recognizes—in part because the Post cheered the wars that spurred many of the most tainted awards.

President Lyndon Johnson distributed a bucket of Medals of Freedom to his Vietnam War architects and enablers, including Ellsworth Bunker, Dean Acheson, Dean Rusk, Clark Clifford, Averell Harriman, Cyrus Vance, Walt Rostow, and McGeorge Bundy. When he gave the award to Defense secretary Robert McNamara, he declared, “You have understood that while freedom depends on strength, strength itself depends on the determination of free people.” In reality, Johnson treasured McNamara for his ability to help deceive Americans about how the US was failing in Vietnam. McNamara’s lies helped vastly expand an unnecessary conflict and cost more than a million American and Vietnamese lives. The Washington Post editorial page didn’t complain about those awards, because the Post avidly supported that war. (After exiting the Pentagon, McNamara joined the Post’s board of directors.)

President Richard Nixon inherited the Vietnam War and expanded and intensified US bombing of Indochina. Nixon gave Medals of Freedom to Pentagon chief Melvin Laird (who helped shroud the war’s continuing failure) and his secretary of state, William Rogers. President Gerald Ford gave the Medal of Freedom to his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, and his chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld—two persons notorious for tarnishing the honor of the United States in foreign affairs. The Post didn’t denounce the Medal of Freedom for Kissinger; instead, they made the Great Deceiver a columnist.

President George H.W. Bush blanketed Medals of Freedom on top officials involved with the first Gulf War, including Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, James Baker, Dick Cheney, and Brent Scowcroft. The Post didn’t complain about those awards, because that was another war that the Post editorial page whooped up all the way.

The war on terror made Presidential Medals of Freedom even more shameless. Retired colonel Andrew Bacevich observed, “After 9/11, the Medal of Freedom went from being irrelevant to somewhere between whimsical and fraudulent. Any correlation with freedom as such, never more than tenuous in the first place, dissolved altogether.” After he deceived America into supporting an attack on Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush conferred Medals of Freedom on his Iraq war team, including CIA chief George “Slam Dunk” Tenet, Iraq viceroy Paul Bremer, General Peter Pace, General Richard Myers, and General Tommy Franks, as well as prowar foreign lackeys such as Australian former prime minister John Howard and British former prime minister Tony Blair. The Post was outraged, because—no, wait, the Post editorial page thunderously supported that war, too.

Perhaps because Trump did not start any disastrous wars which he had to paper over with awards to failed generals, he has distributed much fewer Medals of Freedom than other recent presidents. Sports figures were among the most notable recipients, including Jerry West, Tiger Woods, Lou Holtz, and Gary Player. Like prior presidents, Trump gave the award to some of his political allies and supporters, including Representative Jim Jordan, Representative Devin Nunes, and Rush Limbaugh.

A long series of American presidents could not have done so much to trample our rights and liberties and to wreak havoc around the globe without the aid of people with neither scruples nor decency. Medals of Freedom are one of the cheapest ways for rulers to reward their lackeys. The names of many of the medal recipients look like confirmation of the famous passage from Friedrich Hayek’s chapter in The Road to Serfdom “Why the Worst Get on Top”:

Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own. They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realize; no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader….The only tastes which are satisfied are the taste for power as such and the pleasure of being obeyed and of being part of a well-functioning and immensely powerful machine to which everything else must give way.

Except for Kissinger, of course.

Presidential Medals of Freedom encourage Americans to view their personal freedom as the result of government intervention—if not as a bequest from the commander in chief. Ironically, the individual who poses the greatest potential threat to freedom has sole discretion to designate the purported best friends of freedom. The media usually provides gushing coverage of the award ceremonies, never mentioning that the arbitrary power of the Supreme Leader was why the Founding Fathers fought a revolution.

The Post editorial page was correct when it declared, “This president cannot be trusted to hand out medals.” But if Biden starts a war and scatters Presidential Medals of Freedom like cluster bombs on the war makers, the Post will be cheering all the way. In reality, no president can be trusted to designate the true champions of freedom. At a minimum, Presidential Medals of Freedom should be suspended until presidents cease acting like czars or elective dictators. If that beneficent reform occurs…don’t wait up for the next award ceremony. Author:

James Bovard

James Bovard is the author of ten books, including 2012’s Public Policy Hooligan, and 2006’s Attention Deficit Democracy. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Playboy, Washington Post, and many other publications.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment » Top Historians Demand ‘Prominent Corrections’ From New York Times Re: 1619 Project/Slavery Reporting

Posted by M. C. on December 22, 2019

James M. McPherson noted below is author of the Civil War classic Battle Cry of Freedom


Many historians apparently are sick and tired of The New York Time lies and distortions in The 1619 Project and the attempt to dismiss, by the leader of the Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, the criticisms of the Projects as simply criticisms by “white historians.”

Five top historians are firing back with a letter to The New York Times demanding prominent corrections.

The Times has indicated it will publish the letter of the historians in the Dec. 29 issue of The New York Times Magazine.

Here are key snippets: 

We write as historians to express our strong reservations about important aspects of The 1619 Project. The project is intended to offer a new version of American history in which slavery and white supremacy become the dominant organizing themes. The Times has announced ambitious plans to make the project available to schools in the form of curriculums and related instructional material…

[W]e are dismayed at some of the factual errors in the project and the closed process behind it.These errors, which concern major events, cannot be described as interpretation or “framing.” They are matters of verifiable fact, which are the foundation of both honest scholarship and honest journalism. They suggest a displacement of historical understanding by ideology. Dismissal of objections on racial grounds — that they are the objections of only “white historians” — has affirmed that displacement.

On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false. Some of the other material in the project is distorted, including the claim that “for the most part,” black Americans have fought their freedom struggles “alone.”

The 1619 Project has not been presented as the views of individual writers — views that in some cases, as on the supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices, have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability and have been seriously challenged by other historians. Instead, the project is offered as an authoritative account that bears the imprimatur and credibility of The New York Times. Those connected with the project have assured the public that its materials were shaped by a panel of historians and have been scrupulously fact-checked. Yet the process remains opaque. The names of only some of the historians involved have been released, and the extent of their involvement as “consultants” and fact checkers remains vague. The selective transparency deepens our concern.

We ask that The Times, according to its own high standards of accuracy and truth, issue prominent corrections of all the errors and distortions presented in The 1619 Project. We also ask for the removal of these mistakes from any materials destined for use in schools, as well as in all further publications, including books bearing the name of The New York Times. We ask finally that The Times reveal fully the process through which the historical materials were and continue to be assembled, checked and authenticated.


Victoria Bynum, distinguished emerita professor of history, Texas State University;

James M. McPherson, George Henry Davis 1886 emeritus professor of American history, Princeton University;

James Oakes, distinguished professor, the Graduate Center, the City University of New York;

Sean Wilentz, George Henry Davis 1886 professor of American history, Princeton University;

Gordon S. Wood, Alva O. Wade University emeritus professor and emeritus professor of history, Brown University.


Be seeing you

SkuzzFeed News: All the news that gives you fits


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Yin and the Yang of It – Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2019

The aim of the national matrimonial hysteria is to make sure that whatever conflict is at issue remains unresolved. The melodrama goes on for its own sake. It’s fun living on the verge of a nervous breakdown. That is exactly why the US political scene is so disordered and distressed. That is why the Democratic Party can’t find any credible male candidates. And that is how come the country happened to elect an imperturbable Golden Golem of Greatness.

James Howard Kunstler

The New York Times staffers wanted to change the paper’s longstanding motto, All the News That’s Fit to Print, to something more cutting edge, more of-the-moment, more congenial with the crypto-gnostic social justice impetus to change human nature in order to make the world a better place.

My personal suggestion was All the News That’s Fit to Print for Angry, Hysterical Women and Their Intersectional Allies, since The New York Times is now an advocacy rag, but the staff choice apparently is The Truth is Worth It — or perhaps The Times paid some Madison Avenue logo engineers for that.

And one is prompted to ask: worth what, exactly? If “truth” actually amounts to “lived experience,” as The Times insists, then truth can be whatever you say it is — the bedrock ethos of all tyrannical political movements. To me, The Truth is Worth It sounds suspiciously like The Ends Justify the Means, and anyone following the so-called Resistance the past three years may have noticed that’s exactly how it operates.

For instance, Resistance team captain Elizabeth Warren referred the other day to the 2014 “murder” of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri “by a white policeman.” Of course, Ms. Warren was speaking her “truth.” Now, it happens that the US Department of Justice under Eric Holder (this was the Obama administration) determined that it was not murder, as did an inquiry by the State of Missouri — rather that Mr. Brown was shot after attacking officer Darren Wilson in his police car and attempting to grab his gun.

Did Senator Warren not believe former attorney general Holder? Was there some other authoritative opinion she was referencing? Or was she just making shit up on-the-fly to juice an audience? Could she have had any other purpose than to provoke racial animus? Is that what this country needs? More tension between blacks and whites? More reason for suspicion and hatred? Is that where you want leadership to lead you?

Senator Warren’s remark pretty obviously demonstrates the Resistance’s tenuous relationship with reality. Her rival, Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted out substantially the same thing last Friday. Do they actually believe what they are saying, or is it simply a tactical move because it’s worth it to stir up racial animosity if you want to become president? The media gave both of them a pass on that ploy.

A few weeks ago, podcaster Dave Rubin had “spiritual teacher” Eckhart Tolle on for a chat, and Mr. Tolle made the surprising remark that the current sorrows of the world were due to an excess of yin and not enough yang, meaning, he went on to explain, too much of the female principle in operation and not enough of the male principle. This crack made Dave Rubin blink a few times, especially coming from the most serene celebrity on the planet, a fellow far less excitable than the Dalai Lama, and a demigod to the yoga pants and Chai tea crowd. Too much yin! He said that? Really?

Mr. Tolle is onto something. Just take, for instance, a recent column by The New York Times’s op-ed writer Gail Collins: How to Torture Trump. Could she have put it more plainly? Does she not sound like a woman who has gotten advice from an unscrupulous divorce lawyer (excuse the redundancy)? In fact, the USA is looking like a really bad marriage. The yin of America is stuck in an hysterical rage at the yang. Cis-men whose lived experience includes marriage may be familiar with this stratagem. The prudent men often opt to not engage with the hysteria, which almost invariably amps up the hysteria.

The aim of the national matrimonial hysteria is to make sure that whatever conflict is at issue remains unresolved. The melodrama goes on for its own sake. It’s fun living on the verge of a nervous breakdown. That is exactly why the US political scene is so disordered and distressed. That is why the Democratic Party can’t find any credible male candidates. And that is how come the country happened to elect an imperturbable Golden Golem of Greatness.

Be seeing you


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

What’s the Next Fake News? – Taki’s Magazine – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on April 22, 2019

by Taki

NEW YORK—On April 21, 1980, Rosie Ruiz won the fabled Boston Marathon in record time and looked fresh as a daisy when the media descended on her following her crowning with a wreath à la Ancient Greece. Rosie answered all the questions. She loved running, this was only her second marathon, and no, she was never tired or doubtful of victory during the two hours and 32 minutes of the race. The newspapers and the hacks went wild.

Well, the reason for Rosie’s freshness, it later transpired, was that she had entered the race twenty minutes from the finish, having used regular transport to get there from the start…

Rosie has never complained about having to give back the medal, but in a somewhat similar situation, two women, a gray old hag and a gossipy middle-aged one without hair, both of whom were caught cheating, have refused to return their prizes. I am, of course, speaking of The New York Times and The Washington Post, both Pulitzer Prize winners for exposing Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia, something they decided to invent the moment The Donald was elected. And it was as easy as pie. Unlike Rosie, who at least ran for twenty minutes and worked up a sweat, these two old tarts didn’t even bother to go through the motions of investigating… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Lost in Translation – Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on October 23, 2018

And they are still in despair over the failure of “mommy” (HRC) and her disappearance into the darkling woods of political ignominy.

Clusterfuck Nation

Saturdays, when fewer eyeballs see the paper, The New York Times likes to publish its most extreme ventures into social unreality. Last week’s prank was the story at the top of page one that declared:#WontBeErased: Transgender People and Allies Mobilize Against Trump Administration Proposal. (The accompanying photo featured a rainbow flag, of course, denoting that there was a pot-of-gold awaiting true believers.) This was a response to a Trump administration policy memo calling for “strict definition of gender based on a person’s genitalia at birth,” The Times said.

The dishonesty at work here ought to impress those observing the slow-motion collapse of culture in the USA. The political Left has taken its lessons in the abuse of language straight from the campus “post-structuralist” workshops, where novelties of narcissism get churned out by striving grad students in the ceaseless pursuit of cutting edge prestige (and academic career advancement). The game is to produce a never-ending chain of self-referential, status-enhancing world-views as a replacement for consensual reality. The more “marginalized” one can claim to be, the more deserving of high status (including tenure, grants for attending echo-chamber conferences and symposia, and a claque of attending assistants to actually teach those pain-in-the-ass classes). The goal is to get to feel special, and especially deserving of special privileges based on special grievances.

The net effect is to destroy whatever remains of an American common culture… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Quit Worrying About the Russians in Our Borderless World – Original

Posted by M. C. on November 6, 2017

Is American society so fragile that a few “divisive” ads, news stories, commentaries, and even lies – perhaps emanating from Russia – threaten to plunge it into darkness?

While we the people are not deemed worthy of being shown the evidence that “Russia” – which I take to mean Vladimir Putin – was behind the so-called meddling, even if we grant it just for the sake of argument, what does it amount to? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Suing the NY Times – All The Lies That Fit

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2017

George Will had a good review of Sam Tanenhaus’ Whittaker Chambers biography. It is a marvelous book. I had respect for Tanenhaus, until I got to know him.

I did a series of interviews with Sam Tanenhaus a journalist of this “newspaper of record,” who was asking me what libertarianism was all about (his goal, I later learned, silly me, was to besmirch this philosophy, and me, so that he could undermine the then presidential candidacy of Rand Paul). Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »