The New York Times this week removed all doubt about the corporate controlled media being in the hands of the military-industrial-complex / Deep State.
As you recall, President Trump fired his warmongering national security adviser, John Bolton. This war hawk, when he was in the Bush administration, favored the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the War in Iraq in 2003. Trump remarked in a tweet announcing Bolton's firing that he “strongly disagreed” with his nat sec advisor on a range of issues. In another tweet back in June, Trump famously said to Chuck Todd: “I have some hawks. John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time.”
So, you’d think that peace-loving people would be grateful that this warmonger is out of the cabinet.
Not, apparently, the New York Times.
Here is how the Strategic Culture Foundation put it:
The Washington establishment, the deep state and the bipartisan War Party, with its entrenched Cold War ideology, seems to have an endemic sway over policy which may thwart Trump’s efforts to direct a less belligerent US.
To illustrate the twisted nature of the US establishment, one only had to read the way sections of the American corporate-controlled media lamented the departure of Bolton. The New York Times, which is a dutiful conduit for deep state intelligence and the foreign policy establishment, actually bemoaned the ouster of Bolton, calling him a “voice of restraint”.
The NY Times commented, with approval, on how Bolton “objected to attempts to pursue diplomatic avenues with players considered American enemies. And he angered Trump with a last-minute battle against a peace agreement with the Taliban… whether it was inviting the Taliban to Camp David or cooperating with Russia, he [Bolton] was the national security adviser who said no.”
In another piece this week, the NY Times commented, again approvingly of Bolton: “Mr Bolton strongly opposed detente with Iran, and his unceremonious ouster has reignited concerns among some Republicans [and Democrats] in Congress about the White House’s declining projection of American military power around the world.”
Can you believe it? The so-called US “newspaper of record” is somehow valorizing an out-and-out warmonger in the form of Bolton, and appears to be advocating “projection of American military power around the world”. The latter phrase being but an Orwellian euphemism for imperialism and war.”"Bolton Gone: Improved Peace Prospects?" Strategic Culture Foundation, https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/09/13/bolton-gone-improved-peace-prospects/
Couldn’t have said it better. Wasn’t it John Bolton who wanted regime change in Iran? Even though Trump has stated his desire NOT to seek regime change in Tehran, despite Trump’s intense dislike of the mullahs in Iran. Bolton also opposed Trump in his detente with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. It is also thought that Bolton used his influence to impede Trump’s recent attempt to host Taliban leaders at Camp David earlier this month. This was a genuine effort at building trust for a proposed peace deal to withdraw US troops from the disastrous war in Afghanistan. We’ve been there for almost 18 years! What have we accomplished? Nothing! Except to protect a lot of poppy fields that are the source of heroin that enters our cities.
Trump isn’t exactly a dove, he’s a pragmatic deal-maker who puts U.S. interests first. Personally, I encourage the president’s efforts to get out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I would have hoped that the Times, a newspaper I used to read cover-to-cover, would also do so.
Apparently not. The Times’ hatred of Donald Trump puts this once-great newspaper on the side of the warmongers. It’s too bad.
The 1619 Project
The introductory essay of the Times' 1619 Project opens with this sentence: "Our democracy’s ideals were false when they were written.” This is an attempt to frame the ideals enshrined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in terms of a Marxist, dystopian vision of this country. It says that the idea of freedom and equality under the law are invalid because the old white guys who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were inveterate racists.
Here is what Andrew Sullivan, in his brilliant essay in The Intelligencer, says:
Don’t get me wrong. I think that view deserves to be heard. The idea that the core truth of human society is that it is composed of invisible systems of oppression based on race (sex, gender, etc.), and that liberal democracy is merely a mask to conceal this core truth, and that a liberal society must therefore be dismantled in order to secure racial/social justice is a legitimate worldview. (That view that “systems” determine human history and that the individual is a mere cog in those systems is what makes it neo-Marxist and anti-liberal.) But I sure don’t think it deserves to be incarnated as the only way to understand our collective history, let alone be presented as the authoritative truth, in a newspaper people rely on for some gesture toward objectivity."Andrew Sullivan, " The New York Times Has Abandoned Liberalism for Activism," http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/andrew-sullivan-ny-times-abandons-liberalism-for-activism.html
The Times' view is materialist, anti-spiritual, and atheist, a view that deprecates human spirituality and regards a human being as just the body without a spiritual component. This point of view identifies a person merely by the body's sex and race. Unfortunately, the Times is going the route of neo-Marxist materialism -- the same route that in the Soviet Union and in China led to the establishment of dictatorships that resulted in the deaths of 60 million people. In other words, the route to a dark, dystopian society.
Don't believe it.