Search Results

WITH GREAT DILIGENCE AND PLEASURE: How The New York Times Helped Hide Stalin’s Mass Murders in Ukraine.

Walter Duranty’s spiritual children are still at it today: ‘1619 Project’ Founder Has a Tantrum After NYT Publishes Critical Column.

THE TRUTH ABOUT SLAVERY IN 1619: Uniquely Bad — But Not Uniquely American. For much of history, slavery was as fundamental to society as agriculture. While slavery was a global multiracial phenomenon, “the abolitionist movement was a white Western invention.”

THE 1619 PROJECT: DOWN, BUT FAR FROM OUT. Despite sustained criticism, this wretched New York Times initiative is still being promoted in schools:

Soon after publication of the 1619 Project, leading authorities on American history spoke out and exposed its multiple factual errors and unsupported assertions. Five prominent historians penned a letter to the Times in December 2019, arguing against the project’s ‘displacement of historical understanding by ideology’. One was Sean Wilentz, a liberal historian at Princeton and author of No Property in Man, which explores the issue of slavery and the founding fathers. Wilentz recently told the Washington Post about his initial reaction to Hannah-Jones’ lead essay: ‘I threw the thing across the room, I was so astounded, because I ran across a paragraph on the American Revolution, and it was just factually wrong.’ Indeed, Wilentz and others find the essay’s central claim – that the colonists’ primary motivation in fighting the American Revolution was to maintain slavery – to be patently false.

In the face of this criticism, Hannah-Jones and Jake Silverstein, the project’s editor-in-chief, refused to issue corrections and declined to engage in debate. The Times, said Silverstein, had ‘concluded no corrections are warranted’. Then in March, Leslie Harris, a professor of history at Northwestern University and a fact-checker for the Times, revealed she had identified numerous errors when reviewing the 1619 Project, but the Times ignored all of them. Harris, who is sympathetic to the project’s mission, told the Times that the statement ‘the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America’ was false. In response to Harris, the Times added a ‘clarification’ to Hannah-Jones’ essay, saying that ‘some of’ the colonists wanted to protect slavey – yet even this revised formulation is misleading and has little support among historians.

Silverstein doubles down in response to Bret Stephens’ pushback, mentioned at the start of the above Spiked article; here’s his lede:

The 1619 Project, which was conceived of and led by Nikole Hannah-Jones, a staff writer at The New York Times Magazine, advances a bold claim: that the date when the first enslaved Africans arrived in the English colonies that would become the United States — August of 1619 — can be regarded as the nation’s birth or point of origin. Why does the project propose this? In part because, as its essays show, the system of slavery and oppression that began on this date has led to so many of the problems that define our past and our present; in part because, as Hannah-Jones argues, the struggle against this system of oppression has been a pivotal freedom movement unfolding across many generations to advance progress for American society as a whole; and in part to advance the case that, as the heroes of both of these stories, Black Americans, whose presence in the English colonies that would become the United States began on this date, should occupy a central role in American history.

Emphasis mine. In a related development, Timesman Binyamin Appelbaum, he of the “You worked for a company that was fixing bread prices viral fame, spoken to Pete Buttigieg in January in the tone of a Bond supervillain, tweets something as equally melodramatic sounding:

But it seems rather contradictory to see one Timesman issuing a “plea to defend the United States,” when his newspaper has gone all-in on declaring the nation as having been founded in original sin.  In any case, the last Republican president the Times endorsed was Ike in 1956, and as Iowahawk tweets, “’Are you seriously telling me the New York Times has come out against Trump? Man, I need to sit down and rethink my vote.’ — literally not one person on Planet Earth.”


The Post did not report whether or not Hannah-Jones said she was “tortured by” lying about something else, however. Hannah-Jones and the 1619 Project had claimed that America’s true founding came in 1619, with the arrival of the first slaves (who actually arrived far earlier), rather than in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. Last month, however, both Hannah-Jones and the Project apparently deep-sixed this claim, deleting the language from the website. Hannah-Jones even went on television and lied, claiming she had never made such a claim.

In fact, scholars have demanded the Pulitzer Prize board revoke Hannah-Jones’ Pulitzer Prize over these lies.

Bret Stephens’ column called out these lies, arguing that “the 1619 Project has failed.” While Stephens praised Hannah-Jones and defended her against some critics, he pointed out that the founder’s “monocausality” — an insistence on reinterpreting American history through the lens of slavery and its legacy alone — led her to make massive mistakes that destroy her own project. He even noted the fact that rioters painted “1619” on a toppled statue of George Washington.

Rather than engaging civilly with this important criticism, Hannah-Jones accused her employers of racism. Her tweet thread is even worse than the Post reported.

“In 1894, the NYT called Ida B. Wells a ‘slanderous and nasty-minded mulattress’ for daring to tell the truth about lynching. 100 years later she earned the Pulitzer Prize. These efforts to discredit my work simply put me in a long tradition of [black women] who failed to know their places,” Hannah-Jones tweeted.

Evergreen: “Gossipy, catty, insular, cliquey, stressful, immature, cowardly, moody, underhanded, spiteful—the New York Times gives new meaning to the term ‘hostile workplace.’ What has been said of the press—that it wields power without any sense of responsibility—is also a fair enough description of the young adult. And it is to high school, I think, that the New York Times is most aptly compared. The coverage of the [Jill] Abramson firing reads at times like the plot of an episode of Saved By the Bell minus the sex: Someone always has a crazy idea, everyone’s feelings are always hurt, apologies and reconciliations are made and quickly sundered, confrontations are the subject of intense planning and preparation, and authority figures are youth-oriented, well-intentioned, bumbling, and inept.”

MEMO TO NEW YORK TIMES: 1984 WAS NOT A HOW-TO BOOK. It’s almost as if re-writing history and secretly purging material when they go off the rails is something embedded in The New York Times’ culture.

As you’ve seen elsewhere, The Old Gray Lady has been called out for revisionism and flawed research inherent in its controversial “1619 Project.” The Times, true to form, circled the wagons and “stood by” the work. Except they didn’t. In fact, historians and journalists pointed out that The Times used undisclosed “stealth” corrections to significantly alter the original piece:

“The announced intention of reframing the country’s origin date struck many readers across the political spectrum as an implicit repudiation of the American revolution and its underlying principles […] Rather than address this controversy directly, The Times—it now appears—decided to send it down the memory hole—the euphemized term for selectively editing inconvenient passages out of old newspaper reports in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.”

You’d think that is bad enough. Nope. It gets worse. Bret Stephens, the house “conservative” so hated by his fellow Times editorialists was raked over the coals by the News Guild unit representing those journalists. As Glenn Greenwald explained:

“THE NEW YORK TIMES GUILD, the union of employees of the paper of record, tweeted a condemnation on Sunday of one of their own colleagues, op-ed columnist Bret Stephens. Their denunciation was marred by humiliating typos and even more so by creepy and authoritarian censorship demands and petulant appeals to management for enforcement of company “rules” against other journalists. To say that this is bizarre behavior from a union of journalists, of all people, is to woefully understate the case[…] They are demanding that their own journalistic colleagues be silenced and censored. What kind of journalists plead with management for greater restrictions on journalistic expression rather than fewer?  (Emphasis added).

Now, the big reveal: the union has deleted the tweet Greenwald refers to. It never happened:

This is to me, as a journalist, media ethicist and lawyer, indicative of a culture that is more Orwell than Murrow. It’s in their DNA. Allow my colleage to explain. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

**DISCLOSURE: I was for many years a member of the then-called Newspaper Guild, now the “News Guild.”**

UPDATE (From Ed): This is the since-deleted tweet from the Times’ union that Smith is referring to:

(Updated and bumped.)

WHICH IS IT? 1619 OR 1776? Bret Stephens, in what may be his last NYT column, tracks the foundational rewriting of the 1619 Project.

Read the whole thing. Have the summer newspaper bullpen riots stopped? Or will Stephens be the next (more or less) grownup to be thrown to the wolves at the New York Times? In any case, all is happening in accordance with the prophecy:

Yet another reason why the 1619 Project’s Pulitzer Prize should be revoked.

Related: Soledad O’Brien gives us ‘genuinely the best self own’ this year trying to defend the 1619 Project.

UPDATE: NYT’s union resorts to an ad hominem attack (complete with an “it’s” typo), rather than arguing with Stephens on the issues:

(Updated and bumped.)



TO BOLDLY GO WHERE WALTER DURANTY HAS GONE BEFORE: 1619 Project’s Nikole Hannah-Jones tries punishing Atlantic journo who called out her gaslighting — and steps into a minefield.


Making kids and idiots hate their own country with a farrago of hateful lies should come at a cost.


“One thing in which the right has been tremendously successful is getting media to frame stories in their language and through their lens,” wrote Hannah-Jones in a subsequently deleted tweet. “The #1619Project does not argue that 1619 is our true founding. We know this nation marks its founding at 1776.”

* * * * * * * *

In an interview with Tomiko Brown-Nagin, dean of Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute, Hannah-Jones stated explicitly that the 1619 Project makes evocative arguments such as, “What would it mean to consider 1619 our founding and not 1776?” Here is video of the conversation, which took place not a year ago, or even several months ago, but just last week: September 15, 2020.

* * * * * * * *

But the claim is inarguably part of the 1619 Project, and it’s absurd for Hannah-Jones to pretend it isn’t—especially while she continues to describe the project in exactly these terms. To say that conservatives imagined or manufactured this is ridiculous. It’s gaslighting—and it undercuts the credibility of the author and her work.

It’s a good thing the Times doesn’t have a history of Pulitzer-approved leftist gaslighting dating back to the 1930s that would have caused more cynical readers to believe this is but the latest example.

TEACH THE CHILDREN WELL: My generation is being raised to hate America — it’s time to stand up for our history.

WE’VE DESCENDED INTO SOME SORT OF BIZARRE HELL-WORLD IN WHICH – hang on, checking notes – THE WORLD SOCIALIST WEBSITE IS A VOICE OF SANITY: The New York Times and Nikole Hannah-Jones abandon key claims of the 1619 Project.

It is not entirely clear when the Times deleted its “true founding” claim, but an examination of old cached versions of the 1619 Project text indicates that it probably took place on December 18, 2019.

These deletions are not mere wording changes. The “true founding” claim was the core element of the Project’s assertion that all of American history is rooted in and defined by white racial hatred of blacks. According to this narrative, trumpeted by Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones, the American Revolution was a preemptive racial counterrevolution waged by white people in North America to defend slavery against British plans to abolish it. The fact that there is no historical evidence to support this claim did not deter the Times and Hannah-Jones from declaring that the historical identification of 1776 with the creation of a new nation is a myth, as is the claim that the Civil War was a progressive struggle aimed at the destruction of slavery. According to the New York Times and Hannah-Jones, the fight against slavery and all forms of oppression were struggles that black Americans always waged alone.

The Times’ “disappearing,” with a few secret keystrokes, of its central argument, without any explanation or announcement, is a stunning act of intellectual dishonesty and outright fraud. When it launched the 1619 Project in August 2019, the Times proclaimed that its aim was to radically change what and how students were taught about American history. With the aim of creating a new syllabus based on the 1619 Project, hundreds of thousands of copies of the original version of the narrative, as published in the New York Times Magazine, were printed and distributed to schools, museums and libraries all across the United States. A very large number of schools declared that they would align their curricula in accordance with the narrative supplied by the Times.

I agree with the conclusion, but it’s awfully rich coming from the source.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): A friend on Facebook comments: “In a way this is a good day for serious historians. A bunch of charlatans have been forced to back down. There are lessons to be learned more widely about pushing back against dishonesty and bad faith in academia. In years to come this might be seen as one of those turning points. And actually Trump deserves credit here too: he’s made a stink about this.”

Yes, don’t give the left a pass on its lies just because it’s easier to go along. As a famous man said, get in their face and punch back twice as hard.

OUT ON A LIMB: The 1619 Project is a fraud.

New York Times Magazine editors have quietly removed controversial language from the online version of Hannah-Jones’s 1619 Project, a package of essays that argue chattel slavery defines America’s founding. Hannah-Jones herself also asserts now that the project’s core thesis is not what she and everyone else involved originally said it was.

It “does not argue that 1619 is our true founding,” she said on Friday. She declared elsewhere in July that it “doesn’t argue, for obvious reasons, that 1619 is our true founding.”

This is a brazen lie. When the 1619 Project debuted both online and in print in August 2019, the online version’s text stated originally [emphasis added]:

The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding , and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

That same online passage, which was the source of so much controversy among historians on both sides of the aisle, now reads:

The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims 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.

To be fair, this Orwellian “history” project is from the same newspaper that brought you Walter Duranty; airbrushing comes quite easy to the Times.

ALL THE HISTORY THAT’S FIT TO MEMORY HOLE: Down the 1619 Project’s Memory Hole.

Not least of which:


It seems to me that this is the second win this week from the Trump administration, by taking the left’s racial rhetoric at its own word, and proceeding as if these leftists mean what they say. Princeton president Eisgruber says this university is shot through with racism? Oh dear, then the Education Department better investigate, because it is illegal for federal funding to go to a racist institution. And now that Trump has announced an initiative that stands to reveal the ideologically-driven falsehoods of The 1619 Project, and fight back against them being mainstreamed into US classrooms, Nikole Hannah-Jones is caught lying about what her own project actually says — and smearing people who engaged her in good faith.

Jones tweeted, and then apparently deleted the following:

One thing in which the right has been tremendously successful is getting media to frame stories in their language and through their lens. The #1619Project does not argue that 1619 is our true founding. We know this nation marks its founding at 1776.

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) September 18, 2020

And that’s exactly what her “1619 Project” stated, at least until recently:

More here: Bam: Trump Eviscerates the Noxious Marxism Behind the Riots and the 1619 Project.

IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF PRESIDENTS/PARTIES, CHOOSE THE ONES WHO DON’T HATE AMERICA:  Trump Announces Executive Order Establishing ‘1776 Commission’ To Combat ‘1619 Project’.

IT’S AN IDEA SO CRAZY, IT JUST MIGHT WORK: Civil Rights Leader Aims to Stop the Riots at the Source — With Stories of Black American Success.

SLAVERY OR FREEDOM:  THE CONCEPTION OF AMERICA:  This sounds like an interesting program.  A number of great people will be participating, including Bill Allen, Chuck DeVore, Peter Kirsanow, Wilfred Reilly, Peter Wood, and Cathy Young, all of whom are very much worth listening to.  Here’s the program description:

How should we teach American history?  The New York Times’ 1619 Project and associated curriculum disseminated by the Pulitzer Center teaches a polemical narrative of oppression, shorn of nuance, context, or historical accuracy.  Yet this narrative has had success in persuading minds across the nation and beyond that the “America the exceptional nation” story is wrong,  misguided and fails to tell the whole truth. …

This webinar conference will address how we understand and teach America’s founding:  should we place the ideals of liberty or the institution of slavery as the foundation of American history?

It takes place over the course of five days, September 14-18 and it sponsored by the Alexander Hamilton Institute, the Texas Public Policy Institute and the National Association of Scholars.  Watch a little or a lot.


NONE OF THIS STUFF IS INTENDED TO BE UPLIFTING, OR HOPEFUL, OR HELPFUL: The Deeply Pessimistic Intellectual Roots of Black Lives Matter, the ‘1619 Project’ and Much Else in Woke America.

WOW, HOW BAD MUST THEIR INTERNAL POLLS BE? Biden to Air Law-and-Order Ad Condemning Rioters and Looters. A friend on Facebook writes:

Two things must be happening for the Democratic nominee to cut ads against “rioters and looters.” It must be showing up in polling in negative ways; and it must be attributed mostly to the left. The last item is of course entirely correct: the overwhelming responsibility for the civic violence of the past several months is the left’s, as is the overwhelming responsibility for most of the civic violence of the past decade. There is a direct line from the Occupy violence (a leftist movement) to the first iteration of the Black Lives Matter violence (a leftist movement) to the violence in the early Trump administration (a more distributed leftist movement) to the latest iteration of the Black Lives Matter — and Antifa, depending on what sort of opaque analysis you adhere to — violence (again, the left). As has been noted in this very space time and again, in the context of the various left-wing city-center seizure exercises of the past few years — think back to the various mass marches and their expeditious nature — there is an apparatus that has been honed here, and it is willing to act.

There is also a cadre of veterans by now, from Manhattan to Ferguson to Portland to Kenosha, with a great deal of experience and understanding of how the system works, and how it breaks.

A few items on this:

1) The Democratic nominee, and the Democrats in general, will denounce specific acts — when compelled — but they aren’t going to denounce the ideological precursors to those acts. This matters a great deal, because the violence is not actually going to end until those ideologies lose their grip on the huge segments of the public psyche. The reality is that if you adhere to a certain set of propositions — for example, that policing in 2020 is morally indistinguishable from slave-catching in 1850, or that the American republic is fundamentally a white-supremacy superstructure, or that immorality is literally impossible for a person of color versus a white person — then violence is both inevitable and, by those premises, justified. There’s a direct line from the 1619 Project to Minneapolis and Portland wracked by unrest. If you are opposed to the existing insurrection on anything more than tactical grounds, you have to directly address this. They won’t.

2) The on-the-ground foot soldiers of the insurrection have no structural imperative to actually heed the Biden plea. They’re in control of the ideological narrative on the Democratic side — remember, this same Presidential campaign has literally been bailing some of them out of jail — and they don’t feel themselves under any particular constraint or pressure from the mostly Democratic city and prosecutorial officeholders in whose jurisdiction they operate. Ending violence means giving up the source of their own power, and no institution is going to do that. Furthermore, assuming for the sake of argument that their actions are in fact a boon to the President’s re-election, the smart radical might ask: so what? If you’re interested in accelerating a cycle of radicalization on the left-base, doesn’t that help?

3) The attempts on the right to mobilize counter-violence will be alternately stupid and doomed. (To be clear, I do not mean here Americans who defend their own property, lives, and livelihoods: but then, who can doubt that the famous 1992 rooftop Koreans would not today be jailed and prosecuted by aspiring Kamala Harrises in Democratic DA offices across the country?) Stupid because the way out of this is not bigger and better brawling street militias; and doomed because the left’s well-honed apparatus will beat them. The recent Portland incident, with a right-wing mob rolling into town with paint guns, and having one of their number literally executed by a left-wing mob with real guns, is the template. Anyone considering getting into the fight and taking on the bad guys, in a manner and place of the bad guys’ choosing, should stay home.

The last item begs the question: what is the way out of this? The proximate answer is simple: use the police, National Guard, and regular military available to nearly every chief executive at every level across the nation. Lawful authority, the sole actual voice of the American people, must assert itself. Every single mayor and governor presiding over a city in turmoil could do this immediately, and America could be at peace within a fortnight.

But they don’t.

Ask why.

Indeed. But once Biden comes out and condemns the rioters and looters, he won’t be able to complain when Trump starts arresting them.

Flashback: This Leftist Tantrum Is an Information Operation and Trump Is Winning It.


I’m so old, I remember when the only thing that leftist journalists openly admitted not being objective about was global warming.

(Wait until Nikole Hannah-Jones discovers how one of her predecessors at the Times eschewed the daylights out of objectivity when it came to covering an actual dictator — and like Jones, copped a Pulitzer for his efforts.)

Flashback: News Pages, Editorial Pages — Who Can Tell the Difference Any More?

Related: 1619 Project author: ‘It would be an honor’ to call these the 1619 riots.

(Classical reference in headline.)


“Radical Chic, after all, is only radical in Style; in its heart it is part of Society and its traditions – Politics, like Rock, Pop, and Camp, has its uses” -Tom Wolfe, Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers.  

* * * * * * * * 

Racism for the cause of creating equality of outcomes is the new utopian goal. The hundreds of years of systemic racism and white supremacy – as Nikole Hannah-Jones argues in her reimagining of the founding of America in the 1619 Project makes the very foundation of America a house of cards. To follow her and her radical cohorts to the logical end, the whole thing must be burned down. And that’s what we are seeing in cities from New York to Wisconsin, Colorado, and Oregon. Kendi’s solution is presented in his book, in part:

  • Invent or find antiracist policy that can eliminate racial inequity.
  • Figure out who or what group has the power to institute antiracist policy.
  • Disseminate and educate about the uncovered racist policy and antiracist policy correctives.
  • Work with sympathetic antiracist policymakers to institute the antiracist policy.
  • Deploy antiracist power to compel or drive from power the unsympathetic racist policymakers in order to institute the antiracist policy.
  • Monitor closely to ensure the antiracist policy reduces and eliminates racist inequity.
  • When policies fail, do not blame the people. Start over and seek out new and more effective antiracist treatments until they work.
  • Monitor closely to prevent new racist policies from being instituted.

Kendi goes a step further in his proposal in Politico, that “to fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution”.

So why should it matter what some academics and fringe activists say about race relations and the evil that lurks in every non-black, American heart? Because they have willing accomplices in the liberal left of American politics. The Radical Chic that Tom Wolfe wrote famously about in the 1970s is now the Woke Decadence of the Twenty-First Century.

Well, that’s because we’re living in the version of the Matrix that Wolfe programmed just before his death in 2018. QED:

YOU’RE GOING TO NEED A BIGGER BLOG: I’m a Former Teacher. Here’s How Your Children Are Getting Indoctrinated by Leftist Ideology.

Related: Countering the Destructive ‘1619 Project’ Marxist Redefinition of American History.

That second link, by Tyler O’Neil is just for our VIP members; please use the discount code LOYALTY if you’ve been thinking of becoming a supporter.

A CAMPUS BASED ON LIES: NYT’s 1619 Project will ‘set the tone’ for the school year at Massachusetts college.


FRANK FUREDI: The humiliation of Western history. “Those who zealously seek to pollute the past are very much devoted to gaining total cultural hegemony in the present.”

Unlike previous initiatives designed to encourage people to look critically at uncomfortable truths about their past, the 1619 Project offers a ‘take it or leave it’ version of history. Its aim is not to criticise existing historical narratives about the US. It is to negate and even morally annihilate the very foundation on which the US was built. As the NYT put it: ‘Our founding ideals of liberty and equality were false when they were written. Black Americans fought to make them true. Without this struggle, America would have no democracy at all.’

In rejecting the founding ideals of liberty and equality as false, the 1619 Project strips America’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, of every shred of moral authority. It also erases the profound contribution the American Revolution made to the development of the Western ideal of freedom.

The 1619 Project does not offer any new insights into the past. Rather, it seeks to contaminate the past and render it toxic. Indeed, one of the main contributors to the project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, admits that its principal objective is not to shed light on the past, but to undermine the moral authority of the present. ‘I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not history’, she writes. ‘It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative and therefore national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is about the past.’

Read the whole thing.

POINTS FOR HONESTY? 1619 Project Founder Admits It’s ‘Not a History,’ But a Fight to ‘Control the National Narrative.’

THINK OF IT AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE OPERATION AGAINST NORMAL AMERICANS AND YOU WON’T GO FAR WRONG: 1619 Project Creator Admits “It Is Not A History” But a Fight “to Control the National Narrative.”

SO IT’S FICTION. BAD, DIVISIVE FICTION? AND WE’RE SUPPOSED TO TEACH IT TO THE CHILDREN, BECAUSE?  1619 Project Creator Admits “It Is Not A History” But a Fight “to Control the National Narrative”.

MORE LIKE THIS, PLEASE: Tom Cotton Aims to Defund Schools That Indoctrinate Kids With NYT’s ‘1619 Project.’

THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NO MODERATE DEMS LEFT RUNNING FOR OFFICE: Senate Dem Running Against Black Republican Thinks It’s a Good Idea to Push the ‘1619 Project.’


Shot: Pompeo denounces ‘Marxist’ 1619 Project as gift to Chinese Communist Party.

—The Washington Examiner, Thursday.

Chaser: Top Intelligence Official Promoted ‘White Fragility’ Recommendation.

—The Epoch Times, Tuesday.

UPDATE: You know you’re over the target when you start receiving flak:

(Updated and bumped.)



Shot: Pompeo denounces ‘Marxist’ 1619 Project as gift to Chinese Communist Party.

—The Washington Examiner, Thursday.

Chaser: Top Intelligence Official Promoted ‘White Fragility’ Recommendation.

—The Epoch Times, Tuesday.

BASED ON THE GRAY LADY’S OWN “LOGIC,” IT NEEDS TO CANCEL ITSELF: The family that owns The New York Times were slaveholders.

And that name “New York” is pretty racist in and of itself: The True Native New Yorkers Can Never Truly Reclaim Their Homeland.

Related: Ancestors of Senate Dem. Who Backs ‘1619 Project’ Allegedly Harbored John Wilkes Booth.


Shot: Pompeo’s Attack on ‘1619 Project’ Draws Fire From His Own Diplomats.

The New York Times ’ “1619 Project,” which examines the role of slavery in U.S. history, was not the central focus of his speech, nor of the new draft report that his controversial Commission on Unalienable Rights produced.

But his comments have sparked fresh debate and criticism among diplomats who continue to raise alarm bells over long-standing issues of systemic racism and diversity challenges in the State Department. Five officials who spoke to Foreign Policy on condition of anonymity described a reaction of shock and fury.

“Pompeo made it very clear where he stands and reaffirmed the purpose of the commission by denigrating the movement for equal justice and the call for racial reckoning and healing in America,” said one State Department official. “Everyone that I have spoken with is horrified and disgusted by the commission, his press conference, and [the] attack on 1619,” said the official.

Foreign Policy, yesterday.


When I was in the first period when I was secretary of state, there was in my office a big globe. And when ambassadors, who were newly going to their posts or in their posts and coming back to visit me, would get ready to leave, I would say to them, “Ambassador, you have one more test before you can go to your post. You have to go over to the globe and prove to me that you can identify your country.” So unerringly, they would go over and they’d spin the globe around and they’d put their finger on the country they were going to, pass the test.

So Mike Mansfield, great elder statesman in America, former Senate majority leader and who had been ambassador to Japan for a while before I was there, and he was a close friend of mine from back when I was in the Nixon administration — so he was visiting and he got ready to leave. I said, “Mike, I got to give you the same test I give everybody else. Before you can go back to Japan, you got to show me that you can go over to the globe and put your finger on your country.” So he went over and he spun this globe around and he put his hand on the United States, said, “That’s my country.” So I’ve told that, subsequently, to all the ambassadors going out, “Never forget, you’re over there in that country, but your country is the United States. You’re there to represent us. Take care of our interests and never forget it, and you’re representing the best country in the world.”

—Former Secretary of State George Shultz on C-Span, April 29, 1993.

HE’S NOT WRONG: Pompeo denounces ‘Marxist’ 1619 Project as gift to Chinese Communist Party.


It is impossible to disentangle this profoundly negativistic portrait of the American experiment from the admitted context of the 1619 Project: an effort by the nation’s leading elite media organ to explain the Democratic Party’s loss to Trump. Would this have been published if Hillary Clinton had won the White House?

As journalism, 1619 read almost exactly like the paper’s post-mortems on the 2016 election – probably not an accident, since Baquet told us it was conceived identically as an effort to “understand the forces that led to the election of Donald Trump.” In both cases history was reduced to a simplistic showdown between evil racists and oppressed peoples.

The best explanation for these sudden reversals in rhetoric is that Trump broke the brains of America’s educated classes. Like Russian aristocrats who spent the last days of the Tsarist empire flocking to fortune-tellers and mystics, upscale blue-staters have lost themselves lately in quasi-religious tracts like White Fragility, and are lining up to flog themselves for personal and historical sins.

In desperation to help the country atone for their idea of why Trump happened, they’ve engaged in a sort of moon landing of anti-intellectual endeavors, committing a generation of minds to finding a solution to the one thing no thinking person ever considered a problem, i.e. the Enlightenment ideas that led to the American Revolution.

Read the whole thing.

Oh, and speaking of Russian aristocrats just before Year Zero arrived: Woke America Is a Russian Novel.

The metaphysical gap between mid-19th-century Russia and early-21st-century America is narrowing. The parallels between them then and us now, political and social but mostly characterological, are becoming sharper, more unavoidable.

We can reassure ourselves by repeating obvious truths: The United States is not czarist Russia. The present is not the past. History does not repeat itself. But those facts are not immutable laws so much as observations, and even though they are built on solid foundations, those foundations are not impervious to shifting sands. We can go backward. We can descend into a primal state we thought we had escaped forever. That is the lesson of the 20th century.

The similarities between past and present are legion: The coarsening of the culture, our economic woes, our political logjams, the opportunism and fecklessness of our so-called elites, the corruption of our institutions, the ease with which we talk about “revolution” (as in Bernie Sanders’ romanticization of “political revolution”), the anger, the polarization, the anti-Semitism.

But the most important thing is the new characters, who are not that dissimilar to the old ones.

Also well worth a read.

AND YOU GET A DOSE OF STUPID, AND YOU GET A DOSE OF STUPID, AND YOU GET–  Oprah, Lionsgate Pick Up Disgraced NYT ‘1619 Project’ for Film, TV.

YOU GET A SORELIAN MYTH! AND YOU GET A SORELIAN MYTH! AND YOU GET A SORELIAN MYTH! Amid Deadly Riots, Oprah Signs on to Adapt Anti-American ‘1619 Project.’

(Classical reference in headline.)

STOLEN VALOR: The NYT glorifies the woman who shot Andy Warhol.

The question of whether or not speech incites dangerous behavior has prompted many cultural battles (and First Amendment lawsuits) over the years. Violent language sometimes does lead to actual acts of violence. When it does, the media should report it as such, as it has done in the past, such as in its coverage of the manifesto written by Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski.

Which is why it was odd for editors at the New York Times to choose feminist writer Valerie Solanas as a featured person in the paper’s “Overlooked” series. (For those not in the know, the Overlooked section “is a series of obituaries about remarkable people whose deaths, beginning in 1851, went unreported in the Times.”)

What makes Ms. Solanas “remarkable” in the assessment of the Times? “She made daring arguments in ‘SCUM Manifesto,’ her case for a world without men,” the obituary notes, “But it was her attack on [Andy] Warhol that came to define her life.”

The “SCUM Manifesto” did far more than make the case for “a world without men.” It advocated killing them, or at the very least castrating them all. And “her attack” was, in fact, attempted murder, although Bonnie Wertheim, who wrote the piece for the Times, is too squeamish to say so outright (“soon, there were gunshots” is how she describes Solanas’ effort to kill Warhol.)

Solanas didn’t just shoot Warhol, who barely survived the attack that no doubt shortened his life and drove him into semi-reclusiveness. She also shot art critic Mario Amaya, whom the Times neglects to mention, but who was with Warhol at the time. She would have killed a third person, Warhol’s manager Fred Hughes, whom she attempted to shoot at point-blank range, but her gun jammed. She was a cold-blooded murderer.

The Times’ treatment of Solanas would likely not have been so flattering if she had been a mentally disturbed male loner who had written a misogynist screed and targeted a famous female artist. Is Solanas’ call for gendercide only worth resurrecting because we are now living through a time where anger—even irrational, violent rage—is valorized as long as it is in service to the right ideological cause?

Beginning their 2017 pieces praising the glories of capital-C Communism on the anniversary of the founding of the Soviet Union, the “1619 Project” last year, and more recently, meltdowns over Tom Cotton and Bari Weiss, endorsement of statue toppling, attempted doxxing of the Slate Star Codex blogger and now the glorification of Andy Warhol’s would-be assassin, the New York Times has descended into something resembling the student newspaper at Oberlin. (Or as one wag quipped on Facebook at the start of the month, “We are coming ever closer to the singularity where the New York Times and Teen Vogue are indistinguishable.”)  I’m worried that their young staffers are reading Rob Long’s “New York Times Autonomous Zone” article as a how-to guide, rather than satire.

Speaking of satire, all is happening in accordance with the prophecy:

COME SEE THE RACISM INHERENT IN THE LEFTISM: NYT ‘1619 Project’ Founder Demonized the ‘White Race’ as ‘Barbaric Devils,’ ‘Bloodsuckers’ in 1995.

GRAY LADY DOWN: In Racist Screed, NYT’s 1619 Project Founder Calls ‘White Race’ ‘Barbaric Devils,’ ‘Bloodsuckers,’ Columbus ‘No Different Than Hitler.’ “This isn’t the first time the New York Times has hired and kept a writer with a history of racism and radical views. In 2018, the NYT hired Sarah Jeong despite a long string of racist tweets that littered her Twitter calling white people ‘goblins,’ likening their smell to dogs, and asking to ‘#cancelallwhitepeople’.”

(Classical reference in headline.)

DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY: Reign of Terror, you say? New York Times editor gets schooled after ridiculing Sen. Lindsey Graham’s French Revolution analogy.

Exit quote: “From the same paper that brought you the 1619 Project brings you… the French Revolution: a musical comedy.”

JOHN O’SULLIVAN: Les Miserables.

It’s a two-stage process: first, we liberate ourselves from the old laws that confine our imaginations to what science and experience tell us is true and practicable; second, we replace them with rules that reflect the wishes and interests of the powerful—who are not always politicians and ministers but sometimes in periods of decaying political authority, the mob or its allies. The political mob made its first appearance in Paris during the French revolution, but it has come and gone many times since then, and it’s presently most powerful in Seattle and Portland.

Taken together these two stages produce the replacement of professional rules and ethics by political values and authority in all fields. It can be a slow process, especially in science, and it begins modestly, but the final stages often have seasoned professionals accepting new rules they would once have denounced or regarded as simply too absurd to bother denouncing. The old professional rules of American journalism that you followed the truth where it led by examining fairly the claims of all sides in a dispute have collapsed entirely—and that collapse began long before Donald Trump was elected President. It has reached its apogee in the recent decision of the New York Times to publish the deceptive and false 1619 Project not as one account of many historical accounts of the birth of America but as the sole acceptable truth (though it comes to us less from history than from critical race theory which is constructed so as to negate any criticism of its own criteria.) Its principal author has just welcomed the spreading anarchy as a vindication of the Times project, which is now to be taught in American high schools.

Read the whole thing.

WALTER DURANTY DELETES TWITTER ACCOUNT: Well, the Walter Duranty of 2020 – Nikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her “1619 Project,” but perhaps touched the third-rail of intersectionality today:

(Which is actually one of the more accurate statements she’s made: How Native American Slaveholders Complicate the Trail of Tears Narrative.)

Also today, Hannah-Jones tweeted this (see screencaps below Matt Welch’s response):

And as the Post-Millennial noted prior to the deletion of her Twitter account: ‘1619 Project’ writer claims ‘America isn’t burning’ as America burns:

The New York Times’ “1619 Project” writer Nikole Hannah-Jones said that it would be an honor to have the current destruction and mayhem across the US known as the “1619 riots.”

As detailed by the Times‘ project, the year 1619 is important as it is considered to be the start of slavery in North America. And according to some academics, the current acts of burglary, vandalism, arson, and assault are justified because of historical slavery.

Per the New York Post:

“A Northwestern University journalism professor named Steven Thrasher took to Slate to offer this analysis: “The destruction of a police precinct is not only a tactically reasonable ­response to the crisis of policing, it is a quintessentially American response, and a predictable one. The uprising we’ve seen this week is speaking to the American police state in its own language, up to and including the use of fireworks to mark a battle victory. Property destruction for social change is as American as the Boston Tea Party. . . .”

Hannah-Jones is among them, it appears, as she replied to an opinion piece written by the New York Post by saying that it would be an “honor” to call what is happening “the 1619 riots.”

She followed this up by saying “Also, America isn’t burning.”

Eventually, by this afternoon, Hannah-Jones nuked her Twitter account:

In response to her retweet of the person saying that fireworks “are a coordinated attack on Black and Brown communities by government forces,” Charles Cooke tweeted, “The last time she spread a conspiracy theory, she won a Pulitzer.”

Or as Neo writes: The greatest Pulitzer since Duranty: the 1619 Project.

UPDATE: Hannah-Jones reactivated her account “about an hour later. Before deleting her account, Hannah-Jones deleted a tweet that distributed a conspiracy theory thread that expressed a belief that the government was setting off fireworks in the middle of the night to sow division in black and brown communities in Brooklyn…This goes without saying, but the New York Times has a difficult situation on its hands figuring out how to address this story, where their social media standards were almost certainly violated by one of their most well known authors.”

More: ‘1619 Project’ writer pushes conspiracy theory that the government uses fireworks to disrupt black communities.

Related: 1619 Project author: ‘It would be an honor’ to call these the 1619 riots.

RIOTS, STATUE-TOPPLING ENDORSED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES: Nikole Hannah-Jones Endorses Riots And Toppling Statues As A Product Of The 1619 Project.


Another man of his time:

WHEN YOU’VE LOST AN EDITOR OF ROLLING STONE. Matt Taibbi: The American Press Is Destroying Itself.

“It feels liberating to say after years of tiptoeing around the fact, but the American left has lost its mind. It’s become a cowardly mob of upper-class social media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness. The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily.”

At Townhall, Matt Vespa writes, “But if you shame, deplatform, and purge those liberals who haven’t gone totally insane from your ranks, I could see how abolishing the police could seem like a possibility if you’re a lefty loon. The media appears to be a place where there can be no debate, where its writers work in fear, and the political correctness enforcers acting like ISIS’ religious police watch their every move. Yeah, I can see why that’s causing the liberal media to self-destruct. Submit or die is the special of the day for the American Left. And that is why I’m proud not to be a liberal or a Democrat. Taibbi’s post is lengthy but worth a full read.”

Related: I Don’t Believe The Media. The radical revolution that has destroyed confidence in journalism.

More: Old and busted? The 1619 Project. The New Hotness? The 1793 Project:

Given that so many cancellations hinge on the accusation that safety is being undermined, I would suggest a different metaphor than Mao. Mine is no less hyperbolic, but it puts the focus where my reporting—and Haidt and Lukianoff’s research—suggest it should be. In 1793, the Committee of Public Safety took charge of the French Revolution on a promise to “make terror the order of the day.” Evidence-free show trials and ideological purges followed, consistent with the radical leaders’ belief that public safety requires public terror.

* * * * * * * *

Ironically, the same subset of people ostensibly exercised about emotional safety—the woke left—seem frequently inclined to level unsubstantiated accusations that inflict emotional harm. This makes it difficult to believe that these Twitter warriors’ true aim is the promotion of psychological comfort. Did any of them consider Uhlig’s mental health after the man was baselessly accused? Does anyone care about Roman, who probably did not expect her enemies to ransack her Myspace page for evidence of racism and then pillory her for a photo taken when she was 23? What about Shor, thrown to the wolves for making a reasonable objection to what one wing of the protesters was doing?

As Robby Soave of Reason concludes, “That sounds like terror, not safety. Call it the 1793 Project.”

CRYBULLIES CLAIM ANOTHER SCALP: NY Times editorial page editor James Bennet resigns amid staff fury over Tom Cotton op-ed.

The New York Times announced Sunday that Editorial Page Editor James Bennet is resigning — amid reports of anger inside the company over the publication of an op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton about the George Floyd unrest last week.

Bennet had apologized late last week after previously defending the piece, titled, “Send in the Troops.” Cotton, R-Ark., called for the government to deploy troops to help quell riots and looting that emerged amid the anger over Floyd’s death in Minneapolis police custody last month.

“The journalism of Times Opinion has never mattered more than in this time of crisis at home and around the world, and I’ve been honored to be part of it,” Bennet said in a statement. “I’m so proud of the work my colleagues and I have done to focus attention on injustice and threats to freedom and to enrich debate about the right path forward by bringing new voices and ideas to Times readers.”

Fired for publishing an op-ed written by a Republican senator espousing an opinion held by the majority of the American public, or to put it another way, doubleplus ungood crimethink:

In a 2018, review of Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind, Quillette contributor Matthew Lesh asked, “Is Safetyism Destroying a Generation?

Yes, and they’re now collecting plenty of scalps from the older generation as well along the way.

UPDATE: Heh, indeed:

Meanwhile, over in the “news” division of the Gray Lady: “Journalism is dead. That fact was made abundantly clear by New York Times staff writer and founder of the factually-inaccurate 1619 Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones in an appearance on the CNN’s so-called ‘Reliable Sources’ Sunday, where she argued that the media couldn’t legitimately treat the Republican Party fairly because they were a ‘rogue’ organization and being fair would be ‘picking sides.’”

The New York Times morphed so slowly into the Daily Kos, I hardly even noticed.


“One thing above all else will restore order to our streets,” wrote Sen. Tom Cotton, “an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain, and ultimately deter lawbreakers.” The senator has advocated extraordinary measures involving the domestic deployment of uniformed soldiers for several days—as we’ve witnessed mass protests in American cities during the day and wanton violence, rioting, and looting by night. This exhortation is not new for him, but the venue in which it was placed—the New York Times opinion page—inspired a frenzied revolt from within the journalistic institution that published him. More remarkable, the aggrieved staffers and writers at the Times generally declined to issue a counterargument. They simply declared Cotton’s arguments anathema and sought to wield whatever power they could muster to see them banished.

One by one, New York Times staffers added their voices to a coordinated campaign of shame directed squarely at the paper’s management. “Running this puts Black [New York Times] staff in danger,” wrote technology reporter Taylor Lorenz, writers Caity Weaver and Jacey Fortin, climate reporter Hiroko Tabuchi, book critic Parul Sehgal, graphics assistant Simone Landon, reporter Katherine Rosman, styles desk editor Lindsey Underwood, culture writer Jenna Wortham, contributor Taffy Brodesser-Akner, and columnists Kara Swisher and Charlie Warzel. The News Guild of New York soon chimed in with a statement: “[Cotton’s] message undermines the journalistic work of our members, puts our black staff members in danger, promotes hate, and is likely to encourage further violence,” the Guild affirmed in what was billed as a “response to a clear threat to the health and safety of the journalists we represent.”

As a result of their staff’s meltdown over the Cotton op-ed, the New York Times, already drowning in a fantasy-land of alternately running pro-Soviet Union apologia and their anti-American founding “1619 Project” series, promises to narrow what they view as acceptable opinion even more. Or as Tina Lowe writes at the Washington Examiner, “New York Times employees can bully their bosses into submission — just don’t criticize a celebrity:”

A newspaper, beyond its moral purpose to tell the truth, is functionally a business. To turn a profit, it must balance journalistic integrity with revenue from subscribers and advertisers. Thus, it came as absolutely no surprise when the New York Times fired Alison Roman, the up-and-coming chef who irked professional celebrity Chrissy Teigen with a rude remark in an interview that was falsely smeared as racist and subsequently piled onto by Teigen.

* * * * * * * *

As you may recall from a long day ago, after the opinion page published a fairly straightforward op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton, arguing to utilize the military in quelling protests — a position shared by the majority of Americans and 46% of people who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, mind you — several staff members instigated a civil war, all sharing the same copypasta bullying their bosses: “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.”

* * * * * * *

Publishing the opinions of the Taliban wasn’t a bridge too far for the staff, and employees claiming that destroying property isn’t violence on national television isn’t a bridge too far for the management. But a sitting United States senator’s opinion that’s shared by the majority of the electorate is, and as a result, journalism will suffer in the future.

The bitter babies at the New York Times wanted less speech, and they got it. They’ll now publish fewer op-eds overall. There is a wholly illiberal war on the free press, and its primary aggressors aren’t in the White House or corrupt police stations. It’s being waged from within the inside.

Bari Weiss, one of the saner voices at the Times, responded to her colleagues’ collective primal scream in a Twitter thread earlier today:

Naturally, as this Mediaite headline notes: NY Times ‘Civil War’: Opinion Writer Bari Weiss Gets Buried By Colleagues for Tweeting Her Takes on Newsroom Friction After Cotton Op-Ed.

In 2015, Ashe Schow, then with the Washington Examiner wrote, “With all the attention being paid to college-aged social justice warriors and microagressions, one has to ask: What happens when all these delicate snowflakes enter the workforce?”

The Gray Lady is finding out, good and hard.

UPDATE: Daily Beast editor-at-large Goldie Taylor threatens violence against Weiss, in a since-deleted tweet:

As William F. Buckley famously said, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

(Updated and bumped.)

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: 1619 Project’s Pulitzer Gives Schools One More Excuse To Teach Kids To Hate America.

PETER WOOD:  “The Collapse of the Fourth Estate.”  Explain to me how the NYT’s ridiculous essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones, The 1619 Project, can win a Pulitzer.  Or don’t.  I guess I already know.  The MSM manages to be both dangerous and ridiculous at the same time.


THE 1619 PROJECT EXPOSED: A Special Edition of the American Mind Podcast. Narrated by PJTV alumnus James Poulos, “The podcast features Claremont Institute President Ryan Williams, Chairman Tom Klingenstein and scholars Lucas Morel and Chris Flannery, as well as the likes of Newt Gingrich, Allen Guelzo, Heather Mac Donald, Wilfred McClay, and Peter Wood.”

UNEXPECTEDLY: Seven months later, New York Times’ 1619 Project leader admits she got it wrong. “It cannot be stressed enough that Hannah-Jones’s since-corrected version of historical events was key to the entire project, the premise of which is that America was founded upon, built upon, and primarily formed by slavery. But, hey, better late than never!”

BRYAN PRESTON: NYT Admits, At Last, that Its 1619 Project is Wrong. “The 1619 Project deliberately distorted history to serve current political purposes. It must be removed from all school curricula immediately, since its core claim is false and defamatory.”

YES, BUT SHE WANTED TO BE MORALLY RIGHT MORE THAN SHE WANTED TO BE FACTUALLY RIGHT: Historian: I warned the 1619 Project’s author she was wrong about the Revolutionary War. The 1619 project wasn’t about being right. It wasn’t even about history. It was about pushing an anti-American narrative. It’s best understood as a psywar operation aimed at demoralizing the enemy, in this case the American people.


● Shot: The New York Times Goes All In on Flawed 1619 Project.

—Mark Hemingway, Real Clear Politics yesterday.

● Chaser: “The New York Times is still all in on its Walter Duranty, Pulitzer-winning non-coverage of the Holodomor.”

—Joel Engel tweets, linking to Hemingway’s article. (Here’s a good video primer from Roger Simon on Duranty’s fabulism, in case you need it.)

● Hangover:

That Kennedy was killed at the hands of a Communist should have had a clear and direct meaning: “President Kennedy was a victim of the Cold War.” Everyone had reasons for averting their gaze from this fact. For Lyndon Johnson, it would have carried frightful implications for foreign policy if it turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald had links to Castro or the KGB (which Piereson suggests is remotely possible). Liberals didn’t want to dwell on this fact for a mix of other reasons. In the early hours after JFK was shot, we didn’t yet know of Oswald’s Communist background, and the media jumped to the conclusion that Kennedy’s killing must have been the work of right-wing extremists. The day after the assassination, James Reston wrote in the New York Times that the assassination was the result of a “streak of violence in the American character” and that “from the beginning to the end of his administration, [Kennedy] was trying to tamp down the violence of extremists from the right.”

This “meme,” as we would say today, so quickly took hold that it could not be shaken, even after Oswald’s noxious background began to come out. Indeed, the notion of collective responsibility would be repeated five years later after Robert Kennedy was murdered by a Communist Arab radical who professed deep hatred for America.

—Stephen F. Hayward: Review of James Pierson’s Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism, History News Network, August 22, 2007.

● The D.T.s: NY Times Published an Op-Ed by Taliban Leader. Liz Cheney Has Some Questions.

—Rick Moran, PJ Media, yesterday.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: The New York Times’ “1619 Project” is Fake History That’s Increasingly Being Taught to Students.

JOHN MCWHORTER: The 1619 Project Depicts an America Tainted by Original Sin. In this worldview, redemption for the founding seems impossible.

IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE GOOD HISTORY, IT WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE USEFUL PROPAGANDA: Disputed NY Times ‘1619 Project’ Already Shaping Schoolkids’ Minds on Race. And “disputed” is kind.

K-12 IMPLOSION UPDATE: Public Schools Are Teaching The 1619 Project in Class, Despite Concerns From Historians.

DANIEL GREENFIELD: Impeachment Is Killing Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You can only hit the rage button so many times. And then the rats will no longer stir from their cages.

The New York Times’ stock price tripled after Trump won outperforming the S&P 500 by six times. In the week after his victory, it added 41,000 subscribers. The paper went from an $8 million loss to a $13 million profit. Much of the growth was driven by the paper’s stream of exclusives targeting Trump.

But there are signs this year that the media’s free Trump ride is over. In November, the Times shocked investors with the news that ad revenues had fallen over 6%. In early trading, its stock was down 9%. While there’s still plenty of money coming in, turbulence is growing and growth is becoming more uncertain. And, more significantly, the New York Times has been losing the engagement battle.

In May, the New York Times fell out of the top three, displaced by the Daily Mail. By November, it had fallen to seventh place. Its Facebook growth fell from 25% in 2017 to 3.5%. Its Twitter follower growth also dropped from 50% annually to only 5%. Another way to see the 1619 Project is as a desperate bid for relevance and traffic even as the appeal of Trump Derangement Syndrome continues to crater.

The TDS crash was even more obvious on cable news where CNN closed the year with a 9% decline in viewers and MSNBC suffered a 3% drop. Numbers like these foreshadow a much bigger collapse.

National newspapers and cable news had been using Trump Derangement Syndrome to stave off the inevitable decline in their industry. And it worked. A handful of outlets grew and went on hiring binges even while their local and digital cousins held mass purges, shut down, or cut everything to the bone.

But everything has to end sooner or later.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is burning out the core audiences that made the media profitable. The Impeachment Eve rallies failed miserably with turnouts in the hundreds in Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. A month later, turnout at the Women’s March had declined from the hundreds of thousands to the thousands. Even as impeachment was underway, the audience wasn’t there.


WELL, IT’S CRAPPY ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA: Scholars are eviscerating The New York Times’ 1619 Project.

EVEN LEFTY HISTORIAN SEAN WILENTZ says the New York Times’ 1619 Project is bunk. I disagree with his suggestion that the project was begun with good intentions, though.

THE 1619 PROJECT ON MLK DAY: “One of the many odd things about the New York Times‘s ‘1619 Project’ on slavery is that Martin Luther King Jr is barely mentioned (ditto Frederick Douglass). This omission may not be accidental, since both Douglass and King found sources for the remedy of slavery inside the American founding that today’s left wishes to repudiate completely. It will be a curious thing to see whether and how the 1619 Project appears in any of today’s observances of MLK’s birthday (or whether, in the fullness of time, there will be a push to rename MLK Day for someone or something else).”

Read the whole thing.

AND THAT SORT OF INDOCTRINATION WAS THE POINT ALL ALONG: Historians destroy the NYT “1619 Project,” but it will still be used in K-12 classrooms. “There are homeschooled children who are learning Latin in lower elementary school and can tell you who Hammurabi is. In many public schools (and later in universities), however, the subject of history in particular is being re-written by political actors trying to replace far-left ideologies and propaganda for actual knowledge.”

I’M SURE THE 1619 PROJECT ACCOUNTED FOR THIS: That Time Thomas Jefferson and Virginia Colonists Tried to Get King George to Stop the Slave Trade.

THE DEBUNKING GOES ON: Historian Gordon Wood responds to the New York Times’ defense of the 1619 Project. “I have spent my career studying the American Revolution and cannot accept the view 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.’ I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves. No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776.”

The 1619 Project is not about truth, and it is not about justice. It is about undermining any history or tradition that might limit the power of the left. In other words, it’s business as usual.


Response: The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts.

THE WOKE HAVE A LOT TO BE ASHAMED OF, WHICH IS WHY THEY SPEND SO MUCH TIME SHAMING OTHERS: The 1619 Project is the 2019 Project — and the 2020 Project: The New York Times is stoking the woke with a narrative of shame.

The thing to remember is, they’re bad, broken people, who turn their problems outward. They bully others because, deep down, they know they’re awful themselves.

SURE, JUST LIKE PROJECT 1619 GOT EVERYTHING RIGHT. Surely People Will Remember Me, Ebenezer Scrooge, As the Christmas-Loving Man I Became.

STOKING THE WOKE: The 1619 Project is the 2019 Project — and the 2020 Project. 

And because it’s still the New York Times in the 21st Century: Historians Rip Into The New York Times After It Refuses To Address Requests For Corrections To The ‘1619 Project.’

ROGER KIMBALL: 1619 & all that — on the New York Times’ recent disinformation campaign.

The lead essay, by the black journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, the “architect” of The 1619 Project, set the tone. “[O]ne of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain,” she wrote, “was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” So, everything you learned about the American Revolution is wrong, or at least wrongheaded. Forget about the Stamp Act, the, Boston Tea Party, the Intolerable Acts, “No taxation without representation,” etc. All that, utterly unmentioned by Ms. Hannah-Jones, was mere window dressing. The American colonists might talk about liberty. What they really cared about, according to this malignant fairy tale, was preserving and extending the institution of slavery. “[S]ome might argue,” as Hannah-Jones coyly puts it, “that this nation was founded not as a democracy but as a slavocracy.” Gosh. Of course, “some might argue” any number of incredible things: that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that The New York Times is still a responsible source of news and even-handed commentary. The fact that “some might argue” X does not mean that X is credible.

So it is with the preposterous idea that America was founded as a “slavocracy.” Hannah-Jones asserts that “anti-black racism runs in the very dna of this country.” The claim is obviously metaphorical; countries do not possess dna. But if one were to take the metaphor seriously, as tantamount to asserting that anti-black racism is an essential and therefore unalterable characteristic of America, then the whole 1619 Project would be pointless from the get-go. It would be like complaining about the roundness of a circle or the wetness of water.

Related: “A lot of people who don’t like Trump really hate being treated by the media, by many Democrats, and by liberal spokespeople as if they’re ignorant, or wicked, or bigoted, because they aren’t Woke,” Rod Dreher writes:

The New York Times earlier this year undertook a big project with the goal of rewriting American history around the claim that the whole point of America was … slavery. Remember this from the leaked transcript of a Times internal meeting with executive editor Dean Baquet?:

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?”

I just feel like racism is in everything. And therefore should be systemically worked into all stories in the paper! And get this — Baquet didn’t challenge this. This is par for the course for our media today. I’m not going to go into a long list here; I talk about this a fair amount on this blog anyway. The point is, you don’t have to love Donald Trump to get sick and tired of being told by these people that to prove yourself a decent person, you have to hate yourself, hate the country, hate your traditions, hate your dad, hate your sons (especially the unborn ones), hate your religion, hate your pronouns, hate your people, hate the cops, hate what was just fine five minutes ago, hate your happiness, hate your penis, and hate your life — and oh, you also have to vote Democratic. Otherwise, you’re a HATER!

All the Democrats would have to do to get rid of Donald Trump is just be normal. They can’t do it. Just cannot do it. Even old Uncle Joe, the most normal of them, if he steps out of line, the wokesters whip him back into shape. Bernie doesn’t really care about that stuff, not like he cares about economics, but let’s not kid ourselves: under any Democratic president, the woke will be in charge, and will not compromise on any of it.

As Patrick Poole tweeted in July, “Gadsden flags. Betsy Ross flags. Apollo 11. Sure is interesting watching everything authentically American get deemed ‘racist’ by our brave firefighting media.”

PREACHING A CONSPIRACY THEORY: The 1619 Project offers bitterness, fragility, and intellectual corruption—not history. If the NYT is willing to put so many obvious lies forward as history, how can we trust what it puts forward as news? Answer: We can’t.

THE NYT “1619 PROJECT” REVISITED:  Katherine Kersten offers some perspective.


MORE DEBUNKING BY ANOTHER PROMINENT HISTORIAN: An interview with historian James Oakes on the New York Times’ 1619 Project. “Identity is very much the ideology of the professional-managerial class.”

Plus: “This is one of the things I find so disturbing about the argument that slavery is the basis of capitalism. Slavery made the slaveholders rich. But it made the South poor. And it didn’t make the North rich. The wealth of the North was based on the emerging, capitalist internal market that allowed the North to win the Civil War. It’s true that cotton dominated the export market. But it’s only something like 5 percent of GDP. It’s really the wealth of the internal northern market that’s decisive. That depends on a fairly widespread distribution of wealth, and that doesn’t exist in the South. There’s a lot of evidence from western Virginia, for example, that non-slaveholders were angry at the slaveholders for blocking the railroads and things like that that would allow them to take advantage of the internal market. So the legacy of slavery is poverty, not wealth.” This is really worth reading, and it’s astounding that you have to go to the World Socialist Website to find such comprehensive debunking of the NYT’s twaddle.

Related: “Interesting fact about Gerald Horne, the historian whose work is most commonly cited as basis for the ‘1619 Project’ (or at least the claim that the ‘real’ goal of the American Revolution was to preserve slavery): he’s an actual, pro-Soviet Communist.”

Also, Gordon Wood weighs in. “I was surprised, as many other people were, by the scope of this thing, especially since it’s going to become the basis for high school education and has the authority of the New York Times behind it, and yet it is so wrong in so many ways. . . . I think the important point to make about slavery is that it had existed for thousands of years without substantial criticism, and it existed all over the New World. It also existed elsewhere in the world. Western Europe had already more or less done away with slavery. Perhaps there was nothing elsewhere comparable to the plantation slavery that existed in the New World, but slavery was widely prevalent in Africa and Asia. There is still slavery today in the world. And it existed in all of these places without substantial criticism. Then suddenly in the middle of the 18th century you begin to get some isolated Quakers coming out against it. But it’s the American Revolution that makes it a problem for the world. And the first real anti-slave movement takes place in North America. So this is what’s missed by these essays in the 1619 Project.”

More: Prominent historians criticize the NY Times’ 1619 Project as ‘biased,’ ‘anti-historical.’

Plus: Americans Have Almost Entirely Forgotten Their History. This is not by accident, but by design.

ANNALS OF LEFTIST AUTOPHAGY: Leftists Attack The ‘1619 Project.’

In the “Idea Laundering” post the other day, I mentioned an excellent interview on the World Socialist Web Site with Princeton historian James McPherson, one of the top Civil War scholars in the nation, in which McPherson tore apart The New York Times‘s ballyhooed “1619 Project.” That project, as regular readers will recall, is a massive effort by the newspaper to “reframe” (its word) the American founding around slavery. In the interview, McPherson basically argued that the project’s claims are woke nonsense. 

Read the whole thing. Meanwhile, Reason’s Cathy Young tweets an explanation for much of the New York Times’ craziness in the last few years: “Interesting fact about Gerald Horne, the historian whose work is most commonly cited as basis for the ‘1619 Project’ (or at least the claim that the ‘real’ goal of the American Revolution was to preserve slavery): he’s an actual, pro-Soviet Communist.”

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: George Washington University Prof: Thanksgiving centered around ‘myth,’ should be ‘Day of Mourning.’

Flashback: George Washington University Drops U.S. History Requirement — for History Majors!

Presumably, given the New York Times’ ongoing “1619 Project,” which seeks to cast the birth of America in Original Sin, it’s only a matter of time before George Washington University changes its name.

DO PATIENTS GET A SAY IN THIS? Google’s ‘Project Nightingale’ Gathers Personal Health Data on Millions of Americans.

Don’t be silly. Of course patients don’t get a say.

Google began Project Nightingale in secret last year with St. Louis-based Ascension, the second-largest health system in the U.S., with the data sharing accelerating since summer, according to internal documents.

The data involved in the initiative encompasses lab results, doctor diagnoses and hospitalization records, among other categories, and amounts to a complete health history, including patient names and dates of birth.

Neither patients nor doctors have been notified. At least 150 Google employees already have access to much of the data on tens of millions of patients, according to a person familiar with the matter and the documents.

Yours is not to wonder why, yours is to cough up data and die.

Related (From Ed): “It’s uncanny how closely the Western elites have come to resemble their unlamented Soviet counterparts,” Richard Fernandez tweets, regarding the suitably Orwellianly named Project Nightingale. “Mass surveillance, propaganda, special academies, secret perversions, etc. But how could it be otherwise? Power creates one face with minor variations.”

DISPATCHES FROM THE DEVIL’S PLEASURE PALACE: The New York Times’ 1619 Project Reeks Of Herbert Marcuse’s Divisive Ideology.

(Classical reference in headline.)

WAS MICHAEL BELLESILES INVOLVED? What ‘The Times’ 1619 Project Got Wrong About Slavery in America.

Related: Reclaiming 1619.


AND AGAIN: Exclusive — Another New York Times Editor Made Racist, Anti-Semitic Comments.

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.

* * * * * * * *

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.

Read the whole thing, which, alongside the other recent examples of racism and anti-Semitism on display from her fellow Timespeople, does much to illustrate the punitive leftism and identity politics driving much of the Times’ recent material, not least of which, their “1619 Project.” QED:

Earlier: The New York Times’ Disastrous Summer of Fake News and Public Meltdowns.


The America the liberal elite sees now in 2019 has been a monstrosity from the beginning—from before the beginning, in fact. Wilfred McClay takes up this act of historical revisionism in his cover article this month. The New York Times’ “1619 Project” exploring American history cunningly dates itself not only to the forced arrival on these shores of indentured Africans but to the year before the arrival of the Mayflower. Why is this cunning? Because it begins the American narrative in slavery rather than in the quest for freedom—the pilgrims having set sail in 1620 so that they could practice their faith without persecution.

So the American experiment is not a story about freedom but a story about unfreedom. It is not about a quest for justice but about making excuses for injustice. It is not about good things. It is about bad things. It is not even about the struggle between the good and the bad. It is about original sin without redemption. We were evil before we began.

That’s the highfalutin take. The more prosaic take is that America is not about the story of Barack Obama but about the story of Donald Trump. That is what the 1619 Project is all about; it is an excuse to hate America because you don’t like the political turn it’s taken.

Love of country is something akin to the love for another person Shakespeare diagnosed negatively: “Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds.” You don’t love America only when the election comes out your way. If that’s your view, it only means you didn’t really love America in the first place.

Punitive liberalism, to coin a phrase.

TRUST US, WE’RE ABOVE-THE-FRAY INTELLECTUALS: He questioned the accuracy of the ‘1619 Project.’ A history professor responded with ‘your mom.’

HOW THE NEW YORK TIMES DISTORTS AMERICAN HISTORY: Commentary Magazine relies on logic and facts to resist the NYT‘s distorted “1619 Project.”

Considered strictly as an exercise in historical understanding, and in deepening the public’s understanding of a profound issue in our national past, the Project represents a giant missed opportunity. It passes over the complex truth in favor of an exaggeration bordering on travesty. And if it has any influence, that influence will be as likely as not to damage the nation and distort its self-understanding in truly harmful ways—ways that will perhaps be most harmful of all to Americans of African descent, who do not need to be supplied with yet another reason to feel cut off from the promise of American life.


…what we are to make of the New York Times’ decision to take on this project in the way that it has. Is it the proper role of a journalistic organization, especially one as powerful as the Times, to promote and advocate for a particular interpretation of American history? Do such actions constitute responsible journalism? Do they contribute to the solution of our current problems through the introduction of honest, unflinching, and fair-minded consideration of the issues raised by the American experience with slavery?

Or are they doing something far less creditable, less balanced, and more polemical, using a distorted and one-sided account of our history to intervene in our current political wars, in ways that can only broaden and deepen those conflicts, and turn them into far worse forms of warfare?


It seems fairly clear that, to the extent that the Times’ assessment draws upon slavery scholarship, its sources have been scholars associated with the so-called new history of capitalism. They seek to link the alleged productivity of slavery to the triumph of capitalism in America—and thereby seek to transfer the stain of slavery to every malady of present-day American life, from income inequality to climate change to the decline of unions to the Great Recession of 2008.

Far from downplaying the effects of the legacy, these scholars play it up, finding it to be massive and all-determinative. In the process, as economic historian Philip Magness has brilliantly pointed out, they have virtually rehabilitated the claims of antebellum Southern planters that “Cotton is king,” and that slavery was the true source of the bulk of the nation’s wealth. For example, Cornell historian Edward Baptist’s 2014 book The Half Has Never Been Told argues that the wealth piled up by the minutely managed institutions of slavery was the source of all subsequent American wealth. Baptist asserts that almost half of the economic activity of the United States by the year 1836 was a product of slavery. That stunning statistic was cited recently by the journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates in his testimony before Congress, in favor of reparations for slavery.

The only problem is that Baptist’s statistic is demonstrably wrong…

The article, written by Wilfred M. McClay (a professor at Oklahoma University), absolutely eviscerates the NYT‘s 1619 Project. At one point McClay says the it is part of the “Times’ journalistic battlefield preparation for the 2020 election.” So perhaps we should call it the Desperate Democrats’ 2020 Political Propaganda Project?


PETER WOOD ON THE NYT’S 1619 PROJECT:  Teaching that America Is Hopelessly Racist.

WE’VE DESCENDED INTO SOME SORT OF BIZARRE HELL-WORLD IN WHICH ANDREW SULLIVAN IS A VOICE OF SANITY: With the “1619 Project” the New York Times Has Abandoned Liberalism for Activism.

But the NYT chose a neo-Marxist rather than liberal path to make a very specific claim: that slavery is not one of many things that describe America’s founding and culture, it is the definitive one. Arguing that the “true founding” was the arrival of African slaves on the continent, period, is a bitter rebuke to the actual founders and Lincoln. America is not a messy, evolving, multicultural, religiously infused, Enlightenment-based, racist, liberating, wealth-generating kaleidoscope of a society. It’s white supremacy, which started in 1619, and that’s the key to understand all of it. America’s only virtue, in this telling, belongs to those who have attempted and still attempt to end this malign manifestation of white supremacy.

I don’t believe most African-Americans believe this, outside the elites. They’re much less doctrinaire than elite white leftists on a whole range of subjects. I don’t buy it either — alongside, I suspect, most immigrants, including most immigrants of color. Who would ever want to immigrate to such a vile and oppressive place? But it is extremely telling that this is not merely aired in the paper of record (as it should be), but that it is aggressively presented as objective reality. That’s propaganda, directed, as we now know, from the very top — and now being marched through the entire educational system to achieve a specific end. To present a truth as the truth is, in fact, a deception. And it is hard to trust a paper engaged in trying to deceive its readers in order for its radical reporters and weak editors to transform the world.

To be fair, it’s been “Gray Lady Down” for quite some time now.


In a NYT town hall recently leaked to the press, a reporter asked the executive editor, Dean Baquet, why the Times doesn’t integrate the message of the 1619 Project into every single subject the paper covers: “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 … 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.”

It’s a good point, isn’t it? If you don’t believe in a liberal view of the world, if you hold the doctrines of critical race theory, and believe that “all of the systems in the country” whatever they may be, are defined by a belief in the sub-humanity of black Americans, why isn’t every issue covered that way? Baquet had no answer to this contradiction, except to say that the 1619 Project was a good start: “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.” In other words, the objective was to get liberal readers to think a little bit more like neo-Marxists.

The New York Times, by its executive editor’s own admission, is increasingly engaged in a project of reporting everything through the prism of white supremacy and critical race theory, in order to “teach” its readers to think in these crudely reductionist and racial terms. That’s why this issue wasn’t called, say, “special issue”, but a “project”. It’s as much activism as journalism. And that’s the reason I’m dwelling on this a few weeks later. I’m constantly told that critical race theory is secluded on college campuses, and has no impact outside of them … and yet the newspaper of record, in a dizzyingly short space of time, is now captive to it. Its magazine covers the legacy of slavery not with a variety of scholars, or a diversity of views, but with critical race theory, espoused almost exclusively by black writers, as its sole interpretative mechanism.

They’re vicious, somewhat crazy, hacks, doing their best to expand the Gramscian Damage.

ALL THIS AND WORLD WAR II: First the New York Times decides to rewrite the founding of the country to “own the cons,” as the kids say these days. And now WWII: Bret Stephens has a new column on ‘Jews as bedbugs’ and it looks like he totally effed it up. “As you can see if you click on the bottom right photo, Stephens didn’t bother reading the footnote for his quote on the burning of Warsaw’s Jewish ghetto, ‘The bedbugs are on fire. The Germans are doing a great job.’ You see, at the time, there really was a bedbug epidemic in Warsaw and the author of the book from where Stephens got that quote said it should be taken literally.”

Layers and layers of fact checkers and editors.

THAT WAS THE WEEK THAT WAS: The Media’s no good, very bad week (and what’s coming next).

I think this week is a harbinger of things to come. Why? Because the Mueller report didn’t work out as Democrats and the media hoped. There’s no public appetite for impeachment. Progressives are getting nervous and the NY Times has signaled privately and publicly, through its 1619 Project, that the 2020 election will be all about racism because that’s the best chance Democrats have to activate their base.

So what’s coming next? A lot more careless mistakes by the usual suspects looking to drag Trump and the GOP down. What this week demonstrates is that many of them care less about their credibility than ensuring the desired outcome. This isn’t really new of course. In fact, some version of this happens every four years. See dog-abusing-vampire-capitalist-with-80s-foreign-policy Mitt Romney for a previous example.

Which dovetails well with Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel’s look at how things went this week with the Democratic Party operatives without bylines, aka the politicians: Crackup in the Democratic Party.

Imagine you’re Biden’s political director, sitting offstage. All of a sudden, Biden wanders into the unscripted territory and says, “Imagine the assassination of Obama.” This is not an attack on Biden, but he’s not going to be the nominee. So the actual race comes down to Warren’s and Sanders’ competing visions of how to achieve the same socialist fantasy. Warren is promising reparations based on skin color. That’s popular. Sanders wants a government takeover of the entire energy sector. They will be working to out-crazy each other for the next six months. That is a dynamic guaranteed to produce even more extremism. And it has some Democratic leaders worried. The Democratic National Committee voted on a proposal to hold a debate focused exclusively on climate change. Why wouldn’t they? Well, because the solutions the candidates would promise live on television are insane: spend $16 trillion, ban airplanes, seize control of the entire U.S. economy.

The Trustafarians love stuff like that. Normal people find it terrifying. Even the party hacks here in D.C. don’t like it, and that’s probably a compliment. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi believes climate change is an existential crisis? Of course, she doesn’t think that. Plus, she flies private. Obama can say whatever he wants about carbon emissions. He can shake his chin and be concerned, but when you’re spending 15 million of your own dollars on a beachfront estate on Martha’s Vineyard, you’re not too worried about the oceans rising. But the Democratic base doesn’t get the joke. Democratic primary voters believe the talking points. And very soon, they will be powerful enough to nominate their own presidential candidate. And when that happens, it’s going to be a very different party.

Nobody should be getting cocky in this election cycle.

Classical reference in headline, from a time when the left still viewed satire as a weapon, before the revolution devoured its own.