The NY Times as Globalist Mouthpiece

June 27, 2016 – San Francisco, CA – – In its Sunday edition, the NY Times published an anguished piece [see, Jim Yardley, Alison Smale, Jane Perlez and Ben Hubbard, Britain Rattles Postwar Order and Its Place as Pillar of Stability] decrying the BREXIT vote as a portent of terrible things to come.

A tidbit:

“Britain’s historic vote to leave the European Union is already threatening to unravel a democratic bloc of nations that has coexisted peacefully together for decades...Britain’s choice to retreat into what some critics of the vote suggest is a “Little England” status...It also undermines the postwar consensus that alliances among nations are essential in maintaining stability and in diluting the nationalism that once plunged Europe into bloody conflict - even as nationalism is surging again..."

This is an odd statement given that the NYT’s “peaceful coexistence” came as a result of the West crushing Nazism, which represented a mortal threat to the West’s sense of its own nationalism – i.e., wanting to preserve territorial sovereignty, maintain defensible borders, preserve distinct cultural identities, languages and traditions not to mention [classical] liberal democratic rule.

The attempt here is to conflate nationalism with “right wing” movements [perhaps the Times’ favorite pejorative?] and Nazism, an absurd proposition, since Nazism, Soviet Communism and Japanese Imperialism were all expansionist totalitarian ideologies militarily enforced far beyond the aggressor nation’s borders, in much the same way that normative Islam operates today.

To argue that basic nationalism, pride in a superior culture and the simple desire to control one’s national destiny is dangerous, is lunacy. Actually the entire piece is a silly amalgam of assertions, most of which, at best, stretch the truth to fit the newspaper’s editorial stance.

The Times’ piece suggests, heavily, that the EU/central planners had been the driver of Europe’s post-war prosperity. The gang of authors [it takes four pro journos to compose a tiny – especially by NYT standards – 2,000 word piece? Amazing!] imply this without noting that the “recovery” - characterized by what some economists call Western Europe’s “ golden age” - only lasted roughly twenty years spanning the 50s and 60 [truncated by diverting working capital towards the huge expansion of Europe’s social “safety net”] was primarily due to the reindustrializing of a Continent which had been shattered during World War II.

We hope that it crossed the mind of the authors at least once, that this brief economic normalcy took place absent the heavy hand of Brussels’ effeminate, unelected, totalitarian leaning nincompoops.

The fact is that as a formal entity, the EU is of fairly recent origin, created in 1993 after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, so how the article supports its core thesis is difficult to discern.

Noting one potential negative effect of the BREXIT vote, the Times’ piece predicts that the UK’s defense expenditures could rapidly fall, an odd claim considering that the country’s defense spending has already fallen 10% [to 2% of GDP] over the last 4 years alone.

The inference we draw from this is that the UK’s “non-participation” in their minds endangers the hallowed [in globalist circles] North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], once a military necessity, today a toothless paper tiger with zero ability to project military power absent the full participation of the United States, which underwrites 25% [$700M plus] of NATO’s total budget.

The failed record of NATO actions since the mid 90s is clear. Most notably represented by Bill Clinton’s Balkan War which established Bosnia as Europe’s first Muslim state and the Libyan War, brought about by Team Obama/Hillary which gifted the formerly non-threatening [yes dictatorial] country to ISIS.

Using the bizarre logic of this piece, Europe’s aborning nationalism is something to be resisted in that it threatens Islamic expansionism.


“European countries erected border fences despite the bloc’s system of open internal borders. Populist parties raged against immigrants. Britain was relatively insulated, yet British politicians campaigning to leave the European Union depicted an island under siege, mixing the very different issue of immigration from other European Union states with the perceived threat from an influx of poor Muslims. This anti-immigrant strain twinned with the economic anxieties of many Britons…”

“Perceived threat from an influx of poor Muslims?”

The mind reels, the rape/violent crime crisis in Europe [Sweden, the rape capital of the world, entirely due to Muslim immigration] is just a figment of “right wing” agitators and populists’ rhetoric?

The fact is that what few border fences have been erected to keep the hijra at bay are all in Eastern Europe, Germany is not surrounded by razor wire and machine gun toting goons demanding Auslander, Zeigen Sie mir Ihre Identifizierung [foreigner show me your ID] at the point of a bayonet.

The NYT article is really somewhat of a veiled defense of the failed Schengen Agreement, which never made sense at all in any context beneficial to Western Civilization. At some point [right now actually] further analyzing such drivel [the piece itself, in marked contrast to the NYT normal practice, is poorly organized, edited and lacks continuity] becomes pointless.

We will leave you with one final observation…in a sense the NYT was one of the very first globalist institutions of note, for nearly 100 years it has functioned as a cheering section for America’s [and the West’s] enemies under the pretext of representing a “more democratic, non-xenophobic” global news perspective, stripped of America’s perceived, jingoistic, imperial nationalism.

So in that sense the appearance of such a piece should not at all be surprising…just Google the name of one of the Time’s most beloved and iconic foreign reporters [who was also most likely a Soviet agent] the Pulitzer winning journo, Walter Duranty and everything falls into place.

©2016 LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.