Friday, November 08, 2019

The 1932 and 1939 Project: How the New York Times Covered up Murder and Genocide

With the launching of the New York Times’ “1619 Project,” the paper of record seeks to reframe American history.  Formerly we had foolishly assumed the birth of the nation to be July 4, 1776, with the writing of the Declaration of Independence.  But no, the paper of record has another date in mind.

It turns out to be 1619, with the importing of the first African slaves to America.  That moment, the Times believes, more accurately depicts the founding of the nation and its underlying precepts.  We now learn that our Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, or our disingenuous claim that “all men are created equal” do not define the nation.  Rather, it is that America is a uniquely racist and exploitative enterprise, a criminal operation, morally stained in its DNA, founded as it is on the institution of slavery.  Furthermore, we are to understand that all the advances and benefits that have accrued to our nation in its 243-year history, come not from our religious underpinnings, individual and private property rights, free markets, and our constitutional system of limited government, but rather -- you guessed it -- slavery.

Others have refuted the ideologic and political 1619 Project, so I will not retrace ground covered elsewhere. It makes more sense to declare a new project that I will describe as the “1932 and 1939 Project,” not as a new timeline and birthdate for the founding of the nation but rather as the origin of the despairingly predictable leftist propaganda machine that the media have become.  Why 1932 and 1939?  These are the years that the NY Times chose to ignore, cover up, and whitewash for ideological purposes what were among the worst genocides of the 20th century -- the Ukraine famine and the Holocaust.

Walter Duranty was the NY Times Moscow Bureau Chief from 1922-1936, soon after the Bolshevik overthrow of the Russian government. Duranty was an apologist for communism.  Many in the American intelligentsia were also sympathetic to communism and appreciated Duranty’s dispatches.  It was after Joseph Stalin’s first five-year plan, 1928-1933, in which Stalin attempted to restructure the Soviet economy, that Duranty became prominent based on exclusive interviews that Stalin granted him. The dictator’s policies led to widespread famine, particularly in the Ukraine, where estimates of up to 10 million people perished between 1932-1933, thought by many to be a deliberate genocide.  Duranty received the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for a series of reports from the Soviet Union in which he defended Stalin and denied that there was widespread famine.  Contemporaneous observers reported that Duranty knew of the starvation and knowingly misrepresented the evidence. 

The Times is also notorious for covering up the Holocaust, the Nazi effort to exterminate the Jews during World War II.  It did so by burying stories about the Nazi genocide against the Jews in the back pages of the paper, avoiding the front page except on rare occasions.  The Times often avoided mentioning that the victims of the Nazi persecutions, deportations, and death camps were Jews.  If you had read the front page of the NY Times during the period of the Holocaust (1939 -1945), you would have missed the fact that the Nazis were rounding up, imprisoning, torturing, starving, executing, gassing, and otherwise exterminating on an industrial scale millions of innocent Jews

In the face of the ideological groupthink of the press, our own Soviet media, it seems reasonable to ground it in historical events that arguably define the onset of its debasement.  If the Times can casually change the birth of the U.S. from 1776 to 1619 and redefine our founding principles, as it did in its 1619 Project, then surely we can recommend reasonable start dates for the perversion of our media.  And what better and more consequential press outrages than the gloss-over by the NY Times of two of the 20th century’s greatest genocides?

The media is no longer content to simply fulfill its obligation to the First Amendment and report the news objectively, share ideas, challenge dogmas, enlighten the public, promote American principles, and provide critical oversight of the government. Instead, it has descended into an openly leftist propaganda coalition intent on promoting a Marxist view of reality indistinguishable from that of the Democratic Party.  This collapse into summary leftism in support of one political party and dogma has reached its acme in the age of Trump where even the pretense of impartiality has been discarded. 

The “1932 and 1939 Project” targets two critical moments when the NY Times, the dominant media voice of the radical left, failed to expose and marshal attention toward a critical matter.  It chose instead to conceal and bury two catastrophic annihilations, deliberately collaborating in the deaths of millions of innocent victims.    


Leave adoption out of the culture wars

by Jeff Jacoby

NOVEMBER IS National Adoption Month, so it is fitting that the Trump administration has just taken a step that will make it a little easier to find permanent homes for children who need them.

On Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to roll back a regulation that for three years has discriminated against traditional Christian adoption and foster care agencies. The regulation — imposed during the final days of Barack Obama's presidency — decreed that agencies providing child-welfare services could not receive federal grants if they were unwilling to place children with same-sex couples. That was a blow to adoption providers with a strong conviction that vulnerable children do best when they are adopted by families with a married mother and father. It was also a restriction never mandated by Congress: Federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on numerous grounds — race, color, national origin, sex, religion, and so on. But no federal statute has ever made sexual orientation a protected class.

The White House said over the weekend that undoing the Obama-era rule would mean that faith-based agencies would no longer be forced "to choose between helping children and their faith." Liberal journalists and activist groups snorted at this; the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement blasting what it called an "unconscionable" ploy "to justify discrimination against LGBTQ people and other communities."

But in contemporary America, legal discrimination against same-sex couples seeking to adopt or foster children is a nonissue. Gay and lesbian couples readily adopt children in all 50 states. The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School calculated in 2013 that there were 16,000 same-sex couples raising more than 22,000 adopted children nationwide — and that the highest rates of child-rearing by same-sex couples was not in left-wing coastal enclaves, but in such red-America bastions as Mississippi, Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, and Montana.

By contrast, traditional faith-based adoption providers have suffered legal discrimination. In some cases, official hostility toward those with a policy of placing children only with a married mother and father has proved so implacable that even agencies renowned for being able to find "forever homes" for troubled children have had to shut down.

When Massachusetts decreed in 2006 that adoption agencies could no longer discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the state's most venerable adoption provider — Catholic Charities of Massachusetts — was forced to end a service it had been providing for more than 100 years. In the years that followed, there was a sharp drop in the number of children successfully placed for adoption, while the number in foster care waiting to be adopted swelled.

When my wife and I wanted to adopt a child from another country, we chose an adoption agency with particular expertise at facilitating foreign adoptions. In similar fashion, other would-be adoptive parents may prefer to work with agencies grounded in normative religious teachings — just as some birth mothers may choose to place their children for adoption through providers that share their faith. A biological mother who makes the deeply personal decision to let her child be adopted can hardly be faulted for wanting to know that her little one will be raised in a religious home, or in one with a mom and a dad. And faith-based providers often excel at recruiting suitable adoptive parents from religious communities.

More than 400,000 American children are in foster care; 110,000 of them are legally free to be adopted. That's a huge population of kids in need. It should go without saying that the greater the diversity of qualified adoption agencies available to find good homes for them, the better. Just as there is room for providers with a proven history of facilitating adoption by same-sex couples, so too should there be room for providers committed to familiar religious values. All the more so since religious Americans are much more likely than the public at large to become adoptive parents. "While only 2 percent of all Americans have adopted," reports the Barna Group, a research institute that studies American religion, "this rises to 5 percent among practicing Christians."

Instead of trying to squeeze traditional Christian adoption providers out of existence, federal and state authorities should be doing everything they can to encourage more of them to thrive. Every credible adoption agency wants one thing above all — to find loving parents for children who need them, without having to violate the dictates of conscience or judgment. Let the culture wars rage on some other front. When it comes to matching kids with permanent families, a policy of pluralism and tolerance will do the most good.


UK: Racist local authoity

A British couple who claim they were advised they couldn't adopt a "white child" because of their Indian heritage have taken a council to court in a landmark discrimination case.


Sandeep and Reena Mander, from Maidenhead, Berkshire, allege they were refused an application to join a register of approved adopters because of their Asian ancestry and told their chances would be improved if they looked to adopt in India or Pakistan.

The couple began a four-day court battle at Oxford County Court on Tuesday against Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council after suing them for discrimination. Their case has been backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The council has rejected claims its social workers were "racist" towards the couple. While an adoption official told the court she deferred the couple's application because they wanted to care for a "a young under-three years old, simple needs child".

The Manders, who are aged in their 30s, showed an interest in adopting a child after attending a seminar in 2015 by Adopt Berkshire, the council's adoption service, and were encouraged to submit an application.

Mr Mander, the Vice President in charge of sales at an IT company, told the court of the couple's desire to apply and that he was asked to identify his ethnic origin upon ringing the adoption agency.

However, when he stated that they were both born and raised in Britain but their parents were born in India, Mr Mander claimed that he was told that they were unlikely to be approved as potential adopters due to their "Indian background", because only white children were available in Berkshire and the surrounding area.

Although the Manders live in a five-bedroom house and claim they were willing to offer any child a loving home and indeed were otherwise suitable to adopt, Adopt Berkshire claimed that it would still not let them apply to join the approved adopters' register because of their "Indian heritage".

The couple told the court that this was a simple case of direct discrimination on the grounds of race, in breach of Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and the European Convention on Human Rights.

They claim they should not have been rejected from joining the approved adopters' register because of where their parents were born.

Mrs Mander, a programme manager, told the court she heard her husband on the phone during a conversation with Adopt Berkshire.

"I could hear from his voice that something wasn't right, his tone was shocked," she said. "I heard something about cultural heritage," she told the court. "I felt that I should have the same right to enter the process as anyone else."

The court also heard from Hilary Loades who was Adopt Berkshire's "gatekeeper", and who rejected their adoption application.

Under cross-examination, she said she "deferred the application indefinitely" because the couple wanted "a young under-three years old, simple needs child" but the council had a lot of older vulnerable children who needed placing for adoption so she told Mr and Mrs Mander to "come back another time".

She added: "At the time, they were seeking placement for a single young child which did not match the criteria. There was nothing to suggest they were not suitable.

"Many adopters are looking for children who do not have complex needs and most children in the local authority do. We were recruiting, we weren’t recruiting to them."

Katherine Foster, defence barrister representing the council, which deny all the couple's claims, told Mrs Mander: "You are now determined to attribute racism to these social workers. You interpreted it as being racist when it was not”.

Giving evidence, Mrs Mander said that on April 25 2017 a social worker, Shirley Popat, telephoned the couple.

"She confirmed she would not accept our application due to our cultural heritage and our only other option was to adopt from India or Pakistan," she said.

The Manders have since successfully adopted a young boy from America.

During cross-examination, Ms Foster told Mrs Mander: "In your application [to adopt in the USA], you stated you wanted a child who was white or Hispanic. You wanted a child who looked more like you."

Mrs Mander replied: "I do not look white and I do not look Hispanic. We were advised not to tick every box, we did not mind what ethnicity the child was, we were willing to offer any child a loving home.

"All the correspondence felt like it was the colour of my skin which was why we were rejected."

The case continues


Harvey Proctor makes criminal complaint against five Scotland Yard officers

Harvey Proctor, the former Tory MP, who was falsely accused of child abuse by the fantasist Carl Beech has reported five Scotland Yard officers to the police for alleged criminal wrongdoing.

The 72-year-old has accused them of a string of offences, including perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office.

The five officers he is demanding be investigated are; Steve Rodhouse, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner in charge of Operation Midland; Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald; Detective Superintendent Diana Tudway; Detective Inspector Alison Hepworth and Detective Sergeant Eric Sword.

Mr Proctor said he had been forced to take the action after the police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), absolved all the officers involved in the disastrous Operation Midland inquiry of any wrongdoing in a "whitewash" report.

He has now lodged a formal criminal complaint, accusing the officers of misleading a district judge when applying for search warrants to raid his home and those of the late former Home Secretary Lord Brittan, and Lord Bramall.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "We can confirm that the MPS received a referral from Northumbria police on 31 October 2019 following a complaint comprising criminal allegations in relation to five former MPS officers involved in Operation Midland. The MPS is assessing the complaint."

Speaking at the press conference, Mr Proctor said: "It is unprecedented that two senior and respected judges should publicly allege criminality in the conduct of a police investigation.

"I waited for the MPS and the IOPC  to take the necessary action to trigger a full police investigation into this alleged criminality."

He went on: "After the fullest and most careful consideration, having taken legal advice, and with the deepest regret I am compelled, in the interest of justice, to report these matters as crimes to Northumbria Police."

Earlier this year, Sir Richard Henriques, the retired high court judge, who carried out a review of Operation Midland, said he believed there was evidence police officers had broken the law when making the applications.

And Howard Riddle, the district judge who issued the warrants, also recently said he believed he had been misled during the process.

In addition Mr Proctor has claimed the decision to describe Beech's allegations as "credible and true" at the outset of the investigation amounted to misconduct in public office.

Operation Midland was launched by Scotland Yard in November 2014 when Beech claimed he had been raped and tortured by a group of high profile politicians and public figures including Mr Proctor.

The Met spent 18 months investigating the claims before closing the investigation without making a single arrest.

In July, Beech was jailed for 18-years after being found guilty of perverting the course of justice and fraud.

But none of the officers involved in the £4 million probe have been disciplined over their role.

Ten days ago, Mr Proctor travelled from his home in Grantham to Northumbria Police headquarters where he made a formal criminal complaint against the five officers at the centre of the investigation.

The Northumbria Force, which successfully prosecuted Beech, passed the matter to Scotland Yard and Mr Proctor is now waiting to hear if a formal criminal investigation is launched.

Mr Proctor gave details of the move during a press conference at the same London hotel where he appeared four years ago to outline the claims that were being made against him by Beech.

He said: "I did not expect to have to return to this hotel four years later to inform everyone of the further steps I have taken to obtain justice."

Mr Proctor explained that Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, had advised him to apply to the courts for a judicial review of the IOPC investigation, but he said that would be prohibitively expensive.

"I therefore took the decision I am announcing today, to choose a different option, that is to report alleged criminality," he said.

"A live police investigation should be opened into my complaint of alleged crime as it covers serious, fresh and new evidence.   "Failure to do so would be further evidence that the MPS and the IOPC are hand in glove and conducting a cover up," he added.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: