2022 Mid-Term Elections Panic Report: The New York Times Editors Endorse Terrorism

There are a lot of signs that the Woke, the Left, the Resistance, Democrats and the news media that filters reality for their objectives are collectively losing their grip in theincreasingly unavoidable realization that their dreams of societal transformation in America are going to be significantly hobbled by the upcoming vote-fest. We saw this stage coming (or should have) some time ago, with perhaps the most striking confirmation arriving when Joe Biden decided to channel Der Fuhrer while calling half the population fascists. Yet I didn’t see this coming, because I am a sap, and persist in my childish idealism telling me that as wacko as they seem right now, these are all traditional, ethical Americans at heart who are just having a bad six or seven years.

In the span of less than a week, the New York Times editors thought it responsible to publish two op-ed columns extolling the virtues of terrorism when not enough people want to do what the Good, Wise, Smart People—you know, like them—have decided is best. Jamelle Boiue, whose usual specialty in Times punditry is anti-white racism, actually lionized John Brown, whose body not only lies a-moldering in the grave but was an engine of random murder and terrorism.

Channeling W.E.B. Du Bois’s 1909 ode to Brown (the populists of that era often admired the lunatic: Clarence Darrow was also an admirer), Bouie agrees that Brown was motivated by “social doctrines of the French Revolution with its emphasis on freedom and power in political life” (Speaking of terror!), and his “inchoate but growing belief in a more just and a more equal distribution of property.” He continues in part,

“Has John Brown no message — no legacy, then, to the twentieth century?” asks Du Bois. “He has and it is this great word: the cost of liberty is less than the price of repression….Viewed in this light, Du Bois says, the memory of John Brown stands as a “mighty warning” to the United States and its peers. To wait to rectify the sins of the present — to sidestep justice in favor of comfort — is to make the final price of liberty all the more expensive…

“What Brown decided, Du Bois continues, was that he had to strike a blow for justice in his time. “It will cost something — even blood and suffering — but it will not cost as much as waiting…Du Bois’s broadside against hierarchy and exclusion still lands with as much force in 2022 as I’m sure it did in 1909. His warning that the tolerance of injustice will only lead to darker places and “darker deeds” is still relevant. And his closing reminder that without real “equality of opportunity” the best in humanity cannot be “discovered and conserved” remains as true now as it was then.”

Who’s advocating civil war now?

Worse still, believe it or not, was the Times screed two days earlier by Andreas Malm, an advocate of eco-terrorism who wrote “How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire.” He explains that we should look with favor on the idiots who threw soup on the priceless Van Gogh painting in London and glued themselves to the wall (with oil-based super-glue) to protest fossil fuels.

He writes…

“When activists from the same group smashed gas stations in April this year, they hit the nail on the head. Gasoline, unlike a van Gogh painting, is a fuel of global warming. There is a whole planetary layer of stations, pipelines, platforms, derricks, terminals, mines and shafts that must be shut down to save humanity and other life-forms. When governments refuse to undertake this work, it is up to the rest of us to initiate it. That is the rationale for sabotage: to aim straight for the bags of coal.”

It just gets crazier from there, as he considers the soup-throwing heroes…

“There might be room for this kind of action, too. As one of the young activists cried out before gluing herself to the wall beneath the painting, ‘Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?'”

Now who can argue with THAT?

“By doing something so scandalous, Just Stop Oil forced media and the wider public to pay attention‌ to the fact that the British government is about to hand out 100 ‌‌licenses for new oil and gas projects when ‌there cannot ‌be a single one more.

‘We need to break the mirage that everything is fine and shatter the illusion of normal life,’ explained Indigo Rumbelow, an organizer with Just Stop Oil, when I spoke with her. ‘A trip to the museums, a football match, a journey to work — anything is up for disruption in this view. The goal is to jump onto every stage and create enough disorder to make it impossible to ignore the ongoing climate breakdown.'”
 
Oh…Malm, this intellectual equal of Brown and Bouie, whose unethical lunacy the Time finds worthy of  being trumpeted to millions of readers, reminds us that “all oil and gas production in rich countries — including the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and Qatar — must be terminated within 12 years.”
 
Right. Because all of the previous doomsday deadlines have been so accurate that they justify crippling civilization.
 
But wait! There’s more!
 

“As for the ethics of property destruction, it is not, in this case, very complicated. Fossil fuels kill people. If you disrupt the flow of such fuels and damage the machinery they impel, you prevent deaths. You stop the perpetration of harm. You may destroy an inanimate object — and no one in the climate movement is suggesting anything other than targeting dead things — so as to protect living beings. Or, put differently, if you are locked in a house on fire, you have a right to break some windows to get out.”

Starvation, poverty, lack of liberty and the collapse of modern civilization, not to mention following the advice of hysterics as we metaphorically head back to the caves, also kill people. The eco-terrorist continues,

“If the logic and ethics here seem straightforward‌, the tactical terrain is not. How do we make sure that no one is physically harmed in the process? Just what windows will be most effective to break? What openings will attract larger numbers of people to make the leap? We don’t know what, if anything, will work, which is why, perhaps, the movement needs both: flippant attention grabbing as well as surgical shutdowns, in a diversity of disruptions. We cannot afford to forgo creative methods that might further the cause.”

The New York Times editors believe this is a message that deserves wide dissemination after forcing out an editor who allowed an op-ed by a US. Senator calling for the military to restore order when Black Lives Matter was taking over streets, public buildings and communities.
 
It would be unfair to conclude that Bouie, Malm and their acolytes in the NYT editor ranks are representative of the current Democratic Party. They are, however, all on the same team, and that team has been using a single unhinged riot of almost two years ago to claim that it is Republicans who do not respect democratic processes, and who are a threat to resort to force, violence, and anti-democratic tactics.
 
There is no integrity here, nor honesty, nor responsible discourse or journalism.

19 thoughts on “2022 Mid-Term Elections Panic Report: The New York Times Editors Endorse Terrorism

  1. Wow, I thought they’d at least wait until they lost the midterms before they pivoted from “save our democracy!” to “use violence to force change!”

    If you were to shut off all fossil fuels right now, I can tell you what would happen. Tens of millions of Americans would die this winter from the cold when their furnaces stop working. Tens of millions more would starve when the food supply chain breaks down, a process that would start with the failure of deliveries to stores and snowball when fertilizer plants shut down and tractors run out of fuel. I think fully half the population, if not more, would not survive the year.

    Can we all agree that the people who want to bring such things about do not deserve a seat at the table?

  2. Not to worry; violence by the left is merely “social uprising”, as I heard a guest today on PBS’s [i]Fresh Air[/i] describe the Floyd riots. You know “mostly peaceful”.

    We should start referring to Jan. 6th as the same… just another little social uprising.

    (The PBS guest, by the way, was an American Indian who has a restaurant in Minnesota where he has “decolonized” the food, and serves only dishes made with ingredients available prior to 1492. No word on whether he serves dog, and cooks only in hand-formed clay pots over a wood fire.)

  3. I wonder how they think the wind turbines and solar panels get built and serviced? Hint: it includes fossil fuels. Every time I read about the environmental green energy movement the word hubris comes to mind. It seems like they know nothing about how the physical world works anymore. Their lives are spent more digital on screens than anything reality based.

      • Although “it is a religion…you can’t reason with that kind of belief system”, to be fair the entirety of the U.S.A. rests on such as this, philosophically speaking. Where on earth do readers think the likes of Sam Adams were coming from? Maybe in another century U.S. public opinion will have caught up with him as well as with John Brown. If only that senator had been around in the 1770s to “[call] for the military to restore order when [the Sons of Liberty were] taking over streets, public buildings and communities”, maybe that action would not have been so misrepresented.

        • It seems to me that it was the British quartering soldiers and commandeering material who were taking over the streets in the colonies. The people in revolt were not the ones demanding everyone do as they are told they were the ones being told what to do. To invoke the Sons of Liberty here is a bad analogy.

          • Well, it would seem like that, if you take your background material from an edited version that omits some things and rearranges the order of events of others. But, as the saying is, “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts”. If you go back to the sources, which Kenneth Roberts drew on for his historical novels, you will see that those things you cite as justifying violence were responses to things like the looting of Thomas Hutchinson’s property in Boston (26.8.1765). Even if you do not go to the sources, it should be plain that dragooning was indeed a standard technique used to hold down a troublesome population – but that means that as a rule it wasn’t in place until that trouble happened first. Either way, it should be clear that the Boston disturbances came first, and they were not driven by prior repression.

            Of course, the later repression did indeed work out as you say, fuelling support for the terrorists, but in no way, shape or form did it create them to begin with. The pattern of events has a parallel with how British responses to the Easter 1916 uprising in Ireland actually boosted support for rebellion, but there was no initiating spark from the British side before the rebels did violence that time – much other fuel, of a different sort and built up over time, but no trigger from there and then. And that is what I was trying to show: that the logic of events today matches that of the 1770s, so that those who claim support for the older violence on abstract principle have conceded the principle that such things can happen now. You cannot do a bait and switch and make out that this time the terrorists started it but that time they did not, so that the cases are different in principle; the terrorists started it that time, too, and the record shows it. Go and see.

            • Sorry, but I have no idea what your point is or what exactly you are speaking of. I think you’re trying to be a bit too clever here — we’re just dim colonials here, you need to spell things out for us.

              What exactly are you talking about?

              • I’ll give a full and proper reply when it’s not so late at night (your dig at colonials like Australians has at least that much merit). For now, you might want to check out the chronology and confirm that the Sons of Liberty started their campaign of violence, terrorism and intimidation before there was any actual British repression whatsoever, even if we stipulate that there ever was any worthy of the name, i.e. only because the Sons of Liberty foresaw the prospect of that (or claimed to). Once you see that, it will be easier to show the parallels between:-

                – The Sons of Liberty et al, going full on because of something they thought justified starting violence, i.e. being the ones who first resorted to violence that time.

                – John Brown, ditto.

                – The current lot of enviro- and eco-terrorists, in the U.S.A. and elsewhere, ditto.

                Many readers, ill-informed by the cumulative effects of generations of being taught distorted history, are under the mistaken and unexamined impression that the home country simply up and started repressing the colonials for some perverse reason, and that the latter then simply responded. But it was not so; what modern revolutionaries term a “vanguard” – the Sons of Liberty and others like that – had been at work to sow discord even before Westminster did anything, when no more than provisional, unfinalised word of Westminster’s possible funding measures had got out. The parallel is with that group, its aims, its methods and its actions.

        • Although “it is a religion…you can’t reason with that kind of belief system”, to be fair the entirety of the U.S.A. rests on such as this, philosophically speaking

          Very true, though I hate to admit it…

          • So ethically, if we could, we should reinstate the old British Empire under good old kindly King George III, and all would be right with the world? I don’t see this line of argument leading to anything sane, although Howard Zinn would probably love it. Liberty and self-determination were worthy objectives then and remain so now.
            “It is difficult to free people from the chains they revere.” -Voltaire

  4. “Or, put differently, if you are locked in a house on fire, you have a right to break some windows to get out.”

    Sometimes that broken window isn’t a means of escape. It might just let in more air that feeds the flames and increases the speed of destruction.

  5. Or, put differently, if you are locked in a house space station on fire, you have a right to break some windows to get out.

    Fixed it for them.

  6. Perhaps the most humorous news item of the past few weeks was the fossil-fuel protestors gluing themselves to the floor in the Porsche museum, then crying that the proprietors of said museum turned off the heat.

    How do you reckon the heat for such a facility is generated?

    The short-sightedness of these fools is breathtaking. I’ve known toddlers with a better grasp of how actions generate consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.