OP-ED: The NY Times and the 'Stalinization' of American History

Originally published at: OP-ED: The NY Times and the ‘Stalinization’ of American History | Sean Hannity

By Jeffrey Lord

Shades of Joseph Stalin.

In May of 1920, the founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, gave a speech in an open square in Moscow. There was a picture taken. In the foreground of the picture there was the new “People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs,” one Leon Trotsky. Alas for Trotsky, he would eventually fall into disfavor and was expelled from the Communist Party, then deported to Mexico. There he was later murdered by a Soviet agent who took an ice axe to the ex-Commissar.

But there was more to come for Trotsky. It came in the form of a re-issue of that photograph of Lenin giving his speech in 1920. With Trotsky, once prominent in the photo, literally disappeared from the picture. In fact, Trotsky was only one out-of-favor ex-Soviet leader to face this photographic fate. Which is to say, this was Joseph Stalin’s way of erasing the real history of the Soviet Union and the various leaders he had purged- by simply, literally, removing them from historical photographs as if they had never existed.

This comes to mind as the New York Times is now revealed as planning a Stalin-like re-write of American history on race. The Times project is titled “1619” – the year that slaves were first brought to the New World, specifically the new English settlement of Jamestown, Virginia.

Having read the first couple of installments, it is very safe to say that what the Times is really about is Stalinizing the Democratic Party’s history on race. Erasing that very long and horrendous history completely. So let’s take a look at the Times’ handiwork with its newly revised American history and see how this jewel of left-wing propaganda works.

In the section titled “A Slave Nation Fights for Freedom 1809-1865” the Times begins by saying:

“As demand for cotton grew and the nation expanded, slavery became more systemic, codified and regulated — as did the lives of all enslaved people.”

It continues:

“Slavery affected everyone, from textile workers, bankers and ship builders in the North; to the elite planter class, working-class slave catchers and slave dealers in the South; to the yeoman farmers and poor white people who could not compete against free labor. Additionally, in the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson implemented his plan for Indian removal, ripping another group of people from their ancestral lands in the name of wealth.”

Notice anything? Mysteriously, in a nation run by elected officials from a political party, the party running the US government – and hence slavery – during this time period is not mentioned. President Andrew Jackson is mentioned by the Times – but the Democratic Party he represented and is in fact considered to be the co-founder of along with President Thomas Jefferson is never mentioned. (There is a reason Democrats still gather for “Jefferson-Jackson Day” dinners.) Not to mention that when Jefferson began the Democratic Party, in the words of Northwest historian Garry Wills, “he depended on them (slaveowners) for his political existence.”

Both Democrat Party co-founders were slave owners, again unmentioned. And when the Democrats began writing political platforms in this period covered by the Times beginning in1840, the first six of them vigorously supported slavery. Nary a word about this is to be found in the Times. The section ends by noting the Civil War and that “the 13th Amendment ensured that the country would never again be defined as a slave nation.” But who “ensured” this? Abraham Lincoln is mentioned – but not his Republican Party. The push for the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was Lincoln’s and the Republican Party’s top congressional priority. The entire House GOP caucus – 84 in number – voted to abolish slavery. Of the 72 member Democrats, 50 voted against. In the Senate, again the entire Republican caucus voted yes, with 6 of the upper chamber’s 10 Democrats voting against. Not a word about this appears in the Times.

The Times mentions the infamous Dred Scott decision that tried to write slavery into the Constitution and was handed down by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The Times writes that by “statute and interpretation of the law, black people in America were dehumanized and commodified in order to maintain the economic and political power supported by slavery.” True. Not mentioned? Which “political power” was “supported by slavery”? That would be the Democratic Party. Not mentioned: Taney was Democratic President Jackson’s attorney general, and a Jackson appointee to the Supreme Court.

Writing of South Carolina in the period before the state seceded in December of 1860, the Times writes: “Not surprisingly, enslavers dominated the state’s political class.” Unmentioned? The “political class” that ran the state was the Democratic Party. Every single governor of the period was a Democrat. The Times does not mention. The Times focuses on South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun, Jackson’s vice president and then a longtime Senator from South Carolina. That Calhoun was a staunch supporter of slavery is discussed in detail. Never mentioned? He was a leading Democrat of the day and thoroughly representative of his party’s views on slavery and race.

The Times says that “reactionary white leaders were able to maintain an iron grip on federal offices until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” Not mentioned? All of them were Democrats. Mentioned? “Anti-lynching laws and some pro-labor legislation died at the hands of lawmakers from the “Solid South”…”. Again, all those lawmakers were Democrats and the Times says nothing.

Remembering this section of the Times 1619 series covers race in America between 1809 and 1865? Smack in the middle of this period – 1840 – Democrats began writing party “platforms” for the party and its candidates from president on down the line to run on every four years. The first six platforms supported slavery, electing hundreds of local, state and federal officials on those pro-slavery platforms. This included three presidents – Polk, Pierce and Buchanan. Not a word of this in the Times.

Post-Civil War the Democrats wrote 20 platforms supporting segregation or being carefully silent on the subject, electing more hundreds of local, state, and federal officials plus another 3 presidents – Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Not a word of this is mentioned by the Times. In fact, Wilson made a point of segregating the federal government while his campaign manager-turned- Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels, an ardent segregationist as a progressive leader and publisher of the Raleigh, North Carolina Observer, segregated the Navy. Daniels deputy as assistant secretary of the Navy? That would be Franklin Roosevelt. Not a peep from the Times on this in this episode of the 1619 series. Never mentioned either is that it was the progressive hero Wilson who made a point of showcasing the film Birth of a Nation at the White House – the now-notorious film that made heroes of the Ku Klux Klan.

There is also something else about Wilson curiously not mentioned by the Times. That would be that the New York Times itself began its 1912 presidential endorsement this way: “The first and vital object to be accomplished to-day (sic) is the election of Woodrow Wilson.” Four years later, after Wilson’s segregation policies were in place, the Times endorsed him again in a glowing editorial – with segregation never mentioned once. You read that right – the New York Times twice endorsed one of the most ardent segregationists to ever sit in the White House. And not a peep in the 1619 project.

Then suddenly the Democratic and Republican parties do get a mention by the Times. This one:

“When Northern liberal Democrats added a civil rights plank to the party platform at the 1948 presidential convention, in an effort to break the Southern conservatives’ hold on the party, 35 delegates from Mississippi and Alabama walked out in protest: the prologue to the ‘Dixiecrat Revolt’ that began the conservative migration into the eventual embrace of the Republican Party.”

Now the Times starts laying out just which party is filled with racists. If you guessed the GOP, you would be right.

Who was responsible for the “massive resistance” movement of the 1950’s in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education decision? The Times says it was “segregationists” – without saying they were Democrats. But the paper does go out of its way to say that – wait for it – none other than William F. Buckley used his National Review to make a “strikingly blunt defense of Jim Crow.” It does note that Buckley apologized as time went on, but quickly moves to point out that the GOP nominated Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964 and that Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights bill. That was true. Not mentioned, Goldwater was a libertarian – the reasoning for his vote, with which I disagreed, was not racist but libertarian. In fact, Goldwater had a considerable reputation in Arizona as an integrationist, leading desegregation of the Arizona National Guard, the-then lone restaurant at the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport and, once arrived in the Senate, he pushed for and got the Senate’s cafeteria desegregated. Why? Because his black legislative aide had been denied service. Aside from which Goldwater had been a member of both the NAACP and the Urban League, receiving a “Humanitarian Award” from the latter for “fifty years of loyal service” to the Phoenix Urban League in 1991. The Times is silent on all of this.

Not mentioned either was that the 1964 GOP platform on which Goldwater ran explicitly supported:

“Full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;

Improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times.”

Not mentioned: 82% of GOP Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 69% of Senate Democrats. In the House, 78% of Republicans supported the bill, as opposed to 60% of Democrats. Among leading Senate Democrats opposed to the bill were Senator Robert Byrd, a one-time leader of the KKK later elected the Senate Democratic Leader. Hillary Clinton described Byrd as her mentor. Arkansas Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright was a leading Jim Crow Democrat. Bill Clinton interned for Fulbright and gave the eulogy at his funeral. Also a Democratic no vote: Senator Al Gore Sr.

Never mentioned either? Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870 and 1875, as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution that gave blacks due process and the right to vote.

One could go on – and on. But the hard fact here is that the Times 1619 project is shamelessly Stalinizing American history, specifically the Democratic Party’s vivid history of racism. As with Stalin wiping his purged rivals from photographs, the Times is engaged in a massive effort to erase the history of the Democratic Party on race as it pushes the utterly false narrative that racism was the driving force in the creation of the United States of America. Not to mention re-writing history to assign the racist label to the GOP

Which is to say, the 1619 project isn’t history at all – it is left-wing propaganda from a newspaper now run by left-wing activists posing as journalists. And while Donald Trump is without doubt a target, the real goal here is to brainwash new generations of Americans – all the while pushing the 21st century version of the racism that created, fueled – and still fuels – the Democratic Party in the first place – the grandson of slavery and son of segregation known as identity politics.