New York Times warns of right-wing extremists!
While browsing the internet for a dose of Sunday morning propaganda, a headline from the always predictable New York Times (NYT) caught my attention. Titled "From the Past, a Chilling Warning about the Extremists of the Present," by Neil MacFarquhar, it featured a photograph from a large rally, its participants carrying Trump signs, "Don't Tread on Me" placards and pro–Second Amendment posters.
I didn't have to read a single word to know where the article was going, as a picture can indeed be worth a thousand words. But I decided to bridle my skepticism and read on. Who knows? Maybe the piece would make at least a token attempt to be objective and address the crushing damage done to our country over the past year by Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and assorted other Marxist terrorists.
No such luck. There's a fleeting reference near the end about "protests over social justice issues as possible [emphasis added] seeds for radicalization." But it's nothing more than left-wing avoidance, reminiscent of the CNN reporter calling a riot/protest "mostly peaceful" as a building burned in the background.
The article is basically a history lesson on an extremist organization called the Order, an actual white supremacist group that made headlines in the early 1980s. I remember reading about the Order, but memories can fade after almost forty years. According to the NYT piece, they robbed armored cars in Seattle and on a California highway, bombed a synagogue in Boise, and assassinated a Jewish radio talk show host in Denver. Their apparent goal was to "establish a whites-only homeland out West," the article said. The Order drifted into semi-obscurity in December 1984 when its leader, Robert Jay Mathews, died in a shootout with FBI agents.
But, in a philosophical sense, the Order may be back! And it could inspire Trump supporters to destroy our beloved Republic!
MacFarquhar spoke with several key players, including Wayne F. Manis, the lead FBI agent. "When you see the country as politically and philosophically divided as it is today, that makes it more likely that somebody could take advantage of these times to bring about another revolutionary concept like the Order," Manis stated. "We stopped the Order. We did not stop the ideology." Manis continued: "I feel that if there is an organization today from the extreme right that is following in the footsteps of the Order, you will not know anything about it until it is too late and they have already done something dastardly." Nothing was mentioned about "dastardly" behavior from the extreme left, despite the fact that burning and looting are still happening across the country.
Another of MacFarquhar's sources is Gene Wilson, lead prosecutor at the trial. "Many of the participants of these groups today come from the same sources as the Order," Wilson opined. "I think they might be just as committed to totally changing democracy as we know it." The "same sources" are not identified, and, once again, nothing is mentioned about the far left "totally changing democracy." Sense a pattern here?
To be fair, the reader has no way of knowing if MacFarquhar's sources are ideologically committed to leftist politics or if the author is cherry-picking to promote the NYT narrative. As previously noted, no mention is made about Marxist violence that's truly destroying our Republic, or the obvious and documented connections between today's radical left and its violent mentors from the '60s and '70s (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Angela Davis, just to name a few). Maybe MacFarquhar is going to be objective by writing a contrarian piece, but I kind of doubt it. Even if he's not a left-wing ideologue, he probably values his employment at the NYT.
Even though a connection is repeatedly implied, the article makes no effort to link the "ideology" of the Order with current groups that are mentioned, like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Frankly, a connection cannot be made, because there's not a thread of evidence that the latter groups have promoted violence, advocated racism, murdered anyone, or burned and looted businesses. But in today's journalism, something stated or implied doesn't have to be true. The abject lies about the death of Officer Brian Sicknick prove that.
Chalk up another one for yellow journalism.
Image: New York Times.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.