National Geographic has become too woke to be taken seriously
“The Science,” which leftists always speak of as an oracle independent from petty human concerns, has spoken: Outside of well-fitted N95 masks, the cloth or loose-fitting paper masks that people have been wearing for almost two years do nothing to stop COVID’s spread. When it comes to kids, we also have some generally accepted science about COVID and masks—and none of it supports either COVID-panic or mask-wearing. Yet National Geographic, once a respectable magazine, insists that masks not only don’t harm children, but they’re actually beneficial.
My home in the 1960s and early 1970s was probably like most lower- and middle-class homes in America: We had a National Geographic subscription. The magazine, which was founded in 1888, brought the world into people’s homes. Suddenly, sitting in your living room or kitchen, you could see indigenous people in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Australia, as well as get a look at the folk cultures of Europe. It was a cruise around the world for the price of a magazine subscription. This picture, for example, shows that in 1921, ordinary people could see the Taj Mahal in color, which was very cool for that time:
Image: National Geographic image of the Taj Mahal in 1921. Public domain.
That National Geographic no longer exists. In December 2016, right after Trump was elected president, National Geographic showed its woke credentials by doing a “gender” issue that featured, on the cover, a sad-looking little boy dressed up in girl’s clothes with his long hair dyed pink. This, we were told, was a “transgender girl.”
But back to the magazine. The issue is behind a paywall so I won’t bother linking, but a HuffPost article excitedly reporting on National Geographic’s gender issue gives you a feel for what’s in it:
A stunning photo of 9-year-old Avery Jackson will appear on the subscriber’s edition of the magazine, which can be found below. “The best thing about being a girl is, now I don’t have to pretend to be a boy,” Jackson says in a caption accompanying the cover image, shot by Robin Hammond.
The “Gender Revolution” issue, which hits newsstands nationwide on Dec. 27, examines the “cultural, social, biological and personal” aspects of gender identity, according to a press release. Features include “Dangerous Lives of Girls,” which follows the lives of young women in Sierra Leone, and “Rethinking Gender,” which examines how science can help “navigate the shifting landscape of gender identity.”
In other words, a “science” magazine went all-in for a theory that is utterly unsupported by science. (Although the psychology of missing fathers in an era in which single motherhood is promoted and men are demeaned may have something to do with the phenomenon.)
Image: The lonely world of masked school children by Freepik.
Given the direction in which National Geographic has been trending, it was to be expected that it would come out in favor of masks for children. That’s true despite what we now know pretty conclusively: (a) cloth masks don’t work; (b) paper masks don’t work; (c) only children with pre-existing conditions get seriously ill from COVID; (d) children do not spread COVID; (e) children are having speech delays because of masks; (f) children are having problems learning emotional and social cues; and (g) masks put children in contact with other serious diseases.
But those are all facts, and who needs facts if you’re in the business of The Science? Certainly not National Geographic, which is how you end up with this:
Experts say most evidence suggests that masking doesn’t harm children—and that it benefits them in more ways than one https://t.co/zkNr0Sqe0b— National Geographic (@NatGeo) February 18, 2022
When you read through the long article, you find some bizarre things, none of which support wearing masks. Thus, the article says, “There’s no question that masking reduces the spread of disease,” but that’s remarkably broad. The spread of what disease? It certainly doesn’t stop COVID from spreading.
The article says that, when it comes to breathing, “most kids can tolerate” masks. Most parents want their kids to breathe freely, not “tolerate” the stale air constantly wafting around their faces.
The article concedes the obvious, which is that masks muffle sound and claims that there are no speech delays, citing one study. And yes, children “have a harder time reading the emotions of people who are wearing masks,” but...heck!...that’s not really a problem.
In other words, at best, masks don’t suffocate children.
So, what’s the benefit to an accessing that makes breathing merely tolerable, muffles sound, delays speech, and interferes with children’s social and emotional development? Hold on to your hats because it’s a biggie: Their schools and daycares were 13% more likely to remain open during the COVID madness. Yes! That’s it. If we stick useless diapers on children’s faces, they can go to school and sit in circles of isolation surrounded by faceless drones.
National Geographic ought to be ashamed of itself but it won’t be. It’s run by open leftists, and they proudly flaunt their bizarre combination of ignorance and faith in The Science. There’s no room in their little world for facts, common sense, or decency.