The NY Times ‘More Confrontational Approach’

The year of ‘protests’ has many themes and at least as many defenders.

The New York Times wrote about the Black Lives Matter protests in September 2020 that “Some Protests Against Police Brutality Take a More Confrontational Approach.” The Times did not say that they were violent, just that the protest were more assertive, “moving into white neighborhoods where activists demand that people choose a side.” It seems that the paper believes that a protest is simply ‘more confrontational’ when it directly challenges any-and-all to pick a side.

The Times used the same language in a piece on November 18, 2020 about Palestinians dealing with Israel. In describing Hamas, the article wrote that Hamas is a “militant group that rules the Gaza Strip, and which favors a more confrontational approach toward Israel in the West Bank.

Calling Hamas a “militant group” instead of a designated terrorist group is an established priority for this left-wing paper. Using the new choice phrase of a “more confrontational approach” seems to reorient the reader that Hamas is an activist group moving beyond its base in Gaza into the West Bank. It’s a red herring to mislead readers about Hamas’ desire to destroy Israel.

The Times also used its platform to obfuscate U.S. laws such as the Taylor Force Act which was passed to pressure the Palestinian Authority to stop paying people to kill Israelis. The paper wrote about Democrats trying to get Palestinians to make changes including “reforming the way that Palestinians who serve time in Israeli prisons, including for violent acts, are financially compensated, an arrangement that critics call ‘pay-to-slay.’” That’s quite a bit of verbosity to get around stating that U.S. law prohibits rewarding violence, a gross human rights violation. Instead, the Times portrayed the objection as stemming from “critics,” likely those who oppose ‘protests.’

The New York Times itself is actively participating in a “more confrontational approach” to causes it opposes, a list which grows by the day, as enumerated by its alt-left readership.


Related First One Through articles:

The New York Times Refuses to Label Hamas a Terrorist Group

New York Times Recharacterizes Hamas as a Right-Wing Terrorist Group

The Proud Fathers of Palestinian Terrorists

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Socialists Employ Arabs’ Four Step Battle Plan

There is a major battle underway between Socialists and Capitalists in America which is using a template that the Arab countries used to attack Israel in 1967. It is a four step battle plan, many of which have recently been effectuated by the far left.

  1. Deny the Enemy Rights and Legitimacy
  2. Gather the Masses to the Cause
  3. Remove the Enemy’s Defenses
  4. Assemble the Armies for the Battle

This is not a course for a considered debate about priorities and policies but a war of annihilation.

1. Deny the Enemy Rights and Legitimacy

An intellectual debate about approaches to a range of issues is a sign of a healthy democracy. It typically involves the push-and-pull and inevitable compromises that incorporate the spectrum of ideas.

However, a society with parties which only court the base and vilify opponents is deeply broken. It is actually not a single community but two warring parties.

Common arguments used as red meat for loyalists include that:

  • The enemy has no moral standing
  • The enemy has no rights to its ill-gotten gains
  • The narrative and history of the enemy is full of lies and denies the rights of the righteous
  • The enemy’s supporters are part-and-parcel of the problem

2. Gather the Masses to the Cause

A path to victory should not just lock in the core base but expand the circle to include additional warriors. Overwhelming the enemy with sheer numbers may look democratic in securing a majority, but in tandem with the demonization established earlier in (1), the intense firepower is ripe to engage in widespread destruction.

  • Declare a commitment to fight together
  • Shared vision of wiping out the foe and its supporters

3. Remove the Enemy’s Defenses

There is no clearer demonstration that the battle is near than when there is a direct call to remove the enemy’s defenses. It also makes abundantly clear that the intent of the battle is not simply to secure a victory but to annihilate the foe.

4. Assemble the Armies for the Battle

Lastly, when the groundwork has been laid, it is time to bring the fight to enemy’s doorstep. Readying all of the combined forces against the corrupt (and now defenseless) power, the victory and decimation of the opponent is a virtual certainty. All that is needed is the battle cry to engage.

Consider how the Arabs used this approach and how the American Socialists are following the format today.

Arab-Israeli Conflict in 1967

The Arab-Israeli Conflict emerged shortly after the San Remo Agreement in 1920 which codified the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The local and regional Arabs tried to destroy the emerging Jewish State but failed to do so from the 1920’s through 1950’s.
Deny enemy rights and legitimacy: Arabs claim Israel has no rights to the land. They call the Jews “colonialists” and “invaders.” Arabs recast history that Jews have no connection to Israel despite 3,300 years of history. They attempt to convince themselves and the world that Jews have no connection to the Hebrews of the bible and that the Palestinian Arabs are Canaanites as opposed to Arabs from Arabia who invaded the Jewish holy land.

Not only are the Jews invaders, but vile ones as well. In 1975, the Arab countries managed to get the United Nations to pass a resolution that Zionism is a form of racism, which only got overturned by the push of the United States in 1991. Even today, the acting-President of the Palestinian Authority says that Jews around the world are hated because of their “function.” The Hamas Charter claims that Jews like “shooting at women, children and old people… [particularly] “where their breadwinning is concerned.”
Gather the Masses to the Cause: Egypt and Syria combined themselves into a United Arab Republic in 1958 to fortify a pan-Arab bloc. They enlisted Jordan into a mutual defense pact in May 1967, as they readied for battle against Israel, encircling it on all sides.

Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser said in May 1967 shortly before the Six Day War, “we are not only confronting Israel but also those who created Israel and who are behind Israel. We are confronting Israel and the West as well…. If the United States and Britain are partial to Israel, we must say that our enemy is not only Israel but also the United States and Britain.” On the one year anniversary of the Arab defeat in June 1967, a Palestinian Arab assassinated US Senator Bobby Kennedy. The Arab world then created an oil shortage, crippling the western world’s economy because of their support of Israel.
Remove the Enemy’s Defenses: In May 1967, Egypt ordered the United Nations to remove all of its troops from the Sinai and Gaza Strip which had been stationed there to prevent hostilities between Israel and Egypt. The UN complied, leaving Israel to defend itself by itself from the surrounding forces of several nations.
Assemble the Armies for Battle: Shortly after the UN pulled its troops from the region, the UAR mobilized its troops closer to the Israeli frontier. As Nasser said on May 29, 1967, “Preparations have already been made. We are now ready to confront Israel.

Pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews. Show them no mercy.” – Hafez al-Assad, Defense Minister of Syria, June 9, 1967

This is the battle plan being used by the alt-left today.

Socialist-Capitalist Conflict Today

The alt-left has been laying the ground work for taking private property from the wealthy to redistribute to those considered less fortunate.
Deny enemy rights and legitimacy: The alt-left has been declaring a civil war against various member of society:

  • Senator Bernie Sanders who has come close to being the Democratic nominee for president twice has vilified Wall Street as being inherently corrupt sayingthe business model of Wall Street is fraud.
  • Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that “a system that allows billionaires to exist” is immoral.
  • New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said that money in the United States is “in the wrong hands,” setting himself as arbiter of who should have what.
  • President Barak Obama set these sentiments in motion when he saidIf you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

The basic premise of the far left arguments is that the wealthy should NOT have their money and property. The rich either made the money via fraud (Sanders), took advantage of an immoral system (AOC) or that society has a part in facilitating that wealth, so it is entitled to take a good portion of it (Obama).

The enemy is the 1% according to Obama and it is the White patriarchy in general according to tenet of the movement. History is being recast with the sculptures of America’s founding fathers being pulled from their pedestals including Thomas Jefferson being marked as a slave-owning racist. The BlackLivesMatter is further demanding reparations for slavery of generations ago. Anyone who disagrees with the BLM platform is demonized as a racist, or as Hillary Clinton prefers, “deplorables.

Gather the Masses to the Cause: Intersectionality is not a new concept but was given credibility only recently. Progressives are using the notion that all disenfranchised people must come together in common cause with each other, as Blacks, LGBT, poor working class, immigrants and others are all suffering because of the racist and corrupt system established by the White patriarchy.

The far left is not only coming for the Patriarchy; they are coming against anyone who does not adhere to the extreme orthodoxy of their cause. Moderate Democrats are being run out of primaries by alt-left radicals. People who make a misstep or allow room for compromise with centrists or right-leaning people are run out of their jobs, whether at universities or the media.

Remove the Enemy’s Defenses: One of the demands of the BLM protests is to “defund the police.” Leaders of the movement in Seattle have demanded that the police departments be completely disbanded. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) went further and said “We are not merely fighting to tear down the systems of oppression in the criminal justice system. We are fighting to tear down systems of oppression that exist in housing, in education, in health care, in employment, [and] in the air we breathe.

The call to pull money from police departments had an immediate effect on the public. Shootings skyrocketed all over the country, with cities like Chicago and New York City each having over 60 people shot over weekends.

Assemble the Armies for Battle: Members of the far left have set up “autonomous zones” in which they declare that US laws have no authority. In Seattle, they called the area the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone or CHAZ. In St. Louis, a couple was scared of protesters coming into their private enclave and pulled guns calling for them to leave. The media has portrayed the couple as fanatics attacking a “racial injustice protest” even after a policeman was killed by protesters the week before.

The battle plan is set: declare that your coming for the rich to take their ill-gotten wealth; pull the police from the streets; assemble hundreds of people to take over sections of cities and march through neighborhoods; and vilify anyone who objects or stands to defend themselves and their property.

Police car set on fire in Chicago (photo: Ashlee Rezin Garcia, Chicago Sun Times via AP)

The Arab countries effectively followed the four step battle plan to annihilate Israel but the Jewish State preemptively attacked in 1967 and thereby avoided being destroyed. The alt-left is following the same blueprint today to tear down America’s economy and perceived hierarchy. It remains to be seen if capitalists will proactively defend themselves before being ridden into oblivion.


Related First One Through articles:

The Democratic Socialists Tell Lies and Half Truths About Lobbyists

From “You Didn’t Build That” to “You Don’t Own That”

Bernie Sanders is Less Sophisticated Than Forrest Gump

Fake Definitions: Pluralism and Progressive / Liberalism

A Country Divided

The Democratic Party is Tacking to the Far Left-Wing Anti-Semitic Fringe

American Hate: The Right Targets Foreigners, The Left Targets Americans

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

BLM Does Not Celebrate Father’s Day

Father’s Day in the USA felt a bit different this year. Beyond the pandemic keeping family members at a distance, was the increased traction of the Black Lives Matter movement due to the recent killings of Black people by police.

One of the statements of the BLM agenda directly addresses the construct of family:

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

It’s quite a proposition: BLM believes that “Western” society “prescribe[s]” a “requirement” that a family contain two parents taking care of children. They advocate a wide community approach to child-rearing, to the extent that “mothers and parents” would welcome the community’s involvement.

First, the United States doesn’t impose any such requirement. The country has no ban on single mothers, sperm donors, gay parents adopting children, etc. There may be many Americans with a Judeo-Christian notion of a “nuclear family,” but it is not the government. One is left with either concluding that BLM is completely uninformed about US law or it is deliberately attacking Judeo-Christian values.

Second, it is curious that the platform highlights “mothers” but not fathers. Does BLM believe that fathers have no right or say in the upbringing of children? The platform is seemingly deliberately omitting fathers, which leads to a reading of the entirety of the clause above as a motion to get society to fill the gap left by Black men who are not part of a “nuclear family” unit.

Consider a review of the statistics:

Exhibit 1: Single Parent Households

Roughly 2/3rd of Black families are headed by a single parent. This rate is multiples of the levels found in Asian and White families (15% and 24%, respectively) and also above the 41% rate found in Hispanic families. One can therefore understand the desire of BLM to bring up this issue – Black families do not look like other families in America.

Exhibit 2: Fathers with Kids Outside of Marriage

While the information on Exhibit 1 does not specify whether the single parent household is headed by a man or woman, Exhibit 2 gives a bit more color: 76% of Black men have children outside of marriage, whether never being married or have a child with a women other than the current wife. That rate is more than twice the rate of White men.

It would appear that the notion of marriage/ monogamy is not part of many Black men’s orientation, and having children outside of the home is not culturally taboo. This is again seemingly the basis for the BLM platform about “disrupting” Western’s view of a nuclear family.

Exhibit 3: Age of Parents, by Race

Exhibit 3 gives a bit more color about the timing of having children. It would appear that many Black people have children at much younger ages than other races, except for Hispanics. It is therefore not surprising that many Black people have children outside of marriage if they’re having them so young.

Exhibit 4: Parent with High School Diploma

When considering that so many Black women have children when they’re in their teens, it’s surprising and impressive that so many still graduate high school. The 11% rate of heads of households without high school diplomas is barely higher than the 9% rate found among Asian heads of households who almost never have children in their teenage years.

Exhibit 5: Fertility Rates

By starting to have children at a younger age and not being restricted to marriage to have children, it is not surprising that Black people have a higher fertility rate than many other races. Asians have a fertility rate of only 1.5 and Whites at 1.7, while Blacks are closer to 1.9 children per woman. Only Hispanics have more children, but their rate of decline is dramatic (-26% over 8 years), indicating that they may soon have a lower fertility rate than Black women.

According to a recent study, the decline in fertility rates is a cultural, not economic one. The analysis concludes that “fertility declines are most strongly associated with factors that are race- or region-specific, not broadly class-specific, as different economic classes appear to have quite similar trends.

Exhibit 6: Job Security

Despite the good level of high school diplomas (Exhibit 4), Black heads of households still lead in poor job security. This is likely tied to being the sole income provider, living in relatively expensive areas with more kids on average. A second income would help cover items like rent, food and clothing. A second person would provide flexibility for someone taking a child to a doctor or visiting school. Overall, it affords the single parent flexibility to pursue other career choices without the need to be counted upon for basic life expenses and events.

Exhibit 7: Health Insurance

Despite the poor job security of the head of household, Black Children have the same rate of health insurance as Asian and White children.

Exhibit 8: Children in Poverty

All of these exhibits can be seen coming together in Exhibit 8. There are more Black children living in poverty because their mothers have poor job security as most of them are doing the work of raising children alone. Further, they begin having children at a very young age making it more difficult to save money to invest and buy a home.

This is undoubtedly not news to the drafters of the BLM manifesto but rather than ask for changes in behavior within the Black community, they attack the mother-father family concept advocated in Judeo-Christian society. Further, they call on everyone to step into the gap left by absent fathers to help raise their children.

There is no Father’s Day for BLM, just “Village” Day when everyone is celebrated.


Related First One Through articles:

BLM: Truth, Relevance and Association

CNN Changes Its Black Transgender Story to Target Police

Black Lives Matter Joins the anti-Israel “Progressives” Fighting Zionism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough