The New York Times: America Sucks

ny-times-buildingThis past Saturday, the New York Times published an article, “Behind Flurry of Killing, Potency of Hate,” on the roots of monstrous evil. The article largely concerned a former paramilitary member of the Irish Republican Army, and as such was informative.

But when it ventured into a larger discussion of evil, the moral confusion and contempt for America that characterize leftism were on display.

The article contains a breathtaking paragraph that exemplifies both qualities. After noting that atrocities against groups of people are often the result of the dehumanization of the victimized group, the writer gives four such examples:

“The Hutus in Rwanda called the Tutsis cockroaches, the Nazis depicted the Jews as rats. Japanese invaders referred to their Chinese victims during the Nanjing massacre as ‘chancorro,’ or ‘subhuman.’ American soldiers fought barbarian ‘Huns’ in World War I and godless ‘gooks’ in Vietnam.”

This paragraph is noteworthy for its use of false moral equivalence to justify its anti-Americanism.

Let’s begin with the moral equivalence — equating how the Hutus viewed and treated the Tutsis, how the Nazis viewed and treated the Jews, and how the Japanese viewed and treated the Chinese with the Americans’ views and treatment of the Germans in World War I and Vietnamese during the Vietnam War.

In 1994, over the course of about 100 days, Hutus slaughtered between half a million and a million Tutsis. This was not a war between armies, but against a civilian population marked for extinction.

The Nazis murdered about six million Jews, all of whom were civilians. Indeed more than a million were children. The Nazis had targeted the Jews for extinction.

The Japanese likewise slaughtered Chinese civilians en masse and regarded the Chinese as so subhuman as to be worthy of being systematically experimented upon in ghoulish medical experiments that paralleled those of the Nazis.

What do any of those examples have to do with Americans fighting in World War I or in Vietnam?


Absolutely nothing about these other three examples applied to America in World War I or in Vietnam.

Nicknames — even derogatory ones — for enemies have probably been used in every war by every nation’s soldiers. That is not at all the same as a serious view of another racial or national group as unworthy of life, as subhuman.

Unlike any of the other examples, Americans did not have a term that — by definition — meant that Germans or Vietnamese were not members of the human race, as are “cockroaches,” “rats” and “subhumans.”

Unlike any of the other examples, the killing by Americans in World War I and Vietnam was confined to war. No war, no killing. The Nazi and Hutu examples had nothing to do with waging war. The Tutsis and Jews were targeted for annihilation, period. And the Japanese committing of hundreds of thousands rapes, tortures, and medical experiments on Chinese civilians — such as cutting them open without anesthetic or freezing people’s limbs and then cutting them off, also without an anesthetic — had nothing to do with war aims.

Moreover, what does “godless” have to do with subhuman categories? Again, nothing. Why, then, was it included in this article — “godless ‘gooks'”? Because the Times writer wanted to render the term “godless” as offensive as the term “subhuman.” Being largely godless itself, and aiming for a godless West, the left detested the right’s calling Communism “godless” — even though Communists were vocal and proud of their godlessness.

Lumping America’s actions in those two wars with the other three examples is typical of the left’s defamation of America and of its facile use of false moral equivalence.

But that is how a generation of Americans who have attended college — including most likely the Times author herself — have been taught to think. And that is what is taught to your child today at the left’s seminaries, our universities:

Nazis, Hutu murderers, Japanese rapists, Americans at war: All pretty much the same.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Jason P

    Excellent point, Prager. Of course the Times has to do this by the decree of multiculturalism. We can’t be better; we have to be lumped with the worse. To do that our faults have to be exaggerated and distorted until “the warped timber of human nature” is shown to be just as virulent here as it is elsewhere around the world. This is the left’s version of “original sin.” We are all equally sinners and no one is better than his brother.

  • N. Wasse

    Very good point. Thank you Mr Prager.

    It is too bad because the NYT used to be the newspaper of record. The internet is making the NYT irrelevant. I no longer care about what the folks at the NYT are saying!

    • DontMessWithAmerica

      You hit the nail on the head. The Internet will do it in but if there were intelligence and justice in this world it would have been their hypocrisy that would do it.

  • paul jeser

    Ahhh – the NY Slimes… Anyone surprised?

  • ScienceWorksBest

    Dennis Prager makes some excellent points. The kind of thinking on display by the NY Times in this instance needs to be recognized and called-out. It deserves the push-back it got and more.

  • Tony Christensen

    Leftists are thinking only about self-deification, and anybody who gets in the way will be villified.

  • Richard Fontaine

    A very valid point. Universities have become indoctrination centers for anyone stupid enough to take a liberal arts course.

  • Clare Spark

    The identification of Nazis, Americans, and now Hollywood moguls is proceeding fast apace, with the help of Harvard University Press that published Ben Urwand’s disgusting book, favorably reviewed by far Leftists. See “Urwand’s COLLABORATION: HOLLYWOOD’S PACT WITH HITLER.

  • Chris Shugart

    Moral equivalence is a way of bypassing logic to bolster a weak argument. I don’t remember who said this but it goes something like, “A woman getting shoved out of the way of an oncoming bus, and a woman getting shoved to steal her purse are morally equivalent because in both cases the woman got shoved.”

  • herb benty

    The wide-eyed, radical, commie “professors” in our learning institutions have done their dirty work well.

  • DaveGinOly

    The American military involvements in WW I and Vietnam were also responses to armed aggression. Even the Japanese war in Asia and the acts they perpetrated during the war cannot be compared to American acts in WW I and Vietnam, because the Japanese were the aggressors.

  • Johnnnyboy

    The race animus against Germans in WWI, usually under the
    term ‘Hun’, was systematically promoted by Woodrow Wilson. And lets see, wasn’t
    it FDR who ran WWII. What do you know, both big government liberals.

  • 1proactive2

    I wish Dennis would run for political office in D.C. He’s a national treasure with wisdom for the ages.

  • Donald J DaCosta

    The Left can’t reconcile their hatred for America without these comparisons. It takes no effort on their part to equate Americans calling the Germans “Huns” and the Vietnamese “Gooks” with the unadulterated, sub human butchery committed by the others mentioned. Any inference that there’s a difference will be met with ridicule and scorn and what will change? Nothing, until logic, reason and common sense returns to the fore……in perhaps a generation or two.

  • Gee

    Somethings never change – The New York Times was also a big supporter of Hitler

  • Jeff Ludwig

    Another very insightful article by an “am hacham” (wise man) Dennis Prager.
    Thanks for this article that reveals again how far the false thinking of moral equivalence (sic) takes us to some false conceptions.

  • poetwarrior

    The damned fools of academia and politics still consider the NYT their bible. is there even one honest page in it?


    I would guess they did not noticed, this is exactly left and
    their media operatives doing to conservatives and Christians.