More Pompous, Paternalistic, Condescending, Supercilious, Sniveling Drivel About Africa

An article published on the front page of today's newspaper of record, entitled "A Scarred South Sudan Sees Its Dream of Freedom at Hand", by Times communist and propaganda meister Jeffrey Gettleman, handily summarizes the Times' position of paternalistic moral superiority when it comes to Africa. 

The fanatical leftists at the Times have been obsessing over Sudan, Africa's largest country and home to  Darfur, a favorite and most fashionable cause among disingenuous white liberals, since it came to light that even George Clooney is taking an interest in the election today on north-south separation, and the inevitable chaos that will result. 

A single sentence, which we spotted in the sixth paragraph of the article, gives away the New York Time's paternalistic, naive, do-gooder, worldview: 

"A proud, new African country is about to be born, but it will step onto the world stage with shaky legs. As it stand now, southern Sudan is one of the poorest places on earth." 

That is a powerful picture, and one that the Times should be ashamed of painting. But sometimes they are so busy buffing the halo atop their morally superior heads that they lose focus of how embarrassingly  paternalistic they sound.

Africa had 500 million people in 1980. A mere thirty years later, it has one billion. One billion. The population doubled in just one generation, but the New York Times refuses to inform readers of the link between foreign aid and artificial population growth, nor do they tell the truth of cataclysmic environmental damage that results from too many people. The psychopaths at the Times are so obsessed with appearing politically fashionable and morally superior that they never address the absurdly important, screamingly urgent issue of overpopulation growth in the third world, unless doing so somehow assists them with the breathtakingly hypocritical task of furthering a leftist pet cause such as global warming.

This is the height of journalistic cowardice and irresponsibility.

It is akin to letting your neighbour's house burn down, because to call her and warn her would be to reveal to your wife that you had been cheating because you had her phone number. And so your neighbour burns to death, but your secret is safe.

A responsible newspaper with a pair of balls would speak more truthfully about what is really happening in Africa and why. To do so might require upsetting a few people, but knowing the truth would benefit all mankind, and help in planning a better future for that godforsaken continent.

But like a high school student eager to please at the prom, the NYT loathsomely takes the low road, doing what's popular, fashionable, and safe.

It's so wrong that it has to stop.

The NYT Needs Them To
Buff the Halo Atop Their Heads