The New York Times, a once-trusted American news source, has long since fallen from that lauded position. Despite the caterwauling from the likes of Washington Post “journalist” Taylor Lorenz — who complains NYT isn’t radical enough — the Times is clearly a propagandistic arm of the Democrat Party in general and the leftist radicals in particular.

This has been made increasingly clear with its coverage of the October 7 massacre in Israel and the subsequent coverage of the Israel/Hamas war. That coverage attempts to paint Israel and Hamas as morally equivalent.

The NYT’s latest effort on this front was to publish an op-ed by Gaza City’s mayor, Yahya R. Sarraj, who puts forward the propagandistic lie that Israel has oppressed the Palestinians for decades and that their way of life has been in ruins as a result. The truth is that the Gazans themselves are to blame. Israel divested itself from Gaza in 2005. The reason that the people of Gaza are poor and oppressed is because they have allowed their hatred for Israel and the Jews to prompt them to elevate the Iranian-backed terror group Hamas as their political leaders. Hamas leaders systematically steal from their own people to enrich themselves and wage wars.

No one, not even co-religionist neighboring countries (Egypt or Jordan), wants to take Gaza on and clean it up. Jordan tried to help and Hamas responded by trying to overthrow its government in 1999. To either take in Palestinian refugees or offer to lead the country is not worth it because of the pro-Hamas sentiments and the real possibility of destabilization that Hamas or any jihadi terror group brings to the Middle East. (See Yemen).

The rank hypocrisy of the Times is astonishing. For a news source that is supposedly dedicated to the eradication of misinformation, this publishing of a Hamas propagandist is yet another example of its partisan hackery. Remember when the Times had an internal conniption when the previous editor published an op-ed by sitting U.S. Senator Tom Cotton and subsequently was ousted?

Four days after the Gaza City mayor’s op-ed, the Times published a piece on the savagery of the sexual violence and rapes against Israeli women on October 7. The article goes into graphic detail and isn’t for the faint of heart. The brutality these terrorists inflicted on innocent civilians violates basic human rights and the Geneva Conventions and, even more importantly, exposes the stark reality that the moral equivalence argument is a false premise. There will still be some who will hold on to the denial of these atrocities to justify their pro-Hamas position, but the truth continues to leak out. Even the Times will cover it.

This is the danger with the concept of moral equivalence as a narrative: If both sides have the moral high ground, then what justification is there for interference? Moral equivalence is trying to take the middle-of-the-road position, and that leaves one liable to get hit. In this case, moral equivalence is another way of promoting Racial Marxism whereby morality is irrelevant if the skin color is correct.

That way of thinking has infected our young people to such an extent that the new generations are easy targets. They have been so warped by moral degeneracy that a poll for the Daily Mail shows that 20% of Americans age 18-29 think of Osama bin Laden in a positive light. Of this same demographic, 10% think Hamas is right and the blame lies with Israel (though other polls claim a number far higher than 10%).

Why? Because Palestinians are more oppressed on the hierarchy scale than the Jews, at least according to the gospel of Racial Marxism. To justify this, one must tell himself two lies. One is that Palestinians are darker skinned than Jews and therefore are more oppressed. (It’s worth pointing out here that Jews and Palestinians come in a variety of skin tones. There are black Jews and there are pale Palestinians.) And two, that they must deny the Holocaust and all the other attempts throughout history to eradicate the Jewish people.

That being said, the Racial Marxism dynamic of oppressor versus oppressed is a false one. Regardless of skin color or history of oppression, all people are born evil; it is only by the grace of God that we are saved from ourselves. Because we cannot save ourselves from our own depravity, morality should be based on the system set about by the Messiah who saved us.

This whole jumbled moral mess of hypocrisy, moral equivalency, and Racial Marxism is a logically inconsistent and downright evil way to view the world. The greatest hope we have for our fellow Americans is that the cognitive dissonance becomes obvious enough that those who support these premises come to their senses.