NYT & Meghan – seething anti-UK sentiment

The New York Times is back at its Brit-bashing, having made crassly tasteless and misleading comments recently about the Queen when she died blaming her for the sins of empire. A NYT podcast on the Birmingham Schools spat now suggests concerns about a Muslim extremist takeover of children’s education in the UK were just a cover up for Islamaphobia. Inspections in several schools found explicit homophobia and racism (anti-Jewish, anti-American), pressure to increase segregation and a move to impose radical Islamic views.   Michael Gove, then Education Secretary, and Nick Timothy, then an advisor to Theresa May, said the podcast was full of errors and omissions and was part of a “concerted attempt to muddy the waters.”

   None of which amounts to a hill of beans but is part of a general drift in the wind, pumped up by the Meghan harangue on racism. I am attempting not to get defensive about people in glass houses, ie. Americans lecturing others about racial intolerance, but there is an oddity about it.

  Rakib Ehsan, UK founder of Don’t Divide Us wrote recently: “For all of its flaws, Britain remains one of the most successful examples of a post-WWII multi-racial democracy. It — comfortably outperforms white-majority, multi-ethnic European countries such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands when it comes to the provision of anti-discrimination protections on the grounds of race, ethnicity, and religion.”

Today he wrote: “In Britain, a remarkably broad section of society has now succumbed to the empty language of Critical Race Theory (CRT), and this, in a twisted irony, threatens to roll back the meaningful progress of race relations in the post-war era. The rhetoric of CRT had in the mid-2010s begun to circulate American universities, fuelled by that country’s particularly contentious race politics.” He argues the importation of Black Lives Matter movement and the ongoing Harry and Meghan saga recently is having an adverse effect. “We are on the verge of replicating the vicious American model.” 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/11/sussexes-wrong-side-race-debate/

   None of which excuses the UK from heavy criticism over Windrush, present day ongoing instances of intolerance and colonial atrocities, but it is a thought worth pondering especially since there is no redemption in CRT for past sins.

  “If this is the specific accusation being levelled at Buckingham Palace, then we should evaluate it on the basis of evidence. And if no evidence is provided, I will struggle to see the [Meghan Harry] documentary as much more than a cynical ploy to exploit racial division for personal gain.”

Getting round to astrology what is of interest, if it isn’t coincidental – is that AG Sulzberger, owner of the NYT (5 August 1980) and Joseph Kahn, editor (19 August 1964) and Meghan – are all Sun Leos. Kahn and Meghan have Mars in Cancer opposition the UK Capricorn Sun while Sulzberger has a hostile Mars Pluto in Libra square the UK Sun. For all three, the UK for some reason brings down the red mists.

  All of their relationship charts with the UK are explosive. Sulzberger/UK has a never-cooperate, different-agendas Sun conjunct Uranus in an explosive square to Mars. Kahn/UK has an implacably-hostile composite Mars opposition Pluto. While Meghan/UK has, like Sulzberger, a composite Sun Uranus which suggests a relationship that stifles individuality (on both sides) and needs space; plus an ego-clashing Mars opposition Neptune in an irritation-inducing Saturn.

  The New York Times, 18 September 1851, oddly enough has Mars in Cancer on the same degree as Meghan’s and close to Kahn’s. It also has Pluto at zero degree Taurus exactly conjunct King Charles’s Moon which doesn’t bode well for the future with Saturn Uranus in Taurus close by.

  The paper itself will be under heavy pressure over the next four or five years with media finances in general being under strain. Tr Neptune opposes their Venus Sun in Virgo in 2023 into 2024 and tr Pluto will square Pluto and then Saturn Uranus which will be exceptionally heavy going.

  What gives with all the anti-Brit aggro – are they still fighting the Boston Tea Party? Or indulging in Trumpian projection, blaming out that of which they are more guilty? There are undercurrents of a loaded agenda.

 See previous post 17 September 2022.

52 thoughts on “NYT & Meghan – seething anti-UK sentiment”

  1. I suspect William was attracted/intrigued by Meghan and at the same time threatened by her and his brother’s popularity. What a conundrum.

  4. I think everyone is taking the media bait.
    Everyone is biased — and that’s okay. There’s no such thing as unbiased news no matter who it comes from. Hidden media bias misleads, manipulates and divides us whether it’s progressive or conservative or everything in between. As long as you understand the role media bias plays in the news and information you consume, identify different perspectives and political leanings you can get the full picture and think for yourself.

  5. Thanks, Marjorie. – Another reason I got rid of my NYT subscription was in reading the comments, they have what to me are obviously planted trolls/repliers to comments by readers, usually from Portland, Oregon, or some such place, that replies to readers’ comments, correcting them and “wokening/enlightening” them. It’s weird and controlling to me. I refuse to participate with this trash. I appreciate your post on this. 🙂

  6. I’ve lived in both the UK and the US and definitely sensed a lot of anti-Americanism in the UK. On the contrary I have thought Americans very welcoming to the British, maybe because they imagine that they all live in stately homes with butlers. As for The NY Times, it’s not nearly as biased as the Daily Mail with its preposterous articles about Obama and the bust of Winston Churchill or Joe Biden’s Irish (ergo anti-British) heritage.

    • Leaving everything else aside the one good thing about this, in my opinion, is that Harry and Meghan,unlike other royals, are prepared to stand up to the power of the Mail and similar tabloids, rather than giving them free rein to publish whatever they wish, however questionable.

      • A bit ridiculous. Do you know how many celebrities deal with negative press. Do you know she had three PR teams on speed dial, so I have zero sympathy.

    • “As for The NY Times, it’s not nearly as biased as the Daily Mail with its preposterous articles about Obama and the bust of Winston Churchill or Joe Biden’s Irish (ergo anti-British) heritage.”

      NYTimes being better than Daily Mail is no badge of honour 🙂

  7. Omid Scobie’s name came up recently. Author and confidant of MegHaz. He was born on 4 July 1981 in Wales – according to Twitter happy birthday wishes from years gone by. Twitter is useful sometimes when Companies House doesn’t go back before 2016.

  8. I am an American but was raised with a strong connection to my European (including primarily British) heritage. I love the UK & consider it a second home. I think this Saturn/Uranus square was reflected in the “woke army” attempting to take down the Monarchy. The “new versus the old” and I believe without a doubt that the woke army has failed miserably. We’ll see in the long run but it’s not a truly progressive ideology, it’s regressive, but the young people have to learn. I think the Monarchy has played the situation like a genius by staying mostly silent. I’m reminded of a quote by Napoleon. “Never interrupt your enemy when they are in the process of destroying themselves.”

    All the Crown has done is sit back and let Meghan hang herself and she’s done a fabulous job. They went above and beyond for that woman, but it’s never enough for empty vessels- like Meghan Markle.

    Something to bear in mind about multi-racial or multi-cultural civilizations. In the West especially, there’s no such thing as peaceful diversity where whites don’t remain the majority. “Peaceful diversity” is purely myth.
    Multi-racial societies will always have racial tension. It’s a fact of life.

      • Careful, your ingrained racism is showing!
        The fact that people do not hesitate to tell African Americans (or “black” Americans) – who in a majority of cases, are likely to be descendants of people brought to America many generations ago as slaves – ‘to choose to go back to 54 racially homogeneous African countries if America is such an awful place for them‘, is the best example of how they are seen as the ‘other’.
        It is as if they have no right to be criticise the treatment they receive – the right to free speech so prized by American citizens.

        • ‘Black women DO NOT WANT women of other races around their men because their men prefer women of OTHER RACES’

          Brigitte, please be clear in what you say and in your own mind that your ‘prefer women of OTHER RACES’, remark is from your US perspective, and it may stand for UK too. In any event be clear because in general women don’t tend to want women too pally around their men, same or ‘other’. Blanket statements like that are not helpful my dear.

    • To follow the line of thinking that some ethnic peoples ought to return to their countries of origin can be taken to its logical conclusion, the Native Americans can do the same and ask everybody else to leave, which is obviously impossible; so I am afraid this is illusory.

    • While the world/human race keeps evolving there is always hope. We might see a better world. Remember most of the racial tensions issues are generational. The younger generation don’t see it that way, thankfully!

      Here’s an interesting survey result by YouGov published 4 days back:

      “Prince Harry’s favourability also remains highest among the younger generations, while he has fallen out of favour with many older people.

      YouGov’s tracker shows half of 18 to 24 year-olds (49%) and 73% of 25 to 49 year-olds think positively of the prince (29% and 18%, respectively, think negatively).

      But older people are far more likely to prefer his brother and his wife than they are Harry and Meghan.”

      • Ann – re YouGov, there is an error in the commentary you’ve quoted. Its is 73% favourable for William according to the results table. Both Wm and Harry are viewed equally favourably by 18-24 y/os, from there William rates more highly.

        18-24 Harry 49% favourable; 29% unfavourable | 18-24 William 49% favourable; 31% unfavourable
        25-49 Harry 42% favourable; 49% unfavourable | 25-49 William 73% favourable; 18% unfavourable

        Re: NYT – I stopped reading it some time ago. The lack of objectivity and absence of fact checking on UK stories was so overwhelming I stopped reading.

      • Who cares whether whatever age group prefers A over B. The survey is just another way of pitting one group against another. Surely neither side of this royal debacle is entirely blameless. The monarchy has survived since William de Conqueror and not necessarily by being nice Harry is a product of Diana and Meghan a bi-racial product of the US. That said… I find it inherently sad William and Harry lost their mother at a young age and now can’t seem to get along. The only group that wins in this mess is the media whether it’s TV or print.

        • Well, there is so much misinformation out there, yes in my own small way I do care that source data is right.
          I treat all polls with caution, but I read it that the way H&M tell their story (in their own words and actions) isn’t resonating that well across all age groups.
          You may read it that the way the media are telling the H&M/RF story is loading opinion against H&M except in the youngest age group.
          Does it matter if we have different or shared perceptions? No not really. We are each entitled to our own view.
          Is it sad that W&H lost their Mum and can’t get ono? Yes, of course.
          And I do agree that the media is the only real winner here.

    • @Brigitte, “the West,” i.e. Europe and the US, when there was greater racial purity and the power was held exclusively by whites, weren’t particularly peaceful. There are always divisions, whether caused by religio it s differences, social strata or economics. It isn’t just race, by a long shot.

      • I agree Nicole. Sadly, every type of fearful prejudice has long been part of human society and human history. It is something we, as humans, must consciously overcome with each new generation I think. Humans have migrated long distances for thousands of years, in search of better environments. So in terms of our DNA most of us have contributions from all manner of regions, races, and so on – even including other kinds of human being, such as Neanderthals. Our origins are diverse!

  9. Marjorie, NYT editorial staff’s attitudes towards anyone outside Manhattan seem to be condescending at the best. For instance, while their Ukraine reporting from the front somewhat holds, the overall commentary is atrocious. They also have horrible habit of not spell, or even name checking people when writing on Europe, and I don’t even dare to think what happens with Africa.

    Even their positive stories – they’ve written quite a few on Finland – are somewhat cringe in their banality, compared to what I may read on WaPo or even WSJ.

    It almost seems like to qualify as a writer and especially to survive at editorial staff one must be completely blasé about everything, not a good quality for a journalist or even social observer

  10. Another thought on the NYT article. They should also be reminded that in WWII the British fought that war, which included servicemen & women and merchant seamen, from Africa, India and the Caribbean. These were integrated into the British war effort and not in a strictly racially divided system as practiced by the USA. I know this from personal experience as in the 1970’s and ’80’s I was very friendly with a West Indian who had been a bomber pilot with the RAF with a crew who were all white.

    • Yes, servicemen from Africa, India etc. were recruited into the army and fought WWII on the side of the British. But surely, it is a far stretch to conclude that they were integrated into the British war effort. In fact, Indian army was segregated along the lines of region and caste. This was by design as it helped the British use these regiments to quell rebellions in different parts of India e.g. by using Gurkha soldiers in Punjab or Sikh soldiers to quell a rebellion in south India etc.
      In fact, before WWI made is strictly necessary to use the Indian soldiers in Europe, they were never deployed against Europeans – not out of fear that they might lose, but because they might win.

      https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/dec/14/indian-empire-at-war-george-morton-jack-india-empire-and-first-world-war-santanu-das-review

      The actress Joanna Lumley had a run a campaign to achieve pension parity for soldiers of the Gurkha regiment. Pension parity was given to soldiers retiring after 1997 – thus, veterans of WWII did not receive it. They receive about a third of pension as given to their British comrade who fought in the same war.
      Moreover, the MoD has argued against the effort to provide soldiers who retired before 1997 pension parity claiming that pensions were tailored assuming retired soldiers would settle in Nepal where cost of living is much less and many people do not even receive any pension!! Moreover, in places where retired Gurkha soldiers have settled, there is local opposition and demands to curb further immigration of these soldiers.
      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-13372026

      So, the picture is not as rosy as it might appear while comparing the British army vs. the American.

  11. It is a concerted attacked to bring down the UK. Brexit has made us exposed and old scores are being settled. We all need to be careful what we write, as there is a network working to destroy the Royal and install Harry as King. If Harry was on the throne he would know everything there would need to be known. This is a very dangerous play for power. He is a captive audience and is being conditioned.

    • Like, seriously? There is no way on this earth that Harry is aiming to be king. He hates the institution of monarchy, and in his pre-Meghan life often expressed relief that he wasn’t first in line to the throne. He recognised he wasn’t suitable material, which sort of re-inforces his views that hereditary monarchies are a bad thing.

        • One plane crash? Royal protocol says that when George is 12, the Wales family will have to fly on separate planes. Very gruesome thought though…..and impossible to believe anyone in their family would want to see everyone die. Really, Harry has never said he wants to be King. Why would he? He simply needs some kind of aim in life, but “being king” is not it!

      • His book title “Spare” indicates that he considers himself very much part of the monarchy and he resents being spare. Also, retaining his title indicates that he is not anti-monarchy.
        If he can regain the privileges, and probably enhance them (by becoming king, say) he wont be anti-monarchy

  12. I don’t know much about the NYT, never having read it, apart from the fact that it has always been anti British. Perhaps the NYT and its readers should be reminded that in the 20th Century the USA only fought one war without British involvement. It was called Vietnam and they lost it.

  13. The NYT lost its credibility over their backing of Judith Miller’s pumping up of the lies over the Iraq War under George W. Bush. It has never regained it, from my perspective as a politically aware American (and Californian; incidentally the NYT tends to be biased against California,too).

    I much prefer the coverage, balance, greater impartiality and accuracy of The Washington Post, my hometown paper.

    The so-called Grey Lady is a victim of believing its own PR.

    • They lost me with an article on how jam making was racist.

      Although there are a few hopeful signs of a less dogmatic approach.

      They’ve recently called into question the affirmation approach to “gender” which leads to sterilizing and surgically altering children.

      Another article took a bit of a cautious note on Canada’s MAiD (medical assistance in death) program.

      So perhaps the UK will soon gain from a more fair minded approach too.

      • PC, I had to look that one up… to be fair, no one actually said “jam making” was racist. The *marketing* of the jam using a golliwog (which I’d never heard of before today) was the issue. At any rate, most of the NYT is behind a paywall, which renders it irrelevant for me.

        • It may have been another article. A tale of two jam makers. One making sub par jam which was mouldy. I didn’t bookmark it and as you pointed out now behind the paywall.

        • Cheers Marjorie.

          “For some Black jam makers, though, the issue was about more than a bucket of contaminated preserves. It was hard not to view the whole mess through the lens of systemic racism, which hums in the background of America’s modern craft food movement.”

          This story came out around the same time that Canadian readers of the Globe and Mail were counselled to decolonize their lawns. I cut them loose around the same time.

    • @Nicole, fully agree, but must say many Newyorkers seem to find NYT insufferable, too. As for the “progressive” cred, it’s telling that here in Finland, many of the conservative rightwing Nat Sec types seem to have been regarding NYT as gold standard of journalism, and have been appalled by their Ukraine commentary.

    • British artists are gods in America. Especially Helen Mirren, Benedict Cumberbatch, Emily Blunt, Adele, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Idris Elba, Emma Thompson, Paul McCartney, the casts of Downton Abbey, Doctor Who, Game of Thrones, Peaky Blinders. Even Kristin Scott Thomas got a standing ovation on a talk show. They love the standing ovations on Broadway. They get so much sniping back home.

  14. “What gives with all the anti-Brit aggro – are they still fighting the Boston Tea Party?”

    Thanks Marjorie. Sad to see this, yet more anger dividing us as human beings – and the Birmingham Schools ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal is such an odd target to select I feel.

    Your mention of the Boston Tea Party has some intriguing astrology. Saturn in Virgo is one striking link between that event, the NYT and AG Sulzberger. But there’s much more than this:

    Boston Tea Party, 16th December, 1773 was a date heavy with earth signs, and a New Moon in Capricorn. There’s a Grand Trine in Earth – Sun/Moon 24 Capricorn, Saturn 25 Virgo, Uranus 25 Taurus. Also, Nodes 27 Virgo, Pluto 21 Capricorn, Neptune 20 Virgo. Mars was 3 Capricorn, conjunct Mercury 5 Capricorn.

    The NYT Sun 25 Virgo, Venus 22 Virgo, and South Node 24 Capricorn connect with the BTP rather neatly – with that Nodal link, plus Virgo Saturn connection, suggesting history and some kind of ‘karma’ at play.

    Then AG Sulzberger has Saturn and BML 24 Virgo. His Mercury in Cancer (another sign associated with history) opposes the Boston Tea Party’s Sun/Moon, and links with that earthy Grand Trine of December 1773. Interesting to see the 1773 Uranus in Taurus there too. England 1066 also has Saturn in Virgo, 16, and Nodes at 20 Virgo.

    Some kind of dance through the rather discordant music of time?

  15. If the UK warted to improve their image and standing in the world one of the best things they could do is to return the Parthenon Marbles back to the Greek people – and have them installed in the beautiful Acropolis Museum where they can be viewed also in sight oh the Parthenon -( Lord Byron knew this and wanted them in Athens )
    The Greek People had hoped they would be at the museum when the Olympics was there -but it did not happen
    Everyone knows that Lord Elgin made a deal with the occupiers – the marbles were hacked off and there are stories of the BM bleaching them to make them more white and they are have been in rooms that leak at the BM/
    This would be a game changed for Great Britain – and would be appreciated around the world

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: