OK, the New York Time’s article’s main point is this:
“... a cursory search of tax records shows that the Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco, which has teamed up with the Black Futures Lab, is an entirely different nonprofit from the Chinese Progressive Association in Boston, which sponsored events with the Chinese consulate.”
So, they are saying that the Chinese Progressive Association of San Francisco is a BENIGN organization with no links to the CCP?
This article however, contrary to the New York Times, states that Trevor Loudon insists that ( I quote ):
“... both organizations named Chinese Progressive Association (CPA) “are controlled by Liberation Road,” Loudon said. “Both of them are controlled by Maoist communists who have been a part of the same groups for 50 years now. They might be organizationally autonomous, but they are part of the same movement.”
The CPA in Boston has very close ties and officially works for the Chinese Consulate in New York, Loudon said, but the Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco is also very closely tied to the Chinese consulate there. They are “both front groups for the same communist organization” even though they are governed by separate boards, he added.
WHO TO BELIEVE? The New York Times, or this particular author?