NYT - Actions and Hot Takes

[GURPS]

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an insidious and troubling straight news story headlined, “Trump’s Consistent Message Online and Onstage: Be Afraid.” The deeply deceptive sub-headline added, “Donald Trump has long used fear as a tool to stir up his conservative base. He’s taking his doomsday approach to a new extreme, predicting World War III and other catastrophes.”





Using fear as a tool? Trump? Please. You must be kidding me. After four years of steady pandemic fearmongering, this article —ostensibly about the politics of fear— was deliriously ironic and hyper-hypocritical. Still, at least superficially, the paper held true to brand. But the article’s real purpose was much more sinister and subversive. So let’s rip off the elegant mask of journalistic trickery and reveal the gruesome demon of deception underneath.

You won’t believe how low the Times sunk this time. (Well, you’ll probably believe it, but it’s still shocking.) Here was the narrative you were meant to understand:





Pause for a moment and consider how profoundly ironic that the Times spent two full years on daily doomsday prophesying —over a moderate flu season!— just to suddenly reverse fifty years of its anti-nuclear activism and wave away the clear and present dangers as though looming nuclear disaster was more made up than covid.

I needn’t offer any evidence of this self-evident fact, but I will anyway. (Lawyer’s habit.) As recently as January —before Russia’s expanded nuclear policy and before Iran attacked Israel twice— the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set its iconic “Doomsday Clock” at 90 seconds to midnight. In the Atomic Scientists’ scheme, midnight is no bueno. It’s game over, finito, plug pulled. In their own words: “the deteriorating state of the world … is ... the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.”

To take the Times’ story at face value, we must assume that mendacious reporter Michael Gold is blissfully unaware of the Doomsday Clock, and that Gold honestly thinks Trump is stitching together the threat of nuclear annihilation out of whole cloth, as a political prop, rather than Trump reiterating what some of the smartest people alive believe to be an established fact.

Reporter Gold didn’t even bother asking any experts to agree that Trump’s World War III claims were exaggerated. What do nuclear strategists and international relations scholars say about the current risks of global conflict? The Times just expected us to take their word for it.

The lack of experts quoted for the article, and the omission of context like the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, reveals this disturbing article isn’t journalism at all. It’s a psychological operation.

The Times sought to paint the prospect of global thermonuclear war as merely a hyperbolic political cartoon. But don't be deceived; this article was not actually intended to chide Trump for fearmongering. Or at least, that wasn’t its main objective. The article was a psyop, intended to teach the Times’ liberal readers what to think about the Biden Administration’s nuclear brinksmanship. The writer wants readers to conclude that nuclear red-lining is not, in fact, an altogether new and disastrous development, but that our leaders' pugilistic dancing across Russian red lines is sound policy.

In other words, this article was not meant to associate Trump with fissile fearmongering. It was the other was around. It was meant to associate concerns about nuclear war with deplorable former President Trump. The Times knows its readers hate Trump and reflexively hate and doubt whatever Trump thinks. So if they mock Trump for his WWIII concern, most liberal Times readers will line up and clap like trained seals. Haha! World War III! Like that could ever happen! What a moron!

In other words, the Times is trying to close the Overton Window on criticism of U.S. military policy. Anyone who questions whether the Administration’s military policy is sane will be just like Trump.

Why do they do this kind of psychological manipulation? There are several reasons. It desensitizes people to real escalations in military policy. It discredits any opposition to new military escalation in advance. It makes Biden warmongering look reasonable when contrasted with Trump fearmongering. And it controls the narrative by masking legitimate concerns over Biden foreign policy decisions.

You might ask, what kind of foreign policy decisions does an article like this help to sell? How about a decision to help Ukraine launch U.S. missiles at Russian cities? Or what about a decision to escalate the Middle East conflict? There’s no telling. It’s less clear than ever who is calling the shots. From Newsweek, two days ago:





In other words, Biden told reporters that “no” more troops would be sent to the Middle East one day before the Pentagon sent thousands more US troops there. It’s like they’re not even trying that hard to pretend Biden is still running the show.

☕️ KNUCKLEHEADS ☙ Wednesday, October 2, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Hurricane suggestions; debate fallout; Mideast fog of war; exposing NYT propaganda; random notions; meme of the week; more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[GURPS]

Due to blowing past this morning’s looming deadline, I cannot give this significant story the time it rightly deserves. Yesterday, the New York Times ran a long-form, magazine-style report, explicitly labeled as “investigative,” headlined “The University of Michigan Doubled Down on D.E.I. What Went Wrong?” You might want to read this one. (I don’t often suggest reading NYT articles, either.)



Apart from Matt Walsh’s movie (“Am I Racist?”), nothing this year has more evidenced the promising advances in the conservative counter-revolution than this article springing from one of the wellsprings of DEI, which, as it turns out, is not, after all, Ponce De Leon’s fountain of eternal academic youth.

DEI is prematurely aging. It isn’t aging well.

The article described how no university in America embraced DEI as tightly and passionately as did the University of Michigan. In 2016, after Trump’s election, every single MichU department, hundreds and hundreds of them, were ordered to develop and staff comprehensive DEI radicalization plans.

Even the university’s plant nursery (the “Arboretum”) delivered a 37-page buzzword-packed diversity plan, born out of wedlock, which vowed to adopt “a polycentric paradigm, decentering singular ways of knowing and cocreating meaning through a variety of epistemic frames, including dominant scientific and horticultural modalities, Two-Eyed Seeing, Kinomaage and other cocreated power realignments.”

They are deadly serious, but that right there is a joke. I defy you to explain what that means in simple English. (Two-Eyed Seeing? Apart from BB gun accident victims and the mythical Cyclops, is there any other kind of seeing?) I also defy you to justify how a plant nursery could be so racist it had to be “fixed” in the first place.

The Times’ investigative journalist interviewed numberless faculty members, mostly unlucky teachers who the institutional DEI machine had masticated at one point or another. A common theme developed. The original architects and power brokers of MichU’s DEI industry refused to talk to the Times’ reporter. They sensed it was too dangerous.

A second theme bubbled up: white women were the worst. A “cartoon professor” was investigated by the University’s DEI police after students reported her for showing them a ‘racist’ cartoon (a 1960s political cartoon about Maoist repression). She told the Times she’d been reported by a group of female white students. “They want to do something — be a part of the cause,” the professor explained.

Another professor remarked that creating the DEI tipline and policing process was like handing tasers to a gang of six-year-old children. At times, the article swerved — almost certainly intentionally — toward Matt Walsh-levels of self-parody. For example:





As the article wrapped up, Michigan’s DEI administrators were fully exposed as clueless nitwits. The reporter quoted them defending the school’s horrible racial performance statistics, like dropping black enrollment and student surveys showing higher rates of racial angst and animus on campus. According to the DEI Administrators, these failing numbers show Michigan’s DEI programs are actually working because, paradoxically, when you “fix” racism it “stirs up anger and resentment.”

We always thought that racism was anger and resentment.

In sum, the Times’ story — again, well worth reading — conveyed a pervasive sense of dilapidation, as though the entire edifice of DEI is rotting from the inside, paint peeling off the walls, doors hanging from the hinges. Let us never forget that DEI was still under construction until the pandemic exposed the reprehensible ideology to appalled parents.

☕️ TESTY-CLES ☙ Thursday, October 17, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Kamala interview misfires; FDA pauses covid+flu shot; China and Taiwan loom over election; continuous war; what is Israel and Iran birthing?; Times bombs DEI; Elon's new GOTV plan; more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[GURPS]

The New York Times ran an unintentionally hilarious, page-one, top-of-fold story this morning headlined, “Harris and Democrats Lose Their Reluctance to Call Trump a Fascist.” In a very cowardly fashion, the Times disabled the article’s comments section, or they’d have felt the sting of my fiery remark.



Tom Wolfe, reacting to liberal hysteria over conservative ‘fascism’ in the 1960’s, famously quipped that The dark night of fascism is constantly descending on the United States, but it always lands on Europe. I’ll add a personal observation: to communists, who occupy the hind end of the political spectrum and peep backward over their shoulders, everybody else looks fascistic.

I don’t know about Europe, but the dark night of fascism has descended on the New York Times.

The Times’s article — which I do not recommend reading — was a classic “permissive structure,” the latest example of what we’ve recently discussed. It’s how the deep state communicates telepathically with democrats, signaling what they’re allowed to say and to think without getting canceled by the liberal mob.

Indeed, the Party’s Glorious Leader and Useful Numbskull has granted Democrats permission to call Trump a “fascist”:



If you doubt this type of modern journalism is anything other than mind control, ask yourself: What breaking story was reported by this front-page news section article? A politician called another politician a bad name? That’s not news.

The rest of the overlong article was a study in psychological manipulation. The Times (or the AI in the deep state’s skunkworks that really wrote the article) began by scrambling liberal readers’ grey matter, preparing it for a cognitive upgrade. In other words, the word ‘fascism’ doesn’t mean what you think it means. We’ll tell you what it means:



Control. Is that what fascism is? Control? No. The Times promptly taught its readers that fascism is not control. It’s not, for example, control of free speech, control by mandatory medical treatments, or control by Banana-republic style lawfare:



The cognitive confusion was purposeful. A confused brain is the type of brain most susceptible to suggestion.

By the time readers reach the hypnotic, mind-numbing conclusion of the logorrheic article, they still have no definition of the single word that formed the center of the entire enterprise. Indeed, defining “fascism” would work against the article’s purposes.

After all, a tangible definition could be argued and reasoned against. It’s better to set the term’s tangibility level at a consistency near warm jello. Which, ironically, is just what fascists do. Proper ones, that is.

In sum, the Times’ entire argument consisted not of defining a fascist and then showing that Trump meets the definition, but instead just approvingly repeating Hillary Clinton and General Milley calling Trump a fascist, and giving readers explicit permission to emulate them.

This article might be the best example of a Barack Obama-style permissive structure that we’ve yet examined.

☕️ SAY THE WORD ☙ Friday, October 18, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Terrific Texas AG Ken Paxton deploys new Texas law against woke doctors; best example of corporate media's mind-controlling "permission structures"; Disney hammered again in Musk/Carano lawsuit; more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

Damn I am fuc king tired of this Stalinist Attack on EVERYTHING that disagrees with the Progressive Narrative

I would gladly put these liars against wall

Miley is a fuking tool of the Establishment and the 1st one who should go, he should be in JAIL for his actions with the CCP conspiring to disobey the National Command Authority

 

[GURPS]

NY Times Lead Story: Blame Trump, Musk, and Republicans in General for Election Lies​

New York Times reporter, social media censorship supporter, and First Amendment non-fan Steven Lee Myers’ “news analysis” led Thursday’s front page: “Voters Strain Under Deluge Of Untruths -- Disinformation Climbs to a Sordid New Peak.”

And who’s responsible? The Russians, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Republicans in general.

Myers noted false claims from Russia about Gov. Tim Walz being spread on social media by a Florida deputy sheriff, then transitioned smoothly to blame “the world’s richest man, Elon Musk” for helping spread it. (Musk is a billionaire that the Times feels free to criticize, unlike George Soros, who the paper shields by accusing conservative critics of anti-Semitism.)

Smears, lies and dirty tricks -- what we call disinformation today -- have long been a feature of American presidential election campaigns. Two weeks before this year’s vote, however, the torrent of half-truths, lies and fabrications, both foreign and homegrown, has exceeded anything that came before, according to officials and researchers who document disinformation.

The effect on the outcome on Nov. 5 remains to be seen, but it has already debased what passes for political debate about the two major party candidates, Mr. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. It has also corroded the foundations of the country’s democracy, undermining what was once a shared confidence that the country’s elections, regardless of who won, have been free and fair.

As if the mainstream media hasn’t done that very thing itself with its own brand of election interference.

[clip]

The Times is disappointed that conservatives have taken steps to neutralize Big Government censorship online.

A concerted conservative legal and political campaign that went all the way to the Supreme Court has abetted the falsehoods about election fraud anyway. The project has undercut government agencies, universities and research organizations that once worked with the social media giants -- especially Facebook and Twitter -- to slow the spread of disinformation about voting.

Myers circled back to the left’s current Public Enemy No. 2, space entrepreneur and X owner Elon Musk.

Perhaps the single biggest factor in today’s disinformation landscape has been Mr. Musk’s ownership of Twitter, which he bought two years after the 2020 election and rebranded as X.

 

[GURPS]

NYT’s Nate Cohn: Donald Trump Could Win Popular Vote​

Cohn’s admission Trump could not only win the Electoral College vote but also claim the popular vote underscores the establishment media’s acknowledgment of Trump’s momentum with just 11 days until election.

The latest Time’s polling, published Friday, shows Trump is winning by one point nationally (with third party candidates included).

Cohn reported on the possibility of Trump winning the popular vote, which has not been won by a Republican in 20 years:

If Mr. Trump did win the popular vote this time, it would be straightforward to explain. The poll shows that Ms. Harris faces real headwinds — the kind that would ordinarily cost a candidate the election:

• Just 28 percent of voters say the country is on the right track. No party has retained the White House (or won the popular vote) when such a small share of voters think things are going well.
• President Biden’s approval rating is just 40 percent. No party has held the White House (or won the popular vote) when the president’s approval rating is that low.

The Times poll is not the only poll that shows Trump nationally in the lead. A Wall Street Journal survey showed Trump up three points, while an CNBC poll found him up two points.