by Jeff Childers
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.
The New York Slimes covered up for Stalin Hitler Castro and Mao as well as the Viet-Cong and is behind this 1619 Project No One should even bother to read this leftists Rag or just use it for Birdcage Lining