Should the New York Times building be leveled by explosives, or should we wait for a UFO to do the job?
One can only hope its reporters occasionally consider blowing their heads off in an act of shame, belated atonement, and the purest form of cringe comedy
The New York Times retains paying subscribers and a reputation for doing journalism despite having lapsed into a sheer government-propaganda outlet years ago. A startling number of Americans refuse to accept this even when repeatedly presented with the evidence; in fact, the way some of them react suggests they prefer propaganda over truth, in turn implying something about these folks’ psychology has either been hijacked or was deeply off track all along.
So the bullshit stories keep coming, and would keep coming even if 100 percent of the population recognized them as such. That’s the point the country has reached. I’m confident that at least two-thirds of American adults understand this, meaning that even a substantial number of one-time staunch Democrats have begun a grudging and painful journey toward reality. But if that guess is accurate, it means that fully one-third of Americans have no idea what’s going on about anything of substance, because the same people addicted to New York Times bullshit tend to be equally hungry for the parallel lie-fests churned out by The Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC; smaller full-libtard, online-only outlets such as The Daily Beast, Vox, Rolling Stone, and Vice News; and other committed purveyors of toxic degenerate sludge whose owners deserve to become victims of the piano-wire-through-both-eyeballs trick (poink! poink!) while sleeping.
The bullshit would keep coming even if it failed completely because these media outlets are now fully under the ownership of the government and multinational corporations, chiefly the pharmaceutical industry. The money flows were it flows. As long as American idiots keep devoting eyeballs—wire-pierced and otherwise—to these outlets, including the websites of print-media and cable-news outlets, the mega-dollar stream will flow interrupted.
And the bullshit is dangerous. Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, a man who has done nothing in his entire life besides topple out of a vagina, inherit a newspaper, and lie, is one of the ugliest and most broken human beings ever to live, no matter how classy his suit may appear. Not only is he nothing but a clownboy-heir, he’s a preening, cancerous dongwipe who went to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January and, along with fellow soy-bugman Brian Steltzer, championed the idea of using laws to crack down on “misinformation.”
There is no humor to be sampled in this particular dollop of irony. I hope someone shoots ol’ Art in the face; even though his face would look little different, other than badly damaged spectacles, this might at least kill him. I doubt even this would stanch the flood of propaganda from the Times, but high crimes are high crimes and the punishment should be suitable.
The Times recently published two unusually egregious pieces of propaganda, one about covid-19 and the other about government censorship. This propaganda came tempered by admissions, but not just the half-true admissions the debased authors of the two pieces explicitly presented to readers. The meaningful giveaways are only there if you know to look for them, and if you do, they practically scorch your retinas.
First, it is necessary to return to February 2, when the paper published a piece by David Wallace-Wells titled “Why Are So Many Americans Dying Right Now?” The correct answer is “mostly because they were injected with poison,” but Wallace-Wells wrote an article loaded with inaccurate answers to the question to accompany the headline, therefore doing his job.
Wallace-Wells:
[T]he gap between Covid-19 mortality and overall excess mortality has proved remarkably, and mystifyingly, persistent.
Recent data can be noisy, as the C.D.C. slowly processes death certificates. But almost every week for more than six months, the agency has calculated that total excess mortality was 50 percent larger than and often almost twice as large as the number of official Covid-19 deaths, which we tend to regard as the central public health anomaly of the age.
And though the pattern has continued for three years, there isn’t medical or scientific consensus about what is driving it. Instead, perhaps several hundred thousand “unexpected” deaths have been explained only by loose conjecture.
On the matter of the CDC slowly processing death certificates, the agency has been doing this intentionally so as to not allow spikes in certain causes of death to become visible to the public, with the apparent intention of salting these into future weekly mortality reports over time. Crude as hell, but just as effective because the average person has no idea how any of this works.
I touched on this last month:
It’s unclear whether Wallace-Wells knows this, but either way, he should strongly consider washing down a bottle of benzodiazepines with a half-gallon of Jim Beam and leaving a note that reads, “As you know, there was nothing good about me at all. Feel free to defile my corpse.” This is only in part because the list of potential culprits he lists for the excess deaths is a joke, including this lie, relegated to a parenthetical remark:
(If vaccination risk was playing a role, it might create the same pattern, but that’s not what the curves show.)
“That’s” not what the curves Wallace-Wells used show—and note the amount of work “might” does here—but it’s what genuine data show the world over. Both serious adverse effects from the covid mRNA shots and overall deaths spiked in temporal accordance with the shots and “boosters” roll-outs, and this was seen all over the globe, with different misery peaks on graphs occurring in accordance with when different nations conducted their heaviest shots-campaigns. And the excess deaths have occurred only in those countries, with more heavily vaccinated countreis showing worse outcomes. Also, the peaks in each case were divorced from the peaks in the successive waves of covid infections—which themselves killed next to no one anyway (more on this below).
An eighth-grader of average intelligence, absent external pressures and given the relevant time-graphs and other data, could easily figure out what happened here. But tens of millions of Americans can’t, because their brains have been cooked by not only those external pressures but by the persistent and devastating conviction that the media are not lying to them, not really, maybe just fidgy-fudging at the edges, but come on, these people are reporters, and any paper that did nothing but lie, even a massive operation, would quickly pay a price.
Ha!
Wallace-Wells’ piece contains a total of three instances of the word “vaccine” and its variants, with each part of a passage suggesting that getting the shots mitigated deaths during covid. The sheer lack of engagement with the very possibility that the shots cause people to die should, by itself, signal objective and cogent readers that the shots were a problem, because why else would the Paper of Record just hand-wave away that possibility with an irritated, sleazy aside, even knowing Americans have gotten curious about this?
Because irritated, sleazy asides are sufficient “evidence” for (around) a third of the ostensibly sentient American adult public, and for everyone who pays to read this pissawful slime. The level to which I believe Americans are coming around to reality, even if I am right, is not going to prove sufficient to make a dent in either the flow of media propaganda or, more ominously, the valorless machinations that propaganda is serving.
On July 17, The New York Times published a piece by David Leonhardt titled “A Positive Covid Milestone.” Leonhardt—another NYT scribe who should jump off the roof of a skyscraper and point his shiny, puke-packed head at the concrete below after leaving a note reading “Hell isn’t nearly hot enough for me”—opens his column with a lie:
The United States has reached a milestone in the long struggle against Covid: The total number of Americans dying each day — from any cause — is no longer historically abnormal.
In fact, while all-cause mortality has returned to baseline, excess mortality from non-natural causes is sitting at around a pretty 15.7 percent.
This means that for every thirteen people formerly dropping dead from unexplained causes, about fifteen people are mysteriously dropping dead now. That’s an alarming stat, but even if someone who has a friend or family member in this category is suspicious it was a jabs-caused death, most people aren’t in touch with the entire rest of the world. The media owns up to the increased number of corpses only because it has to, but has done everything possible to steer the world into a delusion and keep in there.
Everyone involved deserves to be poisoned to death, slowly and while conscious and gasping for air through a windpipe narrowing to a needle-slit, the primal terror of the hopelessly screwed blazing from their otherwise soulless eyes.
Leonhardt’s second paragraph is, accordingly, also a lie:
Excess deaths, as this number is known, has been an important measure of Covid’s true toll because it does not depend on the murky attribution of deaths to a specific cause. Even if Covid is being underdiagnosed, the excess-deaths statistic can capture its effects. The statistic also captures Covid’s indirect effects, like the surge of vehicle crashes, gun deaths and deaths from missed medical treatments during the pandemic.
Leonhardt is doing multiple diabolical things here. One is ignoring that the drop-off in total deaths started after people stopped taking the jabs in all their advertised guises (“first dose,” “second dose,” “booster”), although, as astute followers of The Ethical Skeptic and other serious scientists and other analysts are aware, potentially lethal problems still clearly persist in many of their recipients (see: 15.7 percent). Another is simply unloading the idea that all those excess deaths were related to covid and expecting readers to swallow this. Not only is this devious on its own, but Wallace-Wells, in Leonhardt’s own newspaper, claimed something completely different in his February piece:
Over the last three years, the country’s large excess mortality has been mostly attributed to Covid-19. But perhaps a quarter of the total, and at times a larger share than that, has been chalked up to other causes.
These assholes are playing fast and loose with all the numbers they toss out anyway. Leonhardt goes on to make an “admission” that actually stops far short of the truth:
The official number [of covid deaths] is probably an exaggeration because it includes some people who had virus when they died even though it was not the underlying cause of death. Other C.D.C. data suggests that almost one-third of official recent Covid deaths have fallen into this category.
Whoa. So only two-thirds of those listed covid deaths were actually covid deaths? Seems like a major miscount.
Except that Leonhardt is lying again. In reality, at most, about one in twenty listed covid deaths is actually a “covid death.” Even the sick joke of a CDC admits as much. I’ve posted the link to the page revealing this numerous times—scroll down a little more than halfway, and you’ll see this:
The way this is worded is intended to fool…who? “Over 5% died strictly of covid” means “About 95%, of covid deaths were complicated by serious debility.” And 95 percent is 19 in 20. This means that you can safely divide the official total of over one million American covid deaths by twenty, yielding a total of around 50,000.
I don’t know a single person who conclusively died of covid-19, out of the blue or otherwise, and I don’t know anyone who admits to knowing anyone who was healthy, caught covid, and died. I don’t even know many people who lost older, sicker friends or relatives in the past three years to covid.
But if you yourself can’t name anyone who actually died from a covid-19 infection, this is why. Practically no one actually did.
It’s hard to know whether Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and the other malignant, firing-squad-ready cretins who created the virus in the first place are pleased with this or not. Probably, since they’re old and out of shape and likely to die from a seriously damaging virus themselves and they knew there was no effective vaccine, and even though most people want these two dead, Fauci and Gates want to keep living more than almost anyone else.
I do, on the other hand, know plenty of people who were and remain conclusively vaccine-injured, and a couple who probably died from consequences of the shots. Everyone else does, too, with the number depending on how much they talk to other people and how open those people are about their morbid and mortal experiences.
The Times isn’t really hiding what’s going on here at all, though. Wallace-Wells’ column included this sly gem:
[A]t some point the United States may have to reset its expectations for how many will die in a given year at least a bit higher.
I expect a lot more members of the mainstream media to be murdered or take their own lives for taking money to willingly act as agents of death, government corruption, and the toppling of the country I grew up in. But not really, because I can’t confuse rabid hope with reasonable expectations.
But meaningful action by everyday citizens, no matter their muddled political bent, is possible, however passive it is. Anyone who voluntarily takes a single product advertised as a vaccine from this point on can be assumed to have either a catastrophically low IQ or a death wish. And for anyone in the second category, I empathize, but are you really going to let these grinning psychos take you out? If we can hang on for two years, Fauci might croak on his own in that frame, and he’s not alone among ancient and badly enfeebled immoral actors in the American government.
I’m only going to touch briefly on the second recent instance of thermonuclear-level propaganda from the same source, because it concerns recent congressional testimony given by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and I’m going to write a separate post about that carnival of McCarthyism if I can get through it without actually blowing my own head off after a Valium overdose and halfway through a swan-dive from the roof a Denver hi-rise.
This story, titled “Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Insisting He Is Not a Bigot, Says Opponents Seek to Silence Him,” was constructed by a bottle of ipecac syrup in human form named Sheryl Gay Goldberg, who for an impressive range of reasons should be trampled to death by a team of horses with faces exactly like her own.
Kennedy’s opponents “seek” to silence him? Cute. He’s been booted from every major social-media platform there is, and the mainstream media has avoided him since around 2005. Kennedy is a direct threat to various narratives about vaccines and other drugs, Ukraine, the banks, the environment, and the security state, and he brings receipts in all cases. Of course they’re going to dump all over him, and they’d kill him if they could get away with disguising it as something else. He’s a decent person in a country where almost anyone who gains any power or prestige at all is irredeemable, loutish, overfed, lizard-faced trash.
The article itself is bullshit from the first word to the last. Regarding the implied “bigot” charge, the government and media are going after Kennedy for literally all of his views, but one solecism they keep accusing him of is being antisemitic. This is because he temporarily agreed with musician Roger Waters that what has happened in and near Israel between Jews and Palestinians is a horror and that Israel bears a share of the blame. He was jumped on for that and essentially recanted, and has since gone on to talk about how lovely Israel is, but the media aren’t letting up on the “antisemite” charge.
I think America could use more antisemitism right now. Since the word now almost always means “taking openly about Israel’s foreign policy” according to every figure in media in government, then being antisemitic apparently means exercising one’s First Amendment rights, and I intend to keep doing that, especially now that they are under direct government attack.
The pro-Israel lobby has been very successful for years in squashing any chatter that question’s Israel’s conduct, including chatter right here in the U.S. This is in spite of how much American taxpayer money goes to funding weapons and other military support for Israel, year after year. We Americans are led to believe that whatever killing Israelis do on their borders is righteous and that Palestinians are animals who need to suck it up and admit they formally lost in 1948 and have nowhere to go.
Well, maybe Palestinians are in fact scum and need to be brutally excised from the region. But if that’s the case, why the hell aren’t the U.S. media allowed to investigate this or report accurately on it? Why should we trust any of this? Money and lives are at stake. But most of all, why should I reserve a special fondness for Israel and its violent acts, whatever their genesis?
Why are the actions of only this one tiny nation off-limits for open discussion?
This is especially tiresome in an era when it’s open season on white males, with one conspicuous exception. Jews, the most prosperous group of white people in the country, hopping on board the “no hate speech” train is precious, my friends. I love watching white runners of privilege who can’t write or think complain about antisemitism while making gobs of money as parts of scams like Inside Tracker and Some Work All Play, while it remains open season to pound away at and cancel non-Jewish white guys. I guess it’s pretty easy to push a unified message that so desperately begs for special treatment when you own the entire mainstream media.
From Stolberg:
Even by Mr. Kennedy’s standards for stoking controversy, his recent comments about Covid-19 were shocking. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, who is Jewish, tried unsuccessfully on Thursday to force the panel into executive session; she insisted that Mr. Kennedy had violated House rules by making “despicable antisemitic and anti-Asian comments.” She also helped organize Democrats to sign a letter calling on the Republican leadership to disinvite him from the hearing.
Even by the standards of a member of the United States Congress, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is a reckless and feckless grifter who can suck my properly circumcised dick. If she were representative of every Jewess in America, it would be appropriate to see Nazi flags in every window in every home and business, with those failing to comply to this norm subject to visits from the police, all of whom would have tattoos and shaved heads. She is as crooked as can be, and you almost won’t find a worse human being even among Democratic operatives. But more on her and the possibly worse (but less visibly falling-down shitfaced) Stacey Plaskett when I get around to a post dedicated to the Kennedy-hearing mess.
I’m not especially inclined to obsess over Israel-Palestine, or lob genuinely hurtful word-bombs at any one group of people for kicks. But the more I hear “antisemitism!” as a defense against plainly malignant conduct by someone who’s Jewish, the more I’m apt to poke the bear. And the more people try to make it a crime to have open dialogue about Israel, the more I’ll suspect Israel, and American Jews in the media and government, are lying about it.
Why else be not just skittish about revealing the truth but monumentally censorious? Stories like these arise only from niche activist coalitions:
Otherwise, it’s more bland articles with headlines like “Strikes continue against militants in Jenin.”
The general issue of being told to shut up because this or that racist influencer has relatives who left Africa somewhat later than my own did or perhaps never wore a yarmulke (for a serious occasion) is more than merely irritating. It’s a major problem, one that’s turning the United States into something it was never meant to be and cannot be allowed to become. I’ve been banging the going about government censorship for a while, but Stolberg does everything in her power to openly normalize its encroachment:
Despite the theater, the hearing raised thorny questions about free speech in a democratic society: Is misinformation protected by the First Amendment? When is it appropriate for the federal government to seek to tamp down the spread of falsehoods?
Stolberg posted this excerpt to the platform formerly known as Twitter and was blasted for it. It’s amazing that these people are doing this without most of them landing in rehab. Maybe that’s where they’re writing their bullshit from. Soon, I will be in a nervous hospital too, but one for the impecunious, as long as it has a decent piano no one has recently shat atop. (And, funny thing: Wallace-Wells used the phrase “thorny questions” in his February masterpiece.)
Stolberg is pretending to ask “Is it against the law to say something incorrect?” If it were. Stolberg would be getting pounded in every hole by some gigantic “woman” with a basso profundo voice in an appropriately dank prison, especially if disinformation (that is, lies) were considered an especially grave and felonious form of misinformation. She’s also pretending to ask, “Does the government get to decide what the truth is?”
For reasons obvious to non-libtards, and even a smattering of those too, the answers are “no.” And that really is Settled Science. I intend to keep proving it, sometimes while trying to make a point, at other times just for the joy of it.