patrick.net

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”:

Until Vice President Kamala Harris this week made clear - again
and again that it would be just fine with her to use the word.
On Tuesday, as the radio host Charlamagne Tha God interviewed
Ms. Harris, he interjected as the vice president contrasted her
vision with her rival's. "The other is about fascism," he said of Mr.
Trump's vision. "Why can't we just say it?"
Ms. Harris's response: "Yes, we can say that."

... 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.

https://babylonbee.com/cleanArticle/democrats-explain-trump-was-going-to-be-hitler-during-his-first-term-but-he-forgot

This morning, every corporate media platform in the country headlined Donald Trump’s greatest and grandest rally yesterday at Madison Square Garden. Desperate to deflate the giant tent that Trump has erected, which stretched over the five-hour MAGA extravaganza, the corporate media mayhem team busily scribbled its shrillest and most incendiary work yet. For instance, behold the New York Times’ top headline this morning: “Trump at the Garden: A Closing Carnival of Grievances, Misogyny and Racism.” And in the subheadline, the Times ominously warned, “Donald Trump’s rhetoric has grown darker and more menacing.”




This morning’s news is wall-to-wall, front-to-back, top-to-bottom rally coverage. Back in 1939, Democrats and their socialist allies once held a Nazi Party rally at Madison Square Garden, and that fact instantly became an intoxicating catnip that far-left reporters could not ignore. (There’s zero actual connection; the Garden has hosted thousands or maybe tens of thousands of rallies over the last 80 years of every conceivable political stripe or ideology.)

Did Trump plan to trigger the left this way? Trolling the media to make them overreact is a classic Trump marketing maneuver. Their knee-jerk outrage is his publicity. Trump’s messages always come with a tiny dose of controversy to entice more media coverage. Trying to smear Trump this way always backfires, but media keeps doing it anyway. They can’t help it.

And when they do write the articles and run the segments making extraordinary claims like Trump’s rally was just like the 1939 Nazi rally, Democrats eagerly race to their screens wanting to watch the clips, the clips of Trump, expecting to see some truly top-notch goose-stepping and hear some pitch-perfect heil Trumping.

And that’s how he gets them, little by little. Having been exposed to a slim sliver of sanity, Democrats slink back to their far-left fever swamps and echo chambers. But soundbite by soundbite, clip by clip, Trump peels them off the Trump-deranged mind-control stem.

Media’s trouble is, having now advertised Trump’s rally as “worse than Hitler,” they have to deliver. People expect to hear something extremely irrational and incredibly hateful. But the Times’ lone example was Trump calling for the death penalty for illegals who murder Americans and police officers.

To the Times, Trump is acting just like rounding up innocent German and Polish Jews. But Democrat readers, eager for more Trump ammo, become cognitively confused: Trump only called for the death penalty for murderers, not innocent people.

It almost seemed like the Times is downplaying Hitler’s evil rhetoric, and is normalizing the former German Chancellor. So … who’s the real Nazi here?

Here’s another example. The Times tried to cast one of the speakers, described as “a senior Trump advisor,” as a racist, but just created more cognitive dissonance for its readers:

Stephen Miller, a senior Trump adviser who influenced Mr. Trump's
anti-immigrant crackdown, used nativist language as he argued
that only Mr. Trump would stand up and say "America is for
Americans and Americans only."

Nativist language? What is that? Is it like Cherokee? Nobody but woke academics understand that kind of gobbledygook. It’s a dog whistle for globalists, who think Germany should be for Germans and Mexico should be for Mexicans, but America should be for everybody.

Again, this kind of woke doublespeak fails to close the “Trump as Hitler” case with anybody.

Moving to the rally itself, by all fair accounts it was a massive success, with a cast including some of the biggest and most well-known characters and thought leaders that Trump has collected along his comeback journey. Accomplished professionals like Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, and Dr. Phil joined celebrities like Hulk Hogan, conservative comedians, patriotic performance artists, former Democrats like Robert Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard, and a slate of Republican favorites.

The clips are all over social media, you’ll see them, and nearly every corporate media outlet has covered the event one way or another. It was a joyful blowout that might have been the best-attended Madison Square Garden in history. More 2024 records.

The enthusiasm on the Right can be scooped up in buckets. How about the other side?

How about the other side?

So funny. Let’s play spot the bias! (Where’s Jeff Bezos?) When young men vote for Trump, the papers ask what’s wrong with them? But when young women vote for Kamala, it’s portrayed as a positive.

Let’s call that what it is. Propaganda. And it must be influential on young women, who don’t want to have people asking what’s wrong with them.

Do you suppose it’s been completely natural and wholly organic that America’s young women bucked the conservative trend and veered wide left? Or, could it perhaps have something to do with relentless political propaganda and faux peer pressure promising them fake happiness and feeding them terrifying pabulum about the patriarchy?

Yesterday, the New York Times ran a cover-page, top-of-website story —not an op-ed— headlined, “Trump, Preparing to Challenge the Results, Puts His 2020 Playbook Into Action.” Before we even begin, note that after getting through the overlong story, readers discover (1) Trump has never said he was “preparing to challenge the results,” (2) there is no actual “playbook,” and (3) the Times’ editors all identify as infant armadillos. Not house trained. (Eww.)

The Times even made up a detailed, lengthy, step-by-step “playbook” that they then attributed to Trump for overturning the election. Except Trump didn’t write the playbook, never wrote one, nor did Rudi Giuliani, Elon Musk, RFK, or Hitler. The Times wrote the playbook. ...

Readers dumb enough to invest any time in this “article” (don’t) quickly discover the whole thing is a Trump-deranged, speculative, liberal mushroom hallucination. It even described literal playbook steps (“Step 1—Claim Victory”) as if it had received some leaked memorandum. But it turns out they made the whole thing up. The unscripted narrative, or “preemptive framing,” pushed to its readers just before Election Day, is: ho hum, Trump ALWAYS claims he lost because of cheating.

Considered through the lens of our working hypothesis that during the pandemic, the deep state wholly or partly captured corporate media (for national security), this story looks nothing like news. It looks everything like classic propaganda. You could easily imagine airplanes dropping this same story on enemy troops as leaflets.

It also looks just like a diabolical, Obama-style “permission structure,” intended to reach Times readers before Election Day, and to teach them to close their minds and refuse to consider any claim of cheating by Republicans, however compelling. They’re simply not allowed to consider that cheating might have happened, regardless of the evidence. For them, the safest thing to do is not even listen to the evidence. They’re supposed to remind each other, listening to that nonsense is just playing right into his hands.

Proving the piece was written by clever psychologists instead of reporters, the story bizarrely connects —in advance!— any and all claims of cheating in the election to the worst day in the nation’s history, a date that will live in liberal infamy, the mythical destroyer of democracy, the carefully crafted psychological trigger called January The Sixth...

Let’s not pass over that ridiculous but insidious passage too quickly. Consider the nefarious message: January 6th has never ended. It’s like that hallway in horror movies where the doomed protagonist starts walking and then the hallway just keeps getting longer and longer and stretching further and further away until madness! Except within the Times’ narrative frame, the hallway is January 6th, and it’s packed with jeering protestors wearing MAGA hats and they are all icky and middle class.

The story’s comments section was disabled, preserving the purity of the propaganda dose and making sure it wouldn’t accidentally be diluted by pesky questions or folks pointing out the obvious problems. In other words, not ruined by free speech.

There’s no good explanation for why the Times would do this if it were operating as a true news corporation, if it weren’t hollowed out by security state operatives. Even if something like this hysterial fantasy were appropriate to be published at all, this propaganda piece should have run in the opinion section. They are spending reputation coins like a 12-year-old at an arcade. This story is reputationally expensive, it erodes the Times’ prestige as a serious news player and reinforces skeptical stereotypes about its bias.

It’s the cordyceps fungus all over again, and it’s killing the host. Media has been hollowed out by increasingly desperate national security state working overtime like swarms of zombified ants to stabilize the narrative. That’s why we get ridiculous, WWII-style, over-the-top propaganda like this stupid, commentless NYT article.

Remember: this kind of thing only works in the dark. They can’t survive any transparency. So shine some light on it. Call it out when it happens.

Some of you will inevitably focus on the other implication of this story, that the deep state clearly expects Trump to lose again, and they obviously expect the circumstances to be highly suspicious again. I don’t doubt they think that, or at least are working toward that result. We are, in fact, in a war. Battles over the election security are happening at many different levels, some seen, some unseen.

We should only focus on what we can control. Don’t get distracted. Vote and nag others to go vote.

And remember, Christians, Jesus commanded us to not worry. Secular folks, it’s time to whip out your copy of Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations.

CNN has accused President Trump, who has himself survived assassination attempts, of saying that Liz Cheney “should be fired upon”. Source. Yes, the same CNN that outrageously called vaccine injuries ‘falsehoods’. This is right up there with the other great misleading takes on Trumpisms, like the accusations that he said that all Mexicans were rapists (source), that he said there were fine Nazis, that he mocked a reporter for being disabled (source), and even that he violently ended an anti-racism protest to stage a pic with a Bible. Any honest person would understand that Trump, a long-time critic of forever wars (though CNN and MSNBC loved him when he threw some bombs around), was talking about war hawk politicians happily sending their people off to war while they sit in safety, getting fat off the public money teat. Here’s what Trump actually said:

I don’t blame him for sticking with his daughter, but his daughter’s [Liz Cheney] a very dumb individual, very dumb. She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay. Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face. You know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, “Oh, gee, we’ll - let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.” Source.

Okay then.

Extra: Though the mainstream media apparently seeks to constantly opt for the worst possible interpretations of Trump’s words, it was a little different with President Biden’s recent alleged comment that Trump supporters are ‘garbage’. CNN quickly reinforced Biden’s claim that the garbage comment was not to do with Trump’s supporters, but with the comments about Puerto Rico.

Trump also defeated the Media. They called him every alarming name they could think of. They described in loving detail every breathless paranoia fantasy their sold-out reporters who wish they were fiction writers could dream up. And yet, despite the constant drumbeat from corporate media that he was the worst person who’s ever lived, a majority of citizens still chose Donald Trump for President of the United States of America.

The corporate media is a spent force.

Instead, disintermediated social media, podcasts, and Substacks have eclipsed traditional media platforms. Maybe if they hadn’t lied so much, media’s tragic downfall would have happened slower. Who knows? ...

It’s not completely corporate media’s fault. During the pandemic, media was captured by murky, acronym-loving government agencies wielding overbearing national security laws. Media was used up and will be tossed aside just like Kamala Harris is about to be.

Maybe more importantly, the Democrats used their captive corporate media to try to create a fake candidate. They believed that enough positive press could cure Kamala’s record-high unlikeability scores. In other words, they thought they could propagandize America into believing a lie about their selected Manchurian candidate.

They were wrong. You can see why they hate social media so much. It spoils the narrative.

To the 45 percent of the country who are unhappy with the election results, I’d say, don’t fret. Nationwide abortion ban, Project 2025, enemies put in front of firing squads, ban on interracial marriages, and 99 percent of the rest of the insane bullshit you’ve been fed: NOT.GOING.TO.HAPPEN. Almost all of this BS was either made up out of thin air or spliced from 10 second, out-of-context quotes. When all these things don’t happen over the next four years, maybe it’d be a good idea to identify the credibility of your “news” sources, because in 4 years the very same people will be saying the same kind of thing about the 2028 Republican nominee, along with his deplorable, garbage, Nazi supporters.

And for people on the right, never forget how much the media tried to propagandize a “Kamala surge,” such as this story from the Independent predicting an obvious Kamala win that was played up by multiple networks. Then, of course, there’s the Des Moines Iowa poll showing Kamala up by 3 points that was on 24/7 repeat for much of MSM (she lost the state by over 13 percent). These stories and others were carefully crafted to discourage and suppress the Trump vote.

CNN’s star has fallen faster than an expired StarLink satellite. Once the gold standard of network news, CNN only garnered 5.1 million viewers on election night, “severely trailing behind MSNBC and Fox News.” The podcasting business is about to get a lot busier. Top CNN anchors like Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett are reportedly on the chopping block. ...

It’s baffling. How could this happen, given all the talent at MSNBC? While Kamala Harris was losing on election night, as CNN’s white anchors listened and nodded sagely, black anchoress Joy Reid opined that the high numbers of black voters bubbling ballots for Trump resulted from “black anti-blackness,” and opined those black voters were “down with White Supremacy.”

Black White Supremacy. That’s the kind of keen, insightful analysis that MSNBC viewers “enjoy.”

President Trump Sues Leftist Media Outlets Including the New York Times for Total of $10 Billion, Alleges Multiple “False and Defamatory” Statements

Columbia Journalism Review reported on Thursday that just days before the presidential election, Trump’s lawyer, Edward Andrew Paltzik, sent a letter to the far-left New York Times and Penguin Random House demanding $10 billion in damages awarded to Trump for “false and defamatory statements.” The letter points to specific statements about Trump in articles by Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig, and Russ Buettner.

The letter highlights two stories by Buettner and Craig are connected to their new book, “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.” The CJR reports the letter also mentions an October 20 article by Baker titled “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment,” and an October 22 article by Schmidt with the title “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator.”

The extra-long article —it prints to 7 pages, single-spaced— contained only one attributed quotation. Everything else was anonymous. And that single named quote was just a throwaway line attributed to hawkish Republican Representative Michael Turner (R-Oh.), who dares Russia to start World War III.

As a critical news consumer, always inventory the sources for any news claims. The bigger the claim, the more sources you usually want. This particular article coughed up seven full pages of information without even once saying where the information came from. Fail.

Even if it actually came from an inside source, no responsible journalist would agree to stenograph all this information without some kind of external confirmation. Otherwise, what makes these reporters any different from being secretaries?

In other words, since the three reporters —apparently, nobody wanted the full credit (or blame)— all soiled their midwit reputations to deliver a steaming pile of non-journalism, it seems most likely this article was a deep-state press release. So, based on evidence from the article, the deep state stirred the Proxy War pot this weekend by releasing this “news” through its pet media outlet, the New York Times.

We simply cannot know why they did it. There may be some great, secret reason. Since they aren’t saying, we can speculate. My best guess is they are trying to poison the peace well by making the Russians madder than wet Siberian huskies, in a snowstorm, even if doing so risks full-on nuclear war.

But it’s late in the game, and these kinds of maneuvers are unpredictable. They can just as easily create new possibilities as bollux things up. I note that President Trump himself posted nothing responding to the now widely-reported Times exclusive, which is a solid negotiating tactic.

they’re just awful. all they do is lie. the ones the government pays for are on record calling the truth a distraction from getting things done and that “the first amendment is their big challenge.”

the AP newswire is literal pay for play propaganda bought and paid for with grants from activism inc (especially climate groups) who are putting up 10’s of millions of dollars to fund activist reporting and activist reporters who cover every story from one predetermined side.

there is nothing subtle about it.

“philanthropy funded news” is just code for: pay the piper, call the tune and the lyrics of lay of the lie lie in the hands of those who fund it.




they brought this on themselves and deluded themselves into thinking that their slant and taint would not catch up to them, that they could sell us feces as shinola on and on world without end.

guess what?

you can’t.

it has.