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?