The NYTwits Have Their Razors Out

Rev. Steve Schlissel - January 17, 2019

And they are furiously slashing at any red (for GOP) in reach. The New York Times ran a slasher piece by Trip Gabriel on January 10th that puts on plain display its Pravda-like qualities. Journalistic ethics—hey, even bland, humane values like honesty, charity, integrity—are buried so far out of view, they’re not likely be seen again shy of a zombie apocalypse. There is no “news” in the news story. From the first paragraph, its propaganda-purpose is evident: sights are set on Congressman Steve King, who was chosen to pose as a more forthright portrait of the real President Trump. The first sentence sets their fabricated stage: “Years before President Trump forced a government shutdown over a border wall,” Steve King was pushing the same racist, xenophobic evil, blah, blah, blah.

There are no interesting facts in the non-story. Each element is introduced for the sole function of erecting a scarecrow around whose neck notices may be hung—using the language of “political” correctness—“proving” by mere allegation that in Mr. King one finds the identical racist evil that is Mr. Trump. Why, the little devil actually believes Western civilization is a good!
The Times fully expected (and they were not disappointed) to see their devoted NYTwits in congress apply the “new constitutional” procedures recently perfected in the Kavanaugh hearings: “If someone is accused of being insufficiently egalitarian to pass our inquisitorial pop-quiz—i.e., if such is predicated of a Republican—the accusation it is to be wholly believed and made the basis for immediate punishment. No further evidence is needed so none should be sought. After all, if the prophet [the Times] has accused, what more could be required? Damnation by allegation is their model, a la 1789.

The story is not without instruction, however. There is much, I suggest, to be found in the following:

  1. Congress reprimanded Mr. King and removed him from committee assignments on January 15—because of felonious sentiments they knew were allegedly nesting in questions he posed to the Times’ interviewer. The original story about King ran on January 10th. That means, from finger snap to congress’s obedient service was just five days. Good slaves! Congress’s action enabled the Times to update the 1/10 story with this introductory boast: “Steve King was removed from his committee assignments over the comments made in this article.” Why, thank you, Mighty Mouse!
  2. It is dizzyingly clear that the anti-Christianity of the NYTwits and “the Correct” has become settled and spread to such a degree that the provocateurs now show themselves functioning as New Fundamentalists of our national anti-religion. By that I mean, pollution and sin are now supposed to be reliably measured by the same sort of three-degree standard used by the crispiest of fundamentalist Christian crackers. It is not just the hussy who wears makeup who is burn-worthy, but her accepting girlfriend at work, and her girlfriend’s husband. It isn’t just lips that touch liquor that will never touch mine, but lips that touched lips that touched lips that touched liquor. For, you see, Mr. King is accused of having endorsed a candidate for Canadian office who is accused of having “neo-Nazi” ties. Cabish? (Understand that anything right of Bill Maher is regarded by the Times as “neo-Nazi” and you, too, will have a healthy reluctance to accept their slashing ways.)
  3. This scenario is most helpful in demonstrating how deeply entrenched is the new anti-Christian religion. It owns the Public Square—no dissenting voice is permitted, period. Even now, this perverted and hateful point of view holds sufficient, unchallengeable sway to publicly exercise control of what may be discussed or debated, and what terms will be permitted in any such discussion or debate.
    I ask that you give attention to this last point because it is an accurate barometer-reading, one you’d do well to make note of. So please understand this: (I’ll let the Wall Street Journal describe what “this” is)
    “On Tuesday, 193 Republicans joined with 231 Democrats to pass the resolution, a response to Mr. King’s statements in a recent article in the New York Times…’White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive?’ Mr. King was quoted as saying, ‘Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?’.

This is the provocation which called for swift and decisive punishment. Well, now that it’s been meted out, is post-idiocy reflection permitted? No? Too bad. I’ll reflect anyway.

First, I have often heard that the only dumb question is the unasked question. But whatever you may think about that, is it so very plain that the questions asked by Mr. King are so horribly evil as to merit, for being asked!, professional demotion and public humiliation? You don’t suppose that this is one of those “dog whistles” we’ve been hearing so much about recently, do ya?

Let’s keep this straight. Like, what is the dog-whistle? The Times would have us think only conservatives issue such calls. And here they’d have you believe that King’s use of “Western civilization” is the dog-whistle, meant to summon racists and immigrant haters (to what?). In the original article they hold the phrase to be a synonym of “the culture of America.” That, in turn, can only mean “white supremacy.” Thus, the NYTwits are the ones multiplying dog-whistles, tagging phrases so as to ring in the ears of their domesticated castrata as alarms: “You hear that? Now go sic ‘em!” And congress complied—quickly.

I used to hear gliberals tirelessly denounce conservative values as having a “chilling effect” on public discourse. What, pray tell, will the effect be now that everyone has been put on notice that any talk of Western civilization is only thinly veiled racism and must not be tolerated? In one violent swoop, all talk of the development and spread or presence of European civilization has been ruled verboten. Anywhere such influence is identified, it must be typed as evil.
Second, might not Mr. King be generously understood as intending, however lamely, that the terms ‘white supremacist’ and ‘white nationalist’ are terms which may be owned as rough synonyms for ‘Western civilization’– and its achievements? In that case he’d be appropriating terms of opprobrium, much like Christians did that title¸ originally uttered as an epithet. Surely, such a possibility regarding his meaning should be discussed, at least where there is but a tiny impulse of decency, one less desirous of stuffing words and sentiments into a mouth than understanding words which came out.

Third, shouldn’t the hands on the revolver have been a lot slower to squeeze the trigger in light of Mr. King’s explicit and public insistence that he is not an advocate of “white nationalism and white supremacy”? Why do his questions count for explicit sentiments when his explicit statements count for nothing? For Mr. King, in a public statement issued after the first article’s appearance, said, “I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I reject those labels and the evil ideology they define.” In fact, Mr. King himself voted “Yes” to the resolution condemning his words. He tried to explain that he might have used the terms, but he was quite sure the words had been reinterpreted, re-cast by the Times to mean something other than what he meant, even opposite to it. He insisted that he did not mean—could not have meant—what he is alleged to have meant. Do you get this? Is it beyond belief that the New York Times would twist someone’s words, that they’d cleverly distort them by trickery so that they’d sound like they wanted them to sound? Is that beyond the pale for you? Can I tell you about a bridge I’m selling? Is there no room here for exploring the possibility that someone was being damned and punished for sentiments (not actions, mind you) which were not his own, for beliefs which he did not hold?
The agenda of the NYTwits doesn’t call for as much consideration as Mr. King’s words/meaning do. Their game is one you can read on the run. Their goal is to squash, cut off, terminate any positive mention of America’s actual Christian/European past. In its entirety and altogether, any/every mention of our history must be linked only to guilt, disgrace or shame. The notion that one may be proud of white history in any shape or form is, to them, damnable and inescapably so. Black pride? Sure. No evidence required. Latino? Okay. But white? Gag!

That the NYTwits’ ploy worked so easily, was embraced so enthusiastically, instantaneously, means that their progress toward holding the reigns of a complete rhetorical tyranny is virtually complete.

The fourth and last component of the corruption evident in this disgusting capitulation to the Revolution by congressmen of both parties is this: No one thought it meet to first answer any of the questions posed by King. But why not? If these gifts to America are in possession of wisdom which King—and so many others—lack, why not teach him (and them). Answer his questions: When and how did it become evil to recognize that good may be associated with “white”? Would providing instructive answers to educate Mr. King have put you beneath your high and mighty dignity?

He asked, Why did I sit in class after class getting taught to be grateful for my country, why did I listen to lectures instructing me to cherish her values, if in fact there is in them nothing to be proud of? Why spend such effort to inform youth of this history if, in truth, it is nothing but an unbroken series of criminal thoughts and events which should induce in a sane man nothing but shame? Answer him, you denizens of the D.C. depths, swamp-dwellers supreme. Should not an attempt have been made—even a feeble, merely formal one—to answer King’s questions? And shouldn’t that have been done before condemning him?

But you see, that’s where the real lesson resides. Anti-Christianity is so firmly entrenched at every level of our public life that none even felt a need to consider providing answers to King’s questions. They were instructed to regard the questions themselves as positive proof of someone’s unsuitability to participate in public life. Such vermin must loudly announce, “Leper!” as they come into public view. No sound conclusion may be drawn from this episode which excludes this sure one. We can never eradicate the categories of good and evil. Satan’s grandiose offer to our first Mother didn’t pretend to. The most we can aim for is to redefine what is good or evil so that they conform to our preferences—even though what we prefer is a lie upon a lie upon a lie.

There was no honorable deed done in Washington this week in this matter. The paper that occupies the office of America’s Liar-in-Chief—the New York Times—has emerged from this filthy exercise the only winner. They have shown once again that the “wisdom” which guides them is no longer the curmudgeon’s barb it started out to be. It is instead the maxim they live by: You cannot lose by underestimating the intelligence of the American people, or dismissing the vitality of their faith.

Which brings us to the most painful part: These evildoers are riding your ignorance and apathy into the halls of a grievous, tyrannical, irrevocable power. They will use it to rub your faces deep into the mire.
Let them. I don’t want to know about it. And I don’t care. That this is what you prefer can scarcely be denied.

Questions or comments?
Send them to