Brainwashed by The New York Times

Thursday, August 15, 2019

After having not talked to what I once considered one of my closest friends, I was horrified to find that he had turned from a working stiff to a pseudo metro-sexual, a wanna-be upper west or east side (I forget which is worse) liberal intellectuals determined to shed any semblance to his blue collar background.

This is a man who spent his entire adult life relying on The New York Times to provide him with information, and so overtime as paper of record turned into a liberal rag, he turned into a pretentious jelly fish, so filled with misinformation about the real world that it’s no longer possible to even talk to him, let alone try to apply reason.

He still believes states outside New York and California have a poll tax (something outlawed in voting legislation in the 1960s), believes that the electoral college should be abandoned (not realizing that it affects only one elected office of president, and not caring a bit about the protections it provides other states smaller than New York or California since the point is to have his liberal views imposed on people elsewhere, so that the people he votes for automatically become president.)

He refuses to believe that members of MeToo are vigilantes, and that Antifa is not a terrorist group (akin to the KKK only wearing black hoods and masks rather than white.)

My friend no longer believes in the concept of citizenship – since he would give the vote to anybody citizen or not who pays taxes – regardless of how these people came to the country – thus feeding the Democratic party with future generations of voters.

While my friend and I would likely agree that ICE is out of control, and that immigrants should not be rounded up like cattle, we disagree on the future.

He claims that at one time voting rights applied only to white males who owned property (an inaccurate statement likely gleaned from The Times as well since voting is regulated by states and various states offered more liberal voting than others). So, to his logic, allowing non-citizens to vote is just another change similar to those of allowing ordinary men and women, black or white to vote. He, of course, would have this applied nationally so stripping the fundamental issue of states to regulate their own voting – currently protected under the constitution.

This idea that my friend would use the federal government to impose its will on people who may have a differing point of view is at the core of the current constitutional crisis. New York and California with their huge populations want to control how people live and think in other parts of the nation. This is why they tear down statutes and flags they find offensive, and why they block highways often far from the part of the country where they actually live – an illusion of New Freedom Riders which is a bogus argument pumped out by left wing publications like The New York Times.

Since so many of our forefathers are being discredited by liberal media, we can’t even draw on their wisdom to show how they intended to protect minority states (which are largely smaller, less populated and conservative) from the mob rule of urban elite. The electoral college keeps Iowa from being overrun by a pack of liberal radicals who have managed in their own states to register massive amounts of voters, some of which many suspect are not citizens or even legal residents, but lack of proof at the polls allows them to vote anyway.

My friend is very concerned about voter suppression in places like the south where proof at the polls is seen as unfair to people of color as if poor whites wouldn’t be equally inconvenienced by needing to get proper identification (as required by most states as a result of 9/11 and the passing of the Patriot Act.)

Since my friend reads only The New York Times, he is not exposed to alternative views on many issues such as Climate Change, foreign policy – and he even believes the Russians interfered with the 2016 election, and would still vote for Hillary Clinton if she ran in 2020, despite her taking over the Democratic Party and cheating her way to the nomination.

Since The New York Times’ role appears to be designed to protect Democrats – regardless of how outlandish their behavior or their opinions, my friend protects them, too.

My friend is not stupid. But he is ignorant, and stubborn, and once he makes up his mind on an issue, facts would move him – unless, of course, he reads them in The New York Times, and then it’s gospel.