Just yesterday, the New York Times ran an op-ed titled:
It Turns Out the 'Deep State' Is Actually Kind of Awesome.
The opinion piece, done by two Times staffers, begins as follows:
As America closes in on a major election, mistrust is brewing around the mysterious government entity that’s now denounced in scary-sounding terms — “the deep state” and “the swamp.” What do those words even mean? Who exactly do they describe?
The authors, Dam Westbrook and Lindsay Crouse, and the Times editorial team, are not even pretending to possess journalistic curiosity or objectivity.
The goal of the piece is revealed in the very few paragraphs when they place the term 'deep state' in quotes
The piece continues:
The authors use ridicule as a tool to push a narrative. In his notorious "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals" Marxist 'activist' Saul Alinsky wrote, "Humor is essential to a successful tactician, for the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule.”
The following is the text of the second paragraph"
When we hear “deep state,” instead of recoiling, we should rally. We should think about the workers otherwise known as our public servants, the everyday superheroes who wake up ready to dedicate their careers and their lives to serving us. These are the Americans we employ. Even though their work is often invisible, it makes our lives better.
The core of the piece is a video in which the Times claims the viewer will "meet a few of our hard-working American public servants" and that will lead you to infer that they are "not scary at all" but instead, "they’re kind of awesome." The video depicts seemingly innocuous-looking federal government employees. The fact that they agreed to be part of a propaganda piece should make us wonder if they are indeed apolitical and regular.
NEW: The New York Times has released a propaganda piece labeling the “Deep State” as “Awesome” in a desperate attempt to gaslight the American people.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 19, 2024
The outlet interviewed low-level government workers to gaslight the American people into thinking that the “deep state” is just… pic.twitter.com/YA7ZnB645N
The piece concludes by employing what they think are scare tactics:
But if Donald Trump is re-elected and enacts Schedule F, that could change. He would have the power to eviscerate the so-called deep state and replace our public servants with people who work for him, not us.
The goal of the piece is to deny the existence of the deep state and ridicule anyone who thinks the deep state exists. To achieve this purposefully conflate federal government servants with nefarious deep state agents.
Why would they put out such a half-baked piece?
These are the echo chambers of the Times whose members are not only the editors and writers but also the subcribers who consume the paper to have their biases confirmed.
Consuming the lies and hateful propaganda by the New York Times will be a nauseating experience for any regular human being. But their subscribers are almost like drug addicts looking to get high from their latest dose of propaganda. Hence the NYT propagandists have to strive to be more outrageous and toxic. The usual material fails to cause any inebriation after a while.
If the Times were to cover President Trump fairly, their subscribers would cancel their subscriptions. The NYT does not even care to hide its bias, in fact, it purposefully makes its bias amply clear in its headlines without which their consumers will not read or watch.
A few years ago the NYT was forced to alter the headline of an anti-Trump story multiple times after their Trump-hating consumers were outraged that the headline wasn't distasteful enough.
The paper no longer cares to differentiate between itself and the Democrats.
Before the 2022 midterms, veteran columnist Maureen Dowd wrote:
She didn't say ‘The Democrats’ or ‘liberals’ but used 'us' and nobody among the NYT editors objected.
It is also important to understand that the NYT is not erring when it peddles propaganda, it is their objective. The Times is aware of what they are doing and is proud of it.
If they want immediate remedial action can be taken by ensuring diversity. This is not the 'diversity' based on genetic attributes such as gender, race, or sexuality, but the real diversity, which is the diversity of ideas. The NYT and others abhor the diversity of ideas.
This is why Bari Weiss. who is a liberal, was harrassed and and was compelled to resign from the Times. She deviated from the groupthink at the NYT.
So what does one make of this?
There is no difference between the utterances of a Democrat politician and a personnel within mainstream media.
For any major political occurrence, the 'experts' across the media often use identical phraseology and push the same narrative. This isn't a coincidence. The chief propagandist supplies these terms and narratives which the media obediently and repeatedly follow until they become the de facto narrative.
Cambridge Dictionary defines the Deep State as follows: "organizations such as military, police, or political groups that are said to work secretly to protect particular interests and to rule a country without being elected"
When President Trump refers to the Deep State he means the unelected government agents surreptitiously trying to undermine his agenda for which he was elected and are currently targeting him without basis.
A prime example of nefarious deep state agents is those who pushed the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. But the NYT didn't interview them because they were part of the hoax. The NYT even won a Pulitzer for pushing the Trump-Russia Collusion hoax.
Under Biden, there is chaos and despair across the U.S. and beyond.
When matters go haywire, it is worth revisiting the fundamentals.
But that has emphatically not been the case for many recent decades. Instead of being fearless watchdogs, they have become servile lapdogs who crawl when asked to bend and prostrate when asked to crawl.
When President Trump calls the mendacious media the enemy of the people, he is absolutely right.