The far-left New York Times is playing a very dangerous game in blaming conservative speech for the massacre in El Paso, Texas.
Already, the elite media’s dehumanization of President Trump and his supporters, the relentless smearing of us as racists, nativists, anti-immigrant, and even Nazis, has been embraced by the violent left, especially those in the terrorist group Antifa.
What’s especially sinister about all of this is that one way the media dehumanize us is by blaming our ideas and language for violence we had nothing to do with, which is what the New York Times has done with El Paso.
It’s a fascinating dynamic, and it works like this…
Some evildoer does something terrible.
The media blame ideas and words expressed by Trump supporters for this terrible thing, and in doing so, not only declare those ideas and words a form of Nazism, but they declare the expressing of those ideas — which just a few years ago were considered mainstream — a form of violence.
This media attack has two sinister goals: 1) bully us into silence and 2) further dehumanize us, which makes us a much easier target for mob violence at the hands of the media’s Brownshirts in Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the like…
In other words, the media falsely blaming our ideas and words for violence is a way for the media to further inspire violence against us.
Case in point…
Five left-wingers at the New York Times have decided to paint an even bigger target on the backs of Trump supporters by blaming us for last week’s massacre in El Paso.
In a ridiculous, shameless, and un-American “news” article titled “The New Nativists: How the El Paso Killer Echoed the Incendiary Words of Conservative Media Stars,” the Times basically awards a mass-murdering terrorist veto power over how those of us on the political right are allowed to express ourselves and our ideas [emphasis original]:
There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personalities and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso this month. In a 2,300-word screed posted on the website 8chan, the killer wrote that he was “simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.”
It remains unclear what, or who, ultimately shaped the views of the white, 21-year-old gunman, or whether he was aware of the media commentary. But his post contains numerous references to “invasion” and cultural “replacement” — ideas that, until recently, were relegated to the fringes of the nationalist right.
An extensive New York Times review of popular right-wing media platforms found hundreds of examples of language, ideas and ideologies that overlapped with the mass killer’s written statement — a shared vocabulary of intolerance that stokes fears centered on immigrants of color. The programs, on television and radio, reach an audience of millions.
Do you see what the Times is doing?
On top of blaming a massacre on those of us who believe in border and immigration enforcement, they are also blaming specific words — precise words like “invasion” and “replacement.”
Later in the article, the word “flood” is highlighted as dangerous.
See where this is going?…
Those of us protesting — through peaceful debate, argument, and words — the ongoing invasion of illegal immigrants who are being allowed in as a means to replace us (demographics are destiny!) are all racists guilty of inspiring mass-shootings. So…
Unless we shut up, unless we agree to stop expressing protesting using precise language, we are racist monsters who want to see innocent people murdered at Walmart.
And if we are racist monsters who want to see innocent people killed, we are not human, we are dangerous, we are no better than Nazis, and we all know that it is now a form of virtue to “Punch a Nazi!”
Oddly enough, though, although two left-wing terrorists embraced Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s incendiary “concentration camp” rhetoric, the New York Times doesn’t mention that.
Nor does the Times seem at all interested in the Democrat Party’s anti-police rhetoric that has been embraced by terrorists in the Black Lives Matter movement, including those who have assassinated innocent police officers.
Nor does the Times seem interested in how its very own language and the language of its confederates in the rest of the establishment media — language that attacks Trump supporters as Nazis — has been embraced by countless leftists who have physically attacked us over the last three years.
Unless it’s a deliberate act of provocation, I don’t believe in blaming speech for any act of violence, but — and this is important — by the New York Times‘s very own standards, a standard that does believe language is responsible for violence, by blaming Trump supporters for the El Paso massacre, the Times is deliberately, consciously, and knowingly hoping to inspire even more acts of violence against us.
And there is no question they want us to shut up about immigration, that this article is a shameless act of emotional blackmail and bullying, an attempt to outlaw precise language in the immigration debate, to outlaw words that cut to the heart of the matter.
If we cannot use precise and accurate words like “invasion” and “flood” and “replacement,” what are we supposed to use?
There are no replacement words.
Just as “undocumented immigrant” is a terribly imprecise and deceptive way to describe an “illegal immigrant” — a deliberate way to make an illegal immigrant sound like a legal immigrant who misplaced his Green Card.
So even as Democrats openly brag about how Hispanics are taking over Texas (in large part through illegal immigration) and how this means Republicans will never win another presidential election, even as the media openly brag about how “demographics are a destiny that spells the end of the Republican Party,” and even as both Democrats and the media openly portray white people as evil simply because they are white, we’re supposed to shut up and take it, shut up and allow our country to be flooded by untold thousands of illegal invaders whom the Democrats and media make no secret of wanting to replace us with.
And with this article, the New York Times has proven that on top of wanting us replaced, it also wants to further dehumanize us and see us terrorized.