Published on page A12 of the National section of today's Times, "Good Will To All, With A Side of Soft-Serve" is a breathless, snivelling love-fest of a pro-paki propaganda puff piece, featuring a Muslim Dairy Queen owner in Pennsylvania for whom the diversity enforcers at the New York Times spare no amount of love or worship. For Times communist Dan Barry, there is no question: swarthy Karachi Muslim = good, hard-working, noble and and enlightened; pasty-faced locals = stupid, quaint, evil, and so 1990s. You have to read this shit to believe it: it's like the hateful population replacement advocates at the Times know that the tide is starting to turn, and that the locals are starting to wake up to their own engineered dispossession, despite the daily, relentless efforts by Western media elites to steer their sentiments elsewhere. As a result, the Times has to dial up the propaganda a notch or twelve.
The eunuchs at the Times need to be stopped. This "love-thine-other & hate-thineself" is so incredibly evil and destructive, it needs to be exposed and fought from within. Blogs like this one are on the front lines of that battle, and need to be supported fiercely.
As if this sickening "Good Will" puff piece isn't bad enough by itself, it gets worse!
How? you ask, Is that possible?
Well, on the page opposite this article (page A13), the Times fiendishly published an article about Tuscon shooter Jared Loughner right above an equally critical article on Florida governor Rick Scott. Here's where it gets truly sickening: a quick glance at the photos on page A13, reveals that the bald Loughner could almost be mistaken for the bald Gov. Scott at the podium in the photo below: exactly the effect that the Times was shooting for with this sneaky photo choice.
"Lawyers for Defendant in Giffords Shooting Seem to Be Searching for Illness"
"Facing Flurry of Lawsuits, A Governor Loses a Round"
The disgusting vermin at the Times even go so far as to use an ice cream-friendly term - "Flurry" - in the title of the article about Rick Scott, to further befuddle an otherwise confused and gob-smacked readership.
The message could not be more clear : swarthy, hirsute Muslims imported from the other side of the planet = good and wholesome; indigenous euro-Americans with a paucity of follicular endowment = sinister, evil, inhumane, uncaring.
Think I'm making this shit up? Think I'm being paranoid?
Think again: Consider for yourself the photos that the Times published to do their subliminal dirty work :
|Your Friendly Neighborhood Muslim Ice-cream Man - NYT - Approved√|
|About As Unfriendly As You Can Get|
And it gets worse still !
Of the hundred and fifty or so comments on this article, every single one sounds like this:
After reading about a hundred gushing feedback comments like this one, I realized that something sinister was up. The group-think was too unanimous to be real.
And then I cam across the comment below. Note the name of the author* (and the author's home state).
I'm pretty sure the New York Times is planting their own comments now.