The NY Times fires the first salvo to start The Resistance: "conservatives want a dictator"

The first salvo has been fired by the Resistance, at the NY Times.  And you'll have to read this to believe it.  Even I was astonished--and after living thru emperor Obozo and moronic vegetable bidumb damn little astonishes me anymore.

The piece--published two days before Trump's inauguration--is titled "The Interview: Curtis Yarvin Says Democracy Is Done. Powerful Conservatives Are Listening."

Your first question is probably "Who the hell is Curtis Yarvin and why is the NYT doing a long piece about him?"

Author David Marchese explains that "Yarvin is a 51-year-old computer engineer who's written online about political theory in relative obscurity."

That's a Kamala-esque way of saying he's a blogger, like I am.  And one of the things about blogging is that in all but a tiny fraction of cases no money machine pays you to write what they want.  Your ideas stand or fall on their own.

So why are the author and the editors of the Times suddenly interested in an blogger that even the author admits is "obscure"?

Because a) the guy claims the U.S. would do much better as a dictatorship; AND b) they claim--right in the title--that "powerful conservatives are listening."

Wow, "powerful conservatives," y'say?

Who might those be, eh?  We'll get to that shortly.  But first consider this line:

(Yarvin) argues that our democracy should be replaced by what he calls a “monarchy” run by what he has called a “CEO”—his friendlier term for a dictator.

Gettin' clearer yet?

If you didn't, here's the first sentence of the second damn paragraph:

But while Yarvin himself may still be obscure, his ideas are not. Vice President-elect JD Vance has alluded to Yarvin’s notions...

 Ah..."has alluded to," eh?  Sounds like a real threat, right?

An informal adviser to President-elect Donald Trump has approvingly cited Yarvin’s anti-democratic thinking.  And Peter Thiel, a conservative megadonor... has called him a “powerful historian."  Yarvin has become a fixture of the right-wing media universe.
     I’ve been aware of Yarvin for years, and was mostly interested in his work as a prime example of growing antidemocratic sentiment in particular corners of the internet. Until recently those ideas felt fringe. But given that they are now finding an audience with some of the most powerful people in the country, Yarvin can’t be so easily dismissed anymore.

Ahh, starting to make sense now, eh?  Here's how the author of the piece asks questions:

"One of your central arguments is that America needs to get over our dictator-phobia—that American democracy is a sham, beyond fixing, and having a monarch-style leader is the way to go. So why is democracy so bad, and why would having a dictator solve the problem?"

Two weeks from now the entire Democrat Mainstream Media--the DemMedia--will be echoing this bullshit, and then some:  They'll be saying "Trump wants to be a dictator, following the roadmap laid out by 'historian' Curtis Yarvin."  Just watch.

And this is just the first shot.

You really have to read the piece to see what brazen propaganda it is.

Source: New York Times

https://archive.is/g6q1o