The New York Times has officially hit rock bottom. Sure, they’ve been teetering on the edge for years now, but this might just be the crown jewel of their descent. For the “Gray Lady,” this is about as unhinged and flat-out dangerous as it gets. So, what’s the latest move from the New York Times? Well, they’re practically waving the flag for a civil war to block President Trump from a comeback in a new op-ed they just published. That’s right—the so-called “adults in the room,” always calling everyone else “election deniers” and “insurrectionists,” now want to topple the entire US system just to keep Donald J. Trump out of the White House, even if that’s what the American people want.
When Trump called them the “enemy of the people,” he wasn’t joking.
Mollie Hemingway raised the alarm after coming across this utterly batsh*t article from The New York Times, where they’re openly calling for a color revolution in the US just to stop President Trump. Imagine that—the so-called “paper of record” pushing for an uprising on American soil to block a populist they can’t control.
I just read a bat guano insane NYT op-ed that said four ways to stop MAGA had failed (hoping it loses, banning the GOP/Trump from ballot, having GOP overturn its voters, establishment resistance) and now recommends what sounds like a color revolution. https://t.co/Ep1w4bKo8e
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 27, 2024
In all honesty, we’ve been in the midst of a color revolution for nearly a decade now, since President Trump came down that escalator.
We’ve covered the regime’s “color revolution” strategies from every angle, with our latest piece ignited by Victoria Nuland—the puppet master herself—stepping down, setting off a wave of speculation about what’s next. And now, as The New York Times rolls out its latest scheme, it’s clear that while some of the big players may have stepped back, the color revolution agenda is still full steam ahead.
Here’s a look back at our popular Nuland piece.
Biden’s slavish and bungling approach to arming Ukraine still wasn’t enough for Nuland, who consistently lobbied for more and more weapons, including anti-tank missiles. The esteemed Mrs. Nuland was no stranger to Ukraine politics and had amassed one of the most decorated Deep State resumes when it comes to influencing and outright meddling in the affairs of Ukraine and other Eastern European nations.
Nuland’s regime change tool of choice was, of course, the color revolution model, which involves a combination of lawfare, media censorship, leveraging Soros-controlled NGOs, and mass mobilization and street action efforts. In fact, Nuland enjoyed an honorable mention in Revolver News’ now classic color revolution series, advancing the argument that several key players in the plot against Trump were also part of the “Atlanticist” faction of the deep state that has traditionally relied on color revolution operations for regime change overseas.
Of course, the principal figure associated with the Euromaidan Color Revolution in the US government is none other than Victoria Nuland, who served as President Obama’s point person on Russia during the Color Revolution in Ukraine.
Politico:Nuland was a year into her role as Obama’s assistant secretary for Europe. She had been in Kiev, frantically working behind the scenes to put in place a new governing coalition in Ukraine as it teetered on the brink of revolution against its Russia-backed leader, Viktor Yanukovych.
You can read the entire piece here:
Now, The New York Times is ready to kick things into even higher gear.
America confronts this problem today. Donald Trump poses a clear threat to American democracy. He was the first president in U.S. history to refuse to accept defeat, and he illegally attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Now, on the brink of returning to the White House, Mr. Trump is forthrightly telling Americans that if he wins, he plans to bend, if not break, our democracy.
Mr. Trump tells us he plans to prosecute his political rivals, including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney and other members of the Jan. 6 Select Committee; deploy the army to repress protest; and order the deportation of 15 million to 20 million people, including some legal immigrants.
We have been studying democratic crisis and authoritarianism for 30 years. Between the two of us, we have written five books on those subjects. We can think of few major national candidates for office in any democracy since World War II who have been this openly authoritarian.
The view that Mr. Trump poses a grave threat to democracy is shared by Gen. Mark Milley, his onetime chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who called him “fascist to the core,” and by his former chief of staff John Kelly, a retired Marine general, who described him as a fascist who prefers dictatorship to democracy.
How could such an openly authoritarian figure have a coin flip’s chance of returning to the presidency? Why have so many of our democracy’s defenses seemingly broken down, and which, if any, remain?
We spent the last year researching how democracies can protect themselves from authoritarian threats from within. We have found five strategies that pro-democratic forces around the world have employed. None offer foolproof protection (no democracy could enjoy foolproof protection and remain a democracy), and some of them come with important drawbacks. But our research suggests that in the face of imminent extremist threats, these strategies are the best available.
The New York Times runs through several scenarios to “neutralize” the so-called Trump threat, finally landing on their fifth and most desperate option—which just so happens to be the one we’re likely facing right now. This last-ditch scenario should scare the living daylights out of any sane American. This is the “color revolution” or “civil war” option. The New York Times piece continues:
That leaves a fifth strategy: societal mobilization. Democracy’s last bastion of defense is civil society. When the constitutional order is under threat, influential groups and societal leaders — chief executives, religious leaders, labor leaders and prominent retired public officials — must speak out, reminding citizens of the red lines that democratic societies must never cross. And when politicians cross those red lines, society’s most prominent voices must publicly and forcefully repudiate them.
A recent example of societal mobilization is the German public reaction to the revelation of a secret November 2023 gathering in which leaders of the far-right AfD met with neo-Nazi groups and discussed a plan for the mass deportation of immigrants, including foreign-born German citizens.
When the meeting came to light, the chairmen of the boards of Mercedes-Benz and Porsche joined top labor union leaders to condemn extremism and publicly express support for democracy, diversity and tolerance. At the same time, a network of small businesses started the Business for Democracy initiative and published a statement, signed by more than 300 business leaders, defending democracy and declaring that “human dignity is inviolable.” Later, the chief executive of Siemens publicly repudiated AfD policies and declared it was time to “stand up and intervene.”
The Catholic Church also responded forcefully. Representatives from all 27 German bishoprics released a statement condemning right-wing nationalism and declaring:
Right-wing extremist parties and those that place themselves close to such ideologies can be no place of political engagement for Christians. These parties are not electable. … We call on all fellow citizens … to clearly reject political offers from the far right.
Those public declarations took place against the backdrop of the largest street demonstrations in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. The demonstrations were organized by a civil society coalition called “Hand in Hand,” which encompassed 1,300 different organizations, including unions, churches, doctors’ associations, refugee protection agencies and even environmental groups. Millions of citizens from across the political spectrum gathered week after week in large cities and small towns in defense of democracy. Although the AfD remains very popular in several eastern German states, its national support has declined by approximately 25 percent since the protest movement began.
And in order to validate this crazy “North Korea-style” idea, the New York Times points to the tyrants in Brazil and how they railroaded President Bolsonaro. The New York Times piece wraps up:
When President Bolsonaro began to threaten democratic institutions in the run-up to the 2022 election, Brazilian civil society mobilized in a similar manner. Mr. Bolsonaro threatened the Supreme Court, attacked the legitimacy of the electoral system, and sought to dismantle Brazil’s electronic voting system. This spurred business, religious and civic groups to mobilize, which produced a series of high-profile public letters in defense of democracy. In July 2022, the University of São Paulo Law School organized a letter in defense of democracy, which declared:
We know how to put aside minor differences in … defense of the democratic order … Regardless of individual electoral or partisan preferences, we call on Brazilians to remain vigilant in defending democracy and respecting election outcomes. In today’s Brazil there is no room for authoritarian backsliding.
The letter was signed by former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, nine retired Supreme Court justices, and the heads of many of Brazil’s largest banks and businesses. As one Brazilian political scientist put it, the letter “put the issue of democracy on the election agenda.”
That op-ed is nothing short of bone-chilling. Just imagine: The New York Times—which many would argue is one of the most “esteemed” publications in the country—is pushing for civil war as a final, last-straw way to stop President Trump. They’re willing to dismantle their own precious “democracy” to supposedly save it. At every single turn, they’re standing guard for the political establishment, sounding the alarm against the so-called “danger” of any and all America First populism. What’s truly frightening is how slow so many have been to recognize the Marxist undertones creeping into our country. We’ve reached the point where The New York Times is outright endorsing a color revolution against the American people—just because a middle-class champion is poised to win his third election. It’s like watching our entire Constitutional Republic get sacrificed at the altar of global elitism by a group of tyrants who honestly think they’re the good guys.
JOIN THE FIGHT — DITCH THE ADS — READ THE NEWSFEED — FOLLOW ON X — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL
Join the Discussion