12.10.18

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 6

This is a continuation of Part 5, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

In Part 5 we see how, in response to the phrase "lead, follow, or get out of the way",  colored women are upset because white women didn't follow or get out of the way, but instead voted without considering how the rest of "the sisterhood" would be affected, selfishly choosing both politicians and sexual partners that were also white so that they could "monopolize resources" instead of being "good women" and doing their part to help colored women in the "Demographic War" against white people and the patriarchal systems that they create.

I said that there were some more scandalous discoveries in the study beyond the fact that white women may vote based on what looks to be a better deal white women than for all of women, and the article doesn't disappoint.

In the study, white women who agreed that “many women interpret innocent remarks or acts as sexist” were 17 percent more likely to vote for a Republican candidate. They were also likely to agree that “blacks should work their way up without special favors.” To be sure, women of color aren’t inherently less sexist or even without their own racial biases. But unlike white women, they can’t use race privilege to their advantage.

White woman who thought that other women overreacted to innocent statements were 17% more likely to vote for a Republican candidate who probably didn't campaign on promising perpetual victims that the government will, by force, right all the wrongs in the world and bring justice to all wrongs, whether real or imagined. What a complete shocker.

White women who worked hard to achieve their position in life don't think that, simply because someone belongs to a different race, members of those other races should be able to circumvent the hard work and skip straight to enjoying the fruits of hard labor.

The "race privilege" is simply that because white women are white, men who are also white are liekly to favor white women, and since white men are both the most powerful entities in the world, and the greatest evil, when white women do something that white men approve of, it must also have been evil and so white women should never do anything that white men would approve of otherwise they'll be "gender traitors", betraying colored women in the "Demographic War".

If you think that is complex, that's on purpose, because in greater complexity it is easier to hide the raw and unvarnished truths which, if actually seen and understood, would make all the whining and crying appear just like the childish tantrum it really is.

White women have "racial privilege" because white men want white women and white children, instead of colored women and mixed-race children. Because white men want to have white kids, they're racist, and white women helping them out with that are traitors. Identity politics, all the way down.

The article continues.

This blood pact between white men and white women is at issue in the November midterms. President Trump knows it, and at that Tuesday news conference, he signaled to white women to hold the line: “The people that have complained to me about it the most about what’s happening are women. Women are very angry,” he said. “I have men that don’t like it, but I have women that are incensed at what’s going on.”

White women are waking up to the fact that colored women don't want them to have anything they can't have, which on a global scale, includes running water and consistent access to food. When people immigrate and do not assimilate, they simply recreate what they left behind where they now live. Instead of being called an invasion, this was called "diversity and inclusion", touted as being "good for the country".

Think about that. It's good for the country that people move into the country who do not like what the country is and want to recreate pockets of the countries they were escaping or leaving behind. This is not that much different than saying cancer is good for you because, despite the cancer being different, embracing diversity is more important!

When pockets of immigrants vote as a group based on their interests, that isn't racist, but when 53% of white women vote based on their interests, that's racist.

In addition, white women were waking up to the fact that colored men had no interest in "cherishing and revering" them, or working to their "mutual benefit". The statistics out of the minority communities show that when women are dominant, colored men don't keep working towards a "mutual benefit", but will instead seek to maximize their own interests at the cost of their partners and their offspring.

Not only was that the case, but colored women were touting the "new system" where men were little more than disposable whores kept around for entertainment and slave labor while women "got to" take on all the responsibilities of men, and the government would happily then take over for all the responsibilities of the woman and raise any children she decided to let live, because the government would also happily kill off any accidental or unwanted pregnancies without any questions asked.

I mean, put like this, it should be a little startling that it was only 53% of white women, but I digress.

White women saw what was at stake, and decided that it wasn't worth giving up everything so that other women could have something they didn't deserve, and now all the women who sought to gain everything the white women had are upset because now they won't get something they didn't deserve.

Like a husband, a family, and resources and being "cherished and revered". Remember, the author is saying the problem is with the women who aren't giving up what they have, not with those who won't try to obtain it for themselves legitimately.

There's not much left of the article but we'll pick it up again in Part 7.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 5

This is a continuation of Part 4, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

As of the end of Part 4, we've discussed how the "sides" of the conflict for which white women can be "gender traitors" is at least applicable to the "Demographic War", where because white women marry and have children with white men, and those white men "cherish and revere" their wives and work towards a "mutual benefit", white women have sold out their loyalty to colored women who are trying to achieve the exact same thing but aren't as successful despite the "white race" being only about 16% of the world population.

Because of this, white women should stop marrying white men and having white babies because that supports the patriarchy that is denying "basic rights" in exchange for food, shelter, and companionship. Also, telling your daughters to dress modestly supports the patriarchy as well.

Now, instead of waging war for their own "side", the author has instead sough to discourage is dismantle the ability for "the patriarchy" to "fight back" through having children. The first method was to make even the desire to see your specific race continue to exist racist, a sign of racial supremacy, despite every other race holding the same exact priorities.

The article continues in this vein.

Recently, Ms. Conway even weaponized her own alleged sexual assault in service to her boss by discouraging women from feeling empathy with Christine Blasey Ford or anger at Judge Kavanaugh.

Ms. Conway knows that a woman who steps out of line may be ridiculed by the president himself. President Trump mocked Dr. Blasey in front of a cheering crowd on Tuesday evening. Betray the patriarchy and your whiteness won’t save you.

The pedestal is a superior, if precarious, place. For white women, it’s apparently better than being “stronger together,” with the 94 percent of black women and 86 percent of Latinas who voted for Hillary Clinton.

A white woman who tells a truth that interrupts the story, which may or may not be true, from being believed and acted upon, is "weaponizing" her own experiences in favor of "the patriarchy".

A white woman who knows that there are consequences for lying and deceit which go beyond skin color, and trying to explain that the legal system doesn't care about your race is anything but helpful.

A white woman decided not to go along with the colored women who voted for Hillary because she also had a vagina and promised them free resources instead of the patriarchal white guy who didn't have a vagina and wanted to empower people to break the cycle of victimization instead of just getting free stuff without having to work for it.

How does this relate to the "Demographic War"? Well, remember, the losers don't want to stop losing, so they have to get the "winners" to not want to "win". What do I mean by that?


White women don't have as many abortions as black or Hispanic women, at least according to this chart. When looked at as a nation though, white women account for 51% of the abortions obtained legally. Why the disparity between the different sources of data? Because there are more white women to begin with, so while a lower % rate of white women get abortions, because there are more of them in the country, the raw number of abortions will be higher.


The "problem" though is that the number simply isn't high enough to make a big shift in the demographics, and so white women still hold more political power than colored women, even if the entirety of colored women all vote the same way, and even the author earlier noted that only 53% of white women voted for Trump.

So the only way for the colored women to achieve their political priorities that are in conflict with the "gender traitors" is to get more white women to vote the way they do, or to remove white men and women from the political process altogether, and the least bloody way to do that is by having fewer of them want to continue existing or to have children.

Look at the articles encouraging childlessness. Look at the suicide rates. None of it is an accident.

Especially with the author who, as I've said before, hasn't been able to participate in the "War" for "her side", if she can at least discourage folks on the "other side", or perhaps recruit them to "her side", then she'll have done her part in contributing to the "war effort".

Let's continue with the article just a bit more for this part.

During the 2016 presidential election, did white women really vote with their whiteness in mind? Lorrie Frasure-Yokley, a political scientist at U.C.L.A., recently measured the effect of racial identity on white women’s willingness to support Trump in 2016 and found a positive and statistically significant relationship. So white women who voted for him did so to prop up their whiteness.

Notice how every study cited by the article so far was conducted by a woman?

Notice how the only reason the 53% of women who voted for Trumop could have done so was to "prop up their whiteness"? That no other reason is worth mentioning or is valid for the discussion at hand, and that correlation is said to be the same as causation?

That because there is a positive relationship between identity and voting, there is a causal effect, and it only exists for white people? That nobody else is voting based on identity, whether racial, sexual, or gender-based, it's only the white women who are doing it and when they do it it's wrong?

In the theme of "disarm your enemy", it's quite the clever trick to say someone else is somehow wrong for doing something that you are also doing, and then find some external variable you can pin it on to pretend like you aren't being a hypocrite.

In Part 6, we'll delve into other findings from that study that the author finds equally reprehensible and you aren't supposed to ask what the implications of such things being reprehensible are.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 4

This is a continuation of Part 3, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

In Part 3 I highlighted how, according to the author of the article, the "problem" the author sees is both a race issue and gender issue. It is a race and gender issue in that white women are trading "basic rights" for "mutual benefit" and being "cherished and revered" by white men, and that's a bad thing because it interferes with the political goals of colored women who want to dress slutty and vote for Democrats who will take money away from white men to give to everyone instead of letting white women "monopolize resources" of those white men.

I also noted that, while appearing to be about "white women", the article is also revealing much more about the author herself, in that the motivations for her castigation of white women has a lot less to do with "colored women" and a lot more to do with the specific life circumstances of the author herself. This is seen in how things which are normal and healthy in a family dynamic are painted as being indicators of something wrong.

Before I continue, I want to cite a verse that is pertinent:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! - Isaiah 5:20 (NKJV)

It is not innocent when things that are "good" are called "evil".

Let's continue with the article.

This elevated position over women of color comes at a cost, though. Consider what Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to the president, said at a dinner last year for New York’s Conservative Party. She suggested that higher birthrates are “how I think we fight these demographic wars moving forward.” The war, of course, is with non-white people. So it seems that white women are expected to support the patriarchy by marrying within their racial group, reproducing whiteness and even minimizing violence against their own bodies.

So here we have a formal identification of at least some sort of conflict with "sides", in that we've got a bit more of a definition to "patriarchy". The "Demographic Wars" are fought with reproduction, with those that actually reproduce and whose offspring survive to reproduce as well and so on and so forth, will be the one that "wins" these "Demographic Wars".

That's called "basic survival", by the way. The author is literally trying to make basic survival of white people into some sort of oppressive act on everyone else in the world. The dynamic of natural selection is now being accredited to "white men", or at least "the patriarchy", as something they're responsible for putting into place and sustaining, to the detriment of all non-whites.

Well, if you take the gendered labels for God into account, that doesn't sound quite so crazy, does it? If God were masculine, and God set things in a particular order, and you think there's something wrong with that order, and you aren't masculine, would it be a surprise that masculinity would then become "toxic" to your efforts to undermine the current order and put a new one in its place?

But let's step down from the supernatural narrative though, take the fancy language out of this, and just look at the basics. A woman is upset at other women for having babies and protecting themselves from danger with men who are of the same skin color.

Put any other race into the mix, and nobody bats an eye. But when it's "white people"?

Saying things like "white people should be able to exist and their children not live in fear" is considered supremacist, if you didn't know.

Seriously. I just re-worded the "14 Words" that supposedly only white supremacists dare recite, which are:

We must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

That's the state of modern "white supremacy", the most terrible form of racism that exists in the world. Existing and having white children, and wanting your white children to have a future, means you're a white supremacist. That's the "Demographic War". That white people, who do not constitute a majority of the world population, want to exist and have children, and so white women are betraying colored women in this "Demographic War" by marrying white men, monopolizing resources, and having white babies.

Because, you know, women are supposed to stick up for other women before their own interests otherwise they might get kicked out of the group and have to eat their lunch somewhere else.

Welcome to the front lines of a cold war few had idea they were always a part of. A war that the author of the article is losing, by the way, because she has no partner to help her bear children. So, instead of trying to find one, she'll instead try to discourage white women from "fighting" in the "Demographic War" to begin with, by making the existence and having children that look like you "supremacist", and subsequently, "evil".

We'll see what other methods the author thinks can work to upset the "supply lines" in Part 5.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 3

This is a continuation of Part 2, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

In Part 2 I continued on with the article and demonstrated that there is a binary being created with men on one side and women on the other. While my assertion of that binary may have seemed a stretch with only what was in the article up to that point, even the most skeptical will be satisfied in due time.

There's no way to unpack everything that's been said and what it means in a short fashion, this article just hits so many buttons at the same time.

Without further ado, let's continue the article a bit more.


They’re more sympathetic to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who actually shooed away a crowd of women and told them to “grow up.” Or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose response to a woman telling him she was raped was: “I’m sorry. Call the cops.”

These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday. But the people who scare me the most are the mothers, sisters and wives of those young men, because my stupid uterus still holds out some insane hope of solidarity.


Note that the behavior of the women "shooed away" doesn't matter. Note that telling a possible rape victim to do the very thing that would bring some measure of justice against her rapist is dismissed as being dismissive.

Note that the consequences of a false rape accusation are swept under the rug because "being raped" is so much worse. Note that the risks a man takes in associating with women, given how domestic abuse, family courts, and divorce laws are all tilted in favor of women, are meaningless.

Women who sympathize with the genuine struggles of men are "gender traitors". Women who agree with a man on how to handle a circumstance are "gender traitors". Women who notice the preferential legal treatment of women, and how other women can exploit that inappropriately and selfishly, are "gender traitors".

Because the article's author's uterus thinks that women are supposed to only agree with women. Or something. Let's continue the article a bit more.

We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades. White women have broken for Democratic presidential candidates only twice: in the 1964 and 1996 elections, according to an analysis by Jane Junn, a political scientist at the University of Southern California.

Right, so at this point we're more clearly talking about gender, not behavior, as the "problem". Specifically, about how white women didn't vote in ways that benefited non-white women. In case you doubt that this is a racial issue as well as a gender issue, just continue reading.

Women of color, and specifically black women, make the margin of difference for Democrats. The voting patterns of white women and white men mirror each other much more closely, and they tend to cast their ballots for Republicans. The gender gap in politics is really a color line.

Colored women want to dress slutty and vote Democrat, and so because since white women vote Republican and tell their daughters to dress modestly, they're "gender traitors" for choosing to align with white men instead of colored women because the colored women also have a uterus.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your perspective.

That’s because white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain. In return they’re placed on a pedestal to be “cherished and revered,” as Speaker Paul D. Ryan has said about women, but all the while denied basic rights.

White women get married and their husbands work to provide for their wife and family, and in turn they're cherished and revered by their husbands and children. That's a bad trade because the white men are denying all women "basic rights".

The 19th amendment was adopted in 1920. Title IX has been in place since 1972. Which "basic rights" are being denied? We don't actually get to find out. For the same reason that the stories of sexual assault are to be believed and acted upon, the assertion that basic rights are being denied has to be taken as true at face value and then acted upon.

Even worse, let's look at the phrase "monopolize resources" in the context of taxes. Democrats support using taxes to put money where it needs to go on the premise that, left to their own devices, people would be too selfish to share their money. Republicans are already on the record as giving more charitably than Democrats, and so they favor fewer taxes and greater freedom on part of the individual family unit in deciding how to spend resources.

Guess which one of these paths is more attractive to someone who isn't married, doesn't have someone who would work hard towards their "mutual benefit", and believes that other people aren't sharing their money correctly and so they have to vote for people who will take that money and redistribute it by force?

At this point in the article, you have to realize that the politics and shaming are a clever front, a sham, a distraction from the real problem: the author simply can't find a man who wants her, and because of that, her politics reflect her need find a replacement for the role that men played to her "mutual benefit".

Think about it. Why would you have a problem with how someone else found happiness and contentment unless you cannot also take advantage of that opportunity because of choices someone else made without considering you? Why, other than envy, would someone try to tear down what others have built instead of building their own accomplishments instead?

Even in the secular world, the phrase "living well is the best revenge" holds some meaning, right?

This is the power of a victim identity over people. At no point can they ever stop being the victim, and not just them, but any who are demographically similar to them must also be victims, otherwise the demands being made would have no moral weight at all. If you've been wronged, you are supposed to seek justice, right? If a whole group of people have been wronged, then the scope of th justice scales, right?

It's the difference between a childish tantrum and a legitimate demand for justice, and oh boy, does it continue on in Part 4.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 2

This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing an opinion article published by the NYT:

White Women, Come Get Your People

In short, last post I presented that men and women aren't equal, but they're both valuable, because they're different and they both serve different roles that, together, are necessary. I also demonstrated why the dramatic opening to the article has tipped off the careful reader to know that it is not intended to be taken on merit of truth, because truth doesn't matter when you're told to "listen and believe" a story just because it has been told, despite there being precedent for stories being unreliable and blind trust exploitable that dates back thousands of years.

Now, rejection of these different roles is rooted in envy, because men and women are going to be valued by different things, and some things are going to be more obviously or easily held in higher regard than others, so in order to "right the wrong", or to "achieve equality", people deny that distinct roles are necessary at all, or seek to write new ones.

What then happens is that when folks repeatedly fail to have anyone adhere to their "new roles", by others or reality or natural consequences, they grow bitter. They don't learn from their failure, they project it out and blame someone else.

"Oh, if ___ did/didn't do ___ then I could totally have ___! I now hate ___ and so you should you for being so mean and oppressive as to prevent me from being able to ___!"

Does that pattern seem familiar? It's how one affirms that they're just fine and the problems are with everyone, or everything, else. It's a type of solipsism, a manifestation of the belief that the individual is the center of the universe, the most important person there is, and screw you for defying the commands of your god. Or, to suit the times, goddess.

It's just as mature as the bossy child on the playground who believed it was their duty to tell everyone else how they're supposed to be playing, only now that childish mind also has leverage in the legal system and access to tools with which to try and assert their will on others.

The article from the NYT demonstrates this in an attempt to use identity politics to shame women into behaving differently. This is seen in the title, as well as where we pick up in the article.

With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end

These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out. 

"Gender traitors." Really think about that term for a second. Selling out "the sisterhood"?

If ever there was doubt that "Feminism" was not just an anti-men movement intent on complete feminine dominance, phrases like this should at least fuel an understanding of why that framing came about.

Even taking the term at face value, traitors in what sense? What "battle" is there between the sexes that could cause women to be considered a "traitor" to other women? What cause, what noble goal could be pursued so passionately that women who don't immediately believe other women and who tell their daughters to dress more modestly are considered "traitors"?

We get a hint in the label "patriarchy". While not really defined, it does set up a binary. If one "side" is "the patriarchy", and treason is based on which gender you "side" with, then the "other side" is then inevitably "the matriarchy."

Feminine dominance, in other words. That's the only possible alternative because if the "lines" are drawn based on gender, and those genders are based on biological distinctions, and the most significant biological distinction is between males and females, then the alternative to male dominance is thus female dominance.

Were the lines being drawn on behavior, or people taking on particular roles, or on issues with dominance itself, then both the social and written laws would seek to destroy dominance wherever it shows up, demonstrated by man or woman, because the problem is "dominance" and "oppression" and "inequality".

If men erred because they were unfairly dominant, and the problem is in the dominance and not men, then the target would be manifestations of dominance, and not men, right?

But then what does how a woman dresses play into this? Why would female modesty, where women are exposing less of themselves to the apparently depraved and salacious eyes of men, be "bad", a sign that you are a traitor to your gender?

Because women don't want to deny what they are. It's only men who need to change, who had a role that was incorrect. Thus, it's not about the dominance itself being a problem at all, it's about men being a problem, and that leads to the secular denial of the significance of men in the most basic priority in any creature: continuation of the species.

And the article is only just getting started. Continued in Part 3.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 1

It is common to believe that there was a time when Feminism could be painted as trying to "balance the scales" between men and women. We believe this because when the raw emotion of it is put on display today, the instinct is to recoil and say "this is too far", as if there were some safer ideological ground that we could retreat to which was "just right".

The truth is that there can't ever be a true balance because that would require men and woman to be literal equals, which is literally impossible when you have a species that reproduces sexually instead of asexually.

Specifically, that because humans do not continue the species by separating a part of their own genetic code off of themselves and then that becomes another individual example of the species with the same exact genetic code, no two individuals are really going to be identical, and because there are differences between individuals, they are not equal. They are not the same.

Even simpler, because humans have sex to reproduce, men and women aren't the same.

This doesn't mean one is thus "better" than the other, we aren't stuck in a binary where either everyone is equal or someone has to be "superior" and someone else "inferior". One will be better at some things than the other, and vice versa, but since the combination of the things that both can do together is what is required for the continuation of the species, neither is then "more valuable" than the other. We need both men and women, and so both are valuable, in their different ways.

It is that difference which fuels the envy behind the rejection of this human dynamic that is seen ever so clearly in a recent opinion article published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

You can read the article first, but I'll also be reproducing it in posts as well.

Let's get started!

After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Stories of sexual trauma. Not legal accusations, not credible allegations, stories. The author wasn't even keen enough to use the word "accounts" to try and lend even a semblance of truth, but instead echoes the sentiment behind the "listen and believe" mantra, where even if the "stories" are fake, everyone needs to act as if they were true anyway.

Never mind that even in the Bible is documented at least one story where a woman makes a false sexual assault allegation in order to cover for her own indiscretions, the modern belief is apparently that women would never lie, or if they did never on something serious.

Except, of course, for when they do. Whether about age or number of sexual partners, the evidence that women lie is plentiful. Egalitarians will be quick to point out that men are liars as well, but that's not in question, and irrelevant. Worse, it can come off as trying to say that men also being liars makes women being liars less of a problem.

Put differently, "women aren't liars, and even if they were, men are too so only a hypocrite would point it out and you don't want to be a hypocrite, do you?"

Does that sound like the basis of a mature thought process? A reasonable argument, one that has weight to it because it is aligned with truth?

An excerpt from that last linked article:

"Modern women just can’t stop lying, but they do it to stop hurting other people’s feelings. It could be argued that these little white lies simply make the world go round a little more smoothly. But to tell a man a baby is his when it’s not, or to deliberately get pregnant when your partner doesn’t want a baby, is playing Russian roulette with other people’s lives."
Why is this so important? Because if Feminism was ever really about equality, then the "balance" would be that men and women both lie, they both do it in big and small situations, and they always do it because they think that telling the lie will benefit them in some way or another.

Instead, we now have stories being told which are to be believed simply because they were told by a woman, and to then accept on blind faith alone that the women telling them aren't lying without anything but the word of those very same women to trust, and then even if the story isn't true, we're all supposed to act as if it was anyway.

Frankly, that didn't work out well for Adam, and Eve wasn't even carrying around the baggage of a postmodern victim identity.

This doesn't even account for the deceptive body language of those telling the stories, because that is also a part of the story, and professionals at reading body language had a lot to say about the testimony about the most prominent accuser:


None of this is absolutely conclusive by itself, because whether spoken or not language and communication are somewhat subjective, but what it does is grant credence to doubt that the story is true, at some level. That there is a need for hard evidence, real proof, any corroboration at all, because people who behave in this manner are more often than not lying.

And that's not an uncommon problem when it comes to testimony.

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

Even the Bible in Deuteronomy says "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established." - Deut 19:15 (NKJV)

Now, the reason I am hammering this point before continuing to the rest of the article is because of the drama that this opening paragraph was intentionally drenched in. Slitting wrists? Stories flowing "like rivers of blood"? This is language meant to evoke an emotional response, not rational.

Right out of the gate the manipulation is meant to distract from what really happened, and the distractions continue throughout the rest of the NYT article, which we'll continue to look at in Part 2, because this post is already long.