The NY Times ran another hit piece on RFK, Jr. It's time for us to hit back

The NY Times ran a front-page, 2,600-word hit piece on RFK Jr. today. Obviously this was in retaliation for the successful Defeat the Mandates march and rally in D.C. on January 23. The NY Times assigned the article to one of their senior writers, Adam Nagourney. The article was standard paint-by-numbers drivel. And the angle of attack was the same, ‘oh dear, Kennedy’s-relatives-must-be-so-disappointed-in him(TM)’ line that we have now seen hundreds of times.

The structure of the hit piece tells us a lot about the bourgeois mind. Mr. Nagourney is trying to argue that RFK, Jr. is categorically wrong about the science of vaccines. We can have that debate, indeed we would welcome it. But Mr. Nagourney never actually attempts to evaluate the science. Instead, Mr. Nagourney interviewed RFK Jr.’s relatives. That’s bizarre. Mr. Nagourney is making a SOCIAL argument in the attempt to rebut RFK, Jr.’s SCIENTIFIC arguments. By way of analogy, imagine a 19th century reporter contacting the relatives of Ignaz Semmelweis to get their thoughts instead of engaging with his insights into how to reduce deaths from puerperal fever. I suppose you could, but such an approach would shed no light on the central issue.

To sane people in the real world it appears that Mr. Nagourney may have had one too many boosters. But to the bourgeoisie, Mr. Nagourney’s angle of attack makes perfect sense. To embarrass the family and to be excluded from polite society is the thing they fear most. The reason the bourgeois gatekeepers write this exact same hit piece over and over again is because they think that it is the ultimate leverage point to use against Kennedy — the threat of social censure and banishment from polite society.

It literally never occurs to the bourgeoisie that one could evaluate the evidence for oneself and make an argument on the merits. Bourgeois’ arguments are ENTIRELY SOCIAL, their worldview consists of figuring out how to fit in and not make waves. And that’s one reason why the bourgeoisie has gotten everything wrong about coronavirus from the beginning — they never actually evaluate data, they are trapped inside an epistemology that considers social standing the only valid form of evidence.

In other articles, when these mainstream “reporters” attempt to engage with the science, they make the same methodological mistake — they just call Hotez, Offit, Fauci etc. — the usual cast of characters with financial ties to Pharma. So even when they pretend to make a scientific argument they are actually only making a social argument (‘the elite tribe thinks this way, so you better obey like we do’).

RFK Jr.’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci, has sold over 900,000 copies. It is the best selling book in the U.S. over the last several months. It is 480-pages and has thousands of references. The NY Times and nearly every mainstream publication have refused to review it. The book presents such a threat to the governing orthodoxies that mainstream media outlets have embargoed even the mention of its title. Consistent with this pattern of journalistic malpractice, there is no evidence that Mr. Nagourney actually read The Real Anthony Fauci and the article makes passing reference to “a best-selling new book” but will not name the title.

The corrupt mainstream gatekeepers are terrified of what might happen if the people read the evidence for themselves.

Fascists do not deserve clicks. But I’m making an exception in this case because I’ve got a call to action below. You can find the article (here).

I’ve had it with these know-nothing bigots who cannot be bothered to engage in proper due diligence on the most important issue of our lifetime. These stenographers for the cartel need to know that their time is up, their era is over, and we will not put up with their bullying any longer. Everyone at the NY Times has failed since day 1 of the pandemic and their grotesque cheerleading for the pharmaceutical industry has cost hundreds of thousands of American lives. We are the majority now, let’s use our voice to right these wrongs.

So I am asking you to reach out to Mr. Nagourney to share your thoughts on his article. Please be respectful and polite, but he needs to be held to account for his actions. At a minimum I think it is fair to ask:

1. Did you actually read The Real Anthony Fauci?

2. Why did you fail to mention a single fact from the book? and

3. What claims from the book, if any, do you think might be incorrect?

If you are looking for a subject line for your email, I suggest: Your hit piece on RFK, Jr. failed to meet even basic journalistic standards.

Robust debate is the lifeblood of democracy and science and we deserve better from the “paper of record.” If Mr. Nagourney is unable to engage with the scientific arguments in good faith, then maybe he should just sit this one out. And the NY Times should be ashamed of itself — the article was clearly written for the purposes of gaining favor with pharmaceutical advertisers.

Here’s Mr. Nagourney’s contact information:

Email: Adam.Nagourney@nytimes.com

Twitter: @adamnagourney

Facebook: @AdamNagourneyNYT

Mr. Nagourney’s bosses needs to hear from us too:

Dean Baquet
Executive Editor
The New York Times Company
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
dean.baquet@nytimes.com

Joseph Kahn
Managing Editor
The New York Times Company
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
joe.kahn@nytimes.com

Here are instructions for writing a letter to the editor (for possible publication in the newspaper):

Letters should preferably be 150 to 175 words, should refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone number.

To send a letter to the Editor:

• For readers of The New York Times: letters@nytimes.com 

• For readers of The International New York Times: inytletters@nytimes.com

---

Blessings to the warriors. 🙌

Prayers for Tamara Lich and all of the political prisoners in Canada. 🙏

In the comments, please let me know how you go with sending messages to Mr. Nagourney and Mr. Baquet and whether you get any reply. 📣

(And, as always, please let me know if there are any corrections to the above.)

---