The New York Times does not investigate anything, America instigates a propaganda change and the Times just propagates it. Now they're saying “a New York Times investigation reveals that America was woven into the [Ukraine] war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood.” This is old news, obvious from the beginning and even broadcast to old people on CBS years ago. The only scoop here is the giant hole they expect in your brain. In war after war, the NYT Charlie Browns the political football, and expect (and receive) Pulitzers for it.

In 2023, CBS did a propaganda tour of the Ukraine command center in the Pentagon, in between endless waves of their usual copaganda. CBS showed the endless meat waves of Ukrainians getting their limbs blown off and the gormless General Mark (Child Killey) Milley admitting that he had no idea how to conduct this sort of war, but that he was nonetheless conducting it. CBS is not a hard-hitting investigative outlet, it's for people who have trouble shitting regularly, but even those morons looked around and stated the obvious. Their ‘journalist’ said, “this really is a proxy war you don't have boots on the ground, you're not making decisions but you're helping Ukraine kill Russians.”

You can see here how a general truth gets buried in specific lies (America did have boots on the ground and did make decisions) when you take a general's word for it. Milley talked about the ‘fiction of war’ one minute then spun one then next. He said, “target selection and authority to strike is with Ukraine, what we do is provide them situational awareness.” This linguistic distinction between ‘targets’ and ‘situational awareness’ was actually a ‘a fine and fraught linguistic debate’ within the US military, which is NYTimes style-speak for propaganda. Propaganda is just from the propaganda regions of Russia and China, from our side it's sparkling bullshit. Now that the military-industrial complex has comfortably eaten its blood meal, however, the NYTimes duly regurgitates,

Inside the U.S. European Command, this process gave rise to a fine but fraught linguistic debate: Given the delicacy of the mission, was it unduly provocative to call targets “targets”? Some officers thought “targets” was appropriate. Others called them “intel tippers,” because the Russians were often moving and the information would need verification on the ground.

The debate was settled by Maj. Gen. Timothy D. Brown, European Command’s intelligence chief: The locations of Russian forces would be “points of interest.” Intelligence on airborne threats would be “tracks of interest.”

Americans always insist on torturing the English language, like the NYTimes calling torture ‘enhanced interrogation.’ Thus targets become ‘points of interest’ or ‘uhh... situational awareness’ if a journalist accidentally does his job in front of you. Like, yeah homie, my mom was just giving me ‘situational awareness’ when she said clean my room or no allowance. America assigned the targets and Ukraine hit them or died trying. As Shakespeare said, a ruse by any other name is still bullshit.

The NYTimes acts like they're suddenly revealing that Ukraine was a proxy war, but they're literally just following orders. The Secretary of State just said, “frankly, it’s a proxy war,” and whaddya know, the NYTimes illustrates it with infographics. The NYTimes even discloses the anonymous force behind them as ‘sources’, because in America it's not corruption if you disclose it. The Times said, “While some agreed to speak on the record, most requested that their names not be used in order to discuss sensitive military and intelligence operations.” Sure dude, whatever. The NYTimes is a military and intelligence operation, and an insult to both.

Remember that in 2014 the NYTimes used to openly say, in their usual half-assed way,

Equally awful is Kiev’s decision to maintain a relationship with the Azov battalion, an ultranationalist paramilitary group of around 400 men that uses Nazi salutes and insignia. To anyone familiar with eastern Ukraine’s bloody history during World War II, allowing the Azov battalion to fight in the region is a bit like sponsoring a Timothy McVeigh Appreciation Night in Oklahoma City.

Now, however, it's our Nazis and our corruption, so the propaganda line has changed. People raised on a media diet of Nazis Bad are told that all the Nazi patches showing up in press photos actually “symbolize Ukrainian sovereignty and pride, not Nazism,” according to, uh, “soldiers” that the people that made up WMDs totally didn't make up. Americans are also expected to support Al-Qaeda now because, as constantly-stepping-on-rakes Jake Sullivan said (in 2012) “AQ [Al Qaeda] is on our side in Syria.” That's how much the propaganda line is whipping around, and people are expected to snort it instead of snorting at it.

The propaganda line even contorts itself within the same article. In a thousand words to say something absurd, the Times said, “the iconography of these groups, including a skull-and-crossbones patch worn by concentration camp guards and a symbol known as the Black Sun, now appears with some regularity on the uniforms of soldiers fighting on the front line,” and also “troops’ use of patches bearing Nazi emblems risks fueling Russian propaganda.” Nazis are still bad, but these Nazis you're seeing with your own eyes are not real because, uh, Russia bad. As Groucho Marx said, who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?

Now, however, the blood pump is being dumped and the NYTimes can uncover their own cover-up like it's a big scoop. It's howitzers for the arms dealers and Pulitzers for the press, champagne all around. That's why I call it a military-industrial multiplex, and they've already moved onto the next theatre. The War Of Terror Part IV: Complete Horror. The NYTimes is now actively inciting and abetting a genocide in Gaza, just as they have been an active participant in the blood-letting of Ukraine.

It's all the same business model, the western press gets the advertising rights for war and the apologizing rights in perpetuity. The New York Times is a liberal publication and, as the saying goes, a liberal opposes every war but the current one, and supports every civil rights movement but the one right now. Where's the fun in actual journalism, and figuring out when you're obviously being lied to before disseminating it to millions of oblivious people? The NYTimes might lose something by actually reporting on their own government, whereas they make good money as America's privatized propaganda. They call themselves the paper of record, but record of what? War after endless war, waged with gusto and then decried before the blood even dries. There's no pursuit of truth here, just the opposite. They're just a bunch of tote-bag totalitarians.