September 20, 2019
The New York Times has really taken a serious dive in the Age of Trump (Age of Apocalypse), and it’s really a little bit difficult to analyze.
The first thing to understand is that they don’t make money and they don’t really have any intention of making money. I’m sure they’d prefer to lose less money, but the paper is an extremely important intelligence operation: it sets the entire narrative for the media, at the directive of the Jews that run the government.
If you want to know more about the concept, check out Operation Mockingbird. It was a CIA operation in the 1950s to control certain news outlets that independent, organic news outlets would then copy the narratives of because the CIA controlled operations were producing convincing and authoritative seeming narratives.
Now, it’s all streamlined, and the only papers that matter are the Times, and to a much lesser extent (but still to a relevant extent), the Washington Post. Every other media outlet just copies the narratives of the Times, directly.
Yes, people who think they’re clever read the articles (or rather, read the first 20% of the articles), and they sell subscriptions and so on, but the main purpose of this paper is to produce an official narrative for the global Jewish industrial complex.
So the fact that they are slowly transforming themselves into a weird Buzzfeed knockoff is confusing, because I don’t really understand what purpose it serves. I don’t even think it increases sales. It certainly doesn’t help their status as the “if this paper says we need to go to war, we need to go to war” publication.
But for some reason, the New York Times is now printing stories about how women take shits at work, and how men need to get on board with being sympathetic with this fact.
This is a 1,500 word essay written by two women, Jessica Bennett and Amanda McCall, that appeared at the top of Google News.
It is about how they take shits at work, and it is about shaming men for not having enough sympathy for the fact that they have to take shits.
Let me just pick out some of the insightful bits for you.
There once was a woman who walked regularly from her office in Midtown Manhattan to a hotel across the street in order to use the restroom, and that woman may have been one of us.
That woman had a friend, at another office job, who carried a book of matches and a can of air freshener in her purse — more willing to set off the office fire alarm than leave any hint of odor in a public lavatory.
That friend had another friend, at another office job, who repeatedly forced her body to do the deed so quickly — racing from cubicle to bathroom and back, in an effort to deflect attention from what she might be doing in there — that it led to a semi-serious hemorrhoid problem.
As her former colleague put it: “She was pooping at the speed of pee.”
Remember the children’s book, “Everyone Poops”? It is meant to teach kids that defecating is a natural, healthy part of digestion, and it does so by illustrating a wide variety of creatures — dogs, cats, snakes, whales, hippos, little boys — happily defecating. But you know who you won’t see defecating in that book, happily or unhappily? Women.
We may be living in an age where certain pockets of the corporate world are breathlessly adapting to women’s needs — company-subsidized tampons, salary workshops, lactation rooms. But even in the world’s most progressive workplace, it’s not a stretch to think that you might have an empowered female executive leading a meeting at one moment and then sneaking off to another floor to relieve herself, the next.
Poop shame is real — and it disproportionately affects women, who suffer from higher rates of irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease. In other words, the patriarchy has seeped into women’s intestinal tracts. Let’s call it the pootriarchy.
Girls aren’t born with poo shame — it’s something they’re taught.
In “Psychology in the Bathroom,” the psychologist Nicholas Haslam writes that girls tend to be toilet trained earlier than boys, learning at a young age to neatly keep their bodily functions contained (our words, not his).
When those girls get a bit older, they learn to pass gas silently — while boys do it loudly, and think it’s hilarious. (Yes, there is a kind of Kinsey scale to gas-passing and it goes like this: According to a study called “Fecal Matters” that was published in a journal called “Social Problems,” adult heterosexual men are far more likely to engage in scatological humor than heterosexual women and are more likely to report intentionally passing gas. Gay men are less likely to intentionally pass gas than heterosexual women, and lesbian women are somewhere in between.)
“If a boy farts, everyone laughs, including the boy,” said Sarah Albee, the author of “Poop Happened!: A History of the World from the Bottom Up.” “If a girl farts, she is mortified.”
“The bathroom is saturated with gender in fascinating ways,” said Mr. Haslam, a professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne, who noted that women’s aversion, particularly at work, is not entirely unfounded: One unpublished study he mentions in his book found that a woman who excused herself to go to the bathroom was evaluated more negatively than one who excused herself to tend to “paperwork” — while there was no difference in the way participants viewed the men.
“At one level it’s an association of women with purity,” said Mr. Haslam, referring to the double standard. “At another it’s a double standard applied to hygiene and civility, where the weight falls disproportionately on women to be clean, odorless and groomed.”
Or, as one of the woman interviewed in that “Fecal Matters” study put it: “Women are supposed to be non-poopers.”
For most of history, it would seem, they have fallen in line — adopting all sorts of creative ways to avoid mention, inference, acknowledgment, or God forbid, smell, even when inside the bathroom.
According to Ms. Albee, in the Gold Rush days, while the men on the open range would simply find a shrub or pop a squat, prairie women would form elaborate protective circles to shield one another. “They’d all stand in a circle, facing out, holding their skirts out to the side to form a ‘wall,’” she said. “Then one at a time, they’d take turns going to the bathroom in the middle of the circle, away from prying eyes.”
Historians have long noted that public facilities were created for — and built by — men, and bathrooms are no exception. Most architects are men, most plumbers are men, and early public facilities were tailored to the white men — and then later, white women — who were engaging in public life enough to use them.
And then there are the biological factors at play.
According to the work of Dr. Robynne Chutkan, an integrative gastroenterologist and the author of “Gutbliss,” women’s poop anxiety might not simply be cultural or even psychological. It could be physical, as there are actually some profound differences between the female and male digestive tracts, beginning with the length of the colon, which is longer in women (Dr. Chutkan calls it the “voluptuous Venus”).
“What that extra length in the colon does is create this redundancy, these sort of extra twists and turns,” she has said. “Think of the male colon as kind of a gentle horseshoe, and the female colon as being a tangled-up Slinky.”
As it turns out, the ideal position for a person to comfortably relieve their bowels — at least according to gastroenterologists — is a lot like a squat, with the knees at a 90-degree angle to the waist, and not a seated position. Which means that perhaps all of us should be investing in a squatty potty to prop up our feet, but particularly those of us with a tangled up Slinky for a colon, sitting on a toilet in an office building that was built for the height of men.
Or, a better idea: We could invest in educating girls to accept their bodies as they are, along with all the smells and sounds that come with it. Because, quite frankly, women have enough crap to deal with.
Women’s lives are so incredibly terrible, we all know. And of course, part of that terror is that they have to take shits.
But why is the New York Times printing this?
Is this them simply sinking to the level of a tabloid, because that’s what’s popular, and maybe they want to be popular for some reason? Or is this something that they think it is time to inject into the public narrative?
Do the Jews think it is time for the goyim to start having a very serious discussion about the oppression of women having to poop?
I am a very long-time NYT reader, and I am very interested in the implications of what they print, and I must tell you that some of the stuff that has been printed since early 2017 has baffled me, utterly.
All of it begs the question: Is the Buzzfeedication of high society a part of the Jewish agenda?