?

Zoe Sharp's Fictional Assassin to "MAGA Bomber": The Left is Desperate!



Some think Zoe Sharp foreshadowed the "MAGA Bomber"...

Zoe Sharp is a writer for the liberal junk heap organization, the New York Times (NYT). Two days ago, the company published her short story entitled “How It Ends.” Sharp wrote a fantasy piece about how a Russian agent was sent to assassinate President Trump. If Rian Johnson mastered the art of subversion, Sharp’s story is a discount mockery of the word, ‘subversion.’

We at the New Right Network do what we can to ensure that we cover the great things President Trump has done over the course of his first term because the left wing media does not cover it. We find it very important to explain to our readers just how they operate. They will entirely omit news that puts our president in a good light and vomit out all of their leftist political rhetoric. With midterms around the corner, the actions of leftists are reaching the height of desperation and will only ramp up once these midterms are over.

What we will do is break down Sharp’s pile of literal jargon and see if she is worth the read. In this way, if you subscribe to the New York Times, you can cancel your subscription and use your money towards more productive things, like bills, investments, your kids (if you have them), or a great gift for your significant other. Here it is, without further ado; a breakdown of Zoe Sharp’s NYT short story fantasy, “How It Ends.”

“The Russian landed at Dulles after 48 hours of traveling. Of necessity, he came from Moscow by a circuitous route. A long way with a very specific task. There would be no return flight.”

The opening paragraph exudes a very ominous tone. She created this by giving no context, no name, and no motive of this mysterious Russian. He is known as “The Russian.” It is supposed to come off as a spy novel with a dark, film noir vibe. The whole “There would be no return flight” is indicated to intrigue the reader and pique their interest to continue reading.

“In the airport bars, the TVs were tuned to different news channels, but the story was the same. First the president’s campaign manager, then his lawyer, a Republican congressman, former aides, family members. Those who were not indicted were subpoenaed. House arrest had become fashionable. The town car sent by the hotel had a flat-screen for his entertainment on the 45-minute drive into D.C. The channel once snidely referred to as “state TV” now delighted in showing long shots through the White House railings of men in uniforms removing boxes of incriminating paperwork. The president himself was not in residence. He was holed up on home ground.”

This section gives us an alternate perspective of a real Trump-Russia collusion story. It suggests to the reader the idea that Trump was guilty all along. It paints a picture of what we think Watergate might have been, though in a more exposed sense, due to the nature of how our media, internet, and reporting is done. Everything is exposed, and Sharp gives us a peek of her ignorance by using the term “state TV” comparing Trump’s Presidency to that of a fascist regime rather than the leader of a Republic. Again, with the tiresome fake narrative that Trump is a ‘Nazi,’ and that he used his leadership position to institute some authoritarian government. She is being hyperbolic with her literary elements to paint a pathetic picture of what goes on in her mind.

“The walk across the hotel lobby included a brush with a businessman intent on his cellphone. The Russian did not touch the inside pocket of his coat, into which his new identity had been adroitly slipped, until he reached the desk and produced it. The clerk was slow to respond. His attention was on the TV in the bar.

“They’re saying the Russkies put him up to it,” the clerk said, handing over his room key.
“And I voted for the guy!”
The Russian shrugged. “Fake news. …”
But, the clerk did not look believing.
He spent a day in his suite, watching the slow grind toward impeachment.”

Russkies! Who says Russkies? It is obviously noted as a derogatory term for Russians. However, based on the timeline of Sharp’s story, it is probably 2017, and no one in the millennial age range uses the word anymore. It was used in the nineties as a word for “Russian.” By bringing it back, Sharp dates herself in terms of her storytelling, but it could be based on her character. A hotel clerk could be older in years and might have used this word in the context of the narrative as a whole. Still, any current NYT reader might have to Google it to find out what it means. A short story is supposed to suspend reality, not interrupt it to ensure words are correct. Either way, this section communicates all of the elements of what we would think are contextual parallels to the narrative of our day. She uses words and phrases like, ‘fake news’ and ‘impeachment’ to help the reader know that this is the reality we live in.

“Around 11 p.m., his contact arrived. The man had been in deep cover for decades. In his briefcase was a bottle of Stolichnaya and a 9-millimeter Makarov semiautomatic pistol.

“There is no other way?” It was intended as a statement. It emerged as a question. The contact shook his head. “When it comes out that he was handpicked at the highest possible level, our great nation will be the laughingstock of the world,” he said. “He must be silenced. They drank vodka until the early hours. The contact left for the airport. The Russian drank on alone. Throughout his career, he would have spent these hours going over the plan, the escape route. This time, there was no escape route — only honor. And death.”

Again, the film noir vibe. The mystery of shadowy figures exchanging weapons and also the really poor attempt to assert that Trump was Russia’s pawn all along is quite comedic. This is also where the story turns towards fantasizing about the act of assassinating Trump. This is the pivot moment where the short story turns towards the end and ramps up the ’suspense.’

“At 7 a.m., he showered. The bar of soap had the hotel name stamped into both sides. He made sure to wash his ass with it. Then he shaved and ate a last room-service breakfast. He dressed in the porter’s uniform that had been obtained for him, tucking the Makarov into the back of his waistband.

When it was time, he went downstairs, took his place in the lobby before the entourage appeared. The hotel staff had been lined up to see their boss, the president, go by. A few of them applauded. Most did not. The president didn’t seem to notice. He waved, in his desultory fashion. The Secret Service agents clustered around him, ushered him toward the armored limo idling outside at the curb.

The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger. The Makarov misfired.

The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes. The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost. It did not come.

He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.

“Here,” the agent said politely. “Use mine. …”

There it is, the literal twist and subversion of a poorly written story. It does not do anything except subvert us to take notice that it was not the Russian who would be the assassin, but a Trump hating secret service agent who would help him assassinate President Trump.

Liberal Fear of Irrelevance Is Palpable

Free speech is something we champion. This is a fantasy story set in an alternate reality that mirrors present-day events. Is it not telling, however, that this was published on Tuesday when the left was clearly feeling the effects of massive failure? The caravan had disappeared from the media, Kavanaugh was confirmed, failed/fake bombs sent to high profile DNC members and actors raised questions, and then we got bits and pieces of this gem of a story. It was clearly the unhinged left trying to remain relevant by playing the fantasy card.

Let it be clear that Zoe Sharp has every right to imagine, type up, and print this short story. The New York Times, as a publishing company, has every right to publish Sharp’s piece. We do want to be intellectually consistent and state that under the Constitution, Zoe Sharp’s ‘How It Ends’ short story should not be written and allowed for circulation. It also means that those of us reading this, and anyone with a modicum of sense, and a bit of satirical irony, can also take this piece of literary sewage, pick it apart and critique it. We know that, while trying to be a thoughtful writer, Sharp comes across as more of an unhinged, violent leftist who simply wants Trump dead. It has been said that “from out of the heart, the mouth speaks…” and in Sharp’s case, as a New York Times endorsed writer, she does want Trump dead. We can expect that from the Left.

Yet, conservatives are hypocrites for going low? Imagine if a conservative writer wrote a piece like this, but with Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Cory Booker, or Kamala Harris as the targets of assassination. There would be no end to the whining and outrage from the left. They would be calling for careers to be ended and all the pathetic talking points they consistently spout. It is typical liberal hypocrisy.

Take a moment to read some of the op-ed's of people tearing Sharp apart, as well as the story itself and the New York Times presentation of her story. The basic premise of the story is that the left would like to see Trump dead and gone. Does this strike anyone as odd, or any different, from any other day of Trump’s last two years in office? It does not, but it does reiterate how insane liberals have gotten. No surprise there either.



John Lee / Senior Contributor
John Lee is a conservative, Christian Asian who loves God, country and music. He's proud to be American and wants to MAGA!
previous article
Newer Post
next article
Older Post



Post a Comment

no

Name

Email *

Message *