More than ten years ago, I pointed in comments that President Wilson was a racist, and that this had a dominant effect on policy, in the USA, and worldwide. To this day. The New York Times blocked all such comments. The New York Times thus gained more than years in the public revelation that president Wilson was an extreme racist, who implemented racist policies, from inside the USA, onto the world stage, on the grandest scale. Not just this, but racism was, arguably the most important effect of the Wilson presidency. When that policy was not anti-black, it was anti-French. It was also extremely crucial in supporting exterminationist racist oligarchy in Germany, which peaked with World War Two and exterminationist policies. The intimate conviction of exterminationist Germans, thanks to Wilson, was that the USA was on their side. And indeed it was, in many ways.
The New York Times is considered to be the USA’s “Newspaper of Record”, so one would think it is below its dignity to censor its subscribers (other “newspapers of record” in some other countries do not censor me).
[New York Times’ articles are reproduced by several hundreds of newspapers in the USA, including most of the major ones… With the exception of WSJ, to which I also subscribe, BTW. .]
Readers of the New York Times were not appraised of the fact that Wilson was a racist, because the New York Times blocked me. This has happened on many subjects, and still happens to this day: if I point out that Quantitative Easing favors Big Banks (“Too Big To Fail”), they block me. The New York Times, and similar pseudo “left” publications are mostly interested that I stay out of sight and out of mind of all and any readers. Even WordPress does this actively (removing my comments on other blogs).
Why so much aggressivity? Because the New York Times actively directs its readers towards brain-killing “blogs” from insipid, ill-informed writers out there. Those “blogs”, one should say “blobs” typically gloat that “Republicans are bad and stupid, Obamacare is the greatest thing ever, Democrats saved the economy, elect Clinton, it will get even better”.
A friend of mine who works in an executive position in the media in New York called my attention to the fact the New York Times ran a long article about its “top commenters”, and that they forgot to mention me (that was tongue in cheek, as he knows the NYT deliberately censors me). Actually the top commentator in the New York Times is probably your truly, if judged by the depth of the contributions, and that is why my comments on the war in Iraq were blocked in 2003, as I exposed the lies of Bush, and its parrot, Judith Miller, a New York Times (then) star journalist, about Iraq (although the NYT supported the destruction of Iraq, neither Obama nor Krugman did).
The NYT enabled comments on its (rather insipid) commentators, and I chimed in with (knowing it would be censored, as usual, I avoided any incendiary adjective):
The New York Times censors me systematically. It has admitted in emails to have blocked thousands of my comments for no reason whatsoever (except that the computer blocked unusual words, I was told).
None of my recent comments were published. Many, in the past, were delayed days. I found increasingly most comments published by the New York Times uninteresting: they support what the New York Times wants to be said.
As I have been systematically censored, I do not bother reading any (all too predictable) official comments anymore. I feel completely excluded, and a bit like a criminal: how do I dare to still send comments to the New York Times, after thousands of my comments were censored? Don’t I get the message?
Don’t I get the message that I do not deserve the little green marker: all what the New York Times wants from me is money (lots of it, over the decades), and not give me a green light.
I will probably end up, after decades of full subscription, cancelling my financial contribution to a paper whose censorship I despise ever more. Indeed, I spent my time searching for truth, and the New York Times declares that what I think is unworthy of publication, a danger, or bore, to society.
Thus, it is becoming ever more painful to read the Times. Let alone insulting, considering the platitudes most of the authorized commentators roll out. Full contributors to the NYT should have comments published right away, except if they exceed bounds defined by law. One day, manipulation of comments will unlawful.
The preceding comment was, of course, censored. As were all my comments on the connection of the policies of the USA and the rise of the Islamist State, all my comments on Islam, or comments pointing out factual lies by the New York Times. Reading the New York Times is, increasingly, taking part into a fraudulent scheme, where correct ideas are diluted into ineffectiveness, or outright blocked (my comments on carbon taxation were also blocked, just as those on how to remedy inequality, and Delaware as the ultimate tax haven, etc.)
The New York Times is not the only Main Stream Media doing this: most do. It is the functional equivalent of search engines biasing searches for profit. It is a form of secret advertising, and should be unlawful for the same reasons as secret advertising is. It should be completely illegal, except if the MSM announces that it is biased, with an agenda, and actively misrepresenting public opinion. The “Daily Kos” has such a warning.
However, like the New York Times, the Daily Kos is lying, but at a higher level. Whereas the Times pretends to be the “Newspaper of Record”, the Daily Kos pretends to be on the “Left”. In truth, it’s not. Otherwise why do they have a skull and crossbones next to my name? In truth the Daily Kos was founded by a CIA employee of Greek origin (that’s where the “Kos” comes from). However all the American “Left” has fallen in the trap, and really feel the “Daily Kos” in on their side, when, in truth, it was just a mercenary for American for profit health insurers, and the like. As most “Left” people are addicted to the Daily Kos, my representation there as skull and crossbones has made me an object of repulsion for most would-be American “progressives”, as intended.
So who does not censor? The Wall Street Journal , and The Economist do not (it pains me to point this out).
That there would be more lying on the “Left” is no surprise, as the “Left” is where all the propaganda is, to persuade “progressives” to support regressive policies. Whereas more right-wing media don’t mind to be exposed to, or even adopt, “progressive” points of view: it shows, to themselves, how open-minded they are.
By supporting president Wilson with an intense cover-up of his racism and manipulations, the New York Times, while mellifluous, that is, sugar-coated, made itself an ally of the Ku Klux Klan. And such was its deepest effect.
As long as “progressives” do not realize they are being played, and how, there is little hope of real progress, it’s going to be Obama Care all over: lots of the correct talk, to hide ever more efficient plutocratic policies.