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).
Americans Think, and Feel, What They Are Told To Think, and Feel. NYT Led Attack On Iraq, Thus To Islamist State
[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.
Patrice Ayme
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.
Patrice Ayme’
Tags: Censorship, Illegal, Iraq War, Lying., Media Manipulation, MSM, New York Times
Patrice Ayme's Thoughts 
November 25, 2015 at 10:09 pm |
Patrice,
Oh well. I’ve been blocked on quite a few science sites for suggesting that we look at time backward, not a vector from past to future, but change turning future into past. No one proves me wrong, but it undermines the whole spacetime paradigm and being part of the herd is more important than logic.
I did originally get into studying physics and philosophy as a way to better understand politics and society. I have to say though, that I’m far more cynical than you. You seem to think people are intellectually aware of some broader vision of reality and the world, but, media or no, most of us really are just little creatures hiding out in our burrows.
Woodrow Wilson a racist! Frankly I’d be more surprised if he wasn’t.
For instance, I had a great grandfather, Edwin Warfield, who was governor of Maryland for one term, but was thrown out, basically for not being racist enough. And he was born into a slave holding family.
Civilization is a fairly thin veneer.
LikeLike
November 25, 2015 at 10:40 pm |
Time is a one dimensional vector, commonly called, physics parlance, a “scalar”. “Blocking” someone from a science site is idiotic. Well organized sites should have a rating system incorporated. Also people regularly on the site can make a rating system in their head. The reason I don’t read comments in the New York Times anymore is not so much that I ma banned from interesting (rarely splendid) comment is buried deep. The idiots get priority. (It’s very official, however unlikely that may seem!)
Being in a herd is where it’s at, indeed. Stampeding together: nothing like it, the power is intoxicating. Nice about your great grandfather.
Wilson a racist was the solid ground on which the entire foreign policy of the USA was built thereafter.
LikeLike
November 26, 2015 at 2:31 am |
And because they treat it as a scalar, they can’t even explain why it is asymmetric. The reality is that as a measure of action, it is asymmetric because of the inertia of the action. The earth turns one direction, not the other.
The family is complicated.
And even more racist prior to then. Racism is not going to go away. Human thought is a function of making distinctions and judgements, whether rational or not. The less knowledge they are based on, the less rational they are. The better direction would be to acknowledge it as a feature of a globalized world and address it, along with the many other intertwined problems. While many could not be directly addressed, it would put more pressure on those which could, such as having a privately run economic medium that is used by the powers that be as a wealth extraction process from the planet and the rest of society. When both society and our intellectual framework for understanding it are atomized, there is no larger awareness and people fight over the basics.
Ignorance is slavery.
LikeLike
November 26, 2015 at 4:21 am |
There is a whole “theory” of Wheeler Feynman about filling the whole universe with just one electron, going back and forth in time. In my SUB-quantic theory, time is asymmetric.
LikeLike
November 25, 2015 at 10:42 pm |
“Civilization is a fairly thin veneer”: if the worse happens with Biosphere Anthropogenic Disintegration (BAD), not only slavery, but cannibalism will return in force.
LikeLike
November 25, 2015 at 10:16 pm |
Well media is all f….ed up, what do you expect? They do what they do best, and are owned by a few families. Think of it: imagine, like Lennon said, that you own your own media. The owners don’t want the truth. Imagine, as Lennon said, that the owner of the Times told an editor of the New York Times ordered them to publish nothing by you. Pretty likely that’s what happened. There is no law against it
LikeLike
November 25, 2015 at 10:46 pm |
No law against it, but there should be. Owning media is, or should be, a fiduciary duty.
LikeLike
November 26, 2015 at 2:38 am |
They ignore the laws of nature at their own peril. Too much privatization will increase the need for some nationalization and the first place to start would be with money as a voucher system, not a private commodity.
LikeLike
November 26, 2015 at 4:25 am |
Nationalization in France took a back seat for… 10 centuries. From about 800 CE to 1789 CE. So re-nationalization can take a while….
LikeLike
November 25, 2015 at 10:57 pm |
Patrice, given your dislike of plutocracy, it surprises me that you ‘subscribe’ to NYT and WSJ. Paying tolls to these media manipulators supports their enterprise and props up their business model. I refuse to ‘pay’ for any Murdoch media, for example. Simply googling and opening in incognito windows gets around their paywalls and tolls through the back door. Rather than being fucked through the back door by them.
LikeLike
November 25, 2015 at 11:27 pm |
Hello Lenny, and welcome! I do agree that “paying tolls to these media manipulators” may seem surprising. And I don’t stop there: I also subscribe to notoriously plutocratic “The Economist”. It’s abit like feeding tyrannosauruses to get to know them better. I must admit that you have a point. I have a friend in the financial “industry” in London at a very high level, who, assuredly can afford those media which should be his friends, and does the same as what you suggest, for the same reasons: he works among the sharks, feeds very well, but despise them 100%. Maybe I am just lazy.
Another reason is that I started long ago, and I am used to papers in print. Reading The Economist in a bath is possible, and it’s the only way I read it. The day there is a perfectly water proof tablet, it will be different.
LikeLike
November 26, 2015 at 12:34 am |
The thing is, how do guys who want progress meet?
LikeLike
November 26, 2015 at 1:45 pm |
Via blogs!
LikeLike
November 26, 2015 at 7:22 pm |
Problem: our blogs have few readers and participants. (Although I get reproduced in other media, the natural audiences have been blocked to great extent from boycott by established media)
LikeLike
November 26, 2015 at 4:17 am |
Not paying would not have revealed the extent of the viciousness of the New York Times. (They even cancelled unilaterally my subscription at some point, without returning the money! A lawyer helped them see the error of their ways…)
The NYT has good journalists doing a good job, sometimes, so I wanted to support that too… I don’t see by what we will replace them..
LikeLike
November 27, 2015 at 1:15 am |
😉 But deep down I know you’re already aware of the extent of their viciousness! Yes, many have been paying for years what they can get for free. That’s their meta-plan anyway. GM crops and water and every other God given gift that can be privatised – next, the air we breathe – where clear air is only available to plutocrats and everyone else will live in smog choked cities. They’ll never return the money. But we can take control. Isn’t a good quality journalist that does a good job ‘sometimes’ inversely mean that they’re a bad quality journalist that does bad quality journalism ‘most of the time’. Gives new meaning to ‘don’t feed the trolls’ 🙂 I hate giving them even one cent. I resent that they get my time to contemplate their foolishness. Destroy their business model; refuse their tools – destroy their ability to control the narrative.
Patrice, I’ve been reading you for years and I’m a huge fan. I really thank you for your blog and it really does help me to think of issues in new ways. The future of news is truth, in a utopia. Your blog helps just a little bit. The truth is out there, but one has to filter through lots of ‘noise’ to get to it.
Kind regards,
LikeLike
November 27, 2015 at 5:27 pm |
Dear Lenny: I just read your comment (I am travelling with family, meeting other family), and I thank you for being a “fan”. In these times, it’s really appreciated. There is a lot of institutionalized aggression out there, and it’s hard to take without support. Aggression over the decades builds stress, and thus doubt. That doubt can be compensated only by support from others. Many of the institutions we have, from universities, to media, to the justice system, I have seen, over the years, and in several countries (including the USA) act in an extremely unjust way… Although they should be the ones imposing higher ethics…
I think your uncompromising stance relative to the MSM is correct. I paid for it, so far, out of what is becoming a deviant sense of honesty. In any case some of the media are adapting, and learning to live without subscribers (like Facebook does). But then the manipulations become even more subtle.
People talk about the concept of the “shared economy”, and that’s an important concept. What we need now, and are getting partly, is the “shared mind”, a system superseding the traditional school-university system. Inasmuch as it irritate me to recognize this, Elon Musk has been tapping on this. We have to understand that, in the present system, to do without serious journalism. But one thing that will stay impossible is to do without dedicated scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists. They work like ants, but they are key. And we need much more of these ants.
And yes, “noise” is a huge problem on the “Internet”. The OLD SOCIETY is characterized by (excessive and abused) order, but the “Internet” does not have enough. There is a huge amount of colossal naivety on the Internet, mixed with astronomical smugness. The CO2 deniers have tapped on that, very efficiently.
Kind regards to you too, and thanks,
Patrice
LikeLike
November 27, 2015 at 8:08 am |
“Is existence an illusion? Answer: Is illusion an existence? Assuredly, if one is deluded enough!”
Chris Snuggs: The existence of courageous, wise and democratic 😉 (acting for your voters) government is CERTAINLY an illusion.
LikeLike
November 27, 2015 at 8:10 am |
Patrice Ayme: It can only be so: after all, we elect oligarchs.
LikeLike
December 6, 2015 at 6:49 pm |
Reblogged this on Defense Issues and commented:
This is not just New York Times. I’m going to adress it in more detail in one of my scheduled-for-writing articles, but media censorship is alive and kicking, positively bouyant, in the “democratic” West. And once you know the structure of the media (which I’ll also explain), you’ll understand why.
LikeLike
December 7, 2015 at 2:34 am |
Just yesterday I got 5 comments censored on Main Stream Media, that means all of them (including three on the New York Times). They were all (deliberately) innocuous enough. Censorship has never been so strong in the last ten years, indeed. I look forward to your explanation, as you are thorough in your explanations…
PA
LikeLike
December 7, 2015 at 6:32 am |
Thanks, but it will be quite a wait… precisely because I hate doing half-assed jobs, it will take me a long time to write that article and I won’t have much free time before Christmas. So, patience. 🙂
LikeLike
December 18, 2015 at 5:43 am |
[Sent to Picard 578, Dec 17.]
Main Stream Media get advantages (say asking the president questions, live; in general, “press credentials”). So it’s only natural that they have a fiduciary responsibility to say it, as it is, to the best of their ability. Deviating from this deliberately should be criminalized.
LikeLike
April 1, 2016 at 5:01 am |
[…] Everything is politicized, and oftentimes presented in a binary way – if you are not with us, you are against us. If it is not black, it is white. Conservative vs liberal, left vs right. But in most cases, both positions are wrong, and this binarism prevents people from seeking, and seeing, a correct solution – which is (almost) never among the ones presented by the media. Ideas, actual ideas, are complex and numerous, and this forced way of thinking places people into a mental prison. People are being offered options, all of them bad, but the media terror and pressure mean that the “least bad” option will be taken. This way, no unorthodox idea or a point of view can reach a critical mass, which insures that the society remains stagnated and behaves in a way capitalists want it to. Journalists that want to write the truth have to go to small and alternative publishing houses which cannot reach most of the populace. Large media have told the populace that it was Syrian president Bashir al-Assad who commited poisonous gas attacks. But all witnesses on the ground have stated that the attacks were launched by Al-Quaeda linked rebels, not by the Syrian government. Rebels received sarin gas from Saudi Arabia intelligence. After MintPress uncovered and reported that fact, its reporters were attacked, intimidated, bullied and smeared. Mainstream media actually went on to carry out a direct character assassination of MintPress reporters. They, as well as Seymour Hersh, were called pro-Assad conspiracy theorists. Amber Lyon discovered that CNN is being paid – and was for a long time – to ensure that its coverage of Arab Gulf states is invariably positive. Saudi prince Al-Waleed owns the largest stake in Fox. BuzzFeed, one of blogs that attacked MintPress reporters, is receiving money from an Israeli lobby group. New York Times receives gag orders whenever it is about to publish an article that goes against Israeli interests. And this is not only directed against journalists – comments on articles are moderated, and any comments that might endanger the official version of story are typically blocked. […]
LikeLike