Archive for January 7th, 2020

Censorship Of Comments By Official Media, Such As The Lying New York Times, Should Be Unlawful

January 7, 2020

I have subscribed to the New York Times for much longer than the Iraq war (1990 to 2003, to… this day?). It reads my comments very carefully for the exact meaning of what I mean. When the comments deviate from the establishment line in a way that threaten the established logic. In the last example, Krugman wrote an editorial on Soleimani, the heir apparent of the Iranian Islamist dictatorship, execution. Krugman claimed the USA was always a force for good, until now, when, under Trump, it has become a self-destroying crime against humanity.

I sent a first mild comment pointing out that the USA was culprit of not having supported the French Republic in a timely manner in World War Two, enabling Hitler’s ascent. Censored. The New York Times calls itself “haunted” by its silence and misbehavior while the Nazis were busy starving and killing millions of Europeans, civilians, Slavs and Jews in the first few years of World War two. A second comment, comparing the impact of Heydrich, the Nazi Dolphin, assassination with the execution of Soleimani, the Shiite Dolphin, was also censored that latter comment I saved and will publish on this site).

This sort of censorship of comments should be made unlawful. Contradictory comments enable to denounce lies. When Krugman says the USA behaved well before Donald Trump, it’s a lie of Stalinist dimension. 

New York Times Building, New Pork Chimes censorship. All the plutocracy that’s fit to print; survival of the fittest. Those guys are afraid of… me. Just because it is profitable to do so, just as it was profitable to ignore Hitler… and massacre dozens of millions. Yes, they did, because had they advertised it, they could have prevented it.

NYT, like Facebook or Twitter, are news media, with an official standing: they have prerogatives, their leaders and agents are received in all, and over all circles of power: they are familiar with presidential, imperial and kingly palaces, all over the world> No plutocrat deny them, all try to steer them. Those official media are, because they are supposed to carry information, feed the debate… in a NEUTRAL way. Right, neutrality in matter of presentation of knowledge is impossible to achieve, so a lot of partiality should be tolerated… However, thus, a lot of contradiction should be tolerated. 

When official media (Facebook, Twitter, New York Times) censor information and steer the debate, by removing comments without good legal reason, they violate the democratic constitution and don’t act any better than the Islamist State of Pakistan (which has a Fatwa against yours truly). Truly, they foster violence. Let me explain.

This lack of contraried debate brings homogeneity of low dimensional thought. In other words, lack of intelligence. 

Lack of (enough) intelligence when facing changing circumstances always leads to violence. Rats don’t kill rats when there is enough water, food, and space. However, when those come short, violence is unavoidable… even among rodents. Let alone super predators such as hominids. 

An excellent explicit example was the Third Reich. Germans came to subscribe to the theory that they lacked Lebensraum (vital space). However, a healthy debate would have shown them that such was not the case. The debate didn’t happen, instead Hitler and company embarked on a war which killed 4% of humanity (and maimed much more).

And violence doesn’t mean just physical destruction, it may simply be cognitive, emotional, or spiritual maiming. Such maiming is a fundamental crime not just against humanity, but also against the biosphere itself… as we have become its caretakers.

Intelligence, thus, debate, can’t be separated from the question of violence. Suppressing debate is seeding the roots of violence.

Patrice Ayme 


P/S: Steven Pinker, from a Pluto university, paid by Plutos, has insisted we live in the most peaceful of all worlds (of all those Plutos can buy). This is both completely true, and completely false. All what matters is energy. The total energy, the sum of kinetic and potential energies, is conserved. Pinker is talking about one alone. He has to look at the whole. This is the mistake the Jews did in the 1930s: they didn’t look at the whole picture and especially its potential aspect.

If we measure the kinetic energy of violence right now, world wide, it’s all potential, or hidden. Take any system: overall energy will be conserved. Right now kinetic energy (of violence) is minimal… Which means potential energy (of violence) is maximal… And this can be checked with what is going on with the biosphere… Thus, the danger form this potential violence is grander than ever. If not persuaded, listen to Putin talking hopefully about deploying 200 megatons fusion bombs…

Patrice Ayme


P/P/S: Ten minutes after this essay above was published, the New York Times published my second comment on Krugman’s ignorant and despicable essay. (The first comment, which was very polite, contrary to what I just wrote was irremediably lost… because I didn’t expect Krugman and his goons to censor it, precisely because it was so civil.)