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

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.)

Tags: ,

6 Responses to “Censorship Of Comments By Official Media, Such As The Lying New York Times, Should Be Unlawful”

  1. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

    Shadow banning is pretty insidious. Companies run their own shows of course, and can do what they want with their platforms. Such companies have always played the gatekeeper roles, even back in the days of printed matter.

    But, today there is a different situation brewing. People are using the major internet collaboration, comment, and social media sites often as their main communications medium.

    When all the people use certain services as communications mediums, there is a different onus on the operators of said services. This is especially so when most or all of the communications of the public are via such services. Back in the day, would it have been Okay for Ma Bell to censor a person’s calls to certain other people? That’s kinda how it is now with many internet sites, and the use of shadow banning. Outside of texting, such sites on the whole control most communications these days (even between ordinary friends).

    On the other hand, having a low to tell operators how tu run their companies seems draconian. Dunno.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ronald: The first defense of the masters of minds is to pretend they are just operating private businesses. But no public media is truly private, when it achieves helpful government cooperation. For example Trump has threatened France with severe economic sanctions for taxing the otherwise tax-free media companies Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft. Microsoft, for example pursues a war against me (perhaps because I evoked “Gates of Hell”… more than once)

      In the old times of phone communication… there was no censorship. Facebook is looking at every single of my many-times a day posts. It asymmetrically censors some of them, so I can’t tell they have been removed. Twitter does the same… It’s BIG BROTHER, completely absolutely. As you say, I have to keep on going that way, because otherwise I publish nothing.

      They also do many other tricks to limit my exposure, so my readership barely grew since the Deep State targeted me for my influence on Obama, more than ten years ago (in spite of an enormous production, I have fewer readers!)

      I have explained in some essays, long ago, that censorship should be just a GOVERNMENT MATTER. Private censorship is like private war: too much power in the privates.

      Like

      • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

        Hi Patrice,

        Well, you’re not entirely banned via Google, because I originally reached your site by using Google with “quantum” and “physics” keywords in my search. So – for at least as far as science goes, Google is indexing your pages, and is allowing me to see them.

        You seem to have a network of colleagues whom you can reference to verify your published works visibility. At some point in the past I did some research on grey-bans/ shadow-bans and discovered a higher level of misdirection than I had previously thought. According to some of the writings I’ve seen that speak to issues revolving about these things, the banning policy for some systems can allow previous contacts to continue to see what you publish, which might nullify the “network of colleagues” check on your visibility. You’d be in your own little world of a few, but never know it.

        If such a grey-banning system policy became a coordinated effort by multiple private entities of the types that control public communications – then I would at that point think that “the power of the collective privates would equal defacto governmental level control, even when done outside of government. Really, I think that goes on to some extent already, where some large corporate holdings group has multiple outlets, and applies common policy.

        The trick is to determine at what point the collective power equals the power of government. It’s this that is very difficult to do, especially when you’re a tiny little internet user publishing thru a menagerie of megalithic corporate owned pipes.

        I regularly see your post come up in the “suggested reading” list when I sign on to WordPress. So, you’re visible there, at least to me.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Thanks Ronald!
          Thank Go…ogle, Google doesn’t ban me! Gates/Bing bans me…. or more exactly anything less than a decade old or so. Something about the Gates of Hell was not a medicine properly swallowed. Gates promote massively Pinker who doesn’t have much to say, except that, thanks to his personal Pluto Gates, we lived in the best possible world, and our bliss was never greater. Never mind Launch On Warning.

          I am happy you saw me from public search, and most grateful to… Google and WordPress. I am not their enemy: I use Google hyper massively, more than 99.99% of Internet users. One of my best friend works for and with Google (he is a highest level independent inventor/contractor with them. He is full of diplomas, differently from the startup founders) He spends lots of time singing their praises… although some of the way they get millions from the government, like fueling for free their jumbo jets… make him laugh…

          I still hope Gates can be reformed… But they all will have to pay taxes where they make money (like Europe). Silicon Valley has used enormous amount of fundamental public science research in Europe, and has to pay so that golden cow stays healthy enough (not really the case at this point…)

          Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Facebook hid deliberately some of my posts favorable to Elizabeth Warren from public view. I will post that on Facebook… But WITHOUT mentioning Facebook, because I already know I am on their blacklist… It’s a general problem: I have been blacklisted by The Guardian, the Daily Kos… Both supposedly left, but not really: the former is, or was, financed by Gates of Hell, the second… by the CIA.

      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/gates-of-hell/

      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2019/05/11/heil-zuck-heil-bill-your-pet-presidents-will-do-as-you-say/

      Like

      • aldariontelcontar Says:

        Actually, both of them are lefitst. Thing is, leftism and rightism can mean a lot of things, some of them mutually contradictory.

        Modern left promotes globalism, which means that, by its nature, it *has* to oppose democracy. Byzantine Empire was quasi-democratic, and certainly more democratic than the UN is, despite its authoritarian political setup… because it was a) a state and b) had politically active population with long tradition of republicanism (from Athenian democracy, over Theban League and Arcadian League, to Roman Republic… even the Principate was authoritarianism masquerading as republicanism, much like modern-day EU or UN). If a Byzantine Emperor did something against the people, he ran a high chance of getting removed from the office. In fact, Sack of Constantinople in 1204. was caused largely by an Emperor trying to get back to power through Crusaders after people removed him from the office. Globalism fought against democracy, as early as 13th century.

        Left does claim that it promotes freedom, which ought to promote democracy… but its focus on political correctness, supranationalism and governmentalism means that it is pretty much incapable of promoting any form of *practical* democratization. Traditional Right is the only option for democracy, but Modern Right (which is what Bush Younger was, for example) is just as lethal to democracy as the Left is.

        I may write a post about the Byzantine Republic someday on my blog… but the point is, both Guardian and The Kos are acting wholly in line with leftist principles by removing your comments.

        Like

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: