On The Lying, Cheating And Thoroughly Vicious Evil Propaganda New York Times… From The Holocaust To Right Now

The New York Times brazenly tried to justify its vicious, establishment bolstering, self-serving censorship system in a pathetic article. Amusingly, it thereafter had to censor thousands of comments protesting its corruption: 

TIMES INSIDER Why Humans, Not Machines, Make the Tough Calls on Comments

Technology helps The Times field thousands of comments a day. But only human judgment can apply Times standards to reject a submission. One editor gave a tour of the decisions that make up her job.

The article proceeds to say that only comments with cuss words, or ad hominem attacks get barred. That is a huge lie. All too humans humans, well connected enough to the establishment to be able to live in New York, enforce at the NYT a view of the universe that at least half of the USA disagree with… And all progressives too, should they truly want to progress, and not just protest…


The New York Times has been vicious since probably before it protected the Nazis by not alerting the USA upon the fact that the Nazis were making an official, if secret, genocidal campaign against Poles and Jews… At the very least. At the time, the so-called “Times” had serious information from the world Jewish Congress and reputable governments (among them Poland and France) about the genocide. It chose to cover it up. 

Why? Because, to put it in the shortest and bluntest way, Wall Street created Nazi Germany (no, this is not an attack against today’s Wall Street…) 

This is not a point of detail on biased journalism: by ignoring what the Nazis were truly doing, the NYT and its duplicates in the USA made public opinion hostile to those hostile to the Nazis. That enabled the Nazis to win enough battles in 1939, 1940, 1941, to make a gigantic holocaust possible. The NYT had it in its power to make a unified “democratic” front against Nazi Germany in 1939-1940… which would have led to Nazism’s prompt defeat, and would have saved the lives of at least 50 million people. But the USA establishment, deep inside its cavernous ego and subconscious did not want this: inside its heart would get warm by a general conflagration, a holocaust in Europe… And that’s what it got. 

Obsolete? No. Look at the AUKUS treaty, what it entails about nuclear weapon proliferation (because of the HEU inside)… and the perspective for war… nuclear war.  

So let me be clear: “Times Standards” are vicious plutocratic propaganda… In English, not Greek: Evil-Rule propaganda. The NYT is reproduced all over the USA, and this giant propaganda machine is a machine to identify plutocracy and civilization. 

Just like a viper adopts the colors of its surroundings, the NYT mimics the sounds, sights, ideas and feelings of progressivism, but is the exact opposite. Don’t smirk: I know of this very well… yet, one day, I nearly put my hand on a coiled viper, I had not seen it so camouflaged as it was.

This is why the NYT censored thousands of my comments, but it does not want its readers to know it censors a higher idea of truth and civilization… So it proceeded to censor the following comment I sent more than 24 hours ago. But before I go on and show a picture of the New York Times below, hiding in dead leaves, let me suggest that good readers should not read the rest of this, they would be familiar with it:

Almost perfect camouflage of the Gabon viper (Bitis gabonica), resting on leaves in Zimbabwe, South Africa. Light colored “leaf” near the center is actually a head of this highly venomous, largest viper in Africa, which can reach a length of 2 meters and a weight of 20 kg (45 pounds). It is responsible for causing the most snakebite fatalities in Africa. It crosses dirt roads slow. A car passing on it will not kill it. One has to brake hard, to do so. Or so I was told by my father in Africa. Ah, yes, this is a metaphor for the NYT, the “WaPo”,and their ilk.


I have subscribed to the New York Times for more than 40 years. I have never sent a comment afflicted by vulgar language or incivility. However, my comments were not published thousands of times. This was not accidental. After I criticized the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the part some opinion columnists (one is still a star of the NYT) and journalists  played in making the invasion a desired outcome, I was banned until there was a personal change at the top of NYT. Suddenly, my comments went through. At least, some of them.

Thus comments, as far as I can tell, are moderated for content. When the content of a comment does not fit some conventional standards the NYT adheres to, it gets blocked. 

I recognize that, recently, most of my comments are getting published, and I welcome this change.

I believe that one strength  of democracy is the generalization of debate. This is rendered possible by two Greek concepts which I will not name, although they were viewed as pillars of Greek (real) democracy. I will not do this, because the AI program may think that I am using some obscure incivilities. [The concepts are parrhesia: frankness of speech and isegoria: right to address the assemblies; NYT violates both on a daily basis, be it only by censoring my comments. If one uses sophisiticated concepts, NYT censors identify them with cuss words…

To improve the system the NYT should tell readers why comments were rejected, or use oversighted reader post moderation (publish, then flag bad stuff).

Facebook banned me for 30 days. I was told I had committed “racial hatred”, etc. It turned out that I had described historical facts about Nazism. FB had confused message and messenger. Facebook excused itself, profusely, rescinded the ban immediately, and never censored me again. [My only guiding light is to tell the truth…]


[I sent also the following comment to the NYT, duly censored in turn:]

I send a lot of comments which I view as deeply thought. As I pointed out in the past many of these comments never appear. 

Something even more troubling has happened: comments which I viewed as perfect (to speak like Trump, tongue in cheek), which were published. The comments tried hard to be cogent, had perfect high society English, and were civil. A few hours after publication… they were removed. “This comment is not available”. These were comments which were not replies on other comments and had no replies. So these comments of mine were not removed because of any of the reasons rolled out.  

[Some readers of the NYT have suggested that the staff of the NYT steals ideas from comments… That’s common academic practice, as when professors steal ideas from students… all the way to the Nobel Prize… Even worse, this practice suggests some plutocrats call the Times to suggest to remove the idea(s) from circulation. They took 24 hours to finally publish my idea of taxing big consumption borrowing by billionaires…]

Another disagreeable happenstance is the 24+ hours delayed comment. Just after it is mentioned on the worldwide web that a comment was not published, and reasons are speculated upon… It finally appears, long after anybody has stopped reading the article it was commenting upon.

I sincerely wish the NYT  improves further the commentariat. After all, the NYT has hundreds of minds thinking. The readership of the NYT, though, represents millions of minds: more thoughts are better than censored thoughts.


[In conclusion, I also sent this one, duly censored, like the others:]

I sent some polite and civil comments on this article on the humans making “tough calls on comments” at the New York Times. My aim was to help evolve a better debate platform at the New York Times. e is to evolve. My comments did not appear yet. 

A suggestion is to use back-censorship: comments flagged by readers, or staff could be removed, after the humans, not machines, made the tough call later… On the Wall Street Journal, comments are published without preliminary censorship, and it works. On the New York Times, a rejection is imposed first, and then perhaps lifted through a complicated process. First Google, or a machine provided by Google, inspects the comment… then humans make “the Tough Calls on Comments”. Why not give us readers the benefit of the doubt? Why not being presumed innocent, before punishment?


In perhaps related news Kristoff retired from the NYT (not from old age, but because he wants to become governor!… Perhaps disgusted by the Times? He was the NYT’s best journalist… I sent the following, and as usual, Kristoff published it immediately:

We will miss you in so many ways… including the fact you never rejected my comments! But we need intelligent, worldly, honest and common sensical, non-career politicians! Especially Oregon where there is too much fake progressivism. Fake progressivism is a case often of the perfect being an enemy of progress. This happens to such an extent that it is tempting to conclude that the hyper wealthy who finance fake progressivism know what they are doing… Actually some have explained this explicitly. So it is not going to be easy to become governor of Oregon, but let’s hope it works. Democracy, real democracy, demands that all minds can collaborate in the grand human adventure to sing and blossom with the better angels of our nature. And that requires global debate, as human beings knew for millions of years before the rise of civilization… global debate is fortunately possible again, thanks to modern technology… if said technology is not just in the hands of just a few individuals, families, or circles of power. So good luck, once again, to you, and thus to us… And thank you. There will be no replacement here, at the NYT… Hopefully some guest essays? A web site? For more debate?

Meanwhile, I would suggest Metabook. Metabook should be the name and wish for Facebook. No more just face value, and booking it, but going beyond books where only imagination can dwell. It should also be declared a public utility and nationalized, or at least regulated and nationalized the US way, as the energy company PG & E in California… Although the latter of course is a disaster: the company was forced into buying “Renewables”… while neglecting that basics, such as burying the lines (not doing so causes humongous fires…)

In his 1907 retirement speech, Joseph Pulitzer wrote up his credo for journalism. He was very clear about what made it a noble profession, one worth dedicating your life to: “Never lack sympathy with the poor.” Nowadays, the entire media is owned, one way or another, by the world’s wealthiest families. It will end up like “Dune”, an imperial world owned by great “houses”, if we do not put a timely stop to his nonsense. Meanwhile, the poor gets insulted by being told it’s racist and afflicted by “populism”. We The People suffer from “populism”! We are just “deplorable”! Hillary Clinton: “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables”. The New York Times, by telling me my comments are “insulting”, or “insignificant” (latest insult!) tells me I am just unworthy, and basically unconscious. What next? Let’s recover our sanity, the New York Times wants to steal it! Want insults? Get some!

Repeat after me: New Pork Times, not New York Times! A camouflaged viper you have not seen is worse than one you can see clearly!

You want truth? Organize debate!

Patrice Ayme



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: