Yes, Putinofascists and Islamofascists will be mentioned:
Everywhere people have power, they want more. I sent two comments which could not be viewed as friendly to banks this week; the New York Times censored both of them. I protested stridently: they ignored me, totally. I asked them to point out to me where my errors were, with what I said about the banks. Silence. All they told me is that I was under surveillance.
The New York Times banks on the best possible banks it all wants us to bank on. Pointing out how banks work, and that the Greek crisis was a bank crisis, but that banks, and the banksters who lead them escape not just the expropriation they richly deserve, but even critique, is viewed as blasphemy.
The New York Times has established that blasphemy is a crime, by loudly refusing to publish cartoons that could be interpreted by some fanatics as such. And making that refusal into a moral principle. Having established that meta-principle under the pretext of protecting Islam, the New York Times can then apply it by protecting its readers from my own blasphemy about banks. The human mind is a contrived thing, but the New York Times has figured enough of it, to manipulate its naïve readers’ minds.