Monday, August 6, 2018

D. Willinger Banned From Commenting At "Natural News"

"Natural News"- an "alternative" media outlet that alas promotes irresponsible reactive policies regarding "opioids", and censors people questioning such. 

"Natural News", like countless other media outlets such as The New York Times has adopted the lets kill more people with adulterated, UN-standardized "opioids" so we can continue the drug war after Marijuana is legalized.

For further details about this story, see:
excerpt-  "Natural News claims to be for medical freedom.

Yet it has debased itself by jumping on this 'how we continue the misery of the drug war after Marijuana becomes legalized" mass media "'opioid' epidemic" campaign bandwagon.

Centered around a new scare word "opioid", and a lying through their teeth that they are working to thwart a problematic situation which they actually make worse, by unjustifiably further curtailing people's access to regulated pain meds, in order so we get a huge growth in essentially unregulated, wildly unpredictable potency black market opiates adulterated with far far more potent synthetic opiates (which the previously obscure term "opioid" initially referred to).  Countless talking heads lied through their teeth tat too many prescriptions were being written (too many, yet never questioning qualitative matters as to why such prescriptions always insist upon taking such meds every single day without break).  Yet when doctors thus began placing such dirty politics even moreso over the interests of patients, with prescriptions going down, yet fatal overdoses going up, we get such illustrious mass  media organs misleading their readers with headlines reporting on such as "Prescription Dip Seen as Advance in Opioid Battle"

All of this simple, destructive, one-mindedness, reeks of some sort of organized campaign to lie to the general public for the sake of promoting evil polices designed to maximize human misery."

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Wells Fargo PayPal Collusion To Steer Purchase To High Interest Credit Card

I have a high interest - 26.99% Wells Fargo credit cad.

Wells Fargo issues me a 0% @12 months card.

Wells Fargo denies valid purchase charge on 0% card to steer such onto the 26.99% card.

Wells Fargo does so under the guise of "anti fraud".

Wells Fargo then processes identical amount bank acct. debit via the same source, Paypal, a mere 18 seconds later!

Wells Fargo continues to attempt to steer communications to phone calls rather than writing/text to minimize avoid a paper trail of their bank's practices.

BEWARE Wells Fargo/Paypal scams to steer charges from low to high interest credit card

I am issued a new credit card, with a $7,000 limit, with 0% interest for 12 months, activated on June 23, 2018

I enter this new credit card into my Paypal account, set it as the "preferred" method of payment, and begin making some small charges on this card via Paypal, that same day.

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018, I make an $835 charge directly to a merchant in Tennessee, and within a few minutes receive a robo call from Wells Fargo asking me to confirm or deny all of my charges up to that point. I confirm all of the charges.

On Wednesday, June 28, 2018, at around 11am EST, I make a $1999 charge via Paypal for a purchase made on Ebay.

Ebay shows the purchase and payment is made.

I receive no call from Wells Fargo about this charge.

On Thursday, June 29, 2018, I receive an email from Wells Fargo informing me that my checking account now has a negative balance. I telephone Wells Fargo.

I am told that Wells Fargo denied my $1999 credit card charge via Paypal.

And that Wells Fargo and Paypal processed an unauthorized debit via Paypal for that amount from my Wells Fargo checking account, draining its $78 balance, and applying the balance - $1921 - back to my credit card.

But not to the credit card that I made the charge to, which was the just issued one with the 0% for 12 months, but rather my older credit card with the 26.99% interest.

This was done all "automatically" with no communication to me from either Wells Fargo nor Paypal until afterwards.

The only communication I received from Paypal was the standard email informing me of the purchase-payment, indicating that it had been made by a debit on my checking account, with no mention of any attempt to be instead processed by the credit card which I had authorized within the past few days. Paypal had additional credit cards on file with my account with them, yet made no apparent attempt to charge any of them, instead just going into my checking account without authorization.  A review of my Paypal log reveals a mere 18 seconds between the authorized charge to my new credit card that was improperly denied by Wells Fargo, and the subsequent unauthorized debit to my bank account, at 7:36:32 and 7:36:50 PST, nearly 12 hours after I placed the order.

If a credit card charge from a source is deemed "fraudulent", then how is an identical amount bank account debit charge moments later from the same source somehow valid?

Within this Thursday, June 29, 2018 phone call with Wells Fargo, their agent admits to having information that Wells Fargo failed to contact me regarding this $1999 purchase, in contrast to their contacting me the previous day for the $835 purchase.  If Wells Fargo had only been first made aware of the charge at the time indicated by the Paypal log, and if there had been a valid concern of fraud -- doubtful as it was coming through an established Paypal account, via the same home computer used for the earlier such charges, and well within the credit limit -- why was I not given a robo call chance to either confirm or deny the charge?  And again, if truly a concern about fraud, then how is an attempted bank account debit from the same source for the same amount likewise something that should just be quickly processed without a robo call to me asking me to either confirm or deny that debit?  

She has no information as to why that latter charge would be denied. It was within my credit limit. And the method of payment had already been established. It was a Paypal account of mine in use since 2011, and with the earlier Wells Fargo credit card since 2016. I had already used the new, 0% credit card though that Paypal account for a few days, and had verified the charges to Wells Fargo when they phoned me on June 26, 2018 to verify the $835 charge, along with the earlier charges on that new card.

I ask her why then did not Wells Fargo simply follow through with a 2nd such phone verification call at some point following my $1999 charge. She tells me that was because it was not necessary, as I had already, on the previous day, verified the earlier charges when Wells Fargo phoned me. So, why, then did Wells Fargo fail to honor that subsequent charge, given that the venue was already established? She says she did not know, and puts me on hold to speak with a supervisor. A few minutes later she returns with the answer: that that charge was denied because I had failed to telephone Wells Fargo to verify that charge.

So Wells Fargo had changed their policy between June 27 and June 28, 2018 and had failed to inform me of that beforehand?

She tells me that Wells Fargo will correct the errors.

I subsequently check my Wells Fargo on line access over the next few days.

Wells Fargo fails to do so. The unauthorized $20 transaction fee remains, as does the mis-posting of the charge to the high interest card, rather than the 0% card that I made the charge on.

Subsequently, I use the Wells Fargo text message system.. I send then text messages from me to Wells Fargo via their system are met with automated boiler plate responses that continually direct me to telephone them, and Wells Fargo fails to respond in writing to any of my case specifics.


Subject: Re: Other questions or requests (KMM66478484V89348L0KM)
From:Customer Service
06/29/2018 11:04 AM

Dear Douglas Willinger:

Thank you for contacting Wells Fargo. My name is Celeste, and it is my
pleasure to assist you today.

I understand your concerns regarding an unauthorized transaction that
posted to the credit card account.. I am grateful that you brought this
matter to our attention.

Mr. Willinger, because of the nature of the situation and the feedback
you provided, I have forwarded your concerns to our Executive Office to
help ensure that this matter is properly addressed. Your case reference
number is 229075207. A representative from the Executive Office will
contact you within two business days at phone number 914-241-3006.

If you prefer to speak with a representative from our Executive Office
immediately, or if at any time you would like information regarding your
case, you can reach the Executive Office directly at 1-877-224-5356.
Their hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., Pacific Time. Please provide the case number above when you

I appreciate your patience and apologize for any inconvenience you may
have experienced. We look forward to speaking with you soon.

On behalf of Wells Fargo, thank you for your business. We are happy to
have you as our customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you

Celeste M.
Wells Fargo


Wells Fargo failed to honor a valid credit card charge, fails to call me for any confirmation despite doing so a day earlier, then accepts in invalid request from paypal to go to my bank account, causing it to go below zero, then transfers charge to my other card.

Wells Fargo needs to correct this. Otherwise wells fargo has here used its "fraud" program to place charge upon the credit card that i did not authorize for this purchase.

I phoned wells fargo yesterday and was told this would be corrected. But when I check my accounts today I see that wells fargo has not.

Please correct this. Or I will have to contact the attorney general.

What has transpired is wells fargo fraudulently abusing their anti fraud system in order to game the interest rate.

I again text them requesting that all communications be in writing. I receive an automated text reply again lacking any specifics, though making no mention of further communication via phone.

The next day, Wells Fargo has still not corrected the problem, and again attempts to contact me by telephone, contrary to my request.

Wells Fargo's failure to communicate in writing only compounds the reality of their attempting to get away with unethical, probably illegal banking practices in order to collect unjustified fees and card interest income. That Wells Fargo deliberately steered the $1999 charge from the 0% card that I had specified, to the 26.99% card, is further indicated by the arbitrary, unjustified nature of their denying that initial charge and that they broke from the pattern of the previous day, when they robo called me about the $835 charge, but failed to do so with the $1999 charge.

No showing of any "fraud" with the $1999 charge to the new0% interest credit card.

No attempt by either Wells Fargo nor Paypal to contact me to either verify or deny that charge.

Just a quick processing of an unwarranted denial of a legitimate charge through an already established venue, and an unauthorized debit to my bank account.

Not done for the sake of combating fraud.

But rather, for facilitating such, through the steering of a purchase charge from a credit card with 0% interest to another with 26.9% interest, for a purchase I had held off until obtaining the )% interest card.

A deed done via a pair of entities, Wells Fargo and Paypal with a long and far closer relationship the one might initially imagine, as they had signed an agreement in 2002 making Wells Fargo the processor of all U.S. based credit card transactions made via Paypal.

They knew what they were doing.

Thus, I will not be liable for any of the added fees and interest payments resulting from Wells Fargo fraudulent practices.

Therefore, I shall not accept the $20 "overdraft protection" fee, let alone any interest payments for a period of 12 months related to the $1999 charge that Wells Fargo so steered for the sake of such unwarranted fees and excess interest.

Any such funds that I may be forced to pay, nor related balance transfer fees, shall ultimately be made liable upon Wells Fargo, as so should be the case with the countless other customers so victimized by this sort of scam, with the monetary amounts compounded at the 26.99% rate they charge on such credit card accounts.  Plus, of course any fines imposed by the government, let alone long overdue criminal prosecutions against the higher ups within the Wells Fargo corporate system responsible.

Wells Fargo already has an awful reputation for abusing its customers, as anyone can find via a web engine search, leading to among other things some $1 billion in fines recently.

Some elected officials have asked why Wells Fargo's charter has not been revoked, Elizabeth Warren,has stated that their CEO needs to be fired, and even Wall Street has expressed amazement at Wells Fargo's sheer level and magnitude of abusing its customers.

Yet Wells Fargo's Board of Directors and CEO continue to collect massive salaries without any penalties for presiding over such banking practices.

Update: July 7, 2018

Today I receive an email from Wells Fargo concerning a stop payment order that I supposedly made, regarding the 26.99% interest credit card.  Of course this message asks me to phone them.


Regarding: Account Number


Date Requested




Company Name


Individual Name


Stop Payment Option Selected


This letter confirms the stop payment order you recently placed. Please review the stop option noted above carefully to ensure accuracy and completeness. If the information is inaccurate or incomplete, please immediately call the customer service phone number on your bank statement.

What does the stop option mean?

A stop payment option at the Company ID level: If this option is selected, any automatic payment sent to your account with the Company ID noted above will be automatically returned as stop payment, regardless of the dollar amount or payee information.

A stop payment option at the Company ID and Individual ID level: If this option is selected, any automatic payment sent to your account with the Company ID and Individual ID will be automatically returned as stop payment, regardless of the dollar amount. Please note that the Company ID must match exactly as noted above in order to successfully stop the transaction.

This stop option will remain on your account until requested to be deleted. To remove the stop option, please contact the customer service phone number listed on your bank statement.

We appreciate your business and thank you for banking with Wells Fargo.


When I attempt to send them a reply, asking them in writing to indicate where, when and how I made such an order, their web site message system makes that impossible by failing to activate the "send" button.  Only after the 3rd attempt or so does it work.

Note that I an supposed to telephone Wells Fargo to remove a stop option that I did not place.

Wells Fargo is again insisting upon resorting to telephone calls, rather than place anything substantive in writing.

Their apparent fear at placing matters specifically into writing with their clients speaks volumes of their conscious-nous that they know they are doing wrong.

Updates July 10 & 14, 2018

I finally get the 1st Wells Fargo response that includes references to this case's specifics:

Subject: (KMM66617089V5695L0KM)
From:Customer Service
07/10/2018 10:54 AM
Contact Us

Dear Douglas Willinger:

Thank you for contacting Wells Fargo. My name is Joshua, and I am an
Email Care Specialist which your email was forwarded to for review. It
is my genuine pleasure to be of assistance for you at this time.

I received your follow-up email about the unauthorized transactions that
have been initiated between your Wells Fargo checking and credit card
accounts as well as your email regarding a stop payment that was
recently placed on your account.

Before we proceed any further, I first wanted to let you know that I
have provided a sufficient amount of information in this email to ensure
that I have properly addressed your concerns. For this reason, the email
may appear to be a bit lengthy.

Additionally, please be aware that we have received one or more emails
by you regarding the same issue. As a result, I will be closing out any
additional email(s) that have been sent and I will be addressing all of
your concerns through this reply.

While reviewing your emails, I have acknowledged that there was an
initial transaction for $1,999.99 from PayPal that was supposed to go
through your Credit Card account number ending in 4672 with the 0%
Annual Percentage Rate promotion, which appears to have actually gone
through your Credit Card account number ending in 0759 with 26%
interest. I realize that as a result of this issue, a transfer was made
from your Credit Card account number ending in 0759 after an additional
PayPal transaction for $1,999.99 was charged to your checking account
number ending in 5617.

Mr. Willinger, I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and
frustrations that you have experienced. I certainly understand how
upsetting it can be to see that your initial and valid transaction had
gone through the wrong account, especially if it led to improper debits
being taken out. I would hate to see this become an even bigger issue
for you moving forward.

Please allow me to elaborate on the matter in hopes that it may provide
you with a better understanding on what had happened, and what we are to
do in order to rectify the issue.

First and foremost, I reviewed your Credit Card account number ending in
4672 and I have found that this is actually the account in which the
PayPal transaction for $1,999.99 had initially gone through from
06/27/2018. Please keep in mind that this is the account that currently
has a promotion for a 0% Annual Percentage Rate on purchases made.

At this time, I have found that the transaction from the card has been
marked as a fraudulent transaction and is currently being reviewed by
our Fraud Specialists

Furthermore, while reviewing your checking account number ending in
5617, I can confirm that an additional PayPal transaction for $1,999.99
posted to your account on 06/27/2018, causing an overdrawn balance of

Because you did not authorized this transaction, and to help resolve
this issue for you as soon as possible, I personally opened a claim with
our Claims Department.

Your claim will be assigned to a Claim Specialist for additional
research. Our Claim Specialists are experts at researching and resolving
disputed transactions. If written confirmation is required, a form will
be sent to you. Your claim will be resolved or your account will be
temporarily adjusted within 10 business days.

Once the claim is resolved, a credit for the transaction will be
provided and any fees associated with the transaction will be
reimbursed, unless the claim is denied.

Your claim reference number is 1807060027802. Please reference this
claim number when contacting us regarding your claim.

Once the claim has been filed, Online Customer Service does not have
access to the claim information and will not be able to provide you with
any updates. However, if at any time you would like information
regarding the status of your claim, or if you would no longer like to
pursue the claim, you can call a Claim Specialist at 1-877-548-9230.
They are available to assist you Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. and Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

This also confirms that a stop payment order has been completed on the
preauthorized payment to PayPal. We will make every attempt to stop
future items matching this exact merchant name and company ID; however,
we cannot guarantee the stop payment if the merchant presents the item
using a different merchant name or company ID number. The stop payment
will remain in effect until you remove it. Your reference number for the
stop payment is A818769444. Please use this reference number if you wish
to remove the stop payment. Please be aware that placing a stop payment
order does not release you from any contractual arrangements. You should
contact the issuing company to end any payment agreements. The notice
that you received about a stop payment being placed on your account was
a system generated notice that was a direct result of stop payment
number A818769444 being placed.

In regards to the transfer for $1,921.71 that was transferred from your
Credit Card account number ending in 0759, this was an overdraft
protection advance to offset the overdrawn balance in your checking

The overdraft protection feature, a service which can prevent checking
overdrafts and can save you money on returned check fees, was originally
set up in your credit card account number ending in 0759 to provide
overdraft protection for your checking account number ending in 5617. It
was only until 06/28/2018 when I have found that this service was
canceled as your credit card account number ending in 4672 was
established to provide overdraft protection instead.

As a reminder, when there are insufficient funds in your checking
account to cover a check or other debit transaction, we will
automatically transfer either $25.00 or the exact amount of the
overdraft, whichever is larger, to cover the amount of the overdraft. If
the available funds in the overdraft protection account are less than
$25.00, we will transfer whatever is available.

The transaction fees for overdraft protection advances are:

* $12.50 if the total of overdraft protection advances for the day is
$0.00 - $50.00
* $20.00 if the total of overdraft protection advances for the day is
greater than $50.00

Your account may also be subject to applicable interest charges for Cash
Advances from the date the cash advance transaction posts to your
account until the amount is paid in full. There is no grace period for
cash advances. Please refer to your Customer Agreement and Disclosure
Statement for more information regarding periodic interest charges and
transaction interest charges.

However, as I have already mentioned above, because the PayPal
transaction that was debited out of your checking account is
unauthorized, any fees associated with the transaction will be
reimbursed, which may also include the overdraft protection advance of

Going back to the original PayPal transaction that was charged from your
credit card account number ending in 4672, since this transaction is
currently being reviewed by our Fraud Specialists, it may be necessary
to please call our Fraud Prevention department anytime at 1-800-723-5533
for more information about the claim currently in place. If you are not
in the U.S., you can call us collect at 1-925-825-7600.

If you have further questions or concerns, please call us anytime at
1-800-642-4720 for Credit Card inquiries, or 1-800-TO-WELLS
(1-800-869-3557) for inquiries on your checking or savings account.

With that being said, I am truly sorry once more for the frustration and
inconvenience this matter has caused you. It is my hope that the
information provided is a bit more responsive to your concerns and
clarifies the bank's actions regarding this matter. We also regret these
circumstances have caused you to have a negative perception of our
company, and we truly hope for a future opportunity to regain your faith
and good regard.

On behalf of Wells Fargo, thank you for your business. Please be sure to
have a very wonderful and safe rest of your day!

Joshua H.
Wells Fargo


As of today, July 5, 2018, Wells Fargo has failed to correct the series of improper transactions with the effect of steering a charge I made on my 0% credit card, instead onto my card with the 26% interest. This is despite a 30 minute phone call with Wells Fargo on June 28, the same day I was notified of these improper Wells Fargo transactions, where I was told that the problem would be corrected.

In the time since, I have used this text messaging system to make inquiries about this matter. But instead of receiving any material responses from Wells Fargo, I only receive boiler plate messages attempting to steer these communications to phone calls.

That is unacceptable.

The communications regarding this matter must be made in writing/text, in order to keep a better record of this affair and about Wells Fargo banking practices.


Wells Fargo marks a valid, authorized credit card charge to my 0% card as "fraudulant", gives no reasonfor doing so, then processes an identical amount debit to my bank account from the same source 18 seconds later.

Wells Fargo Agrees To Pay $1 Billion To Settle Customer Abuse Claims

Wells Fargo agreed Friday to pay $1 billion to settle with two U.S. regulators who accused the nation’s third largest bank of abusing its customers.

The settlement comes two years after Wells Fargo was found to have opened millions of accounts in customers’ names that they did not know about or want.

The amount of the settlement is the largest imposed on a bank under the Trump administration. It will be split between the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

“It’s a serious matter and I think the amount of the settlement reflects that,” CFPB interim director Mick Mulvaney told ABC News. “While the CFPB will be working to try to reduce unnecessary regulations on the industry that doesn’t mean that folks will be free to abuse consumers.”

Wells Fargo Blasted By Shareholders For Series Of Abuses

Angry shareholders slammed Wells Fargo on Tuesday for abusing customers and tarnishing its reputation.

"This company has harmed and wounded millions of its customers," activist shareholder Sister Nora Nash said at the bank's annual shareholder meeting.

Demonstrators gathered outside the meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest Wells Fargo's various scandals as well as its financing for fossil fuel projects and gun manufacturing. 

Despite criticism of Wells Fargo (WFC), the bank's directors were all re-elected on Tuesday by a wide majority. None of the shareholder proposals pushing to rein in the bank received enough support to pass.

Friday, February 16, 2018

The Obama Painting Foretold?

While cleaning out my family's house garage, I found a copy of the November 19, 2012 Newsweek magazine, featuring an unusual juxtaposition of images.

The magazine's rear cover is turned back, thus showing me this photograph of this comedian, Rob Delaney, standing in front of and partially obscured by leaves.

I then look at this magazine issue's front cover and see an artist's rendition - painting - of then President Barack Obama, behind the title of an article "The Obama Conquest Lucky General or Master of the Game?" by Daniel Klaidman.

This is the cover.

It is one thing to see a magazine with a cover illustration of a U.S. President in a style reminiscent of illustrations of some other political figures, whether heads of state or military figures: standing in a uniform reflecting some sort of military-strategic genius.

But it is something even more-so to see such a magazine, featuring such an image on its cover, that also features an image of someone, particularly upon its rearmost internal page, in a style that the political figured shown on the front cover, would eventually have his official painting so rendered.

Did Obama, in seeing this magazine back in 2012, have it influence his decision of the style of his official portrait- painting, which would be unveiled in early 2018?

Friday, February 2, 2018

Trump's Apparant De-Evolution: On The Drug War ...

Squandering Billions To Undermine Peoples' Health and Violate Human Rights,
in order to Protect Tobacco Cigarettes, Synthetic Monopoly Medicine,
and prop up wasteful "treatment" and prison industries

In April, 1990, Donald Trump was widely quoted for his opposition to the drug war.

MIAMI — Billionaire New York developer Donald Trump says that legalizing drugs is the only way to win the war against what he considers one of America`s most serious problems.
Trump blamed the country`s drug problems on politicians who ``don`t have any guts`` and enforcement efforts that are ``a joke.`` ``We`re losing badly the war on drugs,`` Trump told 700 people at a luncheon Friday. ``You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.``,4533445&hl=en

 MIAMI — Billionaire New York developer Donald Trump said the nation's drug enforcement effort is "a joke" and repeated his call for the legalization of drugs Friday during a luncheon held by the Miami Herald.

``We`re losing badly the war on drugs," Trump said.  ``You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.``

Tax revenues from a legalized drug trade could be spent to educate the public on the dangers of drugs, Trump said during a speech at the newspaper's Company of the Year Awards luncheon.

Yet within his 2018 State of the Union Address as the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump stated:
“We must get much tougher on drug dealers and pushers if we are going to succeed in stopping this scourge,” 

Indeed.  So who is going to go after the government and every official who has propped up this massive criminal drug market protectionist racket?

Trump's apparently sociopathic Attorney General Sessions fervently supports this criminal racket.

As have countless other political opportunists for over a century, starting with those corrupted figures initiating it, most notably this, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and private groups as the American Medical Association and the American Pharmaceutical Association to protect markets for Tobacco Cigarettes, and Synthetic Monopoly Medicine?

See more articles about the U.S. government's criminal racket of the drug war within the April 2011 archives of my blog Freedom of Medicine and Diet.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

The New York Times De-Evolution: 1892 & 1915 Examples

Devolution, de-evolution, or backward evolution is the notion that species can revert to supposedly more primitive forms over time.

Examples from 1892 and 1915 reveal that The New York Times was a better news source before its 1896 purchase by Adolph Ochs.

A curious development of the concept of 'the news fit to print'
The Political Tendencies of his Successor
The Cardinal who would probably win the prize- his Polish supporter – affairs in France and Germany – Spurgeon’s Return – Lord Lorne’s Appointment
By the commercial cable from our own correspondent

Copyrighted 1892 by the New York Times

LONDON, Jan. 23- This evil Winter of fogs, plagues and famine bids fair to be long remembered. We are being passed from funeral to funeral about as it were a time of war. While the effects of the general mourning and idleness during the young Duke’s burial on Wednesday and the solemnly ornate obsequies of the old Cardinal through the darkened noonday streets on Thursday are still resting like a pall on Thursday are still resting like a pall on the public spirits, Rome sends out tidings which read like a summons to the deathbed of the Pope. At this hour it is difficult to get at the exact truth in the conflicting dispatches received, but it is at least not re-assuring to learn that the Italian government has established a rigorous telegraphic censorship over all of the messages about the Pope’s condition.

Republics never get to realize by their own experiences that curious phase of Europe’s condition, where all sorts of changes in the political, social, and commercial life of nations are continually hanging contingent upon the death of some very old man. Republics use up their public men more rapidly, and those who survive are relegated to private life at an age when in England they would have arrived at a reasonable expectation of getting into the Ministry.

In Europe old men hang on till they die. The new generations wait with more or less politeness and patience for their departure and then rush in forcibly to drag everything forward to date. Four years ago it was old William whose remarkable longevity was keeping the whole Empire back in the reactionary shadows of Metternich’s time. Since then it has been Mr. Gladstone’s amazing strength and virility which have bodily held back the swelling tide of Radicalism from bursting forth and overwhelmingly the old Liberal party organization. Watching him has become such a hopelessly stale story, however, that it needs only a hint to divert the general attention of the Vatican, where untold things depend on the waning life of another aged man.

The Papacy since 1870 has been in a position where practically everything turns upon the personality of the Pontiff and his choice of advisers. There can be no more mediocre Popes under whose nominal guidance matters can go on in commonplace routine. Every successor of Peter now must make a big mark in the history of the Church, for good or bad. If he is not very strong, he will be found lamentably weak. There is no longer any middle course.

Leo has been one of the strong kind. His fourteen years of reign have been devoted to building a new sort of Papacy beside rather than upon the ruins of the old structure. Considering the great difficulties and obstacles in the way of his task, proceeding even more from within then without, the result is exceptionally successful. Perhaps the outcome of his labors is best defined by saying that he has shown
those who thought the Papacy need no longer be taken into account in the world’s affairs because Rome has been wrestled from it that they were profoundly mistaken. The Vatican to-day wields far greater influence in Europe than it has done since the French Revolution.
But it is a peculiarly personal influence. The next Pope will inherit only the opportunities of securing it for himself and failing to improve these will be vastly easier than success.

It seems to be taken for granted that Cardinal Raphael Monaco la Valetta will secure the succession. He is the doyen of the Sacred College and Secretary of the Inquisition - an amiable, unambitious priest of sixty-five, who has the very slenderest notions of or interest in the general European situation. He is extremely simple in his tastes, is not in the least stirred by all the great outside social and political problems with which Leo has striven to grapple with as a sacerdotal Tory. By temperament he always belonged to the conservative wing of the college. He will assume the tiara, if elected, as its representative and as opposed to the small liberal group headed by Cardinal Parocchi. If he stood by himself there would be no risk in predicting that his would be a reign under which the papacy would lose more prestige than Leo had gained for it.

It is very well understood, however, that Monaco is entirely under the control of Ledochowski, that proud, imperious, and able Pole who made Bismarck such worlds of trouble in the old Kulturkampf day and who has been able to impose his will very often upon even the present Pope. This powerful man was in a German prison when Pius IX created him a Cardinal in 1875.
Next year he was released and banished, and he has since lived in Rome, devoting his great wealth and talents to building up a militant Ultramontagne party about him. His wrath at the treatment he received at the hands of Bismarck has colored all his political views. He has hated both Germany and Italy and has looked un ceasingly forward to the time when French bayonets should restore the temporal power of the Vatican in the old Roman States.

If we assume that this spirited and resolute prelate will shortly be ruling the Church through its nominal head, it becomes a most anxious question how he will accept the existing political conditions of Europe which have so radically changed since 1875. The new rulers of the Germans have been at pains to show their desire to abolish the last traces of the Kulturkampf. When the pending Prussian Education bill is passed, the German Catholics will be actually stronger than they were before the May laws. During the last half year these dispatches have frequently reflected the new interest which William and his immediate entourage are displaying in the Polish question. Of course a good deal of this has arisen naturally from the contemplation of the necessity of sooner or later fighting Russia: but even more it represents the effort to allure Ledochowski into friendship with Germany by an appeal to his national sentiment. How far this has successor will be, as has been said, a most anxious question.

In any event under this new regime there would be an abrupt cessation of pastorals on Socialistic and labor problems and of poems about St. Thomas Aquinas. We should instead see the Vatican boldly embark upon the troubled waters of European diplomacy, seeking alliances and taking desperate risks upon the fortune in the next war. The outcome of this altered policy it is wholly impossible to foretell, but at least it does not bid fair to lie in the direction of an increased spirituality.

Today William has been receiving the new King and Queen of Wurtemberg at Berlin with ceremonial pomp equal to that bestowed upon the most important of foreign monarchs. In this characteristically exuberant fashion he marks the fact that the old King Charles hated Prussia, whereas the present ruler admires it. With this demonstration particularism may be said to have been buried in Germany. Wurtemberg’s soldiers are to abandon the old double-breasted coat for the Prussian government, and in the coming maneuvers the Bavarian and Wurtemberg corps are to work side by side for the first time in the empire with Prussian troops. Even Posen is being coaxed and conciliated into harmony with the rest of Prussia and furtively excited by rumors of a restored Poland being set up on her borders.

Poland itself is likely to furnish food for a sensation before the year closes. Her patriots have been for months planning to commemorate this hundredth anniversary of the great partition by wearing mourning and abstaining from all festivities during twelve months. Gen. Gourko, the brutal Satrap of Poland, got the leading Polish nobles together at his New Year’s reception and brusquely advised them to give up their intentions of not dancing this year, “it would be better,” he said, “for you to dance of your own free will than that I should make you dance.”

The Poles are however, obstinately wearing black and avoiding social services, and as a consequence the stories of persecution, arrests and a wholesale reign of terror which cross the border are more distressing than ever.

Russia is at last reluctantly recognizing her powerlessness this year to do anything but fight the famine. Alll projected measures against the Jews and foreigners and what little remains of the Liberator Czar’s reformed institutions have been in definitely postponed, and by all officialdom has been set at work to keep the demon of starvation at bay. No news comes out save of hunger and pestilence punctuated with official piracy and emphasized by grave popular turbulence.

In France, accordingly, one hears very little now about Russian friendship, and nobody feels impelled to sing a Russian hymn. Paris has suddenly discovered that foreign politics are uninteresting and has concentrated her attention upon an amusing blackguard Deputy named Laur, who serves as the exiled Rochefort’s mouthpiece in the campaign of revolting defamation against Minister Constans. The whole episode is distinctly of an Elysee-Montmartre oder- that is to say, it couldn’t happen anywhere else than in Paris. It is only there that one has journals daily charging a Minister with unmentionable crimes and the Minister publicly thumping the head of the Deputy while he reiterates these charges in the Tribune. But perhaps even this is better business than subscribing to Russian loans.

Poor little Portugal, after prolonged wriggles and wry faces, has at last swallowed an ugly dose, and is openly discussing the necessity of selling some of her colonies. The fateful proposition has been made in the Cortes, and the newspapers are approving it. What makes this final sacrifice of dignity still more terrible to national contemplation is the abiding fear that it will be made in vain and that no buyers will appear. Unhappily, it seems rather more probable that the big States will now take what they want without mooting the question of payment at all.

The epidemic called influenza shows no signs of abating, either here or on the Continent, one day this week the London Time’s advertising columns recording this unprecedented number of 157 deaths. Of these the age was given in over 100 cases and the average of these was sixty-two years. Everywhere it is noted that the mortality among aged people is phenomenal.

One other curious fact common to England, France and Germany is the special severity of the epidemic at the seaside. All the North Sea and Channel towns, from Konigsberg to Havre, have suffered much more than the inland places. Portsmouth and Brighton have led the English death rate lists. Outlying islands like man and the Scillies have been literally ravaged by the disease.
Perhaps there is a hint in this for scientists.

Mr. Spurgeon is recovering his health in the south so rapidly that he is expected now soon to return. The thanks offering of his parishioners will take the curios form of a thirty five hundred dollar hydraulic elevator from the floor of his church up to the pulpit, which is now being put in. No other gift would have been so accept able to the pastor, for he is increasingly fat and short of breath, and the exertion of climbing the pulpit stairs used often to induce faintness and vertigo.

Not all of the pathos of the recent royal bereavement was concentrated on the person of the young Princess May.

Her father must feel convinced at last that he was born to bad luck. He poor man has been entangled in a fringe of bankruptcy for twenty years and bullied by Parlia mentary reformers whenever royal grants came up, and sarcastically alluded to in the flippant papers as the Duke of Tick. Finally, when the gates of fortune opened and a golden vista dazzled his vision, he could have had hardly time to borrow interest on his debts before they were shut again with a slam. To make matters worse, he was to receive the fat sinecure of Governor of Windsor Castle, but now, so completely is his nose out of joint that the berth has been given to the Marquis of Lorne, who is not in the least need of it.

This probably marks Lord Lorne’s apogee in the official position. He is not likely to get into the House of Commons and will carry no weight when he succeeds his father in the Lords. His attempts to secure distinction as an author have been sad failures. His last look on Viecount Palmerston took him an unconscionable while to do, and then was so badly written that the publishers had to have it done over again by a hack, although Lord Lorne’s name alone appears.

The Spectator gives a long critical notice of the warm praise to the two latest volumes of Henry Adams “United States.”

Contrast that 1892 article with that in 1915 essentially announcing the February 11, 1915 election of the 26th Jesuit Order Superior General, Wlodimir Ledochowski.
The New York Times, February 14, 1915

Calls “Black Pope” Kaiser’s Tool
Special cable to The New York Times
[no author given]

PARIS, Feb. 13 -- The Laterne, which is generally considered to represent the views of the Socialist section of the Cabinet, alludes to the election of a new General of the Jesuits, saying, “It is ridiculous to try as has been attempted by certain Catholic newspapers to persuade the public that the Jesuits are Francophile. Father Ledochowski’s election shows clearly that their efforts, as they always have been, are in opposition to French liberalism. We predict the ‘New Black Pope’s” policy in one phrase: he will act according to the Kaisers [sic] orders.
History since demonstrates this was a freudian slip of deliberate disinformation over a very critical point- the view of the Kaiser, and by extension the Kaiser Reich.

Origins: The New York Times was founded as the New-York Daily Times on September 18, 1851.[a] Founded by journalist and politician Henry Jarvis Raymond (1820–1869), and former banker George Jones, the Times was published by Raymond, Jones & Company (which raised about $70,000 initially).[25] Early investors in the company were Edwin B. Morgan,[26] Christopher Morgan,[27] and Edward B. Wesley.[28] Sold for a penny (equivalent to 29 cents today), the inaugural edition attempted to address various speculations on its purpose and positions that preceded its release:[29]
We shall be Conservative, in all cases where we think Conservatism essential to the public good;—and we shall be Radical in everything which may seem to us to require radical treatment and radical reform. We do not believe that everything in Society is either exactly right or exactly wrong;—what is good we desire to preserve and improve;—what is evil, to exterminate, or reform.
The newspaper shortened its name to The New-York Times on September 14, 1857. It dropped the hyphen in the city name on December 1, 1896.[31] On April 21, 1861, The New York Times began publishing a Sunday edition to offer daily coverage of the Civil War. One of the earliest public controversies it was involved with was the Mortara Affair, the subject of twenty editorials it published alone.[32]

The main office of The New York Times was attacked during the New York Draft Riots. The riots, sparked by the beginning of drafting for the Union Army, beginning on July 13, 1863. On "Newspaper Row", across from City Hall, Henry Raymond stopped the rioters with Gatling guns (early machine guns), one of which he manned himself. The mob diverted, and attacked the headquarters of abolitionist publisher Horace Greeley's New York Tribune until forced to flee by the Brooklyn City Police, who had crossed the East River to help the Manhattan authorities.[33]
In 1869, Raymond died, and George Jones took over as publisher.[34]

The newspaper's influence grew during 1870–1871 when it published a series of exposés on William Tweed, leader of the city's Democratic Party—popularly known as "Tammany Hall" (from its early 19th century meeting headquarters)—that led to the end of the Tweed Ring's domination of New York's City Hall.[35] Tweed offered The New York Times five million dollars (equivalent to more than 100 million dollars today) to not publish the story.[26]

In the 1880s, The New York Times transitioned gradually from editorially supporting Republican Party candidates to becoming more politically independent and analytical.[36] In 1884, the paper supported Democrat Grover Cleveland (former Mayor of Buffalo and Governor of New York State) in his first presidential campaign.[37] While this move cost The New York Times a portion of its readership among its more progressive and Republican readers (the revenue declined from $188,000 to $56,000 from 1883-1884), the paper eventually regained most of its lost ground within a few years.[38]

Ochs era: After George Jones died in 1891, Charles Ransom Miller and other New York Times editors raised $1 million dollars to buy the Times printing it under the New York Times Publishing Company.[39][40] However, the newspaper was financially crippled by the Panic of 1893,[38] and by 1896, the newspaper had a circulation of less than 9,000, and was losing $1,000 a day. That year, controlling interest in it was gained by Adolph Ochs, publisher of the Chattanooga Times for $75,000.[41]
Shortly after assuming control of the paper, Ochs coined the paper's slogan, "All The News That's Fit To Print". The slogan has appeared in the paper since September 1896,[42]

Ochs-Sulzberger family

In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought The New York Times, a money-losing newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States' newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.[37] The publisher went public on January 14, 1969, trading at $42 a share on the American Stock Exchange.[94] After this, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.

The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the company's class B shares. Any alteration to the dual-class structure must be ratified by six of eight directors who sit on the board of the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust. The Trust board members are Daniel H. Cohen, James M. Cohen, Lynn G. Dolnick, Susan W. Dryfoos, Michael Golden, Eric M. A. Lax, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and Cathy J. Sulzberger.[95]

Turner Catledge, the top editor at The New York Times from 1952 to 1968, wanted to hide the ownership influence. Arthur Sulzberger routinely wrote memos to his editor, each containing suggestions, instructions, complaints, and orders. When Catledge would receive these memos he would erase the publisher's identity before passing them to his subordinates. Catledge thought that if he removed the publisher's name from the memos it would protect reporters from feeling pressured by the owner.[96]

Additional blog articles about The New York Times in Continuing Counter Reformation

In particular, see this one: