The New York Times, as Robert Parry has pointed out, “Cheers the Rise of Censorship”, but only of censorship of any allegations that expose the fraudulence of the NYT’s allegations. The Washington Post, Google, the TV networks, and practically all of the famous providers of ‘news’, have joined forces in order to block from the internet any statements that contradict, or especially any evidence that disproves, what they collectively define to be ’true’; and while they do this, they add a lie: that their sole aim in doing this rigging of web-search results is to prevent ‘misinformation’ from polluting your mind. They use as an excuse the existence of some flagrantly fabricated reports on obscure websites, but if the mainstream press can ban reports such as those, then they can also ban real news reports which expose the mainstream’s own lies. In other words: they are implementing their collective power to block you from being able to know that they’re systematically lying. Will the public trust them with this power?
Parry says that if this effort by them is allowed to proceed, then we shall be fully in the Brave New World, of 1984 — and, of course, he is correct in that, which means that everyone should unsubscribe and not pay a cent to all of the ’news’ media that are trying to block the public from having access to evidence and allegations that contradict what these bullies in the ‘news’ media pump as being their mutually-agreed-upon ‘truth’.
Is this a religion that they’re proselytizing, or is it the press in a democracy? Is what these people are trying to impose upon the public in accord with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Consider the Amendment carefully:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There is no “free exercise” at all, if this religion — this faith in the infallibility of some allegedly inerrant scripture (in this case: whatever these ’news’media are saying) — is being imposed. Is the First Amendment intended to protect the right of the owners of the press, these people who own the media; or is it instead intended to protect the right of the public to have access to all sides of every public issue so that they will be able to vote in elections in an honestly informed way, which may have some falsehoods in it (because perfection does not exist in any societal enterprise), but which has been selected by each voter instead of imposed upon the voter (canonized as ‘holy scripture’, even if not overtly alleged to be such)? And is this “the press” intended to be some portion of the press, that is somehow rightfully empowered to crush all the rest? Is what America’s mainstream ‘news’ media are trying to do here not only a flagrant violation of their most solemn responsibility to the public whom they are supposed to be serving, but also a form of real treachery against the nation itself?
What happens if a portion of the press bullies the rest of the press and blocks their ability to report ‘inconvenient truths’? (This is what’s now being put into place, by the effort to prevent discordant allegations and evidence from being carried on the internet.) If Congress were to pass a law to prohibit that bullying, would doing this support the aim and spirit of the First Amendment, or instead violate it? You decide — and then, once you decide, maybe contact your Senators and Representative to outlaw any such bullying. How many politicians would allege that the First Amendment protects the right of some media-owners to block news-reports from other media-owners? It wouldn’t fly.
They want you not to know that they are lying when they allege that clear and convincing evidence has been presented that Bashar al-Assad perpetrated a sarin gas attack on April 4th — and not to know that President Trump was lying when he bombed Syria saying that clear evidence had been presented to him showing this to have been proven.
They want you not to know that Obama’s sanctions against Russia for accepting Crimea back into Russia, of which Crimea had been for hundreds of years a part until the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transferred it to Ukraine in 1954, are punishing Russia when the actual villain in the entire affair was Obama himself.
They want to force you to believe what they publish to be reality, and that what you are reading here and in the linked-to sources here is merely ‘fake news’. If it is news of any type, it is real history, because those media-bullies didn’t report it when it was news. Instead, they hid it from you. Now, after-the-fact, it has become history, but when it was news, it was being hidden from you, and they would have called it ‘fake news’ if they had mentioned it at all.
Do you trust those ‘news’ media? If so, why? And what will be the end-result of their success in what they are doing, if not World War III and nuclear annihilation?
Some of them (such as “Democracy Now!”) pretend to be ‘progressive’, even while pumping lies for the aristocracy. Their audience are deceived into thinking that the main source of funding for such sites is these poor idealists themselves, so they donate, not imagining that billionaires are actually the main funding-source behind such ‘news’ sites.
The aristocrats who got Hitler into power were no more obsessed to control the world than are America’s aristocracy today; and this time, the results could be even worse.
This is deadly serious. But to America’s aristocrats, it’s only a game that they are dead-set on ‘winning’.
FULL DISCLOSURE: Google has threatened one of my publishers, which depressed him, but he ultimately decided that truth is more important than ‘success’. Another, which happens to be in Germany, is likewise resisting, and is also being forced, by both Google and Facebook, to beg for donations from readers, in order to be able to keep going. And those are just two examples. This operation by the major media and its advertisers, etc., is what today calls itself ‘the free press’, in ‘the free world’.