Connect with us

Latest

Breaking

Analysis

The Defeat of Judge Roy Moore

The success of the disinformation campaign and how to stop it

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

3,178 Views

The Alabama Special Election cycle has been the source of much drama in the American media over the last month.  The vacancy left in the U.S. Senate by the appointment of Senator Jeff Sessions to Attorney General needed to be filled, and the people of Alabama had three people to pick from: Democrat Doug Jones, and Republicans Luther Strange and Judge Roy Moore.

When Judge Moore won the primary election, this was seen as a victory for strong conservatives, who feared that Strange would act much as the Establishment Republicans do – which is apparently in their own interests, rather than the interests of the people as manifested in the policy decisions proposed and promised by President Trump.

There has long been controversy surrounding Judge Moore, for his very strong Christian stance about directing the probate judges to continue the Alabama state ban on same-sex marriages (after the US Supreme Court ruled such bans as unconstituional) in 2016, and for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the lobby of his courthouse in 2003.

Moore was seen as what he is – a true conservative and a firebrand at that, someone who, like Trump, would light the establishment on fire and destroy its power, and someone who would not be afraid to be controversial in the cause of what is truly right, especially in that he follows the traditional Christian worldview very strongly.  For him, religious practice is not just something to be talked about, it is something to be lived.

This, again, is much like the brazen honesty that we see in President Trump himself.

The aforementioned “establishment” should be explained here. In this author’s estimation, the “establishment” politicians are those who seem to forget that they are in Congress to serve the American people they were elected to represent.  Now, while it has been a long time since the United States truly functioned as the representative republic its Constitution defines it to be, in relatively recent decades, the disconnect between DC and the rest of the nation seems to have increased beyond belief. Many times, citizens of the USA, in either party, could be heard to complain that Congress does not serve anyone but itself, and, depending on who the party in power was, we could be sure that the party not in power would be rife with complaints about how “elitism” of the party in power hurt the average American.

In 2014, though, it appeared that more Americans than usual got a rude awakening to just how widely true this assertion was.  In that year there was a midterm election, and it was extremely significant, because the result of it was that the Senate went from being a Democrat majority to a Republican majority.

Even more significant was how this happened.  In an unusual development, the GOP had no overall party platform that each GOP candidate used as their core message in his or her campaign.  Each GOP winner, whether in the Senate or House, won because their message was “I am going to stop Obama.”

I am going to stop Obama.  If you elect me, we will stop his “fundamental transformation” of America and make things right, (get them back as they used to be).

That was the message, and every candidate that ran on this message was victorious.

But then came the betrayal.

In case by case, bill by bill, the new GOP majority capitulated to Democrat minority pressure in almost every single bill or measure proposed.  The GOP had majorities in both houses.  They could effectively stop Obama and his policies in their tracks.  But they didn’t.  And they didn’t again.  And again.  Sometimes we heard the GOP congressmen claim that they were trying to “position themselves” to do something really significant, but they almost never did it.

Understanding this series of events, what this author calls “the Great GOP Betrayal of 2014”, is perhaps the main cause of the phenomenon that is Donald Trump, and his unexpected and dramatic election victory.

There were a whole lot of American citizens, this one included, that held no trust for Congress, GOP or Democrat.  Trump won the nomination because even Ted Cruz still played politics.  The American conservatives had been betrayed one too many times, and they sensed this and all it took was Senator Cruz playing the game of expediency in politics once or twice, and that was all.

Donald Trump said all the wrong things, to all the people they needed to be said to, and this both frightened and thrilled many of us.  We were frightened because for almost fifty years the vaunted American right to freedom of speech had been increasingly snuffed out by political correctness Thought Police, and Mr. Trump said these things anyway, and we feared for the end of his political career, even though we strongly agreed with him.  We were thrilled because we saw that it wasn’t only ourselves that felt what he said, but that many of our friends still did, too, only we had been silenced by the Left.

Judge Moore is one of these kind of people.  Flamboyant, but honest.  Although the man was long involved in politics, many conservatives saw the same necessary spirit in him, the same fire to overturn the conventional way things are done, and to flout political correctness and other liberal maxims and to make America great again. It was precisely along these lines that Steve Bannon promoted Judge Moore and backed his candidacy.

But something happened along the way.  A number of women surfaced with strange stories, claiming that when Judge Moore was in his early thirties, he tried to have relationships with them while they were teenagers.

The scandal surrounding this was immediate and widespread.  The story was broken in such a way as to paint a picture of the Judge as some sort of child molester, because the age difference was so huge as to be inappropriate or perverted.

The press managed to be slightly subtle in that the strength of the allegations was in their indirect sense of innuendo.

This had an extremely effective impact on the nation, and it began to unravel the Judge’s chances.  Even President Trump was cautious in his response to this matter, saying, correctly but cautiously, “If Judge Moore did these things, he should do the right thing and exit the campaign.”

To President Trump’s credit, this was precisely correct.  However, it didn’t help.

Further, Judge Moore actually damaged himself much more in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, when he was vague, answering “not generally, no” to the question about if he was “dating girls that young at that time.” He further appeared to step in it when he said that he did not recall ever dating any girl without the permission of her mother.

Hannity charged ahead because these answers were far too ambiguous for him, and one thing this author knows personally about Sean is that he is a man of his word.  Sean Hannity is a man that is definitely responsive to his own conscience, and he is not one to brush things under the rug like this.  And true to form, he didn’t, and gave the Judge 24 hours to clean this mess up, saying “You must immediately and fully come up with a satisfactory explanation for your inconsistencies… If [Moore] can’t do this, [he] needs to get out of this race.”

Judge Moore did so, in an open letter through Twitter addressed to Sean, but available for all to read.

He also continued from that point until the election to firmly and completely deny the allegations against him.  However, in a strange turn, the weekend before the election, he disappeared for a couple days.  Also, in an appearance very close to the election, his wife committed a blunder by saying “we are not anti-Semitic, one of our lawyers is a Jew!”

This writer remembers, as an Alabama kid myself, watching a TV commercial in the 1970’s about Jimmy’s Jewish friend.  I learned that a good way of showing you’re prejudiced is to try to say you are not.  It would seem that Mrs. Moore missed the commercial.

The damage was done.  The media was out to get Judge Moore, and their disinformation campaign worked wonders.  This author did not even know about the reply the Judge gave until researching for this piece.  This, though this writer intensely follows the news aggregators and websites that support conservative candidates.

Eventually, as we know, President Trump endorsed Moore and did it in a very pragmatic way:  Look at what he stands for, and look at what the other guy has stood for.  But it wasn’t quite enough, and on the night of December 12, Doug Jones, a Democrat, became the first Democrat Senator-Elect in Alabama in 25 years.

Now, the Democrat party is crowing with great confidence about the “victory” in this election and the certainty that 2018 is going to be the year that swings their way again.  This author wants to make a few predictions about the next set of events we will likely see, but then there is something more important to be said.

(1) The “allegations” against Judge Roy Moore will seem to vanish, because there is no need to bring them up anymore since he has been defeated in the election. This is a problem. If these allegations really had merit, they should be pursued. But they won’t be.

(2) NEW allegations with much greater ferocity will be brought against President Trump and selected GOP individuals, all of whom show greatly conservative leanings. Since that is not many, most of the attention will be on Trump. I think we can note that this has already started, but it will amplify radically because the people who used this tactic against Moore will believe it can work against the President.

(3) The Democrats will get very bold about 2018 (again we already see this in statements by Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer and no doubt Rep. Nancy Pelosi will chime in if she hasn’t already) – and the Dems will act like they are completely in control.

(4) This will lead to some very interesting public drama, but it will also cloud the picture. If our President is smart (and he is), he will probably use this situation very positively. He has already started by congratulating Senator-Elect Jones, and this is certainly appropriate. I suspect that Jones is more extreme on the liberal side than even HE knows, but at the same time, I think he will also (at least on his own) be rather amenable to Trump. The key here is how much pressure can Jones take from the others in his party.

This author believes that President Trump can snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat.  He is already doing so.  However, the president’s great talents notwithstanding, there is a problem that has to be faced.

We do not know if Judge Moore misbehaved thirty years ago.  But his campaign was destroyed by these allegations, and one major one was proved to be at least a partial fabrication, the altered yearbook signature, which was “tweaked” for the purpose of this slander.

In the campaign, “character” was raised as an issue, but in reality it was slander and gossip that brought this candidate down, and nothing more.  The awesome power of the mass media on a population that has been largely taught to avoid critical thinking, but instead to “go with the flow”, has worked a sad wonder here.

You see, these stories magically appeared forty years after they supposedly took place, timed perfectly to coincide with the intended defeat of a political candidate twenty-eight days before his possible election. This was a November surprise that worked where the October Surprise attempt against Donald Trump last year (the Access Hollywood – Billy Bush video clip) didn’t.

This author is almost sure the allegations are false and only fabricated because of the necessity to defeat this renegade candidate at all costs.  As predicted above, time will bear this idea out.  We shall see.

But a problem exists as to why (1) the American people do not seem to be able to smell the rat in this situation, and (2) the politicians attempt not to be blunt in the face of a need by the American people to be so.

In this, the power of political correctness, secular humanist “compassion” and militant feminism all worked very effectively to damage President Trump’s ability to move the country to a better place.

It seems that the first issue, the populace’s perceived inability to smell a rat, is actually the reflection of a real need. The need for honesty.

Americans are people that crave honesty.  Many of us admire Donald Trump simply because he says what he thinks.  If we disagree, we disagree, but at least we know, and we know without the shadow of a doubt.  Judge Moore gave us a big shadow of doubt, and that was fodder for the dishonesty brigade that is the mainstream media in the United States.

The second part of this problem is that a great number of our people have been taken in by the influence of what can only truly be called “cultural Marxism” but which bears the face of “progress” and “compassion” and even “repentance for our nation’s crimes.”

This impulse, to be compassionate and fair at all costs actually does come with a cost, because our standards for what constitute compassion and care have been altered.  Instead of honesty and responsibility, for example, we espouse entitlement and victimhood.  Instead of changing our own lives to become better people, we insist that the world around us is unfair, and we try to change the externals, including other people’s behavior, or our own recording and retelling of history, to make ourselves feel better.

We stop trusting the gut instinct of conscience in ourselves and instead we espouse the “groupthink” that is handed to us by the forces of “common sense”, unmindful that we already possess enough common sense to know that garbage really IS garbage.  Finally, we all do it together.  As denizens of the fishbowl, it becomes hard to see that we are really being played, and if we try to look, sometimes the sheer discomfort of what we begin to see is enough to make us want to “take the blue pill” and shrink back into blissful, willful ignorance.

The gift of being able to see that reality is NOT groupthink, and that people can express it fearlessly and powerfully, is the gift of such people as President Trump, Rand Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Sanders, and Steve Bannon, politically speaking.  It is also fomented by the publications of what are called the “alternative media”, who are alternative simply because the writers and journalists and analysts have laid claim to their desire to think things through, critically for themselves, and then share their thoughts with their audiences, not to obtain just another slavish group of drones that think their way, but who think critically for themselves.

This ability to think honestly and critically, to analyze things with open-mindedness that is not enslaved to the socially “acceptable” themes of the day, this is our work as citizens – each one of us is called to do this.

The United States’ great success as a young nation was at its best when its people engaged in critical thought.  We squabbled a lot, argued a lot and it was intense at times, but honest people make things happen.  The fuzzy warm feel-good of groupthink has been largely responsible for taking our freedom away.  If we want to make the most of the chance that has been given us, hopefully this piece has illustrated some of how we, personally and as a people, can accomplish this.

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Denmark As A Model For American Socialists?

In Denmark, everyone pays at least the 25% value-added tax (VAT) on all purchases. Income tax rates are high.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Lars Hedegard via The Gatestone Institute:


Here are some facts to consider before American “democratic socialists” look to Denmark for guidance, as Senator Bernie Sanders did during the 2016 presidential campaign.

First of all, Danes actually pay for their brand of socialism through heavy taxation. In Denmark, everyone pays at least the 25% value-added tax (VAT) on all purchases. Income tax rates are high. If you receive public support and are of working age and healthy enough to work, the state will require that you look for a job or it will force a job on you.

The willingness of all the Danes to pay high taxes is predicated on the country’s high degree of homogeneity and level of citizens’ trust in each other, what sociologists call “social capital.” By and large, Danes do not mind paying into the welfare state because they know that the money will go to other Danes like themselves, who share their values and because they can easily imagine themselves to be in need of help — as most of them, from time to time, will be.

Whenever politicians propose tax cuts, they are met with vehement opposition: So, you want to cut taxes? What part of the welfare state are you willing to amputate? And that ends the debate.

Danes, in contrast to American socialists gaining ground in the Democratic Party, are increasingly aware that the welfare state cannot be sustained in conditions of open immigration. A political party agitating for “no borders” could never win a Danish election. Danes do not suffer from historical guilt: they have not attacked any other country for more than two centuries and have never committed a genocide.

Moreover, there is an even deeper truth to ponder: Denmark is not really socialist but constitutes a sui generis fusion of free-market capitalism and some socialist elements. Denmark has no minimum wage mandated by law. Wages, benefits and working conditions are determined through negotiations between employers and trade unions. 67% of Danish wage-earners are members of a union, compared to 19% in Germany and 8% in France. Strikes and lockouts are common, and the government will usually stay out of labor conflicts unless the parties are unable to agree.

It is uncomplicated for enterprises to fire workers, which gives them great flexibility to adapt to shifting market conditions. To alleviate the pain, the state has in place a number of arrangements such as generous unemployment benefits and programs to retrain and upgrade redundant workers.

Danish companies must make ends meet or perish. They generally will not get handouts from the government.

Denmark is more free-market oriented than the US. According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2018 Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark is number 12, ahead of the United States (number 18). Venezuela is at the bottom, one place ahead of number 180, North Korea.

Mads Lundby Hansen, chief economist of Denmark’s respected pro-free-market think tank CEPOS, comments:

“Very high taxes and the vast public sector clearly detract in the capitalism index and reduce economic freedom. But Denmark compensates by protecting property rights, by low corruption, relatively little regulation of private enterprise, open foreign trade, healthy public finances and more. This high degree of economic freedom is among the reasons for Denmark’s relatively high affluence.”
Trish Regan recently claimed on Fox Business that Danes pay a “federal tax rate” of 56% on their income. This is misleading. The 55.8% is the levied on the marginaltax for the top income bracket, only on the part of their income above DKK 498,900 ($76,500). Any income under DKK 498,900 is taxed at lower rates. And the 55.8% marginal rate does not represent a “federal” or “national” rate. It represents the total of all taxes on income: national tax, regional tax, municipal tax and labor market tax. It does not, however, include Denmark’s 25% value-added tax (VAT), paid on all purchases.

Regan also claimed that Danes pay a 180% tax on cars. While it is true that there was once a maximum tax of 180% on care in Denmark, the vehicle tax rates have been lowered in recent years. Today, the first DKK 185,100 ($28,400) of the price of a gas- or diesel-powered car is taxed at 85%, and if the car’s price is above DKK 185,100, the remaining amount is taxed at 150% — which is of course bad enough.

Denmark’s total tax burden amounts to 45.9% of GDP, the highest of all countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

As pointed out in the Fox Business segment, all education for Danes is tuition-free, all the way through to a Ph.D. Not only that; the state will, within certain time constraints, pay students to study. For students at university level no longer living with their parents, the monthly cash grant comes to almost $1,000 per month. No fewer than 325,000 students out of a total population of 5.6 million benefit from this generous arrangement setting the state back to the tune of DKK 20.9 billion or 1% of GDP (latest 2018 figures just in and supplied by Mads Lundby Hansen). Denmark even pays student support to 20,000 foreign students.

Attempts by fiscal conservatives to cut down on payments to students have been successfully resisted by the vociferous and influential student organizations; at present it would appear impossible to muster anything like a parliamentary majority to limit the student handouts.

Fox Business is right that a great many Danes are on public transfer payments. Government figures from 2017 indicate that 712,300 Danes of working age (16-64) — not including recipients of student benefits — get public financial support. But Regan’s claim that most Danes do not work is ludicrous. According to Statistics Denmark, 69.9% of Danes aged 16-64 are active in the labor market.

How can Denmark pay for its comprehensive welfare state, which includes free medical care regardless of the severity of your condition? Regan claims that Denmark is “heavily in debt.” Not so. As it turns out, Denmark is among the least indebted countries in the world, even when compared to other Western countries. The Danish government’s gross debt stands at 35.9% of GDP. Compare that to, e.g., The United Kingdom (86.3 %), The United States (108%), Belgium (101%), Canada (86.6%), France (96.3%), Germany (59.8%), The Netherlands (53.5%), Italy (129.7%), Spain (96.7%) and even Switzerland (41.9%).

Comparing Denmark to the US, Madsen notes that the latter has a problem with fiscal sustainability that may necessitate tax increases. Denmark enjoys what he labels fiscal “oversustainability” (“overholdbarhed”).

At a time when socialism appears to be popular among certain sections of the American population, its proponents would do well not to cite Denmark as a model. The Danish fusion of free-market capitalism and a comprehensive welfare state has worked because Denmark is a small country with a very homogeneous population. This economic and social model rests on more than 150 years of political, social and economic compromises between peasants and landowners, business-owners and workers, and right- and left-leaning political parties. This has led to a measure of social and political stability that would be hard to emulate in much larger and more diverse counties such as the United States.


Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Speech Society, is based in Denmark.

Continue Reading

Latest

Ron Paul: Protectionism Abroad and Socialism at Home

One of the most insidious ways politicians expand government is by creating new programs to “solve” problems created by politicians.

Ron Paul

Published

on

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


One of the most insidious ways politicians expand government is by creating new programs to “solve” problems created by politicians. For example, government interference in health care increased health care costs, making it difficult or even impossible for many to obtain affordable, quality care. The effects of these prior interventions were used to justify Obamacare.

Now, the failures of Obamacare are being used to justify further government intervention in health care. This does not just include the renewed push for socialized medicine. It also includes supporting new laws mandating price transparency. The lack of transparency in health care pricing is a direct result of government policies encouraging overreliance on third-party payers.

This phenomenon is also observed in foreign policy. American military interventions result in blowback that is used to justify more military intervention. The result is an ever-expanding warfare state and curtailments on our liberty in the name of security.

Another example of this is related to the reaction to President Trump’s tariffs. Many of America’s leading trading partners have imposed “retaliatory” tariffs on US goods. Many of these tariffs target agriculture exports. These tariffs could be devastating for American farmers, since exports compose as much as 20 percent of the average farmer’s income.

President Trump has responded to the hardships imposed on farmers by these retaliatory tariffs with a 12 billion dollars farm bailout program. The program has three elements: direct payments to farmers, use of federal funds to buy surplus crops and distribute them to food banks and nutrition programs, and a new federal effort to promote American agriculture overseas.

This program will not fix the problems caused by Tramp’s tariffs. For one thing, the payments are unlikely to equal the money farmers will lose from this trade war. Also, government marketing programs benefit large agribusiness but do nothing to help small farmers. In fact, by giving another advantage to large agribusiness, the program may make it more difficult for small farmers to compete in the global marketplace.

Distributing surplus food to programs serving the needy may seem like a worthwhile use of government funds. However, the federal government has neither constitutional nor moral authority to use money taken by force from taxpayers for charitable purposes. Government-funded welfare programs also crowd out much more effective and compassionate private efforts. Of course, if government regulations such as the minimum wage and occupational licensing did not destroy job opportunities, government farm programs did not increase food prices, and the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies did not continuously erode purchasing power, the demand for food aid would be much less. By increasing spending and debt, the agriculture bailout will do much more to create poverty than to help the needy.

Agriculture is hardly the only industry suffering from the new trade war. Industries — such as automobile manufacturing — that depend on imports for affordable materials are suffering along with American exporters. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (who supports tariffs) has called for bailouts of industries negatively impacted by tariffs. He is likely to be joined in his advocacy by crony capitalists seeking another government handout.

More bailouts will only add to the trade war’s economic damage by increasing government spending and hastening the welfare–warfare state’s collapse and the rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. Instead of trying to fix tariffs-caused damage through more corporate welfare, President Trump and Congress should pursue a policy of free markets and free trade for all and bailouts for none.

Continue Reading

Latest

In Monsters We Trust: US Mainstream Media No Friend of the American People

Over 300 US newspapers ran editorials on the same day denouncing Trump, an event in itself that points to some high degree of collusion and groupthink.

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Over the course of his turbulent presidency, Donald Trump has accused various media companies, with special attention reserved for CNN, as being purveyors of ‘fake news.’ In one early-morning Tweet last year, he slammed the “FAKE NEWS media” as the “enemy of the people.”

This week, over 300 US newspapers ran editorials on the same day – an event in itself that points to some high degree of collusion and groupthink – denouncing Trump’s insensitive portrayal of them, as if the notion that journalists were not in the same sleaze league as lawyers, politicians and professional con artists never crossed anyone’s mind before. Even the peace-loving Mahatma Gandhi recommended “equality for everyone except reporters and photographers.”

But is the MSM really an “enemy of the people?”

First, it cannot be denied that the US media, taken in all its wholesomeness, has been overwhelmingly consistent in its ‘style’ of reporting on Donald Trump, the 45th POTUS. And by consistent I mean unprecedentedly critical, misleading and outright aggressive in its guerilla coverage of him. If one is not convinced by the gloom-and-doom Trump stories featured daily in the Yahoo News feed, then a study by the Media Research Center (MRC) should do the job. From January 1 through April 30, evening news coverage of the US leader – courtesy of ABC, CBS and NBC – were 90 percent negative, which is pretty much the same incredible average revealed by MRC one year earlier.

The study looked at every one of the 1,065 network evening news stories about Trump and his administration during the first four months of 2018. Total negative news time devoted to Trump: 1,774 minutes, or about one-third of all evening news airtime. That’s pretty much the definition of a circle jerk.

“Nearly two-fifths (39%) of the TV coverage we examined focused on Trump scandals and controversies, while 45 percent was devoted to various policy issues,” MRC wrote in its report.

Meanwhile, the farcical Russia ‘collusion’ story was consistently the main grabber — clocking in at 321 minutes, or nearly one-fifth of all Trump coverage. Of the 598 statements MRC calculated about Trump’s personal scandals, virtually all of them (579, or 97%) came out of the media wash cycle tarred and feathered.

If this represents an orchestrated attack on the Commander-in-Chief, and in light of those numbers it would be difficult to argue it isn’t, the strategy appears to be falling flat. Despite, or precisely because of, the avalanche of negative media coverage, Trump’s popularity rating smashed the 50 percent ceiling in early August and continues to remain high.

In Monsters We Trust

Although it can be safely stated that the MSM is an entrenched and relentless enemy of Donald Trump, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an “enemy of the American people,” as Trump argues it is. Let’s be a bit more diplomatic and say it isn’t our friend.

One yard stick for proving the claim is to consider the steadily mounting concentration of media holdings. In 1983, 90 percent of US media were controlled by 50 companies; today, 90 percent is controlled by the Big Six (AT&TComcastThe Walt Disney Company21st Century FoxCBS and Viacom control the spoken and printed word from sea to shining sea).Although many people are aware of the monopolistic tendencies of the US mainstream media, it’s important to understand the level of concentration. It means the vast majority of everything you see and hear on any electronic device or printed publication is ‘democratically’ controlled by six average white guys and their shareholders.

However, keeping track of who owns what these days is practically impossible since the dozens of subsidiary companies that fall under each main company are themselves fiefdoms, each with their own separate holdings. In fact, the already short ‘Big Six’ list is already dated, since National Amusements, Inc. has gobbled up both Viacom and CBS, while 21st Century Fox merged with Disney this year. As for the 350 US newspapers that penned tortured editorials decrying Trump’s critical opinion of them, many of those ‘local’ publications get their marching orders from either the Hearst Communications or the Gannett Company on the East Coast.

Now, with this sort of massive power and influence lying around like dynamite, it stands to reason, or unreason, that the corporate and political worlds will succumb to the law of attraction and gravitation, forging powerful and impregnable relationships. It’s no secret that the politicians, our so-called ‘public servants,’ are mostly in the game to make a fast buck, while the corporations, desperate for ‘democratic representation’ to control regulation and market share, have an inexhaustible source of funds to secure it. Naturally, this oligarchical system precludes any sort of democratic participation from the average person on the street, who thinks just because he remembers to yank a lever once every several years he is somehow invested in the multibillion-dollar franchise.

As far as media corporations being ‘private enterprises’ and therefore free to demolish the freedom of speech (even censoring major media players, like Infowars, simply because they whistle to a different political tune), that is quickly becoming revealed as nothing more than corporate cover for state-sponsored machinations.

“In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship,” writes Caitlin Johnstone. “Because legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations has given wealthy Americans the ability to control the US government’s policy and behavior while ordinary Americans have no effective influence whatsoever, the US unquestionably has a corporatist system of government.”

Meanwhile, it cannot be denied, from the perspective of an impartial observer, that the mainstream media is nearly always positioned to promote the government narrative on any number of significant issues. From the media’s unanimous and uncritical clamoring that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 (even the FBI has admitted it has no “hard evidence” that bin Laden carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon), to its gung-ho enthusiasm for the 2003 Iraq War, to the sycophantic cheerleading for a war in Syria, the examples of media toeing the government line are legion. And if US intel is in bed with Hollywood you can be damn sure they’re spending time in the MSM whorehouse as well.

Is it any surprise, then, that public trust in the US media is reaching all-time lows, while news consumers are increasingly looking to alternative news sites – themselves under relentless attack – to get some semblance of the elusive truth, which is the God-given right of any man? Truth is our due, and we should demand nothing less.

As Thomas Paine reminded the world in the face of a different foe: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending