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?

(Article by Eric Zuesse republished from Strategic-Culture.org)

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:

Amendment I

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.

Read more at: Strategic-Culture.org