\nCe texte de pr\u00e9sentation d’un article qui doit \u00eatre vu et lu, m\u00eame en anglais, comme une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence descriptive d’une situation catastrophique, ne peut \u00e9chapper \u00e0 l’\u00e9vidence assez d\u00e9licate qu’il s’accompagne d’un encouragement \u00e0 nous soutenir. Je sais que vous demander de nous soutenir, c’est vous dire ceci : \u00ab\u00a0Je vais vous demander de l’argent\u00a0\u00bb ; pardonnez-moi s’il vous plaît et si vous le voulez, de n’\u00eatre pas aussi franc et net, parce que c’est le genre de phrase que je n’aime pas.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Le texte ci-dessous, avec son introduction de mon fait, met en \u00e9vidente une situation hors de la conception humaine en mati\u00e8re de tricherie, mensonge, falsification, sournoiseries et subornation ; c’est un simulacre sans exemple de puissance, d’aveuglement, de corruption de la psychologie (pour la perception) et de l’\u00e2me (pour la m\u00e9ditation). Évidemment, jamais une telle entreprise n’a \u00e9t\u00e9 mont\u00e9e par des esprits humaines, aid\u00e9es par une telle machinerie technologique infernale. Contre ces gens-l\u00e0, devenus zombies d’eux-m\u00eames, et leurs m\u00e9thodes, vous n’avez que des gens comme nous pour r\u00e9sister sur leur terrain de la communication. Je trouve que cela justifie une telle d\u00e9marche : \u00a0\u00bb Pour cette raison, aujourd’hui plus que jamais, il me paraît juste de vous demander de nous soutenir\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
23 d\u00e9cembre 2020 – Sans doute a-t-on atteint ces derni\u00e8res semaines depuis le 3 novembre, un sommet du simulacre (un de plus dans la s\u00e9quence qui est faite de sommets successifs), pendant que d’autres simulacres hurlent comme des fauves d\u00e9chaîn\u00e9s, comme autant de paroxysmes de crise autour de telle crise qui nous occupe dans ce texte. Aux USA et bien entendu dans les entit\u00e9s suivistes avec une servilit\u00e9 empress\u00e9e et si bien fard\u00e9e des autres pays du bloc-BAO<\/a>, – avec une attention particuli\u00e8re de mon fait pour la France, – le monde de la communication a suivi avec une extraordinaire impudence une ligne d’affirmation de ce simulacre d’une extraordinaire puissance. Cela est dit selon une observation ind\u00e9pendante, dont je pr\u00e9tends \u00eatre absolument partie prenante, mais cela doit \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme la v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-situation<\/a> : un simulacre si parfaitement agenc\u00e9 et boucl\u00e9 qu’on peut parler de ‘monde parall\u00e8le’.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
J’affirme et pr\u00e9cise ma conviction (justement) que les acteurs de ce ‘monde parall\u00e8le’ sont anim\u00e9 de la plus sinc\u00e8re conviction, ce qui d’ailleurs justifie parfaitement que l’on puisse parler de ‘monde parall\u00e8le’ où, par d\u00e9finition selon ma perception, existe une sorte de ce qu’on pourrait d\u00e9signer comme une ‘v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-simulacre’ (simulacre de la ‘v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-situation’) ; cette chose, se baladant dans leur affectivisme, donnerait aux yeux de ces acteurs de ce ‘monde parall\u00e8le’ une compl\u00e8te l\u00e9gitimation \u00e0 ce m\u00eame ‘monde parall\u00e8le’. (On tourne en rond mais c’est ce qu’ils aiment, \u00e0 la folie, c’est-\u00e0-dire comme des d\u00e9ments.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
J’emploie ce que j’estime \u00eatre un pl\u00e9onasme dans l’expression de \u00ab\u00a0sinc\u00e8re conviction\u00a0\u00bb (une conviction, qu’elle soit juste ou fausse, est par d\u00e9finition l\u00e0 aussi un acte de sinc\u00e9rit\u00e9) pour bien marquer l’absence de malice express\u00e9ment v\u00e9cue, ‘doublement’ v\u00e9cue comme telle, comme dans tout pl\u00e9onasme qui se respecte, dans l’attitude de ces gens. Tout ce bazar nous indique qu’il faut plut\u00f4t chercher du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de la perception et d’une psychologie malade.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
L’int\u00e9r\u00eat de l’article « Le Quatri\u00e8me pouvoir aux USA (la presse libre) est-il en voie de forclusion ?<\/em> » est de nous donner une vision d’ensemble du fonctionnement de la presseSyst\u00e8me pendant la p\u00e9riode consid\u00e9r\u00e9e (essentiellement depuis le 3 novembre, mais dans la perspective des ann\u00e9es-Trump), avec toutes les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences et sources n\u00e9cessaires, dans tous ses aspects. Ainsi peut-on mieux comprendre que l’on puisse parler d’un ‘monde’, comme quelque chose de clos, de verrouill\u00e9, d’irr\u00e9fragable.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Pour moi qui ai une certaine exp\u00e9rience des aspects techniques du journalisme, le fait, la d\u00e9claration la plus troublante est celle du r\u00e9dacteur-en-chef du New York Times <\/em>[NYT], un simple d\u00e9tail technique montrant que \u00ab\u00a0le diable est dans les d\u00e9tails\u00a0\u00bb et que la v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de- simulacre a affect\u00e9 tous les gestes, tous les actes, jusqu’aux plus m\u00e9caniquement techniques. La chose caract\u00e9rise en elle-m\u00eame une stup\u00e9fiante \u00e9volution, ou m\u00eame r\u00e9volution dans le monde de la presse depuis la rupture de 2001 (9\/11, plut\u00f4t que 1898\/1991 et la chute du Mur, qui n’\u00e9tait qu’une fracture pr\u00e9paratoire).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Cette d\u00e9claration de quelques mots se trouve d\u00e8s le d\u00e9but de l’article reproduit ci-dessous, comme point de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence : « Il \u00e9tait normal que le New York Times, comme son r\u00e9dacteur en chef, Dean Baquet, l’a admis, ait \u00ab\u00a0restructur\u00e9<\/em> [sa] salle de r\u00e9daction\u00a0\u00bb autour du montage-bidon sur la Russie pendant deux ans<\/em> [le Russiagate<\/em>], tandis que les faits av\u00e9r\u00e9s concernant le trafic d’influence de la famille Biden \u00e9taient apparemment jug\u00e9s \u00ab\u00a0sans int\u00e9r\u00eat pour une publication\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Le passage essentiel est bien entendu celui de ce que j’estime \u00eatre la \u00ab\u00a0restructuration\u00a0\u00bb de la r\u00e9daction autour du Russiagate <\/em>: « … to have \u00ab\u00a0built our newsroom\u00a0\u00bb around the fake Russia Hoax for two years<\/em> ». Je fais cette remarque en fonction \u00e0 la fois de ma pratique r\u00e9dactionnelle de journaliste, et de mon exp\u00e9rience professionnelle du Watergate<\/em>, qui dura \u00e9galement deux ans (1972-1974).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Le NYT est un quotidien d’information g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, \u00e9videmment dit \u00ab\u00a0de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence\u00a0\u00bb, donc par vocation imp\u00e9rative int\u00e9ress\u00e9 par tous les sujets, – la politique, la sociologique et le soci\u00e9tal, la culture et les arts, les sports, les faits divers, etc. Par d\u00e9finition, par cons\u00e9quent, il s’ouvre \u00e0 tous les \u00e9v\u00e9nements, il est n\u00e9cessairement guid\u00e9s par eux, sa qualit\u00e9 se trouvant dans la fa\u00e7on dont il les choisit pour les traiter, la fa\u00e7on dont il les traite, les interpr\u00e8te, etc. Un quotidien d’information g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, – dans tous les cas comme je les ai connus in illo tempore<\/em>, – mobilise rarement sa r\u00e9daction sur un \u00e9v\u00e9nement, sauf en cas d’extr\u00eame catastrophe naturelle, d’\u00e9v\u00e9nement intense et tr\u00e8s grave (attaque du 11-septembre). Je connais tout cela, ayant travaill\u00e9 dans un quotidien ; ce n’\u00e9tait pas le NYT et son immense puissance financi\u00e8re et journalistique, mais le principe de travail \u00e9tait le m\u00eame, puisqu’il est universel.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Si l’on prend le cas du Watergate<\/em>, dont on connait bien l’aspect de l’enqu\u00eate journalistique (voir ‘Les hommes du pr\u00e9sident<\/em>‘, livre et film<\/a>) on voit bien que l’affaire d\u00e9pend au d\u00e9part de deux journalistes (Carl Bernstein et Bob Woodward), qu’ils auront \u00e9norm\u00e9ment de mal \u00e0 rassembler des indices et des sources pour fortement documenter le sujet, beaucoup de mal \u00e0 convaincre leur r\u00e9dacteur-en-chef Ben Bradlee de suivre cette piste et de la mettre en \u00e9vidence en la prenant en premi\u00e8re page. (Pourtant, cela n’\u00e9tait pas la haine qui manquait, contre Nixon.) Quasiment jusqu’au bout (sauf dans la derni\u00e8re phase avec les auditions au Congr\u00e8s et la marche vers la d\u00e9mission de Nixon en août 1974), Bernstein-Woodward furent les seuls \u00e0 travailler sur l’affaire, avec leurs propres sources qu’ils gard\u00e8rent anonymes le plus longtemps possible et il n’y eut bien entendu absolument pas de \u00ab\u00a0restructuration\u00a0\u00bb de la r\u00e9daction du Washington Post <\/em>autour du Watergate<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
On comprend la diff\u00e9rence extraordinaire avec la situation pr\u00e9sente, selon la confidence de Baquet (et il est extr\u00eamement probable que le Post <\/em>a fait la m\u00eame chose). La plupart des journalistes sont mobilis\u00e9s et toutes les informations ne sont jaug\u00e9es que selon une seule r\u00e9f\u00e9rence : le degr\u00e9 d’hostilit\u00e9 au pr\u00e9sident Trump qu’elles rec\u00e8lent. Qu’importent les sources, les preuves, les approximations et les ragots, et l’invention pure et simple de tout le machin : du moment qu’on tape sur Trump, c’est bon. Effectivement, toute la r\u00e9daction est restructur\u00e9e, non pas en fonction des \u00e9v\u00e9nements qui ont lieu, mais en fonction d’un \u00e9v\u00e9nement fictif qu’on a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 av\u00e9r\u00e9 et capital, avec l’aide d’un puissant sentiment de haine et un affectivisme<\/a> de midinette de la gauche-caviar, et tout le reste est secondaire, mais acceptable si l’on y trouve une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence indirecte au Russiagate.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Il s’agit de l’\u00e8re de la postv\u00e9rit\u00e9<\/a> \u00e0 150%, sans l’ombre d’un doute dans l’identification qu’on en fait, comme dans la conviction que tous ces gens ont d’\u00eatre dans la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 et dans la justice que dispense le Bien, contre le simulacre-bouffe et le Mal qui suinte de l’inf\u00e2me. Il s’agit bien du triomphe du simulacre, d’une v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-simulacre, d’une conviction-du-simulacre. Le ‘Quatri\u00e8me Pouvoir’ est devenu infamie et fabrication d’une psychologie-simulacre de bout en bout. L’imposture r\u00e8gne.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Bien entendu, cela n’a rien \u00e0 voir avec Trump, qui n’a rien \u00e0 voir, lui, avec la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 et avec le justice, et donc avec le Bien, qui reste tel qu’il est avec ses d\u00e9fauts, ses faiblesses, son goût de l’esbroufe et sa vulgarit\u00e9 suffisante, etc. ; aucune n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de logique contradictoire l\u00e0 où ne r\u00e8gne en rien la logique pure et simple. Nous sommes tout de m\u00eame capable de raisonner hors de la dictature de leur manich\u00e9isme, de d\u00e9velopper une logique qui \u00e9chappe aux griffes sanglantes de la binarit\u00e9 absolument primaire qui les d\u00e9vore tout cru, du totalitarisme de communication de leur v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-simulacre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Finalement, on comprend que Trump ne compte gu\u00e8re dans ce cas du NYT, comme dans celui de toutes ces \u00e9lites-ZZ, progressistes et vertueuses, intimement li\u00e9es aux d\u00e9lices de l’ultra-n\u00e9olib\u00e9ralisme et de ses $milliards. Trump ne leur sert que de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence n\u00e9gative jusqu’aux enfers, pour mettre en \u00e9vidence combien le NYT brille dans toute sa vertu, install\u00e9 dans sa v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-simulacre, ayant m\u00e9thodiquement d\u00e9construit et d\u00e9truit la qu\u00eate de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9, sinon de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 (notre v\u00e9rit\u00e9-de-situation). Trump est l’\u00e9talon de cette haine qu’il s’agit d’expectorer comme un crachat puant, de crainte qu’elle ne finisse par se retourner contre soi-m\u00eame. Certes, ils ne valent pas mieux que Trump, ils sont m\u00eame en-dessous parce qu’ils ont en plus que lui une extraordinaire hypocrisie, de la sorte qui fait qu’on ne se supporterait plus si l’on se voyait tel qu’en soi-m\u00eame (affreux miroir), et qu’il faut donc cracher cette haine hors de ce miroir, et Trump est l\u00e0 pour \u00e7a.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
… Peut-\u00eatre en saurez-vous assez avec cette ‘introduction’ pour passer au texte de Leni Friedman Valenta (dipl\u00f4m\u00e9e de Brandeis et de Yale [\u00e9criture dramatique]) avec Jiri Valenta. Assez curieusement, ce texte, publi\u00e9 par le Gatestone Institute le 16 d\u00e9cembre<\/a>, vient de deux auteur proches du think-tank isra\u00e9lien Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies<\/a>. <\/em>Les deux auteurs, Leni Friedman Valenta \u00e9tant la maîtresse d’œuvre, sont mari et femme, et ils ont leur site valenta-center.com<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\n… C’est ainsi, \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re de ce texte (cette pr\u00e9sentation ci-dessus et cet article ci-dessous) que vous pourriez, s’il vous plaît, vous poser la question : faut-il soutenir dedefensa.org <\/em>?… Et rejoindre notre effort mensuel de donation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Semper Phi – <\/em>PhG<\/h4>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Is America’s 4th Estate (Free Press) in Foreclosure?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
- \n
The modern meaning [of the fourth estate]… refers to the press as a fourth and free power — as even a "watchdog" — over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government. Today, however, it is the watchdog that needs watching.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
It was all right for the New York Times,<\/em> as its editor-in-chief, Dean Baquet, admitted, to have "built our newsroom" around the fake Russia Hoax for two years, but substantiated facts concerning the Biden family’s influence peddling were apparently "not fit to print."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- So far, still to be answered, is the question: If election officials can ignore legalities with impunity, how, going forward, can there be trustworthy elections?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The "fourth estate" refers to freedom of the press. The term may have first been used by the philosopher-statesman Edmund Burke,<\/a> who in 1787 highlighted the press as free and apart from the other three British "estates" — clergy, royalty and commoners.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The modern meaning, however, refers to the press as a fourth and free power — as even a \u00ab\u00a0watchdog<\/a><\/em>\u00a0\u00bb — over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government. Today, however, it is the watchdog that needs watching.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The foundation on which the United States is built, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, is enshrined in the First Amendment<\/a> to the US Constitution:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
« 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<\/em>. »<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Before our eyes, however, this freedom is being distorted, strangled and withheld.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Young people today seem to have no idea of what the media used to be when America was more united. All the newspapers and media outlets recognized and covered the same big stories. The ideal to which journalistic professionalism aspired was objective reporting — at least an attempt toward it — and the media at least tried to keep "news" balanced, and separate from opinions and op-eds.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Today, journalism has changed so that the "news" is often conflated with unsupported and biased opinion. Consider Newsweek<\/em>‘s story on Senator Ron Johnson’s (R-Wis.) poll-supported claim that « Donald Trump would have won the election if the media had given more coverage to unsubstantiated allegations concerning President-elect Joe Biden’s son, Hunter<\/em> ». The word \u00ab\u00a0unsubstantiated\u00a0\u00bb is the reporter’s opinion – <\/em>not a certified fact. As we are seeing now, and as Senator Johnson was doubtless well aware, the allegations were smothered in substantiation. All a reporter had to do was look.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, some journalists cannot seem to hold themselves back from reporting on Trump’s supposedly \u00ab\u00a0baseless\u00a0\u00bb claims of election fraud – despite eyewitness affidavits, vote count anomalies, abrogations of both the Constitution and states’ election laws, and the use of Dominion voting machines and Smartmatic software that are reported<\/a> to have the capacity to flip votes secretly from one candidate to another.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Widely censored by both Big Tech and the mainstream media was a New York Post<\/em> article which asserted that an abandoned laptop, the undisputed property of former Vice-President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, implicates him as the family \u00ab\u00a0concierge\u00a0\u00bb for the Biden family’s influence-peddling in China — a country cited<\/a> by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe as America’s "National Security Threat No. 1."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Two corroborated reports in the New York Post<\/em> highlighted Hunter Biden’s financial interests in various foreign countries — include his partnering with two Chinese military companies<\/a>, one under investigation for espionage and the other for human rights violations. Both New York Post<\/em> articles were censored<\/a> — actually totally blocked — for two weeks by Twitter<\/a> and Facebook<\/a>, as was, for a time, the Twitter account<\/a> of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany for having posted the contraband information.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
As Glen Greenwald<\/a>, who recently resigned from The Intercept, the website he co-founded, wrote<\/a>, weeks before the election:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
« Early in the day, users who attempted to link to the New York Post story either publicly or privately received a cryptic message rejecting the attempt as an ‘error.’ Later in the afternoon, Twitter changed the message, advising users that they could not post that link because the company judged its contents to be ‘potentially harmful.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Recently, YouTube, announced that it was removing<\/a> all videos accurately « claiming<\/em> (that) mass fraud changed election results<\/em>. » Left unperturbed, however, are masses of inaccurate<\/em> material, such as that President Trump allegedly colluded<\/a> with Russia, or Chinese and Iranian propaganda<\/a> claiming « the US army may have brought the coronavirus disease to Wuhan<\/em> ».<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
It was also, it seems, perfectly fine for the New York Times,<\/em> as its editor-in-chief, Dean Baquet, admitted<\/a>, to have « built our newsroom<\/em> »around the fake Russia Hoax for two years, but the confirmed facts concerning the Biden family’s influence peddling was apparently « not fit to print<\/em> » – especially before an election the newspaper was manipulating.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Divisions in the media have also created for the public widely divergent images of the president. To one group, President Trump is supposedly a far-right, authoritarian tyrant, allegedly seeking permanent rule; a buffoon, a fascist, racist, white supremacist, narcissist, lunatic, and incompetent, lacking in both empathy and presidential dignity.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
To another group, he is the patriotic upholder of the American Constitution, a man of legendary accomplishments in office<\/a> — four more partners for peace in the Middle East (the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco); producing and delivering a new vaccine in less than a year; expanding school choice to improve \u00ab\u00a0equality\u00a0\u00bb; preventing Iran from a nuclear breakout; protecting the US border from trafficking and drug smuggling, and unmasking and confronting China as a lawless, omnivorous threat. To this group, he is a Hercules, delivering for the people in spite of unrelenting attempts to undermine him, and by far the last best hope of saving the United States from an energized, appeasement-prone, increasingly socialist takeover.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Many believe that what the US has been experiencing – such as the bogus charges<\/a> of collusion with Russia, a kangaroo impeachment<\/a>, and now an election that appears overwhelmingly<\/a> stolen — is nothing less than a succession of attempted coups d’\u00e9tats, more in keeping with Russia, China, Venezuela and Cuba than with a sustainable republic.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This month, it was claimed<\/a> that Republican Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia « awarded a $107 million contract to Dominion voting machines two weeks after meeting with People’s Republic of China’s Consul General<\/em> ».<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Senator Chuck Schumer has already announced<\/a> that he would like to « change America<\/em> ». He has not quite specified into what.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Transitions to tyranny – in the name of \u00ab\u00a0helping the people\u00a0\u00bb – usually take place along with the \u00ab\u00a0cancel culture’s\u00a0\u00bb desecration of statues<\/a>, re-writing of history<\/a>, outbreaks of rioting<\/a>, looting,<\/a> murders<\/a> and ongoing denigration<\/a> to whip up hate.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
For much of the country, the attempted coups have now been sanctified and made to seem legitimate by the election – that many feel was \u00ab\u00a0stolen<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb – of former Vice-President Biden. One can surely understand how Republicans feel now that the top-ranking conspirators involved the attempted coups have captured the government through their figurehead, former Vice-President Biden.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Clearly, voter fraud must be investigated, as scheduled in upcoming hearings under Senator Ron Johnson December 16. If elections continue the same way – by legitimizing practices that sidestep Constitutional and states’ laws – as they threaten to do in two run-off elections in Georgia on January 5, we will no longer have a viable republic. The two upcoming elections in Georgia to determine control of the Senate may end up being the last firewall of a workable, multi-party nation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Also clear is that the election of former Vice-President Biden was made possible not only because he was supported by almost universally biased mainstream newspapers and television stations that distorted<\/a> or snuffed<\/a> stories at will, as well as by Wall Street corporations and Big Tech companies aching to do business with a lucrative, if hegemonic, China.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Currently, power in America is concentrated<\/a> in six companies:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
« News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS and Comcast <\/em>own 90%<\/a><\/em> of the TV stations, radio stations, movies, magazines and newspapers that 277 million Americans rely on for news and entertainment<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Those companies have been « consolidated from 50<\/a><\/em> companies back in 1983<\/em>. » Supporting them are supposed \u00ab\u00a0fact checkers\u00a0\u00bb, – often suspect, and funded in large part by liberal billionaires<\/a> such as George Soros and Bill Gates who most of the time support the Democrats.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, countless Americans have had advertising accounts or websites abridged or closed simply because Big Tech does not agree with their views. The investigative organization \u00ab\u00a0Project Veritas\u00a0\u00bb exposed<\/a> Twitter’s \u00ab\u00a0shadow banning\u00a0\u00bb mainly right-of-center views, meaning that « users were blocked from the platform<\/a><\/em> without even being notified <\/em>».<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
On November 17, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned<\/a> Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey about their political bias and practices, perhaps in an effort to curb their manipulation of a tremendous market dominance of information. Republican Josh Hawley questioned Zuckerberg about one program in particular, \u00ab\u00a0Tasks\u00a0\u00bb, which is ostensibly used to share and coordinate "security-related" information between Twitter, Facebook and Google.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Zuckerberg claimed that the coordination was confined to « terrorism and foreign government influence but not content<\/em> ».<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Really? Then why did the media \u00ab\u00a0breathlessly\u00a0\u00bb cover Adam Schiff’s fake \u00ab\u00a0content\u00a0\u00bb that the laptop scandal was \u00ab\u00a0Russian disinformation\u00a0\u00bb, a claim emphatically denied by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Despite Big Tech’s millions in donations to members of Congress, some members are considering revoking Section 230<\/a> of the Communications Decency Act , which provides immunity to Big Tech from content they post, or breaking up the Big Tech companies as violators of anti-trust laws, the better to enable competition.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Zuckerberg also mentioned the intention of the three media giants to support the two Democrats in the senate run-off races in Georgia on January 5. A George Soros-Bloomberg group has already contributed $300,000<\/a> to the two Democrats in their attempt to defeat incumbent Republican Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Of the Democratic challengers in Georgia, Jon Ossoff has had business<\/a> ties with a Chinese company, PCCW Media, a telecom company, whose chairman, Richard Li, has for years opposed pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong. The Rev. Raphael Warnock, backed<\/a> by the billionaire George Soros, is anti-military<\/a>, anti-Israel<\/a>, and has praised<\/a> a fellow-preacher, Frederick Haynes III, "a Louis Farrakhan-supporting preacher after he compared President Donald Trump’s election to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and applauded efforts to defund police departments."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The latest efforts by the media giants have been the attempt to discredit President Trump’s claims of massive fraud in the election; claims backed up by Trump lawyers such as Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as various experts<\/a> in technology.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
How did all this come about in star-spangled America? The radicalization seems to have actually begun in our institutions of higher learning, perhaps by teachers and others in power. Many who were radical protestors<\/a> in the 1960s and ’70s, may well have since been indoctrinating<\/a> public school children with a version of history calculated to make them despise their country and accept communism.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
As presidential historian Craig Shirley has written<\/a> in « They’re Coming for you, Mark Zuckerberg<\/em> »:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
« As instructed in Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, the left either destroys or takes over institutions in order to gain control; power. Public education … is now under the thumb of the left and their labor unions, and our children are not learning, except to mouth leftist bromides<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
At present, radicalized schools are, not surprisingly, turning out radicalized reporters. According to a study by the National Association of Scholars, Democrat professors outnumber Republican ones<\/a> by nine to one. In the Northeast, the ratio was 15.4 to one. If you want to know what happened to the Republicans, just ask Daniel Ravicher<\/a>, a law professor at Miami University, censured for tweets<\/a> that supported Trump.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
What we are witnessing in the universities appears to be massive, Marxist-inspired group-think. It has also infested the media and other areas of society, thereby crushing another essential linchpin of democracy: the free marketplace of ideas.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
If you think that a slow-motion coup seems unlikely, tune in to William Binney’s interview with Chris Hedges<\/a>. A former technical director of the National Security Agency (NSA), Binney maintains he retired in disgust when he realized that the NSA used the technology that he had created to spy on Americans.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
One hopeful sign is that in the US, we do not have complete censorship — at least yet. In freedom of the press lies its reverent responsibility for the freedom and welfare of the people.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n