The pen is mightier than the sword, fake news and post-truth notwithstanding.
“The pen is mightier than the sword” is a metonymic adage, penned by English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839, indicating that communication (particularly written language), or in some interpretations, administrative power or advocacy of an independent press, is a more effective political and public educational vehicle of influence than direct violence.
Before the late 20th century, political power was largely determined by military force. Nations which had larger armies, more industry, more machinery, and more advanced technology, invariably conquered other nations. But since the advent of the computer and the internet, we now live in the Information Age. Political power no longer rests solely on military forces, and the heads of states which employ them. Instead, the people at large are governed by thoughts and beliefs that occur in their minds through the widespread exchange of ubiquitous information, and how that information tends to strike their conscious awareness within the context of their lives. In this new age we must recalculate the influences of power granted to the producers, conservators, curators, arbiters, and disseminators of information.
All the major Western news sources are syndicated, and are controlled by only six corporations.
A syndicate is a self-organizing group of individuals, companies, corporations, or entities formed to transact some specific business, to pursue or promote a shared interest.
What is their specific business?
In this arena, as with most others, money and power rule. Emotionally charged sensationalism, envy, greed, and illicit sex supply a constant influx of concupiscent energy induced as a suffluent driving force.
What is their shared interest?
These sources are all selectively liberal in their reporting. I say selectively because not only do they refuse to publish matters of interest to conservatives, but they also do not report liberal stories that might undermine public opinion of liberal causes. In essence, they fail to report anything that casts their pet purposes in a negative light, and anything they don’t like, or disagree with.
Because of this selectivity, some might even call this propaganda. These omissions have become so egregious that there have been hundreds of independent news sources that have spun off in the last 15 years, all attempting to rebalance the complete truthfulness of the news coverage available to the public.
The latest bungle was made by Twitter when they censored the New York Post’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s lucrative business transactions with foreign bureaucrats and industrialists. Then two weeks and two days after getting singled out for this, they’ve reversed their move, thus rendering this faux pas into a monumental transgression.
Most other places around the world have some form of censorship, political propaganda, and so on, but everybody knows about that. People kind of expect it, and it’s tacitly accepted as “normal”. But in America, the First Amendment declares that such activities are wrong. The fact that this is included in the Constitution suggests that the government should back up those who are censored, and be found reliable in bringing some sort of punishment or repercussion on violators.
In the case described above, the New York Post has been singled out and banned on Twitter. But this issue with Twitter hiding the Biden scoop is the elephant in the room. Besides the NYP, there are many other smaller news sources that would be included as targets of passive censorship (e.g. shadow banning); authors of books and blogs, as well as millions of real people who share and discuss such stories on their social media. For example, this book was a top seller on Amazon before it was yanked.
All the necessary questions follow…
- Will the government back up the New York Post (and other wrongfully slighted authors)?
- Will the government affirm the freedom of speech?
- Have the guarantees of freedom offered by our constitution just become pithy platitudes to be recited in high school, and then forgotten, never to be adjudicated in real life?
I’m waiting to see what will happen, just Biden my time.
If there should be no organized initiative to do what is necessary to preserve the freedom of speech, then it’s time for us to revive the oft-overlooked 9th Amendment. Furthermore, it will fall to the common man to exercise his freedom of choice towards securing those freedoms which have been agreed upon by faith through public consensus. In Liberal terminology this is called “canceling”.
The 11th Amendment may prove to be advantageous as well.
Americans who wish to see their freedom of speech continue into the future and possibly to the Next Generation, need to act decisively to nip this in the bud. They should not support any news agency or Tech platform that engages in censorship.
In simple language, we need to cancel Twitter, cancel Facebook, cancel CNN, and many more news agencies and social media platforms that engage in any type of political censorship, to any degree. We need to send a strong message to big Nooz and big Tech, in no uncertain terms, that censorship, either active or passive, is a moral compromise that will not be tolerated, that it is un-American, that it is intellectually dishonest, and that it is mortally violent in scope (as we have now seen in Portland, Kenosha, and elsewhere). They have failed to serve the American people in a responsible manner and have committed a great injustice. They will either correct their behavior or they will be replaced by other agencies that are more noble in their purposes of service.
“…censorship often backfires. If you say to people “Don’t read this book,” their instinct is to go and read it.”James Perloff: Amazon Censors “Covid-19 And The Agendas To Come, Red-Pilled” (2020 October 17)
I also propose that the government should regulate media syndicates so that there is no one entity (or six), including the government itself, which monopolizes the control and distribution of information, including scientific research articles.
This is not just a battle for information and being able to speak freely; it is a battle for the erudite access to truth and our ability to make well informed decisions.
The way we choose to deal with the management of information will be the most significant historical event of our age, on the scale of when the Bible was first translated into vernacular tongues, or when the Scientific Method was first employed.
We must not fail to see the significance of a united groundswell.
- Σ Frame: ¡Popcorn Science and the News! (2015 September 15)
- Σ Frame: Censorship of Praise is the Thief of Joy (2018 April 11)
- Σ Frame: RT Spews Competition in the Media Wars (2018 April 25)
- Σ Frame: Cancel my views for what we call the News (2020 July 13)
- The Other McCain: After 16 days of censorship, Twitter unlocks the New York Post’s account (2020 October 30)