Note (28NOV2022): Last week was the week of Thanksgiving initially proclaimed by President Lincoln in 1863 as a day of prayer.
I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. -excerpt from the Proclamation
How times have changed! Also, the proclamation acknowledged growth. That growth in territory, however, came at the expense mainly of the American Indian.
Indian society was tribal. Professor David Riesman (1909-2002) of the University of Chicago characterized Indian behavior as tradition-directed. It was mired in the past. They did that which they did because their fathers and forefathers did it. They had no written language. They never invented the wheel. Some were cannibals. They were no match for the Euro-Caucasians invading their territory. Although fighting valiantly, ultimately the “redskin”, as they came to call themselves, lost to the “white man”.
At the time and until fairly recently, the “white man”exhibited inner-directed behavior. As a child, he was taught a set of moral values discriminating right from wrong — goodness from evil pursuant to Judeo-Christian dogma. That set of values comprised the context in which he built the mightiest nation in the world, a democratic republic embracing freedom of speech among others. God. Country. Chivalry. The three cornerstones of the national foundation. A nation by “white men”, of “white men”, and for “white men”. No longer.
Currently, the behavior of the “white man” has become other-directed. Monkey see; monkey do. That which others say and do at any moment determines that which the individual says and does.
Consequence? A fragmented, declining nation on fire. A nation in which the “white man” gleefully surrenders his territory, resources, and biology to other races, many being illegal but welcomed invaders.
Try to write these truths. In all major outlets of the media, your postings will be rejected, and you yourself may be banned. Meanwhile, many of these same outlets will proclaim their allegiance to freedom of speech. Censorship and hypocrisy. The autonomous members of The Left, its so-called elite, are convincing the gullible other-directed mob, especially the young, to chose socialistic Fascism over freedom, creating a context of mayhem. President Xi of China smiles.
“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire (1694-1778)
The Murdoch empire owns and controls a variety of media internationally. Its apparent, single-minded goal? To have made money. Its current annual profit is USD618-million down from USD708-million a year earlier.
There’s money in infotainment — big money. What controls its journalistic behavior might you guess? Principles or profits?
One famous element in the empire is Tucker Carlson (b.1969). Tucker Carlson Tonight has become the secondly most-watched show on cable-news, averaging 3.09 million viewers nightly.
Mr. Carlson uses his show continually to rant for freedom of the press in particular, and freedom of speech, in general. Meanwhile, his own website, Daily Caller, appears guilty of banning commentators without warning or even notification. Offenders simply cannot sign in. A continuing technical glitch or flagrant censorship and hypocrisy? In this age of massive censorship and hypocrisy, what would you guess?
More important is his Australian-born employer, Mr. Rupert Murdoch (b.1931). He owns Dow-Jones. Dow-Jones now owns and controls The Wall Street Journal. The previous controllers, the Bancroft family, has expressed regret about selling Dow-Jones to Mr. Murdoch, who is currently the richest owner of newspapers in the world.
The Wall Street Journal allows commentary about some of its articles. Typically, it allows no commentary about articles published addressing race. No calling a spade a spade there. Yes, it is a private company and may print comments at its discretion; however, it is a major informational organ that invites comments. Should it not be fair and just in permitting the widest, reasonable expression of viewpoints? Its commentators are paying subscribers. Does not their speech deserve warning before secretly being banned without notice, whatever the offense?
Also, The Wall Street Journal rejects other comments based upon so-called Community Guidelines. What Community? What Guidelines? The following is an example from among its so-called Guidelines:
You may not submit a response that is abusive, defamatory, disrespectful, illegal, offensive or disparaging (whether on the basis of disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, traits with which people are born, or otherwise).
Is offensive to the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazis acceptable? Are only comments offensive to certain favored groups unacceptable even be the comments true and relevant? Is smearing a favored group or public personality with the truth not permitted? Might it offend some advertisers? Offend paying subscribers, the base for charging advertisers? Principles or profits?
Let’s get personal. The following comment by this writer was rejected by The Wall Street Journal but accepted with hyperlinks by The New York Times, a common target of Tucker Carlson for its alleged bias — a bit of hypocrisy might one say:
Mistake . . . Unless
Should he remain alive, a senescent Donald Trump seeking the presidency in 2024 is a mistake. A mistake for Trump. For the Republican Party. For the nation.
Over the years, Trump’s behavior suggests a severe narcissistic temperament. His personal behavior alienated many voters including Republicans. His goal to have crushed the Administrative State was admirable. He failed. His choice of advisors was abominable. Jared and Ivanka?
Trump’s seeking the presidency again is a gift to the Democratic Party, provided it nominates someone like Joe Manchin not John Federman. It solidifies and energizes the Democrats while splitting the Republicans. The consequences likely will be a repeat of 2020.
In July 2020, this commentator on his website predicted Trump’s defeat in November. With this posting, he now predicts Trump’s humiliation in 2024. So it was. So it will be . . . unless.
“Believing is seeing, but seeing is not believing.” -drawn from John 11
There could be a charade ongoing, however. Trump attacks “DeSanctimonious”; thereby, allowing DeSantis* to distance himself from the rump of Trump later when Trump voluntarily bows out as previously planned. A clever ploy?
*misspelled in original
Whether you favor Trump, is the comment worthy of censorship? You be the judge. Is its writer worthy of having been banned?
As an aside, this posting is not intended to castigate Mr. Carlson personally. Quite the opposite. Mr. Carlson represents among the closest we get to honest reporting in mainstream media. If he, too, indulges in hypocritical censorship voluntarily or involuntarily, what hope exists for honest reporting of all news important to us all and all views about that news?