I think everybody who isn't fascinated by the arrest of Justin Bieber will be aware that the mainstream media manipulates the news and, more subtly, its coverage of the news to suit its agenda or that which it has been assigned. It's so obvious and well documented, it is almost a waste of a paragraph to even mention it but it has to be reiterated in order to make a point which is in danger of becoming as much of a truism because whilst it is unacceptable that the mainstream news media effectively lie (omission is a form of censorship and deception ergo a lie), it is accepted that they do. It is, by virtue of their stated remit, even less acceptable for the so-called alternative media to censor especially when they openly market themselves as an antedote to the homogenous diet of information which people are fed daily. It's common knowledge that Alex Jones will not tolerate any criticism of Israel. Indymedia, who are ostensibly diametrically opposed to Infowars also avoid, as much as possible, the Israel thing (except when it involves Palestinians) and comb out any posts which mention 9/11 (except when it endorses Keane and Hamilton), Freemasons, chemtrails or a multitude of other subjects which, for its own purposes, it deems inappropriate.
But what about our latest alternative outlet? A voice for the voiceless. Be part of the heard not the herd.
Well, that's all well and good but what if the voice does not agree with you? What if the mind behind the voice actually thinks you are not quite as virtuous as you make out? There is always censorship but that would not look too good, would it. It goes on within the alternative media and it subsidiaries and everybody knows about it but it is forbidden to mention it - that will result in further censorship. In not so extreme cases, this could lead to banning or, as mentioned previously, what one forum euphemistically calls, 'inactive' which suggests that the user has elected not to say anything for a while. Not unlike a police officer looking down upon a bloody beaten prisoner tied to a chair with gaffer tape over his mouth and saying, 'he's gone a bit quite'. It's the same fucking game, Sean. You are no different.
But what is (only slightly) more surprising is how easily the rest of the flock come around to that way of thinking - just like the liberal Obama supporters who overnight saw the merit and positive ethical aspects of drone strikes on foreign civilians.
Today, we have one David Icke forum member, 3point5 saying, 'I help run a pretty popular Facebook page. We kept having one or two members that were causing grief on the Facebook page. You know what we did? We blocked them. It solved the problem instantly, and it meant we didn't drag our own name through the mud by arguing with them publicly.'
Whilst forum moderator, scottishryan responds, 'You are completely correct, I find blocking out such disturbances works the best. I personally had to do it in my Youtube Channel too, there is a line that can be crossed when this is the best first option to take.'
Yeah, fucking hypocrites, right? That's what they are all saying on the forum at sanctumzone.co.uk - all the refugees from David Icke's forum who are disenchanted, suspended or ...er inactive have gathered at one of the relatively new so-called alternative (to) David Icke forums. All those self-congratulatory folk, not unlike the Obama types, who think they have found a life raft in the turbulent sea of censorship. Except that they haven't because sanctumzone.co.uk is guilty of censorship like the two previously mentioned strata of deception; whether intentionally or by neglect. Having experienced the digital Heath-Robinson of the sanctumzone.co.uk forum, I am willing to accept the possibility that there is some technical explanation for what I have witnessed but until I have received an explanation from whoever is responsible for the site's administration, I am going to assume the inevitable. And I am willing to wager that all the other alternative Icke sites are equally flawed in their ethics.
What is certain is that there is no such thing as free speech anywhere on the internet where there are people with administrative privileges acting as gatekeepers. I tried it once - the only posts I deleted were blatant spam with links to whatever was being flogged at the time. Ironically, one or two of the members didn't like free speech and at least one of them has spent the past eight or nine years bad mouthing me for all manner of ridiculous ills conjured up by their paranoid delusions. S/he is a moron. I could name them but why throw fireworks on the fire? Self-censorship? Maybe but I believe in the words of Henry Delaune, 'Think all you speak but speak not all you think;' and I assure you, some people don't know how grateful they might be for that. Unfortunately, in this digital world everybody who is counter-inclined has the indiscriminate power of a flamethrower.
No comments:
Post a Comment