We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore LappĂ©, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Trump and Clinton: Censoring the Unpalatable

Click here to access article by John Pilger from CounterPunch. (Note: With this post I am departing from my usual practice of posting articles from their original websites. This is because the post on CounterPunch is much more readable than Pilger's website.)
A virulent if familiar censorship is about to descend on the US election campaign. As the cartoon brute, Donald Trump, seems almost certain to win the Republican Party’s nomination, Hillary Clinton is being ordained both as the “women’s candidate” and the champion of American liberalism in its heroic struggle with the Evil One.

This is drivel, of course; Hillary Clinton leaves a trail of blood and suffering around the world and a clear record of exploitation and greed in her own country. To say so, however, is becoming intolerable in the land of free speech.

The 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama should have alerted even the most dewy-eyed. 
Yes, it should have, but the naive American public always falls for these lies every presidential election, and that is why our masters keep using the same deceptions--it works every time.

He then goes on to disclose his censorship experience with the liberal TruthOut's website. Following Cartalucci's advice, I took about 30 minutes this morning to ascertain the funding of TruthOut, and I found that their top contributors have donated substantial amounts to Democratic Party candidates. (See this on page 28 [corrected on 3/30/2016], this, and this.)
The “editorial committee” clearly wanted me to water down my argument that Clinton represented a proven extreme danger to the world.  Like all censorship, this was unacceptable. Maya Schenwar, who runs Truthout, wrote to me that my unwillingness to submit my work to a “process of revision” meant she had to take it off her “publication docket”.  Such is the gatekeeper’s way with words.