Who controls the past controls the future. In an age where the vast majority of the population gets its information from a Corporate Media that is owned by only a handful of players, the phrase “money talks” takes on new meaning. It now means that, even if non-billionaires are allowed to talk, few will listen. The Corporate Media’s grip on public opinion is such that censorship isn’t even necessary any more. To the extent that censorship is practiced, it’s probably more out of habit, or perhaps as a hobby. When something like 90% of the population gets all its “information” from approved sources, there’s only so much the other 10% can do in response.
We’ve seen how the Corporate Media, through selective reporting, misleading headlines, and strategically-placed details, has cultivated a specific narrative: That “white-supremacy” is the greatest threat to white civilization (AKA “Western Civilization”), that any expressions of white-solidarity are actually “hate,” and that certain symbols can only be viewed as “symbols of hate and intolerance.”
In the latest twist, a mother in New York has been ordered to remove a Confederate Battle Flag from her property, or lose custody of her bi-racial daughter:
A judge recently ordered a New York woman to remove a rock decorated with a Confederate flag from her residence or risk losing custody of her biracial child.
In a 5-0 ruling, justices in the Appellate Division of New York State’s Supreme Court‘s Third Department, allowed a couple to retain joint custody of their biracial child but ordered the mother to remove the rock featuring the Confederate flag by June 1.
“As such, while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother’s right to display the flag, if it is not removed by June 1, 2021, its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances and Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis,” Justice Stanley Pritzker wrote in the ruling on May 6.
According to the ruling, the parents, who were only identified as Christie and Isiah, were ordered to have joint custody of the child in 2017, but when an attorney for the child recommended that the mother’s home should be the child’s primary residence, the father appealed.
It’s noteworthy that the court was unanimous in this decision, and it’s possible that any dissenting judge would forfeit his own job.
It’s also noteworthy that the woman in question is far from a “white-supremacist;” we can safely assume that she’s white, and her ex is black – but her own attitudes are irrelevant to the court. All the court cares about is that its Corporate Media bosses have determined that the flag is a “hate-symbol,” and that it must, therefore, act accordingly.
What do we call it when government is beholden to an activist media? “Mediacracy?” I think this is as good a word as any.