|
Is a US President the Master of his own House?
November 2018
Last week, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, took the long overdue measure of revoking the White House press pass of a certain reporter. Subsequently, those holding the leash of the latter resorted to litigation, while mainstream media outlets, including controlled opposition elements, spontaneously coalesced to condemn the move by the President. The usual point-scoring redundancies have prevailed in ensuing commentary and discussion, but what is the real significance of the controversy?
We may try initiating some form of dialogue to resolve the issue, or some other gesture of good faith. On the other hand, thankfully, these situations often have an uncanny way of sorting themselves out without cumbersome forcing of the issue on our part. First impressions change; deeper mutual understanding leads to transformation of relationship for the better. Or circumstances conspire to alleviate the pressure.
Sometimes, however, the situation can be a more troubling one, such as when there is an underlying political agenda fuelling bad manners or conduct.
 |
It is sheer madness to suggest that the President, or anyone else for that matter, does not have the right in his own house to grant or deny access to guests as he sees fit. This has nothing to do with freedom of the press. Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right.
 |
| Above: A reporter refuses to pass the microphone at the White House last week. |
Moreover, the fomentation of unnecessary and essentially futile conflict and dispute can be an obstructive and even strategic means to demoralise, delegitimise or otherwise undermine a perceived opponent or rival. Vital energy is wasted; energy that is better applied elsewhere. All things considered, we may sometimes have to take measures to avoid contact with offensive or troublesome people. Even if to do so comprehensively seems impractical, the matter can often be dealt with effectively by the simple measure of restricting our interactions with - and reactions to - offending parties, to the bare minimum required for our purpose.
What is important to understand is that the relationships of free men are predicated on the underlying presumption of one's right to leave the company of another at will or to have him (lawfully) removed from one's own. It may take a moment of reflection to perceive this. And though usually tacit in relationship, this right is nonetheless fundamental to the dignity of man. It follows then that any attempt to impede a man's ability to exercise said right, especially in his own house, is an illicit attempt to degrade and demean him.
|
What is important to understand is that the relationships of free men are predicated on the underlying presumption of one's right to leave the company of another at will or to have him (lawfully) removed from one's own. And though usually tacit in relationship, this right is nonetheless fundamental to the dignity of man.
Again consider. Freedom of the press does not imply the right to impose itself on others, any more than the God-given rights of individuals permit one to do so. Moreover, it is absurd to think that a journalist can be forced upon a public figure by law or edict. A press event is not a police interrogation. Even if a court were to rule that a journalist must be permitted to attend a certain event or be given access to a certain place, no self respecting person would permit himself to be imposed upon by a journalist in such a way. At the very least he could simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of the latter at said event. Alternatively, he could exercise his own prerogative to not participate or attend himself, or to insist, not unreasonably, on the departure of disruptive persons as a condition for his own continued participation. He could even arrange an alternative, exclusive event elsewhere, if required.
It is worth keeping in mind that the members of the press are in the White House at the tacit invitation of the President, as his guests. It is sheer madness to suggest that the President, or anyone else for that matter, does not have the right in his own house to grant or deny access to guests as he sees fit. This has nothing to do with freedom of the press. Access to the White House is a privilege, not a right.
At the same time, if the people of the United States do not approve of the way their President deals with the press, they can (presumably) elect to remove him from office in due course. Conversely they can elect to keep him*. What they cannot do, however, is elect members of the press.
Actually it would do no real harm to anyone, quite the contrary in fact, if all the White House press passes currently in the possession of shameless propagandists were taken from them and given to real journalists instead, that is to say, journalists who do not dance to the trite and perverse tune of the usual suspects. No doubt there are, if not many, then at least some honest and truly independent journalists in the US who would be more than happy to step up to the plate.
Please understand, there is no question at present of unqualified participation in White House press activity. There is a basis for inclusion and a basis for exclusion; exclusion being an inevitable property of the limits of space and time. Therefore what we are really concerned with here is the basis of the decision to include and to exclude, and also by extension, the basis of the journalistic pecking order in the White House. Is it based on quality of work and character, or is it based on superficial considerations, such as money, prestige and politics? These are the questions that ought to be of concern to a US President. Clearly propaganda is not journalism. Neither is the size or prominence of the company one works for a sound basis for preferential treatment.
Rewarding excellence, courage, pertinence and integrity while penalising shoddiness, cowardice, pettiness and greed is consistent with the ethos of freedom of the press. Monopoly is not. Therefore to use the concept of freedom of the press as a cover and excuse for monopoly and servile conformity, even unto litigation, is the worst kind of deception, and the height of hypocrisy.
|
Rewarding excellence, courage, pertinence and integrity while penalising shoddiness, cowardice, pettiness and greed is consistent with the ethos of freedom of the press. Monopoly is not. Therefore to use the concept of freedom of the press as a cover and excuse for monopoly and servile conformity, even unto litigation, is the worst kind of deception, and the height of hypocrisy.
It is becoming increasingly and alarmingly apparent that only a profound reformation of the entire US political, financial, judicial and cultural establishment, including, of course, the mainstream media, can save what is left of the US Republic. Hence the fierce and completely unprincipled resistance to change in those categories in recent times. But while one revoked press pass may be a tantalising crumb to Americans thoroughly disgusted with the non-representative press coverage of monopolistic tyrants, it is of little significance in itself, even if it were permitted to stand in the courts. What is needed, not only in the US, but elsewhere as well, is a radical transformation of the entire journalistic milieu itself, on the basis of excellence and merit and uncompromising commitment to truth. That, however, is going to take a return to such a basis in general, even if it hurts.
*Sadly, the integrity of the US election process itself is now in grave doubt. Vote counting for midterm Senate races in Florida and Arizona and elsewhere has been highly irregular, to say the least, raising questions not only of a technical and legal nature, which are critical, but also of a political bent. For instance, was once victorious, now "defeated" Republican candidate for Arizona, McSally, offered the seat of the late John McCain in return for not making a fuss? Was intimidation of any kind involved? And so on and on. House results too are suspect - the days since the election have seen increasingly modified results in the Democratic party's favour, giving rise to concerns that a "blue wave" is being effectively conjured up out of thin air. Also in November: "Meet America's Most Likely Victim of Midterm Election Fraud"
CG takes a look at the curious events leading up to the US midterm elections this month.
Definition of the Month
gaslighting /ˈɡaslʌɪtɪŋ/ verb or verbal noun
term derived from a 1938 stage play, Gas Light, by British playwright, Patrick Hamilton, in which a fiendish husband tries to convince his wife she is insane by playing tricks on her and then condescendingly dismissing the plain witness of her senses regarding same tricks. Though there has been some (often deliberate) obfuscation and conflation in news stories and lexicons with respect to the term, in its original and most powerful sense it means (in verbal noun form) any attempt by an individual or group to discredit or dismiss the claims of another individual or group by spuriously casting doubts on the latter's sanity or psychological credibility, particularly if those casting the doubts (or their controllers) are secretly responsible for what is being claimed in the first place. Recent times have seen a marked increase in general usage of the term* as key spiritual and thought leaders around the world continue to awaken to the disturbing implications of phenomena such as the psychiatry racket, the holocaust fraud, the strange death of US Secretary of Defence, James Forrestal, the chemtrail/geoengineering atrocity and mainstream media/Big Tech information monopolies; as well as recurring patterns in perpetrator profiles and deception methodology. Those who understand the crucial role that lexicon plays in the war for minds and souls will know the value of the "gaslighting" term as a means of shining light on a particularly disgusting and diabolical form of mass psychological abuse for the sake of power and greed.
___________________________________________________________________________________
*much to the dismay this month of Jewish finance propagandist, Binyamin Appelbaum, of the New York Times. No doubt Appelbaum is fully aware of both the lexiconic and cultural significance of the "gaslighting" term despite his feigned ignorance. Note: if the linked page is taken down, or to check to see if it has been modified, see the screenshot here. A November 2018 version is archived here.
See also the article "A Word or Two on Mental Fitness" here.