Sulzberger says to Trump don't call journalists enemies of the people. Nothing more ridiculous can be imagined.
It has only been the overwhelming power of this debauched media within our system which has kept the perennially weak American system from gutting it long ago.
The reason is that the big interests, not necessarily those of this or that President, have been in bed with the media since the beginning.
It has not been a media of, by, or for, the American people, but rather a media for the false utopian globalist people of Priestley and Paine.
What have they not called him?
While touting the need to drain the swamp, why not drain the media too. They are very much the same.
Let's just have a little history lesson.
So called radical journalism has a long history. It wasn't called radical until the early 19th Century. It meant religious radicalism.
The so called (anachronism) radicals of the 18th Century, who were the main influence on the founding fathers, were marginal heterodox Christians of one stripe or another.
They weren't democrats, or levellers, they were often basically commonwealthmen, restless young lower gentry, after the age of the commonwealthmen had seemed to pass. They did not believe in universal suffrage, even for white men. The Younger Pitt himself was a sort of throwback to this lost mental world.
They weren't democrats, or levellers, they were often basically commonwealthmen, restless young lower gentry, after the age of the commonwealthmen had seemed to pass. They did not believe in universal suffrage, even for white men. The Younger Pitt himself was a sort of throwback to this lost mental world.
By the early 19th Century, the more extreme of these heterodox (often tending toward atheistic) quasi Christians were sometimes also described as democrats or, after 1789, Jacobins.
They often wanted not only statelessness but also churchlessness, in a utopian world of natural and equal rights for all people everywhere.
Those utopian 'all of the people everywhere', Price's, Priestley's, quintessentially, are also the we the people of the founding fathers. They meant the same thing, back then, to the religiously heterodox. Tom Paine, etc.
For these religiously heterodox, both in England and in the colonies, the King, above all, was the so called enemy of the people for specifically these people, not for all Englishmen, far from it, or even for all colonists, among whom there remained many loyalists.
They had also, somewhat incredibly, started calling the Anglican clergy enemies of the people; and of course they poured scorn on the Papacy from the beginning of the Henrician Reformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment