Helen Thomas Was Excommunicated

This story was interesting. Helen Thomas accidentally said a forbidden idea. She was banished from the White House press room. She was forced into retirement. Some journalism awards were named after her, and now they're considering renaming them.

I was disappointed that Helen Thomas apologized. She was getting fired anyway, so why bother apologizing? For once, I'd like to see a State insider say "This is an important idea! It's wrong for you to criticize me for saying it! I refuse to apologize!" The forced apology always makes the truth-teller seem like a wimp when they retract their statement.

However, if they had that attitude, their viewpoint may not be aired. If someone had that attitude, they wouldn't be a high-ranking State parasites in the first place. Most high-ranking State parasites are wimps at heart; they know they are interchangeable cogs, replaceable at a moment's notice if they slip up and say a forbidden truth.

I don't like the way State insiders resign, rather than getting fired. Why not tell the truth, that she was banned from the White House based on what she said? Why go through the charade of pretending that she resigned?

There's a certain schadenfreude about seeing a high-ranking State parasite get disgraced. It's still very offensive to see someone's career end because they said something forbidden. I was surprised that practically none of the comments I read on various websites supported Helen Thomas. It's never immoral to suggest an idea that contradicts everyone else's pro-State brainwashing.

This quote by Ed Chen of the White House Correspondent's Association made me think "ROFLMAO!". Ed Chen didn't even notice the obvious logical contradiction.

"Helen Thomas's comments were indefensible and the White House Correspondents’ Association board firmly dissociates itself from them. Many in our profession who have known Helen for years were saddened by the comments, which were especially unfortunate in light of her role as a trailblazer on the White House beat," he said.

"We want to emphasize that the role of the WHCA is to represent the White House press corps in its dealings with the White House on coverage-related issues. We do not police the speech of our members or colleagues. We are not involved at all in issuing White House credentials; that is the purview of the White House itself. But the incident does revive the issue of whether it is appropriate for an opinion columnist to have a front-row seat in the WH briefing room. That is an issue under the jurisdiction of this board. We are actively seeking input from our association members on this important matter, and we have scheduled a special meeting of the WHCA board on Thursday to decide on the seating issue," Chen said.

I like the way he said "Helen Thomas said something inappropriate. She isn't welcome here anymore." followed by "It isn't our policy to censor members of the White House press corps." State insiders seem to define free speech as "You may say anything you want, as long as you don't say anything forbidden." Banning Helen Thomas from the White House press room is State censorship of her speech.

The mainstream media censorship guidelines are unwritten, but everyone knows what they are. Occasionally, someone deviates from the script. As punishment, they are fired and their career is over. Mainstream media journalists consciously and subconsciously learn the censorship rules. Any journalist who doesn't conform is rapidly weeded out. Every public humiliation is a lesson to the other journalists regarding the censorship rules.

State parasites hate the Internet. State thugs can't silence a blogger, unless they take the extreme measure of jailing them. The Internet isn't subject to mainstream media censorship rules.

Helen Thomas agreed with "The State is wonderful!", because otherwise she wouldn't have been in the White House. However, she still believed "Journalists should ask tough questions, and should object when an evasive answer is given." The modern trend is for a fully-scripted press conference.

State propaganda artists know what questions will be asked, and in which order. Anyone who deviates isn't invited back. Helen Thomas had sufficient reputation that she couldn't be easily fired. She started working in the White House when the State propaganda engine was less sophisticated. (Try watching State propaganda films from 50+ years ago. They seem pathetic compared to current offerings.)

State journalists and State insiders are interchangeable cogs. There's always someone eager to replace you. If you're invited to be part of the White House press corps, that's a great career opportunity. There are plenty of other "journalists" willing to read pre-chosen questions in exchange for the opportunity. If you're the type of person who would deviate from the script, then you don't get invited to ask a question.

The modern trend is for State parasites to give fully scripted press conferences. That's the reason no politician is ever asked "Doesn't the USA have a corrupt monetary system? Isn't inflation theft? Isn't taxation theft?" Even if such a question made it through, the politician would give an evasive pro-State troll response while the asker's microphone is shut off. The asker would be tasered if he objected to the evasive answer.

Notice that the outcry is "Helen Thomas said something wrong! Fire her!" People don't say "She had a long and productive career. It's OK that she made one mistake." The State censorship engine has a zero tolerance policy. If you say a forbidden idea, then your career is over.

My father remarked that the recently-published photos of Helen Thomas made her seem ugly. They probably published an un-airbrushed photo. The custom is to normally publish airbrushed photos, unless someone needs to be disgraced. The non-airbrushed photo has a stark contrast to what people normally see. An un-airbrushed photo is an evil fnord saying "This person is evil!"

The State censorship engine isn't explicitly backed by a law. It occurs via the "free market", but a handful of insiders have a State-backed information monopoly. The handful of insiders who control the mainstream media wield more influence than the President and most/all politicians. These insiders get to choose the President, by offering preferred candidates favorable coverage and denying coverage to unfavorable candidates. For example, Obama was hyped for a few years as a hot up-and-coming politician, while Ron Paul received practically no mainstream media coverage.

State censorship in the USA is more efficient than in China. The truth-speaker doesn't need to be arrested and sent to a labor camp. They can merely be fired, and never re-hired at a mainstream media corporation. Insiders have a State-backed monopoly, an outsider has little opportunity to reach a wide audience. A disgraced blacklisted journalist is SOL. A mainstream media journalist gets paid a lot more than an unqualified parasite can get paid elsewhere.

The "free market" takes care of censorship, but it's really a cartel. "Don't offend people!" is a high priority, making it forbidden to say something that will offend a lot of people. State forbidden truths do offend a lot of people.

Helen Thomas' forbidden statement was (paraphrasing) "Israel's government is not legitimate." Given US foreign policy history, this comes dangerously close to "The US government is not legitimate."

Discussing the evils of the Israeli/Palestinian problem is enough for another separate full post. All governments are criminal terrorist organizations. All modern governments were established by invasion/conquest. All governments require a territorial violence monopoly. Israel is no exception.

With Israel, the victims of conquest were kept as permanent refugees, rather than moving elsewhere or being genocided. Making the Palestinians into permanent refugees suits the interests of everyone.

State insiders in Israel say "Those Palestinians are evil! Be grateful we're here to protect you." State insiders in other Middle Eastern countries say "Those Israelis are evil! Be grateful we're here to protect you." The Palestinians are pawns in the struggle between the US-backed Israeli government and other US-backed Arab puppet governments.

Prolonging the conflict serves the interests of all State insiders. An individual Israeli or Palestinian can't negotiate their own peace settlement; they're bound by the decisions of State thugs. The Palestinians aren't free to move to another country. There's an Israeli-imposed trade embargo.

Any criticism of Israel seems to degenerate into "Jewish people were abused in Nazi Germany. Therefore, it's acceptable for Israeli thugs to abuse the Palestinians." Why is it anti-Semitic to criticize Israel's government? That's like saying its racist to criticize President Obama. Why do Israeli State thugs get an unlimited free pass for abusive behavior?

The original plan for Israel included strong Constitutional protection for Palestinians and other religious minorities. That was rapidly scrapped once other Arab countries predictably declared war on Israel. The peace proposal "We stole your land but we'll give some of it back in exchange for peace." seems pathetic when your land was stolen.

Do Native Americans have a valid claim against the European settlers? How long is the Palestinian claim valid for? The longer Israel stonewalls and builds settlements, the weaker the Palestinian claim becomes?

Government requires a territorial violence monopoly. The Palestinians would never have recognized the Jewish government as legitimate. You can't have two governments on the same land; that violates the territorial violence monopoly required by governments.

Suppose I found a group of people who want freedom from State taxation. We move to the same geographic area and declare independence. Would State thugs recognize our freedom? Of course not. When a group of Jewish people moved to the same area to start a government, and violently removed people who disapproved, that somehow becomes a brilliant idea. State thugs wouldn't normally let a group of people declare independence, even if people who disapprove aren't forcibly evicted.

The correct answer to the Israeli problem is "All governments with a territorial violence monopoly are immoral." The Palestinians were violently forced off their land when Israel was formed.

Helen Thomas was fired from the White House press corps for saying a forbidden truth. This is an excellent example of the State censorship engine at work. State journalists and politicians are replaceable cogs. If one deviates from the script, they are easily fired and replaced.

The censorship rules are not explicitly mentioned. By making an example of Helen Thomas, the censorship rules are clarified and enforced. Every journalist and politician knows the unwritten censorship rules; otherwise, their career would not last long.