Censorship Always Targets Truth

The campaign to rid the nation of so-called “fake news” is fake news in itself, as censors target both left and right in their unending attempt to cover up the truth. 

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

A rising tide of censorship is drowning what is left of liberty on these shores. The censors target people on both the left and right. They claim they are just trying to stop “fake news,” but they lie. The real impetus of censorship is always the same: to cover up the truth.

The witch hunt against Alex Jones is a case in point. The mainstream media campaign against Jones would have you believe that they want to silence Jones due to his allegedly false and defamatory statements.

Has Jones ever made false and defamatory statements? Perhaps. He has certainly spread misinformation about Islam and Muslims. His fact-checking is not always what it should be, nor is the portrait of national and global events he paints entirely accurate.

But there is a simple legal remedy for false and defamatory statements: the libel courts. Jones is currently being sued for libel by individuals who say he defamed them by misrepresenting their connection to the December 2012 events at Sandy Hook Elementary. If they can prove that Jones’s statements were false and damaging, and that he should have known that they were false, they will prevail in court. But the mainstream media (MSM) campaign against Jones, which has gotten him banned from Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, does not abide by the rules of American jurisprudence or the First Amendment. Nor is it motivated by any genuine concern about Jones’s faults. This horrendous, illegal, unconstitutional censorship campaign is going after Jones for one reason and one reason only: because Jones tells too much truth about certain sensitive issues that the mainstream is charged with covering up.

Every MSM attack on Jones charges him with spreading “9/11 conspiracy theories.” What they leave out is the fact that these theories—which blame neocons not Muslims for 9/11—are true. As Jones has repeatedly stated, 9/11 was an “inside job,” in the same way that a bank heist assisted by insiders is an inside job. In the case of 9/11, the neocon insiders helped the “bank robbers”—Israel—pull off the attack.

The MSM is dominated by Zionists. It includes plenty of Operation Mockingbird CIA assets. These people are charged with covering up the truth of 9/11. As the audience for alternative media like Jones and AFP grows, while the MSM audience shrinks, the truth about 9/11 and other explosive issues has been steadily leaking out. The censorship campaign against Jones is part of the larger campaign to plug those leaks by taking down the alternative media.

It isn’t just conservatives like Jones who are being censored and silenced. In Berkeley, Calif., home of the 1960s Free Speech Movement, left-leaning radio host Bonnie Faulkner has been banned by KPFA radio, flagship of the Pacifica Radio Network.

Kevin Cartwright of KPFA management recently announced: “After an avalanche of negative calls and emails from listeners about the airing of views of a holocaust denier, climate change denial and casting the Parkland mass shooting survivors as crisis actors. [sic] KPFA cannot defend this content. Please direct all comments to KPFA’s comment line at comments@KPFA.org or 510-848-6767 ext. 622.”

Cartwright’s illiterate statement (please learn to write complete sentences!) toes the MSM propaganda line: He pretends that the “avalanche of calls and emails” was driven by concern that Ms. Faulkner’s show sometimes includes guests who make false statements about current or historical events. The reality is precisely the opposite: The “avalanche” was orchestrated by Israeli government pressure groups who hate Ms. Faulkner not because of any untruths uttered on her show but because so many of her guests tell the truth about Israel and its crimes, including the 9/11 false-flag operation.

If a guest on Ms. Faulkner’s “Guns and Butter,” or any other radio show, makes false statements, the remedy is simple and obvious: Bring on another guest to expose the lies and explain what the truth is and how we know it is the truth. Free and unfettered debate is the only context in which truth can emerge.

The current MSM moral panic over “fake news” is really a panic over “true news.” It is the scandalous truths—that 9/11 was a neocon-Zionist inside job, that Robert Mueller is a serial coverup criminal and deep state operative, that Jeffrey Epstein’s Israeli pedophile/blackmail ring has compromised America’s top leadership, that Bill Clinton is a Jeffrey Epstein client and credibly accused serial rapist, that the CIA is the world’s biggest drug dealer, that our elections are fake spectacles controlled by rigged voting machines, that America’s best leaders are assassinated by the deep state, and so on—that are the problem.

Censors never fear lies. They only fear truth.

Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions.

Rather Covers for Fake News Media

Not surprising to readers who watched the “dishonest rise and notorious fall” of Dan Rather, the fraudulent journalist is now blasting Trump and supporting the establishment’s lying press.

By S.T. Patrick

When the mainstream media is attacked, it can always count on its own aging lions to protect the den. The barrels of former CBS news anchor Dan Rather’s ideological bully pulpit recently turned to President Donald Trump. In an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon, Rather said Trump’s attacks on the media were “straight out of Orwell.” Rather also referred to Trump as an “authoritarian” and someone who believes that “the one and only truth comes from him.”

Ironically, but not surprisingly, Rather has built a career on portraying himself as an authority on major events and someone who should be trusted to relay truth to the American public. The problem with Rather’s career is that those dubious goals were diametrically opposed to the plot points of his dishonest rise and notorious fall.

Rather’s rise at CBS can be attributed to having been in Dallas on the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. However, his bungling of details also coincides with the same event. Rather was among a handful of reporters to have seen the Zapruder film the day after the assassination.

The American public at large would not view the film until March 6, 1975, when Robert Groden showed the “Z-Film” on an episode of “Good Night America” with Geraldo Rivera.

Upon Rather’s viewing, he rushed to air with the shocking description of what he had seen—a presidential head that “went forward with considerable violence.” As it turns out, both Oliver Stone and the writers of “Seinfeld” were more accurate than Rather when they described Kennedy’s head obviously jolting “back and to the left.”

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!

Rather also later reported that President Nixon was about to fire the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover and a top Vietnam official. These last two reports were later proven to be false. Rather was notorious for being one of the first storm-chasing reporters who would tie himself to a tree as a hurricane approached. Clutching the tree as if his life was in jeopardy, the moment of truth would inevitably come when a random elderly person would walk through the background, unaffected by the winds.

In 1980, Rather earned the critical nickname “Gunga Dan” from Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales for his over-dramatized walk across the Afghanistan border. Rather told America he was “risking his own safety.” The accompanying interpreter seemed wholly unaffected.

The fall of Rather occurred when he, once again, jumped the gun on news—and truth—by reporting false information about George W. Bush’s Air National Guard Service in Texas. This was the end for an overdramatic news anchor who always fancied himself as “hard news.” Today,

Rather still brandishes a reporter’s notebook that can be used at any moment if his AXS-TV interviewees—such as Kid Rock or Crystal Gayle—need to share any information on deep background.

Rather had mastered fake news before “Fake News” was a hip criticism. And while he was a maestro, he was not a solo act. In 1993, NBC had to settle a defamation suit with General Motors when its cornerstone “Dateline NBC” program rigged a fiery crash. After the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, NBC massacred alleged bomber Richard Jewell in a trial-by-media outbreak that was nothing short of omnipresent—and false. Rather’s CBS News broadcasts followed NBC’s lead. Despite doubts, all three networks (and all of the cable outlets) aired false reports on the death of Pat Tillman and the faux-heroic story of Army private Jessica Lynch in Iraq.

New journalists at old media encampments are told by the Rathers of the world that the mainstream media is reliable, and social media giants like Facebook are told that these same media organizations should be the arbiters of fact.

A December Washington Post headline may tell the sad truth of media believability. The headline read “Polls Show Americans Distrust the Media. But Talk to Them, and It’s a Very Different Story.” When you ask an individual American about their trust in the mainstream media, they will most likely describe their negative view of the MSM. But like similar polls about trusting politicians, they will blast the national media while exhibiting faith in their local media or their favorite mainstream national media outlet. And while distrusting media is a commonplace opinion, media sources are still regularly cited when one person wants to prove the veracity of an event to another person.

Intimidation Game
How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech – On sale right now at AFP’s Online Store!

“I just saw it on the news!” still holds considerable weight in a personal debate. One of the largest hurdles still faced by the consuming public is the idea of partisanship in news. Much of the public distrust in national news outlets has to do with a perceived partisan bias held by the media outlet. A Fox News diehard has serious reservations about CNN, MSNBC, and The Washington Post. A nightly CBS News viewer distrusts Fox News, National Review, and The Weekly Standard. In holding either view, the consumer fails to understand that on large, overarching issues, all major media in America functions on one accord. They are pro-war; they favor the financial and media elite; they unflinchingly trust government spokesmen, retired military officers, and establishment historians; and they always favor Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, Big Education, Big Finance, and the biggest lies in the history profession. On these issues, Fox News and MSNBC agree. Therefore, how can one be trusted and the other be reviled?

To find a news outlet that challenges the state-sponsored media dictates that are shared by all mainstream outlets, a consumer has to look toward the alternative media. The mainstream media is in a death spiral, accelerated by their own refusal to report critically on the most difficult stories, trends, and ideas of our time. A viewer’s or a reader’s time and money are the only vote they have regarding their media.

Real change requires an absolute change in lifestyle. To affect the reliability and the availability in trustworthy media, it is imperative that consumers support those alternative media outlets they find valuable. Like any failed idea, collapsing company, or crumbling empire, the mainstream’s frustrated loyalists (e.g., Rather) will sound their horns until the last noise is made. And if there is to be a true change in the American media, the final blow of the trumpet will permeate an empty forest and, thus, will not make a sound.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is STPatrickAFP@gmail.com. 

Guess What? Crying Girl Story Is Fake News

By AFP Staff

By now most people have seen the heartbreaking story of the young Honduran girl crying while peering up at her mother, who is surrounded and being patted down by Border Patrol agents. The assumption here was that the mother and her daughter were about to be torn apart as the child is sent to a children’s facility while her mother faces charges for illegally entering the U.S.


Ruling Elite
Get one year of AFP Online, the digital edition of American Free Press, FREE when you buy “The Ruling Elite: A Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation.” Add both items to your cart and use coupon code “Fake News.”

While the photograph being promoted by the mainstream media conveys the immediate terror of the young girl, it turns out the high drama being pushed by special interest groups and the mainstream media is fake. Of course, it fails to tell you what actually happened next to the woman and her child.

UK tabloid The Daily Mail reportedly tracked down the father, Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, in Honduras. According to their report, the mother and daughter, Sandra, 32, and her two-year-old daughter Yanela Denise, have not been separated. Instead, the two were sent—together—to a family facility near the U.S. border.

More importantly, the narrative that the two were fleeing the horrors of Honduras is also patently false.

The father said that the mother and child made the dangerous journey without talking to him first. The couple has three other children, son Wesly, 14, and daughters Cindy, 11, and Brianna, six, yet the mother chose only to bring the youngest child.

“I didn’t support it,” he said. “I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that? But it was her decision at the end of the day.”

While the father conceded that it is hard to find a decent job in the Central American country, he said he actually has a good one.

“I wouldn’t risk my life [to be smuggled across the border],” he said. “It’s hard to find a good job here and that’s why many people choose to leave. But I thank God that I have a good job here. And I would never risk my life making that journey.”

He added that he is not angry at his wife for taking his daughter away and paying human smugglers $6,000 to sneak them across the U.S. border.

“I don’t have any resentment for my wife, but I do think it was irresponsible of her to take the baby with her in her arms because we don’t know what could happen,” he said.

The mother and daughter were arrested by Border Patrol as they, along with a larger group of illegal immigrants, attempted to cross the Rio Grande River in the middle of the night on makeshift rafts.

“You can imagine how I felt when I saw that photo of my daughter,” concluded the father. “It broke my heart. It’s difficult as a father to see that, but I know now that they are not in danger. They are safer now than when they were making that journey to the border.”