They want us to censor ourselves

The bourgeois liberal state wants to create a ‘respectable Left’, in other words a tame left, people who will write superficially radical things and can appear on TV to provide ‘balance’ but won’t challenge the *fundamental* basis of the ruling class: capitalism and imperialism.

Bourgeois society will give people, some who may genuinely be radical, a platform on TV, journals, and writing articles for ‘mainstream’ publication like the Guardian/NYT then if they want to keep appearing they have to become ‘respectable’: losing the criticism of imperialism.

That’s why, when you hear the ostensibly ‘radical’ socialists, even ‘communists’(!), who appear in 

‘mainstream’ journals and on daytime political television programs they never actually *say* or *do* anything genuinely radical when they have that platform or they’d get cut off.

I will always maintain that if your views are a genuine threat to the bourgeois liberal order you will never be allowed to write for ‘mainstream’ publications or appear on the CNN/BBC political shows as a ‘commentator’ without either being censored or censoring yourself.

Bourgeois society will give people, some who may genuinely be radical, a platform on TV, journals, and writing articles for ‘mainstream’ publication like the Guardian/NYT then if they want to keep appearing they have to become ‘respectable’: losing the criticism of imperialism.

Ask yourself ‘who is appearing in these mainstream publications and who isnt’. It is always the people who are acceptable to the editorial line which, in a news media owned by billionaires and corporations, will always be of conformity to liberal capitalism and imperialism.

They make it so you can imply these things at most, you can have innuendo but never openly say it. That’s what becomes of these ‘radicals’ writing in ‘mainstream’ publications and appearing on daytime television. The court jesters of liberal bourgeois society.

I wrote this about Owen Jones & Paul Mason, and how they are reflective of broader, systemic problems with a UK 'Left' that is neither anti-imperialist nor anti-capitalist (but is strongly anti-communist). https://t.co/4P1Om0La8m

https://mronline.org/2018/08/06/social-imperialism-in-the-21st-century/

"Jones wants the acclaim & leftist credentials that being seen to support the Palestinian cause provides, but is unwilling to risk the damage to his reputation & career that endorsing BDS could entail, notably if he were to stand as a Labour Party candidate in the future." https://t.co/1yav2Hhwlp

"If Jones followed his own advice and applied his disdain for Blair consistently, then of course he would shun Campbell entirely and encourage others to do the same. Yet in reality, on two separate occasions, Jones has happily sat down in interviews with Campbell..." https://t.co/iM3ICkL1Ap

These revelations by the Times are certainly newsworthy and most certainly should have been published, and this would be the case even if the information they are based on was obtained illegally. 

You can probably see where I'm going with this.

As the liberal commentariat applauds Times for its journalistic accomplishment, it’s worth remembering that across the pond another journalist is being prosecuted in a corrupt and deceitful show trial for exposing not mere tax information, but evidence of actual war crimes. https://t.co/DCn9ES44ph

This invalidates the common criticism that WikiLeaks has never published information on Trump. WikiLeaks is a leak publishing outlet; it only publishes what people give it. If people know they can safely leak information through mass media outlets like NYT, they will.

If you care about journalism, support Assange. The powerful need to be held to account, and we shouldn’t have to rely on the permission of other factions of power to allow us to do that.