Imagine, for example, that you are walking past the house owned by an individual suspected of committing some of the most heinous crimes in your community, from child kidnapping to murder. Despite his reputation as a suspect, this person has never been arrested or convicted of any crime. You glance through the unlocked window and see a table, and upon this table rests a thick journal with handwritten words “Maps to the Victims’ Bodies” or something equally alarming. You stop dead in your tracks, look around and see that no one is home, and no one is watching you.
Now imagine that the suspect who owns that journal is one of the most well connected and insulated people in the community. Perhaps he is even a close friend of the police chief and district attorney in your town, which, according to many of the town’s residents, is the reason this person has never seen the inside of a courtroom or jail.
The record of his crimes is mere feet away from you, inside the house and available for the taking. The problem, however, is absconding with that book would be theft. Furthermore, you couldn’t take the journal to the police, as they are also named within this journal of criminal admission. What would you do?
The above scenario is obviously silly and simplified to the extreme, but could be refined to reflect many recent situations with regard to issues such as Wikileaks, for example.
Using a completely different and more legally accepted approach, such as talking your way onto the premises under a pretext and secretly taking photographs of the contents of the journal could perhaps be compared to the actions of the Center for Medical Progress in the investigation of Planned Parenthood.
In either scenario, we see citizens acting on their conscience and finally securing long-sought information of alleged criminal activity. Having this information, however, is useless if there is no one willing to act upon it.
Before proceeding, it should be stipulated that the above-referenced citizen(s) is/are not law enforcement officers, and not bound by the rules regarding legally obtaining evidence. What I’ve described is merely a hyper-simplistic scenario hopefully designed to engage you in critical thought, and perhaps coax you to look at what I feel is taking place in real time.
The larger issue, in my opinion, is what happens after that well-intentioned and otherwise reasonable individual publishes this information in a public venue for all to see, as this is the only viable manner to expose the truth.
If we make the scenarios analogous to Wikileaks and the Center for Medical Progress, for example, public attention is suddenly diverted from the alleged criminal activities of the suspect and exposed by the well-meaning citizen, to the “criminal” or in the latter scenario, “unethical” actions of the citizen himself. Instead of law enforcement using their resources to investigate the criminal content exposed, and the media to publish the same, the prosecution turns upon the citizen with the able assistance of the established media.
Stipulating further that the information obtained was not altered in any manner and the information was found to be accurate by other citizens within the community, should we not be grateful to that person who exposed the long-standing criminality and those who have done the job that “real” journalists have refused to do?
I am certainly not advocating criminal acts or behavior. However, I do believe that once the criminal acts of a suspect or suspects has been exposed, a law enforcement agency outside and above those who have been compromised has the duty to investigate, and “real” journalists have the obligation to provide unbiased information about their findings.
The failure or overt refusal of our most trusted institutions to conduct an unbiased investigation to expose criminals and criminal activity, and the institutions that many have relied to report such findings have given birth to citizen investigators and citizen journalists.
It is because of this blatant inaction, perhaps with those institutions acting in concert with the criminal or criminals who have been exposed, that war has been declared on what is known as the “New” or “Independent Media.” They have done what those tasked with such duties have not done, and are consequently in the crosshairs of an oppressive, “silence the messenger” campaign.
In the above scenario, those who expose the long-standing heinous acts of the criminal are labeled as the purveyors of “fake news” and must be censored, sanctioned or even prosecuted. Public attention is deliberately diverted from the career criminal, who has now become the new victim of today while the citizens attempting to reveal their lawlessness is the enemy of the state and the established media.
To be sure, the fictional scenario described is deliberately simplified, although the consequences are neither simple nor fictional in the world of today.
Because of the effectiveness and tenacity of responsible citizen journalists who are exposing the criminal cabal that has been entrenched in power for so long, blowback is coming. In fact, it’s already here.
As citizen journalists intent on exposing the globalist criminal cabal, we have been labeled “domestic propagandists” and purveyors of “fake news.” If we don’t unite, push-back and increase our efforts, we will be not merely censored, but forever silenced.