“National Security,” Again

     When it comes to matters that touch upon law or politics, many Americans have chosen to disbelieve the major media as a matter of policy – i.e., as the default condition. This appears to be the majority stance at this time. But as you can imagine, the media don’t like that very much. Rather than begin a program of relentless self-examination and insistence upon reporting the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts, the media have chosen a course the rest of us probably couldn’t get away with: systematic denial of their falsehoods, coupled to an intimate alliance with the political Establishment.

     But such a course has its own, rather demanding requirements. Denial demands the vehemence and persistence of a Baghdad Bob. Enlisting in service to the Establishment commits oneself to parroting their nostrums as well as their lies and distortions. Today, the nostrum that trumps all others is that hoary old shibboleth, “national security.”

     I’ve addressed this subject many times. The critical realization is that “national security” is undefined by intention. “It’s what we say it is,” trumpet the Establishment’s paid shills. Now that those shills include the media, the cacophony is getting deafeningly loud…and rather obviously self-serving.

     The search string above cites “elections” as a required component. While it’s not the only subject that draws this attack, it appears to be the media’s most recent area of concern. MSNBC in particular wants you to have absolute faith in the integrity of our elections to be considered a national-security issue:

     A judge ruled the Biden administration cannot regulate content in social media sites. NBC News Justice Reporter Ryan Reilly and Former FBI General Counsel and MSNBC Legal Analyst Andrew Weissmann join Andrea Mitchell to discuss. “It is inconceivable to me that this will not be appealed,” says Weissmann. Weissmann adds, “One because it is legally wrong, and two, because the harm to our national security, and frankly, to just domestic crimes that are brought to the attention of tech companies is so severe. So it’s just very hard to imagine that this won’t be appealed.”

     Here’s the video:

     A few sharp questions could puncture this gasbag pretty quickly:

• “Can you define national security objectively?”
• “What aspect of national security do you have in mind?”
• “How does questioning the veracity of a government statement affect it?”
• “Aren’t we at risk of propagandization if we cannot question government’s claims?”

     But of course, such questions would themselves be ruled “injurious to national security,” and disallowed. An audience member who demands answers to them might even be hauled away in handcuffs for “re-education.” Wait: do the media still have live audiences for their video productions, or has that been deemed too threatening to the maintenance of the all-important Narrative?

     I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that if he had to choose between them, he’d rather have newspapers without government than government without newspapers – and if memory serves, he had no great faith in the trustworthiness of newspapers. Well, today it appears that the “newspapers” have merged with the government, which rather limits our freedom to choose between them.

     The longer it goes on, the more threatening to Americans’ rights the “national security” charade becomes. Besides, an administration that gleefully abandoned $80 billion of American weaponry to the Taliban and is currently courting a nuclear showdown with Russia shouldn’t be presumed to have much interest in anyone’s security. Neither should we be willing to accept demands from the media that we uncritically accept what they say as Gospel truth.

     “Do not say ‘Trust me; rely on my word.’ Only politicians say that.” – C. Northcote Parkinson