Fake news, lies and smears are what the public hears about Oath Keepers from the media. And limited means of correcting the record are increasingly and intentionally being blocked.
As part of keeping up with current news reports about topics relevant to my interests, I subscribe to Google Alerts. Every day I get emails based on key words I designate to allow me to see what’s being reported in Google-recognized media.
You can see from the feature illustration above what the general public is being led to believe about Oath Keepers. It’s like the Southern Poverty Law Center narrative on steroids.
Patriots who revere the Constitution are called “anti-government.” An association with bylaws featured prominently in the website header that are available for anyone to see for themselves is called a “militia.” That those bylaws disqualify from membership any “person who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal or informal, that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or the violation of the Constitution thereof,” and any “person who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal or informal, that advocates discrimination, violence, or hatred toward any person based upon their race, nationality, creed, or color,” is never mentioned. All most Americans will ever hear about Oath Keepers is that they are right wing extremists, domestic terrorists and haters on par with Nazis and the Klan.
Correcting that record is also suppressed. The Google News feed does not include articles originated by Oath Keepers, limiting what does appear to … well, see for yourself. That’s also a recurring problem I have with articles I publish in other venues that do make the news feed – only to be removed later by deliberate intervention, something I’ve documented time and again after noticing exclusive stories being “disappeared.”
Relying on the so-called “mainstream media” to give a fair shake has proven futile. Too many liberty advocates have been burned too many times by opening up to supposedly objective reporters, only to find out later they’ve been presented out of context and used to advance a negative narrative.
That basically leaves two ways to get our side of the story out: Rely on supporters to share links (which is generally only done by a handful with very limited contacts, and even then not usually consistently), or spread the word in the only affordable way we can, via so-called “social media.”
But if you use the word favorably, no problem…
Do that though, and there’s an army of “progressive” snitches reporting posts they don’t like to moderators in order to get them removed. Author Matt Bracken found that out recently when he committed the “grave offense” of using the word “tranny” in a Facebook post about convicted traitor Bradley Manning, and received a seven-day suspension and the threat of permanent expulsion to boot (even though there’s a “Tranny Girls” group with over 5,000 members).
It’s no secret that Facebook “routinely suppress[es] conservative news,” and that Twitter kicks off non-“progressive” accounts it finds objectionable. Under the guise of combating “hate speech,” Twitter “suspend[ed] alt-right accounts.”
Similarly, You Tube has been wholesale “demonetizing” videos, taking away the means for those producing content they don’t agree with to be paid for what in many cases are their livelihoods. And we recently saw an employee of parent company Google was fired for the heresy of daring to criticize the corporate social justice warrior orthodoxy.
Meanwhile, per The Daily Caller, “PayPal banned Jihad Watch and the American Freedom Defense Initiative from receiving online donations using their platform because of the site’s “activities” after being designated as “hate sites” by left-wing groups. “ That, reportedly, was after those sites were smeared by a George Soros-funded group.
But think about that – businesses can economically refuse to do business with those whom they disagree, unless of course if you’re a Christian baker and there’s a gay wedding cake to be baked. Beyond that is the sentiment that if your speech is disapproved, you have no right to it. If you’re deemed a “hater,” what other rights would they say you shouldn’t have? Why should we recognize someone Antifa calls a “Nazi’s” right to keep and bear arms? Why should someone condemned by college Marxists as a “fascist” be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, or against self-incrimination, or from cruel and unusual punishments?
That’s what those presuming to be the authorities for what constitutes free speech are effectively saying.
And if I can refuse to sell you services, what about goods? Starve, Nazi! And you don’t deserve a place to live or medical treatment…
No?
What about setting up alternatives?
Gab is trying. And true to form, because many in the so-called “alt-right” have gone over to it, the network is being smeared as a haven for racists. To drive that point home, Google just dropped it from the Play Store.
True dat.
Expect similar suppression against any competitor that might arise and that doesn’t toe the “approved thought” line. Corporate advertisers, being for the most part spineless, lying weasels in it for the buck, are quick to bolt at the first sign of controversy. The ability to pay expenses, to profit and to compete has been effectively blocked.
So what do we do? After all, we’re talking about private companies here, right? True, they’re essentially monopolies, and any other “robber baron” would be busted on antitrust “laws,” but the impulse to sic the Feds on them needs to be balanced against Constitutional constraints.
What are they? How do you balance that against the right of free association? Does entering into commerce make a difference? Should it?
And what can we do to get our message out beyond a niche readership that is being squeezed into a sealed echo chamber? Because as things stand now, the gatekeepers of approved thought might not be able to stop the signal, but they sure are doing everything they can to block it.
—–
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
—–
David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?“
