When you understand why the Jewish establishment wanted Jesus dead you’ll understand why the mainstream media are now openly agitating for the crucifixion of free speech. 

Jesus claimed to be God, communicating directly with people. This was Good News for the common man but for the privileged priestly class, it was hell.

Priests had, for thousands of years, mediated between God and man, placing them in a unique position to be able to control the conversation and mould society as they — er, God — intended.

But now that God was communicating directly with the masses, mediators were suddenly superfluous. Their opportunity to massage messages, manage narratives and manipulate outcomes was gone.

“Crucify Him!” they yelled. And so the priests ensured God was put to death so that they could continue to speak for Him.

Fast forward 2000 years and a new priestly class, suddenly under threat, is reacting with much the same venom.

The mainstream media have, for years, mediated between power and people, placing journalists in a unique position of power themselves.

But then along came a Tweeter-in-chief who used social media to speak directly to voters, sidelining journalists and, in so doing, threatening their ability to control the conversation.

(No, I am not suggesting that Donald Trump is a sinless, Christ-like messiah who can command the oceans and save the world from destruction. Every leftist knows that was Obama)

The High Priests of social media, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, are now actively censoring Trump posts – along with any other conservative messages they don’t like – in a rearguard action designed to protect their role as arbitrators of speech. 

But like Jesus, free speech is hard to kill.

And so it was that Network Ten’s The Project warned ominously about the dangers of Parler, a new social media platform where speech is allowed to roam free of interference from big tech and mainstream media. 

The segment was introduced like this: “Are you looking for a place for your misinformation, conspiracy theories and outright lies to be shared with millions, completely unchecked or challenged?” prompting many viewers to think it was going to be a promo for The Project itself.

Then the show’s co-host Peter van Onselen identified the enemy of freedom: “It’s getting a bit harder for fans of alternative facts, but not on Parler. 

“Paler, launched in 2018, looks like Twitter and it functions like Twitter but there are some big differences starting with this catchy tagline: ‘Speak freely and express yourself without fear of being de-platformed for your views’.”

Now you might think a prominent journalist — not to mention journalism academic — like Peter van Onselen would like the idea of citizens being able to freely express themselves. He does, after all, count on this freedom for himself.

But you’d be mistaken. Ten’s political editor loves free speech about as much as the Jewish priests loved Jesus of Nazareth.

Van Onselen sermonised: “In practice, this means things like unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud or QAnon material can be thrown around willy-nilly, without any fact-checking or mediation.” 

And there you have it — from the professor’s own mouth. The problem with Parler is that it allows people to speak without any need for the priestly class to “mediate”.

And without the Peter van Onselens of this world fact-checking our opinions, we’re in danger of all sorts of “willy-nilly” thinking — which is a high priestly term for non-leftist thinking.

“The reason it’s a good thing that platforms like Facebook and Twitter are starting to remove the completely unfiltered world is because it reinforces incorrect thinking and all sorts of problematic ways of having attitudes and that undermines democracy,” he said.

Only a self-appointed priestly class who control the media would argue that the best way to protect democracy is to filter people’s thinking and attitudes through the leftist bias of a self-appointed priestly class who control the media.

Van Onselen continued: “My natural tendency would be against censorship, but …”

Now when someone uses the word “but” immediately after insisting their natural tendency is to support free speech, you can bet their natural tendency is to think North Korea has a lot to recommend it. But I digress.

“ … this isn’t about censorship, it’s about fact-checking and being able to keep discourse that’s discourteous out of the platform.” 

In other words, it’s about censorship.

Shouts of ‘crucify free speech’ were quickly echoed by The Project’s co-host Lisa Wilkinson.

“When you consider how many people are still with Trump at this point and still believe that vote checking has to happen because they feel like the election was stolen from them, they’re going to go on this (Parler) and there’ll be no fact-checking whatsoever and I’m really worried about the future of the US,” she said.

And so our priests in the media want to kill free speech so that they can continue to freely speak and think for us.

God save us from your priests!

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in