Movie buffs may remember the heartbreaking scene in the 1939 film, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” where the disabled protagonist, Quasimodo, played by Charles Laughton, saves the beautiful gypsy girl, Esmeralda from certain death, by taking her to the cathedral and demanding the church grant them sanctuary.

Quasimodo and Esmeralda are innocent and represent the truth. In the film, the church leaders and nobles represent evil and corruption, and are planning to revoke Notre Dame’s right of sanctuary in order to kill Quasimodo and Esmeralda, who will surely expose their nefarious agenda of corruption if they live.

Today, I have a hunch the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. Just as many cities run by Democrat leftists have proclaimed themselves “sanctuary cities”—cities that openly and militantly refuse to enforce our national security and immigration laws—evidence increasingly shows that social media outlets, as well as print and television/cable media outlets willingly and actively censor or block any and all opinions that don’t support a leftist narrative.

Like the church leaders and nobles in “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” they seek to assassinate truth before it can disrupt or expose their corrupt agenda. At the same time, such outlets provide “sanctuary” not for all thought, but only for their own agenda of leftist, subversive thought and policies.

As such, they don’t tell us the whole story so We the People can decide for ourselves. As such they don’t provide unbiased facts and unvarnished truth. They lie to us by omission and distortion.

Such media dictatorship violates the public trust, since media is granted a special place in our culture as The Fourth Estate.

When the Fourth Estate acts like The Fifth Column, it violates our natural rights, because it constitutes propaganda by omission: media doesn’t allow what it doesn’t like, while pushing narratives it does like, even if those narratives are not true.

Since the public grants media this special place in our system, and licenses media outlets to broadcast openly, the public must also take action to revoke that privilege and license if the media doesn’t fulfill its side of the social contract.

And that’s where we are today.

Whenever a dictatorial regime doesn’t like some things or someone, it bans them. The media then, instead of being an open source of truth and information, becomes part and parcel of a shadowy, dictatorial regime that bans what it doesn’t like or whatever makes the left look bad, while publishing fabricated stories that attempt to make their often conservative political opponents look bad.

Maduro in Venezuela doesn’t like to look bad, so he has banned broadcasting video and images of Venezuelans digging in the trash for food, even as Venezuelans are starving, resorting to eating flamingos and zoo animals.  Because it makes him look bad. Meanwhile, he has his state-run media broadcast and print very positive propaganda about his regime.  Just like Stalin and Hitler did.

How is the effective American media ban of conservative views that make them look bad any different than the actions of the Venezuelan dictator Maduro? How is their broadcast and publishing of fake stories that support the Deep State and its narrative any different than the acts of a vicious and murderous dictator? Both seek to destroy a constitutional republic and replace a republican government with socialist or statist dictatorship.

In another recent example, Tommy Robinson being banned by Facebook and Instagram was timed deliberately so that he couldn’t defend himself against what conservative British pundit, Paul Joseph Watson calls a “BBC hit piece about to come out”.

Watson continues:

“This is how they operate.  But conservatives keep preaching “muh free market” until we are silenced into oblivion.”

The only answer to this shadow or spotlight banning of conservative views is to broadcast our own views and compete with the censored outlets, speaking truth to corruption.

But conservatives must go further than merely expressing disgust with leftist subversion.   Conservatives must hit back as hard or harder than the left.  The problem is that we are far more tolerant to opposing ideas than the left.  The other problem is that tolerance of their violent intolerance and subversion isn’t a winning strategy.

President Trump gets this and punches back harder, which has been in large part the secret to his success.   He and others should establish their own weekly broadcasts from studios of their own.

We conservatives must hang the dirty laundry, sexual deviances, drug use, and pedophilia of the left out in public.  We must show up with a crowd of angry people at the doorsteps of people like Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow and Meryl Streep, just as leftists did to Tucker Carlson.   We must confront their political representatives in restaurants and public places and shout them down and chase them away just like leftists did to Ted Cruz and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.   That way, the propagandist “mainstream” media cannot dominate the narrative with their factual omissions, fake stories and leftist propaganda.  That way, they might think twice about propagating their lies and subversion.

We also need to disown and ridicule leftists locally, in our personal lives and communities. Get them the hell out of our lives. There is no holding hands and singing Kum-Ba-Ya with people who are so brainwashed and easily triggered. Ostracism and confrontation is our last hope to stop the wealth confiscation, detention camps, murder, starvation and totalitarianism that they now openly advocate.

Maybe the social shock of being shunned and publicly ridiculed will waken them.

Maybe not.

But, if the left and the lapdog media control the narrative and win their epic battle against freedom and liberty, we’re going to be separated from them anyway, except it will be on their terms alone, not ours. Then there will be be no sanctuary for liberty or freedom.  Or for us or our families.

Unless we win, our future is fascist.