The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: December 2018

No Platform for Dissenters

No internet platform for anyone or any organization that dissents from the mainstream verdict on anything. The Global Compact and the tech giants will naturally agree on that point.
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple said,

“And as we showed this year, we won’t give a platform to violent conspiracy theorists on the App Store. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. We only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division, and violence: You have no place on our platforms. You have no home here.” [Applause. Brackets mine]
On December 3rd, 2018, Apple CEO Tim Cook announced that tech needs to take a moral stand against hate speech, in a move that sounded very much like a nouveau form of fundamentalism. Speaking to individuals and groups believed to push hate, division and violence, Cook said, “You have no place on our platforms. You have no home here.” 
While such intentions are noble, their application is subjective and deeply flawed. It’s a known fact that political conservatives are frequently blocked and banned from social media, often [having done] … little to nothing to trigger the exile while terror organizations and Islamist extremists continue to enjoy access to the very same platforms.
As reported in part of Clarion Project’s Silicon Valley series, “Who Has the Widest Censorship Reach in Human History,” a combination of leaked memos, whistleblowers, demonstrated behavior and now open statements such as those made by Cook, shows that Silicon Valley has a draconian behavior modification agenda masked by Orwellian “double talk” language that can best be summarized with the mantra “censorship is peace” or better yet, “silence is peace.” 

The Apple CEO endorses censorship. Some of my readers castigate and insult me by claiming that Cook’s wussy rant against conservatives about the alleged “hate speech” that causes “division” and “violence,” is not censorship. So, for the good of all, dissent must be repressed; dissent meaning racism, white supremacy, discrimination, and conspiracy theories. It’s “hateful.” Censorship is “good,” or, rather, “goodthink” or “goodfeel.” Once hate has been suppressed, everyone will dance around a May Pole in a “low carbon” atmosphere.

Barack Obama said in 1995:
“In America, we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations,” Obama said.
So, if you’re for freedom of speech or for  freedom of property ownership, or if you’re suffering from some other form of ideological “derangement” as defined by the Left, you can get together with your Alinsky-ite pals to take collective action in a mob to fight against whatever “social justice” wrong you can concoct. You can “target” them for silencing.
Angela Merkle has not only fouled up Germany, but has stated that nations with borders must do away with them to allow the free invasion of their countries by “migrants.” Their sovereignty must be declared “obsolete.” And be seen as “patriotic.
Merkel argued that countries should be prepared to make concessions in an “orderly procedure”.
She said parliaments should make the decision to sign such contracts.
“Ceding power to a superstate is a better form of patriotism.”
Mrs Merkel said that countries who think “they can solve everything on their own” are simply nationalistic and not patriotic because they “only think about themselves.”
She said: “Either you are one of those who believe they can solve everything on their own and only have to think about themselves. That is nationalism in its purest form.”
“This is not patriotism. Because patriotism is if you include others in the German interest and accept win-win situations.”
The U.K. will sign the Global Compact in Marrakish later this month:
International Development Minister Alistair Burt said the UK “is supportive” of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration document which is the subject of a major UK meeting next week. MEP Marcel de Graaff announced today: “It is declaring migration as a human right so it will, in effect, become impossible to criticise Mrs Merkel’s welcome migrants politics without being at risk of being jailed for hate speech.”
But it has been pointed out that accepting the principles could technically see EU citizens in court for criticising migration between EU member states. Mr Burt said: “The UK Government is supportive of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, both as a step forward in international co-operation to tackle irregular migration and as a framework to help us deliver our commitments under the sustainable development goals.

Countless Muslims and other “migrants” settling in Germany comprise a “win-win” outcome?  Can we be certain that the soaring rape statistics, stabbings, and jihad by vehicle are making Germans put on smiles of approval and safety? Working Germans must support “migrants” welfare stipends and chuckle all the way to the bank?
Speaking of banks, Germany will abandon nuclear power completely by 2022. Dw.com reports:
The decision to move away from nuclear energy is a done deal in Germany, where all nuclear power plants are intended to be offline by 2022. It’s a political decision that will cost billions of euros, while the expansion of renewable energy is already pushing up electricity rates.
It also remains unclear exactly how much it will cost to dismantle the power plants after they’ve been mothballed. Experts are certain that the 34 billion euros set aside by plant operators for this purpose will not be enough to do the job.
And when power or gas prices go up, will Germans form their own “yellow jackets and” cause riots and violence, as the French have over the same reason?

Ventriloquism in the Global Compact

Here is more commentary as an adjunct to my last column, “The Blob and Fake News,”, about  the master plan of the UN for world governance, “The “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.”
Michael Redgrave in Dead of Night (1945)
Michele Blood at Lifezette, as so many others have, notes that Criticism of Migration Could Become a Criminal Offense, and under U.N.’s Global Pact there will be certain consequences:
But the agreement, if ratified, would actually threaten national sovereignty, criminalize anti-migration speech, thwart freedom of the press, and maybe even establish a problematic legal framework.
Among other things, governments are asked to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting … and [to stop] the allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants,” as the Express also noted.
The text of the Global Compact (GC) is here:
What the Lifezette quotation means is that if you are a journalist or just an individual expressing disapproval and disdain of your government’s immigration policies as defined by the UN, you can be punished, silenced, or otherwise whipped by the UN, or by your own government, if it signed the GC. Otherwise, if you abide by the GC’s rules, you will become, in effect, a ventriloquist’s dummy and be told what has been approved for you to know, as long as it’s something minor or trivial and of no consequence. If you observe that others have been silenced, you won’t care, because those others will have “asked for it,” and they ought to have known better than to break the rules.If Alex Jones or Lauren Southern or Robert Spencer or Stefan Molyneux have been duct taped, or financially broken by the tech giants, you shouldn’t care?

To quote from the GC:
The Global Compact requires the media outlets of member-states to adhere to the objectives and refrain from any critical discussions of these objectives that would be deemed as not “ethical” and against UN norms or standards consistent with the ideology of globalism.
That is, if you don’t become a mealy-mouthed shill or quivering parrot of the GC, you will be shut up and agree to be made “ethical.” You won’t mind having a closed mind, or a closed mouth. Not being able to speak your mind is something you won’t miss, if you even had it. 
It will make no difference to you if you will sit alone and mutter to yourself, or sit on the UN’s lap and let the artist flap your gums with a string.
Freedom of Speech? Nah, you’ll think. That’s just swollen-headed, self-important talk by nobodies trying to sound profound and “deep.”  Me? Start a critical discussion, and offend some group or a religion? Don’t make me laugh. I’d never become xenophobic, or intolerant, or racist, or anything so nasty. My limit is my golf scores. I’ll say anything that needs saying.

The Assisted Suicide of Europe

I devoted too little space in my last column, “The Blob and Fake News,”, to the master plan of the UN for world governance, “The “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” which Canada will sign on to. Or, rather, the boy Wonder, JustinTrudeau, will sign on to it.

Trudeau, premier of Canada, opined that national borders are an anachronism and obsolete, and should be abolished.  In “The Blob,” I wrote:
According to Gatestone, in 2015, he said,
“There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. There are shared values –openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.”
Two years later, Salim Mansur at Gatestone reported,
The Canadian government’s recent announcement that it will be providing more than CDN $600 million (USD $455 million) over the next five years to bail out the country’s financially strapped media outlets — as part of the fall fiscal update about the federal budget ahead of the 2019 federal election — is not as innocent as it may seem.
In response to the announcement, the heads of Canada’s media organizations promptly popped open the proverbial champagne and raised their glasses to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Unifor, a national union that represents Canadian journalists, was even more jubilant. It felt vindicated that its slogan of “Resistance” — which it touts as Conservative Party opposition leader Andrew Scheer’s “worst nightmare” — had so swiftly resulted in opening the government’s wallet, and handing out taxpayers’ money, to an industry that should actually be fighting to remain steadfastly independent of any form of government backing.
In effect, Canadian “journalists,” and journalists everywhere, will become the paid shills of the government and its policies of not saying critical things about Islam or Muslims. Furthermore, rolls of duct tape will be readied to silence any such criticism or to quash it before it’s even thought of:
The Global Compact requires the media outlets of member-states to adhere to the objectives and refrain from any critical discussions of these objectives that would be deemed as not “ethical” and against UN norms or standards consistent with the ideology of globalism.
In short, journalists must refrain from pointing out the contradictions, failings, and outright lunacy of the Global Compact, or face punitive consequences. And there will be, of necessity, many failings and anti-reason policies that highlight the irrationality of the GC (Global Compact), given the nature of its “feel good” collectivist altruism. Here is a link to the whole gobbledegook patois word salad. It is written in UNese.
And here is how the GC “plan” opens:
GLOBAL COMPACT FOR SAFE, ORDERLY AND REGULAR MIGRATION
FINAL DRAFT 11 July 2018
Excellency:
We, the Heads of State and Government and High Representatives, meeting in [Marrakesh] Morocco on 10 and 11 December 2018, reaffirming the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and determined to make an important contribution to enhanced cooperation on international migration in all its dimensions, have adopted this Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
“Migration”? Migrants? Refugees? Immigrants?
Austria, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, will not sign the Compact, and the prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, says he will not sign it.  The U.S. withdrew from the Compact in 2017. Stefan Molyneux delivers a thorough parsing of the Compact and what it means, and exposes its hidden meanings, such as the populations or indigenous populations of the countries to which the theoretical 59 million migrants (or immigrants) will be “pulled (to their welfare states), together with the fact that these populations were never consulted about the alleged one-world imperative of signing onto the Compact. Molyneux calls the “Implementation” section of the Compact document a “Doberman-laced wish list.”
He points out that nowhere in the GC is mentioned such things as the infrastructure of the signatory countries, housing, roads, medical facilities, education, translation services, electricity, that is, how are these millions of economic “migrants” are going to be accommodated. Nowhere in it anywhere either is how the billions of dollars will be paid to upkeep and to accommodate the “migrants.” Although it is just assumed that national governments will burden indigenous populations with more taxation or simply skimp on or do away with what they are already paying for, to underwrite the upkeep of millions of “migrants” and the provision of “free stuff.”  Speaking from observation, most of the invading migrants are not expected to contribute to the “sustainability” of any Western nation once once the migrants are on the welfare rolls.
Molyneux emphasizes that while there is a difference between “migrants” – which are illegal and who are basically economic border crossers  (“irregulars”), according to international law – “refugees” seeking asylum from war and oppressive governments are excluded from any concern in the GC. The focus of the GC is almost wholly “immigrants”
Molyneux stresses that the GC “squishes” together the terms “migrants” and “refugees” and makes no real effort to distinguish between the two. The GC states that migration has always been a part of the “human experience,” and that the invasion of “migrants” has always been opposed by indigenous peoples, such as Native Indians, when Europeans settled into North America and revisionist historians focus on how Indians were subjected to persecution and diseases. One instance I would cite is the four separate times Rome was invaded and sacked (in 390 BC, 410, 455, and 546) by barbarians (except that this time they were invited by Angela Merkle, the Swedish government, and Theresa May; “They’re not dangerous!”).
The GC states that:
Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected, and fulfilled at all times. However, migrants and refugees are distinct groups governed by separate legal frameworks. Only refugees are entitled to the specific international protection as defined by international refugee law. The Global Compact refers to migrants and presents a cooperative framework addressing migration in all its dimensions.
But the GC’s focus is on the state of migrants, not on the real or imagined plight of refugees (such as that of Asia Bibi).
In short, the Global Compact is a detailed master plan to swamp Western civilization with a non-stop flow of migrants into our world, and to whom we must defer, sustain and never upbraid or punish for their crimes and parasitism.

Page 2 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén