The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Censorship by Commission and Omission

Censorship
by omission

can only be committed by a government, and for legitimate or illegitimate
reasons. A legitimate reason is withholding information from the public if in
the public are enemy agents whose own government would benefit from the
knowledge. A nation doesn’t need to be at active war to censor information its
government might otherwise release to the public.
An
illegitimate reason is to defraud the public, to portray the economy as better
than it is, to gloss over government failures that were taxpayer supported, to lie
to the public, to lead the public to believe that certain things are true or
untrue. Illegitimate censorship by omission can show up in official government
reports of the gross national product, reports of global climate change, the
actual debt ceiling, and so on.

Every
press conference held at the White House since Barack Obama’s accession has
been a sometimes-successful, off-times not, exercise in duplicity,
fabrications, lies, waffling, and misinformation. It has never mattered who was
speaking: Obama, his press secretary, or anyone else at the podium.
Illegitimate
censorship can also take the form of actions taken to suppress information
about certain things that the public has a right to know, such as the peril
posed by Islam and a massive influx of Muslim “refugees” or “asylum seekers.” A
government can suppress or simply outlaw criticism or “negative” statements by
members of the public about Muslims (or Latinos).
The
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
(1971) has no definition of censorship
per se, but refers one to the title of censor.
2.  One who exercises official or officious
supervision over morals and conduct.
    b. 
An official in some countries whose duty it is to inspect all books, journals,
dramatic pieces etc. before publication, to secure that they shall contain
nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive to the government.
  The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary
(1956) defines such a person as:
2.  One who acts as an overseer of morals and
conduct; esp.: a An official
empowered to examine written or printed matter, motion pictures, etc., in order
to forbid publication if objectionable.
That
being said, private organizations cannot exercise censorship. They can,
however, practice “censorship” by omission. The news media, including
newspapers and television news reports, especially when it concerns crimes
committed by Muslims, or just the general perception of Islam itself, regularly
choose to omit information about whether or not a stabbing spree was motivated
by a fealty to Islamic doctrine to kill Jews and other infidels. It is usually
the case that such criminals are portrayed as “disturbed” or even a “victim” of
Islamophobia. The Swedish and British news media are notorious for glossing
over the ethnic or religious identities of rapists and other criminals in those
countries.
For
example, the recent stabbing spree by a freshman college student at the
University of California-Merced was not designated an act of terrorism, even though
such attacks have occurred by the dozen over the last few weeks, in Israel, in
Egypt, in Europe. Pamela
Geller
of Atlas Shrugs wrote;
But the authorities assure us
it’s not terrorism. Notice that ABC News buries the lede and only mentions it at
the very end of the article.  
One
must ask oneself: Do Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke,who deemed it not an act
of terrorism, and UC Merced Chancellor Dorothy Leland, not watch the news? Are
they completely oblivious to what has been happening around the world? Geller
reposted, the ABC report:
UC Merced Chancellor Dorothy
Leland says personal animosities, not a political agenda, motivated 18-year-old
Faisal Mohammad from Santa Clara in Wednesday’s multiple stabbings on the
school’s campus. Authorities say the stabbing of four people at UC Merced was
not related to terrorism.
The Merced County Sheriff’s
Office said the coroner was performing an autopsy and found the suspects
manifesto on him.
According to the sheriff the
suspect intended to shoot people, attack a police officer and had a specific
target in mind who had kicked him out of a study group. The suspect listed
students by name. He had planned to tie students to desks and draw out police
to steal a gun and shoot people. The sheriff said this is not terrorism, just a
step above a high school grudge, but the suspect did praise Allah in his
writings.
Apparently Faisal Mohammad was watching the news. Was mention of
Allah in the manifesto coincidental, or was it part and parcel the excuse for a
Muslim to go on a rampage because he was “angry.” ISIS
praised the stabber and hoped “Allah will accept him.”
Faisal Mohammad, who was
killed by University of California Merced police, was described by at least one
witness as smiling as he slashed at victims, called a loner by a fellow dorm
resident and drew praise Thursday from a Twitter account associated with ISIS,
which just last week released a series of videos calling for lone wolf stabbing
attacks.
“May
Allah accept him,” read a tweet in Arabic from a Twitter account that terrorism
experts say has carried previous ISIS propaganda, just minutes after Mohammad’s
name was divulged by campus authorities.
Was
Sheriff Warnke under orders to “de-link” the incident from terrorism? Or was
that an example of his own dhimmitude?
Whatever his reason, he chose to send viewers off in an entirely different
direction. Islam must be defended at all costs, even at the price of the truth
about its standard operating procedure. Mohammad was also on the FBI’s
terror watch list
for over six months, it has come to light. Warnke and the
UC Chancellor had been briefed on the development, yet chose to deny that the
stabber had any Islamic terror motivations.
The
Blaze
reveals what was found in Mohammad’s “manifesto.”
The document also included
several references to Allah, the sheriff said. Warnke, however, stressed
that there was “still nothing to indicate” Mohammad’s Muslim religion had
anything to do with his motive. He compared the references made to Allah to a Christian
making references to Jesus before carrying out a life-changing decision.
University officials have
also said that there is no evidence to believe it was “in any way related to
terrorism.” Instead, officials continue to stress all signs point to a
disgruntled student taking extreme revenge on those he felt betrayed by.
The
practice by the news media of denying any role of Islamic terrorism, or of
omitting any mention of it, especially when evidence of it is abundantly clear,
or of dismissing any evidence of a jihadi
motivation, and instead ascribing criminal actions to factors other than jihad or terrorism, is so ubiquitous in
the American news media that it would be pointless to bring up more instances.
One encounters them as often as one reads about Islamic terrorism, which is
virtually every day. 
The Germans are at it again.
The
German government has decided to replace the term “Islamophobia” with
“xenophobia.” On September 19th, Breitbart UK ran this not-so-startling story,
German
Govt Hires Ex-Stati Agent to Patrol Facebook of ‘Xenophobic

Comments.’  Donna Rachel Edmunds wrote:
Determined to see his fellow
Germans embrace their new multicultural homeland, Justice Minister Heiko Maas
has decided to crack down on those citizens who criticise the influx,
especially those who take to their own private Facebook accounts to do so. Maas
has recruited the help of an organisation – Network Against Nazis (Netz Gegen
Nazis, or NAN) – to aid him in his crackdown. NAN was founded by, and according to it’s
website
works in partnership with, the Amaedu Antonio Foundation, run by Anetta Kahane, who between 1974 and 1982 worked for the Stasi under the code name ‘Victoria’.
If
you’re going to do it right and impose really effective censorship, why not
hire a former spy for the Stasi, the German Democratic Republic’s secret
police?
Last week Maas wrote to
Richard Allen, Facebook’s public policy director, who is based in Dublin,
to complain that not enough was being done to root out “xenophobic” comments on
the social media site, Deutsche Welle reported.
The implementation of
community standards “can apparently not be relied on,” Maas said, “even though
many posts contain comments that constitute the criminal offense of incitement
to hatred.” He reminded Facebook of its legal obligation to delete posts which
fall foul of the law.
Haas insisted that he did not
oppose free speech, but went on to add: “The Internet, however, is not a
legal vacuum in which racist incitement and criminal utterances can be
spread in an uncontrolled manner. In the case of internet users who propagate
xenophobia and offensive racism, we must not mistakenly apply tolerance.”
Community
standards? Whose community standards? What precisely are “racial incitement”
and “criminal utterances”? Haas isn’t against free speech, but: We must have discipline!! We can’t have
people communicating their utterances and fears and dislikes and trepidations
to one another! Germans must voluntarily embrace their “new multicultural
homeland,” or be punished for not welcoming their subjugation with open arms.

Anetta
Kahane, by the way, has become an advocate for “immigrants’ rights.” She
reveals – and revels in – her miserable little soul and hopes you become just
as pathetic.
Kahne has also made it clear
that she believes in a borderless world, telling
RT
“Immigration is the future. You have to adapt the educational system,
and adapt the self-understanding of the states [so that citizens understand]
they are not anymore only white or only Swedish or only Portuguese or only
German. They are multicultural places in [a globalised] world.”
In
short, people must be brainwashed and conditioned to accept their new
second-class status under Islam and the German state. Muslims’ freedom of
speech is sacrosanct; yours is not. You cannot say that about Muslims or Islam; however, they can say whatever they
wish about you. That has been the media’s and the government’s rule-of-thumb
for decades.
And also the faux French of Quebec.
On
November 6th, The Gates of
Vienna
ran another interesting and revealing piece about Canada’s “great
leap forward” under the stewardship of Justin Trudeau, the socialist Islam lover
who has replaced Stephen Harper as prime minister. The article, by Vlad Tepes,
a Canadian, was introduced by “Baron Bodissey.”
We’ve reported in the past on
a pernicious piece of legislation known as Bill
59
, which is up before the legislature in Quebec and is considered likely
to become law. It effectively implements UN
Resolution 16/18
in Quebec, criminalizing “the call to hate, demonize, and
dehumanize certain groups”. We all know what the “certain groups” will be, and
I can guarantee they won’t include any Anabaptists or Amish.
With Justin “Baby Doc”
Trudeau now in charge of piloting the Canadian ship of state, we can also
expect that Bill 59 will eventually be extended to the entire Canadian
commonwealth and become the law of the land. Like the Human Rights Commissions,
only statutorily-based. Vlad
Tepes
, who lives in Ottawa just a stone’s throw from Modern Multicultural
Quebec, is considering possible workarounds in anticipation of the day when
government agencies start blocking certain websites. Below are excerpts from
his post about virtual private networks:
Liberal
politicians, anti-“white privilege” activists, screaming wannabe totalitarians,
Muslim “civil rights” groups, the United Nations, the Organization
for Islamic Cooperation
(the OIC),
and other hostiles have been edging closer and closer to censoring and
regulating the Internet, their calls and demands becoming shriller by the year.
As passage of Quebec’s
totalitarian bill C-59 looms imminent, it becomes more and more important how a
free person, in what must remain a free nation, can obtain information that
allows them to make freely made choices. Quebec Canada may be the first nation
to pass a law such as this which forces a certain set of behaviours at the
front end, instead of the more typical rear end approach used by most
oligarchies where a person who doesn’t think the right thoughts or say the
right things is put in a gulag or imprisoned in re-education facilities like
China does etc., but it won’t be the last.
Germany has already brought
on a czar who will monitor the internet for people resistant to the Merkel plan
for national self-destruction. So how can a free people remain free to access
the information they need to guarantee freedom of decisions for themselves,
their families and their futures?
Tepes
then provides much helpful information and a selection of “Virtual Private
Networks” (VPNs) sites, and concludes on this note:
This is something I would
attend to rather sooner than later. Once Bill 59 comes in, rumor has it that
Quebec will instruct all Internet Service Providers to block certain sites from
its customers. A VPN will get around that without a problem for the user. My
guess is Canada, Germany and Sweden and probably Norway will follow suit right
after. A term of Hillary Clinton in the US likely will as well. Average cost
for a professional VPN with good user interface and support is around
$5.00/month. Have one beer at home instead of out and you cover it.
All
you liberty-minded knuckle-draggers out there! You must make room for the new Master Race. Islam isn’t a race, of
course, but its supremacist adherents treat all non-Muslims as though they were
an inferior race destined to be dominated, enslaved, and even exterminated
should they balk at becoming submissive dhimmis. But the first step is to shut
you all up, to ensure that you cannot communicate your thoughts and words to
others (that is the chief purpose of
censorship), and then to drill it through your thick skulls that sedition and
the transmission of offensive and objectionable speech will not be tolerated.
All
we’re asking is that you tolerate the intolerable.

Previous

The Know Nothings

Next

A Troopship of the European Apocalypse II

5 Comments

  1. Rob McVey

    Ed,
    Here in Canada it's worse than your note about Quebec's bill 59. About 3 decades ago our constitutional authority was patriated from Britain; in order to get all provinces to buy into it a "notwithstanding' clause was added, in case a law or ruling was disliked. You can call that a 'pretend-standard.' Sure enough chickens came home a-roostin.

    Quebec's precedent to bill 59 is bill 101 rendering English to dhimmi status in an officially bilingual (equal status) country. Our Supreme Court (SCC) ruled against bill 101, but Quebec trumped with the chicken 'notwithstanding' suit. Quebec even have a bureaucracy to enforce the superiority of French, with the vulgar name, "Language Police."

    Prime Minister to preside over the patriation was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Liberal and father to the current PM, Justin who, also no surprise is Liberal — well on the way to nihilism.

    When these issues arise in news I've noted the contradictions to freedom and point out that Cdn institutions have adopted de facto the Islamic totalitarian standards, along with the sharia enforcers, like this:

    There's a parallel term for "Language Police" — since they both address the restriction of freedom — more thoroughly ensnaring freedoms. That term is from the worldview of Islam, referring to the enforcers for "'the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices' which serves as the infrastructure of proselytization and enforcement of Islamic tenets." [Wikipedia]

    Sounds (!) like just what is needed in the coercive land of la francophonie. Call them "mutaween."

    — Rob McVey, T4B

  2. Edward Cline

    Mr. McVey: Thank you for your comments. I was a little hazy on recent Canadian history, but you've enlightened me. Every statist act and combination of such acts all seem to be coming to fruition. What are your thoughts on Obama's "election" team helping to defeat Harper? There are only rumors of that blatant interference down here.

  3. Roxanne

    Sins of Omission, yes, that is what the media, and sheriffs do now. But it's also an instance of dis-integration. Man's method of survival is his mind. And integrating all new facts into one's mind, one's context of knowledge held, is the process of thinking.

    To voluntarily refuse to think, i.e., to dis-integrate the facts of a Muslim killing non-Muslims as a hostile, political act, and as an overt attack on non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslim, is the refusal to think. Ayn Rand said, the refusal to think is the fundamental evil act.

  4. Edward Cline

    Roxanne: I think she put it this way: The refusal to think is the original sin.

  5. Rob McVey

    Ed, On your question of Obama as electioneering anti-Harper: In Canada the MSM are lefty-liberal, on Liberals and Dems side as anti-Harper. Ergo you'd find it difficult there to counter the status of 'rumours.'

    However, there are non-MSM reports of U.S. interference; try this sample at
    http://www.therebel.media/leadnow

    U.S. interference is much more prevalent in anti-industry, anti-oil in particular, such as in support of climate control. Vivian Krause is getting a reputation for unearthing the U.S. money trails. I see her in National Post.

    — Rob McVey, T4B

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén