The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

The Blob and Fake News

First, let us imagine that in Othello, Iago, the villain, invented the “fake news” (or lie) that Desdemona was having an extramarital affair, and that Othello, her husband, believed the lie, and then in a fit of rage, murdered his wife, realizing the lie was a falsehood, only after it was too late to recognize it as “fake news.” Desdemona dies.
That is the story line of Shakespeare’s  play, and it ended in tragedy.  
What in real life will end as a tragedy? Several current developments, including the ravenous appetite of the European Union for total submission of nations to its totalitarian plan for a unified, “borderless” world, submission to Islam, and an abandonment of the victims of Islam and the wolf packs of Sharia. 
As I read the dreary and depressing instances of Western countries submitting to the EU’S attempted and/or successful extortion around the world, and to the EU’s and Islam’s arm-twisting, a horror-science fiction movie I saw at the age of twelve came to mind, “The Blob,” from 1958. Its storyline is fairly simple: ”it  concerns a growing, corrosive, alien amoeboidal entity that crashes to Earth from outer space inside a meteorite. It devours and dissolves citizens in the small communities….” Steve McQueen, in his first feature film, saves the day. His character recommends that the Air Force fly the Blob to the Arctic and drop it into the ice and cold, because The Blob recoils from the cold, and stops it from spreading.
The Blob of world collectivism, however, hasn’t been sunk into the Arctic. It continues to corrode and eat nations. It does not recoil from the cold.
“The “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” which Canada will sign on to, is akin to the Blob, but rather an amoebiodal political entity.  A perfect title for a plan to empower “globalists.” Or shall we call it “The Blob Contract”?
Justin Trudeau, premier of Canada, opined that national borders are an anachronism and obsolete, and should be abolished.
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” 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 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.
Do as I say, and as I do. Or else.
Meanwhile, back in the mother country, in not-so-Great anymore Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May has outperformed Francis Urquhart  of House of Cards (the British version) in the realms of political pragmatism with no evident principles or scruples. She will not allow Asia Bibi, hiding from the slobbering, murderous wolf packs of Pakistani Islam, to find asylum in Britain. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reported on November 25:
The fate of Asia Bibi has pitted Home Secretary Sajid Javid against the Prime Minister, with Mr.  Javid arguing passionately that she should be given refuge in the UK.
But sources say that his plan was thwarted after May was persuaded that letting Bibi claim asylum here would ‘stoke tensions’ among British Muslims….
Our investigation reveals that on the day she was seized by villagers and accused of blasphemy she was paraded through her village with a leather noose around her neck, beaten with sticks by a baying mob during a ‘court’ hearing and told that her life would be spared only if she converted to Islam.
Bibi’s conviction was quashed last month following eight years in solitary confinement after Pakistan’s Supreme Court said the case was based on ‘inconsistent’ evidence.
The acquittal prompted days of demonstrations by thousands of hardline Islamists who demanded she be hanged. Ms Bibi is now in hiding after Imran Khan’s government agreed to allow a petition against the court’s decision as part of a deal to halt the protests….
Some newspapers reported the half-truth about May’s decision.
May has been bought by the EU but paid for by the British taxpayer, given her surrender of Brexit to the autocratic elitists of the EU. Freedom Outpost reports that May is in tacit agreement with Angela Merkle of Germany:
Merkel encouraged countries to prepare themselves to make concessions in an “orderly procedure,” referring to the EU as the “greatest parliament in the world. The event titled “Parliamentarianism Between Globalisation and National Sovereignty” didn’t draw a very big crowd.  Take a look. She told the event, titled ‘Parliamentarianism Between Globalisation and National Sovereignty’: “In this day nation states must today – should….
“But of course in an orderly procedure.”
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.”
Finally the House of Commons in Britain will debate the totalitarian idea of punishing anyone guilty of committing “Islamaphobia.
Several titled persons debated the question, as reported by Hansard (the official journal of the British Parliament beginning in the 18th century, I discuss it in Sparrowhawk). Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth,  said:
My Lords, we are clear that hatred and intolerance against Muslims have absolutely no place in our society. Any criminal offence that is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s religion or perceived religion is a religious hate crime. The Government do not currently endorse a particular definition of Islamophobia. Previous attempts by others to define this term have not succeeded in attracting consensus or widespread acceptance.
Lord Singh of Winbledon volunteered his two pence worth:
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, has rightly drawn our attention to the vagueness of the term Islamophobia. I add a point that concerns me: the culture of victimhood that it can easily lead to, which is not very healthy. There is also the way in which figures for crimes against other people are included in the statistics for Islamophobia—up to one-third, according to a freedom of information request. But the greatest concern is that this sort of thing does not really tackle the underlying issue of hate crime, which arises out of ignorance and prejudice. It is there at all levels of society, and we are doing very little to combat it. [Baroness Warsi is a Muslim. My brackets]
It is a common notion today that victims of “hate crime” must “perceive” it as such. And also that SJWs hostile to Ice and other Trump insist that spokesmen “perceive” reality through a subjective lens, preferably of those making an accusation of wrong-doing.
Observe how Senator Kamala Harris grills a candidate head of ICE:
After a brief history lesson on the tactics of the Klan, Harris grilled the acting director of ICE on his ability to notice the “perception” of the agency he is charged to run.
“Are you aware of the perception of many about how the power and the discretion at ICE is being used to enforce the laws? And do you see any parallels?” Harris asked.
“I do not see a parallel between the power and the authority that ICE has to do its job and the agents and officers who do it professionally and excellently with lots of compassion,” Vitiello said. “There’s a lot of perceptions in the media and in the public that are incorrect about the agency and what it does.”

Harris also lashed out at Vitiello for interrupting her.

Perception is a Kantian notion bandied about at every opportunity in current politics. Things can be whatever one wants them to be. But they will be whatever an accuser says they must be. If you disagree with my perception, you must be a racist.
Flesh-eating Blobs like Kamala Harris can be great fellows, they say. The concept of “hate crime,” or “hate speech” can be a boon and an asset in anyone’s quest to destroy freedom of speech and reality. Her perceptions can never be incorrect. Incorrectness, after all, is just a “perception.” So are facts.

Previous

Universal Censorship

Next

The Assisted Suicide of Europe

3 Comments

  1. Rob McVey

    Ed, Your link only opens my personal gmail. Do you have a link straight to source?

    Thanks.

  2. www.77yum.com

    中古車貸
    車貸
    銀行汽車增貸
    車貸官方網站
    銀行汽車貸款10-150萬
    汽車二胎貸款‎
    汽車貸款查詢

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén