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.