Posts Tagged ‘censorship’

AMERICANS?

Monday, December 7th, 2015

Especially you who are young consider the following words:
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” -John 8:32

Be aware that your elders on both The Left and The Right are lying to you by both commission and omission. In a survey, variations of the excerpt below, for example, were removed from commentary on a number of web-sites including Financial Times, National Review Online, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR. (See “Censorship, Everyone?” below.) The excerpt merely quotes the Mohammedans’ own bible, The Koran, and elaborates upon that which is written therein. It ends by asking questions based directly thereupon.

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.” -The Recital (The Koran), Repentance 9:123

Ask yourselves, What affrights these periodicals? The truth?

Consider an excerpt borrowed from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences, that reads as follows:
“Islam represents a religion of war not peace.  Its prophet, Mohammed, is quoted in the Koran to the effect that any person or nation failing to submit to the Koran is a sinner.  According to the Koran, each and every Mohammedan, therefore, has the right to wage war against these alleged sinners and, by doing so, to make prisoners and slaves of them.  If killed while waging such war, a Mohammedan will enjoy the certain fate of entering Heaven.

Based upon the Koran itself, one can make a case that its believers have no place in a free, democratic, and non-theocratic society.  After World War II, the United States of America outlawed the Communist Party based upon such issues.

How can authorities discriminate those “moderate Mohammedans” who neither would wage religious war against the United States nor support such a war by deed or by thought from the tens of millions of those who would?  Not by asking!  Requesting a Mohammedan to pledge secular allegiance amounts to merely a futile exercise given that his religion encourages him to lie in order to further conquest in its name.

Should those already having emigrated to American shores be deported as having sworn allegiance under false pretenses?  [See, for example, Ben Hammad, AR: The Religion of Truth.  Riyadh, KSA: The General Presidency of Islamic Researches, Ifta, and Propagation (1991).]  By its own admission, Mohammedanism leaves no room for apostasy (‘Apostasy from Islam is a grievous crime punishable by death.’) and little room for idolatry [‘… he should pay tribute to Muslims readily and submissively, surrender to Islamic laws, and should not practise his polytheistic (e.g., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; added) rituals openly’].  Accordingly, can any Mohammedan safely be granted citizenship or even legal residence?”

Remember that, contrary to the bleating of the historical revisionists, these United States of America were founded as a Christian nation. What sayeth the Koran about Christianity? Consider the following:
“Those who say, ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth split asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of Mercy to beget one!” -The Recital (The Koran), Mary: 19:88

So, what to do? Therein lies the heart of the matter — a matter that stretches backwards centuries. Consider the following words from more than a century ago:
“Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.” -President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)

As stated, these United States were joined by a common Christian, Euro-Caucasian heritage — primarily Anglo-Saxon in origin. Such heritage is an anathema to Mohammedans, especially those whom Big Media labels “radicals” and “extremists”. In reality, they simply are orthodox in their orientation and possess the will to fight and die for their convictions. Let those who say otherwise read The Koran!

Have you read the Koran, or do you gullibly take the word of Big Government and Big Media as to that which it actually preaches?

The Mohammedans’ commitment to their convictions raises the question, Are we Americans willing to fight and to die for our convictions? By the way, what are our convictions?

What are your convictions? That which is based upon the biased propaganda of those who want only to indoctrinate you with their own ideologies? That which you have concluded on your own after personal inquiry and discovery?

If you have not read the Koran, you speak from ignorance and indoctrination. Read the Koran!

As is written in the Mohammedans’ bible, were their Shariah Law to govern these United States, we “infidels” would have the choice either to submit or to die.  We, however, do not live under Shariah Law.

So again, what to do? Consider the following words:
“Sharp wounds cleanse away evil;
So do stripes that reach the inward parts.” -The Hebraic Bible, Proverbs 20:30

Science tells us, “Every discrimination carries with it an implied set of instructions.”

“Harold, the light turned red!” his wife screamed. In the context of driving a car, that discrimination about the red light in a traffic-signal carries with it the instruction for Harold to depress the braking pedal.

In the context of a non-Mohammedan nation such as ours, the discrimination of citing that which the Mohammedans themselves say also carries with it an implied set of instructions. That set simply says, “Fight or lose your way of life and possibly your life itself.”

American youth have most to lose. You who are among that demographic may wish to think before submitting to the lies, deceit, and indoctrination of those who feel affrighted by the truth — those on both The Left and The Right. Their words and actions are guided by avarice and cowardice.

“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

Revolt? How?

By thinking for yourselves? By demanding the truth? By bringing your behavior under the control not of antecedent, ideological claptrap but of real consequences that will determine the rest of your lives — consequences that represent the truth? In this age of creeping tyranny — economic, political, and sociological — doing so, indeed, may seem revolutionary.

Youth represents the future. Youth holds the lasting power. If American youths elect to use it, let them remember, unlike many of their elders, to use it wisely.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

CENSORSHIP HARD & SOFT

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

“You neglected to mention that, for 20 years, Obama and his wife, both with documented Marxist backgrounds, listen to their Negroid pastor scream, ‘God d*mn America!’”

Should this comment have been censored by a member of Big Media? Should its author forever have been banned?

censor: (noun) an official who examines material that is to be published and suppresses parts considered offensive or a threat to security; (verb) to suppress or remove unacceptable parts of a book, film, etc. –Oxford University Dictionary

“He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” – George Orwell (1903-1950)

Censorship comes in two, basic forms — hard and soft. Different in form, their consequences are similar.

Hard occurs when it is a government that officially bans free speech and prosecutes those who violate that ban. Such was the case in Nazified Germany and the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Soft occurs when it is public-oriented but private entities, such as Big Media, that explicitly or implicitly conspire to suppress free speech. Such is the case today in many Western countries including the United States of America; witness, for example, the persecuting context characterizing Big Academia.

In 2012, the censors at Reuters banned us for posting a comment that they found disagreeable or offensive even though it contained no profanity, no obscenity, no personal insult, no call to violence, nor any criticism of anyone not in the public light. Reuters furnished no reason. http://nationonfire.com/category/uncategorized/page/3/

Subsequently, the censors at Red State (a conservative, Republican-oriented website) banned us for posting a comment or comments that they found disagreeable or offensive even though none contained profanity, obscenity, personal insult, call to violence, or any criticism of anyone not in the public light. As had Reuters, Red State gave no reason, nor were we able to uncover one from the website.

Then, late last year Financial Times banned us. Below is the admittedly somewhat-jumbled correspondence with FT (personal identities and case number redacted). Judge for yourself the following:

From Financial Times (10/17/2014):
We have removed an offensive comment that you posted on our site.

Such contributions are not welcome on ft.com and breach our commenting rules.

We have banned you from commenting as a result. From now on, only you will be able to see the comments that you post.

Yours,
FT.com

To Financial Times (10/20/2014):
Subject: Banned

I received an e-mail advising me that I have been banned by FT from making comments that can be read by other viewers; however, I may make comments that can be read only by me. I hereby request that you confirm the veracity of said e-mail. If it is valid, I hereby request that you
send me a copy of the comment(s) that were deemed to be offensive and to explain in what way you found them offensive.

From Financial Times (10/20/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…63. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (10/22/2014):
Thank you for contacting Financial Times Customer Service.

We apologise as we do not have the information on our end but we have raised you query to our Editorial Team. We’ll send you feedback as soon as we get updates from the Editorial Department.

In the meantime, should you have any questions or require further assistance, then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,
Financial Times Customer Service – FT.com

 From Financial Times (10/22/2014):
Thank you for contacting Financial Times Customer Service.

We apologise for the inconvenience that this may have caused you.

Every FT.com subscription is bounded (sic) by our terms and condition. We have received a copy of the deleted comment the (sic) you requested from our Editorial Team. Please see attached file.

[FT Attached File With “Offensive” Verbiage as follows:
@LMB You neglected to mention that, for 20 years, Obama and his wife, both with documented Marxist backgrounds, listen to their Negroid pastor scream, “God d*mn (asterisk used by us as is commonly done in quoting profanity) America!”]

Flagged as strong profanity by SAFE
Moved to trash by … , FT

To Financial Times (10/23/2014):
Subject: Re: Case … Comments Query

Sir,
Firstly, did I write anything that was untrue, profane, obscene, or defaming of a private individual?

Secondly, you misuse the term, discrimination,* as do many. Without the capacity to discriminate, (e.g., food from poison; friend from foe) all animal life on Earth quickly would perish. I believe that you mean “denigrate” or “demean”.

Thirdly, do you regard Negro, the correct noun (Negroid being the correct adjective) biologically/medically, as being denigrating or demeaning? Until recently, the term, black, was regarded by those to whom it refers as an insult, their preferring either Negro or colored  (e.g., The United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). You seem to be tripping over your own editorial policy.

Fourthly, am I still banned from commenting publicly?

(*Note: Term used in “Terms and conditions” published by FT.)

From Financial Times (10/24/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…36. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (10/30/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…25. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (10/31/2014):
Thank you for your response.

We apologise for the delay of our response as we have already forwarded your concern to our Editorial Team and we’re waiting for their response/explanation as to why your comments were deleted. As of the moment we do not have the answer if your username is still banned from commenting publicly in FT.com. We will send you feedback as soon as we get updates from the Editorial team.

We understand that this is important to you and we appreciate your patience on this one.

In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us again should you have additional queries.

Kind regards,
Financial Times Customer Service – FT.com

From Financial Times (11/07/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…18. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (11/13/2014)*:
Thank you for your time earlier. We will process your cancellation as requested.

We have scheduled cancellation of your subscription upon the end of your current term of 18 December 2014.

You will still be able to use your log in details to access registration-only tools and features but will no longer have unlimited access to FT.com articles.

I trust that we have resolved your query and will now be closing this case.

If you would like to discuss renewal options that may be available to you, then please do let us know and a member of our Customer Service Team will be happy to go through these with you.

Should you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,
Financial Times Customer Service – FT

*After telephonic conversation cancelling our subscription.

From Financial Times (11/13/2014):
We would like to invite you to participate in a short survey to tell us about your recent contact with our Customer Service team. Your feedback is important to us.

 To take part in the survey, please click on the link below:
http://www. … .

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

Discussion
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” -Edmund Burke (1729-1787)

Sadly — nay, frighteningly — an evil fog of soft tyranny is enveloping the United States of America. It is an oppressive mixture of political, economic, and sociological toxins. Censorship by Big Media represents but one example.

As to the particulars, admittedly Red State is a website of opinion — conservatively-oriented if not fully Republican. Its censorship raises questions. Does it banning us without stated reason represent the point of view of conservatives or Republicans as a political party? Are these folks surreptitiously in favor of suppressing speech that they regard as disagreeable or offensive even be it true, correct, and relevant? If so, what does such censorship say to those Americans who regard themselves as conservatives and/or Republicans or to those who merely vote Republican?

Financial Times and Reuters, however, do not present themselves as merely organs of opinion but of facts offered as “news”. FT even posts its banner as “Without Fear Or Favour”.

“Because I make you feel bad doesn’t make you right.” -Current Saying

Of note, after all the correspondence from FT, we never received a reply regarding the status of the ban. We understand that it remains in effect. Moreover, why would anyone want to post a comment that only he could read, pursuant to the offered restriction by FT?

To whom was the single sentence in question so “offensive”? What made it so offensive? Was the posting untrue? Was the posting so “offensive” that its author should be banned from FT for life instead of merely deleting the posted comment?

These two organs of Big Media promote themselves as conduits of “news”. They ban requested comments that they find disagreeable or offensive even be they true, correct, and relevant — comments without profanity, obscenity, personal insult, or calls to violence; comments with criticism of only public figures; comments factually true and correct. How does that censorship reflect upon their reporting? Are they to be trusted to report “news” truthfully and totally without fear or favor?

“Fire!”

In the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Founding Fathers protected freedom of speech — primarily political speech. A question arises therefrom. Is any sort of censorship of any sort of speech by any entity, public or private, ever justified? Should anyone be allowed to say any thing at any time no matter what the consequences; for example, intentionally and falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater? The U.S. Supreme Court rightly has ruled no.

Censorship, however, is to a society similar to that which seasoning is to a stew. In small amount, an asset and legitimate protection. Beyond a small amount, a liability and illegitimate oppression.

Clearly, being private entities, FT and Reuters have the right to ban whomever and censor whatever they wish and appear to be doing so albeit in a manner that appears more than slightly arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious. Conversely, those who avail themselves of their censored offerings have the right to judge for themselves whether these organizations are exceeding the bounds of censorship appropriate and reasonable; and they, too, have a right — perhaps, a duty to humanity, their nation, and themselves — to act accordingly.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” -Traditional Saying

Let us not forget “B =f(x) under c”. Behavior has its consequences in a given context (www.inescapableconsequences.com). Let us not forget that the consequence of a behavioral deficit in vigilance and acting therefrom is tyranny.

BANNED BY REUTERS

Monday, April 30th, 2012

“Sorry, but this account has been banned from posting comments”
– Reuters (17APR2012)

Note: This posting an an additional week. An excerpt from an e-mail in response appears below as well as a comment that we ourselves posted on the edition of 03MAY2012 of The Wall Street Journal.)

euphemism: (noun) a mild or less direct word substituted for one that is harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

censor: (noun) an official who examines material that is to be published and suppresses parts considered offensive or a threat to security; (verb) to suppress or remove unacceptable parts of a book, film, etc.
Oxford University Dictionary

As America evolves into what many view as the New America . . . an America characterized by increasing political, economic, and social tyranny, euphemisms become increasingly commonplace. Take the issue of censorship, for example.

Traditionally, Americans have viewed censors and their work skeptically. So, what’s a censor to do? Simple . . .  invoke a euphemism; call censors by another, less threatening name, such as “moderators”.

Yet, to paraphrase Shakespeare, would not a sewer by any other name smell as foul? Not to worry. Given that the now-censored item will not appear, who’s to know that it has been censored . . . unless, perchance, someone publicizes the censorship?

Such appears to be the case with Reuters. The organization bills itself as an informational service. Its web-site claims to offer readers the opportunity to comment on the various postings, including under a section entitled “Opinion”. Reuters, thereby, projects the appearance of allowing freedom of expression, presumably within reasonable limits, to readers who wish to comment on the postings. A question arises, however. Is the appearance ingenuous or disingenuous?

Over time, one reader has attempted to comment on different Reuters-hosted postings, including blogs . . . sometimes successfully, sometimes not. None contained profanity. None contained obscenity. While perhaps provocative and critical, none contained name-calling. None incited to violence. None included “hate language”. All adhered to common decency.(1)

Some comments were allowed. Some were censored.

Eventually, the reader accumulated a “score” that exceeded the censors’ allowable limit. Poof! Banned by Reuters.

Admittedly, Reuters is a private organization. Accordingly, it rightfully can and does censor anything that its officers want to censor.

Yet, Reuters purports to supply news-based information that conforms reasonably to the truth. That it would censor the same kind of comments that other, major news-organizations allow raises a second question. To what extent does Reuters censor or manipulate the news-based information that it offers?

Take, for example, the news about Israel. On the Internet, Reuters has been castigated for allegedly adopting a biased, unfounded, and hateful stance towards the Jewish state . . . a stance that violates the same standard that it imposes upon its readers’ comments.(2)

As for other, similar readers banned by Reuters, should they regard the banishments as insults or  compliments? Whatever the case, a third question arises. Does such censorship say less about those and more about Reuters?

Censorship is, as they say, a tickly bender. It is especially problematic when practiced by informational organizations such as Reuters, in which case readers can vote with their feet, so to speak. It is dangerous when practiced by governments, in which case citizens likely have fewer and less powerful options.

Yet, what would be the consequences of creating a social context in which no censorship exists, at all? Would it be a world in which you’d want to live? If not, a fourth question arises. When to censor the censors(www.inescapableconsequences.com)?

Notes
1) The following are contents of the last three comments submitted by said reader and “moderated” by Reuters :

A) Comment in reply to a posting about “stress tests” applied to banks:

Few people, including most psychiatrists, can discriminate between stress and strain; thereby, incorrectly using the two terms interchangeably. The term to which Mr. Currie refers actually is strain not stress. Remember, words are important; words can kill.

In physical science, stress is any force that changes an object. Strain is the change.

The issue in question is, given application of a specified stress to a bank, what strain does it generate? The answer is, Who knows?

Why? Because to believe the strain announced, you must believe politicians’ and bureaucrats’ pronouncements.

“Why not?” you might ask.

“Remember Dexia!” one might answer.

Context and consequences. Governmental politicians and bureaucrats provide the economic context in which private bankers operate.

The consequential goal for politicians is to have gotten re-elected. That for bureaucrats is to have protected and promoted their bureaucracy. That for bankers is to have remained in business and to have maximized profits. Now, given the context and consequences, can you predict their respective behaviors regarding so-called Stress Tests.

The ultimate message? 1) Specify context and consequences. 2) Trust no one … especially politicians and bureaucrats … oh yes, and lawyers. (15MAR2012)

B) Comment in reply to a posting about Electronic Medical Records:

As the old saying goes, the future is hard to predict. Furthermore, what seems obvious, often ain’t.

Take Continuing Medical Education (CME), for example. Politicians forcing physicians to certify a minimal number of hours per annum of medical education supplied by approved purveyors created a new industry consuming physicians’ time and money. Yet, who could argue with the concept?

Well, the consequences haven’t met expectations. There’s not a shred of evidence that CME has led to improved human efficiency with regard to medical care. Still, it continues.

Can we generalize that finding to Electronic Medical Records (EMR’s)? Who knows?

In some areas, such as legible prescriptions, EMR’s do seem to improve efficiency. The question, nevertheless, remains, Will the overall benefits outweigh the liabilities? No one knows. Ultimately, the answer will be found in assessing the long-term consequences of employing the dual-edge tool of EMR’s with regard to human efficiency in its broadest sense. (08MAR2012)

C) Comment in reply to a posting by Mr. And Mrs. Welch about Dr. Ron Paul’s candidacy:

Contrary to Mr. and Mrs. Welch’s implication, the consequence of Don Quixote’s mission was not to leave a trail of destructive madness but to leave a trail of people the better for having had their lives touched by his, even Sancho Panza. Perhaps, something of the same can be said for Dr. Paul. Can the same be said for Jack Welch?

As the Welches predict, Dr. Paul may fail to be elected president, but, unlike every other candidate, he speaks what he believes and acts accordingly. Whether one agrees with the Doctor’s position on every issue, one likely would admit that he is not a tool of the Big Government-Big Business-Big Media troika. Can the same be said for Jack Welch?

The Welches easily may dismiss Dr. Paul’s chances, but they can’t dismiss as easily the issues that he addresses without equivocation. No, the Doctor won’t lie to get elected. No, he won’t change his message to suit each crowd along the way. Yes, he has consistent principles. Can the same be said for Jack Welch?

One might not agree with Dr. Paul on every point. So? If elected, given his scientific background gained in becoming a physician, should he employ the Scientific Method to resolve problematic issues, he could make the kind of president whom this nation hasn’t seen since Cal Coolidge in 1928. Can the same be said for Jack Welch?

What the Welches preach seems to be pragmatic politics as usual; however, it’s not what this country needs. Dr. Paul comes a lot closer to filling that bill than does any other, current candidate or the incumbent himself. Too bad for the USA that the voters likely will listen to the sort of advice that the Welches blithely belch forth, likely will vote for a pragmatic politician whom the Welches admire for his sharp practices, and definitely will suffer the inescapable consequences of that behavior while the Welches enjoy the comforts bestowed by the kind of people whom they promote. (29JAN2012)

E-mail from a reader: I re-read your Reuter’s Censoring Post, including your
response to the Jack Welch post. That’s what got you censored. He is one powerful Con Man. In Satyajit Das’s recent book, “Extreme Money”, he exposes Jack Welch, as a master manipulator and I’m sure that one email from him to Reuter’s would have cut you off.

2)  Ironically, the organization was founded by Baron De Reuter (1816–1899), born a Germanic Jew named Israel Beer Josafat whose father was a rabbi but who himself, after emigrating to England, converted to Christianity, adopting the name Reuter.

The following is a posting from the edition of 03MAY2012 of The Wall Street Journal:

CENSORSHIP THINLY-VEILED?

“He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.”
– George Orwell

Censorship is growing. Just today in the WSJ (page A3), an article reports on attempted governmental censorship of scientific publications; an ominous sign.

Censorship always is a tickly bender. When private companies practice it, often under the euphemism of “moderating”, their doing so is suspect. When governments do it, usually under the euphemism of protecting “national security”, their doing so always is dangerous and often self-serving.

The basic issue in these proceedings may be less the questionable actions of the Murdochs along with a few of their employees and more the repressive actions of politicians along with their many bureaucrats, actions that threaten not only individual privacy but liberty itself. As it has been noted many times, the price of that liberty is eternal vigilance.