Note to Readers:

Summary of Ecology of Peace Problem Solving: The problems of poverty, unemployment, war, crime, violence, food shortages, food price increases, inflation, police brutality, political instability, loss of civil rights, vanishing species, garbage and pollution, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, racism, sexism, Nazism, Islamism, feminism, Zionism etc; are the ecological overshoot consequences of humans living in accordance to a Masonic War is Peace international law social contract that provides humans the ‘right to breed and consume’ with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits.

Ecology of Peace factual reality: 1. Earth is not flat; 2. Resources are finite; 3. When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in resource conflict; 4. If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, and/or nations want to reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; they should cooperate to implement an Ecology of Peace international law social contract that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; to sustainably protect and conserve natural resources.

EoP v WiP NWO negotiations are documented at MILED Clerk Notice.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Vigilant Censorship at Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey/Edward S. May, Dir. of Center for Vigilant Freedom (CVF) / International Civil Liberties Alliance



Vigilant Censorship at Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey/Edward S. May, Dir. of Center for Vigilant Freedom (CVF) / International Civil Liberties Alliance

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 19 May 2012

I've posted comments before to Gates of Vienna and noticed that some of them would be published, while others would not be.

If there is something that really irritates -- no disgusts -- me, it is hypocrisy. I am a big fan of the German maxim: Better an honest enemy, than a false friend. I'd rather know exactly where I stand with someone, even if those circumstances are not favourable to me, or not to my liking; than to be lied to and bullshitted and led to believe that I am in a relationship that values and appreciates disagreement, when its all just bullshit. Put differently, I'd rather be in a relationship with a man who loves me enough to slap me when he is angry, but never cheats on me, and is brutally honest with me; than be in a relationship with a so-called 'gentleman' who constantly gives me fake and two faced lying compliments while having various affairs behind my back. Same with my friends. Rather have a dozen honest enemies and know where I stand, than one two faced fake lying son of a bitch asshole pretending to be my friend.

So I posted a comment to Gates of Vienna: Vlad Tepes Interviews Tommy Robinson, wherein Tommy Robinson whines endlessly about how the EDL are censored. I don't support the EDL being censored, even though I disagree with them on many issues. I have never advocated that any person or organisation be censored, not a person on the left or the right. I have supported the free speech of left wing extremists and right wing extremists; not cause I agree with either of them, but cause I support their right to free speech, and thier right to public participation in public discourse. I am happy to engage them and discuss any issue under the sun with them, or anyone. There is no topic under the sun, I am not willing to discuss with anyone interested in a sincere discussion.

What does concern me about the EDL however, is that they pretend to support 'freedom of speech', but are happy to silence those they disagree with; as they did when they went on a mobjustice campaign to twice shut down the Facebook page in support of a free and fair trial for Anders Breivik. So, I posted the following comment to Gates of Vienna:
There does not appear to be much difference between Islam and EDL; except that Islam is honest about the fact that it does not tolerate freedom of speech. EDL demand freedom of speech for themselves, but act like thugs to silence the freedom of speech of those they disagree with.

See: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored: English & Norwegian Defense League & Facebook Shut Down 'Multiculti Feminists' Page, which supports a Rule of Law Free & Fair Trial for Breivik.

5/19/2012 11:19 AM
It has not been published.

The editor of Gates of Vienna is not a pimply-butted teenager with a fragile ego, who is incapable of handling disagreement. If so, his censorship would be quite understandable.

According to Powerbase (who document the communication, PR, spin and propaganda activities of public relations firms and the public relations industry), the editor of Gates of Vienna: Baron Boddissey is Edward S. May, who is director of the Center for Vigilant Freedom (CVF), which has now been renamed International Civil Liberties Alliance. Bodissey / May is also Outreach Coordinator for the International Free Press Society, using Ned May as his alias. May edits the Gates of Vienna blog under the pseudonym, Baron Bodissey, which, along with The Brussels Journal blog (run by fellow IFPS director Paul Beliën), serves as the CounterJihad Europa website's blog and news services.

The International Civil Liberties Alliance, of which Bodissey / May is Director says the following about itself and its alleged commitment to freedom of speech....:
The International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) is an international network of groups and individuals from diverse backgrounds, nationalities and cultures who strive to defend civil liberties, freedom of expression and constitutional democracy.

We aim to promote the secular rule of law, which we believe to be the basis of harmony and mutual respect between individuals and groups in the increasingly globalised world, and to draw attention to efforts to subvert it. We believe in equality before the law, equality between men and women, and the rights of the individual and are open to participation by all people who respect these principles.

We believe that freedom of speech is the essential prerequisite for free and just societies, secular law, and the rights of the individual.

So much for Mr. Bodissey / May's commitment to his alleged 'free and just society'.

Meanwhile a liberal minded Norwegian blog: Norske Forhold (Norwegian Conditions) had no problem publishing my comments or disagreement to his blog post -- Fortell meg hvem dine venner er … -- about my alleged association with Mr. Breivik.

Gates of Vienna / Bodissey was notified of this blog post, by comment to Gates of Vienna, as follows:
Honourable Transparency Notice:

The following post: Vigilant Censorship at Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey/Edward S. May, Dir. of Center for Vigilant Freedom (CVF) / International Civil Liberties Alliance has been posted to the Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored blog. Unlike Gates of Vienna there is no censorship there, and you are entitled not only to your right of reply, but to your disagreement being published.

5/19/2012 22:14

[Update 23:47: The Honourable Transparency Notice has been published. Thank you.]

Baron Bodissey:
Sir Justiciar, et alia:

This nonsense about “censorship” keeps cropping up, despite my earnest and repeated attempts to eradicate it. I will repeat myself yet again:

“Censorship” cannot possibly occur here, because this is NOT a public forum.

This is a private forum, the virtual equivalent of our living room. You and others are invited into the room to enjoy tea and sarnies with your hosts. But if you become rowdy or pugnacious, you may be ejected. The judgment of whether ejection is necessary resides with Dymphna and myself, and no one else.

This is not censorship, because you remain free to establish your own blog and say what you wish to say there. In fact, you have manifestly retained your freedom of speech, because you have already done so. I’m even lenient enough to permit you to link your screed from these comments.

Read the guidelines for commenters, as referred to in this blog’s comments form. You’ll see this reminder:

“The most important thing to remember about the rules is this: The determination of whether any comment is in compliance is at the sole discretion of this blog’s owners.

“This may seem unfair, but there is a good reason for the tightening of our standards. We are now under close scrutiny by hostile observers who are eager to find a pretext for shutting this blog down.

“The consequences of a mistake are different for commenters than they are for the blog’s owners. You, the irritated commenter, may suffer the inconvenience of having your comment fail to appear here and be forced to post it at another site, or have it go unread.

“We, on the other hand, face the possible closure of Gates of Vienna if the language appearing on our site is inappropriate. When our choice is between irritating a would-be commenter or having our blog closed, it’s no contest.”

5/19/2012 5:54 PM

HM Justiciar Knights:
Mr. Bodissey/May,

If this is your living room, why not make it a closed blog? I can't just waltz into your living room; but I can waltz onto this blog as can anyone on the planet. You stating that it is similar to your living room is absolute BS.

The reason you did not post my comment is because you don't wish to honestly discuss the issues raised in my comment: namely EDL thuggery.

Perhaps if you run your blog by the values you espouse, instead of as a public relations propaganda piece against organisations you disagree with, while practicing the same censorship of dissent and denial of honest discussion; then there would not be some people attempting to shut down your blog (if that is true, as a result of your inconsistent behaviour, I find myself doubting your statements sincerity; whereas previously I believed anything you said, as being the words of a man of honour).

If you want to be a two faced hypocrisy propaganda blog, thats fine. Why not -- like Islam -- have the honesty to state exactly who you are, and what your suppression of debate values are?

How does my comment of the EDL's thuggery fail your compliance test, unless your compliance test is SILENCING/DENIAL OF ALL CRITICISM AND DEBATE?

Lara / Andrea

5/20/2012 10:28

Baron Bodissey:
Ms. Lara / Andrea --

The posts of this blog constitute the façade of the house, as it were. They are its fully public section. The comments section is the living room, to which guests may be invited. Improper behavior -- as determined solely by the judgment of the hosts -- may cause a visitor to be escorted politely out the front door.

I don't know what's so difficult to understand about this.

Despite your assertions, under no circumstances can what we do be considered "censorship". You are entitled to publish -- and indeed you have published -- your opinion on your own blog, with no restrictions other than the terms of service of your provider. You enjoy the same privileges my wife and I enjoy here.

If the government were to order your blog shut down and your writings suppressed, that would be censorship.

But I can't censor you -- since I am not a public official, so I lack the capacity to do so.

All I do is keep this living room swept and tidy, according to my own standards. Sometimes I may describe what guides my ideas about virtual cleanliness. At other times I may not – I may simply do what needs to be done, without explanation.

It depends on how much spare time I have, and whether or not I have the energy to argue with people who become antagonistic if they can't say absolutely anything they like.

5/20/2012 11:02 AM

Andrea Muhrrteyn / Lara:
It appears your definition of censorship is different to mine. Not a problem.

Let me know when you are willing to discuss in your so-called 'living room', holding your buddies, such as the EDL, to the same standards of conduct you demand your enemies be held.

Till then, I shall conclude Gates of Vienna is not serious about practicing what you preach. Not a problem, I just believed you were, and clearly I was mistaken. Now I know.

5/21/2012 02:10

Paardestaart:
Why mrs. Murtheyn, if you feel you can´t say what you need to say on GoV why not try to be civil and refrain from libelling anyone..? For if you mean to suggest that GoV is no better than the msm in allowing free speech and dissent you do not fool steady visitors here

I can´t say I´m very curious as to what you feel you have to divulge about ‘the thuggery of EDL-members’, because it can´t be worse than what the msm have been libelling Tommy Robinson with. Now he has proven himself to be a very brave, honourable and upstanding man, never mind who his followers may be..In fact the only one who might be able to civilize yobs and streetpeople - who incidently may be the only ones willing and able to defend Britain and the west - it would have to someone like him, someone who has put his money where his mouth is for years already, and at a great personal cost, which is the only type of person likely to inspire rough folk to reform and better themselves

Now, what do you have to say about ´the EDL´?
5/22/2012 7:54 AM

Andrea Muhrrteyn:
@Paardestaart:

I've been with GoV for years, shared hundreds of their links, and never had any inkling they would censor ideas or opinions they disagreed with. You would have to ask GoV why they censored my civil comment about EDL thuggery. It provided evidence of my allegations. Are you suggesting that EDL and Tommy Robinson may not be provided with constructive criticism; because they are some kind of royalty?

I used to be a steady visitor at GoV, and came to a rude awakening when I expressed some constructive criticism (you know that western civilisation concept of self betterment?). Maybe you will also experience a rude awakening, maybe not.

My evidence of EDL thuggery is not libel, but EVIDENCE. Big difference between a rumour and EVIDENCE.

I also believed that story about the good guy Mr. Robinson, until I experienced the dark side of Mr. Robinson.

I used to work with Delancey Street foundation, the most successful rehabilitation program in the world; who have rehabilitated over 14,000 former delinquents, drug addicts, and criminals into law abiding citizens at not one cent to taxpayers.

Why should I believe EDL want to defend the west, when they don't even have the integrity or honour (that islamicsts have) to be honest about their thuggish ways of silencing voices they disagree with? Why should I believe the EDL want to defend the west, when they spit on the concept of the rule of law, and innocent until proven guilty?

I've been to prison for practicing what I preach, sat in prison cell with 49 africans, and left that prison with all of their respect, cause I don't play your left wing vs right wing blame game; so Mr. Robinson has a long way to go, in my books.

What I had to say about the EDL was censored by Baron Bodissey, why not ask him to publish the comment.

05/22/2012 21:40 PM

» » » » [Gates of Vienna :: Norske Forhold]

No comments:

FLEUR-DE-LIS HUMINT :: F(x) Population Growth x F(x) Declining Resources = F(x) Resource Wars

KaffirLilyRiddle: F(x)population x F(x)consumption = END:CIV
Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement (13:10)
Unified Quest is the Army Chief of Staff's future study plan designed to examine issues critical to current and future force development... - as the world population grows, increased global competition for affordable finite resources, notably energy and rare earth materials, could fuel regional conflict. - water is the new oil. scarcity will confront regions at an accelerated pace in this decade.
US Army: Population vs. Resource Scarcity Study Plan
Human Farming Management: Fake Left v. Right (02:09)
ARMY STRATEGY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Office of Dep. Asst. of the Army Environment, Safety and Occupational Health: Richard Murphy, Asst for Sustainability, 24 October 2006
2006: US Army Strategy for Environment
CIA & Pentagon: Overpopulation & Resource Wars [01] [02]
Peak NNR: Scarcity: Humanity’s Last Chapter: A Comprehensive Analysis of Nonrenewable Natural Resource (NNR) Scarcity’s Consequences, by Chris Clugston
Peak Non-Renewable Resources = END:CIV Scarcity Future
Race 2 Save Planet :: END:CIV Resist of Die (01:42) [Full]

:: Fair Use Notice ::

FAIR USE NOTICE: The Norway v. Breivik blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the EcoFeminist vs. Breivik: Beyond Left and Right Wing: From an ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant’ Argument. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to Norway v. Breivik Blog at: [EcoFeminist]