Doc's Talk: Religion of Orwell

Friday, November 22, 2013

Religion of Orwell

Sultan Knish

Islam is a religion of Peace. That is as certain as the three slogans of the Ministry of Truth; War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength.

These three slogans of the Party in George Orwell's 1984 are especially applicable to Islam; a religion of war that claims to be a religion of peace, whose political parties (such as the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party) use "Freedom" in their name but stand for slavery, and ignorance of its true nature creates an illusion of strength for industrialized nations that imagine that they are only battling a tiny handful of outmatched extremists.

The Orwellian world finds its natural expression in our world of unnamable wars against unnamable enemies who are peacefully at war with us in the name of a religion that our leaders assure us is wholly peaceful and should not be identified with the people killing us in its name. There is enough convoluted reasoning in a single press conference after any act of Muslim terror to have provided Orwell with material for three sequels.

But in a Doublethink world where everything means the opposite of what it is, even Orwell isn't immune from inversion. The popularization of Orwell has made him ubiquitous. Animal Farm's book cover appears on reusable shopping bags. Every television show, from singing competitions to spy shows, will sooner or later be described as Orwellian.

Orwell is everywhere and his ideas are nowhere. Instead of censoring him, the Doublethinkers, in the fashion of the Ministry of Truth, rewrote him and made him banal.

Dubai, a city in a totalitarian state that practices censorship and fills jails with political prisoners, will host its Inaugural George Orwell Lecture under the auspices of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum; a billionaire ruler with more wives and yachts than human rights.

Considering Dubai's international reputation as a glittering city for the wealthy built on the backs of slave labor, the stark contradiction between its primitive base and its skyscrapers, a party city where women have fewer rights than kidnapped child camel jockeys, there ought to be plenty of material for an Orwell lecture.

Dubai, like Islam, is slavery masquerading as freedom.

But His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum is not about to sponsor a lecture critical of his glittering tyranny. Not in a tyranny where the son of the UAE president and the brother of its crown prince was filmed using cattle prods, lighter fluid and nails to torture a businessman. In a properly Orwellian statement, the Ministry of the Interior, whose cops had been involved in the torture, said that "all rules, policies and procedures were followed correctly by the Police Department".

Orwellian tyrannies like the UAE don't allow lectures on Orwell unless they have been properly routed through the Ministry of the Interior, which follows procedures correctly when sticking a cattle prod into the rectum of a screaming Afghan businessman, the Ministry of Truth and their useful Western idiots who do all the Doublethinking on behalf of their countrymen.

And so instead of an Orwell lecture on the Orwellian nature of the country it's actually taking place in, Gavin Esler, a BBC television presenter, which is to say an employee of a massive media bureaucracy that everyone must support by law, will claim that 1984 was warning England about the threat of the X-Factor television singing competition and Wayne Rooney; an English soccer player.

And that is no exaggeration. That is the actual preview of his talk.

It is no doubt comforting to believe, as so many left-wing intellectuals seem to, that the threat of totalitarianism comes from the Daily Mail and Manchester United, rather than The Independent and The Guardian. Talent competition judges don't send people off to reeducation camps. That is more in the wheelhouse of left-wing intellectuals. And tabloids don't send people to blow themselves up in the London Underground to enforce Islamic law on the United Kingdom.

There is something undeniably subversive about an Orwell Lecture that is itself Orwellian, but that no doubt is not what Gavin Esler has in mind. In classic Doublethink fashion, he is unaware of his inversion of reality because his own reality has been permanently inverted. And so an audience of Europeans will attend an event in a totalitarian Muslim country where the royal family casually tortures people and nod along knowingly to the revelation that Orwell wasn't writing about the tyranny of torture chambers and thought police, but the tyranny of television cliches.

Orwellian lectures on Orwell appear to be the fashion at the Orwell Trust. The annual Orwell Lecture has already been delivered by Muslim Brotherhood scion and stoning apologist Tarik Ramadan. The topic of Ramadan's lecture was "Democratising the Middle East: A New Role for the West".

To the Muslim Brotherhood, democratization means the same thing that a plane ticket does to their Al Qaeda splinter group. A Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide was once quoted as saying, "Democracy is like a pair of slippers that we wear until we reach the bathroom, and then we take them off." The Brotherhood was booted out of power because it decided that Egypt was already in the toilet and that it could take off its democracy slippers prematurely.

Democracy, to the Freedom and Justice Party of the Muslim Brotherhood, which offered neither freedom nor justice, was another word for tyranny. And that made Tarik Ramadan's talk title an actual embodiment of the Party's three slogans in 1984.

Tarik Ramadan has described the Muslim Brotherhood as a "legalist, anti-colonialist and nonviolent movement that claimed legitimacy for armed resistance in Palestine against Zionist expansionism during the period before World War II." That's a rather roundabout way of saying that it was an Anti-Western totalitarian movement that drew support from Nazi Germany because of their common goal of exterminating the Jews.

"Al-Banna's objective was to found an "Islamic state" based on gradual reform, beginning with popular education and broad-based social programs," Ramadan writes. But he neglects to mention that Hassan al Banna was his grandfather or that his Islamic state would "regulate every aspect of life", conduct "surveillance of theaters and cinemas", confiscate "provocative stories and books that implant the seeds of skepticism", criminalize the mingling of men and women and restore the Caliphate.

If this sounds like an Islamic Oceania, that makes it all the more outrageous that his grandson should, in thoroughly dishonest terms, promote the creation of this Caliphate, where men and women will be flogged, books will be burned and the Freedom and Justice Party will watch everyone all the time, at a memorial lecture for the writer who warned that Oceania was coming.

It was the very rise of this burgeoning Caliphate in Egypt that turned the Tahrir Square protesters against Muslim Brotherhood rule. Just as it provoked youthful uprisings in Turkey, a despotism that Ramadan promoted as the Brotherhood's ideal model. But according to Ramadan, the overthrow of the Brotherhood, the mobs in the street chanting for Morsi to join Mubarak, was a Zionist conspiracy.

Unlike Machiavellian, Orwellian was never meant to characterize George Orwell as a supporter of the totalitarianism that he wrote about. But the Orwell Trust has perversely embraced the very same totalitarianism depicted in 1984; the distortion of language into Doublethink and the advancement of slavery, war and ignorance under the guise of freedom, peace and justice.

Consider Orwell book prize judges like Arifa Akbar, who has spent a good deal of time claiming that the UK isn't the victim of Muslim terrorism, but that Muslims are rather the victims of UK counter-terrorism, a proper inversion of the truth worthy of the Ministry of Truth, and winners like Raja Shehadeh for Palestinian Walks; the former director of a group that supports terrorism.

In a Harold Bloom edited collection of essays on Orwell's Animal Farm, one essay suggests that the
writer was drawing on Islamic themes when describing Napoleon's four sows, matching the number of permitted wives in the Koran, and writing that Sugarcandy Mountain, the fictional afterlife propounded by one of Napoleon's stooges was derived from descriptions of Islamic paradise.

Commentary of this sort however has grown rarer and rarer. Instead of using Orwell's work to shine a critical light on distortions of language that enable totalitarianism, the deceased writer has been recruited to distort language to enable the totalitarian fantasies of Islam.

The Orwell Trust has become Orwellian in the worst sense. Its descent into collaboration with totalitarian states and ideologies is the very sort of conduct among the left that Orwell had been writing about.

George Orwell struggled to publish Animal Farm because no one wanted to hear anything negative about Stalin and the Soviet Union. Today, Islam and the Caliphate have taken the place of Communism and the Soviet Union. The new Doublethinkers of the left have drafted Orwell into their Ministry of Truth that claims Islam is a religion of peace, that the Freedom and Justice Party of the Muslim Brotherhood does not stand for the enslavement of half the population and that ignorance of these things is not a weakness, but a strength.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk