Doublespeak refers to words, phrases, or sentences that are deliberately constructed for political purposes. They say one thing, often intended to push the the listener to the mental state and attitude that the speaker desires to impose, deliberately hiding the truth of the situation. And this often happens without the listener being fully aware of the objective reality and how it is that the doublespeak speaker is hiding and distorting the truth. Communication in the language of doublespeak tends to restrict the thought processes of the listener and to slide the listener into agreement with the framework the speaker wants to impart.
Doublespeak differs from persuasive communication. In persuasive communication clear arguments are given and truthful statements are made. In doublespeak, the logic of the argument is missing. The argument is carried by lies and/or the connotation and denotation of the words used, rather than the plain objective meaning of the words. Doublespeak is pernicious dishonesty.
Let us see some examples of doublespeak that pertain to the conflict between western culture and Islamic culture. The first example we take is from a recent UN resolution on Combating Defamation Of Religion (A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1), which was adopted in December 2008 by a vote of 86 to 53, with 42 abstentions. Consider the context of the subject Combating Defamation of Religion. The context is western civilized society which has become in the last couple of centuries pluralistic and democratic. Pluralistic means that within the political arena, all major religions Christian, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish are considered as equals and even divisions within the religions are considered as equals. Equal means here that each religion has the political right to preach its doctrine to those who want to hear and that its adherents have the political right to assemble and hold religious ceremonies in a way taught by the religion. And this right extends up until a limit. The limit is that the right
- cannot interfere with or attempt to limit the identical right held by any other religion
- cannot interere with or attempt to limit the individual democratic rights to life, free speech, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
- cannot advocate the overthrow of the political system that has established that right
Continuing on this train of thought, examine the beginning paragraph of the resolution.
Welcoming the resolve expressed in the United Nations Millennium Declaration adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 20006 to take measures to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies and to promote greater harmony and tolerance in all societies, and looking forward to its effective implementation at all levels
This paragraph slides our thinking in for agreement. It is entirely consistent with the western cultural values of religious plurality. Its use of the words racism and xenophobia is perhaps a bit extreme but still acceptable.
The fourth paragraph begins to hint at a different perspective. It is telling us that there is a problem in western pluralistic society. Some religious groups are being discriminated against by laws and administrative measures.
Deeply alarmed at the rising trends towards discrimination based on religion or belief, including in some national policies, laws and administrative measures that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and beliefs under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration, thereby legitimizing discrimination against them, and consequently impairing their enjoyment of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and impeding their ability to observe, practise and manifest their religion freely and without fear of coercion, violence or reprisal,
What religion are they concerned about that has been discriminated against by western pluralistic society? Let us read on.
Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;
Islam is being discriminated against. The document states that Islam has been wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.
Here we have just been hit with doublespeak in an effort to cause us to doublethink in an Orwellian manner. The doublespeak argument is that because all religions have political equality in the pluralistic society, even if people from one religion in the name of the religion engage in acts of human rights violations and terrorism, they and their religion cannot be criticized. Any association that Islam has with human rights violations and terrorism is a wrong association. Why wrong? Because it never happened. And to assert that there is an association is asserting an unreality.
But wait. It did happen. What are the facts? In the last few decades, Islamic terrorists, in the name of Islam, have bombed and destroyed buildings, planes, and vehicles. Islamic terrorists have tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of males, females, adults, and children. They have attempted and sometimes succeeded in illegally (by not democratic means) overthrowing an existing political government and replace it by one of its own form. Where? All over the world. In Kenya, Somalia, Algeria, Indonesia, Egypt, India, Pakistan, the Mideast, Iran, Russia, France, South America and America, Islamic terrorists have attacked and murdered those they felt were a threat to their aims. And what are their aims? To replace the western pluralistic society with an Islamic society structured in accordance with their interpretation of Islam. And that means sharia law with non-muslims under the status of Dhimmi. The status of Dhimmi is one of being below and not equal to a Muslim.
The human rights violations and the acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam is a consequence of the Islamic goal. The Islamic goal is to islamize all peoples and all the countries of the world under one Caliphate. A short phrase for this is World Domination.
Islam is a political ideology of power-over masquerading as religion. Remember Islam means submission. In the religious sense, it is submission to the god of Islam. But in the sense of power over, it means submission and subjugation to Islamic political authority. The pictures speak for themselves.
The political right a religion has in a pluralistic society extends only so far as it does not interfere with the religious and democratic rights of others. By the direct definitions of human rights violations and terrorism, such acts intefere with the religious and democratic rights of others. Therefore, it becomes not only morally acceptable to criticize Islam. It becomes the moral obligation to speak out and criticize Islam for its world domination goal and to criticize Islam for those of its groups that have committed human rights violations and terrorism. This criticism is neither xenophobic or racist. It simply calls a spade a spade. Those that are unhappy with this criticism, should direct their efforts to release the political goals of Islam from its religious goals, if that is possible.
The democratic western religious pluralist finds submission to Islamic political authority and its sharia law morally reprehensible and something over which he/she is willing to make public criticism and even fight to the death in order to preserve the western religious pluralistic society.