Quote: “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” George Orwell Animal Farm 1945.
My normal physical position when writing this blog is at my desk. On and around my desk are three screens, my primary computer monitor, a secondary monitor and a screen showing a TV feed as background. Most often this third screen shows news and current affairs but it also shows history programmes.
The other day the tertiary screen was showing me a programme about the Nazis and at the same time the computer monitor was showing me images of the latest in the growing number of atrocities being committed by Islamic terrorists throughout the world. I was struck by how, as I moved my eyes from one screen to another, for a brief instant, I could not tell the difference between the two outputs. I could no longer define the difference between the atrocities of the Nazis and the atrocities of the Jihadists. As I mused on this inability to tell ‘man from pig or pig from man’, it became obvious to me that there is now no question about how similar Islam and Nazism are. The ideology that created those able to commit such crimes as the Nazis did, is analogous to how Islam creates people who see doing evil as doing good. Both these ideologies are bestial and savage, both are genocidal and both are authoritarian ideologies that desire, or desired in the case of Nazism, world domination and did not care how many deaths it took to get it.
I looked from screen to screen and saw the same death-pits, the same oppressors with automatic weapons and the same banality of evil. Whether the killers were serving the Fuhrer or serving Allah, the images and the end result were the same. About the only difference is the lack of industrial slaughter on the part of the Jihadists, but that’s not to say that such mass murder techniques would not be taken up by Muslims, if they were in a political, military and geographical position to do so.
However, there is a major difference in the approach of our governments to supremacist, expansionist and morally backward ideologies. During the 1930’s and 1940’s there was a realisation by politicians that Nazism was something that should be fought. Today, our governments across the Western world have not yet realised that we face in Islam something that should be and has to be fought. In Britain in particular, our Prime Minister David Cameron continues to follow a policy of appeasement of Islam. His Coalition government persists in failing to see the problems that a virtually unchecked Islam has brought and which Government policies towards Islam have exacerbated.
Our national and local government, political parties, public services and police have been subjected to massive amounts of entry-ism by Islamic interests. The Labour party for example, relies to such an extent on the Islamic vote in many parts of Britain, that their representatives can now honestly be described as being of the ‘Islam Party’. At least one of their MP’s Stephen Timms, has an Islamic fan club, who are more than a little dodgy. The Tories are not much better, as well as being ‘disconnected’ from the reality of Islam, Cameron himself has personally assisted in the imposition of a mosque on a reluctant community in his own constituency.
Again, I look from man to pig and pig to man and see no difference, this time between our two major political parties.
However when I look at the attitudes of the rulers and the ruled, then there is a very discernible difference. The rulers and those who ‘just follow orders’ for various reasons, believe that there is nothing at all wrong with Islam. Despite countless pieces of evidence to the contrary, such people insist that the problems are caused by almost anything else other than what is the genuine well-spring of the problems, which is Islam itself.
The politicians foolishly believe that they can ride the Islamic tiger to political victory, failing to see that eventually this tiger will turn around and bite their heads off, just as Hitlerism turned on the mainstream politicians who thought they could control it. They take at face value what they are told, both by Muslims and left-wing educators about Islam, they do not look into the subject any deeper or more widely than that. Such people are not equipped to use discernment and judgement, because they do not have the full facts, including the concept of lying to promote Islam, which is central to the way some Muslims deal with non-Muslims. Often they are the same individuals who do not know that the word ‘discrimination’ at heart means telling one thing from another, which is essential to rational thought and a preliminary skill for the ability to tell right from wrong.
On the other hand, the people, the ruled, have a growing disconnect between what the rulers believe and what they believe. In fact, it could be argued that it is the ruled who have a far greater knowledge of the problems and where they are coming from. It is the ruled, the ordinary people, who have to live with the decisions of the rulers. It is they who see their areas turned into hostile ghettos and find themselves politically disenfranchised by bent postal votes and politicians openly chasing the Islamic vote. It is the ordinary person who worries about their daughters of any age being victims of the growing number of Muslim rapists, or their sons being beaten up or murdered for having the temerity to walk the streets or go to the pub for a drink, in a now dangerous Islamic area.
It is the ordinary person whose children come home from school saying ‘in RE today we learned that Islam is a religion of peace’, whilst they worry about vulnerable relatives who are now nothing more than prey to members of a rapacious death cult, that is anything but peaceful. The rulers also don’t have to live with the fear that to challenge this lie about Islam being peaceful could mean harassment from teachers, social services and others, not to mention the police. The ordinary person doesn’t have the sort of private medical insurance possessed by the rulers, which cushions those rulers from the consequences of a public health system that refuses to say no to Islamic demands, and has become overrun with them. So it is the ordinary person who finds that they are treated nowadays as a politically unimportant demographic by the NHS, affecting how long they have to wait for treatment and how loud they have to shout to get the treatment they need.
That everyman character, the man on the Clapham Omnibus, knows that Islam is not our friend nor a friend of our nation even if our rulers, the politicians and administrators do not. To remedy this disconnect we must replace our politicians with those who understand the danger that we all face, and replace them soon.
All of us need to learn that when we find we cannot tell the difference between man and pig and pig and man then we know who and what our enemy is, and the enemy is the ideology of Islam.
