Welcome to Orwell's World 2010: Barack Obama is the leader of a contemporary Oceania.

At least the chocolate ration is going to be increased.

http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/4093

By Pilger, John
John Pilger's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described a superstate called Oceania, whose language of war inverted lies that "passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past', ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past'."

Barack Obama is the leader of a contemporary Oceania. In two speeches at the close of the decade, the Nobel Peace Prize winner affirmed that peace was no longer peace, but rather a permanent war that "extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan" to "disorderly regions and diffuse enemies". He called this "global security" and invited our gratitude. To the people of Afghanistan, which America has invaded and occupied, he said wittily: "We have no interest in occupying your country."

In Oceania, truth and lies are indivisible. According to Obama, the American attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was authorised by the United Nations Security Council. There was no UN authority. He said the "the world" supported the invasion in the wake of 9/11 when, in truth, all but three of 37 countries surveyed by Gallup expressed overwhelming opposition. He said that America invaded Afghanistan "only after the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden". In 2001, the Taliban tried three times to hand over bin Laden for trial, reported Pakistan's military regime, and were ignored. Even Obama's mystification of 9/11 as justification for his war is false. More than two months before the Twin Towers were attacked, the Pakistani foreign minister, Niaz Naik, was told by the Bush administration that an American military assault would take place by mid-October. The Taliban regime in Kabul, which the Clinton administration had secretly supported, was no longer regarded as "stable" enough to ensure America's control over oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea. It had to go.

Obama's most audacious lie is that Afghanistan today is a "safe haven" for al-Qaeda's attacks on the West. His own national security adviser, General James Jones, said in October that there were "fewer than 100" al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. According to US intelligence, 90 per cent of the Taliban are hardly Taliban at all, but "a tribal localised insurgency see themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying power". The war is a fraud. Only the terminally gormless remain true to the Obama brand of "world peace".

Beneath the surface, however, there is serious purpose. Under the disturbing General Stanley McCrystal, who gained distinction for his assassination squads in Iraq, the occupation of one of the most impoverished countries is a model for those "disorderly regions" of the world still beyond Oceania's reach. This is a known as COIN, or counter-insurgency network, which draws together the military, aid organisations, psychologists, anthropologists, the media and public relations hirelings. Covered in jargon about winning hearts and minds, its aim is to pit one ethnic group against another and incite civil war: Tajiks and Uzbecks against Pashtuns.

The Americans did this in Iraq and destroyed a multi-ethnic society. They bribed and built walls between communities who had once inter-married, ethnically cleansing the Sunni and driving millions out of the country. The embedded media reported this as "peace", and American academics bought by Washington and "security experts" briefed by the Pentagon appeared on the BBC to spread the good news. As in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the opposite was true.

more...

:crazy:

nt

As in Bush let 9/11 happen on purpose, and the OP posted elsewhere some Obama conspiracy theory about letting the Detroit terrorist on the plane. There's also MIHOP, made it happen on purpose, which were both very popular around here for the longest time.

go ahead and write the stupid phrase? Maybe I love the English language and prize clarity too much, I don't know, but I've really kind of bottomed out on acronym fatigue. LOL. ROFL. IMO. IMHO. POTUS. FLOTUS. SCOTUS. Jesus goddamn tapdancing Christ, I think I'm gonna scream.

Sorry. I had to let that out.

:thumbsdown:

Do you agree with that too?

nt

nt

nt

That's what it really meant.

The slightly longer quote, not that it makes it any less offensive or racist that he used that term in an anti-war stance. Unfortunately his racist language unveils a patronizing and stereotypically simplistic view of American society and Race.

That being said, your 'gloss' of his quote is characteristically innacurate, and intentionally misleading as is your way. see post #10.

It's a shame people are so engorged with anti-Obama kool-aid that they'd post shit from racist loons like Pilger.

misquote/gloss etc. I just don't think that mischaracterizing what he said serves the discussion.

Somebody asked me what he meant by his racism, I explained it.

John Pilger doesn't like black people.

"I think he was referencing your misquote."

Well, I considered that. But I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't a racism apologist like some of the others.

We agree that its a racist statement, but I think one the intent is not as clear as you are making it out to be.

It seems more like a dated, colonial, paternalistic and simplified view of race relations.

It all boils down to "I hate n******."

Do you know the story of the term "Uncle Tom" ?

It's an interesting history about a co-opting / commodification of black culture, and it is more complicated than just saying anyone who uses the term really mean that they "hate n******".

I read about it on wikipedia based on your prompting, so thanks for that. :hi:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When he thought he was justified in using the term "Uncle Tom".

The excuses come flying in:

"Oh, he's not racist, he does such and such"
"Uncle Tom isn't a racist term!"
"We're past that!"

But come on...nobody really believes those excuses. Someone that would throw that term around has a serious lack of understanding of race relations in the United States to say the very very least.

I don't think it's a term that has much use today. It's easy enough to describe a white or black person who serves the power structure without using a term that allows one's opponents to try to avoid the substance of one's remarks by crying racist. It seems clear to me that there's absolutely nothing in Pilger's background that suggests he's a racist. If there was something other than the Uncle Tom remark, I imagine it would be posted by now. It's interesting that instead of taking apart his post and defending Obama, a fair number of people here choose to smear Pilger as a racist instead. It's the kind of laziness that has degraded discussion at DU over the years. One sees the same thing with Chomsky's criticism of Israel--he's an anti-semite!

and so do many other people I know

I bet they do.

but since we seem to be in agreement, I don't think I can accept this bet

writing like Christopher Hitchens in reverse. He lost it when East Timor ceased to be his forever war.

Unlike at least one recent recipient of a peace prize, Pilger actually deserved his.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=555

John Pilger has been awarded the 2009 Sydney Peace Prize.

The jury’s citation reads as follows: 'For work as an author, film-maker and journalist as well as for courage as a foreign and war correspondent in enabling the voices of the powerless to be heard. For commitment to peace with justice by exposing and holding governments to account for human rights abuses and for fearless challenges to censorship in any form.'

Sydney Peace Foundation Director Professor Stuart Rees said: "The jury was impressed by John’s courage as well as by his skills and creativity. His commitment to uncovering human rights abuses shines through his numerous books, films and articles. His work inspires all those who value peace with justice."

John Pilger responded: "Coming from my homeland and the city where I was born and grew up, this is an honour I shall cherish, with the hope that it encourages young Australian journalists, writers and film-makers to break the silences that perpetuate injustice both faraway and close to home."

The Foundation has cited various examples of John Pilger's work - 2004 film 'Stealing A Nation', the story of the British and American governments’ secret ‘mass kidnappings’ of a whole population of the Chagos Islands in the Indian ocean to make way for an American military base; his 1979 film 'Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia', which depicted the horrors of the Pol Pot regime and the plight of the Khmer people; 1994's 'Death of a Nation', shot under cover in East Timor, which galvanized world wide support for the East Timorese people; and his re-making of the film 'Palestine is Still the Issue', which reminds the world of a continuing occupation and cruel injustice.

Other distinguished recipients of Australia’s only international prize for peace have included previous Nobel recipients Professor Muhammad Yunus and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, Indian author and human rights campaigner Arundhati Roy and, last year, the Aboriginal leader and ‘father of reconciliation’ Patrick Dodson.

more...

A lifetime achievement award doesn't validate this nonsense.

nt

1984 was not even about imperialism. Three superstates co-operating in a phony forever war, where the whole point was to maintain an external balance of power in order to cement absolute internal totalitarian power.

This ZMag 'contribution' is sheer laziness.

in support of a policy of imperialism, not imperialism itself.

Bin Laden was related to Mullah Omar by arranged marriage, a most profound bond in Sunni Islam. Talking about the Taliban handing over Bin Laden to the infidels is pure fantasy land.

As I said, he's lost it.

didn't make the assertion? If so, do you have a link to support the claim the assertion wasn't made and that Pilger is lying?

If he was basing it on assertions by the ISI, it's incredible.

If you're saying the claim by the military regime is incredible and not to be believed, do you have a link to support your assertion?

Mullah Omar is going to hand over Family? I mean THIS is Orwellian double-think.

the story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11

New offer on Bin Laden
Minister makes secret trip to offer trial in third country

Rory McCarthy in Islamabad The Guardian, Wednesday 17 October 2001 03.22 BST

A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.

But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership.

The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister and a man who is often regarded as a more moderate figure in the regime.

He met officials from the CIA and Pakistan's ISI intelligence directorate in Islamabad on Monday. US officials pressed the minister for a sweeping change in the regime. "They are trying to persuade him to get the moderate elements together," another source said.

Mr Muttawakil's visit coincided with the arrival in Islamabad of Colin Powell, the US secretary of state. After several hours of talks with Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf yesterday, Mr Powell admitted that moderate Taliban would play a role in talks on a future Afghan government. "We would have to listen to them or at least take them into account," he said.

more...

2. And as the Foreign Minister said:

We abide by the Amir's view even if he alone takes this view ... Mullah Omar will be the highest authority and the government will not be able to implement any decision to which he does not agree.

Mullah Omar never made a statement about 9/11 or Bid Laden. At best his Foreign Minister, disowned by the Taliban in 2003, was stalling for time. Only one man could offer to hand over Bin Laden. He would never have had any intention of handing over his blood brother. Get real. C'Mon.

But then again so is the government of the United States of America.

To rely on ISI statements is a reasonable as touting CIA declarations about Columbia.

disagree with the sources they use, although they would seem to be in a better position to assess the worth of those sources than you. We are stuck in a world where everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt, whether it's statements from the military regime in Pakistan or the imperialist regime in the United States. It's interesting how excited some people get in trying to ferret out imperfections in Pilger in order to dismiss what he writes, but they never get around to defending Obama's statements. Could it be because what Pilger wrote about Obama and Bush is accurate?

Without looking up the detail, the fully indoctrinated dupe that ends up murdered for no good reason by the system he believes in, was always disseminates the PR about things getting better, i.e., "I heard they are going to increase the chocolate ration".

:argh:

Yeah, you're probably right about that.

Yeah, sure, I'll support that notion, when (and only when) reality ceases to resemble the plot of 1984.

Reality, however, is not cooperating.

-app

But just because politicians talk like they do in that book, doesn't mean we are living in George Orwell's vision of a totalitarian world.

By and large they are intellectually lazy, and it seems like half of the analogies made aren't even supported by the material in the book. That's certainly the case with this one.

People make the leap in logic that because politicians are speaking in a manner similar to what he referred to as "newspeak" that his big 1984 prophecy must be coming true. But the fact of the matter is that there's nothing prophetic about it, politicians were talking like that in the 1940's when Orwell wrote the book. "War is peace" isn't anything new.

of the world they live in. Which is, yes, pretty totalitarian. Though it's less obvious to the more privileged classes.

:wtf:

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=471 Rovian.

Or at what point does a merely disgruntled DUer turn into that which s/he claims to despise?

Hekate

to say whatever slurs they want and not be called racist. This guy just reeks of that condescending attitude.

K&R
:patriot:

I share the same assessment of the expanding WARS as Pilger.

One of the biggest frauds committed by the Bush/Obama administrations is convincing America that "The Taliban" is a monolithic organization with an organized "Chain of Command".

War is Peace
Black is White.
I did not campaign on a Public Option.

The first to use a non-sequitur, Strawman, Red Herring, False Dichotomy, Appeal to Authority, Ad hominem, or other logical fallacies loses.

Works pretty good.

..valid counter arguments and credible sources, I'll agree.

If you disagree with the OP, why don't you tell us why.
Try to be specific, and present a logical counter argument with sources.
I'll listen.

In context, the Oceania analogy, one of three superstates conducting a phony war, is bunkum. Orwell's world? Tripe. Winston Smith knows nothing of the world outside AirStrip One.

1984 was not an analysis of Imperialism, nor even lies about Imperialism. It's an expose of the mechanics of ultimate INTERNAL totalitarianism. If someone is looking for Orwell's world in 2010, North Korea would not be a bad starting point.

Invoking Orwell, like the Third Reich, is routine intellectual laziness. In this case, it's also mendacious.

OK. Will you reply?

Talk about intellectual laziness, your screeds are pathetic, and quite lazy.

Who's lazy? Pathetic even?

What you have done is taken a single element of Orwell's novel and argued that our situation is not EXACTLY the same. From THAT, you generalize a conclusion that absolutely NO comparison to Orwell's fictional world are valid.

While you are correct that our situation in not exactly the same as the character in Orwell's novel, your conclusion that NO comparisons are valid simply does not follow. (Conclusion does not Follow)

"Orwell published his novel in 1949, therefore nothing in it can possibly apply to the 21st Century." is as valid as your argument.

There are certainly valid points of comparison:

*When was the first time you heard the term "enemy combatant", or "Patriot Act", or "Clean Air Initiative"?

*How about the TIA Program (Total Information Awareness)?

*Surely you have noticed the explosion of surveillance TV cameras remotely operated by elements of our government?

*Have you been through any random "checkpoints" established on our highways?

*How many citizens have a government/corporate propaganda distribution device operating 24/7 in their homes?

*Did you know that the Police engaged in Preemptive Arrests of individuals who might cause disturbances in St Paul before the Republican Convention?

*Rewriting History:
"The Republicans kept us safe for 8 years."
"There were NO terrorists attacks after 9-11."
"Obama did not campaign on a Public Option."

I could keep going, but you should be able get the point by now.

nt

DU is getting pretty stupid lately.

Obama is related to Mullah Omar by birth! His grandfather's surname was Obomar, but anglicized to Obama.

His father and mother were BOTH students at the University of Hawaii when Obama was born. Get it right! Free Public, down the street. Go join them!

:hi:

rackin frackin trolls.

To not even mention that is reckless.

At least Whitman, Price and Haddad are living it up on a beach somewhere.

K&R

NT!

Yet another fucking orwell reference.

Happy new year, Cliffordu.

Hekate