The single greatest hypocrisy of the 20th century is the usual imperialist American claim that “to ensure the spread of freedom and democracy” to the rest of the world.
Fundamentally speaking, if the desired intent of Americans is to ensure the practice of democratic elections and to give way to the opinions of the majority of its people, then the question is to be asked is “why politically engineered undermining continues to take place within Muslim countries”.
In other words, every time a valid free and fair election rises and the end result is an Islamic party that wins, all of a sudden the country cracks down backed by American officials and thus the purpose of its election is annulled. A wonderful reason was given by a simple American who suffers from the journalistic malpractice syndrome and the idealist syndrome. He states
Study the events in Algeria and Egypt during the mid 1990s to see what happens when Arab people, oppressed by authoritarian leaderships for a thousand years do when given the choice of who will rule them.
If you want to save a bit of time, let me tell you. In both countries, there were obvious landslide movements towards Islamist parties that decreed there could be no debate about what was right and wrong since the Prophet had already revealed it all. In Algeria, the army stepped in with French support and annulled the election which had already been won by a massive majority that would have abolished democracy… That is what will happen when Iraq gets an unfettered election. What do you think the sixty five percent of shia fundamentalists will vote for? Women parliamentarians and pluralism?
As anyone with any sense of reason can see this person is deluded from all reality and must have been swindled into both of these syndromes[refer to the article The Four Syndromes that Result in Western Ignorance. The reason I chose this particular quote is due to the fact that it has its ties in much of American thinking deep in the annuls of their forums and memoirs.
First, the supposition of his argument is based on a lie, that being that the Arab people were “oppressed” under authoritarian leaders for a thousand years.
Furthermore, the fundamental clause of his outline is made absolutely apparent. That is this individual supports American involvement or that dictators of such countries to intervene in “free and fair” elections when the table does not turn in support for the American view, that would be for the country to vote for a secularist backed party. In other words, this extremist allows for the ransacking of a countries political elite to uproot the decisions of what the masses of people vote for in a fair and free election on the premise that the majority of the people will abolish democracy due to their choosing an Islamic party. Therefore this individual does not care nor is he concerned with democratizing the middle east, his concern, along with the leading political elite of America, care more for radicalizing the Muslim world to the secularist ideology and view of life. Thus America and Americans like this extremist would rather disrupt and exclude what the majority of people want in their own countries and to aid and back the political fringe known as the secularist party who do not have the sentiments of their nation at heart but merely have the sentiments of America and the irreligiousity of its moral corruptness at heart.
It is all becoming more apparent by the day that secularism is the actual way of life (religion) that has been spread by the sword. It is the grand hypocrisy of itself to campaign under a slogan of “freedom of religion” only to live the military life of enforcement on all nations.
I find it quite odd that purported democracy advocates see nothing wrong when democracy is undermined in such a violent and oppressive manner, that is when they keep offering democracy as a means of escape from the current situation, and then take it away once it doesn’t go the way they want it to.
Another point we wish to address is a statement of Brigette Gabriel when she was speaking regarding the elections that occur in Islamic countries. She stated that “we cannot give (administer) democracy to those who are not ready for it”
Her statement is of two matters. It is true, that you cannot give democracy to those who do not want democracy. However, the deception of her speech is with regards to saying that “we are not ready” for democracy. This gives off the notion that accepting democracy is advancement in the political/social arena of life. This couldn’t be further from the truth because Muslims had the age of democracy. It was called “jahiliyyah” or “pre-Islamic days of ignorance”. The Arabs used to rule themselves with tribal customs along with a primitive form of democratic values where they would resort to redefining certain issues, which is what democracy does. What Brigette failed to realize is that accepting democracy is a step backwards for Muslims, not a step forward. We already stepped backwards by abandoning Islamic law and landed ourselves into the political and social turmoil that we find ourselves in by abandoning Islam and its directives.
Anyway, getting back to the main and rather underlying theme here is an issue in which I’m certain will go beyond Bridgette’s head. That issue being that the basis as to why the imperialist three headed hydra consisting of Washington, Wall Street, and the City of London object to democracies abroad is precisely because a “populist” rising of a democratic rule is antithetical to imperial interest that form the doctrine of this three headed hydra and its foreign policies. The reason why this is the current phenomenon is because we are an empire, with an imperialist doctrine. This is the very nature of imperialism, it cannot allow for sovereign states to be sovereign, rather everyone under the sky must be “protectorates” or in the case of dealing with the U.S., puppet states, whereby everyone must rely on this transcendent group of warmongers who occupy the three tentacles of imperialist power.
Thereby juxtaposing these facts above with the commentary provided by Ms. Gabriel, then her words have to be interpreted for what it is. She is an imperialist and impostor to any movement of “freedom” because in her view the people who apply the democratic process MUST conform to the dogmatic nature of American psychology or I should say its socio-ethical views. In short speak, they must be puppets who serve their masters in Washington.