Western Exceptionalism and the Iran Election Fraud Stunt BY NOTSILVIA NIGHT
2 July, 2009 – Palestine Think Tank
Iran and the West: Hardened fronts the not unexpected result of the western “stunt”
A hardening of the fronts between Iran and the West, and between westernized liberals and Islamic conservatives inside Iran, is the not unexpected result of last weeks post-election confrontations. Western support and the extremely violent behavior of some armed post-election demonstrators have probably had a damaging effect on the efforts of Iranian women-rights- and other reform-movements. Their efforts might have been discredited so much, that a backslide of Iran into earlier hard-line positions in the matters of women´s rights might occur. Hopefully it won´t.
Anyway, for Israeli strategists to be able to paint Iran and its government in the worst possible light and to forestall all chances of a positive communication and peaceful relationship of western countries with Iran, as a prelude to a western-backed Israeli military attack on the country was their desired goal. And they might have reached it.
When the western media deliberately stoked the flames in Iran, they most likely did not even expect their “revolution” to succeed.
Revolutions rarely succeed unless they have the support of the majority population as well as of at least some part of the military. The western-backed Mousavi had neither. He was supported by barely a third of the population and he had no significant support within the Iranian army.
The western media knew, that Ahmadinejad would receive more than 60% of the popular vote in Iran. After all, the “independent” institute who had polled the Iranians only three weeks before the elections was sponsored by the CIA-connected Washington Post and by the BBC. It was financed by the Rockefeller foundation.
All media outlets have access to the internet, I presume. By the second day after elections, the Washington Post had published these survey-results both online and offline. No western media outlet, neither in North-America nor in Europe or Australia, could pretend they did not know the truth, especially not the BBC.
Neither could any of the western politicians claim they did not know, that the claims about wide-spread election fraud were bogus. Even UN-Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ignored what had been known before and by this proved himself to be an obedient Anglo-American puppet.
The reaction of the Iranian government towards this repeated western interference in Iranian affairs is frustration and anger:
“Without doubt in the new (presidential) term the government will have a more decisive and powerful approach towards the West,“
(Ahmadinejad) told a meeting of judiciary officials in Tehran.
(He) said that the June 12 presidential election in Iran which has strengthened his government also marked the end of liberal democracy and liberal thought.
Addressing a national gathering of judicial officials he said,
“The Iranian nation favors dialogue and wisdom as well as constructive and cultural interaction,“
Referring to the recent interference in Iran’s internal affairs and insulting comments by certain western states about Iran’s handling of protests after the presidential elections, Ahmadinejad said,
“From now on we will take you to trial at every international forum.“
“How is it possible that those who have blood on their hands are now talking about human rights and believe that they can harm the Islamic system with their hollow and satanic statements and their propaganda stunts against Iran’s clean and humane system?”
Before we, in our western arrogance now start to yell:
“We knew, we knew it, those Iranian rulers are religious fanatics, talking about Satan, hating our liberties”, we might be well advised to look at the track-record of our “liberal democracies and liberal thought”. We also should look at what happened, when the Iranians with their “alien” culture of Islamic-thought tried to talk to us, tried to find some common ground on which to build a form of mutual productive tolerance and cooperation.
Seen in the light of past experiences, the terms “liberal democracies and liberal thought” have a very different meaning in many developing countries, not only in Iran, than they have in the western world.
In every country, in which our “liberators” from the Pentagon, the CIA, MI6, Mossad and other western “intelligence”- agencies and militaries went, they left a trail of death and destruction. They either helped to install blood-thirsty dictators who were so paranoid to lose their power to a hostile population, that they mass-murdered thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of them. Scores of examples of this can be found in South America and South East Asia.
If no dictator could be successfully installed, the country was put into a constant state of anarchy and chaos. Hopeless poverty was produced through destruction of traditional forms of indigenous organization and food-production, by colonial and western capitalist land-theft and forced urbanization. This was the predominant program for Africa.
And then there is torture. Studies, like in Darius Rejali´s book ‘Torture and Democracy’, have shown that the worst and most destructive torture-methods have not been developed by any dictatorships but by those states calling themselves “liberal democracies”.
The newest form of “liberators” are revealed in the book by John Perkins: ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’.
Himself having been one of those “hitmen”, he describes the methodical destruction of whole economies in the developing world by either coercing or duping countries or their leaders into unpayable debts and then, when they have to default on those debts, the IMF will enforce the implementation of devastating austerity measures causing wide-spread poverty and misery.
For many people in developing countries, especially in the Islamic world, liberalism means, besides freedom from sexual morals, also freedom from ethical values or any form of compassion.
For many Muslims the western “sexual freedom” – which seems to be the only freedom we actually care for dearly enough to defend it – appears to mean, that besides everything else, even the human body is nothing but a commercial object which can be advertised, bought and sold at will.
In the view of many Muslims western “liberalism” means unbridled greed for wealth and power, a system where the strongest and most ruthless can set all the rules at the expense of the well-being, dignity and even the life of everybody else.
In the secular west we don´t call anything “satanic”, we even refuse to use the word “evil” (unless we describe the “evil islamofascists”). But couldn´t we at least go so far and say that, what has been done to the peoples of the so-called “third world” in the name of western “liberal democracies”, might have been wrong somehow?
However, the western self-image of having the most advanced and most progressive culture in the world does not allow for acceptance of any other culture as equal to ours. It doesn´t even tolerate that people from other cultures see themselves as equals or, Nietzsche forbid, even see their culture as superior to ours in even a single aspect, (let´s say for instance a less volatile financial system).
Many times the Iranian president tried to talk to us in the western world.
He sent personal letters to many western leaders. While trying to explain his point, when he criticizes western military and economic Imperialism and Zionist crimes against the Palestinian people and other neighboring countries. He also tried to explain that there are indeed common ethical values in western (Humanist and Christian) culture and Islamic culture on which we could build a peaceful and respectful cooperation in this world. He talked about a common belief in the value of human life and human dignity, and a common demand for respect of those values. And he tried to show that the Islamic religion does not prevent it´s believers to show consideration and compassion to non-Muslims:
I ask the high God to grant all of humanity and all nations health and happiness, honor and prosperity, and to grant rulers and officials the ability to learn from the past and to use every chance to serve, to spread love and kindness, to eradicate oppression, to do justice and to follow the holy guidelines. (From a letter to President Obama, congratulating him for his election victory)
The western “democratic” leaders did not even bother to answer those letters.
He gave many long interviews to western media, answering calmly even the most insulting questions. Those interviews were edited, shortened to lose some of the context of what he said and later analyzed and distorted.
He held a speech at the New York Columbia University where he tried to counter the claim of a medieval Catholic theologian, which Pope Benedict VI had quoted before a German University audience in Munich. The claim was, that Islam was not a religion of reason.
In this speech Ahmadinejad quoted Islamic scripture about learning and reading. And he stated that scholarship and science, according to Islam, should always be used in an ethical manner to serve humanity not to kill or to hurt people, otherwise it was useless. Before and after the speech he only was insulted and maligned by his hosts, the university faculty and many of the students.
He sent a letter to the American people trying to show, that there was common ground between American and Iranian values. I don´t know about any ordinary Americans, but I think not even a single American intellectual even answered this letter.
He held speeches before international institutions calling for equality and respect between nations and cultures, for more justice and less exploitation. But even though these speeches are translated into English, western commentators were incapable of understanding them. By the time Ahmadinejad ended the prayer by witch he starts every speech, practically all those commentators had stopped listening, like a shutter went down over eyes, ears and mind.
And when Ahmadinejad held his anti-racism speech at the international anti-racism conference Durban II, the collective representatives of the white western world walked out, afraid their mental shutters might get holes and a few words might get through.
And now, after the so-called election-fraud allegations by the more westernized opposition, the subsequent unrests became a western instigated coup-attempt intended to cause wide-spread chaos in Iran, which were possibly intended to eventually procure the installation of the new Shah (Shah junior).
Part of the blogo-sphere, at least, has realized that. Different from Honduras, where the coup, supported by some of the same actors, succeeded, the newly elected Iranian government survived the unsuccessful American, British and Israeli high-stake “game”.
But the left can´t help themselves, when they look at this third-world figure Ahmadinejad, the democratically elected president of his country.
They just can´t imagine that a government with a non-western cultural mind-set could ever be democratically elected. They can´t imagine that the interests of the majority of the people in Iran can be served by a political system, not based on some western philosophy.
The only people, which can be considered as “real people” are the westernized opposition, even while they are in the minority.
The people, who are content with their “strange” culture of Islam, don´t count. Their political will expressed in the elections should not be seen as “real”. They are to be seen as deluded, too dumb to know, what´s good for them.
And what´s good for everybody in the world, according to western intellectual elites is western culture and thought. It doesn´t make a difference which part of western thought it is, capitalist, socialist, communist, fascist, environmentalist, Malthusian, Darwinian, there will be some western intellectuals who will cheer for it, just as long as the ideas were thought out or invented by white western thinkers.
No they just can´t help themselves, the western intellectuals, inflicted by a collective superiority complex, they just have to call the Iranian president, Dr. Ahmadinejad, an “unsavory character”, whenever they mention his name, somebody unworthy to talk to without sneering.