Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Fyodor Lukyanov Islamization West Western

In an article published in Ogoniok magazine and Russia Beyond the Headlines, Fyodor Lukyanov, “the chairman of the Presidium of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy” describes the Islamic Republic as “A beacon of Islamic democracy”.

That is very much a correct description, given the “neo-liberal”, “globalist” definition of democracy as a condition of absence of resistance to domination by global financial institutions; essentially as the non-existence of regulations and the absence of a government. In the case of Iran, the government was overthrown and replaced by a group of bandits, many, like the anti-Iranian criminal Ebrahim Yazdi, educated in the West, who established a mafia regime, which the media very conveniently labeled “the Iranian government”, or simply “Iran” or “Tehran”.

Using the term with an “Islamic” prefix, then, could not be contradictory. In fact it's complementary.

That understanding makes the following paragraph on “democratic governments” vs. “dictatorial regimes” somewhat easier to digest. He writes,

Iran is, in many ways, a pioneer of the changes that have been sweeping the region since the early 2010s. Tehran did not welcome the events in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya for nothing, since all the dictatorial regimes were — if not overtly pro-Western — clearly anti-Islamic.”

That's a corroboration of what we said earlier in “Marketing 'revolutions'”, but note that Lukyanov must paint the targeted states as “pro-Western...dictatorial regimes” to justify the appeal of the newly installed “Islamic democracies” as a natural consequence. Exactly what “pro-Western” means is left unclear. It is left unclear for two good reasons.

First, it screens the correct term “secular” from the reader's consideration. After all, as that charlatan Johan Galtung put it (courtesy of “Democracy Now!”), and Al Jazeera (That's the BBC operating under another name) hammers in on an hourly basis, these are “Moslem countries”. Yet, rejection by the modern individual, any modern individual anywhere, of thousand year old “laws” from the deserts of Arabia does not make that person “pro-Western”; it makes him or her a secular individual. The calculation is that most Westerners, who are themselves secular, are bound to sympathize with the victims of the Islamists if they know them to be secular rather than “pro-Western.”

Second, it puts the Islamists and their regimes in opposition to the “West”, whereas these regimes are created by the “West”.

Given NATO's world-wide democratization campaigns, personally, I think within our own lifetime, the Pentagon and NATO will both progress from being implicitly identified, to being explicitly labeled as human rights organizations.

See also:  Lessons in “universalism”!

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Majid Rafizadeh NIAC Bashar al-Assad ناياك مجید رفیع زاده‎

President Assad is certainly hated, not by the people of Syria as this fellow claims, but by a system hell bent on furthering the decades-old policy of Islamization to combat nationalism and aspirations to sovereignty. It is therefore a policy that has further defined what international gangsters like to call “globalization”. If Assad was hated by the Syrian people, NATO would not have been forced to resort to bombing the Syrian population on a daily basis, the type of bombings that make the explosions in Boston look like firecrackers. The author will do much better confining his propaganda to the oil cartel's “National Iranian-American Council”, “Iranian.com” and the such, where he may more effectively dissimulate an earlier NATO “human rights” project as a “revolution”.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Marketing "revolutions" هافينگتون پست

Marketing "revolutions"

The answer to the question “Is Tunisia the New Hot Spot for Energy Investors? ”, I'm certain, is very clear to those who followed Huffington Post and Co.'s marketing campaign of presenting common criminals as “activists”, and selling sabotage, assassinations, terrorism, bombardment of civilians and civilian infrastructures, and overthrowing governments of sovereign states as "Cries for Freedom" and “Arab Spring”.

The congratulatory messages sent to the new Islamist rulers of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt from the western-educated bandits ruling Iran (not to mention those published by the press through US and European-based "Iranian" academicians and "artists"), then, are not without reason. NATO's 1979 overthrow of the Iranian Monarchy and government met with equal success. The difference, however, is that while NATO's role in the overthrow of former north African governments is well documented, thus a case of partial success, in the decades-long and continuing marketing of the "Iranian revolution", every effort has been made to conceal NATO's role as it's architect, with complete success. But that difference, I suspect, is only temporary, as what really happened in North Africa too will soon be forgotten.

Meanwhile, if  Hollywood can present pre-Muhammedan-invasion Iranians as wild and ugly bloodthirsty animals in consumer products such as 300 and upcoming sequel(s), and Life Magazine can put the Iranian King (the Shah of Iran) in their “worst dictators” list along Hitler, then presenting terrorists as “warriors”, or financing the exhibition of vile and quite revolting Islamist propaganda as “art” should hardly seem ambitious.