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”!