|
another factor i just thought of is:
think of a right wing fantasy - a muslim preacher with influence money and power who is well respected but harbours secret alliances with al qaeda and extremists.
now think of him coming to britain in 1999
then coming in 2010
after the war on terror he comes to a society that has "sacrificed" so many of its liberties, liberal democratic values and become such a paranoid and illiberal security state that its existing legislative and social structures would EMPOWER him and aid his extreme agenda if he were to magically take over a position of power.
your average racist KNOWS this but cannot see it because he is stupid enough to be terrified of al qaeda. so he has to demonise the muslims more and more to try and build a solidarity and distinction with his "own people" and further denigrate and alienate the muslim from his empathetic powers into a cartoonish monster that can be defeated militarily.
al qaeda have done better out of those wars than anyone else has. the coalition troops brought technology they have now got, they could never have bought this or gotten it any other way. the coalition bribes them and pays them off not to blow up its trucks. its been win win for them.
for nationalism and feel good cultural ideology to work you have to equivocate with something worse. so you have to say: things are better for gays in liberal countries like britain and america compared to iran.
now this is impossible to argue objectively. so in iran occasionally gays get stoned by the state. in britain and the us gays have probably been stoned either never or very rarely. they still get murdered and beaten, but they have greater "visibility" and "human rights". you have to ignore the miserable lives of addiction and suicidal hedonism that comes with liberal gay culture. you have to say that its simply BETTER than in iran were the majority don't publicly recognise the existence of homosexuality as a kind of in built permanent characteristic of people. the iranian way isnt better or worse, it certainly isn't "stuck in the stone age", as if they are destined to eventually progress to our values. it just is what it is. now the idea you can go from the west and bomb and murder these values into people, or at the least go as an ideological emissary of liberalism and convert the masses whilst carrying a machine gun is patently absurd. you cannot convert a race to your values, you simply can't do it. but it has to be the case for our wars to not be based on the bullshit they are based on. the fantasies of christians and morons. to not believe this is to not believe in the notion of progress. that morality and values are mystically advancing with time towards a higher and more universal and just stage. simply not true in any way but its the basic liberal christian/secular religion of the day. the only people in iran who might welcome an invasion would be the rich who can afford to gtfo when the bombs drop and have links to the west already. the types who will benefit financially or politically but dont give a shit about the rest of the country caught in the carnage. there were types like this in iraq. there will be money and status for muslims who are prepared to play the game and denounce extremists all the while not speaking out about the genocide, i mean those of them that live in the us and britain dont really have much of a means to say anything at all without bringing themselves considerable risk and further alienation from the white masses.
|