- `Freedom' Fundamentalists
"Hypocrisy is an inherent part of the disbelievers way of life"
The recent ban imposed upon the Muslim women in France from wearing
the Islamic scarf (Hijab) gives credence to the above opinion held by
many Muslims. It was not too long ago that the Taliban were demonised
for not giving a choice to the women of Afghanistan regarding the
Islamic scarf, but is it not the same choice now being denied by
Chirac? France can be excused but not the Taliban! The same principle
is applied by the other member nations (US, UK and Israel) of the
Judeo-Christian civilisation as they conduct their brutal aggression
and subsequent colonisation under the umbrella of `defence'
and `freedom'. Isn't it simply hypocritical to wage an unprovoked
war, killing indiscriminately and causing immense destruction in the
name of bringing `freedom'? What can the dead in Iraq do with
their `freedom'? What use is `freedom' to those, whose loved ones
have been killed, property destroyed, and the wealth of their nation
looted? They are not the recipients of `freedom' but the victims of
the `freedom' fundamentalists, who are intoxicated with imperial
arrogance, fanaticism and intolerance.
The issue of Guantanamo Bay is another example of this same hypocrisy
of the `freedom' fanatics lecturing the world about human rights,
whilst violating the same at will. Then we had the recent charade of
finding WMD in Iraq, whilst existing in abundance in their own
backyard, as they are the creators and the largest producers of these
types of weapons. Hence, no surprise, that the only WMD found in Iraq
were those used by the marauding invaders. The US then ripped open
Iraq's economy, without any legitimate authority, in a manner that it
would not do to its own economy. One can go on producing an endless
list of the duplicity emanating from these `freedom' fanatics.
However, it is worth a closer analysis of this notion of `freedom',
as Bush and Blair have been using it incessantly since 9/11, without
substantiating its meaning.
In the current political context, the inference from the linguistic
meaning of the word is simply "self-rule", and therefore `freedom'
dictates that the nation must decide of its own free will as to how
it should govern itself. Which implies that `freedom' must be
established from within rather than imposed by a foreign army. The
only exception to this, is when a nation under occupation invites
some third party to aid them in their pursuit for liberation, as an
example, the French under the Nazis invited the Allied forces to help
them liberate their country.
The `freedom' zealots have a different approach to this matter.
According to the dynamic duo (Bush and Blair) `freedom' extremists,
absence of `freedom' as interpreted by them, legitimises its
enforcement, even by the use of force. It does not matter, whether it
is Gotham city or Baghdad, you must have it. Of course, "enforcing
freedom" is a self-contradictory notion, since enforcing denies one
the freedom of choice, and freedom necessitates the absence of an
external (foreign) enforcing authority! So the motto is,
although `freedom' offers choices, however, there is no choice on the
issue of governing by the notion of `freedom' as interpreted by
the `freedom' fanatics, regardless of the opinion of the masses.
Therefore, legitimacy of `freedom' has to be certified by the High
Priests of `freedom' fundamentalism. For sure, the High Priests will
not issue the certification, until the government selected complies
with their interests. Perhaps, this is why there has been no free
election in Iraq to date, as the early signs indicated that the
Iraqis prefer an independent Islamic form of government. It is for
the same reason that the West kept silent, and indirectly assisted
the Algerian government to suspend the election, when the Islamic
party (FIS) was clearly poised to win.
To a layperson, `freedom' may simply mean, the lack of restraint.
Restrictions are usually imposed by the state and society, manifested
in the laws and regulations. Hence does `freedom' imply a lawless
society, total anarchy, like the jungle? As primitive society
progresses towards a modern urbanised democratic society, its laws
and regulations grow and consequently diminish `freedom'. Hence, in
the pursuit of `freedom', should societies become more primitive,
i.e. lawless? In some respects, societies have become more primitive
over the years as they try to attain greater `freedom'. The sexual
relationship is an example, the traditional constraint of marriage,
ethics and morality are being eroded. The youths in the clubs and the
beach parties fornicate in public without any inhibition, bringing
them closer to the conduct of animals in the jungle that are totally
The scholars of `freedom' fundamentalism acknowledge that order and
stability is a prerequisite for human survival, and absolute freedom
results in chaos. Therefore, they define `freedom' as being subjected
to the laws and values imposed by the society, which is subjective as
it emanates from certain beliefs, local customs and traditions. Hence
the notion of `freedom' is subjective! So who is then to judge, which
is a free society and which is not? As an example, many Western
societies allow same sex marriage but prohibit polygamy and view it
with disdain. Why is the former an endorsement of `freedom' but the
latter is not? Despite this, the `freedom' zealots will often attempt
to portray it as an absolute and universal concept, transcending all
civilisations, often inferring from its linguistic meaning, which has
no reality except through the lawless jungle. For the self appointed
High Priests of `freedom' fundamentalism, they assume to have a
monopoly over its meaning and implementation.
Therefore let us have a cursory examination of `freedom' as
implemented by the `freedom' fundamentalists.
The embodiment of `freedom' is proclaimed in the system of Democracy.
In theory, the masses exercise their free will to select the ruling
authority that would be representative of their interests. They are
supposed to be the servants of the masses, rather than their masters.
The first question that arises, is whether the notion of majority
rule is inherently correct? Did not Adolf Hitler have the majority of
the German population behind him? Secondly, how does one prevent the
majority from becoming a dictatorship, which suppresses the `freedom'
of the minority? What if, the majority in France decided to close
down all the Mosques, prohibit Islamic marriages, Islamic
slaughtering, Islamic names, and build Gas chambers for the
disobedient Muslims, would that be in line with spirit of `freedom'?
If legislation is passed to protect the minority, it is the same
majority that can undo the legislation by passing newer legislation
In reality, almost all the democratically elected governments are
voted into power by the largest minority of the total eligible voting
population. George Bush certainly did not get the majority vote in
Florida, as the election was rigged!
Every society by its nature is composed of various competing groups.
Naturally the group with the greatest power and wealth will have the
largest voice. Taking the US as an example, is it the large
multinationals with their huge party `donations' or the thousand of
impoverished voters from the Afro-American or Hispanic community who
have more influence? Hence, it is not votes but dollars that exert
real sway upon the Congress and Senate.
So, the `freedom' of choice exercised by the masses in elections, is
overwhelmingly not represented by the democratic government, but it
is the weight of money that is represented. Hence, after the
elections, the majority of political `representatives' are only
interested in serving their `donors'.
The notion of `freedom' is manifested in the economic model of
the "free market". As mentioned above, society is heterogeneous. That
usually results in the domination of a few companies in the market
(domestic and international), distorting the paradigm severely. This
is expected, as `freedom' implies rule of the jungle, "survival of
the fittest", hence the strongest members will naturally dominate. It
may be efficient at first but certainly not fair to the weaker
members of society. Given time, that efficiency will erode as the
competition diminishes and monopolies and oligopolies emerge as a
In the international arena free market economics is never practiced
in the manner it is preached by the US or Europe. Just examine the
subsidies given to their domestic industries and the import tariffs
imposed on foreign imports. The recent summit at Cancun exposed the
inherent greed of these Capitalist nations, as they sought to open up
the third world markets in a manner not to generate free trade, but
to exploitation them and their natural resources. The dictation by
the various international institutions (IMF, WTO, WB etc) to the
African and other third world nations reflects the same policies.
The philosophy of the free market is profit before `freedom' (or
blood). When the Iraqi civilians were being murdered, TV commentary
focused upon the effectiveness of the weapons. Is it the Scud or the
Patriot? Is it the Abraham tank or the Apache or the Black Hawk that
has been most effective? It was no coincidence, that immediately
after the first Gulf War, a huge arms exhibition was held in France.
Therefore, in the name of economic freedom, it is the majority that
is denied their share of the wealth, hence denial of their economic
By applying the principal of "judging the tree by its fruits" is
perhaps the most effective way of examining the notion of `freedom'.
Have the men and women under the spell of `freedom' attained greater
tranquillity and happiness? If so, why the divorce rates, single
parent families, domestic violence, child abuse, suicide rate, drug
addiction, crime, and the use of anti-depressant drugs constantly on
the rise? The direct consequence of `freedom' has been the erosion of
traditional religious family values, leading to a rise in sexual
promiscuity. The boundaries of sexual freedom are pushed constantly
as all sorts of sexual perversions become the norm. So, is this what
Bush and Blair desires for our future generation?
Then comes the flag of "women's rights", which is often measured by
the removal of their clothes, rather than looking at health,
education and security. Is this is why the lone Afghan woman was
paraded almost naked as a symbol of liberation, whilst those who
desire to wear modest clothing are being forced to remove it (Re:
recent event in France)?
We also see the bizarre duplicity in the Western attitude towards
Islam and the Muslims. As an example, they taunt the Muslims about
the vice of polygamy and the inherent goodness of monogamy, but yet,
one would be hard pressed to find someone who is truly monogamous in
their society, even amongst their leaders e.g. Bill Clinton,
Mitterrand, John Major et al. Why is Polygamy marriage a vice, where
as mass participation in the form of orgies, including homosexual
activities are an endorsement of freedom?
The other category of the `freedom' fanatics are ironically
intolerant and/or intellectually inept to address any criticism(s),
thus they often resort to racist language and personal attacks.
Unfortunately some of the self-appointed leaders of the migrant
communities have also adopted the same arguments, blinded by their
material success and comforts in the West. The argument presented is
simple, "If you don't like it here, then leave". Is this not a form
of chastising for expressing their opinion under the principal
of `free speech'? Why is it that, the people who wave the flag
of `freedom' are trying to stifle the critics or dissidents by not
addressing the issues and asking them to leave the country? This type
of behaviour and reasoning tantamounts to an admittance of
intellectual cowardice and ineptitude. Of course, these arguments are
only posed to those who belong to the migrant communities, even if
they are born in the country, especially if they have a non-European
origin; otherwise they are simply classified as dissidents. As an
example, no one has ever asked the eminent dissident, Noam Chomsky,
to migrate from the US. In any case, opinions of this type have a
number of inherent contradictions and/or flaws.
a) The notion of a `free' society means the ability to
tolerate diverse and opposing views. The very existence of criticism
gives substantial credibility to the claim of having a `free'
society. Otherwise what is the meaning of `freedom' when opposing
opinions expressed are not tolerated and threats are issued to expel
b) Those expressing criticism should be viewed as decent law
abiding citizens exercising their rights. The ruling elites are the
representatives, and hence they must find a way of representing the
dissident views, rather then attempt to silence them.
c) Even if the dissident views emanate from the economic
migrants, does that automatically mean that they have no right to
voice their opinion? Do they not have the right to participate as
citizens and alter society in accordance to their viewpoint?
Shouldn't `freedom' itself be the arbiter, in letting the masses
decide on the strongest opinion? Isn't that what `free' thinking is
all about? Let the people argue and prove their case.
d) Finally where should many of these migrant settlers go? If
the argument is that they
oppose `freedom', `dictatorship', `secularism', etc then there is no
real choice of settling in anywhere else in the world.
Just examining the track record of the `freedom' fanatics, they have
committed genocide and uprooted nations in the name of `freedom',
over the last two to three hundred years. The entire notion
of `freedom' is built upon deceit and lies. Just examine the layers
of deception in fabricating the recent war on Iraq. Therefore it is
not the nascent Islamic `fundamentalism', but the `freedom'
fundamentalism that poses the greatest threat to the peace and
security in the world.
NEWS AND VIEWS DISTRIBUTED HERE ARE THE AUTHOR'S RESPONSIBILITY
AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINION OF WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW