Francis Fukuyama wrote an article under the title: “What Became of the Freedom Agenda?” and it was published in the Wall Street Journal on February 10, 2010. The article also bore the subtitle: “President Obama can avoid his predecessor's mistakes without alienating the people of countries like Iran” which was probably authored by the editors of the Journal rather than Fukuyama himself. Indeed, aside from one casual mention of the Shah of Iran, Fukuyama did not seem interested to talk about that country in this article. But no one should be surprised by this because to push its own point of view by using someone else’s writing is a habit that the conservative Wall Street Journal has employed with liberal aplomb and little shame.
But the classic mistake that Fukuyama makes can be seen in the words of the first paragraph he wrote. Here is a string of them: “President Obama’s recent drop in the polls … with regard to the promotion of democracy in the Middle East … The consensus of … experts on the left and the right … shortly after the rise of Hamas in the Gaza elections of 2006.” Fukuyama is here using a situation he does not fully understand as a springboard to articulate a point of view that seems to revolve around the ongoing battle between the left and the right in the American political arena. And the problem with this approach is that the author gets to play in the hands of someone else and thus project the image of being someone’s mouthpiece rather than be true to himself and to his beliefs.
To begin with, the reality is that there has been a 2006 election in all of Palestine, not just in Gaza like he says. There is a reason why some people call it the Palestinian election and why other people call it the Gaza election, and I suspect that Fukuyama was playing in the hands of one faction at the expense of the other. But this sort of thing is what contributes to the confusion; something that is prevalent throughout this article. Indeed, after a couple of winding paragraphs pertaining to America’s reliance on what he calls Arab strongmen, Fukuyama quotes something that he says were W. Bush’s words. They are these: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom . . . did nothing to make us safe. . . . As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."
The fact is that these words are the exact opposite of the truth and they were authored by the Likud/AIPAC axis to incite America to go to war. They came in the framework of the words uttered by Condoleezza Rice to this effect at the American University in Cairo and the framework of the Yitzhak Shamir cry: “Zey know nossing about za damacracy.” Fukuyama ought to know that the guy they call W. Bush did not have a fraction of the brains it would take to come up with a thought like this even if the situation it describes were true and were sitting in the open for everyone to see. In fact, it took the brain power of a bunch that is vastly superior to W to come up with a construct as deceitful as this, to organize for it and to use someone as feeble minded as W to implement it. The Iraq war being the result of this work, the question to ask is whether or not Fukuyama wishes to see another American involvement in a quagmire of this magnitude and this duration. If he keeps on playing in the hands that manipulate him, he will get his wish.
And the reason why AIPAC sent Condoleezza Rice to utter these words in Cairo even after the Iraq tragedy had started and was underway, is that it is a part of the in-your-face trick that Israel and the Jewish organizations pull all the time not only on the Arabs but on the whole world. This is how they do it: first, they get the Israeli media to discuss a subject that is not flattering to someone; most likely the Arabs but it could be the Eastern Europeans, the Latin Americans or someone else. When the AIPAC people get word that the receiving party has been riled enough, they get the American media, most of which they control, to pick up the subject and practically say the same thing thus demonstrate to the world that they own and operate America. Then they get someone in the US Congress or the Administration or even the President himself to utter something to that effect, and do it in the most unexpected, in-your-face sort of way. This last step confirms to the world that the government of Israel together with AIPAC and the other Jewish organizations has an exclusive right to America like an executive has exclusive right to a private washroom.
So then what do you do when you have a superpower at your disposal to use like a private toilet? Well, let’s hear what Fukuyama has to say about that: “...Bush went on to say that there was no cultural reason why the Arab world should remain … resistant to … democracy.” But since Bush did not explain what he meant because the folks in Israel and AIPAC had not yet figured out the thing themselves, Fukuyama had to wait a long time before he could see the explanation. It finally came and here it is in his words: “As a report published last month by the U.S. Institute of Peace … argues … the lack of democracy in the Arab world is political. … Arab authoritarians … have tolerated … the participation of Islamist candidates in elections … to prove to Western backers…”
Whoa! This is such a mouthful, we need to stop for a moment and go back to high school before we try to make sense of it. What I remember most about relationships when I was in high school was that I and the other boys thought of ourselves as being the center of someone’s attention. It was then, and it must still be that when a boy has a crush on a girl, he wants to believe that everything the girl does, she does it to send him a message or to attract his attention or to please him. And the same must be true with teenaged girls when they have a crush on a boy. Likewise, the adolescents who populate the political and media theatres in America want to believe that someone out there is doing something to send them a signal or to prove something to them or to attract their attention. Well, let me assure these romantic idiots that the world worries about them only inasmuch as a teacher would worry about the mischief of an immature teenager who might, in frustration, mount a prank or commit a serious act that would disrupt the class or annoy the other students. In reality, nobody gives a damn what Bush or anyone of his caliber thinks of them when it comes to matters of their national security. These people are out to prove nothing to anyone because they are too busy running a country unlike their counterparts in America who are eternally preoccupied with maintaining the right posture to please every small fart that comes to visit them from Israel.
Because Fukuyama was not aware of these realities before he started to write the article, he took liberty to explain that the Bush idea about liberating the Middle East was correct but the implementation was badly handled. Does this sound familiar? Of course it does. Indeed, all the operatives of Israel and of AIPAC who argued for the invasion of Iraq said after the fiasco that the idea behind the invasion was a good one but the implementation was handled badly. And so, they blamed the fiasco on Bush and the American military thus pushing the blame away from the self described “Children of Holocaust survivors” who planned and executed the invasion from A to Z; and Fukuyama ought to know because he was and still is close friends with these characters.
And in a classic textbook manner by which you can detect the fact that evil is not asleep at the switch, you get to see how Fukuyama is being used to repeat the Iraq tragedy. This is how he goes about discharging the task that was assigned to him. He was made to write this: “Mr. Obama arrived in office with none of this baggage, and therefore had an opportunity to recommit the United States to peaceful change. But the window is rapidly closing … In Jordan, for example … the regime’s … passing of … temporary laws…” After a few more winding paragraphs that sound like half-baked notions out of the AIPAC/Likud book of nonsense, Fukuyama continues that same train of thought and comes up with this Talmudic recommendation: “Taking a Middle Eastern democracy agenda seriously … mean[s] working quietly behind the scenes to push friendly authoritarians towards a genuine broadening of political space in their countries through the repeal of countless exceptional laws, defamation codes, party registration statutes and the like that hinder the emergence of real democratic contestation.”
Indeed, evil never sleeps at the switch. It has developed a new game plan that looks like old wine in a new bottle to take control of future events and manipulate them to its advantage. Instead of advocating the bombing of the Arabs and the Muslims back to the Stone Age which is what the agents of evil boasted they will do but failed when it came to the execution, they now want to write the laws of the Middle Eastern countries the same way that AIPAC and the friends of Israel have been writing the laws in the United States congress where they scored multiple successes for their causes and multiple defeats for America.
And with this plan comes the dream of mimicking the American political campaigns. Unaware of what he was asked to do, Fukuyama is telling us that the Talmudists see in their moment of deep hallucination Arab presidential candidates and aspiring politicians run to Israel where they proclaim that God gave the Jews the land which extends from the Nile to the Euphrates. They also fantasize about the Arabs constructing an oval office in every executive building with an oval toilet in the middle and an oval urinal on the wall for the exclusive use of every fart that comes to visit from Israel. It seems that the more these characters alter the game to suit the occasion, the more the game remains the same except that it sinks ever more deeply into the abyss of absurdity. Have you ever heard of the Yiddish word hubris? If not, you have a definition of it in the paragraphs above.
What else can be said about Fukuyama’s method of handling this sort of subject? Well, there is no doubt the man has strong views with regard to the march of history, and this is something that prompts me to ask a few questions. When writing articles like that, why does he not begin by explaining how it is that humanity has lived and has progressed for seven thousand years without the “liberal democratic” system he believes is our destiny? And why is it that no holocaust happened during nearly a millennium and a half of Arab rule when these people “knew nossing about za damacracy” according to Shamir, but happened under Hitler’s rule who was elected according to the principles of liberal democracy of which he and his Holocaust surviving pals are so enamored? Do these people prefer to see the repeat of a Nazi style holocaust over the coexistence that the Arabs are offering under the rubric of live and let live? Have Fukuyama and his Jewish pals gone nuts or something?
If the man wants to be taken seriously when writing about the Middle East, he must begin by expanding on those points before explaining how the system of his vision will fit into the equation of the region and make it safe for Jews like Europe has been from the time of the Inquisition to the advent of the Third Reich. But if he does not begin with that, he must give his piece a disclaimer for a title to say in effect: “This article contains AIPAC inspired quackeries; read at your peril” to which the Wall Street Journal could then add the subtitle: “Let’s all hate the Arabs and get a tax cut”. Until these two are prepared to proceed in this manner, they should keep off the back of the Arabs of both the Christian and the Muslim faiths because these people have too many useless ideas thrown at them as it is and they have it up to here already.