Western hypocrisy

The level of western hypocrisy is mind boggling. Western countries like to lecture the world about a lot of things that they themselves are guilty of.

Consider the hypocrisy over freedom of speech. America and other western countries love to lecture the rest of the world about freedom of speech yet their own media is extremely fond of toeing the government line. We saw how the US media helped delude its citizens about Iraq before the invasion and now we see how it continues down the same path as it helps demonize Iran just like the US government wants it to. The western media clearly endulges in self censorship and has an obvious bias especially against Muslims. The BBC, for example, openly talks about racial profiling of Muslims as if institutionalised racism against Muslims is perfectly okay.

Recent news stories suggest that things are much worse in the new colonies of Iraq and Afghanistan. The raid on the offices of an Iraqi journalist’s union and the destruction of a freelance cameraman’s footage in Afghanistan are just the the most recent examples.

Then there is the rampant intolerance. The west loves to lecture the rest of the world about the need for "moderation" and tolerance while it launches ever increasing attacks on Muslim countries around the world. People in the west can’t even tolerate Muslims living on the same planet as them much less those living in their own countries. So much for "freedom" and tolerance!

4 thoughts on “Western hypocrisy

  1. If westerners were really intolerant London, and in fact the whole UK wouldn’t be so overcrowded with Muslims and you wouldn’t have any Muslim MPs. Which muslim nation has got so many westeners living in it and are holding a government post such as a MP or minister?

    • Western nations accept migration from Muslim countries because it serves their own interests. They have a dearth of skilled labour and so they allow skilled workers and investors to migrate to their countries. This sort of migration leads to economic growth that benefits all citizens.

      Also they have to provide a legal migration path to dissuade people from going their illegally.

      Now as far as MPs are concerned, why is it such a magnificent gesture of tolerance if Muslim MPs have to swear an oath to their queen and their christian flag and their English laws? It really isn’t now, is it?

      The british have a long history of recruiting natives in their colonies to do their bidding. That is how a few thousand whites managed to rule over millions of Indians. This is just another phase of that.

      Look at the recent spate of intolerance. Muslims aren’t allowed to build mosques. Mosques can’t have minarets or sound the call to prayer. Intolerance is rampant.

      Almost all Muslim countries have westerners living in them. Just like westerners need skilled labourers from poor countries, so poor countries recruit skilled workers from the west. Lots of top management of companies and NGO workers in Pakistan are white. In Saudi Arabia Aramco recruits many American workers.

      Non of them have govt. positions because they are not citizens of Muslim countries. That is because, unlike western countries, it does not serve our interests to allow them to become citizens.

    • may be not minister or mp are in the muslim countries but if you see all business booses are western people
      either it is indonesia or malaysia or arab nations
      and almost all muslim leaders are puppet of western nations either king of suadi arabia or afghans krazi
      if some one oppose west than he is no more in the power.
      example sadam a bad dictator but secular he was thrown out becoz us dont like him
      saudi arab kings are bad dictators and hard core but friends of us so they are ruling
      this is called hyprocrisy

  2. Respecting a nation and the rights it offers you is not too hypocritical. The real hypocrisy demonstrated from the west, and I can testify about it because I have lived in it, is the ignorant assumptions they make about numerous minority cultural groups as being oppressive or out of date. They try to demonize polygamy when it is permissible for a man to live “polygamously”, yet have no legal responsibility for his relationships. It is argued that nations outside are oppressive to gender rights, when there’s plenty of conditions, such as poverty, a poorly educated populace, lack of effective commerce, that make most of the population live in shambles, and almost all too easily compel plenty of people to live in seemingly backward ways. I am not Muslim, but I do respect some of the principles that you stand for. And wish you the best.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *