The previous two decades have witnessed some keywords that were being used for a variety of purposes from simple propaganda to pretexts for war.
These terms are usually started by Western politicians, promoted by Western media and more often than not sold to the masses by Eastern media to give them more legitimacy. I just thought it would be amusing to highlight the sinister meaning of some of the most popular.
This word brings to mind something intense, dark, negative, repulsive, evil and even feelings of hate towards the object it intends to describe. This expression makes it very clear the power of propaganda. Just ponder on the effect this word has when associated with the following countries. The US regime, the British regime, the French regime, the South Korean regime, the Bahraini regime; that doesn’t sound nor feel right; the mind is simply not accustomed to those word associations. All of the aforementioned go better with the words governments or system or other sweeter words.
Now note the “correct” use of the word REGIME, the way the originators intended it to work. North Korean regime, the Iranian regime, the Syrian regime, the Iraqi regime, the current system is conveniently better known as government not regime.
What makes some words repulsive or attractive are mainly politicians and then news networks making them more ingrained in our minds by constant repetition of them; psychologists call it the mere exposure effect. Perhaps the best example is Myanmar. Just few months ago it was dubbed a regime but soon after Hilary Clinton and Obama visited the country and made their public approval of it the world media halted labeling the Burmese government a regime.
It is hard to believe that adults, not children, work for these networks spearheaded by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Al-Arabiya, Al-jazeera English (which seems to have been infiltrated by Neocons and Zionists) among others and the adults in question are exceptionally intelligent; very carefully chosen. But how can they be so easily swayed to simply repeat what they hear! It bugles the mind. In any case, the intended end game is that they do manage to make very benign words appear ever more repugnant.
This word surely brings to mind names like Osama bin Laden, and Mullah Omar among others. The word has also been made to sound evil but is it?
The true meaning of this word is the fullest extent of adherence to some doctrine or ideology. It has been villainised but for me as a Muslim I couldn’t think of a more beautiful term. Islam as an ideology is not in hunt of some popularity contest title and as such being fundamental is a beautiful thing. Being fundamental is simply being fully respectful of Allah.
Being a fundamentalist means adhering to the rules of this great religion or any other ideology exactly as it is ordained. It means no selling out. The word has mainly been used to describe “hard core” Muslims but judging by the behavior of Western politicians the word is more fitting for them. Case in example, the William Hagues, Sarkozys and Obamas of this world are true fundamentalist in the sense that their thinking is rigid because they are controlled by the same mysterious force.
Specifically, these men tend to agree on things that they really shouldn’t because it makes all of them seem carbon copies of each other and quite frankly make them seem dense. Their stance on Israel despite its many atrocities speaks volumes about their fundamentalism. As you can see, the word is not copy-write material for the Muslims.
I am not sure which word is meant to demonize Islam more, Islamists or fundamentalists. It all depends on the contexts in which these words are used and the deliberate intentions of always associating them with some sort of evil. The fact of the matter however is that Islamist, like fundamentalist, is a word that without massaging it with evil actions is a totally beautiful word. While being a communist or a socialist or Marxist might be a bad thing depending on how one looks at it, being an Islamist has nothing evil inherent in it. An Islamist, like fundamentalist, would be practicing this errorless religion exactly as is ordained and when one does that he is a complete being, just short of being an angel.
An Islamist, a true Islamist, would definitely be a beautiful being; I bet on my life that he would. An Islamist would not abuse others, he or she would not be deceptive, he would not be engaged in corruption or in corrupting, he would be a very hard working person, a loving person, a kind person and all the good deeds ordered by Islamic teachings. From what I said, don’t confuse an Islamist with a softy for a true Islamist can be gentle when required and can be fearsome when the situation demands it. A true Islamist would defend his property, honor and other rights with his life if need be. But all that would still not make an Islamists an evil person. Islamism is a bad and evil term for the same reason fundamentalism and other words are.
The two words discussed above have been villainised deliberately by always associating them with violence and otherwise abusive connotations. They stand out as evil terms simply because they rarely get associated with attitudes and behaviors that truly represent them. To the contrary, the opposite has been done to glorify evil by consistently associating it with beautiful uplifting terms. It is the same as calling someone who is spreading evil and filth with words like hero or star much as is the case with the majority of Hollywood actors and directors. They often spread filth but are almost always called stars and heroes and other attractive words so that they are given more power to spread more filth. It comes down to intentional word associations. Not many people in Europe or the US who call their children Hitler because even a name has become evil by what it is constantly associated with. The word Hitler has nothing inherently evil about it but it is such in many people’s minds because it never is associated with good.
The natural progression from fundamentalism is into terrorism. This word too has been made to seem copy-writed by Muslims. Suicide bombers, hijackings and similar acts are almost always associated with Muslims and Islam. The truth however is that Western politicians own this word far more than Al-Qaeda and her brothers ever could.
The difference is in the texture and appearance but the result of Western terrorism is far more devastating. Western terrorists usually come in great suits, well shaved and ride in expensive limousines and always have a better and more wide reaching platform to rational-lies their terror to the world. They own the bigger share of the media through which to polish their terror.
They have managed over the years to make the world believe that mass killings by sophisticated jetfighters and high tech drones is less messier than by a dynamite-full back pack carried by a suicide bomber. They have incredibly managed to convince the masses that their killings are more merciful and are of more service to the world. However, Judging by the numbers of people obliterated by either side, you can be the judge as to who more deserves the description, terrorist.
And so it goes, in the Eastern hemisphere, if you are fighting for something but don’t belong to the Zionists or American forces or “freedom fighters” and don’t belong to forces of a “regime” then you must be a terrorist belonging to Al-Qaeda and her countless affiliates or belonging to “terror” groups of Hamas or Hezbollah.
Recently France and her buddies started attacking the Tuareg fighters which are conveniently labeled affiliates of Al-Qaeda but if the US and the other gangsters wished it so the group could have easily been deemed “freedom fighters” against the Mali REGIME. It just so happened that the group is fighting against a friendly government to the West, hence the term terrorists for the rebels and government for Mali authorities, not regime.
This is the one word that Muslims have not been exclusively defined by a great deal as it is a more fitting word for Western politicians and their friend of the East. One prominent example is that for years they placed Gaddafi under strictest of sanctions because he had not been obey-ful to their demands but when he seemed to shift course they started flying in flocks into Tripoli to hug and kiss him. They even indeed invited him to their capitals and honored him enormously. Note that before him, Saddam Hussain received exactly the same treatment.
Somewhere along the way they realized that gaddafi wasn’t about to let them have their way with Libya’s resources so they shifted course again and ended up killing the man. We went in to support the revolution they claimed; exactly as they are busy doing in Syria at present. Just in the neighborhood, in Bahrain, where people are revolting for exactly the same reasons and for about the same period, they seem mute and deaf at the same time.
In our world, duplicity of the strong isn’t as bad as that of the weak. Hezbollah and Hamas are to be fought against as terrorists but “freedom fighters” of Syria are to be awarded medals of bravery. The Jewish state can own as many nuclear weapons as it wishes but Iran can’t be allowed to even own a functioning nuclear program for energy needs. I stand corrected though, that is beyond duplicity that is gangster mentality.
Parrotism: I personally am fond of this word because it is totally made up; it means being a brainless mouthpiece for some stronger forces then yourself. Because I couldn’t find a word good enough to describe the behavior of the media and some Arab politicians as it relates to thoughtless repetitions as is the case with Qatari’s prime minister, I came up with the second best description, PARROTISM.
The word simply means repeating what strong world leaders say without due examination. When Obama or Cameron says so and so is a terrorist and you find what is supposed to be serious media repeating the same, you don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The same is true with weak politicians who have been afforded great platforms on which to preach garbage.
A city state the size of Qatar for example, shouldn’t have as much say as it does on the Arab stage let alone the Muslim and world stage, but it does. It only has been afforded that much power because it keeps recycling exactly what powerful Western leaders want to propagate. Being an Arab and a Muslim, I am shamed by such attitudes and behaviors.
Free, fair and practical media is essential especially for those in pursuit of justice and free media needs to start by scrutinizing words used by the enemies of justice because those terms are the vehicles used to brainwash, manipulate and eventually legitimize disasters such as wars and other injustices. If one wishes to sermonize nonsense, at least make it original nonsense, not imitative.
Repeating without examining is either done intentionally or due to ignorance and as such responsible media and politicians needs to avoid both as none is pardonable. Repetition of words lead to replication of attitudes and copying of attitudes eventually leads to supporting injustices and atrocities.
Much of Muslim blood spilling of the last two decades has been green-lighted by politicians and media using words that authorizes it. Ahemdi Nijads and Chavezs of this world enjoy great support simply because they are original, not saints but authentic.
Press TV, RT, Wiki Leaks and the likes ought to be supported wholeheartedly by all who seek to better the world and counter intentional or ignorant-ridden media and politicians. No one is claiming that these media outlets are perfect but at the very least their intentions seem purer; resisting evil. The evidence for their just cause is that though few, they still manage to get the voices of the many across.
The media, public debates, the United Nations and other circles are infested with words meant to bend the world psyche but the good news is that the world assisted by the internet and other means is fighting back. We are fighting back. Every little contribution helps.