The Political Changes Of The West And Naughty Iran

When Obama was running for president the word `change` leaked profusely from his mouth. The politically and historically aware people grinned, and the rest of us hoped. To claim that the possibility of change in politics is bullshit is to claim that a failure can never change into a success. However, in light of empirical research and cynicism, the word `change` seems far too pretty in this age to be true to the extent that Obama once confidently promised.

50 years ago, Obama would not even be allowed to board a bus and sit next to a white man. Today he is the president of the world`s most dominant body, the US. This change seems drastic, so let us examine it. Did Obama come into power because of the politicians` admiration for ethnic diversity? Or did Obama come into power because of the politicians` thirst for economic prosperity and power? The 1960s saw the birth of global multiculturalism spread through the West, and as it spread, the voices of the peoples of Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe grew louder and louder, shattering the peaceful and hegemonic frequencies of the West`s society. Riots took place, and movements of identity politics and pro-equality succeeded. For the sake of economics the politicians had to accommodate the dirty foreigners who polluted the pure culture of the nations which previously and supposedly boasted of cultural unity, if there exists such a narrow thing. The imperialism of the 17th century and the Scramble for Africa leaked its way into the West, the accommodation of and allowances for multiculturalism being a new sly method for exploiting the foreigners under the veil of equality and opportunism. To have refused the non-whites a place in the West would have been to halt the growth of diaspora which ultimately strengthened the economy of the West, securing its clever profits and political superiority. Is Obama spinning around on his chair at the West Wing because of practical politics, or did the elite genuinely admire him and what he stood for?

Voltaire once said: I detest what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. Such a statement could explain that perhaps the growth of multiculturalism has enlightened the society of the West, teaching it about different cultures and enriching its peoples` intellectual sympathy for racial and cultural pluralism. The new-found tolerance may not be a matter of economics and political pragmatism, but a matter of true enlightenment, even truer than that of the 1789 - 1815 era. With the gradual fading away of racist policies, and the ridiculous ideas of Gobineau which boasted of `scientific` evidence justifying racialism, the world together has grown more understanding and tolerant. Obama`s great intellect and mannerism is charming and warm indeed, and the differences made whilst his time in office are noticeable. But one must ask, without falling into the danger of becoming too conspiratorial, why the US, which hated non-whites so much, has accepted a non-white to represent it.

Greed lies at the heart of politics, and this nature cannot be changed, nor should it, if state-politics is about power and authority as a prerequisite to the implementation of `change`. The example of Obama was used to incorporate the latter. Politics allows for undesirable decisions to be made hesitantly and hungrily in order to secure wealth, power, and status.

Today, the West`s greed is becoming ever more identifiable, almost desperate. In succession to recent debates between Iran and the West, embassies have been closed, and threats made. Iran is a nation which has inherited a vast history, great masses of oil, and a stereotypical label as a dangerous component of the Middle East. A US General tells The Times newspaper: "It is our stated policy that we will not allow Iran to become a nuclear factor." This statement opens up concerns as to the lengths that American congressmen are prepared to support in seizing the production of nuclear energy in Iran; in the past two years three of Iran`s most learned scientists were assassinated, could it be that Iran`s apparent indifference to this incident could spark a second Iraq?

America`s constant hacks at Iran for betraying the sacred facets which form the invariably-abused human rights policies has now led to another reason which may justify a replica of events from 2003. The concept of human rights originated in Iran years ago, and now is outlined by the Regime which has been placed there now almost 33 years. Before one congratulates the West`s courageous invasions into these human rights-betraying states, one should ask who put the theocratic and dictatorial bodies into power - the people, or the West?

Claiming to be the heroes of the world, the American government entered into Iraq some years ago under the `War on Terror`, depriving little Iraqi children of basic medicine whilst Saddam`s private pharmacies remained open and slavish to his dirty disposal. Does this not make one question what the reason for this was? In the same way the West has began yet again to slowly move its way into Iran, telling its president that he has been naughty in contemplating the creation of nuclear energy. William Hague emphasised that now the only agenda which will bring about any form of liaising between Britain and Iran will be `human rights` and `nuclear energy`. A great irony is extracted through newspaper headlines when American congressmen say `human rights`. The notion of `the right to life` seems invisible in Hillary`s US in which execution of innocent and guilty men takes place, rejecting outright the untouchable (subject to American exceptions) right to life.

Nuclear energy is a bad thing, so bad that the West has the right amount needed to blow the Earth up inside and out seven times. No country should have such Earth-destroying weapons. Surely the West, which has overtly severed nations, brutally murdered their peoples, and looted their resources in order to remain supreme, should be the nation that loses the raffle for nuclear energy. Yet, under the pretentious words of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, American politicians fear Iran`s employment of the five metric tonnes of uranium which it now supposedly has. Do your research and ask yourself the following question:

If you were an alien and landed on Earth, went to the library and read some history books - would you be more frightened of America + Britain, or Iran?