the irony, of course, is that the british and americans have generally carried through their imperialist agenda in the middle east by installing brutal dictators, not by spreading western values systems. the counter-example is iran, but one wonders if that was actually a sign of respect for the deep legacy of iranian culture, almost an invitation for iran to enter into the european world. they never tried anything like that in any arab countries.

and, a lot of anti-imperialist writers will make the point explicitly. to an extent, this kind of moral relativism is actually a type of orientalism. while it is true that the koran forbids homosexuality, it is also true that the strict laws against homosexuality in the arab world are largely a consequence of imperialism, not just since world war one but back to napoleon's invasion of egypt, which did not seek to dismantle these islamic theocracies so much as it sought to use them to create stable puppet regimes. before it collapsed, the ottoman empire was rapidly secularizing; the introduction of british and french forces actually reversed that. what we call the islamic golden age was actually a period of iranian and babylonian renaissance that was ended by an enforcement of islamic theocracy that came in after the mongolian destruction event, and with that enforcement came a crack down on homosexuality, as a consequence of a need to reconstruct the population. historically, crackdowns on homosexuality are usually tied to a need for the elite to create more slaves, which is exactly what happened after the mongol invasion. rumi, for example, was openly bisexual. many anti-imperialist writers have argued that this culture of homophobia and toxic masculinity is not indigenous to the middle east, but actually comes from the militarism of the imperialist west.

it's just another example of how these people are ignorant of history, and just a reflection of the status quo, as enforced by mass media. this idea that the west wants to enforce it's value systems on the east is just a propaganda tool used by western militaries - this has never been true in any meaningful sense. imperialism rejects democracy using all of the same language that the islamic theocracies and military dictatorships will use, which is not a coincidence, as these regimes are the actual legacy of imperialism. and, likewise, it's not some coincidence that these so-called relativists are just out there performing argumentative lip service for the very militant groups that our own governments are supporting, in order to destabilize our geopolitical rivals in russia. they've got it completely backwards.

i have to support the rights of self-determination, not just ideologically but also pragmatically. you can't enforce a democracy on a people. but, i can choose which groups i want to stand in solidarity with, and they are the groups that stand up for enlightenment values in their aim to abolish the ancient orders - which are the groups often in most direct conflict with imperialist ambitions.