-- The Media Lens guys once made a terrific point about the way we are always getting another 'new Hitler': if memory serves, they called it a sign that the button has been pressed for maximum demonisation, which inevitably leads straight to comparison with the Nazis.
Something similar is the case with the word 'genocide'. Like the term 'new Hiter', it's a 'maximum strength' denunciation that is reserved for use by us exclusively (we the proudly democratic, freedom-loving US empire tyrannies). It's the word that legitimates any and every degree of economic and military violence in response -- whence, of course, it must not be available to any official enemy, anyone we would at some point like to sanction or bomb into a state of colonial submission. Thus on that morning in 2022 when Russia launched its SMO, President Putin referred to the genocide in eastern Ukraine ... and within a matter of hours had the word literally, explicitly dismissed by -- to my certain knowledge -- three of Radio 4's news turds, one of them uber-stool Nick Robinson ("There was no coup; there are no Nazis, there is no genocide"), and none of them possessing the actual socio-political rank that gives them the broadcasting right to summarily trash-talk a foreign head of state. But the situation is clear: if there was a genocide taking place, then Russia's actions (and more) would be justified -- and that simply cannot be allowed. Ukraine or Israel, you cannot have a western tool, I mean valued democratic and freedom-loving ally, committing crimes against humanity. Genocides, by definition, are what the other side does.
M.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »