Nick Cohen is so much better than this. I am not only referring to the vulgar gallery-playing over what he must know is not at all what most people have been led to believe about the Catholic Church and pederasty, while, as he is again undoubtedly aware, there is simply no truth whatever in the line about the Church and the Nazis, peddled mostly to justify second class citizenship for Catholics in Nazareth, martial law for Catholics in Bethlehem, bombardment of Catholics in Lebanon, and the forcible removal of Iraqi Catholics' protection against genocide.
Was the Papacy notable for its close relationship with the Soviet regime, such that it would wish to maintain such ties with that regime's last vestige in Europe? The Holy See identifies as a bridge between Eastern and Western Christendom the last nation in Europe west of the Russian border to identify entirely in terms other than those of rootless neoliberal stupefaction, promiscuity, usury and warmongering.
On what basis does Cohen assert that the Belarusian elections were rigged? What is his source for lines which can only have been uttered by highly politicised people, if by anyone? Is Cohen repulsed by the spectacle of his own past life in the Brezhnev-era kitsch of the Lukashenko Government? Or is he attracted to the spectacle of his own past life in the spotty, unelectable adolescents who comprise the Belarusian "opposition"? Perhaps it is both.
And what would he have instead in Belarus? I mean, that is actually on offer? In the neighbouring giant, the New Cold Warriors are cheering on all of the Stalinists, the National Bolsheviks (Nazis with the hammer and sickle in place of the swastika), the Islamist terrorists, and the anti-urban, anti-industrial, anti-scientific fantasists. Under any of those, what would be the fate of people called Cohen?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The correspondent for the New Statesman, which excused the mass murders of the Soviet Union in the 1930s, out-Stalinised his Stalinist predecessors."
ReplyDeleteWe will sue.
Which Stalinist predecessors? The young Nick Cohen?
ReplyDeleteWhen I said we will sue, I obviously meant that Neil Clark will sue. I have never met Neil Clark, oh no.
ReplyDeleteStill bitter that he gets the gigs and you don't. Sad. Very, very, very sad.
ReplyDeleteHe's a regular conributor to The Guardian, The Australian and The Times even though they don't know this.
ReplyDeleteHe is so attractive and intelligent, almost as much as me.
He certainly is a regular contributor to the Guardian and to the Australian, in both of which I read him, as do plenty of other people.
ReplyDeleteIf anything that you people said about him were true, then he would not be employed by either, nor by the New Statesman, nor by the Spectator, nor by the American Conservative, nor by ... well, you get the point. Or do you?
As for some loss-making neocon rag behind Murdoch's paywall, who cares? Its standards are so low that it employs Oliver Kamm.
Now, on topic, please.