Neil Clark writes:
All we have to do to highlight the enormous hypocrisy and double
standards which are the hallmark of domestic and international politics is to
switch the names around.
Actions taken by Western establishment approved countries and actors
which are deemed to be totally uncontroversial, would be deemed to be
‘absolutely outrageous’ if done to them.
Here’s a few examples:
Furthermore, in the country that
was being attacked, a famine threatened the lives millions of people.
Well, the poorest country in the
Middle East is Yemen, and it’s being bombed to smithereens by the one of the
richest, Saudi Arabia, a close ally of Britain, using UK-made cluster bombs.
And guess what, the
West’s Something Must Me Done brigade, who expressed so much ‘humanitarian’ concern over the fighting to regain Aleppo from Al-Qaeda/Al Nusra terrorists,
are silent.
How strange.
And that shortly
afterwards, a leading Russian ‘satirical’ magazine had mocked the tragedy, drawing cartoons of the
choir singing to ‘a new audience’ on the seabed and posted a caption saying
that the only ‘bad news’ about the crash was that French President François
Hollande had not been on board.
There would, I’m sure, have been plenty of ‘superior’ discussion in Western media about the ‘moral depravity’ and the ‘dark soul’ of the Russian character.
But the plane that crashed was carrying
Russian singers.
And it was the elite-approved Charlie Hebdo magazine that poked fun at the dead.
So there was no outcry in the West. And no accusations of racism.
Just imagine… if it had been NATO, and not the Warsaw Pact, which had
been disbanded at the end of the old Cold War.
And then Russia, breaking the
promises it had made to the US President, had expanded the Warsaw Pact right up
to the borders of the USA, deploying thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and other military hardware in Mexico
and Canada.
Would commentators in ‘respectable’ establishment journals be
calling this ‘American aggression’? I think not.
Just imagine... if a senior political officer at the Russian Embassy in
London had been caught on film talking about the ‘take down’ of a British
Foreign Officer Minister deemed to be too critical of Russia and who was
causing the country ‘a
lot of problems.’
That
there was a group called ‘Labour Friends of Russia’ and the political officer
said the Embassy had a fund of more than £1m for them?
We can be sure that the
revelations would have led, at the very least, to diplomatic expulsions, the
announcement of a full-scale government investigation, as well as a plethora of
articles on the ‘outrageous’ interference by Russia in British political
affairs.
But the senior political officer caught on film was working for Israel, so a potential
plot about the ’take down’ of a UK minister was deemed to be not a very
important news story.
By more or less the same people who would have been
telling us it was a very important news story if it had involved Russia.
Just imagine… if Hillary Clinton and not Donald Trump had won the US
Presidential election in November and Trump’s supporters had behaved in the way
that Clinton’s have.
That intelligence officials had tried to de-legitimize
Clinton’s victory by claiming Saudi interference in the election, and produced
as proof of this a document which drew attention to Saudi TV’s alleged
pro-Clinton stance.
Then, a week before the inauguration of President-elect
Clinton was due to take place, the US media publicized a dossier compiled by an
ex-intelligence officer from another country claiming Saudi Arabia was
blackmailing Clinton, even though the dossier was unverified and contained
glaring factual errors.
The papers would I’m sure be full of commentary from ‘liberal’ pundits raging about a ‘coup’ and anti-democratic attempts to
overturn the election result.
However, Trump won on November 8th, and not
Clinton, so he’s fair game for Deep State attacks.
All in the name of democracy.
Just imagine… if UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn had urged MPs to
support a socialist Peace Rocket, which would cost the British taxpayer at
least £31 billion and possibly as much as £205 billion, over its lifetime.
That
Corbyn had praised the Peace Rocket as being ‘worth every penny’ and
absolutely essential for Britain and for the peace of the world.
Then, after
Parliament had voted in favor, it came to light that the Peace Rocket had
misfired on a test and that Corbyn had kept schtum about it.
That four times he
had been asked by the BBC’s Andrew Marr if he had known about the misfire, and
four times he had avoided answering the question.
We can be sure the calls for Corbyn to resign would have
been deafening.
That there would have been fearsome denunciations of the ‘enormous waste' of taxpayers money on a ‘socialist vanity project.’
And that
the vote on the ‘Peace Rocket’ would be held again.
But it was the
elite-approved Trident and not a socialist ‘Peace Rocket’ that misfired, so the
response has been very different.
We’re told the malfunction of Britain’s ‘independent nuclear deterrent,’
and the failure of the government to mention it before Parliament voted on
renewal, is no big deal.
That the misfiring Trident is still worth spending
billions of pounds of taxpayers money on at a time of austerity.
And of course,
there is absolutely no need for Parliament to debate the issue again.
Just imagine... if Russia had spent $5 billion in trying to bring about a
regime change in Canada, with neo-Nazis providing the ‘cutting edge’ of
anti-government protests.
That torchlight processions by neo-Nazis and
ultra-nationalists -commemorating wartime SS divisions were held in the new
‘democratic’ Canada.
We could expect widespread condemnations and denunciations
of Russia’s ‘links’ to the ‘far right.’
But it's happening in Ukraine.
And
guess what? The West’s ‘fascism is coming’ brigade are not the slightest bit
interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment