The only thing eroding is the veneer that anyone in the imperial core gives a shit about assassinations. We’re less able to credibly hand wring than ever before, but it was always only hand wringing.
When Russia’s Military Intelligence Service, the GRU, tried to poison Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in 2018, the denials by the Russian government were deliberately feeble
For RUSI, a British think tank to say this is the height of shamelessness and hypocrisy when the British themselves are still the likeliest suspects for that whole incident.
There has never been any evidence that the Russians were behind it, which is why the Russians denied it every single time the accusations was leveled. Now even denying something is proof that they did it because they didn’t deny it forcefully enough? At some point Russia doesn’t bother anymore to respond to these slanderous accusations because it doesn’t change anything anyway, the western media has already fabricated a narrative.
Also, i love how they try to make it seem like the hands of the US and UK are oh so clean (apart from targeting people who “deserved it”)…what about the planned assassination of Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for which we have admissions from people who were actually involved when it was discussed? This was even mainstream media news, but hey let’s sweep that under the rug just like the years long incarceration and torture of Assange for revealing war crimes.
Every time the west accuses one of their enemies of something they put them in a double bind like this. If they don’t protest and deny it, it’s proof they did it. If they do protest and deny it, it’s also proof they did it.
(Insert Parenti Quote here)
The quote
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.
This academic level can also be a researcher?I don’t think their ability to analyze the international situation is as good as that of Beijing taxi drivers.
Haha yeah, and I mean it’s just obvious shit why you wouldn’t want to normalize political assassinations. The fact that this needs to be spelled out is kind of hilarious in my opinion.
Yes, although a little reactionary, I think his job will be replaced by ChatGPT.