Sometimes, in cyberspace, messages appear that don’t have a wide resonance, perhaps, due to a lack of an element of sensationalism, or, rather, they’re not obvious, so, they’re not clearly visible to the naked eye. Not long ago, the BBC Russian Service broadcast a seemingly “innocuous” titbit… the French Parliament decided to return a mummified Maori warrior’s head to New Zealand; it had been on exhibit in a French museum. The report stated, literally, “In the 19th century, mummified heads were in vogue amongst collectors in Europe. Museum curators stated, ‘Probably, some Maori were killed for their beautiful tattoos’”. For those who haven’t figured it out yet, let’s repeat it. Until recently, the West, which has always trumpeted its enlightenment and civilisation, which sets itself up as an exemplar for the world, had a “thing” for mummified human heads. They routinely killed people in their colonial territories for the sake of their incredibly beautiful tattoos.
In fact, there was little change in the 20th century. The “fighters for democracy” who hunted down and killed Ernesto “Che” Guevara y de la Sema in Bolivia cut off his hands, they sent them preserved in alcohol to their paymasters… as proof of a job well done. It’s the 21st century… what’s up now? What thoughts came to mind amidst the numerous scandals caused by the appearance of American “photos from the war?” They didn’t come from journalists, for they were “missing” due to censorship; rather, ordinary soldiers posted them on the internet. The images of torture at Abu Ghraib were a small drop in the ocean. The sad thing is that one realises that this was something of a fashion if one judged things by the number of shots posed against a backdrop of corpses or torture. In fact, it’s the same thing as collecting animal skins and human scalps in the colonial era. Are we only talking about a minority of mentally disturbed individuals in the ranks of the new colonialists? However, if such is so, how can we explain the compulsive desire to capture, humiliate, and to destroy, in front of the whole world, political leaders who’ve fallen out of favour with the new supreme arbiter of the world? Why do they pursue not only them, but also their children and grandchildren?
The bombing of Yugoslavia ended with the capture of Milošević, and, in fact, his extra-judicial execution. His captors denied him adequate medical care; the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia didn’t allow him to go for treatment in Russia, despite official assurances from the Russian government. Soon after that, Slobodan Milošević died. American operations against Iraq ended with the public hanging of Saddam Hussein, aired all over the world on television, as well as the killing of two of his sons and a grandson. Now, times appear to have changed, the neocon hawk Richard Cheney (who used George W Bush as a puppet) no longer governs the US, rather, it’s ruled by an outstanding humanitarian, Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama. Nevertheless, the trend remains the same. NATO bombing in Libya killed Muammar Gaddafi‘s son and three of his grandchildren; the NATO forces don’t hide the fact that they seek to destroy the Libyan leader. What are the chances that Gaddafi will survive? We don’t know the answer to this question, but we can make a good guess as to what it’ll be.
How can we explain all of this? Perhaps, the rebirth of medieval brutality perpetrated worldwide by the West comes from a sense of invulnerability arising from the Soviet collapse after 1991. After all, back in the ‘80s, the USA behaved in a more humane manner to captured enemies than it does today. After the invasion of Panama in 1990, the Americans didn’t execute Manuel Noriega; they only put him in jail. Occupying Grenada in 1983, the Americans also spared the life of Prime Minister Bernard Coard. After serving over a quarter century in prison (oh, wonder!), he lived to see freedom again. As you can see, the USSR’s presence as a geopolitical counterweight to the USA mitigated the nastiness of the “scalp hunters”. At present, this is history, but one has to submit that the Globalising West now has to take into account Russia, China, and India as major geopolitical players.
However, it’s scary to imagine what would happen if these players withdrew from the race, if the world truly became unipolar. What would happen to politicians who fell into disfavour with the West? By historical standards, until quite recently, until the 18th century, the Western states burned condemned prisoners at the stake in the public squares. In Paris, in 1757, only two-and-a-half centuries ago, in the Place de Grève (today, the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville), a large crowd of people watched the brutal torture and quartering of the lunatic Robert-François Damien, who was accused of attempting to assassinate the king of France. The last burning of a witch in Western Europe was only in 1782. In future, I wonder if a “tribunal” will revive this practise when it passes the next death sentence on a captured “dictator?”
11 June 2011
Firstly, note the source… Pravoslavie.ru is a semi-official Church source; Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov has access to both high Church and state figures (he’s the confessor for the Putin family). Ergo, if you see it on this site, it means that the highest Church and state authorities have approved the material. This means that the dezinformatsiya spread by certain American sources (Mattingly, Paffhausen, Dreher, the Coneheads, Potapov, and Whiteford, to name only the most egregious) that the MP or leading elements in the Russian state favoured the NATO aggression against sovereign Libya is a bald-faced, arrogant, and contumacious lie. Most of those named have the “excuse” that they’re ignorant monoglot konvertsy… they don’t know any better. As far as Potapov’s concerned, he’s been an American intel asset for years… he’s a known quantity. Paffhausen’s the worst… he has abilities in Russian, he knows the real situation, yet he’s rebellious and sides with the extreme rightwingers. That means that he’s determined to ram this down the collective throats of the Church. We must not only oppose him… we must remove him, just as in the case of Nikon Mironov in Yekaterinburg (in the end, I think that we’ll find that JP’s just as much a golubiye as Mironov was (what does that tell us of his pals Brum, Eliel, and Tate?)).
You can follow the Church or you can follow the US rightwing. It’s up to you… and do note who’s supporting what… it’ll tell you whom to support in Church terms, too!