AS EVIL AS HITLER - NO QUESTION ABOUT IT?

When in war mode, contrary facts or opinions become unacceptable.

When there are geopolitical issues that have acquired unquestioned status, which demand only one side of a story is ever told, and when this approach is consistent across all major media outlets/political parties, you can readily infer one fundamental fact with great accuracy.

Leaving aside the actual content for a moment, when only one narrative is THE single take on a geopolitical issue, you know that war is being waged on that target.

This is quite obviously evidence of a general state of one party at least, being in ‘war mode’.

These days wars are rarely announced. No formal announcement is heard on radio or on television. The attack upon and invasion of Iraq and the bombardment of Libya are most likely the last semi-announcements of military operations against an “enemy”.

There are now no perceived benefits in announcing an enemy before seeking its destruction. The preferred mode now is at the most to confer the status of ‘adversary’ on those you wish to weaken, and potentially destroy.

It is most likely felt that this mode of framing the perceived enemy as an ‘adversary’ creates the same effect as the word enemy and transmits the required general attitude in the listener but also signals that he or she need not worry over any disruption from a military conflict.

This allows adversaries to be attacked using semantic means via selected accusations which are emphasized again and again and which provide the new ammunition which replaces bullets, bombs and missiles.

The new wars then, consist of weaponizing words therefore, along with the use of other means such as economic weapons, i.e. various forms of sanctions.

In these new wars the same rules apply as in the earlier hot wars of military conflict. The entire nation attacking is expected to adhere to the rules I have tried to enumerate at the start of this text regarding conformity of view.

The enemy/adversary is to be hit with every form of word or economic weapon which weakens it or strengthens the attacker. Facts lose importance, evidence also. The accusatory words are almost solely in command at the public level. Meanwhile economic means are applied with only minimal attention to the public sphere.

As it is deemed of overwhelming importance that the war is one and the enemy/adversary is defeated those who are refraining from attacking it or worse still, relating information that minimizes or reduces the guilt of the target is themselves seen as in league with the target and therefore well on the way to being seen as a traitor.

There can be no tolerance for minimizing the asserted guilt of the target. A vast number of staff commensurate with the vital importance attached to the war are put in place, or already exist from previous wars, to attack and negate those seen as de facto traitors.

You need only imagine this scenario in the context of the Second World War. Consider how you would have seen those who expressed the opinion that Hitler was not as bad as he was portrayed in western press, that there were good points about him and perhaps talking with him would bring better results than waging war.

There were indeed such people, people such as notable aristocrats and figures such Oswald Mosley. I don’t think many of you reading this would have had much sympathy with their words at the time and would have been minded to silence them if possible. The war effort was that important, the lives of millions hung on the defeat of Hitler. The concept that he should get ‘a fair hearing’ would hardly find any favor with you I surmise.

This I believe is where we stand now in regard to Putin, Xi, and those who work closely with them. Joe Biden has even gone as far as accuse Putin of being ‘a killer’ and having ‘no soul’. Xi is not receiving this treatment just yet however, if the accusations over the Uyghur people of Xinjiang (genocide by the Chinese Communist Party) are taken to their logical conclusion he soon will be. They are more likely than not to be depicted ultimately as being just as evil as Hitler. In effect this is the case even now by implication. With Putin it has gone further than implication at least since 2006 when he made it clear Russia with him as president would not follow instruction from western nations.

Think back so see when you last heard a positive article regarding Putin in particular. I would suggest that you have not seen or heard even one such article. Let us though take a lesser case, how many articles about Putin have you read where there was a balance of negative to positive accounts? I would suggest again that you have not come across even one.

This is not normal journalism. Not in the least. Whether or not you believe the negative accounts given is not the point. It is simply evidence of something else at play which is not related even tenuously with true journalism. It serves another purpose entirely. That purpose is the demonization of an enemy you are at war with and who, whether rightly or wrongly you must frame as totally black in thought and deed. A person with no saving grace, no positive characteristics whatsoever, a monster in human form and indeed a person quite as evil as Hitler.