 |
| A bit of civilization might do them good |
I can’t help but think that anyone who wishes to end a civilisation has to be uncivilised and incapable of creating even the building blocks of civilisation. But then again, it is fascinating is it not that the makers of the English language or rather the inheritors of that language who elevated it to mother-tongue status are the most confused about the meaning of certain words?
Just the other day, a UK lawmaker castigated Iran for ‘being reckless.’ Reckless. Remember the word. The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary (OLD) defines the word as follows: ‘an adjective describing behaviour that shows a lack of care about danger and the possible, often harmful, results of your actions. It implies acting rashly without thinking about consequences.’ A revised version of that dictionary may one day add a synonym: trump. As in ‘Donald’.
Oh yes, bibi, bibi netanyahu, benjamin netanyahu, netanyahu and zionism could work too (the lower case is deliberate and in line with standard style for abstract nouns). They can be thus elevated because what they have done, do and will probably continue to do, ironically, is not at all abstract. Not abstruse, not hypothetical, not unreal. Real. Clear.
Need we elaborate? No!
What would constitute ‘the end of (a) civilisation’? First, what constitutes ‘civilisation’? Let’s ask the OLD. OLD says, ‘a state of human society that is very developed and organised.’ OLD also offers: ‘a society, its culture and its way of life during a particular period of time or in a particular part of the world.’
So, if anyone threatens to end a civilisation as per the OLD definitions, it’s a declaration of genocidal intent. Genocidal intent rehearsed (as in pilot-project, let’s say) from Day One of the attacks on Iran by trump and bibi (yes, lower case, for we need to rehearse these abstract-nouns-to-be, although this does not strictly conform to grammar rules; but then again let’s say ‘poetic license’ and leave it at that), we must point out.
America of the United States. Is it a ‘civilisation’? It’s certainly a human society. It is developed, as per the dominant paradigm of development, one could argue. Organised, yes, although it’s organised subjugation, mind-control, land-theft, resource-extraction etc., in the USA and elsewhere. It is a society, yes. Fractured, violent, racist, exploitative and such, but yes, a society nevertheless. Its culture is perhaps more in flux than most societies, but the transformations of culture and constant remixing could, in sum, deserve the term. It has many ways of life (and death as well; think KKK, BLM and the many genocidal wars launched over the last two centuries).
It does exist in a particular part of this world. It exists, moreover, in this moment in time. Two hundred years is not ‘old’ in civilisational terms. Two hundred years of expansion by way of land theft, invasion and purchase wouldn’t make ‘civilisation’ a pretty word, but let’s be generous. It’s a civilisation. Of sorts. Let’s say.
But trump? Is he civilised? A pathological liar accused of being a pedophile and who abused the powers of his office to trip relevant investigations, this man (and his partner in many crimes, bibi) twice attacked Iran in the middle of negotiations. He bombed or sanctioned (and hurrahed) the bombing of dozens of schools, hospitals and other civilian facilities, killing over 2000 people including children, the elderly and sick because he wanted to prevent Iran from retaliating to bombing. Would that be the talk of a civilised human being or a deranged egotist?
And he wants to end a civilisation. Didn’t happen and probably will not happen, but that intent to destroy is fascinating isn’t it? Envy is a powerful motive, but he is way too full of himself to envy anyone. In fact it’s the opposite that’s true. Contempt. His speeches are full of derogatory and racist epithets.
Enough. The man is uncivilised, even though the BBC, CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera and other media outfits don’t dare say it. Maybe they should check the OLD and check whether their media practices conform to the definition offered therein for ‘civilisation,’ ‘civilised,’ ‘civil,’ ‘civility’ etc. Also, genocide, ethics, principle and other such lovely words, while they are at it.
But enough. We know this POTUS (President of the United States) well enough.
But what of the people of the USA who make that dysfunctional society that has so much potential to build a great nation or at least one that deserves to stand with the civilised world? What of them? What has all this done to their signature and its civilisational potential?
The aforementioned media outfits don’t (dare?) report on what the people of the USA have to say. Nothing of the massive and indignant protests against the bloody adventurism of their president. But those people are alive. If America of the United States is a country that aspires to civilisation, then the seeds necessary for the full flowering of all things that make that word meaningful are alive in their hearts.
They know what ‘reckless’ means. They know what ‘genocide’ means. They know what ‘civilisation’ means. They know that their country has to walk quite a distance, perhaps decades but maybe even a few centuries (or a few months), to get there.
They have one thing going for them. Trump. Think about it. He’s shedding all the frills that have hidden the proverbial ‘Ugly American.’ Disgusting. So disgusting that the beautiful people of the USA will have to do something about it.
Civilisation. A great idea for the United States of America. And Zionist Israel Let’s hope they get there one day.
0 comments:
Post a Comment