Crimes Against Humanity: Useful Idiocy for the Government?
The Wikipedia article for Crimes Against Humanity, as of 31/01/2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity actually comes close to admitting it is an entirely subjective notion.
Unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity can be committed during peace or war.[1] They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder, massacres, dehumanization, extermination, human experimentation, extrajudicial punishments, death squads, forced disappearances, military use of children, kidnappings, unjust imprisonment, slavery, cannibalism, torture, rape, and political or racial repression may reach the threshold of crimes against humanity if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.
‘May reach the threshold of crimes against humanity if they are part of a WIDESPREAD or SYSTEMATIC practice’ (note the emphasis!) is tantamount to acknowledging the whole notion is completely arbitrary and unscientific. I’m not holding my breath to find out what ‘systematic,’ let alone ‘widespread’ means.
As an autistic person, belonging to one of the demographics targeted by the Nazi Holocaust perpetrators, I will never permit the Holocaust to be trivialized by demeaning, degrading rhetoric like ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ and ‘Genocide.’
There is No Hierarchy of Esteem Among Mass Atrocities
My comment on an online Facebook forum on the Islamist menace:
What mass atrocities get to be called ‘genocides’ or ‘crimes against humanity,’ on what grounds, and most importantly of all, WHO DECIDES, is an extremely important question.
These propaganda terms are used to set up hierarchies of esteem between different mass atrocities.
“He who controls the past controls the future.”
They are ideological weapons of (Not-So-)Global Realpolitik. One thing is certain: you will never, EVER see a politician from ‘The Good Gusy’ being accused of genocide.
Only their alleged ‘racial inferiors’ in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, wherever.
The whole idea of white genocide is completely idiotic; but then again, so is any non-sarcastic, non-ironic use of the term. The cynical, conniving Washington gangsters who have been propagating this imbecilic rhetorical gesture for decades deserve their share of the blame for the invention of the ‘white genocide’ canard.
Even if genocide weren’t a largely subjective term, there is no reason to be believe a mass atrocity absent of such a motivation (or of such a causal-explanatory implication) as the destruction of an entire ethnicity is any less evil than one WITH.
Murder is murder.
Butchery is butchery.
There really is no need for all the idle intellectualizing surrounding mass atrocities/democide. An atrocity is an atrocity, and that’s an end to it!