Communist Semantics: Manipulated Distortion

By Ralph Rewes

What is Communist Semantics?

Communist Semantics is the art of political sophism applied in direct and indirect propaganda with a twofold intention:

(1) to automatically invalidate the arguments of the enemy on any subject, and

(2) to automatically validate Marxist sophism into a valid argument without having to prove it valid. Once Communist Semantics is in place, it makes no difference how honest the victims of Communism are, and how loud they may cry out the atrocities committed by the Communists; their cries will fall on deaf ears, ears shut by an invalidating mechanism. Recent examples are those of the attrocities committed by the guerrillas in Colombia that do not receive attention in the English-language American press.

For instance, El Nuevo Herald just published an article on the Colombian guerrillas using children in their dirty warfare (something that has been happening for quite a while and The Miami Herald in English turns a blind eye on it — because the values of the victims have been eroded by bias, and journalism, too, I should add.

One word or short phrase is enough to distill venom, sometimes intentionally, sometimes on purpuse. A couple of days ago, at 6:15 a MSNBC female spokeperson said “President Bush... a war against ‘what he called’ terrorism. That what he called carried a bottle of venom.

How was it that Communists won this war of words For decades, intellectuals from every country on earth, picked among those with good intentions, but questionable training in logic, were brought to the Soviet Union or to other satellite country to “study” a number of subjects, where this linguistic policy was applied.

The effect was limited until around 1960. The limitation of this linguistic distortion policy lied on the fact that until then, with the exception of German, no Western language with wide use was yet controlled by Communist Higher Learning institutions.

This changed when International Communism set foot in Havana. Cuban learning institutions lead by Havana University fell under Party Control. Spanish then was used as an efficient vehicle for this purpose. The opportunity for Marxists to work on it was wider than thought. Their target could not only be Latin Americans, but also for USAmericans. Soon Cuban propaganda masters were also mirrored by USAmerican romantic intellectuals.

Not few of these “revolutionary USAmericans” ever since developed an unusual split personality (whom Cuban Communists branded with the adequate tag of “tontos útiles” or usable fools). This was most noticeable especially among TV journalists. On then this ridiculous, yet dangerous practice, was often and efficiently applied by — paradoxically by TV networks supposed defenders of free speech, where, for lack of precious time, clichés and in-a-nutshell news unfortunately abounded and abound.

How this absurd Semantics works

A few key words taken from the propagandistic arsenal were chosen. Among these words, “imperialism, capitalism, socialism, revolution, revolutionary, proletarian,” etc. stood out. Then, these words were distorted, again, twofold, (1) by “adjusting” the meaning to serve their goal (not to teach anything, but to credit their apologists or to discredit their enemies), and then (2) to add an emotional melodramatic “second hidden” meaning to every one of those words. For instance:

imperialism: adjusted meaning = USA, emotional meaning = bad. Thus, no matter what the USA tried, once they applied the tag “imperialistic” the uneducated masses would react automatically and emotionally against anything thus labeled.

capitalism, adjusted meaning = USA, emotional meaning = bad

socialism, adjusted meaning = social equality and justice, emotional meaning = good.

Every adjusted meaning had only one of two emotional meanings attached, it was either GOOD or BAD. Try it. Pick up any Communist piece of propaganda or any posting from their agents in Internet and place between parentheses either (good) or (bad). Soon you will realize the difference from an objective statement and a piece of effective propaganda. Terribly, it works great in a majority who is not trained to think logically.

How come it is still working

It is mind-blowing to realize how dozens of shrewd, conniving Communist leaders spent days and days watching over these apparently insignificant fabrications. Yet, as I said before, these fabrications have worked and still do.

Today, in the Western World and in the United States, there are dozens of people especially among the media and the “intelligentsia (the word they used to classify their most useful, usable people)”with split personality. They may even reason well in economy and scandals, but they tend to have poor double standards in politics. There are dozens of journalists who misuse Communist-adjusted words accepting blindly the inserted adjusted and emotional meaning. That is why they call Pinochet a “dictator” and Castro “president.” The word dictator means: An absolute ruler. Pinochet was never an “absolute” ruler; Castro is. This game benefits the image of Communists all over. And American journalists play it thoughtlessly.

When the behavior of Communists all over the world, tainted the word “communist,” the followers of Stalin came up with their sneakiest concoction: Create Communist under many other names. Thus, a generation of unaffiliated Communists came to exist. That way, an anti-American Communist could not be touched with a feather, because he was not a Communist with Party Card, but an honest-to-goodness citizen with a critical mind against the USA policy — whatever. If he was slightly criticized, they cried fowl — witch hunt.

No wonder McCarthy couldn’t prove anything. No one can prove the ideology that has no affiliation. The McCarthy era needs a new objective analysis. After that, unaffiliated Communist roamed freer than buffaloes, building their anti imperialistic façade, peace movement (that were activated only when Communists were affected — one of the reason why they missed Afghanistan for instance). And many words in English changed their meaning.

Words Victimized

Through the years, the American glossary was viciously attacked, especially decades later by words created in Havana, like “We shall overcome, Venceremos.” A typical American would have an idea of Revolution closer to the French or American revolution, revolutions that fought for individual freedom, human rights, etc. How useful it is then to apply the same word to the Cuban takeover by Castro! How then could any American realize that Cuban “revolution” that mimicked the Russian barbaric years of persecution, torture and mass jailing, also called “revolution.” Both were actually, coups d’état which changed little but the possession of property and people.

The pseudo revolutionary regime in Cuba had a tremendous advantage upon the Russian rulers in propaganda. The propaganda means were modern and efficient. Cubans were lucky. They nationalized American advertising agencies including a fantastic creative pool and an in-depth knowledge of American idiosyncrasy — a plus.

The misuse of the word “liberal” by Communist and sympathizers is really insulting to the human intelligence. Of course, there are real liberals in the USA, but they are given a bad name by the long list of demagogues, especially Communists, who take guise under this classification. Nothing could be farther away from the totalitarian credo of the Communists than a liberal. Check the dictionary:

liberal 1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox or authoritarian attitudes, views, dogmas; free from bigotry.

How many of the so-called Marxists, some Socialists, “Revolutionaries à la Castro,” “Peace” Mongers and other Communists under other names do you think fit this description? The word “peace ”may be a sure giveaway. Just check the background of any group with the word “peace” in it and find its connections.

Castro, its greatest and most skillful user

If you wonder why in 1996, a reputable journalist like Dan Rather, comes up with the stupid (or malicious) title [Castro] The Last Revolutionary, to present the image of a the last dictator in Latin America, this is how.

Castro himself is a scholar in things of the free press. If there is someone who knows how the US public relation mechanism works, Castro is. He never grants an interview, but to those he knows are going to be mild and caring toward him. In his recent presentation, favoring Castro’s image, Dan Rather showed all over his face, lovingly admiration for the doting dictator. He must felt ashamed afterward and thought it was appropriate to drop some ambiguous commentaries to counterattack his pitiful childish faces at Castro.

For years, Castro and his agents have maligned the almost one million victims of his regime, living in Miami. Biased intellectuals blindly has been accepted the equivocations poured on the exile by Communists and seldom bother to check them out or even present the human aspect of this huge mass of people, who in a large proportion risked their lives to go away from the military tyranny of the Castro’s. They are called “intolerant” by Castro’s followers who live freely in Miami, day by day, provoking people with family, relatives in friends either murdered by the old dictator or in jail or dead in the Florida Strait. It is easy to provoke them, of course. In their shoes, wouldn’t you?

The case of Elián González proved beyond doubt how well organized this semantic network worked, muffling the sounds of honest pro-American Cubans in Miami and exhaulting to the point — really disgusting — of blatant collaboration with a dictatorship and its propaganda show.

Why didn’t Rather show (together with the picture of the cynically smiling dictator) the poignant interview of the mother who lost her 12 y.o. kid to the sea, when Castro ordered the sinking of a fleeing tugboat filled with children in front of Havana. Why he did not mention the clean lives of the four pilots murdered, again under Castro’s orders? Simply, because Rather was still under the good, bad connotation of words like the one he used “revolutionary.” For Rather, “revolutionary” is “good,” Cuban “exile” is “bad.” Generalizations that a “good” journalist is supposed to avoid.

It had to be touched close for Rather to turn about and realize how dangerous terrorism is. I hope he also realizes that the key word of all those anticivilization movements is actually “anti-American.” And here is a keyword. What unifies all perverse, terrorist and atavistic forces on the planet? Anti-Americanism. Why? Because our society thrives in change, looks into the future and, despite internal backward elements, society and humanity advances here more than in any other country of the world.

© 2001 by Ralph Rewes

Éste y otros excelentes artículos del mismo AUTOR aparecen en la REVISTA GUARACABUYA con dirección electrónica de: