Words are tools. Poets and writers have always known it. So have politicians, salesmen, propagandists and other undesirables. Words can carry messages beyond the direct and obvious. That is why we have Censorship. That is why a Writer Telling The Truth About Blacks Got Sacked. You might find it curious that the Wikipedia explains it in Loaded language. There are still more Political Terms.
Another view is at Top politically incorrect words. The pick of the bunch was the BBC's use of the euphemism ‘Misguided Criminals’ for Terrorists after the 7/7 Tube Bombings. Here are some sources, some examples.
Thoughts on Emma West: How to Argue with the Ruling Class by Sean Gabb
Poor little Emma West told the truth about blacks then Emma West found herself a political prisoner locked up in a lunatic asylum without the nuisance of a fair trial or any other sort. Sean Gabb comments.
How To Frame A Patriot
On December 13, 1994, Christopher John Farley of Time magazine invited public comment on his article on the Patriot movement. This document is my line-by-line analysis of Farley’s piece (a textbook example of how the media manipulates issues, evidence, and quotes to railroad its readers into a particular point of view). This CD-ROM version contains Farley’s reply to my analysis, as well as readers’ (and my) counter-reply to Farley. This comes from Barry Krusch.
How To Frame A Patriot II
Is my attempt to emulate Mr Krusch with a look at a Guardian article.
Mr. Krusch explains HOW the media manipulate us, as distinct from why.
Antifascist versus Communist
Left wing academics liked to boast of being Communist but too many people know the reality so they call themselves Antifascist. They are prone to be members of Unite Against Fascism [ UAF ], just like Cameron, a nominal Tory.
Bludgeon versus baton
The police restrained him with their batons when he attacked them with his bludgeon. [ Who is the thug? ]
British people versus British citizens
Brits are English, Scots, Welsh and Ulstermen as well as some of the islands offshore. They founded great nations like America, Australia, Canada & New Zealand while British citizens are prone to be Third World aliens granted the right to prey on us and the dole system by Her Majesty's Government & Treason.
Means third raters, usually black given jobs for the sake of Political Correctness.
English team versus England team
Do many people notice? Probably not. The English team would be full of Englishmen. The England team is full of foreigners, which is allegedly something to do with England.
English versus British
Englishmen born in England, speaking English, caring about England are something of a dying breed. The BBC and other traitors promote the idea that England does not exist, until it comes to football hooligans and anything else that they think will make us ashamed of ourselves. They use "British" to include the Third World undesirables that have washed up on our shores incited by a treasonous ruling class, and given British passports, bribed by the dole, free medicine etc.. There is an agenda with the destruction of England as an idea at the top. The same propagandists are using Slavery as part of their propaganda war. They do not tell us that Jews Monopolized Black Slave Trading. That would give the game away.
Fair versus Unfair
It's not fair means whatever the propagandist wants it to mean, as in: He's paid more than me.
Fair share versus I want more
He gets more than me. It's not fair. What is fair? Whatever the greedy want it to mean.
Grooming versus Flirting
Rapacious men groom innocent young girls to satisfy their evil passions. Lads and lasses flirt, they court, they even get married, have babies then bring them up decently.
Jungle versus Rain Forest
Jungles are hot, damp, full of dirt, diseases, insects that bite and unfriendly natives while rain forests are part of a fragile environment full of wonderful people living in harmony with nature and valuable cures which have not been discovered yet and are likely to be destroyed by ruthless capitalists.
Populism versus Popular
Populism means pandering to plebian swine, the hot sweaty masses by cynical politicians on the make Popular means approved of by people or of the people as in Democracy, rule by the people.
Privilege versus Advantage
Privileges are unfair, unearned advantages, allegedly.
Public Schools versus Private Schools
Public Schools educate the sons of English gentlemen while private schools give unfair advantages to rich children paid for by the ill gotten gains of Capitalist Swine who grind the faces of the poor into the dirt.
Racism versus patriotism
Racism is a Marxist construct, one invented by Leon Trotsky - see The Word Racist Was Invented By Trotsky then Marxists decided to use it as a Propaganda tool. It has been extremely effective. Patriotism is perfectly respectable among honest men. That is why the BBC and other communist subversives call it racism and use it as way of blocking objections to the Third World immigration they are using to destroy England and Christendom. Recall that racism, a total non-issue after the war in 1945 was crime in 1965 due to the Race Relations Act.
Social just means whatever communist subversives want. Fair play for unmarried mothers? Check. Fair play for illegal immigrants as in council houses, dole, medical treatment? Check. See Illegal Immigrant Housing
Troops versus Soldiers
Men don't exist any more. Soldiers do get mentioned. Troops is the word used to hide the fact that men wage war; the pretence that women are just as capable of doing the job.
We have unfair advantages - allegedly. The inherent assumption is that we have privileges, unfair advantages, unearned advantages. We invented Western Civilization. Blacks want it. Socialists want to destroy it.
Xenophobia versus Racism
Men who came back from the Second World War had never heard of racism. They might have read the word, Xenophobia but not one in a hundred had heard the word used. Now racism is rammed down our throats by the media day in and day out. It is a close synonym of patriotism invented as a tool to use against us by a traitorous media. It means hatred of foreigners and immigrants by Englishmen or by white men but not vice versa. Blacks are allowed to hate us because they are victims of the Western Guilt which Left Wingers love to promote.
Said/claimed/admitted/boasted/argued carry their messages:-
He said that.......... [ he said it, not us ]
He claimed that [ but he is lying ]
He admitted that [ but only because he was forced to ]
He argued that [ but you shouldn't believe that ]
He boasted that [ he should be ashamed but he isn't ]
The crowd/mob/mutinous assemblage/victims/refugees [ victims or perpetrators? ]
advanced/charged/fled from/moved toward/stormed/attacked [ victims or perpetrators? ]
the police officers/thin blue line/thugs/storm troopers [ upholders of the law or perpetrators? ]
and were repulsed/restrained/set upon/threatened/ fired on/dispersed [ victims or perpetrators? ]
Newspaper reports are not usually quite so blatant but have a look at 'Racist' police blocked bridge and forced evacuees back at gunpoint and see the contrast between the message and the facts as claimed [ also notice my presumption of their guilt ].
How To Frame A Patriot
Barry Krusch writes about HOW it is done. He is interested in the mechanics of media manipulation rather than being a sympathizer. It is in .pdf format unfortunately but well worth a read.
Newspeak for the Oldest Profession
Is a view from someone else on the same theme. He gives us:-
cripple >> handicapped >> disabled >> differently abled
idiot >> imbecile >> retarded >> special needs >> educationally sub-normal
deaf >> hard of hearing
sodomite >> homosexual >> gay
squatter camps >> informal housing
illegal immigrants >> undocumented workers
illegal immigration >> informal migration
crime >> informal employment
terrorism >> informal violence
extortion >> tax
harlot >> whore >> strumpet >> prostitute >> sex worker
The Wikipedia takes a public position:-
This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.
Their public position is a mask for their real agenda.
Review of Robert Conquest's The Dragons of Expectation - Reality and Delusion in the Course of History
Even now, when the opening of the Soviet archives has revealed that matters were even worse than Conquest could prove, one strand of “liberalism” continues inexcusably to treat the Cold War as a battle not between free societies and totalitarian dictatorship, but between “ideologies” that, it is implied or even stated, should be seen as morally equivalent.
Ideologies or very different political systems? It is fair to say that America under Bush is becoming as bad as Russia under Lenin and Stalin.
When Magical Thinking Enters The Arena
I was recently awoken from a Zyrtec-induced (allergies are the worst) stupor in my American Revolution seminar class when I heard my professor make an off-handed comment about “magic words.” Having recently spent an undisclosed number of hours watching multiple Harry Potter movies, I assumed that he was referring to words like “Wingardium Leviosa” shouted with a swish and flick of a magic wand. Needless to say, I was a little off. The magic words he meant have probably never echoed through the halls of Hogwarts, yet they have become unbelievably common in our cultural vernacular.
What my professor meant was words like “feminism,” “social justice,” and “fair share;” words whose meanings are perpetually twisted and stretched to fit a political agenda. Substantially speaking, these words are nothing more than fluff. They rely not on rationality, but on emotion. “Feminism” invokes feelings of female empowerment; “social justice,” feelings of equality and solidarity. For me, the words “fair share” usually evoke anger and frustration because of the common misuse of the phrase, but those “magic words” are intended also to invoke feelings of fairness and equality. While these “magic words” or broader—“magical thinking” are useful during campaign speeches, on holidays, or at memorials, when applied to public policy, they take a far more sinister turn.
When “magical thinking” invades the political arena, tensions are sure to ensue. Often, one side, either right or left, will hijack a word or phrase and claim that their definition is absolute. For example, “feminism” is commonly associated with liberal ideology. However, what does feminism actually mean? Here’s where the magic comes in. Feminism is commonly defined as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” Sounds good, right? However, once an ideology grasps onto a “magic” word like feminism, its meaning changes entirely. For the National Organization of Women, feminism encompasses the idea of “reproductive rights,” and supports the full legalization of abortion. However, Sarah Palin has advocated for an emerging “conservative feminism,” which includes traditional family values and a pro-life agenda. Which side’s version of “feminism” is correct? In short, both of them and neither of them. That’s the magic of “feminism.” Slap on your own definition of feminism and bang, you’re a “feminist.” However, I can’t say it’s accurate to put Sarah Palin in the same category as Gloria Steinem.
“Magical thinking” is commonly associated with the words “social justice” and “fair share” as well. Social justice certainly paints a picture of serene equality and national solidarity, but in action, it often manifests itself as something quite different. The left-leaning Sojourners magazine portrays social justice as a concept of equality which encompasses positions like amnesty for illegal immigrants and affirmative action. I’m all for justice, but I can’t say I support either of those two positions. However, that doesn’t mean I’m for social “injustice.” Based upon the nature of “magical thinking,” the answer might be yes, depending on who you ask. The phrase “fair share” works the same way. I will personally shell out $10,000 to anyone who can give me a universal definition of fair share. Fair share is a concept defined both relatively and individually. It essentially means whatever the person saying it decides it to mean. For Occupy Wall Street, fair share means a massive tax increase for the “1%.” However, more conservative Americans tend to believe that our progressive tax system is unfairly targeting the rich and instead, the bottom 50% of taxpayers (or non-taxpayers, as the case may be) are not paying their fair share. Again, I’ll ask the question, whose definition is correct? It is impossible to tell. This sort of magical thinking makes consensus and rational debate all but impossible.
“Magic words” are bipolar. What I mean is, if your definition of a magic word does not align with that of another person, then you must be “wrong” and they must be “right,” or vice versa. If you’re against the liberal conception of feminism, well then you must hate women. Uneasy about social justice? You must, therefore, support injustice. If your concept of “fair share” is too small, then you must hate the poor. It’s a vicious cycle, but one to be expected. “Magic words” have to power to induce brief euphoria, but fade quickly when actual policies come into play. This makes political debate all but impossible. How can you possibly argue against amnesty for illegal immigrants when your opponent labels it “social justice?” Sure, you can bring up solid facts and a rational argument, but it’s still impossible to escape the accusation that you are “against” social justice. That’s the true power of these “magic words.” Bring them up in an argument and you’ve won, regardless of whether your facts are accurate or your points logical. Who wants to argue against fairness, equality, or even freedom for that matter? Magical thinking and magic words must stay where they belong on the campaign trail and in holiday speeches, where a politician’s main goal is to invoke passion or create solidarity. When it comes to deciding public policy or arguing the facts in a political debate, leave the magic words at the door. Progression is all but impossible if we are not able to rely on reason and facts instead of meaningless words and “magical” thinking.
Amy Lutz | Saint Louis University | Saint Louis, Missouri | @AmyLutz4
Miss Lutz has brains and beauty; a goodly combination.
The Word Racist Was Invented By Trotsky
The Unpopular Truth: The Word “Racist” Was Invented By Communist Revolutionary Leon Trotsky
by Dustin Stanley
The word “racist” has for a long time been the single most effective fear-word in the leftist and neoconservative arsenal. For decades, they have successfully used it in the political arena to slander traditionalists, shut down debate, and leave opponents running for cover. In the social arena, they have caused even more damage by using it to brainwash impressionable children and young college students, and to teach people to hate their nation, their cultural traditions, and worst of all, themselves.
What surprisingly remains almost totally undiscussed, even on the hard core traditionalist Right, is the word’s origin. Did it come from a liberal sociologist? A 60’s Marxist college professor? Perhaps a politician in the Democratic Party? No. It turns out that the word was invented by none other than one of the principal architects of the 74-year Soviet nightmare, the founder and first leader of the infamous Red Army, Leon Trotsky.
Take a look at this document (http://www.1917.com/Marxism/Trotsky/HRR/1-1.html) if you would, dear reader.
"Славянофильство, мессианизм отсталости, строило свою философию на том, что русский народ и его церковь насквозь демократичны, а официальная Россия — это немецкая бюрократия, насажденная Петром. Маркс заметил по этому поводу: “Ведь точно так же и тевтонские ослы сваливают деспотизм Фридриха II и т. д. на французов, как будто отсталые рабы не нуждаются всегда в цивилизованных рабах, чтобы пройти нужную выучку”. Это краткое замечание исчерпывает до дна не только старую философию славянофилов, но и новейшие откровения “расистов”."
This is Leon Trotsky’s 1930 work, “The History of the Russian Revolution”, from which shown above is a passage. The last word in that passage is “расистов”, whose Latin transliteration is “racistov”, i.e., “racists”. This work here is the first time in history one will ever find that word.
My more doubtful readers may check the internet, the microfiche and microfilm at the local library, as well as the numerous books arrayed along the shelves there, but they shall never find an earlier usage of the word “racist” than Trotsky’s coinage of the word here.
So the next logical question is what was Leon Trotsky’s purpose in inventing this word? To find out, let us look at a full English translation of the paragraph we looked at before.
“Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: “In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilized slaves to train them.” This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the ‘racists.’”
The Slavophiles which Trotsky alluded to were historically a group of traditionalist Slavs who valued greatly their native culture and way of life, and wanted to protect it. Trotsky on the other hand saw them and others like them as an impediment to his internationalist communist plans for the world. This man didn’t care one iota about the Slavic Russians whom he supposedly served. To him, Slavophiles, i.e. Slavs that committed the “crime” of loving their own people and trying to protect their traditional ways were simply “backward”, and others like them were simply “racists”.
The reality of the word’s origin is indeed quite a far cry from the left-liberal version of the story: that the word was coined in bona fides to identify people who were just plain bigoted against certain racial groups, and as a rallying cry for good liberals to protect the racial minorities from the bigots. On the contrary, the actual concept behind the word (even though he hadn’t invented it quite yet) — that ethnocentric “backwardness” must take a back seat to “enlightened” internationalism — was often used by Army-Navy Commissar Trotsky as a rallying cry for good Red Army communists to embark upon murderous rampages against peoples who resisted having their traditional way of life paved over and replaced with an alien system (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/his1g.htm).
Fast-forwarding to today in 2010, the only changes to the word and its underlying concept from 1930 (besides Marxists having perfected the art of achieving the same thing with less blood but no less misery) are that the word’s targets have expanded from just Slavs who won’t submit to the Marxist internationalist plan to uproot and destroy their culture and traditional way of life, to all white people, Slavic or otherwise, who won’t submit to that same vile Marxist plan. Also, those who arm themselves with the word have expanded from a handful of communists to the entire liberal and neoconservative establishment in nations all across the world.
Leon Trotsky, after helping Lenin to create the Soviet murder machine in which he and Trotsky killed 1 to 4 million people, was removed from power and expelled from the Soviet Union in the year 1929 after losing a power struggle to become Lenin’s successor to Josef Stalin. However, before fading into the pages of history, Leon Trotsky would do one last thing in 1930 that would arguably cause more damage to the West than Stalin and his successors’ entire Soviet nuclear arsenal could ever have done. He would invent a word that would empower literally the most rotten, traitorous weasels within the West to redefine those loyal to their people, their cultural traditions and way of life as the worst evil, and to send the government, the education system, and the mass media on an absolute royal crusade until they themselves and virtually everyone else around them actually believe it. And this unholy creation would be repeated over and over again, bolstered by revisionist history fabricated by more of the same rotten weasels falsely portraying the white man as the sole perpetrator of slavery and genocide in the world (http://bnpsalford.wordpress.com/the-truth-about-slavery/), and this would go on and on until the West would submit via demoralization to the entire Trotskyist internationalist agenda without a single shot being fired. We can see the final stages of this playing out right now, with racial double standards having been created here in America (at the expense of American whites, of course), with the creation of “racism” and “hate speech” offenses in Europe (only targeting the indigenous population, of course), with the Canadian and Australian governments having implemented “multiculturalism” as official state policy (at the expense of the pre-existing Canadian and Australian cultures), and most of all, with the huge wave of third-world immigration into the West, supported by all Western governments (otherwise it wouldn’t be happening), which is radically changing the makeup and culture of those countries, and is threatening their original populations with becoming a minority in their own countries within just a few decades.
Due especially to Trotsky’s hand in the murder of millions of people under the Lenin regime, as well as the ongoing global recession causing many fence sitters to take a side in these affairs, Rightists have a real opportunity to shut the lid on this word once and for all, simply by telling the truth about who invented the word and what its purpose was (and is). It is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. One can hardly imagine a true Euro-nationalist movement where most of the people in it believe they are “racists” for daring to embark on such a project, as today’s reigning system would have us believe.
There is an appalling lack of good material available on the internet about the additional tragedy of the repression of regional sovereignty and self-determination movements after the Czar’s collapse in Russia by Trotsky’s Red Army. One of the best things you’ll find on the web about it is the Nina Turmarkin interview which is the last thing I linked on the paragraph demarcated by this footnote, and is located here:
(http://www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/interviews_tumarkin.html). Ms. Turmarkin discusses the optimism that existed after the February Revolution which overthrew the Czar, about villages that declared their independence from the regime and sewed their own flags, etc. She doesn’t go on to say what happened to those villages and such, but if you know the history, you know of course that they were forced back into the fold, an even worse fold than the Czar’s for that matter, at the point of a Red Army bayonet held by a soldier commanded by Trotsky, and those who would not go back into that worse fold were of course killed. Anyhow, I truly would suggest that the interested reader on this subject get hold of book sources for further reading, because unfortunately what is out there on the web is the bottom of the barrel. [ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's great book 200 Years Together is now being translated into English. It is worth a look - Editor ]
The higher estimate of state murder (4 million) under the Lenin/Trotsky regime is that of political scientist R. J. Rummel his book Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917, found here: (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM). I myself was taught a lower estimate of 1-2 million during my school years. The main factors in the deaths were executions of dissidents, brutal suppressions of the self-determination movements that arose after the fall of the Czar and in reaction to the early Soviet police state, and the Russian famine of 1921. The new Soviet government was certainly responsible for the first two. They were at least somewhat responsible for the third, but exactly how responsible is a matter of debate that is beyond the scope of this article. Either way, 1-2 million, 4 million, or somewhere in between, it is absolutely atrocious what happened under that regime.
This article is a little surprising but well written and sourced. Professor Rummel is the scientist of death tolls.
Errors & omissions,
broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever;
if you find any I am open to comment.
Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP Key. Home Page
Updated on Friday, 26 August 2016 07:11:08