by Al Benson Jr.
Ever run into a situation where one word means two different things to two different people? Those who have taken the trouble to understand the Communist mindset (sorry folks, but communism isn't dead) will understand what I'm talking about. Over the years Communists have often used common, everyday terms that we all use, but to them these mean something else entirely. This is called aesopian language and it is one way Communists were able to fool liberal "useful idiots" in the West into thinking that they were great humanitarians instead of the international thugs they really were (and are).
Back in the early 1970s Professor Roy Colby wrote an informative little book called "A Communese-English Dictionary" in which he dealt with many, if not most, of the terms that Communists regularly employed in their dealings with the West that meant the complete opposite of what we've been conditioned to think they mean.
Hence, when some Red diplomat came to this country and gave a speech, he would prattle on long and loud about how the Communists in his particular country really wanted only "peace" with the United States. Many in the fawning liberal news media actually believed this twaddle and took such statements seriously. They wrote glowing accounts of the Soviet or Red Chinese Communist's quest for "peace" and they castigated the West for being a batch of warmongers. Of course some in the media knew the diffence, but they willingly lied to us anyway. Thus, you ended up with headlines in many liberal rags that passed for newspapers such as "Kruschev wants peace." No one ever bothered to ask Mr. Kruschev what he meant by the word "peace."
Professor Colby, in his book, told us. When the Communist told you he wanted "peace" what he really meant was that he sought "Absense of resistance to Commmunist expansionism, Western policy or practice favorable to Soviet or Communist objectives, An international climate in which Communism may flourish..." Suffice it to say that's not quite what you and I were brought up to think the term meant. But Communist use of the word for Western consumption always employed this meaning. So a "peacebreaker" was one who resisted Communist aggression. Do you begin to see how the game is played?
The term "racial discriminatio" was used by the Reds in much the same way. To the Communist it meant "Opposition of any kind to black demands or to the Party Line on the black revolution." So, if you resisted radical black demands for reparations or whatever, no matter how utterly riduculous they were, you were automatically a racist. It mattered not at all how far out these black demands might have been--anyone speaking out against them was automatically suspect. Still works the same way today, doesn't it?
When I said earlier that communism wasn't dead, I meant it. This is exactly the way the term "racist" is used by the Cultural Marxists in our day. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, anyone resisting the demands of radical blacks or radical illegal immmigrants, or just speaking up in defense of Southern heritage, is a flaming racist. Their use of the term "racist" is thoroughly Marxist in origin--the same way the Marxist term "reconstruction" was used after the end of the War of Northern Aggression to justify the rape of the Southern states.
Some naive soul might be tempted at this point to ask in the SPLC is really a Cultural Marxist group. To which I would answer "will the sun rise in the East tomorrow?"
There are many individuals and groups out there that qualify to be considered as Cultural Marxists. They continue to use language today exactly the way the Communists used it for decades. Today they rail about "diversity" when what they really mean is "no whites need apply." They carry on endlessly about "multi-culturalism" in which there is supposedly a place at the table for everyone--except us white folks of course. We are the reason for all the world's problems--so we should just stay away--except when those people want our money--and then we should dutifully line up with wallets in hand to fork over our long green, all the time displaying the proper amount of self-guilt and loathing. Right?
Wrong!!! The Cultural Marxists have no regard whatever for truth or common decency. They work to manipulate their intended victims, who should know better, but thanks to government education, mostly don't. If makes you wonder where the churches have been for the past several decades. They sure haven't, for the most part, been on the front lines educating the Lord's people, who, when it comes to Cultural Marxism, are usually as dumb as dirt!
Ephesians 5:11 tells Christians to "...have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove (expose) them." Had more of our churches taken the trouble to try to do this we might have had less people deceived by the Communists years ago and less deceived by their spiritual grandchildren, the Cultural Marxists, today.