Language as a political weapon

Two words often thrown out for public consumption by U.S. officials: dictator and tyrant, appear to be used arbitrarily.

Yes, I know it’s hard to believe but our elected officials are toying with us as in brainwashing. It is important to recognize our mainstream media, without whom the government’s efforts might fall short of success, and the important role they play in perpetuating government misdirection.

Let us look at the definition of dictator: a person who rules a country with total authority and often in a cruel or brutal way. A dictatorship is a government or a social situation where one person makes all the rules and decisions without input from anyone else.

It is clear from the definition, that under a dictatorship, people do not vote or hold elections to determine who will lead and represent them.

Tyrant, on the other hand, is defined as a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally.

One could easily determine that dictatorships are often led by tyrants.

Before we move on, I would like to define the term brainwashing. According to the dictionary, brainwashing is the effort that makes people believe only what you want them to believe by continually telling them that it is true and preventing any other information from reaching them.

From this definition, one can see how important the MSM is in deciding what information to share with the public and, maybe even more important, what not to share.

Now that we have the definitions, let’s take a look at how they’re applied.

The terms dictator and tyrant have been tossed around quite frequently especially during our election season. They are directed at those foreign leaders with whom the U.S. has hostile relationships.

For example, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya was honored with both labels dictator and tyrant. Under the guise of freeing the Libyan people from his “brutal” rule, the U.S. helped initiate a rebellion in Libya and then decided to help the rebels by bombing inside Libyan territory. Gaddafi was eventually captured and executed.

But, what do we really know about this man who has been called a tyrant?

Garikai Chengu writes in CounterPunch, “In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; by the time he was assassinated, he had transformed Libya into Africa’s richest nation. Prior to the US-led bombing campaign in 2011, Libya had the highest Human Development Index, the lowest infant mortality and the highest life expectancy in all of Africa.

Chengu then reveals that contrary to popular belief, Libya, which Western media routinely described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship” was in actual fact one of the world’s most democratic States.

Under Gaddafi’s unique system of direct democracy, traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.

Far from control being in the hands of one man, Libya was highly decentralized and divided into several small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous states” within a state.

Eight hundred People’s Congresses were set up across the country and all Libyans were free to attend and shape national policy and make decisions over all major issues, including budgets, education, industry, and the economy.”

What is also not known, is that Gaddafi, using the income from his nationalized oil industry, offered Libyans free health care, free education, free electricity, and interest free loans. Nationalizing the oil industry meant that U.S. oil folks could not exploit Libyan resources for their own profits . . . the profits belonged to the people. Could that be why the U.S. wanted to overthrow Gaddafi’s government?

Needless to say, the U.S. bombing of Libya and the assassination of Gaddafi has caused the destruction of all these programs enjoyed by the Libyan people. Libya is now a haven for so-called terrorist groups including ISIS.

If this “tyrant” was running for office here in the U.S., I would vote for him.

On July 10, 2000, Bashar Assad was elected president of Syria, succeeding Hafez al-Assad, his father, who had led Syria for 30 years and died in office a month prior. In the Syrian presidential election, 2000 and subsequent 2007 election, Bashar Assad received votes in his favor in the upper 90th percentile in uncontested elections.

March 17, 2011, the Syrian war began with what was a so- called “protest movement.” What makes this a so-called protest movement is the evidence that it was an organized insurgency promoted by the US-Israeli alliance. From Day One, the Islamist “freedom fighters” were supported, trained and equipped by NATO and Turkey’s High Command.

This was not an internal rebellion against Assad, as the U.S. attempted to portray the action, by dissatisfied, mistreated Syrian citizens who were looking to overthrow the brutal Assad government . This was an action orchestrated by the U.S./Israel/NATO alliance to force Assad out of office.

On July 16, 2014, Bashar Assad was sworn in for a new seven-year term, after his victory in the June presidential election against two regime sanctioned candidates, the first contested presidential election in Ba’athist Syria’s history.

After being elected with a 90% approval on July 10, 2000, Assad began a reform movement, shutting down the Mezzeh prison and declaring amnesty for a wide range of political prisoners.

In a speech responding to the demands of protesters and foreign pressure, Assad promised a national dialogue involving movement toward reform, new parliamentary elections, and greater freedoms. He also urged refugees to return home from Turkey, while assuring them amnesty.

We must not forget that after this “protest movement” in 2011, Assad was elected again in 2014 by a very large margin. In fact, on March 29, 2011, (less than two weeks into the fantasy “revolution”) over 6 million people across Syria took to the streets in support of President al-Assad.

There was certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent years, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The IMF’s “economic medicine” includes austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization.

Instead of allowing Syria to resolve its own political issues, the U.S. and NATO made Syria’s internal struggles an international issue again claiming to come to the rescue of the Syrian people, protecting them from this dictatorial tyrant. It appears that the Syrian people did not feel they needed protection from Assad as they proceeded to re-elect him in 2014. In Syria there was and still is considerable popular support for President Bashar Al Assad.

Due to the past 5 years of war, the Syrian economy lies in ruins. Assets and infrastructure have been destroyed, half of the population lives below the poverty line. It is estimated that even with average annual growth rate of 5 percent it would take nearly 30 years to recover Syria’s 2010 GDP value.

While the U.S. has targeted the “tyrants” of Libya and Syria, they seem to have found a way to tolerate the “tyrants” of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Israel continues to murder Palestinians at a phenomenal rate, as well as destroying their homes and stealing their property. Still, Bibi Netanyahu is welcome in Washington, DC, and Israel is considered the strongest U.S. ally in that part of the world.

Saudi Arabia runs a close second to Israel as a friend of the U.S. Despite the fact that the Saudis are probably the greatest destroyers of the human and civil rights of its populace, the U.S. has no trouble boasting of them as an important ally. So important, in fact, that our president has made four separate visits to Saudi Arabia to pay homage to his majesty and the Royal Family. Maybe Obama missed the part of the story that makes clear that the Royal Family wields extraordinary power over the people of Saudi Arabia and they aren’t elected. It is reported that the Saudis executed 47 of its citizens in one day. Doesn’t this contradict U.S. policy? How does the U.S. justify calling them an ally?

One might say that the U.S. wishes to spread democracy throughout the world. This would be a noble cause if it had any semblance of truth. But, Assad has been elected overwhelmingly three times and is still defined as a “tyrant.” What is it the U.S. means when it voices the democracy chant? Evidently, it doesn’t mean having popular elections.

In 1970, Salvadore Allende won the presidential race in Chile. Yet, in 1973, the U.S. supported a coup to remove Allende from office. What was his sin? He was a socialist who nationalized the Chilean industries, thus straining relationships with the U.S.

Hugo Chavez was elected as president of Venezuela in 1998 and proceeded to form the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. He was re-elected in 2000 and again in 2006 with over 60% of the votes.

In 2002, again with U.S. support, a coup was launched against Chavez’s government. He was temporarily replaced as president but was almost immediately reinstated due to the tremendous popular support he received from the people and the army. Not surprisingly, he was also labeled a dictator.

In the 1980s, the U.S. worked with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Afghanistan’s socialist government. It funded, trained and armed forces led by conservative tribal leaders whose power was threatened by their country’s progress on education, women’s rights and land reform.

Almost 200 years after the slave rebellion that created the nation of Haiti and defeated Napoleon’s armies, the long-suffering people of Haiti finally elected a truly democratic government led by Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991. But President Aristide was overthrown in a U.S.-backed military coup after eight months in office.

After Aristide was elected president a second time in 2000, a force of 200 U.S. special forces trained 600 former FRAPH members and others in the Dominican Republic to prepare for a second coup. In 2004, they launched a campaign of violence to destabilize Haiti, which provided the pretext for U.S. forces to land in Haiti and remove Aristide from office.

Let me sum up, “dictators” and “tyrants” are those whose policies and goals do not meet U.S. approval whether they are elected to office by the people or not.

The U.S. respects those elected to office if they are not socialists who wish to improve the lives of the people they govern and instead will continue to allow U.S. corporations to control their industries and resources. Those who wish to nationalize their industries, thus reducing the opportunities of U.S. corporations to exploit the host countries, must be eliminated.

Freeing people from tyrannical leaders is not nor has ever been the goal of U.S. policy (see Israel and Saudi Arabia). Most recently, U.S. policy can be seen in play in the Ukraine where a democratically elected government friendly to Russia was overthrown with U.S. support. The new government in Ukraine is dominated by neo-Nazis which is no problem for the U.S.

DON’T LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY, WATCH WHAT THEY DO!!!

Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.