Satanic Language

by Anniel5/26/17
After discussing how nauseating and vile the political discourse in our lives has become and the need to “Turn Off the Sound” (ST 5/22/17), I suddenly remembered the book for which I had previously written a Review: I Speak For the Silent – Prisoners of the Soviets by Vladimir V. Tchernavin. (ST 8/1/14). This was the book Whittaker Chambers clandestinely read when he began his break from Communism.

Vladimir Tchernavin was sent from a regular Gulag camp into what was called the Solovki Prison System, which is where he planned and arranged the escape for himself, his wife and son.

In his thoughts and writings about the Solovki Prison System, Tchernavin reveals how communism corrupted and kept its frightful hold on both its enemies and its adherents. He says that the GPU became its own ghost state within the Soviet state, complete with its own laws and leaders, and its hold was maintained by THREE pillars: FOUL LANGUAGE, PROTECTION (a system of extortion both up and down the line) and DENUNCIATION (No one cared if the denunciations were true. Many lost their lives when falsely denounced.)

What popped into my mind yesterday was the First Pillar used to maintain camp discipline, the use of foul language. Tchernavin says:

In this camp, I think, profanity -in which I include every form of vile speech – has reached its highest development. It is universally employed by officials – as evidence of their power over prisoners. . . The subordinate officials, together with the guard and the criminal element, delight in using the word “intellectual” combined with the foulest language imaginable. . .

Often the foul language was used against certain people in conjunction with other behavior to belittle and further demoralize them:

All prisoners were addressed by those over them in the worst possible language. Jews, intellectuals and priests were especially singled out for such treatment. A prisoner might be sent on a task, but not allowed to walk on the boardwalks. As he slogged through thick ankle deep mud he would hear shouts all along the way of, “You filthy ****ing blood-sucking Kike Jew bastard.” And mud and stones would be flung at him or someone might knock him down and kick him. Then he would be punished for being late or dirty and bloody, and he would still have to fulfill his work quota for the day, without his nightly food or water ration.

It seems that one of the first symptoms of a sick society and those who have a desire for power and force against perceived enemies (that would be us – you and me) is the use of vulgar language. Members of the media today regularly drop the “F” Bomb, along with obscene gestures exhibiting their contempt for us.

I can only believe that such bastardization of language has ALWAYS been used against good people. I believe it is Satanic, and, as such, is universal.

As I went back over Tchernavin’s book I also found what I had forgotten, for he says that such language is used not only by the officials, but also:

. . . by prisoners – as an expression of their contempt for a life of slavery, for all their surroundings, and for themselves.

Isn’t it interesting that the name calling also went the other way. Tchernavin says that among themselves the prisoners spoke and thought of the GPU and the guards in the same foul language. Especially hated guards were taunted whenever a prisoner thought they could get away with it. Of course they might get shot, but they could also be pushed beyond endurance.

Very few did not participate in this language distortion. And both sides were dehumanized and destroyed by the use of such language. Every person in the camps became hardened against their perceived enemies, and also hated themselves as they lost their souls and any goodness they once had.

If you follow some blog sites now, you will find that many conservatives are falling into the trap set for us, to willfully subvert our own language and become hardened by our use of profanity.

I fear our children and grand-children are woefully unprepared for the holocaust headed our way if civil war finally comes. We must not profane our heritage and freedom.

* * * *
Recommended reading, and also available on Kindle for only $.99: Escape From the Soviets. Tatiana Tchernavin. (This completes the story of the Tchernavin Family’s life under communism and the final story of their escape. I think it best to read Tatiana’s story first, because she describes completely the history of Communism in Russia, from the period of starvation following the civil war to the times following Stalin’s Great Terror. Most of us have a lot of history to catch up on, and then we need to take our own homeland’s pulse to see where we stand. Frightening.) • (1051 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Satanic Language

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I seem to recall my sociology teacher at Purdue pointing out the use of “pig” as an epithet for the police (still in use today) as a dehumanization technique. As always, the Left has learned their vicious lessons well, and we “deplorables” must fight back against them without losing our own souls.

  2. Steve Lancaster says:

    There is a place for harsh language and a place for civil discourse. What our enemies on the left do not understand is the difference.

    As a Marine and son of a Marine I have heard and spoken enough profanity to burn the paint off a battleship. My father once swore at me in 5 languages, including Korean and Japanese, for 20 minutes. I was mesmerized by his agility to shift from one to the next without taking a breath. However, this experience did not scar me. I did learn that swearing in Japanese has a cathartic effect.

    To quote George Patton, from the movie, “When I want them to remember. I give it to them loud and dirty”. There is a time and place and to the best of my knowledge no one has died because of harsh language. As I watch my language in Shul or generally in public or a classroom; it is knowing the time and place that differentiates between the brute and the thinker.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      My father once swore at me in 5 languages, including Korean and Japanese, for 20 minutes.

      Impressive. I can imagine he through in a few ahos and bakas for good order’s sake.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Yes, Elizabeth notes that those are 2 words for “fool”; she says that aho implies stupidity, baka craziness. I had encountered baka and its intensification, bakayaro, in my reading. She says the Japanese don’t have as much invective as many other languages

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Elizabeth is correct that Japanese doesn’t have as many curse words as other languages. (At least the languages I know something about.) I certainly didn’t hear many in my two years residence and almost two decades of visiting the country.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      There is a place for harsh language and a place for civil discourse.

      Dennis Prager is of the mind that private cursing and public cursing should be judged differently. I generally agree. I mean, I don’t want public discourse to devolved to this.

      However, as my younger brother notes, Had S.L.J. brought just a little of that fire to his Mace Windu character, the Star Wars prequels wouldn’t have sucked as bad as they did. For instance, Little Bro says Mace should have said something like this to Yoda:

      “You mean that dark lord M.F. was standing six feet next to you all this time you didn’t know that he was the M.F. of all evil? What happened to your supposed superior M.F. Jedi powers, M.F.?”

  3. Anniel says:

    Steve,

    What an interesting take that is. I do think judicious swearing might be useful. But what we have today on the airwaves, maybe not so much.

    My own father used deplorable (!) language most of the time. I never did until I was a young teenager when I became addicted to swearing. It was the hardest habit I ever had to break.

    Two of my three brothers used foul language most inappropriately and incessantly. It dictated the circle from whom they chose their friends, including girl friends. Thus who they married was dictated by their language. They became so vicious I finally had to tell them I would no longer speak to them. It was difficult to say but they straightened up considerably.

    The kind of language Tchernaven speaks of was used as a tool of dehumanization against helpless prisoners, not really as anything else.

    By the way, my father was a Finn and as I understand it there were no real profanities in Finnish, so they had to borrow English swearing. What a legacy!

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    A related article: The Crude Shall Inherit the Earth.

    It was not so long ago that the proper thing to do when encountering something unsightly in a store would be to leave. “To ignore, to disdain to consider, to overlook, are the essence of the ‘gentleman,’” wrote the philosopher William James. What an archaic notion that has become. Now grievances must be made known, openly and insufferably. And bully if your displeasure gains online prominence!

    A society where everyone’s every quibble takes center stage is hardly a society. It’s a gathering of one-man shows, dedicated to self-performance. This could exist only in an era of extreme decadence. Even Ayn Rand’s individualist paradise had egoists who at least produced for the enjoyment of others.

    Thomas Jefferson recognized that democracy demands politeness, which he called a “first-rate value.” Manners are the grease of social interaction; thus, collective decision-making can’t be made without respectable deference to others. If we can’t agree on urbane protocol, we certainly can’t agree on public policy. Gentility is like law without government enforcement. It is an extension of the greater good that is supposed to guide democratic lawmaking.

    In Arthur Miller’s Incident at Vichy, the Austrian prince Von Berg describes Nazism as an “ocean of vulgarity” that is repulsed by “refinement.” Authoritarian regimes thrive in the absence of agreed decorum. The more isolated people are, the more willing they are to sell away their fellow citizens’ rights.

    That brings us back to the ease with which bad words find their way in public conversation. Bawdy language, though it has its place among friends, helps loosen the tongue to other improprieties. So goes the tongue, goes the body.

    As Steve said, there is a place for harsh language and a place for civil discourse. And I hold to the “sticks-and-stones” doctrine. But clearly in the case of Communist concentration camps, the point of harsh language is to reinforce the prisoners’ humiliation….and quite possibly, too, the sense of power (and sane insanity) of the prison guards. After all, you can’t treat people as less than human unless you try to make them less than human. Degrading people in this way is, at least in some respects, a way for the guards to not think of themselves as monsters. It justifies their sadism.

    We’re surrounded by little monsters all around us. They hide this fact from themselves by their loud expressions of outrage over this or that small thing. But they are still little monsters. Bad language may or may not come along for the ride. But *outraged* language will always be there. And that is a different type of vulgarity.

    As far as bad language itself, I can’t imagine — particularly among men — it hasn’t always been standard: so standard and ubiquitous that it’s probably impossible to draw any firm conclusions about its presence or absence. These days, I’m more disturbed by displays of namby-pamby than by an f-bomb.

    In fact, I’m still scratching my head over a call I got yesterday. A new business is opening and some guy (sounded like a guy in his 20’s) was looking to “establish a relationship.” Okie doke. Just so long as your check doesn’t bounce. He wanted some signs and banners. “Can do,” I said. “Just let me know the specs and I’ll get you a quote.”

    But he mentioned about three times about wanting to establish some kind of “relationship” and every time I answered him in a more matter-of-fact business-like way I felt I was giving the wrong answer. We went back-and-forth in this way about three times. I was very polite and congenial. But I apparently did not offer the right counter-sign.

    He may or may not email me as he said he would. And he seemed like a nice guy. But I couldn’t help thinking that he was acting like a girl. Certainly, given time, and with several successful jobs behind us, we might indeed develop a nice business relationship. But it’s like he wanted me to bat my eyelashes or something.

    I admit this was a generational gap issue. I didn’t know the countersign. Does anyone out there know the countersign, the secret handshake? Had he said, “I need some damn banners and I need someone who knows their ass from their elbow” I certainly could have related a lot better. Am I supposed to send this guy flowers? Again, I honestly don’t know what this guy wanted me to say. Maybe something like, “Oh, let’s have lunch and discuss global warming, how awful Donald Trump is, and how it is always a woman’s right to ‘choose,’ even if her child is blowing out the third candle on her birthday cake.” Is *that* the “relationship” he was looking for before we actually engaged in any business?

    Sometimes vulgar is just vulgar. But sometimes a bit of crudity is a nod to manliness. And, personally, I find polite to be just fine. I like polite people. But I still don’t know how to handle namby-pamby.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It all depends on the circumstances. In his initial author’s note to The Caine Mutiny, Herman Wouk mentioned that this sort of routine foul language was a sort of billingsgate among naval officers and men. He only included it where he thought it appropriate. Stonewall Jackson’s quartermaster was famed for his use of obscenity to get mules moving. As with so many things, the language is a means to an end — which can include dehumanization.

    • Rosalys says:

      Dear Rosie,

      I got a call at my printing business yesterday from someone saying he needed some signs and banners; but he also kept mentioning that he wanted a “relationship” with me. This has me very confused, and I’m not sure how to respond to this guy.

      Confused on the Left Coast

      Dear Confused,

      “Relationship” is another word which definition, in recent years, has been expanding into ambiguity. Perhaps what this guy meant was, “Right now I need some signs and banners, but I’ll be needing a lot more printing done down the road. I’m looking for a trustworthy company to do business with.”

      When there is confusion, clarification is needed. You could ask, “Excuse me, but did you mean a business relationship?”

      Of course there is an implication in that question – “You’re not looking for a bromance are you?” – which the sort of customer you would wish to do business with may find offensive.

      Therefore a more diplomatic approach would imply that, yes you would very much like to have a good working relationship with him, also. “I look forward to the opportunity of establishing a business relationship with you! Let me begin with getting some information concerning this job, so that I can get right back to you with a quote. If you have time to come in, I could show you some samples.” Yada, yada, yada. You get the idea.

      It’s important that you get the phrase “business relationship” in there to remove any ambiguity, because it’s possible that this modern guy is looking for an entirely different kind of relationship. I mean, who can tell now-a-days just what he intends to do with those banners!

      Rosie

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        “I look forward to the opportunity of establishing a business relationship with you! Let me begin with getting some information concerning this job, so that I can get right back to you with a quote. If you have time to come in, I could show you some samples.”

        Dear Rosie,

        That sounds like good advice. What I had trouble with was a kind of over-eager, robotic tone to this “building a relationship” stuff. Ever deal with an Amway cult member?

        But certainly your words are spot-on and I’ll try to remember that for next time. Thanks.

        And because this guy didn’t know me from Adam, and vice versa, I’m sure all he wanted was a “business relationship.” But even so, buy me flowers first before I go all the way. I mean, the way I see it, we do a couple jobs and if everything turns out well, we do indeed begin to establish a relationship.

        But I’m a bit flummoxed when people attempt to put the cart before the horse and start talking about forming a “relationship” right off the bat. It just seems a bit creepy and inappropriate. I’m sure with your advice, next time I will handle it better.

        • Rosalys says:

          Yeah, it’s creepy. Very creepy.

        • Lucia says:

          It sounded to me as if the fellow was new in his business and wanted to secure a permanent source for printing jobs even before he knew what quality of work you would do for him. It’s also possible that he would in the future ask for special service or discounts below what you would ordinarily provide for future orders and wanted assurance in advance that you would do the work. I think you were right to be suspicious.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I’ll let you all know if he calls back. It just struck me as strange how he 3 times emphasized “creating a relationship” when I was as cordial and willing as could be. It just seemed at the time that he kept repeating this because I was giving the wrong answer.

            And I was a little suspicious as well. Some people will dangle the prospect of giving you a lot of business as a way to get in deep with you quickly and perhaps then find a way not to pay their bills.

            Relationships don’t happen just because you use the word “relationship.” They develop (or not) based on real actions and a shared history.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Relationships don’t happen just because you use the word “relationship.” They develop (or not) based on real actions and a shared history.

              Which is why it becomes progressively more difficult to develop deep relationships as one ages.

  5. Anniel says:

    Dear Rosie,

    After breaking my bad swearing habit when I was young must I now relearn incivility in order to be “one of the girls” in today’s world? And, for the record, do I use Redheart or luxury yarn for my vagina hat?

    Confused in the Cold North

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, Emerson pointed out that “Whoso would be a man, must be a non-conformist.” Of course, you don’t want to be a man, but figuratively speaking I think you do. Sometimes we have to admit our enemies’ methods, unfortunately, but swearing and vagina hats are never necessary, even if there can be a time for the former.

      • Anniel says:

        You are so right Timothy. People, particularly women, have so lost their ways in today’s paths. I used to knit hats but I don’t dare do pink ones anymore.

        • Rosalys says:

          Isn’t it a shame that the diabolical left must destroy everything it touches? Taking a perfectly beautiful color and turning it into a symbol of disgust!

      • Anniel says:

        You are so right Timothy. People, particularly women, have so lost their way in today’s paths. I used to knit hats but I don’t dare do pink ones anymore.

    • Rosalys says:

      Dear Cold North,

      Rosie had to think long and hard about this one.

      I don’t believe you have to relearn incivility; the wearing of an x-rated hat will be sufficient, in of itself, to give you the necessary “mob creds.” Or it may usefully serve as camouflage, to get you safely through a raging crowd, or a disguise for undercover work. Redheart would be the better choice, as a luxury yarn would draw admiration and therefore attention. Now if attention and admiration are what you seek, then… Oh, it’s no good!

      Please excuse Rosie! Certain images are causing her palpitations, and making her hyperventilate!

      • Timothy Lane says:

        A good point there. In the end, conformity requires adherence to the politics of the left, not just the appearances.

        By the way, there was a most amazing march at UCLA — a group of 25 students who were marching to keep a conservative professor, partly out of free speech concerns, but also because he effectively challenges his students to think on their feet.

      • Anniel says:

        Dear Rosie,

        Thank you for your advice about obtaining mob-creds just by using a hat. I want to be undercover. Please fan yourself. It helps with palpitations and hyperventilation.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      After breaking my bad swearing habit when I was young must I now relearn incivility in order to be “one of the girls” in today’s world?

      I think the real lesson of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is relativism. Both Adam and Eve showed situational ethics in regards to eating the forbidden fruit.

      The hard things in this life almost always come down to choosing to fit into the crowd or following some more fixed guiding star.

      There is no easy answer to not wearing a vagina hat (other than pure tackiness) or engaging in bouts of swearing. If “fitting in” is the goal, wear the hat. Drop the f-bomb. There are benefits to fitting in. If there were not, people would not so readily be willing to jettison their own guiding light in order to fit in…assuming they haven’t been habitually “fitting in” since birth to the point that they never developed any sort of guiding light other than peer pressure.

      And being a non-conformist for the sake of being a non-conformist is yet another disguised way of fitting in, as sure as that Monty Python skit from Life of Brian.

      There is no easy answer. But the hard questions are fought from the inside, away from the noise of public opinion and groupthink. Get these right and you stand a chance of scoffing at any idiot who needs to wear a vagina hat in order to get the approval of others.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, I used the Emerson quote in my high school yearbook my senior year. I presume the scene you’re referring to is Brian telling the crowd, “You are all individuals. You are all different.” They all agree with him — in unison — except for one man who says, “Uhh — I’m not.” Lovely little paradox, sort of like New Hampshire arresting people who cover up the state motto (“Live free or die”) on their license plates.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I noticed in school that most were really the same by trying to be different. Or as I said, “Never have so many tried to be different by being the same.”

          Any differences most of these people had appeared to be superficial.

          Oh those conformist rebels!

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I seem to recall MAD Magazine making similar observations, particularly about their identical slogans.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I can believe it. I liked the Spy vs. Spy comic especially as a kid.

              Is MAD still around or did it close?

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I believe it’s still around, but I haven’t looked at in years. There’s no one left from the 60s crew. The death of Dave Berg was the final broken link.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          It is a lovely paradox, Mr. Lane. And it’s one that could occupy the conservative brain-trust in a symposium.

          On the one hand, we don’t go in for groupthink. On the other, neither do we reject the need for common standards.

          Granted, who thinks in terms of first principles anymore? Still, if anyone is reading over our shoulders, these are the things to consider. How do you balance the inherent rights and freedoms of the individual with the need to organize (in order, at the very least, that those freedoms and rights are secured)?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *