Twisted Meanings
Words and phrases can mean whatever the user says they mean. This is especially true in politics. Thus a one-party dictatorship, or a forced coalition dominated by one party, can be described as ‘democratic’. Military invasions can be described as ‘peace making’ or ‘defending democracy’, as can building such structures as the Berlin or Israeli/Palestine walls. Indeed all the above have been so described. What is more, by twisting meanings, every one of them can be argued to be correct.
Take the one-Party dictatorship for example. It can be argued that this system preserves an economic system, Socialism for example, which is by its very nature more democratic than, say, capitalism. Therefore it is a ‘democratic dictatorship’. Moreover, it can be argued that to fully exercise Socialist democracy the masses must join the ruling Party and become active in it in order to influence and collectively decide its policies. Thus the system is entirely ‘democratic’.
What this sort of convoluted argument ignores are such things as the rights of minorities, and the fact that if that one-Party becomes infiltrated and corrupted, then inner-Party democracy is crushed and there is no way of getting rid of the government other than popular revolution, peaceful or otherwise.
Many military invasions have been described as justifiable in order to ‘preserve peace’, ‘protect human rights’ or to ‘defend’ or ‘restore democracy’. This applies to invasions by the USA, Soviet Union, UK, and other countries. Thus the invasion of Iraq was to ‘restore democracy and defend human rights’ and similarly with the NATO military action in Afghanistan, while the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was described as being ‘to defeat counter-revolution and defend Socialist democracy’. Since, as described above, ‘democracy’ can mean whatever the user wants it to mean, such justifications are meaningless. The same with ‘human rights’ and ‘peace’, these expressions can also mean whatever the user says they mean.
During the Cold War ‘human rights’ in the West meant things such as freedom of speech, freedom from torture, freedom to travel, etc., even if all these rights were not respected in all Western countries which gave lip-service to them. In the Soviet bloc, however, ‘human rights’ meant the right to full employment and security in old age. Same words, completely different priorities and meanings.
The word ‘peace’ has also come to mean almost anything, mimicking George Orwell’s futuristic novels where words had opposite meanings. Nuclear weapons states threaten the worst genocides in human history and claim it is in the interests of ‘preserving peace’. Military invasions of other countries, inevitably resulting in the killing of civilians and others, are often described as ‘peace-keeping operations’.
The Berlin Wall and the Israeli/Palestine barrier were/are similarly defended as being to ‘preserve peace’ or to ‘defend democracy’.
Even words like ‘Socialism’ can mean whatever you like. Apart from the many varieties on the Left of politics (Trotskyists, Maoists, Social Democrats, Stalinists, Leninists, Marxists, Titoists, Cooperative movement, etc.) there is the far-right fascist variety: National Socialism (Nazism).
I have been guilty myself of twisting words and phrases to mean what I want them to mean. As a member of the Communist Party in the past this was routine, and I actually managed to convince myself that a one-Party dictatorship was a superior form of Socialist democracy which would eliminate class divisions, train the masses to be self-disciplined and politically responsible and was therefore a good preparation for the ultimate democracy of the self-governing classless society of Communism.
I also at one time believed the invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968 prevented that country slipping into the Western capitalist camp, and therefore was essential to ‘defend democracy’, by which of course, I meant ‘Socialism’. The two expressions were synonymous as far as I was concerned – democracy meant Socialism and Socialism meant democracy. I even argued in print that ‘democracy for the opponents of Socialism’ could not be tolerated, and this was because I believed capitalism was fundamentally undemocratic. That Socialism could also be undemocratic I preferred to ignore or just hope this was a ‘temporary aberration’, like the so-called era of the ’cult of personality’ and the resultant ’violations of Socialist legality’. This was Communist jargon for the crimes of the Stalin era. Words again used to hide or distort/minimize the harsh facts.
In fact all the great flaws in such polemics were overlooked or ignored as ‘temporary problems’, such as the fact that Soviet-style Socialism was ridden with corruption because a new ruling-clique of careerists, opportunists and corrupted former Communists had entrenched themselves in positions of absolute power.
Then take such things as the Second World War. It can be argued that it was a great success because Nazism was defeated and countries like Britain were not invaded. Also that it was necessary because of what happened in the concentration camps to about six million Jews and other minorities. On the other hand it can be argued that it was a massive failure because most of the Nazi leadership survived to the end, most of the 60,000,000 or so casualties were civilians or non-Nazi conscript soldiers, Hitler himself escaped a war crimes tribunal and died by his own hand, Poland (the reason Britain went to war in the first place) was not free at the end of the conflict but was handed straight from Hitler to Stalin, the Allied war crimes never came to a tribunal, and it can also be argued that since 6,000,000 or so Jews and others died in the Final Solution the war failed them, and may even have sealed their fate (Hitler had said he’d kill the Jews if war broke out).
So words and phrases can be used to mean anything, and arguments based on the same facts can come to totally opposite conclusions.
A good politician can make black seem white and white seem black. If caught out, the classic fall-back line is that they were perhaps being ‘economical with the truth’.
In politics of both Left and Right words and phrases are often used in a highly biased way. It can perhaps be summed up by the optimist/pessimist description of a glass containing liquid. The optimist would say it was ‘half full’ while the pessimist would say it was ‘half empty’. Both would be correct, from their own biased perspective, but both would be being ‘economical with the truth’.
To get the full picture in all these cases we need more information than we are being given. To judge whether the pessimist or optimist is correct, we need to know whether the glass is about to be topped up or about to be emptied by a drinker. In the case of the one-Party State, the ‘democracy’ is severely curtailed to allow no opposition to the economic system, and even that limited democracy will only be effective if there is an active, mass membership of the ruling Party, no corruption, and genuine inner-Party democracy. With the barriers put up in Berlin and Israel/Palestine, the main objectives have been omitted – i.e. to stop the economic drain by people leaving permanently or getting jobs in West Berlin and in the Middle Eastern example, not just to make terrorism more difficult, but to grab and secure more territory. In the case of wars, invasions and nuclear arsenals the purpose is to create wars or threats of war in order to impose one’s own conditions for ‘peace’, so in other words, violent bullying tactics.
The conclusion is that politicians of all descriptions very rarely give you all the facts, but instead present a very biased picture leaving out important facts which are detrimental to their case. Hence when they use words like ‘democracy’ and ‘peace’, for example, these words raise a lot more questions that they answer. The old Soviet phrase ‘violations of Socialist legality in the era of the cult of personality’ carefully disguises and avoids the full truth: ‘In the Stalin era very serious crimes such as show trials and executions and imprisonment of totally innocent people took place’.
Words, and phrases, when used by politicians can cloak a host of things they prefer you did not know.
“Hello,
As I have said before and do so again here; anyone who stands up too strongly against a powerful system will more often than not find themselves as a direct threat to it; being disposed of in one way or another and it’s as simple as that!
I had received threatening calls warning me off my involvement with the landmine campaign being told in one “Be careful Diana, accidents happen!” I will not say yet who said this to me but they know who they are and their identity will soon enough be publicly exposed for everyone to know as corruptions and deceits are being exposed now all over the world,it’s the nature of the time now for this to be happening and so it is something that will continue!
In connection with the commentary about the usage of a play on words, an accident is an accident isn’t it? Well as intimated to me so clearly, not always it seems! I was being told that the accident would actually be a carefully planned event and everyone knows the message did not daunt me from continuing with my personal involvement in the Landmine Campaign so ruffling political feathers naturally and resulting ultimately in the fact that this was something therefore only prevented from my continuation with it, by the event of the ACCIDENT? happening in Paris!
The subsequent inquest into this event happening resulting in the verdict of it being an “Unlawful Killing” and isn’t any killing unlawful, to my knowledge this is so anyway and surely an unlawful killing is therefore Murder / Assassination isn’t it? I having been warned of my political assassination, the threat materialised and was carried out and all detailed on my own site dianaspeaks.info of course for those curious to learn more.
The public announcement of our official separation made by the then Prime Minister Mr.John Major on December 9th 1992 said that my husband and I had no plans to divorce and that our constitutional positions would remain unchanged and furthermore that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh though saddened, understood and sympathised with the difficulties leading to the Royal couples decision. It was in fact a speech crafted by the Her Majesty’s lawyers and quite to the contrary neither Her Majesty or Prince Philip were saddened, they were incensed and did not understand or sympathise believing that the marriage should continue, no matter how miserable it was for the sake of the Monarchy dreading another scandal like that of Edward and Wallis Simpson which haunts the royal family to this day! The statement also meaning though no divorce expected at the moment, it is something imminent in the future as indeed it proved being at Her Majesty’s personal insistence and of course even whilst officially separated; our constitutional positions were irrevocably changed as I found out and again illustrated in detailed precis on my site.”
Thank you for listening to me,
With love from,
Diana xx
Part of a detailed precis from dianaspeaks.info
On December 17th 1995 the Queen wrote to Charles and Diana suggesting that for the sake of their children they resolve their differences “Amicably and with Civility”. Asking them to agree to a divorce and to let her know of their decision as soon as possible. Charles agreed promptly to it promising he would not remarry but official divorce was not something Diana personally wanted.
However following a meeting with her estranged husband in his office at St. James Palace on February 28th 1996 Diana agreed to their divorce. Diana initially fighting to keep her H.R.H. title having been offered to becoming “Duchess of Cornwall” ironically the official title of Charles’s current wife and former mistress Camilla! Diana giving up this battle having asked her eldest son William if he would not mind her not being titled “Her Royal Highness” . William’s response being “I don’t mind what you’re called, you’re Mummy! “The Royal Divorce was granted August 28th 1996.
November 26th, 2012 at 2:14 am” Here is another example of the matter of fact and often rare documentations which are presented on my personal site as signified by its name using my initials. Many have since disappeared from the net so securely housed in its pages can be read for the first time. There are also of course personal messages from me and my book there, one that tells my story and the events in my life as only I who lived it could as well as newly available to be read there FREELY being Andrew’s book all about his personal connection with me since September 7th 1997!
I do hope some of you reading this will venture to visit and explore all it has to offer for yourselves.”
With love from,
Diana xx
Summary of Autopsy Report for Diana, Princess of Wales
On August 30, 2007, CBS Evening News obtained a copy of Spencers 40-page autopsy report and ran a
television piece titled, “Was there time to save Diana? New revelations on the 10th anniversary of Princess
death raise questions”.
Stanley Zydlo, MD, a prominent American emergency physician from Northern Illinois and pioneer in
pre-hospital trauma systems dating to their origin in the late 1960s and early 1970s, said in an interview
with a CBS reporter that at least 70 minutes were lost in the field during Diana, Princess of Wales
prehospital care. When a patient has unstable vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, respirations) following
multiple trauma, rapid transport to a surgeon in a hospital is imperative to find and stop the source of
haemorrage, he said. In Diana’s case, the bleeding was from a torn pulmonary vein in her chest.
Diana was a 36-year-old unrestrained (no seatbelt) female back-seat Mercedes automobile occupant in a
motor vehicle accident who sustained blunt chest and probably head trauma at 12:25 am on August 31,
1997. The first witnesses on the scene found her sitting on the floor of the back seat with eyes open and
mumbling indistinct phrases. The first physician on the scene,a physician with the private medical service
SOS Medecins, called the SAMU de Paris switchboard operator, which is the normal routine. Personnel
with Sapeurs-Pompiers, a military firefighting service run by the civil defense component of the French
Ministry of the Interior, apparently arrived within seven minutes of the crash (12:32 am) and began
administering treatment. Fifteen minutes after the motor vehicle crash (12:40 am), the first SAMU medical
intensive care unit (MICU) arrived with its on board physician, probably an anesthesiologist but possibly an
anesthesiologist-designated/trained general practitioner.
The French SAMU physician said in a deposition that Diana, Princess of Wales was crying out. When he
could not reassure her, he started an intravenous drip in her arm and at 12:45 am infused intravenous
midazolam (Versed) and fentanyl, an opioid analgesic 80 times more potent than morphine, to “calm her
down”.
“There is a particular propensity for apnea [slow breathing] when even very small doses of midazolam are
given in conjunction with fentanyl,” write emergency medicine experts Reichman and Simon. “Midazolam
may cause hypotension [low blood pressure] that is related to the dose [how much drug is administered]
and to the rate of administration [how fast the drug is pushed into the catheter inserted into the vein]. This
effect is more likely to occur in hypovolemic [low blood volume inside the circulatory system from, say,
internal hemorrhage or dehydration] patients or elderly patients”, Reichman and Simon note with caution.
After administering the drugs and beginning to extract the patient from the car, the SAMU physician noted
that Diana went into cardiac arrest [her heart stopped beating]. He performed endotracheal intubation
[inserted a tube into her windpipe to open and maintain her airway], placed her on a respirator [to ventilate
her lungs with oxygen through the tube in her windpipe], and performed external cardiac massage to
reestablish her cardiac rhythm. There apparently was no appreciation for the seriousness of her internal
blunt injuries. The SAMU team spent about 30 more minutes (around 12:50 am [after the cardiac
arrest] to 1:19 am) tending to Diana in the tunnel.
At 1:19 am, the SAMU team contacted the SAMU de Paris medical dispatcher to request permission to
take her to a hospital four miles away. The medical dispatcher called the hospital to assess for ICU bed
availability, which was normal procedure. The SAMU system prides itself on limiting time in hospital
emergency departments, to the extent they then existed in France, and transporting critically injured trauma
patients directly to anesthesia-run ICUs or directly to the surgeon-run operating rooms if a surgical lesion is
suspected by the SAMU physician-anesthesiologist. Emergency departments at the time were not
equipped to deal with critically injured patients!
At 1:29 am, the hospital agreed to the SAMU medical dispatchers request. Thus, by the time the SAMU
medical dispatcher had finalized the decision for the SAMU ambulance to proceed to the hospital, Spencer
had been at the scene bleeding internally into her chest for 64 minutes (12:25 am-1:29 am). The
“golden hour” was used up, but she was still alive, attesting to the potential survivability of her injuries.
Sancton writes, “Then the ambulance drove her at a snails pace to Pitie-Salpetriere hospital, 6.15
kilometers away. At that time of night, it would normally take five or 10 minutes to do that drive along the
riverfront expressway but Diana’s driver, applying standard French emergency procedures, drove extremely
slowly so as not to subject the fragile patient to shocks and bumps. As a result, it took them some 40
minutes to make the drive, and the ambulance stopped within a few hundred yards of the hospital to treat
a sharp drop in blood pressure”. Thus Diana, Princess of Wales arrived to within about 1000 feet of the
hospital at 2:06 am, 101 minutes after the accident.
The on-duty physician at Pitie-Salpetriere hospital who admitted her said that she arrived alive and with a
cardiac [heart] rhythm. “Though she had no serious external injuries, X-rays indicated internal
haemorraging that was compressing her right lung and heart. Within 10 minutes of her arrival, the patient
again suffered a cardiac arrest, prompting the doctors to inject large doses of epinephrine directly into the
heart, and to perform an emergency thoracotomy [opening up the chest cavity to find and suture the wound]“.
“According to testimony of the chief surgeon on duty that night, the operation revealed that the source of the
haemorraging was a single lesion, which he described as a partial rupture of the left pulmonary vein at the
point of contact with the left atrium. The tear was sutured and the haemorraging was stopped. Despite
nearly two hours of manual internal massage, and the application of electroshocks, it was impossible to
reestablish a heartbeat. The patient was declared dead at 4 a.m. August 31st 1997.
“At a press conference one hour later, the doctors read a five sentence communiqu that cited an important
wound in the left pulmonary vein as the source of the internal bleeding that killed her. The communiqu made
no specific mention of other lesions. Nor did the French coroners report, which listed the cause of death as
internal hemorrhaging due to a major chest trauma and a phenomenon of deceleration which caused a
rupture of the left pulmonary vein”.
During the CBS interview in 2007, Dr. Zydlo could not say whether Diana, Princess of Wales “definitely
would have survived”, given her injuries. He did say, however, the 70-minute pre-hospital delay
“certainly took away all of her chances”. “No official from the French emergency system would
comment on Diana’s treatment for this report [the CBS report] but in 2002, five years after her accident, the
French emergency guidelines were changed,” said the CBS reporter, although she gave no reference for
the statement. “Today, a patient with the same the unstable blood pressure would be rushed to a hospital”,
she said, anxiously!
Several SAMU organization and practitioner causes facilitated Diana, Princess of Wales death:
1. Administration of midazolam and fentanyl, which may have contributed to or even caused the cardiac
arrest, given her internal injuries and perhaps state of (de)hydration after a boat cruise in the hot
Mediterranean. The cardiac arrest necessitated the tracheal intubation, placement of Spencer on a
respirator, and external cardiac massage.
2. Failure by the SAMU physician to consider internal haemorrage as a source of the patients (recurrent)
hypotension [low blood pressure].
3. Failure of the SAMU organization to train SAMU physicians to suspect internal hemorrhage as a
source of a patients hypotension [low blood pressure].
4. Failure of the SAMU physician to insert a chest tube to check for internal chest bleeding as a source of
her low blood pressure. See reference 1- the SAMU organization states that in-field tube thoracostomy and
even autotransfusion [reinfusing a patients blood back into the patient] are taught.
5. SAMU organization policy of prolonged stabilization and diagnosis at the scene of the injury, rather
than quick assessment and stabilization and rapid transport.
6. SAMU system requirement for on site SAMU physician to await permission from SAMU medical
dispatcher who must await permission from receiving hospital ICU physician to transport a critically ill
multiple trauma patient.
7. SAMU policy of slow ambulance transport to facilitate a pleasant experience for the patient and avoid
exacerbating existing injuries.
8. The implausible state of French emergency departments in 1997.
9. Failure of SAMU organization to involve surgeons, emergency medicine physicians, and others health
professionals in multidisciplinary development and application of pre-hospital trauma patient care protocols.
10. Failure SAMU organization transparency in sentinel events, such as Spencer’s death. Failure to divulge
information persists.
11. Failure of the French government/medical community to communicate with the international public
about the care received by Diana, Princess of Wales in Paris.
12. Failure of the French government/medical community to communicate to the international public what it
has done to reduce the probability of future pre-hospital sentinel event occurrences.
Conclusion:
Diana, Princess of Wales would probably have survived had bystanders rescued and transported her by
private vehicle to the nearest hospital.
Avoid being injured in road traffic accidents in France!
November 26th, 2012 at 4:01 am