We’ve heard since we were school kids that control of the language means control of thought. Anyone who has doubts that this is exactly what the Democrats have in mind must have missed the news last week when the White House named Nina Jankowicz to be the first disinformation czarina in U.S. history. Their objective is to regulate our thinking.
At the same time, the Democrats and their propaganda department, known as the mainstream media, have been hammering the public with words and phrases that mean just what they want them to mean, neither more nor less. It’s their way of conditioning voters’ thoughts as well as creating a cultural and class divide that allows the Democrats to preen as moral superiors and boost their status.
Think of the many examples of language abuse by today’s Democrats:
Our democracy is at stake: A justification for anything on the left’s agenda.
First, they want the public to believe we live in a democracy. We don’t. Democracy is mob rule, which is fine for Democrats since they don’t want to govern within constitutional limits but rule with the backing of the mob. Surely we’re not alone in having grown weary of the Democratic Party’s intentional mischaracterization of our country.
Second, Democrats hope to convince voters that the only way to save the country from fascists, white supremacists, racists, and various deplorables, irredeemables, and clingers, is to give their party absolute political power.
Disinformation and misinformation: A fact or opinion uttered or printed that Democrats don’t want heard because it undermines their narrative and their quest to control. These words are not used in any measured way but constantly regurgitated to numb our minds.
Understanding how truly depraved the Democrats have become requires little more than a glimpse of Jankowicz’s logic twisting. She has argued that it should be against the law to mock women online. Taking her insanity one step further, she claimed – yes, she really did – that “gender disinformation” used to criticize Vice President Kamala Harris is a “national security concern.”
Of course, these protections wouldn’t apply to Sarah Palin, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who was White House press secretary under Donald Trump and is now running for governor in Arkansas, or any other GOP women. They have been “othered” by Democrats and the media due to their party affiliation, and therefore deserve any disinformation and misinformation that’s heaped upon them.
Hate speech: A label applied to any speech that doesn’t toe the line on any issue of importance to Democrats.
Of course, they employ hate speech against their political enemies with regularity. “You can’t go one day without hearing a Republican being called a racist,’” says Corey Lewandowski, at one time Trump’s campaign manager. Naturally, those repeated accusations are never supported by facts. They don’t even try.
Racist: All those who threaten the Democrats’ narrative with facts.
Charging someone with being a racist is not only an effort to make that person toxic, its ultimate goal is to shut down speech antithetical to the progressive plan to transform the U.S. Yes, there is a pattern here.
White supremacist: See above.
White privilege: We’ll let Victor Davis Hanson take this one. “Americans,” writes the classicist, farmer and Hoover Institution senior fellow, “who struggle to pay soaring gas, food, energy and housing prices are berated for their ‘white privilege’ by an array of well-paid academics, media elite and CEOs.”
Abusive content: Words that are insulting – or maybe not. Though sometimes crass, words considered abusive are simply an exercise of free speech.
Anti-science: Used to describe any and all speech that interferes with the Democrats’ policy agenda. It’s also a way to say without saying it directly that those not on board with the Democrats’ leftward march are uneducated rubes.
It’s obvious but we have to say it anyway: To these people, free speech is a threat to their power. It frightens the left so much that its loyal scribes are campaigning to change the very definition of free speech. According to the media, “‘free speech’ in the 21st century means something very different than it did in the 18th, when the Founders enshrined it in the Constitution. The right to say what you want without being imprisoned is not the same as the right to broadcast disinformation to millions of people on a corporate platform.”
We won’t even comment on a statement so asinine that it should have never been printed, other than to say the political left continues to reveal its authoritarian cravings, and is happy to wreck our language in a “1984” sort of way to reach its goal.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board