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
Homeland Security also defines disinformation as criticism of the 2020 election, even if true (e.g. Pennsylvania counting several hundred thousand more mail-in ballots than were mailed out; or 100% voting for Biden by comatose nursing home patients in Wisconsin). Election “disinformation” is to be a major focus of Jankowicz, which means they will covertly and overtly lean on media (in the name of national security and protecting democracy) to combat Trumpism. Homeland Security is just another wing of the radical left Democrat party. What this tells you is that the Democrats are engaged in another massive abuse of power designed to tilt the 2022 mid-term and 2024 presidential elections in their favor. The opposition will not have a chance to even get a court ruling on it until well after the elections, if ever. A totally corrupt political party that has boldly seized control; and is dedicated to exterminating the opposition, same as their Bolshevik predecessors.
The deliberate twisting of words away from their public meanings and into grotesque new shapes has been a staple of the Left since Karl Marx strained to redefine “freedom.” The tactic became detectable in the U.S. before the Wilson Administration. (“Freedom today means more than being let alone.” — Richard Ely) In our era, Leftists no longer even pretend to use words according to their traditional meanings. With the cooperation of their media handmaidens, the practice has served them well.
However, we in the Right bear a share of the blame for not contradicting them, immediately and extremely sharply, at each attempt. We are simply too confrontation-averse — too determined to be “gentlemen.” But the struggle is now for our lives and the life of the Republic. He who insists on hewing to drawing-room rules even under combat conditions will soon be lying on a slab and wearing a toe-tag.