January 13, 2016

How the left controls language

Theo CaldwellArchive

As Dennis Miller is fond of saying, liberals have a War Room for everything but war.

Similarly, the left is ever eager to refer to any unacceptable behaviour as “terrorism,” so long as it isn’t what you or I or otherwise normal people would consider terrorism.

Consequently, a bunch of ranchers occupying a vacant building to protest government overreach is terrorism (or the work of Y’all Qaeda), but a Muslim fanatic gunning down his fellow soldiers while screaming “Allahu akbar” is “workplace violence.”

An armed, incoherent recluse inside a Planned Parenthood clinic is a terrorist, but a man who shoots a Philadelphia cop and expressly states that he did so in the name of ISIS is “a criminal with a stolen gun.”

Coordinated rape gangs throughout European cities are to be ignored or explained away, but Donald Trump is the real terrorist.

To the left, terrorism is only terrorism when the perpetrator looks like Johnny Lawrence or Gavin McInnes’ dad.

I could go all day on the forced euphemisms deployed to defend Islam; or, more properly, to insist Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, the clear and unequivocal declarations of the perpetrators notwithstanding.

My friend Ezra Levant points out that in the Calgary Herald’s report on a shooting at a nightclub there, the reader is not informed that both attackers were named “Mohamed” until the twenty-fifth paragraph.

Right now, you’re on the ninth paragraph of this column. Even if you hate my guts (right back atcha, commie), is my meaning difficult to discern?

Opacity, evasion, and obscuring plain truths are liberal hallmarks. The left is all about control, and language is crucial to that ambition.

It’s not just matters of life and death, like Islamic terrorism, wherein liberals twist the truth and seek to co-opt you in their lie. It happens every day, in ways large and small. We must recognize these efforts, and resist them.

If you are a parent, perhaps you recently attended a “Winter” concert or celebration at your child’s school.

To whatever extent Christmas was referenced, you can be sure it was immediately diluted by the mention of other holidays, supposedly in the name of “inclusion,” “diversity,” and “tolerance.”

As G.K. Chesterton put it, “There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions.”

It would create an awkward, binary juxtaposition simply to present Hanukkah as the sole alternative to Christmas, so clueless educators toss in their favourite standby: Kwanzaa.

Honestly, do you know one person who celebrates this made-up, American holiday, invented by an FBI stooge? Does anyone other than schoolteachers ever refer to it without being ironic?

Yet there it is, stuffed in between the birth of Christ and a humongous menorah, perhaps along with some celebratory Gaia bush pruned by Ms. Foster-Jamal’s Grade 2 class.

Again, this isn’t about “diversity” or “inclusion” or any of the reasons leftists might give; it’s about pretending the period around December 25 is jam-packed with all kinds of sacred events, in order to crowd out the one thing even non-believers know is most important.

Lies about gender are ubiquitous these days and, unlike the grinning, passive-aggressive coercion surrounding a “Winter” concert, leftists are more aggressive here.

Even though he is a man in every biological sense, and achieved greatness and fame under his given name, if you fail to refer to Bruce Jenner as “Caitlyn,” you are worse than Hitler. Moreover, Twitter will correct you (and perhaps remove your checkmark).

New York City has now instituted six-figure fines for, “intentionally failing to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title” or “refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs, consistent with their gender identity.”

This is madness and a lie but, by controlling the language, the left seeks to control you.

Recently, my wife and I attended a restaurant opening and an old friend introduced us to a fellow of her acquaintance. We talked about how much fun our wedding was (I wore a kilt; the answer to your question is, “lipstick”).

When this new fellow spoke to my wife, he kept pointing at me and referring to her “partner.” After several, conspicuous repetitions of this, I asked him what he meant.

Remember, gentle reader, that this chap had just been introduced to me as her “husband” and we were in the midst of talking about our wedding.

He at first feigned confusion at my question, then became prissily offended. He had many married friends, he informed me, who didn’t mind being referred to as “partners.”

My wife and I are not a law firm or a wrestling tag-team (though who knows what the future holds), we are married. Moreover, this man had been given our preferred appellation moments before. Yet, he apparently felt the need to adjust our language to suit his principles.

I wasn’t rude or aggressive in asking (when I’m being rude or aggressive, trust me, you’ll know it), but even my gentle pushback was enough for him to go nancing off and not talk to us for the rest of the evening.

Compare this with the recent news coverage of my old pal Seamus O’Regan and the conscientious well-wishes to him and his “husband.”

Seamus, as you may know, has entered a “wellness” program to embrace “an alcohol-free lifestyle.” For conservatives, this is called “rehab.”

I met Seamus when I was Best Man at his cousin’s wedding in Newfoundland approximately one million years ago. On and off thereafter, we had a number of good-natured, well-refreshed debates about policy. He was, incidentally, the first to spring that, “I’m not a leftist, I’m a classical liberal” routine on me – as though Edmund Burke would be Jake with gay marriage and abortion on demand.

It has been noted that, while decent people hope Seamus can quit drinking, he was positively gleeful in mocking former Toronto Mayor Rob Ford for his substance abuse.

As Seamus addresses his self-inflicted, first-world problems, don’t tell me he’s “courageous” while Rob Ford is a “disgrace,” or that Seamus has a “husband” while my wife has a “partner.”

Seamus’ case is not only an object lesson in how language is contorted to benefit the left, but also of how easy life is for liberals of limited talent and erudition who simply show up (Justin Trudeau, please call your office).

Finally, no contemplation of the left’s linguistic perversions is complete without some mention of the Clintons (though it depends what the meaning of “is” is).

On any issue, either or both of them can be counted on to parse, redefine, misconstrue and outright lie to serve their interests. But two recent instances stand out.

The first, briefly, was a telling moment in which an interviewer asked Donald Trump about Bill Clinton’s “alleged extra-marital affair.” Trump, bless him, was quick to point out Bill’s affair with Monika Lewinsky is not “alleged” but “admitted.” Moreover, well beyond an “affair,” the former president has been credibly accused of various forms of unwanted touching, harassment and rape.

This trick of the left may have worked in the 90s, minimizing Bill’s monstrous acts through the use of language, but it will be tougher this time around. Watch this space.

Second, asked recently to distinguish between a Democrat and a socialist, Hillary Clinton had no answer. The venue was friendly and the questioner was fellow Democrat Chris Matthews.

Even so, Hillary had no coherent reply, demonstrating that, for people who like to control words, liberals are surprisingly weak at deploying them.

This pertains to my swipe at Seamus (and Justin), above. The liberal worldview is all about control and mastery of superficial things, like language and words, but there is nothing of substance beneath that rapacious desire.

Here is a woman who aspires to lead what’s left of the free world, yet she has no cogent answer to a rudimentary question of public policy. It is because she has given no thought to anything but her own advancement.

This shows that for all their posturing and will to power, they are hollow and can be beaten.

You see it on the news, and in your daily life: small moves, subtle edits, and constant, picayune pressure to talk, think, and believe as they do. Speak your mind and let them pound sand.

(Theo Caldwell is nodding his head like yeah, moving his hips like yeah. Contact him at theo@theocaldwell.com)


JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

The RCMP is bringing out a new women's uniform -- with a Muslim hijab!
If you agree that this is unCanadian and anti-woman,
SIGN THE PETITION at ShariaPolice.ca

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-01-19 17:40:46 -0500
Theo, you mention a favorite comedian of mine (Miller), a favorite writer (Chesterton) and a favorite leader (Trump) all in the same column. Those will be the shoulders of the giants of political incorrectness, God bless them all.

You’ve said it all here. Nothing to really add.

However, I would like to mention this: Donald Trump is the freshest leader to come forward. His statements are clear. He says what is on his mind. His verbiage is delightfully brief. Wonderfully (tho brutally) honest. We need him. What I dislike about the Left’s usage of language is how they take a very long time to express a simple truth by employing long convoluted sentences which resort to twisting and turning and practicing the three things you already mentioned which are of course the principles of the politically correct liberal to be opaque, evasive, and obscurantist in a self-gratifying effort of muddifying the waters of the truth they are pretending to tell us in such bizarre and irrational ways that there is no validity to their rants other than putting off any of we saner conservatives in ever reading long sentences again when we fully know that short sentences and brevity are the best way.

(Deep breath)… hmmm… that one winded me. Simply put: the Left are too long-winded even with their lies.
commented 2016-01-15 09:24:36 -0500
Judy thanks for the link, the power of theRebel media,
commented 2016-01-15 08:48:25 -0500
lets not forget the grand daddy of them all – the left is ‘progressive’ and the right is ‘draconian’ [my fave descriptor from the Harris days here in ontario]
commented 2016-01-15 01:57:19 -0500
The first time I heard doctor-assisted suicide referred to as doctor-assisted death, I thought the reference was to medical mistakes made during surgery or a mix-up in prescription medication. Death on demand, abortion for the pre-born and euthanasia for the born, require the manipulation of language in order to delude people into accepting the fantasy that they are participating in health care.
commented 2016-01-14 20:11:43 -0500
Leftist language is usually based around one concept. If you are not infavour of a leftist idea, then you are a bigot.
commented 2016-01-14 17:36:34 -0500
Elton Braun – I agree with your comments!
commented 2016-01-14 16:59:04 -0500
As per my previous post-witness Nathan’s post just below. Delusion and lies.
commented 2016-01-14 16:54:38 -0500
The supremacist mindset of the left drives their war on free speech because they fear debate. They fear debate because they fear truth and they fear truth because deep down they know they are wrong on so many issues which means they live in a world of self delusion. Since they can’t handle the truth nor want to, their goal is to shut down dissent (as in the right) from those who would disagree with them. Islam supremacist ideology dovetails with left wing ideology in this respect. Somehow the left has deluded themselves into thinking Muslims are their friends and therefore, after the takeover is complete, all will be sunny ways. It’s like some sort of demonic stupid disease that I’m not sure there could be a cure for other than a lot of serious prayer. Since truth and debate are our only weapons, we have to fight for them tooth and nail.
commented 2016-01-14 16:12:23 -0500
BS. Right wingers call anything done my Muslims terrorism, but not anything else. Left wingers look at the situation, and determine whether it was terrorism or some other form of violence.

Killing a bunch of colleagues is wrong, but it’s not terrorism unless the goal is to affect policy and politics. When violence is used for political means, it’s terrorism.

The left DOES know how to define terrorism. The right doesn’t.

The rest of the piece is a pretty tiresome rant about things that bother you. You want to tell people how to speak, and when they don’t, you pretend to be the aggrieved one.

I kind of feel sorry for you. And the other people here who seem to think that the only way to share their opinion is in an offensive manner.
commented 2016-01-14 15:55:05 -0500
Hey Judy, I read that article you linked to. It is a fairly shallow, one-sided argument, but I get his point. It’s shallow because not all students think in that way.
And the problem isn’t that someone thinks that way; people can think as they please; it’s not my place to tell people how and what they should think as long as they are not violent, manipulative, or fraudulent. (unfortunately there is no moral crime in being willfully ignorant :)

The problem is that people don’t learn basic critical analysis skills; or learn how to seek out and examine the fully body of facts and viewpoints. With that kind of process in place, people’s viewpoints will naturally start to evolve to the more logical side of the spectrum.

One big irony is that the internet was supposed to increase the availability of truth; which it did; however it also increased the availability of noise and biases; and also become a microphone for the ignorant.

commented 2016-01-14 13:45:53 -0500
Another Liberal homosexual alcoholic? It’s a plague.
commented 2016-01-14 12:14:46 -0500
Great article as usual. Theo and Mark Steyn are my favourite reads. Had to catch up on Steynonline last night. If anyone here still isn’t familiar with him do yourself a favour and check him out.
commented 2016-01-14 11:28:33 -0500
I’d argue that the left is great at destroying words and turning them into double speak. Anyone following the “Kudatah” meme floating around? Yet I didn’t see any mockery from the right regarding NDP Chris O’ Hallorans ineptitude to spell democratic when writing his own party’s name. http://efpublic.elections.ab.ca/afEFUploadView.cfm?&ACID=17007
commented 2016-01-14 10:06:55 -0500
J Kay commented 37 mins ago
BRAVO ZULU, You cherry picked what you said, not, I.
You left these two sentences out:
What do they use to lube their ass holes so it does not hurt?
Do they both stick their dicks up each others asses? @

Fair enough – you dodged my questions by asking more questions – so I will repeat them

So I will repeat them just for you.

“What do they use to lube their ass holes so it does not hurt? & Do they both stick their dicks up each others asses? "

Now let’s go to the statement that was probably the most important and you ignored:

“But then again I would probably have prevented that to the best of my ability. "

Meaning of course that despite my not liking his life style choice – I would have helped him vs thrown him off a building – that is the difference between me and islam.

Now you might be a real nice person under normal circumstance and in fact we might be real fine as neighbours – but for the moment you are nothing but a shit disturber.

I refuse to apologize for my comment and in fact – as I seem to have offended you, I might as well add to it.

You will never silence my thought no matter how politically incorrect they might be or how much you disagree with them.


Why do you not take a long lingering suck on your neighbors dick – or if you are not of that persuasion – just – simply fuck off.

OK asshole?

Have a good one.
commented 2016-01-14 09:39:08 -0500
Be careful what you put in your mind, as all evil begins with a thought! Don’t allow the leftist lies in and always think for yourselves. I can barley listen to the radio or watch anything on TV these days, due to the constant mind numbing socialist messages, droning, on and on and on. If you want to keep your sanity, then turn down the white noise from the communists.
commented 2016-01-14 09:32:54 -0500
As usual Theo, you nailed it! I am so glad that the Rebel has real journalists, not the fairy tale spinners, that spin lies into tales to deceive the public. Being raised as an individual, and taught to stand up for the truth, I have no problem telling them to pound sand!
commented 2016-01-14 09:19:15 -0500
BRAVO ZULU, You cherry picked what you said, not, I.
You left these two sentences out:
What do they use to lube their ass holes so it does not hurt?
Do they both stick their dicks up each others asses?
commented 2016-01-14 09:10:35 -0500
I know it’s totally boring but I’m in agreement with all you wrote.
commented 2016-01-14 09:09:05 -0500
The left is gaining all their support through the media system, substance and ,above all, facts are not even reckon .
commented 2016-01-14 07:56:19 -0500
“Marxism Failed in the World, but Conquered Western Academia”
by Philip Carl Salzman
The Daily Caller
January 11, 2016
Salzman concludes: “The Marxism taught in colleges and universities is anti-Western, seeing the West as no more than a source of conquest, oppression, and exploitation. Consequently, non-Western cultures are upheld as purer, more decent, and fairer than Western culture. The alliance between Marxist politics and Islamism as seen in the support of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood follows logically. Students now see themselves as defenders of Islam, along with all other non-Western cultures, although they know little about these other cultures and their histories. It has been imagined that the West would fall through materialist decadence; but now it appears that the West is most at risk from self-hate, fostered by the treason of the academics.”

Isn’t this the reason for language manipulation? The left is just too afraid to be honest because they don’t know how they really came to believe the truly unbelievable…surely their idiocy must puzzle even them at times…they think their change of mind “just happened” and they know people would never swallow their truth because it IS unreasonable: Eastern cultures are NOT purer, more decent and more fair…but slowly these ‘converted pawns’ move, a word at a time, twisting the minds of children until they become enemies of their parents…strangers in our midst…bait and switch…the method of cults. They are impervious to plain talk and are certain they are right despite the plain evidence…it is eerie, and possibly a tragic end to sanity. Anyone have a solution?
commented 2016-01-14 02:36:07 -0500
Theo – the toxic hypocrisy you cite is all just symptomatic of a cult (yes, dogmatic political correctness is a belief-based cult not unlike Jonestown) which pathologically hates its own nation and culture so deeply it will aid and encourage any malevolent subculture which is dedicated to destroying us. Conversely it will rabidly attack any traditionalist group attempting to save a modicum of the civil liberty we enjoyed when we were a functional cohesive nation/culture.

This new virulent form of PC sprang from academic Marxism and is the equivalent of cultural Stalinism – there are many parallels between progressive cultural regressivism and Stalinist totalitarianism and its required alternate reality narratives. They are already indicting and oppressing people for dissenting beliefs, it’s just a matter of time until they build re-education gulags

That’s the Coles notes on the issue, and personally I think it is a waste of time at this point in over analysing or devising coping mechanisms for what is obviously a political cancer in our culture. PC has to be surgically removed every time it is detected, or the body politic will die if it is allowed to metastasize.
commented 2016-01-14 02:28:56 -0500
I thought he was clever before, but Theo’s so much smarter than I even remember. Excellent writing. Well done, as usual.
commented 2016-01-14 02:00:29 -0500
Thank you for this article, Theo. I agree with it in it’s entirety.
commented 2016-01-14 01:31:13 -0500
Ebonics makes more sense than leftspeak. It makes me laugh to think people who get so offended and preach about tolerance and equality do not practice or covet either. I also love how they think they can tell you what you can and cannot say , they think they have some power over others, not sure why?
commented 2016-01-14 01:07:55 -0500
I admire the way Theo Caldwell writes – and evidently thinks – and that’s coming from a former journalist and government P.R. “flack”… I learned English as a second language coming to Canada as a “D.P. boy”… Fortunately my mother “had read to me” and I developed a love of language which eventually led to my career in journalism… Having been exposed to Communism my “purpose” was always to pursue the truth in journalism and in my later writings… Needless to say, I was often in conflict my Ryerson Journalism classmates and fellow journalist in subsequent years… But, but, what I would never have believed was the degradation of “language” and evident acceptance of “politically correct speak” that has taken place since the 70s… Accepting even to some degree the distortion of meaning, or deliberate negation of existence of certain words of the English vocabulary, is no different than submitting to a lobotomy of part of your brain… Imposition of “new speak” on our society is no different than allowing more and more of your grey matter to be chopped from your head and fed to the chickens in the barnyard…
commented 2016-01-14 00:35:28 -0500
Well done!
commented 2016-01-14 00:21:10 -0500
There is a reason Noam Chomsky was a studied linguist. Control the language and you control what people think.
“Political correctness” is all about controlling the language. It is not a random set of censorship rules, it is a set of censorship rules that only permits progressive thought.
And that, my friend, is vewy dangerous.
commented 2016-01-13 22:19:50 -0500
@j Kay commented 3 hours ago
Bravo Zulu, Shame on you!!

Why for saying this:

“I did not know Seamus was a faggot until just now. "

Or for saying this:

“After all if he had been with me in Syria a very short time ago and been caught – someone would have tossed him off a building. "

Or for volunteering this:

“But then again I would probably have prevented that to the best of my ability. "

Or for asking this:

“After all my comments might be considered very rude in some circles – however islamics want him dead. I wonder if he ever thinks of that? "

You might not like my way of speaking – but it is upfront and truthful.

I believe more people need to be like me – certainly I will never apologize for the way I speak. If more people did we might have less trouble with the truth in this country.

It looks like you cherry picked what I said – and that shows you are not capable of seeing a complete thought – just your own prejudices.

Have a good one.
commented 2016-01-13 22:14:59 -0500
Bravo, that was completely awesome…
commented 2016-01-13 22:02:26 -0500
J Kay, commented "Bravo Zulu, Shame on you!! "

Why shame on him? Because he expressed his personal opinions? Albeit his speech is somewhat colorful at times but that is our Bravo, I wouldn’t want him to change. While I do not always agree with him he shows a passion for Canada and life which most of the milk drinkers in Canada have no fortitude for.

Oh by the way trying to shame a person is a form of trying to control a person; with shaming one hopes to elicit a “more conformed or acceptable” change in regards to the person’s behavior and or speech. Ironic when you look at the topic of this article.

Peter Netterville commented “The left not only attempts to control the language but change the definition of various words in order to suit their purpose.”

Hear hear!!
Like “domestic technician” that one still makes me chuckle.