Masters Of Manipulation X
How the Media Use Loaded Language To Mislead And Manipulate Us

By Don Feder
November 30, 2018

       Nationalist – During the past campaign, Trump said he was a nationalist, giving liberals conniptions as well as another reason for Trump Derangement Syndrome. For the left, nationalism equals racism, aggression and xenophobia.

       Nationalism is another word for patriotism or love of country (which the left also considers suspect). This was expressed simply and eloquently in the verse of Sir Walter Scott:

       "Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land! Whose heart hath ne'er within him burn'd, As home his footsteps he hath turn'd From wandering on a foreign strand!"

       Good globalists all, leftists are repulsed by nationalism, believing it causes war and repression. But before the rise of nationalism in the 18th century, there was thousands of years of warfare – religious wars, wars of conquest, wars to determine who would rule and so on.

       Partially in response to globalism, nationalism is on the rise once again. We saw it when British voters opted to leave the European Union, in the rise of what are called "far right" parties on the Continent (which are trying to limit the influx of aliens incapable of assimilation), in the streets of Tijuana, where Mexicans protested what they called an "invasion" of Central Americans seeking a better life – at someone else's expense – and in America, as alleged asylum seekers throw rocks at border guards.

       Nationalism is an affirmation, not a rejection. To say I love my wife doesn't mean I hate everyone else's. Lafayette played a crucial role in the American Revolution, while remaining a French patriot.

       Putting America first doesn't mean putting everyone else last. If Americans hadn't been willing to sacrifice for their country during World War II, we wouldn't have ended up liberating half of Europe and a good part of Asia.

       Dog Whistles – Supposedly, these are subtle appeals to racism. You can't hear them, but racists can.

       In this year's gubernatorial election in Florida, the white Republican candidate urged voters not to support his Democratic socialist opponent, who happened to be black, because we wouldn't want to "monkey up" the state's booming economy by electing a socialist. Democrats and the media were outraged. Political correctness holds that any reference to a black man that uses the word "monkey" must be racist.

       But people talk about "monkeying with" this or that, without any reference to race.

       Apparently, there's almost nothing that isn't a dog whistle, in the fevered imagination of white liberals.

       During the 2012 campaign, when Republicans talked about the crime rate in Chicago (Obama's hometown), faux newsman Chris Matthews said it was a racist signal because the Windy City has a large black population – or it could simply refer to a city that's had notoriously incompetent Democratic mayors, almost all of them white.

       It seems, only Republicans blow dog whistles.

       Just before the 2008 campaign, when Biden referred to Obama as "a mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and a nice-looking guy," were these code words (directed at his party's leadership) for: "Hey guys, Obama is cool. He has all of these great attributes – unlike most, African American men. He won't embarrass us." If Biden was a Republican, the statement would have been roundly condemned.

       In 1991, at the funeral of a black child killed in an auto accident involving a Jewish driver in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, Al Sharpton (now an icon of the Democratic Party) referred to Hasidic Jews as "diamond merchants," playing on stereotypes of Jews as greedy and insensitive to the suffering of others. This was followed by two days of rioting, including the murder of a rabbinic student. Yet no one in the party of tolerance and compassion holds Sharpton responsible for blowing an anti-Semitic dog whistle.

       Global Warming Denier – Notice the reference to Holocaust deniers.

       It's an intimidation tactic which implies that If you refuse to embrace what used to be called the theory of man-made Global Warming, you're an anti-science nut case – even if you have a Ph.D. in one of the physical sciences.

       Rather than attempt to explain the mountain of evidence against carbon-based Global Warming, proponents seek to stigmatize those on the other side.

       There are scientists who believe that Global Warming occurs naturally – scientists arguing that the cause of Global Warming is unknown – scientists who say Global Warming will have few negative effects – and scientists questioning the accuracy of climate models. They're not in the majority. But in the 18th century, the scientific consensus favored bleeding with leeches to treat various ailments.

       NASA data shows global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years – the biggest two-year drop in a century. According to global warming cultists, due to climate change, winters are supposed to be getting milder. Instead, over the last decade, the Northeast has had 29 "major impact" storms – almost as many as in the previous five decades combined.

       Scientists experiment, examine, discuss and debate, they don't attempt to stigmatize those who disagree. Creationists aren't called evolution deniers.

       Living Constitution – The concept of a living, evolving Constitution is an excuse for judicial activism – for ignoring the Constitution's clear meaning to create increasingly more bizarre interpretations.

       Strange how the Constitution only "grows" in one direction – toward bigger government and Cultural Marxism. Must be something in the air.

       Instead of interpreting the Constitution as it was written (originalism) liberals insist that it must change with the times. ("We didn't have AR-15s in the 18th century, so why do we need a Second Amendment today?") So, it's up to a nine-judge oligarchy – along with justices of the lower courts – to beat the Constitution into a convenient shape.

       But then why have a written constitution at all? (Britain doesn't.) Why not simply say these nine men and women will determine what society needs and provide a mechanism to achieve it, without reference to anything that's gone before?

       Why pretend that those who adopted the Constitution and the post-Civil War amendments provided for a right to abortion, or same-sex marriage, or the right of the "transgendered" to use the bathrooms of the opposite sex?

       What's to stop another court from saying: "The First Amendment must change with the times. In the late 18th. century, there was no television, texting or Internet. Surely, this stuff about Congress ‘making no law... abridging freedom of speech' is hopelessly archaic."

       Sex Worker – An attempt to normalize prostitution and pornography. It's just a job, like law, business, medicine or politics – probably closest to the last. I can just see it now, a sex worker leaving home in the morning, saying to her husband, "I'll see you this evening, dear, when my last client gets off of me."

       The idea is that this is employment the typical "sex worker" has chosen – that it's not much different than flipping burgers or selling real estate. In reality, most prostitutes are forced by circumstances (like addiction) into what's been called the world's oldest profession or they're victims who are trafficked from poorer parts of the globe.

       A publication of George Soros' Open Society Foundation on "sex work" is loaded with euphemisms, "The terms 'sex work' and 'sex worker' recognize that sex work is work. (So is murder for hire.) Many people who sell sexual services prefer the term 'sex worker' and find 'prostitute' demeaning and stigmatizing." The word also implies a moral judgment proponents of decriminalization wish to avoid – That it's wrong to sell your body and equally wrong to purchase/rent someone else's for sexual purposes.

       Here, language manipulation advances the left's cultural agenda by making language "non-judgmental," which in turn is another step toward purging Judeo-Christian morality from the social debate.

       Refugee – The definition of a refugee is spelled out in U.S. Law – one who receives refugee status based on a "well-founded fear of persecution" in their country of origin due to race, religion, "membership in a particular social group" or political opinion.

       Classic examples include Jews fleeing Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Cuban refugees following Castro's rise to power, Vietnamese boat people of the 1970s, and Hutus escaping the genocide in Rwanda.

       The left seeks to stretch that definition out of any recognizable form.

       In the case of those besieging our southern border, it includes a generalized fear of violence – not violence directed at them in particular (because of the above factors) but what's called a climate of violence. Under this definition, residents of Chicago would qualify for refugee status.

       Most of those entering the country illegally as "refugees," are motivated by economic considerations. The desire to have a better life in a country that actually has a GDP is understandable, but it's not one of the grounds provided in immigration law.

       Ironically, Democrats would like to see refugee status conferred on those leaving countries with the same type of economy they're trying to create here. Their motivation isn't altruism, but so that newcomers will help expand their political base, giving us an economy which will resemble the ones migrants are leaving behind.

       In this way, economic "refugees" and their champions in the Democratic Party are partners in crime.

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains a Facebook page.

8230 Catbird Circle 302
Lorton VA 22079
888-239-9306 FAX