originally published March 26, 2019
by Simone Georges
“Words exist so that we might discriminate one thing from another. Without words, we would have chaos.” (1) Once upon a time, when a politician spoke, it was to share their beliefs and how they could help the voting public. It then behoved the public to decide which politician most represented their needs and so vote for them. Words had meaning, we understood the words and we made our choice.
Since Obama came to power in the United States in 2008 and Trudeau in Canada in 2015, suddenly we are grappling with a whole new lexicon. Saul Alinsky said, “Politics is all about power relations, but to advance one’s power, one must couch one’s positions in the language of morality.”(2) Suddenly words become nebulous. Definitions become negotiable. New words are shaped in an Alinskian fashion to manipulate the audience to accept the unacceptable, to think in the way the speaker wishes the listener to think.(3)
Trudeau leapt upon this leftist manipulation. When he threw open Canada’s borders, we no longer were dealing with illegal immigration, we now had irregular migration.(4) Mankind was rechristened peoplekind.(5) From a multicultural society, we were thrown into a world of diversity, which signified, once upon a time, an aspect of your portfolio. A measurable term global warming was abandoned in favour of the nebulous term climate change since the planet refused to warm up and we all know climate changes all the time. A largely undefined word began to be bandied about freely: does anybody really have a firm definition of Islamophobia? That question has not been answered to anybody’s satisfaction(6) and it gets applied to protests against child marriage and female genital mutilation which are legitimate concerns. Being called racist is something every nationalist has suffered when voicing concerns about unvetted migrants walking our streets. Even the claim of having the right to free speech is limited to the right to speak without offending any person on the left.
By using this term, he tries to imply that the Liberals and the Conservatives have similar platforms and similar objectives for the country. This is patently false; however, he uses it freely to manipulate the gullible minds of his unblushingly naïve followers. Another favourite is the free use of the term globalist. Once again, his ingenuous acolytes parrot his words and apply it to anyone who does not support his unelected aspirations and dares to think Andrew Scheer may be a better choice for Canada. Let us examine the meaning of globalist with the help of the Urban Dictionary(7).
A comparison of this definition with the Conservative Party of Canada’s goals for the country show this to be patently false.
Bernier is also fond of using the term pandering to refer to any extension of well wishes to a group of people of some ethnicity or other. This time, referring to the Merriam-Webster dictionary proves his usage false and a blatant twisting of the narrative.(8)
Trudeau and Bernier are very similar, it appears, in their enjoyment of using words to make people think the way they want. Both seem to be reading from Saul Alinsky’s playbook and would make him very proud! Manipulation is the game and both of these politicians are very adept at it. Honesty and forthrightness is a trait much to be desired in a politician, but you certainly won’t find it here!
Actually, there seems to be very little difference between these two Quebec politicians!