Category Archives: Newspeak Dictionary

“Consensus” Becomes a Scary Word

Posted on by

Under leftist rule, harmless things are given scary names. For example, weather is called “the climate emergency.” Correspondingly, innocuous terms are used to describe dangerous concepts. An example is the word “consensus.”

Jay Bhattacharya is a professor at Stanford Medical School. Last month, he attended a public policy roundtable hosted by Ron DeSantis. What happened next illustrates what “consensus” has come to mean.

Bhattacharya writes in the Wall Street Journal:

The point was to discuss the state’s Covid policies in the months ahead. That 600,000 Americans have died with Covid-19 is evidence that the lockdowns over the past year, including significant restrictions on the lives of children, haven’t worked. Florida reopened in May and declined to shut down again. Yet age-adjusted mortality is lower in Florida than in locked-down California, and Florida’s public schools are almost all open, while California’s aren’t.

My fellow panelists—Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Scott Atlas of Stanford—and I discussed a variety of topics. One was the wisdom of requiring children to wear masks. The press asked questions, and a video of the event was posted on YouTube by local media, including Tampa’s WTSP.

But last week YouTube removed a recording of this routine policy discussion from its website. The company claimed my fellow panel members and I were trafficking in misinformation. The company said it removed the video “because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

Everyone at the panel agreed that making little kids wear masks is a bad idea. Yet there is a “consensus”; all scientists agree that children must wear masks until Dr Fauci says otherwise.

It doesn’t matter how many experts disagree with the “consensus.” An opinion is a consensus if it is the one you must hold if you don’t want to get censored by Big Tech on behalf of the liberal establishment.

The antonym of “consensus” is “misinformation” — i.e., information the liberal establishment wants suppressed. These words will be used constantly to bully, suppress, dupe, and manipulate as the media throws its weight behind the global warming hoax on behalf of the Party of Government.

On a tip from Varla.

Global Warming Rebranded as “Climate Emergency”

Posted on by

No matter how hard Dr Fauci and the rest of the liberal establishment try to keep Covid hysteria going indefinitely, the pandemic is winding down. It is time to take the lessons learned regarding how much the little people will tolerate without rebelling and apply them to the global warming hoax. Did I say, “global warming”? I meant, “climate change.” No wait, they have changed it again, in hopes of generating panic. Update your Newspeak Dictionary; the nonexistent weather crisis is now to be called “climate emergency.”

The Hill reports:

Scientific American Magazine announced Monday that it will begin using the term “climate emergency” instead of “climate change” when referring to the challenges of global warming, saying its task is to accurately report the news.

Actually, its task is to support the liberal agenda. Calling the fact that the climate continues to fluctuate as it always has and always will is not dispassionate reporting; it is propaganda.

The publication joined a slew of other outlets, including the Columbia Journalism Review and The Guardian, in its statement regarding the change in posture, Yahoo News reported.

You could almost get the impression that someone is coordinating this propaganda campaign from above.

Scientific American senior editor Mark Fischetti obediently yelps that fluctuating climate could “render a significant portion of the Earth uninhabitable” if the carbon emissions that accompany all human activity are not severely limited. This would require government to take control of the economy and radically reduce our standard of living, not to mention our freedom.

Actually, a significant portion of the Earth already is uninhabitable, because it is too cold. Danish farmers settled Greenland because it used to be green up there. Temperatures trending upward would not be all bad. In any case, Big Government may control everything else, but it cannot control the weather.

“Why ‘emergency?’ Because words matter. To preserve a livable planet, humanity must take action immediately,” Fischetti wrote.

The emphasis on manipulating our view of reality by manipulating vocabulary is classic postmodern leftism. This does not work in the long run, because people adapt to changed meanings. Just as “peaceful protester” now means “left-wing rioter,” “climate emergency” will soon mean “pleasant weather.”

“Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devastating impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves,” Fischetti wrote. “We need the same commitment to the climate story.”

It could not be clearer that the liberal ruling class intends to impose Covid-style tyranny on a permanent basis in the name of pretending to control the weather. Some of the more sinister leftists like John Kerry call this scheme the “Great Reset.”

Even amid a pandemic, which has paused travel plans and reduced economic activities, scientists found that [the level of harmless CO2 in] the earth’s atmosphere has continued to rise, according to The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Yahoo reported.

That means something even more repressive than the devastating ChiCom virus lockdowns is called for, in order to respond to this perpetual “emergency.”

On tips from Henry and Stormfax.

Physics Term “Quantum Supremacy” Struck From Newspeak Dictionary

Posted on by

The cancer started in social science departments, where no one was learning anything useful anyway. Unfortunately, social justice ideology has metastasized to every corner of academe — even real science:

In an op-ed, titled, “Physicists Need to Be More Careful with How They Name Things” for the Scientific American, St. Anselm College physics professor Ian Durham, University of Bristol math professor Karoline Wiesner, and freelance journalist Daniel Garisto call for doing away with the physics term “quantum supremacy” in an anti-racist measure.

The concept of white supremacy is so horrific to moonbats that the word “supremacy” must be banned by association. Revise your copy of the Newspeak Dictionary accordingly.

The popular term, coined in 2012 by quantum physicist John Preskill, refers to quantum computers outperforming classical ones. It has nothing to do with racism, which the authors of the op-ed even acknowledge, but say that it is “uncomfortably reminiscent” of “white supremacy.”

Everything in academia is about political correctness; that is to say, it is about hatred of white men.

The authors add that while abolishing the term “quantum supremacy” would not in itself diversify science, it is a small step toward making the scientific community “less white and male.”

It doesn’t matter what discoveries are made or even whether they are made. All that matters is that if there are any discoveries, they are made by members of approved identity groups.

The corrupted liberal arts have established supremacy over the sciences.

On a tip from ABC of the ANC.

Wall Street Journal Bans Term “Illegal Immigrant”

Posted on by

The warning bears repeating: when reading the Wall Street Journal, do not venture far from the editorial page, or you will find yourself awash in moonbattery. Currently we are experiencing a crisis at the border, Biden’s unconscionably irresponsible and arguably treasonous invitation to the Third World having produced an unprecedented tsunami of grasping invaders. These numberless illegal immigrants will be referred to using politically correct euphemisms by WSJ, which has banned reporters from using the term “illegal immigrant.”

Via Breitbart, where plain language is still permitted:

[I]n an update its style guide, the Journal states that while it will allow reporters to continue using the term “illegal immigration” to describe the process of illegal aliens arriving and staying in the U.S., it will no longer permit reporters to describe individuals as “illegal” or “illegal immigrant” in an effort to stop “labeling people.”

It follows that they won’t refer to doctors as “doctors.” They won’t refer to Americans as “Americans.” They won’t refer to Democrats as “Democrats.” That would be labeling people.

Instead of “illegal immigrant,” WSJ reporters are supposed to use unwieldy terms like “immigrants who entered the country illegally” or “people lacking permanent legal status.” Political correctness does not facilitate succinct writing.

Even the euphemisms “undocumented immigrants” and “unauthorized immigrants” are now banned by WSJ. Euphemisms are no longer euphemisms once everyone knows what they really mean. That’s why liberals now say “choice” instead of the former euphemism “abortion.”

WSJ is not alone in its campaign to rid the Newspeak Dictionary of words that might lead us astray into thoughtcrime regarding illegal immigrants. For example,

In 2013, as Breitbart News reported at the time, the Associated Press (AP) banned its reporters from using the term “illegal immigrant” and “illegal” to describe illegal aliens.

Most recently, President Joe Biden’s administration has banned the use of the terms “illegal alien” and “assimilation” and has instead blanketed all foreign nationals in the U.S. as “noncitizens” and “undocumented noncitizens.”

If FDR had shown comparable leadership, he would have banned use of the word “Japanese” after Pearl Harbor.

Deletions from the Newspeak Dictionary will find their way into law:

House Democrats filed legislation in January to ban the use of the term “illegal alien” and “alien” in federal law and documents.

The next step is federal criminal prosecution for infractions against the Newspeak Dictionary. Already, you can be fined $250,000 per offense for calling an illegal alien an “illegal alien” in the moonbat dystopia New York City.

On a tip from ABC of the ANC.

Dictionary.com to Delete the Word “Slave”

Posted on by

As social engineering goes into high gear, updates to the Newspeak Dictionary come fast and furious. Dictionary.com will now delete the word “slave” from our vocabulary.

Via Yahoo Life:

As part of its ongoing efforts to feature language that is more inclusive and reflective of modern-day society, Dictionary.com will no longer include the word “slave” as a noun identifying a person, instead using the adjective “enslaved” or referencing the institution of slavery.

The wordy phrase “inclusive and reflective of modern-day society” is a euphemism for “compliant with current leftist dogma.”

The word “slave” is to be canceled because leftists disapprove of it for being “dehumanizing.” Whether a word is included in the dictionary depends on how progressive ideologues think the word makes people feel.

Despite all the words our moonbat rulers have abolished, dictionaries won’t necessarily get smaller, because they also add terms.

The change is one of 7,600 updates the online resource has announced, which also include the addition of terms relevant to race, social justice and identity, such as “BIPOC” (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) and “Critical Race Theory.”

The latest updates — which also include capitalizing “Indigenous” when referring to people, and adding entries for “racialization,” “disenfranchisement” and “overpolice” — follow those announced last September. That round of revisions saw the capitalization of the word Black in reference to people, and the addition of terms relevant to mental health (specifically, suicide and addiction) and LGBTQ identity.

Nothing escapes politicization under our system of totalitarian leftism, least of all language, where progressives have aggressively implemented the strategy George Orwell mapped out in 1984 of controlling our thoughts by manipulating our vocabulary.

On a tip from ABC of the ANC.

Unilever Abolishes the Word “Normal”

Posted on by

The objective of leftist social engineers is to marginalize normality itself. If you doubt it, consider that the word “normal” has now been struck from the Newspeak Dictionary by the repressively woke mega-corporation Unilever.

From the BBC:

Unilever will drop the word “normal” from its beauty products and ban excessive editing of models’ photos in a push for inclusivity.

Inclusivity is exclusive of people who identify as normal.

Dove’s owner said the editing ban would apply to “body shape, size, proportion and skin colour” and “normal” would be removed from 200 products.

Want shampoo for normal as opposed to dry hair? Tough. You ought to go without shampoo, for being an oppressive normal person. Want face cream for normal as opposed to oily skin? They don’t cater to your kind at Unilever.

The ban on editing will include photos taken of models as well as social media influencers.

Because attractive models oppress ugly people, according to woke ideology.

More wokeness:

Unilever said on Tuesday it would also take a number of other steps in an attempt to promote “a new era of beauty that’s inclusive, equitable and sustainable”.

It committed to increase the number of adverts portraying people from under-represented groups and use more natural and biodegradable ingredients across its range of products.

There is to be no escape from moonbattery, in any area. Every product for sale at the drug store must be loaded with wokeness.

In January, Unilever said it would launch the Crown Fund UK, an initiative aimed at stopping discrimination around black hairstyles, while ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s has voiced support for the Black Lives Matter protests.

Those who rely on the liberal establishment media for information may need to be reminded that “protests” in the Black Lives Matter context often mean riots, including looting, vandalism, assault, arson, et cetera.

Unilever is not content to virtue signal about its leftist ideology. It used its massive clout to silence dissent when it compelled Facebook to crack down more repressively on conservative viewpoints by threatening to pull advertising.

Meanwhile,

Having been blamed for massive deforestation in Indonesia via its purchase of palm oil, a 2016 Amnesty report found that Unilever’s palm oil supplier Wilmar International had profited from child labor and forced labor.

In 2019, Unilever was also named as one of the world’s top 10 plastic polluters by BreakFreeFromPlastic.

This followed a 2016 out of court settlement where Unilever was forced to pay compensation to hundreds of workers at a mercury thermometer factory operated by the Indian subsidiary of Unilever which was caught dumping toxic mercury wastes in a densely populated part of town.

However, woke posturing sweeps all that under the rug.

Evil corporations used to be a liberal cliché. Now, they are a liberal power base.

Eradicating Motherhood Through Newspeak Dictionary Updates

Posted on by

Because catering to the bizarre whims and sensitivities of men who pretend to be women and women who pretend to be men is at the core of our purpose as a civilization, we must refrain from using transphobic terms that refer to motherhood.

The Times reports:

Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department…

NHS = National Health Service. Airstrip One’s socialized medicine makes it easier to implement updates to the Newspeak Dictionary.

Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.

Breastmilk is wholesome and natural. Therefore, it is politically incorrect. “Chestmilk” sounds better to the progressive ear.

Other changes include replacing the use of “woman” with “woman or person” and “father” with “parent”, “co-parent” or “second biological parent”, depending on the circumstances.

In utopia, we will all talk like ideologically deranged bureaucrats. That is to be expected under totalitarianism, since it is ideologically deranged bureaucrats who dictate what people are allowed to say.

A policy document released this week states that staff should not stop using the word “woman” or other terms describing motherhood…

At least, not yet. References to motherhood are hate speech, according to the logic of liberal ideology.

Duckspeak from an official NHS policy document:

“We also recognise that there is currently biological essentialism and transphobia present within elements of mainstream birth narratives and discourse. We strive to protect our trans and non-binary service users and healthcare professionals from additional persecution as a consequence of terminology changes, recognising the significant impact this can have on psychological and emotional wellbeing.”

Biological essentialism will be next to go, after the social engineers abolish motherhood.

An estimated 1 per cent of the adult population in Britain identifies as transgender or non-binary…

That’s after years of the liberal establishment doing everything it can imagine to encourage impressionable adolescents to go off the tracks into sexual perversion and gender dysphoria.

Remember when moonbats used to screech about oppression by the 1%? Maybe they had a point.

On tips from Varla and Steve T.

Harvard Replaces “Women” With “Birthing People”

Posted on by

Moonbat rot goes all the way to the top. It would be hard to imagine a more prestigious institution than Harvard Medical School, or a more basic medical concept than the fact that only women can bear children. Yet Harvard first evaded that fact by using the euphemism “birthing people” for women, then directly attacked reality by implying that some women are not women.

Naturally this came up in the context of exhorting us to weep for the allegedly oppressed:

Globally, whites are a minority — and a shrinking one. But white “birthing people” should not hold their breath waiting to receive their equitable share of treasured oppressed status.

Even now, liberal lunacy sometimes encounters ridicule. Harvard pushes back by explaining itself:

By Harvard’s own logic, its euphemism for women fails. If women are not women because they might identify as men, then birthing people are not people, because they might identify as dogs or cats.

Nonetheless, you had better delete the word “women” from your copy of the Newspeak Dictionary. No sense risking cancelation when it is relatively easy to go along and say “birthing people” instead.

Harvard is at war not only with biology, but also with math:

Biology, math, and all other disciplines are to be condensed into one: moonbattery.

On a tip from Dragon’s Lair. Hat tip: Breitbart.