Fake Smiles and Soft Words

One thing I’ve always been is direct. I’m not the sort to beat around the bush and I will tell you something in a very straightforward fashion. This, throughout my life, has caused points of contention with other individuals and parties who fail to understand my methodology and why I do it. The reason for this is to, surprisingly, combat leftism and I will explain why.

No, I’m not talking about politically per se, but regarding the Left’s psychological controls used to indoctrinate people, especially those who aren’t accustomed to hearing something plainly said. They use speech controls and we must break them of their conditioning. An easy way to do this is by speaking directly on an issue. This technique is useful because it cuts straight to the heart of the topic and not dancing around it reveals the true nature of the conversation. As a warning though, this will make you come off as condescending, brutish or disrespectful in some circles – specifically, those that are knee-deep in leftist ideology or those controlled by progressive speech codes. In addition, direct speech is masculine in its nature.

It’s easy to forget that by being in this milieu you most likely operate with a fundamentally different mental state than most normies. You are thinking and comprehending in a much more complex and advanced manner, and many times normies are simply incapable of understanding. If they’re unable to grasp pattern recognition, you probably think and speak on a wholly different level. Years of indoctrination renders the normie unable to fathom or even engage in critical thinking, as well as, parse through propaganda being taught to them in school or beamed into their heads as they watch television and stream Netflix.

It is not because they may be dumb, it’s that they have never been empowered to operate to their full potential, or their environment never taught them beyond the basic normie drone curriculum. Clear and concise communication, regardless of subject, is necessary to not only convey information or ideas but to also reduce ambiguity, confusion, and clutter.

In the Dissident Right, we often talk about the “isms” that the Left has crafted to stifle conversations that could expose them and negate their ability to control people, be it through fearmongering or threats. One thing we do not talk about is the methodology the Left employs to manipulate how a person should speak. We call this soft language and if you pay attention you will notice it being used everywhere and on everyone. And, its primary motivation is to obfuscate intent and pacify. Unlike direct speech, soft language is feminine in nature.

Below are some examples of identified soft language:

When a company is ‘levering up,’ it often means, in regular language, that it is spending money it doesn’t have. When it is ‘right-sizing’ or finding ‘synergies,’ it may well be firing people. When it ‘manages stakeholders,’ it could be lobbying or bribing. When you dial into ‘customer care,’ they care very little. But when they call you, even at dinnertime, then it’s a ‘courtesy call.

A. Giridharadas, “Language as a Blunt Tool of the Digital Age.” The New York Times

Here’s an example. There’s a condition in combat that occurs when a soldier is completely stressed out and is on the verge of a nervous collapse. In World War I it was called ‘shell shock.’ Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables. Shell shock. It almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was more than eighty years ago.

Then a generation passed, and in World War II the same combat condition was called ‘battle fatigue.’ Four syllables now; takes a little longer to say. Doesn’t seem to hurt as much. ‘Fatigue’ is a nicer word than ‘shock.’ Shell shock! Battle fatigue.

By the early 1950s, the Korean War had come along, and the very same condition was being called ‘operational exhaustion.’ The phrase was up to eight syllables now, and any last traces of humanity had been completely squeezed out of it. It was absolutely sterile: operational exhaustion. Like something that might happen to your car.

Then, barely fifteen years later, we got into Vietnam, and, thanks to the deceptions surrounding that war, it’s no surprise that the very same condition was referred to as ‘post-traumatic stress disorder.’ Still eight syllables, but we’ve added a hyphen, and the pain is completely buried under jargon: post-traumatic stress disorder. I’ll bet if they had still been calling it ‘shell shock,’ some of those Vietnam veterans might have received the attention they needed.

But it didn’t happen, and one of the reasons is soft language; the language that takes the life out of life. And somehow it keeps getting worse.

George Carlin, Napalm & Silly Putty. Hyperion, 2001

If this sounds eerily similar to how propaganda works, you would be correct. As you know, propaganda by the Left is sinister in nature, wherein it is intended to directly harm us, society, and our formerly traditional institutions. Thus, a wise individual can draw the conclusion that soft language, while also a tool to distort and commonly used by the Left, is also sinister in nature. And, it can be utilized in various different environments, such as the workplace, war, and politics.

As far as identifying the Left’s soft language, you can observe it easily in “news reporting” because you already know the lie(s) and are prepared for the deception. A clear example would be how the mainstream news describes the current rioting and looting occurring in the country as, “Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests.” Most normal people would just call this a “riot,” but the soft language is obviously designed to cover and dismiss the violence.

However, this is an easy representation, the more insidious forms of soft language are meant to pacify. You can observe it in play across almost all of society, if you pay attention. There are also two more factors that can explain its propagation, beyond the active efforts of the Left to promote it. First, the other reason it has spread is out of fear, but more specifically, a fear in cowardly whites frightful of speaking out against their own displacement. The other reason it has become so prominent is due in part to the concept of civility. As such, most individuals will engage in soft language practices out of a misguided sense of being civil.

The Left’s go-to soft language examples are their mantras and phrases, these are usually peppered in mission statements, termination notices, and sinecure-rich academic, megacorporate, and governmental offices (think Diversity Officer). Here’s excerpt from the former Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning in his article “America’s diversity is our Army’s strength.”

Today’s Army is unique in history in that we have at least a few Soldiers in our ranks from virtually every one of those countries and cultures in which we currently operate. How much more effective could we be at partnership and cooperation if those few became many? In addition to the benefits diverse teams create in strengthening partnerships, nearly two decades of conflict have taught us hard truths about how appreciation of diverse populations helps equip us in understanding and defeating our adversaries. When our Army is tasked not only to take and hold terrain, but also to bring disparate partners together — many of whom have difficult ethnic and sectarian histories — the diversity of our teams is also a force multiplier. Partners across the world like to work with American Soldiers and when they do, they cannot ignore the diversity of Soldiers or the standard of excellence they set in working together. Our Army draws strength from both the example of our power and the power of our example.

Eric Fanning

You will notice “strong language” is generally only wielded against the Right, and that is for a reason (here’s an example, “Dylann Roof and Kyle Rittenhouse Are Proof That Racism Won’t Just “Age Out“). In this example, the strong language is utilized to tie rightwingers to sociopathic mass shooters, along with the tried and true “racism” angle. Again, the Left’s strategy relies on the pacification of the populace at large, the removal of any and all confrontation, physiological tools, indoctrination to manipulate otherwise good people, and lastly to promote general ignorance of the citizenry. Strong language is only reserved to those that actually pose a threat. And, any and all dissent must be crushed ruthlessly. To do this, strong language is used to stir those under the domain of the Left into action.

If you have studied your history you will recall that it was Yuri Bezmenov, among others, that revealed the program the Soviets used to convert countries to communism. And, that very program was well under way in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s. That same program began influencing the mailable minds of young, ignorant students and also introduced this tactic of soft language to them, not only to control them but to increase its use.

Thus, when someone employs it on you, and you have an understanding of all this, you will know they are obfuscating and also attempting to keep you from reacting. They do not want any sort of push back with regards to anything, as they are authoritarian leftists. In their eyes, it’s their way or it’s the firing squad (at this point in time, more like permanent unemployment for thoughtcrime).

We, as a society, must discard this leftist practice of soft language and fake civility as well. This isn’t to say we should discard civility, far from it. Genuine civility is important, sugar-coated words dipped in honey are not.

By forcing people to be direct with what they mean and how they say it, you get a real honesty which is critical for establishing genuine conversation, not tersely veiled threats and mindless drivel wrapped in innuendos and buzzwords.

God bless you and God bless Dixie.