The Benefits of Substitutionary Phrases

Dysphemism: The substitution of a disagreeable, offensive, or disparaging word or expression for an agreeable or inoffensive one.

Euphemism: The substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive word or expression for one that is harsh, indelicate, or otherwise unpleasant or taboo.

Adjectives and Nouns, Not Verbs

(Appended 12/15/2021)
I have concluded most vocal Democrats and RINOs concentrate on adjectives and nouns, where conservatives concentrate on verbs. In the context of the January 6th Congressional committee this suggests committee members use the texts of their interlocutors (Meadows, Hannity, et al), and their references to “riot,” or like words, as evidence that the January 6th protests were “factually riots,” and not protests, albeit with a demonstrable minority of violent demonstrators. The verbs used by these interlocutors to condemn the violence of January 6th are irrelevant to the committee–the fact that nouns like “riot” and “violence” were in the texts confirms their presupposition the January 6th protest was a power-threatening “insurrection.”

Representative Cheney’s objective in reading their interlocutors’ texts into the Congressional Record was to get the nouns into the record, not the verbs.

This is, perhaps, the more insidious danger. Democrats and their RINO allies depend on dysphemism and euphemism to press their agenda of censorship and suppression of dissenting political speech. Thus, we conservatives must avoid using phrases they construct to press their cause, and be extraordinarily precise in our responses.

This means that we conservatives must be vigilant for the left’s use of euphemism and dysphemism, and avoid the phrases they construct in our rebuttals, save in direct quotation.

Cabalistic Substitution Cryptography

We routinely engage in both dysphemism and euphemism. Most often one or the other is employed to moderate or emphasize a point we are trying to make.

Our oligarchic overlords employ both to rally the faithful with dog whistles, and disparage the “deplorables,” the “Walmart smellies,” and others among the hoi poloi they disdain. Dysphemism and euphemism, then, become a sort of cryptography with hidden meanings readily decoded by privileged insiders, while conveying to the uninitiated a different meaning intended to evoke emotionally-driven, reflexive reactions.

This, then, is the benefit: To the naive, or sympathetic ear, such terms are interpreted at face value. To the initiated, such terms are interpreted as threats to, and assaults upon, their position, authority, and power.

Something I observed about progressives is they tend to favor echo chambers: Once a left-leaning commentator posits a “truth,” the echo chamber parrots it ad nauseam, despite counter-indicative evidence. Thus, the -phemism concretizes into a permanent, “irrefutable” talking point.

Cryptographic Examples

“A threat to democracy” is frequently used by the D. C. sewer people (“swamp” is a mis-categorization: Swamps are nature’s cleansing tools). The naive ear interprets “a threat to democracy” as a valid challenge to the will of the voting majority, which is precisely what the sewer people want to be heard. What truly is meant by “a threat to democracy” is “a threat to our position and power that must be suppressed.”

Similarly, the phrase frequently appealed to by the D. C. sewer people and their acolytes is “a threat to national security.” Like “a threat to democracy,” this cipher also means “a threat to our position and power, the OBriceklainivan* administration, and the corrupted national security apparatus.”

“January 6th was an insurrection!” Although not a cryptographic example in the immediate category as “a threat to democracy,” or “a threat to national security,” the progressives’ echo chamber claim that the multiple incidents of trespass at the Capitol Building on January 6th was an insurrection implies a similar meaning: “Active opposition to our imposition of authority is an assault that must be countered by measures, such as SS-style arrests and solitary confinement, that induce fear in on-lookers who may have been motivated by the ‘insurrectionists’ to engage in similar incidents against us.”

§ A new wrinkle has proceeded from the sycophantic “January 6th was an insurrection.” Abusing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, proponents of the “insurrection” echo chamber are actively suing to disqualify for public office, especially the U.S. House and Senate, anyone who supported the right of the people to peaceably assemble on January 6th to express their displeasure about irregularities, real and perceived, in the 2020 Presidential election cycle.

“For the People:” When delivered by progressives, “for the people” refers to their retention of power through the nationalization of voting regulations. As I see it, changes to state control of voting only can be accomplished legitimately by Constitutional Amendment, and not by oligarchic legislation.

“Common Sense Gun Laws:” To the naive listener, proposals for “common sense gun laws,” sound–well reasonable, and common-sensical. For the sewer people, however, such proposals are really calls to eliminate private ownership of firearms, except for the well-connected, of course. (If recent comments by some oligarchs are indicative of future movements, common sense gun laws would also also include the elimination of toy firearms.) The hoi poloi are irresponsible, and undeserving of such privileges.

Among the proposals in this category is the universal background check. What its proponents fail to include among their talking points is such a proposal requires a national registry of all gun owners to be effective; that includes names, addresses, and firearm particulars, such as make, model, and serial numbers. Registries certainly are handy for confiscatory purposes.

While we’re at it, if anti-gun laws are so effective, why do violations of gun laws occur in “gun free zones,” and in cities that control firearm ownership aggressively? We were told to believe gun control laws eliminated violence with guns, right?

“Voter Rights:” Cryptographically, this is an attempt to remove control of elections from states and hand it over to the federal government. I do wish the present congressional leadership would explain how the left can justify this legislatively rather than Constitutionally, as in proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

*OBriceklainivan is a concatenation of the principle players in this administration’s exercise of power: Barry Obama, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Ron Klain, and John Sullivan. Merrick Garland is a contender for expanding it to “OBriceklaingarlandivan.”