Weaponizing Words against the West and Israel

The Power of Language

Controlling language is one of the most powerful tools in shaping behavior. Just as coding software limits what a computer can do, human language defines what people can think, say, and understand. Words do not merely describe reality—they create it.

George Orwell was ahead of his time when he explored this idea in his dystopian novel, “1984”. The story is set in a fictional totalitarian state where the government exerts complete control over its people, using a constructed language called Newspeak. It was designed to eliminate words that could encourage critical thinking or dissent. Concepts like “revolution” were over-simplified or entirely erased. 

The goal was clear: if people lacked the words to express rebellion, they wouldn’t even be able to think about it. Orwell’s warning wasn’t just a fictional tale. It was a blueprint for how totalitarian regimes manipulate language to maintain power. Language remains a central tool for (1) controlling narratives, (2) silencing dissent, and (3) reshaping societal values—particularly in the unholy alliance between Marxism and Jihadism.

Weaponizing Words to Weaken the West

At first glance, a Jihadist-Marxist alliance seems contradictory. Islamist groups push for strict, religious governance, while Progressive Marxists advocate for radical secularism. Hence, their unity is based on a common adversary (surprise, surprise, the West). The anti-West strategy here is simple: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

The anti-West ideological war is based on a strategy that thrives on moral self-doubt. It subtly shifts certain definitions to weaken Western confidence in its own values. As French philosopher Pascal Bruckner noted, “The West is guilty of everything, and therefore it must be judged for everything.” His statement was not an endorsement but a critique of how the West has burdened itself with endless guilt, making it easier to manipulate. This guilt is reinforced through strategic linguistic shifts:

• Terms like “systemic oppression” and “settler colonialism” don’t just describe historical injustices—they frame entire Western societies as irredeemably corrupt.
• Words like “privilege” and “decolonization” have been repurposed to demand not just accountability, but complete dismantlement.
• Legitimate national security concerns are reframed as “xenophobic” or “racist,” weakening a country’s ability to protect itself.
• Labeling terrorists as “freedom fighters” to shift public sympathy from violent tactics and toward their manufactured victimhood—shielding malicious anti-West actors from accountability.

Selective Outrage: Who Deserves Sympathy?

These linguistic manipulations trap the West in a cycle of self-criticism while giving authoritarian regimes a free pass—simply because those regimes share the anti-Western agenda. This is why progressive activists rarely condemn human rights abuses in Islamist regimes. Criticizing the Islamic Republic of Iran or Qatar would expose the hypocrisy of their alliances. 

As a result, the extreme left remains silent—even as these Islamist regimes oppress women, criminalize homosexuality, and operate modern-day slave markets. This isn’t an oversight, it’s deliberate. Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the progressives’ obsession with Israel.

Why Israel Disrupts Their Narrative

Israel (the only Jewish state in the world) shatters the Marxist-Jihadist alliance’s lazy “Western oppressor vs. Third World victim” narrative. Why? Because it refuses to fit the script. Israel is a democracy…yet not Western. It is a military power…yet historically persecuted. It is a nation indigenous to its land…yet labeled a “colonizer.” This contradiction forces Israel into a fabricated role as a global villain to fit the anti-West agenda.

This is why Israel is the only nation where self-defense is rebranded as aggression, and terrorism is reframed as “resistance.” Words are weaponized against the Jewish state so progressives can ignore: Israel’s open democracy, LGBTQ protections, and 2.1 million Arab citizens holding government positions are ignored. Not to mention, it permits progressives to simultaneously ignore:

• The Palestinian Authority’s apartheid policies—including banning Jews from WALKING in Palestinian-controlled areas and making land sales to Jews punishable BY DEATH.
• Jordan’s illegal occupation of Judea & Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem from 1948-1967…during which Jewish access to the Western Wall was completely restricted.
• The forced expulsion of almost 1 million Jews from Arab and Arab-conquested lands…where an estimated $300 billion in Jewish property/assets were confiscated; effectively erased entire Jewish communities—yet no one demands a “right of return” for them.
• The Israeli hostages. (Correction: They didn’t just ignore them—they ripped down their posters with rage, ensuring there could be no sympathy, no recognition, no victimhood. Acknowledging Israeli suffering would disrupt the carefully crafted narrative where only one side is allowed to be the oppressed).

The Consequences: A Tolerance for Tyranny

The extreme left’s fixation on Israel isn’t about human rights—it’s about preserving a narrative where the West is always guilty, and its enemies are always justified. Their silence on real atrocities sustains the illusion that these regimes are allies against imperialism, when in reality, they embody the very oppression these so-called “justice movements” claim to resist. The result? Selective outrage, moral inconsistency, and a growing tolerance for tyranny.

Rewriting reality through language isn’t just a strategy of the anti-West alliance—it’s a playbook stolen from history’s most oppressive regimes. Whether through class struggle, racial grievances, or religious absolutism, the method remains the same: control the narrative, control the people. This tactic has just been repackaged for a modern audience. Here are some historical examples: 

1. The Bolsheviks exploited public dissatisfaction in post-revolutionary Russia by redefining justice in class terms—using the language of oppression to justify political purges and mass executions.
2. The Nazis took this further. They redefined concepts like loyalty, citizenship, and morality to consolidate power. They even repurposed the term “antisemitism” to make Jew-hatred sound like a rational ideology rather than blatant hate. By giving it an intellectual veneer, the Nazis normalized and legitimized discrimination.
3. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (1975-1979) rebranded mass murder as “purging enemies of the revolution.” Their concept of “Year Zero” framed genocide as a societal reset, rather than a horrific stain in their history.

The Battle Over Words Is a Battle for Freedom

These distortions of terminology didn’t just change how people spoke, they reshaped how people thought. A society that loses control over its language loses control over its future. The battle over words is not just an intellectual exercise—it determines policy, culture, and subsequently, morality. If we fail to challenge this manipulation, the freedoms we take for granted today may not exist tomorrow. The time to act against semantic warfare is now.