A reader recently emailed me with an insightful question: “Why does the Right always seem to be on the defensive? Also, why are conservatives, libertarians, and other ideological dissenters constantly forced to justify themselves against accusations rather than setting the terms of debate?” That’s a sharp observation, and while the answer isn’t simple, it definitely deserves its own article. For this, we have to discuss the weaponization of language.

I am reminded of G. Edward Griffin. An author, filmmaker, and lecturer, Griffin’s work has been widely discussed since the 1960s. Of course, if you look him up, you’ll quickly find that he’s often labeled a “conspiracy theorist.” However, it’s likely not because his claims have been thoroughly debunked but because he questions mainstream narratives.

So, what could possibly make him a conspiracy theorist? Well, he has suggested that the official accounts of 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination are incomplete and argues that the U.S. central banking system operates as a cartel with deep political influence. That’s what he believes, and he continually digs for the information and shares what he finds. But here’s the deal: if you believe that he’s a “conspiracy theorist,” you are less likely to review his material when he shares it. Now, I would argue that any rational person should recognize that almost any topic should remain open for debate. After all, new information is what allows us to progress. So, what’s truly going on here?

That brings us to our first clue: How can someone be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist when the full truth of any topic has yet to be uncovered? Similarly, how can the whole truth be exposed if nobody is willing to explore that potential? In my opinion, looking for lies and corruption doesn’t make one a conspiracy theorist. If anything, it makes them an investigative reporter—or simply a theorist. Or, perhaps there is a better term. As we learned in grade school, a hypothesis is an educated assumption put forth for the purpose of investigation. In this light, that really makes Griffin more of a hypothesist, especially considering that new information about these topics continues to emerge in his favor.

That’s beside the point because what many don’t know is that Griffin was one of the most prescient voices in exposing the ideological tactics of communism, particularly in how language is used to discredit, silence, and manipulate public discourse. His work, including More Deadly Than War: The Communist Revolution in America, barely gets a footnote by those labeling him a conspiracy theorist. This is somewhat ironic because that work emphasized how communists were trained to brand their political opponents as “racist,” “fascist,” “conspiracy theorist,” and other socially damning terms. The goal was not to engage in rational debate but to shut down, delegitimize, and isolate dissenting voices, preventing them from influencing or informing the broader public on a specific topic or, in this case, otherwise slowing communist progress.

What I want you to understand is that Griffin’s warnings are not relics of the Cold War. In fact, they remain relevant to this day precisely because they outline an enduring pattern of manipulation. This is to say that the same linguistic tactics he exposed continue to shape modern discourse, particularly in political and ideological battles. But again, if he’s some “whack job,” you’re significantly less likely to pay attention to his words.

If we look around, we might see exactly what he was talking about. I would argue that over the past two decades, the frequency and severity of pejorative usage in public discourse have increased exponentially. I think this fact alone is a massive red flag—about those who wave their red flags. It seems that political figures, journalists, and activists now employ these pejoratives as first-line attacks, and corporate policies have institutionalized their impact. That’s probably another clue. Regardless, understanding these strategies is crucial because they are used to control public perception—about whatever they are trying to accomplish. Only by understanding the tactics can you hope to counter the effort or alter the expected outcome. Furthermore, it becomes a problem for those who deny that they are losing the battle and refuse to emulate what works.

Griffin’s Warning: The Weaponization of Pejoratives

Griffin identified a systematic effort to distort political discourse by applying emotionally charged labels to opponents. This technique is highly effective, but only because so many people fear social ostracization more than they fear being wrong. In other words, this tactic puts opponents on the defensive. Let’s explore the list of the pejoratives Griffin warned about:

• Racist – Used to silence opposition to policies framed as promoting racial equality but which may carry unintended consequences.
• Fascist/Nazi– Applied to anyone advocating for nationalism, traditionalism, or even moderate conservatism. The irony here is that the Nazis were “National Socialists,” and fascists desired a strong central government that controlled all aspects of society.
• Reactionary – A term meant to frame opposition to radical change as inherently regressive.
• Bigot – Used broadly to attack individuals who hold traditional social or religious beliefs.
• Extremist – A vague but powerful label used to equate mainstream opposition with radicalism. Just remember that the “mainstream” is the majority (the 80%/ignorant masses/etc.) – not the “vital few.”
• Hate Speech/ Hater – A flexible term used to justify censorship of ideological opponents.
• Sexist/Misogynist – Applied to those who question modern Marxist feminist narratives or gender ideology.
• Denier (e.g., climate denier, election denier) – A term designed to create an association with Holocaust denial, shutting down debate rather than addressing arguments.
• Conspiracy Theorist – Used often to discredit individuals raising concerns and questions about institutional corruption or collusion.
• White Supremacist – A term often misapplied to people with no racialist beliefs to create guilt by association.
• Anti-Democratic/Threat to Democracy – Typically used to frame opposition to policies that consolidate institutional power as an attack on democracy itself.
• Grifter – Applied to any figure who speaks out against mainstream narratives, suggesting their motive is purely financial gain.

Of course, these can extend into industries or organizations, as well. For example, “fake news” or “alternative” are usually meant to imply that they are either not worthy of examination or that they are on the fringe. One can note how the previous terms are constantly used these days. However, the wise must understand that these labels usually function not as valid arguments but as tools of social control. By branding someone with one of these terms, ideological actors seek to isolate their opponents from public discourse, often rendering their ideas unheard or unworthy of consideration.

Griffin’s core warning was that these pejoratives were not accidental but intentionally deployed as weapons to dismantle opposition so as to avoid addressing the actual substance of their arguments. Of course, this also means that the followers of those using such terms are deliberately being guided away from such information. If we think about that for a moment, and if knowledge truly is power, then that should be a problem for those who are being influenced away from such information.

Of course, I could be wrong. Objectively, there’s also the possibility that it’s as simple as Whataboutism or the tu quoque fallacy. After all, these are common rhetorical tactics used to deflect criticism in political discourse.

For clarity, Whataboutism involves shifting focus from the original issue by pointing out alleged wrongdoing or hypocrisy in others, often in an attempt to distract or redirect attention. It’s very similar to pointing out the crimes of the whistleblower instead of addressing the crimes the whistleblower was trying to expose. In other words, this tactic typically avoids the issue at hand and aims to create equivalence in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the original accusation. On the other hand, the tu quoque fallacy occurs when an individual responds to an allegation by asserting that the accuser is guilty of the same or similar behavior. This response attempts to discredit the accuser’s argument by pointing to their own perceived hypocrisy rather than addressing the substance of the accusation.

Perhaps it’s a combination of all these tactics. Regardless, the objective remains the same: to evade responsibility, deflect scrutiny, and erode accountability. When an investigator is dismissed as a racist or conspiracy theorist, their findings are more likely to be disregarded by those who accept such labels without question. It’s a manipulative strategy—effective, but usually only on the uninformed and intellectually complacent.

Connecting Griffin’s Warnings to Today

Understand that the tactics Griffin exposed have become more refined and systematized in recent decades. The same ideological forces—whether explicitly communist or their allies—continue to deploy these rhetorical tools to dominate the discourse. Unfortunately, these groups have systematically taken over the various forms of media that allow such tactics to be amplified. Think about it:

1. Media and Institutional Collusion – The uniformity with which media outlets apply these labels is evidence of their coordinated use. Notice how a person or movement can be suddenly and universally condemned as “extremist” across multiple major publications without any substantive critique of their positions.
2. Social Media and Digital Censorship – Tech companies have weaponized these pejoratives to justify deplatforming individuals and suppressing dissent. Algorithms now work to silence those accused of engaging in “hate speech” or spreading “misinformation”—labels determined by ideological gatekeepers, despite many of them being proven accurate later on. Ask me how I know.
3. Education and Indoctrination – Many academic institutions now teach ideological conformity rather than critical thinking. Institutions that teach critical thinking are somehow a threat to public education. Similarly, students are often taught that certain viewpoints are not only wrong but morally indefensible, reinforcing the power of these pejoratives. Balance could be found, but a common theme in conservative discourse is that such institutions are liberal havens, which ultimately means they engage in them less. I highly doubt that was an accident.
4. Corporate and Bureaucratic Enforcement – Major corporations and government agencies increasingly adopt ideological compliance policies that punish employees for holding “wrong” opinions. I can recall the “purge” of supposed “extremists” from military ranks a few years ago. Of course, the mere accusation of racism, sexism, or extremism can lead to professional and social ruin, discouraging dissent while encouraging a “go along to get along” mindset.
5. Public Fear and Self-Censorship – The ultimate power of these labels is their ability to create a chilling effect. Many individuals avoid discussing certain topics, even if they see the flaws in mainstream narratives, because they fear being ostracized, fired, or de-platformed. We need to understand that freedom of speech is useless when you are afraid to use it.

Identifying the Influence of Ideological Manipulation

As previously mentioned, the key insight from Griffin’s work is that these pejoratives’ frequent deployment is a red flag. When accusations of “racism” or “fascism” are thrown around without evidence or substantive engagement, it is a strong indication that ideological coercion (or extreme ignorance) is at play. Recognizing this pattern is critical for maintaining intellectual independence and resisting rhetorical manipulation. Of course, it also provides you with an interesting model to follow.

In other words, understanding Griffin’s warnings equips people to recognize when language is being weaponized to shape public perception. The fact that these tactics remain widespread today is not evidence of their truth but of their effectiveness. It’s a strategy. The good news is that by identifying their use, we can resist the psychological pressure they create and avoid rhetorical intimidation, knowing that discourse with those who rely on these tactics is unlikely to be grounded in rational debate.

Resisting Rhetorical Manipulation: How to Avoid Becoming a Victim

Recognizing and countering the weaponization of language is crucial for maintaining intellectual independence. As stated, pejoratives are often wielded as tools of suppression, designed to instill fear, foster toxic tribalism, enforce conformity, and silence dissent. To resist these tactics, individuals must develop critical thinking skills, remain emotionally composed, and seek truth and accuracy over social acceptance. That’s a tall order for most, but know that you haven’t really lost anything if you “lose” friends, family, co-workers, etc., because you refuse to be a victim. Of course, rather than reacting emotionally or impulsively to ideological labels, one should analyze claims through logic and then boldly question the narratives that rely on coercion rather than reasoned argumentation.

If you’ve followed my work, you likely know that psychological pressure is a key element of manipulative rhetoric. Fear of social ostracization often drives individuals to self-censor, but understanding that labels are frequently used as intimidation tactics helps diminish their impact. Recognizing cognitive biases, such as Epistemic Rigidity and the influence of ideological subversion, allows individuals to identify when they are being conditioned to accept false premises. So, instead of succumbing to these pressures, one must prioritize intellectual honesty and cultivate resilience against the fear of backlash from conditioned minds.

If you’re already targeted by such tactics, reclaiming one’s narrative is essential. Understand that you give power to the words you choose to give power to. False accusations should be met with evidence-based rebuttals and strategic reframing. Instead of outright denial, apologies, and backing down, shifting the burden of explanation onto the accuser by asking clarifying questions rapidly exposes the manipulative intent behind the label. Controlling emotional reactions and engaging in Contrastive Inquiry helps reframe discussions in ways that emphasize principles over rhetoric. This is where their debate quickly breaks down.

Of course, those who face social or professional consequences due to ideological labeling are in a tough spot. One could argue the importance of finding different employment, but you should be careful about having such discussions at work in the first place. If you can’t resist, document interactions, seek allies who value open discourse, and, when necessary, explore legal or organizational avenues to challenge unjust repercussions. Of course, we can bring it back to the original question. Why is the right so often on the defensive?

So, Why Does the Right Always Seem to Be on the Defensive?

If you’ve ever wondered why red-blooded Americans continually take it on the chin from the communists and left-wing radicals, the answer is pretty straightforward: the right is almost always reacting rather than leading. The irony is that from a statistical standpoint, conservatives outnumber liberals. However, instead of setting the cultural agenda, conservatives find themselves in a perpetual defensive posture, scrambling to counter progressive movements after they’ve already gained momentum. That’s not a good plan. This reactionary stance puts them at a constant strategic disadvantage because it allows the left to dictate the terms of political and cultural discourse.

By the way, this isn’t just happenstance—it’s largely self-inflicted. The left dominates the key public perception institutions: media, entertainment, education, Big Tech, and corporate HR departments. The question is, “Why?” Well, by disengaging from these industries, conservatives have ceded control over the cultural battlefield, allowing leftist narratives to become the default. As a result, progressive rhetoric is endlessly amplified, while dissenting voices on the right are either suppressed, de-platformed, or outright demonized (ref: DEI and “Safe Spaces”).

Adding to the problem is the right’s philosophical emphasis on individualism, merit, and traditional values. While seemingly noble, these principles often discourage the kind of coalition-building and collective action that the left has perfected. Many conservatives view aggressive rhetorical warfare as dishonest or beneath them, clinging instead to ideals of fair play. But in a world where the left operates with ruthless coordination, refusing to engage at the same level is a losing strategy. In fact, that is precisely the same attitude that allowed the British to lose their battle against the Founders. Perhaps the right has been conditioned to “turn the other cheek” when they really should be “overturning tables.”

Regardless, and as I’ve said, the left has mastered the weaponization of language, redefining terms to serve ideological goals. For example, reframing “racism” as “prejudice plus power” so as to exclude any possibility of bias against white people. Meanwhile, conservatives are often slow to recognize and counter these rhetorical shifts. Similarly, the left excels at astroturfing, propaganda, and manipulating public perception, making them formidable. In contrast, the right too often resigns itself to the belief that there is nothing to be done, retreating into passive frustration rather than taking decisive action. The point is that it could absolutely be more balanced if the right were more willing to balance it.

Could the Right Ever Go on the Offensive?

I suppose so, but it would require a fundamental shift in strategy. Winning the cultural war means seizing control of the institutions that shape narratives rather than merely reacting to the damage they cause. I don’t know how that’s missed on anyone, but that’s how you do that. Of course, this includes:

• Rebuilding or establishing a media, education, and entertainment presence to counteract leftist dominance.
• Branding leftist tactics as authoritarian and illiberal rather than accepting (or even engaging in) their moral framing.
• Accumulating knowledge and stopping the suggestion that education isn’t worth it.
• Refusing to validate leftist rhetoric by constantly playing defense against bad-faith accusations.
• Analyze their claims through logic, but in retort, use emotionally resonant language to neutralize their narratives (that’s a tough one).

Look, the right’s failure hasn’t been one of ideology—it’s been one of execution. If conservatives wish to reclaim ground, they must move beyond complaining about the left’s dominance and start strategically dismantling it. We know that works because that is precisely what has been done to them. But that requires something they’ve historically struggled with: unity. Unlike the left, which tolerates internal differences for the sake of collective power, conservatives have a really bad habit of fracturing over ideological purity. In my opinion, that’s a huge mistake. If they refuse to support allies who don’t align with them on every single issue, they will absolutely continue to fight alone and lose.

Getting Back on Point

The point is that G. Edward Griffin’s early warnings about communist tactics were not just relevant to his time; they are even more critical today. The strategy of silencing opponents through pejoratives has only intensified, and that’s likely the only warning you’re going to get before it smacks you in the face. And while it may seem odd that the left finds comfort in avoiding contrastive knowledge, we must understand that the right is guilty of the very same.

Recognizing when language is being used as a weapon rather than a means of discussion is crucial to preserving free thought and genuine debate. It’s also a really clear sign that you should examine the information they are trying to get you to ignore. This is true on both the right and the left because “they” are not “you.” The persistence of these tactics across decades demonstrates that their true purpose is not to expose wrongdoing but to control the conversation. It’s also a clear demonstration that the effort has not waned. If anything, it has advanced.

Of course, I would also argue that both the left and the right need to recognize who is pulling the strings. It’s probably not your neighbor—it’s the machine. But why? What are their true intentions? Are they orchestrating these actions for your benefit, or for their own gain? In my view, those who value truth, autonomy, accuracy, and liberty must learn to see through these manipulative rhetorical devices and resist being swayed by them. Yet, those who do will likely find themselves alienated from their respective “tribes,” branded with a pejorative themselves. Their reluctance to act is understandable, yet it is precisely this hesitation that condemns us to repeat the historical cycle of “rise and fall.”

If you learned anything here, you might also like my article, Revolutionary Thoughts and Actions