Language as a Dagger

We passed linguistic gymnastics a long, long time ago. We are in a war now.

An extremely effective rhetorical trick is a propaganda tactic called “preemptive framing.” It involves establishing an interpretive framework before events occur to shape how people understand those events when they happen.

We saw this when the Seditious Six Senators used a tactic called implicature—that is when the implied meaning differs from the literal statement. The Seditious Six senators were literally saying “don’t follow illegal orders” (an uncontroversial truism), but the implicature is “orders from this administration are likely illegal and if you follow them, when we get in power we are going to prosecute you.”

They began with using apophasis (also called paralipsis) by raising a subject by claiming not to raise it. “I’m not saying the orders will be illegal but remember you don’t have to follow illegal orders.” The denial plants the suggestion.

This rhetorical combination is particularly insidious because it provides plausible deniability. If challenged, the senators can claim they were merely stating established military law—which is exactly what they are doing now. Maybe they will escape any real sanction for the act, but the timing and context make the real message unmistakable: they’re priming the military to view lawful orders as potentially illegal and offering political cover for insubordination.

So much of what is going on in society and politics is based in language. The war of words has become a literal war and that’s not hyperbole, the people opposing Trump and his supporters (and respect for any law that get in the way of their agenda) know they are engaged in a war.

An iron rule when dealing with progressives is that it’s never about what they tell you—it is always about power.

Communists have long understood this—our side, not so much. We’re losing. Trump is losing—and his approval rating is showing the impact of the linguistic attacks. Our side needs to recognize when these tactics are in play and how to deal with them.

You can’t beat preemptive framing by ignoring, denying, becoming defensive or over-explaining (I had a mentor who told me if you are explaining, you are losing).

This is how we fight back:

• First, call it out explicitly. Don’t address the surface claim—expose the actual tactic. “Six senators just tried to prime the military for insubordination against lawful orders that don’t exist. This is political subversion, not legal guidance.”

• Second, reframe immediately with your own narrative. Don’t let their frame sit unchallenged for even a news cycle. Every service member already knows about illegal orders—making this about military law is the con. Make it about what it really is: partisan interference in military discipline.

• Third, demand specificity. Force them to name the illegal order they’re concerned about. When they can’t—because there isn’t one—their entire premise collapses. Make their vagueness the story.

• Fourth, reject their premise entirely. The question isn’t whether orders are legal. The question is why senators are trying to inject doubt into the chain of command before any orders are given.

The right keeps trying to win arguments on the merits while the left wins by controlling which argument we’re having. Until conservatives learn to recognize and counter these linguistic warfare tactics, we’ll keep losing ground even when we’re right on substance. It is happening in Minnesota right now and I don’t think anyone at the White House has caught on that nobody gives two fecal evacuations about Venezuela, Greenland, or Iran while there is a genuine insurrection going on in Minnesota.

Other radical Democrat governors in blue states are watching and waiting.

Susie Wiles needs to get a bit in Trump’s mouth and get the White House geein’ and hawin’ on the right messaging tactics.

Understanding how linguistics is used as a weapon isn’t just academic—it’s survival in modern political combat.