The weaponization of words and language continues.

Calling things something they are not is a standard play in the playbook of those who wish to manipulate others. There are plenty of examples of this.


Fact Checkers, well, they don’t exactly check the facts. They attempt to mold a narrative and stifle dissent or opposing views.

Federal Reserve… it’s not federal or a reserve.

ANTIFA, short for Anti-Fascist. Who wouldn’t be Anti-Fascist? The problem is, ANTIFA regularly engages in actual Fascist behaviors.

Do you support the American military being involved in Ukraine?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Red Voice Media, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Black Lives Matter… well, of course, black lives matter. Anyone who says otherwise would be considered racist. The problem with the organization is that it doesn’t exist to help black lives at all. Its roots and practices are found in the tenants of Marxism.

Those seeking to manipulate will use or come up with a term or name that would be widely acceptable or hard to disagree with and then use it as a way to describe something that it isn’t. They do the same thing in reverse as well. They are calling people racist, sexist, misogynistic, conspiracy theorists, etc., when in fact they’re not. They just repeat it over and over and over, hoping that it will stick.

Now they’ve recently switched up the definition of vaccine so they could gain mass acceptance of these COVID jabs. Most people have previously accepted that vaccines against many other diseases are a good thing. Hence, they took the word vaccine, changed the definition, and now use it for something that, in reality, isn’t actually a vaccine at all. They just call it that since most people already had a positive association with the word.




“Another definition worth checking is vaccine. Next slide, please. I am one of the academics that argues that these mRNA products, which everybody calls vaccines, are qualitatively different than standard vaccines. And so, I found it fascinating to learn that Merriam Webster changed its definition of vaccine early this year. mRNA products did not meet the definition of vaccine that has been in place for 15 years at Merriam Webster. But the definition was expanded such that mRNA products are now vaccines. I highlight this to ask a question, how would you feel about mandating COVID vaccines if we didn’t call them vaccines? What if these injections were called drugs instead? So here’s the scenario, we have this drug, and we have evidence that it doesn’t prevent infection, nor does it stop viral transmission. But the drug is understood to reduce your risk of becoming very sick and dying of COVID. Would you take a dose of this drug every six months or so for possibly the rest of your life? If that’s what it took for the drug to stay effective? Would you not just take this drug yourself? But support regulations mandating that everybody else around you take this drug? Or would you say, Hold on a sec? Maybe you’d say that if that’s all the drug does, why not use a normal medicine instead? The kind we take when we’re sick and want to get better? And why would you mandate it? The point is, just because we call it a vaccine doesn’t mean we should assume these new products are just like all other childhood vaccines which get mandated. Each product is a different product. And if people are okay with mandating something simply because it’s a vaccine and we mandate other vaccines. So why shouldn’t we mandate this? I think it’s time to inject some critical thinking into that conversation. And that is what I hope we’re doing today. Thank you.” – Dr. Peter Doshi