Dictionary of Dishonest Left Wing Words

The following ‘Dictionary of Dishonest Left Wing Words’ (below) is a list of words and phrases used by the left to lend bogus authority to their evidence free theories.

Ethnicities. A four syllable word replacing ‘races’. Both mean the same thing. Using the longer word suggests that clever academics have lifted it from the mire of mere racial abuse.  This is in keeping with the left’s belief that right wingers are stupid.

‘Demographic‘ A pseudo statistical term implying race is only a matter of numbers and not culture.

‘Nuanced’ A superior interpretation of events from a left wing perspective.

Example.  ‘A more nuanced description of the demographic of British society by 2030 is that its ethnicities will alter in favour of people of color (sic).’


A Brief Dictionary of Dishonest Words







Bringing to account

Calling out

Put in place

Going forward

Open and honest discussion.


Grown up conversation




British values



Let me be absolutely clear.


Sending a clear message


Push back


Core values





Open and honest

People of color

Working with. (wrecking)








Technologies (singular is correct)

Freedoms (singular is correct)



Social Cohesion





Low information voter



Gender neutral

Gender reassignment


Gender spectrum

Rights Campaigner

Hard-working families

Robust protocols





















Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

35 Comments on Dictionary of Dishonest Left Wing Words

  1. ‘Absolutely’… the none thinking response from the ideological left from anyone being interviewed on BBC Radio 4, example: BBC interviewer “So you are saying that any criticism of Islam is really Islamophobic?” response… “Absolutely”.

  2. “unacceptable” as in speech, beliefs, opinions…

    Don’t ask “why?” or “to whom precisely, and who made them judge and jury?”, just shut up.

  3. Dear Roger: Katie Hopkins only became a paid pundit because she was first a celebrity on “The Apprentice” reality TV show. Do keep up. Furthermore, Roger, not watching TV does not mean that one is uninformed. C.S.Lewis never read the newspapers. St John Paul II never did either, and neither watched TV. You must concede that both were better social commentators than you or (possibly) even I.
    I will let you have the last word on this thread (anyroad, I know you’ll insist) as I must start baking scones and muffins for a wedding tomorrow.

    • Thank you for making my point; Katie Hopkins first appeared on “The Apprentice” in 2006. I hate to break it to you John but it is now 2018, perhaps you should be the one to try and keep up!
      It is hardly surprising that Lewis and the Polish Pope never watched TV, it did not exist for most of their lives!
      Lewis a social commentator? He spent his life in an academic cloister reading teal leaves for Christianity.
      As for the Pope, anyone who believes in virgin births and rising from the dead is clearly a retard.
      Good luck at the wedding, I understand Charles is to walk the bride down the aisle, well done! I did hear a rumor that, in order to make Meghan and her Mother feel at home he was going to be made up in blackface, I find that difficult to believe but with this pantomime you never know.

  4. Roger ruminates (twice) from down on de Swanee Ribber:
    ” I am curious as to why so few of Theodore Dalrymple’s articles are published in this magazine….”
    The good doctor is getting on and slowing down a bit I think. I’ve heard some say he ought to change his pseudonym to Dullwimple, but I disagree. He writes a good monthly column for the New English Review where he is senior editor, as well as a weekly one in Taki’s Magazine, and an occasional one for The New Criterion (New York) if you’re interested. I doubt there’s a cigarette paper’s worth of difference between his dyspeptic views on “modern English life” and those of most of his colleagues here, including Myles Harris.

    • I’m sorry, Roger: I should also have brought to your attention that Theodore Dalrymple writes a regular monthly column for the hard copy edition of this magazine. I’m surprised you’ve not seen them.

      • I have seen them as I subscribe to the magazine. However his contribution of what; six or eight articles a year, a workload that would undoubtedly be exhausting to a Royal, hardly qualifies him to be regarded as a “commentator”.
        Thank you for the pointer to The New Criterion, I am very happy to re acquaint myself with that site.
        Mr. Dalrymple is a little problematic though (there is that word!) In his article “Speakers Cornered” in the City Journal:
        He states that, at the time of the event, he had hardly heard of Katie Hopkins, I believe that is highly unlikely, anybody with any interest whatsoever in the last 10 or so years of British history has certainly heard of Katie Hopkins. It is true that he is highly complimentary of her in the article, but to claim that he hadn’t heard of her? Peculiar to say the least.

        • Dear Roger: you say it’s “highly unlikely” TD had not heard of Katie Hopkins before the recent fracas in which she was involved. I doubt he has ever told a lie as an adult, except possibly to his wife or psychiatrist. But look, I had never heard of her either until I read TD’s “Speakers Cornered” essay a couple of months ago. Many of us are assiduous in not paying attention to celebrities. Not having a TV helps.

          • John; there is nothing wrong with being deliberately uninformed, but if that is what floats your boat then don’t put yourself about as a social commentator.
            I would not describe Katie Hopkins as a celebrity, preferring as I do to apply that sobriquet to clowns like Russel Brand, Akala, Lily Allen, etc.
            Katie Hopkins is somewhat famous as a controversial political voice, so anybody who is interested in political affairs would have heard of her.

  5. The dictionary lists words or phrases that catch the eye of the unsuspecting reader because they are deliberately out of context, or the reverse of their normal meaning. ‘Traction’, ‘curating, ‘narrative’ ‘put in place’ . They give the false idea that something new is being said even though the same dreary lies are being trotted out. ‘Populism’ does not fit this definition, being a straightforward political term of the left or right. On the other hand ‘structural’ until recently used only by engineers gives the impression of a solid building or framework.

      • Well here we are John: Apparently “Salisbury Review” has nothing to say about the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx about to join the royal family.
        God above only knows what the Queen thinks of this. Was there not a British aristocratic lady who filled the bill?
        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Of course he doesn’t, he is a product of a society so steeped in nihilism the very basic fabric is to be ignored. Bloody well behave yourself!
        Personally, I detest the Royal Family, however, a marriage of “Prince” Harry to an aristocratic British Lady would have made an event of a great State occasion, our aristocracy, our rulers, our masters, in full display.
        That would have been an occasion to be celebrated!
        As for her, Germaine Greer had it right, xxxxxxxxxxx probably with the Crown Jewels in her backpack.
        Cheers all!

        We do not allow loutish or libellous insults on this web site Expect such posts to contain erasures. Editor

        • Roger: your last paragraph is clear sockpuppetry, although it mirrors my thoughts. The rest of your comment is off topic.

          • John; the use of obscure language to obfuscate a situation or issue is hardly confined to the left. We here in the US are constantly bombarded with calls for more unskilled immigration because “there are jobs Americans won’t do”. Of course they won’t at the starvation wages offered. Both sides practice the fine art of “Merda taurorum animas conturbit”, or, in english, “bullshit baffles brains”.
            OT again, I am curious as to why so few of Theodore Dalrymple’s articles are published in this magazine, despite him being touted as a masthead contributor. I read him regularly in City Journal, could it be perhaps that Dalrymple’s pieces are mostly very uncomplimentary about modern English life?
            A little too close to the truth for Editor Harris’s tastes?

          • John; the use of obscure language to obfuscate a situation or issue is hardly confined to the left. We here in the US are constantly bombarded with calls for more unskilled immigration because “there are jobs Americans won’t do”. Of course they won’t at the starvation wages offered. Both sides practice the fine art of “Merda taurorum animas conturbit”, or, in english, “bullshit baffles brains”.
            OT again, I am curious as to why so few of Theodore Dalrymple’s articles are published in this magazine, despite him being touted as a masthead contributor. I read him regularly in City Journal, could it be perhaps that Dalrymple’s pieces are mostly very uncomplimentary about modern English life?
            A little too close to the truth for Editor Harris’s tastes?

    • The trouble with bogus words and usages is that they can become so ingrained that sensible people begin to use them as well. This is a mistake: once you start to use your opponent’s language you are half-way to defeat.

  6. Has no-one mentioned ‘populism’ yet? This ghastly phenomenon arises when the collective democratic will of ordinary people, many of whom have never been to university or attended a ‘protest march’, is asserted in a way that The Supreme Ruling Elite disapproves of.

    • How did we miss “gender”? Like some of the other words, its wrongness is most obvious when it appears as an adjective or element in a compound word: “gender studies”, “gender-neutral”, “gender reassignment”, “transgender” etc.

      Another obvious one is “phobia”, which has come to mean a natural or rational dislike of something the Left approves of.

      Of course, the introduction of Newspeak has to be accompanied by the criminalisation of Oldspeak. This has already started (see the case of the schoolteacher who was suspended from work for calling a girl a girl), and it’s going to get worse. He who would valiant be, let him try slipping words like “actress” or “fireman” into conversation and see what happens to him. And as for those reprobates who use “he” and “him” to refer to a hypothetical person who may be either male or female, why aren’t they in prison yet?

  7. The left wing and the corporate world are close in wishing to control, and a strong desire to prevent free thought and speech:
    Consultation; we will give you a short period of time to speak, then ignore what you say and carry on with our plans as if you weren’t there.
    Diversity; we believe that difference improves our lives, just as long as there is no difference of thought.
    Performance Management; we will ensure that anyone who is independent of thought, never gets promoted in this organisation.
    Scientific Consensus; If you don’t agree with the majority you must be wrong.
    Difficult Conversation; lying with a straight face.
    Owning The Message; you must be willing to ignore your own qualms, conscience, and Christian upbringing to support the corporate/party line…see ‘I was only following orders’.

  8. An excellent list Mr Harris. May I also add:

    “Rights Campaigner” = Grievance-monger
    “Tolerant” = Encouraging of any perversity, crudity, or deviation from the conservative Christian norm
    “Foetus” = Unwanted baby
    “Baby” = Wanted baby
    “We still have a long way to go” = The revolutionary struggle will never end
    “Hard-working families” = Layabouts living off the public purse
    “Robust protocols” = Newly created department of pen-pushers devising ever-more paperwork, ultimately solving nothing
    “Faith schools” = A derogatory term signifying a close-knit group of conspirators that the Left would like to crush…if only the schools were not so good and high-achieving
    “Experts believe…” = As Macbeth said “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

  9. As wells as “communities”, there’s also the use of “community” as an adjective. This never means anything good.

    Community Arts – artistic incompetence.
    Community Care – absence of care.
    Community Centre – brutalist shack.
    Community Choir – people who can’t sing.
    Community Garden – concrete and weeds.
    Community Housing – jerry-built rookeries.
    Community Leaders – apologists for crime.
    Community Library – former library.
    Community Policing – absence of policing.
    Community School – bad school. Community College – worse school.
    Community Sentencing – absence of punishment.

  10. A few more:

    Appropriate/Inappropriate – Like Right and Wrong, but Left-wing and therefore better. Also avoids the pesky insinuation of absolute morality.

    Low-information voter – Someone who doesn’t vote the appropriate way.

    Problematic – A fact or opinion that hasn’t yet been massaged into moral relativism (“This statement is problematic”).

    Structural – An adjective which converts the facts of life into conspiracies against the oppressed. See “structural inequality”.

    Hate – A kind of ectoplasm crystallised into the real world by the expression of ideas that are inappropriate (see above). Can only be detected by people in receipt of money they didn’t earn, e.g. UN officials.

    • Ah Clement! You have nailed the left mindset so exquisitely and have given me more verbal grenades to hurl at my progressive opponents on Social Media…..a thousand thanks……

  11. We all know that words can exert a powerful influence over how someone feels. Indeed, that’s rather the point: We use words to convey our thoughts and feelings to others, often in the hope of motivating a particular response from them.

    When I tell you, for example, that I like dogs, I’m telling you something about myself and inviting a response, such as you telling me how you feel about dogs. If you tell me that you also like dogs, we can both make a mental note that there is an area of common ground between us. Of course; there’s room for ambiguity here, as when I like to keep dogs as pets and you enjoy dogs as food: Something that may not become clear until I visit your home for dinner.

    This is an example of how easily words can frame our understanding, in ways that aren’t always immediately obvious. The phrase ‘I like dogs’ possessed a clear meaning for both of us, but it wasn’t the same meaning, because we’d neither of us qualified the way in which we liked dogs. This should caution us to think carefully about the words that we use and the meaning that we think they convey.

    Take the word progressive. At first blush the meaning of this word seems obvious: To move forward, towards some objective or endpoint. When used in the context of politics the assumption is that the objective or endpoint being moved towards is something positive, something desirable. However, as with the earlier example of ‘I like dogs’, caution is advisable here. Just because we’re moving towards something, it shouldn’t automatically be implied that what we’re moving towards is desirable or beneficial (at least not in any universal sense). Take Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome, a degenerative disorder in which the afflicted person experiences a progressive decline in such functions as walking, eye movement and balance; indeed, the condition is also known as Progressive supranuclear palsy. Here, progressive clearly doesn’t equate with moving towards something better. (Incidentally, the disorder results from the deterioration of cells in areas of the brain that control body movement and thinking: A form of deterioration leading to a progressive worsening.)

    Progressive, then, warrants being seen as yet another word that needs qualifying. When something is described as progressive it would seem to pay us to consider the real merit of what it is that’s being progressed towards, since it may not always be a desirable end. By extension, someone may be proud to label themselves as progressive, but we should be wary of assuming that the objective they’re moving towards equates to a beneficial outcome for us.

    Given this ambiguity we might want to reconsider the way the term progressive is used in the context of politics, where for too long it has served as shorthand for better, when in fact it simply implies change; change that may not be in our best interests.

    So, how might we respond to the political use of the label progressive? Well, we might point out that whereas the term is seemingly being embraced as an indication of a commitment to the achievement of an obvious improvement, this is arguably a subjective assessment; and that the changes being pursued actually represent progress towards a ruinous outcome. Alternatively, we might recognise the adoption of the label progressive as an indication of an insufferable arrogance and the presumption of a superiority not actually in evidence. In this case, indulging the self-styled progressive by acknowledging the label would be to feed an unhealthy vanity. Far better, I would suggest, to disregard the label and substitute another term; but what?

    Perhaps we need to consider the characteristics we most often associate with those who define themselves as progressive: An unshakeable (but usually unjustified) belief in their own intellectual and moral superiority; A preference for embracing fantasy over reality when pontificating on the human condition; A tendency to display an Orwellian mindset (think of the Inner Party and Outer Party types depicted in 1984 and of the sheep and the pigs as depicted in Animal Farm). Here the word totalitarian springs to mind, since the end point of the progressive project across the twentieth century was all too often an Orwellian style totalitarian state, and we should never forget how twentieth century totalitarian states collectively accounted for some 100 million deaths. . .