Lately I’ve noticed that Americans have been precariously open to language with historically oppressive connotations. A small example of this is the use of “czar” making a comeback. Dictionary.com defines “czar” as:

1. A emperor or king
2. (Often initial capital letter) the former emperor of Russia
3. An autocratic ruler or leader
4. Any person exercising great authority or power in a particular  field: a czar of industry

This is the type of word that sounds alarms in  liberty lovers’ minds, but for some reason has crept back into everyday political rhetoric. While the position of a czar is offensive in any sense, I want to focus on a more subtle question. When did the word “czar” become sanitary? It is frightening that American culture has accepted it without flinching.

My most recent outrage of use of language in has been an emerging company called kgb. That’s right, lower case kgb. I don’t know what the company does, but here is one of its commercials:

Now this is a private company seeking the benefits of mutual exchange. However, I challenge you to think for a moment about the deeper cultural implications of a successful company deliberately going by the letters kgb. When “k,” “g,” and “b” are put together, I squirm. The KGB has a despicable history of executing an oppressive government’s wishes and agendas. I feel repulsion every time I see the commercials. The marketplace seems to think that Americans do not mind that their products are named after such an organization.

Crasher’s have already been discussing the vague language used by Obama throughout the course of his public appearances, but perhaps the best example of the most subtle and manipulative lingual offense comes from Barack Obama’s inaugural speech. By my count, he said the word “we” 77 times. However, who exactly is “we”? This is wrong because it is impossible for citizens to work with the government in much the same way government cannot show compassion. People work with people. People show people compassion. Add to this the use of “we” as a political figure is directly in conflict with the individual liberty and personal responsibility. This is not a case of individuals coming together, but political figures leveraging citizens’ emotions for their own means.

So, the question remains, are these subtle uses of language an indication of a deeper cultural shift? Moreover, can anything be done to reverse this trend? Personally, I think they are outward signs of a cultural change that has been long in the making. Awareness is the first step to counteracting such cultural changes.

I leave you with a quote from George Orwell’s 1984, “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.”

For more on this, check out the Politics Hurt overview nd the Multi-Lingual Liberty Lovers group on Bureaucrash Social.