News from Western nations—France, Britain, the United States, Canada, and others—shows a recurring pattern. A teacher refers to a boy who recently chose to live as a girl by a gender pronoun, while another educator refuses to call a self‑diagnosed child an object. Some workers face removal from schools or lifetime bans from the profession.
Similar reports come from the Russian Federation. Statements appear about who started the war with Ukraine, and some admit dream scenarios that involve public figures. Others shift terminology, using words like aggression instead of the phrase inside the official operation. People are brought to court and face heavy fines for these expressions.
Why such harsh responses? The accused often did not harm others, steal, or attack. The official claim centers on hurting the feelings of others. In the West the issue is framed as transgender concerns; in Russia it is linked to soldiers. In truth, the misstep goes beyond the surface: it concerns the choice of words and the assumptions attached to them.
The charms of totalitarian democracy
Two thousand years ago Confucius asserted that changing the world begins with changing language. George Orwell sharpened this idea, noting that totalitarianism thrives when language is twisted. In his novel 1984 he called this manipulation ‘newspeak.’ The aim is to steer thinking so that any dissenting thought becomes unthinkable. Words shape thought, and new terms emerge, while old ones fade or take on different meanings. Recently circulating terms include transphobia, non-binary, queer, parent A, parent B, reproductive health, a woman with a member, and a person with a uterus, among others.
With such shifts, language starts to mold not only beliefs but also conscience. People become more adaptable, more willing to accept a predefined framework for interpreting reality, and more likely to adopt ideological positions as facts that cannot be questioned.
Language thus becomes a vehicle for soft governance, a form of democracy that exercises strong influence without overt terror. Jacob Leib Talmon, the Israeli historian, wrote about this phenomenon in his work The Roots of Totalitarian Democracy, published in 1952. He described a system in which private property exists but mass coercion and open censorship are absent, yet the state decides what is right and what is true. In such a setup, the state effectively guides what may be said and how people should think.
There is no forgiveness for thought crime
John Stuart Mill, a central figure in liberal democracy, warned as early as the nineteenth century about the dangers of merging state power with dominant political and business interests. That combination can amplify influence over society. Contemporary developments show this dynamic: public discourse is increasingly shaped by powerful media and global platforms. The Internet broadens reach, enabling a broader semantic influence. The result is a broad, often subtle, push that reduces speech and narrows critical thought.
Anyone who thinks differently is accused of a thought crime. It resembles the situation found in today’s Russia when simple phrases shift the debate into a political trap. In Western societies, mismatched articles or pronouns can provoke similar reactions. The aim appears to be applying penalties to deter divergent thinking, and many argue that deciding what people should think is not a role that should rest with a few voices alone.
[Source: wPolityce]