“Integrity” – Neospeak Defined by Progressives at the DNC


Webster defines “Integrity” as

: the quality of being honest and fair
: the state of being complete or whole
: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values :  incorruptibility

If you talked to progressives, they’d likely give you a very different definition and this is a fundamental reason why liberals and progressivism is so dangerous right now. It’s not difficult to hold disagreeing opinions, but admire the integrity someone has. However, it is impossible to admire the integrity of someone who is without honesty, fairness, and morals and to say someone like this has integrity is to fundamentally redefine the word into a participation trophy to feel good without actually doing good. What am I talking about?

Over the past week as the DNC took place in Philadelphia, we did not see any integrity. Instead we saw a conference of lies, cheating, scamming, identity politics, and criminal activity. It started out with the DNC Leak on Sunday when Wikileaks released nearly 20,000 emails in regards to the DNC staff. These emails disclosed a number of activities including false ads, plots to block Bernie Sanders in the primary, money exchanges and payoffs such as rewarding bigger donors with federal appointments, and disrespect for individuals and groups like we haven’t seen in a very long time.

The DNC should have brought up the emails on day one and discussed them honestly. Of course, based on the information within the emails, we already know that the people running the DNC adversely avoid honesty so it’s no surprise the emails were not discussed.  Hillary doesn’t seem to like talking about emails in general. To make matters worse, after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign from DNC chair, she was immediately hired by Hillary Clinton to become campaign chair? Her job, as chair of DNC, was to make sure everyone in the party was treated fairly. Obviously that didn’t happen.useful-idiots-by-ben-garrison

The DNC is transparent about their corruption, albeit not by choice. They’re just so dirty and have affected so many people that they really can’t hide it, including the Haitians who spent the last week protesting outside the DNC.

There’s not just a lack of integrity in party heads, but there’s also a lack of integrity in many of the people who support it and I don’t think it’s as pure as people not knowing what integrity means. I think they’re redefining it like they have done for many other words in the last few years including: fascist, rape, harassment, racist, sexist, discrimination, diversity, equality, progressive, rainbows, tyranny, union dues, and xenophobia.

There’s something inherently Orwellian in all of this. In 1984, he called it Newspeak. To quote Flopping Aces, “Socialists, Marxists, and liberals want to, need to redefine words. They may be morally bankrupt, but they are smart enough to realize that most people will not accept their distorted worldview. So they must redefine their bad ideas into good ones, and redefine good and practical terms into bad ones.” In the novel 1984, the government created Newspeak with the idea that if something can’t be said, it can’t be thought, and thus, human thought becomes limited and controlled; problems cannot be recognized or reconciled and repaired.

“It’s a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston?” – 1984, George Orwell

Progressives are actively changing words and using their new definitions in daily life in order to normalize them. Many of these redefined words were repeated again and again at the DNC and online by the faithful progressives who are promoting this garbage fascism.

Take, for instance, Bernie Sanders approach to Hillary Clinton during the primaries:

Now look at him on the opening night of the DNC:

Here is a man who spent his entire campaign railing against everything Hillary stands for. He put his neck on the line calling out evil and then, after months of work and months collecting time, money, and hope, he turns around and supports the very thing he said he was against. To call Bernie Sanders a man of integrity is to tell a bold-faced lie.

Now there are two possibilities for what happened with Bernie:

  1. He never believed anything he said. He was just trying to make a quick buck off of gullible poor people.
  2. He is afraid of being murdered by Hillary and her death squad, so he stepped back.


Even though I don’t agree with any Sanders politically, I think he was earnest in what he was saying and what he wanted to do. His face during the rest of the DNC also said volumes about how he felt about his endorsement. That said, I don’t blame him for fearing the Clinton firing squad considering the history of mysterious deaths behind anyone ready to speak out against her, but cowering under pressure is not integrity and anyone saying otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

When you take a stand, you put yourself at risk which is why honor and integrity are so impressive and commendable. It’s not something everyone can do and it’s rare that people do it in high risk situations. As progressives redefine integrity they create a culture of ‘participation trophies’ for people to feel good about being ‘good people’ without actually doing anything good. That’s right, get your emotional high as cheap as possible, baby.

There are few people with real courage; courage defined as the ability to do something that you know is difficult or dangerous, but go through with whatever it is anyway. In this case, it’s telling the truth like most of the Sanders delegates did even after Sanders turned on them:

Look, standing by your word and beliefs isn’t easy; you can get in a lot of trouble with powerful groups if what you say goes against the grain, in some countries you can be arrested, you can be censored in just about every western society including the United States; you may isolate yourself from lifelong friends; you could lose your job; if you’re blatantly against the Clintons, you could be murdered; it’s incredibly frightening and that’s why so many people remain quiet. Just remember that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing (Edmund Burke).



1 thought on ““Integrity” – Neospeak Defined by Progressives at the DNC

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close