Episode 464 Show Notes- What is a Dictatorship and is America Headed Towards One?

↓ The P.A.S. Report Podcast is on every podcast platform! ↓

Listen on Apple PodcastsListen on SpotifyListen on Google PodcastsListen on PandoraListen on iHeartRadioListen on Podcast AddictListen on Castbox

Episode Description

In this episode of the P.A.S. Report podcast, Professor Nick Giordano examines how the left and the media seek to redefine terms, meanings, and narratives. From what is free speech to what is a dictatorship, their efforts are a subtle yet effective strategy to control not only the narrative but also the parameters of acceptable debate.

Click play above to listen to the entire episode or you can listen on any podcast platform

Show Notes- What is a Dictatorship and is America Headed Towards One?

---

Are you prepared for any emergency situation?

Get big discounts on all your survival needs at 4Patriots!

Don’t wait until it’s too late – be ready for anything with 4Patriots.

---

Welcome to The P.A.S. Report Podcast

[Intro Transcript] Welcome everyone to another episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast. I’m your host, Nick Giordano, and I am glad you could join me today. If you’re not already a subscriber, consider subscribing and following the podcast so you never miss an episode. Also, visit The P.A.S. Report website. There, you can sign up for the newsletter. I never spam you. I send out about one email a month with some updates or to highlight an important issue or event.

Call me crazy, but doesn’t it seem like everyone wants to redefine terms, meanings, and narratives? Especially those in the media and those on the left. Think about it for a second.

Whether it is free speech, antisemitism, nationalism, patriotism, extremism, dictatorship, democracy, Ukraine, or any number of things, they attempt to redefine these things to set the parameters of the debate and the narrative, and when you push back against them, they try to make it look like you’re the one who’s out of touch.

You’re the one that’s an extremist. It’s a fascinating and somewhat alarming trend that we’re witnessing in today’s discourse. So, let’s dive in and explore this attempt to control the language and reshape the narrative.

At the heart of this issue is the power that comes with defining the terms of the debate. Language is a potent tool, shaping perceptions and influencing opinions. Those who control the narrative can manipulate public discourse to their advantage. It’s not a new strategy, but in the age of information, where communication is instant and widespread, the stakes are higher than ever.

Take the concept of free speech, for example. It’s a fundamental pillar of our society, allowing for the open exchange of ideas and fostering a more robust debate. Now, the term itself has become a battleground. Some argue that certain speech should be restricted to ensure a more inclusive and tolerant society. Some argue that words are violence unless you’re calling for genocide against Israel. Then it’s okay. Think about the testimonies of the college presidents last week, where they tried to invoke free speech.

It was pathetic and laughable at the same time. They were asked whether it’s acceptable for students to call for genocide against a group of people. It shouldn’t be that hard to issue a simple, declarative “No.”

They were asked whether calling for genocide against a group of people goes against the code of conduct. Again, they couldn’t muster up a simple yes response. Think about the irony of this. These are the same institutions that have free speech zones on the campus, and only in those zones can you exercise your inherent right to speak freely.

These are the same types of institutions that put trigger warnings on the American flag. These are the same types of universities that have adopted “speech codes,” where the slightest “micro-aggression” could land a student in the administrative crosshairs and face campus disciplinary hearings. They are such frauds, but more on that in a bit.

Some say, “Well, the founding fathers never really meant free speech. Free speech is a design flaw.”

The very definition of free speech is under attack. The left attempts to redefine it by emphasizing the harm certain words may cause. But apparently, it’s only certain words against certain people that are harmful.

See, they argue for restrictions to protect marginalized groups from potential harm, yet at the same time, they will attack and demonize anyone if they don’t fall into one of their preferred groups. There’s a new Netflix film that’s out, and apparently, the Obamas played a big role in the production. The premise of the film is about an EMP going off, which would be devastating. Sounds interesting, right? But then you hear this. Take a listen.

Sound Clip Netflix

Are you kidding me? What was the point of throwing that in? I don’t know the extent of Obama’s involvement, but what do you think would happen if we took out the word White and replaced it with Black, Hispanic, or any other group? Do you think this documentary would see the light of day? There would be wall-to-wall outrage. Heads would explode in DEI departments throughout the country. Protests and riots.

Or going back to the college presidents. What would happen if students were protesting and calling for genocide against blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, or the LGBT community? Again, we all know the colleges wouldn’t tolerate it. Those protests would be shut down immediately, and those participating would be disciplined with some facing suspension and expulsion.

The same pattern emerges when examining other terms like nationalism and patriotism. The left often portrays these concepts as racist, associating them with extremist ideologies. White nationalism and the new one is Christian nationalism. By framing the narrative in this way, they seek to redefine the terms, painting those who identify as patriots as radicals or threats to democracy. But nationalism isn’t a loyalty or adherence to one race or religion. Nationalism is based on the nation-state concept. Hence the reason, the words nation and national are in the word nationalism.

Is it racist and extremist to preserve and celebrate our country and the American identity? Does that make us xenophobic? Of course, it doesn’t. Only an imbecile would think that, but there are a lot of those these days.

Then you look at geopolitical events like Ukraine. Here, the redefinition of terms and narratives becomes a powerful tool for shaping public opinion and policy. The media, plays a crucial role in this process, framing stories in a way that aligns with certain ideological perspectives. They’ve become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the DNC and the powerful elite.

When we challenge and oppose the redefining of everything or we attempt to present alternative viewpoints, many people find themselves on the defensive because they’re labeled. Labeled as racist, bigot, and extremist. These labels are wielded as rhetorical weapons to dismiss dissenting voices. It leads people who dissent to self-censor and remain silent. It’s a subtle yet effective strategy to control not only the narrative but also the parameters of acceptable debate. And when all those people who dissent remain silent, it makes people start to think they are the crazy ones. They are the ones who are out of touch.

I want to focus on that in this episode using specific examples of what I mean. So everyone, hang tight and I will be right back.

To listen to the full episode, click play above or visit your favorite podcast platform!

Click here to read Professor Giordano’s latest piece at Campus Reform

---

The P.A.S. Report wants to hear from you. Send your feedback to podcast@pasreport.com. Please leave a 5-star rating and write a review on Apple Podcast.

Please share this episode with others & on social media.

---

*PA Strategies, LLC. may earn advertising revenue or a small commission for promoting products or when you purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.

Follow Nicholas Giordano

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•