A Top Eleven 'Ideological IED' (words) Countdown. Who Takes The Top Honours?
How verbal landminds, or ideological IEDs have rendered some language meaningless, stopped discussion and fed tribalism.
If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor suspended because of a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers. The button below takes you to that story.
Please subscribe and get at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. It’s $6 per month and less than USD 4. I know everyone says hey, it’s just a cup of coffee (with me, not per day but just one per month), but if you’re like me, you go, “Hey, I only want so many cups of coffee!”
But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers.
Language is the bedrock of civilisation. Even Neanderthals were reported to have used language. Humans have had spoken languages for about 200,000 years, but written languages were a relatively late addition, only 5,000 years ago.
Of course, language allows societies to articulate ideas, debate perspectives, and define moral frameworks, it is a defining characteristic of humanity.
But Dutch still sounds to me like someone is clearing their throat.
And for that one person in the room waving their hand and going on about communication being 70% nonverbal, when people say that, they are usually referring to body language that gives context to speech; it’s not like most of the time we get by with grunting, farting, emojis and flipping people the bird - only on guy’s nights out.
Yet, once laden with clear and precise meanings, certain words have become so distorted through overuse and misapplication that they now resemble a stretched and threadbare sweater: unrecognisable, flimsy, and ultimately destined for the rag pile.
I want to trace their origins, accurately define them, and examine how they have devolved into rhetorical weapons—mere ideological IEDs that hinder rather than enhance constructive dialogue.
I would have done twelve, but I didn’t want to appear irreligious and be accused of ripping off Moses.
Such IED1s are first cousins to the human rights crowd who tell us that truth is no defence when accusing offenders of hurting feelings; indeed, “truthiness” is the situation where we replace a preferred narrative with what happened (that old-school “truth” standard). It is a new intellectual fad, the ripped jeans of the fashion world. Boom.
Just look to fired teacher Jim McMurtry, PhD, sacked for the audacity of telling students that there were likely no Indigenous children’s graves at the old residential school in Kamloops, B.C. 2
In the words of George Orwell, “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and declared aims, one turns…to long words and exhausted idioms.”
11. Communist
A “communist” adheres to Marxist ideology, advocating for a classless society achieved through collective ownership of resources and the abolition of private property. In contemporary discourse, “communist” has become a pejorative for any ‘progressive‘ policy, regardless of whether it aligns with Marxist principles.
Universal healthcare, environmental regulations, or ‘progressive’ taxation are often mislabeled as communism. This misuse reduces the term to a mere scare tactic, void of its ideological roots. Its frequent and inaccurate deployment overshadows genuine critiques of Marxism or communist regimes.
Just because you don’t want to privatise garbage collection does not mean that you are chumming up with Stalin.
10. Freedom
“Freedom” refers to acting, thinking, or speaking without undue restraint or coercion.
Some on the political left frame “freedom” negatively. They see it as a cover for selfishness, deregulation, or social harm. They use it to critique those who prioritise individual liberty over collective responsibility.
One planting a hole to put this variant of ideological IED might sneer at you and say,
“Your so-called ‘freedom’ is just an excuse to avoid taxes, dismantle social programs, stop helping drug addicts by not giving them drugs from vending machines in daycare lobbies.”
Political movements on all sides often co-opt the term, using it to justify actions that may undermine others’ freedoms. Overusing “freedom” without definition renders it meaningless.
As John Stuart Mill observed, “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.”
But I don’t think too many people who stick “so-called” in front of the word freedom have heard of John Stuart Mill.
9. Populism: The Shape-Shifting Scapegoat
Populism, in its original and neutral sense, describes a political movement that seeks to represent the common people against a perceived elite. It is neither inherently left nor right, neither inherently good nor bad—it depends on how it manifests. Historically, populist movements have taken vastly different forms: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies contained populist elements, as did Huey Long’s radical redistributionist agenda in the 1930s.
The European revolts against austerity in the early 2010s bore strong populist streaks, as do many anti-establishment movements today.
Yet, the term has since been contorted into a shapeless smear, hurled indiscriminately at political figures whom the mainstream finds inconvenient.
Populism has become synonymous with “dangerous demagoguery” or “unthinking mob rule,” although the world’s greatest democracies were founded on the principle that people's will should check elite excesses.
Christopher Hitchens, ever sceptical of linguistic dishonesty, once observed:
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
By this standard, the contemporary use of “populism” is anti-intellectual, designed not to analyse a phenomenon but to make it unacceptable. Suppose a politician connects with working-class anxieties, champions policies that threaten entrenched interests, or dares to speak in plain rather than technocratic language.
In that case, they are branded a “populist” and dismissed outright.
Consider the differing applications of the term. When figures on the left advocate for policies that challenge corporate dominance, such as Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, they are called “progressives.” You might not prefer left-wing politics, but you must admit they are great at branding.
Who doesn’t want to be progressive? Nobody claims to champion the causes of the regressives; regressive means going back to a worse stage, like a kid throwing a temper tantrum or your Irish Uncle Sean once again starting to pour whiskey on his Lucky Charms.
When right-wing figures, such as Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen, mobilise grassroots support against government overreach, they are denounced as “dangerous populists.” The criteria for populism appear fluid, bending to fit the ideological preferences of those wielding the label.
The irony is that the ruling classes—those most invested in decrying populism—often use their populist tactics when it suits them.
The European Union, an unelected bureaucracy, has condemned populism while simultaneously stoking fears of nationalist movements, positioning itself as the last defence against chaos.
The same establishment voices that ridiculed Brexit voters as “gullible populists” had no trouble invoking populist sentiment when advocating for pandemic restrictions or climate action. The rules shift, and the goalposts move—because populism, as currently used, has no fixed meaning.
Orwell foresaw this when he wrote in Politics and the English Language:
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
The modern abuse of “populism” is a textbook example of such distortion. It is not a diagnosis but a slur, an elastic accusation that serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo. By weaponising the word, critics seek not to engage with ideas but to delegitimise them without argument.
And that is the problem with ideological IEDs: they are mindless; they encourage tribalism without thought.
In the end, populism as an idea is not the problem. The real danger lies in those who seek to silence it, who fear the voice of the people and, therefore, must redefine the word to maintain control. As always, the charge of “populism” says far less about the accused and far more about those doing the accusing.