Did he say it or not? “Trump called on Muslims to confront ‘the crisis of Islamic extremism and the Islamist and Islamic terror of all kinds.'” Peepul, peepul, peepul; It counts, ok? He effectively said it.

We’re coming up to the one year anniversary of the Pulse night club attack, which weighed heavily on our minds during the election campaign. Now here we are with President Trump delivering his first foreign speech, on Islam, in the Arabian capital. As Larry Arn likes to say, something fundamental is afoot (just look at the travel itinerary). Recall DJT’s statement after the attack in Orlando:

“Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.

“In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam’. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words ‘Radical Islam’ she should get out of this race for the Presidency.”

To which President Obama replied:

“Let me make a final point, for a while now the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam,’. That’s the key they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islam.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish and what will it change? Will it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring more allies for military strategy than it is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

President Obama committed two sleights of hand that reversed the truth. First, he made it seem like he had no problem saying the words by saying them in a consequence and implication free context. He did not say it in relation to a threat we face, but in relation to what someone else said about him. Thus, it’s meaningless. Second, he was the one who insisted that calling the threat by a different name will make it go away.

The obvious question was: if it doesn’t make a difference then why not just say it? The answer: it does make a difference.

Every society that has either faced serious threats or produced any lasting wisdom has grappled with this question. In ancient Greek philosophical circles there was the idea (attributed to Socrates but hard to pin down exactly) that “the beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” In Indian philosophy everything in existence is categorized into padarthas. Padartha is pada (word) and artha (meaning). So, to understand anything it has to first be categorized and named correctly. The oral Vedic tradition stresses the right pronunciation of words.

In the Bible what is the very first thing God does? He labels things. He calls things what they are by giving them words and pronouncing their names. When He does, He is then able to make the judgement “it is good”, thus implying that there is evil and that it is distinct and has its own set of correct words.

In ancient Rome, Marcus Aurelius wondered during one of his many military campaigns, “This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what is its causal nature or form? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?” In his pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, and in dealing with Rome’s enemies, he knew that first he must call things what they are.

In the annals of American philosophy we have “calling a spade a spade”, “keeping it real”, and “it is what it is.” And of course, “the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.” (Oh yeah this, too.)

But the man who best tied this to statecraft was Confucius. In his “Rectify The Names” passage, he says,

“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done goes undone. If this remains undone, morals and mores deteriorate. If morals and mores deteriorate, punishments will not be properly awarded. If punishments are not properly awarded, the people will stand in helpless confusion. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.”

This recognition of the power of properly naming things led to, among other things, a practice of name taboos for emperors in which he would take several different public names for different settings. Prominent public figures would also take nicknames, noms de plume and aliases and keep their real names hidden. A trait that can be found across cultures is the belief that not using or concealing a person’s real name protected them from curses or evil forces.

You’ll recognize this phenomenon in Harry Potter. Everyone in the magic world refuses to say Voldemort’s name in the beginning, for fear that the very act of pronouncing his name gives him extra power, and not saying his name means everyone can put off confronting his immanent return for just a little while longer. Perhaps if we don’t name radical Islam and name its war on the West, we won’t have to deal with it?

When President Obama refused to say radical Islam is our enemy and that we are at war with it, he violated deeply embedded, ancient rules of human perception, knowledge and the ability to act accordingly with them.

“Hindrance to the perceptions of sense is an evil to the animal nature.” Marcus Aurelius says. That is, any living creature that denies what its eyes perceive will face harm or death as a result. “Hindrance to the movements is equally an evil to the animal nature. And something else also is equally an impediment and evil to the constitution of plants. So then that which is a hindrance to the intelligence is an evil to the intelligent nature.” When a Muslim commits an act of mass murder and himself says he does so in the name of Islam, and pledges allegiance to a world wide Islamic movement, you are not only insulting my intelligence to insist otherwise, but you are doing evil to intelligence itself. (Yes yes yes but NAXALT, man.)

George Bush was guilty of the same thing. “The War on Terror” was a fundamental mis-naming about which Donald Rumsfeld said “Saying we were in a war on terrorism was like saying we were in a war against bombers or we were waging a war on tanks…”

It goes further. Our refusal to name the enemy is getting people abused and killed. From the Fort Hood shooting, to Chattanooga, to the Boston Bombing, to the Rotherham sex ring, to San Bernardino, to Orlando – in all of these situations there was a point when someone wanted to say something but didn’t for fear of being accused of some form of bigotry. The result is a mound of bodies and fractured lives.

Roughly half the country refused to correctly identify what happened in Orlando. Thus, we had the embarrassing spectacle of House Democrats holding the world’s dumbest sleepover party. Or as Guy Benson put it, the ugly sight of a civil rights hero (John Lewis) going full circle and participating in Congress’ first anti-civil rights sit-in. It’s enough to make you want to shout reality at their faces.

According to the left, to say “radical Islamic terrorism” is offensive and only serves to radicalize even more otherwise moderate Muslims to want to commit violence. But, what to make then of the fact that the rulers of Arabia and Islam’s holiest cities so heartily and lavishly welcomed the man who insisted on saying those words? What are the billion+ Muslims who watched all this thinking?

Confucius made his rectify the names remark when China was split into numerous rival states. He was asked to advise one of the new emerging states on what they had to do to rule successfully. The first thing he said in his diagnosis was that the old dynasty had lost touch with reality by coming up with all sorts of convoluted names for things (workplace violence, overseas contingency, Department of War Department of Defense, quantitative easing).

The very first order of business was to call things what they are, then the warring states could be united again.

​”Something fundamental is afoot”, and a rectification of names has come not just to the culturally warring states of America, but the world.