For much of the twentieth century the Left has placed a linguistic noose around the neck of the Right. Certain words having gained totemic power are never uttered. Other words, like ‘discrimination’ or ‘phobia ’ are distorted beyond their true meaning to support accusations of bigotry or racism. To be so accused is to be judged, convicted, and sentenced on the spot. Recently the noose has tightened so that many conservative points of view dare not be uttered else debate on the merits be forcibly shut down. In parallel there has been a marked increase in totalitarian government power: same-sex marriage mandated by the Supreme Court; the persecution of photographers for declining to participate in homosexual nuptials; women in combat roles; forcing schools to permit ‘trans’ boys to shower with girls athletic teams; possible Federal prosecution of the ‘deniers’ of climate-change orthodoxy.
In short the space in which ordinary Americans can speak and act has so shrunk that a powerful reaction has arisen. Conservative voices have self-censored; there has been no significant fighting back. Into this space Trump has stepped. His tough talk is needed to puncture lefty illusions. Regarding the Mexican border or trade treaties, his promises are seen as preserving the integrity of our traditional American culture and economy. His revolt is against all elites, not just the Republican party establishment. Trump is seen by his supporters as a positive, conservative force for restoring health to our sick, confused, feminized society. The more Big Media seeks to brand him as a brown-shirted neoNazi and inspires violent protests, the more his supporters see the need for a thorough cleansing of our Augean stables. Continue reading
Updated 4th November here.
The madness of creating ‘rights’ to satisfy the whims and claims of privilege of every self-proclaimed aggrieved minority group or psychologically disordered individual has led, per the New York Times, to an attack on sex-specific showers in our high schools.
Thus a high-school boy claiming transgender status has been accorded the pronoun ‘she’ and the right to play on the girls athletic teams. The suburban Chicago school district, mindful of Federal might, has given him a separate section in the locker room in which to shower. The Feds, however, find this discriminatory because he does not have the choice to shower naked with the girls. Clearly government bureaucracy crushes any sense of humor as this position – the dream of every high-school boy – does not pass any normal kind of test, smell or otherwise. In the Alice-in-Wonderland upside-down world of government, where the common-sense meaning of words is changed at will and we are expected to follow, most of us have no rights, except the right to surrender to the latest outrageous demand of radicals encouraged by their recent legal victories over traditional values and our American sense of decency. The diseased tail will continue to wag the still healthy dog until our governments at all levels are thoroughly disinfected and reformed.
George Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language” is probably the best known of many essays and books showing how language is manipulated for political purposes. One might be tempted to think that the terms we use are of little importance, just a question of semantics. But the forces for political change know that they cannot rely just on politics. They need to attack the social norms and institutions that bind our society and culture together, for it is they that impede radical political change. Our culture reflects our concepts and our concepts reflect our language. Subversion of language is thus an easy way to begin the process of deforming our culture in preparation for political change. Since the family is the most important glue holding together our culture, the linguistic fascists attack it, starting with our notions of what is feminine and what masculine. For example, the traditional use of the pronoun ‘he’ to refer to a person of unknown sex was the first to go, supplanted by the ugly ‘he or she’ and more recently the uglier ‘they’ to refer to a singular antecedent. The use of ‘he’ in this context was considered a ‘sexist’ and offensive relic of ‘patriarchy.’ Or consider the sudden and imperceptible slide away from the term ‘homosexual’ to the term ‘gay,’ which projects a more positive image.
This weekend’s Wall Street Journal ran an article by Ben Zimmer, Can We Take ‘They’ as a Singular Pronoun? Mr. Zimmer, seeming to answer in the affirmative, ventures to say this:
Lately, transgender issues have been driving the call for a more inclusive pronoun. The singular ‘they’ avoids having to assign a static role to someone transitioning from one gender to another. And many who identify as transgender or ‘gender-fluid’ would prefer the use of the pronoun ‘they’ rather than ‘he’ or ‘she.’
The willful confusion between sex (biological) and gender (grammatical) has been a potent progressive tool. It is not a secret that marriage is between a man and a woman and there are manly and feminine roles. Is to say this bigotry? Consider the present social disintegration. Much of it is fueled by the number of never married single mothers, whose sons have no father figure and statistically can look forward a life of poverty and probability of incarceration, generating the next generation of fatherless children. If for fear of giving ‘offense’ our families and schools do not teach the values followed by real men with respect to women, along with citizenship and patriotism, this depressing cycle will repeat itself, worsening with each new generation. Our society’s values are too important to be scuttled by rampant individualism and its antinomian celebration of made-up virtues. Proscribing sex-based pronouns is an important step in the radical agenda. Let’s refuse to be cowed; our singular personal pronoun of choice should be ’he,’ not ‘they.’ And let’s reclaim the term ‘gay’ by not confusing it with ‘homosexual.’