Language Skills & Ills
I recently read an article by Selwyn Duke in The New American in which he delineated some of the ways that those on the Left have managed to pervert the language to serve their political ends.
I recently read an article by Selwyn Duke in The New American in which he delineated some of the ways that those on the Left have managed to pervert the language to serve their political ends.
For instance, they have intentionally turned “blacks” into “African-Americans,” the “poor” into the “underprivileged,” “handouts” into “entitlements,” “homosexuals” into “gays,” and “sex” into “gender.”
That last example is particularly important because, until recently, even young children understood there were only two sexes. But once the language manipulators managed to get us to stop saying “sex” and start saying “gender,” as if the two words were synonymous, it was a short step to introduce “transgenderism” to the world under the pretext that there is something that exists beyond the realm of basic biology. And, in the words of Mrs. Loman, spoken upon the death of Willie Loman in “Death of a Salesman”: “Attention must be paid.”
I agree that attention must be paid. But to whom is the question. Those on the Left would claim the attention should be directed towards anyone they deem a deserving victim. I would argue, as does Selwyn Duke, that we should be focused on those who would control our thinking by controlling our lexicon.
And control is the operative word. In “Through the Looking-Glass,” Humpty Dumpty tells Alice: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
And when Alice replies, “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things,” Mr. Dumpty corrects her: “The question is which is to be master.” Clearly, that is the role the Left has selected for itself.
The so-called progressives have even managed to diminish and demean “masculinity,” while at the same time celebrating “feminism.” They have even managed to usurp “progressives,” which, today, really stands for “fascists.”
Mr. Duke goes on to mention that the Left has striven to turn such traitorous municipalities as Chicago, Los Angeles and New York into “sanctuaries” and such scofflaws as Rahm Emanuel, Eric Garcetti and Bill de Blasio into living saints.
The liberals, who have agendas where civilized people have hearts and consciences, have even managed to pass off abortions as “women’s health care” and “reproductive rights.” But even that pales by comparison to the fact that they have gotten away with mislabeling the world’s biggest abortion mill “Planned Parenthood.”
Mr. Duke quotes from an article by George Orwell in which the author of 1984 described political speech and writing as “largely the defense of the indefensible.”
I was reminded of an article I read in the 1950s written by John Steinbeck in which he resented the fact that the free world had ceded the word “comrade” to the Communists. It had been a wonderfully evocative word, used to denote a boon companion. Suddenly, the word lost its warm sheen, all because it had been commandeered by those whose aim was to subjugate the world to Soviet domination.
When I got to thinking about it, I was astonished by the way the Left had so rapidly changed the meaning of words. “Bums” had morphed into “the homeless”; “sex freaks” into “gays” and transgenders"; “man-haters” and “ball-breakers” into “feminists”; “slums” into “urban communities”; “racists” into “civil rights leaders” and “spokespeople for their race”; “wetbacks” into “undocumented aliens”; “welfare junkies” into “hard-working (? —fill in the blank with the name of your favorite minority group)”; and “mobs” into “antifa,” “Black Lives Matter” or the “Democratic Party.”
While the Democrats, in concert with Bob Corker, John McCain, people named Bush and the rest of the Never-Trumpers, keep railing against the president’s approach to North Korea and Iran, the best they can come up with is that we continue to stand by while Kim Jong-un and the mullahs move ever closer to having nuclear parity with us. In other words, their best advice is that Trump adopt the suicidal policies of Clinton, Bush and Obama.
As if that’s not stupid enough, they claim, based on nothing but their reading of tea leaves, that if we move against North Korea, China will rush to Kim Jong-un’s defense, and if we confront Iran, it means a nuclear war with Russia.
Anything is possible, but hardly likely. Hell, we can’t even count on our NATO allies to back us. What makes anyone think that China wants to risk being nuked on behalf of North Korea or that Putin feels such affection for the Muslims that he’d spring to their defense, knowing that might actually be all it takes to awaken the Brits and the EU to the danger of an emboldened Russia?
Has anyone else noticed that two of Trump’s former advisors, Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka, are stronger supporters of his agenda than most of the members of the palace guard? It’s almost as if Trump has adopted Don Corleone’s rule that you keep your friends close, your enemies closer.
In a recent article, I wrote: “It doesn’t help that millions of so-called feminists are not so much pro-women as they are anti-male. Otherwise, they would not so fervently support Hillary Clinton, who has spent most of her life aiding and abetting sexual predators, even going back to her early years when, as a young attorney, she crowed about getting a middle-aged client who had raped a child off with a light sentence.”
In response, I received the following email from Patrick Miano: “In thirty-two years of law enforcement, I learned that there is nothing a lawyer can’t or won’t rationalize. The top three excuses: (1) Every defendant has the right to the best possible defense. (Tactics and methods be damned.) (2) It’s my job. It’s what I’m paid to do. (A hit man for organized crime can say the same thing.) (3) If it was you, your friend or a relative, you wouldn’t care what I did to get you/him/her off. (I am not a criminal. Nor are my friends or relatives. This one may have some validity, but that doesn’t make it right.)
"The truth is, the whole thing is a game to them, with win-lose columns. They are as ruthless as the most fanatical sports coaches. The more cases they win, the more clients they figure they can get and the more money they can charge.”
By not changing the Senate rules that require 60 votes to pass legislation, Mitch McConnell is carrying on the charade that he is dedicated to Senate tradition. In truth, he knows that as soon as the Democrats regain control of the Senate, it will be the first item on Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s to-do list.
The reason I believe McConnell is so unwilling to break up the inevitable logjam is that he has no desire to pass Trump’s agenda. Furthermore, if the Senate Republicans don’t unseat him, it will prove that they, too, would prefer doing nothing rather than support the man whose own election in 2016 provided the coattails that carried many of them to victory.
The FBI, in case you missed the news, is investigating widespread corruption in Puerto Rico. It seems the politicians, all of whom are Democrats, have been funneling most of the clothing, food and water, to their friends and political donors.
One can only hope that Carmen Yulin Cruz, the mayor of San Juan who accused President Trump of committing genocide on the island, is swept up in the criminal investigation.
It might be enough to serve notice that those who live in grass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
