• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Define and Conquer

Red Robin

Well-known member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Define and conquer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 19, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Donald Hank


He who owns English usage owns America's mind. The left and the ruling elite know that and have claimed vast territories, meeting with little resistance.

In the '60s, the word "liberal" was appropriated by the left, who made it their own. It was flagrant theft in broad daylight, but almost no one noticed.

One of the salient features of true liberalism was capitalism, as defined by the true liberal Adam Smith. Yet today's "liberals" are trying their level best to abolish what's left of the free market.

Is this because they are "liberals"?

It's precisely because they are not. But they were able to stealthily change the definition of the word liberal in the '60s because it sounded high-minded and noble. And, because we let them get away with it, we no longer know the name of the enemy. How do we expect to win this way?

(Column continues below)


To show how we have drifted, note that in France and Brazil, for example, the word liberal (Fr. liberal) still denotes the ideology we call conservatism. French President Sarkozy, whom we call conservative, is hailed as a liberal savior by French libertarians, while Brazilian President Lula has muzzled the liberal (conservative) press.

Many American conservatives, lacking a sound knowledge of philosophical history, could only conclude that liberalism had always been left-wing. And so, they rejected the whole notion of something that was – and is, by its original definition – wholly American. Conservatives still nurture liberal ideals while absurdly deriding liberalism, which they no longer recognize as their own. Our words are in enemy hands and our thoughts are in disarray.

This semantic discussion may seem confusing to conservatives. It's supposed to be. We aren't supposed to be able to debate successfully with socialists, who confuse us with constant language change.

Yet it is vital to America's intellectual health to preserve our definition of things.

On the surface, one might be tempted to minimize the importance of words, but every word the left has tried to deconstruct is worth standing up and fighting for.

Marriage is one such word. There is no traditional word in any natural language that could mean both marriage between the sexes and marriage within the same sex.

Homosexual is a word that has been skewed by "experts" in the American Psychological Association, who now declare that pedophiles having sex with children of the same sex are not actually homosexuals because their focus is on the youth, not the sex. Why would they go to such pains, you ask? Simple: to protect the gay agenda. You are not supposed to know that, without this convenient redefinition, the link between pedophilia and homosexuality is really quite embarrassing.

But why should it stop there? It won't. Already the APA has published research papers declaring that adult-child sex can be harmless.

The logical end of all this language change is the abolition of criminal law, for if pedophilia can be justified, so can every other behavior. Car thieves are just good people looking for a better way of life.

The word bigot now also has several creative new definitions. For the ruling elite, like Sens. Lindsey Graham and Ted Kennedy, it applies to anyone who thinks America should be sovereign, with protected borders. I have shown in a previous column that the real bigots are the open-border advocates.

"Homophobe" used to mean someone who dislikes and/or fears gays.

No longer. It now applies to groups like Exodus and PFOX, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, which try to alert homosexuals to the real dangers of gay sex and to the positive potentials of abstinence. People who care about gays and their health and safety are homophobes. People who do not are good.

Either side can win the language game, but the left invented the rules, and is used to getting its way.

All of that can change if the intended victims turn the tables on the language changers.

Many conservatives have simply accepted the left's suggestion that they are selfish and callous toward their fellow men, resulting in the offensive term "compassionate conservatism," suggesting that conservatives, the biggest free-will donors to charity, lack compassion. But wasn't it the left that coined the linguistic distortion pro-choice, treating the unborn as a non-person?

The concepts of fair trade and free market have also taken a shellacking from the left, but also from the business and government elite. Look at what they are all calling fair trade (and so far, without challenge):

America enforces stringent labor laws and environmental protection regulations. China has the most primitive of labor protection, minimum wages and few environmental protection regulations. Yet trade with the Chinese goes by the euphemisms "free market" and "fair trade." This is nonsense. Government controls the trade balance, not market forces. Yet no one disputes the grotesque skewing of these terms. Money talks, with a forked tongue.

"Christian" left is a term based on the lie that Marx can be reconciled with Jesus Christ, who rebuked the multitude, saying they followed him only to fill their stomachs and that all they could expect from Him was the bread of life (John 6:26-7). Thus, to Christ, materialism is the antithesis of spirituality.

Like our historical monuments, American English is part of our sacred heritage.

Now when the ACLU attacks a monument for its Christian symbolism, there is little you as an individual can do.

But when charlatans appropriate or redefine a word or term so as to threaten our intellectual heritage, we can – and must – challenge that usage.

The left and the ruling elite have looted our linguistic treasury. But it is the common people who brought the language to our shores, and they must preserve it.

Now is the time to take our language back!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conservatives and the religious Right can't seem to take responsibility for anything. Cracks me up.

According to this article, it's the "Liberals" fault that the right turned "liberal" into a dirty word. :lol: :lol: Next thing you know, they'll be blaming the "Liberals" instead of the Republican Party for destroying the meaning of "Conservative" .

Bill Clinton was elected president mostly because the Republican base deserted George HW Bush. And now the religious right is considering supporting a third party again. That will virtually insure another Clinton in the White House! At least a Democrat. Will that somehow be the Liberal's fault, too?

Of course, there's not a big difference in Rudy and a Democrat. :D :D So we "liberals" can win either way.
 

Texan

Well-known member
I think you might be finally coming to your senses, ff. I agree with you on three out of four of your points. :lol:

ff said:
Conservatives and the religious Right can't seem to take responsibility for anything. Cracks me up.
Of course you'll disagree, but I think we all know which group represents the greatest abject failure at accepting personal responsibility - the liberals 'win' that title hands down.

ff said:
Next thing you know, they'll be blaming the "Liberals" instead of the Republican Party for destroying the meaning of "Conservative" .
There's no question about this, either. Fake conservatives - RINO's - have spent money like drunken kennedys at whorehouse happy hours. :x

ff said:
Bill Clinton was elected president mostly because the Republican base deserted George HW Bush. And now the religious right is considering supporting a third party again. That will virtually insure another Clinton in the White House! At least a Democrat. Will that somehow be the Liberal's fault, too?
You're exactly right about this, ff. All of the people that wasted a vote on Ross Perot gave the Presidency to Clinton - twice. I would LOVE to see a third party candidate. Heck, I might even give money to one - as long as it's Nader or somebody liberal.

ff said:
Of course, there's not a big difference in Rudy and a Democrat. :D :D So we "liberals" can win either way.
No sht.... :(
 
Top