By Selwyn Duke

It has been said that the side that defines the vocabulary
of a debate wins the debate.  This idea was expressed in George Orwell’s
book 1984 with "Newspeak," which was the name given to the
language paradigm that the oppressive government portrayed in the book sought
to foist upon its people.  The purpose of Newspeak was as follows:

". . . not only to provide a medium of expression for
the world-view and mental habits . . . but to make all other modes of thought
impossible.  It was intended that when Newspeak was adopted once and for
all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought should be literally
unthinkable."

Orwell knew whereof he spoke.  The fact of the matter
is that the words we use can influence our thinking and set the boundaries of
it.  After all, while thought can take the form of imagery, more often
than not we think using words.  Any experienced pollster understands these
principles and knows that he can shape his poll results by shaping the language
of the questions.  You can ask the same poll question in two different
ways and achieve vastly different outcomes.  For instance, ask people,
"Should a woman have the right to choose to have an abortion?" and
you tend to get one result; ask them, "Should a woman be allowed to kill
her unborn baby?" and you get another.

Yes, language has the power to divide like in the Tower of
Babel, to unite like in the polyglot nations that have adopted English as their
national language, and to manipulate thought and shape public debates, which
can change culture.  I’ll illustrate this phenomenon with a somewhat
fanciful example: Imagine that there is a French culture and a German culture
vying for primacy in a certain geographical area.  The members of both
groups are locked in a cultural war to determine whose way of life will
dominate.  Now, imagine what would happen if the French could convince all
of the Germans to speak French; what do you then think the Germans’ chances
would be of achieving cultural hegemony or even maintaining parity?  They
would have lost three-quarters of the battle before it had even begun.

Of course, in the above situation the cultural divide would
be obvious, making the cultural battle just as much so and this would make it
unlikely that either side would relinquish its language and embrace the tongue
of the other.  It would be plain that such a surrender would be cultural
suicide.

But what about when the cultural divide is just as wide but
not as apparent and the language differences appear as easily-learned
innovation and not as a foreign tongue?  The cultural war might then be
just as real but not as recognized, and one side might very well be able to
successfully inure its adversaries to language changes that serve its ends.

Such is the case in the America of the third millennium,
only, the real battle lines are not drawn between certain disparate racial and
ethnic groups that populate her.  Rather, our culture war is between two
general, multiracial groups that embrace world views that are as opposite as
night and day, and the most profound color difference between them is that one
sees right and wrong as black and white whereas the other sees only shades of
gray.  And while I am calling it a culture war, it is a struggle that is
waged in the political and spiritual realms as well.  You could call it a
battle between the right and left, liberals and conservatives or traditional
Christians and militant secularists.  But whatever you term it – and I
shall use the second characterization – the liberals have been defining the
terms of the debate.  I’ll delve into this by examining elements of what I
have called the lexicon of the left but in this piece will term Leftspeak, and
explaining why I think they were originated and what the real effects they have
on society are.

Underprivileged or Disadvantaged Instead of
Poor

Most all of us have grown up hearing these terms so they
tend to not sound strange to our ears, but using these five and four syllable
words when you mean to say "poor" is as bizarre as saying
"vertically challenged" when you mean short.  And think about
what each term implies: When you say that someone is poor you are simply
describing the person’s financial situation without any implied judgment about
responsibility for it.  Underprivileged and disadvantaged carry a very
different connotation, however.  After all, the word privilege means a
special right, benefit or advantage that is granted.
"Advantage" (transitive verb) means to give an advantage to; to
further; to promote; to benefit; to profit.  Therefore, when you call
someone underprivileged or disadvantaged, you are implying that he has not been
granted, by some entity (presumably, the government), the benefits that are his
birthright  that’s why he’s under (not as much as he should
be)-privileged, or dis (not)-advantaged.  Moreover, it further
implies that if some people are underprivileged or disadvantaged, others must
be privileged or advantaged or, dare I say, over-privileged or
over-advantaged.  This, of course, would imply that they were granted too
many benefits.  It then follows that the grantors (again, presumably the
government) have the right to take the necessary remedial action and
redistribute wealth until everyone is "equally-privileged" or
"equally-advantaged."

In a nutshell, the word poor doesn’t tell us why the person
it is attached to is in that state or what needs to happen for him to ascend
out of it.  Why, maybe he just needs to apply himself better, put his nose
to the grindstone and pull himself up by the bootstraps.  Underprivileged
or disadvantaged, however, tells us in a very subtle way that the problem is
not of his own design; he’s simply been denied his piece of the pie by the
mythical dispensers of wealth, who either reside in government or are the rich
themselves.  You can call these the Karl Marx language-reforms.

Gender Instead of Sex

In my view this is the piece de resistance of
Leftspeak.  I say this because it is the result of a change that has truly
been made off the radar screen, making it a real coup for the language engineers.
And the proof of this is that you probably have not even an inkling of what I’m
talking about. 

While we regularly use the word gender to refer to a
person’s sex now, it was never used to refer to people until recently; it only
referred to words.  Just consider the following definition, culled from my
1975 edition, American Heritage School
Dictionary:

"n. In grammar, one of a number of categories, such as
masculine, feminine, and neuter, into which words are divided." 

It says absolutely nothing about usage that has to do with
the sex of individuals.  Now, I realize that some may think that the word
has gained favor simply because "sex" is used so often today to refer
to copulation, but that is not the reason.

I believe that the impetus behind the current usage of the
word gender is the desire to legitimize homosexuality.  You see, if you
want to normalize something, it helps if you can lump it in with that which is
seen as normal.  So how do you place homosexuality in the same category as
heterosexuality?  Well, you can’t very easily label homosexuals a third
sex because the idea that there are only two sexes is cemented in people’s
minds.  And, anyway, people would resist the notion that a person’s sex
could be determined by his sexual inclination.  But gender is the perfect
word, for people had no preconceived notions about what it meant with regard to
persons and it involves more than just two categories; again, "one of a
number of categories . . . such as masculine, feminine, and neuter . . .
"

Lest you think I’m crazy, consider the way in which the
organizers of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 sought to
define the word family.  What they initially said was that a family could
comprise up to five genders: Male heterosexual, female heterosexual, homosexual,
lesbian and bisexual.  The only reason why this definition wasn’t included
in the final draft was that the Vatican fought for its removal.  Of
course, it really isn’t necessary to look back at past events to vindicate my
thesis.  Just consider what many of those in the vanguard of the
transgender movement say: They tell us that a person’s gender can be whatever
his heart desires.

   What this all boils down to is that those of us
who consider ourselves to be garden variety males or females and who are normal
(yes, there is such thing as normal), are increasingly lumped into the same
category as transsexuals, cross-dressers, transvestites, consciously
androgynous people and drag kings and queens, all under the catchall heading
"Gender."  You can call this the homosexual agender language
reforms.

Tolerance

I must confess that this one would have escaped my notice
were it not for the brilliant insights of former Archbishop of New York Fulton
J. Sheen.  Tolerance has become one of the buzzwords of modern America;
we’re told that we should be tolerant of others and their lifestyles.  But
Sheen astutely pointed out that tolerance is not supposed to be used to refer
to people and that it is only to be used in relation to evil or
negatives.  For instance, you may tolerate pain but you never tolerate a
great dinner – you relish it.  You don’t tolerate great weather, only
terrible weather.  You don’t tolerate a beautiful car, a superb work of
art, fine clothing or a dream vacation – you like or love those things.
For this reason we are not to tolerate people because people are not to be
regarded as evil.  Oh, we may have to tolerate their opinions, for they
very well could be evil.  But to have the perspective that people are to
be tolerated would be wrong because we are called to do far better – we are
called to love people.

This means that the new usage of the word tolerance is the
same as that of the word gender insofar as they both involve the taking of a
word that had only been used to refer to things and expanding its definition to
include persons.  In this case, it has a dual effect in that it can numb
one to both the dignity man and the wickedness of evil, as it elevates the
latter at the expense of the former.  It does this by placing the sin and
the sinner in the same category; on the one hand by transmitting the idea that
a person can be a negative that may have to be tolerated, and on the other by
sending the partially contradictory message that tolerance is not to be
regarded as something that must be practiced when confronted with an
unavoidable evil or cross to bear, but a virtue that should be practiced
because there is no evil – just things we find displeasing.  Therefore,
it’s no longer "Condemn the sin but love the sinner."  It’s
"There are no sinners or sins, only individuals and acts that occupy that
gray area of personal taste.  And you have not been enjoined to love or
hate either, only to tolerate irritants, be they actions or the organic robots
that commit them."  This is wrong, because to place immoral acts and
human beings in the same category sanitizes the former and objectifies the
latter.

Gay Marriage and Heterosexual Marriage

Just recently I heard a very prominent social commentator
open his show with his very famous monologue segment.  The topic was the
affording of homosexuals the benefits of married people, but what captured my
attention was the man’s use of the following term, "Heterosexual
marriage."  Now, this particular individual is not a proponent of the
dumbing-down of the institution of marriage, yet, unwittingly, he aided and
abetted those he was trying to combat with his embrace of Leftspeak.

The problem is that the term marriage has been understood to
mean the union between a man and a woman ever since the word came into usage in
the English language.  Therefore, if it’s homosexual, it ain’t
marriage.  The term homosexual-marriage is an oxymoron and the phrase
heterosexual marriage is a redundancy.  And the danger of embracing the
phrase heterosexual marriage is that implicit in it is the idea that there’s a
viable alternative to it – homosexual marriage – the use of which explicitly
relates the same idea. 

Not surprisingly, the social-engineers are using the same
strategy to legitimize homosexual unions that they use to legitimize homosexual
behavior itself.  They are lumping it in with that which is normal as they
tell us that it is just another type of that very normal, healthy thing we call
marriage.

I would be remiss if I didn’t address one more, far older,
element of Leftspeak that is present in this section’s subtitle.  The term
gay used to only mean happy until the language engineers co-opted and
transformed it into what is a verbal Trojan horse, a euphemism.  And they
did this for the same reason why the explorer Erik "the Red" called
the icy wilderness he discovered Greenland – it’s called clever marketing.

Inclusive Language

It could be the sickeningly ubiquitous tendency to use
"he or she" or "his or her" instead of the masculine
pronoun when speaking generically, or replacing that dreaded word man with
"person."  For instance, I heard that at my nephew’s school they
called Frosty and the rest of his race "snowpeople."  What’s
interesting about this movement toward gender (the correct usage of that word,
I hasten to point out) neutrality is that while the language-engineers studiously
endeavor to demasculinize the language, they don’t seem to care much about
defeminizing it.  They hardly ever complain about the language norm that
dictates that we refer to things such as ships, nations, flags and institutions
as "she," for example.  Not that I have any problem with that,
but I do take issue with the language engineers double standards.  So I
can assure you that you will not see the very traditional fingers of yours
truly type out inclusive language in any way, shape or form.  And should
anyone who cannot be persuaded to join me in resurrecting tradition complain
that I am trying to turn back the clock, I will reply: To each his own.

There are, however, at least two areas in which the language
engineers deviate from their pattern with respect to gender.  For, while
it has often been suggested that maybe God is a she (I realize that this issue
goes beyond the grammatical and into the theological), the same is never
suggested about the Devil. And then there is the relatively new practice of
assigning male names to tropical storms and hurricanes, which had always been
thought of as female in character.  This is ironic, too, since the closet
thing I can think of to a walking, talking hurricane is a militant feminist.

African-American Instead of Black

Many terms have been used to refer to black people; some
were meant to be pejorative or came to be seen as so and some weren’t.
But one thing they all shared was that they referred only to racial
characteristics, not geographical area of origin.  If you’re a black
American you’re an American with dark skin and if you’re a white American
you’re an American with light skin, but in either case the label attached to
you indicates that you are of the American nation and culture.  The term
African-American is very different.  It partially shifts the focus away
from the land in which we live and toward a different part of the world.
This is destructive and divisive because black Americans already feel alienated
from their nation, and this new label can only exacerbate this problem.

I also should point out that the phrase African-American is
also very imprecise when read literally.  If I’m a Boer Afrikaner or an
Arab North African who has immigrated to our nation and has been naturalized,
am I an "African-American"?  Strange, too, because you would
think that adding a hyphen, a word and six syllables to a group’s description
should make it more accurate, not less.

Of course, this is really just the most egregious example of
a wider problem in that most all of us are hyphenating ourselves nowadays; we
may say we’re Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, etc.  But think about
it: If we don’t think of ourselves first and foremost as being American, it’s
unlikely that on an emotional level we will want to take great pains to protect
American traditions and institutions.  I, for one, am American.  I
have a certain heritage, for sure, but your nationality is determined by the
nation of which you are a citizen.  So if I’m asked the question,
"What are you?" there are many conceivable answers.  I could say
that I’m a writer, a man, a child of God or something else.  But if the
intent of the question is to inquire about my nationality, the fact of the
matter dictates that there is only one correct answer: I’m American.

What preceded certainly didn’t include every
example of Leftspeak conjured up by the Machiavellian language-engineers.
But developing a nose for it isn’t difficult once you come to understand the
principles that govern the manipulation of thought with words and that
political correctness is perhaps the most influential social force of our
time.  For one thing, in this day and age, a language change should be
considered guilty until proven innocent.  And you always have to be
suspicious when people seek to replace a simple, one-syllable word with a
complex multi-syllable one, as is the case with poor and underprivileged.

It’s also not hard to understand the appeal of such
language.  Aside from the social pressure brought to bear against those
who don’t conform to Leftspeak, its words are alluring because they often give
one an air of erudition, exactitude and sensitivity.  Any second grader
can use the word poor, but say "disadvantaged" and maybe you’ll sound
just a little more intelligent, is the seductive siren song of the
Leftspeakers.  "He or she" makes it sound as if you’re crossing
every T and dotting every I and aren’t forgetting anyone.  But as far as
sensitivity and exactitude go, only strive to be sensitive to the Truth and
exact with the powers of reason that can help you discern it.  And there
are over one million words in the English language, many of which don’t see the
light of day too often and will send readers scurrying for dictionaries.
So there’s no need to embrace a lexicon invented by banal malcontents if you
want to sound intelligent, or, some would say, pompous.  And you can trust
me on this, because I specialize in it.

Now, I realize that many would say that this is nothing but
a tempest in a teapot. "Duke, get a life; this isn’t the first time
language has changed and it won’t be the last."  Without a doubt,
language does change.  After all, we certainly aren’t speaking the early
modern English of Shakespeare fame.  But the question is, when it changes
why does it change?  Is the change part of the natural course of
events?  Or is it the result of a concerted effort to facilitate
social-engineering?  For there’s a big difference between dispensing with
"thee" in favor of "you" and an attempt to change
"chairman" to "chairperson." 

Lastly, if you still think that this is much ado about
nothing, then consider the fact that the language-engineers disagree with you
wholeheartedly.  They know that the pen is mightier than the sword and
that language is a powerful tool for effecting social change, and this is why
they work feverishly to manipulate it.  They’re tickled pink when others
don’t see it that way, though.  After all, this allows them to implement
their schemes out of the light of day and foist them on the unsuspecting man on
the street, who they regard to be a dolt in need of their divine
guidance.  Moreover, they know that brainwashing is only effective when
its targets don’t know it’s occurring.

Now, if you’re wondering who these creators of Leftspeak
are, I can assure you they are not mythical creatures who are simply the
product of over-active imaginations.  No, they are the very real
pseudo-intellectual academics who ply the halls of esteemed educational
institutions from sea to shining sea.  For it is in such places that
college professors, who prove the old adage that an idle mind is the playground
of the Devil, originate new words and seek to reshape language.  They are
often emboldened by a hubris born of a God complex and motivated by a desire to
be creative, but lack the one central ingredient of valid creativity: Truth.
But they have friends and enablers in high places, such as their philosophical
soulmates in the media who revere them as an oracle of wisdom and will
disseminate their fool’s gold far and wide.  And this is how it comes to
us.

This is why I can only shake my head when I hear those who
are dedicated to fighting everything such people stand for using
Leftspeak.  They often rail passionately against the left and its efforts
to destroy what they hold dear with the most eloquent of words, but many of
those words were put in their mouths by those bent on their defeat.  It’s
much like using a computer program designed to prevent those who would destroy
your system from hacking into it, without realizing that those very miscreants
have written part of the program and have inserted viruses that ensure their
ultimate victory and your total loss.  Our side lost three-quarters of the
battle before it had even begun.

Of course, though, these viruses are very easy to
quarantine.  If most of us simply left Leftspeak to those on the left,
they would be left in the dust.  There is absolutely no reason under the
sun why we should allow social engineers on college campuses to define the
vocabulary of the debates.  For too long these ne’er do wells have been grand
puppeteers, pulling strings and, through subtle manipulation, bending society
to their will, as they have told us how to act and talk and think.  When
you realize this, it’s a type of awakening.  I, for one, will not march to
the beat of their drummer.  Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. And you don’t
have to either.  So watch your mouth.  For you may find that those
who are most successful at enslaving you don’t beat you over the head with a
club, but with a dictionary.  Because they know that the real war is waged
in the heart and mind and soul of man, and that well-crafted linguistic sleights
can win more territory on those battlefields than a thousand conquering hordes.

                                                Protected by Copyright