Perhaps we could pay tribute to the US Supreme Court’s courageous decision to remove an entitlement to wholesale abortion that should never have been allowed by discarding the dishonest term ‘reproductive health’ from our everyday speech. Leftists invented it to mean what plain speakers call abortion or foeticide.
While we’re at it, we could clear out a whole lot of other linguistic lies and prevarications the Left tries to make us use. Language is the vehicle of thought and if we unresistingly accept leftist distortions of words we end up thinking like leftists.
How many of us now say ‘gender’ when we mean ‘sex’? But ‘gender’ has become a leftist trap word. By using it we are tacitly or unwittingly assenting to the leftist notion that an artificial sexual identity called gender exists in the mind, ‘constructed’ for us by either ourselves or some arcane social force, and which may or may not align with the sex of our birth.
Avoid accommodating leftists by using their terminology. Never say ‘woman’ of someone who isn’t one. Don’t fall for expostulations like, ‘of course I’m not a sexist’. If you do, you have already conceded ground by recognising a leftist concept as legitimate. ‘Sexism’ only exists in the imaginations of feminists, who invented the term to discredit opposition to their spurious campaign against that other mythological entity, ‘patriarchy’. To this end they turned ‘lady’, ‘gentleman’ and anything ending in ‘-man’ into ‘boo words’. Let’s ignore that and use these words when we can.
Leftists have mounted a linguistic attack on the family. Resist this and say ‘father’, ‘mother’, ‘husband’, ‘wife’. Revive the use of ‘Christian name’ whenever appropriate.
(By the way, the latest boo word, not just among leftists in this case, is ‘Putin’. Putin is what you blame when anything that is the responsibility of government, like keeping the lights on, or controlling inflation, goes wrong. President Biden is adept at this.)
‘Racism’ and ‘racist’, were adopted to demonise anyone not wholly on board with the leftists’ BLM-mandated goal of white subordination. You can defy this bullying by being as ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ as you like, since sensible people accept racial and sexual differences as part of human nature. All humans have an affinity for their own kind, for people who speak the same language and share their beliefs. That doesn’t mean, which leftists try to twist it to mean, that they regard everyone else as inferior.
‘Racist’ has a particular application in Australia, where indigenous activists apply it to ordinary Australians doubtful of the wisdom of going down the path once followed by South Africa and dividing our national legislature racially. Imagine the screams of rage from proponents of the ‘Voice’ if a separate voice were suggested for Irish Australians, or Australians of Indian origin or any other racial group.
It’s best to avoid debate with leftists on subjects which have no existence outside their chimeric world. Sane people should treat statements such as ‘Australia is a racist country’ as the Logical Positivists treated metaphysics, as not wrong or right but as utterly without meaning.
Leftists have long, to use one of their favourite terms, ‘colonised’ many words, misusing them to mean the opposite of what they really mean. Mao Zedong’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ was not the dawn of prosperity for millions but a mass push backwards into a communal grave. The various ‘liberations’ wrought by Stalin, Castro and others have invariably meant enslavement. ‘People’s’ means ‘relating to the oligarchy that rules the people’. In this sense it wouldn’t be out of place in contemporary Canberra. Albanese and co. would be in good socialist company if they described themselves as the ‘people’s government’, given that two-thirds of the ‘people’ didn’t vote for them. And if anti-monarchist obsessives ever manage to foist their shoddy republic on us, they could go the whole hog and call it a ‘people’s republic’ like the Beijing regime so uncritically admired by Labor luminaries such as Richard Marles.
‘Democratic’ in national names invariably means undemocratic. Arbeit macht frei over the gates of Hitler’s concentration camps didn’t mean that ‘work sets you free’. It meant, as Dante wrote, ‘All hope abandon ye who enter here.’
When leftists say ‘comedy’ as in comedy festival it means utterly unfunny, and if the event is funded by the taxpayer or (which is the same thing) produced by the ABC, coarse, scatological and blasphemous as well. ‘Your ABC’ is probably the concisest lie ever told. Only the ABC’s ‘friends’ are fool enough to believe it; the rest of us know the ABC is ‘ours’ only insofar as we have no choice but to pay the prodigious sums wasted producing its unique mixture of propaganda and incompetence.
‘Your ABC’ holds a place in another category, that of words used untruthfully, such as that ominous phrase creeping through public discourse, ‘the Great Reset’. This, invented by that sinister pair of James Bond-villain lookalikes Klaus Schwab and George Soros, is meant to sound like a wonderful fresh start for humanity but really means a plot to impose ‘global governance’ by unelected authoritarians such as themselves, intent on filching what’s left of our freedom.
Leaving the mentally sick to shiver and starve in the street is described as ‘community care’. Responsibility-shirking governments have encouraged this lie.
Near me in Melbourne is a wide expanse of green sward with a lake and a golf course. ‘Welcome to Albert Park’ reads a sign. That’s meaningless as well as being based on an untrue premise. Albert Park is publicly owned so who is doing the welcoming? Ourselves? Or is that a giveaway revealing that the ‘public service’ confuses stewardship with proprietorship?
‘The climate’ is a leftist fantasy-land bearing little or no relation semantically to the weather. Antarctic depths of cold in normally temperate seasons, leftists still say the planet is ‘warming’. In the 1970s they were predicting a new ice age. Perhaps they will again if global warming really sets in, such is their perversity with words.
Even the humble pronoun has been pressed into service in the language wars. Leftists have always hated third-person singular male pronouns used generically and confusingly replace them with ‘they’, ‘their’ or ‘them’, as in ‘a fool and their money are soon parted’. In such contexts it is clearer to continue the traditional use of ‘he’ or ‘his’ unless the subject is female. And as for all those ‘gender-diverse’ individuals who want to be pronominally referred to as ‘they’ and wail that they are not respected if ‘misgendered’, take no notice. It is far better to respect the integrity of the English language.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10