Why We Must Not Allow Progressives To Control The English Language

Let me take this opportunity to turn a smug Marxist aphorism on its head: language (and not religion) is the true opiate of the masses. It is for this reason that so many tyrannical regimes throughout history have cloaked their true despotic natures in the disarming nomenclature of enlightened, urbane, first-world, free societies.

Dystopian dictatorships habitually employ language that superficially calls to mind the benevolent governments of western civil society: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea, the People’s Republic of China, the (East) German Democratic Republic, and Democratic Kampuchea are but a few examples. Each of these states is or was a smoldering beacon of hell on earth. But by invoking universally desirable governmental attributes like “representation,” “democracy,” “populism,” and “republic” in the titles of their respective states, Machiavellian autocrats have mollified their gullible subjects through sheer power of suggestion. Red-pill men must learn from the mistakes of history; we must concertedly resist the slow-poison of SJW lingual manipulation.

Lexical trickery is not limited to tin-pot dictatorships. Quite the contrary, it is a tactic employed universally by the left. Progressives know that if they were to do intellectual battle with free-market, natural-rights conservatives on a level academic playing field, they’d be thoroughly humiliated—dominated by the cruel hand of unshackled reason. Thus, to borrow from Captain Jack Sparrow, that doesn’t give liberals much incentive to “fight fair,” does it? After all, “facts are stubborn things” that speak volumes if left unmolested by deceitful party lines. Since political leftism is wrong in both its presuppositions and conclusions, its recent palpable successes can only have followed on the heels of the left’s success in controlling our language and discourse.

American Progressives’ Campaign of Deception

Examples of the American left’s lingual tampering are legion. Brutally slaughtering and dismembering babies in utero is lauded as “women’s reproductive rights”; hordes of invading illegal aliens are now “undocumented workers”; the judicial redefinition of marriage to include deviant sodomitical unions is “marriage equality”; workplace and educational sex-based favoritism has become “women’s advancement”; disarming law-abiding citizens is now praised as “common sense gun regulation”; Muslims beheading people in the name of Allah is “workplace violence”; the most violent religion on earth is the “religion of peace”; anti-Christian bigotry masquerades as “the separation of Church and state”; morbidly obese land-cetacean women are heralded as “curvy”; indoctrinating 6-year-olds with homosexual and transsexual filth is simply an “anti-bullying campaign”; and government theft through unfairly staggered tax brackets is “having the rich pay their fair share.” We are living in Orwellian times.

To draw upon a few of the foregoing examples, it can be confidently stated that Planned Parenthood wouldn’t be long for this world if it had to admit that its business model revolves around child-assassination. Few people would balk about deporting immigrants if they understood them to be criminally present in the United States. If the left had to admit that homosexuals have always had the right to marry (a person of the opposite sex) no one would favor the capricious redefinition of a timeless institution.

Fat women wouldn’t shamelessly flaunt their nauseating, lumpy, cottage-cheese asses in skin-tight yoga pants if people had enough candor to admit that gelatinous rolls of amorphous lard are not aptly described as “curvy.” There would be a dearth of “gender dysphoric,” synthetic-hormone guzzling, mutilated 11-year-old freaks running around if we could only admit that it’s virtuous to be repulsed by hairy female-impersonating men wearing lipstick and gowns. Thus, for the left, these facts must be circumvented with mendacious euphemisms.

SJW Butchery of Pronoun Usage and Titles

A major front of the feminist war on English comes in the form of a push for “gender-neutral language.” We must resist this initiative at all costs, because it is an indispensable facilitator of the larger feminist agenda. One component of the gender-neutral language theater that is particularly deserving of our attention is the use of “inclusive” pronouns.

It is (and always has been) proper to use the masculine pronouns “he,” “him,” and “his” when referring to a generic person, or to a person of unknown sex (since English does not have a third-person singular gender-neutral pronoun). In precise writing and speaking, all gender-neutral alternatives to the masculine, third-person pronoun are “to be shunned” as they represent nothing short of the sheer torture of the English language (see Theodore M. Bernstein, “The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage” (New York: Atheneum, 1977), 351).

I observe too many lobotomized, neutered men bending over backwards to use unwieldy politically-correct phrases like “he or she,” “his or hers,” “s/he,” or the cringe-worthy “they” when speaking of a singular third person, to avoid seeming “chauvinistic” (gasp). By capitulating to the SJW bowdlerization of the English language, we implicitly concede that the feminist critique of “latent sexism” in the language is meritorious, whether we mean to convey assent or not.

What’s more, we need to eradicate gender-inclusive alternatives to job titles. Words have consequences. If we truly believe that the most fitting place for women is in the home, then our language should reflect a preference for men in outward societal roles, especially in certain professions.  I relish loudly referring to “firefighters” as firemen, “police officers” as policemen, “representatives” as congressmen, and “chairs” as chairmen.

Meanwhile, the aberrant cases where women feature in prominent leadership roles should be clearly demarcated, so that no one infers a false equivalency with men occupying similar stations. Hence, a female administrator should be referred to as “administratrix,” an executor should be called “executrix,” a governor should be “governess,” a comedian should be a “comedienne,” and a master should be a “mistress,” etc. There is a reason that after the women’s revolution of the 1960’s, pronouns and titles became a priority target for barren, crew-cutted hags: language serves as a reflection of a society’s values.

Conclusion: Resist Blue-Pill Grammar

Language matters. A lot. And progressives are highly cognizant of this. If men continue to cede control of the English language to scoldy, imperious SJWs; then we might as well just officially surrender western society to them, as a fait accompli.

We must fight tooth and nail to conserve the classical usage of our language. We must never budge an inch. It is easily observed that when naïve eunuchs make any type of “magnanimous” concession on even seemingly inconsequential issues to satiate the voracious appetites of SJWs, such a concession does not result in appeasement. Quite the contrary, weakness only hastens the decay of civil society, in that, after tasting initial success, feminist bloodlust is triggered. Let’s smite that bloodlust with a giant lingual tampon, starting right now.

Read More: Feminists Campaign To Remove The “Man” From Our Language