EssaysGuest opinion

Words and Consequences

by Alpin MacLaren

IN GEORGE ORWELL’S BOOK 1984, he spent a good deal of time discussing language in the appendix at the back of the book. He pointed out that language strongly impacts how we think. By changing language, Big Brother’s INGSOC government directly controlled the minds of its citizens. It became increasingly difficult to even express ideas that were not in agreement with the party line.

If you pay attention you can see this going on around you today, and the ones in charge are not shy about what they are doing either. If you do not use the allowed words, but instead use the disallowed words, you can be disciplined, fired, or even prosecuted. You will comply, or you will suffer the consequences.

Let’s take a look at a few examples.

The Word “Gender”

This word originally was a grammatical construct, often completely arbitrary, used to assign one of the two categories masculine and feminine, to various words, including, but not limited to, pronouns. In many languages gender is assigned to inanimate objects, like pens and mountains. It is only a construct, and gender is assigned, not inherent.

The word sex is unambiguous. Prior to the enforced Newspeak change, in job applications, medical forms, and anything that was used to define and describe you, the word sex was used, not gender. You were never asked for your gender, only your sex. Why? Because you are born with sex, not gender. Sex is clearly defined. You either have male genitalia, or you have female genitalia. You either have one Y chromosome and one X chromosome, or you have two X chromosomes. This is all black and white, clearly defined with no room for quibbling. You are born with a sex; you are not “assigned” a sex. You do not “identify” as a sex: You have it, right from conception.

So, why the change, and when did it happen? If you will look at this Google Ngram graph , you will see when it happened.

Prior to 1980, almost no one used the word gender to describe your sex. You were either of the male sex, or the female sex, and that was that. But then, the Newspeak agitators trotted out the word “gender.” For example, there were “gender studies” in colleges, which were really women’s studies for feminists. Bit by bit, the word gender crept into places where it had no business being. Suddenly, you no longer had a sex, but you had a gender.

At first this was just incorrect English. I remember in the 1990s scratching my head trying to understand why these people were intentionally misusing the word. But today you see the destructive method in their madness. They intended to unleash a wave of chaos upon us all. They set us up at the end of last century for the mess you find yourself in today. Today there are dozens of “genders” and you are supposed to bow down to them all, as if they were real. This would not be possible without the transition from the scientifically unambiguous term sex to the completely arbitrary and evermore ambiguous term gender.

Newspeak matters. Words matter. They will limit what you can think and how you can think. If you use the word gender when you mean sex, you are part of the problem. All the talking heads on TV are part of the problem, of course. All the politicians are part of the problem. Teachers in school are part of this problem. In forty years the change has been so complete that today you must follow the Newspeak changes, or you will suffer real consequences. Big Brother is quite unforgiving.

The Word “Gay”

When I was born, and throughout my school years, “gay” meant “Happy, joyful, lively, festive, bright, or colourful.” Today, thanks to the Newspeak agitators, the original meanings of the word are described by the dictionary as being “Dated; possibly archaic.”

As you can see from the following Google Ngram graph, the Newspeak change to the misuse of the word “gay” came along about a decade after the misuse of the word “gender.”

This insulting switch was immediately apparent to anyone who was paying attention. Suddenly Christmas carols that talked about “donning gay apparel” sounded perverse. All of the old books and movies, wherein characters where happily talking about how joyous they were feeling by describing themselves as gay, were perceived as smeared by the homosexual brush. That which had been good, something to be aspired to, started to sound disgusting to those who lived through the word’s transition in meaning. And a group with an incredibly high suicide rate was instantly labeled as being happy and joyous. And those who were actually happy and joyous suddenly sounded like homosexuals to many when the word was being used with the old meaning intended.

A whole generation has grown up without even knowing that this was done to the language. The word “gay” has forever been polluted by Newspeak.

Pronouns

This Newspeak change came in two parts. The first part was the near-complete destruction of English grammar in order to keep the Cultural Marxists happy. Suddenly, the standard rule for pronouns was cast away and a significant derailment of grammar was the result.

A pronoun is, by definition, a word that replaces and refers to a noun. “A man goes to the store, and he buys a hammer.” In that sentence, the noun “man” is replaced by the pronoun “he.” The grammar rule that covers this is that the pronoun must match the antecedent in number. (If possible it must also match in gender, which is why the word gender actually exists. This is grammar, not biology.)

If the noun is neutral, as with an inanimate object, the pronoun will usually have a neuter gender, e.g. “it.” If the antecedent of the singular noun is a person, but the sex is unknown, the pronoun usually defaults to the masculine, while retaining the proper number: “he,” “him,” etc. [In cases where the writer wants to stress the inclusion of both sexes, he could say “he or she,” “his or hers,” etc., and that is also grammatically correct.]

This was the way English was taught before the Cultural Marxist takeover in the second half of the twentieth century. However, today, all our standards are thrown out in any case where keeping them might offend the parasites or impede their agenda: One must always assume, for example, that males are evil, especially White males.

Today, you will hear college professors, and teachers of all stripes, completely destroy the English language without batting an eye. If you take a writing course, you will hear something like this:

When your character takes their keys and gets into their car and drives away, they will have emotions that you need to describe.

These are people whose profession is to teach you how to use words. But they get it all wrong. This is how that sentence should have been constructed:

When your character takes his keys and gets into his car and drives away, he will have emotions that you need to describe.

If you know the sex of the character is female, so you are talking about a woman specifically, it should read:

When your character takes her keys and gets into her car and drives away, she will have emotions that you need to describe.

These are people who are supposedly teaching you how to use English. It is like a dental expert teaching you to pull teeth using a sledgehammer, because a certain powerful group prefers it that way.

This is everywhere today; in the media, in the schools, and wherever language is used. It is another change that was forced upon society to keep its citizens mentally in line. Forget history, forget grammar — and stay with the herd, comrade.

Today there is a part two to this wrecking ball the Newspeak crowd has unleashed. Now there are “preferred pronouns,” that are made up on the fly by dainty little fools who tap dance around reality in hopes of making their fantasies come true. If you haven’t figured this one out on your own, there is no point in talking about it.

The Word “Normal”

A few years ago I put up a YouTube video that was demonetized because I used the word “normal” in the video’s title. Today the Newspeak police don’t want there to be anything that can be considered “normal.” Why is that? It is clear that normal is the societal standard that is expected. Before the 1960s Cultural Marxist revolt, it was normal to be White. About 90% of the American population was White and that was normal. The other 10% tended to live in their own areas of town and I remember that I could go through many days, even weeks or months, and never see a Black face. The history books in school used the phrase, “The first White man to…” as a phrase to indicate the first American to discover something, see something, or do something. White was American, and non-White was not American. In school. In history books. This was America in the 1950s. Math problems, if they used names at all, always used American names, White names.

TV shows in the 1950s were the same. Going to town was the same.

Another bit of normal was when you went to a doctor, or a lawyer, etc., you went to see a man, not a woman. Women, normal women, were at home raising the three or more children to whom they had given birth, and which normally were fathered by their husbands. Normal families were made up of a working man, his stay-at-home wife, and their children. Advertisements of the era showed this normal arrangement constantly. Highway billboards promoting vacation spots, cars, camping trailers, and outside barbecues all showed a husband and his wife and their children, all having a great time together. This was considered normal.

But today none of that is considered normal. In fact there is no normal at all in our society, because our society is being dismantled each day, by removing more and more of the structure which was used to build it in the first place. When our civilization collapses, these Newspeak agitators will be ready to swoop in and set up something like Orwell’s INGSOC in its place.

Suddenly the idiots who have been playing along with the anti-normal crowd will find that they no longer have the right to do anything. They will only have the obligation to do what the System tells them to do. This is what our enemies have in mind for you.

Sadly, at this point, after living in this society for over seventy years, I don’t think any political figure will do what it takes to take down these anti-White neo-Marxists. For over sixty years they have moved nearly unchecked as they strove for their goals, and they have checked off nearly every box they originally had on their list — and have attained a lot of additional items they thought up along the way.

You will never vote your way out of this, because all politicians, of every party, are going to stab you in the back in the end. None of them can do anything against the ones in charge. If a man wants to thrive in politics, he must follow the party line. If he crosses the line, he will be crushed.

Some people think that Donald Trump is different. But is he? Did he ever do one thing that was specifically intended to help the majority race in America? Did you ever even hear him claim to have done so? Of course not. That action, or even making that claim, would have pulled him down immediately. White people have flocked to him, not because he is pro-White, but simply because he is not as openly anti-White as his competitors.

White people today have been so beaten down that many can’t even conceive of a world like the one that existed in the middle of the twentieth century. Most of these honestly think that the White America that existed back then was “evil,” “racist,” “sexist,” and “homophobic.” Words. Always words, and labels. They control how you think. Believe it, because your enemies certainly do.

* * *

Source: I Love White Folks

Previous post

Holocaust Insights 8: False Witness Bruno Doessekker

Next post

Gaining Understanding: An Interview with Will Williams

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Inline Feedback
View all comments
William W Williams * National Alliance Chairman
William W Williams * National Alliance Chairman
22 June, 2024 9:20 am

A good example of the lemming factor: You will never vote your way out of this, because all politicians, of every party, are going to stab you in the back in the end. None of them can do anything against the ones in charge. If a man wants to thrive in politics, he must follow the party line. If he crosses the line, he will be crushed.Some people think that Donald Trump is different. But is he? Did he ever do one thing that was specifically intended to help the majority race in America? Did you ever even hear him claim to have done so? Of course not. That action, or even making that claim, would have pulled him down immediately. White people have flocked to him, not because he is pro-White,… Read more »

Flier_thumb_Incredibly_Stupid-300x3951
Natman Whyt
Natman Whyt
Reply to  William W Williams * National Alliance Chairman
22 June, 2024 2:04 pm

made a bigger version. easier to read:

NA-No-Voting
William W Williams * National Alliance Chairman
William W Williams * National Alliance Chairman
Reply to  Natman Whyt
22 June, 2024 6:35 pm

Thanks, Nat. Looks to be the same size until you click on it.