CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

The Tolerance Brigade Lexicon

Aug 6, 2012

Orwellian DoubleSpeak is alive and well, and it is pouring forth from the radical militants and social utopians who are working madly to destroy society as we know it and to replace it with something made in their own distorted image. They delight in manipulating language, changing definitions, and using euphemisms to carry out their agendas.

There is a good reason for all this: they know full well that social engineering is always preceded by verbal engineering. To change a culture you must first change the language. Take longstanding terms, gut them of their traditional meaning, and infuse them with the particular agenda you are trying to push.

It works quite well. In theological circles for example this has proven to be a winning strategy. The theological liberals will take biblical and theological terms and strip them of their historical content, and replace them with their own twisted meaning.

As J Gresham Machen wrote in his 1923 classic, Christianity and Liberalism, they have so diluted and distorted biblical terminology that the message they preach is an entirely different gospel. Indeed, it is no longer Christianity at all: “Despite the liberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is a different religion from Christianity but belongs in a totally different class of religions.”

[amazonshowcase_04ff59c7ac5a77bf77aa11c3f99f41e1]

So too in today’s culture wars. The lefties and liberals are simply changing language, and making things up as they go along. We all know how the homosexual lobby for example expropriated the word “gay” and totally denuded it of its original meaning, rendering it null and void.

They are doing that with all sorts of other words and ideas. Their attempt to claim marriage as their own is nothing other than the complete demolition of the very term and the very institution. They turn traditional understanding on their head as they seek to achieve their revolutionary aims.

Indeed, they have become experts in calling black white, and white black. They excel in turning day into night and night into day. They do, in fact, just what the prophet Isaiah warned about millennia ago; “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

In this regard, one on-side gal on a social media site posted a clever little introductory primer on how to interpret the activists’ doublespeak. It is a great start and much more could be added to this, the loony left’s lexicon. Here is what she wrote:

-Tolerance = Embracing everyone’s views except Christianity
-Free speech = The expression of any opinion as long as it is not Christian.
-Bigot = A Christian.
-Bigotry = Any belief from the Bible.
-Homophobe = Anyone who champions traditional marriage. Especially a Christian.
-Hate = Opposing non-biblical opinions and actions. Even when done in love is still hate. Apparently.
-Civil rights = Getting whatever feels good legalised despite moral repercussions.

Quite right; a brilliant start to a great project worth developing on. BTW, she told me this came to her while she was vacuuming the floors. Ya gotta like a gal like this: she packs a sharp mind with a clean home – a great combo in my books.

Other folks have written along similar lines. John Hawkins recently wrote about “10 Concepts Liberals Talk About Incessantly But Don’t Understand”. He too dissects the verbal engineering and language games being played by the secular lefties. Let me offer some of his ten points:

1) Being Open Minded: To a liberal, this has nothing at all to do with seriously considering other people’s ideas. To the contrary, liberals define being “open-minded” as agreeing with them. What could be more close-minded than assuming that not only are you right, but that you don’t even need to consider another viewpoint because anyone who disagrees must be evil?

2) Racism: Liberals start with the presumption that only white people who don’t belong to the Democratic Party can be racist. So, for example, even if Jeremiah Wright can make it clear that he hates white people because of their skin color or if liberals take an explicitly racist political position, like suggesting that black people are too stupid and incompetent to get identification to vote, they can’t be racist. White Republicans, on the other hand, are generally assumed to be racist by default, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

4) Greed: To a liberal, believing that you pay too much in taxes or even opposing paying more in taxes is greedy. In actuality, wanting to loot as much money as possible that someone else has earned to use for your own purposes, which is what liberals do, is a much better example of greed.

5) Hate: Liberals often define simple disagreement with them on issues like gay marriage, tax rates, or abortion as hatred. No matter how well a position is explained, or the logical underpinnings behind it, it’s chalked up to hate. Meanwhile, the angriest, most vicious, most hateful people in all of politics are liberals railing against what they say is “hatred.” This irony is completely lost on the Left.

9) Tolerance: In a free, open, and pluralistic society, there are all sorts of behaviors that we may have to tolerate, even though we don’t approve of those activities. Liberals don’t get this distinction. For one thing, they don’t understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance. They also don’t extend any of the tolerance they’re agitating for to people who disagree with them. Liberals silence people who disagree with them at every opportunity which is, dare we say it, an extremely intolerant way to behave.

10) Diversity: What liberals mean by “diversity” is that they want a broad range of people from different races, colors, and creeds who have identical political views. A black or Hispanic conservative doesn’t contribute to “diversity” in liberal eyes because he actually has diverse views. Incredible role models for women like Sarah Palin can’t be feminists to liberals because she doesn’t share the same liberal beliefs as sexist pigs like Anthony Weiner and Bill Maher. How can you have any meaningful “diversity” when everyone has to think the same way?

Someone could make a lot of money writing the first lefty lexicon. There would be plenty of terms and concepts to fill such a book. I have offered a few examples here. Feel free to add your own. The sky is the limit when it comes to the activists and their mangling of language and deconstruction of ideas.

townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/07/31/10_concepts_liberals_talk_about_incessantly_but_dont_understand

[1094 words]

12 Responses to The Tolerance Brigade Lexicon

  • I remember that Bishop Spong was not considered racist when he virtually said that African Christian leaders opposed homosexual practices because they are too simple to understand any better. He wasn’t racist because he is also (by his own admission) an atheist, a theological liberal of liberals, and therefore a thoroughly good man. A man like that can’t be racist no matter how racist his remarks.

    It’s certainly true that those who howl most about racism, sexism, discrimination and homophobia are often among the most bigoted people around.

    David Morrison

  • Words in Passing

    We were not ready.
    We were distracted.
    Exhausted.
    Battle had taken its toll
    But the Family survived.
    The children played.

    Malevolent Smile.
    She was Ready.
    Definite. Ordered.
    The Blue Pencil, poised.
    Poisoned.
    Flooding in, the swamp re-defined the land,
    The familiar, the family, the Form.

    The first was Fair, our childhood’s most cherished friend:
    Resolver of squabbles, distributor, sharer,
    Fair cared for all:
    a string of rubies around her doomed, pale and lovely neck.
    It was so sad.
    They said it was consumption.
    All used up, in tatters, shrouded,
    she just faded away.

    Next to go was that sturdy, quarrelsome Equality, which surprised us all
    as he was so in demand, they said,
    by all,
    especially some;
    aye, and relied upon.
    For so many years a staunch friend and fighter.

    His burial dressage, a white cheesecloth, yoked neck.
    Naked beneath,
    his scarred skin a testament.
    Parchment.
    Burned Beyond Recognition.

    Truth tried hard.
    Was Tried. Hard.
    Derided, Derrida-ed,
    denied existence;
    perjured,
    Falsely accused,
    she struggled
    as she was garrotted.

    Died hard.

    Soon after that, Justice
    suicided off a nearby cliff.
    Lover’s Leap, a place then
    from which many a couple had gazed out,
    seeking the broader vista.
    Now has Disabled Access.

    Was it in despair?
    Perhaps sympathy with the others.

    No-one saw her silent fall.
    Was she pushed?
    Who could gain?
    Her handmaids will argue for a time and time,
    billing Innocence by the hour,
    Kept in chains, for gain.

    The old, wise man, Honour, lost his marbles, they said.
    He languished as the village idiot for a while,
    The butt of jokes and calumnies.
    Taunted.

    His body was found in a ditch one day.
    Starvation.
    They left it there.

    The loss of these good companions all
    has been followed now
    by Liberty and Freedom,
    two noble and leathery old soldiers.

    They put on their dress uniforms, immaculate,
    faced each other squarely and
    blew each other’s brains out.
    Such fine shots, both.

    They left a note. Signed as written together.
    They could no longer support the malignancy of the vile regime,
    the note said.
    They felt duty-bound to remove themselves
    from further abuse,
    the note said.

    They took Duty with them.

    An Altar was discovered in the woods
    On which the charred bones of hermaphrodite Trust
    Were found,
    Sacrificed to Narcissus, elevated to the Pantheon.
    Tears flowed down Olympus’ stony sides.

    Even God cries.

    After, there was Laughter, Music, Whine.
    High pitched.
    So much fun.
    The departed were only words
    After all.

    Oppressive words.
    Now dead.
    Like Fathers.
    Dead, white males.

    What, three were maids?
    So? Whatever, said the wenches.

    No one noticed Love fall to her knees.
    Her calls for help were drowned by song.
    Trampled to death under dancing feet.
    The last to succumb.

    Four.

    The surging mob, with popular will,
    Tied Democracy’s hands, and,
    fattened and degraded on suet foie gras
    trotted it to the abattoir.

    The Impostor was on the scene quickly.
    Ready, Definite.
    Re-defined.
    By Order. She said.
    Scripted.

    The Princess of Lies rides
    over barren lands.
    Long hair her spider-silk, chain-mail
    down her back.
    Across her breast,
    Over her steed’s flank.
    Hooves on skulls.

    The children gabble and cry.
    No words
    describe
    their pain.

    They were
    forbidden.

    Chris Langan-Fox

  • Words fail me.

    David Skinner, UK

  • As stated in Bill’s article, there are multiple examples of ‘verbal engineering’. To put forward just three:

    Coming from theology, there’s ‘fundamentalist’. A word originally coined in the early 1900s to describe those who believed the whole Bible to be true but which is now equated to some form of terrorist who is a danger to society. But then maybe true Christians who actually do still believe the whole of the Bible to be true are a danger to society, especially society as envisaged by the liberals.

    In the homosexual debate, my favourite is ‘homophobia’. Technically – if words have any meaning – a phobia is ‘fear of’ but this has been mangled to take on a perjorative sense to mean anyone who disagrees with their position. So, in liberal-land, a manufactured word, with no link to its basic meaning, becomes hate speech for the tolerance brigade!.

    In the racist area, my favourite is not a word but a diagram, namely that found in the evolutionary propaganda showing how the human species supposedly evolved from apes with their knuckles scraping the ground to an erect human. However, the ‘evolutionary process’ also goes from a black ape to a white human! But then I forgot – this isn’t racism, it’s called ‘science’!

    So, in true ‘non-speak’ I have just redefined ‘three’ as in the number of examples I was proposing to ‘seven’ if we include ‘danger’, ‘hate speech’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘science’.

    Maybe I’m cottoning onto this idea!

    Roger Birch

  • Yes quite so Roger.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Right on Bill. It saddens me that people I once might have looked up to as champions of free speech and critical thinking don’t even see the contradictions in all this twisting of meaning.
    I often hear one of Bob Dylan’s songs with new ears:
    “..if my thought dreams could be seen
    they’d probably put my head in a guillotine
    but it’s all right ma…”
    When Mr Bob wrote those words he was probably a kind of libertarian. He still sings them but I wonder how he reads their social political context nowadays.
    Terry Darmody

  • Nobody has been clinically diagnosed with homophobia. Not one. But if anyone accuses us of this we just say that we were born like it; it’s in the genes and we have no choice but to be what we are. We might also say that we have been for therapy and counselling to get rid of our homophobia but this made us so depressed that we felt like committing suicide. But we now realise that God created us homophobes and we are coming out, confident and proud. The truth has set us free indeed. Hallelujah!

    David Skinner, UK

  • Oh David Skinner, you make me laugh! I always learn something new on here. So funny.

    Anna von Marburg

  • Our local member wants us to change the language so the people will agree with him. My letter to the editor:

    Mill mentors Hockey and Swan swoons over Springsteen, but no one mentions Orwell. Those in charge want us to dance again to the animal farm rules of equality. Where all animals talk equality but no one but those in charge know what it really means. If marriage is to be equal, why can’t a man who can afford them, have as many wives as he likes? And why wouldn’t those of us who insist that marriage best be monogamous be prosecuted for discrimination under equal equality laws? Maybe we live in the land of double speak and just don’t know it? The older children are certainly in charge, but will the children of the future be discriminated against in a world where even “mum” and “dad” mean different things to different people.

    John Modra

  • Thanks for all your research work into people who are not being allowed to speak freely especially.

    John Modra

  • Thanks John

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • David, you might be interested that the push is on to diagnose homophobia as a disease – ironically by the very same people who pushed to declare that homosexuality was not a disease. Just do a google search and you will find lots of interesting reading to that effect.
    In the meantime here is a link to another article along the same lines as Bill’s above.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/is_homophobia_a_mental_disorde.html

    Kerry Letheby

Leave a Reply