John C. Wright (johncwright) wrote,
John C. Wright

On Political Correctness, or, How To Speak Nonspeak

Someone sent me a perfectly polite and reasonable comment. I have decided to both to go postal and get medieval all over it, which, I suppose, means I am going to go get the towncrier on his comment, as a town crier is what we had in the Middle Ages instead of postmen. Hm.

Well, without even the slightest hint of fairness to the original comment, I use it as a flimsy excuse to vent about political correctness, which is something that has been bothering me of late. If my reaction seems totally disproportionate to the rather mild cause, that is because it is disproportionate. I am here admittedly galloping headlong off-topic.

"The word 'eskimo' comes from the language of the cree (?) indians to describe their neighbors to the north, and may actually be a racial slur. The inhabitants of the Canadian High Arctic call themselves the Inuit (the people). I believe that the Alaskan natives are Aleuts …“

I am aware of that, and I do not care. In fact, I regard with particular hatred attempts to change the language to sooth the imaginary hurt feelings of various mascots of the political Left. Unless you can tell me, off the top of your head and without looking it up, the name in any Eskimo dialect for a Virginian, I suggest your concern for their concern for our names for them is illegitimate, particularly where no English speaker knows the meaning of the insult. (None, that is, but I: it refers to them as eaters of raw fish, a slight against their relative poverty).

Besides, what could be more insulting to me that to have the Eskimos refer to themselves as ‘the People’? What does that make me? A non-people?

But it would be immature to the point of insanity for me to pretend I am insulted by the mere existence of a word in their language. Likewise, here. Insult requires intent.

I ask any and all reader please to not make corrections of this type again. They offend me. They deeply offend me.

I had to ban another commenter who 'corrected' my use of the word 'Mohammedan' to refer to the paynim, because he would neither apologize, answer, or shut up about it. He was worried about offending them, but not about offending me: a double standard.

Maybe if I video-taped myself with a kidnapped and innocent civilian journalist, one to whom I’d falsely promised safe conduct, and battered in his skull with a thurible while dressed in miter and alb all the time singing GLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEO, my tender feelings would be nourished and guarded. Or is it only the deadly enemies of their own culture the death-cult members of the death-culture Left wish to see lauded, aided and abetted? Perhaps Leftist psychology is best understood as that of a cancerous civilization seeking a version of Doctor Kevorkian, and the Jihad serves that purpose now that Stalin is gone.

Let me explain that I regard political correctness as worse than a lie.

A lie is a straightforward attempt to deceive a victim. It almost honest by contrast. Political Correctness is a corrupt attempt to poison thought and speech, and to impose upon the nobility and courtesy of its victims to get them to deceive themselves. A frequent side effect of PC jargon is that it renders rational conversation difficult, indirect, or even impossible.

Innocent and well meaning people are actually fooled by this simple trick. Sad to say, most people think like magicians. They believe in the rule of true names. They think (or rather, they feel) that when they are calling one thing by another name, that the actual nature of reality changes. They put themselves in a position where they can no longer talk about real things. Words are severed from referents.

Worse yet, magicians of this type resist any attempt to define their terms, because their ego and self-esteem are built into their false (often deliberately false) verbal models of the surrounding world. I speak from sad experience: an examination of recent entries on this journal will display the verbal magicians in all their smoggy evasions and self-righteous self-satisfaction.

Every thinker since Confucius and Socrates emphasized that calling things by their right names is the basis not only of logic, but of morality. Attempts to substitute euphemism or misleading expressions for the right names of things are not only deceptive, but illogical. It is both a moral and an intellectual error.

Whether you know it or not (if you are a conspirator, you know it; if you are a useful idiot, a dupe, you do not) by making an innocent suggestion about using a nicer word than Eskimos for Eskimos, you aid the effort of the forces of unreason.

If you successfully substitute the word 'Inuit' for 'Eskimo' on the grounds that 'Eskimo' is an insult, you will have successfully convinced the next generation that all their forefathers who used the word 'Eskimo' deliberately meant and fully intended an insult, or were foolish or negligent enough to utter an insult by accident. That conviction will be false, a lie, and you (in a small way, one more straw on the camel's back) will have helped to perpetrate it.

In the last 50 years, this deception has been successful, wildly successful. The purpose was to erect a wall to sever us from our fathers and grandfathers, so that, rootless, we would be weak and stupid. This has been done.

Example: There are people alive these days, perhaps even the majority, who when reading the Declaration of Independence or the Book of Genesis, think God created males and endowed them with equal rights, but not females. They think when the Jefferson wrote “All Men are Created Equal” that that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were only objecting to inequalities among Kings, Princes, Barons, Knights, and Farmers, but that the Founders were somehow fine and dandy with rank inequalities between Queens, Princesses, Baronesses, Dames and Farmwives. If King George had been a Queen, no rebellion would have obtained, because all men are created equal obviously means not all women are created equal. So much for the ability of modern victims of PC nonspeak to read and understand the words of the past.

I also hate political correctness because their particular jargon is meant as a marker, a gang sign -- it is like the slang used by cliques in school, who deliberately exclude the non-cool kids by using code words only the cool kids know. But because political correctness presents itself as a type of courtesy, it is used by a larger population than merely radical Leftists, and this seems to swell their numbers, which is a deception of another type.

There are honest men, for example, who use "he/she" "s/he" or "he or she" when, grammatically, "he" is called for. These honest men do not know that they are wearing the uniform and waving the banner of the enemy. They think they are merely being polite and correct.

The leper's bell that rings when these vermin approach is the phrase "but language changes!" It is their rallying cry. They will defend their lies by hiding under the trivial observation that we no longer say "Thee" and "Thou." What they are hiding is their intent to destroy language and integrity and honesty. Language does change. Some changes are natural and neutral. Using the word 'mouse' to refer to an electronic computer pointing device is neutral. Some changes are not neutral: they are attempts to deceive, either deliberately or as a result of a reckless & negligent indifference to the truth. They are lies. Examples could be multiplied endlessly.

• Using the word ‘Sexist’ is a lie, since it implies that recognizing the differences between the sexes (which even an idiot could not overlook) is a bigotry akin to racism. The word conflates two distinct concepts of misogyny (hatred of women) and romance (traditional attitudes towards lovers, wives and mothers).

• The word ‘Homophobia’ is a lie, since it implies that a normal respect for decency is a mental disorder. (Unless you use it to mean pathological fear of being alone, its original meaning). This word is a masterpiece of lying, and we should pause a moment to admire the breathtaking insolence involved. Crazy people dismiss sane people as insane on the grounds that the sane people are not crazy.

• Using the phrase ‘sexual orientation’ to refer to sexual perversion is a lie, because it implies perversion is value-neutral matter of taste rather than a moral decision in the context of an objective standard.

• Using the phrase 'African-American' to refer to a Negro is a lie, as any Canadian African-American can attest. Charlize Theron is an African-American. Vonetta Flowers was announced as being “the first African-American from any country” to win a gold medal in the Winter Olympics.

• Pretending the word 'he' does not, in some contexts, refer to both sexes is a lie. Pretending the word 'man' does not, in some contexts refer to human beings of both sexes is a lie.

• Using the word 'gender' when you mean sex is a lie.

• Using the phrase “manmade disasters” to refer to enemy terrorist attacks is a lie. Using the phrase to “Overseas Contingency Operations” to refer to the War on the Islamic Terror Masters is a lie.

• Calling a terrorist a “militant” is a lie. It is also treason, in that it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

• Calling a Spending Bill an “economic stimulus bill” is a lie. It has neither the ability nor the intent to stimulate anything. It also betrays a risible illiteracy regarding basic economics. If it is a pork-barrel style spending bill, payola to loyal constituencies, this adds insult to the lie.

• Using the word 'fetus' to refer to a baby in the womb, rather than to a stage of that baby’s development, is a lie, and a dehumanizing lie, like Nazis calling Jews ‘undermen’. It also betrays risible illiteracy regarding basic biology.

• Using the word 'rape' to refer to an indeterminate set of sexual batteries is a lie, and a pointless lie, because it is trying to equalize the sexes on the basis of subjective victimhood. It also betrays risible illiteracy regarding basic biology. By mocking the pain of real rape victims and diminishing the crime of real rapists, it becomes a satanic lie.

• Using the phrase ‘undocumented worker’ to refer to aliens illegally trespassing on our sovereign soil is a lie.

• Using the phrase ‘homeless person’ to refer to a bum or a panhandler is a lie.

• Using the phrase ‘B.C.E.’ or ‘C.E.’ to refer to B.C. and A.D. is not only a lie, it is a theft of intellectual property, a betrayal of our common culture, and an insult, made all the more abhorrent by how petty an insult it is. The idea that anyone could honestly be offended or oppressed by the use of the Julian or Gregorian Calendar is not merely a lie, it is a confession that some people are too petty to think straight. (And they go and use the calendar anyway, but just misname it).

So language changes, does it? Certainly it does. Liars also lie. The servants of the Brave New World also like to hide their lies under the general blanket that these lies are justified by a change in language. It is merely an accident, no doubt, that all the changes favor their political outlook, and lure us to changing our minds to agree with the dogmas favored of the Thought Police.

So language changes, does it? Well, then, if so, I can change it back.

Behold! As if this moment, the word ‘Fuck’ is no longer insulting or demeaning or condescending. Indeed, I decree that henceforth it is a cute word of endearment, like a baby name!

Anyone who interprets the word other than my way is wrong! It is done. Please rewrite the dictionaries at once!

Instead, the word ‘Clint’ shall take its place. Clint Eastwood and President Clinton have thirty days to change their names, or else be arrested on charges of public indecency. You clinting clintheads! Go clint yourself. As you can see, it functions perfectly as a substitute.

I also decree that the words Wog, Wop, Kike, Dago, Mick, Kraut, Hun, Zip and Frog are now terms of endearment, whereas Frell, Frith, Frak, Noy-Jitat, Noob, Klono, Noshabkeming, Slithy, Spork, Spock, Peck, and Pulsepurple-throbhose-o-love are now unacceptable swearwords. Furthermore, the word ‘hair’ is discriminatory and exclusionary to bald people like me, so the word ‘scalplichen’ will be used instead.

Racial slurs for people from Belgium are still being sought: please send your suggestions for consideration to my post office box. ‘Bilbo’, ‘Bludger’, 'Brillig', ‘Walloon’ and ‘Waffle-eater’ are in the lead.

Use them in combination! “By the ears of Frith! It’s a peck with an acorn! I’ll frell my clinting spork of that Walloon right in his slithy scalplichen! “

No doubt you are laughing or shaking your heads in disgust. You think it is arrogant of me to usurp this power to myself, and merely by decree to say what a word means or how it shall be taken?

Well, I must ask: why is it arrogant absurdity for me, but not for them, the political correctoids?

Let us ponder that one for a moment. Is it there greater numbers? Well, so a mob outnumbers me.

Their greater intellect, moral stature, self-anointed ethical highmindedness? In their Alice-In-Wonderland world, moral superiority is conveyed, not when you uphold and promote moral behavior, but when you undermine and discourage it. Note famed Leftwing apologetics for sexual perversion, drug addiction, and socialist slavery. Remember how the feminists closed ranks to protect President Clinton (hereafter known as President Wog) in order to secure the right of powerful married men to betray their wives and exploit their young female underlings. It was explained to me that these highly-moral morally-superior NOW women were betraying their principles and doctrines and followers in order to preserve infanticide, the right to kill innocent babies in the womb. (I do not know if any of you have seen SILENT SCREAM, which is a film of an abortion shown in all its reality, but the film shows the babies face contorted in pain and agony as the scissors and clamps puncture the child and dismember it.)

So does their right to prostitute the language come from their moral superiority? What indeed is the chrism of their moral superiority over us, we normal people who do things like tell the truth, remain faithful in marriage, love our country and protect our children? These moral retards look down on us because they lie, commit adultery, commit perjury, blaspheme, kill unborn children, hold riots, celebrate cop-killers, and dabble in treason.

While we ponder that riddle further, let us go ask Alice. It seems Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland agrees with the Political Correctness mob. The philosophy involved is called ‘Nominalism’. Nominalism is the abstract idea that abstract ideas don’t exist.

... There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

So we would like to change the word Eskimo to the words Inuit and Aluet, substituting two obscure words for one clear one, on the grounds that in some third language that no one speaks and no one has heard about, something about it was vaguely racially insensitive slur, maybe.

I am weary of living in a world where race trumps all considerations of reason and justice. If need be, I would argue that racial slurs are a needed feature of our society. Racial slurs allow various races to develop a manly indifference to insult, which is part of the maturing process. By paying undue attention to an unimportant sidelight of manners, we might undermine honest courtesy, and abet an attempt to infantalize a whole tribe of man.

Perhaps the word Eskimo (or ‘sodomite’ or ‘fireman’ or ‘terrorist’ or ‘orient’) actually does offend someone, somewhere. If so, I say Walloon him and the Walloon he rode in on. That someone can learn to tolerate it, like a grown up. Tolerance is what we all promote, these days, is it not? I am merely adding my segment of rich cultural diversity, including my language and my traditions, into the multicultural feast of many dishes.

In language as in economics, whatever you subsidize, you multiply. Since we have spent years erecting utterly false and nonsensical verbal signs that point away from reality rather than toward it, in the name of ceasing to offend the sensitive, instead of a polite society, we achieved the opposite. The rudest society imaginable is one where everyone is hyper-sensitive, thin-skinned, and willing to see insults where none are intended, and, most of all, a society were everyone demands, as a matter of right, as a matter of entitlement, that no one cross or offend his ultra-fine nerves, which have been sandpapered to the most exquisite pitch of sensitivity. The professional crybabies have been given a trump card that wins every hand and always collects the kitty. So, we get more crybabies. Dignity, adieu: rudeness, hail! Hail, horrors!

And when reasonable demands are exhausted, unreasonable demands emerge. Suffragettes reasonably demanded a vote. Feminists demand the rape laws be gender-neutral, even if women never have and never can perform the act technically called rape on a man. And here is where political correctness emerges. Since reality, by definition, cannot be changed on human whim, human language, which can be changed, is changed instead. A philosophy that excuses and buttresses dishonesty (“Language always changes!” -- “There is no truth!”) is a necessary component. A philosophy that preaches virtue and self-restraint, such a Stoicism, or one that preaches of a higher Truth, such as Christianity, must be expunged. A philosophy that teaches truth is illusion, such as the American version of Buddhism, what we can called McBuddhism, on the other hand, is nonthreatening to the empire of lies, and can be tolerated. Taoism and astrology are also vague and undemanding enough that they can fit into the “its true for you but not for me” matrix. (and here, by matrix, I mean the computer system run by the Left which drains your brain of its power to run their machines. Ask Morpheus about it.)

I am not saying we should not yield to reasonable demands. I am saying we have, and we need not further.

I am not saying a due care not to offend is not polite: but I am saying the whole culture around me has been infected with hyper-sensitive whiners, and has gone mad, and I wish no part of it. Political correctness in an innate and organic part of the death-cult of moral relativism, cultural self-loathing, socialist yearning for slave-chains, the devotion to destruction, deconstruction, and unreason.

It is not that I do not think people can be offended by plain speaking. It is just that I think the truly offended, those who have a right to be offended, have been drowned out by counterfeit claims. In much the same way, I do think there are real racists. Most of them are on the Left, and they hate Jews. It is just that I think the real racists have been lost in the blizzard of false accusations leveled by the Left against the innocent. They accuse everyone of racism. Their patron saint should be Titus Oates.
(n.b.: on the news just now, CNN called the governor of Texas a racist, on the ground that he is a federalists, who used the term States Rights, in a speech he gave to a mostly white audience. Such is what passes for news in the Brave New World of Big Brother. He may be watching Us, but I am not watching CNN).

Is ‘Eskimo’ a racial slur? I doubt it. But even were it so, I just don’t care. I am weary unto death of self-righteous dishonesty.

The boy has cried wolf once too often for me to heed his call.</div></div>
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic