THE WAR ON WORDS (Part 2)
“They that control the terms of debate, control the debate.” God bless you, Dave
In episode 1541 of Dan Bongino’s podcast, he gives a lot of attention to the left’s war on words. This is simply the latest acknowledgement of this phenomenon that I’ve seen, or heard. It seems that I am constantly noticing someone else warning of this tactic. Almost every day I am noticing that someone else, with a following, is alerting us to this, “war on words.”
https://castbox.fm/vb/391745702
I have been noticing it for years now, and Ive tried to sound the alarm, and confront it in my discourse with friends, and friendly acquaintances, as well as in my posts. While it may seem like I am trying to claim credit for being the first to notice it, I am really just encouraged to see that others are starting to notice it, and call it out. The more the merrier!
This is not a new tactic, I believe that it embodies, or at least is an effective vehicle for implementation of a combination of Alinsky’s, “rules for radicals.”
I have noticed that leftists, (or as some call them, statists,) and those who’s logic has been informed by statists, have tendencies to ignore obvious facts, while insisting on an alternative reality, in affect, redefining reality. For instance, the second part to the first amendment to the US Constitution is the right to free speech, or the freedom to freely speak.
Do we know what that means? In modern times, we are told that this freedom exempts hate speech, though our constitution declares it as a, “God given right.”
What is, “hate speech,” where is it defined? Is its definition included in the 1st Amendment, or other features of the US Constitution? Has there been a bill introduced in Congress, where the definition of, “hate speech,” has been debated, and refined to be an enforceable statute?
No, it has not. There is no formal definition to, “hate speech,” and that is by design. If there was an accurate definition, anyone, and everyone would be held to account to that definition, Republican, Democrat, Marxist, Libertarian, Christian, atheist, etc. The existence of a definable, enforceable, standard is not the goal of those that have introduced this term into our public discourse. The purpose is to have a weapon with which to pummel American patriots with, in order to silence the opposition to Marxist tyrants, and their minions.
If you are offended by my assertions thus far, please be advised that this is not my intention. You are either wrongly thinking that I am accusing you of this dastardly offense, you have been deceived by those that are Marxist tyrants, or you are sympathetic to Marxist tyrants.
Either way, my goal is to encourage my fellow Americans to think critically, (not referring to, “Critical theory,” rather to a process of critically pondering.) When we have accurately defined terms, this kind of critical thinking is pretty simple. That is why Marxist tyrants seek to undermine them. They need to keep their opponents off balance, unsure of how they can defend against the baseless accusations of their political foes.
In the struggle to preserve our republic, and civil humanity, I believe that we must be effective in opposition to, and exposure of the tyrant’s methods, including, the, “war on words.”
What do I mean? Well, let’s start with the word, “gay.” When I began High School, being gay meant that you were happy. The term exhibited an excited elation, example, “we had a gay old time.” By the time I graduated from High School, “gay,” had been redefined to refer to homosexuality, and the use of the word, “homosexual,” was discouraged. If someone persisted in using the most accurate word for those that engage in sex with others of the same sex, they were demonized.
Another example is, “marriage.” What is a marriage? For thousands of years this was an idiotic question for anyone older than about six years old. Children were raised in a home with a mother, and a father, who were married. This was called a, “marriage.”
A while back, the activist homosexual lobby began their assault on Marriage. They claimed that it was unfair that homosexuals were not able to marry.
This was obviously not true. Anyone, heterosexual, or homosexual, were free to engage in marriage to anyone of the other sex, if that other person, (of the other sex,) was amenable to it. The homosexual activists did not want to marry, they wanted to redefine, and pervert the meaning of the word, “marriage.”
The redefinition, and use of these terms according to leftist’s compunction, is intended to keep their opponents off balance, unable to make an honest point. They must be kept on the defensive. By controlling the terms of the debate, they seek to control the debate itself, denying their opponents the opportunity to prevail.
If we allow the furtherance of this redefinition to continue, it is not only the republic of The United States of America that is in peril, but civilization itself. In the words of the great prophet, Neil Peart, in the song, FREE WILL, “If you choose not to decide, You still have made a choice.”
It is my hope that my christian brothers, and sisters, (two more of the words under assault by leftists,) will see the impending peril and begin to resist, not out of anger, not in hatred, but by the love of God, and in deference to our Lord and maker, and His will.
God bless you, Dave