The Sanctification Of Evil By Redefining Words

I have argued the point for many years that “words have meaning.” One of the most diabolical neo-Leninist weapons is the redefining of language. This draconian plan to overthrow the mores and values that made America the greatest country in the world hides nestled in a duvet of political correctness.

Political correctness is an abstract from the pit of hell, and it smells like smoke. It is dependent upon demagoguing people not to speak truth and the corruption of speech by redefining words and speech.

When I speak of the corruption of speech by the redefining of verbiage, a prime example is the word “fascism.” As my son pointed out to me perhaps two years ago, Google defines “fascism” as: “An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization; (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.”

The Google definition most accurately defines those inhabiting the California state education system. What group has been more “intolerant” of the views of others than those opposing the presidency of Donald Trump? Closely followed by those who insist upon the sanctification of deviant sexual practices and behavior. But I digress.

My Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, defines “fascism” as: “a political philosophy, movement or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition; tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”

It is readily observable for those interested in factuality that the Google definition is nothing more than a smear campaign against all who hold conservative views. The lie they spin is repeated in classrooms by cultural-Marxist teachers and accepted as fact by illiterate students. What has followed is not just the subversion of truth, but also the Erebusic corruption of language for the express purpose of overthrowing our culture.

The redefining and/or the repurposing of language is used to obfuscate the decay of propriety inherent in a particular behavior. It is to anesthetize the public’s objections and sensitivity to perversion and debauchery – to the end that said behavior is viewed not only as acceptable, but also normal and natural.

An example of this would be the word “gay.” How did a word that the Oxford Dictionary and Webster’s Dictionary defined as: “happily excited, merry, keenly alive and exuberant, having or inducing high spirits; bright, lively, brilliant in color; given to social pleasure, licentious;” come to incorporate homosexual, of relating to or used by homosexuals?

Some sources say homosexuals adopted the word “gay” because the word “homosexual” was too clinical sounding and/or sounded too much like a degenerate disorder.

I submit that homosexuals didn’t adopt the word “gay”; they forcibly conscripted it through intimidation and demagoguery. I further submit that the reason for same was precisely to anesthetize the public into accepting sexual perversion as normal. The last thing homosexuals wanted was any public thought given to how unnatural it was for men to sodomize one another and for women to lust after sexual perversion with other women.

I further add that after reading the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website information pertaining to the debilitating effects of homosexual behavior for both men and women, it is irrefutable that none but the most perversion-obsessed would ever refer to such behavior as “gay.” They might rightly refer to said behavior as “DWB,” i.e., “death wish behavior” or even “UB,” i.e., “unhealthy behavior,” but they would never co-opt a word that means “keenly alive and exuberant.”

Another example of redefining and/or repurposing language is that which is associated with “abortion.” The word “abortion,” according to the Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary in my office, is defined as: “the expulsion of a nonviable fetus: a spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation – compare with miscarriage; induced abortion: monstrosity; arrest of development (as part of a process) resulting in imperfection; the result of such arrest.”

A “fetus” is defined by my Webster’s Dictionary as: “the act of bearing young, offspring: akin to Latin newly delivered, fruitful: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate esp. after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specif: a developing human from usu. three months after conception to birth.”

Let me split a couple hairs here. The “spontaneous expulsion,” i.e., “miscarriage” of a baby, as explained to me by the late Dr. Mildred Jefferson, is the body’s mechanism for caring for itself. The late Dr. Mildred Jefferson, a woman I am proud to have called my friend, was a doctor with whom I shared the strongest condemnation for abortion.

When the human body “spontaneously” expels a baby it is called a miscarriage. When the mother elects to induce the expulsion or removal of the child she is pregnant with, by paying money to another person who ruthlessly rips the child from her body, it is called the taking of a human life – and that is murder. It is not a choice; it is the willful murder of a human life for selfish reasons. The reasoning Planned Parenthood et al use as justification for killing children matters not; the willful taking of defenseless life is murder.

As you read the definitions I shared and the subversion of same for politically correct reasons, it should be clear that they all are designed to redefine family and accordingly the traditional mores of society. I refuse to use politically correct speech. As should everyone who is dedicated to family and tradition values.