Daily Archives: July 4, 2011
The way language influences the political discourse is always a fascinating thing to behold.
I grew up in Italy, where the adjective fascista was considered the height of the offence if you were a leftist and, as a reaction, a statement of coolness for young people who were conservatively oriented. “Fascist, that new sweater of yours!” we would say to congratulate his or her owner; “Is this your new car? Fascist!” [the car]; “where do you go today, all beautifully fascist?” (“where are you going today, as you are so well-dressed and all trimmed?”). The same word was used, even if deprived of a political connotation – there was no implication whatsoever that the owner of the sweater was, politically, a Fascist – as an insult or a compliment.
The same happens, I think, with the word “gay”, used by a tiny minority of perverts and leftist to refer to homosexuals, and from a much larger percentage of the population – which, incidentally, tells you something about the lay of the land on the matter – as a synonymous of either disgraceful effeminacy, or outright dumbness and stupidity. As in Italy, the expression “did you really buy a Prius? Oh, this is so gay!” does certainly not imply that the unfortunate buyer of such a (say) crappy, useless, inefficient, PC vehicle is a troubled soul; but one gets the message anyway.
True battles are fought around the use of such words, because words are powerful weapons. The word “gay” was once a way homosexuals referred to each other, but has now become their flag. They want to decide whether the word “gay” was used in a way they approve; they refuse to be called in any other way that has not been officially approved by them (the one with the many initials is an example). They want to control the way they are called, because this in turn defines the way they are perceived. Therefore, not even homosexual is good enough nowadays; whilst perfectly correct, traditionally used words like “pervert”, “sexually deviant” and “sodomite” are clearly taboo.
The Conservatives have acquiesced to this for too long, and this subservience must stop.
It is time to admit that the liberals have been much better at playing the language game than the conservatives; that too much ground has been given away and it is now the time to take it back; that the use of words is an important battleground in the wars about social issues. That if you stop calling one what he is, you’ll allow him to cover the issue. Once again: would you call zoophiles “smart” because they insist on you doing so and claim to be oh so horribly, horribly hurt if you don’t? Nor would I….
A litmus test for this is Italy. Italy is a country blessed with a strong resistance to political correctness and language manipulation. As I have stated, the attempt of the left to demonise Fascism has been countered by applying the adjective to cool things and people; the word “gay” is used in an extremely ironic way; very few people (only the reddest around) shun from the use of very clear words to define sexual perverts, from the educated “invertito” and “omosessuale” to the fairly coarse “frocio” to the very common “checca” (a diminutive of Francesca, a female name) to the even more subtle “Marisa”; and attempts to change the reality of things (“non seer” instead of “blind”, “alternatively able” instead of “disabled”, and others) have been already abandoned, sunk by the loud laugh of the entire country. In short, the resistance of the Italians to language manipulation makes it more difficult to proceed to opinion manipulation, and vice versa.
It is high time that the Italian example is followed abroad. No more acquiescence to the homos’ language terrorism. No more calling them the way they want to be called, but rather calling them what they are. Language is powerful. You can almost completely sanitise the idea of abortion by calling it “planned parenthood”, or of contraception by calling it “family planning”. The very word euthanasia is un-Christian (actually, pre-Christian). If we let the perverts have their way, soon we’ll say “gender” as if it had nothing to do with one’s own sex!
Fortunately, things are slowly changing. The general population does tend to react to unnatural politically correct nuEnglish (the word “gay” used as a pejorative was certainly not planned by the homos, and was heavily fought by the BBC before having to admit defeat in the face of reality), and I even seem to sense a shift to a more aggressive language here and there, with for example Michael Voris now openly and assertively saying “homos” where he would once have said “gays” or “homosexuals”. But we must persevere on this. We must become more assertive. We must free the language from liberal distortions and go back to the proper use of words.
Chi parla male, pensa male. He who talks badly, thinks badly. (Nanni Moretti)
Dum Romae Consulitur, Saguntum Expugnatur, reports Titus Livius that the ambassadors from Saguntum said to the Romans. “Whilst in Rome they discuss, Saguntum is taken”. History tells us that the Roman hesitation in acting decisively in the defence of Saguntum led to the ultimate destruction of the latter without doing anything to avoid a confrontation that clearly had to come anyway.
Fast forward to AD 2011. Another Curia Romana is in power now, and a similar situation is presented to them. Whilst in Rome they discuss, Austria gathers supports for an open revolt to almost every conceivable Church rule (from male priesthood to male celibacy, and from apostolic succession to Church governance) without any noise coming from Rome, and the weakest of ex officio criticism from the Austrian clergy.
The blog post of E F Pastor Emeritus about the 313 priests and deacons signing the open appeal to rebellion is as recent as last week. If you visit the page, they today have 317, with the number of adhering priests increased from 250 to 255. This in merely one week, with the page warning that in summer the updates will be irregular. For the record, the huge title of the page means “Appeal To Disobedience”. The bishop sends his greetings.
Also worthy of notice is that the supposedly sharp meowing of Bishop Kapellari didn’t come from the number one of the Austrian bishops’ conference, but from its number two. Methinks, Cardinal Schoenborn is too intent on enjoying his holiday to deal with the matter of more than 300 priests and deacons (and counting) adhering to a public invitation to open heresy. Or perhaps he is not even on holiday, but he simply thinks that such a matter of small importance as the call to open rebellion from 250 of his priests (come on, folks: Austria has 8.5 million inhabitants, 250 priests in an awful lot by every conceivable standard) doesn’t deserve a word from the boss, the second in charge being fully sufficient for the widely expected “sharp” official meowing. Or perhaps Cardinal Schoenborn is simply doing what he can to help the rebels without openly compromising himself, helping their rebellion to grow by giving the obligatory criticism as low a profile as this is possible without attracting Rome’s lightnings.
I know that this is the country where the clergy authorises western masses, laser masses, and blasphemous representations of the Last Supper. But even so, one would expect the meowing to be more energetic, and from the top cat.
Not happening. The number of openly rebellious priests and deacons grows; they will take more courage as the weeks and months go by without any reaction going beyond the meowing. The absence of a strong reaction will consolidate in the minds of the simple and of the poorly instructed (in Austria, evidently, the vast majority) the impression that the Church has a weak reaction because she is wrong; that she doesn’t act decisively because she knows this would be an injustice. This will, of course, not appease the rebels, who will feel more and more encouraged to become bolder (though I can imagine with much difficulty how one can be bolder than that: by starting to “consecrate” wymyn priest perhaps? or by declaring that satanic rituals now fulfill sunday mass obligations?….).
At this point, it is difficult to imagine that the Austrian hierarchy will suddenly find the guts to put an end to this. Firstly, they don’t believe in God (if they did, they would never countenance blasphemous material in the diocesan dome museum in Vienna). Secondly they don’t care a straw for Catholic orthodoxy (if they did, there weren’t western masses, nor laser masses). Thirdly, they are evidently not displeased with the behaviour of their priests (if they were, they would have had in the past many ways to threaten the vast majority of them into submission, which is something they do rather well when they want to).
Decisive action is now, reasonably, only to be expected from Rome. Unless this action is exemplarily harsh the ferments of rebellion will remain, as you can’t expect to reeducate a priest in such a decisive opposition to everything Catholic with gentle words more than you could avert the attack of an angry rottweiler by telling him a joke about David Cameron.
Whilst in Rome they discuss, in Austria heresy spreads.