On The Matter Of Language

Powerful weapon. Don't leave it to the enemy

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)


Posted on July 4, 2011, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 14 Comments.

  1. Very well argued, and I entirely agree.

  2. “Gay” is a loss. No other word quite replaces it ,it had such positive connotations, it was lilting and debonair and its robbery Tweedled on us, limp unreacting majority appeasers as you say,( and , in the UK, form the States)..One thing I would be interested to know, which I have seen indications of from earlysixties prehippy light pulp fiction, is whether it is true that” gay” was used among homosexuals and sophisticates not to refer so much to all homosexuals as to refer to an openly immodest,frivolous, hedonistic. partying, and partner-changing lifestyle, the precursor, if not yet so in-your-face,of modern “gay pride” days ,signalled by loud or garish (not really gay) colours and dress. Does anybody know? this would be a NY city thing, I think.If this be so its foisting on the rest of us is the nastier and more calculating, which wouldn’t surprise me, but doesn’t prove it.

  3. You describe an age-old phenomenon. Consider, for example, the use of the terms “worker” or “working class” or “masses.” Do not these terms come straight out of Marx? Yet we use them every day without half thinking about it. And in with Marxist terminology creep Marxist ideas. At the very least, we become accustomed to them and prepared to “coexist” with them, even if we don’t accept them. That, too, blunts our resistance.

    • Exactly!

      “Proletarians” was very fashionable once in Italy; “master” (“padrone”) an offensive term beloved by commies (I liked it, though…..).
      All gone now…


  4. Pepe Perez Palotes – at University nearly 50 years ago, homosexuals used to refer to each other as “one of the gay ones”.

    The rest of us used ‘gay’ in its almost lost sense of ‘carefree’, ‘happy’.

  5. I hope you will forgive my thitd comment, but the following, from Dr Johnson, that very great man, is apposite:

    “If the changes we fear be thus irresistible, what remains but to acquiesce with silence, as in the other insurmountable distresses of humanity? it remains that we retard what we cannot repel, that we palliate what we cannot cure. Life may be lengthened by care, though death cannot be ultimately defeated: tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration; we have long preserved our constitution, let us make some struggles for our language.”
    Johnson: Preface to the Dictionary

  6. LeftFooter: was that the UK? I was a “student” late sixties, and I don’t remember this , I thought it had come in fra’ the States in the seventies. I can’t remember anyone definitely being homosexual, let alone noticing thier slang, I mean” you poof” or poove or poofter and similar, or worse, could easily be shouted at someone who’d committed foul-or weak – play in sport, or referring to the obligatory “liberal studies” lecturer, I was studying engineering and we weren’t expected to be intelectual, so we weren’t. They -or their allies- sure bludgeoned the rest of us in the 70s.
    Genuine things, not just in christianity, (Antioch, wasn’t it?) , proudly take on the names given by their enemies. or at least outsiders. Whig and Tory were insults.
    I should start a campaign to get myself known as “charming candidate for canonization”,worth a shot, but I doubt it’d cut much ice with St Peter at the pearly gates.
    How about pushing the truth: Give over saying Catholic, Rome, Pope church etc, and go to :Only hope for your soul/ hell avoidance , etc any good ideas?One or two are around but disused; When did you last say “Christ’s vicar on earth ” for the pope? I must have chickened out of that one way back when abovementioned.”Holy Mother church “I do say, to peoples annoyance, but Im thinking of expression that go into “their “turf, if you follow me.

  7. I LOVE using Marxist terminology for my reactionary ends. I’m actually something of a fan of Marx…he’s one of the few famous philosophers that I am able to read. His sense of blind messianism reminds me of some extreme evengelical sects constantly waiting for the rapture (revolution in this case).

    The term ‘middle-class’ or ‘bourgois’ is now used generally as an insult. Even (or perhaps especially) by the far-right. The irony is that most socialists and social democrats are themselves middle class. There’s nothing as unbearable or obnoxious as a middle class lefty.

    • Yes, the “champagne socialists” and “country-home proletarians” have always been the source of endless inspiration 😉


  8. Another example:

    “baby”–>unborn—>embryo—>fetus—>”products of conceptions”

    That last mouthful is what my wife and I were told we had when we miscarried our first child. The doctor in the hospital who was performing the procedure to safely remove our dead daughter from my wife’s womb insisted on not calling our daughter a “baby”; and this was in conservative Oklahoma, USA. My wife and I forcibly kept referring to our “baby”, and I promptly returned to the hospital to retrieve our daughter for proper burial afterwards–she was being kept in a room where waste was kept.

    PC is making our entire world a wasteland. Great piece.

    • Brent,

      sorry to hear of your loss and I think that your wife and you had the proper attitude.

      “Products of conceptions” must be at the top of de-humanising language.


%d bloggers like this: