|
|
 |
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
New Newspeak
By Kate Burch
“1984,” George Orwell’s dystopian novel about a totalitarian state,
Oceania, described the language of this country, “Newspeak,”
which was devised as a means of limiting freedom of thought, and
squelching ideas that posed a threat to the regime, such as freedom,
self-expression, and individuality. This new language served to
shape the thinking of the populace and create a political orthodoxy
that was strictly and violently enforced. Some examples included:
“goodthink,” for orthodox thought; “joycamp” for a forced labor camp;
“prolefeed” for the steady stream of mindless entertainment produced to
distract and occupy the masses; “thinkpol” for the thought police; and
“rectify” for the state’s procedures to rewrite history.
Today, we have “politically correct speech,” and many people think of
it as almost a joke. Consider the witticisms we hear about
“vertically challenged” or “non-traditional success” as replacements
for the plain-English words: “short” and “failure.” Good laugh
lines, yes, but the underlying purpose of political correctness is
deadly serious.
The movement we call political correctness started in Germany in
1923. Originally named the Institute of Marxism, the name was
changed to The Institute of Social Research because Marxism was not, at
that time and place, politically correct enough to pass muster.
The purpose of this institute was to advance the spread of communism by
finding ways to overcome the belief in the dignity and worth of the
individual, and the validity of an individual’s ideas. In
communist theory, the individual counts for nothing, and valid ideas
come only from the collective. This group believed that the way
to spread communism was to undermine the foundations of Western
Civilization by chipping away at individual rights and traditional
institutions. One way to achieve their goal was to change speech
and thought patterns by planting the idea that expressing one’s beliefs
is disrespectful and must be avoided to make up for past
injustices. The Institute moved to the U.S. when Hitler took over
Germany, and a number of its intellectuals became entrenched in
American universities and became major influences on contemporary
thought.
Some examples of politically correct speech that clearly are intended
to bring about social change and advance the aims of the
command-and-control state are:
“Undocumented immigrant” vs. illegal alien
“Pro Choice” vs. pro-abortion
“Privileged” vs. successful
“Provider” vs. physician or other health care professional
“Disadvantaged” vs. poor
You can think of others. One who dares to question the
nonsensical nature of some of these distortions of language will be
shamed and vilified by those who are bent on stealing our
freedom.
Those of us who are determined to preserve our God-given rights and
defend the United States Constitution would do well to resist this new
Newspeak by, for example, calling “Affirmative Action” what it is,
which is a program designed to give preferential treatment to a
designated group; speaking of “broken homes,” rather than
“dysfunctional families;” and even “criminals” versus “behaviorally
disordered individuals.” Has anyone besides me wondered, by the
way, why it is still OK to refer to “white trash?”
|
|
|
|
