This is a follow-up to something I posted back on July 21, 2020.
Most of us communicate with words. Most, after learning that crying and yelling do not impart a specific message, stop doing so after infancy. (Although some never learn the difference between an ‘inside voice’ and an ‘outside voice’). Within a common language, individual words are assigned specific meaning, so that the sender and receiver understand each other. Failing that, the message is either not understood by the receiver, or worse, misunderstood entirely. Control over the meaning of individual words is not only critical to understanding, it is a powerful adjustment to communication as a whole. Let’s dig.
When I write ‘blue’, what comes to mind? For some, it is the specific, generic color. For others, it is one of many shades of that color: baby, royal, navy, etc. Perhaps my writing should’ve been more precise! But for others, ‘blue’ is a sad, somber feeling, rather than color. Make it plural (‘blues’), and you could be talking about Memphis, New Orleans, or St. Louis music, or the St. Louis pro NHL hockey team. But what if the editors of Merriam Webster or Cambridge dictionaries, decided upon a new meaning? Imagine the new meaning is closer to what we used to call ‘plaid’. Not only would that change instinctive communication for current times, it would muddy the meanings of all literature in the past that used ‘blue’ in its traditional usage! ‘Rhapsody In Blue’? Yeah.
Whether intended or just assumed, the powers that be are changing words, phrases, and meanings to fit their particular mindset. And that is decidedly NOT a good thing. An excellent example is the phrase ‘packing the Supreme Court’. Since 1869, the United States Supreme Court has consisted of nine justices, avoiding 4-4 stalemated decisions. But that number exists nowhere in the US Constitution. Back in the 1930s, then President Franklin Roosevelt, after the USSC declared some of his New Deal platform (including the Social Security Act) unconstitutional, threatened to add several more justices to the Court, until he got the decisions he wanted! While he never did add justices, the threat was clear, and it worked—those same platform items, unchanged, passed USSC muster. Since 1935, Social Security is the law of the land, and to challenge or change it in any meaningful way is considered political suicide. So, since the 1930s, the phrase ‘packing the Supreme Court’ has meant increasing the number of justices from 9 to whatever number is needed to tilt the makeup of the Court to one’s own liking. Fast forward to 2020. The meaning of that phrase has been altered significantly. Now, the phrase means the President that appointed a few Conservative justices to replace some Liberal justices (as he had the power to do), tilted the balance of the Court from Liberal to Conservative! Adding more justices to the Court is now viewed as restoring the Court to its ‘proper’ balance—actually REVERSING the ‘packing’ of the prior President! That is only a 180 degree variance from the prior meaning.
What is ‘racism’? Up until recently, racism was the ‘favoring or disfavoring people due primarily to their race or skin color’. It was all about how one treated one race vs another. And prior to about 1970, the US had more racism than it could stand! Unequal treatment of Blacks, not only from the standpoint of society, but also under the legal, judicial, and police systems, was so severe, it sparked the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s–and rightfully so. Not only did Blacks face incredible, unfair burdens in housing, lending, college entrances, company startups, and voting processes, there were specific laws written to make such things LEGAL (Jim Crow laws). Those laws, and the entire premise behind them, have been erased from usage in the US. Dr. Martin Luther King would be proud that his movement succeeded! His dream, to have his children judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, has been achieved! Entire legal processes and bureaus exist to make sure that dream is intact. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the Fair Lending Act, Affirmative Action, and many other programs, all exist to prevent disparate opportunity for minorities. Now, preferential treatment is given to minorities in lending, college admissions, and hiring. But that simply isn’t enough. The word ‘racism’ has evolved into ‘anything or anyone that disagrees with my point of view’. Riots can and do start with a White cop manhandling a Black person (later to be found to be a career felon), possibly resulting in his death. The premise there: cops are hunting Blacks. Does not matter what the REAL numbers show—that is completely irrelevant. The FEELING of racism is all that is necessary. The New York Times advanced a wonderful storyline called ‘1619’, which postulates that America was REALLY founded on the African slave trade, beginning in 1619. That the facts simply destroy such nonsense does not matter—the Narrative does not need facts to persevere.
Imagine the mental gymnastics required to define ‘women’s health’ as the ability to kill her unborn child. Abortion activists have somehow blended the term so badly, it is really not about the woman at all, and the health of the unborn baby is a non-starter. Back in 1973, when Roe v Wade was ‘decided’, proponents said abortion should be ‘legal, safe, and rare’. Those on the other side said it would become a convenience method of birth control. Here we are.
Back at the closing of the last century, another issue arose: ‘gay rights’. The gay community, such as it was, wanted to be treated equally. They wanted their lifestyle to be legal. They wanted to get married to each other. They wanted to stop discrimination against them regarding employment, lending, and health care—much the same concerns as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s for minorities. This has been achieved. But the term ‘gay rights’ has morphed into ‘gay celebration’. They no longer want equality, they want PREFERRED treatment. And the scale continues to slide. Consider: what is the current definition of ‘sexual deviant’? At our current rate, DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) will be completely blank in a few years, as all previously viewed mental problems are now on the way to being mainstream behavior. ‘Alternate lifestyles’ follows the same definition-bending treatment. Except that term is now part of K-12 normal teaching curricula. ‘Rights’ indeed.
What is a ‘fair’ election? Based upon 2020’s Presidential election, the word ‘fair’ has taken on a completely new meaning. It wasn’t that long ago that a voter had to be a US citizen, non-felon, of voting age, be among the living, vote only once, and have identification demonstrating all of those traits. No more. Using COVID-19 as a cover, 2020 election procedures vastly expanded the mail-in voting process. Formerly, one had to apply for such treatment, requesting a mail-in ballot for a specific voter, and give documentation, or notarized statement, of said voter. Ha. Now, mail-in ballots can be and are sent to everyone on the current voter rolls, no verification necessary. Note that said rolls are not cleansed for those that moved out of the district, or died. So, the likelihood of having more ballots than voters is nearly 100%. Requiring a free, government-issued ID, proving who you are, is now ‘disenfranchising’ minorities. It is somehow harder for a minority to obtain a valid ID—even though most adult activities, from hospital admissions to alcohol purchases, to buying plane or train tickets, require the same ID. So, the definition of ‘fair’ is now: all ballots are accepted as valid, without any verification of any kind. If you think this method of electing folks is ripe for fraud, you’re not alone. You’re just ‘unfair’.
Notice that the language-bending mentioned above ONLY goes one direction: from Conservative to more Liberal. That is a natural occurrence, since Liberals have been running several key institutions for over 50 years: media, education, and Hollywood. Those are the areas where language changes get defined and refined. It starts as slang, becomes commonplace, then graduates to normal usage, especially with constant repetition. Control the language, and you stand a great chance of controlling thought. I’m sure the communication channels between young and old have always been a bit strained, but now, the terms of the youth have gained legitimacy. And if you don’t play along? See: cancel culture.
