You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘history’ category.

Political thought can be influenced by intentional language manipulation.

You might think that I sound a little like a conspiracy theorist! How on earth  could anyone influence your politics with language? Allow me to explain with a small thought experiment.

Imagine a jungle spider.

What springs to mind? Something large, perhaps terrifying? Parhaps something that spins a huge web.

Now imagine a rainforest spider.

Did you imagine this spider to be any different? Perhaps smaller, more colourful, and less imposing?

Can you name the difference between a jungle and a rainforest?

Within the last few decades, environmentalism has become a key political issue. The jungle can be a scary place. Wouldn’t you rather save the rainforest?

Perhaps you think that ‘those in charge’ are unconcerned with intentional  use of words and phrasing to influence political thought. Who do you think of when you hear the phrase ‘The Princess Of Wales’ ? Why do we have a ‘War On Terror’ and not a ‘War Of Terror’ ?

Feminism also adopts strange tactics when explaining foundational concepts. Have you ever heard of reverse sexism? If you think about this phrase for a moment, you may notice that it sounds a little awkward – as if someone had designed it.

The idea behind the phrase ‘reverse sexism’ is that it represents sexism directed at men, whilst intimating that this is unusual.

What was wrong with the word we had already, just plain ‘sexism’ ?

This language manipulation is used frequently by feminists , for example in the formation of organisations like Men Can Stop Rape (intimation: ‘only men rape’ ).

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself the real difference between ‘positive discrimination’ and ‘sexual discrimination’  ? The former is policy, yet the latter illegal. However, they amount to the same thing – favouring one sex over another!

Here are a few more examples. Have you ever noticed that the severe, clunky sounding non-gender specific word Homemaker has superceded the now archaic term Housewife ?

Why do we hear of ‘deadbeat’ dads – but not moms ?

Why do we now hear of ‘single’ rather than ‘unmarried’ mothers ?

Why do we have ‘family courts’ and not ‘divorce courts’ ?

Why do we now hear of ‘single parent families’ rather than ‘broken homes’  ?

Why do the BBC, who are legally required to be impartial, self-justify their heterosexual gynocentric bias in discusssion of domestic abuse ?

Why is it that the English ‘Minister For Equality’  favours legislation that promotes inequality  ?

What do these words and phrases have in common? Each one is fundamentally anti-male and anti-nuclear family , and widely used by feminist approved media and government. This is clearly no coincidence.

Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality – but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes.

~o0o~

Suggested further reading;-

The Origins Of Political Correctness‘ by Bill Lind

Feminism and The English Language‘ by David Gelernter

The Complete Newspeak Dictionary

‘When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other “bourgeois” institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. “To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,”declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term “illegitimate children.” This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it, and now the Soviet Government boasts that Russia is the only country where there are no illegitimate children..’

Read more here.

In essence, the Bolsheviki were seeking to replace the family with the state to ensure complete control of the population.

Where they failed, feminism is succeeding. Much feminist thought can be traced back to communism. First wave feminists in particular have strong links with Marxism.

Now, forty years after the feminist revolution, we need only to stand and look on to see the effects of these combined ideologies..

Further reading:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm

http://www.iisg.nl/~womhist/pushkareva.doc

With the closing of World War One, many soldiers and nurses returned home to Britain. However, they had no automatic rights to vote in the country they had been serving abroad in the war – only men who owned property had this privilege.

Consequently, The Representation Of The People Act ( 1918 )  was introduced. For the first time, all working class men and women over the age of 30 had the right to vote in the UK.

So, why is this event chiefly remembered as a victory for sexual – and not also social equality?

Could it be that feminists appropriated the consequences of this horrific war to push forward their own goal of creating mistrust and division between the sexes by deliberately underplaying the social significance of this act?