Linguistics: today’s verbal mortar for a “brave new world”.
By Louis Zdunich
A New and Better Confederacy
National Anti-Sodomy Crusade
February 18, 2015
Semiotics, linguistics, semantics, word-smithing, call it what you may: this contrived evolution in the meanings of words stands ready to entirely obliterate the influence of Christianity, if it isn’t somehow brought to bay. This chief weapon in the arsenals of the modern enemies of Faith representing an elite-level program of deceit which especially targets for modification those key words which in some way touch on faith or morality, terms upon which any popular understanding of these eternal truths depends in a critical way. The gradual modification or substance-gutting of which words mortally undermines church, soul and Christian state alike. As might be expected, this deceitful word-smithing is frequently employed in connection with a variety of radical policy changes sought by certain elites: a privileged few—typical loud champions of “democracy” though they be—whose power is however tyrannically far out of proportion to their numbers. The formidability of linguistics resting upon the fundamental importance of words: since if what we mean by what we say is put into a constant state of flux, then how can we possibly maintain any permanence or integrity in what we do or legislate? Changing word definitions readily rendering us mere biblical “reeds shaken by the wind”, mere milk-toast before the designs of a thousand Napoleons at every turn, at every level and of every stripe.
Thus for example has the definition of sodomy gone through an academically-engineered series of permutations of which most people have scarcely been aware, having finally become divorced entirely from that very sin of Sodom from which the word obviously came. This in a verbal revolution riding quietly on the coattails of an entirely fictional “overwhelming popular evolution of terms”. Such verbal deceptions strongly undermining in particular any solid resistance to the legalization of the shameful crime involved, and favoring instead its ultimate institutionalization in today’s sodomy-marriage debacle.
Almost effortlessly frustrated in this debilitating flux of terms is the urgently-required input of the church in the maintaining of good laws, in the preservation of the moral identity of the people involved. A divine commission usurped by a tiny, radical cadre who by inevitable effect of their word-warping exertions claim as their own the formation of ideas, the cultivation of values and behavior. Representing a heavy artillery of the modern New World Order state, these bouts of veritable linguistic preemptive warfare amount indeed to a profane invasion and high-handed modification of the Church’s very own dictionary of moral and spiritual, ecclesiastical and even liturgical terms. Changeless precision-of-meaning here having for two millennia conveyed concepts by nature eternally-stable, so that by taking a wrecking-ball to this inestimable patrimony this arrogant elite has erected itself as a religion all its own. One indeed—if we only scratch the surface—found to be intimately associated with a Christianity-undermining Synagogue at every turn. So that all the claims of impartiality, of science, of simple fact-finding are exposed for the cynical fabrications that they truly are.
As noted above, linguistics is close-cousin heir to earlier skullduggeries of semiotics, semantics, logical positivism or even of a medieval nominalism, a fourteenth century sort of “don’t sweat the small stuff” in verbal terms. A ridiculous game of cat-and-mouse in itself, this groping for a new term for all this verbal flux, simply to cover over a centuries-long history of “scholarly” deceit. Attempting somehow, by an ever-changing novelty of terms, to whitewash the denial, indeed the annihilation, of truth itself as eminently “scientific”, dodging ugly infamies of before. All this disingenuous word-shuffling being parallel to the way mega-corporations repeatedly change their names or reshuffle their subsidiaries, after some notoriously-bad product has bitten consumers to the core.
But as suggested above, in this odd and alien world of linguistics voluble claims of “faithfully monitoring the verbal trends of men” are neatly joined to alleged commissions to lead others, in the words of one of the many jerk-knee NPR or pan-media commentators, “like Moses in the desert”. This brave new world being a desert indeed for a defenseless humanity, a flock whose political or religious shepherds have mostly fled their posts in cowardly disarray. Sheep who try desperately to find some few atoms of the life-giving moisture of truth or wisdom in the clefts of rocks of a dummed-down world. We being led by the “blind leading the blind”, brow-beaten by “those who know” and “those who count” into accepting this radical, serpentine, phenomenological warping of words, and all the horrible and eminently-practical consequences that follow as a cold and howling night easily follows a bleak and overcast day. When in fact and manifestly truth is “the same yesterday, today and tomorrow”, and indeed on this earth reflects quite well the rock-like verities of an eternal abode, of the divine, unspeakable Simultaneous Whole. Here being another staggeringly-substantial word for God, for “He Who Is”, Who “crushes to a powder” those who would trivialize his truth, falsify His Name. And before Whom men “fall as one dead” when attempting to deliver their treacherous dissimulating kiss. Or to prevent His glorious Epiphany, His triumphant bursting forth from the tomb. This by the stationing of ever-so-sturdy word-smithing guards.
Hence even were all men to accept this oozing words-in-flux pabulum, yet law to be valid or binding must be based on the perennial truth, not on the changing whims of men. Eternal verities translated—as from a “tongue of angels”—into human words, this being the changeless moral system which genuine law upholds. So that the state validly enforces the law not merely or even primarily because it is beneficial to men—which it supremely is—but rather preeminently because it mirrors and codifies God’s will. Law being a pale reflection—tempered to human infirmity—of the Divine Word—the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity—uttered by the Father for all eternity. Thus the sacredness of human language, its inviolable character, its falsification bringing penalties recalling Adam and Eve driven from the life-giving garden. Hence were a whole nation to rise up against this irresistible, truth-based law of God, some lone true-believer somehow found in such a Sodom and Gomorrah—did God wish rather to spare than to destroy it—would be roundly justified, justly praised—by the angels if by no one else—were he to enforce that good and true, noble and mild law upon all. Here being the case—as I have indeed read somewhere—in which one only man can be the avenue of genuine lawful democracy for the whole civic body, while his failure to do so would easily open a whole dyke of towering despotism of the blackest, foulest kind. Such a peerless lawman—such a plenipotentiary Marshall Dillon, come to save the sovereign town—being held back, if at all, only by considerations of prudence. Yet not the “prudence of this world”, condemned by spiritual writers down through time, but rather only by that spiritual prudence which readily removes mountains, overthrows citadels of tyranny and vice, fights impossible odds, on behalf of the law-giving Son of God.
This order-overthrowing field of linguistics finds a homely parallel in the way in which dependable old standbys like hot water bottles or embroidery thread are fast becoming impossible to buy, except perhaps at some high-dollar craft shop, in the one case, or as special-ordered from some obscure catalog, or some other land. For in this way do medical, insurance and pharmaceutical corporations frustrate age-old sturdy and reliable forms of health-preservation and disease prevention, forcing us into hospitals and doctors offices, and the purchase of expensive and health-undermining drugs. While in the other case monopolistic, legally-unfettered clothing manufacturers ensure that things like the darning of socks succumb to a “progress” in which maternal domestic duties of this humble kind, critical to the budgets of countless of the weary and ever-hard-working poor, can no longer cheaply or expeditiously be done. Here too being just another hummingly-efficient step in a quietly-orchestrated drive to see that traditional domestic family life dies a quiet death. This in favor of the state nurseries and foster homes that were the hallmark of communist regimes of a generation and more ago. Thus uprighteously is upheld this evil progress at every turn, as when some subtle heavenly concept is curtly refused admission to human speech, through simply redefining or critical-content-emptying key words, so as to vitiate their capacity to be carriers of exalted ideas. Under false claims of such understandings as being passé. Pious or profound concepts—if the truth be told—whose only “offense” is an innate and rampant immunity to a radical-futurism which would completely overturn the Civilization of Jesus Christ. And set up in its place the now all-too-familiar, sensual and materialistic Jewish future-messiah eschatology in its place.
Thus easily explained too is the manner in which an alien new coarse and crude understanding of words is principally pursued, so that the uplifting purpose of genuine learning is contemptuously denied. The cultivation of cockle in soul and society alike being steadily carried forth, a stunning epitome of which is the definition of the word effeminacy now touted by the “American heritage” Dictionary of 2002. (No doubt later editions are even worse). Linguists here too cutting for themselves a characteristic “big slice” in claims of upholding honorable tradition, as so doughtily expressed in this very title. All the while and without ado they cut this legacy thoroughly and irreparably into shreds. Calling as they do effeminacy “any tendency toward over refinement”, readily reducing language to the level of unruly juveniles who despise and desecrate what is lofty, and which they don’t understand. Effeminacy rather plainly being a moral fault—one which St. Paul forcefully identifies as a bar to salvation—something quite the contrary of any kind of real refinement. A failing which pampers the passions, effeminacy having indeed been held by our forefathers as possessed in special measure by the super-macho who treads on the purity of virgins. To find effeminacy to be simply “over-refinement” is to readily equate a certain mincing fastidiousness which the cruel—like mounting numbers of BTKs—sometimes so startlingly show—to conflate this hideous disfigurement with evil-shrinking scruples of conscience regularly possessed by good or saintly souls. So much is the tendency of linguistics to bring down, to desecrate, to define practically every morally-significant word in a crass or destructive way.
Indeed, a penetrating shaft of light on this whole subject of word-smithing is to be found in the content-emptying of the very word “crass”, used just above: a word now translated in many places as simply “stupid”. When in fact the word is a classical pejorative of positively devastating power, when judiciously used, which can mean variously gaudy, impudent, arrogant and several other finely-distinct things, depending how it is used or meant. Almost as if these effeminate linguists would give us a ruler-rap on the wrist, forbidding us in great horror from writing or speaking in a critically-precise way, in a deft turn-of-phrase now presumably (?) regarded as unforgivably unkind. Whether against a person or an evil idea being apparently “all the same” to this otherwise gnat-choking, hair-splitting coterie.
Plainly, then, this gradual “evolution” of the meanings of words is at the very core of the Jewish-hegemonic effort since Spinoza and a later Diderot, since few things so rule the life of man, as noted above, as does the impact of what we mean by what we say. The manipulation of which is the coward’s way to control par excellence. And since dictionaries—of all books meant for the largest of circulations—typically require massive financing to “get them off the ground”, to attain all-important authoritative or “definitive” status—the Jews, the premier financiers of all times, can easily promote any they wish, and effectively throttle those they would interdict.
Thus must each Frankpledge and eventual mounting authority-units labor to recover the rich meanings of morally, spiritually or intellectually significant words: since so much of life, indeed of salvation, hinges on subtle penetrations “between bone and marrow”. In which so often lie determinations of life and death, salvation or despair. Reconstructing a sound dictionary based on the truth, on sound Catholic teaching: since the Church alone has preserved through time all these subtleties-of-distinction, in limpid faithfulness to the most sublime of truths. So that until only recently even Protestants accepted traditional Catholic definitions for nearly all of these exalted terms, their life-giving reality having become an inseparable legacy of the Western civilized mind.