Many conservatives now hesitate to identify themselves as conservatives or as being on the Right. One reason for this hesitation, no doubt, is the erratic way President Bush conducted himself in office.

Another reason is less known and almost never discussed. The definition of the terms Left and Right have been deliberately and carefully altered over the last few decades, just as most terms that apply to social issues have ("gay" "marriage", fundamentalism, racism, Supreme Court "striking down" laws, references to men with sex changes as "she", etc.).

The term "right" or "conservative" has been co-opted by the Left (I mean “Left” in the original sense) so that it now includes people in the extreme middle and on the near Left. Hence, the policies of G.W. Bush, even those relating to border control and immigration, are referred to erroneously as rightwing. After all, most Americans accept at face value Bush’s extravagant claim to be a conservative. This is because few understand that Bush's thinking has been heavily influenced by the "religious" Left, flying under the radar and generally mislabeled, deliberately again, as "religious right." Bush did not accept miscreant schemes like the SPP, the Mexican truck highway, open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants only because he wanted to cater to business interests, as the Left and pseudo-Right stoutly maintain. He did so because he believed the “evangelical” myth that nationalism – and hence, national sovereignty as opposed to allegiance to world or supranational government – is anti-Christian, which is utter and absolute nonsense.

If we accept these unacceptable redefinitions of English, then, of course, we can no longer use the terms Left and Right because they are in constant flux at the whim of the Left.

But why should we chase after the Left's definition du jour as so many hapless tagalongs have done on their way to our current state of semi-anarchy? We must accept no other definition than the original organic one and it is not our fault if some foolishly accept bogus definitions – that is, it is not our fault if some have lacked the discernment to see how our language has been deliberately eroded by interest groups to their own benefit and to the detriment of our nation.

Another great example, by the way, is red states vs blue states, a word pair that is perfectly crafted to make the unwary forget that red China was communist, or that red was the preferred color of the Russian Revolution. We are now all the same under our newspeak definitions.

To understand these stealthy changes and to know what the Left – in the original sense of that word – is all about, you can rely on the writings of Olavo De Carvalho, who may well be the foremost authority anywhere on the Left and on the useful idiots who aid and abet them. He still knows the correct meanings of words (in more than one language) and refuses to let the Left lead him around by the nose.

All of this language change madness is a perfect illustration of why conservatives have the duty to "stand athwart history and yell 'stop,'" according to William Buckley’s definition.

Sadly, many of us have instead yelled: "take it slow going over the cliff."

Those who have done so are conservatives only by the Left's definition. Isn't it time to stand our ground, reclaim our language and stop being maneuvered by these weasels?

Then we can have our name back, without apology.

Donald Hank is a former language teacher, currently operating a technical translation agency in Wrightsville, PA. A former language teacher, he holds an undergraduate degree in French and German from Millersville State University (PA), a Master’s degree in Russian language and literature from Kutztown State College (also in PA), has studied Chinese for 3 years in Taiwan at the Mandarin Training Center, and is self-taught in other languages, having logged a total of 8 years abroad in total immersion situations. He is also the founder of Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents, a volunteer organization that provides Christian counseling for non-custodial parents.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

	Bravo, Mr. Hank Once again, you've hit the nail right on the head, Mr. Hank. I hope you have more to come. Most of the nation is wallowing in confusion. Thank you very much for this clear and concise piece.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 25, 2009
Votes: +1

Dave B said:

Newspeak and the Ministry of Truth Great Article. My opinion is George Bush is an Atheist disguised as a Christian in order to dupe the Christians into following him into total Fascism. He is probably a FreeMason, who's organization clearly does not believe in Christianity. They have discarded God as an ancient Myth. We are living "1984" as Mr. Hank appropriately referenced. In 1984, the main character said freedom is the ability to say, 2 plus 2 equals 4. In Fascism/Communism, the Ministry of "Truth", will rewrite history to make you believe 2 plus 2 equals 5. And so it goes.(911) God bless JBS.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 25, 2009
Votes: +2

Lal Wynstrom said:

Solid commentary but... I would add to your notion, as I understand it, that GW Bush was/is a represenative of the "religious left"- if you are referring to his Methodist background and the extremely liberal form of so-called Christianity which the modern Methodist church represents- that Mr. Bush is a greater representative, not of some kind of veiled religious "Dominionism", as is the oft-given reason of conservatives looking to excuse his treasonous betrayals of our constitution, but of the kind of globalism interned at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, etc. And "the erratic way President Bush conducted himself in office" was an outgrowth of the steady, and deliberate, destruction and defaming of real conservatism which is represented by neo-cons today. That phony form of conservatism is aimed toward the further aligning and shifting of real conservatives away from constitutionalism and toward the one-party, one-philosophy state now emerging before us. I also have issue with this statement: "He did so because he believed the “evangelical” myth that nationalism – and hence, national sovereignty as opposed to allegiance to world or supranational government – is anti-Christian..." Here again I question, what is the meaning of this? Surely after eight years of betrayals by the former president/administration you cannot and do not boil down these assaults as the result of some "Christian" bias against nationalism? The only "evangelical" faith held by President Bush was his absolute desire to see nationalism destroyed and world government exalted. That evangelical faith is rooted (as I hope you are saying) in Leftism, rightly understood, and had nothing whatsoever to do with biblical Christianity, or Christianity period, except as an easy, and when useful, necessary cover to accomplish the Globalist agenda.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 25, 2009
Votes: +4

MarkGlen said:

	A bullheaded West Texan Pres. Bush is a lying-Skull-and-Bones-stubborn-West-Texas-Judas.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

MarkGlen said:

Use the Bible The leftists I have to confront in my area are radical Alinsky trained communist. I am trying to get nonpolitically correct subjects politically correct in our area. An example of this is a letter that the local newspaper editor will get a chance to publish next month, the Lord willing. The letter goes like this: " A couple of nonpolitically correct subjects 1. What God says about spanking a child Proverbs 23:13-14 (New Living Translation) “ Don’t fail to discipline your children. They won’t die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death.” Love and discipline is not an oxymoron. 2. The Second Amendment is clear: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” God, for one thing, established governments to punish crime, but what happens if governments are law-breakers also? For instance: Why should states be allowed to require a permit for a person to carry a concealed weapon when the federal Constitution guarantees our right to keep armed? Should federal police arrest state governments for breaking the law of the land? Since we are dealing with state governments should the U.S. Army be called out to protect us from unconstitutional laws? I think so, if need be. We need to make these two politically correct." The editor usually prints my letters.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

danwhitehead1 said:

Another word twisted by the "liberal" left Another word that I'm getting very tired of hearing twisted, deliberately or ignorantly, is immigrant. I'm so sick and tired of hearing some idiotic jerk of a moron puking up the phrases: "we're all immigrants" or "we are a nation of immigrants". What a bucket of manure!! Excuse me, my Mom's side of the family have been here since the late 1700s and my Dad's side of the family since the mid 1800s. I am not an immigrant and I resent some fool trying to tell me that I am. You know, when it comes right down to it, much of the "liberal" left is nothing more than a pathetic collection of confused fools (some of them with very high IQs and a lots of "higher" education). Not only that, it seems their two favorite pastimes are lying and stealing.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 25, 2009
Votes: +0

SCHNORCHEL said:

Redefitition of Conservatism If we read John Birch Society John McManus' book "William F. Buckley, pied piper of the Establishment" [ISBN 1-881919-06-4], we will find out that Harvard Skull and Bones member and Council on Foreign Relations member William Buckley led true conservatives into neo-conservatism that we see today. Buckley also set the stage for younger pied pipers who would lead unwitting conservatives even further away.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 26, 2009
Votes: +5

www.TruthPatriot.com said:

Amen Thank you for that! I've been working on ways to explain to people the REAL political spectrum. "Overview of America" does a good job of it. It seems to me the best way to prove that the mainstream of the 2 parties represent the same views is to introduce people to organisations like the CFR, The Trilateral Commission and the bilderberg group. I've found the most efficient way to have a real impact on people, without having to debate every person I come in contact with, is to copy and distribute Alex Jones' ENDGAME. It costs about 25 cents to copy and seems to have an affect on even people in the deepest of denial. A small price to pay to wake people up. Alex has a new film coming out around march 15 or 16 called "The Obama Deception". You can bet its going to cover Obamas globalist connection as well as expose his two faced approach to "change". It might be hard to get the lefties to even look at it at this point, but it may prove a useful tool to wake up conservatives that have been poisoned by the koolaid that Fox News and the rest have been generously serving. I hope others here will take advantage of these useful tools and help spread the seeds of truth and freedom. Keep in mind that in todays world it's a lot easier to get someone to watch a dvd than to read a book, not to mention a lot cheaper. God bless.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 04, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

SCHNORCHEL said:

A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninist Semantics "A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninist Semantics," ISBN 0-913603-00-7 was published in 1983 by Western Goals, 111 So. Columbus St., Alexandria, VA, 22314. The late Dr. Lawrence P. McDonald, Congressman from Georgia, was in charge of it. Dr. McDonald was shot down on Korea Airlines 007 over Sakhalin Island, probably for knowing too much about the Master Conspiracy and wanting to expose it with his data bank. His Lexicon is a masterpiece of stabilizing the terminology of the Marxist world movement. It is a valuable reference for those who are following the "Diversiyia" being practiced by World Communism as part of its doctrine.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 04, 2009
Votes: +0

Douglas Strother said:

	Bush a Freemason? No Masonic Lodge worth its Charter would have George Bush as a member!
	report abuse vote down vote up

March 19, 2009 | url
Votes: +1