|
|
 |
|
 |
How "political correctness" alters speech to conceal and suppress truth
Based on an article written by Reverend Kenneth Koole, pastor of Faith Protestant Reformed Church, Jenison,
Michigan (USA)
Duplicity, disguise, deception, and finally manipulation of the masses itself - all part of the power
of words. Mankind has always known it, but of late it is becoming apparent that our society (and its
ministers of propaganda) are perfecting such deception to an art. We are becoming a nation of
"spin-doctors". As the "handlers" of our ex-president of the recent administration
(i.e. the Clinton administration - TN) proved, if you play enough with words, you can make even
the most immoral and dishonest activities sound innocent and justifiable (that is not to be meant that
this is completely unknown within the Bush administration - TN). Evidently you can fool most
of the people most of the time, especially if they really want to be deceived and spared the
unvarnished truth. Hitler and his ministers of propaganda knew this well. What they were able to sell to
the masses by means of word manipulation has not been lost on twenty-first century society, that is for
sure.
What follows is a list Time magazine (17 Sept. 2001) called "euphemisms being use by companies to
describe [substantial] layoffs", or, ways to say "you are fired" without having to say
it quite that way.
Teleglobe: "Today announced plans to revector portions of its business" (Translation: 450
jobs lost) (Ironically, my word-processor's spell check refused even to accept "revector" as
a legitimate word - KK).
Cisco: "The reduction in work-force will include involuntary attrition and the consolidation of
some positions" (Translation: 3,000 to 5,000 jobs lost).
Schwab: "Announced today that it plans to implement further restructuring to reduce operating
expenses" (Translation: 2,000 to 2,400 jobs lost).
Lucent: "Expects to reduce its net headcount through a combination of force management actions
and attrition" (Translation: 10,000 jobs lost).
The contortions companies go through to avoid saying they have to make sizable layoffs (and having to admit
to the stockholders that their company is losing business and not doing as well as it was a short time ago)!
Somewhat humorous, to say the least. But such word manipulation loses its humor in other contexts, and in
fact is taking on chilling overtones. John Leo (of Newsweek magazine) points this out in an article entitled
"Cracking the UN Code" (17 Sept. 2001). Planners of an international conference dealing with
children's rights were highly critical of President Bush's intention to boycott the planned 19 September 2001
conference in New York due to the phrase "reproductive health services" in the document to be
adopted.
It is the announced belief of the UN personnel, endlessly repeated, that this phrase (reproductive health
services - KK) has nothing to do with guaranteeing access to abortion for children.
This is odd. At the United Nations, "reproductive health services" have long been understood to
include abortion. At a late-night session in June, a weary Canadian delegate lapsed into candor and said,
"Of course it includes, and I hate to say the word, but it includes abortion". Many at the
session gasped at this revelation, or non-revelation.
The UN often cloaks controversial proposals in innocuous or broad language, luring delegations into voting
for ideas they don't approve or even understand. Code words covering abortion include "sexual
rights" and "forced childbearing". Seemingly harmless UN language on "children's
rights" undermines parental authority. Since "physical or mental violence" is forbidden,
it may be an international offense to spank and perhaps even to criticize one's children. "Gender
mainstreaming" refers to the idea that gender is a "social construct", meaning there are
no important sexual differences between males and females. UN-speak is also strong on fill-in-the-blank
language, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation's call for the UN to remove
"obstacles that make young people uncomfortable about themselves". Who knows what that will turn
out to mean in 10 to 20 years?
What is going on, of course, is sheer dishonesty. "Children's rights", my foot! When what's being
promoted is the murder of children through abortion? Abortion is in the interest of a child's rights? Do not
even try to follow the line of reasoning. Evil has the power in the end to make the mind morally insane
(Matt. 6:23). It is not a matter of children's rights these people are interested in, it is their
"right" to take your children from your home when they decide they do not like what you are
teaching them. Their agenda is their "rights" as a self-appointed "taliban" to claim
our children as their own, the state's right over children superseding those of mere parents. Sheer deviltry
is afoot. The Dragon still wants to destroy the seed of the woman. (Rev. 12:13-17; Gen. 3:15) His spokesmen
(persons?) assure society they have nothing but the well-being of society and your freedom of choice in mind.
And they do! As long as your choice submits to their tyranny of thought. Huxley's Brave New World
is less and less fiction all the time. As John Leo concludes in his article,
Most Americans pay little attention to the UN and assume that nothing serious ever happens there.
They are wrong.
Original article published in: The Standard Bearer, a Reformed Semi-Monthly Magazine, Vol. 78, No. 5
(1 Dec 2001)
Background information important for understanding the article
In order to get a better understanding of the above article, we take a look upon some detailed background
information on the subject areas "children's rights" and "right to life" that Kenneth
Koole assumed as known. It will then become obvious that the connections exposed by him, by which he made
clear the extent of word manipulation, are not farfetched but in fact correct.
The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (CAFHRI) reported Apr 24, 1998, that, in a private
meeting in Geneva, the Women's Caucus (of feminist NGOs) said they will refrain from using the term
"abortion" in future UN documents and speeches, since the term is so controversial. Instead,
they will use "forced pregnancy" or "enforced pregnancy", terms which are harder to
define and thus conceal the real agenda.
This term "forced pregnancy" or "enforced pregnancy", originally used in the context of
rape only, was particularly often reinterpreted and given new meanings by miscellaneous feministic groups.
In the meantime, it has yet become one of the most obscure terms in the right to life subject area.
International Family Planning Perspectives (Vol 22, No. 3, September, 1996), a journal of the Allan
Guttmacher Institute, published an article exposing the feminists' intended re-definition of "forced
pregnancy". In a piece entitled "Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing",
Rebecca J. Cook and Mahoud F. Fathalla wrote "Forced pregnancy occurs when abortion following rape
is legally denied, practically obstructed or unacceptable to women themselves on religious or cultural
grounds"
What fatal kind of reinterpretation was done here was realized for instance by the Vatican, who therefore,
in the proceedings on establishing the International Criminal Court in The Hague, suggested replacing
the term "forced pregnancy" with the term "forcible impregnation". Feminists
reacted with indignation to this suggestion. A flyer distributed at the UN by the former "Women's
Caucus for Gender Justice in the International Criminal Court" (now: "Women's Initiatives for
Gender Justice") said, "Forcible impregnation does not capture all the elements of enforced
pregnancy. Forcible impregnation involves making a woman pregnant through rape, insemination or
other means, whereas enforced pregnancy involves keeping a woman pregnant" (In doing so, the
feminist NGOs are pursuing the strategy to use the proceedings on establishing the International Criminal
Court, whose job is supposed to be primarily the jurisdiction on criminal offences in the context
of war crimes, to force indirectly, via international criminal law, the rendering of pro-abortion
regulations relevant for everyday life into the respective national laws, including the implementation of
punishments for abortion foilers).
According to this subtle but serious difference, WHO officials at a congress in Vienna in September 2004
already called for prosecution of physicians who for reasons of faith and conscience refuse to perform
abortions (in such situations), via implementation of a corresponding national legislation. They put their
expectations on being able to wear down and to intimidate these physicians by legal means. At the same
congress, the leader of the Canadian "Pro Choice Action Network", Joyce Arthur, pleaded as well
for a "change in speech" concerning being a woman and maternity by using no longer the
"patriarchally affected way of speaking" that regards maternity as part of being a woman
(the goal is the decoupling of maternity from female sexuality), and demanded to bring about a "change
in meaning" in society regarding abortion, with the intention to look upon abortion as a "morally
good and basically positive decision" and to regard it as "good end" of a pregnancy.
Now it is indeed no longer surprising under what euphemisms the subject of abortion appeared on the
above-mentioned 2001 conference on the subject of children's rights, and how it was being related to this
original subject of the conference. A report by the United Nations Population Fund UNFPA has called for
greater access to abortion for children as young as ten(!). The report demands more focus on the
"sexual and reproductive rights" of young people from 10-24 and thus shows the renewed tactic
of pro-abortion advocates in targeting young people and their supposed "right" to abortion.
Further, the report says that abortion should be promoted as a human right - regrettably, it is the same
line amnesty international just fell in with in spring 2006, despite protests and warning voices
raised by all pro-life organizations.
|
|
|
|
