NRL News

Dishonest words alter our capacity for reason and moral action

by | Oct 18, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

I fully understand that you and I were not the target audience of the 12 pro-abortion Democrats debating on the stage in Ohio last Tuesday. They were preaching both to the much larger chorus—dyed in the wool Democrats whose support they need to be the party’s presidential nominee—and the smaller chamber choir of people who were curious if the assemblage had anything new to say beyond what they’d heard or read.

We’ve already posted several stories about the 4th presidential debate. Suffice it to say, a question about “reproductive rights” was asked, and those given a chance to respond saluted the flag hoisted by the surrogates for Planned Parenthood/NARAL/EMILY’s List otherwise known as the two moderators from CNN and one from the New York Times. No doubt the Democrats think their allegiance to the Abortion Industry will pay rich dividends.

As I listened to the wearisome, recycled rhetoric, it reminded me of something I wrote a while back, a post that was originally stirred into existence by the headline of a piece that ran in the Irish Times.

It read, “Words can change our capacity for reason,” and it was written by John Waters who at the time was a prominent columnist.

What set Waters’ teeth a-grinding does not directly involve our issues. But the point he is making–about how mindlessly recycled words can impair our capacity to think ethically and morally–is directly on point. Consider these three snippets:

1. “Enthusiastically repeated by reporters and commentators, these phrases are capable of changing our capacity for reason and moral action.”

2. “One remarked capacity of these phrases is that of usurping the everyday meanings of commonplace words.”

3. “Lately, a new dimension has entered in…which brings a subtle element of affection.”

Think for a moment of all the deadly euphemisms which have insinuated themselves into our vocabulary. Think of how they have a common denominator: to drain unconscionable acts of their moral character, to say up is down, bad is good, and dark is light.

For example, why should anyone be upset if “products of conception” are dispensed with and what’s the big deal if someone merely exercises their “right to choose”?

For that matter why get all bothered if we refer to the unborn as a “fetus”?

Granted, nobody talks about an ultrasound of their “unborn fetus,” but still…

To return to #1, the goal is to repeat the Big Lie over and over and over. If need be, revamp the lingo and repeat the Slightly Smaller Lie over and over and over.

And, if push comes to shove, you can even sort of concede there is something problematic about ripping heads off of the torsos of unborn babies (only one Democrat did so Tuesday, although she qualified even that), just so long as nobody takes the next step and says, “Okay, let’s do something about that.”

Final thought. As long as you are actively involved, none of this lethal malarkey will ever win even a “subtle element of affection.” It will remain what is: ugly and inhumane and barbaric

Categories: Politics