After Winning a Political Battle Nov. 5, Can We Now Win the Culture War?

By Selwyn Duke

On December 7, 1941, Japan won a victory so resounding at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, that a casual observer might have considered its empire an unstoppable force. Yet the Land of the Rising Sun never had a chance. With an industrial base dwarfed by that of the United States, its eventual defeat was inevitable. This lesson from history is applicable to our time’s cold political/culture conflicts and raises a question.

Patriotic Americans won a convincing political victory November 5, but can they now turn the tide in the culture war?

That depends, says one commentator, on whether they recognize that “cutesy time is over” and start playing for keeps.

Put differently, it hinges on whether we, after striking a blow against the political establishment, continue following the cultural establishment. Can we truly think and act outside the box? Doing so is important for a simple reason:

We’ve been put in that box by the cultural devolutionaries — by the enemy within. It is a box they created.

And, well, we’re in dire need of repackaging.

What “Tolerance” Hath Wrought

At American Thinker today, Earick Ward summarizes what “left-wing” cultural/political degradation has delivered, writing:

• The rigging of elections and election systems.
• The weaponization of “justice.”
• Censorship.
• Abuse by the bureaucratic state.
• The bastardization of science, designed to serve political ends.
• Racism cloaked as anti-racism.
• Attack on faith, families, and children.
• The promotion of sexual and gender confusion.
• Party propaganda advanced as news.
• Border invasion.
• War for profit.

The prescription for cure? Ward says that while patriots should continue widening the MAGA tent by appealing to “normies,” an all-out attack must be launched against the radical Left.

How to Proceed

Most of what Ward outlines concerns controlling the language. This activity’s importance was famously illustrated in George Orwell’s novel 1984 with its dystopian society’s “Newspeak.” But ancient Chinese sage Confucius emphasized it millennia ago when he called for “the rectification of names.” The 1938 book The Tyranny of Words did so as well, informing that the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate.

And we’re now at what may be a seminal point in our history. In “The Race for the American Mind” in 2008, I wrote:

The new media is under attack, as the left aims to silence dissent before it grows strong enough to block the thought police’s coup de grace. This is the race for the American mind.

Now, 16 years later, alternative media (e.g., podcasters) are beginning to supplant the fake-news media, which are listing badly. This means that for the first time, alternative media have a significant thought-realm “industrial base.” They thus are acquiring the power to “define the vocabulary of the debate.”

Define We Must

Providing examples of this, Ward writes that “we should refer to the ‘legacy media’ as Pravda (‘Truth,’ sarcastically, in Russian).” But whether calling them that, “fake news” as President Trump does, or something else, they should not be demonized. Rather, their extant demonic nature — lying is evil — should be honestly reflected in the language used to describe them.

Next, fake-news media will reflexively refer to conservatives (e.g., French leader Marine Le Pen) as “far right.” Yet they won’t call even an avowed socialist such as Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) far left. Ward recommends responding in kind. Label Sanders and pols such as Governor J.B. Pritzker (D-Ill.) as “Marxist.” A person such as Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), he says, would be a “Radical-Left Democrat.”

But many many more changes must be made. After all, our language has been shaped by cultural devolutionaries in academia, media, and entertainment for decades. So here’s a short “controlling the vocabulary of the debate” list:

• “Transgender” — to use this term is to tacitly acknowledge that an imaginary status is real. It’s participation in a lie. For there’s no such thing as “transgender” because people cannot switch sexes. It’s better to label those thus “identifying” as MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status) individuals.
• “Biological man/woman” — as with the above, using such terms facilitates the MUSS agenda. After all, is there such a thing an a non-biological man? A man is, by definition, a biological entity. Saying “biological man” implies there can be some other kind.
• “Gender” — do not apply this term to people, only to words (“gender” refers to grammatical categories). Humans are defined by the quality known as “sex,” the biological status of being male or female.

And Beyond Sex….

Let’s continue:

• “Undocumented workers” — calling an illegal alien an “undocumented worker” is like calling a rapist an undocumented husband. Offensive? Yes — to both euphemisms.
• “Global warming denier” — this is designed to demonize rational skeptics, who should rightly be described as climate change “realists.”
• “Marriage” — this institution should be considered, by definition, to be the union of a man and woman in matrimony. Any other kind of union is not marriage, but something else entirely.
• “African-American” — “I resent being called an African-American — I really do,” said legendary black singer Smokey Robinson in 2022. He likes being called “black.” The point? “Black” merely describes racial classification. “African-American,” however, references another part of the world. Thus, making this description standard for black Americans can only serve to alienate them from America. Besides, the term is comically imprecise. After all, a black person born and raised in the U.S. would be an “African-American.” But Elon Musk, who was born and raised in Africa, would not.
• Any kind of “______-American” — “Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all,” President Teddy Roosevelt famously proclaimed. When people ask me “What are you?” I merely reply “American.” Now, if they want to know my heritage, that’s a different story. Let’s stop dividing ourselves via language.

Once again, though, the above is just a short list, and, obviously, much goes into winning culture wars.

And the bottom line is that our culture war’s tide must be turned. If it isn’t, a future election, either 2028 or beyond, will make us realize that MAGA’s November victory proved to be just one step forward — followed by two steps back.

                   This article was originally published at The New American.