Is there any way to stem this insanity?

There’s a wonderful Russian word – u’zhas [stress the ‘u’, more like ‘oo’] – which means ‘awful’. It’s more than a literal translation, being one of two words of choice whenever one wishes to express disgust in a short, pithy way.

The other word is kosh’mar [stress the kosh, more like ‘lush’] – which means ‘nightmare’. It does pretty well the same job and I’d submit both are the words of choice in this case below, via Chuckles, via WM Briggs:

In Sweden, “it is now considered a distinct discrimination if one is addressed as a man or woman.” So reports Kopp Online.

Sweden is angling to de-genderify their pronouns so that use of he or she is officially discouraged, to be replaced by something resembling it (hen).

Not only does this move strip useful information from its language, the Swedes have made an important step in subtracting from a person’s humanity, since to be called an “it” is to be equated to a chair or a bug.

Now that, dear reader, is true equality. And it is under the banner of Equality that these changes are being made.

Koshmar! Uzhas!

Cut immediately to Uncle Badger who commented at OoL on Barry’s Kenyan birth [or not]:

What I find so deeply sinister is the completeness with which the Left has managed to shut-down any discussion – to the extent that even some who are usually lampooned as swivel-eyed Rich-wing loons slam the door once the issue of Obama’s origin is raised. They are too scared even to discuss it.

It is the Left’s power to control the debate, via the media but also in real life, that is troubling.

Because, let’s face it – we are powerless to stop this madness going on. I lump JD’s art comment at my place, in which he puts up a blank space and lampoons it as art, the Barry Soetoro birth, this Swedish insanity and so on under the same heading and that heading is less than complimentary.

De-genderify their pronouns!!!   Uzhas! Koshmar! You thought that was bad – try this – Briggs continues:

There is in Sweden a kindergarten with the telling name of Egalia where “gender-free” children are taught the joys of homosexuality and to play house, imagining, for instance, that there are “two or three mothers.” In a separate article, the wardens of this institution justify their experimentation by claiming that “gender” is not something which you are born with, but is something which can be “changed at any time.” This being so, the little tots should learn early how to do this morphing.

I want to weep. People, what has happened to us? What has gone wrong and who are these people who would perpetrate such outrages on toddlers who are denied any chance of growing up normally? What sort of parents have that progeny? What substances are they on? Can they be reasoned with?

9 comments for “Is there any way to stem this insanity?

  1. Tattyfalarr
    May 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    They manage to shut down discussion by simplifying the language. If you aren’t FOR “Equality”….their version of it….then you are totally, utterly against it. Nobody wants fingers pointed at them as a the person who “hates”.

    It worked so well with race and sexual preference issues this is simply more of the same tactics. You are FOR or you are AGAINST. There is officially now no IN-BETWEEN or COMPROMISE and and definitely no option for ABSTENTION from the arguement.

    Again, wordplay and linguistics, they made this an “arguement”… not a “debate”.

    As far as I can see, so far, it will take the same level of language distortion to defeat the ideology. If there’s anything to be learned from Brevik debacle it’s that force will not work.

    It may well be that someday Pedants will rule the world. 😐

  2. David
    May 20, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Once men and women become de humanised as things; objects; ‘its’, then it’s much easier to do away with those objects that are no longer of use. I can only think that the NWO (for I believe this is just another step in their control agenda),is laying the groundwork for an ‘essential’ cull at some point in the next twenty or so years.

    But what if someone WANTS to be addressed as Mr/Mrs/he/she/love/dear/darling? Then, surely, it will be against their human rights to be addressed as gender neutral? All people have to do is insist on being addressed as they want to be. I don’t see how they can impose this on everyone.

    • Tattyfalarr
      May 20, 2012 at 4:20 pm

      I don’t see how they can impose this on everyone.

      They can’t…in the same way that Human Rights Laws don’t apply to the way we treat each other but how “Authority” treats the public…ordinairy people will choose whether to be subjected to it.

      That said…it being imposed on every person of “authority” you come into contact on a daily basis with is enough to disrupt everyone and subtly force change.

      From the minute a child enters the education system as a toddler they will then spend up to 6+ hours a day, 5 days a week for up to 18 years being raised by “authority”. Plenty of time there for TPTB to set precedent as to how children behave on the outside.

      Think too how many of their parents will be State employed and will follow and enforce the same lines of reasoning and thinking at home.

      I can point to social workers in the family whose formal training goes against everything they were brought to be and believe yet there was nothing wrong with that in the first place. They have to be invited ‘cos they’re family but…they’re shunned at BBQ’s and the alcohol is hidden from them in case it sets them off lecturing the rest of us…

      Managing social engineering depends on there being enough people outside of the State and it’s working day to reverse the thinking and neutralise the behaviour. It boils down to simple mathematics, really. We have to outnumber them.

      • May 21, 2012 at 12:01 am

        I was reading about this last night. It’s a perfect example of situational ethics, of which the Left are masters.

        Would we be surprised to find out that an Episcopal priest could have come up with such a cockamamie theory? (Answer: No.)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics

        ‘the ends can justify the means or rules can be used to justify the means if a situation is not intrinsically bad.’ He uses Matthew 5 to justify. I would strongly disagree. Also: ‘the situational ethicist believes that laws are for the benefit of the people.’ In other words, ban or hide it, whatever ‘it’ might be.

        Smells like Socialism.

        • Voice of Reason
          May 21, 2012 at 12:57 am

          I would say that most people use siuational ethics all of the time. The hands of every major sect of most religions throughout history are not exactly clean on this, nor any political system, or even individuals. This is an aspect opf cognitive dissonance which I saw discussed in a lecture last week. They have just given a name to it.

          • Tattyfalarr
            May 21, 2012 at 7:15 am

            I think a lot of it is down to “neediness”. Some people have an inordinate need to think that someone cares about them.

            It’s up to the individual to tell ’em where to shove their “greater good” because, actually, MY “good” is just fine thankyaverymuch 😉

            • May 25, 2012 at 12:51 am

              Yes, thank you, Tattyfalarr — you’ve got it in one. 🙂

              Key word here: ‘individual’.

  3. Greg Tingey
    May 21, 2012 at 7:47 am

    You are blaming “the left” which I think is (at least partially) wrong.
    There are some dreadfully earnest people out there, who really can’t think straight.
    Usually found in religion, of course, which indicates just how deluded they are/
    Tell ’em to stuff it.
    Actually, if you just ignore it for long enough, they’ll go away and play somewhere else.

    • May 25, 2012 at 12:52 am

      Oh, so leftists are religionists, by which you mean Christians? Seriously?

      If you’re talking about other world faiths, Greg, at least have the bottle to say so and mention them by faith.

Comments are closed.