In the time before Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau the European male would referred to himself as a ‘Christian’. Sometime during The Enlightenment we abandoned ‘Christian’ and coined the term ‘human’. This simple change of language empowered men to escape the grip of the church. We became free men beholden only to ourselves, our reason and to the emerging concept of human rights. Man was no longer Christian, he was human. Human’s unleashed great power. Not the power of Gods nor the power of armies, it was the power of language.
In time, the word ‘human’ came to embody Western values. It was human to be a white, land owning, educated liberal male who believed in market economics and a representative political process. It was inhuman to worship sticks and stones, have tribal scars and practice polygamy. Importantly, there were no laws against enslaving and murdering the non-human. It was more than a little dangerous to be a non-human at this time. It was a simple trick. Step 1, Define human as Westerner. Step 2, inventing a wonderful system that could only ‘humans’ could enjoy. Thus, we developed a monopoly on power.
At the same time that the word ‘human’ was coming to mean homo sapien, the West was expanding. It participated in a successful opposition to Islam. It discovered seemingly primitive people in the New World. And it was undergoing an explosion of knowledge during The Enlightenment. All these successes served only to reinforce the notion that being ‘human’ was superior to being anything else. The term ‘human’ became synonymous to the word ‘civilised’. The power of the language grew.
In a world where we talk in terms of Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews we can also talk in terms of Sikhs, Shamen, Druids and even Jedis. Language thus used is inclusive of many categories and allows us to meet new people and ask “who are you?”. But when we talk in terms of humans and non-humans, we form our thoughts around those that are ‘civilised’ and everyone else that isn’t. This second form of categorization makes it more likely that we will meet new people and ask “are you one of us or one of them?”.
To the western male, human’s were ‘us’, everyone else was ‘them’. Ancient Australian aboriginal elders, them. Mighty African tribal Chieftains, them. Wise Chinese emperors, them. Masterful Japanese samurai, them. For each to become human, they must westernize and then they would be ‘civilized’ too.
But there was more powerful language still to come.
The rise of the term ‘rights’ (as in ‘human rights’) came about through three major events; the establishment of the concept of nations (as defined by Francisco de Vitoria); the revolutions of England, France and America; and the aftermath of the two World Wars. The remedy for each event was ‘rights’ and all three events were European in origin. Now Europeans owned not only the term ‘human’ but also the term ‘rights’. This was a powerful position from which to play, and we played.
Humanity has just lived through a 70 year period post WWII when human rights has sculpted much of the globe. Liberalism and democracy have won the battle for hearts and minds and there is hardly a political regime to stand against the humanists now. It is hard to imagine an alternative to humanism. Our rights have defeated nations and turned good people against their own gods. Cultures that do not agree with what human rights are automatically get defined as bad. Human rights are the greatest weapons the world has ever seen. If you don’t subscribe to them, you are a non-human and are destroyed without expense. No need to deploy of ground troops. No bombs to risk the loss of infrastructure that impedes trade with your new “ally”. Just the shame of the non-human status.
But to a great many people, human rights directly contradict their own culture. Not many people know it but many countries opposed human rights after WWII. Some south east Asian and south american nations did not want to sign the universal declaration of human rights. Lee Kuan Yew, a senior minister of Singapore at the time sums it up “The Confucianist view of order between subject and ruler helps in the rapid transformation of society … in other words, you fit yourself into society – the exact opposite of the American rights of the individual. I believe that what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy. Democracy leads to undisciplined and disorderly conditions.”
And so human rights pose a huge question to everyone “Be human or be loyal to my own culture?”.
I believe we have a similar question to answer, “Be Progressive Liberal or be Inhuman?”.
As it is and has always been, just as our fortunes rise so they must decline. Conservative western men and women are being bested our own pupils. It is my belief that we are ourselves now the victim of our own strategy. Take the following three examples.
1) In today’s world, for a reason that evades me, to be liberal is to have green hair and have thigh tattoos; choose your own pro-noun and a get a gender studies degree. I choose not be this thing and so the world will not see me as liberal. But by the definitions of John Stuart Mill, John Locke and Adam Smith I am the original liberal. I believe people have a Tabula Rasa and can choose freely. Westerners have lost control of the word ‘liberal’ through our own weakness. We have tolerated corruptions of key words for the sake of tolerance. Now, I will avoid the term liberal just so I avoid association with green haired SJW’s. Too late I realise I have lost a part of myself. I am a liberal, but the word doesn’t describe me anymore.
2) I love women but I will not applaud them (nor will I stop them) when they embrace having many meaningless sexual partners. To me, it will be a series of soul destroying events for her and a series of pleasurable notches on the bedhead for him. I will not accept that hypergamy can serve the nation. Neither do I believe that there is natural equality between the sexes. I do not think that promiscuity benefits the sexes equally. Because of my beliefs, I’m told I can’t possibly love women and must be misogynist. So I suppose I must choose misogyny. I’m not a misogynist, but I have to accept that this word, with its shiny new definition, now describes me. By not being feminist, I am misogynist.
3) Social justice is a dirty word among The Right. It is so because of its connotations of wealth redistribution, feminism and welfare dependency. But I have a strong sense of social justice. I happen to believe that Aristotle’s virtuous man is a just citizen. It is socially just when reward is based on merit or when a weak and lazy person receives little. This is a social justice theory but such is the corruption of the term ‘social justice’ that we don’t recognise it as one. I believe in social justice, but I don’t think I’d want to say “I wan’t social justice”. It just doesn’t convey my meaning anymore.
They tell us “be liberal or be misogynist”. And so, just to avoid association with SJW’s, we choose to be misogynists. We do this because we can’t vocalize a third option. Language is now used against us.
Key words are being re-defined to exclude conservatives from using them. Even classical liberals can’t properly use words like justice, male/female and victim. Who can keep up with the new definitions? Just imagine when they redefine the word ‘children’. The horror! The part of this war where we say “Actually, you’re not a victim because….” has been fought and lost by our side. We tried to tell someone that got a useless college degree and didn’t try and get a job that they weren’t a victim. Unfortunately we caved into compassion when the subject of our explanation dissolved into an ocean of tears. We lost the battle and the word. That’s why we are where we are now.
Now is the part of this war when we must create new words. These words must fill the vacuum that was once occupied by the honest and true definitions of the now corrupted words. We need replacements for words like responsibility, triggered and hate. The project is underway. What was once called a feminist is now a biology denier. A university student is now a snow flake. A Neo-con is now a cuck. The need for the words is still there, we just need to make new ones.
The next part of the war will be when we take the words that the progressive/regressive liberals have invented and give them a new meaning. Meet out the measure in kind. But now is not the time for this battle, it will come later.