The corruption of the lexicon

Imagining how tragic it would be to lose your vision in a world in which you can no longer describe what surrounds you, you can't see anything other than a tragedy, however, perhaps it is equally frightening to live without being able to express what surrounds you. The loss of the ability to communicate would make us more animalistic, devoid of what made us evolve in an unquestionable way, since, through writing, we were able to preserve teachings and create, even in the field of fiction, world views that could inspire man.

The word man, in the previous paragraph, refers to a human being, not restricted to those of the male gender. Such an explanation seems strange and unnecessary, in fact it is, however, I consider it a simple warning for the current scenario, in which the obvious, unfortunately, needs to be justified.

Linguistics teaches us to recognize any things by their sign, which has a signifier and meaning. The signifier is the written or sound form of the word translated by our understanding of the world, while the signified is the universal concept of the thing.

“The linguistic sign is a representative element that has two aspects: the meaning and the signifier. When we hear the word dog, we recognize the sequence of sounds that make up that word. These sounds identify with the memory of them that is in our memory. This memory constitutes a real sound image, stored in our brain, which is the signifier of the dog sign.

When we hear this word, we immediately think of an irrational four-legged animal, with fur, eyes, ears, etc. This concept that comes to mind is the meaning of the dog sign and is also stored in our memory.

When using the signs that make up our language, we must obey the grammatical rules agreed by the language itself. In this way, for example, it is possible to place the indefinite article one before the sign dog, forming the sequence a dog, the same would not be possible if we wanted to place the article one before the sign dog”.

Once again it seems like the exercise of explaining what is evident, however, such understanding is necessary to observe the risk of so-called Newspeak, a term originating in the 1984 book by British author Goerge Orewell, in which language is adapted to the desires of the powerful.

Returning to the sad point at which we have reached, not that of fiction but of current times, today we need to explain that the grass is green, and reaffirm this as many times as necessary so that consciousness is not kidnapped and the grass assumes, in people's minds, any other color that tyrants desire. Information became the most effective weapon and, early on, a way to enslave millions of people, even before the use of force.

Reframing, which is nothing more than giving a new meaning to a word whose concept is already known, is a way of controlling people based on non-existent arguments, as fallacies will become irrefutable without counter-argument, which requires, as a rule, the use of words according to the correct concept. There is no way to dismiss an argument, even if it is false, without a debate in which the language is not known, even worse would be when known words start to have a volatile meaning, usually posted by the creator of the misinformation.

I will pause briefly, as I will use a real example. When sharing a post from a group (WhatsApp), with the participation of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, on the theme called “Matematiqueer” (something about mathematics and the LGBT agenda, with public money), containing the text, “Check out newly arrived members at MatematiQueer”, I was surprised by the following comment, “I thought I was reading a post in French”, which caught my attention, as such a statement was something that worried me.

I was in front of a publication with the seal of a higher education institution that should protect its history, since, although officially founded in 1920, it is the historical heir of the Royal Academy of Artillery, Fortification and Design, an institution founded by Queen D. Maria I of Portugal, in 1792, even before Brazil's independence. However, the more than bicentennial university threw its legacy into the mud in the name of a progressive agenda that intends to adulterate the Portuguese language to suit its nefarious desires for social control.

One could feel regret at seeing a renowned, and costly, institution sinking in the dirt, perhaps the location of Cidade Universitária in the capital of Rio de Janeiro has more to say, given that Ilha o Fundão is surrounded by a veritable sea of ​​sewage. But it is not UFRJ that I intend to deal with, at least for now.

The so-called neutral language is, without a shadow of a doubt, an evil that must be fought, just as any unhealthy distortion of language must be rejected or we will be slaves to those who dictate the rules, even if they are volatile.

Giving the meaning that suits words, self-styled progressive groups, which is already a flagrant distortion, dominate the public debate and subject terms to arguments according to their abject interest.

Abortion, which translates into the murder of human beings in their mothers' wombs, begins to be redefined as a reproductive right, when such an expression should lead, and does, to the understanding that a woman could not have curtailed her right to be a mother. It seems that defenders of women's reproductive rights are fighting against those infamous state impositions of the Chinese dictatorship regarding a limit on the number of children, when in fact, they want to kill babies during pregnancy. The distortion serves to deceive people who will understand an end other than that intended.

Once again, I ask the reader's permission to create a hypothesis, in which an individual, knowing what it means to ask for someone's daughter's hand, does so, in order to have the right to amputate part of her member and remove it. It should be noted that, as strange as this example may be, there was no need to give new meaning to the words, just decontextualizing them, because, knowing that giving a hand leads to the understanding that it is a marriage proposal, the individual would have asked using literality, confusing the receiver of the message, unlike what is done by falsely self-styled progressives who, going further, invent meanings for words whose concept already exists to deceive.

Distorting the lexicon on purpose is not harmful because it harms communication, since there is a sordid intention driving this process. These are not innocent mistakes, driven by ignorance or mistaken repetition of a term, month, dangerously, a conscious manipulation of words to dissuade individuals from allowing themselves to be guided by an abysmal agenda of social control.

As mentioned, it is essential to know how to differentiate between errors and corruption, simply due to the fact that the first is caused by lack of knowledge or inattention and the second has a putrid purpose, so that those who make mistakes can and should be corrected, with due education, just so that they understand the correct use of their language, however, those who deliberately distort the meaning of something must be combated, as they seek the evil result that leads to such action, even if acting unconsciously, a hypothesis in which it will serve a foreign purpose, but equally clumsy.

Changing language in a preordained way is not natural, therefore, it serves the purpose of inserting or modifying concepts that are not covered by the term, thus, it can cause the receiver of the message to have a false impression about something, triggering a trigger or preventing them from knowing the real meaning. There are countless people who repeat lying mantras planted by a group that, in an artificial way, reframes words to attack, silence or even criminalize their opponents, sometimes posing as victims when in fact they are executioners.

Terms such as public opinion and civil society give a generic idea that the people, in a broad and unrestricted way, think in a certain way and act together, when in fact, both are misleading premises, since they were unduly appropriated, or coined, with the aim of deceiving those who seek the most obvious meaning of such terms.

The so-called public opinion, an expression that makes the individual believe that it is the opinion of the majority, is actually the editorial line of the mainstream media, causing individuals who disagree with such positions to find themselves isolated in a given society because of a lie. When believing that a topic is seen by the majority from a certain angle, those who have a dissonant view end up seeing themselves as a small exception and remaining silent to support, democratically, the position of the majority, the so-called spiral of silence, thus succumbing to the dictates of a group that controls the media.

On the other hand, the expression civil society, in turn, has a specific meaning, being, in fact, a group of people who come together to participate in public issues even if they are not part of the State, so that its meaning is honestly represented in the dictionary, however, there is a hegemonic vision that ends up considering that certain groups are worthy of recognition and others are not, as well as, causing the leaders of such groups to be equally considered acceptable or not. At first, it seems fair to consider that the association of people in defense of identity groups is beneficial, however, it is enough for such a faction to contradict progressive agendas, another fallacious expression, for it to be rejected, hence the great difficulty for feminist leaders to position themselves against the inclusion of men in women's sports, as this would imply the infamous accusation, even if false, of being transphobic.

In practice, when the participation of civil society is defended, what is seen in a more in-depth analysis is the legitimization of preordained groups that act as monopolizers of the debate on a topic, excluding those who oppose it, to create political hegemony. Civil society, in real life, is much closer to soviets than to a bunch of neighbors who seek improvements for their neighborhood, as they try to instill in the citizen's head.

The distorted resignification also serves to, in an unfounded way, promote accusations and even aggressions, when the fascist tag is placed on any individual who dares to disagree with the political elite, it legitimizes, in the minds of those most devoid of knowledge, the aggression against those who have been untruthfully identified as being members of a detestable political spectrum, even though the same aggressors are blatantly defending socialism, as such a system, perhaps even more deadly, manipulates the so-called anti-fascists at the same time. time when he claims to be a human rights defender (it sounds like a joke, but it's not).

Some distortions that seem insignificant to us, or even joking, can bring a trap within them, as progressivism is a viper, it will always have poison in its fangs, everything it proposes to do is, at best, a way of lowering the opponent's guard. So-called resignifications are no exceptions.

Subtly, pretending to value women in politics, they tried to distort the name of the highest position in the nation using the term “president”, disregarding the fact that the word president is common to both genders, yes, there are only two. Around that time, a renowned federal school in the capital of Rio de Janeiro started calling its students “alunxs”, once again tearing up the lexicon of the Portuguese language.

Then came the cry called neutral pronoun, which aims to deconstruct language in favor of a surreal identity agenda, based on the will of individuals who try to lead groups by labeling them to teach them not before “patenting” their creation, since, by subdividing the two real genders, they create several “subgenres” to satisfy their niche of power. Fractionating as many times as necessary to control, steal control or embarrass those who do not fit into the new subdivision as a possible tormentor of the newly emancipated, the figure of the trans “woman” emerges in the female gender, in fact a man who considers himself a woman, with those who do not fit in being required to accept such a view under penalty (in some countries, real) of being accused of homophobia, however, the group of trans “women” can give rise to a fraction of lesbian trans “women”, who are nothing more than men who define themselves as women and have relationships with women, in short, a heterosexual man who dresses like a woman. If this seems complicated to you, it's because it doesn't make any sense.

Imagining that someone has lost their vision and needs a description of an individual, but their interlocutor uses “neutral language”, the poor blind person will be even more lost, as their mind will not be able to form an image based on the meaning of what is said to them. It becomes a herculean task to explain that a gay trans “man” got pregnant and the father is a lesbian trans “woman”, when it would be simple to describe that a woman is pregnant and the father is a man, despite them dressing differently than normal.

Such a grotesque scenario would also occur if a detailed description of an individual was necessary, be it a lost person, a victim in the possession of criminals, an accident victim or the perpetrator of a crime, bearing in mind that the act of describing people and objects is nothing more than presenting their characteristics.

The corruption of the lexicon is even more complex when it comes to abstract nouns, since with concrete ones we can compare the change and reality, so that men do not get pregnant or menstruate, no matter how much certain women want to be called men, this is a fact that can be used to ward off the desire. The real risk of resignifying a word that addresses a concrete noun is when there is a coercive force, also corrupted, which will seek to make individuals deny reality, criminalizing the truth in search of a narrative.

When it comes to an abstract noun, in the sick progressive mind, it is enough to give the “pseudo-meaning” and repeat it for them to believe it is real, the term progressivism itself is fallacious, given that, progress is presumed, the advancement of a certain point, when, in truth, revolutionaries seek to destroy a society to recreate it in their own way, there is no idea of ​​evolution, progress, what occupies the mind of the revolutionary is the construction of the world in an artificial, therefore dysfunctional, way, to satisfy their madness for the control of humanity and, perhaps even worse, for believing they can occupy the Throne of thrones.

They have given new meaning, in the minds of the weakest, to words such as democracy, fascism, genocide, disinformation and so many others that we could treat them separately, but the important thing is to observe how people end up assuming that such narratives are true, agreeing with unilateral freedom of expression, a democracy belongs to those in power and that institutions are more important than the people they must serve. The so-called anti-democratic acts are those directed at people who want to protect themselves, however, the criticism against the nation, including in other languages ​​(seeking international outcry) is treated as a mere individual opinion.

The world becomes truly dangerous when man cannot see where he is going, being cowardly attacked by the shadows, therefore, changing the meaning of racism to treat it as a unilateral tool of persecution, as well as creating more and more ways of criminalizing opinions, coercively silencing truth and conscience, to criminalize everyone by making them need the leniency of those who can judge, is sickening, as it creates legal uncertainty only seen in the worst dictatorships.

The Constitution and the entire legal system are transformed into a moribund patchwork in order to satisfy the progressive intention, everything that does not please the agenda is summarily removed or is transfigured to conform to the desires of those who placed themselves above all. What was built by tradition, built with difficulty, is destroyed and swept away by people who, far from their mission, insist on conducting an artificial process.

With regard to neutral language, something grotesque and meaningless, the insistence of revolutionaries to insert such a corrupt neologism into the lexicon of our language is not something fleeting, because, as mentioned, it has a special purpose, namely, to create in the subconscious that there are no definitions of gender and that concepts will bow before the dictates of those in power, just as justice contorts itself to satisfy power, ceasing to be fair and becoming an instrument of persecution and control, meaning, in revolutionary mind, can be freely altered to suit the nefarious intent of the center of power.

As much as it is attractive for us to make fun of neutral language, we must face it as the viper that it is, as it serves the greater evil that will corrupt not only the lexicon of the Portuguese language but will take with it the conscience of the entire society. Just as our grandparents told us not to confuse freedom with libertinism, assuming the use of terms like “todes” to bring together men and women, when it is known that the word todos already does so, is, at best, giving up the linguistic legacy that was left to us by the Portuguese, even the Romans.

Unfortunately, the world is not made in the best of times, and submitting to so-called neutral language is allowing yourself to be enslaved by a group that deliberately uses distortions of meaning to lead everyone, not “everyone”, to the precipice. The agenda will advance by determining how each individual should express themselves, preventing those who do not agree from expressing their arguments due to lexical deficiency.

It would be enough to say that the so-called neutral language, in itself, will fail, since, artificial and without real practical application, it would be doomed to disuse, however, as mentioned, universities and other educational institutions, uncommitted to their mission of training due to having imbibed the viper's venom, try to insert such an aberration into the context, making their students assimilate the language to repeat it as a mantra of their dystopian tribe. The attempt to communicate with terms disconnected from reality ends up being vexatious, however, we can imagine that in the near future the adherence by a large group will lead language users to the false belief that it is something normal, therefore, what is the exception will be the rule, causing the artificial to cover the natural communication that evolved with civilization, that is, by revolutionizing the lexicon we will have a rupture between the civilization now constructed that will serve as the basis for the destruction and the construction of a new order. world, whose forms of communication are edited from the top of the power pyramid.

It is important to highlight that the imposition lacks legitimacy, even if false, to convince the majority, therefore, the inability to understand the concept of something will result in the impossibility of questioning such legitimacy, thus, a man who cannot investigate whether the person he intends to marry is a man or a woman, will not be able to question why his relationships do not result in children. It seems and is crazy, but even the concept of man and woman could be lost, and then chance will be the father of future generations.

In the search for the legitimacy of neutral language, educational institutions have strived to instill it in education, forcing future generations to assimilate it. It is still necessary to corrupt some institution capable of contaminating in a more incisive way, as in the case of the legal system, in which, going beyond the walls of universities, courts and other bodies were contaminated, ultimately rigging the highest court of the Judiciary, which made it possible to twist Justice in favor of the revolutionary agenda.

Behold, the dangerous appointments of revolutionary agents to the Brazilian Academy of Letters are not limited to unfortunate choices to please friends, since, in fact, the institution's equipment aims to legitimize the purposeful and artificial resignification of the lexicon to lead life through language. For those who forget that the German Government stated that Nazism was on the right-wing spectrum, when the post of Chancellor of that country was occupied by a politician who began her public life in the extinct East Germany, that is, for the less enlightened, it is enough for a left-wing government, from the country that was under the yoke of the Nazis, to point out that such a nefarious system finds a place on the right and that will be the case.

The Brazilian Academy of Letters has a strong influence on language, being a reference for research and even debate about the evolution of the lexicon, therefore, equipping such an institution aims to legitimize the resignification of words so that it meets the progressive agenda. Former presidents José Sarney and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, as well as avowedly progressive writers such as Merval Pereira and Paulo Coelho, are already immortal, which, with the entry of actress Fernanda Montenegro and singer Gilberto Gil, demonstrates a clear inclination for the institution to increasingly adopt an aggressive stance in order to advance revolutionary agendas by falling into discredit or legitimizing the absurd.

For those who think this is impossible, a simple reading is enough: “Native Brazilians, with published works of recognized cultural value, can apply to the Academy. ABL has significant importance in society, as it creates vocabularies and dictionaries for the Portuguese language; studies and evaluates grammatical or spelling changes; publishes unpublished works or anthologies by national writers; in addition to distributing literary prizes”.

As the revolutionary agenda does not come close to reality, it does not matter how much blood will be shed in the name of its social experiment, which will fail, but at what cost. For this reason it is necessary to resist the actions of self-proclaimed progressives even though it means placing the Brazilian Academy of Letters in a framework that respects its history, relegating it from the values ​​it once had.

Progressives of the highest rank consider themselves lords of everything, believing themselves to be gods, which is why they are doomed to fall, like the one who tried to raise his throne above the stars and equate themselves with God, however, revolutionaries do not mind dragging as many souls as they can into the abyss, fueled by greed and envy, they will always be eager to do and spread their evil throughout the world.

Article published in Revista Conhecimento & Cidadania Vol. I No. 10 April 2022 edition – ISSN 2764-3867