Recent Posts

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

The Language of Atheistic Revolution

Language is the key to understanding a person's political stand and philosophy of life. One way Catholics can sense or hear that a person is a Marxist in ideology, especially with regard to a view of history, is to examine words which are being used. This is a simple way to organize one's own logical and rational discourse, one can learn to really listen. Here are some clues to political and even atheistic, and at least, material thinking.

One, if a person uses dichotomies constantly in a description of historical trends, you, the Catholic can  learn a lot. Examples: country vs. city interests; labor vs. managerial; industrial vs. academic' elite vs. non-elite; educated vs. illiterate; military-bourgeoisie vs. populace; social vs. religious; urban vs. rural'; democracy vs. totalitarian; facism vs. communist; the masses vs. the elite; rich vs. poor; have vs. have nots; upper class vs. lower class; even, science vs. faith.  And so on.

Two, if a person with whom you are discussing either politics or religion keeps referring to the Kingdom of God as if it is a political or civil reality, beware. Read St. Augustine's The City of God for an early clarification of how God's Kingdom is not a political or societal utopia.

Three, if you are hearing words which define everything in economic terms, such as a list of grievances which are always bases on money, beware. Key words are equilibrium of the classes' equality of the classes;  consolidation; global bank; global currency. horizontal class structure; homogeneity; hegemony; stratum or stratas; primitive capitalism; syndicalism; And so on.

Four, if you are hearing in conversation an over-abundance of statements on personal rights, you know you are listening to an ideologue. Examples include, civil rights for all groups, even NAMBA; the lack of the imagination of (take your pick), the Americans, the Catholic Church, the Evangelicals, etc.; women's reproductive rights; freedom for all peoples ( a vague and dangerous term, meaning nothing but license); indoctrination and didactic attitude of the Catholic Church; hierarchy or anti-hierarchy (these terms are now buzz words); And so on

Five, with regard to education, beware of these terms in conversation, as these reveal an athestic and Marxist bent: formation, inculturation, diversity; idealism; psychological profiling; realism; pragmatic solutions; And so on.

These lists are not all-inclusive. I can also list the Narcissistic vocabulary, but that is another post.

Just remember that as Catholics, especially as adults, we have a duty to understand our own roots in Christ and His Church, and read the major works of the Popes for the last one-hundred and fifty years. Some of those documents are listed on the side.

It is interesting to note that the communists and socialists in Europe will use other utopian groupings, such as the Freemasons, while hating their own pseudo-religious structures.  The anarchists and syndicalists will do the same. Americans cannot be naive, nor can the British, about these larger movements. Language creates paranoia and false class struggle. Note our present administration which used the language of division and on purpose,  I usually do not refer to PBS, which is an arch-liberal organization, but this is an interesting site for beginners in the history of repressive governments. another phrase used by those who hate the Church. How language can be twisted may be seen in both the history of propaganda, and one merely needs to look at the language which built up to the Holocaust for such a perversion of language in Germany. This can happen anywhere and is now happening in the States, Great Britain, Ireland and other places, in the media.

Language Police under Stalin
By the way, I am sure you know many, too many Catholics and even priests and nuns who use and believe the language of the radical left. To be continued.


SC said...

Without diminishing the fact that language reveals a framework of thought which can belie the Church's foes, I think it's worth adding that the language of the Church can also be used to disguise un-Catholic practices -- for example, one complaint against the Legion of Christ (not that it's applicable in every instance to every member, but at least at one time before the visitation and all it had been noted as a trend) was a tendency to use "charity" to mean ignoring evil committed by the leadership and, just to be wildly ironic/hypocritical, assuming all sorts of moral and/or psychological problems of anyone who leaves/criticizes the movement. One has to not only use terms that suggest the right framework, one has to actually operate in that framework. On the one hand having to judge whether various interpretations and the like are valid/right is why the Church often seems more flexible than she should be considering her divinely revealed message; on the other hand -- or perhaps the other side of the same coin -- the Church is the authority in clarifying and judging the frameworks that our terminology refers to (and, if I'm not mistaken, is interested in the terminology mainly because it should refer to such; e.g. she doesn't say we have to use the term "transubstantiation", but she considers the explanation it refers to to be a valid/worthy understanding of what she does require us believe -- the Real Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist).

As I understand it, Modernism is what can be termed a "metalinguistic heresy", that is it doesn't stick to the definitions of terms that the Church would start from, whereas "linguistic heresies" dissent on what's true using the same set of terminology to discuss it (i.e. "I say black and you say white, given our common definition of what black and white are" vs. Modernism's "You say white and I say what is white?"). If this assessment is accurate, one reasonable fear would be that there might someday arise more or greater "metalinguistic heresies" that do a better job of appropriating and misusing traditional Catholic terminology to some twisted end. (Note that I say "more or greater" not as compared to Modernism, but as compared to any movements so far that insist they teach the old/pre-Vatican-II Catholic stuff but in practice or in interpretation of the exact terms differ wildly from Church teaching. If the Feeneyites [just to pick a fairly well-known dispute over interpretation of an old Catholic doctrinal formula] and the Legion's abusive side -- both of which movements have had their issues tweaked and are now considered more or less tolerable by the Church as I understand it -- are the two worst examples we get of this in my lifetime, I'll count myself fortunate.)

On a note of presentation rather than the topic, I apologize for my inability to format a paragraph with tangential comments both briefly and neatly. I consider myself more clasically educated than most, but never did figure out, after I had boiled things down in distinction to the basic levels where you actually can sort things absolutely and then looked at connections between those levels and applications and whatnot, how on earth to write an essay detailing it all clearly.

And on a completely irrelevant note, the captcha is "seforti andhat", clearly meaning that if you strengthen yourself you should also have something on your noggin.

Supertradmum said...

Your comment is superb. The idea of a metalinguistic heresy is great, as the entire idea of the Modernists is to be relativistic. I would also include Post-Modern and Post-Post Modern Philosophies in this category. Your paragraphs are just fine, says the ex-writing instructor.

Please comment again, as I love to learn new ideas...

ColdStanding said...

I would situate the meta-heresy in the belief/technique that to translate from one language to another a third language needs to be crafted to control the exchange of ideas. An example of this would be pin yin or the Wade-Giles system for rendering the Chinese family of languages into European languages. This enabled a controlled effacement of the ideas represented by the Chinese writing, which were very stable over thousands of years. The new renderings left control in the hands of Western power structures (which number am I?). Not surprisingly it was the Germans that pursued this method most assiduously, thanks to the ground work Luther laid down in managing the Bible into German (really creating modern German in so doing ). No surprise either that Marx used this method. The difference being Marx set up symbols to mediate meaning. His voluminous and technically difficult writing forces the reader to learn his system; his mediation instead of learning the actual source material.

The Catholic Church is considered an obstacle because it uses Latin enabling meaning to remain constant or highly resistant to change. I speak here only in terms of how the Latin language defeats Marxist thought police. Obviously there are other differences.

Supertradmum said...

One also sees the perversion of language in propaganda from Nazi Germany, in such horrible phrases as "final solution" or "vermin" in relation to the Jewish people. Words today in America and Britain are thus used such as "tolerance", "civil rights", "women's reproductive rights", which as Catholics as we know cover a series of lies.