As I have stated before, it is my sincere belief that one of the biggest threats we face from progressivism today is a language desecration. At the forefront of the war on language is “J Street,” which has decided to call itself a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization.
This thread should hopefully become part of a series on Blogmocracy, to catalogue the many places where the progressives have desecrated the English language. The goal will be to identify the specific language desecrations, in order to correct these problems, and correctly define mis-defined words in the English language. In time, hopefully this can be copied in other languages.
The first in this series will start off with the word PEACE.
Dictionary.com defines “peace” as: the normal, non warring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world. Source. This definition meshes well with the biblical concept of “Shalom,” which wiki defines quite well right here:
Shalom, in the liturgy and in the transcendent message of the Christian scriptures, means more than a state of mind, of being or of affairs. Derived from the Hebrew root shalam – meaning to be safe or complete, and by implication, to be friendly or to reciprocate. Shalom, as term and message, seems to encapsulate a reality and hope of wholeness for the individual, within societal relations, and for the whole world. To say joy and peace, meaning a state of affairs where there is no dispute or war, does not begin to describe the sense of the term. Completeness seems to be at the center of shalom as we will see in the meaning of the term itself, in some derivatives from its root, shalam, in some examples of its uses in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and in some homophone terms from other Semitic languages.
This is all well and good, but how do the progressives define this all-important word? Let’s see the way they use this term…
Code Pink (a “peace” group)
J Street (“pro-Israel, pro-peace“)
What do all of those organizations have in common? They all have a part in the ongoing war on language, raging across the world.
They all apparently define peace as “surrender.” As such, they are actually not pro-peace, but they are pro-war for the other side. They are looking to redefine “peace” as a term which is synonymous with pacifism, which, as I showed very clearly, is NOT the actual definition of peace.
And so, that is why I like to end my statements with the following…
I am pro-peace, pro-human rights, pro-humanity, pro-American, pro-Israel, and pro-Judeo-Christian values. This is why I believe it is imperative to stand up for our basic values, and never back down against progressivism. We must never cede the language!
Recall the old Roman maxim: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” – Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
Sometimes war is necessary in order for peace to be possible. This is something that Gandhi never understood. He is the same man who told the British to “give up” to the Nazis, as a “true sign” of nonviolence, and told the Jews to “dare Germans to shoot them,” rather than move to “Palestine.”
In this screwed up ideology, fighting genocide is equivalent to committing genocide. Their version of “peace,” as I already documented in other posts, involve laying down and committing suicide.
I am sorry, but that is not “peace,” it is genocide. The next time some so-called “peace” group claims to be pro-peace, we should never let them get away with false claims. We must ask them what they mean by “peace,” and how they define “peace.” And then we should ask how they hope to bring about “peace” through absolute surrender to mass murderers/human butchers.
Next to follow in the series: justice, human rights, racism, imperialism, colonialism, apartheid, progressivism, liberalism, West Bank, genocide, zionism, patriotism, social justice, and due process. This is just for starters!
Tags: J Street, language, Peace, Progressives, U.S. Institute of Peace
