Daniel Greenfield April 20, 2021 @ Sultan Knish Blog
Joe
Biden is always redefining things by Bidenizing them into random
strings of gibberish like “lying, dog-faced pony soldier” or turning
them into Bidenisms. But these days his administration is ambitiously trying to redefine the entire English language.
“I
want to change the paradigm,” Biden told reporters. “I would like
elected Republican support, but what I know I have now is I have
electoral support from Republican voters. Republican voters agree with
what I’m doing.”
Like every other word that comes out of Biden’s mouth, that’s a lie. A Gallup poll in March f
ound that Biden’s approval rating among Republicans is at 8%. That’s down from 12% in February.
“What’s
become crystal clear is that Biden has redefined bipartisan," Obama
crony Rahm Emanuel argued. "And Washington is slow to catch up to the
Biden definition.”
The Biden definition of bipartisan is having the support of 8% of Republicans.
Not
only is Washington D.C. slow to catch up to the Biden definition of
bipartisan, but so is the dictionary. Biden’s advisers however argue
that the dictionary’s arc bends toward Biden.
“If you looked up
‘bipartisan’ in the dictionary, I think it would say support from
Republicans and Democrats,” Anita Dunn, who has advised Biden and Harvey
Weinstein, argued. “It doesn’t say the Republicans have to be in
Congress.”
It doesn’t say that the Democrats have to be in
congress either if it’s a book club. But if it’s bipartisan governing,
then it has to be Republican and Democrat elected officials.
“The
Biden definition of bipartisanship is an agenda that unifies the
country and appeals across the political spectrum,” Mike Donilon, a
senior Biden adviser, argued. “Presumably, if you have an agenda that is
broadly popular with Democrats and Republicans across the country, then
you should have elected representatives reflecting that.”
The
Framers also thought so which is why they put into place a system of
elected officials chosen by the people to represent them. Biden would
like to replace that with claiming that Republicans support him in a
poll so he can eliminate the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, add
Puerto Rico, D.C., and his family home as states, and rule a one-party
state.
Fresh off redefining ‘bipartisan’, the Biden
administration also redefined ‘infrastructure’ to mean funding the
Democrat welfare state.
“I mean, what is infrastructure?
Historically, it's been: What makes the economy move,” Secretary of
Energy Jennifer Granholm, contended.
Since everything makes the
economy move, in one direction or another, then everything is
infrastructure.
But if everything is infrastructure, then nothing is
infrastructure.
In the hands of lefty linguists, infrastructure,
like the Constitution or bipartisanship, ceases to be tethered to the
dictionary or the meanings imbued by a bunch of old white male racists,
and becomes a universal concept. Or as Granholm argued, “as the
president said this week, that infrastructure evolves to meet the
American people's aspirations.”
Infrastructure, like the living
constitution, is constantly evolving to meet lefty aspirations. One day
it’s a bridge, another day it’s abortion, and the end of free speech.
“We
don't want to use past definitions of infrastructure, when we are
moving into the future,” Granholm whined. Definitions are static. They
exist in the past. But the party of progress, as embodied by a
78-year-old man who keeps stumbling over words and falling down, is
using definitions from the future for Newspeak dictionaries that haven’t
even been invented yet.
If ‘infrastructure’ or ‘bipartisanship’
mean whatever Biden says it does, then he’s an absolute dictator, and
reality means whatever lying, dog-faced pony soldier decides it does
this week.
But Biden is always redefining things.
The
serial Democrat lecher started out, like Bill Clinton, by redefining
sex. Except that Biden, in one of his first executive orders, redefined
sex to mean some intangible psychologically subjective concept of sex
not based on science or biology, rather than men and women.
Once
you’ve redefined women out of existence, redefining bipartisan to mean a
one-party state, and infrastructure to mean social services is easy.
All it takes is the refusal to be bound by the narrow categories of the
past and then bridges, gender, and tyranny can be surprisingly fluid.
Last year, Biden had already redefined being a Catholic.
“Biden Could Redefine What It Means to be ‘a Catholic in Good
Standing,” the Washington Post argued. Predictably, the argument was all
about a more fluid definition of Catholicism and “what kinds of
Catholicism they think most urgently needs to be advanced”. The Biden
brand involves “poverty, refugees and the environment” which has as much
to do with Catholicism as Tikkun Olam’s emphasis on “poverty, refugees,
and the environment” has to do with Judaism.
But when you’re
already redefining the Constitution, gender, and the meaning of simple
words, why not also redefine religion away from narrow categories of
belief, and into an evolving religion of the future in which things mean
whatever we want them to mean at any moment.
When words mean
nothing, then ideas mean nothing, and it’s easy to redefine Catholicism
and Judaism to mean Muslim immigration, Obamaphones, and subsidies for
luxury ‘green’ SUVs.
As George Orwell rightly noted, the refusal to allow words to mean anything is tyranny.Without
objective meanings, there are no laws and therefore no rights. There
are no restraints on the power of the state when it refuses to be bound
by the mere definitions of words.
Democrats spent generations
trying to nullify the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights by arguing
about the meaning of “arms”. Now they’re trying to do the same thing to
the First Amendment by putting forward exciting new definitions of
“speech” and the “press”.
Recent mainstream media editorials
attacking free speech include "Why Is Big Tech Policing Free Speech?
Because the Government Isn’t", "Free Speech is Killing Us" and “Why
America Needs a Hate Speech Law.”
That last one was written by a
Biden transition official, who sneered that, “the intellectual
underpinning of the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era”
and that, “the framers believed that this marketplace was necessary”
from which “magically, truth would emerge.” An important prerequisite
for the emergence of truth is the magic of allowing people to speak and
for words to mean something. When there’s no free speech or meaningful
speech, truth dies.
In our exciting leftist future, we know that
speech, like gender, infrastructure, and bipartisanship, have to be
redefined to mean whatever the government has decided that it should
mean.
The truth can only emerge from the government and its political media partners.
And
if you doubt that, you probably believe that infrastructure means
roads, that women exist, that free speech means the freedom to speak,
rather than being told what you can say.
Bad speech “undermines
the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness,
due process, equality before the law,” the Biden transition official
argued.
The only way to save the true values of the First Amendment is to destroy its literal meaning.
This
is the same argument that you will find behind every
Biden redefinition
which insists on a definition so inclusive that it includes everything
except what it actually means.
Catholicism and Judaism mean
everything except their own traditional teachings. Sex means everything
except men and women. Infrastructure means everything except roads and
bridges.And bipartisanship means everything except elected officials from two parties working together.America
also needs to be redefined from a country and a people to an idea that
includes the entire world and everything in it, except its own citizens
and a country with borders.
When America, like religion and words, means everything then it means nothing.And
who better than Joe Biden, who redefines sentences into
incomprehensible word salads randomly assembled from a Scrabble session,
to usher in the end of the English language.
Tags:
Biden,
big government,
recent
About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and
the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz
Freedom Center
Derek Hunter Jul 31, 2022 
