“Best” New Conservative Words

Every now and again, appears as if Andrew Schlafly needs to reaffirm the reasons for his existence (or more likely the reason why mummy has to give him money to fund his little hobby). This normally takes the form of an “insight” (yes, folks, a “trustworthy” encyclopaedia that provides insights, instead of facts), a “mystery” (have a look at “Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims” for a shining example of one. The bigger mystery for most of us is how does this man’s mind work?), or occasionally an essay, normally extolling the virtues of being conservative over being liberal. You also have to remember, in Andy’s world, you can only be one or the other – there is no middle ground with him… oh, and he sets the criteria for who qualifies too… and don’t expect those goalposts to be too steady either. condron.us

His latest magnum opus is an attempt to prove that the English language, and hence the world in general (unless everybody outside the US of A is excluded, because of Terry Koeckritz’s “Liberal Multiculturism”, of course), is becoming more conservative. He’s already had a go at attempting to prove that English is the greatest language ever, thanks to the introduction of the Latin Bible and its effect on the development of the language. This, of course, ignores the influence of Norman, French, German and all the other languages that English as we know it is based on. Also, by implication, wouldn’t Latin then be a greater language, as it was its influence that molded English, according to him?

But I digress. What good old Andy’s done now is derive a list of words, and the date they came into use, that he claims is conclusive proof that English is becoming more conservative – and is doing so on – what he calls – a geometric fit. It should be pointed out, before we have a closer look at this, that he’s laughably called it “Best New Conservative Words,” which means, by implication, that there must have been some “Not So Great Conservative Words” and even “Worst Conservative New Words.” Maybe one day, we’ll get to see what these are too!

All this doesn’t imply that Andy is by any means a linguist (although that hasn’t stopped him trying to re-translate the Bible either… chasing away the one linguist Conservapedia has had in the process); in fact he’s anything but. Then again, according to him, claiming expertise in something is a liberal trait (normally rolled out when somebody who does know more than him hands him his ass, like during the Lenski affair). Even if you weren’t a linguist, most people who wanted to look up the etymology of a word would probably use the “Bible” of the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary. Not Andy – you see Oxford is a liberal institution, especially because they insist (despite Andy’s continued bitching) that Richard Dawkins is a professor – he prefers to use the Merriam-Webster dictionary, probably because it’s easy to look up stuff on-line.

It might have been a noble cause, or even an interesting exercise, but as with all things Andy lays his hands on, it progresses with all the grace and subtlety of a slow-motion train wreck, and ends up being an incomprehensible – but humourous-  mess. He starts off by setting an arbitrary starting point of 1612, because – as he says, “the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611,and William Shakespeare had written virtually all of his plays.” I have a feeling he chose this date, because the KJV isn’t conservative enough for his liking, as illustrated in an edit comment, which says, “not a single one of these words was available to the King James Version translators.” One presumes that if they had been, then the KJV would have been perfect in his eyes.

Secondly, at some point he hits upon the theory that the rate of new conservative words introduced to the English language doubles every century. The problem now is that Andy now begins to amend the data to fit his hypothesis. A good example of this is where he says, “removed ‘constitutional’ because its origin has nothing to do with a ‘constitution’; it’s amazing how removal of clear mistakes like this one restores the perfect geometric fit.”

Which brings us to the third weakness in the methodology behind his little theory – the choice of words. Once again, you have to remember that in Andy’s world things are either “conservative” or “liberal” and admittedly, there are some words on the list that are more likely to be uttered by right-wingers than by the sane and rational. However, others appear to have been dragged into the list at a whim (probably kicking and screaming as they were). A couple of good examples follow:

  • Accountability. Andy doesn’t provide any reason for including this word (other than to fix up the “geometric fit”, of course), but one assumes it’s a conservative word because it’s the one thing the Bush administration avoided like the plague.

  • Assimilate. Ah, there’s that liberal multiculturalism again. You see Andy defines this as “the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population.” In other words, conservatives are only happy if you think, dress, and probably look, like they do.

  • Attention span. This is laughable, and I can only assume that Andy means that conservatives don’t have one, given his ongoing bleating about “concise” answers and comments.

  • Anti-competitive and Competitive both make the list for some reason and this from a man who sets different exams for boys and girls, because he doesn’t want them to compete.

  • Doublethink and Newspeak. Two more odd entries, given that conservatives are masters of both and is there really that much difference between Orwell’s (who was a socialist, even though Andy believes he turned conservative at the end) Big Brother and the Patriot Act?

  • Faith healing. No reason given, but it’s clearly part of the reason people like Jim Bakker made their millions off of gullible conservatives. Strangely, “snake oil” doesn’t get a mention.

  • Myopic. Describes “liberals (sic) lack of foresight.” The Bush administration, of course, showed tremendous foresight in invading Iraq, and declaring “Mission Accomplished” way too soon.

  • Negativism. Anybody who knows Andy will have a good laugh when they read his definition of this conservative word: “Mental attitude that tends that is (sic) sceptical about almost everything, except one’s own views.” I have the feeling that he means it as an attack on liberals, but actually describes his own mindset to a “T”.

  • Parenting. What? He defines it as “children raising” and I assume it’s something that he thinks only conservatives do.

  • Personhood. Given that further down the page, he goes on to describe the “new” liberal word “Chairperson” as “nonsensical”, it makes no sense that he now prefers “personhood” over “man-“ or “womanhood.”

  • Transistor. This is a truly bizarre entry – although Andy did have the grace to say it “may be controversial”. Controversial it may be, but it’s certainly stupid, given his own reasons for including it: “Developed at the conservative Bell Labs, this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of artificial intelligence and was the future developer of Telstar, a precursor to the Strategic Defense Initiative.” I know. Even most sane Republicans are distancing themselves from Star Wars, which everybody knew was a pipe dream from the moment a certain ex-actor, in the early onset of senility, dreamed it up.

I’ll leave you, faithful reader, to brave the rest of the list (if you can stomach it), but I thought I’d leave you with this final gem:

  • Trojan horse. An example of excellent military strategy perhaps? Or a euphemism for a cunning plan. Not in Andy’s world. To him a Trojan horse “describes a type of liberal deceit; subversion from within.” So it would appear as if even those pesky Greeks were liberal scum.

For more fun, have a look through his list of words I made up conservative words not yet in the dictionary and new liberal words… which seem to be conveniently declining, according to master linguist Andrew Schlafly. However, if you choose to do so, I accept no responsibility for any damage to your skull from repeatedly beating it against your desk.

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Administrators, Conservapedia and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to “Best” New Conservative Words

  1. Random Dude says:

    Here is a link to the article http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words

    Actually liberal words are growing quicker than conservative. In 1700’s we see 2, 1800’s we see 10 and 1900’s we see 28. It is not much of a stretch to say by Andy’s standards that they are tripling each century. This is great news because regardless of how many conservative words there was originally, and how few liberal, with the greater growth rate liberal words will out grow conservative words eventually. Hurray for Andy.

Comments are closed.