Do You Defend Objective Reality? Or Do You Play Along With the Wokies?

“All social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.”
                                                                         -Monsignor William Smith

Using truthful language in most circumstances is a serious obligation of those who wish to faithfully follow our Lord Jesus Christ, often known as Truth Himself, and this basic obligation also stems in large part from the Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.”  Of course, when play-acting, telling jokes, and so on, such an obligation is typically suspended so long as a truth that needs to be communicated is not withheld in the process, and/or it is understood by reasonable people that what is being communicated is not intended to represent objective truth.

However, when objective truth is to be communicated, then it is essential to do just that with clarity so as not to deceive or mislead in any way.  Yes, there are some sticky/complex situations that do come up that call for the exercise of prudence in communicating truthfully, and consulting Church teaching and/or the works of a sound moral theologian is the wise way to go for greater understanding, but for purposes of this article, the primary focus is on some of the more prominent forms of communication, conversations, and language manipulation used today, and the insistence by many that some specifically designated terminology be used that is considered to be non-offensive to certain individuals and groups, or it portrays them in a more favorable or simply preferred light even when such is objectively not the case.  In short, I am referring broadly to the use of “woke” vocabulary based on the notion of being “woke,” which is another recently coined term that generally means (in part) being particularly aware of and opposed to alleged social, economic, and political injustices as defined primarily by extreme liberal or socio-political left wing activists that I will refer to in the remainder of this reflection by use of another recently coined term: “Wokies” (which is not to be confused with Wookies of Star Wars fame).

Where Do You Stand? 

Today, some people insist that certain pronouns must be used based on how a particular person wants them to be applied to him or to her instead of how they have been objectively and accurately used for essentially forever.  For instance, a biological male insists that he be referred to as a she, or a biological female insists that she be referred to as a he.  If you defend objective truth and God’s creative order, you reject these immoral demands to speak falsely about the reality before you, and you refuse to play along.  But if for reasons of politeness or some other rationalization, you agree to refer to the biological male as a she and the biological female as a he, then even if you rightly understand that the people who insist on such nonsense are wrong, you still support part of the “woke” cause to get more and more people to accept their irrationality and assault on objective truth. 

Also in the woke camp is a term that has been used with too much effectiveness for some 50 years, and it is the infamous “pro-choice” claim that is made by proponents of abortion to try to persuade people that they are not really in favor of abortion, but they do support a woman’s so-called right to choose an abortion, and “freedom of choice” (a “pro-choice” supplemental declaration) in this regard is touted as an essential aspect of freedom in general and must be honored.  Do you accept the notion of a person being “pro-choice,” and do you also use this term when referring to pro-abortion advocates who insist on the “pro-choice” designation, or do you defend objective truth by refusing to use the misleading and disingenuous “pro-choice” designation to make it clear that defending any choice of abortion is not some nebulous neutral position but is in fact a pro-abortion position that is an abuse of freedom in advocating the murder of the innocent child in the womb?

Next, consider the slogan “black lives matter.”  Have you been duped by the Wokies and their fellow travelers into believing that the slogan simply expresses a legitimate sentiment, and so you use the slogan as well and promote it in a variety of ways?  You may indeed be quite sincere in doing so, but the underlying meaning of the slogan that is insisted upon by its primary advocates is a claim that too many black people are being abused and murdered, and not enough white people and others care because they are essentially anti-black racists, but black lives matter.  In short, the slogan is itself insultingly racist and/or bigoted because it accuses white people, police officers of all colors, and others of ignoring the alleged plight and ongoing abuse of black people, but this is a demonstrably false and malicious claim bought into by useful idiots.  Check all legitimate statistics and facts, and you will soon discover that the slogan and actions arising from it are racist scams pretending to be in opposition to racism, so if you want to defend objective truth, reject the slogan outright because of its underlying message, and correctly insist instead that all lives matter.  Interestingly enough, if you mention to an advocate of the “black lives matter” slogan and message that all lives matter, you will be told that you just don’t get it (you are not “woke” or not “woke” enough), and so you miss the point and need for emphasizing “black lives matter” based on the myopic narrative of its proponents.

There are many more terms and phrases advocated by Wokies that in one way or another attack objective truth, so always be on the lookout and refuse to use them in order to better defend objective truth at all times.  A short list and brief review of more such terms favored by the “woke” crowd include the following:

“Transgender” – Wokies insist that this term be used without quotation marks in writing and without any qualifiers in verbal communication which illustrate that the term expresses an illegitimate claim.  They do not want the objective truth proclaimed that so-called “transgenders” are people who suffer primarily from gender dysphoria and/or other mental illnesses.  Nobody can change their genders no matter how much people play with the terminology to try to legitimize the irrational fantasy, so to defend objective truth, do not use such terminology (at least not without quotation marks and other qualifiers) insisted by Wokies to spread their lies about reality and God’s creative order.

“Gay” – another term in use for quite some time, not many know that the origin of “gay” includes its use as an acronym that denies objective truth and morality.  “Gay” stands for “Good As You” in choosing to act in homosexual ways and to proudly be considered such a person who acts in an allegedly “moral way” that is just as “good as you,” with the you understood as the heterosexual person and heterosexual morality based on Divine Law and Natural Law.  To defend objective truth, skip the word “gay” as it is not as benign as you may have once believed to be the case.

“Undocumented Person” – to be used in place of the more accurate and objectively true illegal alien, Wokies insist on this term that virtually denies immigration laws have been broken by these people, and they also wrongly insist that the term illegal alien is too harsh and somehow dehumanizing, which is sheer rubbish.  To defend objective truth, use illegal alien to express the reality of what’s involved.

“Religion of Peace” – this is a shorthand description gladly adopted by Wokies who insist that it be applied to Islam, and many blithering idiots of both the left and right persuasions have accepted this complete claptrap.  Indeed, this declaration is in direct opposition to objective truth that honestly examines the basic teachings of Islam to clearly recognize that the overall ideology applicable to all of Islam (no matter what sub-groups may exist within it) unequivocally calls for violence against others for a slew of spurious reasons.  As such, Islam is in no way, shape, or form a religion of peace.  To defend objective truth, never consider or refer to Islam as a religion of peace, which is simply a flat out lie.

“Dialogue” – “Wait just a minute,” you say.  “How can the widely used dialogue be a so-called woke term?”  Well, similar to the problem with the bigoted slogan “black lives matter,” the word dialogue is often used to attack and undermine an objective truth, and it is especially a favorite tactic of the left to “call for a dialogue” on this or that issue, but the intention is almost never to have a truly objective and honest conversation.  Instead, under the guise of wanting to discuss something to perhaps gain more wisdom and act accordingly, the goal of all such dialogues is to change or diminish an understanding or practice so that it aligns more closely with the left and/or woke view of things.  Moreover, a dialogue carries with it the idea that two positions of equal value are to be discussed, but when objective truth is at stake, this gives relativism or the denial of objective truth a seat at the dialogue table.  For instance, take the Church’s definitive teaching on the male only priesthood.  Point this out to a Wokie, and the Wokie may very well respond with “we need to dialogue about this,” but make no mistake.  The Wokie is not really interested in diving deeper into the objective truth of the teaching; the Wokie seeks to undermine the teaching through dialogue.  In order to defend objective truth, then, do not agree to any dialogue that seeks to undermine an objective truth, but make it clear that you will be happy to have a conversation to hopefully share and perhaps gain greater wisdom into any objective truth…if the Wokie is truly interested in such a conversation, which is unlikely and also very telling.

Many more “woke” terms can be analyzed, but the examples set forth are sufficient to develop a wise approach to the ongoing and increasingly malevolent attempts at social engineering through verbal engineering.  If any term or phrase or slogan is in opposition in any way to objective truth, these things must be completely rejected no matter how uncomfortable you may feel in doing so or how many feelings of others may be hurt in the process, because to cave in on such things is to serve the Father of Lies and not Truth Himself.  You don’t have to be unnecessarily belligerent or hostile in defending objective truth, and in fact a spirit of joy is most appropriate, because, as always, it is the Truth that Sets Us Free.