Language, Truth, and Logic

by Nikos Akritas (March 2025)

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. —George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

The ‘culture’ wars seem to have coalesced around two concepts, defined by one side, supinely conceded by the other. Unfortunately, this has resulted in a situation of Orwellian proportions (one questions if it can be referred to as a debate when those opposing these neo-definitions are usually deplatformed or harangued into silence in fear for their physical safety). Allowing one side to frame the language of any ‘discussion’ or argument is to place the other at a significant disadvantage, constantly on the defensive and facing an uphill struggle.

Pointing out the nouns representing these concepts already had meanings, before they were semantically hijacked and weaponised, results in accusations that those making such assertions are guilty of the new definitions—of privilege and whiteness. The fact that you know what these words meant before they were subjected to the Humpty Dumpty treatment only serves to highlight your privilege (you are probably well educated, whether through schooling or self-taught) and/or your inability to ‘understand’ your own repressive thought processes. You are, essentially, stuck in a paradigm of whiteness.

That you might not be white, however that might be defined by anybody wishing to apply critical analysis, is neither here nor there. After all, critical analysis is merely a symptom of white privilege (here the nouns metamorphose, by virtue of normal use of the English language, into a noun phrase to devastating Humpty Dumptiness effect). Drawing attention to such logical flaws only further highlights how far your deluded whiteness has progressed.

For whiteness, used in normal parlance to refer to colour, has ‘progressed’ to mean something altogether different. Like trans identity, it is a mindset—not based on any empirical observations. Your mind is white if you disagree. Hence, the host of derogatory labels (which I will not list) for those who are not white but disagree with the Humpty Dumpty brigade— ‘accused’ of being one colour on the outside, another on the inside.

Remonstrating such insulting language seeks to supress a diversity of views amongst non-whites once again serves to demonstrate how badly afflicted you are with this disease of the mind; the argument being the concept of diversity is just another construct of white privilege which flies in the face of anti-racism. Diversity is, essentially, a repressive idea, designed to fool people into accepting the status quo of individual rights, freedom of speech, and equality before the law (basically rights that ensure a variety of views). Since the status quo is repressive, everything that underpins it is repressive.

The only path to true equality (another white construct—what we should be striving for is equity) is to reverse the indoctrination of colour-blindness and, instead, emphasize colour—or ‘race’ —everywhere. Only then will the scales fall from our eyes, to behold the ‘reality’ of the world we live in: an unjust one which must be overturned and reconstructed on principles of ‘social justice.’

Such justice does not, however, necessarily mean equality (if you assumed this, the disease has probably advanced far enough to consider you a lost cause) but the redressing of historical wrongs—by awarding the ‘oppressed’ more than the historically privileged. Attempts to avoid being subjected to such depredations by claiming one’s whiteness is a superficial phenomenon, appearing only on the outside, are futile; external manifestation exposing the malady within.

The recent (in historical terms) discrediting of one ‘ism’[*] attempting to achieve such a utopia, in recognition of the atrocities and dystopia it leads to, has only resulted in its substitution with another. The ‘anti-racism’ movement is multi-faceted and protean in nature—to say nothing of semantically challenged. Like all ideologies, it draws strength from abuse of the language through which it communicates. Addressing such abuse constitutes just one way in which such a movement should be challenged.

To start with the, until recently universally understood, meaning of racism (to discriminate on the basis of colour/descent) must be reclaimed by those opposing such blatant corruption of the English language. According to ‘anti-racists,’ anybody who does not actively engage in combating racism is a racist. Not holding prejudicial views is not enough; one must also be actively engaged in battling ‘racism,’ as defined by the movement.

That ‘definition,’ simply put, is: racism is whiteness. But if white is a synonym for racist, we are left with a tautology—that is, an assertion devoid of meaning. Whiteness must also be addressed at the semantic level, insisting on its use as reference to colour and not succumbing to those abusing the language, who wish to redefine it as a mental disease. In addition to being compelled to take sides, one must bear in mind everything conceived of or achieved by white people is also racist—this logically follows, as they are tainted, saturated even, with whiteness. The anti-racists must be called out for what they are: racists.

Engaging Humpty Dumpty warriors at the semantic level, arguing for clearer use of language and re-establishing white as a reference to colour, obliges correct use of terms for the injustices claimed. Depersonalizing the ‘debate’ (although attempting objectivity exposes one to further accusations of upholding a white world view) directs focus to the actual issues being decried: prejudice and discrimination. By claiming to oppose prejudice one cannot, by simple logic, espouse a doctrine which is prejudicial.

As for privilege what, exactly, is wrong with it? If someone has the privilege of reaping the benefits of what their parents strived for (to bequeath a better life to their offspring), removing such a right only seeks to defy human nature and, once again, brings us back to that recently discredited ‘ism.’

Are privileges secured by hard work and inheritance (and luck for that matter) anathema? Or are the Humpty Dumpties referring to unjustified privilege? If so, then the debate should focus on what is unjust. If justice really is the issue, mutilating the language in which we are communicating only serves to obfuscate it. But then again, maybe that is the intention: to create a babel-like scenario in which meaningful debate and discussion cannot take place.

A J Ayer argued statements are only meaningful if they can be verified empirically. For assertions to be considered true, they require logical consistency and must be testable—evidence is required. The anti-racist movement’s assault on the English language exposes failure on both counts. Logical inconsistencies in their attempts to redefine words and confused conceptual thinking (although some of their assertions can be demonstrably verified as false) betray principles that are, to use the words of Ayer, nonsensical.

But then again, logic and evidence can be dispensed with if one’s role model is none other than Humpty Dumpty.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean.” —Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

[*] For the woke, who may have trouble understanding the reference, it may need pointing out I am referring to Communism.

Table of Contents

Nikos Akritas has worked as a teacher in the Middle East, Central Asia and the UK.

Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast