661 words
The recent trend of adding words such as broughtupsy and carry-go-bring-come—terms originating from Jamaican dialect into the Oxford English Dictionary represents a significant degradation of the English language. While dictionaries are, by their nature, descriptive rather than prescriptive, the deliberate inclusion of colloquialisms over abstract, sophisticated, and idea-laden words signals a shift in what is considered “worthy” of codification. Language is not merely a collection of utterances; it is a repository of thought, culture, and intellectual heritage. To elevate playful slang to the same status as words that articulate nuanced concepts undermines the capacity of English to serve as a vehicle for complex ideas.
Unfortunately, this shift in the dictionary is part of a broader ideological project: the decolonisation of the English language. Advocates claim that including dialects, slang, and non-European expressions corrects historical imbalances and amplifies marginalized voices. In practice, it dilutes English’s cultural and intellectual heritage. No similar campaigns target Japanese, Mandarin, or other major non-Western languages, which retain vocabulary tied to centuries of cultural and philosophical achievement. Only European languages like English are being transformed so that they no longer reflects the ideas and contributions of their historical custodians. The selective focus of this movement betrays both ideological bias and cultural inconsistency.
Similarly, this ideological intrusion extends into academia. Disciplinary content is increasingly subordinated to political messaging rather than knowledge. Geography courses routinely emphasize patriarchy and homophobia—issues largely irrelevant to physical landscapes, urban planning, environmental systems, or human migration. Computing courses now discuss colonial hierarchies when the focus should be on algorithms, programming languages, and problem-solving techniques. Science courses often present indigenous ways of knowing as equivalent to empirical methodology or stress alleged historical racism in research. Indigenous cultural practices may be significant in understanding societies but are not science. Presenting them as comparable to empirical principles undermines the integrity of disciplines grounded in observation, experimentation, and reproducibility. Physics, chemistry, and biology operate on universal laws; they cannot be “decolonised” without discarding their foundations.
Furthermore, the attack on the Western intellectual canon complements these academic distortions. Figures such as Newton, Locke, Kant, and Hume are often portrayed as symbols of oppression rather than as foundational thinkers. The insistence on avoiding engagement with “dead white males” is both absurd and harmful. These philosophers and scientists developed frameworks underpinning modern law, governance, science, and philosophy. Western thinkers are essential to education and intellectual development. While students may object to studying them, dismantling or diminishing the canon undermines intellectual rigor, erodes critical thinking, and impoverishes scholarship.
Together, these trends demonstrate a consistent pattern: English language and academic disciplines are being reshaped to prioritize ideology over knowledge, identity over intellect, and cultural trends over enduring ideas. Slang from Jamaican dialect, identity-driven vocabulary, and ephemeral cultural expressions may have a place in conversation or entertainment, but they do not belong in dictionaries or academic institutions as symbols of intellectual legitimacy. Geography and computing courses, as well as science curricula, should focus on their respective disciplinary content rather than serving as platforms for political indoctrination. English should facilitate rigorous thought, and disciplines should transmit knowledge based on evidence and methodology.
The consequences of these trends are serious. If slang and identity-driven expressions continue to supplant words capable of conveying abstract thought, future generations will inherit a language less precise, subtle, and analytically capable. Students will be evaluated on political alignment rather than mastery of subject matter, and scholarship will become a vehicle for social engineering rather than intellectual progress. The degradation of language and education undermines the capacity for critical reasoning and complex thought, leaving both culture and intellect impoverished.
Preserving English, the Western canon, and rigorous academic disciplines is not nostalgia; it is a defense of rational thought, cultural continuity, and human progress. Those who object to studying traditional Western thinkers are free to pursue alternative paths, but imposing ideological litmus tests on language, scholarship, and education weakens both reasoning and culture. English and its intellectual heritage deserve better than this.
36 comments
Only European languages like English are being transformed so that they no longer reflects the ideas and contributions of their historical custodians.
I wonder (((who))) could be responsible for opening this new front on western civilization, but what do I know, I’m just a “low I.Q.—antisemite.”🙃
Don’t be too hard on yourself, PQ; it only looks “low-IQ” if you just blame the Jews when it’s also someone else’s fault. Technically, you don’t always do that.
In PQ’s defense I doubt he or anyone else in here only blames the jews. They’re just the primary problem I would say coupled with antiWhite traitors or goodgoy parajews like john bolton, pompeo, huckabee, fetterman, and other vermanthropes. muslims, chinese, latrinos, and groids are more easily dealt with, primary problems on the streets but secondary in the grander globalist scheme.
Well, a good first step toward anyone’s not giving that impression is to avoid routinely posting comments that suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, let’s put on the optimist hat and hope you’re right.
Excellent essay.
European languages are only being “targeted” in the sense that European societies are the only ones burdened with diversity. As for common slang, it does have a place in the dictionary, but if the slang originates from an influential foreign group then the problem is much bigger than Oxford Dictionary.
Doubleplusungood! MiniTrue demands OED rectify fullwise or become unperson.
“The degradation of language and education undermines the capacity for critical reasoning and complex thought, leaving both culture and intellect impoverished.”
It’s worse than that. Imagine what it will be like trying to maintain a legal tradition, grounded in English common law, using a language that has become vague, ambiguous, and culturally relativistic. Or adjudicating property rights as they are understood by the Pacific islanders of Gunga Bunga atoll.
Alas, same ideological project with French.
May I add archaeology to your list? This field of study seems to attract fanatics.
There is a reciprocal interplay between speaking a language and listening to it, and how one thinks and how one forms thoughts, and how efficiently and how nuanced one can describe and express those ideas/thoughts. I know my language and cognition skills are, historically speaking, sub-standard.
We are effectively adopting a bunch of pidgins into our languages. A feature of pidgin is its reflection of a below average cognitive function. Eubonics, Rastaman pidgin, Hawaiian pidgin and other pidgins becoming a part of the dictionary is cultural surrender. The committees who gatekeep these resources are surrendering our languages to pidgin speaking savages.
It is essential that all of us work to improve our spoken and written language skills, even as the general population’s declines. I make efforts to purge business-speak, to remove all of the weak, unconfident language of the modern upper class, and to never use any eubonic words or phrases. That guy is not a baller. He is a man with a rare intellect and ability to explain complex subjects into easily understandable ideas. I am not just chillaxin’. I am going to take an hour to rest and regenerate my nervous system through contemplation and mindfulness. I am not straight vibin’ with this music yo. I am feeling the exhilaration and the energy coursing through the sweeping melismas of this music’s melodies.
It helps to have a small friend group where you resolve to correct each other and to never use pidgin of any type in your language. We can be creative with language, but we must do so only in ways that elevate our language not deconstruct it into brutish and inarticulate phrases that can only be explained by, ‘know what I’m sayin’ man?’
“know what I’m sayin’”
It’s funny you mention that. American blacks have been saying that for decades, but only recently have I noticed they have tightened it up considerably, into “nome-sain.” And they say that phrase more often than ever, and loudly, in public. This is not as bad as saying nigga every other word, but it is noticeable. What does it mean?*
*In the esoteric tradition of Schooly D’s rap “PSK, What Does It Mean?”
They say it more and more because people understand them less and less. Gnomesayin?
Yes. It speaks to the vast incompatibility between these two peoples. They have enough emotional intelligence to understand that what they are saying is not comprehended by the listener. So they ask, ‘Gnomesayin?’ The responsibility for comprehension is on the listener, not the speaker in their case. Rather than consider that maybe, I need to be more articulate and expressive so I am easier to understand, I just be sayin’ that you don’t be Gnomesayin.
Remember when we instructed our young with lessons about having inarticulate savages in our midst with books like Uncle Remus?
True story. I once worked a bank in college. It was in an all-black neighborhood. Yeah. Didn’t win the lottery with that college job. I had a colleague who was black. Nice fellow. I would fairly often rely upon him to do some translations for me. The first couple of times I came up from my window dumbounded looking for an interpreter he said to me, ‘Don’t worry. I’ll take him after this customer.” Then he whispered to me at the signature checking station, “I got you. I can speak ghetto babble.”
Going to have to defend my Cockney routed accent and terminology. As Cockney influenced most London/south east England accents I did grow up saying “j’a know what I mean!” or “know what I mean!”. I always thought the blacks were imitating the Cockneys but changing ‘mean’ to ‘sayin’.
To expound on this theme a little:
My son is in High School. Just yesterday I was asking him about a teacher whose name is Lance. I made a joke about “Sir Lancelot” and my son gave me a blank stare. Long story short, I was appalled to learn that he’s already in the 11th grade but has not even been introduced to the Camelot legend. This should have been covered in both English and history class by now, as a people’s traditional literature is inextricably tied to the history of its countrymen and ancestors.
I took it further and inquired about Beowulf and Robin Hood. He only vaguely knew of Robin Hood, probably from seeing the Disney animation as a kid. Not from school.
Now Beowulf came my senior year of High School as I recollect, but I had read about King Arthur as early as 7th or 8th grade, and I’m sure Robin Hood came about that same time.
I had not given these things much thought until this conversation with my son. I knew that his reading material was lighter on classics in general, but I had no idea that none of these three great works of literature and mythology had yet been in the curriculum. I’ve vowed to rectify that.
A strong point to note. To Kill A Mockingbird is on his summer reading list for this coming summer break. I have already warned him of the absurdity in foundation of that book. I explained to him that Tom Robinson may not have actually raped a willing and eager Mayella Ewell, but he certainly wouldn’t have passed on the free sex like a meek little innocent angel. And we all know the truth about black on white rape. It happens, a lot. It’s a story designed purely to make southerners look ignorant and trashy. Harper Lee was a traitor to her own kind to play into those stereotypes in order to downplay black stereotypes.
So instead of reading literature that is deeply meaningful to all of us as Diaspora Europeans, he has to feed from the antiracist slop trough. Granted I had to read it too. But they didn’t force it on us while at the same time downplaying or outright avoiding the classic stuff. Now, schools are so hamstrung because of DEI that they’re wont to erase the classics for the same reason the dictionary is cramming in useless slang non-words from pidgin English.
It looks like the book may have suffered from substantial editorial interference:
Y’all Can Kill That Mockingbird Now (counter-currents.com)
Thanks for reviving that article, which I never saw.
In 6th or 7th grade, when they made us read it, I liked the book. She was a smooth, talented, adolescent-friendly writer. I somewhat remember the parts with Scout being in her neighborhood and school, and those were fine, enjoyable. I even remember thinking, as a kid, “this writer knows kids, this is not some bullshit.” The rape case and trial, I don’t remember. The latter was the real, “grown up” part that made the book important and was the only reason it was assigned to us.
So what did happen?: 1) They made Lee write the “black” part of the book? 2) Someone ghostwrote that part of the book, without her say or knowledge? 3) Or something in between? I’m sorry, but it wasn’t clear to me what happened, even though I liked the article.
I’m not quite sure. My bet is on item 2, that it was an anecdote that got expanded and rewritten, and in the original the guy really was guilty.
To Kill a Mockingbird is similar propaganda to A Time to Kill. It takes a real black on white crime and flips the switch on reality. It imbeds in the reader or viewer’s mind that blacks are innocent victims of a racist society and a biased legal system. John Grisham probably didn’t have to have his book edited by his Jewish publishers. He probably knew what plot would be acceptable. Don’t forget 12 Angry Men. That film makes the idea of black guilt doubtful as well. Our society has been fed a steady diet of this false narrative over the years.
Connor M – you should have your son watch “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. He’ll learn all about Sir Lancelot and so much more – most especially the Castle Anthrax!
I had to read To Kill a Mockingbird in high school as well. Two things occurred to me reading the book. It was a piece of unrealistic propaganda, and it was boring as hell.
This reminds me of the BBC’s “Pidgin” News Sevice. Is anyone else aware of this delightful website?
For instance, today’s headline asks “Whetin di US ‘No Kings’ protest dey about?“
Yes, and I’m glad you mentioned it. It’s one of the most unintentionally hilarious things I’ve ever seen, and I need to read it more often.
Oh indeed! I saw that one a long time ago and was quite tempted to write it up.
Yes, abeg do dat, Beau. We all need a gud laff for dis trying times.
“Advocates claim that including dialects, slang, and non-European expressions corrects historical imbalances and amplifies marginalized voices.” And therein lies the problem.
JaymunD: October 20, 2025 “Advocates claim that including dialects, slang, and non-European expressions corrects historical imbalances and amplifies marginalized voices.” And therein lies the problem.
—
Thanks, Jaymun. “Historical Imbalances”sounds to me like a euphemism for anti-White.
Andrew Hamilton reminded us a couple of years ago that Jews now own both Thw Encyclopedia Britannica as well as Mirriam-Webster: See:
“Wikipedia (and Britannica)” at nationalvanguard.org. Any wide-eyed White loyalist should be aware by now that the Tribe controls Wikipedia — the largest free online dictionary — to their own advantage on matters of race. Decide for yourselves, here: WikiJew history of our language: English language – Wikipedia
This had me looking to see if Jews had not also managed to accrue The Oxford Dictionary into their own grubby mitts. Who knows? The trend that they seek to control and corrupt our language had me sensing that they have.
A more careful researcher than I can explore the question at a site like this: https://everything.explained.today/Oxford_English_Dictionary/. But I did find here that the Jewish Google behemoth has an English dictionary provided by Oxford Languages: “Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.”: Who Is The Owner Of Oxford Languages? – Tovisorga.com.
The feminization of English by new pronoun usage calls for referring by us to old grammer books to see just what we are losing. That is one thing to do, at least, used in home-schooling the next generation of Whites.
For now Counter-Currents can depend on Lip Man to provide updates on how the English language is being corrupted by Ebonics.
“Historical Imbalances” is one of many anti-white phrases that are used. One that I can’t stand is “Restorative Justice”. This implies that blacks should be given various preferences, and such things as reparations at the expense of whites as a whole. A lot of these phrases are vague and are meant to artificially elevate blacks over Whites in society.
“The feminization of English by new pronoun usage calls for referring by us to old grammer books to see just what we are losing.”
I came to the same conclusion some time ago. A favorite reference of mine for English grammar is a slim book published in the mid-1960s, before all the current silliness about made-up pronouns. It even teaches that the generic masculine is correct. And anyone who wants to learn the subject of biology without all the tranny BS would be well advised to look for any textbook published several decades ago.
Watching blacks argue with each other, while one accuses the other one of lying, can be rather comical. Quite often the accuser will not call the other black person a liar in a complete sentence, they will buthcher the English language and use a profanity laced statement in Ebonics. Instead of saying “You are a Godd–n liar.”, many of them will say “You a Godd–n lie”. I’ve witnessed this ocassionally.
A bit off topic, but relevant to my earlier post here about property rights and “indigenous” legal interpretations of them:
A judge in British Columbia has decided that a patch of land in the city of Richmond, Canada actually belongs to an Indian tribe – because their ancestors were there 300 years ago, or something like that. About 150 homeowners who thought they held legal title to the houses and land that they purchased are now screwed. And if they don’t like it, the judge has basically told them to go piss up a rope.
The mayor of Richmond has sent a letter to the homeowners in question warning them that the ruling could “negatively affect title” of their homes and “compromise the status and validity” of their ownership. Gee, you don’t say? Thanks for that, Mister Mayor.
Get ready for a lot more nonsense like this.
Bigfoot: October 22, 2025 Watching blacks argue with each other, while one accuses the other one of lying, can be rather comical.
—
Who’s laughing?
Once separated, some Whites will have the will to never be exposed to Blacks for entertainment — not sports, not music, dancing, TV and TV commercials, movies, social media, etc., etc. — and develop new interests with a purpose among our own that excludes racial aliens and their influence. It’s racist, yes. So what? Separating to that extent is necessary and for good reason.
It’s not as difficult for some Whites, a few at first, to separate from non-Whites and their influence as some may think. A choice, as Whites, to not have Lip Man expose us to his opinions would be a good start.
At the time, me and my white coworkers were laughing at the ridiculous black behavior we witnessed. I’m pretty much in agreement with you on the bread and circuses and my posts on CC over the years are critical of all those things that you mentioned. Sports were initially a white physical competition that has become corrupted with negro worship. The various electronic technologies, which whites invented, have been used against us against to indoctrinate the public. Facebook was invented by Whites, but Zuckerberg manipulated his way into owning it. Pattern recognition in all of this is obvious.
Thomas Johnson, quoting me: October 22, 2025 “The feminization of English by new pronoun usage calls for referring by us to old grammar books to see just what we are losing.”
I came to the same conclusion some time ago. A favorite reference of mine for English grammar is a slim book published in the mid-1960s, before all the current silliness about made-up pronouns. It even teaches that the generic masculine is correct.
—
You don’t mention the title of the grammar book you recommend, Thomas. I recommended one to a friend on whitebiocentrism.com a few years ago about this feminization of pronouns:
I found this pdf of Strunk’s Elements of Style: https://faculty.washington.edu/heagerty … kWhite.pdf It’s short and good for studying nuances of proper English grammar, but I don’t see a section on proper use of plural pronouns in it. I did find this compromise rule though elsewhere:
Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement
An antecedent is the word that a pronoun takes the place of or refers to in a sentence. So in the sentence Carla found an alligator under her bed, the pronoun is ‘her’ and the antecedent – the word that the pronoun refers back to – is the proper noun ‘Carla.’
An important rule to remember is that a pronoun and its antecedent must agree in number. In other words, if you have a singular antecedent, you’ll need a singular pronoun. Likewise, a plural antecedent must be matched with a plural pronoun. This makes sense. If you told me that Carla found an alligator under their bed, you’d be using a singular antecedent, ‘Carla,’ and a plural pronoun, ‘their,’ and I’d be wondering who ‘their’ referred to and what Carla was doing in their room.
Here’s a quick rundown of singular and plural personal pronouns. Singular personal pronouns include I, you, he, she, and it; me, him, and her; and my, mine, his, her, hers, and its. Plural personal pronouns include we, you, and they; us and them; and our, ours, their and theirs.
One of the most common errors that people make when it comes to using a singular versus a plural pronoun is one that looks like this: A store manager should make sure that their customers are satisfied. On first glance, this may seem ok. But let’s identify our pronoun and antecedent and see if they agree in number. Our pronoun is ‘their,’ which is a possessive plural pronoun. The antecedent to which our pronoun refers, though, is ‘manager,’ which is a singular noun. We know, therefore, that we have a pronoun error, and we need to consult our rule about singular and plural pronouns and antecedents.
This type of mistake with plural pronouns, especially the pronouns ‘their’ and ‘they,’ is really common. Always check your antecedent. Here, we can correct our pronoun by switching it from plural to singular: A store manager should make sure that his or her customers are satisfied. We could also correct our error by making both the pronoun and antecedent plural: Store managers should make sure that their customers are satisfied.
It should be noted that ‘they’ is increasingly used to refer to singular antecedents without specifying a gender. However, the singular and plural distinction taught in this lesson is still necessary in certain formal settings such as the SAT and ACT tests…
Note that the use of “his or her” rather than “they” have become acceptable, even to the LGBT pronoun cops, when the gender of the antecedent is not specified, but to use the older preferred way, using the singular “he” when the gender of the singular antecedent is unknown cannot be ruled wrong.
Will: the book is Essential English Grammar by Philip Gucker. It’s published by Dover Books and is still in print despite being written in 1966. It isn’t exhaustive, but it covers the important concepts and does a good job of explaining them.
You mentioned home-schooling in your post, and I think this book would be well suited to that. It is divided into many short lessons with exercises and answers.
Thomas Johnson: October 23, 2025 Will: the book is Essential English Grammar by Philip Gucker.,, You mentioned home-schooling in your post, and I think this book would be well suited to that.
—
Thanks, Amazon has one copy available for less than $8. Good for home-schooler.
[T]his book will provide readers with a firm foundation in essential English grammar. The text proceeds in easy, natural steps, beginning with simple sentence structure and advancing logically to more difficult constructions. More than 600 practice exercises and solutions make this an excellent home-study text. Organized with clarity and emphasizing explanation rather than rote memorization, this selective grammar can be used effectively as a course supplement, as an introduction for beginners, or as a reference for students and teachers.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.