For the last century-plus, English replaced French as the world language, of commerce, diplomacy, navigation (sea and air), and even war. To the so-called Progressives (the regressive Woke enemies of liberty), this is unacceptable. They have made vast inroads, even in the Fifty States, to try and dethrone English, replacing it with Spanish. In other parts of the world, Mandarin, Hindi, Swahili, Arabic, and even Russian have failed (as of yet) to replace it.

So new tactics are necessary. After all, English is the language of the colonialists, the colonizers, and it is the language of slavery, racism, sexism, and a host of other evils that must be eradicated. This is not just an “American” effort. (Of course, that name itself is part of the systemic problems that must be opposed and ultimately destroyed.) The UN and other supranational and national powers are working to solve this problem.

And it is not just a matter of the “correct” pronouns and cancellation for misgendering someone. Consider this UN publication:

Failure to abide by these rules is clearly a crime against humanity – as
soon as the Bill of Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other
important documents are relegated not to the dustbin of history but to the
flames. Why? Because government – our “masters” – had said that is
so.

Notice it is generally only the male versions of these common English
words that must be sacrificed to political correction. Notice also that the
“correct” words often have not had the same meaning. Indeed, they
come with quite a bit of baggage.

For example, some of these “recommendations” are fairly
standard: firefighter or chair, for example. Many of them are indications that
the people putting together lists like this do not have a good grounding in
grammar or English definitions: the syllable “man” has both a broad
and limited definition and use. Or has in the past: “mankind” has
been used for hundreds of years to refer to both males and females, and should
be able to be applied to the 101 different “genders” or
“sexes” the madness of Woke-ism is now claiming. (Besides,
“humankind” still has the dreaded “man” embedded in it,
just as “woman” does – shall we change the spelling, as well, to
“womyn” and “humynkind”?)

But others of these “suggestions” seem to intentionally confuse
and hinder effective communications. A “family name” has a whole
different meaning than “maiden name” – and no one with a junior high
level of good education will try to apply “maiden name” to a male. A
“congressman” is not the same as a “legislator” –
and there is a perfectly good gender-neutral name: “Member of
Congress” that makes it clearer. Similarly, “partner” is
describing many things other than a close, romantic or intimate relationship.
What is wrong with “landowner” instead of “landlord” for
generic use? (And I am at a complete loss as to how “businessman” or
“businesswoman” or anything like that should be translated as
“representative.” Maybe this is due to the natural and usual poor
performance of government officials and bureaucrats which we constantly
suffer.)

It seems fairly obvious – especially given the insanity of too much governmentese and bureaucratese, that the objective is to further break down lines of communication and therefore society. To give government even more power.

Or am I just not expressing myself well?