Why We Must Not Allow Progressives To Control The English Language

Let me take this opportunity to turn a smug Marxist aphorism on its head: language (and not religion) is the true opiate of the masses. It is for this reason that so many tyrannical regimes throughout history have cloaked their true despotic natures in the disarming nomenclature of enlightened, urbane, first-world, free societies.

Dystopian dictatorships habitually employ language that superficially calls to mind the benevolent governments of western civil society: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea, the People’s Republic of China, the (East) German Democratic Republic, and Democratic Kampuchea are but a few examples. Each of these states is or was a smoldering beacon of hell on earth. But by invoking universally desirable governmental attributes like “representation,” “democracy,” “populism,” and “republic” in the titles of their respective states, Machiavellian autocrats have mollified their gullible subjects through sheer power of suggestion. Red-pill men must learn from the mistakes of history; we must concertedly resist the slow-poison of SJW lingual manipulation.

Lexical trickery is not limited to tin-pot dictatorships. Quite the contrary, it is a tactic employed universally by the left. Progressives know that if they were to do intellectual battle with free-market, natural-rights conservatives on a level academic playing field, they’d be thoroughly humiliated—dominated by the cruel hand of unshackled reason. Thus, to borrow from Captain Jack Sparrow, that doesn’t give liberals much incentive to “fight fair,” does it? After all, “facts are stubborn things” that speak volumes if left unmolested by deceitful party lines. Since political leftism is wrong in both its presuppositions and conclusions, its recent palpable successes can only have followed on the heels of the left’s success in controlling our language and discourse.

American Progressives’ Campaign of Deception

Examples of the American left’s lingual tampering are legion. Brutally slaughtering and dismembering babies in utero is lauded as “women’s reproductive rights”; hordes of invading illegal aliens are now “undocumented workers”; the judicial redefinition of marriage to include deviant sodomitical unions is “marriage equality”; workplace and educational sex-based favoritism has become “women’s advancement”; disarming law-abiding citizens is now praised as “common sense gun regulation”; Muslims beheading people in the name of Allah is “workplace violence”; the most violent religion on earth is the “religion of peace”; anti-Christian bigotry masquerades as “the separation of Church and state”; morbidly obese land-cetacean women are heralded as “curvy”; indoctrinating 6-year-olds with homosexual and transsexual filth is simply an “anti-bullying campaign”; and government theft through unfairly staggered tax brackets is “having the rich pay their fair share.” We are living in Orwellian times.

To draw upon a few of the foregoing examples, it can be confidently stated that Planned Parenthood wouldn’t be long for this world if it had to admit that its business model revolves around child-assassination. Few people would balk about deporting immigrants if they understood them to be criminally present in the United States. If the left had to admit that homosexuals have always had the right to marry (a person of the opposite sex) no one would favor the capricious redefinition of a timeless institution.

Fat women wouldn’t shamelessly flaunt their nauseating, lumpy, cottage-cheese asses in skin-tight yoga pants if people had enough candor to admit that gelatinous rolls of amorphous lard are not aptly described as “curvy.” There would be a dearth of “gender dysphoric,” synthetic-hormone guzzling, mutilated 11-year-old freaks running around if we could only admit that it’s virtuous to be repulsed by hairy female-impersonating men wearing lipstick and gowns. Thus, for the left, these facts must be circumvented with mendacious euphemisms.

SJW Butchery of Pronoun Usage and Titles

A major front of the feminist war on English comes in the form of a push for “gender-neutral language.” We must resist this initiative at all costs, because it is an indispensable facilitator of the larger feminist agenda. One component of the gender-neutral language theater that is particularly deserving of our attention is the use of “inclusive” pronouns.

It is (and always has been) proper to use the masculine pronouns “he,” “him,” and “his” when referring to a generic person, or to a person of unknown sex (since English does not have a third-person singular gender-neutral pronoun). In precise writing and speaking, all gender-neutral alternatives to the masculine, third-person pronoun are “to be shunned” as they represent nothing short of the sheer torture of the English language (see Theodore M. Bernstein, “The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage” (New York: Atheneum, 1977), 351).

I observe too many lobotomized, neutered men bending over backwards to use unwieldy politically-correct phrases like “he or she,” “his or hers,” “s/he,” or the cringe-worthy “they” when speaking of a singular third person, to avoid seeming “chauvinistic” (gasp). By capitulating to the SJW bowdlerization of the English language, we implicitly concede that the feminist critique of “latent sexism” in the language is meritorious, whether we mean to convey assent or not.

What’s more, we need to eradicate gender-inclusive alternatives to job titles. Words have consequences. If we truly believe that the most fitting place for women is in the home, then our language should reflect a preference for men in outward societal roles, especially in certain professions.  I relish loudly referring to “firefighters” as firemen, “police officers” as policemen, “representatives” as congressmen, and “chairs” as chairmen.

Meanwhile, the aberrant cases where women feature in prominent leadership roles should be clearly demarcated, so that no one infers a false equivalency with men occupying similar stations. Hence, a female administrator should be referred to as “administratrix,” an executor should be called “executrix,” a governor should be “governess,” a comedian should be a “comedienne,” and a master should be a “mistress,” etc. There is a reason that after the women’s revolution of the 1960’s, pronouns and titles became a priority target for barren, crew-cutted hags: language serves as a reflection of a society’s values.

Conclusion: Resist Blue-Pill Grammar

Language matters. A lot. And progressives are highly cognizant of this. If men continue to cede control of the English language to scoldy, imperious SJWs; then we might as well just officially surrender western society to them, as a fait accompli.

We must fight tooth and nail to conserve the classical usage of our language. We must never budge an inch. It is easily observed that when naïve eunuchs make any type of “magnanimous” concession on even seemingly inconsequential issues to satiate the voracious appetites of SJWs, such a concession does not result in appeasement. Quite the contrary, weakness only hastens the decay of civil society, in that, after tasting initial success, feminist bloodlust is triggered. Let’s smite that bloodlust with a giant lingual tampon, starting right now.

Read More: Feminists Campaign To Remove The “Man” From Our Language

76 thoughts on “Why We Must Not Allow Progressives To Control The English Language”

  1. Great article, and very impressive bio. Also saw a perceptive comment of yours yesterday on another article. Glad you’re on board here.

    1. Yes indeed. Fine writing, something I recognised a long time ago and it really runs deep. Right into your inner meanderings as part of your self. William James, the founding father of psychology described the self as thoughts and feelings as we experience them to be connected. The inner wording of this conversation is set in language and our leftists know this.
      To alter the language is to literally define the terms in which reasoning occurs. As it becomes part of an inner self it is woven into identity, experience, individual motivation and action, relationships, herd behaviour, the outcome of a life itself.
      That is why it is so dear to the left to corrupt it.
      Excellent description, Esquire. I can feel the glimmer of morale reading it.

  2. First paragraph under American Progressives’ Campaign of Deception is gold. Wish all SJWs could see this and be hit square in the face with their own hypocrisy and word games.

    1. exactly – fat…
      I usually say “she will get the black vote” to some “beautiful” woman with a fat ass (not to her face though – don’t want to die yet)

      1. Just my own opinions here
        For females, anything over 125 is fat.
        110 – 125 is “a few extra pounds”.
        No girl who cares about her looks should weigh over 110.

        1. This is kinda a dumb comment.
          I get what your sentiment is ….but if you’re 5’10, with big tits, yer not gonna weigh what a petite 5’2 girl with A cups weighs. Sorry if I’m being a dick.

        2. @I like Big Tits
          And I like ’em young and petite!
          You’ll notice I said “Just my opinion”…

    2. Furthet B.S. lexicon created by the left.
      White privilege
      Male privilege
      Male gaze
      Mansplaning
      Whitesplaning
      Toxic Masculinity
      Microaggression
      Dreamers (illegals)

      1. The illegals are “dreamers”.
        Dreaming about that WIC, welfare, food stamps, Section 8, medicaid, head start, etc…
        All just one anchor baby away.
        Except the WIC. They get that anyway.

        1. @Mick
          That expression was broken off from an acronym with Obama’s DREAM Act during his presidency; hence “dreamers.” And through the magic of liberal newspeak, that’s supposed to make you feel guilty for shunning them or denying them illegal access to the US system.

          The twisting of words really is insidious. The Ancient Greek philosophers warned us about fucking around with the meanings of words and how it can stoke civil discord.

  3. “and government theft through unfairly staggered tax brackets is “having the rich pay their fair share.””
    This is the worst one.
    Fair share…when the hell are the parasitic users eaters on welfare and food stamps going to pay their “fair share”???
    BTW, they are “useless eaters” at best. Quite often they are ultra violent thugs.
    Eliminate the Great Society programs, deport the damn illegals and give the parasites a choice: Take the jobs “Americans don’t want to do” or starve.

    1. “fair share” is the worst…
      And billionaires like Warren Buffet use it. he can voluntarily pay more tax..but, he is not referring to the .01% he is inciting riotiousness in the useless class against the middle class.
      same in every western country…same old commie tactics.
      other mind fucks I heard yesterday:
      men can’t be victims of sexism
      whites can’t be victims of racism…
      Certain grouops state that criticizing murder and theft of white farmers in South Africa is white supremacy/evil/Nazis, etc, etc…
      The usual suspects in every western country performing the same acts…

    2. Ilimitable man said IIRC:
      “the average IQ in Liberia is 70. You guys should live there – then you would be kangz again with your 80IQ…”

  4. “I observe too many lobotomized, neutered men bending over backwards to use unwieldy politically-correct phrases like “he or she,” “his or hers,” “s/he,” or the cringe-worthy “they” when speaking of a singular third person, to avoid seeming “chauvinistic” (gasp). By capitulating to the SJW bowdlerization of the English language, we implicitly concede that the feminist critique of “latent sexism” in the language is meritorious, whether we mean to convey assent or not.”
    – I have worked in the IT area of the Finance industry for a long time. I still say “salesmen” when referring to members of the sales team. No one seems to mind. Yet…

  5. “I observe too many lobotomized, neutered men bending over backwards to use unwieldy politically-correct phrases like “he or she,” “his or hers,” “s/he,” or the cringe-worthy “they” when speaking of a singular third person, to avoid seeming “chauvinistic” (gasp). By capitulating to the SJW bowdlerization of the English language, we implicitly concede that the feminist critique of “latent sexism” in the language is meritorious, whether we mean to convey assent or not.”
    – I have worked in the IT departments of the Financial industry for a very long time. I still say “salesmen” when referring to members of the sales team. No one seems to mind…yet.

      1. Agreed. This guy has been here a while, and is no dummy when it comes to social/cultural issues.

  6. Good read couldn’t agree more about the gross land whales in yoga pants or the freaks who belong in asylums

  7. What is the best way to handle low-IQ individuals who play the racism-card when they’re called out for their ignorant butchering of the English language? Drives me nuts when people defend illiteracy as something tied to “culture” or “historical oppression”.

    1. “What is the best way to handle low-IQ individuals who play the racism-card when they’re called out for their ignorant butchering of the English language? ”
      – Avoid them whenever possible. Ignore them when not.

  8. What’s wrong with freedom?
    China used to want to be a Communist police state, but decided to open up a little when tyranny failed.
    Americans used to love freedom and fought
    Nazis and Commies, but now Americans have decided to become Nazis and Commies.
    Alcohol used to be considered dangerous and was outlawed, but was legalized again when Americans
    found out that it wasn’t so bad.
    Marijuana used to be considered dangerous and was outlawed, but was legalized again when Americans
    found out that weed isn’t so bad.
    Now Americans want to ban guns, but how can they be so sure that they are correct now when they were wrong before?
    The cure for evil and disorder is more liberty, not suppression.
    Holland has legal prostitution and drugs, but they aren’t collapsing.
    https://thetravelhack.com/europe/amsterdam/sex-and-drugs-in-amsterdam/
    Tyranny doesn’t work because everyone is a criminal when everything illegal and you must eventually
    make exceptions.
    Italy has now legalized theft.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/italian-court-rules-stealing-food-not-crime-if-you-re-n567141
    Illegal immigrants can now start businesses in Los Angeles.
    https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/01/31/la-city-council-street-vending/
    Sex offenders get pardons so that they can vote.
    https://theislandnow.com/new_hyde_park-108/phillips-cuomo-pardons-give-hall-pass-to-sex-offendors/
    Sex in public is legal in Mexico.
    https://www.wkrn.com/news/sex-in-public-is-now-legal-in-guadalajara-mexico/1384770713
    Self-serve gas is illegal in New Jersey, but every other state manages to survive with self-service gas stations.
    Think.

  9. Was with some traditional older wealthy Italian/american/New Yorkers yesterday – in their 70s…See them same time every rear – my favorite people in the world.
    Funny, wild stories: from pick up in the 70s, to visits to the old country, to talk of their parent/grandparent immigrants to USA…who worked hard, or didn’t get paid… then all their kids graduated high school(and so proud), then their kids graduated college(these guys)…
    Women have their role – cooking, cleaning, mostly talk separate – and are lovely people too. Later the 2 groups of men/women come together to eat and talk- mostly about what the other group was discussing previously- all to more great laughter…
    traditional roles – and complimentary/respectful of each other…
    However, there are concerns about their kids — I can only speculate since the kids are late 20s, and just graduated – who knows? maybe turned SJW..would be a shame and heartbreaking/confusing…

    1. Their kids may not turn out to be SJWs, but the females will most likely not be traditional. That scene you describe is very familiar to me. Reminds me of Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, 4th of July, etc.. when I was growing up.
      The women always did the cooking, serving, cleaning the dishes, etc..
      My sister did not carry on that tradition.
      She made her first husband do the dishes — had him agree to it prior to marriage even. Then she divorce raped him.
      Her 2nd husband is a 70 y/o multi millionaire. She is submissive to him. But on the holidays I went there in the past (I have no contact with her anymore) she had a Brazilian women doing the cooking and cleaning.

      1. interesting.
        same way I grew up…all Irish/English decent..
        same traditional complimentary roles…And same with large extended family – was great – everyone happy.
        my brother washes the dishes and cooks etc after working all day…
        My Thai girls are younger, and tight. Bring gifts, Cook, and don’t stop folding and cleaning shit…

        1. The two Korean SB/GFs I had were the same.
          The first one would cook for me over the weekend so I would have meals during the week. The 2nd one wouldn’t let even me dump out my tray at the Shinsegae food court in Seoul. Felt it would make her look bad to the other women. So I sat at the table while she cleared it off herself.

      2. I knew an old Italian guy. He told me a story of when he was newly married. His wife asked him to help with the dishes. He took all the dishes and threw them in the garbage saying “there I helped”. She never asked him again. But of course this was long, long ago.

  10. Good article.
    I have been resisting the left’s war on the English language for as long as all this really started coming into the mainstream nearly twenty years ago.
    When I default to the masculine pronoun ‘he’ in conversation I am often picked up on it by some feminist/soyboy, my standard reply is that I would rather be grammatically correct than politically correct.
    The response is usually stunned silence along with a few furrowed eyebrows and shaming looks amongst the girls. The fact that this also unphases me adds to their irritation as they realise that I will not capitulate under social pressure.

  11. “Progressives know that if they were to do intellectual battle with free-market, natural-rights conservatives on a level academic playing field, they’d be thoroughly humiliated—dominated by the cruel hand of unshackled reason.”
    Exactly. Leftists, let’s call them what they are, have nothing valid to offer. If they were honest, never again would they hold many public offers or private sector jobs. So they must lie for the truth helps them not. Drawback is when are freedom-loving people going to ‘go for the jugular’ when campaigning and debating those clowns?
    I feel no white guilt. I don’t have “high-capacity magazines” (they are OEM). I already pay MORE than my fair share. If you want more take it out of your own pocket.
    And language is the REAL opiate of the people. Sadly, most people ain’t worth shit.
    Great article.
    Roosh, these are the kind of articles that red-pill men need to educate ourselves with. This is war. At this stage of the game, any man with pussy as his top priority in life is lost. But this article is gold. Thanks for publishing it.

    1. “I already pay MORE than my fair share. If you want more take it out of your own pocket.”
      Well said EE.

    2. well said EE.
      Orwell has those thought crimes wrapped up…
      a quote from Charlie Kirk – no idea who he is)
      “political correctness is a weapon designed to silence people whose arguments cannot be refuted”
      i think is an important red pill truth that this is International.
      I now think of every Western/ European based/Occupied country needs to join and fight back…its not just Kentucky…

  12. I still call America’s original inhabitants “Indians”. Of course it’s because Columbus mistakenly thought he’d reached the islands between Asia and Australia, today part of Indonesia and then the Indies, but it stuck. For 500 years till today liberals are ordering the Indians to call themselves “Native Americans”. Most my family came from Western Europe, largely Britain and Ireland, by the 1600s. I don’t know how to be a European, which they wanted to escape. So I’m a “Native American”.
    I also call buffaloes buffaloes. They may be technically bison but the settlers called them buffaloes. That’s been going on nearly 500 years, so what’s the point changing it in regular speech except so liberals can act snotty toward everyone else?

    1. Would you consider blacks born in Europe to be European? Is anyone born in the USA “native american”? Even if they’re an Arab Muslim or something?

      1. Facts
        “Would you consider blacks born in Europe to be European?”
        Yes.
        “Is anyone born in the USA “native american”?”
        Yes. The sole exceptions being children born to diplomats of foreign nations OR children born to illegal interlopers.
        “Even if they’re an Arab Muslim or something?”
        If the child is Arab Muslim, apparently the child was born in Arabia, not America; no. However, no one is born in a religion, regardless of what some fools claim. Religion is taught to children.
        Some of my ancestry is Cherokee. I identify with being white. Most of my ancestors are white.

      2. Facts
        Although, to the best of my knowledge, I provided honest answers to your questions, my gut feeling is you are not looking for facts. You’re here to stir up shit. Be disruptive. Act like Saul Alinsky. You’re a good communist agitator.
        Only, agitation is not enough to win.

        1. So I asked some simple questions and now I am a “communist agitator” who “wants to stir up shit”? Well that escalated quickly. Come back when you know how to debate probably instead of resorting to bullshit conspiracy when someone questions your claims…

        2. Facts
          Here’s a fact for you to ponder.
          I made no claims for you to question.
          Look again!
          I answered your question line-by-line.
          Then my gut instinct spoke to me.
          Come back?
          I’ve been right here all along.
          Debate?
          I only debate my equals.

      3. Well the Indian tribes did not have a united country. There was a multitude of tribes and whatever name any of them gave to this land, if any name was given at all, it was certainly not America. So while modern Indians are Native American as are all natural born citizens of the USA, Indians of the past that lived as independent tribes were in fact not Native Americans. Blacks don’t belong in Europe, though technically if they live there that would be a correct term. However, they can never be English, German, French, Italian, etc. regardless if whether they are citizens of those countries.

      4. probably circular SJW/Marxist “arguments”
        Nobody believes or cares anymore…
        A friend in NYC was upper class white guy from Rhodesia.
        Introduced himself as African America for shits and giggles…

        1. BadMan
          Although it is too late to do anything about it now, I still sympathize with Rhodesia. The war was not black verses white. It was freedom verses communism.
          Naturally, the UK and the USA, in the midst of the cold war, albeit indirectly, supported communists.
          As you can see, communists won but the people lost. The people of every race and lineage in Rhodesia. I refuse to call that country the other name.

        2. LOL…”the war was not about black vs. White”…ok, get out of here you civic cuck. Pretty sure it was all about race, tribe vs tribe, like what has been going on since the dawn of mankind. The “muh communism” the blacks were moving towards was based on their desire to steal white mans wealth…it is about race, it has always been about race. The entire communist movement in Africa spread on the backs of low IQ Blacks who were jealous of whites and wanted to rape white pussy.
          A black can never be a European, European is actually defined genetically. A white dude like me will never be an Asian…welcome to reality. White South Africa and Rhodesia were European colonies/countries; and they were designed as such.

        3. Wes the Great
          I don’t care if you don’t agree with me. That’s your right. But knock off your fucking name calling.
          When guerillas were being indoctrinated by Soviet and Cuban instructors, they were taught communism, not racism. And that is straight from some of the guerillas who were captured.
          I don’t care what you think. I don’t care if you agree with me or not.
          But knock off your fucking name calling.

      5. Culture and language are your identity. American blacks aren’t any more Africans than I am an Irishman.

  13. My favorite is the term, “political correctness.” How about “political coercion” instead?

  14. I would say the first word the left stole and altered the meaning of is progressive. Their agenda has caused a degenerating of our culture and certainly hasn’t contributed to it progressing to a stronger society.

    1. Cavalier
      “I would say the first word the left stole and altered the meaning of is progressive.”
      Liberal could be the first word the left stole. Originally, the word liberal meant the developement of the full potential of the human being. So the word has been twisted.
      John F. Kennedy – Liberal.
      Barack Obama – communist.

      1. Yes that is another word they stole early on. Liberal and progressive are 2 of the core terms they took to make their agenda appear to be natural and superior.

        1. Cavalier
          Leftists are smart enough to know, if ever they stated truthfully their platform and end game, nobody in HIS right mind would support them ever. If anything, they would be run out of the country.
          Thus, they need the support of the lowly class of people who are militant, for no reason, and easily led astray.
          Good day to you, Cavalier. Keep your eyes clear and talons strong.

  15. My favorite is how many times leftists and the media have changed the term for illegal aliens. It went from illegal aliens to illegal immigrants to undocumented immigrants to undocumented migrants to undocumented workers to migrant workers. By the end, we are supposed to think that the guys raping and killing young white women are just honest workers who came to America to work for us.
    Bill Maher used to say illegal immigrants on his show. Then he had Jorge Rivera (the guy Trump kicked out of his conference) on his show. Jorge correct Bill “nobody is illegal Bill.” Now Maher doesn’t say it anymore. He fell in line like the rest of them.

    1. Jared
      This is off topic. I hope you forgive me.
      But having read many of the articles at your site, I see why you are such a fan of Conan.
      Yesterday, at Amazon, I purchased a gigantic book of Conan stories, over eight hundred, for just $0.99!
      Awesome stories. Robert Howard was an excellent writer.
      Tarzan is another series of fiction I have always enjoyed. But they each emphasize masculine virtues.
      And, in my opinion, they compliment each other.
      Have a great week, Jared. Keep fighting the good fight.

  16. “Muslims beheading people in the name of Allah is “workplace violence””. Funny maybe, but the titter would have been best left-out as it works to detract from all the other examples which are genuinely orwellian misuses of language. There is nothing incidental about this attempt to re-package and re-frame often abominal practice as something that people can accept: the left is about two things, which are really the same thing: controlling ideology and controlling language.
    Also, one of the cleverest examples of this type of deviousness is the re-describing of sex (you know the kind that might result in a baby) as ‘vanilla’. The ice-cream metaphor is a brilliant subversion as it frames sex as we know it (well, knew it once upon a time) as just one out of an infinity of perversions. The same is true of gender identities. It might be the case that most people are straight and have boring vanilla straight sex, but heh, straight cisgender is just one boring, soon to be retired, instance of dozens of different gender identities: 57 on facebook, but no doubt there are many many more.
    Through the manipulation of language, variations and negations of the theme can be used to undermine or erase it even. These kind of issues should be studied and addressed systematically. This is a good start

    1. “the re-describing of sex (you know the kind that might result in a baby) as ‘vanilla’.”
      What if you like ‘chocolate’?

    2. At least one of the countless examples of Sudden-Jihad Syndrome was hand-waved away as “workplace violence”. IIRC, it was the case of the perfectly normal psychiatrist and commissioned officer in the U.S. Army who gunned down a multitude of unarmed soldiers and dependents at Ft. Hood because Allah told him to.

  17. Great article.
    Though I would say the language has already been hit by a giant lingual tampon.
    It’s time to pound it back in place with a monstrous wang.

  18. Excellent piece, James.
    Some years ago, on starting a new job at a UK university, part of the induction was to have a man-hating feminist shrew instructing us on ‘gender neutral language’. A couple of minutes into the session, I said loudly, “This is bullshit, I’m going to disregard it.” To my amazement, others then began complaining, and the session was abandoned! Which proves your point that we should man-up and defend our language.

    1. Nothing about this article is misogynistic. The term “toxic masculinity”, however, is misandristic. Your cliched feminist buzzwords carry no real meaning and are exactly what this article is talking about.

      1. So I guess y’all dislike everything you disagree with. What else would be expected from a bunch of men calling themselves alpha when that is a disproven term

  19. Congrats to the author for using both “sex” and “gender” properly. Though not explained by Steele, he used the word “sex” in reference to a biological characteristic, and “gender” in reference to grammar. Not one RoK writer that I recall has made this traditional distinction.
    As a final thought for the absurd use of ‘gender’, just think of someone saying ‘Last night me and my partner had gender’ if you want a good laugh.
    It’s high time the RoK authors and editors cleanse themselves of this Kultural Marxist use of gender.

Comments are closed.