The following is inspired by the several conservative attempts to rescue science from the grip of liberal activists. We've known for a long time that liberals seized control of biological science in the mid-19th century, or thereabouts (precision on dates is a liberal value and so won't be adhered to here); the conservative alternative is Intelligent Design (so called since our former venture, Creation Science went belly-up and had to be rebranded.
It's also clear that liberals have taken control of "Climate Science". We don't actually have an alternative up and running yet, but we are aggressively claiming that global warming is a hoax. Other examples of conservascience include Abiotic Oil (which tells us that oil will never run out, and gets rid of those unpleasant millions of years which run afoul of Young Earth Creationism). And most recently, we've taken the initiative to rescue the Bible from "Bible scholars", putting Bible study on a new, stronger, ideologically pure foundation, showing that conservatives can master any subject without wasting years of time studying it in "classes".
With these achievements under our belts, I feel that it's time to tackle linguistics.
At first glance, linguistics would seem like an ideologically neutral subject. Languages are just something out there, like rocks, right?
Wrong!
A study of linguistics as it's taught in those Marxist hellholes we call "Universities" reveals all kinds of liberal bias.
For starters, let's take the claim that "languages evolve". Notice the word "evolve" -- even if there were no other reason to take issue with it, that word alone starts us on the slippery slope toward "evolution", and denying the providential creation of God. And of course we know that the Bible tells us that all 72 of the world's languages were created at the Tower of Babel, in the days of the Patriarch Peleg. But even more than this, if we allow that languages can change -- that they are shifting, metamorphic, changeable subjects, then we buy into liberal relativism: we deny that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and accept every kind of slang as "just another stage in the evolution of language".
And if you have ever taken a linguistics class, you will know how the liberal professor will din it into your head that there's no such thing as "good" or "bad" in language. That all languages are equal; and that we can only be descriptive, not prescriptive, in talking about language.
This is totally contrary to conservative principles! We should be prescribing what is correct! Otherwise society will disintegrate and we will have anarchy, with everyone "doing what is right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6).
As for the claim that all languages are equal, that's just a wedge for the claim that all peoples are equal, and all religions are equal. The fact is that some languages are better than others. For instance, if English isn't a better language than Spanish, then why are Hispanics paid so much less than Anglos? Tell me the truth: when you go down to the club with the guys, do you pay to see a "stripper" or a "bailarina erótica"? See what I mean: English is superior because everything in it is called exactly what it is: a man is a man, a chick is a chick, a liberal is an idiot (see, I made a joke!) while all the foreign languages have to invent some other word, just to be different.
Linguists also claim that language death is a bad thing. Apparently this is going on all the time -- you have like four or five Indians somewhere who are the last speakers of a language, and the kids all grow up speaking English, and grandma and grandpa die, and all of a sudden a language is extinct.
What they won't tell you is that this is good for business. Languages just involve you with translators and paperwork and misunderstanding. It would be better, obviously, if everybody just spoke English. We should be encouraging language death, not trying to preserve crude and primitive modes of speech where the only words are "Ugh" and "How" and people say "me" instead of "I". Basically, we should forbid any language from being spoken in the USA other than English; if people around the world see how successful we are doing that, maybe they'll follow suit.
So the basic tenets of Conservative linguistics are going to be as follows:
(1) Languages don't evolve. We have the same 72 languages as we had on the day of the Tower of Babel. Sure, some people speak them queerly because they are undisciplined and uneducated and haven't been whipped into shape -- I mean, Dutch is basically English spelled funny -- but that doesn't mean they've actually changed, just that we're not doing a good enough job enforcing the standard.
(2) Languages can be spoken right, or wrong. It's the job of conservatives to enforce the right way of speaking (and writing) against the sloppy, anything-goes, cultural relativism of liberals.
(3) Some languages are just better than others. Some languages are too easy (showing that their speakers are just dumb) and others are too hard (showing that they don't understand the principle of maximal efficiency). Some languages don't have words for important concepts like "robot" and "libertarianism". Some languages have a lot of unnecessary sounds that require a lot of accent marks and dots and so on. If you can't spell it with an ASCII keyboard, why bother?
(4) Of all the languages in the world, the gold standard is undoubtedly American English -- which is why the Americans are so superior. We need to make it our goal to see that American is spoken worldwide, so that no American ever needs to use an interpreter or translator in any country. I mean, that's just insulting.
(5) Ultimately, we want to stamp out all other languages and have Conservative English as the one world language.
Language is too important to be left up to liberals! Help save linguistics for Conservatism.