The Right-Winger’s Speech Code Manual!

If the left really took itself seriously, or, to put it another way, the right was interested in engaging in the kind of silliness that is the left’s enterprise of choice, the following terms would have entered our vocabulary long ago.  Some of these terms have actually appeared, but because they militate against the left’s ideological vision and political agenda, they have gained very little traction. Others needed to be created.

For the benefit of all right-wingers, I offer their own Politically Correct (Politically Incorrect?) speech code, chock-full of examples of micro-aggressions!

I.CAUCASOPHOBIA/EUROPHOBIA: Throughout the contemporary world, particularly the Western world, overt manifestations of this animus toward Caucasians or people of European decent, i.e. whites, are in ample supply.  Calls for white genocide and the like, “affirmative action,” and racially-motivated attacks against whites by nonwhites are some of the most obvious illustrations of Caucasophobia.

Yet this endemic disease expresses itself covertly as well.  Being subconscious, covert Caucasophobia is potentially more invidious than its self-conscious counterpart.  The reality and ubiquity of this covert Caucasophobia is established by way of two phenomena: institutional or structural Caucasophobia, on the one hand, and, on the other, the countless, everyday micro-aggressions committed by way of the seemingly most innocuous uses of the English language.

Time to buy old US gold coins

That there is indeed institutional Caucasophobia is borne out by the following considerations:

Whites constitute about two-thirds of America’s population, and yet less than 10% of all professional basketball players and about 20% (or less) of all professional football players.  Whites also remain sorely underrepresented among professional boxers.

The resurgence of the heroin epidemic, along with that of the opiate epidemic, has had a disproportionate impact upon young whites, young white males in particular.

Whites are overrepresented among those in America who commit suicide.

Historically, America’s serial killers have been disproportionately white.

Only two-thirds or so of Americans are white, and yet 100% of the Italian, Russian, and Irish mobs were white.

This list could be added to ad infinitum. Institutional or structural Caucasophobia is real.

As for daily language, the following micro-aggressions betray a speaker’s Caucasophobia, however subconscious it may be:

“I have nothing against white people. I date whites, and some of my closest friends are white.”

“‘White Christmas’ is my favorite Christmas song of all time.”

“This neighborhood (or country, institution, organization, industry, etc.) needs more ‘diversity’.”

“This neighborhood (or country, institution, organization, industry, etc.) needs to be more ‘inclusive.’”

“The blizzard has caused a whiteout.”

I love white chocolate!”

“I’m white-hot mad!”

“I’m not anti-white, I’m just pro-….”

“Black lives matter.”

“George Washington was a slave owner.”

“Are you feeling ok?  You look pale.”

These examples of micro-aggressions could be expanded indefinitely.


This is the animus toward Christians that is nearly as pervasive throughout the world as is Caucasophobia.  And, like the latter, Christophobia is often subtle—at least in that part of the globe that was once known as “Christendom.”

Christophobia can also be referred to as neo-Neronianism, for the cruel ancient Roman emperor Nero will forever be remembered as history’s penultimate persecutor of Christians.

Christophobia or neo-Neronianism asserts itself not just in blatant instances of mass killings, abductions, discrimination, and the like that are characteristic of those countries around the globe in which Christians reside. It also is present whenever Christian business owners are pressured to cater to gay weddings, whether it is a Christian baker that is expected to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding or the Boy Scouts that are expected to make scoutmasters of openly gay men.

Covert neo-Neronianism arouses its ugly head through micro-aggressions like:

“I don’t believe in God.”

“Roman Catholic priests should be permitted to marry.”

“I’m more inclined to side with science over religion.”

“Religion should be kept out of politics.”

“I am not a person of religious faith, but I respect people who are.”

“Christians have not always acted like Christ.”

“Some people need religion.”

“Jesus wasn’t God, though he was a great man.”

And on and on.

Due to space constraints, our treatment of some other neglected transgressions must be brief:


This is animus toward heterosexuals.  When it is said that homosexuality is a viable alternative to heterosexuality, or that heterosexuals have done more to harm the institution of marriage than anything that same-sex marriage could hope to visit upon it, you can be sure that homo-sexism or homo-normativity is on display.

The fact that gays tend to be overrepresented in the arts and entertainment industry, as well as among affluent people generally, and that, say, lesbians are among the least likely people to contract sexually transmitted diseases, suggest that homo-sexism is institutional or structural.

The notion that gays have a “gaydar,” a unique, Gnostic-like intuition that permits them to detect a person’s sexual orientation before that person is even aware of it is the proverbial textbook illustration of homo-sexism.


This is animus toward men.  This too is embedded in the very institutions of American society.  There are slightly more women than men in the general population, and yet men are grossly overrepresented in the most dangerous and laborious of occupations.  Men are as well dramatically overrepresented among high school and college drop outs; drug addicts; suicide victims; criminals; and those incarcerated.

That only women have ever been able to beget and carry children the world over is also proof that gyno-sexism transcends cultures and history.


We are constantly being told by the supporters of endless illegal immigration that those of us who oppose it are “anti-immigrant.”  The truth, though, is that it is they, the supporters of illegal immigration, who are anti-citizen.

“America is a land of immigrants.”

“America is a melting pot.”

“Immigrants do the work that Americans refuse to do.”

All three of these statements are micro-aggressions, expressions of anti-citizenism.


“Nomos” is the Greek word for “law.” Those who advocate on behalf of un-Constitutional measures, say, or illegal immigration, as well as those who voted for Hillary Clinton, are guilty of nomosphobia.

The nomosphobe is a champion of lawlessness.

To repeat, this “speech code” for right-wingers is intended (largely) as satire.  But bear in mind, if we weren’t already as familiar with the left’s speech codes as we are, they would sound just as preposterous, just as infantile, as this phony speech code that I devised here.

Actually, familiarity aside, the left’s speech codes still sound just as ridiculous as ever.