Part of the leftist destruction of culture consists of redefining words and concepts. This contributes to robbing you of your cultural heritage. There is an example in my article on the Hamas war brides, in which I went on a detour to show how the meaning of the word “rape” got completely changed over time by leftist academics.
On a whim, I looked up what the current zeitgeist thinks a “war bride” is. Originally, war brides were women who were taken by invading forces. This applied to classic cases of abductions, i.e. rapes in the original meaning of the word, on the one hand, but on the other hand, there were also plenty of cases of women trying to seduce men from the invading forces if their group was perceived as the winning party. This tells you a lot about the loyalty of women, by the way.
The ultra-leftist Wikipedia writes, in the introduction of the eponymous article,
War brides are women who married military personnel from other countries in times of war or during military occupations, a practice that occurred in great frequency during World War I and World War II.
Somehow, this definition seems to tiptoe around the fact that the men are not just from “other countries”, but enemy combatants. This is a rather odd omission. You can be forgiven for believing that we are talking about US off-duty officers vacationing in France, marrying local women.
If you think Wikipedia was bad, then look at what the New Oxford American Dictionary says:
war bride
a woman who marries a man whom she met while he was on active service.
According to this definition, a “man on active service” who marries his local high school sweetheart also takes a war bride. This is beyond ridiculous. Of course, it is easy to see why this is done. You can see the same kind of linguistic activism around any term the left does not like, which is why, for instance, the term “sodomy” has been replaced with “gay sex”, albeit men engaging in sodomy obviously do not engage in sexual intercourse, i.e. intercourse between the sexes.
I wonder how strong a woman’s biological urge to betray her people in the face of a strong opponent is. For instance, if China invaded the US, wiping the floor with its obese armed forces, would local women then start perceiving shorter Chinese men as more masculine? Presumably they would, but surely they would go for the tallest of them. We can thank decades of cultural subversion that such question are not only not asked but the vast majority of people would not even notice that there may be questions worth asking related to such issues.
Woah ???? I shouldn’t be surprised, but I still wasn’t expecting it. That dictionary and wikipedia stuff is pure gaslighting one right in the face.
Even the claim that war brides were a phenomenon mainly during WWI and WWII is highly misleading. In these cases, it was primarily local women willingly entering romantic encounters with the enemy. This used to be referred to as “fraternization with the enemy”. Originally, the term “war bride” is a mocking expression because invaders simply killed the men and took the women, and the latter had the choice of either yielding or getting killed themselves. Thus, evolution has seen to it that it is beneficial for women to betray their family whereas for men the options were to fight until the very end or get killed. You can certainly see why such knowledge is deemed not suitable for mainstream society.