On Language: Haboob: because some dust storms are specialer than others
By Alex Linder
March 17, 2014
1. haboob: because some dust storms are specialer than others:
Are the dust storms that occur in Texas genuine haboobs, or are the weathermen, pardon me, meteorologists, just trying to sound cool? In this world, everybody's selling something. Most are selling themselves. Using longer, more grandiose titles is their way of convincing themselves they're more important than a clear lens might take them to be so they're pretty sure it will work on everyone else. I have my doubts that haboobs occur outside haji territory, but who knows. After all, there are many specific words for types of winds or storms, and they seem to be at least associated with regions, if not absolutely tied to them:
- chinook/Foehn - the latter is a German word taken from Romans, apparently. Both refer to a warmer wind on the leeside of a mountain. The wind, coming from Mediterranean or Pacific ocean, drops moisture on one side of mountain and becomes a warmer, snow-eating air in Central Europe, over the Alps, or on the prairie side of the Rockies in Canada and the northwestern US. Apparently there is a hair dryer in Germany named Foehn, or a variation. That's how you remember it. Point is, apparently these are the same winds - they have the same cause - but they go by different names, depending on your location.
- zephyr - it's not even clear that this is any different from chinook/Foehn because like a Foehn, or the Roman word/idea it comes from, a zephyr is a mild western wind. It comes from the Greek god Zephyrus. Says Wikipedia: In Greek mythology, Zephyrus was the personification of the west wind and the bringer of light spring and early summer breezes; his Roman equivalent was Favonius.
We should be getting some zephyrs, but as I write this, the early a.m. of 17 March 2014, it is 13 degrees outside. No zephyrs for you, my tasty young friend. The only zephyrs will be coming out of your mouth when you're blowing on your fingers if you step outside.... Since zephyr, chinook and Foehn trace to the same or equivalent gods, it's difficult to see if there is any difference between them at all. Chinook and Foehn appear to be the same thing, whereas perhaps a zephyr could be any warm, western breeze. Perhaps chinooks and Foehn are a subset of zephyrs; but then again, it's not clear that all Foehn, at least are western breezes. So confusing. But ultimately, the only thing that matters to remember for reading comprehension is that these are comparatively warm winds, which usually come from air dropping its moisture on the other side of the mountain.
- sirocco - This is a very different type of wind. It blows up from the Sahara and can contain lots of dust and be quite violent, causing storms. Many of the lands around the Mediterranean have different words for sirocco, including leveche
in Spain. Wikipedia: "In the Canary Islands this oppressive, hot, dust bearing wind is called la calima
." Reminds one of the
, which are a phenomenon that strikes Southern California - a very strong hot wind, given to starting a lot of those wildfires you're always hearing about. Looking it up, I see the difference is that Santa Anas arise inland and then blow west out over the coast. So, the opposite of the way the zephyr/Foehn blow, but sort of the same thing in that they're coming over mountains and though not necessarily warm as the zephyr/Foehn I believe is, they are generally hot. At least, all the ones I remember from my times living in So Cal were - very strong, very hot winds. ... In Portugal, the sirocco is called xaroco
; and in Malta, the xlokk
, which is kind of cool. All these winds come from the same place - the Sahara, but they can cause different reactions depending on where they hit. They could be very hot or wet, but they usually seem to involve storms and dust. It's interesting also that both Foehn and sirocco are associated with health problems.
Coming back to
, what is it? An "intense" dust storm. Which can occur in arid regions throughout the world. Here The Elect do battle with evil Texas racists
who resent showy weather actors talking about haboobs where they could use the more prosaic dust storm
. Never settled is the question of which is more accurate, which ought to determine the use.
Ok...let's recap: your takeaway here is that a chinook/Foehn are same thing, and similar to zephyr - they mean warm wind - usually from the west. Sirocco is a wet or hot, dust-containing storm blowing up from the Sahara. Haboob is a dust storm. An intense one. Like, it competes in poetry slams and shit.
2) new word: erumpent
Came across this in essay here
. Less than two months later, however, as we waved goodbye to June, the city was erumpent with temps brushing against triple digits.
It means bursting forth
in bloom, but less in the sense of beautiful spring crocuses and daffodils than in funguses growing out of a corpse. The key is: bursting forth
through some overlying structure
- like a fungus breaking through the rotting xylem of a horizontal tree on the forest floor, or a seedling breaking up through the loam with its eggshell still on its head. Erumpent
is a good spring word. I shall try to use it next time I write about matters efflorescent. Interesting to me that this word was completely new. Many words I don't use or even recognize I know that I have seen before but can't remember; this one I have never come across once.
3) relative vs comparative
Quoth: Even as a relative term I would hardly describe Gulbis as stocky
Nearly everyone says "relatively" where they should say "comparatively." Latvian-son-of-billionaire-tennis-player-jew Gulbis either is or isn't stockier than someone else. Someone he's being compared
to. Not someone he's relative
to. You see the difference: it's not a relation between the two being discussed; rather, a comparison is being made. In fact, using any adverbial form is probably wrong too, but that I will not fight, as it's hopeless.
As an error, I would compare the use of relatively
is correct to the use of different than
where different from
is proper. When you're comparing nouns, you must use from
. People tend to use than
. This is different than
that. No! This is different from
is for verbs. If you think about it, you will get it right, but it does require thinking about because most people tend to get it wrong, and we tend to copy what we hear. If you're making a comparison, and it will be clear to you that 90% of the time that's what you're doing, if you simply stop to think about it, then use comparatively
4) exploring your sexuality
- This is the cant phrase to end all cant phrases. The person who invented this garbage ought to be shot. Does one explore ones excretory or respiratory or circulatory system? This crank idea of 'exploring one's sexuality' is a deliberate inducement to destructive behavior popularized by jews following the Frankfurt School (or the school advised in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion) in order to demoralize young whites, to physically mess up their bodies and morally-mentally mess up their minds. The idea is that your body is something for you to play with. Something to have fun with. Rather than a machine with specific needs and abilities. 'Exploring' sounds innocent enough, like a bunch of Cub Scouts or Girl Scouts going on a hike and camping trip, but it always ends up meaning promiscuous sex, usually of the most degenerate kind, as in homosex. Homo behavior has always been tied to disease and mental problems, because it is a perversion of natural function. White young are encouraged by jew-promoted experts in jew-owned mass media to 'explore' perversions. But of course, they're never called perversions, nor are their dangers hinted at. 'Exploring your sexuality' is a lie in the same way that 'gay' is a lie, it conceals by reversing the nature of the thing. Queers/queer behavior become something light and happy, rather than something heavy and dark. 'Explorations' = use drugs, drink, and try different perversions. The hidden meaning and message is that the jews are trying to mess up young whites in order to make things better for themselves. The jews will sell you first on the idea of perversions as 'explorations,' then they will sell you the equipment -- booze, drugs, cable tv, movies, sex toys -- you need to spelunk this underworld. What comes out the other end? That's not their problem. That's just another profit center. The fucked-up shell you become then needs their jew shrinks and their jew head pills and their jew-mediated social services.
Sexuality 'exploration' like sex education is a misnomer. A deliberate
misnomer. Just as sex education is attitude adjustment, rather than actual clinical facts (about homosexual behavior, for example), the idea of 'exploring' sexuality doesn't make sense except as a way to persuade people to try things that aren't going to lead them anywhere good. Nothing in sexuality needs to be explored. 'Explore your sexuality' is nothing more than a barker standing outside a strip bar in the Tenderloin trying to draw in passers-by. Don't be taken in by jew blandishments to immorality, there's nothing ever
new or edgy or unexplored about sex. Everything you might think to do with your body has been done by every other generation, and, yeah, the results are in and well established. If you're up for something genuinely difficult and worthwhile, try to establish a solid marital connection with someone of the opposite sex. It's not as easy as it might appear, particularly today. But that's the only kind of challenge that sex actually holds. Physical gymnastics and orgasm-chasing never lead anywhere that great. You might escape the physical consequences (disease), although probably not, but mentally, you will become calloused in a way that makes deeper relations with someone else extremely difficult - and that is the part these "safe sex" liars, these "explore your sexuality" charlatans never tell you, because they are trying to fuck you in a non-physical way.
As always, believe what you hear and read in the jew-controlled junkmedia at your own peril. That's the rule. But it's three times stronger where sex is involved. Jews attempt to use the most powerful human drive to advance their agenda, and I've just explained to you how they do that. 'Exploring your sexuality' is just another of their cant phrases meant to trap young white men and women in self- and other-destructive behavior. Don't fall for it.
Nothing wrong with this term inherently, but people should understand how it is used by the junkmedia and junkacademia: to push their view that there is no truth, just competing 'narratives.' A lie that really curls my lip. External reality does exist; and that the loudest lie may prevail, even for a long time, does not mean that narrative outweighs the truth, nor that the truth does not exist. But you can certainly see how a race of congenital liars like the jews would take to and promote this point of view. It's basically just a variation on the tree-falling argument. If the loudest voice is a jew liar, to be redundant, which it usually is, then does the truth actually exist? Only as a form of knowledge in the minds of those who know the jew is factually wrong and deliberately lying. Other than that, it has no real power. No effective power, anyway. Truth is rather like God in that sense, I observe uncomfortably. The difference is that truth does exist, but is nearly as impotent, in many cases. We can't say the jew is wrong, from his racial point of view, but from ours, he's ugly and disgusting. Eminently worthy of extermination, as all good white men know.
This is not mere academic fraud, this idea that truth doesn't exist, that there are only competing narratives - it has a real-world effect. People taught this lie actually believe it. And act on it. I refer you to the debate over George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. The Martin defenders simply invent a narrative -- that Martin was an innocent child walking home with his candy when he was viciously attacked and murdered by an evil white racist
. They will hear no facts. They stick to their narrative. Isn't that how it works? If there is no truth, then LOUDEST VOICE WINS. That's what they learned in school. Dat how dey do, den. And it works! At least inside the space they control - which is pretty much all non-Internet media.
Do you see how profoundly anti-social this 'competing narratives' idea is? How profoundly dangerous? Where is the common ground for dealing with -- for living
with -- people so comfortable with lying-justified-as-narrative that they will claim, for the first and best example, that brown Zimmerman is white
You can't have a society where there's this radical a disagreement on what we all see and hear. Ultimately, it must fracture. That's where this 'competing narratives' must lead. Of course, the jew intends it to lead to the utter suppression of all competing narratives, so that his voice is the only one ever to be heard, and his narrative is the only idea that even pops up in people's minds. Orwell covered this. They don't just want your shutting up, your compliance, your stifling alternative narratives; they want your positive love and agreement and 'cosigning' their lie called narrative.
Whites can't live with jews. We haven't figured this out in 2,000 years because the Jesus cult blinded us to what jews actually are, and prevented us from exercising the natural solution, since the church says it is neither necessary nor moral. I'll leave the pedophiles called priests to dissect the morality, in between boysucks, but it certainly is necessary.
Sounds vaguely dirty, doesn't it? Like an illegal cheese importer, or sniffer of young girls' underpants. But actually it refers to someone who likes to walk around, even loaf, and just check things out, particularly in a big city. Wholly respectable, in a vaguely disrespectable way. Because, as good protestants know, time is money
. The purpose of being alive is to ape a machine. Lick more envelopes in less time! Yeah, verily, become your own Perfunctory Jesus. Turner, time-motion studies, interoperable parts, production lines. Not all bad. But not things worthy of elevation to the status they've achieved.
Does the US suffer from a lack of productive people or reflective people?
Flaneurs may be just loafers on the low end, but they may be artists on the high end. There's nothing wrong with looking at things. At people watching. At building watching. At people and building watching. At taking in impressions, and maybe putting them down in notebooks, or just storing them away mentally for use later. There are lots of interesting things in the world, and not all of them can be seen by-from whizzing car.
Story about flaneuring in Silicon Valley
7) gypsies and vandals
One thing about leftists, they're always trying to be au courant
er-than-thou. They always have to know about the latest band before it even exists, in order to separate themselves from, sniff, people in Texas, shall we say, and so it is with newly infringed victim groups. They're always on the scour for new crybabies. Everyone knows it's wrong to call blacks niggers
does not include me, you and sane people generally.) But they
, advanced, superior life forms that they are, know it's wrong to call gypsies gypsies
. They're Roma
. Like tomatoes, but fleshier and worse tasting. Gypsies
implies scuttling around the country in dirty caravans (as they're called in Europe), stealing and scamming. Leftists won't stand for this! Even though history screams with one voice that ripping other people off is in fact the very heart and essence of gypsy culture
. Witch-hunting Europeans' and others' use of gypies
offers the holy leftist a cool new way to prove that Europeans are as racist as Americans while locating himself on the pushing edge of social justice
, nomenclature division. In leftist lore, whites are uniquely evil because they hate all other people for no reason
. Nor have they ever created anything or come up with any ideas, they've just stolen them from others in the course of dispossessing them of their land. That's the basic idea. It doesn't make any logical sense, it has nothing to do with reality, it belongs, rather, under the category of religious nostrums, to be redundant. (If you don't understand why I say redundant, look up nostrum
But if the use of gypsy
is wrong, then so must be the use of vandal
. Yet, I've never once noticed a leftist complaining about use of vandals
. These terms come from a Germanic tribe, the Vandals. They're somehow historically associated with property destruction, perhaps due to their shenanigans and hooliganism during the fall of Rome. For whatever reason, their name has come to be associated with a particular form of behavior, just as it is with the gypsies. What do gypsies do? They gyp
people. What do vandals do? They vandalize
things. Neither use is offensive to someone with a working mind. But since gypsies aren't white, the leftist must prevent the-evil-white-man from tongue-tying them to their rotten behavior. Just as with jews, of course, every single people with experience of the gypsies, from Spaniards to Romanians, describes them the same way. To the leftist liar, that proves not that the thing in question is in fact what is thought to be by every people that has encountered it, but that all these multifarious observers are sick in the head. As always, it's the leftist who is deranged and hateful, not the rational, normal people he defames. So let me know the first time you see a leftist complain about the slurring of the ancient Vandals. Whereas I see whining about the use of gypsies
at least once a week.
The rule: tie whites to opinion-evil; untie coloreds from behavior-evil
8) "taking my talents to South Beach"
That was NBAer LeBron James's description of his decision to leave Cleveland and sign with Miami. Nothing remarkable there other than that this decision was announced on a special show, a sort of unprecedented bit of negro-promotion and self-importance. Blacks are generally dumb. They hear little phrases in the media, and they try to use them, like a crow or raccoon spotting a shiny gum wrapper. Sometimes they get them right, sometimes wrong. They love to repeat cliches that they think sound good. It's like a ghetto version of white middle-class pretentiousness, except at least some of the whites are familiar with the concept of cliches. You can see nigger 'ballers' as they call themselves repeating some cliche while clearly thinking they are being clever or wise, it's just a testament to how low their IQ actually is. They love rhymes above all else. If something rhymes, it must contain a deep truth, the negro feels in its dense bones. Cam Newton is perfect example of this type of negro; just watch him being inteviewed and you'll see what I mean. The average black has a very low IQ and a very high self-regard and usually not much emotional control. Most negroes are, from our white perspective, like children in adult bodies. When you're a young child of five or six, adults seem like giants. This is the way it is for blacks - mentally. The world is extremely confusing to them because nearly everyone around them is more intelligent than they are, which makes it difficult for them to understand others' interests and motives. This creates stress, hostility and fear in them, which only redoubles their natural proclivity for stupid, violent behavior. They belong in the jungle, not in human civilization, where they are uncomfortable because they don't fit.
Anyway, here's an example
of the power of the media, and the way young dumb blacks copy older dumb blacks. Every last one of these niggers has talents it is taking somewhere other than South Beach. Negroes don't do irony either. There is no pretentiousness among blacks, as there is among whites, because fronting and big-manning are business as usual among these people of jungle.
9) atheism is, essentially and in practice, a strawman
Nothing we would accept as evidence in any other case or matter
has ever been advanced to demonstrate the existence of God. Therefore, God
, as a concept, belongs to the ranks of Easter Bunny
and Santa Claus
. I need tell you there is no word for someone who doesn't believe in Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. By the same logical token, there is
for a term for someone who doesn't believe in God - a need on the part of the 'God'-beliebers
(if I may slur Justin Bieber fans, since, after all, as disgusting and wiggery and downright criminal as he is, the object of their worship undeniably exists). Yes, there is a practical, political need for a non-belieber term if the cultists intend to demonize the set, as they surely do. No one gets demonized for not believing in Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, but many, many people feel the need to demonize the men who don't believe in the wholly imaginary and suppositious deity called God. The reason the jebus beliebers are so vicious and aggressive, these hominid limacenes, is twofold: 1) they have the numbers on their side (the point at which the little man typically magnetized by the jesus imposture finds his courage), and 2) because they know deep down their position is indefensible. I mean, people have to write long books 'proving' God exists. If he actually did, those books would hardly be necessary. I mean, I don't have to write a long book 'proving' rabbits exist. A certain section of the population has a high IQ but in other ways is of the mass. It is from this disgusting sector, populated with obese charlatans such as G.K. Chesterton, that the god-lie originates and is kept fueled. The existence of God is certainly the most profitable Big Lie ever come up with.
Notice, though, that god-allegers prefer to argue not the existence of god, where they're weak, but against positions they associate with lack-of-god-belief
- which are usually leftist, and much easier to take on. Thus, the sole position that defines 'atheism' (although, again, no term is logically needed, which is why I say that 'atheist' itself is a strawman) recedes into the background, and the religious heroes can do battle with strawmen. For atheism isn't tied to any political position, necessarily
. In the real world, those who feel the need to use the name as their main identification or collecting point are always leftists. Always. Even though, again, the thing itself has no connection to any political position - it is not a political concept, it's an ontological concept, if anything. That is, it pertains to questions such as: what constitute evidence? what is knowledge?
The answers to these questions may inform politics, but they are not political questions in themselves, they are philosophical matters. There are right-wing atheists, but they don't collect themselves under that rubric or embrace the appellation, it's simply their position. It's self-evident to them no god exists, nor has been proven, but that has hardly anything to do with politics, it's merely factual common sense. See The Conservative Mind
, if I recall correctly for a discussion of right-wing atheism.
The intellectual reality I describe is co-distorted in the real world by leftists who happily embrace the unnecessary and slurring 'atheist' in order to do battle with the illogical, cowardly simpletons who are 90% of religious conservatives. It is entirely possible to dislike both sides, not least for their obscuring an important matter, and that is my position. If you believe god exists, that's on you. It says nothing about me. You must justify your position - and you can't. Don't slur me because you're an intellectual incomp.
The religious tools fight leftism, not atheism. Even if the leftists call themselves atheists that point remains true.
Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not sure you do. I have made it as clear as I can. One last try: the rejection of the God-assertion stands on its own. It has no necessary, no logically inevitable, tie to any political position, right, left or center.
It's a backhanded validation of the truth of the rejection slurred as 'atheism' by the God tool that the believer-ape prefers to do battle with the strawwomen and strawchildren rather than the Straw Man that is the actual rejection and position he targets as 'atheism' and 'atheist.' It's much easier to associate hated and wrong positions (judeo-leftism) with the rejection-known-as-atheism than to take on atheism directly. But lack of courage and intellectual ability are as christian as believing that someone else can assume responsibility for your freely-willed behavior. Christianity remains what it ever was: a dirty cult for the low- and weak-minded. A man who doesn't want to be a man usually turns himself into a drunk, a junkie or a christian. The two former are more physically and personally destructive; the latter is more socially destructive. To put it the backward, Janis Joplin way, Reality is for people who can't handle christianity, drugs or alcohol.
10) strictly logical
Strictly speaking, this term is redundant. There is no loosely logical
. If something is loose, then it's untied from moorings. Intellectually, then, it can hardly be logical. Associative or impressionistic thinking either makes intuitive sense, in which case it can be reduced to logical connections, or it doesn't. Logical connections may be bared formally or covered with poesy-flowers, like a parade float. Either way, the same structure is driving the thing. But as I love to say, you don't sell a Playboy
with an X-ray centerfold. It may be the same beautiful woman, but somehow it's not the same thing.
These are great words... Shenanigans
is a wonderful general term for the human equivalent of the stuff feral pigs are up to when they're snorting around uprooting things. I like shenanigans
because it has a kind of bobblehead feel to it, something bouncing up and down and emitting strange noises, like it's drunk or deranged, but at a misdemeanor rather than felony level. Shenanigans
would encompass stuff like throwing a dead stinking fish where no one will find it, only smell it and wonder where it's coming from. As for hooligans
, this to my glorious ear has always suggested the noises you hear after a bar lets out, and the mentality associated therewith. Hooligans are like vandals with an admixture of fisticuffs. Hooligans like to punch and hoot, and maybe break some things, whether doors or noses, doesn't matter. The funny thing is, this term apparently originated with some Irish clan that was particularly obnoxious - the Houlihans
hooligans - 1890s, of unknown origin, first found in British newspaper police-court reports in the summer of 1898, almost certainly from the surname Houlihan, supposedly from a lively family of that name in London
Like the Vandals, the Houlihans live on, perhaps in language only. So, to reprise, we associate vandalism
with property crime, and hooliganism
with more fighting. But obviously, there's a pretty big overlap; you're not exactly going to be surprised if a vandal gets into a fight or a hooligan breaks something. Shenanigans
covers a wide variety of criminal and subcriminal head-shaking behavior that can be funny but isn't lethal or depraved, more just stupid, goofy and/or petty-corrupt.
Perhaps the most significant difference: there's no gay suburban bar called Vandals
The jewed lexicon has many words for the concept involved here. All intended to disparage pride, orderliness, organization, competence and carefulness - or, basically, everything the Germanics at the heart of the white race have always stood for. Again, this is simply a different aspect and facet of the Frankfurt School misteachings we saw above in 'exploring your sexuality.' Anything that leads away from continence (which is not just a term related to bladder control, you sniggering ignoramus) will be promoted by jews, because they believe the looser the Aryan, the looser the society, the better for jews. Are jews loose? Think of Jerry Seinfeld. Think of the jew in Curb Your Enthusiasm
. Does he seem loose? Quite the opposite, right? Jews are famous for their neurasthenia and their obsessiveness.
So for them, like racism in Israel, it's good, the highest good, the funniest good, the most necessary good...the inevitable good...to pay attention to details
. For you? Not so much. You must not be anal
. You must not be obsessed
. For you, little goy, if it feels good do it
. You, little goy, should let it all hang out
You see how it works? As they say in Protocols
, we deliberately instruct the youth of the goyim in doctrines we know to be false
Do you really think I go beyond the necessary when I advocate the extermination of this race?
They control the media, I don't. They determine what's in the schoolbooks, I don't. They admit they are deliberately corrupting our youth to serve their racial agenda, which amounts to their mastery of the world and our genocide.
How does that not make you absolutely furious? How does that not become the center of our political lives? How does that not becomes the matter that is most urgent to take care of?
There's an answer, and it's that we've been christianized. Our brains have been taken over by a hostile parasite, and most of our people have been rendered unable to perceive what is happening, let alone fight it. This is quite common in the animal world. We just don't believe, again per that christian doctrine, that what happens in the animal world has any relation to what happens among humans. Even though humans are animals. Which christ-insanity denies, insisting that we're between animals and the fictional entities it calls angels
I stray from the point to make a more important one; after all, this is but a column about language, but even so, if not here, where? If not now, when? Where else are you going to hear and learn this stuff? Certainly not in public school. Certainly not over public airwaves. NPR won't be talking about it.
I saw this at one of the sites I read. I reproduce it as a workaday example of the internalized manifestation of anti-white jew memes, indirect division.
Lacey DonohueUSarah Hedgecock501L U
We've always had to shower and get dressed before presents because my dad doesn't want the pictures to "look like shit." We also have to throw away the wrapping paper immediately after opening each present so the pictures don't "look like shit."
We have a very clean Christmas. Yesterday 2:50pm
sizor_sisterULacey Donohue111L U
Your dad seems... very... anal? Yesterday 2:56pm
One could find a thousand example of similar usage. Anyone organized is - weird. Obsessed. To be criticized and looked down on. Man, don't worry about shit. It will take care of itself. It doesn't work that way, though. The jew knows that. He spreads the opposite message. Whatever is good and wholesome and effective the jews talks down among the goy, while hoarding and keeping and valuing for himself. Whether it's racism or simple organization and paying attention to details. Just as the jews create and use stereotypes -- the dumb/evil blond(e), the magical negro, the saintly jew-leftist -- they demonize and celebrate character types and personality traits. All according to their unchanging political calculus and their "good for jews" agenda.
Enough on that, but I will return in other columns with further examples of this extremely common jewsmedia demonization of orderliness
, which is perhaps the chief characteristic of the Germanic peoples - alles in Ordnung
(everything in order), being the classic expression of the Germanic mentality.
Another indirectly political term. Anyone who becomes the slightest bit emotional in response to a leftist, or in addressing a jewish Agenda position, is described as having a meltdown
in the jew-leftist controlled press I like to refer to as the junkmedia
. This is a milder way of arguing that any position against The Agenda is hateful
. If you don't go along with The Jewish Genocidal Agenda for Whites, then your emotional stability is called into question, as well as your character. You're crazy and evil. Since, you know, you adopt a hate
position. Your politics are hateful and your mind and character are warped. You should probably have your kids taken away from you and be thrown in jail. You're a hater
. There ar situations where meltdown
might reasonably apply, such as when a baseball manager turns a press confernence into a screaming, telephone-throwing rant, but as ordinarily used, leftists apply meltdown
to almost any public opponent they come across who has any emotional element to his resistance to one of their positions or agenda items. Just look at the context the next five times you come across this term meltdown and you'll see what I mean. Was there truly behavior worthy of the term 'meltdown' involved? Four our of five times, not by any stretch is it so.
14) frost event
- turning specific nouns into one of a small set of abstractions
This is from two years ago in my files: There's no way to get them to rebloom if there'd be a frost event.
3-14-12, CBN (Pat Robertson's deal)
You don't need 'event.' Frost
covers it perfectly. It's not like frosts come with extra attractions - fireworks and beer concessions. There's just the frosting. The frosting is the cake of the frost event
, and there is no icing. You will find this sort of redundant attenuation, for lack of a better way to describe it, all over the place. For after all, why use one strong clear specific word when you can water it down and out with a more confusing hence weaker two-word term? The addition of process
to specific nouns is probably the most common form of this error. Every formerly discrete action becomes a process
. No one ever grieves, he goes through the grieving process
. This is irritating. Only things that are genuinely processes should be described that way. Making soap, for example, involves a genuine process. There are specific, identifiable, discrete steps involved and a necessary order and chronology to them. Grieving
is just feeling sad. It's not really a process. It may take some time. You could even argue there are stages, but I don't think it truly qualifies as a process. Process
is better reserved for mechanical or industrial applications; it ought to be treated more as a scientific or logical or industrial term than as a term fit for softer, emotional stuff, or mundane operations. Just make sure you only use process
when there's an actual process involved - when the whole thing is different from and more than the individual, separable parts. Don't just use it anytime something has more than one step or aspect. Don't just thoughtlessly apply event
, or any other abstract noun that you think lends importance or gravity because more words
and more syllables
equals more professional
equals more respectable
and more important
. As always, I encourage people to read the late Paul Fussell's book Class
, which emphasize the US middle-class's love of self-important titles, 'professional expertise, and over-syllabification. The elite favor simplicity and accuracy over pretension.
Even if we're not doubting the motives of the guy using 'frost event,' i.e., we allow him it's not self-importance driving the odd term, it still amounts to a spurious and curious sort of pseudo-classification. Like, frost event
as one of a number of other events? That doesn't make sense. He's talking about frost, and, so far as I can see, nothing else. So say frost
and be done with it. Clear, direct, accurate. That's certainly what and all we want out of a plant-planting adviser event.
You dig, ponyboy?
Enough for now, I will be back next Monday with another column... For the first time, I used more than half the material I had on file. If you come across interesting terms or uses, feel free to post them in this thread and I'll take a look at them, or you can inquire about a particular angle if you don't understand something.