View Single Post
Old March 24th, 2014 #252
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,670
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

On Language
Two Nice Usages in Stoker Story

By Alex Linder
[index]

March 24, 2014

1) Let's begin with two nice usages from a Bram Stoker (Dracula novelist) short story, "The Squaw":

Quote:
Hard by were several blocks whereon the necks of the victims had lain, with here and there deep notches where the steel had bitten through the guard of flesh and shored into the wood.
Isn't that 'shored' nice? Satisfying as chocolate. I like it. Not just a boat passing over a lake can pull up on the opposing shore. It could be an ax blade swimming through bloody currents of flesh to the stony bank below. Would you have thought to have used 'shore' as a verb? I would not. This is precisely how reading literature, as opposed to carb fiction (Dean Koontz I'm looking at you with obnoxiously lowered eyelids) expands your mind. You don't have to be a professional writer, you just have to pay attention to details. You get the enjoyment and the education. That's what good writing goes. You learn as you see how other people do things. I can now, if I recall it, use shore as a verb. I would almost certainly not have otherwise because it would not have occurred to me. I have no fear of using words unconventionally, rather the opposite, but only and always intentionally. I just like the idea of motoring through a lake of flesh then shoring up on the opposite bank, a stone and underlying bank. You can shore up vertically, not just horizontally - again, that strikes me as a little and interesting newness. Not any one of us can come close to comprehending but a tiny portion of the millions of ways in which our one million currently existing English words could be used. Reading literature will show us how the best writers use English, and inevitably increase our vocabulary and, more important, stimulate our imaginations. It requires some imagination to use words differently than others use them - but never purely to be different, always to achieve a real and worthwhile effect. We humans know that we, all of us, are schoolfish. We are imitators, copiers, listeners/seers and repeaters. We can know, if we are observant, that much of what we do comes from others - and often, the subtle part, our ideas only rarely are self-generated by a handful of spark-people. I am one of those, and they are supposedly about one in twenty. But I know that most of what I do is picked up from others too. Humans are copied codes; that's the human condition. Genetically we are codes, and most of what we do is copied from others. Human condition itself is a marxist term I will go into when the time is ripe. I don't fully understand why it's wrong - which is a matter, always in this context (as with human rights) in knowing and grasping the traditional concept it is departing from, and by departing from I mean reversing. Almost always, to shift slightly, leftists come up with a new moral approach they clad in new verbiage. Always the original approach is Christian, and their New Philosophy is reversing it. Their term will be repeated infinitely, since they control the media, and will sound sugary-sweet to the unclued public. They will eat it up like pets lapping up delicious antifreeze. We have a thread on this matter, I won't go into it but this far. The new conception, created by post-christian but still christian minded illiberal flytraps is: you've got to love yourself before you love someone else. The christian or traditional view that the new view does a U-turn on is that you can search the world over and not find anyone insufficient in self-love. It's the loving others that's the hard part. Because, well, Walmart. Now you see there how I used a current leftist-beloved formulation, just cutting out any other word but the object after because. While I sort of like the economy, it does become an irritating affectation after a while. It's not like leftists happily argue their way clearly and honestly when challenged, they simply abuse the character of any who question one of the items on their cultic agenda. So...anything that makes them even more shorthanded and closed-minded, even if mere stylistic affectation, isn't good for them. They need to slow down and come out of their compound and stretch their legs and get some sun, says Dr. Al.

Before we get to the second niceness, let's interrupt and look at something I don't like. You will notice I stray from pure vocabularical assessment into something that more properly belongs in my other colum, of which I have written but one, "On Writing." Well, that's ok. These things are related, we don't to get too persnickety about categories. Just as discussions of vocabulary cannot be separated from politics, as I thought they could when I started this column, neither can the use of language, the artistic use of the language be severed from the merely denotational. Enough on that. As we are still in early columns, I'm giving you some general thoughts about these things, so they're out of the way.

So, we have praised Marse Stoker. Now I will criticize him. I don't like that guard of flesh. It doesn't seem well chosen to me, or effective. Possibly I miss what he's driving at. If you see a better read, then supply it in your post. I don't think flesh is any kind of a guard. The flesh, at least on a woman's neck and throat, is very tender and almost the most sensitive part of the body, outside the clitoris. I think the writer should have chosen something that emphasizes the tenderness of this flesh, in order to heighten the effect of the steel smashing or driving through. In what sense is the flesh a 'guard'? None at all. I guess it's guarding the trachea, the wind and food pipes, but at most I'd call it a wrapping. Humans don't really have any kind of guard in the connecting material between head and skeleton. The next is traditionally bare and exposed - and literally a chokepoint. So I don't think guard fits. I don't see why the artist made that choice of terms. I don't think it fits, I don't think it's well chosen. I think he had done better to emphasize the last beating/pulsing of the blood flowing through the jugular in order to heighten the contrast with the merciless cutting blade of the ax. Perhaps he wrote quickly, or had a purpose I can't make out in making the choice as he did. But here's the general lesson: as with acting, the writer is making a series of choices. Thousands of them. To be conscious of them is to heighten our appreciation, or reduce it, as the case may be, and to expand our knowledge of both the world, through learning about the things written about, and our own ability to produce effects, as we see how able others do it. Whether we are writers or not. We all write and speak, after all, and can do these things better or worse. If you read literature, there are dozens of these little educational choice decisions per page, and many of them bear fruit if you ponder them. Writing, by serious writers, is dense. That means there's a lot in a little. That's where the enjoyment comes, if you want to slow down. Or, you can read fast for the story. Stoker is, after all, writing horror fiction. But at a pretty high level.

Now, on two the second nice usage. But first, let's interrupt ourselves a second. You notice how I said we were going to discuss, first, two nice usages. But then I mixed in an unnice usage. I suprised you. You now know you can't trust me. You will get more than you bargained. Why do I do this? Do I have a purpose? Do I do it randomly? Perhaps I do it because it's funny. Perhaps I do it to keep you on edge, so that you will never truly know what's coming next. Well, I'll tell you. I'm inspired not just by writers, but by actors and musicians, such as Gene Wilder's Willie Wonka, and Axl Rose, of Guns 'n' Roses. Do you recall the scene in Willy Wonka, where he's leading the people through his factory, and he steps down then up then down a few steps and then back up? The people don't know what he's going to do, do they? He's a weird guy, dressed in strange clothes acting unpredictably. It produced a favorable effect on me, watching the movie. What if I can add a little of that to my writing. So I told you I was going to give you two nice usages from our Irish master, but I tricked you by throwing a third I dislike. More is usually less, because, as we know, less is more. But more can be more too. So it is. You can never be too rich or too think or have enough explication of the word-choices of 19th-century Gothic fiction writers.

Ok...what I'm trying to do is show you how people think. And suggest to you where genuine originality lies - it's far more often a subtle twist, or a slightly different manifestation of an enjoyed effect experienced in and then borrowed, but not copied, from others. There isn't much truly new under the sun, after all, as has been observed. My spirit here is a take on the song lyric from the late and throat-constricted Australian Michael Hutchence:


I insist that you listen to the song before we go on. This is the payoff lyric I mean:

"we all have wings...but some of us don't know why"

The echoing ejaculation in the 'why-y-y' is awesomer than anything the poor man could have achieved with his belt. More prosaically, I think we can see in Hutchence's very European video a nice taste and feel of the Gothic-Romantic strain that has always been strong among our Europeans.

One day, perhaps a dozen years ago, when VNN was in its salad days, and I was fired to wow the waiting world with effectual new formulations, yes, in full "wait till they get a load of me" Joker mode, verily did I receive in the daily mail, a salmon-colored card from a J. Pat Farbis. Or very close thereto, this was many years ago. Maybe it was just Pat Farbis. I like J. Pat Farbis better, so that's what we'll go with. I'm completely sure the J stood for Jacaranda (tree), spiritually. And so, you will allow another brief divagation.

The Love Song of J. Pat Farbis

This is what civilization is, an accretion, to be seasoned with innovation by new artists. Do you get my allusion in 'love song'? It's there, whether you notice it or not. It's always nice, I think comforting, not to get every allusion. It leaves some mystery, and some satisfaction there are minds unfathomably deeper and better than our own.

Neatly printed on the salmon-colored card (I remember the salmon color because you don't see that every day in a card...let alone one sent through mail for your edification), J. Pat Farbis had, in very neat, precise, regular middle-class hand-lettering, corrected a few mistakes he or she had found on VNN. At this time, perhaps twelve years ago, such people still existed in the world. But they are today as rare as those dolphins that only exist in one stretch of one Amazonian tributary, I must suppose, as I have never again seen Pat's like. Which you did used to find back in the day. Mencken's famous tome on The American Language was fortified by entire sheafs of usages forwarded him from around the world, courtesy of his readers. There was a much larger body of people. spread through the British Empire, who were interested in that stuff. Today, people enjoy texting. I think the more agile-minded of you amateur leprechauns will agree with me that it is past difficult and nighing on impossible to spell U R wrong. Or even to use U R differently than someone else might.

Now, a philosophical point obtrudes:

- is the purpose of to get things right? or to avoid getting things wrong.

I was raised a good bourgeois, upper-middle-class, Germanic-stock AP English high-school-class taker, and so naturally this conduced to conduct down the road to becoming a J. Pat Farbis myself. Now you think I will blast and contrast. Sadly, my behavior must fail to conform and disappoint your expectation <-------------- emended phrase, reworked from Mencken's description of his 'tackling' the Talmud. Just showing you that damn near everything has precedents when you read writing.

Fear of falling defines the middle class, as many have observed, not just his eminence Paul Fussell in "Class." One must keep up appearances, you know. So others will think we are good people. Having licit sex at night, like all good people, and properly trained livestock. Working at useful jobs for prestigious employers. When it comes to words, the most important thing is not to get them right, for that's weird and romantic and artisty, but not to get them wrong. Every word must be spelled correctly. There is no higher literary god than that. The God of Correctly Spelled words is the Zeus of this pantheon.

Now, I fell into this way of thinking by default, being raised as I was. It was reinforced by the fact that I had a natural aptitude for spelling, almost never forgetting how a word was spelled. I thought, quite wrongly, that all writers/artists were the same way. Not so! Many professional writers have a difficult time with spelling, but they are good with ideas and structure. Spelling simply isn't as important as I thought it was when I was young. It is important to spell words correctly, but this is merely a matter of painstaking editing, not some natural aptitude, the absence of which renders your work dubious. Yes, spelling should be clearned up, but not knowing how to spell just means you need to use the dictionary. That took me many years to learn.

This grows long, let me cut it short. I was going down the road to becoming a Pat Farbis. Which, it is my express point, is not a bad thing. The bulk of any society, and functional white society, is well made of that type. As 19 of 20 (not pulling that out, that's the studied number, apparently) are repeaters, and one 1 in 20 a spark, it can hardly be otherwise - on the upside. It can certainly be worse on the downside. So we are not here to mock J. Pat Farbis. The instinct is sound. But...

...ultimately what led me off that path, and this may apply to you, or not, but at least you can see what I mean, is that getting things right is not the same, in the writing art, as the middle-class person thinks, as not getting them wrong. And that's where the flying in the video above comes in. Not all of us have wings, but the ones that do must figure that out as early as they can, and use them. It wasn't until my later teens that I realized this. If you read my college writings, my god, you can see how straight-laced I was, almost a stick up my ass, given to pseudo-legal argument style. Now, part of that was due to the deformation that is enedemic to college writing - which is to length, rather than professional writing which, before the internet, was always forced-succinct due to space limitations. But the majority was inexperience and youthful righteousness, which drove my anti-communism.

What you come to realize -- and this is the reason I so love to reproduce variants of Wilde's starter idea in one of his works - and I paraphrase: "I don't play accurately, even a player piano can do that, but I play with great expression." Perhaps that was from the Critic as Artist, which is what I'm teaching and fancy I'm doing, performing here. You see. We have history, we stand on the shoulders of giants, as the man said, and we add our own mite to the heap of culture (working yet another Menckenian expression). Everything that needs to be said has been said before, and perfectly, usually in the 19th century. I've said that before many times, and that is my own conception. Back then, of course, everything was literary. The telegraph presaged texting, perhaps, but that was about it. People read and wrote literature in a way that comparatively few do today. People publish more books today than ever in human history but at the same time there is less serious reading than at any time since books became widely available. That's my guess, anyway. Half the books out there don't give much indication the writer has ever read much.

What does flying mean? In my case it means don't become a little mistake spotter; use your time to fly - to develop the ability to produce comedic effects. People want P.J. O'Rourke - insight and glory and humor - those are never in great enough supply in this world. Mistake-spotters, well, there's a need for that, but it's comparatively well supplied. For god's sake, if you have wings on your back, you don't walk down the road bitching about potholes...you flap your back and you fly... That's when you're doing it right. Like I said, I had to consciously realize this, because the default was to become a J. Pat Farbis. I'm in that vein; I'm from that people on both sides. But writing is about glory. Quit being bitter and small, and put your chin on my finger, and let me lift your eyes and show you, that you might see... That is what the writer does. I still feel a child's delight when a master like Stoker uses something in a way that wouldn't have occurred to me. It's beautiful and awesome. It's fragrant and suggestive, it's redolent, of damn, there is so much world and way out there that one could never run out, full of things to explore, and ways to think about things and put them that would and will never occur to me. At most I can deal with a tiny slice.

So what I mean to say is best figured in looking up...at Stokers at Menckens...rather than looking down. And I effected a psychological revolution in myself. God knows, I hate people who misspell, but I love who break rules to achieve effects - and do achieve those effects. Those are the elite. The middle-class scolds, that's ok, they're just preserver personalities doing what they can, and better with that obsession than another, I suppose. At least it helps us remember the rules. They will simply never understand what I've said and will say again here: you learn the rules so that you know when to break them. If you break them without knowing, you're simply ignorant. There is a difference, and it does matter.

So in closing this little subsection, let us look up and worship or appreciate, even aspire, and let us downplay the captious. Getting it right, in writing, is not a matter of not getting it wrong. In many areas of life, those are the same things, in the sense of Eastwood's "a man's got to know his limitations." If you're a stick hitter in baseball, and you swing for the fences, you waste outs. You try to do something right, hit a homerun, that you're not capable of. If you simply tried to make contact and drive the ball up the middle, you'd make successful singles. Getting it right, in this instance, does mean not getting it wrong. Writing, genuine artistic writing, is not like that. It's more important to get something right than to avoid doing something wrong. Plenty of works are full of structural flaws, odd or outlandish or failed combinations, yet overall they succeed in bringing some new aspect to the world. For example, Theordore Dreiser. For all his voluminious, tedious detail, his tomes nevertheless succeeded in adding something to literature and our understanding of things. I cite Mencken on that specifically. But page for page, word for work, little but the piling up of unnecessary details and cliches.

So get the spelling right, the grammar correct, the syntax and structure to where your meaning is always honestly intelligible -- but don't overrate any of these fine things. The parade float is about the beautiful flower and theme and cupped-hand-waving women...not the prosaic Toyota motor and chicken wire underneath. As I love to say unto those of the J. Pat Farbis mentality, there's a difference between an x-ray and a centerfold, and let him who can create beauty in the world not reduce himself to mere grammarian. Not-getting-things-wrong is quintessentially feminine; it is comformism and damn nearly enjoyment thereof. We may smile at it condescendingly, and pat it on its furry little head. It is not the worst thing, and ever were it, it is not an avoidable thing. But we who are men, we work at getting things right. Gloriously, awesomely, powerfully and did I say gloriously right - that's where our civilization comes from - handfuls of awesome men whose heads womb worlds. Let's concentrate on looking up at those men, appreciating them always, and aping them in such aspects as we can emulate. Not looking down and snigger-picking minors. (I'm as guilty of that as anyone, and need constantly remind myself what I'm preaching to you.)

Maria Shriverlike I say, are you picking up what I'm putting down?, codgers and budgers?

Now, to the second good usage.

Quote:
The Torture Tower is truly a grim place, even now when many thousands of visitors have sent a stream of life, and the joy that follows life, into the place; but at the time I mention it wore its grimmest and most gruesome aspect.
Nothing major here, my point is simply the unusual use of 'aspect.' It's not just discovering new and useful words, it's uncovering other legitimate uses, typically second or third meanings, of familiar known words. So we see that aspect can mean more than one element or feature of something, it literally also means appearance. Let's look it up:

Quote:
1. appearance to the eye or mind; look: the physical aspect of the country.
2. nature; quality; character: the superficial aspect of the situation.
3. a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision.
4. part; feature; phase: That is the aspect of the problem that interests me most.
5. facial expression; countenance: He wore an aspect of gloom. Hers was an aspect of happy optimism.
My goodness. The sense in which Stoker employed it is actually the first definition. How about that? I did not know that. Or you could say Stoker employs aspect in its fifth definition - extending it from a human face to a building's appearance.

In any case, the point here is that we can extend our literary power by reading literature; genuine writers will employ words we haven't heard yet, or aren't familiar with, or will use words we are familiar with in ways we haven't encountered. They either apply the words artistically in ways that make us gasp or laugh or puzzle...and that's when, per Franklin, we run to the dictionary, and read the definition. Thus do engross our understanding of things.

Enough from Stoker, but we will think him for his help. If you wish to read the story, which takes plac in old Nuremberg, it is here.

2) earned

There's an insurance commercial running now. "Once it's earned, USAA auto insurance is often handed down." Really? You have to earn insurance? really? That's a ridiculous term to use in relation to buying insurance. No one earns insurance. You buy it or you don't buy it. You shop prices and make a choice, if it's something the vile state forces you to buy. There's no earning involved. This is a reprehensible commercial and I assume company. You have to "earn" the right to purchase auto insurance through military service? That's pretty close to the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and I get up early. "Earned" - go fuck yourself, USAA, you cheap, dimestore peddlers (I allude to King, of the Steven kind, you may know).

What you may not know, and the only other thing worth mentioning in this connection, is that USAA is running a pretty typical scam. Not an illegal scam, just a conceptual scam. That somehow you're not going to be able to get insurance unless you do X or Y, like serve in the military here. If you do, then you can pass it down. Protect your baby's right to buy insurance later in life.

Give me a break. There will never be less than roughly a million companies willing to sell you insurance. The idea that you have to protect your ability to buy insurance, or that you earn the right to buy insurance, or that insurance is something that can be "handed down" is ludictrous. Insurance is something you purchase. A perfectly valid thing. But what inscos try to do is tie it up with your emos related to family or Service. Don't fall for their crap. Go look in the phone book at all the insurance companies. A million of 'em, right? They have to earn your business.

3) Xavier

The x is pronounced as a z. That simple. I've heard supposedly professional announcers repeatedly say Ex-Zave-ee-er. No. Zave-yur. I guess the producers don't know it either, or they would tell the talent. You can make it three syllables if you like, but there is never an ex in Xavier.

4) being serious associated with psycho serial killers

This is a line from season two episode of my favorite show, Bates Motel, starring the wonderful actress Vera Farmiga (Ukrainian on both sides, from a New Jersey family) and the British man Freddie Highmore. The show is a prequel to the Hitchcock movie, all about the loyalty-amount-to-incestual psycho-sexual bond between a crazy mother and her teenaged son.

Quote:
Norman's young friend: "You don't have to take everything so seriously, Norman.

Norman Bates: "I don't have to, I want to."
Remember that Norman Bates is evolving into a psycho, per the movie title. Not just a psycho, but a psychotic serial killer. Now...take the above statement in relation to what we know about the jew's use of 'anal,' as we discussed last column, and in relation to what we know about the Frankfurt School's belief about sexual looseness being the best way to destroy white society (or make it comfortable for jews, which is the same thing to them).

Every other teenager is loose compared to Norman. He's serious, correctly formal in his behavior toward others, although, to be fair, not overly restrained, but always respectful and proper. The jew always strives to present with self-control and emotional continence and good manners as weird, crazy, in some other way undesirable. Per their anti-white agenda. Realize this, and you'll see it everywhere. Here we see the flip side. It's more normal, in tv and movies, to see the 'loose' white guys portrayed as fun and cool, rather than stiff ones portrayed as uncool. Most often, as in Caddyshack, it's made into a generational things: the jew-led mud 'minorities' with their hip and cool and crazy ways are driving out the conservative-racist-reactionary white fuddy-duddies and whichever stuck-up, tightass young frat boys are in that ilk - think of David Spade's character in the ironically mislabled PCU, or the med-school-obsessed boyfriend of the Gwen character in Van Wilder.


PCU (1994): uncool stick-up-ass young fogey David Spade with hip cool un-PC (lol) dudejew Jeremy Piven


Van Wilder (2002): hip cool loose guy Van Wilder vs...


...stick-assed, future-concerned, hard-studying, med-school-obsessed Doug, screwing his groupie out of anger his girlfriend has run off with Van Wilder


100% Frankfurt: partying uber alles (which means not over everything but before everything - first, not top; - another jewish big lie, meant to further the false idea Nazis were out to take over the world)


Bates Motel's central relationship: white loyalty = incest + murder


Norman is a serious young man, very Aryan in his bearing...so he will-must turn into a psychotic serial killer.

Do you want to be serious? I do.

We will never leave this theme, for it has a thousand manifestations and Goldberg variations, so to speak (Bach allusion - did you catch it).

5. fosse

This word again came from the Stoker story we discussed above. For me, this belongs to the category of words I've come across a time or two, but can't remember the meaning of. It's a one-syllable word pronounced foss, as though no e on end. It has a very specific meaning:

Quote:
1. a moat or defensive ditch in a fortification, usually filled with water.
2. any ditch, trench, or canal.
Use: The Burg is seated on a rock dominating the town and an immensely deep fosse guards it on the northern side.

6) obfuscate and eschew

Words the middle class man will not think you know. Asks you. You respond, yes. Won't believe you, this Ludlum reader. You define them for him. People whose reading extends no further than Ludlum or LeCarre still have difficulty realizing there's a much wider world out there. 'Philistine' is the term for one who is only interested in things so far as they fill his stomach or pocketbook. Most people are philistines, perhaps unfortunately. They aren't really interested in anything unless there's a direct gain in the offing. Intellectual or artistic interest is as foreign to them as space aliens.

These two terms we consider as representing a level above what your ordinary middle-class person will be familiar, or at least comfortable with. But we are not primarily interested in epatting the bourgeois; we mine for gold and meat. These terms are, I don't find, particularly useful. One uses terms for reasons, whether those reasons are driven by intelligibility or more artistic puposes. Sometimes you simply need a sound, as William F. Buckley said of his use of irenic where he might used peaceful. He needed the extra syllable. Eschew tends to be a tad flashy, because there are so many more common synonyms, such as skip or avoid. Eschew one would use in a slightly more formal, slower depiction, as of a serious, deliberated choice to avoid something. But that may be me, that's how I take the word. The circumstances I describe, under which I would employ it, may not be related to it connotatively. I'll leave this one to you to look up, if you like. I can't give you the etymology, which is what one would need to know to see where one might use eschew instead of common avoid. Obfuscate is multisyllabic, which is associated with showy learning, like most latinate terms. Hence it could be popular with the middle classes, were it not too obscure. Obfuscate would be useful to a serious writer were he operating, as I often do, in the mock-heroic vein, where you're not so much speaking to people as decanting ontot hem, from high to low, per Leslie Nielson. The sonorousness makes for sublime silliness. I find. It's a mentality. Many share it. Many don't. It's probably my favorite vein. If you don't understand where I'm coming from, man, that's usually it. Mock omniscience, mock expertise, are never not funny. Mencken didn't use this as his default vein, but it's a technique or a style he employed frequently. Very little is funnier than acting as though one knows more than anyone else in the world, and is treating with them as so many beetles under his microscope. In an age dominated by the morontsia, never a small majority in any epoch, it's easy to get away with playing the expert because so many people are gulping idiots. They been christian doped down and dumbed down and balled down by public school christian churches and jewis television that anyone working his eyebrows and sounding serious must be what he seems to take himself for. Again, I am not responsible for the condition of this world, nor the quality of its contents. For those, unlike the buhlieving man, I hold god responsible.

Obfuscate is similar to eschew not just in that both are on about the same level, they are neither particularly suited to humorous usage, as many obscurer words are. Hence limiting my interest. One would use obfucate where, again, one needed the extra syllables. It could be a helper in a humorous-pretentious formulation, that's about it. By itself, it's just a fancy latin way of saying hide by obscuring, in with words like occult - notions of cloudedness, or a thing moving in front of another thing, so as to hide it, by intent or simple factual reality.

We look it up:

Quote:
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.
As is the case so many times, a term does not mean precisely what I think it means. I think of the second definition only, but the first shows where term would actually be most useful: in describing the actions of someone trying to fool people. It takes an object, too. It is the opposite of clarify, with the added element, to my glorious ear, of trying to deceive or trick people. We will obfuscate the redskins with our astronomical wizardry, and perhaps they will be amazed enough at the predicted eclipse that they will see fit to release rather than ingest or sacrifice us to their potty little deities. Jared anti-white Taylor obfuscated his AmRen dolts with bilge about Kennedy, ignoring the fact that his good buddy Kevin MacDonald had proved that jews and jews alone were responsible for the 1965 Immigration Act.

To be honest, I still don't really trust the first definition. I have never seen obfuscate used that way in the wild. Only the second definition do I trust, which means, would I use myself. To make obscure (denotion) for a malign purpose (connotation) - that's how I read the word, and that's how I would use it. Except I would be likelier not to use it at all, in preference for a Shakespearian technique: to use the health prefix dis, to undo something. I would sooner say dislarify than obfuscate. I also find, say, 'to render X ununclear' very funny. Ununclear is the same, well, nearly the same, as clear, it's just...funny. If you don't see why, I can't really explain it. Just trust me.

The key thing here is, there are infinite ways to express ideas. No need to limit oneself in artistic writing. But keep in mind, as Aristotle said, when among men, speak as they do. They won't like you if you don't, and that could materially hamper your prospects. As Paul Fussell said, middle-class people are very uncomfortable with departures from customary verbal formulations. They are, both sexes, women - they not only aren't bothered by cliches, they are made comfortable by them. Verbal comfort food, as we can say. So, again, if you wish to swim freely in this sea, and lower the barracuda factor, then switch on your verbal midline, and swim with the crew.

But we are talking art here. Not how to fit in, how to fit out. I hope you, like the eminent pa (Mencken) in SLC Punk, will say: "I didn't sell out, son. I bought in." I want you to buy in to finding more artistic ways of expressing solid ideas. Always intelligible. Always clear. Sometimes complex enough to require learning, but when you dig it, there's always something that. That is my school, and Mencken, let's say, is our headmaster. None of that incandescent horseshit around these parts. If Faulkner is a writer... Just, no.

7) responsible

This is a verbal vibrator on the clitoris of the middle class. They get off on this word like no other, not even appropriate, not even professional. This word embodies their highest of holies: respectable. As Oscar Wilde said, the only way to live in the memory of the middle-classes is not to pay your bills. As always, he encompassed a world view in an epigram.

Remember the general rule: the judeo-leftists can't win a straight-up fight on their politics. They always have to conceal their politics as something else to get it through Normalia's customs. They do this by dressing their socialism up as science, as we see with global warming. Or as Marx tried to do with 'scientific' socialism (as opposed to the utopian socialism which preceded him). Another useful guise for smuggling politics is manners. Middle-class people don't care about realities, they care about appearances. That's why they're big on words to do with the outward show: respectable, responsible, appropriate, applied to dress or speech or public behavior. But these terms can be applied to ideas too, the left recognized. So, the American tradition, per First Amendment, is for free speech. The jew-leftist says, well, ok we can have free speech, but let's chip away at it (which I've described elswhere, many times, amounts to redefining pornography as free speech, political opinion as hate speech or illegal commercial speech) or let's add to it: yes, you have free speech, but you also have a duty to be responsible in what you say. Do I need to say that "responsible" speech is speech that is 100% in line with the jew-leftist agenda? Which is anti-white? I do not. They play on middle-class social fears, do these knowing jews. They get the little girls writing college papers to use them in their college editorials about free speech, I remember one such, standing near me asking perfunctory questions, literally shivering with hatred. That's the type that pairs "responsible" with free speech. You're only responsible if you agree with them. If you disagree, your speech is hate, and they would and will ban it if they can.

The political use of 'responsible' is simply the left attempting to coopt a nice middle-class manners term, and way of thinking, to embrace and include and push the jew-leftist racial/political agenda.

The irony is that everywhere else in political, life, as with the colored masses, the left takes great pains to remove responsibility. Blacks are never responsible for their failures. Rather, these failures are blamed, quite literally, on guns and schools and neighborhoods - inanimate objects are always "failing" our niggers. They just try so hard. But the neighborhoods and schools keep letting them down. The black 'man' wants nothing more in his heart of hearts than to read books and work jobs and pay taxes and have licit sex with a well coiffed wife, and pay taxes and vote Republican. But 'our' schools and neighborhoods and manufactured metals for some reason (racism) keep him from fulfilling his desires.

Blacks never fail. Everything else fails blacks. Notice this now. You will see this reversal everywhere. Schools, jails, guns, neighborhoods, WHITE PEOPLE are all all everytime all always every one of them probably space aliens too FAILING OUR 'young black men' or black children. The blacks aren't failing. We are failing. We equals white people + all atoms not currently engaged in African-American constellations.

8) consider

Here's an article in which we see the deployment of an ordinary verb as a euphemistic evasion. If you use your (former) Constitutional freedom to serve or hire or rent to someone you choose, then you are an evil racist hater. You are guilty of the neo-crime of discrimination. But if you do what the left calls discriminate in every other circumstance, yet you do it it as a public institution against white men, then it not subtly changes from discrimination to consideration.

Quote:
The protest is designed to draw attention to the fact that the state of California may allow its state university system to consider race and gender in admissions and that, my friends, is unfair to whites, and especially to white men, who for thousands of years have suffered at the hands of cruel women and minorities. Link.
'Consider' has only one meaning in this context: discrimination against white men. Discrimination by race, and/or by sex.

Much of leftism is simply an attempt to establish a double standard by means of verbal tricks. The same exact thing is bad and should be outlawed you evil-white-man do it is good and must-be-mandatory when jews, blacks or feminists do it. Leftists support discrimination against whites - always and everywhere. They pretend they are neutrally against discrimination, but they're only against whites discriminating, even as they demand that whites be discriminated against. Leftism is purely anti-white, that is only ever the driving motive. But leftists aren't honest - by definition. There is no honest leftism, save among the gullible, who aren't aware of the contradictions the position embodies. Well, liars need a politics too, I guess. As do the truly hateful and the just generally malocculsive. Where better to hide than with the all-loving tolerant good people on the right side of history. Just as where better for a pedophile to hide than as a Cub Scout headmaster or public school teacher.

9) irregular migrants

Tracking the continued evolution of the term for what used to be called illegal aliens, for a long time, till they came in great numbers and the media wracked its brains for a way to verbally febreeze the dirty brown things.

Example:

Quote:
The group specifically voiced concern over the “substantial parliamentary representation of parties that use paramilitary tactics or are closely associated with paramilitary groups and use extremist rhetoric to target irregular migrants in Greece, and the Roma and Jews in Hungary.”
I guess, to the judeo-leftist mind that determines these things (and the mass media change terms in lockstep), 'irregular migrants' is a tad better than undocumented migrants. Of course, the term migrants is technically wrong, as migration is legal. Invasion is illegal. If you're not legally allowed to be in a country -- a pretty big thing, wouldn't you say? -- then you're a criminal. Illegal alien, to be precise. But the jews controlling the junkmedia turn this into a simple matter of not having papers. The judeo-left always acts as though what it wants is law, and that goes both ways. If the law works against the anti-white agenda, then jewsmedia simply pretend the law doesn't exist, or doesn't really matter, as with illegal aliens. They use terms that downplay the seriousness of the infraction. Until they can get the law changed. Anyone opposed to their position is a dangerous fanatic, an extremist, a gun nut. They have the ADL teaching the federal cops the same thing. So that the actual citizen, the legal member of the nation, becomes the bad guy in the common media. We forget, because this situation is ubiquitous, just how crazy this is. We live in nations in which the common media are owned by people who hate our kind. And who overtly and actively try to destroy our nations. This is intolerable. It is genocidal, by intention. No jew anywhere should be allowed to own any kind of mass medium in a white land, because they always use it to try to destroy our very kind. All their hatred is manifested against normal whites, and all their love and support flows to literal criminals, so long as they are of color, as the jewsmedia like to pretentiously term it. Diseased, dangerous Third-Worlders invade white lands - and are welcomed and whitewashed by the jew-controlled mass media. A media constantly on the search for new verbal ways to downgrade the natives and upgrade the criminal alien invaders.

10) querent - one who seeks a Tarot reading.

Again, belongs to class I've come across before, but forgotten. Part of the mission of this column is to remind ourselves of certain words' meanings. Repetition is helpful. Contrary to what many English teachers spread, repetition is valid, indeed escapable, in effective rhetoric. Of course, the teachers are trying to get people to think of new ways to say things, so you can understand their motive, but still, let me underline that repetition is a good thing, not a bad thing.

11) Diegetic music is music "that occurs as part of the action (rather than as background), and can be heard by the film's characters".[4]

Have seen this before, but almost certainly will not remember it, as with misoneiric (hating things news) a couple columns back. A technical term I've come across maybe three times in my reading life, which includes the reading of millions of (movie) reviews.

And...we'll wrap up there. Back with another column before too long. As always, I appreciate a word or two if something strikes, and any corrections or additional thoughts you might have. Or, any terms I should cover.

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 24th, 2014 at 12:23 PM.