Full Thread: Linder Originals
View Single Post
Old April 1st, 2014 #6
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,670
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

On Language
Amerika and Annie the Anile Anole

By Alex Linder

April 1, 2014

It is the mission of this weekly column to subtract you from the oblivious many. And to add you to the noticient* few. But I'm gonna need your help on that, lipchuck.** Mmmkay? What? Noticient isn't a real word? Oh really. Let me clue you in on something, pally. Something you're not going to learn in school. Not even in the bathroom between classes where you buy your drugs and squeeze your wiener.

Not all words have been captured.

Not all words have been darted, tagged, reduced to dictionary inmates. Slapped in booky zoos to be pulled out at random hours for the public to drool on and pull at.

Be that factotical known to ye, and adjust your attitude accordingly. This column will be sprightful. We will insist on the things that require insistence, and we will venerate the things that require veneration, whether gorgeous groins or disturbing diseases.

*You will notice of noticient two things: first, you know exactly what i mean by it, though you've never seen it before, which is necessary foundation to a successful newie; second, you will feel that it is four syllables, to mirror the four in o-bli-vi-ous. This rasps pleasantly on our ear clitoris, which is stimulated subtly by rhythms and pacing. Writing is a less emotionally intense form of music: it stirs our ideas musically, the way music stirs our emotions intellectually - if we consciously consider it, and allow it to work our intuition.

**A lipchuck is like a human groundchuck; namely, a furry someone who moves his lips while reading. Use here was playfully derogatory, maybe. (Insert Norman Fell grin here.)

1) Amerika

We all have our cross to bear, and mine is dealing with dopes. A dope is someone who doesn't get it in the second place, that is, even after it's been explained to him. We see a number of alt-fright clowns using this construction. What these conservatives-who-mean-it don't get -- besides everything -- is that this term is leftist. It was created in the Sixties to mean America is Nazi, man. When kinda the whole problem is it's not. I'm not kidding or making this up - that is exactly what the use of the more German k to replace the c is intended to mean. Look here, wits of nit. I'm going to copy and paste for you tons of simple.

Full Definition of AMERIKA

: the fascist or racist aspect of American society
— Amer·i·kan adjective

G Amerika; fr. the likening of the U.S. to Nazi Germany
Get it? Of course not. You're immune to correction as you are deaf to tone. But perhaps some of the rest of you reading this can grasp what's going on. ZOG is the best term for our current government, and AmeriKwa is the best term for the culture that ZOG creates - a tyrannical dictatorship presiding over a jungle-monkey hootenanny.

2) Janus or Janus-faced

This is fairly subtle. Janus was a Roman god with two faces. Most people, including me for a long time, know only that, and so use Janus as a cheap, quick, seemingly learned synonym for hypocritical. But that is a misuse. Janus didn't show one face to one group and another to another, rather one of his faces looked forward and one looked back. And of course the flaccid, yielding, ignoramus-fluffer dic says I'm wrong:

Definition of JANUS-FACED

: having two contrasting aspects; especially : duplicitous, two-faced
That is how it is used, but as with enormity used to mean giant size instead of atrocity, which we have covered before, it is incorrect. Here's who Janus was:

Janus is the Roman god of gates and doors (ianua), beginnings and endings, and hence represented with a double-faced head, each looking in opposite directions. He was worshipped at the beginning of the harvest time, planting, marriage, birth, and other types of beginnings, especially the beginnings of important events in a person's life. Janus also represents the transition between primitive life and civilization, between the countryside and the city, peace and war, and the growing-up of young people.
So as you can see, Janus, God and the concept he represents, have quite literally nothing to do with hypocrisy in any way, shape or form. But that is how the world will continue to abuse his good name, because they are ignorant, as I once was, and they don't know anything other than the fact that he has two faces. Yeah verily, just as fascists say "not everything with a face is human," we can say "not everything with two faces is two-faced." Except literally. Janus is literally two faced in his representations, but he is not figuratively two faced, he has to do with transitions, not hypocrisy.

Janus says to you, dear reader: It may be a small thing, but it's my name. Can you mistreat a trusting god like that? What are you, a monster? I will come you to your mud hut, cunt punt you, cut you bits and feed you to anoles if you don't use Janus correctly.

Here's are some representation, including a commercial representation as it happens, of the Roman god Janus:

Janus, from Vincenzo Cartari's Le Imagini de gli Dei (1608).<----------- That's culture, nigger!

Right now, I'm looking out the window and jonesing for some Janusial shifting, from this-fucking-winter into please-be-better-spring. I bet you feel the same way. Perhaps remember Janus as the god of the Doppler effect, he hears it coming in the distance, it's on him, it passes and keeps going. He sees it all, coming and going.

3) anile

This is the female version of senile. Few are familiar with it. Yet, what a useful word. Particularly for men. Sex-specific insults work best for the opposite sex. At least for men. It's always better to use cunt or bitch on men. More powerful. Dick or asshole are comparatively respectful, because you're acknowledging their manliness when you say they're, in curse terms, bad men. With women, cunt is nuclear, so you need to be extremely careful about using it. There are women to use it on, but pretty much no woman you don't want to burn bridges with. Twat and broad are better if you want to be eyerolly-dismissive of something a mammarial has come up with. Women are better insulted with silly or goofy in combo with one of those or another. Few women, but some, have the depth to deserve the higher-level weaponry. Remember, most women will get hotly hostile if you scream "you're fat!" at them - even if they know you've never met or seen them! That is the level of mentation we're dealing with in most of the titted ones, so you don't really need to do more than roll your eyes at them verbally, just shake your head at their silliness and move on.

Anyway, returning to our original term here, it's particularly insulting to use anile on some old man you disagree with, because it implies that he's going senile in a womanly way. Also, few people know this word, so you get the delicious sneer factor. If we can't look down on other people, why are we alive? Well, that's not how we're supposed to think, but it's fine if we channel the generally considered ignoble impulse to dump shit on the heads of those who actually deserve it. Anile is particularly good for using on say Clyde Wilson, or some other faileocon one wishes to bash. "Anile old goat..." -- this is why people write, for the glory of it. The more words you know, the better. The more uses you can think to put those words, the better. Always look first for the comedic use of a term; this will fix its definition in your mind more strongly than mere definition. We know words to use them, if we're writers. You could wait for a chunk of frozen yogurt to thaw and eat it, but it's a lot more fun to throw it at someone and try to create a bruise in his thigh.

4) anole

I used this word above. Are you familiar with it? It's a minor lizard, happily populating the Caronlinas and other locales southern. It's harmless and attractive, like a greensnake.

It can fluff out a red pouch on its neck, so yeah, it's one of those. Anoles can be good pets. They're a sort of false chameleon. Real chameleons come from Africa and other places far away. They are not found in America, outside of pet stores. Although who knows if chameleons, like Burmese pythons, could survive in the Everglades if owners dumped them.

Now let's use our imagination. We could make a children's book about Annie the Anile Anole. It would be an older lizard character, with a cozy-looking old-woman hat topper. It would say goofy things that somehow got to the heart of the matter. It would offer impertinent relationship advice, strange cooking tips, and perhaps keep a bottle of strange brew under its house coat. It would be kind of like Mona on that show with Tony Danza, maybe, although I don't like sexually loose old people, so maybe not. It would perhaps go on adventures, or have a mission, but here my conceptive power fails me. The notion is solid, the possibilities are fecund.

5) giving back

This is a concept worth peeking into. I don't know when this concept of giving back first came into public consciousness, but I'm almost positive it was never used in the eighties, so I would say it began becoming common perhaps in the mid nineties. That's a guess. I definitely recall it being used in relation to Michael Jordan, and he's been out of the game for a long time. There was a nice little blurb recently on the lewrockwell.com blog on this:

Do You Donate or Do You Give Back?
Michael S. Rozeff

The posts on changes in vocabulary and rebranding of words prompted an e-mail from Robert Gonnella with his excellent observation that the word “donate” is being replaced by “give back”. Instead of making a gift or donating, the plea is to “give back”. Obama has pushed this, saying “It’s a basic reflection of our belief that those who benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more.” The term “give back” is a disguised anti-property rights expression. It’s a slick way of getting people to think that they don’t deserve what they have worked for, or that they have a debt to pay, or owe something to a whole bunch of other people. Feeling grateful isn’t enough. Expressing gatitude isn’t enough. One should “give back”.

Not “give”, not “donate”, but “give back“. The implication is that one is returning ill-gotten gains, or undeserved gains, or unearned gains. And by the way, the term “unearned” is itself another term with disguised anti-property rights implications too. The IRS calls bond interest and dividend income “unearned”. You didn’t earn this money, the implication is, so we’ll tax it, even if it has already been taxed once when you received it as pay and hadn’t yet transformed that pay into an income-earning asset.

Let’s stay with donate. It’s been around since Roman days. It comes from “donare”, to give as a gift. If one gives, generosity comes into play. If one gives back, it’s more like strings are attached to what you earn.

People who invent and propagate these word replacements have a political agenda. They are con men. Link
That's apt and accurate. 'Giving back' which I most memorably recall being used by an NEA member is simply another coinage from socialist milieu. It's of the same family as 'we can't afford' a tax break. Or calling taxes a 'contribution.' All money is presumed to belong to the government, and anything it allows us to keep is due to its own benevolence, and must serve a higher purpose. As opposed to, we earned this money, it's ours. We may spend it as we like, including giving it away, if we choose.

You can't give back what wasn't taken from, right? And if something was taken, and, say, you don't want to give it back, then perhaps the sheriff will come after you. You see the clear implied threat in 'give back' just sitting there waiting to be used by the socialists. It's very similar to a mafia guy shaking down a businessman. "It would be a real shame if someone were to throw a rock through your front window during the night. Or, you know, burn up in a fire. All we're asking is a little contribution to the neighborhood beautification committee, that's all."

There is subtle but unmistakeable menace in the term.

If you don't work for the government, or draw benefits from it, what good do you get from it? It should, if anything, be giving back to you. It takes your money - daily. What do you get for it? A lot of bad things. Things you don't want and didn't vote for.

As always, whatever makes the government look like the good guy is what becomes common parlance in the controlled media. 'Giving back' is just another leftist attack, albeit veiled, on earners (hence on whites), on private people, on competent people. The idea is implicit in it that somehow the government is responsible for your success, when in fact the opposite is the normal case: the successful had to fight the government -- its taxes, its regulations -- to become a success. Notice how 'giving back' dovetails with the concept of 'greed,' which is always attributed to private businessmen but never ever to any government agency or employee. In the common media, everything is stood on its head. You know this by now. 'Giving back' is implicitly anti-white because it targets the successful, the earners, among which whites are overrepresented compared to the defectives and parasites, where they're underrepresented. In fact, those are the ones the successful are supposed to be giving back to. 'Giving back' is febreeze for parasites lusting with greed for the property of the productive.

As secular socialism is nothing but an evolution or alternate manifestation of the nutty christian impulse, we can observe the psychological roots of the concept behind the term 'giving back' in the religious notion that everything we have comes from god. It's a gift, is the term they always use. So we owe him thanks, and endless supplicatory prayers. Thank god for your 'natural' rights to speak your mind, etc. Of course, God won't vindicate (defend) any of your rights. Someone else can take them away from you, and he won't do anything about it. That would seem to render his gift rather worthless or nugatory, to me, but I'm not a godman, so things that are clear to others are opaque in my brainlet. Seems to me that if you alone are responsible for vindicating your rights, then they come from you in the first place. Impeach that logic, buzzard-breath. Or, as our own NBF put it in a tweet last night, they're "gun-given rights." That makes more sense than God-given. The gun will actually help you defend your rights, wherever they originate, while god won't do anything but stand there with his hands in his pockets.

We tend to replace god with government, these days, but the malignant impulse is common. See how that is? Either we worship jesus or we worship regulations. In both cases, we need to give back. Because God created the universe. Or, in socialist parlance, "taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

Not true! Not true!

But a lot of people think it. The importance here is that you understand these conceptual clouds. You see that all these different terms floating about are part of a mindset. So you see the direction they all run, which is the same. There's a real terminological Gleichschaltung, or coordination. It's not an accident the media shift as one to using new political terms (say, for illegal aliens), it's because they're on the same page ideologically, and they pursue a common agenda.

There was a Truman Doctrine we studied in international relations. Some executive order mentioned the communists, and the constantly shifting series of pressure points they'd apply to the west, attempting subversion. All of which needed to be recognized and countered. So it is in verbal warfare. The enemy holds the high ground. He comes up with new terms, fresh dishonesties, and we need to suss them out immediately and counter-impose our frames and our terms. That's the verbal war, it is unending. Most of our side is too dim to perceive it, unfortunately.

'Giving back' is among the softest forms of guiltimidation, as I've called it, but that's what it is. An attempt to use the soft intimidation of implied guilt to suggest to the suggestible that their creations, hard work, or achievements are somehow the products of, even stolen from, ungetting others. Who cry with baby bird mouths for redress. The term belongs to the mindset that laughably, lyingly claims that public school teachers are underpaid. Oh they, of course, give so much. They don't need to give back. We need to give back to them. It is to laugh.

Ok...that's enough for now. Back next week with another column. As always, if you have any words or concepts for me to consider, post away and I'll address them.//

Last edited by Alex Linder; April 1st, 2014 at 10:35 PM.