|November 22nd, 2013||#1|
A. Linder's On Language Column
[2014 forward...all new original VNN articles will be posted in this thread. I will probably add earlier material from time to time, but all new articles/reviews/etc moving forward will be copied in here, as well as available elsewhere on the forum.]
Reticent vs Reluctant
By Alex Linder [index]
November 22, 2013
Remember above all, chilluns, language is a form of music, meant to entertain others, to seduce them, to elucidate things for them. We learn the rules not just in order to obtain the fruits of following them - ease, ease that comes from effective communication of ideas and meaning - but, for we of the advanced arts, in order to break them. For breaking the rules runs by rules too, as per jew Zimmerman's 'to live outside the law you must be honest' Dewey, to play down the rules, to pretend they don't exist, to make them secondary to the students' self-esteem. Why are they called students if they study only to feel good about themselves? Dewey was a pre-Frankfurter, an echt WASP pervert, and one of the foremost non-jew destroyers of America, 20th century collection. It is a part of our mission here to repair his damage, which propagates even today through his legions of education-major dolts known incorrectly as teachers through institutions known incorrectly as public schools. I will be conducting these column classes from time to time, whenever I have enough fodder from my scourings to make a piece. It is our intention to imbue those deficient with appreciation for the lightness of verbal rebellion, where called for, for rebellion in words as in life is a duty like other duties, and for Germanical precision for the ordinariety that is 98.32% of waking life. Perk your ears, parallel your heels, and nicht rausfallen, mein sponges.
Let me put these out there as general guides. If you're a prole of the usual sort, your job is to understand and comply with the rules. You can achieve that goal.
If you are a bourgeois who knows the rules, your job is see if you have any wings. See if you have some art. Not to walk down the long country highway, with your wings furled on your back, pointing out potholes, but to run and jump and try to fly. Verily I say unto ye of little comprehension, not getting things wrong is not the same as getting things right. Not getting things wrong is good enough for proles, it's a genuine achievement. But not for abler folk. Of course, we all need brushing up, me included. As I run across stuff I've forgotten or never knew, I'll find it in here.
1. Nouns accreting ys
Lately, seen both resiliency and competency used - both are wrong, even though the dictionary says the former is acceptable.
Here's a common misuse, from story about possible nigger rapist and the college football culture (in this case FSU) that produces and cossets this type:
"I was very reticent to fail a football player, because I didn't want to be harassed,"
This is a flat wrong, but quite common, use of reticent. The word she means and should use is reluctant. Dictionaries may get weak on this point, but we cannot allow feebleminded proles and indulgent lexicographers to frogmarch this perfectly useful and necessary word behind the dusty iron bars of desuetude. If one could say what he means with the term unwilling, then reluctant may be the right choice. There's a subtle difference between unwilling and reluctant. Unwilling sets a stronger line; reluctant implies there is an obstacle to one's doing what another party desires, but that obstacle might be removed, in which case one's reluctance might disappear. By contrast one's reticence does not disappear, since it is a hard-wired trait, not a passing feeling or fleeting disposition.
3. Multiplying syllables, terms, etc., decreasing effects
Here we have the modern tendency to multiply nouns, a tendency characteristic of middle-class self-importance, as the late
'murder situation' - death of Brittany Murphy
4. Sociopath and psychopath are bullshit terms
In this world dollars flow to those who can guess the future. Be closer to getting it right than others. The average person, thinking it is thinking, simply applies these cool terms after the fact, and believes it is performing analysis. It is not. If these terms actually meant something, psychopaths and sociopaths could be identified before the fact, their actions predicted. But they can't. It is a mistake simply to go around calling anyone one dislikes, or whose actions one disagrees with, a psychopath or a sociopath. That is precisely the same thing that is done when our political and racial enemies call us haters. Same thing goes for monster. If one teenage girl bullies another, and the victim commits suicide, that does not confer monsterhood or psychopathy or sociopathy on the harasser. If you read the story comments thru the link below, you'll see the lefties reading the face of the girl teen and seeing evil, etc in it, just like subpar WN confidently identifying jews from photos. A side point, evoked by the discussion of the 14-year-old nigger that murdered its math teacher up in Massachusetts, is that when you call something a monster, you're taking away, by removing focus from, its responsibility for its deed. Don't let people escape responsibility, even verbally. That's important. Don't use words that move the focus off the person's decision to commit any particular act - good or bad. That is the practical definition of liberalism. Divide people into two camps: the good and the bad. The good are inherently good, and responsible for nothing, and the bad are irredeemably evil, and responsible for everything - not just their own actions, but the actions of the good people! Thus white-male 'racism' is responsible for johnny nigger's rape-torture-murder. Liberals really do think like this. And there are a thousand subtler variation of this use of words to evade or cover up or displace responsibility.
The use of the terms psychopath or sociopath means nothing except that the user tries to cloak his emotional reaction in pseudo-clinical, pseudo-professional garb to make it appear cool scientific judgment. Own your hate, plebes! It is nothing to be ashamed of, provided the object merits it, as it does in this case.
Last edited by Alex Linder; March 24th, 2014 at 12:06 PM.
|January 21st, 2014||#2|
The Unrandom Use of Random
By Alex Linder [index]
January 22, 2014
This is my second column on language. I originally intended to focus on aesthetics, grammar and actual usage. Leave politics out completely. That will not be possible, nor, after a month collecting a mountain of stuff, does it seem desirable. We'll cover all the bases, at the length needed. The purpose of this column is to look at what's going on out there, how people are using language, how they're twisting and perverting concepts and terms in order to achieve some occult or nefarious end. Fun fact about 'nefarious.' My dad always said he knew he was at the wrong place when he got his paper back here at Truman State (then running under a different name) with his nefarious marked "no such word." See, the teacher's supposed to know more than the student. Otherwise, formal schooling really doesn't work that well. Presumably these problems lie in TSU's past, as it has gone from a normal school - that means a teacher-training school, if you're unfamiliar with the term - to a college to a university. Paul Fussell describes this common academic embiggening process in his remarkable book Class, which I highly recommend. Today, Truman State University -- named for the president from Kansas City, a man who had snakes legs to do with Kirksville and this side/part of the state, but nevertheless, that's how politics work. Anyway, nice short memorable name compared to Northeast Missouri State Teachers College, or some such. There's a lot to be said for short, memorable, easily spelled names. Keep that in mind when bestowing monikers on your offspring.
Now let's get to the words.
1) Random ain't used randomly
Random is a term which, in common journalist parlance, equates to driven by a motive illiberals don't want to acknowledge; most typically, most notably, most noticeably, most prominently, most commonly a racial motive driving a black's assault on a white. Blacks never, in the keyboards of the journalists, commit a "hate crime gone right," only a '(carjacking) gone wrong.' Random, therefore, represents spin. Its use nearly always signifies an attempt to conceal. Why would a 'reporter' attempt to conceal rather than disclose, as his name suggests? as his job title purports? But you could ask the same of any term commonly deployed by the ideological powers that be. Why do they call queers 'gay'? Because they're not. They're the opposite of gay. They're twisted, unhappy, heavily, seriously disturbingly off. So we see that it's not just that things are called what they ain't, they're called the opposite of what they are. It's a flip. An inversion. A photo-negative. Reality-reversal. It proceeds at multiple levels: not just the terms selected, but the framing of the story; indeed, the story's very selection.
The sophisticated media consumer knows that 'random' is a tip to a hidden racial motive. He knows that the System, its media and schools, spend all their time inculcating hatred of whites in coloreds - and then covering up the natural results of this inculcation in the mass media. In the jew-controlled media, it is whites who are always and everywhere driven by dark motives; blacks are only driven by creditable. Well, sometimes they do commit crime, but only because they need money. And of course, they're only poor because America was built on the back of their slave labor. They're just taking back what belongs to them, without any racial animus, of course. What I describe is the unstated morality underlying the bizarre misrepresentations of racial behavior and motivation that define the mass media, and have for decades. It's all understood but seldom layed out. The readers are frustrated. They have to guess. They have to fight the reporter for the story. From 'reporter' on down, everything is done to frustrate the reader rather than inform him. It's passing bizarre if you think about it, but it's very real.
The journalist is supposed to provide the facts. And then put them in context, depending on his knowledge and ability. But at least provide the facts. He doesn't even do that, most times. Reporters are simply low-level agenda pushers. The agenda is pre-set, and reality is not allowed to falsify or interfere with it. Terms such as 'random' do not appear political in the way a term like 'hate crime' obviously is. But in practice, they are every bit as political. There's a raft of ostensibly neutral terms that are effectively used as concealers (as in a woman's makeup) or masking agents. Random is meant to reassure the person raised in the illiberal worldview that the blacks were just out of money; it might discomfit or scare him if the reporter reported the facts - let alone dramatized them. If he told the reader that, yes, the black hated whites, targeted whites, and made no bones about it. And that there are millions of other blacks just like him.
Readers who have learned to see through the charade know exactly what's going on. The coverup becomes the reporting. If the reporter says 'random,' it's very, very likely there was a racial motive involved. The experienced reader knows that if a black murdered 27 whites and filched a gold ring off one of them, the motive would be described as robbery, or robbery gone wrong, rather than race-hatred. The smart reader understands that ideology on the part of the jews owning the mass media ensures that their reporting will always be queered against the interests of whites and in favor of the interests of jews and coloreds. 'Random,' like almost everything illiberals put out, is a form of gaslighting - telling you that what you see with your very own eyes just ain't so. The mass deny what actually occurs in the world. They brazenly asserts the opposite is actually going on. 'Random' is not used accurately in the controlled media. It is used to misrepresent the motives behind a crime it describes. 'Random' is thus a tool of denial, as the illiberals like to say. Of course, the illiberals don't want to take any responsibility for inculcating hate in blacks, and the subsequent attacks that spring from this hate. It's all just perfectly innocent criminal behavior in their typeups. Nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. Just another random attack...by black(s) on white(s). Give it no heed. Pay it no mind. It has no meaning.
This is the respect paper and tv have for the white consumers paying their bills.
2) Sacco is a common jewish name....
Interesting thing I came across...the above assertion in a story-comment. Sacco is the name of the woman who tweeted a not-clever-enough illiberal mocking of racist white people so that she was taken for a racist herself. Even though she's apparently a jew, with a billionaire-businessman father in South Africa. I had only heard the name 'Sacco' in relation to the anarchists of the early twentieth century up in Boston: Sacco and Vanzetti. Famous radicals. I had never known Sacco to be anything but Italian, but if you look it up, it is both Italian and jewish. Very interesting. The Sacco and Vanzetti case is one of the bits always brought up in American high school history classes to suggest how anti-socialist and racist our country was back in the day. The two would fit whether they were Italian or jewish, but the apparent fact that Sacco is often a jewish name would strengthen the likelihood of that particular affair making it onto the high-school syllabus. Everything commonly taught in America public high schools is there for an ideological reason, at least in history and English. Assume that assertion is true until proven otherwise, and you'll seldom be wrong.
3) professional help is neither
'Professional help' the concept as ordinarily employed represents impacted error. First, it ordinarily alludes to psychiatry. Yet psychiatry isn't a real science. There may be body of doctrine taught to a budding psycho -- there may be fifteen, depending on his school -- but there is no genuine science in it. Nor is there any proof that what psychiatrists sell equals help. When doing nothing produces results as good as being 'helped' by a 'professional,' seeking help becomes a very problematic, as illiberals love to say, bit of advice. Who pushed psychiatry as valid? Who pushed it as science? Who pushed for it to be reimbursed? Who's behind most of the different schools? Who celebrates and promotes this pseudo-science in the media? Jews. Open and shut. Psychiatry is a jewish religion. It's for warped kikes who live around Vienna. For goyim, it's not valid. There's a reason jews popularize shrinks through their media, their movies and prime-time shows, comedic as well as dramatic. They're trying to normalize one of their many ways of making money out of thin air. If they get people to believe their quacks have authority, and can solve problems, then they prosper. They drive people away from belief in agency and personal responsibility and into the arms of the excusers and explainers-away. When enough of the country agrees that these million and one forms of counseling are valid, then they find their ways into the court system, which guarantees expensive reimbursements. Many of which are paid by sane taxpayers who don't believe in the secular religion psychiatry. What psychiatrists offer isn't "help." They charge for it. And it doesn't work. No better than pills or doing nothing, anyway. "The talking cure" is simply a way for jews to transfer money from goy wallets into jew bank accounts. Of course, jews are never content with money profits alone, they want to advance their political agenda. That happens two ways. First, as mentioned, they chip away at agency. Everyone but the person in the room is responsible for his problems. Blame your parents. Blame your spouse. Never blame yourself. Now pay me 200/hour for disbursing this "professional help" you sought. Second, jew quacks promote the bogus idea that by digging through your entire past you're somehow going to solve your problems. Endless rehash doesn't solve problems. We live moving forward. We can decide how we feel about what happened, but ultimately we must leave it and move on. Otherwise we give others the power to make us feel a certain way, which is a form of thinking women are particularly susceptible to. It's no accident that women in particular are drawn into this secular religion of blaming others and endless talking about one's feelings. That would be the second major political achievement psychiatry achieves for the jews who concocted it. How neatly they've insinuated it into the white middle class acceptance by playing up to their snobbishness with the 'professional' bit.
'Mental health' is an allied concept. To its fans, its services are always underfunded. It perfectly parallels global warming or climate change: they demand the money in the name of science that, upon inspection, ain't there. They rely on the science ruse because trying to sell morbid sex or high-tax communism on their own don't appeal to people. Dress them up as something respectable: Mr. Science and Mrs. Professional going to the good opera. They fool people. They inure people through continual repetition and absence of competing concepts. American people don't read. Or think. They watch tv. If all they've ever heard is of the need to "seek professional help," how likely is it they're going to have any doubts about this concept? Not very. They'll swallow it whole as self-evident.
4) "stay classy" creates backlash
Originally used by Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy in Anchorman, Stay classy (San Diego) has begun to irritate people. It was funny enough, I suppose, at the start, but it's been overused. Good place to observe the difference between how the average person conceives humor and what humor actually is. Humor is something original and pertinent that makes others laugh. Something that's a twist on something else is perfectly valid as genuine humor. Repeating what others have said is something different. I have to go with what E. Michael Jones said about music, mutatis mutandis: It's better to make second- or third-rate original music than always be playing someone else's perfect recordings. You get more out of it. Music is for participation, not just enjoyment. Now, think about the human proclivity to be dumb and conformist. What does that imply about the average person's conception of humor? It implies he has no internal ability to recognize or create humor, he can only identify it when it's literally labeled 'joke,' in a book or text, or appears on Comedy Central, or other people of known 'professional' or otherwise impressive social standing have certified it by laughing at it. And one hastens to add in 2014, laughing at it without getting fired. If they approve, then little guy approves. It's for use. He can say "serious as a heart attack," with appropriate eyebrow caterpillarings. He can say, because its known funny, undeniably funny, comes with a funny certificate of authenticity, "tell us how you really feel." Pat, trite, cliched - verbal equivalent of comfort food. What the average guy does not understand is that telling jokes doesn't mean you're funny. Even if the jokes you're telling are. You might be funny. Telling jokes is no guarantee you're not. But a proclivity for tellings jokes makes it likelier that you're not funny but think you are. We'll get back to this in later columns, but that's enough for now. Let's just say there's a canyon between those who dislike readymade language and those who prefer to work their words. Those who like 'the way everyone says it' feel, and I do mean feel, that words and expressions that have stood the test of time are to be cherished and not departed from. The more confident the man, the more penetrating the gaze, the less trust and liking for congealed word patterns, the more the felt need to describe more closely and anew the e'er-whirling world.
5) 'committed suicide,' he did
Guess what bothers someone about this term? Redundancy? Ha. I like the way you think. But of course, no. Someone is bothered by its excessive accuracy or implicit emphasis on agency. Isn't there a nicer way we could say it? Well, I don't know. Was he bitten by a rabid lawn mole? If so, then I say we go with that. If he took a revolver and painted his den wall bood red, I say we say he shot himself. If he looped a hempen strand over the rafter, we say he hung himself. Pardon me, hanged himself.
6) mano a mano, not mano y mano
Mistake that has become common in last twenty years. Dopes, don't try to use phrases you don't understand. Too many adults are like babies, just babbling sounds they hear in the atmosphere without any actual grasp of meaning. Babies can be excused for that, it's a natural part of their growth. Adult's can't. If you're on the public airwaves, you have a duty to use language correctly. The morontsia are listening; don't let them down. Mano a mano is Spanish. It means hand to hand. Mano y mano means hand AND hand. Big difference. A little thing can be gotten right as easily as gotten wrong.
7) decimate doesn't mean what you think
8) An example of a Politically Correct redefinition of PC to mean something that actually promotes PC
Yet often we see the term politically correct misused, usually unwittingly, to mean something that is promoting traditional morality, or some kind of personal or social continence. But self-control is the opposite of political correctness, not the result of it. In most cases the person using PC in the aw-yer-no-fun sense is not aware of his misuse; he picked it up somewhere else. But as PC is the only recognized term referring to the extremely important phenomenon of the judeo-left's drive to remake society and genocide whites, it is important to blunt its effect. You do this a number of ways. First, by the term itself: it should be, as Joe Sobran pointed out, Semitically Correct. It is the jews who set PC's agenda. They and they alone determine what's politically correct and what's politically incorrect. Second, as said, and as will be said many times again, jewish 'scholars' of the Frankfurt School believe that the way to destroy goyish society is to get it obsessed with sex. Get it to, to as big an extent as possible, forego the arduous path of family raising and spousal loyalty for the hedonistic thrills of cheap sex and Chinese-trinket consumerism. Destroy the man, destroy the marriage, destroy the community, destroy the nation. That's what they're after.
Jews make endless films mocking anyone concerned with self-control and morals as religious bigots. See Porky's. See Footloose. See a million other films and all tv shows. Showing moral control is the opposite of political correctness. Yet, it's not quite that simple. For women, jews have put out the poison labeled feminism. One strain within feminism has concerns that can seem to overlap with those of traditional morality, although they are coming from a completely different direction. So the non-intellectual can be confused, and think that feminists whining about, say, body issues, or models being photoshopped, the male gaze, 'rape culture,' or female objectification is the political correctness that is preventing him from enjoying boobs and tush. But feminists aren't against those so much as they demand they be viewed in the right way. You've got to get your head right, then it's ok. But this is far beyond the interest of the term user, of course, it's fairly subtle.
Then you've got jews completely flipping the concept of PC, and equating, in their movie PCU (1994), which I reviewed here, political correctness with the view of an obnoxious, blond Reaganite. From the review:
Showing PC to be a creature of the goyish right rather than the jewish left - what a perfectly race-typical brazen lie, precisely the type of thing jews celebrate as 'chutzpah.' Political Correctness, the term and concept, came from Lenin. Lenin was a quarter-jew. Enough get him into Israel as a blood citizen. His surrounding radicals were mostly jews. PC meant in line with the Lenin- or Central Committee-set political line which anyone diverting from needed to be stomped back in line with, hard. Killing them would be a perfectly acceptable way of getting them back in line. But jews, rather than own their history of murderous shenanigans and lying choose instead and as always to blame the other guy. They brazenly turn the one semi-formal notice of the tyranny they've installed into yet another attack on the evil-white-goy stereotype their Hollywood and mass media have invested decades in defaming. It's a tricky world...
What's genuinely unPC when it comes to sex? Mating only with heterosexual white women; getting married and staying loyal to your husband or wife; raising a family of white children. Anything other...not so much. What IS politically correct as relates to sex? Any kind of sexual deviance, including pedophilia, polyamory, lesbianism, queerness, transsexualism, cross-dressing, sex toys, speaking publicly about pornography and masturbation, 'gay marriage,' denying that a family consists of a man, woman and children. That's a start on a listing. Wherever you have continual innuendo that sex and money are the only real human drives, you are dealing with classic Political Correctness.
9) thrasonical - vain, boastful
Good word that I've never used, but should. Maybe you should too. Notice the a is long, not short: thra(y)sonical. The term comes from a Roman play, from a soldier who is a braggart. Hear it pronounced thru this link.
Back next time with many exciting more... If you have any particular questions or interesting terms or ideas, let me know, and if I have any great ideas, I'll use it. //
|March 2nd, 2014||#3|
CDC's 'Immunologically Naive Populations'
By Alex Linder [index]
March 2, 2014
It is simply astonishing how much language-use material builds up over a month; never realized it until I started collecting for this column. I never use more than a portion of what I have, simply takes too much space, too much to say. Let's get going...
1) new to me: immunologically naive nations
The Centers for Disease Control tracks epidemics. From their perspective, this is practically the most important thing anyone can do, thus requires huge amounts of funding. Well, we all see the world through our own portal. But listening to one of their brief podcasts, I came across this term, which was new to me: 'immunologically naive populations.' Now, I'd be willing to bet that is a departure from the historical way of putting it, and that the neo-locution was adopted for political reasons. The CDC podcasts blame American incidence of normally rare diseases such as tuberculosis or malaria on travelers, rather than on illegal aliens. I suspect this 'naive' falls into line with that political impulse. Is that really the right word to use? Is this the traditional formulation? Why 'naive'? Are Africans and South Asians then 'sophisticated' populations? Surely it's a matter of experience, not sophistication. Also seems in line with the leftist thing for whining about "first world problems" whenever whites discuss things that aren't life and death. As if these coloreds, in disease and life generally, are on the front lines, taking the fight to the enemy, doing battle for all of us, even the lazy, cosseted, 'naive' white populations who do nothing but whine about their Ikea and Pier One problems. Yes, the muds are keeping it real. When in fact, as we racialists know, these groups clamor to get into white areas, where they not only soak up assets created by whites, they spread to white areas diseases whites have already eradicated through most of the globe. Who ever heard of a 'black man' or a 'brown man' curing a disease? No one. The white populations should be described as immunologically protected or advanced populations, not unsophisticated. They may be populations inexperienced with a particular disease, but not because they have never seen it before. Because they have seen it, solved it, and eradicated it! The naive population is the one that suffers the disease without understanding it or being able to control it. But as always, the term used in the conniving media must serve to discredit whites. That is the iron rule in anything coming out of the government or its media whores.
2) wackiness at Wesleyan: ze and hir
3) misuses we will never quit fighting: reticence for reluctance and enormity for enormousness
And this from Awake! October 2012, a publication the Jehovah's Witness deposited with me for my edification:
As I've pointed out, modern online dictionaries, catering to won't-hear-no-criticism ego-nitwits, approve the use of enormity for enormousness. They are wrong, though. Don't you be. Enormity is a good word, with a specific meaning, so use it only in that way, or else humorously - say, applying it to a table-manners infraction rather than the Holodomor.
4) new word: misoneism
\ mis-oh-NEE-iz-uhm, mahy-soh- \ , noun;
1. hatred or dislike of what is new or represents change.
Would be a good word to use in attacking those who stick to proven failure patterns when they need to change in order to win. I have run across this term before, but it's one I've never used. Why? Because I couldn't remember it. Many words fall into this category. The simple fact that it's not immediately obvious how this word is pronounced guarantees it will seldom be used. That's how knife-edge usage is. I mean, this word would have come in handy to me 1000 times in my writing, it represents an intelligible and useful concept, but it's nearly impossible to remember.
5) new word for primarily humorous use: borborygmus
\ bawr-buh-RIG-muhs \ , noun;
1. a rumbling or gurgling sound caused by the movement of gas in the intestines.
Similar to a word I like to use, eructations. Fancy Latin-derived words for bodily functions are always funny: micturate for piss; eructate for belch. Anything that comes out of a man's mouth can be called a belch, particularly if he says something stupid that requires mocking.
Always try to use a term funnily to capture it in your mind.
"Your borborygmus suggests my carefully prepared dandelion and dragonfly pie did not entirely satisfy your gustatory pangs."
6) read voraciously
How often one sees this term. It's a middle-class favorite; the user is entirely unaware he or she is suggesting rather the opposite. Or, he is suggesting that he reads whatever everyone else does: Stephen King and Dean Koontz and a handful of others. Anyone sensitive to language would wonder, "Why is it always, always 'voraciously'?" Simply because that is the common term; the one that found favor in terms of repetition, for some reason. Reading seems more a reflective action than a voracious action, wouldn't you say? I mean, you don't eat books like a wolverine eating flesh. Not if there's any meat to the book. You can only read voraciously what is as intellectually empty of nutrition, as is the case with most pop fiction, which is formulaic (no surprises, nothing new, nothing to threaten you to think and expand - word-muzak). No surprise, those are the books the people using this term mean by it, without intending to mean anything by it beyond suggesting they are page-gulping world eaters. What they intend to suggest by this term is that: they read! (1); that they are semi-nerdy (as nerdy as it is cool to be, but no nerdier) (2); that they respect and value Education (as this type thinks of it, capitalized). Reading is something better people do, so of course they do it. They do it voraciously. A word that is literally only used in this one way by 99% of the people who use it, I would guess.
See, I can tell you what to do, but with a lot of these points, if you didn't already know instinctively what I'm saying, I'm only training up fakes, if you follow my advice. That's the paradox of the 'education' I'm providing here. Ah well, we can at least appreciate and understand things, if we can't actually improve ourselves.
A subtler point is that one does not describe oneself. It's for others to decide what we are, and which our merits and demerits. It is gauche to describe oneself as a reader; it is doubly gauche to describe oneself as a lots-reader; it is trebly gauche to describe oneself as a great reader using an unthinking cliche - voracious reader. Do you see what's funny about that? These people are voracious consumers of mental carbohydrates at most. At least, they're simply pretentious liars.
'I'm a voracious reader' is a feminine sort of thing to say. Women experience biological pleasure/reward in their brain at connecting to other people. Much of this connection is verbal. When a woman uses a cliche, she is using, to her mind, approved language. The powers that be, the legitimate authorities, approve this message! And she used it! Correctly! That's how you do it! Of course, the woman is completely unconscious of any of this, it just seems right to her. Many can understand this unconscious impulse to obey and conform to authority (in matters verbal and other), if you bring it to their attention, but on their own, women are pretty much never aware of, let alone bothered by cliches; rather they like them because they bear the imprimatur of known and respected social authority, as proved by the fact that other people use them. Before you laugh and sneer "women!", and discard the sex as mere parrots and repeaters, remember what I said that doesn't make you so happy: most men are women too. Genuine creativity comes from a small minority of men, almost exclusively. Women, by contrast, are people use the word 'creativity' - because they don't understand what it actually is. There's nothing wrong with women, they are what they are, but men who can should strive to put more thought into their expressions.
Like I've said, every letter and every word is a cliche - even before they begin teaming up to form phrases and sentences. So the conscious writer -- word choose, word user, word arranger -- starts from a deficit, given his goal of conveying something new. There are only 26 letters in English, and in any language, only a few thousand words commonly used. And yet again, these words are combined in usual, predictable ways - but only these combinations are called cliches. In a very real sense. all human conversation is cliched, and necessarily so. If I think up a new letter, as I well may have done, for all you know, I can nevertheless not express it to you because there's no typing key for it. What I can do, with the existing infrastructure, is decouple multi-term cliches. And I recommend the brighter among you do this too. It subtly discomforts into awareness the reader/middle-classer when you remove the voracious and use something else. He will think, hmm, that's disconcernting. It's not really wrong, it just doesn't seem right. He will be forced to think, just a little. He will see the cliche he wants and expects revealed as a choice, which is what we're aiming at: conscious writing read by conscious readers. But why describe yourself at all? It's not your job to brag or bore people. Be, rather, what Tina Fey calls opaque. Let your behavior, your art, speak for you. That's how the best people do it. You might not be the best, but you can ape them. Behave up, not down. Makes for a better you in a better society.
Wherever you come across a paired couple, unless it is necessarily rather than merely traditionally connected, separate it. Use the noun unadorned, or switch in a new adjective. Just to shed a slightly different light on things. Anything that gets people thinking helps. So long as the new term you make has a clear and intelligible meaning. We'll come across more examples of cliches suitable for decoupling in the future and I'll expand on what I mean.
When you describe yourself as a voracious reader to your betters, you reveal an entire constellation of characteristics about yourself. They know exactly how to place you. You're a middle-class person eager to portray yourself as moderately (never immoderately!) intellectual. This one mere verbal formulation is proxy for more things than its user realizes. So we reveal ourselves! The cleverer man won't give himself away that easily. He's focused not on impressing the other guy, as the middle-class American almost always is, but reading him, his background, his intentions, his likely course of action.
7) misuse of mistake
This is a very interesting case, grown much more common recently, best I can tell. It's the misuse of the term mistake. If I'm driving to Duluth, and I mean to go down Lutefisk Avenue to pick up some rotten fish for my pet skunk, yet I accidentally turn down New Kat Drive into a neo-African brains desert -- that is a mistake. I didn't mean to do it. I did it by accident. It was not my intention to go down that drive. I hope I can make it back out before my Wienermobile is set on by ululating leaf-loaded skinnies.
But what we see today on the left is that anyone who belongs to their camp who commits a misdeed is described as having made a mistake. If a black football player stole a laptop as a 'youth,' why, it made a 'mistake.' It intended to steal the computer. It did steal the computer. It did try to fuck the USB slot. Then settle for playing video games. Where's the mistake? No mistake was involved. It achieved precisely what it intended, thus its actions, however we may judge them, do not fall into the ranks of mistakes - which always and only mean something done against intention. Not a perfectly accomplished deed the doer later regrets, or his backer apologizes for.
No one commits a crime by mistake. All crimes are crimes of intention, excepting crimes of ignorance. In any case, none of those apologists try to use 'mistake' on didn't know what they were doing was legally wrong at the time.
If you intended to do X, and you did it, there is no mistake involved, nohow no way, regardless of morality or legality or subsequent regret.
I'm not done clubbing this baby seal, its endless barking pisses me off and I need a a snazzulous (snazzy and fabulous) furry covering for my thorax. I will hit this again when I have more examples. It's an interesting misuse. It's of the genus denying agency. But instead of denying agency outright, by blaming poverty or racism, it's more an amelioration or extenuation. The guy in question did do something. But nothing as bad as it seems. Just a mistake. Agency-/responsibility-denial lite, I call it. And quite common.
People go along with what they hear in the controlled media because they don't think and they never hear the other side. They never hear anything different. Banking privacy is good. Good for everyone. If corrupt people hide money in foreign banks, that's not the bank's job to figure out, that's for prosecutors. What is really motivating the government(s) goes back to one of Marx's ten planks of communism: control over capital flights. The judeo-neomarxist government wants to know where every dollar is at all times. It's all about control, 'transparency' is. It's a twist on the standard conservative-authoritarian line: if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Just as gun control is about controlling people, not guns, transparency is about controlling people, not banks or money. They say gun control rather than End Self-Defense! and transparency rather than End Banking Privacy! for obvious reasons. It disguises what they're really up to, and sounds anodyne to the unsophisticated. Fighting terrorism or drug wars is the perfect cover for doing away with white privacy and white freedoms generally. Freedoms Switzerland has done better protecting than pretty much any other nation over the centuries.
9) day described as bluebird
It was a crisp, cloudless day, the kind skiers call “bluebird”... Link.
Just an interesting use, emerged in the coverage of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.
That will do for now; will be back before too long with another column, as I only used about 1/4 of the material I've collected. It truly is interesting to watch political maneuvering through verbal transition; I had thought to keep this column comparatively politics free, but experience shows that is not possible. I hadn't even fully realized until writing these just how much of the real change is not in the big stuff, the directly political stuff like 'pro-life' vs 'choice,' but in terms only indirectly political, such as transparency or mistake.
Thanks for reading, and if you see anything I got wrong, or you have something interesting to add, don't hesitate. The beautiful thing about writing online is that, unlike a figure-skating routine, you can always go back and correct your mistakes, not just sit on your wet ass and cry.
|March 17th, 2014||#4|
Haboob: Because Some Dust Storms Are Specialer Than Others
By Alex Linder [index]
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
Coming back to 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 where comparatively 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 that. Than 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 couranter-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.* (*Everyone 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 or vandalizing. 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 a need 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.
11) shenanigans and hooligans
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.
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.
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.
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, process, 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.//
|March 24th, 2014||#5|
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":
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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 12:22 PM.
|April 1st, 2014||#6|
Amerika and Annie the Anile Anole
By Alex Linder [index]
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.)
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
|April 7th, 2014||#7|
The Political Uses of 'Pegboy'
By Alex Linder [index]
April 7, 2014
Came across this word this morning in a story about Tiger Woods. Never heard it before.
It's always good to have a rich vocabulary for indicating dominance and submission, as these are found throughout the animal kingdom, and among humans as much as any other species. This is hidden for reasons of politeness, and to disguise what's going on. In turning language to white advantage, we need to play up one of our stronger trump cards: that we are independent. The next word I write or speak is determined by me, not by any jew. Jeb Bush and John McCain can't say the same. Our WiNdependence we should continually boast of and advertise, in order to attract the boldest among our race. The negative side of that positive side is to emphasize always, and as obnoxiously-strongly as we can, that others who aren't white nationalists are controlled by fear of the jews, by money-ties to the jews, by simple animal fear and servility. White nationalism, we can truly say, is the only manly position. The other positions are just peg-sitters; buttboys for the jews, at their beck and call. If you're not a man, then you might as well be a queer. Even if you're not what I call a flesh queer, you can still be a spiritual queer, if you've willingly subordinated yourself to an unworthy superior. Many Republicans are both, of course. It's what drove them to become male cheerleaders in the first place. It always helps to go after whiteskins serving the jews by attacking their masculinity. They are puffed up little people with a strength fetish precisely because they are weak. They serve the jew warmongers and domestic social revolutionaries, and provide cover for them. Strip them of their defenses verbally by calling them buttboys, pegboys, queers, twinks, or spiritual queers, as best fits the case. I use queer rather than other terms for homosexual-behavior habit-havers because it gets at the twisted mentality behind that particular fetish. Others prefer other words, but I believe queer is the aptest, accuratest, most politically useful term for that disturbed ilk. It goes well with deranged and degenerate, too. Whatever abnormalizes the opponent - use it. He and they deserve it. They do nothing but 'marginalize' us, after all. Our position, our characters, our very lives. Return fire verbally is the least we can do.
Yes, I must emphasize that: Always white nationalists aggressively should go after their enemies when it comes to matters verbal. This will distinguish us and elevate us from the weak conservatives, which is essential. We are the ones who call jews what they are. There is no epithet for jews save the name alone, although we can throw in a kike or hebe for variety's sake. Jews made a rare mistake in not insisting they be called by some multisyllabic moniker. Jew sounds like a dirty little thing (...ewwww); is a dirty little thing, and white nationalists absolutely must use it to describe the species, as they hate that, and it distinguishes WN who won't call a jew a jew to save their life. If they're critical of jews, they will wimputize their points, always, by calling the jews nazis. This is weakness masquerading in their artless, cowardly minds as cleverness, and I have called them on it for a decade. You should too.
It's particularly good to insult older effeminate or spiritually servile whiteskin conservatives as boys because it emphasizes the pain-point - their lack of masculine independence. A man is not someone's dog, but a conservative is. Always use boy, in some combo or alone, because it gets them where they live. It strikes to the heart of their pretension of being dignified elderly statesmen, who've seen it all, and in their august brains encompass worlds. Calling them boys belays this conceit.
No white man who has sold his independence to jews is worthy of respect, and the disrespect he has earned through his craven if profitable servility must be brought home to him as painfully as possible verbally. Whichever term is most cutting, is most abusive - that's the one to use. And never stop searching for worse.
The way you hurt people with words is to figure out where their ego lies, their vanity, and then hit that target directly and repeatedly, using the most painful formulations you can come up with. Sticking a knife in and twisting it is the cliche. Conservatives are human equivalents of little dogs lapping at the mouth and anus of bigger dogs to placate them and reassure themselves they have a place in the pack's pecking order, even if it's way down the list. It is the job of white nationalism to make these underdogs feel how weak and pathetic they are by continually insulting them for giving up their manliness in exchange for emoluments. The conserviles, to coin a millionth term for them, must be made to feel their lack of manlieness, their servility, their treason to their own kind, their disloyalty to their own country. Use words to damage them, damage their feelings and ideas of themselves. Make them feel what they are, because most of the rest of the world will be praising them, or simply disagreeing with them and abusing them in superficial ways that don't get to the heart of what's wrong: their psychological and character weakness that leads them to transform themselves into servile tools of a stronger party.
Wrote a couple paragraphs on this last night. Can read them here. And then this morning I happen on a new article on 'bros,' from a feminist mainstay at jezebel.com, Erin Ryan. Her takes is more Field Guide to North American White Twentysomethings, doesn't get into politics much. 'Bro' definitely has political intent behind it, though, and it's the same old anti-whiteism we find everywhere else. Nothing is ever distinctive and good about white men or any subset thereof, apart from sex degenerates. Not in the controlled media, the jewed media, the junkmedia. Loud and repeated hosannas for every other type of fauna, but white men can only be evil. That's pure jew ideology, and we know its aim and its intended end. Reality exists, but as people generally are taken in by appearances, and accordingly respect externals over essences they can't even make out, words matter a great deal. Labels tend to matter more than content. They are in a very real sense realer than reality. Reality still exists, but verbal reality alters perception and behavior. Jews are able to get away with calling our noble cause hate, while their gun-enforced mongrelist race-mixing produces hundreds of thousands of casualities each year - yet their views are labeled as love and highest morality in their media. Most whites who can see this terrible irony yet refrain from assaulting the enemy verbally in preference for neutral explanations of what he's up to. This is wrong. It is not good enough. Not strong enough. The enemy should be abused in the harshest terms conceivable. Counter labels must and have been coined, but they must be applied. The jew gets lots of his work done for him when his clueless enemy repeats his propaganda terms without realizing it. Uses his frames like they're legitimate, rather than Goldberg variations on the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Whites have to get sharper and more aggressive. Their pathetic religious conservatism won't cut it in the new world a-borning. If you love Jesus, you're a loser. And you're not welcome at VNNForum. We are building Team White, and we only want winners.
Looking it up:
Now, this term par-ei-do-li-a will be hard to remember, even though stories where it might be used are fairly common. Generally the term is not used in those stories, so repetition won't impress the term into our memories. Thinking about this, I think the best way to remember the term pareidolia is to think of it as meaning pseudo-pattern. A pareidoliac is someone who sees a pattern-that-ain't-there. Pareidolia. Para is the pseudo + eidolon is the pattern. That's its etymology. Paraeidoliacs are always religious, as religion is itself a form of proto- or pseudo-thinking. Hell, religion itself is mass pareidolia. Seeing Mary in a piece of toast is a microcosm of the general phenomenon. Religion, after all, with its endless talk of devils and angels and other special-abilities creatures that you can't actually see or verify, starting with the god concept itself, feeds if not creates pareidolia. The thing itself, like paranoia, is no doubt a genetic manifestation of low intelligence in combination with animal fear, but it's culturally institutionalized, organized and exacerbated by religion. Then again, maybe that's backward. The people aren't capable of something better than ass-thought like christ-insanity, and it with its mythical creatures comes from them. Either way, religious simpletonism and pareidoliacs feed on and reinforce each other, if they're not simply degrees of the same thing or quite literally the same thing.
There's more going on too. People are nearly infinitely suggestible. They see something on tv, like a rare medical problem, they think they have it. We've seen this in the case of brown recluse spider bits. Horror segments of animals shows treat real cases. People watch these, and then when they find a red mark, they think they were bitten by the recluse too. Even though it doesn't live in their area. I don't have a link to hand, but I recall the story in which the doctor said what I say above. Tv puts ideas in people's heads. Even people who know better. The vast majority of people who present to doctors thinking they have a brown-recluse bite are wrong. It's just in their head from tv.
Making distinctions and recognizing patterns are central to successful mammalian thinking. Those who aren't very good at it wind up in churches. And those types, the all-stars are those so advanced in suckthought they wind up on tv with their marys in bathtub grime, or their tree-bark jebuses.
4) 'am i the only one'
This is a phrase that should never be used except obnoxiously/comedically. It is fairly common among feminists, or women, who are biologically more fearful about standing behind their own words on their own, and who need others to reassure them of even their most basic perceptions or conclusions. You see in this phrase fear and weakness and the reason women never develop anything new, but simply inhabit the cultural ways they grow up in.
Use this ironically, to mock its regular users, or comedically, or don't use it. It's weak and twatty. Disclaimers in general, which this more or less belongs to the class of, are weak, and should be avoided unless they are needed for very specific or legal reasons. Just speak your piece. You know...like a man would, back before men went out of business.
Here's an article about terms the illibs at jezebel don't like, and wanted cashiered in the new year (2014). Some decent reading.
5) mistake for crime
We went over this last time, but here's another example I had collected. It concerns a white man, not a nigger, as seems most often the case. Coach O'Leary made a "mistake," says an analyst, by falsifying his resume. Wrong, sir, wrong. Mistake is what one makes by putting too much chili powder in the chili. Falsifying your resume is a deliberate crime, or at least a piece of dishonesty. Again: if you intend to do something, and you do it, there's no mistake. Mistake has nothing to do with the morality or legality of your act, it pertains purely to your intentions and whether they were fulfilled.
As always, the rule is that anything that detracts from or minimizes agency is anti-human and anti-white. That's why the left loves such locutions. They can take responsibility away from men and put it on situations or institutions or race-transfer it to white men, the group they love to hate and blame. For blacks, jews admit no responsibility ever. For whites, jews overload them responsibility. They not only get their own, they are taxed with black behavior too, since it's a product of white attitudes, as every good illiberal cultist believes. Black obesity, even, is blamed on whites. That's how ridiculous and hateful toward whites the jews are. There is no black failure that can't be laid at white feet. The jewsmedia see that they all are. Controlling the media means never having to face your own hatefulness.
If you intended to do it, and did, there was no mistake. That's the bottom line. Use it correctly, not as a glib, dishonest cover for criminal or disreputable behavior.
Nothing deep here, but this term is overused. A housewife blogger says:
Oh he is, is he? I rather thought the point was he died for all our sins. Which would make him a communal savior. Or maybe just savior.
And of course, the near-pareidoliac who uses this term is far beneath the level needed to snort at the parallel to personal trainer, which is what inevitably springs to my mind when I hear the phrase. Which is why I've often mocked it. Yeah, He comes by my house every Tuesday and Thursday. We do spirit squats and character crunches. I always try to lure him into some delicious blueberry pancakes after we're done working our souls out, but he refuses. He's a low-carb man. He subsists on beetles and clean mountain air.
It's just funny, thinking of Jesus as a spiritual trainer, with a clipboard, talking to this moron, ok, the first thing we're gonna need to do is get your vital signs and just see where you are spiritually. Then we'll have a base. Jesus trying to upsell membership. You've tried Gold's Gym. Now try God's.
This sauce went into vogue in 2013, for some unknown reason. References to it were everywhere. It got really irritating. As of April 2014, its vogue seems to be fading, thank god. What the hell is it, anyway? A non-white condiment, so naturally superior to boring old mustard or ketchup. It hails from some land where potatoes are the other hated white meat, and dogs and spiders use their many legs to run scared. A man who is tired of sriracha-dipped fried spider is tired of life!
What is sriracha?
And all this from a little bottle of sriracha. Hmm...maybe I belong to the ranks of the pareidoliacs; did I ever think of that hmm hmm? But no, I say. My pattern is really there! But I would say that, wouldn't I?
8) deep-seeded for deep-seated
An increasingly common mistake, as the man who doesn't read, and only hears things, assumes deep-SEATed is -seeded, since, you know, you plant seeds, and you plant them at a certain depth. Makes sense.
Just a head-shaker. What the people who get this wrong don't realize is how harshly they will be judged by people who know. But my telling them is perfectly useless, because the type can't conceive others exist above its level. But I'll say in other words and anyway, this is a classic 'placer.' If you say 'deep-seeded,' I can place you immediately. I know your class and mentality, with probably 90% accuracy. You recede, with me, into the unwashed and uninteresting.
Even collected this rare butterfly, first time I've come across it: 'short sided' for shortsighted. Again, this is a mistake that indicates lack of thought and lack of reading.
I think your opinion is short sided[i].
And here's our old friend:
Again, with the same mistake:
Funny how race (genetics) matters in the hundreds of species of barely distinguishable cave crickets they discover in jerkwater China, but among humans? Not at all. Totally meaningless and irrelevant.
If you buy that, you're not deep seeded enough for this column.
Well, this party clown has folded enough balloon animals for you little cake threateners, but I'll be back next Monday, like always.
AND, like always, feel free to post any words or other material you want me to write about next column. Seven columns in (I think) and I still have some collected material I haven't gotten to yet, but I'm starting to get near the bottom. Can always use a little grist from the outside.//
Last edited by Alex Linder; April 7th, 2014 at 12:53 PM.
|April 9th, 2014||#8|
Ride Hard and Put Away Wet: How White Nationalism Should Use Pat Buchanan: A Review of Where The Right Went Wrong (2004)
Part Two: Social Revolution by Means of Judiciary
By Alex Linder [index]
April 9, 2014
In part one we didn't so much review Buchanan's book as Buchanan. We looked at where he fits in the political scene, what he means to whites. We concluded, per our title, we should rape him of his valuable points and clever formulations and discard him alongside the road like a used hippy chick. If that seems cruel, consider that it's exactly how he and his ilk treat us. No respect deserves repayment in the same coin.
In part two, we will analyze a portion of Buchanan's book, How the Right Went Wrong (2004), looking for things we can use as white nationalists. The book is ten years old, I hear you saying. "What kind of a nimrod reviews a ten-year-old book." Watch your mouth, pal. I want to say, in line with Dean Vernon, you'll get the answer to that question this Saturday. But that's not true. You'll get it right now. The reason the book matters and date doesn't is that the right has proceeded down same lines it was headed in 2004, which makes sense, given the same forces are in the same relation. The Republican Party leaders-slash-conservative-writers/talking heads/assorted opinionmongers are a bunch of no-good NYC kikes (or in line with them), and the party rank-and-file are the same usual religious mopes and patriotardical cannon fodder. Domestic revolution and democracy-crusading abroad continue apace, same as it ever were.
The book covers three areas: economic policy, foreign policy, and the role of the courts in effecting a social revolution. Jews, of course, pride themselves on being revolutionaries (outside of Israel, that is, in alien lands, white-man lands). Breaking barriers, they call it, when they destroy or revolutionize traditional and effective white intellectual categories, such as anthropology, or social traditions, such as sex being a private rather than a public matter. When jews enter a country, they buy up the media and move into academia and the law schools and teachers colleges, as these are the control positions. From them, jews can leverage their small numbers into great political power. They train the trainers, they teach the teachers, they write the lawbooks, they determine what goes in the textbooks, they select what stories to cover in the papers, they determine how their treatment. In a much shorter order than one might imagine, jews become the source of virtually every single idea that gets widely propagated. Of course, all the ideas they push advance their agenda and damage native whites. Once their control is broad enough, no one else can get an idea into the mainstream. Today, in the West, in 2014, their control, in virtually every nation from USA to Russia, is nearly complete. At least outside the internet, which, as a new communications technology, they have admitted caught them unaware.
We'll leave aside the half the book that covers foreign policy, because we talk about that stuff all the time, and we understand what's going on there: jews use American taxdollars to foment jew-useful wars and revolutions throughout the middle east and in Europe. Likewise, we'll leave discussing Buchanan's economic ideas for a different time. He styles himself an economic nationalist, and argues that the US grew great behind and because of a tariff wall. His ideas have been refuted by Tom Woods, among others.
The thing we want to focus on here is Buchanan's analysis of the way the courts, the Supreme Court in particular, have carried out a domestic social revolution against the wishes of the white majority. What jews want goes, what whites want goes wanting. Buchanan is careful never to mention that it's jews, their activists and judges and media, driving this social revolution carried out through the court. Punch pulling, after, is the heart of professional conservatism. Buchanan doesn't talk about jews immigrating to America between 1880 and 1920; how they bought up the media like New York Times and Washington Post; nor how they moved into and took over the Ivy League academic institutions and top law schools. Rather, he sticks to decisions the Supreme Court and other courts have made, their basis in law, and their effects on American society. Good stuff as far as it goes. But as always with Buchanan, he doesn't go far enough. The American political cover story about liberals doing battle with conservatives is good enough for him, and he doesn't delve beneath the surface at all. We will. That delving is the point of this review.
* * *
The court story, the judicial story, predates the jews. It goes all the way back to the legal founding of the country in the Constitution. The entire thing can be summed up in
First, let's make sure you understand the term arrogate. It means to seize something illegally. To usurp it. Easy to associate with arrogant. The main thing seized here, arrogated, is the right to be the final and ultimate authority in deciding what the Constitution means. And then inflicting that raw and awesome power on lesser courts and The People.
Let's go a little more in depth.
There are four things white nationalists, and others, need to understand.
- the intended role of the Supreme Court;
- the role it arrogated
- the historical skeleton that is formed by the Supreme Court's (and certain other courts') most important decisions over 200+ years; and, finally
- what we can do about the court today.
All WN should understand these four, just so they have the intellectual backing to explain where their opponents have have seized power illegally. That's the main thing about courts - all of them, not just the Supreme. All courts are composed of men. And men don't necessarily follow the law. And, -- most important point here --
So that's the bottom line with courts -- all courts. All courts, all laws, all documents.
On the first point, the intended role of the court, the Constitutionally intended (expressly described and circumscribed) role of the Supreme court was for it to serve as the court of final review for disputes between the states. Disputes always arise. The states back then at the start were little or medium-sized independent countries, federated by the constitution, per signed agreement at the convention. The Constitution is probably better seen as a hammered-out compromise among mutually suspicious parties, and not two or three of them, but more than a dozen. The elegant wording shouldn't confuse folks to this reality, but of course the stars-'n'-stripey-eyed set can only see it as a hallowed parchment of fetish. They're called patriotards for a reason. . . . The Supreme Court was the body created to resolve such disputes as should inevitably arise between the states. This is a different and distinct role from being the body created to settle the very meaning of the agreement/arrangement the independent states put together in the first place. There is no such body for that. The Supreme Court is not chartered to go above and beyond the Constitution, only to enforce it in relation to state disputes. But when you're dealing with avaricious and dishonest men, this difference can easily be lost. In practice, unless the states are jealous of their power, they are going to lose it to prehensile courts and federal bureaucracies, which have the media and the army on their side.
But again, let's go over it till it gets between your ears. Who is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution? The correct answer is: No one. Or. Anyone who feels another party is acting unconstitutionally. Or. Anyone strong enough. You see? It's an open question. There can be no answer, as it's essentially an axiomatic problem. It must fall to the powers who created the Constitution to decide whether some man or body is going outside them, acting unConsitutionally, and it must fall to these aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. And not necessarily through the courts! Probably not through the courts, since the ultimate court is the problem! But this requires intelligence, imagination and pluck, again, since the authorities tend to congeal around the false notion the Supreme Court is the ultimate decider for everything, and the media tend to conceal the legal/historical truth while bashing any threat to centralized power.
This-all is the political and practical reality of the thing. Not to mention that, of course, like any bureaucratic or political body, the Supreme Court is going to tend to try to increase its power over time, and arrogating the right to be the final arbiter on all matters constitutional, though it have no charter for such, is the first thing the court would see when it looked around; the sweet, delicious, low-hanging fruit just waiting to be plucked and eaten. For after all, just in practical terms, it's hard to raise up the manpower necessary to resist usurpations, once the dust has settled and the new federation is functioning, and the revolutionaries have gone back to their farms in the hinterlands. You see what I mean. In the heat of the revolution, everyone is jealous of his rights and his state's prerogatives since they've just kicked Britain's ass for trying to impose on them; but once the revolution is over, and things are settled and functioning under the new system, it's harder to recall the passions, to gin up the physical forces necessary to counter some party overstepping his bounds. It's just the way of things.
Nevertheless, no matter how dusty the desuetude into which the exercise of the right to reign in a rogue court may have become over 200 years, yet it remains there potent as it ever was, waiting for someone with the will to exercise it. If the Supreme Court acts outside the law, you are fully legally authorized to do whatever you feel it takes to reign it back in. If, say, the Supreme Court, ignores the constitution in order to force blacks into safe white schools, per the jew's anti-white genocidal agenda of integration, whites are completely justified in lynching any Supreme Court justice who voted to approve that agenda. It is that serious. The Founders to a man agree with what I'm saying - they just fought a revolution over this stuff. No man can go outside the bounds of the written law without exposing himself to retribution. If the people are too cowardly or too cowed to reign this black-robed monarch in, then they will suffer such misery as he cares to inflict. But they have every right to do literally whatever they need to do to obtain justice. That's not me saying that. That's the Founders' view. Of course the jew-owned and -operated media won't tell you this - it represents a potential threat to their tyranny.
The Supreme Court arrogated this power of ultimate constitutional review early. Not in 1980, 1950, 1910, but in 1803. Yet, again, for the tenth time, that arrogation has no legal basis. Its sanction is purely time and power, and these are informal and customary, rather than legal. So long as the politicians and media agree with the direction of its decisions, its right to make them will be treated as given; as inevitable and necessary and good as the sun rising in the east. So long as the courts pursue a leftist agenda, the press and professors will back then. They'll lie to their readers and students that this is how it's supposed to be; this is good. They won't tell you about your natural right to defend yourself and your neighborhood and your race from authorities who go beyond the law. They don't want you to know that, or to defend yourself. They just want you to shut up and do what they say.
Leftists know how much conservatives and religious tools respect authority and custom and tradition. They don't. But they know their opponents do. They have no trouble redefining or reinterpreting an old term or settled law to support their agenda. Once they succeed in that, then they've created a new tradition, and they gleefully remind conservatives of their bounden duty to support The Law (they've just subverted) in all its august glory. The left is very good at understanding its opposition and how to manipulate it. Thus you see illiberal judges making unConstitutional decisions that can only be enforced by conservative executives using conservative soldiers. Yet they do enforce it. Even when they know the court is misbehaving. And these conservative carriers-out, these executors of the unpopular will, shall we say, browbeat and gun-threaten the conservative population into going along with the new, unwanted, unvoted-for changes, because we must respect the law. One side cheats. One side doesn't. The side that cheats wins. The side that plays fair loses. That's reality. Until the honest men find some way of holding judges to their sworn duty, upholding the law, rather than rewriting it to their illiberal agenda, the judges will continue to misbehave. Continue to act like kings, foisting their minority agenda, their anti-white agenda, on the unwilling white public. In the old days, do you know what Americans did to judges who didn't follow the law? First, they threatened them. If they refused to comply, then they lynched them.
One more time: There is no law saying the Supreme Court has the right to determine what's Constitutional and what isn't. And when that Court starts making anti-white decisions at the level of forcing whites to race-mix with niggers, it is far beyond its bounds. But only white men with guns can force it back into line. That takes gumption. Gumption has been lacking in America for a long time.
In political life as in personal life, you get what you tolerate. That's the ultimate message to white nationalists here. If we, like christians, are willing to tolerate a tiny, anti-white majority, let's call them, I don't know, jews make the decisions that determine the conditions of our personal and body-political life, they surely will. History proves that. The geist and conditions of outdoor life at the time of this writing, in 2014, are completely determined by white-hating jews. The Constitution, written by white men, confirms free association in the Bill of Rights. Yet that same Constitution, interpreted by jew or leftist lawyers, somehow is interpreted to mean precisely the opposite! The judeocracy can dictate to you whom you employ, the conditions of that employ, whom you rent to, whom your bakery must bake cakes for. The words of the Constitution haven't been changed (remember Garet Garrett's revolution within the form which came up in part one), but the interpretation has done a 180. Today, you have "free association" as a guaranteed, gen-u-wine, Constitutional right, on paper,...but in practice you have forced...what? whatever the powers that be want to force you to do - race-mixing, deviant-sexual-behavior servicing, etc. Freedom remains in the words, but force is the reality. It's better for the ruling jews not to change the words; sitting there, they fool people - the type commonly called patriotards. People too dumb to see that the mere fact that something is written on paper doesn't mean it will be understood or enforced. This same type loves to yammer about 'God-given' rights, without ever noticing that God never defends those rights. Rights on paper don't matter if we can't exercise them in reality.
Just as under their jewish bolshevism in the USSR and Eastern Europe -- their vile, anti-white, hundred-million-dead jewish-communism -- in AmeriKwa 2014, only your private thoughts are free. It's one multiply-divided nation under ZOG. In the week preceding my writing this, the head of a large and important company was forced to step down because he disapproved of homosexual marriage. In that position, he was on the same side as the majority of voters. Yet he was forced to resign! Judges around the country, at this time, were simply ignoring what the majority of their state's voters wanted, even in the most illiberal states such as Massachusetts, and simply imposing their preferred morality, which is one that elevates sodomitic buddies to the legal level of a husband and wife. The courts thwart the democratic will of the people with diktats. The media back them. The people complain. But the decisions carry. Until people start treating judge and their anti-democratic dictates less respectfully, shall we say, this state of affairs will continue.
It's a straight-up test of manliness, really, how much society is willing to tolerate jew-controlled judges acting like kings. An effeminized society will tolerate anything courts do. They are Authority, the people are informed via tv and in top newspapers by duly licensed and degreed Experts. The talking nodding heads on tv assure us they have our best interests in mind, we adult children. In earlier centuries, we didn't think like this, we laughed at these clowns-with-airs, we threatened or lynched them when they went outside their bounds. Today, the very thought is unthinkable. Democracy is voting for Pepsi or Coke, not lynching judges! Everyone knows that! But that's wrong. Republican government means nothing if not the people seeing -- by any means -- that majority rule prevails. If it doesn't, then you have a king. Whether the king is a judge, a casino mogul, a media magnate, a president acting like an emperor - anything or anyone extralegally nixing the popular will in favor of a private minority agenda.
Judges are given special protection in today's society. Some of them are arrogant, thinking they are untouchable. Others are aware of their class and its usurpations, and the consequences these could bring. Most feel pretty sure they can't be gotten to because people are generally passive these days, consumers of junk food and sports and pornography, and they don't think or write or read or act much, and seldom in unapproved ways. If they perceive any particular threat, law-unabiding judges can always call for extra police and security, and they usually get it. The media are always on their side, so long as the judges are going outside the law to push the leftist agenda. It's a pretty cushy life, really, for these judges. They're doing something that takes no particular skill, after all. Anyone who can read plain law and is disposed to follow it can make the right decisions. A programmed computer could do what any judge does, and do it quicker and more impartially, which is to say better. Programmed computers can beat any chess player in the world, and chess is a situation that is far looser, in terms of options to be considered, than law-interpretation.
The Framers devised the Constitution to be clear. They gave the feds certain powers. They reserved the rest to the states, which were sovereign, except, again, for the ceded, enumerated, carefully defined powers.
Any man disposed to follow the Constitution as written would have little problem doing so. But that's the rub. Men aren't disposed to follow written law, far too often, no matter how clear the meaning. Flesh trumps paper. This is what the Constitution lovers, who tend to be religious simpletons, can't understand, or can't accept. Anyone clever with words, like lawyers, can rationalize darn near any desired policy as a legitimate interpretation of any words. Throw in the media on your side, that's all you need. Yeah...it really is like that. That's not ever going to change, either. Put your faith in paper, you're going to get burned. The only one who can guarantee that your rights are respected, or vindicated, is you. Is us. Is we. No matter how eloquently and clearly those rights are laid down on the august scroll, if we don't force our enemy to respect them, he won't. Remember - the majority isn't on his side. He has no legitimate democratic option for taking power. He must cheat. It's a lot easier to capture the courts than fake election results.
* * *
The best and most useful chapter in Where The Right Went Wrong is the ninth: "The Abdication of Congress and the Rise of Judicial Dicatatorship." We know from our research at VNN, by Craig Cobb and I years ago, although unfortunately later lost due to faulty wiring, that jews absolutely dominate law schools, particularly the top tier. Of course, Buchanan will call them leftists, which they are, but that's not the main thing. The main thing is you have jews with a strangehold over the key judge positions, and you have other jews making apologies for them in the mass media jews control. Jews are always at the pressure points in any society so that any view they don't like can be demonized, and its main carriers defamed and discredited and destroyed. You don't even have to be against them overtly, you can simply be honest, and it's a threat. Honesty is anti-semitic. See Robert Bork, and how the jewsmedia destroyed him when he came up for a Supreme Court appointment.
If some tradition jews don't like has a long history, they chip away at it. They're patient. They think long term, not short. They may not be able to reverse cultural views of loose sex and deviant sex like homosexual behavior overnight, but they can over a decade or two. And they're getting better at social-engineering this goy-reversal through law and media and schools as they gain experience with new technologies. The campaign to legitimize homosexuals, as we saw in another thread, was accomplished in one decade, the nineties. That's pretty remarkable, when you think about it. Even as I write, the last day or two, fresh judges are simply issuing Diktats to their state legislatures to force them to legally acknowledge queer marriage, even if the majority don't support it. That's dictatorship. There's no other word for it. Judges operating outside the law are praised in the jew-controlled media. Far from receiving censure, professional or press, they receive praise. That can only exert a ratchet effect over time. I've mentioned before going to a law-school graduation ceremony and hearing the main speaker, the head of the state supreme court, tell graduating students almost in so many words that if they felt the law was wrong in their heart, they should simply ignore it.
I've said a million times, and will repeat a million more,
So let's see what Buchanan says about kritarchy - a word he doesn't use, but some do, which means rule by judges (as opposed to rule by legislature, or by written law).
He begins by quoting John Randolph to the effect that whoever interprets the laws -- without appeal -- is the sovereign. That is, if California votes not to give benefits to illegal aliens, and some jew/leftist judge simply throws the vote out, then that judge is the king, and the citizens are his subjects. And of course we've seen this pattern a thousand times - in pretty much every case where white votes succeeded in thwarting a judeo-leftist agenda item. Wherever by proxy the white majority stands up for itself in the ballot box, its legitimate, democratic vote will be denounced in the controlled mass media and soon enough reversed or thrown out by leftist federal judges. That is how things have operated in the US for decades now. Centralized leftist control of the US exists. It is anti-white, and the mass media wholly support and justify it.
The Gutlessness of Congress
Let's step aside for a brief excursus into the gutlessness of Congress these past few decades.
- Congress has abandoned decision to war to executive, since Truman
- Congress has totally "surrender[ed]" its constitutional authority over trade. International bodies can and do now fine the US and repeal her laws. Binding us into a global world order is the intent and danger.
Buchanan says that all Congressmen care about is being reelected, because it's such a cushy job. Being reelcted means not offending people. It's better to give certain powers away to other branches than to make the (hard) decisions Congress is supposed to do per the Constitution. Let the executive puzzle out the details on trade treaties and budget bills, so long as the incumbent can escape responsibility for cutting anything some voter relies on. Let the judges make the tough decisions on abortion, or other matters where the voters are split. Then the Congressman can support or whine about the result - but either way, he's not responsible for what the executive or the judge does, and that's what matters most to him, since taking an actual stance costs votes where people are divided.
- the power to coin money was transferred to the Fed. We all know where this has led: private banks owned by jews get to counterfeit money legally, and pass on the new bills to their billionaire buddies at Goldman Sachs. This keeps jews in control while white earners' purchasing power is diluted through the inflation-theft the jews always practice. And justify in their mass media. As in other sectors, white adults are treated as children in a nursery school requiring jewish kindergarten teachers to manage them. We aren't smart enough to manage money, we need some thick-lipped Golub to take care of that for us.
"In the name of equal rights, the Warren court had effected an historic coup d'etat. It had usurped power over state schools never granted to courts either in federal law or the Constitution."
So, the feds have no legal right to control local schools. They simply took it at gunpoint. That is a good WN talking point. The judeo-System broke its own law to push its agenda. That makes it illegitimate. That makes it a dictatorship.
Segregation was legal under the 14th amendment. But certain people didn't like it, and wanted to end it. They did this by illegal judicial dictate. Eisenhower went along with the illegal usurpation. Of course, the media went along. The Southerners who resisted were demonized and crushed. All 100% illegally. The message, again, is that men will not be bound by what's written on paper, no matter how clear or eloquent. Men with will and weapons are the only guarantee, ultimately, that written law passed by democratically elected legislatures will be followed.
The left, as a congenital minority position, must of needs be all about power, getting it by any means it can, and then, when it does get it, forcing its minority agenda on others at gunpoint. This is the eternal political reality: the timid majority versus the fanatical minority.
We see today in Greece the same mindset at work: a pro-white nationalist party draws a mere 7% of the vote, and the System throws its legally elected MPs in jail. It simply decides Golden Dawn's majority-views should be illegal, and calls the party a criminal organization. The media back it up. How do whites react when the media, the judges and the entire System are run by people who hate whites? That's the question for our times.
Ok...so we know what people can do about judges - lynch them if they go outside the law. That's what has always been called our 'natural' right. We know how the Supreme Court was intended to function - to settle disputes between states. And we know that the SC has no legal basis for arrogating final review of Constitutionality. The only thing left to do is the spine: lay out the historical court cases that when taken together amount to a genuine revolution in law and society.
Buchanan does this laying out very nicely, in the ninth chapter, as mentioned above. Let's hit the cases. The important thing here, white man, is to know these cases so you can explain to people you talk to how this nasty society we see around us today was facilitated by a queered court system. We know the bigger picture, but it's good to have a handle on the specific court cases. There are not even a dozen over 200+ years, so it's pretty easy to learn them all and keep them in mind for political use. As we end this review, I will bullet good points Buchanan makes; points you should remember as you will find them useful in understanding how our country was broken apart by hostile powers.
- Congress is the dominant branch, by express intent of the Founders and understanding of the men at the Constitutional convention. it dominated before WWII; since then it has "colluded in its own dispossession" (p. 208). Why? I told you why, asshole, pay attention. Because making tough choices alienates people. Alienated people don't vote for you. Not voting for you equals losing office equals loss of access to delicious interns with perky nipples and pliant bottoms and the White House underground bowling alley and sweat-free gym and suchmore and suchlike and suchon. Let judges who can't be diselected make the hard decisions. Who cares if they have an anti-white agenda? You can shake your fist at them on your campaign stops. Then you'll have your intern and eat her too. Are you starting to grok the psychological situation that obtains these days, water brothers?
- neocons (jews) are "presidential supremacists and compulsive interventionists, impatient with any restrictions or restraints, constitutional or otherwise, on the commander in chief's authority to take us into war"
- GATT treaty puts USA under World Trade Organization (WTO), and grants it power to "authorize fines" on the US, and to "demand the appeal of American laws. This it has repeatedly done."
- power to coin money was transferred in 1913 to jew-owned Federal Reserve private bank. This is Congress yieldings its constitutional authority and responsibility to coin money itself. Rich private jews are allowed to legally counterfeit money, which comes out of the purchasing power of the earning white man's honestly acquired money.
- "On the issues of religion, race, morality, and culture that define us as a people, Congress has, for half a century, been surrendering its law-making power to judges and justices. The Supreme Court first seized these powers in a bloodless coup. It marched in and occupied the terrain because Congress did not defend it and would not fight for it." (p. 211) And of course the jew-controlled networks and newspapers backed the anti-white coup.
- members of Congress prefer the perception of power to the reality - let the unelected bureaucrat or judge take the heat for the tough decision. Leftists generally aren't pussies like conservatives. They like power and aren't afraid to use it to enforce their will. Even if a majority is against them. They know the majority are cowards, and won't do anything about it.
- the right is the numerical majority, but the judeo-left is the courage majority
- 1954: Brown vs Board of Education - Supreme Court "usurped power over state schools never granted to courts either in federal law or the Constitution." "That the 14th Amendment did not outlaw segregation was obvious." Segregation is just an anti-white, illiberal term for one of the social choices resulting from free association - whites using their freedom to exclude dangerous, violent, feral, disgusting blacks from their private worlds. Segregation was legal, but the Supreme Court simply abandoned -- went outside -- the law to declare it illegal, because it wanted to force whites to live the way it told them, rather than the way they wanted and had the democratic and Constitutional right to. It would have been perfectly legitimate for anyone to lynch the Supreme Court members for going outside the law to impose their dictatorship on an unwilling public.
- the lack of effective resistance to the SC's coup emboldened it to enact a social revolution in the decades after Brown
- illegal usurpations (hence subject to the natural right of lynch law), to name a few, per area rather than specific cases: redefining pornography as free speech; creating new rights for criminals; imposing limits on state and local prosecutors; outlawing the death penalty (later reversed); declaring abortion a constitutional right; ordering both houses of all state legislatures reapportioned on basis of population alone (attempt to give browns/leftists more power); ordered VMI and Citadel to discard traditions it didn't like; abolished term limits on Congress; forbade Arizona to make English the official language for state business; ordered California to restore welfare benefits to illegal aliens even though 60% had voted to end them; approved racial discrimination against whtie students to advance "compelling state interest" of "diversity" in college; declared homosexual sodomy a constitutional right; declared the First Amendment protects the right of adults to burn the American flag, but prohibits children from reciting the pledge of allegiance to that flag
- the main case we discussed at great length above was:
- 1803: Marbury vs Madison. This is the case in which the Supreme Court illegally usurped power by claiming the ultimate right of Constitutional review. The chief justice John Marshall "asserted a right of review of all laws enacted by Congress to ensure they conformed to the Constitution." (p. 217) The truth remains there is nothing in the constitution that gives the SC the claimed power, it simply took it. It can be taken back. The moral and legal basis for it is unimpeachable.
- 1854: Dred Scott. This was the first time the SC used the claimed power of judicial review of Congressional acts per their compliance with constitution. The judge found the slave, Scott, had no standing to sue in federal court. This destroyed the Missouri Compromise worked out between and over free/slave states. This was essentially a 20th-century decision rendered in a 19th-century context, i.e., when men were less willing to be dictated to. You had a split country, divided over extending slavery to the new states being made out of portion of the Louisiana Purchase. The court enforcing a one-size-fits-all decree did not suit one of the two parties in the dispute. "[W]ith Taney declaring the entire Union safe for slavery, the Missouri Compromise was dead." Lincoln simply refused to obey it. Says Buchanan: "...Lincoln challenged John Marshall's doctrine of judicial supremacy as a mortal threat to democracy itself:
- the standing temptation of the sharp minds that go into law must be to use their power to dictate their ideology. Particularly as their fear of being recalled by vote or rope recedes into mere theory. As judges lost their natural fear of man, their increasingly leftist views came to the fore. They began to impose their jew-trained anti-white ideology on the natives, with full media backing. This began with Earl Warren, says Buchanan. He was the leaders of the robed rogues who concocted 1954's Brown vs Board decision, and flipped America the bird by locating its basis in cant from an anti-white sociologist's doll studies, of all things. The decision was a way of saying to the majority public, we can do whatever the fuck we want, for whatever reason, and you're just going to shut up and like it. And if you don't, and you protest, we'll sic the national guard on you. And that's what happened.
We train judges how to act. They're people like the rest of us. If we let them get away with stuff, they get emboldened. If they receive praise and awards for usurpations, they're going to stay up past midnight thinking up new aggressions. Isn't this self-evident? "We teach people how to treat us," says Oprah or someone, and that fits here perfectly. Leftist judges who cross the line need to be roped in, by some means, or they will continue transgressing against white rights and white society. They've gone so long without experiencing any justice that most of them probably don't even conceive it as a possibility.
- the legal precedent the Supreme Court overthrew, quite illegally, in BvB, had stood for 58 years. Now that is genuine revolutionary activity. That is genuine usurpation of the legislative prerogative, indeed overt and stated responsibility. If the people don't want segregation, segregated public schools, they can instruct their legislators to do that. It's not illegal under the Constitution. The Supreme Court simply decided to take the law into its own hands, and issue an edict, like a king would. And then send men with guns to shoot anyone who democratically resisted. Thus America devolved into a tyranny. There was resistance, but it was overcome by physical coercion combined with media moralizing. An uncountable number of miseries have resulted from this anti-democratic, illegal Court ruling-usurpation. But you'll never read a single article about them because the people owning and writing the papers are on the side of the anti-white court.
In the 19th century, men were not afraid to tell the courts, even the Supreme Court, to go fuck itself. The most famous example of this came from Andrew Jackson, who famously said: "John Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it." Eisenhower could have said the same thing to his hand-picked Warren after the Brown decision. He chose to do nothing, even though he disagreed. This was probably the point at which the Supreme Court began being treated as gods on earth. Again, the part Buchanan leaves out here is that by this time, mid-50s, you've got anti-white jews controlling the mass media - all three (and only three) television networks, and the two main papers, the New York Times and Washington Post. So long as the court makes anti-white decisions, the jew-controlled mass media will support it and defend those decisions, no matter how illegal, ridiculous and anti-white they are. Hell, Jackson took violent umbrage at something comparatively minor, given that Brown involved turning the school careers of white children into playthings for jewish social engineers. If anything, whites should have been angrier than Jackson was. And this first violation of their racial rights would be followed by more and worse discriminations and usurpations.
- "Seeing the Warren court seize such powers, lower courts began to push the envelope," says Buchanan on page 221.
- 1967: Judge Skelly Wright outlaws (desegregated) D.C.'s 'track system' for students, leading white students to leave D.C. almost entirely by 1970;
- 1968: Green vs New Kent County (Virginia): Warren court goes beyond "desegregation" to outlaw a "freedom of choice" plan that lets students decide which of two high schools to attend. "Where Brown had prohibited the assignment of students by race, Green commanded it." White students become pawns in the hands of anti-white social engineers. White students have their status reduced by the Supreme Court to the level of teaching aids for black children. The media back this. You can find thousands of articles about the educational needs of black kids, but nary a one about the educational needs of white kids. Again, this is judicial usurpation at the most egregious and offensive level, and whites would be perfectly justified in exercising their natural rights to self and familial defense in correcting matters.
- 1971: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (North Carolina): ordered the busing of white students out of their own neighborhoods to comply with some social-engineer's racial scheme. Again: white children are nothing but tools of social engineers, who may distribute and arrange them as they see fit to provide learning aids for negros. Whites are not independent agents and citizens, they are human resources to be used by anti-white illiberals. Green, like Skelly ruling, led to whites moving out of the zone in question.
- Buchanan makes the point that people hate being dictated to by judges, whereas they will tolerate decisions made by Congress. They can get at Congressmen by voting them out (altho elsewhere he points out this never happens) but judges aren't easily gotten to by strictly legal methods.
- 1978: California Regents v. Bakke: Supreme Court upholds UC-Davis' policy of discriminating racially against white medical school applicants. Justice Blackmun's quote: "In order to get beyond racism we must first take account of race. In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently." Any form of anti-white hostility or legal discrimination will be justified in similar manner, as subsequent decades were to show. Whites, of course, are under no legal or other obligation to tolerate such treatment.
- 1979: United Steelworker v. Weber: Weber was a white discriminated against by a quota in a training program. He sued. He won on trial and appeal, then the Supreme Court decided against him. The 1964 Civil Rights law outlawed racial discrimination...except against whites. You see? The same thing is illegal when whites do it and mandatory when anti-whites do it. So says the court. Precisely what illiberal Humphrey said he would "eat his hat" over if it ever came to play, very similar to Kennedy's saying, around the same time, there would never be more than a few thousand coloreds involved if we race-reversed our immigration policy. When leftists and anti-whites, jews and ideologues, discriminate racially against whites, it's called equality. If whites discriminate in favor of whites, it's called racism, hate, discrimination, and it's illegal, save on private grounds in certain circumstances. Whites must endure this so long as they put up with it. Our country as currently instantiated exists to privilege jews and blacks and other non-whites over whites.
- 2003: The Supreme Court approves anti-white discrimination at Michigan Law School, for at least 25 more years. If the country exists then, demographics are likely to have shifted against the white majority, and it is unlikely this racial discrimination against whites will cease, it is likelier it will be strengthened.
Says Buchanan very aptly:
P.S. This is a 20-minute interview with Tom Woods I came across the other day, it touches on the usurped right of judicial review, as discussed above. Well worth listening to.
Last edited by Alex Linder; April 9th, 2014 at 12:44 PM.
|April 16th, 2014||#9|
What does that say about me?
By Alex Linder [index]
April 16, 2014
Apologies for the tardy appearance of this column. It was completed by deadline, but posting was unavoidably delayed by an unexpected internet outage that took two full days to clear up. Will resume next Monday with the next installment, but here's this week's...
1) What does that say about me?
Have remarked on this before. Just as we have physical, external markers of selfishness, as we might call them, we have verbal. They involve attempts to maneuver the spotlight onto oneself. So much of modern parlance is in line with the old joke: "But enough about me...what do you think about me?" What does this say about you? That you're self-involved, self-absorbed, probably selfish, think you're more interesting than you are, up your own ass? Yes? No? Yes, I say. Reminds me of what I heard a grown and highly upstanding (Mencken - German couple in court) member of the bourgeois say: "I have a weird sense of humor." He deduced this from his love of Far Side cartoons. Which sold, in the various books and tschotschkes they were printed on, in the millions.
This is part of our jewed culture, a subtler aspect of it. As the jews come in and push irony and sex-dreck and edginess on the Lawrence Welk fans, they begin to gravitate toward it and ape it in their own dim way. You can be edgy merely by adopting some position that is slightly to the left of whatever perversion is au courant. "Next weird thing" is like a conveyor belt. When they push family, you push easy divorce, when they push easy divorce, you push interracial, when they push interracial, you push homo, when they push homo you push trans, when they push trans, you push pedo. On and on it goes, the routine, mechanical process by which, degree by degree, the abnormal is normalized, regularlized, made successful by being made ubiquitous, and by being made ubiquitous being made to seen irresistible, normal, even or intentionally boring. What could be more normal than gayness in 2014?
"I absolutely love this song. Not sure what that says about me." This idea that one has such interesting taste as proved by ones interests, which are invariably dark, eclectic or edgy in the mind of the so-speaker is just another manifestation of our society's taught desire to achieve distinction without effort. Instead of excelling, one need merely disfigure oneself via tattoo, or like something for the right reason. It is cheap. It is meretricious adornment. You know what, silly person? Others aren't that different from you. Smart or dumb, we like the same things for the same reasons. Tied up with this is the whole idea of watching this or that, or doing this or that, ironically. Really? You think that most people aren't doing that when they like something cheesy or bad? You think they don't view the thing pretty much the way you do? In what other ways are people totally different? Not many.
This is tied up, in its more pernicious forms, with WASP-associated high-mindedness. "I have to think well of myself. I must be this type of person. I must think of myself that way. If I do something out of line with my self-conception, I must either find an excuse for it or pretend it's not happening." You can see this mindset at work across the board. In politics, the WASP officially loves niggers but privately lives nowhere near them. In culture, he may slum, but he's only watching what the plebs and proles watch ironically. He's not watching it in the same way they are. Oh. Ok. You betcha. Proles drink Pabst because it's cheap. Hipsters drink Pabst...for an obscure pseudo-intellectual reason. Merely goofy, that, but in politics we see where the damage comes in. Mere reality isn't enough for some; they must Hamburger Help it with christ-insanity, on the right, or post-christ-insanity, on the left. Racialists should be comfortable in the world as is. Focusing on perceiving what's actually there, and responding to it as makes sense.
What does it say about me? Always the same thing: you're self-absorbed, and not nearly as interesting as you think. A one-word term for that is...common. Which used to be an effective insult; not so sure that holds today.
This is a jew word I had never heard until I worked in business. I heard it from an Aryan marketing girl. It's a very yiddish word, as are many words dealing with buying and selling. Shmooze is sort of business-convivial mode on the trade floor. Light hellos and talking to people as you circulate through trade booths. Doesn't have to be a convention or trade floor, but that's where it's most common. Shmooze is to talk to people, be seen, nothing too deep, just the business equivalent of circulating at a party. While circulating trade booths at a convention, you might pick up tschotschkes (pronounced Chotch-keys), which are little free things that promote businesses, little knickknacks. A free pen or calendar or cheap electronic item or some mildly neat little thing the business gives away to promote itself. You will see tschotschke spelled all kinds of ways, but the one I use is the correct one. Eh. I wouldn't bet on that. It's the one I prefer. Like shmooze, I had never heard tschotschke until working in business and going to conventions. There are entire businesses built on supplying tschotschkes to other businesses. They will print your company name on pencils or pens or all kinds of items you can give away. You will see this culture all over the place if you look. Handbags, pens, calendars, tshirts. But a tschotschke is more like something that could fit in a big fishbowl on a marketing counter, or in a smaller box. Just a semi-neat little thing you can give away to a passer-by.
3) the use of legal or legalistic terms in non-legal contexts
The left has a peekaboo relationship with the law. If the left likes a law, it loves to smack the right with it. If it hates a law, it simply pretends the law doesn't exist. If it wants a law, it simply pretends the law does exist. Leftist verbal patterns are 100% predictable in this regard. We've gone over a number of manifestations. Even the dimmest conservative has noticed how the left does everything it can to upgrade the status of criminal illegal alien invaders by trying to make the illegal part go away. Even down to saying such stupid things as "people can't be illegal." But there are plenty of other examples of this mindset and the usages it routinely produces. Example: "The far-right Golden Dawn party is accused of organizing a racist blood drive." As Pierce used to say, the left likes to write as though it were illegal to hold 'racist' views, when it's not. This sentence is a perfect example of what he meant. "Accused" connotes illegal behavior. It's not illegal to donate blood for Greeks only. Now, the left has tried to make it so, and queering reporting on this Golden Dawn effort is part of that. Same thing with food. The media try to make the party giving away free food to Greeks, who suffer huge unemployment, the bad guys. The media use language to term men giving away free food to hungry people into criminals! That's why the Nazis called it the Judenpresse. The jew-media.
The media also misrepresent the reaction to helpful right-wing initiatives like giving out food or donating blood. Here's a typical example: "Medics Outraged at Far-Right Party Proclaiming Blood Donations for Greeks Only." They always use that term: outrage. They never quote anyone who actually sounds outraged. By their ideology, leftism is the view of the people, and anything racialists do will produce outrage. No need to actually talk to people and quote them for their actual feelings, it's all done by rote, off a template. In leftist world, the very idea of reporting doesn't even make sense, because it implies that something could happen off script. Leftist ideology prescribes how all parties will and must react in all situation, so reporting is hardly necessary, indeed it can only present a threat. Something interesting or factual might break out of the mold.
The simple truth is that ordinary people aren't leftist. Reality does not conform to the leftist ideology, nor promote the leftist agenda. That, friends, is precisely why leftists go into media. It's the only way to slap a cover on reality. If they reported stuff honestly, leftism wouldn't get anywhere, whether it's the depredations loosed niggers carry out on white communities, or the scientific facts beneath the hype about global warming. People wonder, why are the media so leftist? Well, because leftism is a small-minority position. It can't get anywhere by persuading people, only by dictating to them and punishing any who disagree. it's only workable from the top-down. The people are always conservative. They pay attention to reality. They have no prejudice against observing blacks are dumb and violent. Nor are they easily persuaded the world is coming to an end because some thermometer stuck in the middle of a campfire went up half a degree. Leftists control the media because they have to. Without media control, they have no shot. With media control, they have a shot. They also require control over teachers and textbooks. And politicians. When they have all these working together, their coordination can produce a psychological and propagandistic juggernaut. That's what happened. All they need them are some "hate" laws to forbid the other side speaking plainly, and the monopoly is on. That's where we are today. In large stretches of the world, the most important social facts, which are political facts too, cannot be mentioned without incurring danger of going to prison. Think about that. How crazy it is. How dangerous to the very existence of our kind. The very media around us are used to warp our minds and extinguish our genes.
4) culure vulture
This term pisses me off. It pissed me off the first time I saw it. It's cheap and easy, and stupid. It doesn't make any sense. No matter how far you twist mentally to try to find a meaning for it, it is purely a term that exists because the two words rhyme, and that ain't good enough. Never use this term. Spit on those who do.
5) yeah vs yes
Back when I was a teenager, I played Pony ball. That's for 15-16-year-olds, as I recall. I had a coach, an Italian guy, who just hated this word. "Not yeaaaah. Yes! Yes! . . . If there's one thing I can do, it's make you guys stop saying yeah..." I respected his great mission, since he was coach, but the fact is, he's wrong. Yes has its place, no doubt. There are times it is the correct word. But yeah has its place too. Yeah is susceptible of a far greater range of inflections, and that alone makes it a garden-weasel verbal tool, somewhat similar to fuck, which can be used for nearly anything in any situation. By drawing out or inflecting yeah, you can convey precisely what you wish to convey in one term. Now iown't care who yar, that's effective communication. Think how amazing it is, just by drawing out or altering your pronunciation you can unmistakeably communicate precisely what you intend. It shows you how much communication really is non-verbal. Word-speaking is just another way of doing eye-rolls, or punching people, or stroking them or any other physical interaction. That's one way to look at it. Words superficially seem more precise than other communication, but that's not necessarily so. Your cat might bite you, but not too hard. Communicating, don't pet me like that, but I'm not trying to hurt you. That's an animal communicating through a half-bite! Or you might touch a girl on her shoulder in a certain way, from behind, and she can tell if you intend to console her for something, or convey horniness. Words are not so great at conveying curved things, they're more for square or precise things. But words combined with the physical presentation through speech can put the flesh on the angular bone. The liquid and the solid have their place, as do the curve and the angle. Yes and yeah both have their place; the coach is right that for short, direct, factual, uncloudy questions, yes is preferable: clipped, organized, high and tight. But much of life involves clouds, and there yeah in one of its innumerable forms, functions in a way yes simply can't, with its essy closure, or cutting off, even if it's a comparatively mild door-shutting, next to, say, a k. Hear it: yek closes very clearly and abruptly. Yes, less so, but still there. Yeah doesn't close at all, it trails. It comes to context which term and which way of using that term is called for. Both have their place.
6) pet language: boys and girls and parents
I've mentioned in this column before the irritating tendency to call pets boys or girls. We see this in many if not nearly all adoption ads. But pets are male or female, not boys or girls. Even worse than this, see the story at this link. "Parents" return a farting cat. Leaving aside that interesting part, calling a pet owner a parent is factually wrong and aesthetically disgusting. It's disrespectful to animal and human alike. The slippery slope argument seems to fit here. Start treating blacks as humans, instead of a different hominid species, pretty soon it makes sense to call dogs and cats people too. People of a different species, as it were. With rights. Maybe they should vote, eh? They have interests, right? They're as smart as a two-year-old human, or a 25-year-old nigger, so why not? A dog is a dog. There is surely room for a moderate view between the Muslim idea of a dog as walking pollution and the modern western idea of a dog as person on four feet. And that middle way is the path of wisdom, and the one we want to take. It's a dog, or a cat, and not more and not less.
Came across this, had never noticed this word before, but it's useful: "Along with her popular YouTube channel, the mononymous Australian vegan also has a book (Go Fruit Yourself) and a lifestyle website through which she promotes her low-fat, high-carb diet in a vast array of crop tops." Will use.
8) correct use of enormity
Readers of this column know I will never give up certain fights, and two of those are the battle for the correct use of reticence and reluctance; and also the battle for the proper use of 'enormity.' In the latter fight, the ships of LewRockwell.com sailed to our aid, the great (fat and smart, both sense) man himself at the wheel. Quoth the mighty Lewpus: "What this says about the libertarian’s view of moral enormities ranging from slavery to war should be obvious, but the libertarian commitment to freedom extends well beyond the clear and obvious scourges of mankind." Enormity, again, does not mean size, or enormousness, no matter what shoddy and craven dictionary excreters may pander off on a self-regarding public, it means atrocities, horrible crimes. Rockwell is the first non-me personage I've seen use the term correctly in a long, long time. 'Grats of con to the Lewpus!
This is a great old word, very specific, which deserves resuscitation. Groak means: to silently watch someone while they are eating, hoping to be invited to join them. Sons and daugherters like to groak. Pardon me, I mean, dogs and cats. Think of dog with mournful eyes staring up at table. It's groaking the fuck out you, isn't it? I would think groaking was more common in the old days, when food was less common. When food became plentiful, groaking fell by the wayside, since most people had enough to eat. Groaking used to be serious social problem in the Middle Ages, I feel, but it yielded to obesity somewhere in the late 1970s. Shakespeare is believed to have written "Neither a groaker nor a wolfer be," because he was down wih the Greek path of moderation, which calls for eating normal amounts of (your own) food in a humanlike method (chewing instead of gulping). A mom could say, "My kids' friends were groaking around because they know my spaghetti is better than that that cheese 'n' mac they get at home." Or, if you have some burgers, and your friend/brother does not, you could say, "I feel you groaking me, buddy, but it's not gonna happen." Or..."The family said their prayer, then dived into their comestibles, while the pets groaked placidly beneath, ears pricked for the slightest scrapfall."
That will do it for this week. Back again next Monday with another. As always, if you have any grist for the mill, feel free to deposit it in this thread and I will use it if I possibly can.
|April 21st, 2014||#10|
Grex and Grok
By Alex Linder [index]
April 21, 2014
This is a word I've encountered only one place: The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), not the original in 1956, The movies are all about pods replacing people. The pods are aliens from outer space, and they are little green vegetables rather than little green men. The pods, which grow full-scale replica humans to replace the original humans, begin as small pink-flowering plants, and the character calls them "grex." Looking it up, it means "a group of plants that has arisen from the same hybrid parent group." Hmm...that helps a little, but this is better:
This is a term that used to be seen sometimes a few decades ago; it comes from sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (1961). It means to grasp, to understand, to assimilate a concept. To get it. A water brother is grokking up what you're putting down...man.
3) give back
We discussed this last column, and it was mentioned by Craig Cobb in a recent letter:
ALEX -- ONE OTHER FACT: AM RADIO & TV REPORTS HERE USED THE PHRASE "GIVE BACK" LIKE THIS -- "COBB HAS AGREED TO GIVE BACK HIS PROPERTIES IN LEITH TO THE CITY." I WROTE JIMMY MARR OR SOMEBODY ABOUT THAT RIGHT AWAY. LIKE I HAD HIJACKED AN ARMORED CAR & I WAS TO "GIVE BACK" THE LOOT. I DID'T EVEN BUY ANY OF THE PROPERTIES FROM THE CITY. SO WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THE "GIVE BACK." THEN JIMMY SENT ME YOUR REVIEW OF THE PHRASE. SO THESE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES -- AT LEAST, THEIR LOCAL MEDIA -- EFFORTLESSLY PLUGGED-IN THE "GIVE BACK" TO A LOCAL RIGHTIST'S QUANDRY.
TO BOOT, IT WAS ANNOUNCED IN COURT BY STATE'S ATTORNEY TODD A SCHWARZ (THE SAME GUY WHO REFUSED TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST A SINGLE ONE OF THE DEATH THREATENERS, THIEVES, VANDALS, BIRD-FLIPPING DRIVEBY FUCK YOUERS, NIGHTSKY LEITH SHOOTERS, BODILY-PUSHERS, ETC.).
4) correct use of reticence
"In fact, Venturi was the classic architect-intellectual for the new age: young, slender, soft-spoken, cool, ironic, urbane, highly educated, charming with just the right amount of reticence, sophisticated in the lore and the strategies of modern architecture, able to mix plain words with scholarly ones, historical references of the more esoteric sort -- to Luytjens, Soane, Vanbrugh, Borromini -- with references of the more banal sort -- to billboards, electric signs, shopping-centers, front-yard mailboxes." --Tom Wolfe, From Bauhaus to Our House (1972), p. 106 [pdf]
So that makes Lew Rockwell (enormity) and Tom Wolfe (reticence) two examples of men who know what they're doing. Perhaps we've reached a sad state when correct use deserves recognition, but even so, I think it's worth pointing out. The reason for reading better writing is the reason for eating better food - better for your mind, as better food is better for your body. Empty carb fiction is ok, but the better stuff will teach you more than just its subject; you will learn new thing
When the anti-white media go after right-wing groups they hate, this is one of their favorite terms to throw around. Right-wingers, whites, never blame people for harm they've actual done, they 'scapegoat' innocent illegal aliens, black youfs or some other verbally protected and legally privileged class.
Scapegoat derives from the common English translation of the Hebrew term azazel.
Jews are the kind of people who create a god dumb enough to choose jews and accept this special-needs people's passing off responsibility for its sins onto a...barnyard animal. Mmmkay...
6) intensive purposes
Tardspeak most obnoxious. The retard doesn't read, it watches tv. The term intents and purposes is foreign to it. It is familiar with 'intense' through televised repetition, so it mishears intents and purposes to be intensive purposes. Which doesn't even really make sense, but tards aren't tards because they think about what they're doing or saying. Tards are not just those who don't know, they're those who don't think knowing matters. Meta-tards, some would call them. Society would be well served if a Spayer General were secretly employed to drive about the
country zapping the balls and frying the ovaries of dolts using this disgusting bit of iambic dumbtameter.
The more illiterate the country becomes, thanks to widespread public schooling, the more of ip we'll see:
Again - ur, not air.
8) poisonous vs venomous
Here I go the opposite way: I don't think this distinction matters. I don't observe it. I don't think it's a distinction at all. One is supposed to say venomous rather than poisonous when it comes to snakes, yet when you look up venomous what do you find?: poisonous. Venom is too easy to misspell; for that reason I prefer poisonous. It's also better to use venomous figuratively, for someone who is spiteful or hateful, rather than literally poisonous, as with a scorpion. My modest rebellion needn't be everyone's, but I think I can defend it. I used my artistic license in "Snake a Snake for Jesus" to put across the following line as a middle finger to our Grammasters:
A poison snake's the only kind
To demonstrate your faith is pure clean through...so...
(You can hear that song and two hours of other stuff here.)
9) Alljuda and Asphalt and Verjudung
Two NS terms pertaining to yids and yidkultur. Alljuda was a term common by 1920s "among anti-Semites as a shorthand term for the international Jewish conspiracy." Today, we'd say, "The Alljuda instructed Samaras to shut down Golden Dawn, and he leaped to comply, throwing the democratically elected leaders of the party in jail pending the May 2014 European elections." Asphalt was a negative adjective describing the effect of urbanization on people and institutions. The Nazis contrasted the pure urban farm life of real Germans with the polluted, morally and physically, big-city life of the yiddy dreckmeisters. Verjudung is the intrusion of Jewish influences and attitudes on German institutions, dating to at least 1880s. This concept is better put across as jewing, which I have used at VNN from day one. Our institutions have been jewed, whether our immigration control or our money supply or our mass communications. Jews means taken over by jews, instilled with jewish mindset, made to think and act like jews or like jews want or in accordance with an agenda set by jews.
10) misuse of PC
Stephen A. Smith refers to Donovan McNabb's "toeing the company line" as PC. Incorrect. PC has nothing to do with public relations, just as it has nothing to do with manners, good or otherwise. Political incorrectness means deviation from an ideological line. That line is set by jews, and it is always anti-white. Those who don't grasp the politics involved often misperceive the intent behind the term. They pick up only on its stridency. Thus any departure from any code will be seen as a politically incorrect looseness. The irony is that looseness itself is the ultimate politically correct double-plus good thing, as personal and political laxness are indicated for goyim by Dr. Jew in order to cure their body politic of 'anti-semitism,' which is the nonexistent disease the quack has diagnosed in them. 'Anti-semitism' is merely the natural reaction to jews experienced by whites, and not just by whites, by other races too. Jews think and act in ways hostile to the other races they live among. They know this. They design terms to prejudice the natural reaction as some kind of mental malady. This is 'anti-semitism.' They come up with an entire verbal code which must be followed in order to create the environment in which their kind can flourish. Departures from their verbal code, or from any behavior, verbal or otherwise, they dictate for whites, is true and genuine political incorrectness, and must be punished. Whatever is healthy and good and normal for whites; whatever is merely accurate in political terminology - these must be made illegal or immoral or in any case and by any means beyond bound, and any transgressions must be hard punished. See Paula Deen or a thousand others.
This is a Soviet term, from paleo-communism. It means reform through labor. It means 'reforging.' It was a newspaper.
Historically, perekovka connects with both the gulag generally and the White Sea-Baltic Canal project specifically.
12) si xiang gai zao
This is a term from Chinese communism meaning thought reform. Gettin' your head right, you dig? So perekovka means labor reform, and si xiang gai zao means thought reform. This guy oddly says it's not brainwashing, but, oh yeah, it is coercive. Thought 'redevelopment' - by any term, it means forcing you to think the way they want rather than the way you want. Guy says:
We'll leave it there for this week. It's Turkey Week in NEMO; one already in the bag, pics and perhaps video coming up. As always, if you have any grist for this language mill, do post. I'm down to my last two scoops of saved up words. New column next week by noon CST as always... Thanks for reading, thanks for circulating on twitter/elsewhere. AlexLinder5 on twitter. //
|April 23rd, 2014||#11|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New England
I enjoyed this thread, Alex. I hope you continue it. Although I think you've lost the battle on the meaning of "enormity", calling out "mistake" for crime and "consider" for discriminate are real bulls' eyes. I will definitely be on the lookout for them.
|April 26th, 2014||#12|
Yes, I know the battle against enormity's misuse cannot be won, as the misuse was pretty much from day one, but we can at least highlight the rare correct use of the term.
|April 27th, 2014||#13|
By Alex Linder [index]
April 27, 2014
Blackfish (2013) - 7/10. Documentary about keeping killer whales in captivity for public entertainment as at SeaWorld or former SeaLand in Canada. Turns out they sometimes kill people, you know, these whales, and management covers it up. Interesting things: just how WASPy SeaWorld and this foamy animal-training subculture is generally. The trainers are Brady Bunch types, as are the families who come to see the show. Management is dark and shadowy, don't hear much from them. They simply cover up what actually happens to preserve appearances, in every case. For it is the way of the WASP, whether high-end Episcopalian-illiberal elite, or low-end Baptist preaching dirt-eater. To the WASP, appearances are all that matters. Everything is trainer error, nothing is due to animal aggression. Nothing is fundamentally wrong with cooping up giant animals in small spaces. It's ok to lie about 'facts' (like the life length of the orca in captivity versus wild) as long as it makes the paying customers feel good. It may be that jews own SeaWorld, as they own most entertainment, from movie production companies to cruise lines, but the working environment, the subculture investigated in this film, is as WASPy as it gets.
Fun facts: 100% of male orcas get fin impotence, as it were: 'dorsal collapse' they call it. Their top fin simply flops over rather than stands erect. In the wild this only happens 1% of the time. It is impossible not to read a spiritual and symbolic significance into this. The bottom line seems to be that even if you genuinely care about the animals, and follow proper training procedures...the animals will never be wholly happy cooped up, and attacks on trainers will never be completely avoidable. In short, it's a grey area. It's cool to train and swim with giant sea creatures, and audiences enjoy and will pay to see such things, but it comes at a price to both the animals and the people who work with them. That's life in the big city, I guess. I don't feel compelled to respond to what's presented in any particular way (beyond appreciating learning that orcas apparently have evolved a brain structure related to emotion not found in humans), though the point of the movie tends toward the idea that this stuff is basically unhealthy, immoral and probably ought to be outlawed. I don't agree with that, but there are certainly valid points to be made against shops like SeaWorld. It's funny though, this great concern for whales all these ex-trainers have, now that they're no longer employed and paid by SeaWorld. Why, they act like killer whales when the trainers run short of fish rewards for proper behaviors.
And then there's this, which any WN will appreciate. It's one of the lies peddled by management, that the orcas you see in the family fun park are a real family - just like yours! Say two-three people:
Blue Jasmine (2013) - It's nice to be shocked every now and then. I really liked this movie. Give it 7/10. Have seen most Allen films, disliked most of them, not least because they're all overrated. All of them. Allen's a double-ugly jew - not just physically but mentally. This movie works better than the others because he's not in it. It's a character study of a WASP woman mentally fractured by her inability to parse her idea of herself as a high-minded high-ender with her actual low-rent circumstances. The reviews make no mention of the ethnic aspect here, but to me this movie works best as a study of elite WASP liberal obnoxiousness. Ordinary people aren't good enough for this woman, which I have no problem with, because to an extent it does betoken standards, but she has no call to ruin their lives, and this she does, without caring or even really noticing. Apply this woman's mindset to politics and you get what is called liberalism. Mere reality is far too crude and uncompelling for this case of head; it seeks refuge in ideological fantasies, not caring that this inflicts misery on everyone around it. It's all and always about how the WASP feels about himself; his picture of himself as preferring and exhibiting the highest and best in everything, yet while this taste can be real, it can also be merely fashion, and extremely destructive, and the WASP too often can't tell the difference or simply doesn't care. Jew Allen shows this WASP woman genuinely not caring that her wealthy lifestyle is a product of her husband's financial fraud - and in one crucial scene she does acknowledge that she basically knew it. She certainly knew it when out of anger she called the FBI on him, which had the unintended consequence of reducing her to the circumstances she hates so much she can't cope with them save through eyebrains filtered through xanax and vodka. All that matters to this WASP woman is successful social presentation and preserving one's place in the right circle. Particularly good is the scene in which Jasmine and her sister, who lives a working-class life, have drinks with the sister's fiance, an Italian greaseball mechanic, and his similarly low-rent friend. Blanchett has been widely praised, and rightly so. Just watching her eyes slide around like an uncomfortable snake as she tries to evade direct, reasonable questions from the men, desperately trying to pretend this is not HER actually doing THIS with THESE people...it's the whole thing in microcosm. The high-end WASPs are some of the most unappealing and dangerous people the planet has ever produced. A woman or man who thinks she has a beautiful mind is a danger to all around her. I'm not theorizing either, I've seen this directly in real life. There can't be enough movies made about the essential lousiness of the high-end WASP illiberal, even if it's a ratty, drecky shecky making them.
The Skeptic (2009) - 5/10, average horror film; not unpleasant, ok ending. I enjoy any movie with white men acting straight. The serious brother from Wings is a good example. Just a serious man talking and speaking and acting rationally. I like that.
Computer Chess (2012) - For a couple years in high school, chess was a big part of my life. I gave it up because I realized I could never be great at it, and I didn't particularly enjoy playing it seriously - in tournaments. Or at all. I found very much to be true what pro football coaches say: the pleasure of the wins is far outweighed by the misery of the losses. Tournament chess is the most physically wracking thing I've done. You wouldn't think that, would you? But try playing 3-4 high-pressure matches in one Saturday, with not much time in between, eating out of vending machines. It curdles your stomach and frays your nerves in the most irritating way. You're always one move from disaster. If you're playing someone lower ranked than you are, you should win. If you're playing someone higher ranked, you're usually beaten pretty soundly. It just isn't fun at all, except to a certain type. But for about two years, I was into it pretty heavily.
It's not a thing you can really develop a skill at either, is my impression from experience. The people who are great at it are born that way, as in most things. You can study openings and books all you like, but you're not going to get that much better. Unless you really enjoy it, there's nothing particular to be gained from playing it. As with languages, with chess you get all these claims about how it helps you in other areas of life, but this really isn't true. Success in chess is based on pattern recognition, and this is one of those things you either instinctively have or don't.
Computer Chess is a mockumentary about a computer chess tournament. Give it a 6/10. From the White point of view, shows the diversity of a handful of white men is more than the rest of the world combined, indeed it might be the only true or deep diversity going, the rest being skin deep. This genuine and interesting intra-white diversity is best captured in scene where the Cal-Tech nerd is in a hotel room with a New-Age couple there for a weekend of holistic healing complete with rebirthing. These familiar types are contrasted skillfully enough; there is more distance between these white ways of taking the world than is needed to encompass the comparatively shallow and limited inferior races. The Cal Tech kid is super nerdy, introverted, shy, intelligent, you know the type or stereotype; today we talk about Asperger's or call them 'spergy.' The couple is touchy feely irrational but warm-happy, as they try to draw the sharp, narrow kid into their sexual spumescence. He can stand it only so long before bolting, as we knew he must.
(Polish) Seksmisja (Sex Mission) (1984) - good, 7/10. Cheesy '80s movie but in Polish, of all things. A comedy. Similar set-up to Idiocracy. Two test subjects are put to sleep for science; they wake up much later than supposed to, in 2044, when women rule the world. Hijinkskis ensue! As always, fun to read misshapen subtitles: overcepting private conversations - overcept works for me in our age of drones. "We have slept through the best years of our lives! I was supposed to get an apartment in '98!" Now that's some echt Polish-communist humor right there, boy. Venerical, suiciders. "Why are they lying so much? for some higher ideals."Ah! That's that Pravda/Istina (noble-ideological 'truth' vs. gritty-street-factual truth; i.e., lie vs reality) difference I used to go on about in my earlier radio show. In any case, it's an enjoyable movie if you can find it.
|May 5th, 2014||#14|
What is the provenance of this sad little homunculus?
By Alex Linder [index]
May 5, 2014
Ok...after a nasty interruption due to faulty wiring that laid my typing input mechanism low, we're back with a new column this week. It's May 2014 now, and, after nearly ten of these columns, I'm running low on stored material. I may even use up my 'bag' this week, so if you have any questions or new words or usages to discuss, feel free to post them. While I was offline, I read a bunch of David Foster Wallace and some older Russell Kirk, so most of the words we'll cover this week come from these two writers. These will be more obscure words than usual, just to increase our vocabulary a little. But we'll start with a more common term, a very useful one, and go from there. That term is:
This is a useful term. It occurs most frequently, perhaps, in discussion of artworks, such as paintings. What is the 'provenance' of a particular piece? This means, what is its history, background, pedigree, as it were. This term was also big with the older conservatives in National Review and books by their set of writers back in the '70s. They were concerned with the 'provenance' of a particular idea. Tracing an idea from an originator or through history, as it were advocated by different personages and groups. You could say, the provenance of this particular nostrum dates back to at least the French Revolution. But to do that you have to know that nostrum doesn't just mean notion, it means bad notion, bad idea. Nostrum is basically snake oil, originally. It is used to describe bad ideas, bad notions, dumb policy ideas - ideas which are the equivalent of snake oil. Many people do not realize that nostrum means something dumb and ineffective, they just think it's another way of saying notion.
Here's a definition of nostrum.
Now here's a definition of provenance.
As a word beloved of old-school conservative intellectuals, provenance always smacks at least faintly of Leslie Nielsen, the mock gravitas, or pseudo-heaviness, even when it's used straight. It's a term perfectly cast for achieving comedic effects, like all heavy words, or words that seem or sound heavy. When you're presented with anything recent, shabby or weightless -- anything with nothing behind it -- you can well play this up by using 'provenance.'
- what is the provenance of this "two buck Chuck"? - cheap wine. Wine without a story behind it, such as a bum might acquire to fortify himself for facing a freezing fall night.
On my latest podcast, MP3 here, I play a snatch of "
Since last column, I also came across another example of pareidolia...
...which you may remember from an earlier column, here.
You will see the relation to the word eidolon, which is of Greek origin, and means apparition or phantom. Notice it is pronounced with the accent on the middle syllable: eye-DOLE-un. (Most of the links to these words offer audio clips so you can hear the word spoken correctly.)
Eidolon is not common. I would have to look it up myself. But I have seen it in older literature from time to time. Fancy word for ghost, I guess you could say. Somewhat pretentious if you're using it straight in 2014, as opposed to using it in 1860 when you're studying sweetness and light (effects) under Matt Arnold. Or if we were going for a mock-pretentious effect for comedic purposes, as we often will be.
It's all about what the word can do for you. How you can use it. Comedically. Or simply accurately - for what it denotes. Comedically will really fix it in your mind, similar to the way lyrics are easier to remember than prose. When you know something well enough to play with it without thinking about it, it's just one of your tools, then you really know it. If you have to think about it, you're not there yet. It's still a stranger to you, somewhat formal and respectful. See what's in the word, lick its ear, get to know it, brew it some coffee, have a chat with it. Make it a part of your life, see what it's all about, how it fits with what you're doing. See if the two of you are compatible. See if its a workin', fightin', hard-charging word, suitable for drafting, reading to be sent off to fight in Laffghanistan. Well, that's how I see it, anyway. Grass nibblers can focus on: a) recognizing the term, b) spelling it correctly, c) using it accurately. This column has higher aims than the pedestrian, a term which means not just ambulant pavement-slapper but
2) a graphic of lowest-level language mistakes
3) she-werewolves: do they exist and if so what should we call them?
Here's a long and interesting if feminist article on the etymology and concept of the werewolf, with the ultimate silly-ideological aim of popularizing the use of wifwolf for she-werewolves. 'Were' simply means man. Man-wolves.
4) bai lao men - paying respects to the cell god.
This term comes from the Chinese communists. I can find no reference to it on google save on VNNF:
[I was going to say 'torture practices.' Then I said to myself - how is that any different from the 'frost event' you criticized in earlier column. What part of practices is different from or not encompassed in tortures?
The lesson here is that a lot of the best use of words and language is simply thinking carefully (can one think uncarefully?) about what one is doing.]
5) medborgarvärd -
Means: citizen host (Swedish). A PC/Swedish term. Link. Here it is google-translated from Swedish to English. Link.
I can't provide the fine points of this term because I don't know Swedish, or fully grasp what's going on here, but you can get the sense of the make-believe from the translation. Strikes me as parallel to calling taxes 'contributions'; the false analogy is constructed to make things coerced seem cozy. We let in all these raving, violent Muslims quite against your democratic will becomes, filtered through the conspiring media, "you get to host a dinner party for these wondrous creature-humans we celebrate as diversity, aren't you lucky?!"
6) factional tendentiousness
This is a communist term. Communists have an ideology. Many variants of the same basic worldview. Splinters, factions, sects - just as with any nutty religion. An ideology is defined as a political faith. A man is only accurately described as ideological when he side with his political views when reality refutes them. He lets his ideal trump actual facts. You can see the relation between this and the mentality underlying the pravda (noble lie or ideological truth) and istina - gritty, factual, real-world truth. White nationalism is not, properly speaking, an ideology. It, like any political position, can become one, if one allows it. An example of ideological thinking would be a man who says 2+2 can't be 4 because a jew said. Since jews are bad, according to WN, anything they say is wrong, or a lie. Even if what they say is demonstrably true. 2+2 is an overstatement, but there are plenty of things intelligent jews such as Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises said that certain WN refuse to acknowledge as true purely because Rothbard and von Mises were jews. Letting ideology trump reality is a bad idea, for a number of reasons that should be obvious and aren't worth going into. Last thing to notice about ideology is that conservative big thinkers such as the Russell Kirk I've been going on about lately define conservatism as anti-ideological. It's not about constructing a system, it's about virtues and order. Ordering the soul, first. Being prudent. Respecting things, and trying to figure out why they are the way they are, rather than rushing to alter them or wholly revise them. That makes sense, doesn't it? But you can also see how it leads to a certain passivity where violent, quick action is required. Anything calm and reflective, anything appreciative, is going to be psychologically on the back foot when faced with the aggression of the ideologues like the communists or the neocommunists, the anti-white multiculturalists. This horrifying irony echoes in the often-quoted words a certain poet the conservatives like to quote to the point that the best are full of doubt while the worst are full of furious intensity. So it is. If you believe God created this, you must also believe he is not a loving god but a god of sadistic irony.
Communists are famous for splintering into competing intellectual factions. One of the more famous depictions of these was provided by Irving Kristol, NYC jew, and the godfather of neo-conservatism, in his memoirs,
Factional tendentiousness refers to communist command central's worry that the party was losing its unity in obsessions with immaterial details. But that's my guess, I can't find a formal definition, although there might be one in some of my old East German communist textbooks. We know that Lenin created the notion of political correctness, deviation from which it was his purpose to stamp out. Factional tendentiousness smacks of a hard, unified, effective party breaking down into squabbles over insignificant details, thereby imperiling the revolution. Kind of the way you will see black feminists getting into it with white feminists over intersectionality on jezebel. Sometimes they get so invested in internal squabbling over not-very-important stuff they forget the bigger picture: hating and defeating the white man!
7) soznanie (Сознание)
Russian for consciousness, as in 'class consciousness.' Link to translated Russian Wiki page here.
8) minor attracted persons
This is a political evasion for pedophiles. It's a deliberate attempt to avoid the term pedophile and replace it with something less repugnant sounding. As the left successfully achieved by turning sodomites/queers into homosexuals and then 'gays.' Minor attracted person is hazy, vague. Is it someone who likes 17-year-old girls, or someone who rapes babies? As always, the left uses language as febreeze. To cover up something disgusting. To hide it, conceal it, pretend it's not happening, to make it go away. At the same time, it comes up with a positive term for the class it seeks to protect and advance, it comes up with a negative term to characterize those opposed. With 'gays' it was 'homophobe.' Hard as it may be for you younger folks reading this to realize, there was a time when 'homophobe didn't exist. It was coined in 1969 by a professor, apparently, but it wasn't seen much in print until the mid-eighties, when the debate over AIDS took flight. At first, even then, it wasn't used in every single disagreement, but within 2-3 years, that's exactly what happened. Any term that works the left can't help but apply across the board - racism is the best example. Anyone opposed to any leftist policy on race is a racist, on sex is a sexist or misogynist, on sexual behavior is a homophobe, on history is a denier. None of these terms has any genuine meaning beyond: not on board with the leftist position on (X). They are all bomb-words, calculated smears. They succeed not because they are substantively valuable or inherently clever or meaningful, but because the left controls the mass media, they can be made effective through ubiquitous presence and continual repetition.
Here's an old VNNF post on the mainstreaming of the bogus locution MAP.
9) vanity sizing
Euphemisms: they're not just for breakfast anymore. Not just for words. They work just fine with numbes. Does the 14- or 18-sized she-fatty want to be a 4- or 2-? No problem! She can be whatever size she wants, so long as she comes with the credit card already. This too is the America mindset and retail reality. Seam-stressers can't handle the truth...so their clothing shops simply give them what they want: fake numbers. The customer is always right. "What size do you want to be?" says the whale handler to the land womanatee.
This is a quote from a comment at Jezebel, where I first came across vanity sizing:
It's like I say: reality is a strong secondary influence on most people's thinking.
And that will be enough for today. Didn't even get to my words from D. Foster Wallace and Russell Kirk, but we'll catch them next time. Until we meet again, remember that no one fills concert halls to listen to player pianos. Play with great expression -- which is an unindistinct thing from self-expression -- and maybe they will show up to hear you.//
|May 7th, 2014||#15|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New England
No one except pedants should experience dissonance saying the straightforward female (or male) werewolf; the old noun 'were' dropped out of the language as an independent word and hardly anyone knows that it once existed much less meant "(specifically) male person". The suggested wifwolf is hokey; wifewolf less so but means the wrong thing in modern English.
As an honorable man, I am not above fixing things for confused "ladies", even if they are feminists. Assuming this "problem" really needs a solution, I suggest re-coining these compounds as manwolf and womanwolf.
|May 12th, 2014||#16|
The Pre-Draft Process Failed the Noble Negro
By Alex Linder [index]
May 12, 2014
Ok, after a heavy and exhausting week of gardening and the close of turkey season, back to wonderful words. I heard reticence and enormity both misused once last week. That seems to be about the average. Reticence, of course, was used to mean reluctance. Remember: anytime someone is 'reticent' to do something, it should be reluctant. And, enormity does not refer to size, no matter what whoretionaries may say in their lower definitions. Now let's get to the words. Most of what we'll focus on this week are simply new or unusual words found in self-departed thick-novelist David Foster Wallace.
Of course you know the word and its meaning; the interesting thing is that it seems to be used more often, as with guns, to describe things in relation to people than people in relation to things. Notice, you will literally never see a newspaper report stating that a nigger (what the media call a 'black man') failed something. By contrast, you will find many newspaper reports talking about how [X] "failed" a nigger. I've mocked this many times, but it's truly head-shaking. The media find a nigger-exculpating formulation in every sector and never depart from it. Here's one I came across the other day, stocking up background knowledge for my fall NFL column: "I’ve put my thoughts on [black Teddy] Bridgewater on record before; the pre-draft process has failed him in stupefying ways, and I firmly believe he’s an underrated asset." There's a new one to add to our list of things that fail niggers. Besides schools, police, social workers, government, the defrocked fake-planet known as Pluto, oh yeah, and all white people ever: the pre-draft process is letting down the coons too. I agree: it is stupefying how badly that process has failed our valuable negro, who just did all he could in perfect faith and loyalty, and yet was let down by a process. Next thought: could the pre-draft process be racist? I mean, it's a very in thing these days. Almost nothing isn't. It's merely funny to those who watched ESPN analysts and commentators verbally fellate the guy every play of every game last year. I guess artificially inflating the QB abilities of The Next Great Black QB isn't part of the pre-draft process.
The irritating thing about this use of 'failing' is the implication that the poower little negros just try so hard, they so want to succeed. It's just fate and all higher society are conspiring to stop them by providing them with inferior schools, guns and pre-draft processes. When in fact, niggers who care about books are scarcer than hens' teeth; niggers rather than pieces of metal are responsible for the murders they commit; and pre-draft processes don't fail anyone who performs well in their various trials. But whatever can be done to explain away or excuse the nigger's poor performance is always what you'll find in the jew-controlled mass media, where it's always the white attitude or inanimate object truly responsible for the nigger's behavior. It's always and every time the nigger that failed, but the jewsmedia spouting this sort of anti-white bilge will never admit that. Just notice how common this 'failed the (coon)' formulation is next time you're out there in the wide world of words. For wording is a sport too, a blood sport.
2) ...so we can schedule our lively nuncupative off the record collogue
Found these two in a story about some sex freak who invented a superior golf club. A man who turned into a woman, had other shady things in his past, tried to hide them, but they were ferreted out by a reporter, whole thing turned into a moderately big brouhaha. Read it here and here if you're interested. In these stories came across this:
Collogue - pronounced with accent on second syllable - kuh (as in duh) loge (with hard g) as in pogue. Kuh-loge. (Pogue in itself is interesting:
Or maybe it's not British, as The Pogues are, hence my assumption. 'Pogue' has been around a long time.
Meanwhile, the name of the band The Pogues comes from an entirely different place:
Anyway, there's apparently no connection between pogue and Pogues. Let's ponder this while enjoying(?) a Pogues video.
Now what is collogue? So far as I can recall, I have never seen this word before.
As for nuncupative:
The stress is on the first syllable, and the cu is pronounced as the cu in cupid. Thus, NUN-cyoo-pay-tiv. What is it?
3) sensitivity -
This is another of those not-inherently-political words that has been turned to political use by the left. Belongs to the same class as tolerant. In the story(ies) above, there's a big debate not over the shady past of the tranny, but on the reporter's need to bring out her strange sexual history. To a normal, or non-leftist, it's obviously integral to the story, since it's interesting and pertinent. To the leftist, mentioning that this curious creature, with a history of criminal behavior, is a secretive transsexual, is irrelevant. Hence, bringing it out and up is unwarranted - is insensitive. Since, you know, the world is full of evil racist nazis who might think someone who cuts off his dick and installs a pussy is at best a weirdo. Not everyone is a sensitive and caring and tolerant as the people who anoint themselves same are.
As with tolerant, sensitive only works one way. Whites or rightists are admonished for, essentially, resisting the left. They're beaten up verbally in a most insensitive way for refusing to treat as holy (for subjecting to rational inspection) one of the left's privileged classes - blacks, sexual freaks, some other racial or behavioral minority.
Leftism precludes sensitivity or tolerance because it's based on a simple binary: right and wrong. Absolute black and white. The good people are on the right side of history, and they oppose the bad people, who are bad because they're not leftists. It's that simple. They need to be abused verbally and legally until they come around - or at least learn to quake in fear and keep their mouths shut. You can only tolerate something if you have the idea that you might not always be right yourself, and that there are limits to politics. Leftists don't believe either of these. 'The political is the personal,' they famously said back in the sixties revolutions. Every last operation of life is a political act, they truly believe, and one for which there is a right way and a wrong way. They are moralists - angry Puritans of looseness. Hyper-moralists, real crusaders. Bent on stamping out evil, which is anything and anyone opposed to them. One doesn't tolerate evil. There's no need to be sensitive to it. They're as sure as any religious fundamentalist that they have The Truth, hence no need for any kind of gentleness, sensitivity, respect or tolerance for those who don't. They are merely the enemy; they deserve only crushing. To the leftist, you prove you are evil by opposing them, since they know they are Good. It's that stark. That black and white. This kind of zany, anti-human religious-crusading mentality sits perfectly well alongside high IQ, so it's often quite successful. Missing in these folks is any sort of humor or wryness; any sense that even their opponents are people too. Thus, the most they are capable of is verbally advanced snark, a sort of styled spitting hostility. You will be upbraided continually for not being sensitive to them and the disturbationals and sundry defectives they champion, but they will never ever be sensitive to you. The very idea that a leftist ought to show respect for or appreciation of or any kind of sensitivity to the particular needs or feelings of a hated white male never enters the white-hating leftist's consciousness, so absurd is the notion. You can't even really say the leftists are hypocrites in this regard, so deep is their fanaticism. These are true and genuine religious fanatics operating in the earthly realm of politics. "Doing right ain't got no end," as the union man says in The Outlaw Josey Wales. They can't rest until all the Bad People and Bad Ideas have been stamped out. As leftist jew and Frankfurt School honcho Herbert Marcuse said, "No space for the right." All contrary or competing ideas must be extinguished, so there's nothing left but leftism.
As I always say, the common thread of leftist terms and frames is that they exclude a priori the possibility of legitimate disagreement -- they pathologize it - turn it into a sickness -- which makes leftism inherently anti-democratic, which is ironic, in light of their love of the term democratic, and their crusades for same, yet fully in keeping with the eternal-policy-because-necessity of leftism: to sell their positions as their opposites (for example, sell the religious socialism of global warming as science). If you disagree with a leftist position, you're not simply of a different taste or attitude, or making a different but valid choice, rather you are a moral reprobate and thought criminal who probably ought to be locked up as an extremist hater before you genocide a race or two. All leftist political language prejudices opposition like this. It must! That's the crucial insight. As a minority position that can't attract the normal majority, leftism deeply recognizes that it can only win by undemocratic means: by preventing, stifling or forestalling opposition by legal or social pressure. By treating those who disagree with its agenda with extreme hostility and intolerance, beginning by labeling them something beyond the pale. All leftist political terms mean is 'this one's fair game.' Leftists don't have political terms, they just have point-and-shriek. Just like the pods do in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978). Those who can't persuade must stifle to achieve their ends, and the larger part of stifling isn't laws so much as media and social abuse. Laws simply record the victory, as often as not. Dominate the media, the teaching institutions, teach everyone to fear being called X. Condition the public to fear your labels and they'll never step out of line. Thus does a tiny minority control a large majority.
What makes politics difficult to understand is that we associate binary thinking and black-and-white moralism with the right, rather than the left. This is by design of the left, as most things are. Part of its necessary campaign of demonization of normal whites. Unfortunately, normal whites, broadly construed, includes lots of dumb-religious folks, who are easy to caricature. Indeed, mere description is enough to curl the lip. These salt-of-the-earth types, as they will be described at their funerals, think in black and white because they're not very smart, and that's how their level thinks. Yet the high-end left think in black and white too. That part is seldom mentioned. These types are every bit as fundamentalist as the ones the fundamentalists they denounce - and with less justification.
Anything that works against anger and fanaticism endangers illiberalism. The high-end right is where the good stuff is found - tempered, mature, serious, gray-seeing adult reflections: reflect, appreciate, understand...prescribe. High-end right is best suited to run things but usually doesn't precisely because of its virtues, which leave it unable to cultivate the unstoppable fanaticism frequired required to dominate the scene. The high-end right's entire way and mentality and preference-set militate against, well, militarism. It's too calm. It sees too far. It knows too much. Politics is usually dominated by the hot and close up. The perfervid, intolerant left usually wins, even as an extreme minority position, precisely because it refuses to listen to reason. It is galvanized by its hatred of reality. In a perverse way, rejecting reality for ideology requires a much stronger will and personality than reality-orientation... If you believe in God, you have to explain this curiously horrible setup. The believer takes recourse, I say refuge, in the sillyism "God works in mysterious ways" to avoid the logically inevitable (if you believe God is behind All This) conclusion based on what I said above - God is a sadist. That's too frightening for the believer. But look at the evidence: they are likeliest to take power -- in any system -- who are worst suited to lead. Thanks, God! As a man-manufacturer, you suck worse than China.
I cast my mindpool for examples of the 'sensitive' leftist mentality. I think of examples from Gawker ring writers and my twitter feed. The right tries to discuss the statistics of homosex, with an eye toward rational examination of its remarkable morbidity. This quickly becomes, to use the two examples that spring to mind, "obsess[ion] with anuses" (feminist Jezebel writer Lindy West), or 'fan of gay pornography,' as one twitter critic of Peter LaBarbera (a christian homosex critic) baited him. The left will do anything to avoid rational discussion of its agenda. That's obvious. Anyone reading the mass media for a month can see that. The insight is that it must be this way. It's not a choice. Why get involved with politics from an impossible-minority position unless you're willing to tyrannize and suppress the opposition? If you don't do that, you have no chance. So there's no point to getting into politics in the first place, as a leftist, unless you're willing to play unfairly while talking the good honest upfront democratic will-o'-the-people game. Either play to win, or stay in the closet is true not just for homosexualists, but for all leftists. Open borders? Hating the markets? Loving niggers? Loving deviant sex? Socialism/communism? All of these are minority positions. Even where the left ventures into something that does have majority support, such as protection of the environment, it turns out to be a fashionable cloak for the same old maggot-infested socialist corpse.
Demands that one be 'sensitive' amount to veiled demands that one not question or challenge the leftist or his agenda item. Just give in. Don't be 'controversial' - another seemingly neutral word with an easily defined function in practice. No one supporting the leftist, i.e., Big Jew-set, position is ever insensitive or intolerant. Those opposing always are. It's a silly game, but it works. So long as the right fails to unite on a racial basis and scientifically study and in general take seriously the verbal war, it will continue to suffer defeat, as the enemy holds all the high ground. Not the moral high ground, which is the silly obsession of congenitally-incapable-of-getting-it conservatives, but the high ground on which the transmission equipment is placed.
* * *
Now let's get to those words I mentioned from Wallace. He killed himself a couple years ago; his last work, the uncompleted The Pale King (2011), was put together posthumously by his publisher.
4) swivet -
Wallace uses swivet at least three times over 700+ pages. Swivet is
5) lalation -
Well now...doesn't mean what I thought. I misremembered. That's vagueness for you.
But...it's not clear whether lalation exists, or whether it's simply Wallace's misspelling of lallation, which is defined:
Wallace, David Foster. “David Lynch Keeps His Head” A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again. New York: Bay Back Books, 1997, p192.
From: A Linguistic Bestiary of David Foster Wallace
Ok...so we have something here. Lallation is either baby-babble or the Tom Brokaw disease. Food, noise or anything normally associated with babies is helpfully applied to anything nominally adult -- should we wish to criticize or make fun of it, as Wallace does in the usage above.
6) neotenous -
I'm not sure if Wallace means another way of saying baby-faced by this, or if he simply means that unlined and preternaturally fetal aspect that the visages of some people with comparatively undeveloped or unprominent features seem to have. He uses the term to describe the older, experienced David F. Wallace in the Wallace mixup at the IRS agency he's describing; if he used the neotenous to refer to himself, the younger DFW, I would think neotenous might refer to his lack of experience at the agency having left him unmarked, though he were fully adult, if young. But he uses it to describe the older DFW, so I'm not sure what to think other than baby-faced.
7) virid -
Yes indeed, from Latin viridis, meaning green.
8) celadon -
Celadon is a
9) lemniscate -
Let's leave it there and not kid ourselves we'll ever use it save we're in the math biz, which we ain't.
10) guilloche -
Pronounced gill-OSH. NOT like guill in guillotine!
We'll leave it there for today, having finished Wallace. Next week we'll look at some words I collected in Kirk's book on academia, which was some of the subject matter covered in my podcast #007.
Other than that, I am fresh out of collected material, so any questions or terms for discussion, feel free to post. In these columns, I try to cover ordinary terms, political terms, and new terms. As with everything I write, it dovetails and reinforces and calls back to things I've written and said elsewhere. Repetition and reinforcement help sink in the knowledge until it becomes a working part of us.
Until next time...stay low, don't get beat.//
|May 22nd, 2014||#17|
Rummaging in the Brummagem
By Alex Linder [index]
May 22, 2014
Last week we hit D.F. Wallace; this week, as I said last week, we'll deal with some words found in Russell Kirk's book on academia, higher learning as he calls it, the subject of our last podcast (#009). Let's get to it.
1) brummagem -
One of Kirk's go-to epithets for what-the-university-has-become. Used alternatively with Behemoth U. In short, Ed Ukashunizm's Big and Cheap shop for people of college age with nothing to do and capable of taking on debt. Before looking it up, let's run a test. I think of brummagem as a box of cheap trinkety crap as one would find at a garage sale. Costume jewelry, basically. It definitely connotes rummage to me, as in rummage sale, because of the sound. But I'm not precisely sure that's what brummagem means. So many words are like this - one thinks one knows what they mean, but is either wrong or a little off. So it never hurts to look anything up.
So we do, and...I'll be damned. It's a lot closer to a word we'll examine next -- meretricious -- than I'd thought. It's not even pronounced as I thought. It's BRUM-uh-juhm. Not -gem but -jum, for the last syllable.
I think it probably still applies pretty well to costume jewelry vs. real jewelry.
2) meretricious -
This is a good term. Easy to remember. It means having the tawdry appeal of a prostitute. Pronounced exactly as you'd think.
3) Educationism -
A near-neologism used by Kirk. As he's a VIS, very important scholar, you won't catch an august sage such as Kirk inventing new words; his kind doesn't go in for that low activity, which is better left to 'clever' 'journalists' and others beneath the august and empyrean realm inhabited by the masters of cerebration. While the naming of unundiscovered sponges may be strictly necessary to certain factoti in the biology department, neologismizing has no place in the higher reaches of advanced intellection, i.e, the history department. Nevertheless, Kirk felt the mild creation of Educationism were needed to describe the post-war phenomenon he describes in his book, namely, the metastasizing of the modest, effective college into the full-blown 'multiversity' cancer. Educationism is the basic belief of the NEA crowd - that what the NEA offers is 'education'--; that every implumous biped can and should be educated to its full potential. The latter belief is enough to instruct the unaddled that the NEAists aren't particularly well suited by nature or training to teach, though that is their 'profession,' as they like to think of it. Growth for the sake of growth - all funded through taxes and federally supported student debt programs. It may be taken as a rule that admits of few exceptions: anyone using the term 'education' repeatedly and in the manner of a cheerleader...is an idiot. It's simply a media-parroted middle-class mantra. We better ourselves through education. Education is seen as the means to 'improve' oneself, to make more money, which is the real desire and meaning behind the concept. The user doesn't precisely understand this, but if he does, he sees nothing wrong with it. He can't even grasp an objection to it, or englobulate an alternative conception. When this type winds up as assistant manager at Pottery Garden owing 50k to Brummagem U., it still never makes the connection. Everybody says it. Everybody is always right. Education! Education! Education! It's a belief, it's a debt, it's a panacea. It's a farce, it's a scam, it's a joke. But Educationism is very real as a belief and attitude, and this word will continue to be useful so long as 'public schools' exist and the moll media shriek cheers for it and fleer its enemies. (If you're an NEA victim, there's roughly a 99.9% chance you don't believe fleer is a word.)
4) vaticinations -
This is a good term with a very specific meaning. It's for someone who sees the future, with a hint of jebus-told-me. Thus, the perfect term to use in describing the eye-roll antics of the good-book crowd when they begin their usual durring.
Make your opponent a figure of fun. A red-clay cardinal. Pope of the dirt eaters. I mean, the actual pope is clownish enough; how much the funnier some low-rent halfwit dripping dirt out of his mouth while quotating what he inevitably calls Revelations. (It's Revelation. No, I'm wrong, retard, and you're right.) Like I said, which bears repeating though I suffer Jebuslike the indignity of having to underline it myself, the Bible is the favorite book of...people who don't read books. There's something profound in that.
I knew I would regret myself in the morning for not saving a story I read on yahoo news last night. It was about that woman whose car went off the road in a forest. She was barely rescued a week later. Lost both her legs. Her statements to the media evinced low-rent bibltardism. She didn't use the actual phrase everything happens for a reason, an asininity dear to the heart of the underbrained, but she might as well have. This horrible accident and injury meant something. It was a message to her. She hadn't figured out what the message was yet, but she was going to.
This is how dumb people think. Everything is a Sign, pregnant with Great Meaning. You just have to Know how to Interpret Things. That's why you have a helper book like Revelations, as they inevitably call it. Weak little stupid people are strengthened in their misconvictions about the way the world works by evil christian charlatans such as G.K. Chesterton who go out of their way to denounce cause-and-effect and thereby teach the common folk that logic and reasoning (hence their brains) don't actually work.
It is for people like these wits of nit that a term like vaticinations is most useful. You see, the genuinely learned folk will stick to very mildly wry uses of the term, but it's better used wetter for the incredibly stupid things that never cease to pour out of the mouths of bible fools, to be redundant. Indeed, the very term vaticinations has no real non-mocking use. It's always the pinheads who know just what god has in store; the ilk that is famous for predicting the end of the world on some specific day...and then bemoaning stupidly and red-faced after they sell off all their worldly possessions and the unexpected happens.
It's like I said: if the mind of a Baptist were as transparent as one of those goldfish, you wouldn't dare to go outdoors of a diurnal period. The minds of most of the so-called human population, and I'm talking about whites, not even niggers, is so hagridden and spook-besotted that it's a wonder society exists in any form. Human is properly reserved, in my opinion, for a very small subset of hominids.
Every day is a Day of Great Disappointment for those forced to live among the subhumans called christians.
This is the type of man-monkey
that emits vaticinations. It is the duty of all true humans, to mock this type whenever it appears above ground. Never give jebus dogs any quarter, they don't deserve it. At best they're passives; at worst, like this Miller, they're lunatics.
Look at the guy's stupid pig face. Look at his stupid inward eyes, his not-hearing-it mouth. Christ-insanity, as I say, is the opposite of civilization.
Just the thought of the wailing that must have ensued among those assembled boobs of yahoo when it finally dawned on them it the alt-Great Pumpkin wasn't coming gladdens my heart. Idiots be with us always, and it's our -- your and my -- duty to play wack-a-mole with their reputation and sense of self. Attack them and never let up.
Never let the christ-man forget he's a moron. Never let him forget his entire philosophy is based on spooks and spirits and haints. Never let him forget he's a tool. That's your duty as the thing that actually qualifies as human, as distinct from the things merely walking around on two legs and not possessing feathers.
5) factotum -
You know Mr. Burns on the Simpsons? You know his secretary Smithers? Smithers is a factotum. A factotum is like a secretary, a go-fer, a stepin fetchit. The term doesn't necessarily have a negative or pejorative meaning, but it's of natural use in the vocabulary of invective, as we seek to belittle our opponent. As I've said, comparing our enemy to prostitutes or animals is always good. Each area of the world, each concern of man, will have its particular jargon. Any sector that is low or diseased or in some way negative will have particular words or usages of common words which can be adapted to our destructive, critical purpose. There's nothing wrong with being a secretary, of course. But if someone, say our enemy, has visions of himself as something higher, say an august, noble personage of high and haughty independence, we can pop his balloon by clothing him in the language of the common smith-ers, the smothered fanboys and servants of the real men. C. Montgomery Burns is The Man. Smothered smithers is the fanboy everyman - the factotum. We could attack George Will (if this were the '80s) or William F. Buckley as the factotums of the jews. Somewhat similar to pegboy, which we covered in an earlier column, but less insulting and of slightly different meaning. Factotum is a term that shows your knowledge, ye wishing to figure-cut; it's one of those semi-obscure terms that fits a particular situation, similar to meretricious. It's in the useful-unfamiliar range, as it were. Factotum has plenty of non-insulting uses. Here's how Kirk used it:
The days of the
You see how Kirk uses factotum. It's literally true, in that Kerr does do different duties for Carnegie, but the reason Kirk uses the term is to reduce the stature and status of Kerr; to bring him down to the ranks of the smitherses - the service classers, the order takers, the running dogs, the tools.
Anyway, factotum is a good and useful word both for ordinary denotative but also critical connotative purposes.
6) commination -
This was the one term in Kirk's book that was new to me. I've seen it before, but I could not remember what it meant. Let's look it up. Then we'll find it's a fancy (fancy = Latin or Greek, always) Latin term for threat.
That will do it for words from Kirk. Moving on . . .
Funny how memory works. I seem to recall 'apish veneration' of women used by Schopehauer, but on rereading his chapter on women last night, I could not find it. There were apes. There was veneration. But there was no 'apish veneration.' Which I could have sworn... That's how memory works, too often.
Schopenhauer said this:
7) apish -
Let's get apish right, because in our age there is too much primatic activity to go without. Looking up...it's pronounced as you think: ape-ish.
Folks, this is a delightful word. I personally feel ashamed I have not used it more often. This is a failure on my part I must and will rectify.
Apish as a wigger...' Apish as Miley Cyrus trying to twerk.
There is the verb to ape. Which comes from apes and their apely activities, which include imitating others. But when whites imitate niggers, their apishness embarrasses their entire race.
Notice that, per our friend dic:
It should go without saying that a deep knowlege of apes, their classifications, activities and history can only improve one's ability to insult enemies and describe what are flavorlessly and inaccurately referred to as black people.
Don't forget apocrine, either. That's the armpit stench of niggers, the chemical that produce the nigsmell. Apocrine-Americans isn't nearly common enough. Checking, it's pronounced AAP-uh-krin. Short i in that last syllable, not long as I had thought. Even better for mocking up African-American.
8) in need of
A wordy replacement for 'need.' I heard this all the time now. Just heard it on Party Line radio show. Why say I need a cure for dandelionitis when you can say more impressively "I am in need of..." It's gover-clunky and mock-august without the mock. Stilted for the people, as R.E.M. would
All right, as the party clown said under his breath, I've twisted enough balloon animals for you people. I'll be back next week with more warm bread and cold water.//
|May 26th, 2014||#18|
BMW: The Ultimate Running Amok Machine
By Alex Linder [index]
May 26, 2014
1) run amok -
We see this 'amok' misspelled more often than not. It's an illiterage age. People just guess. They think a guess is as good as a know. Who are we to injure their self-esteem by telling them they're wrong? If ebonics is a real language, then it stands to reason mebonics is too. It has its own rules, just like real English. I spell words however I want. And I report anyone who criticizes my edgy letter groupings as a hate criminal.
I thought of this term in light of the recent slaughtered carried out around Santa Barbara. The kid who did it apparently has some Malay in his genes. Running amok comes from the Malays. Every so often, some of these normally placid Asians would freak out, and run around stabbing people. That is running amok. The BMW Kid began his death tour by stabbing three roommates. He created the better part of a dozen crime scenes before exiting terra firma. He definitely ran amok.
I like that hantu belian, though. The evil tiger spirit that gets in us and makes us perform "heinous" acts. Useful in describing all kinds of actors and activities.
2) epicene -
This is an underused term. It refers to a sort of non-sexual hermaphroditism - having the style or traits of both sexes, just as the fermy (an alt-term for hermaphrodite) has both sex organs. The Greek root equates to many-common. Having what many have in common. Can be used of a noun that represents both male and female, as in teacher. But most of the time epicene is used to suggest something is near-queer - weak, effeminate, unmanly; an effeminate departure from an august old Roman. A style could be epicene. If the writer refuses to get on top of his material, dominate it, make it perform - that is weak and unmanly - epicene. Notice how over time, as effeminacy becomes the rule, more and more names become epicene - common to both sexes. There aren't any women named Russell, yet... Epicene is a good way to subtly suggest someone's a homo, or inclined that way. His style, dress, comportment - all can be tagged with this useful adjective.
3) uptalk -
This is the term for the Valley Girl ('80s reference) tendency to raise the voice at the end of sentences, which has the effect of making statements that would seem straightforwardly declaratory come off as questions. To some extent, this is just a peculiar speech pattern that got on, and why it began, I don't know. We do hear it more than we should, and all over the place. I do think there is a political meaning.
I recall reading a book about Bill Clinton. He was such an able politician, he could sit down at a picnic table with two people on either side of a question, and when he left, both men thought he was on their side. I no doubt mis- but closely remember: He measured every phrase against its immediate reception. So even as he's saying something, the able democratic politicians, a panderer and pseudo-friend as much as anything, is cautiously checking how the person responds to what he's saying. This may be why presidents speak in short three-word bursts, with frequent pauses. They don't want to go out on a limb.
Besides democratic pandering, we live in an age full of witchhunters, thanks to the P.C. crowd. Most people live in continual fear of saying something controversial. This hesitancy affects not just the content of their speech but the delivery. They are signalling, I think, their willingness to withdraw their statement by the tenderly cautious way they put their idea forward. Their very tone says "I am immediately willing to withdraw my assertion and race back to firm ground should you object in any way to the idea I've tendered."
Uptalk is a feminine way of speaking. Among Valley Girls it may have evolved as a way of mocking; but when it's heard from normal people today, it's simply the spirit of the effeminized times. Think of John Wayne, how he would talk. That's the traditional masculine style. Flat, clear, short, declarative - strong. Uptalk is the feminine opposite. It is the style that begs the response: "Are you asking me or are you telling me?"
In an age in which everything female is overvalued, female patterns become the norm. Men, even, almost unconsciously imitate what they hear around them, in an attempt to get with the times, to be seen as sensitive, or simply not to stick out. Women are much less comfortable than men at making straightforward declarations. That's an aggressive, masculine act. Women dither. Watch them ordering or doing nearly everything. They never get on top of it. That's sexual. Sex permeates not just their physical being but their entire mental state. They are naturally milder and less aggressive than men, although often more feral or vicious, but in their ordinary mind, they simply aren't as direct and masterful as men are.
Uptalk is simply the speech pattern of an effeminized and Semitically Correct age. Everything masculine, traditional and dominant is bad, and we're all supposed to check ourselvses for our privilege, and listen to unheard voices traditionally marginalized, and in general comport ourselves as passive vehicles to be ordered about by peer-reviewed geniuses and discoloreds.
Uptalk's use by non-Valley Girls is either imitative or a sign that the user is not fully committed to what he's saying, and will withdraw it should you object. Uptalk, then, is weak. It sounds weak. It is weak. No man should talk like that unless he's being funny. Uptalk to me always sounds like the conversational equivalent of someone leaning backward and sticking a toe in the water to test the temperature.
Uptalk was subject of recent article. I noticed one woman defend the practice as being sensitive to the needs of others. Sussing out their opinion so as not to offend them. Uptalk is a style that complements the eternal female biological need to be an accepted member of a social network. Uptalk, she says, shows you care about the feelings of your listeners. Uptalk does underline that you care about their response, but more that you're afraid of it. Simple mildness works better for women. There's no actual need for uptalk, it is very definitely a style. It is not a style, as many point out, that works in business or anywhere else that time is short and people need to be on top of things and know how to communicate orders and information in a way that incurs respect.
Speaking in a manner that emphasizes you're not fully committed to what you're saying is the speech equivalent of not believing your own bullshit, and will draw the same lack of response tepidity or hypocrisy always garner. Hit the line hard, people, as Teddy Roosevelt recommended.
4) vocal fry -
Another Valley Girl speech technique. Think of one eye-rolling and saying "totally." It's letting your voice drop down into the lowest register and vibrate. That's vocal fry.
Here's a video which this sweet pete formally discusses vocal fry from a musical point of view.
Now watch this girl attack it.
(This is just a fun video I came across while researching vocal fry; it's an English guy doing 24 different accents.)
- Rare correct use of enormity: "The enormity of this dirty business is staggering in its implications..."
5) defalcation -
Used in book about Lyndon Johnson:
Defalcating basically means stealing, but stealing of a particular type: by the person who's supposed to watch over the money or stuff for someone else. Hence, it's a particularly dirty sort of theft, as there's betrayed trust involved, it's not just some random criminal act.
Now, here's the word in action, made to perform in panoptic stereovision for your amusement:
6) transgressive/edgy -
From an article about the 20-year anniversary of Weezer's breakthrough album:
Wasn't that marvelous?
Now...to understand the meaning of 'transgressive' or 'edgy' which are related enough they are reasonably taken together, we must first understand leftism.
Leftists are mainly interested in two things:
- hating/witch-hunting normals
- playing cooler-than-thou with fellow cultists.
The leftists are The System. They refuse to acknowledge this. They can only see themselves as fighting the system, for psychological reasons. You'll see this in college. The students agitate against the administration. But the administrators are all leftists.
Edgy refers to something pushed prematurely. Leftists thing history has right and wrong sides. They are the right side. All their positions are correct. It just takes time to bring the clods around. Anything that pushes history a little faster than she's willing to go is edgy. Edgy is, it should go without saying, a positive word to the leftist. It means you're willing to go a little bit farther than average, which makes you cooler hence better.
As for the other, leftists are at war with reality, without realizing it. Reality is the Great White Father they hate with all the juvenescent perfervidity they can muster, which is often quite a bit. Transgressive is anything subversive, another of their pet self-patters. See, the patriarchy sets up laws. How Your Supposed To Do Things. Daring leftists subvert these by...not doing them. Doing something else. It's childish. It's silly. But the leftists aren't minded to examine things with an eye toward understanding and appreciating them. That's the conservative disposition. They're interested in taking down fences and barriers without ever pondering why they were established in the first place. Leftists are simpletons who believe people really do divide into good and bad, and they have not the slightest doubt about their own goodness.
Perhaps the most striking irony about leftism is the complete lack of self-awareness inside a culture that thinks its built on it. Irony, snark and their exhaustion are about all leftists do. Except for the other thing. Which is self-praise, the flip-side of witch-hunting. The flip side of hunting and burning heretics is coming up with new ways to praise oneself. All their terms amount to patting oneself on one's back for being wonderful. For all their irony, they never notice this. That's the head-shaking quality at the center of illiberalism. They are absolutely in earnest, irony unthinkable, when they use terms tolerance, sensitivity,right side of history, progressive. Leftists are often smart, but they have a blind spot that is lot bigger than a spot, it's more like a sphere or a half. They are the moral equivalent of the kids who aren't Charlie Bucket in the Dahl story. Everything is about them and their coolness and their moral excellence; never does it occur to them they are completely intolerant of an insensitive to anyone who disagrees with them. It doesn't matter whether they believe in god or not, they are cultists. Cultists, as I define it, are those who must wall themselves off from outsiders who might not accept their premises because they are laughably opposed to reality. Cultists are hothouse flowers internally, no matter how armed and aggressive they may be on the outside, to mix metaphors. In very large measure the snark and obsession with irony or attempting to be post-ironic is simple silence-evasion. If you had to treat seriously the arguments proposed by those who disagree with you, you might find your own wanting. Leftists dare not risk that; strictly speaking, they have no arguments. They offer only smears and ludicrous equivalences they've bruited among themselves so often they forget how absurd they look to outsiders. For instance, leftists will claim that the state executing a killer is the same thing as what the killer did. They are not kidding or exaggerating, they really believe this.
Rightists think leftists are wrong for reasons. Hence their eternal attempts to argue their positions with them. Leftists think rightists are monsters. You don't argue with monsters, you slay them.
Leftism is most likely genetically based. It's a strain within the white race which has been nurtured into an extremely dangerous viper by jews, whose leftism springs from, oddly enough from rightism: rational racial self-interest. Again, more of The Irony in which the world seems to be founded.
* * *
Well, for the first time I used up my entire word-bag, accumulated over a couple of years. But I'll be back with more warm bread and cold water next week.//
|June 2nd, 2014||#19|
Of Oofos and Ooparts
By Alex Linder [index]
June 2, 2014
As the purpose of writing is to mock; to relieve the tedium of life with attacks on the moronic -- and as the purpose of neologism is to inspire actual mentation in the dull coasters, so I coined, upon a time, the pronunciation oofo, as a newing of the standard you-eff-ohh. Oofo sounds dumb. The concept of UFOs is not dumb, but the fact that thousands upon thousands of people have seen UFOs, yet not a single bit of metal from one has been collected, that not a single one of the droolards saw fit to pocket a brochure on the way out, confirms that, per usual, the prosaic reality is merely that something stupid is going on, namely the mass-production of hallucinations in line with a media depiction.
As Jesus would say, if he ever existed or returned, it's never the nose. Those little green men never go for the nostril; nay, with their ready probes they always and always make a beeline for the anus. The average oofo believer, were he abducted, would feel ashamed and chagrined, deeply embarrassed, if, on his return (read: awakening, coming to, or undrunkening) he had to report to the waiting world and representatives of certain disreputable, Florida-based large-format viewspapers that while he'd duly been seized and upbeamed, inspected and caliperated, yet he retained his rectal integrity. The thing is not done. It is unseemly. Form must be followed, even in alien abductions.
But we hop over something interesting, and as ours is an endeavor to discover the inner meat and meaning of language, let's track back. If neologism is the term for a new coinage, then what is the term for a new pronunciation? Is there one? Faith, I know not. I wonder only.
Returning to our subject, if there can be unidentified objects in the air...then surely there can be unidentified objects on the ground. Or in the ground! That's where we begin...
1) oopart -
used these small balls to play an early form of croquet. That's just a guess, though. Don't hold me to that. I could be wrong.
2) ratio decidendi -
Came across this in a German-leftist/Greek-communist joint intellectual venture toward "mapping" nationalists in Greece. Read the free online pdf report here.
Obiter dicta (OBB-it-er DIK-ta) are throw-in opinions a judge might offer alongside his official decision on the crucial point. Obiter dicta aren't binding as precedent, but can be taken into account by lower courts, as they will shed light on how the judge might act in subsequent cases, thereby affording other courts away to avoid appeals. The obiter dicta expand and explain his thinking about the matter(s) in question. I've seen obiter dicta used many times in non-legal contexts, whereas, as said, I've never before come across ratio decidendi in any context.
To me, and it may be just me, obiter dicta has a connotation of under-the-breath, outside of a court anyway. Like a verbal lagniappe someone might throw in. Like a garnish insult. You're ugly..and you don't smell very good either. You need to get a job...and a haircut, hippie.
Lagniappe is...let's say you and your queer boyfriend are getting married in Mississippi because some state judge went all Hulk Hogan on the stare decisis re the Magnolia State's definition of marriage. You go to buy your fruity squirter a gorgeous sapphire diamond ring, at a price of $4251.38, including tax. The proprietor throws in a $200 tennis bracelet for your hairy-balled sweety. That's the lagniappe. A little extra, a little throw-in, just for coolness' sake. A little thank you from the shopkeep, in this instance. Pronounced lan-yap. Just for fun I looked it up:
Anyway, obiter dicta or dictum (plural and singular) can be a useful term to throw in. It's the kind of thing you might find in a Wodehouse. As a sort of slighting side opinion, it fits, all nice and obliquelike. Judge or not, if someone, usually in authority, like parents or coach or teacher, makes a decision on something, presents someone else with it, and throws in a couple side opinions -- you will come across plenty of good situations in which to work this term.
3) on a daily basis. on a regular basis. -
This is the same problem we have with 'in need of.' It's stilted. It's wordy. It's an example of the user not thinking. What does daily mean? It means every day. What does 'on a regular basis' cover that regularly does not? Nothing. The only extra these terms might seem to have is the meretricious (italics if we've discussed this term in earlier columns, just as a useful callback) value of pomposity, which is a real value only to the class you don't want to be a member of. The class which shall go unnamed. Don't try to make yourself and your precious li'l doin's bigger than they are. If they are big, the fact will announce itself without your needing to walk around with verbal sandwich boards. Only use stilted phrasing where you're trying to sound stilted, which would be to achieve a comedic effect, by imitating the class that uses these extra syllables in failed attempt to augment their importanceness.
There is a time to use basis, but only where the basis adds something. Not where it reapeats what is captured in the 'daily' or 'regular.' There must be some 'as opposed to,' explicit or implicit. I can't think of a good example at the moment, but I will stick this in my subconscious and when the answer emanates from the life-giving mental soil, I will include it in that week's column. For I write this column weekly.
The remainder of our words this week will be taken from the remarkable 220-page book Against Nature (1884), by J.-K. Huysmans. This book is alluded to in Oscar Wilde's novel Dorian Gray. It is associated with fin-de-siecle decadence. Fin de siecle is French for end of century, with connotations of degeneration. Decadents were the sworn opponents of what is healthy, natural and wholesome, without in any way pretending to be normal themselves as today's up-with-(gay)-people do; rather, they abhorred the hoi polloi, certainly didn't concern themselves with its ridiculous opinions about politics or anything else, and dedicated themselves to the search for rare and strange shades, flowers, artworks, books, loves and feelings. Oscar Wilde wore a green carnation, precisely because it's a color of carnation you don't see in nature. Decadence is a sort of super-refinement of feeling and taste, to the point that desirable sensations are difficult to find or produce, and the decadent exhausts, sickens, deranges or even destroys himself in the search. The artist is the one to whom everything, in time, becomes disgusting, because his analytical tool is refined to the point of omnirejection, or very nearly so. This is why many artists have odd, heavily lined, perpetually-irritated visages.
4) soubrette -
For a short period before the Franco-Prussian War he also studied law, without much enthusiasm, and lived with a young soubrette in a somewhat sordid liaison described in his first novel, Marthe. [from the intro to J.-K. (Jori-Karl) Huysmans' novel Against Nature (A Rebours, in French).
What is a soubrette? A pert prole girl, basically.
Now, see, if you knew a pleasingly taut-plump farm-girl-helper named Lou, you could tease her by calling her The Loubrette. She would like it. Once you explained it to her. It would probably fetch her, if I know Arkansas.*
*Allusion to...? Do you know? Are you experienced?**
**Allusion to...? Do you know?
5) specific -
Part of the mission of this column is to examine ordinary words used for their secondary meanings. Here's a good example:
...the only specific was...more cowbell.
6) crusty dotards -
A dotard is one in his dotage - his older-diaper years. His years of decline and decrepidity. His breakdown years. His rocking-chair years. His Grandpa-Simpson, drool-on-my-chest years. Male-anile (remember our discussion of anile?), or senile, which is, of course, far more common. Senescent works. There are many ways to insult oldsters; make use of them freely, when needed. Older is not wiser. Neither reading nor experience make one sharper - save one reflect. Not that reflection alone is any guarantee valid conclusions are reached. Most people are not that good at pattern recognition, so they continue to make the same old mistakes they always did. Dumb people don't suddenly become intelligent because they're older. They're just old dumb people. That they're too decrepit to recommit their mistakes isn't growth, it's physical breakdown.
7) tautology -
Here's another should-be-but-isn't famous tautology: survival of the fittest. How do you know it's the fittest? It survived! There's something missing called an independent variable. Fitness and survival are defined as the same thing, which renders the intellectual value of the proposition nugatory, which is an uncommoner word for nothingful which is a neologism of recent, like rightnowical, coinage meaning empty of value or worth - fruitless. For Darwin's theory to mean something, there must be a measure of fitness. Otherwise survival of the fittest means nothing other than survival of the survivors. Do you see? If you said, fitness means, in a wolf, having legs longer than .34 meters and a heart-lung capacity of 2.3 liters, then you would have something to measure. If you measured out leg length and lung capacity in 1000 wolves, and then measured the same again in five years, you would have some data to work with. In other words, to have an actual theory, you need something falsifiable - something that can be made or shown to be false by contradictory evidence, should it appear. If there's no way to prove something wrong, then it's not a theory, it's a circular statement. If, for example, I assert the theory that humans require air to live, all you have to do to falsify my theory is produce a human who can live without breathing. If you can, then you have successfully falsified my theory, and I must construct another. What is fitness? It seems like a simple concept, yet it's very far from such a thing.
And here, let me pause to say a word in favor of thinking. How my ears burned when I first read Tom Bethell's description of Darwin's theory as a tautology. How embarrassed I was I had sat there in science class and not figured this out myself. Once you see it, it's obvious.
Now...draw the greater lesson from this: even the things most promoted among us, like evolution or 'holocaust,' can be full of giant holes. Thinking pays dividends. So few people actually think that there are giant reputations and fortunes to be won by doing so as little as once a week, as a famous Vaudevillian once said. For it turns out, contrary to all christian teaching, your head really is intended for something other than a hat fob.
8) marital discords -
Here's an artistic use:
10) sectary -
One term that could have been used above is hagridden, one of my favorite terms of descriptive opprobrium for folks who have jebus on the brain. Jebus-addled brains are legion, after all, at least in AmeriKwa in 2014. Hagridden basically means you have ghosts and witches running around in your mind, and you've lost sight of the real world for them. Those who focus on non-existent afterlives and imaginary other-worlds tend to end up this way - particularly if they have any kind of bent toward paranoia to start with. Nothing is so congenial to a paranoiac as the kind of lapidary nonsense you find in Revelation.
A sectary is a sect-er. One of a sect. A member of a sect. The term fools us because it's so similar to secretary that we will forget its very existence. But it's a good term.
Sectary is useful for political religions, particularly those derived from Marx's ideas. Communists are famously sectarian, or were in the days when they flourished under that name. Any political ideologue, with ideologue defined as one who prefers his ideas to reality - one who allows his ideas to trump reality's counter-evidence -- is fairly and accurately described using conventional terminology for religious groups. More generally, as I said up top, sectary or sectarian or any term conventionally used for religious believers is well suited to being used to describe your political enemy if your intention is to mock his ideas. Especially if you're mocking them because they are wrong in the way religious ideas are wrong - by being overtly counterfactual or dystopian or in some other way closed to the world of actuality and mere facts.
11) torrefaction -
12) satiety -
13) perspicacious -
An artistic use:
Almost every famous black was either a prostitute (like Malcolm X and Maya Angelou) or a john (MLK). By similar token, almost every 'great' black goes by a fake name, just as most ghetto rats go by street names.
Notice most of the people lauding Maya Angelou pronounce her name wrong. It's ANGE-eh-lo. Not lou. Lo. They get this wrong on the Grantland podcast, for one example. They are "celebrating" her, as they say -- without knowing how to pronounce her name. What I do like is that in this same podcast they host their inaugural Book Club, and the book they discuss is Walker Percy's novel The_Moviegoer. Percy, if you're not familiar, is considered a Southern gothic writer, I believe; he's beloved as a deep ferlosipher by faileocon ilk, Southern division. I've read this novel and his collected essays; he's ok. Surprising choice by these young hip jew-lefties, but as they talk about movies and media quite a bit, there's the reason. It was on their never-got-around-to, always-wanted-to list. I have read the novel twice and didn't really get much out of it. It's certainly not bad, though, just sort of limp in the way that appeals to the wilted-lettuce people that are the nostalgiatives. Intellectual Catholicism is 99% a pose of taste to thinketasters, and by 99% I mean 100 percent.
Do some body squats, nigger!
14) lymphs -
15) peroration -
No need to rub their face in it, but then again, let them know, as unsubtly as you need to, that when they're looking at you, they're looking up. The writer is the rapist, and the reader the rape fantasist. Or you can write and think and read like everyone else does, in that 'milk and water' way Huysman describes above. The point of being a human, unlike a cow, is you have the mental means of cumulation to use to vary your forward experience; it doesn't have to be the same damn thing day after day. It just somehow usually is.
Now, sudorific, for me, fits the category of: words I have seen before, know I have seen before, and cannot recall. From context, I'm guessing it means sleep- or pain-inducing. I have the idea it's a synonym for soporific (sleep-inducing). Looking it up.
Remember, adults: never obviously exalt your language to impress people That You Know These Words, to floodlight the Taj Majhal that is You; rather exalt, mock-exalt your language to achieve effects - comedy is your best effect. There's never enough funny stuff in this world. Remember that language was invented to mock people, and use it accordingly.
You know, I've called this mock-heroic effect Nielsenic, but it really is not. Nielsen's character is a dummy, not a faux august hero, for the most part. But what is accurate that I'm picking up on is the deep bass or baritone at least sonorousness of his voice, suggesting high-powerful masculine seriousness...contrasted with the low-comedic content. That is never not funny, to me and to many. That's the effect we're shooting for, many times. The Nielsen effect justifies the choice of these obscurer words over their commoner cousins. We are discussing writing as an art, not as mere communication, for which the simplest accurate term is usually best.
17) factitious -
This word is used infrequently, my guess, because it contains the word fact, which is kind of the opposite of its meaning, thus making it difficult to remember, even though it's a simple word to spell and pronounce. Factitious would be a lot easier to remember if it were faketitious. But it ain't, and there's no use crying about it. So salamander up and commit it to the jail cell wing V (for VNN and Vocabulary) in your memory.
Well now, that's quite enough for today. But to recharge our batteries, let's have some delicious food. A pig, processed by echt Deutscher, yields:
18) Schlachtplatte -
...the Schlachtplatte (slaughter dish) is a hearty plate full of freshly slaughtered meat. Traditionally the dish was only eaten on the day of the killing before fridges were invented, and it uses nearly every part of the pig. Consisting of blood sausage, liver sausage, and boiled pork belly and innards, the dish is for committed meat eaters only. For a shot of vitamin C and a dose of fiber, the dish is served with sauerkraut and boiled potatoes.
Literally slaughter plate, or slaughter dish. Schlacht is German for slaughter - of livestock, or for battle, as between human armies. Did you know there is also a German food called Dead Grandma (Tote Oma?) Well, there is...but that is story for another day.
Time grows late... I've twisted enough balloon animals for you caterwauling urchins, today. The sun begins to creep under, and the rabbit that butt-raped my garden last night is licking his his tomato choppers in preparation for round three of bunny bonsai. Someone must see it is not so, and that someone is me. I'm going full Fudd, and I'm going hard. Yes, hasenpfeffer is on the horizon, I can smell it. The Great Chain of Being is 1) rabbits, 2) fruit flies, 3) me, 4) houseflies. But I intend to move up in the rankings, so I must be a-wenting, as the old Indian said. Never fear, I'll be back next week with some warm bread and some cold water. Until then, remember to treat English with proper respect - rough it up a little as you ride it. Only in this way will you elicit all the frissons it has to offer, and that is very much in keeping with the spirit of our jaded old triedall Des Esseintes.//
Last edited by Alex Linder; June 2nd, 2014 at 11:53 PM.
|June 9th, 2014||#20|
Can Writing Be Taught?
By Alex Linder [index]
June 9, 2014
Can writing be taught? Some say yes. Some say no. They are both right. But they are not talking about the same thing.
To the extent writing is error identification, it can be taught. That part is science. Instruction availeth in spreading its standards.
To the extent writing is the artful arrangement of words, it's largely beyond instruction.
Mediocrity develops. Genius unfurls.
Some people can paint. Some can't. Some can sing. Some can't. Some can write. Some can't. It's inborn.
You can't teach anyone to create word art any more than you can teach someone to create oil art or vocal art. The ability to write is genetic.
Teaching pretty much taps out at conveying the rules of spelling and grammar and simple construction; beyond that, about all that can be done is a modest enhancement in the ability to avoid the grosser cliches. Teaching can't really bring anything truly positive, genuinely artistic out of the student, it's wholly involved with avoiding or reducing the negative. Which is still something valuable.
Next week I'll go into the reasons for widespread semiliteracy in an age of universal public education. If you've read or listened to what I've said about homeschooling, you know the answer already.
Today I want to focus on one thing: cliche aversion. Even those with little talent can improve their writing by recognizing and avoiding cliches. By cliches I mean a much broader concept than what is normally intended by that word. Wherever an adjective is ordinarily coupled with a noun - that is a cliche. Breaking up these word-blocks by replacing the adjective or the noun is a good way for non-artists to improve their writing. You don't need deep talent to think about what you're saying. Rather than, as a woman, being satisifed, even proud, of your ability to come up with the cliched expression, you can and should instead look for reasons not to use the typical expression.
Little thinking goes into most writing. Lacking artistic talent is not the same as lacking the ability to think. So think. Think about the words you are using. Don't go with the conventional expression if you can come up with something better. Something closer to the reality. This will make your writing subtly different, and it will burr the reader, gently rasp him, like a slightly too cool breeze. It will make him just a bit more alert than he usually is, and that's a good thing. He will have to pay attention. You're not just producing boilerplate like everyone else does.
This is not the same thing as innovation for innovation's sake. If a cliche is effective, then there's no reason not to use it. I like 'the bottom line.' I think it effectively conveys the sense of the thing, even if everyone uses it and it's as cliched an expression as it gets. Same thing with 'at the end of the day.' So I use them. But if I didn't like them or didn't think they worked, I wouldn't use them just because they are now conventional. Just because everyone else does something is not a reason to do it - nor is it a reason not to do it - the other mistake that has become common, particularly in non-verbal settings.
We are talking about improving writing here; if you're happy communicating with others in cliches, then that's great. They will like your verbal comfort food, and you won't have to put in any effort beyond a modestly logical structuring. But if you desire to write something a little more refined, a little more interesting, a little more artful, a little better, then thinking about the word-couplings you use, the cliches in the broadest sense, is a good place to start. Good writing, for the untalented, will begin with active thinking. The words you use are a matter of choice. You are the master. You do not have to use the same words in the same way others do.
It works like this: someone says 'cutting edge.' It's original and effective. It's easy to see in your mind. A million people copy the use. Eventually someone artistic gets bored. Changes it to 'bleeding edge.' Which is also effective and picturesque. The pioneer gets the arrows, as has been said. Eventually the masses follow this too. The alteration becomes the cliche. Now I have used pushing edge, just to give it a different twist. It is not as sharp as the original or the first alteration, but it has some value in bringing out a different aspect of the operation in question - the straining. It's perfectly grammatically valid, too. Why does the edge have to be cutting or bleeding? It doesn't. It can be whatever you want it to be - that makes sense. See, you have to think. You have to figure something out - if you can. That's where the talent comes in. But whether you have lots or little talent, you can still think about what each word and each term means. These slight little alterations won't precisely substitute for genuine talent, but they will set your writing apart in an effective and legitimate way. You are not expressing things differently for reasons of self but for reasons of sense. You want to bring out a different angle or aspect of the thing in question, and, in a meta-sense, convey to your readers that you are paying attention to the world around you and the language you choose to describe it. This serves the meta-meta purpose of enhancing literary culture, which is necessary in a world in which writing must compete with video, which was not the case in the 19th century, obviously.
So today's lesson is to consider a cliche as a much broader category than you have in the past, and consciously choose to decouple the usually coupled in order to achieve new and legitimate discriminations and depictions. I will come back to this matter of cliche in future columns, but until then, just try to notice in your reading the thousands upon thousands of undeclared or, might we say, amateur cliches of which most writing -- most professional writing, even -- is composed. Legitimate individuation, like preventing forest fires, is up to you. It's, by definition, not something someone else can do for you - beyond alerting you to the problem, as I have done here. If you wish to subcontract your sentence-formation choices to the mass-average, then you'll be like everybody else, and you'll reap the same not-very-satisfying result. But verily I say unto, thinking will make you a deeper and more interesting person, and this will reflect in your writing.//
Last edited by Alex Linder; June 9th, 2014 at 10:01 AM.
|Display Modes||Rate This Thread|