Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > The Struggle > The Verbal War
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old November 11th, 2009 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Master List of Politically Correct Terms (and Arguments, Frames, Concepts)

[How we'll do it. The PC term will be, upon its first use, listed in bold black. Subsequently it will be italicized. If in the discussion of one PC term another is brought up for the first time, it will be listed in black and bold. And subsequently italicized. And we'll italicize the Aryan terms that could and should be used in place of the loaded ones. And we'll italicize words discussed as terms, which is ordinary grammatical convention. The attempt will be made, altho we'll undoubtedly miss a few, to put all semitically correct usages in italics. Please note that we have only used the SC term politically correct in the title of this thread so it will show up in searches; the correct term is...well...we begin...]

Politically Correct - a euphemism for Semitically Correct, which was coined by the late Joseph Sobran. Political Correctness, which we'll abbreviate as PC from here on, comes from the jews and their mindset. It amounts to the demand that others follow their partyline absolutely without deviation, and this goes back to Lenin, who was 1/4 jew, and whose innermost gang of communist revolutionaries was almost entirely jewish. From their demand that their own communists follow the partyline after it had been decided comes PC, pretty much purely denotative and literal in meaning. Some argue with that, and would consider PC originating with the Frankfurt School's Critical Theories in the 30s-50s, or as something that came out of the social tumult of the jew-led social revolutions of the 1960s. Whichever you prefer, the key is that the men and the mindset driving PC are the same: We are jews. We rule you. You will do what we say or face penalties. Here are the taboos you must obey on penalty of life or career or position.

Modern PC, as a specific term, comes from a jew. A jew named Jeff Shesol, who later went on to become a Democratic operative under Clinton, used the term in a comic strip he composed at Brown University. He had a superhero called 'Politically Correct Man.' Lenin too had used the term politically correct, but it appears that its meaning and use were pretty much literal. It is not clear if Shesol knew of Lenin's use of the term, which would have been in Russian anyway, or simply coined the term himself. In any case, Shesol's PC came, in the 1980s, to be the only public recognition ever accorded the fact that there is some kind of power out there forcing us to submit to taboos and rules and ideas that most of us don't believe in. PC could be taken as an example of a jew controlling the opposition by creating and leading it, which was a Leninist principle, unironically, but that might be going beyond the facts. (We don't know how much jew Shesol knew about Lenin, or whether jews used him to slide a queered concept of Semitical Correctness to the broader public. It seems unlikely, but can't be wholly discarded as a possibility, because jews have proven time and again they really are that devious.) Whatever the case, Shesol's PC while serving the purpose of giving the opposition something to latch on to that was publicly recognized, nevertheless also had the effect of leading those using it away from the Semite's nest, to use the metaphorical analogy of a mother bird faking a broken wing. But as Sobran brilliantly showed, a very simple alteration makes all the difference. Whites should always use Semitically Correct in place of PC, because the person listening will know they are referring to PC, and be led to think about why they made the subtle change. SC is very effective coinage, because the change in form is small, but the change in meaning is huge.

sperm bank - Here's one I came across in book about Shockley, something I had never thought about before - the use of the term sperm bank as opposed to gene bank. It's an attempt to make goofy and vaguely dirty what isn't.

[p. 42, "Shockley on Eugenics and Race"]

His antagonists in particular delighted to attack Shockley on his advocacy of quality gene banks as a counter-dysgenic measure. These they liked to describe, not inaccurately, as "sperm banks" since this sounded more "kinky" and morally questionable.

As a side note, students of PC will observe that altho leftists always disdain traditional morality, and work politically to outlaw it, they are, by the same token, always willing to use traditional morality if by doing so they can destroy a man or an argument opposed to their insanity.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 12th, 2012 at 03:55 PM.
 
Old November 11th, 2009 #2
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Kievsky
Default

Partner

Liberal heteros now refer to their boyfriend or girlfriend as "partner" in order to provide cover to homos.

This is because male homos don't want to say, "my boyfriend/husband" and female homos don't want to say "my girlfriend/wife."

Well, why not? If there's no shame in it, then why the hell not? Why the weasel word "pardner." What are they, fucking cowboys? Yep, that's Adam Steinberg and his pardner, Ira Levin. The partners got married at Beth Hell Temple in Manhattan last Saturday. Lovely gay jew wedding. One partner is an MTV producer, the other partner is a partner at Horowitz, Steinberg and Schapiro.
 
Old November 19th, 2009 #3
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
As a side note, students of PC will observe that altho leftists always disdain traditional morality, and work politically to outlaw it, they are, by the same token, always willing to use traditional morality if by doing so they can destroy any man or argument opposed to their insanity.
How true. There are numerous examples on the SPLC website of them trying to smear their opponents as queers even though the SPLC is pro-buggery and at least one of its founders is a poof.

Hypocrisy means nothing to a leftist. To a leftist, the ends always justify the means.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old November 19th, 2009 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

denial / denier - ('holocaust' denial, HIV-causes-AIDS denial, global warming denial)

Any leftist verbal perversion that meets with success will soon extend its range to fresh fields. Next to the bogus concept of racism, Holocaust is one of the more successful leftist creations. Holocaust successfully brands an imaginary atrocity, and then the leftist can smash down with denier on anyone who dares question the imposture. Control of the media means you never have to address logical questions. You define and destroy. Just as holocaust denial has been made a crime in many European countries, the left would like to see global warming denial made a crime. And now today, for the first time, I came across HIV-causes-AIDS denial for the first time. The implication is that anyone who dares to question the media-spread and Establishment-backed/-funded claim that HIV causes AIDS is as invalid, morally repugnant, and potentially imprisonable as the evil rotters who deny the holocaust. Sorting out the lies through all this is like trying to remove a triply impacted wisdom tooth with three inches of dental floss. More questions are begged than grains of sand on Daytona Beach.

AIDS itself is a semitically correct term. Originally it was called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, or GRID. And of course you will be aware that gay itself is a semitically correct term for queer, invert or deviant/deviate. As I wrote years ago, a good (means accurate and mnemonic) term for the affliction would be Q-RID: Queer-Related Immune Deficiency. I mean...acquired? Like, bought at the store? Involuntarily picked up through the air? Why be vague when you could be specific. It was queer sexual and drug-use behavior that brought on the majority of cases of the disease, so that should be reflected in the name. But it was a political decision to give the disease and the behavior that caused it a neutral name, the better to frighten people of ordinary sexual behavior into thinking they could catch it, thereby making them more open to funding research on it.

Quote:
The International Campaign to Destroy Medical Hypotheses

Recently the journal Medical Hypotheses, whose editor-in-chief is our friend and frequent commentator Bruce Charlton, a psychiatrist and a professor of evolutionary psychiatry at the University of Newcastle, accepted for publication a paper by the well known HIV "denialist" Peter Duesberg. AIDS activists and researchers hate Duesberg (who by the way has at least one Nobel laureate, Kary Mullis, on his side), and for the grave sin of accepting a paper that dares to question the HIV hypothesis of AIDS, have launched a campaign against Medical Hypotheses and Dr. Charlton.

The group AIDSTruth.org ("The scientific evidence for HIV/AIDS" - no other ideas allowed) recently featured the article Elsevier retracts Duesberg’s AIDS Denialist article, which sets out their successful move to get the publisher of MH to withdraw the article.

AIDSTruth has now opened a campaign to get MEDLINE, the bibliographic database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which is fully searchable through PubMed, to deselect Medical Hypotheses from inclusion in the database. (The letter requesting this action is here in PDF.) There is now a Facebook page, Cancel your Medical Hypotheses subscription, which urges medical libraries and other institutions to rid themselves of this turbulent publication. Also of note, the group additionally accuses the journal of publishing "offensive" and "racist" articles, the latter of which of course places any publication beyond the pale of an enlightened people. (Funny, really, they missed James Watson's most inconvenient truth (PDF) by Rushton and Jensen. Normally that alone would have caused a massive raising of skirts.)

Dr. Charlton, who has more than doubled the journal's impact factor during his tenure as editor-in-chief, radically decreased author response time, and increased the number of downloaded articles to half a million annually, is in danger of getting the sack.

You can read the specious reasoning that comes out of AIDSTruth yourself, but this is obviously a concerted campaign against a journal and an editor who would dare to publish articles that question politically correct dogma. We've seen similar intellectual thuggery going on among the global warmers, who would shut down "denialists"; that the two groups use the same terminology of "denialism" speaks volumes about their common wish to shout down, silence, and destroy their critics.

AIDSTruth must not be allowed to destroy Medical Hypotheses, a journal unique in medicine, whose venerable tradition allows for the publication of "radical, speculative, and non-mainstream scientific ideas". These, of course, are what groups like AIDSTruth can not abide. Though I'm far from able to pronounce decisively, my impression is that MH commands enough prestige among the scientific community that this campaign will get laughed out of court. Let's hope so.
http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/10/...o-destroy.html

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 12th, 2012 at 04:05 PM.
 
Old November 19th, 2009 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

offensive - as used in article above

Offensive, as used in the controlled media, always and only means opposed to the judeo-leftist agenda. Thus, homosexuals and their proclivity for sticking cocks in each other's assholes is never described as offensive -- even though it is to the majority -- rather, those who hold the wrong opinion about (homosexuals, homosexual marriage, anything leftists support) are. The left is big on dissecting power relations but this never comes into play when it's on top. Offensive = offensive to judeo-leftists. Not to normal people. They're just supposed to shut up and not impose their morality on (fags, queers, jews, muds) even as the leftists impose theirs on the normals. Anyone opposed to the leftist agenda is by that fact on the wrong side of history, and so his interests, tastes and desires need not be taken into account. The non-leftist is nothing but (as I was described by my college president) an example of "how far we have to go."

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 12th, 2012 at 04:10 PM.
 
Old November 19th, 2009 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Comment taken from the link under the HIV-denial article]

Anonymous said...

Quote:
People who object to AGW are now labelled "global warming deniers" or "climate change deniers" in some quarters.

This is obviously an attempt to link them to Holocaust-deniers and to indimidate others from considering whatever issue on its merits. Its going to be an effective shaming tactic unfortunately unless its met with recognition and denigration from conservatives willing to speak up and "name" what is being attempted when "denialism-branding" is being used. Its a form of marginalization-by-false-linkage.
[Good point, but if the commenter thought a little bit harder he might see that the fact that two true or at least plausible things are under fire by those who can't argue their position ought to lead him to question the third. That's where the concept of the Big Lie comes in. The commenter has no problem believing men could lie about Global Warming and HIV-Causing-AIDS, but he has not yet graduated to believing they could lie about something even bigger - ''the' 'Holocaust.'']

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 12th, 2012 at 04:11 PM.
 
Old November 23rd, 2010 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

slut-shaming - commonly used at Jezebel and other lefty female-oriented sites. in their terms, it means making women guilty for liking sex. in real terms, it amounts to 'women should be able to dress however they want but no one should ever judge them based on their choices/appearances.' meaning: women should be able to have things both ways at all times, and anyone who disagrees is 'sexist,' 'slut-shamer' or some other opprobrium-targeted heavy.

key insight: what do women want? to have it both ways at all times, and to be held at their own evaluation of themselves and their motives be accepted without questioning by all others. no matter how illogical, crazy, bizarre their beliefs or behaviors. women who go on and on about being liberated, empowered, 'strong,' free, etc., are always the ones who in the next breath are curled up in crying balls because of things others say about them, which damages their tender feelings and to which they tend to attribute responsibility for their bad choices. wanting to be one thing and be thought another is very common among women. it's common among men, too, but men at least recognize their hypocrisy. i think in fact very few of the women of the 'slut-shaming' community are self-conscious/intelligent/perceptive enough to realize the contradictions in what they say.

privilege or white privilege - it is very difficult to express what is meant by this term, but basically it is the idea that whites get some special benefits merely for being white. never is there any acknowledgement that whites are discriminated against by law, and routinely mocked in commercials and content throughout the mass media. nor is there ever any appreciation for the achievements of white men, even though they have basically created the entire world, including the leisure time and technical tools the feminists and coloreds use to disparage them. the complete absence of gratitude among feminists for the things men have done to help women is a measure of the average feminist's low character and weak brainpower. camille paglia is probably the only self-described feminist with even an inkling of the reality of things, as she has repeatedly said that civilization is a masculine product, and thanked men for providing the basis for a healthier and more comfortable life for all of us, men and women. finally, there is no jew-communist recognition of the fact that if whites benefit from stereotypical assumptions, it is because of their proven record of behavior. just as blacks are often treated as stupid violent criminals, because such a high percentage of them are those things, so whites are assumed honest, honorable and law-abiding, because so many of them are those things. what we see in the left is either the inability to perceive reality accurately, or the inability to accept the reality it perceives because it is humiliating. it amounts to the same thing. leftism, in whites or women, is the rejection of reality turned into a moral crusade and political cause. this reality-rejecting egotism is like an uncontained fire, it holds the potential to burn down the entire world because it isn't constituted the way the fantasist and character-defective thinks it should be. it is absolutely the wrong policy to humor women who entertain these fantasies, like they're cute or funny. no, they are dangerous to themselves and others, and their fantasy-insanity should never be humored, just mocked and ridiculed until they are in tears.

analogy: blacks and feminists complaining about 'white privilege' is equivalent to cockroaches (or moths) complaining about butterfly privilege. butterflies, complain the roaches, are treated everywhere with smiles and delight. they flit from flowers to flowers, making pretty dancing pictures in the air, harm nobody, add some grace and beauty to the world, so are generally well received. Cockroaches are ugly little thieves that steal our food and spread diseases and crap up a formerly clean place like nobody's business. People are naturally disgusted to see them, and expect the next one will do and behave like the last hundred million have. The cockroach privilege is to be hated, pursued, rejected and kept away from all clean and attractive human establishments. Makes sense, don't you think? 'White privilege' is a fancy way of saying people expect whites to behave like other whites have, just as they expect blacks to behave as other niggers have. leftism is a way to punish the reality-oriented community by trying to gang-press it into a verbal-political cult using social sanctions, laws, and, if need be, violence.

analogy: dolphin privilege. dophins are received warmly wherever human bathers find them. sharks are received hostilely. there's no proof that any given shark is going to attack bathers, but because sharks are known to attack, kill and eat men, men are prejudiced toward them, and generally exit the water whenever a large one appears. whereas bathers are likelier to swim toward a dolphin. this reprehensible dolphin privilege is the shame of the sea. does that make sense?

observation: it's hard to avoid saying lack of intelligence, but that's not really precisely it. it being what it is about women's thinking that's so remarkable - the thing that hits the observer almost every time, no matter what aspect of the question is being considered. it's just they seem to have a sexual proclivity, or anti-proclivity for having any perspective, depth or contextual grasp of things, resulting in abounding ironies they never notice.

example, granted this is subtle, then on to a super obvious one. in a post about Thanksgiving and the family turmoil that often ensues, you'll often find a feminist saying she gets into argument with her racist relatives, so she has to plan to get around that. and then you will find one inevitably saying she solves the problem by simply avoiding either the discussion topic, or simply staying away from the gathering. this works and preserves her sanity and everybody's happiness. never in a million years will this woman pause to bethink that her solution to not-getting-along is the same thing the racialist wants for incompatible races (blacks and whites): separation, or at least segregation. integration just leads to hate and endless bickering, so separate and preserve the peace, make everybody better off. it's smart and reasonable when the woman does it personally; its immoral when the racist relative would do it politically. again, this is fairly subtle, i would never expect a woman to puzzle it out. even to say puzzle it out is wrong, because the mind would have to be in a certain vein - seeking connections, new associations, contradictions - that women's minds never run in unless some man directs them into that particular channel.

now a more obvious example.

observation two: feminists are so bereft of irony, brains, whatever 'it' is that they lack that men often have, that you will often see feminists using Duke male students as the perfect example of those who enjoy white privilege. yet dozens of these creatures were accused by a nigger stripper-prostitute, literally a crazy whore, someone with no credibility on the face of it, yet her obvious lies were taken as gospel truth not only by the national media, but by those students' own professors and college administrators. now, even a blind hog ought to smell the incredible contradiction and hypocrisy, but by god, i've never seen a feminist even stumble into this Grand Canyon-sized gap between the leftist claims of white privilege and the white reality indicated by the Duke lacrosse imbroglio. these supposedly rich, young powerful white men, who out of of all the white race would be, by leftist claims, the very likeliest to be beneficiaries of white privilege, were nailed to the (la)crosse by press and professors, while the word of the powerless, overlooked sister was treated like a divine commandment.

it would actually be better if these feminists were simply corrupt, lying, hypocrites, but the special thing about women, compared to men, is they really aren't, suggesting a biological basis to their imperception and consequent irrational argumentation and strange behavior. none of the usual indices of corruption and chicanery and subterfuge are there - their cluelessness and obliviousness are real and unfaked, as best can be told. they are simply dim and humorless and impercipient to a level that is frankly hard to believe if one hadn't seen thousands of examples of it, certainly enough to draw a general conclusion. women aren't stupid. they're only a little less intelligent than men, overall. but they are flat-minded and myopic as hell, and pretty darn humorless too. women aren't creative or funny, they're the audience. they're the people with an absolutely unconsidered belief in the power of words over evidence. which is why they so blankly, so unthinkingly use adjectives like they mean something - "i am funny, creative, etc." with absolutely no grasp of what's wrong with this. it's not even faith, because faith implies doubt. it's 100% pure imponderation, so to neologize. to a woman, what is is, and is right, and it is unthinkable it could be otherwise. as paglia says if it were up to women, we'd still be living in grass huts. those who think women think must explain why it took a man to invent the bra. a practical, technical problem that must have troubled every heavy-breasted woman since time began, yet not a single one was ever inspired to come up with a solution. no one else around her ever said or did anything about it so why would she? that is how women think, but it's not a matter of thinking. that is how women are.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 12th, 2012 at 04:22 PM.
 
Old March 10th, 2012 #8
DoesHomeRenovations
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kievsky View Post
Partner

Liberal heteros now refer to their boyfriend or girlfriend as "partner" in order to provide cover to homos.

This is because male homos don't want to say, "my boyfriend/husband" and female homos don't want to say "my girlfriend/wife."

Well, why not? If there's no shame in it, then why the hell not? Why the weasel word "pardner." What are they, fucking cowboys? Yep, that's Adam Steinberg and his pardner, Ira Levin. The partners got married at Beth Hell Temple in Manhattan last Saturday. Lovely gay jew wedding. One partner is an MTV producer, the other partner is a partner at Horowitz, Steinberg and Schapiro.


I ran into one of those on a job.. told me his "partner" would be home to let me in. I figured he was a fag, till he mentioned her by name. So from there on I just referred to them as "your wife" and "your husband". Neither one contradicted me.
 
Old May 9th, 2012 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Race fear cops ban the word ‘blacklist’

By TOM WELLS
Published: 07th May 2012

POLICE chiefs have banned IT staff from using the word blacklist over fears it is RACIST.

289 comments

The computer term whitelist — used to denote a list of acceptable contacts — has also been outlawed.

In an email, Scotland Yard warned staff the words were no longer “appropriate”.

Security services chief Brian Douglas wrote: “IB (Information Board) are uncomfortable with the use of the term Whitelist (and I presume Blacklist).

“I am sure we can appreciate the sensitivity around the use of such terminology today so please ensure it is no longer used.” He suggested using green and red list instead.

Sources at the Met — where 20 officers are under investigation over alleged racism — branded the decision “bizarre”.

One said: “Do we really think these words are discriminatory? The truth is they’re nothing to do with race whatsoever and are very common IT terms. Banning them won’t solve any genuine problems the Met has with racism.”

Scotland Yard said: “This is not a change in policy.

“It is a change in internal Information Communications Technology terminology which reflects a more appropriate use of language.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...is-racist.html

[The jews hook PC into middle-class beloved memes of tasteful, appropriate, responsible. This makes PC seem like a matter of manners rather than political tyranny.]
 
Old May 9th, 2012 #10
Angel Ramsey
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
Default

"Youths", used by the MSM to describe niggers.
 
Old July 12th, 2012 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

survival crimes - First noticed in a 'Human Rights Report' on Golden Dawn in June 2012. See this thread. Survival crimes are committed by criminal-alien-invaders, whom commit them to survive, and for no other reason, according to the leftists who call them undocumented workers or simply immigrants. When illegal-alien invaders attack old women and steal their money, it's a survival crime. When native whites fight back, it's a hate crime.

With this term the jews have taken another conceptual step: There are ordinary crimes. Then there are hate crimes. Then there are survival crimes. Which might as well be called love crimes, altho not even a jew has the temerity to go that far yet.

Hate crimes are verbal transgressions (breaking jew-set taboos) or real crimes, which are held to be worse than ordinary crimes, requiring extra punshiment. (Even though, ironically and against the intent of the creators of the bogus concept blacks commit a disproportionate percentage of hate crimes the category is still, thanks to jewish media, identified exclusively with white males.) Hate crimes is essentially a sort of affirmative action for white men in the field of crime since they need a hateful hand up to get anywhere near niggers in terms of competition. Hate crimes is a special category and concept invented by jews specifically to demonize white men, and fool the mass public that white men are uniquely hateful and dangerous. Now comes the concept of survival crimes, which serves to downplay the seriousness of real crime committed by jew-favored groups such as, in this case, illegal aliens. Survival crimes are essentially love crimes that deserve less than ordinary punishment because of the high motives driving the criminal. He's just doin' what he gots ta do to keep hisself and his family alive in a hateful world of white racism.

The point of hate crimes, a bogus concept invented by jews, who used their media and political power to make it a legal reality in many countries, is to distract attention from real crimes. So-called hate crimes number in the low thousands each year in the U.S. Real crimes number in the millions. And as we've said, most so-called hate crimes are either verbal (word exchanges) or misdemeanors, mostly dismissable stuff. Not serious crimes. Whereas real crimes are violent and serious. Yet by media distortion this tiny handful of taboo-breakings is made to outweigh literally millions of violent crimes. The political end is to make it seem that white men's words are worse than niggers' actions. Leftists have long tried to efface the difference between words and behavior; they love to describe words or rhetorical verbiage as 'violent,' and they try to get this nostrum, that words actually are the same thing as (violent) behavior encoded into law. It's a back door to shutting down free expression in the name of fighting violence. Get your opponent's arguments made legally equivalent to rape and murder and robbery and he won't be allowed to debate, you'll win by default.

The purpose of the concept of hate crimes is to turn reality on its head so that white men are demonized and black men are treated as put-upon and discriminated against angels. Putting over the bogus concept of 'hate crimes' is about as pure an example of jewish chutzpah as you're going to find, ad yet another reason the jewish race deserves to and eventually will be exterminated.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 12th, 2012 at 02:23 PM.
 
Old July 12th, 2012 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

irregular immigrants - latest euphemism for illegal aliens or invaders, first observed in 'Human Rights Watch' report on Golden Dawn, July 2012. The judeo-left will do all it can verbally to normalize the groups under its umbrella. Queers become gays. Niggers become African-Americans. Invaders become immigrants. The globalist nation-wreckers hate the idea of nations. They believe anyone should be able to go anywhere, except Israel. And the native should have nothing to say about it, except in Israel. But most people don't feel this way. Most people think a nation has the right to defend its borders and preserve it's people. So the jew-led globalists are perpetually in search of a new perfume or deodorant to make the invaders they're supporting smell better. From illegal alien the controlled jewsmedia has tried undocumented worker, as though all invaders work, rather than rely on welfare. It has tried migrant. Immigrant. Immigrant without papers. Whatever it can do to cut the distance between a criminal-alien-invading coalblack Somalian and a duly born and bred native. The latest attempt to normalize the status of hated alien invaders is irregular immigrant.

human rights - a communist/NWO/jewish neutral-sounding term that conceals and represents fictional claims by the mud masses on productive whites. The terms is a seemingly neutral way to force one set of people (whites) to turn over their goods (citizenship, social services) to other people on the basis of some vague moral or legal claim. It's just ordinary jewish anti-white politics dressed up as some universal moral-political claim. Just remember: HUMAN RIGHTS = ANTI-WHITE.

exploitation - a drama-queen term used by socialists analyzing ordinary economic activity in place of used or employed. In politics, the term is a dysphemism for any white group that dares to use the problems caused by jews and the minorites they force on white communities to provide help and garner support. If a white political group (Golden Dawn, for example) responds to its community need to be protected from nigger/alien crime, then the PC jewsmedia will say that white political group is exploiting the crimes or the situation. The implication its somehow unfair and morally wrong to talk about the problems jews cause. As always, you are wrong and immoral if you oppose the jewish agenda. Even if that opposition translates into helping old ladies go to the bank to withdraw money from the ATM, which they can't do without guards because of the lurking criminals let in from Africa and Asia by the jews running the nation's immigration policies. Jews, by contrast, are never described as exploiting blacks to achieve their agenda, such as by destroying segregated, stable communities and destroying the back-to-Africa movement, purely because they needed discombobulated niggers to use to mix with and thereby destroy white communities.

tolerance/intolerance - this is like a term a clef. Tolerant means you support the judeo-leftist agenda. Intolerant means you oppose it. Illiberals tend to use educated in the same way. If you support the jew-leftist position you are educated; if you do not, you are uneducated. Intolerant and uneducated are two of the commoner insults flung by leftists wherever they fall into debate with nons.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 12th, 2012 at 02:25 PM.
 
Old July 12th, 2012 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

youths, children, teenagers, kids - euphemisms for younger niggers, typically used in the judenpresse to cover for younger nigger gangsters who are engaging in routine TNB like flash mob assaults on malls or convenience stores, or drive-by shootings, or some other behavior that has left a bunch of people and property destroyed. These terms are particularly useful where the niggers have assaulted whites, which is usually the case, and always something the jewsmedia want to cover up - the racial nature of the assault. They do it by not mentioning the perps' race if they can, that's their default. This becomes untenable in an age of social media, where everyone can record video (including the nigger criminals themselves) and find out what's actually going on in short order. Even in the old days, people learned to read between the lines: if race is left out, it's a nigger doing the crime. If race can't be left out, then it should be downplayed. This is done by pretending that the creature referred to in every other context, and very deliberately and pointedly as a black man, suddenly becomes a teenager or child or youth. The better to infantilize him, extenuate what he has done, and downplay or remove his agency and responsibility. He's not a predator making a felonious assuault, or a rapist, or a murderer, he's a youth engaged in shenanigans or hooliganism or vandalism or some other petty activity. Pretend blacks aren't doing what they do. Pretend blacks aren't black. Pretend niggers don't exist - that's job #1 in the jewsmedia when it comes to crime reporting. See Fred Reed on this. The truth is, when it comes to crime, and many other things, the creatures employed by the jewsmedia are not reporting, they are covering up. Their use of reporter to describe themselves is a political act; it is the unrightful appropriation of a traditional and respectable term to cover an disgusting and dangerous form of deception. I'll say it again: in the mass media, the controlled media, in 2012, reporter itself is a PC term - at least wherever anything beyond a new baby elephant being born at the zoo is being talked about.

black man - this term is the default description of a nigger not currently caught in crime in jew-controlled media. In the old days niggers, per their status as white inferiors, were commonly called boy. For this reason, the jewsmedia freely sprinkles its reports with white boy, in order to degrade the dignity of the white man, in line with the jewish political agenda, which is to wreck white nations en route to genociding the white race. Encouraging whites to respect niggers and disrespect themselves is a very significant mission in the jewed media. Notice as always that everything jews do is of a piece; it all drives in the same direction; it all dovetails and mutually reinforces. From country music to violent-crime reporting to cooking shows to pornography to spectator sports, the same agenda is served, and what are merely different variations, mutatis mutandis, of the same small set of ideas and the same driving agenda are evident. The pattern is not mistakeable. There is no piece or part of the mass media that is not White-hostile by jewish design.

When white men aren't called white boys, they're called white males. Or guys. Both of these usages are attempts to diminish their manhood and masculinity, just as white boy is, altho to a lesser degree. The historical evolution, directed by the jewish mass media, along with the judeo-feminists, was from man to male to guy, the terms indicating progressively greater disrespect.

The campaign to genocide the white man involves lowering him in the eyes of white women, as well as everybody else, which is accomplished easily on the page verbally in order to pave the way for the legal and social changes that are fought for in politics. A white man is something. A white guy is just a clown. A creature of no significance. Nothing that needs to be taken into account. No one that must be respected. Guyism (yes, you could find it almost made into a doctrine in certain places, if you look hard enough, so it can be held as a genuine PC term) is promoted through culture - through the writings of columnists like Dave Barry, who styles himself the quintessential guy - nerdy, goofy, harmless -- through the depictions on sitcoms and in tv commercials. Again, the intention is to get the man to think less of himself. Women, by contrast are only called girls if the point is to make them feel that they are still young and fresh. Otherwise they are called ladies or women. Sometimes females. The 'female' is degrading, but this is not for sex-specific reasons, as was the case for the switch to the use of white male, but simply as part of an overall jewish strategy of reducing all non-jews' respect for themselves and for others.

Male or female were traditionally adjectives, not nouns. For example, you'd have a male plug or a female plug. They were not the thing itself. So using them as nouns, while not technically grammatically wrong, was not done in the old days, and is only done in the new days because it serves a political agenda, as with all the words we're discussing. We're just a bunch of dirty goyim. Dirty shaigetz and shiksa. Just like dogs or something. This fits in with a term commonly used on jewish sitcoms for genitalia: junk. We're just animals with junk, like dogs. Careless as dogs of how we mix. Leading to mongrelism. Per the dictates of the Frankfurt School. Make whites loose! Sexual looseness will lead to mental looseness, will lead to social incontinence -- the lost abilty to make crucial distinctions, dare we say discriminations (which are now illegal racially, right?) -- and deliver the hated goyish society into our hands...for all time. This is in fact how jews, how they plot, how they act, how they behave, how they plan, and how they triumph. This is why I say, "You already hate jews, White Man - you just don't know it yet." Now you do know it.

Male and female used on humans are meant to dirty and dedignify and disrespect. They want us to use them. So they make them ubiquitous. Today, as I write, in 2012, you'll see guy and male used all over the place. White man you'll see seldom in the controlled media, the judenpresse. Male has more of a police-blotter or authority connotation; guy is more for ordinary daily purposes. Both diminish. And are intended to. The jews don't like men. They fear white men. They belittle and diminish white men verbally by making them white guys and white males and white boys. When jewish victims come to see themselves as nothing more than junk-swinging dogs (and Known Cool Guys Brad Pitt and Ashton Kutcher use the term), it makes it that much easier to discriminate against them and steal their property, including their women and children.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 12th, 2012 at 04:23 PM.
 
Old July 12th, 2012 #14
Squarehead Chris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Crawlin' from the wreckage
Posts: 1,950
Squarehead Chris
Default

Don't forget the term "hater".
This one sounds pretty childish, but it seems to be getting very popular on sites where you are allowed to leave comments.
I've often seen it used to describe (brand) people who don't like obama, or illegals, or for those who don't support the PC leftist agenda.
They're all haters!

Recently on my local newspaper site, a woman left this as part of her comment:
"I can't believe how many haters are out there these days, they should all be thrown in prison."

Last edited by Squarehead Chris; July 12th, 2012 at 05:10 PM. Reason: Typo
 
Old July 13th, 2012 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squarehead Chris View Post
Don't forget the term "hater".
This one sounds pretty childish, but it seems to be getting very popular on sites where you are allowed to leave comments.
I've often seen it used to describe (brand) people who don't like obama, or illegals, or for those who don't support the PC leftist agenda.
They're all haters!

Recently on my local newspaper site, a woman left this as part of her comment:
"I can't believe how many haters are out there these days, they should all be thrown in prison."
Yes, good point. I will deal with this word lovingly in a fresh entry.

The public has been dumbed down by public schools, and the language of public debate has been sheared and simplified per George Orwell. Everything is reduced to two sides: the side of the angels, the ruling illiberals, and the side of the devils, anyone opposed to their agenda or any item on it. This is reflected in the terms they use:

- oppose them on race? you're a racist
- oppose them on sex? you're a sexist and/or homophobe
- oppose them on jews? you're an anti-semite

What is the common emotional impulse binding these positions, which the left will assure us always run together? hate expressed by hateful haters
 
Old July 13th, 2012 #16
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Anyone is free to post SC terms on here. Any loaded term is appropriate. There are thousands of them, the above is just getting started. The point is to define these terms as they are used in the real world of loaded reporting/broadcasting, and lay bare the mentality and anti-White politics behind them.
 
Old July 13th, 2012 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

racism

outrage/outraged

example from controlled media: Medics Outraged[i] at Far-Right Party Proclaiming Blood Donations for Greeks Only[i]


accused

example from controlled media: The far-right Golden Dawn party is accused of organizing a racist blood drive.


native americans

example from controlled media: Native Americans arrived to find natives already there, fossil poo shows

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 14th, 2012 at 10:43 AM.
 
Old July 18th, 2012 #18
Roy
Perception Manager
 
Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,794
Roy
Default

Social Justice

Not enough niggers in your daily life? Well, kike-pressure groups like the SPLC will get laws passed so that you get your daily allowance of niggers. It's called "social justice." A more neutral term would be "anti-White law-writing efforts", because that's what is really meant by the kikenmedia when they use their propaganda term "social justice". It certainly isn't "justice" in any sense because, "justice" means laws that treat everyone equally. That's not what they mean by "social justice". They mean schools, neighborhoods, and entire cities destroyed by niggers, while any complaint is treated as "racism".
 
Old July 20th, 2012 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,230
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Good one, Roy. It just occurs to me social justice is very much like hate crimes. Social justice is the opposite of justice. Just like hate crimes are the opposite -- and a distraction from -- real crimes. Social justice was invented by jews or communists or communist jews as way to explain why real justice wasn't what it appeared to be - what traditional Aryan society had always regarded it as being - but something else, something like the reverse. And jews really are dipped in this concept from birth; it was often on the lips of jews I knew personally in college, and I used to argue with them about it.

It cannot be overemphasized how much jews hate and fear Aryans. They are paranoid that any Aryans not actively being overseen by jews or their bought government agents are plotting against them. That's the psychological, as opposed to the political, source of what might otherwise seem to be their crazy, paranoid policies.
 
Old July 23rd, 2012 #20
Hunter Morrow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,802
Hunter Morrow
Default

Disparate Impact/Adverse Impact

Whenever a mud isn't getting something good at the same rate, or even higher, that a White is the reason is said to "disparately" or "adversely impact" the mud.

This is seen in all these cop and firefighter exams that niggers and spics fail time and time again.

It happened in Ricci V DeStefano. Nobody in a New Haven, Connecticut firefighter was promoted to management when 19 Whites passed but not a single nigger did. This time the Whites won 5-4.

Quote:
Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2671, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 (2009) is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States arising from a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, Connecticut by twenty city firefighters alleging that the city discriminated against them with regard to promotions.[1] The firefighters, nineteen of whom are white and one of whom is Hispanic, had all passed the test for promotions to management. City of New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who passed the exam had scored high enough to be considered for the positions. They stated that they feared a lawsuit over the test's adverse impact on a protected minority. The complainants claimed they were denied the promotions because of their race—a form of racial discrimination.[2][3]
This sort of thing is something that uppity high yellow nigger, Eric "My People" Holder loves to sue people for. Having any sort of standards whatsoever in Amerikwa is RAYCISS because the muds are never up to snuff.

Another recent thing is to not require drug testing and background checks for jobs and to make it illegal for employers to ask if somebody had ever been convicted of a felony because it "disparately impacts" niggers and spics. This is jew scheming to replace White men in crucial jobs like firefighting with muds.

Here is something about "banning the box" that NAACP and La Raza love. "The Box" is the crime question on a job application. Employers don't have that on the job application anymore in places like Philly and Boston. Itz illegal. It hurts the nigs and the spics in their quest to reform and give back to community.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...-philadelphia/

"Adverse Impact" and "Disparate Impact" are the Jewdicial system's way of giving backdoor welfare to muds. I'd never heard these terms 10 years ago now they are everywhere. Been plotting this disaster for decades. The Jewdicial System Is Our Misfortune again.

Disparate_Impact Disparate_Impact
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 AM.
Page generated in 0.22942 seconds.