It and Essence

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

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 –

Think not oo-part but oop-art, to remember. Oop-art. Look at those circled balls. What do you think? Me? I have no idea. I’m more open than most to questioning of evolution because of an article I once read by Tom Bethell. I consider evolution likelier than other theories, but unproven. Archaeology was a fairly recent science, when it was honest, and it hasn’t been honest since the jews arrived on American shores in large numbers, around the turn of last century. Where man-artifiacts and man-measures are concerned, the wordful jew spins and lies with aplomb, backed always by the media which, after all, he mostly owns and edits, and nearly wholly, off the internet, controls through paycheck and blackmail. So, let’s give these balls their due. They may be pregnant with great meaning. Or not. It’s really hard to say. These balls could rewrite history. The things these balls would say, if they could talk. These balls have been around for a long, long time. They may have been around in St. Petersburg, when they heart it was a time for a change, for all I know. It’s very hard to say. Gun to my temple, proto

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.

Ratio decidendi is one of those helpful terms which means precisely what it appears to – the decisive reason. The reason/point on which turns the decision in a (law) case. I never came across this term before, but I could guess its meaning from context, as is often the case. Here’s the background of the term at

:

Stare decisis (STARE-ee de-SIGH-sis) is the law of precedent – ‘stand by things decided,’ in Latin. Judges must follow the law, i.e., the settled interpretations of laws clearly intended and carefully written by legislatures. That’s how you produce and promote stability in a society. When things are settled, people feel confident enough to try to do things. When things are wild and crazy, they pull in. This is why a decision such as Brown vs. Board of Education is dangerous and bogus – it simply reverses settled law, as a pure power play on the part of courts and judges who think they can get away with it because the powers that be (academics and politicians and media figures) will back them up. When a court simply decides to do a 180-degree reversal on a decades-settled question, social stability is endangered. The people of (Alabama) don’t want their sons and daughteres schooling with niggers. That is their democratically expressed will. The court, a minority of one, a judge, simply decides to throw out their democratic will and replace it with his autocratic will. He has in effect made himself the King of Alabama, as it were. When he does this, the people are fully within their rights to drag him out of his bed at night and lynch him. That is exactly what Thomas Jefferson and the Founders would advise them to do. Usurpations become decisis with time themselves, after all. We discussed this at great length in my review of Pat Buchanan’s book, in which he discusses the Supreme Court’s usurpation of the right to be the final arbiter of Constitutionality. The right does not exist – the power is meant to be disputed among whichever parties have the will to do so, but the Court claimed it, the centralizers backed it, and the opposition was never able, so far, to offer it a challenge.

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:

Think customer appreciation day – on the spot. A “thanks for your business” gift, whereas a tschotchke, as we’ve covered, is more of a hoping-you’ll-do-business even-smaller gift. Lagniappe has an interesting etymology:

So it’s Louisiana by way of France by way of Spain by way of Quechua (Indians), meaning addition. Now you know.

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.

So, a sexy lower-class chick, operating with an eye toward leveraging her assets to get herself into a better position. Nice word.

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:

He uses the term as a noun, not an adjective. Now, any adjective may be used as a noun, true, but we can infer, if we know English fairly well, that he isn’t doing that but is using specific to mean something specific, like a cure. We look up specific:

For the character Christopher Walken played in this famous sketch…

https://screen.yahoo.com/more-cowbell-174128899.html

…the only specific was…more cowbell.

6) crusty dotards –

I’ve often used dotards; feels good to know Jori-Karl was using it 100 years before it even occurred to me. Pronounce it to yourself with a French accent. Very satisfying. I like to apply the –ard wherever possible. Droolards is a good one. Of course, we’re all familiar with patriotard. The sound has to be right. Many who attempt to conjoin this suffix to nouns they hate miss that point. It really is a matter of music. Some can feel the rhythm and the music of words, and some are tone deaf. For new constructions to have any chance of working, they must be aural – always. Mere visual constructions don’t work. Very rarely. First the sound, then the sense. Both are necessary. There are only 26 letters in English. There’s an infinite way of saying pretty much anything you want to communicate. There’s an art to it. Most likely there’s some science underlying the art, as certain sounds are known to funnier than others. But I will leave those discussions for my other column, On Writing.

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 –

Go ahead and look up all the words in this glorious selection foreign to you; we’ll focus on tautology, which is something circular. Here’s a famous one: The Bible is the divine word of God! How do you know? It says so in the Bible! Defining a thing in terms of itself is circular – and circularity, circular reasoning, is the heart of the tautology. You’re essentially repeating the same assertion in different terms, which lends the appearance of saying something new or effective, but is in fact saying exactly the same thing. It’s a verbal d’oh that goes unrecognized, since most people are kind of dopey and a change in covers to them is indistinguishable from a change in contents.

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 –

A marriage isn’t just something between two queers, my children, it can be a joining of any two partners – two colors, as in the above example. I recall mentioning to my old boss Tyrrell how his use of ‘hatch’ reminded me of chickens, but he remarked that eagles hatch too. Speaking of hatch, I remember another verb of similar build I learned from his writing: scotch. One scotches the plans of one’s enemy.

Scotch a plan is the most commonly seen use, but you can think of many other ways to use this simple, useful yet uncommon verb.

Here’s an artistic use:

9) lugubrious –

Just a good use of lugubrious, one of my favorite words. If you don’t know what it means, look it up; I’m pretty sure I’ve already told you it means ridiculously sorrowful or mournful. The long u sounds echo the sense of it, which always calls to my mind the voice of Eeyore in Winnie The Pooh.

10) sectary –

Few things are more useful in attacking an opponent than comparing him to an animal. Well, yes, but what I was going for here was depicting him as perfervid fanatic in service of a deranged cult. A deep familiarity with the terms of religion is extremely useful in this life on earth, which, again, is the only life we know of, and, it may be taken for granted, the only life that exists.

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.

The general rule is cult < sect < religion. The joke is: a religion is a cult with a football team.

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 –

It has been proven repeatedly in tests that what he claims about the wine-merchant’s taste-ability is false, but we’ll leave that aside. What is torrefaction? If we didn’t know, we might guess it had something to do with torrid – possibly to do with heat. That would make sense by the context. Let’s look it up.

Still not entirely clear to me how Huysmans was using this, but I guess he means the level of dryness of the tea leaves, in the above quotation. If not, then I suppose he means the intensity of sunlight to which the leaf on the tree or bush was subjected.

12) satiety –

Now, we’re used to sated or satiated. We know how to pronounce those. But how do we pronounce satiety? If we don’t know, we won’t remember. This I emphasize: words are significant first as sounds. Not even as meanings. As sounds. Then meanings. Then verbal designs. We can’t remember words whose pronunciations we haven’t assimilated. How do we pronounce satiety? We badly want to say SAY-shehh-tee, but…that sounds dumb and wrong. It is. Sated and satiated lead us down the wrong path. The way to remember this word is that it rhymes with sobriety. If you don’t believe me, go here and hear it.

This is a word for writing, not speaking. If you used it while you were speaking, your interlocutor wouldn’t understand you, most likely. Even if he knew the word, he would tend to think he had misheard you. Aristotle advised to speak as other men do. This is definitely a term for page rather than mouth. It’s somewhat like sectary – another term that is ok on the page, but if spoken will be mistaken for secretary by 99% of the audience. Words that are uncommon yet look like common words, as a viceroy to a monarch – it’s best one not speak them, but use them in writing if they fit – i.e., if you’re not writing for idiots or certain types of paying customers.

viceroy

monarch

13) perspicacious –

You should know that, and I will be privately embarrassed for both of us if you don’t, perspicacious pertains to that which through-sees (per = through, spic = see). If you can see through things, you are shrewd, perceptive. Perspicacious is not particularly more useful than a plainer shorter word, but the time will come when you need its extra syllables for your rhythm, and then you’ll know to eschew the shrewd for perspicacious. It’s also good for alliteration, since p is one of the better rhyming letters, and one of the funnier.

An artistic use:

Insertion for one particular reason: It’s ok to say fuck or shit, where they are called for; it is not and never ok to refer to refer to a book as a read, a girl as a lay or a video as a watch. Am ickstem! (English word set in German superlative form, for those who must know, because this column is about learning.) Please make like an agitated Buddhist monk and engage in some pyrotic activity if you even think in this manner, because there is something wrong with you, and its probably congenital. Just throwing that little dictum into your orbiter.

I remember very little of high school, as college made 1000 times greater impression, but I do recall an English final. We had a skinny teacher. I still remember my Beavislike horror when he mentioned “the delectable Janet Lee,” this Ichabodiless scrawn of an I-lectern hider-behind. More I liked when he would say, of a girl working a comb, “There goes Rachel, trying to do what God Himself couldn’t.” (Make herself better looking.) He never tired of that one, and now that I’m of age, I understand where he’s coming from. Something never get unfunny. I remember another teacher I had. He was a Texan. The rumor was he had literally shot himself in the foot at one point. He was trying to teach us geography. I still recall his accent when he said “I’m ohna have-ta raht that one dayown,” when one kid asseverated that ocean currents were essentially fish trails. I still recall from memory (where else would I recall from, my stomach?) from that English class how some of the kids used to recite some lines from Huckleberry Finn:

Long way round the barn to say, the final in this sophomore class had a short story for us to read. And to interpret the meaning of. I forget who wrote it, possibly Bierce. It was about a man come back to a cabin, and something is amiss. I guessed the meaning was “things are usually worse than they appear.” The right answer was, things very often not what they appear. That’s what we larval bourgeois were supposed to garner from our lessons, among other things. True enough. Serves one well in encountering ‘the’ ‘holocaust,’ ‘global warming’ and other bit of tripe promoted and popular. The mass is almost defined by its inability to see through things, or, alternatively put, its proclivity for taking things at face value. Reinforced by instruction in the perniciously race-destructive and devolutionary Golden Rule. Which should be abandoned for, as I’ve said many times, the infinitely wiser and more practical jew (Al) Davis rule: treat others in the way their behavior indicates you’d be wise to treat them. As the late ungreat she-nig poetess Angelou said, the first time someone shows you who he is – believe him. There is wisdom in that, even if a defunct blackamoor said it. (It may be stolen wisdom, for all I know. Most of Angelou’s stuff sounds like warmed over, nig-veneered white self-help pabulum, at least to my glorious ear, filched from the back pages of M. Scott Peckerman or that chiclet-toothed giant.)

Quote:

She became a poet and writer after a series of occupations as a young adult, including fry cook, prostitute, nightclub dancer and performer

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 –

We know what a nymph is, but what is a lymph? We’ve heard of lymph nodes! Those are the things under our arms and in our legs where white blood cells congregate to produce great victories over intrusive agents. Something like that. I’m not a scientician.

We must suppose he was using lymph in the now-archaic sense. He’s talking about religious writers, so the purity and clarity would fit there. The term comes from Greek mythology. The lymphs were the springs, and the nymphs were the goddesses hanging around but certainly not hover-pissing in them, I’m fairly sure.

So lymph is clear fluid, literally or mythologically, or pure source metaphorically. I guess that’s cleared up, but I for one would not use the term except for medical matters.

15) peroration –

Peroration is a fancy term for close; i.e., the conclusion of a speech. You can use it show off your knowledge, if you’re bourgeois-inclined. Or, if you’re simon pure, i.e., driven by noble motive, i.e. the desire to mock, then you will readily see how it might be employed as faux-high descriptor of some unworthy delivering his oration, Stupid Thoughts on Silly Things from a Over-Degreed Simpleton. If you use this comparatively unfamiliar term, you can’t but be thought one of two things: as pretentious, by the average man; as intending mockery, by the man who knows the meaning of perorate/peroration. We live in an age in which even journalists think those free with quotations are pretentious so, well, I just plain wouldn’t worry about it. Someone has to keep the torch of anti-stoopidity lit, might as well be you. It’s other people’s problem they’re dumb, not your problem you’re smart. As Damone said, when you got that, you got the attitude.

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.

Ordinary use:

16) sudorific –

I agree with his theory, and I stated my view long before he his.* (*This cannot be true, yet is.) Perfection is a style failure; imperfection alone allows the highest highs because imperfection heightens highs while perfection levels them. Perfection is overworked, which makes it imperfect but in the wrong way; it is the stylic form of fear-of-apperances manifest in schoolsmarmy types like Messrs PedoStrom and Brown Johnson, which is in no way to deride their honest and giant virtues.

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.

Nope! I was totally wrong. It means sweat-producing. What a useful word! All those synonyms are good: sudorific, sudoriparous, diaphoretic. I feel I should know this from sudorificoso or somesimilar in Spanish class, similar to jejunio, for dry/parched, which I learned before ever having heard of jejune.

Use:

Could be a fear-sweat. Could be a sex-sweat, as per Judge Reinhold jerking off on the toilet watching his sister’s friend hopping around in the pool. Could be a sweat sweat, the natural product of heat or exertion. Good terms. All useful.

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.

“Got to take the bitter with the butter,” you may not have heard. By similar token, got to take the terrific with the sudorific.

17) factitious –

Is pronounced the way you’d think. Definition:

It is clear this term belongs to the same family that whelped artifact. I have to admit, this is a word I never use, and I feel shame for that. It’s very useful, as you can see from the definition. If a husband and wife are in a group and the husband tells a dumb joke, the wife’s laughter is precisely what this term is driving at: completely fake social husband-helping laughter. Or, one could mention the factitious and absurdly long-lasting applause after a particularly sudorific Stalin harangue.

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.//

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]
1) run amok –

We see this ‘amok’ misspelled more often than not. It’s an illiterate 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 slaughter 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.

Wikipedia says:

Running amok seems to be the discharge of a psychic buildup in a form unique to Malaysian culture. The Rodger kid left a long trail of angry videos, so his must be taken as a variation from the classical theme.

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, if the writer is weak and unmanly – the result is 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 slyly suggest someone’s a homo, or imply he might incline 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 going, 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 politician, a panderer and pseudo-friend as much as anything, is cautiously checking how the person is receiving what he’s saying. This may be why presidents speak in short three-word bursts, with frequent pauses for eye scans in between. They don’t want to go out on a limb. They’re like fat girls trying to say what they think the ‘guy’ wants to hear.

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 Semitically Incorrect, or even merely controversial. This hesitancy affects not just the content of their speech but the delivery. They are signaling 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 – or at least in the form suggesting strength. 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 concavities 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 compels attention and 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 in which a sweet pete vocal coach 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:

This is a term with a pretty specific meaning. Someone has a legal duty to guard the funds/property of someone else. That person is a fiduciary. If that person misappropriates the funds – that’s a defalcation. It’s a term generally associated, as in the use above, with someone holding official office. But the verb defalcate can be used for anyone who basically steals or in some other way loses or abuses property or dollars entrusted to his care. You get the idea.

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:

Don’t try that at home, kids. Remember, I’m a trained perfessional.

6) transgressive/edgy –

From an article about the 20-year anniversary of Weezer’s breakthrough album:

Before we consider this concept, let’s enjoy a tasty Weezer warble:

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 think 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 You’re 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 erected 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 it’s 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 obsession with irony and what they call self-awareness, which is genuinely ironic since they lack it, 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. They are simply preachers – but unlike real christian preachers, these post-christian preachers actually believe their own bullshit. Leftists don’t grin when they accuse, christians do. In a very real sense it’s secular-humanist leftists who are the real christians whereas the nominal ones have abandoned its heart and psychology, if they’ve kept its institutional form. 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 Willie Wonka story. Everything is about them and their coolness and their moral superiority; never does it occur to them they are completely intolerant of an insensitive to anyone who disagrees with them, even though the people they shit on generally are pro-social in that they offer reasoned arguments to support their position in contradistinction to leftist religious fanatics who merely assert theirs and smear any resisters. It doesn’t matter whether leftists 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 those premises are laughably, observably, demonstrably and measurably 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. Leftists can’t stand being alone with themselves. They must always drown out their inner critic with music, even the shitty undiscovered-band tripe they affect to prefer, because they are snobs. If they forced themselves to do the honorable thing and treat seriously the arguments proposed by those who disagree with them, they might find their own ‘arguments’ (what leftists do is not properly described as arguing but as verbal warring) 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 are 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. If some nigger rapes and tortures and kills an 11-month-old baby, the leftist will scream to low hell about how barbaric we are as a society for obeying our darkest instincts and putting that criminal to sleep. The self-love of this type is off the charts. Humility is foreign to it; unthinkable, really. It cannot conceive itself as being wrong, so it must experience all resistance as evil. That’s wrong, but it works mathematically – if the premise is right. But it’s not. The moment a man ceases to believe that he knows everything and has all the answers, his leftism begins to falter. He a step back toward the real world. Few adults are leftists because most people eventually mature. Leftism is disproportionately made up of foolish young immature people, particularly women, who are myopic and easily inflamed morally. The other big subset of the left are professional liars – interested parties; those with rational financial-political incentive to mislead others. Not just Hillary Clinton types, that’s the high level, but the NEA types.

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.//

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

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.

Ah…there we go. That’s how we remember it. It’s named after Birmingham. That makes sense. And counterfeit coins produced there. Easy to remember now.

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.

It’s a particularly good word used for any sector in which we find professional-whorelike conduct, i.e. for anything democratic-political. Cheap and deceptive, eh? That describes pretty much all socialism, all left-wing solutions. Anything that panders is meretricious. I’ve used this word many times in my writing; it goes very naturally with appeal. What we meaning I have picked up from looking it up is the element of deception the term can signify. That adds another element I can play with in future uses. Notice again how perfectly suited the word is to descriptions of democrats, small-d, and the pandering they call politics.

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.

The civilized man always mocks enemies with an eye toward destroying them. Chip away at their idea of themselves by comparing them to prostitutes, animals, or any other thing that’s low, disreputable or foolish. This is useful word in that direction. Notice that it’s not pronounced the way it might appear. It’s VUH, not VAT, and the accent is on the penultimate syllable. (Note that the definitions I use are from dictionary.com because they have an audio link so you can hear the term being spoken. I don’t often post the link, but you can easily look them up.) When we learn these new words, it is important, first, to understand how the term is pronounced. Then we move on to meaning. Then usage. We do not prejudice literal or denotative usage over comedic, as the common run of rutabagas do; if anything, the opposite.

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.

Yeah…they’re all like that. They’re all cock-certain of things that can’t be verified. When they dare to shart out something falsifiable, that’s when it turns out, well, their Bible-derived certainties are so many coins from Birmingham. Yeah verily, the brummagem certainties of the Bill Miller crowd are to be laughed at, to be spit on, to be stomped on.

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:

So a factotum is an all-doer. Multi-purpose tool. Human garden weasel! So you see how Kirk uses it – Kerr is simple a duly purchased house intellectual for the Carnegie Foundation. He’s the monkey dancing and collecting quarters while the Foundation is the organ grinder.

The days of the

are long behind us, but the metaphor is so inherently funny that it will never stop being used, at least by me.

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.

So it’s a religious term…just never came across it. Could certainly be useful, but it falls into the category of difficult to remember because it’s spelled like so many other words, sounds vaguely like many other words, and you don’t see it around very often. The only reason I might remember it is that religious angle. I would be likelier to use the adjectival form were I writing in the Nielsen-ponderous-stupid vein. ‘After this comminatory effusion, he seemed to relent a bit, and some of the whiteness returned to his face.’ Something along those lines. You simply can’t use an uncommon term such as commination, unless you’re the late William F. Buckley, without intending a comedic effect, such as Nielsenesque ponderosity, or you will be taken as an airs putter oner, out trotting your vocabular bichon frise, or whichever’s the snooty pooch du jour. Oh. You knowzum bigum words. No, you don’t do it like that. You use the term threat. You need a reason to use a rare word that isn’t any better than a common one. It’s not like commination has any particular charms of person. It’s rather a plain girl, we should say. It may pack some power, like Mona Barthel, but it aint exactly proof against erectile dysfunction. The reason to invoke it would normally be humor. After all, our duty life is not to assemble on a green hill to await the return of a science fiction character, but to condescend to obnoxious others, to attack them, while amusing and delighting and educating onlookers. And also to avoid getting soup on our ties, preferably by not wearing them. A third duty, as the ghost of Oscar Wilde bids me say, lies ununundiscovered.

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:

Delicious! Here’s your introduction to the “sared apes of Benares” if, like me, you were heretofore innocent of them.

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.

There’s a nice use by Willard P. Jacques-Pierre:

Think of Nickard Griffin, the Snickengriff as he is known among political ‘scientists,’ sneaking off to Greece to learn how it’s done.

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:

The comedic uses will suggest themselves. Leaping around in my mind: “That will separate the pongids from the hylobats.”

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

it. Just staaaahp, as the hefty-lefties say.

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.//

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

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.

1) failing

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:

Had only a vague sense of what both meant from the context, had to look them up.

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:

So, it’s a British equivalent to REMF – Rear Echelon Mother Fucker. Someone out of harm’s way. There is a semi-famous band called The Pogues.

Or maybe it’s not British, as The Pogues are, hence my assumption. ‘Pogue’ has been around a long time.

So, pogue contains notions of twink and pegboy (which we discussed in an earlier column here), as well as REMF. Very interesting indeed.

And this:

The army will always have a ready term or set of terms for those who stick to safe supply or secretarial work rather than doing the actual fighting.

Meanwhile, the name of the band The Pogues comes from an entirely different place:

Shortening their name to “The Pogues” (partly due to BBC censorship following complaints from Gaelic speakers in Scotland)… So they are named ‘The Kisses’ now, which is different from The Kiss-My-Asses. Yet the complainer probably did them an unintentional favor. That’s how the world nearly always works, per the directions of the God of Irony.

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.

Sort of a more obscure term for conspire. Similarity in size and spelling will make it difficult to remember, hence not particularly useful. But a perfectly legitimate term.

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?

So, the golf-club-designing tranny wants to meet secretly for a chat, with the reporter refraining from writing anything down. The reference to nuncupative’s use with wills is clear enough, but I can’t remember ever coming across the term before, in that regard or anywhere, and I’ve read many discussions of wills.

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

Wallace use:

Makes sense. Never come across it before. With obscure origin, probably some kind of slang. Hard to know why to use it rather than a more common term without knowing its etymology – which particular type of fear or excitement does it connote? I would not. Even a small reason is enough to use one word rather than another, even if the one is more obscure; without that knowledge, it’s better to use the common word. We know what swivet means now, but I, at least, do not feel I understand it well enough to use as even uncommon parlance or simple variation.

5) lalation –

Have seen this word before – seen and forgotten. I believe it sounds like what it says. Lapping. The term for that, as you probably learned in English class, is onomatopoeic, where a term sounds like the thing it refers to: meow, for instance. The word is the sound. Onomatopoeic is the Greek-derived term for that practice or effect. There’s a Greek term for pretty much every rhetorical technique. It doesn’t really matter if you know them, so long as you know how to achieve effects with words. The Greek technical terms are extremely hard to remember unless you’re dealing with them daily, and that’s why few but English teachers know more than a few of them. I’m guessing from vague memory and the context above that lalation is onomatopoeic for a sort of lapping, repetitive noise, as a wave makes. Now I’ll look it up.

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:

I found this too:

On (again) the other hand, though, we need to acknowledge that in this age of Hollywood “message” films and focus-group screenings and pernicious Nielsenism—Cinema By Referendum, where we vote with our entertainment-dollar either for spectacular effects to make us feel something or for lalations of moral cliches that let us remain comfortable in our numbness—Lynch’s rather sociopathic lack of interest in our approval seems refreshing/redemptive (if also creepy).
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 –

Neoteny (pronounced knee-OTT-en-ee) is a biological term for: “the persistence of larval or fetal features in the adult form of an animal. For example, the adult axolotl, a salamander, retains larval external gills”…

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 –

You can guess this has something to do with green or vegetation, can’t you? Verdure we are familiar with. We know verde is green in Spanish. Must have something to do with green/nature, given the lawn reference. Good example of the ability to guess a word from context. Let’s look it up.

Yes indeed, from Latin viridis, meaning green.

So it’s simply a synonym for green the color.

8) celadon –

Pronounced SELL-a-don.

Definition:

Celadon is a

glaze, ware, color.

9) lemniscate –

Lemniscate is a term belonging to analytic geometry.

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!

If you’ve been to public school, you can picture what he’s talking about, but I’ve never come across the term guilloche before.

A very specific term for a very specific thing. Hard to think of a comedic or metaphoric use; a term for a specific type of border design and, well, that’s about it.

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.//

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

. Greasy-haired, bespectacled yids sitting around lunch tables at City College of New York, eating egg sandwiches and debating Marx. These are the folks who wound up controlling your country, white man. The joke is on you. Or is you. EAT-MOR-DIRT turns out to be shitty survival strategy.

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:

Two articles on it.

. Here Forbes on the psychology behind it.

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.//

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

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.

2) shmooze

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

https://shine.yahoo.com/pets/smelly-…194900289.html

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.

7) mononymous

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!

9) groak

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.

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

1) pegboy

Came across this word this morning in a story about Tiger Woods. Never heard it before.

Urban dictionary says:

So, it’s a way of calling someone a fag, but kind of a weak, kept fag. I always like to use the term twink, which is not just a queer, but a particularly submissive type of queer, a queer queer, let’s say, or perhaps a queerer queer. An effeminate queer, as opposed to a butch queer. Pegboy is a good substitute for twink, but it should particularly be used where there’s not just some satirical sexual suggestion, but where, as in the first example, the pegboy is carrying water for his pirate master. Anywhere there’s servility going on, little-dogging, pegboy can be useful. Buttboy is another term you could use, but somehow pegboy is more satisfying. “Get back on your peg, boy; Sheldon will be along presently.” If you were trying to insult the ass-licking white niggers called Republican presidential hopefuls who trooped to Las Vegas to little-dog before casino mogul and nasty ur-yid Adelson, pegboy would serve just fine. Basically, anyone doing free PR for someone else could be a pegboy. A loathsome cunt like Newt Gingrich could be called a pegboy, as he has served the neocons for decades. John McCain, although just as servile, is too aggressive for pegboy; a different figure would be needed, something from the world of canines, most probably. Both lapdogs and attack dogs are…dogs. And all dogs have owners.

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.

2) bro

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.

3) pareidolia

We have a thread on this phenomenon here, in History & Religion section, called “Mary / Jesus Now Appearing…” It’s the fancy word for seeing the (savior) in a mundane item like grime or a tree stump or a burrito. The great mass of simpletons that forms the base of the human pyramid is given to this kind of animalistic thinking. Dumb people see signs in everything.

Quote:

Because they believe in magic, not causality.

They have high-IQ intellectual criminals like C.S. Lewis and Ol’ Tinear, the Obese and Fatuous One, G.K. Chesteron, urging them on by denying rationality itself, in a sly and disgusting way. As I say, idiots, somewhat like paranoids, but not precisely the same, see signs in everything. Since they can’t think clearly and have weak wills, they have to look for signs about what’s going to happen to them. It’s unthinkable they take control of their own lives. Rather, they need to read the skies for god’s will, and adjust their propitiations accordingly. This quintessentially little-man religious mindset – this is how most people always have been and until eugenics kicks in, always will be. It’s pathetic and weak, and unworthy of genuine white men.

Looking it up:

So pareidolia is a defect of intelligence and character, as distinct from the paranoiac’s not-there patterns, which are products of his defective warning system. Paranoia, it occurs to me, is somewhat parallel to auto-immune disease. As the physical auto-immune disease is held to be the body’s immune system attacking itself out of failed recognition of physical molecules, so paranoia is like the mind’s attacking itself by turning every single external stimulus into a threat and attacking it, making ordinary daily functioning (as digestion) very difficult.

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.

6) personally

Nothing deep here, but this term is overused. A housewife blogger says:

She was personally invited? As opposed to impersonally? Simply invited does the job. Same with this common phrase: Jesus is my personal savior.

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.

7) sriracha

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?

It’s a Thai condiment. Now popular with coolios in the west.

Ok…so we know the cooler-than-thous and holier-than-thous always have to be onto something better than what most are settled with. Which would be fine, if the stuff they knew were actually better. But illiberals have always confused the difference between newer/unknowner and better. To them, same thing. A band you haven’t heard of is obviously better than a band you have. To illiberals, that is self-evident. To normals, it’s a sign that band is just getting started, or too shitty to attract ears. Illiberalism, say I, is a political and social-cultural perversion of the questing spirit of the white man. Does it surprise you our best, yes, best, quality has a dark side? It should not. For I have duly informed many times that the universe is built out of off of from of…irony. White nationalists, the low-end ones, like to celebrate white intelligence and creativity. But without a certain character, these may just as find expression in dangerous perversions. Vogue for something innocent like sriracha is the slighest manifestation of the problem. But in politics, it turns into ditching meat for vegetables, ditching the white man and his culture for niggers. Do you see what I mean? Lust for innovation is a negative way of describing a positive quality in whites. Lust for innovation is cited by Southern intellectuals defending their staid region as characteristic of northern intellectuals, particularly those out of Massachusetts or the Burned-Over Region of western New York. Yet this questing is our better part, I say to Southern religious hidebounds. All races have traditions, but only the white race quests. It is what is most admirable in us, most, again ironically, worthy of preservation, yet it has a dark side, and that dark side should be understood. Whites are their own worst enemy. Really, whites are their only enemy, in the deepest sense. The individuation that makes our race unique makes it uniquely hard to defend. Still another irony.

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:

What’s wrong with that? Class? Class…? What word should he have used?

Again, with the same mistake:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Right? Wrong.

9) biopiracy

Never heard that one before, but using bio as a prefix is common. Politically, we are familiar with charging mudshark users with genetic piracy. And the rulers promoting mongrelism through the media are certainly guilty of trying to steal white genetic value and give it to niggers, just as they take whites’ money wealth and give it to niggers, through race-socialist tax redistribution. If whites have something good? Jews must steal it and give it to niggers. Makes whites poorer, niggers more threatening, and jews safer. It’s good for jews, and that’s all that matters.

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.//

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

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

Not all words have been captured.

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

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

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

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

1) Amerika

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

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

2) Janus or Janus-faced

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

That is how it is used, but as with enormity used to mean giant size instead of atrocity, which we have covered before, it is incorrect. Here’s who Janus was:

So as you can see, Janus, God and the concept he represents, have quite literally nothing to do with hypocrisy in any way, shape or form. But that is how the world will continue to abuse his good name, because they are ignorant, as I once was, and they don’t know anything other than the fact that he has two faces. Yeah verily, just as fascists say “not everything with a face is human,” we can say “not everything with two faces is two-faced.” Except literally. Janus is literally two faced in his representations, but he is not figuratively two faced, he has to do with transitions, not hypocrisy.

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

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

Janus, from Vincenzo Cartari’s Le Imagini de gli Dei (1608).<----------- That's culture, nigger! Right now, I’m looking out the window and jonesing for some Janusial shifting, from this-fucking-winter into please-be-better-spring. I bet you feel the same way. Perhaps remember Janus as the god of the Doppler effect, he hears it coming in the distance, it’s on him, it passes and keeps going. He sees it all, coming and going. 3) anile

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

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

4) anole

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

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

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

5) giving back

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

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

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

There is subtle but unmistakeable menace in the term.

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

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

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

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

Not true! Not true!

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

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

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

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