It and Essence

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“we all have wings…but some of us don’t know why”

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

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

The Love Song of J. Pat Farbis

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

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

Now, a philosophical point obtrudes:

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

I was raised a good bourgeois, upper-middle-class, Germanic-stock AP English high-school-class taker, and so naturally this conduced to conduct down the road to becoming a J. Pat Farbis myself. Now you think I will blast and contrast. Sadly, my behavior must fail to conform and disappoint your expectation <-------------- emended phrase, reworked from Mencken's description of his 'tackling' the Talmud. Just showing you that damn near everything has precedents when you read writing. Fear of falling defines the middle class, as many have observed, not just his eminence Paul Fussell in “Class.” One must keep up appearances, you know. So others will think we are good people. Having licit sex at night, like all good people, and properly trained livestock. Working at useful jobs for prestigious employers. When it comes to words, the most important thing is not to get them right, for that’s weird and romantic and artisty, but not to get them wrong. Every word must be spelled correctly. There is no higher literary god than that. The God of Correctly Spelled words is the Zeus of this pantheon. Now, I fell into this way of thinking by default, being raised as I was. It was reinforced by the fact that I had a natural aptitude for spelling, almost never forgetting how a word was spelled. I thought, quite wrongly, that all writers/artists were the same way. Not so! Many professional writers have a difficult time with spelling, but they are good with ideas and structure. Spelling simply isn’t as important as I thought it was when I was young. It is important to spell words correctly, but this is merely a matter of painstaking editing, not some natural aptitude, the absence of which renders your work dubious. Yes, spelling should be clearned up, but not knowing how to spell just means you need to use the dictionary. That took me many years to learn. This grows long, let me cut it short. I was going down the road to becoming a Pat Farbis. Which, it is my express point, is not a bad thing. The bulk of any society, and functional white society, is well made of that type. As 19 of 20 (not pulling that out, that’s the studied number, apparently) are repeaters, and one 1 in 20 a spark, it can hardly be otherwise – on the upside. It can certainly be worse on the downside. So we are not here to mock J. Pat Farbis. The instinct is sound. But… …ultimately what led me off that path, and this may apply to you, or not, but at least you can see what I mean, is that getting things right is not the same, in the writing art, as the middle-class person thinks, as not getting them wrong. And that’s where the flying in the video above comes in. Not all of us have wings, but the ones that do must figure that out as early as they can, and use them. It wasn’t until my later teens that I realized this. If you read my college writings, my god, you can see how straight-laced I was, almost a stick up my ass, given to pseudo-legal argument style. Now, part of that was due to the deformation that is enedemic to college writing – which is to length, rather than professional writing which, before the internet, was always forced-succinct due to space limitations. But the majority was inexperience and youthful righteousness, which drove my anti-communism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, to the second good usage.

Nothing major here, my point is simply the unusual use of ‘aspect.’ It’s not just discovering new and useful words, it’s uncovering other legitimate uses, typically second or third meanings, of familiar known words. So we see that aspect can mean more than one element or feature of something, it literally also means appearance. Let’s look it up:

My goodness. The sense in which Stoker employed it is actually the first definition. How about that? I did not know that. Or you could say Stoker employs aspect in its fifth definition – extending it from a human face to a building’s appearance.

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

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

2) earned

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

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

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

3) Xavier

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

4) being serious associated with psycho serial killers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you want to be serious? I do.

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

5. fosse

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

Use: The Burg is seated on a rock dominating the town and an immensely deep fosse guards it on the northern side.

6) obfuscate and eschew

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

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

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

We look it up:

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

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

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

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

7) responsible

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

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

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

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

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

8) consider

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

‘Consider’ has only one meaning in this context: discrimination against white men. Discrimination by race, and/or by sex.

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

9) irregular migrants

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

Example:

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

10) querent – one who seeks a Tarot reading.

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

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

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

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

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

1. haboob: because some dust storms are specialer than others:

Are the dust storms that occur in Texas genuine haboobs, or are the weathermen, pardon me, meteorologists, just trying to sound cool? In this world, everybody’s selling something. Most are selling themselves. Using longer, more grandiose titles is their way of convincing themselves they’re more important than a clear lens might take them to be so they’re pretty sure it will work on everyone else. I have my doubts that haboobs occur outside haji territory, but who knows. After all, there are many specific words for types of winds or storms, and they seem to be at least associated with regions, if not absolutely tied to them:

– chinook/Foehn – the latter is a German word taken from Romans, apparently. Both refer to a warmer wind on the leeside of a mountain. The wind, coming from Mediterranean or Pacific ocean, drops moisture on one side of mountain and becomes a warmer, snow-eating air in Central Europe, over the Alps, or on the prairie side of the Rockies in Canada and the northwestern US. Apparently there is a hair dryer in Germany named Foehn, or a variation. That’s how you remember it. Point is, apparently these are the same winds – they have the same cause – but they go by different names, depending on your location.

– zephyr – it’s not even clear that this is any different from chinook/Foehn because like a Foehn, or the Roman word/idea it comes from, a zephyr is a mild western wind. It comes from the Greek god Zephyrus. Says Wikipedia: In Greek mythology, Zephyrus was the personification of the west wind and the bringer of light spring and early summer breezes; his Roman equivalent was Favonius. We should be getting some zephyrs, but as I write this, the early a.m. of 17 March 2014, it is 13 degrees outside. No zephyrs for you, my tasty young friend. The only zephyrs will be coming out of your mouth when you’re blowing on your fingers if you step outside…. Since zephyr, chinook and Foehn trace to the same or equivalent gods, it’s difficult to see if there is any difference between them at all. Chinook and Foehn appear to be the same thing, whereas perhaps a zephyr could be any warm, western breeze. Perhaps chinooks and Foehn are a subset of zephyrs; but then again, it’s not clear that all Foehn, at least are western breezes. So confusing. But ultimately, the only thing that matters to remember for reading comprehension is that these are comparatively warm winds, which usually come from air dropping its moisture on the other side of the mountain.

– sirocco – This is a very different type of wind. It blows up from the Sahara and can contain lots of dust and be quite violent, causing storms. Many of the lands around the Mediterranean have different words for sirocco, including leveche in Spain. Wikipedia: “In the Canary Islands this oppressive, hot, dust bearing wind is called la calima.” Reminds one of the

Santa_Ana_winds

, which are a phenomenon that strikes Southern California – a very strong hot wind, given to starting a lot of those wildfires you’re always hearing about. Looking it up, I see the difference is that Santa Anas arise inland and then blow west out over the coast. So, the opposite of the way the zephyr/Foehn blow, but sort of the same thing in that they’re coming over mountains and though not necessarily warm as the zephyr/Foehn I believe is, they are generally hot. At least, all the ones I remember from my times living in So Cal were – very strong, very hot winds. … In Portugal, the sirocco is called xaroco; and in Malta, the xlokk, which is kind of cool. All these winds come from the same place – the Sahara, but they can cause different reactions depending on where they hit. They could be very hot or wet, but they usually seem to involve storms and dust. It’s interesting also that both Foehn and sirocco are associated with health problems.

Coming back to

haboob

Haboob

, what is it? An “intense” dust storm. Which can occur in arid regions throughout the world. Here The Elect do battle with evil Texas racists who resent showy weather actors talking about haboobs where they could use the more prosaic dust storm. Never settled is the question of which is more accurate, which ought to determine the use.

Ok…let’s recap: your takeaway here is that a chinook/Foehn are same thing, and similar to zephyr – they mean warm wind – usually from the west. Sirocco is a wet or hot, dust-containing storm blowing up from the Sahara. Haboob is a dust storm. An intense one. Like, it competes in poetry slams and shit.

2) new word: erumpent

Came across this in essay here. Less than two months later, however, as we waved goodbye to June, the city was erumpent with temps brushing against triple digits. It means bursting forth in bloom, but less in the sense of beautiful spring crocuses and daffodils than in funguses growing out of a corpse. The key is: bursting forth through some overlying structure – like a fungus breaking through the rotting xylem of a horizontal tree on the forest floor, or a seedling breaking up through the loam with its eggshell still on its head. Erumpent is a good spring word. I shall try to use it next time I write about matters efflorescent. Interesting to me that this word was completely new. Many words I don’t use or even recognize I know that I have seen before but can’t remember; this one I have never come across once.

3) relative vs comparative

Quoth: Even as a relative term I would hardly describe Gulbis as stocky…

Nearly everyone says “relatively” where they should say “comparatively.” Latvian-son-of-billionaire-tennis-player-jew Gulbis either is or isn’t stockier than someone else. Someone he’s being compared to. Not someone he’s relative to. You see the difference: it’s not a relation between the two being discussed; rather, a comparison is being made. In fact, using any adverbial form is probably wrong too, but that I will not fight, as it’s hopeless.

As an error, I would compare the use of relatively where comparatively is correct to the use of different than where different from is proper. When you’re comparing nouns, you must use from. People tend to use than. This is different than that. No! This is different from that. Than is for verbs. If you think about it, you will get it right, but it does require thinking about because most people tend to get it wrong, and we tend to copy what we hear. If you’re making a comparison, and it will be clear to you that 90% of the time that’s what you’re doing, if you simply stop to think about it, then use comparatively.

4) exploring your sexuality – This is the cant phrase to end all cant phrases. The person who invented this garbage ought to be shot. Does one explore ones excretory or respiratory or circulatory system? This crank idea of ‘exploring one’s sexuality’ is a deliberate inducement to destructive behavior popularized by jews following the Frankfurt School (or the school advised in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion) in order to demoralize young whites, to physically mess up their bodies and morally-mentally mess up their minds. The idea is that your body is something for you to play with. Something to have fun with. Rather than a machine with specific needs and abilities. ‘Exploring’ sounds innocent enough, like a bunch of Cub Scouts or Girl Scouts going on a hike and camping trip, but it always ends up meaning promiscuous sex, usually of the most degenerate kind, as in homosex. Homo behavior has always been tied to disease and mental problems, because it is a perversion of natural function. White young are encouraged by jew-promoted experts in jew-owned mass media to ‘explore’ perversions. But of course, they’re never called perversions, nor are their dangers hinted at. ‘Exploring your sexuality’ is a lie in the same way that ‘gay’ is a lie, it conceals by reversing the nature of the thing. Queers/queer behavior become something light and happy, rather than something heavy and dark. ‘Explorations’ = use drugs, drink, and try different perversions. The hidden meaning and message is that the jews are trying to mess up young whites in order to make things better for themselves. The jews will sell you first on the idea of perversions as ‘explorations,’ then they will sell you the equipment — booze, drugs, cable tv, movies, sex toys — you need to spelunk this underworld. What comes out the other end? That’s not their problem. That’s just another profit center. The fucked-up shell you become then needs their jew shrinks and their jew head pills and their jew-mediated social services.

Sexuality ‘exploration’ like sex education is a misnomer. A deliberate misnomer. Just as sex education is attitude adjustment, rather than actual clinical facts (about homosexual behavior, for example), the idea of ‘exploring’ sexuality doesn’t make sense except as a way to persuade people to try things that aren’t going to lead them anywhere good. Nothing in sexuality needs to be explored. ‘Explore your sexuality’ is nothing more than a barker standing outside a strip bar in the Tenderloin trying to draw in passers-by. Don’t be taken in by jew blandishments to immorality, there’s nothing ever new or edgy or unexplored about sex. Everything you might think to do with your body has been done by every other generation, and, yeah, the results are in and well established. If you’re up for something genuinely difficult and worthwhile, try to establish a solid marital connection with someone of the opposite sex. It’s not as easy as it might appear, particularly today. But that’s the only kind of challenge that sex actually holds. Physical gymnastics and orgasm-chasing never lead anywhere that great. You might escape the physical consequences (disease), although probably not, but mentally, you will become calloused in a way that makes deeper relations with someone else extremely difficult – and that is the part these “safe sex” liars, these “explore your sexuality” charlatans never tell you, because they are trying to fuck you in a non-physical way.

As always, believe what you hear and read in the jew-controlled junkmedia at your own peril. That’s the rule. But it’s three times stronger where sex is involved. Jews attempt to use the most powerful human drive to advance their agenda, and I’ve just explained to you how they do that. ‘Exploring your sexuality’ is just another of their cant phrases meant to trap young white men and women in self- and other-destructive behavior. Don’t fall for it.

5) narrative

Nothing wrong with this term inherently, but people should understand how it is used by the junkmedia and junkacademia: to push their view that there is no truth, just competing ‘narratives.’ A lie that really curls my lip. External reality does exist; and that the loudest lie may prevail, even for a long time, does not mean that narrative outweighs the truth, nor that the truth does not exist. But you can certainly see how a race of congenital liars like the jews would take to and promote this point of view. It’s basically just a variation on the tree-falling argument. If the loudest voice is a jew liar, to be redundant, which it usually is, then does the truth actually exist? Only as a form of knowledge in the minds of those who know the jew is factually wrong and deliberately lying. Other than that, it has no real power. No effective power, anyway. Truth is rather like God in that sense, I observe uncomfortably. The difference is that truth does exist, but is nearly as impotent, in many cases. We can’t say the jew is wrong, from his racial point of view, but from ours, he’s ugly and disgusting. Eminently worthy of extermination, as all good white men know.

This is not mere academic fraud, this idea that truth doesn’t exist, that there are only competing narratives – it has a real-world effect. People taught this lie actually believe it. And act on it. I refer you to the debate over George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. The Martin defenders simply invent a narrative — that Martin was an innocent child walking home with his candy when he was viciously attacked and murdered by an evil white racist. They will hear no facts. They stick to their narrative. Isn’t that how it works? If there is no truth, then LOUDEST VOICE WINS. That’s what they learned in school. Dat how dey do, den. And it works! At least inside the space they control – which is pretty much all non-Internet media.

Do you see how profoundly anti-social this ‘competing narratives’ idea is? How profoundly dangerous? Where is the common ground for dealing with — for living with — people so comfortable with lying-justified-as-narrative that they will claim, for the first and best example, that brown Zimmerman is white?

You can’t have a society where there’s this radical a disagreement on what we all see and hear. Ultimately, it must fracture. That’s where this ‘competing narratives’ must lead. Of course, the jew intends it to lead to the utter suppression of all competing narratives, so that his voice is the only one ever to be heard, and his narrative is the only idea that even pops up in people’s minds. Orwell covered this. They don’t just want your shutting up, your compliance, your stifling alternative narratives; they want your positive love and agreement and ‘cosigning’ their lie called narrative.

Whites can’t live with jews. We haven’t figured this out in 2,000 years because the Jesus cult blinded us to what jews actually are, and prevented us from exercising the natural solution, since the church says it is neither necessary nor moral. I’ll leave the pedophiles called priests to dissect the morality, in between boysucks, but it certainly is necessary.

6) flaneur

Sounds vaguely dirty, doesn’t it? Like an illegal cheese importer, or sniffer of young girls’ underpants. But actually it refers to someone who likes to walk around, even loaf, and just check things out, particularly in a big city. Wholly respectable, in a vaguely disrespectable way. Because, as good protestants know, time is money. The purpose of being alive is to ape a machine. Lick more envelopes in less time! Yeah, verily, become your own Perfunctory Jesus. Turner, time-motion studies, interoperable parts, production lines. Not all bad. But not things worthy of elevation to the status they’ve achieved.

Does the US suffer from a lack of productive people or reflective people?

Flaneurs may be just loafers on the low end, but they may be artists on the high end. There’s nothing wrong with looking at things. At people watching. At building watching. At people and building watching. At taking in impressions, and maybe putting them down in notebooks, or just storing them away mentally for use later. There are lots of interesting things in the world, and not all of them can be seen by-from whizzing car.

Story about flaneuring in Silicon Valley.

7) gypsies and vandals

One thing about leftists, they’re always trying to be au couranter-than-thou. They always have to know about the latest band before it even exists, in order to separate themselves from, sniff, people in Texas, shall we say, and so it is with newly infringed victim groups. They’re always on the scour for new crybabies. Everyone knows it’s wrong to call blacks niggers.* (*Everyone does not include me, you and sane people generally.) But they, advanced, superior life forms that they are, know it’s wrong to call gypsies gypsies. They’re Roma. Like tomatoes, but fleshier and worse tasting. Gypsies implies scuttling around the country in dirty caravans (as they’re called in Europe), stealing and scamming. Leftists won’t stand for this! Even though history screams with one voice that ripping other people off is in fact the very heart and essence of gypsy culture. Witch-hunting Europeans’ and others’ use of gypies offers the holy leftist a cool new way to prove that Europeans are as racist as Americans while locating himself on the pushing edge of social justice, nomenclature division. In leftist lore, whites are uniquely evil because they hate all other people for no reason. Nor have they ever created anything or come up with any ideas, they’ve just stolen them from others in the course of dispossessing them of their land. That’s the basic idea. It doesn’t make any logical sense, it has nothing to do with reality, it belongs, rather, under the category of religious nostrums, to be redundant. (If you don’t understand why I say redundant, look up nostrum.)

But if the use of gypsy is wrong, then so must be the use of vandal. Yet, I’ve never once noticed a leftist complaining about use of vandals or vandalizing. These terms come from a Germanic tribe, the Vandals. They’re somehow historically associated with property destruction, perhaps due to their shenanigans and hooliganism during the fall of Rome. For whatever reason, their name has come to be associated with a particular form of behavior, just as it is with the gypsies. What do gypsies do? They gyp people. What do vandals do? They vandalize things. Neither use is offensive to someone with a working mind. But since gypsies aren’t white, the leftist must prevent the-evil-white-man from tongue-tying them to their rotten behavior. Just as with jews, of course, every single people with experience of the gypsies, from Spaniards to Romanians, describes them the same way. To the leftist liar, that proves not that the thing in question is in fact what is thought to be by every people that has encountered it, but that all these multifarious observers are sick in the head. As always, it’s the leftist who is deranged and hateful, not the rational, normal people he defames. So let me know the first time you see a leftist complain about the slurring of the ancient Vandals. Whereas I see whining about the use of gypsies at least once a week.

The rule: tie whites to opinion-evil; untie coloreds from behavior-evil.

8) “taking my talents to South Beach”

That was NBAer LeBron James’s description of his decision to leave Cleveland and sign with Miami. Nothing remarkable there other than that this decision was announced on a special show, a sort of unprecedented bit of negro-promotion and self-importance. Blacks are generally dumb. They hear little phrases in the media, and they try to use them, like a crow or raccoon spotting a shiny gum wrapper. Sometimes they get them right, sometimes wrong. They love to repeat cliches that they think sound good. It’s like a ghetto version of white middle-class pretentiousness, except at least some of the whites are familiar with the concept of cliches. You can see nigger ‘ballers’ as they call themselves repeating some cliche while clearly thinking they are being clever or wise, it’s just a testament to how low their IQ actually is. They love rhymes above all else. If something rhymes, it must contain a deep truth, the negro feels in its dense bones. Cam Newton is perfect example of this type of negro; just watch him being inteviewed and you’ll see what I mean. The average black has a very low IQ and a very high self-regard and usually not much emotional control. Most negroes are, from our white perspective, like children in adult bodies. When you’re a young child of five or six, adults seem like giants. This is the way it is for blacks – mentally. The world is extremely confusing to them because nearly everyone around them is more intelligent than they are, which makes it difficult for them to understand others’ interests and motives. This creates stress, hostility and fear in them, which only redoubles their natural proclivity for stupid, violent behavior. They belong in the jungle, not in human civilization, where they are uncomfortable because they don’t fit.

Anyway, here’s an example of the power of the media, and the way young dumb blacks copy older dumb blacks. Every last one of these niggers has talents it is taking somewhere other than South Beach. Negroes don’t do irony either. There is no pretentiousness among blacks, as there is among whites, because fronting and big-manning are business as usual among these people of jungle.

9) atheism is, essentially and in practice, a strawman

Nothing we would accept as evidence in any other case or matter has ever been advanced to demonstrate the existence of God. Therefore, God, as a concept, belongs to the ranks of Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. I need tell you there is no word for someone who doesn’t believe in Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. By the same logical token, there is a need for a term for someone who doesn’t believe in God – a need on the part of the ‘God’-beliebers (if I may slur Justin Bieber fans, since, after all, as disgusting and wiggery and downright criminal as he is, the object of their worship undeniably exists). Yes, there is a practical, political need for a non-belieber term if the cultists intend to demonize the set, as they surely do. No one gets demonized for not believing in Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, but many, many people feel the need to demonize the men who don’t believe in the wholly imaginary and suppositious deity called God. The reason the jebus beliebers are so vicious and aggressive, these hominid limacenes, is twofold: 1) they have the numbers on their side (the point at which the little man typically magnetized by the jesus imposture finds his courage), and 2) because they know deep down their position is indefensible. I mean, people have to write long books ‘proving’ God exists. If he actually did, those books would hardly be necessary. I mean, I don’t have to write a long book ‘proving’ rabbits exist. A certain section of the population has a high IQ but in other ways is of the mass. It is from this disgusting sector, populated with obese charlatans such as G.K. Chesterton, that the god-lie originates and is kept fueled. The existence of God is certainly the most profitable Big Lie ever come up with.

Notice, though, that god-allegers prefer to argue not the existence of god, where they’re weak, but against positions they associate with lack-of-god-belief – which are usually leftist, and much easier to take on. Thus, the sole position that defines ‘atheism’ (although, again, no term is logically needed, which is why I say that ‘atheist’ itself is a strawman) recedes into the background, and the religious heroes can do battle with strawmen. For atheism isn’t tied to any political position, necessarily. In the real world, those who feel the need to use the name as their main identification or collecting point are always leftists. Always. Even though, again, the thing itself has no connection to any political position – it is not a political concept, it’s an ontological concept, if anything. That is, it pertains to questions such as: what constitute evidence? what is knowledge? The answers to these questions may inform politics, but they are not political questions in themselves, they are philosophical matters. There are right-wing atheists, but they don’t collect themselves under that rubric or embrace the appellation, it’s simply their position. It’s self-evident to them no god exists, nor has been proven, but that has hardly anything to do with politics, it’s merely factual common sense. See The Conservative Mind, if I recall correctly for a discussion of right-wing atheism.

The intellectual reality I describe is co-distorted in the real world by leftists who happily embrace the unnecessary and slurring ‘atheist’ in order to do battle with the illogical, cowardly simpletons who are 90% of religious conservatives. It is entirely possible to dislike both sides, not least for their obscuring an important matter, and that is my position. If you believe god exists, that’s on you. It says nothing about me. You must justify your position – and you can’t. Don’t slur me because you’re an intellectual incomp.

The religious tools fight leftism, not atheism. Even if the leftists call themselves atheists that point remains true.

Do you understand what I’m saying? I’m not sure you do. I have made it as clear as I can. One last try: the rejection of the God-assertion stands on its own. It has no necessary, no logically inevitable, tie to any political position, right, left or center.

It’s a backhanded validation of the truth of the rejection slurred as ‘atheism’ by the God tool that the believer-ape prefers to do battle with the strawwomen and strawchildren rather than the Straw Man that is the actual rejection and position he targets as ‘atheism’ and ‘atheist.’ It’s much easier to associate hated and wrong positions (judeo-leftism) with the rejection-known-as-atheism than to take on atheism directly. But lack of courage and intellectual ability are as christian as believing that someone else can assume responsibility for your freely-willed behavior. Christianity remains what it ever was: a dirty cult for the low- and weak-minded. A man who doesn’t want to be a man usually turns himself into a drunk, a junkie or a christian. The two former are more physically and personally destructive; the latter is more socially destructive. To put it the backward, Janis Joplin way, Reality is for people who can’t handle christianity, drugs or alcohol.

10) strictly logical

Strictly speaking, this term is redundant. There is no loosely logical. If something is loose, then it’s untied from moorings. Intellectually, then, it can hardly be logical. Associative or impressionistic thinking either makes intuitive sense, in which case it can be reduced to logical connections, or it doesn’t. Logical connections may be bared formally or covered with poesy-flowers, like a parade float. Either way, the same structure is driving the thing. But as I love to say, you don’t sell a Playboy with an X-ray centerfold. It may be the same beautiful woman, but somehow it’s not the same thing.

11) shenanigans and hooligans

These are great words… Shenanigans is a wonderful general term for the human equivalent of the stuff feral pigs are up to when they’re snorting around uprooting things. I like shenanigans because it has a kind of bobblehead feel to it, something bouncing up and down and emitting strange noises, like it’s drunk or deranged, but at a misdemeanor rather than felony level. Shenanigans would encompass stuff like throwing a dead stinking fish where no one will find it, only smell it and wonder where it’s coming from. As for hooligans, this to my glorious ear has always suggested the noises you hear after a bar lets out, and the mentality associated therewith. Hooligans are like vandals with an admixture of fisticuffs. Hooligans like to punch and hoot, and maybe break some things, whether doors or noses, doesn’t matter. The funny thing is, this term apparently originated with some Irish clan that was particularly obnoxious – the Houlihans.

Like the Vandals, the Houlihans live on, perhaps in language only. So, to reprise, we associate vandalism with property crime, and hooliganism with more fighting. But obviously, there’s a pretty big overlap; you’re not exactly going to be surprised if a vandal gets into a fight or a hooligan breaks something. Shenanigans covers a wide variety of criminal and subcriminal head-shaking behavior that can be funny but isn’t lethal or depraved, more just stupid, goofy and/or petty-corrupt.

Perhaps the most significant difference: there’s no gay suburban bar called Vandals.

12) anal

The jewed lexicon has many words for the concept involved here. All intended to disparage pride, orderliness, organization, competence and carefulness – or, basically, everything the Germanics at the heart of the white race have always stood for. Again, this is simply a different aspect and facet of the Frankfurt School misteachings we saw above in ‘exploring your sexuality.’ Anything that leads away from continence (which is not just a term related to bladder control, you sniggering ignoramus) will be promoted by jews, because they believe the looser the Aryan, the looser the society, the better for jews. Are jews loose? Think of Jerry Seinfeld. Think of the jew in Curb Your Enthusiasm. Does he seem loose? Quite the opposite, right? Jews are famous for their neurasthenia and their obsessiveness.

So for them, like racism in Israel, it’s good, the highest good, the funniest good, the most necessary good…the inevitable good…to pay attention to details. For you? Not so much. You must not be anal. You must not be obsessed. For you, little goy, if it feels good do it. You, little goy, should let it all hang out.

You see how it works? As they say in Protocols, we deliberately instruct the youth of the goyim in doctrines we know to be false.

Do you really think I go beyond the necessary when I advocate the extermination of this race?

Do you?

They control the media, I don’t. They determine what’s in the schoolbooks, I don’t. They admit they are deliberately corrupting our youth to serve their racial agenda, which amounts to their mastery of the world and our genocide.

There’s an answer, and it’s that we’ve been christianized. Our brains have been taken over by a hostile parasite, and most of our people have been rendered unable to perceive what is happening, let alone fight it. This is quite common in the animal world. We just don’t believe, again per that christian doctrine, that what happens in the animal world has any relation to what happens among humans. Even though humans are animals. Which christ-insanity denies, insisting that we’re between animals and the fictional entities it calls angels.

I stray from the point to make a more important one; after all, this is but a column about language, but even so, if not here, where? If not now, when? Where else are you going to hear and learn this stuff? Certainly not in public school. Certainly not over public airwaves. NPR won’t be talking about it.

I saw this at one of the sites I read. I reproduce it as a workaday example of the internalized manifestation of anti-white jew memes, indirect division.

One could find a thousand example of similar usage. Anyone organized is – weird. Obsessed. To be criticized and looked down on. Man, don’t worry about shit. It will take care of itself. It doesn’t work that way, though. The jew knows that. He spreads the opposite message. Whatever is good and wholesome and effective the jews talks down among the goy, while hoarding and keeping and valuing for himself. Whether it’s racism or simple organization and paying attention to details. Just as the jews create and use stereotypes — the dumb/evil blond(e), the magical negro, the saintly jew-leftist — they demonize and celebrate character types and personality traits. All according to their unchanging political calculus and their “good for jews” agenda.

Enough on that, but I will return in other columns with further examples of this extremely common jewsmedia demonization of orderliness, which is perhaps the chief characteristic of the Germanic peoples – alles in Ordnung (everything in order), being the classic expression of the Germanic mentality.

13) meltdown

Another indirectly political term. Anyone who becomes the slightest bit emotional in response to a leftist, or in addressing a jewish Agenda position, is described as having a meltdown in the jew-leftist controlled press I like to refer to as the junkmedia. This is a milder way of arguing that any position against The Agenda is hateful. If you don’t go along with The Jewish Genocidal Agenda for Whites, then your emotional stability is called into question, as well as your character. You’re crazy and evil. Since, you know, you adopt a hate position. Your politics are hateful and your mind and character are warped. You should probably have your kids taken away from you and be thrown in jail. You’re a hater. There ar situations where meltdown might reasonably apply, such as when a baseball manager turns a press confernence into a screaming, telephone-throwing rant, but as ordinarily used, leftists apply meltdown to almost any public opponent they come across who has any emotional element to his resistance to one of their positions or agenda items. Just look at the context the next five times you come across this term meltdown and you’ll see what I mean. Was there truly behavior worthy of the term ‘meltdown’ involved? Four our of five times, not by any stretch is it so.

14) frost event – turning specific nouns into one of a small set of abstractions

This is from two years ago in my files: There’s no way to get them to rebloom if there’d be a frost event. 3-14-12, CBN (Pat Robertson’s deal)

You don’t need ‘event.’ Frost covers it perfectly. It’s not like frosts come with extra attractions – fireworks and beer concessions. There’s just the frosting. The frosting is the cake of the frost event, and there is no icing. You will find this sort of redundant attenuation, for lack of a better way to describe it, all over the place. For after all, why use one strong clear specific word when you can water it down and out with a more confusing hence weaker two-word term? The addition of process to specific nouns is probably the most common form of this error. Every formerly discrete action becomes a process. No one ever grieves, he goes through the grieving process. This is irritating. Only things that are genuinely processes should be described that way. Making soap, for example, involves a genuine process. There are specific, identifiable, discrete steps involved and a necessary order and chronology to them. Grieving is just feeling sad. It’s not really a process. It may take some time. You could even argue there are stages, but I don’t think it truly qualifies as a process. Process is better reserved for mechanical or industrial applications; it ought to be treated more as a scientific or logical or industrial term than as a term fit for softer, emotional stuff, or mundane operations. Just make sure you only use process when there’s an actual process involved – when the whole thing is different from and more than the individual, separable parts. Don’t just use it anytime something has more than one step or aspect. Don’t just thoughtlessly apply event, process, or any other abstract noun that you think lends importance or gravity because more words and more syllables equals more professional equals more respectable and more important. As always, I encourage people to read the late Paul Fussell’s book Class, which emphasize the US middle-class’s love of self-important titles, ‘professional expertise, and over-syllabification. The elite favor simplicity and accuracy over pretension.

Even if we’re not doubting the motives of the guy using ‘frost event,’ i.e., we allow him it’s not self-importance driving the odd term, it still amounts to a spurious and curious sort of pseudo-classification. Like, frost event as one of a number of other events? That doesn’t make sense. He’s talking about frost, and, so far as I can see, nothing else. So say frost and be done with it. Clear, direct, accurate. That’s certainly what and all we want out of a plant-planting adviser event.

You dig, ponyboy?

Enough for now, I will be back next Monday with another column… For the first time, I used more than half the material I had on file. If you come across interesting terms or uses, feel free to post them in this thread and I’ll take a look at them, or you can inquire about a particular angle if you don’t understand something.//

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

It is simply astonishing how much language-use material builds up over a month; never realized it until I started collecting for this column. I never use more than a portion of what I have, simply takes too much space, too much to say. Let’s get going…

1) new to me: immunologically naive nations

The Centers for Disease Control tracks epidemics. From their perspective, this is practically the most important thing anyone can do, thus requires huge amounts of funding. Well, we all see the world through our own portal. But listening to one of their brief podcasts, I came across this term, which was new to me: ‘immunologically naive populations.’ Now, I’d be willing to bet that is a departure from the historical way of putting it, and that the neo-locution was adopted for political reasons. The CDC podcasts blame American incidence of normally rare diseases such as tuberculosis or malaria on travelers, rather than on illegal aliens. I suspect this ‘naive’ falls into line with that political impulse. Is that really the right word to use? Is this the traditional formulation? Why ‘naive’? Are Africans and South Asians then ‘sophisticated’ populations? Surely it’s a matter of experience, not sophistication. Also seems in line with the leftist thing for whining about “first world problems” whenever whites discuss things that aren’t life and death. As if these coloreds, in disease and life generally, are on the front lines, taking the fight to the enemy, doing battle for all of us, even the lazy, cosseted, ‘naive’ white populations who do nothing but whine about their Ikea and Pier One problems. Yes, the muds are keeping it real. When in fact, as we racialists know, these groups clamor to get into white areas, where they not only soak up assets created by whites, they spread to white areas diseases whites have already eradicated through most of the globe. Who ever heard of a ‘black man’ or a ‘brown man’ curing a disease? No one. The white populations should be described as immunologically protected or advanced populations, not unsophisticated. They may be populations inexperienced with a particular disease, but not because they have never seen it before. Because they have seen it, solved it, and eradicated it! The naive population is the one that suffers the disease without understanding it or being able to control it. But as always, the term used in the conniving media must serve to discredit whites. That is the iron rule in anything coming out of the government or its media whores.

2) wackiness at Wesleyan: ze and hir

Interesting…and I like that “back when I didn’t suspect things.” Wesleyan is being more-advanced-than-thou, more or less copying, with different terms, what we’ve reported on elsewhere going on in Sweden.

3) misuses we will never quit fighting: reticence for reluctance and enormity for enormousness

Not reticence, reluctance. They’re reluctant — referring to a transient disposition — to speak to the reporter. It has nothing to do with shyness or taciturnity. It has to do with what someone wants to do – his will, his desire, his reluctance, his willingness. Not his character or his innate, fixed traits.

And this from Awake! October 2012, a publication the Jehovah’s Witness deposited with me for my edification:

No. Enormity means horrible atrocity; monstrous, wicked thing. Not something big or giant. The enormousness of your responsibility, or the true size and scope, or the profundity or deep seriousness of your responsibility sank in.

As I’ve pointed out, modern online dictionaries, catering to won’t-hear-no-criticism ego-nitwits, approve the use of enormity for enormousness. They are wrong, though. Don’t you be. Enormity is a good word, with a specific meaning, so use it only in that way, or else humorously – say, applying it to a table-manners infraction rather than the Holodomor.

4) new word: misoneism

\ mis-oh-NEE-iz-uhm, mahy-soh- \ , noun;
1. hatred or dislike of what is new or represents change.

Would be a good word to use in attacking those who stick to proven failure patterns when they need to change in order to win. I have run across this term before, but it’s one I’ve never used. Why? Because I couldn’t remember it. Many words fall into this category. The simple fact that it’s not immediately obvious how this word is pronounced guarantees it will seldom be used. That’s how knife-edge usage is. I mean, this word would have come in handy to me 1000 times in my writing, it represents an intelligible and useful concept, but it’s nearly impossible to remember.

5) new word for primarily humorous use: borborygmus

\ bawr-buh-RIG-muhs \ , noun;

1. a rumbling or gurgling sound caused by the movement of gas in the intestines.

Origin: Borborygmus comes from the Greek word borborygmós which meant “intestinal rumbling.”

Similar to a word I like to use, eructations. Fancy Latin-derived words for bodily functions are always funny: micturate for piss; eructate for belch. Anything that comes out of a man’s mouth can be called a belch, particularly if he says something stupid that requires mocking.

Always try to use a term funnily to capture it in your mind.

“Your borborygmus suggests my carefully prepared dandelion and dragonfly pie did not entirely satisfy your gustatory pangs.”

6) read voraciously

How often one sees this term. It’s a middle-class favorite; the user is entirely unaware he or she is suggesting rather the opposite. Or, he is suggesting that he reads whatever everyone else does: Stephen King and Dean Koontz and a handful of others. Anyone sensitive to language would wonder, “Why is it always, always ‘voraciously’?” Simply because that is the common term; the one that found favor in terms of repetition, for some reason. Reading seems more a reflective action than a voracious action, wouldn’t you say? I mean, you don’t eat books like a wolverine eating flesh. Not if there’s any meat to the book. You can only read voraciously what is as intellectually empty of nutrition, as is the case with most pop fiction, which is formulaic (no surprises, nothing new, nothing to threaten you to think and expand – word-muzak). No surprise, those are the books the people using this term mean by it, without intending to mean anything by it beyond suggesting they are page-gulping world eaters. What they intend to suggest by this term is that: they read! (1); that they are semi-nerdy (as nerdy as it is cool to be, but no nerdier) (2); that they respect and value Education (as this type thinks of it, capitalized). Reading is something better people do, so of course they do it. They do it voraciously. A word that is literally only used in this one way by 99% of the people who use it, I would guess.

See, I can tell you what to do, but with a lot of these points, if you didn’t already know instinctively what I’m saying, I’m only training up fakes, if you follow my advice. That’s the paradox of the ‘education’ I’m providing here. Ah well, we can at least appreciate and understand things, if we can’t actually improve ourselves.

A subtler point is that one does not describe oneself. It’s for others to decide what we are, and which our merits and demerits. It is gauche to describe oneself as a reader; it is doubly gauche to describe oneself as a lots-reader; it is trebly gauche to describe oneself as a great reader using an unthinking cliche – voracious reader. Do you see what’s funny about that? These people are voracious consumers of mental carbohydrates at most. At least, they’re simply pretentious liars.

‘I’m a voracious reader’ is a feminine sort of thing to say. Women experience biological pleasure/reward in their brain at connecting to other people. Much of this connection is verbal. When a woman uses a cliche, she is using, to her mind, approved language. The powers that be, the legitimate authorities, approve this message! And she used it! Correctly! That’s how you do it! Of course, the woman is completely unconscious of any of this, it just seems right to her. Many can understand this unconscious impulse to obey and conform to authority (in matters verbal and other), if you bring it to their attention, but on their own, women are pretty much never aware of, let alone bothered by cliches; rather they like them because they bear the imprimatur of known and respected social authority, as proved by the fact that other people use them. Before you laugh and sneer “women!”, and discard the sex as mere parrots and repeaters, remember what I said that doesn’t make you so happy: most men are women too. Genuine creativity comes from a small minority of men, almost exclusively. Women, by contrast, are people use the word ‘creativity’ – because they don’t understand what it actually is. There’s nothing wrong with women, they are what they are, but men who can should strive to put more thought into their expressions.

Like I’ve said, every letter and every word is a cliche – even before they begin teaming up to form phrases and sentences. So the conscious writer — word choose, word user, word arranger — starts from a deficit, given his goal of conveying something new. There are only 26 letters in English, and in any language, only a few thousand words commonly used. And yet again, these words are combined in usual, predictable ways – but only these combinations are called cliches. In a very real sense. all human conversation is cliched, and necessarily so. If I think up a new letter, as I well may have done, for all you know, I can nevertheless not express it to you because there’s no typing key for it. What I can do, with the existing infrastructure, is decouple multi-term cliches. And I recommend the brighter among you do this too. It subtly discomforts into awareness the reader/middle-classer when you remove the voracious and use something else. He will think, hmm, that’s disconcernting. It’s not really wrong, it just doesn’t seem right. He will be forced to think, just a little. He will see the cliche he wants and expects revealed as a choice, which is what we’re aiming at: conscious writing read by conscious readers. But why describe yourself at all? It’s not your job to brag or bore people. Be, rather, what Tina Fey calls opaque. Let your behavior, your art, speak for you. That’s how the best people do it. You might not be the best, but you can ape them. Behave up, not down. Makes for a better you in a better society.

Wherever you come across a paired couple, unless it is necessarily rather than merely traditionally connected, separate it. Use the noun unadorned, or switch in a new adjective. Just to shed a slightly different light on things. Anything that gets people thinking helps. So long as the new term you make has a clear and intelligible meaning. We’ll come across more examples of cliches suitable for decoupling in the future and I’ll expand on what I mean.

When you describe yourself as a voracious reader to your betters, you reveal an entire constellation of characteristics about yourself. They know exactly how to place you. You’re a middle-class person eager to portray yourself as moderately (never immoderately!) intellectual. This one mere verbal formulation is proxy for more things than its user realizes. So we reveal ourselves! The cleverer man won’t give himself away that easily. He’s focused not on impressing the other guy, as the middle-class American almost always is, but reading him, his background, his intentions, his likely course of action.

7) misuse of mistake

This is a very interesting case, grown much more common recently, best I can tell. It’s the misuse of the term mistake. If I’m driving to Duluth, and I mean to go down Lutefisk Avenue to pick up some rotten fish for my pet skunk, yet I accidentally turn down New Kat Drive into a neo-African brains desert — that is a mistake. I didn’t mean to do it. I did it by accident. It was not my intention to go down that drive. I hope I can make it back out before my Wienermobile is set on by ululating leaf-loaded skinnies.

But what we see today on the left is that anyone who belongs to their camp who commits a misdeed is described as having made a mistake. If a black football player stole a laptop as a ‘youth,’ why, it made a ‘mistake.’ It intended to steal the computer. It did steal the computer. It did try to fuck the USB slot. Then settle for playing video games. Where’s the mistake? No mistake was involved. It achieved precisely what it intended, thus its actions, however we may judge them, do not fall into the ranks of mistakes – which always and only mean something done against intention. Not a perfectly accomplished deed the doer later regrets, or his backer apologizes for.

No one commits a crime by mistake. All crimes are crimes of intention, excepting crimes of ignorance. In any case, none of those apologists try to use ‘mistake’ on didn’t know what they were doing was legally wrong at the time.

If you intended to do X, and you did it, there is no mistake involved, nohow no way, regardless of morality or legality or subsequent regret.

I’m not done clubbing this baby seal, its endless barking pisses me off and I need a a snazzulous (snazzy and fabulous) furry covering for my thorax. I will hit this again when I have more examples. It’s an interesting misuse. It’s of the genus denying agency. But instead of denying agency outright, by blaming poverty or racism, it’s more an amelioration or extenuation. The guy in question did do something. But nothing as bad as it seems. Just a mistake. Agency-/responsibility-denial lite, I call it. And quite common.

8) transparent

This is an interesting case study in indirectly political use of language in mass media. Transparency sounds like a good thing. But we must consider what’s going on here. Which operations the writer is describing. What choices he made. The writer seems to agree with the US government that the very idea of a private banking transaction is inherently suspicious, and probably ought to be made illegal. But he and the government don’t say: END BANKING PRIVACY NOW! They say, “banks need to be more transparent.” Isn’t it the government which needs to be transparent? I mean, everyone pays for government. Its operations supposedly support us all, so it’s in our interest and our business to know what it’s up to, particularly when it’s as large as it is, and absorbs as much in taxes as it does. Yet you’ll seldom see any need for transparency mentioned in the controlled media. Even though there are “sunshine” laws for most public agencies, records tend to be rather difficult to acquire, wherever there’s any benefit to hiding something. Media are hardly on the front lines when it comes to getting state agencies to live up to the letter of the law. But they’re all about pressing Switzerland to disclose private financial transactions. Get that? PRIVATE. No one’s business but the bank and the party concerned. But of course the very idea of privacy is tantamount to terrorism and treason to ZOG, which operates from the hateful, warmongering, totalitarian mindset of the jews of the Talmud and USSR.

People go along with what they hear in the controlled media because they don’t think and they never hear the other side. They never hear anything different. Banking privacy is good. Good for everyone. If corrupt people hide money in foreign banks, that’s not the bank’s job to figure out, that’s for prosecutors. What is really motivating the government(s) goes back to one of Marx’s ten planks of communism: control over capital flights. The judeo-neomarxist government wants to know where every dollar is at all times. It’s all about control, ‘transparency’ is. It’s a twist on the standard conservative-authoritarian line: if you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Just as gun control is about controlling people, not guns, transparency is about controlling people, not banks or money. They say gun control rather than End Self-Defense! and transparency rather than End Banking Privacy! for obvious reasons. It disguises what they’re really up to, and sounds anodyne to the unsophisticated. Fighting terrorism or drug wars is the perfect cover for doing away with white privacy and white freedoms generally. Freedoms Switzerland has done better protecting than pretty much any other nation over the centuries.

9) day described as bluebird

It was a crisp, cloudless day, the kind skiers call “bluebird”… Link.

Just an interesting use, emerged in the coverage of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.

That will do for now; will be back before too long with another column, as I only used about 1/4 of the material I’ve collected. It truly is interesting to watch political maneuvering through verbal transition; I had thought to keep this column comparatively politics free, but experience shows that is not possible. I hadn’t even fully realized until writing these just how much of the real change is not in the big stuff, the directly political stuff like ‘pro-life’ vs ‘choice,’ but in terms only indirectly political, such as transparency or mistake.

Thanks for reading, and if you see anything I got wrong, or you have something interesting to add, don’t hesitate. The beautiful thing about writing online is that, unlike a figure-skating routine, you can always go back and correct your mistakes, not just sit on your wet ass and cry.

By Alex Linder

In this thread in this new column I am going to give examples of excellence in writing, along with explanations.

We’ll begin with this, from the opening page of Clinton Rossiter’s The First American Revolution (1953), p.3:

Boom! In a nutshell. If you don’t understand why this is excellent…let me explain, long-windedly. Writers must know everything. Not possible. The more a writer knows, the better – for the reader. Men, lands, situations, psychologies, it all plays in. To what? What he can bring to bear on the page. What he can drawn from in trying to explain something to the reader.

But even if the writer doesn’t know everything, even if he knows very little, at least he knows, or can reasonably speculate, on what he doesn’t know. At least…and here’s the pitch…he can give the true and accurate context. That is what Rossiter does excellently above. In one short paragraph, you have the American scene just prior to the political revolution. You have in a nutshell what you’re dealing with. That is what a writer is supposed to do, but so often these days fails to do.

Giving the reader context ought to be pretty close job #1, even for newspaper reporters. Now, they are of course concerned with the five Ws – who, what, when, where, how – but the minute that is done, what else have these folk to do other than place them in context?

Say we’re reporting on a fire in the mountains ringing L.A. What does context mean here? It means we research and talk to experts to establish:

– what is a typical fire season/fire in this area/in the West in general
– where/why this fire might be unusual or usual

Say we’re doing a story on crime in Chicago. What does context mean here?

It means, locating this specific spate of, say, weekend shootings within a greater city (Chicago), state (Illinois) and national context.

– there are X murders per year. Here’s a graph showing average annual murders in Chicago dating back to 1900 or 1950. Show the race of the perpetrators. Show the race of the victims. Show the interracial stats (if the media weren’t controlled to exclude these because they speak against forced race-mixing the controlled media universally promote).

The writer’s job in this kind of fact-based, analytical reporting-analysis is to give the reader everything he needs to gain a true picture of what’s going on, so that he can understand it. The reporter’s first duty may be to get the facts right, so that his every assertion may be relied on; but his second duty is to fit the facts into a meaningful and non-distortive context. What the controlled media ordinarily do is present a selection of the facts, and very little context, and a context that, whenever the story bridges on matters political, is distorted in line with an undeniable and absolutely predictable agenda.

It cannot be overemphasized, when you are the writer, you are the man. You are like a man taking a girl on a date. You are responsible for planning it, for seeing that she is well situated and enjoys herself. That’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s close enough. You don’t make the reader-girl wonder wtf is going on, or if this guy knows what he’s doing, you giver her everything she needs to know to make sense of the situation and draw her own judgments.

Most problems with writings are simply the same problems we see in people off the page: they live in their own little heads. I’m not even talking about selfishness, though it can be that, I’m talking about simply unawareness, proceeding from a number of sources, of what the other guy needs to understand in order to cooperate with one. On the page, this ego-obliviousness, or trapped-in-selfness, results in people writing things that aren’t clear to outsiders. These writers aren’t able to grasp that other people aren’t in their head and won’t know what they are talking about. An effective writer will instinctively understand where his reader is, educationwise and mentally, and with what sort of material he needs to prepare him so that he can easily grasp the story. He won’t just plop down a bunch of context-free impressions and expect the reader to make a satisfying meal out of the mess.

Writing is not just teaching, educating, explaining, it’s also guiding. Show respect for the reader always by giving him the context he needs to evaluate the precise information you’re disseminating or the report you’re making.

When we read the Rossiter start above, we say to ourselves, as reader, “Ahh…now I can settle in…I’ve got the big picture firmly in head: a couple million people, 3/4 white, mostly English, rural, etc., slowly trickling through to the west.” That is firm social-geographical basis for the political story about to unfold.

Always give the reader the context he needs to make sense of the story. Disconnected bits of factual flotsam + ideological assumptions never fully articulation let alone examined is a bread made of sawdust: not nutritious at all.

Context exercises:

That will do for our first lesson. As with our language series, this will become a regular column.

You’re the writer? You’re the man. Lead. Dominate. Entertain. Educate. Wow. Make effective and enjoyable and educational communication happen – it’s all in your hands. Bring the reader to intellectual orgasm, or if you can’t do that, at least make what you’re saying so brilliantly sunny the reader can see exactly where you’re wrong, or what you’re missing, even if you can’t yourself. For that’s the final fact: none of us can see everything. But at the very least, we can know what we need to get the job done, and supply as much of it as we can, given our limited understandings.

Alway have respect for the reader, and this means, in part, giving the reader the means to make sense of the specifics, which in many or even most cases will be new or foreign to him.

The only thing left to say is that even if you’re not a writer, the lesson above applies to everyone, because we all must communicate continually with the outside world. If you find yourself frequently being misunderstood, it is very often because of your own assumptions. You are in your head, assuming other people know what you are talking about or referring to when in fact they don’t. Be the unusual man: think about things from the other guy’s perspective: what does he need from you? This will pull you out of yourself (which has the side effect, oddly enough, of making you happier) and make you far more effective as a communicator, as you will be more observant and become more observant through practice. Notice this, too. The #1 fear most people have is public speaking? Why? Because everyone is looking at them. They are self-conscious. Getting through this, which is merely a matter of publicly speaking a few times for most people, allows you to get to where you lose your focus on yourself (which is all self-consciousness is, even when it seems to come from the outside) and to focus on what the audience needs from you, and how to put it in the best form. You can see what I mean here: all these things show angles on the same common problem. Getting stuff out of our heads and putting it under the table under bright light so that we and the other guy can clearly see what we are talking about, and have the same basic picture in our heads. That is successfully contexted communication. You will hear that writing is self-expression, but that is quite wrong. Of course it is, inevitably, as we are all different, but writing is not onanism; there are other people involved, and their needs should come ahead of the writer’s, for he is writing for them. He may write in the style he prefers, so that he will reach those who are more naturally of his mental bent, but no matter which particular style he follows or naturally expresses, the need to ask the basic questions and prepare the basic setting in which the communication plays out are always there, waiting to be met, by successful writers, or ignored, by defective expressivists, to be redundant. The world doesn’t need more ee cummings; one is rather enough. Still another angle on or example of the same basic problem is the grammatical failure known as unclear antecedent. That’s a pronoun such as it or they where no noun has been used. Now often enough the reader may get the gist, but often enough he can’t. Either way it’s a mistake. “Is what’s clear in my head clear to the reader?” Ask yourself this repeatedly. Read what you’ve written. Can an average reader make sense of it? If not, then you must clarify. Put yourself in the innocent reader’s chair, and what you need to know will guide you to both the things you need to say and the best way to say them.

Set your reader up for success by constructing for him the context he needs to understand (and then evaluate) the information you provide. That is one of your principal duties as a writer.

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

This is my second column on language. I originally intended to focus on aesthetics, grammar and actual usage. Leave politics out completely. That will not be possible, nor, after a month collecting a mountain of stuff, does it seem desirable. We’ll cover all the bases, at the length needed. The purpose of this column is to look at what’s going on out there, how people are using language, how they’re twisting and perverting concepts and terms in order to achieve some occult or nefarious end. Fun fact about ‘nefarious.’ My dad always said he knew he was at the wrong place when he got his paper back here at Truman State (then running under a different name) with his nefarious marked “no such word.” See, the teacher’s supposed to know more than the student. Otherwise, formal schooling really doesn’t work that well. Presumably these problems lie in TSU’s past, as it has gone from a normal school – that means a teacher-training school, if you’re unfamiliar with the term – to a college to a university. Paul Fussell describes this common academic embiggening process in his remarkable book Class, which I highly recommend. Today, Truman State University — named for the president from Kansas City, a man who had snakes legs to do with Kirksville and this side/part of the state, but nevertheless, that’s how politics work. Anyway, nice short memorable name compared to Northeast Missouri State Teachers College, or some such. There’s a lot to be said for short, memorable, easily spelled names. Keep that in mind when bestowing monikers on your offspring.

Now let’s get to the words.

1) Random ain’t used randomly

Random is a term which, in common journalist parlance, equates to driven by a motive illiberals don’t want to acknowledge; most typically, most notably, most noticeably, most prominently, most commonly a racial motive driving a black’s assault on a white. Blacks never, in the keyboards of the journalists, commit a “hate crime gone right,” only a ‘(carjacking) gone wrong.’ Random, therefore, represents spin. Its use nearly always signifies an attempt to conceal. Why would a ‘reporter’ attempt to conceal rather than disclose, as his name suggests? as his job title purports? But you could ask the same of any term commonly deployed by the ideological powers that be. Why do they call queers ‘gay’? Because they’re not. They’re the opposite of gay. They’re twisted, unhappy, heavily, seriously disturbingly off. So we see that it’s not just that things are called what they ain’t, they’re called the opposite of what they are. It’s a flip. An inversion. A photo-negative. Reality-reversal. It proceeds at multiple levels: not just the terms selected, but the framing of the story; indeed, the story’s very selection.

The sophisticated media consumer knows that ‘random’ is a tip to a hidden racial motive. He knows that the System, its media and schools, spend all their time inculcating hatred of whites in coloreds – and then covering up the natural results of this inculcation in the mass media. In the jew-controlled media, it is whites who are always and everywhere driven by dark motives; blacks are only driven by creditable. Well, sometimes they do commit crime, but only because they need money. And of course, they’re only poor because America was built on the back of their slave labor. They’re just taking back what belongs to them, without any racial animus, of course. What I describe is the unstated morality underlying the bizarre misrepresentations of racial behavior and motivation that define the mass media, and have for decades. It’s all understood but seldom layed out. The readers are frustrated. They have to guess. They have to fight the reporter for the story. From ‘reporter’ on down, everything is done to frustrate the reader rather than inform him. It’s passing bizarre if you think about it, but it’s very real.

The journalist is supposed to provide the facts. And then put them in context, depending on his knowledge and ability. But at least provide the facts. He doesn’t even do that, most times. Reporters are simply low-level agenda pushers. The agenda is pre-set, and reality is not allowed to falsify or interfere with it. Terms such as ‘random’ do not appear political in the way a term like ‘hate crime’ obviously is. But in practice, they are every bit as political. There’s a raft of ostensibly neutral terms that are effectively used as concealers (as in a woman’s makeup) or masking agents. Random is meant to reassure the person raised in the illiberal worldview that the blacks were just out of money; it might discomfit or scare him if the reporter reported the facts – let alone dramatized them. If he told the reader that, yes, the black hated whites, targeted whites, and made no bones about it. And that there are millions of other blacks just like him.

Readers who have learned to see through the charade know exactly what’s going on. The coverup becomes the reporting. If the reporter says ‘random,’ it’s very, very likely there was a racial motive involved. The experienced reader knows that if a black murdered 27 whites and filched a gold ring off one of them, the motive would be described as robbery, or robbery gone wrong, rather than race-hatred. The smart reader understands that ideology on the part of the jews owning the mass media ensures that their reporting will always be queered against the interests of whites and in favor of the interests of jews and coloreds. ‘Random,’ like almost everything illiberals put out, is a form of gaslighting – telling you that what you see with your very own eyes just ain’t so. The mass deny what actually occurs in the world. They brazenly asserts the opposite is actually going on. ‘Random’ is not used accurately in the controlled media. It is used to misrepresent the motives behind a crime it describes. ‘Random’ is thus a tool of denial, as the illiberals like to say. Of course, the illiberals don’t want to take any responsibility for inculcating hate in blacks, and the subsequent attacks that spring from this hate. It’s all just perfectly innocent criminal behavior in their typeups. Nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. Just another random attack…by black(s) on white(s). Give it no heed. Pay it no mind. It has no meaning.

This is the respect paper and tv have for the white consumers paying their bills.

2) Sacco is a common jewish name….

Interesting thing I came across…the above assertion in a story-comment. Sacco is the name of the woman who tweeted a not-clever-enough illiberal mocking of racist white people so that she was taken for a racist herself. Even though she’s apparently a jew, with a billionaire-businessman father in South Africa. I had only heard the name ‘Sacco’ in relation to the anarchists of the early twentieth century up in Boston: Sacco and Vanzetti. Famous radicals. I had never known Sacco to be anything but Italian, but if you look it up, it is both Italian and jewish. Very interesting. The Sacco and Vanzetti case is one of the bits always brought up in American high school history classes to suggest how anti-socialist and racist our country was back in the day. The two would fit whether they were Italian or jewish, but the apparent fact that Sacco is often a jewish name would strengthen the likelihood of that particular affair making it onto the high-school syllabus. Everything commonly taught in America public high schools is there for an ideological reason, at least in history and English. Assume that assertion is true until proven otherwise, and you’ll seldom be wrong.

3) professional help is neither

People who can’t separate external appearance from actual content love the term ‘professional help.’ They get a warm rush of “I sound really sciency, objective and expertical when I say this.” They have come up with a solution. An appropriate solution! A solution anyone on a publicly televised talk show or situation comedy will agree is the only possible cure for the disturbed one in question.

‘Professional help’ the concept as ordinarily employed represents impacted error. First, it ordinarily alludes to psychiatry. Yet psychiatry isn’t a real science. There may be body of doctrine taught to a budding psycho — there may be fifteen, depending on his school — but there is no genuine science in it. Nor is there any proof that what psychiatrists sell equals help. When doing nothing produces results as good as being ‘helped’ by a ‘professional,’ seeking help becomes a very problematic, as illiberals love to say, bit of advice. Who pushed psychiatry as valid? Who pushed it as science? Who pushed for it to be reimbursed? Who’s behind most of the different schools? Who celebrates and promotes this pseudo-science in the media? Jews. Open and shut. Psychiatry is a jewish religion. It’s for warped kikes who live around Vienna. For goyim, it’s not valid. There’s a reason jews popularize shrinks through their media, their movies and prime-time shows, comedic as well as dramatic. They’re trying to normalize one of their many ways of making money out of thin air. If they get people to believe their quacks have authority, and can solve problems, then they prosper. They drive people away from belief in agency and personal responsibility and into the arms of the excusers and explainers-away. When enough of the country agrees that these million and one forms of counseling are valid, then they find their ways into the court system, which guarantees expensive reimbursements. Many of which are paid by sane taxpayers who don’t believe in the secular religion psychiatry. What psychiatrists offer isn’t “help.” They charge for it. And it doesn’t work. No better than pills or doing nothing, anyway. “The talking cure” is simply a way for jews to transfer money from goy wallets into jew bank accounts. Of course, jews are never content with money profits alone, they want to advance their political agenda. That happens two ways. First, as mentioned, they chip away at agency. Everyone but the person in the room is responsible for his problems. Blame your parents. Blame your spouse. Never blame yourself. Now pay me 200/hour for disbursing this “professional help” you sought. Second, jew quacks promote the bogus idea that by digging through your entire past you’re somehow going to solve your problems. Endless rehash doesn’t solve problems. We live moving forward. We can decide how we feel about what happened, but ultimately we must leave it and move on. Otherwise we give others the power to make us feel a certain way, which is a form of thinking women are particularly susceptible to. It’s no accident that women in particular are drawn into this secular religion of blaming others and endless talking about one’s feelings. That would be the second major political achievement psychiatry achieves for the jews who concocted it. How neatly they’ve insinuated it into the white middle class acceptance by playing up to their snobbishness with the ‘professional’ bit.

‘Mental health’ is an allied concept. To its fans, its services are always underfunded. It perfectly parallels global warming or climate change: they demand the money in the name of science that, upon inspection, ain’t there. They rely on the science ruse because trying to sell morbid sex or high-tax communism on their own don’t appeal to people. Dress them up as something respectable: Mr. Science and Mrs. Professional going to the good opera. They fool people. They inure people through continual repetition and absence of competing concepts. American people don’t read. Or think. They watch tv. If all they’ve ever heard is of the need to “seek professional help,” how likely is it they’re going to have any doubts about this concept? Not very. They’ll swallow it whole as self-evident.

4) “stay classy” creates backlash

Originally used by Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy in Anchorman, Stay classy (San Diego) has begun to irritate people. It was funny enough, I suppose, at the start, but it’s been overused. Good place to observe the difference between how the average person conceives humor and what humor actually is. Humor is something original and pertinent that makes others laugh. Something that’s a twist on something else is perfectly valid as genuine humor. Repeating what others have said is something different. I have to go with what E. Michael Jones said about music, mutatis mutandis: It’s better to make second- or third-rate original music than always be playing someone else’s perfect recordings. You get more out of it. Music is for participation, not just enjoyment. Now, think about the human proclivity to be dumb and conformist. What does that imply about the average person’s conception of humor? It implies he has no internal ability to recognize or create humor, he can only identify it when it’s literally labeled ‘joke,’ in a book or text, or appears on Comedy Central, or other people of known ‘professional’ or otherwise impressive social standing have certified it by laughing at it. And one hastens to add in 2014, laughing at it without getting fired. If they approve, then little guy approves. It’s for use. He can say “serious as a heart attack,” with appropriate eyebrow caterpillarings. He can say, because its known funny, undeniably funny, comes with a funny certificate of authenticity, “tell us how you really feel.” Pat, trite, cliched – verbal equivalent of comfort food. What the average guy does not understand is that telling jokes doesn’t mean you’re funny. Even if the jokes you’re telling are. You might be funny. Telling jokes is no guarantee you’re not. But a proclivity for tellings jokes makes it likelier that you’re not funny but think you are. We’ll get back to this in later columns, but that’s enough for now. Let’s just say there’s a canyon between those who dislike readymade language and those who prefer to work their words. Those who like ‘the way everyone says it’ feel, and I do mean feel, that words and expressions that have stood the test of time are to be cherished and not departed from. The more confident the man, the more penetrating the gaze, the less trust and liking for congealed word patterns, the more the felt need to describe more closely and anew the e’er-whirling world.

5) ‘committed suicide,’ he did

Guess what bothers someone about this term? Redundancy? Ha. I like the way you think. But of course, no. Someone is bothered by its excessive accuracy or implicit emphasis on agency. Isn’t there a nicer way we could say it? Well, I don’t know. Was he bitten by a rabid lawn mole? If so, then I say we go with that. If he took a revolver and painted his den wall bood red, I say we say he shot himself. If he looped a hempen strand over the rafter, we say he hung himself. Pardon me, hanged himself.

That doesn’t make sense. If he was living with depression, then how did it kill him? He killed himself. There’s a two-fer observation here: 1) the attempt to put ‘mental’ problems on par with genuine diseases; 2) the attempt to deny agency. People kill themselves all the time. You don’t know why. There’s a famous poem we study in high school about this: we don’t know what goes on in the heads of others. You may think you do. You do think you do. But your opinion is not the same as knowing, which is the root of the word science. You can’t see what killed this guy under a microscope, like you could with a real disease. So let’s not play games with words to pretend your opinion is on the same level as the actual knowledge we call science.

6) mano a mano, not mano y mano

Mistake that has become common in last twenty years. Dopes, don’t try to use phrases you don’t understand. Too many adults are like babies, just babbling sounds they hear in the atmosphere without any actual grasp of meaning. Babies can be excused for that, it’s a natural part of their growth. Adult’s can’t. If you’re on the public airwaves, you have a duty to use language correctly. The morontsia are listening; don’t let them down. Mano a mano is Spanish. It means hand to hand. Mano y mano means hand AND hand. Big difference. A little thing can be gotten right as easily as gotten wrong.

7) decimate doesn’t mean what you think

I’m not even going to look; I’ll just assume this is another example where the $2 whores known as modern dictionary compilers open their greasy leaves to the new wrong use of this term. For the elect, which you reading this just might aspire to nearly belong to, decimate is known to refer to a Roman martial punitive practice in which every (guess? guess?) tenth man was killed. Decimate – decimal…get it? (Ten is diez in Spansih; dix in French – both Romance languages; Romance probably has to do with Romans, don’t you think?) So when you use decimate in the way of the morontsia — as synonymous with slaughter — you’re…how can I put this…wrong. If you only ate ten percent of the carrot mash your mom fed you in your highchair, would she exclaim, “Wow, you really laid waste to those carrots! Good job!” No. She’s say, you’ve only eaten two bites of that stuff! You’re going to sit here all night until you finish, or you’ll be seeing those carrots for breakfast!” Actually…you probably wouldn’t say that to a baby. But you get my point: people using decimate are thinking 90% in their head but use a term that means quite literally 10%. Just a small thing that half-educated people know and the others do not.

8) An example of a Politically Correct redefinition of PC to mean something that actually promotes PC

Promoting promiscuity to destroy goy youth, hence goy future, is the very point of the Frankfurt School. PC is the speech and ideas code to maintain compliance with that-which-destroys-the-jews’-hated-enemy,-the-white-man.

Yet often we see the term politically correct misused, usually unwittingly, to mean something that is promoting traditional morality, or some kind of personal or social continence. But self-control is the opposite of political correctness, not the result of it. In most cases the person using PC in the aw-yer-no-fun sense is not aware of his misuse; he picked it up somewhere else. But as PC is the only recognized term referring to the extremely important phenomenon of the judeo-left’s drive to remake society and genocide whites, it is important to blunt its effect. You do this a number of ways. First, by the term itself: it should be, as Joe Sobran pointed out, Semitically Correct. It is the jews who set PC’s agenda. They and they alone determine what’s politically correct and what’s politically incorrect. Second, as said, and as will be said many times again, jewish ‘scholars’ of the Frankfurt School believe that the way to destroy goyish society is to get it obsessed with sex. Get it to, to as big an extent as possible, forego the arduous path of family raising and spousal loyalty for the hedonistic thrills of cheap sex and Chinese-trinket consumerism. Destroy the man, destroy the marriage, destroy the community, destroy the nation. That’s what they’re after.

Jews make endless films mocking anyone concerned with self-control and morals as religious bigots. See Porky’s. See Footloose. See a million other films and all tv shows. Showing moral control is the opposite of political correctness. Yet, it’s not quite that simple. For women, jews have put out the poison labeled feminism. One strain within feminism has concerns that can seem to overlap with those of traditional morality, although they are coming from a completely different direction. So the non-intellectual can be confused, and think that feminists whining about, say, body issues, or models being photoshopped, the male gaze, ‘rape culture,’ or female objectification is the political correctness that is preventing him from enjoying boobs and tush. But feminists aren’t against those so much as they demand they be viewed in the right way. You’ve got to get your head right, then it’s ok. But this is far beyond the interest of the term user, of course, it’s fairly subtle.

Then you’ve got jews completely flipping the concept of PC, and equating, in their movie PCU (1994), which I reviewed here, political correctness with the view of an obnoxious, blond Reaganite. From the review:

(He is.)

Showing PC to be a creature of the goyish right rather than the jewish left – what a perfectly race-typical brazen lie, precisely the type of thing jews celebrate as ‘chutzpah.’ Political Correctness, the term and concept, came from Lenin. Lenin was a quarter-jew. Enough get him into Israel as a blood citizen. His surrounding radicals were mostly jews. PC meant in line with the Lenin- or Central Committee-set political line which anyone diverting from needed to be stomped back in line with, hard. Killing them would be a perfectly acceptable way of getting them back in line. But jews, rather than own their history of murderous shenanigans and lying choose instead and as always to blame the other guy. They brazenly turn the one semi-formal notice of the tyranny they’ve installed into yet another attack on the evil-white-goy stereotype their Hollywood and mass media have invested decades in defaming. It’s a tricky world…

What’s genuinely unPC when it comes to sex? Mating only with heterosexual white women; getting married and staying loyal to your husband or wife; raising a family of white children. Anything other…not so much. What IS politically correct as relates to sex? Any kind of sexual deviance, including pedophilia, polyamory, lesbianism, queerness, transsexualism, cross-dressing, sex toys, speaking publicly about pornography and masturbation, ‘gay marriage,’ denying that a family consists of a man, woman and children. That’s a start on a listing. Wherever you have continual innuendo that sex and money are the only real human drives, you are dealing with classic Political Correctness.

9) thrasonical – vain, boastful

Good word that I’ve never used, but should. Maybe you should too. Notice the a is long, not short: thra(y)sonical. The term comes from a Roman play, from a soldier who is a braggart. Hear it pronounced thru this link.

Back next time with many exciting more… If you have any particular questions or interesting terms or ideas, let me know, and if I have any great ideas, I’ll use it. //