It and Essence

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. //

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]

would say, and also of bureaucratese. There is nothing in situtation not encompassed by murder. And you will agree that murder is about as strong as words get. “What we have here is a murder, plain and simple.” That communicates as effectively as possible the point dead’s dad seeks to make. Throwing in situation brings nothing but a stray thought about a character in Jersey Shore.

‘murder situation’ – death of Brittany Murphy
http://jezebel.com/brittany-murphys-…urd-1467629337

4. Sociopath and psychopath are bullshit terms

In this world dollars flow to those who can guess the future. Be closer to getting it right than others. The average person, thinking it is thinking, simply applies these cool terms after the fact, and believes it is performing analysis. It is not. If these terms actually meant something, psychopaths and sociopaths could be identified before the fact, their actions predicted. But they can’t. It is a mistake simply to go around calling anyone one dislikes, or whose actions one disagrees with, a psychopath or a sociopath. That is precisely the same thing that is done when our political and racial enemies call us haters. Same thing goes for monster. If one teenage girl bullies another, and the victim commits suicide, that does not confer monsterhood or psychopathy or sociopathy on the harasser. If you read the story comments thru the link below, you’ll see the lefties reading the face of the girl teen and seeing evil, etc in it, just like subpar WN confidently identifying jews from photos. A side point, evoked by the discussion of the 14-year-old nigger that murdered its math teacher up in Massachusetts, is that when you call something a monster, you’re taking away, by removing focus from, its responsibility for its deed. Don’t let people escape responsibility, even verbally. That’s important. Don’t use words that move the focus off the person’s decision to commit any particular act – good or bad. That is the practical definition of liberalism. Divide people into two camps: the good and the bad. The good are inherently good, and responsible for nothing, and the bad are irredeemably evil, and responsible for everything – not just their own actions, but the actions of the good people! Thus white-male ‘racism’ is responsible for johnny nigger’s rape-torture-murder. Liberals really do think like this. And there are a thousand subtler variation of this use of words to evade or cover up or displace responsibility.

The use of the terms psychopath or sociopath means nothing except that the user tries to cloak his emotional reaction in pseudo-clinical, pseudo-professional garb to make it appear cool scientific judgment. Own your hate, plebes! It is nothing to be ashamed of, provided the object merits it, as it does in this case.

http://gawker.com/14-year-old-indict…-ma-1469195202