Words

We live in a very peculiar age, in which using a word can condemn us as individuals or as groups. There are certain words which are almost universally condemned in our society. But somehow the wrongness of a word hinges on who is using the word. One group of people can use such words with no objection from hearers, while others are castigated and perhaps even charged with crimes, and subject to legal sanctions, even imprisonment. Isn’t this a weird state of affairs? Why should this be?

How many people ever ponder the oddness of this situation? Surely if a word is wrong or forbidden, then it should be wrong for anyone to use the word.

And shouldn’t a society generally be in agreement about the intrinsic wrongness or offensiveness of a word? If general agreement should exist, (and it seems to me it should; such things should not be arbitrary and random) then surely the majority should decide which words are not to be tolerated, rather than a smaller group deciding unilaterally. Such a situation is tantamount to having dictatorial ruling groups deciding, if the majority have no say.

Mind you I am not a big fan of ‘democracy’ as it has played out in our current situation, but since our system pretends to honor ‘the will of the majority’ why are we content to kneel to the whim of a minority of — say — 15 percent?

If a small segment of a population can wield so much influence and control over the majority, can we be said to have anything like a ‘representative’ government? Our elected officials are more likely to cater to the loudest and most overbearing group as well as to wealthy factions who ally themselves to this demanding 14 or 15 percent.

So we have given up our freedom of speech in order to appear ‘fair’ to smaller groups who pretend to be harmed or traumatized by certain words. What kinds of words have such power? Mostly it amounts to simple slang terms or abbreviated words describing ethnic groups, regardless of whether those words contain any kind of insult or “slur” as they are usually called. The words designated as offensive and ‘hateful’ are judged as such by purely subjective criteria, and those who pay attention to this attempt to control speech will notice that the criteria change arbitrarily, when it comes to accusing people of wrong-speech or “hate” as it is described.

Is it a sin to call an American a ‘Yank’? Why not? Some of us don’t like the word ‘yank’, especially if the person so labeled is from the Southern states. But when we are in the UK or Australia we are often referred to as ‘Yanks’ or by semi-insulting terms like ‘Septics’ in Australia. (Septic=rhyming slang: ‘Septic tank’) So we could rightly claim offense but we aren’t prone to do that, so we accept it.

There are lots of ethnic designations that are simple abbreviations but yet they are considered OK if the target is of a White nationality. Some ethnic peoples don’t like terms like I-tie (Italian) or Mick or but when the label describes someone non-European in origin, then the term ‘hate speech’ is invoked. Some hapless woman in the Midwest, years ago, was turned in to the police (by some busybody eavesdropping on a private conversation) to report this woman saying ‘S—s should learn English.’ I think a jail sentence was her punishment — for a simple one-syllable word.

People have been killed for uttering a slang name to which someone objects, even saying that being called an ‘epithet’ drove them to kill the offender. Thus people have been given light sentences for murder because of a ‘taboo’ word.

Why are we so easily cowed by the power of these words?

The word that causes more high feelings is the familiar ‘r-word’, which has been given incredible amounts of power in our current day. And yet it is we and our undeniably corrupt legal system that have invested the word with the power to destroy lives, metaphorically if not always physically.

Why?

Why are we willing to condemn ourselves, or if not ourselves, then our kin and kind, because of a word? Some will say ”but it’s not just a word; it implies an evil attitude on the part of the speaker, and fear, plus psychological harm to the person to whom it’s directed.”

Again, how can something subjective be determined with certainty? Many ‘hate hoaxes’ have happened and do happen, and they are documented. In many cases the hoaxsters admit to concocting a false story. Yet such stories are treated as irrefutable right out of the box, because some people are held to be above scrutiny, and are not held to the same standards as the rest of us.

It’s become as if it’s unthinkable to hold certain people to any standard, much less to question their veracity. But any human being is capable of dishonesty, so why exempt anyone? One standard for all. But we know it doesn’t happen that way.

Today, in the wake of recent events, it seems a sizable segment of our population is obsessed with showing themselves to be concerned about the plight of this protected group, worrying that the ‘Democrats aren’t taking good care of” this group of people.

It seems that we are very solicitous and protective of certain groups, especially one, because it would appear that people see them as perpetual children, who need our protection and charity. In their estimation we owe them that, and more, indefinitely.

And now, it’s reached the point where our folk are willing to kneel and prostrate themselves to certain people. This seems like some kind of mental aberration which has taken hold on European-descended folk. Maybe it’s a sign of stress; it’s quite a strain to be under for all one’s life, to be told again and again how evil our ancestors were and how we are responsible for everyone’s troubles and disappointments in life, we and our evil genes.

Yet our reprobate ”leaders” and politicians side against us, and help load us down with more burdens of guilt and blame. These political hacks are not our ‘representatives’ nor are they our advocates nor are they our ‘friends’. If they are leaders, they are leading us to destruction.

How many times a day do we hear or read the ubiquitous ‘r-word’? Hundreds? Surely the word should lose some of its power, given how it is overused, ad nauseam? Or have we decided to surrender to that word?

And is the thing described by that word a ‘sin’ in God’s eyes? Let’s look at what the word is supposed to mean, (though we all know there is no fixed meaning; they keep changing the meaning according to expediency). At its core, the invented word (not in use before 1930s) just means wariness of, or dislike for, a particular ethnic group or people. I am talking about common parlance, not any fluid dictionary definition.

Is it a sin to dislike, or be wary of, a group of people? It may be unfair to judge a people as a group — so we’re told — but is it a sin, much less a crime?

Remember, it isn’t we who decide what constitutes a sin. That’s God’s prerogative. Popular vote, or peer pressure has no say in what is a sin. My neighbor may not approve of an act, as I might, but neither of us has the power to make it a ‘sin.’

So what ‘people’, even the majority say, about the ‘r-word’ holds no weight in a religious sense. That’s just fallible human opinion.

Is it possible to ‘love everyone’ as we’re always told? Is that required of Christians? The Bible condemns hating ‘our brother without a cause.’ Notice that phrase ‘without a cause.’ That phrase is there for a reason.

Most of us would not hate someone without a cause. Yet that is what the Left and the clueless Civic Nationalist right thinks is the case: ”just because of the color of their skin!”

Only an idiot would hate someone because of outward appearance, skin color, etc. Scarcely anybody is guilty of that. Yet it’s what the ‘r-word’ supposedly implies.

Very few on the right judge people just according to their skin color. It is because of drastically different behavioral patterns and cultures that friction, animosity, and misunderstanding happen — and will always happen, based on what history shows.

It is the liberal ‘right’ who think that we can shoehorn everyone into one country and pretend that no differences exist, that ‘we’re all one race, the human race.’

What makes the ‘patriotic civnats’ think that the Others want to be just like us? Our culture and our ways are laughed at by other ethnicities: we are bland, boring, we eat tasteless foods, we can’t dance, we have no coordination, and we’re silly dupes who are easily manipulated. And maybe there’s good reason for believing that last one. Remember ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me’? Yet it seems names and words have got us, in truth, on our knees.

People’s Party of Canada vs. multicult

Maxime Bernier, candidate for the People’s Party of Canada, is proposing a new policy regarding the increasing ‘diversity’ of Canada. Sometime ago I seem to remember that the Canadian government was sending out a call for ‘more diversity’, that is, more immigrants ‘of color’.

So why the need for rethinking the policy on increasing immigration, specifically, requesting immigrants unlike the founding — and once dominant — ethnic group?

David Grant at the Council of European Canadians blog, writes about this.

Speaking strictly for myself, I don’t know much about Canadian politics, but one thing that jumps out at me, as an American, is that Bernier’s ‘new’ ideas are not exactly new; those same ideas have been foisted on Americans, to replace our early beginnings as a nation made up mostly of people of British Isles descent, as well as some Northern and Western Europeans. As more and more disparate peoples were entering our country, and we soon had a polyglot population as increasingly exotic peoples immigrated here, it was gradually taught in schools that our nation was a set of propositions.

And this is the track on which Mr. Bernier would put Canada. Canada, at least officially, prides itself on its ‘diversity’ and its many cultures.

Bernier, it seems, wants to make Canada a proposition nation, in which people are Canadian by virtue of accepting a set of beliefs and ‘values.’

David Grant rightly points out that language, ethnicity, and history are ignored in Bernier’s plan:

Already he has shot himself in the foot. If Canada was just based off a sense of belonging and common values than why did the English and the French have to fight a war for the land? How will Maxime Bernier explain the distinct Quebecois identity that has been trying to tear away from Canada almost from inception? In these things Maxime’s belief makes it impossible to objectively understand Canada’s history. “

Bernier apparently repeats the line that we’ve so often heard from our politicians in the U.S.: the statement that Canada has ”always been diverse.” This is the official dogma in our country and in most Western countries. Both in Canada and in the U.S. it is false; both Canada and the U.S. had homogeneous populations early on, with the greatest percentage being of British descent — English as well as Scots and Irish. Just as this country was not ‘diverse’ according to the PC definition (meaning mostly POC’s). But this mantra ‘we were always diverse’ is a glaring bit of gaslighting, to condition people to accept the changes in their homeland(s).

It appears Mr. Bernier’s list of ‘values’ that should be core values of Canada include the usual: ‘freedom’ (in a vague general sense), freedom of religion, equality between the sexes, democracy, tolerance, pluralism, etc. Read the whole list at the link.

The question of what makes a nation is always very relevant these days. The comments below the article are worth reading; despite the official dogma about these subjects, the comments show that there are people in Canada who are not easily fooled, and they take issue with ithe status quo regarding, as Trudeau says, ‘what makes a Canadian.’

I believe that most thinking people in Western countries see through the offical rhetoric and propaganda, but even if Bernier’s new policy were to be implemented, I don’t see it making much difference; multiculturalism and multilingualism will prevail unless someone is finally able to gain influence and freedom to offer real changes inot imposed from the top down, but from the ground up.

Civic nationalism, as a substitute for natural ethnonationalism based on shared descent, religion, culture, and language, has always been a poor replacement.

Thoughts from Lovecraft

“There is something the matter with the morale of the more polished nations – they need a little more brutality of the old Teutonic sort. No army can win without a certain savage lust of combat, and this spirit is being undermined with the current cant about democracy, idealism, and all that sort of rot. The issues should be made clearer – the first fight is not in the interests of a coming millennium of social reform; it is for the hearth and home — for existing institutions against a perilous invasion of an unnatural culture.

Racial factors are also united against us. For all our Roman civilization, the enemy has a preponderance of superior blood. If all the Allied nations were as thoroughly Teutonic as Prussia, the end would be nearer and happier. Nothing can withstand the might of the Teuton — he is the logical successor of the Roman in power. Teutonic blood snatched Britain from the Celt and made England the greatest force in all civilization. Teutonic blood conquered the Western wilderness and gave America an instant place amongst the great nations of the globe. But this blood has become so extensively and tragically diluted, that the non-German Teutons may well look with concern to their future.

The grotesque fallacy of the “Great American Melting Pot” may yet be brought home to the people in one of the most tear-stained pages of their history. Germany herself has set a truer valuation on the importance of unmixed blood, but may yet come to grief through the absorption of Slavic elements. The course of Germany during the last half-century has been one of curiously mixed merit. Certain scientific and philosophical developments have been marvellous, yet they have been conjoined to a brutality and narrowness of vision which threaten the development of civilization. The pan-Teutonic ideal, attainable only by a complete and amicable co-operation between Anglo-Saxon and Germanic races, has been fallaciously subordinated to a petty pan-Germanic ideal which is bringing about the virtual suicide of the Teutonic race, and driving the Anglo-Saxons and Germans into equally unnatural alliances with alien races. The Saxon has his Hindoos and Moors, and the German his Turks. Progress is at a standstill, and everything human is lost in a mad scramble for a material victory. Even a recurrence of the Dark Ages is not impossible – a recurrence which will leave the Teutonic race so depleted numerically that the world’s future is seriously threatened. Wilhelm, Wilhelm! What has thou wrought?”

— H.P. Lovecraft,  from a letter dated December 23, 1917