Maybe this is trivial, but…

Since we have to hear so much about the mayhem that’ s going on unchecked in our cities, I keep hearing different pronunciations of the word ‘antifa’.

I’ve always said the word with the first two syllables accented. That is, ‘ANTIfa.’ However I noticed people online or on TV saying ‘an-TEE-fa’, as if it were an Italian or Spanish word, where the accent would be on the second of the three syllables. So I looked it up online and the different sources both said the accent is on the ANTI .

Still we live in a world in which people have discarded rules and authority so the pronunciation will be whatever the consensus is or whatever the ‘majority’ decides. Whatever.

And yes, it’s a nit-picky point; I do actually care more about what’s being done to our world than about correct pronunciation of the name.

The magic word

I missed this piece when it first appeared. Merriam-Webster Dictionary kowtows to one nonwhite person who thought it her ‘right’ to dictate a more ”correct” definition of that nebulous, all-purpose term, ‘racism.”

Coincidentally I was just working on a piece about that very thing. However I and the lone female who rewrote the Merriam-Webster definition see it very differently.

It must be nice, by the way, to be able to just e-mail the sycophants at M-W and tell them to rewrite the definition to order, tout de suite. And it worked, for her.

What exactly does ‘‘racism” mean? The woman who complained by e-mail, and succeeded in bringing the M-W people to their knees, says it’s ‘systematic.” In other words it’s all coordinated, pervasive, and planned by Whites. Nothing can be systematic if it is a random thing, depending on individual feelings or behaviors.

“I basically told them they need to include that there is systematic oppression on people. It’s not just ‘I don’t like someone,’ it’s a system of oppression for a certain group of people,” Mitchum explained.

The very fact that this woman can simply call Merriam-Webster and be catered to is proof that there is no ‘systematic oppression.’ The systematic oppression is in the other direction: POCs have learned — well, they’ve known it for decades, really — that their wish is our command. All they have to do is call some individual or some institution or business ”racist” and voila, they get their demands.

This is how the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton et al enriched themselves – by means of systematically putting us on the defensive, and inculcating us with a sense of guilt. And words were the most common weapons used against us. This is how Whites end up genuflecting and kneeling at the command of thugs who intimidate them and issue commands.

Most of our folk seem to be scared spitless of the ‘oppressed’ POCs and their magic word, which they have used — systematically — to effectively silence us.

This woman is projecting, as do leftists of all colors, but she and her folk have profited the most from successfully projecting their insidious and systematic manipulation onto us, making us believe we are the guilty ones.

Sooner or later we have to get off this merry-go-round. No matter what is done to appease and mollify these people, their demands only grow. There will never be any kind of agreement or reconciliation. Why would they want that? They surmise that we are weak and frightened by mere words (as well as by physical threats and systematic aggression) which most of us have experienced.

The people who grew up under the present racial caste system don’t know any other reality. They seem to have no desire to reject the current order of things. Those most mind-conditioned are the youngest, and yet even some middle-aged adults are thoroughly resigned to the order of things — which is in fact ‘systematically’ anti-White.

The submissive mindset of Whites in general is becoming more firmly entrenched. How can this unworkable situation continue?

I think Thomas Jefferson was right. Either it will end with us being absorbed into the other peoples who now live on this continent (most of whom resent us at the very least, and they make it known), or there will be conflict, for which we seem to have no will, even verbal conflict.

After all, they have the Magic word at their disposal, while we’ve been disarmed psychologically.

Whatever “systematic oppression” we, or our ancestors of centuries ago were supposed to be guilty of, we are not forcing anyone to stay in this country if they find it so oppressive. But oddly their obvious preference is to stay and continue accusing, condemning, and assigning unearned guilt to us. It pays for them. They have ‘black privilege’ to issue demands and commands and then there’s affirmative action, jobs which don’t require competence, admission to once-elite colleges, and just general deference from weakling White folk who don’t want to be called That Name.

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.

Is nothing sacred?

This is the kind of post I dislike writing, because it’s not usually my nature to want to sound as though I’m scolding. I don’t think the people who read this blog are in need of scolding on the points I am about to make — besides which, I’d rather write to you as peers and as friends, not as my students. So this is not for the regular readers (if any) but about the ”conservatives” who are found around the internet. Some, in their behavior, are often indistinguishable from the leftists, who pride themselves on being transgressive.

So I hope I can be excused for venting here. I wonder if I can get an Amen?

It seems there’s no subject that isn’t considered joke fodder on certain ”conservative” forums (and blogs, too). I’ve seen the grimmest and most disturbing news stories provide material for bad jokes, with seemingly everybody trying to outdo each other in gross, or even blasphemous “humor.” Many of the ‘wits’ who resort to the crude ‘comedy’ are self-identified (or should that be ‘self-styled’?) Christians, as well as being ‘right-wing.’

I’ve seen flippant threads about gruesome murders, cannibalism, and now this.

Is it any wonder I rarely look in on that forum these days? Their politics, mostly ‘cuckservative’ in nature, and their fondness for ‘DR3’ pleadings, are enough to annoy me into staying clear of the place. But beyond that, it’s become distressing to realize that our folk are becoming so jaded and unshockable that they can joke about something like the subject of that article. Suppose the parents of the young woman in question happened to read these comments, or to hear about them from someone? I suppose if that were known, they would joke and laugh about that, too.

Remember when those articles appeared a while back about the ‘experts’ and the leftist wreckers promoting anthropophagy? I’d rather not say the more well-known name. Well, that too was treated as one big joke, rather than provoking shock, which is just what should be the reaction of a civilized person. But all the comments I read were the usual stale, hackneyed jokes about ‘fava beans and a nice Chianti.’ By the way, I recognized the ‘fava-beans-and-Chianti’ jokes as being from that movie Silence of the Lambs, though I never saw it — so often do people make the same old tired ‘jokes’ containing that phrase.

People like to defend those jokes as being just ‘black humor’, and a coping mechanism, just trying to lighten things up when disturbing subject matter is discussed, etc., etc. Always some kind of ‘psychological’ pseudo-explanation is offered up for every bad habit or quality people exhibit.

Personally I can laugh at a little black humor; it’s not anything new, but there are limits; some things are not fitting subjects to be discussed in civilized or mixed company, much less to be the material for jokes.

Nothing is sacred, it seems, nothing is taboo anymore. What becomes of a society which appears to be shedding every inhibition, erasing every taboo, allowing people to transgress all the rules that governed civilized societies.

I think we have crossed the line from a civilized society already, for the most part. And it’s hardly necessary to say that the left has been the main source of this kind of deliberate and systematic shattering of all our former taboos. But it can’t all be blamed on the left; as we can see online, where people are emboldened by anonymity, that the ”right” has aided and abetted the left in tolerating this profanation of everything. Online we can find ‘right-wing’ people using gutter language — the ‘F-word’ and the ‘C-word’ (both of them, all of them). And it’s not merely the crude words which were once used only in anger or for strong emphasis, but now are just used habitually or to strike a pose) but it’s also the use of obscene imagery when ordinary metaphors would do the job just as well. I don’t want to be explicit, but what I mean is metaphors involving “knee pads”, ”vaseline”, certain orifices, etc. All involve perverted acts. But this is ordinary language even on blogs whose bloggers say they are Christian. But it should not be just Christians who should want to use non-vulgar language.

The English language, for those who know it well enough, is a very rich language. Now, modern ‘experts’ say it’s impossible to count the words in a language; after all, no language can be ‘superior’ to another; linguistic ‘supremacy’ might be implied, and we can’t have that! But back in the Era of Sanity, in my college linguistics class, we were told that about 700,000 words were part of a fluent English speaker’s vocabulary, and that is a rich store of words from which we can choose. Our language is full of nuance and varying ‘hues’. We can express ourselves without falling back on crude language and metaphors. We don’t have to use the vocabulary of perversion to get our meanings across. We can talk or write like civilized adults.

Children used to be taught that those who used profanity were displaying ignorance; why else resort to the ‘four-letter’ words when other words were far more expressive and nuanced? I think that is a valid criticism, but it’s not the whole story. Usually people adopt crude language in adolescence as an attempt to sound ‘tough’ or street-wise. It does make people sound hard and jaded. Surprisingly (or not), lots of young girls today say they aspire to be (in their words) “badass.” Is that what we are encouraging in them? The school system and the feminist ‘teachers’ feed them this kind of thing, or at the very least, they allow it. And what we tolerate, we get more of.

Nobody wants to enforce standards. And if traditional adults don’t uphold any standards, then who will?

I wonder: does anyone today realize that people once used to be shocked by the gutter language and the cavalier use of the vulgar metaphors — used today even in the presence of very old ladies and little children? Are we proud of our ”frankness” today? Have we all become so hardened and immune to shame or embarrassment that we reject all limits?

The conservative forum I linked to used to be, even ten or fifteen years ago, much more civilized and mature. Once the commenters were people who were able or willing to discuss the news without relying on four-letter words and ugly metaphors. There also used to be mods who enforced rules, and didn’t tolerate the balding Beavises-and-Buttheads, the public who are now middle-aged, yet still adolescents, using their crude words and obscene metaphors.

Our society needs to be rescued from the crude and profane. Rules and standards need reviving, but is it too late for that? There may be too few adults nowadays to pull our society out of the gutter.

The importance of word choice

I was just about to write a piece on the usage and misuse of the word ‘genocide‘, when I came across Thomas Dalton’s very helpful piece on that very subject, on TOO.

Dalton, in a very apropos essay, addresses how the word is very vaguely and broadly defined, and he delineates the origins of the word, as well as the current definitions as laid down by the likes of the U.N.

I recommend the Dalton piece, but I will add my own thoughts as to the questionable utility of a word whose meaning is so elastic that it can include both ‘lethal’ and ‘non-lethal’ meanings and outcomes. For example, any attempt or ‘conspiracy’ to eliminate, or even damage or harm another group is ‘genocide’, per the existing and widely accepted definitions.

However, consult a dicitionary and you will see that the suffix “-cide” as in ‘suicide‘ or ‘homicide’, etc., describe killer, or act of killing. Hence words like ‘regicide’, ‘pesticide’, parricide, and on and on. So it seems we are wresting the meaning by applying it to other situations in which there is no death implied.

There is no half-measure with death; no-one can be sort of killed or somewhat dead. It’s one or the other.

I’ve asked rhetorically in the past: how can there have been ‘genocide’ against American Indians when there are still many living Amerindians, across North, South, and Central America? The rabid left, of course, will say that there were tens of millions of American Indians and that they were ‘all but wiped out’, and would otherwise have represented hundreds of millions. That, however, is just conjecture or plain sophistry. There was never any official census to count the number of Amerindians during the time of the early colonies. How could there have been? And it’s fact that the tribes, being mostly hunter-gatherers, could not have been sustained by that lifestyle had they numbered in hundreds of millions; hunter-gatherers require lots of land and open space to pursue their hunting-gathering way of life.

Amerindians often succumbed to diseases for which Europeans had developed some degree of immunity. This was not intentional ‘genocide’ by Whites, and what about the current situation in which many new arrivals are carrying diseases which are new to North America, and for which we may have no immunity? It’s a fact, but does the left accuse anyone of intentional harm there? Not likely.

In short, it’s fallacious and dishonest to say that ‘genocide’ took place on this continent in the past. And yet, a lot of careless thinkers on the ‘right’ agree with the charges that our ancestors ‘genocided’ Amerindians. But the tribes are still alive and holding their own, so the charge is without validity. Why can’t people grasp that?

To address the question of whether it’s useful or wise, as Dalton questions, to apply the term ‘genocide’ to the replacement of our folk here or in Europe, I would argue, also, for a careful and correct use of language. For many people the word ‘genocide’ seems hyperbolic and hysterical in the current context. I’ve certainly used the term ‘existential threat’ to describe our situation, and I think that’s accurate, but in my opinion it’s about as useful to use the term ‘genocide’ at this point as it is to call the left ‘the real racists’ (the old DR3), in other words, not useful at all. It just rolls of the backs of the targets.

In any case, even if one supposes there’s some utility in throwing these words around in hopes of scoring a bullseye somewhere, there’s this question: considering the history of the word ‘genocide’, its origins and its current definitions (as defined by the United Nations et al), do we really wish to adopt their definitions and their ways of thinking? Since when?

The right can and should do better than to adopt slippery and sophistical rhetoric just because our foes do that so freely.

And far too many on the right, not just the ‘respectable cons’ or cuckservatives have fallen prey to the endless guilt that the left tends to heap on our folk. There is too much ready adoption of undeserved guilt feelings, and the groveling desire to point the finger elsewhere and try to deflect the blame. If we stand on the truth — not easy in this Age of the Lie, we will be much stronger.

Stop the ‘gaslighting’?

Some of the commenters at Steve Sailer’s blog are upset by the use of the term ‘gaslighting’. Somehow they seem to find it especially annoying and tiresome, so much so that comments like the following have appeared:

Whenever people become newly acquainted with a thinky new concept, the use of which they believe will show off their intellectual chops, they tend to over-apply it prodigiously. It’s been an unhappily acquired hobby of mine to track these ripples in thought-space, as a once obscure term starts showing up in one columnist’s repertoire after another with increasing frequency before fading off again

Well, I guess two, or any number, can play at this game. An example, in the paragraph above: the word ‘thinky‘. Is that even a word?  I had to turn to that great fount of erudition, The Urban Dictionary, to learn how it is used.  So  a word like ‘thinky’ is good, but ‘gaslighting’, which is a term that has been in use for some years, is not?

I confess I am one of those offenders who has used (recently, in fact) the term gaslighting. So that makes me one of the ‘intellectually vain‘? This man says so, so it  must be:

“Gaslighting” is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.”

I probably will be tempted to use the term again, making me a repeat offender. I use it because it has a precise meaning, one that is not hard to understand, and it therefore serves a purpose — one for which I will probably employ it as I see fit.

Someone else on that thread said that the verb ‘to trick’ is a simpler and better way of expressing the idea behind gaslighting. Not so. ‘Trick’ is a much less precise term. Unfortunately the term ‘gaslighting’ was adopted some years ago by people in the psychology trade and they do often use it in the sense of ‘psychological abuse’ of women by men. I can’t help that they’ve taken the meaning of the term in another direction.

In the movie versions of ‘Gaslight’, the villain had a specific strategy of making his target think she was going insane, as he manipulated reality to produce false perceptions. As I recall, he also made others doubt the woman’s sanity as she was made to appear delusional, and as a result she began to lose her mental stability.

No need to make this a feminist issue: we, the normal members of the public, are manipulated by a devious and cunning system to doubt our own perceptions. We are being made to feel as though the problem is with us: we are paranoid. We are ‘conspiracy-mongers’, extremists, unhinged. We are ‘phobic’ in some way or another.  Even worse, our collective history is being manipulated and altered by the rewriting of history in which we are made out to be the cause of all evils and all problems. News stories disappear, like the stories of the post-Katrina Superdome events, or the 2000 ‘Election that wouldn’t die’, as the Democrats concocted tales of flawed ballots, leading up to months of drama over vote recounts, ‘hanging chads’, culminating in the Supreme Court decision that ended months of such insanity. And now the national media and the Left feign horror at the idea that Trump might ‘not accept the results of the election.” As if such a thing had never ever happened before — when they themselves refused to accept the 2000 election results. Or maybe we just imagined that happened. Yes, that must be it.

Of course the young millennials never heard of those events, and even if they were told of it they would likely scoff — because if it had really happened, why had they not been taught about it?

That’s gaslighting. One day those of us, as the survivors of that era who still remember those days, will be told outright that we imagined it; it’s all a senile delusion.

So can we sum up all those processes by using the word ‘trick’?  It’s just not an adequate word to the task. If people don’t understand the nuances of the term ‘gaslight’, perhaps because they never saw the movie which gave rise to the term, well, that’s no one’s fault but theirs.  Perhaps they don’t like old movies or ‘passé’ popular culture.

From my point of view, I often don’t get the meaning of various current pop culture references, which are used everywhere on the Internet. I expect the people who use pop culture references would dismiss me as out of touch for failing to grasp their allusions to Harry Potter or The Matrix or whatever the current pop culture fads are. But if I am, it’s by design. I don’t find much of any value to me in such trends du jour. Does that make me a ‘snob’? Everybody looks down on certain aspects of pop culture; to some, everything that’s recent has more cachet than old movies, so it is not surprising that an old movie reference is viewed as hackeneyed and cliched by most people. The thing is, every cliche and every so-called ‘hackneyed’ phrase was once new and fresh. Cliches are popularized because they seemed apt — and fresh, once.

If I could vote down certain terms I would say I am sick of the overuse of the verb ‘to pivot‘ — I’ve never seen it used so much in my life as in this current election season. Who knows why it has become so overused? People are copycats, for the most part, herd thinkers.