It and Essence

Posted on March 2nd 2014

On Language - CDC's 'immunologically naive populations'

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.

[Back to writings]

[Back to home]