It and Essence

Posted on April 7th 2014

On Language - The Political Uses of 'Pegboy'

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]


1) pegboy

Came across this word this morning in a story about Tiger Woods. Never heard it before.

Urban dictionary says:
So, it's a way of calling someone a fag, but kind of a weak, kept fag. I always like to use the term twink, which is not just a queer, but a particularly submissive type of queer, a queer queer, let's say, or perhaps a queerer queer. An effeminate queer, as opposed to a butch queer. Pegboy is a good substitute for twink, but it should particularly be used where there's not just some satirical sexual suggestion, but where, as in the first example, the pegboy is carrying water for his pirate master. Anywhere there's servility going on, little-dogging, pegboy can be useful. Buttboy is another term you could use, but somehow pegboy is more satisfying. "Get back on your peg, boy; Sheldon will be along presently." If you were trying to insult the ass-licking white niggers called Republican presidential hopefuls who trooped to Las Vegas to little-dog before casino mogul and nasty ur-yid Adelson, pegboy would serve just fine. Basically, anyone doing free PR for someone else could be a pegboy. A loathsome cunt like Newt Gingrich could be called a pegboy, as he has served the neocons for decades. John McCain, although just as servile, is too aggressive for pegboy; a different figure would be needed, something from the world of canines, most probably. Both lapdogs and attack dogs are...dogs. And all dogs have owners.

It's always good to have a rich vocabulary for indicating dominance and submission, as these are found throughout the animal kingdom, and among humans as much as any other species. This is hidden for reasons of politeness, and to disguise what's going on. In turning language to white advantage, we need to play up one of our stronger trump cards: that we are independent. The next word I write or speak is determined by me, not by any jew. Jeb Bush and John McCain can't say the same. Our WiNdependence we should continually boast of and advertise, in order to attract the boldest among our race. The negative side of that positive side is to emphasize always, and as obnoxiously-strongly as we can, that others who aren't white nationalists are controlled by fear of the jews, by money-ties to the jews, by simple animal fear and servility. White nationalism, we can truly say, is the only manly position. The other positions are just peg-sitters; buttboys for the jews, at their beck and call. If you're not a man, then you might as well be a queer. Even if you're not what I call a flesh queer, you can still be a spiritual queer, if you've willingly subordinated yourself to an unworthy superior. Many Republicans are both, of course. It's what drove them to become male cheerleaders in the first place. It always helps to go after whiteskins serving the jews by attacking their masculinity. They are puffed up little people with a strength fetish precisely because they are weak. They serve the jew warmongers and domestic social revolutionaries, and provide cover for them. Strip them of their defenses verbally by calling them buttboys, pegboys, queers, twinks, or spiritual queers, as best fits the case. I use queer rather than other terms for homosexual-behavior habit-havers because it gets at the twisted mentality behind that particular fetish. Others prefer other words, but I believe queer is the aptest, accuratest, most politically useful term for that disturbed ilk. It goes well with deranged and degenerate, too. Whatever abnormalizes the opponent - use it. He and they deserve it. They do nothing but 'marginalize' us, after all. Our position, our characters, our very lives. Return fire verbally is the least we can do.

Yes, I must emphasize that: Always white nationalists aggressively should go after their enemies when it comes to matters verbal. This will distinguish us and elevate us from the weak conservatives, which is essential. We are the ones who call jews what they are. There is no epithet for jews save the name alone, although we can throw in a kike or hebe for variety's sake. Jews made a rare mistake in not insisting they be called by some multisyllabic moniker. Jew sounds like a dirty little thing (...ewwww); is a dirty little thing, and white nationalists absolutely must use it to describe the species, as they hate that, and it distinguishes WN who won't call a jew a jew to save their life. If they're critical of jews, they will wimputize their points, always, by calling the jews nazis. This is weakness masquerading in their artless, cowardly minds as cleverness, and I have called them on it for a decade. You should too.

It's particularly good to insult older effeminate or spiritually servile whiteskin conservatives as boys because it emphasizes the pain-point - their lack of masculine independence. A man is not someone's dog, but a conservative is. Always use boy, in some combo or alone, because it gets them where they live. It strikes to the heart of their pretension of being dignified elderly statesmen, who've seen it all, and in their august brains encompass worlds. Calling them boys belays this conceit.

No white man who has sold his independence to jews is worthy of respect, and the disrespect he has earned through his craven if profitable servility must be brought home to him as painfully as possible verbally. Whichever term is most cutting, is most abusive - that's the one to use. And never stop searching for worse.

The way you hurt people with words is to figure out where their ego lies, their vanity, and then hit that target directly and repeatedly, using the most painful formulations you can come up with. Sticking a knife in and twisting it is the cliche. Conservatives are human equivalents of little dogs lapping at the mouth and anus of bigger dogs to placate them and reassure themselves they have a place in the pack's pecking order, even if it's way down the list. It is the job of white nationalism to make these underdogs feel how weak and pathetic they are by continually insulting them for giving up their manliness in exchange for emoluments. The conserviles, to coin a millionth term for them, must be made to feel their lack of manlieness, their servility, their treason to their own kind, their disloyalty to their own country. Use words to damage them, damage their feelings and ideas of themselves. Make them feel what they are, because most of the rest of the world will be praising them, or simply disagreeing with them and abusing them in superficial ways that don't get to the heart of what's wrong: their psychological and character weakness that leads them to transform themselves into servile tools of a stronger party.

2) bro

Wrote a couple paragraphs on this last night. Can read them here. And then this morning I happen on a new article on 'bros,' from a feminist mainstay at jezebel.com, Erin Ryan. Her takes is more Field Guide to North American White Twentysomethings, doesn't get into politics much. 'Bro' definitely has political intent behind it, though, and it's the same old anti-whiteism we find everywhere else. Nothing is ever distinctive and good about white men or any subset thereof, apart from sex degenerates. Not in the controlled media, the jewed media, the junkmedia. Loud and repeated hosannas for every other type of fauna, but white men can only be evil. That's pure jew ideology, and we know its aim and its intended end. Reality exists, but as people generally are taken in by appearances, and accordingly respect externals over essences they can't even make out, words matter a great deal. Labels tend to matter more than content. They are in a very real sense realer than reality. Reality still exists, but verbal reality alters perception and behavior. Jews are able to get away with calling our noble cause hate, while their gun-enforced mongrelist race-mixing produces hundreds of thousands of casualities each year - yet their views are labeled as love and highest morality in their media. Most whites who can see this terrible irony yet refrain from assaulting the enemy verbally in preference for neutral explanations of what he's up to. This is wrong. It is not good enough. Not strong enough. The enemy should be abused in the harshest terms conceivable. Counter labels must and have been coined, but they must be applied. The jew gets lots of his work done for him when his clueless enemy repeats his propaganda terms without realizing it. Uses his frames like they're legitimate, rather than Goldberg variations on the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Whites have to get sharper and more aggressive. Their pathetic religious conservatism won't cut it in the new world a-borning. If you love Jesus, you're a loser. And you're not welcome at VNNForum. We are building Team White, and we only want winners.

3) pareidolia

We have a thread on this phenomenon here, in History & Religion section, called "Mary / Jesus Now Appearing..." It's the fancy word for seeing the (savior) in a mundane item like grime or a tree stump or a burrito. The great mass of simpletons that forms the base of the human pyramid is given to this kind of animalistic thinking. Dumb people see signs in everything.

Quote:

Because they believe in magic, not causality.

They have high-IQ intellectual criminals like C.S. Lewis and Ol' Tinear, the Obese and Fatuous One, G.K. Chesteron, urging them on by denying rationality itself, in a sly and disgusting way. As I say, idiots, somewhat like paranoids, but not precisely the same, see signs in everything. Since they can't think clearly and have weak wills, they have to look for signs about what's going to happen to them. It's unthinkable they take control of their own lives. Rather, they need to read the skies for god's will, and adjust their propitiations accordingly. This quintessentially little-man religious mindset - this is how most people always have been and until eugenics kicks in, always will be. It's pathetic and weak, and unworthy of genuine white men.

Looking it up:

So pareidolia is a defect of intelligence and character, as distinct from the paranoiac's not-there patterns, which are products of his defective warning system. Paranoia, it occurs to me, is somewhat parallel to auto-immune disease. As the physical auto-immune disease is held to be the body's immune system attacking itself out of failed recognition of physical molecules, so paranoia is like the mind's attacking itself by turning every single external stimulus into a threat and attacking it, making ordinary daily functioning (as digestion) very difficult.

Now, this term par-ei-do-li-a will be hard to remember, even though stories where it might be used are fairly common. Generally the term is not used in those stories, so repetition won't impress the term into our memories. Thinking about this, I think the best way to remember the term pareidolia is to think of it as meaning pseudo-pattern. A pareidoliac is someone who sees a pattern-that-ain't-there. Pareidolia. Para is the pseudo + eidolon is the pattern. That's its etymology. Paraeidoliacs are always religious, as religion is itself a form of proto- or pseudo-thinking. Hell, religion itself is mass pareidolia. Seeing Mary in a piece of toast is a microcosm of the general phenomenon. Religion, after all, with its endless talk of devils and angels and other special-abilities creatures that you can't actually see or verify, starting with the god concept itself, feeds if not creates pareidolia. The thing itself, like paranoia, is no doubt a genetic manifestation of low intelligence in combination with animal fear, but it's culturally institutionalized, organized and exacerbated by religion. Then again, maybe that's backward. The people aren't capable of something better than ass-thought like christ-insanity, and it with its mythical creatures comes from them. Either way, religious simpletonism and pareidoliacs feed on and reinforce each other, if they're not simply degrees of the same thing or quite literally the same thing.

There's more going on too. People are nearly infinitely suggestible. They see something on tv, like a rare medical problem, they think they have it. We've seen this in the case of brown recluse spider bits. Horror segments of animals shows treat real cases. People watch these, and then when they find a red mark, they think they were bitten by the recluse too. Even though it doesn't live in their area. I don't have a link to hand, but I recall the story in which the doctor said what I say above. Tv puts ideas in people's heads. Even people who know better. The vast majority of people who present to doctors thinking they have a brown-recluse bite are wrong. It's just in their head from tv.

Making distinctions and recognizing patterns are central to successful mammalian thinking. Those who aren't very good at it wind up in churches. And those types, the all-stars are those so advanced in suckthought they wind up on tv with their marys in bathtub grime, or their tree-bark jebuses.

4) 'am i the only one'

This is a phrase that should never be used except obnoxiously/comedically. It is fairly common among feminists, or women, who are biologically more fearful about standing behind their own words on their own, and who need others to reassure them of even their most basic perceptions or conclusions. You see in this phrase fear and weakness and the reason women never develop anything new, but simply inhabit the cultural ways they grow up in.

Use this ironically, to mock its regular users, or comedically, or don't use it. It's weak and twatty. Disclaimers in general, which this more or less belongs to the class of, are weak, and should be avoided unless they are needed for very specific or legal reasons. Just speak your piece. You know...like a man would, back before men went out of business.

Here's an article about terms the illibs at jezebel don't like, and wanted cashiered in the new year (2014). Some decent reading.

5) mistake for crime

We went over this last time, but here's another example I had collected. It concerns a white man, not a nigger, as seems most often the case. Coach O'Leary made a "mistake," says an analyst, by falsifying his resume. Wrong, sir, wrong. Mistake is what one makes by putting too much chili powder in the chili. Falsifying your resume is a deliberate crime, or at least a piece of dishonesty. Again: if you intend to do something, and you do it, there's no mistake. Mistake has nothing to do with the morality or legality of your act, it pertains purely to your intentions and whether they were fulfilled.

As always, the rule is that anything that detracts from or minimizes agency is anti-human and anti-white. That's why the left loves such locutions. They can take responsibility away from men and put it on situations or institutions or race-transfer it to white men, the group they love to hate and blame. For blacks, jews admit no responsibility ever. For whites, jews overload them responsibility. They not only get their own, they are taxed with black behavior too, since it's a product of white attitudes, as every good illiberal cultist believes. Black obesity, even, is blamed on whites. That's how ridiculous and hateful toward whites the jews are. There is no black failure that can't be laid at white feet. The jewsmedia see that they all are. Controlling the media means never having to face your own hatefulness.

If you intended to do it, and did, there was no mistake. That's the bottom line. Use it correctly, not as a glib, dishonest cover for criminal or disreputable behavior.

6) personally

Nothing deep here, but this term is overused. A housewife blogger says:

She was personally invited? As opposed to impersonally? Simply invited does the job. Same with this common phrase: Jesus is my personal savior.

Oh he is, is he? I rather thought the point was he died for all our sins. Which would make him a communal savior. Or maybe just savior.

And of course, the near-pareidoliac who uses this term is far beneath the level needed to snort at the parallel to personal trainer, which is what inevitably springs to my mind when I hear the phrase. Which is why I've often mocked it. Yeah, He comes by my house every Tuesday and Thursday. We do spirit squats and character crunches. I always try to lure him into some delicious blueberry pancakes after we're done working our souls out, but he refuses. He's a low-carb man. He subsists on beetles and clean mountain air.

It's just funny, thinking of Jesus as a spiritual trainer, with a clipboard, talking to this moron, ok, the first thing we're gonna need to do is get your vital signs and just see where you are spiritually. Then we'll have a base. Jesus trying to upsell membership. You've tried Gold's Gym. Now try God's.

7) sriracha



This sauce went into vogue in 2013, for some unknown reason. References to it were everywhere. It got really irritating. As of April 2014, its vogue seems to be fading, thank god. What the hell is it, anyway? A non-white condiment, so naturally superior to boring old mustard or ketchup. It hails from some land where potatoes are the other hated white meat, and dogs and spiders use their many legs to run scared. A man who is tired of sriracha-dipped fried spider is tired of life!

What is sriracha?

It's a Thai condiment. Now popular with coolios in the west.

Ok...so we know the cooler-than-thous and holier-than-thous always have to be onto something better than what most are settled with. Which would be fine, if the stuff they knew were actually better. But illiberals have always confused the difference between newer/unknowner and better. To them, same thing. A band you haven't heard of is obviously better than a band you have. To illiberals, that is self-evident. To normals, it's a sign that band is just getting started, or too shitty to attract ears. Illiberalism, say I, is a political and social-cultural perversion of the questing spirit of the white man. Does it surprise you our best, yes, best, quality has a dark side? It should not. For I have duly informed many times that the universe is built out of off of from of...irony. White nationalists, the low-end ones, like to celebrate white intelligence and creativity. But without a certain character, these may just as find expression in dangerous perversions. Vogue for something innocent like sriracha is the slighest manifestation of the problem. But in politics, it turns into ditching meat for vegetables, ditching the white man and his culture for niggers. Do you see what I mean? Lust for innovation is a negative way of describing a positive quality in whites. Lust for innovation is cited by Southern intellectuals defending their staid region as characteristic of northern intellectuals, particularly those out of Massachusetts or the Burned-Over Region of western New York. Yet this questing is our better part, I say to Southern religious hidebounds. All races have traditions, but only the white race quests. It is what is most admirable in us, most, again ironically, worthy of preservation, yet it has a dark side, and that dark side should be understood. Whites are their own worst enemy. Really, whites are their only enemy, in the deepest sense. The individuation that makes our race unique makes it uniquely hard to defend. Still another irony.

And all this from a little bottle of sriracha. Hmm...maybe I belong to the ranks of the pareidoliacs; did I ever think of that hmm hmm? But no, I say. My pattern is really there! But I would say that, wouldn't I?

8) deep-seeded for deep-seated

An increasingly common mistake, as the man who doesn't read, and only hears things, assumes deep-SEATed is -seeded, since, you know, you plant seeds, and you plant them at a certain depth. Makes sense.

Just a head-shaker. What the people who get this wrong don't realize is how harshly they will be judged by people who know. But my telling them is perfectly useless, because the type can't conceive others exist above its level. But I'll say in other words and anyway, this is a classic 'placer.' If you say 'deep-seeded,' I can place you immediately. I know your class and mentality, with probably 90% accuracy. You recede, with me, into the unwashed and uninteresting.

Even collected this rare butterfly, first time I've come across it: 'short sided' for shortsighted. Again, this is a mistake that indicates lack of thought and lack of reading.

I think your opinion is short sided[i].

And here's our old friend:

What's wrong with that? Class? Class...? What word should he have used?

Again, with the same mistake:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Right? Wrong.

9) biopiracy

Never heard that one before, but using bio as a prefix is common. Politically, we are familiar with charging mudshark users with genetic piracy. And the rulers promoting mongrelism through the media are certainly guilty of trying to steal white genetic value and give it to niggers, just as they take whites' money wealth and give it to niggers, through race-socialist tax redistribution. If whites have something good? Jews must steal it and give it to niggers. Makes whites poorer, niggers more threatening, and jews safer. It's good for jews, and that's all that matters.

Funny how race (genetics) matters in the hundreds of species of barely distinguishable cave crickets they discover in jerkwater China, but among humans? Not at all. Totally meaningless and irrelevant.

If you buy that, you're not deep seeded enough for this column.

Well, this party clown has folded enough balloon animals for you little cake threateners, but I'll be back next Monday, like always.

AND, like always, feel free to post any words or other material you want me to write about next column. Seven columns in (I think) and I still have some collected material I haven't gotten to yet, but I'm starting to get near the bottom. Can always use a little grist from the outside.//

[Back to writings]

[Back to home]