It and Essence

Posted on May 12th 2014

On Language - The Pre-Draft Process Failed the Noble Negro

By Alex Linder

[ The following is from a forum thread posting. ]


Ok, after a heavy and exhausting week of gardening and the close of turkey season, back to wonderful words. I heard reticence and enormity both misused once last week. That seems to be about the average. Reticence, of course, was used to mean reluctance. Remember: anytime someone is 'reticent' to do something, it should be reluctant. And, enormity does not refer to size, no matter what whoretionaries may say in their lower definitions. Now let's get to the words. Most of what we'll focus on this week are simply new or unusual words found in self-departed thick-novelist David Foster Wallace.

1) failing

Of course you know the word and its meaning; the interesting thing is that it seems to be used more often, as with guns, to describe things in relation to people than people in relation to things. Notice, you will literally never see a newspaper report stating that a nigger (what the media call a 'black man') failed something. By contrast, you will find many newspaper reports talking about how [X] "failed" a nigger. I've mocked this many times, but it's truly head-shaking. The media find a nigger-exculpating formulation in every sector and never depart from it. Here's one I came across the other day, stocking up background knowledge for my fall NFL column: "I’ve put my thoughts on [black Teddy] Bridgewater on record before; the pre-draft process has failed him in stupefying ways, and I firmly believe he’s an underrated asset." There's a new one to add to our list of things that fail niggers. Besides schools, police, social workers, government, the defrocked fake-planet known as Pluto, oh yeah, and all white people ever: the pre-draft process is letting down the coons too. I agree: it is stupefying how badly that process has failed our valuable negro, who just did all he could in perfect faith and loyalty, and yet was let down by a process. Next thought: could the pre-draft process be racist? I mean, it's a very in thing these days. Almost nothing isn't. It's merely funny to those who watched ESPN analysts and commentators verbally fellate the guy every play of every game last year. I guess artificially inflating the QB abilities of The Next Great Black QB isn't part of the pre-draft process.

The irritating thing about this use of 'failing' is the implication that the poower little negros just try so hard, they so want to succeed. It's just fate and all higher society are conspiring to stop them by providing them with inferior schools, guns and pre-draft processes. When in fact, niggers who care about books are scarcer than hens' teeth; niggers rather than pieces of metal are responsible for the murders they commit; and pre-draft processes don't fail anyone who performs well in their various trials. But whatever can be done to explain away or excuse the nigger's poor performance is always what you'll find in the jew-controlled mass media, where it's always the white attitude or inanimate object truly responsible for the nigger's behavior. It's always and every time the nigger that failed, but the jewsmedia spouting this sort of anti-white bilge will never admit that. Just notice how common this 'failed the (coon)' formulation is next time you're out there in the wide world of words. For wording is a sport too, a blood sport.

2) ...so we can schedule our lively nuncupative off the record collogue

Found these two in a story about some sex freak who invented a superior golf club. A man who turned into a woman, had other shady things in his past, tried to hide them, but they were ferreted out by a reporter, whole thing turned into a moderately big brouhaha. Read it here and here if you're interested. In these stories came across this:

Had only a vague sense of what both meant from the context, had to look them up.

Collogue - pronounced with accent on second syllable - kuh (as in duh) loge (with hard g) as in pogue. Kuh-loge. (Pogue in itself is interesting:

So, it's a British equivalent to REMF - Rear Echelon Mother Fucker. Someone out of harm's way. There is a semi-famous band called The Pogues.

Or maybe it's not British, as The Pogues are, hence my assumption. 'Pogue' has been around a long time.

So, pogue contains notions of twink and pegboy (which we discussed in an earlier column here), as well as REMF. Very interesting indeed.

And this:

The army will always have a ready term or set of terms for those who stick to safe supply or secretarial work rather than doing the actual fighting.

Meanwhile, the name of the band The Pogues comes from an entirely different place:

Shortening their name to "The Pogues" (partly due to BBC censorship following complaints from Gaelic speakers in Scotland)... So they are named 'The Kisses' now, which is different from The Kiss-My-Asses. Yet the complainer probably did them an unintentional favor. That's how the world nearly always works, per the directions of the God of Irony.

Anyway, there's apparently no connection between pogue and Pogues. Let's ponder this while enjoying(?) a Pogues video.


Now what is collogue? So far as I can recall, I have never seen this word before.

Sort of a more obscure term for conspire. Similarity in size and spelling will make it difficult to remember, hence not particularly useful. But a perfectly legitimate term.

As for nuncupative:

The stress is on the first syllable, and the cu is pronounced as the cu in cupid. Thus, NUN-cyoo-pay-tiv. What is it?

So, the golf-club-designing tranny wants to meet secretly for a chat, with the reporter refraining from writing anything down. The reference to nuncupative's use with wills is clear enough, but I can't remember ever coming across the term before, in that regard or anywhere, and I've read many discussions of wills.

3) sensitivity -

This is another of those not-inherently-political words that has been turned to political use by the left. Belongs to the same class as tolerant. In the story(ies) above, there's a big debate not over the shady past of the tranny, but on the reporter's need to bring out her strange sexual history. To a normal, or non-leftist, it's obviously integral to the story, since it's interesting and pertinent. To the leftist, mentioning that this curious creature, with a history of criminal behavior, is a secretive transsexual, is irrelevant. Hence, bringing it out and up is unwarranted - is insensitive. Since, you know, the world is full of evil racist nazis who might think someone who cuts off his dick and installs a pussy is at best a weirdo. Not everyone is a sensitive and caring and tolerant as the people who anoint themselves same are.

As with tolerant, sensitive only works one way. Whites or rightists are admonished for, essentially, resisting the left. They're beaten up verbally in a most insensitive way for refusing to treat as holy (for subjecting to rational inspection) one of the left's privileged classes - blacks, sexual freaks, some other racial or behavioral minority.

Leftism precludes sensitivity or tolerance because it's based on a simple binary: right and wrong. Absolute black and white. The good people are on the right side of history, and they oppose the bad people, who are bad because they're not leftists. It's that simple. They need to be abused verbally and legally until they come around - or at least learn to quake in fear and keep their mouths shut. You can only tolerate something if you have the idea that you might not always be right yourself, and that there are limits to politics. Leftists don't believe either of these. 'The political is the personal,' they famously said back in the sixties revolutions. Every last operation of life is a political act, they truly believe, and one for which there is a right way and a wrong way. They are moralists - angry Puritans of looseness. Hyper-moralists, real crusaders. Bent on stamping out evil, which is anything and anyone opposed to them. One doesn't tolerate evil. There's no need to be sensitive to it. They're as sure as any religious fundamentalist that they have The Truth, hence no need for any kind of gentleness, sensitivity, respect or tolerance for those who don't. They are merely the enemy; they deserve only crushing. To the leftist, you prove you are evil by opposing them, since they know they are Good. It's that stark. That black and white. This kind of zany, anti-human religious-crusading mentality sits perfectly well alongside high IQ, so it's often quite successful. Missing in these folks is any sort of humor or wryness; any sense that even their opponents are people too. Thus, the most they are capable of is verbally advanced snark, a sort of styled spitting hostility. You will be upbraided continually for not being sensitive to them and the disturbationals and sundry defectives they champion, but they will never ever be sensitive to you. The very idea that a leftist ought to show respect for or appreciation of or any kind of sensitivity to the particular needs or feelings of a hated white male never enters the white-hating leftist's consciousness, so absurd is the notion. You can't even really say the leftists are hypocrites in this regard, so deep is their fanaticism. These are true and genuine religious fanatics operating in the earthly realm of politics. "Doing right ain't got no end," as the union man says in The Outlaw Josey Wales. They can't rest until all the Bad People and Bad Ideas have been stamped out. As leftist jew and Frankfurt School honcho Herbert Marcuse said, "No space for the right." All contrary or competing ideas must be extinguished, so there's nothing left but leftism.

As I always say, the common thread of leftist terms and frames is that they exclude a priori the possibility of legitimate disagreement -- they pathologize it - turn it into a sickness -- which makes leftism inherently anti-democratic, which is ironic, in light of their love of the term democratic, and their crusades for same, yet fully in keeping with the eternal-policy-because-necessity of leftism: to sell their positions as their opposites (for example, sell the religious socialism of global warming as science). If you disagree with a leftist position, you're not simply of a different taste or attitude, or making a different but valid choice, rather you are a moral reprobate and thought criminal who probably ought to be locked up as an extremist hater before you genocide a race or two. All leftist political language prejudices opposition like this. It must! That's the crucial insight. As a minority position that can't attract the normal majority, leftism deeply recognizes that it can only win by undemocratic means: by preventing, stifling or forestalling opposition by legal or social pressure. By treating those who disagree with its agenda with extreme hostility and intolerance, beginning by labeling them something beyond the pale. All leftist political terms mean is 'this one's fair game.' Leftists don't have political terms, they just have point-and-shriek. Just like the pods do in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978). Those who can't persuade must stifle to achieve their ends, and the larger part of stifling isn't laws so much as media and social abuse. Laws simply record the victory, as often as not. Dominate the media, the teaching institutions, teach everyone to fear being called X. Condition the public to fear your labels and they'll never step out of line. Thus does a tiny minority control a large majority.

What makes politics difficult to understand is that we associate binary thinking and black-and-white moralism with the right, rather than the left. This is by design of the left, as most things are. Part of its necessary campaign of demonization of normal whites. Unfortunately, normal whites, broadly construed, includes lots of dumb-religious folks, who are easy to caricature. Indeed, mere description is enough to curl the lip. These salt-of-the-earth types, as they will be described at their funerals, think in black and white because they're not very smart, and that's how their level thinks. Yet the high-end left think in black and white too. That part is seldom mentioned. These types are every bit as fundamentalist as the ones the fundamentalists they denounce - and with less justification.

Anything that works against anger and fanaticism endangers illiberalism. The high-end right is where the good stuff is found - tempered, mature, serious, gray-seeing adult reflections: reflect, appreciate, understand...prescribe. High-end right is best suited to run things but usually doesn't precisely because of its virtues, which leave it unable to cultivate the unstoppable fanaticism frequired required to dominate the scene. The high-end right's entire way and mentality and preference-set militate against, well, militarism. It's too calm. It sees too far. It knows too much. Politics is usually dominated by the hot and close up. The perfervid, intolerant left usually wins, even as an extreme minority position, precisely because it refuses to listen to reason. It is galvanized by its hatred of reality. In a perverse way, rejecting reality for ideology requires a much stronger will and personality than reality-orientation... If you believe in God, you have to explain this curiously horrible setup. The believer takes recourse, I say refuge, in the sillyism "God works in mysterious ways" to avoid the logically inevitable (if you believe God is behind All This) conclusion based on what I said above - God is a sadist. That's too frightening for the believer. But look at the evidence: they are likeliest to take power -- in any system -- who are worst suited to lead. Thanks, God! As a man-manufacturer, you suck worse than China.

I cast my mindpool for examples of the 'sensitive' leftist mentality. I think of examples from Gawker ring writers and my twitter feed. The right tries to discuss the statistics of homosex, with an eye toward rational examination of its remarkable morbidity. This quickly becomes, to use the two examples that spring to mind, "obsess[ion] with anuses" (feminist Jezebel writer Lindy West), or 'fan of gay pornography,' as one twitter critic of Peter LaBarbera (a christian homosex critic) baited him. The left will do anything to avoid rational discussion of its agenda. That's obvious. Anyone reading the mass media for a month can see that. The insight is that it must be this way. It's not a choice. Why get involved with politics from an impossible-minority position unless you're willing to tyrannize and suppress the opposition? If you don't do that, you have no chance. So there's no point to getting into politics in the first place, as a leftist, unless you're willing to play unfairly while talking the good honest upfront democratic will-o'-the-people game. Either play to win, or stay in the closet is true not just for homosexualists, but for all leftists. Open borders? Hating the markets? Loving niggers? Loving deviant sex? Socialism/communism? All of these are minority positions. Even where the left ventures into something that does have majority support, such as protection of the environment, it turns out to be a fashionable cloak for the same old maggot-infested socialist corpse.

Demands that one be 'sensitive' amount to veiled demands that one not question or challenge the leftist or his agenda item. Just give in. Don't be 'controversial' - another seemingly neutral word with an easily defined function in practice. No one supporting the leftist, i.e., Big Jew-set, position is ever insensitive or intolerant. Those opposing always are. It's a silly game, but it works. So long as the right fails to unite on a racial basis and scientifically study and in general take seriously the verbal war, it will continue to suffer defeat, as the enemy holds all the high ground. Not the moral high ground, which is the silly obsession of congenitally-incapable-of-getting-it conservatives, but the high ground on which the transmission equipment is placed.

* * *

Now let's get to those words I mentioned from Wallace. He killed himself a couple years ago; his last work, the uncompleted The Pale King (2011), was put together posthumously by his publisher.

4) swivet -

Wallace uses swivet at least three times over 700+ pages. Swivet is

Wallace use:

Makes sense. Never come across it before. With obscure origin, probably some kind of slang. Hard to know why to use it rather than a more common term without knowing its etymology - which particular type of fear or excitement does it connote? I would not. Even a small reason is enough to use one word rather than another, even if the one is more obscure; without that knowledge, it's better to use the common word. We know what swivet means now, but I, at least, do not feel I understand it well enough to use as even uncommon parlance or simple variation.

5) lalation -

Have seen this word before - seen and forgotten. I believe it sounds like what it says. Lapping. The term for that, as you probably learned in English class, is onomatopoeic, where a term sounds like the thing it refers to: meow, for instance. The word is the sound. Onomatopoeic is the Greek-derived term for that practice or effect. There's a Greek term for pretty much every rhetorical technique. It doesn't really matter if you know them, so long as you know how to achieve effects with words. The Greek technical terms are extremely hard to remember unless you're dealing with them daily, and that's why few but English teachers know more than a few of them. I'm guessing from vague memory and the context above that lalation is onomatopoeic for a sort of lapping, repetitive noise, as a wave makes. Now I'll look it up.

Well now...doesn't mean what I thought. I misremembered. That's vagueness for you.

But...it's not clear whether lalation exists, or whether it's simply Wallace's misspelling of lallation, which is defined:

I found this too:

On (again) the other hand, though, we need to acknowledge that in this age of Hollywood “message” films and focus-group screenings and pernicious Nielsenism—Cinema By Referendum, where we vote with our entertainment-dollar either for spectacular effects to make us feel something or for lalations of moral cliches that let us remain comfortable in our numbness—Lynch’s rather sociopathic lack of interest in our approval seems refreshing/redemptive (if also creepy).
Wallace, David Foster. “David Lynch Keeps His Head” A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again. New York: Bay Back Books, 1997, p192.

From: A Linguistic Bestiary of David Foster Wallace

Ok...so we have something here. Lallation is either baby-babble or the Tom Brokaw disease. Food, noise or anything normally associated with babies is helpfully applied to anything nominally adult -- should we wish to criticize or make fun of it, as Wallace does in the usage above.

6) neotenous -

Neoteny (pronounced knee-OTT-en-ee) is a biological term for: "the persistence of larval or fetal features in the adult form of an animal. For example, the adult axolotl, a salamander, retains larval external gills"...

I'm not sure if Wallace means another way of saying baby-faced by this, or if he simply means that unlined and preternaturally fetal aspect that the visages of some people with comparatively undeveloped or unprominent features seem to have. He uses the term to describe the older, experienced David F. Wallace in the Wallace mixup at the IRS agency he's describing; if he used the neotenous to refer to himself, the younger DFW, I would think neotenous might refer to his lack of experience at the agency having left him unmarked, though he were fully adult, if young. But he uses it to describe the older DFW, so I'm not sure what to think other than baby-faced.

7) virid -

You can guess this has something to do with green or vegetation, can't you? Verdure we are familiar with. We know verde is green in Spanish. Must have something to do with green/nature, given the lawn reference. Good example of the ability to guess a word from context. Let's look it up.

Yes indeed, from Latin viridis, meaning green.

So it's simply a synonym for green the color.

8) celadon -

Pronounced SELL-a-don.

Definition:



Celadon is a glaze, ware, color.

9) lemniscate -

Lemniscate is a term belonging to analytic geometry.

Let's leave it there and not kid ourselves we'll ever use it save we're in the math biz, which we ain't.

10) guilloche -

Pronounced gill-OSH. NOT like guill in guillotine!

If you've been to public school, you can picture what he's talking about, but I've never come across the term guilloche before.

A very specific term for a very specific thing. Hard to think of a comedic or metaphoric use; a term for a specific type of border design and, well, that's about it.

We'll leave it there for today, having finished Wallace. Next week we'll look at some words I collected in Kirk's book on academia, which was some of the subject matter covered in my podcast #007.

Other than that, I am fresh out of collected material, so any questions or terms for discussion, feel free to post. In these columns, I try to cover ordinary terms, political terms, and new terms. As with everything I write, it dovetails and reinforces and calls back to things I've written and said elsewhere. Repetition and reinforcement help sink in the knowledge until it becomes a working part of us.

Until next time...stay low, don't get beat.//

[Back to writings]

[Back to home]