Acknowledging Our Enslavement: Speech Codes

by Blake Hood

GROUPS THAT ARE SOCIALLY dominated live in constant fear. In our day-to-day life the “impact of power is observed most readily in acts of deference, subordination, and ingratiation. One must ‘pay respect’ to status.” (James C. ScottDomination and the Arts of Resistance, Yale University Press, 1990) This passage calls to mind the behavior of Whites when around racial aliens. We watch our words. We treat them with special care and attention. We are careful. The slave is forever on guard, watchful of the mood of his master.

You can’t tell anything about a person’s real beliefs by his or her public pronouncements. Never forget that people go along with this whole disgusting charade primarily because they are afraid to do otherwise. If a man commits a deferential act on the public stage — in other words, if he cucks in some cringey way, he can’t necessarily be written off entirely. [It is important to note that (((dominant elites))) don’t fully trust these acts of servitude, and always suspect they are being played. Hence the accusation of “hidden racism” even after the most outrageous displayed of cucking.]

This slave-like attitude is increasingly showing up in the way we talk. The habit of ending would-be declarative statements with a question like, “you know,” “isn’t it so,” and “right?” is a tell. Those words combined with a rising pitch towards the end of a sentence indicates a request of approval and reassurance. Linguistic hedges like “kinda,” “like,” and “sort of” as well as stammering in speech are all slavish ways of communicating. Another privilege usually denied to slaves is the freedom to tell jokes in public.

“Power means not having to act or, more accurately the capacity to be more negligent and casual about any single performance.” Scott mentions that in the French Royal court, any slight trace of increased servile behavior was evidence of a decline in status and power. “Societies with long established court cultures develop elaborate codes for speech — levels which in extreme cases can nearly constitute a second language. Here the hyper correctness of subordinate groups is institutionalized linguistically.” What else is Political (Semitic) Correctness but our elite’s ‘second language.’ White middle class families send their sons and daughter off to colleges so they can be taught this complex speech code and better rise in the regime hierarchy.

Mastery of such speech codes is also a weapon. And as Scott mentions in his second chapter, the tyranny within a subordinated group is often more brutal than it is between the subordinate and dominant group. This explains the hysteria and viciousness of native White “liberals” against their own people. Often, non-Whites are more tolerant of lapses in “correct” speech than White liberals are.

* * *


Previous post

Acknowledging Our Enslavement, part 1: Mask Wearing

Next post

Robert Faurisson, RIP: A Lifetime of Defying Jewish Bigots

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
Jack Ketch
Jack Ketch
25 October, 2018 10:43 pm

Even in the Third Reich, if Heinrich Himmler passed you on the street or showed up in a room where you were present, you still had to show deference, whether or not you respected or liked him. Is that enslavement?

Reply to  Jack Ketch
26 October, 2018 12:33 am

No, it’s not enslavement. What that shows IS respect for someone higher in the natural hierarchy that exists among social groups. If that someone did NOT respect Heinrich Himmler while in his presence, he would be deemed a threat to the group, knows it, and any overt act on that lack of respect would be dealt with. To do otherwise invites a reaction from the social group.

Reply to  Jack Ketch
14 January, 2020 4:43 pm

Greetings Jack. A demonstration of civility is not a demonstration of fear. I recall reading about an interview with Himmler at his office. Himmler stated that rather than complain about something in public, citizens were instead welcomed to contact or visit his office to raise the matter and it would receive proper attention. The ordinary citizens voted for the NSDAP and the government represented their views. They were not afraid of Hitler, Himmler, Goebels et al, especially after these popular leaders had rescued them from their fourteen years of misery. When Hitler visited East Prussia he spoke to a hall filled with silent dour Germans who afterwards gave him very strong electoral support. They were not afraid of him.

Jack Ketch
Jack Ketch
27 October, 2018 11:24 am

“If that someone did NOT respect Hillary Clinton while in her presence, he would be deemed a threat to the group, knows it, and any overt act on that lack of respect would be dealt with. To do otherwise invites a reaction from the social group.”

I changed the name of the individual in the quote above, to show that your statement is valid for anyone in power.

“No, it’s not enslavement.”

Fair enough; but that means being forced (via social pressure) to show false respect toward someone in power – by your own words – “is not enslavement.”

If so, what was the point of this article?

Fragano Legister
Fragano Legister
27 October, 2018 11:38 am

You left out the essential words “natural hierarchy” in your quote, Mr. Ketch. Don’t be like Ward K., he of the many aliases.

And you’re quite wrong.

Hillary Clinton is an enemy of the group and Himmler was an advocate and defender of it. One deserved respect and the other does not.