A War of Words
NEARLY forty years ago, a distinguished professor of Classics and philologist who was also a political activist who dedicated his life to fighting the JWO (Jewish World Order) began to talk about “the semantic war.” I was very young then and I never met him; I only learnt about it many years later thanks to some of his former students, people who on average are fifteen years older than I.
Let’s begin with the Greek word semantikos that means, precisely, meaning.
The professor argued that the academic world and the media, completely controlled by the Jews, had started corrupting the meaning of many words and introducing new ones with the purposes of a) corrupting and subverting our languages and culture via misinformation; and b) creating a new language to better spread their poisonous message.
He called this subversive activity “semantic war” and, quite rightly, considered it very important and serious. By destroying and perverting the original and proper meaning of words, the enemy created a new language and therefore, a new reality. This was already imagined and described by George Orwell in his famous novel 1984 written during the 1940s. In the totalitarian state described by Orwell, there is a new language called “Newspeak.” The ruling party (the English Socialist Party) of the imaginary state of Oceania created this new language to ensure a quick and efficient indoctrination of the people. One of Orwell’s Newspeak’s characteristics (and also a characteristic of the current one) is its simplicity, achieved by drastically “pruning” the vocabulary.
Regarding this last point, it is worth noting the growing meagreness of the vocabulary employed nowadays, particularly by the people under 40 years of age. In my country (Argentina) this process of degradation of the language started in the early 1980s with a reform of the educational system. Of course, the purpose of this reform was to “dumb down” new generations, making them more pliable and docile. The level of true literacy among most people under 40 in Western countries nowadays is very poor — and that of those under 25 is appalling.
The similarities between Orwell’s Newspeak and the present one are impressive and frightening. In the traditionally White countries (including Europe, the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, and others) is state-sponsored cultural terrorism and tyranny. The vague expression Politically Incorrect is the modern equivalent of Orwell’s “crimethink” or “thought crime,” ideas or thoughts which are considered by our rulers and theur sycophants to be subversive and therefore criminal. In 1984 the government decides what is “correct” and what is “incorrect”; today we have a corporate/Jewish/governmental combine that might as well be called “the government”; and, as in the novel, there is neither escape nor mercy for those guilty of crimethink or Politically Incorrect ideas or expressions.
Our enemies operate at two levels: They distort/corrupt the proper meaning and etymology of old words, and they creates new ones with clear political and ideological meanings and messages. We shall look at some examples of both categories.
One of the best examples of the former category is the word “nazi.” This vile word was popularized, not surprisingly, by a Jew named Konrad Heiden (1901-1966). Its origin goes back to the XVIII century. It was born in Bavaria/Bayern and it was the short form of Ignaz (Ignatius); but it was also used to describe a dim-witted, clumsy fellow. It was precisely with this latter meaning in mind that Heiden used it. The original National Socialists didn’t use that word to describe themselves. The slur was quickly adopted by the Jewish international press and became accepted worldwide. Thanks to the endless repetitions of the media, totally controlled by the Jews since 1945, it has become so ingrained in the people’s minds that even some National Socialists and National Socialist sympathizers use it today. And the media had much more than mere repetition of an insulting word in mind: They have made sure also that the word “nazi” — like the words and expressions racist, White separatist, and White nationalist — have become a synonyms for cruelty, brutality, and extreme wickedness.
“Fascist” is another one the left’s favourite slurs (and now one of the right’s too). Let’s look at the origin of the word. The Italian word fascio means “bundle – sheaf.” It derives from the Latin fascis that means the same. In ancient Rome, a consul was escorted by 12 lictors who carried a fascis, that is a bundle of sticks that symbolized their power to punish unruly citizens or criminals by flogging them. The fascis was surmounted by a small axe that symbolized their power to execute those found guilty of serious crimes. It also, from ancient times, symbolized “strength in community” — the bound sheaf of sticks cannot be easily broken, as a single stick can.
In recent centuries the word fascio took on a different meaning. It was used to describe a political movement of revolutionary character. In 1919 Mussolini created the Fasci Italiani di Combatimentto (Italian Groups of Combat) and in 1921 he changed the name to Partito Nazionale Fascista (Fascist National Party) its members called themselves fascisti (fascists). Mussolini was proud of the glorious Roman empire and chose the fascio as a symbol of the new Italy. Fascism was the first movement to defend the people from Comunism using the same violent methods being used to attack them. Therefore the word fascist became a synonym for “enemy” among the Reds who soon learnt to fear Mussolini’s blackshirts.
In the 1930s, in the decadent Western “democracies” (USA, England, France, Spain, etc) the “intellectuals,” most of them pro-Marxist, imposed the communist version of the word on the rest of us, and made “fascist” and “fascism” synonyms for brutality, intolerance, and tyranny; in short, all the “virtues” that accurately characterize our race’s enemies. With the complete left/Jewish takeover of the media and educational system in the Western world after 1945, the words “fascist” and “fascism” have lost their true meaning and essentially become generalized epithets of opprobrium in the mouths of our “liberal” and “conservative” enemies and the ignorant majority. If your boss is a bully he/she “is a fascist”; if your neighbour is rude or arrogant he/she is a fascist; if you disagree with a leftie or a normie, you are a fascist.
[The degree to which our language has been corrupted by the Jews and their allies is starkly illustrated by the fact that those of us striving to communicate clearly and honestly must constantly put numerous terms in quotation marks to indicate that we dissent from the corrupted meanings now prevalent. — Ed.]
Another word whose meaning has been completely subverted and corrupted by the enemy is discriminate. It comes from the Latin verb discriminare and means distinguish or differentiate. To go a bit further, let’s look at the composition of the word; the prefix dis means separate and crimen means fault or offense; therefore for the Romans it had a very important ethical meaning, because it was the process by which a person charged with a criminal offense would be declared guilty or innocent.
To discriminate is part of the natural mental process by which we can make (we hope) the right decision or choice, and it is something that we must do daily. However, according to today’s Newspeak, it has become a crime to do so. In the Bolshevik society in which we live today, White people are not allowed to choose with whom they would like to work or to live, perhaps the most fundamental freedom of all, one that is ultimately necessary for a people’s very existence. So the word itself, though there are many kinds of discrimination besides the racial or ethnic variety (remember the old phrase “discriminating shoppers choose our store” and the like?), the term itself has become a tainted one.
The word racism is another example of the enemy’s perverse habit of distorting the proper meaning of certain words. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary (www.etymonline.com) racism is: “…the theory that human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.” That is essentially true. However, after the worldwide victory of international Jewry in 1945, the word has lost its original/true meaning and it has become a synonym for “racial supremacism,” “hate,” and “oppression” (things, by the way, that the Jewish power structure is actually guilty of). Racism or racialism should simply mean the realistic view that racial differences should not be ignored and that each race/people should endeavour to preserve its unique characteristics by preserving its purity.
The evolution of medical and scientific science applied to the study of human races during the late 19th century proved categorically the unbridgeable gap that separates the human races, the indisputable superiority of the White or Aryan race, and how absurd — and nefarious — it would be to go against Nature by denying racial differences and promoting miscegenation. The fact is that since the end of the 19th century and up to 1945, racism (properly defined) was an idea that enjoyed wide support among the majority of White people. Had racism really been what its enemies claimed it was, most Africans, for example, would have been killed between 1870 and 1914, the heyday of European imperial expansion. Instead, their numbers burgeoned under White rule.
Therefore, racists, meaning the advocates of and believers in racism, should not be ashamed of that word. The popular image of the “racist” — a brutal thug, perhaps a skinhead or “nazi” or “redneck” who enjoys beating up people of other races — is primarily an invention of Hollywood. That means: a Jewish invention. A true racist puts the welfare and the future of his race above everything else, but this does not mean the killing or oppression of other races who are doing him and his no harm. Remember the virile words of the late John Tyndall (1934-2005):
We can make a start by not being ashamed at being “racist.” So the next time they call you this don’t be apologetic; surprise them by looking them straight in the eye and saying: “So what?”
Another word which has been totally subverted and ruined is gay. It came from the French gai and it meant, joyful, happy, cheerful. In French it has retained its original meaning. The word “gay” began to be used by homosexuals to refer to themselves in the US during the 1920s. But it was not until the 1960s when the word became popular, thanks to the glorification of homosexuality and degeneracy by the American Jewish intellectuals. Here is a long and interesting article about the origins and history of the word: https://www.etymonline.com/word/gay
[Frank Kameny, a prominent homosexual Jew in the Washington, DC area for decades, was very successful in popularizing the homosexual meaning of the word, and received extensive and positive press notice for his “gay is good” campaign, which began in the late 1960s. — Ed.]
Let’s look now at some of the new words created by the enemy to shape a new, false reality in the minds of our people:
Sexism: A ridiculous word closely related to “discrimination” in today’s Newspeak. In fact, it means “discrimination based on sex/gender,” of course, this only applies to “evil males,” just as racism (in its false, Newspeak version) only applies to White people. The word was invented by the man-hating American feminists of the 1960s and, of course, was based on the success of the “racism” slur. As a White, heterosexual man, you are guilty on both counts, always, because, according to these hateful harpies, all White men are guilty.
A sub-product of the neurotic feminist mindset is the erasure of any word that denotes sex (they prefer the word gender; sex just sounds too immutable); for example, actress, headmistress, sculptress, etc. How ironic it is that these “feminists,” in their obsession with an imagined “equality,” are not only corrupting the English language but also eliminating references to themselves as females as if they were ashamed of it! Instead of actresses, for example, the idiots prefer to be called actors — and instead of headmistresses they prefer headteachers or directors as they are “gender-neutral.”
African-American: A pathetic expression employed by morons who are terrified of being accused of “racism” for calling a Black person a Black person. I will never be offended if someone describes me as a White person — because that is what I am. In fact, many Black men and women are not offended by being called “Black” — in fact, if you look at the Web sites, books, and magazines created by Blacks in the US, almost none of them use the term African-American — a ridiculous descriptor coined by the terminally timid and fearful.
Multiracial/biracial: Though they might be less egregious as the others in that they have a true literal meaning, these are new “polite” words to describe what used to called mongrel or half-caste. Interestingly the word “caste” comes from the Latin castus which means pure, from that we also get chaste (a person that leads a virtuous life) and chastity (free from improper sexual intercourse). The racial connotation comes from the Spanish, where casta meant race, lineage, or breed and in that sense entered into the English language as caste towards the end of the 16th century.
Inuit: This is the new and “correct” form now used to describe an Eskimo, a member of the Mongoloid ethnic group that inhabits parts of Siberia, Alaska, northern Canada, and Greenland. The funny thing is, that Inuit properly used is just one of the two sub-groups or tribes (the other is the yupik) that belong to the Eskimo ethnic group. There is nothing wrong with the term Eskimo.
Native American: One of the most absurd and inaccurate words coined by the left, which shows their usual ignorance and contempt for everything that goes against their ideas. The word “native” derives, as usual, from the Latin nativus: “innate — natural — produced by birth.” It became natif in Old French, native in English and nativo in Spanish. By the 15th century its meaning had subtly changed to “born in a particular place,” “of indigenous origin,” “of or pertaining to one by birth.”
Therefore to apply and limit the expression only to the Amerindians is inaccurate since every person born on the American continent is a native American by the rather loose modern meaning of the term “native.” Such an expression is really useless to those of us who recognize the reality and primacy of race, as it does not tell us anything about such a “native,” who may be of any race these days.
Even the terms American Indians/Amerindians are less than optimal. The proper word to refer to the early inhabitants of the American continent, who, by the way, were called “Indians” by the earliest European explorers because they mistakenly believed they had arrived in the Indies, is aborigines (“the first or earliest inhabitants”), which comes from the Latin expression ab origine that means “from the beginning.” And we may have to revise even that usage if the hypothesis that early Europeans, such as the Solutreans, came to North America first, is proved beyond any doubt.
* * *
I think that these few examples are sufficient. Our attitude towards this imposed Newspeak should be one of resistance. This means we should never use any of the new, ridiculous, mind-bending, or weaponized words invented by our enemies as they want us to use them. And we should denounce the perverse misuse and distortion of our old words. Remember: By using the language of our enemies were are not only cooperating with and helping them, but legitimizing their ideas.
* * *