Oh Those Words!
by Andrew Hamilton
“INUIT” IS THE Politically Correct replacement term for our traditional (since the 1500s) word Eskimo. It was formally imposed in 1977. Not by Eskimos, of course, but by an anti-White ruling class utilizing a chosen subset of Inuit collaborators.
Hundreds of Politically Correct word changes are constantly being made to native Indo-European languages, altering them beyond recognition, under the subterfuge that Whites are uniquely evil and our language reflects this. “Justice,” it is loudly proclaimed, demands that these matters be set right.
Why is the word Eskimo “offensive”?
Government-sponsored National Public Radio in the US lectures us that the term is demeaning because it “was widely used by racist, non-native colonizers,” and is therefore “sullied by the crimes of colonialism.”
This NPR insult was disseminated by one of the organization’s many Jewish reporters, Rebecca Hersher.
I have my own idea about crimes of colonialism committed by racist, non-native colonizers, and it encompasses the people who staff and run NPR. (“The ties between the Jews and National Public Radio are deep and irreducible,” a writer for Tablet magazine admitted in a moment of candor.)
Ironically, if you read Hersher’s article “Why You Probably Shouldn’t Say ‘Eskimo’” you’ll find some muddled truth mixed in with the inevitable pigswill.
The woman self-righteously sniffs, “Many people also thought it meant eater of raw meat, which connoted barbarism and violence.”
Contra Hersher, there is no etymological confusion about the origin of the term: “Danish Eskimo & French Esquimau, from the name applied by the Algonquians to the tribes north of them; akin to Abnaki esquimantsic eaters of raw flesh, Cree askimowew he eats it raw,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1961).
This causes squeamishness or embarrassment among advantaged characters like Hersher. Or perhaps she thinks this and other truths might lessen media-marinated Whites’ reflexive awe of the ostensibly “primitive” Other.
Even in his lengthy article for the 1944 Encyclopædia Britannica, Canadian-born, North Dakota-raised Arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson, a Leftist who was ethnically Icelandic and studied and lived among the Eskimos, acknowledged but sought to soften this aspect of their traditional lifestyle. Nevertheless, he admitted in his very first paragraph that the word Eskimo came from Amerindian neighbors to the south who were “revolted” by the Eskimos’ habit of “eating completely raw flesh.”
Anti-White TV food-show host Anthony Bourdain (who in the 1980s had been a heavy user of illicit drugs, including heroin) enjoyed a number of television series, guest spots, book contracts, etc., over the course of his lucrative celebrity career before hanging himself in a hotel room in France in 2018. Bourdain was born to a Jewish mother and a French American father, but (properly) considered himself Jewish.
The “Quebec” episode of Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations, broadcast on April 17, 2006, showed him eating raw seal meat with an Eskimo family in the traditional manner, which still happens occasionally. (Most Eskimos today eat common processed foods.) As of this writing, the 3-minute segment can still be viewed online: https://youtu.be/nKMxiRYz6jk?t=12.
We are told that Inuit means “the people” or “the real people,” slyly entrenching White racial denigration akin to the more explicit “La Raza” (“The Race”) used until recently as the name of the System’s leading anti-White US Mestizo pressure group.
“The real people” is a transparent alteration from past meaning. A 1937 encyclopedia states, “Innuit or Inweet, meaning ‘native men,’ is the name which they apply to themselves.”
“Native men” is obviously not the same as “the real people” (insinuating that White Gentiles are not real people), or even “the people.”
Of course, this hoax is not limited to the word Eskimo.
Indians in North America: “Avoid the term ‘Indian,’ if you are non-Indigenous,” Oprah Daily.
Lapps in Scandinavia: “The Sámi have historically been known in English as Lapps or Laplanders, but these terms are regarded as offensive,” Wikipedia.
Aborigines in Australia: “Why saying ‘Aborigine’ isn’t OK,” Amnesty International.
Kaffirs in South Africa: “Deeply offensive,” “the most racist word in South Africa.” The Conversation. Gentile Whites are required to say instead (you would never guess): “the K-word.”
No kidding. “The K-word.”
The K-word and the N-word. I’m trapped in kindergarten hell.
A White woman was sentenced to three years in prison for insubordinately uttering the criminal word “Kaffir” to a Negro cop after thieves broke into her car at night at a shopping center.
There’s nothing I love better than being condescendingly lectured to day and night about my and my ancestors’ falsely alleged moral depravity by plutocrats, gangsters, liars, and thieves. Murder, violence, intimidation, discrimination, defamation, deprivation of fundamental rights, imprisonment, and financial destitution topped off with a sanctimonious sermon by the heirs and admirers (those philo-Semites!) of Leon Trotsky, Meyer Lansky, and Joe Slovo. Who could ask for anything more?!
In light of such lies and abuse, while the US and “the West” have their South African flunkies butchering White men, women, children, and the elderly in the most gruesome ways imaginable year after year, decade after decade, shielded by a global media blackout without whose protection these crimes against humanity could not be perpetrated, it is instructive to examine “Kaffir’s” true historical usage.
The 24-volume Nelson Complete Encyclopedia (London, 1937) contains nearly an entire page about the “Kaffirs.” It is strictly anthropological and describes the group, its customs, and way of life in detail. It evinces admiration for the “magnificent and almost invincible military organization” of the Zulus, who typify the Kaffirs’ “noblest characteristics.”
Bad moon rising: “Under the peaceful conditions of recent years the Kaffirs have steadily increased in number, 610,000 in Cape Colony and British Bechuanaland, 837,000 in Natal, and 700,000 in the Transvaal.”
The Establishment instills the notion that all of the above groups, and others, are “indigenous,” the authentic owners of our lands, while we are but violent, racist, hateful interlopers everywhere, indigenous nowhere, including in our European homelands!
Of course, it is all a lie.
Eskimos and Indians were migrants, too. In the Arctic, the Thule culture (the ancestors of today’s Eskimos), through warfare and replacement migration triggered the “rapid and total disappearance” of the genetically distinct Dorset, who had occupied the region for 1,500 to 2,000 years before their arrival.
It need scarcely be added that on no occasion is the term Kaffir ever applied to the aboriginal Vaalpens, Bushmen, and Hottentots, the former lords of the soil until the conquering Kaffirs came down upon them from the north and reduced the surviving remnant to subjection. (Nelson Complete Encyclopedia, 1937.)
Simultaneously with the “indigenous” hokum we are mockingly informed by the same hate-filled hucksters that the millions upon millions of newly-arriving non-White immigrants they are herding into every single one of our homelands to replace us as fast as they can — who lack even a specious claim to our property — are also more authentic than we are, and their so-called “right” (again concocted and imposed from above) to our societies is, all the same, superior to our own!
It all makes perfect sense — if you don’t stop to think about it.
* * *