Magic Words

Posted by Rusty on January 12, 2010, 08:24 PM | #

Thank you, James.  More, please, on this subject of magic and how it is used against the victims.

Posted by Robert Reis on January 12, 2010, 09:13 PM | #

06
Jan Vicious monster served 18 days for nearly fatal racially motivated attack.
Two vicious black thug brutally beat a white female victim so bad that she died twice on the operating table.

The 36 year old victim, picked at random, suffered 20 lost teeth and suffered massive head injuries. Jennifer Hall and her boyfriend were attacked from behind by the two thugs after celebrating her birthday.

The bloodthirsty thug, Derrick King, is a career criminal. Thanks to a plea bargain and an early release program he served 18 days in prison for leaving Jennifer Hall permanently disfigured.

One day after being released from prison, the perp threatened another woman with violence at the same location!

Derrick King is like a dog with rabies. Instead of being charged with attempted murder for permanently maiming a lady, he was slapped on the wrist and served a comical 18 days in prison. Less time than most people serve for non-payment of pay child support.

Read More.

Can you imagine if the races were reversed in this case? This would be the single biggest news story in the country. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson would be joined by president Obama himself to march in the streets.

Posted by Armor on January 12, 2010, 09:23 PM | #

“Stupefying words” are magic in that they induce brain paralysis in the betwitched person. Their obscure meaning is never provided by the accuser/spell thrower. It is the victim’s task to try to reformulate the accusation before it can be rebuffed. It takes the focus away from the subject of contention, and creates a parallel debate about the morality of the dissident person.

Magic words are repelled by having a list a snappy refutations at the ready: example.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 12, 2010, 09:57 PM | #

I googled the story Robert Reis refers to above:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/01/king.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-quinn-parole-side-31-dec31,0,6485835.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-2hall20091231072256,0,3917922.photo

All I can say is the day will come …………  The day will come ……………………

Posted by Robert Reis on January 12, 2010, 10:42 PM | #

A politician in whom one can have confidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOuumGX-6uc

Posted by Willy Garrett on January 13, 2010, 03:11 AM | #

JB,

Majority Rights had a thread a couple years ago that drilled into the Lexicon of “Liberalism”.  I think a Rosetta Stone for the unawakened is a valuable tool.  Maybe that thread can be resurrected, edited, and then added to a prominent place here.

I think three definitions of the control words are helpful:

1)  The intended meaning of the word to the white consumers of the MSM
2)  The inferred meaning to the producers of the MSM
3)  The meaning to awakened Whites

For example:

Racism
1) Unfavorable attitudes or actions towards other people based upon their race or ethnicity
2) The attitudes and actions of Whites who are intolerant, hateful bigots opposed to peace and harmony
3) A magic word to shut us up so as to not fight our dispossession and genocide

Searchers need to see stuff like to help free themselves from the matrix.

As you say these words are killing us and rarely mean anything more than “shut your white mouth and get to the back of the bus”.

Posted by Tanstaafl on January 13, 2010, 02:20 PM | #

populist - Any advocate for democracy whose naivete threatens the plutocracy.

racist - Any White who isn’t anti-White.

xenophobe/isolationist/nationalist - Any White who opposes globalism.

nazi/neo-nazi/fascist/anti-semite - Anyone who any jew doesn’t like.

White privilege - Being the only race anyone can insult, criticize, and scapegoat for profit.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 13, 2010, 05:00 PM | #

I can see I’ll have to update the Little Lexicon:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_little_lexicon/

Posted by Robert Reis on January 14, 2010, 01:41 PM | #

Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/

By Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010—10:48 pm

In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated “cognitive infiltration” of groups that advocate “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,” in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.

As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs,” according to the White House Web site.

Posted by Lurker on January 14, 2010, 03:29 PM | #

the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.

Its enough to make one laugh.

Are they going to be as convincing and effective as all those multicultists who show up here and win all the arguments?

Posted by torgrim on January 14, 2010, 06:05 PM | #

“As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of *oversee/ing policies relating to privacy, information quality and statistical programs according to the White House Website.”
Magic words, anyone?

*oversee,v.officially supervise (workers, work, etc.). (OE ofersion look at from above (as over-, see’)
direct, manage, watch (over), keep an eye on, administer, superintend, run, supervise, handle, control,
Oxford dictionary.

Sorry, I don’t need no stinkin’ Overseer, or Baadgeez either! This isn’t Mexico/Brazil, YET!

Posted by torgrim on January 14, 2010, 06:19 PM | #

“Treasure of the Sierra Madre”, “no stink’in baadgeez.
http://www.newcountry973.com/images/mexifornia.jpg

Posted by Dasein on January 15, 2010, 01:49 PM | #

We have our own magic words.

We know they are magic because they are taboo.  Ian Jobling a while back said that he wanted people to use the word ‘black’ instead of ‘Negro’ at his site.  He’s completely wrong.  It was a normal word just several decades ago.  He doesn’t realize that it’s become magic.

Another form of White racialist magic is the comparison between Negroes and apes.  Back when the Obama/Shot Ape NY Post cartoon controversy was going on, The Guardian published an editorial by some Negress saying how insensitive the whole thing was.  I wrote several comments, some of them flattering the writer to various degrees with comments about how she was intelligent and good-looking, asking why ‘blacks’ should be so upset about something that was so obviously false.  Every comment was deleted and I was banned. 

Under different circumstances, these words would not be magic.  But we should realize that in the current system they are magic, which is why Jews invest so much into making them into spells that backfire on the thrower.

Posted by James Bowery on January 15, 2010, 01:58 PM | #

Dasein gets it.

The meaning of these words have been submerged in their action.

Posted by Dan Dare on January 15, 2010, 05:45 PM | #

‘Jew’ is an interesting one. While it is still borderline permissible to use the adjectival form ‘jewish’, the use of the noun-form ‘Jew’ is almost entirely proscribed. Whereas the former is relatively innocuous if a little gauche in polite circles, normally having the sense of referring to someone whose goes to church on Saturday rather than Sunday but who is otherwise entirely unremarkable, the latter carries with it connotations of hostility, anti-Semitism and genocide. Just to hear the term conjures visions of transports rolling again to the East.

‘Jew’ is rarely seen these days in print without the prepended modifier ‘self-hating’.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 15, 2010, 06:10 PM | #

Dan, your comment is right of course, and things shouldn’t be that way.  That needs to change.  The more everyone uses the word “Jew” normally, naturally, and unselfconsciously, the more that taboo will weaken and finally disappear and you’ll be able to talk about Jews the way you can talk about everyone else.  That’s how it should be:  the main effect of that taboo on the word “Jew” is to prevent all criticism of Jews as a group.  Complete exemption from all criticism is not good for any group or for society at large.

Posted by James Bowery on January 15, 2010, 09:14 PM | #

I find it fascinating how long this magic word ‘Jew’ has been prohibited.  In 1919, Henry Ford began “The International Jew” with this:

There is a vague feeling that even to openly use the word “Jew,” or to expose it nakedly to print, is somehow improper. Polite evasions like “Hebrew” and “Semite,” both of which are subject to the criticism of inaccuracy, are timidly essayed, and people pick their way gingerly as if the whole subject were forbidden, until some courageous Jewish thinker comes straight out with the good old word “Jew,” and then the constraint is relieved and the air cleared. The word “Jew” is not an epithet; it is a name, ancient and honorable, with significance for every period of human history, past, present and to come.

Posted by Willy Garrett on January 15, 2010, 10:41 PM | #

Sadly Ford was ultimately struck dumb by the incantation of “antisemite”.

Posted by Tanstaafl on January 15, 2010, 11:48 PM | #

Many Whites consider White a taboo word, unless it’s used in a negative context.

What it does: conveys a racial awareness that tends to elicit a censorious response.

Whites typically consider this response unpleasant and seek to avoid it. The magic in this case can be defused just as Fred suggests for “jew”. Use the word plainly and matter-of-factly. Let those who have a problem demonstrate that they are indeed the source of the problem.

Posted by Dasein on January 16, 2010, 06:14 AM | #

Ford was perhaps too nice.  Goebbels had this to say about how abjurers should use the word:

Everything is discussed openly in Germany, and every German claims the right to have an opinion on any and all questions. One is Catholic, the other Protestant, one an employee, the other an employer, a capitalist, a socialist, a democrat, an aristocrat. There is nothing dishonorable about choosing one side or the other of a question. Discussions happen in public, and where matters are unclear or confused one settles it by argument and counter argument. But there is one problem that is not discussed publicly, one that it is delicate even to mention: the Jewish question. It is taboo in our republic.

The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

One cannot defend himself against the Jew. He attacks with lightning speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any attempt at defense.

Quickly he turns the attacker’s charges back on him, and the attacker becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Nothing could be more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the Jew wants. He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he has no time to do what the Jew really fears: to attack. The accused has become the accuser, and loudly he shoves the accuser into the dock. So it always was in the past when a person or a movement fought the Jew. That is what would happen to us as well were we not fully aware of his nature, and if we lacked the courage to draw the following radical conclusions:

  1. One cannot fight the Jew by positive means. He is a negative, and this negative must be erased from the German system, or he will forever corrupt it.
  2. One cannot discuss the Jewish question with the Jews. One can hardly prove to a person that one has the duty to render him harmless.
  3. One cannot allow the Jew the same means one would give an honest opponent, for he is no honorable opponent. He will use generosity and nobility only to trap his enemy.
  4. The Jew has nothing to say about German questions. He is a foreigner, an alien, who only enjoys the rights of a guest, rights that he always abuses.
  5. The so-called religious morality of the Jews is no morality at all, rather an encouragement to betrayal. Therefore, they have no claim to protection from the state.
  6. The Jew is not smarter than we are, rather only cleverer and craftier. His system cannot be defeated economically — he follows entirely different moral principles than we do. It can only be broken through political means.
  7. A Jew cannot insult a German. Jewish slanders are but badges of honor for a German opponent of the Jews.
  8. The more a German person or a German movement opposes the Jew, the more valuable it is. If someone is attacked by the Jews, that is a sure sign of his virtue. He who is not persecuted by the Jews, or who is praised by them, is useless and dangerous.
  9. The Jew evaluates German questions from the Jewish standpoint. As a result, the opposite of what he says must be true.
  10. One must either affirm or reject anti-Semitism. He who defends the Jews harms his own people. One can only be a Jewish lackey or a Jewish opponent. Opposing the Jews is a matter of personal hygiene.

These principles give the anti-Jewish movement a chance of success. Only such a movement will be taken seriously by the Jews, only such a movement will be feared by them.

The fact that he shouts and complains about such a movement therefore is only a sign that it is right. We are therefore delighted that we are constantly attacked in the Jewish gazettes. They may shout about terror. We answer with Mussolini’s familiar words: “Terror? Never! It is social hygiene. We take these individuals out of circulation just as a doctor does to a bacterium.

Background: The following essay was published in Der Angriff, 21 January 1929. Goebbels founded the newspaper in Berlin in 1927 shortly after taking over as the party’s leader there. This article is a typical attack on the Jews.

The source: “Der Jude,” Der Angriff. Aufsätze aus der Kampfzeit (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1935), pp. 322-324.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/angrif03.htm

Posted by Dasein on January 16, 2010, 06:34 AM | #

I encourage people to stop using the word ‘black’.  When I type ‘negro’ into Google, I don’t get any search recommendations, even though the search returns over 77 million results.  Perhaps it’s a ‘software bug’, or Google considers it to be one of the ‘pornographic terms, dirty words, and hate and violence term’ that requires filtering.

Posted by Dasein on January 16, 2010, 06:45 AM | #

In dealing with the enemy’s magic words, our own mantras or word spells based on the following would help:

http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Category:Abjuration_Spells

Posted by Dasein on January 16, 2010, 07:59 AM | #

Just to make that a bit clearer above, our mantras and word spells should be doing what those Abjurations Spells do.

Posted by John on February 02, 2010, 08:27 AM | #

Is there any other race for which-denotative words referring to it so consistently acquire negative connotations?