The Destruction and Subversion of Language

Greetings, Holla Forums

Can we talk about the ongoing destruction of language, particularly the English language, to influence the range of thought and expression? Words are vital in our communication with one another, and languages as a whole are a fundamental pillar of one's culture. Its subversion to suit the needs of invading, malicious forces is a topic I don't see pop up very often. Way back when, the custom was to conquer your enemy and give their language a physical death, replacing the old lingua franca with your own language. Now, in the age of instant communication, languages themselves are not the target, but words.

1984 described such an event with Newspeak.

The birth of the progressive, SJW lexicon is but one of these kinds of threats to the English language, and to the interpretations of the concepts attached to its words. Sociology definitions superseding traditional dictionary definitions, newly created words that form a political orthodoxy and allows the left toe shun the usage of words that fall out of that orthodoxy, artificial linguistic toxicity placed upon words that aren't even offensive.

Calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers", race-mixing "diversity", you've all seen how the English language is being used. In 1984, the Party destroyed words that expressed shades and degrees of qualities, but now the kikes are using all kinds of words in all kinds of places where they don't belong, and using those degrees of quality to discard the severity and stigma attached to things. English is a great language for making things up and switching things around. You can create new words on the fly and it will make complete sense.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you have any personal or political examples of language being manipulated like this? How can we stop people from controlling the range of thought and expression via language? How bad do you think its gotten? Was Skull Face right?

Other urls found in this thread:

casasanto.com/papers/Casasanto_Linguistic_Relativity_Routledge_2016.pdf
archive.is/pFfdz
archive.is/0IjOm
archive.fo/ezWRE
encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/social-reform/pacifism
webstersdictionary1828.com/
archive.is/XHsR3
archive.is/QVgHx
archive.is/fFdv7
youtube.com/watch?v=4GSRN7s3dxQ
archive.is/ByPyR
youtube.com/watch?v=29K5c1pVk9Q
youtube.com/watch?v=MqqlSb9uGUQ
verloren.nl/boeken/2086/235/1353/kronieken/het-oera-linda-boek
archive.is/pQ2jZ
archive.is/4AV9F
breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/20/source-mcmaster-fails-to-brief-trump-before-thats-too-bad-error/
8ch.net/pol/res/10489252.html
archive.is/mzrk7
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Here's a bit from the oera Linda book about how everyone used to have only one language and that was better

Like referring to people as "black"?

That translation is shit. I'm dutch and this is nothing like the real deal.

Or referring to orientals as "oriental".

Language is constantly being subverted for political purposes. Even the words that we use on a day to day basis are, for the most part, a corrupted remnant of what they used to be. Consider a word like "gentleman" - today, a word simply meaning "man of fine quality", with its original meaning as a "landowning man" having long since been lost.

In common speech, people still tend to use words in a connotative sense that's appropriate, just as a matter of habit. But few actually recognize the proper denotation that once was had. The corruption of words through the misuse of equivalent meanings or the complete alternation thereof is everywhere. It's particularly prevalent within religious communities - combined with a lack of historical context, it becomes very easy, for example, to convince a so-called Christian of something by throwing out something like "turn the other cheek" without actual care given to the actual language and context.

And then there is the matter you bring up - political agendas being presented in daily language, both academic and in the news. Of course, these also get brought up quite a bit. Obama had a few words he always avoided, for instance, and places like Fox or (later on) Trump would go after him for this.

It's for these reasons that a study of the English language (or whatever language is your native tongue) is importance, both to appreciate its incredible depth and to identify attempts at subversion being performed by the enemy.

Have some Middle English:

Here bygynneth the Book of the tales of Caunterbury.

Had a weird discussion with a friend not too long ago over the appropriate meaning of "pure". Is it used to talk about something "refined" or "raw"? That was fun. Same goes for "radical", which is either used to talk about "purist/roots" or the most "extreme reinterpretation".

This is an interesting thread topic but could we see more examples along with speculation as to the desired effect? I think that would help drive the point home.

Would you mind elaborating on that? Not that I don't believe you or anything…

I don't quite get(besides its "historical context", their reason for it) why using the Spanish word for Black is supposed to be offensive. Using their"logic", it could be construed to be offensive to "latinxs" to be offended by that word.
("you're offended by a spanish word? how could you, that's so prejudiced!")

its not always a bad thing and can often end up being used against them.
In the example you brought up gay is now a term for being weak and overly dramatic. To a boomer you may think happy when you hear gay but to someone born into the world having never heard gay used as an expression of happiness I can twist into reflecting reality again. I always assumed when degenerate were called gay it was more mockingly, as in faggots are delusional.
Retard went from the proccess of slowing down, to the polite term for stupid people and now its an insult again. Whatever they attempt to change it to, it will become an insult again most of the time.

On this note I think we all need to use the word blackie in the same way we would use nigger for negro.

>The meaning of "pacifism" was altered in Anglo-American usage during World War I. Before 1914 the word was associated with the general advocacy of peace, a cause that had enlisted leaders among the Western economic and intellectual elite and socialist leadership. In wartime, "pacifism" was used to denote the principled refusal to sanction or participate in war at all. This doctrine was associated with the nonresistance of the early Christian church or the traditional "peace" churches, such as the Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren. During and after World War I, absolute opposition to war was joined with support for peace and reform programs to produce modern, liberal pacifism.
archive.fo/ezWRE
encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/social-reform/pacifism

And now do you see the diabolical nature of the word "anti-semitic" user? By its very nature, and connotation it promotes jewish supremacy. Without the vast (99%) of people who accept the word even realizing that. The opposite is unspoken, but every moment someone shames one for being so, they subconsciously agree to Jewish supremacy.

Holy shit, these people are literally dumber than niggers. How can they be descended from Mongolians?

Is it me, or do some of the replies in this thread not show up?

does anyone have better (no scripts at least) old dictionary than webstersdictionary1828.com/

The immediate example that comes to mind is the term "racist" being changed to be synonymous with institutional racism, so that liberals can slide in the notion that for some reason blacks can never be racists because it equals power + prejudice.

White privilege is another language hijack by the left also.

Fighting Words With Words: Identifying Word Manipulation

In a war of language, the common arsenal among the opposing sides are words themselves. It's exactly as I explained. Words with altered definitions, words with negative prefixes to establish the base word as an orthodox, made up words to create social pressure against verbal expressions, thought patterns, or behaviors. In this war of words, you need words to fight back. You need words that identify each phase of the attempted linguicide of your language. I can only give you a few, but I hope this helps you call out these evils as they arise, for I find this topic to be increasingly more relevant just in the past few weeks.

Terms for Restriction of Words and Speech

A speech code is any rule or regulation that limits, restricts, or bans speech beyond the strict legal limitations upon freedom of speech or press found in the legal definitions of harassment, slander, libel, and fighting words. Such codes are common in the workplace, in universities, and in private organizations. The term may be applied to regulations that do not explicitly prohibit particular words or sentences. Speech codes are often applied for the purpose of suppressing hate speech or forms of social discourse thought to be disagreeable to the implementers.
Use of the term is in many cases valuative; those opposing a particular regulation may refer to it as a speech code, while supporters will prefer to describe it as, for example and depending on the circumstances, a harassment policy. This is particularly the case in academic contexts. The difference may be ascertained by determining if the harassment policy bans more than what is legally defined as harassment; one that does is almost certainly a speech code.

A restricted use of words induced by social constraint. This can occur very naturally and in a very top-down fashion. A natural example is the term "pass away" in English. We say someone has passed away, often to avoid directly naming the deceased and their cause of death. It's a respectful restriction of speech. In the top-down fashion, a word taboo would be the erasure of a word from the social discourse in any group or institution as part of the speech code, as well as its replacement with a more respectful term. (See how this creates a linguistic orthodox?)

Controlled languages (sometimes called controlled natural languages or CNLs) are subsets of human languages, such as English or Chinese. Controlled languages use restricted grammar rules and vocabularies (typically between 800 and 1,000 words) to reduce or eliminate ambiguity and complexity. They are often used to simplify technical communication, especially for the benefit of non-native readers. They are also used to improve machine translation of source content, which typically results in reduced translation costs.

Traditionally, controlled languages fall into two major categories, simplified controlled languages and logic-based controlled languages. CL's have genuine, practical value for people learning the language in question who can't quite understand it that well. In more authoritarian fashion, a controlled language can be engineered through speech codes and word taboos. The resulting lexical body as a whole is the controlled language. Erasing lexical ambiguity and complexity is not in itself a sort of evil, but like many things, its implementation is how we would define it as something good or bad.

Expurgation doesn't exclusively deal with words, but any sort of content deemed inappropriate or offensive from an artistic work. A good modern example of this would be Nintendo removing head patting/face caressing from the American release of Fire Emblem Fates. Expurgation isn't a very new practice. It's been around for centuries. Huckleberry Finn had to replace the word nigger with other words such as slave and Upton Sinclair's Oil! had to black out several pages depicting a motel sex scene.

The work that is published following the expurgation of questionable content is what you'd call a Fig-Leaf Copy. The name was chosen because of how artists would cover the genitals of their subjects with fig leaves in the final work. The localization scene is a a festering pool of expurgationists, or just simple incompetence to bring over the same experience in a different language. When actual content is being taken out like that because it was deemed offensive, it's expurgation, which can be induced by social pressure or self-induced.

As far as I know, only I've coined a term for this phenomenon. If anyone can find an actual term for this, please let me know.
I define a Linguistic Orthodox as a sociolinguistic phenomenon where, in relation to moral, social, cultural, or political beliefs, a word, along with its implication, is considered to be an acceptable implication by default, with its opposite being a socially pejorative implication by default. It's the social attitudes behind certain words or phrases.

An example would be the word anti-semite. Without the need for any context, people process anti-semite as a pejorative implication, lessening their view of the person who is burdened by the term. There's no need to explain why being an anti-semite is bad or even if it's true. The word itself carries the weight of disgrace. Other examples are transphobic, islamophobic, and xenophobic. These words imply that the opposite of their implication is the orthodox view, the acceptable position to hold. One should support semites, support transgender communities, Muslims, and foreigners. Holding the opposite view gets you tagged with these terms.

This is an example of words corrupting thought before thought corrupts words. As we know words and language do influence thought, bringing words like this, in simple terms, is like hard wiring a single greentext post with a smug anime girl face saying

Be wary of how words are used and broadcasted in social interactions. Some words leave no room for the acceptance of deviated thought.

University Campus Speech Codes

"FIRE defines a “speech code” as any university regulation or policy that prohibits expression that would be protected by the First Amendment in society at large. Any policy—such as a harassment policy, a protest and demonstration policy, or an IT acceptable use policy—can be a speech code if it prohibits protected speech or expression.
Many speech codes impermissibly prohibit speech on the basis of content and/or viewpoint. An example of this type of policy would be a ban on “offensive language” or “disparaging remarks.” Other speech codes are content-neutral but excessively regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. A policy of this type might limit protests and demonstrations to one or two “free speech zones” on campus and/or require students to obtain permission in advance in order to demonstrate on campus."

Source: "What Are Speech Codes?" archive.is/XHsR3

FIRE does some pretty bitchin' work on analyzing the speech codes used on hundreds of college campuses across the US to see if they prohibit speech that would otherwise be protected under the first amendment. For the past nine years, restrictive speech codes have been disappearing from college campuses, so have some joy in that fact (Alot of this started, or at least became noticeable to them in 2007, go figure). The history of the trend however, was and still is very frightening.
Over the past decade, FIRE's red light ratings (schools that have speech codes that severely limit free speech), has dropped down to 39.6%, which is still an unacceptably high number, of course. A decade ago, 79% all schools surveyed garnered the red light rating. 52.8% of the schools surveyed received yellow light ratings. Yellow light is given to schools with policies that can be interpreted to enable the suppression of free speech. Basically, their policies are vulnerable to falling into censorial territory. Only 6% of the schools surveyed received green light ratings for their policies, which do not seriously threaten free expression on campus.

Last year alone, 49.3% of the schools surveyed had red light ratings, so a near 10% drop in a single year is extremely good news. The censorial nature of speech codes has been consistently falling, though our schools still remain vulnerable to speech suppression. At the very least, this indicates a radical shift of the social climate on campuses. People are moving away from speech codes that impede on their first amendment rights and transitioning to something that at least makes a modicum of sense. However, we need more of these schools to be in the green. The fight isn't over until that happens.

Private universities are still in trouble. 60% of them were given the red light last year, with only a small drop to 58.7% this year. As things are going, censorial speech codes will be greatly contained to private universities, which I suppose is good for the public at large. Private universities aren't necessarily bound by the first amendment to the degree of public universities, so these things are bound to happen.

Take a good look at the speech code report for 2017 if you haven't seen it, along with the other reports for the previous years down to 2006
archive.is/QVgHx

The Emergence of Speech Codes

In the period where more women and minorities were entering college campuses, reports of harassment increased 400% between 1985 and 1990 alone. As a result, there were 75 speech codes enacted across college campuses in the US by 1990.

You can see it in everyday speech and conversation, especially online (all media really) since often times this the first front of the jew.

Now there are two things kikes do
1) Change the word
Changing the word allows them to in essence change the way you think of a topic. At the very least it gives them an excuse to correct you. And when they can't win on that front
2) Change the meaning
This really fucks up public discourse and the expression of ideas because you and your opponent end up talking about two different things. Therefore you can't ever come to an agreement or have a mutual stepping stone into which to come to valid conclusions.

Here are some examples of them changing the word:
The above changes in words were born out of Politically Correct culture and allow leftists to talk about these same things without the negative connotation they socially had in the passed. This is a trick. A trick to make their shitty ideas appear less shitty

Now here are some (recent) examples of them changing definitions of words in order for those words to match their frame/ideas
The definition of Racism is the one word I've seen change definitions in real time. You cannot have a conversation with a leftist about racism because the two of you will literally be talking about two different things. They turned the word racism to imply an original sin all whites are born with that non-whites are immune from.

This is why it's so important to never use leftist words or rhetoric when talking to a leftist or to the public to prove a point. You can't win by affirming their definitions and cementing their worldview. You are playing by their delusional rules when you do that. It automatically gives the leftist a point to the bystander.

I'm not even going to go into the straight up made up words leftists use to seem smarter, edgier and confuse their idealogical opponents

archive.is/fFdv7

That is not
That is not artificial. Any word or phrase with that referent is going to, over time, become a pejorative.

I have a suggestion regarding how they use with double implied meaning the word "gender" which during the 20s was a euphemism for (biological) sex and has recently been dusted off and put into service to conflate something essential with something arbitrary:

This whole thing with gender I don't really understand, I mean we literally invent categories to make communication easier.
Man has a penis and other male traits.
Woman has a vagina and boobs and other female traits.

If I need to say to the policeman that polymorphic trans owlkin stole my bike we have two problems, what does any of that shit mean and if it has no tangible meaning outside of being something you personally identify with then how does it relay any useful information to people about you which is the whole purpose of gender nouns in the first place.

I always thought this was a retarded norm. "White" people are literally peach skinned and Africans are various shades of brown.

Using "gender" to denote that is a misnomer because it conflates the linguistic category with the biological one.

It's all about pretentiousness and pathetically wanting to feel special compared to everyone else. It's transparent as fuck and I'm shocked people on Holla Forums with all their legendary shitposting and shenanigans seem to never call any attention to this rather than just focusing on Jewish and Marxist influence, which normalfags won't give a shit about, let alone be concerned, and just find confusing.

You explain is good for why normies are drawn to it like moths to a flame. But culture and proper language come from the ruling class. And we have a ruling class that is hostile to Us.

Sorry, should have written, "your explanation".

I personally just focus on the fact those words are being used incorrectly like an insufferable fucking retard and stick to pointing out what I'm factually not while attacking to not be pathetically on the defensive.

I like to imagine it being a big "Fuck you" spiked shield I jab forward while it's absorbing any damage. I'm perfectly defending myself and indignantly striking back at the same time to turn the tables. And I relentlessly plead with people to try the exact same,

Disrupt retarded bullshit by pointing out its straight up falseness and how that damages credibility on its own then proceed to justifiably strike back hard for an unwarranted insult and likely trigger a further self sabotaging unintelligent reply. Always stab with that shield when it isn't blocking and never stop.

But everyone else knows how these words work took. That's what I'm endlessly counting on and working to exploit to bystanders. The problem is they believe these kinds of grave accusations at face value and become more enemies that gets dragged in believing more in relation, gets convinced to think differently because they trust the source and only get worse.

I'm autistically trying to present this inevitable slippery slope at all costs, even my peace of mind.

Control people's language and you control the people.

Now this is a thread I can get on board with. Here's some quotes from my favorite book about words:
&
&
&
&
&
&
-Ernst Juenger, Eumeswil 1977
Pic related

Webm related.
Don't get into the 'gender' word game: the only winning move is not to play.

Linguistic Priming: The Predisposition of Words Pt. 1

I hope to further explain the heart of "linguistic orthodoxy". Different words naturally carry a positive or negative implication. Say some guy is going to introduce you to someone, and before they do, they say "She's really untrustworthy." The word Untrustworthy primes your expectations of the person's ability to be trusted, regardless of how trustworthy the person actually is. Though you may not bring up what you heard when you do meet her, that word Untrustworthy will remain in the back of your head.

Words control the brain in a more subtle way than languages as a whole do. Certain words that express anger or fear of some sort initiate reactions in the amygdala. When you're being insulted, the words being directed to you cause a chain reaction in the amygdala, which interprets audio and visual cues and the appropriate response. Fight, flight, or freeze are the usual modes of response when the amygdala detects danger. Negative words can trigger this kind of reaction, and one's emotional responses ends up trumping their reasonable response. (Hence why screaming at a man will often get him to scream back at you or knock you the fuck out)

And thus we return to the diabolical nature of word structure, and how some words can be intentionally crafted to utilize this emotional response on a more subtle level. There is a reason why in 1984, there was only Good and Ungood, Good being the orthodox, and Ungood, weighted by the negative prefix "un", stood outside of that orthodox. Because the concept of what was good or what could be good was reduced to the duality of these words, a base and a negative augmentation, the good goyim living beneath the Party could not, and did not need to use logic or reason to know why Ungood was a bad thing. The word itself, existing in a duality of orthodox and unorthodox, enacted the necessary emotional responses in people to serve the Party's agenda, to maintain a their social order.

Linguistic Priming: The Predisposition of Words Pt. 2

The word Anti-semite operates in a similar fashion. The funny thing about Anti-semite is that it has no real antonym. There isn't really an opposite of anti-semite, but that's really how it should be. Discarding the negative prefix for a bit, the definition of Semitic is "relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family." The word Semite would refer to any person who speaks those languages, but it doesn't necessarily mean that person is an ethnic Jew, nor an ethnic Arab. Semites are classified as an ethnic, cultural, OR racial group, meaning it can one, two, or all of the three. A cultural group isn't always an ethnic group.

And yet, the label of "Anti-Semite" invokes images of a person who despises Jews, someone who's either entirely sympathetic to the Holocaust or denies it ever happened. By all logic, even with the prefix of "anti", if we merely attach the negative weight of that prefix with what it actually means to be a Semite, the resulting, logical definition would be someone who, for some reason, is opposed to the Hebrew or Arabic languages, and by extension, languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian. Though one could see the term meaning the hatred of the ethnic people who speak these languages, the word Semite refers mainly to the languages, and contains too much ambiguity to be primarily considered a direct reference to the ethnic, racial, or cultural groups, the actual people who speak these languages. Why not say someone is Anti-Arab, Anti-Jewish, or Anti-Akkadian? Why not use a word that actually and primarily refers to the actual ethnic peoples concerned.

That is how the actual nature of the word, by the logic of the definition of the base word, should be. The image of the Gingerjew Man cranking up his oven that is so often created in the minds of people who hear the word Anti-Semitic or inflict it upon someone, is a both a response and an emotional fabrication. It is a lie. It is the amygdala's response to the weight of the negative prefix attached to their own warped interpretation of the word Semitic, thanks to the word's own ambiguity between the languages it directly denotes, and the people it indirectly denotes.

Though reducing language to simple dualities can create this same effect, social and cultural attitudes can, often incorrectly, shape the ambiguity of a word to mean something that it necessarily doesn't. It creates a shadow, a misconception preyed upon by cultural attitudes around the person, as well as the person's own emotional response shaped by those attitudes.

This priming effect is the main mechanism of what I've been calling linguistic orthodoxy (please help me find a better name oh god). You must be wary of the subtle devilry of words turned against you, the power of modified and wrongfully influenced language to control you and those around you. Many people have lost their kings, their lords, their ancestral soil. But no people can survive losing their language, losing their ancestral and common understanding of words and the concepts around them, for they shape the common understanding that a people must share in order for there to be social cohesion within a nation and any group of people.

Words which label negative things apparently need periodic changing like those of crap companies who change their names. The old words and names are constantly being sullied.

The powers that be has manipulated the perception of the essence of love, friendship, beauty and even words to work in their favor. This sort of evil is just so fundamentally corrupting that I cannot help but feel learned helplessness due to the fact that you cannot really effectively fight against it. A part of me wants to lash out, another part of me just wished to indulge in temporary pleasures like alcohol, video games and other fictional stories and tune everything out.

Show these to your friends.
youtube.com/watch?v=4GSRN7s3dxQ

I find that harsh top-down attempts to change language don't go so well unless the party attempting the changes has totalitarian control over their subjects and the legal confines of expression. It'd be like a college campus speech code, but encompassing a larger swathe of words and terms, sometimes with no alternatives for those words and terms.

Subtle changes over a short period of time are mostly due to cultural and societal pressures . Words change according to their influenced sensibilities, and thus words die because the reason and logic that comprises their definition is lost to the crucible of emotional response. The definition and that emotion blends together to create an inaccurate, emotionally driven concept behind the word, and thus, expression and communication with those words are influenced accordingly on an ever-increasing scale.

It's everyone's fault. Few do it deliberately, but many do it passively.

EXCELLENT THREAD O.P.

This linguistic code-policing has been at the heart of jewish cultural subversion through the media and education establishments.

Everyone should study it intensively and familiarize with the language used to expose and deconstruct the subject. We need to normalize discussion of this topic as a political agenda.

NEGERBOLL

Anyone have that webm of the black guy sperging out over the news when a reporter called a bunch of black criminals thugs and he started saying, "JUST CALL THEM NIGGERS, JUST CALL THEM NIGGERS"?

just call them negerbollar, just caaall them negerbollar

Cool thread. archive.is/ByPyR

>[T]he Zulu word for promise—isithembiso—is not the correct word. When a black person “promises” he means “maybe I will and maybe I won’t.” But, I said, this makes nonsense of promising, the very purpose of which is to bind one to a course of action. When one is not sure he can do something he may say, “I will try but I can’t promise.” He said he’d heard whites say that and had never understood it till now. As a young Romanian friend so aptly summed it up, when a black person “promises” he means “I’ll try.”

I remember a thread like this a couple months back, and one user went into detail showing the etymology of Justice and Mercy, and how warped away they have become from their original meanings, it was very fascinating. Hope someone capped, or same user shows up in this thread.

Control of language is a very effective and dangerous tool. Idiotx think is all conspiracy theory, but in reality proper control of language controls what discourse is even possible, or loading one side of an argument.

...

When someone I know tried to persuade his African workers to contribute to a health insurance policy, they asked “What’s it for?” “Well, if you have an accident, it would pay for the hospital.” Their response was immediate: “But boss, we didn’t have an accident!” “Yes, but what if you did?” Reply? “We didn’t have an accident!” End of story.

I don't know if/where I have them saved, but I had a collection of information from (((linguists))) who claimed that all languages are equal, even patois and pidgins. Some even went so far to claim Ebonics is a legitimate dialect and we should respect that.

if people are not working with the same definition of words no argument will ever be won.

True. But action > arguments, because the left will never be convinced, and "moderate" fence-sitters will be more motivated to our side or against (((theirs))) by viewing action not debate.
Argumentation is wasted on enemies and strangers. Arguing is something you should do with people you know and respect, because you want what is best for them and for you, and because their opinion matters to you. Fuck everyone else.

Because "black" and "white" are a subsummation of various features like facial structure, cultural affiliation and skin colour. And sub saharan africans are really black, american blacks have various shades due to the amixture of whites.

The identity politics shit is mainly due to a certain climax of a cultural and economic resource conflict with a new medium (the internet) to accelerate and connect.

These "people" have no hope in a future race war. None whatsoever.

If you do not have a grasp of space, you cannot use sighted weapons (i.e. sniper rifles, artillery) effectively. If you do not have a grasp of numbers, you cannot conduct logistics at all. If you do not have a grasp of time, you cannot make any detailed plans - which Africans cannot.

There will be no war. Either they will bring whites to the breaking point and then they will be simply killed, or they will drain whites dry and then they will die off.

I read this as: pull away the top and the boobs come out.

Are you a nigger?

pic related

...

Misuse of the word paedophile. A paedophile is a person attracted to pre-pubescent children. If you're not attracted to pre-pubescent children then you're not a paedophile, just a normal heterosexual. (Providing you're only attracted to the opposite sex.)

Saving this thread because I'm hoping more will come out of it.

...

I'm still looking. Will post when I find something.

HIGHLY recommended viewing: youtube.com/watch?v=29K5c1pVk9Q

here's another good one
youtube.com/watch?v=MqqlSb9uGUQ

Anecdotal, but I have noticed an obvious postmodern driven subversion of language in political discourse. The connotation is shifted not to fulfill the original definition of the word but to fit into the context of Cultural Marxism.

Let me explain two examples that come to mind. The definition of the word "imperialism"
So actions that can be considered "imperialistic" would be expanding military observation and a National presence in a Nation already occupied by indigenous people with their own cultural values, government, and other exercises of self determination. But this is no longer the case since the lines of what can be "imperialistic" have been blurred by including gentrification as an imperialistic act. So Europeans buying property in Little Pakistan causing an increase in housing prices which drives out foreigners who were originally themselves occupying neighborhoods that used to be homogeneously indigenous Europeans are considered to be enforcing "European Imperialism" even if it was in their own damn country. The word has lost it's meaning, and even in it's new context is contradictory.

The other example is the word "indigenous" in political discourse. When was the last time you heard a white European being referred to as an "Indigenous European"? You know what the are usually called? White people or "White Europeans", as if they are people who just so happen to live in Europe. This is in complete juxtaposition to how brown people are revered in Leftist discourse as "indigenous" which they imply means they have the right to self determination.

so indigenous is a word to recaim
good point

YES

Albeit not my point, a good solution to the issue that I mentioned is to use their own language against them. If Australia and America are to be held responsible for displacing indigenous people then they should be held responsible for advocating for the free movement of brown people in Europe.

well of courshe
its a great redpill for normies imho

>>>/zundel/

envy vs jealousy
not same word

Parody is becoming reality

It just makes me wonder how much better off we'd be if every nog school in the country suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth.

Are niggers recreating the high German consonant shift?

DASS REICH

Seems way more similar to German than modern English.

Does anyone have that webm of that teacher in the ghetto school getting frustrated because his nogs can't understand algebra? I remember one of them starts yelling "HOL UP HOL UP WAIT A MINUTE" at the teacher.

are there any books on this subject you can recommend or pdfs you can hook a nigga up with?

Came here to post this, extremely interesting considering the way Africans and their descendants behave and think. Pic Related. It goes on further to address that Africans and other non-agricultural societies have no concept of the future and only the here and now. One of the best reads truly.

Always reminds me of this

See also Orwells Politics and the English Language

Call it poopdick. John Derbyshire mentions the disgust that most sane people have for sodomy, this is just some counter-propaganda to remind people what it actually is.

meant for

Yeah no. If God Himself decided to step in and act to confound our languages, spread us out across the globe, divide us with the land and sea, as well as allow us to devise nations and wars as a result–all to split us up, then no, one language only in this fallen and depraved world isn't a good thing user.

Having a separate cultural identity and language is clearly a positive and a preservative for the human race.

And all non-English European languages are having English forced in them. German is full of English words, whereas 100 years ago if the English invented something we would translate the words into German or make up our own word, now we just take the English word.

It's doesn't care the messages it is trying to bring over quite as well because it simply can't in English. Either learn Frisian or Dutch if you want to understand what it is about.

carry*

I've got this one: verloren.nl/boeken/2086/235/1353/kronieken/het-oera-linda-boek

It has the original transcripts, thus both ins Frissian and Dutch. I bought it for around 14 euro months ago.
To add, a lot of dutch "historians" that really hate Hitler say the whole thing was one big joke without it ever proving with concrete evidence. I think they only say so because Oera Linda it is one of the backbones of Atlantis and the National Socialism movement.

Got you covered bro.

You know that's just a story right?

Corrupted language vs pure language

tl;dr

I'd call you a nigger if I didn't recognize the humorous irony of your post in a thread about language losing complexity or gaining too much of it.

Bravo

So is Anglish a meme, or is there any value to it?

It's the same post.

Anglish is supposed to be a sort of reconstruction of English before the french invasion. Not the same as middle English at all.

Gradation and Shades of Meaning

We all learned in Kindergarten that words have shades of meaning, with other words used to express the more severe definitions. English is constructed this way so we can differentiate between these shades and apply them where appropriate. Gradation is the difference between Sad and Dejected, Annoyed and Furious, and Linguistic Relativity vs Linguistic Determinism. As you can see and already know from that last pair of terms, gradation applies to philosophical and political concepts.

There are generally two ways you can subvert language. First, you can overload a language with frivolous complexity where it doesn't belong. The Social Justice lexicon achieves just that by creating words and terms that represent concepts key to their ideology. Just like any other word, these new words are vehicles to communicate their concepts (which are often wrong, of course), and they end up clashing with the rest of the language and its interpretation of related concepts.

The other method is the opposite. Instead of overloading a language with complexity, you strip it away. In this method, gradation between words is the target. Altering gradation concomitantly alters the range of expression made possible by any language, especially when the words affected relate to philosophical or political concepts. In recent happenings, I think it's become more apparent than it already was that the MSM and leftist public are most guilty of killing the shades of meaning in words. Just how the words Sad and Dejected share a core meaning, but have functional differences, the terms White Nationalist and Nazi have the same thing. A true Nazi is more than likely to be a White Nationalist, but a White Nationalist may not fulfill the criteria to be what we would call a Nazi, since White Nationalism is but a proponent of Nationalist Socialism, not a completely synonymous term.

Conflating terms with one another is what kills gradation. All of the other terms that express a similar, yet functionally different concept all get swept under one umbrella term. This forms a serious breakdown in the ability to have some sort of discourse around the subject if it's a particularly sensitive subject, such as that of Nazism. So, if you're a White Nationalist, you're most likely going to called a Nazi by some retard who doesn't know any better.

Points become impossible to argue within a language that has been stripped of its complexity and ambiguity, because the resulting simplicity is what allows people to form Black and White narratives about any issue they want. If a bunch of White Nationalists show up to protest a the planned removal of a Confederate monument, the news will report the gathering as a Nazi gathering, then anyone who shows up to oppose the Nazis are "Counter Protesters" who couldn't have been in the wrong about anything because they were the Not Nazis, the Not Racists, and the Not Supremacists. I'm sure some of you have seen the leftist memes following Trump's press conference when he called out the Alt-Left. All of the verified cucks came out of the woodworks, all sharing the same opinion

It's a mirror version of 1984's Good/Ungood dichotomy. If you fought against the Ungood, you were automatically good, because what else could you be? There were only two things you could've possibly been. No shades, no complex differences, no ambiguity, just good and ungood, Nazi and Not Nazi.

If there's ANYTHING in your language you must work to actively protect, it is the gradation of your words. Especially when it comes to philosophy or politics, you must not let a dichotomy form where there isn't one. Words alone will convince people the world is made up only of Nazis and Not Nazis. Communists, Anarchists, and all the rest won't exist. Even with politics aside, it's just stupid to use the wrong gradation. You shouldn't say you're 'scared' of roaches if you shriek and faint every time you see one. In that case, you're terrified. You shouldn't say you're 'annoyed' by your sister's farts if you're contemplating killing her puppy as a form of revenge. In that case, you despise your sister.

You wouldn't say that getting evicted is unpleasant, you would say it's terrible or catastrophic. You wouldn't say your daughter dying from cancer is 'bothering' you, you would say it's tormenting you. So on and so forth. Use the right words with right gradation, especially when it comes to heavier subjects.

The beautiful thing about the English language is that not a single one of us knows every single word in the language, which may seem like a bad thing, but it's really not. English uses gradation heavily so that each shade of meaning has its own word. We can pinpoint exactly what something is down to its subtle components with English, but such a thing isn't possible in the Kikuyu language as pointed out here or in the Pirahã language here

They know almost every word in their language because it breaks these complexities down into simple terms. Gradation isn't as heavy in their languages, and thus they cannot pinpoint concepts that share similar, core aspects, but have functional differences. You can't know every word in the English language simply because you cannot know everything there is to express in the language. That vastness in your words is your range of expression.

Don't let simplicity take that away from you.

With the Bible, it's never "just" a story.

Well said, bravo.

user, I…
archive.is/pQ2jZ

Interesting article, but what's your point?

bump

The bible is degenerated and modern, but it's far less so than many texts we have today.
The metaphysics are valid, the story comes from a time before time and defines reality.

The word "gender" is a good example. I've been saying this for years because I'm French and I've always been influenced by the English language and I once tried to use the equivalent of the word "gender" in a French essay for which I got points deducted, the teach said to me "the correct word is sex", then it all clicked in me : the word "gender" is only applicable to grammar, the word sex is the most exact word to use to talk about whether a human or an animal is male or female.

I've only learned a few years ago that the Nazi party never once existed in history. The word "nazi" is an insult meaning approximately "dumb farmer from Bavaria", a region in Germany. Hitler's political party was named "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (direct translation to English). The association of "nazi" to his party came from his detractor as a form of propaganda, it was used by the Allies which were his enemies. To this day, history books, news, very reputable source still make the mistake of calling Hitler's party the "dumbass party" completely stonefaced when it's a complete fabrication and not a historically accurate term.

You know a discussion on new words to be invented when Gex threads were still allowed came up with a new word to serve as a counterpoint to the word ambition, libition. I liked it and I'm disappointed people didn't use that word deliberately.

archive.is/4AV9F
breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/20/source-mcmaster-fails-to-brief-trump-before-thats-too-bad-error/

So there you have it, Trump is going Neocon because his Neocon and Cuckservative aids keep him in the dark and operate behind his back.

What “flap”?
Mhmm. Sure.

This is an interesting and very important thread. Why'd it slow?

I remember another user talking about how the word "extermination" had a different meaning during WWII and before. It meant literally, "remove from borders", and so while the national socialists did plan on exterminating Jews, it was in the WWII sense of removing them. Notice holocaust writing today still usually uses the word "exterminate" when talking about the NSDAP and Jews, but it conveniently means genocide these days.

It is a hard read.

I would have never thought that this board would one day both purge the degenerate speak of our foes, and give re-birth to the growth of all language. Thank you, and keep at it.

True. Although with BBC offering the retarded "pidgin" option, maybe more people will be interested in language.
8ch.net/pol/res/10489252.html

updated archive of this thread
archive.is/mzrk7

Worth a watch

Just pointing out that this comment was towards the part where she was referencing the Pirahã language's lack of an actual counting system. This was generally the same response to the study that showed the Pirahã's inability to perform simple counting functions by linguists and psychologists. That the Pirahã didn't require an advanced counting system to function properly in their own society. That's fair enough, but if one were to move to any other country where they'd have to learn the language, they would also have to learn how to count.

You can go full cultural relativity about it if you want, but I do believe certain languages are superior to others by virtue of the worded concepts within the language. The Pirahã never built any structure more complex than a straw covered hut, nor a vessel larger than a canoe, and they'll never be able to unless they learn an advanced counting system, which opens the way to other abilities.

The ability to count to 3 was thought to be a universal human trait, which is why the findings about that tribe were so shocking. Because it was that to be a universally developed cognitive ability, I think it's wrong to say that their lifestyle influenced this and not their language. Really, the core of the problem was a flaw in cognitive ability, but language solidifies and propagates this flaw if it is never changed and updated to reflect new thinking.

The Chinese were able to develop a large counting system which led way to the development of negative numbers, decimals, and geometry, and other things that they formed independently. Hence why it's not a shock to anyone they were able to build the Great Wall of China or any of their large cities and palaces.

Only have a small historical example for now, but after the defeat of the devastating defeat of the Romans at the Battle of Cannae, the Romans refused to make peace with Hannibal and swore to conjure up yet another army of every able bodied man in Rome, including the slaves

In an effort to force the public to conform with this attitude, public displays of mourning were forbidden, as well as the word for Peace.

Are the cute beavers supposed to steal your attention?

It was created by a kike if you really want to know who started of it. It always leads back to them.

bump

This is it. This is the Jews secret weapon. More powerful than any bomb. For example, here are some things I've heard this week.

(((reputable)))

what if most whites arent nordic in any way?

what does this have to do with subversion
please elaborate on your post

in other words "gender identity" is about as correct as "ethnic identity" or "material identity"
if gender identity of being a pankin unicorn is valid then ethnic identity of being a chinese jewish fin is valid and so is the material identity of being a plasma blackhole liquid stone
it all loses meaning and sense

It's an example of language being modified in order to control the range of expression. The Senate forbid public use of the word Peace because they had every intention of mustering up another army to defeat Hannibal, which meant they needed the public to think only of furthering and ending the conflict through overwhelming force, not peace.

Rome ended up winning the war despite losing the battle, and Hannibal went into self-exile until he committed suicide

indeed but that seems a temporary measure in the political debates
still, good contribution

YOU DON'T OWN NO LANGUAGE GOYIM

>those (((quotes)))

Gospel. I hate faggots that come here and push narratives based out of lies or complete fabrications, and summerfaggots eat it up.

He was. I can't agree with the approach he took to fix the issue, but he had a point.

The only way to fight language is with language. Imageboards changed the way people use words too. We can easily identify two sides by looking at who says "cuck" and who says "shitlord", for example. As long as we exist, we can fight their words with our own until one subverts the other. Or we can just create parasites that infects those who speak english and kills them if they dare to speak the language again

This is real? Is there any way to get blacks to straight up start saying nigger as some kind of "Fuck you" trigger to the up their own asses liberals and "SJWs" visibly playing them?

Holy shit, this pisses me off like almost no other. You can straight up hear the self-righteous arrogant faggotry and rejection of logic just to accuse shit that isn't true or even to be ashamed of. The misuse of sexism and pedophilia or their synonyms drive me insane.

I nearly don't trust anything anymore but my own obsessively and repeatedly analyzed knowledge of my interests and logic.

I believed Muslims were just antisocial people who wanted to worship a different god and wrapped up to protect themselves from the sun along with not relying on technology. No, they're fucking uncivilized voluntary retards that are the actual sexists and homophobes asshurt and snobbish to anyone who doesn't think the same way yet first world white retards ignore that just because of more edgy bullshit that it's justified for or transparent pathetic asshurt validation of covering up women so they're not reminded of being fucking ugly and unlikable.

I thought homosexuals were just people who wouldn't make babies, but otherwise perfectly normal and capable of the same tasks and contribution as anyone else as long as they have the same physical and psychological qualifications. Now I even logically see homosexuality in concept as a natural, clever selectively "programmed" and "activated" population control for humans and other beings. But no, far too many of them have become obnoxious contrarian pieces of shit that now want to unintelligently insult heterosexuality for absolutely nothing and degenerately scream and go apeshit in the streets as depraved and annoying as possible while being as reckless with sexual activity and partners as possible just to spite or feel "fuck the system and haters". Or they unintelligently side with the ones making their lives worse because of coincidence and manipulation. Just about completely done with trying to help gays and lesbians and just stick to enjoying my escapist idealized fantasy of yuri, whether Alpha sexual or conservative romance.

Now African Americans apparently have differences in brain patterns from other races and that Charles Barkley himself stated black people are apparently spiteful assholes who drag each other down just because of feeling inferior, not "whitey". And yet I still want to help them see they're just being used and can better themselves as members of society, people and communities.

I just want to preserve America and the people I feel even the slightest reason to care about, destroy anything threatening my anime tiddies, destroy the evil of mudshits and help people free themselves from decades of repression and oppression of their sentimenral desire and enjoyment of reproducing or "love" that not all of them can be "good enough" to fulfill. And then quietly and comfily live out the rest of my life until I feel like blowing myself up with my possessions or just fading away listening to an air conditioner.

At the end of the day, all this suffering, division and atrocity boils down to being asshurt about being ugly and annoying or only having that available, pathetically transparently trying to look smarter and more profound or edgy by spewing complete bullshit like pointed out or just desperately pathetically trying to look better than everyone else who isn't "correct" like you by, again, making complete shit up.

All this grand philosophical shit about freedom of expression and how to ethically react to people don't agree with you or hold controversial views that everyone's been dragged and suckered into whether they be user or normalfag, kind or dick, only human or humble intellectual? It boils down to literally fucking nothing but the above and I have to find a way to cheat out of this shit game everyone else is playing and break it entirely.

Please just tell me this thread is the start of that. All of this started and is over absolutely nothing. This is a stain on all of human history.

This was a very informative thread.

Fuck gays. They're nothing more than subversive elements in any healthy country. And as much as I hate niggers, I also want them to see who's really fucking them over. Hell, I think it's a beautiful thing when any race opens their eyes, improves their ancestral homeland, and tries to better their own society, it's why I love Nips so much. But Blacks don't seem to be capable of doing that by and large. The ones that are, because of crab mentality, moved away from their shit neighborhoods and cut off their crab peers so they can live their lives in peace. It's just not going to happen with a situation like that

As a non-english speaker, english is far from it's demise, I mean, I use it every day almost as much as my regular language.

fuck you anglos

the "sad" ones look a bit illegible past depressed.

The part that bugs me most is that they're all descriptivist for me, prescriptivist for thee about it. That double standard is so standard libshit hypocrisy that it's hilarious to see it even corrupts their academic work.

What the hell? People mislead by this trash will be gullible to anyone who can lie with a straight face. I could convince a person like that of my own damned godhood if I tried.

Blame your ancestors for not investing in a navy.

English won the war of languages by far. Maybe your people should've been better at war and colonization :^)

That's why we call it the fall.

Then why is latin still used :^)

punpun

my first thought after watching this
but w/ fire

Damn, that's like a normie redpill atom bomb.

anti-abortion -> "pro-life"
wealthy -> "job creators"
anti-union -> "right to work"

Language is so poor these days that the miniature novels I saved from my BBS days sound like masterpieces. The breadth of vocabulary and crafted imagery that I considered ordinary then sound like it was penned by gods in today's world. I couldn't help but feel ashamed even though I've done my best to at least write messages in texts and in online posts with a bit of elaboration.

biblical stories arent true

You should all read 1984
It is partly about lefties changing the language to a tool for mental enslavement

Biggest perversion of language ever is straight from the ten commandments.

Thou shall not commit adultery.
Meaning?
to adulterate, mix, make unpure, the law is against race mixing, not sex out of the marriage
bonus internet points to anyone who can post the biblical punishment for adultery

The word "love" is under a great deal of attack these days. It has been conflated with lust and fornication. It is diluted to mean "I find this object/concept pleasing" which used to be the job of "like". I like chocolate became I love chocolate. McDonald's took the word loving and made it a slogan, and a verb at that, when beforehand it meant "one who is tender, usually towards another."
If the word for love to express a strong bond gets diluted beyond meaning, what hope does the speaker have to fully indicate their meaning?

I hope it is the Queen's English to ehich you are referring.

The bastardized tongue of the traiterous rebels is forging inroads into and over the language of her Glorious Majesty (long may she reign).

It's death, isn't it?
Has the injunction against adultery actually ever meant race-mixing in Christian societies? I'd like to believe that that's the intent, but I'd like some evidence.

Both "love" and "hate" have been subverted. Many people now use "hate" as a synonym for "dislike".

Language and Moral Shock

There's an interesting concept called Moral Shock, originally coined by James M. Jasper, that explains how cognitive and emotional reactions within people, in response to particular pieces of information, may spur such an outrage in them that they recruit themselves into certain social or political movements, without having any preexisting ties to members or any information that would've led them to the movement in question. I suppose you can say it's the emotional and cognitive process that helps form spontaneous, grassroots movements, without the individual having the preexisting social connections that would've traditionally led them towards a particular movement.

Say you're sitting down watching a documentary on disproportionate amounts of animal abuse in a certain city, and you love animals. Seeing that documentary then encourages you to take some sort of action, to march on the streets along with thousands of others who felt the same way, or send an email to whoever is responsible or can punish the people who are responsible. Through moral shock, people actively recruit themselves and take actions by themselves, even in complete isolation from any other part of the movement.

Of course, the concept of Moral Shock, in itself, is not an inherently evil concept. Sometimes it's a really good thing that people can come together on a certain issue and make a uniform, yet completely unorganized push back. Like any other concept, however, it can be flipped around, with language (and by extension, imagery) being used as the vector for subversion. We've already discussed how certain words can illicit certain emotions, and sometimes actual reactions driven purely by those emotions. and

If I had to think up an example, I'd pull out the Mattress Girl shitstorm, particularly the part where after Mattress Girl started carrying around her mattress and was given the aura of Joan of Arc by the media, others started to carry around mattresses in their own campuses. Those who went to the same campus as her even helped her carry the mattress. All of those naive, young people came out in support of Mattress Girl because they heard all about her plight of being viciously raped by her lover, and her school throwing out her case, with neither of these things being remotely true. But it's the exposure of that information to those people that drove them, emotionally, to respond with support, and to recruit themselves in a loose sort of movement.

All of this occurs with words like "Rape" acting as bulwarks for the narrative in the face of factual evidence. People know rape is a terrible thing, and so it's easy to illicit an emotional reaction from them with an issue surrounding the issue of rape, hence why the mere accusation can destroy a person's life, even if he's found innocent.

Or you can take the recent witch hunt for George Hook and his comments on a particular UK rape case. The media and his own staff all called for his resignation for what they perceived as "victim blaming". He merely said that there is a certain amount of personal responsibility people have to take to ensure their own safety, and that includes not returning to random hotels with random strangers they met at a bar and barely know. Her rapist didn't physically overpower her or drug her, he simply convinced the gullible girl to come back with him, and she agreed. Any parent would tell their daughter not to do things like that, not to be trusting of strangers, not to inebriate themselves so severely that they can't function on their own.

The emotional weight behind an issue surrounding rape often drives the dialogue around said issue to be driven overwhelmingly by pathos, with little room for logic. The question of personal responsibility has no room to make its entrance because it's always interpreted as victim blaming. One's own sense of emotional morality often renders them unable to separate their strong feelings towards a subject from the critical, logical questions they should be asking themselves. The feelings behind an issue take precedence over the facts, the numbers, the statistics, or even the completely sensible questions and propositions. See any issue regarding Rape, Immigration, Race, or the Holocaust.

If you have any more examples of Moral Shock working to recruit people into social movements, please do share.

I don't have time to elaborate much now, but off of the top of my head the whole "refugees welcome" response in many European countries when they were being invaded seems to fit the description.

Can I have a translation for anyone who isn't the teacher?

*everyone, sorry

Just as Anglish is a reconstruction of English before French invasion, can we foster a reconstruction of American English before kikery, nogspeak, and immigrant gibberish entered the vernacular?
For instance, it would eliminate words like "based" and we could even be praised for doing this for "avoiding cultural appropriation".

I've called people pit for using "based", "thot" and other nigger words, and people say they are being "ironic".

Fuck their irony. We need a new policy. If you talk like a nigger, you get talked to like a nigger.
Sure, some will resist. "Calm down autismo" etc. Some trolls will escalate. But enough people will see the value in not communicating like a subhuman. It will be an effective way to filter newfags, shills, and retards.

It can be funny and it's more "human" to my knowledge and long observation to use slang in serious matters or discussion or to visibly mock someone or something while showing you can relate with them and understand why they're talking like that. Do you think us saying "fuck" and "shit" all the time when talking about issues or flaws with people or things is any different? We "feel" the need to do this so people understand our feelings and we show we understand theirs.

I don't want him to shitpost, though on occasiln that would be hilarious, wish Trump would tweet more like a fucking human being for sure or at least interact more with supporters to make us feel less separate as people. His posts have none of his witty blunt shittalking charm.

I enjoyed Assad's interview where he said the same about the word 'anti-semitic'.
I think Jew'ish was created purely to take away the negative connotation, at least in english, of 'jew'
?

further proof that mixing and the genocidal ambitions of the kikes are real threats.

I don't know what board would be appropriate, but please share.

Moral shock, at first glance and I haven't looked into it, seems to be mostly the domain of women and weak men. Most people jump on a bandwagon, but some learn after one or two times that the pretenses were bogus. Therefore their actions were unjust.

Animal abuse is a good example. I was barely in my teens when I was accused of this (not sure why it started, but it was someone else and quite minor) and every single woman around treated me like garbage, and after it was proven it wasn't me, not a single one apologised and some continued in their behaviour. The kids were all young enough and knew me and not a single one believed any of it. I've noticed that kids up until 16-18, despite being very gullible, have a finer radar for moral hypocrisy.