Master List of Politically Correct Terms (and Arguments, Frames, Concepts)

[Alex Linder]

[How we'll do it. The PC term will be, upon its first use, listed in bold black. Subsequently it will be italicized. If in the discussion of one PC term another is brought up for the first time, it will be listed in black and bold. And subsequently italicized. And we'll italicize the Aryan terms that could and should be used in place of the loaded ones. And we'll italicize words discussed as terms, which is ordinary grammatical convention. The attempt will be made, altho we'll undoubtedly miss a few, to put all semitically correct usages in italics. Please note that we have only used the SC term politically correct in the title of this thread so it will show up in searches; the correct term is...well...we begin...]

Politically Correct - a euphemism for Semitically Correct, which was coined by the late Joseph Sobran. Political Correctness, which we'll abbreviate as PC from here on, comes from the jews and their mindset. It amounts to the demand that others follow their partyline absolutely without deviation, and this goes back to Lenin, who was 1/4 jew, and whose innermost gang of communist revolutionaries was almost entirely jewish. From their demand that their own communists follow the partyline after it had been decided comes PC, pretty much purely denotative and literal in meaning. Some argue with that, and would consider PC originating with the Frankfurt School's Critical Theories in the 30s-50s, or as something that came out of the social tumult of the jew-led social revolutions of the 1960s. Whichever you prefer, the key is that the men and the mindset driving PC are the same: We are jews. We rule you. You will do what we say or face penalties. Here are the taboos you must obey on penalty of life or career or position.

Modern PC, as a specific term, comes from a jew. A jew named Jeff Shesol, who later went on to become a Democratic operative under Clinton, used the term in a comic strip he composed at Brown University. He had a superhero called 'Politically Correct Man.' Lenin too had used the term politically correct, but it appears that its meaning and use were pretty much literal. It is not clear if Shesol knew of Lenin's use of the term, which would have been in Russian anyway, or simply coined the term himself. In any case, Shesol's PC came, in the 1980s, to be the only public recognition ever accorded the fact that there is some kind of power out there forcing us to submit to taboos and rules and ideas that most of us don't believe in. PC could be taken as an example of a jew controlling the opposition by creating and leading it, which was a Leninist principle, unironically, but that might be going beyond the facts. (We don't know how much jew Shesol knew about Lenin, or whether jews used him to slide a queered concept of Semitical Correctness to the broader public. It seems unlikely, but can't be wholly discarded as a possibility, because jews have proven time and again they really are that devious.) Whatever the case, Shesol's PC while serving the purpose of giving the opposition something to latch on to that was publicly recognized, nevertheless also had the effect of leading those using it away from the Semite's nest, to use the metaphorical analogy of a mother bird faking a broken wing. But as Sobran brilliantly showed, a very simple alteration makes all the difference. Whites should always use Semitically Correct in place of PC, because the person listening will know they are referring to PC, and be led to think about why they made the subtle change. SC is very effective coinage, because the change in form is small, but the change in meaning is huge.

sperm bank - Here's one I came across in book about Shockley, something I had never thought about before - the use of the term sperm bank as opposed to gene bank. It's an attempt to make goofy and vaguely dirty what isn't.

[p. 42, "Shockley on Eugenics and Race"]

His antagonists in particular delighted to attack Shockley on his advocacy of quality gene banks as a counter-dysgenic measure. These they liked to describe, not inaccurately, as "sperm banks" since this sounded more "kinky" and morally questionable.

As a side note, students of PC will observe that altho leftists always disdain traditional morality, and work politically to outlaw it, they are, by the same token, always willing to use traditional morality if by doing so they can destroy a man or an argument opposed to their insanity.

[Kievsky]

Partner

Liberal heteros now refer to their boyfriend or girlfriend as "partner" in order to provide cover to homos.

This is because male homos don't want to say, "my boyfriend/husband" and female homos don't want to say "my girlfriend/wife."

Well, why not? If there's no shame in it, then why the hell not? Why the weasel word "pardner." What are they, fucking cowboys? Yep, that's Adam Steinberg and his pardner, Ira Levin. The partners got married at Beth Hell Temple in Manhattan last Saturday. Lovely gay jew wedding. One partner is an MTV producer, the other partner is a partner at Horowitz, Steinberg and Schapiro.

Originally Posted by Kievsky

Partner

Liberal heteros now refer to their boyfriend or girlfriend as "partner" in order to provide cover to homos.

This is because male homos don't want to say, "my boyfriend/husband" and female homos don't want to say "my girlfriend/wife."

Well, why not? If there's no shame in it, then why the hell not? Why the weasel word "pardner." What are they, fucking cowboys? Yep, that's Adam Steinberg and his pardner, Ira Levin. The partners got married at Beth Hell Temple in Manhattan last Saturday. Lovely gay jew wedding. One partner is an MTV producer, the other partner is a partner at Horowitz, Steinberg and Schapiro.

I ran into one of those on a job.. told me his "partner" would be home to let me in. I figured he was a fag, till he mentioned her by name. So from there on I just referred to them as "your wife" and "your husband". Neither one contradicted me.

[Alex Linder]

Race fear cops ban the word ‘blacklist’

By TOM WELLS
Published: 07th May 2012

POLICE chiefs have banned IT staff from using the word blacklist over fears it is RACIST.

289 comments

The computer term whitelist — used to denote a list of acceptable contacts — has also been outlawed.

In an email, Scotland Yard warned staff the words were no longer “appropriate”.

Security services chief Brian Douglas wrote: “IB (Information Board) are uncomfortable with the use of the term Whitelist (and I presume Blacklist).

“I am sure we can appreciate the sensitivity around the use of such terminology today so please ensure it is no longer used.” He suggested using green and red list instead.

Sources at the Met — where 20 officers are under investigation over alleged racism — branded the decision “bizarre”.

One said: “Do we really think these words are discriminatory? The truth is they’re nothing to do with race whatsoever and are very common IT terms. Banning them won’t solve any genuine problems the Met has with racism.”

Scotland Yard said: “This is not a change in policy.

“It is a change in internal Information Communications Technology terminology which reflects a more appropriate use of language.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...is-racist.html

[The jews hook PC into middle-class beloved memes of tasteful, appropriate, responsible. This makes PC seem like a matter of manners rather than political tyranny.]

[Angel Ramsey]

"Youths", used by the MSM to describe niggers.

[Alex Linder]

survival crimes - First noticed in a 'Human Rights Report' on Golden Dawn in June 2012. See this thread. Survival crimes are committed by criminal-alien-invaders, whom commit them to survive, and for no other reason, according to the leftists who call them undocumented workers or simply immigrants. When illegal-alien invaders attack old women and steal their money, it's a survival crime. When native whites fight back, it's a hate crime.

With this term the jews have taken another conceptual step: There are ordinary crimes. Then there are hate crimes. Then there are survival crimes. Which might as well be called love crimes, altho not even a jew has the temerity to go that far yet.

Hate crimes are verbal transgressions (breaking jew-set taboos) or real crimes, which are held to be worse than ordinary crimes, requiring extra punshiment. (Even though, ironically and against the intent of the creators of the bogus concept blacks commit a disproportionate percentage of hate crimes the category is still, thanks to jewish media, identified exclusively with white males.) Hate crimes is essentially a sort of affirmative action for white men in the field of crime since they need a hateful hand up to get anywhere near niggers in terms of competition. Hate crimes is a special category and concept invented by jews specifically to demonize white men, and fool the mass public that white men are uniquely hateful and dangerous. Now comes the concept of survival crimes, which serves to downplay the seriousness of real crime committed by jew-favored groups such as, in this case, illegal aliens. Survival crimes are essentially love crimes that deserve less than ordinary punishment because of the high motives driving the criminal. He's just doin' what he gots ta do to keep hisself and his family alive in a hateful world of white racism.

The point of hate crimes, a bogus concept invented by jews, who used their media and political power to make it a legal reality in many countries, is to distract attention from real crimes. So-called hate crimes number in the low thousands each year in the U.S. Real crimes number in the millions. And as we've said, most so-called hate crimes are either verbal (word exchanges) or misdemeanors, mostly dismissable stuff. Not serious crimes. Whereas real crimes are violent and serious. Yet by media distortion this tiny handful of taboo-breakings is made to outweigh literally millions of violent crimes. The political end is to make it seem that white men's words are worse than niggers' actions. Leftists have long tried to efface the difference between words and behavior; they love to describe words or rhetorical verbiage as 'violent,' and they try to get this nostrum, that words actually are the same thing as (violent) behavior encoded into law. It's a back door to shutting down free expression in the name of fighting violence. Get your opponent's arguments made legally equivalent to rape and murder and robbery and he won't be allowed to debate, you'll win by default.

The purpose of the concept of hate crimes is to turn reality on its head so that white men are demonized and black men are treated as put-upon and discriminated against angels. Putting over the bogus concept of 'hate crimes' is about as pure an example of jewish chutzpah as you're going to find, ad yet another reason the jewish race deserves to and eventually will be exterminated.

[Igor Alexander]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

As a side note, students of PC will observe that altho leftists always disdain traditional morality, and work politically to outlaw it, they are, by the same token, always willing to use traditional morality if by doing so they can destroy any man or argument opposed to their insanity.

How true. There are numerous examples on the SPLC website of them trying to smear their opponents as queers even though the SPLC is pro-buggery and at least one of its founders is a poof.

Hypocrisy means nothing to a leftist. To a leftist, the ends always justify the means.

[Alex Linder]

denial / denier - ('holocaust' denial, HIV-causes-AIDS denial, global warming denial)

Any leftist verbal perversion that meets with success will soon extend its range to fresh fields. Next to the bogus concept of racism, Holocaust is one of the more successful leftist creations. Holocaust successfully brands an imaginary atrocity, and then the leftist can smash down with denier on anyone who dares question the imposture. Control of the media means you never have to address logical questions. You define and destroy. Just as holocaust denial has been made a crime in many European countries, the left would like to see global warming denial made a crime. And now today, for the first time, I came across HIV-causes-AIDS denial for the first time. The implication is that anyone who dares to question the media-spread and Establishment-backed/-funded claim that HIV causes AIDS is as invalid, morally repugnant, and potentially imprisonable as the evil rotters who deny the holocaust. Sorting out the lies through all this is like trying to remove a triply impacted wisdom tooth with three inches of dental floss. More questions are begged than grains of sand on Daytona Beach.

AIDS itself is a semitically correct term. Originally it was called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, or GRID. And of course you will be aware that gay itself is a semitically correct term for queer, invert or deviant/deviate. As I wrote years ago, a good (means accurate and mnemonic) term for the affliction would be Q-RID: Queer-Related Immune Deficiency. I mean...acquired? Like, bought at the store? Involuntarily picked up through the air? Why be vague when you could be specific. It was queer sexual and drug-use behavior that brought on the majority of cases of the disease, so that should be reflected in the name. But it was a political decision to give the disease and the behavior that caused it a neutral name, the better to frighten people of ordinary sexual behavior into thinking they could catch it, thereby making them more open to funding research on it.

The International Campaign to Destroy Medical Hypotheses

Recently the journal Medical Hypotheses, whose editor-in-chief is our friend and frequent commentator Bruce Charlton, a psychiatrist and a professor of evolutionary psychiatry at the University of Newcastle, accepted for publication a paper by the well known HIV "denialist" Peter Duesberg. AIDS activists and researchers hate Duesberg (who by the way has at least one Nobel laureate, Kary Mullis, on his side), and for the grave sin of accepting a paper that dares to question the HIV hypothesis of AIDS, have launched a campaign against Medical Hypotheses and Dr. Charlton.

The group AIDSTruth.org ("The scientific evidence for HIV/AIDS" - no other ideas allowed) recently featured the article Elsevier retracts Duesberg’s AIDS Denialist article, which sets out their successful move to get the publisher of MH to withdraw the article.

AIDSTruth has now opened a campaign to get MEDLINE, the bibliographic database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which is fully searchable through PubMed, to deselect Medical Hypotheses from inclusion in the database. (The letter requesting this action is here in PDF.) There is now a Facebook page, Cancel your Medical Hypotheses subscription, which urges medical libraries and other institutions to rid themselves of this turbulent publication. Also of note, the group additionally accuses the journal of publishing "offensive" and "racist" articles, the latter of which of course places any publication beyond the pale of an enlightened people. (Funny, really, they missed James Watson's most inconvenient truth (PDF) by Rushton and Jensen. Normally that alone would have caused a massive raising of skirts.)

Dr. Charlton, who has more than doubled the journal's impact factor during his tenure as editor-in-chief, radically decreased author response time, and increased the number of downloaded articles to half a million annually, is in danger of getting the sack.

You can read the specious reasoning that comes out of AIDSTruth yourself, but this is obviously a concerted campaign against a journal and an editor who would dare to publish articles that question politically correct dogma. We've seen similar intellectual thuggery going on among the global warmers, who would shut down "denialists"; that the two groups use the same terminology of "denialism" speaks volumes about their common wish to shout down, silence, and destroy their critics.

AIDSTruth must not be allowed to destroy Medical Hypotheses, a journal unique in medicine, whose venerable tradition allows for the publication of "radical, speculative, and non-mainstream scientific ideas". These, of course, are what groups like AIDSTruth can not abide. Though I'm far from able to pronounce decisively, my impression is that MH commands enough prestige among the scientific community that this campaign will get laughed out of court. Let's hope so.

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/10/...o-destroy.html

[Alex Linder]

offensive - as used in article above

Offensive, as used in the controlled media, always and only means opposed to the judeo-leftist agenda. Thus, homosexuals and their proclivity for sticking cocks in each other's assholes is never described as offensive -- even though it is to the majority -- rather, those who hold the wrong opinion about (homosexuals, homosexual marriage, anything leftists support) are. The left is big on dissecting power relations but this never comes into play when it's on top. Offensive = offensive to judeo-leftists. Not to normal people. They're just supposed to shut up and not impose their morality on (fags, queers, jews, muds) even as the leftists impose theirs on the normals. Anyone opposed to the leftist agenda is by that fact on the wrong side of history, and so his interests, tastes and desires need not be taken into account. The non-leftist is nothing but (as I was described by my college president) an example of "how far we have to go."

[Alex Linder]

[Comment taken from the link under the HIV-denial article]

Anonymous said...

People who object to AGW are now labelled "global warming deniers" or "climate change deniers" in some quarters.

This is obviously an attempt to link them to Holocaust-deniers and to indimidate others from considering whatever issue on its merits. Its going to be an effective shaming tactic unfortunately unless its met with recognition and denigration from conservatives willing to speak up and "name" what is being attempted when "denialism-branding" is being used. Its a form of marginalization-by-false-linkage.

[Good point, but if the commenter thought a little bit harder he might see that the fact that two true or at least plausible things are under fire by those who can't argue their position ought to lead him to question the third. That's where the concept of the Big Lie comes in. The commenter has no problem believing men could lie about Global Warming and HIV-Causing-AIDS, but he has not yet graduated to believing they could lie about something even bigger - ''the' 'Holocaust.'']

[Alex Linder]

slut-shaming - commonly used at Jezebel and other lefty female-oriented sites. in their terms, it means making women guilty for liking sex. in real terms, it amounts to 'women should be able to dress however they want but no one should ever judge them based on their choices/appearances.' meaning: women should be able to have things both ways at all times, and anyone who disagrees is 'sexist,' 'slut-shamer' or some other opprobrium-targeted heavy.

key insight: what do women want? to have it both ways at all times, and to be held at their own evaluation of themselves and their motives be accepted without questioning by all others. no matter how illogical, crazy, bizarre their beliefs or behaviors. women who go on and on about being liberated, empowered, 'strong,' free, etc., are always the ones who in the next breath are curled up in crying balls because of things others say about them, which damages their tender feelings and to which they tend to attribute responsibility for their bad choices. wanting to be one thing and be thought another is very common among women. it's common among men, too, but men at least recognize their hypocrisy. i think in fact very few of the women of the 'slut-shaming' community are self-conscious/intelligent/perceptive enough to realize the contradictions in what they say.

privilege or white privilege - it is very difficult to express what is meant by this term, but basically it is the idea that whites get some special benefits merely for being white. never is there any acknowledgement that whites are discriminated against by law, and routinely mocked in commercials and content throughout the mass media. nor is there ever any appreciation for the achievements of white men, even though they have basically created the entire world, including the leisure time and technical tools the feminists and coloreds use to disparage them. the complete absence of gratitude among feminists for the things men have done to help women is a measure of the average feminist's low character and weak brainpower. camille paglia is probably the only self-described feminist with even an inkling of the reality of things, as she has repeatedly said that civilization is a masculine product, and thanked men for providing the basis for a healthier and more comfortable life for all of us, men and women. finally, there is no jew-communist recognition of the fact that if whites benefit from stereotypical assumptions, it is because of their proven record of behavior. just as blacks are often treated as stupid violent criminals, because such a high percentage of them are those things, so whites are assumed honest, honorable and law-abiding, because so many of them are those things. what we see in the left is either the inability to perceive reality accurately, or the inability to accept the reality it perceives because it is humiliating. it amounts to the same thing. leftism, in whites or women, is the rejection of reality turned into a moral crusade and political cause. this reality-rejecting egotism is like an uncontained fire, it holds the potential to burn down the entire world because it isn't constituted the way the fantasist and character-defective thinks it should be. it is absolutely the wrong policy to humor women who entertain these fantasies, like they're cute or funny. no, they are dangerous to themselves and others, and their fantasy-insanity should never be humored, just mocked and ridiculed until they are in tears.

analogy: blacks and feminists complaining about 'white privilege' is equivalent to cockroaches (or moths) complaining about butterfly privilege. butterflies, complain the roaches, are treated everywhere with smiles and delight. they flit from flowers to flowers, making pretty dancing pictures in the air, harm nobody, add some grace and beauty to the world, so are generally well received. Cockroaches are ugly little thieves that steal our food and spread diseases and crap up a formerly clean place like nobody's business. People are naturally disgusted to see them, and expect the next one will do and behave like the last hundred million have. The cockroach privilege is to be hated, pursued, rejected and kept away from all clean and attractive human establishments. Makes sense, don't you think? 'White privilege' is a fancy way of saying people expect whites to behave like other whites have, just as they expect blacks to behave as other niggers have. leftism is a way to punish the reality-oriented community by trying to gang-press it into a verbal-political cult using social sanctions, laws, and, if need be, violence.

analogy: dolphin privilege. dophins are received warmly wherever human bathers find them. sharks are received hostilely. there's no proof that any given shark is going to attack bathers, but because sharks are known to attack, kill and eat men, men are prejudiced toward them, and generally exit the water whenever a large one appears. whereas bathers are likelier to swim toward a dolphin. this reprehensible dolphin privilege is the shame of the sea. does that make sense?

observation: it's hard to avoid saying lack of intelligence, but that's not really precisely it. it being what it is about women's thinking that's so remarkable - the thing that hits the observer almost every time, no matter what aspect of the question is being considered. it's just they seem to have a sexual proclivity, or anti-proclivity for having any perspective, depth or contextual grasp of things, resulting in abounding ironies they never notice.

example, granted this is subtle, then on to a super obvious one. in a post about Thanksgiving and the family turmoil that often ensues, you'll often find a feminist saying she gets into argument with her racist relatives, so she has to plan to get around that. and then you will find one inevitably saying she solves the problem by simply avoiding either the discussion topic, or simply staying away from the gathering. this works and preserves her sanity and everybody's happiness. never in a million years will this woman pause to bethink that her solution to not-getting-along is the same thing the racialist wants for incompatible races (blacks and whites): separation, or at least segregation. integration just leads to hate and endless bickering, so separate and preserve the peace, make everybody better off. it's smart and reasonable when the woman does it personally; its immoral when the racist relative would do it politically. again, this is fairly subtle, i would never expect a woman to puzzle it out. even to say puzzle it out is wrong, because the mind would have to be in a certain vein - seeking connections, new associations, contradictions - that women's minds never run in unless some man directs them into that particular channel.

now a more obvious example.

observation two: feminists are so bereft of irony, brains, whatever 'it' is that they lack that men often have, that you will often see feminists using Duke male students as the perfect example of those who enjoy white privilege. yet dozens of these creatures were accused by a nigger stripper-prostitute, literally a crazy whore, someone with no credibility on the face of it, yet her obvious lies were taken as gospel truth not only by the national media, but by those students' own professors and college administrators. now, even a blind hog ought to smell the incredible contradiction and hypocrisy, but by god, i've never seen a feminist even stumble into this Grand Canyon-sized gap between the leftist claims of white privilege and the white reality indicated by the Duke lacrosse imbroglio. these supposedly rich, young powerful white men, who out of of all the white race would be, by leftist claims, the very likeliest to be beneficiaries of white privilege, were nailed to the (la)crosse by press and professors, while the word of the powerless, overlooked sister was treated like a divine commandment.

it would actually be better if these feminists were simply corrupt, lying, hypocrites, but the special thing about women, compared to men, is they really aren't, suggesting a biological basis to their imperception and consequent irrational argumentation and strange behavior. none of the usual indices of corruption and chicanery and subterfuge are there - their cluelessness and obliviousness are real and unfaked, as best can be told. they are simply dim and humorless and impercipient to a level that is frankly hard to believe if one hadn't seen thousands of examples of it, certainly enough to draw a general conclusion. women aren't stupid. they're only a little less intelligent than men, overall. but they are flat-minded and myopic as hell, and pretty darn humorless too. women aren't creative or funny, they're the audience. they're the people with an absolutely unconsidered belief in the power of words over evidence. which is why they so blankly, so unthinkingly use adjectives like they mean something - "i am funny, creative, etc." with absolutely no grasp of what's wrong with this. it's not even faith, because faith implies doubt. it's 100% pure imponderation, so to neologize. to a woman, what is is, and is right, and it is unthinkable it could be otherwise. as paglia says if it were up to women, we'd still be living in grass huts. those who think women think must explain why it took a man to invent the bra. a practical, technical problem that must have troubled every heavy-breasted woman since time began, yet not a single one was ever inspired to come up with a solution. no one else around her ever said or did anything about it so why would she? that is how women think, but it's not a matter of thinking. that is how women are.