As stated by Patton, the language of war is not polite. When we are in any kind of conflict, we must don the ugly mask of war and behave accordingly. As King Henry V put it,
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height.
We must accordingly use language that dehumanizes the enemy and also underscores his actions in the most explicit terms. Words like "rape," "domestic violence," "child abuse," "child rape," "wife battering," and perhaps "femicide" (for murder of women) must be used as often as possible, especially when women's rights groups are the audiences. As an example,
Palestinians routinely commit femicide of their own daughters and sisters when they "dishonor" themselves by being raped by their own brothers and uncles. The Palestinians refer to femicide as "honor killing," which is an oxymoron because subhuman filth that would kill their own sisters or daughters for being raped are totally without honor.
Other examples could show how Sharia condones domestic violence and specifically a man's so-called right to discipline his wife by battering her to a pulp. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is holding female American citizens in white slavery. The Saudi fathers kidnapped them as young girls from their American mothers and then handed them over to other Saudi sand apes to be raped as soon as they reached puberty.
In all cases, inflammatory wording like "battering her to a pulp" and "raped" must be used as frequently as possible to evoke hatred from women's rights advocates. Such terminology is also ideal for evoking rage in self-respecting Euro-American males, most of whom still know what to do when they see a cowardly bully abusing a woman.
I also use terms like "sand ape," "sand Nazi," "filth in a dirty nightshirt," "raghead," and "Hitler in a Headscarf" deliberately. The enemy is not an "insurgent" and he is certainly not, as Michael Moore put it, a "Minuteman." He, or rather IT, is a piece of subhuman filth worthy of extermination like a cockroach. (The latter assertion is backed up with a litany of facts such as the enemy's conducting war while masquerading in civilian clothing, murdering its own country's civilians as well as American soldiers wholesale, and sawing off hostages' heads while chanting to Allah.) As Patton said, we must the language of soldiers who are ready to kill-- in his day it included words like "Krauts," "lousy Hun bastards," "Nazis," and "Japs"-- as opposed to language suitable for discussion over afternoon tea.
To avoid the enemy's standard accusation of "Racism!" I would add the following slogan: "Homo sapiens by birth, subhuman by choice." This emphatically repudiates the idea that the enemy is what it is because of its race or genetics but has CHOSEN to behave in a manner that is not recognizable as human.
The language must, of course, be tailored to the setting. Academic language must be reserved for academic discussions and high-society debates. The language of war, however, must be used on the soapbox and through the megaphone, and their equivalents.
Watching our Language in the War of Words
by Bill Levinson
(Porter Williamson's Patton's Principles.)It has been pointed out in Israpundit that the political Left, which claims to be for democracy, freedom, and civil rights, is siding with Islamofascists who are for theocratic dictatorships, oppression of religious minorities, and brutalization of women. Part of our problem is our failure to use the language of war.
As stated by Patton, the language of war is not polite. When we are in any kind of conflict, we must don the ugly mask of war and behave accordingly. As King Henry V put it,
We must accordingly use language that dehumanizes the enemy and also underscores his actions in the most explicit terms. Words like "rape," "domestic violence," "child abuse," "child rape," "wife battering," and perhaps "femicide" (for murder of women) must be used as often as possible, especially when women's rights groups are the audiences. As an example,
Other examples could show how Sharia condones domestic violence and specifically a man's so-called right to discipline his wife by battering her to a pulp. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is holding female American citizens in white slavery. The Saudi fathers kidnapped them as young girls from their American mothers and then handed them over to other Saudi sand apes to be raped as soon as they reached puberty.
In all cases, inflammatory wording like "battering her to a pulp" and "raped" must be used as frequently as possible to evoke hatred from women's rights advocates. Such terminology is also ideal for evoking rage in self-respecting Euro-American males, most of whom still know what to do when they see a cowardly bully abusing a woman.
I also use terms like "sand ape," "sand Nazi," "filth in a dirty nightshirt," "raghead," and "Hitler in a Headscarf" deliberately. The enemy is not an "insurgent" and he is certainly not, as Michael Moore put it, a "Minuteman." He, or rather IT, is a piece of subhuman filth worthy of extermination like a cockroach. (The latter assertion is backed up with a litany of facts such as the enemy's conducting war while masquerading in civilian clothing, murdering its own country's civilians as well as American soldiers wholesale, and sawing off hostages' heads while chanting to Allah.) As Patton said, we must the language of soldiers who are ready to kill-- in his day it included words like "Krauts," "lousy Hun bastards," "Nazis," and "Japs"-- as opposed to language suitable for discussion over afternoon tea.
To avoid the enemy's standard accusation of "Racism!" I would add the following slogan: "Homo sapiens by birth, subhuman by choice." This emphatically repudiates the idea that the enemy is what it is because of its race or genetics but has CHOSEN to behave in a manner that is not recognizable as human.
The language must, of course, be tailored to the setting. Academic language must be reserved for academic discussions and high-society debates. The language of war, however, must be used on the soapbox and through the megaphone, and their equivalents.
Posted by Bill Levinson at December 9, 2005 01:20 PM