More Bad English
Instructional and some pet peeves.
There are many subtle differences in English, both as written and when spoken, which not only foreigners don’t know but many native English speakers get wrong. For instance, lay versus lie: one lies down but one lays an egg. Yesterday I lay down while my chicken lay an egg. Both are correct.
Foreigners often confuse “mean”. For example, “I think you mean to say” intends to say “I think you intend to say”, but “I think you are mean” changes the meaning entirely. This says “I think you are a bad person.” Foreigners often get insulted when one says “I think you mean to say”, when one only is trying to say “I think your intent is something different than what you are saying” and no insult is intended.
“Hold” and “held” is also confusing to foreigners. “Holding up” means raising something or being restricted in some way. A “hold up”, OTOH, is a robbery. While “being held up” can be either being lifted upward or being restricted in some sense but does not imply that any robbery occurred.
Even English speakers often don’t seem to know the difference between “laser” and “lazar”. Lazar is a name with emphasis on the second syllable. But a laser is an intense beam of light. I can only infer that many young people today are functionally illiterate since they often don’t know the difference.
“Who’s” is not the same as “whose”. “Who’s” is a contraction of “Who is”. “Whose” refers to ownership.
I have also seen people confuse arrogant with ignorant. True, some people are both. But arrogant means unjustifiably proud while ignorant is not knowing what most educated people know.
Then there is “counsel” versus “council”. To counsel someone is to give advice. A council is an official collection of persons. A counselor is a lawyer or similar; a councilor is someone who sits in a council. But in Britain I think a councilor or councillor may also counsel. I’m not sure.
Foreigners often don’t realize that “have” in the sense of possession is pronounced H-A-V. While “have” in the sense of “one must” is spelled exactly the same but pronounced differently: H-A-F. As in “I have to do this”.
Similarly, “they’re” means “they are”, while “their” is possessive, but “there” refers to a location. All are pronounced the same.
Many also confuse “revise” with “review”. To revise something is to change it; to review something is to inspect it before revising it. But in Britain “to revise” may also mean “to review”. Again I am not certain. Maybe someone could enlighten me.
Then we have “homogeneous” versus “homogenous”. Homogenous refers to milk. Emphasis is on the second syllable. Homogeneous refers to people. Emphasis is on the third syllable. Even very educated people often confuse these two.
Educated people also often confuse “prescribed” with “proscribed”. Doctors prescribe prescriptions for medicine. Governments proscribe criminals from voting, which means prohibiting them from voting.
Technically, “per cent” is more correct than “percent” but everyone writes it as percent anyway.
Just as technically, the correct way to pronounce “Armageddon” is to emphasize the third syllable, but sometimes informed people will pronounce it as Ar-MAG-eddon, emphasis on the second syllable. The latter way is equally correct but will likely trigger someone to “correct” the pronunciation to the third syllable.
And “pronunciation” is correct while “pronounciation” is not. I often hear even educated people say “pronounciation” which is never correct.
Bad Remakes
Most young people today do not realize that much, or most, of what they see in the form of music and movies is in fact remakes of earlier–and better–versions. What happens is that a very good movie comes out and makes a lot of money and is popular. Then a few years later a remake is issued to try to connect to the same audience and extract more money. . .only it turns out that the new movie is nothing than a poorly made remake. But a new generation is unaware that a better version exists, a version that gets dumped into the memory hole and may entirely vanish, becoming unavailable.
Classic example: in 1938 or thereabouts a movie called Beau Geste was issued. It was quite good, starring Ray Milland, Gary Cooper, and Robert Preston. The idea was from a 1924 novel about English volunteers in the French Foreign Legion in Algeria. The key scene was when all the legionnaires die and their bodies are propped up one by one in their remote fort to give the attacking Arabs the impression that they were still alive and defending the fort. When the cavalry finally come to the rescue no one is left alive but the Arabs never took the fort.
Beau Geste was remade 3 more times, each time worse than the previous movie. Finally in the 1970s a movie came out called The Last Remake of Beau Geste, a comedy version. Now, of course, Arabs can no longer be the universally acknowledged civilizational enemy, so we’ll never see another “Beau Geste”, but I’m quite sure the plot has been reemployed in other shows.
The same thing has happened to all the old Tarzan movies. Young people today have no idea that in the 1950s there were a slew of Tarzan movies set in Africa in “Jungle Theater” or “Dark Continent Theater” on Saturday mornings. Olympic swimming gold medalist Johnny Weismuller starred in the most successful and best-made Tarzan movies in the 1930s. These were the core of Jungle Theater. When he got too old to wear a loincloth, he became Jungle Jim. The Tarzan movies were also remade repeatedly until they had their last gasp in the 1980s. By then it was no longer possible to show African blacks in a subservient role to whites, so the entire genre disappeared, including dozens if not hundreds of movies. The Tarzan books also have been tossed in the dustbin of history, including perhaps 24 Tarzan novels by the great Edgar Rice Burroughs. In the 1920s and 1930s, Tarzan books were a staple reading matter for all young American boys. I still have a complete collection including my father’s collection.
ERB also wrote a dozen Martian sci-fi novels, which were simply great, in fact better than his Tarzan novels. None were ever made into movies until John Carter of Mars. Needless to say, the movie completely ruined the story, transforming an original sci-fi tale into a Cultic anti-white propaganda screed. In this case, the “remake” was trash from the beginning.
Young folks don’t realize that much of their favorite music is also merely remakes of popular–and better–tunes that appeared decades ago. Hollywood simply adds a disco beat to the original tune and re-issues the music to an ignorant public. Pure trash.
And books are not immune to this bad treatment. Older and better books are being systematically removed from Amazon and from libraries or even rewritten. Young people remain entirely unaware that the “classic” they are reading has been bowdlerized, i.e., censored. How would they know since Amazon arbitrarily places impossibly high prices on the original versions and they are nowhere else to be found?
THE SAGA OF JIHAD BUBBA
Jihad Bubba has finally been published by Equus Publishing on Amazon. It has been a long struggle. See below for a series of updates.
NEWS ON EVADING THE CENSORS: After two years of attempting to find some way of evading the censorship imposed by outside organizations, the prior publisher Arktos, after purchasing the rights to JIHAD BUBBA, editing the manuscript, commissioning original artwork for the cover, and after being subjected to still more pressure to censor the book by Ingram, a giant of the publishing industry — reluctantly decided that it cannot publish JIHAD BUBBA after all, not even with the new, innocuous title of Red Pill Bubba. So the censors have won for now. Equus Publishing will publish the book soon with the same cover which Arktos sold to me. Arktos was actually the second publisher of JB; the first publisher wanted to publish it but finally declined on the grounds that “jihad” in the title might get all of their books banned. I did not believe them but that turned out to be prophetic.
NEWS: Several more websites have banned JIHAD BUBBA, but after extensive discussions with Amazon, Amazon has finally approved JIHAD BUBBA by Equus Publishing for sale on its website. The version of JIHAD BUBBA currently on Amazon, however, is from the previous publisher Arktos which reluctantly transferred all rights to JB back to me many months ago. Please do not purchase JIHAD BUBBA until the publisher info on Amazon is corrected to Equus Publishing LLC, ISBN 979-8-9875537-0-1, otherwise you will be buying it from a publisher that no longer owns the title and did not post the page.
LATEST: After several delays, Amazon now says that JB by Equus Publishing will be correctly posted by Feb 27, 2023, and will then be available for purchase with all the correct information. We shall see. . .
Feb 27: Nope, it is still not available and Amazon has now thrown up a new set of obstacles which were not required for any of the many other Equus books on Amazon. No new posting date has been proposed. . .
THE CENSORSHIP SAGA CONTINUES: Yes, as of 3-5-23 Amazon has finally posted JIHAD BUBBA for sale by Equus Publishing. However, Amazon has found yet another way to undermine the book–by continuing to offer an illegal version at a lesser price on an “orphan” page that the prior publisher Arktos did NOT post. Needless to say, Equus sales will be small as long as Amazon continues to offer for sale another version at a lesser price, even though Arktos halted all sales over 14 months ago.
MORE: Amazon categorically states that it will NOT remove the prior publisher’s orphan page, even tho the prior publisher Arktos has unequivocally stated that it did not post this page and will not fill any orders. And even tho Amazon is openly violating my copyright by leaving the orphan page in place. This is illegal, but that is what happens when monopolies take over–there is no legal way to enforce one’s rights when dealing with a monopoly.
INTERMEDIATE NEWS: The prior publisher Arktos has publicly announced that the monopoly distributor Ingram has banned ALL of Arktos’ books due to its publication of JIHAD BUBBA. Now that Arktos has publicly announced its banning I am now free to name Arktos as the previous publisher. Of course we know that Ingram was simply looking for an excuse and JB was the excuse they happened to seize upon. IOW, JIHAD BUBBA was the proximate cause of 340 conservative books by Arktos being banned by Ingram. That is CENSORSHIP in capital letters.
LATEST: March 8: Amazon requested that I submit several pages of detailed information showing that I am the exclusive owner of all rights to JB. I did so, twice now. Amazon stated they would reply within 2 business days.
March 14: It’s been 6 days and no reply from Amazon and the orphan page for JB is still up on Amazon and still offering illegal versions of JB at a low discounted price. I can only suppose that this is similar to “shadow” banning on places like Twitter and other Cultish websites. Underhanded and illegal, an indirect form of censorship, much like YT does when they ban someone but allow third parties to post commercial videos using the banned person’s voice and image. That too is illegal, but good luck trying to get YT to halt the practice. I have emailed Amazon politely reminding them that they said they would reply within 2 days regarding the infringement of my copyright. . .
March 15: Amazon still hasn’t replied. Instead they reduced the asking price for the illegal copy of JB even more, to half the legitimate price, further undermining legitimate sales. I could of course file a lawsuit and win it, which I could do for free since I am an attorney, but the result would be for all my books to be removed. Monopolies like Amazon are like City Hall. One can’t fight City Hall, even if one wins, one still loses.
March 16: After “pulling teeth” and politely lecturing Amazon on their need to comply with copyright law, they have finally conceded and completely removed the “orphan” page which Arktos could not remove because they did not post it. Arktos BTW has been tremendously cooperative and helpful in this matter and I have only the highest respect for them. But after all the struggle and debating, I can’t give Amazon high marks for doing the right thing but at least they did finally comply. The only version of JB posted on Amazon as of today is the Equus version, which is the correct legal version. Considering the widespread online censorship, I wonder how long Amazon will keep it on their site? After all, Ingram banned all of Arktos’ 340 books simply due to offering JB for sale. . .
Prequel to Maalstrom / Selk King is finished
NEWS: I have recently completed the Prequel to Maalstrom, titled Temple of the Double-Sun, a novella of 34,000 words. This work tells the story of the original colonists from Earth as they land on the virgin uninhabited planet Maalstrom with instructions to colonize the planet. Needless to say, things go very wrong. For readers of Maalstrom and The Selk King who were wondering how it all started and why there are occasional remnants of a prior technical civilization, the story Temple of the Double-Sun will answer all your questions.
I expect to shop Temple to sci/fi fantasy magazines. If anything develops–keeping in mind that as a writer I have a certain reputation as an irreverent heretic–I will post the news here. Publishers in the past have signed contracts with me and proceeded to publish several of my books, like Arktos, only to cave to outside pressure and cancel the contracts.
Still, for the full story of my books Maalstrom and The Selk King, it is essential to first read Temple of the Double-Sun when it comes available.
Books I Am Reading & Writing
WHAT I AM CURRENTLY WRITING:
I have begun writing the story that will serve as the first book in my Maalstrom Series. As yet untitled, the story shows how Earth colonists arrived on the alien planet Maalstrom and what happened to them when faced with the almost indescribable impact that the planet has their DNA. For readers of Maalstrom and its sequel, The Selk King, who are looking for the sci-fi element and an explanation of how the later mostly medieval society on Maalstrom evolved from the original Earth colonists, the story I am writing will answer every question. The colonists called themselves Mok-sa.
WHAT I AM CURRENTLY READING:
The Iliad, trans. Alexander Pope (in English). Needs no commentary. If you are not familiar with The Iliad, you are missing one of the main roots of Western Civilization.
Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain. A disappointment. Nothing happens. The most boring story I have read since Jack Kerouac’s On The Road, where again nothing happens. Both are a total waste of time.
Travels With Charley, by Ernest Hemingway (no). Not as much of a disappointment as Huckleberry Finn, but still reads like he just wanted to make some extra money. (My mistake: it was written by John Steinbeck, not Hemingway. Their style is similar and they were both alcoholics, so the mistake was easy. I’m still reading it.)
Empire of the Ants, by Bernard Werber. Rather a tall tale but entertaining and imaginative.
The Lost Centuries, by John Bagot Glubb. Fluent in modern and medieval Arabic, Sir Glubb formerly commanded the Arab Legion of Jordan.
Imperium, by F. P. Yockey. Yockey was “suicided” while under arrest by the FBI in 1960.
Progenie, by Mack Little. A well-written vampire novel.
The Heart of Orthodox Mystery, by William Bush. A convert to Orthodox Christianity. That life is not for me, but it’s a pleasure to see that a life of devotion to faith and mysticism can still happen.
Mussolini’s Intellectuals, by A. James Gregor. A widely neglected aspect of Fascism.
I am also reading an assortment of not-too-difficult stories in Standard Literary Arabic.
More Nonsensical English
There is a sorry tendency of English speakers to say “verbally” when they mean “orally”. It’s standard nomenclature in law school — among people who should know better — to refer to anything pronounced aloud as “verbal”. But anything written in a human language is by definition verbal. Oral, OTOH, means voiced aloud. So people should say “oral” instead of “verbal”.
Similarly, people often write “insure” when they mean “ensure”. These words have quite different meanings. To insure something or someone is to secure an insurance policy or otherwise guarantee the integrity of him or it. Ensure means to support a certain outcome, an entirely different meaning. I often see supposedly educated people say insure when they actually mean ensure.
I also see people say “the XXX” as if to emphasize “the most” or “the only”. English has ample expressions that make it unnecessry to mangle the language by emphasizing the word “THE“.
As long as I’m on the topic of bad expressions: How and when did the contraction “I’d been” and “I’d begun” take the place of “I was”? In narrative prose, it’s better to write out “I had” instead of writing “I’d”. Modern prose seems to suffer from a plague of “I’d”s. Most of the time writers mean to say “I had” but this only introduces the dreaded “had’s” into the text. Almost always it’s better to simply write “I was”. I especially see prose written by engineers littered with “I’d”s. It’s poor writing. Don’t ever write “I’d”. Beware of novels written by engineers. They can’t write. Lawyers too. I had to relearn how to write after I left law school. Engineers should follow my example and learn how to write effective English, discarding what they think they know about language.
And please stop saying “unpacking” as in “Let’s unpack the meaning of this.” Packing and unpacking is for travel cases, not meanings. It’s unfortunately trendy but I don’t give a darn for what’s trendy.
Also, no one should ever say “debunking myths”. Nothing has ever been “debunked” except the notion that the Sun revolves the Earth. Everything else is up for grabs and has not been truly “debunked” and has nothing to do with myths. It’s presumptuous and seeks to push the idea that only the speaker knows anything and the listener nothing. Like unpacking, debunking or debunked is a trite phrase that informs only that the speaker is arrogant and a know-it-all.
This goes hand-in-hand with “conspiracy theory”, which is another phrase that has no meaning except to attempt to communicate that the speaker knows more than God and the listener knows nothing. Everything is a conspiracy, and nothing. When two people decide to buy some illegal marijuana, that’s a conspiracy. So conspiracies are multiple and rampant and found everywhere. The existence of UFOs were dismissed as conspiracy theories for decades until the U.S. military released recordings by U.S. aircraft of actual UFOs. The word conspiracy implies something illegal, yet those who attempt to dismiss political opponents as conspiracy theorists, most of the time there is nothing illegal about the alleged conspiracy, so it by definition cannot be a conspiracy at all.
And no “full stop” or “period”. Putting a period means full stop. There is no need to say “full stop”. It’s redundant and foolish.
Then there is “muh” anything. This is intended to mock the holders of an opinion, but it’s merely bad English.
And “hack” is a technical term that applies to computer hackers doing something illiegal. It has nothing to do with merely improving something. One cannot hack house-cleaning.
No more using “well,…” That too is a trite hackneyed phrase that attempts to lend a non-intellectual ambience to prose. It’s worse than useless, it’s stupid. Just as with “Hmmmm” as if this too imparts some significant meaning to one’s writing. It’s just poor English. Avoid both of these.
Other incredibly stupid phrases: “It’s just who we are!” Oh, please. That’s as stupid and bad and “It is what it is” and “our democracy”. Anyone who uses such phrases is not merely low IQ but presumes that the listener is even more stupid than the person saying such phrases. The U.S. is not a democracy, has never been a democracy, and according to the Constitution is not supposed to be a democracy. And who else can we be except “who we are”? It’s total nonsense and the language of overweening demagogues who hope not to be required to be rational or explain their positions on anything.
Not to mention “supremacy” or “supremacist”. These too are as idiotic as “our democracy”. Supremacy implies denying rights by government authority. No one is doing that, or contemplates doing that, except our current government and its politicians, who are the only people alive who use such terms. All these phrases should be dumped and never used again.
Then there is saying “stormed” when one merely means “protested”. Storming something came from the First World War when German soldiers set up “storm units”. These were equipped with flame throwers, submachine guns, and grenades. If a group of people don’t have flame throwers, submachine guns, and grenades, then they cannot “storm” anything. They are merely engaging in a protest, peaceful or not so peaceful. This word is yet another word whose meaning has been distorted by power-mad irremovable demagogues seeking to ensure their perpetual remaining in power by exciting the populace to believe that some horrendous crisis has occurred, when nothing of the sort has happened.
Finally — tho there truly is no end to the nonsense that is today written or expostulated — there is the phrase “That’s sad”. This phrase is intended to impose individuality on the listener, implying that the listener’s problem is merely that of an individual when perhaps the listener’s issue is also a social issue, or perhaps entirely a social issue. It’s a way of distancing oneself and isolating the listener. And at the same time implying “It’s not my problem or anyone else’s — only yours. Try harder next time.” This phrase denies the reality of social issues and only spreads the American disease of hyper-individuality. There are many possible appropriate responses when someone describes his/her problem. Replying “I feel your pain”, however, is not one of them. Junk this phrase too.
I could keep going, but enough for now.
Nonsensical grammar
“The is a car of George’s.” Though grammatically correct, this makes no sense, We say “The car belongs to George” and we say “Give this car to George”, and “This car was from George”, and we even say “The house of George”, so why don’t we say “This is a car of George”? We don’t say “The house of the Rising Sun’s”, we say “The house of the rising sun.” We can also say “This is one of the cars of George.” So why not say “This is a car of George”?
This ties in with the issue of “It’s” versus “its”. This is another grammatical conundrum. If we say “Ralph’s house”, that makes perfect sense, meaning only “the house of Ralph” (or “the house of Ralph’s” which as I mentioned should be avoided). But if we say “It’s” then this can only be a contraction of “It + is”. The word “its” is employed instead to mean possession as in “its house”, which confuses endless numbers of people, even native speakers who constantly write “it’s” for possessive when no such word exists in the English language in that sense. In theory one can even say “the house of its”, meaning “its house”, but one can never say “the house of it’s” as if one is saying “the house of Ralph’s.” Why not just abandon “its” altogether and simply write “it’s” in all circumstances when possession is intended?
OTOH, why not just abandon ” ‘s ” entirely when referring to possession? And just say “This is the house of George” or “the car of Ralph”. Saying “Ralph’s house” confuses the statement with “Ralph is house”. Or “it’s house” or “the house of it” rather than saying the confusing “its house”. We should reserve ‘s when intending to say “is” (or when speaking poetically making a contraction out of any other word that ends in -s).
But if this is too much, then why not simply throw away the word “its” and starting writing “it’s” whenever possession is intended? If I live long enough I hope to write a book “English for a New American Century” which will propose many such innovations to make English more rational and effective in expression, including writing “n” for “and”, and Greek “theta” for “the”. But it’s not on the front burner.
New York publishers & the PC Cult
The latest news from the mega-corporate monopoly publishing houses in New York City is that they are now requiring a litmus test to be applied to all books they publish. This litmus test is straight from the PC Cult, demanding diversity, equity, and inclusion, which as all independent analysts realize means the exact opposite of what these terms denote, i.e., few whites, legal privileges for special ethnic interest groups, and exclusion of white males. These are applied to the characters of every novel and story. Villains — as has long been the case in Hollywood shows and movies — must almost always be white males, and on occasion white females. This is what NY publishers call “diversity”.
Random House is owned by Advance Publications, a giant publishing conglomerate owned by Donald and Samuel Newhouse. Simon & Schuster is owned by the conglomerate National Amusements which is in turn owned by the even larger media conglomerate Viacom, until recently owned by one man: the late Sumner Redstone. The huge conglomerate Disney owns controlling interests in several other publishers of comic books and science-fiction novels, even if formally not headquartered in NYC. The vast media conglomerate Time-Warner owns DC Comics and movie adaptations of their comics such as Batman.
The six media empires work hand in hand as a virtual monopoly controlling what most of the large publishers — especially those headquartered in NYC — publish. Therefore one should beware of any book published in New York City. When you read a book published in NY, or by any of the many branches of the 6-headed media monopoly, ask yourself: Why did this publishing house publish this story instead of something else? With so many books being written, amounting to well over a million books annually and growing fast, why did a particular publisher publish this book and not one of the many manuscripts that are submitted to them, manuscripts that may vary from the agenda that they push? Their litmus test amounts to the ideology of “progressivism”.
Progressives often call themselves liberals. But there is a profound difference between a progressive and a liberal. A progressive is someone to whom causes are more important than truth, science, or human life. Progressives have no use for written constitutions, the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, private property, or elections. Liberals support all these things. Progressives believe there are no facts, that feelings create facts. Liberals believe in truth and science and the inalienable rights of every human. Progressives are members of a violent fanatical religion which they call Wokeness, which is better understood as a cult, the PC Cult, and require everyone to cave to its false catechism of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, which as mentioned are in reality the exact opposite of what they say. Liberals allow people to choose their own religion and treat people equally.
Equus Publishing is devoted to publishing creative individuals who are actual liberals, and conservatives too. We have no litmus test and reject the conformity pushed by New York publishers and their PC Cult.
Negative people
Avoid negative people, the time-wasters, the doubters, those who want to drag you down to their level so they no longer feel inferior. This is what such people say when they learn you are starting an enterprise of your own:
1) it can’t be done
2) you can’t do it
3) it was beginner’s luck
4) you will fail next year
5) (to others) I helped him succeed
6) I taught him everything he knows
7) we grew up together, we’re old friends!
The Gender Divide
If women run an organization, they hasten to fill it with their female friends just as they rush to join any organization where women are in control. But if men run it, they swiftly put up blocks to keep other men out while admitting women because they may be potential mates. Women look for reasons to include others, they lower entry standards in every organization they dominate, admitting marginally qualified people, and erasing barriers and borders. Women look for reasons to include others. Men look for reasons to exclude others, especially other males. The male hierarchy always want to raise the standards of admission and establish firm borders. That’s masculine nature.
This is why the Establishment and PC Cult seeks to erase national borders. The Cult is dominated by women, as evident in their worship of Mother Earth. And this is why men have no political power in the U.S. or the entire West today.
Every society ever found creates male-only organizations. If they are banned, as male-only orgs are in the US today, then men will set up underground even illicit orgs that emphasize physical stamina, like hunting clubs, or clandestine militias, or they will form street gangs that establish boundaries to keep out the competition. Or they join sports teams that engage in simulated combat against other male sports teams. This is masculine nature.
Men spontaneously form hierarchical organizations, which used to include academia. No longer. Since women came to dominate academia, standards have dropped, borders have become porous, and academic departments are now run by a consensus of superficial conformity. Women thus are allowed to achieve their full potential in modern America. But men will never be able to fulfill their nature until they finally decide to set up male-only political organizations that are of, by, and predominantly for men.
Free Equus Newsletter
More news on Substack
