Speaking Cuntish

Tolkien, of course, is credited with having created an Elvish language, but Brits (at least historically) have been well-known for their ability to speak Cuntish. It’s a way of being polite whilst simultaneously being a bit of a twat.

Here’s a short list of phrases in British Cuntish, together with their rough translations

I will have to think about that : what the fuck is this moron saying?

Bear with me : just fuck off and die, I’ve got better things to do

That’s very interesting : I think I detected my hair growing by 2 microns during your incredibly boring ramble

That’s quite interesting : If I don’t end this conversation right now I’m going to slip into a fucking coma

It’s quite alright : I’m seething with rage

No, really, think nothing of it : if you say that again I’m going to knock your teeth out

I only have a few minor comments : what the hell is this utter shite that I just read?

I might join you later : I’d rather gouge out my eyeballs with a screwdriver than spend time with you

With the greatest respect : If I had the choice between saving an amoeba or you, I’d opt for the amoeba

This kind of “nasty in nice clothing” is, I’m sure, not unique to the British Isles, but it’s a bit of a stereotype we’re saddled with.

Variations in meaning, emphasis, and accent between different nationalities can make for interesting (and fun) conversations.

When my best mate, who’s from the US, asked me to “do him a solid”, I asked whether he’d like peppers in it.

So it’s with some trepidation that I venture opinions about what Trump is supposed to have done or said. For one thing, I don’t live in the US and nor have I been steeped in that culture enough to be able to properly understand the different kinds of nuance and subtle meanings that might naturally occur to a native US person (as opposed to a Native US person). For another, I don’t have a good enough understanding of how the whole system works over there.

One of the biggest charges laid against Trump is that he incited a violent insurrection. The main evidence is taken from a speech he gave (the full transcript of the speech can be read here).

Even with my fabled British ability to speak Cuntish, I’m afraid I just don’t see it. I see fighting talk - which is not the same thing as fighting, or encouraging fighting. It’s the kind of rousing speech a politician would give to his supporters. He’s pissed. He, and his supporters, believed that an election had been stolen. What should they have done about it? Just meekly accepted the results?

The problems with the 2020 US election were manifold and widespread. This much is obvious to even a casual external observer like myself¹. I think it’s true, for example, that at least one state (Pennsylvania is the example Trump gives in his speech) where the requirement of signature verification for postal ballots was dropped for the election.

You what? How anyone concerned with election integrity can justify this is completely beyond me. It’s an extraordinary measure that makes no sense unless you want to open up the possibility of some tinkering with the results.

And this is just one of many red flags accompanying this most dubious of election processes.

All of the various problems and issues identified by Trump’s team have their '“answers” - but it kind of seems like the explanations used to dismiss the safety signals in VAERS. At some point you realize that far too many people have died of “coincidence”. Maybe not all of the claims made by Trump and his supporters were true, but they certainly represented a whole lot of safety signals that I don’t think were analysed in any fair and objective way.

But whether or not Trump and his supporters had any basis for their claim of a stolen election is irrelevant. They have, I believe, the right to protest. To peacefully protest - which is a very different thing to a mostly peaceful protest².

Nowhere in Trump’s speech is there any call for actual violence - unless you have the reading comprehension of an amoeba, or another agenda.

But, but, but, mumble, mumble, mumble, dogs, mumble, mumble, mumble, whistles . . .

Trump was obviously just sending some kind of coded message to his supporters. One positive thing to have come out of suffering TDS is a marked increase in psychic ability. You will now be able to accurately discern hidden meanings and motives in everything an individual says or does.

To call this protest an insurrection has always, in my view, been an utter absurdity.

When someone says they must “fight” the vaccine mandates it’s not generally taken to mean they’re going to be tooling themselves up with machetes and the like, at least not by any reasonable person of sound mind.

But as much as I love the practice of uttering a well-crafted phrase in Cuntish, I think I’ll have to blame the Brits because we’ve buggered everything up. And not by colonialism. If we are responsible for this practice of “trying to appear to be nice”, then we’ve a lot to answer for.

The “populist” woke, as opposed to “academic” woke, is pretty much all predicated on being nice; on not hurting the feelings of others. I know that you’re really a bloke Gerald, sorry Geraldine, and that you have bollocks the size of house bricks with more hair than an Afghan hound, but I really don’t want to hurt your feelings and so I’m going to believe, against every available shred of evidence and reality, that you’re actually a woman.

The “academic” woke don’t really give a shit - they’re just about destabilizing and dismantling everything to achieve some unspecified utopian future of ideological bliss. They’re just your average boring bog-standard revolutionaries with a slightly different lexicon.

Nobody, and I really do mean nobody, deep down in the quiet stillness of their last remaining vestiges of sanity, really believes that Gerald is a woman.

But the world in which men can be women, and vice versa, is the same upside-down world in which identifying a threat to democracy (an unfair election is a threat to democracy) is itself a threat to democracy.

There are some very disturbing trends to be seen in the legal systems all across the world. I read too many substacks and so I can’t remember them all, but in so many places there seem to be concerted efforts to criminalize dissent. Trump’s various indictments are just a few entries on a worryingly long list. One judge in Germany, for example, has recently been found guilty of not indulging in monothink for ruling against mask mandates³. The prosecution argued for a three-year jail sentence, he was originally given a two-year sentence, but this has since been reduced to probation.

After the government found out about his appalling inability to engage in the new normal of monothink, they confiscated his phone. Think about that for a moment. This is before any trial process had gotten underway.

There are lots of examples of similar proceedings against those who reject monothink.

In this new normal world of monothink that we’re fast heading towards we’re probably all going to have to learn how to speak Cuntish, to hide our true feelings from our lords and masters.

1. I once worked on an EU-funded project for secure electronic voting, so I had to acquaint myself with the various security issues involved in elections. My role in the project was to work on any crypto and PKI techniques that might be necessary. They’re not easy things to properly secure. Postal votes can be made “reasonably” secure, but they require a lot of additional measures and checks to be in place (not to mention the extra time) to achieve anything like a sufficient level of security. In my view, the postal vote in the US 2020 election did not come close to meeting even the most basic security requirements.

2. A mostly peaceful protest involves copious amounts of arson, violence and looting. You can call for the dismantling of the entire system during these protests without being thought of as an insurrectionist. If you call for the dismantling of a specific election result - then, boy oh boy, are you the new Osama Bin Laden.

3. Technically, it was argued he acted outside of his jurisdiction. But this is just the usual Trojan Horse framing - like internet censorship being about protecting kids from online harm.