Category Archives: Language

It’s Steen, Not Stine!

Posted on by
8

When I was a kid there was a running joke in popular culture about Jews with surnames ending in “stein” who insisted on using the pronunciation “steen” — as if “Goldsteen” somehow sounded less Jewish than “Goldstine”. It never made sense to me, but that’s what they did.

The video below features Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the founder and leader of the hard-left party La France Insoumise (commonly rendered in English as “France Unbowed”) elaborating on the same issue as it concerns the name of Jeffrey Epstein. It’s hard to overestimate the amount of Jew-hatred in French public culture, so I have no doubt that Mr. Mélenchon was digging at the Jews in his remarks.

Many thanks to Gary Fouse for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

To lighten up this grim topic, here’s a brief excerpt from the movie Young Frankenstein that riffs on the “Frankenstine” vs. “Frankensteen” issue. The clip features two Jews, Marty Feldman and Gene Wilder, subtly mocking Jewish social anxiety as expressed in the pronunciation of names. I guess they must be anti-Semites, right?

The following article from the French news channel CNews, also translated by Gary Fouse, reports on the antics of Jean-Luc Mélenchon:

“Say Epsteen, not Epstine…” Jean-Luc Mélenchon accused of anti-Semitism after a comment about the name of the American pedophile-criminal.

February 27, 2026

At a rally on Thursday evening in Lyon, Jean-Luc Mélenchon invoked the Epstein affair in playing on the pronunciation of the name of the American pedophile criminal, who was of the Jewish faith. A comment that has provoked the ire of the political class, first and foremost Aurore Bergé, who has accused the leader of La France Insoumise of anti-Semitism.

A comment with a nauseating stench. While the LFI is being criticized by the entire political class for distancing itself from the Jeune Garde movement after the death of the militant Quentin Deranque, a new controversy is brewing since Thursday evening after the remarks of Jean-Luc Mélenchon. In Lyon to lend his support to the top-of-the-list LFI candidate Anaïs Belouassa-Cherifi, the LFI leader held a rally in the Gaul capital. An opportunity for Jean-Luc Mélenchon to bring up the supposed media silence on the Epstein affair.

Referring to the investigative work of France Info journalists in judicial affairs, Jean-Luc Mélenchon deplored the supposed violation of “the secret of investigation”. “Except when it concerns the Epstein affair”, he immediately corrected himself, emphasizing the ending of the financier’s last name.

“Ah… I meant Epsteen, pardon me, that sounds more Russian, ‘Epsteen’. So now you say, ‘Epsteen’ instead of ‘Epstine’. ‘Frankensteen’ instead of ‘Frankenstine’! And there you have it, everyone understands how it must be said. You can all progress,” declared the three-time presidential candidate.

Continue reading →

The Dialectics of the Imposed Narrative

Posted on by
Reply

Vlad has posted an excellent essay about the dialectical methods used in the information war by globalist communists (which may be a redundancy) to manipulate the masses. Below is a lightly edited version of his introduction.

Attempting a teleological analysis of various narrative attacks on the West and their consequences: Moving from outrage to analysis

by Eeyore for Vlad Tepes

1. This site uses the term dialectics a lot. We also often state that it does not mean hypocrisy, or selective enforcement. It means a grand strategy to take down Western civilization by a very specific means of steering media and what people think to create a reaction, or a process. More specifically to get an end goal that is nearly NEVER stated by what people mistake for information. It is what we are told is intended to DO rather than what the material we are told MEANS.

During Covid, this was bare naked to us all. No science was presented, only material intended to create mass conformity to dangerous and irrational policies. The total loss of all individual rights to the point where citizens who did not know each other felt comfortable accusing each other of crimes against the collective for even questioning state narratives on Covid or the state measures as a ‘result’ of Covid.

I put ‘result’ in scare quotes because it was actually the purpose. It never had anything to do with a pandemic.

This requires a teleological approach. Looking at the trajectory of EVENTS given an informational input.

In the simplest terms, let’s say you want to do great harm to a population. You launch a narrative attack on that population that either appeals to their fears so that they adopt an emergency behaviour that is deleterious to them, or you appeal to their desires. A perfect sex robot for men that will drastically reduce the number of babies born and heterosexual relationships. These are just a couple of random examples off the top of my head, both of which are happening or happened, but there are likely even better exemplars out there.

All of this is because the following simple meme must be seen in this light if any progress is to be made.

Continue reading →

The Normanization of the English

Posted on by

I moved to England with my parents in the summer of 1966, in the midst of the novocentenary of the Battle of Hastings. Talk of 1066 was in the air all over England at the time — there were stories on TV and posters featuring the Bayeux Tapestry on the walls of the London Underground, with calendars of upcoming Hastings-related events posted everywhere.

Today happens to be the 959th anniversary of the death of King Harold Godwinson and the defeat of the English army at the Battle of Hastings. The common name for the battle is actually inappropriate, given that Hastings is about seven miles away from where King Harold fell. However, since the official cartographic name of the location is now Battle, the event would have to be designated the “Battle of Battle”, which is hardly euphonious. So Hastings it is.

At the time of his death Harold had been king for only a brief time, having ascended to the throne following the death of King Edward the Confessor earlier that year. The new king had had to contend with multiple rival claimants to the throne, one of whom — King Harald Hardrada of Norway — he had defeated less than a month previously in a major battle at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire. The throne was also claimed by William, Duke of Normandy, who landed at Pevensey in Sussex while the King was still up north. Harald was compelled to ride hard for the south, gathering forces on the way, and arrived at the site of the battle with a travel-weary army — not an auspicious condition in which to confront a formidable Norman foe.

The English army was made up entirely of infantry, while Duke William’s forces — consisting of Breton, French, and Flemish troops in addition to the Normans — included large contingents of cavalry and archers as well as infantry. On October 14th the English formed a shield wall at the crest of Senlac Ridge and resisted several assaults by Norman cavalry supported by archers. If Harold’s men had maintained a strictly defensive posture, the outcome of the battle might have been different. As it was, the English elected to pursue the Normans when the latter retreated down the hill, which gave William’s cavalry the opportunity to break through the English lines. In the ensuing carnage King Harold and both his brothers were killed.

Harold is commonly said to have been killed by an arrow to the eye. However, the traditional account is not well-attested, and it is possible that the arrow shown in the Bayeux Tapestry was added during the repair of the tapestry in the 19th century to accord with that tradition. There are conflicting accounts of the battle asserting that the King was lanced and dismembered.

In any case, Harold’s death marked the end of Anglo-Saxon rule in England: he was the last Anglo-Saxon king. Duke William was crowned King of England soon after the battle, beginning the era of Norman French rule in England.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The ancestors of Duke William were Norsemen who ravaged northern France until they were granted domains in what is now Normandy by the king of West Francia. The Viking newcomers settled down, converted to Christianity, intermarried with the locals, adopted the customs and culture of their neighbors, and abandoned the Norse language to speak a dialect of French. However, they retained the vigor and martial tendencies of their Scandinavian ancestors, and became the most formidable political force in Western Europe in the early part of the second millennium.

Duke William and his subordinates carried that same cultural vigor to England when he became King. The big shakeup was at the upper levels of the feudal hierarchy — the surviving major English noblemen were evicted from their estates so that William could reward his loyal soldiers with their own domains. French became the language of the royal court and the law courts. Norman law — which was ultimately derived from Roman law — became the law of the land.

But that was at the top. Commoners were still subject to English Common Law, with its jury trials and the other practices that have come down to us today. Life for yeomen and peasants remained relatively unchanged — the main difference was that they had to pay taxes and swear fealty to their new French-speaking liege lords.

And, while their betters were conversing in Norman French, Anglo-Saxon commoners still spoke their various dialects of Old English among themselves. Unfortunately, however, their language became marginalized when it was no longer used by aristocrats and clerics. Written English did not disappear, but it was no longer widespread. As a result, the spoken language mutated relatively quickly.

Continue reading →