My writing is a reflection of my personality: fiercely independent and a little quirky. Though I’m proud of my writing, I’ve had no formal training, and I’ve picked up a few bad habits along the way.
I greatly appreciate any and all tips I receive from my editors, book cover designers, promoters, and readers. More important, I implement many suggestions.
Nevertheless, I still cling to a few conventions some people might find a little odd. Below are some notes that might help you better understand my writing.
I have a couple spelling questions that pertain primarily to my books about symbols.
I was the first to develop a classification system that divides symbols into three broad categories, which I call symbols of state, ecosymbols, and political symbols. One of my editors suggested that I change ecosymbols to “eco symbols.”
That’s a good tip, one I’m still pondering. For the time being, however, I’m sticking with ecosymbols. It may not be a real word, but neither is “eco.”
The prefix eco is typically combined with words (e.g. ecobiotic, ecosystem). In summary, ecosymbol is a word I coined specifically for my symbols classification scheme.
I’ve also been advised to change “mottoes” to “mottos.” However, I discovered that both are acceptable spellings. In fact, Merriam-Webster lists mottoes first.
Both forms are used in book titles. I haven’t done a definitive study, but a cursory examination suggests that “mottoes” is most frequently used in the titles of books about mottoes.
For better or worse, I have “mottoes” burned into my brain, and it appears that other people who have written about mottoes are on the same page. So, I’m sticking with mottoes.
There’s no disagreement on the proper spelling of designated, but should it be followed by as? Consider the following sentences:
- The bison was designated Wyoming’s state mammal.
- The bison was designated as Wyoming’s state mammal.
I’ve always followed the first example, but I was advised to add as. A cursory search suggests the the second example is more commonly used. However, #1 is quite popular as well.
Though I’m not an expert on grammar, the first example seems more intuitive to me. The word as just seems redundant.
This is another convention that’s burned into my brain, so I decided to stick with it.
Finally, I’ve been dinged for displaying the names of symbols in bold, colored text (e.g. bison). I’m not sure if that’s a good convention or not. Let me put it in perspective with the following sentences.
- The white-tailed deer is Michigan’s official game mammal.
- The white-tailed deer is Mississippi’s official land mammal.
- The king salmon is Alaska’s state fish.
- The Chinook salmon is Oregon’s state fish.
My convention addresses two problems.
First, the sheer number of state symbols is overwhelming. I think bold text helps people navigate through the text.
Second, different states may adopt the same species, giving it different titles. The white-tailed deer, for example, has been designated the state mammal and animal, in addition to the titles listed above.
In addition, various legal designations may cite a symbol by a different common name. “King salmon” and “Chinook salmon” are different names for the same species, for example.
In summary, I think my convention makes it a little easier focus on the main points while browsing through my books. But I’ll have to wait until my books are published and get some feedback.
Novel Spelling ˆ
I love to play with creative spellings and have also coined a number of terms.
One word you’ll encounter very frequently in my writing is politix. Most people think it’s just a silly, frivolous variation of politics.
In fact, the two words are largely synonymous. However, politics ofter refers specifically to government. I like politix because it has a broader meaning, including workplace politics, family politics, etc.
I also like politix just because it’s different and forces people to stop and think. Finally, politix helps promote my Introduction to Politix series, beginning with Politix 101.
Another word I coined is Jewarchy, which can be defined as excessive Jewish power and corruption. Instead of calling people who criticize Jews racists or “anti-Semites” (both ridiculous terms, since Jews do not constitute a race, and most Jews aren’t Semites), you can now call them anti-Jewarchists. (A person who hates all Jews is anti-Jew.)
Jewarchy.com is currently my second most popular website, by the way.
What do you think about the phrase “general consensus”?
Someone suggest it should just be consensus.
However, there can be different kinds of consensuses. Farmers may reach a consensus on the weather forecast, while urbanites may have a different consensus. There are authentic consensuses, and there are also phony consensuses, like the the bogus claim that there’s a scientific consensus that genetically modified food has no adverse health effects.
Consider the following sentences.
- There’s a consensus that the U.S. government is controlled by Jews.
- There’s a general consensus that the U.S. government is controlled by Jews.
To me, the first sentence sounds a little too rigid. It suggests that someone conducted an official survey of every U.S. citizen (or of members of some important organization) and discovered that the majority think the U.S. government is controlled by Jews.
The second sentence is a more casual observation. It suggests that many ordinary U.S. citizens think the U.S. government is corrupt, even though a survey of politicians would reveal a very different consensus.
In my book What Is Conspiracy?, I wrote that only a moron would claim that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were not the result of a conspiracy.
One of my editors complained that I didn’t offer enough information to support that conclusion. At the same time, I rudely offended any readers who might not think it was a conspiracy.
Similarly, I was criticized for dissing people like Bill Gates, George W. Bush, and Obama, along with Jews. What about all the people who support those scumbags? What makes me smarter than them?
Starting at square one, an author needs to have some idea of who his audience is. A good author might also have certain goals.
My goal is to educate people and stir up anger at the corrupt socio-political system that’s killing us.
Unfortunately, I can’t know precisely who my audience is. However, most of my books are pretty provocative and very distinctive. In addition, I’m up front in warning people that I call a spade a spade and tackle even the most taboo topics.
Therefore, I assume most readers should be prepared for some abrasive content. At the same time, it should be clear that I consider myself at least a relative expert on the subjects I choose to write about.
If I purchased a book about pigeons, I would assume the author knows something about pigeons. I would never promote myself as an expert on pigeons, because I’m not.
I am, however, an expert on conspiracy and conspiracy theory. Would I call my primary reference Conspiracy Science if I didn’t have a clue about what I’m talking about? I’m the guy who ventured out of Plato’s cave and discovered reality.
In short, there’s a fine line between self-confidence and arrogance. I speak out boldly but carefully, though I still make occasional mistakes, like everyone.
Elsewhere on this site, I explained how I once thought of myself as a liberal, supported the Democrats, and thought the Soviet Union might have been a worthy experiment in socialism. Today, I hate the Democrats, and I’m not particularly enamored of American liberals in general. Though I don’t hate communism, I think the Soviet Union was a pretty scary country, and I hate Joseph Stalin far more than Adolf Hitler.
So I am willing to admit my mistakes and modify my beliefs according. But I also give myself credit where credit’s due. In that spirit, I’m only half joking when I call myself Seattle’s only activist. (Can you name any other reputable activists in this degenerate city?) Similarly, the claim that Conspiracy Science is the best book about conspiracy is my honest opinion. Wait until it is published, then tell me if you can name any other books about conspiracy that contain as many revelations.
I guess the key word is balance. An author should ideally be an expert on the subject he writes about without being too cocky. However, the extraordinary stupidity of the American people makes it hard not to be a little arrogant sometimes. In fact, my target audience probably includes less than five percent of U.S. citizens. I write largely for people in other countries and hope to get some of my books published in languages other than English.
If you’re one of the relatively few Americans who can understand and appreciate my books, welcome aboard. I suspect, you won’t consider me arrogant at all.
My political books are not for people who are thin-skinned. I believe in good and evil, and I don’t treat the latter with respect.
As far as I’m concerned, there are very few authentic reporters or journalists in the U.S. I call’em what they are—media whores. I also like the term corporate whore.
Nor do I follow the flock in feeling pity for the Jews who are waging a genocidal war against Palestinians while collecting their Holocaust welfare checks.
I hope Bill Gates and Hillary Clinton die horrible, painful deaths. I do not support the troops, and I pray that China one days crushes our military. I’d love to see the Pentagon and Wall Street blown up, and I pray for the day that Israel is erased from the map.
The slogan “Fuck the Troops” might sound too sleazy to mention, but is it any worse than the countless thousands of people who have been raped, tortured, and killed by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya? What about the estimated half million Iraqi children who starved to death due to U.S. sanctions even before the U.S. military invaded their country?
Personally, I think chanting “Fuck the Troops” is a helluva lot nobler than sitting on one’s butt doing nothing while the U.S. goes on yet another killing spree. It’s called existentialism.
I discuss civility under political beliefs. If you still don’t get it, don’t buy my books. If you want to read some mushy feel-good book, try Hillary Clinton’s opus It Takes a Village, Obama’s monument to bullshit The Audacity of Hope, or any of the books that describe Bill Gates as the second coming of Jesus Christ.
“Any book worth banning is a book worth reading.” — Isaac Asimov