• , whose semi-recent note repost inspired this article to begin with;

• (then ), who thereunder good-naturedly elucidated how I am commonly known by most of my mutuals;

• , who showed interest in the proposition under the same thread;

• and everyone else at least mildly curious enough to read this post.

Most of you have recently made it clear you have been rather confused on exactly what to call me, given that most of you cannot read Runic script (or written Afrikaans in general, for that matter). As such, I have written this post in the hopes of addressing and resolving this matter once and for all… while shamelessly advertising my own complete and total spergout very accessible and easy-to-follow academic handiwork.

(It’s pronounced /'bulu fän 'bulufɔntɛin/, but humour me please.)

The Four Runerows

My adaptation of the Runic script to the Afrikaans language was a personal passion-project that I completed and shared to a dedicated Afrikaans-language Telegram channel about a year ago. The most prominent fruit of this is of course my display name, which has (to my relative amusement) enraged more than a few energumens in my time. The experience has proven to me that the power of the Runes is not exclusive to those egregores possessing the like, but derives (as all things do) from that of the Lord who conferred them upon the Sons of Tuisto by Providence. But, I digress…

For those unfamiliar—as most of those to whom this post is addressed are—the Futhorc is the specific subset of the Runic script used to write Old English and Old Frisian throughout most of the Middle Ages until the advent of the printing press; they are thus also known as the “Anglo-Frisian” runes. There are two reasons I chose this particular set as the one to adapt to my mother tongue:

1. Firstly, because of the much closer genetic relation of Afrikaners to Ingvaeones than Nordics (who comprise the other main Germanic people to continue using runic letters extensively). Aside from much of Frisia and the former Hanseatic League remaining part of the Netherlands today (and men from other parts of the former League settling in the Cape under Dutch rule as free citizens), the Anglo-Saxon settlement in the Netherlands during the Early Middle Ages also entrenches an aspect of that heritage within our blood from the appropriate time period.

2. Secondly, because the Futhorc features the largest number of distinct runes, and in fact most of these map very neatly onto the phonology of Afrikaans when their names are translated. The few exceptions that are easily reworked by means of phono-semantic matching—and, in two particular cases where their original phonemes are not native to Afrikaans, using the NATO phonetic alphabet names for their Latin counterparts. (And these two actually fit uniquely well to an Afrikaans context!)

So, without further ado, allow me to share my work, translated for your reading pleasure:

Being a standardised Istvaeonic language, Afrikaans orthography is largely based on that of Dutch—although the accent and inflection today is much clearer and more conservative than the bizarre “Franco-American” gargled slurring popular in the Netherlands today.

The difference between Doring and Dag is grammatical: Doring is mainly used after a long vowel, for a D or T that disappears in certain inflections, and in the suffix -de/-te that converts an adjective into a noun (cognate to English -th).

As I suspect most of you are not familiar with Afrikaans grammar or orthography regardless, even in Latin script, I will also publish another piece of my own work hereafter for those interested—which I already wrote in English originally, and thus will largely just copy-paste as appropriate.

Numeral Values

As mentioned before, I calqued most of the rune names from Old English, otherwise phono-sematically matching where possible (e.g. Eland ‘African elk’ for Eoh ‘horse’), creating a new name to fit it if no original one is known, or using the NATOPA name for altogether foreign sounds.

Aside from representing the phonemes corresponding to the primary sound in their names, I also assigned each rune a numeral value using a system largely based off of that present in Greek and Hebrew: the first nine letters represent numbers 1–9; the second nine consecutively multiply these by ten; the third nine, by one hundred. However, the fourth series represent no specific number, simply being suffixed to a preceding rune to multiply the same by the next power of ten otherwise not able to be represented.

For example: Oor multiplies the preceding value by a thousand; Euwel, by a million; Gholf, a billion; and so on. (Entjie is the only one that breaks this norm, representing zero despite Ouer being the last letter of the standard alphabet).

Aside from the above specification, the standard numeral order places the units before the tens while otherwise following Indo-Arabic order so as to reflect linguistic numerals; thus, 273 would be represented as Man-Doring-Son, or 200+3+70, mirroring tweehonderd drie-en-sewentig.

And yes, I specify this to emphasize that you can’t use them for gay Jewish pagan occult nigger shit like gematria. Because occultism is gay, Jewish and pagan nigger shit. (But I repeat myself…)

In my previous short essay I laid down the formal distinctions between countries, states, peoples, nations, and tribes as can be meaningfully applied to anthropological and political discourse in the modern day. Here, I seek to expand on an aspect of the anthropological element: namely, the proper designations of different peoples, nations and tribes within the context of a given country or region.

Ab Origine - From The Beginning

Aside from the tribal peoples of Australia excluding the Torres Strait, Basques and Dravidians are both also formally considered aboriginal to their respective regions—predating respective Italo-Celtic and Indo-Aryan expansions into the same. It thus essentially refers to the earliest-known extant peoples of a given region.

Indigena - Inbegotten

The term ‘indigene’ is often (but not always) used in a broader sense than ‘aborigine,’ as in the case of the distinction between ‘Aboriginal’ and ‘Indigenous’ Australians: the latter also includes peoples of the Torres Strait Islands, an ethnically distinct group who only migrated into the region far later than the Aborigines. The term ‘Indigenous’ (or ‘Indian’, in this case retroactively folk-etymologizable to derive from the first morpheme) is often used to refer to the collective extant pre-colonial inhabitants of the Americas—although recent genetic studies indicate that some may have settled the New World far later than others, permitting the distinction between ‘aborigine’ and ‘indigene’ to remain somewhat relevant.

Combining this distinction with the etymology of the word itself, it thus refers to any group of people whose earliest-known heritage is tied to a given area irrespective of any known predecessors there. Indo-Europeans would thus qualify as mutually-related Indigenous (though not Aboriginal) peoples of the European Peninsula and Indian Subcontinent, as our various ethnogenesis myths (both pre- and post-Christianization) consistently describe expansions into the area from an external origin, usually eastern in a European context—a narrative strongly corroborated by recent archaeology and genetic studies, which point to the rapid spread of the first horse-riders from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe across much of Western Eurasia together with their language.

This is known as the Kurgan Hypothesis, and per the definitions provided in this essay it indicates that Postcolonial nations today are ourselves the potential ancestors of future Indigenous peoples in our developed homelands—the seed that shall beget them therein.

Nativus - Born

The word ‘native’ is perhaps the broadest of the three in meaning, and is also used somewhat synonymously with either (akin to the distinction between peoples, nations and tribes). While commonly used in the modern day to describe any individual born within the jurisdiction of a given country or state irrespective of their actual national heritage, it traditionally refers to any member of a given nation irrespective of such aforementioned legalities. There is a very obvious dichotomy between these two formally-accepted definitions, which tends the word itself towards ambiguity today; however, given the concept of birthright citizenship (as distinct from nationality), the former and newer definition could be wholly replaced with ‘citizen,’ or even ‘denizen’—based on that term’s former legal usage in historical context to refer to foreigners granted certain rights in their adopted country—leaving the latter as an umbrella term for Aborigines, Indigenes, and Postcolonials in the context of contemporary ethnology. The word ‘native’ therefore necessarily assumes an established national heritage, connecting it firmly and fully to the concept of a nation from whence it originally derives.

Conclusion

A series of examples that can be drawn from the definitions provided above, aside from the aforementioned examples of Australia:

Aborigines

• Amerinds (some)

• Basques

• Dravidians

• Jōmon (Ainu/Okinawan)

Indigenes

• Amerinds (some)

• Indo-Europeans

• Inuits

• Yayoi (Yamato/Okinawan)

Natives

• Afrikaners

• Black Americans

• Colonial Stock Americans

• Ulster Scots

The above categories imply that the process of ‘nativisation’ takes around three hundred years on average, and ‘indigenisation’ around one thousand years. A hypothetical ‘aboriginisation’ would not have any timeframe given to it, due to the strict definition of aborigines as any extant peoples predating later indigenes and natives.

It is often easy in today’s world to confuse some of these titular concepts with each other in political discourse, where terms are vaguely and often circularly defined even within dictionaries; it is also increasingly common among a certain class of people to consider some of these outdated or defunct. However, they each have traditionally been understood to have a distinct and neutral meaning (even as the same are nonetheless closely related to each other), and so it is prudent to clarify these to allow meaningful discussion to take place. This essay will draw on a wide range of historical examples and sources as a reference point for identifying distinct and consistent definitions of the terms as used across different contexts, and demonstrate how to meaningfully apply these in a modern context.

Terra Contrata - The Land Set Before Us

It is obvious to native speakers of modern English and Romance languages that the word ‘country’ and its cognates refer specifically to territory, especially human-inhabited territory distinct from major urban settlements. The origin of the term is Vulgar Latin (terra) contrāta, meaning ‘foreset (land)’, in the sense of being set before those who live upon it.1 This generally unambiguous meaning and logic allows it to serve as a good reference point for establishing definitions for the remaining terms as relate to it.

Natio - That Which Birthed Us; That Which We Birth

It is first in Cicero’s works that the word ‘nation’2 is used to describe a distinct identity shared by a people united by common descent and heritage, as manifest via shared culture and country—whereas, by contrast, ‘people’ is used more for any group of human beings who may form said nation alongside others of related origin. A member of a given nation is thus called a ‘native’ (the proper distinction between ‘native,’ ‘indigene’ and ‘aborigine’ is a matter for another essay).

As a contemporary example, compare the American and Afrikaner nations (which may also be understood as distinct peoples) with the broader Germanic people—which, given its internal diversity, may no longer be considered a single nation in modernity—to which both primarily belong, especially as concerns their Old Stock. In this capacity, these words are respectively synonymous with ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’ in modern jargon.

Status - What We Set Up For Ourselves

The ‘state’ refers to the established law and government of a given country, as set up among the occupant people/s. It is historically understood to be most stable when reserved for one, particular, given nation who founded the same, due to the entrenched shared understanding that the people thereof will naturally possess amongst themselves from their common culture and heritage (which serve as the basis for the form and structure of the state).

At times, nations of similar cultures and heritage may consolidate into a new one if they occupy the same state or directly neighbouring ones, especially if there is already so much co-operation between them to the point they have become functionally indistinguishable: two major examples from Antiquity and early Modernity would the assimilation of the ancient Saxons into the German, Dutch and English nations and those descended from these, as well as that of Huguenot refugees into the peoples among whom they settled after fleeing persecution in France (such as Afrikaners and Britons).

Tribus - The Three Roots

The word ‘tribe’ is a direct derivative of the Latin word for “three” attached to the root of fīō ‘become, grow’3, after the three founding houses of Ancient Rome from whence her various original gentes descended—although several other tribes would come to emerge among the Romans over time. They would likewise come to apply this term by analogy to the Celtic and Germanic peoples who neighboured them to the North and West,4 and therefore it is essentially synonymous to the Gaelic ‘clan’ in that it refers to various different peoples that consolidate or assimilate into a single larger nation, as per the example of the Huguenots given above.5

Further examples are frequent in all modern nations:

• The ethnic Britons are a consolidation of various Angle, Saxon, and Jute tribes, Celtic clans, Viking colonists, Norman gentry and Huguenot artisans in varying shares depending on feudal caste and native county, though the Industrial Revolution has gradually diminished these socio-genetic distinctions somewhat (despite enduring regionalist sensibilities);

• The White Americans, likewise, are a broad confederation of various historical ‘tribes’ (WASP, Cajun, Amish, etc.) even if only some of these have an enduring distinct sub-identity in any meaningful sense today—WASPs themselves historically comprised thirteen broad tribes corresponding to the thirteen colonies at the time of their country’s founding, but these themselves were morphed and expanded prior and after from the Pilgrims to the various Southrons (especially during and after the Confederacy).

We Afrikaners ourselves are a hybrid of mainly Dutch, Huguenot, Spanish and Scandinavian ‘tribes’ formed from the privilege of a far more complete isolation from our ethnic brethren in Europe than the Americans historically enjoyed (as most immigrants assimilated into the later British-colonial stock6, since they had access to sea ports); though socioeconomic and cultural differences are likewise far diminished outside traditional regional lines (Northern and Western Cape, Free State, Transvaal), the distinctions of our surnames still serve as an active reminder of this history of consolidation—and by extension, of our distinct identity from our Anglo-African neighbours and non-colonist European brethren.

This being said, liberal Afrikaners are generally considered by we of their more conservative brethren to be culturally indistinguishable from Anglo-Africans7, who are usually of the same political slant. This usually gets ascribed to the distinctly Anglo-Saxon character and origin of liberalism in Africa (or perhaps the traditionally more liberal character of Anglo-Africans, although the degree to which this distinction is meaningful is a separate discussion).

Conclusion

Whereas the concepts of a country, a nation, a state, and a people are generally less ambiguous in their proper usage and application, that of a tribe is uniquely fluid, as tribes are themselves born of much smaller and more fluid social climates than nations. Both nations and tribes fall under the broader category of ‘peoples,’ in such a manner that nations are generally constituted of multiple interrelated tribes uniting under a shared banner—but the number and nature of tribes within or without a broader nation are significantly more mutable in practice than that of a nation. A tribe is the default state of human society in the wild, but it is not the most stable, and being so unstable it is inevitable for tribes that consolidate into nations to become more internally cohesive in that capacity, absorbing or displacing neighbouring tribes.

It’s based on the (surprisingly political) history of typography, and the (perhaps less surprisingly political) complications surrounding typeface classification—I know that sounds incredibly dull, but hear me out! There’s (prudishly racist) dark elves based on Blackletter type, (equally shitlibby) light elves, (normie-coded) hobbits, (Wigger-coded) dwarrows (or “dwarfs” if you’re a pleb) and (Gypsy-coded) fauns all based on different styles of Roman type, various mutant freaks hybrid races based on sans-serif type, and more!

Suffice to say, everything is specifically and only based on pre-digital typefaces, so nothing made by some third-worlder or ghetto-dwelling wannabe with a computer will feature here. (That being said I’d kek at a certain someone inevitably trying to ChatGPT an “erm actually we niggers REALLY invented the printing press” argument into existence to shoehorn themselves somehow.)

If this sounds up your alley, I’ve set up a separate publication for it. I’ll try to update weekly or bi-weekly if I can with new lore, so stay tuned. (And if you happen to be well versed in typography or D&D, feel free to DM me with ideas. I’d like this to be able to take off as a legit brand or IP.)

We hold these truths to be self-shown:

• That all men are shaped even, that they are gifted by their Shaper with sundry unforgoworthy Rights;

• That among these are Life, Freedom, and the seeking of Happiness;

• That to ward these rights, Wields are set up among Men, drawing their rightful mights from the yeasaying of the wielded;

• That whenever any Shape of Wield becomes marring of these ends, it is the Right of the Folk to shift or do away with it, and to set up new Wield, laying its ground on such lodestars and laying out its mights in such shape as shall seem to them most likely to bring about their sickerness and gladness.

Forethought, indeed, will bid that Wields long grounded should not be shifted on slight and fleeting grounds—and so all undergoing hath shown, that mankind are more minded to bear, while ills are bearworthy, than to right themselves by doing away with the shapes to which they are wont. But when a long string of misdeeds and wrongful takings, following ever the same Goal, shows an ends to bring them down under utter Thraldom, it is their right, it is their bounden errand, to cast off such Wield, and to set up new Wards for their coming sickerness. Such has been the long tholing of these Outsettlings; and such is now the need that binds them to shift their former Frames of Wield. The tale of the now-wielding King of Great Britain is a tale of harms and wrongful takings-away done again and again, all set straight at the setting up of an utter Thraldom over these Lands. To show this, let Sooths be laid before an open-hearted world.

He has withheld his Yeasaying to Laws, the most healthful and needful for the mean weal.

He has forbidden his Stewards to make Laws of speedy and weighty needfulness, unless stayed in their working till his Yeasaying should be gotten; and when so stayed, he has wholly overlooked to heed them.

He has withheld frok making other Laws for the eathe of great stretches of folk, unless those folk would give up the right of stead-standing in the Lawmoot, a right most dear to them and dreadful to thrall-lords only.

He has called together Lawmoots at unwonted, uneathy stows, far from the keeping-place of their mean Writs, for the only end of wearying them into yielding to his redes.

He has broken up Folkmoots again and again, for withstanding with manly steadfastness his onfalls upon the rights of the folk.

He has withheld for a long while, after such breakings-up, from having others chosen; whereby the Lawmaking mights, not to be brought to naught, have gone back to the Folk at large for their wielding; the Land meanwhile lying open to all the threats of onfall from outside, and upheavals within.

He has striven to hinder the folk-filling of these Lands; for that end blocking the Laws for the in-folking of Outlanders; withholding from making others to hearten their faring hither, and making the winning of new Land-takings harder.

He has blocked the Wielding of Doom, by withholding his Yeasaying to Laws for setting up Doom-mights.

He has made Doomsmen beholden to his Will only, for the holding of their steads, and the mete and telling of their earnings.

He has set up a dright of new Steads, and sent hither swarms of Stead-men to vex our folk, and eat up their goods.

He has kept among us, in times of frith, Standing Drights without the yeasaying of our Lawmoots.

He has striven to make the Wyedright onestanding from and higher than the Landfolk-might.

He has banded with others to put us under a doom-reach fromed to our ground-law, and unowned by our laws; giving his Yeasaying to their Deeds of swikeful Lawmaking:

For Housing great bands of weaponed drights among us:

For shielding them, by a swikeful Doom, from witing for whatever Manslayings they should do upon the Dwellers of these Lands:

For cutting off our Chaffer with all doles of the world:

For laying Scots upon us without our yeasaying:

For bereaving us in many happenings of the boons of Doom by Sworn Twelve:

For shipping us beyond Seas to be doomed for swikeful wrongs:

For doing away with the free Frame of English Laws in a nearby Shire, setting up therein a Willful Wield, and widening its Marks so as to make it at once a bysen and fit tool for bringing the same utter wield into these Outsettlings:

For taking away our Boons, doing away with our most worthy Laws, and shifting at the root the Shapes of our Wields:

For staying our own Lawmoots, and saying themselves clothed with might to make law for us in all happenings whatsoever.

He has forsaken Wield here, by saying us out of his Shielding and warring against us.

He has reaved our seas, harried our Coasts, burnt our towns, and undone the lives of our folk.

He is at this time ferrying great Drights of outlandish Hire-fighters to fulfil the deeds of death, waste, and thraldom, already begun with a wise of grimness and troth-breaking hardly matched in the wildest elds, and wholly unworthy the Head of a buildly folk.

He has made our fellow Burghers caught on the high Seas to bear weapons against their homeland, to become the deathsmen of their friends and kin, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has stirred up homely uprisings among us, and has striven to bring upon the dwellers of our marches, the ruthless Indish Wildmen, whose known way of wying is a wanton wasting of all elds, kins, and standings.

In every step of these Downtreadings We have besought for Rightening in the most lowly words: Our again-and-again Askings have been met only by again-and-again harm. A Lord whose ways are thus marked by every deed that may mark out a Thrall-lord, is unfit to be the wielder of a free folk.

Nor have We been lacking in heed to our British kin. We have warned them time and again of tries by their Lawmoot to stretch an unrightful doom-reach over us. We have put them in mind of the wise of our outfaring and settling here. We have called upon their inborn rightwiseness and greatheartedness, and we have besought them earnestly by the bonds of our shared kin to forsake these wrongful takings, which would unshunworthily break our bonds and dealings. They too have been deaf to the steven of rightwiseness and of kinship. We must, therefore, yield to the need, which bids our Sundering, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Foes in Wye, in Frith Friends.

We, therefore, the Stead-standers of the Banded Lands of Westernesse, in Overall Thing gathered, calling upon the Highest Doomsman of the world for the rightness of our ends, do, in the Name, and by the Might of the good Folk of these Outsettlings, earnestly make known and kithe, That these Banded Outsettlings are, and by Right ought to be Free and Sundry Lands; that they are loosed from all troth-bond to the British Kinghelm, and that all bond of wield between them and the Land of Great Britain, is and ought to be wholly unbound; and that as Free and Onestanding Lands, they have full Might to raise Wye, make Frith, make Bindings, set up Chaffer, and to do all other Deeds and Things which Onestanding Lands may by right do. And for the upholding of this Forthsaying, with a steadfast trust in the shielding of godly Foresight, we each to other troth-plight our Lives, our Goods, and our holy Worship.

The Saxon Cross

How Tolkien Disguised Ice-Age Europe as Middle-Earth

Maps of Middle-Earth have been laid over maps of Europe before. They’re never very interesting, because they seem to prove that Tolkien’s world was nothing close to a one-to-one representation of an ancient Europe. They usually place the Shire (per Tolkien’s instruction) at Oxford, but make no attempt to fit in anything else in a way that makes sense…

Read more

4 years ago · 659 likes · 70 comments · Andrew Henry

Neither Messrs. J.R.R. nor C.J.R. Tolkien had much consistency as to how English ought be written in the calligraphic Elvish script devised by the former, even within individual documents written by either one of them. Moreover, there is something to be said as to how little use either of them ended up making of the natural featurality Tolkien Sr. developed both the tengwar and cirth with, and no online source I have found has properly rectified this oversight to my satisfaction.

I have, however, found the former script surprisingly easy to work with and adapt to the English language in line with its regular design, and I believe it only fair to share my notes here having stumbled across them again.

The system I have developed is heavily based on Westron and Sindarin norms, with only mild modifications to map onto English phonology. It deviates noticeably in some respects from more bloated and convoluted “conservative” modes such as the one provided in Tecendil's Tengwar Handbook, but it is hardly illegible to those already familiar with the same. I nonetheless recommend the Handbook as a decent introduction to the names, forms and ennumeration of the tengwar as referenced below, and have taken the liberty of screenshotting the relevant sections where necessary.

Consonants

Unlike in the standard Latin-script orthography of English, the consonant letters represent one phoneme each:

1. t p tʃ k

2. d b dʒ g

3. θ f ʃ ʍ¹

4. ð v ʒ w¹

5. n m j² ŋ

6. ˞³ ʊ̆¹ ɪ̆² ː³

7. tθ pf tːʃ kʍ

8. dð bv dːʒ gw

9. r⁴ r⁴ l⁴ ɫ⁴

10. s s⁵ z z⁵

11. _ _ _ _

12. _ h⁶ V⁶ ʔ⁶

Note: an underscore indicates the corresponding letter is not used. The “extended” letters in rows 7 and 8 are used as ligatures, and are thus seen in words like “eighth”, “width,” “hopeful,” “obvious,” “Whitchurch,” “adjudicate,” “qualm” or “Guantanamo.”

1. Hwesta acts as the equivalent of Latin-script <wh>, even if the speaker’s natural accent merges this phoneme with /w/ (represented by ungwë). The mode is therefore semi-etymological, though only to the extent of permitting phonemic inambiguity across different accents. Vala represents the same sound as ungwë at the end of a syllable after a vowel, and can thus read as unstressed /əʊ̆/ (like in “yellow” or “borough”) on its own.

2. The consonantal <y> is represented by ñoldo (despite this letter being grouped with the nasals), as it is the closest phoneme English has to the featurally anticipated /ɲ/; anna thus acts as ñoldo’s counterpart to vala, and can additionally represent the unstressed /i/ (like in “happy”).

3. Óre indicates R-colouring of a given vowel in rhotic accents (like in “are”), whereas vilya is used to indicate a long “pure” vowel (like in “father”). Non-rhotic accents may merge óre and vilya in speech, but (as with hwesta and ungwë) they are nonetheless always distinguished in writing.

4. Rómen and arda each represent a fully pronounced R: rómen at the start of a syllable, arda between uncoloured short vowels (like in “arrow”). Lambë and alda similarly correspond to the clear and dark L respectively.

5. The nuquerna forms of silme and essë are specifically and only used with vowel diacritics.

6. Ára is used to indicate a phonemic glottal stop within a word (like in “uh-oh”), while telco is used to indicate a short vowel at the end of a word or before /h/. Thus halla, if written between two vowels (like in “behind” or “aha”), is always preceded by telco to prevent the unsightly visage of a diacritic written over a raised stem (see below).

Vowels

The mode I use follows an ómatehta style, denoting vowels (as well as other sounds) by means of diacritics written over the following consonant.

The vowel diacritics can be used somewhat more liberally than the consonant letters depending on the writer’s own accent, due to the broad number of allophones each of the base vowel phonemes have across various accents; however, the writer should strive to represent a given vowel phoneme with the cardinal vowel diacritic it most closely matches alongside the appropriate consonant base as modifies its pronunciation.

As a rule of thumb:

• A is more open than E, even when fronted (think “sad/spar” vs. “said/spare”)

• E is more open than I, though both are always front (think “rid/reed” vs. “red/raid”)

• O is further back than A, irrespective of rounding (think “cot/coat” vs. “cat/caught”)

• U is closer than O, irrespective of rounding (think “run/rune” vs. “rot/rote”)

The vowel in “buck” can also be represented by the Y-diacritic shown above to distinguish it from the one in “book” (despite both being traditionally considered U-vowels), preventing these rules compelling the writer to spell it as though it were pronounced “bock”. For regional accents that split more of these vowels beyond the norm, there are other supplementary vowel diacritics that can be used (also formed from modifying the base five above—see this page for reference).

There are also diacritics that represent sounds other than vowels:

I hope this guide proves helpful to those reading this for their own projects.

For guidance on punctuation, capitalisation and numerals, consult Tecendil’s Tengwar Handbook (linked above).

For fonts and keyboards usable on PC and Mac, see this page.

Synopsis

An anonymous social media microcelebrity going by the username “@NiggerHitler” on several unnamed platforms gets his purported high school doxxed, leading to an investigation by the staff to identify him among the student body—galvanising his classmates to read his online content (delving in no uncertain terms into several sociopolitical issues from a well-spoken dissident-right perspective), culminating in an iconic scene where every student, of either sex and (almost) every race, in every classroom, stands up at their desks one by one and declares, “I’m Nigger Hitler!” in an act of solidarity with the long and well-established moral sanity espoused in his content, despite his provocative username.

Neither the “true” identity of Nigger Hitler or the name of the high school the film takes place at are ever revealed; the purpose of the film is to comment on the incompetence and corruption of our public educational institutions, as well as the double standards on censorship seen on most major social media platforms, while whitepilling proud Westerners (irrespective of their particular ideological backgrounds) against the Zionist-leftist subversives that lobby and puppeteer our establishment on both sides of the aisle by highlighting the natural competence and potential of our younger generations (which the public education system has been intentionally designed to suppress since Rockefeller).

Sequel: Nigger Hitler 2 - The Return of Gay Mussolini

Synopsis

Following the mass-expulsion of entire year groups of high school teens who attended the unnamed high school after the end of Nigger Hitler, several of the former students have ended up seeking to further their education by various other means. This film serves as a commentary on alternatives to public school education that can allow our youth to succeed at life in a modern economy, as well as delving into the various ways success can be defined and found. The eponymous antagonistic force refers to not only the corrupt staff from the previous movie who go out of their way to sabotage these kids’ attempts to live their lives free from their constraints and longhousing, but also to the broader media and political establishment supporting and furthering said sabotage by means of slander and censorship as foreshadowed by the doxxing of Nigger Hitler in the previous movie.

Finale: Nigger Hitler 3 - Rise of the HitlerNiggers

Synopsis

Years down the line from the second movie, the kids grow up and enter into either university or the trades, hoping to make the most of their prior efforts. The film focuses on how deep ideological corruption and subversion goes in both academia and the market alike, galvanising some of the protagonists to reach out to and take up the mantle of the mysterious Nigger Hitler once again. His identity remains unrevealed, and it is not clear whether he is one of the known protagonists we are following or not; but Nigger Hitler’s media platform becomes popular once again as the protagonists share and contribute their respective experiences to his latest content, leading in some cases to scandals surrounding the ideologues that the protagonists each have to deal with and their respective institutions, resulting in further investigations and suggesting a far deeper conspiracy connecting it all together. The galvanisation from the first movie spreads far and wide as a result, resulting in the growth of a large and influential dissident movement allowing for solidarity among various stripes. Some of the side characters from the first movie who haven’t been seen since make a comeback as well.

I ought to have posted this three days ago. Better late than never, I guess.

In the Father Almighty, the maker of Heaven and of Earth and of all things, seen and unseen;

And in the one Lord Healand the Salved, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all worlds—God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made—the same Being as the Father by Whom all things have been made.

For us Men and for our help He came down from Heaven, was enfleshed by the Holy Ghost from the Bitter Maiden, and was made Man. He was also nailed upon a rood under Bridgely Lightspear; He brooked, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day following the Writ. He has risen into Heaven, is seated at the right of the Father, and shall come again in greatness to deem the living and the dead; His kingdom shall not end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Lifegiver—Who goes forth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son is likewise beloved and worshipped together; Who has spoken through the Foretellers—and in one, holy, wholesome and bodesome Moot. I acknowledge one washing into the setting-aside of sins; I look for the raising of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Forsooth.

Having grown up in the infamously censorious society of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I have been exposed to largely left-leaning rhetoric and authority figures in the legacy media and educational system filling my day-to-day life outside the four walls of whatever house or flat I was lucky enough to call home at a given time. I’ve also been a frequent user of the internet since I was a preteen, and my father taught me even earlier on to be mindful of what I saw and heard at school and of the double standards that wider British society held to on certain social affairs.

I remember he called it “the hypocrisy of ‘racism’” the first time he ever talked with me about it directly. Some might find that phrasing oddly liberal given the context he was saying it in, but he was never especially good at using words properly if it fell outside his field of work (and he’s always been trying in every sense of the word, anyway).

Of course, 2016 was a particularly wild time to be on the internet, and like most children raised by a churchgoing, conservative Afrikaner father I had already been exposed to alternative viewpoints contrasting with the wider system I was somewhat uncertain of what to believe—although my experiences at school had inclined me towards something more contrarian from the onset.

Like most young people, I had my low points of radicalism towards some ideology or another here and there—mine was Anarcho-Capitalism, which continues to be one of my biggest past shames to this day—but even as my various personal experiences with Jews eventually redpilled me on them directly, I never found myself inclined to actual genocidal thoughts against them—that privilege has only ever been enjoyed by Hindoos, although it can be (and has been) argued that Hindoos are in essence Jews without the veneer of hygiene nor pseudo-whiteness.

Perhaps that may be because my own people have our own history of being despised in like manner to mediæval Jews in our little corner of the world, and we suffered something akin to a proto-Holocaust at the turn of the previous century, not to mention the kind of rhetoric levied against them has also come to be levied against us (although with demonstrably far less justification if you aren’t a Western leftist or just high on hasbara).

Regardless, despite my contempt of hysterical loxists screeching “nazi, nazi” on whatever platforms they can at whoever they can, I am not sincerely inclined to do unto them as they would do unto me if given the power and opportunity to follow through and get away with it, nor to shrug and casually accept the label their false dichotomy demands impotently of me to adopt and endorse. I never cared for socialism of any sort, national or otherwise, any more than I now do for capitalism. With all that exposition out of the way, are my three main reasons why.

1. NSDAP economic policy is not self-sustainable in peacetime, and requires continuous expansion efforts for Lebensraum in order to prosper; as a Christian, I am not a big fan of war unless it specifically serves the purposes of fraternal defense (e.g. the early Crusades).

2. Dissent is inevitable in any society, and can prove beneficial to its survival in unfamiliar circumstances due to discourse; the COVID lockdowns showed in a modern context why neighbour-reporting and parent-reporting over such things (as was also famously encouraged in '40s Germany and later also elsewhere) undermines the integrity of the most fundamental part of any human society, whether in the context of a nation-state or otherwise.

3. Pantheism is fake and gay no matter what particular way it’s applied, and so is state-mandated syncretism of differing religious traditions in the name of national unity; these two things are literally how the Hindoos were born, and look at what filthy, dung-eating race of vegetarian rat-monkeys they are. (I would know, I lived among them at uni for years.)

4. I am not a blond-haired, blue-eyed Nordic Aryan German. I am a dark-haired, dark-eyes Afrikaner, descended from Voortrekkers who settled in the Transvaal, founded the South African Republic, and restored it after annexation into British rule three separate times—and from an immigrant to the Union of South Africa who was as degenerate and hypocritical as any cradle Papist can get and forever radicalised my father into becoming a Baptist in all but name. (Not to mention apparently being as overbearing and manipulative over contentious issues with my father as he is with me in turn, judging by the letters he wrote to him that I stumbled across when last visiting Ouma.)

5. I have no idea how a dolphin heat lure is supposed to save the White Rus and restore Hyperborea in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and I doubt it will—only Christ’s return, or a total collapse of global civilisation as we know it, can do that. (I will leave you to intuit how much of this is a joke.)

I hope this post is satisfactory to anyone reading who is curious. I suspect Kali Das might like to read this.

One of the best works by any thinker among English-speaking Churchmen which I have yet found that gathers these together and goes over their shared underlying thought is that of the great New World writer, preacher and thinker Jonathan Edwards, written during the First Great Awakening in answer to a growth of misbelievers who did away among themselves with the Threeness they could not grasp.

A short outline of his overall findings is kindly given within the work itself:

“The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated, and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God’s understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Spirit is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God’s Infinite love to and delight in Himself(…) the whole divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist in both the Divine idea and Divine love, and(…) each of them are properly distinct Persons.”

Put more forthrightly: given that God is His own Being, that is, Being-in-itself (hence it is written: “and God said: I Am Being1”):

1. He is fully the grounds upon which His own Being stands—as much as He is of all else in turn through the Same—and as such, is called the Father;

2. He is fully the One which stands upon the grounds of His own Being—as all else does in turn through Him in turn—and as such, is called the Son;

3. He is fully that Godhead which goes forth from the Father into the Son—and from the Son in turn into all that God, out of His everlasting love, has blessed with a sliver of the same—and as such, is called the Holy Ghost.

With this in mind, it is no wonder that the New Witword tells us outright that it was by means of the Holy Ghost (not the Father)2 coming over the Holy Maiden that the Son became flesh from her own, and was thereby made Man; neither is it any wonder that the Son might have seen fit to make Himself known and seen, long before He was made Man, in the likeness of an errandghost.

In this way, the One God is not sundered by His Threeness, nor are any among the Three blended together or lessened within the Godhead in light of the Others; likewise, the Healand is not lessened in His Godhead by way of His Manhood. Therefore, when we bethink ourselves each Sunday of Him, we say: “We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all time: God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God; begotten, not made; samebeing of the Father; through Him, all things came to be.” And likewise: “We believe in the Holy Ghost: the Lord and Lifegiver Who forthgoeth from the Father and from the Son; Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and woldered; Who spake through the soothsayers.”

Therefore, we may understand why we are called to pledge our troth to Him and put our trust into what He has done: as He has made Himself so known to us by way of the same, that we might carry His truth and wisdom unto our fellow Man from then till now3; for, in taking upon Himself the earnings of our wickedness that begat our every own sin against Him, He sets our souls free of the burden of those earnings.

Therefore, once this fallen world ends at last at the time God alone wills, so that the next might forever take up its stead, even our once-fallen bodies shall be freed as God raises them from the dead as the Son did His own, made anew and healed as much as our souls have been healed little by little each day in this life by the Holy Ghost.

Therefore, we may understand that it is good and righteous that He might forsake the rest who forsake Him; for though they may speak emptily of “goodness” and “righteousness” and “love,” these are words they can never understand the true meanings of, and they are worthless upon their lips; for they know nothing of and care nothing for the things these words speak of as they truly are, as they know nothing of and care nothing for Him from whence they and all else comes—Him that is Being in Himself, who took upon Himself a sinless Manhood that once-sinful Men might forever be at one with our Maker and the good and wonderful world He gave us, fallen nevermore.

Forsooth.