Seven Dirty Words

by Edgar Steele

29 November 2004

"There are some people who would have you not use certain words." -- George Carlin, Seven Dirty Words (1973)

When I was a kid, dirty words got you in trouble. Today, the same concept holds true, but the words have changed.

Comedian George Carlin broke forbidden ground by using dirty words in his comedy routines, just as my generation came of age. He was a true rebel at the time. Today, Carlin's routines are merely ordinary by most standards. He still skewers sacred cows, but these days the cows are the ones proscribed by a politically-correct society, a society that Carlin's ilk has gotten astride. Carlin particularly delights in attacking religion, especially Christianity. That, however, is a topic for another day.

Go here for a transcript of the routine that got Carlin in trouble back in 1973 when it was broadcast by a radio station. It took five years for the legal system to offer up the US Supreme Court's affirmation of the original FCC ruling that Carlin's routine was obscene, in an enunciation of its new, seven-prong test for obscenity.

Today, we hear all of Carlin's forbidden words, and more, on the radio. They've been in our movies for years. What's more, they are migrating to prime-time network television. Apparently, now the forbidden words are acceptable for children, as well as adults.

But, as the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Today, it's a whole different set of words that will get you in trouble if you dare say them aloud, regardless of venue, and they reflect the change in sensibility (insensibility?) that has occurred in American society over the past generation (the one over which my generation has presided, I am ashamed to say). A change, I say, because these newly-forbidden words commonly were in use throughout society before Carlin's time.

Here, let's say them together: Nigger, Spic, Wetback, Chink, Jap, White, Jew.

That sentence just got this essay blocked by countless web sites. A large number of members of this list will have to go to to read this essay for that reason. But I could have given, instead, detailed instructions for "fisting" and this piece would have sailed right through the filters and censors.

I gave an extended interview on a major radio station yesterday and, as the conversation moved into the area of race, (as it always does - there's a reason these radio hosts around the country have me on so often, after all) I opened the topic by referring to "Whites." There was a discernible pause...dead air time in the that word hung out there, much as Carlin's words used to hang in the air. A thought crept into my mind: "I wonder if this is how George Carlin felt?"

Notice that, of the seven new dirty words, five are pejorative forms of racially-identifying nouns or adjectives (Nigger, Spic, Wetback, Chink and Jap). How times have changed! After WWII, all Asians were referred to as "Japs" by a still-angry American public. Brazil nuts were "niggertoes" to everybody in my childhood days.

Interestingly, only two of the new dirty words have yet to acquire widespread negative connotations, except in certain select circles: White and Jew. Even so, one quite simply does not mention either word in polite company and, certainly, never over the air except in the context of "legitimate" news reporting (where ethnicity typically is covered up except when Whites are tagged as stupid bad guys and Jews are shown to be undeserving but noble victims). Yes, there are pejorative forms (Cracker and Kike, for example), but neither White nor Jew are used with impunity over the air as are Black, Hispanic, Chinese and Japanese; thus have they attained a forbidden status both unique and apart from the other new dirty words.

Why the silence without the negative implications when it comes to the words White and Jew? Because Jews like to pose as White when it suits their purposes (as when noses are counted in professions, ivy-league college enrollment and governmental Administration positions), though they vilify Whites when it suits other of their purposes (as in falsely depicting Whites as victimizers of other races, so as to remove us from contention for things and positions that Jews want...or don't want Whites to have, which amounts to the same thing to them).

The ban on saying White and Jew aloud reflects the power struggle now taking place between the two races (a struggle being won by Jews thus far, though they are destroying America in the process).

A different reason applies to the other races, which is why only the negative forms of racial identification are taboo.

In fact, anything that differentiates one race from another is taboo these days, just as it is forbidden to suggest that two individuals might have differences that set them apart from one another in any respect. "No child left behind" comes to mind. Of course, nobody left behind means nobody out in front, either.

Why? Because ours is a merit-based societal structure that today is morphing into pure socialism. Therefore, we need to have precisely the same outcome for everybody. How do we do that and still maintain the illusion of rewarding merit? Why, we declare everyone to be the winner, of course. And there are no losers. Everyone "merits" the same outcome. How perfect. How coincidental that the result is so...socialistic. It's kind of like how we get to "elect" our President these days, isn't it?

In fact, the whole topic of race and, even racism, except when used to vilify whites, is becoming taboo. Witness how many printers and vanity publishers passed on my book, Defensive Racism, simply because of the title. Incidentally, Barnes and Noble now has declined to carry Defensive Racism, though it still is available through Don't forget, you still can get a $5 discount from the cover price by ordering directly from the publisher, through

American Free Press, pre-eminent weekly of the Patriot Movement (You say you don't receive AFP? For shame! Subscribe here ), recently ran a review of Defensive Racism that was so complimentary that I am almost embarrassed to post it. Almost. Go here for a reproduction of the AFP review (penned by the inimitable Michael C. Piper) and the ad that I have run in AFP a couple of times now: DOC.

In 1964, while grappling with the concept of obscenity, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart issued his now-famous concurring opinion in which he stated: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..." Of course, now that Justice Stewart is dead, you have to wonder how we're supposed to apply his rule to the new dirty words.

New America. An idea whose time has come.


Back to VNN Main Page