Arkancide

Arkancide (pronounced ahr-kuhn-side)

A neologism coined to describe the remarkably high death-toll (by causes such as "suicide", "misadventure" and "accident") among those associated with Bill (b 1946; US President 1993-2001) and Hillary Clinton (b 1947).

2005-2006: A compound word Arkan(sas) + -cide.  The name of Arkansas, the US state, was applied first to the Arkansas River and derives from the Modern French Arcansas, the plural form of the transliteration of akansa, an Algonquian term for the Quapaw people (a Dhegiha Siouan-speaking people who settled in the area in the thirteenth century); Akansa is thought also the likely root of Kansas, another US state.  Aspects of the word Arkansas have long been debated.  Pronunciation had varied from the start and it wasn’t until 1881 the state legislature defined the official pronunciation being with the final "s" silent, following the French practice and in 2007, the politicians passed a resolution declaring the possessive form to be Arkansas's.  The suffix –cide is a word-forming element meaning "killer", from the French -cide, from the Latin -cida (cutter, killer, slayer), from -cidere, a combining form of caedere (to strike down, chop, beat, hew, fell, slay), from the Proto-Italic kaid-o-, from the root kae-id- (to strike).  The element also can represent "killing," from the French -cide, from the Latin -cidium (a cutting, a killing).  Arkancide is a noun.

Bill & crooked Hill.

Bill Clinton built his political base in Arkansas, first as attorney-general, later as governor and in Arkansas, as subsequently in the White House, with each election of Bill, voters received a free copy of crooked Hillary.  Arkancide was coined to describe the phenomenon of the surprisingly high number of deaths (especially the many recorded officially as “accident” or ruled “suicide” even if the method “chosen” appeared, prima facie, to make self-inflicted injuries actually impossible) among those associated with Bill and crooked Hillary Clinton.  Depending on which conspiracy theorist does the body count, the numbers bounce around a bit and the more rigorous researchers do exclude from their lists those souls for whom the cause of death was, at least on the balance of probabilities, not suspicious, but every tally is in the dozens.  What all agree is the catalogue begins with Kevin Ives (1970-1987) & Don Henry (1971-1987) in 1987 and ends (thus far) with Jeffrey Epstein (1953-2019) in 2019 and it’s difficult to guess at the veracity of the connection between the Clintons and all these deaths.  Like any data set, much work will have to be done to determine the relationship between cause and effect and, as is drummed into every student during their first lecture in Statistics 101, correlation does not of necessity equate with causation and a mere list of apparent coincidences (even if in the dozens) does not prove Jeffrey Epstein was murdered on the orders of crooked Hillary any more than it proves the assassin was a Freemason.  Officially, the establishment's consensus was (and remains) it's all mere coincidence, many of the dead just really unlucky and statisticians who have run the numbers say the conspiracy theory is debunked, one notable factor the unusually large number of people still alive who could in some way be linked with any US president.  Beginning in the 1990s, the slang terms for the phenomenon were "Clintonization" & "Clinton Body Count" but neither never caught on to the extent  of Arkancide, probably because the latter, being a little more removed, functions better as a euphemism.  Also, pre-dating even the arrival of the Clintons in Arkansas politics, was the sardonic phrase Arkansas Sudden Death Syndrome (ASDS), used to describe those whose death was said to be at the hands of the state's employees, this means of demise apparently unusually frequent in Arkansas.

Randall Made Knives of Orlando, Florida: The Arkansas toothpick

To gain a sense of the way the folk in the state of Arkansas have long been perceived, consider the Arkansas toothpick, an impressive dagger produced usually in lengths between 12-20 inches (300-500 mm) and claimed to be ideal for “thrusting and slashing”.  The weapon is said to be the creation of US knifemaker James Black (1800–1872) and is described by many historians as an “improved version” of the famous Bowie knife, the design of which was credited to James Bowie (1796–1836) who enjoyed the sort of varied career often seen south of the Mason-Dixon Line, his activities including land speculation (lawful and not, slave trading (mostly lawful) and military adventures (official and not).  In truth, Mr Black’s original dagger seems to have been a slight variant of the Bowie knife because there’s little in documents from the nineteenth century to suggest the two were regarded as sufficiently different to be used for different purposes.  The term “Arkansas Toothpick” seems first to have been used in the late 1820s or early 1830s by European travellers who told tales of the rugged characters they encountered in the backwoods of Arkansas, including them using long-bladed daggers to “pick their teeth”.  Some have speculated the term might have pre-dated the debut of the Bowie knife in (circa 1830) and that the notion of two different knives evolved in the nineteenth century only because of this casual journalistic slang.  However it happened, the Arkansas Toothpick and Bowie knife are now established items in the knifemakers’ catalogues.

The idea of a biopic documenting the allegedly murderous trail of death in the wake of Bill & Hillary was so obviously and attractively filmic that it must be only the fear of litigation that has prevented a project coming to fruition.  The satirical site Weekly World News did suggest Bill & Hill might be in the works, the casting for crooked Hillary an obvious choice but left unexplored was who to play her husband.  To depict Bill Clinton would demand a wider range than most actors possess so it would be tempting to look outside the profession and cast former film producer Harvey Weinstein (b 1952) but his commitments make that now impossible, though presumably he could play Jeffrey Epstein, on-location as it were.  Still, so irresistible is the lure of a tale like this that screenplays presumably lie in drawers, awaiting the circumstances (God forbid) which will permit the pitch.

The Bill & Hillary Clinton National Airport

Originally named Adams Field, in 2012 the airport in Little Rock, Arkansas was renamed the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport although the earlier name continues to be used when referring to the runways and air movements.  In its October 2013 edition, Travel + Leisure magazine released the results of a survey which found travelers ranked the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport as the worst of the sixty-seven surveyed.  A survey commissioned by the airport contradicted this, finding that more than ninety percent of passengers were satisfied with their experience.

Hellacious

Hellacious (pronounced he-ley-shuhs)

(1) Horrible, awful, hellish, agonizing

(2) Nasty, repellent.

(3) Formidably difficult.

(4) In slang, remarkable, astonishing, unbelievable, unusual.

1930s: US campus slang, the construct being from hell + -acious.  Hell dates from pre 900 and was from the Middle English Hell, from the Old English hel & hell (nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death).  In the sense of “pour” it was cognate with the Old High German hella & hellia (source of the Modern German Hölle), the Icelandic hella (to pour), the Norwegian helle (to pour), the Swedish hälla (to pour), the Old Norse hel & hella and the Gothic halja.  It was related to the Old English helan (to cover, hide) and to hull.  The Old English gained hel & hell from the Proto-Germanic haljō (the underworld) & halija (one who covers up or hides something), the source also of the Old Frisian helle, the Old Saxon hellia, the Dutch hel, the Old Norse hel, the German Hölle & the Gothic halja (hell).  The meaning in the early Germanic languages was derived from the sense of a "concealed place", hence the Old Norse hellir meaning "cave or cavern", from the primitive Indo-European root kel (to cover, conceal, save).  In sacred art, Hell, whether frozen or afire, is often depicted as a cavernous place.  Hell is a noun & verb; hellman, hellcat, hellhound & hellfare are nouns and hellish, helllike, hellproof & helly are adjectives; the noun plural is hells.

In the sense of “the underworld”, it was cognate with the Saterland Frisian Hälle (hell), the West Frisian hel (hell), the Dutch hel (hell), the German Low German Hell (hell), the German Hölle (hell), the Norwegian helvete (hell) and the Icelandic hel (the abode of the dead, death). The English traditions of use were much influenced by Norse mythology and the Proto-Germanic forms.  In the Norse myths, Halija (one who covers up or hides something) was the name of the daughter of Loki who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (from nifl (mist)) and it was not uncommon for pagan concepts and traditions to be grafted onto Christian rituals and idiom.  Hell was used figuratively to describe a state of misery or bad experience (of which there must have been many in the Middle Ages) since the late fourteenth century and as an expression of disgust by the 1670s.  In eighteenth century England, there were a number of Hellfire Clubs, places where members of the elite could indulge their “immoral proclivities”.  The clubs were said to attract many politicians.

The suffix –acious suffix was used to form adjectives from nouns and verb stems and produced many familiar forms (audacious from audacity, sagacious from sage, fallacious from fallacy etc).  There were also formations which became rare or were restricted to specialized fields including fumacious ((1) smoky or (2) fond of smoking tobacco), lamentacious (characterized by lamentation (sorrow, distress or regret)), marlacious (containing large quantities of marl (in geology, a mixed earthy substance, consisting of carbonate of lime, clay, and possibly sand, in very variable proportions, and accordingly designated as calcareous, clayey, or sandy), and punacious (an individual prone to punning (making puns).  The suffix was attractive also when coining fanciful terms such as quizzacious (mocking or satirical (based on the verb quiz (in the sense of “to mock”) and bodacious.  Bodacious remains probably the best known in this genre and seems to have begun as US slang, south of the Mason-Dixon Line and was (as bodaciously) documented as early as 1837 but may previously have been part of the oral tradition.  Etymologists conclude it was either (1) a blend of bold and audacious or a back-formation from bodyaciously (bodily, totally, root and branch) which seems to have been most prevalent is South Carolina where it was used in the sense of “the process of totally wrecking something”.  In the US the word evolved to mean (1) audacious and unrestrained, (2) incorrigible and insolent and (3) impressively great in size, and enormous; extraordinary.  In the early twentieth century, apparently influenced by campus use (presumably male students in this linguistic vanguard) it was a synonym for “a sexy, attractive girl” and this may have influenced users in the internet age who seem to have assumed first element came directly from “body”.

Of being hungry in the heat: Fox News, July 2006.

According to linguistic trend-setters Fox News, “hellacious” is the best word to describe the state of being “hot & hungry” so it’s not a portmanteau like “hangry” (one who is “hungry & angry”, the construct being h(ungry) + angry) but Fox News says it’s the best word so it must be true.  Hellacious was likely from the tradition of audacious, sagacious, vivacious etc and came to be a word with intensive or augmentative force.  Because it can mean something negative (horrible, awful, hellish, agonizing, nasty, repellent etc), something challenging (formidably difficult) or (used as slang) something positive (remarkable, astonishing, unbelievable, unusual), the context in which it’s used can be important in determining quite the sense intended.  Even then, if there’s not enough to work with, an author’s meaning can be ambiguous.  Fort the fastidious the comparative is “more hellacious” and the superlative “most hellacious” and the (rare) alternative spellings are helatious & hellaceous.  Hellacious is an adjective, hellaciousness is a noun, hellaciously is an adverb.

Google ngram (a quantitative and not qualitative measure).

For technical reasons this should not be taken too seriously but Google’s ngram appears to suggest use of “hellacious” has spiked every time the US has elected as president the Republican Party nominee, sharp increases in use associated with the terms of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989), George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) and Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025).  Political junkies can make of this what the will.  Because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

“Hellacious” appears in many lists of obscure words, often with an explanatory note with a parenthesized “rare” although nobody seem yet to classify it “archaic” and it’s certainly not “extinct”.  Improbably (or perhaps not), the word made a rare appearance when an E-mail from Sarah, Duchess of York (Sarah Ferguson; b 1959) to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019) was published in England by the tabloid press and what was of interest was (1) her choice of words, (2) the date on which those words were written and (3) her previously expressed views on the man.  What prompted her in 2011 to write the E-mail was Epstein’s reaction to the duchess having a few weeks earlier, in an interview with the Evening Standard, publicly distanced herself from the disgraced financier, apologizing, inter-alia, for having accepted his gift of Stg£15,000, declaring she would “have nothing ever to do with him” again, that her involvement with him had been a “gigantic error of judgment”, adding “I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children”.  She promised never again to make contact.  Just to ensure she got the message across, she concluded: “I cannot state more strongly that I know a terrible, terrible error of judgement was made, my having anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein.  What he did was wrong and for which he was rightly jailed.”  He had been handed a three year sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

The Duchess of York, who did not say the “P word”.

Despite that unambiguous statement, some weeks later she sent him an E-mail assuring the convicted paedophile she had not in the interview attached the label “paedophilia” to him: “As you know, I did not, absolutely not, say the 'P word' about you but understand it was reported that I did”, adding “I know you feel hellaciously let down by me.  You have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family.”  As it transpired, “generous was a good choice of word.  Immediately details of the E-mail were published, the duchess’s office went into SOP (standard operating procedure) “damage control mode”, a spokesperson asserting the E-mail was written in an attempt to counter a threat Epstein had made to sue her for defamation, explaining: “The duchess spoke of her regret about her association with Epstein many years ago, and as they have always been, her first thoughts are with his victims.  Like many people, she was taken in by his lies.  As soon as she was aware of the extent of the allegations against him, she not only cut off contact but condemned him publicly, to the extent that he then threatened to sue her for defamation for associating him with paedophilia.”

Some might think it strange one would fear being sued for defamation by a convicted paedophile on the basis of having said “what he did was wrong and for which he was rightly jailed” but a quirk of defamation law is one can succeed in every aspect of one’s defense yet still be left with a ruinously expensive bill so the spokesperson’s claim the “…E-mail was sent in the context of advice the Duchess was given to try to assuage Epstein and his threats” may be true.  Epstein died by suicide while in custody (despite the rumours he may have been one of the many victims of “Arkancide” and murdered on the orders of crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) there is no evidence to support this) and the duchess’s unfortunate communication was but one of the consequences of Epstein’s conduct, the ripples of which continue to disturb the lives of his many victims and, allegedly, the rich, famous and well-connected who may have been “supplied” with under-age sexual partners from Epstein’s “stock”.  Tellingly there appears to be much more interest in identities of the latter than concern for the former.

Peter Mandelson, 8 August 1988, cibachrome print by Steve Speller (b 1961), Photographs Collection, National Portrait Gallery, London.  In a coincidence, the duchess’s eldest daughter (Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi) was born on 8 August 1988 and in the weird world of the astrologers, the date 8/8/88 is “linked with abundance and is one of the most powerful dates for manifestation in the calendar”.  The date 8/8/88 is also a rather tawdry footnote in Australian political history.  Early in October 1987, the National Party's embattled Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen (1911–2005; premier of Queensland 1968-1987) convened a press conference at which he announced he intended to retire on “the eighth of the eighth of eighty-eight”, the significance being that would mark 20 years to the day since he'd been sworn in as premier.  As things turned out, his support within the party collapsed as revelations continued to emerge from an on-going enquiry into corruption in the state and on 1 December 1987 he was compelled to resign, jumping while being pushed along the plank as it were.  Although he was in 1991 tried for perjury and corruption, the trial was abandoned after the jury was unable to agree on a verdict.  It soon emerged that while eleven jury members found the Crown's case as convincing as just about anyone else who heard the evidence, one did not and that was the jury foreman (Luke Shaw, b 1971) who was a member of the “Young Nats” (the National Party's youth wing).  In 1992, the special prosecutor announced the Crown would not seek a second trial on the grounds that, at 81, Sir Joh was “too old”.  Sometimes one gets lucky.

Claims the duchess's former husband (Prince Andrew, Duke of York, b 1960) sexually abused a woman he was introduced to by Epstein were settled out of court (with no admission of liability and the payment of an “undisclosed sum”) and recently, the UK government sacked its erstwhile Ambassador to the US (Lord Mandelson (one time New Labour luminary Peter Mandelson (b 1953)) after revelations emerged confirming his association with Epstein was rather different than what he’d previously disclosed (there has been no suggestion Epstein supplied Lord Mandelson with males younger than the statuary age of consent).  Quite what else will emerge from documents in the hands of a US congressional panel remains to be seen but there’s a groundswell of clamour for complete disclosure and the renitence of the authorities to do exactly that has led to much speculation about “who is being protected and by whom”.  Noting that, many of Epstein’s victims have been in contact with each other and are threatening to compile a list “naming names”; when that is leaked (or otherwise revealed), it will be among the more keenly anticipated documents of recent years.

Also intriguing is whether Lord Mandelson (who has a history of "comebacks from adversity" to rival that of the Duchess of York), might wash up in Gaza as some part of the "interim governing body" Sir Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007) has offered to lead.  Pencilled-in as Gaza's "supreme political and legal authority" for up to five years, reports suggest Sir Tony would preside over a seven person board and a secretariat of two-dozen odd so, given how highly he valued "Mandy's" presence while in Downing Street, he might find somewhere to "slot in" Lord Mandelson.  Of course his Lordship would not be an ideal "cultural fit" for Gaza but as he'd tell Sir Tony, fixing that is just a matter of "media management".  Middle East politics is one thing but what's of interest to the English tabloids and celebrity gossip magazines is whether the (latest) downfall of the Duchess of York is this time “final”.  It was Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881, later First Earl of Beaconsfield; UK prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) who famously observed “finality is not the language of politics” and on countless occasions he’s been proved right but so frequent have been the duchess’s indiscretions the press is (again) asking whether this time there can be no comeback.  The extent of Epstein’s “generosity” was illustrated by uncontested revelations the duchess accepted from him not only the Stg£15,000 to which she admitted but also a further Stg£2 million ($A4 million), needed at the time to stave off bankruptcy.  Despite it all, it still can’t be certain this really is the end of her remarkably durable career as a public figure which has survived many scandals including:

(1) In 1992 (while still married), she was photographed having her toes sucked by a man (not her husband) while enjoying some topless sunbathing.  Interestingly, sex therapists do recommend toe sucking (and other “toe & foot” play) because (1a) the nerves in the feet are sensitive and (1b) toe sucking is likely to be a novel sexual experience, something rare for most jaded adults.  They do however caution the feet should be immaculately clean, prior to beginning any sucking.

(2) In 2010 she was filmed (with a hidden camera) while offering to sell “access” to the Duke of York (for a reputed US$1 million in 2010) before departing the room with a briefcase filled with cash.

Sister Princess Eugenie (Mrs Jack Brooksbank; b 1990, left) and father Prince Andrew (right) looking at Princess Beatrice's soon to be (in)famous Philip Treacy fascinator, Westminster Abbey, London, 29 April 2011.  Until she appeared wearing this construction, most photographs of Princess Beatrice had focused on her lovely sanpaku eyes.  Opinion in the celebrity gossip magazines was divided on whether Eugenie's glance suggested envy or scepticism.

(3) In 2011, she did not prevent her eldest daughter attending the wedding of Prince William (b 1982) and Catherine Middleton (b 1982) while wearing a “distinctive” fascinator by Irish society milliner Philip Treacy (b 1967).  It was derided as a “ridiculous wedding hat” which seems unfair because it was a playful design which wasn’t that discordant upon the head on which it sat and was the only memorable headgear seen on the day, added to which it was symmetrical which is these days is genuinely a rarity in fascinators.  It was later sold at a charity auction for US$131,560 (said to be a record for such creations) so there was that.  Interestingly, some two years after the princess's fascinator made such an impression, the milliner gave an interview to the UK's Sunday Times in which he proclaimed: “The fascinator is dead and I’m delighted.”  Asked why his view had changed, he explained: “The word fascinator sounds like a dodgy sex toy and what’s so fascinating about a fascinator?  Mass production means that they became so cheap to produce that now they are no more than headbands with a feather stuck on with a glue gun. We’re seeing a return to proper hats.”  Clearly, association with a "cheap" product worn by chavs was no place for a "society milliner" although the journalist did suggest the Mr Treacy's change of heart may have followed Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) in 2012 banning fascinators from the Royal Enclosure at the Royal Ascot, meaning the creations were not just passé but proscribed.  If thinking back to that day in Westminster Abbey, the journalist may have been tempted to suggest Mr Treacy write a book called: The Fascinator, My Part in its Downfall but any temptation was resisted.  Despite the obituary, the fascinator seems alive and well and the fashion magazines provide guidance to help race-goers and others pick "a good one" from "a chav one".

Since the 2011 E-mail’s publication, charities, some of which have, through thick & thin, for decades maintained their association, rushed to sever ties with the duchess.  Whether this time it really is the end of her “public life” remains to be seen but if the worst comes to the worst, can always resort to a nom de plume and write another book.  A prolific author, she has published more than two-dozen, mostly children’s titles or romances for Mills & Boon and, despite the snobby views of some, those two genres do require different literary techniques.

Gaza

Nobody seems to have used the word “hellacious” in relation to the state of armed conflict (most having abandoned that euphemism and just calling it a “war”) which has existed in Gaza since October 2023 but, used in the sense of “horrible, awful, hellish or agonizing”, few terms seem more appropriate.  Over the last quarter century odd, the word “Hell” has often appeared in discussions of the Middle East and the events in Gaza have made terms like “Hell on Earth”, “Hellscape” and “Hellish” oft-heard.  In a sense, the war in Gaza is just one more rung on the ladder down which the region has descended ever since many wise souls counseled George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) that were the US to invade Iraq, that would be “opening the gates of Hell”.  One can argue about just when it was since then those gates were opened but in Gaza it does appear they’ve not just been flung open but torn from the hinges and cast to the depths.  What has happened since October 2023 has provided a number of interesting case studies in politics, military strategy and diplomacy, notably the stance taken by the Gulf states but given the extent of the human suffering it does seem distastefully macabre to discuss such things in clinical terms.

What soon became apparent was that Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949; prime-minister of Israel 1996-1999, 2009-2021 and since 2022) had grasped what he regarded as a “once-in-a-lifetime” military and political environment created by the atrocities committed by the Hamas on 7 October 2023; were it not for the historical significance of the term, he’d likely have referred to his strategy as the “final solution to the Palestinian problem” (which at least some of his cabinet seem to equate with “the Palestinian presence”).  The basis of that strategy is the basis also for the dispute which has to varying extents existed since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948: There are two sides, each of which contains a faction which holds a “river to the sea” vision of national exclusivity which demands the exclusion of the other from the land.  Both factions are a minority but through one means or another they have long been the conflict’s political under-current and, on 7 October 2023, they became the central dynamic.  That dynamic’s respective world views are (1) the Palestinian people will not be free until the eradication of the state of Israel and (2) Jews and the state of Israel will not be safe until the removal of Palestinians from the land.  Mr Netanyahu’s cabinet expresses this as “the dismantling of the Hamas” but what they do is more significant than what they say.

Donald Trump (left) and Benjamin Netanyahu (right), the White House, Washington DC, March 25, 2019.

In Mr Netanyahu’s cabinet there is a spectrum of opinion but what appears now most prevalent is the most extreme: That the Palestinians wish to see the Jews eradicated (or exterminated or eliminated) from the land of Israel and as long as they are here the Jews cannot in their own land be safe so the Palestinians must go (somewhere else).  The gloss on the “somewhere else” long has been the mantra “there is already a Palestinian state; it is called Jordan and they should all go and live there” but in the region and beyond, that’s always been dismissed as chimerical.  The “somewhere else” paradigm though remains irresistible for the faction in Israel which, although once thought cast adrift from the moorings of political reality, finds itself not merely in cabinet but, in the Nacht und Nebel (night and fog) of war, able to pursue politics by other means in a way never before possible, the argument being the Hamas attack of 7 October meant the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) were fighting a “just war”, thus the Old Testament style tactics.

In political discourse, the usual advice, sensibly, is that any comparisons with the Third Reich (1933-1945) should be avoided because the Nazis were so bad (some prefer “evil”) that comparisons tend to be absurd.  Historians have however pointed out some chilling echoes from the past in the positions which exist (and publically have been stated by some) in the Israeli cabinet.  Much the same world view was captured in a typically tart Tagebücher (diary) entry by Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) on 27 March 1942:

“A judicial sentence is being carried out against the Jews which is certainly barbaric but which they have fully deserved.  In these matters, one cannot let sentimentally prevail.  If we do not defend ourselves against them, the Jews would exterminate us.  It is a life and dress struggle against the Jewish bacillus.  No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of this question.  Thank God the war affords us a series of opportunities which were denied us in peacetime.  We must make use of them.”

Mr Netanyahu and his cabinet understand what the Hamas did on 7 October created “a series of opportunities” they never thought they’d have and, as the civilian death toll in Gaza (reckoned by September 2025 to be in excess of 65,000) attests, the IDF has made muscular use of the night and fog of war.  Of course the “somewhere else” fantasy of some Israeli politicians remains very different to the mass-murder alluded to by Goebbels or explicitly described by Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945) in his infamous speech at Posen in October 1943 but what Mr Netanyahu has called his “historic and spiritual mission” of “generations” is creating a poison which will last a century or more.  For what is happening in Gaza, there seems no better word than “hellacious”.

Candor

Candor (pronounced kan-der)

(1) The state or quality of being frank, open, and sincere in speech or expression; candidness.

(2) Freedom from bias; fairness; impartiality; the quality of the disinterested comment.

(3) Kindliness (obsolete except in the most abstract (“cruel to be kind”) sense).

(4) Purity (obsolete).

(5) Whiteness, brilliance; purity of shade (obsolete)

1350-1400: From the Middle English, from the French candour, from the Late Latin candor (purity, openness), from the Classical Latin candidus & candidum (whiteness) from candēre (to shine, to be white), from the primitive Indo-European root kand- (to shine).  A legacy of the Classical Latin candidus & candidum survives in English as “candidate”.  In the Rome of Antiquity, a tradition arose among politicians to wear the most immaculately white toga that could be found, so that they might leave the best impression.  Originally, the Latin candidatus meant literally “a person dressed all in white” but in time it came to mean “one seeking office by election”.  There’s a link also with incandescent (white and glowing) and modern meaning of candid come from a figurative use of “pure white” in the sense of “frank, honest and unadorned”.  The other derivation in English from candēre is candle, and that’s not related to candles being white (which originally they rarely were) but the brightness of the light they offered when lit.  Candle dates probably from the eighth or ninth centuries and was from the Middle English candel, from the Old English candel (candle), from the Latin candēla (candle), from the verb candeō (be white, bright, shining; I shine).

Depending on context, the synonyms for candor can include frankness, honesty, sincerity, equity, fairness & parrhesia while the antonyms typically used include deception, fraud, lie, untruth (or, in the case of crooked Hillary Clinton “I may have misspoken”).  In English, the alternative (mostly UK although also used in parts of the Commonwealth, notably Canada (which is presumed to be the influence from the French-speaking population which uses the same spelling)) spelling is candour white the spelling in Italian & French is candour and in Portuguese, candor.  Candor is a noun and candid is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is candors.

The original meaning in English (whiteness) dating from circa 1500, didn’t long survive the shift in meaning (circa 1600) to "openness of mind, impartiality, frankness”, something which occurred under the influence of French, the borrowing essentially from the French candied.  The familiar (and probably more frequently used) related forms are the adjectives candid and the adverb candidly; the noun candidness is rare.  Less common are the derived forms rarely used beyond the literarure of political science and literary criticism, the adjectives pseudocandid & quasi-candid and the adverb pseudocandidly.  The first use in photography was noted in 1929 and in television in the 1960s, both suggesting something spontaneous or un-staged material and while the meaning is still understood, in the age of TikTok and “reality” television, most now treat the use with some scepticism.  In politics, the quality of candidness is much prized by voters and there is evidence to suggest politicians can benefit from telling the truth although most seem still to take a more cautionary approach and assume that if they’re truthful, people will be so appalled as to not vote for them.  Other, more sophisticated, types understand candor can be to their advantage and have learned to deploy it (occasionally) or (more typically) have perfected faking it.  Both can work.     

Although clinicians have constructed fine diagnostics distinctions between them, among lay-people the terms “compulsive lying”, “pathological lying”, “mythomania” and “habitual lying” are all used to refer to those who tell falsehoods out of desire, habit or venality and sometimes for no apparent reason.  The condition is of course about as old as the first human interactions but was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by German psychiatrist Anton Delbrück (1862-1944) who wrote the case studies of five of his most extravagantly untruthful patients, labelling the behavior pseudologia phantastica (literally something like “a fantastic study of lying” and pseudologia fantastica in US English).  For clinicians, the distinction essentially is that a pathological liar is one who lies simply to get what they want and with little or no self-awareness while a compulsive liar tells untruths simply out of habit, even when the lie serves no purpose and confers no advantage.

There’s no consensus among clinicians about whether compulsive lying should be listed as a stand-alone diagnosis and even in the latest edition of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR (2022)) it’s not recognized it as a separate mental health condition although compulsive lying does appear as a component and symptom of several conditions including bipolar disorder (the old manic-depression), attention deficit hyperactivity (ADHD), impulse control disorder, substance dependency disorder, borderline personality disorder, anti-social personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder.  The DSM notes also that it’s rare for compulsive lying to indicate psychosis and that patients who lie compulsively often have a high degree of self-awareness and are thus not distanced from reality.

Lies, lies and damn lies.  Crooked Hillary Clinton

Whether from fear of retribution, being cancelled or actual Arkancide, it seems no clinician has ever published their assessment of whether crooked Hillary Clinton should be thought a pathological or compulsive liar.  Of course, given the wealth of the material one would need to review, it may be just too big a job, there being only so many hours in a day.  There may anyway be some overlap and however her casual relationship with truth might be diagnosed, the lying is certainly habitual though whether candid or not, crooked Hillary occasionally is caught telling the truth: 

“If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle”:  Candid.  It didn’t work but, lacking a strategic plan, this was her campaign team’s best attempt to develop an effective media-management tactic.  The pantsuits actually attracted more interest but even though intended as a feminist statement (and they certainly weren’t successful as a fashion statement), their most noted impact was as a gift to the cartoonists and meme-makers who quickly latched onto the orange pantsuit as an analogue for prison jumpsuits.  

“Probably my worst quality is that I get very passionate about what I think is right”.  Not candid.  Hillary Clinton has no sense of right and wrong, just rat-cunning in working out what’s in her personal interest.  Rare modesty though, some of her qualities are much worse.

Getting to the truth: Crooked Hillary Clinton lands in Bosnia, 1996. 

“I remember landing under sniper fire”:  Not candid.  This was just a lie. When landing at a Bosnian airport in 1996 (during one of the civil wars the Balkan states have from time-to-time), crooked Hillary was presented with a bunch of flowers by a little girl.  Later, when the lie was exposed, she couldn’t be candid even in her confession.  Refusing to admit she lied, she said she “misspoke”, adding “On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that I knew not to be the case."  That actually meant “I lied”.

“Aww don't feel noways tired. I've come too faarrr from where I started frum”:  Not candid, this was crooked Hillary’s fake Southern drawl, adopted while speaking at a church, south of the Mason-Dixon line.  Apparently thinking she could still get away with the way things were done in 1949, she fooled nobody, presumably, not even herself.

“We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”:  Candid.  This is a glimpse of crooked Hillary’s elitist, dictatorial, fascist character and whatever she planned to take away from others, she would never have to sacrifice a thing.

“God bless the America we are trying to create”:  Probably not candid; there is scant evidence crooked Hillary’s alleged Christianity is sincere and is about as convincing as Donald Trump's (b 1946; US president 2017-2021; president elect 2024) new-found piety.  She also said “I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian” and that was both candid and a reasonable critique of much of the modern Republican Party, the beliefs of some members distant from what the New Testament reveals about the thoughts of Christ.

Lips moving: Some possibility of untruthfulness.

“I have said that I'm not running and I'm having a great time being pres, …being a first-term senator”:  Not candid.  This came at a time when crooked Hillary was still telling her New York constituents she was committed only to representing them.  As deluded as she feels entitled, she still thinks the Democratic nomination in 2024 might be possible if the DNC (Democratic National Committee) works out (or, more to the point, admits) Joe Biden (b 1942; US president 2021-2025) is senile and even she might be a better candidate.

“Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody's going to believe them”: Candid, this is what she really thinks.  Crooked Hillary has utter contempt for anyone except the rich people her husband’s career has allowed her to mix with.  In fairness, this attitude is one of the characteristics of second-wave feminism and beyond, the focus always on tiny elites from various fashionable group identities, the women who serve their coffee and empty their trash bins barely acknowledged.  

“If I didn't kick his ass every day, he wouldn't be worth anything”:  A candid comment from crooked Hillary about her husband and probably true; he’d never have made it without her and vice-versa.

“My mother named me after Sir Edmund Hillary (1919-2008)”.  The claim was based on her finding his climbing of Mount Everest so inspiring, thus explaining the double-l spelling of her name.   However, the first successful ascent of Everest did not take place until half a decade after her birth.  The story was later “clarified” when a Clinton spokeswoman said she was not named after the famous mountaineer but the account “...was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add.”  Despite this, it remains unclear if crooked Hillary lied about her own name or was accusing her mother of lying.  Still, given everything else, “…at this point, what difference does it make?”

“We have a lot of kids who don't know what works means. They think work is a four-letter word.”  Candid and to be fair, this one is linguistically defensible, the phrase “four-letter-word” having a meaning beyond the literal.

Candid admissions: Lindsay Lohan as spokesperson for lawyer.com, 2018.