It would, if only it were an actual word and if it meant what you think it means

Is it? Does it? Sadly, No!

Writing on the plight of Wal-Mart shopper Patricia VanLester who was knocked unconscious by fellow shoppers, Andrew Sullivan writes:

I’m sorry but these people are out of their minds. Suddenly, the German term Konsumterrorismus makes a certain amount of sense.

The German term Andy is presumably thinking of is Konsumterror (talk about being obsessed with terrorism, but we digress.) But Konsumterror refers to the prevalence of advertising in society, and the resulting inability to escape being bombarded with ads. How this relates to an excessively enthusiastic herd of Wal-Mart shoppers remains, well, unclear.

Suddenly, the bogus nature of Andy’s intellect makes total sense.

 

Comments: 7

 
 
 

If babelfish.altavista.com is any guide, both words are legitimate German: Konsumterror translates as “consumer terror,” Konsumterrorismus as “consumer terrorism.” Strangely, a page on wildwux.org suggests that “Konsumterrorismus” is a registered trademark somewhere.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=Konsumterrorismus+site%3Awildwux.org

And if Sullivan’s use of the term is wrong, he’s not alone:

http://www.bloofga.org/finley/fin-five.txt

 
 

“If babelfish.altavista.com is any guide, both words are legitimate German: Konsumterror translates as “consumer terror,” Konsumterrorismus as “consumer terrorism.””

Because many German words are compounds of several words, one can get any number of random combinations to “translate” on babelfish. “Mehlterrorismus” gives “flour terrorism.” We doubt there’s any such thing. Same for “Katzeterrorismusgueltigkeit,” i.e. “cat terrorism validity.”

 
 

“Katzeterrorismusgueltigkeit,” i.e. “cat terrorism validity.”

What a great band name.

 
 

“What a great band name.”

While we didn’t think of it yesterday, it just occured to us that “Bundeskatzeterrorismusgueltigkeit” might be an even better name. (federal cat terrorism validity.)

 
 

the word konsumterror was coined by some dude who wanted to describe what capitalism was doing that forced the red army to resort to terrorism. however it has come to mean (at least to those who get it via debord) that terror which consumes one who fears that they may not be able to consume. The woman in the ticket line who becomes desperate, thinking, “perhaps they will sell out before I get to the front!” It is a terror of being left out of social life by being denied consumption, or consumption of one’s own gestures of consumption.

 
 

Only the hand that erases can write the true thing.

 
 

(comments are closed)