Words and meanings

When the ostensive meaning, the nominal meaning, and the nominal ostensive meaning of a word differ, the word is itself a lie, a lie contained in a single word that makes any sentence containing it a lie.

A word primarily means what it is used to refer to, its ostensive meaning. During childhood language acquisition, it means what mothers refer to when speaking to their children. The mother says “look, a dog”, and the child then knows what a dog is.

Then there is the nominal meaning, what dictionaries say the word means in terms of other words, what high status people say they mean, which is not necessarily what they do mean.

And then there is the nominal ostensive meaning – what people say they are pointing at, even though in fact they may be pointing at something completely different.

The difference between the ostensive meaning, what they point at, and the nominal ostensive meaning or the dictionary meaning, what they say they point at, is the lie.

The word “racism” illustrates this. The ostensive meaning, what it is actually used to mean, is an insult term for white, like “cracker” or “honky”. The nominal ostensive meaning is KKK Hitler slavery. The nominal meaning, what people claim they mean by it, what dictionaries say they mean by it … is incoherent, incomprehensible, and differs from one source to the next, because no one really cares or pays any attention.

The lie implicit in the word “racism” is therefore that all whites are guilty by original sin of KKK Hitler slavery, that blacks suffer because whites exist, that merely by continuing to breath, whites harm blacks. For example, by thinking evil thoughts about blacks, whites cause blacks to underperform, (stereotype threat) and devastate black run cities such as Detroit. The logical implication of the word “racism” is that non whites need to eradicate whites, because evil white magic is causing non whites magical harm.

Similarly for “sweatshop”, The ostensive meaning, what it is actually used to mean, is capital and entrepreneurs making those of a different race to the entrepreneur and owner of the capital productive by leadership and expensive equipment. The nominal ostensive meaning is something like a factory operated by slave labor. Supposedly the peasants are dragged to factory and chained to the bench. Allegedly evil capitalists did this somewhere some time, though it is not very clear when or where or who. The dictionary meaning is a shop employing workers at low wages, for long hours, and under poor conditions, but when communists forced people to work with actual chains and whips, for wages paid in money that could not be spent, for long hours, and under poor, and frequently fatal conditions, that was never a “sweatshop”, nor is it a sweatshop when the business employs very little technological capital, as for example a coffee plantation.

The lie implicit in the word “sweatshop”is therefore that capital, capitalism, and entrepreneurs make people worse off, that the way for individuals, peoples, and nations to enjoy prosperity and economic development is to imitate the wonderful examples of Soviet Russia, North Korea, and Castro’s Cuba and simply command prosperity into being. And if prosperity failed to be commanded into being, this was due to the continuing harmful influence of evil hate thoughts of evil capitalists – see “the kulaks”. If the command that utopia exist was mysteriously disobeyed, the solution obviously must be stronger regulation and harsher punishment.

12 Responses to “Words and meanings”

  1. B says:

    Well, yeah. Comes a point in every empire/ideology’s career when the population control apparatus gets stuck in a positive feedback loop of consuming its own hype, from which point it’s a downwards spiral ending in flaming wreckage. It’s very hard to keep up doubletalk, especially when you have an ever-growing inner party to keep updated on it, without believing it. Even half-believing it, as does your typical SWPL who will fight you to death if you say that blacks are not equal to whites but will work 80 hour weeks to isolate his family from these equals, brings a massive systemic cost, like the fuel he burns on his commute from the suburbs, his DC journalist kid’s hospital bills from getting assaulted, the price of ten handicapped cops engaged in handicapped policies like stop’n’frisk trying to do what one cop with free rein could have done, etc.

  2. VXXC says:

    Jim,

    The Sword And The Olive: A Critical History Of The Israeli Defense Force. By Martin Van Crevald. They didn’t bitch. They DID.

    The IDF began as a GANG.

    You know instead of bitching about ANC and ZANLA you took a page from their book…waahh we lost Africa. Yeah. And they got it.

  3. jim says:

    They did because their belief system allowed them to do.

    The gang was neither politically correct, nor was it orthodox Jewish.

    (Reform Jews are in practice conversos to a Christian descended religion. That, or commies.)

    Further, before what is now the IDF were a gang, they were rentacops. The rentacops became a militia, and a mercenary army, and then two gangs, which is roughly what I envisage happening during our collapse, if we are to come out of it intact.

    And then they became an official government army which found itself taking orders, that were not always obeyed, from a disastrously politically correct government. Had that government been more successful at being obeyed, Israel would not have been.

    • VXXC says:

      They were a gang defending themselves from Arab depredations, mind you they dressed as Arabs.

      They then became a militia.

      They then became an auxiliary army to the Brits while they were also fighting for Palestine.

      They become an Army on Independence.

  4. jim says:

    According to Wikipedia, the gangs Hagana and Irgun arose from the Hashomer, which advertised themselves as rentacops, which in turn arose from the Bar-Giora, who, though an ideological organization, actually functioned and presented themselves as rentacops.

  5. Marc says:

    “When the ostensive meaning, the nominal meaning, and the nominal ostensive meaning of a word differ, the word is itself a lie, a lie contained in a single word that makes any sentence containing it a lie.”

    How does this apply to gay ‘marriage’ and ‘animal rights’?

    In the case of gay ‘marriage’, high status people are changing what they point at when they teach their children. “Look, Johnny, a married gay couple!”

    • jim says:

      There are not any married gay couples for them to point at. Gays do not hang out with the same gay for very long, except as wingmen, cruising for sex in groups.

      When they point at a supposedly married gay couple, it is a lie. The poster boy couple that they found to point at had teamed up to fuck male infants, not teamed up to fuck each other.

      Just as the use of Emmet Till as poster boy for unjust lynchings of blacks shows the rarity or nonexistence of unjust lynchings of blacks, and the use of Marie Curie as poster girl for female scientists shows the rarity or nonexistence of genuine female scientists, the use of Mark and Peter Newton as poster boys for gay marriage shows the rarity or nonexistence of genuine gay marriages.

      Whenever the type specimen is contrived or faked, the word is a lie, even though supposedly defined by pointing.

  6. […] The lie implicit in the word “racism” is therefore that all whites are guilty by original sin of… […]

  7. […] If race doesn’t exist, neither can racism. Related: Racist = White person. Related: Words and meanings. […]

  8. Zach says:

    I’m waiting for the gay marriage thing to play out, and then come to my conclusion(s).

    I didn’t come to the same conclusion Jim did with the Radish post, which was excellent by the way. Is “Racist” just another word for “cracker”? I don’t think it is, but maybe not?

    +1 for Jim anyways.

  9. Marc says:

    An other interesting word to deconstruct: ‘sustainability’

    As far as I can tell, what people are pointing at when they say ‘sustainability’ is something like ‘compliance with goverment environmental mandate’ or ‘compliance with the opinion of the greenest of the greener-than-thou’. Not sure which.

Leave a Reply