Posts Tagged ‘anticoncept’

Don’t use enemy words, you will not be understood.

Monday, December 16th, 2019

Enemy words are always understood as enemy meanings. And they will always be understood in this sense even if we hold the megaphone, because their official definition always conflates two very different and incompatible natural kinds.

Don’t use the words “racist”, “psychopath”, “sweatshop”, “sociopath”, and “pedophile”, among many others equally evil.

When someone says “Democrats are the real racists”, he is using the word “racist” correctly and in accord with its official definition (“racist” means badwhite), and he thinks he is being understood, and it superficially looks as if he is being understood, but instead of being understood as saying that we need to shutdown affirmative action and stop blacks from shooting cops and burning down the shops in their neighborhood, is instead understood as saying that the Democratic Party needs to purge its remaining whites and go brown.

Using the word “racist” in accord with its official definition (badwhite) fails to communicate, because the natural kind of evil anti correlates with the natural kind of white. Whites are the most good race, the least evil race.

If you say Arkan is a psychopath, you are using the word correctly and in accord with its official meaning (evil warrior), and people will seemingly understand you, but you will be understood as saying that Army First Lt. Clint Lorance was also a war criminal, and that the prosecution was right to cook up whatever crimes and whatever evidence for those crimes were necessary to convict him, and that Trump was very wicked to pardon him.

If you say Trotsky was a psychopath, you are using the word incorrectly, since psychopaths are supposed to be calm in the face of danger and resistant to coercion. Trotsky was not resistant to coercion, and it is hard to tell if he was calm in the face of danger, because he always ran away from danger. You will be understood as giving credit to his story that he was a successful and effective military officer in the civil war, which in a sense he was, but Trotsky administered the military from an embarassingly safe distance, while Stalin headed off to where the action was.

Using the word psychopath in accord with its official definition (evil warrior) fails to communicate, because the natural kind of evil anticorrelates with the natural kind of warrior. The virtues of calm in the face of immediate danger, and determination in the face of immediate harm anticorrelate with the vices of short term manipulative lying, short termism in interpersonal skills, and the pursuit of short term goals. cluster B is toxic masculinity, psychopath hardcore toxic masculinity, and sociopath is a toxic husband who loves his wife, his children, his kin, and his friends.

You need a word for courage and manliness, and you need a separate word for evil. When you have a word for something that is not a natural kind, but a combination of the characteristics of two natural kinds that are by nature contrary to each other, its sole function is to create confusion between natural kinds. Actual usage necessarily collapses to referring to one kind or the other.

If you are white, you are a racist, if you are brave, you are a psychopath, and if you love your family, you are a sociopath. And when people attempt to use these words in other meanings, as with “Democrats are the real racists”, they just fall flat on their faces.

Just flat out does not work. It is laughable to even attempt to say it. When a black gang roams the streets looking for white kids to beat up no one calls them racists, because they are not racists, and if you call them racists you sound crazy. No one understands what you are talking about.

The official definition of “racist” is not “white”. It is “badwhite”. But simply having such a definition necessarily collapses in practice to “it is not alright to be white”. And the official definition of psychopath is not warrior but evil warrior, which is in one sense plausible, since warriors regularly do terrible things. On the other hand, because the warrior virtues are in fact virtues, does not make sense, so in actual usage necessarily collapses to “it is not alright to be brave or manly”

Because the characteristics used in the official definition of a psychopath, a sociopath, a pedophile, or a racist anticorrelate, actual usage necessarily to collapses to one cluster or the other cluster

If you have one word for both, then priestly types can never be evil, and warrior types can never be good. So the actual usage in practice necessarily collapses to a hateful word for warrior.

Official definition of racist: “Badwhite”; Actual usage and what happens if you attempt to use it in the official sense: “Whites are evil”.

Every attempt to use enemy words in accordance with their official enemy definition simply fails every time. “Democrats are the real racists”

Communication just does not ensue.

The intent of words that do not correspond to natural kinds is to lie and confuse, and trying to use them to tell the truth just fails. They are words with a lie at their core built into them.

“Sociopath” is a hate word for love and loyalty. If you care about your wife and kids, you are a sociopath, and again, no one is going to understand you if you attempt to give it a non standard and unusual meaning. Trying to use these words is like calling blacks and democrats “racist”. Just does not compute. No one is going to understand you.

If capitalism and poor work conditions were a natural kind, if the word “sweatshop” referred to a natural kind, that would imply that capitalism is poor work conditions, or causes poor work conditions. If injustice motivated by racial difference was a natural kind, that would imply that noticing racial difference is injustice.

Rectification of names: Science

Friday, November 10th, 2017

Vox Day attempts to rectify names related to science.

Derb snears at this as if the rapidly changing official newspeak was a valid means of communication, indeed the only possible valid means of communication.

Our rulers are systematically changing the meaning of words in order to obliterate reality and make it difficult for people to think, creating words that link unlike things together, make distinctions without real difference, obliterating the meanings of old words that make meaningful distinctions, and giving old words new nonsense meanings, meanings intended to make males, whites, and straights weak, frightened, and ashamed. (more…)

Psychopathy is an anticoncept

Thursday, June 4th, 2015

Thumotic proposes that “psychopathy” is an anti concept, created to make men weak.

The definition of psychopathy combines traits that are unlikely to be correlated, for example

1: the ability to endure stress and danger calmly, and the propensity to lie casually without regard to the long term consequences.

2: the propensity to act vigorously and competently in pursuit of goals and the lack of realistic, long-term goals

The concept of psychopathy defines manliness as bad, and men as irresponsible and childlike.

A psychopath is defined as someone who is not a reliable friend, yet I am pretty sure that calmness under stress and danger is a good indication of a reliable friend.

The word “psychopath”, like “racist” is a twentieth century invention. If there were such natural kinds as “racist” or “psychopath”, there would have been words for them in biblical times. Such twentieth century coinages do not cut reality at the joints, but are intended to manipulate and destroy.

The rectification of names part one

Friday, August 29th, 2014

Bigot, bigoted:  Originally meant a sanctimonious person, someone holier than thou, someone who uses his purported holiness to gain advantage over other people.

Now, anyone who uses the word is a sanctimonious person who is holier than thou and uses his purported holiness to gain advantage over other people.

Racist, racism:  Never had any coherent original meaning.  Now is a hate word for white, frequently used preparatory to murder and assault.  Thus for example if a black man enters a white woman’s house, hits the baby with a jack handle and throws the woman down the stairs, it is because of racism – because she and the baby are racist.

Prejudiced.  Originally meant pre judgment, meant believing ideology over eyesight.  Now means believing eyesight over ideology.

Covetousness:  Originally meant desiring what someone else has rightly earned or rightly owns.  Now means desiring to rightly earn things, rather than take what is another’s through the political process – I don’t think that intent of present day Christians is to use the words that old type Christians used to use in the new meaning so much as to prevent anyone from using them in the old meaning.  see also “prophetic“.  The intent of using words associated with old type Christianity is to end the use of the words.  Once the official hierarchy gets everyone in the church using words in the new meaning, they then shut down the church, thereby ending the use of words associated with old type Christianity in either the old or new meanings.

Hypocrisy, hypocrite:  Originally meant someone who proclaims one code of action while acting differently, close in meaning to “bigot” and “bigoted”.  Now means a non progressive who fails to act according to progressive rules.  Progressives, therefore cannot be hypocrites, any more than blacks can be racists, even when blacks are playing the knockout game.   Thus if, for example, someone says that a disproportionate number of blacks are dangerous, and since one cannot predict which ones are dangerous, it is necessary to treat them all as potentially dangerous at first, is not only supposedly bigoted, but also supposedly hypocritical if he does in fact treat them all as potentially dangerous.

Because progressives demand that people behave in suicidal ways, they always make unprincipled exceptions for themselves.  Because progressives are always struggling for power with each other, they always call each other out over these unprincipled exceptions.  But, when calling each other out over these unprincipled exceptions, they would seldom make the faux pas of using “hypocrite” in the old sense.  Progressives can never be hypocrites.  Progressives failing to act in a progressive manner are not hypocrites.  Only non progressives failing to act in a progressive manner are hypocrites.

Marriage:  Originally, within the lives of older married people, an irrevocable commitment to live together and raise the resulting children.  Now the point of marriage is divorce, the legal authority of the wife over a husband on pain of confiscation of his assets and income.  Some people attempt to use Church and social pressure to enforce old type marriage, but hard to find an old type church.  Because “gay marriage” means a pair of gays cruising together to pick up boys, an effort is under way to redefine marriage yet again as a pair of people of either sex cruising for pickups but it is probably that this redefinition will fail, because it is hard to get a good wingwoman.  Therefore, probably will continue to mean matrilineality and female headship.  The feminists and the gays are fighting over this one.  Feminists want “marriage” to refer to the female headed family, while gays want it to refer to cruising for pickups.

People continue to have Church weddings in the hope of getting Church backing for the old meaning, but they get stabbed in the back by the Church with the feminist meaning, where the purpose of marriage is to ensure female headship through divorce. Gay meaning soon to follow.

Because of the difference between men and women, if the gays beat the feminists for the meaning of marriage, it will work out even worse for married heterosexual males.  Even though television today tells you that the latest meaning of marriage means that your wife should be your wingwoman when you go cruising for a threesome, which would be great, it will in practice mean that you sleep on the couch and clean up the love stains on the double bed when your wife’s lover comes over to slap her around and take her money.

Words that are lies

Saturday, May 31st, 2014

A word should refer to an essence, a natural kind, and normal words do.

Suppose we had a word that referred to roast pork and fried chicken, but not to other foods. This would imply that roast pork and chicken were the same essence, the same natural kind, which of course they are not. So when you have a word that does not refer to a natural kind, that word is a lie – and the lie is usually a lot more hurtful than claiming that pigs are chickens.

For example, a “sweatshop” is entrepreneurship, capital, and low paid labor. Which is no more an essence than entrepreneurship, capital, and tuesdays.

If communists work people to death in the hot sun in twenty hour shifts, seven days a week, and no food, not a sweatshop by definition. If a capitalist builds an air conditioned factory in the third world, and has eight hour shifts, five days a week, but inadequate bathroom breaks, is a sweatshop. This is used to imply that capital, investment, and entrepreneurship makes people worse off, even though it is glaringly obvious that it makes people better off.

This is the lie that kept much of the third world poor for a long time. By definition, capital, investment, and entrepreneurship supposedly makes people poor.

Similarly, with “racism”. Supposedly this means injustice motivated by race, which not a natural kind, nor is it a definition, but rather a hateful smear against white people, accusing white people of being responsible for the underperformance of black people.

Unjust acts motivated by X are not a natural kind, any more than unjust acts on tuesdays are a natural kind. We don’t have a word for unjust acts motivated by sexual jealousy. When someone murders another person to steal his shoes, we do not call the killer “greedy”. An unjust act committed for reasons of race is not a natural kind any more than unjust act committed on a tuesday is a natural kind. We did not have a word that supposedly stands for unjust acts committed for reasons of race until the twentieth century, and we still do not have words for unjust acts committed for reasons of covetousness, or unjust acts committed on a tuesday.

So in practice, no one is ever going to use the words “racism” and “racist” in accordance with the supposed definition, at least not if he hopes to be understood. Rather, it is a hateful word for members of high functioning groups. The supposed definition is merely a hateful smear against members of those groups, in particular and especially against white people, and against certain political beliefs.

The supposed definition is not a definition, but rather a claim that Donald Sterling, by thinking bad thoughts about blacks, caused the bad behavior of which he was thinking, that his thoughts were hurtful and unjust acts. Similarly, the genocide of the Tutsi was supposedly caused by Tutsi racism, not Hutu racism.

Racism is an anti concept

Friday, May 16th, 2014

We do not have a word “deskism” for someone who thinks differences between kinds of desk matter, and who has strong preferences in favor of some kinds of desks and against other kinds of desk.

No one can be racist against white people, and all whites are racists. That is why it is not racism when a bunch of blacks beat up a white man who happens to be passing by. When they do that, they are being anti racist. When you try to give “racism” some meaning other than “Beat the daylights out of honkeys”, you are trying to push muck uphill.

“Racism” never had the meaning that some reactionaries and extreme right wingers are trying to give it. And it never will, because there is no need for a word with the meaning Zippy is trying to give “racist”. It is like gays trying to force us to pretend that the word gay still has the meanings cheerful and happy, rather than filthy, disgusting, weak and depraved.  It is not in the nature of words to work like that.  If there was a place in the language for a word that means what Zippy wants “racist” to mean, we would have had that word a thousand years ago.

The word “racist” was invented at the start of the twentieth century  invented by Trotsky for the purpose of destroying western civilization.  It has never meant what reactionaries and right wingers would like it to mean, and it never will mean that.  Words mean what they are used to mean, not what people claim they mean or say that they mean, and people just are not naturally inclined to use a word the way that Zippy would like them to use the word “racist”.  Language does not work like that.

If there was a place for a word with that meaning, we would have had such a word before Trotsky.

They are pushing muck uphill when they try to keep the pleasant associations of gay, but they have the power. Zippy is pushing muck uphill when he tries to call blacks who beat up whites racist, rather than the anti racists that they so obviously are, and he does not have the power.

“Racist” means what it means, and what it means is that blacks are entitled to beat the hell out of whites, and whites are not entitled to fight back.  We saw that in the Zimmerman incident.  The supporters of Trayvon implicitly admitted what they explicitly denied, that they assumed that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.  They simply felt that Trayvon had the right to do so, and Zimmerman had no right to defend himself.  That is what racism means.  Zimmerman was a racist, because less black than Trayvon, therefore deserved his beating.

Trayvon was obviously motivated in part by hatred of those less black than himself, because, according to retard girl’s testimony, when he reached his father’s house, he turned around and said he was going to get that “creepy cracker”.  But scarcely anyone called him a racist for that, which shows that is not what “racist” means, shows that even the tiny handful of reactionaries and extreme right wingers that are trying to give it the meaning “someone who thinks differences between kinds of human matter, and who has strong preferences in favor of some kinds and against other kinds of humans”, cannot bring themselves to actually use it in that sense, because it would sound mighty strange to actually use it in accordance with that meaning.

“Racism” is an anti concept because actual usage and purported meaning completely contradict each other.  It purportedly means Hitler-nazi-genocide evil, and actually means white, as proven by actual usage, as for example in the Trayvon Zimmerman case.  Zimmerman was a racist and Travyon not a racist, just as an air conditioned capitalist tee shirt factory which has eight hour shifts but limited toilet breaks is a sweat shop, but a communist slave labor camp in the tropics where the slaves are worked to death in baking heat on nineteen hour shifts  is not a sweatshop.

Similarly “prejudice”.  What is prejudice?  Is it a belief one assumes true without adequate empirical evidence?  Obviously not.  “Prejudice” means “hate fact”, or “low status belief”.

Words mean what they are used to mean.  And scarcely anyone calls Martin Trayvon racist.  Not progressives, not me, and not Zippy.  Zippy is not going to spontaneously call Trayvon “racist” to describe the fact that Trayvon was in the habit of attacking people less black than himself, any more than Zippy is going to spontaneously call me “gay” because I am in a good mood.

Racism and Deskism

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

What is “racism”? Why is the belief that the appearance and origin of a desk has a good correlation with the desk’s value and usefulness not known as “deskism”, and why is “deskism” unlikely to to destroy one’s career, whereas the belief that the appearance and origin of a human has a good correlation with various desirable or undesirable characteristics is a horrid and unthinkable sin.

Use of the word racism

Use of the word racism