Posts Tagged ‘rectification of names’

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. The 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.

Good and Evil

Monday, December 9th, 2019

Good people cooperate to suppress evil deeds and exclude evil men, drive out evil men, kill evil men. If no words for good and evil, no extended large scale cooperation. If no extended large scale cooperation, we are not truly human, and we perish.

Unless we can speak of good and evil, unless we can speak of good people and evil people, we will perish.

The words “Good” and “Evil” are both socially defined, and also defined by Gnon. When the people of your social group define good and evil, they instructing you on their social technology and social capital for achieving cooperate/cooperate equilibrium within their group, and this social technology, the copybook headings and tribal taboos, necessarily varies a little from one group to another.

When Gnon defines good and evil, he is telling you that some people and some behaviors make it very hard to achieve cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Those people are evil people, and those behaviors are evil behaviors.

The Old Testament told us to pay attention to tribal taboos and copybook headings. The book of Proverbs is copybook headings, and the book of Deuteronomy is tribal taboos. But in Old Testament times, they had good and working social technology. The New Testament told us to judge a tree by its fruits. In the cold and cynical language of the Dark Enlightenment, the New Testament tells us that when the tribal taboos get holiness spiraled, they are likely to be really bad social technology, and we should check that the social technology is still actually working.

In the first century of our Lord, Jewish holiness spiraled defective social technology eventually resulted in the most severe defect/defect equilibrium of them all: War. War with Rome. The worst possible of wars. The Jews thought it was more important to observe the pharisaic law on attending synagogue and the pharisaic law on avoiding blood contamination by walking on ground on which chicken blood had been spilled, than to observe the commandments of Gnon on coveting, on theft, and on murder.

Commies kill their friends.

The holy continually invent new ways to be ever more holy. Which, because universalism and utilitarianism, requires the continual invention of new and ever more terrible harms caused by inadequate holiness. White privilege. Male privilege. Therefore, being white and male, you are committing all manner of terrible harms, and should rightly be hated and punished. So the sincere leftist will hate you and punish you.

It is defect/defect equilibrium, because the leftist perceives all near as defectors. You cannot establish cooperate/cooperation equilibrium with a leftist, because his perception of cooperation is defective, just as his perception of female sexual desire is defective.

Near is supposedly oppressing far. So the more he hates near the holier he is. The more he harms near, the holier he is. Hence Trayvon-Zimmerman debate. “10-10 No Pressure” was a wish fulfillment fantasy. They want to kill your children.

Leftist males frequently want to cut their own balls off, because they are ashamed and horrified by how much they are oppressing women. But even more, they want to cut your balls off. Especially if you are scoring more pussy than they are, which you probably are.

A leftist just hates you, he hates his fellow leftists, and he hates himself. He will try to harm you and frequently does. Sometimes he will harm himself in the course of harming you.

In the recent prosecutions of warriors, the priestly prosecution suppressed evidence that would indicate innocence (for example the fact that the dead “civilians” shot by Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance were in fact Taliban who had their DNA on IED devices) and went looking far too hard for evidence of guilt, went looking so hard that they were likely to find it regardless of whether it existed or not.

They just hated warriors, because our priesthood has just hated warriors since 1860, wanted to maliciously harm them, and were trying to do so. The prosecution did not give a tinker’s dam whether those guys were innocent or guilty.

Leftists are nicer and politer than rightists, in part because they are always worried about microaggressions, in part because all bad language oppresses some official victim group, in part because they tend to have no real friends, thus feel weak individually, and unable to openly confront people individually.

Kathy Forth was industriously destroying the lives of people in Scott Alexander’s social circle, and everyone was far too nice and far to polite to call her out for it or speak up in the defense of those she damaged.

Scott Alexander on his social circle’s response to an evil and insane woman causing immense damage: “I do think that the people who work on making sure harassment allegations get heard and dealt with have done a really great job, and often while Kathy was stalking them and their friends, and I commend that”

That politeness and niceness is truly astonishing. Approaching Pol Pot levels of politeness and niceness. It is absolutely obvious that Scott’s social circle is outstandingly nice and polite. But really lousy friends. They were throwing each other to crocodile in the hope of being last to devoured.

Pol Pot, who murdered everyone with any connection to himself, was a famously nice man. Everyone who met him and survived (which is not very many of those who met him) reported on how remarkably nice he was. None of his family, none of the classmates he went to school with as a child, survived. The amazingly nice Pol Pot was so nice as to eradicate anyone who obstructed immanentizing the eschaton. And since eschaton failed to immanentize, it was obvious that no end of people were obstructing it.

The collapse of faith in government and social institutions (which we and Trump are riding) is happening because leftists not only behave badly collectively, they behave badly individually. A leftist government is apt to murder millions, and a leftist sister is apt to murder her brother for the inheritance. (The left has no legitimate grounds to arrest Trump, and thus it is difficult to arrest Trump or the people around him without openinly abandoning the Republic, but he has ample supply of legitimate grounds to arrest the top leadership of the Democratic party for individual non political crimes. Biden was open about what he was doing, because everyone in his social circle was doing it, so Trump could arrest his opposition while everyone still politely pretends to believe the Republic still lives.) The average leftist would like to kill you, and will steal anything not nailed down. The holiness spiral heads to war, because it destroys cooperation, because it destroys the words “Good” and “Evil”, destroys the meaning of those words.

The end state of this collapse of cooperation is war, frequently the state making one sided war upon its disarmed subjects.

To detect this sort of weaponized niceness, watch for incongruity between inner frame and outer frame. The apparent niceness of progressives usually has incongruous inner frame, as in the debate over Martin and Zimmerman. Outwardly they cared deeply that blacks were victimized by white authority figures. Inwardly they believed that blacks were entitled to rob houses and attack white people without white people defending themselves, which incongruity manifested in supposedly supporting the proposition that Zimmerman attacked Martin with arguments that Martin had motive for attacking Zimmerman.

The outer frame was that they cared deeply about other people, the inner frame was that they hate me and mine and intend harm to me and mine. Niceness is a weapon. If someone is nice, watch out that niceness is not a knife in his hand.

When I hear leftists talking in moralistic language, they use that language in the same way they use the symbols and language of Christianity, to desecrate and denigrate. They hate goodness and decency and want to destroy it, they shrink from it as a vampire shrinks from sunlight, or Merkel famously shrank from the German flag. They use the language of virtue and goodness like satanists inverting the symbols of Christianity in sacrilegious rituals. “Piss Christ” fails to impress me as an indication of heartfelt Christianity, and leftist claims to be in favor of fairness are as convincing as communist claims to be in favor of the peasants. “Land to the tiller”.

Did the tiller get land?

The communists stole his land, and mortgages in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown were distributed in a way that was a savagely and destructively unfair as it was possible to be. The people who say “Think of our Children” also issued “10 10 No Pressure”. They don’t want to save the earth for our children, any more than the communists intended to give land to the tiller. They want to murder our children in order to save the earth, and are not shy about saying so.

The warmists want to murder our children, the communists are so vitally concerned about fairness that they want to take the tiller’s land and the worker’s house and force them all to live in giant Le Corbusier Housing projects. Is it fair to take the tiller’s land?

Complex societies are the result of males cooperating – and the male capacity to cooperate is the result of selection for collective action to hog the most women.

Failure of the elite to reproduce reflects breakdown of cooperation within the elite. The state religion contains the social technology for cooperation within the elite, thus failure of the elite to reproduce reflects a dysfunctional state religion promoting a dysfunctional moral code, a moral code that prevents cooperation, an evil moral code.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Ye outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

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…)

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.