Many insightful shouts on various matters, mostly pertaining to langauge and race, from Longbard et al.
BARDAMU: " Thanks to @ScottAdamsSays today I learned that it's not racist for half of black people to dislike white people, but it is racist to point it out."
LONGBARD: Because by definition, rassism only applies from one dominant ethnicity against a minority, so a minority can be racist, and the racism of the minority is considered antiracist
IXABERT: I am a house-ist. I believe in the reality of houses, I live in a house, and I accept the ramifications of the reality of houses. I am also a hand-ist --- I have a hand, believe in its existence, use it, want to preserve it. I am also a tree-ist, a hair-ist, a chair-ist, a human-ist, a fish-ist, a race-ist, etc., etc.
LONGBARD: [My father] is an anti-ism-ist
IXABERT: I am of the same view as your father. I maintain my stance against all manner of 'isms'. Howbeit, I must admit that I suggested the adoption of 'racist' as self-designation, except insisting on its literal etymological meaning. The impetus for such a recommendation arises from the fact that it provides a distinct rhetorical advauntage to those individuals upon whom the label of this 'ist' is affixt.
LONGBARD: The issue is that we place too much importance to the concept of the -ism. It doesnt mean that the "-ism" is worhtless, it's the abuse of the concept that is wrong. I'm drinking a glass of water so Im a water-in-glass-ist
IXABERT: Correct, and the word "racist" is employed with a malicious intent in order to stigmatise and vilify racially aware Aryans, who are seen as enemies of their own racial cause. By attaching this label to outgroups who espouse racist ideologies, they seek to undermine and diminish the value of this approach, denying the Aryan race the benefits that are otherwise available to them through the practice of racism. This tactic is employed as a means of asserting their own racial supremety
LONGBARD: Racist should define someone who studies the races (you or someone else said this before)
IXABERT: That's what I am getting at, yes.
LONGBARD: But studying races is therefore "rassist", since there are no races, but we have affirmative action, and we must define our race in the ID card
LONGBARD: What is the difference between -ist, -oid, -ian?
IXABERT: I have strong opinions on the matter: '-ist' has to do with belief or awareness (race-ist means you are race-aware); -oid (or -id) has to do with resemblance or similarity, and -ian has to do with peoplehood, membership, & suchlike. When people break those conventions, I regard it a misuse of language.
IXABERT: We can determine the meaning of the word. The enemy are not the masters of our discourse. So let us not wait for the lexographers to define our words for us, but rather let us take the initiative to use language in creative and meaningful ways. The approved lexographers are nowadays beholden to false politically correct ideologies. They are trying to shape the language in accordance with their false ideologies. So make the word mean what it ought to mean. Take control over your own language. The enemy did it to distort our language; we can do likewise to correct it.
IXABERT: This will always be a possibility so long as the fluidity of language necessitates a certain malleability of meaning. I suggest taking advauntage hereof
LONGBARD: "Take control over your own language" +. So we're Logos-ists
IXABERT: Since language is the primary mode of transmitting thought, to be beholden to the strictures of an ideological lexicography is to be mentally enslaved to that ideology - in this case, the enemy's ideology - whereas to embrace the dynamic nature of language in order to shape and influence the future of expression is to be the master of that language. I suggest taking the latter approach
IXABERT: We need to write our own dictionaries. We need to break away from their inversion of our civilisastion. Spiritially, institutionally, physically, ideologically.
LONGBARD: One of my projects was to write a dictionary
IXABERT: The enemy are never going to realise the error of their ways and do things the proper way. They will never build back better on our behalf. They will never stop inverting. We have to do everything for ourselves. We need our own schools, even our own dictionaries, since they are deliberately distorting languages
LONGBARD: Since I see the differencies between the english and the italian, and how wrong it's been translated. The misuse of words in translation, which goes along with the disruption of etimology; nowadays people say words they don't know They're disrupting the language. So people dont know what's going on, since have no language to describe it. Disrupting language = disrupting conscience
LONGBARD: Concepts like rassism and conspiracy theory are meant to annihilate the mind
IXABERT: The art of translation ought to abide by one of two principles: either (1) a strictly literal translation, preserving even the original language's word order - if German is being translated, I think the translation should sound as Germanish as possible; or (2) a paraphrased version so loosely translated as to amount to a new work of creative art that can stand on its own merits. The latter is similar to Sir Thomas Urquhart's famous translation of Rabelais, where the translator took the liberty of adapting the original text to suit his own literary style.
LONGBARD: Yes, or you give the exact literal translation (and then it's up to you to relate to yourself and your culture and language), or you fairly and openly declare it your interpretation. There's a particular case I like to consider: "having a clue" which has no translation in italian: we translate it as "have no idea", but you have "having no idea" in english, and it's a very different thing
IXABERT: That's why the diversity of languages exists. So that we can say what can only be perfectly said via a particular language, by speaking that language
LONGBARD: And that's why we have different words for different things. So another language should add new words to the dictionary, instead of substitutions. There can be similarities, but not substitutions. In fact, in some technical jargoons there are no translations, like in music, an "adagio" is an "adagio" and you don't translate it. This is why a global-unified-universal language was percieved bad / had to be destroyed, in the myth of the Tower of Babel. And why we say "babbling"
IXABERT: There are many adages, many useful phrases I know of that only the French, Latin, and German languages are able to communicate in the best possible way.
IXABERT: In times past, the lexicographers were wont to concoct words they believed to be lacking in the English tongue (that they thought ought to exist) whilst in the process of compiling their tomes. In fact, if one were to peruse the pages of Chambers dictionary, one would find a plethora of such examples - words that exist solely within the confines of the dictionary. Yet, there were other such neologisms that have since become ubiquitous within the common vernacular, and which owe their very existence to the dictionaries that first introduced them to the world. I believe this practice should be continued
IXABERT: Pray permit me to recommend the acquisition of the skill of perusing multiple lines of text. I had the foresight to contemplate and counter your argument in the last paragraph of my post. So next time you are moved to bite at my ankles, rather than reading only the first couple of lines, I implore you to peruse with due diligence the entirety of the text to which you are responding. And if this task should prove too daunting, I would suggest that perhaps a brief respite from libations may be in order.
IXABERT: In the few instances when I partook of alcohol, I vividly recollect that one of the most off-putting aspects of the beverage was its propensity to induce in me a distinct aversion to perusing more than a mere two lines of textual content.
IXABERT: Indeed, the potency of the substance was such that it left me with little inclination or desire to engage with lengthier passages of written discourse.
IXABERT: This experience was so contrarious to my sensibilities that I became averse to the consumption of alcohol, and henceforth refrained from partaking in the imbibing of the poison.
LONGBARD: In some societies alcohol is mandatory.
IXABERT: Those are called slave societies.
LONGBARD: We have some sayings on the matter: In Vino Veritas; Chi non beve o è un ladro o una spia ( the one who doesnt drink is a thief or a spy)
IXABERT: That particular adage may be distilled to the following meaning: he who abstains from imbibing alcoholic beverages maintains a heightened state of awareness and vigilance, similar to that of a professional thief or spy (or any other competent and efficient individual). In essence, this is the sole element of verisimilitude contained therein.
