Reflections From a Murky Pond

Language shapes or gives shape to human thought. Therefore changes to culture’s language either represent a change in the what or how the culture thinks or are an attempt to induce changes in how the culture thinks.

This becomes quite clear when one looks at how people - mostly in America and other parts of Western Culture - have changed the definition of the “racism” in order to further their own agenda. In the past racism was defined in a denotative manner that contained no dependencies on secondary functions, constructs, or systems.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition:

Racism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933

Definition(s):

1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2. racial prejudice or discrimination

This was and is the proper definition of racism. It accurately denotes and defines the phenomenon of racism.

Sadly, various Sociologists decided to craft a new definition of racism, one more suited to the agenda of societal change. Their new (mis)definition is:

Racism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1970

Definition(s):

1. Prejudice plus power

This (mis)definition of racism has its roots in the writings of Dr. Delmo Della Dora, who first devised this corruption of the meaning and nature of racism. It is a purely agenda-driven definition of racism. It’s purpose is to make racism a purely White problem and to free minorities from any and all responsibility for their own bigotry. In other words, this is a claim that no member of a minority group can be racist due the prevailing demographic disparities prevent them from having significant power.

This serves no purpose except as an attempt to lock Whites and minorities into fixed roles of oppressor and victim, with the latter either trying extracting concessions from the former or in rebellion against the former.

Only White people can be racist. This the battle cry of a generation of anti-racist activists, theorists, and minority leaders who have twisted the English language to further their agenda. It is a slogan that hopefully will go down in history as one of the most poorly conceived counterproductive arguments ever made by man.

Never Forget, Never Forgive

May the Gods bless America with Vision to find those who have wronged us and murdered among us, with the strength of Arm to chastise them and bring them before the Gods for judgment, and the Will to use our Vision and our the strength of our Arm wreak our retribution upon our enemies and bring them low and into dust.

The “Golden Rule” states that one should do unto others as he would like them to do unto him. This may be the best piece of evidence for a universal absolute moral code. Just about every religion in existence exhorts their followers to practice this simple ideal. A few examples are listed below:

Buddhism (500 BCE)

Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful.

– Udana-Varga, 5, 18

Christianity (50 CE)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.

– Matthew 7:12

Confucianism (600 BCE)

Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto other that you would not have them do unto you.

– Analects, 15, 23

Islam (622 CE)

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

– Imam An-Nawawi’s 40 Hadiths, 13

Hinduism (1500 BCE)

This is the turn of duty; do naught unto others which could cause you pain if done to you.

– Mahabharata, 5, 1517

Judaism (1800 BCE)

What is harmful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.

– Talmud, Shabbat, 312

Taoism (300 BCE)

Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.

– T’sai Shang Kan Ying P’ien

Zoroastrianism (600 BCE)

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.

– Didistan-i-dinik, 94, 5

If this stricture were limited to only the Abrahamic faiths - and possibly Zoroastrianism - I would write it off as nothing of note. Each of those faiths builds upon its predecessor. The Golden Rule is not so limited however. Even religions and philosophies with little or connection or exposure to the Abrahamic faiths include essentially the same stricture.

While this alone is not proof, it seems to be enough evidence to support postulating a universal absolute morality.