This is not exactly a warning. But do not be surprised if the next time you hear anybody talking about Black Holes it is someone out there announcing that the word has been canceled and banned from the English lexicon, or else, it is someone demanding that it be, and that research on these intergalactic entities be halted. In any case, do not act too surprised either if at the very least someone out there were to demand that the name of these astrophysical phenomena be changed. When that happens, as is only a matter of time, that would be because the news that Black Holes wolf down whole planets for breakfast would have reached some BLM fanatic, and the conclusion would have been made on the spot that calling “black” such voracious entities is totally racist and another example of white supremacy “exporting” itself to outer space. So that, following the idiosyncratic “logic” shared by blacks and black-minded whites, research in the field would be declared a conspiracy to outsource slavery to the exoplanets ─ or something equally stupid. And the same is sure to befall to other fields of knowledge in which the Euro-centric rationality predominates and the “Africanoid or black scientific paradigm” is not well represented. Just do not ask me wtf that even means.
Only one thing is sure here. At that point, Black Holes would have joined “brown lunch bag,” and “blackout,” “blackmail,” “black luck,” and “blackguard,” and other “racist,” white supremacist words to be stricken from English dictionaries soon to be edited by the New Inquisition headed by blacks and black-minded white liberals, colleges and the media having already caved into BLM bullshit rationales. Say hello to the new Dark Age, this time around literally for real.
The only question then would be what to do about substantia nigra, a biological stuff located in the mid-section of the brains of white and black people alike, indispensable for the healthy functioning of the nerve system, and which paradoxically and despite the quibbling of medical researchers, surely mostly white and liberal, may account for the fact that Parkinson’s Disease is statistically less present among black than among white Americans. But then, what to do with nigredo? Taken over from Latin, in alchemy this word signifies blackness, which in chemistry as well gets assimilated to the decay, decomposition, and putrefaction of all natural elements and substances, and by extension, also to death. Besides alchemy, nigredo also has a profound significance in Jungian psychology, where it designates what is known to Jungians as the undifferentiated state of unconsciousness in which the Self cannot tell itself from the Object, and therefore is the state the Self, all of us, must overcome to reach consciousness of its own existence and acquire and sustains the permanent state that leads individuation. But then, nigredo is also crucial to Christian mysticism as much as to Christian mystical poetry (think for example of Saint Theresa, Saint Juan of the Cross, or Saint Paul of the Cross), for whom it refers to the darkest state of the soul before it encounters and fuses itself with God.
So, once the New Inquisitors learn or hear of the etymological relation of nigredo with that word which blacks call each other all the time but which the rest of humanity is forbidden to use, Aristotele, Saint Augustine, T.S. Elliot, Scott Fitzgerald, David Lynch, and even Depeche Mode and their areas of knowledge and activity, from which the nigredo concept cannot be extracted without destroying the whole, will it be denounced and banned as white supremacy stuff responsible for “racism” and slavery? You just wait for it to get the answer. But, to get an idea, watch this in the meantime that you wonder why the inquisitorial axe of the antiracist hasn’t yet been applied to the head of “black magic” and other terms whose semantics are not any less “white supremacist” than nigger, that one “supremacist” word that blacks love using more often than whites do?
I know you will be quick to notice that whereas the ethnic cleansing campaign that professional antiracists are waging against words attempts to rid the language of the very “racist” connotations which they themselves force into it, they are accomplishing something else altogether. For what they are indeed telling us is, firstly, is that to be a BLM activist it is prerequisite to lack a basic understanding of how Western languages in general work. Secondly, they are demonstrating why their ethnic cleansing campaign against words they do not like unwittingly unmasks the anti-cultural, anti-intellectual, and anti-Western nature of the antiracist ideology, and thus it discloses the true character of their movement.
For, on the one hand, because ignorance of many things besides linguistics has been always a part of all forms of totalitarianism and has been a main feature of religious and political phalanxes from the Spanish Inquisition to the French and the Russian Revolutions, American Puritanism, and all the way down and back to Spanish fascism, we are being shown where it is that this hellbent denunciation and banning of words is trying to take us.
But on the other hand, to go around chasing words to ban under one pretext or another betrays an unforgivable ignorance of lexicon-semantics, a whole field of research within linguistics. That is to say, the word-cleansing campaign of the BLM can only be explained as the obscurantist result of their being unaware that words have only potential meanings when taken by themselves and that their meaning, whatever that might be, is fulfilled or completed as the product of the lexical-semantic field they form through their function within a syntactical structure, which in turn, in defining this function, realize the meaning the words are to convey. In short, the New Inquisitors are totally ignorant that words are only the conveyors of meanings that they themselves do not have, conveying being their main function in the language. That is how, for example, the same word can acquire and convey more than meaning, depending on its syntactical function.
Again, a word can convey only the meanings as allowed by its function in a phrase or sentence, or in any other type of utterance or expression. Which is the same as to say such function is always restrained and restricted by a syntactical construction. That is what is called the linguistic context within which a word acquires its meaning, and which must always be taken as a whole, if one is not to equivocate and, intentionally or not, construct or infer a different meaning to superimpose on the only possible one, as determined by its context. Which is precisely what the BLM lot does. And this incidentally gives you the linguistic explanation for the “antiracist” finding “racism” everywhere they look for it. It is also true that you do not call yourself an “antiracist” if is not to find “racism” wherever you look.
Now, if the fact that BLM people are so ignorant of the inner working of the language in which they speak were not enough to reject their claims, consider the following. Every native speaker of any Western language realizes in their speech what this discussion is trying to clarify. And that for the simple reason that, unless one is trying to be intentionally nonsensical, one cannot make sense unless meaning is produced, which is necessarily and inevitably syntactically structured. Because language and thought are an inseparable unity, to be able to realize in speech (orally or in writing) the dictum that words are meaningless outside a syntactical construction is the same as to being capable of articulated thinking in a given language. And the contrary is also true. It follows that the superimposition of meaning on words ─ of detecting meaning in isolated words ─ is either a mental operation foreign to the language (to the mode of thought of the native speaking of English), or the product of a racially idiosyncratic relation with one’s native language.
One could say it is now patent that, emboldened by the many BLM victories, blacks do not want to master English. Whereas up to very recently blacks endeavored to excel in their command of English and many among their representatives did excel at that, this is no longer the case, as it makes only perfect political sense. After all, English originally is and continues to be the language of the descendants of their slaveowner oppressors, and to the extent that it is so, blacks can only have an uneasy relation with a language that was imposed on their ancestors. Why not then take a stab at it, and crack it?
That is what we are seeing happening under the guise of fighting “racists.” Perish the thought that the BLM ethnic cleansing of words is only about racial justice. At bottom, the “antiracist” struggle is a racial onslaught for the dethroning of everything that has come into being through the agency of whiteness; and so, it is literally a struggle to make the idiosyncratic mode of thinking of black people prevail over everything white. Hence, the old “anti-racism” has been ditched for “antiracist.”
From this perspective, “antiracist” is the bait through which black-minded whites are co-opted to lend a hand toward the demise of their own longevous, diverse, creative, and because of this, rich cultural inheritance. Therefore, it must first be derided and ashamed as “white supremacy,” which it is why it gets substituted whenever “white dominance,” “white prevalence,” or “white majority” would do. That could, of course, be exhibited as a precise example of the BLM conscious resistance to master the language. Therefore, the first step to precipitate the demise of whiteness is the disruption of the logic that rules thinking in the English language, and that for the very reason that because of its origin in the Anglos, the Normans, the Norse, and the Romans it is necessarily white.
Explaining this is easy. But it will fly over the heads of people who believe that for example “rule of thumb” is a “racist” expression even though it is of Spanish origin. In that language, “thumb” is “pulgar,” and “inch” is “pulgada,” clearly establishing “rule of thumb” as a rough measurement unit resulting from the improvising genius of carpenters, masons, and tailors who realized that the first part of the average man’s thumb is about one inch long. But then, people who believe the “thumb” expression is “racist” also believe that complementing a black person saying that they are “very articulate” is “racist,” too. For they ignore that articulation is the most important attribute of human language in general, and that even so, most native speakers of, say, English, do not reach the level of articulation in a lifetime of speaking the language of their race or ethnicity. So that, there used to be a good reason in the past why hearing a black person speak English as any white would have, could have been found to be rather surprising without necessarily being “racist.”
You see, we are dealing with people who have problem dealing with the simple notion that there can be an allegedly racist use of a word or expression without either be intrinsically or inherent racist. Or even simpler: that only people can or can be not “racist” whatever the meaning of this word.
The ethnic cleansing of words whose lexical-semantic logic BLM blacks do not want to master (and that goes in tandem with their demand that everything should be cancelled in which they superimpose a “racist” meaning), is the measure of the times to come. The same ignorance that exhibits itself therein will be spread to myriad manifestations of culture and the sciences. What society will be turned into once the professional “antiracist” is done doing their magic on it, can already be read off the walls or literally off the blackboard. For instance, we might never again hear of Math as a quantitative or equational operation done with numbers; math will be converted into Mathrxism, maybe done in hip hop or rap. And that will be the last frontier of the world of whiteness.