Wikipedia entries for Merriam Webster anbd for Encyclopedia Britannica. Entry on Jacqui Safra himself.
How leftists destroy language by changing definitions.
I was checking an old dictionary I had from 1966 and while the primary definition is fine (love for one's nation), it did have a secondary definition drawing a parallel with "isolationism" or "jingoism" even though the latter implies military aggression.
His company altered the definition of nationalism in 2017. No evidence of this existing from 2016 or earlier.
the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.
nationalism is now perhaps most frequently associated with white nationalism, and has considerably negative connotations
This is part of a left-wing influence campaign reflected in the speech by Elizabeth McCord in the recent "Madam Secretary" season 5 premiere featuring Hillary Clinton:
Nationalism, the belief system held by those who attacked us, promotes the idea that inclusion and diversity represent weakness, that the only way to succeed is to give blind allegiance to the supremacy of one race over all others. Nothing could be less American. Patriotism, on the other hand, is about building each other up and embracing our diversity as the source of our nation’s strength.
If we look prior to Trump's election, nationalism and patriotism were used synonymously. The (((left))) has introduced a false dichotomy, trying to play on the love of "patriots" and probably trying to associate "nationalist" with similar-sounding "national socialist".
I happened to dig up one of the editors, a Peter Solokowski, who has a tendency to point out the "wrong usage" of words made by politicians, in particular by Trump. He says "I'm not doing anything political, I'm just pointing out definitions". Of course, pointing out particular corrections has no pragmatic effect whatsoever, how impartial and innocent. Note the correction on what "feminism" is.
I find it interesting he makes zero effort to point out the mass amount of twisting of definitions by all the fucking insane reatrd "journalists" of the (((left))). You could write several volumes about that alone.
Safra's girlfriend, Jean Doumanian, is close friends with Woody Allen, and through the production company Sweetland Films, Safra has financed 8 of Allen's films and appeared in 3 of them: Sam in 1980's Stardust Memories, Diction Student in 1987's Radio Days, Shop Owner in 1991's The Ox. For the later films he took a step back but was listed as Executive Producer.
In sum, you can now write off your holy Merriam Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica off as leftist Newspeak garbage. It has been compomised and will lose all credibility as Wikipedia. I would like to see who the entire editorial staff is of these publications. Unfortunately they don't offer that information on their websites.
Think about the little more subtle things like swipe limits and supplying chosen words for users through word selection and autocomplete. This dependency reduces cognition, imagination, and communication.
Start reading laws and see the way actual thinking is constructed, if you can't read the rules you can't argue them.
ABastionOfFreeSpeech ago
I realised that Merriam Webster was fucked a while ago when arguing with a feminist on Deddit. They tried to claim that feminism was for gender equality, and used the Merriam Webster definition for it, while every single other dictionary definition defined it as elevating women's rights.
Didn't know about Brittanica though. Thanks for the info.
shadow332 ago
No problem. The more we can point this stuff out with plain neutral facts, the less our (((fellow white people))) can accuse us of using an "unfounded conspiracy theroy" against them.
jesus_is_lord ago
i found an old legal definition of "income", prior to 1900s, it's business profits
Goys-R-Us ago
Thanks for the insight.
barraccuda ago
Quality post
videocodec ago
This is important news. Jews trying to rewrite definitions to alter the language. It's also why old school textbooks were destroyed and not just sold off.
Alopix ago
If they were raised Jewish, they are a Jew before all else. There is no such thing as a hyphenated Jew, Brazilian- or otherwise. They do the same shit everywhere in the world.
shadow332 ago
You're right. I should have put the Brazilian part in quotation marks.
SnapAwake ago
Great find. It turns my stomach that 1984 is here.
MaxVonOppenheim ago
Good work. Safra family isn't "Brazilian" or "Swiss", that's just what they want you to think. They're extremely wealthy Middle Eastern Jews fucking up South America and other places, and the Safra family is related to the Rothschild, Sassoon, Gubbai, and Kadoorie families, the same families who fucked up China, Africa, and everywhere else and blamed it all on Europeans, and they're all related to the Oppenheim, Oppenheimer, Guggenheum, Warburg, Goldman, Sachs, and Seligman jews, and probably the rest too. It's just one big nasty family.
https://web.archive.org/web/20181023073442/https://www.geni.com/people/Chaia-Klara-Safra/6000000038853116840
http://archive.is/5BDKQ
http://archive.fo/en8In
http://archive.is/8XjEJ
TheDonaldTrump ago
Couldn't find anything on the Gubbai family,did you spell it correctly?
Thanks for the great work,btw!
MaxVonOppenheim ago
It's in the 'My Heritage' Link. 'Gubbai' a jew name translated from other languages, so they spell it Gubbai, Gabbai, Gabai, Gubbay, or other ways in English. They were a bunch of Rich opium traders and zionists in Asia during the opium wars. The helped fund Israel off of money from hooking Chinese people on drugs. They admit it themselves.
http://archive.is/YVgRH
shadow332 ago
Excellent work. I didn't even look that far. I should have known. Part of the (((global network))).
MaxVonOppenheim ago
Yep. Safra is very shady, even more than Rothschild and they're all in bed. Fuck all of them.
derram ago
https://archive.fo/TKGHq :
This has been an automated message.
usernameisnotthis ago
good shit here and very well done!
freespeechwarrior ago
That became blatantly obvious when I saw the addendum to the word "gender" popping up in the dictionaries.
shadow332 ago
What I find unsettling is this editor, Solokowski, in particular says "we are not changing the definitions or trying ot influence anything, we are just giving them" as if he is not a part of this circle of controlled propaganda. Granted a dictionary is a mere reflection or snapshot of an entire living language- Language is forever changing, words become obsolete, there are neologisms that catch on and take off, definitions change over time, etc. This is clear. However, many people deem a dictionary, just like a grammar book as a reference, because that's what it's supposed to be. So they believe the appropriate definitions and grammatical usage, i.e. the "standard" is those prescribed in these reference books. He's not saying the power the dictionary has.
If he changes the definitions to reflect that of the sentiment of the left, people will rely on the dictionary and say "this is the correct and proper definition" because it is in the dictionary, regardless if a non-standard usage may be just as popular among the native-speaking population. This in turn will give people, even if they are in the (((minority))), some kind of false veracity in their choice of language. This is the same thing Wikipedia does with its historical "facts".
Writing does not control our speech, it is the other way around as humans rely much more on the spoken word than the written. Most languages in the world don't even have a writing system. The problem is most people don't know this fact, and they think the written word has some superiority or more correctness then the spoken, this may be true in very strict contexts such as law, but in the case of definitions in common language usage, a dictionary holds only a fraction of what is floating around in the actual spoken living language.
He knows this as a lexicographer. It's glaringly obvious that he's playing innocent. He's pulling a 1984, hoping that there is some truth to linguistic determinism.
freespeechwarrior ago
This may have been true 25 years ago, but these days, most people I know spend more time typing than talking, which makes (((control))) of the dictionaries even more dangerous.
shadow332 ago
You're right. For the parts of the world where people spend more time on their computers/smartphones than actually interacting with people, this may be true. Maybe people are shifting their vocabularies towards that what they read more than what they hear. The censorship will focus more on the written word than the spoken. But I think there will be counter cultures and groups who will always go against it, like this place. We are doing the same as people did in the past, instead of meeting others in a pub about it, we talk about it here.