The demand for racist white people (obligatory facepalm) has exceeded the supply by such a degree, that Merriam-Webster has rewritten their dictionary definition so that white people CAN’T not be racist. This story is a bit dated, I missed it the first time around, but it came up when the same company recently added an extra definition of “vaccine” to include Pfizer’s gene therapy experiment. SPECIFICALLY Pfizer’s gene therapy experiment.
A Missouri woman asked Merriam-Webster to update its definition of racism and now officials will make the change
By David Williams, 12 June 2020
Kennedy Mitchum wasn’t expecting much when she emailed Merriam-Webster last month, but she wanted to let the dictionary publisher know that she thought its definition of the word racism was inadequate.
So she was surprised when an editor responded and even more surprised that the company agreed to update the entry.
Aww, how sweet! A grandmotherly old lady noticed a mistake in the dictionary, wrote a nice letter to the publisher and was surprised when her voice was heard!
We’ll call that Possibility #1.
Mitchum has gotten into a lot conversations about racism and injustice where people have pointed to the dictionary to prove that they’re not racist. It’s happened a lot more lately as the world reacts to the death of George Floyd while in the custody of four Minneapolis police officers.
The 22-year-old Mitchum recently graduated from Drake University and lives in Florissant, Missouri, just a few miles away from Ferguson, where protests over the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown helped solidify the Black Lives Matter movement.
“I kept having to tell them that definition is not representative of what is actually happening in the world,” she told CNN. “The way that racism occurs in real life is not just prejudice it’s the systemic racism that is happening for a lot of black Americans.”
Mitchum said many people she’s talked to use that to dismiss her concerns about racism and overlook broader issues of racial inequality because they don’t personally feel that way about people of color.
You’re racist because centuries ago, a white man bought a slave. You’re white. Therefore, you owe endless reparations and probably deserve to be genocided wholesale regardless if you specifically have racist attitudes.
Is that clear? No? Well then, let’s MAKE that clear!
Mitchum said she sent her email on a Thursday night and got a reply from editor Alex Chambers the next morning.
Suspiciously fast timing. *checks*
For nearly a month, Drake University graduate Kennedy Mitchum emailed Merriam-Webster to let the dictionary know that its definition of racism, which read: “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,” failed to address the systemic and institutional elements of racism that regularly disenfranchise minorities. Merriam-Webster responded to Mitchum and is working on changing the wording of its current definition.
After a few emails, Chambers agreed that the entry should be updated and said a new definition is being drafted.
“This revision would not have been made without your persistence in contacting us about this problem,” Chambers said in the email, which was provided to CNN. “We sincerely thank you for repeatedly writing in and apologize for the harm and offense we have caused in failing to address this issue sooner.”
What a virtue-signaling kiss-ass. Wait, why did I suddenly imagine a struggle session?
Peter Sokolowski, an editor at large at Merriam-Webster…
…and frequent contributor to National Public Radio. Eat your heart out, police who got fired for attending a single MAGA rally.
…told CNN that their entry also defines racism as “a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles” and “a political or social system founded on racism,” which would cover systematic racism and oppression.
Here’s Possibility #2: Freshly graduated from a Socialist indoctrination camp, Kennedy spam-mailed Alex Chambers to make her desired revision. He refused to be her tool. She went up the chain to Sokolowski, an SJW to guess from his having a job with both high status and no requirement to actually be productive, who bullied Chambers into making the change.
He said that dictionary definitions have traditionally been short, because they had to fit so many words into their print editions. That’s no longer the case since so many people use the dictionary online.
That’s a double lie. One, that’s not why racism didn’t include “systematic racism” in the first place and two, it’s not why his new definition of racist is incomprehensibly long Feel free to skip his shameless virtue-signaling by filling the definition with blacktivist examples, although some are entertaining:
(Retrieved 8 May 2021. That needs to be said now.)
Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Ladino elites used racism to justify the displacement and enslavement of the indigenous population, and these beliefs, along with the resentment created by the continued exploitation of indigenous land and labor, culminated in the Guatemalan Civil War (1960-1996).
— Mariana Calvo
… how do we begin undoing the processes of internalized hatred and internalized racism?
— bell hooks
I would guess, not by institutionalizing it in the dictionary.
also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
The kind of trenchant racism to which black people have persistently been subjected can never be defeated by making its victims more respectable. The essence of American racism is disrespect.
— Imani Perry
From racist graffiti in schools to daily microaggressions and police profiling, rally testimonials highlighted that issues surrounding racism are still very much local issues.
— Ryan J. Degan
The War on Drugs, cloaked in race-neutral language, offered whites opposed to racial reform a unique opportunity to express their hostility toward blacks and black progress, without being exposed to the charge of racism.
— Michelle Alexander
2a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
specifically : WHITE SUPREMACY sense 2
One of the many ruses racism achieves is the virtual erasure of historical contributions by people of color.
— Angela Y. Davis
Discriminatory housing practices, redlining neighborhoods, underfunded education, lack of access to healthcare, racial profiling, police brutality and mass incarceration are just a few examples of cage wires that all together contribute to structural racism.
— Sylvia Luetmer
“You wayciss cuz you no support me poly-seas.”
Our nation faces a fork in the road and a decision to either continue down the same path of systemic racism or to confront our past honestly.
— Bree Newsome
“Honestly” is out the window when one side rewrites the dictionary in order to not be proven wrong anymore.
“People of color, low-income people, and Indigenous peoples have been made especially vulnerable through decades of environmental racism: policies that intentionally concentrate pollution and toxic hazards in our communities.”
— Michele Roberts
“I’m racist against the poor.”
b: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles
In 1913 the Natives Land Act reserved 90% of the country for whites, who then made up 21% of the population. Under the formalised racism of apartheid 3.5m blacks were forcibly moved to isolated reservations called “homelands.”
— The Economist
God forbid they make these definitions any longer.
Let’s proceed to the redefinition that brought this up in the first place. “Merriam-Webster, what is a vaccine?”
Definition of vaccine
: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious disease:
a: an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see ATTENUATED sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b: a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)
What. The Hell. Definition “b” is so specific to the Pfizer jab that it could hardly mean anything else.
Merriam-Webster adds new definition of ‘vaccine’ so Covid ‘vaccines’ can be defined as such
By JD Rucker, 27 April 2021
Merriam-Webster, the dictionary company that has built a reputation for pandering to the “woke” crowd and embracing leftist government mandates, has quietly played their own role in pushing the Covid-19 “vaccines” out to the general public. They added a new definition to their listing for the word “vaccines” to match what’s currently being offered to the American people to fight the coronavirus.
NOQ Report first discovered this by accident. It started with an innocuous Tweet I posted and a comment that followed.
“Isn’t whether or not these are vaccines a matter of definition? It is to Merriam-Webster, at least. pic.twitter.com/oSA0FVIFLy” — Pete Finnegan (@Pete_Finnegan) April 27, 2021
It struck me as odd that the (b) definition seemed to match perfectly with the Pfizer and Moderna versions of the Covid vaccines. According to the dictionary, a vaccine is “a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).”
The CDC website has a conspicuously similar way of describing the vaccines: “COVID-19 mRNA vaccines give instructions for our cells to make a harmless piece of what is called the “spike protein.” The spike protein is found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19.” …
The whole purpose of vaccinations is not to “help reduce” infections. The purpose has always been understood to be near-complete elimination. This is why we rarely see cases of polio or measles. Some vaccines may be slightly less effective, perhaps 98%, but what we’re seeing with the Covid vaccines isn’t even close. The numbers are hard to pin down properly with everyone from the CDC to mainstream media doing everything they can to keep the real information suppressed, but the fact that so many people continue to get sick after taking the vaccine (and often BECAUSE of the vaccine), it’s no wonder companies like Merriam-Webster are trying to give credibility to them while companies like Twitter run cover.
It isn’t uncommon for our language to evolve based on new information. Words get redefined to match a changing world. But this move seems conspicuously political as if an agenda is in play that needs support. Merriam-Webster is happy to oblige.
I’ll cap this off, for giggles and archival purposes, with the redefinition of herd immunity. It wouldn’t do to forget what it meant, before it meant “the health needs of the many outweigh the corporeal sovereignty of the few”.
WHO Deletes Naturally Acquired Immunity from Its Website
By Jeffrey A. Tucker, 23 December 2020
Maybe you have some sense that something fishy is going on? Same. If it’s not one thing, it’s another.
Coronavirus lived on surfaces until it didn’t. Masks didn’t work until they did, then they did not. There is asymptomatic transmission, except there isn’t. Lockdowns work to control the virus except they do not. All these people are sick without symptoms until, whoops, PCR tests are wildly inaccurate because they were never intended to be diagnostic tools. Everyone is in danger of the virus except they aren’t. It spreads in schools except it doesn’t.
On it goes. Daily. It’s no wonder that so many people have stopped believing anything that “public health authorities” say. In combination with governors and other autocrats doing their bidding, they set out to take away freedom and human rights and expected us to thank them for saving our lives. At some point this year (for me it was March 12) life began feeling like a dystopian novel of your choice.
Well, now I have another piece of evidence to add to the mile-high pile of fishy mess. The World Health Organization, for reasons unknown, has suddenly changed its definition of a core conception of immunology: herd immunity. Its discovery was one of the major achievements of 20th century science, gradually emerging in the 1920s and then becoming ever more refined throughout the 20th century.
Herd immunity is a fascinating observation that you can trace to biological reality or statistical probability theory, whichever you prefer. (It is certainly not a “strategy” so ignore any media source that describes it that way.) Herd immunity speaks directly, and with explanatory power, to the empirical observation that respiratory viruses are either widespread and mostly mild (common cold) or very severe and short-lived (SARS-CoV-1).
…The discovery of this fascinating dynamic in cell biology is a major reason why public health became so smart in the 20th century. We kept calm. We managed viruses with medical professionals: doctor/patient relationships. We avoided the Medieval tendency to run around with hair on fire but rather used rationality and intelligence. Even the New York Times recognizes that natural immunity is powerful with Covid-19, which is not in the least bit surprising.
Until one day, this strange institution called the World Health Organization – once glorious because it was mainly responsible for the eradication of smallpox – has suddenly decided to delete everything I just wrote from cell biology basics. It has literally changed the science in a Soviet-like way. It has removed with the delete key any mention of natural immunities from its website. It has taken the additional step of actually mischaracterizing the structure and functioning of vaccines.
So that you will believe me, I will try to be as precise as possible. Here is the website from June 9, 2020. You can see it here on Archive.org. You have to move down the page and click on the question about herd immunity. You see the following.
Link h ttps://web.archive.org/web/20201105013101/https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology
That’s pretty darn accurate overall. Even the statement that the threshold is “not yet clear” is correct. There are cross immunities to Covid from other coronaviruses and there is T cell memory that contributes to natural immunity.
Some estimates are as low as 10%, which is a far cry from the modelled 70% estimate of virus immunity that is standard within the pharmaceutical realm. Real life is vastly more complicated than models, in economics or epidemiology. The WHO’s past statement is a solid, if “pop,” description.
However, in a screenshot dated November 13, 2020, we read the following note that somehow pretends as if human beings do not have immune systems at all but rather rely entirely on big pharma to inject things into our blood.
What this note at the World Health Organization has done is deleted what amounts to the entire million-year history of humankind in its delicate dance with pathogens. You could only gather from this that all of us are nothing but blank and unimprovable slates on which the pharmaceutical industry writes its signature.
In effect, this change at WHO ignores and even wipes out 100 years of medical advances in virology, immunology, and epidemiology. It is thoroughly unscientific – shilling for the vaccine industry in exactly the way the conspiracy theorists say that WHO has been doing since the beginning of this pandemic.
What’s even more strange is the claim that a vaccine protects people from a virus rather than exposing them to it. What’s amazing about this claim is that a vaccine works precisely by firing up the immune system through exposure. Why I had to type those words is truly beyond me. This has been known for centuries. There is simply no way for medical science completely to replace the human immune system. It can only game it via what used to be called inoculation. …
That is why the Great Barrington Declaration, written by three of the world’s preeminent epidemiologists and which advocated embracing the phenomenon of herd immunity as a way of protecting the vulnerable and minimizing harms to society, was met with such venom. Now we see the WHO, too, succumbing to political pressure. This is the only rational explanation for changing the definition of herd immunity that has existed for the past century.
Link h ttps://gbdeclaration.org/
Editorial addition, January 4, 2021: WHO has changed it definition yet again, to incorporate the obvious reality of natural immunity.