Hi All !

These definitions (RE-definitions of "established" English language) of the term racism (which is specifically devoid of COLOR) point to an esoteric facet of language as communication and expression that rings Chomskyesque......

(hi John, I'm sorry it just takes me to LONG to try and reply to your points in a coherent and responsible fashion...... I wonder if you are able to just dash your posts off on the way to get the potatoe(s)........  admirable language skills....)

Aloha,   Dave.          Think for Yourself.             Question Authority
~               Globalize Consciousness         Localize Economies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Computer Dave" Hartley   (808) 879-7997 email:  [log in to unmask] 
Interests: Computer/Telephony Integration, Windows NT, Web Publishing, 
~~  Alternative Medicine  ~~   www.Eckankar.org   ~~  www.healing-tao.com


-----Original Message-----
From:   F. Leon Wilson [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Monday, August 18, 1997 6:11 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: Racism & CHOMSKY

On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, john konopak wrote:

                [       [       TEXT CUT        ]       ]

>  All definitions are subject to eternal interpretation, so I don't doubt
> you have some of your own.

This is true to a limited extent, but not when discussing racism and/or
the only functional form of racism, which is white supremacy.  The
definitions are very exact and precise.  White supremacy is a global
system of though, speech and actions.  Like most systems it is very well
defined.

I will concede that a term such as "racism" is politicized to create
deliberately ambiguous and evasive language. In this sense, it is called
doublespeak and is used in the propaganda war in confusing issues dealing
with white supremacy (racism).

Eternal interpretations are irrelevant when dealing with the only forum of
functional racism in the known universe; that functional racism is a
global system of white supremacy.

One must deal with its actuality.


> Derrida argues that the illusion of text is the contradiction between
> the pretense that text fixes meaning and closes interpretation with the
> experience that having text inevitably leads to further expression.

No, not in this case.

There are numerous pre-established norms which can guarantee that one is
defining the actuality of white supremacy (racism), and reflecting the
correct "interpretation" as you put it.

White supremacy (racism) is well beyond problems of semantics and the
various illusion and pretense of language.


F. Leon


> cheerey bye
> john konopak
> --
> ?_
> 2L82BB4
>