Jews and the shaping of our thought

Nobody reading this needs to be told that Jews have had a great influence on the West in the last few decades. What might not be widely understood is the effect they have had specifically on the way we think.

Through the ages the Western mind has shown itself to be straightforward, positivist and empirical rather than mystical, intuitive or magical. If Western man sees something, he believes that it is there and thinks that the way to understand it is by looking at it more closely. He does not assume that his eyes deceive him or that reality is as described by an authority that must not be questioned. The fact that something looks different from different points of view does not make him think that it is created by his perceptions, nor does he imagine that it is a product of his preferences or statements. He distinguishes what is out there, the object, from himself, the subject, and tries to make his statements match reality. In this way he seeks to apprehend the world around him.

At least, this always used to be the case, but after the Second World War it began to change, mainly on account of three intellectual fashions, namely relativism, social constructionism and postmodernism, which are the cause of a great deal of the damage the West has done to itself in that period. We owe them largely to Jews.

Relativism comes in three varieties: moral, cultural and epistemic. Moral relativism denies that there are absolute moral values. Cultural relativism asserts that no culture is of greater value than another, nor must we judge another culture by the standards of our own. According to epistemic relativism, a person’s knowledge is relative to their assumptions or point of view. Someone who claims to know something doesn’t really know it; it’s just the way it seems to them from their “perspective”.

The main effect of relativism is to undermine one’s confidence. “I thought this was right and that was wrong”, one thinks, “but perhaps I was mistaken”. “I thought it was fairly reasonable to expect my neighbour to stop playing loud music at eleven o’clock, but perhaps that’s just my culture.” “I thought ice floated on water, but perhaps I didn’t really know it. Perhaps no one really knows anything.”

Moral relativism can make morality relative to many things. In a documentary, Louis Theroux made it relative to the individual. He described a sex worker as having had a difficult upbringing.[1] She explained that when you’re fourteen and don’t go to school, you don’t realise that it’s just sexual if somebody shows an interest in you. Now, she’s had so many experiences that she can have sex with anyone. Addressing the viewer, Theroux didn’t ask whether selling sex was wrong but whether it was wrong for her. Maybe it wasn’t, he suggested, although it might be wrong for someone else.

Cultural relativism was intensively promoted in the 1990s. “All cultures are of equal value” was a constant mantra of the media. A case in point arose when a Haitian living on Long Island hired a voodooist to cast out the spirits she thought her father had let loose in her house, causing troubling sounds to come from the basement.[2] He threw a sheet over her, doused it with cologne and set fire to it, not taking her to hospital with her third-degree burns until the following afternoon. When he was charged with attempted murder, his defence was that he was only practising his religion. A Haitian spokesman explained that Haitians, like other ethnic minorities, had brought their culture to America with them. Who were Americans to judge?

Nor does epistemic relativism have much going for it. It may be true that scientific knowledge is only ever provisional as it inches its way towards the truth or makes occasional wrong turns, but this does not mean that it is relative to a point of view. One might even say that a considerable amount of knowledge has been established beyond question over the centuries. How many of the thousands of statements in a random medical textbook might be wrong, for example? But epistemic relativism has seeped so far into our culture as to affect the way we think, yet it has done so with a twist. Instead of causing people to doubt their knowledge, it makes them feel entitled to describe any statement they may care to make as true for them, while they presumably believe that other people might “know” the opposite. In effect such people do without the concept of knowledge altogether.

Epistemic relativism was popularised by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which held that scientific knowledge was relative to a “paradigm”. Thomas Kuhn was Jewish. Decades earlier, cultural and by implication moral relativism were introduced by Franz Boas, who was also Jewish.

Social constructionism is the fashion followed by anyone who says that something is just a social construct, which is an extremely popular thing to say. What it means is unclear. Perhaps by “construct” those who say it mean concept. A social construct is in the mind, and if it is just a social construct there is nothing that corresponds to it in reality. But to show this, social constructionists would need to produce an argument to say that what the concept appears to refer to isn’t there. Instead they seem to think that they have proved as much simply by calling it just a social construct.

Sometimes when people call things just social constructs they mean, stressing the social aspect, that the only reason we think that they exist is that we have agreed that they do. But to establish this, they would again need to show that our belief that they exist is mistaken.[3]

In a third scenario, social constructionists accept that social constructs exist but emphasise that we have constructed them, and what we have constructed we can deconstruct or cease constructing. A feminist might apply this to differences between the sexes. Yes, she might say, the sexes differ, but we construct the differences by bringing boys and girls up differently, therefore to get rid of the differences we only need to change our child-rearing practices. But this has been tried, and it has not worked. In any case, every parent knows that boys and girls differ by nature. Adults are not needed to socially construct the differences.

The one sort of thing that social constructionists do not describe as social constructs are those that really are social constructs, like money.[4] All that makes a piece of paper a ten-dollar bill and means that we can use it to buy things with is the fact that we have agreed that it is a ten-dollar bill, which we have agreed means that we can use it to buy things with. Social constructionists aren’t interested in this kind of example because they’re not really interested in social constructs. What they’re interested in is a sophisticated-sounding term that they can use to persuade themselves that things they don’t like, such as sex differences, either don’t exist or can be got rid of.

What could be more damaging than an intellectual fashion that induces a society to indulge in such self-persuasion? It is going to proceed on the basis of a false understanding of reality and waste its energy trying to get rid of things, quite possibly having forgotten why it thinks they need to be got rid of, that will never go away.

The main source of social constructionism was a book called The Social Construction of Reality (1966) by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, both of whom were Jews.

Postmodernism is a nonsensical collection of ideas designed to appeal to the will to power and aid the revolutionary transformation of society. It is mainly attributed to Michel Foucault, author of The Order of Things (1966), but is as much due to Jacques Derrida, who wrote Writing and Difference and On Grammatology (both 1967). Foucault was not Jewish; Derrida was.

Derrida’s main idea is that we are in a prison of language from which we cannot escape. Far from letting us grasp reality, language stops us making contact with it, therefore a statement does not represent the world but can only be called a “narrative”, which cannot be appraised as true or false. If we think that a narrative is true, we are deceived by a group such as White people or men, who have the power to impose their narratives on others. This is what a feminist meant when she described objectivity as nothing but male subjectivity.[5] A statement a man describes as objective, meaning that it is true for all, only expresses his prejudices and seeks to advance his sectional interests, presumably at the expense of women.

To counter such unpleasant groups, postmodernists decided that it was necessary to “privilege” the narratives of women and non-Whites. It is thus postmodernism that we have to thank for the idea adopted by the British police as long ago as in 1983 that if a Black person “perceives” themselves to have been racially attacked by a White person, then this is what has happened.[6] Any definition of a “hate crime” in use today is of this type. The #MeToo movement was similarly postmodern. For a case of a man mistreating a woman to be discovered, all that was needed was for a woman to say that she had been mistreated. Thus non-Whites and women were “empowered”.

When it feels the need, postmodernism forgets that language forms an impenetrable barrier between us and reality and says that it can “construct” it. We become magicians, making things true by mere assertion. This side of the philosophy was illustrated by a social psychologist who wrote a paper called “Self-fulfilling stereotypes”, which explained how stereotypes such as of Italians as passionate persist.[7] He did not deny that the stereotypes were true. Italians really are passionate, he maintained, but only because that is how they are described. Presumably they started out being no more passionate than others, then for some reason people took to calling them passionate, which made them passionate. The narrative constructed the reality; the stereotype fulfilled itself. Incidentally, this writer was Jewish, and his article appeared in a collection edited by a Jewish woman.

From academics like this, via the intellectuals who spread their ideas, postmodernism came through to the general public, again in the 1990s, the first decade of political correctness.[8] It is now so familiar that one hardly raises an eyebrow when a man writes: “I am a woman because I say I am. Nothing else is needed”. But postmodernists are quietly selective about the bits of reality they think their words can govern. When this man finds that he has run out of milk, he won’t say: “I have milk because I say I have. Nothing else is needed”. He will go out and buy some, like anybody else.

Postmodernism gives its followers a gratifying sense of power. Confronting a history book that says things they don’t like, they can dismiss it as only purveying the writer’s prejudices. They can laugh at its claims to objectivity, saying that objectivity is unattainable. Then when they put pen to paper themselves, they can purvey their own prejudices to their hearts’ content, for what can a narrative do but purvey the writer’s prejudices? They do not need to try to be objective, for who can be objective?

A book does not need quality to be influential; what it needs is to be promoted. The publisher promotes it to journalists, who promote it to the public in admiring reviews or commission admiring reviews from academics. The book fills every bookshop window and starts appearing on college reading lists. Anyone who wants to be up-to-date makes sure that they have read it. To bring all this about, the book only needs to be selected as a world-changer by someone in a key position in a network of the right people, such as, in the case of a book written by a Jew, a Jew whom other Jews will obey. But is there such a network? Are there Jews in publishing, advertising, the media and academia? Do bears shimmy in the woods?

Another influential Jewish book was The Authoritarian Personality (1950), a piece of pseudoscience which purported to show that the typical White American male was an incipient Fascist. It drew on interviews which it is tempting to think were interpreted in view of a pre-ordained conclusion, marking subjects on the “F scale”, where a traditional husband and father would score high. Jewish men were not included in the sample. The book was taken by a generation of social scientists to reveal a deep malaise in American society, which liberalism and permissiveness might cure. Published by the American Jewish Committee with Theodor Adorno as lead author, it was the first major product of the Frankfurt School.

The Institute had been founded in the 1920s by Felix Weil, who was Jewish, as were Theodor Adorno and the school’s other main members, namely Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Its associates, such as Georg Lukacs, Walter Benjamin and Wilhelm Reich were also Jews. Fromm and Marcuse wrote books that influenced the youth of the 1960s.[9] Marcuse became the “godfather” of the campus radicals of that decade, the main ones being Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, Abbie Hoffman, Michael Rossman, Jerry Rubin, Mario Savio, Jack Weinberg, Steve Weissman and, in France, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, all of whom were Jews apart from Mario Savio. These activists implemented the implicit agenda of The Authoritarian Personality by opposing authority, succeeding so far as to spell the end of it, often known as the end of deference, especially deference to White men. Their followers went on to be well represented among those who have been running our institutions for the last 25 years.

If there is one idea that started to bear in on White people after the Second World War, it was that of essential racial equality, the idea that the races, no matter how different they might appear, are basically the same. This meant that any differences in their circumstances must be due to environmental factors such as the mistreatment of Blacks by Whites, therefore as the idea was spread, so was the notion of White guilt. For decades now the idea of essential racial equality, though hard to reconcile with evident facts, has been closed to questioning.[10] Having started with Franz Boas, it was popularised after the War by his pupil Ashley Montagu, who was Jewish, and then notably by Stephen Jay Gould, Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose, all of whom were Jews.[11]

Today we commonly hear calls for White people to be exterminated or to commit suicide. Headlines from the American press between 2015 and 2017 include: “Professor tweets that white people should commit mass suicide”, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide” and “USC professor calls for holocaust against all white people”.[12] These calls can be traced back to two sources. In 1967 Susan Sontag famously described the White race as the cancer of human history.[13] White people threatened “the very existence of life itself”, she wrote. What does one do with a life-threatening cancer? Then in 1992 Noel Ignatiev of Harvard University founded the magazine Race Traitor with the motto “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”. The way to save humanity was to “abolish whiteness”. As we know, this is the great abolitionist movement of today. Susan Sontag and Noel Ignatiev were both Jews.

What calls itself “critical race theory”, from which demands for the wiping of White people off the face of the earth now emanate, is descended from “critical theory”, the basic method of cultural Marxism, later called political correctness, now called wokeness, which began with the Frankfurt School.

Burdened by unnecessary guilt feelings, with demands for their extinction ringing in their ears and after decades of exposure to relativism, social constructionism and postmodernism, it is little wonder that many White people now have trouble thinking straight. Without the influence of Jews, this would presumably not be so. We would still be as mentally capable as we once were.

[1] BBC, Jan. 12th 2020, “Selling sex”,

[2] American Renaissance, June 1998, “O Tempora, O Mores!”,

[3] In Culture of Critique, Kevin Macdonald explains that Jewish intellectuals have never seen a difference  between truth and consensus, meaning their consensus. “Jewish religious ideology was an infinitely plastic set of propositions that could rationalize and interpret any event in a manner compatible with serving the interests of the community. … It never occurred to the members of this discourse community to seek confirmation of their views from outside … by trying to understand the nature of reality itself.” See Kevin Macdonald, 2002 (1998), Culture of Critique, www.1stbooks. com, Chapter 6, “The Jewish Criticism of Gentile Culture: A Reprise”, available at

[4] This example is due to John Searle. See e.g. Searle, 1995, The Construction of Social Reality, London: Penguin.

[5] Adrienne Rich (1979) was quoted by Dale Spender, who was quoted by Roger Scruton in “Ideologically Speaking” in Leonard Michaels and Christopher Ricks (eds.), 1990, The State of the Language, Berkeley: University of California Press.

[6] In 1983 the Metropolitan Police adopted a definition of a racial incident as “any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person” (from “Race Equality in the UK Today: Developing Good Practice and Looking for Reform: The Police”, a handout distributed by John Newing, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, on December 8th 1998 at QMW Public Policy Seminars: Developing New Legislation and Strategies on Race Equality, Royal Over-Seas League, London SW1). Thus the racial nature of the incident lay in the allegation, not in any evidence.

[7] Mark Snyder, 1988, “Self-fulfilling stereotypes”, in Paula Rothenberg (ed.), Racism and Sexism: An Integrated Study, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

[8] I use the word “intellectuals” in the sense of Friedrich Hayek, 1998 (1949), The Intellectuals and Socialism, London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit, pp. 9-18, who meant by it the media, academics and any others who make a living out of conveying ideas to the public, such as teachers, priests, novelists and cartoonists.

[9] For example, Erich Fromm wrote The Fear of Freedom (1941), Man for Himself (1947) and The Art of Loving (1956). Herbert Marcuse wrote Eros and Civilization (1955), One-Dimensional Man (1964) and Repressive Tolerance (1965).

[10] A fact that is hard to reconcile with the doctrine of essential racial equality is that Asian women have wider hips than White women, who have wider hips than black women. This is because women of the three races need to be able to give birth to babies with heads of different average sizes. Thus the doctrine of essential racial equality is refuted by an observation anyone can make. This is before one goes on to note that Asians with their bigger brains have higher IQs than Whites, who have higher IQs than blacks, or the dozens of other ways in which the races line up in the same order.

[11] In 1942 Ashley Montagu (real name Israel Ehrenberg) wrote Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. In 1947, with Theodosius Dobzhansky (also Jewish), he wrote a paper stating that man had “escaped from the bondage of the physical and biological” and was “almost wholly emancipated from dependence upon inherited biological dispositions” (“Natural Selection and the Mental Capacities of Mankind”, reprinted from Science, vol. 105, 1947, in Ashley Montagu [ed.] 1975, Race and IQ, London: Oxford University Press, pp. 104-13). In 1950 Montagu edited UNESCO’s first Statement on Race (UNESCO, 1969, Four Statements On The Race Question,, which stated: “For all practical purposes ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth”. In 1967 another UNESCO statement averred that current biological knowledge did not allow us to impute cultural achievements to differences in genetic potential. Other vehicles for this idea were The Mismeasure of Man (1981) by Stephen Jay Gould and Not in Our Genes (1984) by Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose. For a review of the no-race idea, see Steve Sailer, May 31st 2000, “Cavalli-Sforza II: Seven Dumb Ideas about Race”, V-Dare,

[12] Mark Collett clips, Oct. 7th 2020, “Racism’s New Anti-White Definition — Mark Collett”, Other headlines were: “Trinity College professor calls White people ‘inhuman’: ‘Let them f-ing die’”, “Professor: ‘Some White People May Have to Die’ to Solve Racism”, and “White Professor calls all White people to mass suicide over slavery”. Slides put up during lectures included: “How White people plagued society” and “White people are a plague to the planet”.

[13] Susan Sontag, 1967, “What’s Happening to America? (A Symposium)”, Partisan Review, 34 (1): pp. 57-58.

28 replies
  1. Flavia
    Flavia says:

    Thank you very much for this summary. If only I had been smart enough in graduate school to enquire into the background of the favorite school of thought of one of my professors, a school which he referred to incessantly.
    This essay is quite an indictment.

    • Kevin MacDonald
      Kevin MacDonald says:

      Dear Ward Kendall,

      I would be happy to review your novel. As a matter of interest, is it published or about to be published, so that the review would have a sort of publicity function, or is it a draft that you’d like comments on?

      Kind regards,

      Richard Knight

      • smaragdus
        smaragdus says:

        Ward Kendall’s 2001 novel Hold Back This Day is available both on Amazon (paperback) and on The Internet Archive (e-book).

  2. A Viewer
    A Viewer says:

    “Antifascist” Van de Bron: “As a reminder at the beginning of the Oktoberfest. Dirndl is not a traditional costume, but a völkisch cosplay designed by the NS Frauenschaft to represent the willingness of the National Socialist woman to give birth (‘das’ he writes with two S’s instead of one).”

    Response from Jew lover and Israel fan named Alexander Schaumburg (one of the extreme degenerates who call themselves “nobles” and is married to a “Mahkameh Navabi”):

    “As a reminder of how leftist dimwits falsify history with a light hand: The dirndl was invented by Jewish brothers Moritz and Julius Wallach in Bielefeld at the end of the 19th century. It was initially a purely urban wardrobe and only gradually migrated to the rural areas of Bavaria and Austria.”

  3. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    The essentials described here have contributed greatly to the state of intellectual poisoning exhibited today by a huge number of duped White people. Jews have ‘normalized’ the abnormal, and most gullible Whites are essentially clueless about it!


    Everything is spot on but it also leaves out Mark Levine, Michael Savage and me, along with numerous Jews who hate this BS. I really do. Plus you kind of skipped Timothy Leary and the whole panoply of iconoclasts, some of whom were great, like Frank Zappa. You just selected, and footnoted the Jews.

    • Lady Strange
      Lady Strange says:

      As the French author Hervé ryssen said ( thrown in prison and who stopped writing on the subject for fear of execution): the Jews who hate this bs, as you say, are no longer Jewish.

  5. jank
    jank says:

    “Social constructionism is the fashion followed by anyone who says that something is just a social construct, which is an extremely popular thing to say. What it means is unclear. ”

    Actually, the meaning of social constructivism is relatively clear: We are products of the environments we’re raised in and influenced by, which unfortunately is the jewish psyops cited above. What has happened here is all these swirling worldviews jews have spun out into our culture, have created a massive metaphysical birdnest, which prevents any sort of alignment, or consensus. We are all atomized individuals living in a competitive, every-man-for-himself, individualistic environment with no shared worldviews, goals, or anything else, which is diametrically opposite the jews collective all-for-one social system. They are a tight nation, hidden within our nation, while we, are scattered on the wind. This is all by design, and explains how jews have collectively enriched themselves, while utterly destroying our nation.

  6. Gordon
    Gordon says:

    Theodosius Dobzhansky not ethnically Jewish. His parents were Ukrainian; and Dobzhansky himself was a Ukrainian Orthodox or Russian Orthodox believer.

  7. Jud Jackson
    Jud Jackson says:

    Excellent article. However, concerning Kuhn, I think he was just doing the history and philosophy of science and noting how scientific knowledge progressed. I don’t think he was pushing scientific relativism except when it appeared. After Copernicus , Galileo and Kepler it was no longer possible to deny Heliocentrism. His idea that it progressed by pushing paradigms to their limits and still finding contradictions and counter-examples had nothing to do with Kuhn being Jewish.

  8. Lady Strange
    Lady Strange says:

    If some of the treacherous and corrupt white elites hadn’t let themselves be bought by the (( … )), century after century, ((they)) wouldn’t have been able to gradually infest all the centers of power and culture (most recently, the medias ) and we wouldn’t be where we are today.

  9. Some Visitor
    Some Visitor says:

    Jews form not only thoughts, but “concrete” deformations of nature.

    Incidentally, after a bit of research I found out that not only are most of the owners and landlords of skyscrapers in the U.S. Jewish, but so are their architects and builders (or their clients), all over the world, from Jew York to Dubai to Shanghai.

    In many cases, of course, these anonymous, cold, inorganic, artificial and sterile monstrosities of glass, steel and concrete, which prevent the view of the normal course of the daytime sun and thus life in harmony with nature, are “financial centers.”

    These “storage facilities for ant-like masses with no grip on the ground”, which look like giant shoe boxes, are virtually the ultimate symbol of uprooted metropolitan existence, perhaps even a legacy from ancient Mesopotamia, which already began with the Tower of Babel.

    “According to the story, a united human race speaking a single language and migrating eastward, comes to the land of Shinar (שִׁנְעָר‎). There they agree to build a city and a tower with its top in the sky. Yahweh, observing their city and tower, confounds their speech so that they can no longer understand each other, and scatters them around the world.”

    Also under communism, as is well known, an invention of the Jews, classless, identity-less, faceless masses of people were crammed into container-like “housing silos of modular construction,” which, however, lacked any aesthetics due to the communist economy of scarcity.

    9/11 is symbolic (Silverstein’s “symbolic attack on the American way of life”). When disasters occur in such buildings (Grenfell), dozens if not hundreds of residents are killed, cut off from an escape route. This is about as intelligent as storing all music industry’s original tapes in a single location.

    • Some Visitor
      Some Visitor says:

      “Commander” is on the right track to sniff out the real danger, but is still slightly Americanized and misprogrammed, disregarding the main priority of first biting hard into the senile keeper’s privates.

      According to “survivors,” Kurt Franz allegedly instructed “Barry,” a pied monster the size of a mooncalf named after a man-saving Swiss congener, “Man, grab that dog!”

      “Nazi zoologist” Konrad Lorenz was specially summoned to kangaroo court to make a “scientifically sound assessment” of the allegations. Since Barry was a mongrel and not a purebred Saint Bernard, he could at least give credence to such inhumane behavior.

      Also this lady is the descendant of a “survivor”. Her father, among others, built “Tower 42” in London with a South African tribesman named “Natie” Kirsh and a Swiss. As early as the 1960s, he wrote articles for the Times with headlines such as “Tower Cities’ Two Miles High” and “Can men emulate the termite?”—willem-frischmann/

      Of course: “At the time, the South African apartheid government prevented white business-owners from operating in black townships, and Kirsh began using Moshal Gevisser to supply goods to black shopkeepers.”

      James is also a son of “survivors”. His family name is not completely unknown (see also “Colonel Klink”). His father Klemens was centrally interested in German history, especially with regard to its existing resistance against Nazi Germany.

      James is a partner of “Kohn Pedersen Fox”, which built the “Shanghai World Financial Center”, among others. He is also “Chair of Boards for the Skyscraper Museum.” I wonder why the “Museum of Jewish Heritage” is linked below the article for this?

      Somehow, every Jew is a “descendant of Holocaust survivors”. This ensures that “Jew” and “Holocaust” are always mentioned in the same breath, and these two entities remain inseparable. A hundred years from now, one of the few Aryocaust survivors will remark, “It was real, not only in our minds.”

    • Some Visitor
      Some Visitor says:

      Speaking of facades, in the proverbial and figurative sense. For example, I haven’t owned a TV for almost 20 years. Apart from the fact that the program offer was already abysmal at that time. I remember that after returning from a long stay abroad, I suffered a “reverse culture shock” when I turned on the TV again for the first time. The same stupid mugs and visages from which I fled abroad were suddenly staring at me again.

      From everywhere, this brave new consumer world flickers at us from huge high-resolution flat screens, with the same commercial phrases and the same impotent politically correct phrases. It’s contentless, insubstantial garbage in glossy packaging. Buried under consumer waste. This is also the reason why there is no real creativity anymore and everyone adores “the old masters” of classical music.

      The reason, of course, is that real art arises from self-restraint; necessity is the mother of invention. Beethoven was not only deaf, but lived in a time when people knew no service, no welfare, no comfort and no heating. People died like flies. Doctors were rare and very limited in what they could do. Supermarkets did not exist, and neither did refrigerators in the summer.

      Today it is no longer about devotion and passion, but about attention and consideration. That’s why the sounds are getting shriller and louder, and the images more and more effective and drastic, so that their viewers or listeners notice, perceive and register anything at all. But people are oversaturated by this constant onslaught of sensory overload.

      That’s why I advise everyone who is creatively active to really limit themselves minimalistically to the bare essentials. If a thought has no meaning, then even so many ornaments cannot make it significant. It must be able to stand for itself. That is why good sound engineers do not use hi-fi speakers in their studios, but rather speakers of moderate quality. Because what is perceived as worth listening to even on these, will sound even better on high-end equipment.

      Today many do it exactly the other way around. Instead of dealing extensively with a thing or a product in order to know it inside out, to master it and to use it, they believe that an equipment park and a “sound” enriched with an armada of effects could replace the underlying musical idea. A completely idiotic mistake. The result is at best an unidentifiable, indistinguishable sound mush. Only if a melody works alone on the guitar or the piano, it can count on embellishments afterwards. If something has to be made over or whitewashed to look good, then it’s not worth it, it’s like ugly women.

      It’s exactly the same with writing. You have to take the trouble to use an old iron typewriter and not a digital screen with copy & paste. Each keystroke is tactilely perceptible, an almost sensual experience. This is how something is put on paper. And with every sentence and every letter, you have to think carefully about what you are writing and what you consider to be of value. You have to “work out” the sentences by the sweat of your brow, as Jack London once did. Real writing is a hard business.

  10. Abel Wolfgang
    Abel Wolfgang says:


    Yes we all know the Jews are evil but


    Most everyone else blind

    Blinded by the light

    Yes hello


    Must get spread word it’s always been the

    Who who hello


    Panama risky Panama costs me more


    Spread the word read all about it

    The Jews murdered Christ

    The Jews murdered the Russian Czar

    The Jews murder lie cheat steal


    Read all about it spread the word

    In everything give thanks for this is the will of God concerning you

    Yes hello


    Please stop censoring that’s a jew characteristic

    The moon the moon is getting closer to the earth

    I see it I notice it

    It’ll get so close we will touch it be able to yes hello

    Poor Trump he’s like the elder lion sad

    But it’s the agenda the purpose the goal

    All bigger than one person

    And he’s not a jew

    Admire his fight

    But the hyenas the Jews are circling

    Like the did

    Jesus Christ the Son of God

    Hail Mary full of Grace

    Who’s running things down here

    The devil and he’s doing a damn good job


    No hello



    Praise God from whom all blessings flow

    Praise Him all creatures here below

    Praise Him upabaove he heavenly hosts

    Praise Father Son and Holy Ghost


    Yes good article shinning light on the guilty ones

    No faith they have not

    Nor desire


    Fear God and Love the King

  11. Constantin Dimulescu
    Constantin Dimulescu says:

    Romanian Translation
    by CD

    de Richard Knight

    Nimănui care citește asta nu trebuie să i se spună că evreii au avut o mare influență asupra Occidentului în ultimele decenii. Ceea ce ar putea să nu fie înțeles pe scară largă este efectul pe care l-au avut în mod specific asupra modului în care gândim.

    De-a lungul veacurilor, mintea occidentală s-a arătat a fi directă, pozitivistă și empirică, mai degrabă decât mistică, intuitivă sau magică. Dacă omul occidental vede ceva, el crede că este acolo și crede că modalitatea de a-l înțelege este prin a-l privi mai atent. El nu presupune că ochii lui îl înșală sau că realitatea este așa cum este descrisă de o autoritate care nu trebuie pusă la îndoială.

    Faptul că ceva arată diferit din puncte de vedere diferite nu îl face să creadă că este creat de percepțiile sale și nici nu își imaginează că este un produs al preferințelor sau afirmațiilor sale. El distinge ceea ce este acolo, obiectul, de el însuși, subiectul și încearcă să facă afirmațiile sale să se potrivească cu realitatea. În acest fel, el caută să prindă lumea din jurul lui.

    Cel puțin, așa a fost întotdeauna, dar după cel de-al Doilea Război Mondial a început să se schimbe, în principal din cauza a trei mode intelectuale, și anume relativismul, construcția socială și postmodernismul, care sunt cauza unei mari pagubece Vestul si le-a făcut singur în acea perioadă. Si toate astea le datorăm în mare parte evreilor.

    Relativismul vine în trei soiuri: moral, cultural și epistemic. Relativismul moral neagă că există valori morale absolute. Relativismul cultural afirmă că nicio cultură nu are o valoare mai mare decât alta și nici nu trebuie să judecăm o altă cultură după standardele noastre.

    Potrivit relativismului epistemic, cunoașterea unei persoane este relativă la presupunerile sau punctul de vedere al acesteia. Cineva care pretinde că știe ceva nu știe cu adevărat; este așa cum li se pare din „perspectiva” lor.

    Efectul principal al relativismului este subminarea încrederii cuiva. „Am crezut că acest lucru este corect și asta este greșit”, se gândește unul, „dar poate că m-am înșelat”. „M-am gândit că este destul de rezonabil să mă aștept ca vecinul meu să nu mai cânte muzică tare la ora unsprezece, dar poate că asta este doar cultura mea.” „Credeam că gheața plutește pe apă, dar poate că nu știam cu adevărat. Poate că nimeni nu știe nimic cu adevărat.”

    Relativismul moral poate face moralitatea relativă la multe lucruri. Într-un documentar, Louis Theroux a făcut-o relativ la individ. El a descris o lucrătoare sexuală ca având o educație dificilă. Ea a explicat că atunci când ai paisprezece ani și nu mergi la școală, nu îți dai seama că este doar un interes sexual dacă cineva se arată interesat de tine. Acum, ea a avut atât de multe experiențe încât poate face sex cu oricine. Adresându-se spectatorului, Theroux nu a întrebat dacă a vinde sex este greșit, ci dacă a fost greșit pentru ea. Poate că nu a fost, a sugerat el, deși ar putea fi greșit pentru altcineva.

    Relativismul cultural a fost promovat intens în anii 1990. „Toate culturile sunt de valoare egală” a fost o mantră constantă a mass-media. Un exemplu concret a apărut când o haitiană care locuia in Long Island a angajat un voodooist pentru a alunga spiritele pe care credea că tatăl ei le-a eliberat în casa ei, Voodoistul aprovocat sunete tulburătoare să vină din subsol. A aruncat apoi un cearșaf peste ea, a stropit-o cu apă de colonie, i-a dat foc si nu a dus-o la spital cu arsurile de gradul trei până în după-amiaza următoare.

    Când a fost acuzat de tentativă de omor, apărarea voodoistului a fost că își practica doar religia. Un purtător de cuvânt haitian a explicat că haitienii, ca și alte minorități etnice, și-au adus cultura în America cu ei. Cine erau americanii să judece?

    Nici relativismul epistemic nu are prea multe de spus. Poate fi adevărat că cunoștințele științifice sunt doar provizorii, deoarece se îndreaptă spre adevăr sau fac ocazional cotituri greșite, dar asta nu înseamnă că este relativă la un punct de vedere. S-ar putea chiar spune că o cantitate considerabilă de cunoștințe a fost stabilită incontestabil de-a lungul secolelor.

    Câte dintre miile de afirmații dintr-un manual medical la întâmplare ar putea fi greșite, de exemplu? Dar relativismul epistemic s-a infiltrat atât de departe în cultura noastră încât a afectat modul în care gândim, dar a făcut acest lucru cu o întorsătură. În loc să îi facă pe oameni să se îndoiască de cunoștințele lor, îi face să se simtă îndreptățiți să descrie orice afirmație pe care ar putea să o facă ca fiind adevărată pentru ei, în timp ce probabil cred că alți oameni ar putea „ști” contrariul. De fapt, astfel de oameni se descurcă si fără conceptul de cunoaștere.

    Relativismul epistemic a fost popularizat de Thomas Kuhn în Structura revoluțiilor științifice (1962), care susținea că cunoștințele științifice sunt relative la o „paradigmă”. Thomas Kuhn era evreu. Cu decenii mai devreme, relativismul cultural și implicit moralul a fost introdus de Franz Boas, care era și el evreu.

    Construcționismul social este moda urmată de oricine spune că ceva este doar o construcție socială, ceea ce este un lucru extrem de popular de spus. Ce înseamnă nu este clar. Poate că prin „construiți” cei care spun că înseamnă concept. Un construct social este în minte, iar dacă este doar un construct social, nu există nimic care să îi corespundă în realitate. Dar pentru a arăta acest lucru, construcțiile sociale ar trebui să producă un argument pentru a spune la ce pare se referă cand conceptul nu există. În schimb, par să creadă că au dovedit la fel de mult, pur și simplu numind-o doar un construct social.

    Uneori, atunci când oamenii numesc lucrurile doar constructe sociale, ei spun, subliniind aspectul social, că singurul motiv pentru care credem că există este că am fost de acord că există. Dar pentru a stabili acest lucru, ei ar trebui să arate din nou că credința noastră că există este greșită
    Ce poate fi mai dăunător decât o modă intelectuală care determină o societate să se complacă într-o asemenea autopersuasiune? Va continua pe baza unei înțelegeri false a realității și va irosi energia încercând să scape de lucruri, foarte posibil uitând de ce crede că trebuie să scape de ele, care nu vor dispărea niciodată.

    Sursa principală a construcționismului social a fost o carte numită Construcția socială a realității (1966) de Peter Berger și Thomas Luckmann, ambii evrei.

    Postmodernismul este o colecție fără sens de idei menite să facă apel la voința de putere și să ajute transformarea revoluționară a societății. Este atribuită în principal lui Michel Foucault, autorul cărții The Order of Things (1966), dar la fel de mult se datorează lui Jacques Derrida, care a scris Writing and Difference și On Grammatology (ambele 1967). Foucault nu era evreu; Derrida era.

    Ideea principală a lui Derrida este că ne aflăm într-o închisoare a limbajului din care nu putem scăpa. Departe de a ne lăsa să înțelegem realitatea, limbajul ne împiedică să luăm contact cu ea, prin urmare o afirmație nu reprezintă lumea, ci poate fi numită doar „narațiune”, care nu poate fi apreciată ca adevărată sau falsă.

    Postmodernismul oferă adepților săi un sentiment îmbucurător al puterii. Confruntându-se cu o carte de istorie care spune lucruri care nu le plac, ei o pot respinge ca purtând doar prejudecățile scriitorului. Ei pot râde de pretențiile sale de obiectivitate, spunând că obiectivitatea este de neatins. Apoi, când pun ei înșiși pixul pe hârtie, ei își pot transmite propriile prejudecăți până la conținutul inimii lor, căci ce poate face o narațiune decât să transmită prejudecățile scriitorului?
    Ei nu trebuie să încerce să fie obiectivi, căci cine poate fi obiectiv?

    O carte nu are nevoie de calitate pentru a fi influentă; ceea ce are nevoie este să fie promovată. Editorul o promovează jurnaliştilor, care o promovează publicului prin recenzii admirative sau comandă recenzii admirative de la cadrele academice. Cartea umple fiecare vitrine de librărie și începe să apară pe listele de lecturi ale colegiului. Oricine dorește să fie la curent se asigură că a citit-o.

    Pentru a realiza toate acestea, cartea trebuie doar selectată ca un schimbător de lume de către cineva care se află într-o poziție cheie într-o rețea de oameni potriviți, cum ar fi, în cazul unei cărți scrise de un evreu, un evreu pe care alți evreii il vor asculta. Dar există o astfel de rețea?
    Există evrei în publicație, publicitate, mass-media și mediul academic?
    Urșii trăiesc în pădure?

    Îngreunați de sentimente inutile de vinovăție, cu cererile de dispariție a acestora răsunând în urechi și după decenii de expunere la relativism, construcționism social și postmodernism, nu este de mirare că mulți nonevrei au acum probleme să gândească corect. Fără influența evreilor, probabil că nu ar fi așa. Am fi în continuare la fel de capabili mintal ca odinioară.


    Traducerea CD

Comments are closed.