12 April, 2008

Deconstructionism: the Jewing of Language

Posted by Socrates in Deconstructionism, Frankfurt School, jew mentality, jewed culture, jewed language, Marxism, political correctness, Socrates at 6:02 pm | Permanent Link

Not only are the Jews money-magicians, but they’re also language-magicians – in this case Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), the father of deconstruction (or “-ism”). In a nutshell, deconstructionism could be described as the theory that language – e.g., a sentence or a paragraph – means whatever you want it to mean. That’s stupid. It’s just another Jewish idea designed to help wreck Western culture. Of course, deconstructionism is popular on university campuses. Derrida was heavily influenced by another Jew, Emmanuel Lévinas (1906-1995). Both men were influenced by still another Jew, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938, who also influenced Martin Heidegger). Deconstructionism could be called a form or offshoot of Frankfurt School “critical theory.”

A mention of Derrida: [Here].

A step-by-step guide: [Here].

More: [Here].

  • 9 Responses to “Deconstructionism: the Jewing of Language”

    1. Thomas Williams Says:

      Speaking of the Jewing of language. I was in palm springs having breakfast at my wife’s favorite morning spot and I had the misfortune of sitting behind Ken Davitian who was the fat man in the Kike movie Borat (Borat’s manager) and the fat pig in the movie, meet the Spartans that spoofed 300. That fat kike’s language was loud, obnoxious, vulger, and very anti gentile. Anyway he was only about 12″ from me so I turned and asked him to please lower his voice and watch his vulger language. My hand was on the back of my booth and he must have noticed my SS ring as he had a startled look on his face. He turned back and did in fact lower his voice. All I can say is thank goodness Borat was not there.

    2. New America Says:

      Bill White gets full marks on this issue.

      The human mind is a symbol processor; words are fairly advanced as tools of symbolic communication.

      Words are malleable, and, worse, can be used as tools to control you without you realizing it.

      Words are, if you will, the boxes in which we contain thoughts; the words then, many times, effectively short-circuit real thinking.

      Bob Whitaker’s companion site, http://www.nationalsalvation.net/ is an excellent place to begin developing serious thoughts, particularly about Wordism.

      That having been said, back to Bill White.

      Say what you will – the brownshirt/red armband swastika combination, particularly if you are fit and the uniform is, well, uniform – sends a simple, UNSTOPPABLE non-verbal message.

      No amount of words, no amount of ex post facto rationalizations, stop the powerful message this pattern sends to the minds of the watchers, particularly the Goddamn demons-in-human-form known as Jews.

      The message is simple, and powerfully effective:

      ALL of your words have no effect on us; we do not care what you think of us, quite the contrary, in fact, and we represent the EXACT OPPOSITE of you and all you stand for.

      The Message challenges them:

      “Deconstruct THIS!”

      Words fail!

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    3. Whitepride Says:

      So the meanings of words are conditioned by convention. My god, what a world shattering incite! What would we do without the kikes to point shit like that out for us.

    4. A. Says:

      Schopenhauer is the founder of the mental technologies of the last one-hundred and fifty years. Spengler pronounced him the final philosopher of Western Civilisation, the one who had exhausted the possibilities of our culture. Nietzsche was a reaction to his finality. Strange, then, that it was only Hitler and the jews who saw his ideas as utile (for “good and evil”). The truth of the matter is that if you don’t know Schopenhauer you are a dullard and are not even in the running. Understand Schopenhauer’s kampf and understand deconstructionalism. It did not start with the jews, it was/is however used by them…

    5. FeralWhiteMale Says:

      Thomas Williams: “My hand was on the back of my booth and he must have noticed my SS ring as he had a startled look on his face. He turned back and did in fact lower his voice.”

      Awesome! Classic story there, sir.

      A. wrote: “The truth of the matter is that if you don’t know Schopenhauer you are a dullard and are not even in the running. Understand Schopenhauer’s kampf and understand deconstructionalism. It did not start with the jews, it was/is however used by them.”

      Everyone should read Schopenhauer because he kicked ass. Reading him is like reading Goebbels — you feel like you’re finally breathing fresh air. I only wish Schopenhauer had written a lot more.

      The kikes will use anything to our disadvantage whether we invented it or discovered it, or whether they did. Macht’s nichts. A debate on wordsmithing is like asking whether a particular brand of shotgun is a “good” weapon. Answer? Depends how you use it.

    6. Olde_Dutch Says:

      British historian Peter Heather, in his Fall of the Roman Empire, points out how dense & post-modern written Latin had become by the mid-Fifth Century prior to the collapse of the empire. He contrasts this with the clear & concise written Latin of the 1st Century BC and 1st Century AD.

    7. lawrence dennis Says:

      See also:

      … Which brings us back to [jew ‘professor’] Stanley Fish and his revolutionary friends. In order to understand why some people can say some things and others cannot say the same things without being accused of being bad people, we have to understand the revolution in literary criticism which took place during the 1970s. According to Fish, there is no objective truth to any statement. The only “truth” (a word he would not use) which a statement possesses is what the reader or listener assigns to it. Does that mean that I (a lonely graduate student at the time he was my teacher) get to determine meaning, I asked during my class with him in the ’70s. No, Fish replied, meaning is determined by “interpretive communities.” Does that mean, I continued, things like the English department at Temple University, where I was studying at the time? No, it meant elite institutions like Johns Hopkins, where Fish was teaching at the time. And how can we tell whether a university is an elite institution? Well, if Stanley Fish is teaching there. That means that, in short order, first Duke University and then the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle became elite institutions. What Stanley Fish really meant to say is that the interpretive rabbis have complete hegemony over the Torah and any other text.

      And why does Professor Fish feel this way? Because he grew up in post-World War II America during a period in which the rabbis from Hollywood and Madison Avenue began to exercise more and more draconian control over discourse of every sort. Fish is a sophist, and like all sophists he recognizes power when he sees it.

      So to bring us back to our project of deciphering the real code behind politically correct ethnic speech, it does no good to argue that what you are saying is not anti-Semitic; it does no good to quote another Jew who has made exactly the same claim you are making, because the people who are in the business of running discourse do not believe in the objective truth of any statement. Like Thrasymachus, as described by Plato, they believe that what we call “truth” is really the opinion of the powerful….

    8. Bill Says:

      Actually, applied deconstructionism is a lot of fun once you get the drift of it. In fact, the term “deconstruction” can be deconstructed readily. It’s just a pseudo-science masquerading as a source of enlightment.

      The chief skill set required is to read writings (“texts”) closely and to carefully consider the words, their placement, their author, and all the multiple meanings that might be found in them.

      My own experience is that European Americans do not do this well, being wedded to a rigid adherence of meanings even when the words scream out for attack. We tend not to notice when we use Jews’ names for ourselves! Talk about oppression — we do not even notice that when they call us goys, gentiles, and shiksas, they are demeaning us with their supremacist vision designed to reduce us.

      And that is the real essence of deconstructionism, to decide on a political line and then decode the text to uncover ways that support the political line. My political line is that Jews actively and passively operate to reduce us, our histories, our cultures, our children, our wealth, our confidence, and our incomes. Thus, for me, deconstruction applications lead me to uncover examples of Jewish supremacy in texts, quotes, acts, and signs. And they’re not hard to find once you get it that you have the right to name and define yourself.

      Academic deconstructionism is chiefly designed to uncover evidences of an evil patriarchy of old white men.

      European American deconstructionism is designed to uncover evidences of an evil tribal supremacy seeking the destruction of all the diverse white American peoples.

      It’s just a tool, folks.

    9. -jc Says:

      During all the required and elective courses I took toward an undergraduate major in philosophy at a “state” university, Schopenhauer was not mentioned once. What a surprise. Note, too, that wikipedia pops-up as the most popular (Page Rank) “authoritative” source.

      Scoogle Scraper is to be preferred over Google as a search engine if, for no other reason, their homepage– http://www.scroogle.org– gives the lowdown on wikipedia, which is a tool of deconstructionism if ever there was one.

      Here’s a place to get started with Schopenhauer for free: