4 November, 2009
Jewish Icon Levi-Strauss Dead
Posted by Socrates in anthropology, Cuddihy, jewed culture, Jewed science, Socrates at 10:03 am | 
Permanent Link
A key figure in the Jewing of the sciences, “anthropologist” Claude Levi-Strauss has gone to…wherever dead yids go. (He is mentioned at length in the book “The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Lévi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity”):
4 November, 2009 at 4:06 pm
First, Soupy Sales dies and now Claude Levi-Strauss. When will all this heartbreak end???
Obviously, the Jews control the field of Anthropology so they can foist their sick “weez all ekwal” crap on us using the imprimatur of science. The idea that all humans started off as short, dark, woolly-headed aborigines who walked naked out of Afrika 70,000 years ago is an absurd tale that only a Jewish mind could have concoted.
4 November, 2009 at 5:05 pm
That’s a bit of good news! I was only thinking about Soupy ‘no talent’ Sales a few weeks ago in response to a video clip that Herr Doody posted about Arlene Francis, she, the resident kikess of ‘What’s My Line’. It seemed that whats his face Sales was never off that program.
4 November, 2009 at 8:37 pm
A J00 named Claude….
4 November, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Yes, of course, an African pygmy, given the right education, can design rockets to the moon. Levi-Strauss made the absurd assertion that simply immigrating to America changed the skull size of second generation immigrants. He argued that the cranial capacity of the immigrant’s children, expanded to the same size as the native White population, simply by being here. A pygmy brain expands simply by immigrating to America. He was a quack, a snake oil huckster, another tenacle of a massive Jewish con job.
5 November, 2009 at 7:53 am
wtf they “plant” this mamzer maggot?
if i make it over to the ‘Kwa, i might just dig up his stinking kike carcass, give his putrid noggin a “third eye” with a hunk of 285-grn semi-jacketed, hollow-point lead apprxmtly 0.45″ in diameter and chuck his jew bones to the nearest pack of rabid coyotes to feast on!
(after straining a six-pack of Heineken through me kidneys on-to the offending site first!)
why do they drill holes in kikes’ coffins?
answer: so the worms can crawl out & PUKE!
5 November, 2009 at 8:27 am
When these yid frauds and con artist finally croak it is almost laughable the praise they receive. They are invariably described as ‘intellectual giants’, ‘great humanitarians’, …etc. Meanwhile genuine scientific anthropologists such as Carlton S Coon, a contemporary of “Frenchman” Strauss, are practically hounded out of academia and their books thrown out of public libraries for the thought crime of expressing in the mildest terms the reality of race in human evolution.
5 November, 2009 at 9:18 pm
On the other hand,he did make some good jeans(wink,wink).
6 November, 2009 at 9:15 am
Indeed, we are prisoners of our genes!
6 November, 2009 at 5:56 pm
From the linked article “The Id of the Yid”:
Cuddihy quotes a Howard Morley Sacher on “the unconscious desire of Jews, as social pariahs, to unmask the respectability of the European society which closed them out,” adding that in Freud’s case, it was the conscious desire of a conscious pariah. “There was no more effective way of doing this,” Sacher is quoted as saying, “than by dredging up from the human psyche the sordid and infantile sexual aberrations that were frequently the sources of human behavior.”
Freud’s contribution to psychology was his discovery of unconscious motivations, and the familiar trinary Freudian apparatus of Id, Ego, and Superego was merely an outgrowth of that insight, an explanatory mechanism for it. It has to be admitted that this was at the time a new idea, a legitimate idea, and, whether consciously intended by Freud or not, one that had a devastating revolutionary effect on Western culture. People in fact do often have motives for their behavior for which they are not aware. Few people would deny this nowadays. Even a psychologist who is dismissive of Freud, such as Dr. Kevin MacDonald, finds the idea of unconscious motivations essential to his theories:
From The Culture of Critique:
(2.) Determine whether the Jewish participants in those movements identified as Jews AND thought of their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests. Involvement may be unconscious or involve selfdeception, but for the most part it was quite easy and straightforward to find evidence for these propositions.
— p. iv
I suppose that in addition to whatever conscious feelings of Jewishness’underlie these associational patterns, there is also an unconscious solidarity that Jews have with other Jews and that facilitates the overlapping alliances and mutual citation patterns discussed here.
— p. 218
In fact, a large body of research indicates unconscious prejudice among people who qualify as non-prejudiced on the basis of apparently honest self-reports (Crosby, Bromley & Saxe 1980; Gaertner & Dovidio 1986). These findings fit well with the importance of self-deception as an aspect of Judaism (SAID, Ch. 8): Jewish scientists who perceive themselves to be entirely
nonprejudiced unconsciously favor ingroup members.
— pp. 218 – 219
These deep and typically unconscious ties of genetic similarity (Rushton 1989) and sense of common fate as members of the same ingroup lead to the powerful group ties among Jewish intellectual and political activists studied here.
— p. 219
One wonders what seems so obvious to us in retrospect could have lain undiscovered for so long. Before Freud one does not encounter the idea of an unconscious mind, with motives and workings that are unknown to its owner. The mind was simply the sum total of our awareness, our conscious mental life, nothing more. The mind was thought able to behold itself with in its entirety Cartesian simplicity: Cogito, ergo sum. The notion that one could behold oneself thinking and that there could yet be parts of the mind that the mind itself wasn’t aware of was revolutionary. Such an idea is corrosive to the search for truth, and even the very existence of truth, since once the possibility of unconscious motives is allowed, it becomes possible as a matter of rhetorical, and even scientific technique to discredit a theory or a course of behavior as being motivated by base, unconscious desires. It becomes possible to doubt our perceptions of reality, and even calls into question our ability to perceive the existence of objective reality itself, since it can always be alleged that one’s perceptions could likewise be clouded by unconscious motivations.
6 November, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Erratum:
The mind was thought able to behold itself in its entirety with Cartesian simplicity: Cogito, ergo sum.
Also, @ zoomcopter:
No, the skull sizes thing was Franz Boas, not Lévi-Strauss. But it certainly was absurd, and even fraudulent, perhaps consciously so.
7 November, 2009 at 4:28 pm
To quote Maimonedes “may God crush his bones”.