Jacques Derrida- Father of Our Cultural Breakdown
October 12, 2014
The Illuminati, a satanic cult based on Jewish Cabalism, have subverted humanity
by finagling control of government credit (currency) which gives them control of
banking and thereby everything else of importance. Our satanic possession requires that
they sever our connection to reality via language. Jewish philosophers like Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) promoted the occult idea that language is a separate reality, and all that is knowable.
According to Wikipedia, Derrida's concepts of "deconstruction" and "semiotics" have
infected the humanities and social sciences, including--in addition to philosophy and literature--law, anthropology, historiography, linguistics, music, art, architecture, psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and queer studies. Derrida is one of the major figures associated with post-structuralism and postmodern philosophy.
Deconstruction- a philosophical and critical movement, starting in the 1960s and especially applied to the study of literature, that questions all traditional assumptions about the ability of language to represent reality and emphasizes that a text has no stable reference or identification because words essentially only refer to other words and therefore a reader must approach a text by eliminating any metaphysical or ethnocentric assumptions through an active role of defining meaning, sometimes by a reliance on new word construction, etymology, puns, and other word play.
"The result this Sephardic (i.e. Cabalist) tint to language have given us is not a deconstruction, but a destruction, of sane thought, thought that is governed by the way things are and not by society's demands upon words and how they are to be used. Derrida has accomplished exactly what [the Illuminati] needs to have established in order to promote the insanity that breaks down society and prepares it for easy pickings and subjugation." -Arnold Palmer
by Arnold Palmer
Moral relativism, the position that we don't know what is really right or wrong, or that no standards are available to make that judgment, received a strong impetus from Jacque Derrida's "deconstructionist" pronouncements in the last century.
Simply put, deconstructionism is the view that words are how we think, and they do not reflect reality. First society puts us in a language setting, and from that language comes our ability to think and speak.
With such a view, if you can mold a word, make it shift in what is specifies, you are able to make the language fit a moral argument.
In other words, language creates rather then reflects reality. This is perfect for Cabalist Jews who believe God speaks through them, and they have a right to impose their subjectivity on humanity.
Deconstructionism is the notion that words need their context, their setting, their usage, their flavor, their ambiance to be broken down, "deconstructed," so that we can understand what the one who is pronouncing the word is saying.
This also applies to sentence structure. Sentence structure is not governed by things as they are. Rather, it emerges from society's hit and miss usage over the centuries. Subject-predicate thought in the West has no equal in some primitive languages deconstructionism claims, and this should be evidence enough that language is not based on what is actually in the real world, but how we put nouns, verbs, adjectives together. This is the syntactical side of deconstructionism called semiotics, or semi-idiotics by critics.
The simplest way to have a society believe that words, not concepts, are how we interpret reality is to propose "archeological" models of language where it is held development of language structure can be examined. Ancient Hebrew, e.g., when it wants to express "there is a tree" eliminates the copulative. It simply utters "tree" and the listener is supposed to realize that it means in our way of twenty-first century speech "there is a tree." But the Ancient Hebrew or Ugaritic has no copula. Taking this example deconstructionism moved into our everyday usage of words and nihilistically "deconstructs" words as to what they actually say when they are used.
ORWELLIAN DOUBLE SPEAK
So developed, Orwellian double-speak is a neat follow though for the deconstructionists, whose own works, books, lectures on the subject of how words, and not concepts, are what govern how we think are almost unintelligible to the normal reader or listener. In stating, however, that society is the arbiter of word usage and syntax, deconstructionism has slowly been able over the last fifty years argue that our moral universe is not "out there" but in fact doesn't exist.
The way we use words,.e.g, "pro-choice" replaces "pro-abortion," "same-sex marriage" replaces "same-sex partnership" (while "marriage" is the term used to indicate a couple who can procreate and will do so in a committed relationship, thus making "same-sex marriage" a bizarre elocution) calling "terrorism" "workplace violence," etc.
All these twists of language usage have respectability because of the notion Derrida, a Sephardic Jew from Algiers, decided to argue, that words, not concepts which the mind takes from things as they are, is what makes for social interaction and understanding.
Deconstructionism is the next easy step to argue that "concepts" have no basis in things, but actually it is words and how one can get to their usage in a societal setting that makes for how society should govern and live.
The result this Sephardic tint to language have given us is not a deconstruction, but a destruction, of sane thought, thought that is governed by the way things are and not by society's demands upon words and how they are to be used. It is peculiar that the deconstructionist school has Sephardic roots. Given how many see this Sephardism as originator of the way to make society think its way, and no other, that Derrida, a Sephardic himself, would have come up with such destruction of the language should surprise no student of what language really means, and how it originates from the world.
First Comment from Gary:
When I returned to graduate school in the mid-80s to earn a Ph.D. in English, after an 18-year hiatus (during which time I had taught English and American Literature in the US and Japan), I was amazed to discover the impact "deconstructionism" was having on literary criticism and on literature itself. It seemed to me that the deconstructionists were very much about elevating the role of the critic over that of the writer; to the extent that they minimized and practically eliminated the writer, but focused attention, instead, on what the critics had to say about other critics! This became a roundabout game of building reputations of fluff--fluff based on mistiness!
Of course, symbolism has always been important in the Arts, but when it is paramount and works to exclude the concrete, palpable, flesh and blood realities of life in favor of the smoky musings of self-bemused "intellectual" con-artists, then we are all in deep s*it! (Quick! Hand me that life-line!)
Gertrude Stein (not the most concrete of authors!) once complained about the city of Oakland, California: "There is no there there!" That's the real situation with deconstructionism--with it, we wander through a self-referential and non-referential sort-of Oakland!