|
The "Culture of Critique" and the Study of History
by James Allen Knechtmann
It is perhaps an inevitable sign of the times that the historical profession has declined to
the point that it actually discourages historical thinking. While this may sound absurd to
the uninitiated, it is a depressingly grim reality not only to a White, racially conscious
student, but to anyone with even a passing understanding of historical style and standards
before the Jews destroyed the concept of higher learning in Western universities in the
1960s.
Historical thinking has been a hallmark of Western culture since the Renaissance, a trait
which genuinely sets European civilization apart from any other civilization which has
appeared on this Earth. And while there has always been plenty of controversy over the form
which historical inquiry ought to take, until the Jewish revolution of the 1960s such
inquiry was always assumed to be the underlying premise of any scholarly historical
undertaking.
What changed in that fateful decade to transform the study of history from an Aryan inquiry
into the past into the Jewified monstrosity it is today was the introduction of the most
corrosive Jewish intellectual concept ever devised: the so-called "culture of
critique."
This "culture of critique" is a model which suits the Jewish personality flawlessly. Drawn
from a two-thousand-year tradition of Talmudic debate and interpretation, Jewish criticism
transforms the study of history from a historical inquiry into hair-splitting haggling over
the most mind-numbing minutiae imaginable and spawns a concurrent corrupting of proper
interpretation.
Given the Jews' success in promulgating this transformation in approach, it is not
particularly surprising that they have come to dominate the study of history, compelling
non-Jews, with very few exceptions, to adopt the Jewish method or face professional
rejection. Indeed, it is this compulsory imposition which gives the Jews the ability to
propagate their system and to remain in control of it. Literally by controlling the
training of historians they are able to suppress the Aryan historical spirit in academia,
the tradition of which suffers a kind of Orwellian treatment as it is relegated to the
memory hole of library shelves, and thence into storage, whence it will never again see
the light of day. This writer has had the experience, for example, of discovering primary
documents from National Socialist Germany which have collected dust in libraries since
their arrival, for over forty years, without once having been checked out until he rescued
them from impending oblivion. It is only when one sees this insidious process in action
that he truly understands the significance of the matter.
To have ensconced themselves astride the historical profession as they have, the Jews had
to eradicate the Aryan study of history, because Aryan inquiries into the past are dynamic
affairs, motivated by the spirit of exploration and discovery.
For the Aryan, the study of Cortes' expedition to Mexico, for example, bears the same sense
of adventure that animated the conquistador himself. Thus we have William Prescott's
The Conquest of Mexico. The Jew, on the other hand, encumbered with the baggage of
Talmudic hair-splitting, requires that the subject matter be static, i.e. held fixed beyond
a certain point in time, so that the criticism and analysis of historical interpretation
can occur. Thus we have Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners. This
stage of freezing historical inquiry occurred in the 1960s. Eventually, primary sources
are forgotten, relegated to the realm of irrelevance, and the study fixates itself on
secondary interpretations. This phase began in the 1970s and has continued until the
present. However, the final step in the Talmudization of historical study is now beginning
to announce its presence with the introduction of endless critiques of secondary sources,
some of which are deemed significant enough to pass into the common body of knowledge,
while the rest are discarded. Once this stage has reached its maturation, the study of
history, if that term can still be used in good faith, will be an ossified exercise in
useless argumentation.
The practical impact in the universities has been the intellectual regimentation of
professors and their graduate students, with a predictable decline in -- if not outright
elimination of -- what might be termed "historical inquisitiveness." Replacing the Aryan
concept of historical inquiry is a modified version of the Marxist theory of history, a
method characterized by more emphasis on "social" and "cultural" models and less emphasis
on traditional Marxist economic models, which are generally regarded as pass�, but not
"refuted," in any case.
These various "models" are established by the anointed gurus of the Academy, and all the
lesser lights toiling in the universities have been reduced to a bizarre form of academic
worship of these "mentors." Graduate students, in particular, are initiated into the cult
by the persistent requirement of having to write reviews, pr�ces, or any other number of
equivalent sorts of critiques. Stressed to the point of frenzy by the guardians of the
cult is the notion that these critiques must be as "succinct" and brief as possible. Thus
are ponderous tomes of 800 pages reduced to two pages of criticism.
Not that the tomes thus critiqued are rendered any injustice! On the contrary, the vast
majority of these so-called works very well can be reduced to two pages without eliminating
anything of value. The graduate students, thus impelled into a form of mental gymnastics
designed to eliminate verbiage that would be the envy of Orwell's Ministry of Truth, become
arrogant in their criticisms. Not being required anymore to perform the "old-fashioned"
functions of researching and writing, they can sit back at their leisure in a seminar and
snipe at the target of their critiques, safely insulated from any empathy whatsoever to a
writer who has invested years in writing a book.
Of course, this Orwellian exercise is not a nihilistic assault on the body of literature as
a whole, but rather a way of weeding out works deemed undesirable, "incorrect," or "refuted."
And the professors shrewdly manipulate the students, using a Pavlovian system of grading
and comments in the seminar to guide the students in the "correct" direction. Therefore,
we can see perfectly how the Jews have shifted the emphasis of historical study to a
Talmudic exercise in concise, pointed criticism against the "politically incorrect." And
woe unto the student who is not mentally agile enough to stay on the "correct" side of the
critique!
And while the uninitiated might feel some sympathy for an author whose life's labor has
been "critiqued" to death, such feeling on the part of a racially conscious Aryan is
utterly misplaced. This is because anything remotely Aryan has long since been critiqued
into oblivion, at least insofar as the Academy is concerned. To cite an example, this
writer had the privilege of invoking in a proposed lecture the concepts of Oswald Spengler
in support of his notions of the development of the Italian Renaissance in a seminar at a
prominent university in the American West (the name of the specific campus is withheld for
reasons of security), only to receive the following written criticism: "Spengler has been
refuted." Nothing more was added to explain why Spengler's thesis had been "refuted"; it
was sufficient that the professor had said so. It is perhaps superfluous to add that the
professor in question was of Jewish origins.
The overall result of the Talmudization of the study of history has been to turn
professional historians into a clique isolated not only from other academic disciplines
(despite the laughable attempts to create a "multi-disciplined approach" to history), but,
even more important, from American society as a whole. They are literally a laughingstock
rabbinate of compartmentalized "critics" who have lost any feeling for the history of
Western Civilization. Their discipline is as mentally petrified as the Talmud itself, and
they have choked the life out of any living connection they might still have with society
as a whole. As for the notion of their being in touch with any race-soul, the idea is
ludicrous, unless, of course, the Jews qualify as a race.
So, what is a racially conscious Aryan to do in the face of this intellectual sterilization?
The most important realization in this regard is to acknowledge that Aryan historians, with
very few exceptions, cannot take root and grow in this academically saline environment.
Therefore, racially conscious Whites will have to establish their own process of historical
inquiry from scratch in more fertile soil, using their race-soul as the blueprint for any
new institutions dedicated to the study of history.
And they will have to implement measures to ensure that non-Aryans, above all the Jews, are
never, ever permitted to set foot in these news halls of learning, lest the poisonous
doctrines that have corroded and crumbled our modern universities reduce this new Academy
to ruin as well. Naturally, the only way in which these new institutions of learning can
be thus safeguarded is in a racially cleansed society with racially conscious Aryans
defending it. We have paid a steep price for our short-sightedness -- let's learn a
valuable lesson and build our new society with an immunity to alien thinking and
subversion.
JAMES ALLEN KNECHTMANN
|