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 passé, 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, préces, 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.


Back to VNN Main Page

Click Here!