HenryMakow.com – Sept 30, 2023
The West is Satanically possessed by Jewish Cabalism (Satanism) which seeks to replace God with a Rothschild.
A Rothschild will invert reality according to Satanist dogma. Evil is good; false is true; ugly is beautiful; unjust is just; unnatural is natural; sick is healthy; hate is love. They corrupt in order to control.
Jewish Satanism has seeped into every crevice of intellectual life. Ludwig Wittgenstein, a gay Jew like Yuval Harari and Volodymyr Zelinksy, has destroyed modern philosophy. A satanic cult like Judaism or Freemasonry demands conformity on the pain of ostracism and even death.
Ludwig’s father, Karl, was a steel magnate. Thanks to Karl, the Wittgensteins became the second wealthiest family in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, second only to the Rothschilds.
by Edward Menez – (henrymakow.com)
If you have read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, you’ll know that over a century ago the overarching Jewish plan was to subvert society. In the Protocols it is even boasted about how they promoted their agents, such as Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.
What do these subverters have in common? They are almost always Jewish Satanists, or at least beholden to them. Think Sigmund Freud when it comes to Psychology and perverted sexuality. Or Betty Friedan when it comes to feminism.
When it comes to Philosophy, the man in this field would be Ludwig Wittgenstein, founder of “post-modernism”: the belief that everything is perception and truth is unknowable. This is Jewish Cabalism which is just a pretext for Cabalist Jews defining reality according to their perversion.
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Background
Makov was doing well until his conclusion, which is terrible: Flat Earthers say there is buoyancy and Density but not gravity, and “heliocentricism” refers only to the Solar System, not the Universe. What the Jews did when they brought in two ideas of Relativism was what a criminal can be expected to do, make the truth impossible to establish–“Did you commit this crime?” “Well, it depends on what you mean by crime”. The comedy show Key and Peele satirised this slipperiness in sketches about deGrasse-Thyssen with his wife finding him guilty of something in the house and him using Quantum Physics to iron out his problem. A good dismissal of Wittgenstein can be written but this is only partially it. It is right to connect him with Einstein, though. Jews will never allow real Science, because Truth is bad for them in general
Bertrand Russell was a well-known communist. But he was primarily a mathematician/logician. GE Moore was the leading ethicist of his time. Wittgenstein’s great contribution to Philosophy is his tenet that ‘Philosophy is logic and language’. That position became known as the Oxford School of Philosophy. This is the School that departed dramatically from Traditional Philosophy (known since Wittgenstein as the Continental School of Philosophy).
The Continental School of Philosophy studies the works of the Greats, from the Greeks Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to the Germans Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger and Nietzsche, followed by the 20th Century French Existentialists, notably Sartre.
Although the two Schools share some of the Greats (the Greeks and the Germans), the Oxford School stays well clear of the French and German Existentialists. The Oxford School’s concerns are investigative, with ‘topics’ such as ‘the mature of meaning’, and procedural distinctions such as ‘validity and truth’.
So, yet again, Henry Makow is talking utter bs. Wittgenstein may well have been a pretty salacious character, but he remains recognised as a great philosopher. And Modern Philosophy is not in the least ‘destroyed’, though in our time it is heavily polluted by rubbish concepts like ‘women’s studies’’ and ‘gender theory’.
was it karma zynism that wittgenstein +Hitler
were in same class as little boys in Linz ?
are gods playing games with humanity ?
are ET aliens involved ?
Foofighters having fun ?
It’s pretty simple, and Eustace Mullins’ mentor said it plainly. It’s just that he forgot Hollywood and media.
Remove jews from banking, government, education, any position of authority.
Philosophy? jump into the deep-end of schizoid mind from the first circle of hell.
My theory which should be plain as day, is the alien implant as John Lash called it, of YHWH, Jehovah has rotted the group mind for centuries. Why I’m not a big fan of the “old testament” with unknown writers, and the do-nothing behavior of “christians”.
I have read several of Wittgenstein’s works and disagree strongly with Menez’ assessment.
Right at the outset Menez claims that Wittgenstein promoted “the belief that everything is perception and truth is unknowable.” Menez says of this approach, “This is Jewish Cabalism which is just a pretext for Cabalist Jews defining reality according to their perversion.”
Menez sees Jewish Cabalism where he wishes to see it. The idea that truth is unknowable is a profound piece of wisdom shared across many religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam. If one substitutes the word God for truth, this statement is merely saying that God cannot be “known” the way we understand facts and information. Mystics have always claimed that God can only be “known” through the heart and not through the intellect. Within science the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle affirms that we cannot know the full truth about a particle, and modern physics suggests that the act of perceiving a particle determines its state. Within mathematics the Godel Incompleteness Theorem assures us that within any system of rules there will always be statements whose truth value cannot be proven, and statements about which we cannot even know if the truth value can be proven or not.
Many assertions about “truth” are in fact expressions of opinion. Many of the arguments in the world are based on differing opinions rather than disputes about truth. Those in contact with truth do not dispute.
Much of Wittgenstein’s work focused on the how language works and its limitations. In more than one essay, he observed that language can only partially explain reality, and that there are aspects of reality about which we can only remain silent. Outside the character assassination contained in his article, it is presumably from such statements that Menez draws his unwarranted conclusions.
Menez suggests Wittgenstein “is basically responsible for the 20th-century philosophy of post-modernism” and quotes Wikipedia that “Postmodernism is associated with relativism and a focus on the role of ideology in the maintenance of economic and political power.[4] Postmodernists are “skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focus on the relative truths of each person”.[14] It considers “reality” to be a mental construct.”
I saw nothing in Wittgenstein’s work that involved the role of ideology in maintaining power. This interpretation of the subjectivity of perception came later from different people and was designed to serve political ends. As for group-based explanations, we should all be skeptical about them because they are the classic foundation for bigotry and bias. Such skepticism does not automatically lead to a focus on the relative truth of each person. If we wish to understand the perspective of someone else we need to consider their subjective experiences. But no special status need be accorded to such subjectivity. The final part of the definition referring to “reality” as a mental construct is supported by many wisdom traditions. The newest popular version of this idea is that we are living in a simulation.
Acknowledging that our subjective impressions constitute the “reality” within which we live does not deny the possibility of a larger reality that may lie outside of our normal perception. Sufism for example asserts that it is possible for humans to develop new perceptive capacities that allow them to penetrate this “veil” and come in contact with Reality. Many Sufi teaching stories illustrate the subjective nature of human perception. Many wisdom traditions point out that people perceive the world through a net of conditioning, and that this conditioning makes it impossible to perceive the underlying reality in a situation.
Mr. Menez’ article is a wonderful example of the accuracy of this observation.
Throughout history Jews always provide the white dum-dums with Jewish ‘intellectual’ or ‘spiritual’ leaders to control them & make sure they revere Jews, as they program/enslave them to their ethics, ideas & sociopolitical agendas (which all coincidentally benefit Jews)–i.e., Jesus, Marx, Freud, Lenin, Einstein, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, Foucault, Kurzweil, Harari, Musk…many more.
That face above looks like your typical Canadian high-school teacher or college professor. And he is always looking for yet another BJ from some student.
He looks exactly like a crazy demon. lol, no need for words much less a contribution.
Nico, here’s one more. Little Richie Slavin, neo-ISKCON Golden Boy.
Six of one.
“You can know this world is now managed by the Raksasas” – Srila Prabhupada
Bob Smith has a point, We had a teacher who wore the same expression, back when girls were not allowed to wear pants to school, but the miniskirt was “in.” He seated the best looking girls in the front row and was always dropping his pen on the floor. The entire student body used to gossip about him. Do looks affect behavior? Or does behavior affect looks? evidence tends to suggest, ‘Yes!”
@Neil: ‘I have read several of Wittgenstein’s works’
He wrote only one: Tractatus Philosophicus. He set out to write a second, simplied version of the highly mathematical Tractatus. But he left it unfinished. A student/boyfriend of his put together Investigations from Wittgenstein’s notes. (It is Investigations that appears on student reading lists.)
Notice the Jew defenders on here.
Two very worthy contributions above, although, I would dispute that Jean-Paul Sartre was a philosopher. Existentialism is the negation of philosophy. If you don’t love life, how do you love knowledge? Sartre was an ideologue and existentialism amounts to no more than a series of poisonous rhetorical conjectures.
Wittgenstein approached philosophic precepts with the mind of a mathematician. It disappointed him that language failed to convey absolute truths (as he perceived,) characteristic to mathematical computation. As such, language was inadequate for the apprehension of the profoundest actually. He taught us to closely observe the meaning of words, with the fullest etymological resonance.
Wittgenstein’s influence on post-modernism may well depend on the misapprehension and misappropriation of his teachings but it is undeniable, that post-modernists claim him as one of their own.
Great stuff, Sophie and Neil.
Typo alert! “…of the profoundest actuality.”
The greatest philosophers have all been white gentiles or Aryans: Max Stirner, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche. Primarily Germans. Jews have contributed nothing of significance to philosophy but have simply stolen ideas from Aryans & presented them as their own. Recognizing that reality, the Jew then foists these various pseudo-intellectual poseurs on the West such as Marx, Popper, Foucalt, Wittgenstein, Derrida, Husserl, Bergson etc as ‘great thinkers’.
“A little philosophy inclineth a mans mind to atheism…but depth in philosophy bringeth mens minds to religion”…
A very bright man… and probable occultist..
Pop artist Simpletons such as Wittgenstein and the imbecile Nietzsche may have some trouble ‘concretising’ that one…
But that’s because their talmudic cabalistic notions refute definition… and welcome chaos… whilst agreeing with it …
and setting up church….
Another Jew exalter has appeared on this thread.
The west has sold its soul to a tribe that likes to pump each other in the a**, and they want to kill us off so nobody is around to judge them for pumping each other in the a**. Jews only think about genitalia. That’s it.
All the world is a masquerade .made up of fools and philosophers. ‘Stop the world’ by the great thinkers of extreme .I heard and thought about this in the early nineties .long before this jew was active,he was probably still attending yeshiva.this jew is good at keeping people running around in circles for the past two decades.
These jews are very good at telling stories and gathering followers,but they will never organise and get into the political/social arena.
Karl Marx with a pig of a man. He actually stunk to high heaven and was very mean to his housekeepers and other staff.
@ HP
maybe he sees the veil hiding truth
we dont see with our limited brainape .
also our languages are limited . the
wise preferes to be silent .
wisdom dont counts in our society, so
we follow the foolish brainapes of jews
like Hariri,K Schwab, Marx + other
ISM fountains . what comes out of the
brainape never will fullfill hapiness for
mankind . best exemple : all kinds machinery,
poisoned farming, sea radioactivity + microplastics .
@andyay:’…existentialism amounts to no more than a series of poisonous rhetorical conjectures’.
I do agree with all you have said, but just one small point: Even the hardest core of philosopher will allow that Sartre’s Nausea contributes a new line of thought to the ‘other minds’ problem of the Theory of Knowledge. Sartre does that successfully by dramatising the mental pain of happening unawares upon a view of another mind. That is his discourse that is capable of denting the Oxford School’s certainty that knowledge is, ipso facto, attainable only by research and logic. This cannot be true if we admit that research and logic have not delivered on the ‘other minds’ problem, and that we might have to look to experience as the possible deliverer.
Sartre and Wittgenstein are not without their merits, Sophie. They were both, however, driven by ideological precepts and not by the pursuit of truth, which is the foundation of knowledge. This is less discernible in the closeted jew, Wittgenstein, than it is in the overtly bolshevist Sartre but the two of them depended on the a priori sway of their respective dogmas.
I hold with the Stoic School. If no one reads Plato anymore, no matter – I will read Plato. If no one thinks deeply anymore, no matter – I will think deeply. Thankfully, you still do, as well.
I meant to ask also, if you consider the perceptual conundrum of the Other Minds question, truly legitimate as philosophic enquiry, while it disputes the validity of parapsychological evidencing? It’s only so much fluff anyway. People have experiences other than the corporeal or material and I, personally, have heard people think with the clarity of the spoken word.
I read your article all the way through, Henry, and I appreciated it. I especially liked your philosophy laid out in the last paragraph. As I read it, I thought of what passes for the “Christian” church of today. The giants of the faith (the vast majority of whom have now gone on to glory) the believers in and the lovers of the real true God (who is truth and therefore the source of all truth) have been all but relegated to the trash can of history in favor of the the New Age/New World Order counterfeits. As you implied in that last paragraph – ‘the fake for the real’. The faithful have been dismissed out of hand by the leaders of the new church order. However, I know that the church is still the Bride of Christ. He loves it, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, try as they may. So I take solace in the fact that there still must be, albeit a remnant but a remnant nonetheless, of Christ’s church in the world, even in America. Could it be that the learned ones who post on your site don’t know from which direction you are coming or in which direction you are headed? I can’t say that I know for sure (frankly, I don’t understand most of what is posted here), but I think I have a hunch.
@Zhang
whereas we think they are genitalia
Buncha Kuntz
Two words from philosophy always escaped my memory until now, although I looked up their meaning now and again–ontology studies what actually exists, rather than being a mental construct, and epistemology studies… (reads a book) , no, this has not worked; yet again the reference books disagree with each other–this time ontology was about God’s existence, with the believers being dishonest and backwards. It is not worth memorising two-dozen systems from as many thinkers, all of which need learning in full and need learning by EVERYONE if they are to be successful
@andyay: ‘Sartre and Wittgenstein … They were both, however, driven by ideological precepts and not by the pursuit of truth, which is the foundation of knowledge. This is less discernible in the closeted jew, Wittgenstein, than it is in the overtly bolshevist Sartre but the two of them depended on the a priori sway of their respective dogmas.
Much to disagree with here: Certainly, Sartre is ideologically driven. But then, he is not a philosopher in the Oxford School sense. And Wittgenstein ideologically driven? No way. He was a kicker-over, forever problematising the accepted, and never the defender of stands. I agree with Neil here: ‘I saw nothing in Wittgenstein’s work that involved the role of ideology in maintaining power.’ But I would add that he never gave any ideology a role.
‘…the closeted jew, Wittgenstein’. No way! Jewishness, nor any sort of ‘…ness or ‘…ism, let alone dogma, was of the slightest interest to him.
‘… the perceptual conundrum of the Other Minds question, truly legitimate as philosophic enquiry, while it disputes the validity of parapsychological evidencing?
Surely philosophy has to take a stand against any ‘evidencing’ as a path to Truth. ‘Evidencing’ is inevitably a circumstantial contingency. The alternative is to abandon the ‘intrinsic truth’ and ’empirical truth’ distinction. But then again, perhaps it has abandoned it, given that no-one since St Anselm has proposed an intrinsic truth (the existence of God). Yet Propositional Logic must come to mind (re the logician Dennett especially), albeit very unambitious. E.g., It is either tautological, and therefore static: ‘a bachelor is an unmarried man’, or it is propositional, i.e., the definiens and the definiendum are internally valid, and in accordance with fact. E.g. ’Plato was a very wise man.’
(I never could see the latter as anything short of begging the question.) So your ‘fluff’?
‘I hold with the Stoic School. If no one reads Plato anymore, no matter – I will read Plato.’..
Ah! Music to my ears. (But I don’t think Plato is rated as a Stoic. Are the Stoics not Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, Cato, Zeno, Cleanthes, and a number of others? (I have never read them. Oops.) But I bet you will like this:
It is said of LJ Austin that he said ‘Philosophy is dittos to Aristotle.’ (It is said also that Austin said much more than he wrote. Too bad, that.)
I shall leave you alone now, with this parting thought: This is the sort of conversation that should really be had while seated around a garden-pub table and sipping chilled white wine.
@ Sophie Johnson.
Thank you for your considered and intelligent reply. I know it will disappoint you but I perceive Wittgenstein’s jewishness very clearly in his metaphysical asides into the “unreality of language.” It is, perhaps, less ideological than it is cultural or religious but unconsciously or not, it is a subtle cognitive bias, rooted in the psychological alienation, characteristically inculcated by a judaic ethos. I’m certain that it is for these reasons that he has been co-opted as a champion of post-modernism.
I didn’t mean to suggest that Plato was a Stoic. He wasn’t. I just chose Plato as emblematic of classical western philosophy.
I’m uncertain how to address the substantive part of your post; partly because I don’t fully understand it. That’s my failing, though, not yours. I’m a historian by training. Our epistomology is bounded by documents, testimonies and forensic sciences.
Empirical truth doesn’t have the same meaning in science, where experiment proves the validity or otherwise of empirical data. I think that what I was trying, rather clumsily, to say, is that there is validity beyond scientific empiricism, in experiential data that cannot (as yet) be framed within the scientific model.
Plato spoke of a Genie who advised him. This was an acceptable notion, within the cultural milieu, to his peers and for many hundreds of years thereafter. I know of no one who ridiculed Plato for deriving knowledge from demiurgic sources.
I’m going to dust off my copy of Bertrand Russell’s “History of Western Philosophy” and try to brush up a bit. I wouldn’t want to be outclassed over a glass of wine by a woman. Hehehe.
God with you, Sophie.