Hi there, Thanks for your conscientious reply to my last email (Matan Ariel 3), you're certainly entitled to an equally conscientious response. All I can offer is an acknowledgement that your legitimate points have gone unaddressed and a promise that as soon day-to-day-life should give me the time to adequately respond, I will do so. I assume you hold down a full-time job on top of maintaining this website, how you do that is utterly beyond me. I'm writing now only to mention that I notice you've recently alluded several times to your own "deconstruction" of various statements, opinions, etc. I assume you also know that Jacques Derrida, the originator of that mode of analysis and often referred to as the "father of deconstructionism," is himself an Algerian Jew who has often cited his ethnic identity as a causative factor in his development of deconstructionism.

I am aware that Derrida is Jewish. As are many others in his realm of French philosophy. That he has asserted strongly his Jewish identity as a "causative factor" in his world view was unknown to me. But I am not surprised. That's pretty common, no? Freud did it too.

Moreover, deconstructionism has been relentlessly criticized by many (The Kevin MacDonald crowd, etc.) as a "Jewishly motivated" technique for undermining healthy and confident white, Western civilization. In this line of thought Derrida is considered to be something like the Sigmund Freud of this generation, and deconstructionism as just as dangerous and intellectually vacuous as psychoanalysis. So do you not find it in any way uncomfortable to claim this "Jewishly-motivated," "anti-White" and "pilpul-ish" method of critical analysis as part of your own method of making sense of the world?

I do not use the term "deconstruct" with literal reference to Derrida's world view, let alone Derrida. I use the term simply in the sense that one "deconstructs" in the same way one might take apart a house to study its behind-the-walls construction. What type nails are used? What is the insulation? Is the infrastructure sturdy? Is the whole thing solid? Or is it all -- or most of it -- illusory? Did the builders create the thing in an afternoon and then skip town? If one "constructs" something, one can just as well "deconstruct it," don't you think? Irregardless of Jewry's stake on a word?

At the very least, however you'd care to define "deconstruct," it's quite the time to turn all the telescopes and microscopes on the Jewish community itself, towards seeing frankly what it is. And does.

This is in no way a rhetorical question, I know you consider such issues and I'm interested in your take on it. It also relates to broader issues of how people who are educated in "the academy" but resist Jewish academic contributions can apply their knowledge without feeling (or being) compromised by those "Jewish elements" in their education. Thanks again, and I hope we'll talk more in the future. Shalom, Matan

Jewish influence is everywhere throughout Western culture, starting -- at the very least -- in the Christian realm of Jesus. Jewish influence is evidenced throughout modern culture -- from TV to literature, from the art world to current U.S. foreign policy.

I don't think a critical "deconstruction" of fraud, hypocrisy, power elites, and the like is the sole provenance of being Jewish. Far from it. Anyone can think. Anyone can criticize. Nor does the process of "deconstruction" need to follow whatever channel you, or someone else, dictates. With all due respect, there seems to be an implicit arrogance in suggesting that if anyone embarks upon genuine critical thinking (in this case, using the "deconstruct" term), it is implicitly Jewish. In other words, to challenge an established order (in this case, the "Jewish" version ) is sacred Jewish terrain to you?