Comments on: Heidegger “The Nazi,” Part 2 http://www.toqonline.com/blog/heidegger-the-nazi-part-2/ Western Perspectives on Man, Culture, and Politics Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Morgan http://www.toqonline.com/blog/heidegger-the-nazi-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-6224 Morgan Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:50:20 +0000 http://www.toqonline.com/?p=8037#comment-6224 Faye is either a self-loathing <em>goy</em> [excessively so] as David put it in the comments on part I or he's Jewish. The intensity of the hatred and the goal of the work leaves but one word in my mind: <i>chutzpah</i>. To carry over a theme from the first part ["Indeed, it’s undefeatable there because the only thing its enemies can do to counter its insidious ideas is to ban those thinkers(.)]. Aye, ban or make the thinkers in question toxic to mainstream discourse. The more honest of these anti-liberal assassins, e.g. Roger Griffin, acknowledge that these thinkers delegitimize many (read: all) liberal assumptions. Yet even with this acknowledgment they devote their entire career to combating these thinkers and their ideas. Not very liberal now is it. In <i>The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy</i> Carl Schmitt illustrates how the liberal of yesteryear thought that in parliament individuals (atomized of course) would come together to debate an issue whereby the best reasoned argument or a synthesis thereof would be agreed to by all. Schmitt saw that this was no longer the liberals definition of parliament. An anti-liberal such as Heidegger using his human reason in debate against liberalism can show that the most rational courses are those that liberals flout as pre-rational (as if that were a reasoned argument against something!); those that are <i>völkisch</i>. To the current day liberal these refutations of liberalism are not rational for the only philosophy that human reason shows to be true for the whole universe is liberalism. This will be the liberals undoing. This Cult of Reason. Their definition of reason being that which supports liberalism. The liberal Cult of Reason is analogous to the Christian Cult of Truth (see http://www.toqonline.com/2010/02/three-horsemen-3/#comment-6056). The Cult of Reason since being filtered into all aspects of life has been disastrous; being responsible for the <i>homo oeconomicus</i> and calculating man. But it is in the hands of anti-liberals that it is turned against itself. To paraphrase Greg Johnson, the irony of ironies for it was those early Cultists that did Christianity in and now their methods are used against them. Everything has come full circle, the difference being that when the Cultists defeated Christianity it sounded the death knell of the West and the desacralization of our people. The death of liberalism heralds the resacrilisation of our people and a new Aryan <i>Hochkultur<i>. Although it is contemptible what these self-appointed Grand Inquisitors do it is nothing but the desperate last breath of a dead man clawing at life. Liberalism is dead and what's more it was self-inflicted. An an aside. I was looking at the reviews on Amazon. Hopeless. All of them. No one there has any clue about Heidegger let alone other concepts, basic ones at that. For example, one reviewer labeled the Democrats center-right and the Republicans radical right and a few paragraphs later calls Heidegger a Prussian! Second semester this year I'll be doing a course that has a Heidegger component, will let you know how erroneously the professor teaches him. Should be worth a laugh. Perhaps this book will be brought up by indignant Trotskyites and Jews [for some reason I don't think I need to make a distinction of the two...]. Faye is either a self-loathing goy [excessively so] as David put it in the comments on part I or he’s Jewish. The intensity of the hatred and the goal of the work leaves but one word in my mind: chutzpah.

To carry over a theme from the first part ["Indeed, it’s undefeatable there because the only thing its enemies can do to counter its insidious ideas is to ban those thinkers(.)]. Aye, ban or make the thinkers in question toxic to mainstream discourse. The more honest of these anti-liberal assassins, e.g. Roger Griffin, acknowledge that these thinkers delegitimize many (read: all) liberal assumptions. Yet even with this acknowledgment they devote their entire career to combating these thinkers and their ideas. Not very liberal now is it.

In The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy Carl Schmitt illustrates how the liberal of yesteryear thought that in parliament individuals (atomized of course) would come together to debate an issue whereby the best reasoned argument or a synthesis thereof would be agreed to by all. Schmitt saw that this was no longer the liberals definition of parliament.

An anti-liberal such as Heidegger using his human reason in debate against liberalism can show that the most rational courses are those that liberals flout as pre-rational (as if that were a reasoned argument against something!); those that are völkisch. To the current day liberal these refutations of liberalism are not rational for the only philosophy that human reason shows to be true for the whole universe is liberalism. This will be the liberals undoing. This Cult of Reason. Their definition of reason being that which supports liberalism.

The liberal Cult of Reason is analogous to the Christian Cult of Truth (see http://www.toqonline.com/2010/02/three-horsemen-3/#comment-6056). The Cult of Reason since being filtered into all aspects of life has been disastrous; being responsible for the homo oeconomicus and calculating man. But it is in the hands of anti-liberals that it is turned against itself. To paraphrase Greg Johnson, the irony of ironies for it was those early Cultists that did Christianity in and now their methods are used against them. Everything has come full circle, the difference being that when the Cultists defeated Christianity it sounded the death knell of the West and the desacralization of our people. The death of liberalism heralds the resacrilisation of our people and a new Aryan Hochkultur.

Although it is contemptible what these self-appointed Grand Inquisitors do it is nothing but the desperate last breath of a dead man clawing at life. Liberalism is dead and what’s more it was self-inflicted.

An an aside. I was looking at the reviews on Amazon. Hopeless. All of them. No one there has any clue about Heidegger let alone other concepts, basic ones at that. For example, one reviewer labeled the Democrats center-right and the Republicans radical right and a few paragraphs later calls Heidegger a Prussian!

Second semester this year I’ll be doing a course that has a Heidegger component, will let you know how erroneously the professor teaches him. Should be worth a laugh. Perhaps this book will be brought up by indignant Trotskyites and Jews [for some reason I don't think I need to make a distinction of the two...].

]]> By: Michael O'Meara http://www.toqonline.com/blog/heidegger-the-nazi-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-6219 Michael O'Meara Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:55:43 +0000 http://www.toqonline.com/?p=8037#comment-6219 Steven, It's nice that we agree on this. Faye's hatred of Heidegger and the "Nazis" is so visceral that I suspect he may, indeed, be Jewish. But I have no proof. Steven,

It’s nice that we agree on this.

Faye’s hatred of Heidegger and the “Nazis” is so visceral that I suspect he may, indeed, be Jewish. But I have no proof.

]]> By: Steven E. Romer http://www.toqonline.com/blog/heidegger-the-nazi-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-6213 Steven E. Romer Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:55:12 +0000 http://www.toqonline.com/?p=8037#comment-6213 Nice article. I think maybe this is part of a broader attempt at starting to attack European philosophy in general, smearing them and making an example. If they can demonize and topple respect for these pillars of western philosophy, then what chance does the modern academic have at freedom? Ironically, Faye seems to be doing exactly what he falsely accuses Heidegger of doing -- only on a grander, more direct plane. This sort of culture of critique is a Jewish hallmark. Do exactly what you accuse others of doing (when the others are not even really doing it...). Without a truth motive, this is what you get -- political manipulation, raw political interests motivating criticism and discourse -- throwing academia off on dead-end tangents and over the cliff of corruption. Nice article. I think maybe this is part of a broader attempt at starting to attack European philosophy in general, smearing them and making an example. If they can demonize and topple respect for these pillars of western philosophy, then what chance does the modern academic have at freedom? Ironically, Faye seems to be doing exactly what he falsely accuses Heidegger of doing — only on a grander, more direct plane.

This sort of culture of critique is a Jewish hallmark. Do exactly what you accuse others of doing (when the others are not even really doing it…). Without a truth motive, this is what you get — political manipulation, raw political interests motivating criticism and discourse — throwing academia off on dead-end tangents and over the cliff of corruption.

]]>