Comments on: Heidegger “The Nazi,” Part 3 (Conclusion)

By: Rudel

Rudel — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 03:15:07 +0000

O’Meara writes:
“Biologism is the doctrine, still prevalent in white nationalist ranks, that understands human races in purely zoological and materialist terms, as if men were no different from the lower life forms — slabs of meat whose existence is a product of genetics alone”

And your reasons for believing otherwise are what exactly?

By: Morgan

Morgan — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:11:49 +0000

Of course Emmanuel Faye would distort Gunther’s Nordicism. These professional anti-anti-liberals will use any means to stifle the only viable alternative to their dystopia. Defending liberalism by betraying its underlying tenets.

I’m always weary of a book with a sentence along the lines of this in its description: “Casts intellectual fascism in a new light as a coherent critique of liberalism and Marxism which may still be attractive today.” It’s a sleight-of-hand masqueraded as objectivity. In effect it’s a more insidious version of ‘no platform’. They’ll use quotes from the authors making it look as if they’re taking anti-liberalism seriously but do so in a selective manner suiting their agenda of deterring people from these philosophies. Thus making sure anti-liberalism is without a platform in the mainstream realm of ideas.

Though it seems Faye doesn’t believe in subtlety with his anti-anti-liberalism and thought to get more bang for his buck by attacking Gunther as well, among others.

By: Michael O'Meara

Michael O'Meara — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:08:56 +0000

The reader should disregard what I said about Hans K. Gunther, based on E. Faye’s Heidegger. I have since learned that things were more complicated than Faye let on and that Gunther’s Nordicism was ultimately based on an extremely spiritual conception of the Nordic genotype, rather than the pure “biologism” Faye suggested.