Thursday, June 22, 2017

Democrats Don't Believe In Dragons

(Artist Unknown)


Reality is a big, nasty, vicious dragon.  Democrats don't believe in dragons.

* * * * *

If The Left Wins Their Soft Coup, Everyone Loses - But Mostly Them



You have to wonder how liberals think this works. So, a manifestly conflicted special counsel leading a pack of maxed-out Democrat donors decides Donald Trump has to be kicked out of office for “obstructing justice” regarding a cynical lie about him cavorting with the Kremlin and…then what? President Pence, until they do the same thing to him? Or do we just skip right to President Felonia von Pantsuit, shrug our shoulders, and give up on our foolish dream of having a say in our own governance?

Straightforward from here is…chaos.

Because normal Americans are woke to the scam. No, the affidavits of a zillion DC/NY establishment types attesting to Robert Mueller’s impeccable integrity – ever notice how the guy trying to hose us always has the establishment’s “impeccable integrity” merit badge – are not going to make us unsee the fact that he’s carrying water for an establishment that thinks we need to just shut up and obey.

Now, pulling off the soft coup is going to be harder than they think. The establishment has not thought this out. They sort of assume that if they squelch Trump then everything somehow just goes back to them being in unchallenged control. Wrong.

Mueller can’t indict Trump – that stupid Constitution, always getting in the way! No, the goal is for Mueller and his crack team of committed liberal activist lawyers to generate some head-shaking, tsk-tsk, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger, report claiming Trump “obstructed” the probe into Hillary’s Trump/Russia collusion lie that even the liberals reluctantly acknowledge never happened.

But their problem is that impeachment is a purely political act – this isn’t going to get tried before some leftist DC judge and a 96% Democrat DC jury. No, they have to convince the Republican members of the House of Representatives to impeach and, well, have you taken a look at a political map of the US lately? It’s as red as a baseball field full of conservatives after a Bernie Bro shows up with a rifle.

Now, in the circle of jerks that is DC, congressmen are bombarded with the Trump obstruction narrative. Many neutered professional conservatives, eager to return to the old status quo where they sort-of mattered, are helping our enemies. Some of these congressmen are themselves Fredocons, weak and stupid, and are listening. Some might be swayed – except in a couple weeks they have to go home and be around normal people, and they’re going to hear something completely different.

Normal people aren’t falling for it.

Has anyone out there actually met a Trump voter who said something like this?
I supported Trump, but now I don’t because his refusal to passively sit back and let a Washington insider with an obvious conflict of interest and his Democrat staff drive him out of office on the basis of a Hillary-driven lie far outweighs Neil Gorsuch, pulling out of the climate scam, beating ISIS, and repealing Obamacare.
Yeah, no. Not a thing.

Even I, trapped behind enemy lines in deep blue California, have yet to hear anyone talking about this transparent coup, much less actually saying, “Yeah, we have to climb up on the Democrats’ altar and commit ritual suicide to please them.”

Congressmen fear their voters, and their voters – not the bused-in corps of aspiring baseball diamond shooters Soros cash pays to show up at townhalls to complain that they might have to pay for their own doctor like you and I do – are not going to accept this. No matter what Mueller’s report says, Trump is not getting impeached. Oh, and please, Democrats, make 2018 about impeachment. We yearn for the chance to yet again demonstrate to you that America is not MSNBC.

Now, that’s assuming Trump doesn’t fire Mueller, something he has every right to do under the Constitution - and should do based on this hack’s obvious corruption. The furor the media has threatened would follow in order to keep Trump from doing so will turn out to be yet another nothingburger. But if Trump doesn’t can him, Mueller and his team of committed Never Trumpers will claim the President obstructed “justice” for not hanging his head in shame over the Democrat lies. And that will go nowhere. Trump will never be impeached. And Trump will pardon any of his associates Mueller and his pack of cynical leakers tries to indict on whatever puffed-up, bogus charges they invent in order to justify this exercise in investigatory onanism.

And we should hope that’s how it ends.

Because what happens if the voice of half of America is effectively silenced by the DC swamp and its media guardians? The Tea Party was the first manifestation of the anger out there at the establishment. It was polite – it even cleaned up its own messes after its peaceful protests. The media, and the same alleged conservatives who saw the Tea Party as a threat to their own position because it caused donors to start asking for results instead of simply writing checks, attacked the Tea Party. Well, then we got Trump, who was not nearly as polite, and who took the White House fair and square from the designated establishment candidate. And now they want to use non-ballot means to make sure the normals’ choice is again ignored.

What do they think comes after Trump? Someone nice?

Do they think we stop demanding we be heard? Do they think we give up on participating in governing the country that we normals built, that we normals paid for, and that we normals fought for?

Oh well, we should have known not to get all uppity and try to have a say in our own country. Let’s let our betters rule us. Let’s obey.

No, that’s not going to happen. If liberals like chaos and even violence – and their *wink wink* denunciations of their own creature’s attempted conservative murder spree and their squealing delight in a high-profile play where the President is butchered onstage show they think they do – then the way to get chaos and violence is for them to succeed in their campaign of fascist, anti-democratic scheming against the guy who beat the harpy they nominated.

If you want real political chaos and real political violence, then just keep going down this path. You can’t light the fuse and not get the explosion. I saw what happens when you toss away the rule of law – don’t do it.

The hatred out there is real and growing. This is not a good thing – it’s a terrible thing. People are buying my novels about the country splitting apart and the horrifying specter of actual civil warfare (Hint: it’s ugly) because that’s where the establishment’s desperate schemes to hold onto power despite the will of the people, as manifested at the ballot box, all lead.

And the left is not ready for what its stupidity and greed could unleash. The establishment hacks think they can undermine the foundations of this country and not have it collapse on top of them. What progressives forget is that the rules, norms, and customs they ignore are not there to protect the normals, but to protect the weak and vulnerable elites who can’t go to their gun safe and choose from a half-dozen long weapons when things get real.

Here’s how this goes: If you end the rule of law, you begin the rule of power, and the rule of power means the folks with the most guns rule. Do they think the predominantly red state soldiers of our military are going to murder other Americans and risk their own lives to secure the unearned power of a bunch of Chardonnay-swilling liberals and their fakecon lackeys?

If they knew any soldiers, they would know the answer.

Before it’s too late and before you’ve done damage that can’t be undone, give up this dream of some extra-constitutional deus ex Mueller to overturn the election you lost. Turn away from this insanity before it’s too late, because straightforward from here is chaos.

From Townhall (June 19, 2017)

Nothing Worked And Nothing Is Going To Work

Harlem Dance Club By Archibald Motley


Oncoming Racial Doom: The Clash Of Cultures

By Fred Reed


Curiously, what made me give up all interest in the problems of blacks was not their virulent racism, the horrendous rates of crime, or the parasitism. Instead it was the assaults by blacks and their fellow travelers on Confederate monuments, particularly in New Orleans. Similarly, the banning of the Confederate battle flag at Gettysburg, for God’s sake. For reasons doubtless opaque to the historically ignorant, this annoys me.  Why should the least productive, most criminal, most dependent of the population rewrite history that in any event they don’t know? The erasure of the South and the Confederacy by people most of whom couldn’t spell it, of Washington and Jefferson and Lee by grifters, race hustlers,  wanton illiterates and the Brownshirts of Black Lives Matter…enough.

How many think this but won’t say it?

Now I find the black mayoress of Baltimore–a city lovely and livable in the time of Mencken before being made a decayed war zone by blacks–threatening monuments in that city. Enough. Too much.

I was not always sick of the misbehavior of blacks. In the now infinitely remote early Sixties, when I was a student in the last all-white class in Virginia’s rural King George High–graduated ‘64–integration was just beginning.  To the  extent that I thought about race, the question was abstract, a matter of moral principles, of  ideals and fairness, unrelated to an actual people with actual characteristics who might not integrate well. Blacks had been mistreated. If given the opportunity they would rise and join American civilization. That they might not occurred only to those with experience, which did not include me.

When my parents, wiser than I–if it is possible to be wiser than a seventeen-year-old–said that integration would not work. I didn’t believe them.

Time went by, and it didn’t work. Trouble began. Blacks became hostile, demanding this and demanding that. Neighborhoods became dangerous. Schools, newly mixed, encountered the 'Gap', intractable and immortal,  that is the heart and cause of our racial disaster.  The riots arrived. Racial attacks on whites became common, covered up by the media. This censorship possible in the days before the internet.

The country began, though I didn’t recognize it at the time, as neither did the country, treating blacks as a different category of humanity who could not be expected to obey the laws and rules or the expectations of civility.

For a while my sympathy held.  I was very young. Further, I had no experience of a school with a large black population. I justified the behavior of blacks as consequent to former privation. Surely it would change.

It didn’t. Years passed. We saw  corrupted schools, lowered standards, white flight, and journalistic dishonesty. More cities burned.

For decades white America made a desperate attempt to raise blacks to the level of the First World. It didn’t work. Instead, we saw a dragging down  of society to the culture of the ghetto. Blacks were behaving as usual as spoiled brats. Anything that upset them, as everything did, any expectation that they behave, led to cries of racism and depredations by groups such as Black Lives Matter.

As I  mentioned, my parents had said that blacks were could not function in the First World. It seemed that they were right. Desegregation had not worked, nor integration, nor quotas nor affirmative action nor Head Start.  What didn’t work was turning blacks into members of a European civilization in which they had no interest. It would have worked no better had blacks lived in China, Japan, or Russia.

Nothing worked and nothing is going to work. There is clarity in this realization, a clarity to admitting what is actually happening. It avoids tortured reasoning to show  that the dysfunction of blacks is due to anything and everything but blacks themselves. One need not make endless excuses for endless bad behavior, for the crime and dependency, the racial attacks, and the degradation of society.

The culture of the ghetto opposes everything usually believed proper in an advanced  society: high academic standards, equality of opportunity, good English, minimal obscenity, equality under the law, low rates of crime, reasonable self-reliance, freedom of speech. Black culture, intensely racist, encourages none of these and opposes most. It is tribal, based on identity, instead of principle.

For many, this is a difficult realization. Decades of unrelenting propaganda have trained us that blacks bear no responsibility for anything. Are they gunning each other down in city after city? It is because of guns, though whites have guns and do not kill each other. Do they perform abysmally in schools that they themselves control? It’s because of slavery, though there hasn’t been a slave in the country for 150 years. Are they irresponsible in their reproductive habits? It’s because of poverty, although they are not poor.

In this they differ from the rest of humanity as I have known it. I have lived in China, Thailand, Mexico, Cambodia, and Vietnam, and have traveled in some fifty other countries. All shared what might be called the core values of civilization. Blacks seem not to. Yes, many exceptions, varied degrees, but as a culture, they were, are, different. Would that it were not true, but it is.

Look at the foundations:

Education is the keystone of any modern civilization. Blacks alone care nothing for it. Exceptions, yes, but again, overall? No. The countless schools entirely controlled by blacks are the worst in America. They do  not improve.

Fox News:  “6 Baltimore schools, no students proficient in state tests” (of reading and arithmetic.)

Maybe the mayoress of Baltimore should pay more attention to this and less to statues she doesn’t like. She will not. If she were going to, she would have.

Accounts like the foregoing are routine, normal, expected. We have heard them for fifty years. Usually they include boilerplate about terrible obstacles, murdered relatives, addicted mothers, incarcerated youth, etc. These accounts invite pity and try to blame everything on whites. There is mandatory wonderment: What can be the cause of the academic gap? Doubtless white privilege, slavery, invisible discrimination, microaggressions, something, anything but blacks themselves. But whites can’t make black children do their homework, their daughters of thirteen avoid reproduction, their young males refrain from  killing each other. Whites are not their mother.

75% of black California boys don’t meet state reading standards

What is going on here? Learning to read is not difficult. Elsewhere poor people, people of color–I loathe that phrase–and poor people of color do it routinely. According to the CIA Factbook, literacy in Thailand is at  97%; Malaysia 95%; Mexico, 95%; and Colombia, 95%. The possible reasons for not learning in twelve years what white and brown kids do in three are low intelligence and lack of interest. Take your pick. The failure to learn imposes a heavy burden on society. Wild thought: Make welfare dependent on literacy.

Ask yourself, “Now what?”

Whether academic failure is cultural or genetic makes no difference, since neither is subject to change. Instead of requesting more rigorous textbooks and disciplining their children to study, blacks insist that courses be enstupidated for their benefit, that they be admitted to schools and courses for which they cannot qualify, that they get grades they did not earn. This is now normal. Nobody, black or white, liberal or conservative, expects blacks ever to do anything for themselves.

Of course one might ask why blacks would have any interest in most of what has been taught in American schools.  Europeans trace their intellectual  lineage from the invention of writing in Sumeria in the mid-Fourth Millennium BC through Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, their  literary heritage from  the Gilgamesh Epic through Tolkien. Blacks had no connection with this and did none of these things. It isn’t of their culture.

Cities have been the heart of the intellectual and artistic in all civilizations, as for example  Athens, Rome, Florence, Vienna, New York. By contrast, blacks have destroyed city after American city after American city. Trenton, Camden, Newark, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Flint, St. Louis, New Orleans, Milwaukee. At one time in all of these one could live, walk at will, send one’s children to the schools. Now, no. Violence, crime, racial attacks,and  illiteracy drive the civilized to remote suburbs. This is  not my culture and I see no reason to apologize for it.

Manners have been part of all civilizations. Civil societies everywhere impose a degree of control over obscenity. Everyone knows about sex and excretory functions. We leave them out of conversation. We can speak a sentence of three words without saying “motherfucker” five times.

Some perfectly ordinary rap “lyrics”:

     “Then you roll your tongue, from the crack back to the front
     Then suck it off ’til I shake and cum nigga
     Make sure I keep bustin nuts nigga
     All over your face and stuff”

This offal is excused because “it is their culture.” Exactly. When you cannot control abominable behavior by one group, you cannot control it for any group. Here is perhaps America’s gravest problem.

Virulent racial hostility–i.e., racism—is deeply ingrained in black culture. Blacks hate whites, Asians, Hispanics, and Jews. Not all blacks of course, or to the same degree, but it is the centerline of black culture. It is what counts and shapes the future.

Anyone doubting the universal racial hostility of blacks might read White Girl Bleed a Lot, or Chinese Girl in the Ghetto by Ying Ma. She arrived in Oakland with her family, dirt poor, speaking no English.  She recounts–as do many white kids in black schools–endless racial abuse, taunting, stealing of food by blacks. (All on her own, incidentally,  she worked her way up and ended with a law degree from Stanford.  Apparently she found no lack of opportunity.)

One may see the depth of the hostility in the regular practice of making heroes and martyrs of blacks, usually criminals, killed by white police while utterly ignoring the many hundred of blacks killed every year by other blacks. This is a memorial to Freddie Gray of the Baltimore riots.

Headline: “Trayvon Martin’s parents accept posthumous aeronautical science degree”

A measure of the fairyland world of American politics is hat a criminal, killed attempting to beat a security officer to death, should solemnly be awarded a posthumous degree in something he probably could not spell. It is amusing–why not quantum chromodynamics?–but pathetic. The canonization reveals the separation from reality of, apparently, most of an entire race.  It is of one cloth with affirmative action and racial quotas. No substance, much pretense.

Parasitism

Dependence on whites is the backbone of black culture. Free breakfast for their children, free lunches, subsidized housing, free housing, AFDC, affirmative action, racial quotas, waivers. Nobody, not blacks, not whites, not the most dewy-eyed liberal expects blacks ever to live without charity from whites. Don’t believe me? Ask an ardent civil-libertarian when he expects blacks to have caught up and not need affirmative action. Never. It is just another entitlement. Whah mah free stuff?

Political correctness ensures that we cannot even talk about the problem. If  you suggest that blacks stop shooting each other, you are a racist. If you suggest that they study, you are a racist. If you suggest they get married before reproducing, you are a racist. It will continue until either America slowly deflates or hell breaks loose.

From Fred On Everything (June 15, 2016)

Heidegger And The Jews, I

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)


An abridged version of this essay was presented as a lecture at the inaugural meeting of the Scandza Forum in Stockholm on May 20, 2017. I want to thank the Scandza Forum and all who attended. 

-Author's Note

* * * * *

Heidegger & the Jewish Question, Part 1



Martin Heidegger is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th and now 21st centuries. Thus it is a problem that Heidegger was both a National Socialist and an anti-Semite, which are thought-crimes under the post-War intellectual dispensation.

The world has known that Heidegger was a National Socialist since 1933, but until recently, his precise attitude towards Jews was somewhat mysterious. Toni Cassirer, the wife of Jewish philosopher Ernst Cassirer, claimed in her autobiography that the Cassirers were aware that Heidegger was anti-Semitic in the late 1920s.

However, whatever Heidegger’s attitudes toward Jews were at the time, they were not impediments to carrying on extramarital affairs with Hannah Arendt, who was Jewish, and Elisabeth Blochmann, who was half-Jewish, or having cordial and mentoring relationships with Jewish teachers, students, and colleagues.

During the Third Reich, Heidegger became Rector of the University of Freiburg, helping to purge the institution of Jewish students and faculty, although he protested against more vulgar manifestations of anti-Semitism and protested the sacking of certain Jewish faculty because it would make Germany look bad on the international stage.

On June 30, 1933, after he had become Rector, Heidegger visited Karl Jaspers and his Jewish wife in Heidelberg. According to Jaspers, when he dismissed the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as a forgery, Heidegger replied, “Nonetheless, there is a dangerous international alliance of Jews.” Heidegger was right of course to dismiss the “forgery” canard. The Protocols, like the dialogues of Plato, are a literary presentation of ideas whose truth depends on their correspondence with reality. Thus it is thus simply irrelevant to protest that they are not really verbatim transcripts of actual conversations.

After the war, Heidegger was forced to undergo de-Nazification. He was characterized as Nazi fellow-traveler and banned from teaching until 1951. Heidegger enraged Jews by refusing to treat the holocaust as a morally and metaphysically unique event. Instead he compared it to other wartime atrocities and claimed that it had to be understood as a manifestation of the modern mindset which sees all of reality as material for human manipulation and control.  Also controversial was his decision in 1953 to publish a 1935 lecture course, An Introduction to Metaphysics, in which he characterized “the inner truth and greatness” of the National Socialist movement as “the encounter between global technology and modern humanity.”

New light was thrown on Heidegger’s attitudes toward Jews beginning in 1989, when a 1929 letter from Heidegger to Victor Schwoerer, the vice-president of the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft, was discovered. In the letter, Heidegger spoke of the necessity of promoting talented German scholars in order to combat the “Jewification” (Verjudung) of German intellectual life.  In 2005 a line from a letter from Heidegger to his wife Elfride, dated October 18, 1918, came to light. Heidegger writes, “The Jewification of our culture and universities is certainly horrifying, and I think that the German race really should summon up the inner strength to find its feet again.”

These two letters clearly indicate that Heidegger opposed increasing Jewish influence on German cultural life almost fifteen years before Hitler’s rise to power, and more than a decade later not only did his attitude remain unchanged, he was taking active steps to combat Jewish power. His desire to see the “German race” fight back against Jewish influence and his willingness to actually cultivate and promote German scholars to counter Jewish influence explains his enthusiasm for National Socialism and his willingness to help implement National Socialist policies at the University of Freiburg.

However, in the Winter Semester of 1932–1933, before Heidegger openly embraced the party and became Rector at Freiburg, he wrote a letter to Hannah Arendt about rumors that he was an anti-Semite. After detailing all the favors he was doing for Jews during his sabbatical, he writes:

Whoever wants to call that “raging anti-Semitism” is welcome to do so. Beyond that, I am now just as much an anti-Semite in university issues as I was ten years ago in Marburg, where, because of this anti-Semitism, I even earned Jacobsthal’s and Friedländer’s support. To say absolutely nothing about my personal relationships with Jews (e.g., Husserl, Misch, Cassirer, and others). And above all, it cannot touch my relationship to you.

Heidegger’s claim that he is “just as much an anti-Semite in university issues as I was ten years ago” was meant to be taken as sarcasm by Arendt, implying that he was not an anti-Semite then or now. Why else would he cite the support of two Jewish colleagues, archaeologist Paul Jacobsthal and classicist Paul Friedländer?

But another reading is possible: The statement could also be taken at face value. Heidegger really was anti-Semitic with regard to university issues in Marburg and in Freiburg, as would soon become clear. Heidegger had merely concealed his anti-Semitism from his colleagues—as he was concealing it from Arendt herself in this very letter. But when Hitler came to power, dissimulation was no longer necessary. Arendt herself certainly felt deceived. In later years, she declared that “Heidegger was notorious for lying about everything.”

Beginning in 2014, a flood of new light on Heidegger and the Jews was cast by the publication of the first three volumes of Heidegger’s Black Notebooks.  A fourth volume appeared in 2015.  These volumes encompass writings from 1931 to 1948. Jews and Judaism are mentioned in only 25 places in the nearly 1,800 pages of the Black Notebooks published so far—fewer than ten pages, if we are generous in providing context—beginning in 1938 and ending circa 1948.

But in Heidegger scholarship—as in politics, culture, and academia at large—the Jewish tail wags the dog. Thus the question of Heidegger and the Jews has become the topic of a flurry academic conferences, articles, and books, as well as articles in the middlebrow press.  These discussions are filled with the language of contamination and contagion. Anti-Semitism is treated as an intellectual form of lice or typhus, and scholars earnestly debate whether they or their students can catch cooties from reading Heidegger. When the hubbub about anti-Semitism dies down, however, I think the world of letters will eventually conclude that the Black Notebooks is one of Heidegger’s richest and most compelling works.

Indeed, I suspect that Heidegger, his family, and his publishing house Vittorio Klostermann handled the publication and promotion of the Black Notebooks in a quite cunning manner. Heidegger surely knew that these volumes would be highly controversial, so he specified that they be published last in his collected works—like an unexpected verb at the end of a long, meandering German sentence that suddenly charges everything that came before with new meaning and life. If there was going to be a controversy about Heidegger and anti-Semitism, best to wait until Heidegger scholars were maximally invested in his work. Moreover, the decision to leak the most inflammatory passages on Jews before the publication of the Black Notebooks was a masterstroke of marketing, for the predictable controversy in the press made the Black Notebooks philosophical best-sellers.




In 2016, excerpts from Heidegger’s correspondence with his brother Fritz dealing with National Socialism, the Second World War, and related topics were published. A similar wag-the-dog phenomenon can be observed in this publication. Although the letters make only passing and anodyne references to Jews, they were published as Martin Heidegger und der Antisemitismus.  The volume is co-edited by Rabbi Walter Homolka and Arnulf Heidegger, one of Martin Heidegger’s grandsons. The book contains 127 pages of letters and 262 pages of scholarly essays on Heidegger and anti-Semitism.

So what do the Black Notebooks say about Jews? Heidegger’s remarks fall into four broad categories. Sixteen of the 25 references refer to Jewish intellectuals and movements, certain Jewish individuals, and Judaism as a religion. The remaining nine refer to Jews as a nation.

Jewish Intellectuals & Movements

In discussing doctrines of human nature, Heidegger refers to the “Christian-Jewish doctrine . . . that defines man immediately on the basis of his relation to a ‘God’ . . ."  Elsewhere, Heidegger speaks of rejecting the “anthropological determination of man, and with it, all previous anthropology—Christian Hellenistic-Jewish and Socratic-Platonic".  Heidegger also wonders if thinking of human beings as a people (Volk) tacitly accepts the “Hellenistic-Jewish ‘world,’” i.e., worldview, that he wishes to question and transcend.

There is nothing specifically anti-Semitic about these references to intellectual traditions. Heidegger rejects Jewish thinking, but he does not single it out. He hyphenates Jewish ideas with Christianity and Hellenistic thought and places these hyphenated constructs on a par with Socratic-Platonic thinking, which he also rejects. Moreover, it is not really anti-Semitic to reject Jewish ideas if one thinks they are false. It would only be anti-Semitic if one rejected them simply because they are Jewish, and obviously that is not what Heidegger is doing here.

In a remark on the völkisch outlook, Heidegger asks, “Is it an accident that National Socialism has stamped out ‘sociology’ as a term? Why was sociology gladly pursued by Jews and Catholics?”. There is nothing specifically anti-Semitic about this remark either. Heidegger is not singling out Jews but placing them alongside Catholics. Heidegger’s likely answer to the question he raises is that both Jews and the Catholic church are international rather than national communities, thus they are attracted to sociology as a universal science.

In a remark on his critique of Cartesianism in Being and Time, Heidegger mentions that “it has been exploited just as strongly by Jews as by National Socialists, without being grasped in its essential core . . .”.  Again, there is nothing anti-Semitic about this remark. Heidegger is putting some Jews and some National Socialists on the same plane, as having a superficial understanding of his critique of Cartesianism.

In a remark on self-knowledge, Heidegger argues that the very idea of self-reflection is superficial, “even after one has pushed Jewish ‘psychoanalysis’ aside”.  Again, there is nothing specifically anti-Semitic about this remark. Heidegger’s point is that National Socialist critics of “Jewish ‘psychoanalysis’” fail to question the idea of self-reflection and thus end up on the same plane.

Heidegger makes a similar point elsewhere, mentioning Freud by name:
One should not get all too loudly indignant about the psychoanalysis of the Jew “Freud” if, and as long as, one cannot at all “think” about each and every thing other than by “tracing” everything as an “expression” of “life” back to “instincts” and “the atrophy of instinct.” This way of “thinking,” which in advance excludes all “being” whatsoever, is pure nihilism. 
Here Heidegger is again criticizing National Socialist thinkers who indignantly condemn “the Jew ‘Freud’” yet themselves reduce psychology to instincts.

I think it is reasonable to read Heidegger’s very Nazi-sounding use of the phrase “the Jew ‘Freud’” as sarcastic echoing of Nazi cant.  This is reinforced by putting Freud’s name in scare quotes, which may mean that Heidegger believes the unnamed National Socialist writers are attacking a straw man, not Freud’s actual teachings.

In a reflection on “dogmatism, be it ecclesiastical-political or state-political,” Heidegger observes the tendency of the authorities to attribute any dissent from dogma as the work of “the enemy for it (for the dogmatism)—be it the heathens and godless ones, or the Jews and communists.” Given that “the Jews and communists” are the enemies, the dogma in question is clearly National Socialism. What’s more, Heidegger identifies himself with the dissidents, not the dogmatists.

Mentions of Jewish Individuals

In addition to Freud, Heidegger mentions several other Jewish individuals in the Black Notebooks.

In one passage Heidegger mentions two Jewish swindlers, Iwan Baruch Kutisker and Julius Barmat, who the Nazis claimed epitomized the Weimar Republic:

What is the difference between the following occurrences? Barmat and Kutisker make good business for themselves out of the postwar democracy; with the help of the National Socialist world view, primary school teachers turn into “philosophers” with whom a serious person would never bother. There is no difference; for in the latter case the historical essence of National Socialism is grasped as little as is, in the former case, the historical essence of parliamentary democracy. 

Here Heidegger is saying that two Jewish swindlers no more reveal the essence of parliamentary democracy than unnamed German academic frauds reveal the essence of National Socialism. This is actually a critique of National Socialist propaganda and a refutation of an argument against liberal democracy, although it also amounts to an analogous defense of National Socialism.

In another passage, Heidegger writes, “At the same time, the ‘cunning’ of Bolshevist politics comes to light. The Jew Litvinov surfaces again. . . .”.  This clearly seems to be an unironic use of the Nazi trope.

Judaism as a Religion

In a remark on Karl Barth, Heidegger writes, “The Phariseeism of Karl Barth and his associates exceeds even the ancient Jewish Phariseeism, by the degree that is necessarily posited by the modern history of being” (GA 95: 395-96; 1938–1939; trans. Polt). Here again, no anti-Semitic judgment is intended. Indeed, Heidegger puts the Jewish Pharisees on a higher rung than a German Christian theologian.

Heidegger mentions Judaism in a number of post-war reflections from 1946 to 1948. Around 1946 he writes:

“Prophecy” is the technique for fending off what is destinal in history. It is an instrument of the will to power. That the great prophets are Jews is a fact whose secret has not yet been thought through. (Note for jackasses: this comment has nothing to do with “anti-Semitism,” which is as foolish and abominable as Christianity’s bloody and, above all, non-bloody attacks on “heathens.” The fact that Christianity even brands anti-Semitism as “un-Christian” is part of its highly developed and refined power technique.)

In this passage, Heidegger himself denies anti-Semitic intent or import. While his comment on the Jews places them in a class by themselves, his comment on anti-Semitism places it in the same company as the Church’s anti-heathenism, which Heidegger clearly rejects. Of course, he is only speaking here of Christian religious anti-Semitism, which leaves open the door to other types.

In 1947 or 1948, Heidegger writes, “God is the God of Abraham, the God of Jesus. But there is no God of be-ing”.  A few pages later we read, “On the doctrine of gods.—Jehovah is the god who presumed to make himself the chosen god, and not to tolerate any other gods beside himself. . . .”.  And a few pages after that, we find:

What if the god of the philosophers were still more divine than the god of Abraham, who tolerated no others of his kind aside from himself, and whose son Jesus sent all who did not love him to Hell and let them roast there? What sort of god is it who denies divinity, and who has none of the generosity of pure joy at his kind and at their inexhaustible richness?  

Finally, in a note from around 1948, Heidegger simply states, “The modern systems of total dictatorship stem from Judeo-Christian monotheism”.

None of these passages are specifically anti-Semitic. Indeed, they apply to Christianity as much as Judaism. The first alludes to Pascal, and the third mentions him by name. Heidegger is clearly critical of the biblical God, but his remarks are no more anti-Jewish than anti-Christian. And the last remark is also as anti-Nazi as it is anti-Judeo-Christian.

Some Preliminary Conclusions

Of the sixteen references to Jews and Judaism that we have examined so far, only one is patently anti-Semitic, namely “the Jew Litvinov.”

There are six references to the Jewish or Judeo-Christian religion, one of which is explicitly anti-anti-Semitic, one of which places Jews above a German Christian, three of which are as much about Christianity as Judaism, and one of which is as anti-Nazi as it is anti-Judeo-Christian.

Jews are mentioned alongside communists as enemies of the National Socialist state, which Heidegger is taking to task for state-political “dogmatism.”

There are references to “Christian-Jewish,” “Christian Hellenistic-Jewish,” and “Hellenistic-Jewish” conceptions of human nature, the latter two of which Heidegger places on the same rung as the “Socratic-Platonic” conception.

Some Jews are placed on the same rung as some National Socialists in misunderstanding Heidegger’s critique of Cartesianism. Other Jews are placed on the same rung as some Catholics in advocating the science of sociology. National Socialist psychologists are placed on the same rung as Freud because they too embrace self-reflection as a model of knowledge and instincts as an explanation of psychological states. Even the Jewish swindlers Barmat and Kutisker are placed on the same level as unnamed National Socialist educational careerists.

A clear pattern is developing here. In twelve out of sixteen passages, Heidegger places Jews, Judaism, and Jewish thought on the same level as Christianity, the Greeks, and German National Socialists. In all these cases, Heidegger rejects the Jewish as well as the non-Jewish terms as equally problematic.

In the passages where Heidegger places Jews and National Socialists on the same plane, his primary target is National Socialists, for whom the cruelest barb is to be compared to Jews. But Heidegger’s problem with the Jews is not that they are Jews, but that their ideas are as false and superficial as their National Socialist counterparts.


With this pattern in mind, we will now examine Heidegger’s remarks on Jews as a people

From Counter Currents Publishing (May 21, 2017)

Also see: Heidegger & the Jewish Question, Parts 2, 3, 4.