Authentic Heidegger vs. Inauthentic “Fake” News, Part 1


Martin Heidegger, 1889-1976

The trouble with Martin Heidegger, the widely acclaimed Western philosopher, is not just how to correctly interpret his texts, but also how to correctly interpret the works of his interpreters. Out of a multitude of books and articles by hundreds of Heidegger’s critics one can barely single out two critics who are on par with each other. Each critic, or rather each would-be expert on Heidegger, usually handpicks several Heidegger’s words, only to interpret those words according to his own readymade conclusions. In traditional German scholarship this obsessive compartmentalization of social science, which skips over a wider social, racial, literary, historical, etc. context, has been derisively labeled with a noun “Fachidiotismus,” that is, “expert idiocy.” Such a compartmentalized approach in social science today is pretty much widespread among liberal academics and self-proclaimed media experts.

One is, therefore, obliged to raise a simple question: Is it worthwhile reading Heidegger’s mutually exclusive critics in the first place? Part of the problem also resides in Heidegger’s own opaque prose, devoid of footnotes and bibliography, which never offers a reader a single illustration from the public realm and which remains closed off from any ethical judgments. For modern social justice warriors such abstract philosophizing is inadmissible. To make matters worse Heidegger’s toying with German compound nouns makes his texts read like a jigsaw puzzle reminiscent of the travails of Orpheus, the chores of Theseus, or the labors of Heracles during which these three mythical heroes embark on a dangerous voyage of a deadly guesswork in an attempt to decipher the puzzle of life (Being). Although these heroes had managed to divine all of life’s puzzles, at some point however, the inexorable destiny sets in. The uncontrollable individual fate, combined with the unavoidable destiny of their community befalls them all: first the violent death of the hero and then the downfall of the hero’s community[1].

It comes as no surprise then that Heidegger, just like all “nationalist-socialist-conservative-revolutionary-traditionalist-pagan-traditional-Christian, et. al” European thinkers, poets, and scholars, including sympathetic prewar political figures, was in deep love with the ancient Greek language and lore. “Yes to Athens, no way to Jerusalem!” was the underlying motto of all of them. However, Heidegger meticulously avoids any reference to the public realm, never ever venturing into the troubled waters of race studies, sociology or theology — quite unlike his nationalist or conservative contemporary colleagues, inspirers, or even imitators of the same or similar intellectual caliber, such as Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, or Ernst Jünger,[2] whose books still provide a very accessible and very readable historical, social and literary narrative about the abstract verbiage known as “Western democracy” or “humanism”(or one may paraphrase Heidegger with his own veiled words of “downward plunge” or “downfall” (i.e., Absturz) into liberalism). His sole and almost obsessive concern remains language and how language copes with immaterial and all powerful Being, and how in turn Being interrelates with physically visible “Being-there”, that is, man’s life or “Dasein.” Or, to put it simply, albeit more crudely, Heidegger theorizes on how indefinable Being affects man’s “thrownness”, or “falling” into this world without ever being asked whether he wanted to be thrown into this world in the first place. The late American rock singer Jim Morrison, who used to be an avid reader, is reported to have been influenced in his song by this Heidegger’s concept.

Heidegger’s sudden and unexpected fame is, paradoxically, more attributable to a few sympathetic left-leaning French intellectuals that came to be known after World War II as “existentialists” than to sympathetic European right-wingers, or to his own ambition for self-promotion. He was a modest and socially shy man who avoided polemical exchanges with his detractors and who intensely disliked the hustle and bustle of large cities, preferring instead to live a provincial life of a small town. “In large cities one can easily be as lonely as almost nowhere else.”[3] Neither did Heidegger’s looks, i.e. his “phenotype” match the Hollywood iconography of the tall, blond Nazi usual suspect all set to gas the entire planet. Heidegger was a man of modest physical stature resembling more a handyman from the Ozarks, or an elderly choir boy in his small town of Messkirch lighting candles every morning at his local eponymous church of St. Martin than a tall and muscled White philosopher king.

Heidegger took great pride in reminding his visitors of his peasant pedigree. But his vivid eyes mirrored a man of high intelligence able to read the hidden thoughts of his adversaries. Heidegger may therefore be a big disappointment for many White Nationalists who focus on the role of physical race only while neglecting the study of spiritual race. Widespread and newly constructed compound nouns, popularized during his lifetime by prominent racial scholars in Germany — words such as ‘Ahnenerbe’ (ancestral heritage), ‘Rassenhygiene’ (racial hygiene), or ‘Rassenschande’ (racial defilement) — are absent in Heidegger’s books.[4] His avoidance to write at least one chapter on the “ontology of heredity” may be also a major drawback in his entire philosophical career. The loss of identity (i.e., the “downfall of authentic Dasein,” i.e., human life) will inevitably have an entirely different meaning for a native of Papua Guinea than for a White man who is a native of multiracial New York.

It was to be expected that after WWII, his critical, mostly mundane Jewish and Marxist critics, with Theodor Adorno at the helm, would start assessing Heidegger’s works through Heidegger’s earlier National Socialist affiliations. Adorno derides Heidegger’s language: “as soon as he loosens his voluntary self-censorship, he falls into the jargon, with a provinciality which cannot be excused on the grounds that it becomes thematic of itself.”[5] However, in his own flowery but also more explicit language, Adorno correctly notices Heidegger’s proclivity to “pedantic language” whose transposition into the jargon of fake democracy Adorno claims to be spotting anew in the American-run postwar Western Germany. Yet, in passing, Adorno can’t avoid displaying his own tribal fear and his victimhood of wandering Jewish “homelessness” as well as his own “Ahasuerian“ (i.e., Hebrew) plight marked with the yellow star, each time when Heidegger tackles the sensitive topic of “inauthenticity” and “homelessness.”

When Heidegger finally calls “homelessness” the “third essential characteristic of this phenomenon,” he conjures up the Ahasuerian element. He does this by means of the demagogically proven technique of allusion, which keeps quiet about that to which it expects secret consent. The pleasure of mobility becomes a curse for the homeless. The opposite of “everyday Dasein,” which “is constantly uprooting itself,” is “observing entities and marveling at them,” though it is not yet, by any means the contemplation of Being. In philosophy in 1927 the rootless intellectual carries the yellow mark of someone who undermines the established order.[6]

Predictably, following the end of World War II, and largely due to Adorno and the efforts of his acolytes in the newly re-established Frankfurt School, social science college classes all over Europe and America soon turned into serial antifascist courses in demonology. Each non-conformist thinker, critical of both the American liberal-capitalist order and the Soviet-sponsored Marxist scholasticism, ran the risk of being labeled a Nazi or a Fascist demon. The derogatory word ‘Nazi’ (which was never in the official usage in National-Socialist Germany), became after World War II a major shut-up word in the arsenal of Western opinion makers in their own opportunistic, albeit self-censored quest for political or academic prominence and in their vilification of their intellectual and political opponents. [7]

Heidegger’s critics, however, overlook that their methods of literary and judicial process of guilt by “Nazi” association are once in a while bound to backfire. Academic or media demonization of “Nazi Heidegger” has only added further glitz and glory to Heidegger’s already well established reputation. However, in light of Heidegger’s involvement with National Socialism, two methods regarding the objective assessment of his works are worthy of being tested again. One option is to suppose that National-Socialism was an absolute cosmic evil with zero intellectual and cultural achievement whose pseudo-scientific and insane scribes must be extinguished forever. Since the end of the Second World War this method of legal and academic criminalization of heretics has been widely upheld in the public realm and in higher education in Europe and America. A second option in assessing Heidegger’s works is radically opposite and goes as follows: Given such a large number of European and American scholars and writers who were sympathetic to National Socialism and Fascism, and in view of Heidegger’s own adherence to it, was not National-Socialism the highest peak of Western intellectual endeavor, as well as a desperate attempt at creating the most sophisticated political-cultural model — “Dasein” — in the entire intellectual history of the West? 

Idle Talk, “BS” or Modern Speech Subversion

Heidegger was enamored with his native German tongue which, to be sure, is the richest European language and an ideal means of communication for thinkers and poets. “Language is the house of Being. In its home man dwells. Those who think and those who create with words are the guardians of this home,” writes Heidegger in the first paragraph of the first book he published after the end of World War II.[8] The poetics of the German language always had a prominent place in Heidegger’s menu and particularly during his earlier descriptions of the language used by his cherished German poets.

In the essay, “Letter on Humanism,” written in late 1946, Heidegger addresses the meaning of the word ‘humanism’, a word which ever since World War II has been regurgitated on all wave lengths by Western and Eastern liberal and communist politicians and intellectuals. Heidegger responds that each historical epoch elicits its own definition of humanism: “humanism differs according to one’s conception of the ‘freedom’ and the ‘nature’ of man. So too are there various paths towards the realisation of such conceptions. The humanism of Marx does not need to return to antiquity any more than the humanism which Sartre conceives existentialism to be. In this broad sense Christianity too is a humanism.”[9]

In this mildly ironic passage, written in his usual cryptic language, Heidegger says the obvious: the notion of humanism will always be defined by the quality of the winner’s sword and by the subsequent zeitgeist that the winner imposes on the vanquished. Hundreds of Heidegger’s critics ploughing through this text often overlook the time and place when Heidegger first drafted it. Back then, in 1946, Heidegger knew all too well that his words were not allowed to offend the all-present ears and eyes of the French and American military re-educators residing in his vicinity. In that cold and hungry German winter of 1945–46, The Letter on Humanism was composed by a man who was denied the ability to enjoy at will his local Bock beer or take relaxed meditating strolls along the nearby off-the-beaten paths in the nearby Swabian woods. When Heidegger penned this piece, the whole of Germany, from the northern city of Flensburg down to the southern city of Freiburg, was a smouldering landscape of towns and cities bombed to pieces, with 10 million additional Germans, from all parts of communist occupied eastern and central Europe, “on the run toward their authentic being-toward-death.”[10]

By 1946 Heidegger’s abstract language on death and dying, written two decades earlier in his masterwork Being and Time, had materialized in the real plight of millions of German dying “Daseins” whose stories were not supposed to reach the Western primetime “fake” news. “If idle talk is always ambiguous, so is this manner of talking about death,” wrote Heidegger in Being and Time long before World War II had even started.[11] Thus when his “Letter on humanism” was composed, in 1946, Heidegger, like hundreds of thousands of German teachers, professors and journalists along with millions of ordinary Germans, with Allied guns literally pointed at their head, was obliged to fill out the humiliating Questionnaire and explain in each of the 131 questions every single detail of his former public and private life, ranging from his sexual and religious preferences to his political and academic affiliations in the Third Reich.[12]

In his Being and Time, Heidegger’s language had come close to the point, at least in some sections, of voicing a relatively explicit critique of the Liberal system. In the sections “Idle Talk,” “Ambiguity,” and “Thrownness,” a reader can obtain a first glimpse into contemporary political mendacity, colloquially peddled in the American and European mainstream media today under the title of “fake news.” Similar to Heidegger’s “Letter on humanism,” each reader, however, before assessing his masterwork Being and Time, must also take the trouble of grasping the prevailing social, political and military conditions of Germany in 1926, the year when Heidegger wrote it. Reeling from the humiliating defeat in World War I, strangled by inflation and huge reparation payments, which were scheduled to expire only by 1988, rocked by urban civil war between Moscow-sponsored Bolshevik agitators and a growing number of German nationalists and decommissioned soldiers, Heidegger’s Weimar Germany was not a place for fun or romantic meditations about the beauty of the liberal order. Sections 27 and 28 of the book refer to ongoing social uprootedness and the strange political custom of mutual mimicry amidst the ruling liberal class. “Everyone is the other, and no one is himself,” (p. 128) writes Heidegger — words that made him later quite famous among students of postmodernity.

These were the topics that would soon become a major subject of inquiry among neo-Marxist scholars in their own critical writings on the sociology of modernity.

In fact, even his former Jewish pupils, later to be known as the main figures in the Frankfurt School, some of whom, like Hebert Marcuse, also became his strongest critics, had already been piggybacking on Heidegger’s theories, selling them in turn to American and European students as their own. In the section “Idle Talk,” Heidegger doesn’t use loaded words like “fake news,” “lies of the System”, “double-speak” or “newspeak,” preferring instead his own poetic coinages such as “inauthenticity” (Uneigentlichkeit) and “falling” (Verfallen) — words that illustrated not just his own somber mood and anxiety in the newly established Weimar Germany, but also the mindset of thousands of European intellectuals in search of identity. The full scope of contemporary Liberal propaganda today, where each media outlet is trying to outbid the other outlet with its own, often phony coverage of political and historical events, and with each doubling down on reciprocal mimicry, can be better grasped after reading these early Heidegger’s lines:

Everyone keeps his eye on the Other first and next, watching how he will comport himself and what he will say in reply. Being-with-one-another in the “they” is by no means an indifferent side-by-side-ness in which everything has been settled, but rather an intent, ambiguous watching of one another, a secret and reciprocal listening-in. Under the mask of “for-one-another”, an “against-one-another” is in play. [13]

This is a passage in which Heidegger illustrates the make-believe communication in the Liberal system without however ever uttering the word “liberal phoniness” or “fake news.” By the same token, today’s academics and mainstream media commentators in the US and EU are keen on hyping up their students’ and their readers’ credulity by feeding them with surreal World War II tales or extraterrestrial stories about the imminent rebirth of Fascism. An example of such idle talk in the modern media today can be observed in the fabrication of lurid tales about Donald Trump’s private life or his alleged Russian connections. The sudden surge of the so-called fake news, however, is nothing new in the history of the so-called liberal free press. Fake news is its main pillar.

Fake curiosity among readers and students must be also churned out by fake news experts and college professors. Heidegger writes how “idle talk controls even the ways in which one may be curious. It says what one ‘must’ have read and seen. In being everywhere and nowhere, curiosity is delivered over to idle talk.“[14]

Heidegger’s compound noun “idle talk” (Gerede) can be used today as a handy euphemism for the description of the ongoing liberal propaganda. If idle talk and its contemporary “fake news” version are additionally embellished by the ruling class and its opinion makers with disarming words and phrases, such as ‘humanism’, ‘tolerance’, ‘democracy,’ ‘diversity,’ ‘ethnic sensitive training,’ ‘affirmative action,’ etc., they have a better chance of being implemented and are more likely to be embraced by citizens as the ultimate truth.

Go to Part 2.


[1] T. Sunic, “Myths and Mendacities: The Ancients and the Moderns,”

The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4, Winter 2014–2015)

[2] T. Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right ( Arktos, 2011)

[3] M. Heidegger, “Why do I stay in the Provinces” (1934) transl. Thomas J. Sheehan, In Thomas Sheehan (ed.), Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker ( NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1981), p. 17

[4] T. Sunic, “The Notion of Racial Diversity in German Academia and National-Socialist Legislation,” TOO


[5] Theodor Adorno, The Jargon of Authenticity (trans. by Knut Tarnowski and Frederic Wil)(Evanston: Northwestern University Pres, 1973), p. 50


[6] Ibid., 111- 112.


[7] Alain de Benoist, Les Démons du Bien (Paris : Pierre- Guillaume de Roux, 2014), pp. 34-35. T. Sunic. Also “Es leben meine Toten!; Die Antifa-Dämonologie und die kroatische Opferlehre,”


[8] M. Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism” in Basic Writings ( David Farrell Krell, ed.) (New York: Harper and Row, 1977), p. 193.


[9] Ibid., p. 201.


[10] M Heidegger, Being and Time, translated by John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1962), pp. 237-241.


[11] Ibid., p. 297.

[12] Also the novel by the nationalist revolutionary, former Freikorps member and novelist, Ernst von Salomon, Fragebogen [The Questionnaire] ( NY: Doubleday, 1954).

[13] Heidegger, BT, p. 219.

[14] Ibid, p. 217.

13 replies
  1. anarchyst
    anarchyst says:

    The mainstream media has always been dishonest. From the “yellow journalism” of the late 1800s and early 1900s to today’s “fake news, journalism has shown its true (communist) roots.
    From the lies about the Spanish-American war to the New York Times’ walter duranty hiding the truth about and denying the artificially engineered and forced communist “famine” in the Ukraine, to the lies about the 1968 Viet Nam communist Tet offensive (a military victory for the South Vietnamese and American troops) reported by walter cronkite as a military defeat, cronkite and his ilk were successful in prolonging the Viet Nam war for years, giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy, who bragged about being supported by the U S media.
    Look at NBCs doctoring of GMC truck gas tanks, rigging them to explode, and the deliberate mischaracterization of George Zimmerman’s conversation withe the 911 dispatcher, deleting a key phrase, as well as showing Trayvon Martin as a 12-year-old rather than his more recent “thug” facebook picture.
    The media has become a “fifth column” of the government and is not to be trusted.
    To our advantage, we now have the internet, which gives the ability for ordinary citizens to be real “journalists”, quite often getting and reporting the story TRUTHFULLY before the mainstream media.
    In fact, there are calls by “mainstream media” to “license” journalists, in an attempt to keep these “citizen journalists” out…twenty years ago, any journalist suggesting such a scheme would have been thrown out, but nowadays…

  2. m
    m says:

    Heidegger is odd to read. You finish a section that, while reading, sounds both insightful and likely profound; however, once you get to the end, often, you are often left wondering: what is he getting at? Was there a better way to say it? Some of his prose even reads like self-parody and you want to ask, “Is this a joke?”

    Granted, he was writing at a precarious time for non-Marxist German thinkers. But we cannot discount the genetic influence of Kant, Hegel, and that whole intellectual tradition up to, and including, Nietzsche. For better or worse, clarity was mostly an English philosophical thing.

    Cryptic language is stylistically unfortunate, but not necessarily a deliberate obfuscation due to political limits (e.g., the so-called secret or esoteric writing taught by Leo Strauss). Indeed, sometimes it’s the only way to get a point across–one may cite the discussion constituting the very limits of language found in the ancient Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita text; the so-called “Diamond” sutra that was, by the way, undoubtedly a big influence upon Wittgenstein (compare Tractatus 6.54, even though I don’t know that the latter ever mentioned it as an influence). So maybe Heidegger was on to something.

    You know that an open discussion of Heidegger can only take place once it is possible to buy a book about him without having to read something in the introduction acting as an apology for his political views. That we are not there yet is obvious.

    With that in mind, those back then who complained about his politicization of the university (the Self Assertion) would, however, have no problems at all with today’s Marxist university, and in fact would fully support that.

    FWIW, my suggestion for an introduction would be Julius Evola’s critique in Ride the Tiger, generally parts 2 through 5, and specifically Chapters 14 and 15. Also, oddly enough, Leo Strauss’ essay on Heidegger found in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism is worthwhile in the context of our current regime’s Anglo-American-Jewish thinking.

  3. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Thank you, Dr Sunic! Yours is by far the most lucid account of the essence of Heidegger’s opus that I have come upon. I am particularly grateful for your opinion that Heidegger critics are hopelessly at odds among themselves. I did notice that when I made my long but only attempt to understand Heidegger, at least to the point where I might understand why he is often accredited with being the father of Existentialism. I threw in the towel when it occurred to be that only the scholar whose grasp of the German language is perfect can possibly understand Heidegger, and how on earth might I know which of his critics is in that position.

    Your final paragraph is stupendous. It would never have occurred to me that Heidegger has characterised the ‘make-believe communication in the Liberal system that I regularly pass off as ‘tosh’. He seems to have been nothing short of prescient! I am looking forward avidly to your second part on this theme.

    • Tom Sunic
      Tom Sunic says:

      Sophie, it takes a while to grasp Heidegger’s language. After reading him 3 times in the row, things become more clear. Yes, the knowledge of the German language is a necessity– as even the best English translations do not get the gist of his prose.

  4. Nick Dean
    Nick Dean says:

    Precisely why should we, pro-Whites, care about Heidegger, Tom? It is not known that he cared about us and all circumstantial evidence is to the contrary – cheating on his German wife with Jewish mistresses for example – where, as with MLK we may take the measure of the man more from the conduct of his character than the colour of his skin.

    I have read dozens of articles concerning Heidegger from nationalists who seem to feel the need of support from establishment idols like MH to bolster their nationalist arguments, all without clear nationalist relevance, oddly.

    For exampIe, there was a discussion between guessedworker and Greg Johnson where where D hoped that Heidegger might hold the as yet secret key to a whole new possibly plausible psychological outlook, man, and where G hoped that he, G, would possibly be able to persuade Heidegger that Blacks were not Germans. Like all previous discussions about Heidegger within our nationalisms that one led nowhere because no-one could say what relevance Heidegger or any of this theorizing had for nationalism.

    So forgive me, but taking together everything I’ve read or heard about Heidegger in nationalist forums, I am inclined to think he is a deliberate distraction. Well meaning people reference him. But no-one yet has said what his value or relevance is, and many bright, curious people have no doubt spent fruitless months trying to find out when they could have been doing nationalism.

    I don’t think I fell for the Heidegger trap but in my gullible days I spent months on Schmitt and only came away with one new idea: that in reading him I was very likely being gulled:

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      But is Dr Sunic presenting Heidegger to us as a nationalist guru? I would not have thought so, at least not in this first part of his essay. (I am about to read the second part.) The only commendation of him I see here is that he blew the whistle on the ‘make-believe communication of the liberal system.’ To have done that is certainly a service to nationalism.

      • Nick Dean
        Nick Dean says:

        Yes, SJ, Sunic is once again proposing to nationalists that Heidegger should be a guide for our way of thinking. He writes on a White Nationalist forum and appeals to our specific knowledge of lying media and expressly intends to make Heidegger appealing to us by recounting any remotely similar notions Heidegger once posited.

        But why? – we already know the media lies! And Heidegger is not a nationalist and does not advance an ideology of nationalism.

        We have nationalists who more accurately critique the media. Why always do our intellectuals send us toward non-nationalists or anti-nationalists? Would that happen absent subversion? It is obvious that they would not.

  5. Kevin MacDonald
    Kevin MacDonald says:

    This is from Sophie Johnson who is still having trouble posting to the site:

    Thank you, Dr Sunic! Yours is by far the most lucid account of the essence of Heidegger’s opus that I have come upon. I am particularly grateful for your opinion that Heidegger critics are hopelessly at odds among themselves. I did notice that when I made my long but only attempt to understand Heidegger, at least to the point where I might understand why he is often accredited with being the father of Existentialism. I threw in the towel when it occurred to be that only the scholar whose grasp of the German language is perfect can possibly understand Heidegger, and how on earth might I know which of his critics is in that position.
    Your final paragraph is stupendous. It would never have occurred to me that Heidegger has characterised the ‘make-believe communication in the Liberal system that I regularly pass off as ‘tosh’. He seems to have been nothing short of prescient! I am looking forward avidly to your second part on this theme.

  6. Hammerheart
    Hammerheart says:

    CS Lewis made the point about fake news (his experiences in WWI, also since as an Oxford scholar) over 75 years ago (Surprised by Joy; That Hideous Strength), & without incomprehensible polysyllabic language. Lewis is rather more accessible to white Christians than Heidegger.
    Lewis & the Oxford Christians rubbished journalism, the popular press & liberal academe (eg Abolition of Man). Puzzling nobody at TOO ever writes articles about them, that might reach the vast bulk of white Christians. Lewis in particular had the gift for saying in single 10-page essays (sometimes single sentences) as much or more than 10 years’ worth of this type material summed together. Again, odd how this highly accessible, highly learned writer is virtually never quoted in WN circles, despite the ongoing relevance of many things he wrote to present concerns (some nakedly, some requiring careful, close reading; tho nothing like the PhD hermeneutical decoding of Heidegger).

    Absturzende Neubaten was a 1990s industrial band, right? XD

  7. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    The backlash on Martin Heidegger came with the post structuralists, offspring of (((Claude Levi Strauss))) (fitting that the top brand of collectivist, proletariat blue jeans in the 60’s & 70’s were Levis). They shat on the sublime and claimed that there are no facts, no objective history, no philosophy , no literature, no politics, and that truth and meaning are impossible to understand. The big daddy of this postmodernism, the philosophical equivalent of modern art, fashionable at universitys in the 70’s and 80’s, was (((Jacques Derrida))) whose only attribute was such a high verbal IQ that his 90 miles per hour gibberish could fool college kids and trendies. Western civilization, unlike the dozen or so that had previously fallen after the four stages of expansion, conflict, empire, decay, had survived three cycles, resurrecting itself through its ability to reorganize and shift its core. Germany it appears was to lead the fourth resurrection, but a hostile elite wanted Western civilization dead and permanently buried. Great essay, thank you!

  8. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    I believe Ahasuerus was Persian and not Jewish. Adorno criticizing Heidegger for the obliqueness of his language is amusing. “Yellow star” is as easily written as “yellow mark”, not part of the vernacular.

Comments are closed.