Why doesn't /pol/ co-opt him?

How so? His work is ametaphysical.

Being towards death, relatedness are deeply political ideas. We exist in a world made up of political relations, there's no such thing as being 'apolitical'

he fucked (((hannah arendt). also, /pol/ doesn't like western culture, they like AOC and shitskin women tweeting about aipac.

/pol/ is a nazbol shithole with niggers and trannies posting under the guise of swastika memeflags.

>donald dumbfuck
DRUMPF IS FINISHED
ORANGE MAN BAD!!!

kill yourself libtard

libtard status= btfo'd, thank you for your service magapede

>be very smart /pol/acks
>read a quote by Nietzsche
>”he was a proto-nazi and redpilled everyone on the jews”
>”based Neetch absolutely BTFO slave morality, what a redpilled genius!”
>read a whole Wikipedia article on Heidegger
>”based Heidegger was a Nazi. I have no idea what he wrote but it must be redpilled!”

>pol
>reading
They're busy calling wach other zionist/controlled opposition/mossad/(((random term in brackets))

Because when you're dealing with a man who joined the nazis and never denounced the Holocaust, and you're /pol/, what is done is hardly "co-opting" or a détournement. /pol/ is largely concerned with political action and not political theory, let alone reading the primary texts of 20th century philosophers, and Heidegger in particular is a difficult philosopher for everyone, even when your family name is Derrida or Vattimo or the man himself was your teacher. Those chosen few that do bother with philosophy did list Being and Time or The Question Concerning Technology in charts made by, or meant for, /pol/.

Speaking of which, have his Black Notebooks been translated and published in English? I suppose people expecting a sequel to Mein Kampf by the great philosopher himself will be disappointed, as one should be able to fit his anti-semitic rants in just 10 pages or so.

MCBRUMPF

you have to read him and understand.
his political involvment was absolutely governed by his academic ambitions. he was no nazi, he jusy wanted to a place in academia. he is rolling with phenomenology for gods sake.
read him you plebs. he is glorious

fuck Heidegger; read Levinas instead

Because they don't understand him, although he does make an appearance occasionally in eco-fascist and druid threads.

Attached: 11138-004-6699034E.jpg (217x300, 9K)

t. (((user)))

yes, everyone disagreeing with you is one of (((them))). you're like one of these overzealous reborn christians that see satan everywhere.

I knew one of those born-again dudes in college. He broke up with his fiancée to marry his best friend's girlfriend of 5 years.

/pol/friend here. I haven't read Heidegger so I'd be uncomfortable trying to co-opt him, although I think anyone who reads him must know he was a national socialist, unless they read it because they had to. I don't really get how it would even be co-opting when he was clearly /ourguy/.

Most of what I know about Heidegger comes from these speeches by Greg Johnson, and by mentions of him in things I've read. I'll read him eventually because he seems intredasting but I'm not buying any more books until I knock out a good amount of my stockpile I already have.
youtu.be/uqvsEjFAWh8
youtu.be/LD46BP-nLtE
Correqt
Tulsi is only a quarter nonwhite but she's 100% the rightful Queen of the USA. The only way multiracialism and multiculturalism will be able to work is in the context of a caste system, which requires a Hindu theocracy.
Based. I just skipped the Heidegger part.
>druid threads
These must happen when I'm sleeping, during the real Anglo hours.

Attached: tumblr_pkro6cVve01xrd44yo1_1280.jpg (1200x827, 447K)

My guess.

>Heidegger is difficult to read

>His most accessible appeal to fascists is the pastoral volk-kitsch which is only a draw to a few who are ashamed to admit they are addicted to their computers

>Heidegger would go on to disavow his support for National Socialism (pic related)

>The closet fascists active today that have used Heidegger's work in metaphysics are very much their own "brand" (Alexander Dugin) or just embarrassing to be associated with (Peterson).

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-04-13 at 4.33.18 AM.png (946x1250, 287K)

i read being and time and it didn't turn me into a fascist. am i a brainlet or is everyone else?
serious replies only pls

Didn't stop them with Spengler.

/pol/ here, reading him right now
Can't wait to read the pomo too, in my opinion it's them that should be coopted starting with Gramsci and foocow

Jesuit detected

>Peterson, an anti-white identitarian and defender of the neoliberal globalist world order
>closet fascist
youtube.com/watch?v=YSmN_vTpsk8

Attached: 1550394770701.png (241x209, 3K)

>be left-nietzschean
>be socdem because derrida and foucault btfo marx
>be nazi-nietzschean
>be historically justified in both justified and be literate in the tragedies of the greeks

where does it say anything about heidegger disavowing nazism? I mean with implicit overtones this article segement gives, it should be noted that heidegger discontinued writing philosophy altogether after planning two more volumes of being and time( which should be noted again, he never completed these because he had already been disillusioned with writing philosophy)

He's closet to himself too, and I think he's more of a crass opportunist then an idealogue. Still, it's evident where his lies. If there comes a time when a fascist takeover credibly threatens the western world again, I think it'll be easy to say what side he would take.

The excerpt is taken from Bakewell's "At the Existentialist Café". Throughout her research Bakewell is skeptical of Heidegger's apologia for his involvement, but the passage I quoted still features the famous story of him explaining his collaboration with the Nazi party as a moment of stupidity.

She makes a compelling case that he had underplayed his active knowledge in what supporting the Nazis meant. Especially since her book was published after the release of the Heidegger's Black Notebooks. Either way, if it was political expediency or regret, he would go on to take his nazism back later in life.

In Heidegger's own words, I was able to find this (dialogus2.org/HEI/nazisme.html) a few months ago, but I've been putting off finding a translation.

>This error was that of telescope, the essence that resulted from the reflection on the being and the historical and destiny essence of Germany, namely to confuse the essentiality (Wesenheit) and simplicity (Einfachheit) of the Seinsfrage with the determinations that determined German historicity. This you can perfectly see in the "Discourse on self-affirmation of the German University", from the reading of these two concepts. This led me to confuse my vision of the destiny freedom of Dasein, which is always mine with totalitarian openness (will of the will, confers my "overtaking of metaphysics" written from 1936 to 1946) of Germany. The error of the hermeneutics of my own Dasein, an error which led me to misinterpret the formula of Karl von Clausewitz: "Ich sage mich los von der leichtsinnigen Hoffnung einer Erretung durch die Hand des Bufalls" or to be misused. it is one of Plato's formulas of the Republic: "... megala panta episphalè ..." (All that is great is built up in the storm ... ").

>It is because I have reduced the full opening of the existential possibilities of Dasein to this German specificity that I have fallen into error, and that I have been able to confuse the immanent transcendence of freedom with the Führer and his Führung. and so to say to the German students while I was rector: "The Führer, himself and he alone, is the present and future German reality, and his law.Learn to know ever more deeply: henceforth everything requires a decision and every act a responsibility Heil Hitler "(November 12, 1933).

>Indeed, one could say that taken in the Jargon der Eigentlichkeit, as written by Mr. Theodor W. Adorno, I went astray, plating the consequences of my unconscious failure at the level of the fundamental ontology on Nazism, and desiring as soon to realize the project of an independent university, which can reveal, to use Husserl's expression, the teleological sense of philosophy and science, opened at dawn in Greece.

I just stuck the correspondence I linked into google translate. It was surprisingly readable for what it was.

Anyways, if the source can be trusted, it seems consistent with the essay quoted in the beginning of my screenshot.

Lol that’s literally saying that he perceived nazism as an analog to the system not that nazism wasn’t originally connected to his view, he’s stating that the führung is the same as his view of Ancient Greece even though he has delineated himself from nazism he still holds the philosophical connection to it

Because they're too stupid to understand what he's saying.

>He's closet to himself too, and I think he's more of a crass opportunist then an idealogue. Still, it's evident where his lies. If there comes a time when a fascist takeover credibly threatens the western world again, I think it'll be easy to say what side he would take
you have absolutely no basis for these claims

Tfw Heidegger literally was proto- /pol/

I am a fascist, not a "libtard"

>If there comes a time when a fascist takeover credibly threatens the western world again, I think it'll be easy to say what side he would take.
If that happens, he'll just take his millions and fuck off to some random country. You're delusional to believe he's close to fascism in any way or form. Just because he's calling out gulags and trannies doesn't mean he's a nazi.

/pol/ is too co-opted by the system in place. It will all work out in the end, but they aren't the salvation you're looking for.

Jordan B Peterson is for the neoliberal/tranny takeover (ie. the transhumanist/individualist annihilation of the human) he just thinks they are being way too obvious. A fascistic affirmation of Dasein is the only thing that can save us from the globohomo bureaucracy, liberalism is what got us into this mess.

The people who post on pol are absolute morons who can not comprehend Heidegger, dont know who he is, and would get bored by reading him.

The people on pol are absolute morons who have never thought for themselves in their lives. They are driven by pure chemical reaction from endorphins. caught up in a never ending culture war which benefits the bourgeoisie, and will bash their head against a brick wall the second anyone ever offers even a minor critique of capitalism, which is the actual source of the destruction of nations and peoples. not jews

the same goes for leftists, who criticize 'capitalim' without understanding its basis in the secularized political theology of liberalism

communists hate liberals though

"liberals get the bullet too" is a phrase thrown around ha ha

>libruls get the bullet too
ha ha

Attached: Unknown5.jpg (194x260, 11K)

most 'communists' today are just liberals who want free transgender hormones from the state

>that’s literally saying that he perceived nazism as an analog to the system
If by "system" you mean his philosophical output at the time you're exactly right on this part. It's very directly what he says. I don't see a need for the refutation you are making right after.

He was trying to explain where he was coming from at the time as well as trying to explain where HE went wrong in systematizing and applying his ontology.

>It is because I have reduced the full opening of the existential possibilities of Dasein to this German specificity that I have fallen into error, and that I have been able to confuse the immanent transcendence of freedom with the Führer and his Führung

I don't think anyone would deny that a reading of Being and Time can be a motivating factor in support for Nazis. Indeed Heidegger admits to have "fallen into error" this way in the part that you're responding to.

I also believe you're being vague w/r/t "his views on the the greeks". If you're referring to what I copied, note that he was talking about the potential of an independent university. Citing his eagerness for one as a reason he "went astray".

But yeah, he did indeed base his support for the nazis on his view that their rise was consistent with his philosophical project. No one is saying otherwise, and it is a major question among Heidegger scholars whether any of his writings can be extricated from Nazism.

Right after the bit I copied from Google Translate:

>Nazi I was, according to my own ethics of belief, not from Nazism itself. That is why one of my French translators, Mr. François Fédier, was right to say in one of his letters to Pierre Nora in 1987 that the interpretation of Mr. Farias - interpretation by the way that the German publishers have not published and this without any relation to myself - is "in any case absurd for who has read Heidegger carefully, and takes cognizance of the new folder with critical thinking".

>To understand all this commitment, you could consult the interview I gave Spiegel, where perhaps less problematically, I try to clarify this commitment. As I say at a moment, all that I could say and write during this time of the rectorate "I would not write it today." I did not say anything like this since 1934 ".

I regret bringing up the epic lobsterman. I was only trying to use colorful language to express his complicity

People on pol are quick to criticize capitalism, but only if it's spouting idiotic shit like .

not an argument

Yet you can't provide anything to prove this supposed "complicity"

very early fascism was actually quite critical of international finance capitalism and its prespondence to care more about profit than of nations and peoples.
Fascism would criticize capitalism from a moral position and not an economic one.

the mind of a poltard is like two sticks rubbing together and a fire is about to start, but it never starts.

he's already a nazi, what needs co-opting?

they're brainlets who are only interested in reading polemics (and by "reading" I mean watching yootoobers who have read said book and breastfeed them a neat overview/soundbite about the book that they can regurgitate verbatim on social media)

>If there comes a time when a fascist takeover credibly threatens the western world again, I think it'll be easy to say what side he would take.
The side that's been providing for him all this time, you mean.

If his self-help advice to take personal responsibility for your life makes you happy, and you won't follow him into mystical justifications of status-quo and "natural hierarchies" then I'm happy for you.

I am not confident that anything short of Peterson saying "the alt-right is good" would be enough for you.

Ask yourself what you consider alt-right, fascism, nazbol if you think the differences are meaningful enough, and what the appeal of those movements are.

What would it take for a stranger to say for you to believe they have a significant ideological overlap with said movement?

Attached: brutal male dominations.jpg_large.jpg (1196x586, 95K)

Spengler is easier to read than Heidegger. He's more relevant as well.

Because most of his work doesn't really relate to his political views. It's not like reading Heidegger inevitably leads you to fascism, unlike someone like Carl Schmitt.

I do not care at all about Peterson, I'm just attacking you on your retarded bias. He is not a fascist, he is not a fascist ally, an ashamed underground fascist or whatever your demented mind made up about that guy

>Implying there's anything wrong with fascism

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fascism' beyond 'anything I don't like. The best argument for 'fascism' is just taking a look at the people who vocally oppose 'fascism'(blue haired trannies, consumerist beta males, cat ladies, jews). If these people are the anti fascists, then fascism can't probably be all that bad

Because the logical conclusion of Heidegger's thought is Derridean neo-liberalism.

Derrida was the only contemporary philosopher Heidegger respected.

Reading Heidegger and applying his metaphysics doesn't turn you into a fascist, it turns you into a critic of modernity. A lot of people forgot that Heidegger only saw hope in the Nazi regime, attempted to become its guiding philosopher, and eventually bailed when he realized that the Nazis had their own MO which was totally incompatible with Heidegger's beliefs.