Reading review of heidegger's black notebooks by a major heidegger scholar

This is a sign of no personal learning at all. Samuel Johnson, who disliked Caesar, still hated to read a book in which negative epithets were applied to him in every chapter. Itm’s just obnoxious

Writing on the philosophy of members of the Nazi party means clarifying your purpose for writing on them. Describing the why's and how's of your essay is just good practice.

This is what a true professional does.
This is cancer.

>just dont have a thesis bro!

Not everything Heidegger wrote was good, he was like the Zizek of his time in a lot of ways.

>Putting bias in when unrelated to your thesis
ok bro

Hitler was a retard and a maniac. Feel free to read about him and see what his "ideas" were all about. Start by googling "hitler islam."

Most academics are not very smart

Attached: 1565144541744.png (1136x364, 83K)

Among his most based opinions

Indeed it is. The Turks should've conquered germany and rid us of the menace that is the German "people"

>it's still servile and effeminate to bow to that pressure, let alone in such a pathetic grovelling way.
whiny nazis are hardly nazis at all
almost as if people who used to read heidegger are ashamed of their association with someone who advocated, perhaps in private and by passively allowing it in academics, for the extermination of other people because they're "not german enough."
I like heidegger. Being and time was a good book, changed how I thought about things. but I'll also stick my neck out and say nazis is bad.

this guys gets it while is a spineless safe space nazi
>a-user I t-think the nazis had good ideas but I don't want to form coherent a-arguments about historical figures and concepts because that necessarily ties my failing ideology to their failed ideology
>bite off a dick, nazi, take a goddamn side
>m-meanie this kind of feminist cancer is w-why the strong right has been f-forced underground white men are repressed I'm going to b-blog about this

heidegger and zizek actually have decent parallels:
- first publications and rare later publications were insightful, intelligent, and original, requiring huge amounts of research and original work
- later publications were lazy, or desperately tried to reframe their totalitarian tendencies as something other than nazi/stalinist/etc because it wasn't chic anymore
- genuinely pretty smart, but after they got old and fat they want people to fuck off and stop asking questions about their bad poetry
- confusing and difficult to read, literal "how to read this author" handbooks because their work is impenetrable and requires acceptance into academic circles to read the "right" heidegger/zizek explainers

This post is terrible, but it's a good example of what OP is referencing:
>Feel free to read about him and see what his "ideas" were all about.

What is really gained by scare-quoting "ideas?" Whether you're right or wrong that Hitler had shit ideas, it's meaningless to scare-quote "ideas." All it does is convey that you are personally emotional about the issue, and unable to contain that emotion. That just makes you look petty.

I might as well say
>Look at this poster and his so-called "contribution" to the thread! Heh,
nice """ideas""" about Hitler's ideas.. nerd.

What the fuck does that add?

He's dead.
FUCK OFF.
Read his ideas or shut the fuck up.

>Why do postwar scholars do this kind of choir-preaching?
To avoid being killed/depersoned by the Zog.

The Neo-Assyrian Empire was an Iron Age Mesopotamian empire, in existence between 911 and 609 BC, and became the largest empire of the world up until that time. The Assyrians perfected early techniques of imperial rule, many of which became standard in later empires, and was, according to many historians, the first real empire in history. The Assyrians were the first to be armed with iron weapons, and their troops employed advanced, effective military tactics. The Neo-Assyrian Empire succeeded the Old Assyrian Empire (c. 2025–1378 BC), and the Middle Assyrian Empire (1365–934 BC) of the Late Bronze Age. During this period, Aramaic was also made an official language of the empire, alongside Akkadian.

>Good work so far, but you need to clearly state your thesis!

The monstrous and brutal Neo-Assyrian Empire was (unfortunately for so many innocent conquered peoples) an Iron Age Mesopotamian empire, in existence (but I wish it HADN'T BEEN!) between 911 and 609 BC, and unfortunately became the largest empire of the world, using brutal and terrible tactics of terror, up until that time. The perfidious Assyrians perfected early techniques of imperial rule, very evil of them might I add because imperialism is bad and conquering people causes death which is not good, many of which became standard in later empires (also evil), and was, according to many historians, the first real empire in history (what a damn shame!). The Assyrians were unfortunately the first to be armed with iron weapons, as this allowed them to do such icky things, and their tragically indoctrinated troops, following their hateful and monstrous ideology of conquest, employed advanced, effective military tactics; if only their morality had been so advanced! But alas, it was not; and they were bad people. The tragically monstrous and brutal Neo-Assyrian Empire unfortunately succeeded the Old Assyrian Empire (c. 2025–1378 BC), and the Middle Assyrian Empire (1365–934 BC) of the Late Bronze Age. During this period, Aramaic was also forcibly made an official language of the empire, alongside Akkadian, a clear example of how the evil icky Neo-Assyrians would bulldoze innocent cultures (an evil act, because they were evil).

>Much better.

It's like a religion really. It's the liberal dogma, everything is judged in light of the Evil Nazis. By opposing the Nazis and fascism liberal societies obtain Thier moral compass. It's like how Soviet scholars wrote on capitalism as the one ideology that most be rejected by any means.

>heidegger and zizek actually have decent parallels:
Thanks. I'd also add that if you try to read through each of their collected works you will gradually get the sense of "Oh god it's another book going into a lot of the same territory but in a slightly different way about Hegel/Aristotle".

When did you start frequenting Yea Forums?

I would rather have the Turks and Germans join up and rid the world of (((you))) instead.

Why so few of us reactionaries remain here? Where did they all go? From where and why, did all the normie leftists came from?

I have no understanding of this weird comment within the cultural context of Yea Forums.

Your English is fucking horrid.

Y-you t-too..

Holocaust objectively incontrovertibly didn’t happen, and you are an illiterate phillistine faggot if you think otherwise

Where did all the jews went then?

There has always been Marxists on Yea Forums but they're usually coherent in their reasoning as they've at least read some Marx and have had exposure to reactionary ideas. What you're seeing in this thread is 19yo summerfags from leddit.

Show me the dip of jewish population among any total census (of world jewish population).

Israel's population is roughly 6 million.