>From: GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Martin Heidegger - National Socialism as the Custodian of Being
>Date: Wed, Jul 21, 2004, 10:40 am
>
> Michael:
> I have had that text on my website for a long time. I obtained it from a
> right-wing site
!!!
> to which I was originally directed which I have forgotten, but
> as Heidegger is hero-worshipped by modern Nazis, and being something of a
> role-model for modern fascists, his piece which is titled: "Martin Heidegger
-
> National Socialism as the Custodian of Being"
It's NOT called that by Heidegger!
> can be found on most Neo-Nazi
> websites such as for example:
>
> _http://www.oswaldmosley.com/background/custodian_of_being.htm_
> (http://www.oswaldmosley.com/background/custodian_of_being.htm)
>
> The fact that Heidegger is lionised by the modern neo-Nazis is quite
> frightening,
... as is the fact that YOU, Judbaby, REPUBLISH the neo-nazis' subtitle for
this out-of-context fragment: such a piece of re-publishing (if it remains
unchanged) is an example of disgraceful tabloidism and shamefully dishonest
scholarship [caps for emphasis]. Now you KNOW that the subtitling (etc) is
commentary by neo-nazis, perhaps you could give it the proper reference
(e.g., NO subtitle, Heidegger did not write that or any other subtitle... or
at least give the subtitling its neo-nazi provenance); it even begins
mid-sentence!); otherwise, you are complicit in the neo-nazis' scumbag
scheme of things (of which you curiously know so much...); why you would
take the scumbags' view on things is beyond me. And in any case, what did
you mean to SAY in/with this well-known quotation from _Introduction to
Metaphysics_?
You might do well to really study this important book by Heidegger since it
presents the argument that being might mean absolutely nothing (which you
present in a simplistic and totalitarian way as if this were the only thing
one could say; Heidegger presents the case for being being nothing in both a
historical and philosophical context of increasing tension with philosophy's
love affair with being and non-being, which still, though faintly and flatly
reverberates even in your nominalistique iterations of existence and
non-existence). If you wish to ask any questions given your close reading of
this entire book, do not hesitate to ask me (or others on the list) since I
am quite familiar with this text; I doubt whether your neo-nazi 'associates'
have themselves bothered to read the 99% of the rest of his text either...
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Martin Heidegger - National Socialism as the Custodian of Being
>Date: Wed, Jul 21, 2004, 10:40 am
>
> Michael:
> I have had that text on my website for a long time. I obtained it from a
> right-wing site
!!!
> to which I was originally directed which I have forgotten, but
> as Heidegger is hero-worshipped by modern Nazis, and being something of a
> role-model for modern fascists, his piece which is titled: "Martin Heidegger
-
> National Socialism as the Custodian of Being"
It's NOT called that by Heidegger!
> can be found on most Neo-Nazi
> websites such as for example:
>
> _http://www.oswaldmosley.com/background/custodian_of_being.htm_
> (http://www.oswaldmosley.com/background/custodian_of_being.htm)
>
> The fact that Heidegger is lionised by the modern neo-Nazis is quite
> frightening,
... as is the fact that YOU, Judbaby, REPUBLISH the neo-nazis' subtitle for
this out-of-context fragment: such a piece of re-publishing (if it remains
unchanged) is an example of disgraceful tabloidism and shamefully dishonest
scholarship [caps for emphasis]. Now you KNOW that the subtitling (etc) is
commentary by neo-nazis, perhaps you could give it the proper reference
(e.g., NO subtitle, Heidegger did not write that or any other subtitle... or
at least give the subtitling its neo-nazi provenance); it even begins
mid-sentence!); otherwise, you are complicit in the neo-nazis' scumbag
scheme of things (of which you curiously know so much...); why you would
take the scumbags' view on things is beyond me. And in any case, what did
you mean to SAY in/with this well-known quotation from _Introduction to
Metaphysics_?
You might do well to really study this important book by Heidegger since it
presents the argument that being might mean absolutely nothing (which you
present in a simplistic and totalitarian way as if this were the only thing
one could say; Heidegger presents the case for being being nothing in both a
historical and philosophical context of increasing tension with philosophy's
love affair with being and non-being, which still, though faintly and flatly
reverberates even in your nominalistique iterations of existence and
non-existence). If you wish to ask any questions given your close reading of
this entire book, do not hesitate to ask me (or others on the list) since I
am quite familiar with this text; I doubt whether your neo-nazi 'associates'
have themselves bothered to read the 99% of the rest of his text either...
regards
michaelP
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---