Wolfson – The Duplicity of Philosophy’s Shadow: Heidegger, Nazism, and the Jewish Other (2018)

The Duplicity of Philosophy’s Shadow: Heidegger, Nazism, and the Jewish Other (2018)
By Elliot R. Wolfson
Published by Columbia University Press (2018)

Publisher Summary:

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) is considered one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century in spite of his well-known transgressions—his complicity with National Socialism and his inability to show remorse or compassion for its victims. In The Duplicity of Philosophy’s Shadow, Elliot R. Wolfson intervenes in a debate that has seen much attention in scholarly and popular media from a unique perspective, as a scholar of Jewish mysticism and philosophy who has been profoundly influenced by Heidegger’s work.

Wolfson sets out to probe Heidegger’s writings to expose what remains unthought. In spite of Heidegger’s explicit anti-Semitic statements, Wolfson reveals some crucial aspects of his thinking—including criticism of the biological racism and militant apocalypticism of Nazism—that betray an affinity with dimensions of Jewish thought: the triangulation of the concepts of homeland, language, and peoplehood; Jewish messianism and the notion of historical time as the return of the same that is always different; inclusion, exclusion, and the status of the other; the problem of evil in kabbalistic symbolism. Using Heidegger’s own methods, Wolfson reflects on the inextricable link of truth and untruth and investigates the matter of silence and the limits of speech. He challenges the tendency to bifurcate the relationship of the political and the philosophical in Heidegger’s thought, but parts company with those who write off Heidegger as a Nazi ideologue. Ultimately, The Duplicity of Philosophy’s Shadow argues, the greatness and relevance of Heidegger’s work is that he presents us with the opportunity to think the unthinkable as part of our communal destiny as historical beings.

Posted in Existentialism, Jewish | Comments Off on Wolfson – The Duplicity of Philosophy’s Shadow: Heidegger, Nazism, and the Jewish Other (2018)

Darwin on Dysgenics

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

— Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871), vol. I, p. 168.

Posted in Evolution | Comments Off on Darwin on Dysgenics

On The South & Intolerance

From Stark & Bainbridge’s The Future of Religion (1985), a seminal book in sociology of religion:

The South is overwhelmingly Protestant, and southern Protestantism is so overwhelmingly Baptist and Methodist that southerners have had little need to accommodate even many major Protestant denominations, let alone Catholics or Jews. Thus, anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism are relatively common in the South, as they are in very Protestant areas outside the South.

It is not that Protestantism causes religious intolerance; religious intolerance is central to the entire Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not difficult to understand why religions holding that they alone possess the true faith are intolerant of “false” faiths.  (Stark & Bainbridge, p. 90).

Posted in Christianity, National, Religion | Comments Off on On The South & Intolerance

NYT: “Bavaria: Affluent, Picturesque — and Angry”

This modern horror tale, written by Katrin Bennhold, begins:

MUNICH — All seems well in Bavaria.

The streets are clean, unemployment is practically nonexistent, social benefits are generous and a vibrant sense of identity infuses small villages and big cities alike: Even teenagers sometimes don dirndls and lederhosen for a night out at the disco.

Yet this is the new angry center of Europe, the latest battleground for populists eager to bring down both Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and the idea of a liberal Europe itself.

Rich, religious and on the southern border, Bavaria is the Texas of Germany. It is a conservative bastion of the nation most associated with Europe’s open-door migration policy and the ultimate prize in a culture war that has seen populism chip away at consensus on the eastern flank of the 28-member bloc.

I wonder if the reporter is a liberal?

The horrors continue:

Markus Söder, the Bavarian premier, speaks of the end of “orderly multilateralism,” and has ordered that Christian crosses be displayed in every state government building.

And continue:

Alexander Dobrindt, the Bavarians’ parliamentary leader in Berlin, predicts a “conservative revolution.”

And continue (with Voldemort entering the picture):

Viktor Orban, the semi-authoritarian prime minister of Hungary, has been a regular guest of honor of Bavaria’s conservatives, as has Sebastian Kurz, the chancellor of Austria who governs in a coalition with the far right. There is talk of “an axis of the willing” that also includes Italy’s new far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini.

And (in the caption to an accompanying photo) continue in the most self-parodying form:

Nationalism comes easier to people in this former kingdom, which has nurtured a distinct culture over the centuries…

Meditate on that one.

I was quite struck with this passage:

“Populism has arrived at the heart of Europe,” said Timothy Garton Ash, professor of European history at Oxford University. “You now have a major European party endorsing the Orban program on migration.”

Bavaria may seem an unlikely home for populism. Nearly a third of Germany’s blue-chip listed companies are based here, unemployment is below 3 percent and economic growth has exceeded that of other German regions for the past eight years.

The reporter simply cannot comprehend the possibility that Bavarians might be in a position to see precisely what is at stake, what can be lost, due to mass immigration. Bavarians have not yet acquiesced or been stunned into resignation by the sheer displacing momentum of multiculturalism. Early naivety on the matter is more quickly corrected by a rational response:

A melting pot of Slavic and southern European influences for centuries, Bavaria has also been more successful than many other German regions at integrating newcomers. Munich, for example, is far more multicultural than Berlin….

Refugees were welcomed with applause at train stations. Sport halls were transformed into makeshift camps. Soup kitchens were manned by local residents.

But three years later, the mood has shifted, particularly in areas close to the border where the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, has made the most of its gains.

Huh. It’s almost like either the refugees’ behavior was something different than what is portrayed by the MSM, or native Bavarians suddenly erupted into spontaneous irrational spasms of xenophobia at the coaxing of the dastardly AfD “stoking diffuse fears of Islamization and warning of migrant crime and terrorism.”:

“Our perfect world was shaken,” said Hans Ruppenstein, 76, a member of a local shooting club in Baierbrunn. “People have become scared.”

Of what, exactly, no one is quite sure.

Yes, it’s a complete mystery.

Lastly, there’s the obligatory Hitler reference (“Hitler started his political career in Munich.”)

Sigh.

Posted in Europe, Immigration, NYT | Comments Off on NYT: “Bavaria: Affluent, Picturesque — and Angry”

Lots of Bergs

Recent NYT political-diversity hire Michelle Goldberg defends recent public uncivility to various Trump admin personnel because of…. muh abortion bombings from 30 yrs ago! “It’s a little more complicated when the professional racist is the president of the United States”, she writes. In such cases, there’s a “moral and psychic cost” to treat such persona as anything less than villains.

She then pulls out every timeworn trope of the past year and a half, throws them into a blender, and spits out the following, rather confused, NYT op-ed version of autistic screeching:

I don’t blame staff members at the Virginia restaurant, the Red Hen, for not wanting to help Sanders unwind after a hard week of lying to the public about mass child abuse. Particularly when Sanders’s own administration is fighting to let private businesses discriminate against gay people, who, unlike mendacious press secretaries, are a protected class under many civil rights laws.

Whether or not you think public shaming should be happening, it’s important to understand why it’s happening. It’s less a result of a breakdown in civility than a breakdown of democracy. Though it’s tiresome to repeat it, Donald Trump eked out his minority victory with help from a hostile foreign power…

[M]illions and millions of Americans watch helplessly as the president cages children, dehumanizes immigrants, spurns other democracies, guts health care protections, uses his office to enrich himself and turns public life into a deranged phantasmagoria with his incontinent flood of lies.

Brave op-ed, Michelle! Way to challenge conventional NYT wisdom! Please, next time let us all know if you think there’s a Trump-Hitler parallel: we’re dying to know what you think about this controversial position!

Posted in Left, NYT | Comments Off on Lots of Bergs

Nazi Faces in the Clouds

We live in an era when Leftists see Neo-Nazis in the clouds. This strange sort of Rorschach projection has accelerated in recent years, with SJWs seeing KKK hoods in a woman wrapped in a blanket, Janeane Garofalo saying she heard ‘n*gger’ at a Tea Party rally, and Sarah Silverman seeing a ‘swastika’ in DPW crayon markings on a sidewalk, etc.

The latest is from one Talia Lavin of The New Yorker and Village Voice:

Ethnically diverse New Yorker hire Talia Lavin

Talia Lavin, a staff member of The New Yorker and contributor to The Village Voice, came under fire over the weekend after spreading misinformation and accusing Justin Gaertner – a combat-wounded Marine veteran and the agency’s forensic analyst – of being a closeted Nazi sympathizer for a tattoo she perceived as being the “Iron Cross.”

But the tattoo on Gaertner’s left elbow has nothing to do with Nazi Germany at all — it is “the ‘Titan 2,’ the symbol for his platoon while he fought in Afghanistan,” ICE said on Monday. “The writing on his right arm is the Spartan Creed, which is about protecting family and children.”

It’s understandable why Lavin would be predisposed to think of Gaertner as a neo-Nazi. He works for ICE, after all.

From the photos, it looks like Gaertner lost both legs in combat.

Justin Gaertner

Question: Has anyone checked his lost legs for Nazi tattoos?

It would just be thorough reporting from The New Yorker to look into that possibility.

One never knows.

Posted in Culture Wars, Jewish, Left | Comments Off on Nazi Faces in the Clouds

NYT Defines “Fringe”

Day #2 of the NYT’s Normandy Invasion.

Posted in Immigration, NYT | Comments Off on NYT Defines “Fringe”

Leonard the Liberator

From David Denby’s review of Famous Father Girl: A Memoir of Growing Up Bernstein by Leonard Bernstein’s daughter, Jamie Bernstein:

As a young man, Leonard Bernstein was prodigiously gifted and exceptionally handsome, and he slept with many men and with women, too. He seemed to be omnisexual, a man of unending appetite who worked and played all day and most of the night, with a motor that would not shut down until he was near collapse…

Bernstein, one might say, liberated the Jewish body from the constraints felt by the immigrant generation, including his father, Sam, who relinquished his severe, stiff-collar demeanor only when celebrating the High Holidays with the Boston Hasidim. For Lenny, every day was a High Holiday.

Liberate the Jewish Body!

In 1970, before entering Harvard, Jamie Bernstein spent the summer at the Tanglewood Music Festival, where her father had flourished as a young man. After a while, she heard tales of his earlier days (“moonlit naked swims in the lake, scurrying between practice cabins . . . you weren’t supposed to hear such things about your own father”)… Jamie’s sense of her father as a sexual being, and his superabundant warmth with his children, added to her own romantic difficulties.

Imagine that.

Posted in Culture, Jewish | Comments Off on Leonard the Liberator

13 Ways of Looking at a Narrative (Redux)

Long day at work… Let me open the NYT to see what happened in the world today.

Posted in Immigration, NYT | Comments Off on 13 Ways of Looking at a Narrative (Redux)

How Did the Nazis Lead to Trump?

Since Trump’s election in November of 2016, there has been a steady stream (nearly daily) of Nazi allegories. I thought I’ve seen them all, but this one from the NYT might just take the cake (“How Did the Nazis Gain Power in Germany?”):

Although Benjamin Carter Hett makes no comparisons between Germany then and the United States now in “The Death of Democracy,” his extremely fine study of the end of constitutional rule in Germany, he dissolves those comforting assumptions….

[Hett] presents Hitler’s rise as an element of the collapse of a republic confronting dilemmas of globalization…

The Nazis, in Hett’s account, were above all “a nationalist protest movement against globalization.”

The Nazis, in Hett’s account, were above all “a nationalist protest movement against globalization.” Even before the Great Depression brought huge unemployment to Germany, the caprice of the global economy offered an opportunity to politicians who had simple answers. In their 1920 program, the Nazis proclaimed that “members of foreign nations (noncitizens) are to be expelled from Germany.” Next would come autarky: Germans would conquer the territory they needed to be self-sufficient, and then create their own economy in isolation from that of the rest of the world. As Goebbels put it, “We want to build a wall, a protective wall.” Hitler maintained that the vicissitudes of globalization were not the result of economic forces but of a Jewish international conspiracy.

President Hindenburg is attributed with creating the preconditions:

He was famous as the victor in a battle on the Eastern Front of World War I, even though the credit was not fully deserved. Hindenburg could not face the reality of defeat on the Western Front in 1918, and so spread the lie that the German Army had been “stabbed in the back” by Jews and Socialists. This moral weakness of one man radiated outward.

Are you getting the message yet?

He believed that only he could save Germany, but would not put himself forward to do so, for fear of damaging his image. Without Hindenburg’s founding fiction and odd posturing, it is unlikely that Hitler would have come to power.

Is it any clearer? We are just awaiting our Damien from The Omen.

As Hett capably shows, the Nazis were the great artists of victimhood fiction. Hitler, who had served with German Jews in the war, spread the idea that Jews had been the enemy within, proposing that the German Army would have won had some of them been gassed to death. Goebbels had Nazi storm troopers attack leftists precisely so that he could claim that the Nazis were victims of Communist violence. Hitler believed in telling lies so big that their very scale left some residue of credibility. The Nazi program foresaw that newspapers would serve the “general good” rather than reporting, and promised “legal warfare” against opponents who spread information they did not like. They opposed what they called “the system” by rejecting its basis in the factual world. Germans were not rational individuals with interests, the reasoning went, but members of a tribe that wanted to follow a leader (Führer).

The Alt Right are the ‘great artists of victimhood fiction’, and Trump is Hitler.

This message is reified in many, many ways:

The Nazis filled a void between the Catholic electorate of the Center Party and a working class that voted Socialist or Communist. Their core constituents, Hett indicates, were Protestants from the countryside or small towns who felt themselves to be the victims of globalization.

Wow.

Constitutions break when ill-motivated leaders deliberately expose their vulnerabilities.

And so it goes.

Posted in NYT | Comments Off on How Did the Nazis Lead to Trump?