Ghost of Martin Heidegger haunts Cairo  Conference

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche



             - The case of Martin Heidegger -

    I will give you one concrete example, not because it is the
most important, but because it is intriguing. It has a tremendous
relevance for today, especially if you try to understand how the
world could come to the point where the rights which are self-
evident, are no longer self-evident.
    I want to use the case of a fellow whom some of you may know:
Martin Heidegger. He is generally known among professional
philosophers in academic circles. Many believe that he is the
greatest thinker of this century. Many French philosophers are
convinced of it, and many even think that he is the greatest
thinker of all time. (After having tried to read him, I can tell
you that that is a little bit difficult to imagine, because what
he has produced is an incredible amount of gobbledygook.) His
work is a symptom of our present-day confusion.
    Why do I mention Martin Heidegger as a case study? It has a
lot to do with our efforts in respect to Cairo indirectly, and
something happened in 1987, which somehow escaped my attention
and our attention. If you think back to 1987, it's understandable
why, because that was the moment when the onslaught against us
was really going on, the Boston trial, the indictments. I know
that my life was totally focused on defensive action, trying to
save Lyn's reputation, organizing internationally people who
would testify for his character, people active in science, and so
forth, so my mind was occupied with that, and I missed something
which I have now discovered, and it gives me an incredible
delight.
    In 1987, a Chilean scholar by the name of Victor Farias
published a book called {Heidegger and Nazism,} and this book hit
like a bomb. What was in this book, was so outrageous, that it
caused a tidal wave of articles, special editions of magazines,
and, since the Spring of 1988, many books. There's hardly any
publisher or journalist or philosopher who did not write
something about this case, because what Fari@aaas had done in
this book, was to present the documentation that Martin
Heidegger, who was a pupil of Edmund Husserl, and who, in the
1920s, all of a sudden became famous for his book {Being and
Time,} was a Nazi. He had not only joined the NSDAP [Nazi party]
in 1933, paid dues until the end of the war in 1945, but he also
collaborated throughout with the system, he admired Hitler, and
he was a Nazi thinker {par excellence.}
    This caused an earthquake in the academic world, because 42
years after the war, somebody who had been the most respected
philosopher of the century, whose ideas were totally accepted,
who had influenced Jean-Paul Sartre, the French existentialist,
as well as Jacques Derrida, was exposed as a Nazi. In Germany,
there was a whole school following Hans-Georg Gadamer, who was
close friends with Carl Friedrich von Weizsa@aucker.
    A freakout occurred. One school said, ``Oh, this is nothing
new. We knew it all along; what about it?'' Another school said,
``Maybe Heidegger was {politically} a collaborator of the Nazis,
but his philosophy has nothing to do with it, and he is just
politically naive.'' Then there was another line saying, ``Oh,
he's a Nazi; so what?''
    But if the facts were all known, why did no consequences
follow from this knowledge? And why, all of a sudden, in the year
1987, was there this tidal wave of deserters who all of a sudden
said, ``No, I have nothing to do with Mr. Heidegger.'' The slogan
obviously was, whoever can save his neck, should run as fast as
possible, because if you keep supporting Heidegger, then this
raises a couple of questions about yourself.
    One of the persons most closely associated with Heidegger was
Jacques Derrida, who, acting like a cornered rat, started to
counterattack. After all, he said, National Socialism in Germany
or in Europe did not pop out of the ground like a mushroom, and
to think that it would be possible for European philosophy to
treat National Socialism as a distant object, is at best
naivete@aa and, at worst, obscurantism and a grave political
mistake. This is the pretense, said Derrida, that National
Socialism has no connection to the rest of Europe, and the rest
of the philosophers, and the rest of the political speeches,
which have been made; this is just not the case.
    Now, a person who actually had voiced criticism of Heidegger
throughout the time, a French philosopher named Georges-Arthur
Goldschmidt, correctly pointed to the fact that it was not only
the party membership and all of these things, but that
Heidegger's National Socialism lies at the essence of his
thinking, and that the world has to face the fact of what that
implies for all those who endorsed him, especially that the
question was now on the table: how to treat a ``philosophy of the
century,'' which it was called many times, which, without any
question, prepared ``post-modern'' thinking, as well as being
part of National Socialism, and that such a connection existed.
    Heidegger, without any question, was the dominant philosopher
in France, accepted by everybody, which obviously has a lot to do
with the French blocking on Vichy. As a result of the debate over
Heidegger in France, it became clear that the accepted categories
of right and left, which stemmed from the French Revolution 200
years ago; that this characterization did not only not function
in politics, but also did not function in philosophy.
    There was debate back and forth, and the longer this so-
called philosopher controversy lasted, the clearer it became that
it was not Heidegger's Nazi past which was being debated, but it
was the accepted philosophy of the present epoch, and that that
was being shaken in its foundation.
    Georges-Arthur Goldschmidt pointed to the fact that even in
Heidegger's first work, {Being and Time,} the vocabulary and the
style are very close to Adolf Hitler's {Mein Kampf.} Among other
things, Heidegger said that technology is the power which turns
man away from the actual meaning of his life. In his book, he
calls this condition of being turned away from the actual meaning
of one's life, the {Seinsvergessenheit,} the {being-
forgottenness.} Now, if that sounds weird, don't worry; it sounds
weird in German, too, because Heidegger is famous for having
constructed new words to give a twisted meaning to ideas. You
have to dive into it, and after you swim in it for a long time,
you get used to it, but by that time, you are totally
brainwashed, so it's not really all that useful. It's like a
language which is five degrees off, and once you adjust your eye,
you get used to it.
    ``Man, in the course of the history of Occidental culture,''
says Heidegger, ``has forgotten the essentials of human life.
People live life in an unactual way, and they look for
entertainment in their flight from death agony. The actuality of
true life, lies in the banal, basic experience of the being-
thrownness''--{Geworfenheit,} that is, you are thrown into
history, and plop, there you are. ``Man, therefore, originally is
not the self-conscious, self-righteous subject for whom the world
is an object, but man is eternally in the world; he is part of
it, and he must live with it, in sorrow.''
    The individual's fear of his death, at the end of his
unactually lived life: that is the basic subject of existential
philosophy. ``Thrownness to the being,'' {Verfallenheit an das
Seiende,} is the basic idea of {Being and Time.} The {Dasein,}
the ``being there,'' he first meant, individually, that you are
just there. He has these incredible, profound insights, like
``existence just happens to exist.'' So, first, this ``being
there'' was meant individually, but, later, in 1933, ``being
there'' becomes the form of the existence of the collective.
``The individual, wherever he stands,'' Heidegger wrote in 1933,
``is worth nothing. The fate of our people in their state, is
everything.'' He said this on the occasion of having called
somebody to take a seat in the university.
    In 1933, Heidegger became the rector of the University in
Freiburg, and this was not, as he later tried to pretend, just an
effort to save the mind and what not; this was a clearly
calculated move by certain Nazi cadres to put Heidegger in there,
after they had cleaned out Jewish and other unwanted scholars.
    Now, in his famous, or, rather, infamous, Rectorate speech,
Heidegger said: ``The university has to conduct a decisive fight
in the National Socialist spirit, which must not be suffocated
through humanizing, or Christian conceptions.''
    On Nov. 1, 1933, he said, in another speech, ``The National
Socialist revolution brings about the complete upheaval of German
existence [{Dasein,} being there]. It conserves knowledge as the
necessary basic property of the leading individuals in their {
vo@aulkisch} [popular] tasks of the state.'' ``Continuously, your
courage should grow,'' says Heidegger, ``for the saving of the
essence and the elevation of the most inner force of our people
in its state. The Fu@auhrer himself, and he alone, {is} the
present and the future German reality, and its law. Learn to
know, ever deeper. From now on, each matter demands decision in
every acting responsibility. {Heil Hitler!}''

In the {Freiburger Studenten Zeitung} in the fall of 1933, he
wrote, ``Not theorems and ideas should be the rules of your
existence. The Fu@auhrer himself, and he alone, is the present
and future reality, and its law.''
    For Heidegger, National Socialism meant the complete
overthrow of knowledge. ``Proceeding from the question and forces
of National Socialism, science must be considered completely new.
The university of tomorrow must be based entirely on the {
Weltanschauung} [world view] of National Socialism.''
    Heidegger was very ambitious. He wanted to be not only rector
of Freiburg, but he wanted to become {the} explicit and
unchallenged leader of all German rectors, the ``leader of the
leaders'' of intellectual Germany. And, from Freiburg, he wanted
the total renewal of the German university, in the spirit of his
inaugural speech. This attempt failed, only because, for the
party leadership in Berlin, his theories were a little bit too
esoteric, and they rejected him for this reason, a rejection
which he took as an abysmal insult and from there on, he had
certain prejudices against Berlin. But, he did not criticize
Hitler in the slightest.
    Immediately after these Rectorate speeches, he wrote a letter
of faith to Hitler in Berlin: ``To the savior of our people out
of its need. Determination and honor! To the teacher and frontier
fighter of a new spirit.''
    It is documented that Heidegger was also a snitch in respect
to his colleagues, that he was snitching on them to the Nazi
authorities, causing their layoffs and similar things. He was a
cowardly opportunist who, from 1933 onward, pretended not to know
his teacher Husserl any more, because he was Jewish. But he never
broke his friendship with another person by the infamous name of
Eugen Fischer, who was the organizer of euthanasia against the
mentally retarded, and this Fischer had demanded, in 1939,
explicitly, the extinction of the Jews. It was this same Fischer
who prevented Heidegger from having to join the labor service in
1941.
    In 1945, Heidegger immediately started to create a coverup,
and a mythology of his own resistance. He said: ``I thought that
after Hitler in 1933 had taken the responsibility for the entire
German people, that he would have the courage to detach himself
from his party and its doctrine'' (what an idea!), ``and the
whole matter would lead to a renewal and a collection to take
responsibility for the entire West. This conviction was a
mistake, which I recognized on June 30, 1934.'' This was the date
of the assassination of Ernst Rohm, and the dissolution of the
SA. ``Indeed, I intervened in 1933 to affirm the national and the
social, but {not} National Socialism and nationalism, and not the
intellectual and metaphysical foundations on which biologism and
the party doctrine were based.''
    Now, this is, in all likelihood, a total fabrication, because
one of his former friends, the relatively famous philosopher Karl
Lowith, recently published his diaries, in which he reported
about the last discussion he had with Heidegger in Rome, in 1936,
where Heidegger expressed an unbroken faith in Hitler and the
conviction that National Socialism was the designated path for
Germany. Lowith told Heidegger that his engagement for National
Socialism was in total cohesion with the essence of his
philosophy, to which Heidegger agreed without reservation, and
added that he was also certain that his notion of historicity
represented the basis for his political activity.
    As a matter of fact, Heidegger, already at the beginning of
the 1930s, was totally convinced that ``being-thrownness,'' that
{any} political activity, was totally in vain, because existence
is not such, and the individual is just ``thrown'' like that.
    So Lo@with said, in qualifying this encounter, that Heidegger
did not recognize the destructive radicalism and the {petit-
bourgeois} character of all of the Nazis' ``strength-through-
joy'' institutions, because he himself was a radical {petit-
bourgeois.} Heidegger's only complaint in 1936 was that things
were not moving fast enough.
    Now, even after he was no longer the rector of Freiburg
University, he, until 1941, gave his famous Nietzsche lectures,
and one can actually say that he was the official philosopher of
the Nazis, which Eugen Fischer had used as an argument to free
him from the labor service, by saying to the Nazi authorities,
``We do not have so many Nazi philosophers, and if we have one,
we should treat him well.''
    Heidegger, even in the 1950s, quoted Nietzsche positively for
the notion that human beings are not made equal, and each does {
not} have the capacity and the right for everything.
    Now, you can't always blame husbands for their wives, so I
don't want to use the horrible utterings of Mrs. Heidegger as a
proof against him, but what she said about motherhood, as the
conservation of racial inheritance, would just turn your
stomach. So I don't want to use it against him, even though he
had such a wife.
    After the war, Heidegger did not say one word about the Nazi
period. He did not say one word about his being the rector of
Freiburg University, nor did he ever comment on the Holocaust,
nor any other occurrence of this period.
    {He probably didn't feel guilty.} He didn't feel that there
was anything wrong, because in Heidegger's thinking, there is
simply no room for individual responsibility. The theory of
``being thrown,'' {Geworfenheit,} into a time to which one has to
react with determination and for which one has to be open--such a
theory does not know the notion of individual responsibility.
    In 1945, the French occupying powers removed Heidegger's
permission to teach, but unfortunately, he got it back in 1951.
He was immediately re-integrated into the respected circles of
the academic world, and this was all the more profound, because
it came with the official grace of the occupying power.
    One of the most important influences in my life, Professor
Herbst, the famous Cusanus researcher, told me a long time ago,
that the occupying powers {insisted} that Heidegger had to be
taught in theology classes in Germany, in the same way that they
had insisted that pragmatism, Dewey, positivism, and so forth,
were part of the official de-nazification programs.
    In this climate, nobody asked questions any more. In France,
a boom in Heidegger philosophy occurred. Practically everybody
became a Heideggerian. Jean Beaufret, Sartre, Christian Jambet,
Derrida, Pierre Bourdieu, and other famous Frenchmen. Many said
that Heidegger has to have a place in history like that of Hegel
and Plato, that he is one of the greatest thinkers of all time.
    A German professor named Guido Schneeberger, who actually
knew some of Heidegger's lectures, started to prepare a
compendium, which he published in 1961, with 217 texts which
prove, without any question, Heidegger's Nazi convictions. But he
could not find one German publisher to publish it, so
Schneeberger published it himself. He sent it to many
universities, who bought the book; but it {never} appeared on the
shelves. The professors and the assistant professors quickly made
sure the book would disappear.
    Karl Jaspers, himself of questionable convictions, testified
that his former friend Heidegger lacked (and he said this to the
investigating commission of the occupying powers), any conscience
for truth, in favor of a magic of words, {beschwo@aurenden
Zauber.}
    So, that was the situation. Everything was under the carpet.
Heidegger was respectable, influential, in the academic world.


              - The Heideggerians scramble -

    Then, in 1987, this book by Victor Farias, {Heidegger and
Nazism,} hit like a bomb. It shattered the myth which Heidegger
had concocted after the war, the myth that he had supported the
Nazis only briefly. But the book proved that he had a very deep
commitment to Nazism.
    In 1988, a biography of Heidegger appeared by Hugo Ott, which
was a cover-your-behind line: Admit the Nazism, but try to save
the philosophy by trying to pretend the two have nothing to do
with each other.
    Derrida went into a complete freakout. He said: ``The facts
have all been known for a long time, and if one reads Farias's
book, one wonders if he read Heidegger for longer than one hour.
''
    This is always the accusation: that people don't understand
Heidegger's profundity, and so forth.
    Derrida said: ``Why deny that so many courageous works in the
twentieth century dare to enter the region of thought which some
call the `diabolical'? It just happens to be true. Rather than
deny it, we have to investigate the analogies and points of
connection between Nazism and Heidegger's thinking. The
commonalities of Nazism and anti-Nazism: I will prove that it's
all the same, it's mind-boggling if you think about it.''
    An interviewer of Derrida in this controversy, asked, ``Is
not what you are saying only a sniping response to those who
accuse you of the deconstruction of humanism and of being a
sponsor of nihilism?''
    Derrida then moved, through his lawyers, to prevent the
publication of an interview he had given in a book, {The
Heidegger Controversy,} and tried then to elaborate a long
explanation of why the Heidegger of pre-1933 was totally
different than the Heidegger of 1934 and later.
    Jurgen Habermas of the Frankfurt School also felt the need to
cover his behind. He said: Ah, now we finally know that this
resistance is a pure legend, it never happened. Habermas also
reveals (and this is something I will investigate further), that
all of Heidegger's lectures of the 1930s are still classified,
and that the few persons who have some copies, are not allowed to
quote them. This is really very fascinating. Habermas says that
he is sure that if these lectures were to be made public, then
Fari@aaas's case would be proven even more.
    Jurgen Busche, the chief editor of the {Hamburger Morgenpost,
} said: ``I don't care if Heidegger is a Nazi. Look at it. He
doesn't have one fascist pupil, and after all, Heidegger is to be
seen in the context of the late Romantic, and he's actually the
same as the Greens today''--which happens to be true.
    Rudolf Augstein, the famous British-licensed editor of {Der
Spiegel,} says, Oh, somebody who has fertilized so many important
minds, can't be labelled a Nazi. Michael Haller, the ``Zeit-
Dossier'' department head of {Die Zeit} magazine, says, why,
Heidegger was called the greatest thinker. Now, all of a sudden,
he is just a swindler, who cheated with verbal trifles; and why,
all of a sudden, is everybody deserting him? Bordieu, the French
philosopher, said, ``Heidegger is the philosophically acceptable
variant of a revolutionary conservativism of which Nazism was
just one more possibility,'' and that is actually the truth: It
was part of the Conservative Revolution.


               - Nazism and post-modernism -

    Now, here we get to the essence of what went wrong in this
entire century, because Heidegger {was} a Nazi. More correctly,
he was exactly one of the representatives of the Conservative
Revolution, of which Nazism was one possibility, {but} he is also
the ideologue of post-modernism.
    Now, this is very interesting, because here we get to the
real truth of the matter. Heidegger, in 1953, said the amazing
words: ``It is not nuclear war that represents the greatest
threat, even if that is the worst thinkable; but more
threatening, is the peaceful, continuous development of
technology, because it robs the thinking of human being of his
essence, of his ability to think.''
    The author Milan Kundera comments on that quote, that the
worst thing about this, is that this conception of Heidegger's
does not shock anybody any more; the problem is that it has been
accepted.
    Heidegger's only criticism of the Nazis was that he
mistrusted the party apparatus and their belief in technology and
progress, being on the same line as Ernst Ju@aunger, who wrote
that the total mobilization led to a horrible use of technology,
industry, and so forth. These are all the fathers of modern eco-
fascism.
    Heidegger, in the 1950s, wrote the incredible sentence:
``Agriculture is now a motorized food industry, which, in
essence, is the same as the production of corpses in gas chambers
and extinction camps, and the same as the blockade and starvation
of countries, the same as the fabrication of the H-bomb.''
    It's hard to comment on this, because he criticizes
technology, but he doesn't bother about the annihilation of human
beings!
    Obviously, under the influence of the occupying power, the
``very respected'' philosopher, Hans-Georg Gadamer, who has
published one zillion books, standard works and what not, says,
after the Fari@aaas scandal broke out, that ``most of this was
known,'' and that ``it would be an insult to say that his
political error had nothing to do with his philosophy, that this
was insulting to such an important thinker,'' and after all, how
would those who make such a criticism reconcile this with the
fact that ``he is the same man who already in the 1950s said
incredibly wise things about the Industrial Revolution and
technology, which astounds one for their foresight.''


               - Lehmann defends Heidegger -

    After the war, there was the coverup for all the reasons we
have discussed many times. Heidegger {was} actually imposed by
the occupying powers; but Gadamer wrote this {after} the
Fari@aaas book came out. He admitted that most of the facts were
known, obviously, among the insiders.
    In 1966, a certain Karl Lehmann published an article in the {
Philosophical Yearbook} about the ``Christian Experience of
History and the Ontological Question in the Young Heidegger.'' He
discusses a lecture which Heidegger gave in the winter semester,
1920-21, under the title, ``Introduction into the Phenomenology
of Religion,'' in which he comments upon the letters of the
Apostle Paul as ``a phenomenologically rich example of religious
behavior.'' He chooses there, in particular, the first Letter to
the Thessalonians, about the sudden coming of the Lord. Some of
you may know this story, that you never know when the Lord is
coming, you have to be attentive for the time.
    What Lehmann then does, is to say that this is the {Kairos,}
the moment which determines the fate. Lehmann claims that there
is a remarkable relationship in this affinity of time and being
to the theology of St. Paul. (Yet, as we noted earlier, Georges-
Arthur Goldschmidt pointed out that the affinity was rather to
Hitler's {Mein Kampf}!)
    And then Lehmann says that Heidegger's notion of fear, this
fear of death agony, which is the entire determining aspect of
life, is the same as the suffering and martyrdom that Paul is
talking about. And then he says that ``Paul opens up the most
extreme possibilities of human existence.''
    Lehmann notes that Heidegger was able to make use of
Aristotle in the most productive manner, for his own questioning.

    What is most outrageous about this, is that Lehmann treats
Heidegger in the most objective and positive manner, as if
nothing were wrong. He says, finally, ``The destruction of
traditional theology through Heidegger was shocking, obviously;
but his conviction that ontology could not be based in the
traditional theological form, he already says very clearly in {
Being and Time.}'' So, he does not find this very objectionable,
that theology does not have to explain ontology; and, he says,
all the questioning of Heidegger is in vain, if one puts in place
of the word {Being,} the word {God.}
    Lehmann regrets that a serious confrontation with Heidegger
from the side of Catholic theology, which would do justice to the
depths of the problem, is not visible, and, finally, that
Heidegger's thinking is still waiting for a future dialogue--even
the early Heidegger.
    Now, the whole article would not be so earth-shaking (as a
matter of fact, it's not very profound at all), except that Karl
Lehmann is, today, the head of the German Bishops Conference. The
main reason I'm mentioning this here, is that it was the office
of Bishop Lehmann which just cancelled a room we had rented for a
forum against the Cairo Conference, and the reason given in the
letter was, ``the extreme belief in science and progress by the
Schiller Institute.''
    Now, I would dare venture the hypothesis that that
characterization, which has also gone out in a slanderous book
published by the infamous Herder Verlag, has a lot to do with
Lehmann's convictions about Heidegger.
    One could say that in 1966, before the Farias book detonated
this bomb, maybe Lehmann was not so smart, and he just overlooked
this--he didn't get it. But, the only problem is that what
Lehmann forgets to mention, already in 1966, is that Heidegger
did not believe in God. He was a very well-known anti-theist. So,
if Heidegger's Nazi outlook did not bother him, Lehmann, as a
Catholic official, should have at least objected to the anti-
theism of Heidegger, because the {Dasein,} the {being there} of
Heidegger, is {without God.} In contrast to this, look at another
pupil of Husserl, who deserves, actually, to be much more famous
than the evil Heidegger: Edith Stein, who was born Jewish,
converted to Catholicism, and made exactly that attack on
Heidegger, which Lehmann obviously forgot to notice.
    Edith Stein also became very famous. She received early
recognition in the philosophical world. She became a Catholic,
and she was finally killed by the Nazis at Auschwitz, in
retaliation for the Dutch bishops' denunciation of the Nazis.
They killed many nuns from Dutch nunneries at that time. Edith
Stein was beatified by the pope, during the pope's last trip to
Germany, and she is an outstanding figure.
    Heidegger started out as a Catholic philosopher, but then he
lost his faith, and he became a celebrity among the professional
philosophers today. Edith Stein went exactly the other way.
    Now, one could think Lehmann did this in 1966, he was not yet
head of the Bishops Conference. So, maybe, one could give him the
credit for making useful errors. But then, I just got his recent
book, published in 1993, and what do I see there in the chapter
about ``Man and the Environment''? It is full of praise for {
Limits to Growth,} Dennis Meadows, the Club of Rome. He quotes
Heidegger as if the Farias debate had never occurred, and, in the
chapter about the relationship to creation and the book of
Genesis, which he modifies, and he is actually pretty much on the
side of man being a steward rather than a master of the universe,
he says: ``Maybe it comes to an encounter with the late
Heidegger. He also sees man in danger of losing his being, his
essence,'' and then he keeps on quoting Heidegger, on and on.
    In parentheses: A while ago, Lyn had insisted that the entire
Liberation Theology in Latin America, is not primarily communist-
inspired, but inspired by existentialist philosophy, which I
think now is pretty much proven, because Lehmann is the head of
the German Catholic Church, and Misereor and so forth are the
main funders of that, including the rebellion in Chiapas, Mexico.
    The Heidegger affair (and this is why I decided to use this
example) is the most embarrassing for official academia, because
nearly everybody endorsed him, and it just shows the total
bankruptcy of the Conservative Revolution, being identical with
post-modern ideology.
    Now, that these people are aware of it, is clear. Let me give
you one more quote. The French philosopher Jean Baudrillard says,
too bad that this Heidegger debate came too late. ``What's the
difference now, if one accuses Heidegger or tries to whitewash
him? All those on the one side and those on the other, fall into
the same low thinking, which is no longer even proud of its own
origins, and which no longer has the strength to grow beyond
them, and that finally wastes the few energies left to it in
tirades, accusations, justifications, and historical
confirmations. And since philosophy no longer exists, it must
prove that with Heidegger, it has finally discredited itself. All
this is a desperate attempt to find some posthumous truth or
justification, at a moment when there is not enough truth left to
allow any investigation, where there is not enough philosophy to
make any connection between theory and practice, and not enough
history to bring any historical proof. Our epoch is characterized
by the fact that we do not any more have the truth for
recognition.'' So, he says, Heidegger should have been attacked,
as long as it was time.
    ``Indeed, the Heidegger case proves the total bankruptcy of
the dominating schools of thought. They have deconstructed
themselves completely, and they are finished.''



If you would like more articles from these publications directly,
then subscribe to the LaRouche Issues mailing list. To subscribe
to the LaRouche Issues Mailing list send a 1 line message to
listserv@ccs.covici.com with the command subscribe lar-lst

To get an index of available files send the command index lar-lst

Please do not put your one line message as the subject line. ----
         John Covici
         covici@ccs.covici.com










  PSYOPS- HTTP://WWW.TELEPORT.COM/~WALTER
  _______________________________________
  blast trauma data fer social dissection
  made available to: realpolitic junkies,
  info tyros, kultur buzzards & da masses
  =======================================
 
  FBI-CIA-KGB-NSA-BCCI-DIA-DEA-FEMA-THULE
  KKK-CONTRA-JFK-RFK-MLK-MKULTRA-LAROUCHE
  COINTELPRO-ILLUMINATI-P2-CFR-ADL-MOSSAD
  BLUEBIRD-OSS-ONI-SOE-BIS-AIDS-ARTICHOKE
  OTO-OCCULT-NEA-BILDERBERGER-40 CTTE-SLA
  VELIKOVSKY-SDI-INSLAW-TESLA-TSS-CROWLEY
  JIM JONES-GURDJIEFF-ABWEHR-T4-WACO-BATF
  EFF-PGP-RHIC/EDOM-PANDORA-CAN-TAVISTOCK
  ENIGMA-BEARDEN-GEHLEN-SPETZNAZ-EUGENICS
  MASONS-ODESSA-WFMH-IRS-MI5-FOIA-TRILATS