Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
Today's Conservative Revolution and the Ideology of the Nazis
The Case of Martin Heidegger
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
|This article is reprinted from the Spring 1995 issue of FIDELIO Magazine.
For related articles, scroll down or click here.
Right nownot only in the United States, but especially there, with the recent election resultsa new Conservative Revolution movement has crystallized internationally. In the U.S., that part of the Republican Party around such people as Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, William Weld, and others, are in an unbroken tradition with people like Nietzsche, the Nazis, fascisma tradition that goes without interruption to the ecology movement and New Age.
Why present Martin Heidegger as a case study? It has a lot to do, indirectly, with our efforts in respect to the United Nations' world population conference in Cairo in September 1994, and also something which happened in 1987, which somehow escaped our attention at the time. It is understandable why, because that was the moment when the onslaught against the LaRouche movement was really going on, the Boston trial, the criminal indictments. My life was totally focused on defensive action, trying to save my husband'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 Víctor Farías 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 is hardly a publisher or journalist or philosopher who did not write something about this case, because what Farías did in this book, was to present the documentation that Martin Heidegger, who was a pupil of Edmund Husserl, and who, in the 1920's, suddenly became famous for his book Being and Time, was a Nazi. Not only had he joined the NSDAP (Nazi party) in 1933, and paid dues until the end of the war in 1945, but he also had collaborated throughout with the system, had admired Hitler, and was a Nazi thinker par excellence.
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, suddenly, in the year 1987, was there this tidal wave of deserters suddenly saying, "No, I have nothing to do with Mr. Heidegger"? Obviously, the slogan was, whoever can save his neck, should run as fast as possible, because if you keep supporting Heidegger, then it 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 naive 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, to the rest of the philosophers, and to the rest of the political speeches which have been made; and this is just not the case.
Now, a person who actually had voiced criticism of Heidegger throughout the period, a French philosopher named Georges-Arthur Goldschmidt, correctly pointed to the fact that it was not only the party membership and such 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 timeswhich, without any question, prepared "post-modern" thinking, and also was 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 the history of the Vichy period. 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 two hundred years ago, not only did 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 this was being shaken to 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. (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. At first, he meant the Dasein, the "being there," in respect to the individual: that you are just there. (He has these incredible, profound insights, like "existence just happens to exist.") 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.
On Nov. 1, 1933, he said, in another speech, "The National Socialist revolution brings about the complete upheaval of German existence [Dasein]. It conserves knowledge as the necessary basic property of the leading individuals in their völkisch [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 Führer 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 Fall 1933 Freiburger Studenten Zeitung, he wrote, "Not theorems and ideas should be the rules of your existence. The Führer 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 [worldview] 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 his theories were a little bit too esoteric for the party leadership in Berlin, which rejected him for this reasona 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 informing 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 anymore, 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; this Fischer had demanded, in 1939, explicitly, the extinction of the Jews. It was this same Fischer who protected 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!HZL] 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 Röhm, and the eclipse of the SA (Storm Troopers). "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 Löwith, 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. Löwith told Heidegger that his engagement for National Socialism was totally coherent 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.
So Löwith 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 continued until 1941 to give his famous Nietzsche lectures, and one can actually say that he was the official philosopher of the Nazis. Eugen Fischer had used this as an argument to free him from the labor service, by saying to the Nazi authorities, "We do not have that many Nazi philosophers, and if we have one, we should treat him well."
Heidegger, even in the 1950's, quoted Nietzsche positively for the notion that human beings are not made equal, and each person 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 opensuch 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 sanction of the occupying power.
One of the most important influences in my life, the famous Cusanus researcher Professor Herbst, told me a long time ago, that the occupying powers insisted that Heidegger be taught in theology classes in Germany, in the same way that they had insisted that pragmatism, John Dewey, positivism, and so forth, be part of the official de-Nazification programs.
In this climate, no one asked questions any longer. In France, a boom in Heidegger philosophy occurred. Practically everyone 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 a man of questionable convictions, testified that his former friend Heidegger lackedand he said this to the investigating commission of the occupying powersany conscience for truth, in favor of a "magic of words" [beschwörenden Zauber].
So, that was the situation. Everything had been swept under the carpet. Heidegger was respectable, influential, in the academic world.
The Heideggerians Scramble
Then, in 1987, the book by Víctor Farías, 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. Instead, 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 Farías'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.
Jürgen 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 revealsand this is something that demands further investigationthat all of Heidegger's lectures of the 1930's 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 Farías's case would be proven even more.
Jürgen 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, said, 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, said, Why, Heidegger was called the greatest thinker. Now, suddenly, he is just a swindler, who cheated with verbal trifles; why, suddenly, is everybody deserting him? Bourdieu, 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 was 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 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 anyone anymore; 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, having the same view as Ernst Jünger, 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 1950's, 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 whatnot, said, after the Farías 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 1950's said incredibly wise things about the Industrial Revolution and technology, which astound one for their foresight."
Bishop 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 Farías 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 to 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 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 had already said 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 substitutes for 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 dialogueeven the early Heidegger.
Now, the whole article would not be so earth-shakingas a matter of fact, it's not very profound at allexcept that Karl Lehmann is, today, the head of the German Bishops Conference. And the office of Bishop Lehmann 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 Farías book detonated this bomb, maybe Lehmann was not so smart, and he just overlooked thishe 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 the 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 convents 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 credit him with making youthful errors. But then, in his recent book, published in 1993, what do we see in the chapter about "Man and the Environment"? It is full of praise for Limits to Growth, Dennis Meadows and the Club of Rome. He quotes Heidegger as if the Farías debate had never occurred, and, in the chapter about the relationship to creation and the Book of Genesis (which he modifieshe is 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.
(Parenthetically: a while ago, LaRouche had insisted that the entirety of Liberation Theology in Latin America was not primarily communist-inspired, but inspired by existentialist philosophy. I think this is now 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 affairand this is why I decided to present this case studyis 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.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, and especially in the most recent period, Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that this collapse, as gigantic as it is, is still only the "first shoe" to drop. The Soviet Union only collapsed as part of the system which dominated the Twentieth Century, for which the names of Versailles, Yalta, and the condominium between the superpowers, are the appropriate names, and unless there is the kind of urgent reform, the second phase of the collapse will be even more enormous, and everything in the West will come down, just as communism came down in the East.
This is a gigantic statement, and most people say, "Wait a second, do I really want this? Because, you know, I do not exactly know what will come out of this."
When communism collapsed, Marxism was suddenly discredited (except among a few people), and with it, the entire set of axioms which characterize Marxism also went out the window: Marxist economics, the idea of the Five-Year Plan, economic planning; communist or Marxist art theory, so-called "socialist realism." Everyone can see now, clearly, that the Marxist theory of history, that history is the history of class struggle, was a concept which was completely ridiculous.
But the intellectual and spiritual catharsis of the West is still to come, and it will wipe out and discredit all the ideologies and so-called theories which are associated with the "Enlightenment": liberalism, empiricism, positivism, existentialism, structuralism, post-structuralism, and deconstructionism. All of these things will not stay around, and people should start to readjust their thinking. We are looking at a dying epoch, and a lot of the things which have bothered us will no longer be there. We should be rather happy about that.
I dare this prediction, because I am a cultural optimist at heart: What will prevail, after all these theories and ideologies are out the window, is the method of truth-seeking, and the idea, not of one truth, but of the intelligibility of the laws of Creation, and the ability of man to have an ever better knowledge of these laws, because man is imago viva Dei, he is the living image of God, and therefore, with his creative activity, he can not only know these laws, but he can also change them.
The mythologies of the Twentieth Century will be smashed, and the truth will emerge.
In late August 1994, the evil Conor Cruise O'Brien, the journalist mouthpiece of the British oligarchy, had a vitriolic attack on what he called the emerging "holy and explosive alliance" between the Vatican and Islamic fundamentalism, in the context of the then-upcoming September United Nations world population conference in Cairo. O'Brien saidand here there was an element of truththat the Cairo conference would be "the most important world conference ever" to have taken place, that at Cairo the "greatest ideological debate" would take place "between those who hold values derived from the Enlightenment and believers in supernaturally revealed certainties." Now, that is a lie, because the anti-Enlightenment side of this fight, was the people who believe, not in "supernaturally revealed certainties," but who believe that creative reason is an efficient force in the universe, and who believe that man is made in the image of God.
So the fight which took place in Cairo, was not between, as the language is commonly used today, the Enlightenmentand, therefore, "the rational people"and the "dogmatic fundamentalists"and, therefore, "the crazies." The true fight in Cairo was between those people who are proponents of Nazi ideology and oligarchism, and, on the other side, those people who believe that there is a method of truth-seeking of which man is capable, because he is in the image of God.
We in the LaRouche movement campaigned to close down this Cairo conference. We were able to demonstrate that this conference was in the tradition of the infamous 1932 eugenics conference in New York; it was exactly the same philosophy as the Nazi Race Hygiene Conference of 1935 in Berlin. The verbiage and the philosophy were identical with Hitler's so-called Generalplan Ost, which was a plan for how to reduce the Slavic populations in Ukraine, Poland, and elsewhere. To this historical understanding, we added that the first evil person who came up with the concept of "carrying capacity," that is, that the Earth has only a limited "carrying capacity" for its human population, was this evil Venetian monk Giammaria Ortes.
Those of you who have been familiar with the LaRouche movement, know that for decades we published the evil plans of the Club of Rome's Dr. Alexander Kingthat he was afraid that the black, yellow, and brown people would outnumber the white Anglo-Saxon race. We published the evil doings of the Club of Rome and the World Wildlife Fund. We published the fact that Prince Philip, this degenerate, wants to be reincarnated as a virus in order to reduce the world's population. We did this for two decades, and people would say, "Oh, you are exaggerating. These are just some crazy people, this is not relevant."
But now, when the United Nations had the nerve to put their plans openly on the table, before the worldas a matter of fact, there are official U.N. documents which say that the desired low variant of the population is 2.5 billion peoplenow, all of a sudden, this crime was so incredible, that the world understood what was going on, what the conspiracy was that we were talking about. That the United Nations was to be established as a world government which could decide who lives, and who dies; which country is allowed to have how many people; which country will not get aid if they don't agree to forced abortion (because this is what really what was at stake, and not the nice verbiage about "women's rights," and so forth), or to what the Nazis had determined useless eaters to be, the mentally retarded, the disabled, the Jews, Gypsies, and so forth, only, this time, it was supposed to be the Third World, and, especially, the poor in the Third World.
When Conor Cruise O'Brien said "forces of Enlightenment," what did he mean? He meant the image of man associated with Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Bentham, and all their evil, so-called theories: empiricism, the idea that only sensuous experience gives you any knowledge about the world; positivism, that you have to bang your head against the wall three times, in order to believe itan image of man which is associated with the idea that man in general is a beast, and that an oligarchical power elite can rule over herds of animals which he can cull down to the wanted size at any time he wishes to.
In "How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man,"* LaRouche wrote that the Twentieth Century will be known in history to have been the century of the greatest number of popular mythologies, and the most frauds about science, history, and other things. One of these frauds is the question of what is actually the true basis of Nazism, which was brought to the fore in the Cairo conference in its purest essence. HZL
* Fidelio, Vol. III, No. 3, Fall 1994.
Academic 'Political Correctness':
MOST BACK ISSUES ARE STILL AVAILABLE! One hundred pages in each issue, of groundbreaking original research on philosophy, history, music, classical culture, news, translations, and reviews. Individual copies, while they last, are $5.00 each plus shipping
Subscribe to Fidelio:
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244
Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join