Recalling a university study day at Crosby's "Another Place" on Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology; examined through the lens of today's big questions concerning "technology."
The context of this essay including Heidegger, the beasts of WEF, Hannah Arendt and her Mattias Desmet shadow, is certainly stimulating and inviting to some sideways and even a bit off-road thinking.
Technology can indeed be seen as the crystallization of what Desmet calls "mechanistic materialism". The WEF ideal of "Technik über alles" leaves no area in man that would not be subjected to its control and what they cannot control, they would seek to destroy. The first genetic experiments on VMAT2, which has been called the "God gene", were already conducted some 20 years ago. (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/255677.The_God_Gene) We can imagine that nowadays genetic engineering technology is slightly more advanced, as hints have already been given that "vaccination" negatively affects the spiritual dimension of man.
Can we find a common ground between Heidegger and the beasts of the WEF, who "see us humans as resources"? Heidegger seems to opt for a certain banality of technology, when, in one of his 1949 Bremen lectures, he said that "Agriculture is now a motorized food-industry - in essence the same as the manufacture of corpses in gas chambers and extermination camps ...” Everyone can judge if that statement is more outrageous to farmers than to Holocaust victims. The WEF, however, goes one step further: this manufacturing will no longer be limited to dead corpses. We, humans, must face the reality that we are destined to lose our last privilege of being considered as "resources", we will become mere "products" of technology: living corpses. In his book, Homo Deus, Harari compares the Industrial Revolution with the coming 4th Industrial Revolution and writes that the 4th Industrial Revolution is the last train of progress leaving the Homo Sapiens station and those who don't understand twenty-first-century technology, mainly biotechnology and computer algorithms, will miss that train and will never get a second chance. The power of steam and the telegraph were only used for the production of food, textiles, vehicles etc..., but "the main products of the twenty-first century will be bodies, brains and minds..."
Those who, like Mattias Desmet, go no further than Hanna Arendt's banality of evil are complying with the dominant discourse. In fact, Hanna Arendt's figure is part of the Globalist narrative. Her version of antisemitism, as described in the "Origins of Totalitarianism", is meant to protect the fake unity of Judaism and is perfectly compliant with the ADL version. This explains that Globalist philanthropists are funding worldwide institutions like the "Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities". (https://chcinetwork.org/members/hannah-arendt-center-for-politics-and-humanities). Gershom Scholem, the preeminent modern scholar of Jewish mysticism, called her "banality of evil" thesis a mere slogan. A few details about her biography could shed a different light on the nature of her writings. When she was studying under Heidegger, one of her classmates in Marburg was Leo Strauss, the future father of Neoconservatism. In Freiburg, among other Marxists, Herbert Marcuse was her classmate. He became a prominent actor of the Frankfurt School, who turned the concept of "polymorphous perversity", an infantile Freudian stage of sexuality, into a sexual liberation ideology. We know perfectly today how well sodomy has been liberated and how free our society has become. The Frankfurt School was essentially populated with Marxists philosophers, whose main task was to create the ideological tools needed for the destruction of the Christian civilization. After her affair with Heidegger, Hannah Arendt married the Marxist philosopher Heinrich Blücher.
Mattias Desmet claims that "the ultimate master is the ideology, not the elite". He writes that the Enlightenment was the time when "the mechanistic thinking became dominant", but he never touches on the genesis of the Enlightenment, as it had suddenly appeared out of nothing. He is also carefull not to go into the contents of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where the origin of the Enlightenment is precisely defined in the protocol 10 and whose veracity can now be demonstrated a posteriori, the Protocols having been written about 120 years ago.
I am afraid that the length of this comment might violate the community rules, so I'd better stop here.
There's a lot to think about here, thank you. I am aware of the criticism of Heidegger's comments on agriculture, and in fairness, however bizarre, I am inclined to agree with him, however, on the understanding of the philosophical terminology. He spoke of the essence of technology (that word "essence" is crucial) He was not saying that they were equivalents. I note that when George Ritzer made a similar comparison in The McDonaldization of Society, there was no outcry, and I've always thought of that point as being highly related in the other direction. On Judaism, I am puzzled by your remark "fake unity" as there have always been widely differing Jewish sects and denominations with huge variations in beliefs and practice. As for the protocols document, I cannot see it as anything other than a Communist inspired fake document used pejoratively against Jewish people as authentic research shows. I can safely say that I am no fan of the Frankfurt School, however, the connections you point out are interesting in mapping out a web of thought. Desmet's work was very focused and I would not have expected him to explain every big concept. Some big ideas have to be taken as read, although I can see the wider context of the Enlightenment is complex. Thanks again for a such an engaged response.
The main function of antisemitism is to create a fake unity of Judaism, where all Jews, good and bad, true and fake, are equally victimised and worthy of being protected. The Holocaust, instigated by fake Sabbatean-Frankist Jews and later elevated to the status of a quasi-religion, raised the owners of antisemitism to a new level of power, that they now carefully cultivate (ADL) in order to control both (true) Jews and Gentiles. Antisemitism maintains the cohesion of the Jewish community in support of their Sabbatean Zionist state in Palestine, as the ultimate haven from Gentile persecution and it provides them with a moral and legal protection against Gentile reprisals in their enterprise of subverting the nations in their laws, health, education and culture. Most Jews, including Israeli Jews, are unaware that traditional Torah Judaism has been subverted by the fake Jews of the Sabbatean-Frankist sect, which respects neither the Torah nor the Talmud. Chabad, that, today pretends to represent Orthodox Judaism, is the actual agent of the Sabbatean-Frankist heresy. Marxism and Zionism are both Sabbatean-Frankist creations, with Moses Hess as a common denominator. Before him, Adam Weishaupt, founder of the "Illuminati", had already laid down the foundations of communism, including the abolition of private property and the destruction of the family. Rabbi Antelman's book “To Eliminate the Opiate” should help you to dissipate the doubts that you might still have on the “jewish question”:
The cornerstone of Desmet's thesis is the postulate that the “mechanist-rationalist ideology” is the puppet master, not the elite. He writes, on his substack, that “it's not only an ethical mistake, it also an intellectual mistake to hold the elite and only the elite responsible” and should that elite be violently eliminated, “the population would immediately recreate another elite with the same totalitarian tendencies if they continue to be in the grip of the same mechanist-rationalist ideology”. So, the real culprit, via the ideology, seems to be the people and the elite the inescapable victim. In his book, the ideology appears as a deus ex machina, that has a will of his own and can control and manipulate both the elite and the people. This allows him to elude, in a sleight of hand, the origin of that ideology and a few centuries of Masonic conspiracy. The beginnings of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution are, however, well documented, especially in Nesta Webster's books and the Sabbatean-Frankist implication in the French Revolution is exposed in Gershom Scholem's book “From Frankism to Jacobinism”. In the chapter 4 of his book, he also writes that “the coronavirus crisis offered an unexpected window of opportunity for the mechanistic ideology”. As Klaus Schwab used the same expression in his book ”Covid-19: The Great Reset", calling it “a unique window of opportunity”, he seems here to validate his point of view and, at the same time, by calling the crisis “unexpected”, he also validates the deceptive mainstream narrative.
"The Question Concerning Technology" has an interesting place in my philosophy - a key text, yet orphaned since only this and one other essay of his extensive work are woven in. Why...?
You are thinking with Heidegger. I am not. But we share the same concern, about what was unleashed and then became engrained in the twentieth century...
Thanks for this. It still startles me to consider that I might be "thinking with Heidegger." I began my journey almost a decade ago with an assumption that I would not do anything of the sort. Given the wider context of all that is happening, his particular sins do pale somewhat... and I have learned so much from him. It is the uncanniest of things, but I really do understand how Walter Biemel, Hans Georg Gadamer and Hannah Arendt can describe him as a great teacher. It's not just this particular essay. The work of Heidegger that I have tried to engage with interlinks and connects to build a bigger understanding of being.
I get a certain feeling from those who manage to 'think with' Heidegger', just as I find a lot of people writing on Heidegger who have rather 'appropriated' his work. I suppose I am one of them, although I hope that I have not in doing so misrepresented his position. That particular essay resonated so well with my own thought that it felt like a 'bridge' for me. And this essay of yours resonates with a common chord in Heidegger's thought. I admire this. And your insight in linking 'green power' with Heidegger's standing reserve has really jolted something in my thinking about this topic. I thank you again for this.
As for Heidegger's 'sins'... it is probably wise to accept everyone's failings as independent from their achievements. And, as you say, in the context of what just happened to us, one can readily imagine how bad decisions, bad judgements, and even outright bad faith can come about even in those who we want to view in a positive light. I always lean towards forgiveness; if Christianity taught me anything, it was this habit.
(PS: If I reply 'too quickly' it does not mean that I wish you to do so - I appreciate a slow reply. I just find that I either reply immediately, or never, and that makes it an easier choice!)
The context of this essay including Heidegger, the beasts of WEF, Hannah Arendt and her Mattias Desmet shadow, is certainly stimulating and inviting to some sideways and even a bit off-road thinking.
Technology can indeed be seen as the crystallization of what Desmet calls "mechanistic materialism". The WEF ideal of "Technik über alles" leaves no area in man that would not be subjected to its control and what they cannot control, they would seek to destroy. The first genetic experiments on VMAT2, which has been called the "God gene", were already conducted some 20 years ago. (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/255677.The_God_Gene) We can imagine that nowadays genetic engineering technology is slightly more advanced, as hints have already been given that "vaccination" negatively affects the spiritual dimension of man.
Can we find a common ground between Heidegger and the beasts of the WEF, who "see us humans as resources"? Heidegger seems to opt for a certain banality of technology, when, in one of his 1949 Bremen lectures, he said that "Agriculture is now a motorized food-industry - in essence the same as the manufacture of corpses in gas chambers and extermination camps ...” Everyone can judge if that statement is more outrageous to farmers than to Holocaust victims. The WEF, however, goes one step further: this manufacturing will no longer be limited to dead corpses. We, humans, must face the reality that we are destined to lose our last privilege of being considered as "resources", we will become mere "products" of technology: living corpses. In his book, Homo Deus, Harari compares the Industrial Revolution with the coming 4th Industrial Revolution and writes that the 4th Industrial Revolution is the last train of progress leaving the Homo Sapiens station and those who don't understand twenty-first-century technology, mainly biotechnology and computer algorithms, will miss that train and will never get a second chance. The power of steam and the telegraph were only used for the production of food, textiles, vehicles etc..., but "the main products of the twenty-first century will be bodies, brains and minds..."
Those who, like Mattias Desmet, go no further than Hanna Arendt's banality of evil are complying with the dominant discourse. In fact, Hanna Arendt's figure is part of the Globalist narrative. Her version of antisemitism, as described in the "Origins of Totalitarianism", is meant to protect the fake unity of Judaism and is perfectly compliant with the ADL version. This explains that Globalist philanthropists are funding worldwide institutions like the "Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities". (https://chcinetwork.org/members/hannah-arendt-center-for-politics-and-humanities). Gershom Scholem, the preeminent modern scholar of Jewish mysticism, called her "banality of evil" thesis a mere slogan. A few details about her biography could shed a different light on the nature of her writings. When she was studying under Heidegger, one of her classmates in Marburg was Leo Strauss, the future father of Neoconservatism. In Freiburg, among other Marxists, Herbert Marcuse was her classmate. He became a prominent actor of the Frankfurt School, who turned the concept of "polymorphous perversity", an infantile Freudian stage of sexuality, into a sexual liberation ideology. We know perfectly today how well sodomy has been liberated and how free our society has become. The Frankfurt School was essentially populated with Marxists philosophers, whose main task was to create the ideological tools needed for the destruction of the Christian civilization. After her affair with Heidegger, Hannah Arendt married the Marxist philosopher Heinrich Blücher.
Mattias Desmet claims that "the ultimate master is the ideology, not the elite". He writes that the Enlightenment was the time when "the mechanistic thinking became dominant", but he never touches on the genesis of the Enlightenment, as it had suddenly appeared out of nothing. He is also carefull not to go into the contents of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where the origin of the Enlightenment is precisely defined in the protocol 10 and whose veracity can now be demonstrated a posteriori, the Protocols having been written about 120 years ago.
I am afraid that the length of this comment might violate the community rules, so I'd better stop here.
There's a lot to think about here, thank you. I am aware of the criticism of Heidegger's comments on agriculture, and in fairness, however bizarre, I am inclined to agree with him, however, on the understanding of the philosophical terminology. He spoke of the essence of technology (that word "essence" is crucial) He was not saying that they were equivalents. I note that when George Ritzer made a similar comparison in The McDonaldization of Society, there was no outcry, and I've always thought of that point as being highly related in the other direction. On Judaism, I am puzzled by your remark "fake unity" as there have always been widely differing Jewish sects and denominations with huge variations in beliefs and practice. As for the protocols document, I cannot see it as anything other than a Communist inspired fake document used pejoratively against Jewish people as authentic research shows. I can safely say that I am no fan of the Frankfurt School, however, the connections you point out are interesting in mapping out a web of thought. Desmet's work was very focused and I would not have expected him to explain every big concept. Some big ideas have to be taken as read, although I can see the wider context of the Enlightenment is complex. Thanks again for a such an engaged response.
The main function of antisemitism is to create a fake unity of Judaism, where all Jews, good and bad, true and fake, are equally victimised and worthy of being protected. The Holocaust, instigated by fake Sabbatean-Frankist Jews and later elevated to the status of a quasi-religion, raised the owners of antisemitism to a new level of power, that they now carefully cultivate (ADL) in order to control both (true) Jews and Gentiles. Antisemitism maintains the cohesion of the Jewish community in support of their Sabbatean Zionist state in Palestine, as the ultimate haven from Gentile persecution and it provides them with a moral and legal protection against Gentile reprisals in their enterprise of subverting the nations in their laws, health, education and culture. Most Jews, including Israeli Jews, are unaware that traditional Torah Judaism has been subverted by the fake Jews of the Sabbatean-Frankist sect, which respects neither the Torah nor the Talmud. Chabad, that, today pretends to represent Orthodox Judaism, is the actual agent of the Sabbatean-Frankist heresy. Marxism and Zionism are both Sabbatean-Frankist creations, with Moses Hess as a common denominator. Before him, Adam Weishaupt, founder of the "Illuminati", had already laid down the foundations of communism, including the abolition of private property and the destruction of the family. Rabbi Antelman's book “To Eliminate the Opiate” should help you to dissipate the doubts that you might still have on the “jewish question”:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/5cqpc1a0x2duco5/Marvin_S._Antelman_-_To_Eliminate_the_Opiate_-_Volume_2.pdf/fil
The cornerstone of Desmet's thesis is the postulate that the “mechanist-rationalist ideology” is the puppet master, not the elite. He writes, on his substack, that “it's not only an ethical mistake, it also an intellectual mistake to hold the elite and only the elite responsible” and should that elite be violently eliminated, “the population would immediately recreate another elite with the same totalitarian tendencies if they continue to be in the grip of the same mechanist-rationalist ideology”. So, the real culprit, via the ideology, seems to be the people and the elite the inescapable victim. In his book, the ideology appears as a deus ex machina, that has a will of his own and can control and manipulate both the elite and the people. This allows him to elude, in a sleight of hand, the origin of that ideology and a few centuries of Masonic conspiracy. The beginnings of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution are, however, well documented, especially in Nesta Webster's books and the Sabbatean-Frankist implication in the French Revolution is exposed in Gershom Scholem's book “From Frankism to Jacobinism”. In the chapter 4 of his book, he also writes that “the coronavirus crisis offered an unexpected window of opportunity for the mechanistic ideology”. As Klaus Schwab used the same expression in his book ”Covid-19: The Great Reset", calling it “a unique window of opportunity”, he seems here to validate his point of view and, at the same time, by calling the crisis “unexpected”, he also validates the deceptive mainstream narrative.
Thank you for continuing these reflections.
"The Question Concerning Technology" has an interesting place in my philosophy - a key text, yet orphaned since only this and one other essay of his extensive work are woven in. Why...?
Because I get there by other roads, including the Oxford Moral Philosophers, cf. https://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2021/04/the-power-of-no.html
You are thinking with Heidegger. I am not. But we share the same concern, about what was unleashed and then became engrained in the twentieth century...
Keep going!
Thanks for this. It still startles me to consider that I might be "thinking with Heidegger." I began my journey almost a decade ago with an assumption that I would not do anything of the sort. Given the wider context of all that is happening, his particular sins do pale somewhat... and I have learned so much from him. It is the uncanniest of things, but I really do understand how Walter Biemel, Hans Georg Gadamer and Hannah Arendt can describe him as a great teacher. It's not just this particular essay. The work of Heidegger that I have tried to engage with interlinks and connects to build a bigger understanding of being.
I get a certain feeling from those who manage to 'think with' Heidegger', just as I find a lot of people writing on Heidegger who have rather 'appropriated' his work. I suppose I am one of them, although I hope that I have not in doing so misrepresented his position. That particular essay resonated so well with my own thought that it felt like a 'bridge' for me. And this essay of yours resonates with a common chord in Heidegger's thought. I admire this. And your insight in linking 'green power' with Heidegger's standing reserve has really jolted something in my thinking about this topic. I thank you again for this.
As for Heidegger's 'sins'... it is probably wise to accept everyone's failings as independent from their achievements. And, as you say, in the context of what just happened to us, one can readily imagine how bad decisions, bad judgements, and even outright bad faith can come about even in those who we want to view in a positive light. I always lean towards forgiveness; if Christianity taught me anything, it was this habit.
(PS: If I reply 'too quickly' it does not mean that I wish you to do so - I appreciate a slow reply. I just find that I either reply immediately, or never, and that makes it an easier choice!)
Friedrich-Georg Jünger on Technology & Prometheanism
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2021/06/friedrich-georg-junger-technology-prometheanism-matthew-pheneger.html