[HOME] - [NEWS] - [MY CARTOONS] - [MY COMIC BOOK] - [MY MOVIES] - [MY PAPERS] - [HISTORICAL ESSAYS]

DERRIDA, HEIDEGGER: ILLUMINATI NAZI PHILOSOPHERS


Contintental philosophy, specifically the works of Heidegger, Derrida and Foucault are all part of an Iluminati attempt to destroy true philosophical inquiry. They are disengenous complicated arguments for flawed Illuminati ideas about truth and power. For instance, Foucault reduces Truth to Power. Derrida says that Truth always "deconstructs" itself. Heidegger's Being and Time is basically a calling to join the Nazi Party (which Heidegger joined in 1933). For him the Nazi's themselves represented Truth. Heidegger believed he was writing for the Nazis' - that he was their philosophical spokesman. Heidegger sought to put philosophy at the service of Nazi ideals. Heidegger joined the Nazi party in 1933, but as early as the 1920s, he was developing a racial doctrine and propounding antisemitic ideas.



Following the defeat of the Nazis, Heidegger made no attempt to speak out against the Holocaust. In a lecture delivered in 1949 he stated: "Agriculture is now a motorised food-industry – in essence, the same as the manufacturing of corpses in the gas chambers and the extermination camps, the same as the blockade and starvation of the countryside, the same as the production of the hydrogen bombs."



Heidegger was really an idiot who's writing is so hard to understand because it's essentially obvious ideas in an elaborate code (jargon) mixed with gibberish (same as Derrida). Heidegger is essentially an Obscurant.

Here's a standard obscurantist passage from Being and Time his most important work:

Of course, only as long as Dasein is, that is, the ontical possibility of the understanding of being is, "is there" being. If Dasein does not exist, then "independence" "is" not either, nor "is" the "in itself". Such a thing is then neither understandable nor not understandable. Then also intraworldly entities neither are discoverable, nor can they lie in hiddenness. Then it can be said neither that entities are, nor that they are not. Nevertheless, it can now be said — as long as the understanding of being, and thereby the understanding of occurrentness are — that then entities will continue to be. (SZ 212)

Derrida is also an obscurantist who uses a lot of words to say incoherent things.



Here's one example of how Heidegger is over inflated in importance. Heidegger wrote that most people imagine themselves floating above their bodies when they die but this is incorrect. Since we are no longer alive, we don't see anything at all. We just stop existing.

This is actually the basic core of Heidegger's worldview and it's a really depressing worldview. Heidegger acts as if the common people are incredibly naive to think that they see their own bodies after their death from some God's eye viewpoint. Heidegger in general looks down on the masses who he called the "Idle Chatter".

Ironically, Heidegger really had no basis to even make his observations. He's never died and experienced what happens. We have no reports from people after they die. Heidegger assumes that there is no afterlife. If there is an afterlife, it's not much of a stretch to think you see yourself rise from your body after you die.

In reality, the common intuition that you rise out of your body and can see yourself is correct. Moving to another realm is like going through a wormhole into another party of the Universe. The reason people have that intuition is that God is trying to prepare people for the afterlife. You do rise out of your body and go into a tunnel that takes you to the afterlife. Many people who have suffered near death experiences report seeing a tunnel and light leading them upwards. Heidegger's presumption is completely wrong.



Heidegger even knew that what he was saying was wrong. He was saying to try and break people of their intuition so he could spread a nihilist illuminati philosophical vision where life has no meaning and death is a final dead end to the misery of life.

Sartre picked up on Heidegger's propaganda and made it into plays. Sartre's most famous play "No Exit" is essentially that Heideggerian idea transformed into a play where life is represented as a misery with no exit.



I don't consider Sartre a philosopher. He never wrote anything that has any philosophical worth though his plays are fine. He was a pop philosopher who simplified complicated ideas for the "masses". He basically knocked off Heidegger and dumbed Heidegger down for pseudo-intellectuals.



Derrida was an evil ineffectual hypocrite. Foucault was slightly better but the Illuminati murdered him young by giving him aids. In 1977, a petition was addressed to the French parliament calling for the removal of the age of consent laws in France and the decriminalization of all consensual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen (the age of consent in France at the time.) Both Derrida and Foucault signed the petition in France to remove all Age of Consent laws allowing adults to have sex with children.



The petition was successful, because of Foucault and Derrida's actions France never set up a age of consent law. They weren't the only ones who signed. Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Roland Barthes all signed it. Foucault wrote that the very idea of an age of "legal consent as a contractual notion is a 'trap', since "no one makes a contract before making love." So essentially he's saying if a grown man has sex with a six year old it's ok because the six year old doesn't know how to read contracts. The logic is just completely absurd.



For a long time American and British philosophers have refused to read Derrida or Foucault because they didn't think they were actually doing philosophy. They treated all their work as babble. I would argue that they are doing philosophy though sloppily and with a lot of mistakes. The problem is that like Wittgenstein, they have an Illuminati propaganda agenda about truth that underlies all of their theories. They are sellouts. The are just Illuminati mouthpieces.

I've read all of them and I always felt that Derrida and Foucault in particular were full of shit most of the time. They create a lot of complex sentence structures without saying anything. Or in the case of Foucault's statement above, they use colorful emotional language to mislead you about a clear ethical question - is it ok for adults to have sex with children? Foucault's comment about love being beyond contracts is stupid and obviosly designed to justify pedophilia.

Age of Consent laws are still a problem throughout Europe. Because Europe is so thoroughly controlled by the Illuminati they want to normalize pedophilia. Just this novemberb 2017 the French are finally getting around to talking again about maybe setting up an age of consent law. And the only reason they're talking about it now is that there were two cases of men having sex with 11 year old girls just in a couple of weeks. Cases where French courts refused to prosecute men for rape because authorities couldn't prove coercion even though the girls were only 11.

Look at Germany where the Green Party publically advocated for pedophilia as late as the 1990s.