Although globalism is the hot topic, the dominant rhetoric among its critics has been anti-communism. I agree with the facts pointed out by Flavio Gordon in this article about the globalist utopia. What I do not agree with is the categorization of globalism as a kind of continuity of communism.
Globalism today has a father, who is Klaus Schwab. He founded in 1971 the World Economic Forum (WEF), which today tries to force companies and governments to comply with the ESG (Environmental and Social Governance). ESG is a pretty name for lacing capitalism, which joins critical race theory, gender studies and environmentalism to Greta Thunberg. I’ve already said what I think about lacrador capitalism: it’s fascist; is a market reserve for monopolists. One day they still prevent the small business from working because he is transphobic, that is, he has not been able to meet a quota for trans. Well, there are those who point out the relationship between Eugen Schwab (Klaus’ father) and the development of the Nazi nuclear program.
Typical traits of Nazism, not communism
But let us leave the person of Klaus Schwab and move on to historical Nazism. Racism, vegetarianism and nature fetishism are hallmarks of Nazism, not Communism. Vegetarian leader was Hitler; I don’t know any vegetarian communists in the USSR or in Mao’s China. If the communists ate cats, dogs, parrots and even bats, Goering was a lover of animals – today he would be one of those candidates for the Legislature who take a picture hugging a dog.
This misanthropic fussiness is a feeling spread through our society. Animals would be innocent, while men are evil. All good, Xuxa suggested that prisoners be used in drug tests, instead of animals. Vegans mobilize to buy objects that don’t have “animal slavery”, but don’t care about manufactures from China or Southeast Asia, places known for using slave labor.
What is it? easier to find today in the West: defenders of the end of private property or animal rights? For my part, I make it clear that I am against the torture of animals. Point. The most common type of activist, however, incurs the sentimentality of considering animals as species of innocent angels, morally superior to men.
Animals are not morally superior to any man for the same reason that they are not they are slaves: they are not free to guide their own conduct; therefore they have no morality. They are driven by instinct.
Communism does not value human or animal life. Nazism values animal life and denies the concept of humanity to replace it with isolated races, which do not share any common essence.
Heidegger very well accepted
In the years , the Chilean philosopher Victor Farías showed the world, through A plus B, that the philosophy of Martin Heidegger is Nazi, with his work Heidegger and Nazism (1987). Every academic of the natural humanities loves to quote Heidegger, and that is not frowned upon. They also tend to repeat as a mantra Sartre’s phrase according to which there is no human nature. Sartre only embraced communism after the end of World War II. All his life – before and after he called himself a communist – Sartre defended Heidegger’s philosophy and was a Nazi groupie. When France was being invaded, he did not join the Resistance and served the Army begrudgingly. He wrote about boredom in O ser e o nada (1943), an inspired work in Being and Time (1927), of Heidegger.
Heidegger is responsible for putting an end to the concept of human nature. In his classic essay What is it, philosophy? (1956), he states: “Die griechische Sprache, und sie allein, ist λόγος .” In Portuguese, “The Greek language (or speech), and only it, is logos”. As you can see, there is an ambiguous term in German; since language and speech are different things. Logos is a polysemic term. It means reason, logic, discourse, speech. But it does not mean language or language. The Greek word for this is glossa or glotta.
In the West, Aristotle was transformed by St. Thomas into a kind of official thinker of the Church. The characterization of man as a rational animal comes from there. More precisely, from the Latin translation animal rationale from the original Greek logon zoon ). Some alternative translations would be possible: logical, discursive, speaking animal… But Heidegger, using the ambiguity of German, ends up making man dependent on a given language. Hence his fetish with Greek. And as there are many languages, there is nothing more to unite a Chinese with a French. In Western Christendom, what united humanity was rationality, which is one.
Knowledge and knowing
In 27 of May 1933, Heidegger gives a speech on the occasion of his inauguration as Führer of the University from Freiburg. Let us read Victor Farías, who analyzed the document (the single quotation marks are him quoting Heidegger’s speech): “Expressing here for the first time a conviction that he will maintain for the rest of his life, Heidegger stipulates that the origins of Western man must be sought in the transcendental axis Hellenic-Germanic, in its unequaled spiritual strength. For Heidegger, the Greeks also did not conceive of their origin as something accessible only in theory. Because, for them, theory was not equivalent to contemplation, but to the highest form that enargeia can reach. It was not a question of ‘assimilating praxis to theory, but, on the contrary, of understanding theory itself as the highest achievement of authentic praxis. For the Greeks, science is not a “cultural good”, but the most intimately determining center of the whole of popular existence within the State.’” Theory is indistinguishable from practice; thus, it is not possible to consider science a cultural asset, which can be transferred from there to here, from people to people. As Farías says, “if philosophy founds the sciences, it is because it founds the historical-transcendental (‘spiritual’) existence of some peoples”. I now quote Heidegger, in the same speech: “If we adapt to the distant injunction of the origin, science must become the fundamental event of our spiritual-popular existence. And the spiritual world of a people is not the superstructure of a culture, still less an arsenal of usable knowledge and values, but the profound power of conserving his forces of earth and blood, as the most intimate power of emotion and the vastest power of commotion in existence.”
Heidegger’s university does not produce knowledge; it produces engagement – since knowledge is action. And not just any engagement, but an engagement German that passes for science German or knowledge German. In the particular case, the action must be inspired by the AS, which are now treated as knowledge producers.
Now let’s think: if the peoples are several, and some have a transcendental existence to be expressed by an action that is knowledge, hence it follows that knowledge and knowledge (and no longer “knowledge”, in the singular) vary from people to people. people.
This is where epistemic relativism comes from. The replacement of Humanity by a plethora of peoples (most of whom deserving of slavery or extermination) implies the impossibility of objective knowledge. All that remains is the infamous knowledge and knowledge that so plague humankind in general and, I believe, anthropology in particular. Every neo-Nazi anthropologist can slip into a tribe and claim that it is a transcendent people, superior to the Untermenschen Brazilians, those degenerate Latins, sons of Saint Thomas.
Without wanting to go into too much detail on the subject, it strikes me that in Brazil the expression “original peoples” has come to be used to refer to the Indians. This is Heideggerian vocabulary. Spiritual people, of authentic existence, are related to the origin (arché). Degenerate or parasitic peoples, no.
Unless you enter a PSTU directory, it will be difficult to find anyone to defend the end of private property. The WEF itself, which says that we will not have any property, implies that someone – not the State, someone – will have the property, since we will pay rent.
But it will not be necessary to enter a PSTU directory to conclude that the value of human life is degraded below the life of the irrational animal. Just listen to the well-thinking, the equidistant, the neither-Lula-nor-Bolsonaro, the modest liberals, as well as the clean and fragrant caviar left. What takes more courage in a chic environment: advocating that people can kill maned wolves or using beagles in research, or advocating that pregnant women can “abort” at six months? Nazism, not communism, is the most threatening current of totalitarian thought today.