I know philosopher friend and Heidegger lover Brett Welch has heard the basics of Martin Heidegger's antisemitism before, but the LA Review of Books has more on how his son and literary executor Herman has been at the lead of turd-polishing his literary estate. And, there's no way to put it any more politely than that.

Beyond the turd-polishing is general unprofessionalism, including massive amounts of sloppiness from poor manuscript handling by family members and sycophants.

The piece then raises the apparent ultimate issue:

The controversies that have haunted the publication of Heidegger’s work are significant, insofar as they concern not merely occasional and understandable editorial lapses but instead suggest a premeditated policy of substantive editorial cleansing: a strategy whose goal was to systematically and deliberately excise Heidegger’s pro-Nazi sentiments and convictions.

It's hard to say that's not the case.

Of course, the problem starts with Heidegger doing that himself to and for himself during the first years of Germany emerging not just from the physical rubble of World War II but the intellectual and socio-psychological rubble of the Third Reich.

To me, it seems clear that Heidegger, to riff on Nazi ideology, thought that "international Jewry," if not itself a virus, was a carrier of a virus — that of modern technology, along with related alleged ills.

That leads to this:

Whether Heidegger overcame these prejudices later in life is extremely doubtful. After the war, he bemoaned in the Black Notebooks a “conspiracy” purportedly initiated by “world journalism” (Weltjournalismus) to keep Germany in a condition of fealty vis-à-vis the Western Allies. When, in 1986, Hans-Georg Gadamer—Heidegger’s star student—was queried about his mentor’s postwar ideological leanings, he avowed that “Heidegger remained sufficiently a Nazi after the war that he was convinced that world opinion was totally dominated by Jews.”

I would only quibble with the use of "overcame," as I infer that it implies a conscious effort by Heidegger to address his own past antisemitism and I see no such effort.

Otherwise, the Heideggerian cult strikes me as one of the three biggest pseudo-intellectual cults of the Western world in the 20th century, along with Carl Jung and Ayn Rand. In the East, Mao and his Little Red Book, etc. was no slouch as a cult itself.

And thus, contra Richard Wolin and a brief interview by Yale Press, publisher of his new book from which this comes, I reject the idea that he's the most important philosopher of the 20th century. Even with him being overrated and his Language Philosophy NOT being "ordinary" language philosophy, Wittgenstein is more important. Kurt Gödel and his incompleteness theorems, especially combined with Tarski's undecidability theorem that Gödel anticipated, is definitely more important.  If you meant "most influential," I would halfway buy it — if you confine yourself to discussing philosophy inside the academy.