KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL CONCEPT OF RACE: KANTIANISM AND RACIOLOGY
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling (2019)
The White race contains all impulses and talents within itself … The Negro … undoubtedly holds the lowest of all remaining levels by which we designate the different races. Immanuel Kant¹
At first sight nothing would seem more disparate than the idea of nationality and the sane, rational, liberal internationalism of the great Königsberg philosopher. Of all the influential thinkers of his day, Kant seems the most remote from the rise of nationalism. Isaiah Berlin²
These introductory comments should well demonstrate their importance, not only for discussions of Kant’s role in the formative development of our modern concept of race, but also for our understanding of the development of the critical philosophy itself. There is much in these texts that does not make for pleasant reading; but perhaps the recognition of what seems so wrong to us in these texts — especially with regard to the theory of race that Kant does undeniably sketch in them — should make us that much more appreciative of the fact that Kant distanced himself from these views as far as he arguably did in the ethical and political works he published in the 1790s. Jon M. Mikkelsen³
Immanuel Kant produced the most raciological [racialist and racist] thought of the eighteenth century. Count⁴
It is now known that unlike Kant, Hegel was despised by the Nazis.⁵
Modern apologists downplay Kantian raciology in the name of subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism, in order to salvage the Copernican revolution, thereby preserving Liberal Internationalism as the ideological and electoral justification of the political and economic irrationalism of inferior ruling classes, in the combat between Americanism and anti–Americanism on the stage of twenty–first century world history.
Kant distanced himself from these [racialist and racist] views … in the ethical and political works he published in the 1790s, — Jon M. Mikkelsen: Kant’s racism is a “theory of race,” i.e., racialism, — but Kantian racialism is not profound error and falsehood? We must pose this question in light of the great evils of the twentieth century. Kant distanced himself from his theory of race in the 1790s, he therefore distanced himself, not from his racist sophistry, but his racialist views: What therefore is this historical fact that Kant “distanced” himself from racialism and racism (i.e., that which “does not make for pleasant reading”), — but another Kantian view? Kant’s theory of race is racialism, his racist views are not error and falsehood, but perspectives, outlooks and viewpoints: The historical fact that Kant “distanced himself from these views,” the historical fact that he distanced himself from racism, is an historical truth, maintains Jon M. Mikkelsen, but no mere Kantian point of view, similar to Kant’s racism, his theory of racialism. For the Kantian historical view that Kant is not a racist must answer the question of why, in the first place, Kant really needed to distance himself from views, perspectives and standpoints (and why Kantianism must therefore totally abandon modern European subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism) and must therefore uphold the conceptual distinction between good and bad views, and conceptualize what an historical fact really and truly is, or at least conceptualize the difference between views that require “distance” and views which do not: Otherwise Kant was a racist, a theoretician of racialism (someone who upholds the sophism of superior and inferior human races), but in the 1790s only from a distance, — and whether the distance is great or small, Kantianism is still racism and racialism, especially the transcendental Anthropologie, — in other words, Immanual Kant is the father of Kantianism, the transcendental bastion of modern European raciology, especially as found in the idéologues of Nazidom (Chamberlain, Rosenberg and Goebbels).
Our first question’s razor sharp fangs are the historical truth and reality, the absolute historical certainty of the Holocaust. We must therefore ask ourselves how is it that we come, really and truly, to know what views exactly that Immanuel Kant, the historical personage, distanced himself from, — in the Mikkelsenian cannons of biographical psychology: At least we must advance a rational argument which purports to demonstrate why such and such texts are really and truly trustworthy, and others are not so, with regards to their veracity as historical windows into the inner mental states that Immanuel Kant once possessed, — but is not such a psychologistic and solipsistic endeavor historically futile (as the basis of a refutation of the racialism and racism of Kantianism, i.e., a refutation of the charge that the critical philosophy is sophistry), by the very Kantian definition of views, perspectives and outlooks, in a word, opinions? Kantian defenses of Kantianism flounder upon relativism, subjectivism and irrationalism: The same remark holds good of Kantian defenses designed to exculpate Kantianism from the charge of racialism and racism. Shall we therefore conclude that the Kantian salvaging of the critical “philosophy” of raciology from the charge of racialism and racism is itself a twenty–first century raciological justification of the historical foundations of modern European raciology?
Jon M. Mikkelsen is not the only Kantian who downplays the racialist and racist doctrines of Immanuel Kant’s raciology, in the name of views, perspectives and standpoints (Kant’s opinions), in order to defend the “critical philosophy” from well–deserved attacks, — as the justification of the sophistical foundations of his very own modern European political and economic irrationalism: Pauline Kleingeld also downplays the racialist and racist doctrines of Kant’s raciology in the name of views, perspectives and standpoints (Kant’s alleged opinions).
“Although Kant’s Lectures on Physical Geography were published in 1802 , this edition cannot be regarded as reflecting Kant’s views around that time … the development of Kant’s views during the Critical period … the description of Kant’s account of race and racial hierarchy … Before the 1770s, too, Kant made derogatory comments about non–Europeans … For the full argument that there is a contradiction between Kant’s moral principles and his views on racial hierarchy, see my ‘Kant’s Second Thoughts on Race.’”⁶
According to Pauline Kleingeld’s downplaying of Kantian transcendental raciology, Kant merely posits a connection between racial differences and politically relevant mental and agential characteristics: Kant’s raciological sophisms are merely characterizations of the different “races.” Pauline Kleingeld in her downplaying of Kantian transcendental raciology, in order to pretend that the critical “philosophy” is not tinged with the sophistry of racism and racialism, places the word race in quotation marks, thereby suggesting (implying) that what Kant really means in his differentiation (characterization) of superior and inferior human races is not really Kantian racism:
“In Kant’s characterizations of the different ‘races,’ we find many passages in which he posits a connection between racial differences and politically relevant mental and agential characteristics.”⁷
Kant’s transcendental raciological sophistry, according to Pauline Kleingeld, is not racism (profound error and falsehood), his transcendental raciological sophisms are not racist (profound errors and falsehoods), but rather paternalism and instrumentalization, merely accounts, theses and assertions:
“Kant reportedly asserts that Native Americans are the lowest of the four races because they are completely inert, impassive, and incapable of being educated at all. He places the ‘Negroes’ above them because they are capable of being trained to be slaves (but incapable of other forms of education). Asians have many more talents, but still fewer than whites. Kant invokes this racial hierarchy — along with the thesis that non–whites are incapable of governing themselves, incapable of being magistrates, and incapable of genuine freedom, and that whites, by contrast, do have the requisite capabilities — to justify ‘whites’ subjecting and governing non–whites through colonial rule. Kant’s account contains a mix of paternalism (as with India, which would be ‘happier’ as a European colony) and instrumentalization (as with Native Americans and blacks, whose alleged ‘purpose’ is to serve as slaves).”⁸
Once Kant’s transcendental raciology is classified as sophistry (falsehood and error), the critical “philosophy” is exposed as sophistry. With the exposition of Kantianism as sophistry, the project of Liberal Internationalism is exposed as modern European irrationalism: The political and economic agendas of Liberal Internationalism in the world of today are thus bankrupted. The electoral bankruptcy of Liberal Internationalism endangers the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of inferior ruling classes (especially in the European Union) via the corrosive power of Americanism, in the rise of Global rational political and economic order. For this reason various European institutions controlled by the Bonapartists in Brussels are in the business of funding academics and educational authorities around the Western world (especially in America), in their endeavour to salvage modern irrationalism, and thereby retard the Americanization of Europe, — in the rise of world civilization and supremacy of American Liberty.
According to the modern European sophists in American academia (they are easy to detect, with all their talk of multipolarity and polycentrisme), the principles of Kant’s “philosophy” are not raciological, because his raciology (racialism and racism) is based on views, accounts and comments, while his “philosophy” is systematic: But the rational distinction between good and bad views is never elucidated except via the very Kantian categories that are themselves called into disrepute by adversaries, — as the subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism of Kantianism. Where is the rational argument that Kant’s “philosophical” principles are not themselves mere views, like his views of raciology (racialism and racism)? “[Kant] is best understood not as a ‘system builder,’ but as a systematic philosopher.”⁹ The “notion” of Kant as a systematic philosopher, deployed in his defense by Mikkelsen, is not infected by Kantian subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism? The elucidation of Immanuel Kant’s personality, i.e., the “best understanding” of Kant’s past mental states, as a systematic philosopher, is not itself contaminated with subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism, — in the name of psychologism and solipsism? Kant’s subjective idealism is used by Kantians to downplay the very raciology of his subjective idealism. Twenty–first century sophists: The Kantian transcendental “philosophy” has absolutely nothing to do with Kant’s racialism and racism, because his raciology is transcendentally unphilosophical, because his raciological views were not transcendental views, — raciological views are not transcendental views. Kant’s critics must prove, in order to make their case (according to his defenders), but only by using transcendental categories, that Kant’s raciology is transcendental, otherwise Kantianism is not raciological! The height of this absurdity is evident: Does anybody ever make the demand that proof of the racialism and racism of Hitlerism be established by using the raciological categories of Nazism?
In modern world history, the political economy of raciological Kantianism is inseparable from the Transzendantallogik of Liberal Internationalism: “The different aspects of Kant’s political thought are not neatly separable and the logic of their relation reflects the problematic logic of critique itself.”+
Adolf Hitler and his murderous regime slaughtered millions of human beings in the name of the so–called “master race,” while Immanuel Kant merely preached the sophism of racial superiority and inferiority in his “philosophy”: The former was a very big racialist and racist, while the latter was a smaller one: “The White race contains all impulses and talents within itself … The Negro … undoubtedly holds the lowest of all remaining levels by which we designate the different races.”¹⁰
In simple words: Kantianism, the so–called critical “philosophy” of Immanuel Kant, is raciological sophistry.
Of course, our questions are not designed to suggest that the board of the State University of New York is in the business of perpetuating racism and racialism, only in protecting its intellectual reputation from the charge of modern European irrationalism, — thereby sustaining its endowments. Americanism, in stark contradistinction to Eurocentrisme as Liberal Internationalism, at least in the doctrines of Henry Kissinger, is a Harvard institution.
Kantians hold that Kant is a great philosopher, while anti–Kantians hold that Kant is a Sophist. Those academics who maintain that Kant is a great philosopher, and that they disagree with his philosophy (and that therefore they are anti–Kantians), really mean that they disagree with a certain interpretation of some element of Kantianism (but they do not reject Kantianism in general as sophistry): Precise examination of their “philosophies” proves that they themselves are actually Kantians in disguise, pushing Kantianism, or some version thereof, under some other name, i.e., existentialism, phenomenology, empiricism, and so forth, wherein are covertly imported transcendental arguments and distinctions under new names, — a tactic calculated to avoid serious criticism of their doctrines, which allows them to pass themselves off as intellectual innovators, especially in the arena of politics and economics. They are thereby saved from explaining how Kantianism is not raciology, saved from explaining the role of Kantianism in the Holocaust, and saved from explaining the difference between reason and unreason in twentieth century modern European history, especially the history of Genocide and nationalism:
“In The Myth of the Twentieth Century: An Evaluation of the Spiritual–Intellectual Confrontation of Our Age, Rosenberg’s claims that Kant’s religious philosophy was so popular with the Germans that ‘Kant’s words’ about ‘the starry heavens above us and the moral law within us’ (an allusion to the conclusion of Critique of Practical Reason) are in danger of being ‘reduced to triviality’ (197). That Rosenberg’s observation has some merit is clear from comments Adolf Eichmann made at his trial. During a police examination, Eichmann ‘declared with great emphasis that he had lived his whole life according to Kant’s moral precepts, and especially according to a Kantian definition of duty’ … Prominent Nazis such as Eckart, Alfred Rosenberg, and Adolf Eichmann read Kant, but most people from the Nazi period, [45] including Nazi élites, derived their view of Kant mainly from Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who is considered ‘the spiritual founder of National Socialist Germany,’ which is why Paul Gilroy rightly claims that ‘we can interpret Chamberlain’s work as he wanted it to be understood: As a strong bridge between Kant and Hitler.’ It is this link between Kant and the Nazis that has led prominent scholars to say that the German philosopher bears some responsibility for the Holocaust. As Berel Lang says: ‘Certain ideas prominent in the Enlightenment [and he specifies Kant] are recognizable in the conceptual framework embodied in the Nazi genocide.’ Or, as Charles W. Mills claims: ‘The embarrassing fact for the white West (which doubtless explains its concealment) is that their most important moral theorist [Kant] of the past three hundred years is also the foundational theorist in the modern period of the division between Herrenvolk and Untermenschen, persons and subpersons, upon which Nazi theory would later draw.’ Given Chamberlain’s comprehensive vision of religion, politics, and Germany, Rosenberg ‘hailed him as a pioneer and spiritual forerunner and viewed himself as Chamberlain’s true successor.’ In 1923, Joseph Goebbels read the Foundations, and when he met Chamberlain in 1926, he indicates in his diary how important Chamberlain was to National Socialism by referring to [46] him as a ‘spiritual father,’ dubbing him a ‘Trail blazer, pioneer!’ Chamberlain’s biographer, Geoffrey G. Field, notes that Hitler read the Foundations. But more importantly, Field indicates how crucial Chamberlain was by describing Hitler’s response to the famous writer’s public endorsement. After getting word of Chamberlain’s support, members at the Nazi party headquarters in Munich were euphoric, and Hitler was so giddy that he was supposedly ‘like a child’ … Hitler considered National Socialism to be based on idealism.”¹¹
In the rise of Americanism from out of the collapse of European modernity in world history, Nazidom is based on Kantian idealism?
Adolf Hitler: “Rational Idealism is profound Knowledge of the Unknowable.”¹²
The reason therefore that these Kantian and semi–Kantian idéologues of our bankrupt academia possess their government sinecures, as in the period of Nazidom, is not from intelligence, but rather from their political and family connexions: Of course they will argue that such behavior is evidence of intelligence, but only in mortal degeneration are corruption and criminality ever named as enlightenment.
Why is the Kantianism of Nazidom modern irrationalism?
“Kant inaugurated a Copernican revolution in philosophy, which claimed that the subject doing the knowing constitutes, to a considerable extent, the object; i.e., that knowledge is in part constituted by a priori or transcendental factors (contributed by the mind itself), which the mind imposes upon the data of experience. Far from being a description of an external reality, knowledge is, to Kant, the product of the knowing subject. When the data are those of sense experience, the transcendental (mental) apparatus constitutes man’s experience or his science, or makes it to be such.”¹³
“The subject doing the knowing constitutes, to a considerable extent, the object … [knowledge is] the product of the knowing subject”: The “Copernican revolution in philosophy” (the subject doing the knowing constitutes, to a considerable extent, the object) is not based upon Kant’s philosophical sophistry (knowledge is the product of the knowing subject)? De Vleeschauwer’s version of the Copernican revolution in philosophy, inaugurated by Kant, asserts that the subject doing the knowing constitutes, to a considerable extent, the object. Herman de Vleeschauwer, in the field of twentieth–century modern European world history, is therefore a good Kantian, and not a bad Kantian?¹⁴
“These principalities … are upheld by higher causes, which the human mind cannot attain to, I will abstain from speaking of them; for being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the work of a presumptuous and foolish man to discuss them … if one could change one’s nature with time and circumstances, fortune would never change … God will not do everything, in order not to deprive us of freewill.”¹⁵
Higher causes, which the human mind cannot attain to, are exalted and maintained by God, the very highest power. Higher causation and rationality is the realm of the highest power, and is beyond the reach of humanity, civilization, and the rationality of Global political and economic order. What are the rational determinations of the highest power? We must abstain from speaking of them, for being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the work of a presumptuous and foolish person to discuss them: The highest power of Machiavellism is the Absolute of Kant and modern European unreason. The highest power governing human actions, the fountainhead of all justice according to the Machiavellians, the dispensers of modern freedom, is the Unknowable of the modern irrationalists, Locke, Leibniz, Hume and Kant, — as well as their epigones.
From whence comes the Kantianism of Nazidom?
“The philosophical movement called Neo–Kantianism commenced in Germany in the 1860’s. Beginning with certain epistemological inquiries, it extended gradually over the whole field of philosophy. The individual thinkers who belong to this movement differ from each other in their interpretation of the Kantian doctrine as well as in the results which they reach from the Kantian premises. But, notwithstanding differences of detail, there is a certain methodical principle common to all of them. They all see in philosophy not merely a personal conviction, an individual view of the world, but they enquire into the possibility of philosophy as a science with the intention of formulating its conditions. They take their cue from the most general statement of the Kantian problem in the preface of the Critique of Pure Reason and in the Prolegomena. But in returning to the fundamental aim of Kant, to lead philosophy ‘into the safe road of a science,’ Neo–Kantianism finds itself confronted with a new task inasmuch as it must face a different state of science itself.”¹⁶
From whence comes the Kantianism (Neo–Kantianism) of Nazidom, in the arena of twentieth–century modern European politics and economics?
“Especially after 1871, the contagion of Kantianism in France is remarkable … Around 1880, Kantianism becomes the powerful beacon of French moral and political thought, in the eyes of those who are followers of France’s republican creed: For republican thinkers who want to be freed from ‘superstition,’ Immanuel Kant’s philosophy must provide the means of indoctrinating France’s young people with strict morality and civics, self–sacrifice and patriotism: Intellectual disciplines which will eliminate ancient French religious traditions via the powerful secular religion of republicanism.”¹⁷
In the rise of Americanism from out of the collapse of European modernity in world history, Kantianism is the vanguard of the surpassed and outdated Napoléonic and French revolutionary category of right: The “rationality governing human actions, the fountainhead of justice,” according to Machiavelli, the modern delusion of rationality and human reason, is the unreason of European modernity, the basis of the outdated and surpassed Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right: Autocracy founded upon popular consent, the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, therefore comes from the modern irrationalism of Kant, Hume, Leibniz and Locke, — and then ultimately from Machiavelli. Machiavellism, autocracy founded on popular consent, the Napoléonic and French revolutionary conception of right, is modern unreason in the world historical arena of European politics and economics.
Last remarks: Why is the Kantian raciological sophistry of Nazidom profound error and falsehood, especially as subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism?
“[158–159] According to Kant, we can never know anything but ‘phenomena,’ never a thing that exists independently of the mind. It cannot be but a subjective phenomenon, because the element of experience in it — the ‘impression,’ which is called the ‘matter’ of the object of a sense–intuition, is subjective, and the element of necessity and universality which is called the ‘form’ coming as it does from the mind, is likewise subjective. Hence the object before the mind, composed as it is by subjective elements, is wholly subjective. Yet Kant always calls such an object really objective. Because the term ‘objective’ always means for Kant, whatever contains a necessary and universal element. For such an element is the same for all human minds as they are at present constituted … [160] Now the ‘matter’ upon which these ‘apriori forms’ of the understanding are superimposed is the ‘phenomenal objects’ of ‘sense–intuition.’ The ‘phenomenal objects’ of sense are already an amalgam of ‘matter,’ — the sense–impression caused by the ‘noumenon’ plus the ‘apriori sense forms’ of ‘space’ and ‘time.’ Why are these ‘apriori forms of the understanding’ imposed upon the phenomena of sense? Because each of these sensuous phenomena are pictured by the imagination as either a substance, a cause, as one or many etc., and when they are so imaginatively pictured, the appropriate ‘apriori form of the understanding’ pops forth from ‘the fairy rath of the mind’ where live these ‘apriori forms’ and attaches itself to the sensuous phenomena and then we necessarily and universally are forced to think that such a sense–phenomenon is a substance, such another a cause, an accident, one or many etc. But in reality, of course, they are no such thing, for these ‘apriori forms’ give us no insight into reality.”¹⁸
What is the subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism of raciological Kantianism?
“In the philosophy of Kant the necessary grooves or laws which the mind must follow in its operations of reason have their origin solely in the mind; they are of the mind and in the mind. [9] We must think, Kant would say, according to these necessary laws because our minds, antecedently to all experiences of reality, are constituted that way … Kant conceives the laws of thought as ‘forms’ native to the mind and therefore as having no objective value. Hence he calls the science of these ‘forms’ ‘Formal Logic.’”¹⁹
Raciological Kantianism, the modern unreason of Nazidom in the arena of twentieth–century modern European politics and economics, via the subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism of Kant’s transcendental logic, is the vanguard of the surpassed and outdated Napoléonic and French revolutionary category of right.
The rational Hegelian philosophy of genuine Hegelianism, on the stage of modern European world history, maintains that the critical “philosophy,” so–called, is the theoretical justification of Kant’s practical “philosophy,” his anthropology and physical geography, which together serve alongside his science of law, as the basis of Kantian political economy. Sophists of the Kantian traditions who maintain the contrary, namely that Kant’s “philosophy” is separate from his practical works, his anthropology and physical geography (which they allege are untranscendental aberrations), they falsely and wrongly separate the two spheres of activity, and therefore wreck the theory and practice of Kant’s critical project and Copernican revolution, and thereby they falsify and distort exact historiography and world history.
This last remark applies equally to those sophists who do not separate Kant’s theoretical and practical project of his Copernican revolution, but instead separate some elements of his practical philosophy from its theory, in the name of Kant’s views (opinions), but maintain the link between the critical theory and some of its practice: Thereby they corrupt Kantian theoretical practice in the name of practical considerations which are themselves alien (non–theoretical) to Kantian theory: For they must admit that their “concerns” to purify Kantianism of the corrupt influence of Kant’s alleged “opinions” are in no wise extracted from the Kantian corpus. They therefore stab Kant’s authentic Copernican revolution in the back. We in no way condemn their treasonous behavior, but only draw attention to the fact that their sanitized version of the Copernican revolution, while entirely satisfying their personal gratifications, in no wise replaces the authentic Copernicanism of modern European history, and most certainly does not cause its satanic nature to vanish from the historical annals of modernity, but rather serves as a mask, which hides the inescapable lesson of exact historiography and universal history in the Western world of today:
“Mind and its world are thus both alike lost and plunged in the infinite grief … Mind is here pressed back upon itself in the extreme of its absolute negativity. This is the absolute turning point; mind rises out of this situation and grasps the infinite positivity of this its inward character, i.e., it grasps the principle of the unity of the divine nature and the human, the reconciliation of objective truth and freedom as the truth and freedom appearing within self–consciousness and subjectivity … The realm of fact has discarded its barbarity and unrighteous caprice, while the realm of truth has abandoned the world of beyond and its arbitrary force, so that the true reconciliation which discloses the state as the image and actuality of reason has become objective. In the state, self–consciousness finds in an organic development the actuality of its substantive knowing and willing; in religion, it finds the feeling and the representation of this its own truth as an ideal essentiality; while in philosophical science, it finds the free comprehension and knowledge of this truth as one and the same in its mutually complementary manifestations, i.e., in the state, in nature, and in the ideal world.”²⁰
In fine, the academic stratagem, whereby Kant’s sophistical philosophy is first separated from his opinions concerning superior and inferior human races (the sophistical Kantian doctrine of the master race), and then this separation between his sophistical philosophy on the one hand, and his mere opinions on the other, is justified as a transcendental conception in the name of psychologism and solipsism (via some novel interpretation of transcendental idealism), fails miserably in the light of rational Hegelianism. For interpretations of transcendental idealism are themselves contaminated with the aforementioned irrationalism: Covertly imported within their corrupt categorial scheme is the very paralogism between “philosophy” and opinion which is in dispute, — in the name of subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism. Of course this covert operation is not always categorized via traditional Kantian terms, but is evidenced in the form of transcendental “argumentation,” — resultant in transcendental perspectives, outlooks, views, standpoints, and so forth. In other words, the so–called interpreters of transcendental idealism, in their projects to salvage the Copernican revolution, themselves “interpret” the sophistical critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant, interpretations wherein they separate Kant’s alleged opinions from his philosophical sophistry: They psychologize and solipsize as “interpreters.” The phantasizing over what kind of mental states once occurred in the mind of Immanuel Kant at such and such a time and place, — in order to transcendentally justify the delusional separation between Kant’s sophistical philosophy on the one hand, and his mere opinions on the other, as a transcendental distinction, — is itself evidence of the complete bankruptcy of Kantianism in the world of today. The ideological project aimed at the rehabilitation of Copernicanism, in order to sustain Liberal Internationalism as the backbone of Eurocentrisme as multipolarity or polycentrisme, and thereby uphold Großdeutschland (der Merkel Apparat) as the prius of European political and economic power, flounders upon the rocks of psychologism and solipsism, — as modern European subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism.²¹ The extremely influential Kantian sophism that there exists a transcendental (certain and incorrigible) differentiation between superior and inferior human races, the transcendental “conception” of human races, is the fountainhead of modern European raciology, especially in the arena of politics and economics: Especially in the field of modern European history, the downplaying of Kantian racism and racialism (raciology), the transcendental “conception” (sophism) of superior and inferior human races, i.e., the sophistical transcendental justification of the political economy (modern slavery) of the master race (Eurocentrisme), as merely Kant’s view or opinion (such as the Kantian view or opinion that Kant is best understood as a systematic philosopher), is itself Kantian raciology in the world of today.
With Kant in one pocket, and Hegel in the other, I walk towards the sun.
ENDNOTES
1. Immanuel Kant in Robert Bernasconi, “Kant As An Unfamiliar Source of Racism,” Philosophers on Race: Critical Essays, Julie K. Ward & Tommy L. Lott, editors, Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell, 2002, 145–166; 148.
See: “The race of the American cannot be educated. It has no motivating force, for it lacks affect and passion. They are not in love, thus they are also not afraid. They hardly speak, do not caress each other, care about nothing and are lazy.” (Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, translation)
Immanuel Kant in Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, “Chapter Four: The Color of Reason: The Idea of ‘Race’ in Kant’s Anthropology: Kant’s Idea of ‘Race’: The Taxonomy,” Ka Osi Sọ Onye: African Philosophy in the Postmodern Era, Jonathan O. Chimakonam & Edwin Etieyibo, editors; Olatunji A. Oyeshile, introduction & Ifeanyi Menkiti, forward; Adeshina L. Afolayan, Ada Agada, Olajamoke Akiode, Oladele A. Balogun, Jonathan O. Chimakonam, Edwin Etieyibo, Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, Michael Onyebuchi Eze, Bruce B. Janz, Ifeanyi Menkiti, Victor C.A. Nweke, Uchenna L. Ogbonnaya, Olatunji A. Oyeshile, Leonhard Praeg, Mogobe B. Ramose, Uduma O. Uduma, contributors, Wilmington, Delaware, Vernon Press, 2018, 85–124; 97–106; 97–102; 99. See: Immanuel Kant, “Kant’s philosophische Anthropologie: Von der Charakteristik des Menschen,” Immanuel Kant’s Menschenkunde oder philosophische Anthropologie: Nach handschriftlichen Vorlesungen, Friedrich Christian Starke (Johann Adam Bergk), hrsg., Leipzig, Die Expedition des europäischen Aufsehers, 1831, 337–358; 353: “Das Volk der Amerikaner nimmt keine bildung an. Es hat keine Triebfedern, denn es fehlen ihm Affekt und Leidenschaft. Sie sind nicht verliebt, daher sind auch nicht furchtbar. Sie sprechen fast nichts, liebkosen einander nicht, sorgen auch fur nichts, und sind faul.”
See also: “The race of Negroes, one could say, is completely the opposite of the Americans; they are full of affect and passion, very lively, talkative and vain. They can be educated but only as servants (slaves), that is they allow themselves to be trained. They have many motivating forces, are also sensitive, are afraid of blows and do much out of a sense of honor.” (Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, translation)
Immanuel Kant in Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, Ibidem. See: Immanuel Kant, Ibidem, 353: “Die race der Neger, konnte man sagan, ist ganz das Gegenteil von den Amerikanern; sie sind voll Affekt und Leidenshaft, sehr Lebhaft, schwatzhaft und eitel, sie nehmen Bildung an, aber nur eine Bildung der Knechte, d.h. sie lassen sich abrichten. Sie haben viele Triebfedern, sind auch empfindlich, furchten sich vor Schlagen und thun auch viel aus Ehre.”
See also: “The Kant most remembered in North American academic communities is the Kant of the Critiques. It is forgotten that the philosopher developed courses in anthropology and/or geography and taught them regularly for forty years from 1756 until the year before his retirement in 1797 … It was Kant, in fact, who introduced anthropology as a branch of study to the German universities when he first started his lectures in the winter semester of 1772–3 (Cassirer, 1963, 25). He was also the first to introduce the study of geography, which he considered inseparable from anthropology, to Konigsberg [86] University, beginning from the summer semester of 1756 (May, 1970, 4). Throughout his career at the university, Kant offered 72 courses in ‘Anthropology’ and/or ‘Physical Geography,’ more than in logic (54 times), metaphysics (49 times), moral philosophy (28), and theoretical physics (20 times), (May, 1970, 4). Although the volume Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View was the last book edited by Kant and was published towards the end of his life, the material actually chronologically predates the Critiques. Further, it is known that material from Kant’s courses in ‘Anthropology’ and ‘Physical Geography’ found their way into his lectures in ethics and metaphysics.”
Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, Ibidem, 85–86.
See finally: “In my occupation with pure philosophy, which was originally undertaken of my own accord, but which later belonged to my teaching duties, I have for some thirty years delivered lectures twice a year on ‘knowledge of the world,’ namely on Anthropology and Physical Geography. They were popular lectures attended by people from the general public. The present manual contains my lectures on anthropology. As to Physical Geography, however, it will not be possible, considering my age, to produce a manual from my manuscript, which is hardly legible to anyone but myself.”
Immanuel Kant in Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, Ibidem, 85.
2. Isaiah Berlin in Bernasconi, Ibidem, 145. [Italics added]
3. Jon M. Mikkelsen, “Translator’s Introduction: Recent Work on Kant’s Race Theory,” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), New York, State University of New York Press, 2013, 1–40; 40. [Italics added]
See: “[Kant] is best understood not as a ‘system builder,’ but as a systematic philosopher — that is, as a thinker who was ever reexamining the conclusions he had come to within each component part of the critical project both with respect to the conclusions he had previously established for the other component parts of the project as well as to his most favored ‘core’ beliefs. He was, in other words, not the sort of philosopher who never revised his views on the many topics that interested him, and he clearly endeavored to keep himself informed of developments in every imaginable field of investigation of his time. Consequently, to consider any narrowly [2] defined topic within the scope of the critical philosophy, such as Kant’s race theory or his philosophy of biology, could lead to a reconsideration of every other part of the critical project. We should then hardly find it surprising that significant interest in the texts by Kant included in this volume has, in the years since the volume was originally conceived, also increased among scholars concerned primarily with Kant’s political philosophy — or, more specifically, with his role in the formative development of a view that is difficult to define but commonly referred to as liberal internationalism. Thus it would be no exaggeration to suggest that what is at stake in these discussions is not simply Kant’s views on specific topics but a complete reassessment of his contribution to the ‘project of modernity,’ inasmuch as Kant’s contribution to the construction of liberal internationalism is viewed as a core element of that project as famously sketched by Jürgen Habermas in his 1980 Adorno Prize lecture, ‘Modernity versus Postmodernity’… Kant did indeed write numerous texts concerned with issues of race which had otherwise been almost universally ignored by English–language Kant scholarship in the past two centuries … [3] Who — half a century, or even a couple of decades ago — would ever have thought of Kant as a major contributor to the formative development of either race theory or the philosophy of biology? For the Kant we knew then was typically presented as a figure who had contributed so much to the development of modern liberal internationalism that it was inconceivable that he could ever have written or uttered comments that could be construed as racist or have even concerned himself with any of the problems of race theory — except, perhaps, in ways that directly contributed to the construction of modern concepts of human rights. Now, however, with new knowledge of the texts by Kant included in this volume and a reexamination of related texts and other source materials, there can be no doubt about the fact that Kant was not only deeply concerned with the analysis of the concept of race but that he gave expression to views both in print but in his private notebooks that are clearly racist not only in tone but also in spirit, if not, necessarily, in ideological intent … [5] [Earl W. Count] chided scholars for forgetting ‘that Immanuel Kant produced the most raciological [racist] thought of the eighteenth century’ … [10] ‘in spite of Kant’s avowed cosmopolitanism … evident in such essays as his ‘Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose,’ one also finds within his philosophy expressions of a virulent and theoretically based racism, at a time when scientific racism was still in its infancy’ … [13] Whatever definition of race is ultimately attributed to Kant — whether or not Bernasconi can make good on his claim that Kant was, in some sense or other, the inventor of the concept — it is clear from the references provided in the final section of the second of these articles that Kant was indeed generally ‘opposed to the mixing of races’ and that his views on this matter are recorded in texts dating from the 1760s through the late 1790s.”
Jon M. Mikkelsen, “Translator’s Introduction: Recent Work on Kant’s Race Theory,” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), New York, State University of New York Press, 2013, 1–40; 1–2–3–5–10–13.
See: “Thinkers attempting to draw on the Kantian inheritance for an account of critical social and political theory are drawing on a volatile legacy. The different aspects of Kant’s political thought are not neatly separable and the logic of their relation reflects the problematic logic of critique itself.”
Kimberly Hutchings, Kant, Critique and Politics, London, Routledge, 1996, 56. [Italics added]
4. Earl W. Count (1950) in Jon M. Mikkelsen, “Translator’s Introduction: Recent Work on Kant’s Race Theory,” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), New York, State University of New York Press, 2013, 1–40; 5. [Italics added]
See: Earl W. Count, editor, “Introduction,” This is Race: An Anthology Selected From the International Literature on the Races of Man, New York, Schuman, 1950, xiii–xxviii.
5. Yitzhak Y. Melamed & Peter Thielke, “Hegelianism,” New Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Game Theory to Lysenkoism, vol. 3, Maryanne Cline Horowitz, editor in chief, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2005, 975–977; 977.
6. Pauline Kleingeld, “Kant’s Second Thoughts on Colonialism,” Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives, Katrin Flikschuh & Lea Ypi, editors; Martin Ajei, Katrin Flikschuh, Pauline Kleingeld, Sankar Muthu, Peter Niesen, Anthony Pagden, Arthur Ripstein, Anna Stilz, Liesbet Vanhaute & Lea Ypi, contributors, Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 2014, 43–67; 53 ff.
7. Pauline Kleingeld, Ibidem, 45.
8. Kleingeld, Ibidem, 46.
9. Jon M. Mikkelsen, “Translator’s Introduction: Recent Work on Kant’s Race Theory,” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), New York: State University of New York Press, 2013, 1–40; 1.
+Kimberly Hutchings, Kant, Critique and Politics, London, Routledge, 1996, 56.
10. Immanuel Kant in Robert Bernasconi, “Kant As An Unfamiliar Source of Racism,” Philosophers on Race: Critical Essays, Julie K. Ward & Tommy L. Lott, editors, Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell, 2002, 145–166; 148.
11. Michael Lackey, “The Fictional Truth of the Biographical Novel: The Case of Ludwig Wittgenstein,” The American Biographical Novel, New York, Bloomsbury, 2016, 35–82; 44–45–46–49.
See: “We can say that Kant, via Chamberlain, was certainly one of the most important influences on National Socialism.”
Michael Lackey, The Modernist God State: A Literary Study of the Nazis’ Christian Reich, New York, Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2012, 278.
See also: “We can interpret Chamberlain’s work as he wanted it to be understood: as a strong bridge between Kant and Hitler.”
Paul Gilroy, Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Line, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2001, 63.
See also: “The contention that there is to be found in Kant, or, more broadly, in the Enlightenment, certain conceptual or ideological origins of the Nazi genocide may appear initially either as tautological or as absurd. On the one hand, insofar as ideas are at all admitted as historical causes, the position of the Enlightenment at a crossroads of modern European social and intellectual history would assure it a role in the subsequent events of that history: to this extent, the tautology. On the other hand, to narrow this very general claim sufficiently to allege a direct connection or implication — to claim that specific motifs of the Enlightenment serve historically as an evocation of the events of the Nazi genocide — seems to strain the evidence to a breaking point. The span of 150 years which must be elided, the numerous factors (economic, geopolitical psychological — in addition to other ideological elements) that have been otherwise established, the compelling moral and social ideals of the Enlightenment to which we are indebted for the very phrase the ‘rights of man’: to find beyond these a contributory rule in the Enlightenment for an event as opaque in its rationale and as morally inhuman and notoriously ‘un–enlightened’ as the Nazi war against the Jews seems more than any assembly of evidence that was not simply tendentious could support. What will be outlined here, however, is a position that stands between the two alternatives, with the suggestion first, in the form of an analogy, that certain ideas prominent in the Enlightenment are recognizable in the conceptual framework embodied in the Nazi genocide; and, secondly, that if the relation between those two historical moments is not one of direct cause and effect (the one, that is, does not entail the other), the Enlightenment establishes a ground of historical possibility.”
Berel Lang, “Genocide and Kant’s Enlightenment,” Act and Idea in the Nazi Genocide, Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 2003, 165–206; 168.
See finally: “Kant is a recurring target of attempts to show that racism and modernity are associated inextricably with each other. Kant’s race–thinking and his racism are quite evident from his writings … It is not surprising, given his stature, that in the wake of Kant’s advancement of races, formalized race–thinking became widely established in Europe. In the nineteenth–century, race–thinking acquired both a scientific (anthropological) footing and expanded its specifically metaphysical reach. Much of this related to varieties of the Aryan hypothesis that started to emerge from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and which later led to the horrific exterminations of the majority of the Jewish populations of East and West Europe.”
Chetan Bhatt, “The Spirit Lives On: Races and Disciplines,” The SAGE Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies, Patricia Hill Collins & John Solomos, editors, London, SAGE Publications, Ltd., 2010, 90–128; 95–101.
12. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf: Zwei Bände in einem Band Ungekürzte Ausgabe, 851–855 Auflage, München, Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Verlag Franz Eher Nachf., G.m.b.H., 1943, 328: “Reinster Idealismus deckt sich unbewußt mit tiefster Erkenntnis.”
13. Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer (Herman Jan de Vleeschauwer, 1899–1977/1986?), “Kantianism,” Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropædia, 15th edition, vol. 22, Chicago, The University Press, 1991, 495–499; 495.
14. See: “Vleeschauwer, a Nazi collaborator during World War II, was tried for war crimes in 1945 and condemned to death in abstentia as he was in hiding.”
Elaine Harger, Which Side Are You On? Seven Social Responsibility Debates in American Librarianship 1990–2015, Jefferson, North Carolina, McFarland & Company, Inc., 2015, 60.
See: “The work of the ERR was to confiscate archives, libraries, and works of art from the ideological enemies of Nazism. It was the most productive unit of plunder in Belgium and was directed by archivists, librarians, and museum curators. De Vleeschauwer was close to senior ERR officials like Adolf Vogel, Karlheinz Esser, and Hans Muchow who targeted private libraries in Jewish homes in Belgium. He had attended German book exhibitions regularly, and wrote several articles on politics and culture for the German–language Nationalsocialist, advocating Nazism.”
Archie L. Dick, The Hidden History of South Africa’s Book and Reading Cultures, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2012.
15. Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, The Prince, Luigi Ricci, translator, Oxford, Humphrey Milford, 1921, 44–44–101–105.
See: Napoléon Bonaparte (1769–1821) & Aimé Guillon de Montléon (1758–1842), Machiavel commenté par Napoléon Bonaparte, manuscrit trouvé dans la carrosse de Bonaparte, après la bataille de Mont–Saint–Jean, le 15 février 1815, Paris, Nicolle, 1816.
16. Ernst Cassirer, “Neo–Kantianism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, vol. 16, Chicago, The University Press, 1945, 215–216; 215.
See: “Neo–Kantianism is a term used in a rather arbitrary way to cover a wide variety of philosophical movements that not only show the influence of Kant’s thought but also explicitly claim to go back to Kant, to free his system from inconsistencies and other errors, or to develop it further in the light of new mathematical and scientific discoveries.”
Stephan Körner (1913–2000), “Neo–Kantianism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, vol. 16, Chicago, William Benton, 1967, 213–214; 213. See: Stephan Körner, Kant, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1960. [1955]
17. Albert Rivaud (1876–1956), «La diffusion du Kantisme», Histoire de la philosophie: La philosophie allemande de 1700 à 1850: De l’Aufklärung à Schelling, première partie, tome 5, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1968, 273–276; 274. [1967]: «Il est remarquable que le Kantisme se vulgarise surtout après 1871 … le Kantisme devient–il, vers 1880, le symbole d’une pensée morale et politique profonde, aux yeux de ceux qui sont animés d’une foi républicaine. La philosophie de Kant doit fournir, à une pensée qui se veut affranchie de la «superstition», les moyens de répandre dans la jeunesse une moralité sévère, le civisme, le désintéressement, le patriotisme, toutes ces disciplines apportant un substitut républicain à l’ancienne formation religieuse, en somme l’armature d’une religion laïque».
See: “The hope was always the same: To trace the origins and perhaps the explanation of what made France an exceptional case [10] among all the great Western democracies: A nation–state that had exported her constitutions around the world, but a country whose own institutions were still questioned by a large part of the population. By studying these early years, and by trying to restore to the succession of events or accidents their dimension of uncertainty, which by recurring, had created a custom, perhaps it would be possible, if not to understand the ‘wherefore,’ at least to follow the birth and growth of our unwritten law which, as everyone knows, is ultimately more binding than any law ever written down. But is it really necessary to remember? Since May 10, 1981 something quite new has happened in the bowels of French universal suffrage: For the first time since 1871, a national election allowed the opposition to invest the head of the executive power. And invest it directly and in the clearest way. Does this mean that politics in France have become trivialized, and that we are now ripe for a British–style system of successive and peaceful alternations of opposing forces? This is not the place for such a discussion. The one thing to understand is that this radical form of electoral alternation had never existed before … [verso] The years from 1870–1889 chart the republican conquest of the Republic, and the victory of parliamentary Republicanism over different forms of constitutional revisionism … The analysis of the elections of 1881, 1885 and 1889, the systematic use of original documents, even unpublished archives, allow us to give a far more realistic version of the Republican adventure in a country still largely dominated by the monarchist parties and the Church’s Syllabus. To fight against the partisans of absolutism, the parliamentary Republic did not hesitate to distance itself from the liberalism which was its glory and its justification: Hence our title of absolute Republic (République absolue) for this Republic which, in the victory of its many combats, at the same time prepared the future conditions of its fall.” [Italics added]
Odile Rudelle, «Note Liminaire», La république absolue: Aux origines de l’instabilité constitutionnelle de la France républicaine 1870–1889, ré–édition, Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne, 1986, 9–10; 9–10–verso: «L’espoir était toujours le même: traquer les origines et peut–être l’explication de ce qui faisait de la France un cas exceptionnel [10] parmi toutes les grandes démocraties occidentales: un pays qui avait exporté des constitutions dans le monde entier, mais un pays dont les propres institutions étaient toujours contestées par une importante partie de la population. En étudiant les premières années, en essayant de restituer avec leur marge d’incertitude la succession des événements ou des accidents qui, en se reproduisant, avait créé une coutume, peut–être serait–il possible sinon de comprendre le pourquoi mais au moins de suivre la naissance et la croissance de cette loi non écrite qui, chacun le sait, est finalement plus contraignante que toutes les lois écrites. Mais est–il besoin de le rappeler? Depuis le 10 mai 1981 quelque chose de tout a fait nouveau s’est passé dans la France profonde du suffrage universel: pour la première fois depuis 1871, une élection nationale a permis à l’opposition d’investir la tête du pouvoir exécutif. Et de l’investir directement et de la façon la plus claire. Est–ce à dire que la France politique s’est banalisée et qu’elle est maintenant mûre pour un régime à l’anglaise fait d’alternances successives et pacifiques de forces opposées? Ce n’est pas ici le lieu d’en discuter. La seule chose importante est de savoir que sous cette forme radicale l’alternance électorale n’avait jamais existé auparavant … [verso] Les années 1870–1889 sont celles de la conquête de la République par les républicains et de la victoire de la République parlementaire contre les différents révisionnismes constitutionnels … L’analyse des élections de 1881, 1885 et 1889, le recours systématique aux documents originaux, voire aux archives inédites, permettre de donner une vision plus réaliste de ce qui fut l’aventure républicaine dans un pays encore largement dominé par les partis monarchistes et l’ Église du Syllabus. Pour lutter contre les partisans de l’absolutisme la République parlementaire n’hésita pas à prendre quelques distances vis–à–vis du libéralisme qui était sa gloire et son justificatif: d’où le titre de République absolue pour cette République qui, en gagnant de nombreux combats, creusait en même temps les conditions futures de sa chute».
See also: Frédéric Mourlon (1811–1866), Répétitions écrites sur le code civil contenant l’exposé des principes généreux leurs motifs et la solution des questions théoriques, 11e édition, revue et mise au courant par Charles Démangeât, Tome premier, Paris, Garniers Frères, Libraires–Éditeurs, 1880, [1846]; Frédéric Mourlon, Répétitions écrites sur le deuxième examen du code Napoléon contenant l’exposé des principes généreux leurs motifs et la solution des questions théoriques, 2e édition revue et corrigée, 3 vols., Paris, A. Marescq, Libraire–Éditeur, 1852, [1846].
See also: “France does not know it, but we are at war against America. Yes, an eternal war, a vital war, an economic war, a war without deaths … apparently. Yes, they are very predatory, the Americans, they are voracious, and they want to rule the world … Our war against America is a secret war, an eternal war, a war apparently without deaths, and yet a war unto death!”
François Mitterrand (1995) in Georges–Marc Benamou, Le dernier Mitterrand, Paris, Plon, 1996, 50–52: «La France ne le sait pas, mais nous sommes en guerre avec l’Amérique. Oui, une guerre permanente, une guerre vitale, une guerre économique, une guerre sans morts … apparemment. Oui, ils sont très durs, les américains, ils sont voraces, ils veulent un pouvoir sans partage sur le monde … C’est une guerre inconnue, une guerre permanente, sans morts apparemment, et pourtant, une guerre à mort!»
See finally: François Mitterrand in Alain de Benoist, Dernière année: Notes pour conclure le siècle, Lausanne, Suisse, Éditions L’Age d’Homme, 2001, 187; François Mitterrand in Henri de Grossouvre, «Guerre économique Europe/États–Unis», Paris–Berlin–Moscou: La voie de l’indépendance et de la paix, Pierre Marie Gallois, préface, Lausanne, Suisse, Éditions L’Age d’Homme, 2002, 38–40; 38.
18. Michael Joseph Mahony, History of Modern Thought: The English, Irish and Scotch Schools, New York, Fordham University Press, 1933, 158–159–160.
See: “Kant’s doctrines are destructively opposed to Catholicism. His teaching has been condemned by Popes Leo XIII and Pius X. His great work, ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’ was placed on the Index, 11th June, 1827. Inconsistent with Catholic teaching are (1) Kant’s Metaphysical Agnosticism, which declares his ignorance of all things as they really are; (2) his Moral Dogmatism which declares the supremacy of will over reason, thereby making blind will without the guidance of reason the rule of action; (3) his giving to religious dogma merely a symbolic signification; (4) diametrically opposed to scholastic teaching and the common sense of mankind is Kant’s theory of knowledge which makes mind and thought the measure of reality rather than making reality the measure of mind and thought. Kant maintains that things are so because we must think them so, not that we must think them so because they are really so independently of our thinking them. The reversal of the order of thought and reality, Kant calls his ‘Copernican Revolution’ in his theory of knowledge.”
Michael Joseph Mahony, History of Modern Thought: The English, Irish and Scotch Schools, New York, Fordham University Press, 1933, 166.
Defenders of the Kantian traditions attack Catholicism based upon the evils of Gallicanism, but in their assaults upon Gallican theology, especially in the realm of practice, their refutations fall flat with regards to Ultramontanism: The Popes, in the name of Scholasticism, have vigorously rejected the evils of modernism.
Defenders of the Kantian traditions who attack Catholicism based upon the evils of Gallican theologians, and thereby assault Gallican theology, especially in the realm of practice, really only refute the satanic connexions between Gallicanism and modern European political and economic irrationalism, — and thus entirely miss their alleged target, namely the Catholic Church and Vatican.
American Idealism vigorously defends the Western traditions of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome.
See: “The present inquiry analyzes the patterns of class in a society whose leaders are the holders of despotic state power and not private owners and entrepreneurs. This procedure, in addition to modifying the notion of what constitutes a ruling class, leads to a new evaluation of such phenomena as landlordism, capitalism, gentry, and guild. It explains why, in hydraulic society, there exists a bureaucratic landlordism, a bureaucratic capitalism, and a bureaucratic gentry. It explains why in such a society the professional organizations, although sharing certain features with the guilds of Medieval Europe, were socially quite unlike them. It also explains why in such a society supreme autocratic leadership is the rule. While the law of diminishing administrative returns determines the lower limit of the bureaucratic pyramid, the cumulative tendency of unchecked power determines the character of its top … I have started my inquiry with the societal order of which agromanagerial despotsim is a part; and I have stressed the peculiarity of this order by calling it ‘hydraulic society.’ But I have no hesitancy in employing the traditional designations ‘Oriental society’ and ‘Asiatic society’ as synonyms for ‘hydraulic society’ and ‘agromanagerial society’; and while using the terms ‘hydraulic,’ ‘agrobureaucratic,’ and ‘Oriental despotism’ interchangeably, I have given preference to the older formulation, ‘Oriental despotism’ in my title, partly to emphasize the historical depth of my central concept and partly because the majority of all great hydraulic civilizations existed in what is customarily called the Orient.” [Italics added]
Karl August Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power, New Haven/London, Yale University Press, 1967, 4–8. [1957]
19. Michael Joseph Mahony, Essentials of Formal Logic, New York, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1918, 8–9.
See: “In spite of some sympathy shown in recent years for a vaguely Kantian sort of idealism or, better, anti–realism, which argues for the dependence of our conception of reality on our concepts and/or linguistic practices, Kant’s transcendental idealism proper, with its distinction between appearance and things in themselves, remains highly unpopular ... many interpreters continue to attribute to Kant the traditional “two–object” or “two–world” or some close facsimile thereof, and in most (though not all) cases this reading is combined with a summary dismissal of transcendental idealism as a viable philosophical position. In fact, the manifest untenability of transcendental idealism, as they understand it, has led some critics to attempt to save Kant from himself, by separating what they take to be a legitimate core of Kantian argument (usually of an anti–skeptical nature) from the excess baggage of transcendental idealism, with which they believe it to be encumbered ... there is an important asymmetry here. The reason for this is that in considering objects as they appear or as appearances, one is actually considering them as subject to intellectual as well as sensible conditions (the schematized categories and the Principles), whereas in considering them as they are in themselves the converse does not hold.”
Henry E. Allison, “Part I: The Nature of Transcendental Idealism: Chapter 1: An Introduction to the Problem,” Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense, 2nd edition, New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press, 2004, 1–74; 3–19; 3–453. [1983]
Remarks: In the world historical struggle between Kant and Hegel, as the collapse of European modernity and rise of Americanism, especially in twentieth century Europe, the strife between Kantian anti–Hegelianism (e.g., Schopenhauer) and Kantio–Hegelianism (e.g., Marx) in the arena of modern politics and economics, as the strife between monarchism and republicanism, is the clash between the Left and Right, while the warfare between the good and bad Kant is the struggle for political and economic centrism: “The manifest untenability of transcendental idealism, as they understand it, has led some critics to attempt to save Kant from himself.” Henry Allison’s rejuvenation of Kantianism in the name of “Kant’s Transcendental Idealism,” is effectuated via the beliefs (claims) of the historical personage of Immanuel Kant, his opinions: “The separability of Kant’s fundamental claims in the Critique from transcendental idealism will be categorically denied (4).” Statements such as “What Kant actually says is that one might name this illusion the subreption of hypostatized consciousness (499)” are in need of a philosophical conception of actuality, especially in the fields of exact hermeneutics and exact historiographical biography. For this reason Allison’s rejection of Kantian anti–realism, “a vaguely Kantian sort of idealism or, better, anti–realism, which argues for the dependence of our conception of reality on our concepts and/or linguistic practices,” requires texts translated by Kantian hermeneuticists like Paul Guyer, and leans at crucial junctures mainly upon writings outside the Critical works proper: “[Transcendental Idealism’s] intimate connection with virtually every aspect of the Critique (4).” [Italics added] In other words, Henry Allison endeavors merely to establish the division between Kantian anti–Hegelianism and Kantio–Hegelianism in terms of the good versus bad Kant, as the Kantian distinction between true and false Kantianism, but his differentiation is no way a proof of the philosophical veracity of subjective idealism: “[The] main goal is to provide an overall interpretation and, where possible, a defense of transcendental idealism. The defense will not amount to an attempt to demonstrate the truth of transcendental idealism; that being much too ambitious a project. It will, however, argue that this idealism remains a viable philosophical option, still worthy of serious philosophical consideration (4).” [Italics added] Henry Allison is no way advances any proof of the philosophical veracity of transcendental idealism, but only establishes his own distinction between its good and bad versions at the hands of Kantian interpreters, and “defends” his interpretation as a “a viable philosophical option … worthy of serious philosophical consideration.” In other words, Henry Allison merely assumes that transcendental idealism is philosophy, rather than sophistry: “The defense will not amount to an attempt to demonstrate the truth of transcendental idealism; that being much too ambitious a project … this idealism remains a viable philosophical option.” Allison leans upon Kantian translators and their translations (contaminated with their Kant “philology”), in order to establish that the idealism (“this idealism”) of his defense of Kant’s transcendental idealism is philosophical, rather than sophistical. The reader should not be blind to the fact that Henry Allison’s “philosophical defense” of Kant’s subjective idealism is itself advanced as Kantian transcendental idealism. Since Allison advances no proof of the philosophical veracity of Kant’s transcendental idealism, and therefore his own idealistic “interpretation,” he does not possess the philosophical wherewithal to draw exact hermeneutical and philological distinctions between the texts of Kant’s so–called philosophical system of transcendental idealism of the Critiques, as opposed to texts whose interpretive bearings upon Kant’s idealism are objectionable or disputable upon strict (anti–Kantian) hermeneutical and philological grounds: “I have occasionally modified these translations. Where there is no reference to an English translation either the translation, is my own or the text is referred to but not cited (ix).” What Henry Allison names as philosophy is therefore in no wise fundamentally different from what is usually named as sophistry.
20. Hegel, “Part Three: Ethical Life,” The Philosophy of Right, Thomas Malcolm Knox, translator, Sections 358–360.
See: Hegel, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft im Grundrisse. Zum Gebrauch für seine Vorlesungen, Berlin, Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1821; Hegel, Philosophische Bibliothek: Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, mit den von Gans redigierten Zusätzen aus Hegels Vorlesungen, Neu herausgegeben von Georg Lasson, Band 124, Leipzig, Verlag von Felix Meiner, 1911; Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Philosophische Bibliothek: Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, mit Hegels eigenhändigen Randbemerkungen in seinem Handexemplar der Rechtsphilosophie, Vierte Auflage, Band 124a, Johannes Hoffmeister, Herausgegeber, Hamburg, Felix Meiner Verlag 1967. [1955]
21. See: Anonymous, “Brexit Could Cost UK Research Sector Billions, Says Oxford Boss,” The Guardian, 10 May 2018; Raphaela Henze & Gernot Wolfram, editors, Exporting Culture: Which Rôle for Europe in a Global World? Wiesbaden, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden G.m.b.H., 2014; Anonymous (Goethe–Institut/Invent/Institut für Kulturkonzepte), Hrsgs., Report on the Cultural Management Africa Advanced Training Programme, München, Goethe–Institut, 2011; Anonymous (Goethe–Institut), Hrsg., Kompetenzzentrum Kulturmanager in Osteuropa und Zentralasien: Kultur und Entwicklung Dokumentation, München, Goethe–Institut, 2011; Raka Shome, “Internationalizing Critical Race Communication Studies,” The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication, Thomas K. Nakayama & Rona Tamiko Halualani, editors, Oxford, John Wiley and Sons, 2011, 149–170; Corina Suteu, Academic Training in Cultural Management in Europe: Making It Work, Amsterdam, Boekmanstudies, 2003; Corina Suteu, Another Brick in the Wall: A Critical Review of Cultural Management Education in Europe, Amsterdam, Boekmanstudies, 2006; Anonymous (UNESCO), editors, “Shaping Cultural Diversity,” Unesco Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions: White Paper (German Commission for UNESCO), Bonn, Eigenpubli., 2005; Klaus Siebenhaar, Marga Pröhl & Charlotta Pawlowsky–Flodell, hrsgs., “Hrsg., im Auftrag der Bertelsmann Stiftung,” Kulturmanagement: Wirkungsvolle Strukturen im kommunalen Kulturbereich, Gütersloh, Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1993.
See: “The conference brought together researchers as well as practitioners from different fields and fifteen different nations. They all set a momentum for putting international as well as intercultural relations into focus and for promoting greater critical discourses on the rôle of arts and cultural management and institutions within the context of internationalization, globalization and the increasing global migration of people.” [Italics added]
Raphaela Henze, “Guest Editorial: Cultural Management Without Borders,” Zeitschrift für Kulturmanagement: Kunst, Politik, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft/Journal of Cultural Management: Arts, Economics, Policy, Steffen Höhne & Martin Tröndle, editors–in–chief, 2.1(2016): 11–14; 11.
Remarks: The main business of Bonapartism in the Western world of today, is the preservation of the last remnants of modern European political and economic irrationalism (Eurocentrisme as multipolarity or polycentrisme), under the floodtide of American Liberty,— in the name of the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of Großdeutschland, as der Merkel Apparat. The rôle of Federica Mogherini, Cecilia Malmström and Margrethe Vestager in Europe’s attacks upon Americanism is well known. The success of the European Bonapartist project of Eurocentrisme (the political and economic retardation of Americanism in Europe), requires the assistance of American intellectuals and academics, in the name of the Copernican revolution as Liberal Internationalism, — especially in the ranks of the Republican and Democratic political parties, whether as Kantian anti–Hegelians or Kantio–Hegelians.
See: “The twenty–first century multipolar world presents a new context for international relations. The evolving shift of power in global governance — ‘from the West to the rest’ and from state to non–state actors — has witnessed the emergence of a new array of competing players … Shaping the EU Global Strategy: Partners and Perceptions considers the EU’s response to these fundamental global shifts in power and multiple internal challenges; it critically examines the global influence of the EU’s identity and values in the face of competing normative paradigms each with their own distinct policies and identities.”
Natalia Chaban & Martin Holland, editors, “Introduction: Partners and Perceptions,” Shaping the EU Global Strategy: Partners and Perceptions (The European Union in International Affairs), Cham, Switzerland, Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, 1–26; 1. [Italics added]
Remarks: What passes for “Global Strategy” among the Kantian traditions of the European Union is a mask, a useful propaganda tool, especially among intellectuals and academics, the intelligentsia, designed to hide the overwhelming influence of Berlin’s hand in the determination of foreign policy, which is always crafted with the aim of uplifting Großdeutschland as the prius of European political and economic power, — at least under the regime of der Merkel Apparat. The “multipolar world” is therefore a modern European delusion, which hides the inhumanity of political and economic irrationalism, the dumping of the sick and elderly into the boneyards as “cost savings,” so that European nations are not bankrupted by their inferior ruling classes as they pillage public wealth, — in the name of their backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts: Puppets of the Dieselgate Aristocracy of Eurocentric Eurocracy (the Airbus ruling class), in their dirty works, thereby sooth their flabby minds, those of whom are not utterly depraved, with delightful phantasms of humanitarianism (Global Strategy in the multipolar world), as opposed to “authoritarianism,” i.e., so–called American unipolarity as Yankee imperialism. The Global Strategy of the European Union aims at uplifting the inferior ruling classes of the earth, in return for lucrative contracts and purchases from the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of European Bonapartism, at the expense of the superior ruling classes, whose leaders around the world are often debased and even sidelined. The main political and economic victim of this modern European irrationalism is American finance, commerce and industry in Europe and around the world, — victimization that undermines the health of the American superpower, and which thereby endangers the Western democracies.
“Does all this ‘Global Strategy’ really matter, after all is said and done, since Americanism is on the rise?” Indeed, our words are merely the rational justification of American Idealism, in the destruction of modern European political and economic irrationalism, — in the rise of Global rational political and economic order as the supremacy of American Liberty in the world.
See: “With the British referendum, the need for a common strategy was even greater than before. We needed — and we still need — to look beyond this self–induced crisis of European integration and to focus on what binds us together: the shared interests and the values driving our common foreign policy; our unparalleled strength, as the First–World economy, the largest global [viii] investor in humanitarian aid and development cooperation, a global security provider with a truly global diplomatic network. We need to focus on the immense untapped potential of a more joined–up European Union. We need to move from a shared vision to common action … The twenty–eight Heads of State and Government have approved my proposals for implementing the Strategy in the field of security and defence. It is a major leap forward for European cooperation — and eventually, integration — on defence matters. The process leading to the Global Strategy has helped build consensus on a set of concrete measures and on their rationale. Instead of getting stuck into never–ending ideological debates or exhausting negotiations on revising the Treaties, we moved pretty steadily from principles to practice — to finally get things done, where it really matters. The implementation of the Strategy is now under way in all sectors, from fostering resilience to public diplomacy, from a more joined–up development cooperation to a rethinking of global governance. The European Union of security and defense can be a major building block to relaunch the process of European integration, but it cannot be the only one. Europe can deliver to our citizens’ and our partners’ needs only when it acts as a true Union, at national and European levels, with our hard and soft power, in our external and internal policies alike. Europe delivers only when it is united.”
Federica Mogherini, “Foreward,” Framing the EU Global Strategy: A Stronger Europe in a Fragile World (Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics), Nathalie Tocci; Michelle Egan, Neill Nugent & William E. Paterson, series editors, Cham, Switzerland, Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, vii–ix; vii–viii.
Remarks: The European Union’s “Global Strategy” of Federica Mogherini, as multipolarity (“a shared vision to common action … [Europe’s] hard and soft power”), is opposed to the unipolarity of American superpower, and is the twenty–first century mask of European anti–Americanism, which preserves the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of Großdeutschland at the expense of American finance, commerce and industry in Europe (especially the United States military–industrial complex), based upon the modern subjectivism, relativism and irrationalism of the Copernican revolution as Cosmopolitanism and Liberal Internationalism, — mortally opposed to the Western traditions of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED
Henry E. Allison, “Part I: The Nature of Transcendental Idealism: Chapter 1: An Introduction to the Problem,” Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense, 2nd edition, (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2004), 1–74; 3–19. [1983]
Robert Bernasconi, “Kant As An Unfamiliar Source of Racism,” Philosophers on Race: Critical Essays, Julie K. Ward & Tommy L. Lott, editors, (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2002), 145–166.
Chetan Bhatt, “The Spirit Lives On: Races and Disciplines,” The SAGE Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies, Patricia Hill Collins & John Solomos, editors, (London: SAGE Publications, Ltd., 2010), 90–128.
Napoléon Bonaparte (1769–1821) & Aimé Guillon de Montléon (1758–1842), Machiavel commenté par Napoléon Bonaparte, manuscrit trouvé dans la carrosse de Bonaparte, après la bataille de Mont–Saint–Jean, le 15 février 1815, (Paris: Nicolle, 1816).
Ernst Cassirer, “Neo–Kantianism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, vol. 16, (Chicago, Illinois: The University Press, 1945), 215–216.
Earl W. Count, editor, “Introduction,” This is Race: An Anthology Selected From the International Literature on the Races of Man, (New York: Schuman, 1950), xiii–xxviii.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer (Herman Jan de Vleeschauwer, 1899–1977/1986?), “Kantianism,” Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropædia, 15th edition, vol. 22, (Chicago, Illinois: The University Press, 1991), 495–499.
Archie L. Dick, The Hidden History of South Africa’s Book and Reading Cultures, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012).
Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, “The Color of Reason: The Idea of ‘Race’ in Kant’s Anthropology,” Ka Osi Sọ Onye: African Philosophy in the Postmodern Era, Jonathan O. Chimakonam & Edwin Etieyibo, editors; Olatunji A. Oyeshile, introduction & Ifeanyi Menkiti, forward; Adeshina L. Afolayan, Ada Agada, Olajamoke Akiode, Oladele A. Balogun, Jonathan O. Chimakonam, Edwin Etieyibo, Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, Michael Onyebuchi Eze, Bruce B. Janz, Ifeanyi Menkiti, Victor C.A. Nweke, Uchenna L. Ogbonnaya, Olatunji A. Oyeshile, Leonhard Praeg, Mogobe B. Ramose, Uduma O. Uduma, contributors, (Wilmington, Delaware: Vernon Press, 2018), 85–124.
Paul Gilroy, Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Line, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001).
Elaine Harger, Which Side Are You On? Seven Social Responsibility Debates in American Librarianship 1990–2015, (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2015).
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf: Zwei Bände in einem Band Ungekürzte Ausgabe, 851–855 Auflage, (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Verlag Franz Eher Nachf., G.m.b.H., 1943).
Immanuel Kant, “Kant’s philosophische Anthropologie: Von der Charakteristik des Menschen,” Immanuel Kant’s Menschenkunde oder philosophische Anthropologie: Nach handschriftlichen Vorlesungen, Friedrich Christian Starke (Johann Adam Bergk), hrsg., (Leipzig: Die Expedition des europäischen Aufsehers, 1831), 337–358.
Pauline Kleingeld, “Kant’s Second Thoughts on Colonialism,” Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives, Katrin Flikschuh & Lea Ypi, editors; Martin Ajei, Katrin Flikschuh, Pauline Kleingeld, Sankar Muthu, Peter Niesen, Anthony Pagden, Arthur Ripstein, Anna Stilz, Liesbet Vanhaute & Lea Ypi, contributors, (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2014), 43–67.
Stephan Körner (1913–2000), “Neo–Kantianism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, vol. 16, (Chicago, Illinois: William Benton, 1967), 213–214.
Stephan Körner, Kant, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1960). [1955]
Michael Lackey, “The Fictional Truth of the Biographical Novel: The Case of Ludwig Wittgenstein,” The American Biographical Novel, (New York: Bloomsbury, 2016), 35–82.
Michael Lackey, The Modernist God State: A Literary Study of the Nazis’ Christian Reich, (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2012).
Berel Lang, “Genocide and Kant’s Enlightenment,” Act and Idea in the Nazi Genocide, (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2003), 165–206.
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, The Prince, Luigi Ricci, translator, (Oxford: Humphrey Milford, 1921).
Michael Joseph Mahony, Essentials of Formal Logic, (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1918).
Michael Joseph Mahony, History of Modern Thought: The English, Irish and Scotch Schools, (New York: Fordham University Press, 1933).
Yitzhak Y. Melamed & Peter Thielke, “Hegelianism,” New Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Game Theory to Lysenkoism, vol. 3, Maryanne Cline Horowitz, editor in chief, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2005), 975–977.
Jon M. Mikkelsen, “Translator’s Introduction: Recent Work on Kant’s Race Theory,” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), (New York: State University of New York Press, 2013), 1–40.
Albert Rivaud (1876–1956), “La diffusion du Kantisme,” Histoire de la philosophie: La philosophie allemande de 1700 à 1850: De l’Aufklärung à Schelling, première partie, tome 5, (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1968), 273–276. [1967]
Odile Rudelle, La république absolue: Aux origines de l’instabilité constitutionnelle de la France républicaine 1870–1889, ré–édition, (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1986).
WORKS OF CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WADE DETTLING: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 2016–2019
WORKS PUBLISHED ON MEDIUM.COM 2016–2019
Americanism Works on Medium.com
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Trumpocracy: The Trump Revolution, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/trump-revolution-american-idealism-in-the-21st-century-3b605a77b7c4
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Post–NAFTA and Post–BREXIT Globalization: Emergent Business Structures of the Computational and Technological Conjuncture, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/post-nafta-and-post-brexit-globalization-emergent-business-structures-of-the-computational-and-5daca8c34ad8
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, The Emergence of Emergence: Business Structures of the 21st Century Technological and Computational Conjuncture, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/business-structures-of-the-21st-century-technological-and-computational-conjuncture-the-emergence-27be622f87f5
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, American Idealism: The American Idealism of Joseph Alden, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/joseph-alden-and-american-idealism-23c5378d8421
Hegel and Hegelianism Works on Medium.com
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Americanism: The New Hegelian Orthodoxy, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2016). [2013] https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/americanism-the-new-hegelian-orthodoxy-d79f8dadc1b4
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Stronghold of Hegel: Modern Enemies of Plato and Hegel, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2016). [2013] https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/stronghold-of-hegel-modern-enemies-of-plato-and-hegel-bf5c56a91969
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Rational Hegelianism: The Science of Noology, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/the-new-science-mind-control-and-thought-police-dc525e4104f6
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Rational Hegelianism: The Refutation of Hegel, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/rational-hegelianism-33d9b7627325
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Hegel Kantianized: The Kantio–Hegelian Logic of George Di Giovanni, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/dettling-contra-di-giovanni-bde85a1d1071
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Hegelianism and European Modernity, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/sophistical-hegel-philology-pseudo-hegelianism-anti-hegelianism-37d14d95518b
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Rational Versus Sophistical Hegelianism, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/rational-hegelianism-vs-sophistical-hegelianism-62fe36f82e94
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Rational Hegelianism: The Pure Hegelian Conception of Genuine Hegelianism, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). [2018] https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/rational-hegelianism-39abecdae3d0
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Américanisme: Nouvelle orthodoxie hégélienne, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). [2013–2016] https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/am%C3%A9ricanisme-nouvelle-orthodoxie-h%C3%A9g%C3%A9lienne-christopher-richard-wade-dettling-2013-eb22d8adcf24
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Americanism: The New Hegelian Orthodoxy, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). [2013] https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/americanism-the-new-hegelian-orthodoxy-d79f8dadc1b4
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Americanism: Stronghold of Hegel, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/stronghold-of-hegel-f2867a751344
Québécocracy Works on Medium.com
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Americanism Versus Wilfrid Laurier and “Canadian” Liberalism, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/americanism-versus-wilfrid-laurier-and-liberalism-6d35e4e6f718
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Who Murdered Duplessis, Sauvé and Johnson? (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2016). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/who-murdered-duplessis-sauv%C3%A9-and-johnson-883ec3289597
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Duplessis, Sauvé et Johnson: Pourquoi sont–ils morts? (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/duplessis-sauve-johnson-pourquoi-sont-ils-morts-fa4f8054fd
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, editor and translator, The Corrupt Legacy of Paul Desmarais (Special Edition), Robin Philpot, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). [2013+2016] https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/the-corrupt-legacy-of-paul-desmarais-2c30cab0cf36
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Robin Philpot’s Argument: The Corrupt Legacy of Paul Desmarais, 2nd edition, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/robin-philpots-argument-and-the-legacy-of-paul-desmarais-9bf346a916a3
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Paul Desmarais and the Québec Regime in Ottawa 1968–2006, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2016). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/paul-desmarais-and-the-quebec-regime-in-ottawa-1968-2006-a1168f35fc12
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Paul Desmarais and Canadian Culture, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/paul-desmarais-and-the-canadian-press-8d5381a76958
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, The Rational Conception of Canada: Trudeau Philology and Trudeauisme, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/the-rational-conception-of-canada-trudeau-philology-96ebe6242179
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Pierre Trudeau and Trudeauisme: Functional Politics as Québécocentrisme, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/pierre-trudeau-and-trudeauisme-functional-politics-e4612772b3ca
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, The New Canada: Margaret Trudeau Versus the Québécocracy, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/margaret-trudeau-versus-the-qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cocracy-christopher-richard-wade-dettling-2017-a4d5b2a21b27
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Brian Mulroney Versus American Protectionism, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/brian-mulroney-versus-washington-and-american-protectionism-83af58f0dc7a
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Brian Mulroney: Right Hand Man of Paul Desmarais, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/brian-mulroney-right-hand-man-of-paul-desmarais-e910441e62e8
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Jean Chrétien and French Chauvinism, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/jean-chretien-and-french-chauvinism-739898514e23#.lzmz19wg5
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Jean Chrétien and French Chauvinism (Special Edition), 2nd edition, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/jean-chr%C3%A9tien-and-french-chauvinism-christopher-richard-wade-dettling-299789476f84
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Paul Martin, the Tainted–Blood Scandal and Canada Steamship Lines (CSL), (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/paul-martin-junior-the-tainted-blood-scandal-and-canada-steamship-lines-christopher-richard-wade-48204dea2f38
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Québécocracy: World History and Canadian Polity (Introduction and First Chapter), (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cocracy-empire-of-paul-desmarais-christopher-richard-wade-dettling-2018-6874d962e9e2
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Québécocracy: Empire of Paul Desmarais (Incomplete), (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/the-qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cocracy-1968-2006-57602cb98335
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Québécocracy: Empire of Paul Desmarais (Special Edition), (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). [2016] https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cocracy-empire-of-paul-desmarais-d8246b544f37
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Québécocracy: Empire of Paul Desmarais: Endnotes (Special Edition), (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cocracy-empire-of-paul-desmarais-special-edition-endnotes-add7f4b25ca4
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Charles Margrave Taylor’s School: Canadian Academia Under the Québec Regime in Ottawa, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/the-qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cocracy-in-canadian-academia-under-the-qu%C3%A9bec-regime-in-ottawa-1968-2006-b827e096713
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, The Myth of Daniel Johnson and the Quiet Revolution, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/the-myth-of-daniel-johnson-and-the-quiet-revolution-841f8e8e38
European Modernity Works on Medium.com
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Modern European Right: David Hume and the Negro as an Inferior Human Race, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/modern-european-right-david-hume-and-the-negro-as-an-inferior-human-race-f6916ee41a66
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Gynokratie im Großeuropa: Deutschland und Ostpolitik im Merkels Mitteleuropa, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/gynakratie-in-gro%C3%9Feuropa-deutschland-und-ostpolitik-e3f1c90fada6
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Statecraft as a Form of Life: Translation of Rudolf Kjellén’s “Afslutning om statens ändamål” and Introduction to the English Translation, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/the-state-as-a-form-of-life-the-aim-of-statecraft-b270a16b5804
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Anti–Copernican Revolution: Twenty–First Century American Idealism, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/anti-copernican-revolution-74a3c457ee51
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Kantianism and the Master Race, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/kantianism-and-racism-kants-racialism-97220ea9f189
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Kant’s Transcendental Concept of Race: Kantianism and Raciology, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/kantianism-and-raciology-4cf78fdbf4b7
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Modern Freedom: Eurocentrisme and the Master Race, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/modern-right-european-unfreedom-1e64b0a4e0f9
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Saul Kripke Versus the Holocaust? (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/saul-kripke-versus-the-holocaust-a4b10e221273
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, American Idealism Versus Noam Chomsky, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2017). [2016] https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/american-idealism-versus-noam-chomsky-christopher-richard-wade-dettling-2016-2017-e4533f5f728b
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Gaullism, Bonapartism, and Machiavellism in Europe, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2018). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/gaullism-bonapartism-machiavellism-in-europe-bd19e3365a92
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Rudolf Kjellén Versus Biopolitics: Statecraft as a Form of Life, (San Francisco, California: The Medium Corporation, 2019). https://medium.com/@christopherrichardwadedettling/rudolf-kjell%C3%A9n-versus-biopolitics-statecraft-as-a-form-of-life-5098e0f9c961
WORKS PUBLISHED ON THE INTERNET ARCHIVE 2016–2018
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Stronghold of Hegel: Modern Enemies of Plato and Hegel, (San Francisco, California: The Internet Archive, 2018). [2016] https://archive.org/details/DETTLINGSTRONGHOLDOFHEGEL20172018
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Rational Hegelianism: The Science of Noology, (San Francisco, California: The Internet Archive, 2018). https://archive.org/details/DETTLINGRATIONALHEGELIANISMSCIENCEOFNOOLOGY2018
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Americanism: The New Hegelian Orthodoxy, (San Francisco, California: The Internet Archive, 2016). [2013–2014] https://archive.org/details/DETTLINGAMERICANISM32016
WORKS PUBLISHED ON GOOOGLE+ 2016–2018
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Americanism: The New Hegelian Orthodoxy, (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2016–2017). [2013–2014] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/E3J2Veaei9m.
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Stronghold of Hegel: Modern Enemies of Plato and Hegel, (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2016–2017). [2016] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/BXxZBstKZaX.
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Dialectique et critique sophistique: Contre Platon et Hegel, 2e édition revue et augmentée, et première édition de langue française, (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2017). [2016] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/aBv9jrwaN9X.
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Américanisme: Nouvelle orthodoxie hégélienne, 4e édition revue et augmentée, et première édition de langue française, (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2017). [2013–2014] https://plus.google.com/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/hkQCK7ZD2Jd
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, American Idealism Versus Noam Chomsky, (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2017). https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/6rmb471XPkR.
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Americanism Versus Wilfrid Laurier, (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2017). https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/K4hqBcpstY6.
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, editor and translator, The Corrupt Legacy of Paul Desmarais (Special Edition), Robin Philpot, (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2017). [2013] https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/5Dx7iyCYbnt.
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Who Murdered Duplessis, Sauvé and Johnson? (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2017). https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/TDpQoCFJVqr.
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Brian Mulroney Versus American Protectionism (Special Edition), (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2017). https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/CvqptDHFgcY.
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Brian Mulroney: Right Hand Man of Paul Desmarais, (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2017). https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/3WTeWLcuZnR.
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Paul Martin Junior: The Tainted–Blood Scandal and Canada Steamship Lines (CSL), (San Francisco, California: The Google Corporation, 2017). https://plus.google.com/u/0/+ChristopherRichardWadeDettling/posts/Tvi8agN7hdG.
UNIVERSAL KANT BIBLIOGRAPHY (ENGLISH/FRENCH/GERMAN): SELECT SECONDARY SOURCES
Martin Ajei & Katrin Flikschuh, “Colonial Mentality: Kant’s Hospitality Right Then and Now,” Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives, Katrin Flikschuh & Lea Ypi, editors; Martin Ajei, Katrin Flikschuh, Pauline Kleingeld, Sankar Muthu, Peter Niesen, Anthony Pagden, Arthur Ripstein, Anna Stilz, Liesbet Vanhaute & Lea Ypi, contributors, (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2014), ?
Isaiah Berlin, “Kant as an Unfamiliar Source of Nationalism (Original lecture, 1972),” The Sense of Reality: Studies in Ideas and Their History, Henry Hardy, editor, (London: Chatto and Windus, 1996), 232–248.
Isaiah Berlin, “Kant as an Unfamiliar Source of Nationalism (Original lecture, 1972),” The Sense of Reality: Studies in Ideas and Their History, Henry Hardy, editor, (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1997), 232–248.
Robert Bernasconi, editor, “Who Invented the Concept of Race: Kant’s Role in the Enlightenment Construction of Race,” Race, (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001), 11–36.
Robert Bernasconi, “Kant As An Unfamiliar Source of Racism,” Philosophers on Race: Critical Essays, Julie K. Ward & Tommy L. Lott, editors, (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 145–166.
Robert Bernasconi, “Will the Real Kant Please Stand Up: The Challenge of Enlightenment Racism to the Study of the History of Philosophy,” Radical Philosophy, 117(2003): 13–22.
Robert Bernasconi, “Kant’s Third Thoughts on Race,” Reading Kant’s Geography, Stuart Elden & Eduardo Mendieta, editors, (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2011), 291–318.
Bernard R. Boxill & Thomas E. Hill Jr., “Kant and Race,” Race and Racism,Bernard R. Boxill, editor, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 448–471.
Ernst Cassirer, “Neo–Kantianism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, vol. 16, (Chicago: The University Press, 1945), 215–216.
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant: Die Persönlichkeit als Einführung in das Werk, Dritte Auflage, (München: F. Bruckmann, A.–G., 1916). [1905 & 1908]
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant: A Study and a Comparison with Goethe, Leonardo da Vinci, Bruno, Plato and Descartes, 2 vols., John Lees, translator & Algernon Bertram Freeman–Mitford (1st Baron Redesdale/Lord Redesdale, 1837–1916), introduction, (London/New York/Toronto: John Lane, The Bodley Head, 1914). [1910]
Earl W. Count, editor, “Introduction,” This is Race: An Anthology Selected From the International Literature on the Races of Man, (New York: Schuman, 1950), xiii–xxviii.
Herman Jan de Vleeschauwer (Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, 1899–1977/1986?), “Kants invloed op Duitschlands geest,” Jong Dietschland:Tijdschrift Voor Kunst & Letteren, 4.32(1930): 500–501.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, La déduction transcendantale dans l’oeuvre de Kant, (Antwerpen/Paris/‘S–Gravenhage: De Sikkel–Édouard Champion–Martinus Nijhoff, 1934–1937).
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, La déduction transcendantale avant la Critique de la Raison Pure, tome 1, (Antwerpen/Paris/‘S–Gravenhage: De Sikkel–Édouard Champion–Martinus Nijhoff, 1934).
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, La déduction transcendantale de 1781 jusqu’à la deuxième édition de la Critique de la Raison Pure (1787), tome 2, (Antwerpen/Paris/‘S–Gravenhage: De Sikkel–Édouard Champion–Martinus Nijhoff, 1936).
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, “Een paar pamfletten van Kant uit zijn laatste periode,” Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte en Psychologie (Antwerpen), 30(1936): 2–15.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, La déduction transcendantale de 1787 jusqu’à l’opus postumum, tome 3, (Antwerpen/Paris/‘S–Gravenhage: De Sikkel–Édouard Champion–Martinus Nijhoff, 1937).
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, “La philosophie contemporaine et le criticisme kantien,” Les Études Philosophiques (Paris), 11(1937): 9–14.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, L’évolution de la pensée Kantienne: L’histoire d’une doctrine (Bibliothèque de philosophie contemporaine), 3 vols., (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1939).
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, “Rond Kant’s Opus Postumum,” Tijdschrift voor Philosophie (Gent), 3(1941): 155–167.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, The Development of Kantian Thought,(Edinburgh/London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962).
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, “Études Kantiennes contemporaines,” Kant–Studien, 54(1963): 63–119.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, “Wie ich jetzt die Kritik der reinen Vernunft entwicklungsgeschichtlich lese,” Kant–Studien, 54(1963): 351–368.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, La Nachricht von der Einrichtung seiner Vorlesungen in dem Winterhalbenjahre von 1765–1766 d’Immanuel Kant, (Mededelings van die Universiteit van Suid–Afrika, No. C 57), (Pretoria, 1965).
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, “La doctrine du suicide dans l’ethique de Kant,” Kant–Studien, 57(1966): 251–265.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, “Entwurf einer Kant–Bibliographie,” Kant–Studien, 57(1966): 457–483.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, “Immanuel Kant,” Histoire de la Philosophie, tome 2, Yvon Belaval, direction, (Paris: Gallimard, Collection Encyclopédie de la Pléiade, 1973), 794–852.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, “La Cinderella dans l’oeuvre Kantienne,” Akten des 4. internationalen Kant–Kongresses, Sonderheft der Kant–Studien, Gerhard Funke, Hrsg., (Mainz, 1974), 6–10.
Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, “Kantianism,” Encyclopedia Britannica:Macropædia, 15th edition, vol. 22, (Chicago: The University Press, 1991), 495–499.
Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze (1963–2007), “The Color of Reason: The Idea of ‘Race’ in Kant’s Anthropology,” Anthropology and the German Enlightenment:Perspectives on Humanity, Katherine M. Faull, editor, (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1995), 200–241.
Samuel Fleischacker, “Introduction: A Different Side of Kant,” What Is Enlightenment? (New York: Routledge, 2013), 32–40.
Katrin Flikschuh & Lea Ypi, editors, “Kant on Colonialism — Apologist or Critic?” Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives, Martin Ajei, Katrin Flikschuh, Pauline Kleingeld, Sankar Muthu, Peter Niesen, Anthony Pagden, Arthur Ripstein, Anna Stilz, Liesbet Vanhaute & Lea Ypi, contributors, (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2014), ?
Sally Hatch Gray, “Kant’s Race Theory, Forster’s Counter, and the Metaphysics of Color,” The Eighteenth–Century: Its Theory and Practice, 53.4(2012): 393–412.
Todd Hedrick, “Race, Difference, and Anthropology in Kant’s Cosmopolitanism,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 46.2(2008): 245–268.
Ronald Judy, “Kant and the Negro,” Society For the Study of African Philosophy (SAP–INA) Newsletter, 3(January–July, 1991): ?
Immanuel Kant, Imanuel Kant’s vermischte Schriften, Zweiter Band, Johann Heinrich Tieftrunk, hrsg. (Halle: In der Rengerschen Buchhandlung, 1799).
Imanuel Kant, “Bestimmung des Begriffs einer Menschenrace, 1785,” Imanuel Kant’s vermischte Schriften, Zweiter Band, Johann Heinrich Tieftrunk, hrsg., (Halle: In der Rengerschen Buchhandlung, 1799), 633–660; 653.
Imanuel Kant, Lose Blätter aus Kants Nachlass, erstes heft, mitgetheilt von Rudolf Reicke, hrsg., (Konigsburg in Pr.: Verlag von Ferd. Beyer’s Buchhandlung, 1889).
Pauline Kleingeld, “Kant’s Second Thoughts on Race,” Philosophical Quarterly, 57(2007): 573–592.
Pauline Kleingeld, “Kant’s Second Thoughts on Colonialism,” Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives, Katrin Flikschuh & Lea Ypi, editors; Martin Ajei, Katrin Flikschuh, Pauline Kleingeld, Sankar Muthu, Peter Niesen, Anthony Pagden, Arthur Ripstein, Anna Stilz, Liesbet Vanhaute & Lea Ypi, contributors, (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2014), 43–67.
Stephan Körner (1913–2000), Kant, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1960). [1955]
Stephan Körner, “Neo–Kantianism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, vol. 16, (Chicago: William Benton, 1967), 213–214.
Mark Joseph Larrimore, “Sublime Waste: Kant on the Destiny of the Races,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy: Supplementary Volume, (1999): 99–125.
Jon M. Mikkelsen, “Translator’s Introduction: Recent Work on Kant’s Race Theory,” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), (New York: State University of New York Press, 2013), 1–40.
Jon M. Mikkelsen, “Acknowledgements,” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), (New York: State University of New York Press, 2013), vii–x.
Charles W. Mills, “Kant’s Untermenschen,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 169–193.
Sankar Muthu, “Productive Resistence in Kant’s Political Thought: Domination, Counter-Domination, and Global Unsocial Sociability,” Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives, Katrin Flikschuh & Lea Ypi, editors; Martin Ajei, Katrin Flikschuh, Pauline Kleingeld, Sankar Muthu, Peter Niesen, Anthony Pagden, Arthur Ripstein, Anna Stilz, Liesbet Vanhaute & Lea Ypi, contributors, (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2014), ?
Christian Neugebauer, “The Racism of Kant and Hegel,” Sage Philosophy:Indigenous Thinkers and Modern Debate on African Philosophy, H. Odera Oruka, editor, (New York: Brill, 1990), 259–272.
Claude Obadia, “Kant and Nazism: The Strange Passion of Michel Onfray,” Le Philosophoire, 2.30(2008): ?
Arthur Ripstein, “Kant’s Juridical Theory of Colonialism,” Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives, Katrin Flikschuh & Lea Ypi, editors; Martin Ajei, Katrin Flikschuh, Pauline Kleingeld, Sankar Muthu, Peter Niesen, Anthony Pagden, Arthur Ripstein, Anna Stilz, Liesbet Vanhaute & Lea Ypi, contributors, (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 2014), ?
L.F. Schön, Philosophie transcendantale ou système d’Immanuel Kant, (Paris: Chez Abel Ledoux et Chez Alex Johannot, 1831).
Tsenay Serequeberhan, “Eurocentrism in Philosophy: The Case of Immanuel Kant,” The Philosophical Forum, 27.4(Summer, 1996): 333–356
Susan M. Shell, “Kant’s Concept of a Human Race,” The German Invention ofRace, Sara Eigen & Mark Joseph Larrimore, (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2006), 55–72.
Violetta L. Waibel, Max Brinnich, Sophie Gerber & Philipp Schaller, editors, Detours: Approaches to Immanuel Kant in Vienna, in Austria, and in Eastern Europe, (Gottingen: Vienna University Press, 2015).
Hans–Joachim Waschkies, Physik und Physikotheologie des jungen Kant: Die Vorgeschichte seiner Allgemeinen Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels, (Amsterdam: Verlag B.R. Grüner, 1987).
KANT’S RACIOLOGY: SELECT ENGLISH BIBLIOGRAPHY
Immanuel Kant, “Of the Different Human Races: An Announcement for Lectures in Physical Geography in the Summer Semester 1775,” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), (New York: State University of New York Press, 2013), 41–54.
Immanuel Kant, “Of the Different Human Races (1777),” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), (New York: State University of New York Press, 2013), 55–72.
Immanuel Kant, “Determination of the Concept of a Human Race (1785),” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), (New York: State University of New York Press, 2013), 125–142.
Immanuel Kant, “On the Use of Teleological Principles in Philosophy (1788),” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon M. Mikkelsen, translator and editor; Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Johann Georg Adam Forster (1754–1794), Christoph Girtanner (1760–1800), Christoph Meiners (1747–1810), Eberhardt August Wilhelm von Zimmerman (1743–1815), (New York: State University of New York Press, 2013), 169–194.
BONAPARTISM AND MACHIAVELLISM: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES)
Raymond Aron, “Machiavel et Marx,” Études politiques, (Paris: Gallimard, 1972), 56–74. (A paper Aron delivered at l’Institut Culturel Italien de Paris, 6 November 1969 in Raymond Aron, Politikkens væsen: Udvalgte essays, 1944–1976, på dansk ved Trine Engholm Michelsen, København, København Universitet/Museum Tusculanums Forlag, 2003, 27: “Oversat fra ‘Machiavel et Marx,’ forelæsning ved det Italienske Kulturinstitut i Paris, 6. november 1969, Études politiques, Paris, Gallimard, 1972, ss 56–74.”)
Raymond Aron, Machiavel et les tyrannies modernes, texte établi, présenté et annoté par Rémy Freymond, (Paris: Éditions de Fallois, 1993).
Raymond Aron, “La querelle du machiavélisme,” Machiavel et les tyrannies modernes, texte établi, présenté et annoté par Rémy Freymond, (Paris: Éditions de Fallois, 1993), 367–378.
Raymond Aron, “Sur le machiavélisme: Dialogue avec Jacques Maritain,” Machiavel et les tyrannies modernes, texte établi, présenté et annoté par Rémy Freymond, (Paris: Éditions de Fallois, 1993), 408–416.
Raymond Aron, “Sur le machiavélisme: Dialogue avec Jacques Maritain,” Machiavel et les tyrannies modernes, (Paris: Éditions de Fallois, 1993), 408–416.
Raymond Aron, “Le machiavélisme, doctrine des tyrannies modernes,” Chroniques de Guerre: La France libre, 1940–1945, Christian Bachelier (direction) & Jean–Marie Soutou, préface, (Paris: Gallimard, 1990), 417–426. [1940]
Hannah Franziska Augstein, editor, Race: The Origins of an Idea, 1760–1850, (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1996).
Susan E. Babbitt & Sue Campbell, editors, Racism and Philosophy, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999).
Ruth Benedict, Race: Science and Politics, (New York: Viking Press, 1959).
Robert Bernasconi & Tommy L. Lott, editors, The Idea of Race, (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000).
Robert Bernasconi, editor, “Who Invented the Concept of Race: Kant’s Role in the Enlightenment Construction of Race,” Race, (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2001): 11–36.
Robert Bernasconi, “Kant As An Unfamiliar Source of Racism,” Philosophers on Race: Critical Essays, Julie K. Ward & Tommy L. Lott, editors, (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2002), 145–166.
Robert Bernasconi, “Will the Real Kant Please Stand Up: The Challenge of Enlightenment Racism to the Study of the History of Philosophy,” Radical Philosophy, 117(2003): 13–22.
Robert Bernasconi & Sybol Cook, editors, Race and Racism in Continental Philosophy, (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2003).
Robert Bernasconi & Anika Maaza Mann, “The Contradictions of Racism: Locke, Slavery, and the Two Treatises,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 89–107.
Robert Bernasconi, “Kant’s Third Thoughts on Race,” Reading Kant’s Geography, Stuart Elden & Eduardo Mendieta, editors, (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2011), 291–318.
Christopher J. Berry, Hume, Hegel and Human Nature, (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982).
Napoléon Bonaparte (1769–1821) & Aimé Guillon de Montléon (1758–1842), Machiavel commenté par Napoléon Bonaparte, manuscrit trouvé dans la carrosse de Bonaparte, après la bataille de Mont–Saint–Jean, le 15 février 1815, (Paris: Nicolle, 1816).
Bernard R. Boxill, “Black Liberation — Yes!” The Liberation Debate: Rights at Issue, Michael Leahy & Dan Cohn–Sherbok, (New York/London: Routledge, 1996), 51–64
Bernard R. Boxill & Thomas E. Hill Jr., “Kant and Race,” Race and Racism, Bernard R. Boxill, editor, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 448–471.
Bernard R. Boxill, “Rousseau, Natural Man, and Race,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 150–168.
Henry M. Bracken, “Essence, Accident, and Race,” Hermathena, 116(1973): 81–96.
Henry M. Bracken, “Philosophy and Racism,” Philosophia, 7(1978): 241–260.
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant: Die Persönlichkeit als Einführung in das Werk, Dritte Auglage, (Munchen: F. Bruckmann, A.–G., 1916). [1905 & 1908]
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant: A Study and a Comparison with Goethe, Leonardo da Vinci, Bruno, Plato and Descartes, 2 vols., John Lees, translator & Algernon Bertram Freeman–Mitford (1st Baron Redesdale/Lord Redesdale, 1837–1916), introduction, (London/New York/Toronto: John Lane Company, The Bodley Head, 1914). [1910]
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, (London/New York/Toronto: John Lane Company, The Bodley Head, 1912).
Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties, revised edition, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).
Sybol Cook & Robert Bernasconi, editors, Race and Racism in Continental Philosophy, (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2003).
Stéphane Courtois, editor & contributor, The Black Book of Communism:Crimes, Terror, Repression, Karel Bartošek, Sylvain Boulouque, Pascal Fontaine, Rémi Kauffer, Martin Malia, Jean–Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean–Louis Panné, Pierre Rigoulot, Yves Santamaria & Nicolas Werth, contributors, Jonathan Murphy & Mark Kramer (consulting editor), translators, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999).
Stéphane Courtois, editor & contributor, “The Crimes of Communism,” The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Karel Bartošek, Sylvain Boulouque, Pascal Fontaine, Rémi Kauffer, Martin Malia, Jean–Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean–Louis Panné, Pierre Rigoulot, Yves Santamaria & Nicolas Werth, contributors, Jonathan Murphy & Mark Kramer (consulting editor), translators, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999), 1–31.
Stéphane Courtois, Jean–Louis Panné & Rémi Kauffer, editor & contributors, “World Revolution, Civil War, and Terror,” The Black Book of Communism:Crimes, Terror, Repression, Karel Bartošek, Sylvain Boulouque, Pascal Fontaine, Martin Malia, Jean–Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Pierre Rigoulot, Yves Santamaria & Nicolas Werth, contributors, Jonathan Murphy & Mark Kramer (consulting editor), translators, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999), 269–360.
Stéphane Courtois, editor & contributor, “Why?” The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Karel Bartošek, Sylvain Boulouque, Pascal Fontaine, Rémi Kauffer, Martin Malia, Jean–Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean–Louis Panné, Pierre Rigoulot, Yves Santamaria & Nicolas Werth, contributors, Jonathan Murphy & Mark Kramer (consulting editor), translators, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999), 727–757.
Louis Couzinet, “Le Prince” de Machiavel et la théorie de l’absolutisme, (Paris: Librairie Nouvelle de Droit et de Jurisprudence, Arthur Rousseau, Éditeur, 1910).
Alan T. Davies, “The Rise of Racism in the Nineteenth Century: Symptom of Modernity,” Modernity and Religion, William Nicholls, editor, (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1987), 46–61.
Alan T. Davies, Infected Christianity: A Study of Modern Racism, (Kingston/Montréal: McGill–Queen’s University Press, 1988).
Louis Joseph Amour de Bouillé du Chariol (1769–1850), Commentaires politiques et historiques sur le traité du Prince de Machiavel et sur l’anti–Machiavel de Frédéric II, (Paris: Ambroise Dupont et Cie., Libraires, 1827).
Abraham Nicolas Amelot de la Houssaye (1634–1706), L’Anti–Machiavel ou examen du Prince de Machiavel, avec des notes historiques et politiques, (La Haye: Jean van Duren, 1741).
Paul Deltuf (1825–1871), Essai sur les oeuvres et la doctrine de Machiavel avec la traduction littérale du Prince et de quelques fragments historiques et littéraires, (Paris: C. Reinwald, Librairie Éditeur, 1867).
Dom Dombowsky, Nietzsche and Napoleon: The Dionysian Conspiracy, (Cardiff: University of Wales, 2014).
Peter Fenves, “Imagining an Inundation of Australians; or, Leibniz on the Principles of Grace and Race,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 73–88.
Geoffrey G. Field, Evangelist of Race: The Germanic Vision of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981).
Silvia Ruffo Fiore, editor, Niccolò Machiavelli: An Annotated Bibliography of Modern Criticism and Scholarship (Bibliographies and Indexes in Law and Political Science, Number 13), (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990).
Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher, Bonapartism: Six Lectures Delivered in the University of London, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1908).
Alan Forrest & Peter H. Wilson, editors, The Bee and the Eagle: Napoléonic France and the End of the Holy Roman Empire, 1806, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).
David Theo Goldberg, editor, Anatomy of Racism, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1990).
Aimé Guillon de Montléon (1758–1842) & Napoléon Bonaparte (1769–1821), Machiavel commenté par Napoléon Bonaparte, manuscrit trouvé dans la carrosse de Bonaparte, après la bataille de Mont–Saint–Jean, le 15 février 1815,(Paris: Nicolle, 1816).
Barbara Hall, “Race in Hobbes,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 43–56.
John S. Haller, Outcasts From Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859–1900, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971).
Leonard Harris, editor, Racism, (Amherst, New York: Humanity Books, 1999).
Todd Hedrick, “Race, Difference, and Anthropology in Kant’s Cosmopolitanism,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 46.2(2008): 245–268.
Adolf Hitler, My New Order, Raoul de Roussy de Sales, editor, (New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1941).
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf: Zwei Bände in einem Band Ungekürzte Ausgabe, 851–855 Auflage, (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Verlag Franz Eher Nachf., G.m.b.H., 1943).
Michael H. Hoffheimer, “Race and Law in Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 194–216.
David Hume, The Philosophical Works of David Hume, Including all the Essays, and Exhibiting the More Important Alterations and Corrections in the Successive Editions Published by the Author, 4 vols., (Edinburgh/Boston: Adam and Charles Black/Little, Brown and Company, 1854).
David Hume,“Part I, Essay XXI: Of National Characters,” The Philosophical Works of David Hume, Including all the Essays, and Exhibiting the More Important Alterations and Corrections in the Successive Editions Published by the Author: Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, vol. 3, (Edinburgh/Boston: Adam and Charles Black/Little, Brown and Company, 1854), 217–236.
John Immerwahr, “Hume’s Revised Racism,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 53.3(July–September, 1992): 481–486.
John Immerwahr & Michael Burke, “Race and the Modern Philosophy Course,” Teaching Philosophy, 16(1993): 21–34.
Michael Lackey, “The Fictional Truth of the Biographical Novel: The Case of Ludwig Wittgenstein,” The American Biographical Novel, (New York: Bloomsbury, 2016), 35–82.
Berel Lang, Act and Idea in the Nazi Genocide, (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2003).
Michael P. Levine & Tamas Pataki, editors, Racism in Mind, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004).
Tommy L. Lott & Robert Bernasconi, editors, The Idea of Race, (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000).
Tommy L. Lott & Julie K. Ward, editors, Philosophers on Race: Critical Essays,(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2002).
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469–1527), The Prince, Luigi Ricci, translator, (Oxford: Humphrey Milford, 1921).
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, Der Fürst und kleinere Schriften (Klassiker der Politik: Friedrich Meinecke und Hermann Oncken, Herausgebers), Band 8, Friedrich Meinecke & Wilhelm August Ernst Merian–Genast (1894–1958), Hrsgs., (Berlin: Verlag von Reimar Hobbing, 1923).
Anika Maaza Mann & Robert Bernasconi, “The Contradictions of Racism: Locke, Slavery, and the Two Treatises,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy,Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 89–107.
Jacques Maritain, “The End of Machiavellianism,” Review of Politics, 4.1(January, 1942): 1–33.
René de Maulde–La Clavière (1848–1902), La diplomatie au temps de Machiavel, 3 vols., (Paris: Ernest Leroux, Éditeur, 1893).
Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954), Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’État and Its Place in Modern History, Douglas Scott, translator, Werner Stark (1909–1985), introduction, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962). [1957] See: Friedrich Meinecke, Die Idee der Staatsräson in der neueren Geschichte, (München/Berlin: Verlag R. Oldenbourg, 1924).
Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954), “The Age of Nascent Absolutism: Machiavelli,” Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’État and Its Place in Modern History, Douglas Scott, translator & Werner Stark (1909–1985), introduction, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), 25–48. [1957] See: Friedrich Meinecke, Die Idee der Staatsräson in der neueren Geschichte,(München/Berlin: Verlag R. Oldenbourg, 1924).
Friedrich Meinecke, Die Idee der Staatsräson in der neueren Geschichte,(München/Berlin: Verlag R. Oldenbourg, 1924).
Friedrich Meinecke & Wilhelm August Ernst Merian–Genast, Hrsgs., “Einführung des Herausgebers,” Niccolò Machiavelli: Der Fürst und kleinere Schriften (Klassiker der Politik: Friedrich Meinecke und Hermann Oncken, Herausgebers), Band 8, Friedrich Meinecke & Wilhelm August Ernst Merian–Genast (1894–1958), Hrsgs., (Berlin: Verlag von Reimar Hobbing, 1923), 7–37.
Friedrich Meinecke & Wilhelm August Ernst Merian–Genast, Hrsgs., “Anhang zur Einführung: Über Entstehung und Komposition des Principe,” Niccolò Machiavelli: Der Fürst und kleinere Schriften (Klassiker der Politik: Friedrich Meinecke und Hermann Oncken, Herausgebers), Band 8, Friedrich Meinecke & Wilhelm August Ernst Merian–Genast (1894–1958), Hrsgs., (Berlin: Verlag von Reimar Hobbing, 1923), 38–47.
Charles W. Mills, “Kant’s Untermenschen,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 169–193.
Debra Nails, “Metaphysics at the Barricades: Spinoza and Race,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 57–72.
Lucius T. Outlaw Jr., On Race and Philosophy, (New York: Routledge, 1996).
Robert Palter, “Hume and Prejudice,” Hume Studies, 21.1(April, 1995): 3–23.
Pierre Paraf, Le racisme dans le monde, (Paris: Petite Bibliotheque Payot, 1981).
Peter K.J. Park, Africa, Asia, and the History of Philosophy: Racism in the Formation of the Philosophical Cannon, 1780–1830, (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2013).
Richard H. Popkin, “The Philosophical Basis of Eighteenth–Century Racism,” Studies in Eighteenth–Century Culture, 3(1973): 245–262.
Richard H. Popkin, “The Philosophical Basis of Eighteenth–Century Racism,” Racism in the Eighteenth–Century, Harold E. Pagliaro, editor, (Cleveland/London: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1973), 245–262.
Richard H. Popkin, “The Philosophical Basis of Eighteenth–Century Racism,” Studies in Eighteenth–Century Culture, vol. 3, Harold E. Pagliaro, editor, (Cleveland/London: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1973), 245–262.
Richard H. Popkin, “The Philosophical Basis of Modern Racism,” Philosophy and the Civilizing Arts: Essays Presented to Herbert W. Schneider, Craig Walton & John P. Anton, editors, (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press 1974),
Richard H. Popkin, “The Philosophical Basis of Modern Racism,” The High Road of Pyrrhonism, Richard A. Watson & James E. Force, editors, (San Diego, California: Austin Hill Press, 1980), 79–102.
Richard H. Popkin, “Hume’s Racism,” The High Road of Pyrrhonism, Richard A. Watson & James E. Force, editors, (San Diego, California: Austin Hill Press, 1980), 251–266.
Richard H. Popkin, “Hume’s Racism Reconsidered,” The Third Force in Seventeenth Century Thought, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 64–75.
Timothy J. Reiss, “Descartes’s Silences on Slavery and Race,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 16–42.
Alfred Rosenberg (1893–1946), The Myth of the Twentieth Century: An Evaluation of the Spiritual–Intellectual Confrontation of Our Age, Vivian Bird, translator, (Newport Beach, California: Noontide Press, 1993). [1930+1982]
Alfred Rosenberg, Race and Race History and Other Essays by Alfred Rosenberg, Robert Pois, editor, (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).
Alfred Rosenberg, Grossdeutschland: Traum und Tragödie: Rosensbergs Kritik am Hitlerismus, Heinrich Härtle, Hrsg., (München: Selbstverlag H. Härtle, 1970).
Alfred Rosenberg, Das politische Tagebuch Alfred Rosenbergs aus den Jahren 1934/1935 und 1939/1940, Hans–Günther Seraphim, Hrsg., (Berlin/Frankfurt/Göttingen: Musterschmidt Verlag, 1956).
Alfred Rosenberg, Memoirs of Alfred Rosenberg, Serge Lang & Ernst von Schenck, commentaries; Eric Posselt, translator, (Chicago, Illinois: Ziff–Davis Publishing Company, 1949).
Alfred Rosenberg, Portrait Eines Menschheitsverbrechers: Nach Den Hinterlassenen Memoiren Des Ehemaligen Reichsministers Alfred Rosenberg, Serge Lang & Ernst von Schenck, Hrsg., (St. Galen: Zollikofer, 1947).
Alfred Rosenberg, Tradition und Gegenwart: Reden und Aufsätze, 1936–1940, Karlheinz Rüdiger, Hrsg., (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Verlag Franz Eher Nachf., G.m.b.H., 1941).
Alfred Rosenberg, Gestaltung der Idee: Reden und Aufsatze, 1933–1935 (Blut und Ehre), Band 2, Theo von Trotha, Hrsg., (München: Franz Eher Verlag, 1936).
Alfred Rosenberg, Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts: Eine Wertung der seelisch–geistigen Gestaltenkämpfe unserer Zeit, (München: Hoheneichen–Verlag, 1930).
Alfred Rosenberg, Der Zukunftsweg der deutschen Aussenpolitik, (München: Franz Eher Nachf., G.m.b.H., 1927).
Emma Rothschild, “David Hume and the Seagods of the Atlantic,” The Atlantic Enlightenment, Susan Manning & Francis D. Cogliano, editors, (Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2008), 81–96.
Emma Rothschild, “The Atlantic Worlds of David Hume,” Soundings in Atlantic History: Latent Structures and Intellectual Currents, 1500–1830, Bernard Bailyn & Patricia L. Denault, editors, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009), 405–448.
John Rothney, Bonapartism After Sedan, (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1969).
Théophile Simar, Academie Royale de Belgique, classes des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, Mémoires: Étude Critique sur la formation de la doctrine des races au XVIIIe siècle et son expansion au XIXe siècle, Deuxième série, Tome XVI, (Bruxelles: Lamertin, 1922).
Philip R. Sloan, “The Idea of Racial Degeneracy in Buffon’s Histoire Naturelle,” Racism in the Eighteenth–Century, Harold E. Pagliaro, editor, (Cleveland/London: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1973), 293–321.
Camille Spiess, Imperialismes: La conception gobinienne de la race: Sa valeur au point de vue bio–psychologique, (Paris: Fiquiere, 1917).
Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain, 1800–1960, (Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books, 1982).
Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961).
Leo Strauss (1899–1973), Thoughts on Machiavelli, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958).
William Uzgalis, “Berkeley and the Westward Course of Empire: On Racism and Ethnocentricism,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, Andrew Valls, editor, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 108–126.
Andrew Valls, editor, “‘A Lousy Empirical Scientist’: Reconsidering Hume’s Racism,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 129–149.
Andrew Valls, editor, “Introduction,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy,(Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 1–15.
Mihaly Vajda, “Fascism and Bonapartism,” Fascism As a Mass Movement,(London: Allison & Busby, 1976), 93–104.
Julie K. Ward & Tommy L. Lott, editors, Philosophers on Race: Critical Essays,(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2002).
Frederick Whelan, Hume and Machiavelli, (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2004).
H. Williams, “Nietzsche and Fascism,” History of European Ideas, 11(1989): 893–899.
W.D. Williams, Nietzsche and the French: A Study of the Influence of Nietzsche’s French Reading on His Thought and Writing, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952).
James Winchester, “Nietzsche’s Racial Profiling,” Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 2005), 255–276.
Stuart Woolf, Napoléon’s Integration of Europe, (London: Routledge, 1991).
Isser Wolock, Napoléon and His Collaborators: The Making of a Dictatorship,(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001).
Theodore Zeldin, The Political System of Napoléon III, (New York/London: St. Martin’s Press, 1958).
©2019 Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, Kant’s Transcendental Concept of Race: Kantianism and Raciology. All rights reserved. ©2019 Christopher Richard Wade Dettling: Image of Dettling at work in his study (McGill Ghetto, Montréal, Québec, 2008). This work is only for MEDIUM and the MEDIUM CORPORATION and its users: Users are not permitted to mount this writing on any network servers. No part of this writing may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the author, except for reading and browsing via the World Wide Web.
We wish to thank our benefactors over the years for their goodwill: Humanity benefits greatly from the rise of Americanism in the world.
