THE RATIONAL CONCEPTION OF CANADA: TRUDEAU PHILOLOGY AND TRUDEAUISME
Christopher Richard Wade Dettling (2018–2019)
For [Québécocentric] Canadians, the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 marks the birth of modern–day Canada. Jean–François Lisée¹
Dialectics of Action drive us toward the imperialistic concentration of our powers upon a single objective: Democracy … I believe that statism (dirigisme) is necessary in order to maximize our Liberty. Pierre Elliott Trudeau²
The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec secretly followed in the footsteps of Paul Desmarais, and we utterly failed the Québec taxpayers. Sadly enough, the losers are not the wealthy investors, but rather Québéckers themselves are impoverished. Pierre Arbour³
The wars of the French Revolution marked the transition to the nation–state defined by common language and culture … [The United States of America] have never been nation–states in the European sense. America has succeeded in forming a distinct culture from a polyglot national composition.
Henry Kissinger⁴
In the last half of the twentieth century, during the Quiet revolution, Canada and the Canadian people turned a blind–eye to the mortal corruption of the Québec regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais 1968–2006, when Canada was ruled for nearly a half century by Québécocrats, except for one year under Joe Clark, John Turner and Kim Campbell: The eyes of Canada were blinded by “Canadian culture,” namely Québécocentric propaganda from the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of the Québécocracy, in this case the media empire of Paul Desmarais, — and protected (protectionnisme) in Ottawa as a central cogwheel of the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class. Canadians were assisted in their ignorance of the true state of affairs in Ottawa by the many ideological productions of the Québécocracy, which were passed–off over the years by the creatures of the White Gold ruling class, in the guise of exact historiography. The defenders of the White Gold ruling class, and their publishing combines, received cheap subsidized paper and newsprint over the decades from their control of Crown Lands, and many of their adversaries, without this massive government support (investissement), were driven out of business, otherwise moved south. Even traditional U.S. news organizations over the years turned a blind–eye, otherwise downplayed, the mortal corruption of the Québec regime in Ottawa, since their profits were dependent in large part upon cheap Canadian taxpayer subsidized paper for newsprint.
Québécocracy, Québécocrats and Québécocentrism, these appear as newly minted words of our exact historical lexicon, albeit forged within the flames of twentieth century world history and the rise of the Canadocentric polity: These conceptions of our erstwhile political and economic vocabulary are world historical, — not abstractions culled from the textbooks and seminars of Charles Margrave Taylor’s school at McGill University and the University of Toronto, their pasting over the cracks, the contradictions between what exactly the protagonists preached, and what they afterwards really accomplished. The gravediggers of modernity in Canada, their work is done. In the age of twenty–first century American Idealism, the bastion of Digital Revolution, the abstractions of the Québec regime in Ottawa possess another meaning, as a vanishing phase of world history: Their significance is therefore world historical, not theoretical and doctrinarian. The world historical significance of Québécocracy, Québécocrats and Québécocentrism is found upon the stage of universal history, in the collision between words and deeds; the terms federalism, nationalism, separatism, nay, even the word Canada itself, possess new meanings in the twenty–first century Western world of today, saturated with the accretions of universal history. Modernity is undone, the soixantehuitards are passing–away, in the rational planetization of Americanism, the supremacy of American Liberty as universal and absolute freedom, — the end of world history as the fountainhead of Cosmism.
I/ QUÉBEC REGIME IN OTTAWA 1968–2006: GAULLISM AND BONAPARTISM
One of the main areas of the ideological endeavors of the White Gold élites, is found in the masking of the political and economic satanism of the Québécocracy, the mortal corruption behind its 1968 seizure of power in Ottawa, and the diabolism at the very heart of its financial, commercial and industrial domination:
“Claude Frenette, the right hand man of Paul Desmarais … was elected as president of the Québec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada in virtue of the upcoming leadership race: Frenette and Pierre Trudeau elaborated a scheme at the Power Corporation whereby the latter would become the new leader of the Liberal Party and then the Prime Minister of Canada.”⁵
Peter Charles Newman, the well–known Canadian historian, says in his work on How the New Canadian Establishment Seized Power:
“One of Desmarais’ favorite collectibles is Pierre Trudeau, who remains on Power Corp.’s international advisory board … plans for Trudeau’s candidacy had first been hatched in early 1968 at the offices of Power Corporation, at Friday–night meetings presided over by then–Power vice–president Claude Frenette. In August of that year, two months after Trudeau swept the country, the new PM flew to visit Desmarais at Murray Bay.”⁶
The Québécocracy as the Empire of Paul Guy Desmarais was the main backer of the Québec regime in Ottawa, 1968–2006, including Brian Mulroney:
“In 1972, Desmarais hired Mulroney as negotiator during a labour dispute at his paper La Presse. In apparent appreciation of Mulroney’s work, Desmarais became Mulroney’s biggest financial backer, starting with his leadership bid in 1976. Mulroney confirmed the relationship after becoming Prime Minister. In September 1990, Mulroney appointed John Sylvain, Desmarais’s brother–in–law to the Senate, one of eight controversial appointments that ensured the passage of the Goods and Services Tax. In June 1993, Mulroney appointed Desmarais’s brother, Jean Noël Desmarais, to the Senate as part of a flurry of patronage appointments. Now Mulroney has returned to work for Power Corporation’s long–time law firm, Ogilvy Renault.”⁷
The Québécocracy as the Empire of Paul Guy Desmarais was the main backer of the Québec régime in Ottawa, 1968–2006, including Joseph Jacques–Jean Chrétien:
“[Joseph Jacques–Jean Chrétien] gave his niece a job in the PMO and appointed his nephew Raymond as ambassador to Washington … His son–in–law, André Desmarais (married to Chrétien’s daughter, France), was awarded a billion–dollar contract to operate a satellite–TV network over the objections of federal regulators … [Jean Chrétien] cut welfare and social service payments to 1950s levels and reneged on his election promises to increase immigration, support cultural sovereignty or allow more free votes in the Commons.”⁸
The Québécocracy as the Empire of Paul Guy Desmarais was the main backer of the Québec régime in Ottawa, 1968–2006, including Paul Martin Junior:
“Just after he graduated from University of Toronto Law School in 1966 at age twenty–eight, he [Paul Martin Junior] joined Power Corporation of Québec. Martin was hired by Maurice Strong, former assistant to Paul Desmarais Sr., … Paul Desmarais began running the company the next year, and within three years he had appointed Martin vice–president … Paul Martin will be the fourth politician this Québec billionaire has groomed for or financially assisted into being prime minister.”⁹
Peter Charles Newman: “No businessman in Canadian history has ever had more intimate and more extended influence with Canadian prime ministers than Desmarais.”¹⁰ In other words, “The making and breaking of governments in Québec and Canada is the prerogative of the Empire of Paul Desmarais: This has been going on for some 40 years.”¹¹
What is the political and economic relationship between Paul Guy Desmarais and the White Gold ruling class?
“Jean–Louis Lévesque, the Montréal financier from far–away Gaspé, ‘knew first–hand the difficulties that awaited a French–Canadian in business, and therefore he took the young Paul Desmarais under his wing, and led him into the realm of French–Canadian high finance … the Lévesque which most Canadians have heard about is the great orator, René, the Minister of Natural Resources of the Province of Québec. Jean–Louis Lévesque is his wealthy distant cousin, who owns the largest financial empire in Québec.’”¹²
Jean–Louis Lévesque, Paul Guy Desmarais, and the backers of Jean Lesage are therefore the figures that lurk behind the rise of the Quiet revolution and the birth of the Québécocracy, itself wrought by the deaths of Maurice Duplessis, Paul Sauvé and Daniel Johnson:
Jean Lesage (5 August 1958): “All that matters to me is that we find, in the very near future, a means which will allow us to combine our forces, in order to crush forever the Duplessis machine.”¹³
The arena of federal politics and economics, under the Québec regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais 1968–2006, is therefore the bastion of the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class:
“Hydro–Quebec, a provincial Crown Corporation, is Canada’s largest electric utility and, judged by assets ($25 billion in 1983), Canada’s largest corporation … First created as a legal entity in 1944, Hydro–Québec did not become a major force until the early 1960s. René Lévesque then resources minister to the Liberal government of Jean Lesage, oversaw the nationalization of the province’s larger private electrical utilities. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Parti Québécois governments led by Lévesque further reorganized Hydro–Québec. The utility enjoys formidable economic advantages: Once dams are in place, operating costs are very low; furthermore, it has a contract to buy power from the Churchill Falls project in Labrador at 1969 prices until the year 2041. Hydro–Québec can thus underbid Ontario Hydro in the US export market, provide cheap power within Québec and still pay a dividend to the provincial government.”¹⁴
The rise of the White Gold ruling class (“nouvelle classe de parvenus”) under the Québec regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais, and inscribed within the conceptual realm of twentieth century world history as the collapse of European modernity and the rise of Americanism, is therefore in very large part the result of souveraineté, indépendance, séparatisme and other abstractions, first rigorously elaborated by Pierre Trudeau, René Lévesque, Jacques Parizeau, Pierre Vallières and many others at Cité Libre, — the very basis of the Québec anti–federalist movement:
“How did the Québec independence movement which flourished before René Lévesque, end–up in its present state of decline? Ever since 1968, René Lévesque has told his followers in the Québec independence movement that he will not fight for Québec’s independence. Then why did they so loyally support him? … By using the Parti Québécois to climb the rungs of the social ladder in order to dominate Québec, has not this class of newcomers (nouvelle classe de parvenus) instead replaced the goal of Québec independence with the aim of their own self–aggrandizement?”¹⁵
But the “airy fairy” ideology of Trudeauism, and the abstractions of souveraineté, indépendance and séparatisme, are not the ghostly emanations of some netherworld, but are themselves inscribed within the political and economic arena of the world historical struggle between superior and inferior ruling classes in the rise and fall of the Québécocracy, as the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of the White Gold ruling class:
“Desmarais purchased 2.8 million shares, about 2.1 million class A common shares and 700,000 second preferred shares. He said he bought all the Power shares held by the Caisse de Depot du Quebec, amounting to 2,001,300 common shares and 333,000 preferred, with the rest coming from Peter Nesbitt Thomson, deputy chairman of Power and ‘other persons associated with him.’ The shares were bought by an unspecified private holding company belonging to Desmarais.”¹⁶
The “airy fairy” ideology of Trudeauism, and the abstractions of souveraineté, indépendance and séparatisme, are not the ghostly emanations of some netherworld, but are themselves inscribed within the political and economic arena of the world historical struggle between superior and inferior ruling classes in the rise and fall of the Québécocracy, as the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of the White Gold ruling class:
“At the time, the government of René Lévesque held large economic summits in order to integrate the big players of the Québec economy: The first of these massive summits was held at the Richelieu Manor, at the Malbaie, in the Charlevoix region of Québec, from the 24th until the 27th of May 1977, and gathered around the same table such high–flyers as Louis Laberge, Paul Desmarais, Yvon Charbonneau and Brian Mulroney, to name but a few.”¹⁷
The “airy fairy” ideology of Trudeauism, and the abstractions of souveraineté, indépendance and séparatisme, are not the ghostly emanations of some netherworld, but are themselves inscribed within the political and economic arena of the world historical struggle between superior and inferior ruling classes in the rise and fall of the Québécocracy, as the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of the White Gold ruling class:
“During my time there at the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, (CDPQ), we became very big players in the economy of Québec, resultant from the many $millions in contributions from Québéckers. That is when I perceived that political influence, especially after 1978, played an increasingly important role at the Caisse (Québec Pension Plan): Our investments were then very much determined by political considerations … The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec secretly followed in the footsteps of Paul Desmarais, and we utterly failed the Québec taxpayers. Sadly enough, the losers are not the wealthy investors, but rather Québéckers themselves are impoverished.”¹⁸
We have unmasked in the above paragraphs (which undoubtedly causes some confusion and stupefaction in the minds of those whose intellects were abused over the years by the delusions of Trudeauisme), the political and economic satanism of the Québécocracy, the mortal corruption behind its 1968 seizure of power in Ottawa, and the diabolism at the heart of its financial, commercial and industrial domination:
“As the commission investigated the labour situation in the construction trades, the web of corruption it unravelled extended beyond inter–union rivalry, beyond the labour movement, even beyond the construction industry, and led into the offices of provincial Liberal cabinet ministers. Through months of public hearings in late 1974 and early 1975 and the testimony of almost three hundred witnesses, a spectacular story of violence, intimidation, loan–sharking, government corruption, payoffs by companies to avoid strikes, and almost every form of criminal activity emerged … the commission stopped just short of calling Premier Bourassa himself.”¹⁹
We unmask in the following paragraphs (which undoubtedly causes some confusion and stupefaction in the minds of those whose intellects were abused over the years by the delusions of Trudeauisme), the political and economic satanism of the Québécocracy, the mortal corruption behind its 1968 seizure of power in Ottawa, and the diabolism at the heart of its financial, commercial and industrial domination:
“Dodgy business is only the most recent in a long line of made–in–Québec corruption that has affected the province’s political culture at every level … The province’s dubious history stretches further back to the 1970s, and to the widespread corruption in the construction industry as Québec rushed through one mega project after another … As politicians and experts from every facet of the political spectrum told Maclean’s, the history of corruption is sufficiently long and deep in Québec that it has bred a culture of mistrust of the political class. It raises an uncomfortable question: Why is it that politics in Canada’s bête noire province seem perpetually rife with scandal?”²⁰
We unmask the satanism of the Québécocracy, the mortal political and economic corruption behind its 1968 seizure of power in Ottawa, and the diabolism at the heart of its financial, commercial and industrial domination:
“Everything in Québec is so corrupt … we all know that everyone is controlled by the Power Corporation, from Jean Chrétien to Pierre–Marc Johnson, they all work for the Power Corporation … Québéckers are so corrupt that we are even worse than the Americans, but America does not control Québec: The Power Corporation rules over Québec.”²¹
This is the political and economic satanism of the Québécocracy, the mortal corruption behind its 1968 seizure of power in Ottawa, and the political and economic diabolism at the heart of its financial, commercial and industrial domination:
“The faith of Québéckers in their public institutions is deeply convulsed … Corruption destroys the very foundations of our democracy … What is at stake here is the very idea of the evolution of the rational conception of right in Canada.”²²
We shall repeat our words from the beginning: For the past half–century, Canada and the Canadian people have turned a blind–eye to the mortal corruption of the Québec régime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais: Their eyes were blinded by “Canadian culture,” namely propaganda from the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of the Québécocracy, otherwise known as the media empire of Paul Desmarais, — and protected (protectionnisme) in Ottawa as a central cogwheel of the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class:
Yves Michaud (1968): “If this problem is not corrected by a very serious inquiry on the part of elected officials, in accordance with the laws of our National Assembly, the Desmarais oligarchy will threaten the power of our Parliament: Does the dangerous nature of this situation require even further proof? Will not this oligarchy eventually usurp the sovereign will of our representatives, and even our Prime Minister? … At this very moment, the Gelco–Trans–Canada Group (controlled by Paul Desmarais) is seeking to further acquire Le Soleil Newspaper, the readership of which is more than 175,000 people, as well as the daily newspaper Le Droit in Ottawa, which has a readership of some 45,000 people.”²³
For the past half–century, Canada and the Canadian people have turned a blind–eye to the mortal corruption of the Québec régime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais:
“[Paul Desmarais] had gained control of four of Québec’s eight French–language daily newspapers (La Presse, La Tribune of Sherbrooke, Le Nouvelliste of Trois–Rivieres and La Voix de l’Est of Granby), seventeen weeklies (including the three largest weeklies in the Montréal area), and ten radio and television stations (including Montréal’s CKAC, the largest French–language radio station in Canada). These acquisitions raised the spectre of a virtual information monopoly.”²⁴
Our eyes were blinded by “Canadian culture,” namely propaganda from the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of the Québécocracy, otherwise known as the media empire of Paul Desmarais, — and protected (protectionnisme) in Ottawa as a central cogwheel of the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class:
“Through Gesca Ltée, Desmarais controls several daily newspapers, including La Presse, Montréal’s prestigious broadsheet, and Québec City’s Le Soleil … Power Corporation, through its Square Victoria Communications Group subsidiary, and together with the corporate parent companies of the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail newspapers owns The Canadian Press.”²⁵
“Canadian culture” is propaganda from the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of the Québécocracy, otherwise known as the media empire of Paul Desmarais, — and protected (protectionnisme) in Ottawa as a central cogwheel of the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class:
“It has taken some 30 years, but in November 2000 the Desmarais family finally gained control of the newspapers Le Soleil and Le Droit, along with Le Quotidien of Chicoutimi: The Desmarais family controls 70% of the written press in Québec … Canadians are outraged to learn that 66% of all their daily newspapers were owned by media conglomerates in 1970 and that this number had increased to 88% in 1995, and then increased to 95 % in 1999. In Québec, all of our daily newspapers, except Le Devoir, are owned by media conglomerates: One conglomerate alone owns 70% of all our daily newspapers.”²⁶
Indeed, from April 1962 until August 1966, very important years in the rise of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Québécocracy, the magazine Cité Libre was published by Pierre Desmarais Inc., of Montréal.
The argument is sometimes made by followers of the Québécocracy, that so long as they themselves are greatly enriched, they can tolerate the corrupt politicians and corruption. But these feeble minds do not draw the rational distinction between corruption on the one hand and decadence (mortal corruption) on the other. The Québécocracy was therefore greatly enriched while the modern political and economic foundations of finance, commerce and industry were swept–away. But the Québécocracy has sought to erect backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts as replacements, and thereby impede the rise of rational political and economic order. This situation has prevailed in the regions of Canada, and many Canadians are thereby impoverished. Canada, like Mexico, is in the grasp of a criminal ruling class, but the eyes of Canadians during the Québec régime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais 1968–2006, were blinded by “Canadian culture.” America and the American people have suffered over the years from the irrationalism of the Canadian and Mexican ruling classes. This almighty Global civilization, and its beautiful American idealists, upholders of freedom and humanity in the 20th century at great cost, have been stabbed in the back by their own neighbours, the effete and degenerate ruling classes of European modernity in the New World. The Québécocracy and the Narco–élites are an abomination: Let them rot on the dunghill of history. The spiritual power of universal history is moving against the destroyers of America and the American people, the last wreckers of rational political and economic order in the world, and is neutralizing them one by one: Their extinction is the supremacy of Americanism in the 21st century.
Québécocrats are therefore francophone and anglophone Canadians who have succumbed to the morbid spell of Cité Libre and other such scatology as La Presse, The Canadian Press and so forth, namely Canadian culture. The political and economic abstractions of the Québécocracy, based upon the phantasm of French Canada, was very useful in making Pierre Beaudoin, Paul Desmarais and Lino Saputo into very rich men, indeed, not to mention the families of Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin, and many others. But today, thanks to their delusions of the French Fact in North America (souveraineté, indépendance and séparatisme), some 4 million Canadians in Québec live in poverty, while some two million of them barely manage to survive:
“According to information from the Québec Government, 6.47 million taxpayers, otherwise 36%, earned less than $20,000 in 2013 while 14% earned between $20,000 and $29,999 … in the same year, 50% of the taxpayers in Québec earned less than $30,000 while 73% earned less than $50,000.”²⁷
In Québec little more than 4 million Canadians actually pay any income tax, and therefore mutatis mutandis the same holds good at the federal level: Since little more than 4 million Canadians in Québec actually pay any income tax to the Government of Québec, a fortiori, little more than 4 million Canadians in Québec actually pay any federal income tax to Ottawa. In other words, nearly half the population of Québec is so poor that some 4 million Canadians in Québec pay no federal income tax:
“The number of taxpayers who have declared their fiscal situation is nearly 6.5 million Québéckers. Attention: Of these ‘taxpayers,’ only 4.1 million are actually taxable. Many declare their fiscal situation but pay no tax … little more than 4 million Québéckers actually pay tax in Québec, about half of the population.”²⁸
This profound financial, commercial and industrial retardation is the result of the political and economic irrationalism of the Québec Régime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais: The main culprits of this mortal corruption (la décadence) are the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of Paul Desmarais, Laurent Beaudoin, Lino Saputo and Paul Martin Junior, as well as many other Québec Régimers: “[We] secretly followed in the footsteps of Paul Desmarais, and we utterly failed the Québec taxpayers. Sadly enough, the losers are not the wealthy investors, but rather Québéckers themselves are impoverished.”
The actions of Pierre Trudeau and René Lévesque (his erstwhile companion at Cité Libre), whether in Ottawa or Québec, always aimed at uplifting themselves and the Québécocracy, as the dominant ruling class in Canada, and as the replacements of the old British imperialist élites: This at least is the verdict of the rational conception of Canada in 20th century universal history, as the spiritual evolution from the lowest to the very highest form of freedom in the world, as the supremacy of Global civilization and American Liberty. Therefore, as a result of these power struggles, the very notion of Canada (and Canadian history) during the past half century has been profoundly perverted and debased as regionalism, in the creation of ideological constructions to seduce the Canadian electorate, based upon the Machiavellism of the Québécocracy. The Québécocracy requires the assistance of anglophone Canadians in order to implement its political and economic domination of Canada, especially the maudits Anglos in South Central Ontario, the Maritimes, and the West. Today, the old British imperialistic conception of Canada is undone, but its modern–day ideological replacement by the Québec régime in Ottawa, is financially, commercially and industrially powerless in the political and economic arena of world history, — out of step with our times. The Québécocracy is therefore out of step with the reorganization of the American world.
II/ TRUDEAUISME (POLITIQUE FONCTIONNELLE): MODERN EUROPEAN RAISON D’ÉTAT
The arena of the ideological constructions of this modern conception of Canada, is the propaganda of Trudeauisme, which is based upon “biographies” of Pierre Trudeau (published by companies that get especially cheap rates on paper and newsprint granted by the Québécocracy’s rape of Crown Lands):
“Trudeau the chameleon, many people believe, will always be an enigma. Indeed, journalists, biographers, and many Canadians, have been and continue to be intrigued and puzzled by Trudeau. A witty comment about him conjures up the peculiar state of confusion writers find themselves in when they set out to describe him: ‘Someone is going to say one day, ‘Will the real Mr. Trudeau please stand up,’ and about fifty–eight people will rise.’”¹
We must beware of sophistical Trudeau philology in the elucidation of the rational conception of Canada in the world of today: Sophistical Trudeau philology is often used in order to “prove” the existence of the nationalist–federalist shift in the rise of Pierre Trudeau and the Québécocracy, namely to “imply” that the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class is the upholder of rational political and economic order in Canada, — the “implication” (suggestion) that the Québécocracy is a Canadocentric polity:
“[Pierre Trudeau] provided Canada with a charter defending the inalienable rights of the person … [Trudeau] adopted positions at odds with those he had championed … when and how did he make this 180–degree turn? … this son of Québec became the father of Canada … Unlike many Cité Libre collaborators, including Gérard Pelletier, Trudeau never shared Emmanuel Mounier’s sympathy with the French Communist Party.”²
Max and Monique Nemni: Pierre Trudeau never shared Emmanuel Mounier’s sympathy with the French Communist Party, unlike many Cité Libre collaborators, including Gérard Pelletier: Where is the precise philological difference drawn between Pierre Trudeau and the collaborators of Cité Libre in their book, Trudeau Transformed (2011)? Max and Monique Nemni do not draw an exact philological distinction between the writings of Pierre Trudeau published in Cité Libre which bear his name, and those writings which do not, namely, collective pieces published by the editorial team, upon which he collaborated, and other unsigned articles which as a member of the board, he chose and approved. Pierre Trudeau and the editorial team of Cité Libre, of which he was a founding member, certainly shared Emmanuel Mounier’s sympathy with the modern European political and economic irrationalism at the very foundation of the French Communist Party:
“Emmanuel Mounier is dead. Even two months after his death, the time is not yet ripe for us to gauge the scope of the great loss which results from his demise. The most distracted of our readers can discover in each page of Cité Libre, not only the influence exercised upon each of us by the magazine Esprit, but also our very own determined effort to emulate its special objectivity (un certain souci de lucidité), — which we want to elaborate even more profoundly: We have directly inherited this agenda from Emmanuel Mounier. The backers of Cité Libre had decided, from the time of their very first meetings, to send the director of Esprit the very first copy of Cité Libre that rolled–off the printing press. It is sufficient to say that Cité Libre was born under the banner of Esprit, and is faithful to the very same values for which Emmanuel Mounier fought until his very last breath … Even after his death, the spirit of Emmanuel Mounier will henceforth fill all the pages of Cité Libre.”³
The spirit of Emmanuel Mounier will henceforth fill all the pages of Cité Libre?
“Léon Blum and Harold Laski refused to be associated with either American or Soviet totalitarianism (l’un ou l’autre des totalitarismes): They dedicated their lives to the development and “practice” of a philosophy that postulated freedom, justice and peace. As was inevitable, both men were hysterically denounced and hated, as much by the camp of orthodox Marxism as by the party of official Christendom … Laski’s immense work, written and lived, was only a continuous search for the city of freedom, where men could live in tolerance, and eventually find love: This is why both the capitalists and Stalinists were his mortal enemies … The void created by the assassination of Jaurès caused Léon Blum to abandon his literary career, in which he excelled, in order to become the leading spirit of French socialism. As a journalist, as a parliamentarian, and as a statesman, Blum was for a quarter of a century, a thunderbolt of freedom and justice … Laski and Blum symbolized a fifth column (as internal enemies), and as men who refused to take a side. Harold Laski and Léon Blum as socialists and democrats rejected and denounced the hegemony of Stalinism (stalinisme) and Liberal democracy (l’État libéral).”⁴
Harold Laski and Léon Blum are “Social Democrats” according to Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Cité Libre: “Social Democracy” is good Eurocentrisme in their eyes as multipolarity (polycentrisme) and not “bad” polarity, i.e., the Eurocentrisme of unipolarity, such as Monarchism and Imperialism. In other words, Social Democracy in the vocabulary of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Cité Libre is the political economy of Gaullism and Bonapartism, — the outdated and surpassed Napoléonic and French Revolutionary category of right as “freedom,” “justice,” “peace,” “tolerance,” even “love,” and which serves as the justification of their “city of freedom” (Cité Libre) as the democracy of “democrats.” The “city of freedom” of Pierre Trudeau and Cité Libre, as we shall discover, is a mask which is advanced as cover for their Copernican Revolution, their Kantian Cosmopolitanism, which is their version of autocracy founded upon popular consent, transposed upon the historical situation of Québec in the 1950s and 1960s. Their allegedly “mulipolar” Eurocentric world nevertheless revolves around the outdated and surpassed Napoléonic and French Revolutionary category of right, — but only as an abstraction, i.e., as a vanishing phase of world history. For this reason Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Cité Libre reject the bipolarity of the Cold War, because in their eyes based upon non–Eurocentrism and unipolarity: Americanism is therefore totalitarianism in their eyes, and not really that different from Soviet Communism. For Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Cité Libre in the 1950s, the Liberal state is the “party of official Christendom,” while Stalinism is the “camp of orthodox Marxism.” As socialists and democrats, following in the footsteps of Laski and Blum (the spirit of French socialism), Pierre Trudeau and his colleagues at Cité Libre are idéologues of anti–Americanism because they reject the Cold War as totalitarianism, and align the United States of America and Great Britain (capitalists, official Christendom and the Liberal state) on the same side as Stalinism and orthodox Marxism, — “l’un ou l’autre des totalitarismes.” Following the French Communist Party, Pierre Trudeau and his colleagues at Cité Libre in the 1950s espouse the selfsame “souci de lucidité” as Emmanuel Mounier, which is proved with regards to their worship of the philosophy (doctrine) of Léon Blum and Harold Laski, namely French Socialism (socialisme français) as autocracy founded upon popular consent, — the power of the people and tyranny of the masses:
“[vii] Kojève is the unknown Superior whose dogma is revered, often unawares, by that important subdivision of the ‘animal kingdom of the spirit’ in the contemporary world — the progressivist intellectuals. In the years preceding the second world war in France, the transmission was effected by means of oral initiation to a group of persons who in turn took the responsibility of instructing others, and so on. It was only in 1947 that by the efforts of Raymond Queneau, the classes on the Phenomenology of Spirit taught by Alexandre Kojève at the École des Hautes Études from 1933–1939 were published under the title, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. This teaching was prior to the philosophico–political speculations of J.P. Sartre and M. Merleau–Ponty, to the publication of les Temps modernes and the new orientation of Esprit, reviews which were the most important vehicles for the dissemination of progressivist ideology in France after the liberation. From that time on we have breathed Kojève’s teaching with the air of the times. It is known that intellectual progressivism itself admits of a subdivision, since one ought to consider its two species, Christian (Esprit) and atheist (les Temps modernes); but this distinction, for reasons that the initial doctrine enables one to clarify, does not take on the importance of a schism … M. Kojève is, so far as we know, the first … to have attempted to constitute the intellectual and moral ménage à trois of Hegel, Marx and Heidegger which has since that time been such a great success … Aimé Patri, ‘Dialectique du Maître et de l’Esclave,’ Le Contrat Social, V, № 4 (July–August 1961), 234.”⁵
Paul Guy Desmarais was the most powerful Canadian backer of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, therefore he also rejected Americanism? “The Western world has traditionally looked to the United States for leadership but there is now some uncertainty as to whether it can provide it.”⁶ Paul Desmarais espoused the cause of Eurocentric Eurocracy because he was deeply infatuated with the outdated and surpassed Napoléonic and French Revolutionary category of right: Desmarais followed Gaullism and Bonapartism in Europe because in general the Québécocracy, under the Québec regime in Ottawa and Empire of Desmarais, transferred offshore its $Billions in corrupt gains from the federal treasury, far beyond the reach of Revenue Canada. Once their $Trillions were safely stashed in Europe over a period of fifty years, the Québécocracy integrated itself into the European Bonapartist ruling classes, in Paris, Brussels, Luxembourg and Geneva. The Québécocracy as the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class, under the Québec regime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais 1968–2006, was not an American ruling class, in the tradition of the Magna Carta and Industrial Revolution, but rather a Eurocentric ruling class in the tradition of the modern European nation–state, resultant from the Bonapartism of the French Revolution.
Pierre Trudeau’s “nationalist–federalist shift,” the ideological construction of Max and Monique Nemni, themselves longtime puppets of the Québécocracy, therefore evaporates in the light of exact philological determinations upon the stage of world history. Pierre Trudeau did not shift from anti–federalism to federalism, such that he moved away from Québécocentricism toward Canadocentricism: Trudeau’s activities on the national and federal scenes are rather the different spheres within which he applied his modern European political and economic irrationalism, in the destruction of the old British imperialistic élites, as the advancement of the Québécocracy, the backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trusts of the White Gold ruling class, both provincially and federally.
Pierre Trudeau first directed his Québécocentricism against the British imperialistic ruling class in Québec (l’idéologie dominante), especially as personified by the government of Maurice Duplessis: Trudeau later directed his Québécocentricism, especially after the rise of the Gaullist (néo–nationaliste) Jean Lesage, against the British imperialistic ruling class in Ottawa, personified in his mind by the government of John Diefenbaker. Towards the Québec Liberal Party, Trudeau directed his Québécocentricism against its British imperialistic wing: Once inside the Liberal Party of Canada, Trudeau directed his Québécocentricism against its British imperialistic wing. Eventually, under the rising power of the Québécocracy, Walter Gordon and even Lester Pearson himself, as well as many other old timers (maudits anglais), were ultimately struck down or pushed aside.
Pierre Trudeau really started to direct his modern European irrationalism towards the federal scene after the deaths of Maurice Duplessis and Paul Sauvé, and during the decline of the Union nationale, under the hammer blows of Jean Lesage and Gaullism:
“De Gaulle’s regime in France and Jean Lesage’s neo–nationalist government in Québec had a common desire to use the social revolution of their time to transform their societies … both were investing or planning — or hoping — to invest in regional development, new factories, electrical and nuclear power plants, airports and seaports, aircraft industries, railway and telephone systems, highways, mass housing projects … de Gaulle for his part saw collaboration as a means for promoting the power and influence of his country and expanding French civilization in the world … the ruling élites in France and Québec found it easy to collaborate in economic development because they were both prepared to act via powerful government leadership.”⁷
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the son of Québec, became the father of Canada? The White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class is a Canadocentric polity? Nothing is further from the truth: The Québécocracy and its élites constitute a Québécocentric polity in Ottawa:
“Now we know, after the last Budget Speech, this year (1968) Québec will get $362,740,000.00 in various federal equalization payments, compared to the $66 million in 1962. Québec has therefore won the taxation war in Ottawa.”⁸
We must therefore abandon the abstract conception of Canada, the thoughts and deeds of some Canadians (hagiographers and sycophants) of what Canada can be, might be, could be, would be, should be and even ought to be, — as a vanishing phase of world history. (We therefore draw, in preliminary fashion, the distinction between those Canadians who live along the border with the United States of America, in contradistinction to those Canadians who live farther away from the U.S.–Canada border.) These phantasms of the feeding–trough are the tunes the puppets of the Québécocracy play to the captive minds of their mostly eastern audience:
“Where will the new ideas in Québec come from? Will they come from our departments of political science? This is unlikely because our political scientists in Québec prefer to write rather than participate in politics, at least those whose brains have not been irreparably destroyed by the obscurantism of the hermeneutic, constructivist–relativist and paleo–Marxist philosophies.”⁹
We shall indeed avoid the obscurantism of the hermeneutic, constructivist–relativist and paleo–Marxist “philosophies.” Of course, we shall also avoid neo–Marxism like the plague, as well as the “philosophy” of Mario Bunge: His country was never raped by Uncle Sam and so–called “Yankee Imperialism” (Charles Margrave Taylor), but rather wrecked by world communism and Narco–terrorism. As lovers of truth and reality, instead we shall apply ourselves to the elucidation of that which constitutes the rational notion of Canada within the realm of exact historiography and world history: We shall not therefore restrict ourselves only to those writings in Cité Libre which alone bear the imprint of Pierre Trudeau’s name.
III/ TRUDEAUISME IS QUÉBÉCOCENTRISME: MODERN EUROPEAN UNREASON
Thus, we shall apply ourselves to exact Trudeau philology with a vengeance: The writings of Pierre Trudeau in Cité Libre are categorized into three main groups: (1) Writings by Pierre Trudeau which bear the imprint of his name, (2) writings of the editorial team of Cité Libre of which Trudeau was a some–time member, and (3) writings of the editorial team from Cité Libre when Trudeau was not a member, but also during the period that he sat on the administrative board of the magazine.
This policy allows us to elucidate the rational conception of Canada, based in part upon the notion of the Québécocracy as an inferior ruling class: The Québécocracy is the dominant ruling class in Canada because its backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trust are based upon French impérialisme (souveraineté, indépendance, séparatisme) as Social Democracy (démocratie). The old British imperialistic conception of Canada was burst asunder by the contradictions of the modern world, in its opposite, in the impérialisme of the French Revolution. Pierre Trudeau was a nationalist and a federalist because he was an impérialiste of the Québécocracy: Séparatisme is for the lowest classes; indépendance is for the middle classes; and souveraineté is for the upper classes, — at least for the most part under the Québec régime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais, 1968–2006. Souveraineté, indépendance and séparatisme, whether in Québec or Ottawa, as anti–federalism or federalism, therefore always means the political and economic domination of Canada by the Québécocracy, the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class.
The old British imperialistic conception of Canada was burst asunder by the contradictions of the modern world, in its opposite, as the impérialisme of the French Revolution, in the clash between subjective and objective freedom: Beyond the British empire in world history, we find no rising modern civilization, including that of the French empire. The adversaries of the United States of America and “Yankee Imperialism,” have only phantasms behind their outdated policies, out of step with the world–march of history ever since the collapse of Soviet communism: The “serious” critics of Washington on the world stage are not really the enemies of “Yankee Imperialism,” but the adversaries of some administration in the White House, whether republican or democrat, and therefore they are not really destroyers of Americanism, but adversaries of some American political and economic policy. The old British imperialistic conception of Canada was burst asunder by the contradictions of the modern world, in the impérialisme of the French Revolution, its opposite, precisely because the clash between monarchism and republicanism, in every corner of the earth, overcomes European modernity in the rise of Western civilization, as Global rational political and economic order, — the notion of universal freedom as the supremacy of American Liberty.
The struggle between republicanism and monarchism in the genuine Hegelian dialectic of finitude, as the modern political and economic form of the struggle between superior and inferior ruling classes, is inscribed within the spiritual evolution of world history as the collapse of European modernity and rise of Global civilization. What is the meaning of this doctrine in the school of American Idealism? For the germs of this conception, we need only refer to the last part of Hegel’s Rechtsphilosophie:
“It is as particular entities that states enter into relations with one another. Hence their relations are on the largest scale a maelstrom of external contingency and the inner particularity of passions, private interests and selfish ends, abilities and virtues, vices, force, and wrong. All these whirl together, and in their vortex the ethical whole itself, the autonomy of the state, is exposed to contingency. The principles of the national minds are wholly restricted on account of their particularity, for it is in this particularity that, as existent individuals, they have their objective actuality and their self–consciousness. Their deeds and destinies in their reciprocal relations to one another are the dialectic of the finitude [die erscheinende Dialektik der Endlichkeit] of these minds, and out of it arises the universal mind, the mind of the world, free from all restriction, producing itself as that which exercises its right — and its right is the highest right of all — over these finite minds in the ‘history of the world which is the world’s court of judgement.’”¹
The result therefore is always the same, whether as a Québec nationalist (anti–federalist) or federalist: The Québécocracy dominates all other Canadian ruling classes in the name of Québec impérialisme, as autocracy founded upon popular consent, which is the bastion of the (outdated) Napoléonic and French Revolutionary conception of right in Canada and the international arena of late 20th century world history:
Harold Laski: “[ii] What is in issue now is not the minor matter of the state’s form; what is in issue is the nature of the state itself. We cannot, as I conceive, understand the profundity of the debate unless we realize that it is a crisis which involves the ultimate substance of society’s constitution … [iii] The fundamental issue, at least, is straightforward; what is challenged is the liberal [Industrial revolutionary] theory of the state … [The state] is, in fact, the supreme coercive power in any given political society; but it is, in fact, used to protect and promote in that society the interest of those who own its instruments of production. The state expresses a will to maintain a given system of class–relations. It does so through the use of its supreme coercive power to that end. In the last analysis, this power consists of the defense forces of the state. These are used, in ultimate challenge, to impose the will of the owners of the instruments of production upon those excluded from such ownership … [iv] There may be more or less of coercion at any given moment, according as the economic situation of society enables more or less concessions of material well–being to be made to those excluded from the privileges of ownership … [v] in such a society the coercive power of the state is used to promote differences in relation to the satisfaction of demand which may be (and in fact often are) unjust. Only the capture of the state, followed by the re–definition of its legal postulates, could remedy this condition. This, as I understand it, is the challenge issued to the classic theories of the state in recent years. In its general outline, it was first formulated by Marx and Engels, and it received its classic re–statement by Lenin in his State and Revolution. I am not aware of any adequate answer to it from opponents of the challenge … Those who defend the classic theories of the state must be able to show not that an ideal state which exists only in their own construction, but the actual states, England, France, the United States of America, that we know, are inherently capable, granted the class–relations they maintain, of fulfilling demand on the largest possible scale, and that, therefore, they have a moral claim to the allegiance of their members on this ground … [vi] we are in a psychological condition comparable, as I have said … to the epoch of the French Revolution, when men seek to reconstitute the foundations of society. This they are now, as then, unable to do unless they redefine its class–relations. They cannot re–define them without possession of the state–power since it is in the use of its coercive authority that the means of re–definition are to be found.”²
Only the capture of the state, followed by the re–definition of its legal postulates, could remedy “unjust” conditions by fulfilling demand on the largest possible scale:
Lenin: “The state is the supreme coercive power in any given political order, which is used, in fact, to promote and protect in that order, the interests of those who own its instruments of production … the state is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms … the state arises when, where, and to the extent that the class antagonisms cannot be objectively reconciled … and, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable … according to Marx, the state is an organ of class domination, an organ of oppression of one class by another; its aim is the creation of ‘order’ which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the collisions between the classes.”³
Only the capture of the state, followed by the re–definition of its legal postulates, could remedy “unjust” conditions by fulfilling demand on the largest possible scale? How, pray tell, is this accomplished? The methodology of this “capture of the state,” and the re–definition of its legal postulates, is based upon the Kantio–Hegelian sophistry of Karl Marx:
“My dialectic … is not only different from Hegel’s, but its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea.’ With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, [5] and translated into forms of thought … In its mystified form, [the Hegelian] dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it [the Hegelian Dialectic] is a scandal and an abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors because it [the rational Hegelian Dialectic] includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it [the rational Hegelian Dialectic] regards every historically–developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it [the rational Hegelian Dialectic] lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.”⁴
Modern freedom, as the Kantio–Hegelian dialectic of nineteenth and twentieth century European political and economic irrationalism, is therefore the ideological fountainhead of the Québécocracy:
“Dialectics of Action (la dialectique de l’action) drive us toward the imperialistic concentration of our powers upon a single objective: Democracy … I believe that statism (dirigisme) is necessary in order to maximize our Liberty (la liberté).”⁵
In other words, Kantio–Hegelianism, rechristened by Pierre Elliott Trudeau as the Dialectics of Action (la dialectique de l’action), as found in the pseudo–Hegelianism and anti–Hegelianism of Charles Margrave Taylor’s impure Hegelianism, is the backbone of the Trudeauiste ideology, especially as outlined in Hegel (1975), Hegel and Modern Society, (1979) and “Hegel and the Philosophy of Action” (1983).⁶ This is the ultimate secret behind the rise of the rational conception of Canada and exact Trudeau philology, the Canadocentric polity bursting the bonds of our modern European unreason: Once Charles Margrave Taylor joined the editorial board of Cité Libre, the political and economic orientation of the magazine became totally aligned with the New Left movement of Eurocommunism and anti–Americanism. The implementation of Trudeauiste democracy or “elected dictatorship” (Peter Charles Newman), as the “la dialectique de l’action” of the Québec Regime, as the “dirigisme” of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, therefore results in little more than the outdated and surpassed Napoléonic and French Revolutionary category of right (liberté, démocratie), — especially familiar to modern Europeans as the rationale behind Bonapartism: Autocracy founded upon popular consent (Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher).
Pierre Trudeau maintains that the Dialectics of Action (la dialectique de l’action) compel democrats like himself toward the imperialistic concentration of power upon what he names as democracy (démocratie): “La dialectique de l’action nous impose impérieusement de concentrer nos effectifs sur … la démocratie.” For Pierre Trudeau, the imperialistic concentration of power in the name of democracy (démocratie), necessarily results in statism (dirigisme), because only modern European political and economic irrationalism (la dialectique de l’action) maximises Trudeauiste Liberty (la liberté): “Je crois à la nécessité d’un dirigisme pour maximiser la liberté.” For this reason Pierre Trudeau attacks British imperialism and its tradition of industrial revolution in Canada in the name of Québécocentrism (liberté, démocratie) — the political and economic domination of the White Gold ruling class, — especially in the 1960s and 1970s, as Bonapartism (autocracy founded upon popular consent: dirigisme), phantasized by the Québec regime in Ottawa as Trudeauisme (politique fonctionnelle) via the outdated and surpassed political and economic categories of Kantio–Hegelianism, especially as borrowed from Charles Margrave Taylor, — Marxism and existentialism, although ultimately from the tradition of Kojève:
“[128] Kant’s philosophy must be accepted as given truth … [142] the first attempt at a dualistic ontology was made by Kant … Hegel merely makes more precise the Kantian theory.”⁷
Immanuel Kant’s philosophy must be accepted as given truth?
“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.”⁸
Immanuel Kant’s philosophy must be accepted as given truth?
“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.”⁹
What is the “given truth” of Kantianism on the stage of world history?
“Immanuel Kant produced the most raciological thought of the eighteenth century.”¹⁰
IV/ QUÉBÉCOCENTRISME AS EUROCENTRISME: MODERN EUROPEAN POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IRRATIONALISM
Pierre Elliott Trudeau attacks the British imperialist élites of English and French Canada because “what is most lacking in French Canada is a positive philosophy of action.”¹ What is the necessity of a “positive philosophy of action” in the eyes of Trudeau? A positive philosophy of action, according to Trudeau, is the basis of political science (politique fonctionnelle), as opposed to magic, or ideology, — the Catholic Church’s (ultramontanist and anti–French revolutionary) opium of the masses: “Are we not rather phenomena of earthly beings (phénomènes d’espèce tellurique), controlled by an irresistible historical dynamism, and subjected to impersonal laws (subjectivity writ large) which have nothing to do with the moral categories of ‘good’ and ‘evil’?”² Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s Kantio–Hegelianism, borrowed from French existentialism, will be expanded throughout anglophone Canada, beginning in the 1960s, thanks to the work of Charles Margrave Taylor, a founder of the European New Left in Britain, and his erstwhile colleague at Cité Libre.
What utility is functional “political science” in Québec, à la Pierre Trudeau? Trudeauiste political “science” (une philosophie positive), under the category of French Canada, is the instrument of a “functional politics by which only a free city can be created, tailored to the dimensions of the masters (supervivants) that we French Canadians must become.”³ The old autonomy and centralization of the Industrial Revolution, “arbitrarily determined by a constitution made for another era”⁴ (British imperialism), must be undone. What is the meaning of the functional political and economic category of French Canada in the positivist “philosophy” of Pierre Elliott Trudeau? Functional politics means that Gaullist France, whether left or right, and la francophonie are at the very heart of Trudeauisme:
“Today, economic and fiscal theory is unanimous in postulating the need for (British imperialistic) centralization. The full employment of manpower and resources is impossible to secure without cyclical budgets, through which the state buffers inflationary and deflationary surges. Therefore, in the name of (British imperialistic) autonomy, a province should not be free to integrate into the cycle: For it would be inadmissible for a regional government to benefit from funds from other provinces in order to restore its own treasury, when we endeavor to fight a general crisis by heroic budget deficits. Monetary and banking theory (of British imperialism in Canada) also supports this.”⁵
Pierre Elliott Trudeau implies that his own Trudeauiste economic and fiscal theory of functional political autonomy is not unanimous in postulating the need for imperialistic centralization born from the Industrial Revolution. The full employment of manpower and resources is possible to secure with cyclical budgets, through which the state buffers inflationary and deflationary surges. Therefore, in the name of Trudeauiste autonomy, a province (Québec) should be free to integrate into the cycle: For it would be admissible for a regional government to benefit from funds from other provinces (asymmetrical federalism) in order to restore its treasury, when they try to stop a general crisis by heroic deficit budgets. The Trudeauiste monetary and banking theory of British imperialism in Canada also supports this doctrine of politique functionnelle. As the Trudeauiste delusion of French Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s Gallocentric “philosophy” of positivism reconciles the Industrial and French Revolutions under the outdated and surpassed Napoléonic and French Revolutionary category of right (functional political autonomy), in the tradition of modern European political and economic irrationalism, which is the fountainhead of Bonapartism in the arena of twentieth century world history, — as autocracy founded upon popular consent, the power of the people and tyranny of the masses.
In Québec, Pierre Elliott Trudeau will espouse the cause of left–wing Gaullism, while in Ottawa he will advance the cause of right–wing Gaullism: The “philosophy” of Pierre Elliott Trudeau is not American Idealism, but rather the outdated and surpassed sophistry of Eurocentricism. This is a hard truth for many Canadians to swallow, especially in Eastern Canada, since nurtured over the years on the pablum of the inexact Trudeau philology of the Québécocentric media empire of Paul Desmarais, so–called “Canadian Culture”: Hagiologists such as Max and Monique Nemni, as well as John English, Robert Bothwell and company, concentrate on a small number of Trudeau’s publications in Cité Libre, while they ignore or neglect a vast number of works signed collectively, and especially those commissioned by Trudeau himself, while a leading member of the editorial board of the magazine.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and many others, especially in the Third World, also used the power of the people and tyranny of the masses as the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the name of statism and imperialism — autocracy founded upon popular consent: The same modern unreason that brought Europe to its political and economic knees in the twentieth century, is served upon a new platter as the charlatanism of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, — in the Bonapartism and Machiavellism of the Québec Regime in Ottawa 1968–2006.
But the New World is not old Europe, as is evidenced by the American Idealists of the White House, Washington and Wall Street.
Today, the profound disillusionment in Queen’s Park merely signifies that the last remnants of the “soixante–huitard” ruling classes are being swept into the dustbin of history, victims of broken promises and shattered dreams: Their funeral pyres signalize the new ground of the highest conception of Canada and its place in the world of today. As the world historical groundwork of the last remnants of modern European political and economic degeneration in Canada is swept upon the dunghill of the earth, there arises a vast new spiritual conception of humanity as Western civilization and the supremacy of American Liberty in the world. From out of the world historical ashes of the Québécocracy, in the collapse of European modernity and rise of Globalism, comes the Canadosphere, as the political and economic realm of American finance, commerce and industry in Canada, — the Canadocentric Polity: The Québécocracy is undone in the rational conception of Canada as the supremacy of American Liberty in the world. The political and economic rationality of the American world bursts asunder the bonds of our modern unreason: The criminal ruling classes of the earth are undone in the rise of Americanism.
The Québécocracy is therefore the political and economic avatar of modern European raison d’état in Canada: This much at least is evidenced from the rational philological elucidation of the ideology of Pierre Trudeau and Cité Libre, in the rise and fall of the Québec régime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais as the hegemony of the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class in Ottawa.⁶
Twenty–first century American Idealism is uplifting the American world, — but not following the political and economic irrationalism of the Québécocracy — rather as the supremacy of American finance, commerce and industry in the world. The rise of the American world and Global civilization constitutes the political and economic liberation of Canada and the Canadian people from the mortal corruption of the Québécocracy, — the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class. Of what use is the rational conception of Canada in the world of today? The American Idealistic conception of rational political and economic order, the bastion of Americanism, is really a very useful conception for all Canadians who greatly desire financial, commercial and industrial success, based upon the solid foundations of exact historiography and world history. When applied to the realm of politics and economics, in the struggle between superior and inferior ruling classes, the rational conception of Canada therefore leads to happiness, prosperity and longevity: Make Canada Great!
WORKS CITED
1. Jean–François Lisée (La Presse, 30 June 2010) in Max Nemni & Monique Nemni, Trudeau Transformed: The Shaping of a Statesman, 1944–1965, George Tombs, translator, vol. 2, Toronto, McClelland & Stewart, 2011, 1.
See: Max Nemni & Monique Nemni, Trudeau, fils du Québec, père du Canada: La formation d’un homme d’état, vol. 2, Montréal, Les Éditions de l’Homme, 2011.
See: “In 1977, the Parti Québécois government of Mr. Lévesque enacted Bill 101, which included a provision regarding language of signage. This provision was challenged and, ultimately, struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. In response to this decision, Premier Bourassa enacted Bill 178 … When Bill 178 was introduced, Premier Bourassa invoked the notwithstanding clause, a pernicious provision of the 1982 Constitution accepted and introduced by Prime Minister Trudeau. This provision unique in constitutions of the world — has been branded as ‘evil’ and ‘iniquitous’ by scholars to the point that Mr. Trudeau himself has acknowledged his grave error in consenting to its inclusion in a document designed to protect individual rights and freedoms.” Brian Mulroney in Peter Charles Newman, “Appendix 9,” The Canadian Revolution 1985–1995: From Deference to Defiance, Toronto, Viking, 1995, 448–457; 451.
2. Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Un manifeste démocratique,” Cité Libre, 22(octobre, 1958): 19–20: “La dialectique de l’action nous impose impérieusement de concentrer nos effectifs sur un objectif unique: La démocratie … je crois à la nécessité d’un dirigisme pour maximiser la liberté.”
Remarks: Pierre Trudeau’s rhetoric on Democracy and Liberty does not perseverate upon philosophical abstractions beyond the realm of 20th century Canadian history, but is the very motor behind his own self–interested actions:
“In 1956, Trudeau helped organize the Rassemblement pour l’Indépendence Nationale (Assembly for National Independence). The group’s 600 members worked to explain democracy [Québec separatism] to the people of Québec and to persuade them to use it. Trudeau served as vice–president, then director, and finally president.” Paul Douglas Stevens, “Pierre E. Trudeau: Prime Minister of Canada, 1968,” The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 18, Chicago, 1971, 380b.
See: “[4] Careful investigation leads to the discovery of more and more French diplomats, politicians, and state officials active in the cause of Québec separatism during the past thirty–five years … [5] By 1967, when de Gaulle made his notorious fourth visit to Québec on 23–26 July, he had already worked out a general plan of attack … Having launched a cold war campaign in Québec, de Gaulle then turned his attention to the smaller French–speaking community of Acadians in the Maritime provinces … there was no mistaking his [General de Gaulle’s] hostility to the Canadian confederation … [6] the two world wars of this century had the strongest influence [7] on the Gaullist mind. But behind their impact lies the imperial tradition established by Napoléon, and followed by his nephew, Napoléon III who ruled the Second Empire … [11] Political movements for the independence, or sovereignty, of Québec can be traced back into the 1950s, but the first with any permanence and influence was the Rassemblement pour l’Indépendence Nationale (RIN), established in September 1960. Its founders were Raymond Barbeau, who in 1957 had launched a similar but short–lived movement called the Alliance Laurentienne … they worked to spread the idea that Québec ought to become an independent republic, ‘free, French and democratic’ … [13] By 1960, when de Gaulle made his visit to Canada, the Lesage liberals, the RIN, and other nationalists were forming a neo–nationalist movement … [14] The neo–nationalist were typical of what has become known as the Quiet Revolution … in its narrowest meaning the term applies to a series of reforms carried out by the Lesage government … when Duplessis died, Québec was seized with an outburst of liberal and national sentiments that led to changes so profound that they may justly be described as revolutionary. Educated Frenchmen, such as Charles de Gaulle and his staff, were immediately at home amid the liberal and national aspirations of the Quiet Revolution in Québec. Every French republic, even the Fifth, is founded on liberal and nationalist ideas that are an ideological legacy of the French Revolution … [18] De Gaulle’s regime in France and Jean Lesage’s neo–nationalist government in Québec had a common desire to use the social revolution of their time to transform their societies … both were investing or planning — or hoping — to invest in regional development, new factories, electrical and nuclear power plants, airports and seaports, aircraft industries, railway and telephone systems, highways, mass housing projects … De Gaulle for his part saw collaboration as a means for promoting the power and influence of his country and expanding French civilization in the world … the ruling élites in France and Québec found it easy to collaborate in economic development because they were both prepared to act via powerful government leadership.” John Francis Bosher, The Gaullist Attack on Canada: 1967–1997, Montréal/Kingston, 1999, 4–5–6–11–13–14–18.
3. Pierre Arbour, Québec Inc. et la tentation du dirigisme: La Caisse de dépôt et les sociétés d’État: Héritage d’une génération? Montréal, L’Étincelle, 1993, 12–14: “On veut inconsciemment imiter Paul Desmarais et on y reussit très mal. Malheureusement, celui qui y perd n’est pas un actionnaire privé et fortuné, mais plutôt la collectivite québécoise qui s’en trouve ainsi appauvrie.”
See: Pierre Arbour, “Qui sont les vrais traîtres?” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 25.4(septembre–octobre, 1997): 39–42.
4. Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1994, 806–808.
I/ Québec Regime in Ottawa 1968–2006: Gaullism and Bonapartism
5. Robin Philpot, Derrière L’État Desmarais: Power, 2e édition, Montréal, Livres Baraka Inc., 2014, 14–15.
6. Peter Charles Newman, “King Paul,” The Canadian Establishment: The Titans, How the New Canadian Establishment Seized Power, vol. 3, Toronto, Viking Canada, 1998, 164–189; 166–172–172.
7. Robert A. Hackett, Richard S. Gruneau, Donald Gutstein & Timothy A. Gibson, The Missing News: Filters and Blind Spots in Canada’s Press, Aurora, Ontario, Garamond Press, 2000, 131–132.
See: “Very few women who were young and pretty escaped him [Brian Mulroney].” Michael Meighen in Rae Murphy, Robert Chodos & Nick Auf der Maur, Brian Mulroney: The Boy from Baie Comeau, Toronto, James Lorimer & Company, 1985, 62.
8. Peter Charles Newman, The Canadian Revolution,1985–1995: From Deference to Defiance, Toronto, Viking, 1995, 389.
9. Murray Dobbin, Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? Toronto, James Lorimer & Company Limited, 2003, 11.
10. Peter Charles Newman, “Epitaph For the Two–Party State: Trust Canadians to Invent a New System of Government: Elected Dictatorship,” Maclean’s, 1 November 1993, 14.
See: “As of January 1st, 2008, the Power Corporation of Canada has seventeen board members: Pierre Beaudoin, Laurent Dassault, André Desmarais, Paul Desmarais, Paul Desmarais Junior, Paul Fribourg (US Government), Anthony R.M. Graham (See: William Carvel Graham), Robert Gratton (Government of Canada), the very honorable Donald Frank Mazankowski (Government of Canada), Jerry Edgar Allan Nickerson, James R. Nininger (Revenue Canada), Robert Jeffrey Orr (See: Robert Orr, Government of Canada), Robert Parizeau (Québec Government), Michel Plessis–Bélair (Québec Government), John A. Rae (the brother of Bob Rae the Premier of Ontario, Government of Ontario and Government of Canada), Amaury–Daniel de Sèze (French Government) and Emöke Jolan Erzsebet Szathmáry (Government of Canada) … Pierre Beaudoin is also the premier vice–president and board member of the Bombardier Corporation. In effect, there exists direct relations between all the board members of the Power Corporation, as well as with Pierre Beaudoin, and all the board members of the Bombardier Corporation: Laurent Beaudoin, André Berard, J.R. André Bombardier, Janine Bombardier, L. Denis Desautels (Government of Canada), Jean–Louis Fontaine, Jane F. Garvey (Federal Aviation Administration, Obama Administration), Daniel Johnson [the younger], Jean C. Monty (Nortel, Bell, Alcatel–Lucent), André Navarri (Association des industries ferroviaires européennes), Carlos Eduardo Represas (Bombardier Mexico, Latin American Business Council), Jean–Pierre Rosso (US Government), Federico Sada González (Mexican Government, ITESM), Heinrich Weiss (German Government) … As with Paul Desmarais Senior, Laurent Beaudoin is one of the most infamous businessmen in Québec: Not only is he renowned as the leader of perhaps the most well–known corporation of the Québec Inc., but Laurent Beaudoin has been very deeply involved in the politics and political intrigues of the past thirty years.” Saidatou Dicko, Un Conseil d’administration fortement réseauté pour une Power Corporation, Paris, Éditions Publibook, 2012, 23–29: “ Power Corporation du Canada compte dix–sept membres sur son conseil d’administration au 1er janvier 2008; il s’agit de Pierre Beaudoin, Laurent Dassault, André Desmarais, L’honnorable Paul Desmarais, Paul Desmarais, jr., Paul Fribourg, Anthony R. Graham, Robert Gratton, le très honorable Donald F. Mazankowski, Jerry E.A. Nickerson, James R. Nininger, R. Jeffery Orr, Robert Parizeau, Michel Plessis–Bélair, John A. Rae, Amaury–Daniel de Seze et Emöke J.E. Szathmáry … Pierre Beaudoin est aussi premier vice–président et member du conseil d’administration de l’entreprise Bombardier Inc. À cet effet, il a des relations directes avec tous les membres de direction ainsi qu’avec ceux qui siègent en meme temps que lui sur le conseil d’administration de Bombardier Inc., à savoir, Laurent Beaudoin, André Berard, J.R. André Bombardier, Janine Bombardier, L. Denis Desautels, Jean-Louis Fontaine, Jane F. Garvey, Daniel Johnson, Jean C. Monty, Andre Navarri, Carlos E. Represas, Jean–Pierre Rosso, Federico Sada G., Heinrich Weiss … Or, comme Paul Desmarais Sr., Laurent Beaudoin est un des hommes les plus en vue et les plus important du Québec. Non seulment est–il reconnu pour diriger une des entreprises les plus ‘populaires’ du Quebec, mais il a été conseiller politique et impliqué dans des operations politiques au cours des trois dernières décennies.”
11. Robin Philpot, Derrière L’État Desmarais: Power, 2e édition, Montréal, Livres Baraka Inc., 2014, 11: “Cet empire [de Paul Desmarais] est reconnu pour être en mesure de faire et de défaire des gouvernements québécois et canadiens, et ce, depuis bientôt 40 ans.”
12. Jules Bélanger, Jean–Louis Lévesque: La montée d’un Gaspésien aux sommets des affaires, Saint–Laurent, Fides, 1996, 138–166.
13. Jean Lesage (5 August 1958) in Pierre Elliott Trudeau, “Un manifeste démocratique,” Cité Libre, 22(octobre, 1958): 1–31; 26: “Je désire fermement que nous trouvions, au plus tôt, une formule qui nous permettra de combiner nos forces afin d’écraser à tout jamais la machine duplessiste.”
See: “Exploitons à fond la Confédération … the confederation pact must not be allowed to continue on its present path, else it will be in danger of compromising its existence.” Jean Lesage, “Exploitons à fond la Confédération,” The Canadian Experiment, Success or Failure? (Le Canada, expérience ratée … ou réussie?) Congress Held 15–18 November 1961, Under the Auspices of the Association générale des étudiants de l’Université de Laval, Mason Wade, editor, Québec, Presses de l’Université de Laval, 1962, 168–180; 169–180.
14. André Bolduc, “Hydro–Québec,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, vol. 2, James Harley Marsh, editor, Edmonton, Hurtig Publishers, 1985, 853.
15. Raoul Roy, René Lévesque: Était–il un imposteur? Montréal, Les Éditions du Franc–Canada, 1985, Back Cover/Verso: “Comment l’indépendantisme, qui croissait avant Lévesque, a–t–il été étouffé pour aboutir à la confusion cacophonique actuelle? Des 1968, René Lévesque a averti les indépendantistes que ce n’etait pas l’indépendance qu’il allait réaliser. Pourquoi l’ont–ils suivi aussi fidèlement? … En se servant du PQ pour grimper dans l’échelle sociale jusqu’à la dominance, cette nouvelle classe de parvenus n’a–t–elle pas fait passer ses intérêts égoïstes avant ceux de la libération nationale?”
16. Anonymous, “Power Corp. Chairman Increases Control With $31 Million Buy,” Winnipeg Free Press, 16 July 1977, 17.
17. Mario Pelletier, La machine à milliards: L’Histoire de la Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Montréal, Les Éditions Québec/Amérique, 1989, 149: “On est alors a l’époque des grands sommets économiques, que le gouvernement Lévesque a décidé de convoquer pour assurer une concertation entre les divers agents économiques. Le premier a eu lieu au Manoir Richelieu,du 24 au 27 mai 1977, et a rassemblé autour d’une même table Louis Laberge, Paul Desmarais, Yvon Charbonneau, Brian Mulroney, etc.”
18. Pierre Arbour, Québec Inc. et la tentation du dirigisme: La Caisse de dépôt et les sociétés d’État: Héritage d’une génération? Montréal, L’Étincelle, 1993, 12–14: “J’ai eu l’occasion d’observer l’importance grandissante de la Caisse dans l’économie du Québec grâce aux millions qui y ont afflué. J’ai pu constater aussi que le pouvoir politique, surtout à partir de 1978, y avait une emprise importante et que les décisions d’investissement devenaient colorées par la politique … On veut inconsciemment imiter Paul Desmarais et on y reussit très mal. Malheureusement, celui qui y perd n’est pas un actionnaire privé et fortuné, mais plutôt la collectivite québécoise qui s’en trouve ainsi appauvrie.”
19. Rae Murphy, Robert Chodos & Nick Auf der Maur, Brian Mulroney: The Boy from Baie Comeau, Toronto, James Lorimer & Company, 1985, 79–80.
See: “As reported in Mulroney: The Making of the Prime Minister, my 1984 biography, ‘The question of whether the Premier of Québec could, or should, be summoned before the Cliche Inquiry had precipitated a major crisis within the commission. In an argument that went on for several evenings, Mulroney made it perfectly clear to his colleagues that if they insisted on issuing a subpoena to the premier, that he, Mulroney, would quit. This set him on a collision course with his close friend Bouchard, by now the commission’s chief council. ‘My plan was to put Bourassa in the box,’ Bouchard acknowledged. ‘It was the logical follow–up to Choquette.’ On both philosophical and political grounds, Mulroney was having none of it. He thought it inappropriate to put the elected head of the government in a star–chamber setting before an inquiry that Bourassa had himself appointed. And for the sake of appearances, he thought the premier deserved better than to be compared with a union reign of terror. ‘I just said absolutely, no,’ Mulroney recalled, ‘that it was an excess of the jurisdiction of the commission, and that I had no intention of going along with the request under any circumstances.’” L. Ian MacDonald, From Bourassa to Bourassa: Wilderness to Restoration, 2nd edition, Montréal/Kingston, McGill–Queen’s University Press, 2002, 286.
See also: “According to MacDonald, the larger issue was a dispute on the commission itself about whether to subpoena the premier. Commission counsel, Lucian Bouchard, wanted to call Bourassa. Mulroney said no and threatened to quit if they did because it was ‘in excess of the jurisdiction of the commission.’ What MacDonald didn’t report in his account is that late one night before Choquette’s testimony, Bourassa called Mulroney over to his house in Maplewood. Cliche was snowed in at his home in Beauce, and the other commissioner, Guy Chevrette, was unavailable. According to the notes written at the time by journalist Gillian Cosgrove, who lived with MacDonald then and was close to the Mulroneys, ‘Brian felt he had needed a witness, so he called on Paul Desmarais. The chairman of the Power Corp. sat at one end of the table, said nothing, and merely took notes like a dutiful stenographer. Bourassa convinced them both that Choquette was going around the bend, was on the verge of crashing, was crazy. The commission decided to call Choquette anyway — he was actually waiting at home to testify — and he fingered top officials in Bourassa’s office.’” Claire Hoy, Friends in High Places: Politics and Patronage in the Mulroney Government, Toronto, Seal Books, 1988, 41–42. [1987]
See also: “Québec Liberal Leader Robert Bourassa seemed happy to have his provincial troops work for Mulroney federally.” Charles Lynch, Race for the Rose: Election 1984, Toronto, Methuen, 1984, ix.
20. Martin Patriquin, “Québec the Most Corrupt Province: Why Does Québec Claim So Many of the Nation’s Political Scandals?” Maclean’s, 24 September 2010.
21. Senator André Pratte, “Tout est pourri,” La Presse, 11 février 1994, A5: “Tout est pourri … tout est dirigé par Power Corporation, tout le monde sait ça. Chrétien, Johnson, c’est Power Corporation … On est tellement pourris qu’on s’en vient pire que les Américains. Mais c’est pas eux qui ont le contrôle, c’est Power Corporation … moi, je ne sais pas comment on peut mettre ça ensemble … je ne comprends pas pourquoi tout est pourri. Peut–être que vous, vous pourriez m’expliquer?”
22. France Charbonneau & Renaud Lachance, “Partie 4, — Chapitre 3: Les conséquences,” Rapport final de la Commission d’enquête sur l’octroi et la gestion des contrats publics dans l’industrie de la construction: Stratagèmes, causes, conséquences et recommandations, vol. 3, Québec, Québec, Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2015, 73–80; 74–79–79.
23. Yves Michaud (1968) in Robin Philpot, Derrière L’État Desmarais: Power, Montréal, 2008, 13–14.
24. Rae Murphy, Robert Chodos & Nick Auf der Maur, Brian Mulroney: The Boy from Baie Comeau, Toronto, 1985, 72.
25. Ross Marowits, “Canadian Business Giant Desmarais Dead at 86,” Global News, 9 October 2013.
26. Robin Philpot, Derrière L’État Desmarais: Power, 1e édition, Montréal, 2008,15–156: “Les Desmarais ont mis environ 30 ans pour mettre la main sur Le Soleil et Le Droit, mais ils y sont parvenues en novembre 2000, avec en prime Le Quotidien de Chicoutimi, ce qui porté à 70% leur contrôle de la presse écrite au Québec … Au Canada, on se scandalise du fait que 66% des quotidiens appartenaient à des chaînes de médias en 1970 et que ce chiffre soit passé à 88% en 1995 et, ensuite, à 95% en 1999. Au Québec, ce sont tous les quotidiens, sauf Le Devoir, qui appartient à des chaînes, et une seule chaîne en possède 70%.”
27. Léo–Paul Lauzon, “La minorité de riches (5,6%) paie 39% des impôts: Faux,” Le Journal de Montréal: Blogues, 28 septembre 2016: “Selon les données du gouvernement du Québec, 6,47 millions de contribuables, soit 36%, ont gagné moins de 20 000$ en 2013 et 14% ont empoché entre 20 000$ et 29 999$ … en 2013, 50% des contribuables québécois ont gagné moins de 30 000$ et 73% moins de 50 000$.”
28. David Descôteaux, “Qui paye de l’impôt au Québec?” Le Journal de Montréal: Opinions, 24 avril 2017: “Le nombre de contribuables ayant produit une déclaration s’élève à près de 6,5 millions. Mais attention: Parmi ces ‘contribuables,’ seulement 4,1 millions sont en réalité imposables. Beaucoup produisent une déclaration, mais ne payent aucun impôt … un peu plus de 4 millions de particuliers paient de l’impôt au Québec, soit environ la moitié de la population.”
See: Michel Girard, “42% des Québécois se sont appauvris,” La Presse, 9 septembre 1997.
II/ Trudeauisme (politique fonctionnelle): Modern European Raison d’État
1. Max Nemni & Monique Nemni, Trudeau Transformed: The Shaping of a Statesman, 1944–1965, George Tombs, translator, vol. 2, Toronto, McClelland & Stewart, 2011, 1.
2. Max Nemni & Monique Nemni, Trudeau Transformed: The Shaping of a Statesman, 1944–1965, George Tombs, translator, vol. 2, Toronto, McClelland & Stewart, 2011, 8–8–8–10–88.
See: “We have been associated with Pierre Elliott Trudeau for nearly twenty years, first as friends over a decade, then for another ten years buried in his personal papers and publications … [Pierre Trudeau] enthusiastically adopted the values of Québec’s clerical–nationalist milieu. During World War II, he rejected all war news as ‘English’ propaganda and came out strongly against conscription for service overseas … His intellectual mentors rejected democracy and liberalism, shared the ideas of the French far right, and approved the regimes of Pétain, Mussolini, and Franco. Trudeau himself had the greatest admiration for Charles Maurras. Despite Canadian war censorship, student newspapers such as Le Quartier Latin, to which he regularly contributed, never hesitated to ridicule the war and federal government policies … Trudeau won the riding of Mount Royal, as a Liberal member of Parliament. By now he was a passionate defender of federalism and liberal democracy … What happened between 1944 and 1965? When and how did he make this 180–degree turn? … Unlike many Cité Libre collaborators, including Gérard Pelletier, Trudeau never shared Emmanuel Mounier’s sympathy with the French Communist Party … According to Hegel, the State — and more specifically the Prussian State — represented the most complete form of individual freedom.” Max Nemni & Monique Nemni, Trudeau Transformed: The Shaping of a Statesman, 1944–1965, George Tombs, translator, vol. 2, Toronto, McClelland & Stewart, 2011, 2–7–7–7–8–88–92.
See also: “[Trudeau] was an avid skier who leapt at the chance to hit the mountain trails; in his younger years, he won several medals for his prowess on skis, and he was still skiing in powder shortly before his death in 2000. He was fascinated by all manner of water sports: Swimming, diving, water skiing, scuba diving — and he excelled in every one. He knew how to fly a plane and could fly solo; he loved zooming up hill and down dale on his famous Harley-Davidson; he hiked hundreds of kilometers on foot and climbed mountains. Trudeau could do vertical headstands and horizontal headstands, as photographs in several biographies attest. Once he became prime minister, frisky as ever in his fifties, he could easily shake off admirers and journalists alike by bounding up the steps in the Parliament Buildings four at a time … An insatiable reader, he devoured novels, works of history and political philosophy, as well as poetry. He was endowed with a phenomenal memory, knew several opera librettos by heart and could declaim whole poems impromptu, in French and English … the people he met were often startled by his encyclopedic knowledge … He almost never missed Sunday Mass, even when travelling, recited his daily prayers, sought out opportunities for meditation, often took part in retreats, and liked to join spiritual experiences.” Max Nemni & Monique Nemni, Trudeau Transformed: The Shaping of a Statesman, 1944–1965, George Tombs, translator, vol. 2, Toronto, McClelland & Stewart, 2011, 2–2–3–3–4.
Remarks: Obviously this hagiography was written and published by these erstwhile sycophants (editors)of Cité Libre and longtime hacks of the Liberal Party of Canada (now absolutely controlled by its Québec–wing), the élites of its dominant Québécocentric faction, in order to pave the way for the “new” Trudeau administration, and was undoubtedly paid for with taxpayer funds through various schemes, via the last appendages of the Desmarais media empire, once known as Canadian culture: La Presse, La Tribune of Sherbrooke, Le Nouvelliste of Trois–Rivieres, La Voix de l’Est of Granby, Le Soleil and Le Droit, along with Le Quotidien of Chicoutimi, seventeen weeklies, including the three largest weeklies in the Montréal area, and ten radio and television stations, including Montréal’s CKAC, the largest French–language radio station in Canada, while Power Corporation, through its Square Victoria Communications Group subsidiary, together with the corporate parent companies of the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail newspapers owns The Canadian Press. Media conglomerates owned 95% of all daily Canadian newspapers in 1999. In Québec, all newspapers, except Le Devoir, are owned by media conglomerates: One conglomerate alone owns 70% of all daily newspapers in the Belle Province. We must not forget to include under the dying category of Canadian culture, BCE, Bell Media and CTV, but this list is not exhaustive …
See finally: “I started work on this book late in November 1979 … I began work much earlier, gathering material and insights from three different perspectives: From 1968 to 1970, as executive assistant to the Hon. Eric Kierans; from 1970 to 1973, as a civil servant with a long–winded title; and from 1973, as a columnists for the Toronto Star … The book is neither a definitive biography nor a work of historical scholarship … Trudeau is without intellectual equal among Canadian politicians, today or in the past, and there are few in the world who can challenge him.” Richard Gwyn & Sandra Gwyn (editor), The Northern Magus: Pierre Trudeau and Canadians, Toronto, McClelland & Stewart, 1980, 9–9–9–58.
3. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Maurice Blain, Réginald Boisvert, Guy Cormier, Jean–Paul Geoffroy, Pierre Juneau, Roger Rolland & Gérard Pelletier (l’Equipe de la revue Cité Libre), “Faites vos jeux: Mounier disparaît,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 37: “Emmanuel Mounier disparu. Il n’est plus temps, deux mois après sa mort, de dire la consternation où ce départ nous laisse. Le plus distrait de nos lecteurs peut vérifier dans chaque page de Cité Libre, non seulement l’influence qu’a exercée sur chacun de nous la revue Esprit mais encore un certain souci de lucidité, que nous voulons de plus en plus profond, et dont le désir nous vient en ligne droite d’Emmanuel Mounier. Les instigateurs de Cité Libre avaient décidé, dès leurs premières rencontres, de faire tenir au directeur d’Esprit la première copie de la revue qui sortirait des presses. C’est assez dire que Cité Libre est née sous le signe d’Esprit, eu fidélité aux mêmes valeurs pour lesquelles Mounier s’est battu jusqu’au dernier jour. … Mort, Mounier restera présent dans toute l’aventure que nous tentons aujourd’hui.”
Remarks: What was a very powerful base of the success of Pierre Trudeau and the Québécocracy, in their destruction of the old British imperialistic ruling classes across Canada, — municipally, provincially and federally? In France the Québécocracy has had the support of the French Bonapartists, while in Britain it has had the support of the British Bonapartists. Today in Europe the Québécocracy has the support of the European Bonapartist faction in Brussels. This support cost the taxpayers of the Heartland enormously over the years, and is now being paid for by the very fools (“we were young and foolish”) who first brought the Québécocracy into power, as they themselves are now being shuffled into the boneyard of history: The healthcare systems across Canada have become the political and economic cogwheels of the Québécocracy, in its endeavor to cut costs. The Québécocracy must protect its backwards cartels, outdated monopolies and corrupt trust with government handouts, especially from the federal treasury, in order to sustain itself as a dominant ruling class during and after the reorganization of the American world. At least, this is the phantasm behind the self–destructive behavior of our mortally corrupt élites. The vast increase of public debt will therefore lead to a far greater increase in repayment costs and taxation, which will dampen economic growth and prosperity in some parts of the country, and impoverish many Canadians: This will increase powerful social tensions, mainly aimed against the Québécocracy. The last remnants of the Québécocracy, especially in Ottawa, are therefore turning their back upon the soixante–huitards: The sick, the elderly and pensioners in Canada, who have paid their high tax bills and contributions over the years, are therefore the new victims of the political and economic irrationalism of the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class in its thirst for naked power. Under the White Gold ruling class, what good is a fat pension for those Canadians who will never live long enough to enjoy the fruits of their labors, because they will never get the proper medical attention they deserve when needed the most? Their cash belongs in the coffers of rational political and economic order, but never indirectly or directly in the bloated belly of the Hydro–Québec ruling class …
4. Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau & Cité Libre, “Faites vos jeux: Blum et Laski,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 37–38: “Un petit nombre d’hommes ont compris de quoi il retournait. Ils ont [38] refusé d’être enrégimentés dans l’un ou l’autre des totalitarismes. Et ils ont consacré leur vie à élaborer et à “agir” une doctrine qui postulait la liberté, la justice et la paix … Son oeuvre immense, écrite et vécue, n’a été qu’une recherche continue de la cité libre, où des hommes pourraient vivre dans la tolérance, et éventuellement dans l’amour. C’est en quoi les capitalistes et les staliniens furent ses ennemis jurés … Le vide créé par l’assassinat de Jaurès le convia à délaisser la carrière des lettres où il excellait, pour devenir l’âme dirigeante du socialisme français. Comme journaliste, comme parlementaire, et comme homme d’État, il fut pendant un quart de siècle un foudre de liberté et de justice … [Laski et Blum] figuraient en quelque sorte les ennemis du dedans, les consciences qui refusaient d’être embrigadées. Socialistes, ils rejetaient néanmoins la primauté du stalinisme. Et démocrates, ils dénonçaient quand même l’État libéral.”
5. Aimé Albert Georges Patri (1904–1983) in Allan Bloom, editor, “Editor’s Introduction (1968),” Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit Assembled by Raymond Queneau, Alexandre Kojève & Raymond Queneau; Allan Bloom, editor & James H. Nichols Jr., translator, Ithaca, New York/London, England, Cornell University Press, 1980, vii–xii; vii. [1969]
See: “Koyré proposed Kojève as his replacement, and for the next five and a half years Kojève devoted the seminar to a line–by–line reading of the Phenomenology of Spirit. His audience included Raymond Aron, Maurice Merleau–Ponty, Raymond Queneau, André Breton, Georges Bataille, Gaston Fessard and other well–known figures.” Francis Roger Devlin, “Preface,” Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought, New York, University Press of America, Inc., 2004, ix–xvi; xi.
See also: “[Kojève] died suddenly, on June 4, 1968, while giving a speech in Brussels at a meeting of an organization he had done much to create and foster: the European Common Market … After the war, he was asked by a former student, Robert Marjolin, to join him in the Direction des Relations Économiques Extérieures as an ‘adviser.’ From this time on Kojève seems to have played a rôle of considerable importance in the postwar French government, shaping economic policy, promoting the common market, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and support for third world development. Anecdotes abound regarding his influence on French policy making, the 1957 creation of the European Community from the Coal and Steel Treaty, and his unusual position as a feared and enigmatic éminence grise who, together with Bernard Clappier and Olivier Wormser, dominated French economic policy for more than a decade.” Jeff Love, “Introduction: A Russian in Paris,” The Black Circle: A Life of Alexandre Kojève, New York, Columbia University Press, 2018.
See also: “[136] During this time Kojève finally becomes a French national, and after the war Jean Monnet recommends one of Kojève’s students, Robert Marjolin, as director of the Direction des relations économiques extérieures au ministère de l’Économie nationale (‘DREE’). In 1944 Marjolin is appointed to this position by Pierre Mendèz France. Apparently following Kojève’s own request, Marjolin in turn appoints Kojève to the DREE:
‘I saw Kojève again in 1945, when I was director of of External Economic Relations in the Ministry of the National Economy. He came to see me one day and explained that he wanted to get into the civil service. I had him appointed chargé de mission [civil service grade in which the incumbents receive their assignments on an ad hoc basis] in the ministry, where he was to stay until his death in 1968. Valued counsellor of Olivier Wormser, Bernard Clappier and many others, he enjoyed considerable authority there.’ [11. Robert Marjolin, Architect of European Unity: Memoirs 1911–1986, London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1989, 52]
From 1945 on, Rousselier was Kojève’s new superior. Under him Kojève played an important role as one of the French delagates in the negotiations of the Havana Charter. In 1953 Bernard Clappier [12. Bernard Clappier (1914–1999): Head of Robert Schuman’s private office; Schuman’s closest adviser; mediator between Schuman and Monnet; followed Marjolin as the director of DREE; Governor of the Bank of France] was appointed director [137] of the DREE and Olivier Wormser [13. Olivier Wormser (1914–85): Director of Economic and Financial Affairs at the Foreign Ministry from 1954 to 1966; French ambassador to the Soviet Union; Governor of the Bank of France; ambassador to West Germany] director of economic affairs at the Quai d’Orsay. Those two and Kojève form a powerful alliance in the central government administration until 1966. For the rest of his life Kojève is concerned with international trade, promoting what he called ‘giving colonialism,’ abolition of trade barriers, international economic relations and especially relations between developing and industrial countries. In 1964 Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, then Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs, makes him chevalier de la Légion d’honneur. Kojève dies on 4 June 1968 at a meeting of the common market in Brussels.
Contrary to tenacious rumors [14. Bolz, e.g., writes that Kojève was a bureaucrat in the EU: See Norbert Bolz, ‘Das Happy End der Geschichte,’ in Rosmarie Beier, editor, Geschichtskultur in der zweiten Moderne, (Frankfurt am Main, Campus, 2000), 60; Thompson writes that Kojève ‘abandoned teaching and spent the rest of his life as a bureaucrat in the European Economic Community’: see Kenneth W. Thompson, Traditions and Values in Politics and Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Louisiana State Uiversity Press, 1992), 296; Martins calls Kojève a civil servant of the European Community: Hermínio Martins, ‘Technology, Modernity, Politics,’ in James M. Good and Irving Velody, editors, The Politics of Postmodernity, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998), 160; also Fukayama wrote that ‘Kojève left teaching after the war and spent the remainder of his life working as a bureaucrat in the European Economic Community, until his death in 1968’ in Francis Fukayama, ‘The End of History?’ in Stephen Eric Bronner, editor, Twentieth Century Political Theory: A Reader, (London, Routledge, 1997), 370] Kojève has never been part of the EU bureaucracy. And, as his biographer Auffret tells us, even though Kojève was enthusiastic about the prospects of political and economic integration, he was never very much interested in the bureaucracy of Brussels. [15. Dominique Auffret, Alexandre Kojève: La philosophie, l’état, la fin de l’histoire,(Paris, Éditions Grasset, 1990), 299] His interests went far beyond European affairs.
Now, a lot of people do a lot of things. But with Kojève we have the special situation that many important and influential intellectuals and politicians spoke only in superlatives about him. Stanley Rosen, for instance, said that Kojève was ‘not only a philosopher of extraordinary gifts but a self–taught economist of world statute.’ [16. Stanley Rosen, “Kojève,” A Companion to Continental Philosophy, Simon Critchley & William R. Schroeder, editors, (Oxford, Oxfordshire: Basil Blackwell, 1999), 237] Raymond Aron calls Kojève an ‘esprit supérieure’ and adds that of the men he admired most — Kojève, Koyré, and Weil — Kojève was the greatest genius. [17. Raymond Aron, Mémoires, (Paris, Julliard, 1983), 94] Olivier Wormser had an article praising Kojève published in Commentaire. [18. Olivier Wormser, ‘Mon ami Alexandre Kojève,’ (1980), 9 Commentaire 120] Raymond Barre, French Prime Minister from 1976 to 1981, regularly heaped praise upon Kojève and cited him as the man who had most influenced his intellectual upbringing. Barre knew Kojève from his own times at the DREE. ‘The superiority of his intelligence was obvious,’ says the future Prime Minister in an interview [138] with Auffret and stresses that Kojève’s article on tyranny ‘has had the greatest significance for me.’ [19. Dominique Auffret, Alexandre Kojève: La philosophie, l’état, la fin de l’histoire,Ibidem, note 15, 417] According to Raymond Aron, even Giscard d’Estaing is said to have rated Kojève very highly; at least in the eyes of Kojève himself, who once told the story that d’Estaing held intellectuals in general, and Kojève in particular, in very high esteem. After discussing an issue with Kojève, d’Estaing is said to have asked Kojève: ‘Alors, Kojève, vous êtes content?’ And Aron adds that Kojève indeed did take his area of work very seriously and got very angry when his suggestions were not taken into consideration. [20. Raymond Aron, Mémoires, (Paris, Julliard, 1983), note 17, 97–98] Finally, as already mentioned, Kojève’s reputation in relation to modern French philosophy is unrivalled.
But, of course, we cannot confuse reputation with real influence. And assessing influence poses much more intricate problems. To be sure, Kojève’s standing in the French civil service was very troubled in the early stages, to say the least, and he faced quite a degree of animosity: being a philosopher, a Russian émigré, and someone who called himself ‘conscience of Stalin,’ and a ‘right–wing Marxist’ the antipathy could have come as no surprise. But as he spoke nearly all European languages and as he showed incredible skills in negotiations he soon established himself and gained a reputation.
If Kojève was asked about his own influence in France, he famously said that he was second only to de Gaulle in the decision making process of the French Republic. [21. Stanley Rosen, “Kojève,” A Companion to Continental Philosophy, Simon Critchley & William R. Schroeder, editors, (Oxford, Oxfordshire, Basil Blackwell, 1999), note 16, 238] Of course, we have to take this comment of the ‘farceur who impersonated the wise man on so high a level that he succeeded in becoming a philosopher, if not the sage or god that he claimed to be’ [22. Stanley Rosen, “Kojève,” Ibidem, 244] with a pinch of salt. Raymond Aron says in his memoires that Kojève exerted influence mainly by circulating paradoxical memoranda, but that it is hard comprehensively to assess his true importance. [23. Raymond Aron, Mémoires, Ibidem, note 17, 99] What is certain is that when the definition of the broad outlines of French economic policy or the common market was at issue, his theoretical reflections were well received and taken very seriously by people like Clappier, Wormser, Marjolin or Barre. His influence usually took the form of handwritten notes to Bernard Clappier composed after long discussions with him. [24. Dominique Auffret, Alexandre Kojève: La philosophie, l’état, la fin de l’histoire, Ibidem, note 15, 296] Olivier Wormser, who held a similar position at the Quai d’Orsay to Clappier’s at the DREE, said that the stability of France in the fourth and fifth Republics was secured by the barons of the central administration, of which Kojève was one.
As far as the technicalities of the formation of Europe are concerned, Kojève at first glance seems to stand aloof. He is not mentioned in Monnet’s [139] or Schumann’s memoires and Raymond Barre made it clear: ‘Kojève was not, to my knowledge, directly related in the normal course with the European affairs.’ [25. Dominique Auffret, Alexandre Kojève: La philosophie, l’état, la fin de l’histoire, Ibidem, 420]
But one could make a tentative link, a ‘chain of admiration,’ between Monnet and Kojève: just as Monnet was a great admirer of Marjolin and developed his vision of Europe in constant negotiation with him, [26. Jean Monnet, Mémoires, (Paris, Fayard, 1976), 249] so Marjolin was a great admirer of Kojève and stressed that he owed him ‘a great part of what I think and what I am.’ [27. Robert Marjolin, Architect of European Unity: Memoirs 1911–1986, Ibidem, 1989, note 11, 53]
Whether a real influence was exerted via these channels of admiration, whether Kojève’s ideas on Europe and the end of the nation state migrated via Marjolin to Monnet, and whether this accounts for the striking similarities between Kojève’s and Monnet’s thoughts on this issue can only be a subject of speculation. What is certain is that both saw France as having to live up to heightened expectations.
… Apart from this intellectually strong but ultimately intangible affinity, Kojève has also had a more straight–forward influence: He played an active and quite destructive role in Britain’s first application to join the EEC. As mentioned above, Kojève was opposed to British accession to the ECSC and the EEC:
‘Not that he had not been a great admirer of the English, on the contrary, however, he was very clear about the British particularism. For him, English individuality was such that one could not consider the English as true Europeans because they would never really be convinced Europeans.’ [30. ] [140]
From early on in the process of Britain applying to join the EEC, France opposed the application and cabaled against it. Chief protagonists in these machinations were Wormser and Kojève. [31. Stuart Ward, ‘Anglo–Commonwealth Relations and EEC–Membership: The Problem of the Old Dominions,’ Britain’s Failure to Enter the European Community 1961–1963: The Enlargement Negotiations and Crises in European, Atlantic and Commonwealth Relations, George Wilkes, editor, (London, Frank Cass, 1997), 102–103] Both were described by the British embassy in Paris as ‘two virtuosos of intrigue, and renowned for their opposition to British membership.’ [32. The British Ambassador to France (Dixon) to the Treasury (Arnold France), 4 May 1962, PREM, 11–4017, PRO] Wormser and Kojève tried to strengthen the resistance of the Dominions to UK membership in the EEC by approaching the embassies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand with the clear message that the Commonwealth could not possibly survive in its present form if Britain joined the EEC. Even though, ultimately, it was not the resistance of the Dominions that killed off the first attempt, Kojève must have been a great nuisance to the British delegation, a conjecture that is supported by the following poem that one of the members of the British delegation wrote while waiting for the six to reach agreement:
Kojève
Disait au Général ‘Je lève
Mon verre à la destruction totale
De la civilisation occidentale.’ [33. N. Piers Ludlow, Dealing With Britain: The Six and the First UK Application to the EEC, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997), 200]”
Christoph Kletzer, “Alexandre Kojève’s Hegelianism and the Formation of Europe,” The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2005–2006), vol. 8, John Bell & Claire Kilpatrick, editors, Oxford, Oxfordshire/Portland, Oregon, Hart Publishing, 2006, 133–152; 136–137–138–139–140. See: “Force is not an accessory to the law but its attribute: The law is an order of violence or force, it is a Gewaltordnung … I will try to elucidate and defend the aristocratic attitude.” Christoph Kletzer (King’s College London), “The Germ of Law,” Vienna Lectures on Legal Philosophy: Legal Positivism, vol. 1, Christoph Bezemek, Michael Potacs & Alexander Somek, editors, Oxford, Oxfordshire, Hart Publishing, 2018, 1–22; 2. See: “The approach to the relationship between Kelsen and Kant presented in this chapter, as a critical reconstruction, differs from the recent attempt by Kletzer to present an essential compatibility between the Kelsenian and Kantian approaches in the framework of the conception of ‘absolute positivism’ attributed to Kelsen, based on the idea that both Kant’s and Kelsen’s solutions to great intellectual impasses that preceded their theories have not been ‘conciliatory, but radical.’ (Christoph Kletzer, ‘Absolute Positivism,’ Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Vol. 42, no. 2, (2013): 87–99 (88)) … the main problem of this interpretation lies in the fact that whilst, on the one hand, it tries to defend ‘the Pure Theory against the charge of inconsistency,’ on the other hand, it cannot escape the internal inconsistencies that are characteristic of the ‘absolute positivism’ itself as a theoretical stance. These problematic aspects of the position of the absolute positivism are, in fact, very well summarized by Kletzer himself: ‘Absolute positivism is thus aware that it is a philosophical doctrine about philosophy, about the limits of philosophy. As such a philosophical doctrine about the limits and incompetence of philosophy, absolute positivism to a certain extent has to be both a reflexive and also an anti–philosophical doctrine.’ (98).” Ana Dimiškovska, “Grounding the Normativity of Law: The Role of Transcendental Argumentation in Kelsen’s Critique of Natural Law Theory,” Hans Kelsen and the Natural Law Tradition (Studies in Moral Philosophy), Ian Bryan, Peter Langford & John McGarry, editors, Leiden, The Netherlands/Boston, Massachusetts, Koninklijke Brill NV, 2019, 253–288; 264.
See also: “As is appropriate for someone who chose to work behind the scenes as an adviser to princes, as it were, Kojève’s name is virtually absent from the standard literature on the formation of the EU, but for those influential in French policy making, he was acknowledged as a leading figure … Aron tells the story that Giscard d’Estaing was an admirer of Kojève and after delivering a speech inspired by him, asked ‘Well, Kojève, are you happy?’” Steven B. Smith, Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism, Chicago/London, University of Chicago Press, 2006, 228.
See finally: „Alexandre Kojève hat hier angeknüpft und einen interessanten Gedanken Hegels radikalisiert. Um seine Schlüsselthese zu verstehen, muss man sich daran erinnern, das der Hegelsche Mensch als ein geistiges Wesen gedacht wurde, das durch »Negativität« und einen ständigen Prestigekampf um Anerkennung charkterisiert ist. Negativität heißt bei Hegel das Gegenteil dessen, was man vermuten würde. die negative Energie ist nämlich das »Positivste« am Menschen. Hegel meint damit die Arbeit, auch die begriffliche Arbeit und alle Weisen des »Formens«. Dadurch macht sich der Mensch frei von den Fesseln des Materials und der Natur; er wird Geistmensch. Und Presigekampf meint den Kampf um Anerkennung. Hegel enwickelt ihn in seiner Urform, als Kampf zwischen Herr und Knecht auf Leben und Tod. Wichtig daran ist, dass der Mensch hier nicht aus Bedürftigkeit und Not, sondern wegen eines ideellen Werts sein Leben riskiert.
Kurzum: Der Kampf um Anerkennung und die Arbeit des Negativen machen für Hegel den Menschen erst zum Menschen. Und dieser Mensch stirbt am Ende der Geschichte im napoleonischen Endstaat. Denn jetzt ist der Prestigekampf um Anerkennung ja gewonnen, die Knechte sind seit der Französischen Revolution gleiche Bürger, von denen die Macht ausgeht. Es gibt keinen Grund und Ansatzpunkt mehr fur »Negativität«. Nunn beginnt das Posthistoire; der nachgeschichtliche Mensch betritt die Weltbühne: »Was verschwindet, ist der Mensch im eigentlichen Sinn … Das Ende der menschlichen Zeit oder der Geschichte … bedeutet ja ganz einfach das Aufhoren des Handelns im eigentlichen Sinn des Wortes. Das heißt praktisch: das Verschwinden der Kriege und Blutigen Revolutionem. Und auch das Verschwinden der Philosophie; den da der Mensch sich nicht mehr wesentliche selbst ändert, gibt es keinen Grund mehr, die (wahren) Grundsatz zu verändern, die Basis der Welterkenntnis und Selbsterkenntnis bilden. Aber alles ubrige kann sich unbegrenzt erhalten: die Kunst, die Liebe, das Spiel«.
Alexandre Kojève hat selbst radikale Konsequenzen aus dieser Diagnose gezogen und seine wissenschaftliche Karriere beendet. Denn wenn die Geschichte am Ende ist, endet auch die »große Politik«— und damit ist auch die Philosophie am Ende. Kojève wurde Beamter in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Die EG war für ihn »ein angemessenes Symbol für das Ende der Geschichte«. Alles geschieht nur noch, als ob etwas geschehe. Die Fülle der Ereignisse gehorcht einem stabilen Pattern. Man könnte sagen: Seither hört die Geschichte nicht auf zu enden.“ Norbert Bolz, „Das Happy End der Geschichte,“ Geschichtskultur in der Zweiten Moderne: Herausgegeben für das Deutsche Historische Museum von Rosmarie Beier, Rosmarie Beier & Alfred Nützmann, herausgegebers & Christoph Stölzl, Vorwort, Frankfurt am Main, Campus Verlag, 2000, 53–70; 60.
6. Paul Guy Desmarais in Partridge, Winnipeg Free Press, 20 November 1974.
See: “Mr. Desmarais thought Canada in a better position than most Western industrial nations because it had a majority government and an intelligent prime minister ‘who understood the problems.’” Partridge, Winnipeg Free Press, 20 November 1974.
7. John Francis Bosher, The Gaullist Attack on Canada: 1967–1997, Montréal/Kingston, McGill–Queen’s University Press, 1999, 18.
8. Robert Bourassa, “Épilogue: Aspects économiques d’un Québec indépendant,” Réflexions d’un Citoyen (Cahiers de Cité Libre), Jean–Paul Lefebvre & Robert Bourassa, Ottawa/Montréal, Éditions du Jour Inc., 1968, 99–113; 112: “On sait, d’après le dernier discours du budget, que le Québec recevra pendant l’exercice en cours $362,740,000.00 sous divers titres de péréquation, comparativement à 66 millions qu’il touchait en 1962. Sur le plan fiscal, le Québec n’est donc plus perdant.”
See: “The rising power of Québec in the last few years is a truly amazing story in the history of French–Canada. We must control this movement and not hinder our progress: We must avoid a dead–end; we must follow the right road; and we must lay the rational foundations for the upcoming power struggles based on profound knowledge of the facts of the situation.”
Robert Bourassa, Ibidem, 99: “L’Élan qui anime le Québec depuis quelques années est incontestablement l’un des faits les plus marquants dans l’histoire du Canada français, et il ne faudrait aucunement le ralentir mais plutôt l’orienter, le canaliser de façon qu’il ne suive pas un mouvement aveugle mais qu’il devienne une conscience éclairée et qu’il prépare une décision prise en pleine connaissance des données de la situation.”
See finally: “The image of Robert Bourassa which was thus created is that of a ‘self–made man’ of the bourgeoisie … this image, which was created by the same group of specialists [Power Corporation] who had two years earlier marketed Pierre Elliott Trudeau, is that of a good young man, almost a member of the family, who had risen to the highest levers of economics and politics … The group of specialists, who had popularized Pierre Elliott Trudeau among the Canadian electorate in three months, said that in Québec (which is smaller and above all more homogeneous), they could sell Robert Bourassa as a ‘commodity’ in one month.” Pierre O’Neill & Jacques Benjamin, Les Mandarins du Pouvoir: L’Exercice du Pouvoir au Québec de Jean Lesage à René Lévesque, Montréal, Les Éditions Québec/Amérique, 1978, 171: “L’image qu’on a créée Robert Bourassa est celle du ‘self–made man’ d’une certaine classe moyenne … l’image ainsi créée par le groupe de spécialistes [Power Corporation] qui, deux ans plus tôt, avait ainsi mis en marché Pierre–E. Trudeau, c’est celle du jeune homme bien, presque un membre de la famille, qui s’est hissé aux plus haut leviers de l’économie et de la politique … Ce groupe de spécialistes, qui avait fait connaître en trois mois Pierre–E. Trudeau à l’électorat canadien, s’est dit qu’au Québec, plus petit et surtout plus homogène, on pourrait en un mois vendre ainsi le ‘produit’ Robert Bourassa.”
Remarks: The aim of Les Mandarins du Pouvoir: L’Exercice du Pouvoir au Québec de Jean Lesage à René Lévesque, by Pierre O’Neill and Jacques Benjamin, is to make the mortal corruption of the Québécocracy in Canada appear as normal by drawing a false parallel between the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class and the superior ruling class of the American polity (the White House, Washington and Wall Street): The world historical distinction between superior and inferior ruling classes is thus ignored, as is the rational conception of the American superpower. The outdated and surpassed Napoléonic and French Revolutionary category of right of the Québécocracy, under the Québec régime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais, is not the rational conception of right found in the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the United States of America: American Liberty is a powerful force in the world of today, while modernity is a vanishing (dying) phase of universal history. Of course the Québécocracy in its advancement of such propaganda espouses the lost cause of modern European political and economic irrationalism, which it has empowered in America over the decades, through its support of anti–Americanism via its export of cheap Canadian taxpayer subsidized paper and newsprint to anti–American publishers and media outlets, such as the New York intellectuals (Black Rose Books, and so forth). The White Gold ruling class has also corrupted élites of the New York establishment with cheap Canadian taxpayer subsidized electricity, which has resulted in the wreckage of American finance, commerce and industry, especially in upstate New York. Similar anti–American political and economic degeneration is found in the Narco–élites of Mexico and their very corrupt influence upon the ruling class of California. In effect, both the Québécocracy and the élites of Narcoland are the purveyors of Banana republicanism, which is another name for modern European political and economic irrationalism in the New World, which was implanted in Mexico by modern France in the 19th century: America stamped–out this abomination in the South during the Civil War. Bananaism is passing–away in the 21st century because the last of the bananiers are dying–out under the hammer blows of the superior ruling classes.
9. Mario Bunge, “Courrier des Lecteurs: Cherchons projet politique novateur,” Cité Libre: La voix québécoise pour le libéralisme et l’unité canadienne, 28.3(été, 2000): 12: “D’où viendront les idées neuves? Des départements de science politique? C’est peu probable, car les chercheurs [québécois et québécoises] préfèrent écrire plutôt que de participer à la vie politique, et encore, lorsque leurs cerveaux n’ont pas été irrémédiablement endommagés par des philosophies obscurantistes du genre herméneutique, constructivisme–relativisme, paléo–marxisme.”
III/ Trudeauisme as Québécocentrisme: Modern European Unreason
1. Thomas Malcolm Knox, translator, “The Philosophy of Right,” Great Books of the Western World: Hegel, vol. 46, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; Robert Maynard Hutchins, editor in chief, Chicago, 1960, §340, 110: „Die Prinzipien der Volksgeister sind um ihrer Besonderheit willen, in der sie als existierende Individuen ihre objektive Wirklichkeit und ihr Selbstbewußtsein haben, überhaupt beschränkte, und ihre Schicksale und Taten in ihrem Verhältnisse zueinander sind die erscheinende Dialektik der Endlichkeit dieser Geister, aus welcher der allgemeine Geist, der Geist der Welt, als unbeschränkt ebenso sich hervorbringt, als er es ist, der sein Recht, — und sein Recht ist das allerhöchste, — an ihnen in der Weltgeschichte, als dem Weltgerichte, ausübt.“
Hegel, Ibidem, 1821, §340, 342–343. See finally: Hegel, Ibidem, 1911, §340, 270–271.
2. Harold Joseph Laski (1893–1950), “The Crisis in the Theory of the State,” A Grammar of Politics, 5th edition, New Delhi, S. Chand & Company Ltd., nd, i–xxvii; ii–iii–iv–v–v–vi.
See: “In England nobody was more punctilious about equality than Harold Laski, nor more fearless to fight in Her name. His door was always open to those who were hungry and thirsty for justice, and he received with the same simplicity, heads of state and lowly students. It was this generosity and affection that Laski sought to capture in his political theory. Laski’s immense work, written and lived, was only a continuous search for the city of freedom, where men could live in tolerance, and eventually find love: This is why both the capitalists and Stalinists were his mortal enemies … Laski sometimes lacked consistency.” Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau & Cité Libre, “Faites vos jeux: Blum et Laski,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 37–38: “Il n’y avait en Angleterre personne de plus pointilleux sur l’équité que Laski, ni de plus intrépide à combattre pour elle. Sa porte était toujours ouverte à ceux qui avaient faim et soif de la justice, et il recevait avec une égale simplicité les chefs d’États et les pauvres étudiants. C’est cette générosité toute faite d’affection qu’il tentait d’universaliser dans les systèmes politiques. Son oeuvre immense, écrite et vécue, n’a été qu’une recherche continue de la cité libre, où des hommes pourraient vivre dans la tolérance, et éventuellement dans l’amour. C’est en quoi les capitalistes et les staliniens furent ses ennemis jurés … Laski manqua parfois de cohérence.”
Remarks: National independence in the Cité Libre of the late 1950s means Québec separatism and sovereignty, which is strongly associated with French–Canadian democracy, and is usually depicted as a direct descendant of modern European republicanism inspired by nineteenth century France, and issued from the tradition of Immanuel Kant and the French Revolution (critical and revolutionary): In practical political and economic policy “national independence” is therefore very strongly inspired by the ideology of the post–war French imperialism and anti–Americanism of the Gaullist élites in France, which constitutes the historical form of late 20th century French Bonapartism, namely autocracy founded upon popular consent (H.A.L. Fisher), and which, when eventually applied in Canada by the Québec Régime in Ottawa and Empire of Paul Desmarais (1968–2006), under the tensions of world history, results in the concept of the Québécocracy as the White Gold (Hydro–Québec) ruling class, whether as “gaullisme de gauche” or “gaullisme de droite.”
Of course, the pseudo–Hegelians and anti–Hegelians, the modern irrationalists, will especially reject the above analysis based upon their own historical “facts,” the arrangement and interpretation of which very much depends upon their specious Kantio–Hegelian distinction between genuine Hegelianism and pseudo–Hegelianism: We have discussed this controversy in our writings upon American Idealism, and outlined in some detail the nature of our argument.
3. Lenin (Vladimir Ilitch Oulianov, 1870–1924), State and Revolution, New York, International Publishers, 1932, 7–20.
4. Karl Marx in Bertrand Arthur William Russell, German Social Democracy: Six Lectures, With an Appendix on Social Democracy and the Woman Question in Germany by Alys Russell, London and New York, Longmans, Green and Company, 1896, 4–5. [Italics added]
Remarks: This is indeed sophistry on the stage of world history, for its refutation is Americanism: The overcoming of ideology is indeed the refutation of sophistry, as the rising upwards of the conception of the rational world.
5. Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Un manifeste démocratique,” Cité Libre, 22(octobre, 1958): 19–20: “La dialectique de l’action nous impose impérieusement de concentrer nos effectifs sur un objectif unique: La démocratie … je crois à la nécessité d’un dirigisme pour maximiser la liberté.” [Italics added]
6. Charles Margrave Taylor, as an editor (rédacteur) of Cité Libre, sat on the Editorial Board (Comité de rédaction) of the magazine from August 1964 until February 1966, alongside Blain, Tremblay and others, under the directorship of Jean Pellerin: Charles Taylor was therefore an influential figure at Cité Libre during the rise of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the birth of the Québécocracy, especially in Ottawa.
See: “A spectre haunts Charles Taylor’s conception of the self, — the spectre of Marxism [Communism] … there has been little written about Taylor’s relationship to Marx … [Charles Taylor] was one of the founders of the New Left in Britain, and began the journey of rethinking and re–evaluating [popularizing] Marxism … From the late 1950s onwards, he wrote a number of articles and chapters, which explicitly engaged with Marxism in one form or another.” Ian Fraser, Dialectics of the Self: Transcending Charles Taylor, Exeter, Imprint Academic, 2007, 1–2.
See finally: “[Charles Taylor] subscribes to the same view of Hegel’s theory of contradictions as the logical positivists do, for whom such metaphysical propositions are neither true nor false but ‘literally nonsense,’ an expression of the believer’s convictions but utterly lacking any rational or epistemic validity.” Steven B. Smith, Hegel’s Critique of Liberalism: Rights in Context, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1989, 200.
Remarks: Charles Taylor’s Kantio–Hegelianism, and other “social versus speculative readings of Hegel’s Phenomenology,” (Guyora Binder and Robert Weisberg, Literary Criticisms of Law, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2000, 422), as a basis for the rational interpretation of Hegelianism in world history, flounder upon the distinction between pure and impure Hegelianism, especially since the Civil War and rise of American Liberty in the Global world.
7. Alexandre Kojève (Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kozhevnikov) & Raymond Queneau, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit Assembled by Raymond Queneau, Allan Bloom, editor & James H. Nichols Jr., translator, Ithaca/London, Cornell University Press, 1980, 128–142. [1969]
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: “It is now known that unlike Kant, Hegel was despised by the Nazis.” Yitzhak Yohanan 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.
See also: “[Kant’s] philosophy makes for a revolution, against which all previous merely political revolutions shrink into insignificant episodes … in the work of this man lies the greatest revolutionary power of the world’s history … that would at last bring about, not merely an outward political revolution, but a total transformation from within to without.” Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855–1927), “Kant: Science and Religion, With an Excursus on the ‘Thing in Itself,’” Immanuel Kant: A Study and a Comparison with Goethe, Leonardo da Vinci, Bruno, Plato and Descartes, vol. 2, 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, 167–414; 182–338–379. [1905+1908]
See also: „Die Weltanschauung Immanuel Kant’s entspringt der scharfsinnigsten Zergliederung des Menschengeistes und seines Verhältnisses zur umgebenden Natur; ist es möglich, einem unvorbereiteten Laienpublikum eine klare Vorstellung von ihr beizubringen? Kann kritische Erkenntnistheorie gemeinverständlich dargestellt werden? Ich glaube es nicht. Und doch ist der Wunsch, einen Mann von der Bedeutung Kant’s nicht einer Gelehrtenkaste zum Alleinbesitz zu überlassen, sondern ihn allen Gebildeten zu einem kostbarsten Eigentum zu machen, so berechtigt, dass er sich vielerorten zu regen beginnt; auch hat bereits eine Anzahl tüchtiger Männer, jeder in seiner Art, dies Ziel ins Auge gefasst und manches Gute zustande gebracht. Kant hatte gesagt, er sei zu früh gekommen, sein Morgen werde erst nach einem Jahrhundert aufgehen. Jetzt dämmert dieser Morgen. Nicht Zufall ist es, wenn die erste vollständige und diplomatisch genaue Ausgabe der sämtlichen Schriften und Briefe Kant’s im Jahre 1900 zu erscheinen begann; das neue Jahrhundert bedarf dieses starken Schutzgeistes, der von seiner Weltanschauung urteilen durfte, sie bewirke „eine der Copernikanischen analoge Umänderung der Denkart.“ Heute wissen es Einige und ahnen es Viele, dass diese Weltanschauung einen Grundpfeiler der Kultur der Zukunft bilden muss. Kant’s Denken bewahrt vor den beiden entgegengesetzten Gefahren: priesterlichem Dogmatismus und wissenschaftlichem Aberglauben; zugleich stärkt es zur hingehenden Erfüllung der Lebenspflichten.“ Houston Stewart Chamberlain, „Vorrede,“ Immanuel Kant: Die Persönlichkeit als Einführung in das Werk, vierte Auflage, München, F. Bruckmann, A.–G., 1921, 1–8; 3. [1905+1908+1916]
See also: „[49] Ja, die guten Zeiten der Bonzenherrlichkeit [Beifall] (sind vorbei. Ein neues Deutschland steht auf, — ein Deutschland, erzogen in den spartanischen Gesetzen preußischer Pflichterfüllung. Ein Deutschland, das sich nicht fettgefressen, sondern großgehungert hat! Ein Deutschland der Kraft, des Willens und des Idealismus! Ein Deutschland, das dem marxistischen Verrat) und der bürgerlichen Leisetreterei den Fehde(handschuh) vor die Füße geworfen hat! … [50] Wir haben es diesen materialistischen Bonzen gezeigt, daß in Deutschland noch ein Idealismus lebt. Wir haben es ihnen gezeigt, daß man aus Hunger und aus Opfer und Not einem Volk wieder den Weg nach oben zeigen kann … [55] Die deutschen Dome in Ulm und Straßburg und Freiburg, die Bildwerke eines Albrecht Dürer, die geistigen Zeugnisse eines Kant und Schopenhauer, die Lyrik Goethes und Mörikes, das dramatische Genie eines Friedrich von Schiller, die Neunte Symphonie und die letzten Streichquartette Beethovens, die preußische Staatsidee eines Friedrich Wilhelm I. und Friedrich des Einzigen, die Reichsschöpfung eines Bismarck, — sie alle sind die beglückenden Ergebnisse jener schöpferischen Kulturfähigkeit des deutschen Volkes, die auf dem Boden des deutschen Nationalcharakters emporschoß … [134] Wenn ich also heute der ganzen Kriegszielforderung der deutschen Nation eine andere Nuance gebe, wenn ich sage: Es geht jetzt nicht darum, wer die tiefere Philosophie besitzt oder die höhere religiöseÜberzeugung — für diesen Kampf um Ideale hat Deutschland in den vergangenen drei Jahrhunderten einen hinreichenden Tribut gezollt — , sondern jetzt wollen wir auch um daskämpfen, um das die anderen dreihundert [135] Jahre in der Vergangenheitgekämpft haben, nämlich um einen vollgedeckten Tisch! … [152] Die brauchen gar nicht Goethe und Schiller zu kennen und brauchen nicht die Kantsche Philosophie studiert zu haben, sondern die brauchen nur zu wissen: Es geht um mein Vaterland und es geht um eine soziale neue Heilslehre und es geht für Hitler und es geht für die Erneuerung meines Landes und meines Volkes — das genügt vollkommen! So ist das auch heute!“ Josef Goebbels, Goebbels Reden: 1932–1945, Helmut Heiber, hrsg., Bindlach, Bavaria, Gondrom, 1991, 49–55–134–135–152.
See finally: „Reinster Idealismus deckt sich unbewußt mit tiefster Erkenntnis.“ 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.
8. 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.
9. 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: “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.” 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.
10. Earl Wendel Count (1950) in Jon Mark Mikkelsen, “Translator’s Introduction: Recent Work on Kant’s Race Theory,” Kant and the Concept of Race: Late Eighteenth–Century Writings, Jon Mark 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.
See finally: Earl Wendel Count (1899–1996), editor, “Introduction,” This is Race: An Anthology Selected From the International Literature on the Races of Man, New York, Henry Schuman, 1950, xiii–xxviii.
IV/ Québécocentrisme as Eurocentrisme: Modern European Political and Economic Irrationalism
1. Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Politique fonctionnelle,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 20–24; 21: “Ce qui manque le plus au Canada français, c’est une philosophie positive de l’action.”
See: “I have always regarded Immanuel Kant not only as a very powerful thinker, but as the metaphysical father of the philosophy of positivism … undoubtedly the greatest and most positive advance that I have made following in the footsteps of Kant is the discovery of the evolution of human ideas according to the law of three stages, namely the theological, metaphysical and scientific phases: The Kantian philosophy in my opinion is the very basis of the three stages of positivism.” Auguste Comte (10 December 1824) in Friedrich Maximilian Müller, translator, “Translator’s Preface,” Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: A Commemoration of the Centenary of Its First Publication, Immanuel Kant, vol. 1, London, 1881, xxi: “J’avais toujours regardé Kant non–seulement comme une très–forte tête, mais comme le métaphysicien le plus rapproché de la philosophie positive … le pas le plus positif et le plus distinct que j’ai fait après lui, me semble seulement d’avoir découverte la loi du passage des idées humaines par les trois états théologique, métaphysique, et scientifique, loi qui me semble être la base dont Kant a conseillé l’exécution.”
See finally: “‘J’ai lu et relu avec un plaisir infini le petit traité de Kant (Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht, 1784); il est prodigieux pour l’époque, et même, si je l’avais connu six ou sept ans plus tot, il m’aurait épargné de la peine. Je suis charmé que vous l’ayez traduit, il peut très–efficacement contribuer à préparer les esprits à la philosophie positive. La conception générale ou au moins la méthode y est encore métaphysique, mais les détails montrent à chaque instant l’esprit positif. J’avais toujours regardé Kant non–seulement comme une très–forte tête, mais comme le métaphysicien le plus rapproché de la philosophie positive … Pour moi, je ne me trouve jusqu’à present, après cette lecture, d’autre valeur que celle d’avoir systématisé et arrêté la conception ébauchée par Kant à mon insu, ce que je dois surtout à l’éducation scientifique; et même le pas le plus positif et le plus distinct que j’ai fait après lui, me semble seulement d’avoir découverte la loi du passage des idées humaines par les trois états théologique, métaphysique, et scientifique, loi qui me semble être la base dont Kant à conseillé l’exécution. Je rends grâce aujourd’hui à mon défaut d’érudition; car si mon travail, tel qu’il est maintenant, avait été précédé chez moi par l’étude du traité de Kant, il aurait, à mes propres yeux, beaucoup perdu de sa valeur.’ See Auguste Comte, par É. Littré, Paris, 1864, p. 154; Lettre de Comte à M. d’Eichthal, 10 Déc. 1824.” Auguste Comte (10 December 1824) in Friedrich Maximilian Müller, Ibidem.
2. Trudeau, Ibidem, 23: “ “Pouvons–nous dire après cela que l’autonomie est bonne et que la centralisation est mauvaise? Ne s’agit–il pas plutôt de phénomènes d’espèce tellurique, commandés par un dynamisme historique irrésistible, et soumis à des lois impersonnelles qui n’ont rien à voir aux catégories morales de ‘bien’ et de ‘mal’?”
3. Ibidem, 24: “Il faut concevoir audacieusement cette politique fonctionnelle par quoi seule peut s’ériger une cité libre, faite aux dimensions des supervivants que nous voulons être.” [Italics added]
4. Ibidem, 22: “Ceux qui régissent une partie de nos activités s’imaginent pouvoir gouverner beaucoup plus sagement en contrôlant aussi l’autre partie (arbitrairement déterminée par une constitution faite pour une autre époque).” [Italics added]
5. Ibidem, 22: “La théorie économique et fiscale est unanime à postuler la nécessité de la centralisation. Le plein–emploi de la main d’oeuvre et des ressources est impossible à assurer sans des budgets cycliques, au moyen desquels l’État amortit les poussées tour à tour inflationnaires et déflationaires. Il ne faudrait donc pas qu’au nom de l’autonomie une province soit libre de ne pas s’intégrer au cycle: Car il serait inadmissible qu’un gouvernement régional profite, pour redorer son trésor, de fonds en provenance d’autres provinces, lorsque celles–ci tentent d’enrayer une crise générale par d’héroïques budgets déficitaires. La théorie monétaire et banquaire adonde aussi dans ce sens.” [Italics added]
6. These writings on the subject of the Québécocracy are greatly inspired by †Dave Greber, Peter Charles Newman, Robin Philpot and †Richard Le Hir. While their early treatments of the subject are partial, and from the angle of political and economic historiography, American Idealism deals with the Québécocracy comprehensively. Some of the earlier works on the Québécocracy were produced during the Québec regime in Ottawa 1968–2006, and were therefore hampered by their proximity to the events under consideration, so that later expositions benefit from greater freedom and objectivity, since the protagonists in question are now mostly deceased, e.g., Newman’s experience with Paul Guy Desmarais in the publication of his work on the Canadian Establishment. While these early writers were bad political scientists (prisoners of their time), they were nevertheless pioneers in the Canadian field of exact historiography and world history, and therefore early progenitors (Conrad Black) of the Canadian conceptualization of Americanism, — the rational conception of Canada as the supremacy of the Canadocentric polity.
As a vanishing phase of world history, the rise and fall of the Québécocracy is inscribed within the political and economic complexifications of universal historical determinations, as the developmental unification of the coaxial integration of the American world, the twenty–first century logic of American superpower, the world historical matrix of the dynamism of history’s phasality itself: As the historical self–determination and self–unfolding of the conceptual rationality of the notion of universal freedom, Americanism is rising upwards in the world of today, — in the genuine Hegelian meaning of reason, as the rational Hegelianism of the pure Hegel.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED
Anonymous, “Power Corp. Chairman Increases Control With $31 Million Buy,” Winnipeg Free Press, 16 July 1977, 17.
Pierre Arbour, Québec Inc. et la tentation du dirigisme: La Caisse de dépôt et les sociétés d’État: Héritage d’une génération? (Montréal, Québec: L’Étincelle, 1993).
Pierre Arbour, “Qui sont les vrais traîtres?” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 25.4(septembre–octobre, 1997): 39–42.
Nick Auf der Maur, Robert Chodos & Rae Murphy, Brian Mulroney: The Boy from Baie Comeau, (Toronto, Ontario: James Lorimer & Company, 1985).
Guyora Binder & Robert Weisberg, Literary Criticisms of Law, (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000).
Jules Bélanger, Jean–Louis Lévesque: La montée d’un Gaspésien aux sommets des affaires, (Saint–Laurent, Québec: Fides, 1996).
Allan Bloom, editor, “Editor’s Introduction (1968),” Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit Assembled by Raymond Queneau, Alexandre Kojève & Raymond Queneau; James H. Nichols Jr., translator, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1980), vii–xii. [1969]
André Bolduc, “Hydro–Québec,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, vol. 2, James Harley Marsh, editor, (Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig Publishers, 1985).
Norbert Bolz, „Das Happy End der Geschichte,“ Geschichtskultur in der Zweiten Moderne: Herausgegeben für das Deutsche Historische Museum von Rosmarie Beier, Rosmarie Beier & Alfred Nützmann, herausgegebers & Christoph Stölzl, Vorwort, (Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 2000), 53–70.
John Francis Bosher, The Gaullist Attack on Canada: 1967–1997, (Montréal/Kingston: McGill–Queen’s University Press, 1999).
Robert Bourassa, “Épilogue: Aspects économiques d’un Québec indépendant,” Réflexions d’un Citoyen (Cahiers de Cité Libre), Jean–Paul Lefebvre & Robert Bourassa, (Ottawa/Montréal: Éditions du Jour Inc., 1968), 99–113.
Mario Bunge, “Courrier des Lecteurs: Cherchons projet politique novateur,” Cité Libre: La voix québécoise pour le libéralisme et l’unité canadienne, 28.3(été, 2000): 12.
France Charbonneau & Renaud Lachance, “Partie 4, — Chapitre 3: Les conséquences,” Rapport final de la Commission d’enquête sur l’octroi et la gestion des contrats publics dans l’industrie de la construction: Stratagèmes, causes, conséquences et recommandations, vol. 3, (Québec, Québec: Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2015), 73–80.
David Descôteaux, “Qui paye de l’impôt au Québec?” Le Journal de Montréal: Opinions, 24 avril 2017.
Francis Roger Devlin, “Preface,” Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought, (New York: University Press of America, Inc., 2004), ix–xvi.
Saidatou Dicko, Un Conseil d’administration fortement réseauté pour une Power Corporation, (Paris: Éditions Publibook, 2012).
Ana Dimiškovska, “Grounding the Normativity of Law: The Role of Transcendental Argumentation in Kelsen’s Critique of Natural Law Theory,” Hans Kelsen and the Natural Law Tradition (Studies in Moral Philosophy), Ian Bryan, Peter Langford & John McGarry, editors, (Leiden, The Netherlands/Boston, Massachusetts: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2019), 253–288.
Murray Dobbin, Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? (Toronto, Ontario: James Lorimer & Company Limited, 2003).
Ian Fraser, Dialectics of the Self: Transcending Charles Taylor, (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2007).
Timothy A. Gibson, Richard S. Gruneau, Donald Gutstein & Robert A. Hackett, The Missing News: Filters and Blind Spots in Canada’s Press, (Aurora, Ontario: Garamond Press, 2000).
Michel Girard, “42% des Québécois se sont appauvris,” La Presse, 9 septembre 1997.
Richard Gwyn & Sandra Gwyn (editor), The Northern Magus: Pierre Trudeau and Canadians, (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart, 1980).
Claire Hoy, Friends in High Places: Politics and Patronage in the Mulroney Government, (Toronto, Ontario: Seal Books, 1988). [1987]
Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1994).
Christoph Kletzer, “Alexandre Kojève’s Hegelianism and the Formation of Europe,” The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2005–2006), vol. 8, John Bell & Claire Kilpatrick, editors, (Oxford, Oxfordshire/Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2006), 133–152.
Christoph Kletzer, “The Germ of Law,” Vienna Lectures on Legal Philosophy: Legal Positivism, vol. 1, Christoph Bezemek, Michael Potacs & Alexander Somek, editors, (Oxford, Oxfordshire: Hart Publishing, 2018), 1–22.
Alexandre Kojève (Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kozhevnikov) & Raymond Queneau, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit Assembled by Raymond Queneau, Allan Bloom, editor & James H. Nichols Jr., translator, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1980). [1969]
Harold Joseph Laski, “The Crisis in the Theory of the State,” A Grammar of Politics, 5th edition, (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd., nd), i–xxvii.
Léo–Paul Lauzon, “La minorité de riches (5,6%) paie 39% des impôts: Faux,” Le Journal de Montréal: Blogues, 28 septembre 2016.
Lenin, State and Revolution, (New York, New York: International Publishers, 1932).
Jean Lesage, “Exploitons à fond la Confédération,” The Canadian Experiment, Success or Failure? (Le Canada, expérience ratée … ou réussie?) Congress Held 15–18 November 1961, Under the Auspices of the Association générale des étudiants de l’Université de Laval, Mason Wade, editor, (Québec, Québec: Presses de l’Université de Laval, 1962), 168–180.
Jeff Love, The Black Circle: A Life of Alexandre Kojève, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2018).
Charles Lynch, Race for the Rose: Election 1984, (Toronto, Ontario: Methuen, 1984).
L. Ian MacDonald, From Bourassa to Bourassa: Wilderness to Restoration, 2nd edition, (Montréal/Kingston: McGill–Queen’s University Press, 2002).
Friedrich Maximilian Müller, translator, “Translator’s Preface,” Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: A Commemoration of the Centenary of Its First Publication, Immanuel Kant, vol. 1, (London, England: Macmillan, 1881), v–lxii.
Brian Mulroney, “Appendix 9,” The Canadian Revolution 1985–1995: From Deference to Defiance, Peter Charles Newman, (Toronto, Ontario: Viking, 1995), 448–457.
Max Nemni & Monique Nemni, Trudeau Transformed: The Shaping of a Statesman, 1944–1965, George Tombs, translator, vol. 2, (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart, 2011).
Max Nemni & Monique Nemni, Trudeau, fils du Québec, père du Canada: La formation d’un homme d’état, vol. 2, (Montréal, Québec: Les Éditions de l’Homme, 2011).
Peter Charles Newman, “Epitaph For the Two–Party State: Trust Canadians to Invent a New System of Government: Elected Dictatorship,” Maclean’s, 1 November 1993, 14.
Peter Charles Newman, The Canadian Revolution,1985–1995: From Deference to Defiance, (Toronto, Ontario: Viking, 1995).
Peter Charles Newman, “King Paul,” The Canadian Establishment: The Titans, How the New Canadian Establishment Seized Power, vol. 3, (Toronto, Ontario: Viking Canada, 1998), 164–189.
Pierre O’Neill & Jacques Benjamin, Les Mandarins du Pouvoir: L’Exercice du Pouvoir au Québec de Jean Lesage à René Lévesque, (Montréal, Québec: Les Éditions Québec/Amérique, 1978).
Aimé Albert Georges Patri, “Dialectique du maître et de l’esclave,” Le contrat social, 5.4(juillet–août, 1961): 231–235.
Partridge, Winnipeg Free Press, 20 November 1974.
Martin Patriquin, “Québec the Most Corrupt Province: Why Does Québec Claim So Many of the Nation’s Political Scandals?” Maclean’s, 24 September 2010.
Mario Pelletier, La machine à milliards: L’Histoire de la Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, (Montréal, Québec: Les Éditions Québec/Amérique, 1989).
Robin Philpot, Derrière L’État Desmarais: Power, 1e édition, (Montréal, Québec, 2008).
Robin Philpot, Derrière L’État Desmarais: Power, 2e édition, (Montréal, Québec: Livres Baraka Inc., 2014).
André Pratte, “Tout est pourri,” La Presse, 11 février 1994, A5.
Bertrand Arthur William Russell, German Social Democracy: Six Lectures, With an Appendix on Social Democracy and the Woman Question in Germany by Alys Russell, (London & New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1896).
Raoul Roy, René Lévesque: Était–il un imposteur? (Montréal, Québec: Les Éditions du Franc–Canada, 1985).
Steven B. Smith, Hegel’s Critique of Liberalism: Rights in Context, (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1989).
Steven B. Smith, Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism, (Chicago, Illinois/London, England: University of Chicago Press, 2006).
Paul Douglas Stevens, “Pierre E. Trudeau: Prime Minister of Canada, 1968,” The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 18, (Chicago, Illinois: Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1971), 380a–381.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Politique fonctionnelle,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 20–24.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Maurice Blain, Réginald Boisvert, Guy Cormier, Jean–Paul Geoffroy, Pierre Juneau, Roger Rolland & Gérard Pelletier (l’Equipe de la revue Cité Libre), “Faites vos jeux: Mounier disparaît,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 37.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau & Cité Libre, “Faites vos jeux: Blum et Laski,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 37–38.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Un manifeste démocratique,” Cité Libre, 22(octobre, 1958): 1–31.
PIERRE TRUDEAU: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 1950–2013
Sheldon Alberts, “Trudeau Considered Pulling Out of Nato,” National Post, 10 February 2000, A6.
Karen Alliston, Rick Archbold, Jennifer Glossop, Alison Maclean & Ivon Owen, editors, Trudeau Albums, (Toronto, Ontario: Penguin Books Canada, 2000).
Thomas S. Axworthy, Passionate Rationalists: Pierre Trudeau and the Transformation of Canada, (Toronto, Ontario: Penguin Books Canada, 2004).
Guy Bouthillier & Edouard Cloutier, Trudeau’s Darkest Hour: War Measures in Time of Peace, (Montréal, Québec: Baraka Books, 2010).
Jim Bronskill, “Old Documents Paint Chaos of FLQ Crisis: Trudeau and Cabinet Feared Civil War,” Calgary Herald, 24 April 2001, A5.
André Burelle, Pierre Elliott Trudeau: L’Intellectual et la politique, (Montréal, Québec: Fides, 2005).
Rick Butler & Jean–Guy Carrier, The Trudeau Decade, (Toronto, Ontario: Doubleday Canada, 1979).
Link Byfield, “Why the West Has No Love For Trudeau,” The Globe and Mail, 30 September 2000, A14.
Stephen Clarkson, “Charisma and Contradiction: The Legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau,” Queen’s Quarterly, 107.4(Winter, 2000): 590–607.
Ramsay Cook, The Teeth of Time: Remembering Pierre Elliott Trudeau, (Kingston/Montréal, Ontario & Québec: Queen’s–McGill University Press, 2006).
John Dafoe, “Canada to Reduce Nato Force,” The Globe and Mail, 4 April 1969, 1.
John English, Just Watch Me: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, 1968–2000, (Toronto, Ontario: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2009).
John English, Citizen of the World: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, 1919–1968, (Toronto, Ontario: Alfred A. Knopf Canada, 2007).
J.L. Granatstein & Robert Bothwell, Pirouette: Pierre Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Policy, (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 1990).
Richard Gwyn, Northern Magus: Pierre Trudeau and Canadians, (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart, 1980).
Guy Laforest, Trudeau and the End of the Canadian Dream, Michelle Weinroth & Paul Leduc Browne, translators, (Kingston/Montréal, Ontario/Québec: Queen’s–McGill University Press, 1995).
James Laxer & Robert Laxer, The Liberal Idea of Canada: Pierre Trudeau and the Question of Canada’s Survival, (Toronto, Ontario: James Lorimer, 1977).
Paul Litt, “Trudeaumania: Participatory Democracy in the Mass–Mediated Nation,” The Canadian Historical Review, 89(March, 2008): ?
Mark MacGuigan, An Inside Look At External Affairs During the Trudeau Years: The Memoirs of Mark MacGuigan, Whitney Lackenbauer, editor, (Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press, 2001).
John Muggeridge, “Why Trudeau, in 1973, Became a Monarchist,” Saturday Night, January 1974.
Max Nemni & Monique Nemni, Young Trudeau, Son of Québec, Father of Canada, 1919–1944, William Johnson, translator, (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart, 2011).
Max Nemni & Monique Nemni, Trudeau Transformed: The Shaping of a Statesman, 1944–1965, George Tombs, translator, (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart, 2011).
Peter Charles Newman, A Nation Divided: Canada and the Coming of Pierre Trudeau, (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969).
Bob Plamondon, The Truth About Trudeau, (Ottawa, Ontario: Great River Media Inc., 2013).
B.W. Powe, Mystic Trudeau: The Fire and the Rose, (Toronto, Ontario: Thomas Allen, 2007).
George Radwanski, Trudeau, (Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan Canada, 1978).
Nino Ricci, Extraordinary Canadians: Pierre Elliot Trudeau, (Toronto, Ontario: Penguin Books Canada, 2009).
David Somerville, Trudeau Revealed By His Actions and Words, (Richmond Hill, Ontario: BMG Publishing Limited, 1978).
Nancy Southam, editor, Pierre: Colleagues and Friends Talk About the Trudeau They Knew, (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart, 2005).
Walter Stewart, Shrug: Trudeau in Power, (Toronto, Ontario: New Press, 1971).
Bruce Thordarson, Trudeau and Foreign Policy: A Study in Decision–Making, (Toronto, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 1972).
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Maurice Blain, Réginald Boisvert, Guy Cormier, Jean–Paul Geoffroy, Pierre Juneau, Gérard Pelletier & Roger Rolland (l’Equipe de la revue Cité Libre), “Règle du jeu,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 1–3.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Politique fonctionnelle,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 20–24.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Maurice Blain, Réginald Boisvert, Guy Cormier, Jean–Paul Geoffroy, Pierre Juneau, Gérard Pelletier & Roger Rolland (l’Equipe de la revue Cité Libre), “Faites vos jeux: Mounier disparaît,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 37.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Maurice Blain, Réginald Boisvert, Guy Cormier, Jean–Paul Geoffroy, Pierre Juneau, Gérard Pelletier & Roger Rolland (l’Equipe de la revue Cité Libre), “Faites vos jeux: Blum et Laski,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 37–38.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Maurice Blain, Réginald Boisvert, Guy Cormier, Jean–Paul Geoffroy, Pierre Juneau, Gérard Pelletier & Roger Rolland (l’Equipe de la revue Cité Libre), “Faites vos jeux: La question,” Cité Libre, 1.1(juin, 1950): 39.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Politique fonctionnelle II,” Cité Libre, 1.2(février, 1951): 24–29.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Maurice Blain, Réginald Boisvert, Guy Cormier, Jean–Paul Geoffroy, Pierre Juneau, Gérard Pelletier & Roger Rolland (l’Equipe de la revue Cité Libre), “Positions sur la présente guerre,” Cité Libre, 1.3(mai, 1951): 1–11.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Maurice Blain, Réginald Boisvert, Guy Cormier, Jean–Paul Geoffroy, Charles–A. Lussier, Pierre Juneau, Gérard Pelletier & Roger Rolland (L’equipe de la revue Cité Libre), “Note liminaire,” Cité Libre, 2.3(décembre, 1952): 1.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Réflexions sur la politique au Canada français,” Cité Libre, 2.3(décembre, 1952): 53–70.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Matériaux pour servir à une enquête sur le cléricalisme,” Cité Libre, 3.7(mai 1953): 29–37.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “L’élection fédérale du 10 août 1953: Prodromes et conjectures,” Cité Libre, 3.8(novembre, 1953): 1–10.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Maurice Blain, Réginald Boisvert, Guy Cormier, Jean–Paul Geoffroy, Charles–A. Lussier, Pierre Juneau, Gérard Pelletier, Roger Rolland & Pierre Vadboncoeur (L’equipe de la revue Cité Libre), “I. D’un refus–symptôme,” Cité Libre, 9(mars, 1954): 1–9.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Maurice Blain, Réginald Boisvert, Guy Cormier, Jean–Paul Geoffroy, Charles–A. Lussier, Pierre Juneau, Gérard Pelletier, Roger Rolland & Pierre Vadboncoeur (L’equipe de la revue Cité Libre), “II. Conflit de droits ou quand la loi méprise la justice,” Cité Libre, 9(mars, 1954): 10–14.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Fluctuations économiques et méthodes de stabilisation,” Cité Libre, 9(mars, 1954): 31–37.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “De libro, tributo … et quibusdam aliis,” Cité Libre, 10(octobre, 1954): 1–16.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Chroniques du Temps Perdu: Essais sur le Québec Contemporain,” Cité Libre, 10(octobre, 1954): 60–61.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier (directeurs de Cité Libre) & Pauline Lamy (secrétaire de la rédaction), “Radio et télévision,” Cité Libre, 15(aout, 1956): 1–3.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier (directeurs de Cité Libre) & Guy Cormier (secrétaire de la rédaction), “Note sur une guerre momentanément évitée,” Cité Libre, 16(février, 1957): 1–2.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Les octrois fédéraux aux universités,” Cité Libre, 16(février, 1957): 9–31.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier (directeurs de Cité Libre) & Guy Cormier (secrétaire de la rédaction), “Faites vos jeux: Les accusations de M. Marcel Clément,” Cité Libre, 16(février, 1957): 50–53.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Le Père Ledit et la delectation morose,” Cité Libre, 16(février, 1957): 69.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier (directeurs de Cité Libre) & Guy Cormier (secrétaire de la rédaction), “Début d’une réflexion,” Cité Libre, 17(juin, 1957): 1.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “In Memoriam: Albert Beguin et Jacques Perrault,” Cité Libre, 17(juin, 1957): 2.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier (directeurs de Cité Libre) & Guy Cormier (secrétaire de la rédaction), “Ressac,” Cité Libre,18(novembre, 1957): 1–2.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Gérard Pelletier (directeurs de Cité Libre) & Guy Cormier (secrétaire de la rédaction), “La liberté académique,” Cité Libre, 19(janvier, 1958): 1–2.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “À propos de ‘domination économique,’” Cité Libre, 20(mai, 1958): 7–16.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “L’Affaire Coffin,” Cité Libre, 21(juillet, 1958): 45–46.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Un manifeste démocratique,” Cité Libre, 22(octobre, 1958): 1–31.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau & Cité Libre, “Note de la Rédaction: II. Notes sur le catholicisme d’un certain pays,” Cité Libre, 22(octobre, 1958): 35.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau & Cité Libre, “Note de la Rédaction: De Gaulle,” Cité Libre, 22(octobre, 1958): 45.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Le Père Cousineau, s.j., et ‘la Grève de l’amiante,’” Cité Libre, 23(mai, 1959): 34–36.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Critique de la critique,” Cité Libre, 23(mai, 1959): 36–48.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Mauvaise foi et bonne conscience: L’Argumentation selon Saint Ignace?” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série,11.24(janvier–février, 1960): 25–26.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Leçon de science politique dans un parc qu’il s’agirait de préserver,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 11.25(mars, 1960): 15–16.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Diefenbaker monte en ballon (Air connu),” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 11.26(avril, 1960): 15–16.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “La notion d’opposition politique,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 11.27(mai, 1960): 13–14.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Notes sur l’élection provinciale,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 11.28(juin–juillet, 1960): 12–13.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “L’élection du 22 juin 1960,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 11.29(août–septembre, 1960): 3–8.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Faites vos jeux: De nouveau, la carte d’identité,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 11.33(janvier, 1961): 17–18.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “À l’ouest rien de nouveau,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 12.34(février, 1961): 8–9.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “L’aliénation nationaliste,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 12.35(mars, 1961): 4–5.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Faites vos Jeux: De l’inconvénient d’être catholique,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 12.35(mars, 1961): 20–21.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Note sur le parti cléricaliste,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 12.38(juin–juillet, 1961): 23.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “La Guerre! La Guerre!” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 12.42(décembre, 1961): 1–3.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “La nouvelle trahison des clercs,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 13.46(avril, 1962): 3–16.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Les progrès de l’illusion,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 13.47(mai, 1962): 1–2.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “À propos des élections du 18 juin 1962: Note sur la conjoncture politique,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série,13.49(août–septembre, 1962): 1–4.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “L’homme de gauche et les élections provinciales I: L’opinion de Pierre Elliott Trudeau,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 13.51(novembre, 1962): 3–5.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Pearson ou l’abdication de l’esprit,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 13.56(avril, 1963): 7–12.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “L’Élection fédérale: Problèmes et conjectures,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 13.8(novembre, 1963): 1–10.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Les séparatistes: Des contre–révolutionnaires,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.67(mai, 1964): 2–6.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Albert Breton, Raymond Breton, Claude Bruneau, Yvon Gauthier, Marc Lalonde et Maurice Pinard, “Pour une politique fonctionnelle,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.67(mai, 1964): 11–17.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Albert Breton, Claude Bruneau, Marc Lalonde et Maurice Pinard, “Pour une politique fonctionnelle: L’agriculture au Québec,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.78(juillet, 1965): 9–16.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau et Gérard Pelletier, “Pelletier et Trudeau s’expliquent,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.80(octobre, 1965): 3–5.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Le Québec est–il assiégé?” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 16.86(avril–mai, 1966): 7–10.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, La grève de l’amiante, (Montréal, Québec: Éditions du Jour, 1970).
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Les cheminements de la politique, (Montréal, Québec: Éditions du Jour, 1970).
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Le gâchis mérite un gros NON! Discours du 1er octobre 1992 à Cité Libre, (Montréal, Québec: L’Étincelle, 1992).
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “The Values of a Just Society,” Towards a Just Society, Pierre Elliott Trudeau & Thomas S. Axworthy, editors, (Toronto, Ontario: Penguin Books, 1992), 401–429.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Mémoires politiques, (Montréal, Québec: Éditions du Jour, 1993).
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Entretien avec Pierre Elliott Trudeau,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 25.1(janvier–février, 1997): 9–17.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Document d’archives: La recours à la loi sur les mesures de Guerre: Trudeau explique,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 25.4(septembre–octobre, 1997): 15–18.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, “Document d’archives: Le rapatriement et la Cour suprême,” traduction de Gérard Pelletier, Cité Libre: La voix québécoise pour le libéralisme et l’unité canadienne, 26.4(octobre–novembre, 1998): 65–74.
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau & Jacques Hébert, Two Innocents in Red China, 2nd edition, (Vancouver, British Columbia: Douglas & McIntyre, 2007). [1961]
Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, Approaches to Politics, Ramsay Cook, Forward, (Toronto, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2010).
Michel Vastel, The Outsider: The Life of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, (Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan Canada, 1990).
Anthony Westell, Paradox: Trudeau As Prime Minister, (Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice–Hall, 1972).
Robert Wright, Three Nights in Havana: Pierre Trudeau, Fidel Castro, and the Cold War World, (Toronto, Ontario: HarperCollins, 2007).
Lubor Zinc, “The Unpenetrated Problem of Pierre Trudeau,” National Review, 25 June 1982.
CHARLES TAYLOR: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY (CITÉ LIBRE) 1962–1965
Charles Margrave Taylor, “La bombe et le neutralisme,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 13.47(mai, 1962): 11–16.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “L’Homme de Gauche et les Élections Provinciales II: L’Opinion de Charles Taylor,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 13.51(novembre, 1962): 6–7 & 21.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “L’État et la laïcité” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série,14.54(février, 1963): 3–6.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Le Canada, ouvrier de la paix?” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 13.56(avril, 1963): 13–17.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Pointes sèches: Le chevalier de la Contre–révolution,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 16.69(août–septembre, 1964): 2–3.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “La révolution futile ou les avatars de la pensée globale,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 16.69(août–septembre, 1964): 10–22.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Pointes sèches: Le communisme occidentale,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 16.71(novembre, 1964): 3–5.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Pointes sèches: La guerre froide s’effrite,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 16.72(décembre, 1964): 3–4.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Pointes sèches: Au chevet de la livre Stirling,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.74(février, 1965): 3–4.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Pointes sèches: La pagaille à Ottawa,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.75(mars, 1965): 1–3.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “La planification fédérale–provinciale,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.76(avril, 1965): 9–16.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Pointes sèches: Que faire au Vietnam?” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.77(mai–juin, 1965): 1–3.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Batir un nouveau Canada,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.79(août–septembre, 1965): 10–14.
Charles Margrave Taylor, Maurice Blain, Jean Pellerin & Jacques Tremblay (Comité de rédaction de Cité Libre), “Marchand, Pelletier, Trudeau et le 8 novembre,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.80(octobre, 1965): 1–3.
Charles Margrave Taylor, Maurice Blain, Jean Pellerin & Jacques Tremblay (Comité de rédaction de Cité Libre), “La civilisation Yankee au Vietnam,” Cité Libre: Nouvelle série, 15.81(novembre, 1965): 1–2.
CHARLES TAYLOR: SELECT HEGEL BIBLIOGRAPHY 1972–2003
Charles Margrave Taylor, “The Opening Arguments of the Phenomenology,” Hegel: A Collection of Critical Essays, Alasdair MacIntyre, editor, (New York: Doubleday, 1972), 151–187.
Charles Margrave Taylor, Hegel, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Hegel’s Sittlichkeit and the Crisis of Representative Institutions,” Philosophy of History and Action, Yirmiyahu Yovel, editor, (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1978), 133–154.
Charles Margrave Taylor, Hegel and Modern Society, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Hegel and the Philosophy of Action,” Hegel’s Philosophy of Action, David Lamb & Lawrence S. Stepelevich, editors, (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1983), 1–18.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind,” Contemporary Philosophy: A New Survey, vol. 4, Guttorm Fløristad, editor, (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1983), 135–155.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Hegel, History and Politics,” Liberalism and Its Critics, Michael J. Sandel, editor, (New York: New York University Press, 1984), 177–199.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind,” Philosophical Papers,vol. 1, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 77–96.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Dialektik heute, oder: Strukturen der Selbst–negation,” Hegels Wissenschaft der Logik: Formation und Rekonstruction, Dieter Henrich, editor, (Stuttgart: Klett–Cotta, 1986), 141–153.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Hegel’s Ambiguous Legacy for Modern Liberalism,” Cardozo Law Review, 10 (1989): 857–870.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Hegel’s Ambiguous Legacy for Modern Liberalism,” Hegel and Legal Theory, David G. Carlson, Drucilla Cornell & Michel Rosenfeld, editors, (New York: Routledge, 1991), 64–77.
Charles Margrave Taylor, Hegel et la société moderne, (Paris: Cerf, 1998).
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Comment on Jürgen Habermas’ ‘From Kant to Hegel and Back Again,’” European Journal of Philosophy, 7.2(1999): 158–163.
Charles Margrave Taylor, “Hegel and the Social Dynamics of Property Law: Individual Rights Within a Liberal Constitutional Framework: A Necessary But Insufficient Basis For Organizing a Rational State,” Hegel and Law (Philosophers and Law), Michael G. Salter, editor; Seyla Benhabib, Edgar Bodenheimer (1908–1991), Andrew Buchwalter, Markus Dubber, Robert Fine, Abel Garza, Jürgen Habermas, Valerie Kerruish, William N.R. Lucy, Chad McCracken, Patricia Jagentowicz Mills, Gary Minda, Michael G. Salter, Julia Shaw, Peter Stillman, Mark Tunick & Richard Dien Winfield, contributors, (Hants, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003). [2002]
ALEXANDRE KOJÈVE: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dominique Auffret, Alexandre Kojève: La philosophie, l’état, la fin de l’histoire, (Paris: Éditions Grasset, 1990).
Allan Bloom, editor, “Editor’s Introduction (1968),” Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit Assembled by Raymond Queneau, Alexandre Kojève & Raymond Queneau; James H. Nichols Jr., translator, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1980), vii–xii. [1969]
Allan Bloom, “Kojève, le philosophe,” Commentaire, 9(1980): 116–119.
Francis Roger Devlin, “Preface,” Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought, (New York: University Press of America, Inc., 2004), ix–xvi.
Erik de Vries, A Kojèvean Citizenship Model for the European Union, Ph.D dissertation, (Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University, 2004).
Marco Filoni, “Bibliographie de l’oeuvre de Alexandre Kojève,” Hommage à Alexandre Kojève: Actes de la “Journée A. Kojève” du 28 janvier 2003 (Collection Conférences et Études), Florence de Lussy, direction, (Paris: Éditions de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2007), 99–104.
Bryan–Paul Frost, “A Critical Introduction to Alexandre Kojève’s Esquisse d’une phénoménologie du droit,” The Review of Metaphysics, 52(1999): 595–640.
Robert Howse, “Kojève’s Latin Empire: From the ‘End of History’ to the ‘Epoch of Empires,’” Policy Review, 126(August/September, 2004): 41–48.
Gary M. Kelly, Philosophy and Politics at the Precipice: Time and Tyranny in the Works of Alexandre Kojève, (New York: Routledge Publishing, 2018).
Christoph Kletzer, “Alexandre Kojève’s Hegelianism and the Formation of Europe,” The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2005–2006), vol. 8, John Bell & Claire Kilpatrick, editors, (Oxford, Oxfordshire/Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2006), 133–152.
Alexandre Kojève (Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kozhevnikov) & Raymond Queneau, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit Assembled by Raymond Queneau, Allan Bloom, editor & James H. Nichols Jr., translator, (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1980). [1947+1969]
Alexandre Kojève, Kant, (Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1973).
Alexandre Kojève, “L’Empire latin: Esquisse d’une doctrine de la politique française (27 août 1945),” La règle du jeu, 1(mai, 1990): 89–123. [28 décembre 1944]
Alexandre Kojève, “Colonialism in a European Prespective,” Erik de Vries, translator, Interpretation, 29.1(Fall, 2001): 91–130.
Alexandre Kojève, “Outline of a Doctrine of French Policy (27 August 1945),” Erik de Vries, translator, Policy Review, 126(August/September, 2004): 3–40. [1990]
Alexandre Kojève, “Extraits d’un inédit d’Alexandre Kojève: ‘Esquisse d’une doctrine de la politique française,’” Hommage à Alexandre Kojève: Actes de la “Journée A. Kojève” du 28 janvier 2003 (Collection Conférences et Études), Florence de Lussy, direction, (Paris: Éditions de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2007), 86–98.
Mark Lilla, “Chapter IV: Alexandre Kojève,” The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics, with a New Afterword, (New York: New York Review Book, 2016). [2001]
Jeff Love, The Black Circle: A Life of Alexandre Kojève, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2018).
Eric Matthews, “Alexandre Kojève,” Twentieth Century French Philosophy,(Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press, 1996), 112–119.
Gaelen Murphy, “Alexandre Kojève: Cosmopolitanism at the End of History,” Cosmopolitanism in the Age of Globalism: Citizens Without States, Lee Trepanier & Khalil M. Habib, editors, (Lexington, Kentucky: The University of Kentucky Press, 2011), 184–210.
James H. Nichols Jr., Alexandre Kojève: Wisdom at the End of History, (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2007).
Aimé Albert Georges Patri, “Dialectique du maître et de l’esclave,” Le contrat social, 5.4(juillet–août, 1961): 231–235.
Stanley Rosen, “Kojève’s Paris: A Memoir,” Metaphysics in Ordinary Language, (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1999), 258–278.
Stanley Rosen, “Kojève,” A Companion to Continental Philosophy, Simon Critchley & William R. Schroeder, editors, (Oxford, Oxfordshire: Basil Blackwell, 1999), 237.
Olivier Wormser, “Mon ami Alexandre Kojève,” Commentaire, 9(1980): 121–122.
HEGEL BIBLIOGRAPHIE: VORLESUNGEN AUSGEWÄHLTE NACHSCHRIFTEN UND MANUSKRIPTE (1983–2007) 17 VOLS
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (1): Vorlesungen über Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft Heidelberg 1817–1818, Mit Nachträgen aus der Vorlesung 1818–1819, — Nachgeschrieben von Peter Wannenmann, Claudia Becker, Wolfgang Bonsiepen, Annemarie Gethmann–Siefert, Kurt Rainer Meist, Friedrich Hogemann, Hans Josef Schneider, Walter Jaeschke, Christoph Jamme & Hans Christian Lucas, Herausgegeben, Mit einer Einleitung von Otto Pöggeler, Band 1, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1983).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (2): Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst, Berlin 1823, — Nachgeschrieben von Heinrich Gustav Hotho, Annemarie Gethmann–Siefert, Hrsg., Band 2, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1998).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (3): Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, Teil 1, Einleitung, Der Begriff der Religion, Walter Jaeschke, Hrsg., Band 3, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1983).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (4): Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, Teil 2, Die bestimmte Religion, in zwei Bänden: Textband (a), Anhang (b), Mit einem Begriffs– Realien– und Personenverzeichnis zum Gesamtwerk, Walter Jaeschke, Hrsg., Band 4, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1985).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (5): Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, Teil 3, Die vollendete Religion, Walter Jaeschke, Hrsg., Band 5, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1984).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (6): Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, Teil 1, Einleitung in die Geschichte der Philosophie, Orientalische Philosophie, Pierre Garniron & Walter Jaeschke, Herausgegeben, Band 6, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1994).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (7): Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, Teil 2, Griechische Philosophie, I, Thales bis Kyniker, Pierre Garniron & Walter Jaeschke, Herausgegeben, Band 7, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1989).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (8): Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, Teil 3, Griechische Philosophie, II, Plato bis Proklos, Pierre Garniron & Walter Jaeschke, Herausgegeben, Band 8, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1996).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (9): Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, Teil 4, Philosophie des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit, Pierre Garniron & Walter Jaeschke, Herausgegeben, Band 9, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1986).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (10): Vorlesungen über die Logik, Berlin 1831, — Nachgeschrieben von Karl Hegel, Udo Rameil, Hrsg., Herausgegeben unter Mitarbeit von Hans–Christian Lucas, Band 10, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2001).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (11): Vorlesungen über Logik und Metaphysik, Heidelberg 1817, — Mitgeschrieben von Franz Anton Good, Karen Gloy, Hrsg., Band 11, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1992).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (12): Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Weltgeschichte, Berlin 1822–1823, — Nachschriften von Karl Gustav Julius von Griesheim, Heinrich Gustav Hotho & Friedrich Carl Hermann Victor von Kehler, Karl Brehmer, Karl–Heinz Ilting & Hoo Nam Seelmann, Herausgegeben, Band 12, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1996).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (13): Vorlesung über die Philosophie des Geistes, Berlin 1827–1828, — Nachgeschrieben von Johann Eduard Erdmann & Ferdinand Walter, Franz Hespe & Burkhard Tuschling, Herausgegeben, Band 13, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1994).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (14): Vorlesungen über die Philosophie des Rechts, Berlin 1819–1820, — Nachgeschrieben von Johann Rudolf Ringier, Emil Angehrn, Martin Bondeli & Hoo Nam Seelmann, Herausgegeben, Band 14, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2000).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (15): Vorlesungen über philosophische Enzyklopädie, Nürnberg 1812–1813, — Nachschriften von Christian Samuel Meinel & Julius Friedrich Heinrich Abegg, Udo Rameil, Hrsg., Band 15, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2002).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (16): Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Natur, Berlin 1819–1820, — Nachgeschrieben von Johann Rudolf Ringier, Martin Bondeli & Hoo Nam Seelmann, Herausgegeben, Band 16, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2002).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Vorlesungen, Ausgewählte Nachschriften und Manuskripte (17): Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Natur, Berlin 1825–1826, — Nachgeschrieben von Heinrich Wilhelm Dove, Karol Bal, Gilles Marmasse, Thomas Posch & Klaus Vieweg, Herausgegeben, Band 17, (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2007).
©2018–2019 Christopher Richard Wade Dettling, The Rational Conception of Canada: Trudeau Philology and Trudeauisme, revised edition. All rights reserved. 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.
