DeKanting Philosophy:

Writing this essay made me sad. I had come across a group of self-assured philosophers, singing the praises of Kant. That was a moment of solitude. Sheep praising the wolf. When I brought up objections, pointing at the enormous connection between Kant and Nazism, I was haughtily told “We, in philosophy, do not judge thinkers on one sentence”.

This depicts how followers of Kant behaved in Nazi occupied Europe:

Dog Philosophy: Obey, Always To Obey The Mighty. Confucius, To Kant

Dog Philosophy: Obey, Always To Obey The Mighty. Confucius, To Kant

One Sentence, One Idea Can Move The World, And Not For The Best:

In the Twelfth Century, Saint Bernard (de Clairvaux; Abelard’s, and humanity’s, enemy) was asked how he, the saintliest and most influential Christian (he told Pope Urban II what to do), could defend homicide.

Saint Bernard haughtily replied: ”It is not homicide, but malecide, the killing of evil.” Bernard, one of the known universe’ most evil men, then launched the Second Crusade, the Cistercian order, the Knights Templars, the Inquisition, and the killing of millions, for centuries to come.

People who are viewed as philosophers, by a large following, have much more influence than is generally attributed to them.

Some are anti-philosophers, those who give guidance, honor and cover to the satanic minds who grab power and lead civilization to the abyss, driven only by the greedy instinct of the self-destructive predator.

Locke helped slavery. Rousseau, Kant, Herder etched in the stone of (pseudo) philosophy the erroneous systems of moods and thoughts which brought Nazism. Yet, they still have lots of cognitively impaired followers. Truly these guys are not philosophers, but plutocratic puppets. That makes them all the more dangerous.

How does one subjugate people? By making them feel wrong. Then it is easy to make them think wrong. In the end they believe it is smart to engage in whatever will and up oppressing, or even, could destroy them.

In the philosophy of the predator, destruction, whether means, or end, is an intrinsic good.

The archetype modern example here is Prussia, and the fascist, racist, anti-Judaic Nazi Germany it ended up creating… bringing the annihilation of Prussia.

The Germans, under the influence of a triumphing Prussia in the Eighteen, and Nineteenth Centuries Century, were led to believe it was smart to dislike, despise, hate, oppress, subjugate, exploit, dehumanize, Poles, Slavs and Jews. Superficially, it worked. Until September 10, 1914, when the all devouring Frankenstein of Prussian racial fascism had to beat a hasty retreat on the battlefield.

(Indeed, in parallel, and to be able to enforce all this oppression, subjugation, contempt, dehumanization, maximal force, that is, military force, had to be used. Thus, in Prussia and its admirers, militarism was inseparable with racism. Prussia had an army comparable in size to France, in the Seventeenth Century, with a tenth of the population. This militarization paid off handsomely: after coming close to total annihilation, under the gay aggressor Frederick II, Prussia grabbed immensely rich Silesia, its mines and industry, from Austria.)

Instead Of Reading Hitler, Read Kant, It Does Just As Well:

Thus a mood of exploitative racism and hungry military aggression was created by Prussia’s masters. All they needed were parrots to sing their praises. And they were many, the most prominent of these birds repeating songs of evil was Kant. Now for some comic relief. It turns out that Kant is still much admired, 70 years after his followers exterminated tens of millions of innocent civilians (they wanted to do more, but they were rudely interrupted by carpet bombing).

How was the mood created? In no small part by making people admire a pseudo-philosopher, Kant. Kant was racist, militarist, mechanical. A perfect philosopher for a racist militaristic regime.

“The reason a people has a duty to put up with even what is held to be an unbearable abuse of supreme authority is that its resistance to the highest legislator can never be regarded as other than contrary to law, and indeed as abolishing the entire legal constitution.” –Kant

In other words: dictators (=”highest legislators”) rule, disobeying them is immoral. That could only please Kant’s paymaster, the hereditary dictator of Prussia. Remark: This, that resisting the dictator is immoral, nothing new: I call that the Qur’an Fascist Principle (Sura IV, Verse 59).

“O Ye Who Believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.

This is the essence of Hitler’s Fuhrer Prinzip. Kant was just a guy who heard about the Qur’an. This makes Kant vastly inferior to Voltaire. Voltaire read the Qur’an, and dragged the emperor of Mecca, Muhammad his name, it in the mud, to the point that the Politically Correct censored him, in the Twenty-First Century (!) Voltaire was right, so he gets censored, Kant is a Nazi, so he gets lauded. In a world where human values are inverted, a plutocratic world, in other words, this all makes sense.

Not only Kant was a fanatical Jihadist of the worst type, but Kant was a racist, and could be said to have invented the (false) theory of scientific racism. Sometimes the idiocy gets even funny: Kant thinks Africans smell bad. But it’s all scientific. Says the pseudo-philosopher:

“We know now, for example, that human blood turns black (as is to be seen in blood coagulum) …. Now the strong body odor of the Negroes, not be avoided by any degree of cleanliness, gives reason to suppose that their skin absorbs a very large amount of phlogiston from the blood, and that nature must so have designed this skin that in them the blood can dephlogisticate …”

Negroes are of course born idiots, and in this Kant follows another of the Prussiano-Anglo-Saxon pantheon of evil philosophy, Hume:

“The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises above the trifling. Mr. Hume challenges anyone to cite a single example in which a Negro has shown talents... So fundamental is the difference between these two races of man, and it appears to be as great in regard to mental capacities as in color.” -Kant

Kant is the first author of no racial mixing (later implemented by the Nazis). A new concept in Europe:

The mingling of stocks (due to great conquests), little by little erodes the character and it is not good for the human race in spite of any so-called philanthropy.”

For comparison, Rome had African (Libya), and Arab emperors (or “Augusta”). Rome happily mixed all races.

That racist principle was used by Kant with lots of direct impact. The Spanish Crown was encouraging a policy of interbreeding and had ordered the Mexican governor to comply. The governor had, however, opposed the order. Kant encouraged him (in contradiction to making obedience the highest principle; Kant acted as if racism was an even higher principle than obedience). In a letter to the governor of Mexico, Kant wrote:

“[Of the idea that] nature would develop new and better races of produce them through the commingling of two races there is little ground for hope in as much as nature has long since exhausted the forms appropriate to soil and climate, whilst cross-breeding (for example of the American with the European or of these with the Negro) has debased the good without raising proportionately the level of the worse — hence the governor of Mexico wisely rejected the order of the Spanish Court to encourage interbreeding.”

Heil Kant!

Kant’s account of race also includes the superiority of the white race and that the others will become extinct. For details, see Wulf D. Hund’s “The Racisms of Immanuel Kant,” a book which begins and ends with this quote from Kant:

“All races will become exterminated … except for the whites.”

Kant’s insults against Jews are too numerous to count. The Jews are by nature “sharp dealers” who are “bound together by superstition.” Their “immoral and vile” behavior in commerce shows that they “do not aspire to civic virtue,” for “the spirit of usury holds sway amongst them.” They are “a nation of swindlers” who benefit only “from deceiving their host’s culture.” Nicht so klar? Here it is, for the brin impaired. Kant: “THE EUTHANASIA OF JUDAISM IS THE PURE MORAL RELIGION.”

Johann Herder (1744-1803) quoted Kant’s lectures on practical philosophy: “Every coward is a liar; Jews, for example, not only in business, but also in common life.”… Nazis made a “hideous misinterpretation of Kant”? Or is it that some people are just hideous stupid?

So why is Kant still popular? Adolf Eichmann, on trial in Jerusalem, found the explanation:

“Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one’s need to think.”

In other words, Kant is the perfect philosopher for weak-willed idiots. All the more as he invented a weird, pseudoscientific jargon which appeals to those who find too difficult to learn true science, the uneducated and unintelligent. Hence said jargon became wildly popular with philosophically inclined half-wits.

Tolerating Kant, is tolerating Nazism. Adulating Kant, is adulating the essence of Nazism. Time to get acquainted with those facts.

In other news, one of the world’s most powerful men died when his jet got flipped by a snow plough. In Moscow. He had just been plotting with one of the world’s dictators. Interesting how plutocrats live on the edge. (More on this later.)

Indeed, plutocrats do not have much too fear, besides snow storms, as long as those who view themselves as “philosophers” drink the cool Kant aid.

Patrice Ayme’




Tags: , , , , ,

14 Responses to “DeKanting Philosophy:”

  1. dominique deux Says:

    Very enlightening. I always thought Kant was a kind of Turing Test, a machine trying to sound human and completely failing. Now you expose the machine’s murderous programming and its consequences.

    I was brought up in fond awe of classical philosophy. Socrates was extolled as the highest ethical voice in centuries when he told his friends that he would not try and escape his (unfair) sentence, because the harm he would do to laws would be much worse than the harm he would be spared. If he said that (we have to believe Plato) he was indeed commendably ethical at his own expense (although his sentence was justified on several counts; I take him to be a sophist, a capital offense). So we can excuse him on grounds of misplaced honesty.

    With your attacks on the Pluto Troïka and Kant, you’ve been helping me crystallize my deeply felt mistrust in those luminaries of my youth. Classical studies, touted as the means to build free souls, actually were the reverse. Another example is the veneration for Cicero, a two-bit mouthpiece (aka lawyer) for his plutocratic employers, and the accompanying hatred for populist activists of his time, including Catilina or Caesar himself.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: Thanks. I doubt professional philosophers will find this enlightenment so endearing. It has long been clear (to me) that the most respected philosophers in the Anglo-Saxon universe, are all trash cans.

      Agreed to all. I had a similar trip myself. I went from veneration of the SPA troika to increasing suspicion. Now I view them part of the plutocratic mindset, like the Qur’an which they preceded by a millennium, and enduringly popular precisely because of that.

      When one knows the broader ethical and historical context around Socrates, he does not look good at all.

      BTW, Kant made numerous statements supporting the Prussian war machine, dictatorship, and its top plutocrat, Frederick II (the gay character Hitler loved to see his own picture appear next to, a curious juxtaposition, considering the Reich’s need for lots of babies…)

      Yes, Cicero by dealing with the Conspiracy of Catalina the way he did, an act of pure free will, not just followed Aristotle closely, but buried the Republic. That, too, nobody ever says, instead focusing on Caesar… When Caesar, clearly was stuck between a rock and a hard place, and, roughly, at least in its later years, tried his best.


  2. Andrew Tripp Says:

    Andrew Tripp. Patrice, you say: “The Nazis systematically used Kant to defend themselves, claiming they had followed his philosophy exactly. That ought to have buried Kant.”

    Andrew Tripp: Patrice, way to ignore the fact that your example ignores that they hideously misread Kant. There are many selfish and narcissistic utilitarians, so does that bury utilitarianism?

    What’s wrong with the statement that the Nazis adapted a misinterpretation of Kant for their own purposes, as they did with Nietzsche? Any surface level knowledge of Kant and of the Eichmann trial reveals that.

    Patrice see that’s why in philosophy we don’t rely on single sentences to sum up entire thinkers. There’s a whole ocean of context to that quote, and Kant’s views in general, that are necessary for understanding him. Saying Kant’s philosophy is compatible with Nazism based on single quotes is just plain bad faith arguing.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Andrew: You claim I do “bad faith” arguing. Kant, indeed, argued that he was doing “good faith” arguing. So you are doing the parrot. (You insulted me first! ;-)!)

      In truth, Kant was a racist, militaristic, vicious undertaker of the Prussian dictatorship. All his important ideas are about that. And you are a follower, so logically, you insult me. Anybody modern will know who is the vicious racist pig. Yet, of course, as the government of the USA, to this day, pays considerable retirements to authentic Nazi war criminals who killed thousands in extermination camps, anything goes…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Andrew, Hideously misinterpreted jargon? Because Kant is all about pseudoscientific JARGON, indeed. Gee, how surprising! Kant’s jargon was made to be abused, or more exactly, to abuse people with.

      Nazis did not use Goethe, Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche as a defense, when on trial (although Hitler tried to use Nietzsche, he grossly failed). When on trial, Nazis used Kant. Why? Kant was a fascist compatible philosopher (like Herder). Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being’s will in fulfilling his duty” Suitably murky.


      • dominique deux Says:

        ““the moral strength of a human being’s will in fulfilling his duty” Suitably murky.”

        I think it’s not that murky. I once was in a meeting with Bundeswehr officers. They were the epitome of civism, human rights and democracy. After the meeting, the French delegation – which included Army officers and students – had a chat over coffee. One officer told me “How they have changed! Now, if ordered to shoot you, they’ll cry before, during and after. But they’ll do it.”

        Moral strength, very Kantian indeed.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Yes, scary, indeed. That’s the difference between a people brought up in a democratic spirit, and those brought in a system where the big decisions are taken by someone else.
          The French learned, long ago, to take the big moral decisions by themselves, much more than the Germans. Nazism, though, contributed to the change. When the Battle of Paris happened, it’s not just Von Choltiz, the “Butcher of Sevastopol” who disobeyed. So did his superior, a SS general. Choltiz told the higher SS that he was ready with 3 tons of high explosives, to destroy Notre Dame, according to his orders. The SS general said: “I did not give these orders, the Fuerer did!” Choltiz replied that history will remember him, his SS superior, as the destroyer of Paris. The higher SS sighted, and backed off…

          I think deNazification of Germany is still on-going. Things had stalled in the army, because the Americans were happy with the Nazis and the nicely rebounding Von Manstein was in charge (to all too great an extent). VM blocked the influence of the (surviving) anti-Hitlerian officers. (5,000 had been executed, most of them higher officers, from the so called Von Stauffenberg plot…)

          Contrarily to what I hear from many who may not be fluent in Deutsch, I do not think that Germany is anything but super respectful of France at this point. Merkel has her own problems right now, which pretty much hog-tie her (national fronts in both Deutschland und Frankreich). Anyway, Germany is probably in recession… When, and if, that becomes official, things will change…


          • dominique deux Says:

            As an aside – the Wehrmacht Code of Conduct did include the formal right for officers and soldiers to disobey an illegal or criminal order. Hundreds of officers were court-martialled for exactly that, and let go by the military courts.

            Of course their later career was short-lived and snowy, but so was that of a lot of their more obedient brothers in arms.

            The urge to obey was an inner one.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Dear Dominique: Once again you faites preuve of your remarkable knowledge… I read about 150 cases of refusals to execute criminal orders that were striking enough to deserve formal military court. However the politicians, that is, the higher-up Nazis, gave orders to the judges to not prosecute a single one. They were afraid that the defendant would win, and thus open the floodgates of a rebellion against Nazi criminality (as happened in Spring/Summer 1944).

            The career of the Total CEO was also short-lived and snowy. Thor won over Pluto. I was going to make an essay on this, but it may be in poor state, all the more as I know/knew lots of people who knew him well… And thought highly of him…


    • gmax Says:

      I presume you are the dimwitt Patrice alluded to?


  3. gmax Says:

    This all started with the evil English philosophers, Locke, Hume… And Rousseau, as you said. Rousseau made the first direct secular attacks on civilization.

    Prussia itself was financed by London…


  4. Judaism’s Promised land | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] now forever tied to Auschwitz, as the German president said. Studying Auschwitz ought to bring the final solution to much German ideology, including Kant, Herder, […]


  5. Charlie Manson & The Qur’an | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] extends the Fascist Principle to the universe: everybody has a chief, everybody obeys that chief absolutely. Adolf Hitler may well as found in […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: