/lit/ - Literature

>>14980114
Too many brainlets around these parts desu.

Carl Schmitt

>>12165417
Everything CAN be political if you apply a friend-enemy dichotomy to it. In liberal democracy (which is a total state), everyone participates in the political and all categories of life partake to a degree in the political. So literature will inevitably become politicised.

This man is DANGEROUS

>>11774439
Don't waste your time looking for a neutral space.

How did Schmitt, a radical right-wing thinker, manage to gain respect from people on the left and from respected mainstream intellectuals? I want to know how writers who have ideas that are considered unthinkable and disgusting by the establishment can become respected.

>the sage of Plettenberg

>>11041693
The values which fuel our contemporary moral system are secularised christian ones though.

Why is discussion of conservative literature prohibited? Specific philosophical works are referenced. Can we seriously not discuss Carl Schmitt, Edmund Burke or Roger Scruton's works here?

Welcome back to conservative general, where we discuss conservative literature and theory.

Gentlemen: let's narrow our minds.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY3Kxf7ZTeI
Reading chart (file was too big to upload, maybe someone can compress it):http://oi63.tinypic.com/14kdv0i.jpg

In the last thread, I discussed "constitutionalism" in conservatism. Now I will give an explanation of "decisionism" and "the state of exception" as described by Carl Schmitt and Joseph de Maistre. Decisionism is a position which maintains that legal authority depends on "who decides", rather than upon the written law itself. This is not normative doctrine, it is descriptive. For the decisionist, the law does not, of itself, hold any power, and is never the question; the question is always "who decides". Decisionists are often very cynical about "rule of law", because they see it as a loaded phrase. Carl Schmitt observes,

>First, law can signify here the existing positive laws and lawgiving methods which should continue to be valid. In this case the rule of law means nothing else than the legitimization of a specific status quo, the preservation of which interests particularly those whose political power or economic advantage would stabilize itself in this law. Second, appealing to law can signify that a higher orbetter law, a so-called natural law or law of reason, is set against the law of the status quo. In this case it is clear to a politician that the rule or sovereignty of this type of law signifies the rule and sovereignty of men or groups who can appeal to this higher law and thereby decide its content and how and by whom it should be applied.

Decisionists will argue that all law works this way. For the communists, they are simply fighting to make the proletariat "who decides". For the liberal, they are simply fighting to make the middle class "who decides", and progressive wants to make the reformer "who decides" (Thurgood Marshall articulated his jurisprudence as, "you do what you think is right, and let the law catch up."). It always comes down to that. Even Rousseau is simply asserting the majority is, "who decides," and by his own idiotic logic he maintains that dissenters from the majority simply don't know their own will.

>When therefore the opinion that is contrary to my own prevails, this proves neither more nor less than that I was mistaken, and that what I thought to be the general will was not so. If my particular opinion had carried the day I should have achieved the opposite of what was my will; and it is in that case that I should not have been free.
Cont

>proves nazism is more democratic than liberalism

pssh... nichts personales... kind

But seriously though: can you help a brother out and recommend me introductory literature on Carl Schmitt? I find myself agreeing with his general premises but I need to go deeper.