/lit/ - Literature

Maybe this time people will respond.

Carl Schmitt already refuted this argumentation in Nomos of the Earth and Political Theology. God is a silent Judge, he waits until we die to judge our actions, he doesn't involve himself in our struggle while we live, which means we are condemned to moral relativism anyway.

>"B-b-but what about the rules in the Bible, you have to follow them????"

Sure, but those aren't judged upon until after death either, so again the problem persists. Life is a chaotic mess where everything is permitted by default because the guy who is supposed to judge right from wrong, never shows up during life. As long as God never shows up to judge who won the war, or who is doing the correct thing, then it's as if he doesn't exist.

>Democracy is a good form of government and it can totally work as long as the electorate is ethnically homogeneous!

Why do people fall for this guy again? Because of his criticism of liberalism?

No society can last forever. Every new generation of Party officials would have some slight devation from the previous generation, and after several generations it would collapse by itself.

This same tendency happens in every dictatorship, hell, even every normal society as well, those in power who are good at using power will eventually give power to someone who is incompetent.

Why do midwits like him so much?

Shameless self-bump.

>"The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. These can neither be decided by a previously determined general norm nor by the judgment of a disinterested and therefore neutral third party.”

>"A domination of men based upon pure economics must appear a terrible deception if, by remaining nonpolitical, it thereby evades political responsibility and visibility. Exchange by no means precludes the possibility that one of the contractors experiences a disadvantage and that a system of mutual contracts finally deteriorates into a system of the worst exploitation and repression. When the exploited and the repressed attempt to defend themselves in such a situation, they cannot do so by economic means."

>friend good!
>enemy bad!
Whoa...

>>16963869
Political Theology
The Concept of the Political
The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy
The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes

It seems to me necessary that to speak of the "ontological" there has to be a prior metaphysical framework.

But most of the BLM really aren't Marxist, you get a few maoist settlerites in the high ranks, those might begrudgingly aknowledge Marx despite him being a disgusting whitoid, and then you have crowds of people who think that fight for human rights, equality etc. are not partisan issues, but matters of "basic human decency."

All right /lit/, if you're so smart, explain to me Carl Schmitt's worldview like I was 5 years old.

>anarchoids still think that an individualist union will, uhmm, just work and some Raz Simone won't come and bitchslap them into submission
absolutely hillarious

Liberalism does not know its enemy and you cannot maintain it with funkopops. It is known.

that only confirms Enlightenment to be a nigger tier philosophy tbqh

>>15762600
>>basic universal human rights shouldn't exist
Yes.

Start with Schmitt.

>>15119519
You watch the being, I'll take care of the political

>>15029378

>>15030606
>And I can’t decide if this board is overrun with leftists or nationalists
It seems you're having trouble with friend/enemy distinctions. I suggest reading Carl Schmitt

>p-p-plz stop retroactively refuting me!! Its not fair!!!

Why exactly is Carl Schmitt supposed to be so smart? Why does he, a conservative thinker and nazi, get grudging respect and regular name-dropping from leftist thinkers and philosophers?

What, exactly, are his special insights? What books of his would you recommend?

Is there room for a humble jurist?

How is he so good, bros? Why can't I come up with bombastic first sentences such as "Sovereign is he who decided on the exception" or "All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts"?

Shit, he btfo's Kelsen's ass so hard that it's pathetic how much Kelsen is still studied while Schmitt isn't.