/lit/ - Literature

are there any economics books that attempt something analogous to what Carl Schmitt accomplished in the field of politics and law i.e. reveal hidden theological assumptions behind seemingly secular concepts e.g. how Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is basically Enlightenment deism as an economic theory?

>>16965312

you are in a permanent state of cringe

>>16203292
He got advice from the guy who made Nazi Germany legal.

>>15238821
Anyone with an interest of liberalism should read Carl Schmitt. Thoroughly anti-liberal but a very well put together thinker.

A liberal Jewish homosexual lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on John Stuart Mill, a known liberal.

"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Mill and accept that he was the most free being the world has ever known, even greater than Leo Strauss!"

At this moment, a brave, nationalistic, pro-emergency powers legal Jurist who had served over 1500 cases and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by Germay stood up and held up a Pollack.

"Is this Pole our friend or enemy?"

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied "all men are our friends, you stupid Fascist"

"Wrong. The distinction between friend and enemy refers to the utmost degree of intensity, of an association or dissociation. The utmost degree of association is the willingness to fight and die for and together with other members of one’s group, and the ultimate degree of dissociation is the willingness to kill others for the simple reason that they are members of a hostile group. One cannot judge, from an external perspective, that a group is morally unjustified in defining its own identity in a certain way and to introduce political enmity, with the attendant possibility of killing, to preserve that identity. Only members of a group are in a position to decide, from the perspective of an existentially affected participant, whether the otherness of another group amounts to a threat to their own form of life and thus potentially requires to be fought"

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of On Liberty. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the "poor" (who today live in such luxury that most own radiators) when they jealously try to claw justly earned power from the deserving sovereign dictators. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Adam Friedland, wished he had pulled himself up by constitutional law and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had an enemy to kill to save himself from embarrassment, but he himself had failed to distinguish any!

The students applauded and all registered National Socialist that day and accepted Hitler as their lord and savior. A Reichsadler named "Heidegger" flew into the room and perched atop the Nazi Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The Soldier's Oath was recited several times, and Hitler himself showed up and enacted Enabling Act of 1933 across the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the liberal plague syphilis and was tossed a crematorium.
Heil Hitler

A liberal Jewish homosexual lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on John Stuart Mill, a known liberal.

"Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Mill and accept that he was the most free being the world has ever known, even greater than Leo Strauss!"

At this moment, a brave, nationalistic, pro-emergency powers legal Jurist who had served over 1500 cases and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by Germay stood up and held up a Pollack.

"Is this Pole our friend or enemy?"

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied "all men are our friends, you stupid Fascist"

"Wrong. The distinction between friend and enemy refers to the utmost degree of intensity, of an association or dissociation. The utmost degree of association is the willingness to fight and die for and together with other members of one’s group, and the ultimate degree of dissociation is the willingness to kill others for the simple reason that they are members of a hostile group. One cannot judge, from an external perspective, that a group is morally unjustified in defining its own identity in a certain way and to introduce political enmity, with the attendant possibility of killing, to preserve that identity. Only members of a group are in a position to decide, from the perspective of an existentially affected participant, whether the otherness of another group amounts to a threat to their own form of life and thus potentially requires to be fought"

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of On Liberty. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the "poor" (who today live in such luxury that most own radiators) when they jealously try to claw justly earned power from the deserving sovereign dictators. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Adam Friedland, wished he had pulled himself up by constitutional law and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had an enemy to kill to save himself from embarrassment, but he himself had failed to distinguish any!

The students applauded and all registered National Socialist that day and accepted Hitler as their lord and savior. A Reichsadler named "Heidegger" flew into the room and perched atop the Nazi Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The Soldier's Oath was recited several times, and Hitler himself showed up and enacted Enabling Act of 1933 across the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the liberal plague syphilis and was tossed a crematorium.
Heil Hitler

>The exception is more interesting than the rule. The rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything. In the exception the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition.

What would Carl Schmitt think of coronavirus?

Just finished reading Political Theology and Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, and planning to start his work Constitutional Theory as well. Is there any anons that could recommend me other works in this regard? I've bought a copy of Cortes' essays, but I'm wondering specifically about works that directly follow Schmitt's line of thinking