/lit/ - Literature

Yes, Schmitt is very important. But you shouldn't be reading with blinkers on to only narrow your exposure to ideas and thinking. Reading is a dialectical process of finding truth and requires opposition and pushing beyond horizons of thought.

>>21586631
look up Nigel Carlsbad's Commentaries on Karl Ludwig von Haller

>>21586676
Whatever happened to Coalsbad?

Go to discord.gg/chika and ask about him

Sounds interesting desu bumperino

>>21586631
>So would reading Schmitt's political analyses be useful for someone with a reactionary and feudalist Weltanschauung?
Certainly, he is easily the best political philosopher of the last century. I've read everything he wrote that is translated into english and written two articles on him as well. He's incredibly insightful.

>>21586778
>and written two articles on him as well
link?

also >>21586676 this is pretty interesting desu so thanks

>>21586786
>and written two articles on him as well
>link?
I'm not doxxing myself and you most probably can't read the language I wrote in it.

>>21586631
>So would reading Schmitt's political analyses be useful for someone with a reactionary and feudalist Weltanschauung?
You're such a pretentious cunt kek

>>21586631
>So would reading Schmitt's political analyses be useful for someone with a reactionary and feudalist Weltanschauung?
I wouldn't exactly consider him a "reactionary" in that sense... he was simply aliberal. He wanted to take dictatorship seriously but from an Angloid perspective obviously ultramontanism or Leninism are just wrong and objectively bad and shouldn't be even taken into account. There's no reason to read Joseph de Maistre or Georges Sorel when John Locke solved politics and revealed our natural rights.

>>21586678
He opting for taking over the bulgarian elections in April.

>>21588078
>and revealed our natural rights

>reactionary
Read chapters 1-3 of Dictatorship
>feudalist
Read Otto Brunner

>>21588078
>when John Locke solved politics and revealed our natural rights.

My favorite author, along with de Tocqueville and Jünger (and Leo Strauss(and Walter Strauss, who wrote my favorite textbook on PDEs))

>>21586631
>So would reading Schmitt's political analyses be useful for someone with a reactionary and feudalist Weltanschauung?
Yes, Schmitt is very important.

>>21588078
based boomer

Carl Schmitt is probably the single most important conservative and right wing thinker because he is the only one who addresses modern government for what it is - law and lawyers. And then he differentiates the merely legal from what is truly political.

>>21591844
I think what Schmitt doesn’t do so well I’d explain that the pre-eminence of religion over law in the medieval state paved the way for the elevation of the law.

>>21591858
And that’s Kantorowicz, right? And what about this numinous character of Law in Antiquity? We go then to Vico and Fustel de Coulanges who show how the paters maintained the laws in secret from the rest of the city, as some sort of esoteric knowledge? I haven’t read Schmitt yet but I expected him to cover this in his book about political theology.

>>21591858
Religion never had some massive preeminence over medieval law. Hence, there was no need to really do any of that. Going from any and all primary sources I've read from medieval legislation it really only provided a general moral structure and mostly in marital law. It didn't have much to do with civil or penal legislation. Liberalism (or progressivism, however you want to call it) today plays a far greater role in legislation. EU directives even come with built in ideological instructions. And there's something like 20000 of those alone in positive law today.

>>21586631
>argued that the modern concepts of the states are secularized theological concepts,
That's the with everything in post-Metaphysical age. Strip concepts of their Metaphysical context and apply it to material.

We can make a lot of money by actively doing this shit.

>>21588078
>There's no reason to read Joseph de Maistre
Big oof

>>21591865
I never read those authors. This is from reading a variety of sources.

>>21591872
It’s less about the theological’s relationship to the legal than about the theological’s relationship to the political, and subsequently, the legal’s relationship to the political. In the United States, we are literally a nation of laws. We have 3 branches of government that each have the stated purpose of maintaining some relationship to the law. The large majority of our politicians are lawyers. We speak often of the “rule of law”, literally as if legality was also sovereignty. It’s not that liberalism plays a greater role in legislation. It’s that legislation is the liberal way of doing politics.

>>21591872
And when I talk about pre-eminence, what I really mean is that if you look at the Roman state, there was no separation of the religious or the legal functions as they pertained to politics. A Roman aristocrat could be a legislator and prosecutor, a priest, an executive, and a military commander all in one lifetime. In the medieval state, medieval noble could be political, and also a military officer, a legislator, a judge, or a priest but not all of them. Priesthood, in particular, was a separate vocation taken for life and played a pre-eminent role in what we call politics. And so by demarcating these things - the political, the theological, and the legal, we set the precedent for interchanging them to set up governance of religion, governance of laws, etc. liberalism very much favors governance of the law. When we say “rule of law” we mean it literally. The liberal sovereign is the law and lawyers are the nobles. De Tocqueville noted this in Democracy in America.

>>21591858
And I think Schmitt also is maybe not as relevant in the post-New Deal era wherein liberal governance has truly morphed into liberal-progressive governance. We still speak about the place of law in governance but when we look at the administration of, for example, the American government, we see also departments of intelligence, transportation, conservation, and things related to commerce, economics, and finance in particular. These are not legal domains and this isn’t a government that deals merely in law.

>>21591933
>>21591926
What Schmitt is saying is exactly that rule of law doesn't exist and that it's just a smokescreen for politics and power. Schmitt was always saying that liberalism is something which does not and has never behaved in a way that liberals describe it.

>>21586631
he also is in reference to Husserls Phänomenologie and Heiddeggers Fundamentalontologie. He is all over the place, not paricularlly special intelectual, just a nice writer

>>21591955
I agree, but the point I was making was not that rule of law really exists.

>>21591887
>That's the with everything in post-Metaphysical age. Strip concepts of their Metaphysical context and apply it to material.
Yes, Wolfgang Smith has made the same observations in his own scientific domain. Hilarious when you think that most people don't even know that the scientific "truths" in which they believe in are simply offshoots of pseudo-metaphysical ideas like cartesian dualism and so forth.

>>21590225
>>21588473
History has ended chuds, your ideologies are irrelevant in the 21st century

>>21588078
Anglos gonna Anglo

>>21594007
>History has ended chuds, your ideologies are irrelevant in the 21st century
well, your ideology certainly won't last as much as monarchy did

>>21591955
It seems like law is more of a means to an end, rather than the end in itself like a perpetual motion machine in which the legal system runs perfectly smoothly like a mechanical watch where everything can be predicted perfectly, but we know that the reality of the legal systems in liberal-democratic nations is not like that.

It's more visible because it's in-your-face, and some Chinese scholars have found Schmitt interesting, after the PRC passed this "National Security Law" to crack down on Hong Kong protesters. Just to illustrate it btw, but it was interesting watching CGTN which tries to be "nice" or "decent" and not too "crazy" like Russian T.V. in English but the anchor was walking the viewer into a rather draconian law that will throw protesters in prison 4ever:

https://youtu.be/TA7nEYNUN94?t=69

But the "law" is just a fiction here, if people chose not to obey it, it wouldn't matter. But there is power behind it, which the law is somewhat of a smokescreen. This isn't to say the CCP has endless powers, but I do think they made a Schmittian state-of-exception move here because they reasoned that the protesters had reached the point where the sovereign (i.e. the party) chose to essentially move outside the law to protect the state, and then used a legal fiction to underwrite this maneuver.

However, I'm pretty sure Schmitt would see every state basically operating like this in some kinda way including the United States.

>>21594007
Its leftist scum that want History to begin anew, because they lost the 20th century, you fucking chapocel.

>>21588078
You're actually retarded.

>>21594094
The President goes above and beyond the law all the time and in a sense reserves the right, in the end, to originate, enact, enforce, and overrule the law even though it’s technically illegal. Proof of Schmitt’s exception exists in every state, even the most liberal example of the United States which shrouds itself in the law. Even there, there’s a powerful individual that exercises exceptional powers.

>>21591955
>Schmitt was always saying that liberalism is something which does not and has never behaved in a way that liberals describe it.

Correct.

>>21586637
This. Everyone should read Marx at least once.

>>21595646
Sure, but Obama respected the law WAY more than Trump or Bush. Don't play fool here, acting like both sides are just as bad.

>>21595675
>Obama respected the law WAY more than Trump or Bush
No he didn't, he was just more apt at manipulating procedural outcomes (because that is what liberals do). It's the same thing, but with 2 steps more than just abusing the law. I'd argue it's even worse than plain and simple disregard for the law.

>>21595675
He actually did not. Obama is the president that used exceptional powers more than any president in history. He ruled like a dictator, and legal academics like Jonathan Turley even pointed this out while it was happening and nobody gave a shit.

>>21595681
>>21595683
It's fucking insane that people are still willing to defend Trump. Imagine thinking he was better than Obama. Did you buy his NTFs or something and you invested too much to recognize you got scammed? Trump is a conman.

>>21595687
What's fucking insane here is that you don't acknowledge that you don't care about living in a free society as long as the person at the top is on your team.

>>21595691
The team of human decency? This is not the own you think it is.

>>21595696
Ahh yes, Barack Obama, known for the great "human decency" of "What do you mean contaminated drinking water in Flint, Michigan, I'm drinking it right now!"

>>21595701
He wasn't perfect and I'd much rather have a real leftist in the white house, but he was much better than Trump. That's not up for debate.

>>21595703
Yeah I know you leftists/socialists/communists are actually just radical liberals, tell me something I don't know, this isn't news to anyone with a brain.

>>21595687
Look, first you are retarded, second, Trumb being better or worse than Obama is irrelevant to the point I was making about Schmitt and how his theories enlighten the way law is not respected by anyone in power, but only used and abused as a smokescreen. You being a partisan are unable to see this and admitt, plainly, that you like how Obama used power more than how Trump used power. Which, while stupid, is a more defensible position than arguing about who abused a pointless smokescreen more.

>>21595734
If anything, people seek power, status and wealth specifically because when you have those things you are de facto above the law.

>>21586678
Arrested and executed by Bleppsama-affiliated hit squads.

>>21595687
>>21595749
Could you point out to a foreigner why Trump was bad? Please avoid rhetorical devices such as calling him a nazist, male chauvinist, homophobic or whatever. For example, did he not have a remarkable diplomatic attitude regarding international relations with previously “ennemies” of the US?

>>21595974
>For example, did he not have a remarkable diplomatic attitude regarding international relations with previously “ennemies” of the US?
If by that you mean colluding with Russia, then it's very likely that he did, yes.

>>21596038
Do you speak only in talking points?

>>21596038
I think there was a historical meeting with Kim Jong un too.

>>21596045
American liberals are the most mindless, brainwashed, hysterical drones in the world. I heard one literally say the words "sexual orientation diversity". Their soul has been overwritten with corporate PR slogans. It is demonic possession on a mass scale.

>>21595675
Even if true, it’s besides the point being made. The being made is basically that the office as designed was supposed to be a chief law enforcement officer, and it’s expanded to not only that but also all legal rights reserved by congress and the judiciary and also rights that go beyond the law entirely. An example of this is the executive order, which is, albeit not entirely but somewhat, an example of Schmitt’s exemption and the executive order was exercised by both Obama and Trump and will continue to be exercised by whoever holds the office.

>>21594094
Exactly right. Liberals supposed the law could be power, but in reality, power doesn’t reside in the law. It lies in the threat of martial force. Junger has a good quote where he says something along the lines of the liberal believing that security of the home is guaranteed by the law when I’m reality security of the home is guaranteed by the father who, when threatened by invaders, is willing to appear at the door with an axe.

>>21596387
And the liberal preference is particularly distasteful because it in reality demonstrates a preference not for law and thus law enforcers but lawyering and lawyers.

>>21595696
Ah yes. Barack "Drone bombs for the Imams" Obama. Truly a paragon of human decency, and not someone who detonated weddings on a regular basis.

>>21596315
Possession implies the person had to be seized and dominated by the demon. These people are just retards happy to do anything the demon asks to look good.

>>21586631
You could for sure learn something from him but don't expect some monarchist larp. Schmitt is mostly used today by left-wing republics like China and Russia.

>>21597747
>Schmitt is mostly used today by left-wing republics like China and Russia.
bruh what?

>>21595666
>>Schmitt was always saying that liberalism is something which does not and has never behaved in a way that liberals describe it.

this nigga was never more vindicated than when the US and the broader West renamed their departments of war to departments of defense. there is no possible better proof of liberal supremacy defining itself as normative (as a conscious or subconscious political strategy) than that

>>21598219
It’s not just material rights though is it? It’s positive rights in general.

>>21598219
What is the main thesis of the book this passage is from?

>>21588078
I wouldn’t go that far

>>21598008
It's how they justify overcoming the enlightenment.

>>21598538
Russian and Chinese propaganda, at least for foreign consumption, is wall-to-wall social-democratic egalitarian "anti-colonial", "anti-racist" boilerplate. Even the supposed "fascist" Georgia Meloni talks the same shit.

>>21595687
I think Trump is a conman but I think you can draw from Schmitt the idea that EVERY president or ruling party is gonna move outside the rule of law if there was a sufficient threat to the state, if they want to fulfill their role as the sovereign, which is what Lincoln did (like doing things which were "unconstitutional" and outside his prerogative powers), which is probably the best example of that happening in the United States, because the sovereign's overriding priority is to protect the state.

>>21597747
>>21598008
I've corresponded with someone who studied under Schmitt scholars who have gone to China for conferences with academics there who have worked on Schmitt, and what I was told -- about why there has been interest in him there -- is that much of his work deals with some shortcomings of the liberal tradition, and China (this was around 10 years ago when you see a lot of Schmitt scholarship in China, not sure if there's as much now) was opening up a bit and exploring liberalism, like seeing what they could learn from it. The Chinese are very much about taking things they think will work for them from other systems and dropping what they don't like.

What's important here is that Schmitt's work doesn't try to criticize an "authoritarian" system like what China has when discussing liberalism, as a lot of political theory writing about liberalism does. And the two most important concepts in Schmitt, the concept of the political and the state of exception, are interesting to them. But I don't see those things as inherently "left" or "right" as others ITT have said. In the West, it's often the right which has been interested in Schmitt, because you have to ask yourself who in the 70s/80s was interested in looking into the works of a guy who was in the Nazi Party, and they tended to be weird conservative types. But in fact there have been oddball Marxist academics in the West who have too.

>>21598728
Russia is weird and kinda schizo from what I've seen but Chinese propaganda is DEFINITELY anti-racist / anti-colonial, and you should see what the Party says about the U.S. because that would absolutely kill whatever sympathy white nationalist types have for China dead instantly on the spot, like racism being really bad mmm'kay and that the U.S. needs to undergo a revolutionary change to wipe it out, although without the sexual orientation stuff. I actually don't think the Chinese government disapproves of gay people (they're not Christians) but they don't promote it either. Their tradition comes from the Third International communist movement and that's way more apparent in domestic programming which can often feel like the Soviet Union:

https://youtu.be/75FSf_Y5Uwo

>>21598008
>>21597747
The only state that actually incorporates Schmitt is the state of Israel. Told this my the guy that handles the Brussels/EU version of the US Israel lobby.

>>21599205
For other anons interested in the reception of Schmitt in China https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1246&context=jlia

People should also know that Marxist dogma is not something you can discuss or do "interesting" things to in chink academia. Meanwhile you are very free to make grand research on liberals like Locke and Hume, reactionaries like De Maistre and modern Nation-State guys like Schmitt, Weber and co. .

>>21596038
This bait is unbecoming simply because you are not following liberals just parroting things they said years ago. Most of them have moved on from the Russia thing because it turned out to be a bunch of nothing. A good bait would mention the BlueAnon theories that he killed Ivanka + lied about her burial ground and that he was trying to sell the (expired) nuclear codes. Update your bait!

>>21599205
A very popular whataboutism from the soviet era was "But why do you beat the niggers" when deflecting some accusation from the USA or the West. Like my grandfather literally calls niggers ovens when he sees them playing football(actual one that murricans call soccer), but loves the whole "USA was the true racist" that he was propagandized in his youth.

>>21599289
It’s pretty uninteresting considering what they do is offer critiques that were already offered 100 years ago. Chinese scholars talking about the internal contradictions of liberalism doesn’t sound all that different from “2 more weeks”.

>>21599288

>>21599289
Thanks, that's interesting. I didn't know he wrote a book in 1963 which praised Mao. I'm assuming that's the book "The Theory of the Partisan."