Carl Schmitt

[Anonymous No.11035680]

I will present an explanation of "decisionism" and "state of exception" in Schmitt's work if you are interested

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.

Cont

Conservative reading chart: http://oi63.tinypic.com/14kdv0i.jpg

[Anonymous No.11035683]

>>11035680
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 financier "who decides". 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.

Now regarding the "state of exception," that is a circumstance in which the authority of "who decides" is jeopardized in a way which the law is not sufficient to protect, and so he or they must act outside (above) the law in order to maintain their authority (or "order" if you are less cynical). A good example of this is the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams. It was not just that censorship was unconstitutional by going against the Bill of Rights, it was also that the Federal Government doesn't even have that authority, it only has the authority the Constitution explicitlygrants it. But there was a serious "state of emergency," and to give you an idea, Gouverneur Morris in his diary reveals that Edmund Randolph was not simply forced to resign for the public reasons, but because he was literally found to be plotting with Jacobins in France for the overthrow of the United States government in order to establish a Jacobin government here. These were desperate times, and newspapers were printing deliberate lies about the Federal government in order to incite revolution, lies which could hardly be rapidly countered in that age. And so the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed to save the nation from Jacobins.

[Anonymous No.11035695]

>>11035680
>Conservative reading chart: http://oi63.tinypic.com/14kdv0i.jpg

>An explanation of the normative-existentialist and constitutionalist-decisionist distinctions mentioned in the chart
"Normative" means concerned with "norms" ("norms" here are principles, not as in "norm", whatever is average--the average can be *deviant*). The Anglo-American school of conservatism tends to take a great interest in how things ought to be and what one ought to do. It is firmly opposed to consequentialist ethics. For example, Richard M. Weaver, J.R.R. Tolkien and Russell Kirk all strongly condemned the atomic bombing of Japan (which specifically targetted non-combatants), because they were very much opposed to consequentialist ethics. Edmund Burke, John Adams and John Quincy Adams were all fiercely moralist, John Quincy Adams overtly rejected the maxim, "My country, right or wrong," and said he could never side with his country where she is in the wrong, but must oppose her. This is in contrast with Continental attitude: identifying what is good and what is evil is not so important, because for the Continental conservative, the enemy is not necessarily evil (certainly Ernst Junger and didn't see his enemy as evil), but even where the enemy is clearly evil, that's beside the point: he chooses evil as an existentialist affirmation; from this perspective, evil is not regarded so much as "invalid", even in the writings of the ultra pious of the Continental conservatives. Carl Schmitt regarded invoking morals to condemn the enemy in politics to be simply a tactical weapon, suggesting that one's political enemy isn't neccessarily evil, and one's political friend is not necessarily virtuous. Joseph de Maistre viewed the Jacobins with a great deal of equanimity, holding that
Cont

[Anonymous No.11035698]

>>11035695
no real wrong was done to the aristocratic victims of the French Revolution (which included himself, even though his escaped murder), since all of humanity deserves damnation; at the very most, the victims of the revolution just got what they deserved. He considered the revolutionaries stupid, but he said it is wrong to hate people for being stupid.


"Constitutionalist" here means believing in the "rule of law" ("Constitutionalist" references a written, legal constitution; this should not be conflated with the deeper sense of "constitution" often used by conservatives such as Orestes Brownson, to
Cont

[Anonymous No.11035702]

>>11035698
mean what makes a nation what it is as distinct from other nations, and which written constitutions can only reflect). "Rule of law" is a phrase which means that the state is *subject* to the law, rather than above it. This theory of the state is extremely important for conservative support of revolutions, such as the American Revolution: what justifies this Revolution in the Anglo-American perspective), is that the British government broke the law: British parliament had no jurisdiction over the colonies, they were a foreign state. The British king did, but his authority was limited to what was stipulated in the colonial charters, and in British law the king cannot tax without parliament; rather than going through American assemblies to approve taxes, however, the king went through British parliament. Many Anglo-American conservatives saw this as a violation of the law, which justified revolt. John Adams, for example, held rule of law to be of the highest importance (he took great pride in being the successful legal defense for the British soldiers who perpetuated the "Boston Massacre"). Constitutionalist conservativism leads to a major conflict with progressivist legal theory in the United States: in William Blackstone's jurisprudence (which was accepted by all legal proponents of the American Revolution, and which was what the U.S. Constitution presumes), when judging equity ("equity" means what is not covered by the letter of the law) a law is to be interpreted according to *the reason it was made*. This is referred to as "Originalism" (contrary to popular belief, "Originalism" does not mean "only covering situations existing at the time the law was written", and Blackstone stresses this: the reason the law

[Anonymous No.11035706]

>>11035702
Cont
was made, is what allows it to be applied to unforseen developments; Originalism is a method for judging equity). Progressives by contrast adhere to what in the United States is called, "Living Document" theory, which says that the reason for a law can change. Living Document theory grew out of the Darwinist craze, which tried to applie Darwin from everything to society and eugenics and art, to law.

[Anonymous No.11035717]

Great thread OP

[Anonymous No.11035731]

>Novelty is not the only source of zeal. Why should not a Maccabeus and his brethren arise to assert the honour of the ancient law, and to defend the temple of their forefathers, with as ardent a spirit as can inspire any innovator to destroy the monuments of the piety and the glory of ancient ages? It is not a hazarded assertion, it is a great truth, that when once things are gone out of their ordinary course, it is by acts out of the ordinary course they can alone be re-established. Republican spirit can only be combated by a spirit of the same nature: of the same nature, but informed with another principle, and pointing to another end. I would persuade a resistance, both to the corruption and to the reformation that prevails. It will not be the weaker, but much the stronger, for combating both together. A victory over real corruptions would enable us to baffle the spurious and pretended reformations. I would not wish to excite, or even to tolerate, that kind of evil spirit which invokes the powers of hell to rectify the disorders of the earth. No! I would add my voice with better, and I trust, more potent charms, to draw down justice and wisdom and fortitude from heaven, for the correction of human vice, and the recalling of human error from the devious ways into which it has been betrayed. I would wish to call the impulses of individuals at once to the aid and to the control of authority. By this, which I call the true republican spirit, paradoxical as it may appear, monarchies alone can be rescued from the imbecility of courts and the madness of the crowd. This republican spirit would not suffer men in high place to bring ruin on their country and on themselves. It would reform, not by destroying, but by saving, the great, the rich, and the powerful. Such a republican spirit, we perhaps fondly conceive to have animated the distinguished heroes and patriots of old, who knew no mode of policy but religion and virtue. These they would have paramount to all constitutions; they would not suffer monarchs, or senates, or popular assemblies, under pretences of dignity, or authority, or freedom, to shake off those moral riders which reason has appointed to govern every sort of rude power. These, in appearance loading them by their weight, do by that pressure augment their essential force. The momentum is increased by the extraneous weight. It is true in moral, as it is in mechanical science. It is true, not only in the draught, but in the race. These riders of the great, in effect, hold the reins which guide them in their course, and wear the spur that stimulates them to the goals of honour and of safety. The great must submit to the dominion of prudence and of virtue, or none will long submit to the dominion of the great.

>"Dis te minorem quod geris imperas."

>This is the feudal tenure which they cannot alter.

-Edmund Burke

[Anonymous No.11035741]

>>11035683
I don't think your criticism of Rousseau is fair. I haven't read Rousseau in some time, so this isn't a defense of his argumentation per se, but I don't see what you attack as necessarily illogical.

A member of a community wills to remain a member of that community, which means submission to the judgements of that community. When their particular will comes into conflict with the general will of the community, their particular will comes into conflcit with itself and its own commitment to the community. Its commitment to the community should take priority.

BTW I appreciate what you've written but 4chan is an image board for conversations, not a blogging platform.

[Anonymous No.11035754]

>>11035741
Threads like this are higher quality than 99% of the usual shit on this board.

[Anonymous No.11035760]

This thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b158cVuOVVQ

[Anonymous No.11035774]

>>11035754
So far it's 7 posts of OP, a person posting a thread theme, someone saying the "thread" is good, and somebody questioning whether or not the thread is a blog.

You can say "the OP is good" (let's be real, it's your OP isn't it?) but you cannot judge it's claim it to be a good thread until it's done thread-like things well - ie engage multiple people in a productive conversation about some idea.

[Anonymous No.11035783]

>>11035717
Thanks, anon

>>11035741
I write a lot because the mods here have repeatedly deleted conservative threads and I carry much over from talks with prior posters, including one who misread Burke as opposed to reaction

My intent was not to criticize Rousseau per as se, but to point out that decisionism applies descriptively and trying to cover it up sounds absurd. Rousseau places "consent" above all else. I will here contrast him with Burke who unties these confusions very simply

>I cannot too often recommend it to the serious consideration of all men, who think civil society to be within the province of moral jurisdiction, that if we owe to it any duty, it is not subject to our will. Duties are not voluntary. Duty and will are even contradictory terms. Now, though civil society might be at first a voluntary act (which in many cases it undoubtedly was), its continuance is under a permanent, standing covenant, co-existing with the society; and it attaches upon every individual of that society, without any formal act of his own. This is warranted by the general practice, arising out of the general sense of mankind. Men without their choice derive benefits from that association; without their choice they are subjected to duties in consequence of these benefits; and without their choice they enter into a virtual obligation as binding as any that is actual. Look through the whole of life and the whole system of duties. Much the strongest moral obligations are such as were never the results of our option. I allow, that if no supreme ruler exists, wise to form, and potent to enforce, the moral law, there is no sanction to any contract, virtual or even actual, against the will of prevalent power. On that hypothesis, let any set of men be strong enough to set their duties at defiance, and they cease to be duties any longer. We have but this one appeal against irresistible power—
Cont

[Anonymous No.11035799]

>>11035680
This is a cool thread OP. Have you got a goodreads or anything like that? I'm assuming the chart is your own creation

[Anonymous No.11035802]

>>11035783
> "Si genus humanum et mortalia temnitis arma,
>At sperate Deos memores fandi atque nefandi."

>Taking it for granted that I do not write to the disciples of the Parisian philosophy, I may assume, that the awful Author of our being is the Author of our place in the order of existence; and that, having disposed and marshalled us by a divine tactic, not according to our will, but according to his, he has, in and by that disposition, virtually subjected us to act the part which belongs to the place assigned us. We have obligations to mankind at large, which are not in consequence of any special voluntary pact. They arise from the relation of man to man, and the relation of man to God, which relations are not matters of choice. On the contrary, the force of all the pacts which we enter into with any particular person, or number of persons, amongst mankind, depends upon those prior obligations. In some cases the subordinate relations are voluntary, in others they are necessary—but the duties are all compulsive. When we marry, the choice is voluntary, but the duties are not matter of choice. They are dictated by the nature of the situation. Dark and inscrutable are the ways by which we come into the world. The instincts which give rise to this mysterious process of nature are not of our making. But out of physical causes, unknown to us, perhaps unknowable, arise moral duties, which, as we are able perfectly to comprehend, we are bound indispensably to perform. Parents may not be consenting to their moral relation; but consenting or not, they are bound to a long train of burthensome duties towards those with whom they have never made a convention of any sort. Children are not consenting to their relation, but their relation, without their actual consent, binds them to its duties; or rather it implies their consent, because the presumed consent of every rational creature is in unison with the predisposed order of things. Men come in that manner into a community with the social state of their parents, endowed with all the benefits, loaded with all the duties, of their situation. If the social ties and ligaments, spun out of those physical relations which are the elements of the commonwealth, in most cases begin, and alway continue, independently of our will, so, without any stipulation on our own part, are we bound by that relation called our country, which comprehends (as it has been well said) "all the charities of all." Nor are we left without powerful instincts to make this duty as dear and grateful to us, as it is awful and coercive. It consists, in a great measure, in the ancient order into which we are born. We may have the same geographical situation, but another country; as we may have the same country in another soil. The place that determines our duty to our country is a social, civil relation.

>>11035774
>(let's be real, it's your OP isn't it?)
It is not his, it's mine

[Anonymous No.11035804]

>>11035799
I don't use goodreads, but yes it is my creation

[Anonymous No.11035824]

>>11035741
>A member of a community wills to remain a member of that community, which means submission to the judgements of that community
Yea, like those times when the community dooms said member to death - a frequent happenstance when rousseauvians are anywhere near power - or exile, perhaps? What possesses you to believe membership would entail the death of thought, discourse, philosophy, disagreement or conflict? It's business as usual for human relations methinks. Rather, don't tell me, I'll have no more products out of Rousseau's pharmacy, the aftertaste is awful and against the will of this one community.

[Anonymous No.11035830]

>>11035804
>>11035731
>>11035683
>Dollfus
>Franco
>Schmitt

[Anonymous No.11035840]

>>11035680
I've never actually read Schmitt but I'm really really attracted to him

[Anonymous No.11035870]

>>11035824
>What possesses you to believe membership would entail the death of thought, discourse, philosophy, disagreement or conflict?
Nothing, which is why I didn't say it does...

[Anonymous No.11035884]

>>11035830
You were expecting Thatcher, Reagan and Buckley? No, I am a conservative

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/why-the-authoritarian-right-is-on-the-rise/

[Anonymous No.11035889]

>>11035884
No, I was just wonder how a conservative today can honestly idealise fascists, which is basically a corruption of conservatism.

[Anonymous No.11035905]

>>11035889
I don't consider any of those men to be fascists, I consider them simply conservative. Schmitt was something of an opportunist, but it's also the Wiermar Republic's own fault for not imposing dictatorship and banning fringe parties like he urged; if they had dome like Dollfuss did, it would have saved a lot of trouble. I don't admire Hitler or Mussolini or consider either conservative

[Anonymous No.11035922]

>>11035905
Do you believe in nationalism? That "nations" exist as anything more than a concept?

[Anonymous No.11035944]

>>11035922
That's a somewhat loaded question. Do I believe in "nationalism" in the sense that nationality precedes all other bonds? No. Do I believe peoples are different and therefore a universal political or economic system is folly? Yes.

[Anonymous No.11035948]

>>11035870
Then we're in agreement that in order to be a member of a community, one cannot accept its will as his own, as a death sentence or other judgements to be separate from said community would terminate or prevent said membership. Thus we agree to use our brains instead of a collective majority's, and forsake Rousseau's savage villainy, lest your will and mine be captured, and that the above criticism is fair.

[Anonymous No.11035955]

>>11035944
>peoples are different and therefore a universal political or economic system is folly
What is it that makes people difference, in your view? I'm not trying to challenge you btw, I'm just interested in your thoughts. I would consider myself largely conservative myself

[Anonymous No.11035957]

>>11035948
Firstly you can accept a death sentence. Socrates famously did. Secondly, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's possible to isolate extreme cases of survival as exceptions to the primacy of obedience to the community's will. That doesn't mean that the community's will should not be primary in 99.9999% of cases. Attacks on your person will nullify your will to be in a community, and thus will nullify your reason for subordinating your own will to it - a different point of view on tax policy will not.

[Anonymous No.11035962]

>>11035955
>What is it that makes people difference, in your view?
Divine constitution and purpose

[Anonymous No.11035963]

>>11035922
>That "nations" exist as anything more than a concept?
Criminals fleeing from one jurisdiction to another by crossing the border seem to have an empirical basis for said belief, shall you inform them of the error of their nationalist ways? Besides, 'United Concepts' just isn't as pretty.

[Anonymous No.11035972]

>>11035957
Not the guy you're talking to, I'm the OP, but it's disingenuous of you to keep using the term "community" which conjures up images of a town where everyone knows each other, when in fact you mean a large nation, many of which conscripted people to death, fought bloody civil wars or engaged internecine purging.

[Anonymous No.11035991]

>>11035680
Your definition of decisionism is bullshit. I've seen you spout that garbage before.

[Anonymous No.11036012]

>>11035962
>Divine constitution
pls explain

[Anonymous No.11036017]

>>11035741
>their particular will comes into conflcit with itself and its own commitment to the community. Its commitment to the community should take priority.
no, their particular will comes into conflict with the community not with itself. at least not necessarily.
>Its commitment to the community should take priority.
why?

[Anonymous No.11036020]

>>11035972
Rousseau didn't believe large nations were viable so no, it's not disingeuous. What you're saying isn't a criticism of Rousseau since Rousseau would agree with you.

[Anonymous No.11036023]

>>11035991
I think it is fairly accurate. Schmitt defines sovereign as "he who decides the exception", but he says the state of exception is analogous to the miracle in theology (as well as Kierkegaard's "teleological suspension of the ethical), and that the sovereign is to the law as Good is to natural law. He also considers Hobbes the most systematic decisionist thinker. So I would say my reading is accurate, especially since it is reinforced by Maistre's "Generative Principles of Political Constitutions" (which explains the state of exception quite lucidly, and indeed draws an analogy between the sovereign and the law as between the Church and doctrinal formula). I also draw from Donoso Cortes, who brings out that decisionism can be a Doctrine between two enemies, just with a dispute over who decides; in his case the enemies are conservatism and leftism, with liberalism trying to put off decision instead of deciding

[Anonymous No.11036026]

>>11036017
If you will to be a member of a community and your particular will on a particular issue comes into conflict with the will of the community, then your will to be a member of the community and your will on a particular issue are in conflict.

Your commitment to the community should take priority because your will to enjoy communal life is obviously more important than whatever autistic libertarian obsession you have with not paying a tax.

[Anonymous No.11036039]

>>11036012
I mean in the sense Orestes Brownson uses it, i.e. the metaphysical composition of a people as created by God

>>11036020
He didn't think they were, but unfortunately since he says dissenters to forming a social contract should be exiled, and anyone who doesn't accept exile consents, means that properly applied dissenting lands can't choose to not be a part of a nation, only their people can leave. The question is whether he is descriptively correct, which means we have to presume a real world rather than a candyland

[Anonymous No.11036044]

>>11036026
But Rousseau is saying the community knows your will on "that particular issue" better than you do. That's the crux

[Anonymous No.11036054]

>>11036026
this guy put it >>11036044
but is not the same a conflict with yourself that a conflict on a particular issue. im ok with this.

>your will to enjoy communal life is obviously more important than whatever autistic libertarian obsession
i suppose in most cases it is. but not always. im sorry, its pretty obvious.

[Anonymous No.11036058]

>>11036054
Whatever. Once you reject communal life, you also reject the protections of the community and are ripe to be devoured. This anti-social anarchism is just idiotic in the final analysis.

[Anonymous No.11036075]

>>11036044
Adding to this, my issue is not that Rousseau approves of subordination of the individual will on certain matters, but that he tries to make it an express of individual will. I find Burke far more coherent because he describes reality here
>>11035802

Rousseau by contrast is doing backflips to make community coercion not coercive. "Do this or you go to jail," is coercion, which is fine. Saying, "I don't do this because even though I think I want to I don't know what I want, the community does," is part of the whole liberal project of trying to legitimize their order by pretending it is the only consensual one and everyone consents to it and all dissenters are wrong because they want coercion

[Anonymous No.11036095]

>>11035957
...and if you accept a death sentence you do not choose to be part of a community, you said this revolting social submission is an a priori requirement to be part of a community, but I'll have you know corpses cannot. Oh, who am I kidding? There is nothing more coherent than rousseauvians building communities of corpses: perfect citizens that can't say 'No.'
If attacks on people really nullified their will to be in communities you would see the downtrodden always in flight rather than fighting back or struggling through, you see, at some point, in some location the refugee's journey does end, as the will to leave is replaced by the will to live, as in inhabit, but it doesn't mean the attacks stop. I also find the notion of a different tax policy not causing people to leave not terribly clever in a time of offshoring, outsourcing, nomadic headquarters, and a stateless trapezocracy. It just shows that the closer you get to Rousseau the farther you are from your own sorroundings.
As for Socrates, he was so delighted his soul would no longer be a prisoner of a city of imbeciles that execute people who philosophize, that he wanted a rooster sacrificed in honour of the god of medicine: "We owe a cock to Asclepius." One more time, anon: I do not want you to sell me Rousseau's hemlock.

[Anonymous No.11036187]

>>11035680
Your reading chart is quite good. One of the best charts I've seen.

[Anonymous No.11036200]

>>11035680
I think you're misrepresenting what decisionism is and more importantly what Schmitt thought about other types of systems of law.
Schmitt didn't think all systems are reducible to decisionism as you seem to imply.
You also seem to be conflating his criticism of legal positivism with his criticism of various types of systems.

[Anonymous No.11036206]

>>11036095
I mean, my problem with Rousseau is that he thinks it possible to determine the will of the majority - in an age without telegraphs and universal suffrage at that - and that I ought to subjugate myself to it by substituting my particular will to this (unknowable?) one. Let us pretend voting is the correct - least incorrect I'd rather - means to investigate said collective will, and the turnout is less than 50%, not terribly infrequent I'm afraid. What is Rousseau's great teaching here? That the will of the people is not to vote, and that therefore other people also ought not to vote? That I myself ought not to cast my vote in order to be a member of this democracy, because the will of the people is the one that matters, and it is presently against voting, and I must either conform to it or leave the Democratic Republic of Abstention? Whatever do I care for any and all of these idiocies? I spit on his grave and each of his followers'. Should you want to look for who really has the power here, how about starting with taking a good look at those that count the votes, however small the turnout, which would only make their job easier?

[Anonymous No.11036247]

>>11036187
Thank you

>>11036200
>>11036023

[Anonymous No.11036257]

>>11036023
As *God is to natural law, I meant

Schmitt sees all theories of politics as ultimately reflections of theology. Liberal constutionism, which tries to abolish the exception, he believes stems from deism

[Anonymous No.11036386]

>>11036247
I don't see how that post changes anything.
You're still conflating his criticism of legislative states with his criticism of other state types.

[Anonymous No.11036397]

>>11036386
Also, and they're closely linked together, it's not conflating his criticism of law as a set rules with what he has to say cocerning law as a type of structure.

[Anonymous No.11036433]

>>11036386
I don't know what you mean, I didn't suggest he criticizes any non-autocratic state type. What Schmitt is largely critical of is trying to abolish sovereignty itself, he's not critical of the various forms of sovereignty. I mean he opposed many politically for personal reasons, but he didn't necessarily see systems he opposed as "invalid," just systems he opposed. He only saw a system as "invalid" as it were, when it used faulty premises about the nature of politics.

[Anonymous No.11036491]

>>11036433
Have you read Legality and Legitimacy?
If you have, I don't see how you could not understand what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.11036509]

>>11036491
No, I am going off his Political Theology supplemented by Donoso Cortes since Schmitt cites him as espousing the same understanding

[Anonymous No.11036516]

>>11036206
Apathy isn't will. It's the complete opposite of will.

Also why are you trying to write like an 19th century dandy? "Whatever do I care for any and all of these idiocies?"

[Anonymous No.11036531]

>>11035680
Schmitt was just a proto-neoconservative. I don't see any big difference between him and the Bush administration buttboys legal theories.

[Anonymous No.11036568]

>>11036531
There is no such thing as neoconservative legal theory. Bush's administration subscribing to to Schmitt's jurisprudence does not make it neoconservatism. Unless Joseph de Maistre is also a neocon, as Generative Principles of Political Constitutions espouses a similar understanding of the law

[Anonymous No.11036577]

>>11036516
Apathy isn't abstention either: when parties tell you not to vote say, a referendum, it's because they care and want you to care, though their way is the easier one. I wouldn't know about 19th century dandies, I never read any myself, and since the subject has become so important, let the world know English isn't even my first language, hence I shall receive your post as a compliment.

[Anonymous No.11036580]

>>11035680
...Jonathan?

[Anonymous No.11036593]

>>11036580
It's Stacey :^3

[Anonymous No.11036699]

>>11035680
the shitskin author of that book got metoo:d

>According to a public statement which was circulating online, seven anonymous individuals accused Balakrishnan of sexually propositioning students and other activists at university events.

>The statement describes Balakrishnan as “someone who regularly hung out with undergraduate and graduate students in bars and at parties” often being the only faculty member present at the party where there were alleged nights of heavy drinking and drug use, back in 2009.

>One account came from a woman who was a freshman at Santa Cruz in 2009 when activists had occupied an administration building to protest tuition increases and other demands.

>“I was introduced to GB as the ‘down’ Marxist professor. Students of the movement were really enamored with him, and it was a must to take his classes. The upsetting thing about this was that everyone knew he was creepy to women. It seemed to be tolerable to everyone because he was a Marxist and supported the student movement,” she wrote.

[Anonymous No.11036897]

>>11036699
Ebin he studied more than Schmitt's intellectual life.

[Anonymous No.11036969]

>>11035680
ITT: thru magic sophistry and not a hierarchy crushing dissent and enslaving whole castes, then bred for cultivation and war, democracy is still democratic if there is a sovereign who makes laws arbitrarily because of tacit consent. basically sovereigns are using logomachy and arbitrary logical borderlands to launch permanent campaign against their own people and to farm humans to boost fitness schmitt did nawt understand game theory or evo-bio

[Anonymous No.11036985]

>>11036969

What

[Anonymous No.11036991]

>>11036699
nice

[Anonymous No.11036996]

>>11036985
saving people from the OP its all soohistry and language games designed to sell fascism nothing schmitt says is honest

[Anonymous No.11037007]

>>11036969
go on...

[Anonymous No.11037034]

>>11036996
Schmitt was an interwar German conservative. The greatest authority on him and fan of his in America is Paul Gottfried, a Jew whose family fled from the Nazis and who lost several cousins in the Holocaust. Gottfried strongly identifies with the Konservative Revolution, though, which Schmitt is considered a very, very, very important figure in

[Anonymous No.11037057]

>>11036509
You have to read more of Schmitt to understand him.
Other things that he wrote that you should at least read:
- The concept of the political
- Three types of juristic thought
- Legality and legitimacy
>>11036531
>Schmitt was just a proto-neoconservative.
You have literally no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.11037072]

>>11036996
Everything you says only proves that you're a brainlet and a zealot.

[Anonymous No.11037077]

>>11037057
I have read The Concept of the Political, I will read the other two. Thanks

[Anonymous No.11037092]

>>11037034
> Gottfried is the greatest authority on Schmitt

lol no, it's probably someone like Heinrich Meier

[Anonymous No.11037104]

>>11037077
You're going to love the passages about the nomos basileus and the tyrant ab exercitio.

[Anonymous No.11037111]

>>11037092
That's kind of cheating though regarding America

[Anonymous No.11037122]

>>11037111
Oh, in America? Paul Piccone is better.

[Anonymous No.11037134]

>>11037104
I am sure I will, I am very eager to see Schmitt's theory of legitimacy. I have found his work so far to be a seamless tapestry of clarity, a vivid and direct grasping of the nature of things that requires careful examination--not because it's baroque, but because it's startling lucid

[Anonymous No.11037147]

>>11037134
>a vivid and direct grasping of the nature of things that requires careful examination--not because it's baroque, but because it's startling lucid
Couldn't have said it better. He's succinct but not dry, complex but not complicated.

[Anonymous No.11037159]

>>11037122
What works by him on Schmitt would you recommend?

[Anonymous No.11037177]

>>11037134
>when you have only a tennuous grasp on prose and analysis so u made a little pool of ejaculate in lieu of substance

[Anonymous No.11037220]

>>11037177
Well I don't pretend to like high prose unless it's ironic/humorous (Lolita, or Tristram Shandy, for example). Otherwise I feel that "high writing" is only digestible in poetry, otherwise it is too operatic to take seriously. I love Shakespeare (he intentionally lapses into prose sometimes but Falstaff is ironic/humorous), but I don't find Joseph Conrad very interesting because operatic prose breaks the atmosphere he tries to convey. In terms of prose I like works like the King James Bible, Blood Meridian, Laurus, and so on.

[Anonymous No.11037950]

>>11037177
>no face

[Anonymous No.11038145]

>>11037057
Dictatorship and The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy are also essential - the latter is maybe second only to The Concept of the Political in terms of its importance

[Anonymous No.11038152]

>>11037220
Then why do you write phrases like "a seamless tapestry of clarity"?

[Anonymous No.11038218]

>>11038152
Because "a seamless machine" would have been a mixed metaphor

[Anonymous No.11038666]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11039429]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11039961]

This is a genuinely fascinating thread. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11040565]

>>11039961
Happy you like it, Reformedfriend

[Anonymous No.11040694]

>>11036023
I haven't read subsequent posts to this one in the thread, and I'm kind of too drunk to be writing this right now, but I think your characterization of decisionism is partially flawed, especially with regards to your second post. Although Schmitt developed this functional definition of sovereignty that focuses on the exception, one of his main motivations was rendering the political system more efficient; his critique of liberal democracy was inspired by the inefficiency of the Weimar state. I wouldn't say it's correct to state that liberals want financiers to make decisions. In most liberal democratic systems (e.g., the US), they implement a system of checks and balances which effectively kills sovereignty. He critiques the liberal state, in a line of thought parallel to Weber, because this system of dividing power either creates gridlock or always delegates a political question to some further committee such that the question will never actually be answered. So Schmitt's motivation seems to be one of injecting sovereignty back into politics, and one should note that it is possible that it can be absent from a political system (Schmitt's arguments with Kelsen over the implementation of a Staatsgerichtshof endowed with judicial review of an executive branch is interesting on this point, and I like looking at the parallels between and Schmitt's comments on the US judicial system).

[Anonymous No.11040927]

>>11035680
>mfw I was one of the first to establish schmitt-shilling
Hard work paid off. Nice chart by the way.

[Anonymous No.11040956]

>>11040694
>I wouldn't say it's correct to state that liberals want financiers to make decisions
That's from Donoso Cortes, who was speaking on the liberal rebellion against the aristocracy in Europe

As for the checks and balances, see Orestes Brownson, who also critiques those as counterproductive. But unlike Schmitt, he doesn't think a separation of powers necessarily entails that. He argues for a separation of powers for purposes of efficiency akin to a separation of labor

[Anonymous No.11041025]

>>11040927
I've been Schmittposting on-and-off for about half a decade. Feels good to see him catching on.

[Anonymous No.11042055]

>>11040927
You started the fire?

[Anonymous No.11042100]

>>11035741
>BTW I appreciate what you've written but 4chan is an image board for conversations, not a blogging platform.
Threads like these are far better than the usual shit, so you shut your faggy hole and enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.11042104]

Apart from his activity during WW2, why is Carl Schmitt so closely associated with fascism?

[Anonymous No.11042153]

>>11041025
I agree, he's a severely underrated thinker.

Sieg heil btw

[Anonymous No.11042154]

>>11042104
State of exception. Which is hardly a specifically fascist concept, it was examined long before Schmitt, but fascism here is used in a general sense. Also the left often sees little or no distinction between paleoconservatism and fascism (since both are on the extreme right by contemporary standards), even though paleoconservatives themselves make a firm distinction both in theory and policy

[Anonymous No.11042167]

>>11042154
Schmitt was pretty close to fascism, though, because of his praise of Italian fascism and hegelian idealism

[Anonymous No.11042227]

>>11035680
Im gonna buy one conservative book from OP's list, /lit/. Which one should i buy?

[Anonymous No.11042234]

>>11042167
Hegel is very popular among paleocons (see Michael Oakeshott, George Grant the Canadian, Roger Scruton, Ivan Ilyin). Why I don't really know. The Philosophy of Right is, it is true, a sort of conservative work, but a lot of that was Hegel looking for good boy points. For example he only expresses negative sentiment about the French Revolution here, whereas in his other work and in his personal life, he loved the French Revolution. But Schmitt was not unique in Germany, Hegel was quite popular there with conservatives (see Paul Gottfried's work on this), period. Moreover Schmitt despite all this was very far from an unqualified fan of Hegel, he took Hegel with considerable reservations and found him often inconsistent.

As for liking Mussolini, that isn't surprising, but you shouldn't read too much onto it: he really, really liked Hobbes too, but that doesn't mean Schmitt subscribed to social contract theory or thought soldiers are just to desert in a war because the state has no authority to demand death

[Anonymous No.11042278]

>>11042234

>The Philosophy of Right is, it is true, a sort of conservative work, but a lot of that was Hegel looking for good boy points.

I don't think it's just that. Hegel was a devoted Protestant and his support for conservative arguments is far too much to be just an attempt at circumventing Prussian cencorship, like with Stirner. The main difference i see between progressive hegelians and conservative ones is that conservatists do not really seek the Aufhebung of dialectics, as this dialectics is what gives differentiation to human beings.

>As for liking Mussolini, that isn't surprising, but you shouldn't read too much onto it: he really, really liked Hobbes too, but that doesn't mean Schmitt subscribed to social contract theory or thought soldiers are just to desert in a war because the state has no authority to demand death

Schmitt went way beyond that in his political support for such regimes. I can understand that his anti-Semitism isn't sincere and just him paying lip-service to the Reich, but his support for Italian fascism was far more genuine and grounded in his philosophical work.

[Anonymous No.11042333]

In what work does Schmitt really elaborate on the state of exception?

[Anonymous No.11042472]

>>11042333
Probably Dictatorship

[Anonymous No.11042529]

>>11042278
>Hegel was a devoted Protestant and his support for conservative arguments is far too much to be just an attempt at circumventing Prussian cencorship, like with Stirner.
The owl of minerva takes flight only at dusk, anon.

[Anonymous No.11042868]

>>11042529
Yeah yeah, but that's just one sentence, compared to his entire career.

[Anonymous No.11043026]

>>11042278
>Hegel was a devoted Protestant
Stop

[Anonymous No.11043855]

>>11042278
>and grounded in his philosophical work.
Not really. Schmitt considered all politics to basically a theological reflection. Fascism was really a reflection of occasionalism, and Schmitt considered politics indicative of occasiomalist theology to be "romanticist," and I am sure I don't have to tell you how much Schmitt criticized romanticism

[Anonymous No.11043894]

>>11043855
Not that guy but then what did Schmitt base his political views on? I know he's neither a liberal nor a democrat, but German conservatism and even traditionalism (not the type of Guenon or Evola) were quite close to romanticism.

[Anonymous No.11044046]

>>11043894
Bonald, Maistre, Donoso Cortes,etc

[Anonymous No.11044054]

>>11044046
I meant to say "what were his political views", i dont know why i asked that wrong.

[Anonymous No.11044137]

>>11044054
His political views were probably longing for the old Reich, with a sympathy for the Junkers tempered by his moderate political Catholicism

[Anonymous No.11044150]

>>11044137
But isnt that just blatant romanticism?

[Anonymous No.11044205]

>>11044150
How? He didn't long for it for the "aesthetics" anymore than Paul Gottfried longs for poll taxes for the "aesthetics".

[Anonymous No.11044224]

>>11044205
But then how can he accuse fascism of being romantic, when fascism went far beyond aesthetics as well?

[Anonymous No.11044292]

>>11035680
Where to start with Schmitt? The real stuff or secondary books?

[Anonymous No.11044352]

>>11044224
I never said he accused it of being romantic. I said he held romanticist politics to be a reflection of *occasionalist* theology. I tie fascism to romanticism because fascism seems to me to be very much occasionslist, and Giovanni Gentile's "The Philosophic Basis of Fascism" looks to me to be a clear case of the ideas Schmitt lambasted Schmitt "Political Romanticism".

>>11044292
The Concept of the Political

Go with the real stuff first, Schmitt is quite lucid

[Anonymous No.11044374]

>>11042104
Conservative Catholicism is basically fascism. The problem is that people don't call Schmitt for what he is, Catholic and not fascist/Nazi.

[Anonymous No.11044429]

>>11044352
>I tie fascism to romanticism because fascism seems to me to be very much occasionslist, and Giovanni Gentile's "The Philosophic Basis of Fascism" looks to me to be a clear case of the ideas Schmitt lambasted Schmitt "Political Romanticism".

And that is rather strange, because occasionalism without God quickly falls apart, and fascism itself was not religious at all, with Mussolini and Gentile both being atheists.

[Anonymous No.11044520]

>>11044429
Uh, we are talking about what Schmitt calls "political theology," not theology theology. Political theology is theological concepts applied to the state, e.g. Schmitt considers strict constitutionalism as deist, and says the state of exception is analogous to the miracle

[Anonymous No.11044527]

>>11044520
oh right. But then how could any non-religious political stance ever be occasionalist, when occasionalism requires some deity?

[Anonymous No.11044555]

>>11044527
Erm. The sovereign is the deity, as it were. A believer would take this mean political sovereignty is ordained by God to govern on his behalf. But Schmitt was, I am pretty sure, a nonbeliever, yet saw political theory coming down to a reflection of theology. Example strict liberals say the sovereign is forbidden from a state of exception, which Schmitt sees as a reflection of deism saying God is forbidden from suspending natural law

[Anonymous No.11044579]

>>11044555
How do you mean a non-believer? He was a catholic, and his beliefs influenced his philosophy.

I can sort-of understand how fascism can be seen as secular occasionalism, but how does that make it in any way romanticist?

[Anonymous No.11044644]

>>11044579
He was a political Catholic. Not a practicing Catholic, he was excommunicated (although they rescinded it for his funeral). Someone can be an atheist yet strong backer of the Church, see Santayana

See "Political Romanticism," by Schmitt

[Anonymous No.11044769]

>>11044644
Not him but AFAIK Schmitt was a practicing Catholic who drifted away from the church only because he married a Serb woman and got divorced a year later. He eventually got reconciled with the church.

I don't know where you got the idea that Schmitt was a non-believer. Everything about his personal writings (diaries), taste in literature, personal friendships, seem to indicate that he was a practicing Catholic and personally despised atheism.

To say Schmitt was a political but not practicing Catholic commits Schmitt to the same error for which he faulted Hobbes in the Leviathan.

I believe Schmitt is also responsible for Ernst Junger's reprochement with Christianity during WWII and his eventual conversion to Catholicism, much later in life.

[Anonymous No.11044892]

Catholic political thought is not fascistic, for catholicism there's no such thing as state sovereignty, since the only sovereign is the Church. Even though it is not in its main scope to deal with "civil matters", all governments should be approved by the Church. See "Unam sanctam" by Boniface VIII and "Sicut universitatis" by "Innocent III". In that sense, the Church's legal view has similarities with Schmitt's, since, it does not believe in a self-feeding "rule of law", but that only under its absolute facultative guidance it can succeed.

[Anonymous No.11045941]

>>11042227
The Natural Family