/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21278122]

Is he worth reading? I am not a Nazi, but some of his ideas such as the state of exception, what real "democracy" is supposed to be like, what the state is and also how modern secular political concepts are derived from theological concepts are very interesting.
Where should I start with him?

[Anonymous No.21278135]

Nomos of the earth is an interesting foundational geopolitical text.

Some of his other works have been sensasionalized somewhat for various ideological reasons. "Theory of the partisan" however is a much ignored but very prescient book for its time.

[Anonymous No.21278143]

>>21278122
There are many sides of this guy. Some of them will make you more sympathetic to fascism than others.

[Anonymous No.21278146]

Read Donoso Cortes instead. Schmitt was too limited by his atheism.

[Anonymous No.21278196]

It's always worth reading people who were highly influential in contributing to a political movement.

You should do this for rightwing people, leftwing people and all other strands of the political spectrum.

This is what it is to have a well rounded self education, and it is how you free yourself of bias as much as possible.

[Anonymous No.21278217]

>>21278122
>Is he worth reading?
no

[Anonymous No.21278367]

>>21278122
Yes, begin with the Concept Of The Political. The basic distinction between Friend and Enemy.

[Anonymous No.21278402]

>>21278146
WTF? Schmitt was a devout Catholic.

[Anonymous No.21278429]

>>21278196
>leftwing people
No, thanks.

[Anonymous No.21278459]

>>21278122
Yeh man Thomas Wolfe is a great writer.
I'd start with The Lost Boy as it's one of his shorter works

[Anonymous No.21278487]

>>21278122
Go ahead and read him, there is much to learn. Don't be one of those people that does not read x author because they hold z beliefs. Good day to you.

[Anonymous No.21278514]

>>21278146
>>21278402
He was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. But over time it became less relevant to call him an Atheist or a Christian are both equally incorrect, from what i have read. It does not at all come up or become worth mentioning. Though i have no read all. What i have read of him i do like and support.

[Anonymous No.21278731]

>>21278146
Schmitt wasn't an atheist. You post this in every thread. Are you by any chance a Muslim?

[Anonymous No.21278765]

>>21278122
>I am not a Nazi,

That's great and completely beside the point when it comes to Schmitt. Schmitt was no Nazi and if you bothered to even skim the wiki you'd know he literally wrote that people should not vote for the Nazis, and then when they came to power and he joined the party he was almost immediately blacklisted and spent the remainder of the Reich's existence being spied on by them.

Heidegger was a bigger Nazi and IRL douchebag than Schmitt ever was, and the implications for Heidegger's philosophy are worse (technophilia of Nazism that Heidegger was unable to foresee, backstabbing of Husserl etc) while for Schmitt joining the party was more of a desperate attempt to gain power and influence the party.

[Anonymous No.21279458]

>>21278514
You're spouting falsehoods from a place of ignorance. ALL political philosophy of note since Hobbes has been atheistic in its premises and argumentation, there is nothing unique about Schmitt in that. Schmitt's diaries reveal that he was a devout Catholic for his entire life and that he viewed his political project as furthering the temporal power of the church.

[Anonymous No.21279464]

>>21278765
don't see any more or less technophilia than was typical for their time. Technophobia would've been even dumber.

[Anonymous No.21279479]

>>21278429
>he doesn't want to know his enemy
good goy

[Anonymous No.21279483]

>>21278122
>I am not a Nazi,
Cringe

[Anonymous No.21279493]

>>21278429
>he will never know the satisfaction of condescendingly explaining marxist theory to a commie larper
sad!

[Anonymous No.21279525]

>>21279458
You're a fucking idiot.

>>21278122
>I am not a Nazi
You should be. It is the only way to safeguard a future worth living in.

[Anonymous No.21280619]

>>21278122

>>21278122

>>21278122

>Is he worth reading
Yes

>Where should I start with him?
The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations

[Anonymous No.21280674]

>>21278135
>>21278367
>>21278514
>>21280619
Thanks for the recs, guys, specially the chart. I'll get on with it.
>>21279483
>>21279525
Neonazism is too vulgar and for low-iq losers who believe le j00s are behind every modern problem. Having said that, I do admire Hitler's achievements and I would have sympathized with the Axis if I was alive back then, but as a means to a much higher end.

[Anonymous No.21280692]

>>21279525
why does the orange part of the LGBT rainbow represent LGBT?

[Anonymous No.21280905]

>>21279464
retard who hasn't even read a page of heidegger

[Anonymous No.21280908]

>>21280619
>The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations

This man knows. Very good short work as an intro.

[Anonymous No.21281247]

>>21280692
that pic is retarded, don't think too much about it
They even equate EU with communism, how retarded do you have to be?

[Anonymous No.21281273]

>>21281247
Nazism should be equated with communism. And if Schwab gets his way then the EU will have both.

[Anonymous No.21281276]

>>21281273
>Nazism should be equated with communism.
meds
>And if Schwab gets his way then the EU will have both
double meds

[Anonymous No.21281414]

>>21281276
Same shit, really. State planned economy, technology worship, strongman leader, everyone living in constant fear of saying the wrong thing. Stalin was planning to kill the Jews but then he had a heart attack.

[Anonymous No.21281457]

>>21281414
>Same shit, really. State planned economy
"Privatization" as a word was invented to descibe nazi economic policy
>technology worship
As opposed to...Anarchoprimitivism?
> strongman leader

>I am absolutely against the publication of "Stories of the childhood of Stalin."

>The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, of alterations, of exaggerations and of unmerited praise. Some amateur writers, scribblers, (perhaps honest scribblers) and some adulators have led the author astray. It is a shame for the author, but a fact remains a fact.

>But this is not the important thing. The important thing resides in the fact that the book has a tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental.

>The theory of "heroes" and the "crowd" is not a Bolshevik, but a Social-Revolutionary theory. The heroes make the people, transform them from a crowd into people, thus say the Social-Revolutionaries.

>The people make the heroes, thus reply the Bolsheviks to the Social-Revolutionaries. The book carries water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries. No matter which book it is that brings the water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries, this book is going to drown in our common, Bolshevik cause.

>I suggest we burn this book.

Now mention one (1) Western leader who acted against his own cult of personality in a similar way.

>everyone living in constant fear of saying the wrong thing.

A Cuban woman was banned from twitter because she said "I'm the woman in that pic, I'm not protesting against Cuban government, I'm protesting against American imperialism".
Just a random example, of course.

[Anonymous No.21281574]

>>21281457
Yawn. Is that it?

[Anonymous No.21281616]

>>21281574
>no argument
WHOA...stunning

[Anonymous No.21281704]

>>21281616
So that's really it, eh?

[Anonymous No.21281708]

>>21281704
Kek
You couldn't answer to entry level anecdotes, and you even want more?
kys

[Anonymous No.21281714]

>>21281708
>a bloo bloo bloo respond to my redd.it wall of text that says nothing

[Anonymous No.21282195]

>>21279525
The EU is a fascist concept

[Anonymous No.21282240]

>>21282195
Yeah I don't know why people are so averted to the idea of Pan-European identity. Of course this does not mean to homogenize everything, the distinctions between, say, Spain and Sweden are very important to maintain. The main thing would be not to depend so much on Washington.

[Anonymous No.21282328]

>>21282240
>The main thing would be not to depend so much on Washington.
Sadly, that's impossible. EU was an American puppet from the start (ECSC, EURATOM, EEC, whatever)

[Anonymous No.21282448]

>>21282240
Thing is a lot of the "conspiracy right" thinks antiglobalism and nation states will solve all their problems, although this is painfully outdated. The world is divided into power blocs and empires never went away.

[Anonymous No.21282473]

>>21279525
I’m not an idiot at all. I am a National Socialist and a great admirer of Schmitt’ work. What purpose does it serve to ignore that fact that Schmitt was a devout Catholic, and that his work was motivated by a Catholic agenda a la de Maistre? It takes nothing away from the value of his many ideas that are compatible with the National Socialist worldview. It’s fucking morons like you who give Neo-Nazis a bad name.

[Anonymous No.21282535]

>>21282473
>I’m not an idiot at all.
>I am a National Socialist

[Anonymous No.21282537]

>>21282473
As a NS do you value more the idea of ethno state or the political cultural structure of the nation?

[Anonymous No.21283339]

>>21282537
The cosmic, spiritual body of the nation. States and politics are beneath my concern.

[Anonymous No.21283392]

>>21283339
As in the mark, expression of the Nation? Like more or less we think of Sparta, Athens as what they ''produced'' and how they marked history, and not the % of fair skinnes, blond and light eyed people in these places, at least this being far from the primary concern. But how does a Nation attain this expression without politics?

[Anonymous No.21283998]

>>21281273
>>21281276
Schwab went on Chinese television the other day and basically said:

>Ve are veree glahd dat Chinah 'as joined our aineeetchiateeve to plahnt ONE TRILLION TREES … the wurld ees mooveeng clohser tugether… I fink wee shuld leeve it to eech cuntree to make its own decishion on wheech sistum it vants to adopt
And I don't see what's so bad about that? This is the country with the academics who are into Schmitt.

https://youtu.be/j6N8PJVdALM

[Anonymous No.21284471]

>>21283998
>This is the country with the academics who are into Schmitt.

You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.21284481]

>>21283998
Schwab in the latest neo-lib elites vacation time in Egypt said we need a unipolar world to prevent the dangerous and evil fragmentation and all his lackeys applauded.

[Anonymous No.21284785]

Schmitt also had an interesting dialogue with two prominent Jewish thinkers, Walter Benjamin and Jacob Taubes...though both were ware of Schmitt's Nazi background, they were also very much influenced by certain insghts of Schmitt's that went into the heart of politics, namely what is known as 'political theology'...There is a short but fascinating book of letters between Schmitt-Taubes

[Anonymous No.21284811]

>>21282473
>2022
>likely American
>”I’m a National Socialist”
People like you are low IQ and ironically don’t understand Nazism. It is not possible to be one unless you were there. It was a uniquely German reactionary movement created out of the very particular historical and political exigencies of Germany of the time that no longer exist. You are LARPING AND RETARDED! YOU ARE NOT GERMAN. IT IS NOT 1926. YOU DID NOT FIGHT IN THE TRENCHES IN FRANCE. YOU ARE LARPING!

[Anonymous No.21284841]

>>21283339
>states and politics are beyond my concern
Spoken like every armchair radical who has ever lived

[Anonymous No.21284952]

>>21283339
>i have been successfully programmed not to care about race and material conditions of your race and land

>>21284811
>It is not possible to be one unless you were there. It
Why can you not adopt the core intentions that Germany adopted during that era? They are not unique and can be easily transplanted to a similar people, especially ones of shared stock. Why is this single socio-economic model unique? You were not in Ancient Athens 2500 years ago to participate in the earlier known democracy, nor where you in Imperial Russia at the turn of the 20 century to fully understand Marx and Lenin. Fuck knows how far capitalism went.

[Anonymous No.21285079]

>>21282537
That can go either way. Formally speaking official NSDAP ideology is supposed to be the entelechy of volkisch ideology, i.e., the nation is the organic super-unity that unites all things in it. But many lowercase national socialists, like Sombart, and like Spengler and Spann, who wanted to interpret as a national corporatist ethical warrior-monk state (with surprising degrees of non-interventionin in the economy since they were anti-totalitarian), often had state doctrines closer to Italian Fascism, which was also corporatist in a general way.

Evola is good on this question. He says in Orientations that the nation or volk is both higher than the abstract individual and lower than the differentiated "person." In a world with no nations, people are only abstract finite individuals bumping around meeting each other. This is anarchy and chaos at best, and, much more likely, it is technocratic oligarchy once people with existing stockpiles of resources (capital) start manipulating the vulnerable mass of the population and treating them as "undifferentiated human material" (R. Camus). The rule of the mass is always a smokescreen for the rule of other powers who are in relatively good positions to manipulate the mass through "consensus generation," and these manipulators inevitably reach states of equilibria among themselves and have little factional wars, etc. This is the accelerationist idea of capital being sentient. It's really just rootless financial warlords manipulating mass to have slapfights with other warlords. The warlords in themselves are functions of the system and its tendency toward low-energy equilibrium states. That's why they all go just as insane as the masses they supposedly control, because they are really just extensions of the same principle governing those masses. They are the highest waves in a world-ocean with no land, or the biggest and most colorful storms on a gas giant that is essentially one big fluid reacting upon itself quasi-randomly.

From the perspective of such a society, which we live in now, nationalism is a higher, integrating force. It's like the passage from the gaseous and fluid states to a state of solid matter. But it is only a relatively higher stage in the hierarchy of form, and it has its downsides. If society stalls at that level, it's basically a single tightened fist of potential energy for striking something - much better than the individualist scenario that prevails today, in which that energy is distributed across billions of people who inevitably regress and disperse their energy until they become mentally retarded slaves. But it tends to fixate on certain forms and symbols and merely strike the antitheses of those forms haphazardly, autistically.

[Anonymous No.21285081]

>>21285079
Evola says that nationalism can have both an ascending/integrating and a descending/disintegrating function for this reason, depending on where one is in the hierarchy of being. If one goes from a higher state to "mere" nationalism, it's like going from a state in which one has an awakened soul in a healthy body to a state in which one is merely bodily healthy, but mentally perpetually distracted or on "autopilot." A healthy body is better than a sick body, and is a precondition for a healthy mind, so from the perspective of today's sick society, the healthy body can seem to be the highest goal. But it is really only the initial stage for the awakening of the soul that governs the body, that is currently dispersed and asleep.

The state governed by a spiritual elite is an even higher form, more compressed than nationalism, corresponding to the quantity vs. quality differential between dispersed, "universal," abstract humanity and humanity as organised into the nation. The state and its spiritual elite are to the nation as the nation is to the mere mass. All three are ultimately necessary: the mass is civil society, it is the real aggregate of individuals pursuing contingent ends. It shouldn't be controlled directly but should be incorporated (literally, brought into a body) in the nation. But the nation by itself is a "blond beast," at best it can generate titanic but spiritually blind figures like Hitler, operating on instinct rather than principle. It can accomplish a lot by doing this, like holding the entire world at bay in a total war and winning against 10:1 odds. But this same blind energy can also cause it to enter into fights that are unnecessary, or that are actually opposed to its real spiritual needs - for example when European nations in the 19th and 20th centuries fought each other while the totalitarian mass states of the non-European peoples grew steadily, and are now overwhelming the planet with the principle of undifferentiated quantity.

[Anonymous No.21285135]

>>21284841
I didn’t mean to imply I wasn’t politically active, but that is not my interest or inclination. I am religiously a National Socialist, and view it as a timeless, transcendent theology in a cosmic struggle.

[Anonymous No.21285155]

>>21282473
>Schmitt
>natsoc
You haven't read him.

[Anonymous No.21285186]

>>21284952
The point stands. If you’re only adopting the core tenets, by which I assume you mean a resurrection of national identity and reverence for tradition, then you are not a “national socialist”. To equate the categorization of someone as a Nazi and someone who as pro democracy is incorrect. These things are of different scopes of specificity. All Nazis are nationalists but not all nationalists are Nazis. The Nazis WERE a product of the specific historical circumstances in Germany. Their ideology was (while at its core nationalistic) built around these circumstances. May seem like semantic bullshit but it matters.

[Anonymous No.21285314]

>>21278122
>friend good enemy bad
Wow what a deep political analysis

[Anonymous No.21285318]

>>21285186
>reverence for tradition
I am the anon you respondee to.

National-Socialism is not about tradition, larpers and idiotic detractors who have read nothing of it believe it to be ultra-traditional.

> The Nazis WERE a product of the specific historical circumstances in Germany.
This is true of any political expression and culture. Why does it matter specifically to National-Socialism and why should it preclude people adopting it or labeling themselves such?

[Anonymous No.21285371]

>>21285318
>This is true of any political expression and culture
This is simply not true. National Socialism would not have ever existed without the Treaty of Versailles. Broader political expressions such as democracy can be developed upon more universal circumstances. The Greeks developed democracy as a reaction to an abusive aristocracy. The condition of an abusive aristocracy is possible anywhere on the planet. On the other hand, the very specific conditions for the rise of Nazism are not so universal. The cause of WWI, and thus Versailles, and thus Nazism is a total accident of history that couldn't possibly replicated in a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.21285407]

>>21281247
>They even equate EU with communism, how retarded do you have to be?
not retarded at all considering that the EU willingly sold off it's future generations and centuries of it's culture in return for massive migrant colonization just so that their boomers could have cheap labor paying into their pensions when they retire at 55. seems pretty fucking commie to me, you pussy ass bitch. i bet i could beat your ass with one punch.

[Anonymous No.21285422]

>>21285371
You typed all of that just to agree with him.

[Anonymous No.21285441]

>>21285422
>"All political expression is a product of specific historical circumstances"
>"Not democracy, it could be conceived in a vacuum. This is why it can be applied anywhere. While Nazism required a 1 in a billion sequence of events to develop."
>"You two agree"
???

[Anonymous No.21285553]

>>21285371
>a political system is an expression of the unique conditions and history of a nation/people
>National-Socialism is a unique expression of a specific nation/people and history
>somehow these things are different

Come on now, anon. What i have not yet mentioned is that the unique conditons that allowed National-Socialism to emerge are being replicated in the West.

[Anonymous No.21285563]

>>21285371
>National Socialism would not have ever existed without the Treaty of Versailles
You know National Socialism existed before WWI already right? Most of the ideology was already in place. Versailles just allowed it to get popular.

[Anonymous No.21285579]

>>21285441
>Not democracy, it could be conceived in a vacuum. This is why it can be applied anywhere

It is a relatively recent development in the grand scheme of things. At least as we understand it now. Aspects of Fascism and National-Socialism go back centuries. You can trace Fascism to Sparta in the same rough way you can trace Democracy to Athens.

[Anonymous No.21285596]

>>21285579
I am not denying that aspects of National Socialism are transmutable across history and nations. But those aspects themselves do not add up to National Socialism.

[Anonymous No.21285613]

>>21285563
>You know National Socialism existed before WWI already right?
And was based on ideas of German exceptionalism and German reunification.

[Anonymous No.21285621]

>>21285596
Why are you applying this hyper-specific context for this one political theory, Fascism/NS, and not for any other?

Better question, what elements are needed to make it authentic Fascism/NS and which ones are simply window dressing?

Are you of the opinion it is not a coup d'état unless it comed from the D'état region of France and instead it is just a sparkling militant takeover?

[Anonymous No.21285654]

>>21285613
Partially. There was a National Socialist party in Austria-Hungary since 1904. Their focus was indeed partially on Unification and the German exceptionalism was present in the form of calling for Germanization of slavic lands and protection of German jobs from cheap Czech labour in the Sudetenland but there were already more ideas. The notion of creating a volksgemeinschaft, wanting to create a national system economy inspired by List and Duhring where the government would ensure class-cooperation, rural romanticism and of course anti-semitism were all part of it already.

[Anonymous No.21285659]

>>21280905
Can't you read English? What Heidegger thought has nothing to do with the actual affinities of these people who aren't Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.21285661]

>>21285621
What I’m trying to point out is that what we refer to as “National Socialism” or “Fascism” aren’t even necessarily salient ideologies. Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Franco’s Spain were vastly different regimes that only had few similar elements, namely authoritarianism, appreciation for aesthetics and tradition, and militarization. Yet, we often lump these regimes in with each other under the banner of “fascism” or whatever. At their core these were reactionary governments reacting to their historical circumstances. They didn’t form their government by philosophizing the best form of government, but by analyzing their current predicament and attempting to answer it. So to say as an American in 2022 that “I’m a national socialist” just doesn’t make sense. A hypothetical reactionary American regime would likely look very different than the above mentioned governments due to our own historically unique circumstances.

[Anonymous No.21285677]

>>21285661
>At their core these were reactionary governments reacting to their historical circumstances
Lmao that's not what reactionary means. by that logic literally everything ever would be reactionairy. Communism reacted to inequality, liberalism reacted to authoritarianism etc. Reactionairy is either used in the sense of opposing social and economic reforms (thus as opposite of progressive) which Neither were. They offered a different form of progressivism than the one we associate with equailty but were progressive none the less. The other usage is a political ideology that was trying to return to a previous form of government and it's institutions. Since both were rovolutionairy movements trying to impose completely new systems they weren't this either.
>They didn’t form their government by philosophizing the best form of government
They did actually. Both had pretty strong ideas of the role of the state and it's purpouse of keeping order and it's role in the revolution. Hitler for example was very much aware and it was very much part of the ideology that the dicatorship was temporary. He even called it un-German and they were working on new systems to replace it.

[Anonymous No.21285707]

>>21285661
>Franco’s Spain
Was just right-wing authoritarian. It is lumped in with Fascists because their oppoments were Far-Left who name all their opponents Fascists. There is also an argument to be made for Fascism being revolutionary, not reactionary, as it does set out to recreate the past.

[Anonymous No.21286273]

>>21285707
>It is lumped in with Fascists because their oppoments were Far-Left who name all their opponents Fascists
To be fair in the actual civil war many of the volunteers probably thought they were and saw themselves as actually fighthing fascism because of the involvement of the Falange movement. You can't really expect people to make such distinctions during a war.

[Anonymous No.21286352]

>>21285659
massive retard detected, incredible you think Heidegger calling the Nazis the custodians of Being, who then turned out to be giga-technophiles, isn't a giant embarrassment for Heidegger's philosophy

his entire armchair history fails apart so easily, outs him as a big pseud

[Anonymous No.21286667]

>>21279493
This is the best feeling, better than cooming.

[Anonymous No.21286779]

>>21285621
Only people of the English race can be liberal democrats.

[Anonymous No.21287635]

>>21278429
Have fun never being able to dunk on leftists.

[Anonymous No.21287646]

Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction is really interesting to me because it seems so self-evidently true that I'm surprised it took someone as long as it did to conceive it. I literally see people in real life and on social media practice the friend-enemy distinction, the hyper-importance of identifying The Enemy and casting oneself in opposition to it.

It almost feels like the political version of Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion: obvious in hindsight, but clearly it must have been revolutionary when it was first fully laid out.

It's also really funny to me that every single person I've ever seen have a performative hatred of Schmitt is IMMEDIATELY the first person to practice the friend-enemy distinction in any dispute. I am of course speaking of various online leftists. Saying how bad Schmitt is really consistently seems to be a case of the lady protesting too much.

[Anonymous No.21288585]

How would Schmitt and Heidegger be regarded today without nazi connections?

[Anonymous No.21288711]

>>21287646
Schmitt btw has a left wing reception

[Anonymous No.21289337]

>>21287646
>I literally see people in real life and on social media practice the friend-enemy distinction
No you don't.