/lit/ - Literature

>>14797763
The ones that make the right seethe are even more important.

>>14797769
like?

>>14797763
I'm not sure about seethe because academics are using him even if they count as left.

>>14797784
All of them.

>>14797785
They hate when the right adopts him though, and for obvious reasons.

Redpill me on the schmitt

Critical theorists get hard over Schmitt

>>14797831
Redpilling is a pleb rationalist form of political romanticism.

>>14797784
Theory of the Partisan

>>14797763
Fuck Dugin, Schmitt should be a theory of his own.

>>14797763
German Conservative Revolution writers are based and BTFO the left. The problem is actually finding copies of their works. I'm reading Man In This World by Hans Zehrer now.

Nomos of the Earth

>>14797763
>>14797955
blowing out left-liberals is not hard to do. Eviscerating right-liberals, individualism and classical liberalism is even more important.

>>14798377
postmodernism already btfos all of these things, making second religiosity inevitable

>>14797763
>parliamentary democracys in crises
>alternatives turn out to be clusterfucks that implode quicker

>>14797865
If time is a flat circle, would you die?

It would be extremely painful.

You're a big guy.

Le doo

>>14798409
didn't know the catholic church was a parliamentary democracy

>>14797955
>The problem is actually finding copies of their works
Only anglos will have this problem.
There are regular classes taught at top unis on Schmitt, Strauss and the likes.
Plus they are very popular in east Asia.
Impressive how the Nazi Bogeyman survives 75 years after the Nazis died.

>>14797955
>German Conservative Revolution writers
Give me more names please.

>>14798577
Oswald Spengler
Thomas Mann
Ernst Junger
Arthur Moeller van den Bruck
Ludwig Klages
Werner Sombart
Martin Heidegger

>>14798577
von Salomon
Junger
Klages
Moeller van den Bruck
Spengler

>>14798577
George
Kantorowicz
Hofmannsthal

agamben and foucault both liked him. Schmitt's definition of "sovereign" and "state of exception" highly influenced their political work. Indeed, "state of exception" was utilized often by the left in their analysis of the wests war on terror post-9/11.

>why doesn't life break down to op's simple dichotomies

If I studied political science in academia, would I be branded a terrorist for being influenced by people like Schmitt?

>>14798616
Schmitt has made somewhat of a return in some circles. But he is still niche and 'dangerous' to talk about in academia.

>>14798588
>>14798589
>>14798595
thanks

>>14798607
based af. thank you for elaborating on my Agamben comment.

>>14797955
The Conservative Revolution wasn't about btfoing the left. If anything such divisions were one of the greatest failings of Germany, and all modern states.
Thinkers like Schmitt are basically ruined if you drag them into left/right divisions. That shit is for 'plebs'.

>>14798700
If we understand the left as demagoguery, then yes it does btfo the left.

>>14798607
Sure, but do they see sovereignty and the state of exception as a positive? In their works such ideas are reduced to critique, and this lessens the relevance of their takes.
The question isn't whether or not ideas can be used by both left and right, any can. What matters is if a thinker himself transcends left and right. This is necessary for power, the sovereign and his advisors must in some way be able to reconcile political opposition in order to maintain order, and more importantly give it focus.

>>14798709
No doubt. But any circular argument proves itself.
Is Trump a leftist because he is a demagogue?

>kills internationalism

As far as I'm aware the world continues to move towards globalism every passing minute with no brakes. Reactionaries are losers, and all they do is whine about the inevitable changes that are going to take place, instead of embracing the existential eschatology and acceleration of complexity

>>14798745
Yes? You said yourself that the left/right dichotomy is for plebs. It's a relic of a 200 year old failed revolution. Spengler said a better distinction would be between mass politics and elitism which better describes the problem of modern politics in general. As a rule mass politics destroys the true and original role of the state, whether it's democracy, fascism, or communism.

As a further note, keep in mind that Schmitt served the Republic. This caused certain elements of the right to be skeptical of him, even creating a potentially dangerous situation for him during the NSDAP years. But he likely saw those years as a means of potentially elevating the state to European law, enabling the state to serve its higher form even through temporary political means. This is one way of transcending left/right opposition.

>>14798773
>Yes? You said yourself that the left/right dichotomy is for plebs.
Not sure how you think this follows. Again, its just adapting essence through a redefinition of terms.
Spengler was a bit of a rationalist fool. There is no elitism in the modern period, at least from the far-right perspective in general, and such a distinction simply eliminates left/right opposition through a division from time. From such a perspective Spengler and similar types necessitate their own leftism. Perhaps why the right now sees this shift as inescapable.
The idea of mass doesn't really work, and is simply an untrue definition, a misunderstanding of modern power. Another way of seeing it is that power is so great in the modern period that not even a monarch is capable of serving as a figurehead. Sovereign laws evade his grasp. Divine Right appears as slave morality before titanic and monstrous forces, and must be succeeded.

>>14797763
>kills multi-polar democracy
>kills liberalism
>kills internationalism
>kills multiculturalism
>all of which are still hegemonic ideas today
He did a poor job of killing them desu.

>>14798851
In other words, this shift forces a left/right political opposition between historical periods, and thus causes the right to adopt fatalistic criticism. They eliminate themselves from political power and become servants. Thus the right becomes an impossible position in the west, just as the left was impossible in Germany.

>>14798851
The lack of elitism is the problem of modernity. Spengler was saying that divine monarchy is the only genuine form of government.

>power is so great in the modern period that not even a monarch is capable of serving as a figurehead
That's because of the collapse of genuine authority due to lack of reverence for the divine. Im the guy above reading Zehrer and he uses the example of the modern priest: previously a figure of authority in the community, but now when the man on the street talks to a priest, he talks to him on an equal rights basis. The role of the priest has become a profession, the same way a lawyer is a profession. it has become hollow and empty, a relic of authority. The authority of the father figure in the family has also disappeared. The divine authority of the state, the king, has been done away with as well.

Rather than "that power is so great in the modern period" I would say the lack of power, real authority, elitism etc is the primary problem of modernity. Nobody has true reverence for anything anymore, from political and religious authority to even cultural authority. Ortega y Gasset's Revolt of the Masses is a good book on that topic.

>>14798915
But clearly it does have a reverence for authority, it is simply incomprehensible to the right. This is perhaps summed up best in the simple poetic lines "We are slaves to our masters the guns; But their slaves are the masters of kings!" As a contradiction it is pre-Aristotelian, perhaps even pre-Socratic, and thus incomprehensible to modern thought.

Your definition of authority, as much of the modern right, is that of a specific type of Christianity. This introduces the difficulty of theological interpretation, why must we assume the superiority of Catholicism over Protestantism? Is it not one of the major ideas in the Bible that worldly peace is what allows greater authority to reign? Rather than any one form of the religion being true it may be that each Church has its own technique of defending the Katechon. Christianity's greatest strength is no doubt its sense of moral authority, but can this be upheld after the Katechon? In Simplicissimus we witness the peace and patience of a pastor before the ruthless sins of soldiers, and also the Christian fool questioning whether or not his moral will is entirely dependent on the vices of those around him. The greater question is that of the function of Christian authority when morality and the Katechon no longer hold ground, how to follow God's law when all places appear as Sodom. Judgement is simple when all are servants of the Good, when it is certain that the law will be followed there is no need to diverge from it. Abandonment of the Good necessitates a state of exception, and the pastor who realises this finds himself in a territory closer to Christ.

I do not know that Christianity can even solve its own question, hence its crisis (and our own). However, other means of thought are not paralyzed by the inescapable - Alexander and the Gordian Knot for instance. A bad decision is generally better than no decision at all, and at least we will die living rather than entrapped by our own contemplation. The current militaristic fantasies of the right speak to this desire.

>>14799354
You speak of the divine authority of the state, the king, the priest, but these are not divine things in themselves, they are mere representations. The death of this thinking is clear in that you cannot even entertain the thought that real divine authority is beyond them and that divine authority may express itself without need of any material icon. Do you really believe that there is a lack of authority when millions of people mobilised for the greatest wars in the history of mankind? Ancient wars were like primitive skirmishes in comparison. More civilians died in single air raids than the soldiers of entire wars. Our form of power is simply horrific and incomprehensible to the moral will of a people who would like to see their own time as eternity.

Our reverence is for the simplicity of enduring life, and also for such horrific technical power as that characterized by the Leviathan. Once again a contradiction, but this suggests that a connection to ancient thought remains. Rather than being anti-religious, or even anti-mythic, ours is perhaps the ultimate myth as it imagines humans as capable of creating machines every bit as powerful as the gods and their relics. We imagine ourselves as mythic beings, or at least as the transition of the species to a relation to the world that exists in a mythic way. There is a strange sense of elitism that lives on in this, where Nietzsche's Last Man and Ubermensch become one. This is an inhuman form of power and elitism, man living on where nothing else can. Lesser gods no longer have sovereignty over him.

The ability to see such monstrous authority is what distinguished Schmitt and Junger, among a few others, from lesser thinkers, those who could only understand authority and power as a specific instance within an era.

Sweety, the left actually respects Schmitt over Kelsen, Hart, Dworkin and other bullshitters.

>>14797824
What obvious reasons? How could a right winger adopt Schmitt?

>>14799368
>Sweety
Dilate

>As far as I'm aware the world continues to move towards globalism every passing minute with no brakes.

>kills

>>14799368
honeybuns if you only knew the stakes between schmitt and kelsen... you need to return to weber and cover your bases