The Concept of the Political (Carl Schmitt)
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 10. 2022
- Carl Schmitt's most famous book-with discussion of the friend/enemy distinction, as applied to America today, along with discussion of Christian duties with respect to the public enemy, hostis, which do not include either love or staying one's hand.
The written version of this article can be found here: theworthyhouse.com/2022/10/14...
We strongly encourage, in these days of censorship and deplatforming, all readers to bookmark our main site:
www.theworthyhouse.com
and to subscribe for email notifications of new posts. The Worthy House does not solicit donations or other support, or have ads. You can subscribe for email notifications here:
theworthyhouse.com/subscribe-...
Video podcasts identical to YT are also available at Odysee and at Rumble:
odysee.com/@TheWorthyHouse
rumble.com/c/c-1747695
This and all Worthy House narrations are offered with accurate closed captions (not auto-generated).
"This, Carl Schmitt’s best-known work, first published in 1932, is a crucial book for our present moment. The clear-eyed Schmitt, who stands far above any modern political philosopher, writes here of timeless principles that lie behind political action, and he slices through the ignorance, doublespeak, and confusion that surround any discussion today of the “why” of politics. As always, he offers a crisp analysis of reality, with implications and applications for all times and moments. And for Christians in today’s America, this book has extra value, because reading it restores the proper Christian understanding of “enemy,” something that has been (quite recently) lost, to our great detriment. " . . .
![Public lecture: Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the Political [1927] - John Keane](/img/n.gif)
Your best. A collaboration with Pastor Joel Webbon at Right Response Ministries would be amazing. He understands these concepts and how they must apply institutionally.
Thank you for calling out the nonsense forward
Great episode!
Easy to see how Yockey took on some of these points of Schmitt's in his book Imperium. Speaking of the enemy, I wonder if Schmitt himself ever mentions the difference between the German words "Feind" and "Gegner?"
Forgive my necromancy here. This reminds me of something i recall from reading "Napoleon, a Political Life" 2 decades ago. The author talked about the difference between politics and "the political". Where, if i recall, politics was the process of manipulation of the electorate and the Political was the actual exercise of power. I should re-read it
Thank you
Interesting discussion of the book. However, I doubt that left and right can ever be enemies. It is not at all obvious that protest groups today, no matter how destructive, would ever constitute an enemy. Rather, they could only become enemies in the last moment, in the extreme case. In his later work he will say that democratic man introduces a situation like that of God, that he could only have one enemy, himself (although this is already hinted at in Political Romanticism with the absolute conflict of time).
Schmitt himself said that "left and right are two sides of the same coin. And in the 1930s his judgement was that both extremes of left and right had to be outlawed by Hindenburg. What is essential to state decision is sovereignty and the exception. The enemy becomes explicit in the modern era, and specifically with the collapse of the Jus Publicum Europaeum and the occupation of Germany. In the Christian era it was the Katechon that was central - the enemy should be viewed in light of this.
With the occupation of Germany the rule of colonisation enters Europe itself, the Jus Publicum Europaeum turns inwards - or rather, indecision begins a new nomos. What is crucial here, especially for the latter half of the 20th century and today, is that anti-colonialism and essentially an anti-European ideology is introduced first and most forcefully by Europe. This is where the real existential enemy occurs, at the level of nomos, and left or right could only be the enemy if they are central to this nomos. Generally, as objects of liberalism, they tend towards instrumentalisation (politicisation) and either through legality or criminality intensify the non-political, the neutralising positions.
One can contrast this with the theological left and right, the original divided man of democracy: absolutism and anarchism. The first has the existential friend of a new type of monarchy, and the second a theological enemy in God. There is a greater tension here, and one which may explain why the left ultimately triumphs. But leaving that aside, we see that each political pole has fallen very far from their original position. Both are essentially tied to the political parties and a passive nihilism - they have renounced all struggle and absolute enmity. Where there is conflict it amounts to criminalisation of the other side, they are declared unhuman and prepared for the rendering yard.
Here the left appears as a telluric force of anti-colonialism, the final movements in the shift of the nomos. And the right is consumed by passive critique, as the liberal parliamentarians before them, or simply their own private concerns. Neither approaches anything like friend-and-enemy, there is only chaos without rebirth. Proof of this is that none of the protest groups do not propose any positive political position themselves, they are rather like the UN, a mere hotel in its organisation and recruitment. NATO is perhaps the closest organisation in the West to the political, yet it is also the greatest force of neutralisation.
Nations and the classical concept of space were defeated in 1917. After this there was only a very short period of time for national liberation struggles, just as left and right developed for a short moment as a decision of the general will - a state of exception for God and the Sovereign. Without the capacity for decision there can be no reintegration of order, the Katechon - no restraint upon chaos. The age is then reborn ever anew, against order. With this, the weight of theological power approaches the absolute while man's actions grow ever more insignificant.
Assuming Schmitt is right that sovereignty presupposes leadership that can take power during an exception. Whats to insure an authortarian system will produce a superior leadership to a democracy (say Lincoln) in a crisis. A dictator, collective or individual, being accountable only to themselves and their fellow power brokers, sounds to me a recipe for corrupt self serving leadership. If not this generation of leaders then the next. All authortarians at some point hand the reigns to a weak son. I don't see these systems as anymore stable than liberal democracy.
Hostis and Inimicus
17:28 The separation of powers has ancient origins in Polybius which influences John Locke's and Montesquieu's Enlightenment conception of it. Your eliding is similar to the criticism you levy on those who attribute the rule of law to the Enlightenment when in fact it has ancient precedents. But the full concept of the rule of law restraining all equally and its consistant and textual application, not merely customary or spirit of the law, is attributed to the Enlightenment. Especially in John Locke's Second Treatise in his 1690 work, Two Treatises of Government.
This is a misreading; I have written extensively on these topics, especially on the rule of law long pre-dating the so-called Enlightenment.
Assuming Schmitt is right that sovereignty presupposes leadership that can take power during an exception. Whats to insure an authortarian system will produce a superior leadership to a democracy (say Lincoln) in a crisis. A dictator, collective or individual, being accountable only to themselves and their fellow power brokers, sounds to me a recipe for corrupt self serving leadership. If not this generation of leaders then the next. All authortarians at some point hand the reigns to a weak son. I don't see these systems as anymore stable than liberal democracy.
@@americameinyourmouth9964 Nothing is to insure that. Everything is a cycle. Stable, therefore, not permanently. Generally, though, better for most people than so-called liberal democracy has turned out to be.
You make claims about the stability or decisiveness of authoritarians to provide a secular theory for your penchant for (restrained) dictatorship. To reach a broader audience. Rather than the real transcendental benefit they provide, moral absolutism.
I think what you’re calling for would require a wholesale religious revival, a great awakening. Physicalism or as others call it materialism, has affected most people’s outlook even amongst the right.
First