okay, let's get to the bottom of his argument
friend-enemy distinction of carl schmitt, is that true? for example, let's say america vs china, isn't it a mistake to consider entire america as friend if you are an american? pretty sure in top, we have people who are enemies of each other, so what am i misunderstanding here?

like right now, is russia an enemy or a friend?

>>24571022 (OP)
>friend-enemy distinction of carl schmitt
literally just zero-sum thinking repackaged in edgy aesthetics

go read game theory anon. please

>>24571022 (OP)
Enemy

Anti-Western imperialism comes first
Communism comes second
Everything else comes third.

That is how I judge every conflict

>>24571029
but trump loves putin and bitch slapped zelensky so how do we tell who is the enemy?

>>24571028
>it's more compilicated than that
not an argument, show the flaw

>>24571022 (OP)
Friend-enemy distinction isn't supposed to be a reified concept. It's just supposed to be a critique of liberal idealists who think that practical liberalism doesn't have enemies and doesn't treat its enemies as such. It's not something by itself that can define politics unless you just randomly choose people to be your friends and enemies because it's not a value in itself. The point is the values that you choose and the people who you can get to agree to those values and support you in pushing them will define your friends and enemies. Sheesh.

>>24571053
what about the history of humanity makes you think that zero sum thinking has any explanatory or predictive power?

>>24571048
Everybody

>>24571022 (OP)
trying to intellectualize fascism is pointless when the best part going for you guys is that you can drop you beliefs at a moments notice for pragmatic reasons and strategic political victories.
I think wizard magick shit evola writes works better for the cause.

>>24571054
have you actually read him, because i haven't

>>24571062
>that you can drop you beliefs at a moments notice for pragmatic reasons and strategic political victories
>utilitarianism

>>24571063
if you haven't then shut the fuck up and stop referencing him. it just makes you look retarded because some midwit with basic literacy will look up his Nazi affiliations, and now you have to find ways to defend his thinking on its own and articulate why he isn't arguing for an Aryan master race (because he isn't *that* kind of Nazi, like Rosenberg or Goebbels, even if he was okay to go along to get along because he preferred that to communism, or because he thought the Nazis were tamer than they turned out to be). and if you're not well-read and well-spoken, you will get clobbered by midwits just the way that pussyfooted fat retarded groyper did.

Schmitt is much more deep and interesting that just the "friend-enemy distinction". I wish people would read more of him than just popularizing and often misusing such a basic concept

>>24571081
calm down fren, this is not a peer reviewed journal, this is an anime imageboard

also, to say schmitt "isn't *that* kind of Nazi" is really stupid, he is literally in a Nazi party so on what basis are you saying this? and you didn't answer, have you read him or not?

also that "pussyfooted fat retarded groyper" owned mehdi hassan, what are you on about? he was correct to point out the hypocrisy in hassan's "are you gonna censor me?" argument

>>24571099
then explain those concept you little bitch

>>24571054
>It's just supposed to be a critique of liberal idealists who think that practical liberalism doesn't have enemies and doesn't treat its enemies as such
so a critique of a straw man

>>24571048
You look for who controls trump, zelensky and putin

As usual, very few people understand human civilization and what constitutes “enemy” and “friend”. Those who pay you or support the system which pays you or just generally aligned with that system are friends. Those who want to take away from that which pays you are enemies. That’s literally all there is to it. Not discussing PERSONAL relationship mind you, but relations on a societal level. Political, economic, religious, philosophical systems are completely irrelevant. For example: let’s say you consider Jews your enemies. Why? Because you believe Jews are harming you. Now, let’s say a Jew paid you $1,000 a week to post pro-Israel content on 4chan — then your enemy distinction immediately changes to a friend. Any belief you held about Jews harming you will be suspended and eventually destroyed altogether. What changed? Jews are paying you and that’s all that matters.

>>24571123
so based on this, wouldn't every nation's working class's biggest enemy be capitalist ruling class and not other nations, contradicting schmitt's advocacy for a sovereign to mediate exceptions?

>>24571137
No, because the capitalists are paying the workers, therefore, the working class consider the owners “on the same side” on the civilizational level. This friendly relationship is plainly shown in the pro-business standpoint of virtually all private sector labor unions.

>>24571123
the more i learn about money, the more i'm amazed by the fact that nearly everything about human society stems from money
i watched a lecture last week given by an author who explains that the origin of money came not from bartering but from settling blood feuds between individuals who have been wronged (murdered or maimed)
obviously we don't have blood feuds anymore but we've evolved our methods of using money to extend to every other part of society, arguably to our detriment as money was never intended to work that way
i'm beginning to believe that money will be replaced some time within this or the next century by something like tokens exchanged for civil service or loyalty to some company but i'm not sure yet

>>24571198
>Iranian Revolution (1979)
Iran was relatively wealthy at the time (oil boom)

The REAL trouble with "intellectual" treatments of fascism is that they're all Catholic so they're radioactive to the usual fedora tipper who calls himself a fascist these days.

Don't forget that the "third position" was literally the Church's official political position until after World War 2. They tried to sweep all that under the rug with Vatican 2, probably due to infiltration by the CIA, but some of us haven't forgotten.

Pic related. One of the actually-successful fascists, and I bet you can guess his religion.

>>24571101
I just mean in general and especially if you're going to advocate to the general public. and no, there is a distinction because all kinds of people were in the Nazi Party, but there's a clear difference between those who believed the whole shebang, those who were opportunists, those who were pragmatic allies, those who were just scared, those were conformists, etc. and obviously, the true believers who believed the party line believe something *different* from everybody else.

>also that "pussyfooted fat retarded groyper" owned mehdi hassan, what are you on about?
he just sounded like an exuberant retard. he had some moments since it was an overly-polished turd vs. an exuberant retard and he threw Hassan off balance, but Hassan said all the right things to also throw the sperg off-balance, and he didn't really have an answer for it that wouldn't make him look awful to most normies.

for every hypocrisy the groyper pointed out, Hassan pointed out 3. that's a bad debate performance.

>>24571106
it's not a straw man because those are the two kinds of liberals who exist, the liberals who are die hard "freedom" types, and the others who place limits and impose those limits on those who don't place freedom as the highest value on others. and you can clearly see who are the people who drink the koolaid and those who say the right things but actually operate with the friend-enemy distinction in politics.

>>24571022 (OP)
That's the point. There's not some objective distinction between friend and enemy that one should base policy on; but making the distinction of friend from enemy in changing circumstances is the essence of politics itself. Understanding who serves your purpose and who might be dangerous, even if on the surface you might have nothing in common with the former and pretend to be best buddies with the latter, that's the game.
Whatever the group you're *politically* a part of (that is, their power is your power), you want to find enemies that will unite and solidify your group in the pursuit of destroying them, and friends that might help with that. A sovereign is whoever can make the distinction and have it followed; a government that has lost its authority among citizens, for example, is not sovereign anymore, and some revolutionary group might take over.

Why does Trump, for example, like Putin and other authoritarian leaders so much? It's not because they have "dirt" or some other non-issue, but because he has the instinct that whoever practices authoritarianism is his natural friend, and its successes throughout the world against liberalism also solidify Trump's power within America. Because the liberal alternative seems so weak and decrepit.
Another more edgy example is Netanyahu and Hamas. The game of propping them up to divide and conquer the Palestinians was pretty risky, but it has paid off for his power. He was in trouble before the Oct 7 attack, but after that he became an unquestioned sovereign. If Hamas didn't exist Netanyahu would truly have to invent them. Whether Israel suffers for it in the long term is of second-order importance for him politically.

>>24571022 (OP)
the critique is more against those who think they can sweep this us vs them dichotomy under the rug, and either fool themselves spiraling more and more into schizophrenic babble(we must ban party X to protect our pluralist democracy) or by weakening this essential instinct effectively put themselves in danger by being unable to direct energies properly against actual enemies you aren't allowed to name or maybe only timidly so

>>24571211
can you be specific? what did the fat guy was wrong about, or couldn't answer? hasan literally asked him "do you want to kill women and children? since nazi and franco did it?"
this is reddit tier understanding of vampire deracula fascism, and the guy was speechless, this is not an own to ask such a bad question to leave your opponent shocked

>he just sounded like an exuberant retard
where? because he owned being a fascist? and didn't do a "i have black friends, i'm not racist?" he sounded like a brave and educated person to me, he didn't talk like a hillbilly, if you don't like fascism that's fine but to skew what we saw is a bit dishonest

>>24571226
Netanyahu is literally dying of ass cancer. Look it up

>>24571249
>can you be specific? what did the fat guy was wrong about, or couldn't answer? hasan literally asked him "do you want to kill women and children? since nazi and franco did it?"
the groyper didn't have a good way to deflect the question or address the problem. he came off as a naive true believer who will believe any strongman who postures in the right way. you know what would have been a good rebuttal? you don't *need* to kill innocent women and children to be a far rightist, and plenty of "liberal" actions have killed millions of women and children (aka our wars in the Middle East).

the groyper started off okay, had a few moments in the middle, but basically fumbled hard because his own understanding of his position is limited, his self-awareness is poor, he doesn't know where to draw the line in the sand, and he doesn't have the experience of communicating to normies in a way that at least covers his bases with "ummm Nazis? ummmm women and children? ummmm le hall of cost?!?".
>where? because he owned being a fascist?
he didn't have the courage to deal with the Nazi question. he didn't own anything. he was still hedging his bets while trying to give off that vibe.

>>24571022 (OP)
Didn’t read. You’re a dumbass.

>>24571022 (OP)
Messianic lunatics and transhumanists are the #1 top enemy of all humanity, hands down.

>>24571022 (OP)
karl schmitt was a jurist who believed in the utility of emergency powers for democratic states. none of his theories were fascist

>>24571022 (OP)
I don't understand the issue. The professor was self-evidently evil. You're not supposed to negotiate with evil. Its really that simple.

>>24571054
That's a lot of mental gymnastics just to say that there's a friend-enemy distinction

>>24571022 (OP)
>let's say america vs china, isn't it a mistake to consider entire america as friend if you are an american?

You haven't read Schmitt. The friend/enemy distinction relates to PUBLIC enemies, not private. The distinction can ONLY be drawn by the State, as a justification for the State's power of deciding exceptions, i.e. commanding men to kill one another. It is a vehicle for State sovereignty. You are not sovereign. You do not get a say in deciding who is a public friend and who is a public enemy. The only circumstances in which your private friends and enemies are relevant are those in which the state had collapsed or otherwise foregone sovereignty, in which case the friend/enemy distinction is no longer a valid analytical tool anyway.

>>24572038
There were no mental gymnastics intended. The only people who are doing mental gymnastics are the people who think that only fascists do it (either stupid fascists or naive liberals).

>>24571022 (OP)
A friend is someone who shares your way of living and anbenemy is someone whose way of life is at odds with yours and this difference is leading or has lead to a violent conflict. Republicans and Democrats are legitimate enemies because their ways of living cannot be reconciled. When friends do politics (which Schmitt would argue are not politics at all) they are simply deciding on how to enact their common understandings. It's a pragmatic thing. The job of a minister of education, for example should be things like simply figuring out the best ways of teaching the curriculum to children. This is how Finland's education got so good, although I wouldn't be surprised if it's declining now the American culture war has gone global. In a society, instead, where you have enemies cohabiting, then the politics of education are no longer about the most efficient way of enacting the policies that are already obvious for everyone. It becomes a debate. If team red wins, you get creationism and the gender and tranny stuff is ridiculed. If team red blue you get gender and tranny stuff, and creationism is shut down and ridiculed. Living like this inevitably leads to a violent conflict, because the success of one group implies the extinction of the values of the others. Both cannot coexist. It's two paths going in different directions. This is what Schmitt meant by the political. And it's of course not only an intra-national thing. The same principle, of course, also applies to whole nations going to war against each other.
>like right now, is russia an enemy or a friend?
At the moment Russia is an enemy of the liberal order, which is represented to some degree by Republicans and fully by the Democrats. But that's a complex issue. Even if Republicans and Democrats may be enemies to each other, they may still be a unified block in a different context, but it's unclear at the moment exactly how unified or split they are on this. They both seem to agree that Ukraine is a friend of the liberal order and should be armed, but the Republican voters may push against it to the point it could become unsustainable, and I imagine even Democrat voters would be against putting American boots on the ground to fight Russians, and the Russians definitely don't want to fight Americans, so that tell you both nations aren't all that enemies after all.

>>24572068
Check Schmitt diaries. There are some very interesting entries where he gives the friend enemy distinction almost a metaphysical spin.

>>24572068
I read Schmitt ages ago, so maybe I'm misremembering and being retarded, but I think this is wrong. Something Schmitt stresses is that nothing is inherently political. Things become political as they become something people are willing to enact violence for. This is something that can obviously happen organically and the state emerges from it. Not the other way around. If Christians and Muslims started stabbing each other for religious reasons in France then you would have a political situation and a friend enemy distinction regardless of what Macron has to say about it.

read the fucking authors you are interested in instead of going entirely off of memes.
the friend-enemy distinction is about managing relations within a community. so if the UN was the world government and it determined America to be the enemy of all, then the UN would be the "sovereign" tasked with determining friend from enemy, and harming the latter while raising up the former.
keep in mind also that schmitt wrote his legal theory as a desperate attempt to prop up conservative antifascism, even though in the end his ideas were adopted by fascists as well. but schmitt's key concern is to justify power - all power. a pinochet or a franco would be much closer to schmitt in character than a hitler or a de rivera.

>>24571022 (OP)
It's truly sad how much of this website is full of twitterfags and underage polscum now.

>>24573753
>keep in mind also that schmitt wrote his legal theory as a desperate attempt to prop up conservative antifascism,
whyd he join the nazi party?

>>24573941
He only joined the party after they had taken power and he thought that standing united as a nation was more important than internal strife
he also agreed with its nationalist and somewhat conservative talking points, but he's more of a Mitläufer than an actual national-socialist

>>24571022 (OP)
How you think Schmitt was in his personal life?
Like you think he was uptight or did he joke? Would he look at you funny if you told one?

>>24571022 (OP)
Friend-enemy distinction is basic and boring.
His point about how the inability to wage war makes an entity fundamentally unpolitical is way more interesting and salient.

>>24573831
>my gods are dying
tough tiddies libtard

>>24571022 (OP)
>fiend-enemy distinction of carl schmitt, is that true?
What he was saying is that politics is defined by antagonism and the possibility of (violent) conflict, not rational debate. (Important to note, however, is that he was saying the *possibility* of conflict. It doesn't mean: here are the enemies, kill them. At least not necessarily. It's just a possibility.)

>for example, let's say america vs china, isn't it a mistake to consider entire america as friend if you are an american? pretty sure in top, we have people who are enemies of each other, so what am i misunderstanding here?
Yeah, I don't think you're misunderstanding anything. It's just that it's a problem. But that's where the "state of exception" comes in, because his theory is that the state ultimately exists to protect itself, and if that internal division makes the state vulnerable from an external enemy, then it's necessary for the sovereign to intervene to protect the state and impose order, and also decide who the enemy is. Uhh, I think.

>>24571226
>Another more edgy example is Netanyahu and Hamas.
A decent illustration of defining the "friend" group (encompassing secular and religious Jews) with fascist-looking skulls and torches to go with it:
https://youtu.be/ha-8LO0seaM

>>24572068
>You haven't read Schmitt. The friend/enemy distinction relates to PUBLIC enemies, not private. The distinction can ONLY be drawn by the State ... It is a vehicle for State sovereignty. You are not sovereign.
That too.

>>24572348
If there were Christians and Muslims killing eachother in France on any politically relevant scale, that would indicate that the state was no longer sovereign, or at least that its sovereignty was being challenged, until order was restored. He's very clear in the Concept of the Political that a failure of a state to assert itself as the decider of the exception, i.e. the holder of the monopoly on warfare, has abnegated its sovereignty. You can think if Schmitt as a direct follower of Hobbes: where a state fails to fulfill its core functions, such as preventing large-scale street violence, to some extent it fails to be a state. It's no longer in a position to determine a public enemy and its sovereignty is either gone or threatened.

lmao

>>24575158

>>24571299
>anti Christian values
The communists are atheists. They stumble in the dark, but they know they are lost. But the fascists are like those who hold a false map. They say they believe in God, but they truly think themselves to be gods. That their own words have the power to affect reality. When you believe you are superior to other men, and that the creatures of this earth can be ranked upon a higher and lower order of things: you come to believe you have some special separation from the rest of God’s creation, and have somehow even surpassed Him. So the fascist will walk headfirst happily toward his own destruction: which is why you see so many Nazis dabble in the occult. The tradcath is a false persona, and honest one of the weakest identities a fascist could hold.

All you need to know about Carl Schmitt is that he liked masturbating in public parks (he wrote about it in his journals). Once you know this, you cannot take anything he ever wrote seriously again.