What do you think about Carl Schmitt?

>
Man, 20th century political thought sucks balls.

1. Construct an internal enemy, as both focus and diversion.
2. Isolate and demonize that enemy by unleashing and protecting the utterance of overt and coded name-calling and verbal abuse. Employ ad hominem attacks as legitimate charges against that enemy.
3. Enlist and create sources and distributors of information who are willing to reinforce demonizing process because it is profitable, because it grants power and because it works.
4. Palisade all art forms: monitor, discredit or expel those that challenge or destabilize processes of demonization and deification.
5. Subvert and malign all representatives of and sympathizers with this constructed enemy.
6. Solicit, from among the enemy, collaborators who agree with and can sanitize the dispossession process.
7. Pathologize the enemy in scholarly and popular mediums; recycle, for example, scientific racism and the myths of racial superiority in order to naturalize the pathology.
8. Criminalize the enemy. Then prepare, budget for and rationalize the building of holding arenas for the enemy-especially the males and absolutely its children.
9. Reward mindlessness and apathy with monumentalized entertainments and with little pleasures, tiny seductions: a few minutes on television, a few lines in the press; a little fun, a little style, a little consequence.
10. Maintain, at all costs, silence.

--Toni Morrison's 10 Steps to Fascism

>you will never cite operas to troll your anglocuck prisonward

Also something about disbanding the parliament and courts and centralizing authority in the executive? I think? No??

wtf r u on about?

Yeah he wrote a neat essay on Shakespeare which is pretty interesting too.

>Love the Political Theology paradigm. I am greatfull that so many marxists fall for it(agamben and Zizek), so I can actually read their drivel, while imagining that they are closet religious.

Care to elaborate?

Political Theology is a method that considers all political and Law questions to be just modern reincarnations of older theological questions. The phrase was popularized by Schmitt and a theologian(Peterson).

Marxists from Benjamin and Fromm onward have used theology of all kinds to get their points across. Adorno for example always has Kierkegaard lurking around in his writings in a passive-aggressive way. Agamben is like the ultimate example of this. His trilogy is literally "Look at these ethical ways of being that certain religious people practised, we should made them happen in marxism".

>Agamben is like the ultimate example of this. His trilogy is literally "Look at these ethical ways of being that certain religious people practised, we should made them happen in marxism".
Isn't he just going balls-out Christianity in his later writings? That's the impression I was under anyway.

Absolutely brilliant, he was the first I read of the major conflict between Parliamentarian activity and Liberalism versus Democracy, his concept of Political Theology and his clear and concise work on the Latin Counter-Revolutionaries is great stuff and should be mandatory reading for everyone interested in political theory. His attempt to isolate "The Political" and save it as a unique sphere of human activity from reductionist attempts from economics, morality, etc is something I agree with very much as well.

I think Schmitt is at his best when he's addressing the ideas of other people such as judicial and political thinkers, historians, poets, etc. This is where he has by far the most substance, and he's not just endlessly repeating the same 2-3 rather simplistic themes about absolute authority and hostility and all that. Schmitt was a better hermeneuticist than he was an analytic thinker. Not that I would use any of his treatments as reliable secondary sources, god forbid, but they're interesting texts in themselves.

>hermeneuticist
This is not a word you moron.

Thanks for the valuable input.

Interesting. Doesn't make me want to read Agamben that much though.