*demonstrates that national socialism is more democratic than liberalism*

Rousseau's heroism and fascist heroism are congruent by nature.

Schmitt's endorsement of the Nazi regime was pure opportunism. He vehemently criticised both left and right-wing extremists and dedicated a lot of his work to the question as to how to save the Weimar Constitution from self-destruction. He joined the NSDAP only after they took power because he was deluded into thinking he could influence Hitler's politics. A mere three years later the Nazis themselves kicked him out because they deemed him an opportunist, Hegelian and catholic and not really anti-semitist.

Liberals like Karl Popper love calling Rousseau "proto-totalitarian"

He was one of the most important political thinkers of Weimar Germany. He is best known (on this site anyways, with all the /pol/aks) for his critique of liberal democracy, drawing on classical political theorists like Hobbes and Rousseau.
For example, he posited that parliamentary "democracy" is a sham and true democracy is the identity of rulers and ruled, which presupposes homogenity (i.e. Rousseau's conception of democracy. He later changed this "Gleichartigkeit" (sameness/homogenity) to "Artgleichheit" (sameness of race) to appease the Nazis.
He also held the opinion that liberal neutrality is self-descructive if taken too far (like Weimar proved) and that in times of exception the rule of law may impede the state's main purpose, which according to him is providing safety (i.e. Hobbes' conception of the leviathan).

>true democracy is the identity of rulers and ruled
what does this mean?

gay sex

fuck minorities

Yeah, now try demonstrating that democracy is more desirable than a Republic

Law is based on the general will (volonté générale). Representatives ("rulers") merely enforce this will.
The general will is kind of a diffuse concept. It's basically what everyone /should/ want the laws to look like if they were being 100% rational and only had the good of the whole of society in mind. Rousseau thinks if every individual was perfectly educated and informed and the society sufficiently homogeneous, the democratic decision making process would result in the general will.

People who argue like this (e.g. Popper) fail to see that minority rights are in the general interest and infact the only thing that makes the formation of a general will possible in the first place.

I thought Rousseau focused less on a strictly homogenous society but on one that was simply small enough to create a powerful sense of belonging for all its inhabitants, hence why he was so autistic about being from Geneva

>Popper
Popper was a retard anyway who was praised by dimwits like Bertrand (((Russell))).

>hurrdurr Plato was a fascist
>hurrdurr Aristotle was a fascist
>hurrdurr Hegel was a fascist
>hurrdurr Rousseau was a fascist

I don't think you're quite right. Homogeneity is definitely necessary to a degree in Schmitt's conception of democracy due to the necessary suppression of dissent that comes with "the decision" in a heterogeneous nation, but I think for Schmitt the "true democracy" doesn't lie in an indefinite representation of ruled in ruler, but in the suppression of dissent and the creation of a new will expressing polity (I guess) through a difficult to order interplay of constituent power and sovereign dictatorship. I think that in Schmitt you can find an argument that the Terror of the French Revolution was epitome of democracy. It helps to realize that Schmitt doesn't necessarily think highly of democracy, liberal or otherwise.

as soon as you demonstrate that a Republic is more desirable than a Monarchy

IIRC the reason he thought democracy only works in a small-sized commonwealth was that only there the conditions for the formation of a general will can be sufficiently met (one of these conditions being homogenity, but also "sense of belonging" or rather a sense of the common good and empathy for the other members of society). It's been some time since I read The Social Contract, though.

Exactly my point.

>Schmitt doesn't necessarily think highly of democracy, liberal or otherwise.
I find it really hard to tell what Schmitt really believed in. My first language is German, so I'm able to catch all the nuances, but he's still an enigma at times. His more technical stuff (e.g. Legality and Legitimacy, a favourite of mine) is written with such a rigorous methodological neutrality, he could've advocated for anything. The guy really was the born opportunist.

Ive read his work in a mix of German and English, and since German is my second language I definitely could have missed a lot of those nuances. You're right though, I think that's why people on both the right and left feel comfortable referring to his arguments.

None of this says anything about his ideas though. Concept of the Political is undeniably totalitarian.

>The general will is kind of a diffuse concept. It's basically what everyone /should/ want the laws to look like if they were being 100% rational and only had the good of the whole of society in mind. Rousseau thinks if every individual was perfectly educated and informed and the society sufficiently homogeneous, the democratic decision making process would result in the general will.
Are you sure he said any of this? It's been a while since I've read Rousseau, but from what I can remember general will is basically the same as the rule of law

No myrmex it's de Maistre

Am I missing much if I simplify de maistre to 'revolution bad authority good'?

Well why it's good is pretty important.
But you read him because he's a rethorican without peer.

What's his argument? That it prevents social discord?

His argument is that for man to truly flourish his sin must be shackled by the irrational belief in the Altar, Throne and Headsman, that revolution never can offer stability and eats her own children by default. Stability is the most important value in a society for him, hegemony of religious and political belief that accordingly defends itself from discord. Letters on the Spanish Inquisition were also quite interesting. But as I've said, his main appeal is his language that has a specific rhythm and a violent aesthetic to it that really makes my blood boil in a good way.

Dunno what you goobers are eating to fart out these absurd platitudes.

>much sovereignty

Lol at you nigga getting off on a Nazi while Louise henkins already btfod all of these crackpots

>He joined the NSDAP only after they took power because he was deluded into thinking he could influence Hitler's politics. A mere three years later the Nazis themselves kicked him out because they deemed him an opportunist, Hegelian and catholic and not really anti-semitist.

So basically all of this is garbage modernist romantic bullshit and we should just go back and study Homer? kk thanks

hero worship is static morality and therefore leftist

This man, on my board he is everything.

bump

Yes, it went over your hand. It's about soldiers bad, executioners and vagabonds good.

>He vehemently criticised both left and right-wing extremists

>tfw radical centrist

> t. Leo Strauss

just like hitler

Who?

His criticism of pacifism is so good.

Where does one start with him?

yeah that's why liberals actually got democratic vote majority and Hitler never did /s

I'm also curious about this.

Gottfried has a good book on him

>democratic
More populistic*. There is a difference.
youtube.com/watch?v=PzAtszsW7WU&

Anything else for us?

The man who pioneered human rights and UN..the greatest mind of our time and administration.

I found this.

I forgot the link that |I had just found. . .
cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Carl Schmitt/

The inventor of AK may have killed more, so by the same qualifiers, I would say that he is the greater intellectual.

>The man who pioneered human rights and UN

Human rights are emotivist though. They're not actually rationally argued.

>American education
No, seriously, where did you learn that? Hitler's NSDAP-DNVP coalition government was the first one which had a "democratic vote majority" since Hindenburg couldn't form governments anymore.

You forget that American education on History is nothing but narrative especially in regards to modern history.

Basically any of this books. They do well standalone. If you want aesthetics go with his romantics or Hamlet book. If you want politics go for Concept of Political. If you want religion go for Catholicism and Political Form or Political Theology.

Also read his book on Hobbes.

Where would you recommend starting if I'm interested in his overall philosophical anthropology? I'm interested in where Schmitt gets closest to revealing what he believes the transcendental or sacred ground of human existence to be.

Also interested in this. Thanks for the help anons.

What is the name of his book on Hobbes?

>picking the absolute dumbest fucking libertarian "philosopher" there is

Ayn Rand is a fucking genius compared to Hoppe desu

Still want to know the name of that book. . .

>mercaba.org/SANLUIS/Filosofia/autores/Contemporánea/Schmitt/The Leviathan in the State - Theory of Thomas Hobbes - Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol.pdf

Enjoy. Next time don't think Hobbes is a reactionary or something, he's just a conservative.

You probably want Political Theology (and maybe also his later Political Theology II). Concept of the Political is really a good starting point for Schmitt. Nomos of the Earth is in many ways a summation of a lot of his thought.

There's Ex Captivate Salus which is going to be released soon, which is Schmitt's apologetic documentation of his experiences interned during 45-48, should be very interesting.

Balakrishnan's The Enemy book covers almost all of his work and adds in biographical context which is really helpful. I'd highly recommend it even though Balakrishnan is obviously on the left and throws in small critiques of things Schmitt would probably not consider to be his biggest weaknesses.

Thank you.