• Re: more Carl Schmitt

    From Jeffrey Rubard@21:1/5 to Jeff Rubard on Sat Jan 1 23:43:00 2022
    On Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 3:06:29 PM UTC-7, Jeff Rubard wrote:
    Jeff Rubard wrote:
    The Other wrote:

    Remember Alan Wolfe's brain-damaged article on Carl Schmitt in _The
    Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back? It included a gratuitous
    smear of Paul Gottfried. Gottfried's response is now online.

    Interestingly, it turns out that Wolfe had earlier reviewed one of
    Gottfried's books for the _New Republic_ -- not Gottfried's
    intellectual biography of Schmitt, but nevertheless a book which
    included a critical discussion of Schmitt's work.

    Anyway, the _Chronicle_ didn't print Gottfried's letter, but it's at

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried58.html

    I was going to cut and paste excerpts, but the letter's only five
    paragraphs long, so just read it if you're interested in Carl Schmitt.
    Comments welcome, of course.


    Well, try this: as usual when discussing Schmitt, everything is packed
    but the squeal -- that is, Schmitt's *intended* audience (the Catholic intelligentsia) are excused from considering his anti-liberalism as a threatening political development. This is left to figures who use him
    as a means for gainsaying with respect to new *geopolitical* dynamics,
    an extremely problematic audience not easily characterized using the right-left dichotomy. If we add complicity with centuries of
    recrudescent modernity "for the nonce", considering the substance of his work not directly utilized by the Nazi regime becomes extremely
    difficult: as a professor of *Verfassungslehre* he truly is every bit to
    be respected, and very little of his work draws upon pre-existing
    cultural understandings not quite worthy of the name "ethnomethodology":
    he was intimately acquainted with the structure of the Caesarist
    republic and this is not without its uses, as *Junge Freiheit*'s appropriation perhaps most clearly suggests -- but this can also be seen
    in the relatively "deprivileged" status of his American admirers *Telos* and his appeal for the ultra-right of the Fifth Republic.

    But if we bypass the uses of Schmitt's texts for political education,
    this recent material distinguishes itself as resolutely *highbrow*: that
    is to say, the tendency of these criticisms of Schmitt is neither to
    work the removal of Schmittians from the scene *nor* to militate for a
    more principled republicanism, but to pose a "demarcation thesis" concerning Nazism and fascism which leaves such elements as are
    attracted to Schmitt the status of "excluded third" as regards
    totalitarian political movements. In such sentiments we have a rather pointedly Lacanian frame of mind, which is content to say "there is no international socialist movement" and let nature take its course as
    regards the degrees of freedom enjoyed within a given polity: that is to say, we have a movement towards prising him off Strauss and "postmodernizing" the latter, such that he serves as the bearer of a principle embodying an "uneconomic" attitude towards political life, the impossibility of political conflict having the mortal stakes Schmitt veritably eroticized -- but perhaps entirely too much happens in the political sphere for "politics without tears" to supplant *Kant avec
    Sade* as the *obiter dictum* of a psychological politics of resignation.

    By contrast, alternatives to a "genuine illiberalism" abide in just
    those features of political discourse which escape judgments of taste. Resignation as regards the "empirical" character of the psychological characterized Lacan's "return to Freud" in *refounding* psychological research in para-political discourse -- the blessings and curses of the modern age -- rather than escaping those properly political dynamics in mindedness by means of recourse to "exact description". The highbrow
    object of derision, the "life of the seminar", that radix of
    intellection as provided through the feueilleton and other public
    amusements, this itself is not without its bearings upon the object of Lacan's allegory: European leftism *nach Auchwitz*, the lessons learned through sympathetic observation of "crazes" and rights reserved unto posterity as regards that fabric without discord within a grotesque of evanescence, which those of us without superlative vision have every
    right to expect from social life, and very few manage to do without.

    --
    Jeff Rubard
    opensentence.tripod.com
    Your guess is as good as mine

    "William Rasch?"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeffrey Rubard@21:1/5 to Jeffrey Rubard on Sun Jan 2 19:47:59 2022
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 11:43:01 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 3:06:29 PM UTC-7, Jeff Rubard wrote:
    Jeff Rubard wrote:
    The Other wrote:

    Remember Alan Wolfe's brain-damaged article on Carl Schmitt in _The
    Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back? It included a gratuitous
    smear of Paul Gottfried. Gottfried's response is now online.

    Interestingly, it turns out that Wolfe had earlier reviewed one of
    Gottfried's books for the _New Republic_ -- not Gottfried's
    intellectual biography of Schmitt, but nevertheless a book which
    included a critical discussion of Schmitt's work.

    Anyway, the _Chronicle_ didn't print Gottfried's letter, but it's at

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried58.html

    I was going to cut and paste excerpts, but the letter's only five
    paragraphs long, so just read it if you're interested in Carl Schmitt. >> Comments welcome, of course.


    Well, try this: as usual when discussing Schmitt, everything is packed but the squeal -- that is, Schmitt's *intended* audience (the Catholic intelligentsia) are excused from considering his anti-liberalism as a threatening political development. This is left to figures who use him
    as a means for gainsaying with respect to new *geopolitical* dynamics,
    an extremely problematic audience not easily characterized using the right-left dichotomy. If we add complicity with centuries of
    recrudescent modernity "for the nonce", considering the substance of his work not directly utilized by the Nazi regime becomes extremely difficult: as a professor of *Verfassungslehre* he truly is every bit to be respected, and very little of his work draws upon pre-existing cultural understandings not quite worthy of the name "ethnomethodology": he was intimately acquainted with the structure of the Caesarist
    republic and this is not without its uses, as *Junge Freiheit*'s appropriation perhaps most clearly suggests -- but this can also be seen in the relatively "deprivileged" status of his American admirers *Telos* and his appeal for the ultra-right of the Fifth Republic.

    But if we bypass the uses of Schmitt's texts for political education, this recent material distinguishes itself as resolutely *highbrow*: that is to say, the tendency of these criticisms of Schmitt is neither to
    work the removal of Schmittians from the scene *nor* to militate for a more principled republicanism, but to pose a "demarcation thesis" concerning Nazism and fascism which leaves such elements as are
    attracted to Schmitt the status of "excluded third" as regards totalitarian political movements. In such sentiments we have a rather pointedly Lacanian frame of mind, which is content to say "there is no international socialist movement" and let nature take its course as regards the degrees of freedom enjoyed within a given polity: that is to say, we have a movement towards prising him off Strauss and "postmodernizing" the latter, such that he serves as the bearer of a principle embodying an "uneconomic" attitude towards political life, the impossibility of political conflict having the mortal stakes Schmitt veritably eroticized -- but perhaps entirely too much happens in the political sphere for "politics without tears" to supplant *Kant avec Sade* as the *obiter dictum* of a psychological politics of resignation.

    By contrast, alternatives to a "genuine illiberalism" abide in just
    those features of political discourse which escape judgments of taste. Resignation as regards the "empirical" character of the psychological characterized Lacan's "return to Freud" in *refounding* psychological research in para-political discourse -- the blessings and curses of the modern age -- rather than escaping those properly political dynamics in mindedness by means of recourse to "exact description". The highbrow
    object of derision, the "life of the seminar", that radix of
    intellection as provided through the feueilleton and other public amusements, this itself is not without its bearings upon the object of Lacan's allegory: European leftism *nach Auchwitz*, the lessons learned through sympathetic observation of "crazes" and rights reserved unto posterity as regards that fabric without discord within a grotesque of evanescence, which those of us without superlative vision have every
    right to expect from social life, and very few manage to do without.

    --
    Jeff Rubard
    opensentence.tripod.com
    Your guess is as good as mine
    "William Rasch?"

    I've heard of her!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeffrey Rubard@21:1/5 to Jeffrey Rubard on Mon Jan 3 08:58:32 2022
    On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 11:43:01 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 3:06:29 PM UTC-7, Jeff Rubard wrote:
    Jeff Rubard wrote:
    The Other wrote:

    Remember Alan Wolfe's brain-damaged article on Carl Schmitt in _The
    Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back? It included a gratuitous >> smear of Paul Gottfried. Gottfried's response is now online.

    Interestingly, it turns out that Wolfe had earlier reviewed one of
    Gottfried's books for the _New Republic_ -- not Gottfried's
    intellectual biography of Schmitt, but nevertheless a book which
    included a critical discussion of Schmitt's work.

    Anyway, the _Chronicle_ didn't print Gottfried's letter, but it's at >>
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried58.html

    I was going to cut and paste excerpts, but the letter's only five
    paragraphs long, so just read it if you're interested in Carl Schmitt. >> Comments welcome, of course.


    Well, try this: as usual when discussing Schmitt, everything is packed but the squeal -- that is, Schmitt's *intended* audience (the Catholic intelligentsia) are excused from considering his anti-liberalism as a threatening political development. This is left to figures who use him as a means for gainsaying with respect to new *geopolitical* dynamics, an extremely problematic audience not easily characterized using the right-left dichotomy. If we add complicity with centuries of recrudescent modernity "for the nonce", considering the substance of his
    work not directly utilized by the Nazi regime becomes extremely difficult: as a professor of *Verfassungslehre* he truly is every bit to
    be respected, and very little of his work draws upon pre-existing cultural understandings not quite worthy of the name "ethnomethodology":
    he was intimately acquainted with the structure of the Caesarist republic and this is not without its uses, as *Junge Freiheit*'s appropriation perhaps most clearly suggests -- but this can also be seen
    in the relatively "deprivileged" status of his American admirers *Telos*
    and his appeal for the ultra-right of the Fifth Republic.

    But if we bypass the uses of Schmitt's texts for political education, this recent material distinguishes itself as resolutely *highbrow*: that
    is to say, the tendency of these criticisms of Schmitt is neither to work the removal of Schmittians from the scene *nor* to militate for a more principled republicanism, but to pose a "demarcation thesis" concerning Nazism and fascism which leaves such elements as are attracted to Schmitt the status of "excluded third" as regards totalitarian political movements. In such sentiments we have a rather pointedly Lacanian frame of mind, which is content to say "there is no international socialist movement" and let nature take its course as regards the degrees of freedom enjoyed within a given polity: that is to
    say, we have a movement towards prising him off Strauss and "postmodernizing" the latter, such that he serves as the bearer of a principle embodying an "uneconomic" attitude towards political life, the
    impossibility of political conflict having the mortal stakes Schmitt veritably eroticized -- but perhaps entirely too much happens in the political sphere for "politics without tears" to supplant *Kant avec Sade* as the *obiter dictum* of a psychological politics of resignation.

    By contrast, alternatives to a "genuine illiberalism" abide in just
    those features of political discourse which escape judgments of taste. Resignation as regards the "empirical" character of the psychological characterized Lacan's "return to Freud" in *refounding* psychological research in para-political discourse -- the blessings and curses of the modern age -- rather than escaping those properly political dynamics in mindedness by means of recourse to "exact description". The highbrow object of derision, the "life of the seminar", that radix of
    intellection as provided through the feueilleton and other public amusements, this itself is not without its bearings upon the object of Lacan's allegory: European leftism *nach Auchwitz*, the lessons learned through sympathetic observation of "crazes" and rights reserved unto posterity as regards that fabric without discord within a grotesque of evanescence, which those of us without superlative vision have every right to expect from social life, and very few manage to do without.

    --
    Jeff Rubard
    opensentence.tripod.com
    Your guess is as good as mine
    "William Rasch?"
    I've heard of her!

    (No, Carl Schmitt was a guy. Someone who used to write about Schmitt.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeffrey Rubard@21:1/5 to Jeffrey Rubard on Mon Jan 3 23:54:38 2022
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 8:58:33 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 11:43:01 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 3:06:29 PM UTC-7, Jeff Rubard wrote:
    Jeff Rubard wrote:
    The Other wrote:

    Remember Alan Wolfe's brain-damaged article on Carl Schmitt in _The >> Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back? It included a gratuitous
    smear of Paul Gottfried. Gottfried's response is now online.

    Interestingly, it turns out that Wolfe had earlier reviewed one of >> Gottfried's books for the _New Republic_ -- not Gottfried's
    intellectual biography of Schmitt, but nevertheless a book which
    included a critical discussion of Schmitt's work.

    Anyway, the _Chronicle_ didn't print Gottfried's letter, but it's at >>
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried58.html

    I was going to cut and paste excerpts, but the letter's only five
    paragraphs long, so just read it if you're interested in Carl Schmitt.
    Comments welcome, of course.


    Well, try this: as usual when discussing Schmitt, everything is packed
    but the squeal -- that is, Schmitt's *intended* audience (the Catholic
    intelligentsia) are excused from considering his anti-liberalism as a threatening political development. This is left to figures who use him
    as a means for gainsaying with respect to new *geopolitical* dynamics,
    an extremely problematic audience not easily characterized using the right-left dichotomy. If we add complicity with centuries of recrudescent modernity "for the nonce", considering the substance of his
    work not directly utilized by the Nazi regime becomes extremely difficult: as a professor of *Verfassungslehre* he truly is every bit to
    be respected, and very little of his work draws upon pre-existing cultural understandings not quite worthy of the name "ethnomethodology":
    he was intimately acquainted with the structure of the Caesarist republic and this is not without its uses, as *Junge Freiheit*'s appropriation perhaps most clearly suggests -- but this can also be seen
    in the relatively "deprivileged" status of his American admirers *Telos*
    and his appeal for the ultra-right of the Fifth Republic.

    But if we bypass the uses of Schmitt's texts for political education, this recent material distinguishes itself as resolutely *highbrow*: that
    is to say, the tendency of these criticisms of Schmitt is neither to work the removal of Schmittians from the scene *nor* to militate for a
    more principled republicanism, but to pose a "demarcation thesis" concerning Nazism and fascism which leaves such elements as are attracted to Schmitt the status of "excluded third" as regards totalitarian political movements. In such sentiments we have a rather pointedly Lacanian frame of mind, which is content to say "there is no
    international socialist movement" and let nature take its course as regards the degrees of freedom enjoyed within a given polity: that is to
    say, we have a movement towards prising him off Strauss and "postmodernizing" the latter, such that he serves as the bearer of a principle embodying an "uneconomic" attitude towards political life, the
    impossibility of political conflict having the mortal stakes Schmitt veritably eroticized -- but perhaps entirely too much happens in the political sphere for "politics without tears" to supplant *Kant avec Sade* as the *obiter dictum* of a psychological politics of resignation.

    By contrast, alternatives to a "genuine illiberalism" abide in just those features of political discourse which escape judgments of taste. Resignation as regards the "empirical" character of the psychological characterized Lacan's "return to Freud" in *refounding* psychological research in para-political discourse -- the blessings and curses of the modern age -- rather than escaping those properly political dynamics in mindedness by means of recourse to "exact description". The highbrow object of derision, the "life of the seminar", that radix of intellection as provided through the feueilleton and other public amusements, this itself is not without its bearings upon the object of Lacan's allegory: European leftism *nach Auchwitz*, the lessons learned through sympathetic observation of "crazes" and rights reserved unto posterity as regards that fabric without discord within a grotesque of evanescence, which those of us without superlative vision have every right to expect from social life, and very few manage to do without.

    --
    Jeff Rubard
    opensentence.tripod.com
    Your guess is as good as mine
    "William Rasch?"
    I've heard of her!
    (No, Carl Schmitt was a guy. Someone who used to write about Schmitt.)

    Postscript: Maybe Talcott Parsons more than Kelsen? Maybe the United
    States more than your psychopathic dreamscape?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeffrey Rubard@21:1/5 to Jeffrey Rubard on Tue Jan 4 11:48:57 2022
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:54:39 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 8:58:33 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 11:43:01 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 3:06:29 PM UTC-7, Jeff Rubard wrote:
    Jeff Rubard wrote:
    The Other wrote:

    Remember Alan Wolfe's brain-damaged article on Carl Schmitt in _The
    Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back? It included a gratuitous
    smear of Paul Gottfried. Gottfried's response is now online.

    Interestingly, it turns out that Wolfe had earlier reviewed one of >> Gottfried's books for the _New Republic_ -- not Gottfried's
    intellectual biography of Schmitt, but nevertheless a book which >> included a critical discussion of Schmitt's work.

    Anyway, the _Chronicle_ didn't print Gottfried's letter, but it's at

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried58.html

    I was going to cut and paste excerpts, but the letter's only five >> paragraphs long, so just read it if you're interested in Carl Schmitt.
    Comments welcome, of course.


    Well, try this: as usual when discussing Schmitt, everything is packed
    but the squeal -- that is, Schmitt's *intended* audience (the Catholic
    intelligentsia) are excused from considering his anti-liberalism as a
    threatening political development. This is left to figures who use him
    as a means for gainsaying with respect to new *geopolitical* dynamics,
    an extremely problematic audience not easily characterized using the
    right-left dichotomy. If we add complicity with centuries of recrudescent modernity "for the nonce", considering the substance of his
    work not directly utilized by the Nazi regime becomes extremely difficult: as a professor of *Verfassungslehre* he truly is every bit to
    be respected, and very little of his work draws upon pre-existing cultural understandings not quite worthy of the name "ethnomethodology":
    he was intimately acquainted with the structure of the Caesarist republic and this is not without its uses, as *Junge Freiheit*'s appropriation perhaps most clearly suggests -- but this can also be seen
    in the relatively "deprivileged" status of his American admirers *Telos*
    and his appeal for the ultra-right of the Fifth Republic.

    But if we bypass the uses of Schmitt's texts for political education,
    this recent material distinguishes itself as resolutely *highbrow*: that
    is to say, the tendency of these criticisms of Schmitt is neither to
    work the removal of Schmittians from the scene *nor* to militate for a
    more principled republicanism, but to pose a "demarcation thesis" concerning Nazism and fascism which leaves such elements as are attracted to Schmitt the status of "excluded third" as regards totalitarian political movements. In such sentiments we have a rather
    pointedly Lacanian frame of mind, which is content to say "there is no
    international socialist movement" and let nature take its course as regards the degrees of freedom enjoyed within a given polity: that is to
    say, we have a movement towards prising him off Strauss and "postmodernizing" the latter, such that he serves as the bearer of a
    principle embodying an "uneconomic" attitude towards political life, the
    impossibility of political conflict having the mortal stakes Schmitt
    veritably eroticized -- but perhaps entirely too much happens in the
    political sphere for "politics without tears" to supplant *Kant avec
    Sade* as the *obiter dictum* of a psychological politics of resignation.

    By contrast, alternatives to a "genuine illiberalism" abide in just those features of political discourse which escape judgments of taste.
    Resignation as regards the "empirical" character of the psychological characterized Lacan's "return to Freud" in *refounding* psychological research in para-political discourse -- the blessings and curses of the
    modern age -- rather than escaping those properly political dynamics in
    mindedness by means of recourse to "exact description". The highbrow object of derision, the "life of the seminar", that radix of intellection as provided through the feueilleton and other public amusements, this itself is not without its bearings upon the object of
    Lacan's allegory: European leftism *nach Auchwitz*, the lessons learned
    through sympathetic observation of "crazes" and rights reserved unto posterity as regards that fabric without discord within a grotesque of
    evanescence, which those of us without superlative vision have every right to expect from social life, and very few manage to do without.

    --
    Jeff Rubard
    opensentence.tripod.com
    Your guess is as good as mine
    "William Rasch?"
    I've heard of her!
    (No, Carl Schmitt was a guy. Someone who used to write about Schmitt.)
    Postscript: Maybe Talcott Parsons more than Kelsen? Maybe the United
    States more than your psychopathic dreamscape?

    ...then haters wouldn't give me salty looks about "lawry"!
    (You only call it that if you're rich, I think.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeffrey Rubard@21:1/5 to Jeffrey Rubard on Tue Jan 11 16:45:33 2022
    On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 11:48:58 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:54:39 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 8:58:33 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 11:43:01 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 3:06:29 PM UTC-7, Jeff Rubard wrote:
    Jeff Rubard wrote:
    The Other wrote:

    Remember Alan Wolfe's brain-damaged article on Carl Schmitt in _The
    Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back? It included a gratuitous
    smear of Paul Gottfried. Gottfried's response is now online.

    Interestingly, it turns out that Wolfe had earlier reviewed one of
    Gottfried's books for the _New Republic_ -- not Gottfried's
    intellectual biography of Schmitt, but nevertheless a book which >> included a critical discussion of Schmitt's work.

    Anyway, the _Chronicle_ didn't print Gottfried's letter, but it's at

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried58.html

    I was going to cut and paste excerpts, but the letter's only five
    paragraphs long, so just read it if you're interested in Carl Schmitt.
    Comments welcome, of course.


    Well, try this: as usual when discussing Schmitt, everything is packed
    but the squeal -- that is, Schmitt's *intended* audience (the Catholic
    intelligentsia) are excused from considering his anti-liberalism as a
    threatening political development. This is left to figures who use him
    as a means for gainsaying with respect to new *geopolitical* dynamics,
    an extremely problematic audience not easily characterized using the
    right-left dichotomy. If we add complicity with centuries of recrudescent modernity "for the nonce", considering the substance of his
    work not directly utilized by the Nazi regime becomes extremely difficult: as a professor of *Verfassungslehre* he truly is every bit to
    be respected, and very little of his work draws upon pre-existing cultural understandings not quite worthy of the name "ethnomethodology":
    he was intimately acquainted with the structure of the Caesarist republic and this is not without its uses, as *Junge Freiheit*'s appropriation perhaps most clearly suggests -- but this can also be seen
    in the relatively "deprivileged" status of his American admirers *Telos*
    and his appeal for the ultra-right of the Fifth Republic.

    But if we bypass the uses of Schmitt's texts for political education,
    this recent material distinguishes itself as resolutely *highbrow*: that
    is to say, the tendency of these criticisms of Schmitt is neither to
    work the removal of Schmittians from the scene *nor* to militate for a
    more principled republicanism, but to pose a "demarcation thesis" concerning Nazism and fascism which leaves such elements as are attracted to Schmitt the status of "excluded third" as regards totalitarian political movements. In such sentiments we have a rather
    pointedly Lacanian frame of mind, which is content to say "there is no
    international socialist movement" and let nature take its course as
    regards the degrees of freedom enjoyed within a given polity: that is to
    say, we have a movement towards prising him off Strauss and "postmodernizing" the latter, such that he serves as the bearer of a
    principle embodying an "uneconomic" attitude towards political life, the
    impossibility of political conflict having the mortal stakes Schmitt
    veritably eroticized -- but perhaps entirely too much happens in the
    political sphere for "politics without tears" to supplant *Kant avec
    Sade* as the *obiter dictum* of a psychological politics of resignation.

    By contrast, alternatives to a "genuine illiberalism" abide in just those features of political discourse which escape judgments of taste.
    Resignation as regards the "empirical" character of the psychological
    characterized Lacan's "return to Freud" in *refounding* psychological
    research in para-political discourse -- the blessings and curses of the
    modern age -- rather than escaping those properly political dynamics in
    mindedness by means of recourse to "exact description". The highbrow
    object of derision, the "life of the seminar", that radix of intellection as provided through the feueilleton and other public amusements, this itself is not without its bearings upon the object of
    Lacan's allegory: European leftism *nach Auchwitz*, the lessons learned
    through sympathetic observation of "crazes" and rights reserved unto
    posterity as regards that fabric without discord within a grotesque of
    evanescence, which those of us without superlative vision have every
    right to expect from social life, and very few manage to do without.

    --
    Jeff Rubard
    opensentence.tripod.com
    Your guess is as good as mine
    "William Rasch?"
    I've heard of her!
    (No, Carl Schmitt was a guy. Someone who used to write about Schmitt.)
    Postscript: Maybe Talcott Parsons more than Kelsen? Maybe the United
    States more than your psychopathic dreamscape?
    ...then haters wouldn't give me salty looks about "lawry"!
    (You only call it that if you're rich, I think.)

    2022 Update: Less Carl Schmitt? Not sure. (Can you, like, not attack the US Capitol again?)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeffrey Rubard@21:1/5 to Jeffrey Rubard on Thu Jan 13 06:35:06 2022
    On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 4:45:34 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 11:48:58 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:54:39 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 8:58:33 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 11:43:01 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 3:06:29 PM UTC-7, Jeff Rubard wrote:
    Jeff Rubard wrote:
    The Other wrote:

    Remember Alan Wolfe's brain-damaged article on Carl Schmitt in _The
    Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back? It included a gratuitous
    smear of Paul Gottfried. Gottfried's response is now online. >>
    Interestingly, it turns out that Wolfe had earlier reviewed one of
    Gottfried's books for the _New Republic_ -- not Gottfried's
    intellectual biography of Schmitt, but nevertheless a book which
    included a critical discussion of Schmitt's work.

    Anyway, the _Chronicle_ didn't print Gottfried's letter, but it's at

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried58.html

    I was going to cut and paste excerpts, but the letter's only five
    paragraphs long, so just read it if you're interested in Carl Schmitt.
    Comments welcome, of course.


    Well, try this: as usual when discussing Schmitt, everything is packed
    but the squeal -- that is, Schmitt's *intended* audience (the Catholic
    intelligentsia) are excused from considering his anti-liberalism as a
    threatening political development. This is left to figures who use him
    as a means for gainsaying with respect to new *geopolitical* dynamics,
    an extremely problematic audience not easily characterized using the
    right-left dichotomy. If we add complicity with centuries of recrudescent modernity "for the nonce", considering the substance of his
    work not directly utilized by the Nazi regime becomes extremely difficult: as a professor of *Verfassungslehre* he truly is every bit to
    be respected, and very little of his work draws upon pre-existing
    cultural understandings not quite worthy of the name "ethnomethodology":
    he was intimately acquainted with the structure of the Caesarist
    republic and this is not without its uses, as *Junge Freiheit*'s
    appropriation perhaps most clearly suggests -- but this can also be seen
    in the relatively "deprivileged" status of his American admirers *Telos*
    and his appeal for the ultra-right of the Fifth Republic.

    But if we bypass the uses of Schmitt's texts for political education,
    this recent material distinguishes itself as resolutely *highbrow*: that
    is to say, the tendency of these criticisms of Schmitt is neither to
    work the removal of Schmittians from the scene *nor* to militate for a
    more principled republicanism, but to pose a "demarcation thesis"
    concerning Nazism and fascism which leaves such elements as are attracted to Schmitt the status of "excluded third" as regards totalitarian political movements. In such sentiments we have a rather
    pointedly Lacanian frame of mind, which is content to say "there is no
    international socialist movement" and let nature take its course as
    regards the degrees of freedom enjoyed within a given polity: that is to
    say, we have a movement towards prising him off Strauss and "postmodernizing" the latter, such that he serves as the bearer of a
    principle embodying an "uneconomic" attitude towards political life, the
    impossibility of political conflict having the mortal stakes Schmitt
    veritably eroticized -- but perhaps entirely too much happens in the
    political sphere for "politics without tears" to supplant *Kant avec
    Sade* as the *obiter dictum* of a psychological politics of resignation.

    By contrast, alternatives to a "genuine illiberalism" abide in just
    those features of political discourse which escape judgments of taste.
    Resignation as regards the "empirical" character of the psychological
    characterized Lacan's "return to Freud" in *refounding* psychological
    research in para-political discourse -- the blessings and curses of the
    modern age -- rather than escaping those properly political dynamics in
    mindedness by means of recourse to "exact description". The highbrow
    object of derision, the "life of the seminar", that radix of intellection as provided through the feueilleton and other public amusements, this itself is not without its bearings upon the object of
    Lacan's allegory: European leftism *nach Auchwitz*, the lessons learned
    through sympathetic observation of "crazes" and rights reserved unto
    posterity as regards that fabric without discord within a grotesque of
    evanescence, which those of us without superlative vision have every
    right to expect from social life, and very few manage to do without.

    --
    Jeff Rubard
    opensentence.tripod.com
    Your guess is as good as mine
    "William Rasch?"
    I've heard of her!
    (No, Carl Schmitt was a guy. Someone who used to write about Schmitt.)
    Postscript: Maybe Talcott Parsons more than Kelsen? Maybe the United States more than your psychopathic dreamscape?
    ...then haters wouldn't give me salty looks about "lawry"!
    (You only call it that if you're rich, I think.)
    2022 Update: Less Carl Schmitt? Not sure. (Can you, like, not attack the US Capitol again?)

    There just is something to *Ordnung* and *Ortung*, like W3 thinks. However, Schmitt may have been just too "butterfingered" with the concepts of democratic politics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeffrey Rubard@21:1/5 to Jeffrey Rubard on Sun Jan 16 06:19:16 2022
    On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:35:07 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 4:45:34 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 11:48:58 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:54:39 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 8:58:33 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 11:43:01 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 3:06:29 PM UTC-7, Jeff Rubard wrote:
    Jeff Rubard wrote:
    The Other wrote:

    Remember Alan Wolfe's brain-damaged article on Carl Schmitt in _The
    Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back? It included a gratuitous
    smear of Paul Gottfried. Gottfried's response is now online. >>
    Interestingly, it turns out that Wolfe had earlier reviewed one of
    Gottfried's books for the _New Republic_ -- not Gottfried's >> intellectual biography of Schmitt, but nevertheless a book which
    included a critical discussion of Schmitt's work.

    Anyway, the _Chronicle_ didn't print Gottfried's letter, but it's at

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried58.html

    I was going to cut and paste excerpts, but the letter's only five
    paragraphs long, so just read it if you're interested in Carl Schmitt.
    Comments welcome, of course.


    Well, try this: as usual when discussing Schmitt, everything is packed
    but the squeal -- that is, Schmitt's *intended* audience (the Catholic
    intelligentsia) are excused from considering his anti-liberalism as a
    threatening political development. This is left to figures who use him
    as a means for gainsaying with respect to new *geopolitical* dynamics,
    an extremely problematic audience not easily characterized using the
    right-left dichotomy. If we add complicity with centuries of recrudescent modernity "for the nonce", considering the substance of his
    work not directly utilized by the Nazi regime becomes extremely
    difficult: as a professor of *Verfassungslehre* he truly is every bit to
    be respected, and very little of his work draws upon pre-existing
    cultural understandings not quite worthy of the name "ethnomethodology":
    he was intimately acquainted with the structure of the Caesarist
    republic and this is not without its uses, as *Junge Freiheit*'s
    appropriation perhaps most clearly suggests -- but this can also be seen
    in the relatively "deprivileged" status of his American admirers *Telos*
    and his appeal for the ultra-right of the Fifth Republic.

    But if we bypass the uses of Schmitt's texts for political education,
    this recent material distinguishes itself as resolutely *highbrow*: that
    is to say, the tendency of these criticisms of Schmitt is neither to
    work the removal of Schmittians from the scene *nor* to militate for a
    more principled republicanism, but to pose a "demarcation thesis"
    concerning Nazism and fascism which leaves such elements as are
    attracted to Schmitt the status of "excluded third" as regards
    totalitarian political movements. In such sentiments we have a rather
    pointedly Lacanian frame of mind, which is content to say "there is no
    international socialist movement" and let nature take its course as
    regards the degrees of freedom enjoyed within a given polity: that is to
    say, we have a movement towards prising him off Strauss and "postmodernizing" the latter, such that he serves as the bearer of a
    principle embodying an "uneconomic" attitude towards political life, the
    impossibility of political conflict having the mortal stakes Schmitt
    veritably eroticized -- but perhaps entirely too much happens in the
    political sphere for "politics without tears" to supplant *Kant avec
    Sade* as the *obiter dictum* of a psychological politics of resignation.

    By contrast, alternatives to a "genuine illiberalism" abide in just
    those features of political discourse which escape judgments of taste.
    Resignation as regards the "empirical" character of the psychological
    characterized Lacan's "return to Freud" in *refounding* psychological
    research in para-political discourse -- the blessings and curses of the
    modern age -- rather than escaping those properly political dynamics in
    mindedness by means of recourse to "exact description". The highbrow
    object of derision, the "life of the seminar", that radix of intellection as provided through the feueilleton and other public
    amusements, this itself is not without its bearings upon the object of
    Lacan's allegory: European leftism *nach Auchwitz*, the lessons learned
    through sympathetic observation of "crazes" and rights reserved unto
    posterity as regards that fabric without discord within a grotesque of
    evanescence, which those of us without superlative vision have every
    right to expect from social life, and very few manage to do without.

    --
    Jeff Rubard
    opensentence.tripod.com
    Your guess is as good as mine
    "William Rasch?"
    I've heard of her!
    (No, Carl Schmitt was a guy. Someone who used to write about Schmitt.)
    Postscript: Maybe Talcott Parsons more than Kelsen? Maybe the United States more than your psychopathic dreamscape?
    ...then haters wouldn't give me salty looks about "lawry"!
    (You only call it that if you're rich, I think.)
    2022 Update: Less Carl Schmitt? Not sure. (Can you, like, not attack the US Capitol again?)
    There just is something to *Ordnung* and *Ortung*, like W3 thinks. However, Schmitt may have been just too "butterfingered" with the concepts of democratic politics.

    *Political Romanticism* was a pretty telling book, too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeffrey Rubard@21:1/5 to Jeffrey Rubard on Tue Jan 18 06:40:15 2022
    On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 6:19:17 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 6:35:07 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 4:45:34 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 11:48:58 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:54:39 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 8:58:33 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Sunday, January 2, 2022 at 7:48:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 11:43:01 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 4, 2004 at 3:06:29 PM UTC-7, Jeff Rubard wrote:
    Jeff Rubard wrote:
    The Other wrote:

    Remember Alan Wolfe's brain-damaged article on Carl Schmitt in _The
    Chronicle of Higher Education_ a while back? It included a gratuitous
    smear of Paul Gottfried. Gottfried's response is now online.

    Interestingly, it turns out that Wolfe had earlier reviewed one of
    Gottfried's books for the _New Republic_ -- not Gottfried's
    intellectual biography of Schmitt, but nevertheless a book which
    included a critical discussion of Schmitt's work.

    Anyway, the _Chronicle_ didn't print Gottfried's letter, but it's at

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried58.html

    I was going to cut and paste excerpts, but the letter's only five
    paragraphs long, so just read it if you're interested in Carl Schmitt.
    Comments welcome, of course.


    Well, try this: as usual when discussing Schmitt, everything is packed
    but the squeal -- that is, Schmitt's *intended* audience (the Catholic
    intelligentsia) are excused from considering his anti-liberalism as a
    threatening political development. This is left to figures who use him
    as a means for gainsaying with respect to new *geopolitical* dynamics,
    an extremely problematic audience not easily characterized using the
    right-left dichotomy. If we add complicity with centuries of
    recrudescent modernity "for the nonce", considering the substance of his
    work not directly utilized by the Nazi regime becomes extremely
    difficult: as a professor of *Verfassungslehre* he truly is every bit to
    be respected, and very little of his work draws upon pre-existing
    cultural understandings not quite worthy of the name "ethnomethodology":
    he was intimately acquainted with the structure of the Caesarist
    republic and this is not without its uses, as *Junge Freiheit*'s
    appropriation perhaps most clearly suggests -- but this can also be seen
    in the relatively "deprivileged" status of his American admirers *Telos*
    and his appeal for the ultra-right of the Fifth Republic.

    But if we bypass the uses of Schmitt's texts for political education,
    this recent material distinguishes itself as resolutely *highbrow*: that
    is to say, the tendency of these criticisms of Schmitt is neither to
    work the removal of Schmittians from the scene *nor* to militate for a
    more principled republicanism, but to pose a "demarcation thesis"
    concerning Nazism and fascism which leaves such elements as are
    attracted to Schmitt the status of "excluded third" as regards
    totalitarian political movements. In such sentiments we have a rather
    pointedly Lacanian frame of mind, which is content to say "there is no
    international socialist movement" and let nature take its course as
    regards the degrees of freedom enjoyed within a given polity: that is to
    say, we have a movement towards prising him off Strauss and "postmodernizing" the latter, such that he serves as the bearer of a
    principle embodying an "uneconomic" attitude towards political life, the
    impossibility of political conflict having the mortal stakes Schmitt
    veritably eroticized -- but perhaps entirely too much happens in the
    political sphere for "politics without tears" to supplant *Kant avec
    Sade* as the *obiter dictum* of a psychological politics of resignation.

    By contrast, alternatives to a "genuine illiberalism" abide in just
    those features of political discourse which escape judgments of taste.
    Resignation as regards the "empirical" character of the psychological
    characterized Lacan's "return to Freud" in *refounding* psychological
    research in para-political discourse -- the blessings and curses of the
    modern age -- rather than escaping those properly political dynamics in
    mindedness by means of recourse to "exact description". The highbrow
    object of derision, the "life of the seminar", that radix of intellection as provided through the feueilleton and other public
    amusements, this itself is not without its bearings upon the object of
    Lacan's allegory: European leftism *nach Auchwitz*, the lessons learned
    through sympathetic observation of "crazes" and rights reserved unto
    posterity as regards that fabric without discord within a grotesque of
    evanescence, which those of us without superlative vision have every
    right to expect from social life, and very few manage to do without.

    --
    Jeff Rubard
    opensentence.tripod.com
    Your guess is as good as mine
    "William Rasch?"
    I've heard of her!
    (No, Carl Schmitt was a guy. Someone who used to write about Schmitt.)
    Postscript: Maybe Talcott Parsons more than Kelsen? Maybe the United States more than your psychopathic dreamscape?
    ...then haters wouldn't give me salty looks about "lawry"!
    (You only call it that if you're rich, I think.)
    2022 Update: Less Carl Schmitt? Not sure. (Can you, like, not attack the US Capitol again?)
    There just is something to *Ordnung* and *Ortung*, like W3 thinks. However, Schmitt may have been just too "butterfingered" with the concepts of democratic politics.
    *Political Romanticism* was a pretty telling book, too.

    2022 Update: John Calvin was not a political philosopher. (Why do phrases like "That is all." signify as they do?)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)