Listen now | I. Opening and Brief Summary of Last Time II. Difficulties in Kant’s Preliminary Articles III. Kant on Why an Allied Federation of Republic is Superior to a One World State IV. Schmitt on how Liberalism Tries to Evade the Logic of the Political V. Schmitt on What is at Stake if the Political is Lost
In Kant’s writings, we find a belief in absolute progress from one age to another. Kant puts forward that it is not only possible but also inevitable that man will grow to be more conscious, rational and morally good as time goes on. This is what he calls the process of enlightenment. There is some evidence which points in that direction, especially since the Age of Enlightenment. Liberals of all stripes will point to the abolishment of slavery, the end of absolute monarchies, rights being granted to women, racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities as signs that this progress is taking place. This might seem like a one-sided, linear process, a conflict between the liberals/progressives and the conservatives/reactionaries, who are trying to roll back this objective progress of humanity.
What we see in that process is not the end of conflict and war, but instead a much more total and violent kind of war. Instead of having wars for territory or prestige, we have wars for human rights, tolerance and freedom. These wars are by their nature total wars, because they lay claim to universal principles of goodness. If one stands against this, they are less than human, they are devils in disguise, and any level of force is justifiable to end their reign of terror. Just look at the propaganda around WW1 and WW2, on both sides of the Cold War, in the Balkans, and in Iraq, Syria and Libya for examples. The fake stories about German soldiers crucifying civilians and bayoneting pregnant women in Belgium during WW1 are coming back in new forms every time the drums of war need to be beat. That’s what’s happened with international conflicts.
Let’s talk a little bit about internal politics, because I think that’s where you’ll find the greatest change in dynamics. We have seen an inexorable pressure towards the left, towards liberalism and progressivism which makes twenty years ago look like the middle ages in the eyes of some. How could gay marriage not have been legal? How could transgender surgeries not have been paid for by the state? How could children not have been taught about gender fluidity and other such things? It all seems like so long ago. If you stand against any of these, you are an intolerant bigot, you are a threat to the most vulnerable people in society. This is the message which is put out, and this is used to justify not only the end of freedom of speech, but also to take away your banking services, your job and potentially everything else as well, if the laws around “hate speech” become more draconian, which they are almost guaranteed to do. So this belief in absolute progress and the perfectibility of mankind has led to total war not only on the world stage, but inside our societies as well.
I don’t know where this is going to end up, but I can say for sure that the more we deny the political as an overt and central part of human relations, the more powerful it grows, and the more masked and insidious its influence becomes, so that most do not recognise it even as they have their lives destroyed by it. It’s time for us all to think about this deeply, and the assigned books are a great introduction to this dilemma.
Another great podcast, Brian. I was glad to have an excuse to read Carl Schmitt. I’ve heard him referenced often amongst right wing thinkers, but I had never got around to reading him. I’m in agreement with yourself and Mr. Sumpthing in being interested in Schmitt’s observation on how people confiscate the word humanity to deny this attribute from their enemies, and use their defense of humanity as a casus belli. “To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be the outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.” What makes this passage especially interesting to me is how prophetic it was, as a decade later all belligerent parties in World War 2 be declaring their rivals to be enemies of humanity, as they themselves engaged in various atrocities.
Schmitt’s concept of the political reminded me of the philosopher Rene Girard’s theories of scapegoating. To put it very roughly, Girard believes that communal violence is inevitable as groups of people solve their perceived problems by blaming these problems on a scapegoat group/person who they can inflict violence on. The victim can never be recognized as an innocent scapegoat, but instead must be viewed as a monstrous creature that committed such transgressions, that it deserves to be punished. The victim is accused of being the culprit of the community’s problem, and the belief is that only by eliminating them through violence will peace be restored. This strikes me as very similar to Schmitt’s recognition that the political inevitably calls their rivals as “enemies of humanity”, thus giving themselves permission to inflict brutal violence against this pariah.
The crux of my thoughts continue to float back to the distinction between the essence of being a human and the desire for civilizing ourselves. Civilization is a departure from nature. We ascend from our debased state to a higher place, but eventually we’ve strayed so far from nature that we need ask if we are still what we were born to be. This idea pertains both to mankind as a whole but also to us as individuals. We start as (debased!) babies and children, crude in our ways; we then hopefully gain skills and class and an understanding of virtues; but we are constantly at risk of pacifying ourselves and removing the essence of our humanity. How do we balance transcendence against corruption of our being?
Kant seems to suggest that we can transcend and that it is not only desirable but that we can control the direction towards noble ideals. There is a lack of appreciation that we may transcend into something worse. As I just finished reading some Houellebecq, I’m primed to believe that we have perhaps done just that.
In the first part of Dugin’s 4th Political Theory, he argues against a diachronic approach to history (past-present-future) and instead argues that Conservatives desire to “defend the invariability of man.” He states, “…steadiest are his dreams, his reveries, his wishes, the deep movements of his soul. Man is dynamic on the surface of his consciousness; in the depths, in his unconscious, he is static and lives outside of time”. Being is primary, time is secondary.
Elsewhere Dugin states (paraphrasing) “conservatives are not pacifists; war is our ontological root” and “Peace leads to decay. Pacifism is the WORST (it’s a reconciliation of grace with sin; condones debasement)” Both of these sentiments relate quite nicely to your discussion on Schmitt.
As this was my first introduction to Schmitt, I found it very persuasive. We’ve outsourced learning about virtues to Hollywood (movies like ‘Braveheart’ and 'The Patriot’). But these movies just mimic the depth of the raw emotion. Similarly, we’ve replaced deep loyalty to a People with loyalty to brands and teams. Brand loyalties are okay if they are subordinate to more profound loyalties, but now brands became paramount and they are very fake and very, very ghey.
An absence of war/conflict prevents access to both the heights of valor/honor and the depths of loss/tragedy. We’ve seemingly accepted that tradeoff and it has coincided with the rise of women outside the household. Speaking broadly, woman’s prioritization of safety has led to this Pacifism and its consequent debasement. Here’s to hoping that soon they will see their culture under attack and unleash their mother bear instincts.
In Kant’s writings, we find a belief in absolute progress from one age to another. Kant puts forward that it is not only possible but also inevitable that man will grow to be more conscious, rational and morally good as time goes on. This is what he calls the process of enlightenment. There is some evidence which points in that direction, especially since the Age of Enlightenment. Liberals of all stripes will point to the abolishment of slavery, the end of absolute monarchies, rights being granted to women, racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities as signs that this progress is taking place. This might seem like a one-sided, linear process, a conflict between the liberals/progressives and the conservatives/reactionaries, who are trying to roll back this objective progress of humanity.
What we see in that process is not the end of conflict and war, but instead a much more total and violent kind of war. Instead of having wars for territory or prestige, we have wars for human rights, tolerance and freedom. These wars are by their nature total wars, because they lay claim to universal principles of goodness. If one stands against this, they are less than human, they are devils in disguise, and any level of force is justifiable to end their reign of terror. Just look at the propaganda around WW1 and WW2, on both sides of the Cold War, in the Balkans, and in Iraq, Syria and Libya for examples. The fake stories about German soldiers crucifying civilians and bayoneting pregnant women in Belgium during WW1 are coming back in new forms every time the drums of war need to be beat. That’s what’s happened with international conflicts.
Let’s talk a little bit about internal politics, because I think that’s where you’ll find the greatest change in dynamics. We have seen an inexorable pressure towards the left, towards liberalism and progressivism which makes twenty years ago look like the middle ages in the eyes of some. How could gay marriage not have been legal? How could transgender surgeries not have been paid for by the state? How could children not have been taught about gender fluidity and other such things? It all seems like so long ago. If you stand against any of these, you are an intolerant bigot, you are a threat to the most vulnerable people in society. This is the message which is put out, and this is used to justify not only the end of freedom of speech, but also to take away your banking services, your job and potentially everything else as well, if the laws around “hate speech” become more draconian, which they are almost guaranteed to do. So this belief in absolute progress and the perfectibility of mankind has led to total war not only on the world stage, but inside our societies as well.
I don’t know where this is going to end up, but I can say for sure that the more we deny the political as an overt and central part of human relations, the more powerful it grows, and the more masked and insidious its influence becomes, so that most do not recognise it even as they have their lives destroyed by it. It’s time for us all to think about this deeply, and the assigned books are a great introduction to this dilemma.
Another great podcast, Brian. I was glad to have an excuse to read Carl Schmitt. I’ve heard him referenced often amongst right wing thinkers, but I had never got around to reading him. I’m in agreement with yourself and Mr. Sumpthing in being interested in Schmitt’s observation on how people confiscate the word humanity to deny this attribute from their enemies, and use their defense of humanity as a casus belli. “To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be the outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.” What makes this passage especially interesting to me is how prophetic it was, as a decade later all belligerent parties in World War 2 be declaring their rivals to be enemies of humanity, as they themselves engaged in various atrocities.
Schmitt’s concept of the political reminded me of the philosopher Rene Girard’s theories of scapegoating. To put it very roughly, Girard believes that communal violence is inevitable as groups of people solve their perceived problems by blaming these problems on a scapegoat group/person who they can inflict violence on. The victim can never be recognized as an innocent scapegoat, but instead must be viewed as a monstrous creature that committed such transgressions, that it deserves to be punished. The victim is accused of being the culprit of the community’s problem, and the belief is that only by eliminating them through violence will peace be restored. This strikes me as very similar to Schmitt’s recognition that the political inevitably calls their rivals as “enemies of humanity”, thus giving themselves permission to inflict brutal violence against this pariah.
Cerberus, another great lecture, thank you.
The crux of my thoughts continue to float back to the distinction between the essence of being a human and the desire for civilizing ourselves. Civilization is a departure from nature. We ascend from our debased state to a higher place, but eventually we’ve strayed so far from nature that we need ask if we are still what we were born to be. This idea pertains both to mankind as a whole but also to us as individuals. We start as (debased!) babies and children, crude in our ways; we then hopefully gain skills and class and an understanding of virtues; but we are constantly at risk of pacifying ourselves and removing the essence of our humanity. How do we balance transcendence against corruption of our being?
Kant seems to suggest that we can transcend and that it is not only desirable but that we can control the direction towards noble ideals. There is a lack of appreciation that we may transcend into something worse. As I just finished reading some Houellebecq, I’m primed to believe that we have perhaps done just that.
In the first part of Dugin’s 4th Political Theory, he argues against a diachronic approach to history (past-present-future) and instead argues that Conservatives desire to “defend the invariability of man.” He states, “…steadiest are his dreams, his reveries, his wishes, the deep movements of his soul. Man is dynamic on the surface of his consciousness; in the depths, in his unconscious, he is static and lives outside of time”. Being is primary, time is secondary.
Elsewhere Dugin states (paraphrasing) “conservatives are not pacifists; war is our ontological root” and “Peace leads to decay. Pacifism is the WORST (it’s a reconciliation of grace with sin; condones debasement)” Both of these sentiments relate quite nicely to your discussion on Schmitt.
As this was my first introduction to Schmitt, I found it very persuasive. We’ve outsourced learning about virtues to Hollywood (movies like ‘Braveheart’ and 'The Patriot’). But these movies just mimic the depth of the raw emotion. Similarly, we’ve replaced deep loyalty to a People with loyalty to brands and teams. Brand loyalties are okay if they are subordinate to more profound loyalties, but now brands became paramount and they are very fake and very, very ghey.
An absence of war/conflict prevents access to both the heights of valor/honor and the depths of loss/tragedy. We’ve seemingly accepted that tradeoff and it has coincided with the rise of women outside the household. Speaking broadly, woman’s prioritization of safety has led to this Pacifism and its consequent debasement. Here’s to hoping that soon they will see their culture under attack and unleash their mother bear instincts.