Panagiotis (Panajotis) Kondylis (Παναγιώτης Κονδύλης) - Carl Schmitt's 'Political Theology'

"But from Kelsen’s perspective, jurisprudence, i.e. legal science, can 

achieve such systematic cohesion only because it – like every other science

too – represents and constitutes a fiction, i.e. it moves at the level of 

ideational magnitudes, at that (level) of discontinuities, and the incessant, 

unremitting, unforeseen fluctuations of living human reality must be 

shoved aside in order to make room for the regularities and the 

generalisations, which alone allow the building of systematic science – and

there cannot be another science. That is why the putting first of the 

general and of the regular constitutes an epistemological necessity, and it

says nothing about the way and manner one assesses the specific weight of

the exception and of the state of emergency inside of the empirical reality

of social-political life."  

   "And indeed: in the attempt to support parliamentary democracy by means of scientific (that is not merely ethical or political) arguments, Kelsen made the same logical mistakes which he himself uncovered so astutely when he combated the teaching of natural law. At its core, his argumentation regarding this coincides with the theses which Popper popularised after the Second World War: value-free (axiologically free) science shows the relativity of values, and the ascertainment of this relativity calls, for its part, for a willingness or inspires a preparedness to renounce, forego and to abstain from struggles over ultimate world-theoretical questions, and through that consolidates mutual respect and tolerance; relativism and scepticism would hence constitute the ideological foundations of modern parliamentary democracy. The way I think, this syllogistic reasoning is not as perspicuous and self-evident as it appears. The value-free way of looking at things (or: Axiological freedom) itself ceases to be value-free (axiologically free), when it holds value freedom (axiological freedom) to be a value with morally (ethically) beneficial effects. If value freedom (axiological freedom) could be characterised at all as a value, then this would be possible only in the methodical, i.e. methodological (not ethical) sense, and only with regard to the activity of science – of course, if and in so far it can be empirically demonstrated that value-free (axiologically free) science is cognitively the most fertile science. Leaving aside that value-free (axiologically free) scientific activity makes up neither quantitatively nor qualitatively an influential area (or weighty sector) of social life, the transference of a methodic (methodological) principle from the level of the observation of society to the level of society or social life itself remains logically highly precarious. Because whilst this principle at the first-named level [[of science]] can successfully be actuated or act only in its method(olog)ical purity, i.e. irrespective of its chance (contingent) mixing with psychological factors, at the level of society, it is no longer reckoned or anticipated to act with such a purely method(olog)ical usage or in the same way (since one cannot expect that humans en masse will heed a principle from which absolutely no instruction as regards behaviour can be deduced or derived), but it is hoped that value (axiological) freedom will have an effect and act through its probable psychological consequences. Present here is a logically inadmissible or impermissible transition from the methodical, i.e. methodological, to the psychological, that is to say, from the genus of (methodo)logical to the genus of psychological magnitudes. Nonetheless, a correlation of methodical/methodological or logical, and, psychological magnitudes with each other could be effected and or managed only if the former were originally and always charged or loaded with certain contents, which for their part would correspond with certain psychological attitudes. But whereas the psychological and moral (ethical) stances, of necessity, are connected with certain content(s), which are turned against other content(s) (e.g. tolerance against intolerance), value freedom represents a method, which must be free of a certain psychological content exactly because it raises or makes the claim of being able to – in terms of understanding and alternately – make its own or appropriate all psychological and all moral contents (or: axiological freedom constitutes a method empty of certain content, precisely because it has the ambition to approach in terms of comprehension all the psychological and all the ethical contents). On the basis of the principle of value (axiological) freedom it cannot be decided whether scepticism and tolerance are to be preferred in regard to blind, unshakeable and intolerant belief or faith. Still more: at the level of the value-free (axiologically free) observer, scepticism and relativism crop up even then – or even more so then –, when opposing or inimical social groups, which make up the object of the value-free way of looking at things (or: axiologically free consideration), very firmly, absolutely believe in their own truth on each and every respective occasion (or: each and every side on its own behalf), and display the corresponding intolerance; but at the level of socially active subjects, whose psychological stances are supposed – as it is said – to support the functioning of parliamentary democracy, these same subjects themselves, and not merely their value-free (axiologically free) observer, would have to regard their own views and world-theoretical stances as relative or just as good and right as those of every other person. Such a state of affairs is, however, psychologically and sociologically highly unlikely (or: It is not probable that something like that will happen). And it is two entirely different things whether every individual holds his own views to be relative, or whether people all together believe in the socially sanctioned ideology of tolerance and of (moderate, it goes without saying) scepticism. This means: to the extent tolerance and scepticism prevail and predominate socially, they do that (or: they are imposed) not because certain scientific positions are gradually internalised by (or: permeate, saturate and soak degree-by-degree/gradually) the members of society, but because they constitute new ideologies which were spread and disseminated on the basis of the same mass-psychological laws, and determine action, like the earlier or opposing ideologies too. Nonetheless, when the corroding, undermining and subverting inner logic of scepticism surpasses and outstrips its socially acceptable functions, and the calling into question of the objective (continued) existence of values goes beyond and exceeds the socially bearable (tolerable and endurable) boundaries, new values are summoned, in reference and as to which every doubt is made a taboo and prohibited, and which, as we said at the outset interrelate and mesh/engage with ultimate anthropological assertions and justifications (“human rights”, “human dignity”). The sociological analysis of the network “scepticism – tolerance”, as well as the values which have an effect by supplementing or by compensating, can show that it is a matter here of complementary aspects of a many-sided ideology, which is interwoven with the overall internal organisation of the mass-democratic social formation. If this organisation in regard to its foundations were to be convulsed and shaken, then one would in vain reckon in relation to that, or expect that, scepticism and relativism could in themselves continue to guarantee the social application of the principle of tolerance (or: reckon on or expect the perpetuation of socially accepted scepticism as the ideational foundation of tolerance)."

[[Re: "Readers' Page" and Schmitt being aware in The Concept of the Political of Friend-Foe existing beyond the political being confined to the operations of the state and government. It's referred to in this article explicitly! One of Schmitt's problems though is that he does use this awareness to adequately and convincingly deal with the exception, including by equating politics with the state and thus ignoring the fact that the political and power are active beyond the state and government, and are explainable by sociology (e.g. as in the case of GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE ZIO(-LOBOTOMISED) input into the running of ZIO-USA and its satellite states such as the UK, France and Australia - I ADD).]]

[[The error of reducing the political to the state - which was made by at least one of the speakers(-Retards) I refer to on my "Readers' Page" re: the YouTube videos -, is something P.K. deals with re: the decision and Schmitt in this article.]]

[[READ THIS RETARDED "REVIEWERS, INTERPRETERS, COMMENTATORS AND GOD ONLY KNOWS WHAT ELSE"! IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THEN DON'T FUCKING TALK ABOUT IT AT FUCKING ALL - UNLESS YOU WANT TO ENGAGE IN THE DELIBERATE SPREADING OF MISINFORMATION, IN PARTICULAR IF YOU BELONG TO A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAS HISTORICALLY PROVEN VERY, VERY, VERY ADROIT AT DOING THAT KIND OF THING, EVEN THOUGH ALL PEOPLES DO IT. SO LEARN TO SHUT THE FUCK UP IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND WANT TO BE KNOWN AS A "SERIOUS" SCHOLAR!!!]]

"– On this point, it can of course be questioned whether the structural 

correspondence of theological and profane (secular) concepts in 

themselves can be derived from the systematic superiority of the former, 

or whether such structural correspondence is due to the common origin of

both from underlying thought structures grown together and knitted 

with 

anthropological and cultural

constants; 

were this the case, the truth, and were e.g. the distinction between a From

Here (i.e. This World or Life) and a From There (i.e. That World or Life),

looked at as, and given, a conceptual structure, already with belief (faith)

in the meaning of human life (regardless of the theological or non-

theological justifications or rationalisations), then the priority of 

theological thought vis-à-vis the secularised thought of the New Times 

could be characterised as merely a chronological priority. Yet the 

discussion and investigation of such a question, whose mere formulation, 

incidentally, surpasses Schmitt’s thought horizon, would take us far." 

[[= See Power and Decision (incl. in the light of The Political and Man).]] 

[[The main reason why there is no such thing as a simple, general or

even "universal" identification of causality and causation in the 

development of the West as a capitalistic-parliamentary West, is that the

centuries long development of this West (which on one view is now

already dead even though it may not seem that way yet), - apart from 

taking a very long time -, has many different causal chains operating

simultaneously and in all manner of interactions and interrelations. One

of these causal chains includes the "evolution" of sovereignty and the

operation of the law and of the state. But such a social phenomenon, like

all social phenomena, is theoretically-conceptually abstracted from the

vast complexity and multiformity of reality, to give us an image/idea of 

that one historically developing causal phenomenon. One, however,

should always avoid REDUCTIONISM where or rather from the point

where the many causal chains cannot be separated, unless one intends to

engage in a particular normative programme such as in Militant

Atomising Feminism-Homosexualism, or the Extermination of a

particular ethnic group as e.g. Turks did to Armenians, Greeks et al.. The

social phenomena during the development of the West starting from

about the 13th to 15th centuries are many: from Mercantilism and Usury-

Banking-Finance (GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE JEWISH 

INVOLVEMENT), to the Renaissance and Colonialism and Imperialism, 

to Protestantism, to Bourgeois-Liberalism and the Industrial Revolution

to Mass Democracy and Corporations (GROSSLY 

DISPROPORTIONATE ELITE-LEVEL JEWISH INVOLVEMENT)

along with all the attendant Secularisation, Urbanisation, Massification, 

Atomisation, Hedonisation, FeminoFaggotisation, FULL-SPECTRUM

ZIO-USA-LOBOTOMISATION,... all of which and much much 

much more occurred at different points to varying degrees during the

long historical multi-layered and multi-level course of arriving at today's

ZIO-GLOBALISING AUTO-GENOCIDING of historically white 

nations,whilst apparently Israel is "special" with FULLY SHUT ZIO-

BORDERS refusing to be "enriched" and "dieversified" by say six (6)

million beautiful and intelligent Black Africans and or Mohammedans, 

etc., etc., etc.. ]]

"The concept of sovereignty acquires a diametrically opposed 

sense in the New Times. The centre of gravity, i.e. main 

focus, shifts from the protection and safeguarding (preservation) of right-

etc.-law, to the creation of right-etc.-law, i.e. from executive and judicial 

to legislative activity, which increasingly appears to be the lever for the 

changing of society (or: and indeed to the changing of society through 

legislation). Right-etc.-law ceases to be god-given and unchanging, and is 

comprehended as an exclusive product of a sovereign will, which not once

makes a halt (stops) even before the fundamental norm of the

constitution (polity). The state can, accordingly, be manufactured just like

a machine: in Hobbes, this conviction is found next to a clear confession 

of faith in the new-times concept of sovereignty, and the interrelation is 

obvious."

[[More P.K. historical-sociological succinct, to-the-point, explanatory

magic. As mentioned above, the process or "evolution" leading to where

we are today with the absolutely GROSS OVER-REPRESENTATION of 

Jews at elite-level (it is really DISGUSTING (almost vomit-inducing) as a

subjective matter of Taste - that thing with the Satan-Book actually looks

like SATAN's rectum, and that "Face of Globalisation", looks worse than

one of SATAN's turds put through a ZIO-BLENDER),... took place over

centuries and at many different levels and in many different ways... this 

paragraph highlights the aspect of importance in the current article.]]

   "We now comprehend without difficulty why conservatives and counter-revolutionaries before and after 1789 saw in the new-times teaching of sovereignty, a genuinely revolutionary ideology, irrespective of whether its bearer was an enlightened despot, who through state centralisation, smashed and broke up the feudal centres of power, or whether a liberal-democratic parliament continued and completed the work of absolutism. Against the modern voluntaristic concept of sovereignty, the counter-revolutionaries summon the traditional concept of sovereignty, and when they demand the dynamic intervention of the monarch against the revolutionary forces, they then connect with this demand entirely different representations and expectations than those which for instance Hobbes connected with his sovereign. They do not want, therefore, to allow the sovereign a free hand in the legislature, which could turn even against the privileges of the nobility, but – according to the medieval perception – want to equip him (the sovereign) with sufficient executive and judicial powers in order to exorcise the revolutionary danger, if need be with dictatorial means. Their high rhetorical tones and their emotional, dramatic (emphatic) explanations in favour of the sovereignty of the (counter-revolutionary) monarch and against the sovereignty of the liberally or democratically minded legislature, ought not to mislead or blind us as to the concrete content, which they ascribe to the “good” concept of sovereignty, in contrast to the “bad” concept of sovereignty. Incidentally, de Maistre(’s) and Donoso’s statements on this critical point are more than lucid, and simply summarise the traditional perception of sovereignty, as it had been formed already in the Middle Ages[1]. Recourse to the distant past was no mere Donquichotterie (knight errantry, quixotism), rather it suggested that the enmity of the counter-revolutionaries against liberalism and democracy implied an across-the-board rejection of the New Times."

[[Of great historical and comparative interest is the absolutist(-proto-) 

bourgeois-liberal Hobbesian social-contract Fiction of pactum societatis 

and pactum subiectionis coinciding, in contrast to the Fiction of the

Middle Ages with it's divine/natural law and "vested" privileges, and

the Fiction of Western mass democracy with its "civil rights, everyone is

equal and the same" Fiction or Bullshit, through which e.g. elite-level

Jews, who "took the lead in fighting for civil rights", can divide and rule,

divide and conquer society - as least GROSSLY  OR HIGHLY

DISPROPORTIONATELY - and even if not by possessing and wielding 

even a majority of the dominance -, along of course with their non-Jew

allies, who tend to make up the majority of the elites when looking at 

aggregate numbers,... in obtaining and wielding

GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE forms of Power, as it "just happens", 

but as it actually happens through Primitive Secret Society Networking, 

which of course other groups can and do do throughout all of history, 

whilst maintaining and propagating the absolute "ZIO"-LIE that

"everyone is equal and the same and interchangeable etc.", but Israel

"must" have FULLY SEALED BORDERS through which not even half

of one quarter of a mosquito can pass - and you're telling me there is no

such thing as FULL-SPECTRUM ZIO-LOBOTOMISATION? Well done,

10 points to you, and have a Prize. You'll feel really good receiving it.]]

[[There is another brilliant comparison by P.K. between de Maistre and

Donoso vis-à-vis the revolutionary communists of the 20th century.]]

[[There is no such thing as a human being without some kind of reference 

to collective social relations (a group or groups) and without some kind of

identity, unless that individual exists without orientating himself in the 

social world. There is absolutely nothing to debate here, facts are facts 

and these facts are absolutely universal you ABSOLUTELY DUMB 

FUCKING ZIO-LOBOTOMISED RETARD, pushing the "only 

individuals exist" ideology because you are essentially a ZIO-F???ot 

sucking ZIO-???? WHY THE FUCK DOES NOT ISRAEL OPEN ITS 

BORDERS FULLY TO SIX (6) MILLION BLACK AFRICANS AND

OR MOHAMMEDANS BECAUSE THOSE SIX (6) MILLION

COULD PERFECTLY REPLACE - SINCE ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL

AND THE SAME AND INTERCHANGEABLE - THOSE LOST IN THE

20TH CENTURY "HOLOCAUST" - AS IF MORE THAN 200 

MILLION OTHERS WERE NOT "HOLOCAUSTED" OUT OF 

EXISTENCE IN THE 20TH CENTURY, YOU ABSOLUTELY, FILTHY 

AND TOTALLY DISGUSTING ANIMALS?]]

[[You now need to listen to this and understand your place in the world, 

DUMB FUCKING RETARD!!! (Don't worry, I'm a Dumb Fucking 

RETARD too - the difference between you and me is that I know it!) And

don't ever forget, if you don't know what the fuck you are talking about - 

don't fucking talk, SHUT THE FUCK UP - especially if you are one of 

them!!!]]