Carl Schmitt, Tomislav Sunic and "the myth of Democracy"

[Thomas777]

Well worth reading: http://mathaba.net/news/?x=554091

[Roland]

Thanks for the article. I liked his citation of Evola's equivalent understanding of dictatorship in Rome. However, I don't understand why he employs Yockey to back up Schmitt's arguments, since Yockey plagiarized all of Schmitt's early work.

The author does a fair job of employing Schmitt in his endeavor here, but I have a couple of objections.

If we are to take Schmitt's definition of democracy on board, we can see that immigration - massive non-white immigration - threatens American democracy.

This is a misreading of Schmitt. Schmitt did argue that democracy was only an organizational form, and that democracy presupposes homogeneity, but he didn't believe that a liberal democracy, such as American democracy, could be "threatened". Schmitt understood that political democracy (i.e., decisive democracy, not passive) only existed in fleeting moments, and that the concept of democracy was therefore almost never a concrete reality - especially in America.

That Schmitt's concept of homogeneity was racially nonexclusive is already acknowledged by the author, and since American identity is essentially pluralistic, his conclusion does not follow. Only the influx of non-pluralistic identities - such as the influx of WNs, BNs, anti-liberal Muslims or Mexican Nationalists, threatens American homogeneity - at least in theory.

Schmitt's critique of a "pluralistic" identity destroys this theory, but in so doing, destroys the concept of American democracy.

After that, Schmitt became a convinced National Socialist and joined the party, now believing that the NSDAP could elevate Germany above democratic, mass-politics and strengthen the German State, which represented the best interests of the German people.

This is false. Schmitt was a radical conservative and was therefore servile to any regime he lived under; nevertheless, only through the aid of Göring
was Schmitt saved from the concentration camp (source: Joseph Bendersky "The Expendable Kronjurist: Carl Schmitt and National Socialism, 1933-36.") Schmitt's reluctance to accept the vulgarities of National Socialist ideology, coupled with his previous attempts to ban the Nazi party and his pre-reich affiliation with Jewish intellectuals, precluded him from becoming a convinced Nazi, or convincing Nazis of his commitment to "the movement".

[Petr]

However, I don't understand why he employs Yockey to back up Schmitt's arguments, since Yockey plagiarized all of Schmitt's early work.
Really?


Petr

[Roland]

Really?


Petr
Really. I have only documented his plagiarism of The Concept of the Political, but after reading the rest of Schmitt's works in English, I now know Yockey plagiarized other early works by Schmitt.

So much for that inane old-wives' tale about Yockey writing Imperium "without notes".

I am at work, so I don't have access to my copy of Imperium, or Schmitt's books, but I have an old PM that I sent to Ixabert when he inquired about my accusation. However, it doesn't take close scholarly insight to recognize the implausability of Yockey, independently in 1950, coming up with a concept of the political in which the friend-enemy antithesis is the defining character thereof.

Here is the pm:

Evidence of Plagiarism:

Firstly, he presents Schmitt's The Concept of the Political in its entirety. At most points he paraphrases, however, in some instances he copies, word-for-word, outright. The fact that Schmitt's book had not been translated into English with footnotes explains why Yockey was able to harvest them for his book and get away with the dishonest, unscholarly act.

I've transcribed just a few passages here, but I can assure you that there are many, many more.

Compare Schmitt's footnote on Clausewitz:


War has its own grammar (i.e., special military-technical laws), but politics remains its brain. It does not have its own logic. This can only be derived from the friend-and-enemy concept...
with


Fighting has its own strategic and tactical grammar...War does not have however a motivation of its own - this is supplied by politics

Compare Schmitt's general text from the same page


A British diplomat correctly stated in this context that the politician is better schooled for the battle than the soldier, because the politician fights his whole life whereas the soldier does so in exceptional circumstances only.

with Yockey's statement from his corresponding page


It was insight into this interrelationship that prompted an English diplomat to say that a politician was better trained for fighting than the soldier, for he fights continually and the soldier only occasionally.

I can go on, and on. Yockey, a professed opponent of the Nuremberg trials, failed to even give credence to Schmitt, a man victimized and interrogated at Nuremberg. Yockey was a hack; it is clear that careerism, and not political passion, fueled such a dishonest act. He knew that Schmitt would probably never be published in English in the post-ww2 era.

Sources:

The Concept of the Political. Schmitt, Carl 1932. University of Chicago Press 1996.

Imperium. Yockey, Francis 1948. Noontide Press 1962

[Petr]

So much for that inane old-wives' tale about Yockey writing Imperium "without notes".

Yockey was a hack;
As was Revilo P. Oliver, who apparently started the urban legend you described:


It was late 1947 when Yockey returned to Europe. He sought out a quiet inn at Brittas Bay, Ireland. Isolated, he struggled to begin. Finally, he started to write, and in six months -- working entirely without notes -- Francis Parker Yockey completed Imperium.

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Imperium_intro.html


Petr

[Thomas777]

Thanks for weighing in with your insights, Roland.

I am not a dogmatic Yockey accolyte by any means, but I think that its important to acknowledge that much of the "Yockey myth" RE: Yockey as "brilliant, inspired ideologue" was perpetuated post-mortem by Willis Carto. Kevin Coogan makes this point in the Yockey biography.

I think it should also be acknowledged that Yockey was attempting to create some sort of meaningful dialectic of National Socialism, beyond mere amorphous, bastardized Hegelianism and anti-rational racialism.

I have speculated that "Imperium" was written with an eye for mass distribution, although that may seem peculiar considering its lack of brevity, clairty, and tangibility. However, when we consider the eccentricities of the author, I think that it becomes increasingly clear that Yockey did in fact believe that introducing his peculiar amalgamation of Continental theory into the post-War intellectual milieu would prompt a shift in discourse away from the binary proposition of political-capitalism vs. imperial-communism.

Was "Imperium" a work of plagarism? In some senses, yes. However, the implications of that are mitigated when we address the author's motives.

[Roland]

Excellent points. Regardless of the faults of Imperium, I still credit it with introducing me to the ideas of early 20th century continental conservatism.