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?"

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!

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.)

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?

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.)

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?)

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.

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.

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.