Party Like The Third Reich

Dear Followers,


"I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few"

-Adolf Hitler

For everyone reading this post let me make some clarifications here. I am not a Nazi. I do not support the mass extermination of the Jewish people. I do not support a totalitarian system of control. Now that everybody knows that, let us proceed.

Today I will be talking about how the work of Carl Schmitt shares parallels with that of Noam Chomsky. I know, he was a Nazi, but that does not make his ideas any less valid. I implore those of you who are reading this to look beyond what is on face and try to evaluate the arguments.

http://www.louizaodysseos.org.uk/resources/LJIL+intro.pdf

Here is a link to a book written by Odysseos, Louiza and Petito, and Fabio named "Introducing the International Theory of Carl Schmitt," the most comprehensive analysis of his work. To sum up his thesis, Schmitt criticizes liberal democracies and how they view the world.

Schmitt and Heidegger in one place. What a dynamic philosophical duo.

How could this relate to the work of Noam Chomsky, a respected linguistic who lives in the world's foremost democratic nation? In trying to find a link between his work in linguistics and politics, Noam Chomsky makes a comment about democracies. Chomsky notes how the foundation of a democracy is the consent of the governed. Today, modern democracies like the United States have adopted a system of "manufacturing consent" in the people through a synthesis of information control and the mass media. In other words, a democracy uses media corporations to change the way people view and come about the world (the epistemology of the masses) in a form of "subtle coercion."


The roots of this argument can be seen from the foundation of this country. The Founding Fathers were men of distinction who recognized that democracy is not appropriate for the ignorant masses, and thus a system of control is necessary for the common good. They noted that man followed not reason but faith. Whereas in totalitarian societies this control is visible and usually through forms of violence, in democratic societies this control is invisible, and that is what makes this control so dangerous.


Que in Schmitt. Schmitt founds his thesis on the idea that the friend-enemy dichotomy, or distinction, is an outgrowth of the political. This dichotomy is inevitable because the formation of dichotomies is key to the formation of the self. In other words, humans can only have an identity when juxtaposed against something else. Because these dichotomies are inevitable, violence is inevitable because in a world of distinction there will always be skirmishes between groups as they contend for power.


What the liberal democracy does is destroy the friend-enemy dichotomy. Democracy seeks to control an inherently violent world in seeking a uniform peace which leads to more violence. How? By destroying the friend-enemy dichotomy we reduce our enemies to ideas. You cannot win a war against an idea. Notice how the US frames our current military involvement in the Middle East. We have sent our troops in under "Operation Freedom" to fight "terrorists" and "radicalism." What the heck is a terrorist?


When we reduce our enemies to moral enemies, they become the representation of everything we stand for. There is not place for an enemy in the world order that is an affront to the ideals and values your country prioritizes. The only option is to completely annihilate the enemy, there is no room for any exception. On the other hand, the friend-enemy distinction reduces conflict in two ways. First, when we know who are friends are we reduce the amount of groups that we are in conflict with. Second, when we recognize a real enemy, we respect the enemy by treating them as an equal, a state. This sense of respect prevents dehumanization and mass atrocity.


To extend on Chomsky's argument, the media shapes the way the sovereign (the collective United States) views the world. When liberal democracies portray our enemies as such, that is all the sovereign comes to know about our enemies. The sovereign has the power to overcome the natural democratic reluctance to go to war. In the US in particular, the sovereign has the power to overcome the War Powers Act and Patriot Act in this manner. Take for example Bush's decision to blame 9/11 on the idea of the "terrorist," invoking the sovereign and leading to the conflict in Afghanistan.


I will end my commentary here to allow you to digest these thoughts and keep this post short.


Never Stop Asking Questions,
Noel