Your article is so silly. The DEM / LEFT would easily be ruling in America if they hadn't gone for the Open Borders insanity pushed by their ruling class DONORS!
I think it was Katie Herzog on Blocked and Reported who said the only common throughline for maga is just “own the libs”. They have no principles and barely even push policy discussions, it’s just owning the libs for them.
She’s completely right but with your article it’s really that they want to “hurt the libs”, they get off on the suffering and yeah cruelty is ironically now the only principle maga has left aside from bootlicking Trump.
Like I know so many guys who watch these “when men fight back” compilations of a blue haired woman maybe pushing a man only for the man to lose control and knock her out and meanwhile that guy is watching with this sadistic glee to see a leftist white woman getting punched in the face. (Not saying it’s okay for women to attack men but there is a difference between having that type of content pop up in your feed randomly rather than actively seeking it out because you get this underlying sexist-sadistic satisfaction at seeing a woman get flatlined).
Where did you EVER see MAGA celebrating a woman being punched in the face by a man? I guarantee you haven't. I've personally been horrified many times by the number of comments perfectly ok with this act and they pretty much ALL tend to be under 30 yrs old and Democrat voters.
Firstly, I’ve seen it tons of times. Second, I just looked at your post history and it’s clear you’d be one of those guys with comments you’ve made towards liberal women.
Third and most importantly, it’s clear you’re absorbed into every maga brainrot conspiracy and engaging with you is not serious. The more I read your comments I’m convinced you’re a Russian bot.
"What couldn’t be justified in a world where these “unhumans” are your imagined opponents?"
The funny thing is, and perhaps this was intentional on your part, is that this very question was central to Schmitt's thinking, and he spends a large portion of "The Concept of the Political" explaining why universalistic dogmas are dangerous. He says that the reason is that, when people believe have universalistic views, anyone opposed to these universalistic views becomes the enemy of all of humanity. "And what means would not be justified in defeating the enemy of all humanity?"
It's hilarious to me that Schmitt has become a rallying figure for so many chuds. He was deeply conservative, and his friend-enemy distinction was not, as many seem to believe, an endorsement of the idea that you should have a lot of enemies, but a warning about the dangers of living in a world defined by conflict between people groups.
Reading "Concept" as an endorsement as the distinction would be like reading "Leviathan" as an endorsement of the state of nature. His entire thing is coming up with ways to mediate the distinction. He grew up as a Catholic in a majority Protestant village. He dedicated "Concept" to a close friend who died in WW1 and, in the essay, declared that war is a fraud. Throughout his professorial career, he was harassed by campus Nazis! This guy wasn't stupid! The problem is his so-called fans.
Don't think it's fair to use liberal vs. non-liberal as the fault line. The segment of the right that still has some connection with the base and that's the most critical of the direction you're describing is the religious right, not libertarians who outside of think tanks are gun nuts and sovereign citizens. By religious right I'm referring to those whose conservatism is an outgrowth of their genuine devotion, not to those who use Christian imagery and identity as an aesthetic for their politics. People like Trent Horn, Joel Berry, Ridvan Aydemir, Lila Rose, and so on might still be immigration hawks, but they aren't white nationalists and they also aren't liberals even under your broad definition. They think the Enlightenment had many negative consequences, as seen in its culmination under Robbespierre, and want comprehensive doctrines to be allowed to inform law and policy.
On a side note Schmitt's ideas have been wildly misinterpreted as they've become more popular. Schmitt thought the left-right distinction within a parliamentary democracy didn't qualify for the friend-enemy distinction since both sides are still friends (hence the term loyal opposition). Left-right issues in a liberal democratic context according to him are merely managerial-technical disagreements, not political ones. So when rightists claim it's not Schmittian to have internal dissension, they haven't read Schmitt.
President Trump absolutely did not "send ICE into Minnesota to harass members of the public" is how I think you put it. Both shootings you mentioned were by ICE officers attempting to perform targeted arrests (I know at least 1 of the 2 was a child predator) and Leftists thought it was a good idea to interfere and assault officers. I'd love to hear your reasoning on why Charlie Kirk was "evil" and can understand why people are celebrating his murder! Please answer then go back to being the morally superior being you claim to be.
Your article is so silly. The DEM / LEFT would easily be ruling in America if they hadn't gone for the Open Borders insanity pushed by their ruling class DONORS!
I think it was Katie Herzog on Blocked and Reported who said the only common throughline for maga is just “own the libs”. They have no principles and barely even push policy discussions, it’s just owning the libs for them.
She’s completely right but with your article it’s really that they want to “hurt the libs”, they get off on the suffering and yeah cruelty is ironically now the only principle maga has left aside from bootlicking Trump.
Like I know so many guys who watch these “when men fight back” compilations of a blue haired woman maybe pushing a man only for the man to lose control and knock her out and meanwhile that guy is watching with this sadistic glee to see a leftist white woman getting punched in the face. (Not saying it’s okay for women to attack men but there is a difference between having that type of content pop up in your feed randomly rather than actively seeking it out because you get this underlying sexist-sadistic satisfaction at seeing a woman get flatlined).
Where did you EVER see MAGA celebrating a woman being punched in the face by a man? I guarantee you haven't. I've personally been horrified many times by the number of comments perfectly ok with this act and they pretty much ALL tend to be under 30 yrs old and Democrat voters.
Firstly, I’ve seen it tons of times. Second, I just looked at your post history and it’s clear you’d be one of those guys with comments you’ve made towards liberal women.
Third and most importantly, it’s clear you’re absorbed into every maga brainrot conspiracy and engaging with you is not serious. The more I read your comments I’m convinced you’re a Russian bot.
Good article, but it might have been better if youd have realised all this before voting for him in 2024. I knew all of this and I'm in the UK.
"What couldn’t be justified in a world where these “unhumans” are your imagined opponents?"
The funny thing is, and perhaps this was intentional on your part, is that this very question was central to Schmitt's thinking, and he spends a large portion of "The Concept of the Political" explaining why universalistic dogmas are dangerous. He says that the reason is that, when people believe have universalistic views, anyone opposed to these universalistic views becomes the enemy of all of humanity. "And what means would not be justified in defeating the enemy of all humanity?"
It's hilarious to me that Schmitt has become a rallying figure for so many chuds. He was deeply conservative, and his friend-enemy distinction was not, as many seem to believe, an endorsement of the idea that you should have a lot of enemies, but a warning about the dangers of living in a world defined by conflict between people groups.
Reading "Concept" as an endorsement as the distinction would be like reading "Leviathan" as an endorsement of the state of nature. His entire thing is coming up with ways to mediate the distinction. He grew up as a Catholic in a majority Protestant village. He dedicated "Concept" to a close friend who died in WW1 and, in the essay, declared that war is a fraud. Throughout his professorial career, he was harassed by campus Nazis! This guy wasn't stupid! The problem is his so-called fans.
Don't think it's fair to use liberal vs. non-liberal as the fault line. The segment of the right that still has some connection with the base and that's the most critical of the direction you're describing is the religious right, not libertarians who outside of think tanks are gun nuts and sovereign citizens. By religious right I'm referring to those whose conservatism is an outgrowth of their genuine devotion, not to those who use Christian imagery and identity as an aesthetic for their politics. People like Trent Horn, Joel Berry, Ridvan Aydemir, Lila Rose, and so on might still be immigration hawks, but they aren't white nationalists and they also aren't liberals even under your broad definition. They think the Enlightenment had many negative consequences, as seen in its culmination under Robbespierre, and want comprehensive doctrines to be allowed to inform law and policy.
On a side note Schmitt's ideas have been wildly misinterpreted as they've become more popular. Schmitt thought the left-right distinction within a parliamentary democracy didn't qualify for the friend-enemy distinction since both sides are still friends (hence the term loyal opposition). Left-right issues in a liberal democratic context according to him are merely managerial-technical disagreements, not political ones. So when rightists claim it's not Schmittian to have internal dissension, they haven't read Schmitt.
President Trump absolutely did not "send ICE into Minnesota to harass members of the public" is how I think you put it. Both shootings you mentioned were by ICE officers attempting to perform targeted arrests (I know at least 1 of the 2 was a child predator) and Leftists thought it was a good idea to interfere and assault officers. I'd love to hear your reasoning on why Charlie Kirk was "evil" and can understand why people are celebrating his murder! Please answer then go back to being the morally superior being you claim to be.
We saw the videos and they were murders