Carl Schmitt 101 is rooted in an insight by Thomas Hobbes who wrote: ‘It is men and arms, not words and promises, that make the force and power of the laws.’ From this Schmitt derives many of his core principles: all power is decisionist; neutrality is a myth; the essence of politics is conflict between friend and enemy; liberalism is the delusional desire to escape politics; sovereign is he who decides the exception; sovereign is he who interprets the political formula. One of the reasons for my ongoing fascination with Tony Blair – baffling and infuriating to many of my fans and friends – is because no man in modern politics embodies the Schmittian political figure as thoroughly as him. Yet there is an interesting paradox in Blair related to fact that he views himself and is widely perceived as a liberal. We know, of course, that Blair-in-government was a basically autocratic figure who minimised the decision-making circle – dubbed at the time ‘sofa politics’ – so that he could act as a kind of New Labour Caesar working through executive action. Unlike the Tory party, he moved decisively and boldly, using and even abusing power with hair-raising ruthlessness. We are seeing just a glimpse of that now as, under his gaze, Keir Starmer is purging Labour of Far Left elements with a speed that would have made Stalin and Mao blush. Many of Blair’s basic moves as Prime Minister were anti-democratic: taking functions from the state and handing them through contracts to unelected ‘public-private partnerships’, which were actually birthed under another kind of Caesar, a Hayekian Caesar, Margaret Thatcher. But Blair went a lot further than Thatcher and did not stop there. Many ‘Blair Specials’ included: the ‘independent body’, new institutions for ‘regulatory oversight’, Quangos, and new power structures that ambiguously ran parallel to long-established ‘castles’. These were all hallmarks of Blairism. Blair-not-in-government meanwhile (in other words ‘Dark Lord’ Blair), essentially continued to do this by setting up an entire network of NGOs and lobbying for supra-national and international quasi-governmental globalist bodies that seek to influence policy and which place themselves presumptuously ‘above power’ which is to say above the legally elected governments of Western and even non-Western nations. In the popular imagination this is ‘The WEF’ but it is much bigger than that. We know all this. Much of what Blair does is profoundly undemocratic, even anti-democratic, but yet it’s still recognisably
A lot of the WEF crowd looks leftist because it is against nation states. But they are really only positionally leftist and not leftist in disposition. LKW is an example of this dynamic - PAP was positionally leftist as it was founded as an anti-colonialist party… but LKW and ultimately the PAP are clearly right wing in disposition.
Perhaps the same bet could be made on TB/WEF.
Are there any farther right factions in the West that have any demonstrated ability to get anything done? Hard to find examples…
A hypothesis: the language of “active-will” is more powerful both politically and logically than the passive destiny based circular logic of Blair.
“We can change the country, and make it better by doing x,” rather than “We have no choice, China will beat us if we don’t ride the tide of destiny and do x.”
Alternative thesis: people are more prone to fear bad things than look forward optimistically to good things. So Blair’s rhetoric that relies heavily on inevitability and “being left behind” works better and of course fits in nearly with the widely accepted dogmas of Whit history.
Synthesis: the DR should adopt the language of destiny but marry it to the will to overcome “the inevitable.”
For example: “Our opponents say nothing can be done about immigration, but they overlook this nation’s destiny to be [whatever, a shining city on a hill, etc.]. History will judge us by what we do, not by what we leave undone.”
An important and thoughtful analysis.
A lot of the WEF crowd looks leftist because it is against nation states. But they are really only positionally leftist and not leftist in disposition. LKW is an example of this dynamic - PAP was positionally leftist as it was founded as an anti-colonialist party… but LKW and ultimately the PAP are clearly right wing in disposition.
Perhaps the same bet could be made on TB/WEF.
Are there any farther right factions in the West that have any demonstrated ability to get anything done? Hard to find examples…
A hypothesis: the language of “active-will” is more powerful both politically and logically than the passive destiny based circular logic of Blair.
“We can change the country, and make it better by doing x,” rather than “We have no choice, China will beat us if we don’t ride the tide of destiny and do x.”
Alternative thesis: people are more prone to fear bad things than look forward optimistically to good things. So Blair’s rhetoric that relies heavily on inevitability and “being left behind” works better and of course fits in nearly with the widely accepted dogmas of Whit history.
Synthesis: the DR should adopt the language of destiny but marry it to the will to overcome “the inevitable.”
For example: “Our opponents say nothing can be done about immigration, but they overlook this nation’s destiny to be [whatever, a shining city on a hill, etc.]. History will judge us by what we do, not by what we leave undone.”
TL-DR: what AA said.
Are there parallels between AA voting for Starmer-Blair and Spengler voting for moustache man?
https://youtu.be/HX7TlBRvg9I
Every group must have a sense of destined victory. And to fully embody that faith. Your point on this in reference to mystery grove is 100% on point