He means friends of the states versus enemies of the state

>>24732432
He did. The germans really did solve everything, except the jewish question.

>>24732719
The Germans were never trying to solve the Jewish question. It's all smoke and mirrors. Look into the Netherlands and you'll see who really holds the strings.

>>24732432
Have you actually read him, though?

>>24732432
a better translation would be enemy/rival. both oppose your interests, but an enemy wants to destroy your entire way of life whereas the rival just wants to take your money.
The purpose of the State/Sovereign is to determine what exactly the "way of life" is, and thus to draw the boundary between enemy and rival, and the boundary between combat and competition

>>24732748
>jewish babble

>>24732432
Highly regarded,

>>24732432
This is how you get a constant unraveling of relations that constantly bandaids itself with boots on people's faces.

>>24732845
Research the works of Ryuho Okawa and then come back when you've educated yourself. The jews are just the tip of the dutch iceberg, my friend.

He says liberals have a tendency to allow rights and citizenship privileges to dissenters and this is why they cause instability. His suggestion is that Liberals must draw a line around what is acceptable and unacceptable, that is not only defined in constitution but also emanating from majority opinion. He basically says if you have a citizen that is a dissenter, lock him up, censor him etc.
You know what I agree. Liberalism is based on the idea of freedom, fascists and commies don’t believe in freedom so it’s totally ok to eliminate them.

That does not solve political philosophy, it solves how realpolitik works, which is politology's domain.

>but political philosophy is about how realpolitik works

No, it isn't. Political philosophy is more about what ought to be done, whereas politology is more about what is done or has been done.

> If, as Strauss suggested, what Schmitt was really working towards was the notion that all value-setting as such is political, then there was little basis from which to criticize liberalism for moralizing political conflicts. Schmitt’s critique of liberalism depended on the possibility of keeping areas of the realm of values distinct from each other. But, as Strauss observed, this is impossible if all values can become political. Schmitt’s attempt in Concept of the Political to limit the intensity of political conflicts by keeping them distinct from moral issues is thus absurd.

BTFO’d by Strauss

>>24733021
That is a notable point. Strauss may not have completely btfo'd him but his criticisms were enough to cause Schmitt to amend his work with Strauss's commentary. Schmitt dug that hole for himself by recognizing certain types of classical liberal thinkers as being more politically pure and he also cited Marx which is basically a can of worms for him since Marx acknowledged almost any means even if it's just a nod towards a theoretically bankrupt option. Schmitt is forced to acknowledge his whole view of human nature is just tautolical for the work itself and in order to prove otherwise he would have to disprove his own work. Schmitt can always just revert to Nietzsche but if that's the case then he didn't contribute anything.

Strauss likely was the fully evolved and superior theorist.