1,002 words
Because I am not particularly familiar with American non-alt conservatism—nor with the minor figures and initiatives associated with the GOP—I was mostly unaware of Charlie Kirk as a political personality. And yet, his outrageous and untimely death at Utah Valley University compels commentary, not only because it was a death provoked by the battle of ideas, but also because of the disturbing chain of consequences it has unleashed.
To make public mockery of the death of a political adversary in abstracto already says more about the one who laughs than about the victim. First, such a person is celebrating an act in which he had no part; the “victory” is not his, nor will it ever be. Second, it is the laughter of someone gloating over a man who can no longer respond, who no longer has the capacity to defend himself. I do not believe that the human being—or his memory—becomes sacred merely by dying. Death in itself does not confer sanctity. Yet there is nothing ennobling, nothing of value, in rejoicing at the elimination of an adversary. Such jubilation is the very opposite of courage: it is cowardice elevated into a collective ritual.
With Kirk’s death—as with the rains that drive men into their homes and leave the streets to vermin, so that snails, slugs, and worms slither shamelessly over the pavement—an entire infestation of political vermin has surfaced to celebrate him being silenced. This too is a political act, perhaps one of the most despicable and dishonorable imaginable: the mob, incapable of defeating its adversary in argument, delights instead in the silence imposed by mortality.
Some individuals are respectful, others merely visceral, and still others intolerant and obtuse, with whom dialogue becomes nearly impossible. Depending on circumstance, human beings display a greater or lesser ability to discern and to value the nuances before their eyes—nuances that are essential if reality is to be grasped in the least biased way possible. Yet in moments when passions are inflamed, when society confronts extreme conditions and responds with its own extremes, the most primitive form of tribalism reasserts itself: the elementary perception of the self in relation to others collapses into categories of “us” versus “them.” These categories, in such moments, overshadow all others.
Among people across the whole spectrum of political currents, it is common to find some who imagine themselves belonging to the most “balanced” category: that which is neither extreme nor given over to passion, the one that wishes to be “neither here nor there.” In a word, the Center. The Center aspires to be something apart, a kind of ultra-rational posture, superior in its serenity, approaching the conduct of a quasi-Zen equilibrium. Yet the problem is precisely this: their self-identification becomes irrelevant, even meaningless, in what Carl Schmitt called “the times of the political.”
The human being struggles to differentiate himself, to categorize himself in the most precise way possible. Even he who declares “I belong to no category, I simply am,” is nonetheless engaged in categorization—he is adopting an identity that differentiates him from others. Self-identification allows the individual to position himself in relation to his peers, to claim a locus within the vast spectrum of human identities. However, just as there is self-identification, there is also the identification carried out by others. At this point, the objective, the subjective, and the intersubjective collapse into a whirlpool of perceptions, no longer easily distinguished, like ingredients churned together in a blender.
Schmitt reminds us that, “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” (Schmitt, 2007).
The times of the political are precisely those moments in which this distinction saturates nearly all spheres of life. In such times, the tribalization of human beings ceases to be atomized into countless micro-identities, and instead becomes polarized: reality itself is perceived through the lens of only two camps. Thus “friend” and “enemy” become absolute categories, and the nuances that once existed dissolve into a reality rendered in black and white. What possible space could there be for the Center in such circumstances, when the only categories that count are those of friend and enemy? In the eyes of one’s peers, nuances do not exist; in their world of black and white, all that is not white must, by necessity, be black. Such are the circumstances of the political, and such is the fate of those who cling to a neutral posture.
Neutrality, Schmitt insists, is impossible in an age defined by the friend/enemy distinction:
In a world where the political has become autonomous, there can be no standing above the conflict, for he who claims to stand above it merely conceals the fact that he already stands within it.
How could it exist when the vision of the masses is Manichean, when subtle shades of meaning are eroded, when the alterity of the strange and the other presses itself into consciousness? To be neutral in such an age is to be invisible, or worse, to be coded by others as belonging to the enemy camp. Attempts at neutrality, consensus, or centrist equilibrium often disguise power struggles already structured around antagonism. Giorgio Agamben likewise noted that Schmitt’s categories remind us that politics always contains a threshold of conflict that cannot be transcended by appeals to technocratic neutrality.
The Center becomes not a position of balance but a vanishing point, absorbed and negated by the inexorable polarity of the political. Well, as Schmitt himself stated:
Each participant is in a position to judge whether the adversary intends to negate his opponent’s way of life and therefore must be repulsed or fought in order to preserve one’s own form of existence.
This is the core of the political, and it leaves no space for a tranquil middle.
References
Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception (K. Attell, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Schmitt, C. (2007). The concept of the political (G. Schwab, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1932)
12 comments
This bipolarity is more adequate in e.g. scenarios such as a civil war. Such rigidity makes little sense in times of peace and tranquility. Schmitt too lived in turbulent times.
I recommend “Old Scores – Bobby Sands Documentary 1983”, which can be found on Youtube. Sands is the IRA man who died on hunger strike in 1981, but this documentary is about the teenage Bobby Sands during the snap-to-grid in Northern Ireland in the late 60’s and early 70’s – “around them, communities are dividing – swiftly, brutally, and efficiently – into sectarian ghettos”
The facts in the documentary go against the respectable wisdom of bringing people together who have nothing in common. “Let’s invest in high quality housing” – Sands grew up in a modern, well-maintained urban development with both Catholic and protestant neighbors. “Catch them early – if they make friends when they’re kids, the Fear and Stereotypes will be proven wrong and have no effect”: Sands played for a mixed youth football team which had multiple members who ended up joining terrorist organizations, some the IRA, and some on the other side. “Giving asylum to refugees brings in new perspectives that strengthen our morality, cohesion, and commitment to kindness” – refugees who had been burned out of their homes turned up at their cousins asking all sorts of “which side are you on” questions which made it harder to continue friendly relations with neighbors from the other community.
There was a post hereabouts recently that discussed the Latin words inimicus and hostis, one of which was said to mean an enemy you have a personal hatred of, and the other to mean somebody you have nothing personal against, but who unfortunately has to be dealt with as a member of an enemy group. The former terrorist teammates of Sands express something along those lines in the documentary – yeah, Bobby was an ok guy, but we were boys then and now we’re men with a bigger problem to deal with.
A side thing that came up in the documentary, and that I thought was relevant to current sectarian trends, is that none of Sands’ teammates considered him particularly bright or thoughtful or political – they didn’t think he was the kind of guy who’d get involved in a cause, let alone become a martyr for one.
Great observations! I know nothing about Bobby Sands, he would make a great article at C-C. 🙃
P.Q,
Even though I was very young (about 11) I recall that Bobby Sands was a big deal way back in 1981 when he died after a prolonged hunger strike. As I attended a Catholic school and all of my friends were of Irish heritage (myself included) , Bobby was a bit of a folk hero for us naive, idealistic, romantically-inclined Celtic-Aussie young fellows. “Bloody Pommie Bastards” and all that.
A few years later an Irish friend lent me the book compiled of his clandestine prison diary. It struck me as being a bit unauthentic, but I may be wrong. It’s been quite a while, so I should look at it again.
One thing I do recall about ol’ Bobby from what I read years ago, he was one tough bloke. Totally uncompromising. “Death Before Dishonour”, if you will.
Another thing; look up “Bobby Sands Street”. There’s a street in Tehran named after him. I seem to recall that the authorities changed the street address of the British Embassy to Bobby Sands Street just to give the British authorities the shits!
I think this is a fundamental question. My impression is still that most white normies remain deeply apolitical. They are completely immersed in their own personal perspective. A large proportion of Whites seem to be completely unaware of the culture wars that we, as extremely political people, are experiencing. If they do vote, they do so based on incredibly primitive conformist instincts. I see this in Germany, for example, where despite everything that has happened in recent years, 30% of voters still vote for the CDU. Sure, there has been a huge shift over the last 2 decades, but I think it still affects a relatively small segment of the white population. My biggest fear is that support for populist pro-white parties will stop at 20% and their capacity will not extend beyond that. The establishment will somehow manage to unite the rest of society under the banner of conformism “against extremists.” Many stupid normies will fall for it. At some point, liberals may simply resort to open repression and ban any authentic opposition. They have already done so in countries like Romania under the guise of fears of Russia. What is against them are rather objective circumstances—the deteriorating economy and increasingly apparent violence on the part of migrants. Their big problem is the internet—it’s a genie that’s hard to put back in the bottle. But I think that spreading opposition views on the internet also has its limits, because most people are apolitical and pro-white comments thus remain shut in specific echo-chambers.
This is the core of the political, and it leaves no space for a tranquil middle.
Great article! A long, rambling way of saying, “You are going to have to choose sides.” 🙃
Charlie Kirk believed in dialogue with the modern left. He said, “show me where I’m wrong.” They showed him.
The Jews behind the modern left are genetically inclined to group-mindedness, mental intensity, and aggression. They form effective in-groups and do harm to their out-groups. Name-calling, no-platforming, cancel-culture, and violence appeal to them as effective ways to punish their chosen enemies, to elevate their group status at the expense of their chosen enemies, and to get their way. This suits their innate aggression, and there will not be any argument that convinces them not to act like this.
In the face of this, dialogue fails. It’s like trying to reason ticks into not sucking blood.
We can’t abolish this friend-or-foe distinction by wanting to. We can’t decide that “Paris is worth a mass” and put an end to religious wars by going to a different church.
This conflict has a biological foundation and the sheep won’t argue the wolves out of wanting to eat sheep.
Very well stated, JG.
🙂
In other words: LFG
“an entire infestation of political vermin has surfaced to celebrate him being silenced”
Kirk was supposed to be a moderate. Was he really viewed by the far left as a supervillain? I suspect the flood of hateful comments was not an entirely spontaneous collective reaction to his death. It was fueled by leftists’ conformism and love of provocation, and amplified by social networks. I wonder if Jewish activists played a part in initiating this, and in getting the mainstream media to amplify it. It would serve their interests to make us think that the Mossad doesn’t have to be the prime suspect, considering how many on the far-left felt about Kirk.
I knew relatively little about Kirk and considered him just another Zionist neocon. But I read on ZH this am that in recent months he was increasingly questioning the Israeli genocide in Gaza and its outsize influence on our politics. Needless to say my respect for him has increased considerable as he showed he could change his position on Israel, A view probably drilled into him from an early age.
I can’t imagine being happy that anyone is murdered in cold blood, but I will admit to being glad when I heard John McCain was dead.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.