Mister D
11-05-2012, 04:07 PM
http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/carl_schmitt_global_terrorism.pdf
I just started reading this recently. It's some of Alain de Benoist's work. He is one of my favorite members of what is called the "New Right".
----
Snip
Today, terrorism is obviously no longer a new phenomenon. However, what is new is the central
place it now occupies (or which it has been accorded) on the international scene. But here, weare struck by the contrast between the omnipresence of the denunciation of ‘terrorism’, and thesemantic haze which is attached to the concept, a haze which allows for different interpretationsof the word. One of the main problems concerns, of course, the legitimacy of terrorist action, alegitimacy that terrorists affirm constantly, but which is strongly denied them by theiradversaries. Actually, the problematic of the classic partisan raises already issues related to thepair legality-legitimacy. Because he is an illegal fighter, the partisan can only claim to have asuperior legitimacy than the positive law upheld by the authority he is fighting, which illustratesthat legality and legitimacy are not identical and, therefore, should not be confused. This is
another Schmittian thematic par excellence (Schmitt 1932/2004b).
It is undeniable that certain forms of ‘terrorism’ have been recognized as legitimate in the recentpast, firstly in World War II, during which the members of the Resistance were invariablydenounced as ‘terrorists’ by the German occupying forces, and then, at the time ofdecolonization, when many terrorist groups presented themselves as ‘freedom fighters’ hoping towrest independence from their colonial powers through armed uprisings. After 1945,innumerable armed minorities, liberation movements or guerillas all presented themselveseffectively as resistance organizations confronting state systems that condemned them as‘subversive’ groups and ‘terrorists’. When their struggles ended and they obtained internationalrecognition, the methods that they had used seemed to be retrospectively justified. This lends
credit to the idea that in certain cases, terrorism can be legitimate. Of course, it is often said that
terrorism can never be justified in situations or countries where social and political claims can be
expressed otherwise. However, opinions have remained divided as to what constitutes ‘good’ and‘evil’ terrorism and, to a certain degree, the assessment about its moral or immoral character has
been, de facto, left to propaganda or plain subjectivity.
I just started reading this recently. It's some of Alain de Benoist's work. He is one of my favorite members of what is called the "New Right".
----
Snip
Today, terrorism is obviously no longer a new phenomenon. However, what is new is the central
place it now occupies (or which it has been accorded) on the international scene. But here, weare struck by the contrast between the omnipresence of the denunciation of ‘terrorism’, and thesemantic haze which is attached to the concept, a haze which allows for different interpretationsof the word. One of the main problems concerns, of course, the legitimacy of terrorist action, alegitimacy that terrorists affirm constantly, but which is strongly denied them by theiradversaries. Actually, the problematic of the classic partisan raises already issues related to thepair legality-legitimacy. Because he is an illegal fighter, the partisan can only claim to have asuperior legitimacy than the positive law upheld by the authority he is fighting, which illustratesthat legality and legitimacy are not identical and, therefore, should not be confused. This is
another Schmittian thematic par excellence (Schmitt 1932/2004b).
It is undeniable that certain forms of ‘terrorism’ have been recognized as legitimate in the recentpast, firstly in World War II, during which the members of the Resistance were invariablydenounced as ‘terrorists’ by the German occupying forces, and then, at the time ofdecolonization, when many terrorist groups presented themselves as ‘freedom fighters’ hoping towrest independence from their colonial powers through armed uprisings. After 1945,innumerable armed minorities, liberation movements or guerillas all presented themselveseffectively as resistance organizations confronting state systems that condemned them as‘subversive’ groups and ‘terrorists’. When their struggles ended and they obtained internationalrecognition, the methods that they had used seemed to be retrospectively justified. This lends
credit to the idea that in certain cases, terrorism can be legitimate. Of course, it is often said that
terrorism can never be justified in situations or countries where social and political claims can be
expressed otherwise. However, opinions have remained divided as to what constitutes ‘good’ and‘evil’ terrorism and, to a certain degree, the assessment about its moral or immoral character has
been, de facto, left to propaganda or plain subjectivity.