Reading the Stanford page on Carl Schmitt. What a truly unpleasant mode of thought.
Noteworthy that his is the antithesis of the Jewish ethic. In the Nazi imagination, the Jews are precisely those inhabitants who do not wish to identify with the polity and therefore are to be regarded as internal enemies
or the external aggressor who, because of their superior political cohesion, will overpower the effete liberal state. What is forgotten is that while it is true that with the Jewish people there is a clear distinction of who belongs and who doesn't, there is also "love thy neighbour". The implication being that the neighbour/enemy can well be someone who technically belongs to the community. As well as of course meaning that people identifying with different groups, as well as people identifying with neither, can inhabit the same territory and nonetheless get along.
I recommend reading the section on international law because holy shit if this isn't a potential emerging consensus today.
During the Nazi-period, Schmitt applied this view to a justification of Nazi aggression, by portraying Nazi-Germany as a local hegemon willing to support a global territorial division based on a principle of non-intervention. Schmitt hoped, for a while at least, that America would reveal itself to be Germany’s ‘real enemy’ and that it would be willing to engage in a mutual division of spheres of influence. In this vein, Schmitt interpreted the Monroe-doctrine as the first act of hegemonic appropriation of a sphere of interest that might come to form part of a new global order, if only America were willing let Germany impose its own Monroe-doctrine on continental Europe. For as long as they were militarily successful, Schmitt celebrated the Nazi wars as the birth pangs of a new ‘nomos of the earth.’
I guess the joke is on me that I have now been provided with an existential enemy to fight.