Changes

This theory too rested on the Nazi dogma of the 'Reich'. '[[Empire]]s in this sense are the leading and supporting powers whose political idea is radiated over a specified major territory and which fundamentally exclude the intervention of extraterritorial powers with regard to this territory.' Such a division of the world, which would guarantee the appropriate 'major territories' for Germany and [[Japan]], would, in Schmitt's view, mark the start of a new and higher condition of [[international]] [[justice]]. There would no longer be [[nation-state]]s, as before, but only 'empires'. The concrete consequences of this Schmitt spelled out in another essay bearing the significant title 'Woe to the Neutrals!' Here it was argued that the concept of major territories implied the abolition of neutrality. So in 1938, Schmitt had penned in advance the 'international' legal apologia for unbridled [[imperialism]]: Empires had the "[[right]]" to conquer [[nation]]s. It is this core [[legal]] [[ideology]] that he rent to the [[American]]s after the [[war]].

This theory too rested on the Nazi dogma of the 'Reich'. '[[Empire]]s in this sense are the leading and supporting powers whose political idea is radiated over a specified major territory and which fundamentally exclude the intervention of extraterritorial powers with regard to this territory.' Such a division of the world, which would guarantee the appropriate 'major territories' for Germany and [[Japan]], would, in Schmitt's view, mark the start of a new and higher condition of [[international]] [[justice]]. There would no longer be [[nation-state]]s, as before, but only 'empires'. The concrete consequences of this Schmitt spelled out in another essay bearing the significant title 'Woe to the Neutrals!' Here it was argued that the concept of major territories implied the abolition of neutrality. So in 1938, Schmitt had penned in advance the 'international' legal apologia for unbridled [[imperialism]]: Empires had the "[[right]]" to conquer [[nation]]s. It is this core [[legal]] [[ideology]] that he rent to the [[American]]s after the [[war]].

Shortly after [[Nazi]] defeat, he re-invented himself as a spokesman of [[American]] [[globalism]]. In "Nomos of the Earth" (1950), he gave the best definition of the principle behind American [[globalist]] [[foreign policy]] which he supported. Schmitt's formulation rivals [[Burnham]]'s in cynicism but surpasses it in precision: 'cujus economia, ejus regio' (''who is the lord of the region, he is the lord of religion''). This is a cynically candid expression of the [[United States]]' absolute claim to global dominion; and not by chance is it an up-to-date secular variant on the 1555 Augsburg Convention (cujus regio, ejus religio; ''In the Prince's land, the Prince's [[religion]]''). In both cases naked power relations are stated as absolute determinants, only now of course at a more advanced stage, hence [[economic]] in substance and absolute in all [[political]] respects.<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br"/>

Shortly after [[Nazi]] defeat, he re-invented himself as a spokesman of [[American]] [[globalism]]. In "Nomos of the Earth" (1950), he gave the best definition of the principle behind American [[globalist]] [[foreign policy]] which he supported. Schmitt's formulation rivals [[James Burnham|Burnham]]'s in cynicism but surpasses it in precision: 'cujus economia, ejus regio' (''who is the lord of the region, he is the lord of religion''). This is a cynically candid expression of the [[United States]]' absolute claim to global dominion; and not by chance is it an up-to-date secular variant on the 1555 Augsburg Convention (cujus regio, ejus religio; ''In the Prince's land, the Prince's [[religion]]''). In both cases naked power relations are stated as absolute determinants, only now of course at a more advanced stage, hence [[economic]] in substance and absolute in all [[political]] respects.<ref name="edisciplinas.usp.br"/>

Being a proponent of [[war]] and [[foreign]] [[intervention]] on the part of [[Nazi Germany]], after the war he advocated, with equal fervor, a [[policy]] of [[interventionism]] and [[perpetual war]] (or, as he called it, "world-wide [[civil war]]") on the part of the [[United States]]. Hence he showed in "Nomos of the Earth" (1950) the ineluctability of the dilemma of [[Isolationism|isolation]] or intervention for the [[U.S.A.]]:  

Being a proponent of [[war]] and [[foreign]] [[intervention]] on the part of [[Nazi Germany]], after the war he advocated, with equal fervor, a [[policy]] of [[interventionism]] and [[perpetual war]] (or, as he called it, "world-wide [[civil war]]") on the part of the [[United States]]. Hence he showed in "Nomos of the Earth" (1950) the ineluctability of the dilemma of [[Isolationism|isolation]] or intervention for the [[U.S.A.]]: