>>24571022
>fiend-enemy distinction of carl schmitt, is that true?
What he was saying is that politics is defined by antagonism and the possibility of (violent) conflict, not rational debate. (Important to note, however, is that he was saying the *possibility* of conflict. It doesn't mean: here are the enemies, kill them. At least not necessarily. It's just a possibility.)

>for example, let's say america vs china, isn't it a mistake to consider entire america as friend if you are an american? pretty sure in top, we have people who are enemies of each other, so what am i misunderstanding here?
Yeah, I don't think you're misunderstanding anything. It's just that it's a problem. But that's where the "state of exception" comes in, because his theory is that the state ultimately exists to protect itself, and if that internal division makes the state vulnerable from an external enemy, then it's necessary for the sovereign to intervene to protect the state and impose order, and also decide who the enemy is. Uhh, I think.

>>24571226
>Another more edgy example is Netanyahu and Hamas.
A decent illustration of defining the "friend" group (encompassing secular and religious Jews) with fascist-looking skulls and torches to go with it:
https://youtu.be/ha-8LO0seaM

>>24572068
>You haven't read Schmitt. The friend/enemy distinction relates to PUBLIC enemies, not private. The distinction can ONLY be drawn by the State ... It is a vehicle for State sovereignty. You are not sovereign.
That too.