In the case he be "an essential thinker" you can rest assured that he is so mainly for his role in justifying the leader-cult of Nazi-Germany, just as Hitler mi

In the case he be "an essential thinker" you can rest assured that he is so mainly for his role in justifying the leader-cult of Nazi-Germany, just as Hitler might be mentioned as an "essential leader" in history. But since "essential" as a standalone adjective has positive connotations it is misleading to say the least to leave out the "Nazi" adverb when describing either gentleman, i.e. they are both primarily essential Nazi thinkers/leaders. He is a topic in academia in all essence since he is an academic and an essential Nazi, and has produced literature (even pre-1933, with clear autocratic leanings) and has drawn conclusions that is of interest in a "survey of the landscape" type of inquiry [0]. Finally he continues to be of seeming essentiality because he continues to be propped up by Nazis and their ilk (like this Yarvin figure). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/