Fourth Reich Archaeology - #089 - Fourth Reich Political Theology, Part 2, Side C

Episode Date: March 27, 2026

We are back with side C of part two of our ongoing series Fourth Reich Political Theology with Marcus from the Return of the Repressed podcast. Recall that in our opening salvo of this series, we laid the foundation for our excavation by exploring how the superstitious religious worldview of the feudal world order was superimposed onto the capitalist world order with “The Market” playing the role of God. The same way that serfs and peasants lived their lives in awe and default belief of a vengeful deity, we today implicitly believe in the mysterious market forces we are told move the earthly cosmos beyond the will of man.This episode picks up right where we left off, expanding outwards on what we covered in part 1 to reach beyond the “earthly philosophers” of bourgeois political economy (Smith, Bentham, et al.), to the German Idealists from Kant to the so-called neo-Kantains, to the early sociologists, to the man of the hour himself, Carl Schmitt. In our journey, we draw heavily on Georg Lukacs “The Destruction of Reason” to trace the thread of irrationalism through all liberal political philosophizing. Lukacs and Schmitt see eye to eye when it comes to the hypocrisy and incoherence of Western bourgeois liberal democracy. After all, rule of by and for the bourgeoisie–and the exploitation and domination of the proletariat that entails–cannot really pursue the objectives of liberté, egalité, and fraternité. That would destroy the special privileges enjoyed by the ruling class. But from the same observation, Schmitt and Lukacs proceed in polar opposite directions. Schmitt would strip back the pretense of institutional norms in favor of the rule of raw power, which he supported in his advocacy for and membership in the Nazi party. Lukacs, good Marxist that he was, would instead expose the exploitive nature of the state and the society and, developing class consciousness through praxis, expropriate the ruling class in favor of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It’s another incredible conversation with Marcus, and one that has real practical implications for today when we once again find ourselves in what Schmitt called “the state of exception” where the sovereign alone makes the rules…Return of the Repressed Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cw/TheReturnOfTheRepressedFourth Reich Archaeology Patreon: patreon.com/fourthreicharchaeology

The following passage is excerpted from Karl Schmitt's political theology. The exception, which is not codified in the existing legal order, can it best be characterized as a case of extreme peril, a danger to the existence of the state or the like, but it cannot be circumscribed factually and made to conform to a preformed law. It is precisely the exception that makes relevant the subject of sovereignty, that is, the whole question of sovereignty. The precise details of an emergency cannot be anticipated, nor can one spell out what may take place in such a case, especially when it is truly a matter of an extreme emergency and of how it is to be eliminated.

The precondition, as well as the content of jurisdictional competence in such a case, must necessarily be unlimited. From the liberal constitutional point of view, there would be no jurisdictional competence at all. The most guidance the Constitution can provide is to indicate who can act in such a case. If such action is not subject to controls, if it is not hampered in some way by checks and balances, as is the case in a liberal constitution, then it is clear who the sovereign is. He decides whether there is an extreme emergency

as well as what must be done to eliminate it. Although he stands outside the normally valid legal system, he nevertheless belongs to it, for it is he who must decide whether the Constitution needs to be suspended in its entirety. All tendencies of modern constitutional development point toward eliminating the sovereign in this sense. But whether the extreme exception can be banished from the world

is not a juristic question. Whether one has confidence and hope that it can be eliminated depends on philosophical, especially on philosophical historical or metaphysical convictions. There exist a number of historical presentations that deal with the development of the concept of sovereigns. but they're like textbook complications of abstract formulas from which definitions of sovereignty can be extracted. Nobody seems to have taken the trouble to scrutinize the often-repeated but completely empty phraseology

used to denote the highest power by the famous authors of the concept of sovereignty. That this concept relates to the critical case, the exception, was long ago recognized. If measures undertaken an exception could be circumscribed by mutual control, by imposing a time limit, or, finally, as in the liberal constitutional procedure governing a state of siege, by enumerating extraordinary powers, the question of sovereignty would then be considered less significant, but would certainly not be eliminated. A jurisprudence concerned with ordinary day-to-day questions has practically no interest in the concept of sovereignty. Only the recognizable is its normal concern.

Everything else is a disturbance. Such a jurisprudence confronts the extreme case disconcertedly. For not every extraordinary measure, not every police emergency measure or emergency decree is necessarily an exception. What characterizes an exception is principally unlimited authority, which means the suspension of the entire existing order. In such a situation, it is clear that the state remains, whereas law recedes.

All law is situational law. The sovereign produces and guarantees the situation in its totality. He has the monopoly over this last decision. Therein resides the essence of the state's sovereignty, which must be juristically defined correctly, not as the monopoly to coerce or to rule, but as the monopoly. monopoly to decide. The exception reveals most clearly the essence of the state's authority. The decision parts here from the legal norm, and to formulate it paradoxically, authority proves that to produce law, it need not be based on law.

The exception was something incommensurable to John Locke's doctrine of the constitutional state and the rationalist 18th century. The vivid awareness of the constitutional of the meaning of the exception that was reflected in the doctrine of natural law of the 17th century was soon lost in the 18th century when a relatively lasting order was established Emergency law was no law at all for Kant. The contemporary theory of the state reveals the interesting spectacle of the two tendencies facing one another. The rationalist tendency, which ignores the emergency and the natural law tendency, which is interested in the emergency and emanates from an essentially different set of ideas. But it should be of interest to the rationalist that the legal system itself can anticipate the exception and can suspend itself, that a norm or an order or a point of reference

establishes itself appears plausible to the exponents of this kind of juristic rationalism. But how the systematic unity and order can suspend itself in a concrete case, is difficult to construe, and yet it remains a juristic problem as long as the exception is distinguishable from a juristic chaos, from any kind of anarchy. The tendency of liberal constitutionalism to regulate the exception, as precisely as possible means, after all, the attempt to spell out in detail the case in which law suspends itself. From where does the law obtain this force, and how is it logically possible that a number? norm is valid except for one concrete case that it cannot factually determine in any definitive manner. Precisely a philosophy of concrete life must not withdraw from the exception and the extreme case, but must be interested in it to the highest degree. The exception can be more important to

it than the rule, not because of a romantic irony for the paradox, but because the seriousness of an insight goes deeper than the clear generalizations inferred from what ordinarily repeats itself. The exception is more interesting than the rule. The rule proves nothing. The exception proves everything. It confirms not only the rule, but also its existence, which derives only from the exception. In the exception, the power of real life breaks through the crusts. of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition. Colonialism or imperialism, as the slave system of the West is called, is not something that's just confined to England or France or the United States.

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. So it's one huge complex or combine. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. And this international power structure is used to suppress the masses of dark-skinned people all over the world and exploit them of their natural resources. We found no evidence of conspiracy, foreign or domestic, the Warren Commission of science. I'll never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are. We began to acquire information which showed that there were two wars kind of. His job, he said, was to protect the Western way of life.

The primitive simplicity of their minds renders the more easy victims of a big lie than a small one. For example, we're the CIA. He has a mile. He knows so long as a die. Freedom can never be secure. It usually takes a national crisis. Freedom can never be secure.

Pearl Harbor. A lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. Why, you think our country's so innocent? This is a model. This is a model. This is a model. This is Fort Reich Archaeology.

I'm Don. Dick has unfortunately been assigned, given his skills as a plumber in an emergency situation, to inspect the toilets aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford. And he's currently eyebrows deep in human shit and raw sewage, but he's doing the right thing. He is not fixing those clogs. He is stopping the war one turd at a time. Listener, we had planned to release the episode that we've already recorded. It is indeed quite lengthy.

It is indeed quite comprehensive. of the final installment in the squeaky Frommi saga of Shee Harvey Oswald. But you know how your boys over here, we tend to get a little perfectionistic. We want to spend a little more time in the lab with that one to bring it to you real hot, real fresh, and real nice. So please bear with us for a little bit more time as we prep that one. and enjoy what we're going to bring you now, which is the final installment of part two of our Fourth Reich political theology series,

which I have conducted with Good Good Friend of the Pod, Marcus from the return of the repressed podcast. Now, listener, please, if you've not done so already, do catch up on parts one and part two sides. A and B. This will be side C. So just make sure that you're coming to this ready to go, because we have covered a lot, a lot of ground already. I'll give a very brief recap of where we left things off in a moment, but first I do want to thank you for being here for tuning into the pod and ask you once again, like, subscribe, rate, review, comment, do all of the things that it's

expand our reach. Reach out to us at Fourth Reichpod at gmail.com or on Twitter and Instagram at Fourth Reich Pod. And of course, if you have already, you know, supported Palestinians in Gaza, if you've already thrown a few bones to humanitarian relief in Cuba, if you've got that cash burning a hole in your pocket, head on over to patreon.com slash forthright archaeology. and put a few coins in the piggy bank of your boys, Dick and Don, as we save up for the cold winter of our hopeful transition

into a career where nobody's our boss except for ourselves and, of course, our beloved, beloved patrons, and who knows, perhaps even future clients in a little Dick and Don legal shop. hanging up that shingle. You never know the possibilities are endless and your encouragement spurs us on. And now to that recap, as you'll recall, Marcus and I began in part one of political theology talking about the sort of buildup in terms of the history, the material history of ideas that gave rise to what we know today as this modern capitalist ethos,

this way of viewing the world that has so dominated the mental horizons, the imagination, has delimited the thinking of subjects of bourgeois capitalism, wherever they may find themselves, now spread throughout the four corners of the planet Earth. well after that in part two we've really been leading our way up to this discussion of karl schmidt the original political theologist theologian the guy from germany who became perhaps the most important jurist of national socialism of the third rike and a guy whose ideas really took aim at the burgeoning liberal constitutionalism of Europe in the interwar period, in the sort of apogy of imperialism, and laid bare all the contradictions at the heart of the contrast between the liberal

constitutional order and the need to quell any existential challenges that could. arise to the dominance of the bourgeoisie over the political economy of the modern Western world. And exactly where we left off, we had been discussing Schmidt's idea of the state of exception. We talked about the friend-enemy distinction, and we were building our way up to this notion of the state of exception and indeed the description of the state of exception from schmidt's political theology is what I read into the record for the cold open of this episode and we are going to have a lot more to say about that and indeed I want to preview to you listener that our plans for this political theology series do not end with side C of part two

Indeed, as we have hinted throughout this entire series, the reason why we're covering this is a timely one, because the likes of Peter Thiel, of Mencius Moldbug, aka Curtis Jarvin, all these charlatan-right-wing, so-called self-styled philosophers going out and basically doing Edgelord Twitter philosophy, to get their points with the Dimes Square scene, with the fascist milieu, the likes of J.D. Vance, and all of these political hacks lining up to take a handout of tealbucks from the elite technocratic ghouls ghouls running Silicon Valley, really running the government setting the policy agenda. These guys are all Schmidian freaks. They're obsessed with his ideas. And there's not really much hiding the fact that the reason why they are so obsessed with his ideas is because they're fucking Nazis. All of these guys are fucking Nazis.

and like Schmidt's time and place where the sort of hypocrisy of the Weimar ruling elites was on full display, giving rise to things like the Spartacist uprising, and the massive communist movement that came, oh, just a hair's breadth away from putting the world on a very different course to the one that we're living in today. well once again of course our ruling elites are really wearing no clothes discernible to the eyes of anybody whose head is outside of their ass of course that number it seems sometimes like it's vanishingly small And we're surrounded by the likes of our mega co-citizens, our mega neighbors wouldn't say friends and loved ones, because at this point, it really is a cult-like devotion to a carnival barking psychopath who has started much, much mess in the world. I mean, we're recording or releasing this on March 27th of 2026th. And of course, we're a few weeks in already to the Iran War going disastrously for the United States and for the entire world.

For Iran, of course, with civilian casualties mounting. We've covered it on the pod. It is a cluster fuck. It is a quagmire in the making. and it is chock a block full of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the United States and of course by Israel as well who has played a decisive role in the lead-up to this war. And why am I going on such a tangent about current events? Well, I'll tell you why, listener, the reason is because all of what you're seeing

is the result, is downstream from a state of exception that really can be traced back all the way to at least 9-11, if not even earlier, because, of course, the fetters of empire were taken off, as Dick Cheney said. The gloves came off. We were operating on the dark side and never, ever came back out. Dale Cooper, the great FBI agent played by Kyle McLaughlin in the David Lynch vehicle Twin Peaks, of course, entered the Black Lodge for a period of 25 years. It seems very much like so too has this nation, period of now coming up on the 25th year anniversary of 9-11, and we've been in the Black Lodge ever since, possessed by D.combe. demonic evil spirits at the helms of our society because they've effectively declared and

controlled a state of emergency whereby the ordinary legal protections are suspended. And in this long a time, in this long of a period of exception, where the normal state, has almost disappeared. It's almost unrecognizable. Certainly nobody has a coherent prescription for a return to normalcy out of this state of exception. Well, listener, you know, it's time to get back to basics. It's time to look at what Schmidt was on about when he developed this notion and to look to Schmidt's foil, right? Marcus and I have founded in Marx, in the great Hungarian Marxist theoretician and practitioner, Georgesh, Lukash.

And in, of course, throughout the rest of the pod, we are regularly drawing upon the multiple exponents of the immortal science of historical dialectical materialism to find the keys and to find indeed the right doors to open in order to see what's going on and to see just how, if at all, we might break our way out of this state of exception. Certainly we'll never do that without recognizing what's really going on. And, well, listener, I will turn it over to Marcus now. to begin where we left off with this discussion and learn a little bit from the seemingly highfalutin, but surprisingly relevant and earthly sphere of the political philosophy of political theology.

And with that, let's get digging. again like with the ambiguity here it becomes very unclear initially like what's really going on because like at the same time he doesn't want to just say that the dictator is there like when he develops this idea of the sovereign it's sort of departing from his first book which was about the dictator I don't know if this is the case but I imagine that like what Schmidt realized was that like

the classical dictators of let's say Greece what they were you know able to do was that they were and like I mean you don't even have to go back that far take a look at like the the Swedish dictators during the era of great might

in you know from the 30 year war onwards like they we think maybe like absolute monarchism we think of it as like a height of feudalism but what it actually does is that absolute monarchism is the first move of early modernism

because it takes away the power of the nobility and Chan like you know and centralises it in the core of the state of the state of the monarch and it's no longer feudalism because you don't have all these nobilities who are there because of their birth and it's so I think like what

you know and this is the difference then like between maybe the sovereign and the dictator because of course Schmidt is not super interested in what the those dictators had to do which was to like you know actually also then you know

take into consideration the opinion of the people when they were fighting the nobility you know like making land reforms professional the military to make sure that there was a career for everybody who was of low birth, you know, as long as they were willing to die and kill for the state, you could have a career. And, you know, like, of course, some of these things Schmidt is interested in, but some of them he is not interested in.

And I think, I mean, initially, like, again, like, it's the smugness of the liberals which he's supposed to when he's, like, developing these early theories. Because they wish to forget their own social genesis that they also came to power out of these, you know, bloodbats and these revolutions, which were, you know, shows of force. And yeah, how about we jump in maybe then, like, rather than, like, going too deep into a lot of, like, the back and forts that existed among the, like, neo-Cantians of, like, where does the validity arise? You know, like, of doing revolution, of using violence. to constitute your power and your legal right in the concrete and in the norm. Like if you don't want to say upright that this happens through violence and through revolution and class struggle, you've got to do something else.

Now, there is an interesting, like, so Schmidt is mainly in critique of like two guys. Kelsen and Jelinek. two big neocantians of the period and he sort of for some reason it's a smart reason because it you know again he strikes at the heart of the liberals

and the bourgeoisie he says that like there's something called like a budgetless condition which is a gap in the law and here quote constitutional law ceases and so Lukatch recognizes

that he's right to put the chief stress on the real continuity of socio-political life and to treat formal justice as only a part of it. And because that's a thing, right? Like what happens, you know, like in this budgetless condition? You know, like, we know what happened, like, during the 1929 crisis, right, of the Wall Street crash, when money no longer functions the way that they should do. And when the value structure of the monetary system, you know, disintegrates. Then it seems like everything else also disintegrates

for this bourgeoisie. And you know, like, how is that? How, you know, like you wrap this in this, all this nice philosophical talks about how to overcome the king and overcome God. And

at the end of the fucking day, man, like it's all about like making sure that business runs as usual. And as soon as business cannot run as usual, everything else just falls apart. And here is the Ausnames-Ser-Stand, which Schmidt falls in love with, right? And maybe, you know, before we get into that concept even deeper, I think it's worth reading this passage from political theology where he roots his narrative narration, right? Going back to those three pillars that I mentioned, way back.

in the recap that we were building our foundation from Smith and from the transition from feudalism into capitalism, that Schmidt also conceives of this evolution in a very straightforward way that I think helps to understand where he goes from there. So I'll just read this little passage from political theology very quickly. here. So he says, quote, all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts, not only because of their historical development in which they were transferred from theology to the theory of the state, whereby, for example, the omnipotent God became the omnipotent lawgiver, but also because of their systematic structure, the recognition of which

is necessary for a sociological consideration of these concepts. The exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology. Only by being aware of this analogy can we appreciate the manner in which the philosophical ideas of the state developed in the last centuries. The idea of the modern constitutional state triumphed, together with deism, a theology and metaphysics that banished. the miracle from the world. This theology and metaphysics rejected not only the transgression of the laws of nature through an exception brought about by direct intervention, as is found in

the idea of a miracle, but also the sovereign's direct intervention in a valid legal order. The rationalism of the Enlightenment rejected the exception in every form. Conservative authors of the counter-reveillance, who were theists could thus attempt to support the personal sovereignty of the monarch ideologically, with the aid of analogies from a theistic theology. So, you know, I think that that really distills the setup for the state of exception, right? It's not something that's rooted in constitutional liberalism. In fact, it's brought into the realm of constitutional. constitutional liberalism from the reactionary, counter-revolutionary, theistic ideology of the

anti-communist, monarchic, revanchist Spanish restorationists that he's drawing upon here, that come totally from outside of the rest of the Weberian sociology that is forming the sort of normative milieu for political philosophy in which he's operating. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yeah. That was a great passage.

Because, yeah, there is one point where he says that the state stands firms, like in the state of exception, the state stand firms, whereas justice retreats. So there still, quote, remains an order in the juristic sense, even in the absence of law and order.

And here, here I was thinking that, like, he's kind of like, he's missing something, I think, like, but what you, in a way, just clarified by, you know, the actual activity of these restorationists, like, where did they derive their power from? And here, I think, like, or Schmidt doesn't maybe miss it, but he's keeping it, again, I'm ambiguous. US. And like I was thinking like spaghetti westerns as the most Maoist genre of like actually telling this truth. You know like that like in this world of like you know where the juristic order maybe exists even in the absence of law and order. Like you know the man who wields the gun. You know, and this is Mao's point right.

like political power derives from the barrel of a gun. Like you can have, you can have imagine a protagonist in a spaghetti Western, played by Clint Eastwood, whose interior life is just. You know, like we know, he is the white hat, right? Like, we know that he's the good guy.

But, and so because of him, and because of how good he is in like, you know, using his magnum or, Maybe they weren't magnums back in those days. I don't know, but like those... Colt 45, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, call 45. Why not?

You know, like, because of his skill in using it, he, even in the absence of law and order, there is a sense of the heuristic. And Schmidt isn't like too keen on showing that that is, you know, like, of course the liberals definitely do not want to to go full Maoist here. say that like in the end or in the beginning rather

the validity came out of the overthrowment of the old order and its validity because Schmidt is talking about sort of like these interregnum periods that aren't really true revolutions right? He's talking about like a movement from liberalism

to fascism. He's not talking about a movement from the capitalist order to a communist order you know so it has to be a little bit more ambiguous as to like how is this, you know, outsmannes chustand, even though it seems like all rules are out and like, you know, nothing is as it seems. I mean,

because he says, right, like, yes, there is an absence of law and order, but the juristic sense still remains because the state is somehow intact. So, okay, where the fuck does the state then get its validity from, you know? And I mean, at this

point, he cannot say that it is because you know, like Mao says that like, you know, if the right you know, depending on which class controls it, they are going to rule society. And I think like here's the thing, like

he's against how the Kantians or the neocantians sort of like involved themselves in a circular argument where okay so we are the normal, we are the founders

of the norm because we are of the norm. We are the bourgeois class, so we can decide how you behave on the market. It's a circular argument, and Schmidt attacks it with great lucidity time and time again and

reveals it for what it is. But the thing is, his own fucking project about this Ausnamesstant, his state of exception, he says the sovereign is the one who has the power of the decision over the exceptional condition. So where does the sovereign appear?

If the sovereign is the state, he's the state personified, where does he draw his power from? He draws his power from it being an exceptional condition where normal laws no longer applies. Yeah, but you just said that he is the one who decides that now there is an exceptional condition, right? So the sovereign, the furor, says now things are an out-namen-sustand. But at the same time, the out-snames-sustand is the only thing

that can produce the furor in this sense, right? So he is as circular as the people who is trying to criticize and I think this is the political, theological, you know, wheel or like, you know, like in a true detective, you know, like the history is a flat circle.

The flat circle. The flat circle. This is the flat circle of political theology. The furor needs the state of exception, which comes, as we know, with the Reichstag. But at the same time, the Fury is the one who can make sure that the Reichstag burns, right? And so it's like, yeah.

Lacan has like a nice thing here. He says, you know, like that the king is not the king just because he says a king, just because he says he is a king any more than a bigger who says he is a king. Now, Altauzeer developed this simultaneously with Lacan. And he said that like, you know, the Eye of Providence,

It's wrong to assume that the eyes, like those beams of light that appears on your dollar bills out of like the eye of providence. It's wrong to assume that they are beaming out of the eye. They are beaming towards the eye because the people are looking towards the eye to see the true nature of things. The eye itself does not see the true nature of things. And here is the thing where it's like what the true Ausnambisturstant should be is the lenient. eigenblik, the blink of an eye, when the eye of Providence blinks. And, you know, it's not clear whether the beams are going there or they are coming out of it. You know, like, of course, the ruling class believes they are the beams beaming out of the eye.

The revolutionary class conscious class knows and should know if they want to have a revolutionary project that the legitimacy of the eye is only there because they are looking towards it to legitimize what they are doing. But in the Leninist Aogenblik, when the eye blinks, now we have opened up the condition for true revolutionary change, right? And Schmidt, does he go this far? I would say he does not. You know, like he stays with this circular idea of like the sovereign who is like still sort of functioning within parliamentary justice, you know, like never forget that Hitler was democratically elected, right? and he is this kind of charismatic leader who is the personification of a hierarchy of tradition in some sense

it's not really something new being introduced it's more of an affirmation of like yeah something else with a little help from Lukash here to make sense of it all right he kind of distills the circularity of Schmidt's state of exception and sovereignty, like these two concepts, right? As you said, they are codependent on one another, but neither has a theoretical basis outside of that relationship of codependency, right?

Which is very parliamentarian, right? And liberal. Exactly, exactly. Which is why, like, he's operating within this structure, to supersede what he perceives to be its limitations on, like the, I don't know if progressive force is the right word, but the vitalistic force, let's say, instead of progressive force, of the folk towards its destiny. The force of intensity.

And the two quotes that Lukash puts together to describe this circularity, he's quoting Schmidt here and says, the exceptional case is more interesting than the normal one. In the exception, the force of real life penetrates the crust of a mechanism stiffened by repetition. This is Lukash saying, and he summed up his argument as follows. Now he's quoting Schmidt again. He is sovereign who has the power of decision over the exceptional condition, right? So, what I think is really interesting in that first part of the sentence that's Schmidt quoted by Lukash is first of all the extremely sexual metaphors in that framing right like he's talking about penetration he's talking about real the force of real life he's talking about the crust of a mechanism

stiffened by repetition. Like, he is just talking about rape. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. There's no post, not clarity for this guy. It's like whatever you feel while you're raping, that's the end all, end all. Like, that's the truth. You know, that's the true power.

You have to keep on fucking, right? Like, the first orgasm isn't enough. You have to keep on fucking to penetrate the crust of the mechanism stiffened by repetition to like some special orgasm that nobody has yet known and this

the Jewish twins at the same time with their father's permission of course if you could get there if you just could get there but at the same time of course we know that if they could get there it wouldn't work because like you need to

keep the ambiguity right like so like you have to to reinstate this metaphor, like, because the Jew doesn't really exist for these people, right? Like, he is an ambiguous metaphor of, like, being at the same time, something which, you know, blends in perfectly to, to everyday civil society, but at the same time, it's like, you know, so clearly Jewish that, you know, you can make a caricature out of him or her.

And, you know, like, he's at the unintellectual lowest level of society, you know, doesn't know how to produce culture, but at the same time, he's the mastermind of all culture, and he's so super intelligent that he knows how to rule everything from behind the scene. And this is where we get in, I think, then, to the second concept. Like, once the sovereign has been established, here as, like, you know, the ultimate charismatic leader, which is, you know, initially a Viberian point of Caesarism, of the liberals, because it's going to finally make sure that like

the fights within the bourgeoisie and within the House of Lords of the Parliament is resolved and they all have a common goal in the sovereign here Schmidt understands that like this continuous fucking is

you know that's taking place among the dissatisfied people who have never stepped into the parliament so how do you make sure that you can channel them with the ambiguity of this metaphor of the sovereign. Here it starts to use the

Leviathan like of Hobbes and I think this is interesting because in Swedish it would be archaic I think to be talking even as a religious person about God fearing. A god fearing subject I know in Anglo-Saxon

tradition is a very good Christian but I haven't heard it so much in Swedish religious thinking. I mean, they will probably start talking about it in a short while. But it's very interesting that, you know, the Leviathan. Like if we if we think about the metaphor. Well, interestingly, I mean, apart from Sweden's social democratic system with a left wing bent to it, right, it's very much a concept that's at the top of the hierarchy of American politics. God fearing, you know, all of these perverts that refer to an overarching morality based in some,

like we were talking about last time with the kind of debased theology of the righteous gemstone style, neon Bible Christianity, that all of these fucking perverts like Lindsay Graham, right? Like think about another guy who's a real psychosepherson. political actor that we see every day nowadays in the modern sense is still referring to God-fearing lined up with all these evangelicals the merger of neoconservative imperialist politics murderous neoconservative imperialist politics with a debased theological faux morality like it's it's kind of the three or four iterations of Schmidian political theology to the point where now you even have

like Peter Thiel, who I think we're, I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves. We are leading up to a part three of this as we get close to recording for like almost four hours tonight. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But that Peter Thiel and these other sort of self-styled Catholics of the modern political landscape talking about an Antichrist as their political opponent. Exactly. And that's just an empty category into which they put whatever material they want.

And again, just like Schmidt, what is the big pile of garbage that they want to put in the bucket labeled Antichrist. It's, of course, class consciousness. It's the proletariat. It's any opposition to monopoly capitalism. Yeah. And the Jews. Yeah.

Because he understands that, like, the House of Lords doesn't exist anymore. So they cannot be, you know, the only thing that can produce parliamentarian homogeneity, which can sort of trickle down into the rest of society, is fear, you know.

as long as the sovereign is both this sort of object of fear and at the same time the subject which channels this fear of the people. Well, now you got yourself a fascist project man. Like, that's how we're going to do this. And he understands this and he starts

using like Hobbes Leviathan. And I've thought about this like, you know, with the help of like some other documents that I was reading about like the purpose of a metaphor. I think initially we think, oh, was so stupid right like and people

Hobbes thinkers have been thinking for a long time it's so stupid that like he uses this Leviathan which is so multifacitated when when Hobbs is like sort of known for being like the master of a singular interpretation you know like he speaks

against the use of metaphors and like and both Schmidt and Hobbs goes back here I don't know if Schmidt does it by word but like you know to Aristotle's understanding of the difference between an analogy and a metaphor and like how the orational purpose of a metaphor is formalized.

Like for Aristotle's, it has to be made clear what the metaphor is talking about. That is the purpose of an Aristotelian metaphor. Like an Aristotelian metaphor is only beautiful in as long as you can feel the relationship. between what it is talking about and what it is referring to. Now, the thing is, Schmidt doesn't actually seem to be going for Aristotle's metaphor. There is another Greek thinker at the same time called Demetrios, who introduces this notion of the god-fearingness. The more ambiguous the metaphor is, the more fucking uncertain you feel,

and the more you stand both in awe and in terror of that which is being described. You know, like you can't quite put your finger on it, so you ought to love and hate it at the same time. You know, you ought to feel reassured and never more uncertain when you listen to the furor speak, you know? Like that is like the end or not the end, but that is the end of this process. And I think we always view it the wrong way because we think, oh, here is Hobbes Leviathan. How is it that it is both the state, it is a monster, it is a personification, it is God, it is all of these different things, like how can you put it all together into one thing? We do the mistake of starting off at the monster and then rationalizing out from it to see where it came from. We have to understand that like to the regular people who are caught in this mess of the Ausnama of Sustand, they need one single thing that explains everything.

for them, you know? Like, like, just think, like a regular American who was afraid now of, like, vaccines during, like, the Ausnamesest Stand of COVID-19 pandemic. Like, if you start at, like, the Jew, and, you know, and you say, oh, the Jew controls big pharma, the Jew controls the media, the Jew controls the state, the Jew controls big cam and, you know, chem trails and whatever, initially that seems retarded. Like, why would you, you know, that seems more complicated, you know, like how is this a simplification of anything? Like, you're going to have to make so many jumps here and so many connections.

Like, what a project this must be. But you have to understand, like, it starts from the other end, right? Like, it's somebody who doesn't understand how vaccines work. I don't understand how vaccines work. I don't understand how, like, you know, viruses actually work either. You know, like, that is like a high level of, like, you know like ivory tower understanding of things like

we are all like sort of half caught in understanding and non understanding here and the only one who can solve it is the one who's like well actually maybe yeah the long-nosed goblin did it and then in that instance that makes perfect

vitalist existential sense you know because now you're freed from a certain you know sense of dread but you know who to fear and And then you just do that step by step until little by little you, you know, unbeknownst to yourself, you find yourself in a position where, you know, whatever happened throughout the Weimar Republic, was it that initially you lost the war and you don't understand why you lost the war?

Then you came home and you lost your house. You don't understand why you lost your house. Then you lost your job. You don't understand why you lost your job. But then the money started to be worth nothing. You don't understand why money is no longer worth anything. But in each step of the way you had the long-nosed goblin, like, as a sort of like, you know, the same way that Jaws functions in the movie, the Jaws.

It's like it doesn't matter what you feared. It's easier to fear Jaws, you know? Like, don't try to explain everything. Like that's, you know, all you need to fear is Jaws. And that's why Schmidt brings everything back, like all political, problems, everything that we've talked about now for four hours can be brought down to one single formula, which is the formula of friend and enemy. And that is like Schmidt's, you know, big fucking trick, you know, like...

It is literally the concept of the political, right? That book that he published in, what was it, 1929. 23, right? No, wait, when is it? Yeah. It's, again, I think it's kind of a compilation of different. essays and like the chapters aren't necessarily part of the book or something. Yeah, you're right. It's published in the 30s, but it consists of the last few years up until that point of his

essay writing. And in that book, in that compilation of essays, he develops the concept. And it's, I mean, it's so ingenious the way that he does it because once again, like, he is a keen, keen observer of the ways that all of the political economists that Marx had critiqued up until, you know, Marx's life, which is a generation or two generations removed from Schmidt, of course. but he picks it up in a lot of ways, right where Marx had left off in bringing the rational tendency of Marxist analysis according to the immortal science of historical materialism and irrationalizes it in a slight of hand that is so intuitively effective that I think even today give any old chud on the street a copy of the concept of the political

and they will be, I think, under its spell pretty quickly, right, in the friend-enemy distinction. I think so too. It has a lot of currency. Just as aesthetics is decided by ugly and beautiful, so too is political. political decided by friend and enemy.

Like you can't make it more simple. Initially you think of what an absolute idiot Schmidt is. Like, oh, you know, like it hurts my brain to imagine that this is all there is to it. But then you start to understand that like fucking smart, you know, like so smart to to just give everybody this, you know, like easy way out, you know, out of which they can't escape them, you know, like, oh, yeah, you thought it was about class drugs. How did your unionizing go? How did your revolutionary project go?

You all failed. Do you want something to channel all your anger and your despair and your, you know, sense of right and wrong into? Yeah, I've got a system for you, man. Like, it's so easy. There are some people who are friends, some are enemies. In a lot of ways, you know, everything that came in the sort of new age movement, like all of the, you can kind of think about all the new agey type of thought systems,

all of this self-help shit that dominates the shelves of airports and stuff, you know, the bestseller list and whatever. Even somebody like Malcolm Gladwell, right, is derivative in some ways of this oversimplification by way of ideological manifesto that Schmidt pulls off through this. concept maybe for the listener who hasn't read it we should just give the short version of what he means by the concept of the political as the friend enemy distinction you want to have a go with that you do it you do it better okay okay so I mean basically you know at risk of oversimplifying what he says is

you know forget about your ruling class and work class, forget about your religious dichotomies, whatever, like the concept of the political, just like you can have your concept of the economic, just like you can have your concept of the religious, just like you can have your concept of, you name it, right? It's taking advantage of what we discussed in the last episode. In fact, in part one of the professional right the siloing off of the disciplines in academia into these uh different silos like so like taking the broad category of political economy and subdividing it into you know uh political science economics sociology yeah yeah making it more more and more complex yeah yeah

compartmentalization, yeah, and professionalization. Yes. And so what Schmidt does is for the concept of the political, he reduces the entire realm of consideration into just this friend-enemy distinction whereby the group, the political unit is defined by who is considered a friend. and it's not exactly gemineshaft, it's not exactly gazelshaft. Of course not. Because at the end

of the day, this is not a neocountian trap where you yourself have to decide who is the enemy and who is the friend. All you need to know is that the sovereign is going to tell you. And you just need to like, you know, make sure that you are one with that homogeneity and, you know, it couldn't be easier. It's like it's the easiest game and he gives you a walkthrough, you know?

Like, it's, yeah, everybody can understand the rules of the game, but you don't even have to play it. The sovereign will play it for you and you just need to show up. Yeah, you just need to perceive. You just need to be subjective in the moment and decide, do I consider this group of people my people. Uh-huh. Exactly.

It's like that, it's that simple. That's why Gramsci called fascism a passive revolution. Because even though it looks to us like as a mass revolution with a lot of activity, I mean, a lot of it was like just stay at home and watch this happen. I mean, like at the Nuremberg, you know, meetings, like the vast majority of the people who showed up there were paid, you know, paid protesters. And yeah, it's, they don't ask too much of you. you want to be a fascist. It's easy. It's really like the easiest. It's amazing. Yeah. It's really

quite a coup. It's, you know, will you fight and die for this collective and, you know, ignoring completely the circularity once again of this concept, right? Like, will you fight and die for the group that the sovereign, conscripts and forces you to fight and die for? Like, well, yeah, if you don't want to get killed by the sovereign, you will. Therefore, you're conscripted into the friend group. It's not like he poses it as this totally subjective concept, this totally individual free association,

but it's the opposite of that. It is simply the group that is determined by the sovereign, and it's like so crazy how it's in your intro right like it's in the fourth rike podcast intro when bush is like after the american rachstag fire on 9-11 he's like you're either with us or you're with the enemy man i'm a stupid texel i can understand that like do you need anything else you want understand how like Clinton's reformation of the welfare

system works? Definitely not. I've got such a better much better project for you to engage with. Exactly. Exactly. I mean that is exactly what it is. It's like

just a total reduction to us versus them and dressing it up in something beyond the realm of, you know, the on the ground everyday life, right? It's a transcendental implication of essentially propaganda.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because now, like, once you've made that jump, then you entered the realm that we have, like, been talking about so far, you know, the psychedelic, the existential, the vitalism, the irrationalism. here you don't need a brain anymore man like you just need to make sure that like you you're not a flake you know like just be awesome

and just like you know just bash and and shoot and rape and like just be with it you know like be groovy in the fascist sense and we will you know you will be of the in group and of course there's a problem here because you're gonna run out of enemies right that's the that's the thing why fascism

necessarily has to develop into world imperialism and of course like Schmidt is already he's immediately there like first he's there with a pamphlet after the night of the long knives which I could maybe quote here if I find it

yeah oh yeah I remember reading this whole speech actually in this summer like last summer in 2025 when I started posting about the Night of the Long Knives and that Max Gallo book that I read, like, man, it's such a good book. Like, I want to find an e-book and post it for all the listeners to read because it's so, and I said, you know, I said this a year ago, more, almost a year ago now, but it's so insane just how much like we are in the early, early days of the,

you know, we've referred to the Fourth Reich as everything in the post-war American reality, but the current moment is actually almost a revanchist revisitation of the Third Reich in so many ways, including the dynamics around the night of the Long Knives. And even, you know, you could almost consider. Trump to be a Hindenburgian figure, you know, not the actual fascist godhead for posterity. But he's one year into this term, and he's already, like, extremely pants shittingly demented in his, you know, degeneration of his mental capacities. And meanwhile, like you said, when we were talking, I can't remember if it was on Mike or off Mike, but the ice that is being

formed as this sort of lumpen. Manifabu. Yeah. We don't know, right? Like, yeah, of course, initially it's going to be like on a lumpen level of like a trash politarian ex-Afghan veterans and, you know, like invalids from the, all the wars that you have and in Iraq or wherever who are angry. and who just wants, you know, a legal mandate and a uniform

to impose their force on the enemy, which, like, you know, Trump has no problem with, you know, declaring in a way that liberals never dare to declare, you know. He's saying straight up, oh, it's the Mexicans. It's the, you know, it's the brown people who are coming across the border, you know, like he's giving them everything that they've been waiting for ever since the welfare state started to collapse. Yes.

And, you know, today's brown shirts are tomorrow's Alt de Kampfer, right? Like the old fighters, the guys in Hitler's Germany, the reason why the essay was purged in 1934 was because these brown shirts, the essay, the storm troopers, were coming to. to the Fuhrer with demands, political and economic demands, that asked more than the state could give them in economic terms and in political terms to be the vanguard of the new revolution. And all of this, you know, before you get into what you were about to say, and I'm sorry to interrupt, but there's this quote from Lukash that describes the utility of the sort of irrationalism. And I think that the listener by now will have grasped the fundamental irrationalism of the circular logic that Schmidt is employing in setting up the friend-enemy distinction, right?

It's utterly arbitrary. It is so... It's everything he says that he was against. Exactly, exactly. And so in that respect, you know, Lukash doesn't just describe how each one of the litany of German philosophers were irrational at the base of their thought and at the base of their philosophy. But he talks from a Marxist perspective about the utility to the bourgeoisie and to the rule of the ruling class. of this irrationalist philosophy. And in that respect, he says, quote, let us just take the task stated above. So this is after talking about a little bit of that, anyways.

Namely, the conversion of anti-capitalist mass drifts, indeed mass movements, into the naked, absolute dominance of monopoly capitalism, which set itself the closely related task, of converting widespread mass indignation, understandable and rightful in itself, at the imperialist peace of Versailles, into an aggressive imperialist chauvinism. It will be clear that only a radically irrationalist worldview is suited to even a purely demagogic reconciliation of such mutually conflicting tendencies. In other words, as you're were saying before, right, the conditions on the ground spur indignation, spur

proletarian revolutionary sentiments against the ruling class that rules, you know, on top of this throne of lies over the proletariat. Yes, Posedo Revolution of the fascist. Exactly. And it's like, You can't just say, you know, Mickey Mouse says go march into war for Mickey Mouse, you know, the great metaphor from the end of full metal jacket, right? When they're all singing the Mickey Mouse Club song. And so, who's the leader of the world that was made for you and me? M-I-C-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E. Y-U-S-E. Y-U-S-E.

Yes. Yeah, it's the absurdity, right? Like you might as well, like once you're in this jam, might as well sing the Mickey Mouse song. Exactly. Because it's going to be much, you don't want to be the enemy, man. Like you're going to do everything to be in the friend group. Exactly, exactly. And it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that it's irrational. What matters is that it has appeal and that at least, the promise of the future delivery of whatever libidinal or economic goods that you're promised from the sovereign is at least enough of a solid, you know, rope to grasp onto

to unite yourself with the fascia, with the jackboos. Just feel good. I just feel good I don't know I think this is a good place to stop I think we explained everything and in a way

I think like if we want to tie this back to like when we're going to jump into the fourth Reich we can begin to explain that like what we already said that like you are going to start to run out of internal enemies you know and then it has to

develop into an imperialist project and we knew we know that the Third Reich quite immediately failed in its imperialist project but the Fourth Reich has had you know

like I you know there is a moment where where Schmidt starts talking about the Monroe doctrine Oh yeah which I think explains like maybe the jump here when I got to

man my eyes popped out of my head when I saw Schmidt talking about the Monroe yeah yeah I I imagine like I think thought that that would like yeah resonate with you a lot because it's like it makes sense then of the fourth Reich why there had to be a fourth Reich because it's like yeah yeah it's like it's already there in the monroe doctrine but it's like maybe I quoted here like

so he's going to he's running to the defense of Hitler first he runs to the defense of Hitler in after the the knights the night of the the long knives and And here he says, quote, the furor protects, protects justice, that is the title of the paper. And in it even then he defends this arbitrary fascist justice. And let me see where the quote begins proper. The furor is in earnest over the warnings of German history that affords him the right and the power to found a new state and a new order. The Fuhrer is protecting justice from the vilest misuse

when in the hour of danger he creates justice directly as the supreme authority by virtue of his leader's office. The office of judge emanates from that of theurer. Anyone wishing to separate the two is seeking to put a state out of joint with the aid of justice. The furor himself determines the content and scope of a future. transgression against the law. And so here you see like full

Hitlerite Schmidt, which is much easier to understand, I think, and much simpler. Like everything we, you know, we be going through before like talking about like, you know, rule of law, Kantian, neo-Cantianism, normative law versus concrete law. Like now he's

you know, he's already on the winning team and he's just talking to the people who's already agreeing with him. And even more, than that he's justifying something which everybody who is still thinking views as wrong right and and of course like you know we of course the philosophy is going to get more simple once you've already won the parliament right we know that and once he wants to expand then like so so of course this is still on the level of an internal enemy right like i mean they're perching themselves

but you can't perj yourself again and again. And it bears noting too, it bears noting too here that he's publishing this right after the Night of the Long Knives when among the essay that were purged and murdered, right? It wasn't just violent brown shirts that posed the threat of taking up arms

against the Third Reich that were killed in summary execution, right? Like they went, rounded these people up and fucking, shot them at point-blank range. People who were their friends and comrades from like, you know, 10 years back they've been fighting shoulder to shoulder. And now they did just do this to themselves.

Right. Like without these guys, Hitler wouldn't have gotten to where he was by that time. Yeah. Of course not. Yeah, of course not. And among the people, it wasn't just like your crude, you know, Ernst Rom being the figurehead of and the most famous victim of the night of the long knife.

kind of the Lindsay Lindsey Graham maybe like a gay pervert who was like an anti-sovereign who was having these like ostentatious orgies and drunkenly you know sending like naked boys

out of his hotel rooms in crowds of people and just being embarrassing in a lot of ways but besides those very visible targets right other people that were killed included the likes of Strasser, right? The economist who was basically retired at that point in time was just like an academic kind of on the economic side of the political, economic, academic divide

from Carl Schmidt, you know, a contemporary in some ways of Carl Schmidt. Also, another guy, Edgar Jung, who was a Catholic and the advisor, like right-hand man of Franz von Pappen, who, as we said, way earlier in this episode, was the first political patron of Carl Schmidt, the Catholic political patron of Schmidt. So, like, he is sitting there really pissing on the graves of his comrades in arms. in the fascist struggle when he says this shit. I think it's like important to hammer home how absolutely amoral. Much of a backstab it is.

Yeah. I mean, vicious motherfucker. You know, when we talk about like these abstract concepts, right, he is here like, this motherfucker deserve to die and that motherfucker deserve to die. And any motherfucker deserves to die. Yeah. Except me. you know, leave me the fuck alone because I'm here, Hitler, writing these bars for your sovereign,

absolute authority. And you need me. And I'm here, man. Like, I'm on my knees. I'm licking the boot. I love the taste. It's delicious. Please, please.

Don't kick me. Yeah. And also it's like, it's perfect also when you have like an. internal purge like this because of course you need to keep on fearing the sovereign even if you know that you're part of the in-group you know like nobody should feel safe if this is going to like you know progress towards higher stages of caesarism then everybody i mean we all know what the highest absolute stage of caesarism is that's when the cedar gets killed by brutus like everybody needs even the caesar the sovereign himself needs to constantly fear uh you Yeah, the enemy friend divide. You know, like it's a paranoid explosion of political fervor. Yeah. And but of course, one last trick then, you know, it's the Monroe doctrine and trying to push this into like a global sphere, you know,

and trying to make, you know, a world of only rights and not nations. I mean, this is explicit words from Schmidt, you know. There will no longer be. States as before but only empires vote to the neutrals he says in another paragraph in another title of another

paper you know like he knows definitely that this has to mature into imperialism otherwise we're going to just like run out of our own blood we need to like you know start tapping the big tap of like international world domination

and you know try to yeah divide the world into regions of Reich control and and and homogenize the Reich

homogenize the gazelle like unify the gazelshaft and the Gemineschaft yeah exactly like he doesn't even give up his sociological norms here like it feels like here we're already on the point of like a blood orgy

but he's still you know he's still like no but this will be the best for everybody because then you know like there will be yeah like you say homogeneity and will feel like we belong and, you know, there will be like no confusion and like, you know, it's as if the world can be divided into four kinds of people. And then you stay over there.

We will stay over here. And then we just all be fascists together, but like in our only separate way or something. I mean, it doesn't go really beyond this, but I mean, what are we to think of this? Like how and I mean, this is popular among American theoreticians today, right? Like class of civilization, who is it? the guy who was one of the big... Huntington. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, Huntington, right? He was like a big advisor, right, to the Bush... Advocate. Yeah, advocate and advisor to the Bush administration, right? And maybe even the first Bush administration. Oh, yeah. And even before that, yeah, he was like a big... I mean, he held a position at Harvard University.

This is the thing. It's like these ideas have not been at all purged from... the mainstream. The opposite is true, and they are coming back with such a vengeance that we all need to be aware of them, and we all need to be on the lookout with our lens sharpened by the likes of George Lukash to spot their bullshit for what it is. I mean, it is convincing in the same way that it's convincing when your Tucker Carlson's are able to put their finger on the hypocrisy of the liberal democratic order and the lies that the Democrats tell in order to keep the illusion of democratic rule by the people in place, right?

Like, we all know that that's bullshit. We can see through it, just like Schmidt could see through it. But that creates the big danger that the Schmittian thinkers of today, and that's going to be the subject matter for the part three of this, when we look at Peter Thiel, Steve Bannon, all of these fucking evil-doers that really pull the strings of our government and of the ghouls that control the Ameri-Israeli Empire, are digesting this Schmidian irrationalism and deploying it in a way that it might sneak under the radar if you're not looking out for it.

But once, like, I don't know, maybe we could finish with like a subjective reflection, Marcus, that for my part, when I look, you know, after having read this stuff and seeing, like, through the they live goggles of, Lukash upon these fucking people and their insane political theology of 2026 as it bears down and you know informs the murderous hordes of ice agents and the concentration camp empire that's popping off throughout the United States of these immigration detentions. It's like you just want to scream it at the top of your lungs because it's so apparent what they're doing and it really is like and and we'll get into also the ways in which Lukash in the epilogue to the destruction of reason which is the you know the work that we've been quoting from a bit to kind of demystify and unpack the the Schmidian bullschmidt

yeah yeah it was a what a relief to like you know you read two three books by by Schmidt and like I mean I you know like a Kantian K-hole of like trying to understand like really desperate like we were talking off mic right I was telling you like

I don't know what's right and wrong anymore you know and then you were telling me you have some job to do in this legal sphere and I'm like like you know starting to doubt you know is there really a core of like trying to understand like you know

what is it that we ought to do or like what is the law and I think you know like this very like fundamental questions and then you just read Lukatch and you remember like oh yes the economy yes they are doing this because they they want to fuck and they want to get richer I and so yeah I remember yeah exactly like waking up from a nightmare it was oh man yeah it's a real relief yeah well especially I mean and we'll you know

just a little teaser for next time we'll start off with you know he talks Schmidt about this tendency towards neutrality, right, from the theological realm where theological disputes gave rise to the resolution of those disputes through bourgeois rule and the scientific revolution and all of that rationalization. The highest phase that he illustrates in his conceptual framework in the concept of the political is, towards technocracy, right? Or what he calls technicity, which is kind of the imbueing of technology

with these magical powers. And good Lord, if we're not living in that fucking world right now. It's the perfect fucking, you know, synthesis of like, oh, is this happening because of social reasons or because of natural reasons? And it's like, let me introduce you

to the idea of, technology like it's it's material it's social it's you know it's it's everything you want it to be but it's happening on its own accord and nobody can be blamed for it and you are you know you you're you're a sub enemy if you say no to the the progress of technology you know so yeah no I it's gonna be beautiful because there's nothing more I hate than the technognostic techno you know millenarian or eschatological thinking of these people, you know?

Like, it's, it's, yeah, we've really entered into a new interesting phase here where like outright, yeah, fascist ideology is once again being like, you know, it's, it's become different enough to be able to be so openly propagated. But at the same time, they've, you know,

there's talking about Schmidt's stuff still. And when you see that that's what, you know, that that's there, Yeah, it becomes so much easier. And it's such a relief. And it's nice to not to have to be intimidated by their bullshit, you know, like because you know where they're coming from. Exactly.

Exactly. I mean, it is certainly like these people have the power. But, well, we have the logic. We have the arguments. We have the analysis to undo. and to topple their house of cards on which their entire ideological edifice is constructed, the question is, will we have the numbers, will we have the unity, and will we build the class consciousness to actually take that action and like a, you know, upset child that the parent is

cheating against him at checkers, you know, turn over the board, throw all the pieces on the floor and storm off of this fucking perverse game. Of course we will, man. Of course we will, brother. Don't worry. Hell yeah. Hell yeah. All right. Well, thanks again, Marcus. This was a blast once more. Thank you. I feel once again exercised. It's a wow. Nice. Thank you. And thanks everybody who went through the process. I hope you, I hope you, yeah, we made some sense of 18th century and early 1900. 19th century and early 20th century German legal thinking and the vows of sociology

Yeah and look you know And everybody at home listening You should pick up Lukash You can find all of these books For free in PDF form online Very easily History and Class consciousness The Destruction of Reason

Like arm yourself Theory on the novel Everything is good I haven't found a book that's bad by Lukach, I promise. Yeah. It's all good. Because together we can defeat the fascists. We can get them out.

We can beat them at their own game. I mean, their own game is just making up bullshit. We made their game. We made their game. They just changed the rules. They're just stealing our shit, really. Because they lost. Fuck these pirates, man.

They just didn't understand the game. And they're like, no. Yeah. That's the thing. I mean, the real problem now is like that they are showing a willingness to commit unbridled acts of murder, which, you know, we'll have to figure out a way around that. But as far as the ideological battle is concerned, we got them nipped. So onward we go. On behalf of Marcus, on behalf of Dick.

My name is Don, and I am here to tell you the listener, fare thee well, and please do keep on digging. Hi, high, high, high, boys and girls from far and here you're welcome as can be. M-I-C-E-Y, M-O-U-S-E. Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me? MIC, K-E-Y, M-O-U-N-C-M-A-C-E-M-E-M-Y-E-M-Y-M-E-E-M-E-E-M-Y-C-E-M-E-E-M-E-E-C-M-E-E-M-C-E-E-H-N-E-E-E-E-H-E-E-E-E-E-H-E-E-E-Y-E-E-O-U-A-E-E-E-L-E-E-E-O-U-N-C, M-C-E-E-E-E-E-E-Y-E, M-E-E-E-E-E-E-M-C, M-E-E-E-M-E-L-E-E-E-M-M-C-E-E- Thank you.