The Theoretical Model or Trope. Indeed, in A Thousand Plateaus, it is an analysis of historical Nazism which promotes a significant development of Deleuze and Guattari's theoretical project, a development that marks what is perhaps that book's most significant difference from Antioedipus. In the context of the historical and political response to fascism, Guattari's contribution contribution to the partnership is crucial. Guitari gives Deleuze's philosophical project a material and political context beyond the disciplinary tradition of philosophy. If Deleuze's philosophical project up until 1972 can be seen within the philosophical problematic of freedomdom, the ethical constitution of the power of movement and of action, this investigation
has given new meaning in the face of fascism. If Deleuze had previously prioritized the consideration of the ethical subject, viewed on a Spinozan basis, for which the prime question is, what can a body do? With Guattari, this becomes a consideration of the fascist subject, or the potential subject of fascism, and equally, an attempt to outline the resistant, non-fascist subject. Here then, the art of organization of such a non-fascist subjectivity receives his political and social valence. Deleuze and Wattari state, quote, the fundamental problem of political philosophy is still precisely the one that Spinoza saw so clearly and that Wilhelm Reich rediscovered. Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though
it were their salvation? Reich is at his profoundest when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desires into account, an explanation formulated in terms of desire. No, the masses were not innocent dupes. At a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism. And it is this version of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for." This then is the question motivating the investigation into desiring production that is anti-Oedipus. In Reich, this problem of a desire that desires its its own repression is immediately a question of class politics. It signifies a disjunction between the class interests of sections of the proletariat and the lower middle classes
and their organized support of or desire for Hitler in 1933. This contradiction or cleavage between the economic and the ideological situation of the masses is then perceived by Reich as a crisis in the political to challenge orthodox Marxist analysis. Reich demonstrates the impossibility of what Laclau on move would term class essentialism. The fact that Hitler created an ideological coalition amongst various fractions of both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie seems to deny any link between class and subjectivity. After all, Reich states, quote, one would expect economically wretched masses of workers to develop a keen consciousness of their social situation, unquote. However, in fascism, and for Laclau and populism also, quote, this quote from Reich, with respect to practical politics, it was not the economic, but the
ideological distribution that was decisive, unquote. Reich thus anticipates both Althusserian over-determination and hegemony theory, and also motivates Deleuze-Inglateri's own formulation. Reich explains this disjuncture between the material and subjectivity by positing, quote, ideology is a historical force, unquote. Ideology becomes material such that the actions of the masses are overdetermined in the contradiction between economic infrastructure and the relatively autonomous superstructure of the state apparatus. Ideology is embedded in the masses through its effect on their psychic structures and thus reproduces the contradictions of capital but in a new overdetermined form. Quote, inasmuch as a social ideology changes man's psychic structure it has become an active force and material power in man. Unquote. For Reich,
the design for fascism results from a transformation in the psychic structure of the masses, instituted through social repression, expressed in ideology, whose prime feature is sexual repression. Orthodox morality, enforced through the repression of basic sexual instinct, produces an identification with authority and with the state, which is structured on the model of the patriarchal family." Deleuze and Wattari continue Reich's project precisely at the point that he acknowledges its limitations. Reich states, quote, How it comes about that the psychic structures of the supporting strata of a society are so constructed that they fit the economic framework and serve the purposes of the ruling powers as precisely as the parts of a precision machine will long remain an unsolved riddle. To solve
this riddle, Deleuze and Matari reject the explanation provided by ideology. This is the epistemological break with the Reichian formulation, but still within the problematic posed by fascism, and at the same time the sign of their break with Laclau moved hegemony theory and cultural studies. Deleuze and Wattari moved to reinstate the material as subject to analysis, rather than concerning themselves if ideology understood as discourse. Reich was finally unable to develop a materialist psychiatry precisely because he maintained a split between infrastructure or base and superstructure. This quote from The concept of ideology is an execrable concept that hides the real problems, which are always of an organizational nature. If Reich at the very moment he raised the most profound of
questions was content to answer by invoking the ideological, the subjective, the irrational, the negative and the inhibited, it was because he remained the prisoner of derived concepts that made him fall short of the materialist psychiatry he dreamed of, that prevented him from seeing how desire was part of the infrastructure. Deleuze and Wattari reject ideology to assert the coexistence of the economic and the psychic of desire and production, for desire is production desiring production. Since Reich had not sufficiently formulated the concept of desiring production, he did not succeed in determining the insertion of desire into the economic infrastructure itself, the insertion of the drives into social production. Desiring production, they here imply, is Reich's concept of sex economy,
now sufficiently formulated not merely as parallel to the economic infrastructure, but as part of that infrastructure, materially embodied. If Reich showed the presence of a psychic structure of desire to support the economic framework of exploitation, he was unable to explain the relation between desire and the social, except as chance parallelism. For Deleuze and Wattari, however, quote, social production is purely and simply desiring production itself under determinate conditions. The Lozenguattari work prefer therefore not to ideology but to a specific form of the organization of desire within the infrastructure. They maintain Reich's distinction between interest and desire, but if the infrastructure from the point of view of desire is the productive, non-representational unconscious, interest is part of the system of the pre-conscious, accessible to consciousness and to representation.
Thus reformulated, the problem of fascism is in no way a problem of false consciousness, still less of ideology. Therefore the question of fascism is how an unconscious investment of desire can be reactionary at the same time as a pre-conscious investment of interest can be progressive. This particular organization of desire defines the specific subject formation, the subject of fascism, and by extension the potential subject of fascism, of everyday fascism, of micro-fascism. Of course, for Deleuze and Wattari, Oedipus effects disorganization of desire and of libidinal investments. Oedipus, a specific relation to production of desire, corresponding to a particular mode of production of desire. Oedipus is a fetter upon desiring production, organizing desiring production in the interest of the state, in the extreme case, in the interest of the fascist state. Oedipus is
an application upon desire, according to a particular segregated abuse of an unconscious process, producing the neurotic, the paranoid, the monolithic study, the subject or subjugating group. An anti-Oedipus, therefore, the two poles are subject formation of the revolution and the reactionary. In the paranoid reactionary subject formation, this subject is forever subjugated to constructions of race, nationalism, and all other forms of re-territorialization. At the paranoid pole, wonderment, after that's what it was, becomes barbarism. Between the two poles are the different forms of subject and state formation to be found in everyday life. Through Oedipus' application in the family as delegated agent, social repression and psychic repression achieves a perfect fit, such as the masses desire their own repression.
Fascism is the limit of the capitalist state, as its fullest attainment is a paranoid pole of subjugation and segregation. Quote, the fascist state has been without doubt capitalism's most fantastic attempt at economic and political re-territalization. Unquote. In a sense for to Deleuze and the Tiree, this has never been in doubt. They take for granted historical analyses of fascism's nationalism, bureaucracy, and so on. Their contribution to the analysis of fascism is to explain the means by which this effect is produced, and this is through Oedipus working as an application through the family. Oedipus then is at work everywhere, not merely in fascist states or cultures, rather all the more so in capitalism, which demands more intense re-territorialization, the more capitalism itself schizophrenizes, de-territorializes and its production of surplus value.
Fascism is the more potent of potentiality in capitalism the more intense or unstable a social formation is at the level of its de-territorializing productive forces. As Oedipus constitutes the imminent interior limit of capitalism so fascism is the limit point of capitalist territorial control the model of the imperialism of Celsius. Exploitation grows constantly harsher, lack is arranged in the most scientific of ways. Final solutions of the Jewish problem variety are prepared down to the last detail. Even revolutionary groups must continually guard against fascist investments at the level of their unconscious, marginal investments. Resistance to fascism is neither an abstract concept nor an episode confined to history.
It is the stuff of history, the making of history, that is, the interminable resistance. Along the same lines, Klaus Tablet uses Deleuze and Wattarian the close reading of the proto-fascist Freikorps text to make up his two-volume male fantasies. Tablet is also as concerned with the micro-fascisms of everyday life as with the historical appearance of fascism in Germany, and refuses to confine fascism to the otherness of history. On all times he insists that the truly disturbing aspect of fascism is that it was not exceptional. Quote, I don't want to make any categorical distinction between the types of men with the subjects of this book, male fantasies, and all other men. Unquote. Unlike Deleuze and Wattari's, however, Table-Eyes' analysis has very little to say concerning the fascist state. Unlike Reich, he is scarcely interested in the fascist rise
to power after 1933. In a sense, Table-Eyes is always examining micro-fascism. That he chooses to write about the Freikorps is perfectly consistent with his choice to avoid the problematic to fascism as it had been formulated in Germany, as a matter of recrimination or shame, as a mode of judgment on a historical event. He writes, quote, fascism is not a matter of form of government, or form of economy, or for a system in any sense. We need to understand that fascism not because so many fell victim to it, not because it stands in the way of the triumph of socialism, not even because it might return again, but primarily because there's a form of reality production that is constantly present if possible under determinate conditions, it can and does become art production. What is intriguing about Tablelite's analysis is that not only does his emphasis move from
the state to the individual, but at the same time he is less interested in the family than either Reich or Deleuze and Guattari. For an argument that rests on anti-Oedipus, Tablelite has remarkably little to say about Oedipus. Rather than an anti-Oedipal analysis of fascism, Tablelite is more precisely an Oedipal. For Tableite, fascist desire is notable above all for its transgression even of the limits of the Oedipal application. Tableite in moving the analysis of fascism away from interpretations of the state, the family and Oedipus, even anti-Oedipus, points to the limits of both the mass psychology of fascism and anti-Oedipus. His emphasis on the individual and the pack, the soldier male and his group formation, inadvertently, perhaps, moves the problematic of fascism away from the familialism which
characterized even Antioedipus. This familialism is a function of Deleuze and Wattari's positioning within the discourse of anti-psychiatry as much as they themselves recognize its limits. Quote from Antioedipus. Even the essential hypothesis of anti-psychiatry, which ultimately posits an identity in nature between social alienation and mental alienation, must be understood in terms of a maintained familialism, and not in terms of a reputation of this familialism. uncle, I suggest the Lozenguattari, fall into that trap. Especially by the mid-1970s, when Tablelight was writing male fantasies, an explanation of fascism predicated upon the family would have to face the question, what family? The power of the family as delegated agents of social repression through Oedipus has been
significantly attenuated to what Michael Hart terms the withering of civil society. Though the family has no doubt been historically crucial in the repression of desiring production, unique place is perhaps now lost. A loss visible all the more in the obsessive attempts to reconstitute the familial through a therapizing mass culture. Though still a privileged model, the family can no longer be seen as the prime vehicle of Oedipalization. Moreover, not only does Tablelite point to the limits of Oedipus as a form of analysis, but he also implies the limits of the solution posited in anti-Oedipus. For Delerting with Tari in 1972, quote, one can never go far enough in the direction of deterritorialization. You haven't seen anything yet, an irreversible process. Unquote. On
the one hand, Table Lake does celebrate at some length the possibility of endless flows of desiring production, the possibility of, quote, a breaking out, a crossing of bounties to discover new lands and new streams, deterritorializations, unconnected to any former homeland or any a new one." Yet on the other hand, in describing the non-fascist life, at times table light has some difficulty distinguishing it from fascism. Fascism's most significant achievement was to organize the resurrection and rebirth of dead life in the masses. The task of the non-fascist, however, is not to organize dead life, but to release it from its bonds, to intensify, accelerate, and transform it into a multiplicity whose best quality is that it cannot be organized as fascism, nor in any way assembled into blocks of human totality machines
knitted into interlocking networks of order. This human multiplicity will pursue its own goals and will doubtless organize itself in the process, always assuming it evolves in the first place. Unquote. The strange ambiguity concerning organization, especially evolution, with which this quotation ends, points to a general ambiguity table like senses, but never really articulates in the formation of the fascist or proto-fascist subjects. But the Freikorps do in fact operate through a remarkable process of de-territorialization, as the white terror that movements as a pack, even as a relatively unadministered, untotalized multiplicity, must be seen as to some degree nomadic. The institutions of the military academy that Tableau analyzes have in fact only minor relevance to the Freikorps,
who precisely as Freikorps went beyond all disciplining and regulation. In other words, if Germany in the aftermath of the First World War was in a state of anarchy, these proto-fascists contributed to this anarchy as much as did the left revolutionaries. Independent from the state or from state models, including the family and totalitarian institutions of the academy, the Freikorl was involved in a massive operation of deterritorialization. If this is indeed fascism, it is fascism as the constitution of a war machine violently opposed to the forms of the state. Whilst this formation too has its paranoid pole, it is at the same time an acceleration of schizophrenising processes. As Deleuze and Wattari themselves note, and tending in part to the problem of familialism, quote, the
error would lie in concluding, for example, that fascists are merely paranoiacs. This would be an error precisely because, in the current state of affairs, this would still amount to leading the historical and political content of the delirium back to an internal familial determination. To a certain extent then, Antioedipus was never certain of its analysis of fascism. Table 8 replicates and accentuates this uncertainty through his representation of the historical formation of proto-fascists. In A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari returned to the problematic of fascism with a new interest in historical fascism and particularly in Nazism. As a result, the nature of schizoanalysis and the role of the intellectual in the face of fascism fundamentally changes.
Deleuze indicates this new caution or sobriety in his dialogues with Claire Farnay. The relatively cavalier approach to history, the attempt of a new universal history, is replaced with a new emphasis on specificity. Quote, there is no general prescription. We have done with all globalizing concepts. Unquote. This then particularly implies an analysis of possible dangers as well as possible opportunities provided by schizophrenizing, de-territorializing strategies or lines. Deleuze and Parnay asked, quote, how is it that all the examples of line of flight that we have given, even from writers we like, turn out so badly? Unquote. In a thousand plateaus, these dangers of the line of flight are specifically referred to fascism
and to Nazism. Outlining the various lines of social organization and the politics appropriate to each, the Losinguatari moved to the dangers of de-territorialization on the lines of flight. Quote, it would be oversimplifying to believe that the only risk they fear and confront is allowing themselves to be recaptured in the end, letting themselves be sealed in, tied up, de-territorialized, re-territorialized, sorry. They themselves emanate a strange despair, like an odor of death and immolation, a state of war from which one in turn is broken. Unquote. Deleuze and Guattari continue by suggesting that fascism might be situated along this line of flight, and as such are posed by nature to the state and to Oedipus. Quote, Fascism involves a war machine.
In fascism, the state is far less totalitarian than it is suicidal. There is in fascism a realized nihilism, a war machine that no longer had war as its object and would rather annihilate its own servants than stop the destruction. All the dangers of the other lines pale by comparison. It is on this negative note that this plateau, designated the date in 1933, closes. It is clear that here the analysis is very different from that, furnished by anti-Oedipus. It is here in the analysis of fascism, in the further consideration of the problematic which it defines, that the task of schizoanalysis, for which, quote, no activity had been too malevolent, unquote, threatens to collapse. When saying that is the change in the analysis of fascism that matched the difference between
Antioedipus and a thousand plateaus, I'm implicitly agreeing with Nick Land, for whom, however, this change represents a catastrophic act of bad faith. In a parody of Pucot's Preface to Antioedipus, Land asks, how do you make yourself a Nazi, and concludes that, quote, trying not to be a Nazi approximates one to Nazism far more radically than any irresponsible impatience in destratification, deterritorialization. Nothing could be more politically disastrous than the launching of a moral case against Nazism. Nazism is morality itself. For Arthur Redding, on the other hand, the analysis of fascism in a thousand plateaus is potentially more shocking than even Land in self-havoc apocalypse-shy realises, in that it points to quote the revolutionary nature of National Socialism.
Moreover, this is a valuation of fascism not just as the utopian populism suggested by Alex Kaplan, but as a sustained critique of the state form. Not that this should provoke a celebration of fascism, far from it. Rather it might suggest the limits of celebration, limits which Antihid of Irpas had too easily disparaged. A Thousand Plateaus ends with a discussion of smooth space. In essence, it's the same smooth space that fascism itself clears in its frantic deterritorialization, as Coventry, Warsaw, Dresden, Europe are flattened, the postmodern smooth space, the gravity's rainbow finds in precisely that bombed out zone. Quote, of course, smooth spaces are not in themselves liberatory, for the struggle is changed or displaced in them, and life reconstitutes
its stakes, confronts new obstacles, invents new paces, switches adversaries. Never believe that a smooth space will suffice to save us." If the work of Deleuze and Guattari is indeed seen as part of an interminable resistance to fascism, the question remains that of how that resistance is to be constituted. It is sobering to note the complexity of resistance and the impossibility of ever celebrating resistance or resisting through celebration. Was not Antioedipus from the start an investigation into how revolutionary groups might have unconscious libidinal investments of a fascist character? There is no space here for a politics of the elaboration of correct ideological lines. The problem remains that of the organization of desiring production, but is equally mistaken to see Deleuze and Matari as either A or anti-political.
Their work is situated at the crux of debate surrounding the reconstitution of the political in the face of fascism, and I would add, in the face of populism. One strand of political and cultural analysis, what I would call hegemony theory, looks to to Gramsci and strategies of discursive re-articulation to understand both the phenomenon of fascism or the failure of class essentialism generally, and the role of the intellectual as organic agent of subaltern collectivity. Deleuze and Matari decisively reject this understanding of the political, most clearly when they reject the notion of ideology, or at least ideology as the symbolic constitution of individual and society. At the same time, this Gramscian strain in political and social theory, has concomitantly formulated a position for oppositional intellectuals,
who become crucial given the discursive and public space of politics understood by hegemony theory. In contrast, Deleuze and Gretari seem strangely ambivalent concerning the role and nature of intellectual work, and theirs is an ambivalence that parallels and is associated with their changing views concerning the nature of fascism. In 1972, and with the analysis of fascism as simply territorialization and control, It was sufficient to deterritorialize thought or theory in a manner parallel to other material territorializations. Deterritorialization, sorry. This is essentially the role of the intellectual outlined in Deleuze and Foucault's interview, Intellectualism Power. However, such parallelism seems to falter as the analysis of fascism unfolds, and theory seems to have more of an organizational force.
Though Deleuze and Wattari still intend to avoid interpretation or representation, pragmatics or schizoanalysis does has its own object, that being the study of the danger of each line." The anxiety here, then, is of the possibility that schizoanalysis takes upon itself an illegitimate, parapsychical or transcendent position with regard to desiring production. As a result of this uncertainty, they therefore beg the question of the requisite mode or art of organization in both the first and the last instance, political organization. Perhaps symptomatically, the Lutarii hesitate between the slogan and the question as organizational modes for schizoanalytic writing. In Introduction Rhizome they write, very much in the style of Antioedipus, quote, Write to the nth power, the n-1 power, write with slogans, line of chance, line of hits,
line of flight, don't bring out the general in you, unquote. Later however, and perhaps in light of the problematic double nature of the order word or slogan as both death and flight, they figure schizoanalysis as a series of questions, thus avoiding the populist confidence of the sloganeer. Quote, what is your body without organs? What map are you in the process of making or rearranging? What abstract line will you draw? And at what price for yourself and for others? And so on. It is in the same mood, and with the same regard for the difficult, perhaps untenable, position of the intellectual, that their last book is titled precisely as a question, What is Philosophy? Though this final, both over-reflective and under-critical attempt to define the position of the critical intellectual has serious problems, at the same time it may be a move towards
formulating the problem in the correct manner. Maybe just as I've outlined Reich as part of a counter-tradition to Gramsci concerning the problematic of fascism, perhaps we could look to Reich's or other, for example, autonomous models of organization also to rethink the question of intellectual or theoretical practice and hence the shape of coming political movements and communities. Whatever, it should now be more difficult to formulate an anti-fascist politics upon the basis of simple sloganeering, whether the slogan in question be more perversion, more atavis, or debt to the human security system. Thank you. Oh sorry.
so Well I think there's two things. First of all, the Tablelight book is funny because it just uses anti-Youtipers, a fashion plateaus hasn't come out. And it's not about fashions, like it's about, I mean the Freikor themselves,
I mean like there's a strange position, it doesn't deal with almost anything after 1933. And it definitely does show that on any definition, a massive de-territorializing force, which for tablite at least re-territorializes on the male body in particular. Now there's one way of taking that, which is the way in which Deliz and Gutari state that it's on the line of greatest de-territorialization, that you also get the greatest blockage and the greatest re-territorialization, which accounts for the severity and the excess of which, like, they're constantly afraid of being sucked into, like, you know, the red woman and so on and so forth, all this kind of stuff that floods and so on, that they try and make their blockage, particularly upon gender relations, I guess.
But as I'm trying to say, in a detailed reading of Table H shows, in actual fact, there's some ambiguity in male fantasies about how much the fascism or the destructive power of the Freikorps is a result of this re-territorialization, or is actually inherent in the de-territorializing of which they're certainly apart. No, I certainly agree that moving around does not necessarily a nomad make in any sense. But also, I mean, like, Deliz and the Tari realize this themselves, and they do precisely show that the line of flight in 1000 Patois, this is the change in Nazis, constitutes or can be said to define as upon that line of flight that Nazism resides,
And that is the greatest danger of any of the lines in place. So I agree that, yeah, I mean, just because the Brickell happened to run around a little, but that doesn't make them deterritorializing. But I think there's that ambiguity in the first place in Table 8, and that that's something that Deleuze and Lutari, whilst not quoting or using Table 8 themselves in the, particularly this is the Micro Politics and Saving Maternity chapter, plateau, chapter, whatever, that's their analysis, in fact. Or what if there are analysis? There's a dual nature to flash or something like that.
I agree that of course, micropolicies are not just the locals. On the other hand, they do make a distinction between a molar fascism and a molecular fascism, and a micro-fascism which they talk about, which is what might be inherent, particularly in anti-usibus, in revolutionary groups themselves, is what they're worrying about. I don't think this rests so much on the distinction between micro and macro. I guess like the sort of linear notion that like the macro politics is I guess conventional you know like when you begin talking about like wars and revolutions and the second world and back in the border of things and then moving to the micro they're not necessarily like it's not necessarily local but it's everyday and might pervade like you know the poor.
I don't think it's an opposition. I think it's an opposition, I think it's a distinction. That's why it's a metaphor. No, I don't think it's an opposition, I think it's a distinction. They distinguish the molar and the molecular. Yeah, but it's not only what I was looking at, it's not only what I was looking at, but I was looking at the analysis. It's microphobic, it's just a way that the light capturing what some people call microphobic system fail in the light. And that's a whole lot of the time. What? Macrophobic? Why can't I be the only way to say it's macro politics?
I mean, I don't want to save macro politics. I don't think they want to save macro politics. I don't think they deny its existence. I mean, like, it's... Yes. and fashion and fashion spreads where these things are successful.
Because you're always setting yourself a blast without taking a better train from the other. And which is posing a great sentiment as a strength? I'm not talking about which is their own strength. I know that I'm talking about the Greek future in the film that we play down in the games. is a natural natural in terms of trees to be content despite the fact that there are clearly large numbers of people who are excited I would have thought there was an overwhelming
fascist They are far more responsible inside. They are far more open given some content of it. in cases of human bodies, and many facts in the field of crime, and it's just a spectacular crime. And so I think it's great for this question, too. They really need to keep plugs into these features, otherwise it seems to be abstract. We still have that danger to become from a basic mini-actual. But it doesn't really mean anything.
The question is, in Europe, in Europe, in America, what kind of processes might reinforce or complicate all around those social processes? I agree with the need for specificity. I'm in the US at the moment, and the course of Alphamishnum militia and whatever, and neopopulism generally, and Gingrich, though I don't think in any sense, well, in any serious sense, I mean they want a purification of the US Constitution for return to the amendment
I'm interested in doing those specific analyses at the moment in terms of life in America, looking at the Monteneros, for example, or the FMLN, and different ways of being political organizational movements which are outside the state, and how one can distinguish between them and understand them. I don't know more, but I'm trying to think through this kind of stuff. Can I talk to one more question? This question goes, maybe, links through the land event, and we'll go back to Brian's story, but it, you know, when I read Tabalite, and particularly its link on the gender into this terror of the other,
which is just, you know, it's also maybe racialized other, but clearly the focus of the book is gendered out there in some way. In Rahim Asumi, there's this broken, whatever, it's linear, it's not linear, but there's this vibration between the suspension, this half seconds or whatever it is, and then that which kind of signifies and gives meaning of that expression. But it seems that in some ways in fascism, there's a suspension of that first moment. And I wonder when really in terms of of when the virtual futures conferred, the technological suspension of intensity and so forth, in Bataille, this goes through Nick Land, in Bataille, the notion of somehow,
in Vaudrillard even arguing that fascism really understands the rationalization of the second moment in ways that other left politics didn't. It offers a kind of intensity that had one time been associated with a decentered self sacred, So the sacred then becomes, where the sacred becomes reconnected as opposed to defending itself. But what fascism does is offers a substitute for that, the intensity without giving up the self, the intensity that involves the blood of the other rather than the blood of the self. And so at the end of Tabulite, at the end of the first volume, you have this intensity of kind of marching selves and experience a kind of ecstasy, but on the other hand, the self is now more dependent than ever because the other is bleeding. and I see that happening throughout the states
and I also see it in some sense, and Brian has made a comment, maybe that belief isn't here, but affect is here. The intensity of the televisionary evangelist, these kind of right-wing groups, but also really the kind of intensity of a kind of virtual affect that doesn't allow the body to reconnect, that protects it against its others, but virtually experiences itself as if other in that first moment. So I'm really wondering then about sort of the technological support for that kind of intensity. It certainly was there in Germany, which outside the States was the most mediated, technologically mediated in any of the European societies at the time. And even in the ritual structure of Italy and so forth. But these are fascisms as they made themselves
nationally manifest. And both the Luz and Guattari and Pebbleite think that fascism may be the whole history of kind of edifice in the West, denial of interconnectedness. And then in some sense, of course, there's a resentment projected outward. So I don't know, I know that's, we've worked topics to come, but I don't know if there's so much questions or trying to be something that's used. Okay, well, thanks a lot. Thank you for coming.