If state is the exercise of power in the form of regulation of social antagonism, the church in 18th century Europe was a state that chose church imperialism as means for such regulation.

Assuming “politics” then is simply a pointer at the “act of politiking,” redistribution of the perceptible, then what is the redistribution of the exercise of power called? Sure we can call them both “politics” but one sense of the word is much more restrictive than the other. In the former sense, politics belongs to equality, the latter is robbed from it through exclusivity.

By allowing such overdeterminism, of language in this case, the state was separated from the church, the missionary transformed to a colonizer, and Jesus to John Locke. The result was a conflation. Was the separation of the church and the state one aimed against oppression innate to the act of regulation, or in the mechanics of the act of oppression/regulation? While the latter is enough to abolish the church, the former would result in abolishing the state, of which church imperialism only a form.

The conflation, between means and ends, nonetheless is granted. The price of dereligionizing the state was religionizing politics: with language going out of business now in this overdeterministic utopia, language can only exist if its sacred. Sacred here does not point at a language that is not open for interpretation but rather language that conforms to one’s desired interpretation. With inequality implicit now, that “one” whose desire is what language now strives to conform to is the “superior” one: the king, the prince, the civilized, the educated, the genius; the chosen one.

[Israel’s Prime Minister]: “It is either that the Palestinian Armed factions surrender or the world should expect the atrocities to continue.”

Without specifying whose atrocities he meant, the perversion resulting from the unproductive language here is in equating between the act of the oppressor and the act of the oppressed. But that is only one axis of perversion in this statement.

More interestingly is the following statement.

[President of the US]: “Unshakable support it Israel [Genocide].. No to Rafah invasion.. Yes to a Palestinian state.”

Two distinct statements by two distinct parasites must converge is what language is now: existing outside its own. Unshakable support to genocide but with restrictions (redundancy) is what the first two phrases of the latter statement says. Necessary however if the statement will end with “Yes to a Palestinian state.”

But the Palestinian struggle is a refugee struggle first and foremost. The arithmetic of the two-state solution can only work however if the refugees are cancelled out, if the struggle is trivialized: still oppressed, but now under a different mechanism.