Examining Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt's insights on fascism, this passage warns how authoritarian leaders manufacture perpetual states of emergency to trade liberty for false security, while exploring how the label of "extremism" is often weaponized against legitimate dissent to establish and maintain tyrannical control.

Reflection Questions:

Think about times when you've been asked to sacrifice personal freedoms for promised security - whether in relationships, at work, or in civic life. What helped you distinguish between real and perceived threats? Between actual safety and a sense of comfort?

Snyder illustrates how the label of "extremist" often says more about who's doing the labeling than those being labeled. In current political discourse, how do you see this dynamic playing out? How do you determine when opposition to mainstream ideas represents dangerous extremism versus legitimate dissent?

Consider the concept of a "state of exception" that becomes permanent. In your own experience, can you identify temporary emergency measures that became normalized over time? How might understanding this pattern help us better evaluate calls for emergency powers or exceptional measures in the future?

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seamushawkins.substack.com