eavers.

From the general relation of politics to social crime we will explain
why the weavers' revolt could cause no special "fears" to the King.
For the moment only this need be said: the revolt was directed not
immediately against the King of Prussia, but against the bourgeoisie.
As an aristocrat and an absolute monarch, the King of Prussia can have
no love for the bourgeoisie; he can have even less cause for
apprehension when their submission and their impotence are heightened
by a strained and difficult relation to the proletariat. Further: the
orthodox catholic regards the orthodox protestant with more hostility
than the atheist, just as the legitimist regards the liberal with
greater hostility than the communist. Not because atheists and
communists are related to the catholic and legitimist, but because
they are more alien to him than the protestant and the liberal,
because they are outside his circle. As a politician, the King of
Prussia finds his immediate antagonism in politics, in liberalism.

For the King, the antagonism of the proletariat exists just as little
as the King exists for the proletariat. The proletariat must attain to
decisive power before it can extinguish antipathies and political
antagonisms, and draw upon itself the whole enmity of politics.
Lastly: it must even afford a delightful surprise to the well-known
character of the King, thirsting for what is interesting and
important, to find that "interesting" and "much celebrated" pauperism
on his own soil, in conjunction with an opportunity of making people
talk about him afresh. How smug he must have felt at the news that
henceforth he possessed his "own" Royal Prussian pauperism.

Our "Prussian" is even more unlucky when he denies "religious feeling"
to be the source of the Royal Cabinet Order.

Why is not religious feeling the source of this Cabinet Order? Because
it is a "very sober" expression of Christian statecraft, a "sober"
expression of the doctrine which places no difficulties in the way of
the acceptance of its own medicine: the good feeling of Christian
hearts.

Is not religious feeling the source of Christian statecraft?

Is not a doctrine which possesses its panacea in the good feeling of
Christian hearts based on religious feelings? Does a sober expression
of religious feeling cease to be an expression of religious feeling?
In fact, it must be a religious feeling greatly infatuated with itself
and very intoxicated which w