“The fact that I was not prepared to resist, in 1935, meant that all the thousands, hundreds of thousands, like me in Germany were also unprepared, and each one of these hundreds of thousands was, like me, a man of great influence or of great potential influence. Thus the world was lost.”
― Milton Sanford Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933–45
I think a lot about white supremacy culture, and I think one in-obvious feature is how scared of white folks the white-bodied people generally seem to be.
That fear seems like a rational choice- one of my very first experiences of folks with white bodies as a human was them cutting the tip of my penis off, so I get why folks are generally afraid.
But that culture seems to be defined by its ability to normalize the harms it does to all who touch it, to reshape folks so that they don't even notice what gets cut off, and when the examine the scars they are forced to admit surely that must be the right and clean thing to do to all humans, even the ones who can't cut off -all- the dirty parts of their skin.
What makes that fear interesting to me is how much of said fear gets sublimated in so many diffuse ways.
The contradictions around folks who have an identity-defining amount of firepower and fear of the state, yet who tremble in fear to actually oppose the state are subliminal; that fear expresses itself as a deeply activating hatred for anyone who does anything as banal as to get in the street and yell.
As a person actively organizing with anarchists and who has had a lot of long, fraught relationships leading to my late 40s, I found the Dispossessed to be relatable is ways I wouldn't have if I'd read it earlier in life.
I don't know if it's a difficult book, but I can see how it might land differently for me in different situations.
An issue with this approach is that engaging in this way can start to reset your standards for "toxic people", and not in the cheerful "I'd like to buy the world a coke" manner.
One other issue I've had when I have tried to do this is that largely the "big" horrible issues with things are systematic rather than interpersonal- it doesn't matter who is operating the "baby seal blender", its operation is both the harm being done and the reason why "baby-seal-smoothies-r-us" operates so unless you cease the very profitable baby-seal-smoothy business the harm isn't going to stop.
Not to say that those issues are universally applicable, but rather to note that when you dance with the devil you need to observe how the devil is dancing with you; if you're going to go that way you need to be really careful in ways you don't need to be careful if you, say, just go work in a situation where the harm you create is less obvious and immediate.
As somebody who'd rather fight the fascists now, I don't think it's super likely.
Enjoy some wild speculation, if that's your jam:
My bet is that DJT will kick off from a stroke in the next 2 years, the GOP will get beat, and things will "go back to normal". But the Dems will elect some jerk like Newsome and not do the important work of imposing consequences, so this fascist power will return after two presidential terms of delicious brunch (which will fail to make progress on the environment, mass incarceration, immigration, student loan debt, housing, the economy, or anything, really).
AI and small drones will be -even- better at that point, along with an ever tighter network of flock cameras.
The propaganda will be even more solid and the aging/retired gen-xers whose grand kids won't talk to them will largely be interacting with AI-based pals who are making the same kind of pronouncements that Nome and Vance are currently making but in the voice of their first girlfriend from 1987.
Personally, I'd rather see some very extreme change now instead of fighting that fight in 15 years (or, rather, supporting the 30 year olds fighting, because I will be pretty old then).
It's not a very realistic picture of the future though; it could be the case that all this comes to a head soon. It could be the case that soon folks have some real come-to-jeebus moment about Epstein-types and capitalism (hey, it's not Capitalism, it's just croney internationalist capitalism that is the problem bro, we can just implement this anarcho-Reaganist platform, these aren't limitations on capitalists, just "normal Christian Democrat" reforms).
It might be the case that the real limits of 3-5K soldiers operating against an armed and organized city of 100k midwesterners makes it obvious what the outcomes will be if they don't stop pushing their hands.
For instance, when they start busting, say, signal chat groups of suburban soccer moms that have taken up sniping tires and cutting the power to facilities, folks might no longer have the stomach for the kinds of applications of power necessary to prevent the actions of "the people" who have their hands on all the little levers.
It could be the case that the global ecosystem really is as bad as it appears and giant storms break all the just-in-time delivery systems in the so-called advanced but fault-intolerant countries about the same time Ebola Plus (tm) hits, and we all go back to living in the beautiful caves in the pinion forests of my back yard (that's my preferred outcome even though it'll probably kill me).
Hell monkeys could fly out of my butt (that would probably kill me too, but I die in most scenarios I can imagine).
To answer your question, all things equal if you're gonna flee, flee. I'm not, but that's because I don't think there is anywhere to go.
Damn I wish the waning of US soft power felt like a positive thing to me; the CIA, along with the DEA, has been one of the more powerful criminal networks on the planet since its inception in the mid 20th C.
It doesn't feel like the US gov is moving away from the soft-power/understated action stuff because the US gov is somehow committed to being less evil.
It feels to me like they don't feel like it's as useful as the application simple hard power.
> It feels to me like they don't feel like it's as useful as the application simple hard power.
They do feel that way, but I think they're wrong. Pervasive soft power is a lot better for building stable systems of oppression than more overt shows of force. They're either really bad at, or not interested in (probably both) building anything. I don't think this period of brutal oppression they're gearing up for is going to last very long. People in the US react very poorly to roving bands of State goons.
You're talking about that effective soft power, yes. There are some smarter authoritarians still maintaining it, but when things get overt it loses a lot of efficacy. We've swung from 1/2 to 1/3 support for Republicans, despite most people going about their lives more-or-less normally outside of one small city. So that swing is attributed to a failure of soft power. Check out opinions in Minneapolis to see what application of hard power looks like.
Ah damn, I thought they were talking about the "one small city" I live in in rural CO.
Where where ICE kidnapped a bunch of folk who were legitimate parts of our community.
Where my anarchistic line of "I have stopped caring about the law and have a hard moral boundary that if a person can live here and keep up a house and job and contribute to our community they are as 'legal' as anyone else" is starting to get a real hold even among my historically Democrat-voting friends.
But yeah, I wouldn't forget those comparative metropolises, because I'd figure that the sentiment is even stronger where even more people can see the reality of which humans are being trafficked by the US gov.
> it's why Larry Ellison desperately wants to buy CBS.
I think this specific take is wrong. For example, Netflix doesn't want CNN/cable in the WB deal, so that's still up for grabs if Netflix acquires WB but Ellison still wants the whole thing (studio and cable). Extrapolating to CBS, it was Paramount the studio that Ellison was after, the network piece is just a dying artifact of a bygone era with a handy mouthpiece that has the veneer of credibility.
How much do we believe the current administration values "intelligence"? For the most part, the truth is trump's enemy. as far as he can control it, it's better for his to be the only authoritative voice. If he says Australia is full of muslims and bad hombres, he doesn't need the CIA contradicting him.
> How much do we believe the current administration values "intelligence"?
Broadly? A lot. Donald Trump is wickedly smart. So is Stephen Miller. Susie Wiles. Hegseth is an idiot, but he's Chip 'n' Dale to Marco Rubio. (Our planes aren't falling off our carriers any more. And the raid on Caracas was executed flawlessly. That isn't something numpties can pull off.)
What makes you think h is smart instead of a blubbering idiot that Mr Magoo his way through life? All the reports from people who knew him personally had very low regard for his intellegence, and that is even before taking into account his repeated public blunders.
> What makes you think h is smart instead of a blubbering idiot that Mr Magoo his way through life?
The fact that he's President. Twice. He maneouvred himself into the most powerful seat in the world. Twice. I'm tremendously sceptical that someone stupid can wind up there like that. (Again, not necessarily intelligent. You don't need to be intelligent to clear the Republican field in 2016. You do need to be crafty.)
My assumption was that he didn't even intend to win the 2016 election but the ability to launder dark money is so appealing that his avarice combined with the sheer unlikability of HRC to create a perfect storm to blow him out of Florida.
That's certainly closer to my understanding of the guy. He really doesn't feel "smart" in any of the usual sense of the term.
It's entirely possible that you can be on the stupid side of Chesterton's fence (to abuse the metaphor) and take it down, causing all the expected havok, and then claim you're excelling at your goals because you just have a sociopathic approach to the world.
Sure, picking up Maduro was well executed... and then he has been replaced with (checks notes... ) "the Maduro Regime".
I'll grant that he has achieved success via some amount of cunning (often via threats), but "smart" is decidedly not a term I would ever apply to him, and I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably think this given the myriad facts otherwise.
No, it's not. He's smart. His political instincts are well honed. And he's good at surrounding himself with strategists.
I'm not sure he's wickedly intelligent. And he's getting old, which cuts into his cleverness and memory. But his wit is quick (recall the Republican debates), retention used to be spectacular and has achieved things which you simply cannot do by being the bumbling dope he's sometimes characterised as.
The bumbling dope is the default go-to characterization by the left, they always target intelligence first no matter what.
Bush 1 was a dope. Dan Quayle was a dope. Bush 2 was a dope (until they decided they liked him). Sarah Palin was a dope. Trump is a dope. Vance is a dope.
The left views intelligence as a top tier prize, so they start by first trying to dismantle someone's standing on that.
How likely is it that all of those people are actually stupid compared to the typical voter? Zero chance. They're more likely to be considerably smarter than the typical voter, above average intelligence across the board. Are Bill Clinton and Obama smarter than Trump? Yes imo. But you can't play at nuance in the propaganda game though, so the left always settles on: my opponent is stupid; and they push hard in that direction.
I don't remember people thinking HW Bush was dumb. Or McCain, or Romney, or Ryan, or McConnell, or even someone like Gingrich. Quayle, Palin, W Bush (very incorrectly, dude was wrong and/or lying about a lot of stuff but he wasn't dumb), and Trump, sure.
The thing those people have in common is that they have unorthodox public speaking styles. Especially Trump. It's kind of a pro wrestling adjacent style -- lots of performative bombast, specific tropes referencing cultural touchstones, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on any substantive issue. I'm just trying to put myself into a particular box in the viewer's mind. It can be effective, but when it's not, it comes off as buffoonish.
A willingness to break norms could be genius, or it could be a sign that the person doing that simply doesn't understand why those norms are in place.
I think you're both correct to note that attacking the intelligence of a person is both meaningless and a pretty normal liberal tactic.
At the same time, one way of understanding the shift from hard to soft power is the same as understanding Trumps "intelligence":
he's funny and knows how to work a crowd, but it doesn't functionally matter how smart he is because he has so much organized power and thus resources that he doesn't -have- to be smart. Being rich and sociopathic is probably way more effective than worrying about the long games, and everything in sir hoss's life probably makes that fact obvious.
In that same way, my horrors about this shift in power could also be stated as a worry that the folks running the US gov don't feel like they need to have any subtlety or mask on their power because they are more comfortable using dumb, brute force.
And they might be correct in that assessment- they might not need to be intelligent if they can be brutal enough.
Good luck to them and "game on" I guess; 3k troops versus 150k activated but as yet non-violent folks in Minneapolis will be an interesting bit of data for sure.
The wicked smart people are the ones who created and honed the right/left divide in the US. Trump is an avatar of one extreme that manipulated people wanted.
I highly doubt that. Certainly not in any conventional sense of the word. A former professor of his at the Wharton School characterized him as the “dumbest student he ever taught.”
More objectively, linguistic studies have demonstrated a considerable decline in the complexity and scope of his language. And recently while trying to defend himself against claims of cognitive decline, he could not recall the term “Alzheimer’s”, instead tapping himself on the head until an aide filled in the word for him.
I frequently see people saying that Trump is great, but he's let down by those around him. As if he didn't put them all there.
In any case, all you have to do is listen to the man talk. If you can hit stop before your brains start leaking onto the floor, the conclusion is inescapable.
For most of his life he did nothing that would require any sort of smarts. Becoming POTUS was quite an accomplishment, but he lucked into it. He happened to have a style and set of opinions that appealed to a large group of voters. He's charismatic in an empty sort of way that still works on a lot of people. He had a pretty pathetic set of opponents both in the primaries and the general. And he just barely won. Nothing in his campaign was shrewdly designed, he was just doing what he does, and it happened to work.
Birth him into an ordinary family instead of a rich one and he's going to be a used car salesman griping about getting bumped into the next tax bracket when he makes too many sales.
People—especially the squares in this business—tend to mistake his unfamiliar blue-collar New Yorker manner of speech at face value and don't bother to look deeper.
Or they look deeper and note that the folksy bragging about pretty basic and irrelevant misunderstandings continues into the minutes of meetings his base that laps that stuff up doesn't bother paying attention to, where there isn't any strategic value to dissembling or being mildly irritating to the apolitical CEOs he's supposed to be giving bland assurances to, and conclude the emperor actually doesn't have any clothes. There are, of course, smart and well connected people that want someone whose extraordinary talent is being the centre of attention occupying the centre of attention.
It gives me hope that Trump will replace the top generals and a few layers down with yes-men who will spend the military budget on coke and then the US will be less of a threat to the rest of the world. Another Russia is not a good thing, but it's better than a mad man at the top of the most powerful military in history.
> It gives me hope that Trump will replace the top generals and a few layers down with yes-men who will spend the military budget on coke and then the US will be less of a threat to the rest of the world.
I realize this is kind of a joke, but...
The US will continue to be the most powerful military in history for a very long time even with a highly incompetent top-layer. It will just have less people with the wisdom and power to push back on the president's worst impulses.
Unfortunately(?) there's not enough coke in the world to put much of a dent in our current military spending (which they hope to increase even further to 1.5 trillion dollars in 2027). And if the price of coke ever did become a problem, well the US now believes it reserves the right to the entire western hemisphere which includes Columbia...
On a more serious note there is also likely to be a rapid burst of nuclear proliferation across the globe as everyone else adjusts to this new reality sans the traditional post-WW II world order.
On the current Trump path the world is going to get far more dangerous and chaotic, not less.
What's really fun is that conventional weapons can protect you from a crazy aggressor if you're strong enough, but nuclear weapons may not. They only act as a deterrent, so they require your enemy to believe you'll use them, believe that they can't destroy all of them before you use them, and understand the horrible consequences of retaliation.
I get the impression that Trump is pretty negative on nuclear weapons and I don't think he'd do something that could provoke nuclear retaliation. But I doubt he'll be our last mad king. I think the odds are pretty high of at least a small nuclear war within my lifetime. Even if the US keeps it together, proliferation means much higher odds of some idiot leader somewhere pressing the Button.
But I'm pretty certain that outcome also wouldn't be a net positive for the rest of the world in the short or medium term. Very little of the rest of the world is insulated from the US economy.
We're definitely going in the direction of "might is right". The "palantirization" of data stores (not just those for surveillance) is going to be an enabler of the "hard power" you're alluding to. This whole platform is probably a dragnet for identifying intelligent people with dissident views. Expect things to get uglier and stranger as well.
I mean, my hope is that the kids at the CIA read all my dumb postings here, report them to their old-men quattos, and try and flip me :D
But I'd think that the folks with their hands on the big levers probably care less and less about that kind of thing; I'd imagine it's harder and harder to find the Foucault readers who might even care to collect and monitor dissident views because the newer folks figure all us stupid nerds will show up on flock and get nabbed once they've run out of brown folks to kidnap.
They will have machines do that for them, curating collections of dissident files that are categorized by various propensities, then proposing among a range of soft to hard interventions. This is why we're seeing an uptick in the construction of AI data centers (e.g. STARGATE); it's going to get ugly very soon. And before you know it, your social mobility will be dictated by how well you adapt to the narratives they endorse. The fact that they (i.e., the elites) have gotten away with so much depravity, and are now revealing it publicly, emboldens them further to commit the type of oppression that I foresee happening. What we're experiencing now is ritual humiliation at scale.
I mean, they mostly are just picking folks up off the streets cause the folks are brown or have an accent.
I am not sure that even if they could minority report their way into killing off all the future Fred Hamptons, they have either the man power to do it or the mental ability to define an ontology for their little scrye to even tell them who they -should- target.
It is easy to confuse these folks with the mostly competent neoliberal technocrats they replaced, but that's the whole point of this thread, no? Patel and Bongino were more interested in how to win twitter points after Kirk was killed than, like, going and playing g-man, after all.
Also, one of the nice things about living in a panopticon is that it gives the folks running it the idea that they actually know what's going on. I'll take the long bet on the over-confidence and under-competence of these WWF wrestlers.
Power also needs to be justified. Hitler is an example of "unjustifiable might." And all fools who want to promote Darwinism need to know that causing one's own extinction is far easier than causing one's own evolution. Evolution is merely a survivor bias, and Darwin's On the Origin of Species didn't analyze the patterns of extinction.The evolutionary pattern should be that only when you yourself are perfectly rational can you eliminate the irrational enemy. Some people are inherently irrational, yet they try to use Darwinian "survival of the fittest" as their belief to eliminate rational beings, ultimately leading only to their own extinction. This is what happened, is happening, and will happen.Might makes right is not an Rights; Rights are Rights. Might is might, and Right is Right. The statement "might makes right" is rife with literary folly.
> It feels to me like they don't feel like it's as useful as the application simple hard power.
Soft power is a hard power amplifier though. I don't think it's incompetence and ignorance about how to maintain and use power, I think it's intentional deconstruction of power so that others can fill the vacuum.
But in some ways publishing your opinions on other countries might be the equivalent of sharing your hand at the poker table, right? So this arguably strengthens the soft-power method as well. (OTOH, to your point: how you describe other countries is itself an exercise in soft power, so your point is well taken in that respect.)
Shouldn't the DEA be the weakest agency? Now that the drug problem requires the involvement of the Department of Homeland Security, the War Department, and the U.S. military, shouldn't the DEA be shut down?
It’s the incompetence and low-intelligence of our leaders that scares me most. We need actual clever people in office coming up with decentralized systems that work rather than the mentally deficient demagogues and liars coasting along collecting rent. Californian independence is the best way forward for us.
Yeah, but there is quite a gulf between possible and even likely.
I can think of very few time seen the state give up extra powers it gives itself in emergencies, and the few places where I see it give up powers are at the behest of industries demanding "de-regulation".
Even, say, cannabis decriminalization can be understood (from the stand point of the legislators) as pro-business.
So serious question: when has the US given up powers? It'd do my brain a lot of good to have a picture of how this has happened in the past so I can be less cynical in the present.
You might site the Church commission, maybe, but that seems to be exactly the kind of thing that is both likely and wholly ineffective beyond a the 5-10 year timescale.
reply