davel [he/him]

All text lovingly hand-crafted with 100% organic em dashes.

Pronouns he/him
Datetime Format RFC 3339
  • 123 Posts
  • 1.73K Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年7月8日

help-circle


  • (OP, I think you accidentally a link.)

    Few people seem to be aware of this despite it having long been known. The Nation, 2017: Trumpism: It’s Coming From the Suburbs

    According to this analysis [by liberal and conservative pundits alike], Trump’s fascism is merely a reflection of the debased preferences of poor people.

    But scapegoating poor whites keeps the conversation away from fascism’s real base: the petite bourgeoisie. This is a piece of jargon used mostly by Marxists to denote small-property owners, whose nearest equivalents these days may be the “upper middle class” or “small-business owners.” FiveThirtyEight reported last May that “the median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000,” or roughly 130 percent of the national median. Trump’s real base, the actual backbone of fascism, isn’t poor and working-class voters, but middle-class and affluent whites. Often self-employed, possessed of a retirement account and a home as a nest egg, this is the stratum taken in by Horatio Alger stories. They can envision playing the market well enough to become the next Trump. They haven’t won “big-league,” but they’ve won enough to be invested in the hierarchy they aspire to climb. If only America were made great again, they could become the haute 
bourgeoisie—the storied “1 percent.”

    The Jan. 6, 2021 protesters/insurrectionists for the most part weren’t poor working class people, they were petit bourgeois who could afford to take days off to travel to D.C. and do their shenanigans.





















  • I didn’t say that only the US can engage in asymmetric warfare, nor did I say that Putin and Trump are not important actors. Who is strawmanning who?

    And what’s with “the nebulous ‘US’”? No one is confused about what the US is. And how is the Byzantine generals problem relevant, when secure, real-time, two-way communication is at their disposal?

    “Putin thrives on ambiguity, and Trump has served that strategy again and again, openly and with intent.”

    Your foundational thesis is so vague that it’s unfalsifiable, which is why I didn’t even try. Like I said, it’s just a vaguepost, ripe for annoying motte-and-bailey argumentation.




  • Again is it clear you all don’t understand asymmetric war, because if you did, you would be able to see that your circlejerk is just a case of building up and tearing down strawmen.

    You haven’t even made a case to be strawmanned. You’ve just claimed that Putin thrives on ambiguity and thrown the term “asymmetric war” around. I can’t strawman a vaguepost.

    There is no shortage of examples of the US engaging in asymmetric war, directly or by proxy. Who do you think funded and trained the Ukrainian Banderites since 2015, (and how far back do you think that relationship goes[1][2][3])? Who do you think green lighted the 2014 Maidan false flag massacre by Red Sector/Banderite fascists, and why was Victoria Nuland handing out cookies in the square? What do you think the National Endowment for Democracy does? It doesn’t promote democracy, quite the opposite. It regime changes through proxy insurgencies and proxy NGO shenanigans. The NED is an engine for manufacturing “color revolutions.” The blueprint of regime change operations


    Edit to add:

    To misunderstand Trump as merely foolish or chaotic is not a lesser kind of error. It is a strategic failure in an ongoing psychological war. Trump is not improvising. He is executing. Every delay of sanctions, every attack on NATO, every lie about Ukraine, every moment of confusion sown into American political discourse—these are not missteps. They are victories for his benefactors in Moscow.

    This is asymmetric warfare: not about winning arguments, but about breaking systems. Not about consensus, but the destruction of consensus. Putin’s strategy, followed to the letter by Trump, is not to win through force but to make force unnecessary by rotting out the institutions that might resist it.

    Never go full Maddow. This is founded on great man theory, where world history is steered by the personages of Putin and Trump. Historical materialists reject that theory.