And how many people on the so-called right are going to be dancing around or even outright celebrating this obvious political prosecution?
Very few, I think, if only because they don't want to totally discredit themselves and create a free-for-all where this sort of political prosecution can be turned on someone they like.
The mere fact that they feel the need to do this is a the proof I need that Trump is still a threat to the regime
The irony is that they are the greatest threat to the regime, through their heavy-handed treatment of Trump. It exposes them for what they are: oligarchic tyrants. Trump was no threat to them (unfortunately), but they're so obsessed with completely destroying him to make an example of what happens to someone who challenges them, that they go fully mask off.
And while I agree with you that they want Trump out of the way, it is also not impossible that they do this to boost him in the primary because they think he is easier to beat. Or that there is no plan to this beyond retribution.
I disagree that Trump is no threat to them: I think there's a bit of a defeatist fallacy in dissident right communities like this where we tend to think the regime is much more stable than it is. In reality, it's a house of cards, and their increasing willingness to resort to transparent authoritarianism demonstrates just how fragile their hold on power really is. Trump represents the one thing they are most afraid of: a member of the elite, too rich to be bought or bullied, who doesn't subscribe to their worldview. He terrifies them.
I think there's a bit of a defeatist fallacy in dissident right communities like this where we tend to think the regime is much more stable than it is.
Agreed, but it's very simplistic to think that you can beat the regime with the regime's own elections - and not because of massive fraud that I don't believe in. There is an entire apparatus in place to make sure those elections mean absolutely nothing. Elections are for the legitimation of the order, not for deciding what policies should exist. Even if you did win an election with a highly competent man who knows how to wield the levers of power, it will always be swimming against the tide, and everything will be swept away the next time around.
Which does not exempt anyone from the duty to resist this great evil, which even in countries like Zimbabwe can entail participation in elections. But you should know what you are up against.
In reality, it's a house of cards, and their increasing willingness to resort to transparent authoritarianism demonstrates just how fragile their hold on power really is.
Regimes tend to overreact to even minor challenges to their power. And obviously, some of it is not overreaction but consolidation based on a phony threat, like the Reichstag fire.
Trump represents the one thing they are most afraid of: a member of the elite, too rich to be bought or bullied, who doesn't subscribe to their worldview. He terrifies them.
Yes, which is why I support him. I don't know why though. They can't buy or bully him, but they could have flattered him into supporting them. They took the worst possible approach in dealing with Trump: attacking him just makes him more defiant and more anti-them.
Remember: he was a DEMOCRAT. I am not sure how many proper convictions he has beyond CHYYYNA BAD. But the regime attacked him and the GOP diehards supported him, and that's why he's with them.
I think what sets billionaire "good guys" like Trump and Elon apart is that they understand the importance of aspiration and freedom of innovation to continued prosperity.
The rest of the elite, even the first-generation, self-made ones like Bill Gates seem obsessed with the idea of consolidating their position by eradicating the middle class. If they destroy people's freedom to innovate, and their ability to be self-sufficient without depending on the elite, they believe they can ensure there will never again be anyone who can dislodge them or compete with them. Only a very few, Trump included, understand that everyone's continued prosperity, including that of the super rich, depends on the freedom to innovate, and that can't exist without a free market of ideas. Not to mention that the elite will never be safe from the underclass without the promise of aspiration: if people don't feel they have any avenue to improve their circumstances and ensure a better future for their children, they will rapidly come to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose.
Trump has some pretty silly ideas, and he wasn't as effective in office as he could have been, but what draws people to him that he clearly and obviously values the same things about American and Western society that ordinary, non-elite people value, and that sets him apart from almost every other billionaire and politician.
transparent authoritarianism demonstrates just how fragile their hold on power really is.
A paranoid king stabbing at random shadows still has a castle and an army. Just because they are terrified and overreacting doesn't mean their power structure is actually within reach of any of us.
Perhaps a real monster of a leader could accomplish it, but Trump is not that. He isn't half as unhinged and willing to break the rules as they paint him.
He's better than nothing. The elite theorists are right about one thing: without maverick elites like Trump on our side, we have no chance at all. There has never been a successful grassroots revolution with no elite support: not once in all of recorded history.
He is better than nothing, I don't disagree. I voted for him after all.
But let's not take their ridiculous reactions as indicative of them being actually vulnerable. They might think they are, and are acting on that paranoia, but that's par for the course of being an elite to begin with. Irrational reactions to minor irrelevant threats.
The Haitian revolution was a grassroots revolution, started by slaves without any elite support.
They had unusually terrible lives, even for slaves, so nothing to loose. They had a separate culture, religion, language, race which made them completely isolated from the elite group. They also were in the majority by a massive margin.
The revolution spread like a fire. It started at one plantation, news of success got out, the next plantation revolted, and the next, and the next, and so on. After a while, the slaves had congregated to marauding armies that roamed through the land and absorbed supplies and new fighters wherever they went.
The revolution was initially successful, and a moderate government formed. Slavery was a abolished and the government was headed by a black man, but the plantation economy remained in place and the elite remained predominantly white. So it has actually happened once in recorded history.
A counterrevolutionary army was dispatched from France and reconquered the capital. They were soon defeated by a more extreme rebel group, which then committed a terrible genocide. That government was... not a success, to put it mildly.
I don't see how that situation is in the slightest bit similar to modern America. Live needs to be really fucking bad until a grassroots revolt can actually happen.
Very few, I think, if only because they don't want to totally discredit themselves and create a free-for-all where this sort of political prosecution can be turned on someone they like.
The irony is that they are the greatest threat to the regime, through their heavy-handed treatment of Trump. It exposes them for what they are: oligarchic tyrants. Trump was no threat to them (unfortunately), but they're so obsessed with completely destroying him to make an example of what happens to someone who challenges them, that they go fully mask off.
And while I agree with you that they want Trump out of the way, it is also not impossible that they do this to boost him in the primary because they think he is easier to beat. Or that there is no plan to this beyond retribution.
I disagree that Trump is no threat to them: I think there's a bit of a defeatist fallacy in dissident right communities like this where we tend to think the regime is much more stable than it is. In reality, it's a house of cards, and their increasing willingness to resort to transparent authoritarianism demonstrates just how fragile their hold on power really is. Trump represents the one thing they are most afraid of: a member of the elite, too rich to be bought or bullied, who doesn't subscribe to their worldview. He terrifies them.
Agreed, but it's very simplistic to think that you can beat the regime with the regime's own elections - and not because of massive fraud that I don't believe in. There is an entire apparatus in place to make sure those elections mean absolutely nothing. Elections are for the legitimation of the order, not for deciding what policies should exist. Even if you did win an election with a highly competent man who knows how to wield the levers of power, it will always be swimming against the tide, and everything will be swept away the next time around.
Which does not exempt anyone from the duty to resist this great evil, which even in countries like Zimbabwe can entail participation in elections. But you should know what you are up against.
Regimes tend to overreact to even minor challenges to their power. And obviously, some of it is not overreaction but consolidation based on a phony threat, like the Reichstag fire.
Yes, which is why I support him. I don't know why though. They can't buy or bully him, but they could have flattered him into supporting them. They took the worst possible approach in dealing with Trump: attacking him just makes him more defiant and more anti-them.
Remember: he was a DEMOCRAT. I am not sure how many proper convictions he has beyond CHYYYNA BAD. But the regime attacked him and the GOP diehards supported him, and that's why he's with them.
I think what sets billionaire "good guys" like Trump and Elon apart is that they understand the importance of aspiration and freedom of innovation to continued prosperity.
The rest of the elite, even the first-generation, self-made ones like Bill Gates seem obsessed with the idea of consolidating their position by eradicating the middle class. If they destroy people's freedom to innovate, and their ability to be self-sufficient without depending on the elite, they believe they can ensure there will never again be anyone who can dislodge them or compete with them. Only a very few, Trump included, understand that everyone's continued prosperity, including that of the super rich, depends on the freedom to innovate, and that can't exist without a free market of ideas. Not to mention that the elite will never be safe from the underclass without the promise of aspiration: if people don't feel they have any avenue to improve their circumstances and ensure a better future for their children, they will rapidly come to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose.
Trump has some pretty silly ideas, and he wasn't as effective in office as he could have been, but what draws people to him that he clearly and obviously values the same things about American and Western society that ordinary, non-elite people value, and that sets him apart from almost every other billionaire and politician.
Bill Gates the third, you mean?
A paranoid king stabbing at random shadows still has a castle and an army. Just because they are terrified and overreacting doesn't mean their power structure is actually within reach of any of us.
Perhaps a real monster of a leader could accomplish it, but Trump is not that. He isn't half as unhinged and willing to break the rules as they paint him.
He's better than nothing. The elite theorists are right about one thing: without maverick elites like Trump on our side, we have no chance at all. There has never been a successful grassroots revolution with no elite support: not once in all of recorded history.
He is better than nothing, I don't disagree. I voted for him after all.
But let's not take their ridiculous reactions as indicative of them being actually vulnerable. They might think they are, and are acting on that paranoia, but that's par for the course of being an elite to begin with. Irrational reactions to minor irrelevant threats.
The Haitian revolution was a grassroots revolution, started by slaves without any elite support.
They had unusually terrible lives, even for slaves, so nothing to loose. They had a separate culture, religion, language, race which made them completely isolated from the elite group. They also were in the majority by a massive margin.
The revolution spread like a fire. It started at one plantation, news of success got out, the next plantation revolted, and the next, and the next, and so on. After a while, the slaves had congregated to marauding armies that roamed through the land and absorbed supplies and new fighters wherever they went.
The revolution was initially successful, and a moderate government formed. Slavery was a abolished and the government was headed by a black man, but the plantation economy remained in place and the elite remained predominantly white. So it has actually happened once in recorded history.
A counterrevolutionary army was dispatched from France and reconquered the capital. They were soon defeated by a more extreme rebel group, which then committed a terrible genocide. That government was... not a success, to put it mildly.
I don't see how that situation is in the slightest bit similar to modern America. Live needs to be really fucking bad until a grassroots revolt can actually happen.