Re: <nettime> Kim Darroch's article Url

[ɹǝʞpuoɥʞ bᴉɥsɐ via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>]

Not to mention Putin has the most to gain from a Trump win, so we can
expect another fierce round of cyber warfare, troll farms and media
hijacked into spreading fake news. Russian influence with the GOP is
already well-documented, and even the NYT, recently exposed yet in denial
of their Mossad operatives, can be infiltrated. What will be this year’s
Brexit?


+49 157 5244 5440
*http://linktr.ee/alternateash <http://linktr.ee/alternateash>*
*http://linktr.ee/cloudkinski <http://linktr.ee/cloudkinski>*
*skype: ajkhondker*


On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 12:00 PM <nettime-l-request@lists.nettime.org> wrote:

> Send nettime-l mailing list submissions to
>         nettime-l@lists.nettime.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.servus.at/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         nettime-l-request@lists.nettime.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of nettime-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Kim Darroch's article Url (Ted Byfield)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:59:01 -0500
> From: Ted Byfield <tedbyfield@gmail.com>
> To: nettime-l@lists.nettime.org
> Subject: Re: <nettime> Kim Darroch's article Url
> Message-ID: <3617D86C-1164-466F-8D44-A4ADB21C9472@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> This is a pretty solid piece, but like most institutionally oriented
> analyses it misses one key thing. "Barring personal catastrophe," as the
> author said (or something like it), Trump won't lose. That's not to say
> he'll *win*, just that we can be sure he'll dramatically escalate the chaos
> in order to pre-bury his losses, whatever form they may take. Last time,
> the crux of those efforts came after the election. This time, I think,
> they'll come before it.
>
> Biden has all kinds of electoral issues, sure, but what we're seeing now
> is new. Much of it is the obligatory quadrennial Democratic bed-wetting,
> which is intimately related to the party's bizarre incapacity to be
> derisive. Trolling and triggering Trump into committing electoral seppuku
> on a near-daily basis would be easy *if* the Dems could do it: mimic him,
> mock him, tease him, torture him, goad him over anything and everything
> involving size. And I mean e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, like the last time he got
> laid and how long he lasted. But the logic of US progressivism makes that
> impossible, because the pearl-clutching armies of the new-new-new lefts
> would descend on anyone who really went for his jugular.
>
> The bulk of the US left has been desperately earnest for decades, so that
> problem isn't really new. What *is* new, or least newer, is the US media's
> metastasizing, nihilistic hunger for spectacular self-destruction. The NYT
> is a good proxy for this, in part because it's far too influential to be
> understood as merely a proxy. It's like saying a towering wall of Marshall
> amps cranked up to 11 are a "proxy" for an electric guitar ? uh, yeah, no,
> maybe not the best way to understand things.
>
> Over the last several weeks, there have been some seismic shifts in how
> the NYT covers Biden and Trump. For Biden, they've become a 24/7 noise
> machine about the supposed problem of his age, and their "legitimation" of
> that pseudo-issue has consumed their reporting and opinion ? to such a
> degree that a few weeks ago even the *Daily Mail* said WTAF. With that has
> come a deep but subtle shift in how they cover Trump: he's morphed from a
> major news figure into something more like a shadow president, like an
> Avignon pope. It's gotten to the point where, going by their front page,
> any reasonable person would think Trump is president and Biden is the
> challenger. Their immense role in shaping the US media landscape should go
> without saying.
>
> For now, that's mostly a highbrow critique, but think that'll change in
> pretty predictable ways. The chances that Trump will manage to evade
> *every* cinsequnece of *all* of the judicial processes aimed at him is
> nill. And each setback will erode support for him in key demographics
> *outside of the MAGA base *and drive an (inevitable, imo) pendulum swing
> toward Biden as the election nears. So, as it becomes clear that Trump is
> sailing not to electoral victory but right over the edge of his flat earth,
> how will he respond?
>
> My guess: he may well try to pull the plug on the election itself by
> arguing that it's all a sham, conspiracy, hopelessly corrupt, and that
> Republicans should actively *delegitimize* it by refusing to vote. Result:
> He won't lose, the Dems' victory will be hollow to a degree we've never
> seen before, and the MAGA insurgency *within* the government, mainly in the
> courts and at and below the state level, will continue to ramp up their
> efforts to unravel governance itself, largely on the grounds that they're
> the "real" elected government. It doesn't need to make sense to work;
> indeed, the less sense it makes, the more potent it is.
>
> And, as they say, the NYT will be there for it. They already are.
>
> Institutionalist analyses are fine, except (a) when the institutions
> themselves are collapsing, and (b) when some of the institutions in
> question are the media itself or themselves or whatever. That'll continue
> to happen regardless of who "wins" and "loses" the "election," because
> those words will mean less and less.
>
> And, on another level, that's where and how the piece fits in. Far from
> being a neutral overview, it's better understood as one of many speculative
> texts on which the GOP's LLM-like logic is being trained. The Heritage
> Foundation's blueprint for 2025 is another. The growing recognition that
> rightist judges and migstrates use their rulings to signal and even invite
> fake engineered cases and arguments is another. There are many, manny more
> inputs, and they all get shoved into the maw of the rightist hallucination
> machine.
>
> Cheers,
> Ted
>
> On 3 Mar 2024, at 12:47, Patrice Riemens via nettime-l wrote:
>
> > Sorry, forgot it:
> >
> >
> https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/united-states/65040/trumps-return-are-we-ready
> >
> > Ciao Ciao
> > --
> > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> > # more info: https://www.nettime.org
> > # contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> --
> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> # more info: https://www.nettime.org
> # contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of nettime-l Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5
> ***************************************
>
-- 
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org