2. The pro-Trump -- or at least anti-anti-Trump -- position on this is Trump isn't serious. It's bluster. He doesn't have the brains, will-power, or support needed to pull off a coup.
3. Trump's intent seems uninteresting and irrelevant. As per other authoritarian regimes, the method is "working towards the Donald." He issues broad goals and people try to please him by carrying them out. Doesn't matter what he intends as long as followers are there.
4. An earlier example of Trump coup talk (from last year) gives the outlines of how he sees it working: military, police & Bikers for Trump would support him.
5. Let's take the possible coup forces one by one. He has the bikers, he has some of the police. But neither would be able to aid in a take over of the government. He doesn't -- and this is crucial -- have the military.
6. The military -- especially the officer corps. -- isn't on board for a coup. Their refusal to join in the crackdown against BLM protest shows that, I'd argue. In the future, I think historians will see that as the peak moment of crisis.
7. The more immediate threat than a coup -- or rather the road to a coup which needs to be more immediately dealt with -- is court shenanigans. About which, more here: thenation.com/article/politi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. This 2016 exchange between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Thiel is so essential, really gets to the heart of Epstein's project.
Epstein: brexit, just the beginning.
Thiel: Of what?
Epstein: return to tribalism, counter to globalization. Amazing new alliances. You and I both agreed zero interest rates were too high, and as i said in your office. finding things on their way to collapse , was much easier than finding the next bargain
2. What Epstein wrote to Thiel in 2016 lines up with what he wrote to his business partner Ehud Barak in 2014: “with civil unrest exploding in ukraine syria, somolia [sic], libya, and the desperation of those in power, isn’t this perfect for you.” In other words, social collapse is a business opportunity.
3. Epstein was a fixer, someone who made money connecting different parts of the elite together. In this case, he was very interested in hooking up Thiel and Barak in project of selling new surveillance tech to autocrat regimes. For this business project, breakdown of global order was good.
1. The new batch of Epstein documents helps illuminate one contemporary controversy: What is Bari Weiss up to at CBS? I think the answer is she is trying to rehabilate the Epstein network as a bulwark of reactionary centrism. Let me explain.
2. Let's lay out the connections. Weiss' partner and ideological collaborator Nelli Bowles was on very familiar terms with Epstein.
3. Announcing her plans for CBS, Weiss said she wants to marginalize the radical right and left while elevating charismatic centrist voices such as Alan Dershowitz, Epstein's former lawyer and crony.
1. So I have a few thoughts on "heritage Americans," Nathanial Hawthorne, witch-hunting, Thomas Pynchon, Calvinism, strange feuds, the Daughters of the American Revolution, FDR, the moral responsibilities of nationalism & (lest we forget) Jack Kirby.
2. The American right is touting the phrase "Heritage American," the supposed identity of people who have been in USA for generations. Much can be said about this form of ancestor worship but maybe one path is to talk about a real Heritage American, Thomas Pynchon.
3. The first Pynchon to arrive in the Western Hemisphere was William Pynchon, in 1630. He was the great-great-great-great-grandfather (give or take a great) of the author of Gravity's Rainbow.
1. I think this post is Yglesias' response to critics who bring up his support of Iraq war. The implicit argument here is "sure, I supported the Iraq war, but most people did." The deception here is one of omission. Yglesias specifically supported the war out of crackpot neo-con belief it would allow Israel to have greater leverage over the Palestinians (as they said at time "the road to Jerusalem is through Baghdad"). That is not why most USA citizens in 2003 supported war, which would out of misguided deference to elite in moment of nationalist panic & anger.
2. Further, Yglesias' support of Iraq war is inextricable from his general xenophobia and belief that non-American life is not a matter of concern (a view that continues to undergrid his analysis of Israel/Palestine). This photo is, as they say, a tell.
3. Further, when he supported the Iraq War, Yglesias also explicitly called for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine (using the standard euphemism of Revisionist Zionism of "transfer"). This was not a mainstream USA position and was at that timer rejected even by Republicans such as Bush. Yglesias was well to the right of the Bush administration.
1. This is right but I'd go father. Yglesias is quite literally the grandson of Stalinists. He is here, in a fascinating display of atavism, replicating the classic apparatchik logic "it is right to be wrong and wrong to be right."
2. Stalinists (like the grandparents of Matt Yglesias) had a political problem in the 1930s and 1940s: how to defend a regime responsible for the Ukrainian famine, the purges, and the gulag?
3. The standard Stalinist tactic was simply silence and denial, along with blaming any problem with the system on outside forces (capitalist encirclement, Trotskyite wreckers). All of these tactics found replication in the way Yglesias has responded to Israel's horrific onslaught in Gaza and the West Bank, now culminating in a state-created famine (shades of the 1930s).
1. Worth revisiting the debate between @ezraklein and Ta-Nehisi Coates about Israel/Palestine because there's a specific factual point that Klein got very wrong which he should apologize for. Klein insisted that unlike Hamas, Netanyahu was not "specifically targeting killing civilians."
2. TNC responded to Klein with a very eloquent "hm" which I think was a polite way of saying "what are you talking about?" Klein's statement was absurd on the face of it since both in current Gaza onslaught in last seven decades, Israeli government's have killed many many civilians, at a rate that is truly startling.
3. But of course apologists like Klein have always had a way out dealing with the very high civilian death count that he Israeli government has inflected on Palestinians: intentionality. Those deaths were all regrettable collateral damage from fog of war. Lots of civilians died but Netanyahu wasn't "specifically targeting killing civilians."