The thing is: we don't really understand other societies. We don't really understand their realities, balance of power or mechanics of functioning. There is always a cultural barrier preventing this understanding. We tend to assume that a foreign society works just like ours
Smart PRmaxers can leverage this assumption to brand themselves abroad more successfully than at home. Consider a Ukrainian (pro-Russian) oligarch Medvedchuk. In Ukraine he is always styled as Putin's "kum". If A baptised B's child, A and B become "kum" after that
Indeed, Putin baptised Medvedchuk's daughter. And a PRmaxer Madvedchuk leveraged it to the fullest for PR purposes. I'm the Putin's kum, the Putin's kum I am! Very important!
In reality he leveraged a cultural barrier. Because in Ukraine being kum matters. In Russia it doesn't
Russia and Ukraine seem to be very close culturally. They can speak the same language, share the same cultural memes, profess the same religion (mostly). So most Russians and Ukrainians often assume that things in their countries work alike
But they don't. They're very different
In Ukraine being "kum" is very important. The term for nepotism "kumovstvo" must be understood literally. In Russia the same word must *not* be taken literally. When discussing "kumovstvo" nepotism networks, Russians do not mean they are actually kums. That is just unimportant
Medvedchuk weaponised the cultural barrier between Ukraine and Russia. He became Putin's kum. Russians do not take being kum seriously, but Ukrainians do. So he persuaded the Ukrainians that he is super close to Putin, has influence on him, represents him
That backfired
I agree that Medvedchuk is Putin's agent of influence. But I will also argue that the Ukrainian public opinion tends to exaggerate his importance. Why? Because Medvedchuk himself successfully exaggerated his own importance weaponising the cultural barrier between two countries
I do not have any evidence of who organised the yesterday's attack, but the factor of Dugin having successfully exaggerated his own importance on the world arena might have played a role. He made his surname a global brand, far more successful abroad than in Russia
His daughter Darya weaponised the dad's brand and tried to act as an intermediary between:
1) Kremlin and the European far right 2) interest groups in Russia
Both of which could have had her killed. The first one, for financial reasons. The second, for political ones. The end
The younger guy on the previous photo is Akim Apachev, a Wagner-connected musician. Both Alexander and Darya Dugina took pro-war stance and were very active in the Z-movement. Neither of them was innocent
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.
Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation
And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.
In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings
Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women
What does Musk vs Trump affair teach us about the general patterns of human history? Well, first of all it shows that the ancient historians were right. They grasped something about nature of politics that our contemporaries simply can’t.
Let me give you an example. The Arab conquest of Spain
According to a popular medieval/early modern interpretation, its primary cause was the lust of Visigoth king Roderic. Aroused by the beautiful daughter of his vassal and ally, count Julian, he took advantage of her
Disgruntled, humiliated Julian allied himself with the Arabs and opens them the gates of Spain.
Entire kingdom lost, all because the head of state caused a personal injury to someone important.
One thing you need to understand about wars is that very few engage into the long, protracted warfare on purpose. Almost every war of attrition was planned and designed as a short victorious blitzkrieg
And then everything went wrong
Consider the Russian war in Ukraine. It was not planned as a war. It was not thought of as a war. It was planned as a (swift!) regime change allowing to score a few points in the Russian domestic politics. And then everything went wrong
It would not be an exaggeration to say that planning a short victorious war optimised for the purposes of domestic politics is how you *usually* end up in a deadlock. That is the most common scenario of how it happens, practically speaking