Darya was an ambitious young woman. She leveraged her father's *international* brand to build herself a network in Russia. She was indeed smarter than an average golden kid and viewed herself as a potential national leader
In the last months she would not shut up about bad Russian military performance. She constantly criticised Shoygu (privately) and insisted that if *she* was a minister of defence, it'd be alright. For some reason, she was trying to pitch herself a a minister of defense, Idk why
Becoming a minister of defence was a new topic that emerged only recently. Previously to that, she was obsessed with Le Pen. She constantly talked about how great, amazing and misunderstood Marine Le Pen is, boasted how well she knew her and clearly viewed Le Pen as a role model
What was interesting about Darya was an extreme contrast between her public and her private discourse. Publicly, she largely followed her father's footsteps. Publicly she complained about too gentle mode of war in Ukraine and called for the tougher measure against "nonhumans"
On public Darya was fiery and uncompromising. Privately though she was the opposite of that, a sort of chameleon. She'd figure out what her interlocutors think and present herself as their thinker. If a (useful) interlocutor was against the war, than she was against the war too
On public she was a hawk, calling for escalation, tribunals in every Ukrainian city, lynching Azovstal defenders, etc. Privately though, she would mock the entire DPR/LPR project, Russian irredentism, etc. if she felt that would help her to win her interlocutor's sympathy
Audience largely perceived her as dad's attribute. Publicly she played by the rules and leveraged it. Privately though, she hated that. She wanted to be seen as a political figure in her own right. That's why she took "Platonova" nickname and tried to brand herself as such
Whenever Darya felt it could win her a sympathy, she mocked and criticised her dad's insane and ridiculous agenda. She would also argue that most of her social circle (other Russian golden kids) share this feeling. Most feel only contempt towards their fathers
Psychologically this may be understandable. Imagine yourself as a golden kid. On the one hand, you owe your dad everything and you would be a total zero without his resources. On the other hand, you want to be seen as great and amazing in your own right, not a dad's attribute
In search of glory and self-affirmation, you'd rather distance yourself from dad. But the more you do that, the more of zero you become. The world doesn't give a damn about you as an individual. For them you are and will always be the Daughter of Dugin
Of course you'll hate him
Didn't you find it funny that the media are describing this 30 year old woman as a child or a kid? On the one hand, it sounds kinda absurd. On the other hand, it is very, very true. Darya never could brand herself to the outer world as an independent person. Only as Dugin's child
Many describe Darya as "innocent". But she was the opposite of that. I don't rejoice at the death of conscripts or rural idiots lured into the army by high wages. But a golden kid who leveraged war and genocide to boost her career, that's as close as you can get to unmixed evil
The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
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