TLDR: the real
question is why was 'the mob not not there' (the
missing/breached security) and what was the 'enabling stack' to produce
this event – as all this points to a configuration of forces that is
(most-likely) 'still in play' ----------- hey folks, I
would put a note of caution on the ideas that – this is finished
(and that it is 'Trumpism' that is the central threat, even if it was
the 'persona' of it recently) - this is not about it *was* a (social
media) success, or it *was* a failure (Trumpism) - this is about
identifying individuals with bullhorns - ask about the event as it is
an issue of mediaculture, new forms of remediation + assembly and all
that - we are at the apex of this, anyways... I am not from
the US, though I know the US historically. but I think that there is a
relevant source/forum that reflects the (ongoing) nature of the
event(s). and it comes in the unusual channel of TV, unexpectedly
being broadcast via MSNBC. but if you take a look you will see it´s a
`*very different`* set/mix of actors there doing real-time analysis of
(news-)events and connecting dots, quite literate in all of it: state
machinery/policy, civil rights histry, investigative jurnalism, new
cultural lab culture... you name it it is 'The Cross Connection'
with Tiffany Cross. and I think it´s a channel, digestion-actor to watch
and it´s quite uniquels 'up on par' with events. – just watch the
one of today, especially latter part:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BehWwFeemJk(there is a second, not
less succint part of the broadcast, but I didn´t yet find it on Youtube
etc.) I think one thing that is clearer by the hour: - the
premeditation goes beyond 'the crowd', and to some extent beyond
classical 'Neo RX' - we have (sorry to use the term, as I am
sceptical of its author) to think of the 'event stack'; what was the
architecture of enabling factors that made the greatst security failure
in post-WW-II US history unfold (so easily)? - the question to be
asked is not (only) why/who was there (as documented publicly on social
media), but why was the 'insurrection' (coup) not not there; i.e. why was no perimeter established
around the Capitol? (and some related questions, like how could people
enter in side entrances? how could they find some hidden offices etc.)
... all this goes beyond habitualized racism and 'blind eyes' in 'the
system', 'the police'. everything else is naive. (and if one thing is
for sure, Capitol security systems are not about naivité as is currently
prjected / the main line on aligned media / politics) if you
listen in to the forum that Tiffany opens you will learn some basic
things, like: - security on this day that is technically a 'national
security event' (bec inter alia bec of the presence of Vice President,
House Speaker etc.) was lowe than on an average day - some people
(white folks in 30s) presumably started walking to the capitol from that
in event in cohort even before Trump called on the crowd - the
preparedness of some elements of 'the mob' with tactical gear – we
all know by now that the call on the National Guard was explicitly
refused at least once by Pentagon - add to that the public
announcements of most actions / the overall plan to storm Capitol in
public sight (on publicly visible communication channels), and all
relevant experts on domestic terrorism / white extremism saw this –
particular – danger clearly coming – and as in the case of the ADL tried
to instigate action by security structures on this... w/o success,
obviously - not yet heard anywhere else: one of the founders/heads of
Parler (the new go-to social media platform) actually is a former
high-rank (technical as well as political) secret-service member –
etc. - there is plenty more one will find analytically/diagnstically
put together on that show; so check for yourselves... peace,
oliver
By
now, I would venture to say that "trumpism" is finished.
By
trumpism, I don't mean a specific ideology but a method. Trump never
had
a coherent ideology. I think he was, basically, a resentful,
narcissistic
entertainer/marketer who skillfully repeated the phrases
that
elicited the loudest cheers. Sure, all three of them, his
resentfulness,
his narcissism, and his marketing skills were on an epic
scale, but,
nevertheless, this does not amount to an ideology. Sure, the
loudest
cheers came from various corners of the racist, misogynist, and
nationalist
right, each with its own deep and traditions in America, but
what
bound them together was shared resentment and grievances, not ideology.
The
methodology is to create enough chaos, spectacle, volatility,
uncertainty,
FUD (different names of the same underlying idea) so that
one could
bend reality to adhere to one's wishes. There was no need to
care
about facts because they would be created after in the aftermath of
action.
This is a world of speech acts. Simply declaring things makes
them
real. This is the world of entertainment, the world of finance, and
the
world of politics, at least for their most powerful actors. Creating
rumors
about falling prices can make prices fall, long enough for the
skillful
insiders to profit from it. By the time they move back up, the
next
thing can be created. The same method can also operate in politics.
If
you apply just enough pressure, you can legislate almost anything
into
reality. For Trump, the preferred way to execute this method was
using
marketing to shape TV which would then be translated into money.
During
his time in politics, the preferred marketing platform was
Twitter,
geared towards TV as reality feeding back into various
money-making
schemes.
This method, however, is entirely parasitic. It assumes
that there is an
underlying support system capable of absorbing and
smoothing over the
shocks, steadying the environment enough so that
the next shock can be
applied. That support system can either be a
legal team, a credit line,
or a well-functioning
organization/administration that keeps the boat
afloat no matter
what. This is, of course, a world of privilege, where
others
constantly clean up so quickly that nobody really cares that the
master
trashes the place.
And I think what happened on Wednesday was
that the support system broke
down. It's kind of ironic, it was the
police, largely sympathetic to the
demonstrators, that led it happen.
Everyone could see that the place is
being trashed. I think this is
the reason why quite a few people, like
Brian, were happy with this
event. And I tend to agree with them.
I think, trumpism
understood this way, as a form of violent, parasitic,
entitled mode
of operation, is much larger than Trump as a person. So
it's ending
might be more interesting than a president being abandoned
by his
allies during the final days of his term.
He is both a symbol and
an _expression_ of late-stage capitalism. And it's
now most obvious
form of parasitism lies in its relationship with the
natural
environment. There is a parallel reckoning that the biophysical
systems
that support human civilization are no longer capable of
absorbing
the shocks inflicted by the particular method through which
this
civilization operates. There are only so many hurricanes, floods,
droughts,
and wildfires until even the Koch brothers understand that
weakening
environmental regulations is a pyrrhic victory, expressing the
same
kind of dead-end that the protestors found Nancy Pelosi's office to
be.
Enough for some shallow gloating, but then?
The experience of a
badly managed pandemic is another moment of
realization that a vital
support system, whose existence was taken for
granted, can, indeed,
break down at catastrophic costs, not just to
others, but to oneself.
This
creates an extraordinarily open situation, in which even large
fractions
of the core groups -- those with financial, social/political,
and
cultural power -- realize that their respective status quo has
become
untenable (marginalized groups knew this all along).
However,
who can come up with a new, practical approach is unclear.
On the
left, the vision is some kind of eco-socialism, a green new deal
with
universal social (human and nonhuman) services, on the right, the
vision
is some kind of eco-fascism with radicalized social services.
I
think culturally speaking, they are both expressions of a necessary
post-humanist
turn, even if they offer starkly different views of what
this "post"
entails.
Made by
TV, made by social media. Trump, that is Trump wanted to
overthrow the election and his hardcore followers believed that he
would provide them direction, but in the end he proved that he is unable
to really lead when it counts. He is not a general, nor a strategist,
nor a coach, nor anything but a bluster machine (though a very good
one). Obvious to most of us, but a revelation to some not until they were
inside the capitol, wondering What now? The backlash slapped him
down and now the threats of impeachment, removal, and sanctions yet
to be figured, have Trump singing a completely different tune. Stiff,
uncomfortable, and surely fake--but a script for self-preservation
that even he knew had become necessary. (And in turn creates
dissonance among his people, some of those who vowed themselves ready
to die for his cause now crying betrayal. Hilarious.) Why
the (insincere) words acknowledging the end of his reign? Because of all
the reactions, the most important and effective in blunting the man's thirst
for chaos and desire to incite was Jack Dorsey's muzzling of the Twitter
account. Accompanied by a clear warning: keep this up and I'll ban you
from Twitter forever. Donald Trump is addicted to Twitter, pure
and simple. He doesn't want to govern, he wants to tweet. He hates
government meetings, legislative processes, presidential
ceremonies--but loves having his rapid-fire tweet storms. More than
any aspiring teen IG influencer, Twitch streamer, or Facebook friend
hoarder, Trump is addicted to hearts and retweets by the millions. Some
fear once out of office Trump has enough capital (wait a minute, what about
that half billion in debt that's coming due??) to start a major news and
social media platform of his own. But he's not thinking about the platform
launch a year from now. He's too busy composing in his head his next
few tweets, and like any addict, already getting a charge from the anticipation
of the effects. For him it's Twitter or nothing. And when
Twitter turned the dial to zero for 12 hours, the reports are that he
sat alone in the White House residence riding a one-man roller coaster
of negativity, going from despair to rage and back. As has become usual,
unreachable by his aides or family. But for the first time unable to
tweet any of it. A second impeachment? Invocation of the 25th
amendment? Normally his weapon of defense would be tweeting. With
that taken out from his control, and with the company making it plain
that he doesn't own the platform, he had no choice but to return to
the activated account in a different kind of voice albeit off-key (ie
fake as hell). This is merely one element in the larger drama,
still unfolding as Prem and others have noted. But the tension
between Trump and Twitter, which is to say, in some profound sense
between Trump and himself, is a key relationship to watch and one of
the theaters in which power has shifted. Whether he will reclaim it
as a weapon, and what Twitter will tolerate, will figure into the
days to come, as well as Trump's capacity to continue as a focal
point for the always almost-fragmented hard right. Keep sharing
your takes, please. We're all digesting this together. Dan —Resident
Artist, 18th Street Arts Center, Santa Monica, CA @type_rounds_1968 @nowtime_asianamerica danswang.xyz On
1/8/21, 10:52 AM, "Molly Hankwitz" < nettime-l-bounces@mail.kein.org
on
not to nitpick, but they had a command and that was from
Trump...to "storm the capitol"
after that they had no
serious intent to occupy the Capitol or, for instance, to issue
demands... they were there to disrupt the electoral college
vote confirmation by Congress - on behalf of their leader (Trump)
your
points about 'whiteness' are well-taken we should not obscure
'reach' of whiteness trope, although one could argue, I think that
those caught up in the swirl of 'whiteness' may think to themselves that
they are a 'class' of some importance...
peace molly
It was definitely a mob, and I think Geert
is right that this particular event had no clear command.
But I would caution against assuming these
rioters were all poor white folk or that this was primarily about class.
Many in the mob
have now been identified, and
there were plenty of white collar hooligans in the mix, some flying in
on their private jets. The formation and legacies of whiteness in the US
are a key animating factor here in a way that
crosses class lines. It also fuels the way the mob claimed the title
“patriot” and invoked 1776.
Tara
(Sent by pneumatic tube.)
Good question, Keith.
Was it a putch without a purpose of a mob without a cause? For sure they
were all revved up, dazed by meme magick and shit, looking for the best
selfie opportunity.
Once we enter the heart of the power, and roam around there, we do not
face power as such. No need to repeat here what Foucault and many other
after him have written about power. We know, but what if one has to
experience this at first hand, as riot tourists?
The warriors were running through corridors, without a plan, needless to
say, without their leader, as he was sitting in front of his TV set,
around the corner, enjoying the images, watching the spectacle unfold,
yet remaining silent at the decisive moment.
There was no command, no plan, not even a serious counterforce. At best
it was a ‘disruption’ such as promoted by Silicon Valley venture
capitalists.
Geert
> On 8 Jan 2021, at 4:39 pm, Keith Sanborn <mrzero@panix.com>
wrote:
>
> Put another way, was it the burning of the Reichstag or the
storming of the Winter Palace? or neither?
# 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://urldefense.com/v3/__http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!4ZlRYQvxRnxEGpBaDolKOdJ7WIEPd9iTmb7mHr3uHhhjtRY6B2Z47HSnjMr5MhY$
# archive:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.nettime.org__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!4ZlRYQvxRnxEGpBaDolKOdJ7WIEPd9iTmb7mHr3uHhhjtRY6B2Z47HSnGQyZ9-Y$
contact: nettime@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Good
question, Keith.
Was it a putch without a purpose of a mob
without a cause? For sure they were all revved up, dazed by meme magick
and shit, looking for the best selfie opportunity.
Once we enter
the heart of the power, and roam around there, we do not face power as
such. No need to repeat here what Foucault and many other after him have
written about power. We know, but what if one has to experience this at
first hand, as riot tourists?
The warriors were running through
corridors, without a plan, needless to say, without their leader, as he
was sitting in front of his TV set, around the corner, enjoying the
images, watching the spectacle unfold, yet remaining silent at the
decisive moment.
There was no command, no plan, not even a
serious counterforce. At best it was a ‘disruption’ such as promoted by
Silicon Valley venture capitalists.
Geert
Put
another way, was it the burning of the Reichstag or the storming of the
Winter Palace? or neither?
|