PyotrVerkhovensky
No bio...
User ID: 2154
PyotrVerkhovensky
11mo ago
You may well be correct, but the two things that remain unexplained are the extent of the panic after a mediocre debate (which you yourself show didn't impact polls long term) and the flavor of the reaction to his withdrawing from the race (which would have made more sense if he hadn't fought tooth and nail to stay in).
I'm not supposing that the elites coordinate that much, or that they have much control. Indeed, I think the world is spiraling out of their control (to the extent they ever had it). My theory only requires the actions from one or two individuals...and responses to those reactions that are quite predictable.
PyotrVerkhovensky
11mo ago
When I first saw memes hinting that Biden's debate flop was an intentional setup by the Democratic Machine, I thought it a humorous take but didn't treat it seriously. While the overall media reaction was excessive, the dismay seemed genuine. What benefit would there be to publicly humiliate their candidate? However, given the immediate and overwhelming support for Harris following his withdrawal, I've since updated my beliefs. I think now that Biden's flop was at least somewhat arranged.
If my theory is correct, sometime in early 2024 (Feb-April), Biden suffered a steep decline. It was too late to pivot for the primaries, and the Party hoped that he would be able to limp his way to re-election in the fall.
The Biden administration proposed in mid-May to have an extra-early June debate. It could be that the setup was already in play at this point, though I suspect it was a still a backup plan that would only kick in if something particularly incrementing happened before the debate.
On June 4th, the Wall Street Journal reported Biden's decline on his Europe trip. The Wall Street Journal only wades against the Narrative when it has airtight evidence lest it be accused of partisanship (a worry that the Washington Post and New York Times, alas, do not share). Indeed, the administration immediately accused the Journal of partisanship, and enlisted more friendly journalists to rebut the claim. Yet, the Party saw that the cat was out of the bag and that they likely couldn't sufficiently contain the evidence of decline through November.
On the day of the debate, I suspect that the Party withheld whatever stimulants they normally provided Biden during late speaking engagements. I suspect they also hinted to the CNN hosts that overtly negative coverage of Biden would be tolerable. The administration can drum up positive coverage at will as demonstrated by the above Journal article; it seems likely they can influence negative coverage as well. One or two senior officials would then tweet or otherwise message a stirring farewell. As is often the case, a compelling message from the top is quickly repeated and augmented by the lower echelons of the Party. There is no conspiracy in this: it is simply a way for Party members to signal their loyalty. The sooner they can repeat the message, the more likely their message is to go viral, so there is an incentive to relay it quickly.
But then, something happened that was not anticipated: Biden was not ready to go gently into that good night. He stuck around for weeks as the calls for him to step down mounted. What could, and, (from the Party's perspective) should have been a clean withdrawal followed by a Harris coronation, stretched into something that looked more and more like a soft coup (which, if my theory is correct, it certainly was). Finally, Biden under mounting pressure formally withdrew; though given the medium for that message, even that was done in a way that raised eyebrows.
The most brazen aspect of the whole charade was how the originally planned message was then promulgated with no substantial updates. My social media feeds from lesser Party officials became a chorus of "how brave and noble for him to put his country above his personal desires, and his term was one of the most successful of any president". An example quote, verbatim: "President Joe Biden has been the most effective president of the last century. He's...always put integrity first. So grateful of his leadership, and looking forward to working alongside Kamala Harris to win this November." For me, this messaging was 1984 levels of bizarre: we had just seen the Democratic Machine take down a sitting president who clearly wanted to remain in the race, yet when he acquiesced that same machine treated him as a hero. We were always at war with Eastasia. Yet I have seen no pushback from any center/mainstream outlet on this sudden and disingenuous pivot. And it was on observing this that I updated my opinion on the debate.
PyotrVerkhovensky
11mo ago
I am very conservative, probably even by this community's standards (though I like The Jews...I just wished they stopped voting against their interests). Some of my friend groups are very conservative. I have two friends in two separate friend groups who had immediate family members in the Capitol on Jan 6. And yet, I don't know anyone who even knows anyone who believes QAnon or RRN. If it is genuinely popular/believed, it is in niche conservative groups that my bubbles don't happen to overlap with. I lean towards genuine belief being quite rare, with a fair bit of QAnon talking points being repeated for the LOLs.
I do think that any belief or interest in these highly bizarre theories does reflect a broader rejection or negation of the mainstream narrative, which in turn evidences the domination of the mainstream narrative. We don't have true epistemological competition. We have the consensus. It is the water we swim in. It is the universal milieu. I tend to roll my eyes at mainstream hand-wringing over "misinformation" or "alternative facts" as if the disseminators or believers in these alternative narratives are so ensconced in these bubbles that they have no access to the enlightened narrative. This is just not true. Simply by existing I am aware of my expected place in ensuring the smooth path for progress along the arc of history. DEI is good, certain neo-reactionaries such as Musk notwithstanding. The future is female. Bring your whole self to work (but only if you are gay or black...not if you are a Christian).
Everything is liberal, and it cannot be escaped. In short, we have one narrative. Everything else is an anti-narrative. Anti-narratives can be true (I happen to think some weak forms of the anti-narrative are closer to the truth than the narrative), but they are all going to be compelling to those who reject the narrative. To some extent, the more extreme the anti-narrative, the bigger the "up yours" to the narrative.
PyotrVerkhovensky
11mo ago
I'll have to re-read Messiah, but I recall her being at least the equal of Irulun in the games of politics (not that that was saying much), and she commanded the respect of the people.
PyotrVerkhovensky
11mo ago
I agree that she was there to bludgeon the audience with "actually, Paul becoming the emperor is a VERY BAD THING". Destroying a character to translate a book to a movie is a risky move, but one that can work: for instance, both Jessica and Stilgar were made one-dimensional and I agree with those choices (more so with Jessica's than Stilgar's). Chani was not the right character to destroy. From a narrative perspective, it lacked the subtlety I expect from Villanueva. It didn't respect the source material, imposing Western 2024 norms on a feudal culture.
PyotrVerkhovensky
11mo ago
I am hopelessly behind in my movie watching, and have just recently finished Dune 2. I'm 5 months late to the party, but the movie's deep flaws spurred me to write this post, and hopefully provide some change of pace to the constant Biden drama.
Villanueva often uses strange settings (Arrival, Blade Runner) to tell a compelling and intimate story. I had high expectations for Dune in his hands: the narrative of Paul, Chani, and Jessica has an uncanny setting yet is a story with nuance and personality. Unfortunately, Villanueva has not delivered on either the setting or the interpersonal relationships.
As in the first Dune installment, the planet is not the omnipresent danger that it is in the books. Dune should be the harshest, most inhospitable environment imaginable, with even the prison planet paling in comparison. Those that survive are forced into extreme military discipline. There is no questioning authority unless the questioner was willing to fight to the death. The planet made the Fremen who they are: the galaxies most feared killers. Yet the movie never shows the planet as anything even a tenth as scary as the Sahara in Laurence of Arabia. None of the Fremen practice water discipline, with mouths wide open to the desert and several incidents of tears (only in extreme cases would water be given to the dead!).
The Fremen themselves are petulant and cliquish rather than clannish. Modern sensibilities are ludicrously transplanted, without modification, into a setting in which every minute brings a chance of death. Chani, inexplicably, is drawn to Paul as he internally embraces a sniveling beta-male persona. She talks of perfect gender equality among the Fremen, while any society that actually evolved in such extremities would be intensely patriarchal (as they are in the book). She says she will never leave him, as long as he remains who he is. A true Fremen (and a true woman!) would have never caveated or conditioned such a statement.
Paul, backed into a corner by the Harkonnen, finally transforms into the leader he is destined to be. Chani disapproves: she wanted a tame, domesticated partner. His transformation into a conqueror precipitates an extended hissy fit that ends with her abandoning Paul, the Fremen, and her duty. She takes on the persona of a girl-boss, and is as unhappy (and, seemingly, as barren) as any modern-day girl-boss.
In the book, Chani is loyal. She is a consistent mainstay for Paul, sharing in his miseries and exulting in his triumphs. She is no flake, and takes her duty and responsibility with great seriousness. She is perfectly at home in the society, with none of the bizarre anachronism of the movie.
Perhaps the best way to show the disconnect between the book and the movie, and in the character of Chani, is quoting a passage from each:
She spoke from the tent’s gloom, another shadow there: “It’s not yet full light, beloved.”
“Sihaya,” he said, speaking with half a laugh in his voice.
“You call me your desert spring,” she said, “but this day I’m thy goad. I am the Sayyadina who watches that the rites be obeyed.”
He began tightening his stillsuit. “You told me once the words of the Kitab al-Ibar,” he said. “You told me: ‘Woman is thy field; go then to thy field and till it.’”
“I am the mother of thy firstborn,” she agreed. He saw her in the grayness matching him movement for movement, securing her stillsuit for the open desert. “You should get all the rest you can,” she said.
He recognized her love for him speaking then and chided her gently: “The Sayyadina of the Watch does not caution or warn the candidate.”
She slid across to his side, touched his cheek with her palm. “Today, I am both the watcher and the woman.”
And the movie:
[Paul] What’s your secret name?
[Chani] Sihaya.
[Paul] Sihaya.
[Chani] Hmm.
[Paul] What does that mean?
[Chani] Means Desert Spring.
[Paul] “Desert Spring.” I love it.
[Chani] I hate it. It’s from some stupid prophecy. I prefer Chani.
[Paul] I prefer Chani, too, then. Do you think Stilgar would teach me?
[Chani] To ride?
[Paul] Yeah.
[Chani laughs] No. Only Fremen ride worms.
[Paul] Well, I thought I’d become one, didn’t I?
[Chani] By name, not by blood. Your blood comes from Dukes and Great Houses. We don’t have that here. Here, we’re equal, men and women alike. What we do, we do for the benefit of all.
[Paul] Well, I’d very much like to be equal to you.
[Chani] Paul Muad’Dib Usul… maybe you could be Fremen. Maybe I’ll show you the way.
Which version of Chani seems more real? More responsible? More happy? Villanueva (unintentionally) provides meta-commentary on modern feminism, and it isn't pretty.
Not without doxxing myself, unfortunately...
More options
Context Copy link