It Costs A Lot Of Money To Be This Cheap - Trump Thread #169

[Spandauer]

(Title with apologies to Miss Dolly)

Griftin’ 9 to 5, what a way to make a livin’, Truth Social is the lie, it’s all takin' and no givin'.
(Thanks @Jaichangecentfoisdenom)

Tangerine, Tangerine, Tangerine, Tangeriiiiiiiiiine. I'm begging of you please don't bomb Oman.
(Thanks @dapsnotplimsolls)

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5559791-the-reaper-should-have-gone-to-specsavers-trump-thread-168

Trump’s Final Term Ends in: - Countdown Timer

Cool.

I just had an image in my head of 2 mile lines of people outside bass pro shops, with everyone holding 5k wads of cash.

Some mornings, I wake up and look at last night's news out of the US and think, there's really nothing left to fucking say.

And that's before I turn my attention to the shits how that the UK is (has?) becoming (become?).

It's so long since I read The Shock Doctrine that I can't remember details. But as broad-brush I find it extremely useful.

One of Klein's important ideas is "disaster opportunism", and the way both profit-seekers and ideologues can have plans stockpiled for when a nice opportunity arises.

A "disaster" (which can be any kind of major disruptive event) reduces people's ability to make a slow and thorough examination of such plans, and may also place those who might want to resist the plans in a vulnerable position where their power is reduced and thus their ability to resist is reduced. The organisation takes advantage of this reduced resistance to implement their stockpiled plans – and as the cherry on the top claims these plans are an actual solution to the disaster.

IIRC she gives examples like the New Orleans flood after Hurricane Katrina, and the way some organisations/companies sought to benefit from it. Wars are another obvious example of readily exploited disasters.

IIRC she then moves to the suggestion that forward-thinking groups might not sit and wait for random disasters to occur, but proactively hasten suitable disasters into being. Theoretically this should be true; why wouldn't they? And I can't remember Klein's examples, but I do personally remember in the lead up to the Iraq war there was reporting along the lines of "Wall Street wants it because they're saying it will be good for them".

What one could reasonably disagree with the book about would be the extent to which the desire to manufacture an opportunity has been a motivating factor in any given set of decisions; versus how much was opportunism after the fact. But again I don't remember explicit examples to judge each.

All in all I find that "disaster opportunism" is a very useful addition to my mental check list when trying to understand events. Considering whether a disaster has been actively curated is an important part of that.

So for example it certainly adds something to my thinking when I look at the fact that Russia has been creating refugees and channelling them and other migrants towards western Europe (per comments from Sir Richard Dearlove this week https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/russia-deliberately-channelling-migrants-europe-5Hjdh6p_2/ )

And simultaneously I look at the activities of Russia's recent guest Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson, and his pal Danny "Tommo" Thomas, and how they are benefiting from the small boat migrants. It's particularly interesting that Thomas has started conducting live-streamed dramas just now, after the numbers of boat arrivals has started falling.

We can see how both Russia and Yaxley-Lennon and pals have had aims and ideas stockpiled for years; now between them they are creating / exploiting a major disruptive event (post-Brexit increase in illegal arrivals in the UK) and each gets to further their aims.

One might see this as too obvious to need spelling out with a special name like "disaster opportunism"!

However I find naming it and realising it's an actual structured technique allows me to look out for it, recognise it quicker, and (importantly) ask who all the involved parties might be.

As a caveat, obviously not all "disasters" are curated; sometimes organisations really are just seizing the opportunity after the event. And not all ideas put forward after an event are idealogical or profit-seeking plans which have been stockpiled awaiting a suitable opportunity. I just find it worth asking, in each case, whether we can see an element of post-event disaster opportunism or curated disaster opportunism, and who the involved parties are.

Excellent post @PerkingFaintly.

Cross-posted with you being much more succinct, @RedToothBrush !

TL;DR: yes yes to Klein's book being very useful to understand disaster capitalism; and I'm finding it useful to understand broader disaster opportunism not just in the context of capitalism.

We can be certain that the concept of stockpiling plans, then waiting until "disasters" (major external events) diminish the capacity of potential resisters, is part of the thinking of powerful organisations... because Meta kindly put it in writing!

Did someone wearing Meta Glasses film you today? Are you sure?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2026/aug/19/meta-glasses-privacy-surveillance
In February, the New York Times reported on an internal Meta Reality Labs document in which the company discussed its plans to integrate a facial recognition feature called “NameTag” into its smartglasses.

In the document, dated to May 2025, Meta said that it planned to launch NameTag “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns”.

Just to add my wee bit to the excellent disaster posts, is that manufactured crisis does not need one attributed to one nefarious driving force.

Eg, with the small boats, I put it to a Reform voter on another thread that a significant part of the small boat thing is caused by Farage and palls. And that when Farage gets in the news saying "open borders, free hotels, free medical, free housing" etc, he knows that people in far off places will see that, and take the by finding a trafficker.

He knows exactly what he is doing. He is encouraging it. Trump done the same.

And with the protests, the press are similar in a way, but that is a strange venn diagram of obligation to report, and maybe trying to make it a bigger story.

And here is a strange thing, as a Brit looking in from a different system, when I see all the posts saying " Britain is divided, fractured society, poles apart", I think wtf. Because it's not. UK left and right, are near the same. I mean if we put a standard distribution curve on the Overton scale, most of the population are within a few points. But for countries such as where I am, that has a totally different system, it is fantastic for them that Brits are saying they are divided. Fantastic for domestic propaganda.

On that last bit. I think that is something often missed. That outside influences trying to create a division in a society are likely not doing it because they want to damage it or create failure out of hatred. No, they are doing it to make themselves look better for their own domestic audience.

Yep - This is me now.

On that last bit. I think that is something often missed. That outside influences trying to create a division in a society are likely not doing it because they want to damage it or create failure out of hatred. No, they are doing it to make themselves look better for their own domestic audience.

Oh but both can be true.

Putin really really wants the liberal democracies to fail, because their mere existence shows his population a counter-example to his rule.

So if division damages a liberal democracy, that's win-win to Putin.

Yup. Agree with that.

What I was trying to say, but managed to forget to say it, is that there is not some " great illuminati" at work. Just different groups pulling different short strings. Not a Space lizard with a giant rope.

It might feel like that if a lot of the short strings are pulling the same way. But these wee strings just need wee scissors to cut, one at a time.

That's if they need to be cut, of course. Or can be, without deviating too far from democratic ideals.

manufactured crisis does not need one attributed to one nefarious driving force.

Absolutely. This is described as "confluence of interest."

I first read it in a management textbook for multinational companies wanting to set up major projects in other countries which would need the blessing of that country's government. "Seek confluences of interest with the government and explain how good your project will be for their aims for their country (or, er, more personally...)".

ETA: cross-posted with you saying it better, @RedTagAlan !

Are we getting the band back together ?

Yes, although when you look at Brexit/Cambridge Analytica/Farage/Trump the string starts to look longer. Although I suppose people grabbing onto the string, i.e. Musk buying X and jumping on the train, keeps lengthening it, taking us back to opportunists and strategists and where they meet and diverge.

For anyone who hasn't read or listened to Carole Cadwalladr, I can't recommend her highly enough.

Have always been of the belief that capitalism invites disaster.

Actually I can't remember which bits of my thinking I got from Klein's The Shock Doctrine and which bits came from Greg Palast.

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy is the work of Palast's that I'd recommend.

He studied in the Economics Department of the University of Chicago, the place which originated Chile's "Chicago Boys" economists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys

Palast is the person who introduced me to the concept "the IMF riot", which I've mentioned on these threads before.

I'm going to be lazy and just C&P:
[The "IMF riot"] was an explicit and (quietly) admitted part of the tactics of the Chicago Boys and others of that school in the 1980s and 1990s, as part of their shock doctrine to break any status quo and create openings for opportunists.

They would recommend that a government – sometimes an unsuspecting one – made economic changes which would cause extreme financial and social discontent.

This would, if all went to plan, boil up into civil unrest. The government could then announce crackdowns and declare martial law or whatever, and take centralised authoritarian control of the country – "to restore law and order," you understand.

And that would be it. The regime and controls would then remain in power indefinitely.

In that era they used the IMF as the vehicle for delivering the "advice" to the government, hence the name. But the tactic of deliberately provoking unrest in order to have a pretext for cracking down is as old as the hills.

I don't think those sort of bad actors can create divisions where there aren't any. I do think they are good at identifying, exploiting and widening existing divisions and grievances. Mindful opportunism. The first danger is that they can make those grievances worse. The second is that because people know they are doing this is becomes easier to dismiss ideas you don't agree with/grievances from groups you dont like as coming from outside propaganda. So either way it becomes harder to have conversations. That seemed really bad in America with both sides accusing the others of being Russian/Chinese trolls. It also means that it doesn't matter for bad actors if stuff like the Cambridge Analutica scandals come out. In a weird way people knowing they are trying to manipulate public discourse helps them because it further weakens trust in public discourse.

But the tactic of deliberately provoking unrest in order to have a pretext for cracking down is as old as the hills.

The British did that in Ireland a lot over the centuries

Sadly I agree with you completely, @Persephonia1966 .

Degrading trust between people and their ability to have meaningful conversations works in the favour of the bad actors.

Indeed. Nor did the British invent it.

Examples across history and across countries too numerous to list.

As did William of Orange.

But where and where in any country or segment of society have there ever not been divisions to exploit?

That seemed really bad in America with both sides accusing the others of being Russian/Chinese trolls

But being factual, one side was literally propped up by Russia. The other side is lying. What do you do with that? Pretend both are equal?

Vance appears to walk back Trump’s offer of $5,000 ‘dividend’ if Republicans win midterms

And, as an example, I know it gets you rotten fruit thrown at you on Mumsnet, but all this trans stuff that is deciding elections and dividing women against themselves? Completely and deliberately ginned up as a wedge issue by the US religious right (assuming you consider the religious right a bad actor).

There's plenty of reporting out there on how, having lost the battle against gay marriage, for the moment, anyway, the people who prop up that very lucrative brand calculatedly created that as the next moral panic.

I'm not going to pretend that, taken as a whole, both sides in any given argument are equal.

But I think it's worth being aware that a Bad Actor will very happily intervene on both sides. Even if they want one to win.

The general degrading of public discourse and trust are in the Bad Actor's favour. Ginning people up to fight each other is in Bad Actor's favour ("I don't care who wins; but I'll pay to watch").

And if the Bad Actor does want to advance one side, then running the other side's position to absurdity under the guise of supporting it is in the Bad Actor's favour. And masquerading as supporters of the other side while saying "You're a smelly bum poo" to ordinary folk on the Bad Actor's desired side is also in the Bad Actor's favour.

I'm resigned to the fact that whatever cause I'm supporting, there will probably be some Bad Actor chipping in apparently on "my side"...

Do we think that Trump would be familiar with this?

I certainly do. Its his era. Its the way he's operated for years. That's what's bothering me at this point.

The dismissal of Trump as crazy or senile, isn't helpful. No its not crazy to drive the truck off the cliff, if you can get someone to do it for you and you get rich off the back of it, and this also means less people have the means to stand up to you.

If there is a fuel crisis in the US, how do people get to protests?

Its a simple question but one that gets right to the heart of how dependent Americans are on their cars and how their infrastructure isn't set up for the alternative. The cities are where Democratic strongholds are too.

If you then start off from this in your thought processes, it changes where your destination is.

I think the problem is the lack of imagination people have and where they presume the starting point and ultimate goals lie. People are still assuming that Trump will work in the interests of the USA. That's flawed when you LOOK at what he's done and that's to act against the interests of his core voters time and again. Trump centres himself in everything. In his head HE is America. As president he thinks he embodies the USA.

Use that as your starting point and then factor in his admiration of Putin and that he aspires to be like Putin, and you start looking at what Putin did to establish himself and how he worked against the interests of the Russia people and continues to do so. It is all about the gain and maintenance of personal power.

Too many people are effectively still living in the old world order and haven't seen how Trump is trying to create a new world order. Too many people lacked this open mindedness for seeing Brexit coming even if they disagreed with it. Because they don't understand structures and how things operate and assumed motivations were honourable and in their interests.

As for bringing the band back together... probably not, but I can't help but be drawn in when I see such huge political storms brewing.

I hope I'm wrong. Unfortunately, my track record is better than most in foreseeing and anticipating issues.