From vera99 Wed 13-Oct-21 12:06:49 :
"Starmer [...] brings a multi-paged carefully argued briefly to a knife fight against a devious feral lying thug."
This is it. This is the whole crux of the matter. The enemies here (eg. Trump, Johnson, Russia, FB, whoever else) are people who think rules are for fools. And truly rules do only exist if people agree to respect them.
The bonus of respecting mutually agreed rules is that it creates stability and strengthens bonds of community. Rules are a framework that allow us to figure out how our relationships (personal, civic, international ) can work.
But "they" don't give a fig about that. All that matters is to win and - in their view - if you do not use every dirty and violent trick to do that then you deserve to lose. So there are no rules other than 'winner takes all'. Just smash everything - it's fiiiine.
But it's all meaningless in the end because you can cavort in your gold penthouse, shag another American 'entrepreneur', and sit in your tapestry room bleating pseudo-intellectual clap-trap about the 'elite' all you want. But if you do not understand that to be human is to long for real connection with other people - well then it will all be ashes. If you do not understand that to be powerful is useless if you do not look out for the weak - then your supposed winnings will be hollow and you will never, ever find satisfaction.
There's a Dramanic Crummings Twitter thread today laying out this immature idea that rules are for babies. Oh - and also that Brexit isn't working because it's everyone else's fault
. I won't link to it because that pampered sh*te-hawk doesn't need any more attention.
I do not know how you beat the type of enemy who does not respect the natural limits of care and decency towards others.
It is always useful to understand how your opponents' minds dysfunctional psychological problems work. IME people mostly make the things they do right in their own heads - even when those actions are very, very wrong.
I read this BylineTimes article recently which argues that when the far-right talks about corruption they are talking about how women/ black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ people are (to their twisted minds) 'corrupting' politics and public institutions by their very presence which 'taints' the white male supremacy.
So by that logic handing out huge 'contracts' to chums is not the bad type of corruption. That's 'winning'.
*
Sigh ...I've got 99 problems and the white heteronormative patriarchy is basically all of them. 