The part where he calls for hundreds of Trump supporters to walk to the Capitol as they recount votes
They don’t need those mouth breathers help counting anything
The next thing he said isn’t asking for that... or did you not listen

This is from Ben Garrison, whose account has also been deleted. Trumpsters have nobody left
The spectacle of culture has become all-consuming. You can look at a state like Brazil where the spectacle is so strong that a complete economic failure under Bozonaro gets ignored whereas a slight downturn under Dilma was the reason for national protests. America of course has even more sophisticated propaganda and is better at it than the rest of the world. I guarantee you will see Trumptards who are far more angry at this Twitter thing than anything related to the pandemic going on.
Nonetheless, I do think that at one point, material reigns over ideas. There's only so much economic hardship people can endure before going ape s***. While it's an exaggeration, "no society is more than three missed meals away from a revolution" comes to my mind.
As I've stated before, my prediction is that the next populist figure will be a right-winger with vaguely socialist rhetoric á la Tucker Carlson. Someone who will advocate for pro-life, pro-guns, anti-immigration, pro-Christianity and champion himself as a hero of the workers. It will have both the culture war elements you mentioned as well as enough concessions to the people that they could gain popularity from people on the fence.
I lean back and forth because while I do think you're obviously correct and that materialist divisions play a massive role in societal function and clearly (historically as well) lead into revolution, I do think largely that the acceleration of culture especially in a modern context is very unlike that of the past. I'm not sure if I think culture in a modern sense is just a spectacle anymore, although it plays that role sometimes, when culture itself almost mimics economics in an odd philosophical sense (i.e. social capital) - while I'd like to say economics dictates culture, as it has largely historically, its almost the opposite now that culture has begun to inversely dictate economics due to how just incredibly baseless and fantastically removed from reality modern economics really are. Not sure if you get what I'm saying there.
I also don't disagree with you on that last part. As I've said a lot of times, the last 4 years (culminating in recent events) were never really about Trump. People are going to find that out the hard way.
I lean back and forth because while I do think you're obviously correct and that materialist divisions play a massive role in societal function and clearly (historically as well) lead into revolution, I do think largely that the acceleration of culture especially in a modern context is very unlike that of the past. I'm not sure if I think culture in a modern sense is just a spectacle anymore, although it plays that role sometimes, when culture itself almost mimics economics in an odd philosophical sense (i.e. social capital) - while I'd like to say economics dictates culture, as it has largely historically, its almost the opposite now that culture has begun to inversely dictate economics due to how just incredibly baseless and fantastically removed from reality modern economics really are. Not sure if you get what I'm saying there.
I also don't disagree with you on that last part. As I've said a lot of times, the last 4 years (culminating in recent events) were never really about Trump. People are going to find that out the hard way.
I do understand what you are saying. If you read Guy Debord, who pioneered the spectacle concept, he uses it in a way that the modern spectacle forms a life of its own, shaping the material world in a way previously impossible:
"The spectacle cannot be understood as an abuse of the world of vision, as a product of the techniques of mass dissemination of images. It is, rather, a Weltanschauung (= world view) which has become actual, materially translated. It is a world vision which has become objectified."
marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm
The spectacle itself becomes reality. "Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation ... The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images ... It is not a supplement to the real world or an additional decoration."
Check my balls and the head of my cock
You sounding like a maga boi
Are you a maga

This is from Ben Garrison, whose account has also been deleted. Trumpsters have nobody left
they always draw trump like he's some young and sculpted football player
If some s*** happens at the inauguration man...
They're gonna have to have crazy security
The security is working with them

This is from Ben Garrison, whose account has also been deleted. Trumpsters have nobody left
I do understand what you are saying. If you read Guy Debord, who pioneered the spectacle concept, he uses it in a way that the modern spectacle forms a life of its own, shaping the material world in a way previously impossible:
"The spectacle cannot be understood as an abuse of the world of vision, as a product of the techniques of mass dissemination of images. It is, rather, a Weltanschauung (= world view) which has become actual, materially translated. It is a world vision which has become objectified."
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm
The spectacle itself becomes reality. "Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation ... The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images ... It is not a supplement to the real world or an additional decoration."
I've read Society of the Spectacle and a few other books by others on similar or derivative topics; I know of writings similarly from Baudrillard, Derrida, and Lacan for example. It's hard because I'm not sure if I fully agree; while I do understand the concepts theoretically but I'm not necessarily sure if i agree with the nuances of how its often related back to materialism. Of course, I can't directly argue with Debord or someone like Lacan, so it's also left up to interpretation and basically arguing second-hand, so that does make it harder, but I do feel there's something to be said about how even if things are compressed in a monistic fashion they can really only be understood dualistically, and I do feel the relation of material economy to culture is falling more into that categorization/understanding
These governments are so scared of big tech companies it’s amazing lmao
It’s hilarious too bc the big tech companies hire the best brains in the world and everyone else is left to work for the government
S put the call in