But those people don’t sounds like they are about politics (as a democratic tool).
If winning is what matters to these guys, why are they so pleased with themselves for losing?
Because winning is losing, and losing is winning in this case. If you win you have to implement your promises which are populist fantasies, not realistic plans and you lose your popularity quickly. But if you lose, it’s because you’re a “victim” of those who are not as good and morally pure as you are. It’s a double win strategy, you can continue despising the others, but don’t have to move a finger to prove you’re better.
Unless, it’s somebody so power hungry, they don’t care about popularity anymore.
“it’s we who represent the many
In a democracy it’s called “voting”.
But “dominance, power and no compromises” sounds totalitarian.
- First they claim that they represent the many but the many don’t elect them.
- Then they force their way to power and require the many to bend the knee. The many don’t comply.
- They claim everybody who doesn’t comply “impure”, “oppressor” or “oppressor’s apologist”. They many still are not ashamed of themselves.
- They resort to violence and kill everybody impure. They’ve got the power, remember?
Don’t be fooled, dominance not about civility of discourse or any discourse at all.
I skimmed again through the post and it sounds disturbing. The word “power” is used 8 times, “dominance” 5 times, with a few other “superiority” messages.
when it comes to these eloquent activists, just what else it might be about
Another influence operation? The KGB amassed decades of experience in active measures involving the left and installing communist governments, they can just dust off their old playbooks. Coincidence?