As a Roman historian, I am *very* aware of the historical specificity of this.

At least drugs did it on its own! With terror and poverty, the US Government switched sides.

Officers’ hats.
Or, more seriously, take Elias as your model instead of Parker. Courtly accomplishments. Create your own Versailles.

The final page of The Siege Of Gondor.

A version of Geoffrey Robertson’s Tyrannicide Brief? But about the Dismissal.

(As an outsider) Does lower-middle-class equate to a French/German petit bourgeois? And maybe there is cross-contamination in the concept?

One of the shocking discoveries of Covid was that some men routinely don’t wash their hands after going to the toilet. And I feel yuck just typing that out.

The problem: the situation is meaningless to Americans and the British are unlikely to fund a show where they’re the baddies.

Parnell would seem to have the ingredients for a good show too.

Faramir can’t do it on a rainy Tuesday night in Stoke.

I doubt it. There were no Frenchmen in the 1940s with real bad opinions. None at all. (Whistles)

How are you tweeting from 1987?

But your point here is consistent with Monbiot. You are saying domination is difficult. He is saying that periods of the absence of domination (as a mode of government) are few.

I don’t have any sort of response to this beyond: thanks for saying it. You’re really making me think about this.

A computer that only talks about small shields, a targe language model.

A managerial ego that makes Jose Mourinho look like Ted Lasso.

Oxbridge bears a lot of responsibility for producing a ruling class which is so utterly incompetent at everything.

There is a difference between lies, bullshit, and what this is. In Frankfurt’s essay, lies are meant to deceive, while, for bullshit, the truth is an irrelevance.

With this, the speaker *knows* the audience *knows* this is a lie. The point is a display of power: “I can lie to you without challenge”

This is only tangentially related, but very cool: academic.oup.com/book/47778