logo
How Generative A.I. Complements the MAGA Style

How Generative A.I. Complements the MAGA Style

New York Times13-03-2025

Right up front, and only once, let us acknowledge that everything about the 'Trump Gaza' A.I. video is insane: the proposal on which it is based, to resettle the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip and turn the area into a resort property; its content, which includes bearded belly dancers, an Elon Musk look-alike dancing on the beach and a golden statue of President Trump; and the fact that the president posted it, without comment, on a website called Truth Social. It's all absurd and awful. That is probably the point, if a concept as antiquated as intent applies to the new genre of computerized irony this video represents.
I doubt anyone involved in its production and dissemination believes it describes a viable plan for the future. Nevertheless, it expresses the perspective of a certain subset of Americans — not how they imagine the Gaza of tomorrow but how they understand the internet of today. What we have here is the MAGA aesthetic distilled: political expression not as a way to persuade people or even convey ideas but as social and cultural posturing.
There is also a song. Generated by A.I. in a style I would call in-flight techno, its lyrics begin, 'Donald's coming to set you free/bringing the light for all to see/no more troubles, no more fear/Trump Gaza is finally here.' This opening plays over shots of ruined city streets, where masked warriors with assault rifles alternately menace and care for children as civilians crouch in the rubble. GAZA 2025, the supertitles read. WHAT'S NEXT?
The rubble remains, but at this point the foggy skies clear up to reveal construction cranes in the distance. A shot of soldiers passing through an archway cuts to a woman and two children walking through the mouth of a cave toward a beach. Modern skyscrapers fill the horizon, followed by a drum break synced to a series of quick cuts: golden sands lapped by cerulean water, mixed-use retail on streets lined with late-model Teslas, more kids running out of another cave to another beach.
A man who looks like Musk, only 20 years younger and better rested, eats hummus before another cut to belly dancers with large breasts, shapely hips and full beards. This jarring sequence brings us to the chorus: 'Trump Gaza, shining bright/golden future, a brand-new light/feast and dance, the deed is done/Trump Gaza, No. 1.'
As the chorus repeats, we enter the 'after' portion of the spot. A child walks down a shining boulevard, holding a Mylar balloon shaped like the president's head. The president himself chats up a younger woman in a casino. Money falls from the sky. The aforementioned golden statue stands at the center of a busy roundabout, and Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drink cocktails with their shirts off by a pool. The whole thing is prime generative A.I. It's competently hacky, more technically proficient than what most people could produce, but also deranged in the Patrick Bateman style, as though an automaton had decided what humans like by watching thousands of commercials — which is, of course, exactly what happened.
Given how recently generative A.I. developed, it's remarkable how fast its aesthetic hallmarks have become recognizable: high-contrast textures, perceptibly diffuse lighting, forced-perspective shots in which people walk down city streets or through arched openings. It's not what dreams look like so much as a visual rendering of a dream's description, complete with mild failures of object permanence and the sense that we have seen it all before, although it didn't look like that.
As soon as this visual style became familiar, it seemed to become the dominant aesthetic of the pro-Trump internet. With the possible exception of venture capitalists, the demographic that appears to have embraced A.I. most enthusiastically is MAGA meme accounts, possibly because the people who have most loudly rejected it — graphic designers, journalists, photographers, filmmakers, musicians, teachers — are archetypal liberals. In the reactive logic of the MAGA rank and file, A.I. is good because the right people hate it.
This dynamic has produced a culture of computer-generated irony with peculiar characteristics. It is not the stable irony of a Jonathan Swift or a Stephen Colbert, in which the audience can rely on the ironist to say the opposite of what he means. Instead it is an unstable irony that leaves its real meaning ambiguous or at least plausibly deniable. President Trump himself popularized this approach by 'telling it like it is' in a way that consistently disregards precision if not accuracy, speaking in a hyperbolic style that his followers understand to be not literal but also gospel truth. The Trump Gaza video is ironic in this slippery sense of the word. It's the irony of saying more than you mean (literal golden idol of Trump), or saying what you mean in a way no one could call serious (the twice-stereotyped belly dancers), or calling attention to your leader's weak points as a gesture of unconditional loyalty (gold-leaf everything).
This is the irony that means figuratively the same thing it says literally, but in some different way that is never explained — the irony of the man who calls his wife fat and then complains she can't take a joke. Solo Avital and Ariel Vromen, the Los Angeles-based Israeli producers who generated Trump Gaza, neatly captured this rhetorical position when they told NBC that their video was satire but also not necessarily critical of Trump's proposal. In other words, unstable irony has given them a way to agree with the president even though they know he is wrong.
Ethnically cleansing Gaza in order to develop it as a resort property may be the dumbest and most venal idea Trump has ever had. That's the point. It's not that the denizens of the MAGA internet fail to realize such an idea is bad; it's that they're keenly aware that other people think they don't realize it's bad, so they play into that perception in order to become knowing. It's punk rock, kitsch, trolling: the art of making something so stupid that other members of your subculture experience it as smart. If it seems calculated to alienate people who don't already agree with it, that's because one of its functions is to emphasize that their support is no longer necessary.
In these early days of Trump's second term, the basic rhetorical strategy of trolling — not trying to persuade so much as trying to make what you say the subject of the biggest possible argument — seems to have escaped the internet and infected areas of life previously regarded as more important. A few days before the president posted the Trump Gaza video, Musk told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference that 'I am become meme.' He was dressed in a leather jacket, chunky black sunglasses and a gold chain, apparently in homage to an A.I.-generated image of him that has become widespread on X. 'There's living the dream, and there's living the meme,' he said. 'And that's pretty much what's happening, you know?'
We do increasingly seem to be living the meme, even if 'dream' is not quite the word for that experience. As of this writing, the team Musk has labeled the Department of Government Efficiency — or DOGE, named for a meme — has persuaded the Trump administration to cut more than 80 percent of contracts administered through U.S.A.I.D. The more the reactive logic of posting intersects with policy, and the more that policy functions as signifier rather than plan, derived from webs of association rather than chains of events — that is, the more governance looks like slop — the more difficult it becomes to say who or what is actually in charge. There are people behind these ideas, but their role seems closer to distribution than production. More and more, it feels as if the computer came up with it.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Migrants and ICE officers contend with heat, smog and illness after detoured South Sudan flight

time25 minutes ago

Migrants and ICE officers contend with heat, smog and illness after detoured South Sudan flight

WASHINGTON -- Migrants placed on a deportation flight originally bound for South Sudan are now being held in a converted shipping container on a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where the men and their guards are contending with baking hot temperatures, smoke from nearby burn pits and the looming threat of rocket attacks, the Trump administration said. Officials outlined grim conditions in court documents filed Thursday before a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit challenging Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts to swiftly remove migrants to countries they didn't come from. Authorities landed the flight at the base in Djibouti, about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from South Sudan, more than two weeks ago after U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston found the Trump administration had violated his order by swiftly sending eight migrants from countries including Cuba and Vietnam to the east African nation. The judge said that men from other countries must have a real chance to raise fears about dangers they could face in South Sudan. The men's lawyers, though, have still not been able to talk to them, said Robyn Barnard, senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, whose stated mission is to ensure the United States is a global leader on human rights. Barnard spoke Friday at a hearing of Democratic members of Congress and said some family members of the men had been able to talk to them Thursday. The migrants have been previously convicted of serious crimes in the U.S., and President Donald Trump's administration has said that it was unable to return them quickly to their home countries. The Justice Department has also appealed to the Supreme Court to immediately intervene and allow swift deportations to third countries to resume. The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The legal fight became another flashpoint as the administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president's policies. The Trump administration said the converted conference room in the shipping container is the only viable place to house the men on the base in Djibouti, where outdoor daily temperatures rise above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius), according to the declaration from an ICE official. Nearby burn pits are used to dispose of trash and human waste, and the smog cloud makes it hard to breathe, sickening both ICE officers guarding the men and the detainees, the documents state. They don't have access to all the medication they need to protect against infection, and the ICE officers were unable to complete anti-malarial treatment before landing, an ICE official said. 'It is unknown how long the medical supply will last,' Mellissa B. Harper, acting executive deputy associate director of enforcement and removal operations, said in the declaration. The group also lacks protective gear in case of a rocket attack from terrorist groups in Yemen, a risk outlined by the Department of Defense, the documents state. ___

‘A lesson in worst practices': Shocking audit reveals Chicago parking meters have made $2B for private company
‘A lesson in worst practices': Shocking audit reveals Chicago parking meters have made $2B for private company

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘A lesson in worst practices': Shocking audit reveals Chicago parking meters have made $2B for private company

Have you ever been strapped for cash? Perhaps you took a payday loan, sold a long-term asset or even made an early withdrawal from your 401(k). And chances are, you've later regretted it. This is the situation the City of Chicago finds itself in — and the cost may have been billions. Privatizing public infrastructure is a growing trend among cash-strapped cities that need fast revenue. Back during the 2008 financial crisis, Chicago was broke and needed to raise money. Rather than make the unpopular move of raising property taxes, then-mayor Richard M. Daley chose to privatize public assets. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) 'If we didn't have money for a long-term debt, you're talking about a serious economic crisis then for Chicago,' Daley said at the time, according to NBC 5 Chicago. So, Chicago City Council struck a deal to lease the city's 36,000 parking meters to investment consortium Chicago Parking Meters LLC, a group of global investors led by Morgan Stanley. The investors paid nearly $1.157 billion to receive the revenue from the meters for 75 years — and the city must reimburse them whenever the parking meters are taken offline, such as for festivals or construction. The deal was essentially rubber-stamped 40-5 in favor by the council, which had only a few days to review it before voting — turning out to be what the Better Government Association later called 'a lesson in 'worst practices.'' Soon after, a report issued by the then-inspector general found the city was paid at least $974 million less than it could have made from operating the parking meters itself over the term of the deal. While an analysis done by 32nd Ward Alderperson Scott Waguespack — who voted against the deal — found the deal could have been worth $5 to $10 billion, reported NBC 5. Now, a 2024 audit by accounting firm KPMG has found that, with another 58 years still left in the agreement, the private investors have already recouped their initial investment. In 2023, the meters generated a record $160.9 billion in income, bringing the total income from the start of the deal to $1.97 billion. 'It's just one of those deals that I would beg people never to replicate anywhere in the United States,' Waguespack told NBC 5. Still, many Americans can relate to the situation that faced Mayor Daley. When we're desperate for funds, we can make rash decisions that negatively affect our long-term financial health. Almost 4 in 10 (37%) U.S. adults would not be able to cover a $400 emergency expense with cash savings, according to the Economic Well-Being of US Households in 2024 report from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. And while many of these people say they could cover the expense some other way, such as using a credit card, borrowing from family or friends or selling something, 13% would not be able to pay the expense by any means. About 58% of Americans are 'living paycheck to paycheck and experienced a cash emergency in the past 12 months,' according to The 2025 Cash Poor Report from peer-to-peer lending platform SoLo Funds. Read more: Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says — and that 'anyone' can do it These 'cash-poor' Americans may not be who you think they are. Forty percent have a full-time job and one in seven cash-poor households earn more than $75,000 per year. The top unexpected expenses, according to the report, are auto repairs, medical bills and utility bills — common expenses that can happen to any of us. To cover these expenses, some may turn to short-term financing options that could end up costing them more money in the long term. For instance, buy now pay later (BNPL) services come with an average borrowing cost of 23%, according to The 2025 Cash Poor Report, which can increase substantially if the borrower incurs repeat late fees. Another option is a payday loan, which is one of the most expensive ways to borrow. The industry average cost of borrowing for payday loans is 35%, according to the report, but origination fees, late fees and processing fees can push this as high as 49% of the principal borrowed. Increased borrowing and missed payments can also affect your credit score, which in turn can limit your future ability to borrow. People might also look to sell long-term assets such as stocks, bonds or mutual funds, but this too can have long-term financial costs. If you're 30 years from retirement and sell $10,000 of an asset today that's earning 7% per year, then you'll have about $76,000 less when you retire due to the loss in compounding interest. Plus, research has shown that time out of the stock market can be costly — and missing the best days in the market can be devastating to your long-term returns. And, if you make an early withdrawal from a tax-deferred account such as a 401(k), you'll also pay a 10% tax penalty. To avoid high-cost borrowing in an emergency or cashing out long-term investments during a downturn, start by building an emergency fund that could cover unexpected expenses. A rule of thumb is to have three to six months' income in an accessible account, such as a high-yield savings account. While desperate times may call for desperate measures, it's worth consulting with a financial advisor (or a free counseling service) to discuss your options before getting saddled with debt or selling long-term assets. Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead How much cash do you plan to keep on hand after you retire? Here are 3 of the biggest reasons you'll need a substantial stash of savings in retirement Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Like what you read? Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise straight to your inbox every week. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow Education Department Firings
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow Education Department Firings

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow Education Department Firings

(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump asked the US Supreme Court to let him resume dismantling the Department of Education, seeking to lift a lower court order that requires the reinstatement of as many as 1,400 workers. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn Trump Said He Fired the National Portrait Gallery Director. She's Still There. The emergency filing Friday challenges a federal district judge's conclusion that Trump's effort to shut down the department would leave it unable to perform duties required under US law, including managing federal student loans, aiding state education programs and enforcing civil rights law. The filing marks the 17th time since Trump's inauguration that his administration has asked the Supreme Court for help as he seeks to implement a far-reaching agenda through executive orders and other unilateral steps. It's the first Supreme Court clash to squarely address Trump's authority to dismantle entities created by Congress, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the US Agency for International Development and the US Institute of Peace. Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced March 11 that the department was cutting half its staff through a reduction in force. Trump followed with a March 20 executive order that said McMahon should 'to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.' The effort is being challenged in two lawsuits, one brought primarily by states led by Democrats and the other filed by several Massachusetts public school systems and unions. US District Judge Myong Joun in Boston ruled in May that the personnel cuts would 'likely cripple the department.' He said the challengers were likely to succeed in showing that Trump lacked power to effectively dissolve the department by getting rid of its employees, closing regional offices and moving programs to other federal agencies. 'A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,' Joun wrote. 'This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the department's employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the department becomes a shell of itself.' The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday refused to block Joun's ruling, paving the way for Trump's Supreme Court filing. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom What America's Pizza Economy Is Telling Us About the Real One The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store