China is Here

 

Let's review the main points that I've offered so far in discussing revolution – then and now.

• The revolution we are witnessing at present is not starting; it's nearly over with.

• The revolution – and all revolutions, in fact – represent the perennial conflict between two world views, the revolutionary (also known, in our time, as progressive or liberal) and the conservative (or traditional).

• Revolutions start with ideas, but are turned into action by activists who gain control over large numbers of people with either real or imagined grievances.

• The United States has been a revolutionary society from the beginning, and our history is marked by a series of events with revolutionary characteristics, which nonetheless fall short of total revolution in the familiar “bottom up” sense. (We came closest during the Great Depression, and the New Deal was established to, among other things, defuse the situation and co-opt some of the leadership and the energy.)

• An essential feature of our present revolution has been the “long march through the institutions”, which is virtually complete at this point.

• Our present revolution is a revolution from above, which is the exception. What defines it is that the ideas, resources, and energy for the revolution come directly from the ruling elite.

• The prototype for revolution from above is Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution in China, and the prototype for Antifa and militant BLM is the Red Guard.

• Revolution from above has to be designed and managed so that the instigators at the top remain untouched.

• There is evidence that these instigators include high-tech, commerce, and communications moguls as well as globalists. Political parties and the media are involved, but they are servants and not originators. They serve the same function as ministries of propaganda served in communist countries.

• Donald Trump did not cause the revolution, but he provided motivation and a rationale. The corona virus and the economic shutdown provided additional energizing force.

• The urban riots reflect a decision on the part of the ruling elite that the time has come for the gains of the (long-term) revolution to be consolidated.

Once things have reached this point, there is no turning back. The revolution has to be carried to its logical end. And to carry a revolution to its logical end it's not enough to engage the urban proletariat and turn it into a fighting force, and it's not enough to intimidate the rural peasantry into submission. You have to win over the uniformed armed services as well. And this is, right now, a wild card. The Bolsheviks capitalized on widespread discontent in the Russian army and navy, and won enough converts to form an army of their own, which proceeded to fight the “white” (czarist) forces for a number of years after the revolution, in what is called the Russian Civil War. Eventually the white forces were either defeated, or disbanded due to lack of resources or low morale, or engaged in squabbles among themselves that severely compromised their ability to sustain a war. (In China, Mao had an advantage in that he was already a military leader of long standing who commanded loyalty among the troops, from the top generals on down.)

So for our current crop of ruling elites to succeed in their revolutionary/Utopian schemes, it would seem that they would, sooner or later, need support from the armed forces – or at least not outright opposition. But our armed forces are all sworn to (1) submit to civilian authority, and (2) recognize the president as commander in chief, and to follow his orders accordingly (but not without some grumbling, as we are seeing from time to time). So the dynamic is as follows: If the president and his administration is aligned with the ruling elite and the revolution (seems unlikely in Trump's case, but it would certainly be true in Biden's case), the military can simply be given orders to aid in the implementation of whatever social and economic changes are required (and “posse comitatus” be damned). Then the burden would be on them to either obey or (for the first time in nearly 250 years) mutiny. (In the Russian case, the military wound up being split between loyalists and revolutionary forces, so elements of the czarist army wound up fighting each other.) Plan B – if the revolution expects opposition from the president -- would be for the ruling elite to somehow convince the military to join its side and oppose the president – also a tall order. So to preserve some semblance of law and order, and to put lipstick on the revolutionary pig, the cabal would be advised to work through the current chain of command with the president at the top – which means that the president would have to be in on the scheme. Bottom line – soften up the battlefield (urban riots, corona, economic stress) and then make absolutely sure that Joe Biden (or whoever he's fronting for) wins in November. In other words, no more of this complacency and overconfidence like in 2016; this has to be a full-court press with all the bases covered, and with every possible means brought into play (hence the push for mail-in ballots, no voter I.D., voting rights for felons and illegal aliens, etc.).

One might ask, if the Democrats are so intent on winning this election, why are they running a corpse for president? But that's precisely the point. They'll set up a cardboard cutout of Joe Biden in the Oval Office, hire voiceover talent to deliver a 30-second speech once a day, and the ruling elite and their minions will be free to continue the revolution from above without having to encounter any potential speed bumps in the White House. (There's some debate as to whether Kamala Harris will be a player or just a stand-in. She obviously expects to be a player. Watch this space.)

Remember, this is a top-down affair. Don't expect any mobs to attack, loot, and torch the U.S. Capitol or any of what I call the “whited sepulchres” along the Washington Mall that house all of the bloated government agencies, i.e. the heart of the bureaucracy and the Deep State. Oh, there might be a few Molotov cocktails tossed about, and a bit of graffiti just for “optics”, but the infrastructure of the state will be preserved, even if there is a total reworking of government organizations and a permanent suspension of the Bill of Rights. I imagine the more radical changes will occur, as they always do in these cases, in the rural areas – the heartland. If Russia and China are any indicators, it will be rural and small-town people who will suffer most; let's not forget that they are irredeemable “deplorables” who are responsible for Trump being in office, and they deserve to be severely punished for making such an unwise choice. But while they may be targets of revolutionary rage, they may also defend themselves more effectively than any other sector of society. If there's a counter-revolution, this is where it would start (the way the counter-revolution in France, albeit unsuccessful, started in the Vendee, a rural area).

--------------------------------------------------------

Well, it looks like we've cleared the decks at last. The People's Republic of America is right around the corner. Except.

Except that there is another player in all of this which I haven't mentioned recently, but I did provide some clues in previous posts, including:

SUNDAY, MAY 26, 2019

Ideas Whose Time Has Come. Part I: The Middle Kingdom, Democracy, Globalism, and Islam

The Chinese have, in fact, established, and are vigorously pursuing, an economic empire, which has crossed our doorstep and is firmly ensconced in our own economy.

SUNDAY, APRIL 19, 2020

Conspiracies on Parade

Some sample conspiracies involving China and the corona virus (with varying degrees of probability):

• It originated in China, but it was no accident. It was an intentional biological attack on the U.S. in retaliation for economic sanctions, our position on Taiwan, our position on currency manipulation, etc. As such, it was intended to be a “shot off our bow”, i.e. get out of our face or else (it could be worse).

• Variation 1: It was a probe – a test case – to see how effective biological warfare would be, what our response would be, etc. Corona was never intended to be the ultimate weapon, in other words; that's still under development.

• Variation 2: The intention was not only near-term but long-term. By bringing the U.S. to its knees economically, China would be assuring its ascent to the position of leading economic power on the planet – and, soon to follow, leading military power.

• Variation 3: The focus was on causing major damage to our military, which has turned out (no surprise, if you know anything about history) to be particularly vulnerable to viral infections and epidemics. If you can sap the strength of the U.S. military, and get it to stand down, it's much easier for China to continue its high jinks in the South China Sea unimpeded. (If the military was the prime target, then the civilian population counts only as “collateral damage” – something that aggressors are always willing to accept.)

• Footnote: China has decided that a direct military confrontation with the U.S. would be costly, and they might not even win. So they had to come up with something completely different (if not totally unexpected – after all, we've been studying the biological warfare issue since before World War II).

• It was a deal worked out between China – birth-control experts extraordinaire – and the ZPG cartel, to reduce populations worldwide because free and unrestricted abortion has failed to do the job (as has war).

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2020

Ideas Whose Time Has Come. Part II: China Rising, the Death of Democracy, the New Nationalism, Corona, and Catholic Wisdom

• Empires are becoming more primarily economic in character, and China is showing great skill in this area.

• China has upped the ante not only in direct economic terms, but in having unleashed (accidentally or otherwise) a world-wide pandemic that, among other things, has mesmerized our leadership into, basically, shutting down what had been a booming economy (and China's main competitor economically). In other words, they (China) have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. But a note of caution here – as I said to someone the other day, China has tremendous investments in the U.S. and holds the lion's share of our national debt, so all of that goes into the dumpster if our economy fails to recover from this attack. Either they've pushed this thing too far, or they're willing, for whatever reason, to take the hit. Time will tell. In any case, it has put China into the global driver's seat for the first time ever, and they must be feeling kind of giddy about that. (So much for being satisfied with being the Middle Kingdom.)

Yep, it's our old nemesis, China. The Yellow Peril is back! (Remember the first Yellow Peril? Neither do I. But it's a fascinating bit of social, political, and even psychological, history.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril

We are all too familiar with the current fears, apprehensions, and unease swirling about the China question. In the post-World War II era, China was a sleeping giant, by and large, excepting its involvement in the Korean War and the war in Vietnam. But it was an economic basket case, and thus not a threat in that department, plus it wasn't really trying to build an empire. But this sleeping giant was poked, prodded, and awakened by no less than Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, and things haven't been the same since. So here are are in 2020 worried about things like theft of intellectual property, currency manipulation, balance of trade, industrial and technological espionage, military aggression in the South China Sea, Chinese monopolies in any number of essential commodities like medicines and rare earths, and increasing Chinese ownership of resources and businesses in the U.S. And – influence over communications media, including social media, print media, and broadcast media. The long arm of Chinese propaganda has now managed to reach into our very homes, and into all of our various portable gadgets, with the full knowledge – nay, help – of our tech giants. And – most importantly of all for the present discussion – they have managed to establish business relationships with our Silicon Valley moguls and titans of industry and commerce that are – let's say – a bit troubling. It seems that a good portion of our ruling elite are busy unabashedly promoting Chinese interests. But why? Again, some will say to follow the money. After all, China is heavily invested in the U.S. and we are heavily invested in China. So it's true up to a point, but I say follow the channels of power – both as things stand as they might appear on a drawing board in Beijing.  (They say that power corrupts -- true, but it also creates delusions of grandeur, and of omnipotence -- and those, in turn, feed into dreams of Utopia, of making the world a much better place if only it would put me in charge.)

Let's say, just as a f'rinstance, that China's appetite for empire building is just getting whetted. They are moving from strength to strength in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, and even making inroads in Europe... they have their Belt and Road Initiative.... but they do not yet have the pearl of great price, which is total economic domination of the United States. And that more than implies political domination, and you can be sure that it would be backed up by their massive military forces if it came to that. And with political domination comes social domination – it's inevitable.  (As was cynically pointed out during the war in Vietnam, if you can't win hearts and minds, a gun pointed at the head will do.)

This would put an entirely different tone on what might have been just a cozy, home-grown revolution within our borders. For starters, consider that the parties that are providing the most support and encouragement for outfits like Antifa and BLM are also the ones most closely aligned with China. Consider also that for China to even dream of making the U.S. into a colony, much of what is here now has to be either destroyed or neutralized so they can make their move (by which I mean their overt move – the more subtle and subversive stuff has been going on for a long time). So we have a convergence of interests between our own ruling elite and the Chinese government – and one has to wonder, who's working for whom? Which is to say, are the Chinese aiding and abetting our own revolution in any way they can, but for the benefit of our ruling elite? (I don't credit them with that much altruism.) Or are our ruling elite looking forward to the day when they can fall on their faces before their new Chinese rulers, and become pampered princes (or eunuchs) in the Chinese imperial court? (And frankly, I wouldn't bet a whole lot on the life expectancy of anyone who sank to those depths.) Fact: The Chinese won't get involved in any enterprise where they won't be in charge, or at least predominant. Why should this be any different?

Unlikely? Impossible, you say? Well... in these times it's a bit delusional to label anything “impossible”, since pretty much everything that's going on right now would have been considered impossible mere months, not to mention years, ago. A pandemic “forcing” us to shut down a thriving economy? Raging mobs destroying American cities while mayors and governors benignly and approvingly look on, or even encourage the rioting? That's the stuff of an apocalyptic film, or a bad acid trip – and yet it's happening. And as I've already pointed out, there is nothing spontaneous or random about any of it. Kenosha is just the latest example. Within hours of the (non-fatal) shooting of a black man by white policemen, an army descended on the small city, already armed with Molotov cocktails, bricks, crowbars, frozen water bottles, welding torches, professional-grade fireworks, and so on. Antifa was there complete with their ninja duds and umbrellas. Where did they come from? Were they camped outside of town? Who has the fleet of buses or airplanes or whatever means of transportation it took to get them all there in record time? No, this is a highly organized affair, and it has been from the beginning. Its timing and precision reflect months, if not years, of preparation – just waiting for the right time to strike. (They went into Condition Yellow when Trump was elected, and into Condition Red when corona hit and the economy collapsed.) And we have a pretty good idea who's supporting all of this with funding and logistics, and who's providing propaganda support through the media and with the help of Hollywood and TV personalities, not to mention certain politicians. Everybody is signed on, and – again – they have been signed on for months or years (or certainly since Trump announced his candidacy, which was the equivalent of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand).

So if the friends of China are all in on this, does that mean China is as well? And if so, it's going to be interesting to see what happens to all the collaborators if China ever actually takes over. They might be eliminated by partisans (and there will be partisans, of that you may be sure) or by their bosses if they start getting too independent-minded.

But wait – there are other players in the game as well, aren't there? I've said for a long time that the U.S. has become a kind of colony and source of cannon fodder for the globalists based in Europe. They don't need armies of their own because we are their army, and the top of every financial pyramid is located in Europe, not here. And we have plenty of globalists of our own who are just fine with this – who see it as the wave of the future, and anyone who objects (like Trump) is labeled an “isolationist” and an “America firster”. Terrible! Just like Charles Lindbergh or Father Coughlin! Which means just like Hitler! And so on – you know the drill. In the topsy-turvy world of globalist politics, it's anti-American to be pro-American, and vice versa. Defending our own interests – economic, not to mention political, social, and (heaven forbid!) traditional, is considered hopelessly backward and unbecoming of “world citizens” (which means citizens of nowhere).

But now what happens when the Europe-based globalists, who we're at least used to, collide with China? If they really want to carve up the U.S. like a Thanksgiving turkey, who gets the drumstick? This is a serious question, because the Euro-globalist influence is already a reality, and the Chinese influence is already a reality, but so far they've managed to stay out of one another's hair, i.e. they've divvied up the territory in a more or less peaceful way like two Mafia families dividing a city into “turfs”, But how long can it last? One thing seems obvious, and that's that China is much more aggressive in expanding its empire onto American soil than the Euro-globalists have been in maintaining their dominance. Or at least it appears that way; the Europeans may have something up their sleeve, but if they do they'd better play that card pretty soon or it will be too late.

(Full disclosure – I'd rather be ruled by a bunch of nerdy guys in Brussels than by Xi Jinping. But that's just me. And it's not that I dislike China; I've been there and it's fascinating. But it's also an alien culture, whereas Europe – even as spiritually hollowed-out as it is now – is much more familiar.)

And, by the way, our home territory is not the only venue where China and the Euro-globalists can come into conflict. The globalists have interests in many places around the world where China also has interests – the Middle East being the most obvious case. So we might wind up being a major bone of contention, but not the only one, in the next world war (not that it will necessarily be a primarily military affair – modern wars are fought in economic areas more often than on battlefields).

Now, I know that the picture I'm painting seems to render the U.S. as a victim – helpless, weak, something to be fought over like hyenas fight over a gazelle carcass. But surely that cannot be! I mean, America is America, dammit -- and Europe is just full of cheese nibblers, and China is... well, just China. Except that China is no longer just China; it's taking its place on the world stage at long last, and encountering very little resistance and a considerable degree of cooperation. As for Europe, the populace may appear decadent and jaded at times but there are powers behind those moth-eaten thrones – serious powers that make our Deep State look like a pre-school. So it would be a mistake to underestimate either one of these entities. There are people in this world who can make our supposed “leaders” quake in their boots with a phone call – and said leaders won't be long for this world once the man behind the curtain is revealed. (And he won't be a charlatan like the guy in The Wizard of Oz.)

But surely we can resist any sorts of serious inroads – any egregious violations of our sovereignty, etc. Right? Except that we haven't. Maybe we could, but we haven't. We are, as a society, demoralized. There are concentrations of political and social energy for certain, but these are tending to cancel each other out with increasing frequency (just check the two major party conventions). The notion of a united America girding itself for battle against a common foe seems quaint at this point; we're too busy fighting each other. We have governmental structures that were intended to provide order, but within them we find increasing chaos, not to mention profound corruption. So while we are well-armed in some ways, we are weak and vulnerable in others; we have become a large, strong, and dangerous, but stumbling, giant, increasingly devoid of unified vision or purpose. In today's world, just minding your own business (as if we ever do) is not enough; when you're this big and have this many resources there will be entities vying for their share. We are not Liechtenstein, in other words; the rest of the world can't afford to leave us alone (which is pure karma, since we seem incapable of leaving it alone).

Picture this. An invading force from – wherever, you name it – shows up on radar, or comes ashore, or over the hill. (Remember the 1984 film “Red Dawn”?) Some of us would pick up our guns and prepare for battle. Others would cheer and welcome the invaders with a parade, flower petals, and free drinks. And others would just shrug, like, eh, what's the difference?

Too cynical? I offer for your consideration Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, Portland, Seattle, and now Kenosha (wherever the hell that is). (There are people all over the world trying to find it on a map.) Hairline fractures in our society have turned into fault lines, and those have become mile-deep canyons. I cannot count on my neighbor to come anywhere close to sharing my beliefs about the country, society, government, or anything else. If he or she does, then fine. But I can't count on it. For all I know, they may be on the next plane or bus to the next city that needs burning. They may be all in for national suicide, and if I don't want to join the party, too bad. How things came to this sorry state is a discussion for another day, but it's hard to deny. Either we face up to it, or we crawl down into a windowless, soundproof bunker and share a beer with Uncle Joe.

The Inflection Point

My previous post (The Blight at the End of the Tunnel, Aug. 12) included some thoughts on revolution in general, as well as how the idea of revolution can be applied to the American experience. One could, in fact, contend that -- starting with the American Revolution -- we have been a revolutionary society all along, the process having proceeded at different speeds and with different degrees of intensity, and with a focus on different aspects of life and culture, but never actually pausing for very long. I referred to the 1950s as a period of a predictable turn toward conservatism, and in fact the 1920s were as well – both post-war times, note, and perhaps reflecting an unconscious need on the part of the citizenry to reassert tradition, normalcy, and predictability. (Note that Warren Harding's campaign slogan in 1920 was “Return to Normalcy”.) But at the same time, these two “conservative” episodes carried within them the seeds of what came after – the New Deal in one case and America's own cultural revolution in the other. And I think part of this is simply the fact that Americans are never satisfied; dissatisfaction and restlessness are hard-wired in the American genome. In times of war we long for peace, and in times of peace we long for war – or, at the very least, some sort of uproar. We're like cats who, when there's nothing around to chase, make up things in their head. Apparently our ideational beginnings gave rise to this, because, after all, Utopia is, by definition, a fantasy and is unobtainable, which means that on some level we are perpetually frustrated and are always looking for a new cure – a new enterprise or project that will either work magic and achieve the Utopia of our dreams, or constitute enough of a distraction that we'll forget about Utopia for a while. And eventually this cycle of frustration and shattered dreams can lead to despair, and that, in turn, can lead to suicidal impulses – not so much for individuals as for the culture as a whole. We start to think that perhaps the answer is revolution, not evolution. Perhaps not only “creative destruction” but total destruction is the answer – and we are now seeing this attitude played out on the streets of our cities on a daily basis.

(I might note that we are always faulting the Europeans for being jaded and cynical. This may be true, but it does save them a lot of frustration and grief. Even the French Revolution, which was ideational in the extreme (they even changed the names of the months), soon devolved into an empire with an emperor. But we press on, and the rest of the world shakes its head just as it is doing now. “When are the Americans ever going to get over this 'saving the world' thing? It's so annoying...")

But can a nation really commit suicide? Well, empires certainly can, and the reasons are many. It can be based on pure fatigue or on loss of political will. It can be based on economics, as when an empire becomes more expensive to maintain than whatever monetary returns it provides. Or, maybe the natives (who are always restless) rise up and start killing people with bullet and sword, and throwing bombs and taking people hostage. It can be based on rising objections and protests on the home front, from both humanists and pragmatists. It can even result from a sense of shame – an awakening to the fact that empires invariably require brutality and exploitation (and no small amount of racism, either explicit or implicit), and are thus demoralizing not only for the occupiers but for people with a conscience on the home front.

But nations are not empires. Nations are – at least traditionally – much more coherent than empires. They are held together by traditions and loyalties, not only to the nation but to – once again – the “eternal verities” like race, ethnicity, religion, and family. So for a nation to allow itself to slip into chaos is a remarkable thing, and yet it happens – and in our time (by which I mean the modern era, socio-politically speaking, which began with the American and French Revolutions) it always happens primarily because of revolutionary ideas, not merely from material need. And as I said in the previous post, this country was especially vulnerable to the idea of revolution because it began with one. After all, once you've decided that the “eternal verities” – those things that have held societies together for all of recorded history – are no longer primary but are of secondary importance at best, then it becomes purely a war of ideas, and who is to say which ideas are better than any others? We talk about “democracy”, for example, as if it were some sort of rock-solid, monolithic principle of sociopolitical existence. But it's nothing of the sort. It is fragile, and indeed rare, in human history, and is not in all that good a state of health in our time either. All you have to do is reflect on the number of countries that – inspired (or coerced) by us – declared themselves democracies, formulated a constitution, and then with nary a pause turned back into dictatorships. Dictatorships, mind you, with constitutions that are completely ignored, and that mouth words about “human rights” at the U.N. (and even criticize us on that count) but could not care less at home.

It turns out that democracy, like some rare plant, needs the right soil in which to grow and flourish or it will fail. And that soil has a lot to do with national character, as I've pointed out on other occasions. The anglophone world seems democracy-prone, or at least not instinctively opposed to democracy. The Hispanic world is disposed to get all excited and enthused about democracy, and to stage a revolution or coup every five minutes in its pursuit, but when they get it they become disillusioned and turn to dictatorship instead (although fist fights breaking out in the legislature do make for interesting television). For Asians, democracy is nowhere to be found in their histories or traditions, and yet a few have tried it and succeeded, probably because they are cultures that are fairly uniform and strong on tradition, so democratic government, if it's a thin layer on top of what was already a healthy approach to governing, seems to be working, but it's really the national character that's doing the work. Africa? Well, tribalism has worked there from time immemorial, but when it's transplanted to nation-states (artificially created by the Europeans, not unlike what occurred in the Middle East) it turns monstrous and human catastrophes – up to and including genocide – occur. Then we have Eastern Europe, where democracy is also a new idea after centuries of kings, emperors, and czars, and – once again, based on national character – sometimes it takes, and sometime it doesn't. (Reflect on the fact that even communism, under the iron boot of the Soviet Union, had different characteristics in different Warsaw Pact countries. In Yugoslavia it was relatively relaxed, whereas in East Germany it was like a Fourth Reich.)

So yes, this novel idea that the ancient Greeks came up with (and the modern Greeks can't make work no matter how hard they try) went underground for centuries, then suddenly reared up out of the tomb as a result of the Renaissance and the Reformation, and was transplanted from philosophers' studies in Europe to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. And with this scant pedigree, it was declared an idea for the ages, and the answer to all human woes and longings.

So we know the Founders were already defying human nature. They would have none of this “fallen world” and “original sin” nonsense – man was free to create, and re-create, himself at will. And yes, there was skepticism even among the believers – but it was considered worth a try. A noble venture – and maybe we shouldn't complain if it took nearly 250 years to come a cropper. (Some will say that our dues-paying is overdue. But that may be a moot point at this point. The revolutionary genie is out of the bottle. He's big, bad, and ready to kick butt.)

The problem with history is that it's not like a video tape that you can put on rewind, do some cut-and-paste editing, and try again a different way. We have to live with whatever happens. Whether the American Experiment was a success depends on one's perspective – would things have been worse if we hadn't declared independence from “Old Blighty” and struck out on our own? I don't sense that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are suffering unduly. And they certainly don't have even 10% of the problems and crises that we suffer through all the time – and yes, they too are “nations of immigrants”. (But, and by the way, they never saw fit to pursue the mirage of empire, and that may, as much as anything else, be a reason for our current situation.) (“Canadian Empire”? It's all they can do to hold on to Quebec.)

All I know is that if you ask the average “man on the street” in, say, downtown Seattle, or Portland, or Minneapolis, or Chicago, or New York, they'll tell you that America sucks, and was a mistake from the beginning, and should be done away with. Quite a shocking verdict for what was supposed to be an experiment in building the ideal society.

So let us now turn back to revolution. Democracy has always been a revolutionary idea, and so has socialism, and so has communism – so it's easy to see how these are often confused in the fevered imaginings of “poly sci” professors and their students. If some power to the people is good, than all power to the people must be even better, right? The problem is that the more power is turned over to the people, the more likely it is that said power will be appropriated, organized, consolidated, supervised, and dominated by would-be dictators. Take a cue from language. “People's republics” are always dictatorships. “Republics” may or may not be, depending. A “democratic republic” is sliding in the direction of totalitarianism. A federal republic, on the other hand, is the most structurally resistant to tyranny simply because power is at once distributed among the populace but also concentrated at different levels in elected officials who are, ideally, answerable to the public. So we have a balance between the absolute tyranny of the tyrant and the more subtle tyranny of absolute, or pure, democracy. A perhaps cynical, but still accurate, way of putting this is that the ideal government is one of mutual distrust between the leadership and the citizenry, which necessitates checks and balances between the two, not to mention maximum transparency. (Throw in term limits if you like; I sure would.) So our conservative leadership frequently talks about “mob rule”, and populists talk about the “ruling elite” – and the thing is, they're both right. The difference is that mob rule has a short half-life; it is a political mayfly and is soon replaced by tyranny, whereas the ruling elite has staying power because they gradually take over all the instruments and means by which leaders are selected.

As I said, the concept of revolution, the very idea, is of relatively recent vintage, and I trace it to the American Revolution, which, in turn, inspired the French Revolution, although they had different results, to put it mildly. But what all revolutions have in common is that they aim to destroy the old system, root and branch, and replace it with something better – more humane, more compassionate, more fair, etc. – you know the drill. When it comes to the old system, they – to paraphrase Jesse Jackson – want to end it, not mend it. There are many other common elements, but this is the most important – it's the driver, the energizer, the sine qua non of revolution. But, having said that, it's also the case that revolutions come in two major types – revolution from below, and revolution from above.

It's revolution from below that constitutes the stereotype and which people find inspiring – the oppressed masses spontaneously rising up against the oppressors, storming the Bastille, leading kings and emperors to the gallows, and so on – all excellent movie material. Rag-tag revolutionaries waving red flags, setting up barricades, torching buildings, stealing from the bourgeoisie... hmm. It's starting to sound kind of familiar, isn't it?

But then what is revolution from above? In a sense, all revolutions are revolutions from above, because as I said in the previous post the oppressed masses are not theorists. They are not “idea people”, and they don't have a plan or a program. This is left up to the rabble-rousers and activists, and they, in turn, are the products of the universities and of the rarefied environment of radical political and economic thinking that is most readily found in shabby coffee houses in the bohemian sections of the city (or, more recently, in faculty lounges and seminar rooms). So the vector, the arrow, goes from the academe and intelligentsia directly to the people without being routed through the government as in the case of the New Deal.

But that's not what I'm referring to, and in that case “above” only refers to the educational/intellectual continuum. It's when political leaders themselves foment, aid, and abet revolutions – apparently against their own government and power structures – that the paradox comes out in bold relief. The New Deal was a revolutionary regime, in a sense, and it was shot through with communists, but I don't think its functionaries had total destruction on their minds – after all, where would that have left them? Even if they wanted the United States to become a people's republic, they expected to achieve this by means of evolution rather than revolution, and – most importantly – to keep their jobs. Another way of putting this is that the New Dealers had radical notions, but they were also pragmatic enough to know when to put on the brakes.

So revolution from above is the exception rather than the rule, without a doubt. And it is a much more recent phenomenon – so recent, in fact, that I would almost say it was invented by Chairman Mao. At a certain point, he had tremendous, but not yet total, power... he had long since taken over all of China... and yet he was dissatisfied. And he felt that reactionary elements were creeping in – vestiges of the old order, of tradition, of thinking other than his own – and he decided that to preserve, and further refine, the purity of the revolution, and solidify his power, he had to take steps. So he did what revolutionaries always do, or at least dream of doing: First, define a crisis – a problem that needs fixing – and then recruit, or assign, vast hordes of mostly youthful, but fanatically loyal, followers to stage demonstrations, close down universities, put their professors on trial for “reactionary tendencies”, and generally run amok throughout the country for years, hunting down the last vestiges of the old ways – traditions and symbols, art and literature, anything with a cultural stamp on it – and get rid of them. Thus, the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guard. And yes, on frequent occasions they would check back with the Great Leader for guidance, and hold massive rallies and parades (with the omnipresent accordions), and the rest of the time they had the Little Red Book of his thoughts, which they held in their iron grip the way a tent-revival evangelist holds the Bible.

It's a truly fascinating episode, and worth study because it's being re-enacted before our very eyes by Antifa and the militant wing of Black Lives Matter. And yet there are Chinese senior citizens today who wax nostalgic about that era, the way veterans of the Spanish Civil War wax nostalgic, or someone who was out on the street during the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, or even “Were you at Woodstock?” It was a youth movement, basically – but youth are seldom, if ever, self-guided. (I suspect that even the Children's Crusade of 1212 was overseen and manipulated by cynical adults.) Youth have energy, determination, idealism, and they are driven by emotion... and they are fair game for anyone who wants to exploit them for any reason. In the case of Antifa, we have a bunch of skulls totally empty of everything except cauldrons of frustration and rage. They are the ideal foot soldiers, but you don't want them sitting around the conference table – and forget about any invitations to Davos, Martha's Vineyard, or the Bohemian Grove.

Mao knew that the rising tide of chaos would never reach his level – and this is an important point, and extremely relevant to our current situation. It would reach, and engulf, the universities, and would help clean out the last vestiges of the old ways – the reactionaries – from the bureaucracy. And it would also help Mao solidify his grip on all cultural aspects of the country, particularly the ones that had traditional roots, like opera. Because if you erase culture and tradition, the citizenry become helpless, vulnerable, and dependent, like so many eggs without shells.

But here's the interesting part. Once the youthful masses had done their work – after the last parade, and after the big-character posters had started to weather and fade – the Red Guard was disbanded, and anyone who protested was dispatched by the People's Liberation Army with an efficiency that made liberals world-wide gasp in wonderment (and not a small amount of fear – if it happened to the Red Guard it could happen to them). In other words, the foot soldiers of the Cultural Revolution were not rewarded the way American Revolutionary War soldiers were with land “out west”. They weren't provided sinecures in government like so many of the Soviet bureaucrats (or those of the New Deal). They were simply eliminated, because they had served their purpose. They had, in a sense, imposed a “final solution” on bourgeois elements in society. China was now pure. It had workers and peasants (many of whom made a regular habit of starving to death) and the controlling elite – the two-class system which is the ideal of anyone with totalitarian dreams. Not only was the socioeconomic middle class gone (this had been accomplished years earlier) but middle class thinking and habits were also extinguished along with the traditions that middle-class people tend to “cling” to. Mao came out on top as supreme leader, and happily assumed life-and-death power over 800 million people. He thus became not only the most powerful man in Chinese history, but the most powerful man in world history as well. When Nixon paid him a visit in 1972 he was actually dating up.

If you have the time, I urge you to study the history of the Red Guard (you can start with Wiki – it's OK, I won't tell) and marvel at the parallels between them and Antifa and the militant BLM. And if history repeats itself even slightly, you can expect that, once our home-grown “anarchists” have done their work – i.e. destroying our urban centers so they can be “re-imagined” as centers of a Soviet-style system – they will be dismissed, and if they refuse to be dismissed they will be eliminated. (It's no accident that the Democrats have nominated Kamala Harris – an ass-kicking, merciless law enforcement type – to be vice president. I would fully expect her to be put in charge of such an operation, and for her to be way more efficient than Janet Reno.)

And so we see that Mao, who was an absolute lunatic when it came to economics and central planning, was a political genius of the first water who makes our current crop of leaders and politicians look like babes and sucklings. It's small wonder that his well-fed face is the one that graces so many art gallery walls, coffee-table books, and T-shirts (I haven't see the bubble-gum cards yet, but I'm sure they're out there). There is nothing new in human nature about worshiping power, and it matters not how that power was attained or the amount of suffering required for its attainment. (Note how readily Americans convert villains into heroes – Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Al Capone, John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, and so on. There may be a Mount Rushmore made of stone for “socially acceptable” American heroes, but there is also a Mount Rushmore of the mind for the other kind. And new faces are being added with each passing day – not mentioning any names, of course.)

OK. So now it's time to get more specific about the parallels between Mao's Cultural Revolution and our own revolution, or let's say its final stages which are playing out at present. And also between the foot soldiers – the Red Guard for Mao and Antifa/BLM for our ruling elite. The first step is always to either identify a crisis or create one. For Mao it was a lack of ideological purity among the bureaucracy and academics, and a general clinging to tradition on the part of the citizenry in general. For our ruling elite, the first crisis was, of course, the candidacy, nomination, election, and administration of Donald Trump. This crisis didn't have to be invented or, ahem, trumped up – it was a true existential threat to the interests of the ruling elite, if not to their very existence. Among those interests – well, see Galaxy B in the previous post – but prominent among them would be:

• Elimination of national borders

• Unlimited immigration (no longer defined as legal or illegal)

• Gradual takeover of the business sector by large international businesses, and the elimination of small business (ditto small farms, this process already being well along)

• Elimination of the middle class through taxation and inflation

• World government, a world economy, and a world currency

• “Pro-choice” policies, primarily for population control (both domestically – focused on minorities – and overseas – focused on the Third World)

• Radical environmentalism

And among the techniques to further those aims would be:

• Emphasis on “social justice” and collective, multi-generational guilt

• Opposition to gender roles and even to the concept of gender

• Hostility toward individual rights and private property

• Strict government programs and controls to insure equal social and economic outcomes

• Radical redistribution of wealth via taxation and confiscation (not intended to impact the ruling class, no – the redistribution would occur from the middle class to the lower classes, with the ruling elite extracting a “handling fee” along the way)

• Promotion of identity politics

• Use of science as primarily a political tool

Another very telling similarity between Mao's Cultural Revolution and what is going on now, i.e. an earmark of revolution from above, is that cultural symbols are among the last things to fall (literally in the case of statues). Note, among the traditional “memes” of revolutions from below is the pulling down of statues, and it's almost the very first thing that happens. First you get a mob led by a rabble-rouser, and the next thing you know they are pulling down statues of the leader (king, emperor, czar) and of high-ranking military officers, and of historic figures. This is the first shot fired, as it were. But revolutions from below also tend to be relatively precipitous in terms of visible manifestations, and they progress through countries at a fairly rapid rate. In Mao's case, the revolution (the second Chinese revolution, in fact) was a done deal and things had, apparently, settled down into a kind of routine, but as far as Mao was concerned the revolution was not yet over (he called, in fact, for “continuous revolution”), and among the things still needed was the destruction of cultural remnants of the pre-revolutionary period. So down came the remaining temples, tombs, works of art, libraries, and so on. In the present case – and as a sign that the revolution is in its final stages – we are at the point of tearing down statues – not just the obvious ones (Confederate generals) but also statues of the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, and religious figures. So what seems like the beginning – and you'd think so if all you ever saw was the nightly news – is actually the beginning of the end.

So if we have the goals and techniques of our current revolutionaries roughed out, who are “they”, anyway? In Mao's case it was easy; it was him, and a few loyal henchmen. For us at this time it's not so simple, but let's give it a shot.

The list would certainly include the moguls of Silicon Valley, communications, and e-commerce... and certain other large corporations (but not the old-fashioned ones like manufacturing), and globalists of all stripes, George Soros being the most prominent but there are plenty of others whose efforts are not as obvious or overt. (And by globalists I don't just mean the home-grown type. Anyone on the planet who qualifies and who has a vested interest in the socioeconomic fate of the U.S. qualifies.)

Now – you may be asking -- what about the “social media”? What about Hollywood? Late-night TV? Politicians? The Democratic party? The mainstream media? Academics? And so on. (You know, the usual suspects.) The truth is that no one of this motley crew actually originates ideas (including academics in our time). They merely parrot what they've been told by people higher up the food chain. They read from scripts and “talking points”. They sound authoritative, but they're all tools. They may think they're clever and original, and “cutting edge”. They may think they're manning the barricades, and leading the march against all that is old, worn, and out of date, but they're no more than high-class whores who can be “canceled” in a heartbeat if they dare wander off the reservation.

The best single bit of evidence for this is that, no matter what the topic is, they will all say the exact same thing about it, and at the same time. You see this on a daily basis. The leader of the pack – typically the New York Times – says something about someone or something, and the rest of the pack repeats it word for word over the next 24 hours as if it's something they came up with as a result of their own hard work and diligence. (Sometimes I think we'd be better off with a single news source, the way the Soviet Union had Pravda. It was more efficient and saved all kinds of time. And in fact, we may be heading in that direction.) (How many channels were there on Soviet TV? One, maybe?)

So, basically, the word goes out each morning – the script, the talking points – and it's dutifully picked up and turned into “news”. But who originates it? Well, in China it was Chairman Mao. In this country it seems to originate with a cabal of, once again, globalists and various titans of non-traditional industry – you know, the same ones who actually own the print media, social media, and pretty much any other source of “information” you can name. In the Soviet Union it was the ministry of propaganda, and they were doing the bidding of party leaders. And, just like our mainstream media, their propaganda was tiresome, repetitive, and mind-numbing... and as far from the truth as any old folk tale of Baba Yaga, but even more frightening.)

To put it another way, actual “news” should be reality-based. It should be about actual events. It may lead into analysis or comment, but the basic facts should be considered sacred. This is a principal that use to be taught in journalism schools but has long since been discarded. Now “reporters” and “journalists” consider themselves “agents of change” like teachers, and so are completely unabashed about promoting absolute fictions as long as it furthers the agenda set by their masters.

What counts, then – important point! – is not how true or false the “story” is, but how many people believe it, i.e. fall for it and use it as the basis for their thinking and even their actions. So pure propaganda isn't enough. Psychology comes into play as well, and identifying people's hopes and dreams – and, most importantly, their fears – is key to success. (And fears, by the way, can be created, and often are in order to serve this purpose. Our mainstream media are, above all, fear machines.) The leading, and most successful, psychologists of our time, therefore, are not those nerdy guys sitting next to the couch with a note pad in hand, but the masters of propaganda who dominate the media. They have more influence on more people than all of the psychologists from Sigmund Freud on ever dreamed of having.  (And incidentally, one of the early masters of media-based propaganda was a man named Eddie Bernays, who was, lo and behold, a nephew of old Sigmund. Coincidence? I don't think so.)

So we have – as in a crime story (which this is) – motive and means. But how about opportunity? For a grand scheme such as this one to work, the timing has to be right. The problem, or crisis, used to kick things off has to be somewhat credible. And this is where the hat trick comes in... the golden opportunity... the triple threat that was just too great a temptation to be resisted. And this was – as is now painfully obvious – (1) Donald Trump, (2) the pandemic, and (3) the breakout of anarchy in our large cities. Trump all by himself was sufficient cause to start a revolution and keep it going, but in truth he didn't start it at all. It was lying in wait until the time was ripe. So Trump provided a cause celebre, and also acted as an accelerant.

But then fate dealt a trump card that even trumped Trump, namely the pandemic. And that was soon followed by the outbreaks of rioting, arson, vandalism, and looting for which the spark was the death of George Floyd. And I have to say, perhaps never before in history has such a total nobody, and his dreadful end, had such a profound impact on an entire nation – an impact which is irrevocable. I mean, every revolution has its heroes – the Nazis had Horst Wessel, for example – but the selection of George Floyd seems about as unlikely as possible – random, in fact. And yet here he is, an icon... a saint... a man whose visage is fit for carving into Mount Rushmore (once the visages that are there now have been pulverized by Antifa the way the Taliban trashed the Buddhas of Bamiyan).

And it was random, make no mistake. It could have been any one of a number of black “victims of police violence” over the years, but the time was right, and it was right because the citizenry had already been worked into a frenzy over Donald Trump. It's easier to light a fire with dry wood than wet wood, in other words – and in this case what we had was the equivalent of years of underbrush resulting from poor land management in the hills of California. The revolution had been rumbling like a volcano ready to erupt for decades, actually – all aided and abetted by those in charge, who were allowing the pressure to build and waiting for the right moment to release it upon the hapless citizenry.

But wait, there's more! – as they say on late-night TV ads. Trump would have been a tough target as long as he was riding high on economic successes, but then the corona virus, or whatever you want to call it, rose up like Godzilla. And the economy was magically wiped out – erased -- in a matter of days. By a virus? No, by the decisions of those who saw opportunity knock as never before – or who were the faithful servants of those who did (and yes, I'm referring to many mayors and governors, who had dreams of power and who saw temporary anarchy as a path toward that power). As far as I know, Donald Trump did not close down one store, or restaurant, or factory, or school, or anything else. He couldn't! That is not a power granted to the president by the Constitution. It was done by mayors and governors, who do have that power, and the alleged reason, of course, was to “prevent the spread of the virus” and thus save lives. Lives, but not livelihoods. So almost overnight, our economy crumbled to dust and all of the gains that Trump had been bragging about vanished, as did his chances of re-election, which was, of course, the whole idea.

And when it came to the rioting (which is still going on) – the same governors and mayors who shut down their respective economies as a knee-jerk reaction to the corona virus are also the ones who look on benignly as their cities burn. Nero himself could have done no better.

Now... you might be skeptical as to the issue of who's behind all of this. And yes, it's hard to make any direct accusations that would hold up in court. But consider:

• The stock market – the plaything of the ruling elite, the unwashed being only allowed in the servants' entrance – did take a hit because of the corona virus. But as of this writing, the DJIA is back up to 94% of its all-time high. Not exactly on life support, in other words.

• The net wealth of the seven richest men in the U.S. increased 46% between March 18 and August 15. Not a bad return on investment in crises! So... above a certain level the ruling elite are untouchable when it comes to the ups and downs of the economy. They profit when times are good, and profit even more when times are bad. (There were people who profited handsomely during the Great Depression as well, which led to some speculation as to how “unanticipated” the Depression was. My own theory is that depressions and recessions are basically looting operations, and what gets looted is middle-class wealth, and the looters are those in charge, not the rabble.)

• Simple question: Who doesn't have to answer to anyone? And the answer is not anyone in the media. And it's no one in Hollywood or on late-night TV, because one wrong move and they can be terminated.

  • Politicians? Forget about it. They live and die by elections, which are frequently, if not always, rigged by those in charge. Politics is like an old-time protection racket – either you play along or you wind up with cement booties (figuratively) (in most cases).

  • Ditto the Democratic Party. They are the biggest collection of tools on the face of the earth. (If, as Joe Sobran pointed out, it was really important they wouldn't let you vote on it, isn't it also true that if it was really important they wouldn't trust any politician with it?) (This, by the way, is one of the main motivations behind the existence of “think tanks” and certain non-profits, NGOs, and PACs.)

So that seems to narrow it down to some extent – but questions remain. This “ruling elite” everyone talks about – aren't they real people? Human beings? Not space aliens? And how do they get to the point in life when they are put in charge of the lives, and fate, of their fellow citizens? What are the membership requirements, in other words? Well, money seems to be pretty much an indispensable requirement – at least in this country, although in Europe you can still have plenty of influence if you're royalty. And, I suppose, a zeal to not only rule over others, but some notion that you being in charge will make the world a better place. This is an oft-overlooked quality of totalitarians. They all think the world will be better off if it comes under their spell and submits to their authority; Lenin had that idea, as did Stalin, Mao, and any number of others (including our own minor-league totalitarians). It's sort of like the idea that people who wake up every morning intending to “do evil” never get very far, but evil people who intend to do good (by their lights) can wind up ruling the world. (I guess we've penetrated to the essence of politics now.)

And, being only human and therefore mortal, members of the ruling elite have to be willing to, at some point, pass the baton to the next generation – and this seems to have happened quite seamlessly in our time. We've gone from the stereotype of pudgy guys in silk hats and gold watch chains to a bunch of dudes with bad haircuts and turtlenecks – and no one says, hey, I want J. P. Morgan back! Everyone just accepts that this is the way things are – that Mark Zuckerberg had to borrow a necktie in order to testify before Congress.

And along with the grandiose and egomaniacal notion of making the world a better place comes an image – a Utopian image – which invariably includes “me” as emperor of the world, and a vast army of slaves... and, strangely, the complete lack of a middle class, because who needs them? And, by the way, the complete lack of religion, because if they have me, who needs God? But this image has to be realized in some way; mere wishing won't make is so. So any policy, program, or strategy – whether implemented by government or directly by the private sector – has to be dedicated to that end. Now, the ruling elite are already in place, as are the lower classes – so what's missing? Oh yeah, the middle class is still hanging around – so if you will closely study the programs and policies of Galaxy B, you'll find that they are all aimed at the annihilation of the middle class, or at least support that agenda to some degree. And in this sense, the current revolution is pretty much a clone of all of its predecessors – in France, Russia, Spain, China, and plenty of lesser nations. One might say that there can never, by definition, be a middle-class revolution; any genuine revolution will be opposed to the middle class and in the interests of the current ruling elite, or a new ruling elite, with the lower classes kept on as slaves, serfs, and servants.

There is still, though, a “cloud of unknowing” about the ruling elite, how it operates, how cohesive it is, how it acquires new members, and so on – and this is, of course, intentional. All we can do is collect clues and hints, and ask the perennial question “Cui bono?”, i.e. “Who benefits?” This is sort of the extrapolation of the more common maxim, “Follow the money” – because, believe it or not, it's not always about money, and is in fact not about money at all at the upper reaches. Do our multi-billionaires really need more money? I mean, how many yachts, houses, mistresses, etc. can they do justice to? No, beyond a certain point it really is about power – about ruling the world. And what we are seeing now is the next step – a very big step – in that direction, namely to take full control of “the superpower” (as the U.S. fancied itself in the post-Soviet era). And not just social, economic, and political control, but enough control that their dreams of an earthly Utopia can be realized.

Still to come:

• What happens next?

• Will there be a counter-revolution (and if so, how will it begin and who will be in the front lines)?

• And much more! Don't miss it!

 

The Blight at the End of the Tunnel

I woke up one morning recently with a single thought in my head:  The revolution is not starting, it's almost over. What we're seeing now is the consolidation stage – a mopping-up operation.

Let me explain. Visualize two major galaxies in the socio-political-economic universe. Galaxy A is characterized by things like (in no particular order):

• Respect for tradition

• Valuing one's family and ethnic heritage (but respecting other ethnic traditions)

• Valuing Western culture

• Respect and preference for classic forms of art and architecture

• Preference for classic styles of poetry, drama, music, and literature (and, for music, that which has authentic folk roots)

• Valuing traditional gender roles

• Opposition to the corruption of language and the neglect of logic

• A sense of place – of being anchored, rooted

• A sense of community (in the traditional sense)

• Patriotism (not to be confused with nationalism)

• Religious faith, typically monotheism

• Acceptance of natural hierarchies (in family, society, government, religion)

• Belief in the rule of law

• Emphasis on law and order, and individual responsibility

• Respect for the Constitution (as written), including the Bill of Rights

• A healthy skepticism as to the perfectibility of man

• Valuing private property and property rights

• Not being scandalized by differences in income and wealth

• Loyalty to the land

• Respect for hard work

• Respect for the individual

• Respect for life (from conception to natural death)

• Belief in higher education as a conveyor of knowledge vs. political activism

• Respect for history, vs. revisionism and erasing things from memory

• Respect for science as independent from politics

• Belief in small government and subsidiarity

• On the economic side, belief in distributism, preference for self-employment

• Support for strong, well-defended national borders

• Belief in national (or even regional) currencies backed by something with intrinsic value

• Preference for federalism

• Preferring leaders to rulers

• Reality-based politics, economics, government, foreign policy, etc.

Galaxy B is characterized by things like:

• Militant atheism, or at the very least agnosticism

• Hostility toward family and ethnic identification

• Using language as a weapon to dominate the controlling narrative and neutralize opposition

• Preference for degenerate, decadent, and deconstructionist forms of art, architecture, music, drama, literature, and poetry

• Preference for the artificial and contrived

• Opposition to gender roles and even to the concept of gender

• Emphasis on “social justice” and collective, multi-generational guilt

• Promotion of identity politics

• Materialism

• Humanism

• Religious impulses (if any) directed toward paganism or polytheism

• Belief in collectivism and totalitarianism

• Support for eliminating national borders

• Belief in world government, a world economy, and a world currency

• Hostility toward individual rights and private property

• Being “pro-choice”

• Belief in science as primarily a political tool

• Belief in the infinite malleability of the Constitution

• Hostility toward capitalism and profit-making on any level

• Belief in strict government programs and controls to insure equal social and economic outcomes

• Belief in radical redistribution of wealth via taxation and confiscation

• Moral relativism (preference for “ethics”)

• Subjectivism

• Preference for paper-based inflatable currencies

• Preferring emotion over reason

• Low opinion of rural people and rural life

• Rootlessness

• Authoritarianism

• General alienation

• Radical environmentalism

• Utopianism

• Philosophical utilitarianism

• Fantasy-based economics, politics, government, foreign policy, etc.

These are long lists, but I'm sure they aren't comprehensive. And I'm sure there are people out there who will check off the points and say “Hey! I agree with some things on both lists! What about that?” Well, fine – I never meant to imply that everyone is a mindless robot with no free will who will automatically match every single point on one list and none on the other. I call these “galaxies” for a reason – a galaxy is big and broad, and seemingly chaotic on one level, but if you stand back a bit you can see a pattern, and see that is has a center of gravity. And I think there's a center of gravity to these as well; it would be quite difficult, it seems to me, to have equal weighting between the two. The points within each galaxy are, as can be readily demonstrated just by studying current news and commentary, highly inter-correlated. If a given person agrees with enough points in one galaxy, you can be fairly confident they will agree most of the others as well, and likewise to disagree with most, if not all, of the points in the other galaxy. (In fact, I would almost urge anyone who finds themselves half in one and half in the other to re-examine their lines of reasoning. This is assuming that consistency is a value in its own right.)

Needless to say, these “galaxies” are highly correlated with the two major political parties of our time in the U.S. But it goes way beyond our borders and, in fact, back in history at least as far as the French Revolution. These two world views have been fighting it out for at least that long. Galaxy A, often termed traditionalism or conservatism, has been on the defensive more often than not, and Galaxy B, often termed liberalism or progressivism, has been on the offensive. Revolutions are invariably started, and fought, by members of Galaxy B, and counter-revolutions by members of Galaxy A.

Another point is that revolutions, unlike revolts or coups, are not just about power but about ideas. The French revolutionaries may have had plenty of grievances against the Ancien Regime, but their banners were all inscribed “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite”, not things like “Raise the Minimum Wage” or “Increase Farm Price Supports”. And where, in turn, do ideas begin? Where are they birthed? Not among the proletariat or the peasantry, who may be dissatisfied and oppressed but who are unable to conceptualize or describe the basic issues. No, it always starts with the intelligentsia – either within the world of formal academics or within the world of philosophers, economists, writers, lecturers, and activists. These are the people who mobilize the “oppressed masses” and thus make revolution possible – and the oppressed masses don't even have to agree with all of the ideas and theories; all they need to have is grievances. (How many in the mob storming the Winter Palace had read Das Kapital? Please.) (You might say that a notable exception is China's Cultural Revolution where everyone had a copy of Mao's Little Red Book. But please note that he was already in power, and that what he was overseeing was, in effect, a third Chinese Revolution – a revolution from above. More on this point later on.)

So to return to the home front – I say that the revolution is almost over. But when did it start? Well – and one might say ironically – the groundwork was laid at the beginning of the Republic, when the United States was founded on ideas first and foremost. Ideas, that is, as opposed to things like race, religion, ethnic group, tradition, blood lines, and the land – in short, the things that had sustained cultures, nations, and civilizations from the dawn of time, and had, in fact, contributed to their survival. (If you can find a nation, culture, or civilization anywhere in history for which things like race, religion, ethnic group, tradition, blood lines, and the land were not of vital importance, let me know. The ones who failed in these areas were overrun or self-destructed, so we don't hear about them – and the ones that succeeded were the ones that valued all of these things and used them as sources of energy and inspiration. They only failed when they stopped believing.)

But those considerations were not good enough for the Founders; in fact, they may have considered those things as stumbling blocks when it came to realization of Utopia on earth. After all, isn't it an affront to human dignity to claim that purely accidental factors like race and religion (and gender, for that matter) should be allowed to dominate a society in its values and actions? And it's not that those things were not in evidence, or correlated to some degree with the vision of the Founders, but ideas and their realization were job one. The U.S. was founded by idealists and intended to be an ideal society. Compared to which, the – what I call – “eternal verities” – the tangible, visible features of human society and culture – were secondary. Not necessarily to be suppressed, but certainly never to be allowed to carry much weight. They would be tolerated up to a point, but never allowed to predominate – and, in our time, not even tolerated.

All well and good, and it worked, more or less, for a good long while. But then other notions started to intrude and get people's attention, and the “marketplace of ideas” shifted into high gear. Socialism was invented in Europe, but it didn't take long before it was imported into the U.S. Eventually communism – hard-core socialism – came along as another import. (Fascism came a bit later, and never quite took hold, at least not as originally conceptualized.) And thus the seeds of Galaxy B were planted in the hearts and minds of Americans – certainly not all, but enough so that when Progressivism came along it was an instant hit. And that was also the point at which home-grown intellectuals like Woodrow Wilson started to exert themselves in favor of socialism on the home front, although it was the Soviet Union that stole the march on us when it came to spreading socialism (AKA communism) world-wide. And thus was born the admiration – nay, worship – of the Soviet Union among American liberals. If they can do it, why can't we? (You'll notice the same thing is said these days, by the same people, about Cuba.)

So not long after, there was a meeting of the minds between the American intelligentsia and the propaganda apparatus of the Soviet Union, and the effect extended into the highest reaches of government under the New Deal (recall the term “brain trust” – that was the successful intellectual assault on the federal government). At the same time, the Depression (whether it just happened or was engineered is a topic for another day) made formerly self-reliant Americans hunger for rescue and salvation from the government, and along with that inevitably came the ideas behind it. (You want a CCC job? You also have to listen to Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger.) In other words, some forms of overt, unambiguous socialism became the norm, and accepted by the majority of Americans – not just as a stop-gap temporary measure but as a part of new, improved government – government which would take care of people rather than simply leaving them alone to take care of themselves. Thus we have a thread: European intellectuals – American intellectuals – American government – American people. And in terms of my model, Americans who had, overwhelmingly, belonged in Galaxy A started to drift into Galaxy B, in most cases having no way of knowing where it would ultimately lead. (And it could be said that the current generation is paying the price for their grandparents' innocence and naivete.)

Now was this a revolution, strictly speaking? Some have called it a “revolution within the form”, i.e. the Constitution survived, the basic structure of government survived, but a new layer of government activism and involvement in the lives of the citizens was added. The social, economic, and political dynamics of the country changed drastically – much more, in fact, than they would have changed in the case of an old-fashioned revolt or coup (“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”). Things changed because ideas changed, in other words – ideas, and expectations as well, and levels of tolerance for government involvement in more and more aspects of everyday life. (Recall that the income tax was applauded when it applied only to millionaires. But when it started to impinge on ordinary middle-class folks, people started to think they'd been conned – which they had.)

And if the point of revolutions is to implement ideas, then the New Deal was a revolution, even if the things we normally associate with revolutions (war, armies, battles, fighting in the streets, public executions, etc.) were largely absent. The New Deal was a revolution for which the Progressive Era laid the groundwork and planted the seeds – but the groundwork for the Progressive Era was laid at the Founding, and augmented a little at a time by things like Jacksonian Democracy and the Civil War and its aftermath (and, by the way, by an increasing zeal for empire building, which inevitably increases the size of government, which in turn leads to an increase in government supervision of the citizenry).

So a society can be “revolutionary” without having a revolution in the traditional sense. But the results may be at least as dramatic, or even more so. It's been said that much of the New Deal was a way to stave off revolution – I would say it was the substitution of a revolution from above for a revolution from below. The government met the proletariat half way – more than half way, in fact. But the urge for revolution didn't start on the streets, it started in the halls of academe and spread to the White House and Congress. And thus, it was more readily controlled and directed by the people already in power than a peasants' uprising would have been. No true revolutionary really wants “power to the people” – to the proletariat or the peasantry. Heaven forbid! The revolutionary uses those people as proxy warriors and cannon fodder in order to put himself into position to seize power. Lenin did this, and so did Mao. (To see how much they valued the peasantry one only has to observe that soon after taking power they proceeded to exterminate as many of the peasantry as they could, even to the extent of creating artificial famines.) (And what's wrong with peasants, you ask? They are naturally conservative because they are tied to the land and to the cycles of nature. The urban proletariat is more malleable because they are merely chained to their workbenches and assembly lines. And the revolutionary is attached to nothing. He is rootless and has no loyalties to anything but ideas, i.e. his own. This gives him great flexibility, mobility, and power.)

So if the New Deal enlisted a large portion of Americans in the socialist cause, it was still based on need – on desperate times. The war of ideas – of deep convictions – had just begun, as had “the long march through the institutions” – a phrase coined by a communist activist in the 1960s, but after the process was well under way. And this phenomenon can almost be used as a metric for the degree of shock and violence involved in any given revolution. There have been revolutions in which the revolutionaries basically just took over. They stormed the palace, imprisoned and then exiled or executed the king or dictator, threw the high-level government workers in prison or exiled them to a gulag, and assumed total power without having to go through a long drawn-out process of persuasion (to say nothing of holding elections). In that case, the ideas that were fed into the revolution to facilitate its consolidation were, in turn, enabled to spread throughout, and dominate, the culture. This was certainly true in Russia and China; my bet is the vast majority of the populace didn't know what hit them. So once the revolution was a fait accompli, the long process of “persuasion” had to begin – except that use of tools like prison, exile, and execution tends to shorten the time span and make things more efficient. One might say that in those cases fear took over from ideas until a new generation came along that had never heard any other ideas, so the fear factor could be toned down a bit (but never completely eliminated).

But in lieu of violent revolution there was, indeed, a long march through the institutions in this country, and it started, as already stated, in the universities and colleges, and among free-range intellectuals turning out books, pamphlets, magazines, and even films. Film, in fact, presented an outstanding propaganda apparatus for progressive ideas starting prior to World War II and accelerating thereafter – reaching escape velocity in the 1960s. Television lagged behind, and it was only with the advent of cable TV that its propaganda influence became an essential part of the cultural substrate, although the potential value was well-known and appreciated way before that. (The rap on TV in the 1950s was that it was the new opiate of the masses and “a vast wasteland”. Now that it's a leading propaganda tool, that's hard to remember or even believe.)

But if Galaxy B was ascendant prior to World War II, the war necessitated a pause in the proceedings, after which we – predictably – regressed to a more conservative mode, also known as the 1950s. And you'll notice that popular culture in the 1950s is always presented by the current “woke” crowd as an object of abject horror, like, how could anyone have ever thought that way – lived that way? Lawrence Welk? Ozzie and Harriet? “I like Ike”? Cocktail hour? Kidney-shaped swimming pools? Please. How un-hip can you get? But – the seeds were being sown for the next revolution. Yes, we had the beatniks, but they were outliers and proud of it. They screeched and wailed and complained but they never tried to actually convert the “squares”; that would have been considered a lost cause and a waste of time that could be better spent in smoky jazz clubs smoking marijuana and beating on bongo drums. But they morphed into the hippies, and showed up at the front lines of many protests that took place in the 1960s.

Ah, the 1960s. When idealism came back into vogue and our youth became as fervent as their forebears who formed the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and made their way over to Spain to fight for the communists and against the Catholic Church. But this time the war was on the home front – against the war in Vietnam, against the draft, and against oppression in general by all the tight-assed, character-armored white men who were in control of the government and big business. And – not to forget – one of the main energizers was the burgeoning drug culture and the reaction to it on the part of the authorities. So it all provided a huge boost – in membership and influence – for Galaxy B, and huge losses of cultural territory for Galaxy A. This was the point at which, as I see it, the culture war which had been building up steam for generations finally reached the tipping point. (And I note that we're talking about the 1960s, i.e. 50-plus years ago. Anyone who thinks we're at the tipping point now has been asleep and dreaming all this time. Or, they're too young to remember, which is what I'm here for.)

But again, it was not a revolution in the strict sense. Once again, the structures of government remained intact, and – truth be known – white males stayed in charge, no matter how fervent the cries for black power, woman power, “peace and love”, etc. were. In fact, the establishment fought back on many fronts, most successfully in the program to disarm and neutralize the black power movement by means of drugs and incarceration. Supply the inner city with drugs, then throw anyone in jail who falls for it. A perfectly marvelous strategy, and the pity of it is, it worked. (The drug part of this is still going strong after all these years, but the jail part is tapering off, and if that doesn't sound like a recipe for trouble I don't know what would.)

But in the meantime – camouflaged, if you will, by the spectacle on the streets (as exemplified by the riots during the 1968 Democratic convention, when Galaxy A and Galaxy B met toe to toe) – the long march, capitalizing on the chaos and disorder, began to metastasize. I've already pointed out the academe-intellectual-government thread, and this remained alive and well with things like Kennedy's “best and brightest”, who were inherited by Johnson and whose advice and the Vietnam debacle eventually led to his decision not to run for re-election in 1968. (Were they revolutionaries? Not intentionally, but their notions and policies were so provocative that they may as well have been.) But there was another, more insidious threat, namely from academe to teacher's colleges to teachers to the public schools, i.e. to America's youth. And eventually – the time frame depends on what part of the country you're talking about – Americans woke up one morning to find that their grade-school children were being exposed to materials formerly available only in sleazy “adult” movie houses frequented by men in trench coats, or at stag parties, or in gynecology textbooks. Imagine the shock and surprise when “Miss Pringle” of Norman Rockwell paintings turned out to be a radical leftist with moral anarchy on her/his/its mind. And this was followed quite swiftly by a mini-revolution in the public libraries, where simply walking in the door now may constitute a moral hazard. (And it wasn't only about “sex ed”, of course. It was also about all forms of political correctness. But sex ed was the point of the spear. If people would put up with that, they'd put up with anything.)

Institutions? Colleges and universities were long gone by now. Movies were long gone, and TV was soon to follow once cable took over. Then the public schools fell, along with public libraries. What was next? The most prominent answer was the Internet, which was, ironically, originally developed by the Department of Defense as a way to make communications more efficient within the military. But it soon became an instrument – the primary instrument, perhaps – for “agents of change”... “culture warriors”... the newest generation of revolutionaries.

A parallel phenomenon was the rise in “political correctness”, which I date to the opposition to Reagan and Bush I, and which has birthed, among other abominations, “cancel culture” and censorship by the social media. Now we see that we are closing in on the ideal totalitarian society – again, without the “benefit” of sudden and violent revolution.

At one point, not that long ago, I found myself asking “What's left?” All of the traditional cultural institutions were now occupied territory – and yet there seemed to be some holdouts here and there, and most of them were characterized by, let's say, masculinity. Oh hell, let's face it, they were dripping with testosterone. And I'm talking about professional sports – baseball, basketball, football, hockey, etc. And then – shazam! – almost overnight, these too fell by the wayside. Players were kneeling, uniforms were plastered with mini bumper stickers, and the pressure was on for team owners to do away with mascots and change team names. Some of them held out for a while, but when the networks and sponsors (not the fans, note) entered the fray it was over with. Now we have spectacles of billionaire team owners debating, in public, as to whether they should change the “Redskins” to the “Cute Widdle Bunny Wabbits”. It's all too grotesque.

And yet there was hope! Or so I thought. Surely NASCAR – the most adrenaline- and testosterone-laden enterprise on earth – would never capitulate. Wrong! They too have gone the way of all impotent flesh.

Next up for being led to the gallows – the NRA. We'll see how that works out. As of now, I would estimate that the “deplorables” are armed to the teeth and intending to stay that way, and I can hardly blame them. (And by the way, if a civil war begins in earnest before long, my money is on it starting in Virginia. Oh the ironies of history!)

The next stage – policing up the battlefield. Nothing is too trivial, too inconsequential, for the revolution to focus its laser-like sights on. So we are treated to the sight of CEOs of large corporations down on their knees, their heads pressed to the earth, blubbering for forgiveness by the mainstream media, the Twitterverse, and Antifa for having been so “insensitive” as to use the same racist/sexist/whatever product names and symbols for, in many cases, over 100 years. (“Please, please keep buying our products (sniffle)!”) And so good-bye to the smiling faces of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben. The absurdity of it all belies its deadly seriousness.

Now we're in the territory of obliterating not only ideas, but also symbols. Symbols, and language – since virtually any word or phrase, any inflection or accent, can be seen as some sort of “dog whistle” by the insanely hypersensitive. It's to the point where the smart thing to do is to simply remain silent, lest one become censored, fired, or “canceled”. Like the Soviet officials of old who were air-brushed out of the pictures of the May Day parade standing on Lenin's tomb, every citizen runs the risk of being turned, in a heartbeat, into a non-person... a pariah... an exile. This is, as much as anything else, an essential feature of totalitarianism. There is no escape, no shelter, no mercy. The most one can hope for is a place in a not-too-crowded cattle car on the way to the gulag. 

But to be a prisoner of conscience is preferable to being a slave whose mind and will have been sapped and extinguished by the State. This is a choice we may all have to make, and sooner than we would like.

There are many more issues to deal with, and questions to ask, and I intend to do so in subsequent posts – questions like:

• Who's really running the show? (And no, it's not the losers dressed up like ninjas starting fires and destroying businesses in our large cities.)

• Who benefits? (in the short or long run)

• What happens next?

• Will there be a counter-revolution (and if so, how will it begin and who will be in the front lines)?

The object of this post was simply to demonstrate that the revolution is in its final stages, and I believe I've done that.