The Politics of Revolution (Part 2 of “How Destroyed Does America Have to Be?”)

Right off the bat, you might say “But wait, that doesn't make sense – isn't revolution what happens when politics don't work?” And that's true in a sense, but you could also say that revolution is just politics on fast forward – eliminating the fine points and the details and getting right to the heart of the matter (and breaking a few eggs along the way). And in fact, that's what seems to be happening in our time. How many times have you heard, or read, a comment like “history is speeding up”, or “the news cycle can barely keep up”? It seems that we wake up to a different world each day – and yet that is how prior revolutions were described as well. And to some extent, this disorientation is intentional – keep the citizenry off-balance and confused, and especially no longer sure who the “good guys” or the “bad guys” are, and you're halfway to the goal. All will be made clear once the revolution is complete and all the stragglers have been rounded up. Then there will be no more doubt or ambiguity, only certainty and the iron hand.

But that doesn't mean revolutions are apolitical – far from it. There has to be a, let's say, critical mass of dissatisfaction among the populace for revolutions to work – not that the isolated revolt, mutiny, whatever, can't happen, because they do and have, many times down through the ages. But for it to stick, there has to be a certain level of – even if tacit – agreement. And yes, this is true even if the result of the revolution is the oppression and exploitation of the very people on whose behalf it was supposedly staged – usually the “common man”, or “the workers”, or “labor”. The cannon fodder of every revolution over the past 200+ years has been the aggrieved – the underprivileged – the exploited – the shat-upon. And yet find me a revolution which, once successful in throwing out the Ancien Regime, does not, on some level, exploit and take advantage of the very same groups. More often than not, for all of their effort they have merely traded one form of oppression and slavery for another.

Another factor is the propaganda. Prior to the revolution, it's all about “rights”, and grievances, and getting even, and sticking it to the ruling class (royalty being especially good as targets). Post-revolution, it's more about absolute conformity for the good of the state, and stop griping because Rome wasn't built in a day, and you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and there's a camp just down the road for any naysayers and cranks.

What would a revolution be, in fact, without a vast army of the dissatisfied, the alienated, and the underprivileged? And what would a modern revolution be without providing them with voting rights, regardless of citizenship status? Imagine if the Roman Empire had not only welcomed the barbarians – opened the gates for them – but also instantly made them full-fledged Roman citizens with voting rights? The empire would have fallen much sooner than it did. (Now one might say, if it was inevitable it's just as well it happened sooner than later. Yeah – it's good being an armchair historian, but just try living through it.)

Which brings us to the present day, and the situation in the U.S.A. As I've observed on a number of occasions, we are a revolutionary society. We started out with a revolution, and then – never satisfied with the status quo – staged a number of mini-revolutions from that point on, right up to the present day. We had, for example, Jacksonian democracy... Reconstruction... Progressivism... the New Deal... The Great Society, along with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts... the cultural revolution of the 1960s... the short-lived populist “revolutions” under Reagan and Trump... and now the full-blown Revolution of 2020, which not only consolidated all previous gains (those trending leftwards, of course) but set even more firmly in place all of the governmental structures, agencies, laws, and regulations required in order to make the revolution permanent – and, by the way – and most importantly of all, perhaps – secured the full cooperation and “buy-in” of the military.

And, in a sense, it matters little whether we refer to a revolution as "just starting", "under way", or "successful", since to the revolutionary mind there is no such thing as completion, i.e. satisfaction with the new status quo.  If dissatisfaction is a state of mind of a certain portion of the citizenry, then so is the desire -- the need -- for any given revolution to go on indefinitely, since there is always room for improvement, and perfection is always tantalizingly out of reach.  But isn't “permanent revolution” a contradiction in terms? Chairman Mao didn't think so. And his heirs (both in China and elsewhere on the globe) are pretty much calling the shots these days. “Permanent revolution” is no more improbable than “permanent dissatisfaction”, which is, arguably, a part of fallen human nature.

So yes, revolution is nothing new. It isn't alien to the American experience – the American “experiment” -- but is part and parcel of it. If there was ever a society that was, in its heart of hearts, anti-conservative, anti-status quo, it is our own. There is an unwritten rule, or assumption, that change is good – change for its own sake, actual results being a minor consideration. “Progress” has been an icon and a fetish almost from the start – and that has morphed into something called “change”. This was, of course, the theme of Barack Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012 – change! Hope and change! The great icon, the great golden calf! And simply believing in it was enough; not only do actual results not matter, but it's considered downright impolite to even bring the subject up.

But let's not get too judgmental on this point, because it should be obvious that the appeal of “change” has to be based on dissatisfaction with things as they are. Obama did not win two presidential elections because people were satisfied and content. He won because people were angry – frustrated – alienated. They felt that they had lost control of their lives, and therefore of their fate. And his campaigns were designed to verify, reinforce, and perpetuate all of that anger and frustration – and to promise that things would get better, because – well – “because change”.

Now, one could argue, what's the big deal? Most people feel this way most of the time, and Obama was just capitalizing on it. OK... but then why do people feel this way? What is it about America that seems to yield up this attitude, seemingly out of nowhere, whereas in other countries it takes a lot more effort (and in some cases, is virtually impossible – think about places like Switzerland, for example)? What it is is what I call The Promise – and that is that the Founding Fathers not only established a republic that was designed as well as it was, given their relative sophistication about human nature, but that republic held out hope for perpetual progress... perpetual improvement in the standard of living... unhindered freedoms... and that the voice of the people would always and everywhere we heard, and honored. Quite a wish list! And it actually seemed to work for a while, at least as long as people were content to allow the landed gentry to run things. But then along came populism (version 1.0) and concern for “rights” (beyond those already specified in the Constitution), and the gap between the ruling elite and the common folk was exposed, and that got the ball rolling. (And yes, Southern Secession and the establishment of the Confederacy was a high water mark of sorts.) Post-Civil War, our revolutions were a bit less violent, but no less significant. And that brings us up to the present day, when a new variation on an old theme is found, namely that the revolution is being led by the government itself – the “establishment” -- and it is aimed at the people – or at least a substantial portion thereof.

Now, one might say, but haven't all of our revolutions been, basically, at the instigation of whoever's in charge, and haven't they all been opposed by a certain percentage of the populace? Instigation, yes – in the case of the Progressive Era, the New Deal, civil rights measures of the 1960s, etc. Revolution from the top – which was, in fact, turned into an art form by Chairman Mao. But as for opposition – not so much. The Progressive Era and the New Deal were, if you will, heavy on carrot and light on stick. They promised, and they delivered – up to a point. (And what they were unable to deliver, they filled in by means of propaganda.) They were represented, at the time, and are in the history books, as being “for the people”. I'm not sure the same can be said of what's going on at present. Yes, there is plenty of carrot (entitlements, creation of new “rights” and catering to newly-discovered victim/grievance groups) but also a whole lot of stick (taxes, regulations, inflation, violation of traditional rights, and intentional alienation and persecution of large segments of the populace by means of slander, “canceling”, discrimination, etc.).

-------------- o --------------

You may have noticed that in my previous post I seemed to be expressing some degree of disapproval of current events and trends. (And I was trying so hard to be objective and “value free”!) Does that make me a “conservative”? Well... if one defines conservatism as “preferring to stick with what works, or at least with what is stable and predictable, as opposed to experimenting with the lives and fates of the citizenry based on some theories or 'models' cooked up in Ivy League faculty lounges”, then yes, I'm a conservative. But if it means “regarding the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as sacrosanct holy writ that must be set in granite and which cannot be improved upon, and America as permanently occupying the moral high ground, and being nigh unto infallible in its foreign and domestic policies” then no. In that case, I'll join the “dirty hippies” in the next protest march.

When you boil it all down, the ultimate question becomes, quite simply, “Is the world a better place because America, i.e. the United States, existed?” Or, would everyone have been better off if we had just stuck with Britain and become part of Canada, or whatever? To put it another way – has America been part of the solution all these many years, or part of the problem? Has our experiment with democracy metastasized into oppression, both on the domestic front and world-wide? Or has it at least been preferable to the alternatives, whatever they may have been? When you put it this way, you soon realize that the question is impossible to answer. History is not full of dress rehearsals and trial runs – it's always the real thing, for better or worse. No rewinds, no replay, no Plan B, no “what-ifs”, no “woulda, coulda, shoulda”.

Now, one “nuanced”, if you will, answer might be that we were a good influence for a while, but then “broke bad”, went rogue, whatever. Human nature and the hunger for power took over. OK... then what was the point at which the balance shifted? The Mexican War? The Civil War? The Spanish-American War? World War I? World War II? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq/Afghanistan? Everybody has a theory as to when we “lost our innocence” – and the simplest answer is that we never had it to begin with. The Founding Fathers knew more about human nature than all the present-day Ivy League “scholars” and think-tankers combined, and yet they had hope. They figured, give flawed human nature a chance to better itself through a rationally designed form of government. Perhaps reason will conquer passion – or at least keep it at bay. And, better to fail than to despair of even trying, right? And in fact, that effort does seem to have at least altered the conversation over the years. Democracy has become, for many people in many places, something that is worth a try, or at least given lip service. (Even the most tyrannical governments on the planet pay tribute by calling themselves the “people's democratic republic of....”.) What it runs into, more often than not, is not only human nature, but national character. Contrary to our State Department's perennial delusion, there are people out there who are simply not ready for democracy, in any form. And this is not being judgmental; it's simply a fact, and is based on any number of things – tradition, custom, religion, language, world view, and so on. And it doesn't mean those cultures are “inferior”; they may have worked out a quite satisfactory system of governance – one that works better than ours, in fact (not that high a bar any longer). And then there is the natural aversion to some foreigners (especially “infidels”) trying to tell you how to run your country and live your life. (And – how many times have we put lipstick on a pig called “fledgling democracy” when it was, in fact, nothing of the sort, but just a show put on for the sake of staying on our foreign aid payroll? “Color revolutions”, ink-stained thumbs... just a side show, basically – and a cruel hoax for the people who actually fell for it.)

So yes, it's imponderable. Go back to 1776 but squelch those minor uprisings in Massachusetts, and put those treasonous wackos on house arrest before they can gather at Independence Hall, and assert that “Hail, Britannia” will remain our national anthem, and let people of good common sense remain in charge, and long live King George! Would the world have profited more by that than by what actually happened? Who knows?

But just because this issue is imponderable doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people out there who have the answer. Start with the “1619 Project” which asserts that America was founded on slavery and was therefore evil, immoral, and flawed from the beginning – and that nothing that has happened since can ever make up for that, therefore the country has to be brought to ruin and then rebuilt from scratch, with not only equal rights but also radical redistribution of property and other resources. And of course this idea has international implications as well, since any nation with such a fatal flaw cannot possibly have legitimately represented itself as an exemplar of democracy, human rights, and freedom for all these years – and certainly should never have imposed its flawed ideas on any other nation or culture, either through diplomacy or by means of physical force. So if America is suspect, so are all of its works, and the rest of world has been deceived all this time. (But they are “woke” now, and America has been "outed" as a total fraud.)

But the 1619 Project aside, many people have come to the opinion that it's high time America paid the price for its hubris and presumption – way past time, in fact. No one wants to have to live with the karma of America's past sins, in other words – and if committing political, cultural, and economic suicide is a sufficient form of reparation, it's certainly worth doing.

So yes, collective guilt is an overriding theme when it comes to both domestic and foreign policy, the only question being how to expiate that guilt. On the domestic side, when it comes to slavery, the preferred option is to nullify all economic gains that can be traced to slavery – which, in the “woke” playbook, means pretty much all. Make us not only poverty-stricken, but helpless before our enemies, because we were – as everyone knows (because that's what we're taught in public school and college) – the only nation on earth to allow slavery to persist for so long, and this in the face of all of our pretenses – oh, the hypocrisy! So we can only repay our debt to the rest of humanity be ceasing to exist as a nation, and as a culture. And if we're ever assaulted in any way – economically, militarily, culturally – by any other nation taking advantage of our sorry state, well, we've got it coming.

Plus, domestic guilt mongers aside, there are plenty of people elsewhere on the globe who totally agree with this point of view. They may not say much about slavery – that would be too blatantly hypocritical even for them! – but when it comes to America throwing its weight around, and our own hypocrisy, they are remarkably unified: It's about time for a comeuppance! We're sick of America being “the” superpower, and the world's policeman -- who do they think they are? And this is at the very same time they cheerfully accept our “foreign aid” and military assistance (and pay us occasional and grudging respect for having bailed them out in World Wars I and II, and for having held off the “Russian bear” throughout the Cold War). Only a fool wouldn't take advantage of Uncle Stupid while they have the opportunity (recalling the “beached whale” analogy...). And what they marvel at more than anything else is our naivete. They may have laughed behind Trump's back at NATO get-togethers, but do you really think they aren't laughing behind Biden's back as well – maybe more? (At least Trump scared them a bit; Biden is about as scary as a frayed sock puppet.)

Make no mistake, the “America and the world” issue is a prominent subtext of the current revolution, but it's far from the only issue, and not even the most important (although it may be to watchers beyond our borders). In view of our history, the current revolution is far from exceptional. One might almost say that it's an American tradition – that we would be all out of sorts without a revolution of some sort every few decades. Now, this doesn't mean that it's right, or desirable, or even that it won't have catastrophic consequences – only that, in the broad historical scheme of things, there's an air of inevitability about it. One could object, of course, that all of our previous revolutions have at least not meant the end of the Republic – that it has survived, in some form, through much storm and strife. And who knows, it may survive the current revolution as well – at least in superficial terms, like the form of government (even if the character of elections undergoes permanent change, including eliminating them for all intents and purposes). Will we still have a functioning system of currency, or will we be spending “Zimbabwe bucks” or trading potatoes for shoes? How about property rights? (They are under assault as it is.) How about all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights, as well as rights that have been defined or “discovered” since? Will they exist in name only – or not at all? (Or – more likely – will all the old, traditional rights be declared null and void, and the new “rights” be declared paramount? This topsy-turvy act is also a hallmark of many prior revolutions elsewhere on the planet. What better way to remake society than to declare that what once was right, and therefore legal, is now wrong, and therefore illegal – and vice versa?)

That's on the historical side. But then we have the political side, and once again a revolution, in a sort of paradoxical way, depends on a certain modicum of support from the populace even if its ultimate goal is to suppress, or eliminate, most of the rights of said populace. Yes, people can vote themselves into tyranny – the most notable historic example being the naming of Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in 1933, based on the election results in 1932. But we also have numerous other examples of the popular vote going to a communist candidate, who immediately turns around and eliminates elections. (So in that case, did the people vote, in an election, to eliminate elections? File this under either “paradox” or “irony”, your choice.)

See, people don't vote for a “system” nearly as often as they vote for an idea (right or wrong) and, even more often, for what they perceive to be in their best and most immediate interests – economically and socially.  This is human nature, and is the very thing that the Founding Fathers were attempting to rise above with their emphasis on certain ideas – rights, proper governance, etc. What resulted in the long run was a kind of hybrid – “pocketbook” issues, regional loyalties, etc. often disguised as ideas, or ideals, with ample iconography to match. “America” is a concept that suffices on Memorial Day or the Fourth of July, but when people walk into the voting booth, their jobs and bank accounts seem to carry the day. (This is assuming that they are not among the “woke” minority who take pride in voting against their own economic interests. In their case it's intentional, but most of the time it's the result of propaganda and blatant lies by politicians.)

And I often wonder how many people actually vote for “America”, as opposed to their state/county/village/farm/etc. It seems that most people can only “think big” up to a point, but in the long run they will make decisions – including those about their governance – based on what is more immediate, visible, and essential to their livelihood. The trick, of course – and it's one that works a remarkable portion of the time – is convincing people that their immediate concerns are synonymous with the good of the Republic, however defined – and that on some mystical, other-worldly level, fighting goatherds in Afghanistan has something to do with preserving the family farm in Iowa. Get enough people to believe this, and you can do anything you like foreign policy-wise, including starting and pursuing endless wars with no discernible relationship to the actual welfare or prosperity of any actual American citizen.

So what has been going on all this time? Well, it's about changing – through relentless propaganda, derision, and shaming -- people's natural regard for home and hearth – for family, village and town – for race, ethnicity, and religion – into a regard – nay, a prioritization – of ideas. Now, this is nothing new, since we've been an ideational society since the start. But even our most iconic idea, or image, that of “America”, is an abstraction, really, when you come to think about it. Is the “America” of a New England fisherman the same “America” as that of a Nebraska farmer, or a California fruit grower, or a Detroit factory worker? They may use the word, but what they really mean is much more here and now – my family, my home, my street, my neighborhood. (Let the rootless cosmopolitans – the globalists – play their games. We know what they've given up (or never had), and we know what really counts in life.)

But the idea of “America” has outlived its usefulness, according to the globalists (including our home-grown kind). It's... well... not just old-fashioned and out of style, but it's also “reactionary”, “isolationist” (try that out on the guys who fought in World War II and Korea), “paternalistic”, “xenophobic”, and, ultimately, “racist”, as well as the dozen or so (and counting) other kind of “isms” that could be called up. So the tables have been turned on the citizenry, who thought they had a reliable set of standards, principles, and images to rely on, and now they're all expected to embrace “globalism” with all of its myriad components, implications, and alleged blessings. They are expected to become world citizens – loyal to the planet, and nothing less.

And they are the people who have the most to lose in the current revolution. All that they value is being devalued, if not outright derided and laughed at, by the ruling elite and their street-wise acolytes. And yet – and here is the ultimate irony – they continue to vote for the people who are out to destroy them and their culture. And I attribute this not so much to their ignorance as to the utter treachery of the ruling elite and of the public officials who are their obedient servants (not to mention their facilitators in the media and on the Internet). If our previous revolutions were, in a sense, about government dragging some of the populace, kicking and screaming, into a new era (think of civil rights legislation), then the current revolution is about completely ignoring large segments of the populace – having decided that they don't count and should have no rights, and are, basically, non-persons.

When the ruling elite simply writes off a substantial portion of the population, you know that the revolution is well under way, and nearing completion. When it declares that portion of the population to be “deplorable”, and liable to engage in “conspiracy theories” and “insurrections”, you know that the revolution is over with, and all that remains is a mopping-up operation (going on right now with the January 6 hearings). Our previous revolutions at least had the merit of allowing the losers to live, if in a state of second-class citizenship (see the South, from the Civil War right up to the present day). The current attitude seems to be one of total war – defeat is not sufficient – only total subjugation will do, and, lacking that, extermination.

So yes, it is different this time, and yet – and here's the point at which all “conservatives” should engage in a rare exercise in humility – it's apparently what most people want, as evidenced by their voting patterns, which include not voting, which is the same as going along with whatever the results happen to be. (Ever wonder why “opinion polls” have such a low correlation with election results when the polls are conducted by conservative organizations, but a much higher one when the polls are conducted by liberal organizations? Think about that for a while.)

To be just a bit simplistic about it, anyone who voted for Biden in 2020 – well, OK, there were certainly plenty of anti-Trump, as opposed to pro-Biden, votes – but basically, anyone who voted for Biden voted for exactly what we have now – inflation, shortages, open borders, Critical Race Theory, racial paranoia, gender paranoia, “climate change” being Job One, globalism, “green” (no oil, no gas, no nukes), chaotic foreign policy – and so on. They voted for all of these things because they were either explicitly part of the Democratic platform, or they were completely predictable in the event Biden became president. (Or, they were things Trump was against, so they had to be for.) So... basically, they can't complain, and in fact they aren't complaining. If you look at or listen to the mainstream media and their facilitators in the “social media” and “entertainment”, you'd think everything was groovy – that we had entered an entirely new phase en route to Utopia. (And as for the White House press office, whose talent for propaganda and doublespeak ranks up there with Izvestia and Pravda, “never is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day”, like the words of the old cowboy song.)

And the point is (again, memo to any and all conservatives) that the people who are with, or at least not against, the revolutionary program are, in fact, in the majority. So... if you're really a dedicated fan of “democracy”, i.e. “majority rule” regardless, you should be completely satisfied with all of this. And of course I know what the objections will be – “But it's wrong! It's un-American! It's globalism, tyranny, totalitarianism, Marxism, etc.” All true – but it's also “the will of the people”, by definition. So... how's that “democracy” thing working out for you? Is it really the best system yet devised for self-governance? The conservatives need to do some serious soul-searching on this issue.

But one can argue that this isn't the real thing – that it's degenerate, chaotic, the product of brainwashing and propaganda, etc. Very likely! But then we have to at least re-think what we mean by “democracy”, and what we want... what we expect it to produce. Because it turns out (and the Founding Fathers knew this very well) that a democracy is only as good as the citizens who make it up, and if those citizens are the demoralized product of a long – generations-long – campaign of propaganda and demoralization and guilt-tripping, starting in the universities and filtering down through the political class and the media to the ordinary citizen, then we can expect what we have now – not democracy in the classical sense, but a kind of Bizarro-democracy – a disfigured mockery of the real thing, which would scandalize the Founding Fathers and their political descendants, but which – at least as things stand – appears to be a natural, inevitable stage of devolution of America as an idea, and thus as an empire as well. The question of whose fault it is – the people's or their enemies – may not even be relevant, since if the people have allowed this state of affairs to develop, they're their own worse enemies.

                                                       -------------- o -------------

Lest I end this post on a completely negative note, let me point out that, historically, every empire eventually falls, disappears, or at least shrinks. And empires built on a delusional Utopian vision have a much lower half life than those built on plain old conquest. Do you find this ironic? Because old-style conquest, i.e. war, is supposedly out of fashion these days, which is why Russia's invasion of Ukraine is such a scandal. War is, well... unseemly... in poor taste... hurtful... and all the rest of it. And yet I will contend that it's more universal, and natural to the human condition, than Utopianism (which often involves war anyway). It's not that I'm saying “Give War a Chance” (priceless title of one of P. J. O'Rourke's hilarious books), it's just that it's so common, and so nearly universal, that it should give one pause when entertaining Rousseau-esque fancies about the nature of man and of what is possible, i.e. to what extent the human race, or any portion thereof, can pull itself up by its bootstraps.

And this is the odd thing about America, in a way. We are an ideational society, which should mean that reason prevails in most if not all circumstances. And yet we are, arguably, one of the most warlike nations, and cultures, on the planet – both now and historically. (Our “defense” budget exceeds that of most other nations combined – and yet only about 1% of it is dedicated to actual defense, i.e. of the homeland.) And what gets us into wars is, more often than not, ideas. Ideas based on the founding documents for certain, but also on the many and varied interpretations of said documents, right up to the present day – the most overriding idea being that simply being “enlightened” is not enough – staying home and sitting under our own vine and fig tree, and minding our own damn business, is way too boring, and selfish to boot. We owe it to the world to spread the gospel of “democracy” – by example, persuasion, or by force if need be (were our Founding Fathers actually students of Muhammad? Makes you wonder... ). And by the same token, we can excuse any foreign escapades – invasions, occupations, whatever – regardless of cost in “blood and treasure” – on the basis that ideas are, and should be, paramount, and that no sacrifice in their service is too great.

And this is what the rest of the world, and especially the globalists – Utopians all – are having to cope with when dealing with the United States. We have trouble falling into line behind the E.U. or the World Economic Forum because we have long since written off Europe, and especially Western Europe, as a hotbed of world-weary cynicism – a place not of ideas but of lukewarmness and decadence. And yet here we are faced with the prospect of, basically, submitting to their world view and their wishes, and leaving traditional American values (whether honorable or wrong-headed) behind.

And is this because we've run out of ideas – our most cherished possession as a society, in a way? Or have we grown world-weary as well? Or has our pursuit of ideas been rebuffed, brought low, and humiliated with increasing frequency (one only has to consider Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan)? Or is it as simple as demographic change (the replacement of traditionally-minded Americans with people who simply don't share our ideas and our vision, and who show no interest in “assimilating”)? In other words, does the America that conservatives are trying “save” even exist any longer (especially if one clings to the notion of “majority rule” at all costs)?

And this may, in fact, be why the globalists and Utopians – especially of the European variety – have found it so easy to infiltrate into our culture, economics, politics, and even values. If nature abhors a vacuum, so do political and social activists; they see a weakness – a gap – and waste no time filling it. And it matters little what they fill it with – what counts is that they've replaced nothing with something. And when conservatives object, and protest – it's foreign, decadent, un-American, etc. – one response (call it mean-spirited triumphalism) might be “Well, then why didn't you defend your traditions and values more energetically, rather than acting like sheep before the shearer?” A valid point, I'm afraid. But it doesn't matter how energetically a minority group defends its values and way of life, a sufficiently determined majority will roll over them with ease – as is happening now, and the popular culture is, if you will, the vanguard, followed closely by public education and the rest of the armies of “agents of change”. Another way of putting it is that when the long march through the institutions was taking place, the “average American” was fixated on 9-to-5 jobs, car payments, TV, and sports. Now we wake up to a different world, and the cry goes out “What happened? And who betrayed us? Who opened the gates and let the Trojan Horse in?” Well, um... how about the people you've been voting into office all this time? Bet you thought they were on your side; sorry about that. They were, in fact, enemy agents – every bit as despicable as the “atomic spies” of old, but much less picturesque.

But this is the way of things in human history – and it's, ultimately, always about power – not necessarily overt power, i.e. armies, wealth, territory, etc. – but about, once again, the power of ideas, and by that I don't mean good vs. bad ideas, but ideas that are backed by sheer force and determination. A true believer in just about anything is what is called, in the military, a “force multiplier”. History is brimming over with examples of small but determined groups emerging victorious after a struggle with a (supposedly) “great” power; our own Revolution (the first one) is an example. And one reason ideas have such power is that the other side has no answers. We were confronted with fundamentalist Islam in Afghanistan (as were the Russians), and could not answer in kind, or anything close to it. So a “primitive” society with “crude” weapons, a fanatical religious outlook, and – gasp! – no uniforms succeeded, after 20 long years, in forcing us to give up and go home. (See also Vietnam, for both us and the French.)

What America is confronted with now is, in a way, new and different. We're used to revolutions, as I've said, but those are basically internal matters, at least for us. Our revolutions have always been home-grown and tailored to our tastes, in a sense. And we've always had the oceans protecting us from traditional military attacks and invasions from overseas. But our Achilles heel, as it turns out, was in being apathetic and naive about foreign influences in other areas -- economics being prime, but also politics/diplomacy, values, culture, and even philosophy and “political science” (areas in which “invaders” from Europe have done some of the most severe damage). We (OK, some of us) take great pride in our European “heritage” – problem is, that heritage is pretty much extinct in the Old Country, and what replaced it is at our doorstep (or maybe a “home invasion” is a better metaphor). America is, in many ways, the last holdout for many of the traditions our ancestors brought with them across the ocean. The Old World has moved far beyond all of that and considers our “clinging” behavior to be somewhat laughable and pathetic – especially when it comes to religion. (Note the similarity to the attitudes of our home-grown elites.) Western Europe in particular takes great, and quite explicit, pride in being religion-free – in being completely secular and materialistic, and they find this quite satisfying and wonder what's wrong with us that we don't follow suit (but they have ways of dealing with this and are doing so).

So the “good news”, in a way, is that empires do eventually end, in some manner or other. The American Empire is on its last legs – not because of conclusive defeats overseas or economic meltdown on the home front, but because of lack of political will – not lack of ideas per se, but lack of any way of implementing those ideas that does not immediately turn into a catastrophe. As a nation and as a society, we're falling apart in nearly every way. But we're not alone, as it turns out! The “international community” is here to help us – and to absorb us into a global, or near-global, empire, albeit in a subordinate role, since we still have to pay for our sins, which are great and many. So – again, like the beached whale – we will be “mined”, if you will, for any usable resources, and assigned a kind of bizarre “emeritus” status on the world stage, but someone else will be calling the shots. (And don't think our own elites aren't polishing their resumes, hoping that they will be welcomed into (or allowed to remain in) the inner circle once we're over the hump. No one wants to be like those Russian officials who thought all was well until they were photoshopped out of the May Day parade photos – the first step to either the gulag or an unmarked grave.)

And yet – and yet! – this empire – this new, squeaky-clean, humanistic, “diverse”, you-name-it, empire will also pass, eventually – and it may take decades, or even centuries. No one now alive will be around to see it. But in the scheme of things, it's inevitable – and that very flaw, or weakness, means that a revival of the human spirit is possible.

And when's the last time you heard that term – “human spirit”? Just try “Googling” it, as opposed to things like “rights”. I imagine you'll wind up with a 1-to-a million ratio. And yet the human spirit, by which I mean the desire to live free, as opposed to being in a state of slavery – and conscious, as opposed to brainwashed – this cannot be suppressed forever. The urge to live free is always there, perhaps buried deep in the subconscious, but never totally extinguished, because it is, after all, a vital part of human nature. African slaves that were brought to the U.S. considered freedom to be their ultimate vision, and that which they hoped and prayed for (and sang about) for generations. Freedom burst forth from the Baltic States and the Caucasus – basically forgotten parts of the world – when the Soviet Union broke up. People rediscovered their national identities, traditions, and customs – and, in many cases, their faith. And it's not always a matter of “remembering” what freedom is, and what it's like; it's deeper than that. It's what happens when people start comparing their situation to what they instinctively feel is proper and just. (We are seeing the glimmerings of this here in the U.S., even as the forces of totalitarianism gain strength.)

So if there's any hope to be had, it is along these lines. This generation may see nothing other than not only the road to serfdom, but serfdom itself. And yet, there may be pockets of resistance, as there have been in all other revolutions world-wide. If a greater portion of humanity prefers bogus “rights”, and even more bogus “security”, and is willing to give up everything else to obtain them, there will always be a remnant that will prefer independence and freedom of choice, with all of its risks – and they are the people on whom we must rely for a rebirth, no matter how long it takes.

 

How Destroyed Does America Have to Be?

 

A bit over a month ago, I put out an update on Covid-19 (the rock star formerly known as “corona”), discussing the various theories as to its origin, progress, significance, impact (economic, social, political, etc.). I didn't claim that the story was concluded, and that we could say “case closed”, because we can't – and who knows when, if ever, we'll be able to? Covid-19 has turned out, truly, to be the “disease for all seasons”, and for all political, social, and economic agendas. It has become, in many ways, as defining a factor in the political life of the Republic as race, which is the sine qua non of American politics. As such it may turn out, in retrospect, to be more significant than the Great Depression, or World War II, or 9/11, in terms of the remaking of society (a process well underway at this point, and accelerating with each passing day). And this is all the more remarkable given that it was, as far as is known (or admitted), totally unpredictable and a complete surprise – although the conspiratorially-minded will beg to differ, and that's OK – they may be right. (Comparisons might be drawn to other plagues down through history – not in terms of severity so much as long-term impact in areas like economics, politics, sociology, international balance of power, etc.)

But operating in parallel with Covid, in a kind of bizarre symbiosis, was an outbreak of anarchy – or apparent anarchy – which, I would say, had few if any parallels in American history. Suddenly, major cities (and not-so-major cities – Kenosha? Give me a break!) erupted in violence, vandalism, arson, and a kind of bizarre no-show performance on the part of law enforcement – which caused certain “vigilantes” to take matters into their own hands. And the temptation was to think that, yes, this is it – the final reckoning – the beginning of the total breakdown of American society – Gog and Magog – the mother of all battles – etc. But then a funny thing happened. The minute Joe Biden was inaugurated it all stopped. No more riots, no more arson, no more “smash and grab” – it was as if someone had flipped a switch. Which is, of course, exactly what happened. (And, I might add, BLM demonstrations faded away as well, even though there had been no significant improvement in relations between the police and the black community.) (And Confederate statues – those few that remained – were no longer being torn down by angry mobs.)

So it was never about “racism” or “fascism” or anything else. It was about removing Donald Trump from office, and insuring that he would never again, and I mean never, attempt to intrude into the public sphere. Once that was accomplished – and Biden's inauguration was sufficient proof – all of these “anarchists” stood down, to a man (or woman, or whatever). There was peace in the valley. They were dropped off at wherever they called home, given a wad of cash or gift cards, told “well done, mission accomplished”, and that was it. Until next time. (Be assured, their cell phone numbers are on someone's speed dial. Watch for them to come back to life in certain select quarters during the mid-term campaigns.)

But in case you haven't noticed, what any of this has to do with authentic anarchy has yet to be determined. The few Antifa types that were rounded up by local law enforcement (prior to being released by left-wing prosecutors and judges) were, by and large, spoiled brats with suffocatingly middle-class backgrounds. Nary a wild-eyed, black-bearded, bomb-throwing anarchist of the old school could be found among them. They were, basically, rent boys (and girls) who were paid handsomely for acting out and throwing a tantrum suitable for a two-year-old. In this, they were truly rebels without a cause (as opposed to, say, demonstrators from the 1960s who may have been misled in some ways but who definitely had a cause – or, typically, more than one).

Find me an “anarchist”, anywhere on Earth, who doesn't dream of becoming the king/queen/whatever/ruler of a country/continent/planet populated by nameless, powerless slaves, whose existence is predicated entirely on their ability and willingness to cater to the ruler's every whim. No “Mad Max” scenarios for these folks – no way! Real anarchy is too chancy, too dangerous. No, this will be a highly-organized, exquisitely-refined utopia. (Think of one of our “social media” moguls being, basically, emperor of the world; that will give you some idea of what the garden-variety Antifa type aspires to.)

As I have said before, anarchy is totalitarianism in disguise. True anarchists are as rare as – oh, I dunno, albino chipmunks, or something. For all intents and purposes they don't exist. Because behind every impulse to destroy, there is an impulse to build – and to build according to one's specifications. Every man a Frank Lloyd Wright! Except without the creative genius. Wright built houses that people would want to live in – not everyone, but enough. They were willing to submit to Wright's sense of aesthetics, design, style, what have you – to suppress whatever atavistic notions they had been brought up with in order to conform to the vision of The Master. And frankly (no pun intended), one can imagine much worse masters – Frank (ditto) Gehry comes to mind, with his deconstructionist zeal. (When you live in a Frank Lloyd Wright house, you live with Frank Lloyd Wright, in a sense. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. When you live or work in a Frank Gehry building – well, let's say you're a good candidate for high-end therapy.)

The agenda, if you will, of the anarchist is to destroy all the old – all that which is – but not stop there. It must be replaced with something, because in their heart of hearts every anarchist realizes that total, complete, and perpetual anarchy is impossible. Order will sooner or later rear its ugly head – so the question then becomes, what sort of order, and – more importantly – whose order? The Bolsheviks had an answer for this, and it was put in place immediately – “Five Year Plans”, collective farms, spies on every street corner and under every bed, and so on (and the gulag – or a bullet in the head – for any naysayers). Anarchy giving rise to order – the important – nay, essential – thing being that the new order is built on a totally mistaken and delusional vision of human nature. So the agenda then becomes to – at all costs! – create a new version of mankind – the New Soviet Man, or, in the case of the Nazis, the Master Race. Which is followed, as the night the day, by a program of persecution against anyone who doesn't agree with the vision, or who actively attempts to thwart it. After all, when our leaders present a plan for Utopia – all set out in impressive 3-D models (“pedestrian-friendly”, “green”, "carbon-neutral", “sustainable”, etc.) – only an atavistic reactionary would dare to object. All traditional views of mankind – his purpose on earth, his destiny – have to take a back seat to the new vision, which is based solely on what can be seen and touched, i.e. “science”.

It has been said that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”. Well, in our time, when patriotism, however defined, is sadly dated and teddibly out of fashion, we have a new version, which is “science is the last refuge of the scoundrel”. “Science”, that is, as defined by whoever has the most political influence. So science becomes the fetish of our times – that without which nothing is valid or arguable, and with which nothing is invalid... or needs proof. Science becomes, in other words, what “dogma” was in past times – a matter of faith. But if science is a matter of faith, what happens to that which we used to call science? It disappears, basically. It no longer exists, because it does not receive the imprimatur of... science! Yes, “science” becomes self-certifying, and thus no better than a commercial product that advertises itself as “the best”, or “new and improved”, or “guaranteed”, etc.

It is sad when science becomes a closed-off echo chamber, with no way in (for contradictory data), and no way out (for further investigation, with its inherent risks of contradicting what was previously considered “settled”). And yet, whenever anyone in government embraces what they call “science”, this is exactly what's happening. What they are embracing is, in effect, a new religion, and you'd better convert to it now or suffer the consequences. While at the same time, the remnant (those without fat government contracts and grants) practicing real science are ignored at best – or, at least as often, derided, scolded, shunned, and “canceled”.

(The irony here is that science – the real thing – and faith, i.e. religion – have not always been considered arch enemies. The Scholastics of the 13^th Century were perfectly at home with both, and in fact celebrated the fact that the sciences and faith were perfectly compatible – and not because they dealt with entirely different subjects with entirely different methods, but because they were in harmony, and could complement one another. This all changed, of course, with the so-called Enlightenment, which drew a line in the sand between “science” (read: materialism) and faith (AKA “superstition”), and woe unto he who attempts to cross it. This attitude persists to this day, needless to say.)

----- o -----

So far, we've dealt with, basically, the history of one year in the life of the Republic, namely 2020 -- a year to which even a master of the absurd, like Kurt Vonnegut, could not do justice. Covid-19 was exploited for totalitarian purposes, and at the same time an epidemic of “anarchy” was exploited for the exact same purposes. In both cases, it was about instilling fear in the populace – fear and helplessness – and causing them to flee, in panic, into the waiting arms of the ruling elite (cleverly disguised as a “democratically-elected government”). One could say, in imitation of Winston Churchill, that “never before was so much accomplished in so little time by so few”. The ruling elite made a killing (literally in some cases) and consolidated its gains – and, in case you haven't noticed, those gains are still in place. The Ministry of Fear (a new addition to the Executive Branch) is alive and well, and perking along like a well-oiled machine. “Monkey Pox”? That's so last week. Count on them to come up with something else within the next news cycle. The point is that Covid-19 showed the ruling elite what the populace is willing to believe – and the riots showed them what the populace is willing to put up with (but not without limit – at least so far).

Think of it as one vast experiment. Not necessarily planned (in the case of Covid) but when the “crisis” struck, the mechanisms were in place to take full advantage of it. (If it wasn't all planned, it sure felt that way, and no one can criticize any “conspiracy theorist” for believing that it was.) And the juxtaposition of Covid with the riots of Summer 2020 was the perfect formula to instill fear as well as demoralization and despair. Convince the American public that they have nothing to lose by choosing totalitarianism, and that's precisely what they'll choose. Peace at any price! Anything for (alleged) health! Better to exist as a pod person than to stand tall and with self-respect. And converting the populace to a state of servitude? All most of them will feel is a faint bump, since they are already thoroughly anaesthetized by the media and the “entertainment” industry. (Throw in professional sports if you like.) (Go Steelers!)

But now wait – if the Antifa types, and their sponsors and supporters and facilitators, were not genuine anarchists, but were just softening up the battlefield, what does that say about the agenda of the people who are really in charge? Do they really want anarchy? A Mad Max-type world, where warlords are fighting over gasoline? That hardly seems like the basis for world domination. To put it another way – how low can we go before someone hits the brakes? At what point do these clueless Antifa types outlive their usefulness and wind up exterminated like so many rodents, the way the Red Guard was after their mission for Chairman Mao was accomplished? Another way of putting it is this: Given that the revolution is under way, how far does it have to go before someone decides that it's gone far enough, and lowers the boom?

Consider, for a moment, the casualties (to date, or soon to come) of the revolution:

1. Honest and legitimate elections – already a thing of the past, at least on the federal level and on many state and local levels. You kind of get a glimpse of how this works when one of the two major political parties, i.e. the Republicans, are accused of being “domestic terrorists”.

2. The rule of law in general, vs. diktats from the White House and Congressional committees. “Equal justice under the law” is manifestly extinct (assuming it ever existed). And for all intents and purposes the law has been replaced by the regulatory state, supervised by non-elected bureaucrats who nonetheless have police powers (and police forces, in many cases).

3. The whole gender issue (who or what is a male or female, and do those labels mean anything, and if not should they be abolished, etc.)

4. Parental control over the education of their children – explicitly prohibited in many public school districts

5. Freedom of speech (without “being canceled” or losing one's livelihood)

6. Freedom of association (now referred to as “racism” and/or “sexism”) (The key concept here is that there is no longer such a thing as a “private entity”, which can be run in any way those in charge see fit. Every organization – commercial, social, religious, whatever – is now considered a public utility, and hence subject to any and all laws and regulations governing membership and how they are operated.)

7. Freedom of religion (without harassment or discrimination)

8. Privacy (vs. the government monitoring your every move and transaction)

And consider also the things that haven't changed. The United States, which is in decline in every way (economically, socially, politically, culturally, morally) is still expected to be the world's policeman, and to “spread democracy” like Johnny Appleseed, except with unlimited firepower – and to act, for all intents and purposes, as the armed forces of Western Europe, Israel, and Japan. How long anyone expects this to persist – or even be possible – is a good question; a lot of delusional thinking is going on in this area.

Just this much gets us into the territory of absurdity and farce. Then you have things like the national debt, which will never, i.e. never, never, ever, be repaid, which puts us firmly in the hands of our creditors, the most prominent being China. Then we have the latest war by proxy – Ukraine (our guys) vs. Russia (evil!). Our foreign policy – and its operatives – belong in a circus freak show. It does seem that, for all of our pretenses, we are actually in a situation not unlike that of a beached whale, to which anyone can walk up and cut off a piece of blubber. We are a blundering, staggering giant (albeit heavily armed, dangerous, and unpredictable), and the smart money is on whoever can manage to tie us up and put us in a cage like King Kong.

But is this all there is to it? Is this what the Davos crowd has in mind? Just to nibble away at the good ol' USA until there's nothing left but a hapless populace just waiting to do the bidding of whoever takes over? Are we really to become a colony of the E.U. or of other more vigorous powers (like, um, China for instance)? (And you know what being a colony means, historically – a source of raw materials, i.e. wealth which is always spirited away by the colonial power, and a source of cannon fodder for whatever wars are in fashion at the time.) (You might have noticed that the cannon fodder part of this has been underway for a bit over 100 years now, but has been more pronounced in recent decades. As I've said before, we just don't do war right – the least we can do is show a profit!)

See, when I talk about the “ruling elite”, yes, there is that class in the U.S., but there's also that class elsewhere on the globe, and the question is which is dominant? Who controls whom? I think the answer, or part of it, is that our own ruling elite are not subject to old-fashioned feelings of patriotism, or even of nationalism; they would just as soon see us go down the drain as a culture if they can remain in control and in a symbiotic relationship with the ruling elite elsewhere. This is the globalist mindset, and it's no secret – it's preached to the rafters in confabs like Davos, not to mention other less-overt hideouts around the globe. (When certain members of the ruling elite go off radar for a while – days or weeks – you can be pretty sure they're having strategy meetings somewhere, and a major agenda item will always be “whither America?”)  (Up until now, their position has been that they can't live with us, but they can't live without us.  Watch for the day when they decide that they can, in fact, live without us.)

In other words, to the globalists, things like countries, nations, governments (“democracies” included – both the real kind and the make-believe kind) are obsolete and just get in the way of the agenda – as do things like tradition, ethnicity, religion, customs, etc. The ideal globalist is the person who has no roots anywhere on the globe – who is truly a “world citizen”, which means, basically, a citizen of nowhere. So how can you expect them to have any kind of loyalty to... pretty much anything? The American economy? Let it crash. American “values”, traditions, etc.? Please. (A significant milestone was reached recently when some domestic organizations and governmental bodies pronounced the American flag "racist” and a “trigger”.) The Constitution? That's a waste of perfectly good scrap paper – but it still serves as a fetish object, to preserve an illusion. The American citizens (or the pathetic subset called “voters”)? Perfect candidates for slavery and/or cannon fodder. And as for religion – well, we have camps for people who still subscribe to such nonsense.

Now, notice that in none of this do we find concern for things like “women's issues”, “gender issues”, “racial issues”, etc. Not even “climate change”, in fact. No – these are luxuries and hobby-horses – political clubs with which to smite one's opponents – and they will vanish the minute the consolidation is complete. No, the global elite doesn't give a rat's ass about your “identity” – they just push identity politics as a weapon – as a way of furthering the agenda. In the brave new world of their dreams, everyone will be equally oppressed and exploited – everyone will be equally part of a “victim class”, with only the rulers having any special privileges.

This is their dream. But is it possible here? One would hope not. One indicator is that it hasn't happened yet – and not for lack of trying. The left has been working on this since the Progressive Era – there have been advances and setbacks, but you can't say victory is complete – at least not yet. All communist revolutions are, allegedly, aimed at producing a “classless” society – which they do. Almost. What you wind up with are two classes – the oppressed slaves and the elite (in the Soviet Union they were known as the Nomenklatura). And actually, this is the real goal. The last thing on earth any good revolutionary wants is to wind up with a truly anarchistic society (a contradiction in terms right there). What they want is a society of serfs with them in charge – and please notice that, as always, the poor beleaguered middle class is nowhere in sight. It's not part of the plan, any more than churches showed up in Hitler's blueprint for a new, improved Berlin. If there's one thing all anarchists and totalitarians can agree on, it's that the middle class has got to go. (How one sustains a modern technological society with a complex economy without a middle class is a good question, which they never stop to consider, leave alone answer.)

----- o -----

So to return to the home front – American society is on the way down, in every discernible way. (Give me one example where it isn't. I'm waiting.) And yet, according to my preferred model, it's not just disorder and chaos. In fact, the disorder and chaos are only on the surface – they are allowed, if you will, in order to provide cover for the real agenda and for its promoters, as well as a distraction from the task of figuring out what is really going on, and doing something about it. True disorder and chaos – true anarchy – would not be something someone could turn on and off like a light switch, which, as I pointed out, is exactly what happened after the summer riots of 2020. And – just as “war is the health of the state” in the international arena, riots are the health of the state on the domestic side; they lead to ever more layers of law and regulation, which expands the administrative state, law enforcement, and the “corrections” (read: prison) industry.

So someone is in charge. Someone is pulling the strings, and they have their foot poised over the brake pedal, although they haven't touched it as yet. (They're still too busy flooring the gas pedal.) The question is, how much is enough? Or, how much is too much, at which point adjustments have to be made? (In the early days of the Soviet Union, those in charge eventually decided that a modicum of private property and private enterprise might not be such a bad thing, given that people were starving to death by the millions because of collectivization. Something similar happened more recently in China in the wake of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which counted casualties in the tens of millions. This eventually led to a mash-up of communism and capitalism, which – incredibly -- actually seems to work, although purists would say that it's neither one.) (One could write a decent treatise on the conflict of visions between human nature as it is, and human nature as altered by revolution or by fiat. Human nature as it is tends to get in the way of Utopian plans – so annoying! But just try ignoring it. If there is one thing that is never learned throughout history, it is that human nature is the same – always and everywhere.)

To help answer the question of how low can we (should we, will we) go, we have to try to think about what the ruling elite (our own, and the globalists elsewhere) want. Obviously, they want control – and the more total the better. And they don't want any competition, e.g. loyalty to race, ethnicity, religion, language, tradition, etc. They are world citizens, and everyone else should be as well, and should like it – or be punished if they don't. But ultimately, a society composed of rulers and slaves can only be stable, and even productive, if the slaves are satisfied with their lot, or at least not inclined to open rebellion. Another way of putting this is that they have to be “deracinated” – made to forget (via propaganda, amusements, drugs, whatever) that there is such a thing as genuine identity rooted in the eternal verities – race, ethnicity, faith, gender, language, custom, tradition, etc.

This, by the way, is what “diversity” is all about. It's actually conformity in disguise, as in: You can be “diverse”, but only in approved ways, i.e. in some sort of artificial, play-acting, political sense. True diversity based on culture and tradition must be stamped out, and the memory of such things must be stamped out as well. I'm always amused at what happens when the “diversity” buffs find out what a given racial/ethic group really thinks of some other racial/ethnic group. You'll find them recoiling in horror! “Surely these nice people with their cool foods and quaint costumes and folk music can't be 'racists', or bigots, or 'haters'.” Right... (Back in 1966, a friend of mine and I drove through Yugoslavia, which was still one country at that point, and we were totally unaware of all of the visceral hatreds (going back centuries) that were lurking below the placid surface and just waiting for a chance to burst forth, as they wound up doing starting in 1991.)

In any case, it seems that the revolution is already well along – not just starting, which is how it appeared in 2020. Problem is, there are pockets of resistance – big ones, and they are deep. So let's say that that resistance, however it is manifested, eventually winds up successfully co-opted, suppressed, pacified, rendered impotent. It may still be there, but it won't count. And this is, in fact, becoming the position of the “deplorables” at this time – the ruling elite is content to, basically, ignore them, unless they start to wander off the reservation (like “attacking the Capitol” for instance). But will this sort of bizarre peaceful coexistence continue? Remember that to the totalitarian, just lack of resistance is not good enough – your very mind has to be cleansed of any negative thoughts (the nearest lobotomy clinic is as close as your TV set). The media are, of course, at the forefront of this effort, but there are still holdouts, and will they be tolerated or will they be hunted down the way the Biden administration has vowed to hunt down “domestic terrorists”, AKA Trump supporters, with the help of the military? It remains to be seen.

So we will go down, because we're already going down – but hitting rock bottom? Not on the agenda, in my opinion. After all, the ruling elite have to have something to rule, right? This post-nuclear, dystopian image of the isolated fortress on a mountain in the midst of a blighted wasteland – all very picturesque, but unrealistic. I suppose one possible turning point will be when there is no longer any resistance – and once again, the major communist countries did arrive at that point eventually (although it can be argued that the Third Reich didn't – but 12 years is not really a fair test). The price to be paid was, of course, gulags – prisons – killing fields – concentration camps – and so on. (Cambodia is my favorite example, because half the population had to be slaughtered by the other half before peace could break out. But once it did, by gosh, it was the real thing!) And ironically, it almost seems that the relative lack of resistance to the revolution that we see in America today might serve to prevent things from going that far. So far, in the relativistic sense, our revolution can be considered “soft”, and it may well stay that way. I mean, if the most prominent locus of resistance is outfits like the Proud Boys, we hardly have to worry about the military splitting into two warring factions (as it did in post-revolutionary Russia), or a significant counter-revolutionary force along the lines of the War in the Vendee (France). It would seem that brute force is not the first choice of our current revolutionaries, who are more technocrats and bureaucrats than soldiers (imagine Bill Gates, in a suit of armor like Joan of Arc, leading an army) (oops, sorry, I didn't mean to say that just as you were sipping your coffee). But they have weapons that armies down through history could scarcely imagine – TV, film, the social media, communication in general, and the surveillance state, which is now firmly in place.

Please note that, in terms of popular entertainment, there are two basic types of dystopia – the less-than-completely-successful kind, where there is still significant resistance (armed and otherwise), and the successful kind where drugs, brainwashing, catering to every carnal whim, etc. have done their work. Those among us who are gearing up for a good fight might actually wish for the former kind, but my bet is that the latter is far more likely – especially since most of it is already firmly in place.

(Next up – political and historical significance)