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.

 

White Twilight

“Trumpism” is probably the least negative term applied to the Trump movement, or to the world view of the “deplorables”. What we hear more often are terms like fascism, Nazism, racism, sexism, hate, etc. – those terms that have become so ubiquitous that they have lost all meaning, and all one hears is a faint buzzing. While the level and vehemence of hostility and hatred toward Trump and his supporters remains unexplained (although I do have some theories), it is objectively true that Trump has a solid base among the electorate for his programs – and, perhaps, even more for his oft-expressed opinions on the media, economics, foreign affairs, politics, immigration, and whatever else strikes his fancy at the moment. He has, indeed, become the voice of the voiceless, having assumed that role at the very beginning of his campaign for the presidency, and since they have no other voice, they're sticking with Trump through thick and thin.

I mean, think about it – liberals and anti-Trump people in general can take comfort in the fact that they are part of what seems to be an overwhelming and vocal majority... a countless, deafening chorus which includes the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, academia, every political party except the Republicans, half the Republicans, and pretty much the entire population of the U.S. living within 100 miles of an ocean. Clearly, it takes no courage, much less independence of thought, to belong to this legion of demerit. The “deplorables”, on the other hand, are huddled in the interior... the heartland... flyover country.. and are constantly having to dodge and deal with incoming assaults from the coasts and from the federal government. Being relatively simple people, they can't understand why their desire to simply be left the hell alone is such a bad thing – why it puts them in every negative category the Establishment can come up with (the most recent being “transphobic”, but a new one will be along any minute, you may be certain). Paraphrasing George W. Bush, they can truly ask, “Why do they hate us?”

And what, by the way, is “Trumpism”, after all? It seems to have a lot to do with what, up until recently, were considered “conservative”, and not particularly controversial, values – respect for the flag and for the National Anthem, nationalism, patriotism (not the same thing, although Trump seems to think otherwise), a “muscular” foreign policy (AKA empire building), self-reliance, reduction in the size of government (or at least keeping it from getting any bigger), a certain preference for states' rights, a certain preference for local (town, city, county, etc.) autonomy, a tendency to deregulate... and so on; all the traditional earmarks of conservatism, in other words. The problem Trump had when he was clawing his way up the ladder during the primaries was that the Republican Party is no longer conservative in any meaningful sense; that pretty much went out the window after Reagan's time and was replaced by globalism, soft socialism, and – much to their shame – a shuffling, apologetic attitude vis-a-vis the Democrats/liberals/progressives when it came to “social programs”. (Saying, over and over again, that “we're almost as compassionate as our opponents” is no way to win elections, as I've pointed out before.)

So – once again, post-Reagan – a large portion of the electorate had to suffer through a cold night, and a kind of political exile, which Bushes I and II did nothing to alleviate, and much to aggravate. (What would you expect from people who put the fate of this country firmly into the hands of the globalists?)

But then along came Trump and his – some would say reactionary – message. And I imagine that any number of people were saying, or thinking – with great exasperation – that while they basically agreed with what he was saying, why did it have to be him saying it? This high-rolling real estate tycoon from New York City, with his NYC accent and manners... and that hair? Couldn't anyone else have taken up that challenge, and those positions? Well... there were plenty of opportunities, weren't there, over the years, and yet nobody did. No one wanted to rock the boat (even if it was sinking anyway)... globalism was the future, and there were no alternatives... patriotism was passe... and it was better to occupy the mushy middle than to take a firm stand on anything. Plus, occasionally members of the mushy middle wound up winning elections, because their opponents were too obviously radical in some way, making people uncomfortable and challenging them in ways they found distasteful. But Trump said, in effect, screw the mushy middle, it's time to shake things up, go big or go home, etc. – and lo and behold, enough people responded to his message to get him elected. He may not have taken over the Republican Party, but he certainly took over its ticket. And frankly, no one but Trump could have pulled it off – any of it – not getting nominated, not getting elected, not getting inaugurated, and not getting everything he's gotten done (albeit still a fraction of what he hoped) since. For the Republicans, he basically raised them from the dead – and received very little thanks for it. All they do now is try and figure out which “stance” – either pro- or anti-Trump – will make them most likely to win the mid-term election. A pathetic bunch. “Sad.”

But in any case the voiceless found a voice, and those who already had a voice are squandering it on screaming fits of hysteria. And as I said, the sheer energy behind that has yet to be satisfactorily explained; the mere fact that Trump is orange is not sufficient.

Which brings us up to the present day – and, as I said, Trump seems to have held on to his hard-core supporters... his base... through thick and thin. But the opposition has proven to be solid and tireless as well, which is a bit of a surprise; you'd think a few of them would have dropped out by now and gone back to being productive members of society, but that doesn't seem to be the case. George Soros' Antifa and Hillary's flying monkeys are out on the streets every day stirring up trouble... and the mainstream media, entertainment industry, and academia have grown thicker skins than ever; they are not only ready for the long war, they are already fighting it. In other words, there are no visible cracks in the facade, which means that it's not a facade at all, but the real thing. And – lest we forget – Robert Mueller and his minions continue to tirelessly toil away, looking for that magic kryptonite that will, at long last, render Trump weak and powerless (and, most importantly of all, silent). The Deep State chugs along, like the engines of a great ship, and woe betide anyone who gets in the way.

(Some might argue that the opposition has already won the long war, and all that remains is to police up the battlefield. But that would be to misunderstand the totalitarian mindset, which insists on total victory, total surrender, and the extermination (or at least enslavement) of all opposition. As long as there is anyone out there who persists in wrong thinking, the struggle must continue. “To learn more”, refer to the Orwell classic, “1984”.)

But if this is the status quo, the question is how long it can persist. Right now, we have a country in which half the populace is at knife points with the other half, and that is an extremely unstable situation, almost in the physical/chemical sense. Something's got to give, in other words – and the 2018 midterms are not the answer, no matter how they come out. The day after the election, the same groups will still be around, with the same attitudes, motivations, and methods as the day before. Oh sure, there might be some triumphalism floating around, but it won't change the basic situation. Lest we forget, the “deplorables” didn't come out of nowhere. They've always been there, and in fact there were proportionately more in the old days than there are now. True conservatism has never been fashionable, and yet it persists – as witness the Goldwater campaign and the Reagan years. It can be debated whether Trump is a true conservative, and yet his “rhetoric” – so-called by the opposition – seems totally in line with at least neoconservative values. If he says what he means and means what he says, and acts accordingly, he should be given credit for having a conservative administration, even if not for being a lifetime conservative himself.

But to get back to the upcoming elections, let's consider a scenario, with both short- and long-term implications. In the very short run, a power shift in Congress would open the floodgates for impeachment of Donald Trump, which has, up until now, been a talking point of the radical left, but shied away from by mainstream liberals, who are forever obsessing about “positioning” and “optics”, and invincibly ignorant when it comes to any issues of principle. As has been pointed out by a number of commentators, a successful impeachment would be meant to, among other things, teach the “deplorables”, and anyone who considers representing them, a damn good lesson – namely, don't mess with the Establishment, don't mess with the Regime, and don't mess with the Deep State, because if you do, this is what's going to happen. The goal is to put the “deplorables” in their place, and shut them up, and teach them that politics is a game for the elites and the sophisticates, not the peasantry.

As such, impeachment of Trump would be the equivalent of the show trials in Soviet Russia, which likewise taught everyone a damn good lesson – those who survived, that is. And please note that the Mueller investigation is part of this – a warm-up exercise, if you will. You can expect the Mueller witch hunt to seamlessly transition into impeachment hearings, if it should come to that. (And at least the Mueller enterprise is, supposedly, based on evidence, whereas impeachment would not be subject to that constraint.)

This would satisfy the opposition – well, as much as they can ever be satisfied, being addicted to revolution – but what would the effect on the “Trumpists”... the “deplorables”... be? Will they “go gentle into that good night”? My guess is not only no, but hell no. They have had a taste of visibility, and of power (or of what appears to be power). They have found a hero, and have raised him on high, only to see him defeated and brought low by evil forces. So they, or some of them at least, are likely to fight back. How, and to what degree, they fight back is a matter for speculation, but it would be a mistake for the opposition to expect them to simply retire from the battlefield and slip back into the hollow logs from whence they came.

And yet, theirs is a lost cause in the long run, no matter its merits of the moment. The reasons for this are many, and the one that comes most readily to mind is simple demographics. “White” people are already a minority in this country, or soon will be (depending on one's definition of “white”), and this change is only going to become more dramatic over time, because no amount of “native” reproduction (even if above replacement level) is going to make up for the uncontrolled invasion from the Third World which is already occurring, and would only become more acute post-Trump. (This isn't a value judgment, note – it's just hard, cold fact, and it's as inevitable as the barbarian invasions and takeover of the Roman Empire.)

So if the “formerly voiceless and soon to be voiceless again” are barely clinging to some level of power and influence now, once their hero has been dethroned and brought low (and perhaps jailed) they will feel like orphans again... and if realistic, will realize that their days as a political factor are numbered, and the the night is coming on. So will they fight on, to the last man if need be? As someone once said, the most dangerous enemy is one who has nothing left to lose.

And please note that there is nothing new about any of this; it should not come as a surprise. The battle lines were firmly drawn (or re-established) in the 1960s, and pressure has been building ever since. As the globalists, and globalist thinking, have taken over more of the American Establishment, the people Hillary Clinton described as “deplorables” have become more alienated – from popular culture first, then from the entertainment media, and most recently from the mainstream media. If it took Trump to break the ice, and stimulate this group to speak up and express themselves with courage and self-confidence, be assured that, once again, and despite of his many flaws, no one else could have done it, because if they could, they would have. (And if Trump hadn't come along the pressure would have continued to build, and a new, supersized Trump might well have emerged. This is why getting rid of Trump won't get rid of what the Establishment sees as the “problem”.)

It turns out that demographics is destiny after all. The elites of this world have been trying to do something about this for decades, with the help of globalist organizations like the United Nations. But whenever U.S. citizens or E.U. citizens look to the south, all they see is a population tsunami – from Central America for us, and Africa/the Near East/South Asia for Europe. And if there's anything “inevitable” in world affairs, it would seem to be this. (Trumpists could take comfort in the idea that they are not alone in the age-old demographic struggles.) And notice that the elites, having pretty much given up on Third World “population control”, are now embracing the mass migration phenomenon because they know it will destroy the old order (of nations with defendable borders) and also add to the reliable (i.e., liberal/globalist) voting population and constitute a new source of wage-slave labor. Another way of putting this is that, whereas the traditional model was one in which the “First World” exploited the “Third World” economically, we are now moving into an era in which the “First World” is becoming part of the “Third World”, and so it too can be exploited economically by the ruling elite. The ruling elite is no longer tied to nations, national identity, or any form of nationalism or patriotism, but is truly international, globalist, and interested only in creating a world-wide totalitarian slave state, and confiscating the resources of the (former) First World is a key part of this program. This is no secret, and is certainly not a “conspiracy theory” since it's happening in plain sight, and the globalists are bragging about it.

So what we may be seeing is the early stage of “white twilight” – not only here but in Europe as well. It kind of reminds me of the now-classic five stages of death and dying made famous by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross:

1. Denial – “Surely the white race isn't doomed, or even on the decline! After all, haven't we colonized the world, and aren't we still in control of a large portion of it? And aren't we dominant in areas like industry, trade, transportation, finance, technology, etc.? Surely the doomsayers must be wrong. Sure, there may be countless black and brown hordes clamoring to move into our countries, and mounting what amount to invasions on a daily basis – but surely we can stem, and roll back, that tide, and reassert our dominance and superiority!” (We are firmly in this stage at this point in history – and yes, this is a big part of what's on the minds of the Trump loyalists.)
2. Anger – “If the white race is declining and on the defensive, it's not our fault, but the fault of our traitorous politicians, globalists, totalitarians, and bankers. And it's also the fault of the coastal elites and the mainstream media.” (We are well into this stage as well. This has more of a conspiracy “vibe” than Stage 1, obviously. They are distinct but overlapping.)
3. Bargaining – No sign of this as yet. People are either on the opposition/resistance side or the cheerful acceptance side – although the latter could be seen as bargaining in a sense, in that that cheerful acceptance is predicated on the premise (perhaps unconscious) that “I can be totally in favor of anything that I don't expect to hurt me personally.” Which brings to mind the old saying, “A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.” Another way of seeing it is that many people who fancy themselves members of the ruling elite may be in for a rude awakening, once the criteria for that designation have shifted upward and they are left grubbing about like any of the people they formerly despised and looked down upon.
4. Depression – Nope. Not in any quarter. All sides have been awakened, all are fully armed and ready to fight. And this is unlikely to change. Passivity is passe, in other words.
5. Acceptance – Totally true (with the above caveat) of liberals and progressives, totally untrue of conservatives/traditionalists/nationalists. Well, when half the populace happily welcomes revolution and the other half resists it with all its strength... I recall that the period just after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is called a civil war, and it went on for quite a while.

So we see how a model intended to apply to individuals can, with very little trouble, be applied to a nation or society as well. It can, in fact, be applied to pretty much any “living system”, just as another classic model, that of Expansion/Consolidation/Decay can. (American society is definitely in the “decay” stage; the question is no longer “whether” but how this is to be manifested, and how long it will last – because after decay a society becomes “history”.)

And as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's all well and good for academicians to sit about in faculty lounges in their tweeds, puffing on pipes (well – maybe out on the sidewalk), and ruminating on how historic trends impact the small and insignificant (i.e., the vast majority) of the human race. But again, for the individual, whether they are the least bit interested in “the big picture” or not, there are stresses involved – economic and social certainly, and political if their concerns extend to politics (which everyone's do these days). But the biggest source of stress – and the greatest casualty – may boil down to intangibles – those ideas, concepts, notions, and images embodied in what is called patriotism, and which I'll also call the sense of place and time, and the sense of meaning and significance that is rooted in that awareness.

I've often felt that, despite all the frenetic flag-waving and celebration of national holidays we indulge in, the United States, and “America”, are abstractions – constructs designed to foster some sort of loyalty or willingness to make sacrifices, with relatively little in the way of rewards other than the feeling of being a “good citizen”, whatever that means. It's much easier to find genuine loyalty to a region of the country, or to a state, county, city, town, or even neighborhood – and this is a completely natural thing because it's an essential part of the makeup of the human species to prefer the familiar and the here-and-now to some abstraction. Abstractions have to be “sold” – they have to be marketed through propaganda campaigns – whereas loyalty to one's group and to one's native place – to “blood and soil”, if you will – is natural and, despite the best efforts of the globalists and their collaborators in the media and politics, is something that survives and remains vigorous, even or especially when under attack.

So in a sense, maybe “whiteness” is also too big a concept. Maybe there are too many shades of white for it to have any meaning. And, please note, many of the great wars of history have been fought between white people. The odd thing about our time, of course, is that any form of national, ethnic, or religious pride is acceptable except white and/or Christian pride, especially when combined with patriotism. The nostrils of all Democrats/liberals/progressives flare when they see tapes of a Trump rally. Non-white, non-Christian pride is embraced because it represents “diversity”, and also provides an easy avenue for the divide-and-conquer strategy of the globalists, whereas white and/or Christian pride represents nothing but hate, fascism, Nazism, racism, etc. etc. – you know the drill. (Note that whereas “nationalism” is frowned upon by the elite, “white nationalism” is roundly condemned – although no one bothers to define either term.)

So yes, the white race is under attack and under siege; can there be any doubt? And any attempt to defend it in its own right is dismissed as hopelessly atavistic. One response to these attacks is to point out all the fine things white people have achieved over the millennia, starting with ancient Greece. “Western Civilization” is cited with the full expectation that it will be a conversation stopper. All well and good, but since when has merit or worth of any sort, either real or alleged, necessarily driven the forces of history? If that were the case, the barbarians would have stopped, frozen in their tracks, before the walls of Rome, unable to take one step farther because they were in complete awe of the achievements of the Empire. But, as it happened, they couldn't have cared less, any more than the Third World hordes converging on the United States or Europe care. They don't respect or value American achievements any more than cows appreciate scenery; if anything, they see Uncle Sam as the oppressor (“Yankee go home” and all that).  Even if they care about their own culture, they either find it impossible to stay home in order to defend it, or they prefer to leave everything behind and take their chances in a foreign land.  So they pull up stakes and become rootless, and thus valueless except in the most rudimentary, survival-oriented way.  But even that cannot remain the status quo forever; the Goths did eventually build cathedrals, after all. As has been pointed out, invading armies eventually settled down and became farmers. Perhaps the same thing – or the equivalent – will happen in this case.

Plus, it seems a bit odd for conservatives to be constantly criticizing “identity politics” when the alternative is the continued dominance of the white race. Aren't we an “identity” as well? And wouldn't it, in fact, be preferable, in these times of turmoil, to concentrate more on individual virtues than on the merits (real or alleged) of a given racial or ethnic group? And what, after all, is the predominant social unit, down through the history of the human race? No matter what other structures are superimposed over time, the basic unit has always and everywhere been the family. And if you're going to pick a battle – or a war – the most consequential one, the survival of the family, should be your first choice, it seems to me. Once that survival is assured, one can always move on to other things – but without it, those other things will have no foundation and will soon decay and crumble to dust, as we are seeing all across the landscape in our time.