I had
always been led to believe that the word “revolutionary” was a complimentary
term. To be revolutionary was to break through – and above – into something heretofore
untapped, eminently substantial, and oftentimes brutally honest. Most can agree
that Beethoven was a revolutionary composer, Van Gogh a revolutionary painter,
and Joyce a revolutionary author. Each of these artists ambitiously transcended
the staid complacency of their contemporaries with the effect of not only
enshrining their names in the annals of Western culture, but also lighting the
way for those not content to live within the narrow parameters of their
respective milieus.
There have
been political revolutions as well. Some have failed where others have
succeeded. The French Revolution died when the radicals filled the power vacuum
only to exhibit a bloodlust greater than those they had recently overthrown.
The Soviet Revolution failed simply because it was built upon a faulty premise
– namely, that the collective was superior to the individual and, to that
effect, government, though comprised of humans, was, ipso facto, infallible.
By being
infallible, it was also, to its own citizenry, perpetually unaccountable. A
characteristic that the architects of the American Revolution sought to avoid
in the drafting of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. For years, these
documents served as the effective one-two political punch of limited government
– self-restrained thanks to the mechanism of checks and balances – coupled with
the codification of inalienable individual rights. A combination, it could
easily be argued, that made the American Revolution one of only a very few that
have ever succeeded.
But for
decades now in America, the federal government has continued to swell and the
autonomy of individual states has diminished. Tyrannical establishment
executives, from Richard Nixon to Hillary Clinton, have made tactical use of
pitting one governmental agency against another to whitewash their crimes. All
the while, a cadre of globalist elites consolidate wealth and power through the
erosion of borders, the denigration of national and cultural pride, and the sanctimonious
and empty platitudes of “togetherness”.
Today,
there is a grassroots movement of ordinary Americans whose historical
counterparts can be found in their 18th Century colonial ancestors. Yet
instead of defying a monarchical authority from across the Atlantic, this
current generation of rebels rightly sees the enemy in their own federal
government, aided and abetted by the dispassionate globalist oligarchy it
serves. Thus far, they have been kept in place through slanderous accusations
of xenophobia and bigotry. They have been mischaracterised by their political
leaders, in collusion with a compliant media, as uneducated rubes unfit to
think and act for themselves. Where they have exhibited national pride, they
have been rhetorically shrunk into backwoods and backwards ingrates. Patronised
by self-appointed experts and mocked relentlessly by overpaid celebrities, many
of them have, until recently, surrendered to the seemingly monolithic and
unconquerable falsehoods about their characters. Most importantly, they have been
systematically stripped of their voices and, until now, no one has stepped
forward on the political stage to speak on their behalf.
Therefore,
it should not be surprising that when an outsider candidate emerges from the
shadows to openly break the very chains of political correctness that have kept
this demographic fearful of their own honesty and ashamed of their own
potential, the revolution that candidate promises will be incorrectly hyperbolised
into “blood in the streets” instead of “liberty and justice for all”.
We have
now an establishment opposition that is not only understandably afraid of
revolution, but strategically contemptuous of it. Of course, this is not to
imply there is no political profit to be had in sporadic pseudo-revolutions such
as the riots in Charlotte, Baltimore, and Ferguson, predicated as they were upon
racist lies and divisive rhetoric -- replete with middle-class white university
girls sporting keffiyahs and shouting through megaphones “pigs in a blanket,
fry ‘em up!” There is no significant threat to a New World Order from dusting
off the racial schisms of the 1960s – especially if a renewal of Cold War with
Russia comes as part of the same nostalgic package. Such pseudo-revolutions are
mostly self-contained and, if not, can easily be quelled and incorporated under
the jurisdiction of federalised and globalist control. And thus, government
keeps growing.
No, here we
are talking about an establishment counter-revolution whose sole propagandistic purpose is to
neuter the justifiable anger of a betrayed citizenry. It does this by asking, why
be angry? This is the way things are and have always been, so accept it.
But are they
talking about such things as the natural world, governed by unalterable
instinct? Or the endless rotation of the planets? No, they are talking about
the fallibly human institution of government. This is what revolutionaries are being
told to accept as unchangeable. Such reluctance to acknowledge any need for
change is so ossified in the psyches of some that they are openly willing to cast
their bet on a leader with no allegiance to her own nation and a thirty-year
track record of criminality -- all made possible by her entrenchment within the
very establishment now in need of overthrow. Expect less and demand nothing,
seems to be the mantra.
“Hillary
Clinton,” for example, “is no different than anybody else in politics.”
“But don’t
vote for Donald Trump. That would be a childish revolution.”
Too late. The revolution has already begun. And it's been going strong ever since Trump threw his hat into the ring last year.
