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.