Sarah Hoyt has a thoughtful piece over at PJ Media explaining why she expects the current playacting at revolution by the Left to fail. She argues the false premises of the marxist philosophical worldview of the Left has so distorted their perceptions of Reality that they can’t understand why their efforts to bring about Utopia keep failing. In frustration the Left is throwing a tantrum because things aren’t “fair.”
They expect that the “99 Percent” will rise up in solidarity with them to overthrow the “1 Percent” of capitalist oppressors. However, it’s the Left that won the slow revolutionary march through the institutions over the past fifty years. It’s Leftists who now make up most of the “1 Percent.”
Real revolutions, not the left’s pretend theater, are not “and the people rose up.” That’s usually the last stage. Real revolutions are caused by living conditions/ways of making a living changing so dramatically that ideology must follow.
Communism and socialism were – though heads-on-pants insane – well suited to the mentality of mass production and mass movements.
They’re fish out of water in the 21st century. Which is why every move they make turns against them. Their heads are full of a society that no longer exists.
I’m not saying they’re not a danger, particularly in the areas – geographic and social – they control. What I’m saying is that they’re losing that control.
Read the whole thing.
In effect, proles who thought they had been guaranteed a spot in the Outer Party and had a shot at making it into the Inner Party are raging because their Fill-in-the-Blank Studies did not qualify them for anything other than struggling to service a significant debt on a barista’s wages. One part of the left is revolting against another.
This has happened before. During the middle years of the last century, the international socialist fought the national socialists in Europe. Sarah Hoyt argues that we’re now seeing the death rattle of the Left’s revolution rather than its birth pains. I hope she’s right.
There were those who thought (perhaps hoped) that President Trump would use military force to deal with Antifastan in Seattle. He didn’t. Instead, he let the city get what they voted for good and hard. Things had to get so bad that rioters appeared in the mayor’s neighborhood before the city’s Inner Party decided the proles had had enough fun.
The rioters in Portland learned from some of Antifiastan’s errors. They stayed off the mayor’s front lawn and were rewarded with control of the night in city. Again, the President has not deployed the military. He’s committed federal civilian law enforcement office to protect federal property and enforce federal law in Portland. So far, it appears that federal civilian law enforcement can deal with the Portland crime wave.
BTW, the federal agents engaged in crowd control and site protection appear to be wearing uniforms with appropriate agency ID information and to have ID numbers visible on their uniforms.
But what if they can’t put the lid back on Portland? What if the situation degenerates into a minor, but full-blown, rebellion?
10 U.S.C. § 251 et seq. is the Insurrection Act. It empowers the President to use the military when it is otherwise impossible to enforce federal law or protect the rights of citizens or to put down a rebellion. The last time it was invoked was for the LA riots in 1992. He can do so over the objections of a state government that is failing to protect the rights of American citizens. The last time that provision was used was in Little Rock in 1957.
Do Governor Kate Brown and Mayor Ted Wheeler really want to go down in the history books with Orville Faubus?
I doubt that the President will have to deploy either to National Guard or other troops. Antifa and BLM don’t appear to have enough real support to be more than oversized street gangs. They’re a crime wave pretending to be an insurrection. When the going gets tough, the posers and soy boys will move along to something is less dangerous. I suspect steady application of civilian policing will turn the tide with the rest.
BLM thugs have murdered an eight-year-old girl because she was riding in a car that tried to enter a store parking lot where the terrorists had set up an illegal roadblock. The black-on-black violence occurred in Atlanta.
Some have said they are shocked by the crime. I’m not. I’ve been expecting something like it. The founder of BLM has said that they are trained marxists. If so, then their underlying worldview sees everything in terms of power struggles. If they want an omelette, they’ll break eggs. Hence, the body count in Antifastan (Seattle), Atlanta, and elsewhere.
The “Summer of Love” is turning out to be deadly. There are times when I wish things would not go as I’ve foreseen.
The Overton Window is the range of ideas which are considered acceptable for public consideration and debate. It moves around as the climate of public opinion changes.
President Trump’s speech at Mt. Rushmore was an attempt to move the window upward to include a more respectful view of the Enlightenment principles generally held by the Founding Fathers and away from the Postmodern Neo-marxist worldview underpinning much of the turbulence in America these days. I hope he was successful. I’m not sure that he was. Oh, he did a fine job of rallying the people who already agree with him, but he was preaching to the choir.
Let me extend that metaphor a bit. I’m not sure how effective he was as an evangelist, one who brings good news to the unconverted. There are a large number of Americans who have come to believe the marxist fallacy that everything can be defined as a power struggle among various identity groups, and that someone else’s is the result of privilege and oppression. They want what they see as their turn controlling the levers of power, and many of them are willing to tear down the current system in order to change things.
What many of them don’t understand is the difference between the ideals of the American Revolution and so many others—the people have granted power to the government so it may serve them not rule over them. Those who wish to be change things so that they can become part a new ruling class need to look at the history of those other revolutions. Only a few of the revolutionaries become part of the nomenklatura, and even fewer make it into the Inner Party. The rest become the proles in a failing society.
The good news these folks need to hear is that the American Revolution produced a melting pot society where everyone’s positive contribution has a chance to prosper. It’s not a perfect society, but it’s the best humanity has come up with to date. Events such as the Minneapolis riots or the failure of Antifastan in Seattle are hitting some with a dose of Reality that may show them the folly of their worldview.
It will be interesting to see how they react.
Meanwhile, I hope President’s speech successfully framed some of the questions to be considered by the public between now and the Third of November.
As I’m drinking my second cup of coffee this morning, I’m finding pictures on the Interwebz of an armed couple confronting a BLM mob outside of their house. This may become a more common scene as the ongoing marxist lunacy tries to metastasize to the interior of the country.
While Rick Blaine’s advice to a couple of totalitarian thugs may no longer apply in New York, it still holds true in most of America.
That’s the title of an excellent short essay by Kevin Williamson over at NRO.
The relevant facts are these: 1) Very powerful political interests in Washington insist upon the scrupulous enforcement of environmental laws, and if that diminishes the interests of private property owners, so much the better, in their view. 2) Very powerful political interests in Washington do not wish to see the scrupulous enforcement of immigration laws, and if that undercuts the bottom end of the labor market or boosts Democrats’ long-term chances in Texas, so much the better, in their view.
Read the whole thing.
When you’re finished, take a look at this by George Will. His post deals with a fundamental disconnect between Conservatives and Progressives as described in a new book by Timothy Sandefur.
Progressives, who consider democracy the source of liberty, reverse the Founders’ premise, which was: Liberty preexists governments, which, the Declaration says, are legitimate when “instituted” to “secure” natural rights.
Progressives consider, for example, the rights to property and free speech as, in Sandefur’s formulation, “spaces of privacy” that government chooses “to carve out and protect” to the extent that these rights serve democracy.