Impending Revolution?
Impending Revolution?
The world has experienced a number of radical revolutions, but that’s what revolutions are: radical
changes to the existing order. It seems, however, that to qualify as a revolution it has to be successful; things
must actually turn over. Think of all the uprisings, insurrections, rebellions, mutinies and revolts that never
made it to the level of revolution; there are too many to count. Why? What makes the difference? In a word:
leadership.
There is interesting similarity in all of them: they are usually intended to destroy the existing order. Some
have vague ideas of what its replacement should be, but many have little more in mind than destroying
whatever power structure is in place: what evolves is who has power. Since the powerless lack it by definition
they are unlikely to overthrow anything by themselves, so how do revolutions become successful? Again the
answer is leadership. But where does it come from? Though we insist on trying to see it as such, life – and
power inherent in it – is not bipolar. We read of the aristocracy and the peasants, the liberals and the
conservatives, the rich and the poor, but is that all there are? Hardly, or at least that’s not all there has been
for a long, long time. Life – nature, if you will – tends to exist in normal distribution. That is, there are
discernible extremes of anything we might want to examine, but there is also a vast variety of in-betweens.
That’s just the way our world is fashioned.
So it is with political spectrums. There may have been rich aristocrats and poor peasants, but all did not
fall into those categories, and the balance has always been provided by the mass of “others” in between.
The French Revolution was not a unique event until those in between moved from support for to opposition to
the aristocracy, providing leadership for the “poor peasants” who were vastly greater in number than the rich
aristocrats. Hitler similarly ultimately had to appeal to this vast middle social class to overthrow the Weimar
Republic. An important difference between earlier and more modern revolutions, however, is instructive.
Reducing it to the most basic, propaganda has become more sophisticated and the means of delivering it
infinitely more powerful.
So what motivates overthrow of an existing order? Power, and who wields it. An existing order wields
power and revolutionaries want to divest them of it. “Power to the people” is the most common cry, because
although power is always the prerogative of an elite, “the people” are the preponderance of the rest of us.
“The people” never really gain the power; revolutions just create a new elite that the people hope will be more
sympathetic to their needs and wants. But the support of the mass of the rest of us is necessary to make it
possible. Whatever they (the new elite) say about the motivation of the revolution, it comes down to taking
power away from the old elite and taking it for themselves. Oh, they have their mantras and they always
sound grandiloquent, but the result is seldom quite as noble as it sounds – at least not in the short run, and
maybe never.
That’s human nature; those without power want it and are usually quite willing to make deals with
whomever they think will help them secure it. In the long run, however, it is that same human nature that
keeps it from happening quite as promised. Whoever provides the leadership, which in itself requires an
element of power, has to make decisions and those decisions will always satisfy some and anger others.
That’s just the way we are. Fortunately representative politics in most modern Western societies has
precluded there being enough leadership in the middle to mount a revolution, probably because the
alternate elite aren’t hungry enough to risk inflaming the vast middle to destroy the existing order. Wait you
will say, that’s not it, it is that the vast middle is not hungry enough to support revolution because they are
satisfied with the existing representative order that supports radical change.
Perhaps, but the nature of revolution is changing, and I contend we are engaged in our first attempt at
post modern revolution. It has the same objective as other revolutions – destruction of the existing order, and
it is using a post modern weapon: technologically delivered propaganda, and one very old weapon:
ignorance; and it is being supported by the middle class mass that is the key to all revolutions. It did not just
begin; it started some time in the 1920s, but has picked up steam with the incredible development of
electronic communications. But there the similarities end; this one is more like a glacier than an
earthquake. In fact, having just read Dr. Sherwin Nuland’s (How We Die, Vintage Books, 1995), an account of
how cancer works, I was struck by more similarities.
Cancer, Nuland explains, is cells that instead of maturing normally to perform a useful function go crazy,
losing any capability to perform assigned functions, merely reproducing – wildly and weirdly, ultimately
destroying the host upon which it feeds. Does that remind of the tribes of the steppes that helped destroy
Rome? A Rome that was already beginning to destroy itself through indolence, self-absorption, and
indifference? Or Paris in 1779? The analogy is imperfect; Rome had no catalyst and, like a body attacked by
cancer, was merely overwhelmed; Paris did have a middle class catalyst and the cancer was led by those
who hoped to usurp power. So perhaps I can choose a middle ground: history never repeats itself exactly
and nature provides only general laws that suggest standardization that we have not yet grasped.
Can we agree that all required a mass that is either discontent, rebellious and (“as individuals…victimize a
sedate, conforming society” (Nuland’s description of cancer cells, pg. 209) for their own end? Our post
modern attempt at revolution is a combination of a number of interests inherent in individualism: selfishness
or self-indulgence, lack of understanding beyond the immediate horizon, mass emotionalism that lends itself
to charismatic propaganda, and ignorance. But it still requires a catalyst, and the catalyst is an intellectual
elite that embraces mutual brotherhood, peace and cooperation – and opposition to war in any shape or
fashion. They seem to have little more than a vague impression of any replacement philosophy other than
that – clearly not consistent with human nature as we know it, and certainly in denial of recent history. But it is
potentially nonetheless it self destructing or popular with the masses.
One would think that a government (driven by any power elite) controlled economy would be pariah by
now, seeing as how many failures it has generated, but regardless it keeps rising like a phoenix from the
dessert floor to fly again in the face of human nature. Why? Because it is a Potemkin Village, a façade that
does not and cannot exist – but looks so provocatively attractive. It is a wonderful panacea. It just does not
work.
And here lies the incredible power base of this revolution: electronically communicated propaganda in a
form never before experienced nor even visualized, and it is not wielded by a discernable power elite clique.
Instead the wielders are an amorphous mass of feel good theorists (or power hungry hypocrites) who we
know as “intellectual” with little understanding of, or belief in – or perhaps concern for? – what has powered
American culture, and no patience or interest in gaining it. They emotionally believe in how it should be and
jump over reality to get there. We blame Chamberlain for appeasement, but the responsibility was far
broader: the intellectual establishment that wished, ignored reality, and therefore hoped it would be. A similar
process has begun concerning the expansion of Middle Age thinking Islamism the thinking of which is
reflected in the stated opinion of Muammar Al-Ghadafi who has said Islam will conquer Europe without a shot
being fired.
This in itself, however, does not account for the apparent broad and docile acceptance by so many of the
bait being offered that results from the same media, but imbedded in an entertainment of message feel
good. Or is it a more historical reaction: the more familiar throw the bums out? Either way the result is the
same. The war of revolution is being waged by a growing mass of discontented individuals intent on
victimizing a sedate, conforming society; aided and abetted by a blissfully unaware, and generally quite
comfortable, intellectual elite who emotionally side with them. And as always, the swing will be the self-
absorbed, don’t rock my boat middle class silent majority. Are we in the process of dismantling the
geopolitical structure that has carried us to today?
The revolutionary army is patient, growing and fanatically led. Can they win? It is certainly not inevitable,
but they can if complacency reigns. I will not be around to witness the result, so I leave it in your hands. Best
of Luck.
The world has experienced a number of radical revolutions, but that’s what revolutions are: radical
changes to the existing order. It seems, however, that to qualify as a revolution it has to be successful; things
must actually turn over. Think of all the uprisings, insurrections, rebellions, mutinies and revolts that never
made it to the level of revolution; there are too many to count. Why? What makes the difference? In a word:
leadership.
There is interesting similarity in all of them: they are usually intended to destroy the existing order. Some
have vague ideas of what its replacement should be, but many have little more in mind than destroying
whatever power structure is in place: what evolves is who has power. Since the powerless lack it by definition
they are unlikely to overthrow anything by themselves, so how do revolutions become successful? Again the
answer is leadership. But where does it come from? Though we insist on trying to see it as such, life – and
power inherent in it – is not bipolar. We read of the aristocracy and the peasants, the liberals and the
conservatives, the rich and the poor, but is that all there are? Hardly, or at least that’s not all there has been
for a long, long time. Life – nature, if you will – tends to exist in normal distribution. That is, there are
discernible extremes of anything we might want to examine, but there is also a vast variety of in-betweens.
That’s just the way our world is fashioned.
So it is with political spectrums. There may have been rich aristocrats and poor peasants, but all did not
fall into those categories, and the balance has always been provided by the mass of “others” in between.
The French Revolution was not a unique event until those in between moved from support for to opposition to
the aristocracy, providing leadership for the “poor peasants” who were vastly greater in number than the rich
aristocrats. Hitler similarly ultimately had to appeal to this vast middle social class to overthrow the Weimar
Republic. An important difference between earlier and more modern revolutions, however, is instructive.
Reducing it to the most basic, propaganda has become more sophisticated and the means of delivering it
infinitely more powerful.
So what motivates overthrow of an existing order? Power, and who wields it. An existing order wields
power and revolutionaries want to divest them of it. “Power to the people” is the most common cry, because
although power is always the prerogative of an elite, “the people” are the preponderance of the rest of us.
“The people” never really gain the power; revolutions just create a new elite that the people hope will be more
sympathetic to their needs and wants. But the support of the mass of the rest of us is necessary to make it
possible. Whatever they (the new elite) say about the motivation of the revolution, it comes down to taking
power away from the old elite and taking it for themselves. Oh, they have their mantras and they always
sound grandiloquent, but the result is seldom quite as noble as it sounds – at least not in the short run, and
maybe never.
That’s human nature; those without power want it and are usually quite willing to make deals with
whomever they think will help them secure it. In the long run, however, it is that same human nature that
keeps it from happening quite as promised. Whoever provides the leadership, which in itself requires an
element of power, has to make decisions and those decisions will always satisfy some and anger others.
That’s just the way we are. Fortunately representative politics in most modern Western societies has
precluded there being enough leadership in the middle to mount a revolution, probably because the
alternate elite aren’t hungry enough to risk inflaming the vast middle to destroy the existing order. Wait you
will say, that’s not it, it is that the vast middle is not hungry enough to support revolution because they are
satisfied with the existing representative order that supports radical change.
Perhaps, but the nature of revolution is changing, and I contend we are engaged in our first attempt at
post modern revolution. It has the same objective as other revolutions – destruction of the existing order, and
it is using a post modern weapon: technologically delivered propaganda, and one very old weapon:
ignorance; and it is being supported by the middle class mass that is the key to all revolutions. It did not just
begin; it started some time in the 1920s, but has picked up steam with the incredible development of
electronic communications. But there the similarities end; this one is more like a glacier than an
earthquake. In fact, having just read Dr. Sherwin Nuland’s (How We Die, Vintage Books, 1995), an account of
how cancer works, I was struck by more similarities.
Cancer, Nuland explains, is cells that instead of maturing normally to perform a useful function go crazy,
losing any capability to perform assigned functions, merely reproducing – wildly and weirdly, ultimately
destroying the host upon which it feeds. Does that remind of the tribes of the steppes that helped destroy
Rome? A Rome that was already beginning to destroy itself through indolence, self-absorption, and
indifference? Or Paris in 1779? The analogy is imperfect; Rome had no catalyst and, like a body attacked by
cancer, was merely overwhelmed; Paris did have a middle class catalyst and the cancer was led by those
who hoped to usurp power. So perhaps I can choose a middle ground: history never repeats itself exactly
and nature provides only general laws that suggest standardization that we have not yet grasped.
Can we agree that all required a mass that is either discontent, rebellious and (“as individuals…victimize a
sedate, conforming society” (Nuland’s description of cancer cells, pg. 209) for their own end? Our post
modern attempt at revolution is a combination of a number of interests inherent in individualism: selfishness
or self-indulgence, lack of understanding beyond the immediate horizon, mass emotionalism that lends itself
to charismatic propaganda, and ignorance. But it still requires a catalyst, and the catalyst is an intellectual
elite that embraces mutual brotherhood, peace and cooperation – and opposition to war in any shape or
fashion. They seem to have little more than a vague impression of any replacement philosophy other than
that – clearly not consistent with human nature as we know it, and certainly in denial of recent history. But it is
potentially nonetheless it self destructing or popular with the masses.
One would think that a government (driven by any power elite) controlled economy would be pariah by
now, seeing as how many failures it has generated, but regardless it keeps rising like a phoenix from the
dessert floor to fly again in the face of human nature. Why? Because it is a Potemkin Village, a façade that
does not and cannot exist – but looks so provocatively attractive. It is a wonderful panacea. It just does not
work.
And here lies the incredible power base of this revolution: electronically communicated propaganda in a
form never before experienced nor even visualized, and it is not wielded by a discernable power elite clique.
Instead the wielders are an amorphous mass of feel good theorists (or power hungry hypocrites) who we
know as “intellectual” with little understanding of, or belief in – or perhaps concern for? – what has powered
American culture, and no patience or interest in gaining it. They emotionally believe in how it should be and
jump over reality to get there. We blame Chamberlain for appeasement, but the responsibility was far
broader: the intellectual establishment that wished, ignored reality, and therefore hoped it would be. A similar
process has begun concerning the expansion of Middle Age thinking Islamism the thinking of which is
reflected in the stated opinion of Muammar Al-Ghadafi who has said Islam will conquer Europe without a shot
being fired.
This in itself, however, does not account for the apparent broad and docile acceptance by so many of the
bait being offered that results from the same media, but imbedded in an entertainment of message feel
good. Or is it a more historical reaction: the more familiar throw the bums out? Either way the result is the
same. The war of revolution is being waged by a growing mass of discontented individuals intent on
victimizing a sedate, conforming society; aided and abetted by a blissfully unaware, and generally quite
comfortable, intellectual elite who emotionally side with them. And as always, the swing will be the self-
absorbed, don’t rock my boat middle class silent majority. Are we in the process of dismantling the
geopolitical structure that has carried us to today?
The revolutionary army is patient, growing and fanatically led. Can they win? It is certainly not inevitable,
but they can if complacency reigns. I will not be around to witness the result, so I leave it in your hands. Best
of Luck.