Peak Boomer Slop > Revolution
I think it is probably undeniable by now that America is going through some sort of "attempt" at a Right-wing revolution. Unlike the French (1789~1793), Russian (1917~1920), and German (1932~1934) Revolutions, and even the earlier Revolution against the British (1775~1781), it appears to be much more nebulous and a bit vague.
For example, it's hard to say when it actually began, although J6 seems like a possible starting point.
Up until that date, Trump tried to remain "within the system," but after that date he became an anti-system politician and a "revolutionary figure," who attracted other revolutionary figures and forces, or at at least figures and forces that were radically different from conventional politics—podcasters instead of politicians, conspiracy theorists instead of analysts, and, oh yeh, a Peter Thiel-backed couch fucker.
Up until that date, Trump tried to remain "within the system," but after that date he became an anti-system politician and a "revolutionary figure," who attracted other revolutionary figures and forces, or at at least figures and forces that were radically different from conventional politics—podcasters instead of politicians, conspiracy theorists instead of analysts, and, oh yeh, a Peter Thiel-backed couch fucker.
The Trotsky of the MAGA revolution?
The election of 2024, when, according to Trump, the "auto-pen" and its hyped-up replacement were rejected by the voters, represents a stage of this revolution. Earlier revolutions also had moments like this, votes, elections, resolutions by assemblies, etc., that had all the appearance of relative normalcy and legality, but then they also had lots of violence. We have not yet seen that in the case of this revolution.
However, it is also possible for revolutions to be largely peaceful. The German Revolution of the 1930s was largely peaceful compared to the bloodshed and outright civil wars that typified the First American, French, and Russian Revolutions. Also, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England passed off without much unpleasantness, although there was later violence and conflict on the fringes of the British Isles.
Will the American Revolution we are seeing now—such as it is—result in more substantial violence and conflict, or will a genuine new order arise without this? Also, at what point will this revolution shake off its vague and nebulous character and be seen for what it is?
What turns a political movement into a revolution is some kind of opposition that is then overcome with violence. Without this, the attempted Trump revolution might actually just wither and die as "normal politics" reasserts itself.
The present-day Trump Revolution can be characterised, with extremely broad brush strokes, as a revolt of the rural conservative, and largely White areas against their domination by the Metropolitan cities.
These rural or small town areas have been under the cultural cosh of the big cities for decades now. Some case could be made that they have been economically exploited and dominated as well, but that is harder to do and requires a more sophisticated audience. But the cultural domination is much easier to perceive and mobilise against, which is why the so-called "culture wars" are at the heart of this movement/ revolution.
But will this movement provoke opposition that will then lead to violence? This is, after all, what would turn it into an unmistakable revolution.
The shooting of Charlie Kirk by an incel from a Right-wing family who appears to have fallen for a "trap" or "shemale," has been seized on by many in the nascent Trump revolution as the first stirrings of opposition by the "Radical Left" that will enable or justify the necessarily violent aspect of revolution.
Before this, however, MAGA had been looking for hate in all the wrong places. It had been trying to provoke a Left-wing response that it could mobilise against by pushing ICE to behave in ever more "egregious" ways and then by sending in elements of the National Guard from banjo-playing states to "fight crime" in gay-disco-infested Metropolitan areas.
Make no mistake, these actions were all part of a plan to foment and accelerate revolution by creating emergencies and stand offs with State and City authorities that could then pass the ball back to the Executive of the Presidency.
But, so far, the Democrats have been wise to Trump's game. They have not fallen for the bait, effectively hamstringing his attempts to weaponize the office of the Presidency. The Dem strategy appears to be to hold out until they can geld him in the Midterms.
The Charlie Kirk murder and the faint possibility that transgender gunmen will rise up around America and create a new emergency that will empower the Trump Revolution has got MAGA excited right now. But, essentially, this looks a bit try-hard and difficult to maintain.
Hard to weaponize this dude for a right-wing revolution TBH
Here is Trump's "boots on the ground" MAGA stormtrooper Stephen Miller laying out the revolutionary vision on Sean Hannity:
"The last message that Charlie Kirk gave me before he joined his creator in heaven was he said that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence. And we are going to do that, under President Trump’s leadership. I don’t care how. It could be a RICO charge, a conspiracy charge, conspiracy against the United States, insurrection. But we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the organizations and the entities that are fomenting riots, that are doxxing, that are trying to inspire terrorism, that are committing acts of wanton violence."
This formula of revolution that we now see MAGA trying ignite was cooked up back in 2020, at the height of the BLM riots, but MAGA has made several severe analytical errors that now ensure its present attempt at Revolution will struggle to catch on.
MAGA saw the BLM riots of 2020 as essentially "Leftist" in character rather than racial, and drew the conclusion that, once Trump returned to office, he would be able to provoke "the Left" (not Blacks) into similar outbursts, thus creating an endless cycle of reactionary and revolutionary energy that could then be used to strengthen and centralize his power.
The mistake here was that Trump moronically ignored the racial character and "consumeristic" aspects of BLM, and the fact that it was able to cause so much chaos and normie fear by channelling the racial animus and opportunism of the Black underclass. In fact, Trump continued to go out of his way to reach out and befriend the Black community, and actually scored quite well with them in the 2024 election (16% of the vote, up from 8% in 2020).
If he really wanted to create a revolutionary situation by igniting unhinged "Leftist" opposition, then, something like the BLM riots of 2020 or a similar urban uprising in the ghettoes would have suited his purposes much better than irritating—through Charlie Kirk—the boyfriend of some transsexual, or RICOing, say, the Democratic Socialists of America or some NGO dedicated to helping border jumpers (what other groups could Miller possibly be referring to?).
Miller talks about the need to stop "terrorism" and "acts of wanton violence," but they are not happening on any significant scale. Also, MAGA actually needs them to happen to create the febrile and volatile situation that it needs for its revolution in exactly the same way that George W. Bush needed planes crashing into the World Trade Centre in 2001 to get the Neocon Wars started. Afterall, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq could never have happened if the terrorists had stayed at home or just killed one or two college speakers.
The only way for MAGA to produce the right kind of revolutionary energy to seize greater powers is for a large part of the country to rise up and create chaos. An angry and alienated Black community could provide that, but, instead of seeing the potential of rioting Blacks as a foil for their authoritarian power grab, MAGA continues to treat Blacks with great deference.
If America's cities were on fire now, as they were back in Trump's lame duck final year in 2020, there would be much greater opportunities to outwit the Dems, stir up normie fears, provoke more genuine conflict, and pull off a revolutionary power grab. But in 2024 Blacks are instead remarkably docile.
Instead, the Trump Revolution is left relying on the stroppiness of a tiny number of aggrieved transsexuals to provide the casus belli of its faltering revolution. Even with the American political system in an advanced state of political AIDs—as it unquestionably is—this is unlikely to suffice.
___________________________________
Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All Comments MUST include a name (either real or sock). Also don't give us an easy excuse to ignore your brilliant comment by using "shitposty" language.