Thursday, December 21, 2017

wars and revolution

Revolutions do not very often break out spontaneously. There has to be a severe crisis first. A very severe crisis. The usual prelude to a revolution is a disastrous war.

I’m speaking here of revolutions in a very broad sense. Not just armed insurrections, but any very rapid and very dramatic and permanent shift in the status quo.

The 1905 Russian Revolution occurred after a series of military disasters during the Russo-Japanese War. The 1917 Russian Revolution followed Russian catastrophe in the First World War. The Chinese Communists gained power after the country had been ravaged and exhausted by years of war against Japan.

It seems quite likely that a successful revolution is simply not possible without a pre-existing crisis, and that nothing short of an unsuccessful war will do.

These were all spectacular revolutions - attempts to overthrow the existing order by force. There have been quieter revolutions as well (although these are often even more catastrophic than the violent ones).

Consider the United States in the 1960s. The anti-civilisational forces that have become so familiar were already present. Hollywood had been spreading its cultural poison for decades. The cultural elite was doing its best to demoralise the nation. The mass immigration of the late 19th century had caused social devastation from which the country had never really recovered. Corruption had always been endemic. And yet somehow the United States was surviving.

Then came the disaster of the Vietnam War, ending in humiliating defeat. And that was the time when the anti-civilisational forces really kicked into high gear. They became much more confident and aggressive, and they gained support from the liberal media establishment. This was the period, from say 1965 to 1975, when second wave feminism raised its depraved head. This was the period when homosexual activists began openly agitating. This was the time when racial hatred was being energetically stoked.

What was really odd was that this was also the period in which the political Left in the US ceased to exist. The Cultural Left took its place.

The usual explanation was that the Left adopted the strategy of cultural marxism - undermining the culture to prepare the way for the Glorious Workers’ Revolution. In fact the Cultural Left were not marxist in any meaningful sense. They had no plans to reconstruct society in order to make it more just. Their aim was simple destruction. Destruction for the sake of destruction. They were fuelled by hate, not idealism.

Of course if you’re inclined towards conspiracy theories you might suspect that the transformation of the American Left from an organised coherent political force into a collection of deranged dingbats who just wanted to destroy society might just possibly have been engineered by an arm of the US Government, like the CIA for instance. That’s just a wild conspiracy theory of course.

The Cultural Left (nowadays funded by bankers and billionaires) has turned out to be infinitely more dangerous than the Political Left ever was.

The question is, could this have happened without the Vietnam War? I think not.

All this has considerable relevance to anyone who hopes for another political revolution, one which will restore sanity and sweep away the nonsense of identity politics, political correctness, feminism and other associated evils. Such a revolution is unlikely to happen, and very unlikely to succeed, unless another military disaster like Vietnam comes along. Of course given the lunacy of US foreign policy another Vietnam War is always a possibility. That is perhaps our only hope.

No comments:

Post a Comment