We open with some song lyrics from the Beatles’ song, Revolution:
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
. . . . .
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
It is a rather insightful, witty song.
Let us recall the presidential election in the US in 2016. When we view a map of the election results, we can see that the vast majority of rural counties, and many suburban counties across the nation voted for Trump (a majority of the voters in these areas voted for Trump). Clinton carried or won the vast majority of urban areas (i.e. the cities) and many suburban counties adjacent to major cities. You can view the map at this link:
We think it is safe to say that this dichotomy in the voting citizenry reflects a difference in thinking between those persons residing in the cities and those persons on the farm or in small towns. The difference in voting patterns is not solely to be explained by demographic (racial, ethnic) differences. (For example, many Hispanics (long term citizens) in the small towns near the US-Mexico border now want greater border security. This is in stark contrast from the majority of Hispanics in the cities who vote for and support liberal candidates and policies, including open borders. Urban whites are mostly liberal Democrats, whereas rural white folks are mainly more conservative and normally vote Republican. It is true that most blacks now live in cities, and they vote nearly unanimously for Democrats.)
The more wealthy elites in the cities tend to look down on those in rural America. Yet, it is these backward farmers, ranchers, small business owners, and working class folks who possess a greater understanding of, and respect for, property rights. It is also these same folks who value the right to bear arms. Self-reliance is esteemed more, it seems, in rural America than in the cities, where the politicos are always buying votes with their promises of greater public assistance (handouts). Never mind that we cannot keep robbing our future by our ill-advised financial largesse in the present.
Some years ago, I read about the French Revolution. From what I read, it appeared that the majority of the French outside of the cities were not in favor of revolution. The folks on the farms may have wanted land reform and tax reform, but they did not want the radical changes to society that the revolutionaries in the cities, especially in Paris, were pushing for (often employing violence to further their agenda). So, we see a similarity here with the French experience more than 2 centuries ago and the current sociological and political divide in the US. As well, during the Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution (1917 – 1922), the most radical individuals with the most violent motives and actions were to be found in the cities.
Also, staying for a moment with the French Revolution (1789 – 1795), those who sat on the right side of the National Assembly in Paris, were those folks who wanted to reform the existing social structure in France. Those who sat on the left side of the assembly were advocates of radical changes, of revolution whereby the existing social structure was to be abolished, and a new society and social framework would have to be built up in its place.
(We must point out here that what appears in the history books is not always the whole truth. There were many naive, idealistic Americans who went off to Spain in the late 1930s to fight with the Republicans (who were actually communists and anarchists). When a person reads accounts of the time written by such idealistic, but unrealistic, writers, he or she does not get a correct picture of what occurred in Spain during its civil war (1936-39). One of the very few books that gives a more accurate view of the events is The Last Crusade, which was reviewed on this blog some years back. My point here is that many horrific and heinous atrocities were committed by the communists and anarchists in Spain against the Spanish people. Revolutions (or civil wars) are often very violent and bloody affairs with terrible atrocities and injustices committed. So, let us not be so quick to romanticize revolutions and lionize revolutionaries. But, I digress.)
Readers, it is important to understand that the liberal project, or the revolution never reaches its destination, never achieves its objective(s). The revolutionary promise is like an ever receding mirage in the desert. Yet, the revolutionary mindset is permanent, and requires constant change in society. Those possessed by it are suffering a form of schizophrenia. We think that the extremes, grotesque extremes of the liberal mindset are in fact a form of mental illness, and such mental illness is contagious (spread in part by indoctrination in the universities, and by the mainstream media, and social media). Thus, we see what appears to be a collective psychosis in the Western world today. Western civilization is slowly being replaced by a “progressive” state of permanent social revolution made possible by group think.
Perhaps, it will be those more grounded, more pragmatic individuals out in the farmlands who will one day be able to turn the tide and begin to roll back the revolution (the Cultural Marxism, if you prefer). We make no claims here of being able to foretell the future, but it is not so easy to be optimistic in the near term.
other related thoughts
The revolution in the US has led to the body politic accepting that 9 unelected jurists are the final arbiters on all matters within society, or at least all matters that can be litigated (which in the US, the most litigious society on Earth, means the same thing). This is the revolution at work from the top down. Yet, it can be argued that the judiciary had been intended by the framers to be the least powerful branch of government.
Sadly, for our republic, the judiciary today in the US, both at the federal level and at the state level, has become a means of social engineering for our society (through the judiciary’s usurpation of powers not granted to it). The checks and balances in the US Constitution are only as good (read: effective) in practice as the integrity of the men and women in the other branches of government. We observe that some of these jurists bring a radical agenda with them to the courts. (The poster child here is, not surprisingly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.) Others remain so long on the bench that their brains become ossified.
We say “Stop judicial tyranny.”
Perhaps, much of this “climate change”, that some folks are hysterical about, actually is manmade through the ongoing program of spraying metals (barium, aluminum, etc.) and other chemical compounds in the atmosphere every day. We know this by the term, chemtrails. And, yes, this is happening. Why do we not demand our governments in the Western world to stop these destructive activities?!
For US citizens: beware the coming of Kamala.
copyright 2019 – larrysmusings.com