The World is Simple

Despite the myth attesting otherwise, war is not generally an enabler of 
liberty, and certainly not any socially just distribution of liberty.
The rich run it.

The poor are too tired, ignorant and powerless to overthrow it. 

When a poor person demonstrates otherwise, that he is sufficiently vigorous and knowledgeable to threaten the rich, and to lead a rebellion, the rich either kill him or assimilate him ("turning rebellion into money").

In the few instances where rebellions are successful, by the time the rich have been overthrown, they have usually left the auditorium anyway, opening the door for the new-wave masters, who inevitably subvert revolutionary aims to enable allegedly pragmatic realities of rule. Pragmatism enables the revolutionary masters to occupy the rich niche, and shortly the poor will realize they have been had once again.

An example of this occurred only recently in the United States, where the people in large numbers celebrated a mythological notion of "change" being symbolized and sincerely promised via the election of the nation's first black president. In fact, so expectant were the people of the world that something profound was about to happen to reverse the years of America's continuing descent into fascism, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for looking like change. 

Of course, as we now know, Obama had no intention of being even a moderately evolutionary figure, much less a revolutionary one. He adhered to Republican policies of war and domestic policy—his one alleged socialist accomplishment, his health care plan, was a Republican plan. In fact, Barack Obama IS a Republican, and only seems liberal (a codeword for "weak and ineffectual") because the Republican Party has turned over its management to reactionary circus freaks.

Are there exceptions to these "rules"?

Let us examine a few examples of successful rebellions:

The American Revolution—Promised "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Delivered a system owned by capitalist thugs and landed aristocracy, including a great many slave-owner thugs, and managed by teams of lawyers and other university-trained Eichmanns. For a while, the smarter, braver poor at least did have the opportunity to flee westward across the vast American continent—committing genocide as they went—to obtain their liberty and opportunity (by "developing" the otherwise worthless wastelands of nature). This revolution is certainly the most important in the history of the world, in part because it gave rise to the biggest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in history (in the USA, not Iraq), but mainly because it demonstrated the extent to which liberal-sounding ad slogans (see Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, etc.) could totally flummox a gullible working class.

The French Revolution—Promised Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Delivered Napoleon's murderous French Empire, followed up by the endless authoritarian death-jerks and spasms of a nation realizing that its true glory could only be realized creating complicated philosophical doodles (which French call the world's finest cuisine), or slaughtering British and Germans. The latter is thought by much of the civilized world to be the finest achievement of the French as a race. Whereas the British are lickspittle USA allies, infamously known now as the American Poodle, the French are equally obedient to their New World masters, but their silly Gallic pride makes them publicly posture as if they are still an independent proposition. They are presently pretending to manage, along with their kissing-killer-cousins the Germans, a confusing mess of a war being fought by the giant American-European military alliance—NATO—against one, single, human being in Libya. Haven't killed him yet.

Revolution(s) of 1848—OK. These were mostly not successful, but they were part of a process of fruitless 19th-century leftwing uprisings, that did finally produce the overthrow of one brand of hatefully repressive government, replacing it something even worse. Promised a Europe of kingless democracies—yeah, right. Delivered the usual—piles of dead revolutionaries, and a firmer grip by the reactionary forces on the helms of European governments. This situation would not be changed until that watershed obscenity—World War I—finally convinced the poor people of Europe, en masse, that their rich masters really, truly, only viewed them as meat for grinding into hamburger in their stupid, incestuous, power orgies. It took a long time for the intellectuals of Europe to finally get the point: the working classes LIKE being told what to do by their masters. This is why when the Communists did finally take over, they crafted a system that would make no demands on the non-existent inherent desire for liberty living in the hearts of Russians (especially) and East Europeans.

The American Civil War—Promised respite to Southern white people (the vast majority of whom were poor and not so bright) from listening to the dreary remonstrations of Yankee abolitionists and other do-gooders. Delivered over 600,000 dead Americans; a South that was wrecked economically for a century and spiritually perhaps for all time; and the establishment of the US federal government as the most fearsome personality in the history of the world. The latter achievement was only fully realized when "our Nazi scientists" put nuclear warheads on highly accurate missiles, capable of laying waste to the entire surface of the Earth (many times over). Oh yeah, almost forgot, the American Civil War did also enable a lot of black people to keep picking cotton, but as not-exactly-free citizens of a nation that, at best, wished they would all go back to Africa. This revolution, unlike most in this list, was not "progressive" in its aims; but it has the distinction of being one of the most successful in history; especially given that the Confederacy was able to "play possum" after its supposed defeat in 1865, and has now completely subverted the USA. Unfortunately, since most of the really smart people in the South were killed in the Civil War, the descendants of ignorant crackers have mainly inherited the leadership positions of this American revanchist hydra.

The Taiping Rebellion—A brief note. While Westerners love to pretend to themselves that they matter in world history, all honest (i.e. outer-space alien) researchers know that the center of the world, culturally, and in terms of the sum of human experience, is in Asia, and especially in China. The Chinese  have rebellions that are fought on the scale of world wars. Case in point: this incredibly weird and horrible war. Promised a Christian-flavored Chinese People's Republic, a century before the successful communist revolution. Delivered 15 years of theocratic dictatorship, devoted to the annihilation of its imperial Chinese enemies, who had similar designs for the Taiping rebels. Thus, by the time the killing was over, allegedly over 20 million people had died in the Taiping Rebellion. What is particularly telling (for a Western review of the facts), is how the Europeans, and Americans helped modernize, supply and lead the Chinese imperial army to defeat the rebels. However, this aid was only granted to the much-despised Chinese imperials because the prospect of having the rebels overthrow the imperial government seemed too potentially destabilizing to the West. Added to the utterly barbaric Opium Wars, perpetrated by the British Empire to force massive drug addiction on the Chinese people, the 19th-century American and European involvement in China demonstrates that at the very heart of capitalism's motives and effects, is a predatory will to destroy whole nations in the pursuit of creating and exploiting markets.

The Russian (Communist) Revolution—Promised the first major step in the global march of communism to replace all the governments of the world. Delivered, in addition to the usual supply of a lot of dead people of course, a pretty good effort to achieve that end. The only problem was that the Russian-led version of communism was a lot like the Russian imperial system. In the same way, the Chinese-led version of communism was a lot like the Chinese imperial system. People have a hard time being very imaginative or bold in their revolutions, or as we said above, they tend to surrender their nobler aspirations (if they possess any) to achieve stability and pragmatic solutions. The Russians, who were supposed to be internationalists, were of course incapable of resisting dominating their movement as the biggest country in the Soviet Union. Eventually, they succumbed to the fact that, especially compared to glitzy, pleasure-powered, western capitalism, the workers' paradise of communism was bloody BORING! So bored were the Russians and their partners in crime (against being entertained), that they went broke trying to squeeze profits (or whatever they were trying to get) out of masses of poor, hungry, proles. The Chinese are notable in that they made significant alterations in their communist system—basically abandoning its economics entirely for a capitalist system, but keeping the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party (yep, freedom has nothing necessarily to do with success at peddling crap to the market).

If you would like to thoroughly depress yourself, you can continue to read about the thousands of revolutions and rebellions that have occurred in history—and are occurring now of course. I suppose the uplifting thing about it, is that there is a constant expression of the human spirit to be—well—different. 

The human spirit cannot ever truly be free so long as it has to endure the spirits and demands of other spirits. The freest a person can be is to exist as the only human being in a particular environment, say on the Moon or Mars or something. That isn't the kind of freedom most human beings aspire to. In fact, most people would make a distinction between freedom in association with others in a collaborative and nurturing society, and abandoning other humans altogether to obtain the pleasure and peace of perfect solitude. There is a way in which the latter freedom is viewed as a kind of resignation unto death.

Or, as Janis Joplin via Kris Kristofferson put it: "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

Also, why, if freedom is so wonderful, are people so inept when it comes to obtaining and maintaining it? For thousands of years, people have understood what it means to be free, politically and otherwise. This is not a new concept. It is not a difficult concept. Even people of average intelligence get it, or some workable notion of it anyway. The complexities and pleasurable distractions of our modern world make staying focused on pushing for change much more difficult than it used to be. Whereas in the ancient world, the promise of freedom, no matter the risks in pursuing it, were often infinitely better than staying a literal slave, for example; people are hesitant to risk what they have these days, especially given that, as our survey suggests here, there may be no long or lasting victory over the forces of political repression.

Of course, making that case successfully to the peoples of the world, is what the masters of it chiefly aim to do—and with as little bloodshed as possible for the most part.

That is what advertising is for, after all.

The Congress shall make...no soup for you.

Comments