Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irrevocably in their favor…. The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of ‘one clenched fist.’ At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see.

Anatoliy Golitsyn, KGB defector

The communist insurgency in America is not merely a local event. It is intimately bound up with a long-range revolutionary policy, based on an ever-evolving Leninist theory. This is something our experts and pundits have long missed. Communist China’s founder, Mao Zedong, was a Marxist-Leninist. On September 15, 1954, speaking before the First National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, Mao stated, “The theoretical basis guiding our thinking is Marxism-Leninism.”

In 1948, on the eve of victory in China’s civil war, Mao said: “without a party built on Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory … it is impossible to lead … the broad masses … in defeating imperialism and its running dogs.” This stance did not change during the intervening 72 years, notwithstanding the deceptive policies of Deng Xiaoping. Deng’s “state capitalism” was a Marxist-Leninist “maneuver” modeled on Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s.

Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping, the current president of China, affirmed his adherence to the “theory” of Marxism-Leninism in his 5 January 2013 speech before the National People’s Congress, when he said: “It is Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought that guided the Chinese people out of the darkness of that long night and established a new China….” Xi warned against abandoning Marxism-Leninism. He pointed to the mistaken reforms of Gorbachev, which rendered the Soviet Communist Party dysfunctional. China must not flirt with such reforms, he warned, quoting an ancient Chinese saying to the effect that erasing the past effectively erases a people. Any repudiation of Marxism-Leninism, he added, is “historical nihilism.”

Xi Jinping is a militant communist. The West is confused, said Xi, if they mistake the CCP leadership for capitalists. He quoted Deng Xiaoping: “Mao Zedong thought cannot be discarded. Throwing this banner out negates the glorious history of our party.” Xi then said, “This is the vision of a great Marxist politician.”

Western experts are often dismissive of such statements. They do not grasp the tactical flexibility and pragmatism of Marxism-Leninism. They mistake the rigid determination of the communist for rigid dogmatism. It was none other than Stalin himself who explained, in his Foundations of Leninism, that every idea must be tested. If an idea proves faulty, a proper Marxist discards it. Marxism is not about ideological slogans. It is about the seizing of power. In this context, Stalin wrote:

This is why Lenin said that ‘revolutionary theory is not a dogma,’ that it assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.

Stalin then proceeded to mock one of the slogans of the Second International, which sought to “make war against war.” This noble ideal of the socialists was ridiculously self-negating. According to Stalin the history of dogmatic socialist pronouncements was “utterly false and utterly rotten.” Dogmatic socialism, he declared, was full of “pompous slogans and resolutions to cloak their anti-revolutionary deeds.”

Violent deeds, in the context of America’s present communist “insurgency,” are facilitated by carefully constructed narratives (utilizing slogans). The revolution, noted Stalin, is not about dogmatic pronouncements. Today’s slogans are tactical contrivances dictated by Lenin’s “theory” of revolution. Remember: it’s a theory, not a dogma. Stalin implies that all slogans are, in fact, deceptive — based on whatever works to win a mass following. What matters is not the slogans per se. What matters is their effectiveness at provoking deeds. It was Lenin who said that bourgeois democracy was addicted to slogans rather than deeds. This helps to explain the weakness of Western democracies confronted by the “specter” of communism. The bourgeois politicians talk big, but they fail to deliver. The typical Western politician covers up his “shortcomings by a deceptive show of well-being,” noted Stalin. It is the communists’ job to annihilate this “deceptive show.” Every communist narrative underscores the alleged “deceptive” nature of capitalism. The communist undoubtedly does this by deceptions of his own (though Stalin passes over this subtlety without comment).

Today’s communist narrative argues that white America is racist. The narrative holds that Trump is an illegitimate president because he is racist, sexist and homophobic. No real evidence of these charges is ever produced. The narrative persuades by repetition, by volume, by intimidation and violence. The violence in America’s streets furthers the idea that America is a failed state. Capitalism has failed, say the communists, to solve its most basic social and environmental problems. Every narrative advanced by the Marxists is calculated to justify revolutionary violence. Each narrative is designed to enrage a subset of the population and thereby intensify what Lenin called “the revolutionary crisis”; to promote “the growth of elements of an explosion on the … internal front in the ‘metropolises,’” said Stalin.

You turn the people of the chief capitalist country against themselves. Meanwhile, you field a heavily armed coalition of anti-capitalist states abroad (e.g., China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Russia, etc.). Lenin’s theory of revolution combines the two elements — “the front of the revolutionary proletariat and the front of colonial emancipation” — into a unified attack. In the present instance, Antifa and Black Lives Matter are stand-ins for the “revolutionary proletariat.” The alliance of China and Russia — with Russia’s military buildup in the Arctic and China’s buildup in the Pacific — is readying a war from abroad.

According to Lenin: “Revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis” affecting all classes. There should be, tied into this, “a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics.” This is what makes the rapid overthrow of the government possible. [See Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. XXV, p. 222.]

What do we see on every front? Crisis. Meanwhile, an adroit combination of domestic revolution and overseas war promises to deliver a knockout blow to the United States. The country’s nuclear deterrent is already rotted by neglect, and may be abandoned or neutralized through chaos and demoralization. What follows, then, is the final victory of communism throughout the world.

If this sounds like a remote possibility, consider the following: The leaders of the Democratic Party are plotting to divide the nation by creating maximum confusion over the election results. According to Ben Smith, writing in the New York Times, a group of former government officials gamed a number of scenarios. Everything was done in each case to dispute the election and divide the country into warring camps. Of particular interest was a scenario in which California, Oregon and Washington … “threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office.”

Why focus on the secession of California, Oregon and Washington? Think of what Lenin taught. The domestic revolution must be combined with war from abroad. With so many blue states to choose from, the states they are proposing for secession sit on the Pacific Ocean, facing China — exposed to China’s military sealift and airlift capacity. Could this be a coincidence? No, it is not a coincidence. It is pure strategy.

With so many blue states to choose, the logic behind this geographical choice — in a political war game — is as obvious as the half million Chinese troops positioned as if to invade Taiwan. Let us not forget what General Chi Haotian said about this many years ago:

….our military battle preparation appears to aim at Taiwan but in fact is aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites.

It would be plainly stupid to ignore the military logic behind the idea of having California, Oregon and Washington secede from the Union. Add to this Xi Jinping’s public message to the Chinese military in July, telling them to prepare for war. Against who? He did not say. Of course, Marxism-Leninism is pretty explicit in this regard — as if the Marxists in our streets are not telltale enough.

Meanwhile, Chinese social media reveals a population readying for war. Chinese army commanders are telling their soldiers that war is coming. The signs are everywhere. Consider the following RT Segment:

Last but not least, there is this slick advertisement for the Chinese Army which uses the phrase, “Peace behind me, war in front of me.” See for yourself.

Notes and Links

Translation of Xi Jinping speech of 5 January 2013 —

Analysis: NY Times hints at Leftist Coup if Trump wins in November

Below is a twitter link. The Chinese are storing food in anticipation of war with The United States. Belief in a coming war is widespread.

27 May 2020 – Xi Jinping tells Chinese military to prepare for war. Is it against India, US or Taiwan? – From India Today

27 May 2020 – U.S. Warns of Russian Arctic Military Buildup: “Who puts missiles on icebreakers?”— High North News

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (video below) broadcasts press interview from bunker in April. He is extremely nervous and uncharacteristically uncomfortable when question of the United States comes up. This man is usually very cool. What is making him so nervous? What is going on behind the scenes?

A source, highly placed, in communist government(s), reported in May that Russia and China are planning “aggressive moves” against the U.S. leading to war. Exact timetable unknown.

Russian source, tied to Russian government, alleges plan of coordinated action: source says Iran via Hezbollah has agreed to initiate a war against Israel as a strategic diversion by mass Hezbollah rocket attack. The objective is to draw U.S. carrier groups off of China and into Arabian Sea area so that North Korea and China can begin “operations.” There are no specifics as to what these operations would involve.

China is rapidly deploying a cross-Pacific amphibious capability. Please look at the Type 071 transport — then read

Vostok 18 exercise involved Russian and Chinese troops. Basically, a sensible interpretation is that Russians were practicing an invasion of Alaska, however masked (not very hard to read, actually).

Quote from Chi Haotian’s secret speech comes from the second-to-last paragraph in the speech:

20 thoughts on “Peace Behind Me, War in Front of Me

  1. This is a fascinating exercise in connecting the dots that others miss (for their own reasons).

  2. The “dots” that other miss, Jeff connects. This is the melding of history and news which lets us peer more clearly into the possibility space of future events.

  3. Does anyone know Chinese well enough to ascertain if “Peace Behind Me, War in Front of Me” is temporal or geographical, i.e., is Peace being walked away from to go to war or is it a more defensive statement of protecting the peace back home from foreign invasion?

  4. Thank you Jefff. America is a hollowed out shell of its former self. Even going back to the 70s, we could never land a man on the moon now. We have no determination or fire, no grounding or moral compass–a land of selfish narcissists taking selfies on the edge of a cliff, wallowing in untold luxury, self-rights and political cowards, clamouring to be the big man on the totem pole. We are in a sense, begging to be overthrown. In fact i would say that perhaps in our current state of our culture, we are no longer capable of having and holding the blessings of freedom and liberty which came from sacrifice and obedience to God. And perhaps that is why it may be taken away from us. The only hope is that there might be enough hidden patriots quartered in the hidden parts of the nation that it would make it a tough go. Apart from God’s mercy…



    Yes, This Is a Revolution
    by Abe Greenwald

    The battle for the survival of the United States of America is upon us. It has not come in the form of traditional civil war. There are no uniformed armies, competing flags, or alternate constitutions. The great showdown is not being fought within the physical limits of a battlefield. It is instead happening all around us and directly to us. It defines our culture, sustains our media, and gives new shape to our public and private institutions. In this fight, there is no distinction between what was once known as the culture war and politics rightly understood. The confrontation stretches through time and space, reframing our distant past even as it transforms the horizon, erupting from coast to coast, and constraining our lives in subtle and obvious ways. And it’s happening too fast for us to take its full measure.

    For partisans, it often feels as if everything stands or falls on the ideological battles of the day. But this is different. This is objectively real, and it’s remaking the nation before our eyes.

    We know it’s different this time because the stakes are continually articulated by the enemies of the current order. They are demanding, and in some cases getting, a new and exotic country. The police are indeed being defunded. The statues are coming down. The heretics are being outed. The dissenters are being silenced. The buildings are burning, and the demands are ever growing.

    In June, the editors of Commentary called this combination of mob violence, cultural torment, and public intimidation “the great unraveling.” Since then, things have gotten appreciably worse.

    The great unraveling at first consisted of riots and looting under the pretense of seeking justice for the recently killed George Floyd; the anarchist occupation of a section of Seattle; and a rash of accusations, confessions, and dismissals of individuals who showed insufficient fealty to the new anti-racist paradigm. At the time, extreme policy proposals, such as defunding municipal police departments, were subjects for popular discussion and debate. Everyday Americans swapped Black Lives Matter reading lists and strove, however misguidedly, to broaden their conception of racial inequity.

    As of this writing, Portland, Oregon, has endured more than two months straight of anarchist violence directed at federal buildings and employees. In other cities—New York, Los Angeles, Richmond, Omaha, and Austin, to name a few—mob violence continues to erupt regularly, always connected to cries for justice and sometimes resulting in death. Accelerating the general dissolution, police forces have been successfully hobbled in response to the killing of George Floyd, and the resulting spike in murder and violent crime shows no sign of abating. All the while, armchair lynch mobs have continued to claim the scalps of those who veer from or merely stumble on the path to social-justice enlightenment. It is the full-time job of any American with a public presence to bow down before the identity cult. Professional athletes have mutated overnight into a congeries of Kaepernicks. As for the public, 62 percent of all Americans, according to a poll by the CATO Institute, now say they’re afraid to voice their political views lest they be punished professionally.

    Leading media organizations, as they did from the start, lend their approval to all of it. After months of defending chaos in the streets as “mostly peaceful,” the media elite is openly covering for a movement whose defining features are intimidation and mass violence. And having completed their Internet-assigned reading in black–white relations, a majority of Americans (56 percent, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll) now find the United States guilty as charged of systemic racism.

    Which is now all but beside the point, as perceived racism has less and less to do with the passions convulsing the nation. Statues of abolitionists—indeed, of Frederick Douglass—are torn down with no less vigor than those of slave owners. And the social-justice paradigm has proved capable of accommodating a growing number of grievances. “Cancel the rent,” to take one example, has joined “defund the police” as a rallying cry for the mob. As law professor Amna A. Akbar explains in a July 11 New York Times essay: “The people making these demands want a new society. They want a break from prisons and the police, from carbon and rent.” Toward the end of her essay, titled “The Left Is Remaking the World,” Akbar writes: “And whatever you think of their demands, you have to be in awe of how they inaugurate a new political moment, as the left offers not just a searing critique, but practical ladders to radical visions.”

    Akbar’s wish list is ambitious, but at least it’s itemized. Other activists occupy the realm of the purely abstract, where the burden of citing specific complaints can be dispensed with altogether. “This is no longer a political issue,” said one Portland protestor through his megaphone. “This is no longer a [policing] issue. This is no longer a government issue. This is no longer pointed at one thing. This is a humanity issue.”

    If it wasn’t clear in late May and early June, it should be well understood by now that we are in the throes of a genuine revolution of the most extravagant sort. Like messianic revolutionaries of the past, the revolutionary mob of the 21st century is out to “remake the world.” Their compass is “no longer pointed at one thing.” It’s aimed in all directions at once. As Thomas Paine said approvingly of France in 1791, “it is the age of revolutions, in which everything may be looked for.” A mission so grandiose demands the most radical assault on the current order, and changing the world begins with changing one’s country. So it was in France in 1789, Russia in 1917, and China in 1949. And this is especially so if one’s country is seen as the seat of the present evil and is also the most powerful nation on the planet. This is, then, most fundamentally a revolution against the United States of America and all it stands for.

    And yet, we seem to be treating the great unraveling as something less than a revolution. Apart from the boasts of the revolutionaries themselves, we are apt to hear characterizations of the moment as either “an opportunity for change” or, among those who are wary of it, a “fever” that will blow over in time. But what we are living through now is more consequential than any period of recent unrest, and it’s not just another leftist wave destined to roll on until it loses strength. Indeed, a revolution’s ultimate power comes from its being underestimated, tolerated, or accepted by those outside its ranks. The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has adopted the language of the revolution, calling federal agents “stormtroopers.” For New York Representative Jerry Nadler, anarchist violence in Portland is but a “myth.” And the media’s abiding sympathy for the revolutionary cause has become mainstream journalism’s new North Star. The great unraveling has won the tacit approval of the press, influential policymakers, and a great many ordinary Americans. It is, therefore, already remaking the world.

    We tend not to recognize the revolution for what it is—first of all because it seems to lack a proper paramilitary element. Popular notions of insurgency involve images of AK-47s, organized bands of armed men, and the general flavor of war. But in truth, the current revolution has drifted much further into this territory than the media care to admit. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), the anarchist territory formerly established in Seattle, boasted a provisional armed “security” force. Weeks after CHAZ was dismantled, Seattle police responding to a riot uncovered a cache of weapons including explosives, bear spray, spike strips, and Tasers. Antifa members not only routinely dress in similar black garb but have come to rely on a crude but dangerous arsenal of improvised fire bombs, fireworks, rocks, bricks, and frozen water bottles. In New York, three rioters were arrested for throwing Molotov cocktails at police vehicles. Revolutionaries in cities around the country have shown up to “protests” with rifles and assorted arms.

    The revolution lacks martial discipline but not a body count. Three weeks in, some 20 people had been killed during riots alone. The number has climbed steadily since. Within the brief life of Seattle’s CHAZ, there were four shootings and two deaths. You can add to these the hundreds dead (overwhelmingly African-American) in major cities due to new policing restrictions. And this is to say nothing of the multitude of nonfatal injuries, including hundreds suffered by law enforcement. Among these is the likely permanent blinding of three federal agents in Portland whose eyes were targeted with high-power lasers.

    The cost of revolutionary violence in destroyed property and ruined livelihoods has been gargantuan, somewhere in the billions of dollars and climbing ever higher. And if you don’t think vandalism is a sufficiently revolutionary act, you’d do well to note that the term “vandalism” itself was coined during the French Revolution to describe the ruination of the country at the hands of the sans culottes.

    But more important than all this, a revolution should not be understood as synonymous with an armed insurgency. It is the transformation of popular ideas and beliefs and, most important, of a country’s national character that marks the advent of revolution. The French Revolution was inaugurated by the non-violent creation of the National Assembly, years before the Terror. The Russian Revolution was preceded by 12 days of protests kicked off by a Women’s Day March. By clinging to the colorful notions of revolution in our shared imagination, we dangerously underestimate the significance of what has transpired in the U.S. this summer.

    Some have been prone to discount the revolution as a mere by-product of seemingly larger national woes. In the run-up to the riots, the nation suffered from a dispiriting pandemic and a paralyzing lockdown. As a result, we went from 3.5 percent unemployment to 14.7 percent in two months. For more than a decade, political polarization has been growing and faith in American institutions has been plummeting, both trends sped up and magnified exponentially over the course of the Trump presidency.

    But these overarching conditions don’t vitiate the sincerity or salience of the revolutionary cause. To the contrary, they mimic precisely the classic circumstances under which revolutions have been birthed. It is in soil fertilized by decayed public trust that revolutions take root—whether or not those revolutions actually address the source of destabilization. One year before the onset of the French Revolution, France saw a totally failed harvest. One month before, a devastating hailstorm nearly wiped out national yields again. These disasters along with broad French distrust of the church and other institutions outside the monarchy all contributed to the fall of the king. Illness and disease have also been classic contributors to revolution. In 1917, St. Petersburg, ground zero for the Russian Revolution, was considered the unhealthiest major city in Europe. Its ongoing woes included a deadly cholera epidemic only a few years earlier.

    The power of seemingly extraneous events to set a country’s course for revolution is an astounding fact of history. And the role of happenstance in history’s great cataclysms is an almost mystical phenomenon. For all the social upheaval and inequality generated by czarist Russia’s attempt at industrialization, the revolution would never have happened without the country’s devastating involvement in World War I. It was the scale of occupation, displacement, and death that finally broke the people’s faith in the empire. And that war was triggered, literally, by a high-school teenager named Gavrilo Princip, who shot and killed Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914.

    We have our own Gavrilo Princip in the person of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who might prove over time to have been the most consequential figure of the 21st century thus far. Chauvin became one of history’s epochal nobodies when he was captured by video leaning on the neck of, and likely killing, George Floyd during an arrest for suspicion of passing a counterfeit $20 bill. The monstrous conduct of this one man lit a match in a country where the crooked timber of humanity had broken down into kindling. For three months prior, Americans had watched as their jobs, loved ones, plans, security, and very sense of self were swallowed up by the pandemic and subsequent lockdown. They no longer knew much about the world they lived in, but they knew that what took place in Minneapolis was evil. Chauvin’s action became a stand-in for all that was wrong with the United States. His brutality was the nation’s, as meted out by a racist police force on a campaign of black genocide. And so the unraveling began.

    It mattered not at all that in 2019, police nationwide had killed 15 unarmed black people in a country that 42 million blacks call home. Nor did it matter that multiple studies have shown that police are decidedly trigger-shy when confronting unarmed black suspects. In revolution, symbolism trumps reality. On July 14, 1789, when the French stormed the Bastille, the foremost symbol of Bourbon persecution, they found exactly seven political prisoners inside.

    The erroneous charge against police has been a popular argument since 2013, when Black Lives Matter was formed. That this and other left-wing claims have been circulating for years might cause some to think of the revolution as no more than America’s always-simmering radical fringe coming to a brief boil. But what we’re witnessing is not a temporary surge in extreme ideas. It’s the cultural triumph of those ideas and their institutional enforcement, sometimes with the imprimatur of the government. It is, in our own domestic form, an American version of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

    Unlike Mao’s campaign, which lasted from 1966 to 1976, our revolution hasn’t been engineered from the top down. It has progressed upward from within the population. Like the Cultural Revolution, however, it is primarily aimed at the leading institutions of the political left. It seeks to remake in its own image the Democratic establishment and those sectors of society associated with present-day liberalism. As it succeeds in this aim, it imposes its writ on the rest of us.

    The revolution’s left-liberal targets, in the media and the academy and mass entertainment, have been quick to adapt—some out of genuine sympathy with the cause, others hoping to protect their political standing, and still others out of abject fear. In China, few dared criticize violent Red Guard gangs for fear of seeming unsympathetic to the revolution. In the United States, rioters are furnished with every excuse the elite can muster. And the broad acceptance of the revolution in liberal institutions has resulted in a widespread pressure campaign of accusation, confession, and reeducation.

    Mao sought to eradicate what he labeled the Four Olds: old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas—the established mental life of the country. Our own pressure campaign is shaped by similar goals. The revolutionaries have deemed American customs, culture, habits, and ideas racist. And instead of Mao’s Little Red Book to guide them in the ways of the proletariat, they have Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, which shows them all the hidden places where racism is to be found and rooted out.

    It turns out, that means everywhere. In July, the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture issued guidelines announcing that the scientific method, the importance of hard work, Judeo-Christian belief, respect for authority, planning for the future, protection of private property, and politeness were all manifestations of white dominance.

    Establishing racism’s boundless domain is one thing, but the real work of the revolution is in going after its undercover practitioners. In July, Seattle’s Office of Civil Rights developed a course to get white city employees to confront their “Internalized Racial Superiority.” The in-person training involves attendees “processing white feelings,” such as “sadness, shame, confusion, or denial.” And “retraining,” which requires “ways of seeing that are hidden from us in white supremacy.” After these, attendees are to take “action to shift power,” committing to “redistribute resources, change who’s in power, alter institutions, etc.” They must then “reflect” on how their “family benefits economically from the system of white supremacy even as it directly and violently harms Black people.”1 They are to consider how their “white silence” and “white fragility” have hurt black co-workers. Echoing the museum guidelines, the city then calls upon white employees to acknowledge that their sense of individualism, comfort, and objectivity are signs of their “internalized racial superiority.” Finally, comes confession: “Reflect on a time in the past two to three months when you did something that you believe caused harm to a person of color.”

    “White feelings,” “white silence,” “white fragility”—these are quotes from a government document.

    The entire process mimics the notorious Maoist struggle sessions, during which thousands of victims were humiliated and forced to confess their disobedience to the cause of the revolution. Struggle sessions of a less official sort are ongoing in America, playing out mostly in social and traditional media. There is, for example, the telling case of Poetry magazine, whose editor stepped down in response to the public fury created by a poem containing the offending word “negress” in the publication’s July/August issue. At first, Poetry editors tried to appease the mob, issuing a letter in which they “acknowledge[ed] that this poem contains racist language and that such language is insidious, and in this case is particularly oppressive to Black, Pacific Islander, and Asian people, and we are deeply sorry.”

    In revolutions, however, the purpose of confession is not to elicit forgiveness but to further the purge. So, less than a month later, editor Don Share issued a statement of his own, apologizing for the poem and explaining that he would be stepping down as editor. Share’s letter was a riot of revolutionary gobbledygook: “Because we read poetry to deepen our understanding of human otherness, I failed in my responsibility to understand that the poem I thought I was reading was not the one that people would actually read.” He went on: “I deeply regret that my misjudgment of the poem has affected Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander people and anyone systematically othered by institutions with a white dominant culture, such as this one.” It ends: “As writers and readers move forward the conversation about this poem in particular, and racism in general, I will be grateful for the insights they afford. I hope that these essential conversations will change not only Poetry magazine, but poetry itself—and perhaps the world.” Naturally.

    For those not being re-educated by the state or canceled by the media mob, that is, for ordinary low-profile Americans, there are other channels of coercion. In the New York Times, writer Chad Sanders recommends interfamilial blackmail. In a June 5 op-ed, he suggested to white people: “[Send] texts to your relatives and loved ones telling them you will not be visiting them or answering phone calls until they take significant action in supporting black lives either through protest or financial contributions.” This, too, is straight out of the Cultural Revolution, during which Chinese were compelled to shun and turn against any family members with even the most remote connections to the wrong ideas.


    What to do? Those of us who stand opposed to the revolution and its aims harbor the hope that the revolutionaries will “eat each other alive” or that their mixed motivations, outlandish ideas, and repellent actions will ultimately blow up the movement from within. But such internal dynamics can serve to refine, not kill off, revolutions. Revolutionary France was a perpetual and bloody power struggle between parties such as the Hébertists, Thermidoreans, and Jacobins. Such competition ensured that, in the long run, the fiercest elements came out on top. The same can be said of the battles between the Mensheviks, the Left SR, and the Bolsheviks of Russia. The Cultural Revolution was itself a sustained effort to wrench and secure control of the Chinese Communist Party. And in all these cases, important nonrevolutionary fellow travelers found reason to make common cause and go along with the winners at any given moment. Judging from history (and the present), it is unlikely that the revolution will self-destruct.

    It can, however, be countered.

    Opposing the revolution will necessarily be a slower, more considered process than that which brought it into being. Revolutions are sparked into existence and take off at full gallop. They are born reckless and their nature doesn’t change. This is part of what makes them detestable to the civil-minded. Thus, putting down a revolution isn’t a matter of mirroring its recklessness from the opposite direction; it’s a sober process of reasserting prudence and order. The counterrevolution will not be won in the streets.

    It will be accomplished, if it is to be accomplished, as Americans outside the revolution’s burning core come to grips with what it is; as its wreckage exceeds its justification; and as the gap between revolutionary claims and reality becomes too great to ignore. Metropolitan liberals may be passionate about social justice, but they won’t want their cities forever blighted by crime. Americans of faith may feel compelled to support a movement claiming to speak for the oppressed, but they won’t abide Bibles in bonfires.2

    At the moment, the elites are stunned. The revolution’s instantaneous appearance amid a larger national crisis took them by surprise. They have scrambled to get on the side of the supposedly righteous. But as more Americans endure the noxious consequences of the unraveling, elected officials responsive to their needs will be compelled to change course. Let us not forget that after the immediate upheavals of the 1960s, busing, quotas, and spiking crime all came under attack by the American public—despite an elite atmosphere that sought to discredit the response as an explosion of racist rage. Even with the strength of that criticism, busing was ended, the use of quotas in hiring was curtailed, and punishment for criminal action became tougher.

    The revolution’s most exploitable weakness is that it is wrong. To be sure, catastrophically mistaken revolutions have succeeded in the past. Most revolutions are in fact terrible affairs all the way through. But even so, they grew out of intolerance for states and systems that deserved contempt. Louis XVI’s France was a deeply corrupt country, already undone by war debt, aristocratic privilege, and a mode of inequality that would be science-fictional by current Western norms. Much the same applies to czarist Russia, too, which was a punishing hell for displaced peasants and industrial workers. The current revolutionaries, on the other hand, are fundamentally wrong. As a factual matter, America is a vigorous democratic republic—the freest and least prejudiced country of this or any time.

    Thus, the revolutionaries lack a sufficiently malicious counterforce to justify their loathing. The U.S. does not and cannot furnish them with the complementary element they desperately want to put on trial: a truly unjust state and society. They must, instead, invent these and rebel against their own invention. Unlike Russia and France, we have no nobility, so they try to create one in the idea of white privilege. White people, however, are not nobles; they’re Americans, living out lives at every strata of society. The revolutionaries claim we live in a fascistic military state. But in truth, unlike revolutionary France and Russia, all we have are federal agents armed with nonlethal means to disperse violent crowds. We have none of the true institutionalized injustices that have inspired insurrectionary vengeance in other places and times. And because the United States is fundamentally good, most Americans may, in time, become circumspect about tearing it all down.

    The fact that 62 percent of the public is currently scared to speak its mind on political matters suggests that a majority of Americans already entertain some doubt about what’s going on in the country. This is deeply encouraging, but of no use unless they decide to speak out. It is essential that conservatives continue to vigorously challenge the revolution at every turn. But if sanity and reason reside only on a small island called conservatism, the country will not survive. On this point, therefore, the most hopeful sign on the horizon is the new and growing tranche of writings from journalists and thinkers who are not associated with the political right but who nonetheless have a clear sense of the great wrong being done in the name of justice and equality. People as different as Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, John McWhorter, Thomas Chatterton Williams, and Matt Taibbi have written firmly and incisively about the civil unrest and thought-policing that threaten to derail the American project. These are writers with a large readership, and their work can strike minds on the left with the power of epiphany. Their coming forward to say what others won’t makes it easier for more liberal Americans to stand up and declare themselves against the chaos. Thus, regardless of their opposition to certain conservative principles, they should be encouraged and welcomed as allies in this most pressing matter.

    The American Constitution, for all its awe-inspiring facility to keep the country on the best course possible, contains no fail-safe mechanism to guard against the predations of a tyrannical mob. There are only strong arguments. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison addressed the danger that “factions” pose to national political life. “By a faction,” he wrote, “I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Madison argued that our best defenses against rule by faction were the massive size of the then proposed republic, “the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest,” and the soundness of our representative government. In these he found “a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government” that would make it “less apt” for an “improper or wicked project…to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it.” One wonders here about the fate of the Pacific Northwest.

    For the rest of the country, we must hold fast to Madison’s vision and urge on those varied parties who will, in greater numbers, come to oppose the revolution. Only when they step forward will our elected officials and institutional leaders be forced to respond. Precisely because of the Founders’ foresight, the United States remains the best hope for mankind. Razing every statue in the country won’t erase that fact. May the great unraveling, in the end, provoke a fresh and thorough consideration of the American achievement and incite a new and deeper appreciation of our nation’s glories.

    1 The forced capitalization of the word “black” (and not “white”) is one of the revolution’s smallest but most widely conceded demands.
    2 On August 1, protestors in Portland burned Bibles during a demonstration.


    Listen and Subscribe to the Commentary Podcast
    They Say They Want a Revolution
    Commentary Magazine

    Commentary Magazine · They Say They Want a Revolution
    Abe Greenwald discusses his lead article in the September 2020 issue of COMMENTARY, “Yes, This Is a Revolution.” Also, the hosts break down the debut of the Biden-Harris ticket.

    Don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud, and Stitcher.

    We want to hear your thoughts about this article. Click here to send a letter to the editor.

  6. WW4 File: Russia announces COVID-19 vaccine ready for mass delivery after strategic partner Red China releases bioweapon on world, Western scientists express skepticism re. product’s safety and efficacy
    August 13, 2020

    Red Terror File: AG Barr: US facing new form of ‘urban guerrilla warfare’ driven by left’s ‘lust for power’
    August 10, 2020


    “Authorities in Beijing are taking steps that are setting off alarm bells inside the U.S. military and intelligence communities.”

    Lebanon as We Know It Is Dying

    Latin America Is Facing a ‘Decline of Democracy’ Under the Pandemic

    China Set Its Sights on Taiwan After Hong Kong Crackdown

    Beijing’s Revenge? 2 Pro-China Communist Parties Coordinate Violent US Protests

    ‘Clean Up This Mess’: The Chinese Thinkers Behind Xi’s Hard Line

    Three Decades of Delusion – The American Interest

    Beware of the looming chaos in the Middle East

    Was Hezbollah Connected to the Explosives That Devastated Beirut? | Clarion Project

    China accused of deploying more amphibious weapons to eastern coast as tensions with Taiwan rise

    Concerns over China’s food security mount as farmers hoard grains

    Study: Most Americans don’t have enough assets to withstand 3 months without income

    2035’s biggest A.I. threat is already here

    Russia warns it will see any incoming missile as nuclear. Russia will perceive any ballistic missile launched at its territory as a nuclear attack that warrants a nuclear retaliation, the military warned in an article published Friday.

  8. Jeff, not sure if you can comment, it seems the Chinese Communist Party leadership is wasting no time on turning Hong Kong into another Xinjiang, the Guangdong Branch of the Chinese Communist Party has announced that Hong Kong is to be included in the China Social Credit System

    It is also mentioned in the Three Year Action Plan for Guangdong Province to promote the construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area

    It is mentioned in this video around 14 min 58 sec, subtitles available:


    “Authorities in Beijing are taking steps that are setting off alarm bells inside the U.S. military and intelligence communities.”

    ‘Drone Swarm’ Invaded Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant Last September — Twice

    Lebanon as We Know It Is Dying

    Latin America Is Facing a ‘Decline of Democracy’ Under the Pandemic

    China Set Its Sights on Taiwan After Hong Kong Crackdown

    Beijing’s Revenge? 2 Pro-China Communist Parties Coordinate Violent US Protests

    ‘Clean Up This Mess’: The Chinese Thinkers Behind Xi’s Hard Line

    Three Decades of Delusion – The American Interest

    Beware of the looming chaos in the Middle East

    Was Hezbollah Connected to the Explosives That Devastated Beirut? | Clarion Project

    China accused of deploying more amphibious weapons to eastern coast as tensions with Taiwan rise

    Concerns over China’s food security mount as farmers hoard grains

    Study: Most Americans don’t have enough assets to withstand 3 months without income

    2035’s biggest A.I. threat is already here

    Russia warns it will see any incoming missile as nuclear. Russia will perceive any ballistic missile launched at its territory as a nuclear attack that warrants a nuclear retaliation, the military warned in an article published Friday.

  10. What Has Happened To New York City?

    Daily Mail: Manhattan or Skid Row? New York’s homeless community use furniture and junk abandoned by wealthy people fleeing the city during the pandemic to build a sidewalk camp

    * The camp on West 24th and Sixth Avenue sprung up early in the pandemic and has remained ever since
    * Now residents and business owners complain about the mess and chaos and say it harms their livelihoods
    * Around 15-20 people have taken up residence along the busy street and are camping out in doorways
    * Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York, said on July 23 he would address the situation but little is being done
    * He has moved 13,000 homeless people into hotels across the city to stop COVID-19 outbreaks in shelters

    Exasperated residents of Manhattan’s Chelsea district say they are tired of complaining to the authorities about a sprawling homeless camp that has taken root in their midst.

    Around 20 people are believed to be living along West 24th Street, on the corner with Sixth Avenue, The New York Post reported. The camp is one block from the landmark Flatiron Building and Madison Square Park.

    Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York, promised three weeks ago to resolve the depressing scene but nothing has been done, and locals told the paper that they were fed up.


    WNU Editor: Here is an easy prediction. It is going to get worse. I have a lot of friends who live and/or work in New York City. To say that they are appalled with what is happening is an understatement. But when I tell them that their only salvation is to purge the politicians who are responsible for creating this catastrophe (i.e. the mayor of New York City and the governor of New York), with only 2 exceptions (out of about 15), the majority are blaming President Trump and the Republicans?!?!?!? This is unfortunately not the first time that I am witnessing a great city falling apart. New York City reminds me of Moscow in the early 1990s when the Soviet Union broke apart. The homeless, young girls prostituting themselves at the edge of Red Square, a complete breakdown of municipal and social services, social and political chaos coupled with many supporting the political class that gave them this disaster. Sighhh …. what New York City is going through today is just a fraction of what Moscow was going through almost 30 years ago. What eventually changed for Moscow was the election of reformist officials who purged the old bureaucracy and pushed for an environment that encouraged business and investment. It took 20 years but Moscow today is booming, and will continue to do so for a long time. Will this also happen for New York City? Maybe, but not anytime soon.

    Update: New York is controlled by the Democrat machine and many of the state’s voters are liberal/progressive. President Trump thinks he has a chance, but it is not going to happen …. Trump says high taxes and a spike in crime rates could help him WIN New York in the 2020 election as he vows to ‘solve all of the many problems’ in the city (Daily Mail).

  11. Jeff,

    I noticed that in the Chinese soldier propaganda video, the soldiers are saluting with the fist. This seems to me an indicator that they are transitioning from the scissors strategy to the one clenched fist strategy. Peace behind me, war in front of me. It is a satanic twist on the Christian children’s song ‘I have decided to follow Jesus’, third verse: “the world behind me, the cross before me.”

    Interesting times.

  12. You Americans do not realize the image you have won in the world. They were heroes in World War II. They were heroes of Holliwwod. All quality products were produced in this country. But in recent years more and more they have acted as the class bully. How many people have suffered in the world because of their actions. But now they don’t want to accept their decline. It is a terrifying fear to realize that the rules of the world no longer dictate. And these were by force. In the last 35 years – our generation – has seen neither Russia nor China destroy governments, peoples or nations. Their opportunity was showered and the world witnesses its decline like the Roman Empire. Unlike this empire only lasted 500 years. This seen from the perspective of a Latin American.

    1. Mr. Serrano gives us the official Socialist version of reality. It is a one-sided evaluation, far from the truth. Mr. Serrano ignores a million dead Afghans in the wake of the 1979 Soviet invasion. He ignores the sixty million victims of Mao in China, Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, the rape of Tibet, the bloody communist civil war in Congo, the collapse of Venezuela’s economy, the FARC killings in Columbia, the tyranny of Castro in Cuba, the destruction of South Africa’s economy, the depredations of the Soviet Union in Ethiopia, the cruelties of the Second Chechen War in Russia and the horrifying starvation of the North Koreans by a degenerate communist dictatorship. No, Mr. Serrano. Save your self-righteous propaganda for those gullible and uninformed Americans, who are ready to blame their own country for the world’s wretched state. America is not perfect. Even so, we have tried to defend those structures that make civilized life possible. Naturally, we have had our share of bad men and fools, as any nation; but our faults are not blacker than those of the criminals in Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, Havana, et al. The destruction wreaked by the communists makes our imperialists look entirely amateurish and incapable. If you want a nation butchered, call a communist. To omit the crimes of communism, which are the greatest and heaviest of all history, is to be an accessory after the fact — a stooge of history’s worst murderers and destroyers. I have never denied the sins of my country. Just now, in your brief exposition, you attempted to hide a vast legacy of mass killing with a few words. Have you no shame?

  13. Absolutely fabulous reply to Mr. Serrano. Much more civil than I was going to be (and infinitely more concise). May I please use this in the future, obviously substituting the offender’s name as appropriate?
    Thank you for your most outstanding prose. It is greatly appreciated (and shared far and wide).

  14. Jeff, not sure if you can comment, have you seen the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act whose author is John Curtis of Utah from the Republican Party, it seems the Democrats including Ilhan Omar are supporting the bill:

    The summary of the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act:

    Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act

    This bill designates certain Hong Kong residents with priority status for refugee consideration and contains other related provisions.

    An individual and certain family members shall have such priority status if the individual (1) is a Hong Kong resident who suffered persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution as a result of peaceful political activity; or (2) has been formally charged, detained, or convicted for certain peaceful actions. An individual receiving refugee status under this bill shall not be counted against various numerical limitations.

    When determining whether an individual shall be admitted as a refugee under this bill, an individual whose citizenship, nationality, or residency was revoked for submitting a nonfrivolous application for a U.S. immigration benefit shall be considered to have suffered persecution on account of political opinion.

    The general presumption that an alien is seeking immigrant status shall not to apply to certain Hong Kong residents seeking asylum into the United States. (Typically, an alien seeking admission as a nonimmigrant must establish that the alien does not intend to immigrate to the United States.) This exception to the presumption shall apply to certain individuals involved in the 2019 and 2020 protests against China’s encroachment into Hong Kong’s autonomy (Hong Kong is a part of China but has a separate legal and economic system).

    An individual from Hong Kong may not be denied admission into the United States if the primary reason for the denial is a politically motivated government action against the individual’s involvement in protests.

Comments are now closed.