What Dreams May Come

Elections are basically akin to head transplants - the face changes but the system remains the same.  I say this because there is an increasing use of the term "revolution" in reference to the Trump Phenomenon.  It is not.  It is what one might consider a last-ditch effort to reform a system from the inside, which is virtually impossible.

Political systems, like most human organizations, calcify over time; that is, a significant number of people at the top, who have benefitted most from the system paradigm have a vested interest in keeping that system in place.  Those who wish to maintain systems as they are were once called "conservatives," and those who wish to reform systems were once called "liberals."  That was before the corruption of the language by media and political forces.  In either case, the two sides agree that the fundamentals of the system should survive, and what is disputed are the interpretations and implementations within the system.

The important distinction is that neither of these two sides whats to change the core beliefs of the system.  Everyone agrees that the central assumptions of the system are valid.

The revolutionary is the one who wants to completely dispose of the system altogether and install a new one.  Obviously, this is a radical move, for it dismantles all of the core assumptions and beliefs in favor of a completely new paradigm.  The American, French, Texas and Cultural Revolutions can truly be called such, since they did away with all of the original paradigm and installed newly formed ones from "whole cloth."

The Trump Phenomenon, and its predecessors like Ron Paul, Ross Perot, etc., are "conservative" movements.  They seek to restore a former interpretation of the ruling paradigm.  This is not a revolutionary act, so much as a reforming or restoring one.  In other words, the battle is not over the underlying structure, but rather over semantics and interpretations.  As the Trump campaign slogan strongly implies, the basic idea is not to destroy the system, but to "conserve" an older implementation of it.

It is fair to say that Trump has presented few specifics on how he plans to return to a perceived state of prosperity.  Instead, he is supported by a broad and non-centralized base of interests who feel the system has gone askew and no longer benefits the greater good, but rather supports an increasingly narrow group of "insiders."  This is an interesting phenomenon because it means the movement cannot be decapitated.  If you remove the candidate, the movement behind him will continue and likely strengthen.  This, more than anything, is what is terrifying the current set of insiders.

Clinton, on the other hand, is supported by a cult of personality.  It is the person, rather than the ideology, that is the central rallying point.  Like the Bernie Sanders phenomenon, removing the candidate would certainly mean the rallying point would simply evaporate.  Even more basic, Clinton supporters feel they are part of the "inside" group and will derive a direct benefit from her personal leadership.

Contrast this with Trump, who appears to have gelled a broad set of beliefs that the system is being improperly implemented and needs to be repaired.  This set of beliefs does not depend on Trump, but rather has been catalyzed by him.  With every perceived success he has, the movement feels empowered and is increasingly not dependent on the man, but on the knowledge that there is a large and powerful group who feel the same.

What all this implies is that a Clinton loss would leave a lot of grumbling, but eventual capitulation.  Conversely, a Trump loss will likely further energize the support behind him.  In other words, the Clinton centralized personality cult would submit and eventually fall in line, whereas the Trump phenomenon would further energize, even without a central leadership figure.  Clinton supporters would offer little resistance, but Trump supporters may well become the seeds of a true revolution.

I say revolution advisedly, because this kind of movement cannot be stopped.  There is no leadership structure and no centralization of power.  There is only a broad set of unifying concepts that have already been empowered just by the fact that Trump has come this far, thus clearly demonstrating the power of the movement behind him.

The US election is only one of the most visible movements.  The symptoms of broad-based revolutionary spirit has been evident in the Brexit vote, the Catalonia independence movement, the German AfD surge, the wildly popular Russian nationalism (in the person of Putin), Duterte in the Philippines, and the growth of the Texas and other state independence movements in the US.  The establishment has realized all too late that not only can it not control this global phenomenon, but any attempts to attack and behead it only increases the strength and resolve of this force.

A Trump loss, much to the horror of the establishment, will likely energize his support base, and most certainly if there is any hint of impropriety.  The usual tools, such as thought control through "political correctness" and use of media to steer and refocus the narrative are not working.  This "silent majority" have moved past the regular channels and have seen similar movements score victory after victory around the globe.

Proof of this has been evident in the media's attempts to focus on Trump the man.  They have ridiculed him mercilessly, and it repeatedly backfires.  Conversely, the Clinton narrative has been completely focused on her personal health, public record and scandals.  There have been no Wikileaks on Trump, but the leaks on Clinton have dogged her campaign.

I believe that the establishment has only one choice, and that is to let Trump win and do as much damage control until the opportunity comes to restart its agenda.  They are perfectly aware that a misstep at this point could easily lead to a full-on actual revolution, in which the very system they are jealously protecting is completely destroyed and a new paradigm and elite evolve.

In hindsight, I would speculate that the deciding factor was the elite installing Obama in the White House.  They obviously felt that by putting a black man in the hot seat and giving him a Nobel Peace Prize mere days into his first term would placate the masses.  On the contrary, it solidified the opposition and the phenomenon metastasized globally.

It remains to be seen exactly how desperate the establishment is at this point, but given how close they've come to their globalist goals, one must assume that they are truly panicked and in a corner.  Like any wild beast, they are now unpredictable and demonstrably willing to use deadly force to maintain their privileged positions.

The next month should prove most interesting.  If this were a game of poker, and in many ways it is, then the time has come to start showing cards.  The bet has been called and they had better have four aces, because a bluff would mean certain defeat and probably an end to the corporatist/globalist movement for decades to come, if not forever.