Liberty’s Torch is seldom if ever “first with the news.” That’s not our function. We’re thinkers and commentators. We write to bring our particular perspective – both preferential and analytical – to events as reported by others. That being the case, we’re always interested in the outlooks of other commentators, especially those who view events through a different lens of premises and experiences.
And today, via the indispensable Brock Townsend, we’ve come upon one that’s uniquely and darkly suggestive. It proceeds from a relatively recent phenomenon, until recently confined to Third World countries: the “color revolution:”
The fact that Obama still believes in Trump’s inability to replace him in the White House has already been announced by the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. At the same time, he would point out, while commenting on the anti-Trump protests in the US, that the right for freedom of expression must be exercised without violence, clearly alluding to the current administration’s arsenal of “peaceful” tools that would allow it to get rid of Trump.
That is why we already are witnessing a wave of “protests” being unleashed under the control of the Obama administration. The corporate media and social networks are openly arrayed against the incoming 45th US President. These very tactics have been used by US intelligence agencies in Brazil, Nicaragua, Hong Kong, Thailand, as well as across the Middle East and Eastern Europe to unleash a “color revolution”. In some countries, such actions have brought foreign government under the direct control of the White House, as we can see it in Ukraine, Brazil and several other countries.
As a result, we are now being told about thousands of protesters in US cities rallying against the Trump election victory. These claims were followed by a petition published on Change.org that demands the US authorities change the results of the recent election, demanding the electoral college be revised, and that the election results be overturned on December 19. It is being reported that this petition has already been signed by a total of two million people.
Please read the whole thing. Essayist Martin Berger has indirectly fingered something that hasn’t received adequate attention until now: the nature of the political Establishment as a coalition of “sub-establishments.” Each component of the political elite has a stake in perpetuating the status quo ante and controls one or more techniques for defending it.
Needless to say, it’s chilling to imagine that here in the United States, there exists a political-corporate-media coalition that might succeed in shoving aside the results of a duly conducted election. But the unpleasantness of the notion doesn’t refute it factually. It has heft; it deserves to be explored in some detail. Whereupon we must examine the powers possessed by each component of the coalition, to determine whether, given the required motivation – which they have –they might succeed in retaining their grip on our nation.
The media’s ability to influence public perceptions and attitudes has been an important factor in our politics since the Spanish-American War. Whether they seek to do so or not, journalists routinely sway popular beliefs about what’s happening, what caused it, and what governments should do in response. Even the choice of what stories should appear on the front page above the fold factors into such perceptions.
As regards the current spate of disruptions afflicting large American cities, the media’s treatment of the participants, their statements and actions, and what forces might be organizing and funding them matter significantly in determining whether other Americans will approve or disapprove of them. At this time mainstream media organs have paid little attention to the involvement of communist and socialist groups, or to the provenance of the protestors’ funding, which is coming in the main from MoveOn.org and other organizations aligned with financier George Soros.
No political class can long survive without an economic / financial base from which to operate. It’s critical that the above-ground rulers be able to reward supporters and penalize opponents widely, which takes more than just control of the State. The ability to hire and fire, to subsidize the enterprises of supporters, and to obstruct or prevent outright the undertakings of adversaries provides those who regard the status quo as in their interest with an important set of tools.
That group of America’s largest businesses aligned with the Establishment has already begun to operate in its defense. Now and then a head will appear above the trench lip. The ugly statements of GrubHub CEO Matt Maloney have received attention in this regard. However, most corporate powers will act far more subtly; it’s not in their interest that the spotlight shone on Maloney should shine on them.
Within the State itself, among the Establishment’s least visible and most important defenders are its millions of faceless bureaucrats. These possess the twin advantages of anonymity and invulnerability. Their decisions, which are seldom reviewed by any above-ground authority, can make or break any private person or organization. Catherine Engelbrecht could tell you all about it.
What those millions of bureaucrats might contribute to the Establishment’s defense of its position is difficult to predict or estimate. Yet given the incoming administration’s expressed distaste for the size and intrusiveness of the regulatory State, the nature and strength of those bureaucrats’ incentives cannot be denied. As individuals, they have reason to fear that their livelihoods are threatened – and there are few motivations with more power to move a man.
Finally for today, we have our domestic “forces of order:” the police, firemen, municipal paramedical services, and support apparatuses behind each of them. If you’ve seen Costa-Gavras’s movie Z, which is closely based on a true story, you already have a sense for how those forces can predetermine the influence of the sort of “popular protests” our cities currently suffer. Much of that influence is exerted by decisions whether or not to act, as we’ve already seen in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland.
At this time, the official responses to those urban disruptions have been various. The police haven’t always acted with dispatch or adequate force...but sometimes they have. Concerning the responses of the other responder cadres, I have little information. However, it would be reasonable to assume that those responses would be consistent with those of the police.
The aim of those orchestrating a “color revolution” is to persuade the populace generally not to resist: i.e., that the “revolution’s” objectives are both acceptable and inevitable. They seek to give the private person viewing events the sense that no matter his own opinion and preferences, the “revolution” is both morally sound and practically unstoppable. Among those generally aligned with the “revolution,” that buttresses morale and enthusiasm for “the struggle.” Among those opposed to it, it produces a sense of isolation and futility.
Is this what’s happening in America today? Is the coalition of Powers That Be consciously – whatever that means when applied to politicians, bureaucrats, municipal workers, corporate executives, and media barons – attempting to bring about the nullification of a presidential election?
At the very least, it’s among the possibilities. I’ll be watching for subsequent indications of such an effort. I suggest that you, Gentle Reader, do the same.