The above musical fossil, dating from 1977, displays contrived (?) sentiments about “revolution”. As late as 1977, elements of the Soviet state were pretending to be all about proletarian revolution!
I recall commenting to my then girlfriend, about 1982, how the Soviet Union (where I had never been) seemed fossilized; I referred as example to the masthead of Pravda, which showed the cruiser Aurora, the naval vessel which, in October 1917 (old-style), fired the first shot signalling the Bolshevik seizure of power in Petrograd.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Aurora].
My then girlfriend, though certainly not Communist, disagreed with my analysis (that the Soviet Union was fossilized), and she had in a sense the advantage of me, having lived there for a number of years up to about 1978 or so and knew it, in general, far better than me. Still, I was right and she was wrong. Why?
There is a natural human tendency to accept that tomorrow will be at least similar to today. The daily commuter who goes on the train every day, until he dies unexpectedly overnight, or hits the Lotto.
The “Russian” Revolution seems today to have been almost inevitable, looking back over a century, and perhaps even two centuries (i.e. from the Decembrist revolt of 1825 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decembrist_revolt]. Hindsight is always so.
The Russians of 1917, most of them, were taken by surprise when the first (February, old-style) 1917 Revolution happened. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution]. Lenin, in exile, dismissed it as unimportant, or at least not as “the” predicted revolution (once-bitten, twice-shy, perhaps, Lenin having said, inaccurately, in 1905, that the uprising in that year was “the” revolution): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution
In 1917, having heard of the revolution, Lenin only arrived in revolutionary Petrograd 2 months later! He then started to organize the coup d’etat which occurred 6 months later and which is now known as the “October Revolution” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution].
When Lenin arrived in Petrograd, he had, in all Russia, probably only between 10,000-50,000 members in his Bolshevik faction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks#Demographics_of_the_two_factions. Lenin prevailed because his faction had discipline, and because he was unwilling to compromise.
My point here, though, is that it is hard to tell when significant and even —perhaps especially— seismic change will occur, in society or in the world as a whole. Lenin managed to seize power in late 1917 mainly because the real revolution, earlier in the year, had not stabilized into a firm and effective government. Lenin was not the creator or instigator of that first event, in fact he was irrelevant in respect of it.
Turning from events in 1917 to those toward the end of the Soviet period, the Soviet Union had given up the idea of revolution decades before: after the death of Stalin in 1953, and arguably since the exile and —1940— death of Trotsky, or even earlier (“Socialism in one country” was mooted as far back as 1924, and put into practice, in part, in the 1930s).
The “revolution” stuff after that was strictly for the naive: foreign fools and, in the Soviet Union itself, mostly Young Pioneers (akin to the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides of Britain) and maybe a few Komsomol members.
Yet the image, right up to the collapse of 1989 and the official dissolution of 1991, both outside the Soviet Union and to some extent, officially, within it, was that the Revolution, in some sense, was still guiding the society, along with the Marxism-Leninism still published and taught everywhere (but in reality ignored and/or privately scorned).
The slow collapse of Sovietism was taken by some influential scribblers and “thinkers” in the West as a signal that Western finance-capitalism and “liberal democracy” had triumphed, forever. The name that stands out is the Japanese-American Francis Fukuyama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama, and his book, The End of History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man.
In my own unpublished work of 1990, I said that Fukuyama was simplistic and wrong. No-one took any notice of course, because the book was never published, and anyway I was an unknown, completely obscure, whereas Fukuyama was (according to System blurbs and drones) a “respected scholar” etc. Yet I was right and he was wrong.
In fact, a few people do seem to have agreed with my view: “Authors like Ralf Dahrendorf argued in 1990 that the essay gave Fukuyama his 15 minutes of fame, which will be followed by a slide into obscurity.[14][15] “[Wikipedia]
The West has the same problem as had the Soviet Union: an inability to accept its own sclerosis.
The future is, perhaps ipso facto, unexpected. In 1928, the NSDAP got 2.6% of the national vote in Germany. Hitler was considered a joke by many both in Germany and outside. As he later said, “They were laughing at [me and National Socialism] but they are not laughing now!“
What about that 2.6% vote? In 1932, it became 33%, and then, in 1933, 44%. Hitler was Chancellor, unchallenged, and everything changed in Germany and in Europe.
Moving to the UK of 2020, there are parallels. The Coronavirus situation has been blown up out of all proportion, allowing the System (not only in the UK, but across the “West”) to attempt a “Reset” of the Western world. The political sphere in the UK has been frozen. People cannot gather, or even easily talk face to face.
Parliament is not in any real sense sitting; in fact Parliament has been sidelined, unable or unwilling to scrutinize new “laws”, laws passed not by Parliament, but rammed through as secondary legislation, using obscure statutes, and by a would-be despotic government headed by the biggest idiot of the lot, the part-Jew (ex?) public entertainer, Boris Johnson, aka Boris-idiot, sitting on his pediment (of a Conservative Party majority of 80).
In other words, Parliament may still exist but its useful life in its present form has ended. Not just the Commons: the House of Lords now has nearly 800 members. The quantity is a problem, but so is the quality. Boris-idiot has added 38 “peers” just recently. Our “legislators” now include cricketer “lord” Ian Botham, pseudo-intellectual “baroness” Claire Fox of the Brexit Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party (!), and many many other deadheads, such as the failed bra-designer “entrepreneuse”— and so many others that I do not choose to list them all.
What about the Monarchy? It is being held together as a once-respected institution by a public relations effort and by the fact that the Queen is still there. The Queen is a link with the past, with Britain as it was when it was 99% white, and when it however had a global empire etc.
There are efforts being put in to make the public believe that “King Charles III” (already nearly 72) and then “King William V” (now 38) will take the place of the present Queen. On paper, perhaps, but not in terms of mass psychology.
Of course we also have the lesser lights and hangers-on, such as the dim “cuck” Harry and his “Royal Mulatta”, entitled arrogant idiot and doormat for several Jews, Andrew, and theatrical am-drammer Edward; and their stupid spoiled offspring.
Then we have the other pillars of English life, on paper: the Bar, the “free” Press, the Church of England etc. All now facades, mere Potemkin villages.
Will this present society survive the coming years? I think not. True, there is at present little sign of upheaval in the UK, despite the above-mentioned matters, despite mass immigration (migration-invasion), despite Boris-idiot inviting 4 million Chinese to come to live here, despite everything. That may not be the last word, though.
Was there obvious sign of imminent political upheaval in the Germany of 1928? No. In fact, Germany seemed to have finally found stability both economically and politically by 1928. Then came the Wall Street Crash followed by the Great Depression.
Was there obvious sign of upheaval in the Russia of, say, 1916? Some, by reason of the war with the Central Powers, and the consequent poverty and general discontent. However, if you take it back to 1913, there was no such sign.
“Extremist” solutions to Britain’s problems may be unpopular in 2020; by 2022 or 2023, they may be the only ones that seem to make any sense.
Tweets seen
If Israel is eventually defeated, and passes into history, that will still not be the [redacted…]
God, that horrible cruel ape! I have often thought that T.E. Lawrence, “Lawrence of Arabia”, has a lot to answer for. Had Lawrence not fanned the flames of Arab nationalism and indeed Saudi nationalism, the Western states, and in fact maybe even just the European empires, could easily have taken the oil of Arabia and the surrounding region for the use of the advanced part of the world, and without having to give vast sums to any of the Arabs. Most of the wealth of the Arabs has been squandered anyway, one way or the other.
I may dislike (and oppose) the Jews, speaking generally, but I despise most of the Arabs.
A thought out of season
Statistics show that the Chinese have, as a national group, the highest IQ in the world, higher even than Northern Europeans. It is true that some of their achievements, both ancient and modern, are hugely impressive, yet I have to say that (with the arguable exception of a nuclear scientist I once met in the USA), all those that I have met personally or observed have seemed to me to be dimwits. Maybe I have just been unfortunate.
Tweets seen
That little bastard is up to everything: former near-top employee of Common Purpose (so supported by that conspiracy), doormat for the Jewish/Israel lobby (so always supported by “them”); also supported by the gay lobby. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bryant#Personal_life.
As the tweet says, he was a major expenses cheat and is still an avid expenses freeloader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bryant#Expenses_claims_scandal
The sort of careerist who would be an early casualty in any real reform of Westminster.
Three words: the Great Reset; or if you prefer, the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan.
Late music
Ian Robert Millard 