End of the Beginning?

Of course it's hard to know at any given time what's coming. One can read their beads and assess the signs and portents all the live long day and then something unexpected happens. You're in a different reality, one that perhaps was always there, the way multiple universes are said to interpenetrate one another, but it wasn't something we had to pay attention to. Until now.

The reaction to Stephen Miller's round of performances on the Sunday Gabfests has been rippling through the political class, the media, the permanent government and among some of the Rabble. With few exceptions, the judgment is that he was way, way over the line. And something must be done, and done quickly.

Miller took the place of Kellyanne Conway on the shows -- apparently because her credibility was in the crapper and since she'd been working so hard at it, she needed a break. We'd been hearing about Miller for some time, as he is reputed to have written some of the more incendiary statements and speeches of the regime and its titular ruler. He along with Bannon have long been considered the ideological masters in the White House. Miller, it is said, was one of the writers of the Muslim Ban (that isn't) now wending its way through the judiciary.

So the White House sends Miller out to do the Shows, and "OMG."

I saw part of his performance on Meet the Press, and it was shocking. He came across as Joseph Goebbels' bastard Jewish grandson, railing and ranting, ordering and demanding, lying and daring Chuck Todd -- or anyone else -- to do anything about it. Pugnacious doesn't begin to cover it.  This was a pure, over the top, Nazi performance project, something designed -- I thought -- to put the Fear into all of Trump's opponents, be they judges, media celebrities, or the pink pussy-hat wearing "Resistance."

Message: "This stops now."

Now while his performances were obviously being done for effect, I'm not sure he got the effect he wanted. When the initial shock wore off the Nazi allusions -- while still strong -- faded and some of us recognized that it was more on the lines of the Israeli Spokesperson (especially under the Likud regime) than straight out Nazi. Meaning that this is a contemporary model for regime spokesmouths, not the historic one from the Time of Unpleasantness in the 20th Century. This way of communicating regime demands and commands goes on all the time around the world. It's just not been typical American practice. So it's shocking -- and rightly so -- to see it on the Sunday Shows, unvarnished, unbridled, and very much in your face.

The reaction was mostly swift and quite negative. Not simply because he was lying; we're so used to that from the White House, it's almost normal. No, it was the whole package. If that's the way the White House wants to present itself, then by golly, it's game on.

A number of thinkers and pundits and commentators have been sounding the alarms. "This is an Emergency!" they say. If something isn't done, and done quickly, about Trump and his band of mountebanks and thieves, liars and con artists, Christian Dominionists and Apocalyptic believers, white supremacists, Fascists, and worse, the United States is on a path toward becoming a failed state in its own right and instigating global destruction on an unparalleled scale simply because it can.

Trump's core believers call these warnings "hysterics." I'm old enough to have lived through a number of these transformative presidencies, and I've never seen anything quite like this. The lies and the chaos are one thing. What's worse is the overt contempt for other interests and points of view, and the easy sadistic glee in scapegoating the vulnerable and punishing opponents. This cannot be allowed to stand.

But we can't look to the courts to save us. It's not going to happen. The courts can stall some of the worst of what's in store, but they can't stop it. Should the justices get too uppity, the regime can go full on Andrew Jackson and ignore any ruling it doesn't like. After all, the courts have no independent enforcement power.

No, the system under which we've been governed up till now can't handle something like this. It will shatter to pieces. Some would say that's a good thing in and of itself, and so we should just let it shatter. The system is decadent and corrupt and unreformable. It has to crash and burn for something better to emerge.

The Resistance, so far, is basically critiquing and naysaying. A positive alternative is still in formation.

Up till now, the Resistance has been a somewhat formless potential movement away from the chaos. Potential. It hasn't turned into a movement yet, though some of its critics call it one. It's lacking a catalyst to turn it into a movement.

But that could come at any minute.

Indeed, Stephen Miller's performance on the shows seems to be catalyzing something in the media particularly.

The demonstrations continue in the streets and at selected congressmembers' town halls and offices.

So far as I can recall, there have never been so many sustained nationwide opposition actions, and they are having an effect. That isn't to say they'll succeed. But they are being noticed, which is something that deliberately didn't happen with the demonstrations against the Iraq Invasion.

There have been a few counter demonstrations, but so far, they are very small and have had no effect at all.

Perception management is an important element in these situations, and in this case, there is a perception that opposition to Trump and his cronies is widespread, deep-rooted, active and determined.

The demonstrations immediately after the election were large and widespread, so large in fact that a whole sub-industry sprang up on line to discount them as "Clintonite" rejectionism, involving too few people to matter. Well, that was wrong. In fact those who were in the streets at the time reported that "Clintonites" were a minority among the crowds, as they have remained ever since.

No, the Resistance is something else again, and the Democratic Party and the Clintons are at best minor players. Often enough they are completely irrelevant to the interests and actions of those who are taking to the streets.

There was a brief moment of hysterics on the part of Trump supporters when Alex Jones (I think it was) said that the post election demonstrations were an attempt to incite a "Soros funded Color Revolution." Why that should inspire near-panic among the Trumpists, I'm not sure, but at the time, such a judgment was premature. There was no Color Revolution, not even a hint of it. There was a largely spontaneous rejection of the election outcome. Given the fact that Hillary had so many more votes than Trump -- by an as yet unknown margin at the time -- it was natural for people to vent their outrage. Yet again the Electoral College would override the vote of the people.

However, by the time of the Women's March, the day after the inauguration, many of the elements of a Color Revolution had come together. With or without Soros funding.

The color is pink; the hand-sign is a fist, the right arm held straight across the chest at heart level. Large scale mass demonstrations can be assembled at a moment's notice, and they can and do interfere with routine. They're covered in the media. When tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of demonstrators can be assembled quickly and can disrupt the implementation of some of the regime's diktats -- and do it over and over again -- it's kind of hard to ignore.

I said a week or so ago that the wheels had come off this shitwagon, and indeed that seems to be the case, as the White House is bunkered down and Trump himself prefers the Mar-a-Lago Winter Palace in Florida or the Trump Tower HQ in New York. At least in those places, his Divinity is unchallenged.

The White House has been flailing for weeks. The court battle over the travel ban diktat is symptomatic not dispositive. Flynn's resignation, the constant dissembling, the leaks,  the fights over cabinet picks, the utter chaos all contribute to the perception that the White House is a madhouse where no one really knows what's going on, and except for certain issues, Trump doesn't care. He's looking out for his own wealth and well-being; bugger the rest.

So my question is, "Will this regime be brought down?" The Magic 8 Ball says "Most Definitely!" I take that as a yes since my own Predict-O-Meter has long been on the fritz.

OK, let's say it happens. Who will do it? The people in the streets cannot do it on their own. They can, however, make it impossible for him (or his goons) to govern, and we're close to that point now.

"Ungovernable" has become one of the protest memes, and I'm promoting "Disobey." These are ideas and actions with powerful potentials. The roundups of immigrants haven't quite catalyzed the kind of response necessary -- ie: human shields in every case -- but as more and more efforts to crack down on the designated Others get under way, I think we'll see more direct action to stop it. Disobedience will become the rule rather than the exception. Becoming defiant and ungovernable will be the new normal.

On the other hand, the tipping point may have been reached with the resignation of General Flynn from the NSC. There is gossip that the matter actually involves Trump and Pence in a conspiracy of silence about their Russian dealings. (I've never put much store in the whole Russian Thing, but apparently it matters deeply within the governing clique.) If as may be the case, then entire Trump regime is involved in something that can be construed as compromising the sovereignty of the United States -- that's what this is beginning to look like -- then the consequences  can be, must be, severe. Though not likely, it could even involve treason.

Impeachment is an option, but I think it would take too long and much mischief would be possible in the meantime.

It looks more and more like a coup will be deemed "necessary." My suspicion is that the next time Trump goes to Florida, a select team will place him under house arrest. Meanwhile, in DC other teams will isolate Pence and the White House staff. A general, could be even Mattis, but Petraeus is more likely, will take charge (much as Al Haig tried to do when Reagan was shot.) He will be interim leader.

What happens then is anybody's guess, but if the present regime is deposed, we can be sure there will be dancing in the streets.

I give it till the end of the month.

Wypipo and The Resistance -- A Color(less) Revolution?

So far, it appears that the growing and spreading Resistance is very, very white, largely female, and pissed as hell that this clown is allowed to fuck with the national consciousness this way.

Additionally, The Resistance appears to be largely middle and upper-middle class types who see that their benefits, rights and privileges are liable to be threatened or withdrawn by the advent of the Trump regime.

This is not to discount any other participants and interests involved in the ongoing series of protests, demonstrations, and actions that seem to have taken on a life of their own and have spread throughout the country. I can't be in the streets, unfortunately (or maybe fortunately!😀) so I don't have much personal contact with the Resisters, but I am still part of a peace and justice community that participates. Many of those in the community are well off white women but not all. But then, this is New Mexico, and it is as nearly polyglot here as any place in the US. And Wypipo are not always the most important social and political interests.

The Women's March was full of women of color, some of them quite a bit more radical than their white sisters. But that radical energy seemed to get rechanneled into more conventional and largely ineffective (because it's non-threatening) activism almost immediately. Activisim was channeled into raising a ruckus at congressional town halls and offices over various issues including the repeal of Obamacare. In other words, standard Democratic Party issues.

But then with the Muslim ban, a spontaneous resistance arose from below the Party apparat that the Democrats tried to get in front of. The immigration and refugee issue is one that Democrats have always been conflicted over. It has to do with how immigrants and refugees are seen by the owners and sponsors, and it's not a particularly pretty picture at all. Much of it is obscured by sentiment. Trump and his toadies are taking off the veil of sentiment, becoming openly harsh and unforgiving about the Others Who Don't Belong Here, but that's been hidden or open policy for most of my life.

The spontaneous uprising had to do with human rights and simple justice -- something the Democrats had avoided with regard to immigrants and refugees for many years, so it was kind of funny watching the spin from the Dems as the demonstrations filled airports and demanded the release forthwith of travelers who were being detained pursuant to the White House diktat.

Exploiting the issue has been customary since then. But I don't think the People are necessarily being listened to in this matter.

It's much more nuanced than the question might appear, and it has almost nothing to do with the fearmongering of the regime.

It had much more to do with simple justice. The US war machine and neoliberal economic policies have created the refugee crisis and keep it going despite ongoing efforts to bring this phase of American Imperialism to a conclusion. Simple justice requires that the US accommodate the refugees that it has created, either in the United States or in other lands, and that the US handle immigration justly. None of those things are happening, as power centers exercise essentially arbitrary authority over who does and does not enter the country on a nearly random basis. The chaos at the airports came about due to the extension of that arbitrary authority. Nope. Not gonna fly.

The Dem effort to get in front of it was pretty pathetic from my perspective, but now that the issue is in the courts, we can all move on to other things.

Which would be?

For now, the Resistance appears to be mostly preventional. Prevent the horrors to come. Stop the madness.

And then build a better future.

I don't know that you can do it that way, though. The Color Revolutions showed us that unless you have a Better Future Plan queued up and ready to go, the neolibs and the fascists will move right in and take over. Every time. The follow up is grim. If we're ever going to defeat the fascists and the dominant paradigm of rule, we're going to have to have something very much better ready to go.

We don't. Far from it.

We have to look beyond the desires of the Wypipo.

For me, the model of resistance and that better future is that of the Water Protectors and their allies.


The struggle continues.

On Losers

A constant theme among Trump cultists and loyalists is the idea that "losers" need to sit down and shut up, be gone, disappear, or be disappeared.

The Women's Marches threw a spanner in that notion, at least temporarily, due to their unprecedented and unexpected size and extent. If these marchers, women, men and children together, are all "losers", the Trump regime is off to a very bad start indeed.

I notice with interest that the Women's Marches are being hailed by the Democratic Party operatives still standing -- despite the obvious lack of Democratic Party loyalists among the speakers in DC -- and are either denounced (by Trump among others) or ignored by those who can't fathom what happened.

Their alternate reality insists that there can't be such a level of opposition to their Gold-Plated God-Emperor. It can't happen, so it didn't. Or if it did, it doesn't matter.

There's always the chance that the opportunity for a mass movement will be thrown away. That seems built in. The follow-on events, to the extent there are any, seem weak and uninteresting. That could be the consequence of Democratic Party operatives' co-optation, but knowing some of the women involved or learning of them during the festivities, I have my doubts that co-optation can succeed.

The success of the Marches can be turned into a loss easily enough. But it can also evolve into something much greater.

There is a pretense of reinventing the wheel, but that's hardly necessary. The way to work this sort of spontaneous uprising for particular goals has long since been figured out. See Gene Sharp's directions for Color Revolutionaries as an example.

There was paranoia among some of the Trump believers immediately after the election that "Soros" was trying to foment a Color Revolution when hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to oppose Trump. Comes the Women's March and millions take to the streets and rally in hundreds of cities all over the country and the world, many sporting pink pussy hats, thus inaugurating the "color" aspect of the Revolution. Many speakers used hot headed revolutionary rhetoric without apology. They were not polite. They were deliberately nasty.

They used Trump's own words against him. They demanded their time in the sun. They refuse to be "Losers."

Trump's response was to change the subject to his inauguration and pick a fight with the media over the attendance -- or audience -- there at. Well, isn't that special.

As if it mattered. It didn't, but it was a successful feint and diversion from the Women's Marches at least temporarily.

Trump is deeply unpopular and despised. The reasons why are based both on personality and on policy or likely policies. There is also a class element -- though it's often obscured.

He's riding a tiger, and it's liable to bite him in the throat, but it hasn't quite done so yet.

He sowed the wind, and he's reaping the whirlwind. I think he likes it, though those around him appear not to.

Governance has been thrown into chaos. The permanent government hates chaos. But they're "losers" too, right?

The "loser" trope encompasses the entire country beyond his believers and loyalists. Everyone who doesn't submit is a "loser" -- or even a Clintonite -- according to his metric.

While a dominant minority can rule in this country, it has never been able to do so by rejecting/insulting/denigrating the majority.

The strategy of minority neoLibCon rule has been to rhetorically include everyone, and to provide social if not economic benefits to particular groups on a case-by-case basis. This raises their feeling of status while generally not providing economic security. Clever trick.

On the other hand, the strategy of the Trumpists is to advance the interests of a shrinking minority and no one else. This is classic abuser behavior. Their fantasy is that this strategy is actually benefiting the majority -- that's them -- and anyone who doesn't benefit doesn't deserve to.

They deserve only to be punished or ignored. They're "losers."

As the opposition grows, the Trumpists lose more and more authority; ultimately, like many abusers, they become irrelevant.

We shall see...

Ugly and getting uglier

Kind of interesting from the view at 30,000 feet, but I don't know how much longer I'll bebe able to maintain my distance from the roiling unrest in the streets, nor do I have any real insight into how far it's going to spread.

There were said to be 100,000 in the streets of LA yesterday protesting the elevation of Trump to the Presidency. If it was reported that way, the number was probably quite a bit more given the media tendency to low-ball "leftist" crowd estimates.

Gee.

The protests in Portland have been called "riots" and the police have responded by firing into the crowds with "rubber projectiles," gas and smoke grenades and flash-bangs after assuring us that the protesters threw "objects" at them. A sniper apparently fired live ammunition at a protester, wounding him.

And so it goes.

On the other side, Trump partisans are either claiming the protests don't matter -- after all, the protesters are so few and they're just losers, whiners, and no accounts -- or they are Soros-funded attempts at a domestic "Color Revolution" -- and they don't matter, because Soros, and who cares, anyway?

Well, I'm not aware of any Color Revolution aspects -- yet. But the protests have been growing and spreading, and they are destabilizing wherever they pop up. There was a demonstration in Albuquerque the other day (I think it was Wednesday, I forget!) in which about 600 participated. A handful of what I assume were anarchists targeted a restaurant along the route for vandalism, and sure enough, that's what caught the local media eye (they are always on the lookout for protester "violence.")  Another protest was apparently announced for Thursday night and all the mechanisms for suppression were marshaled by the authorities, but whoopsy! The protest didn't happen.

I have to say Albuquerque's local protest community is well experienced in psyching out authority, and apparently they've been doing that. Bless their hearts.

But what I'm seeing reported in the media about protests around the country should be starting to alarm Our Rulers. It's not a Color Revolution yet, but it could become one -- or something like one -- very quickly.

Personally, I wouldn't want that to happen, partly because the results where they have happened have not necessarily been what their participants intended -- sometimes they've been closer to the opposite. They tend to cause the institutionalization of a neo-liberal, exploitative and extractive power structure that acts against the interests of the People. We already have that, duh. But if a Color Revolution type general protest occurs in this country, Trump will be toast. I don't know of any target of a Color Revolution who has managed to survive the... um, process. I could be wrong, but it wouldn't look good for the survival of the current wildly corrupt and purposefully contrary power structure.

While that might be desirable in the abstract, what would take its place?

That's the problem. While there are many, many reasons to take to the streets over this appalling and outrageous (s)election, no one I know of is able to articulate an alternative. What are we supposed to do, and what sort of difference is supposed to be made?

Are we supposed to install Hillary instead of Trump? I don't see that as viable. First of all, she is saying -- along with the entire political class and the media -- to "accept" the results essentially without question and get used to Trump-the-President. The people in the streets refuse.

While Hillary has a widening popular vote lead, now estimated to top out at 2 million, but it might go to three or even four million by the time all the votes are counted, and if that happened, that would give her a clear majority in the popular vote, no one has yet looked closely at the "battleground" state totals that so surprisingly "flipped" from Clinton to Trump by a very narrow margin at the last minute -- giving him an Electoral College victory without the need for a popular vote plurality or majority.

Given all the talk about rigged elections and Putin's interference (OMG! Putin!) it's remarkable that after Trump's "shocking" "historic" "upset" no one said a word about rigging or interference again.

The Memory Hole sucked it right down.

How... interesting.

Clinton, for her part, is telling donors she "lost" because of Comey's interference. Wait. What about PUTIN????!!!!! No word.

Of course because Trump "won" he no longer has anything to say about "rigged elections," does he?

Jeebus.

They must think the Rabble are complete idiots. Well...

All right, I don't know what happened in the "battleground" states. The excuses I've heard for the "surprising" flip Clinton to Trump in those states -- and those states alone -- are that white women broke for Trump at the very last minute (because Comey -- that was Hillary's excuse) and there were all these hidden white rural voters who came out of the woods to vote for Trump, and what could you do, it was just enough to give him an EC victory, and that's it. Just accept it.

The people in the streets are saying, "No! Fuck No! Not. This. Time!"

We were told the same thing when Bush2 was handed the Presidency by a lawless Supreme Court. "Just accept it." And many did. A lot said "No," but that time, they were ignored. 60,000 or more protested Bush's inauguration in DC on the day, and there was almost no mention of it in the media. It went right down the Memory Hole too, and today hardly anybody knows it happened. "Get over it" was the constant refrain of the Busheviks, but many never did, and the outrages that Busheviks committed were so appalling and so destructive that today it's almost impossible to believe such a damaging regime was allowed to do what it did by the entire political class cheered on by a captive media. What were they thinking?

Millions took to the streets to protest the Iraq War, and they were ignored. But many, many others protested practically every aspect of the Bush Regime, and except for Cindy Sheehan sitting in her ditch in Crawford shaming Bush the Lesser, you practically wouldn't know there were any protests at all these days, because most of them were ignored at the time, and forgotten.

But they happened nonetheless and had the cumulative effect of destabilizing the regime. Not that it did any good, but it happened.

The horrors of the Bush2 Regime are not forgotten, despite the fact that the protests largely were, and I think part of the motivation of the current protests is a recognition that Trump is like Bush2 on steroids, raging and champing at the bit to commit even more mayhem to more people, faster and harder than the Busheviks did.

We will not willingly repeat that horror show.

Trump and his gang of thieves, mountebanks, torturers and warmongers have done nothing to assure us they won't engage in the kind of monstrousness the Busheviks did. In fact, they've been pretty clear they'd "finish the job" the Busheviks left undone by dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other remnants of a social safety net they can find, by deporting every brown person they can round up, building a higher wall to keep them Messicans out, by suppressing every aspect of dissent they can, by restricting the voting franchise to only People Who Matter, by dispensing favors to loyalists, denying them to everyone else, by going hog-wild with extraction and transport of fossil fuels (damn the Indians acting against the Dakota Access Pipeline, Trump himself stands to profit from it, get outta the way, ya damn savages!), restoring official torture programs, glassing any opposition to hegemony in the Middle East, by re-engaging in acts of war against Iran, by allying the United States with every rightwing/fascist regime on earth and on and on and on. That's the program Trump and his R cronies in Congress have been laying out, essentially daring anyone to do anything about it.

His defenders insist we must give him the benefit of the doubt because of all the Good Things he's going to do. Never mind the Bad. He's promising to increase infrastructure spending to create "jobs" -- for whom, doing what? Well, we don't know, do we? But not to worry, it will be Wonderful, and long overdue! He'll get rid of that Obamacare abomination, leaving -- perhaps -- the "prior conditions" denial of coverage provisions and offspring coverage on parents' policies until age 26 as remnant sops to the takers, losers, and whiners. But that's it. Nothing else. 20 some odd million to lose coverage, and wonder of wonders, to lose any ability to get coverage. Tough luck, suckers!

He won't start WWIII with Putin, so that's good, no? He will start a war with Iran and China and whoever else gets in his way or defies him, but they deserve it, right?

Gah. On and on.

"Give him a chance!" And more and more of the People say, "No. Not this time."

I don't know what will happen. I don't want to think the worst, but it's hard not to under the circumstances. This man and his cronies must not take office. Period.

God save us.



Institutional Failure and the Rise of the Rebel

I've been pondering the situations in Ukraine, Venezuela, Thailand, Bosnia, and so many other places where neo-Fascist uprisings are underway with the full support, let it be said, of the EU and the US Government and its dozens of "democracy" NGOs, as well as the no doubt abundant collaboration of our amazing and ever-so-patriotic black ops and security apparats. Not to forget our ever-eager propaganda media spreading lies and half-truths in order to shape American opinion in favor of these neo-Fascist led crises.

Why is this happening now, I wonder, and why is it so easy to bamboozle the masses to accept this bullshit as the genuine rise of the People? Why is it so easy for the propaganda media to evade the whole issue of the violence inherent in all of these revolts and pretend they are all "peaceful" and "innocent" and that they are being brutally attacked by corrupt, tyrannical governments? Never mind that these governments were, by and large, elected and are not behaving tyrannically in any relative or rational sense at all.

I saw Zbigniew Brzezinski on Charlie Rose last night night before last [this post has been in the hopper for a while, and will continue being edited...] prattling like the bitter old man he is about the Ukrainian Thing and going off into fantasies of Russia as Putin "wants it to be." His imagination is obsessed with Russia and "containing the Soviet Union," for in Putin he sees a reincarnation of Stalin and  the reassembled and reestablished Soviet Union, something that the Free World must prevent or destroy at all costs. The Ukrainian Thing has nothing to do with Ukraine, in other words. It's all about preventing the rise of the New Stalin and his perfidious reestablishment of the Soviet Union and its Empire of yore.

The man is mad. The man is out of his frigging mind. He's old and he's bitter and his hatred for Russia and the Russian people knows no bounds. He won't rest until the Russian state is no longer even a remnant of its Imperial and Soviet extent. He won't rest until it is gone altogether, shattered into a thousand pieces, in ruins and destitute. He is our Cato the Elder, I guess, screaming out: "Russia delenda est!!!" every chance he gets.

The horrible thing is that our remnant governmental institutions and much of the corporate sector that owns them believes this shit even more fundamentally than Brzezinski himself does. He's almost mild and sane compared to them. This is one reason why we have been inundated with such relentless and bloodthirsty propaganda about the the troubles in Ukraine -- but have heard and read so little about the almost identical uprisings elsewhere.

It is yet another instance of institutional failure on a massive scale and yet another instance of how the vacuum is filled with madness, brutality -- and wherever possible, with rebellion.

The insane fantasy that Russia under Putin is somehow seeking to re-create and re-assemble the Soviet Union, and Putin himself is trying to become The New Stalin has been driving much of American foreign policy in the region for as long as Putin has been on the political scene in Russia. Anyone who's not the drunk but compliant Yeltsin, in other words, is seen as a threat to be contained and/or overthrown, the sooner the better. The Global Hegemon will not be content with anything less than submission, abject, full and willing.

Our government has never gotten beyond its fantasies of the Soviet Union, and many of our institutions are similarly locked in combat with something that truly never was -- the great and powerful monster they think it was and believe it still is.

And that's why Ukraine is being torn apart by the EU and US. Rent as fully asunder as, oh, say Yugoslavia was, or as the Soviet Union itself was under Yeltsin, back in the day. Our failed institutions, locked in the past, are still fighting the subversive and hot wars they dreamed about winning during the Cold War.

This can be nothing but insanity.

As insane as the behavior of these failed institutions is, it doesn't mean that the rebellions themselves entirely lack legitimacy. As I've said in other posts, people under oppression have a right and duty to rise up against their oppressors. That should be a given.

The question is, do these rebels represent the genuinely oppressed? And what, ultimately, do they want?

In Venezuela, the fact that the people rising up are not oppressed is starkly obvious. The rebels are almost entirely composed of los ricos or their wannabes. They are often blonde, well-dressed, well-coiffed, well-housed, and well-educated. They are the upper crust of Venezuelan society, and they want their power back. They resent being ruled by the Lower Orders, people they consider to be "salvajes"  and "animales" -- people only fit to be ruled, not to rule over los caballeros themselves. The very idea of it, ptui!

These class and race divisions giving rise to rebellion in Venezuela are very stark and obvious as they have been throughout the Bolivarian Revolutionary period under Chavez and Maduro, and as they have been throughout Venezuela's history since it was settled by German immigrants under Spanish rule. Of course they want their power back. They believe it is their right. Democracy? Piffle!

The anti-Bolivarian propaganda in this country has been strenuous and relentless since the establishment of the Bolivarian Revolution in the late '90s. When there was a coup against Chavez in 2002, American media, led by the New York Times, exploded with joy and rapture. Unfortunately for the celebrators, the coup only lasted a couple of days, and Chavez regained his presidential palace to continue on the path he'd set -- toward ever more democracy and social justice, something populations in Latin America had long yearned for, yearnings long thwarted by institutions established to prevent the rise of the People. Ever. Institutions that were enabled by the Spanish, by the governments that won their independence from Spain, and not much later by the United States government which took charge of the Hemisphere as its own private backyard empire.

The Bolivarian Revolution reversed the power structure of Venezuela, putting the long oppressed majority in charge and curtailing the power of los ricos to rule over them. A rather mild version of social and economic justice was instituted. The rich were not deprived of their wealth -- at least not entirely -- only their power over the state, power which was reserved to The People as a whole.

The uprisings of the rich against that state of affairs have been ongoing for close to two decades, and they have often turned bloody. The state, under Chavez and Maduro, has been remarkably tolerant of the mischief made by the rebels, essentially declaring an amnesty for the rebels time and again, in an apparent effort to include them in the Revolution. The burden the rebels are attempting to throw off does not appear to be that of genuine oppression, for it is difficult to find any significant effort to oppress the rich in Venezuela or to confiscate their wealth, or to silence their voices, or to interfere significantly with their ways of life. The burden the rich in Venezuela seek to throw off is a psychological one, the burden of their own sense of powerlessness -- though they are not truly powerless in the Bolivarian system at all, not any more so than anyone else is truly powerless.

One of the remarkable features of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela is the widespread use of direct democratic councils through which Venezuelans of all classes are empowered, and by which the country has been able to progress in the interests of all the people, not just a few.

And it is that very empowerment of the whole people as well as the extensive provision of basic housing, healthcare, education, and justice for all that the rebels seek to eliminate and destroy. When they talk about Maduro's "exit" they're talking about overthrowing the entire Bolivarian system and remaking Venezuela into a version of what it used to be, putting the closed sign on the institution of People's democracy and ending such frivolous nonsense as social and economic justice once and for all.
--------------------------------------------
Now that the Ukrainian uprising has apparently succeeded in driving out Yanukovych and ending his rule (though it's not entirely certain), rebels in Caracas are no doubt encouraged. If they can only turn the military and police away from Maduro's government, they're home free, yes?

How might they do that?

Money talks, as we've been seeing in almost every corner of the globe, every aspect of life.

The rule of money, the failure of institutions, and the rise of rebels are all tied together. This year may well turn into one for the books.

[Events have intervened to cut short this post, though I'm sure it's quite long enough!]

The New Model Color Revolution

Ukraine's elected president has fled the capital and the government in Kiev, to the extent there is one, is in the hands of a parliament and rebels -- as well as, perhaps, the security services.

The New Model Color Revolution is on the march.

Whether this revolution will be consolidated or not remains to be seen, in part because it was apparently triggered and engineered by American and European economic and political interests in collaboration with a wide range of Ukrainian dissidents -- including neo-Fascist and Nazi groups.

Just yesterday, Polish and German representatives worked out an agreement with Yanukovych to restore the 2004 constitution and to hold new elections by December. In addition, all the armed groups were to turn in their weapons and stand down. A new Interior Minister would be selected. The police would not assault or harass protesters. Apparently, Putin told Yanukovych to agree. So he did.

And I wouldn't be surprised if immediately after this agreement was initialed, the new Interior Minister told Yanukovych that he could not count on the loyalty of the police or the troops, that for all intents and purposes, his rule was at an end.

Momentarily, the parliament voted to impeach Yanukovych, and he fled for the east, perhaps seeking Russian protection, but at this point, it's probably too late for that, as Yanukovych has shown himself to be, shall we say, somewhat inept in dealing with the uprising he's had in his midst for the last several months.

While this uprising has utilized some of the attributes of Gene Sharp's Color Revolutions as well as Occupy, the protests in Kiev have been very violent, with many hundreds injured over the last several months and dozens killed. Police have been routinely assaulted with firebombs and other weapons, and until the other day, they were unarmed and did not respond in kind.

However, it is my understanding that Putin was not happy with the weakness Yanukovych consistently showed in the face of the protests, and told him to man up and crack down. When he did so, it led to even more bloodshed, fires in the square and even more people protesting, which led to the "diplomatic" of the Poles and Germans at the presidential level, which essentially sealed Yanukovych's fate.

There are some indications that a civil war is possible, but with the military and police no longer loyal to Yanukovych, and with the parliament expressing its loyalty to the rebels, the likelihood of civil war is diminished. What happens from this point will depend, in large part, on how magnanimous the rebels are toward the ethnic Russian population.

Under German banking and Eurozone financial control, Ukraine will more than likely be subjected to Greek style austerity -- something Yanukovych was trying to avoid. The Greeks have risen up many times against the crippling, indeed killing, austerity being imposed on them by their German and Eurozone masters, but to no avail. Whether Ukrainians will be as ineffective in resisting the measures they will face as clients of the Germans and Eurozone financiers as the Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians and so many others have been remains to be seen. But I doubt they will be able to mount a serious defense.

The question of whether Russia will assert some sort of hegemony under the circumstances is still open. I doubt Russia will intervene more than symbolically. More likely in my view, Russia will attempt to strike a deal that enables a quasi independent Ukraine under German and Eurozone financial control, perhaps with a semi-autonomous Russian district.

If anyone in the region is politically skilled, it's Vladimir Putin. And it's clear Putin is disgusted with Yanukovych.

This New Model Color Revolution will no doubt be spreading, sooner rather than later, and there is little sign the results will be positive for the vast majority of humanity.

[Potentially] Alarming Developments in Kiev, Bangkok, Caracas, Sarajevo. Cairo Set the Standard...

Morning Screen Grab from Kiev

Generally speaking, people have a right -- and duty -- to rise up in the face of tyranny and oppression. It's not easy, and it can be very risky for those who engage in it, but by and large, large scale social progress is made by means of protests and uprisings of the oppressed all over the world and in all eras.

Generally speaking, the progress that has been made through the means of protests and uprisings has been more or less liberating to those who have previously been oppressed, and that liberation has generally led to more liberation from tyranny and oppression. Thus, most uprisings of the sort we have witnessed for decades now, since the beginning of the fragmentation of the Soviet Union in the '80s, have led to more and more liberated societies and nations.

But the liberation from tyrannical regimes, be they Communist or otherwise, often comes at a huge price to the erstwhile liberated masses, a price that's paid in institutional failure, economic collapse, desperate living conditions, and destruction of social cohesion. The notion that what is lost is somehow "creative" -- thus the term, "creative destruction" so popular among the economic, social and political hit men (and women, I'm looking at you, Legarde) and mercenaries roaming the globe -- simply ignores or even celebrates the suffering left in the wake of so many Color Revolutions and the like over the years.

"Ukraine is burning" ran a breathless headline by one of my favorite authors over at dKos, jpmassar, one of the usually brightest and most keyed in to matters of uprising, revolt, and revolution they have over there. Well, I'd been watching the livestream from Kiev for a good portion of the day already, a livestream that I noted was labeled: Євромайдан -- революция,(ie: "Euromaidan -- Revolution"),  in the upper right corner, something most Americans might miss because they can't read the Cyrillic alphabet, and the corner label would just appear to be some gibberish in a foreign language. Probably (ick) Russian and therefore, given the way media and politics work in the world, slanted to favor the (ick) Russian point of view about (the foreign and unfamiliar) Ukraine.

Uh, no. In fact, the video feed was coming from a rather slick media operation run by the rebels who were burning their barricades in a spectacle in Independence Square in Kiev. As I watched the livestream, it was clear this wasn't just a slick media operation, the visuals were being consciously designed for maximum propaganda impact, not unlike Soviet filmmaking back in the day. It was really very well done, I have to say, but at the same time, it was highly deceptive and manipulative.

First of all, the images made it seem as if the city was on fire -- it's not -- and that the uprising was... general. It's not. These sorts of things don't generally involve a large percentage of the whole population, but they can involve a large proportion of a certain segment of that population (which is apparently what was going on in Cairo and Egypt too just prior to the al Sisi coup which overthrew the Morsi government and led to a brutal and bloody crack-down on Muslim Brotherhood resistance to the coup. But I'll get to that in due time...) The theory is that if a large enough segment of a single population sector or multiple sectors can be convinced to participate in demonstrations and protests and rebellion, then the Revolution is not only nigh, it has already come -- and quite likely whatever results from it will be something like victory for the rebels.

Revolution does not require and will hardly ever involve the whole population in any case. Most people will rationally choose to stay out of the way.

The images last night from Kiev also made it seem that there was some kind of "heroic" action taking place. Debris was being continually fed into the bonfires burning ("gloriously") in Maidan Square, luridly illuminating the scene. Police and firefighters were occasionally seen milling around the margins of what seemed to be a large -- but indistinct -- crowd. Now and then, there would be close ups of the fires and some silhouettes of the crowd passing back and forth in front of the blaze. From time to time, fireworks would be ignited and Molotov cocktails would fly through the air. There was no sound most of the time, but occasionally, there would be heard the pop-pop-pop of gunfire or fireworks, and from time to time, one could hear what sounded like many voices raised in song (was it the Ukrainian national anthem? It was.) Flags were flying, but what was on them was indistinguishable in the dark and the smoke. Some seemed tattered, battle worn, others more or less pristine.

The images from from at least three cameras, and probably more, were being intricately and expertly interwoven, so as to show close-ups, medium and long shots in turn, and at one point, a camera was focused on the silhouette of a young person climbing the outside of a building near the square. A lurid orange glow came from inside the building, and soon enough it would be apparent that the building was on fire. What was the silhouetted figure doing, though? I couldn't tell, and I didn't watch that scene long enough to find out, but in daytime views this morning, it appears he may have been heroically hanging a heroic Revolutionary banner on the outside of the burning trade union building -- or maybe he was just showing off, who knows? It made for some dramatic imagery, however.
-----------------------------------
Since the murderous rampages of Al Sisi's forces in Cairo in response to protests against the military coup there, I haven't been much inclined to watch the Global Revolution streams or closely follow the various uprisings that have been or are taking place, whether in Venezuela or Thailand, Ukraine or Bosnia  or much of anywhere else, because it seems to me that they are all rightist rebellions for the purpose of installing rightist regimes which will serve the interests of international finance. It's sickening.

This is not at all what the Occupy Movement was and is about, but every one of these uprisings is using Occupy tactics (along with a little ultra-violence) to gain and have its way. It has reached the point where even otherwise rightist supporters are wary and somewhat puzzled at what is going on.

It's fairly obvious to me. By utilizing the successful tactics of the Arab Spring and the later Occupy Movement to gain the attention and widespread sympathy of media and oppressed peoples around the world, factions of the oppressor class are seeking to mobilize media and world opinion on their behalf to undermine and overthrow governments which dare to take more interest in the people than in the oppressors.

This is obviously what's been going on in Caracas, so obvious it's breathtaking in its chutzpah. But in Thailand, Bosnia, and Turkey it's not been so obvious at all, as it seems the rebels have valid complaints and they are not trying to impose rightist rule -- and the oppression of the lower orders that goes with it -- at least not on the surface. Scratch a bit below the surface, however, and you will find many of the same dynamics, of a minority class based revolt, generally of the relatively well off, backed by a rising plutocratic class, trying to force ("inject") their interests into the popular consciousness enough to be able to overthrow the duly constituted and elected government and replace it with their own unelected one.

They use the tactics of Occupy, Arab Spring, and the Color Revolutions of Gene Sharp -- because they work, or they can work. But their intentions are to impose, to rule, to plunder, and to oppress.

Kiev is not actually burning, but it could erupt in flames at any time. The fires in the square last night were for show, and the show is one of a rightist, populist character, one we're seeing more and more of around the world.

And I have no doubt our metastasizing surveillance and security state apparat is deeply involved in every one of these uprisings. But will that story ever be told in the chest thumping, fist pumping, but largely content-free New Media ventures of Omidyar or any other billionaire? I doubt it.

Even the once iconoclastic Mark Ames and Yasha Levine now of Pando appear to be neutered and are mostly silent about the global rightist coups.

Yes, it's alarming.

Kiev Is Burning

See more US News from ABC | World News

They tell me this is yet another Color Revolution in Kiev, Ukraine, like that in Bangkok, one in which a militant and rising middle class demands that the more or less populist -- though oppressive -- government aligned with the 'lesser people' be gone and neo-liberal "democratic" government and economic policies be instituted.

When Gene Sharp's manual for Color Revolutions was being promoted heavily at Occupy events, I read it, tried to understand Sharp's philosophy about these things, and looked deeper into their results, and I said, "Whoa! Wait. Is this what you want? Is this what you really want from Occupy or any other revolutionary movement?"

Few knew what I was saying, or why, because very few understood the nature and purpose of Color Revolutions, nor did it ever occur to most of them that there were particular -- and highly exploitative -- economic interests behind every one of them, interests that were perfectly delighted to use whatever discontents they could find among the People to get what they wanted out of them, at whatever cost to the People it took.

Those who did understand what I was asking wanted nothing more than to shut me and anyone else who questioned the semi-divinity of Gene Sharp up.

Where I saw the Sharp methods and revolutionary practices had value was in their systems and organization -- which any movement can adopt and utilize, even anarchist ones. The problem is that any movement can adopt them, and that includes counter-revolutionary and reactionary ones. Sharp's directives and directions for carrying out a Color Revolution, and the Revolution itself, are not required to be "leftish" or carried out on behalf of the People (though they are always "in the name of the People.")  Yet that's a marketing slogan. It doesn't have to be -- and typically isn't -- real at all. It's marketing. Bernays on steroids.

In fact, the whole "Color Revolution" schtick is marketing. That's what Sharp was selling. How to organize and market your uprising so it will be successful in the marketplace, how to sell it. Not, by any means, how to achieve the revolutionary ends most beneficial to the greatest number of People. Apart from some yammering about "freedom" and "democracy" the ends are never discussed in Sharp's extensive work. I even dared to ask why that was so. If you don't know why you're having an uprising -- apart from some vague concepts of "Freedom" (for whom, from what?) and "Democracy" (In what way?), then why are you having it?

So I glance every now and then at what's been going on in Kiev and Bangkok, and ponder the disasters in the aftermath the Arab Spring, the general failure of the populist movements in Spain and Greece (among other places), and I see a common pattern. We can go all the way back to the Philippines insurrection against Marcos, or the numerous "Color Revolutions" in Eastern Europe and the eventual destruction of the Soviet Union and any hint of popular resistance to the looming economic and political catastrophe Soviet citizens were being forced to endure,  and see a common thread: these "populist" uprisings were all -- every one of the them -- conducted on behalf of a nascent 'new' oligarchy which wanted to replace the sclerotic 'old' one, using the discontents of a rising but blocked middle class and the often suppressed longings of the poor to gain the leverage necessary to overthrow the Old Order and institute a New one -- a new one that is as bad as, or even worse than, what it replaces. Every. Single. One.

And it is always all about the marketing in Sharp's vision.

Of course, it's supposed to be nonviolent, with nonviolence used as a weapon against internal opposition and against the Old Order, but on the margins, these successful "revolutions" -- or reactionary movements, which is what I came to believe they were -- were remarkably not non-violent at all. The "peaceful revolutionaries" always -- ALWAYS -- held the threat of violence over the state or oligarchy they wished to replace, while simultaneously claiming otherwise, and they sought ways to precipitate or initiate violent repression by the police and authorities so as to gain sympathy for their cause. This is not non-violence; it's an embrace of violence. In Kiev -- and in many other sites where this sort of double-tracking goes on -- there is a lot of violence initiated by the state to be sure, but there is also sabotage and violence initiated by the reactionary-revolutionaries, whether it is burning down symbols of the regime (as happened over and over again in Cairo, for example) to actually burning members of the police force with Molotov cocktails (Kiev, Athens, etc.) .

By comparison to almost any revolutionary movement in history, Occupy was almost preternaturally non-violent. Yet it was met with extraordinary levels of state violence that was widely approved by the general population in large part because they were convinced that Occupations were dirty and disgusting hotbeds for disease, rape and murder.

That, too, was marketing -- by the authorities -- to ensure that Occupy could not become a successful Revolution against the oligarchy that rules the world with rod and staff. Many of the same tactics that were used in the United States (and elsewhere) against Occupy and similar demonstrations are being used against protesters in Kiev and Bangkok, whereas in Cairo, the authorities just shoot into crowds, killing and maiming many thousands so far -- with no apparent end to the mayhem in sight.

But what is it for?

Some loud and energized Ukrainians would would rather be under the thumb of EU Bankers, Neo-Liberals and Technocrats than be aligned with (ick) Russia? Oh Kay, then. Let's have a Revolution!

They say that this year will mark another in a series of years of rage and rebellion around the world. We shall see, shan't we?


-------------------------
UPDATE: This video has been making the rounds. It shows a phalanx of police in Kiev confronting a large and enthusiastic crowd, members of which are hurling rocks, bottles, paving stones, smoke bombs, and Molotov cocktails at the police who are arrayed behind barricades and shields. Someone in the crowd is driving a front-loader repeatedly into the police line and appears to break through at one point but retreats. The version that is going around stops as the front-loader retreats, but there is another one that shows the action from the ground level, and that's the second one posted here.





You'll note that members of the crowd are attempting to stop the driver of the front-loader and try to speak/reason with the more militant members of the crowd. Others have pointed out that if anything like this demonstration were to happen in the United States, the front-loader driver would be taken out by a police sniper, and the crowd would be gassed and bludgeoned and shot by the police who would promptly arrest any survivors.

Though we're given to believe that the uprising in Kiev has wide popular support, some observers and commenters in this country and elsewhere have noted that much if not all of the violence has been instigated by what amount to Neo-Fascists whose determination is not at all in the interests of the Ukrainian people. In addition, the Ukraine apparently has a broadly divided population, with Eastern populations widely supporting closer ties with Russia (many ethnic Russians live in the Eastern areas) while Western populations widely support closer ties with Europe.

Eventually, this may lead to the break up of the Ukraine -- which wouldn't be the first former Soviet sphere republic to split apart or even engage in civil war.

This Turkey Thing

Woman in Red

I'm not quite sure what it is about it, but there's something going on in Turkey that doesn't sit quite right with me.

My first question was, "Why Turkey?"

It's the Big (Muslim) Player in the region, and during the last few years, especially, its government under Erdogan has become more and more assertive of Turkish interests and prerogatives -- and history. Its diplomatic clashes with Israel, particularly over the Mavi Marmara business, are legendary. The entire (former) Ottoman Empire appears to be the sphere of influence over which modern Turkey wishes to assert itself. But then, what of Israel and the United States -- not to mention Russia -- all of which assert influence over much the same territory and have been committing atrocious acts against the peoples of the region for many years now. They've been enabling and permitting atrocities when they are not committing them as well.

So it occurred to me, when the revolt began in Istanbul, ostensibly over the re-development of a park -- the last open space in central Istanbul, they say -- into an Ottoman-style shopping mall, that this had all the earmarks of one of those "springtime revolutions" that have been roiling North Africa and the Middle East for some time now, some of them, such as Libya and Syria, leading to gross and massively destructive civil wars, and all of them having at least an initial similarity to Gene Sharp's famous Color Revolutions that resulted in the installation of neo-liberal regimes in the former Soviet sphere, the Philippines and elsewhere.

Why Turkey? Why now? Who have they offended?

This revolt is ostensibly over a neo-liberal project in the center of Istanbul, as well as the increasingly authoritarian impositions of the Erdogan regime in Ankara.We hear the usual calls for freedom, justice, dignity, etc. "It's not about the park," say the rebels and demonstrators themselves. "It's about 'not being heard.'"

Now wait.

"Not being heard" is a straightforward rhetorical device. Turkey is a complicated society to be sure, but so far as I can tell, it is a modern western-style democratic republic as well. Its democracy operates with at least as much freedom and fairness as that of the United States (say), probably more freely and fairly when you get down to it.

Erdogan and his party, so I understand it, are very popular, their programs and policies widely supported -- at least until recently. But now, all of a sudden, they are "arrogant" and "dismissive" of the popular will, and the regime has become an "authoritarian dictatorship" which is symbolized by the redevelopment project under way at Taksim Square and Gezi Park. The regime "doesn't listen to the People" who want to preserve the park as the sole remnant of former parks and open spaces in the center of Istanbul.

Wait. Something is off here.

In his public statements, Erdogan has indicated he is really pissed at the fact that these malcontents are making trouble -- and he has been at pains to point out that they are in essence acting on behalf of the main Turkish opposition party and of some nameless, faceless foreign interests, regardless of any discontents they may have with him and his rule and that of his party. But, as he says (in paraphrase), "elections have consequences" and he and his party have been elected three times by popular vote, in elections that (so far as I know) have been free and fair.

Operating a "Color Revolution" - style popular revolt under these circumstances is somewhat dicey, but that's the way these things go.

"Color Revolutions" can work against actual dictatorships, and they can be successful when those dictatorships are rotten to the core and on their last legs, as was the case in the Soviet Empire back in the day. Of course the nearly universal result of "Color Revolutions" is the triumph of neo-Liberalism -- to the extent that I have long assumed that's the real point of them -- and the gross impoverishment of the masses for the benefit of a new oligarchy. But when a "Color Revolution" is attempted against a functioning representative democracy, it runs into all kinds of ideological, philosophical, and practical mine fields. Basically, the revolutionaries are acting in opposition to what they say they want.

That can make it easy for authority to clamp down hard on the rebels and prevent them from succeeding.

In other cases, the internal contradictions of the rebel movement(s) can trigger civil war as we saw in Libya and now in Syria.

I doubt the Turks are interested in engaging in civil war, but the rebels don't seem to be relenting in the face of pretty serious crackdowns by police.

I've read that the Turkish economy is booming, certainly compared to Europe, but that there is very high unemployment, especially among the youth -- as in Europe -- and that most of the benefits of the booming economy are going to a handful of well-placed individuals and interests. It's the classic neo-liberal "success story" in other words. The People are not benefiting from the economy; they're losing ground. But that's how neo-liberalism works. The People (or a portion of them) are rising up, using the rhetoric of revolts against socialist/fascist dictatorships, but what they are rising up against -- if they are being truthful -- is what results from the success of revolutions against those dictatorships. They're rising up against neo-liberalism.

Or so it would seem.

The result of these revolts against neo-liberalism, however, seems to be even greater applications of neo-liberalism (for example, in Spain... or the United States) . The physical violence used to suppress the revolts is sometimes extreme -- we've seen plenty of that in Turkey -- and almost always, the suppression leads to greater hardships for the People through even more severe applications of neo-liberal economics.

There may be something else entirely happening in Turkey. Some of what's going on, for example, seems primarily intended to overturn the results of the most recent election and to embarrass Erdogan in the eyes of the world. "Too big for his britches" as the saying goes. What with Syria's civil war next door (which Erdogan has remarked upon at some length) and Israel's constant carping about and interference in practically everything, one could easily see a "foreign" aspect to the Turkish revolt. While foreign influence could help trigger a domestic revolt in Turkey, I doubt it could be sustained. The Turks are too proud and defiant to be led around by either Syrians or Israeli self-interest. But slapping around Erdogan for uppity-ness may well be in a whole lot of domestic and foreign interests, so we'll see how that plays out.

He sounds very Bush-like in his denunciations of the demonstrators.

Which leads me to the whole question of why things are as fucked up in general as they are. It goes back to the success of the Bushevik Revolution when time was. They were able to get away with some of the most atrocious acts imaginable, and because they were able to do what they did, without serious repercussions (at least to themselves), they became examples for leaders in the rest of the world to follow -- which as been going on for years now. I don't know how much of it is conscious emulation, but a great deal of Bushevism has been inculcated into governments throughout the world, and it leads directly to the kind of outrageous -- and very stupid -- behavior of governments we see nearly everywhere today.

Erdogan is certainly part of the picture.

While there are no doubt other elements in play in the revolt against him (and it seems to be quite a personal thing at times) I suspect the underlying motivation is that instinctive rebellion/revulsion against the kind of monstrousness that the Busheviks introduced to the world -- a monstrousness that has become the New Normal nearly everywhere. Turkey is no tired-old-dictatorship on its last legs, but it is going through a period of Bushevik-style neo-liberal reorganization that is severely affecting the peoples' sense of security and well-being. Whatever else may be driving the uprising, I suspect that is the underlying problem, as it is in the uprisings sporadically occurring elsewhere in Europe and the United States, and which has been the motivation for so much of the Occupy Movement.

----------------------------------
I wrote this post well before I looked at Scott Creighton's "Color Revolution" conspiracy musings over at American Everyman. For a more thorough examination of what might -- or might not -- really be going on in Turkey, Ché say Check It Out.