A People’s Guide to Revolution: How Leaderless Revolts Lose the Battle Before it Even Begins

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 18/12/2019 - 1:31am in

Since the 2010 Arab Autumn, it has become clear that leaderless revolts only have two inevitable outcomes. In the first, a game of musical chairs between right-wing imperialist forces will be played and only superficial change will be achieved, like in Quebec, Egypt, Tunis, and Sudan. The second possibility, a right-wing contra war will take hold of the country, as it did in Libya, Syria and Yemen. 

In both situations, two factors impede the possibility of genuine progressive change from crystallizing: a lack of revolutionary television broadcasting that can control messaging, and the lack of a political vehicle in the form of a party and leadership to capitalize on that revolutionary media. Without both, real change cannot be achieved. 

If a popular protest movement doesn’t have control of mass media, it cannot control the message, and if it doesn’t have a political vehicle and inspirational leadership, it cannot control the outcome.

Quebec’s protest movement had some semblance of its own media yet it lacked a political vehicle. The outcome was ultimately right-wing control. In Lebanon and Iraq, popular protest movements lacked both access to the media and a requisite political vehicle. To expect a different outcome than was seen in Quebec, Sudan – or Syria for that matter – is borderline delusional or based on some supremacist ideal that Lebanon is different than the rest of humanity.

I served as the Executive Director of CUTV, a small community television station in Montreal, Canada between 2010 and 2013. My experiences there provide critical insight into the importance of mass media and political vehicles for the success of a popular revolt. Since that time, I have been building on this experience in order to support popular protest movements around the world, including in Lebanon, my home since 2018. 


Quebec 2012

In 2012, the Liberal-Federalist party had control of the provincial government of Quebec and Jean Charest, the province’s Premier,  abruptly proposed raising college and university fees by 75 percent. As an executive at CUTV, which was located on the campus of the Anglophone (English) Concordia University, I heard murmurs from embedded reporters noting that students were organizing for a national strike. Events leading up to the strike indicated it would be different than usual. Student organizing in Quebec has historically been a fragmented sphere. English versus French student unions, college versus university, indigenous and “ethnic” versus white. This time, however, Anglo students were as fired up as the Francophone (French-speaking) students and indigenous students were pressuring the movement for inclusion. 

Recognizing the brewing mobilization for a province-wide and unlimited general strike among students in Quebec, CUTV decided to investigate mobile live broadcasting technologies in hopes of providing a mass media platform that could carry the demands of the students to Quebecers. The so-called Arab Autumn was energized and manipulated by al Jazeera through live high definition broadcasts from a camera stationed atop a building near the square, complete with full journalistic packaging. The Occupy movement was energized by low quality mobile live broadcasting from cell-phones. We were looking to surpass both of these models. 

We found solutions through burgeoning technologies at the time that allowed for high definition mobile broadcasting on cellular networks. We leased the equipment months before the general strike began in order to test and modify it to fit our needs. We deployed that tech with full journalistic packaging, the viewer was able to receive a full high definition broadcast with journalists conducting interviews and explaining events in both French and English, all live from the ground and mobilized to follow the action as it developed. 

CUTV Montreal Protests

An exhausted Laith Marouf and his CUTV crew report live from the ground in Montreal, May 20, 2012. Alexis Gravel | Flickr

This live mobile broadcasting created an echo chamber of sorts for the movement. More people were now joining demonstrations, in part, because of the broadcast and demonstrations were now getting longer and more frequent. This meant that we were broadcasting upwards of eight hours a day, this, during a strike that lasted for six months; the longest in the history of Quebec and of Canada. 

Within weeks, our online stream was garnering 150,000 simultaneous unique viewers, and our small community website was clocking 2.5 million visitors a day. In comparison, mainstream media and news television stations, who had no political stake in amplifying the demonstrations, did not suspend regular programming and only covered the protests during their regular three times a day news broadcasts. Even then, according to viewer statistics, the maximum number of simultaneous viewers that news broadcasters in Quebec garnered was around 10,000. This meant that CUTV controlled the narrative of the movement, and all the mainstream media combined could not counter our messaging. After six months, thousands of arrests, tens of injured, and daily police attacks on striking students, (and our broadcasting team) the government resigned and called for an early election.

It was at this juncture that the popular protest movement in Quebec lost control of its messaging as it lacked a political vehicle, a political party with structure and leadership, to carry it into power. Like many protest movements since the Arab Autumn, the young Quebecers refused to elect leadership and were therefore unable to provide voters with an alternative in the coming elections. As expected, the Separatist French Supremacist “Parti Quebecois” capitalized on the moment and swept the elections. As the new premier was giving her acceptance speech, an Anglo Federalist mounted the stage and shot at her with a handgun, luckily missing the shot, yet striking home the reality that a fragmented society, even in the so-called first world, can easily devolve into an armed civil conflict given the right (or wrong) media diet.   


Lebanon 2019   

While the 2012 Quebec revolt had the privilege of a movement-oriented media to amplify its voice and managed the messaging and narrative in the public discourse; protesters in Lebanon had no such mechanisms. 

When I arrived in Beirut in mid-2018, I was immediately approached by the country’s “left” parties and their associated media outlets. I had dozens of meetings, and in all of them, I emphasized the following: Lebanon was on the edge, the war in Syria had delayed any revolt, the last round of demonstrations in 2015 triggered by a garbage crisis was an indicator of a sill-glowing ember under the ash (or trash pile in this case) and that live mobile broadcasting capabilities were needed. In almost all those meetings, my pitch was received well and my ideas acknowledged. Yet nothing panned out as those parties and media hired consultancy firms or friends to supposedly deliver on the new multi-media strategy. 

When the demonstrations started, it was clear that “left” had failed to prepare. In stark contrast though, both the pro-imperialist liberal media and their right-wing counterparts were well prepared for the would-be revolt. 

In 2012, CUTV’s connections to the popular protest movement in Quebec and the information gathered while embedded with students allowed us to acquire requisite technologies, modify them to fit our needs, and train the crews on the new broadcasting and reporting models before any strikes were called. What was shocking in Lebanon was how just seven years later, TV stations like al Jadeed and MTV Lebanon were ready with the tech and training they needed to control the narrative of the burgeoning uprising without ever having used this model of reporting before. Al Jadeed had at least eight live units broadcasting across the country, MTV had at least six. Their crews were all trained and ready. Did they have prior knowledge of the would-be “revolt,” or were they informed by the power-brokers of what triggers could indicate a brewing movement?

In any case, what al Jadeed and others did was unprecedented in any country. Here you had corporate-owned stations suspending all regular programming, as well as advertising, and reporting live from the streets for upwards of eight hours a day. 

Lebanon protests

A well-equipped Lebanese news crew takes cover from police tear gas in Beirut, Oct. 18, 2019. Hassan Ammar | AP

Each broadcasting unit costs a minimum of $1,000 per 30 hours of broadcasting, add to that all of the drones, satellite trucks, journalists, technicians, camera operators, and anchors, and it becomes clear that such an operation cost these stations millions of dollars. Not to mention a substantial amount of lost advertising revenue. Why would profit-driven, corporate-owned stations take on such heavy costs if not for political gain? It was clear that these media outlets wanted the demonstrations to continue, and more importantly, wanted to control and manipulate their message and outcome. 

Compare this to mass protests movements like those affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States, or the Yellow Vest protests in France, or for that matter any popular protest movement in wealthy countries with an imperialist bent. In those countries, no corporate-owned or government-sponsored media ever suspend their regular programming or deploy live mobile broadcasting to cover popular protest movements. This, among other factors, is proof enough of the political motive of such coverage in Lebanon. 

Progressive forces in Lebanon did not grasp this reality and allowed their movement to play into the hand of the country’s establishment media and outside influencers. These progressives, by adopting the motto of  “all of them, means all of them” early in the demonstrations, put all of Lebanon’s domestic political parties, including Hezbollah, into the same boat as the corrupt politicians who impoverished the nation. This motto, parroted repeatedly by a media vehicle controlled by foreign power-brokers, meant that the anti-corruption movement was instantaneously diverted into a movement against the enemies of those same by foreign power-brokers.

In a world ruled by multimedia and multi-platform international media empires; a leaderless movement, one that doesn’t control any mass media platform or political party, will, without any doubt, be manipulated by those who do. To believe otherwise and to insist on leaderless movements, especially given the many years of experience we now have to draw from; is to be myopic and delusional, or worse, to be a tool manipulated by those who wish to take control of those movements.

Feature photo | Anti-government protesters install a large cardboard fist labeled “Revolution” in Martyr’s Square in Beirut, Lebanon, Nov. 22, 2019. Hussein Malla | AP

Laith Marouf is an award-winning multimedia producer and media policy and law consultant. His media work spans issues of liberation and decolonization from indigenous nations to Arab peoples, while his policy consultancy work is concentrated on building broadcasting capabilities for misrepresented and underrepresented communities the world over. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

The post A People’s Guide to Revolution: How Leaderless Revolts Lose the Battle Before it Even Begins appeared first on MintPress News.

Book Review: Anatomies of Revolution by George Lawson

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/12/2019 - 11:09pm in



In Anatomies of RevolutionGeorge Lawson offers a new account of how revolutions begin, unfold and end through a dynamic amalgam of in-depth sociological theory, multiple historical narratives and poignant commentary on contemporary politics. This book is a triumph when it comes to a creative theorisation of revolution, writes Eric Loefflad, providing clarity not in spite of complexity, but through it. 

If you are interested in this book review, you may like to listen to a podcast of the book launch of Anatomies of Revolution, recorded at LSE on Tuesday 22 October 2019. 

Anatomies of Revolution. George Lawson. Cambridge University Press. 2019.

Find this book: amazon-logo

In his landmark text The Interpretation of Cultures, renowned anthropologist Clifford Geertz noted a particularity regarding the mid-twentieth-century creation of new sovereign states out of Europe’s overseas empires in Asia and Africa. On one level, this ‘decolonisation’ was an all-encompassing transformation in its rejection of the chauvinist presumptions that built the modern global system. On another level, it was a grand tapestry of assertions by a multitude of discrete identities newly liberated from the whims of foreign masters. To speak of this meta-event as either a singular zeitgeist or a variegated proliferation of unbridled plurality in mutually exclusive terms is to misidentify its true character.

While post-war decolonisation was perhaps its greatest exemplification, this simultaneous universality and particularity is deeply embedded within ‘revolution’ as a general concept. On this point, revolution derives much operative force from the all-encompassing nature of its promises, yet manifests across a vast diversity of contexts for a correspondingly vast diversity of reasons. In other words, while revolution invokes emancipation as a core aspiration of humanity writ large, no two revolutions are ever exactly the same. Against this multi-faceted backdrop, the simple question of ‘where to begin’ threatens to swallow whole any scholar of society hoping to build a comprehensive systematic theory of revolution. For George Lawson, the only way to confront this difficulty is to reconstruct its very frames of analysis. The result is Anatomies of Revolution (hereinafter ‘Anatomies’), a dynamic amalgam of in-depth sociological theory, multiple historical narratives and poignant commentary on contemporary politics. In the process, this book accomplishes something truly remarkable: it provides clarity, not in spite of its complexity, but through it.

Beginning with the all-important question of operative definition, according to Lawson, ‘a revolution is a collective mobilisation that attempts to quickly and forcibly overthrow an existing regime in order to transform political, economic, and symbolic relations’ (5, emphasis in original). Part One is dedicated to theoretically unpacking this assertion by critically confronting typically obscured binaries. These include: whether change or continuity defines a revolution; whether ‘domestic’ or ‘international’ politics predominate; whether revolution is particular or universal in character; and whether revolutions are best understood as structurally determined or an exemplification of agency (especially the agencies of iconically charismatic revolutionaries). From here, Anatomies situates its contribution within the ‘four generations’ of social scientific scholarship on revolution. While Lawson notes how the present fourth generation has vitally challenged the crude structuralism of the third by introducing a new array of relevant factors, ‘they often remain trapped in accounts that stress contextless attributes, abstract regularities, ahistorical variables, and timeless properties’ (71).

Image Credit: (Photo by Oladimeji Odunsi on Unsplash)

From this premise, Anatomies devises a new account that captures revolution as an identifiable ‘ideal type’ that can nevertheless be contextualised through its varying historical manifestations. However, this requires a line of analysis that occurs on a broad spatial-temporal level and is critical of standard delineations between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ spheres of authority (an approach deemed ‘inter-social’ as opposed to ‘international’ or ‘inter-societal’). It is here that Lawson presents his titular ‘anatomies of revolution’ framework consisting of: ‘Revolutionary Situations’, the backdrop against which revolutions occur (or fail to occur); ‘Revolutionary Trajectories’, the planned and unforeseen machinations of a revolution in motion; and ‘Revolutionary Outcomes’, the variegated legacies of a revolutionary event. Part Two provides historical examinations of these three respective categories, focusing on the build-up to England’s 1688 Glorious Revolution and Chile’s 1970 election of Salvador Allende (examples of revolutionary situations), the building of a socialist Cuba and a democratic South Africa (revolutionary trajectories) and the trials and tribulations of Islamist Iran and post-Soviet Ukraine (revolutionary outcomes).

Finally, Part Three applies Anatomies’ varying theoretical and historical insights to the contemporary realities and possible futures of revolution in the world as it is. For Lawson, the defining model since 1989 is the ‘negotiated revolution’: an event marked by a generally non-violent transition of political leadership coupled with the avoidance of substantive attempts to reorder social relations. In assessing its current valence, Lawson applies his situation-trajectory-outcome rubric to the series of Middle Eastern and North African uprisings beginning in 2011, popularly deemed the ‘Arab Spring’, and declares them to, in large part, fall within the ‘negotiated revolutions’ frame.

However, Anatomies also notes that the limiting nature of this model sits uneasily with far-reaching desires for fundamental change that have taken on radically different forms. On the one hand, pluralistic attempts to build leaderless, mass-participatory social movements have expanded utopian thinking, yet have failed to developed the institutional praxis needed to effect widespread substantive transformation (and in this way resemble ‘negotiated revolutions’). On the other hand, reactionary meta-trends, namely militant Islamism and populism, have achieved significant political successes through methods that are ‘Manichean in ideology, polarizing in practice, and hierarchical in organization’ (245). While perhaps ‘realistic utopias’, as theorised by Erik Olin Wright, might challenge both the stagnant status quo and its reactionary discontents, the success of such projects will depend on just how much their proponents understand broader global structures. While such considerations may have always been relevant, they are now indispensable as ‘in a world of globalization, revolutionary movements will be international, or they will be nothing’ (247).

Regardless of which aspect one chooses to focus on, Anatomies is a triumph when it comes to creatively theorising revolution. However, like any analytical re-imagination of this scope and magnitude, the questions it presents outweigh the answers it provides. A particularly pertinent issue here is the extent to which Lawson’s account of revolution is informed by a larger theory of modernity. As articulated by Reinhart Koselleck, one of the few key theorists of revolution that Anatomies does not engage with, the transformation of ‘revolution’ as a concept is central to the modern socio-political experience of temporality. With the advent of the French Revolution, the future was no longer a cyclical recurrence of times past (and thus a ‘revolution’ in the sense that the Earth ‘revolves’ around the sun), but rather a radically open realm to be determined through human agency. As Andrew Davenport has shown, this transformed consciousness structures the modern ideal of an international system consisting of nation states whose sovereignty, in addition to absolute spatial autonomy, is an eternal sphere of political possibility. In this way, the very conceivability of revolutionary transformation is embedded within a vision of modernity premised on the co-constitutive division between domestic sovereignty and international order.

While Lawson seeks to overcome this state-centrism by emphasising ‘intersocial’ dynamics that blur the ‘domestic’ versus ‘international’ nature of revolution, it must be asked to what extent his account is influenced by this all-pervasive, yet historically contingent, modernist frame. Significantly, Anatomies places great emphasis on ‘dual-sovereignty’, whereby a revolution is deemed successful when a de jure ruler’s authority is contradicted by an opposing faction’s de facto assumption of effective control. This presumption of undivided sovereignty assumes an ideal that emerged in early-modern Europe and does not readily account for Europe’s Ancien Regime, let alone its overseas colonisation projects, where divided sovereignty was the norm. It is thus instructive that Lawson’s primary case studies, while covering locations with varied colonial histories, were all sovereign states that sought to use the political promises of absolute sovereignty to achieve revolutionary ends (even when these ends were at odds with the prevailing concept of sovereignty in the long run).

Moving beyond these limits, what then might it mean to apply Anatomies’ insights on revolutionary dynamics to alternative, parallel and counter modernities that exist outside, or in opposition to, the sovereign state as the ideal vessel of unlimited political expression? A first step towards this endeavour is recognising how the very emergence of our present world of sovereign states occurred alongside the persistence of old, and the creation of new, forms of authority that were very different from the ideal of undivided sovereignty. However, as these feudal and colonial orders of divided sovereignty were condemned as unjust, the discourse of revolution, a discourse closely linked to absolute sovereignty, proved readily available to justify their unmaking. Consequently, the globalisation of the modern sovereign nation-state is difficult to imagine without the modern concept of revolution. Taking such considerations seriously holds great potential in building new explanations for how the promises and perils of revolution entrenched a vision of global order remarkably adept at naturalising its existence despite its relatively recent development. Yet, any grand theory of such transformations must also account for the small-scale catalysts that triggered them. Thus, through its innovative frame for making these connections, Anatomies is invaluable in showing not only how global historical sociology explains revolution, but also how revolution might explain global historical sociology.

Eric Loefflad is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Kent, Canterbury. His current research focuses on the intertwined material histories of law, empire and the emergence of modern political consciousness.

Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics. 

Going for Medicare for All Proves That Radicalism Is the Only Way

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2019 - 6:47pm in

Moderates who love incrementalism constantly say that is the only way to get things done but the current debate over healthcare shows that the exact opposite is true.

Pamphlet: We want a new society - and don’t we need it!

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 11/11/2019 - 10:30pm in

image/jpeg iconGettyImages-1177970611_0.jpg

We wrote the final part of our vulgar system-series about 'social alternatives'. We compiled the whole series into a pamphlet - see attachment. Feel free to comment and/or share...

"Yeah, right, you might organise a garden party like this, but a society of six billion? Get real!"

read more

My Review of Russian UFO Conspiracy Book Now Up At Magonia Blog

My review of Nick Redfern’s Flying Saucers from the Kremlin (Lisa Hagen Books 2019) is now up at Magonia Review of Books. Magonia was a small press UFO magazine, which ran from the 1980s to the early part of this century. It took the psycho-social view of the UFO phenomenon. This is a sceptical view which sees the UFO phenomenon as an internal experience generated by poorly understood psychological mechanism, whose imagery was drawn from folklore and Science Fiction. It took the name ‘Magonia’ from Jacques Vallee’s groundbreaking UFO book, Passport to Magonia. Vallee, a French-American astronomer and computer scientist, along with the American journalist and writer on the weird and Fortean, John Keel, took the view that UFOs weren’t real, mechanical spacecraft piloted by beings from other worlds, but were created by the same paranormal phenomenon behind encounters with fairies and other paranormal entities. The name ‘Magonia’ itself comes from a statement by a sceptical 7th-8th century Frankish bishop, that the peasants believed that storms were caused by men in flying ships, who came from a country called Magonia.

The magazine didn’t just discuss UFOs. It also covered other paranormal phenomena and subjects, such as witchcraft. It provided a very necessary sceptical corrective to the Satanism scare of the ’80s and ’90s. This was a moral panic generated by conspiracy theories, largely from the Christian right but also from some feminists, that Satanic groups were sexually abusing and ritually sacrificing children. The Fontaine Report, published by the British government over 20 years ago now, concluded that there was no organised Satanic conspiracy. This effectively ended a real witch-hunt, which had seen innocent men and women accused of terrible crimes through warped, uncorroborated testimony. It needs to be said, however, that sociologists, social workers and law enforcement authorities do recognise that there are evil or disturbed individuals responsible for horrific crimes, including the molestation of children, who are or consider themselves Satanists. But the idea of a multigenerational Satanic conspiracy is absolutely false. See Jeffrey S. Victor’s excellent Satanic Panic.

Nick Redfern is a British paranormal investigator now resident in Texas. In this book, subtitled ‘UFOs, Russian Meddling, Soviet Spies & Cold War Secrets’, he proposes that while the UFO phenomenon is real, the terrible Russkies have been manipulating it to destabilise America and her allies. This comes from the Russians attempting to interfere in the American presidential elections a few years ago. In fact, the book doesn’t actually show that the Russians have. Rather it shows that the FBI, Airforce Intelligence and CIA believed they were. Prominent figures in the UFO milieu were suspected of Russian sympathies, and investigated and question. George Adamski, the old fraud who claimed he’d met space people from Venus and Mars, was investigated because he was recorded making pro-Soviet statements. Apparently he believed that the space people were so much more advanced than us that they were Communists, and that in a coming conflict Russia would defeat the West. Over here, the founder and leader of the Aetherius Society, George King, who also channeled messages from benevolent space people on Venus and Mars, was also investigation by special branch. This is because one of the messages from Aetherius called on Britain to respond to peace overtures from the Russians. This was seized on by the Empire News, which, as its name suggests, was a right-wing British rag, that denounced King for having subversive, pro-Commie ideas and reported him to the rozzers. King willingly cooperated with the cops, and pointed out that his was a religious and occult, not political organisation. But he and his followers were still kept under surveillance because they, like many concerned people, joined the CND marches.

It’s at this point that Redfern repeats the Sunset Times slur about the late Labour leader, Michael Foot. Foot also joined these marches, and the former Soviet spy chief, Oleg Gordievsky, had declared that Foot was a KGB spy with the codename ‘Comrade Boot’. It’s malign rubbish. Redfern notes that Foot sued the Sunset Times for libel and won. But he prefers to believe Gordievsky, because Gordievsky was right about everything else. So say. Actually, Gordievsky himself was a self-confessed liar, and there’s absolutely no corroborating evidence at all. And rather than being pro-Soviet, Foot was so critical of the lack of freedom of conscience in the USSR that he alarmed many of his Labour colleagues, who were afraid he would harm diplomatic relations. The accusation just looks like more Tory/ IRD black propaganda against Labour.

Other people in the UFO milieu also had their collar felt. One investigator, who told the authorities that he had met a group of four men, who were very determined that he should give his talks a pro-Russian, pro-Communist slant, was interrogated by a strange in a bar on his own patriotism. The man claimed to be a fellow investigator with important information, and persuaded him to take a pill that left his drugged and disorientated. Redfern connects this the MK Ultra mind control projects under CIA direction at the time, which also used LSD and other drugs.

But if Redfern doesn’t quite show that the Russians are manipulating the phenomena through fake testimony and hoax encounters, he presents a very strong case that the Americans were doing so. During the Second World War, Neville Maskelyn, a British stage magician, worked with the armed forces on creating illusions to deceive the Axis forces. One of these was a tall, walking automaton to impersonate the Devil, which was used to terrify the Fascists in Sicily. Redfern notes the similarity between this robot, and the Flatwoods monster that later appeared in America. The Project Serpo documents, which supposedly show how a group of American squaddies had gone back to the Alien homeworld, were cooked up by one of the classic SF writers, who was also a CIA agent. And the scientist Paul Bennewitz was deliberately given fake testimony and disinformation about captured aliens and crashed saucers by members of the agency, which eventually sent the poor bloke mad. He was targeted because he was convinced the saucers and the aliens were kept on a nearby airforce base. The American military was worried that, although he wouldn’t find any evidence of aliens, he might dig up military secrets which would be useful to the Russians. And so they set about destroying him by telling him fake stories, which he wanted to hear. And obviously, there’s more.

It’s extremely interesting reading, but Redfern does follow the conventional attitude to Russian. The country was a threat under Communism, and is now, despite the fact that Communism has fallen. He is silent about the plentiful evidence for American destabilisation of foreign regimes right around the world during the Cold War. This included interference in elections and outright coups. The most notorious of these in South America were the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile by General Pinochet, and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala. He also doesn’t mention recent allegations, backed up with very strong evidence, that the US under Hillary Clinton manufactured the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2012 to overthrow the ruling pro-Russian president and install another, who favoured America and the West.

If you want to read my review, it’s at




Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 20/04/2018 - 1:11am in


poetry, revolution

[Marshall McLuhan 2018-style]

(I was angry so I took it out on poetry)

This revolution will be televised.

This revolution will be social media-size.

Tweeted, insta’d, tumbl’d [not dry].

This revolution is “We, the People”,

Not I, the ego, the narcissist, the bigot.

This revolution is under-age.

This revolution is an LP, not a 45.

In it for the long haul.

Not a shopping mall,

Not a drowning fall.

This revolution will not give you a thigh gap.

Nor on-line porn, nor a six-pac.

Not super-lashes,

Not fake news flashes

Not rose-colored glasses.

This revolution is “We, the People”,

Not I, the ego, the narcissist, the bigot.

It will not take place in a dying Hollywood.

Not in #MeToo or #TimesUp.

It will not be on Netflix,

Amazon Firesticks,

Nor Top 10 Picks.

This revolution is not digital.

This revolution is Whole Earth and Flat Earth

And round.

It is US, hand in hand.

This revolution is the moon around the sun,

No hoax, false hopes, quack-fads, rip-offs.

No flim-flam scam man.

This revolution is “We, the People”,

Not I, the ego, the narcissist, the bigot.

The Doomsday clock ticked another second.

This revolution reckons.

This revolution. This turning in circles.

Is US.

[with apologies to Gil Scott-Heron]

Trump: How the Right stole revolution from the Left

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 26/12/2016 - 12:35pm in

If I were a vindictive person, the overwhelming temptation in this current moment in history would be to say “We told you so”. Sadly I am a vindictive person, but instead of saying “We told you so”, I’m here … Read more

The post Trump: How the Right stole revolution from the Left appeared first on Rational Radical.