“The more you use power, the more you have it. When you stop using it, it falls apart,” writes Curtis Yarvin , referring to the general situation of revolutionary governments. Either you keep pushing and liquidating the remnants of the previous power. You leave them no living space until the defeat or surrender is complete. Or at some point you stop, the other side consolidates and the dynamics of the situation turns for you. Rather than a half-hearted revolution, it’s better to do none.
Trump’s revolutionary government is doing surprisingly well, according to Yarvin. It’s attacking a variety of targets, its purges are pretty consistent, and it’s not letting up. But can it keep up the pace? Yarvin’s guess is that it won’t ultimately defeat the liberal oligarchy.
I saw it the same way a few months ago, and saw Trump as just a setup for Vance. It’s just that when I see Trump’s vigor and determination, I’m reminded of another historical lesson.
Most revolutions are followed by civil war, often protracted, complex and brutal. Most civil wars are won by the revolutionaries. But there are cases to the contrary, such as the Paris Commune of 1871. Even then, the Communards probably could have won against the declining French regime, but a new player stepped in – the Prussian conscription. Is someone like that looming in the case of the Trump revolution?
Of course I suspect, and hope, that in the case of the US it would be a cold civil war. That is, a wave of hostilities, but mostly non-violent.towards the American Civil War