This is the path of a revenge revolution, a path that has remained relatively consistent throughout known written human history, from the revenge revolution of the French in 1792 to the revenge revolution of Oliver Cromwell, revenge revolutions invariably, when they successfully co-opt market and force power, lead to dissolution.
They start with a legitimate, hard-to-deny threat and ongoing assault by aggregates of humans against other aggregates of humans. From this REAL violation of the individuals’ capacity to thrive within that afflicted aggregate comes the potential, but necessarily inevitably so, seeds for revenge revolutions. Here is a brief outline of that general cycle of the revenge revolution that successfully comes to ‘power.’
| Threat – An aggregate perceives a threat on its core preferences from extrernal aggregates. |
| Plea – The aggregate casts a moral appeal for relief, protection, restoration to elements within the threatening aggregates. |
| Co-Opting – Charismatic Opportunists, using the power of claims of certainty, confidence, and moral shielding that creates angels and demons, making It easier to take coercive action against one’s neighbors, become the thought leaders of the movements. |
| Moral Supremacism- The polarizations of human action, fundamentally at the structure of language level, on scales of angel and demon, becomes more and more pronounced as the charismatics compete amongst one another for the audience, and the authority that comes with that audience, an audience they build using the most effective marketing tactics they can figure out, even, as time goes on and the audiences produce greater and greater opportunities for monetization, utilizing ever-increasingly sophisticated AI programs to help aid in this maximum marketing. At the core of that marketing is the necessity of certainty, the necessity of winning, the necessity of angels, the necessity of demons. In other words, the simplification of the perspective of the human experience for the purpose of advancing the prevailing narrative of the thought leaders of the movement. |
| Authoritarianism – If and when the thought leaders transition over to positions of market and force power (corporate and state leadership positions, vicarious or direct), then the moral constructs that define the movement will, by necessity, be enforced coercively through near-monopolized market forces and government action ranging from indirect coercion through the holding of expected funds to direct laws penalizing violations of the moral constructs of the movement. |
| Consolidation- Revenge Revolutions are invariably filled with factions that, at various levels, will find themselves competing for centralized influence. Should they gain market and force power authority, the next step will be the consolidation of the diverse under one song, so to speak. This song is a singer, first and foremost, more than the song. It becomes about the particular leader that is able to consolidate power, and around which the movmenet now shifts its moral authority to. Whereas before they were a few thought leaders, in the end, there can be only one, and the particular formulation of the final end-product, a consolidated nation-state under the revenge revolution’s flag. |
| The process of that consolidation will be, initially, the use of the moral constructs to convict rivals, using false information, when possible, until, once there exists enough of a centralized shield around the particular individual able to put themseivles in this position, the eliminations become clandestine assassinations, suicides, and then, simple disappearances that are never talked about in polite company. From Trotsky to Robespierre, the revolutionaries, more often than not, end dead, their vehicle of power taken over and redefined by the most effective and/ore most fortunate killer that took advantage of the types of vehicles of power that revenge revolutions create. |
| Dissolution– Failure to consolidate the movement will ultimately result in disolution, but the consolidation in turn will ultimatey also lead to dissolution. A revenge revolution ends in two ways, in the disolution of its initial moral constructs in favor of new ones that assure the individual who won the revenge game, the dear leader, stays in power, or in the disolution of its power through a counter-revolution that would surely follow if the individual who won found usefulness in continuing to apply the originating moral constructs on their subjects, coercively. |
Be the first to comment