The Key Differences From 100 Years Ago

As is well described in the video, there are remarkable similarities between the circumstances of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and the attempted revolution in America today. Alexander remarks as well on the obvious differences in the structure, tone and populace of America of today.

However, we should go even further regarding the differences and why this current attempt at revolution has little chance of success as it stands now.


There is an irony that the very thing that is enabling the sustained attack on the culture and political system of the United States, the internet, is also that which is likely weakening the revolution.

Alexander Mercouris points out that it was a minority that successfully made the revolution in Russia. Incidentally it was a minority that created and pushed the original American Revolution. In either case the numbers were in the order of 30%.

What is the percentage of the population that is pushing the latest revolution in America? That is hard to determine. If we use the measure of their favorite social media platform Twitter, the percentages are much lower.

According to 2019 stats only 22% of Americans use Twitter, and 80% of tweets come from 10% of those users. That of course, is only Twitter, but it does suggest that the hard-core of the revolution are small in number although very vocal.

The numbers increase if we factor those who are complicit whether they tweet or not. Those who practice the cancel culture by going after people in business, or employees of businesses for perceived offences against the moral code established by the SJW high priests and priestesses.

Momentum and Deep Fire

But there is another factor as well. In the days of the Russian Revolution as well as the American Revolution, news took time to travel. Movements took longer to form and consolidate. This actually worked in their favor if we take into account the momentum of a social movement. When an idea or ideology has time to percolate and mature and ferment there is a deepening that does not happen in a quick social media movement. The numbers that increase are usually solid. Perhaps they may fade a bit in the face of armed opposition as expected but the people have had time to marinate in the ideas and to incorporate them deeper into their psyche.

If there is an analogy to fire, the slower building of revolution creates a lot of glowing coals and deep fire much like the root fires of a forest. A bit of oxygen and they can flare up and they are widespread, just waiting to burn brighter.

On the other hand, a social media driven revolution, burns brightly and quickly but there is very little depth of fuel. It must be re-ignited or it will burn out. There are those who must continually stoke it, and those who are followers of the revolution must be kept in the dark and fed the right kind of fuel. Their main fuel is outrage, and it does not have to be based on truth. In fact, the truth is always a damper because it is normally nuanced and does not necessarily inspire outrage in the normal person.

The entropy of such a revolution is a sort curve when left to itself, and the main business of the leaders of the revolution is to create the cult and hold it long enough to be able to rely on it without constantly feeding it.

Real Time Pushback

The other factor is that the internet and video and cell technology make it possible for the opponents of the revolution to counter the propaganda in near real time. It forces the revolutionaries to blatantly deny reality, and it builds on the inertia which already exists politically.

Revolution by definition is a radical change. For those whose lives are not miserable as a consequence of the status quo, revolution is as welcome as a skunk at a dinner party. Status quo in this particular instance has been shaken with the pandemic lockdown, but the memory of what was just 6 months ago is not faded.

This is not 1917, in more ways than one, although some of the ideology and methodologies are almost identical.

We shall see.