[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]

I have to say that I am amazed that so many folks on the Left seem to think that the current riots in the USA are a spontaneous rebellion against police violence, systemic racism, and history of persecution and exploitation of Blacks and Indians, etc.  As for the violence, looting and riots – they are either excused as a result of some kind of righteous wrath or blamed on “infiltrators”.   In my previous article I tried to show how the Democrats and the US media tried to instrumentalize these riots and to use them against Trump’s bid for reelection.  I accompanied the article with a carefully staged photo-op of US Democrats “taking a knee” in solidarity (as if the leaders of the Democratic Party gave a hoot about Blacks or poor US Americans!).

What I did not mention was how the US (and even trans-national) corporate world backed these riots to the hilt.  Here are just a few examples of this:

YouTube:

Amazon, Bank of America & Sephora:

And it is not only in the USA.  Check out what Adidas in Germany has been up to:

and, finally, my personal super-favorite:

Jamie Dimon and the JP Morgan Chase Bank:

All those of us who thought that the corporate world was all about money, that the corporate “culture” had all the signs of severe psychopathy and that billionaires did not give a damn about the poor and the oppressed, but now we know better: we thought of them as evil 1%ers, and it turns out that there are kind, highly principled people, who care about injustice and freedom and who truly feel bad, very very bad, for all the injustices done to Blacks!

Do you really buy this?

I sure don’t!

These are not small mom-and-pop stores where ethics and kindness still exist.  These are the very corporations who benefited most from all the inequalities, injustice, violence and imperial wars of aggression and it would be truly pollyannish to think that these corporations and their CEOs suddenly grew a conscience (the exact same applies to the leadership of the Democratic Party, of course!).

So let’s go back to the basics: corporations are about money, that is a truism.  Yes, sometimes corporations try to present a “human face”, but this is nothing more than a marketing trick destined to create consumer loyalty.  Now I don’t believe for one second that the mega-corporations listed above expect to make much money from supporting the riots, at least not in a direct way.  Nor do I believe that these corporations are trying to impersonate a conscience because they fear a Black consumer boycott (what was true in Tuskegee in the late 1950s is not true today, if only because of the completely different scale of the protests).

So if not money – what is at stake here?

Power.

Specifically, the US deep state – at a major faction within that deep state – is clearly desperate to get rid of Trump (and *not* for the right reasons, of which there are plenty).

Another victory of the “coalition of minorities” and another defeat for Trump

There are plenty of signs that illustrate that Trump is even losing control of the Executive, including Secretary Esper contradicting Trump on what is a key issue – restoring law and order – or the US Ambassador to South Korea voicing support for BLM (I consider that these actions by top officials against their own Commander in Chief border on treason).  Needless to say, the pro-Dems neo-libs at Slate immediately began dreaming about, and calling for, a military revolt against Trump.

Last but not least, we now have a “free zone” in Seattle, the notorious Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, “CHAZ” aka “CHOP” where, among other “curiosities”, Whites are told to give 10 bucks to a Black person.  This means that until law and order are restored to what is now the CHAZ,  the United States has lost its sovereignty over a part of one of its cities.  That is a “black eye” for any US President who, after all, is the leader of the Executive branch of government and the Commander in Chief of a military supposed (in theory only, of course) to defend the United States against all enemies.

What do all of these developments have in common?

They are designed to show that Trump has lost control of the country and that all good and decent people now stand united against him.

There are several major problems with this plan.

For one thing, this is all completely illegal.  What began as a typical race riot is now openly turning into sedition.

The second major problem of this plan is that it relies on what I call a “coalition of minorities” to achieve its goal, it is therefore ignoring the will of the majority of the people.  This can backfire, especially if the chaos and violence continue to spread.

Will he take orders for Pelosi?

Next, there is the “Golem/Frankenstein” issue: it is much easier to launch a wildfire than to contain or suppress it.  Nancy Pelosi might be dumb enough to think that she and her gang can control the likes of Raz Simone, but history shows that when the state abdicates its monopoly on violence, anarchy ensues.

By the way, it is important to note here that Trump, at least so far, has not taken the bait and has not used federal forces to reimpose law and order in Seattle, Atlanta or elsewhere.

He must realize that liberating the so-called CHAZ might result in a bloodbath (there appear to be plenty of weapons inside the CHAZ) and that the Democrats are dreaming about blaming him for a bloodbath.  Trump’s strategy, at least so far, appears to let the lawlessness continue and blame the Democrats for it.

While Trump’s strategy makes sense, it also is inherently very dangerous because if the state cannot reimpose law and order, then all sorts of “volunteers” might decide to give it a shot (literally).  Check out this headline “Bikers For Trump Organizing to Retake Seattle On July 4th“.  Whether these bikers will actually try to take over the CHAZ or not, even the fact that they are preparing to do so shows, yet again, that the state has lost its monopoly on violence.

Finally, this strategy to oust Trump by means of lawlessness and anarchy could greatly contribute to the breakup of the United States, if not de jure, then at least de facto.  How?

For one thing, the United States is a big country, not only in terms of geographical size, but also in socio-economic and even cultural terms.  Some US states have a large Black population, others much less.  But they all mostly watch the same news media.  Which means that when there are race riots in, say, Los Angeles or Baltimore, the people who live in states like Montana or the Dakotas feel that it is their country which is threatened.  Coincidentally (or not?), these mostly White states happen to have a large part of their population as, Hillary’s famous “deplorables”.  Some liberals call these states “flyover states”.  It also happens that civilians in these states own a large number of firearms and know how to use them.

The same applies to different locations within any one state.  Take California for example, which many view as being very liberal, progressive.  Well, that might be true for many cities in California, but as soon as you enter rural California, the prevailing culture changes rather dramatically.  The same urban vs rural dichotomy also exists in many other states, including Florida.

The risk here is the following one: some parts of the United States can collapse and become zones of total lawlessness while others will “circle the wagons” and take whatever measures are needed to protect themselves and their way of life.

This does not mean that the US, as a country, will break-up into several successor states.  That could only happen much further down the road, but it does mean that different areas of the country could start facing the crisis autonomously and even possibly in direct violation of US laws.  When that happens, poverty and violence typically sharply rise.  There are already reports of vigilantism in New Mexico (interestingly, in this case the authorities did send in the cops).

In his seminal article “Race and Crime in America” (an absolute *MUST READ* for any person wanting to understand what is taking place today!) Ron Unz makes a very interesting observation:

“The empirical fact is that presence or absence of large numbers of Hispanics or Asians in a given state seems to have virtually no impact upon white voting patterns. Meanwhile, there exists a strong relationship between the size of a state’s black population and the likelihood that local whites will favor the Republicans“.

In other words, the larger the Black minority, the more likely Whites will vote Republican.  Of course, one can dismiss this by saying that these Whites are all racists, but that does not help either because it begs the question of why Whites do not become racists when living next to Hispanics and Asians, but do so when they live near Blacks.  The explanation is in Ron’s article: “local urban crime rates in America seem to be almost entirely explained by the local racial distribution” (please see the charts in Ron’s article for the data supporting this conclusion).

This makes for a potentially very explosive mix, especially in a time when police officers now risk a reprimand, a demotion. being fired or even criminal charges for using “excessive force” against any Black suspect (yes, US cops often do use excessive force, but the solution here is not to paralyze the police forces, lest the civilians feel like they need to defend themselves.

[Sidebar: as I have said it many times, I don’t believe that the term “race” has a scientific basis, nor do concepts such as “Black” or “White”.  This does not mean that they don’t have a political meaning, especially in a country which is obsessed by race issues (yes, one can obsess about non-existing things).  In the USA most people self-identify with a color, thus to them this is something very real.  For example, the figures used in Ron Unz’ article are based upon these concepts understood sociologically, not biologically, and this is the only reason why I use them too, though somewhat reluctantly, I will admit]

Conclusion: this is no popular revolution at all

It is undeniable that a major chuck of the US ruling classes have decided to support the BLM movement and the riots it instigates.  Furthermore, these US ruling classes have instrumentalized these riots in a transparent attempt to prevent a Trump reelection in November.  And just like the Republicans have been destroying the AngloZionist empire on the international scene, the Democrats have been destroying the United States from within.  Far from being a real popular protest movement, the BLM movement is a tool in the hands of one faction of the US deep state against another faction.  A lot of Trump nominees/appointees are now seeing the writing on the wall and are betraying their boss in order to switch sides and abandon what they see as a sinking ship.

My personal feeling is that Trump is too weak and too much of a coward to fight his political enemies (if he had any spine, it would have shown at the time when Trump betrayed Flynn only a month into his presidency).  History, however, shows that a political vacuum cannot last very long.  In Russia the chaos lasted from February to November 1917, at which point the Bolsheviks (who were a relatively small party) easily seized power and, following a bloody civil war, restored their version of law and order.  I still don’t see a civil war taking place in the USA, but some kind of coup is, I think, a very real possibility.  This is especially true considering that most Democrats will never accept a Trump reelection while most Republicans will never accept a Biden presidency.  This is a case of “not my president” powerfully backfiring on its creators.

Those of us who live in the USA better prepare for a very dangerous and difficult year!

The Saker