"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard the revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship..." -- George Orwell, "1984"
Pity these poor morons rampaging through the streets of America, burning, looting, chanting slogans.
They know not what they do. After all, I'm betting 80% can't even spell the word properly (here's a hint: only one 'l" and no "sh". Ask Alexa (more like "dyslex-a") if you don't believe me).
Oh, they may believe they know what they're doing, what their agenda and goals are, what they feel to be right, but as certainly as a turd follows the fart these little mental midgets will discover that they are no better off than they were before, and many will be shocked...positively...to discover that they will be in an incredibly worse condition than when they started.
There are a variety of reasons for this, beginning with the reasons as to why one has "a revolution".
Revolutions do not occur for the purposes of "change", despite all the sloganeering and lip service. If one looks back at the History of Revolutions (I know, that means reading) we discover that in all of the Revolutions that ever occurred, very few of them resulted in a change that was worth the effort. In fact, in most cases, we find that all that ever changed is that the hated "Enemy of the People" was simply replaced by a class of people very much like them, only worse.
The English Revolution (1642-1651), for example, sought to replace a capricious and greedy monarchy with a supposedly more-egalitarian pure Parliamentary system ("A Commonwealth" under the control of mainly religious fanatics). In the end, all that happened was that the revolution established a new dictatorship in the form of the Lord Protector (Oliver Cromwell, who believed that God spoke to him and demanded to be addressed as "Your Highness") who might have become best friends with Hitler had they been contemporaries. In the end, Cromwell and his son (apparently, revolution meant "hereditary throne") eventually wore out their welcome and the Monarchy was restored in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688-89.
Cromwell was so hated that his dead body was exhumed and "executed". Queen Elizabeth II just celebrated 67 years on the throne.
Another example of a revolution not turning out as planned, is the French Revolution. This one is easy to summarize: Overthrow the Monarchy, spend the next few decades having the revolutionaries murder one another as they jockey for power among themselves, end up with a Dictator (Napoleon Bonaparte) who leads the country, eventually, to epic disaster...twice. Re-establish the Monarchy, watch your nation decline forever afterwards to the point where your government has pre-printed Surrender forms addressed "To Whom It May Concern". The French still live under a government of effete snobs who don't give a fuck, with an additional layer of rape added called The European Union.
Then again, Europeans are used to continuous ass-rape.
Perhaps the absolute BEST examples are the Russian Revolution and it's Coronavirus-infected twin, the Chinese Revolution. Both set out, ostensibly, to produce a more-egalitarian, just society, and ended by murdering tens of millions, including former friends and allies, bankrupting their nations,leading them into destructive wars, and ultimately abandoning their original aims and taking up the systems of their ideological enemies -- (sort-of) democracy and capitalism -- pretending mightily as if these were the plan all along. Having turned their nations into a collection of poor drunken mental cases (Russia) and Whores for Western Investment (China), all the death, displacement, destruction and despotism went for naught. A fairer, better society failed to materialize.
The American Revolution, conditioned very much by the lessons of the English Revolution(s), also, it must be said, failed of it's stated aims. For while professing belief in the concept of "All Men Are Created Equal" (the biggest lie ever told), it certainly did not behave as if that were it's Golden Rule. Additionally, a revolutionary generation whose slogan was "No Taxation Without Representation" would find itself in similar circumstances if it were alive today -- Americans are taxed near to death, our elected "betters" are consumed with their own petty and venal internal squabbles, and the concept of Representation had been so discredited that the mass of America voted for a blow-hard real estate developer with poor taste basically on the premise that "he's not one of them".
At the very lowest level, at least the American Revolution resulted in the least-worst form of government (yet) devised by man (to paraphrase Winston Churchill), which, hopefully, can be salvaged.
I could cite further examples, but you get the point: the results of revolution almost never match the stated reasons for it.
And the people who undertook those revolutions I've just cited were smart people. Incredibly smart, often. Certainly smarter than anyone in America under the age of 40.
Which is why all the "Cosplay in the Streets" and "Righteous Anger" of the left, and it's opposite number in the "Worship the Flag" cult, are fooling themselves if either believes that -- should they be successful -- their final destination will resemble anything like the one printed on the ticket at the start of the journey.
The Right will fail for a variety of reasons beginning with the idea that "conservatism" is anything like they think it is. That word has been perverted to mean, basically, "religious bigot with a gun fetish".
The Left will fail because, well, it's the LEFT and that's just what they do. Often spectacularly. This is because the Left is primarily composed of society's losers and if they had any talent, work ethic, brains, or self-respect, they wouldn't be losers to begin with. To exacerbate their plight, they are typically led by people who have absolutely no contact with physical reality and who largely live in a La-La land of very bad thoughts (most originating in the French Revolution and really bad German philosophy).
Let's add gasoline to that dumpster fire: the "leaders" of this so-called "Revolution" couldn't muster enough intellectual firepower to burn calories. They're too young; they lack experience; they lack perspective. They have no historical sense. They understand little and feel too much. They are the spoiled-rotten progeny of Helicopter Mommies and Absentee Daddies, or "blended families" that might include a parent married to a Cocker Spaniel with a speech impediment raised on a steady diet of Stranger Danger, Play Dates, and continuous Self-Esteem puppet shows.
I had one of these morons argue with me recently over the questions raised by the (alleged) murder of a criminal in Minneapolis and all she could respond with to every (effective) counter-argument was "why can't you just validate my point of view?"
Primarily because your Point of View originated in your diaper, Snowflake.
And people who believe my job is to "validate" them all day long, no matter how stupid you are, no matter how wrong you are, and who melt into emotional puddles when they don't get my "validation" (amazing: they seem to believe they're entitled to it), are probably not the best of Revolutionaries. They lack the backbone and intelligence; they will need to be "validated" before, during and after scaling the Barricades, real or imagined, which makes them lousy and unreliable Shock Troops.
But the primary reason all Revolutions fail, as will this one, is because in the end the Revolutionaries are not all interested in the same ends. Some will outright lie about their ultimate goals; some will make common cause with an enemy and then break the alliance when that is advantageous; others will be impossible to satisfy and no amount of contriteness, or even surrender, will mollify them; the predominance and preeminence of "identity" in Modern Politics guarantees continuous discord.
Having created thousands of "identities" out of thin air, you will be unable to reconcile all of their desires, and so you will turn upon one another just as Stalin turned on Trotsky, as Robespierre found himself guillotined by his friends.
Eventually, we're down to arguing whether "Black-Humpbacked-Lesbian" is "more deserving" of special privilege than "Transsexual-Double-Amputee-With-Workers-Influenza" or "Hare-lipped, non-binary, genderqueer-with-Halitosis". In the end, one "identity" will rule -- much like the previous, hated "identity" they replaced -- and the process will begin anew, assuming you haven't killed each other off, first.
But then that's not really what this is all about, reconciliation and egalitarianism, is it?
The Blacks riot for a right no one else has -- to be treated with kid gloves by the police. From this point forward, every police officer who does not obtain written permission from a black suspect, after asking "Pretty-Please-With-Sugar-on-Top", before placing him under arrest will suffer a fate that will make Stalin's Gulags an attractive option.
The Rich White Kids riot in the belief that Capitalism has failed them, because the six-figure jobs with corner-offices that were supposed to come with an expensive degree in Holistic Plumbing, Homeopathic Latin, Gender Studies and Environmental Justice failed to materialize...mostly because they never existed. The Capitalist system never needed those skills -- only the Left did -- and the left doesn't create much of anything, let alone jobs.
The Hispanics riot because the Blacks are, and if the Blacks manage to extort yet another privilege in the process, why shouldn't they try, too?
The Feminists riot because cramps, and because it's the only thing they know how to do -- throw a hissy fit until someone gives them whatever they want just to go away.
The Gays (and associated mental patients, like the ones that believe biological men without ovaries, Fallopian tubes and a uterus need tampons) riot because...well, why not? It's just another means by which they can spit on the conventional society that has spit all over them.
Revolutions are about power; specifically, who has it, who wants it, and who is willing to do their absolute worst to take it.
Given the low-intellect of the modern college graduate, the persistent dependence of the professional poverty-stricken, the obnoxious conceit of just about anyone under 30, the general affliction of dumbass that attaches to anyone born after 1980, the profligate interests at play, this will all --predictably -- collapse in a heap of unmitigated fucktard, and the only questions remaining are "how far does the rubble bounce" and "how long before everyone stabs everyone else in the back and bring the entire farce to a shuddering halt?" guided by the Golden Rule of Revolutions:
Once the Revolution is over, who needs Revolutionaries?
And who gets to decide which Revolutionaries suddenly became excess-to-need?
It certainly won't be the people in the streets.