There is a coup going on in America. Only it is not the coup they are telling you about.
The word used in the liberal-progressive press about the riot in the Capitol which took place on 3 January is “insurrection”. This word has been carefully selected. It makes the events sound very serious. It also makes the events sound something like a real attempt to seize political power. At the same time it is sufficiently all-encompassing as to avoid specifics. So you can’t really disagree with it. Of course, a few hundred people milling about inside the government building is not a coup or an insurrection in any sense at all. The idea that these few hundred people could have conceivably seized political power is ludicrous. Only the liberal press could write poe-faced articles in which they convince themselves and (maybe) some of their readers that there really was some kind of a coup attempt last week in the US. It is a tragedy that the police shot one person, that one police officer died after a confrontation with rioters – and that other people suffered ‘medical emergencies’ and died. (I would assume heart-attacks?). It was a serious event – but not a coup attempt.
The liberal press, as happens so often, has managed to produce a narrative line which, once they settle on, is amplified again and again. You can watch how this process works. Immediately after the event a few stories ran with the idea that Donald Trump had somehow encouraged the rioters. No one stopped them and soon this became ‘instigated the violence’. Now, one week after the event you can find in any liberal outlet the accepted truth – repeated as nauseum as a matter of ‘fact’ that – that Donald Trump “instigated the violence”. One outlet, the New York Times, did attempt to establish the “instigation” claim by doing a line by line analysis of Trump’s speech to his supporters on the day in question. The “analysis” is a case study in how human perception is intentional. You find what you are looking for. (This tendency can be corrected for by consciously trying to be objective but many journalists these days just skip this step). From a legal point of view there is nothing in this text (the extracts quoted here) which comes close to sounding like instigating violence. At no point can even this best effort find a single sentence in which Trump calls on his supporters to invade the Capitol. It looks like normal robust political language. At best Trump can be held accountable for not doing more to calm down his supporters. (Which, in my view, he should have done, explicitly; but his failure to do this does not amount to instigation).
Against the backdrop of this manufactured narrative – Trump instigated a coup attempt in Washington – there is a renewed attempt to impeach Trump. As Nancy Pelosi says this is “very urgent”. That is because she wants to get this done before Trump leaves office. (There is apparently some doubt over whether Trump could be impeached after he leaves office).  Either way the optics will look better if they can force him out by a ‘legal’ process. All of this is pure theatre as is all the talk about Trump being unfit for office and of Nancy Pelosi having been in touch with military command structures to prevent Trump pressing the nuclear button. They need to establish the narrative that Trump is crazy – not someone on the other end of the political spectrum. Like all authoritarian regimes they cannot tolerate a political opposition.
Trump lost the US election but he secured approximately 47% of the popular vote. Right now the liberal-progressive political-media-financial machine, in the US and in the province of the UK is trying to discredit completely that 47%. To win by a tiny majority and then deride your opponents as deplorables  and try to shut them out of the political process is how the Bolsheviks governed. To use legal manoeuvres rather than democratic political mechanisms was another tactic of the Bolsheviks. It is true that they are not yet rounding people up and shooting them – but there is plenty of very unattractive public gloating on show about the people who are being arrested for taking part in the riot in Washington. (For example this piece from the BBC in which the writer is literally salivating at the prospect of arrests; they can’t come soon enough). Many corporate businesses have publicly disassociated themselves from Trump including Twitter and Deutsche Bank.  47% of the popular vote.
The supposed insurrection in the Capitol has been an absolute godsend for liberals. It is surprising how little security there was on the day especially considering the predictability of this event.
The pushback we are seeing is an attempt to ban the political “right” (that is the movement often called “populist” in the liberal press). They don’t want to engage politically with this movement in a democratic contest. (47% is much much too big a risk to take). They are trying – and largely succeeding – in shutting down the political opposition to the Democratic party – that is any opposition to the current project of the liberals; legitimization of massive social inequalities in a system of lightly managed capitalism with a very small state-owned sector but high taxation, championing of endless minority interests, foreign wars (neo-imperialism), and a general outlawing of political dissent. The real coup we are seeing in the US at the moment is the attempt to subvert democracy. And the push for this comes from the democrats. It turns out that the liberal-progressives understand ‘democracy’ as a specific set of values not as an open political process which can lead to any set of values. When they talk about “defending democracy” they mean defending their specific political-economic project. Even if this means closing down democracy. Just like Lenin.