How to understand what’s happening in the USA?
Easy, read the Color Revolution playbook.
This will be a collection of several sources with some quasi-stream-of-consciousness comments mixed in.
First up is the Wiki:
Participants in the colour revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance, also called civil resistance. Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have been intended protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements generally adopted a specific colour or flower as their symbol. The colour revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organising creative non-violent resistance.
So unpack that to operations requirements and you get the need to turn Universities and Colleges into political mills to turn out those students for the steet theater. NGOs to be created in large numbers and attached to the Government Taxes Teat for growth. Solicitation of Globalist funded NGOs like the Soros collection. Organize and fund lots of “demonstrations, strikes” and whatever “interventions” might be. Is that the shutting down of opposition speech?
Such movements have had a measure of success, as for example in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Bulldozer Revolution (2000), in Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), and in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004). In most but not all cases, massive street protests followed disputed elections, or requests for fair elections, and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian. Some events have been called “colour revolutions” but are different from the above cases in certain basic characteristics. Examples include Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution (2005); and Kuwait’s Blue Revolution (2005).
Thus the need to paint Trump as authoritarian and / or illegitimate. So operationally, a massive media propaganda campaign of negativity and manufactured complaints.
Government figures in Russia, such as Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, disapprove of the colour revolutions and have stated that they are a new form of warfare. President Putin said that Russia must prevent colour revolutions, “We see what tragic consequences the wave of so-called colour revolutions led to. For us this is a lesson and a warning. We should do everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia.”
Clearly the demonizing of Russia and Putin must be fast tracked and persistent… can’t have any center of power that stands against the mechanism of the Color Revolutionists…
Much of the rest of the Wiki is a list of Color Revolutions and their history. Note how many of those “revolutions” were operated with US TLA support under the Globalist Presidency and / or when Hillary was in the State Department. It is their machine operated out of the intelligence agencies. It does have a useful list of references.
One reference points to the Albert Einstein Institution. This is where you find about Gene Sharp who died this year.
Their motto or headline is “Advancing freedom with non-violent action”. So not exactly a physics oriented site.
The Albert Einstein Institution is greatly saddened to announce the passing of our founder, mentor, and friend Dr. Gene Sharp who passed away peacefully on January 28, 2018 at his home in East Boston.
Founder and mentor, so “he matters” to what the organization is all about. What is their mission statement, their fundamental reason for being?
The mission of the Albert Einstein Institution is to advance the worldwide study and strategic use of nonviolent action in conflict.
The Institution is committed to:
· defending democratic freedoms and institutions;
· opposing oppression, dictatorship, and genocide; and
· reducing the reliance on violence as an instrument of policy.
This mission is pursued in three ways, by:
· encouraging research and policy studies on the methods of nonviolent action and their past use in diverse conflicts;
· sharing the results of this research with the public through publications, conferences, and the media; and
· consulting with groups in conflict about the strategic potential of nonviolent action.
In short, their purpose is to facilitate the overthrow of governments that are not to their liking. Their preferred methods are media talking dirt about the target and lots of street theater / demonstrations.
Any surprise we have a lot of media talking dirt about Trump and a load of street theater / demonstrations funded by NGOs funded via Soros? Any surprise the same NGOs are the water taxi service flooding Europe with “refugees” who will eventually be fodder for more street theater / demonstrations and suited for talking dirt about anyone who says “no” to an artificial NGO operated “crisis” soft invasion? This is all out of the playbook. (Which is featured prominantly in their Mission Statement page.)
If we look at their list of free publications, by title, we find an interesting list:
198 Methods The Anti-Coup Civilian-Based Defense Exploring Nonviolent Alternatives From Dictatorship to Democracy Gandhi Wields the Weapon of Moral Power How Nonviolent Struggle Works Making Europe Unconquerable Making the Abolition of War a Realistic Goal The Monograph Series Insurrectionary Civic Strikes in Latin America 1931-1961 Civilian-Based Defense in a new Era Civil Resistance in the East European and Soviet Revolutions Nonviolent Action in the Liberation of Latvia Nonviolent Resistance in Lithuania Nonviolent Struggle and the Revolution in East Germany Toward Research and Theory Building National Security through Civilian-Based Defense On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict The Political Equivalent to War: Civilian-Based Defense The Politics of Nonviolent Action Power, Struggle, and Defense The Role of Power in Nonviolent Struggle Self-Liberation Self Reliant Defense without Bankruptcy or War Social Power and Political Freedom There Are Realistic Alternatives Tyranny Could Not Quell Them! Waging Nonviolent Struggle
Clearly I have not read them all. But it is a giant Dig Here! for “sources and methods” in use.
Let’s take a glimps at the 198 Methods document. You will find much of this familiar from the Anti-Trump nightly news.
198 METHODS OF NONVIOLENT ACTION
The Methods of Nonviolent Protest and Persuasion
1. Public speeches
2. Letters of opposition or support
3. Declarations by organizations and institutions
4. Signed public statements
5. Declarations of indictment and intention
6. Group or mass petitions
Communications with a Wider Audience
7. Slogans, caricatures, and symbols
8. Banners, posters, and displayed communications
9. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books
10. Newspapers and journals
11. Records, radio, and television
12. Skywriting and earthwriting
14. Mock awards
15. Group lobbying
17. Mock elections
Symbolic Public Acts
18. Displays of flags and symbolic colors
19. Wearing of symbols
20. Prayer and worship
21. Delivering symbolic objects
22. Protest disrobings
23. Destruction of own property
24. Symbolic lights
25. Displays of portraits
26. Paint as protest
27. New signs and names
28. Symbolic sounds
29. Symbolic reclamations
30. Rude gestures
Pressures on Individuals
31. “Haunting ” officials
32. Taunting officials
Drama and Music
35. Humorous skits and pranks
36. Performances of plays and music
40. Religious processions
Honoring the Dead
43. Political mourning
44. Mock funerals
45. Demonstrative funerals
46. Homage at burial places
47. Assemblies of protest or support
48. Protest meetings
49. Camouflaged meetings of protest
Withdrawal and Renunciation
53. Renouncing honors
54. Turning one’s back
The Methods of Social Noncooperation
Ostracism of Persons
55. Social boycott
56. Selective social boycott
57. Lysistratic nonaction
Noncooperation with Social Events, Customs, and
60. Suspension of social and sports activities
61. Boycott of social affairs
62. Student strike
63. Social disobedience
64. Withdrawal from social institutions
Withdrawal from the Social System
66. Total personal noncooperation
67. “Flight” of workers
69. Collective disappearance
70. Protest emigration (hijrat)
The Methods of Economic Noncooperation:
Actions by Consumers
71. Consumers’ boycott
72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods
73. Policy of austerity
74. Rent withholding
75. Refusal to rent
76. National consumers’ boycott
77. International consumers’ boycott
Action by Workers and Producers
78. Workmen’s boycott
79. Producers’ boycott
Action by Middlemen
80. Suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott
Action by Owners and Management
81. Traders’ boycott
82. Refusal to let or sell property
84. Refusal of industrial assistance
85. Merchants’ “general strike”
Action by Holders of Financial Resources
86. Withdrawal of bank deposits
87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments
88. Refusal to pay debts or interest
89. Severance of funds and credit
90. Revenue refusal
91. Refusal of a government’s money
Action by Governments
92. Domestic embargo
93. Blacklisting of traders
94. International sellers’ embargo
95. International buyers’ embargo
96. International trade embargo
The Methods of Economic Noncooperation: The
97. Protest strike
98. Quickie walkout (lightning strike)
99. Peasant strike
100. Farm Workers’ strike
Note how some of these are being applied to Conservatives on social media. The “lockout” and refusal of financial services. This is right out of the playbook.
So how did all this happen at once? Because the same playbook is being followed by the same “thought leaders” who are in some cases doing coordinated lobbying operations against government agencies and private companies. This isn’t by accident and it isn’t just a social movement that has happened all in isolation. It is a groomed and tended process “by the playbook”.
Next up is their centerpiece “From Dictatorship to Democracy”. Available in several languages from this link:
I’m looking at the English copy here:
It explores various options for running a revolution, including violence, and settles on various non-violent means as the preferred way. (Any wonder that The Left is pushing hard on “the psychology” of Trump supporters or Climate Skeptics? It’s their preferred method of operation to use social and psych means of manipulation.)
All material appearing in this publication is in the public domain
Citation of the source, and notification to the Albert Einstein Institution for the reproduction, translation, and reprinting of this publication, are requested.
First Edition, May 2002
Second Edition, June 2003
Third Edition, February 2008
Fourth Edition, May 2010
From Dictatorship to Democracy was originally published in Bangkok in 1993 by the Committee for the Restoration of Democracy in Burma in association with Khit Pyaing (The New Era Journal). It has since been translated into at least thirty-one other languages and has been published in Serbia, Indonesia, and Thailand, among other countries. This is the fourth United States Edition.
It is 93 pages long and a pdf with a tendency to be a PITA in cut-paste as sentences get broken into fragments. So I’m just going to point you at it and say “read it”. It’s your road map to what is being done to Trump.
I don’t think it will be blocked or taken down, but just as an FYI, another copy is at this link (just take out the blanks):
https: //bargad.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ fdtd.pdf
Here’s one quote from near the end of it, just to demonstrate that this isn’t a hypothetical book, it’s an operational guide.
During this time, at my office at the Albert Einstein Institution we only had a handful of photocopies from the Bangkok English language booklet. For a few years we had to make copies of it when we had enquiries for which it was relevant. Later, Marek Zelaskiewz, from California, took one of those copies to Belgrade during Miloso-vic’s time and gave it to the organization Civic Initiatives. They translated it into Serbian and published it. When we visited Serbia after the collapse of the Milosevic regime we were told that the book-let had been quite influential in the opposition movement.
Also important had been the workshop on nonviolent struggle that Robert Helvey, a retired US Army colonel, had given in Budapest, Hungary, for about twenty Serbian young people on the nature and potential of nonviolent struggle. Helvey also gave them copies of the complete The Politics of Nonviolent Action. These were the people who became the Otpor organization that led the nonviolent struggle that brought down Milosevic.
This is an interesting paper written to get a degree that gives an appraochable description of Color Revolutions:
Explaining the Color Revolutions
Poh Phaik Thien, Jul 31 2009,
This content was written by a student and assessed as part of a university degree. E-IR publishes student essays & dissertations to allow our readers to broaden their understanding of what is possible when answering similar questions in their own studies.
The Criteria of Color Revolutions as Modular Political Phenomena in Post-Communist Countries
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, post communist countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia had been able to gain their independence. However, the ex-Soviet system still exerted an influence on the political development of these countries. Most of these countries did not fully make the transition to democracy but instead appeared as ‘hybrid regimes’ which inclines more to autocracy. These countries were referred as ‘hybrid regimes’ because their political institutions are not in the form of total Western democracy. Although there is parliament and opposition party in these regimes, the institutions of the post-Soviet regimes were dubbed with what is called ‘patronal presidentialism’, by Henry E.Hale.
The word ‘revolution’ means the term does not include the consequences after the political upheaval, but to identify that the anti-regime reactions and movements were successful in overthrowing the current regime. But it is also important to note that revolutions have long been known to be modular in nature. The term ‘modular’ in this article is taken according to Tarrow’s definition which is to describe the spread of collective action across groups. Older generations of historians have also treated revolutions as inter-related phenomena, not as a collection of unrelated cases. Therefore, the use of color revolution among scholars indicates that they have attempted to explain the revolutions that happened in post-Soviet Eurasia as political phenomena that will spread across countries or regions.
As mentioned above, the first criteria for color revolution to occur is the incumbent leader of the regime must be very unpopular and face the so-called lame-duck syndrome. The lame-duck syndrome, according to Hale, refers to the elite defection related to their expectation about the future. There will be an elite defection from the incumbent president’s team when elites believe the incumbent may leave the office. The key factors inducing the lame-duck syndrome include presidential term limits and public opinion.
So any surprise there is such shouting and hollering about Trump not going to last, Trump going to be taken down, the potential for an impeachment?
It doesn’t really matter if the removal happens when your goal is just make the guy look bad and like a “Lame Duck”. It is a delegitimize operation.
“The second criteria is that the anti-regimes forces are enforced by mass-media and foreign influences.”
OK, they clearly are going for the anti-regime forces to be “enforced by mass-media”. As the USA is very un-fond of foreign influences, they are using that to slime Trump instead; though there is some appeal to the EU / Scandinavian model as better and the USA as failed.
The last criteria is particularly interesting:
The last criterion mentioned in this article is that the anti-regime forces are also motivated by the grievances on the corrupted government which is supported by a foreign state that the people do not desire. In this case, the foreign state which people do not desire refers to the Russian Federation. From the three color revolutions, we can see that the overthrown leaders such as Eduard Shevardnadze, Yanukovych and Akaev are all Russian-supported leaders.
Hey, it’s worked at least 3 times before, so it would be natural to attempt the same play in a 4th.
Finally, there’s this interesting article from the Wayback Machine. I’ve not read all of it yet. It’s for when I’ve got some down time ;-) It looks like a first hand report from behind the scenes of one of the Eastern European Color Revolutions.
How Orange Networks Work.
On “Orange Networks From Belgrade to Bishkek”.
теги: color revolutions, Orange Networks, Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, USA
We have seen well-organized mobs – allegedly acting in the name of the “protesting people” – occupy parliament buildings in Belgrade and Tbilisi, paralyze Mensk and Budapest, launch noisy campaigns in the streets of Kyiv, and riot in the downtown Bishkek and Yerevan. The events have taken place sufficiently long ago to realize that the color revolutions have not led Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia to prosperity. They did transform the political landscape in the post-Soviet space though, and the consequences they have for the neighboring countries, especially for Russia, such as the drift in Ukraine’s foreign politics which followed the developments of 2004, can prove long-lasting and dire.
Color revolution strategies and scenarios are generated by various Western think tanks. Their genesis and operations are analyzed by President of the Historical Perspective Foundation N.A. Narochnitskaya. The ideological doctrines formulated in think tanks are imposed on sovereign Republics regardless of their actual national interests. Organizations such as the Carnegie Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution and others teach local elites to view local politics through the prism of “global thinking”, but the efforts of the US think tanks are aimed exclusively at promoting the interests of the US. In addition to making inroads into local elites, the main task performed by the US think tanks internationally is to export ideological concepts and myths which the organizers of color revolutions plant in the minds of the populations of the targeted countries.
In his essay, J. Laughland, a British political scientist and writer, examines the key theoretical provisions and the field practice of overthrowing the legitimate authority in various countries. He marshals an impressive array of factual data to prove that the color revolutions are a new coup d’état technique developed by the US think tanks in cooperation with the CIA. Though revolutions of the kind – the ones in Serbia, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Georgia, and the failed one in Uzbekistan – are routinely portrayed as the results of public protests, Laughland argues that in reality the developments were carefully planned operations in many cases including disinformation via mass media, and that the operations were funded and carried out by transnational networks serving as instruments of the Western influence. The range of pertinent activities spans covert operations, threats to resort to military intervention or even a direct use of military force, smear campaigns, secret political leverage, bribing journalists, public disinformation, and the use of other methods not excluding political assassinations. For example, reconnaissance and target identification were a part of the actual mission carried out by agents of the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies in the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission in 1998…
Irina Lebedeva, a US-based journalist and translator, focuses on the role played by “angered youths” in protest movements at least for the last 40 years. Already in 1967, prominent social scientist Fred Emery of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations argued that by the late 1990ies specific models of behavior typical for younger people would possibly be used to destabilize sovereign countries. From this standpoint, the progress in communications technology opens extensive opportunities. Global media, cell phones, mass SMS messaging, blogs, and web sites are convenient tools for real-time guiding of the youth mob and for ascribing great political significance to any event, no matter real or imaginary. The potential of propaganda under the current conditions was exemplified by the developments around the Racak village in Kosovo…
In 2000, Serbia became the starting point of a wave of color revolutions. The authors of the essays in “Orange Networks From Belgrade to Bishkek” see the NATO attack on Yugoslavia and the October, 2000 unrest in Serbia as links in the chain of events organized not only to overthrow the political regime in Belgrade but also to induce an irreversible partition of the country. In his essay, Belgrade-based political scientist and historian Petr Ilchenkov supplies unique information concerning the preparations for the protests which led to the ouster of S. Milosevic. Serbia was the proving ground for many of the techniques which were subsequently refined and employed in later color revolutions. The techniques include the creation of mass opposition movements and golem parties, the extensive application of communication technologies to mobilize mass public support, the pouring of large funds into spreading protest movement logotypes, acts of individual terror against authority figures, the formation of armed support groups backing the protests presented as “non-violent” by mass media, etc. Notably, the revolution in Serbia did not translate into the country’s prosperity, and most of its activists dropped out of politics after having played their roles.
And on and on…
Yes, it is a lot to read and absorb. You can ignore it and just accept the result as it rolls over you, or you can read their play book, see what they are doing, look behind the curtain for the “organizers”, and have understanding and potentially influence.