[Go to the original, if you don’t want to click individually – PB]
About This Site:
Color revolutions are, without a doubt, one of the main features of global political developments today. Should the casual reader immediately wonder what a “color revolution” is, keep reading, our view here is unique, but we most certainly have some answers.
Let us first begin with the Wikipedia definition. That website introduces the concept by stating the following:
“Color revolution(s) is a term used by the media to describe related [political] movements that developed in several societies in the CIS (former USSR) and Balkan states during the early 2000s. Some observers have called the events a revolutionary wave.
“Participants in the color revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance, also called civil resistance. Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have been [used to] protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy; and they have also created strong pressure for change. These movements all adopted a specific color or flower as their symbol. The color revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organizing creative non-violent resistance.
“These movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution and (though more violent than the previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005), in Kuwait’s Blue Revolution (2005), in Iraq’s Purple Revolution (2005), and in Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution (1989), but failed in Iran’s Green Revolution (2009–2010) . Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections or request of fair elections and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian.”
What the Wikipedia article fails to mention is the massive foreign funding, and at least any notion that color revolutions are psychosocial operations of deception.
It’s a fact that Western governments (especially the US government) and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) spend millions of dollars to co-opt and “channel” local populations of targeted countries against their own political leadership.
Empty democracy slogans and flashy colors aside, we argue that color revolutions are good old-fashioned regime change operations: destabilization without the tanks.
The secret ingredient is a sophisticated science used to manipulate emotions and circumvent critical thinking. History shows that, to much of the power elite, humanity is seen as a collection of nerve endings to be pushed and pulled one way or the other, sometimes made to tremble in fear, sometimes made to salivate like Pavlov’s dogs. These days the manipulation is so pervasive, so subtle, so effective, that even critical individuals at times must necessarily fail to recognize how often–or in what context–they have fallen prey.
Of course fear is the most obvious emotion played upon to effect massive social change. One need only to reflect upon the last ten years, since 9/11, to know that fear is a primary instrument used to initiate and justify dangerous shifts in public policy.
But as humanity has been physiologically equipped with a range of emotions, and is not merely arrested and controlled by fear alone, a strata of behavioral and political science also found it useful to master the flip-side of the behavioral spectrum, and by that we mean desire, and all that drives groups of individuals to act, even in the face of fear, in pursuit of something worthwhile.
Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to) marketing, advertising, public relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each of them selling, branding, promoting, entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes and dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent their audiences’ intellect, the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.
http://bmpr.com/chip_martin/blogs/images/chip_martin/Skyyad5.jpg(Legs for educational purposes only)
Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval.
It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental organizations.
Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor.
Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily predicated upon their ability to veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions guiding their work.
Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events.
And this is where we come in: to help deconstruct the deception.
But we will not just cover color revolutions here, as color revolutions are bound up in the larger geopolitical universe. A color revolution is only an instrument of foreign policy–only a tool–the ultimate object being the geopolitical advantages gained by powerful financiers and the brain trust they employ. It follows that understanding geopolitical context (and motive) is necessary to understanding the purpose of the color revolution.
Toward that end, we will discuss and analyze relationships of global power in great detail. We will highlight specific institutions of power; identify what their power rests upon; draw attention to the individuals that finance and direct their activities; speculate upon some of their motives; and get to know the broad range of tools they use to achieve them, tools which include the color revolution.
As in-depth studies into the color revolution are far too rare, and as the issue itself is far too obscure, we hope to draw more attention to it; to spark discussion and even debate.
It is an issue that takes time and patience. And it is for those that are willing to provide this time and patience that we offer this site.
“Never utter these words: ‘I do not know this, therefore it is false.’ One must study to know; know to understand; understand to judge.” –Apothegm of Narada
Geopolitical Writers and Critics:
Webster Tarpley: based in Washington D.C., Dr. Tarpley is an author, economist, historian, and expert in geopolitics, covert operations and false-flag terror.
Tony Cartalucci: based in Thailand, Mr. Cartalucci writes primarily about color revolutions, globalism, and Thai politics on his site, Land Destroyer.
Pepe Escobar: Brazilian-born journalist, Mr. Escobar writes about geopolitics and globalization for the Asia Times.
F. William Engdahl: US-born author, economist, and historian, Mr. Engdahl is based in Germany, and publishes new online material usually on his own site, or at globalresearch.ca.
Global Research: website of the Centre for Research on Globalization, edited by Michel Chossudovsky, featuring multiple perspectives on globalism and geopolitics, including some of the most factual news perspectives regarding all geographical regions around the globe.
Infowars: the primary website of radio host and documentary filmmaker Alex Jones, based in Austin, Texas.
Counterpunch: US-based political newsletter
Russia Today: one of the few large-scale media operations that features alternative perspectives about US foreign policy.
These institutions are instrumental to the topics we address here. (click on image to visit):
“The Democracy Program” Network: these organizations were created simultaneously by the Reagan administration, in 1983, to provide a home for tax dollars (used to finance “overt” regime change operations worldwide).
National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
International Republican Institute (IRI)
National Democratic Institute (NDI)
Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE)
Solidarity Center of the AFL-CIO
Related “democracy promotion” organization, with greater international representation:
http://www.ukrainians.ca/images/stories/news/world_movement_for_democracy.jpgWorld Movement for Democracy
Government-sponsored institution that specializes in “humanitarian” indoctrination, research, and acceptable forms of conflict resolution with a strong reliance upon left-leaning political cover:
United States Institute for Peace (USIP)
Governmental Funding Apparatus: the US Agency for International Development (USAID) was created by the Kennedy administration in 1961 as an updated version of the post-war Marshall Plan. With a current annual budget of nearly $50 billion, one of USAID’s many functions is the financing of “democracy promotion” through its vast international network of recipient NGOs.
http://humanosphere.kplu.org/files/2010/10/USAID.pngUS Agency for International Development (USAID)
Think Tanks and Policy-Making Networks: these organizations provide a strategic planning and policy-making forum for the technocrats and power brokers of the empire.
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
American Enterprise Institute
The Heritage Foundation
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
International Crisis Group (ICG)
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
International Coalition for Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
The Arlington Institute
Open Society Institute
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Strategic Nonviolence and Activist-Oriented NGOs: these organizations provide either money or training to activist groups in foreign countries with the specific intent to destabilize target governments.
International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC)
Albert Einstein Institution(AEI)
Center for Applied Nonviolent Actions Strategies (CANVAS)
Color Revolutions are short on substance, heavy on brand identification:
OTPOR! Serbia (2000)
Zubr, Belarus (2001)
KMARA!, Georgia (2003)
PORA!, Ukraine (2004)
KelKel, Kyrgyzstan (2005)
Obama Campaign Logo (2008)
April 6th Movement, Egypt (2011)
Green Movement, Iran (ongoing)
Oborona, Russia (ongoing)
Thailand “Red Shirts” (ongoing)
Malaysia “Bersih 2.0” rallies (ongoing)
Zimbabwe, Movement for Democratic Change (ongoing)
Local Coordination Committee, Syria (ongoing)
Mjaft, Albania (ongoing)
#OWS Occupy Wall Street, United States (ongoing)
Must Read Documents (click on image)
“The Democracy Program” (1983) report to U.S. President Ronald Reagan
Iran: Time for a New Approach (2004 Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report)
Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran (2009 Brookings Institution report)
Belarus and the West: Three Scenarios (2011) Report from the Center for European Policy Analysis (download PDF)
Democratic Change in Belarus: A Framework for Action (2011 Report from Freedom House and the Center for European Policy Studies (CEPA))
The Kefaya Movement (2008 RAND Corporation report on Egypt)
From Dictatorship to Democracy, by Gene Sharp (fourth edition, 2010)
198 Methods of Nonviolent Action, by Gene Sharp
The Role of Power in Nonviolent Struggle (1990), by Gene Sharp
US Army FM 3-05 (2005): Tactical Psychological Operations Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures
Declassified “Operation Mongoose” Document on the Covert War Against Cuba (1962)
CIA Nicaragua Manual: Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare
“The Freedom Fighter’s Manual”: The CIA’s sabotage guide against the Nicaraguan Sandinista government
US Defense Department’s “Joint Vision 2020”
“The Role of Georgia’s Media — and Western aid — in the Rose Revolution,” by David Anable (2005)
United States Institute for Peace (USIP) Task Force Report: Preventing Genocide: A Blueprint for U.S. Policymakers (2008)
Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty “Responsibility to Protect” (2001)