Winter Patriot Community Blog

People around the world have become quite familiar with “people's revolutions”; some successful and some not successful. But are they what they appear to be? The world witnessed many “Color Revolutions” from Lebanon to Georgia and the Ukraine and far away Kyrgyzstan. These were beacons of hope for the rest of the world. All these countries were labouring under self-interested, corrupt and often brutal political leadership (you might ask, “Who isn't?”!). But as time went by the colours started to fade and what became apparent was that these “people's revolutions” weren't what they appeared to be at all. They were, in fact, products of foreign intelligence services' manipulations. The CIA being the principal offender (link to GlobalResearch via Twelfth Bough). And the hoped for reforms, in particular the economic reforms, when they eventuated were worse than what preceded them by a large margin.

These 'color revolutions' were successful in overthrowing governments. There was a whole string of them. Until Moldova's turn came. The 'color revolution' juggernaut stumbled and then fell flat on its face when it reached Iran. The people were starting to wake up to what they were and their governments were prepared with counter measures.

The powers behind the UK, US and Israeli governments, principally the bankers, still had their ambitions to rule the world (see previous article, World War111 - underway) and there were still many countries to pull into the NATO military colossus; still many countries to separate from China as trading partners and still more countries to impoverish or impoverish further. What to do? Let's rework the idea. Let's have 'flower revolutions'! Target countries became those identified by trading with China and being resistant to integrating their military forces with NATO.

So Tunisia, a peaceful and prosperous country, (trades with China and resisted NATO) was recently subjected to the 'Jasmin Revolution' and now Egypt (that also trades with China and refused troops to NATO for its wars) has been saddled with the 'Lotus Revolution'. These quaintly named 'revolutions' are still in flux as I write. Though, as far as 'revolutions' go, they appear to be fairing better for their foreign sponsors than the Moldovan and Iranian ones did. What's changed? Certainly not the give-away labels (not too bright these CIA dudes sometimes). What's changed is the lack of immediate public support by the US government and the CIA's front organisations. It has become “the kiss of death”.

When the latest upheavals first hit the headlines, seasoned political observers were hopeful that they were the 'genuine article' at first. Then the more astute observers realised that despite genuine protesters (especially in Egypt), it was the 'same old, same old' just disguised a little better. But can 'peoples' revolutions' actually work or is the term no more meaningful than 'a people's government'?

The mass of people can protest. And people can demonstrate. And people can riot. But they can't overthrow a government very easily. They can stop it from operating but it takes huge organisational resources to do so effectively for any length of time. Also, a leadership must come into being or must move in and take over to do this and then negotiate with the incumbent powers which may include military and civil forces such as police. This leadership is by its nature separated from its constituents and are no longer 'the people' themselves. This leadership is then vulnerable to elimination through murder or is corruptible, if it is not corrupted already.

Often it is easier to corrupt or deceive this leadership through treachery. An example of deceit by the incumbent power would be the deal struck between Nelson Mandela and the South African Government of the time. Mandela did a marvellous job after he took over but because the economic power was retained in the hands of the bankers, nothing changed economically. In fact, things got worse, as they always do. The lesson is to know your enemy and their systems and sources of power. To know what is not discussed.

An example of treachery on the part of an opposition team is Poland. Solidarity turned to the Vatican for moral, economic and political support. Along with the Vatican came the CIA and its money. After the downfall of the communist government, Poland found itself ruled by the agents of the Vatican and the CIA and not by Solidarity and the people who supported it. And, of course, Poland is the worse for it. The lesson here is to choose your allies exceedingly carefully. (The courageous Poles of Solidarity have other worthwhile lessons to teach us which I will endeavour to come back to)

Can a mass of people overcome an army? In the past we have seen pictures of pretty girls putting flower stems down the barrels of soldiers' rifles (no doubt dreamed up by a Freudian) but in these situations, the soldiers are under orders to not engage. Just as is happening in Egypt, . . . . so far. We would like to believe that soldiers would not fire on their own people; that it is possible to prevail on their consciences or their hearts to refuse orders to kill the protesters. But history does not support this. Tiananmen Square and Kent State University to name just two examples.

The purpose of so called Defence Forces is to protect the incumbent power structure and its leaders from attack from both outside its borders and from inside its borders as in large scale insurrection and when necessary to back up the police forces (who can be overwhelmed with enough numbers).

There can be people's protests but the incumbent power elite will remain in power so long as the army responds to its political leader's orders. Or the army decides to back another leadership for whatever reason or even itself as a leadership. An army can impose its will because it has trained and organised personnel and they have weapons and force. Mao Tze-Tung famously once said that, “political power comes out of the end of a gun”. Though questionable philosophically, it's immediate and practical truth is unassailable and has to be borne in mind at all times. Who controls the guns?

A people need leadership to bring their aspirations together into a movement to bring about change. Leadership brings together a people's aspirations and focuses them on a particular issue or person to effect change. In this way, leadership functions like a lens that focuses the rays of the sun to burn away what might otherwise rest in the sun unperturbed all day just as a despot may rule forever a people who have no social and political leaders. Remove genuine leaders, like Archbishop Oscar Romero, and there is no problem. . . . until next time. Rinse and repeat.

After the invasion of Iraq, squads of killers went around Iraq kidnapping and killing academics, teachers and doctors, anyone who could provide a focal point and leadership to the rest of their community. Judge John Roll may well have been an example of someone who showed principled opposition to the ruling powers in America and would likely have gone on to become an important leader. He was shot in the head; the preferred shot for military trained snipers these days.

History is replete with examples of the incumbent king or despot agreeing to the demands of the leaders of a mass protest only to renege on the deal after the protesters have dispersed and then kill the leaders. The people do not respond to this outrage because they are leaderless. These days, not only do the elite eliminate problematic leaders, they also provide their own in-house trained faux leaders in their stead; like swapping John Lennon for Bono.

Leadership is also offered directly and indirectly by religions or religious movements like the Vatican or the Muslim Brotherhood. But these bodies are hooked into the elite power brokers one way or another and you know things aren't going to end well. The question then is who is providing the leadership and are they controlled by anyone else? Who controls the minds?

So these 'people's revolutions' cannot be what they are presented as by our news media. The protests are largely real but the leadership is a different thing. Genuine leaders who represent the interests of the poor do not last long leaving those provided or corrupted by the elite they purport to be against. Currently, there are people on the streets in Cairo but their presence is being tolerated by the army and whoever is controlling it for their own reasons. There are numerous incidents apparently, where protesters are overwhelming the police and there are instances of torching police stations. But it all hinges on the army and what they will do.

I hope it ends relatively peacefully, but fear it won't because there are far greater forces involved who set this uprising in motion for their own psychopathic purposes.