Eastern European, Slovac, and Middle Eastern nations are not the only targets of Anglo-American destabilization campaigns and color revolutions, particularly in recent years. South America, Asia, and even Russia have been and continue to be subject to Western meddling in their own internal affairs, with some of these mass mobilizations being more successful than others.
It is well-established that the entire “Arab Spring” uprising was nothing more than a Western-backed color revolution bolstered by many legitimate complaints of the subject populations yet instigated and guided by Anglo-Americans who have no interest in bringing these people real democracy or freedom. Instead, the teeming masses are nothing more than battering rams for an agenda they do not understand or even know exists.
As in the color revolutions of Eastern Europe and the Slovac world, the “Arab Spring” was engineered and controlled from the very beginning, with “freedom-spreading” organizations working on the ground to recruit, organize, train, and assist participants for the upcoming protests and destabilization. As Tony Cartalucci and Nile Bowie write in their e-book War on Syria: Gateway to WWIII,
One of the organizations involved in recruiting, training, and supporting youth activists ahead of the “Arab Spring” was described in an April 2011 New York Times article. The organization, Movements.org, or Alliance of Youth Movements, would later be described admitting to US funding and involvement in the “Arab Spring” uprisings. The article implicates Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, and two of its satellite organizations, the International Republican Institute, and the National Democratic Institute, in recruiting, training, and supporting the unrest starting as early as 2008. While the New York Times article doesn’t mention the organization by name, it links to an official US State Department announcement titled, “Announcement on Alliance of Youth Movements Summit,” that most certainly does. The Alliance of Youth Movements is a corporate-sponsored “coup college” of sorts, training activists to subvert and topple governments on the US State Department’s behalf.Indeed, while the aforementioned New York Times article still attempts to obfuscate and cover for the NGOs in their role in the Arab Spring, and therefore does not reveal the extent to which they were responsible, it is surprisingly open regarding the role played by Western NGOs in the movement. The author of the article, Ron Nixon, writes,
But as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections.
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.
The work of these groups often provoked tensions between the United States and many Middle Eastern leaders, who frequently complained that their leadership was being undermined, according to the cables.
The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.Readers of my “The History and Science Of Color Revolutions” series of articles should recognize at least three hallmarks of a destabilization campaign or color revolution – i.e. the presence of well-funded NGOs and Foundations, foreign training of activists and movement leaders, and election monitoring.
That being said, Nixon further explains the methods used by these organizations to instigate and promote the “Arab Spring” color revolution. He states,
Some Egyptian youth leaders attended a 2008 technology meeting in New York, where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department.
“We learned how to organize and build coalitions,” said Bashem Fathy, a founder of the youth movement that ultimately drove the Egyptian uprisings. Mr. Fathy, who attended training with Freedom House, said, “This certainly helped during the revolution.”
Ms. Qadhi, the Yemeni youth activist, attended American training sessions in Yemen.
“It helped me very much because I used to think that change only takes place by force and by weapons,” she said.
But now, she said, it is clear that results can be achieved with peaceful protests and other nonviolent means.Although, in the end, many of the countries suffering under the “Arab Spring” did indeed dissolve into chaos and violence, it is important to remember the work of Gene Sharp and “nonviolence as a form of warfare.”
Nixon continues his explanation by writing,
Diplomatic cables report how American officials frequently assured skeptical governments that the training was aimed at reform, not promoting revolutions.
Last year, for example, a few months before national elections in Bahrain, officials there barred a representative of the National Democratic Institute from entering the country.
In Bahrain, officials worried that the group’s political training “disproportionately benefited the opposition,” according to a January 2010 cable.
In Yemen, where the United States has been spending millions on an anti-terrorism program, officials complained that American efforts to promote democracy amounted to “interference in internal Yemeni affairs.”
But nowhere was the opposition to the American groups stronger than in Egypt.
Egypt, whose government receives $1.5 billion annually in military and economic aid from the United States, viewed efforts to promote political change with deep suspicion, even outrage.
Hosni Mubarak, then Egypt’s president, was “deeply skeptical of the U.S. role in democracy promotion,” said a diplomatic cable from the United States Embassy in Cairo dated Oct. 9, 2007.
At one time the United States financed political reform groups by channeling money through the Egyptian government.
But in 2005, under a Bush administration initiative, local groups were given direct grants, much to the chagrin of Egyptian officials.
According to a September 2006 cable, Mahmoud Nayel, an official with the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, complained to American Embassy officials about the United States government’s “arrogant tactics in promoting reform in Egypt.”
The main targets of the Egyptian complaints were the Republican and Democratic institutes. Diplomatic cables show that Egyptian officials complained that the United States was providing support for “illegal organizations.”
Gamal Mubarak, the former president’s son, is described in an Oct. 20, 2008, cable as “irritable about direct U.S. democracy and governance funding of Egyptian NGOs.”
The Egyptian government even appealed to groups like Freedom House to stop working with local political activists and human rights groups.Clearly, the color revolution machine is not unique to Eastern Europe. Not only the theory, but the practical application of the color revolution and destabilization methodology extends across the world with the necessary networks already set in place with willing staff and plentiful funding.
Thus, the Anglo-European color revolution apparatus, relying heavily on the United States for coordination and funding, are traditionally the most successful players in the geopolitical game, at least in recent years.
Unfortunately, it is Americans that have typically fallen for every color revolution enacted overseas (and domestically) just as much as Eastern Europeans, Middle Easterners, and Africans have done.
The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions, destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all.
 “Announcement on Alliance of Youth Movements Summit.” America.gov Archive, November 20, 2008.
Recently by Brandon Turbeville:
- West Blames Assad For Chemical Weapons Attack, Again
- 7.5 Earthquake in Papua New Guinea
- More Propaganda: Fake Leaflets Telling Jews to Register or be Deported
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.