Defy The Revolutions Manufactured To Serve The System

01 Feb

     It is always very important to understand that whenever there is a popular movement it could be a ploy. Those who hold the power and money in the world intend to keep their control by planning ahead of time. They have multifaceted means to monitor and predict the movement of the populations. It only serves their purpose to seize the moment and control begin, direct, and control any eventuality that can be seen. They know that as their plan comes closer and closer to fruition their is an inevitability of a popular uprising. .If they can begin it and direct these reactions to make the demands that one way or another serves their purposes they defuse a problem and further their plan at the same time. This is the hidden undercurrent to all of history which alludes those who get their history from mainstream sources and Hollywood outlets. This is why individualism is the only pure answer to the big machine coming down upon society.

How Do You Escape a Color Revolution? Replace Emotional Reaction With Intellectual Sobriety

January 31, 2012 | Filed under: Latest,Real World News | Posted by:

Understanding the 21st Century Global Information War: Protect Your Zeitgeist

By Eric Pottenger and Jeff Friesen

Authors’ Introductory Note:  the following essay was prepared in the style of an “open letter”   intended to be read by leaders and policy-makers of nation-states   targeted for “regime change” by the West.
Try to imagine a world where cultural guidance and future prospects are created largely from within rather than from without.  Try to imagine youth in your country—symbolized by genuine energy and  enthusiasm and political awareness—pointing the way toward a new   national understanding based upon instincts offered from within instead of from without.

Of  course each of us knows that Western governments hope to subvert the   ambitious political plans of competitor countries and blocs so as to   maintain global hegemony and forestall a more equitable distribution of  power.

And  although there are multiple levels to explore, understand, and   different ways to combat this threat, brevity demands that the following  analysis offer only a brief solution in the most simplistic terms:   namely, the prospect of a world where fear of young people and new ideas  are replaced by embracing possibilities; the kind of possibilities  that  these young people should rightfully embody.
The  premise here is that it’s absolutely incorrect (and potentially   catastrophic) to conclude that ‘oppositionists’ in each of your   countries—and here we mean young local ‘foot soldiers’ of Western-backed  political agendas—are conscious ‘agents’ of Western governments; or   that they’re largely “corrupt” or even “unpatriotic.”
The  defining characteristics of typical foreign-funded opposition   protesters are their youth, their inexperience, their lack of   discernment, their relatively high level of education, their personal   ambition, their access to media and technology, and their strong   inclinations to rebel against the status quo (what they deem to be an unrewarding social and political culture).

In  other words, if strategically-placed foreign money, tactical training,  and a self-interested geopolitical purpose were absent, these young  “protesters” and their rebellion could stably be addressed by (and   absorbed within) the local social and political culture, even help   infuse this culture with characteristics that every great culture needs:  self-reflection; derision; laughter; art; indifference; transcendence;  something greater than mere self-preservation.

Unfortunately these movements aren’t  isolated concerns of an individual nation—they are international   security threats. The West now uses both “humanitarian” crises and fake  social “revolutions” as a part of its strategic package. This makes   national political movements potential arms of foreign powers. To quote  Allen Weinstein, the first President of the United States’ National   Endowment for Democracy (NED), “A lot of what [the NED does] today was   done covertly twenty-five years ago by the CIA.”
This  presents the principle challenge: how to develop an effective   self-defense strategy. The trick is to provide a remedy that doesn’t   fuel more discord. Coercion sows discord. The movement tacticians   anticipate and use ham-handed, unsophisticated, strictly coercive local  responses as part of their operational templates. They derive strength  from these responses, not weakness. Ultimately the coercive response  is  a recipe for defeat. If the coercive response appears to be  necessary  or inevitable, at least it should be provided with some  balance.
When the “pro-democracy protester” faces the “government crackdown,” whose side are you gonna be on?

Better  instead to learn how the imperialist game is now played. The new   battlefield of warfare is in the informational realm, the psychological  realm. More than at any point in history, war is primarily a media war.  The reason the United States, in particular, has been so effective in  this style of warfare is because the whole structure of U.S. society  has  been built around promotion and consumption as a pathway to wealth  and  power. In the United States, the corporate marketing and  advertisement  industry has merged seamlessly into the operational  templates of foreign  policy. There is little difference between selling Coca Cola and  selling a particular foreign policy initiative.  Corporations sell  commodities through marketing campaigns and  advertisements; governments  sell policies through a myriad of  techniques of information control and  propaganda.

only the emotional imprint…

Like corporate advertising, propaganda is primarily effective as a form of emotional communication,  not one of critical analysis. The purpose is to promote a prescribed   behavior, whether that behavior result in the purchasing of a new pair   of blue jeans, the supporting of a social initiative, or advocating   one’s inclusion amongst a battalion of protesters, each of them dragged willingly into the streets to weaken the stature of a particular government.

One  identifiable technique the propaganda specialist employs to overthrow  unwanted leaders is the exact same one used in the corporate realm:  “branding.” In essence, the propagandist attempts to strengthen the “brand” of the opposition movement while weakening the “brand” of the targeted leader or system.
…of the brand remains.

All  critical details are removed from the propaganda message; only the   emotional imprint of the “brand” remains. The propagandist will rarely   explain in substantive terms either the problems of society or the   concrete solutions. Instead he will brand the issues in broad emotional  terms. The opposition movement will likely be branded as “fun,”   “rebellious,” or “revolutionary,” etc., whereas the problems of the   entire society are made unspecific, reduced to the actions of a  “corrupt,” “greedy,” “power-hungry” “dictator.” The goal is to broadcast  this message simply and incessantly; and especially to make people believe that it’s true.

Oh, you pretty things!  In the words of OTPOR (Serbian) youth group co-founder and international regime change tactician, Ivan Marovic, “I  hate politics.  It sucks.  It’s boring.  It’s not cool.  Normal people  hate politics…but…you need normal people if you’re gonna make   change.  To do that, you need to make politics sexy.  Make it cool.    Make it hip.  REVOLUTION as a FASHION LINE.“ 

This  branding logic works the same for Western governments to achieve   domestic public consent for aggressive foreign policy initiatives. For   example, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko is known throughout the West as “Europe’s Last Dictator.” That is Lukashenko’s brand  in the West. This brand has been created to prepare Western audiences  for his abrupt removal from power. Like Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi:   allegations of corruption and sponsorship of terrorism had for years   been attached to the image of Gaddafi, a fact which later made it   permissible for NATO to not only remove him from power illegally, but to  even kill him. This should be seen as no surprise. Gaddafi had been   branded beforehand for such a fate. The Western public had already been  prepared to react uncritically to this violation international justice.  For many Westerns, the killing of Gaddafi was even seen as a victory  for  “the people.”

If  I don’t live in these countries; and if I know next to nothing about   them; WHAT are these ubiquitous images sure to convince me into   THINKING?  The answers are obvious, but here’s the rub: since I don’t   live there, how can I know for certain whether the impressions they are  promoting are actually true?

The only defense against the strength of these branding techniques is to challenge the brand.

Opposition  media should never be restricted or prohibited. Instead, governments   should provide the domestic media with tools for an effective   counter-attack. Governments should sponsor new and better media. They   should throw money at it; promote it culturally; expand educational   initiatives that develop it. They should make it more entertaining; make  it more interesting; infuse it with substance and criticism.
Media should be used to deconstruct the brand the West is selling; it should successfully offer an alternative brand.

The idea here is to hire young people instead of arresting them. Put people to work in the government that have credibility and can project youth and vigor.  Demanding love for the country will never be effective if it’s about   prostrating oneself before the government. The most important and   effective way for young people to invest in the destiny of the country   is to be embraced as part of the internal power structure. Otherwise   these same people are left to wander, highly vulnerable to the venus   flytrap of Western propaganda.

Independent media voices in the West can help, both at home and abroad.
Through  the critical lens of independent Western media, the highly-romantic   impression of “life in the West” (that which is deceptively sold by the  propagandist) can be legitimately challenged. Credibility in this case  is essential. If these romantic impressions are countered by the local  government, the criticism could easily be perceived as propaganda;   whereas if an independent Westerner said the same thing, the impressions  would probably be considered both interesting and informative. These   voices are plentiful in the West. The challenge is to find them and put  them to use.
So  far as how your countries are perceived in the West, what’s important  to know is that Western audiences (and especially those in the United   States) usually become aware of the existence of a country (and all its  internal “problems”) only after that country has been publicly targeted  for attack. Although a sizable portion of Western audiences could one  day be made to see the injustice of such an attack, by that time it’s   already too late.
These policies and the motives behind them can be anticipated and even preempted in the dialogue of Western media.
The  logic here is that policy-makers and local leaders around the world   should come to recognize the value in strengthening the reach of   independent voices in the Western media, and expand contacts with them.  In other words, help Western journalists more effectively use their own  platforms toward the creation of a more balanced view of your  countries.  Ensure that local officials and scholars are  made  available to foreign journalists as informational resources.  Promote  critical conferences and cultural exchanges.
Help assist independent foreign voices to “re-brand” your countries in the West.

Russia has provided a solid example to follow with the launching of the English language media network, Russia Today.  By offering Western analysts with a high-profile media platform,  Russia  Today has provided serious critics of Western policy with the  ability  to challenge and subvert NED/CIA propaganda campaigns.

Through  this contribution, in many circles Russia has come to be seen as  “progressive” and even “hip” in the West. And furthermore it is now Western  governments–not the usual political targets–that must combat a   damaging informational narrative, even on territory the Western   propagandist once monopolized.
We  conclude here by pointing out that, in a world where the information   war reigns supreme, the essence of protecting national sovereignty is   change: not change of values, necessarily, but change of attitudes and   perspectives. A smart policy would be to embrace this change.
Why  not lead the struggle off the traditional battlefield and into the   media realm: to television and radio broadcasts; to books and blogs and  publications?
Why not take the fight to the battlefield that actually matters?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: