Color Revolutions, a Shakespearean Interpretation

shakespearean interpretation of colored revolutions - a bright bday that briongs forth the adder“These things, indeed, you have articulated,
Proclaim’d at market crosses, read in churches,
To trim the garment of rebellion
With some fine color, that may please the eye
Of fickle changelings, and poor discontents
And never yet did insurrection want
Such water-colours, to impaint his cause.”

King Henry IV, [art 1, act 5, sc. 1)

The previous article on this site ( reported verbatim the intercepted conversation of the state department deputy Nuland with the American Ambassador in Ukraine. The ambassador predicted that, after the planned and anticipated turmoil in Ukraine, the US would end up with the “jelly side up” – meaning achieving the goal of ousting the democratically elected but insufficiently friendly president with a character pliable by US demands and pressure.

Clearly the Ukranian “colored” revolution was a success deserving the warmest congratulations. Therefore, readers of this site may be interested to know a bit more about the history, administration and implementation of the multiple “colored” revolutions.

I extract this information from various sources, notably french sociologist Thierry Messan, who has extensively researched the subject.

The idea was born in the decade 1970-1980. When, after the revelations about the coups d’etat organized and financed by the CIA, a parliamentary panel, under the direction of President Carter was charged with cleaning up the agency. This included a stop to the establishing of “democratic domestic dictatorships” – democratic meaning that they could be controlled by the USA military-industrial cabal.

Angered by the move, US social-democrats abandoned Carter and moved to the Reagan camp – a fact which also explains the massive maneuvering that led to Carter’s defeat in his second term.

Reagan tasked the new recruits to continue the earlier plan of country-control but with other means. 1982 saw the birth of the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and 1984 that of the USIP (United States Institute for Peace). Orwell would be thrilled.

A “colored revolution” is not a revolution. A revolution aims at changing some basic structures of society. A “colored revolution” merely aims at changing a refractory ruling elite with one ready to follow the American commands.

The hacked phone-conversation earlier referred to, gives sufficient evidence of the extent of US control on the  structure of the new Amero-friendly Ukranian apparatkit.

The event is hardly unique.

Among the Wikileaks released documents there is good evidence of what the US thinks of the various fawning lackeys at their command. The rise of the notorious Italian Berlusconi coincided with the “violet” revolution in Italy. Says a report from the Italian US Ambassador, “Berlusconi likes to feel wanted and important. When I asked him to send 2000 Italian soldiers to Afghanistan, he immediately offered 4000.”

But let’s return to the National Endowment for Democracy. It is a non-profit organization with a 100 million $ annual funding from the State Department. Ostensively, NED “promotes democracy”. In practice it is a front for the CIA and other allied counterparts. It has four tentacles. One to corrupt unions, one to infiltrate and corrupt sundry agencies existing in the targeted country, one to corrupt left wing politicians and one to finance right wing politicians.

For the tentacles to work, funds may be occasionally channeled through other organizations of NATO countries.

The NED claims to have “assisted” (meaning infiltrated) over 6000 organizations worldwide.

The USIP (United States Institute for Peace) works exclusively for and directly from the US and is financed by the Defence Department. Under the cover of political science-research it finances foreign politicians.

One other structure is the Albert Einstein Institute, which has created models aimed at demolishing any state power disliked by the US Administration, irrespective of whether it was democratically elected or not.

The first experiment of a “colored revolution” was in China in 1989, and it failed. The idea was to replace Deng Xiaoping, then secretary of the Communist Party with Zhao Ziyang, who was open to US aims. The young rebels were presented by the mass media as students fighting for “freedom”, whereas it was but an internal dissension inside the party between nationalists and pro-US politicians. After resisting numerous provocations Deng Xiaoping decided to use force.

The first successful “colored revolution” took place in Bulgaria in 1990, a model of which the current Ukranian coup d’etat is a good reproduction. Secretary of State James Baker went to Bulgaria to participate in the campaign for the pro-US party. This parallels Senator James McCain’s recent visit to Ukraine. Still, the Bulgarians did not vote for that party.  Whereupon, notwithstanding that the elections had been vetted as regular by the European Commission, the pro-USA opposition called them fraudulent, installed a camp in the center of Sofia and kept the country in chaos for six months. This until the parliament elected the pro-USA Zhelev as prime minister. Mission accomplished – selling national interest to foreigners without popular consent.

Since then  “colored revolutions” have occurred almost everywhere – sometimes they are not even reported by the corporate media. Kirghistan is an example, with its “tulipan revolution”. They removed the elected president with a pro-USA figure. Unknown to the population, some major country resources were sold to the US while a US military base was installed near the capital. Other color revolutions have occurred with various degree of violence in the Central Asia countries surrounding Russia. There are new massive US military bases everywhere and – though nominally Islamic – all these countries have excellent relations with Israel.

It is held by US partisans that the “colored revolutions”, irrespective of their nature or development, bring better living conditions to the population. Not so.

Georgia was another repeat of the Bulgarian script. This time it was a “rose revolution”.  A president was elected. The opposition claimed electoral fraud. The elected president was forced to flee and the demonstrators installed Saakaschvili. The economy collapsed. Prisons were filled, any opposition quashed, but the Western corporate media painted Saakaschvili as a bulwark of democracy. To regain waning popularity he launched a military adventure. With the help of Bush and Israel, which has rented military bases in Georgia, Saakaschvili bombed South Ossetia. Moscow this time replied. The US “consultants” and the Israeli ran away, but the country was devastated.

There is no room to list all the other “colored revolution”, but some readers may be interested to know the origins of the idea. For this we must return to 1985, when a social scientist, Gene Sharp, published a study commissioned by NATO on “Making Europe Unconquerable” (unconquerable, that is, by any opposition unfriendly to the US).

According to the “Sharp Theory”, modeled using the thoughts of 19th French sociologist Gustave Le Bon, adults behave like children when they are in the throes of collective emotion. They become susceptible, at a critical moment, to the impulses of hatred towards a leader-of-men who for them embodies a father figure. In conjunction with Israeli Colonel Reuven Gal, chief psychologist of the Israeli Army, Sharp and Gal thought that it was also possible to exploit the “Oedipus complex” in adolescents and steer a crowd of young people to oppose a head of state, as a symbolic father figure. The young crowds being the modern counterpart of Shakespeare’s “fickle changelings, and poor discontents”, “commanded always by the latest gust”.

Sharp’s theory is intriguing to read, but the Oedipus complex would remain sophisticated gossip for an 18th century style salon, were it not for the billions of dollars invested to finance the coups d’etat.

Theoretically “colored revolutions“ are non-violent. But for a minority to seize and maintain power,  violence is a necessity. So far the overwhelming majority of the so-called color revolutions have been violent.

Other Non Government Organizations active in creating colored revolutions are the International Crisis Group, whose Orwellian mission statement is “Working to prevent conflict worldwide”. Members of this peace loving organization are Israeli President Simon Peres, Bank of England Governor Stanley Fisher, the banker-speculator George Soros and some of the most rabid anti-Russian manipulators of US foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Armitage, Samuel Berger and general Wesley Clarck.

Financing comes from BP, Chevron, Shell, Statoil and the giant mining company Anglo American PLC.

As writer Marcello Pamio noted, companies which are most responsible for environmental degradation worldwide belong to an organization that “works to prevent conflicts.”

It must be admitted that the schemes worked out to foment the “colored” revolutions are brilliant. The “Non Government Organizations”, by pretending to “work to prevent conflict” can act in the open. Even though Brutus would say, “It is the bright day that brings forth the adder, / And that craves wary walking”. And while the NGO’s moneyed poison “stings more than the adder’s tooth”.

On the other hand, we now have adapted ourselves to beholding these events without abhorrence, as the corporate media hides their turpitude, and our vision is soothed by the deception of a blunt and misleading facade. And it is questionable whether things would be different, if there were no organized media effort to hide the crimes and to diffuse convenient lies by all arts and methods of propagation.

When truth intrudes uncalled and brings apprehension or disgust in her wake, the passes of the intellect are barred against her by discomfort and annoyance at the disruption of tranquillity. And if truth, sometimes, forces her way by the batteries of argument, she seldom long keeps possession of her conquests. She is soon ejected by some favored enemy or, at best, obtains only a nominal sovereignty, without influence and without authority.

Which may be a good reason (or excuse) for the relentless and successful mcdonaldization and losangelesization of the world.

For an interesting take on the effects of the Project of the New American Century, the following song by a Hungarian Rock Group (subtitles in English) should be instructive,

In the play. King Henry IV dismisses Worcester’s grievances as an irrelevant trick to justify rebellion

Image Source.,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNEGTIcPRsKcpH2Hut8yTQhnEaZywA&ust=1393439565227491

This entry was posted in After Dinner Quotes, Best Shakespeare Quotes, Fighting your Adversary, Philosophical, Psychological & Historical Considerations, Shakespeare and Politics, Shakespeare in Management, Shakespeare in Politics, Shakespeare on Mass Psychology and Group Behavior and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *