The History and Science of Color Revolutions Part 1

Brandon Turbeville 
Activist Post

In my last article, “Color Revolutions 101: The Making Of A Controlled Revolution,” I discussed the basic setup of various State agencies, intelligence apparatus, Non-Governmental Organizations, and Foundations that enable and engineer color revolutions across the world. In that article, I attempted to show the different manifestations of the color revolution as well as the methodology used to coordinate such movements in their various locations.

Although more recent movements were the focus of that discussion, it is important to understand, however, that the color revolution is not merely a recent invention on the part of the ruling elite. In fact, this particular method of destabilization has quite a long history, having been perfected in the late 1960s and refined into an art form as time has progressed.

Indeed, Jonathan Mowat adds to the recent historical understanding of the controlled-coup and color revolutions in his article, “The New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents,’” also focusing on the players and the methods of deployment. Mowat writes,

Much of the coup apparatus is the same that was used in the overthrow of President Fernando Marcos of the Philippines in 1986, the Tiananmen Square destabilization in 1989, and Vaclav Havel's "Velvet revolution" in Czechoslovakia in 1989. As in these early operations, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and its primary arms, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and International Republican Institute (IRI), played a central role. The NED was established by the Reagan Administration in 1983, to do overtly what the CIA had done covertly, in the words of one its legislative drafters, Allen Weinstein. The Cold War propaganda and operations center, Freedom House, now chaired by former CIA director James Woolsey, has also been involved, as were billionaire George Soros' foundations, whose donations always dovetail those of the NED.

What made the color revolution grow more successful, of course, is the predominance of the technology that now exists in today’s society. With the advent of cell phones, the Internet, social media and other forms of electronic communication, the ability of the color revolution to act in a more coordinated and effective fashion has been multiplied exponentially. Mowat addresses this issue when he states,

What is new about the template bears on the use of the Internet (in particular chat rooms, instant messaging, and blogs) and cell phones (including text-messaging), to rapidly steer angry and suggestible "Generation X" youth into and out of mass demonstrations and the like—a capability that only emerged in the mid-1990s. "With the crushing ubiquity of cell phones, satellite phones, PCs, modems and the Internet," Laura Rosen emphasized in Salon Magazine on February 3, 2001,"the information age is shifting the advantage from authoritarian leaders to civic groups." She might have mentioned the video games that helped create the deranged mindset of these "civic groups." The repeatedly emphasized role played by so-called "Discoshaman" and his girlfriend "Tulipgirl," in assisting the "Orange Revolution" through their aptly named blog, "Le Sabot Post-Modern," is indicative of the technical and sociological components involved.

The emphasis on the use of new communication technologies to rapidly deploy small groups, suggests what we are seeing is civilian application of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's "Revolution in Military Affairs" doctrine, which depends on highly mobile small group deployments "enabled" by "real time" intelligence and communications. Squads of soldiers taking over city blocks with the aid of "intelligence helmet" video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their environment, constitute the military side. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell phones constitute the doctrine's civilian application.

This parallel should not be surprising since the US military and National Security Agency subsidized the development of the Internet, cellular phones, and software platforms. From their inception, these technologies were studied and experimented with in order to find the optimal use in a new kind of warfare. The "revolution" in warfare that such new instruments permit has been pushed to the extreme by several specialists in psychological warfare. . . . .

The new techniques of warfare include the use of both lethal (violent) and nonlethal (nonviolent) tactics. Both ways are conducted using the same philosophy, infrastructure, and modus operandi. It is what is known as Cyberwar. For example, the tactic of swarming is a fundamental element in both violent and nonviolent forms of warfare. This new philosophy of war, which is supposed to replicate the strategy of Genghis Khan as enhanced by modern technologies, is intended to aid both military and non-military assaults against targeted states through what are, in effect, "high tech" hordes. In that sense there is no difference, from the standpoint of the plotters, between Iraq or Ukraine, if only that many think the Ukraine-like coup is more effective and easier.[1]

Mowat then goes on to demonstrate how this theory of destabilization fits with that endorsed by military-industrial theoreticians like Dr. Peter Ackerman who wrote the aptly-named book Strategic Nonviolent Conflict. For instance, when Ackerman spoke at the “Secretary’s Open Forum” at the State Department in June 29, 2004, Ackerman did not quibble with the imperialist goals of the Bush administration, only the methods used to achieve them.

In his speech, “Between Hard and Soft Power: The Rise of Civilian-Based Struggle and Democratic Change,” Ackerman suggested that youth movements, not American military might, could be used to bring down North Korea and Iran and that they could have been used to bring down Iraq. Ackerman also stated in his speech that he was working with Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, the U.S. weapons designer, for the purpose of creating new communications technologies that might be used by these “youth insurgencies.”[2]

As Mowat points out, Ackerman is the founding Chairman of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflicts of Washington, D.C. where Jack Duvall, a former U.S. Air Force officer, is President. Ackerman is also co-director with former CIA Director James Woolsey of the Arlington Institute (AI) of Washington, D.C. The AI was created by John L. Peterson, in 1989 who is the former Chief of Naval Operations, for the stated purpose of helping “redefine the concept of national security in much larger, comprehensive terms” by introducing “social value shifts into the traditional national defense equation.”[3]

Yet the theory of “youth insurgencies” in no way began with Ackerman. As far back as 1967, the Tavistock Institute, the major psychological experimentation wing of the military industrial complex, was studying the effects of using “swarming adolescents” as an instrument of governmental disruption and regime change. As Jonathan Mowat summarizes,

As in the case of the new communication technologies, the potential effectiveness of angry youth in postmodern coups has long been under study. As far back as 1967, Dr. Fred Emery, then director of the Tavistock Institute, and an expert on the "hypnotic effects" of television, specified that the then new phenomenon of "swarming adolescents" found at rock concerts could be effectively used to bring down the nation-state by the end of the 1990s. This was particularly the case, as Dr. Emery reported in "The next thirty years: concepts, methods and anticipations,'' in the group's "Human Relations," because the phenomena was associated with "rebellious hysteria." The British military created the Tavistock Institute as its psychological warfare arm following World War I; it has been the forerunner of such strategic planning ever since. Dr. Emery's concept saw immediate application in NATO's use of "swarming adolescents" in toppling French President Charles De Gaulle in 1967.[4]

Of course, the publicly acknowledged and published studies and theoretical applications of using “swarming adolescents” for the purposes of destabilizing one’s enemy continued on through the years becoming more and more refined as it moved forward in both theory and practice. As mentioned in my article “Color Revolutions 101: The Making Of A Controlled Revolution,” the use of death squads and mass movements against the nation state or rival movements is nothing new. This much is evidenced by the work T.E. Lawrence many years ago. However, the details and techniques of the manipulation of mass numbers of people have only continued to become more and more advanced and sophisticated. Mowat further describes the research and theory behind color revolutions:

In November 1989, Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, Ohio, under the aegis of that university's "Program for Social Innovations in Global Management," began a series of conferences to review progress towards that strategic objective, which was reported on in "Human Relations" in 1991. There, Dr. Howard Perlmutter, a professor of "Social Architecture'' at the Wharton School, and a follower of Dr. Emery, stressed that "rock video in Kathmandu," was an appropriate image of how states with traditional cultures could be destabilized, thereby creating the possibility of a "global civilization." There are two requirements for such a transformation, he added, "building internationally committed networks of international and locally committed organizations,'' and "creating global events" through "the transformation of a local event into one having virtually instantaneous international implications through mass-media."

Mowat goes on to describe what he deems to be the “final” aspect of color revolutions and destabilizations - the implementation of polling operations providing false “exit poll” data, confidence in government, satisfaction with the current regime, support for the opposition, etc. This method serves to create the perception both inside and outside the target country that conditions were abominable before the “revolution” (which may or may not be true), that the overwhelming majority of the citizens within the target country support the coup, and that the regime is failing. In short, the goal is to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of governmental collapse.

After a short propaganda blitz citing these “poll watchers,” “freedom and democracy organizations,” and “human rights organizations,” the door is opened to the implementation of international pressure against the target governments, covert action inside and outside of the nation, and the defection of pre-planned agents planted within the governmental and military structure.

Mowat writes,

This brings us to the final ingredient of these new coups—the deployment of polling agencies' "exit polls" broadcast on international television to give the false (or sometimes accurate) impression of massive vote-fraud by the ruling party, to put targeted states on the defensive. Polling operations in the recent coups have been overseen by such outfits as Penn, Schoen and Berland, top advisers to Microsoft and Bill Clinton. Praising their role in subverting Serbia, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (and later Chairman of NDI) , in an October 2000 letter to the firm quoted on its website, stated: "Your work with the National Democratic Institute and the Yugoslav opposition contributed directly and decisively to the recent breakthrough for democracy in that country . . . This may be one of the first instances where polling has played such an important role in setting and securing foreign policy objectives." Penn, Schoen, together with the OSCE, also ran the widely televised "exit poll" operations in the Ukrainian elections.

In the aftermath of such youth deployments and media operations, more traditional elements come to the fore. That is, the forceful, if covert, intervention by international institutions and governments threatening the targeted regime, and using well placed operatives within the targeted regime's military and intelligence services to ensure no countermeasures can be effectively deployed. Without these traditional elements, of course, no postmodern coup could ever work. Or, as Jack DuVall put it in Jesse Walker's "Carnival and conspiracy in Ukraine," in Reason Online, November 30, 2004, "You can't simply parachute Karl Rove into a country and manufacture a revolution."[5]

Because color revolutions, destabilizations, and coups require much more than propaganda inside or outside the country, it is necessary to organize, train, indoctrinate, and mobilize with “boots on the ground” inside the target nation. Since the movement will not be an organic one, the “swarming adolescents” must be organized by the agents directing the destabilization.

Regardless, the propaganda that is used both inside and outside of the target nation is traditionally very effective in garnering domestic support for whatever additional measures are then taken against the victim state. Americans 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.

Notes:

[1] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[2] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[3] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[4] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 243-270.
[5] Tarpley, Webster G. Obama: The Postmodern Coup. Mowat, Jonathan. “A New Gladio In Action: ‘Swarming Adolescents.’” Progressive Press. 2008. Pp. 247-248.