Feb 4, 2020, 9:21 AM by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation (“On Counter Color Revolutions”) There have been many protests all over the world on a large scale since the beginning of the 24 hour news cycle/prevalence of the Internet and it has become obvious that some quickly gain favored status from the Mainstream Media while others are kept in the dark regardless of size or significance. This selective hyper focus on particular protests is a key component of the Color Revolution strategy. The protestors are positioned as the downtrodden masses yearning for their voices to be heard, and bad country of the month’s leadership is oppressive and needs to go. Sometimes this works (Ukraine twice and Georgia) and other times it fails (Russia and for now at least Venezuela) but the Second Amendment (2A) protest in Virginia presents a new tactic/opportunity that can be used to counteract any Color Revolution outside the West. One thing that is key to understanding Color Revolutions (CR) is that as it stands today they are always orchestrated by the West to make regime change in the Non-West due to their financial and nearly total media domination. No matter how many people label the Mainstream Media as “Dinosaur” or quote their terrible ratings, the 24 hour news cycle still creates the dominant narrative for current events in the public’s mind internationally, and this is why the Color Revolution tactic only works one way. The Western Mainstream Media can turn any nobody politician\public figure into the legitimate leader of Country X overnight. No one knew who Guaido was on Monday, but the West was sure he was the only true voice of the Venezuelan people on Tuesday. The same goes for the overwhelming support for anyone opposed to Putin like Alexei Navalny, who if given the chance to run for President would surely get a low end single digit percentage. The Mainstream Media can make heroes and villains abroad but this does not work in the opposite direction. When Jill Stein (a figure with the same relative level of popularity as Navalny if not more so) was thrown out of the 2016 debate when she tried to crash the party, no non-Western media could spin this into the catalyst for some sort of Color Revolution. If this would have happened in say Iran then calls for the overthrow of the government would be heard from TV screens and Facebook memes around the world. Although the Russians are accused of meddling in the Yellow-Vest protests, there is simply not enough Moscow Media might to convince the French public that the Yellow vesters are the new legitimate power, wag that dog, and get a full scale Color Revolution completed. The French situation is a perfect breeding ground for a Color Revolution if it was in bad guy Country X. The level of protests are massive, police brutality is rampant and documented, and they even have a Color/symbol – their vests. All the ingredients are there but without being able to push the media narrative no CR can or will happen in France. What this means is that for the foreseeable future the Multipolar non-Western World (Russia, China, Iran etc.) is always going to be on the defensive from CR tactics. There is however another major disadvantage that the Multipolar World has – the type of people who do go out to street protests are the type who support the Monopolar World. The working masses of families with kids, the heartlanders across the globe, who are really the backbone of society are far too tired/busy to engage in Color Revolutions or protests of any kind, and when they do they are one off and utter failures. The actual people who are most likely to protest with ribbons because of vague complaints like a lack of “Democracy” or “freedom” are those emotional types with time on their hands and probably decent resources too. Naive bourgeois victimhood-lifestyle teenagers and some hardcore professional activists are generally who you are going to find at CRs. The amount of people who are actual ideologues that push political agendas in their country are generally less than 1% of the population combined with trendy kids who want to feel like they are accomplishing something by chanting do not represent the will of the working-class majority. But as stated before the Mainstream Media can convince even simple folk in Country X that they do. And probably what is most important, the trendy people with free time are always inherently pro-Western. It is exactly the cosmopolitan urbanites in any country who are going to be pro-Western, farmers and factory workers usually won’t. The type of people who come out to a Color Revolution are the types who believe the US/EU hype, and are the willful useful idiots that the media needs to create its narrative. And here is where the Virginia 2A protests come in. They, like the Yellow Vest protestors were made up of those toiling masses also known as the Silent Majority. The same Silent Majority which the Multipolar world wants to woo with calls for tradition, populism and national sovereignty. Meaning, that ideologically the Second Amendment crowd’s instincts are anti-Color Revolution even if they don’t know what that term means. They are the kind of folks who cherish America as an idea and as part of their identity. They want their traditions and culture to remain intact, meaning that this is really the forces that the leadership of Country X (that is under threat of Color Revolution) should use. This is a demonstration of just how strong the Silent Majority really is when it awakes from its slumber of fatigue. The local government was terrified and declared a state of emergency even before the protest began and obviously, the SJW rats didn’t dare show their faces against hundreds of armed old school Americans. This show of force that didn’t use any particular force is a shining example of how strong the people the Multipolar Order supposedly loves, and we can see how much they could halt some kind of anti-American CR. To an extent this is what happened in Venezuela when Maduro was able to successfully rally thousands of supporters to march. If in Caracas the media had footage of massed government troops on the move, beating people with clubs, it would have fed into Maduro’s downfall, but since the actual force that took over the streets were just working class normies in bright T-shirts there was not only to juicy footage to twist, the images proved to support Maduro’s legitimacy. The real winner of this situation was Maduro’s usage of the Silent Majority directly against the Color Revolutionaries. He showed a faith in his people, which is not felt in places like Russia or China. Despite the fact that the Multipolar World stands on the side of tradition on populism, the big two dominant forces in this movement do not let their populaces take action like Maduro was wise enough to allow. If hordes of armed commoners like those at the Virginia protests showed up to the Maidan it would have never have succeeded. Instead in Ukraine they stayed home as 40,000 protestors decided the destiny of 40 million people. Although China is accused of sending thugs from the Mainland, if they were to send waves of semi-armed hillbillies into Hong Kong the issue would be resolved in a day. The simple fact is that those who are on the Multipolar side of today’s New Cold War, if given the chance to fight on the streets, will win that fight every time. They are the side with the most to lose, the most anger to vent, the most testosterone, the most love for their own way of life, and who suffer the most from Color Revolutions. Maduro demonstrated that organizing the peasantry even with just their fists and improvised weapons, was enough to defeat years of Color Revolution prep, especially since his masses did not look at like soldiers in disguise. He had the legit support of countless thousands of normal people. The Virginia 2A protest showed that the trendies who are the poster children of CR movements will go absolutely silent the second there is a threat of real violence. Antifa is happy to use their Black Block against one man in a MAGA hat but when it comes to actually dying for their beliefs they sit at home. Word warfare, Twitter terrorism and Media manipulation are the strengths of the Monopolar World, but ultimately the people that this system breeds are not willing to fight (in the direct literal sense) for their values and will lose through preemptive capitulation in the face of actual direct force. If those who claim they are fighting for a Multipolar World Order do not have more faith in their populace then they will become Yanokoviches and not Maduros. Footage of government troops fighting protestors can spell doom for any leader, while the same direct action being taken by thousands of uniformless out-of-shape factory workers acting semi-independently feeds the Mainstream Media nothing and in fact strengthens one’s own legitimacy – it shows the people are on your side. To be clear this is NOT a call for violence, in fact it is quite the opposite. Some of the most deadly events in human history have been Revolutions. Meaning, that if someone really cares about the lives of commoners they should not advocate for overthrowing governments, but for incremental change. If the Maidan had been solved by rednecks smashing up the camps in Kiev, yes some people would have died, perhaps tens or hundreds at the most, but to date thousands have been killed and millions have suffered thanks to the successful Color Revolution of 2014. The war in the Donbass still continues many years on. Even if you loved the ideas the Yeltsin tried to push on Russia the fact is that the shattering of the Soviet Union caused millions of deaths, reform of the Soviet Union would have been far preferable from a humanitarian standpoint. If we think about the great revolutionary periods in human history, in France, Russia, China etc. they were all followed by grand scale violence and counter-revolutionary crackdown. Using the Silent Majority to block upcoming CR tactics is a far more humane solution than it may sound on the surface. If the Multipolar World wants to survive it has to activate its Silent Majority to protect itself from Color Revolution tactics. It is ironically the populists who in many ways seem too terrified to allow their heartlanders to have the freedom to take action and fight for the motherland without a uniform and direct orders from on high. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/virginia-2a-protest-model-counter-color-revolution?
Form: Excerpt
-
Others Thoughts on Libertarians
Mar 27, 2020, 10:08 AM by Matt MacBradaigh I had a couple of thoughts about Libertarians. It might not be as intellectual as some, but I think not insignificant.
- Libertarian criticism of others on the Right, Republicans in particular, compares the actual failings of (some) Republicans vs the theoretical offering of Libertarianism.
I.e, “(a few) Republicans compromise on gun rights, they aren’t true defenders of liberty. Join real defenders of liberty in our ideologically pure (on paper), but wholly untested practice in the field.”
Theoretically, in this example, R’s are totally pro-gun rights. In practice, Reagan, H.W. Bush oversaw gun rights restrictions, and bump stock bans under Trump.
Theoretically, L’s are totally pro-gun rights, but have NEVER cast a vote, or passed a bill, to empirically prove it. When L’s want to lobby politicians for pro-gun rights (to keep the example consistent on this issue), they must lobby R’s to do their work for them. L’s didn’t cast a single vote to defend gun rights under Reagan, HW. Bush, Clinton (AWB), or under GW Bush for the sunset of AWB, or to defend gun rights post Sandy Hook, or post Parkland, FL, etc.
Given #2, it’s clear L’s aren’t even in the game. They’re watching, from the nosebleed cheap seats, and bitching about what the players actually did, armchair quarterbacking what they “should have” done.
I was reminded of this fact by Curt’s comment re: boys begging men to fight for them.
by Bill Smith Agreed. The ones I’ve met have been adult adolescents who unconsciously associate with their mothers as Jung described in Aion: The Syzygy: Anima and Animus They live spouting construct, never getting their hands dirty with interacting with their shadow… to continue with the jungian narrative.
- Libertarian criticism of others on the Right, Republicans in particular, compares the actual failings of (some) Republicans vs the theoretical offering of Libertarianism.
-
Others Thoughts on Libertarians
Mar 27, 2020, 10:08 AM by Matt MacBradaigh I had a couple of thoughts about Libertarians. It might not be as intellectual as some, but I think not insignificant.
- Libertarian criticism of others on the Right, Republicans in particular, compares the actual failings of (some) Republicans vs the theoretical offering of Libertarianism.
I.e, “(a few) Republicans compromise on gun rights, they aren’t true defenders of liberty. Join real defenders of liberty in our ideologically pure (on paper), but wholly untested practice in the field.”
Theoretically, in this example, R’s are totally pro-gun rights. In practice, Reagan, H.W. Bush oversaw gun rights restrictions, and bump stock bans under Trump.
Theoretically, L’s are totally pro-gun rights, but have NEVER cast a vote, or passed a bill, to empirically prove it. When L’s want to lobby politicians for pro-gun rights (to keep the example consistent on this issue), they must lobby R’s to do their work for them. L’s didn’t cast a single vote to defend gun rights under Reagan, HW. Bush, Clinton (AWB), or under GW Bush for the sunset of AWB, or to defend gun rights post Sandy Hook, or post Parkland, FL, etc.
Given #2, it’s clear L’s aren’t even in the game. They’re watching, from the nosebleed cheap seats, and bitching about what the players actually did, armchair quarterbacking what they “should have” done.
I was reminded of this fact by Curt’s comment re: boys begging men to fight for them.
by Bill Smith Agreed. The ones I’ve met have been adult adolescents who unconsciously associate with their mothers as Jung described in Aion: The Syzygy: Anima and Animus They live spouting construct, never getting their hands dirty with interacting with their shadow… to continue with the jungian narrative.
- Libertarian criticism of others on the Right, Republicans in particular, compares the actual failings of (some) Republicans vs the theoretical offering of Libertarianism.
-
Jung’s Unfinished Project
Mar 27, 2020, 12:08 PM by Andrew M Gilmour
Jung approached consciousness empirically; like someone attempting to reverse engineer it. He looked at the outputs (myth, religion and art) and worked backwards. Unfortunately his fixation on illnesses limited the scope of his discoveries. There was the potential for him to create a complete model of the psyche. A western equivalent of the Upanishads or Kabbalah.
-
Jung’s Unfinished Project
Mar 27, 2020, 12:08 PM by Andrew M Gilmour
Jung approached consciousness empirically; like someone attempting to reverse engineer it. He looked at the outputs (myth, religion and art) and worked backwards. Unfortunately his fixation on illnesses limited the scope of his discoveries. There was the potential for him to create a complete model of the psyche. A western equivalent of the Upanishads or Kabbalah.
-
Our Trifunctionalism
Mar 31, 2020, 2:38 PM by Daniel (or Dan) McCoy Georges Dumézil was a twentieth-century comparative mythologist like Joseph Campbell or Carl Jung. Dumézil’s primary contribution to Indo-European studies was his theory of “trifunctionalism,” the idea that a particular arrangement of three societal “functions” lay at the heart of Indo-European life and thought. This arrangement manifested itself most straightforwardly in the social hierarchy, which consisted of three classes that corresponded to the three functions. However, as the word “function” implies, the three classes were distinguished not just according to differing quantitative amounts of power, but also qualitatively in terms of the “functions” that each of the three groups served within society. The Indo-Europeans’ gods, too, were organized into this trifunctional structure. What, then, are these three functions? The first function is that of sovereignty, and corresponds to the highest social class – that of rulers, priests, and legal specialists. This function is divided into two aspects, one “magical” and the other “juridical.”[2] The former “consists of the mysterious administration, the ‘magic’ of the universe, the general ordering of the cosmos. This is a ‘disquieting’ aspect, terrifying from certain perspectives. The other aspect is more reassuring, more oriented to the human world. It is the ‘juridical’ part of the sovereign function.”[3] The Indo-Europeans’ gods of the first function tend to include one god who falls into each of these two categories. One is a “magician-creator” who rules “by virtue of [his] creative violence,” while the other is a “jurist-organizer” who rules “by virtue of [his] organizing wisdom.”[4] The two types of sovereign gods form an “antithesis,” but complement one another rather than being in conflict.[5] The second function “carries the trait of physical force in all its manifestations, from energy, to heroism, to courage.” Its “insatiable champions… vanquish demons and save the universe.”[6] In human society, the second function is the class of warriors, who carry out the orders of the first class and fight on behalf of their people. The gods of the second function are warriors whose intellectual abilities are inferior to those of the first, but who possess the necessary strength to actually put the decisions of the intellectual gods into action. The third function “is the generative function. It is the domain of the healers, of youth, of luxury, of fecundity, of prosperity; also the domain of the healing gods, the patron deities of goods, of opulence – and also of the ‘people,’ as opposed to the small number of warriors and kings.”[7] The third function’s human social class consists of the farmers, herders, and other “common people” engaged in productive physical labor, who provide the goods necessary for the sustenance of themselves and of the rest of society. Its gods are those who preside over fertility, abundance, and peace. They tend to be simple but wealthy and fun-loving. For Dumézil, “The Indo-European vision of a smoothly functioning world required an ‘organization’ in which the representatives of the first function commanded, the second fought for and defended the community, and the third (the greatest number of them) worked and were productive. In their eyes, it was in this hierarchy that one found the harmony necessary to the proper functioning of the cosmos, as well as that of the society. It’s an Indo-European version of the ‘social contract.’”[8] Although a similar social organization can be found in various non-Indo-European societies, what makes the Indo-European concept distinct is just how foundational and pervasive it was in their worldview, theology, cosmology, mythology, and political philosophy. It touched every aspect of their way of life and their outlook on life.[9]
-
Our Trifunctionalism
Mar 31, 2020, 2:38 PM by Daniel (or Dan) McCoy Georges Dumézil was a twentieth-century comparative mythologist like Joseph Campbell or Carl Jung. Dumézil’s primary contribution to Indo-European studies was his theory of “trifunctionalism,” the idea that a particular arrangement of three societal “functions” lay at the heart of Indo-European life and thought. This arrangement manifested itself most straightforwardly in the social hierarchy, which consisted of three classes that corresponded to the three functions. However, as the word “function” implies, the three classes were distinguished not just according to differing quantitative amounts of power, but also qualitatively in terms of the “functions” that each of the three groups served within society. The Indo-Europeans’ gods, too, were organized into this trifunctional structure. What, then, are these three functions? The first function is that of sovereignty, and corresponds to the highest social class – that of rulers, priests, and legal specialists. This function is divided into two aspects, one “magical” and the other “juridical.”[2] The former “consists of the mysterious administration, the ‘magic’ of the universe, the general ordering of the cosmos. This is a ‘disquieting’ aspect, terrifying from certain perspectives. The other aspect is more reassuring, more oriented to the human world. It is the ‘juridical’ part of the sovereign function.”[3] The Indo-Europeans’ gods of the first function tend to include one god who falls into each of these two categories. One is a “magician-creator” who rules “by virtue of [his] creative violence,” while the other is a “jurist-organizer” who rules “by virtue of [his] organizing wisdom.”[4] The two types of sovereign gods form an “antithesis,” but complement one another rather than being in conflict.[5] The second function “carries the trait of physical force in all its manifestations, from energy, to heroism, to courage.” Its “insatiable champions… vanquish demons and save the universe.”[6] In human society, the second function is the class of warriors, who carry out the orders of the first class and fight on behalf of their people. The gods of the second function are warriors whose intellectual abilities are inferior to those of the first, but who possess the necessary strength to actually put the decisions of the intellectual gods into action. The third function “is the generative function. It is the domain of the healers, of youth, of luxury, of fecundity, of prosperity; also the domain of the healing gods, the patron deities of goods, of opulence – and also of the ‘people,’ as opposed to the small number of warriors and kings.”[7] The third function’s human social class consists of the farmers, herders, and other “common people” engaged in productive physical labor, who provide the goods necessary for the sustenance of themselves and of the rest of society. Its gods are those who preside over fertility, abundance, and peace. They tend to be simple but wealthy and fun-loving. For Dumézil, “The Indo-European vision of a smoothly functioning world required an ‘organization’ in which the representatives of the first function commanded, the second fought for and defended the community, and the third (the greatest number of them) worked and were productive. In their eyes, it was in this hierarchy that one found the harmony necessary to the proper functioning of the cosmos, as well as that of the society. It’s an Indo-European version of the ‘social contract.’”[8] Although a similar social organization can be found in various non-Indo-European societies, what makes the Indo-European concept distinct is just how foundational and pervasive it was in their worldview, theology, cosmology, mythology, and political philosophy. It touched every aspect of their way of life and their outlook on life.[9]
-
China’s Vision for A New World Order – the National Bureau of Asian Research (nbr)
Apr 12, 2020, 7:17 PM by Nadège Rolland In my latest report, I dissect the strands of thought underpinning China’s vision for a new world order and study its emerging features China’s leadership is determined to alter the norms that underpin existing institutions and put in place the building blocks of a new international system. A “vision” is by definition abstract, not fully formed and subject to change. In China’s case, this vision is also buried under layers of propaganda. But if we pay close attention, some key elements are discernible. 1/ The Chinese leadership believes that the existing order is “unfair” (it should allow China to have a greater role, commensurate with its growing power) and is incapable of offering “reasonable” solutions to the global needs. 2/ Instead of considering liberal democratic values as essential conditions for achieving global peace and prosperity, the CCP sees the global promotion of “so-called universal values” as the main cause for conflict and chaos – an obvious reflection of its own survival anxieties. 3/The CCP does not have any appealing substitutes to the existing set of international norms. Even at home, it is trying to bolster its legitimacy with artifices rather than a positive, clearly defined set of beliefs for the country’s overall direction. 4/The Chinese leadership’s vision for what the world should look like is based in the first instance on a negative agenda – the refutation of liberal democracy as the path to peace and prosperity – rather than a positive view of a desired future. 5/China does not need to prove that its own system can be applied universally. Demonstrating that no system is truly universal fundamentally undermines the existing international order’s core principles and undercuts any system based on universal values. 6/Once China has eroded a truly international order, it can hope to carve out a sphere of influence including large portions of the non-Western and mostly non-democratic world where its preferred worldview, rules and norms will be endorsed, followed and respected. 7/China wants to dominate this parallel system. But the 21st Century Chinese version of hegemony does not seek to replicate the old “Rule Britannia” or “Pax Americana” precedents. Chinese elites reject any form of Western influence, even when they think about models of empire. 8/Chinese elites are trying to develop modern, softened versions of the traditional sinocentric order, usually by insisting on its benevolent nature (“humane authority,” “great harmony”…). But imperialistic undertones and intimations of domination are not easy to work around. 9/The various components of Xi’s diplomacy (community of shared future, Belt and Road, global network of partnerships) point to a vision in which China’s leadership is exercised over substantial portions of the emerging and developing world,… 10/…a space free from Western influence and largely purged of the core liberal democratic beliefs supported by the West. 11/In this hierarchical system, China would be akin to a massive, dazzling star pulling smaller planets into its orbit without necessarily exerting direct control over them. 12/Its contours would not be defined along precise geographic or ideological lines, but rather by the degree of deference and respect that those within China’s sphere are willing to offer Beijing.
-
China’s Vision for A New World Order – the National Bureau of Asian Research (nbr)
Apr 12, 2020, 7:17 PM by Nadège Rolland In my latest report, I dissect the strands of thought underpinning China’s vision for a new world order and study its emerging features China’s leadership is determined to alter the norms that underpin existing institutions and put in place the building blocks of a new international system. A “vision” is by definition abstract, not fully formed and subject to change. In China’s case, this vision is also buried under layers of propaganda. But if we pay close attention, some key elements are discernible. 1/ The Chinese leadership believes that the existing order is “unfair” (it should allow China to have a greater role, commensurate with its growing power) and is incapable of offering “reasonable” solutions to the global needs. 2/ Instead of considering liberal democratic values as essential conditions for achieving global peace and prosperity, the CCP sees the global promotion of “so-called universal values” as the main cause for conflict and chaos – an obvious reflection of its own survival anxieties. 3/The CCP does not have any appealing substitutes to the existing set of international norms. Even at home, it is trying to bolster its legitimacy with artifices rather than a positive, clearly defined set of beliefs for the country’s overall direction. 4/The Chinese leadership’s vision for what the world should look like is based in the first instance on a negative agenda – the refutation of liberal democracy as the path to peace and prosperity – rather than a positive view of a desired future. 5/China does not need to prove that its own system can be applied universally. Demonstrating that no system is truly universal fundamentally undermines the existing international order’s core principles and undercuts any system based on universal values. 6/Once China has eroded a truly international order, it can hope to carve out a sphere of influence including large portions of the non-Western and mostly non-democratic world where its preferred worldview, rules and norms will be endorsed, followed and respected. 7/China wants to dominate this parallel system. But the 21st Century Chinese version of hegemony does not seek to replicate the old “Rule Britannia” or “Pax Americana” precedents. Chinese elites reject any form of Western influence, even when they think about models of empire. 8/Chinese elites are trying to develop modern, softened versions of the traditional sinocentric order, usually by insisting on its benevolent nature (“humane authority,” “great harmony”…). But imperialistic undertones and intimations of domination are not easy to work around. 9/The various components of Xi’s diplomacy (community of shared future, Belt and Road, global network of partnerships) point to a vision in which China’s leadership is exercised over substantial portions of the emerging and developing world,… 10/…a space free from Western influence and largely purged of the core liberal democratic beliefs supported by the West. 11/In this hierarchical system, China would be akin to a massive, dazzling star pulling smaller planets into its orbit without necessarily exerting direct control over them. 12/Its contours would not be defined along precise geographic or ideological lines, but rather by the degree of deference and respect that those within China’s sphere are willing to offer Beijing.
-
Each Academic Discipline Has Its Own Language and Terminology.
Apr 13, 2020, 8:30 PM by Bjarg Jonsson Each academic discipline has its own language and terminology. Part of becoming a professional in a discipline requires a basic mastery of the language used in describing the principles of operation. I have no academic background in law. However, with a Black’s Law Dictionary one can research what particular words mean in the practice of law. Reasonable suspicion, probable cause, jury nullification, etc can be understood by layman; otherwise a policeman could not arrest someone for a crime and write the changing documents with the elements to reach probable cause for indictment. I was taught in grad school, the difference between average people and bright people was not whether average people could learn something. But bright people just learn faster, which would be an advantage in multi discipline learning. John Mark is very important because he is explaining the concepts of propertarianism in the language of the everyday person and they get it. When we want to impress each other with how smart we are we use words (big) which are not normally in the other guy’s lexicon. Want reach the masses, you have use words out of their dictionary. They will get it, tit for tat.