Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 21st, 2009 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default The Technique of a Coup d'État

The Technique of a Coup d'État

by John Laughland

In recent years, a number of "revolutions" have broken out all over the world.

1. Georgia

In November 2003, the president of Georgia Edward Shevardnadze was overthrown following demonstrations, marches and allegations that the parliamentary elections had been rigged.

2. Ukraine

In November 2004, the "Orange Revolution" of demonstrations started in Ukraine as the same allegations were made, that elections had been rigged.

The result was that country was ripped away from its previous geopolitical role as a bridge between East and West, and put it on the path to becoming a fully-fledged member of NATO and the EU. Considering that Kievan Rus is the first Russian state, and that Ukraine has now been turned against Russia, this is a historic achievement. But then, as George Bush said, "You are either with us or against us." Although Ukraine had sent troops to Iraq, it was evidently considered too friendly to Moscow.

3. Lebanon

Shortly after the US and the UN declared that Syrian troops had to be removed from Lebanon, and following the assassination of Rafik Hariri, demonstrations in Beirut were presented as "the Cedar Revolution." An enormous counter-demonstration by Hezbollah, which is the largest political party in Syria, was effectively ignored while the TV replayed endlessly the image of the anti-Syrian crowd. In one particularly egregious case of Orwellian double-think, the BBC explained to its viewers that "Hezbollah, the biggest political party in Lebanon, is so far the only dissenting voice which wants the Syrians to stay." How can the majority be "a dissenting voice"?

4. Kyrgyzstan

After the "revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine, many predicted that the same wave of "revolutions" would extend to the former Soviet states of Central Asia. So it was to be. Commentators seemed divided on what colour to label the uprising in Bishkek – was it a "lemon" revolution or a "tulip" revolution? They could not make up their minds. But on one thing, everyone was in agreement: revolutions are cool, even when they are violent. The Kyrgyz president, Askar Akayev, was overthrown on 24th March 2005 and protesters stormed and ransacked the presidential palace.

5. Uzbekistan

When armed rebels seized government buildings, sprung prisoners from gaol and took hostages on the night of 12th–13th May in the Uzbek city of Andijan (located in the Ferghana Valley, where the unrest had also started in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan) the police and army surrounded the rebels and a long standoff ensued. Negotiations were undertaken with the rebels, who kept increasing their demands. When government forces started to move on the rebels, the resulting fighting killed some 160 people including over 30 members of the police and army. Yet the Western media immediately misrepresented this violent confrontation, claiming that government forces had opened fire on unarmed protesters – "the people."

This constantly repeated myth of popular rebellion against a dictatorial government is popular on both the Left and the Right of the political spectrum. Previously, the myth of revolution was obviously the preserve of the Left. But when the violent putsch occurred in Kygyrzstan, The Times enthused about how the scenes in Bishkek reminded him of Eisenstein films about the Bolshevik revolution, The Daily Telegraph extolled the "power to the people," and the Financial Times used a well-known Maoist metaphor when it praised Kyrgyzstan’s "long march to freedom."

One of the key elements behind this myth is obviously that "the people" are behind the events, and that they are spontaneous. In fact, of course, they are often very highly organised operations, often deliberately staged for the media, and usually funded and controlled by transnational networks of so-called non-governmental organisations which are in turn instruments of Western power.

1. The literature on coups d’état

The survival of the myth of spontaneous popular revolution is depressing in view of the ample literature on the coup d’état, and on the main factors and tactics by which to bring one about.

It was, of course, Lenin who developed the organisational structure for overthrowing a regime which we now know as a political party. He differed from Marx in that he did not think that historical change was the result of ineluctable anonymous forces, but that it had to be worked for.

But it was probably Curzio Malaparte’s Technique of a Coup d’état which first gave very famous expression to these ideas. Published in 1931, this book presents regime change as just that – a technique. Malaparte explicitly took issue with those who thought that regime change happened on its own. In fact, he starts the book by recounting a discussion between diplomats in Warsaw in the summer of 1920: Poland had been invaded by Trostky’s Red Army (Poland having itself invaded the Soviet Union, capturing Kiev in April 1920) and the Bolsheviks were at the gates of Warsaw. The debate was between the British minister in Warsaw, Sir Horace Rumbold, and the Papal nuncio, Monsignor Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti – the man who was elected Pope as Pius XI two years later. The Englishman said that the internal political situation in Poland was so chaotic that a revolution was inevitable, and that the diplomatic corps therefore should flee the capital and go to Posen (Poznán). The Papal Nuncio disagreed, insisting that a revolution was just as possible in a civilised country like England, Holland or Switzerland as in a country in a state of anarchy. Naturally the Englishman was outraged at the idea that a revolution could ever break out in England. "Oh never!" he exclaimed – and was proved wrong because no revolution did break out in Poland, according to Malaparte because the revolutionary forces were simply not well organised enough.

This anecdote allows Malaparte to discuss the differences between Lenin and Trotsky, two practitioners of the coup d’état/revolution. Malaparte shows that the future Pope was right and that it was wrong to say that pre-conditions were necessary for a revolution to occur. For Malaparte, as for Trotsky, regime change could be promoted in any country, including the stable democracies of Western Europe, providing that there was a sufficiently determined body of men determined to achieve it.

2. Manufacturing consent

This brings us onto a second body of literature, concerning the manipulation of the media. Malaparte himself does not discuss this aspect but it is (a) of huge importance and (b) clearly a subset of the technique of a coup d’état in the way regime change is practised today. So important, indeed, is the control of the media during regime change that one of the main characteristics of these revolutions is the creation of a virtual reality. Control of this reality is itself an instrument of power, which is why in classic coups in a banana republic the first thing that the revolutionaries seize is the radio station.

People experience a strong psychological reluctance to accept that political events today are deliberately manipulated. This reluctance is itself a product of the ideology of the information age, which flatters people’s vanity and encourages them to believe that they have access to huge amounts of information. In fact, the apparent multifarious nature of modern media information hides an extreme paucity of original sources, rather as a street of restaurants on a Greek waterfront can hide the reality of a single kitchen at the back. News reports of major events very often come from a single source, usually a wire agency, and even authoritative news outlets like the BBC simply recycle information which they have received from these agencies, presenting it as their own. BBC correspondents are often sitting in their hotel rooms when they send despatches, very often simply reading back to the studio in London information they have been given by their colleagues back home off the wire. A second factor which explains the reluctance to believe in media manipulation is connected with the feeling of omniscience which the mass media age likes to flatter: to rubbish news reports as manipulated is to tell people that they are gullible, and this is not a pleasant message to receive.

There are many elements to media manipulation. One of the most important is political iconography. This is a very important instrument for promoting the legitimacy of regimes which have seized power through revolution. One only need think of such iconic events as the storming of the Bastille on 14th July 1789, the storming of the Winter Palace during the October revolution in 1917, or Mussolini’s March on Rome in 1922, to see that events can be elevated into almost eternal sources of legitimacy.

However, the importance of political imagery goes far beyond the invention of a simple emblem for each revolution. It involves a far deeper control of the media, and generally this control needs to be exercised over a long period of time, not just at the moment of regime change itself. It is essential indeed, for the official party line to be repeated ad nauseam. A feature of today’s mass media culture which many dissidents lazily and wrongly denounce as "totalitarian" is precisely that dissenting views may be expressed and published, but this is precisely because, being mere drops in the ocean, they are never a threat to the tide of propaganda.

2a. Willi Münzenberg

One of the modern masters of such media control was the German Communist from whom Joseph Goebbels learned his trade, Willi Münzenberg. Münzenberg was not only the inventor of spin, he was also the first person who perfected the art of creating a network of opinion-forming journalists who propagated views which were germane to the needs of the Communist Party in Germany and to the Soviet Union. He also made a huge fortune in the process, since he amassed a considerable media empire from which he creamed off the profits.

Münzenberg was intimately involved with the Communist project from the very beginning. He belonged to Lenin’s circle in Zurich, and in 1917 accompanied the future leader of the Bolshevik revolution to the Zurich Hauptbahnhof, from whence Lenin was transported in a sealed train, and with the help of the German imperial authorities, to the Finland Station in St. Petersburg. Lenin then called on Münzenberg to combat the appalling publicity generated in 1921 when 25 million peasants in the Volga region started to suffer from the famine which swept across the newly created Soviet state. Münzenberg, who had by then returned to Berlin, where he was later elected to the Reichstag as a Communist deputy, was charged with setting up a bogus workers’ charity, the Foreign Committee for the Organisation of Worker Relief for the Hungry in Soviet Russia, whose purpose was to pretend to the world that humanitarian relief was coming from sources other than Herbert Hoover’s American Relief Administration. Lenin feared not only that Hoover would use his humanitarian aid project to send spies into the USSR (which he did) but also, perhaps even more importantly, that the world’s first Communist state would be fatally damaged by the negative publicity of seeing capitalist America come to its aid within a few years of the revolution.

After having cut his teeth on "selling" the death of millions of people at the hands of the Bolsheviks, Münzenberg turned his attention to more general propaganda activities. He amassed a large media empire, known as "the Münzenberg trust," which owned two mass circulation dailies in Germany, a mass circulation weekly, and which had interests in scores of other publications around the world. His greatest coups were to mobilise world opinion against America over the Sacco-Vanzetti trial (that of two anarchist Italian immigrants who were sentenced to death for murder in Massachusetts in 1921) and to counteract the Nazis’ claim in 1933 that the Reichstag fire was the result of a Communist conspiracy. The Nazis, it will be remembered, used the fire to justify mass arrests and executions against Communists, even though it now appears that the fire genuinely was started on his own by the man arrested in the building at the time, the lone arsonist Martinus van der Lubbe. Münzenberg actually managed to convince large sections of public opinion of the equal but opposite untruth to that peddled by the Nazis, namely that the Nazis had started the fire themselves in order to have a pretext for removing their main enemies.

The key relevance of Münzenberg for our own day is this: he understood the key importance of influencing opinion-formers. He targeted especially intellectuals, taking the view that intellectuals were especially easy to influence because they were so vain. His contacts included many of the great literary figures of the 1930s, a large number of whom were encouraged by him to support the Republicans in the Spanish civil war and to make that into a cause-célèbre of Communist anti-fascism. Münzenberg’s tactics are of primary importance to the manipulation of opinion in today’s New World Order. More then ever before, so-called "experts" constantly pop up on our TV screens to explain what is happening, and they are always vehicles for the official party line. They are controlled in various ways, usually by money or by flattery.

2b. Psychology and the manipulation of opinion

There is a second body of literature, which makes a slightly different point from the specific technique which Münzenberg perfected. This concerns the way in which people can be made to react in certain collective ways by psychological stimuli. Perhaps the first major theoretician of this was Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, whose book Propaganda in 1928 said that it was entirely natural and right for governments to organise public opinion for political purposes. The opening chapter of his book has the revealing title – "Organising chaos" – and Bernays writes,

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised opinions and habits of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. [my italics]

(The text continues: "We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.")

Bernays says that, very often, the members of this invisible government do not even know who the other members are. Propaganda, he says, is the only way to prevent public opinion descending into dissonant chaos. Bernays continued to work on this theme after the war, editing "Engineering consent" in 1955, a title to which Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky alluded when they published their seminal Manufacturing Consent in 1988. The connection with Freud is important because, as we shall see later, psychology is an extremely important tool in influencing public opinion. Two of the contributors to "Engineering consent" make the point that every leader must play on basic human emotions in order to manipulate public opinion. For instance, Doris E. Fleischmann and Howard Walden Cutler write,

Self-preservation, ambition, pride, hunger, love of family and children, patriotism, imitativeness, the desire to be a leader, love of play – these and other drives are the psychological raw materials which every leader must take into account in his endeavour to win the public to his point of view … To maintain their self-assurance, most people need to feel certain that whatever they believe about anything is true.

This was what Willi Münzenberg understood – the basic human urge for people to believe what they want to believe. Thomas Mann alluded to it when he attributed the rise of Hitler to the collective desire of the German people for "a fairy tale" over the ugly truths of reality.

Other books worth mentioning in this regard concern not so much modern electronic propaganda but the more general psychology of crowds. The classics in this regard are Gustave Le Bon’s work The Psychology of Crowds (1895), Elias Canetti’s Crowds and Power (Masse und Macht) (1980); and Serge Tchakhotine’s Le viol des foules par la propagande politique (1939). All these books draw heavily on psychology and anthropology. There is also the magnificent oeuvre of one of my favourite writers, the anthropologist René Girard, whose writings on the logic of imitation (mimesis), and on collective acts of violence, are excellent tools for understanding why it is that public opinion is so easily motivated to support war and other forms of political violence.

2c. The technique of opinion-forming

After the war, many of the techniques perfected by the Communist Münzenberg were adopted by the Americans, as has been magnificently documented by Frances Stonor Saunders’ excellent work, Who Paid the Piper?, published in America under the title The Cultural Cold War.

In minute detail, Stonor Saunders explains how, as the Cold War started, the Americans and the British started up a massive covert operation to fund anti-communist intellectuals. The key point is that much of their attention and activity was directed at left-wingers, in many cases Trotskyites who had abandoned their support for the Soviet Union only in 1939, when Stalin signed his non-aggression pact with Hitler, and in many cases people who had previously worked for Münzenberg. Many of the figures who were at this juncture between Communism and the CIA at the beginning of the cold war were future neo-conservatives luminaries, especially Irving Kristol, James Burnham, Sidney Hook and Lionel Trilling.

The left-wing and even Trotskyite origins of neo-conservatism are well-known – even if I still continue to be astonished by new details I discover, such as that Lionel and Diana Trilling were married by a rabbi for whom Felix Dzherzhinsky – the founder of the Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka (forerunner of the KGB), and the Communist equivalent of Heinrich Himmler – represented a heroic paragon. These left-wing origins are particularly relevant to the covert operations discussed by Stonor Saunders, because the CIA’s goal was precisely to influence left-wing opponents of Communism, i.e. Trotskyites. The CIA’s view was simply that right-wing anti-communists did not need to be influenced, much less paid. Stonor Saunders quotes Michael Warner when she writes,

For the CIA, the strategy of promoting the Non-Communist Left was to become "the theoretical foundation of the Agency’s political operations against Communism over the next two decades."

This strategy was outlined in Arthur Schlesinger’s The Vital Center (1949), a book which represents one of the cornerstones of what was later to become the neo-conservative movement. Stonor Saunders writes,

The purpose of supporting leftist groups was not to destroy or even dominate, but rather to maintain a discreet proximity to and monitor the thinking of such groups; to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could blow off steam; and, in extremis, to exercise a final veto over their actions, if they ever got too "radical."

Many and varied were the ways in which this left-wing influence was felt. The USA was determined to fashion for itself a progressive image, in contrast to the "reactionary" Soviet Union. In other words, it wanted to do precisely what the Soviets were doing. In music, for instance, Nicholas Nabokov (the cousin of the author of Lolita) was one of the Congress’ main agents. In 1954, the CIA funded a music festival in Rome in which Stalin’s "authoritarian" love of composers like Rimsky-Korsakov and Tchaikovsky was "countered" by unorthodox modern music inspired by Schoenberg’s twelve-tone system.

For Nabokov, there was a clear political message to be imparted by promoting music which announced itself as doing away with natural hierarchies …

Support for other progressives came when Jackson Pollock, himself a former Communist, was also promoted by the CIA. His daubs were supposed to represent the American ideology of "freedom" over the authoritarianism of socialist realist painting. (This alliance with Communists pre-dates the Cold War: the Mexican Communist muralist, Diego Rivera, was supported by Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, but their collaboration ended abruptly when Rivera refused to remove a portrait of Lenin from a crowd scene painted on the walls of the Rockefeller Center in 1933.)

This cross-over between culture and politics was explicitly promoted by a CIA body which went under an Orwellian name, the Psychological Strategy Board. In 1956, it covertly promoted a European tour by the Metropolitan Opera, the political purpose of which was to encourage multiculturalism. Junkie Fleischmann, the organiser, said,

We, in the United States, are a melting-pot and, by being so, we have demonstrated that peoples can get along together irrespective of race, colour or creed. Using the "melting-pot" or some such catch phrase for a theme we might be able to use the Met as an example of how Europeans can get along together in the United States and that, therefore, some sort of European Federation is entirely practicable.

This, by the way, is exactly the same argument employed by, among other people, Ben Wattenberg, whose book The First Universal Nation argues that America has a special right to world hegemony because she embodies all the nations and races of the planet. The same view has also been expressed by Newt Gingrich and other neo-cons.

Other themes promoted include some which are at the forefront of neo-conservative thinking today. First among these is the eminently liberal belief in moral and political universalism. Today, this is at the very heart of George W. Bush’s own foreign policy philosophy: he has stated on numerous occasions that political values are the same all over the world, and he has used this assumption to justify US military intervention in favour of "democracy." Back in the early 1950s, the director of the PSB (the Psychological Strategy Board was quickly referred to only by its initials, no doubt in order to hide its real name), Raymond Allen, had already arrived at this conclusion.

The principles and ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are for export and … are the heritage of men everywhere. We should appeal to the fundamental urges of all men which I believe are the same for the farmer in Kansas as for the farmer in Punjab.

To be sure, it would be wrong to attribute the spread of ideas only to covert manipulation. They have their force in large-scale cultural currents, whose causes are multiple. But there is no doubt that the dominance of such ideas can be substantially facilitated by covert operations, especially since people in mass-information societies are curiously suggestible. Not only do they believe what they have read in the papers, they also think they have arrived at these conclusions themselves. The trick of manipulating public opinion, therefore, lies precisely in that which Bernays theorised, Münzenberg initiated, and which the CIA raised to a high art. According to CIA agent Donald Jameson,

As far as the attitudes that the Agency wanted to inspire through these activities are concerned, clearly what they would like to have been able to produce were people who, of their own reasoning and conviction, were persuaded that everything the United States government did was right.

To put it another way, what the CIA and other US agencies were doing during this period was to adopt the strategy which we associate with the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, who argued that "cultural hegemony" was essential for socialist revolution.

2d. Disinformation

Finally, there is a huge body of literature on the technique of disinformation. I have already referred to the important fact, originally formulated by Tchakotine (Chakotin), that the role of journalists and the media is key in ensuring that propaganda is constant: "Propaganda cannot take time off," he writes, thereby formulating one of the key rules of modern disinformation, which is that the required message must be repeated very frequently indeed if it is to pass. Above all, Tchakotine (Chakotin) says that propaganda campaigns must be centrally directed and highly organised, something which has become the norm in the age of modern political "spin": British Labour Members of Parliament, for instance, are not allowed to speak to the media without first asking permission from the Director of Communications in 10, Downing Street.

Sefton Delmer was both a practician and theoretician of such "black propaganda." Delmer created a bogus radio station which broadcasted from Britain to Germany during the Second World War, and which created the myth that there were "good" patriotic Germans who opposed Hitler. The fiction was sustained that the station was actually an underground German one, and was put on frequencies close to those of official stations. Such black propaganda has now become part of the US government’s armoury of ‘spin’: the New York Times revealed that the US government makes news reports favourable to its policies which are then carried on normal channels and presented as if they were the broadcast company’s own reports.

There are many other such authors, some of whom I have discussed in my column, All News is Lies. But perhaps the most relevant to today’s discussion is Roger Mucchielli’s book, Subversion, published in French in 1971, which shows how disinformation had moved from being an auxiliary tactic in war to a principal one. The strategy had developed so far, he said, that the goal was now to conquer a state without even attacking physically, especially through the use of agents of influence inside it. This is essentially what Robert Kaplan proposed and discussed in his essay for The Atlantic Monthly in July/August 2003, "Supremacy by Stealth." One of the most sinister theoreticians of the New World Order and the American empire, Robert Kaplan, explicitly advocates the use of immoral and illegal power to promote US control of the whole world. His essay deals with the use of covert operations, military power, dirty tricks, black propaganda, hidden influence and control, opinion-forming and other things like political assassination, all subject to his overall call for "a pagan ethic," as the means to ensuring American domination.

The other key point about Mucchielli is that he was one of the first theoreticians of the use of bogus non-governmental organisations – or "front organisations" as they used to be known – for effecting internal political change in another state. Like Malaparte and Trotsky, Mucchielli also understood that it was not "objective" circumstances which determined the success or failure of a revolution, but instead the perception created of those circumstances by disinformation. He also understood that historical revolutions, which invariably presented themselves as the product of mass movements, were in fact the work of a tiny number of highly organised conspirators. In fact, again like Trotsky, Mucchielli emphasised that the silent majority must be rigorously excluded from the mechanics of political change, precisely because coups d’état are the work of the few and not the many.

Public opinion was the "forum" in which subversion was practised, and Mucchielli showed the different ways in which the mass media could be used to create a collective psychosis. Psychological factors were extremely important in this regard, he said, especially in the pursuit of important strategies such as the demoralisation of a society. The enemy must be made to lose confidence in the rightness of his own cause, while all effort must be made to convince him that his adversary is invincible.

2e. The role of the military

One final historical point before we move onto a discussion of the present: the role of the military in conducting covert operations and influencing political change. This is something which some contemporary analysts are happy to admit is deployed today: Robert Kaplan writes approvingly of how the American military is and should be used to "promote democracy." Kaplan says deliciously that a phone call from a US general is often a better way of promoting political change in a third country than a phone call from the local US ambassador. And he approvingly quotes an Army Special Operations officer saying, "Whoever the President of Kenya is, the same group of guys run their special forces and the President's bodyguards. We've trained them. That translates into diplomatic leverage."

The historical background to this has recently been discussed by a Swiss academic, Daniele Glaser, in his book, Nato’s Secret Army. His account begins with the admission made on 3rd August 1990 by Giulio Andreotti, the then Italian Prime Minister, that a secret army had existed in his country since the end of the Second World War, known as "Gladio"; that it had been created by the CIA and MI6; and that it was coordinated by the unorthodox warfare section of NATO.

He thereby confirmed one of the most long-running rumours in post-war Italy. Many people, including investigating magistrates, had long suspected that Gladio was not only party of a network of secret armies created by the Americans across Western Europe to fight in the resistance to a putative Soviet occupation, but also that these networks had become involved in influencing the outcome of elections, even to the extent of forming sinister alliances with terrorist organisations. Italy was a particular target because the Communist Party was so strong there.

Originally, this secret army was constructed with the aim of providing for the eventuality of an invasion. But it seems that they soon moved to covert operations aimed at influencing the political process itself, in the absence of an invasion. There is ample evidence that the Americans did indeed interfere massively, especially in Italian elections, in order to prevent the PCI from ever winning power. Tens of billions of dollars were funded to the Italian Christian Democrats by the US for this very reason.

Glaser even argues that there is evidence that Gladio cells carried out terrorist attacks in order to blame Communists, and to frighten the population into demanding extra state powers to "protect" them from terrorism. Ganser quotes the man convicted of planting one of these bombs, Vincenzo Vinciguerra, who duly explained the nature of the network of which he was a foot soldier. He said that it was part of a strategy "to destabilise in order to stabilise."

You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security. This is the political logic which remains behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the state cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened.

There is an obvious relevance to the conspiracy theories swirling around 9/11. Ganser presents a host of good evidence that this is indeed what Gladio did, and his arguments shed light on the intriguing possibility that there might also have been an alliance with extreme left-wing groups like the Red Brigades. After all, when Aldo Moro was kidnapped, shortly after which he was assassinated, he was physically on the way to the Italian parliament to present a programme for a coalition government between the Socialists and the Communists – precisely the thing the Americans were determined to prevent.

3. Today’s revolutionary tacticians

These historical works help us to understand what is going on today. My colleagues and I from the British Helsinki Human Rights Group have personally witnessed how the same techniques are used today.

The main tactics were perfected in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s. Indeed, many of the operatives of regime change under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. have happily plied their trade in the former Soviet bloc under Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. For instance, General Manuel Noriega reports in his memoirs that the two CIA-State Department operatives who were sent to negotiate and then engineer his downfall from power in Panama in 1989 were called William Walker and Michael Kozak: William Walker resurfaced in Kosovo in January 1999 when, as head of the Kosovo Verification Mission, he oversaw the artificial creation of a bogus atrocity which proved to be the casus belli for the Kosovo war, while Michael Kozak became US ambassador to Belarus, where in 2001 he mounted "Operation White Stork" designed to overthrow the incumbent president, Alexander Lukashenko. During an exchange of letters to The Guardian in 2001, Kozak brazenly admitted that he was doing in Belarus exactly what he had been doing in Nicaragua and Panama, namely "promoting democracy."

There are essentially three branches to the modern technique of a coup d’état. They are non-governmental organisations, control of the media, and covert operatives. Their activities are effectively interchangeable so I will not deal with them separately.

3a. Serbia 2000

The overthrow of Slobodan Miloševic was obviously not the first time the West used covert influence to effect regime change. The overthrow of Sali Berisha in Albania in 1997 and of Vladimir Meciar in Slovakia in 1998 were heavily influenced by the West and, in the case of Berisha, an extremely violent uprising was presented as a spontaneous and welcome example of people power. I personally observed how the international community, and especially the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), fiddled its election observation results in order to ensure political change. However, the overthrow of Slobodan Miloševic in Belgrade on 5th October 2000 is important because he is such a well-known figure, and because the "revolution" which unseated him involved a very ostentatious use of "people power."

The background to the putsch against Miloševic has been brilliantly described by Tim Marshall, a reporter for Sky TV. His account is valuable because he writes approvingly of the events he describes; it is also interesting because this journalist boasts of his extensive contacts with the secret services, especially those of Britain and America.

At every turn, Marshall seems to know who the main intelligence players are. His account is thick with references to "an MI6 officer in Priština," "sources in Yugoslav military intelligence," "a CIA man who was helping to put together the coup," an "officer in US naval intelligence," and so on. He quotes secret surveillance reports from the Serbian secret police; he knows who the Ministry of Defence desk officer is in London who draws up the strategy for getting rid of Miloševic; he knows that the British Foreign Secretary’s telephone conversations are being listened to; he knows who are the Russian intelligence officers who accompany Yevgeni Primakov, the Russian prime minister, to Belgrade during the Nato bombing; he knows which rooms are bugged in the British embassy, and where the Yugoslav spies are who listen in to the diplomats’ conversations; he knows that a staffer on the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee is, in fact, an officer in US naval intelligence; he seems to know that secret service decisions are often taken with the very minimal ministerial approval; he describes how the CIA physically escorted the KLA delegation from Kosovo to Paris for the pre-war talks at Rambouillet, where Nato issued Yugoslavia with an ultimatum it knew it could only reject; and he refers to "a British journalist" acting as a go-between between London and Belgrade for hugely important high-level secret negotiations, as people sought to betray one another as Miloševic’s power collapsed. (My suspicion is that he may be talking about himself at this point.)

One of the themes which inadvertently runs through his book is that there is a thin dividing line between journalists and spooks. Early on in the book, Marshall refers casually to "the inevitable connections between officers, journalists and politicians," saying that people in all three categories "work in the same area." He then goes on jokingly to say that "a combination of ‘spooks’, ‘journo’s’ and ‘politicos’, added to ‘the people’" were what had caused the overthrow of Slobodan Miloševic. Marshall clings to the myth that "the people" were involved, but the rest of his book shows that in fact the overthrow of the Yugoslav president occurred only because of political strategies deliberately conceived in London and Washington to get rid of him.

Above all, Marshall makes it clear that, in 1998, the US State Department and intelligence agencies decided to use the Kosovo Liberation Army to get rid of Slobodan Miloševic. He quotes one source saying, "The US agenda was clear. When the time was right they were going to use the KLA to provide the solution to the political problem" – the "problem" being, as Marshall explains earlier, Miloševic’s continued political survival. This meant supporting the KLA’s terrorist secessionism, and later fighting a war against Yugoslavia on its side. Marshall quotes Mark Kirk, a US naval intelligence officer, saying that, "Eventually we opened up a huge operation against Miloševic, both secret and open." The secret part of the operation involved not only things like stuffing the various observer missions which were sent into Kosovo with officers from the British and American intelligence services, but also – crucially – giving military, technical, financial, logistical and political support to the KLA, which, as Marshall himself admits, "smuggled drugs, ran prostitution rackets and murdered civilians."

The strategy began in late 1998 when "a huge CIA mission (got) underway in Kosovo." President Miloševic had allowed the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission to enter Kosovo to monitor the situation in the province. This ad hoc group was immediately stuffed with British and American intelligence agents and special forces – men from the CIA, US naval intelligence, the British SAS and something called "14th intelligence," a body within the British army which operates side by side with the SAS "to provide what is known as ‘deep surveillance’." The immediate purpose of this operation was "Intelligence Preparation of Battlefield" – a modern version of what the Duke of Wellington used to do, riding up and down the battlefield to get the lie of the land before engaging the enemy. So as Marshall puts it, "Officially, the KDOM was run by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe … unofficially, the CIA ran (it) … The organisation was just packed with them … It was a CIA front." Many of the officers in fact worked for another CIA front, DynCorp, the Virginia-based company which employs mainly "members of US military elite units, or the CIA," as Marshall says. They used the KDOM, which later became the Kosovo Verification Mission, for espionage. Instead of doing the monitoring tasks assigned to them, officers would go off and use their global positioning devices to locate and identify targets which would be later bombed by Nato. Quite how the Yugoslavs could allow 2,000 highly trained secret service agents to roam around their territory is difficult to understand, especially since, as Marshall shows, they knew perfectly well what was going on.

The head of the Kosovo Verification Mission was William Walker, the man deputed to oust Manuel Noriega from power in Panama, and a former ambassador to El Salvador whose US-supported government ran death squads. Walker "discovered" the "massacre" at Racak in January 1999, the event which was used as a pretext for starting the process which led to the bombing which began on 24th March. There is much evidence to suggest that Racak was staged, and that the bodies found were in fact those of KLA fighters, not civilians as was alleged. What is certain is that Walker’s role was so key that the country road in Kosovo which leads to Racak has now been renamed after him. Marshall writes that the date for the war – spring 1999 – was not only decided in late December 1998, but also that the date was communicated to the KLA at the time. This means that when the "massacre" occurred and when Madeleine Albright declared, "Spring has come early," she was behaving rather like Joseph Goebbels who, on hearing the news of the Reichstag fire in 1933, is supposed to have remarked, "What, already?"

At any rate, when the KVM was withdrawn on the eve of the Nato bombing, Marshall says that the CIA officers in it gave all their satellite phones and GPS equipment to the KLA. "The KLA were being trained by the Americans, partially equipped by them, and virtually given territory," Marshall writes – even though he, like all other reporters, helped propagate the myth of systematic Serb atrocities committed against a totally passive Albanian civilian population.

The war went ahead, of course, and Yugoslavia was ferociously bombed. But Miloševic stayed in power. So London and Washington started what Marshall happily calls "political warfare" to remove him. This involved giving very large sums of money, as well as technical, logistical and strategic support, and including arms, to various "democratic opposition" groups and "non-governmental organisations" in Serbia. The Americans were by then operating principally through the International Republican Institute, which had opened offices in neighbouring Hungary for the purpose of getting rid of Slobodan Miloševic. "It was agreed" at one of their meetings, Marshall explains, "that the ideological arguments of pro-democracy, civil rights and a humanitarian approach would be far more forceful if accompanied, if necessary, by large bags full of money." These, and much else besides, were duly shipped into Serbia through the diplomatic bags – in many cases of apparently neutral countries like Sweden who, by not participating formally in the NATO war, were able to maintain full embassies in Belgrade. As Marshall helpfully adds, "Bags of money had been brought in for years." Indeed they had. As he earlier explains, "independent" media outlets like the Radio Station B92 (who is Marshall’s own publisher) were, in fact, very largely funded by the USA. Organisations controlled by George Soros also played a crucial role, as they were later to do, in 2003–4, in Georgia. The so-called "democrats" were, in reality, nothing but foreign agents – just as the Yugoslav government stolidly maintained at the time.

Marshall also explains something which is now a matter of public record that it was also the Americans who conceived the strategy of pushing forward one candidate, Vojislav Koštunica, to unite the opposition. Koštunica had the main advantage of being largely unknown by the general public. Marshall then describes how the strategy also involved a carefully planned coup d’état, which duly took place after the first round of the presidential elections. He shows in minute detail how the principal actors in what was presented on Western TV screens as a spontaneous uprising of "the people" were, in fact, a bunch of extremely violent and very heavily armed thugs under the command of the Mayor of the town of Cacak, Velimir Ilic. It was Ilic’s 22 kilometre-long convoy carrying "weapons, paratroopers and a team of kick boxers" to the federal parliament building in Belgrade. As Marshall admits, the events of 5th October 2000 "looked more like a coup d’état" than the people’s revolution of which the world’s media so naïvely gushed at the time.

3b. Georgia 2003

Many of the tactics perfected in Belgrade were used in Georgia in November 2003 to overthrow President Edward Shevardadze. The same allegations were made, and repeated ad nauseam, that the elections had been rigged. (In the Georgian case, they were parliamentary elections, in the Yugoslav case presidential.) Western media uncritically took up these allegations, which were made long before the actual voting took place. A propaganda war was unleashed against both presidents, in Shevardnadze’s case after a long period in which he had been lionised as a great reformer and democrat. Both "revolutions" occurred after a similar "storming of the parliament," broadcast live on TV. Both transfers of power were brokered by the Russian minister, Igor Ivanov, who flew to Belgrade and Tbilisi to engineer the exit from power of the incumbent president. Last but not least, the US ambassador was the same man in both cases: Richard Miles.

The most visible similarity, however, came in the use of a student movement known as Otpor (Resistance) in Serbia and Kmara (It’s enough!) in Georgia. Both movements had the same symbol, a black-on-white stencil of a clenched fist. Otpor trained people from Kmara, and both were supported by the US. And both organisations were ostensibly structured along communist lines – combining the appearance of a diffuse structure of autonomous cells with the reality of highly centralised Leninist discipline.

As in Georgia, the role played by US money and covert operations has been revealed – but only after the event. During the events, the television was full of wall-to-wall propaganda about how "the people" rose up against Shevardnadze. All images which counteracted the optimistic view were suppressed, or glossed over, such as the fact that the "march on Tbilisi" led by Mihkail Saakashvili started off in Gori, Stalin’s birthplace, beneath a statue of the former Soviet tyrant who remains a hero to many Georgians. The media was equally unconcerned when the new president, Saakashvili, was confirmed in office by elections which awarded him the Stalinist score of 96%.

3c. Ukraine 2004

In the case of Ukraine, we observe the same combination of work by Western-backed non-governmental organisations, the media and the secret services. The non-governmental organisations played a huge role in de-legitimising the elections before they occurred. Allegations of widespread fraud were constantly repeated. In other words, the street protests which broke out after the second round, which Yanukovich won, were based on allegations which had been flying around before the beginning of the first round. The main NGO behind these allegations, the Committee of Ukrainian Voters, receives not one penny from Ukrainian voters, being instead fully funded by Western governments. Its office was decorated with pictures of Madeleine Albright and indeed the National Democratic Institute was one of its main affiliates. It pumped out constant propaganda against Yanukovich.

During the events themselves, I was able to document some of the propaganda abuses. They involved mainly the endless repetition of electoral fraud practised by the government; the constant cover-up of fraud practised by the opposition; the frenetic selling of Viktor Yushchenko, one of the most boring men in the world, as a charismatic politician; and the ridiculously unlikely story that he had been deliberately poisoned by his enemies. (No prosecutions have been brought to date on this.) The fullest account of the propaganda and fraud is given by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group’s report, "Ukraine’ Clockwork Orange Revolution." An interesting explanation of the role played by the secret services was also given in The New York Times by C. J. Chivers who explained that the Ukrainian KGB had been working for Yushchenko all along – in collaboration with the Americans of course. Other important articles on the same subject include Jonathan Mowat’s "The New Gladio in Action: Washington’s New World Order ‘Democratization’ Template," which details how military doctrine has been adapted to effect political change, and how various instruments, from psychology to bogus opinion polls, are used in it. Mowat is particularly interesting on the theories of Dr. Peter Ackermann, the author of Strategic Non-Violent Conflict (Praeger, 1994) and of a speech entitled "Between Hard and Soft Power: the Rise of Civilian-Based Struggle and Democratic Change," delivered at the State Department in June 2004. Mowat is also excellent on the psychology of crowds and its use in these putsches: he draws attention to the role of "swarming adolescents" and "rebellious hysteria" and traces the origins of the use of this for political purposes to the Tavistock Institute in the 1960s: that institute was created by the British Army as its psychological warfare arm after World War I and its illustrious alumni include Dr. David Owen, the former British Foreign Secretary and Dr. Radovan Karadžic, the former President of the Bosnian Serb Republic. Mowat recounts how the ideas formulated there by Fred Emery were taken up by one

Dr. Howard Perlmutter, a professor of "Social Architecture'' at the Wharton School, and a follower of Dr. Emery, (who) stressed that "rock video in Katmandu," 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.

Conclusion.

None of this is conspiracy theory – it is conspiracy fact. The United States considers as a matter of official policy that the promotion of democracy is an important element of its overall national security strategy. Large sections of the State Department, the CIA, para-governmental agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy, and government-funded NGOs like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which publishes several works on "democracy promotion." All these operations have one thing in common: they involve the interference, sometimes violent, of Western powers, especially the US, in the political processes of other states, and that interference is very often used to promote the quintessential revolutionary goal, regime change.

July 21, 2009

John Laughland's [send him mail] latest book is A History of Political Trials: From Charles I to Saddam Hussein.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/laughland8.1.1.html
 
Old April 26th, 2010 #2
Kyrik
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aryania
Posts: 99
Default

During the 2nd American Revolution, which will likely start in the spring of 2013, Patriots, Militia, dissafected White People, whatever you want to call them, will be so frustrated and feeling disenfranhchised that they will be rebelling openly. By then the IRS and other Marxist Fed Beast agencies will be suppressing and taxing and will be very unpopular.

We WNs will be heavily outnumbered by other types of White forces (I'll call them all 'Patriot Forces') during the Secessions/Revolution. The war likely will last from 2013 to 2018. Five years is about how long a Civil War can last until it totally exhausts all resources and, when Death is so heavy that there is virtually no one without a family member dead. A minumum of 20 Million will die, including colaterals and civilains who starve. It's just that each side will hope more of the other side dies than their side.

The United States will break up into four pieces: California, Texas-NM-AZ, Zog (east of the Mississippi) and what I call the 'Aryan Republic' (west of the Mississippi). Essentially it is a divide between red states, blue states, hispanic state, and a Texan-SW tex-mex blend. A couple Red States east of the Mississippi will stay with ZOG (KY, TN, IN, AL, indefensible) and a couple Blue States west of the big muddy will go with the rebels (Colorado for the same reason).

WNs will not be the majority in the fighting and Civil War. Actually it is our ideas that will take over, they will find a natural frequency among the people who resist Marxism and Obammunism. Among the secessionist states will be Old Republicans, mostly former Neo-cons, who will attempt to harumph their way back to the top, their main idea is to lead the secessionists back to ZOG, they will feel ZOG "..can change, he's been taught a lesson". WNs are the only philosophy that won't be taken in by them and must initiate a coup at this point.

It is essential that WNs now must participate in Militias, so they can be well placed in the Revolution to be in those Coups. The men with the guns will be in charge in the new nation, not the keyboard warriors who know how to spam and troll or write good essays, or post one-line wonders, get lotsa rep points (LOL). You can make things happen, or stand there and watch things happen.

National Socialists won't be among the leadership, the Patriots leading the Rebel army will eat them alive an spit them out. Only men who are racialist and good with propaganda and know how to use men and build bridges with other White men, essentially the most Machiavellian (yet, in a twist, appear the most honorable and truthful to others), will win.

Whether the WN coup happens or not to take the Revolution over depends on WNs getting military exposure now, being able to embed in the much more vast and broad resistance movement. The alternative is a much more weak and shaky resistance nation that gets taken down by the NWO and UN in a few years after it's born. Appeasers and 'Negotiators' will be active in the extreme to help facilitate this, for the money and to restore their fortunes. You cannot believe how powerful money, EG a million dollars is, to men. They will sell their own grandmas for it.

We WNs must perform a coup at the right time on the leadership resitance nation. I propose a three man Junta, with the best as lead man. No voting at this point, not until you are able to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't.

Most of the non-fighting sheeple will be dupes ready to fall for any shilling liberal demoagogue. If you tell people they are doing okay, they think they're doing okay, if you tell them they're not okay, they grow morose. The winning cadre in the Revolutionary free-for-all will be the one who takes the best care of their PR and propaganda units, going directly to the White People. Boots on the ground, good intel, good Propaganda, and the hearts of the masses. that's what you need. WNs need to train WN Racialist 'Political Officers' and insert/distribute these among other cadres, taking them over from the inside out. This is how you do it. A good leader is perpetually training others and spreading 'his men' into other cadres.

The next time I see a WN blasting Militias I think I will puke. So many of these WN 'Commandos' who post about them know utterly nothing about them. Eventually, in the long run, Rifles are the only thing that will stop ZOG's dictatorship and runaway Marxism, anything else is Tread Grease.
 
Old April 28th, 2010 #3
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

Have you ever fought in or against a militia?

They aren't much if any use at all.
They tend to spend their time fighting government forces, which is pointless sicne the army and police aren't the issue, bankers and industrialists are the issue.
You can shoot soldiers till the cows come home, it won't change a thing.
The side with the strongest economy usually wins.

Local militias have extremely high casualty rates, as they have little backup or reserves, little or no medical care, erratic food and water supplies, can't function in first world environments, usually end up as bandits, and unless supported by a religious doctrine and group, don't last long mentally or spiritually.

They have no logistics, little training, no finance, and usually collapse due to internal pressures.

The only forces more powerful than governments are other governments and religious organisations.

There is no such thing as local yokels getting together on their own to fight governments.
When they do, they are crushed.
Usually a couple get caught, tortured and the movement is taken down in a couple days.

There are armies funded, trained and equipped by other governments which pretend to be movements of the people but these are simply criminal gangs later easily disposed of, as Lenin called them "useful idiots".

Most casualties in war arise from starvation, dehydration, disease and infection.
People concern themselves more about criminal gangs roaming the streets, no electricity, no money, no hospitals, no jobs than they do about who is in government. They will support whoever offers them work food and security.

If you want to change a government, you need to have people in the wings capable of becoming the new government.

Let's say the militia wins.
Can they run a government?
Do they have access to the finance required to fund it?
If not, they won't be in charge, whoever makes up the new government will be.

The side backed by taxpayers usually wins, and countries break up based upon racial and religious grounds, and where the taxpayers are clustered.

Without taxpayers, there is no government.

When taxpayers, bankers and industrialists are no longer prepared to fund a particular government, then that government changes and not until then.

In the end, secession will occur, and the secession movement is the only practical movement on the go at present.

There will never be a WN government until WN can become the government.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old April 28th, 2010 #4
Mike in Denver
Enkidu
 
Mike in Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,297
Default

Hugh,

Damn good post.

First, an admission: I know diddly-squat about Coup-d'Etat or revolution, but I have a thought.

There are two movements that are at least very damn interesting that didn't quite fit the image of militias you paint. The Baader-Meinhof in the early 1970s and the Che Guevara-Fidel Castro Cuba revolution of the 1950s. I've watched long movies and documentaries on these. Maybe there is something to learn.

Disclaimer--of course, I don't like reds and commies. Hell, a girl friend of mine, my first real love, came within seconds of being killed in a Baader-Meinhof bombing.

But, maybe there is something to learn.

Mike
__________________
Hunter S. Thompson, "Big dark, coming soon"
 
Old April 28th, 2010 #5
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyrik View Post
During the 2nd American Revolution, which will likely start in the spring of 2013. . .
Doggone it! I've been banking on Autumn 2013, sometime between September 17th at 04:36 GMT and September 19th at 18:24 GMT. Maybe the "militia" will have a better crystal ball.

BTW, did not the 2nd American Revolution begin April 12, 1861?
 
Old April 28th, 2010 #6
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
Have you ever fought in or against a militia?

They aren't much if any use at all.
They tend to spend their time fighting government forces, which is pointless sicne the army and police aren't the issue, bankers and industrialists are the issue.
You can shoot soldiers till the cows come home, it won't change a thing.
The side with the strongest economy usually wins.

Local militias have extremely high casualty rates, as they have little backup or reserves, little or no medical care, erratic food and water supplies, can't function in first world environments, usually end up as bandits, and unless supported by a religious doctrine and group, don't last long mentally or spiritually.

They have no logistics, little training, no finance, and usually collapse due to internal pressures.

The only forces more powerful than governments are other governments and religious organisations.

There is no such thing as local yokels getting together on their own to fight governments.
When they do, they are crushed.
Usually a couple get caught, tortured and the movement is taken down in a couple days.

There are armies funded, trained and equipped by other governments which pretend to be movements of the people but these are simply criminal gangs later easily disposed of, as Lenin called them "useful idiots".

Most casualties in war arise from starvation, dehydration, disease and infection.
People concern themselves more about criminal gangs roaming the streets, no electricity, no money, no hospitals, no jobs than they do about who is in government. They will support whoever offers them work food and security.

If you want to change a government, you need to have people in the wings capable of becoming the new government.

Let's say the militia wins.
Can they run a government?
Do they have access to the finance required to fund it?
If not, they won't be in charge, whoever makes up the new government will be.

The side backed by taxpayers usually wins, and countries break up based upon racial and religious grounds, and where the taxpayers are clustered.

Without taxpayers, there is no government.

When taxpayers, bankers and industrialists are no longer prepared to fund a particular government, then that government changes and not until then.

In the end, secession will occur, and the secession movement is the only practical movement on the go at present.

There will never be a WN government until WN can become the government.
Completely wrong. History is full of examples of rag tag "militias" that have fought and defeated powerful governments/empires. Lest we for get the American Revolution. An ill equipped, no logistics, little training, no finance bunch of disheveled yokels who ended up beating the most powerful world power on the planet at the time, England.

How about Uncle Wolf? Took the Nazi's and the Brownshirts(who were in the beginning nothing more than local militias) straight to the top of German political power.

Bolshevik jews another example. Grimy, dirty street protesters toppled the Tsar. How? By taking advantage of the current political and social situations in the country at the time. Mike mentioned Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. A bunch of ill equipped beaners living in the jungle eating rats. Can you spell revolution?....Batista and his handlers in the U.S. could.

Governments are not all powerful omnipotent entities with unlimited resources. In fact quite the opposite. Many times they are a fragile house of cards just waiting to be blown over.

Go to the back of the class, Hugh.
 
Old April 28th, 2010 #7
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

Afghanistan commemorates end of Soviet war

KABUL: Afghanistan on Wednesday commemorated the 1992 toppling of a Soviet-backed regime, which led to a bloody civil war and the rise of the Taliban, as rampant insurgency across the country reaped a high toll.

Helicopter gunships clattered over Kabul as the Afghan army staged a 21-gun salute at a sports stadium used as a public execution ground by the 1996-2001 Taliban regime that emerged from the devastating civil war.

It was the first public commemoration of the 1992 overthrow since an assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai by gunmen and suicide bombers, claimed by the Taliban, marred the 2008 event. The Taliban were blamed for violence across the country throughout the day, including the killing of an official in strife-torn southern Kandahar, the 13th assassination in the capital in recent months.

Haji Abdul Rahman, a tribal chieftain in Arghandab district, was walking home when gunmen shot him dead and fled, said district governor Abdul Jabar. The Taliban have recently added targeted killings to their arsenal of tactics, which already includes roadside mines and suicide bomb attacks, as their war against the Kabul government moves well into its ninth year.

Thousands of people including dignitaries gathered at dawn at Kabul Ghazi stadium to celebrate the overthrow of the pro-Moscow regime 28 years ago – and the start of a civil war often seen as providing the Taliban’s path to power.

Defence Minister Abdul Raheem Wardak, in green uniform with gold epaulets, told the crowd, including Afghan soldiers and police charged with taking over the country’s security within five years: “On this day the mujahideen prevailed over the evil of communism.” He criticised the international community – which helps keep President Hamid Karzai’s government in power – for not taking seriously enough the Taliban threat after the 2001 US-led invasion overthrew their regime. Karzai did not attend Wednesday’s parade as he was in Bhutan for a South Asian security meeting joined by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan.

As his deputies and most of his ministers took their seats for a series of speeches and military marches, police and soldiers were deployed across Kabul, searching vehicles and setting up checkpoints to prevent attacks. Male drummers and dancers performed a traditional Pashtun warrior dance, watched by the failed candidate in last year’s presidential race, Abdullah Abdullah, a former mujahideen fighter and right hand of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Huge portraits of Massoud – the charismatic mujahideen leader who was killed by al Qaeda two days before the September 11, 2001 attacks – as well as Karzai, former kings and war heroes served as a backdrop to the parade.

The mujahideen victory in 1992 over the pro-Moscow regime –just months after the collapse of the Soviet Union – marked the start of a war that led ultimately to the rise of the Taliban, who filled a security vacuum. The Islamists took control from their base in the southern city of Kandahar, now one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan and heartland of the Taliban’s fight to overthrow the government. At least six civilians were killed driving home from the market when their vehicle struck an improvised bomb in eastern Afghanistan earlier on Wednesday, an official said.

They were heading home from a weekly shopping trip when the roadside bomb, widely seen in Taliban attacks on military targets, struck their vehicle, Mubarez Zadran, a spokesman for the provincial government said.
 
Old April 28th, 2010 #8
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in Denver View Post
Hugh,

There are two movements that are at least very damn interesting that didn't quite fit the image of militias you paint. The Baader-Meinhof in the early 1970s and the Che Guevara-Fidel Castro Cuba revolution of the 1950s. I've watched long movies and documentaries on these. Maybe there is something to learn.

Mike
Thanks Mike,

Too many times folks discuss the way to change a government, but not what happens if succesful.

When we know what victory looks like, what kinds of countries we want, then that will show us how to achieve it.

The addiction so many whites have for cheap non-white labour is a major issue that needs to be addressed, as it will always result in whites, due to the birthrate differential, becoming the minority.

There are only two governing structures that seem to last:

Political parties
Religious denominations

The religious ones tend to last longer, as religious people can function in political parties, whilst politicians are not able to function in religious organisations.

However, religious ones tend to result in only one religion being dominant, are the most brutal governments, and the most difficult to change if they go wrong.

If for example some want a theocratic state, then the way to achieve that is via religious organisations, which have their own unique structure, approach to struggle etc

Whichever way we look at it, secession is the end goal, so the different groups can each live the way they want to.
To each his own, so to speak.

The only problem is, most non-Whites don't want to live apart from Whites, as they cannot produce what Whites do.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old April 28th, 2010 #9
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B View Post
Completely wrong. History is full of examples of rag tag "militias" that have fought and defeated powerful governments/empires.
Governments are not all powerful omnipotent entities with unlimited resources. In fact quite the opposite. Many times they are a fragile house of cards just waiting to be blown over.
Steve

Do not confuse governments with political parties.

Governments have two main parts, the political parties who determine policy, the civil service who implement it or not, and who actually run the country.

Day to day life is governed at municipal level, with certain large scale items such as harbours etc co-funded by provincial or state governments.

Political parties fall after wars, civil services continue with little impact upon them irrespective of who comes into power.Countries survive without political parties, not without civil services.

That is why I say we need to recruit amongst the civil service.
The civil service is controlled via the departmetns or functions relating to planning and budgeting, which is why I say focus on recruiting or working in those areas.

Civil services must be paid for, thus taxbases are needed, which is why we need to focus upon where the taxbases are.

Wars today are fought over control of cities.

The city state is the oldest and most enduring form of state there is, and the most effective.

The cities that usually survive and prosper are those near deepwater harbours.

We need control of the planning and budegting departments of cities with deepwater harbours, where Whites are the majority with long term trade prospects with other white cities.

Use of strikes, boycotts and sanctions, trade blockades are highly effective ways of waging struggle without large armies needed.

WN do not have armies.
WN can get into positions where we can carry out strikes, sanctions etc.
WN cannot yet operate at national level, we can operate at municipal level.

It is a case of doing what we can, now, with what we have, where we are.

Pie in the sky fantasies about militias are just that.

This is not some fantasy game.
If you choose the military option, be prepared to see your family killed, your hometown in ashes, and above all, be prepared to be caught and interrogated, and then shot.

The police have powers far outweighing those of the military, and whilst armies surrender, the police continue.

The police are also structured to function at local level, the military are not.
The police are far better at close combat than most soldiers, better shots and used to seeing much more violence than most soldiers ever do.
So if one wants effective training, join the police reserves.

If you wanted to wreak havoc, join the fire department, and learn about fires.
Most damage after a bombing arises from fire and smoke, not from the bombs themselves.

But we aren't about destroying where we live, we want to defend them.

In the event of a break down in a modern city, tens of thousands of blacks and rabble would be roaming the streets, killing, raping, burning.

You would be defending in the event of a breakdown, not attacking.

More than likely you would find yourself fighting alongside the police and military, fending off attacks from raging, drugged, drunken blacks.

Are the environments a modern day militia would be operating in the same as those of the US revolution or Cuba? No.

Do militias run governments after revolutions? No.

The Afghan militias would have been wiped out years ago if not for the backing from foreign governments, and global religious movements.
Afghanistan is a collection of little villages in mountain valleys, run along tribal lines.
Their structure is not at all comparable to moden day suburban life.
Look to Belfast or Beirut or Palestine to see modern day struggle.

Thus in addition to militias, there needs to be a whole host of other structures in place.

The US at the time of the Revolution was effectively governing itself already, and the bankers and industrialists were financed, equipped and assisted by France in forming the militias.

France played a major role in keeping the British fleet away from the US, a factor rarely considered.
The militias were supported locally, operated on familiar ground, and had plenty of hiding places.

Britain was also involved in something like 5 major wars simultaneously at that time, spanning the globe from Europe to Africa to the Middle East to India to a wide range of colonies, and then the US one added to that, which was why the US, so very far away, was able to break free.

The US seceded from Britain, so if you advocate a similar strategy, then you need to be in favour of secession.

Today one would not be fighting a government across the ocean, but one across the road, with comparatively highly trained troops, well equipped, limitless resources and plenty of time.

Cuba is a group of small towns in a jungle.
Do you live in a third world jungle village?

Hitler entered mainstream politics, got elected and ran the state with the full consent of the people. He was backed by the US bankers and industrialists, and his troops were trained initially in the Soviet Union, with whom he worked closely at first.
He also led a largely homogenous population.
None of those factors are present at the moment.

The Russian revolution was developed over more than 20 years, required a whole series of wars, such as those with Japan, and the Bolsheviks were backed by the US and the Germans, who wanted Russia out of the war.

Without US support in the form of grain, machinery and finance, the Soviet Union would not have survived.

US interest was not in the Soviet Union, but in the endless wars it made possible.
Trillions of dollars of profits were made from those wars.

When it no longer became a viable economic investment, US support was withdrawn, and it collapsed within a decade.

With regard to our situation today, we do not have the backing of foreign governments.

WN governments are not in place, there are not sufficient WN to form a government, and we are not living 200 years ago.

The Soviet Union fell as a result of economic pressures, no other reason.

Sanctions, boycotts and strikes bring governments to their knees, without much violence or destruction.

The EU and US is collapsing as a result of economic pressures.

The issue is not to bring the existing regimes down, they are already collapsing.

The issues are surviving their downfall, and what to replace them with.

We do not want to live with or govern over other races, so would need to secede from them.

Thus secession is the way forward.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old April 30th, 2010 #10
Shane_Ryan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Completely surrounded by White female race traitors and their mulatto offspring in The Kwa.
Posts: 111
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Hugh,
All I can say is wow!
You have definitely thought this over, studied it from all angles, and researched it heavily. To say that you're knowledgeable about this subject would be an understatement. Do you have a blog or website ??? The reason I ask is because I have been in the movement for almost 19 years, and I've never looked at it from your angle, mainly because no one prior to you, ever explained it from that angle. I firmly believe in racial separation, but to be brutally honest, WN's in America have no power, no respect, and no influence over the White population. I believe we should secede. If we had a "race war" we would lose within 48 hours. Why ??? It's because the White race is not united, has lost all racial and cultural pride in their European heritage, we have become extremely self centered, fat & weak, mindless drones that believe whatever the TV tells them to believe.

We elected our first non-white president in 2008, was their an uproar ??? No. Was their anger or hostility ??? A little but it was not significant enough to even be detected or noticed.

"The tea party" is neo-con and kosher conservative. Many people feel that the tea party is "leading the way" but I strongly disagree. The goal of "the tea party" is to put the Republicans back in power. We as WN's don't want that to happen. The Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin. Both political parties are controlled by jews. If we had a "race war" I would be murdered on the first day. I would not be murdered by non-whites though. It would be White people who would kill me, because I am openly White Nationalist, and very well known, and very vocal in my community about my mission in life.

Seceding sounds like the only viable option on the table. "RAHOWA" would not turn out the way we hope it would. We would be hunted down by local law enforcement and killed. The cops know who we are and where we live. They (law enforcement) would know that we would fight in the "race war" so they would eliminate us as soon as possible. This is harsh reality. Most White Americans despise us, and hold us in contempt. They won't join us in a "race war". If they would join us in a "race war" they would've done it in the L.A. riots back in 1992. They chose not to. They chose to hide under their beds. Once again, this is harsh reality. The way you thoroughly explained things helped me to understand just how things really work behind closed doors.

What I am curious about is : What is your opinions and thoughts on regional secession ??? We have a secessionist movement in the Pacific NorthWest, and one in New England. In your opinion, what do you feel are the pro's and con's to each of those secessionist movements. What regional secessionist movement do you feel would be more successful and longer lasting ??? IMO, we as White Nationalists need waters to swim in, what I mean by that is we need a support base of like minded people who will help us gain power and influence over the White population. The big problem, and the main problem is that our views and beliefs are so unpopular, hated, and despised, that I really don't see that happening. The Kwa in 2010 is the most anti racist country on earth. Whether we like to admit that or not. Once again, it's harsh reality. How do you feel about PLE's (Pioneer Little Europe) ??? It was real fascinating facts and points that you brought up. It really made me think and ponder things over. Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this to us.
__________________
" The Wotan consciousness awakens the ancient, archaic, ancestral spirit that lays dormant in one's blood until that blood is threatened with extinction or mongrelization ".
 
Old May 2nd, 2010 #11
Kyrik
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aryania
Posts: 99
Default

Quote:
Shane Ryan said: Hugh, All I can say is wow! You have definitely thought this over, studied it from all angles, and researched it heavily. To say that you're knowledgeable about this subject would be an understatement. Do you have a blog or website ??? The reason I ask is because I have been in the movement for almost 19 years, and I've never looked at it from your angle, mainly because no one prior to you, ever explained it from that angle.
I am going to be blunt about this. That is either the most ass kissing paragraph I have ever seen on VNN or I just witnessed two sock puppets locking tongues with each other.


Quote:
I firmly believe in racial separation, but to be brutally honest, WN's in America have no power, no respect, and no influence over the White population.
You sound like you're demoralized, and don't say you're not, it's written all over your sentence. Are you doing something about this lack of respect, or just succumbing to defeatism?

Quote:
I believe we should secede.
Yeah, you got that one right, but your buddy Hugh doesn't believe force will be needed at some stage of that. He denounces militias, and thinks that people can just 'agree' to do it, ZOG won't try and stop them. Some of you guys post such things when you really have not thought things out, it's like you're forming your opinions as you type.

Quote:
If we had a "race war" we would lose within 48 hours. Why ??? It's because the White race is not united, has lost all racial and cultural pride in their European heritage, we have become extremely self centered, fat & weak, mindless drones that believe whatever the TV tells them to believe.

I've got news for you, oh enlightened one, there is a race war going on NOW.. Right NOW!. And we are losing.. how's that for pacifism working out? That isn't going to stop Militias and others from standing our ground. And since guys with rifles, not guys in Armani Suits, will be giving the orders at secession, they will decide what goes and what doesn't. You guys who diss revolution, secession and Militias don't know a flying crap about things, because everything you see around you is supported from the barrell of a gun, cops, LE, Army. It's not supported by the good will of good men, never was, never will be.

Why am I even arguing with such bottom feeders? Most of you VNN guys are early twenties and probably got D's in History class. I'd be lucky to find 1 on 10 of you who even have a year in a community college and that's probably shop class.

Here's the usual rote on VNN (and this is the same people who blast us over at Stormfront): Let a thread like this one remain vacant for a long time (with only Alex's OP on it) and sit without a reply to Alex's OP, and then when I put a good post in, go ahead and dive bomb it, go ahead and take the opposite tack on it, go ahead and slam it into the ground and don't even try very hard at making an intellectual argument against it. After all, aren't you all VIP's, 'Valuable Intellectual Properties', yourselves? The best you can do is "I don't like it". Well, pard, what doncha like about it?, "Uhmm.. It sounds wierd.. uhmm".

That's not even saying how utterly stupid Hugh's remark is about needing Foreign governments to support WN secessions for it to be viable. Hugh's a shill, and Shane is his sock puppet, plain and simple. It's guy's like that who attack actual solutions around here that drag VNN down. And the rest of you who are complete dead heads, knowing I'm right but not supporting me, that allow them to do it.
 
Old May 3rd, 2010 #12
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
We elected our first non-white president in 2008, was their an uproar ??? No. Was their anger or
hostility ??? A little but it was not significant enough to even be detected or noticed.
Depends on the perspective.
Do you want to be a rebel shouting in the streets, asking those in government to save the Whites?
Or do you want to become the government and save the whites?

That is the fork in the road of nationalism.

Some choose the one road, and try becoming the government; others choose the other road, to wave
cloths, drink beer, shout and run around.

We need to think beyond the struggle to come, and into the future.

We do not need to overthrow the system, it is already collapsing.

We need to survive the collapse, and ensure we emerge the leaders.

In order to do this, we need to become the leaders and government.

Nationalism requires a nationalist government.

Since becoming the government can be dangerous and is certainly hard work, most nationalists shy
away from it.

From the perspective of meaningless riots in the street, people yelling, screaming, smashing
windows etc, true not much happened.

On the other hand, 28 secession movements gathered steam, tea parties began, and laws have been passed
by the states confirming their sovereignty and those states doing so have begun forming
partnerships. Secession is now openly discussed.

Look beneath the surface, at the twinning and trade arrangements between the cities in these
states.

Ignore the single churches and the rapture bunnies, and those churches that do not have
international links, or that do not operate in war zones.

Look instead at the movements within the established, international denominations such as the
Catholics, Anglican/Episcopalians, Methodists etc, the strengthening of bonds with overseas
chapters etc, the establishment of electronic networks between them, the increased travelling and
conferences, the world is on the move again.

Homeschoolers are becoming a political force.

Quote:
"The tea party" is neo-con and kosher conservative. Many people feel that the tea party is
"leading the way" but I strongly disagree.
Whilst they are channeling and misdirecting people, the fact remains that they are a clear
indication of just how many people are discontented, and where.
People attending them form networks, groups, organizations.
After a period of marching, shouting, waving cloths, meetings, speeches, petitions etc they
realize that they need to become the power, and not be petitioners.
Look at the counties where these folks operate.

Quote:
What I am curious about is : What is your opinions and thoughts on regional secession ??? We have
a secessionist movement in the Pacific NorthWest, and one in New England. In your opinion, what
do you feel are the pro's and con's to each of those secessionist movements. What regional
secessionist movement do you feel would be more successful and longer lasting ???
I support regional secession but one needs to consider the total population of the various states
as well as their makeup.

Secession can only occur when an area and people are capable of surviving independently, and only
if a place has a deepwater harbour and access to the sea can a place be independent.
Trade and manufacture are the lifeblood of an economy.

White dependence on non-white labour is a major cause of the collapse of most White areas.
If not for the love of "cheap" non-white labour, there wouldn't be any non-whites in the white
countries, or Jews for that matter.

All successful cities have been based near major harbours, on the sea or on rivers.
Those by the sea have lasted longest naturally, as they can trade more easily and freely.

The nationalist movements throughout the EU are based on regional secession, with various regions
then linking up.

Europe as it is currently will cease to exist, and not be missed.

As the EU implodes, so nationalism grows.

Huntington described very accurately how the world actually works.
http://history.club.fatih.edu.tr/103...ull%20text.htm

The EU is divided into regions, much like US counties in a way, but with more powers, most of
which have around 1 to 2 million people in them, who are clustered around and within a couple
municipalities.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/...ons2020_en.pdf

To control an EU region, one needs to control the municipalities in that region, and the struggle
Is at municipal/regional level in the EU.

In most cases, a couple regions at most formed the homelands of particular tribes and nations,
who are not looking for more, just to control their traditional areas, and drive out those who
don't belong there.

In the US as in the EU, it is a city based movement, that starts at municipal and then county
level, who will then drive it at state level.
Look at the US as a collection of counties, and what unites or divides those counties.

The regions in Europe are divided in some cases, united others, by ethnicity, language, and above
all religion.

There are essentially three Europes, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, none of which have any
intention of working with or uniting with each other.

That is the basis on which the nationalist movements are organising in Europe, and the basis on
which they are forming in the US.

When Europe was Christianized, the various tribes formed different denominations in order to
maintain their tribal identity without appearing to.

Look at the US on the basis of religious denominations, culture and language and a very different
US emerges.

You can get an idea of the groupings here

http://religions.pewforum.org/maps

Whether religion is true or not is irrelevant.
It is a major driving force in the world today, and those who attack religion in public will not
ever become leaders.

There are 28 secessionist movements in the US, mostly driven by religious groups seeking power
over the state and wanting to secede on religious grounds, using economics as the politically
acceptable reason.

It's the same in the EU, the primary method of travelling, working and communicating is via
religious denominations, and most groups are formed out of people from the same or very similar
religious denominations.

Members of religious groups move between churches of their denomination globally, and go to those
churches when they arrive, from where they are introduced into the community, and assisted.
the churches serve as business centres, labour brokers, provide orphanages, care for the elderly,
hospitals etc.

In disasters the churches are often all that stand between those in need, and death.

The churches are not always necessarily involved in nationalism per se, but church services are
and always have been convenient safe meeting places, and churches are the only grouping more
powerful than politicians.

Religious folks tend to have large and connected families, so can receive and offer support.

With regard to the northwest and New England, the northwest will not succeed, because the only
people they can trade with on that coast, are non-whites, and there will not be a movement of
whites into the area.

In the end they will be the minority and wiped out.

The majority always rules.

There are no oil producing countries on their side of the continent that would be their allies,
and there are no white countries across the sea to reinforce or increase the numbers of Whites.

In the event of collapse, Mexican forces would move northwards along the western coast, and China
Korea and Japan would land their forces on the West coast harbour towns.

San Francisco and similar cities would be their primary targets.

The Midwest will be the primary target of the Chinese and Japanese, due to its food producing
capabilities, and the great lakes for their water.

The eastern side is the only viable area, and the states are small enough, for nationalists to
gain power
It has access to Europe and oil producing countries, and there are no enemies nearby other than
the blacks, who can be easily pushed down.


How do you feel about PLE's (Pioneer Little Europe) ???

Europe is not organised on racial grounds, but on religious, ethnic and language grounds, and the
PLEs in no way, shape or form resemble these. When they do, they will begin to succeed, until
they do, they will not.

White nationalism will not succeed in the US based on race.
Nationalism on the basis of ethnicity, language and religion will.

Bear in mind, the US is not a country; it is an empire, consisting of many countries held together
by force.

When the central power no longer has the money to pay its mercenaries, they will disappear, and
it is then that secession becomes fully viable.

For secession movements, look at the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia.

In some cases it went very peacefully, like Czech Republic and Slovakia, in others like Bosnia and
Serbia, due to racial, ethnic and religious differences, it went very violently.

In the largely homogenous areas of the US, it will go very peacefully, and simply.
In the heterogeneous areas, there will be horrific wars, and ethnic cleansing.

In the end, those of the same culture, religion and nation will group together, and that
Naturally results in a split along racial lines.

You will not get anywhere speaking about it on racial grounds though naturally we here all know
race is the real factor.
However, one must operate based upon the realities of the situation as it is now.

Take a year off from WN.

Form or join a residents association, form or join a NGO to improve the quality of life in your
suburb, and join a major mainstream political party.

Watch, learn and practice, what you learn will stand you in good stead in the times to come.
Learn about city development and planning strategies, become involved with disaster and emergency
management/civil defence/CERT training if you can, or get the same training privately.

http://www.citizencorps.gov/cert/

In the event of a breakdown or violent struggle, responses are organised along municipal lines
first, only later, sometimes, does the larger groupings at state/federal level get involved.
This devolves down to ward level very rapidly indeed.
If you control the ward, things get pretty simple.

If you are not religious identify or form local groups based along ethnic lines e.g. if Scottish, a Caledonian club etc and link up with similar groups in the European country your family came from.

These groups, together with the local police and emergency services are all that stand between
the community making it through the disaster, or scenes of unimaginable horror, looting,
starvation and mass genocide as people fight to survive.

Schools make excellent hospitals, and churches excellent distribution points.

This will be a process, not an event, in those states which are self sufficient, and where the
tax base provides enough to cover the expenses without federal help, it will go smoothly.

In the bankrupt states it will be terrible.

Bylaws, zoning, rates and taxation are the foundation of a cities income and power, and these
pretty much dominate people’s lives on a day to day basis.

They are excellent tools for removing those who don't belong.

There are political strategies such as incrementalism, gradualism, the tipping point and critical
mass that you will need to know.

Strikes, sanctions, boycotts are extremely effective at local level, and with local media.

In some cases there will be extreme violence, but this passes, and will be dealt with by the
police in most cases. Armies are not very effective in urban situations, they work well in open
areas. The police are extremely effective in urban areas.

If struggle breaks out, they will be deputizing.

Ensure you are one of those deputies.

Why be a militia when one can be the police?
Why fight police special units, when one can be one?

Look at all civil wars, the police special units are the most effective in urban struggles.
War is dreadful beyond belief, but oif it must be fought, its always best to the side with the money, weapons and manpower.

Control the key food, water, energy, communication and transport points in times of struggle.

This is the operating environment one needs to be prepared for if it goes wrong, but politicians and bankers make the money and get the power, the soldiers take orders from them.

This what happens to militias fighting first world state forces

YouTube- Mature Audiences only

This is what civil war looks like.

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.


YouTube- Road to hell (Sarajevo / Bosnia in war)

YouTube- Sarajevo Crazy


And in the ghettoes


YouTube- civil war in liberia
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf

Last edited by Hugh; May 3rd, 2010 at 04:00 PM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM.
Page generated in 0.22605 seconds.