When I watched the following video for the first time, one word kept on flitting it’s way in and out of my mind: Demented. Judge for yourselves:

 

 

There they are shouting and spitting and kicking at a statue. A statue! As they do so, no doubt they’re congratulating themselves on their goodness, tolerance and liberal values, not to mention their enlightened views. Is this Monty Python? It’s almost comedic, until it hits you that the line between people doing this to a statue and doing it to a living person runs much closer than we might like to think

“You want a vision of the future,” wrote Orwell, “imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

I could sort of understand how Jews, for instance, after being liberated from a concentration camp, and upon seeing a statue of Hitler, might tear it down and spit on it. There would be a sort of sense in that. But the people in these videos? What did that unknown confederate soldier ever do to them to make them so enraged? Did he torture them? Did he kill their families? Did he lock them in concentration camps or gulags and work them to exhaustion? As far as I can tell he did none of those things, but the deranged mob went for him anyway.

So what did he do to them to make them act in this deranged way? Simple. He made them feel really good about themselves. Because he represents the South, and because the mob think that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery (er, no), they get to feel morally superior to him. He is bad, and because they have the “right” opinion about him, they are automatically good. The more kicking and screaming and spitting and hollering they do towards this image of badness, the more their own innate goodness shines through. So goes the thinking, if you can call it that.

Perhaps you’re of the opinion that these statues should come down. Okay, that may well be a reasonable viewpoint. But the problem with this sort of thing is not whether statues come down, but how they come down. There are three ways it can happen, and only one of them bodes well. The first is that the central government decrees that all such statues be removed. The second is that the mob, latching on to the whiff of revolution in the air, takes it upon itself to remove it, and perhaps adds some kicking the living daylights out of it for good measure. And the third way is that the issue is decided on at a local level, with local people consulted and even given the chance to vote on whether a statue should stay or go.

One of these is practically guaranteed to produce resentment among many. Another of these is practically guaranteed to produce mob rule, and as you ought to be aware, once the mob gets the bit between its teeth, it is very hard to get it to put the brakes on. Statues today, books tomorrow, people and Presidents the day after. Orwell again:

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

And the third, whilst not guaranteed to produce peace, at least has the advantage of taking into account the views of local people and the rule of law. In other words, unlike the others it has a chance of producing peaceful resolution, rather than resentment and anarchy.

But what about the white supremacists? What about them? They are evil and stupid, and yet their numbers are (thankfully) such that you need a zero and then a lot more zeros after the decimal point in order to count their percentage. It’s the mob that you want to watch out for. They have been well trained in the art of hating anyone who disagrees with them and calling it love, and of believing that they are life’s perennial victims.

And now they are being emboldened, egged on by the Deep State and mainstream media who are more than happy to use these poor saps as pawns in their drive to topple the elected President. They’ve been slowly strangling him since his election victory last year, with their lunatic claims that he is somehow in the pocket of the Kremlin. But so far they’ve only succeeded in hamstringing the administration, especially in the foreign policy realm (Important Note: This is not me showing any sympathy with Mr Trump whatsoever. He has done more than enough to aid them in their aims, pouring gasoline on his own administration by his unhinged Tweets, his disloyalty to those who could have helped him, and his generally breath-taking ability to rub almost everyone up the wrong way).

But now they sniff their chance. Having now neutered Mr President, they’re now neutering his supporters. Yet it doesn’t stop there. What they’re doing is also neutering anyone who believes in the rule of law rather than anarchy. Object to statues being pulled down by the mob? You’re a fascist. Object to those balaclava-clad goons as they face down white supremacists? You’re practically a fully paid up member of the KKK. Object to people trying to destroy the legitimate President? Neo-Nazi sympathiser! Doesn’t matter if you are any of these things or not, nor whether you voted for Donald Trump, you all get lumped in the same bag of bad eggs.

O people, have you not seen these tactics played out time and time and time again? The Deep State, George Soros handbook is written large for all to see, having been played out in colour revolution after colour revolution the world over. Divisive leader? Check. People with grievances? Check. Talk about democracy being threatened by divisive leader? Check. Affixing of derogatory labels to any who oppose the ousting of the divisive leader? Check. Airbrushing out the views and violence of the opponents of divisive leaders, be they neo-Nazis in Kiev, Wahhabis in Syria, or Soros-sponsored Antifa goonthugs in the US? Check. Excusing their throwing of Molotovs, or their terrorising whole communities, or their smashing up university campuses, as the work of “freedom fighters” or “moderate rebels” or “champions of democracy/freedom/liberty.” Check.

And so the USA, home of the colour revolution, is now moving inevitably and inexorably towards its own colour revolution and very probably civil war. The extremists on the liberal-left side are emboldened, since they now know that even their violence will be portrayed with sympathy by the media and the Deep State. The ordinary citizen who believes in the rule of law and the constitution is now neutered, since any opposition they have to this colour revolution will see them branded as racists, haters, white supremacists or terrorists — whatever the Soros handbook decides to throw at them. And the Deep State is rubbing its hand at the prospect of useful idiot KKK types providing fuel for the fire on the one side, liberal-left pawns unwittingly doing their bidding on the other, and neutered citizens in the middle wondering what on earth is going on.

All that is missing is John McCain egging on the mob with a speech encouraging them to “take control of their destiny” and Victoria Nuland to pass around the cookies.

4 thoughts on “The Colour Revolution Returns Home as the Mob Sniffs the Whiff of Anarchy

  1. I would welcome being corrected but it is my understanding that those monuments and statues of Confederate soldiers were not erected to celebrate the enslavement of black people or even to champion the Confederate cause in the war (which Rob has pointed out was not primarily to do with slavery). According to this documentary, especially the segment from 4:00″ to 12:00″, these statues were erected by veterans who had fought on both sides of the war and who afterwards were deeply reconciled and wished to inspire future generations with a spirit of unity, heroism, loyalty to conviction, principled lives, and noble deeds.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg85tI0gxmQ
    The spirit of the mob pulling down the statue in Rob’s clip above seems ugly and barbaric in comparison.

    1. I think that’s right Phil, although I have read recently that Robert E. Lee was personally against the putting up of statues and displaying of flags, as he felt that this would hinder rather than help the cause of reconciliation after the war.

      That being said, they are now being torn down by people whose understanding of that war and why it was fought is almost wholly absent. They have been taught that it was a simple issue of slavery, with the North wanting to abolish it, and the South wanting it to stay. And so the North was good and the South was bad.

      It’s all complete hogwash. Although slavery was an issue, it wasn’t *the* issue. *The* issue was really what type of country the United States was and should be. Was it a federation of self-governing, sovereign states, or was it a federation of states under the authority of the federal government?

      In the declaration by the 13 colonies on 4th of July, 1776, the answer to that is clear. Of the states, it said, “that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.” Each of the states went on to adopt for itself a Constitution, and to appoint officers for the administration of government in all its departments — Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

      However, for the purpose of defense, they united, and in 1778 signed the Articles of Confederation, which was an agreement to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States. The first article stated that, “each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”

      They also declared that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.”

      The issue at the time of the “Civil War” wasn’t slavery, as such, but whether the federal government had any more right to intervene in an individual states approach to this issue, than they had to intervene in slavery anywhere else in the globe. The constitution of the United States said that no they didn’t, and it was that which was the issue (although it could have been anything else).

      What the Northern States could have done, had they cared so much about that issue, is to secede from the Southern States. They could have simply said, we can’t tolerate being in a union with States that want to keep the institution of slavery, therefore we are going to secede. Doing that would have:

      a) shown that the issue was genuinely about slavery, and
      b) would have saved about 650,000 lives.

      And then slavery would have died out in the South eventually, just as it did in Britain and France and everywhere without the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

      But instead, Lincoln raised an army and invaded the South.

      The United States of sovereign states, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and constitution, ceased to exist from that point on. And here we are, 150-odd years later, and its the very polar opposite of what it was intended to be. It is now a federation of neutered states, none of which is truly sovereign, but which is governed by those disgusting Leviathans, Washington DC and the Federal Reserve.

      There may have been some Southerners who fought to preserve slavery, but for the most part, the fight was about two very different models of what the US should be.

      Rob

      PS. Paul Craig Roberts pointed out something very interesting the other day:

      http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/

      He said that if the war was truly about slavery and about freeing slaves, how come the “Southern Racist” Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies? Great question.

  2. The colour revolution had already been planned before the 2016 election, just in case. Or, perhaps, because Soros & the Deep State knew they were going to lose. It was announced the morning after the election by none other than Hillary, once they got her sobered up after she was unable to be put in front of the cameras on election night to throw in the towel. The colour is PURPLE. Hillary said so. And she was wearing purple, Bill was sporting purple, and Tim Kaine’s wife was garbed in purple. Kaine, however, wasn’t, because he had just won his other election and I’m sure he didn’t want to jeopardize it. All you have to do is get the replay of the morning-after speech from YouTube or whatever…..it’s all there.

    It’s the Colour Purple.

  3. Again, wonderful post and couldn’t think of a thing to add myself, but what came to mind was what the man I call my mentor said about the time of JeSus, that day when He was crucified. My mentor was a prophet of God and walked with Him all of His days, and he was taken back in time to that day when JeSus was being tortured and murdered and he said it was like all of hell had let loose its demons upon the people that day. They acted insanely.

    It is obvious to us that America has lost God’s blessing and well it should have for its many crimes against many peoples around the world, especially Iraq when we dropped 320 tons of radioactive waste in the form of depleted uranium bombs on it. That is a grave crime of adultery, which has created mutations in the unborn and much more cancer. Plus the cloud of it is in our atmosphere and adding to the crap that blocks the sun.

    It is really too bad humanity doesn’t have the understanding that to evolve to the next estate, to work with Man, and JeSus said He was the Son of Man, we can no longer be a threat to anyone or anything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.