The Color Revolution Question: Disinformation, PsyOps, and Shadows
Darren Beattie recently went on Tucker Carlson’s show to posit that the Left and the Democratic Party are working on starting a color revolution against Trump during the election. Beattie states that the Color Revolution is a “regime change model favored by many in our national security apparatus” used to oust regimes they do not like. Nina Jankowicz of the Wilson Center recently posted a video on twitter arguing in favor of Color Revolutions, which she claims have gotten a “bad rap” from Putin’s influence. Jankowicz says that the CIA does not organize these revolutions and they are simply a result of people getting upset over not having their voices heard in a democratic fashion. After explaining the legitimacy of Color Revolutions, she explains that the US is not a “candidate” for one because it is not fully autocratic, even if we have seen some “democratic backsliding” here. The problem here is that the people who have written books on Color Revolutions openly state that they only happen in semi-autocratic states. Michael McFaul, author of “Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine’s Democratic Breakthrough” writes that “The factors for success include (1) a semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime; (2) an unpopular incumbent; (3) a united and organized opposition; (4) an ability quickly to drive home the point that voting results were falsified; (5) enough independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote; (6) a political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to protest electoral fraud; and (7) divisions among the regime’s coercive forces.” McFaul is even responding to Jankowicz in the Twitter thread
Similarly Norm Eisen, author of “The Democracy Playbook”, writes “Far-right populist parties, many with illiberal tendencies, have gained a toehold or the majority in 23 of 28 EU member states’ parliamentary systems. But, these systems still have democratic institutions and robust civil societies, albeit under pressure, that provide avenues for responding.” when talking about which regimes are ripe for the Color Revolution. Jankowicz then claims that although she has helped with “constituent outreach” and trained election monitors, accusations that she and her former employer fomented Color Revolutions are false.
Frankly, I find the way all of this is presented to be troubling and untrustworthy. A northeastern liberal using “y’all” will always be come across as fake and condescending to me, although that may just be my biases taking control. Outside of any perceived condescension, Jankowicz is as close to the state department and CIA as you can get without actually being a current employee. The aforementioned organization that was likely accused of fomenting revolutions was the State Department’s own Fulbright-Clinton Public Policy Fellowship. She is currently employed by the Wilson Center, which is run by current and former State Department and CIA employees. Jane Harman, the CEO and director, is currently a member of the State Department Foreign Affairs Policy Board, and Mike Pompeo is a member on the board. Pompeo is the former director of the CIA. According to the Wilson Center, “Ms. Jankowicz has advised the Ukrainian government on strategic communications under the auspices of a Fulbright-Clinton Public Policy Fellowship” and “Prior to her Fulbright grant in Ukraine, Ms. Jankowicz managed democracy assistance programs to Russia and Belarus at the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs”.
This is by no means proof that the CIA and State Department are meddling in foreign elections or starting Color Revolutions in other countries, much less our own. I do find it suspicious however that someone as close to the State Department and CIA as Jankowicz is rushing to Twitter to publicly defend Color Revolutions as well as her former employers against the notion that they might have been involved. This seems like a conflict of interest and Jankowicz seems too close to the source to be trustworthy. Another interesting development is that Buzzfeed News reported that a State Department spokesperson claimed “The United States cannot consider [Alexander Lukashenko] the legitimately elected leader of Belarus.”
The US intelligence agencies do not have the best record of honesty with the American people and they do have a record of instilling more US-friendly regimes in other nations directly or indirectly. I would not trust a word from the mouthpieces of our intelligence community or those adjacent to it.
Trump has clearly shaken things up in the Intelligence Community and State Department as the previously mentioned Michael McFaul has let us know (tweet now deleted). If all the organizations that are being accused of being involved in Color Revolutions are against Trump and current civil unrest is being used to question the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency, what makes the US immune from a Color Revolution? The word of the people who would do it? The people who are marching down city streets calling for the outright destruction and complete restructuring of the country in the name of racial grievance? Read up on Color Revolutions, we might be witnessing one.
I would like to thank Darren Beattie (should he ever read this article) for bringing this issue to light and making these people expose themselves for who they really are.
— Young American Nationalist
