via New Eastern Outlook
“Spontaneous.” “Genuine.” Defiant.” The US State Department’s marketeers have used these labels in attempts to differentiate its latest wave of global “color revolutions” from the now tired, ineffective, and familiar formulas used everywhere from the US-engineered “Arab Spring,” to the Euromaidan in Ukraine, to Bersih 4.0 in Malaysia.
The latest target is Lebanon where protests have begun in the streets of the capital, Beirut. Branded the “YouStink!” marches, the alleged provocation was dysfunctional municipal garbage collection services. However, very predictably, the protests have shifted quickly from what could have been perceived as legitimate demands to outright calls for regime change.
Color Revolutions 2.0
Just recently in Armenia, the US conducted what appeared to be a test run of its new and improved “color revolution” system of regime change. It attempted to create a movement with little if any initial political affiliation and with deeply hidden ties between protest organizers and their US State Department affiliations. Ultimately the so-called “Electric Yerevan” protests, whose alleged grievances were rising electric bills, spent so much time trying to convince Armenians and people around the world that they weren’t a US-backed mob, they never succeeded in building up sufficient momentum to move on to the next step.
The trick was to first use rising electrical costs as a pretext to stage the protests, then quickly swing them around to demand a change in government. Likely, provocations and violence were planned for later stages, as well as opportunities for America’s client opposition parties to take over and swell the ranks of street mobs with their supporters.
In Armenia, America’s next generation of color revolutions failed.
In Beirut, however, it seems that the protests have made it at least to the point where the alleged pretext – piles of garbage – have now been replaced with demands for regime change.
Despite the 2005 so-called “Cedar Revolution” being exposed as entirely US-engineered, paving the way for the expulsion of Syrian troops from Lebanon and an Israeli attack on the country the following year, many even in the alternative press have been taken in by what should be an obvious, albeit more carefully concealed, follow-up to 2005’s events.
Oct 11, 2014
|Image: Martin Lee was previously in Washington D.C. before an audience
at a talk organized by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
He is now a prominent co-organizer of street demonstrations he plotted with
his counterparts in Washington earlier this year.
October 11, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – China’s People’s Daily in an article titled, “Why is the US so keen on ‘Color Revolutions’?,” states what has become abundantly obvious over the past several weeks of protesting in Hong Kong – that the protests are driven by foreign interests masquerading as a “desire for democracy.” The article states specifically that:
According to media reports, Louisa Greve, a director of the National Endowment for Democracy of the US (NED), was already meeting with the key people from “Occupy Central” several months ago, to talk about the movement. Louisa Greve is the vicepresident of NED who is responsible for its Asia, Middle East and North Africa programs.For many years, her name has frequently appeared on reports about “Tibetanindependence”, “eastern Turkistan”, “democracy movement” and other forcesdestabilizing Chinese affairs and interfering with the Chinese government. She also hosted or participated in conferences about the “Arab spring” and the “Color Revolutions” of other regions.
The piece goes on to examine some of the more obvious signs of US political backing being lent openly to the “Occupy Central” movement and finally concludes with:
The US may enjoy the sweet taste of interfering in other countries’ internal affairs, but on the issue of Hong Kong it stands little chance of overcoming the determination of the Chinese government to maintain stability and prosperity.
It is clear that Beijing fully understands what is unfolding in Hong Kong, and further more, understands not only the US desire to meddle in China’s affairs, but its desire to take superficially “peaceful” rallies and use them to create social division, chaos, and even violence with them – especially by means of provoking an unwitting government into violence, or perpetrating staged violence and pinning it on the government. It is likely Beijing and the government in Hong Kong have already accounted for this and have taken appropriate measures to counter it.
The presence of such an overt accusation against the US for its role behind “Occupy Central” is in fact part of this counteraction. By understanding the subversion and accurately reporting on it for both China’s audiences as well as global audiences, raises questions “Occupy Central” supporters will have to answer – either through finding facts and either proving or disproving these accusations, or resorting to increasingly transparent, immature, and intellectually bankrupted means of defending what is otherwise indefensible foreign-backed sedition.
Beijing and Hong Kong’s government’s refusal to meet with what is increasingly exposed as an illegitimate demonstration led by compromised leaders is another sign that China will not play along with the “color revolution” model of destabilization. Rather than crack down or lend legitimacy to demonstrators by meeting with them, it appears authorities have decided instead to let the protests sit in the streets indefinitely, expending both their own resources, and the patience of the silent majority.
Without real popular support, the protests have no chance of succeeding, especially if they fail to portray themselves as victims and instead, increasingly appear to be provocateurs.
|Image: The US now openly supports chaos on the streets of Hong Kong, this
after condemning “occupy” protests in Bangkok earlier this year. The
difference being in Thailand, protests sought to oust a US proxy, Hong Kong
protests seek to put one into power.
September 30, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – The “Occupy Central” protests in Hong Kong continue on – destabilizing the small southern Chinese island famous as an international hub for corporate-financier interests, and before that, the colonial ambitions of the British Empire. Those interests have been conspiring for years to peel the island away from Beijing after it was begrudgingly returned to China in the late 1990’s, and use it as a springboard to further destabilize mainland China.
Behind the so-called “Occupy Central” protests, which masquerade as a “pro-democracy” movement seeking “universal suffrage” and “full democracy,” is a deep and insidious network of foreign financial, political, and media support. Prominent among them is the US State Department and its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as well as NED’s subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).
Now, the US has taken a much more overt stance in supporting the chaos their own manipulative networks have prepared and are now orchestrating. The White House has now officially backed “Occupy Central.” Reuters in its article, “White House Shows Support For Aspirations Of Hong Kong People,” would claim:
The White House is watching democracy protests in Hong Kong closely and supports the “aspirations of the Hong Kong people,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday. “
The United States supports universal suffrage in Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law and we support the aspirations of the Hong Kong people,” said Earnest, who also urged restraint on both sides.
US State Department Has Built Up and Directs “Occupy Central”
|Image: The US through NED and its subsidiaries have a long history of
promoting subversion and division within China.
Earnest’s comments are verbatim the demands of “Occupy Central” protest leaders, but more importantly, verbatim the long-laid designs the US State Department’s NDI articulates on its own webpage dedicated to its ongoing meddling in Hong Kong. The term “universal suffrage”and reference to “Basic Law” and its “interpretation” to mean “genuine democracy” is stated clearly on NDI’s website which claims:
The Basic Law put in place a framework of governance, whereby special interest groups, or “functional constituencies,” maintain half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo). At present, Hong Kong’s chief executive is also chosen by an undemocratically selected committee. According to the language of the Basic Law, however, “universal suffrage” is the “ultimate aim.” While “universal suffrage” remains undefined in the law, Hong Kong citizens have interpreted it to mean genuine democracy.
To push this agenda – which essentially is to prevent Beijing from vetting candidates running for office in Hong Kong, thus opening the door to politicians openly backed, funded, and directed by the US State Department – NDI lists an array of ongoing meddling it is carrying out on the island. It states:
Since 1997, NDI has conducted a series of missions to Hong Kong to consider the development of Hong Kong’s “post-reversion” election framework, the status of autonomy, rule of law and civil liberties under Chinese sovereignty, and the prospects for, and challenges to democratization.
It also claims:
In 2005, NDI initiated a six-month young political leaders program focused on training a group of rising party and political group members in political communications skills.
NDI has also worked to bring political parties, government leaders and civil society actors together in public forums to discuss political party development, the role of parties in Hong Kong and political reform. In 2012, for example, a conference by Hong Kong think tank SynergyNet supported by NDI featured panelists from parties across the ideological spectrum and explored how adopting a system of coalition government might lead to a more responsive legislative process.
NDI also admits it has created, funded, and backed other organizations operating in Hong Kong toward achieving the US State Department’s goals of subverting Beijing’s control over the island:
In 2007, the Institute launched a women’s political participation program that worked with the Women’s Political Participation Network (WPPN) and the Hong Kong Federation of Women’s Centres (HKFWC) to enhance women’s participation in policy-making, encourage increased participation in politics and ensure that women’s issues are taken into account in the policy-making process.
And on a separate page, NDI describes programs it is conducting with the University of Hong Kong to achieve its agenda:
The Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) at the University of Hong Kong, with support from NDI, is working to amplify citizens’ voices in that consultation process by creating Design Democracy Hong Kong (www.designdemocracy.hk), a unique and neutral website that gives citizens a place to discuss the future of Hong Kong’s electoral system.
It should be no surprise to readers then, to find out each and every “Occupy Central” leader is either directly linked to the US State Department, NED, and NDI, or involved in one of NDI’s many schemes.
“Bersih” movement run by Soros-funded frauds seek to restore IMF functionary Anwar Ibrahim to power.
by Tony Cartalucci
April 29, 2012 – In a repeat of last summer’s protests, yellow-shirted mobs calling themselves “Bersih” have taken once again to the streets in Malaysia demanding “clean elections.” Their tactics and demands mirror similar movements that have come out into the streets in Russia and across the Middle East, and just like in Russia and across the Middle East, they are entirely funded, directed by, and working for the interests of Wall Street and London.
Bersih’s rank and file are responding to legitimate concerns regarding inequities that exist across Malaysia’s diverse population. Ethnic Malaysians are perceived to be receiving more benefits and upward social mobility than Malaysia’s large groups of ethnic minorities. Likewise it is perceived that Malaysia’s ruling government has an unfair advantage come election time. However, the movement’s demands and tactics seek simply to destabilize Malaysia politically and return known Western collaborators, and in particular Wall Street proxy and International Monetary Fund (IMF) functionary Anwar Ibrahim, back into power.
Video/Image: NED and Soros organized mobs clamor around Malaysia’s embassy in Bangkok, Thailand – with SEAPA executive director Gayathry Venkiteswaran explaining to a crowd why Western proxy Anwar Ibrahim and his opposition’s involvement in Bersih should not be condemned and for Bersih supporters to vigorously deny that the movement is “opposition run.” SEAPA is funded by convicted criminal George Soros, and the US State Department’s warmongering, corporate financier-lined National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House. Both within Malaysia and beyond, the Bersih mobs are demonstratively led by Western proxies insidiously manipulating impressionable, youthful crowds.
To understand why, it helps to understand just who is financially and politically supporting Bersih’s leadership in the first place. The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan “admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9  march.”
A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization – before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI’s rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something more sinister at play.
Bersih is indisputably serving as a political vehicle for Anwar Ibrahim and Malaysia’s opposition front “Pakatan Rakyat,” to return to power. That Anwar Ibrahim himself was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant to the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy’s “Democracy Award” and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony – the very same US organization whose subsidiaries are funding and supporting Bersih – casts irrefutable doubt on their official agenda for “clean and fair elections.” Claims by Bersih members that Anwar Ibrahim is “hijacking” their movement ring especially hollow when looking at both his and Bersih’s entwined foreign financial and political backers.
Image: Taken from the US National Endowment for Democracy’s 2007 Democracy Award event held in Washington D.C., Anwar Ibrahim can be seen to the far left and participated as a “panelist.” It is no surprise that NED is now subsidizing his bid to worm his way back into power in Malaysia. (click image to enlarge)
Photo: Tunisia’s new “president,” Moncef Marzouki, a veteran Western collaborator whose last two decades of political activity, much like Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia, have been supported and subsidized by the US government and US corporate-financier funded foundations.
Images: Screenshots from the Petroleum Institute’s “Partners and Sponsors” page, as well as el-Keib’s profile page (inset). Western-backed unrest in Libya has not yielded a democratic utopia as promised, but rather a ravaged nation now run by el-Keib, a long-time Western collaborator whose only activities have been selling out his nation’s natural resources and supporting the West’s wars of aggression worldwide. (click image to enlarge)
Strategy of Tension: West Creates Eugenics Nightmare in China – then Celebrates Activists Fighting It.
by Tony Cartalucci
April 28, 2012 – Anytime the Western media becomes ecstatic over the activities of a so-called “rights advocate,” it is almost certain that they are either backed by convicted criminal, Wall Street speculator George Soros, or a recipient of US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funds and support, or both. In the case of China’s Chen Guangcheng, allegedly blind and having recently escaped from house arrest in a rural Chinese town, it didn’t take long to trace his ties back to the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy.
Image: A visual representation of the National Endowment for Democracy’s corporate-financier ties found across their Board of Directors. Far from “human rights advocates,” they are in fact amongst the most vicious warmongers and violators of such rights – simply leveraging such issues to disguise what is in reality corporate-financier hegemonic expansion.
NED’s “Democracy Digest” celebrated Guangcheng’s “activism” and his use of “social media tools” in their 2011 article titled, “‘Extraordinary’ campaign for barefoot lawyer Chen Guangcheng.” Democracy Digest reveals that fake-Christian charity front ChinaAid and propaganda outlet China Digital Times, who have been Gunagcheng’s primary backers, are both NED grantees and that Guangcheng himself was the recipient of NED’s 2008 “Democracy Award.” This award has been more recently given to NED’s proxies used during the US-engineered “Arab Spring.”
Images: Top – 2008’s “Democracy Awards” presented to representatives of Chen Guangcheng. Bottom – In late 2011, Egyptian and Tunisian proxies receive their awards for helping the West topple sovereign governments and install client regimes – Tunisia in particular now sports a NED-funded “activist leader” as president.
Also mentioned in Democracy Digest’s article is the name of Council on Foreign Relations member Jerome Cohen as a “witness.” Cohen, of course, is providing “pro-bono” legal aid from the Council on Foreign Relations lined, Soros-funded “Freedom Now” organization for various dupes, stooges, and proxies of Wall Street and London. Readers may remember “Freedom Now” from their extensive involvement in supporting the Syrian opposition who triggered the current unrest now plaguing Syria, as well as being backers of Wall Street and London’s proxy in Myanmar (Burma), Aung San Suu Kyi. Freedom Now is also currently backing a leading Bahraini activist, Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, who was regional coordinator of “Frontline Defenders,” a Ford Foundation, Freedom House, American Jewish World Service, Soros Open Society Institute-funded “human rights” advocacy group. Al-Khawaja is now carrying out a “hunger strike” while in prison – part of a grander strategy to keep neighboring despotic regimes Saudi Arabia and Qatar loyal to the West’s agenda.
Image: Freedom Now’s corporate and foundation sponsors revealing that it, like so many others, is yet another Fortune 500 front carrying out the agenda of the monied elite under the guise of “humanitarian concerns.”
Freedom Now also backs a number of other Chinese proxies including Nobel Laureate and “human rights activist” Liu Xiaobo and Gao Zhisheng, both of whom are used to leverage the issues of human rights to undermine nationalist elements of China’s government while asserting the primacy of “international law” and the West’s “civil society” overlay across the vast East Asian nation-state.
“Blind Activist” Rails Against Policies of his Western Backers’ Creation
What makes the “blind activist” Chen Guangcheng different is that he has been allegedly fighting against China’s abhorrent population control methods, including forced sterilizations and abortions to maintain China’s draconian “one child policy.” The catch of course is, the corporate-financier oligarchs backing Guangcheng’s activism are also the architects of China’s population control programs in the first place, supported, defended, and whitewashed fully by the United Nations (see also here, and here), and even gloried in excruciating detail in current White House science adviser John P. Holdren’s 1,000+ page book, “Ecoscience.”
Indeed, the very practices carried out in China today were pioneered by Western corporate-funded foundations and government agencies like USAID’s forced-sterilization program in Peru during the late 90’s and the Carnegie Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation’s work in founding the Nazi’s eugenics cult, including the program Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele worked in before moving to the infamous Auschwitz death camp.
China’s brutal population control policies have been praised and lauded by people like Ted Turner who said during an interview with Diane Rehm (well worth listening to) that the Chinese “wisely instituted a one child policy” which he believes isn’t “draconian.”
Worst of all, is the gushing admiration David Rockefeller himself has shown for Maoism and the genocidal “great leap forward” that killed at least 45 million in 4 years, and up to 80 million in all. Rockefeller noted in a New York Times article titled “From a China Traveler” in 1973 that “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” He considers the resulting policies “social innovations.”
The fact that David Rockefeller founded and chairs the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a globalist forum of which nearly all of America’s most influential politicians are members of and from which nearly all of America’s policy originates from, constituting the collective interests of Wall Street and London’s corporate-financier elite, are the very people now supporting Guangcheng’s “activism” reveals astounding hypocrisy perhaps so gargantuan its full shape fails to come into focus for most.
Indeed, the West’s support for Guangcheng isn’t because they believe the eugenics programs they have carefully constructed, meticulously propagated, and brutally claimed the lives of tens of millions with is now suddenly bad, but rather because Guangcheng represents a convenient point of leverage from which to undermine the Chinese government regarding an unpopular program the West itself has engineered. Feeding off of the warranted and legitimate backlash against China’s population control programs may be the loose shingle the West can use to blow the rest of the roof off – where concerns over “democracy” and “civil society” have fallen flat.
China’s best response would be to withdraw from its obligations at the UN and replace its unpopular population control policies with technical education, research and development and other pragmatic industry and technologically-based, rather than policy-based solutions to deal with China’s large population.
Meanwhile, the West continues to openly announce their intentions of encircling China, containing its military and economic rise, as it sabotages sovereignty and economic prosperity along its peripheries and destabilizes its economic partners across all of Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. The latest manifestation of this policy comes to us from US Army Chief of Staff, General Raymond Odierno who eagerly parrots talking points being peddled by the US State Department, which in turn are nearly decade-old plans drawn from corporate-funded think-tanks long planning to sabotage the rise of Asia and maintain another century of Western led global hegemony.