We thank all those who have helped to draw up this text. We hope that he will inspire many thoughts, reflections on the latest Polish past – and will become the subject of many "night talks of Poles". The text is comprehensive, unfortunately it is impossible to discuss all the crucial issues related to the "colour revolutions" and how the destiny of the Polish people fits into their logic. We encourage readers to read the full study.
PMN Editorial
“Axamine revolutions” and the sovereignty of nations and states. General characteristics of "colour revolutions".
Ukraine's case should be an excuse for a debate on defending sovereignty1 nation2 and institutions of this nation before aggressors internal and External. As such, he must be in the ellipse of interests of all Pole, especially – a Pole reasoning in terms of Polish national interest. An analysis of Ukraine's problem is essential not only due to the sharpness of the external centres' violation of the sovereignty of that country, not only due to the fact that a akin comedy of "spontaneous social revolt" has already been played dozens of times in all parts of the globe, where the influence of the alleged "free world" reaches. "Spontaneous social rebellions" happen where the local "slave world" begins to prosecute a policy oriented towards the welfare of its own nation alternatively than the interests of the "owners" of the US and its European satellites and "theirs" of large corporations (see necessarily: "Operation Ajax‘, see besides Hitman's economical Confessions, where J. Perkins exposes the scenes of neocolonialism). This case requires careful analysis by Poles due to the fact that if they always regain power on Polish lands, removing the “elity”, abroad centres and their influence agent, They will be the mark of an identical attack, like the 1 who had already twice rolled across Ukraine, and earlier devastated Serbia. This attack will follow the same scenario, worked out for years to perfection (see: History of Colored Revolutions), under the slogans of the fight for “freedom”, “democracy” and “human rights”, regardless of the unreasonableness of these slogans. any countries, specified as Belarus, Russia and Venezuela, have managed to defy attacks, which means that the situation in Poland after the hypothetical regaining sovereignty by the Polish people will be hard but not hopeless.
The analysis below is besides valid for another reason. Poles, as a consequence of the 1980 brainwashing of propaganda developed overseas (held by RWE and local, now “right-wing”, “intellectual elites”, have completely lost their ability to analyse revolutionary situations and social rebellions in terms of institutions, social agreements and national interest. Rebels, especially those inspired and supported from the outside, practically never represent the national interest, and practically always the interest of abroad centres and the interest of an intra-national “interest group”. If these rebels appeared spontaneously, the external support that is given to them has a price – the price the nation will paywhich will let these “revolutionaries” to be installed in power. If the rebels were employed from the beginning for "Revolutionary Work" by external centres, no 1 in their right head can anticipate that the policy pursued by these rebels will be anything another than acting in the interests of the powerholders. The “noble rebels” rising heroically against “tyranns” and “dictators” are most frequently media fairy tales for the public, served by those who want to rob liberated nations of means of production and natural resources. Robbery is facilitated by the side effects of “colour revolutions” – undermining social assurance in the state and its institutions, demoralising their workers and undermining loyalty at all levels of administration, demoralising the law enforcement services, creating social advocacy for breaking the law (the central component of the “colour revolution”) and general Revolutionary chaos. The society in the fresh reality is shocked and for any time, confused, is incapable to effectively defend its national assets or its rights (employees, educational, social) before action long prepared by abroad centres for this occasion "experts" and "reformers" – waiting in “international” institutions with ready packages of “hard but essential reforms” (See e.g. Privatization in Polish: Western experts shocked by Polish privatisation). The "Colored Revolution" is so a tool for implementing what Naomi Klein describes as a "shock doctrine" (see film “The Shock Doctrine” or a book under the same title). The goal of sponsors and powermen of the “colour revolutions” is to make specified a state – shock, disorientation, disorganization of society and its institutions, changing standards, values of society and its morality. It is about corrupting and corrupting elites and administrative apparatus – natural guardians of national assets and public goods. Nothing corrupts better than participation in ‘privatisation’, which is invariably a component of the "difficult reforms" served by the "international society" immediately after the "release" from the "tyrannical". Of course, the corruption of elites (including possible oligarchs) can begin much earlier, behind the scenes, and the "revolution" is only a method of installing a pre-prepared suit, which has remained in the shadows (these are not leaders of the "revolution", but "unsupported professionals", "apolitical experts", who by chance are Fullbright scholarships, Chicago University graduates, Goldman-Sachs ex-directors, etc.). As a consequence of the “revolution”, the approval of the elites to plunder is planned to be exploited – combined with the inactivity of confused masseswhich, previously obtained with revolutionary demagoguery10, the promise of a paradise on earth, now they are informed that they must accept the "reforms", a unusual coincidence that does not improve their existence (or, for example, the Ukrainians going to Maidan in December 2013 predicted that by protesting, in fact, they demand, at the request of the IMF, a doubling of natural gas prices in their kitchens?), but a highly improving existence of "international" capital. Do we know this script from Poland after 1989? The concept of a "colour revolution" (the "axamite revolution") was not designed to implement any social system, "democratisation", or "civil society building", as the “experts”, journalists and on-call politicians effort to say, in the event of subsequent coups utilizing the “violent” method of prof. Gene Sharp (G. Sharp, “From dictatorship to democracy. Roads to freedom.’ “How to make revolutions”)5. These comments were besides served to the Polish society during this year's events in Kiev. In fact, movements utilized to carry out “peaceful” coups usually have no ideology, no realistic, affirmative political or economical agenda, alongside the advanced bounds of generals (the fight for “democracy” and “human rights”) and (sometimes set) incompensable claims (video e.g. open letter to Solidarity advisers) are pure opposition, pure negation of the existing order. This is desirable for respective reasons:
- creating social movements (especially youth movements, specified as “Oppor” and its like) around emotions, feeding on discontent (who is full satisfied with status quo?), the request for association (being part of a group), for designation and fame (for example in Serbian “Openroom” it looked like this: ... Fear of beating and arrest was besides overcome by creating feelings competition and competition. ‘When you are arrested, you can only be happy! We've arranged contestThe winner of which the activist was arrested most times. I've only been arrested 7 times. A friend who won – 37 times in six months” laughs Milos. Young people felt pride for being a part of the movement, due to the fact that even the most shy in the event of being arrested or shown in the media could abruptly become popular in their home. ...6 – these were designed by sociopsychologists “fun” for Serbian youth – in the PRL of the day of “Solidarity” and the beginning of martial law a akin intellectual mechanics operated, only that, alongside youth rivalry to “resistance” in clashes with the ZOMO, they competed in strike: “Lech Wałęsa in November 1981 said, ‘I extinguish 1 strike, and 10 teams ride and fresh ones ignite’. Indeed, it was a kind of "stiff bidding". The region, the city, the workplace where the strike had not yet been in, had to “make up for it”. Pretext was frequently found ‘by force’.7 – from today's position amazing how easy it was for adults to “sold” rivalry in destroying the economy of their own nation as a bid for “patriotism” and “herohood” [video footnote 10]) is easy, the belief in the affirmative program is difficult, due to the fact that it requires getting to know the masses more information and getting a affirmative opinion about the proposal – people, unfortunately, effort to avoid intellectual effort
- from the point of view of sociopsychological mechanisms, the "colour revolution" / "axamite revolution" is not an intellectual or political current, it is fashion, Lifestyle – the kind of presenting yourself to the surroundings (video "How to make revolutions" – documentary and colorful revolutions a fashion)
- The deficiency of a affirmative program prevents the attack of movement from substantive positions – and the full movement from the beginning mainly tries to accentuate its "moral superiority", which is simply a lep attracting confused young (and sometimes old) idealists
- There is no anticipation of settling the movement from his promises (incompensable will be silenced after the victory, or dismissed on the basis of nonsubjective premises), the power that will be established after the coup has free hands and its composition is almost any (excluding the surroundings of the erstwhile leaders)
- The public is not able to compare the offer of revolutionaries with the offer of functioning authorities, there is no anticipation to measure or choose solutions more favourable in the long term
- The organization of revolutionaries, after fulfilling its only postulate—the demolition of a functioning strategy of power—can easy be dismissed into a political non-existence, due to the fact that people after the revolution begin to ask the question what next, and the “colored revolutionaries” did not receive any guidance from the rulers in this matter, were to be only a taran that broke the social order
- it is easier to gain broad support for the “colour revolution” of all dissatisfied, regardless of their often mutually exclusive, the imagination of the “world after revolution” (which mostly guarantees that the movement carrying out the “colour revolution” will rapidly vanish from the political scene, due to the fact that the environment that created it will not be able to come together with any affirmative programme – that is why Serbian “Oppor” has never come to power, like Georgian “Khmara”8, therefore, in Kyrgyzstan [the moves ‘Kel-Kel’ and ‘Birge’] no longer could any centre of power be established, so finally, ‘Solidarity’ itself did not play a more serious political function after 1989 – that was not the goal of its creators, promoters and sponsors9), moreover, “revolutionaries” are, in ideological terms and affirmative programmes, besides divided internally to make a political organization alternatively than – more or little institutionalized, ad hocly integrated, social revolt
Photo: Majdan, Ukraine, Kiev, XII 2013.
The ideological gaps and programme voids of “colour revolutionaries” fill in a variety of ways, but carefully avoid appeals to rational recipients of their message. They prey on sentiments, emotions and the worldview of their victims. In spiritual communities, religion will be cynically attached to the propaganda device "warriors for freedom, democracy and human rights".
At this point 1 can wonder how it happened that the Polish nation was peculiarly susceptible to the "colour revolution" and its empty, demagogue agitation. Poles, due to their past – and the circumstantial way of teaching and discussing it – are a nation peculiarly susceptible to emotional-religious control (this has been utilized for respective years by a media-political camp grouped around the “Law” and “Justice” parties). At the same time, partially due to the dominance of emotions in national consciousness, and partially due to the anarchy and antagonization with its own state (down after partitions, occupations, Anti-State the release of "anti-communism" in the Polish People's Republic and the elimination of the community of interests on the national-state line in the 3rd Republic of Poland) is not a Polish nation able to think in terms of common interest – economic, political and demographic, which in the long word condemns it to destruction. The stakes in the fight for collective awareness of the nation are so high. Poles have not yet intellectually liberated themselves from the false, insurrectional-opposition concept of conducting national politics – and through its prism they realize not only their own history, but besides effort to interpret the past of another nations – and current geopolitics. This state of (non)national awareness prevents them from drawing conclusions from their own national disasters, specified as January Uprising, November Uprising is Warsaw Uprising. It besides prevents correct assessment funded and controlled from Washington (and assisted by the Vatican) a "colour revolution"That was... ‘Solidarity’nor does it let to see what the Polish national interest was ‘refuse’ of ‘communism’ (see besides What drives Poles out of Poland? and How Polish manufacture was destroyed, Poles were deprived of work and expelled from Poland). It is time to halt believing in the spontaneity of various "bottom-up social movements" (see Table 1To make matters worse, it is time to look more closely at “roots” and sources of backing for the Polish “bottom-up social movement” (see “Big Smuggle” in “The Secrets of the Vatican ...”; about the scope of the financial assistance given to the “Polish” “colour revolution” by the “U.S. government” through various agencies and organizations [among others CIA, NED and AFL-CIO] to this day very small is known, including the degree of the financial and logistical commitment of the Vatican; about the “Holy Covenant” of the CIA itself – C. Bernstein wrote in the article "The Holy Alliance" [tyg. TIME, 24.VI.2001], while in the book "Poscrow: A past of Europe Since 1945" T. Judt estimates that Solidarity received about $50 million [p. 589], an interesting, anonymous survey in English can be read here: Covert Support To Solidarity In Poland).
Each of the “colored revolutions”, alongside money, receives the support of intelligence services, diplomacy and, of course, the US media and the remainder of the “free world”. Financial and organizational support follows the screening of a full array of foundations and “non-governmental” organizations – in the part where it is even traceable, Polish experience with cardboard boxes behind Kiejkuta indicates that flows can be much larger (see footnote 4).
| Khmara (Georgia), “Roses Revolution” | ‘(...) The financing of ‘Khmary’ and the full ‘Roses Revolution’ remains an highly delicate topic. Without even seeking authoritative evidence, Russian journalists quoted 1 of the leaders of the Georgian Kandelaki movement who reported that student movement funded by the Soros Foundation. The Russian press besides claimed that more than 2 1000 activists ‘Khmary’ and a 1000 5 100 organization members of the Micheila Saakashvili National Movement were trained by ‘Oppor’ in non-violent opposition methods. any of the Georgian opposition leaders, including Saakashvili and Żwanija, went to Serbia. In turn, the Georgian press was able to establish that This appropriation is intended to cover the following expenditure:More specifically, her subsidiary in Tbilisi led by a man named Marc Malen. In an interview given to Russian weekly Itoga Micheil Saakashvili confirmed that ‘Khmara’ movement received money from George Soros Foundation"and at the same time denied that the foundation besides financed Georgian political opposition (...)"8 |
| Otpor (Serbia) | ‘(...) typical of the American National Endewment for Democracy, Paul B. McCarthy, confirmed that As of August 1999, ‘dollars began to flow to Otpor’. He stressed that in years 1998-2000 NED allocated over $3 million to finance Serbian democratic movementsand ‘Open’ was the main recipient of these funds. He met with the leaders of the movement in Montenegro and Hungary – he spoke mainly to Slobodan Homen, liable for relations with abroad countries. Homen confirmed that backing had taken place – he besides acknowledged that his organization received money from non-governmental organisations and Western governments. ...
Another American organization, USAID (United States Agency for global improvement – The U.S. Agency for global Development), announced that the budget for 2000 provided $25 million for assistance in the democratisation of Serbia. Its representatives confirmed that hundreds of thousands of dollars were directed straight to the ‘Fight’ for specified purposes as the printing of election posters or the production of shirts with traffic logos. On the another hand, representatives of the global Republican Institute based in Washington, D.C., financed partially from the USAID, told about 10 meetings they had with student movement leaders in Montenegro and Hungary starting in October 1999. Part of the full amount of $1.8 million that USAID allocated to Serbia's assistance in 1999 was transferred straight to ‘Opportunity’...‘8a |
| “Pore” (Ukraine), “Orange Revolution” | ‘(...) In a study presenting the yearly ‘Pora’ run balance, members of the movement noted that Western NGOs – George Marshall Foundation (USA), Freedom home (USA), global improvement Agency (Canada) – financed the training of activists. At the same time, they admitted that from these organisations combined they obtained a comparatively modest sum – only EUR 130 000. As the members of the movement stressed, 'Pora', unlike 'Opporu' or 'Khmary', was financed mainly from national funds, especially by business heads, who inactive remembered how in the early 1990s. They themselves participated in student movements. backing frequently did not take place straight – companies took on the printing of brochures, the manufacture of stickers, the dispatch of brochures and posters and the cost of telephone calls. The full value of this aid was estimated at EUR 5 million. In addition, ‘Pora’ spent EUR 1.2 million in cash during the election campaign, 60% of which were allocated straight to logistical support for the 'Orange Revolution'. (...)’ 8b |
"The Street Corridor" and Democracy, Social Agreement and Sovereignty
Before we proceed to the analysis of various aspects of the "colour revolution" in Ukraine, we must realise with what phenomenon, from the point of view of the social agreement – and ‘government’ and ‘state’ are social agreements We're dealing with her. Power in a state with an indirect democracy (parliamentary or presidential system) is exercised under a written social agreement, dispersed in many documents. The establishment and revocation of the power, as long as the social contract is in force and is respected, must take place in accordance with certain procedures. Certain procedures besides apply where the activities of the authorities do not correspond to any part of the society. Without consulting the detailed regulations of Ukrainian law, it is clear to any nonsubjective observer that camping months before the authorities, occupying administrative buildings and public buildings, setting fires to buildings, tires and police officers (Molotov cocktails, Battle of Berkut, catapult and beating of police officers) was not part of a set of measures allowed by the Ukrainian social contract. For 3 months organised, respective (twenteen) 1000 people, funded and politically supported by the “international society” (and part of the local oligarchy) tried, utilizing non-legal methods, exert force on Legal authorities designated under the social agreement. Among the demonstrators no calls for EU association decisions to be submitted to a national referendumWhat could be understood in a democratic paradigm. The demonstrators first demanded that they meet their demands and sign the Association Treaty, without looking at the opinion of the remainder of the citizens who are absent in the square. Was this a phase of the "revolution" paid by the European Union, within the framework of non-interference in sovereign decisions of representatives of Ukrainian society and respect for the democratic system3? shortly after, much of the another demonstrators began demanding the immediate resignation of legally elected authorities. Again: not – referendum, not – start legal procedures – only resignations on demand. This phase of the “revolution” erstwhile the incited crowd, on the way of riots overthrows the government/president, is typical of the “social change” controlled from Washington (Operation AJAX, most late – “Arab Spring”, formerly “axamic”/ “colour” revolutions among others Kyrgyzstan [the tulip revolution] and Georgia [the “Roses revolution]). The planet has run Victoria Nuland & Geoffrey Pyatt's talk, in addition to the celebrated "fuck the EU" (3:02) More crucial statements – the composition of the future government of Ukraine is determined (0:40, 1:29), although the government of Azarov (Azarov resigned 28.I.2014, the Nuland conversation was revealed 4.II.2014, erstwhile the organization of Regions [President Yanukovych] inactive held democratically elected a parliamentary majority allowing the appointment of a fresh Prime Minister; However, Nuland and Pyatt discuss the candidacy of the ringleaders leading the riots – it is clear that the aim of EU and US activities was to replace the camp standing in power.) The talk of American diplomats should not surprise anyone – the US has invested $5 billion in subjugating Ukraine over the last 20 years (as confirmed by V. Nuland herself in a public speech)4.
As can be seen, in the case of Ukraine, we have been faced with a breach of the social agreement by citizens of the state who are controlled by external centres (indirectly or through the leadership) – and at the same time, of course, in violation of the sovereignty of the State. State authorities have a work to uphold the social agreement that established it, both from interior and external threats. The fall of Yanukovych and the removal from the power of the organization of the Regions (on the way of open political panic – in many areas of Ukraine there have been physical assaults on members of this party, and even accidental persons, there have been killings, many cases of demolition of property belonging to political opponents of the "colour revolutionaries" [burning premises and buildings]) prove that Legal Ukrainian authorities have failed citizens on a fundamental issue – defending the country against external aggression (the aggression of the fresh type, consisting in creating and financing pseudo-oppositions, which is full dependent on “international” “creators” and aggression towards the adopted regime, the legal framework (i.e. not the authorities, only governance system, due to the fact that throwing Molotov cocktails and cobblestone at police officers or putting steel bars on them It's not aggression against the government, it's the legal order., the thought of the state itself – due to the fact that Order services are not in a democratic state, a organization to the social conflict (also in authoritarian countries are usually not – are in South American military dictatorships, developed by CIA experts, where police panic is simply a method of maintaining society in permanent shock), they shall guarantee that the change of authorities or their decisions takes place within the framework of the laws in force).
State response
When and how should order forces react? What manner of conduct can protesters be allowed to conduct themselves in the face of law enforcement, and what is not permitted under any circumstances? How far should order forces go towards protesters who pose a threat to the wellness and/or life of officers by their actions (see the videos above): Molotov cocktails, Battle of Berkut, catapult and beating of police officers)?
The law of most states regulates situations of violation of the physical integrity of an officer on work another than a average natural person, penalties are more severe not due to the application of another measurement to the life and wellness of an officer, but due to the fact that the attack on an officer is in fact an attack on the full community, on its legal order, on its institutions. ‘Insulting the uniform’ is not a violation of a part of fabric but – institutional foundations of the community. In addition, it is crucial to look at a situation where a violation of the physical integrity of a police officer occurs in a situation of disorder of public policy, without respect to the conflict for power or to push the political interest of a group (common riots) or otherwise, where the nonsubjective of the organizers of the riot is power and/or to overthrow the legal order accepted by the majority of society.
The Ukrainian authorities have allowed attacks on officers to be impunityless and to take on a mass nature. Those active in specified events are no longer ‘protesters’ or ‘demonstrators’, but bombers who have taken themselves out of law already erstwhile they do not comply with orders from the order services. No action was taken to respond to the sharpness and scale of the situation. It was actually a betrayal of life-threatening and health-threatening officers and a betrayal of the nation, guarding an institution whose ruling squad was to stand under a social contract. Where police forces and standard procedures are not adequate to control the situation (i.e. to drive illegal demonstrations, to recover from the hands of rebel public buildings and illegally occupied private premises), the power has a work (against the full public, in defence of its interests against the unlawful actions of the rebels) to introduce a state of emergency without looking at the “international society”, opposition and all groups of pressure. If the actions of the military and police, operating all the time under the laws and regulations in force in the situation, end in bloodshed, then the state is not responsible, but National rebel leaders — and their powerholders and sponsors from the “international society”. president Yanukovych's crime towards Ukrainian citizens was to abandon the immediate pacification of ‘Majdan’, all the means given to him by the law, no substance how bloody this pacification would gotta be. Why should this be done? Is it possible, even in the case of riots like Kiev, to let social unrest to end at the cost of the lives of any rebellious citizens?
Stages of the “Aximate Revolution” and the simplification of social losses
Behind each "colour revolution" – and a crucial part of social conflicts that have naturally evolved into revolutions or overthrows – stands the same set of mechanisms of social psychology. The first phase of the conflict is to show certain demands in a peaceful manner within the legal order. If the intentions of the leaders of the protesting group are fair and the demands – realistic, subdued – are a chance for a peaceful settlement. There must besides be good will on the part of the authorities. If this does not happen due to disagreement on the part of legal power, demonstrators may effort to change authorities in subsequent elections if they have adequate support for their demands for the remainder of the society. Of course, specified a mode of resolving social conflicts is useless to those who usage manipulated crowds to take power in a way not provided for by the prevailing legal orderand any requests and claims made to the authorities are solely a demoagogy, a smokescreen to fool a susceptible part of society10. Whether they are spontaneous conspirators native or paid agent of the “international society”. There should, of course, be a mechanics in a sovereign society that allows authorities to be recalled in an extraordinary way, outside of the electoral calendar, if the authority initiates action (or if a plan of action is revealed) whose effects will be irreversible and highly detrimental to all citizens (e.g. causing mass unemployment, environmental disaster, failure of sovereignty). specified a mechanics is not, however, – and cannot be, a "street criterion", a protest by even the largest crowd is not an expression of the will of society – Under the force of the crowd by power is simply a violation of its obligations to society as a whole, is consent to the dictatorship – and de facto a dictatorship (often manipulated and acting in the interest of “foreign centres”) of a minority. It is crucial that during all “colour revolution” this minority, having no social mandate, he shouts constantly that “he speaks on behalf of the full nation.”
At a time erstwhile the protesters realize that their demands will not be taken into account (sometimes from the beginning they did not intend to make realistic demands, as was the case in Ukraine, but besides in Poland – see e.g. open letter from prof. Wenceslaw Wilczyński to advisors and experts of “Solidarity”, dated 11 July 198110 – all power in its negotiating options is limited by the reality, the resources at their disposal, “the opposition room” is not subject to specified restrictions, they can make demands impossible, no 1 can settle them until they have power, and erstwhile they have power – who else will remember their demagoguery?; a good illustration is infamous. 21 MKS postulates [known as 21 calls for “Solidarity”]) the second phase of escalation may begin. At this stage, aggressive behaviour against the order forces is not yet taking place, but passive violation. An example of this phase of escalation of the conflict may be the refusal to disperse demonstrators, even though the time agreed with the authorities of the demonstration has passed. The construction of “camp towns” is beginning, and various types of business strikes, business of public buildings, etc. At this phase demonstrators take on the pose of the oppressed and the injured by the “system” of the “goves of peace” (How do we know that?). But the fact is different.. These “peaceful demonstrators” have already begun first phase of aggression, they broke not only the applicable law on conventions, but besides own liabilities, due to the fact that in order to be allowed a legal demonstration, they had to set the duration. So they started Force Test – and not only with power, but above all with the remainder of the society, with a social agreement reserving the settlement of disputes within the applicable institutions and not – beyond them, above the heads of another voters, who gave support to the authorities in office and not to the self-proclaimed street folk courts (often created by “international” media) and their puppets.
At this stage, the main nonsubjective of "peaceful demonstrators" is no longer to agree with the authorities, their nonsubjective is to forcing authorities to forcely end illegal protest, in order to make “the martyrs of the cause” and then, cynically, start utilizing political compassion for the battered “demonstrants” and incite an aversion to power, “applying force towards Peaceful demonstrators’. In order to increase the public's perceived contrast between the parties to the conflict and to reduce the motivation of the law enforcement services, the trick of handing flowers to police officers is frequently used, usually by beautiful activists of the "colour revolution" (or models hired for that purpose). Demotivation and demoralisation of the police and the army is essential to achieving the success of the "colour revolution", especially if phase 3 of the fight against the government is achieved.
The political capital of the "peaceful opposition", accumulated at this phase with full awareness and full cynicism, are bruises, abrasions of the epidermis, brow arches cut, arrests and arrests – this capital is besides expressed by compassion raised in those who did not care about the protesters' demands. The unwillingness to power is to be as part of the logic of playing the “colour revolution” besides aroused in those who did not care about the protest, and even were unfavorable. How many delicate ladies, how many of the “ideals of humanism” of intellectuals can be picked up at all geographical width on this game? And how many another “humanists” and “intellectualists” who have been held in command will actively support their “authorities” of “suffering” opponents? How many open letters, full of outrage at “the brutality of authorities and police” will be written and signed? What “themes of the day” will the “international” media run? respective objectives are thus achieved:
- created an illusion of “moral superiority” "peaceful" demonstrators over the "brutal regime" (often reinforced) An ostential demonstration of spiritual beliefs); an illusion due to the fact that in reality The demonstrators wanted it from the beginning force authorities to apply force – or to a disgraceful power, destroying its authority to let violations of the legal order, i.e. to demonstrating weaknesses and inability to defend the social contract,
- the social perception of conflict is transferred from a “peaceful demonstrators” region of rational analyses, assessments of the reality of their demands (which requires a citizen assessing the situation of intellectual engagement), to a safe (and without any intellectual effort, no cognition of the planet or knowing of the possible consequences of the demands of demonstrators) region of feelings and emotions – sympathy, compassion, antipathy; on the side of law-breaking and absurd (from the point of view of legal order and legislative procedures) of demands we have compassion, on the side of defence of the legal order and compliance with the social contract – disgust with “violence” and “violence”,
- It is created strong, not along the line of interests, but emotions (sometimes supported by spiritual accents, specified as in Majdan in 2014 or Poland during the period of "Solidarity", the division of society – polarization of attitudes takes place, it will be increasingly hard to gain common knowing between citizens – “soldiers” of the parties to the conflict, and the will to dialog on both sides will be little and less,
- The political discourse goes to the angle, since then "pro-government" or "oppositions" are just "fashion trains", subject to the marketing techniques of creating – besides by ... fashion – each of the "colored revolutions" tries to penetrate the way of dressing – the "orange revolution" in Ukraine are orange hats and scarves, the "white revolution" in Russia (the failed effort to overthrow Putin) are white ribbons, the "jinn revolution" in Belarus – it is known, but ... what the older Poles do not remember, how "the area of opposition" from the "Solidarity" decorated their outfits with opposition fastened in a visible place?; creating a mass trend is simply a mention to conformism, to the (unfortunately people) unwilling to stand out in the crowd, to have their own opinion against The force of the immediate surroundings – many "colour revolutionaries", like many of these mythical 10 million members of "Solidarity", alongside most cynically attracted to demagogue slogans, were just ordinary, harassed in their environments conformists; of course the group most susceptible to fashion trends (and not susceptible to self-thinking, and highly susceptible to emotion and "[not] reasoning collective"- conformism resulting from the strong request to belong [asociation]) is young people – and it is utilized in the "standard" model of the "colour revolution" as the main "shock force" – as in the case of Majdan, as in the case of Yugoslavia, as in the case of Belarus and Russia, and late in Venezuela
- an authoritative pretext is created for the interior affairs of the country by the ‘international society’.
Older Poles should remember these situations well from the 1980s, erstwhile the full Polish nation was ground up with this mechanism, but provided that the strategy at the time was (enough soft) authoritarianism, not deprived of defects (see ‘Forgotten letter 2000 ...’), not democracy. However, the sociopsychological mechanics of conflicts following the script of the "colour revolution" will stay unchanged. any may say at this point that, here in the Polish People's Republic, he was indeed a “regime”, making protests and a “colour revolution” “morally justified”. Unfortunately, from a national policy point of view, it is not intentions that matter, but the effects of action. Polish “warners for freedom, democracy and human rights” does not absolve anything from cooperation with abroad countries. Given that in implementing the “international” recipes they deprived the Polish people of their production assets, they destroyed the R & D facilities of the Polish industry, making Poland permanently dependent on abroad method thought, caused mass unemployment, demographic disaster and reduced the sovereignty of the Polish state, subjecting it to global organisations, it can be said that their actions have proved to harm the Polish people. Social opposition to be nationally beneficial cannot be carried out by methods that devastate national assets, impoverish Poles and open Poland to robbery through the above described "Revolutional chaos" (part of the implementation of the ‘shock doctrine’). Nor can it increase the subservience of abroad countries, or replace the existing subservience—subservience further advanced, but another sovereign.
The second phase of the "colour revolution" has another crucial function: creating a sense of harm among the widest part of society, the deprivation of certain rights, access to certain goods and benefits. The majority of researchers dealing with the problems of revolutions – “colour” and “traditional” – emphasizes that an essential component for the success of the revolution is not the existence of real misery, harm, but emergence in the collective consciousness the feeling (imaginative or real, it doesn't matter!) of injustice, harm, deprivation of any rights or privileges (deprivation) – and the conviction that power is weak adequate to force a change in the situation, either forcefully or threatening the rulers with the same massity of opposition (for example, during the period 1980-1981 there was a poem like this: "Is there a standing, Gierek pays, Because he's scared..”, an interesting aspect of Solidarity's strike action, however, was that they aggravated the shortages of supplies, which were an excuse for further strikes – this revolution was driving itself, increasing a sense of deprivation)11.
For example, the "orange revolution" in Ukraine, the "colour revolutions" in Belarus and Russia began with the slogans "falsification of the elections" preached before the end of the vote. It is besides a form of creating a general social awareness of “deprivation” (the deprivation of something). The latest version of the revolution in Ukraine began by creating a sense of cutting off Ukraine's road to a European "paradise". Of course, the acceleration of specified "peaceful demonstrators", claiming "the law of the general" will consequence in an increase in the social sense of deprivation, unfortunately a revolutionary situation which has reached the second (or third) phase of escalation cannot be overcome without limiting the rights to strikes and gatherings, and not reacting strictly to any act of violation of the law by opposition, which unfortunately must be accompanied by the emergence of a certain number of "mares". Of course, the “international society” opposes with all force specified full justified actions of the authorities (those not belonging to its sphere of influence) but not for “humane” or “lawful” reasons, but to facilitate the installation of your agent in power.
After the creation of "marriagers of the case" (for the time being, only "stopped to explain" or bruised) after the creation of polarization of the society, guaranteeing the opposition of supporters of each organization to rational arguments (which is not difficult, taking into account the inherent resilience of a large part of society [including very many profusely writing "intellectualists"] to any rational argument, and a advanced propensity to submit to emotional "narrations") it is possible to proceed to the next 3rd phase of escalation of the conflict. This phase is already an open revolution, it's an effort of force with power, which now needs to number its supporters again, to think about whether it can take on responsibility for the destiny of the nation, the state and blood, no more innocent and non-peaceful “oppositionists” who suddenly, after the masks fell, passed over into bombers and revolutionaries. And unfortunately – power must besides take on its conscience the blood of decent people, who lacked intellectual abilities to not become pawns in another's game. It's a dense burden, and not all man who's in a government position can handle it. However, the husband of the state must be aware that the blood, which is likely to be shed much more abundantly erstwhile he permits riots into civilian war, will besides be poured out due to him. The state of the "revolutionary boiling" is simply a situation where only little evil can be chosen. That's erstwhile every concession is seen as fear and weakness of power, and consequently as an excuse to escalate demands and escalate force against law enforcement forces, officials and fellow citizens, an increase in revolutionary terror. One, in turn, must alter the religion of law enforcement officers in the government’s ability to keep power. At the same time, expanding aggression, expanding the illegal behaviour of the crowds leads to an increased hazard to the wellness and life of those who effort to control the situation. There is an alternate – either the civilian services will start responding to the revolutionaries' actions adequately to the level of individual danger, which at any phase of the conflict means utilizing sharp ammunition – and, of course, in the event of the fall of the authorities, they will face retaliation from revolutionaries, or they will change the barricade. All of this has been dealt with in Ukraine, where in the western part of the country many officers simply deserted. In Kiev, the last day of the riot, a weapon was utilized by a unit otherwise uniformed than Berkut, in consequence to an assault conducted by a ‘Mandan station’ (a episode separate from the massacre carried out by “unidentified” snipers, Estonian abroad Minister Urmas Paet in an interview with EU abroad Affairs Commissioner Catherine Ashton stated that “unidentified” snipers were acting on behalf of the opposition and the powerholders of “Majdan” [time: 8:15], which the euro-commissioner has not denied; an interesting and broader comment on intercepted talks between EU and US diplomats can be seen here: “Ukraine Crisis – What You’re Not Being Told”(English only), solid amateur analysis of films from Majdan [‘Majdan that they will not show in the messages part 1’ (copy, subtitles PL separately) and "Majdan, which they will not show in the messages part 2" (copy, subtitles PL separately), material with Polish translation] suggests that buildings controlled by opposition, which was the sole beneficiary of the incident) but after all the charge armed with chains and crowbars of miners from the mine Uncle fits into the same logic of revolutionary events. The commander of the ZOMO branch decided to defend the wellness and life of his people at the cost of the wellness and life of advancing revolutionaries. It's a hard choice, but a full understandable choice. At this phase of the revolution, erstwhile serious riots are taking place, with the dead and wounded on both sides, part of the population is filled with fear, people want to appear a center of power that will reconstruct safety on the streets. Sometimes revolutionaries (such as in the western part of Ukraine) play this role. Sometimes – the army takes the initiative – and we have a military coup, sometimes over decades of military dictatorship. At times, legal power can regain control of the situation, but at the price of a drastic (and completely unjustified from a rational point of view) decline in public support.
What is the national stake in this game? In utmost cases, civilian war and thousands killed (e.g. Romania, Syria). In a little bloody variant, erstwhile the authority considers that there is no longer adequate public support and rapidly capitulates against revolutionaries – overthrow of the authorities and sometimes the dissolution of the state ("new" Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the secession of Crimea). erstwhile power has the advantage over demonstrators, social rebellion can be pacified very rapidly and very violently, just as in the square Tian’anmen. In the event that public support for both parties is leveled – the way to control the revolutionary situation (not yet – "peaceful demonstrations") is simply a state of emergency and a tiny number of casualties (wartime in the Polish People's Republic) – this script was besides possible in Ukraine, president Yanukovych had 3 months of time for a decisive response, with time, as it turned out, did not play in his favor.
The optimal strategy for combating revolutionary moods is strong restoration of order within the existing legal order, as is the case in Belarus and Russia each time, without looking at any “international” cry of “lawful” outrage. Authorities must be combined with a very intensive information-propagand run in which citizens will be presented the origin of the conflict, the justification for the impossibility of carrying out demonstration posts (under nonsubjective physical constraints and/or attempts to circumvent the democratic procedure) and the control of the opposition by the “international society” will be exposed.. This component of the “controvolution” action did not happen in Ukraine at all, which may prove the attitude of the authorities to the citizen – be inept.
Returning to the “international” cry of outrage in the media — in matters of order and interior security, a sovereign nation does not request advice, and allowing “international” mediation in abroad money and abroad media to cease to be a sovereign nation. The peaceful surrender of power to specified abroad marionets should be classified not as a "compromise with opposition" but as a "compromise with opposition" treason or adoption of a dictatorship of a abroad state/foreign global organisation. Rejecting a abroad dictatorship unfortunately is not always possible (video footnote 1). In the absence of its own possible and military alliances guaranteeing safety in the event of the intervention of that country or global organisation, specified a compromise may unfortunately be a sad necessity, and an alternate to it, to divide Serbia's destiny with NATO bombs.
The consequences of the triumph of the “colour revolution”
After the triumph of the revolution, the situation varies fundamentally depending on the proportion in which society has been broken up and antagonised. The perfect situation from the point of view of the “international” leadership of the revolution is the division of society into about 2 equal parts. This condition guarantees that the fresh government will be weak – and even more susceptible to external pressures, which means that in economical exploitation and/or plundering of means of production and natural resources will be possible much further (see e.g. “Privatization in Polish”). In the case of Ukraine, there are additional factors. The fresh government was established in violation of the law, was not recognized by Ukraine's most crucial trading partner, the Russian Federation, to frictions on the line of the organization of the Regions – the opposition "about Maidan" was joined by cultural friction, crowned by the Secession of Crimean Autonomy. In addition, the state Treasury is empty, the fresh puppet government set up for the money of the “international society” will gotta beg for money and accept any conditions, especially given that, by planting its own puppets in Kiev, the “free world” cut Ukraine off from the aid already granted by the Russian Federation (in the form of credit and understated oil and gas prices) – is now the only creditor. The conditions for granting aid will so most likely be worse than the standard – even faster will be the sale of the remaining national property and will be carried out on a more thievery basis (if a higher phase of theft can be achieved in Ukraine), there will be an even greater pauperisation of the population than in the case of the standard shock therapy known from Poland, or its more drastic version known from Russia (if Ukrainian citizens can experience even greater poorness without rebelling against “international benefactors” and their local footholds – and not going, region after voivodship, in the footsteps of Crimea).
From the point of view of the “international” community, the weak government has 1 more crucial advantage – it realises that its days are numbered and will effort to compression out as much as possible – so it will extremely susceptible to corruption and highly small interest in the welfare of the state. It will then be replaced by the next, yet to be utilized politically – and so on, until the completion of the “full democracy” and the slowest of the “free markets”, i.e. the removal of the “liberated” nation from all the interesting “international” society of national property.
Poland as a country affected, delayed due to martial law, the triumph of the “colored revolution” is somewhat different due to the fact that the revolutionary government did not have an organized group of opponents in society. In 1989, almost half of Poles supported candidates about the “seedhood” of “solidarity”, the remainder waited passively for the course of events. The revolutionaries of solidarity, of course, did not think about the protection of Polish assets and Polish national interests, any of them, detached from behind the device for the “great policy” believed that if the full production property of the Polish nation, developed by respective generations of employees of the Polish People's Republic of Poland, was given to “international” investors for a proverbial gold (see e.g. “Privatization in Polish” and Wild sale of remnants of Polish national property), then a Polish individual will abruptly start to flow into luxury available to German or French workers. Next to these naïve people, however, were people who knew precisely where and why they led Polish, completely confused and stupid people.
Are Polish revolutionary sympathies truly Polish and pro-Polish?
On whose side are the sympathy of all without exception the “main media of the IIIrd Republic” do not request to be reminded of anyone. Of course, a pushy, omnipresent and unilateral media message is not Polish revolutionary sympathy. These sympathies have their origin in a somewhat deeper layer of collective awareness of the Polish people. An astonishing number of Poles support all revolution against all government presented in the media as a “regime”. Especially easy erstwhile the adjective “communist” can be attached to the noun, or, even better, “pro-Russian” or “controlled by Moscow”. It is the effect of training society, producing Paul’s reflexes, emotional, unreasonable reactions to circumstantial adjectives, and transferring reactions associated with those adjectives to the nouns to which they are attached. The majority of Poles were not acquainted with the conclusion of the "Jagiellońska" policy (which was, in fact, a pope's policy of subjecting their control to the lands inhabited by the Orthodox people), the German concept of "Mitteleuropa" or concepts of Giedroycia. Of the fewer who know these concepts, a tiny fistful besides know the actual script of global gameplay (written for the public in Brzeziński’s “Global Chessboard”), according to which the Polish marionettes of the US and the EU-German do not fit in – the spread of “freedom”, “democracy” or “human rights” in the “post-Soviet area”, only in the systematic siege of Russia by NATO and the fight of the US for oil deposits (Iran, Iraq, Venezuela) and the routes (even potential) of its transmission (Afghanistan, Georgia) within the framework of securing the world's dominance of “the actual rulers of the United States”. The US is constantly rolling with Russia and any economical or political disorder (especially – trying to implement an economical strategy alternate to US-forced global capitalism) countries circumstantial asymmetric war (see W. Madsen, “World War III has already begun ...”). The support of the Polish society for these projects is induced by the usage of old and primitive sociotechnology – threatening with “Soviet imperialism” “resurgent in Putinian Russia”. Where certain decisions and attitudes are forced by mention to emotion alternatively than rationality and a profit and failure account, it is apparent that society is not regarded as sovereign but a fool to be manipulated. In addition, there is simply a suspicion that the profit and failure account could lead to decisions and completely different actions. Given that the escalation of aggression by “the ruling group of the III Republic of Poland” (luckily, in the absence of real possibilities – mainly rhetorical) towards Russia is detrimental to the Polish economy, due to the fact that it threatens to worsen the conditions for supplying Poland with natural materials and limiting access to the immense and rapidly increasing Russian Federation market, and these losses cannot be compensated in any way by current “soccers” (or alternatively – owners) of the III Republic, while the political benefits of engagement on the current side are highly questionable, the question should be raised, whether Poles are allowed to extend this “managing group” (and its powerholders) the anticipation of exercising power on Polish soil?
Given scale of demolition of the Polish economy and demography, the degree of the failure of sovereignty that Poland was absorbed by the “free world” – and the scale of further planned dismantling of Polish statehood it is more crucial to ask whether the engagement of the “power group” in the construction of the single-polar planet in Poland is in fact not more akin to maintaining the shackles imposed on the Polish nation, than “the safety of Polish sovereignty”. possibly we should begin to wonder, rather perversely, whether the strengthening of Russia could not be utilized by the Polish people to restrict somewhat, the current absolute dominance in Poland of the “international society” and its people? Maybe. greater sovereignty It can be achieved by spreading between 2 blocks and forcing them to bid for influences in Poland alternatively of allowing the full dominance of 1 of the centers? possibly we should start looking for an alternate to the group holding power in III Poland – a group that so beautifully exposed to Polish society Your Unity on the occasion of the “international” coup in Ukraine (alright all, on a regular basis fighting “for death and life” among the “political groups of the 3rd Republic” began to talk with 1 voice)?
This text should be viewed as a warning, as a call for reflection on whether Poles are allowed to let the exchange of current authorities to take place on the way of another "colour revolution", which is possibly already being prepared. According to the political thought of the Polish national camp (National League), the Polish nation can only regain control of its own destiny on a democratic path, rebuilding, practically from scratch, its national self-awareness. Social rebellion without national awareness and national goals will be pacified by force or socio-technical means (e.g. through the theatrical “elite exchange” under “Polish Maidan”) is not and will not be able to bring about genuine changes. A social rebellion rooted in a national thought can find its outlet not in the “marsques”, not in demonstrations and riots, but in political activation, self-organization, “founding work” and, as a result, at the urn, completely removing the “elity” installed there from political life.
Submissions
| 1 | The sovereignty of a nation is defined here as
In practice, it is not possible to accomplish full sovereignty vis-à-vis external actors, due to economical links – e.g. dependence on export markets and natural material suppliers – and military threats (e.g. NATO's "peaceful intervention" as in Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and many another countries). The intent of the nation's policy must be in specified a situation specified a targeted economical improvement as to be as least dependent on the trading partners who stay with us in a strategical political conflict (such as Germany on the land regained and – for centuries – Polish independency in general) and include military alliances with partners capable of opposing the most aggressive states and blocs, while having economical and geostrategic interests with us. Whether we can accomplish greater sovereignty and greater prosperity of the nation by being a vassal banana republic of the United States, by selling out the Polish national assets to the “international capital”, by being absorbed economically and administratively by Germany as part of “membership in the European Union”, by attacking various states within NATO, or by holding Polish assets in Polish hands, Taking back what was robbed of us and entering a defence alliance with Russia to avoid the retaliation of the “international” community, defending the “democracy and free market” with NATO bombs? Here is simply a question that all Pole should ask himself all day – and all day effort to answer it, according to the current state of his knowledge. |
| 2 | As regards the Ukrainian State, in the form in which it existed from 1991 to 2014, the word ‘nation’ does not apply, due to the multiethnicity which has resulted, for example, in the secession of the Crimean Authority and the centrifugal movements of the Russian population in east Ukraine. In order to apply the line of reasoning contained in this text to Ukraine, it should be remembered that the word "nation" should be replaced each time by the word "citizens" or "community". |
| 3 | Respect for the European Union for democracy is, of course, contrary to authoritative rhetoric. 1 of the most blatant examples was France's signing of the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people expressed in the referendum. "Democracy defence" is just a pretext for military interference, economical force and interference in the interior policies of different countries, including through paid "democratic opposition". |
| 4 | Za: Centre for investigation on Globalization, American Conquest by Subversion: Victoria Nuland’s Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion to “Subvert Ukraine” |
| 5 | Gene Sharp's book “From dictatorship to democracy. Roads to Freedom.” in pdf format can be downloaded at this address: foundationwip.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/od-dictature_a.pdf |
| 6 | Grzegorz Lewicki- "The subject of fear as a key to knowing the methods of action of velvet revolutionaries", "Pressje. Teka 9th Jagiellonian Club", 2007. |
| 7 | Wojciech Jaruzelski, "Under the Electric", Comandor, Warsaw 2005, p. 68 |
| 8 | V. Avoutskii- „Axamic Revolutions”, Issues of Dialogue, 2009, p. 50 |
| 8a | V. Avoutskii- “Axamine Revolutions”, pp. 41-42 |
| 8b | V. Avoutskii- “Axamine Revolutions”, pp. 79-81 |
| 9 | Jarosław Kaczyński in an interview with Teresa Toranska published in her book “We” (T. Toranska, “We”, Wyd. Przedświąt, 1994) describes how he assessed the political situation in the turn of 1980 – 1981: ‘(...) I made a gag at the time that if I wasn't even Moscow's lawyer and had to regulation here, I'd have been "Solidarity" somehow, due to the fact that I couldn't regulation with it.. due to the fact that this monstrous movement, due to its character and construction, was not suitable for democracy. It was based on the structure of the company, and in fact expressed political ambitions, which is simply a classical feature of communism, and was by its very premise, in its intentions an all-embracing movement, that is to say, poorly tolerating any pluralism. I assure you, if the "Solidarity" of 1989 had the strength of 1981, no democratic mechanics in Poland would have been built. ... In the book “Time for Change” (M. Bichniewicz, P. Rudnicki, “Time for Change”, Editions of Meetings, Warsaw 1995) Jarosław Kaczyński besides states: “Solidarity” was nothing but an institutionalized social revolt in the trade union”. |
| 10 | Prof. Wacław Wilczyński, open letter to advisors and experts “Solidarity”, weekly “Politics”, dated 11 July 1981: “At the Bydgoszcz gathering with the recently appointed president of the State Cen Commission, prof. Habilitated Doctor Sigismund Krasiński on 23 June 1981, 1 of you stated, at the applause of the room, that “Solidarity” would not pay back or a buck from wage increases obtained after August 1980. This means that you do not agree to any increase in food prices without full compensation on a global scale. It is theoretically possible to interpret your position differently. One of the alternatives that is to be discarded immediately in practice would consequence from the possible negation by you – as false – of the size of the shortage the national economy faces. This yearly deficit is estimated to be around 800 to 1000 billion PLN. This means that daily national economy deficit reaches PLN 3 billion. I think it's apparent to everyone that to cover this shortage, we request additional production of specified value, or procedures combining the increase of production with a certain simplification in purchasing power of cash resources. 1 of these ways – which is sad in the short term, but very important, as a origin for rationalising the economy in conjunction with the improvement – namely the price increase for balancing the monetary balance of income and public expenditure – you reject. another measures essential to get additional production for the country and export are indirectly opposed by not allowing the thought of returning to work on Saturdays, and by providing support for economical improvement with a series of impossible to meet requests. How can we reconcile this position with your knowledge, intelligence and education, with a sense of work for our reputation in the world? You may think that the costs of economical stabilisation (the acquisition of additional resources to balance the marketplace and to cover obligations towards abroad) should be borne by individual another than our society, than our people. If that were true, I would ask for a sponsor. For me, at least it is clear that in pain of mistakes and even crimes against the national economy, committed especially by the last management squad before August – There's no usage looking for individual to do anything for us or pay for us.. You are not seen in the first ranks of the conflict for improvement of the economical system, which creates an chance to reintegrate people around the problems of rational management. Instead, you would like to negociate at the highest level, making economical demands hard to accept, trying to pass all work on to the state for everything that happens present in the country. However, it is time to discover the cards. For you, it is not a “relief” for loss, confusion or under-training. These words are addressed to you by a man repeatedly criticized for revisionism, for promoting a marketplace mechanism, a man whom no 1 can claim to be dogmatic.” |
| 11 | See, for example, Jan Bashkiewicz- "Freedom, equality, property: bourgeois revolutions, Warsaw 1981", p. 57-60 or Krzysztof Kozłowski- "Tulipan revolution in Kyrgyzstan", Warsaw 2009, p. 47-49. |
