Toppling Statues Is a Classic Color Revolution Tactic to Rewrite Historical Truth

The spree of statue-toppling crimes across America isn’t a brave act of anti-racism meant to remove offensive monuments from the public domain, but a classic Color Revolution tactic intended to delegitimize the positive contribution of key figures to history by exploiting dark aspects of their past, prior to which historical truth can be rewritten in accordance with the “revolutionaries'” ideology so as to more effectively shape the new future that they’re striving to build if their seizure of the state is successful.

***

Statue Struggle

The HybridWar of Terror on America is taking yet another startling turn as insurgents attempt to topple statues across the country that were erected to slave owners like George Washington. They’re portraying this as a brave act of anti-racism that’s meant to remove offensive monuments from the public domain, but their actions are actually a classic Color Revolution tactic intended to delegitimize the positive contribution of key figures to history by exploiting dark aspects of their past. To be absolutely clear, owning slaves is wrong no matter how much some people attempt to “relatively normalize” it in an historical and/or cultural context everywhere in the world that this happened (remembering that slavery predates the US’ creation by millennia), but these statues weren’t built to honor the reprehensible decision that many of the US’ Founding Fathers made. Rather, they’re monuments to the political cause that they represented, and were erected to remind Americans of the noble ideals upon which their country was founded even if they were implemented with racist double standards for almost the first century of its establishment.

The Confederacy Question

The situation is somewhat different with Confederate monuments since the seceding states literally fought for the “right” to continue owning slaves. That historical motivation should be universally condemned, but their fight for states’ rights shouldn’t be. The states’ rights struggle shouldn’t ever be an excuse for defending slavery like the Confederacy attempted to do, but proverbially speaking, one shouldn’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater” since there’s nothing worthy of universal condemnation in principle over an administrative region of any country asking for more autonomy or defending their own, especially if such rights are enshrined in the country’s constitution. Russia and China, for instance, have their own autonomous regions, proving that there’s nothing wrong with this in principle. In addition, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the North allowed Confederate monuments to be erected as part of the reconciliation process with the South. The federal government didn’t want to glorify slavery, it wanted to keep the country under the illusion that the states’ constitutional rights still mattered despite the legally contentious creep of federal control over the country since the end of the Civil War.

Hitler/Hirohito vs. Lenin/Stalin

Another relevant question to discuss in this context is the moral right for any country to erect monuments to Hitler, Hirohito, Lenin, and Stalin, which, like with the US’ Founding Fathers and the Confederacy, boils down to their historical contributions. Hitler’s name is forever associated with the infamy of Nazi Germany’s genocide of tens of millions of people in Europe while Hirohito’s is linked to the same in regards to the equally numerous victims of Imperial Japan’s genocide in Asia. Lenin and Stalin, meanwhile, are associated with the creation of the first communist state in history and victory in World War II despite also being responsible for their own share of killings against innocent people. Nevertheless, the morality of erecting statues to the latter two is much more ambiguous than doing so for the first pair, whose historical “contributions” are forever connected with the infamous crimes against humanity that occurred under their leadership. The US’ Founding Fathers, however, are praised everywhere across the world with the exception of some in the UK for being the first successful anti-colonial struggle in history, though the Confederacy’s legacy is of course much more contentious.

Learning Lessons

The argument can be made by defenders of any statue that it’s important to keep them around in order to remind everyone of hard-learned historical lessons, both good and bad. That’s a valid point, but once again, it all comes down to what each individual figure is most closely associated with and whether the majority of the population (be it local, state/regional, and nationwide) accepts that interpretation. This blurs the lines of morality since different people of varying demographics and places predictably won’t have the same views towards each monument, and such views might also change as a result of soft power efforts by state or non-state actors over the years. It’s therefore impossible to craft a consistent policy towards this issue other than to recommend that the legitimate authorities (local, state/regional, and federal/central) deal with any controversies over this issue (whether grassroots or manufactured) in accordance with their laws, not by surrendering to an angry mob’s demands, which might of course lead to constitutional questions in every country concerning the rights that each level of government has in relation to one another in this instance.

“Revolutionary” Historical Revisionism

The contextual insight thus far shared in the analysis allows one to better understand the present issue of toppling statues. What’s happening in the US and even a few other countries like the UK to an extent is illegal in the sense that the insurgents aren’t going through their countries’ legal processes to remove the offending statues. All “revolutions” aspire for legitimacy, to which end they oftentimes topple monuments to the existing or prior order to symbolically achieve this. Whether the masses realize it or not, this is done in order to rewrite history in accordance with the “revolutionaries'” ideology so as to more effectively shape the new future that they’re striving to build in the event that their seizure of the state is successful. No value judgement is being attached to this action in and of itself since some instances of it are universally accepted such as toppling monuments to the figures whose historical “contribution” is most closely associated with the founding of apartheid for example, but the strategic soft power purpose of this process should still be recognized by all.

The Leftist-Racist “Revolution” In America

In the American context, the “revolutionaries” are mostly leftist-racists who are exploiting the issue of race in order to advance their leftist ideological goals. As the author explained, “Antifa Wants To Lead African-Americans To Their Slaughter In Order To Spark A Race War“, one that their supporters believe will destabilize the US government to the point that the expected “revolutionary conditions” that follow will facilitate their eventual seizure of power and ultimate replacement of the capitalist system with a far-left (“communist”) one. This Machiavellian modus operandi is why the author also warned that “The Syncretism Of Economic Leftism & Social Fascism Is The World’s Newest Danger” since this model can be replicated all across the world in the aftermath of the world’s uncoordinated containment efforts against COVID-19 (“WorldWarC“), which has made people economically desperate enough to countenance leftist economic solutions while becoming impressionable to the point of falling for social fascist distractions such as blaming “the other” for their plight. Delegitimizing America’s historical foundation of equality will allow them to “legitimize” a leftist-racist future.

The Threat Is Real

What the author just described isn’t hyperbole, but a very real threat that Fox News host Tucker Carslon lucidly explained in his ten-minute monologue late last week about how “There are two version of the law“. The reader is strongly encouraged to listen to what he said even if they dislike the platform on which he shared his views since he made excellent points about the topic of the present analysis. Carlson drew attention to how the “Overton Window” has shifted so far in recent years that it’s no longer seen as unacceptable for political, pop culture, and “activist” figures to openly demand the selective enforcement of the law for people of different ethnic backgrounds, to say nothing of their feverish efforts to craft a separate set of laws for the benefit of those aforementioned groups (partially subsidized by those ethnicities that are ineligible for them and their related socio-economic programs). As the author explained in his piece about how “The Hybrid War Of Terror On America Was Decades In The Making“, this is the direct consequence of the leftist-racists’ “long march through the institutions”, and they’re finally on the brink of completing their years-long campaign.

Saul Alinsky’s Strategy

The latest manifestation of the Hybrid War of Terror on America, the spree of statue toppling incidents, embodies the thirteenth rule of Color Revolution theorist Saul Alinksy’s “Rules For Radicals“, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”. In practice, what’s presently happening is that leftist-racist “revolutionaries” are exploiting the dark aspects of the Founding Fathers and other key historical figures’ slave-owning pasts in order to delegitimize their historical contributions, be they the noble ideals upon which America was founded (despite being implemented with racist double standards for almost the first century of its establishment) or the cause of states’ rights that the Confederacy represented (despite abusing this principle for the evil end of indefinitely perpetuating slavery). These political topics are the “target”, the focus is exclusively (“freeze”) on the individuals that “personalize” these principles, and then the dark aspects of their past such as their history of slave ownership are exploited (“polarize”) in order to delegitimize everything positive that they stood for in their lives so as to facilitate the “revolution’s” future ideological ends.

The Path Forward

Faced with the failure of local, state, and federal officials to intervene in stopping this statue-toppling crime spree (whether because they’ve been infiltrated by leftist-racists via the “long march through the institutions” and/or are reluctant to “escalate” the situation for whatever reason like Trump presently seems to be), patriots can only “fight fire with fire” by utilizing Color Revolution tactics for their own ends along the lines of the model that the author suggested back in 2016 in his piece about how “Color Revolution Technology Isn’t Just Black And White“. The purpose in doing so is to protect statues from mob destruction and ensure that they’re only removed by legal means. Following his “Pragmatic Advice For Peaceful Protests“, participants must remain peaceful and law-abiding at all times, but their self-defensive reaction to violent leftist-racist provocations will eventually compel the security services to intervene. Regardless of the outcome but especially if they take the leftist-racists’ side, then the patriots can peacefully agitate for state and even federal officials to get involved, therefore compelling these otherwise seemingly reluctant levels of government to intervene in restoring law and order.

Concluding Thoughts

The US is indisputably in the throes of “revolution”, one which aims to impose a leftist-racist model upon the population. This goal is being “legitimized” through the recent statue-toppling spree inspired by classic Color Revolution tactics that exploit the dark aspects of historical figures’ pasts in order to delegitimize their positive contributions to the country. The envisioned result of this Hybrid War campaign is to rewrite history in accordance with the “revolutionaries'” ideology so as to more effectively shape the future in the event that they successfully seize power. As such, it’s impossible for anyone to remain “neutral” in this conflict since refusing to take a side (even if silently out of fear that they’ll be violently attacked for being an outspoken patriot) is de-facto siding with the “revolutionaries” against the existing order by consenting to their actions. That doesn’t mean that every patriot needs to take to the streets in peacefully and legally employing Color Revolution tactics for “regime reinforcement” ends in opposition to their opponent’s violent and illegal ones intended to advance “regime change”, but just that everyone must decide which side of the war they’re on.


By Andrew Korybko
Source: One World

(Visited 27 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *