It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED:Who is Organising these Spontaneous Popular Uprisings ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Yeah, off topic, but I left at a perfect time...22 years old, Just start my life, economically, politically, socially, everythingly in a different world...

On topic, I tried and worked hard to move the masses from 16 to 22 as an activist...All I can say is that if Americans could get together like all the different groups John Bull 1 has drawn our attention to, we could probably change the world, not just the USA....but were breed down dumb and stupid, worse then cattle.

EDIT: If you found this posting offensive I apologize. I only mean the US Media and School systems which I was born in and lived under for 22 years makes people not able to have nonviolent revolutions that change governments like the ones John Bull 1 is talking about



[edit on 28-2-2005 by 00PS]




posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I wouldn't say we're bred dumb, we're just thrown into the rat race, and (probably by design) we're saturated with so many distractions by the time most slow down and start to look outside their own little world of work, family, TV, and whatever hobbies they take interest in, maybe they see a bit more clearly how the government operates and start to think that it's wrong and should be stopped, then it's time to go to work again or the bills don't get paid, and the kids don't eat. The cycle continues.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Orginizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and it's related programs organize and fund people who want to change the government and they were involved in the Venzuela uprisings and the Ukraine elections.

There were also US publicity firms involved in the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine.

What Are We Up to – in Ukraine - by Pat Buchanan.pdf

U.S. PR Firm Claims Involvement in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution


[edit on 28-2-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Question:
Would those of you that have responded to this topic prefer that change come through violence or by peaceful means?

If peaceful, then those groups that advocate and, in a sense, sponsor change are doing something wrong?

In the case of Lebanon and what has and is transpiring, I would tend to perceive it as that the people in that region, containing Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, are simply just plain growing weary of the continued bloodshed. There have been those within the Lebanese society that have been advocating the departure of Syria for years. As such, these Lebanon groups advocating Syria's withdrawal, seeing that Palestine and Israel seemed to seriously be trying to end the 'cycle of violence' by again instituting a truce/ceasefire, and seeing the assassination of Hirari, may have simply saw this as the critical moment in time to step forth, in mass.

Why can't it simply be that the people have unitied behind a common purpose and are actively seeking that change? Why does suspicion necessitate that it has to be that 'someone' or some political motivated group(s) or some secret underground intelligence network that is 'organizing' these civil uprisings? Do the people, united behind and for a common purpose, not have the instinct of will nor the desire to make change(s) for themselves, enacted by themselves? Personally, even if their was a hidden political motivated "someone" behind what is taking place in Lebanon, it is happening because the people are willing to stand untied behind what they are seeking: change. A 'someone' is useless if the people are not willing to stand united behind a cause or purpose.

I simply see another country seeking to be free from the bonds of an oppressor, be it Syria or the US or whomever. Maybe this will further fuel the Palestinian and Israel peace efforts? I certainly hope so. I think it is time that the people in that region stood up against the decades of ceaseless violence. Even the body itself grows weary after a time. I applaud those Lebanese that are taking and making their stand for that change.





seekerof

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
John Bull - Are you saying there is nothing beyond orchestration and manipulation? ...That people can never be free?

You point to the media - but ignore the internet. Why? True, the media is almost totally controlled, bu the net is still 'free,' more or less...

Agreed, the Middle East is being manipulated. The power brokers apparently gave up on the Northern Hemisphere cuz South America broke free. Everyone thought the FTAA was a done deal. Now it's pretty much dead. CAFTA too. So they're falling back to a super-sized NAFTA here and looking for chump change in the Middle East. ...but shiite happens John, it always does.

Not everything can be controlled, and nothing can be controlled absolutely. Think chaos theory. ...Do you really not see any hope?


.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   


Most revolutionaries are middle class/educated students overthrowing their heirachial superiors only to replace them with empty promises.


Yes most uprisings starts with the middle class that fuel the educated and the youth, because they are the ones that wants change from old believes.

But looking over all in the middle east, it seems that changes have more likely been forced and tamper with by outside forces.

Sometimes it can be good, if the people are willing to accept change, but if they are not only chaos and destabilization will come from it.

That all of them are models of democracy after government change is not true they are variations of Democratic views intertwined with their own countries values and in some other instances only worst governments will take hold.

Even democratic countries need to be shaken once in a while to remind the leaders as who is really in charge.


Changes will come to any nation be by outside forces or by the acts of their own people but sooner or later it will happen.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


Most revolutionaries are middle class/educated students overthrowing their heirachial superiors only to replace them with empty promises.

Yes most uprisings starts with the middle class that fuel the educated and the youth, because they are the ones that wants change from old believes.


Not trying to offend or seems as though I am seeking conflict, but I would beg to differ with both above assertions.

Many upon many historical civil uprising and revolutions were not instructed, started or instigated by the middle class. Was the Peasants Revolt of the Middle Ages started by the middle class? How about the other civil uprisings and revolts of that time period? Even though the intelligentsia of the numbered Russian Revolution's may have been closely associated with the middle class, a revolt, uprising, or revolution was by the common people/populace, the serfs, the peasants, the poor, the oppressed, the working lower class, etc.

Though the above two quoted assertions are not entirely wrong, they are not absolutes.






seekerof

[edit on 1-3-2005 by John bull 1]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Excused me Seekerof but we are talking about modern war here in the last one hundred years, middle age is another story, and by the way I did took politics and government in college is just that I am a littler bit rusty on the subject. After all is been 25 years since college for me.


I am after all a spanish teacher



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
*pats you on the back for being a Spanish teacher*

Again, Marg, you can nullify the Middle Ages as you wish, but what you and whomever you quoted asserted is still not an absolute, even in the "most" case(s), as applied by the initial post you quoted.





seekerof



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I think its a little more complicated than giving the US administration all the credit. These peaceful revolutions are not completely new. I recall very clearly the fall of the dictatorship in Portugal in the 70s, with the protesters putting flowers in the soldiers' gun barrels. As I recall, CNN was nowhere to be found, and I've never heard any suggestion that the US was behind any of it.

I think several ingrediants are needed: First, a well organized group or groups, often students, but also ordinary people who are just plain fed up. Secondly, a government that just isn't ruthless enough to stamp it out. I hate to put it that way, but there would be the difference between the Ukraine and China. Thirdly, the country needs to be reasonably prosperous - not affluent, but the people well enough fed, clothed and housed that they have a solid support base.

Interesting post, though. Could the US administration be behind these movements? In the end, I think not. The administration might want to be, and in some cases try to be, but I just don't think they could be that influential; there has to be a broad base of popular support already there. It can't be manufactured. Also, of course, it would be a very risky endeavour, as being found out would even be counterproductive.

And you need to explain the failure (evidently) to turn the corner in Iran. A combination of ruthless suppression and lack of media?



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
I think its a little more complicated than giving the US administration all the credit.

Could the US administration be behind these movements? In the end, I think not. The administration might want to be, and in some cases try to be, but I just don't think they could be that influential; there has to be a broad base of popular support already there. It can't be manufactured. Also, of course, it would be a very risky endeavour, as being found out would even be counterproductive.





Hmm. "Social engineering" is a legitimate study - and not unpopular. ...Uprisings CAN be manufactured, and usually are.

Here's a bit of something I wrote a while ago.

U.S. Aid Used to Topple Governments


The US government quietly spends millions of dollars supporting anti-Castro dissidents and seeking to topple governments in other countries. The money is distributed through the U.S.-financed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID. Hundreds of thousands in cash go directly to individuals. NED is alleged to have supported groups opposed to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.




story.news.yahoo.co m


The U.S. government has been quietly sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to activists seeking to undermine President Fidel Castro's one-party state, according to documents and interviews.

The cash assistance is being channeled through the U.S.-financed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and pays more than two dozen freelance writers for a Miami-based Web site that posts articles critical of the Cuban government. ...The cash also supports opposition figures, human-rights activists, and political prisoners and their families...

The cash payments comprise only a small part of President Bush's intensified campaign to squeeze the Castro regime through the tightening of trade sanctions and increased material support for opposition activists. Yet even some supporters of Bush's approach say that providing cash to dissidents gives ammunition to Cuban officials who denounce the opposition as "mercenaries" for the U.S.

Christopher Sabatini, NED's director for Latin America and the Caribbean, argued the payouts to Cubans reflect the organization's support for democracy in many nations.

Since 2000, the NED has allocated about $4.9 million to its Cuba program, financing about a dozen groups annually. ...Sabatini said about 20 percent of the NED's assistance to Cuba reaches the island in cash, primarily to support the work, training and travel of activists. The NED's Cuba budget is scheduled to double in the next fiscal year to about $2 million.

Two of the primary Cuba-related groups handling the NED's cash payments are CubaNet, a Florida-based Web site that publishes the work of freelancers, and the Center for a Free Cuba, a Washington group led by anti-Castro activist Frank Calzon.

The two groups also receive USAID funding. Calzon's organization has taken in more than $5 million in recent years and CubaNet more than $1.3 million, according to USAID figures.

...


NED already is embroiled in a dispute over its alleged support for groups opposed to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a fiery populist increasingly at odds with the United States. During the run-up to last year's presidential recall referendum in Venezuela, Chavez charged that NED-financed groups were conspiring with the Bush administration to defeat him.





This should come as no surprise to anyone. Still, it is illuminating to have some names and figures released.

Odd that this administration finds it essential to spend tax dollars to topple other governments while Americans who can't afford healthcare go bankrupt, and American children go hungry.



.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
I wouldn't say we're bred dumb, we're just thrown into the rat race, and (probably by design) we're saturated with so many distractions by the time most slow down and start to look outside their own little world of work, family, TV, and whatever hobbies they take interest in ...


It's interesting that you mention that because i believe that is exactly what is happening in China, at least the coastal areas.

The new generation of chinese intellectuals and students have, for better or for worse, come a long way from Tiannamen Square.

One couple i know well from Shanghai have recently brought a small hatchback car and a house. They are both middle income and are owing the bank mortgages on both purchases.

I doubt very much that they would value elections above stability, paying off their mortgages, setting up for marriage....

Perhaps getting thrown into the "ratrace" is the perfect means for a stable government?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by marg6043


Most revolutionaries are middle class/educated students overthrowing their heirachial superiors only to replace them with empty promises.

Yes most uprisings starts with the middle class that fuel the educated and the youth, because they are the ones that wants change from old believes.


Not trying to offend or seems as though I am seeking conflict, but I would beg to differ with both above assertions.


From Orwell's 1984. Specifically the book within a book called THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM Which although part of a work of fiction is more like an essay by Orwell inserted into the book. It make interesting reading.


Ignorance is Strength.

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibnum, however far it is pushed one way or the other.................................The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.




[edit on 1-3-2005 by John bull 1]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Interesting topic John Bull. Allow me to approach it from another angle.
Isn't the US, as the worlds only remaining superpower, oblgated to support, initiate, and spark popular uprsings to extend the same values which have made us so strong? More to the point just as a christian is required to spread the gospel, in point of fact, just as any christian with true faith can not help but spread the gospel due to his faith, isn't America, if it has any faith in the principles to which it adheres, expected to foster the spread of those priciples?

In other words if the US did not foster, support, and fund such uprisings would it not be proof that those in power do not beleve in those principals, and by doing so does it not prove that our leaders do in fact support them?

As a christian I have no choice but to spread the gospel, not becuase my religon requires me to, but because my love for humanity motivates me to. I do so becuase I want everyone to receive the gift of salvation which has been given to me. Likewise the US government has no choice but to help spread democracy and freedom, because we recognise and believe n the principals on which our country was founded and understand that these principals are not just apllicable and beneficial to us, but to all mankind.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
The only problem with that is that it is Theo and Ethnocentric. Other cultures have other religions and to push Christiannity on them can be considered Facist by some. In the same way, the USA spreading its American values and form of government upon other peoples in other societys can be seen as Facist too.

I understand exactly where you are coming from, my father an ELCA Lutheran Pastor and Bishop (retired) my whole life before I cam here was Christian and about spreading the word of God. But after living in another society and culture I see people who have great morals and values and refuse to believe the will burn in hell because they have not accepted Jesus as their Saviour.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Question:
Would those of you that have responded to this topic prefer that change come through violence or by peaceful means?

If peaceful, then those groups that advocate and, in a sense, sponsor change are doing something wrong? ..............................

seekerof


I would prefer that change came through the natural evolution of a nations own people rather than from outside forces. I simply don't see that you can have an objective view of this at all Seeker.

a) You are a patriotic American and you are naturally inclined to perceive any change in a positive light, however it is brought about, as long as it puts in place a new regime that facilitates the ambitions of your own nation. That is a reasonable philosophy but not one that every non-American is going to sign up to. This inclination naturally alienates the rest of the world and whether that furthers the long term interests of the American people is a totally different question.

b) You are blinded by dogma. You believe in the myth of democracy. No nation in the world today is truly democratic. We are ruled by a Political Class. There are different qualifications needed to join the political classes in different nations. Some are meritocratic but most worrying of all the single super power has a qualification for this political class as Money

And this you call democracy ? And this you want to export to other countries ?

Your basic premise, which I do respect simply because it's one so widely held is that other political systems don't line the pockets of the political classes and therefore they must be changed.

If you are not a member of this wealthy political class then you are bribed with the illusion that you may be with something called the American Dream and a subserviant policy called trickle down economics which basically declares that letting wealthy people have even more money is a good thing because afterall they are going to have to employ someone to clean their pool or wash their dishes.

That my friend is trickle down economics.

But it's all going to end soon because just as the printing press saw the end of a theocratic Europe, Newspapers and pamphlets saw the end of absolute monarchies, and Television heralded in the political classes, so the Internet will kill them off and invest more power in us and then perhaps we really can have something close to democracy.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by John bull 1]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   
However oops the US's sytem of government is culturally neutral, that is to say the democratic system of government works with all forms of culture. It is at its most basc a principle of self determination. The abillity of a people to decide for themselves what values they wish to accept. Just as the Iraqi's are not installing a US style representative republic, but rather are creating a form of government which is acceptable to them, so should all peoples have the right to decide for themselves what form of rule they will live under. In a situation such as lebanon, where that right has been denied them by a foreign peoples, is it not the US's duty, to support them in thier quest for self determination?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
John isn't captalism inherently meritocratic?
That is to say is there any way of attaining vast sums of capital without creating something of value in return?
There have always been both rich and poor and ther always will be. Economic equality will never be reached, nor will political equality. The sons of the rich, the sons of senators, will always have more advantages than the sons of carpenters, or garbage men. Ths will not ever change. However in a democratic society, the leaders must, even if they have no desire to actually represent the people, uphold the illusion that they do so. The illusion becomes realty de to thier need to protect the illusion. Where those leaders to act in such a manner as to break the illusion, they would incur the wrath of those to whom the illusion is dear, as such by protecting the illusion, they make it into reality.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
However oops the US's sytem of government is culturally neutral, that is to say the democratic system of government works with all forms of culture. It is at its most basc a principle of self determination. The abillity of a people to decide for themselves what values they wish to accept. Just as the Iraqi's are not installing a US style representative republic, but rather are creating a form of government which is acceptable to them, so should all peoples have the right to decide for themselves what form of rule they will live under. In a situation such as lebanon, where that right has been denied them by a foreign peoples, is it not the US's duty, to support them in thier quest for self determination?


The U.S.'s role in the international community is to be responsibile to itself and to help other nations. There are a great many other ways the the U.S. could have helped Iraq become a better country. Illegal Invasion, Occupation, Destruction and Death are not good ways of helping a people become self-determinate. You'll only make them self-deterimined to attack and reject you and your democratic form of law.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS


The U.S.'s role in the international community is to be responsibile to itself and to help other nations. There are a great many other ways the the U.S. could have helped Iraq become a better country. Illegal Invasion, Occupation, Destruction and Death are not good ways of helping a people become self-determinate. You'll only make them self-deterimined to attack and reject you and your democratic form of law.


And yet oops, despite your comments and views on the (il)legality of the liberation of Iraq, despte your belief that occupation is not a legitimate way to spread self determinaton, that is exactly the result we are seeing in Iraq. Though a percentage of the population is in armed resistance to the coalition led forces, a far far greater percentage is taking the oppurtunity given them by the US to be self determined. While you may feel that the actions of the US in Iraq were neither proper nor just, the result is.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join