chalky121

"War is mere continuation of policy with other means." – Carl von Clausewitz Color revolutions are defined as civilian uprisings that are covertly funded and orchestrated by private groups motivated by political objectives. The term "Color Revolution" started back in the 1980's as America and the Soviet Union battled out the final years of the Cold War. It is the name given to CIA-led regime change operations developed by RAND Corporation under the banner of democracy' NGOs, and other special interest government groups. Revolution A revolution is an insurgency with plans to overthrow a government and transform its society and government from one form of government to another. Typically, revolutions take the form of organized movements aimed at effecting change, such as economic change, technological change, political change, or social change. What is a Color Revolution? Traditionally a military coup uses direct military intervention to effect regime change, as seen in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A Color Revolution (CR) is a new type of coup strategy that mobilizes anti-government marches and protests in a coordinated effort to contest the electoral legitimacy of a target nation while simultaneously instigating acts of civil disobedience, and leveraging media contacts to propagate favorable coverage that support the agenda. The Chief Characteristic of a Color Revolution are as follows: 1. Engineered contested election scenario 2. Massive mobilized protests 3. Complicit press and propaganda arm to push the narrative

Charlotte Iserbyt (1930-2022) served as the senior policy advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first term of U.S. President Ronald Reagan. In this interview, Iserbyt discusses the how gradual changes brought into the American public education system work to eliminate the influences of a child's parents, and mold the child into a member of the working class in preparation for a socialist-collectivist world of the future. She considers that these changes originated from plans formulated primarily by the Andrew Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Education and Rockefeller General Education Board, and details the psychological methods used to implement and effect the changes. The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America: http://deliberatedumbingdown.com/ddd/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/DDDoA.pdf

Groupthink: n. The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view. The term “groupthink” was first introduced in the November 1971 issue of Psychology Today. Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people make irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the believe that dissent is impossible. Researchers have found that in a situation that can be characterized as groupthink, individuals tend to refrain from expressing doubts and judgments or disagreeing with the consensus. In the interest of making a decision that furthers their group cause, members may also ignore ethical or moral consequences. It may be fueled by a particular agenda—or be due to group members valuing harmony & coherence above critical thought. While it is often invoked at the level of geopolitics or within business organizations, groupthink can also refer to subtler processes of social or ideological conformity, such as participating in bullying or rationalizing a poor decision being made by one's friends. Why can groupthink be dangerous? Even in minor cases, groupthink triggers decisions that aren’t ideal or that ignore critical information. In highly consequential domains—like politics or the military—groupthink can have much worse consequences, leading groups to ignore ethics or morals, prioritize one specific goal while ignoring countless collateral consequences, or, at worst, instigate death and destruction.

Bots can be indistinguishable from legitimate users. These automated programs can be used to scrape users’ personal information without consent, fabricate influence campaigns, covertly push agendas, spread disinformation, and make scams more convincing. Bots appear to be used for political manipulation. They post provocative and divisive political content to incite legitimate Social Media users. Each account looks like a real person at first glance, complete with a profile photo and friends list (likely consisting of other bots). To expand their reach and ensure they’re not just posting to each other’s timelines, the bots join specific Social Media groups where their posts are more likely to be seen and discussed by legitimate users.

"War is the continuation of policy with other means." – Carl von Clausewitz Color revolutions are defined as civilian uprisings that are covertly funded and orchestrated by private groups motivated by political objectives. The term "Color Revolution" started back in the 1980's as America and the Soviet Union battled out the final years of the Cold War. It is the name given to CIA-led regime change operations developed by RAND Corporation under the banner of democracy' NGOs, and other special interest government groups. Revolution A revolution is an insurgency with plans to overthrow a government and transform its society and government from one form of government to another. Typically, revolutions take the form of organized movements aimed at effecting change, such as economic change, technological change, political change, or social change. What is a color Revolution? Traditionally a military coup uses direct military intervention to effect regime change, as seen in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A Color Revolution (CR) is a new type of coup strategy that mobilizes anti-government marches and protests in a coordinated effort to contest the electoral legitimacy of a target nation while simultaneously instigating acts of civil disobedience, and leveraging media contacts to propagate favorable coverage that support the agenda. The Chief Characteristic of a Color Revolution are as follows: 1. Engineered contested election scenario 2. Massive mobilized protests 3. Complicit press and propaganda arm to push the narrative

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331-335; amended 2006, 2007) that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion. George H.W. Bush was the last president to exercise the authority, invoking it during the 1992 riots in LA. It was also invoked amid widespread riots in 1968 around the nation's capital and elsewhere following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. And Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy called upon it to enforce desegregation during the civil rights era over the objections of state governments.

The term "Color Revolution" started back in the 1980's as America and the Soviet Union battled out the final years of the Cold War. It is the the name given to ClA-led regime change operations developed by RAND Corporation, 'democracy' NGO's, and other special interest government groups. Color revolutions are defined as civilian uprisings covertly funded and orchestrated by private groups that label themselves as humanitarian but which are motivated by political objectives. The seven pillars of a Color Revolution: • A semi-autocratic regime • Appearance of unpopular president or incumbent leader • United and organized opposition –insurrectionists, paramilitaries • Effective system to convince the public (well before the election) of voter fraud • Compliant media to push voter fraud narrative • Political opposition organization able to mobilize "thousands to millions in the streets" • Division among military and police

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible. The problematic or premature consensus that is characteristic of groupthink may be fueled by a particular agenda—or it may be due to group members valuing harmony and coherence above critical thought. The Solomon Asch Experiment were a series of experiments conducted by during the 1950s to show how a person's opinions are influenced when in the group environment. Asch found that people were willing to ignore reality and give an incorrect answer in order to conform . Asch found the same results: participants conformed to the majority group in about one-third of all critical trials. Asch found that the presence of a "true partner" (a "real" participant or another actor told to give the correct response to each question) decreased conformity. What causes groupthink? Many factors can cause groupthink, but some of the most important include charismatic leadership, direct and indirect pressure to conform, self-censorship, stress, and a strong group identity. What are groupthink symptoms? Symptoms of groupthink include an unwillingness to question the authority of a group's leader, decisions that are irrational or illogical, highly emotional thinking, and a lack of ability on the part of group members to ask questions. See Also: The Milgram Shock Experiment https://youtu.be/qV9Hq5nSB5Y An experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials.

One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on "obedience" - that they were just following orders from their superiors. Milgram suggested that two things must be in place for a person to enter the agentic state: 1. The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behavior. That is, they are seen as legitimate. 2. The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens. Results from the experiment. Some teachers refused to continue with the shocks early on, despite being urged by the experimenter. This is the type of response Milgram expected as the norm, but those who questioned authority were in the minority. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the teachers were willing to progress to the maximum voltage level. Participants demonstrated a range of negative emotions about continuing. Some pleaded with the learner, asking the actor to answer questions carefully. Others started to laugh nervously and act strangely in diverse ways. Some subjects appeared cold, hopeless, somber, or arrogant. Some thought they had killed the learner. Nevertheless, participants continued to obey, discharging the full shock to learners. One man who wanted to abandon the experiment was told the experiment must continue. Instead of challenging the decision of the experimenter, he proceeded, repeating to himself, "It's got to go on, it's got to go on." In general, more submission was elicited from "teachers" when (1) the authority figure was in close proximity; (2) teachers felt they could pass on responsibility to others; and (3) experiments took place under the auspices of a respected organization. Participants were debriefed after the experiment and showed much relief at finding they had not harmed the student. One cried from emotion when he saw the student alive, and explained that he thought he had killed him. But what was different about those who obeyed and those who rebelled? Milgram divided participants into three categories: 1. Obeyed but justified themselves. Some obedient participants gave up responsibility for their actions, blaming the experimenter. If anything had happened to the learner, they reasoned, it would have been the experimenter�s fault. Others had transferred the blame to the learner: "He was so stupid and stubborn he deserved to be shocked." 2. Obeyed but blamed themselves. Others felt badly about what they had done and were quite harsh on themselves. Members of this group would, perhaps, be more likely to challenge authority if confronted with a similar situation in the future. 3. Rebelled. Finally, rebellious subjects questioned the authority of the experimenter and argued there was a greater ethical imperative calling for the protection of the learner over the needs of the experimenter. Some of these individuals felt they were accountable to a higher authority. Why were those who challenged authority in the minority? So entrenched is obedience it may void personal codes of conduct. Additional Reading: https://nature.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm See Also: The Asch Experiment https://youtu.be/m4q_xVEB_h8 An experiment highlighting the phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible. The problematic or premature consensus that is characteristic of groupthink may be fueled by a particular agenda—or it may be due to group members valuing harmony and coherence above critical thought.

Operation Mockingbird was an operation beginning in the 1950's in which the CIA recruited American journalists to spread propaganda throughout the western media networks. The recruited journalists were put on a payroll and instructed to write fake stories that promoted the views of the intelligence agency. Mockingbird later expanded to include foreign media. Journalists were reportedly blackmailed and threatened into the network. Reports of the operation eventually led to a series of congressional investigations in the 1970's under a committee set up by the US Senate named the 'Church Committee'. The Church Committee investigations looked into government operations and abuses by the CIA, NSA, the FBI and IRS.