Revolutions are a Psy-Op

Still working on this post

A coup d'état is a violent overthrow of a government, where leaders of the previous administration are killed, jailed, or flee into exile.

A revolution is a violent overthrow of a government, made to appear to have popular support, where leaders of the previous administration are killed, jailed, or flee into exile.

By these definitions, the American war of independence was not a Revolution. No regime was overthrown, and no leaders (who were in England) were killed, jailed, or fled into exile. England was left as it is.

Nor was there a Revolution in England itself. Already an inventor of modern democratic republican principles, it merely took a meeting of Parliament to reform the laws. The Royal family was left unharmed, only the definition of their roles changed -- by true democratic process.

There is a myth that revolution (a new concept) has ever once in history led to anything good. This myth is perpetuated in the movie series Hunger Games, as well as Star Wars, and many other movies. It is one of the of great nasty prevailing myths of our time -- and the source of incredible human misery.

We see it perpetuated and used by the CIA in the Arab 'color revolutions' which are merely CIA backed coups.

Revolutions lead to simply a new, always worse, more totalitarian regime than the previous. This is expressed in George Orwell's Animal Farm.


The first revolution in the above sense, was in France. However, it did not lead to the modern state of France. Read the history of the French Revolution. It lead to the Terror, five years of violence, beheading, persecutions, social disorder, until Napoleon performed his own coup. It was only after the defeat of Napoleon that the modern state of France began to be formed based on democratic principles.

Revolutions are (with the exception of the French one, plotted by Freemasons) a 20th century phenomenon. Every 20th century revolution resulted in tighter central control by the new elite (politicians). And every single one was the result of a plot, by an elite, that coveted power.

USSR
China
N. Korea
Cuba
Vietnam

Communists and Capitalists both incite coups, under the rubric of the word 'revolution.' Both make them appear to be by 'popular demand.'

The new elite become the new aristocracy by other names. And in all the above, further revolution is outlawed and the status quo continues to be termed 'the revolution' in perpetuity. Thus to oppose power is to be "against the revolution" ironically (but deliberately).

The same is true of coups. Revolutions and coups are in fact something called regicide (murder of Kings). And it is denounced in the Bible. There is nothing good or justifiable about revolutions -- yet our media (even our alternative media) continues to promote the idea as the only solution.

Differences between the American War of Independence and the French and 20th century revolutions. The war of independence was not aimed at deposing the King of England from his thrown, or changing the British order. The French, and all 20th century revolutions were in the name of class (usually called working people) and they killed, deposed, or imprisoned their previous leaders. The American War of Independence was not a war of regicide.

The American founding fathers wrote their declaration of independence, laying out the principles upon which they considered it just, and sent it to their King. Nothing like this ever happened in any other revolution.

The British were like the Americans. They kept their king, and did not murder their aristocracy. They rather argued in parliament for change and voted, under the given laws. See https://www.quora.com/How-did-England-become-a-democracy-from-a-monarchy See also Reform Act 1832.

No revolution 'by the rabble' ever ended in more freedom for its people, yet the idea is constantly promoted in media. See Hunger Games. Change comes as higher minded ideas spread, and reaches the people in power. https://www.rt.com/politics/410418-orthodox-patriarch-warns-parish-end/

No coup de tat ever did either.

The Russian Revolution resulted in 70 years of misery for the people of Russia. The change that occurred in 1981 was not a revolution or coup, quite the contrary. It was done from the top-down. In fact there was an unsuccessful coup that would have restored the misery. Vladamir Putin actually resigned form the CIA in protest of that coup, to stand with the legitimate state under Gorbachev, and for his allegiance he was later made president of the reformed and reoriented Russian Federation.

Revolutions are also always 'world revolutions' and 'revolutions' never, in theory end. You forever pledge allegiance in one of these totalitarian states to 'the revolution' as if it is an eternal state. The motivation is to characterize any further dissent as 'counter to the revolution.'

A student of history knows that real positive change comes from the top. See my post The Greats that Shaped History.