1. If a violent protest movement is called a Freedom or Democracy Movement on US mainstream media, that means it is a US backed Regime Change Movement (what leftists mean by Color Revolution).
1'. Another thing to look for, is how the protestors and police are characterized on US MSM. If you are being made to sympathize with the protestors, it is a US backed Regime Change Movement.
1''. If you are being made to fear the "militants," then they are not officially US backed, but might be covertly operating as a US backed counterforce, which must be opposed by officially US backed forces, with other forces being ignored until it can be made to appear that they did something bad.
2. If a protest is ignored by the US MSM, or almost entirely ignored, it possibly is a legitimate locally representative protest.
2.' If counterprotestors or counterforces are ignored, those must be the truly local representative ones, with their antagonists being the US backed Regime Change Movement.
3. It also pays to bear in mind the US relationship with the country in which this is occurring. If the country does not submit in every way to US whims, a protest is likely to represent a US backed movement, but this is a less reliable indicator than #1, at least, it seems like it might be, though offhand I can't think of any examples showing it to be a less reliable indicator.
4. If a separatist group accepts US support for a regime change operation, it is morally entitled to less than nothing because of that reason.* If the regime change is only partly successful, grim will be the rewards. If the regime change is fully successful, the outlook is at best highly uncertain. Separatist movements may or may not recognize and accept this immediately. Who does not
recognize and accept it immediately is the Main Stream Media, and the War Politicians, who will endlessly pine for a return to the old illegal and unethical activities and support to keep the gravy train going, regardless of how much less successful such an operation will be the next time around.
(*To those who say it was my money, yes. But I did not control that. It was against my will, expressed though voting tendencies, protests, and letters. And even if it were with my full assent, that would not grant it "moral entitlements," at least for the part that can't be fixed. My country may be on the hook for cleanup and rebuilding, but not to a particular geopolitical outcome, which should never have been promised, and all such promises are understood as temporal and tentative. In no event is a moral imperative for my country to continue illegal and immoral activities that should never have been started in the first place.)
5. If history or context are ignored, it is because they are damning to the US backed side. If myths and legends, religions, ethnicies, or "Freedom and Democracy" become the context, it must be the US backed side, and for which the history is damning.
1'. Another thing to look for, is how the protestors and police are characterized on US MSM. If you are being made to sympathize with the protestors, it is a US backed Regime Change Movement.
1''. If you are being made to fear the "militants," then they are not officially US backed, but might be covertly operating as a US backed counterforce, which must be opposed by officially US backed forces, with other forces being ignored until it can be made to appear that they did something bad.
2. If a protest is ignored by the US MSM, or almost entirely ignored, it possibly is a legitimate locally representative protest.
2.' If counterprotestors or counterforces are ignored, those must be the truly local representative ones, with their antagonists being the US backed Regime Change Movement.
3. It also pays to bear in mind the US relationship with the country in which this is occurring. If the country does not submit in every way to US whims, a protest is likely to represent a US backed movement, but this is a less reliable indicator than #1, at least, it seems like it might be, though offhand I can't think of any examples showing it to be a less reliable indicator.
4. If a separatist group accepts US support for a regime change operation, it is morally entitled to less than nothing because of that reason.* If the regime change is only partly successful, grim will be the rewards. If the regime change is fully successful, the outlook is at best highly uncertain. Separatist movements may or may not recognize and accept this immediately. Who does not
recognize and accept it immediately is the Main Stream Media, and the War Politicians, who will endlessly pine for a return to the old illegal and unethical activities and support to keep the gravy train going, regardless of how much less successful such an operation will be the next time around.
(*To those who say it was my money, yes. But I did not control that. It was against my will, expressed though voting tendencies, protests, and letters. And even if it were with my full assent, that would not grant it "moral entitlements," at least for the part that can't be fixed. My country may be on the hook for cleanup and rebuilding, but not to a particular geopolitical outcome, which should never have been promised, and all such promises are understood as temporal and tentative. In no event is a moral imperative for my country to continue illegal and immoral activities that should never have been started in the first place.)
5. If history or context are ignored, it is because they are damning to the US backed side. If myths and legends, religions, ethnicies, or "Freedom and Democracy" become the context, it must be the US backed side, and for which the history is damning.
No comments:
Post a Comment