Biological Warfare | Revolution

  • Posted March 20, 2014
Preface: I'd like to use this post as an addendum to the Ukraine 101 article. 
So many times we see foreign interventions starting up revolutions. 
Ukraine during 2013, and into 2014 is no exception. There may be a large quantity 
of people who legitimately want change, but ultimately, somebody else is paying 
for it....and they expect a hefty return on their investment, no matter what 
befalls the people.  -Travis

BY: Iliya Boris Englin

So the Russian revolution was planned and paid by hostile foreign powers, for no other purpose than economic colonization. That is what the newly released information shows, quite clearly.

Through the prism of this new insight, I am now seeing familiar, accepted and “boring” aspects of history in a totally new light.

In essence, I don’t believe that there can be such a thing as a revolution – an uprising of the people which succeeds in overthrowing an unpopular regime. I can only think of one event that possibly answers that description in four thousand years of recorded history.

Occasionally, rebels succeed in weakening an unpopular monarch, extracting some concessions or simply dying a more worthy death than their lives otherwise allowed. Very rarely did a rebellion result in a regime change – a coup precipitated by an inadequate response to the uprising or a foreign invasion. History records many events we know as rebellions. This is a populist uprising, possibly against a hostile foreign power – usually out of desperation, with little chance of an actual overthrow. The only likely outcome is a brutal suppression with reprisals – a major negative sum gain.

french | biological warfare revolutionThis is because a rebellion by the genuine population (as opposed to a faction of the ruling class backed by some of the armed forces) has very few chances of success. It’s a very unequal battle because the rebels lack the resources and the organization of the state. Forming such structures on the run is an unlikely recipe for success – the usual rule is that the government destroys the rebels first.

There is a high personal cost for participating in a rebellion. As one’s activities are usually well-known in the parish, the former rebel and his family has to run. Their fate is unenviable – migration to a frontier society, subsistence in a difficult terrain that is difficult to police, or life on the fringe of society as an outlaw or a mercenary.

For that reason most rebellions were little more than desperate riots that managed to form up into a military force capable of surviving a few initial engagements. Once the government forces were marshalled in earnest, the rebellion was doomed.

Such was the case in medieval Europe, where kings were not only entrenched in power, but also had the backing of the church. Most of them were safe from any anger of the common man, fearing only those who had a credible power base, such as relatives and military commanders.

Then came along the Reformation.

All of a sudden each nation in Western Europe had leaders with two mutually exclusive sources of legitimacy – Catholics and Protestants. For the next century the region was riven by brutal civil wars, which resulted in few compromises – most fights between the two confessions were to the death.

russian 1905 | biological warfare revolution

It was the first era when war could be waged by unconventional means. Instead of sending your own army to bleed and freeze in another country, you could support a side in a civil war. That opened vast new possibilities – very little money went a very long way. You only needed to pay a few provocateurs, smuggle arms and throw around a little money – a tiny percentage of what it would cost to keep a regular army yourself. The Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 only cost the German crown a few million marks – a pittance compared with the costs of fighting the Russian army.

Crucially, your state organization could be lent to the rebels of another nation, assisting them with major logistics (for instance, sea transport), expertise they could not attract to their cause (military advisers, for instance) and refuge in your own country – a more dangerous strategy, but one that worked well enough even in the twentieth century. All of a sudden a government fighting sponsored rebels was up against the resources of a fellow state, and that changed the equation entirely.

Furthermore, you could modulate your effort to suit the circumstances. You could feed the rebellion at full throttle, to a final victory. Or you could trickle the support, pleading a lack of resources, to result in a prolonged exsanguination of the entire target state. The worst example of this strategy is the Russian civil war of 1918-1923.

Not only that, but a rebellion may be multi-faction, and you may choose the faction(s) you support to suit your means. China did this in Cambodia for two decades preceding the takeover by the Khmer Rouge.

Returning to the turbulence of Reformation – it was not all it seems to us today, an act of righteous outrage against the corrupt Vatican. Strap on your seatbelts.

The Protestants received heavy support from… The Ottoman Empire. It was no mere fomenter of trouble, but a major ally – there was even a Franco-Ottoman treaty. Without Turkish help Charles V would have crushed the Lutherans. William of Orange openly sent for Turkish help. England took on Spain in alliance with Barbary states, and plans were made for a combined invasion of France by Huguenot and Ottoman forces.

The Turkish motive was transparent – Catholic Austria, Hungary and Spain blocked Turkish expansion, and the knights of St John wrought havoc on the Turkish side of the Mediterranean Sea. Of course, little imagination was required – Western Europeans heavily backed the Ottomans in the war against Byzantium. The object, yet again, was economic colonization of the Eastern Mediterranean.

Those who find it incredible that Trotsky was financed from Wall St and sent to Russia with a specific list of corporate orders should think back to the heady days of the Turkish advance – neither side hesitated to support the armies of a rival faith to meet short-term objectives. If Genoese sailors could transport Ottoman troops and teach them how to build ships, and Protestant stalwarts could accept assistance from Suleiman I to slaughter fellow Christians – Trotsky’s ideological differences with his banker uncle are surely just digressions of fashion.
I believe that this type of warfare gained widespread acceptance at Reformation. Every event known as a revolution in conventional textbooks needs to be re-examined in that light. Yes, there were always malcontents and the aggrieved on the ground – but who was really pulling the strings?

As usual, all one needs to do is follow the money. Who were the real beneficiaries of the bloody English Revolution? Was it really about Charles I, given that Charles II resumed most of his father’s obnoxious habits, or was it a simple property grab?

Was the French Revolution a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed, or was it carefully planned and financed from overseas – like the Decembrist mutiny in Russia? The Decembrists were heavily financed from Britain – this was freely confessed by the leader of the rebels. That leader was elected in advance, and he had a prepared manifesto. The Decembrists planned laws and other actions that were chillingly familiar to the students of the French Revolution. They picked a good moment – when the royal succession suffered a hiccup between two brothers. Only one man – the newly crowned Nicholas I – stood between them and the scenario of 1917. Nicholas I delivered on the oath to his nation. The rebellion was crushed.

The French and British revolutions need to be re-examined with a magnifying glass. Those two nations are the origin of the fiat system – financing economic growth with candy wrappers, redeemed at the expense of distant colonies or major advances in technology.

The very same system which is now destroying the Western civilization. How that disease was introduced into those two nations is how we, today, are being undone.

obama marxist | biological warfare revolutionThis form of fighting needs to be viewed as a kind of biological warfare. It needs to be banned and severely punished. Handing out pounds and dollars to passers-by for participation in a street protest against Putin needs to attract retribution a la McCarthy – a process which America failed to follow through, leading to a resurgence of its fifth column in 1960’s. There should not have been an Alinsky or a Frank Davis – at the very least, they should have been driven insane by constant surveillance. Politics on foreign money should be a total anathema.

Like biological warfare, fomenting revolutions is a double-edged sword. The British socialist victory of 1945, an event from which Britain had never recovered, was a result of a concerted Soviet effort of the preceding two decades. But this was little more than the Russians finally learning the lesson, after two centuries of British meddling in Russia. Instead of entering into combat with the British Empire, they destroyed it from within. That operation outdid all of the British efforts of two hundred years combined, with socialists rushing to abandon India (to its fate), only two years after their victory. Modern UK is a tiny stump of its former glory pre-1945.

America too is struggling for survival. The Soviet infiltration of its opinion makers began very early – from late 1920’s, and it took a long time to bear fruit. However, it too succeeded unequivocally, with an entrenchment of a Marxist in the White House in 2008. In all likelihood, his successor will be even worse. Nobody in the world should gloat about that – a collapse of United States will trigger a global tsunami. No one will escape the consequences.

That is the trouble with spreading disease – in the end it always comes back to the perpetrator, and no one ever proves to be immune.