We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
It will take a good fifteen-twenty years, but you simply trick the small nation. Overthrow their government. Propagandize their minds. Steal their elections. Bribe their media. Bribe the teachers. Bribe the musicians.
Bribe the military. Invest billions of dollars in a long-running color revolution.
As USAID documents will reveal, all this started in 2003 as the US State Department persuaded Ukraine they could poke the bear and expect Western backup "to the last man." Which means when it's all over, there will only be one Ukrainian male left alive. No one really thought about that because the slogans all sounded so inspiring.
"The campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing," The Guardian's Ian Traynor wrote of the 2004 upheaval in November that year.
How Much Did the "Orange Revolution" Cost?
The US and its allies reportedly spent $65–$100 million over two years to support Viktor Yushchenko-led opposition, with much of the funding allegedly covert and funneled through NGOs.
The US State Department:
in FY2003 and FY2004 officially allocated $188.5 million and $143.47 million, respectively, for "assistance programs" in Ukraine
$54.7 million (FY2003) and $34.11 million (FY2004) went specifically to "democracy programs" in Ukraine on the eve of the 2004 election
"Democracy program" funds were used for electoral and government reform, independent media, political development, and training for administrators, lobbyists, and NGOs. The money was channeled through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Eurasia Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), US Embassy in Kiev, and others.
Can we avoid entangling foreign alliances?
“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.”
--- George Washington, Farewell Address.
Mark Sheboda concludes,
"The US/Israel realized:
that their regime change plans were not coming to fruition,
that the Iranian govt had more support and stronger foundations than they had believed,
that Israeli air defense was collapsing/exhausted and
that an attrition war of long range strike was going to go badly for Israel.
And Trump began to get freaked out over the rising price of oil with the Iranian threat of closing the strait of Hormuz.
So they wrapped it up, declared victory, and demanded a ceasefire.
Iran agreed because they too have been badly shaken through Israeli covert warfare and their own air defense all but collapsed.
The can will only be kicked down the road, and both sides will start rebuilding, and making preparations and plans for the next round, the next war. This was only a skirmish at the end of the day ..."
Zohran Mamdani's victory is an indication of how much of a victory 9/11 was for the global jihad. Today, a Muslim who wants to "globalize the intifada," which is a call for jihad, will be the city's next mayor. This shows the power of the "Islamophobia" narrative and the cost of stigmatizing and silencing those who were calling attention to the jihad threat.
The demographics of New York will change, as non-Muslims move out and more far-leftists and Muslims move in. There will be increasingly aggressive calls for application of more Sharia provisions. In other words, if you want to see what is about to happen to New York City, look at what has happened to London over the last decade.
--Robert Spencer
