A decade of study into secret societies and subversive movements should finally provide answers to present problems. After all, that is the stated goal of history. It is not enough to lament how much power some lobbies, such as the National Rifle Association, have in the US Congress, how American Rifleman manipulates the public opinion and how many of the US President’s Middle East advisors have a rifle in the closet. No, insights from historical studies must be more general. Ideally, we should be able to understand something of what is happening today.
When the Arab Spring started and protests in the whole Arab world run wild, I quite naturally, a skeptic like me, suspected that this is all organized by the powers that be. How many of all spontaneous rebellions have succeeded? Spartacus at least made a good effort, but even he failed. Well, Haitians succeeded, but Masons struck back and created the Dominican Republic. Besides, was it not so that Haiti had to pay compensations to the slave owners and the USA opposed the second liberated state in Americas? But the first democracy did support all Masonic freedom fighters and revolutionaries. Actually, CIA’s Fred Sturgis provided weapons to Fidel Castro, and later to the anti-Castro fighters. Those were not all that spontaneous.
Later, when all started to go bad, with the exception of Tunisia, in the Arab Spring, I started believing that the USA did not plan these events. Apparently nobody did and that is why they failed (if they did).
There are sign pointing to this. Firstly, there came more parties than the government and the protestors, notably the Islamists, but also Kurds and other ethnic groups. Secondly, the military was not in the conspiracy as it should be in a successful spontaneous-looking overthrow. In Syria the military split. That leads to a civil war. In Romania when the Communism fell at least the military was on the opposition side and the government had only the arms of the secret service. That is not a match to a regular army. Thirdly, the protestors accepted minor concessions from the government and did not demand a change of leadership. Then the goal was not to overthrow the government, that is, the protestors did not know what they wanted or should have wanted if it was a planned operation. Finally, the protestors apparently did not think what will happen when destabilizing a government of a country with different ethnic or religious groups. What happened after Communism fell in Yugoslavia? Czechoslovakia split into two countries. Some parts of the Soviet Union separated. That is what you should expect and have a plan for it. If there is no plan, it can easily start a civil war. The Arab Winter led into four civil wars or insurrections: Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria and Egypt faced the Sinai crisis.
What was different in 1848? Unlike some people want to claim, those events were not spontaneous. Freemasons were behind all of them, though young Winston Churchill (or was it Benjamin Disraeli) attributed them to Jewish leaders. The revolutions of 1848 in Sicily, France, Germany, Austria and protests in England, Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark did not give permanent results, or so it is told. But it only looked like that to a liberal of that time, who did not understand that the work of the Brotherhood had already taken a hundred years and would still take another. In France the revolution raised Louis Napoleon and Freemasons to power and it helped Prussia managed to unify Germany. Of course, King Frederick IV of Prussia was a Freemason. The revolutions of 1848 were the beginning of Italy’s unification, which happened under Masonic leaders Mazzini and Garibaldi. The 1848 revolution in Hungary and the consequent effort to separate Austria was fully Masonic. Austria crushed the revolution and forbid Freemasonry, but it did not stop the plan. Hungary stayed firmly in Masonic hands and Austrian monarchy lost the Great War. What infiltration was achieved in the countries where the protests did not change the system? It is difficult to say, but the plan progressed as planned. If something like Morsi is jailed in Egypt and ISIS has lost much ground.
How the Arab Spring differs from the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe? Many people think that those changes were spontaneous, but why did they succeed and why with relatively little violence? The changes started in Poland by Solidarność. Vatican and the CIA had some role in it and for that reason the changes must have been planned.
I once read a book written by the KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. Though Yuri Nosenko claimed that Golitsyn was a KGB plant, Golitsyn did give much correct information. James Jesus Angleton believed in Golitsyn and according to later evaluation he was indeed a real defector. Golitsyn claims in the book New Lies for Old that the fall of Communism was a Soviet plot, a planned change of system but even more dangerous that Communism was. I found it an interesting theory, especially as it is written in 1984, five years before the change of the system in Poland 1989. The plan presented in the book looks like an early version of Perestroika. Too many of the prediction in the book were fulfilled, so we can say that the fall of Communism was planned in the Soviet Union as a reform to recover what there was to recover. Naturally the plan was more probably concocted in early 1980ies rather than before Golitsyn defected and the planners were those, who during privatization robber the country, but this amount of misinformation should be expected from any defector, who was an intelligence officer. The book has some relevance to Russia and the theory should be taken more seriously than has been, but the main issue here is that the fall of Communism cannot in any sense be compared to the Arab Spring assuming that the latter was indeed spontaneous.
There is of course a theory that the Arab Spring was not spontaneous, that it was an Israeli plan to destabilize the region. The arguments in favor of this theory are easy to compose and need not be repeated here: it means a biblical plan for the area that God promised to Abraham. I have some mixed feelings of this theory, but history teaches us something.