A “color revolution” (sometimes called a “soft coup” or “regime-change operation by non-kinetic means”) is a modern form of orchestrated political upheaval designed to replace an existing government without traditional military invasion or civil war. The term arose from events in the early 2000s, such as Serbia’s Bulldozer Revolution (2000) and Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003). These operations follow a remarkably consistent playbook, refined over two decades by Western NGOs, intelligence-linked foundations, and State Department-affiliated entities (Open Society Foundations, USAID, etc.).

Authors describe seven stages of a color revolution. The stages include these tactics, which I’ll list in approximate chronological order:

• Portray the target government as illegitimate, authoritarian, corrupt, or “fascist.”
• Front-load allegations: accuse incumbent of planning the crimes the opposition intends to commit (rigging, regression, dictatorship).
• Fund and train NGOs, student groups, and opposition politicians to repeat a unified message.
• Create/amplify a unifying symbol or theme (e.g., Orange Man Bad).
• Manufacture an electoral crisis.
• Street mobilization.
• Public appeals to and moral blackmail of the military and police: “You’re with the people, not the regime.”
• Promises of immunity, future positions for defectors.
• Threats to those who support target government.
• Provoke a response, flood media with images of “peaceful protesters” being attacked.
• International legitimation as foreign governments and media recognizes opposition leaders as “legitimate” authority.
• Sanctions, frozen assets, diplomatic isolation applied to sitting government.
• New elections scheduled under international supervision.

We’re approaching the final four stages of this process with the Seditious Six’s “advice” to the military about alleged “illegal orders”, and threats to those who obey the POTUS. These warnings have eroded military cohesion, priming them for institutional resistance against Trump’s policies on immigration enforcement and domestic security.

General Michael Flynn described these actions as part of a coordinated effort to destabilize the nation’s power structure. These actions build on a pattern of Democrat actions that align with color revolution phases. Beginning with the 2016 election, the “Russiagate” narrative served to portray his presidency as illegitimate to erode public trust. Funded investigations, leaks from intelligence communities, and media amplification created an “illegitimacy loop,” where any Trump action was framed as evidence of tyranny.

The accusations of an illegitimate presidency rang out early in Trump’s first term. The cries came from Hillary Clinton on down to elected officials, celebrities, and the rank and file. The two impeachments manufactured crises, positioning Democrats as defenders of democracy (stop laughing!) against a purportedly rogue executive. Street mobilization echoed in the 2020 BLM protests which were leveraged to sustain urban unrest and pressure institutions. These events forced standoffs with law enforcement. More recently, accusations against Trump’s nominees, like Pete Hegseth facing war crime smears, fit the tactic of rapid, scripted attacks to paralyze the administration.

Victor Davis Hanson has tied the Seditious Six’s video to the “first salvo” in such a revolution, followed by these allegations, suggesting a sequenced operation to overthrow an elected leader. Additional moves, like Senator Ruben Gallego’s threats against military investigators or connections to figures like Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, hint at deeper coordination to protect allies and intimidate defectors.

Critics argue this culminates in an American adaptation: using congressional platforms, media allies, and intelligence ties for “international legitimation” via global outlets denouncing “Trumpism.” While not a full-fledged revolution yet, these symptoms — narrative delegitimization, institutional fracturing, and crisis fabrication — raise concerns of a partisan bid to subvert democratic mandates.

If unchecked, they could escalate to broader instability, echoing how color tactics have toppled regimes abroad. The Democrat (they’re not democratic) party has a well-established history of violence, insurrection and an affinity for the oppression of their adversaries. Their current trajectory, and the lack of a substantive response from the Republican Party does not bode well for the republic.

Image generated by ChatGPT.

[H/T American Thinker]