The R-Evolution Will Not Be Improvised

An April 2010 Telegraph article had the headline: "India has more mobile phones than toilets: UN report." Similarly, a recent NPR news piece announced that Haitian inhabitants of "dirty slums" who are poor enough to depend on remittances are starting to use their cell phones as debit cards. Even in war-torn Afghanistan, cell phone sales were on an uptick in 2009.

No matter how impoverished an area is, its inhabitants miraculously have access to mobile technology. It seems that the same developed countries that can't (or won't) find ways to meet these people's basic living needs are going out of their way to make cell phones available to the poorest groups of people.

Perhaps the explanation can be found in a recent NPR interview in which James Lewis (director of technology and public policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies) describes social media sites like Twitter and Facebook as being "essential tools" to America's global agenda. During the interview, Lewis explains how unpopular these "tools" are with foreign regimes like China and Iran, saying "They don't like it. They think Facebook or Twitter is an American tool to destabilize their governments. Because the affect is destabilizing."

It's hard to argue against this perception when one witness the U.S. government allowing its own citizens to be cyber-tracked for profit, but eagerly spending $30 million to protect the privacy of Middle Easterners and North Africans to aid in their "revolutions." So while Lewis correctly asserts that the State Department views social media as "a way to amplify any opposition [and] a way to reinforce it," he's disingenuous when he says "it doesn't create opposition and it's not something that we can use to go in and interfere with politics."

A 2007 Guardian article cited a Ministry of Defence report, which predicted growing "resentment among young people in the face of unrepresentative regimes," the effects of which "will be expressed through the migration of youth populations and global communications, encouraging contacts between diaspora communities and their countries of origin."

NPR's Marcelo Gleiser would argue that this is being played out in the Middle East and North Africa, where the "mythic force" of social media is helping to spark "a worldwide phenomenon where the young in particular — hopeless, unemployed, without future prospects — take on autocratic regimes and redefine their futures," with the aid of digital technology.

At the end of Gleiser's post, he offers this final thought: "May the hopes of these millions of people fighting for change be fulfilled in the not too distant future and without senseless killings. They too want to contribute to the creation of the new world order. And they should."

Well, they won't--not if the ominous double-speak of Ari Shapiro (who spoke with James Lewis in the aforementioned NPR interview) rings true: "You know, this feels like a very new world that we're talking about, but on the other hand I think of something like the East India Company and I wonder whether this is not a tale as old as time, that an organization that is not a country has tremendous influence on the global stage."

In two recent radio broadcasts (here and here), alternative thinker, Alan Watt, all but spells out who the "organization that is not a country" is, how they're contriving these strategically synchronized "revolutions," and why Gleiser's hopes that the "people fighting for change" will never get to "contribute to the creation of the new world order." Apparently, the elites have employed this geopolitical strategy for generations as a way to move the profane into the next stage of "societal evolution," where we unwittingly contribute to advancing their ever-unfolding agenda.

In a popular song lyric, "revolution" is equated with "evolution" and I would agree with this simile. Revolutions often engender massive waves of evolution in society--that's what they're designed to do. But what kind of "revolutions" are we speaking of: the kind that involves revolt or the kind that involves one entity revolving around another? 30 Seconds to Mars aptly captures this ambiguity in their song "R-Evolve," where all three ideas--revolt, revolve, and evolve--are interconnected throughout the progression of the song's lyrics.

If Alan Watt's aforementioned assertions are true, this interconnection is taking place in real life, "where an organization that is not a country" is wielding their "tremendous influence on the global stage" by contriving worldwide revolts--and amplifying them by facilitating and funding telecommunications via cheap mobile devices--so that society will evolve according to their agenda. When the next stage of evolution is needed, they'll contrive another wave of revolts using the next phase of technology to move us along further. (The blueprint for this process couldn't be clearer than in this recent Time article.) And with each stage of evolution, we perpetually revolve around this secret globalist cabal who keeps us within their tight reins.

Again, if Alan Watt's assertions are true--and I believe they are--then all of this is quite simply sad. These people are being fed the belief that their revolutions will bring about much needed evolution in their society. They're right to believe that evolution will come, but unfortunately this evolution may only serve to benefit the hidden few who orchestrate the whole ordeal in the first place.

In the words of alternative editorialist, Tony Cartalucci, "Real revolution will take place when people realize what indeed is really happening, who is behind it, and then no longer [pay] into their corrupt system." My hope is that the idealistic revolutionaries realize the need to look beyond the musical chairs of puppet regimes and target their efforts at the true source of the problem. Because when the globalists strategically plan, fund, and lay down the technological infrastructure that creates and aids the spread of social upheavals, the targeted participants will only play into their hands if they simply react to injustice and improvise their methods of eradicating it.

The "(r)evolutions" that the elites plan for us are never improvised. Neither should our approaches to countering them be.