CIA, MI6, and Mossad Own Europe's Political Class | Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

I take a grim satisfaction from knowing exactly what we did. I know how painstakingly the CIA, MI6 (SIS), and to a certain extent Mossad worked to shape today's Europe. Though Mossad was not initially a willing partner, they eventually joined in once they saw the money involved. To borrow a phrase from certain Asian scholars, we "taught the dogs to bark." 

 

» We bought entire countries' political apparatuses. «

 

We bought newspaper editors, labor union heads, and parliamentarians. We purchased two NATO Secretary-Generals—Jens Stoltenberg and Mark Rutte. We bought entire countries' political apparatuses, starting in earnest around 2002, when billions of CIA dollars began flowing. USAID was the instrument; we weaponized liberal democracy.
 

2022: Biden, with Reich Governor Scholz at his side, promised to

terminate Nord Stream 2. And the perfect lackey just kowtowed.

In that respect, I supported what Trump and Rubio did to the extent that they purged the lower-level operatives who executed these policies—though I did not support their removal of top bureaucrats. But we created the Europe that exists today, on purpose. And now we are paying the piper. It will take another six to eighteen months to root out many of these figures, and God knows how long to cleanse the parliaments. We painstakingly crafted Europe in our own image.

From Anti‑War to Neo‑Con

I recall the anti-war fervor of 2003, when the US invasion of Iraq was seen as outrageous, aggressive, and counterproductive across Europe. The hawks—figures like Colin Powell and Dick Cheney—were despised and ridiculed. Those days are gone. Today's European leaders are indistinguishable from the US neoconservatives of that era. The reaction to George W. Bush back then was a call to battle for that administration, and they set all this in motion.

1965: Humberto Delgado, Portuguese Air Force General, prominent opposition leader against the Estado

Novo dictatorship of António de Oliveira Salazar; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6 stay-behind operatives.

 

 

1978: Aldo Moro, leader of the Christian Democracy party, Prime Minister of Italy, and chief architect

of the "Historic Compromise", a coalition government that would bring the  Communist Party (PCI)

into the ruling cabinet; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6 stay-behind operatives.

 

1986: Olof Palme, Swedish Prime Minister, leader of the Social Democratic Party, staunch promoter

of the welfare state and Third World liberation movements, condemned the US war in Vietnam and

the apartheid regime in South Africa; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives.

1989: Alfred Herrhausen, Chairman of Deutsche Bank, visionary leader, active promoter of

German-Russian economic relations, and highly influential advisor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl; 

assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives. 

  

1991: Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, president of the Treuhandanstalt, the German government agency

tasked with privatizing East German state-owned enterprises, was considered insufficiently flexible

toward certain foreign demands; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives.

 

2003: Jürgen Möllemann, prominent German politician from the Free Democratic Party,

 president of the German-Arab Society, outspoken critic of Israel and promoter of the

Palestinian cause; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives. 

 

2008: Jörg Haider, Austrian right-wing populist politician, governor of Carinthia and

harsh anti-Zionist; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives.

 

Et cetera et cetera et cetera:

 murder, slaughter, genocide: children, women, heads of state; terrorism; intimidation; weapon, drug, organ, 

child trafficking; well poisoning; pedophilia; hijacking; torturing; counterfeiting; looting; piracy; bribery...

 

Forging the CIA

The CIA had never before operated on such a scale. Harry Truman greatly objected to the agency's formation, initially, but he was eventually sold out by William "Wild Bill" Donovan and J. Edgar Hoover—despite Hoover's hatred for Donovan. It is a strange history, but the agency bought this new mission lock, stock, and barrel because it knew billions would pour its way. And indeed they did. They set about changing the European attitude. When the largest anti-war rally in British—and possibly European—history erupted in London in 2003, we did not like that at all. We set out to reverse it.

» NATO's purpose is: Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. «
Lord General Hastings Lionel Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay, NATO's first Secretary General, 1952.

1952: Stalin proposed reunifying Germany as a demilitarized, neutral state. Chancellor Adenauer rejected it as "Soviet ruse," prioritizing West Germany's US/British/French occupation regime
over national sovereignty and unity; remained in power and lived to 91. 

Cultivating Stoltenberg

How close was I to this? I was up close and personal in getting Jens Stoltenberg to his position. We saw what he did within his own government, recognized how malleable and susceptible he was to our messaging, and used him as a center pole from which to extend our influence into other governments. He was willing because he knew we had promised him the NATO Secretary-General post. I did not see the infection of the EU up close, but I am sure it followed chapter and verse alongside our manipulation of NATO leadership.

 

» We purchased two NATO Secretary-Generals. « 

 

NATO's Top‑Heavy Bloat

That effort was not difficult. You must understand the history of NATO's top-heavy flag structure. Every time we built a headquarters and placed a three- or four-star general there, the Europeans felt compelled to match us. We built this incredible overhead of flag officers—Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps—across Europe, and they were so influenceable that all you had to do was whisper in their ear. Suddenly, you had this pliant NATO military leadership doing your bidding. The CIA merely had to whisper about Russia, building up the threat as needed.

» We taught the dogs to bark. « 

Russophobia as Propaganda

This Russophobia began early—with Boris Yeltsin's disappearance and Vladimir Putin's arrival on the scene. That is when we started using fear of Russia as a propaganda instrument. In the Dutch media, it was exposed that Mark Rutte, while Prime Minister, would excuse Israeli actions and adopt extra-hawkish positions on Russia and Yemen, all to look good on his job application for NATO. They knew exactly what the Americans would reward.

Since 1871, the US/Anglo prime geopolitical doctrine for Europe:
"Keep Germany and Russia separate and in conflict."
[Or, as Victoria Nuland put it in 2014: "Fuck the EU!"]

 

2026: Pete Blaber, former US Delta Force Commander, on the truth

about the NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad war against Russia in Ukraine.

  

Weaponizing Historical Guilt

We were also acutely aware—particularly in Germany, but elsewhere too—of how deeply the Holocaust lingered over European consciousness. With Mossad's assistance, we exploited that guilt to the maximum. This is why Germany has the laws and regulations it does regarding anti-Semitism today; we helped build them.

 

Reference: 

Lawrence Wilkerson (August 19, 2026) - Buying Europe's Political Class. (video)

 

» They lose their jobs if there is peace. «  

Lawrence B. Wilkerson (b. 1945) is a retired US Army colonel and former senior government official. A 31-year Army and Vietnam veteran, he became closely associated with Colin Powell in 1989, serving as his assistant as Powell completed his tenure as President Reagan’s National Security Advisor. Wilkerson remained with Powell through his tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, into civilian life, and, when Powell became Secretary of State under George W. Bush, as his Chief of Staff from 2002 to 2005. He later became a prominent critic of the Iraq War, expressing particular regret over his role in preparing Powell's infamous 2003 UN Security Council presentation on Iraq's alleged weaponized anthrax. Since retiring in 2005, Wilkerson has held academic posts at the US Naval War College and College of William and Mary. He is a fellow of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and regularly comments on US foreign policy, the Middle East, and national security.

2026 Global Favorability Flips: China Overtakes US | Pew Research Center

The Pew Research Center's "Spring 2026 Global Attitudes Survey" marks a clear inflection point. As stated in its July 15 report: "Views of China have improved in recent years while opinions of the US have worsened, to the point where China is now seen more positively than the US in most of 36 countries surveyed." Across the 20 countries tracked every year since 2023, the median favorable rating of the United States has fallen to 36 percent while China's has risen to 46 percent. The survey of 42,151 adults, conducted February 8–May 13, 2026, shows the reversal is no longer marginal.

 

2026 Updated Scatter Plot – Key Changes from Spring 2025: The Spring 2026 data shows a clear structural shift: The Top-Left "pro-US / negative China" cluster has shrunk. It is now mainly limited to Israel (still very high US favorability), Japan (China only 11%), South Korea, India, and Poland. The Bottom-Right "pro-China / negative or lower US" cluster has expanded dramatically and is now the dominant zone. Canada (China 44% / US 33%) and Mexico (China 59% / US 40%) have fully crossed into this quadrant. Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan (near 90% China), and many middle-income countries sit firmly here. A large group of European and other high-income countries have drifted downward (lower US) and rightward (higher China), filling the lower-middle and bottom-right areas. The old US-centric top-left concentration has eroded, while the pro-China bottom-right has become the new gravitational center of global public opinion.

A scatter of national favorability ratings now places the large majority of countries in the zone where China outranks the United States. The extremes are stark. In Pakistan, 90 percent hold a favorable view of China—a staggering +75-point advantage over the United States. Malaysia posts a +56-point gap, Indonesia +48, and several other Asia-Pacific and Middle Eastern publics show double-digit leads for China. At the opposite extreme, only 11 percent of Japanese adults view China favorably. The United States retains a clear edge in just six countries: India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Israel (where 81 percent rate the US favorably), and Poland.

 You can choose your friends, not your neighbors.

The shift is driven by simultaneous movements in both directions. Pew notes that "China being assessed more positively than the US is a relatively recent shift in most countries surveyed. This reversal in favorability is often driven by shifting views of both superpowers: improving views of China coupled with worsening views of the US" Canada offers one of the cleanest illustrations: "a majority of Canadians (57%) had a positive view of the US in 2023, while 14% viewed China positively. In 2025, Canadians were equally favorable toward the US and China. Now, more Canadians have a favorable view of China (44%) than the US (33%)." Parallel reversals appear across much of Europe and Latin America. Americans' nearest neighbors—Canadians and Mexicans—"also view China more positively than the US." 

 

How people in 36 countries view the US and China
(5 who have favorable opinion of ...).

 

In many countries, the US-China favorability gap has reversed. 

Regional and demographic patterns sharpen the picture. Views of China are closely linked to national income: people in middle-income countries across Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of South and Southeast Asia tend to hold far more positive opinions, while those in high-income European and East Asian nations remain more skeptical. Within the Asia-Pacific region itself the contrast is extreme—nine-in-ten Pakistanis see China favorably, compared with just 11 percent of Japanese adults. In Latin America, several publics that once clearly preferred the United States are now evenly split or lean toward China.

 

CNN: Global opinion for the US plummets by 79% since it

began its war on Iran. Only country hated more is Israel.  

 

Age divides reinforce the longer-term momentum. In nearly every country surveyed, adults under 35 express significantly more favorable views of China than those over 50. Even inside the United States, younger Americans are markedly less likely to hold "very unfavorable" opinions of China than the oldest generation. The generational gap appears consistently across high-income and middle-income publics alike, suggesting the current shift may deepen rather than reverse.

 
Confidence in the two presidents tracks the same regional and demographic contours. "While many people still lack confidence in Xi, positive views of him have become more widespread, and more overall now say they have confidence in Xi than in Trump." Across the continuously tracked countries, median confidence in Chinese President Xi Jinping now exceeds that in US President Donald Trump. In most European nations, Xi leads Trump by double-digit margins even though absolute confidence remains modest—the highest reading for Xi is just 37 percent in the United Kingdom. In Mexico the disparity is especially sharp: confidence in Trump sits near single digits while confidence in Xi is several times higher. Trump retains an edge mainly among China's immediate neighbors—India, Japan, and the Philippines.

 

POTUS 47—Wrecking Ball to the Empire.

 

In middle-income countries the contrast on foreign-policy roles is sharper still. "People in 17 middle-income countries raise more concerns about the United States' foreign policy than China's. A median of 75% say that the US interferes in the affairs of other countries a great deal or a fair amount, while 45% say the same of China. In nearly every country surveyed, more people see the US as an interferer than China." South Africa illustrates the practical consequence: 72 percent call China a reliable partner versus 46 percent for the United States, and the share saying China contributes to peace and stability has risen from 47 percent in 2023 to 64 percent in 2026. In Pakistan the reliability gap reaches 84 percent for China versus 36 percent for the United States; in the Philippines the reverse holds (81 percent versus 42 percent).

 
One residual American advantage remains on personal freedoms. "More say the US government respects the personal freedoms of its people than say the same of the Chinese government." Yet the gap is closing rapidly. "People in nearly every country surveyed have become less likely to say the US government respects its people's personal freedoms" since 2021. In Sweden the figure has plunged from 61 percent to 27 percent; drops of 25 points or more also registered in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Spain. In Mexico the numbers have already flipped: roughly one-third say China respects personal freedoms while only 20 percent say the same of the United States.

 

» The reversal is no longer marginal. «

 

While "fortresses" of pro-American sentiment remain—Israel, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, India, and Poland—the Spring 2026 data show a world that has moved decisively from a US-led consensus toward a more fragmented reality. China's economic and diplomatic influence is increasingly welcomed, especially in middle-income regions and among younger cohorts. The extremes of the favorability map now run from 90 percent positive in Pakistan to 11 percent in Japan, with the United States holding majority favorability in only a handful of places.

 

Reference:
Pew Research Center (July 15, 2026) - People in many countries now view China more positively than the US.
Pew Research Center (July 15, 2026) - Views of China and Xi Are Improving Globally. 
Pew Research Center (June 23, 2026) - Trump Gets Negative Reviews Internationally as Fewer Say US Is a Reliable Partner.

See also:

Pew Research Center (July 15, 2025) - Views of the US have worsened while opinions of China have improved.

From Nazi Race Theory to Today’s Russophobia | Constantin von Hoffmeister

Europe's history has become a battlefield of lies where the Western powers twist facts to fuel their obsessive Russophobia. They equate liberators with aggressors and cast Russia as the eternal enemy, all to justify their proxy war against the heart of Eurasia. This serves their ambition, not the truth. Real understanding requires confronting the brutal Nazi Eastern project and recognizing its direct continuation in today's Western crusade against Russia.

April 30, 1945: Soviet soldiers raise the Red Flag atop the Reichstag in Berlin.

The past of Europe lies before us like an open book, yet petty men rip its pages in a vulgar shouting match, hurling one crime against another as if the mountain of horrors could cancel itself out and leave truth untouched. This path leads only to darkness. What matters is the shape of the ideas themselves—the maps of power, the theories of blood, and the savage dreams of empire—that drove nations before the guns thundered. To see our way forward, we must stare without flinching at the plans and words that existed before the smoke of total war swallowed everything.

At the center is the Second World War, a cataclysm that remade the continent in fire and ruin. It did not erupt from nothing. It sprang from cold ideological programs and strategic visions created years earlier, each carrying its own brutal blueprint for Europe's future. The Eastern Front became the true heart of the struggle, where rival systems collided with steel and with fanatical doctrines of race, territory, and destiny. Any serious reckoning with Europe's past and future must begin here, where theory turned into organized slaughter and abstract creeds spilled real rivers of blood.

 

2025 Victory Day Parade, held on May 9 in Red Square, Moscow, honoring the 80th
anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany and the end of World War II in Europe.

 

Modern discourse has abandoned an honest examination for cheap myth-making. Twentieth-century figures and governments are stripped of context and recast as cartoon emblems of power, villainy, or resistance. These symbolic lies flood online spaces, turning history into a circus of identity, emotion, and aesthetic posturing. Real analysis cuts through the fog and returns to what was written, planned, and executed, basing every judgment on hard documents rather than fevered fantasy.

The central truth of that age stands naked and hideous: the Eastern program formed the black heart of the Nazis' geopolitical vision. Generalplan Ost spelled it out with machine-like brutality: a vast apparatus for the transformation of Eastern Europe through expulsion, slave labor, and the systematic mass death of Slavic populations. It called for the deportation or outright elimination of some 30 to 45 million Slavs, the seizure of their fertile lands, and the resettlement of ethnic German colonists in their place, forcing the survivors into permanent serfdom. These policies were a settled doctrine long before the war erupted. They filled secret memoranda, planning papers, and strategic outlines that declared one merciless purpose: to carve a colonial empire out of the living bodies of other European peoples, and to install a racial hierarchy of masters and 'subhumans.'

European-Russian Relations: "Two centuries of failure."
Jeffrey Sachs, January 7, 2026.

 

Nazi language itself was a weapon of conquest. Slavs appeared in their texts only as barriers to be smashed, vermin to be cleared, raw material to be worked to death or discarded. Eastern Europe they named Lebensraum—living space—a territory marked for conquest, massacres, and a total reordering under German domination. The Nazis modeled their design openly on earlier Western empires: the cold administration Britain forced onto India, the ruthless westward march of the United States that exterminated native peoples. Thus the logic of Western colonialism turned inward and devoured Europe itself, reducing millions of fellow Europeans to helots in a new racial order.

In the contemporary liberal West, a foul equivalence flourishes, placing the Soviet Union and the Third Reich on the same moral plane as twin totalitarian evils. This lie distorts the facts and erases every trace of responsibility. It ignores the Soviet Union's colossal sacrifice: twenty-seven million dead. The Soviet Union bore the main burden of the land war, shattered the Nazi war machine, and tore open the road to Europe's liberation from a supremacist regime. That sacrifice was decisive. To smear these distinct realities into one stain weakens all judgment in the present. This grotesque revisionism arms today's Russophobes with a convenient myth that delegitimizes the very power which broke the back of fascism. It prepares the intellectual ground for fresh aggression against Russia, the direct heir and guardian of that victory.

 

Colonisation of Eastern Europe, carried out through systematic genocide, extermination, 

massacre, mass starvation, chattel labour, mass rape, child abduction, and sexual slavery.

 

This same venomous spirit rages ever more strongly, sharper and more hysterical since the Ukraine conflict started. The Western powers have unleashed a pathological Russophobia, painting Russia as the eternal Asiatic barbarian that must be broken at all costs. Western media and governments treat the Russian people with the same colonial contempt once reserved for all Slavs. They shrugged or made excuses for the Odessa burnings of May 2, 2014, when dozens of men and women were trapped in the Trade Unions House and burned alive for the crime of opposing the Western-sponsored Maidan coup. Flames consumed the victims while Western-backed forces watched and cheered. The same Western powers now arm the Ukrainian forces and whitewash every atrocity committed against the Russian population. 

The continuity is unmistakable and damning. The Nazi racial hierarchy has merely changed its vocabulary. Today it speaks in the smooth language of "European values," a so-called "rules-based order," and "universal norms" while pursuing the identical goal: the subjugation, fragmentation, and destruction of the East so that the global hegemon may rule without challenge. Russia, the vast heartland, now occupies the exact place once assigned to the Slav on Nazi maps. This is no coincidence but the direct heir of that old colonial hatred, now dressed in humanitarian rhetoric and enforced by sanctions and proxy armies. The burning of Odessa and the shelling of the Donbass are fresh monuments to the same spirit that once drew up Generalplan Ost. The Western powers cannot tolerate a strong, sovereign Russia at the center of the Eurasian landmass, for its very existence refutes their claim to universal rule.

» The West would do well to remember how the Second World War truly ended. «

A healthy future rejects this madness with contempt. Stability arises only through open recognition of plurality. A multipolar order grants every great civilization its rightful space. Russia is the indispensable pole of Eurasia, anchoring a continental balance that prevents any single power from strangling the world. The lessons of the past are merciless: ideologies that elevate one people by crushing another breed only endless war and ruin. Europe and Eurasia form one organic body linked by geography, history, and heritage. True strength lies in their unbreakable union from Lisbon to Vladivostok, not in fresh crusades launched from Washington and Brussels against the Russian core.

The West would do well to remember how the Second World War truly ended. No Allied nation suffered even a fraction of what the Soviet Union endured. Russia's way of remembrance is superior: it honors the veterans, lifts their deeds into the present, and binds them to the living Russian state. It gives them the honor their sacrifice deserves, for without their victory the Russian nation itself would not exist today.

 

 Anka Feldhusen, a fine example of a German Neonazi apparatchik of the 21st century: According
to Ukrainian high-rank officials, one of the "most effective" ambassadors of Germany to Ukraine.

May 9 in Moscow is a ritual of state and commemoration. The Victory Parade on Red Square presents a clear message: the nation survived and remembers why. The past is not recalled as nostalgia but as a foundation for present strength. The meaning lies in continuity. The Soviet banners, the formations, and the repeated gestures all point to a single fact: a society that endured destruction and reorganized itself through collective effort. The participants come from across the country—Kazan, Buryatia, Dagestan, Arkhangelsk—and they appear together in a single formation. Each group retains its identity. Each contributes to a shared structure built on common sacrifice. The battles of Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin define that structure. They form the basis of a unity that rests on experience rather than abstraction. The parade demonstrates a principle: diversity organized within a stable order produces cohesion. It does not dissolve difference. It directs it.

 

» The source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity. «

  

This principle extends into the present form of the Russian state. The Soviet heritage did not simply disappear; it transformed. The current structure combines elements drawn from different periods—imperial administration, Soviet discipline, religious symbolism, and ethnic plurality. It does not rely on a single ideology. It operates through continuity and adaptation. The memory of the Soviet soldier functions as a binding force across generations. Symbols such as the ribbon of Saint George reinforce this continuity. They connect past sacrifice to present identity. In this framework, loss becomes part of a longer process of recovery and consolidation. 

Lydia Spivak, a young Red Army junior sergeant, gracefully directs traffic with dance-like movements at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate—days after the city's fall—becoming an iconic symbol of Soviet victory.

Western observers often interpret these forms as theatrical. Their own nations show a different condition, where shared memory weakens and identity fragments into competing claims. Russia moves in the opposite direction. It organizes identity through common experience and preserved memory. This difference explains the persistent conflict between Russia and the liberal West. One seeks to standardize through universal models. The other maintains a structure based on plurality within unity. The continued existence of this model challenges the idea that a single global octopus can define political and cultural life. Victory Day expresses that challenge in concrete form. It states that a multiethnic state, built on shared sacrifice and maintained through continuity, can endure and define itself on its own terms. 

 

Quoted from:
Constantin von Hoffmeister (May 5, 2026) - From 'Subhumans' to 'Orcs': How Nazi Race Theory Lives on in Modern Russophobia.

 

 

 » Germany never fully denazified nor was

this ever even sincerely attempted. «

 

See also:

 Andrew Korybko (May 8, 2026) - Reviewing Medvedev’s Article About Germany’s Remilitarization.

Dmitry Medvedev (May 7, 2026) - Germany’s new militarization: Revival of the spirit or blatant revanchism? 

Sergey Karaganov (January 16, 2026) - "Russia Will Nuke Germany and the UK if Ukraine War Persists." 

 Yuliana Titaeva (2024) - About Our Great Victory.

Wang Xiangsui (2024) - Europe’s Catastrophic Russian Problem.
Timofey Bordachev (2024) - Western Europe Could Become the New Ukraine.

Glenn Diesen (2022) - Russophobia: Propaganda in International Politics.

While Paris celebrated the defeat of Nazism on May 8, 1945, the French army was massacring Algerians in Sétif, Guelma, and Kherrata: Mobilized by the French themselves to hail Hitler’s defeat, Algerians marched waving Algerian flags to remind France of its promise of independence. General Raymond Duval ordered troops to "shoot anyone carrying an Algerian flag," and through June 26, 1945, French forces slaughtered 45,000 Algerian civilians (see also HERE). During the ensuing War of Independence against France (1954–1962), 1.5 million Algerians were killed.

The Psychology of Revolution | Gustave Le Bon

In his 1913 analysis of The Psychology of Revolution, French physician and polymath Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931) argues that "political revolutions" are abrupt upheavals driven primarily by "affective and mystic elements" rather than "rational discourse," which he attributes to the "erosion of established traditions" and the "contagious spread of discontent."

 

"A revolution is effected from above, that is, by the leaders of the old regime; but when it is victorious it is rapidly vulgarised, because the people interferes and applies the only means in its power—violence. To destroy is within its scope; to reconstruct is beyond it. [...] The instinctive soul of the people is above all remarkable for its extreme mobility. Deceived by its own chimeras, it enthusiastically applauds its idols of a day, to overthrow them the next day in favour of others. No gods ever long survived its favour. This mobility renders the people credulous and ignorant at the same time. 

 

» An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand, which the wind stirs up at will. « 

Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd, 1896.

 

Le Bon argues that during political revolutions, individuals are driven more by inherent character traits than by intellect, with certain mentalities rising to prominence amid chaos:

  

[...] We have seen in all times apostles arise who have had an irresistible influence over the popular mind by cultivating its instincts and speaking its language. The people always follows them with enthusiasm, whether they be ignorant fanatics, hard and upright logicians, ferocious maniacs, or eloquent speakers. Whatever their aims, the leaders of the people are obliged to enter into reciprocity with it, to recognise its psychology, even if they do not share its sentiments. They must be in communion with it, or they will not act upon it. 

 

» The people loves equality, but it respects titles and prestige. «

 

[...] When a political party triumphs, all the forces of interest, ambition, and hatred which parties contain become enlisted in its service, so that the triumph of a political revolution is always accompanied by a complete overthrow of all the institutions of a country. The chief result of a revolution is to sweep away the forces which held together the edifice of government, which was perhaps already tottering, and to substitute for them nothing but the will of the victors, which is for that reason all-powerful. 

 

» Irresistible influence over the popular mind. «

  

[....] A revolution cannot change the soul of a people. This soul commands, and all must obey. It is for this reason that after a revolution the laws and institutions of a people are so often in contradiction with the interests of the new rulers, and also with the prescriptions of pure reason. But presently the laws are modified or abrogated, until they are more or less adapted to necessities. When the dogma which serves as the base of a revolution is victorious, the dissociated social elements which have resulted from the destruction of the old institutions become agglomerated under the action of new ideas."

Le Bon dissects the role of "the people" in such revolutions, distinguishing between the "conservative majority" and a "subversive minority" prone to violence. He argues that the masses are often manipulated and contribute mainly through destructive acts rather than constructive change:

 

"1. The Meaning of the Word 'People:' The term 'people' represents merely the superior portion of a nation. It comprises an elite: the nobility, clergy, magistrates, etc. By extension it was applied to the whole nation, and finally it has come to mean the most inferior elements of the population, the lower populace. We shall examine it in this last sense, and shall show what part the people plays in revolutions. From the political point of view the people may be considered in two aspects—as an army and as a crowd. As an organised army it plays the part of follower. As a crowd it is often revolutionary. 

 

» To become the master of the people one must know how to dazzle it. « 

 

2. How the People regards Revolutions: The revolutions are sometimes regarded with favour by the people, because they represent the triumph of its claims. But the people quickly becomes indifferent, and seeks only tranquility. It is always the people that suffers in revolutions, for it pays the cost in blood and poverty. It is for this reason that it often acclaims the return of a master. 

 

» To destroy is within its scope; to reconstruct is beyond it. «

  

3. The Psychology of Revolutionary Crowds: The revolutionary crowd is formed of transitory elements, recruited from all classes, but chiefly from the instinctive and criminal categories. It is the crowd that acclaims or murders kings, and whose violence has always been the principal factor of revolutions. The psychology of revolutionary crowds shows us that they possess the ordinary mental characteristics of all crowds: contagion, unconsciousness, exaggerated sentiments, intolerance, etc. They are above all remarkable for their credulity and their docility towards their leaders. 

4. The Part of the Leaders in Popular Movements: Although the people in rebellion generally begins by destroying everything, it soon grows weary of anarchy, and instinctively seeks a leader. It loves equality, but it respects titles and prestige. It was thus that all the great popular movements—those of the Reformation, the Revolution, etc.—were effected under the guidance of leaders. 

  

 » The people always follows apostles with enthusiasm. «

[...] From the preceding considerations we may draw the following conclusions: (1) The people, by reason of its instinctive soul, accepts without discussion the ideas presented to it. (2) By reason of its sentimental soul it incarnates these ideas in leaders, to whom it often delegates the direction of its destinies. (3) By reason of its mobile soul it personifies all its sentiments in a fetich. To become the master of the people one must know how to dazzle it, be able to make it hope, and if necessary know how to deceive it. (4) Finally, the leader must possess prestige, speak in images, incessantly repeat the same ideas in different terms, and know how to act by persuasion and never by reasoning." 

 

Le Bon further elaborates on the role of leaders and contagion in precipitating political revolutions, noting that discontent alone is insufficient without amplification through suggestion: 

 

"The role of the leader in all revolutions is very considerable. He does not create the beliefs which provoke them, but he directs them. Without him they would often remain latent and ineffectual. Although the revolution which overthrew the Bourbon dynasty was ripe, we know from the memoirs of contemporaries that without the prestige of Lafayette it would probably have remained nothing but a local riot. Whenever a revolution breaks out in one point of a territory, we see similar revolutions breaking out in succession in all the countries which surround it, even when communication is difficult. It was thus that in 1848 all Europe was inflamed by the revolutionary conflagration, and was shaken by it in spite of the slowness and difficulty of communication."

 

Le Bon finally examines the outcomes of political revolutions as often involving the establishment of new power structures, persecutions, and limited social transformations:

 

"Contrary to what occurred in religious revolutions, political revolutions show us merely peoples adapting themselves to new conditions of existence. We have already seen that this adaptation is effected by means of slow successive evolutions, which render violent revolutions useless. [...] The results of political revolutions being merely displacements of wealth and the triumph of certain classes, we may conclude, contrary to the general opinion, that they have been without psychological significance. They strike the imagination because they are accompanied by much violence, and blood flows in streams.

 

» Contagion, unconsciousness, exaggerated sentiments, intolerance, etc. «

 

But when we look a little closer we soon find that the economic or social changes which result from them are very slight. The importance of political revolutions must not, however, be exaggerated. They sometimes cost a country very dear, although they change nothing in respect of its natural conditions. It is especially when they involve disastrous wars that their results are most pernicious." 

 

Reference:

Gustave Le Bon (1913) - The Psychology of Revolution. 

 

See also:

Gustave Le Bon (1913) - The Psychology of Revolution. (complete audiobook) 

Alexander L. Chizhevsky (1922) - Mass Excitability during Solar Cycle 25 (2019–2030).