via Liz Wheeler on X
@DataRepublican (on X) revealed in a thread [archive] the true reason Pete Hegseth has been targeted is because he’s standing between President Trump and a coup - he’s holding back a legitimate color revolution1 effort by the deep state:
“Pete Hegseth named the institutions... CFR, Brookings, the general class... in 37 seconds in a video by Liz Wheeler. Within 72 hours of his nomination, a color revolution planning document cited him as an insider threat.
”They didn’t go after him because of drinking. They didn’t go after him because of women. They went after him because every color revolution manual ever written says the same thing: you cannot topple a government unless the security forces defect. And a loyal Secretary of Defense is the one person who makes sure they don’t...”
“This is not my theory. This is theirs.
Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan — the two most cited scholars in the color revolution field — studied 323 regime change campaigns. Their finding:
Security force defections make campaigns FORTY-SIX TIMES more likely to succeed.”
46 TIMES MORE LIKELY...
So, in other words, in order for this color revolution to be successful, they must have a Secretary of War that they can control.
The reality that Pete Hegseth, of all people, is standing between this color revolution effort being successful at toppling Trump, I think most of us would not have guessed that the day that President Trump announced Pete Hegseth as his nominee for Secretary of War.
For more details on this topic, we highly recommend reading through DataRepublic’s thread on X…
FOOTNOTES
The term “color revolution” describes a series of often non-violent protests and changes in government and society that occurred in post-Soviet states and the former Yugoslavia during the 21st century. These events include
the Rose Revolution in Georgia (2003)
the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004), and
the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan (2005)
While only the Orange Revolution had a specific color as its symbol, the term became popular for referring to these political upheavals. The aim of these color revolutions was often to establish Western-style democracies, and they were frequently triggered by election results widely viewed as fraudulent.
Color revolutions are characterized by mass street protests and civil disobedience to achieve revolutionary government change. They involve leveraging student movements, information, protests, and intimidation to isolate incumbent governments. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often play a strong role in these protests, and the internet is used as a method of communication.
Perspectives
Color revolutions are orchestrated by external powers
The United States and European intelligence services are often heavily involved in color revolutions, fomenting dissent, organizing activists through social media, and promoting student movements to undermine geopolitical opponents.
The Andrew Klavan Show
External powers, particularly Western nations, sponsor, plan, organize, and implement these revolutions.
The U.S. has used USAID funding and NGOs to destabilize foreign governments, creating artificial grassroots movements.
Color revolutions are described as a “slow-rolling revolution” of outside and internal forces, with current events in the U.S. seen as an attempt to collapse the country.
The Alex Jones Show - Infowars...
Color revolutions are genuine democratic uprisings
Color revolutions are spontaneous, peaceful, democratic revolutions where people get fed up with having their voices silenced for decades.
The term has been tied to crises in Ukraine, with some seeing it as a U.S. and European approach to warfare focused on creating destabilizing revolutions to serve security interests.
Some observers attribute the negative reputation of color revolutions to figures like Vladimir Putin, who suggests they are CIA-organized to undermine democratically minded governments that threaten Russian influence.
