NATO Activists: The Albert Einstein Institution and the Color Revolutions

8 min readDec 18, 2023

“In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity.” — Albert Einstein (attributed)

Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. Most Ukrainians to this day don’t understand that they are supporting the colonization of their country.

A spy’s Tradecraft can take many forms; a scientist, a house wife, an assassin, or even a peace activist. But whatever the role, their objective is usually to be used for covert action against the enemies of the state, or in this case the enemies of the international business network (‘the Network’). Mainly of Anglo-American establishment origin.[1][2]

In 1983 Gene Sharp formed the non-government organization (NGO) known as the Albert Einstein Institution (AEI)”to promote research, policy studies, and education on the strategic uses of nonviolent struggle in face of dictatorship, war, genocide, and oppression”. That might sound good on paper but actions speak louder than words. In reality he aided NATO in overthrowing sovereign countries who refused to sell out to the Network. [5]

Sharp earned his Masters at Harvard with his research on Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance strategies used against British colonizers in India. There he developed his theory of nonviolent action, with the help of funds from the Department of Defense (DOD). [3][7]

“The “CIA at Harvard,” as it was then called, was the epicenter of the Cold War intellectual establishment, serving as hearth and home to top-flight Cold Warriors like Henry Kissinger, McGeorge Bundy, Samuel Huntington, and Zbigniew Brzezenski.” [9]

Soon after, Sharp together withPeter Ackerman, who later joined the Koch Brother’s Cato Institute, formed the AEI. Ackerman himself was a Wall Street investment banker, and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member. Two groups that benefit greatly from regime change. [3][4][7]

With funding from the misnamed US Institute for Peace (USIP), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Ford Foundation, and other groups, the AEI became a powerful ally to the ‘globalist’ takeover. [3][7]

Color Revolutions

Would you sell out to foreign control? Some Venezuelans think that’s a good idea.

These NATO coups were given that name because a color is assigned to a phony movement. The ultimate purpose of a color revolution is to infiltrate and destabilize a country through controlled activists, and attempt to overthrow it to then install a “more compliant” one.[9][10]

This is also known as “Neocolonialism”, or as Britannica defines it:”the control of less-developed countries by developed countries through indirect means”. That is by controlling the less-developed country economically through debt; controlling its resources such as oil, gas, and minerals; and also creating business centered around cheap labor. Eventually the country becomes dependent on the international business network, even affecting its policy decisions. That is the ‘globalist’ New World Order George HW Bush talked about. And the puppet US government is also bound by their leash, and American lives used as blunt-objects to enforce Neocolonialism. [9][11]

The usual suspects working alongside the AEI are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC). [10]

Philanthropists such as ‘progressive’ billionaire George Soros and his Free World Institute, and the Open Society Foundation, have also been key players in the illegal overthrowing of foreign governments. [13]

Europe’s Color Revolutions

Serbia’s black ‘color revolution’. Did some mastermind think of Serbia’s ‘Black Hand’ secret society who was instrumental in starting WW1?

The Albert Einstein Institution began operations against Soviet satellite states in the 1980’s, working with other NGOs, businesses, investors, and western government organizations (ie CIA, USAID). They had successes in Lithuania (yellow), Czechoslovakia (orange), among others. [3][12]

They continued past the Soviet Union’s collapse, and were used against Russia in countries like Ukraine (orange), Serbia (black), Belarus (blue), Kyrgyzstan (pink, lemon) and Georgia (red roses). [14][15]

The Arab Spring, and ‘Astroturfing’ the Middle East

After their work in Europe, the Albert Einstein Institution expanded its work into other places around the globe, including the Middle East. Which is also known as “The Grand Chessboard”, as former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called it.[16]

The Middle East has been highly contested by both Russia and NATO’s business networks since at least the Cold War, to the unfortunate ruin of its denizens. The international business networks use the US military and intelligence agencies as enforcers to plunder the national resources of Arab nations and install puppet governments. And ironically, despite their talks of “introducing democracy in the Middle East”, most of the NATO puppets tend to be cruel dictators such as Saddam Hussein — who sometimes go rogue, and are eventually taken out by the same people who put them into power. [1][2][16]

As expected, the Albert Einstein Institution is not interested in helping people overthrow tyrannical governments, but only in overthrowing those who refuse to sell out to the network. Hence why a NATO ally such as Saudi Arabia has never been a target. [1][2][16]

The mainstream media, which is also funded and controlled by the network, painted the Arab Spring as a “spontaneous”, and “feel good” revolt that was organic. But nothing could be further from the truth. The usual suspects, including the AEI, CIA, USAID, Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt), Israel, and “progressive” billionaires like George Soros, were manipulating the events.[17][18]

“Across the region and throughout the so-called “Arab Spring,” media outlets report that organizers of the protests have been following the principles laid down by this man, retired professor Gene Sharp, in a book called From Dictatorship to Democracy.” [17]

NATO’s main opponents where Iran, its allies, and Russia as well. The network was able to bring down several governments such as Egypt, and Tunisia through AEI trained “activists”. Countries such as Libya, Yemen, and Syria instead ended up in armed conflicts against NATO’s proxy mercenaries such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, and others. [17][20][21]

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood made AEI’s work available in Arabic, and it was responsible for their eventual takeover. Interestingly this same NATO-friendly Muslim Brotherhood was behind Hamas, which was imposed on the NATO-hostile Palestinians, but I’ll let you do the math on that one. [17][19]

The AEI also worked with both the Palestinians, and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). The Israelis effectively used Sharp’s tactics to take out the first Palestinian uprising. [9]

Venezuela

The AEI began training NATO friendly opposition against the socialist Venezuelan government in 2003, but hit a wall after a failed coup. [10]

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, denounced the AEI for trying to destabilize the country, but good press from Sharp’s old friend Peter Ackerman (ICNC), told a different story to US audiences. Also on Ackerman’s request, fake left-wing “dissidents” such as Noam Chomsky, Code Pink, and Howard Zinn went on to publicly defend Sharp and his AEI. All of them ignoring the fact that AEI’s board of director’s was made up of globalists with military and intelligence backgrounds. [7]

Fake Activism

It would be wrong to say that Sharp’s “political jujitsu” is bad. His tactics are merely tools. The problem with the AEI is who they use these tools in benefit of, and who they use them against.

The AEI prefers to train students to mobilize a more naïve but energetic demographic. Students are ripe for manipulation as they are still too ignorant about the world around them, and universities provide space and a culture that’s easily exploitable. [7][10]

Colors and symbols are placed to help give an identity to the phony movements. Signs in English are also used even in non-English speaking nations to garner for more English speaking support. [3]

The English protest signs in non-English speaking countries, are an easy tell for inorganic protests. Some non-profits would really like you to send Western money to their covert globalist operations.

“In Part Two, Sharp details 198 nonviolent “actions,” the specific maneuvers of his “technique of struggle.” Culled from the long history of labor struggles, civil rights campaigns, and national liberation movements, and offered in index form, this list of protest tactics includes: use of symbolic colors, parades, vigils, use of banners written in English for international consumption, mock awards, protest disrobings; forms of economic non-cooperation like boycotts, divestment campaigns, and strikes; political non-cooperation, like refusing to assist law enforcement; and psychological interventions like fasts. Absent from the list is any kind of sabotage. Sharp lists nine “strong reasons why the introduction of sabotage will seriously weaken a nonviolent action movement” and concludes that “the idea that sabotage is compatible with nonviolent action must be rejected, as either a false accusation of uninformed critics, or as a highly dangerous action proposal likely to disrupt the processes which could be strength and victory.”” [3]

“[…] Nonviolence helps the opponent’s repression throw him off balance politically. […] When the system largely characterized by political violence is actively, albeit nonviolently, challenged, one can expect that the basic nature of that system will be more clearly revealed in the crisis then during less difficult times. The violence upon which the system depends is thus brought to the surface and revealed in unmistakable terms for all to see: it then becomes more possible to remove it.””[3]