Guns Do Not Stop Dictators, Informed People Voting Peacefully Do!

Pro gun apologists make the argument that MANY and MORE guns in the hands of ordinary citizens are the ONLY things that can EVER prevent or overthrow dictatorships and despots. Let us dive into this theory and see how much truth it holds when this theory is actually tried out in real life and in history.

The fear being expressed by a widely circulating email chain plus a few deceptively worded Youtube videos is that the US will become a dictatorship. As a result of this, US citizens will have ‘rise up’ and overthrow this dictatorship. The first question we may possibly ask; what is the success rate of armed ‘citizen militia’ rising up and overthrowing their governments?

What would happen if US citizens were to take up arms and try to ‘uninstall’ the US government? Which parts of the evil government would a citizen militia choose to ‘dismantle’?

Would these brave citizens start locally and uninstall the evil ‘government police’ forces? Or, would they go after the evil government paid for military; Navy, Marines, Army, Coast Guard, headed and controlled by the President, as Commander in Chief? After all, these would be the ‘evil’ people that would be ordered to stop this insurrection, using deadly force if necessary.

Oddly enough, most if not all of these ‘citizen militia’ are pro military, and often have served in the military. So how would it be possible for them to take on the ‘evil government’ military forces and kill them all, when that is where all of their friends, buddies and partners in force are?

Of course if the military goes after the government and kills most or just certain political leaders, we could call that a coup. Odds are, because this happens often in unstable countries, that when a military takes control of a government, that country ends up with a general as the leader and dictator. Military folks generally do not like to hand off power to civilians. So if an armed citizen militia somehow combines forces with the military, the US would in fact end up with a military dictatorship.

As an alternative, would the citizen militia rise up and take on the evil politicians in government? Since all politicians look alike and fund raise from the same corporations in order to get money, which ones are ‘evil’ and must be done away with? All politicians go to the same corporate well so they can get permission and money to be elected.

Corporate money beats all other sources of money by a 10 to 1 margin, so that is where just about all politicians go these days. Would these citizen militia get rid of all politicians or only certain ones that were deemed more ‘evil’ than others?

Who in this armed citizen militia would decide which politicians were worth doing away with? Well, they could ask a federal, state or local judge to do that ‘dirty’ work of deciding which politicians to get rid of, but these judges ALL belong to and are paid by that ‘evil government’ as well, so that won’t work, would it? If the militia got rid of all judges and courts, then we would have no justice system, and that is another hallmark of dictatorships.. no fair court system.

Maybe the militia will rise up and also get rid of all  ‘evil government’ money built roads, bridges, parks, teachers, firefighters, trains and bus lines,  plus all those working around them, since those are all part of and get funding from that ‘evil government’ as well? If that happened, how many people would like the resulting crime waves, no place to send kids to school, and no way to put fires out, much less no way to travel anywhere, because all of the roads and bridges would be destroyed, due to being part of an evil government?

Just who will this citizen militia rise up against? Maybe they will face the same problem as the Koreans in the Gwangju massacre…”During this period, citizens rose up against Chun Doo-hwan’s dictatorship … but were ultimately crushed by the South Korean army. … …. The troops used tear gas, pulled them out of the cars and beat them senseless.”

Gwangju massacre – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some pro gun apologists will point to the founding of this country (USA) as ‘evidence’ that guns will overthrow tyrants. The problem with this theory is that the poorly armed, poorly financed and poorly organized rabble that made up the citizen militia back in 1775-76 more than likely would NOT have won freedom from the Crown and King George if it had not been for help and assistance in many ways from both the American Indian nation plus the French government army and navy coming to their aid. The French evened out  the odds and put a lot of military pressure on the British Army. It also helped that the supply lines to the US colonies were VERY long, which makes any armed struggle a huge financial burden.

To say that GUNS are the thing that makes the ONLY difference in terms of winning freedom is not true, because we have the numerous examples of peaceful overthrows of dictatorships, where no shots were fired at all, and no weapons were used.

Gandhi overthrew the British dictatorship in India, kicking the British out of the country and gaining independence without any guns or violence.

Nelson Mandela did the same thing in Africa against the Netherlands occupation. 

Some pro gun apologists will use Hitler as an example of what happens when guns are taken away, but the facts prove the exact opposite to the gun apologist’s theory.

Hitler took power in 1933 in a soft coup with no resistance, because Weimar politicians right after World War I were wishy washy and did not stand for anything. Hitler came in as a ‘strong’ leader, who promised jobs for EVERYONE, and a chicken in EVERY POT, plus a Nationalistic agenda that would restore Germany to greatness. He promised to get rid of all criminals and crime. This resonated with a lot of people for many reasons.. There was huge unemployment, lots of crime, and people were feeling inferior after losing in WWI.

Hitler asked for power to be given to him, so he could get problems solved, and people gave it to him. The problem was political and little or nothing to with guns. Hitler actually used intimidation and other extreme fundamentalist tactics to gain power. For the most part, the population went along, with Kurt Schleicher even helping him along the way. For more information, click on the link below…

What we are talking about here is the same mechanism that dictators use all over the world to gain power, and the same reasons that people elect them into office to start with. In the USA for example, more than 50% of the population is fine with giving up more rights and freedoms, as long as the leader ‘solves problems’ such as terrorism, crime, drugs, etc. The focus is on the fear, and a top down strong leader who promises to get rid of the fear.

This fear based dynamic was present in Germany back in the days when Hitler was rising to power, and it is present now in the USA, which is primed and ready for a ‘strong leader’ to come along and solve all of the fears that people have.

Generally speaking, a dictator needs the military to maintain control and order. With no military and no weapons, it is difficult or impossible for a dictator to take over a country, as the citizens will just vote him out of office. Hitler was no exception to this rule. He used General Schleicher to run a  “dictatorship within the dictatorship”.

Any standing Army enjoys monopoly power. No citizen militia can resist a standing army, so it is also a useful tool in the hands of dictators. The German army was a useful tool in the hands of Hitler. The army in any country is a traditional power base and is used as a keeper of order.

The army is also used as a mechanism of control, if needed, against citizens and/or ‘citizen militia’. The Kent State riots are an example of how this happened in the USA, as is the Civil War in the USA. 

In 1933, Hitler  did not need guns to take over. The police  and military forces were and still are for the most part conservative, primed and ready for a dictator to take over in any country, including the USA. The police and military generally do not mind a dictator taking over, as they are trained to accept and follow orders from the top down, no matter who is giving the orders.

Hitler just made a few minor adjustments, had the police and military kiss his ring and salute the flag, and they were both his to do with as he wanted. Anyone who stood in his way, he just got rid of. General Schleicher was whacked in the Night of Long Knives, despite his having lots and lots of guns and lots and lots of loyal soldiers who would have been willing to shoot and die for him. 

Back in those days, no one German or even a civilian group of gun owners was going to change how Hitler came to power by owning and keeping guns in the house, any more than a dictatorship would be prevented here in the USA with 300 million guns owned by civilians.

Hitler had 30 – 60 assassination attempts made on him and none of them succeeded. Dictators are very smart. They make very sure to get rid of anyone opposed to them, especially those with guns, just as Hitler got rid of General Schleicher.

According to Andrew Sullivan; “After the end of World War I, guns were heavily restricted. In 1938, Hitler changed gun laws in Germany to relax gun control laws, dropping restrictions on long guns and ammunition, expanding the number of people who needed no permits, lowering the minimum age for ownership, and extending permit periods. The same law prohibited Jews from owning firearms, the one point gun advocates focus on, but the law in general, contrary to how it is painted by people like (Alex Jones), made guns more freely available. Nor would have things been any significantly different had Jews not been excluded.

It would take a gun nut to believe the utter destruction of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was dispositive of the power of armed self-defense against the colossal police and military powers of the State.”

Saying that an armed rebellion using private weapons is going to preserve liberty in the USA is bull hucky, for many reasons. If Totalitarianism or Dictatorship is what the goal is for even one very determined person with some money behind him, it is most likely going to happen. Here is an example of how bully dictators can take over a huge democracy, and it does not take guns to do it.. nor a lot of people.

Another way to get rid of ‘evil government’ or get distance from a dictator is to start your own country somewhere else, as the ‘settlers’ did here in the USA 200 some odd years ago. Of course, the settlers had to remove 6 million pre-existing inhabitants who had been living here for thousands of years already, but details like that don’t matter, when fear of dictators and despots is the focus.

Of course, those opposed to a dictator can try secession. Again, that theory has been tried as well and found lacking. 

According to Wikipedia; “threats or aspirations to secede from the United States or arguments justifying secession have been a feature of the country’s politics almost since its birth. 

Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

The most serious attempt at secession was advanced in the years 1860 and 1861 as eleven southern states each declared themselves seceded from the United States and joined together to form the Confederate States of America. This movement collapsed in 1865 with the defeat of Confederate forces by Union armies in the American Civil War.[1]

A 2008 Zogby International poll found that 22% of Americans believed that “any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic.”[2]

If US states that have recently started secession movements rise up and foment an active armed rebellion against the ‘evil’ US federal government, what would happen? Laws have been passed allowing the federal government to not only monitor but also kill US citizens, if they are deemed to be ‘terrorists’. An armed rebellion by a few thousand US citizens against the federal and/or state government would fit that definition quite well, wouldn’t you agree?

Even if 22% of Americans rose up against the government and tried to secede as they did during the Civil War period, that movement would likely be crushed, just as it was in the Civil War.

At worst, a secession movement would result in another Civil War, with families taking sides and shooting each other with the guns that they have been accumulating. More than likely, secession movements will have one or more religions behind them on both sides. Religious wars are part of history, and all religions, including Christianity take part in them, or are the primary root cause of those wars.

It may be that one or more states will try to secede and declare war on all other states or the rest of the nation to try and overthrow an ‘evil government’, just as the Southern States did during the previous Civil War. That in effect would mean a Civil War would break out within the USA.

The federal government would not be affected, but potentially millions of people could die in the bloodbath that would follow, just as the casualties were huge during the Civil War. Brothers killed brothers. Fathers killed sons. Sons killed fathers, as they chose sides and fought against each other, plus making the armaments industry rich. Is this really what people want if their gun rights are supposedly threatened? Why can’t a fundamentalist and a liberal just agree to disagree and get along, instead of killing each other over some different way of looking at things?

“Laws such as the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus are designed to restrict the use of the US military against US citizens. But then again, President Lincoln won the Civil War by killing hundreds of thousands of US citizens who had seceded. 

President Lincoln did not play nice with Habeus Corpus and just arrest those opposed to him and the Northern States. Lincoln did not even bother suspending Habeus Corpus. He went after anyone who tried to bring him and his ‘evil dictatorial government’ down, by killing them.”

Well, that Civil War thing was probably just a fluke, so let’s try it again.. Let us explore how lightly armed citizens going to rise up and overthrow a highly trained, well armed, spy infested, intelligence gathering federal army and their leaders. 

Remember that the President is the Commander In Chief, who controls armed forces in the USA, and by extension of his rule combined with major corporations, all arms factories, all ammo factories, all tank factories, all bomb factories, all jet fighter factories as well as all highly trained police forces, and various branches of private mercenaries due to the armed forces privatizing, not to mention all of the dozen branches of intelligence gathering agencies that are now part of the federal government. How is a civilian uprising going to win against all of that? 

The fundamentalists keep making threats that if they do not get their way, they will just take over the government that dictates to them. They threaten to overthrow the government if anyone tries to take their guns away. What chance is there of this happening?

Historically, this idea of armed citizens preventing dictatorships has almost never worked. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and many other kings, dictators and despots throughout history have proven that a single ruthless person backed by a few rich ‘investors’ or someone like the CIA working behind the scenes to create distractions, assassinations, coups or riots, can pretty easily take control and dictate to a whole nation without much, if any opposition. There are many examples of the USA doing this to many other foreign nations, plus the history of the USA ‘settlers’ and slave owners doing this to millions of others. 

Countless citizen militias have tried to rise up or assassinate dictators, kings and despots, only to be shot, tortured, imprisoned or executed instead. 

Dictators do not get where they are by being dumb. They know that free speech, a free press, voting rights, civil rights, a Constitution and a working impartial citizen/community non partisan  court system, juries and a diverse religious citizenry are all things that get in their way, so dictators  tend to make these things go away or to control them somehow. 

Guns can make life for a dictator hazardous, so they tend to take them away, but not from their supporters, as that would be stupid, right? This is why dictators arm their supporters, but take them away from the opposition forces or target groups. American Indians and black slaves were disarmed, so that they could not fight back, for example. 

Dictators only take them away from those in opposition political parties, groups, religions, etc,, but NOT in the way that gun lovers think, which is via an huge battle where the citizens go up against an ‘evil’ dictator.  Historically, one to three years BEFORE a dictator goes after whatever group they are targeting, a dictator will go after opposition or targeted minority groups by taking away their guns. 

By using the force of law, the military and the press, plus propoganda, any dictator has had an easy time taking away guns from anyone they choose historically, as even the gun rights advocates point out so passionately. Why is it so easy for dictators to take guns away from civilians?  Most people tend to not resist the military, the press, neighbors, and public pressure. Most of the public just desires to survive and not create waves. Most people believe what they hear on mass media, even if it is all lies and deception. 

If a government came for you and your guns, odds  are that you would not resist. After all, what are you going to do to resist them when they come for your guns? Would you really lock the doors and shoot the local police who come to take your guns away? 

If you resist at all, the local or federal FBI/SWAT team will show up and either shoot tear gas in, burn your house down, or shoot the place up with so many rounds of tear gas and shock grenades, not to mention thousands of rounds of ammo, that you would not stand a chance. 

Or they would just shut off the power and water and block the sewer. Now what are you going to do?  If you do not believe this could happen to you, talk to some jailed or killed members of the Black Panther movement, who tried to rise up against the ‘evil’ US government police forces. Talk with black slaves and American Indians who tried to fight against their tyrannical rulers. 

According to Wikipedia; “the Black Panther Party’s most widely known programs were its armed citizens’ patrols to evaluate behavior of police officers and its Free Breakfast for Children program. However, the group’s political goals were often overshadowed by their criminality and their confrontational, militant, and violent tactics against police.[10]

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country,”[11] and he supervised an extensive program (COINTELPRO) of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment, assassination, and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members and drain the organization of resources and manpower. 

Through these tactics, Hoover hoped to diminish the Party’s threat to the general power structure of the U.S., or even maintain its influence as a strong undercurrent.[12] Angela Davis, Ward Churchill, and others have alleged that federal, state and local law enforcement officials went to great lengths to discredit and destroy the organization, including assassination.[13][14][15]

If an organized political group can be totally whacked and taken out by a government that sees a small number of armed Black people as a ‘threat’, what chance does an ordinary citizen have, even if they are armed? Any dictator worth his salt will eventually ‘get’ anyone opposed to him when that person leaves the house to get water, food or other necessities. A dictator and his armed troops, police and special Swat Teams can just wait you out. No one is going to come help you. 

Dictators are VERY good at dividing and conquering their enemies who are armed. They are very good at doing away with their enemies quietly, such as via poison, disappearing, assassination or other methods. 

The same methods that were used against the Black Panthers, who were armed to the teeth, and very militant, would work against anyone opposed to a dictator. Very few people can test all of their food and water for poison every day, or drive around with armed bodyguards in armored cars all of the time. 

It is also true that dictators tend to pass laws against their chosen targets that oppose them, or that they hate, whether that target is Jewish, Black, White, gay, another religion, another language, another culture, or whatever. Hitler passed laws against Jews owning guns or other weapons, but behind this was a racist, bigoted, extremist viewpoint that preyed on peoples fears to get into power and deliver a death blow to the racist target. 

But what chance does that minority have of keeping their guns, much less fighting back, when a majority in that same population move against them with laws, press, plus take actions to enforce forcible and active segregation, such as the Japanese US citizens during World War II, or the American Indians during the ‘founding’ of this country? 

The Chinese were kicked out of the USA when things got bad economically, and the Japanese US citizens had everything taken from them and were rounded up and put in ‘camps’, due to nothing more than fear and discrimination, during World War II. Only a dictatorship does that kind of thing.

‘Settlers’ took out between 6-10 million Indians to ‘settle’ this country, using deception, fraud and political thuggery, with nothing more than a few weapons and the federal army behind them. In this case, US citizens wanted MORE government, not less, in order to ‘conquer’ evil pagan Indians. But when a diverse group of many colors has the gall to rise up and demand equal access to power, the white minority will stop at almost nothing to maintain that control, whether in the USA, or in Africa during Apartheid. 

According to Wikipedia; “Apartheid (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ɐˈpɑːrtɦɛit]; from Afrikaans[1] “the status of being apart”) was a system of racial segregation enforced through legislation by the National Party governments, who were the ruling party from 1948 to 1994, of South Africa, under which the rights of the majority black inhabitants of South Africa were curtailed and white supremacy and Afrikaner minority rule was maintained. 
Apartheid was developed after World War II by the Afrikaner-dominated National Party and Broederbond organisations and was practised also in South West Africa, which was administered by South Africa under a League of Nations mandate (revoked in 1966 via United Nations Resolution 2145[2]), until it gained independence as Namibia in 1990.[3]
Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times under Dutch[4] and British ‘rule’. However, apartheid as an official policy was introduced following the general election of 1948. New legislation classified inhabitants into four racial groups (“native”, “white”, “coloured“, and “Asian”),[5] and residential areas were segregated, sometimes by means of forced removals. 
Non-white political representation was completely abolished in 1970, and starting in that year black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. The government segregated education, medical care, beaches, and other public services, and provided black people with services inferior to those of white people.[6]
Apartheid sparked significant internal resistance and violence as well as a long arms and trade embargo against South Africa.[7] Since the 1950s, a series of popular uprisings and protests were met with the banning of opposition and imprisoning of anti-apartheid leaders. As unrest spread and became more effective and militarised, state organisations responded with repression and violence.
Reforms to apartheid in the 1980s failed to quell the mounting opposition, and in 1990 President Frederik Willem de Klerk began negotiations to end apartheid,[8] culminating in multi-racial democratic elections in 1994, which were won by the African National Congress under Nelson Mandela
The vestiges of apartheid still shape South African politics and society. Although the official abolishment of Apartheid occurred in 1990 with repeal of the last of the remaining Apartheid laws, the end of Apartheid is widely regarded as arising from the 1994 democratic general elections.”

The important thing to understand around Apartheid is that this dictatorial system of oppression was overcome largely through a non violent, voting based system put in place by Nelson Mandela.

Black slaves and American Indians had no chance against these conquering hordes, even though the Indian nations initially made up a MAJORITY of the population in the historical young USA. The Indians lost because they had no control, no press, no right to assemble, no representatives, no right to VOTE or own property, no communications system, no political representatives, and NO DESIRE to become wealthy by exploiting resources, as the white ‘settlers’ did. 

Greed, fear, violence and suppressing native aborigine peoples are  the true weapons of dictators. Those weapons are still being used today, including inside of the USA. Dictators are not just in foreign nations such as Saudi Arabia, they are right here in the USA. For more information about this subject, click on the following link…..

Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations And The 1%

What can we call those who committed genocide against the 6 million ancient American Indians living for thousands of years on the US mainland? 

Historical Myth; Columbus ‘Discovered’ America; The Canary Effect; via A Green Road

What can we call those who owned slaves inside the USA, and built up their wealth and fortune through the use of those slaves? Should we call former slave owners dictators, because they held people against their will, forced them to work and did not pay them, raped them whenever they desired and did as they wanted with them?  Slaves were also NOT allowed to have guns, of course. Who is really the salve owner or ‘dictator’ here in the USA? 

2nd Amendment Gun ‘Right” Was Used To Suppress Black Slaves In South; via A Green Road

Who is a really a ‘dictator’ these days? What about corporations that moved millions of US jobs to Communist China, where workers only make $2 per day, with no benefits, and no labor protections, with no justice possible for grievances? Could global corporations be considered as the new ‘slave owners’ and ‘dictators’?

JFK’s Speech About The Danger Of Secret Societies And Huge Monopolies; via A Green Road

Let us return to the secession method of armed ‘revolution’. If ‘red’ states really want to secede from the ‘union’, let them, as red states typically get more federal revenues than they pay in, so it would be no great loss. Maybe California can secede and keep all of the money that it typically sends to the red states and never gets back, in order to keep the red states artificially alive. 

There is no need to get violent, nor is there any need to overthrow any dictatorial  ‘evil’ government. Just secede, pass the laws you want, and let people live where they want to live, under whatever laws they deem appropriate. 

At least some ‘red’ states would be armed to the teeth and more than likely pass laws requiring every able bodied adult to own and carry at least one gun. Many red states would create zones that are free of any alcohol drugs, public education, birth control or abortion services. Some would put all of their money into their civilian military, and tax their citizens to build and buy more weapons in order to prevent any other states from coming in and taking their guns away.

The only weakness with the secession method is that the federal government would grow weaker, and thus have less ability to raise money for the military industrial complex. It is even possible that the secession movement would reduce the size of the bloated military budget, which is currently eating about 60% of the total federal budget in the USA, exceeding the amount typically syphoned off by the most tyrannical dictator in totalitarian countries. 

President Eisenhower – Farewell Warning About Military Industrial Complex; via A Green Road

What really stops dictators is a VOTING, informed public in combination with a free press and true journalists. All of these things are disappearing in the USA. If a dictator cannot get people to vote for him, then he cannot get control over them. This means dictators have to get control of the press. Currently, only a few people own most of the ‘press’ in the USA, and that control is tightening even more, into fewer hands.

When slaves get the right to vote, they typically vote out the dictators and vote for democratic things like justice, equal rights, human rights, jobs, etc.  Slaves typically vote in democratic leaders, who include everyone, including the former slave owners. This process happened both in India under Gandhi and in Africa under Nelson Mandela, as well as in the USA during and after the Civil War. Many former slaves joined the ‘Northern’ armies, and they may have made the difference in winning the Civil War. 

What dictators typically do is to seize power with force and weapons. If a country does not have weapons available, then dictators will have a much harder time doing taking anything that people own (guns, jewelry, etc) by force. They will also have a much harder time holding onto power if they cannot threaten those opposed to a dictator taking over with weapons and deadly force. 

The best way to ensure that a dictator does not rise up to power is to beat all weapons into plowshares and get rid of all weapons, as the Bible says. The next step is to make sure that everyone votes, because dictators can only fool so many people for so long, and then they see through him, and will vote him out of office if given the chance. There is no need for weapons either to get power or to get rid of someone in power. Essentially, that is the only difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, is a voting public, all enumerated rights under a Constitution, a free press and free speech. 

Those who try to resist a dictator internally with violence most often end up dead. The French partisans during World War II did not succeed in toppling the Nazis, but they did irritate them.  The Communist regime did not collapse due to guns and armed people rising up against the Communist Party. 

The Communist Soviet Union failed peacefully, and the wall came down without a shot being fired.  Actually, the reason for the Communist Soviet Union failing may have nothing to do with Reagan calling for the wall to come down at all… 

Gorbachev; Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Was Real Cause Of The Collapse of Soviet Union; via A Green Road
An interesting question to ask is, why is Communist China now the most favored trading nation and best friend of the US? Whatever happened to the fear of and war against Communism? Why did all of those soldiers sent to battle Communism have to die, if all of a sudden they are now our best buddies?

Dictators bent on violence AND world domination will destroy themselves eventually  due to their huge inflated egos and hubris. Most dictators are too smart to go there. As dictators use violence against others, so violence will be used against them by other nations defending themselves, via war. 

In times of war, weapons are used, but historically, weapons are not needed in between wars and armies disbanded completely. Nowadays, war mongering dictatorial corporations make more profits by creating a constant state of crisis, engage in constant fear mongering and make up reasons to keep standing armies going full time, in order to keep weapons production/sales going. 

Nowadays, armies never disband, they just grow larger and eat up more and more of the national budget. There are huge no bid contract profits to be made after all. 

War is a Racket; via A Green Road

War/No More Trouble | Playing for Change | Song Around The World; via A Green Road
According to the theory that guns prevent dictatorships, let us examine how some dictatorships formed and who supported these individuals in their rise to power. Let’s start with Mussolini, the Fascist dictator in Italy. 

According to Wikipedia; “after being ousted by the Italian Socialist Party for his support of Italian intervention, Mussolini made a radical transformation, ending his support for class conflict and joining in support of revolutionary nationalism transcending class lines. [41] He formed the interventionist newspaper Il Popolo d’Italia and the Fasci Rivoluzionari d’Azione Internazionalista (“Revolutionary Fasci for International Action”) in October 1914. [36] 

His nationalist support of intervention enabled him to raise funds from Ansaldo (an armaments firm) and other companies to create Il Popolo d’Italia to convince socialists and revolutionaries to support the war.[43]  
(Could it be that when politicians align themselves with large weapons companies while spouting an extreme Nationalist agenda, that a totalitarian state is not far behind, as is the case now in the USA?)
Mussolini became an ally with the irredentist politician and journalist Cesare Battisti, and like him he entered the Army and served in the war.[30]
On 25 December 1915, in Trevalglio, he contracted a marriage with his fellow countrywoman Rachele Guidi. Mussolini utilized works of Plato, Georges Sorel,Nietzsche, and the socialist and economic ideas of Vilfredo Pareto, to create fascism. Mussolini admired The Republic, which he often read for inspiration.[59] 
The Republic held a number of ideas that fascism promoted such as rule by an elite promoting the state as the ultimate end, opposition to democracy, protecting the class system and promoting class collaboration, rejection of egalitarianism, promoting the militarization of a nation by creating a class of warriors, demanding that citizens perform civic duties in the interest of the state, and utilizing state intervention in education to promote the creation of warriors and future rulers of the state.[60] (This sounds very much like the USA today, doesn’t it?)
The basic underlying idea behind Mussolini’s foreign policy was that of spazio vitale (vital space), a concept in Fascism that was analogous to lebensraum in German National Socialism.[62] The concept of spazio vitale was first announced in 1919, when the entire Mediterranean, especially so-called Julian March was redefined to make it appear a unified region that had belonged to Italy from the times of the ancient Roman province of Italia,[63][64] was claimed as Italy’s exclusive sphere of influence. The right to colonize the neighboring Slovene ethnic areas and Mediterranean, being inhabited by what were alleged to be less developed peoples, was justified under the grounds that Italy was suffering from overpopulation.[65] (The USA has over 700 military bases worldwide, and many ‘foreign’ countries are little more than extensions of the US based global corporations.)
JFK’s Speech About The Danger Of Secret Societies And Huge Monopolies; via A Green Road
Borrowing the idea first developed by Enrico Corradini before 1914 of the natural conflict between “plutocratic” nations like Britain and “proletarian” nations like Italy, Mussolini claimed that Italy’s principle problem was that it was “plutocratic” countries like Britain that were blocking Italy from achieving the necessary spazio vitale that would let the Italian economy grow. [66] Mussolini equated a nation’s potential for economic growth with territorial size, thus in his view the problem of poverty in Italy could only be solved by winning the necessary spazio vitale. [67] (The US until recently was claiming that Communism was ‘blocking’ democracy, but now Communist China is the best friend and most favored trading nation, and it is where all US jobs are going.)
Though biological racism was less prominent in Fascism than National Socialism, right from the start there was a strong racist undercurrent to the spazio vitale concept, in which Mussolini asserted there was a “natural law” for stronger peoples to subject and dominate “inferior” peoples such as the “barbaric” Slavic peoples of Yugoslavia as Mussolini claimed in a September 1920 speech, when Mussolini stated:
When dealing with such a race as Slavic – inferior and barbarian – we must not pursue the carrot, but the stick policy … We should not be afraid of new victims … The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps … I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians …
—Benito Mussolini, speech held in Pula, 20 September 1920[68][69]
The March on Rome was a coup d’état by which Mussolini’s National Fascist Party came to power in Italy and ousted Prime Minister Luigi Facta. The “march” took place in 1922 between 27–29 October. On 28 October King Victor Emmanuel III who according to the Statuto Albertino had both the executive and the Supreme military power, refused Facta’s request to declare martial law, which led to Facta’s resignation. The King then handed over power to Mussolini by inviting him to form a new government. Mussolini was supported by the military, the business class, and the  right-wing.
As Prime Minister, the first years of Mussolini’s rule were characterized by a right-wing coalition government composed of Fascists, nationalists, liberals, and two Catholic clerics from the Popular Party. The Fascists made up a small minority in his original governments. Mussolini’s domestic goal was the eventual establishment of a totalitarian state with himself as supreme leader (Il Duce) a message that was articulated by the Fascist newspaper Il Popolo, which was now edited by Mussolini’s brother, Arnaldo. 
To that end, Mussolini obtained from the legislature dictatorial powers for one year (legal under the Italian constitution of the time). He favored the complete restoration of state authority, with the integration of the Fasci di Combattimento into the armed forces (the foundation in January 1923 of the Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) and the progressive identification of the party with the state. In political and social economy, he passed legislation that favored the wealthy industrial and agrarian classes (privatizations, liberalizations of rent laws and dismantlement of the unions).[14] (Does this not sound like what is happening right now in the USA?)
At various times after 1922, Mussolini personally took over the ministries of the interior, foreign affairs, colonies, corporations, defense, and public works. Sometimes he held as many as seven departments simultaneously, as well as the premiership. He was also head of the all-powerful Fascist Party and the armed local fascist militia, the MVSN or “Blackshirts“, who terrorised incipient resistances in the cities and provinces. He would later form the OVRA, an institutionalised secret police that carried official state support. In this way he succeeded in keeping power in his own hands and preventing the emergence of any rival.

(The same thing is roughly happening right now in the USA. No third political parties are allowed any political room nor are they given air time on any mass media. Police and 12 secret agencies such as CIA monitor all groups and infiltrate them in order to squelch opposition to the corporate controlled duopoly. Any civilian militia brave enough to act up are brutally repressed, and any opposition is given short shrift and negative press; witness the Occupy movement.) 
Between 1925 and 1927, Mussolini progressively dismantled virtually all constitutional and conventional restraints on his power, thereby building a police state. (This same thing is happening right now in the USA, with unconstitutional anti drug laws, drone assassination laws, FISA laws, wiretapping laws, torture laws, indefinite detention laws, ‘private courts’, and more.)
A law passed on Christmas Eve 1925 changed Mussolini’s formal title from “president of the Council of Ministers” to “head of the government”. He was no longer responsible to Parliament and could only be removed by the king. While the Italian constitution stated that ministers were only responsible to the sovereign, in practice it had become all but impossible to govern against the express will of Parliament. The Christmas Eve law ended this practice, and also made Mussolini the only person competent to determine the body’s agenda. Local autonomy was abolished, and podestàs appointed by the Italian Senate replaced elected mayors and councils. 
(Corporations and their lobbyists are the only ones allowed at the political table where taxpayer money is divided up and consumed. Any pro consumer advocate who may be placed near the President is quickly ousted from the ‘inner circle’ of power, even if they are initially allowed in.)
All other parties were outlawed following Zamboni’s assassination attempt in 1926, though in practice Italy had been a one-party state since Mussolini’s 1925 speech. In the same year, an electoral law abolished parliamentary elections. Instead, the Grand Council of Fascism selected a single list of candidates to be approved by plebiscite
The Grand Council had been created five years earlier as a party body but was “constitutionalised” and became the highest constitutional authority in the state. On paper, the Grand Council had the power to recommend Mussolini’s removal from office, and was thus theoretically the only check on his power. 
Only Mussolini could summon the Grand Council and determine its agenda. To gain control of the South, especially Sicily, he appointed Cesare Mori as a Prefect of the city of Palermo, with the charge of eradicating the Mafia at any price. In the telegram, Mussolini wrote to Mori:
“Your Excellency has carte blanche; the authority of the State must absolutely, I repeat absolutely, be re-established in Sicily. If the laws still in force hinder you, this will be no problem, as we will draw up new laws.”[85]
He did not hesitate laying siege to towns, using torture, and holding women and children as hostages to oblige suspects to give themselves up. These harsh methods earned him the nickname of “Iron Prefect”. In 1927 Mori’s inquiries brought evidence of collusion between the Mafia and the Fascist establishment, and he was dismissed for length of service in 1929, at which time the number of murders in the Palermo Province had decreased from some 200 to 23. Mussolini nominated Mori as a senator, and fascist propaganda claimed that the Mafia had been defeated.[86] 
(The US war on crime, drugs and terrorists continues and gets more and more expensive in the USA. The Dept Of Homeland Security keeps accumulating more and more power. Proponents of these never ending ‘wars’ keep demanding more and more money to increase ‘safety’ and freedom, but instead of US citizens getting safer and more free, the opposite keeps happening.)
The Illusion Of The ‘Free Market’ – Paradox Of State Punishing People For Drug Use; via A Green Road
Mussolini’s foremost priority was the subjugation of the minds of the Italian people and the use of propaganda to do so. Press, radio, education, films—all were carefully supervised to create the impression that fascism was the doctrine of the twentieth century, replacing liberalism and democracy. A lavish cult of personality centered on Mussolini was promoted by the regime.

(Much mass media air time in the USA is spent on the cult of personality, whether that is fawning over British royals, movie stars, politicians, mass murderers, rapists, shooting incidents, and war heroes or retired generals. By comparison, very little time is spent on debating solutions to very large and increasingly serious problems in society.)

The law codes of the parliamentary system were rewritten under Mussolini. All teachers in schools and universities had to swear an oath to defend the fascist regime. Newspaper editors were all personally chosen by Mussolini and no one who did not possess a certificate of approval from the fascist party could practice journalism. 
These certificates were issued in secret; Mussolini thus skillfully created the illusion of a “free press”. The trade unions were also deprived of any independence and were integrated into what was called the “corporative” system. The aim (never completely achieved), inspired by medieval guilds, was to place all Italians in various professional organizations or corporations, all under clandestine governmental control.
Bernie Sanders on Why Big Media Shouldn’t Get Bigger; via A Green Road
Nationalists in the years after the war thought of themselves as combating the both liberal and domineering institutions created by cabinets—such as those of Giovanni Giolitti, including traditional schooling. Futurism, a revolutionary cultural movement which would serve as a catalyst for Fascism, argued for “a school for physical courage and patriotism,” as expressed by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in 1919. 
Marinetti expressed his disdain for “…the by now prehistoric andtroglodyte Ancient Greek and Latin courses,” arguing for their replacement with exercise modelled on those of the Arditi soldiers (“[learning] to advance on hands and knees in front of razing machine gun fire; to wait open-eyed for a crossbeam to move sideways over their heads etc.”). It was in those years that the first Fascist youth wings were formed: Avanguardia Giovanile Fascista (Fascist Youth Vanguards) in 1919, and Gruppi Universitari Fascisti (Fascist University Groups) in 1922.
After the March on Rome that brought Benito Mussolini to power, the Fascists started considering ways to ideologize Italian society, with an accent on schools. Mussolini assigned former ardito and deputy-secretary for EducationRenato Ricci the task of “…reorganizing the youth from a moral and physical point of view.” 
Ricci sought inspiration with Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of Scouting, meeting with him in England, as well as with Bauhaus artists in Germany. The Opera Nazionale Balilla was created through Mussolini’s decree of 3 April 1926, and was led by Ricci for the following eleven years. It included children between the ages of 8 and 18, grouped as the Balilla and the Avanguardisti.
According to Mussolini: “Fascist education is moral, physical, social, and military: it aims to create a complete and harmoniously developed human, a fascist one according to our views”.In foreign policy, Mussolini soon shifted from the anti-imperialism of his lead-up to power to an extreme form of aggressive nationalism. 
(The US wants to make a name for itself by exporting ‘democracy and freedom’, but to do so, it has established hundreds  of military bases globally and torture lots of people until the confess, much like the Salem Witch Trials, back in the ‘good ol days’.)
2012; Torture And Renderings Still Legal In The USA; via A Green Road
He dreamt of making Italy a nation that was “great, respected, and feared” throughout Europe, and indeed the world. An early example was his bombardment of Corfu in 1923. Soon after he succeeded in setting up a puppet regime in Albania and in ruthlessly consolidating Italian power in Libya, which had been loosely a colony since 1912. 
It was his dream to make the Mediterranean mare nostrum (“our sea” in Latin), and he established a large naval base on the Greek island of Leros to enforce a strategic hold on the eastern Mediterranean.In an effort to create an Italian Empire – or as supporters called it, the New Roman Empire[90] – Italy set its sights on Ethiopia with an invasion that was carried out rapidly. 
Italy’s forces were far superior to the Abyssinian forces, especially in regards to air power, and they were soon victorious. Emperor Haile Selassie was forced to flee the country, with Italy entering the capitalAddis Ababa to proclaim an empire by May 1936, making Ethiopia part of Italian East Africa.[91] 
(All hail to the USA, with superior air power, able to drone assassinate any enemy, and bomb the heck out of the rest, until they cannot resist the democracy and freedom movement, which is being exported to any and all oil producing nation, even those that resist US advances.)
Although all of the major European powers of the time had also colonized parts of Africa and committed atrocities in their colonies, the Scramble for Africa had finished by the beginning of the twentieth century. The international mood was now against colonialist expansion and Italy’s actions were condemned. Retroactively, Italy was criticized for its use of mustard gas andphosgene against its enemies and also for its zero tolerance approach to enemy guerrillas, allegedly authorised by Mussolini.[91]
The following is a listing of the countries that the US and the CIA were involved in overthrowing democratically elected leaders, which mimics somewhat at least, the Mussolini actions of superior military might, and establishing puppet governments in a quest to expand the empire and ‘reach’. According to Wikipedia;  
“SYRIA 1949
Syria became an independent republic in 1946, but the March 1949 Syrian coup d’état, led by Army Chief of Staff Husni al-Za’im, ended the initial period of civilian rule. Za’im met at least six times with CIA operatives in the months prior to the coup to discuss his plan to seize power. 
IRAN 1953
In 1953, the CIA worked with the United Kingdom to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran led by Prime MinisterMohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran’s petroleum industry, threatening the profits of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.[15] Declassified CIA documents show that Britain was fearful of Iran’s plans to nationalize its oil industry and pressed the U.S. to mount a joint operation to depose the prime minister and install a puppet regime.[16][17]
The coup was led by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. (grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt). With help from British intelligence, the CIA planned, funded and implemented Operation Ajax.[18] In the months before the coup, the UK and U.S. imposed a boycott of the country, exerted other political pressures, and conducted a massive covert propaganda campaign to create the environment necessary for the coup.

The CIA hired Iranian agents provocateurs who posed as communists, harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric’s home to turn the Islamic religious community against the government.

For the U.S. audience, the CIA hoped to plant articles in U.S. newspapers saying that Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi‘s return to govern Iran resulted from a homegrown revolt against what was being represented to the U.S. public as a communist-leaning government.

The CIA successfully used its contacts at the Associated Press to put on the newswire in the U.S. a statement from Tehran about royal decrees that the CIA itself had written.[16]

Guatemala 1954
The CIA supported the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Guatemala led by Jacobo Arbenz.[23][24][25][26] Arbenz was elected without a secret ballot. His land reform was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which he then purged. He also received arms from the Soviet bloc.[27]

The CIA claimed it intervened because it feared that a communist government would become “a Soviet beachhead in the Western Hemisphere;”[28] however, it was also protecting, among others, four hundred thousand acres of land the United Fruit Company had acquired.

Guatemala’s official 1999 truth commission accused Arbenz of being involved in the deaths of several hundred political opponents.[29] Although the CIA’s operations were a failure, the Arbenz regime suddenly collapsed without any significant violence when the Guatemalan military turned against it.[30]

In the eleven days after the resignation of President Arbenz, five successive military junta governments occupied the Guatemalan presidential palace; each junta was successively more amenable to the political demands of the U.S., after which, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas assumed the Presidency of Guatemala.

The Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations approved initiatives for CIA-trained Cuban anti-communist exiles and refugees to land in Cuba and attempt to overthrow the government of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Plans originally formed under Eisenhower were scaled back under Kennedy. The largest and most complicated coup effort, approved at White House level, was the Bay of Pigs operation.
The CIA made a number of attempts to assassinate Castro, often with White House approval, as in Operation Mongoose.
Dominican Republic 1961
The CIA supported the overthrow of Rafael Trujillo, Prime Minister of the Dominican Republic, on 30 May 1961.[48] In a report to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, CIA officials described the agency as having “no active part” in the assassination and only a “faint connection” with the groups that planned the killing,[49] but the internal CIA investigation, by its Inspector General, “disclosed quite extensive Agency involvement with the plotters.”[50]
The CIA backed a coup against President Ngô Đình Diệmof South Vietnam. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the Americanambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diệm. Upon hearing that a coup d’état was being designed by ARVN generals led by General Dương Văn Minh, Lodge gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere.

Lucien Conein, a CIA operative, provided a group of South Vietnamese generals with $40,000 to carry out the coup with the promise that US forces would make no attempt to protect Diệm. Dương Văn Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government on 1 November 1963 in a swift coup.

Brazil 1964
The democratically-elected government of Brazil, headed by President João Goulart, was successfully overthrown in a coup in March 1964. On March 30, the American military attaché in Brazil, Colonel Vernon A. Walters, telegraphed the State Department. In that telegraph, he confirmed that Brazilian army generals, independently of the US, had committed themselves to acting against Goulart within a week of the meeting, but no date was set.[54]
Ghana 1966
Kwame Nkrumah helped Ghana gain its independence from British colonial rule and advocated a non-aligned Marxisteconomic perspective. Nkrumah enacted a Preventive Detention Act that made it possible for his administration to arrest and detain anyone charged with treason without due process of law in the judicial system.

In 1964, he proposed a constitutional amendment which would make the Convention People’s Party the only legal party and himself president for life of both nation and party. 

The amendment passed with 99.91 percent of the vote, an implausibly high total that led observers to condemn the vote as “obviously rigged.”[58] In February 1966, while he was on a state visit, his government was overthrown in a military coup led by Emmanuel Kwasi Kotoka. Several commentators, including former CIA officer John Stockwell, have alleged the CIA’s extensive involvement in the coup.[59][60][61]
Chile 1970-73
Two Chilean air force jets fire 18 rockets into the presidential palace La Moneda, setting it on fire, in the 1973 Chilean coup d’état on September 11th, 1973
The election of Marxist candidate Salvador Allende as President of Chilein September 1970 led President Richard Nixon to order that Allende not be allowed to take office.[62]:25 Nixon pursued a vigorous campaign of covert resistance to Allende, first designed to convince the Chilean congress to confirm Jorge Alessandri as the winner of the election. 
When this failed, false flag operatives approached senior Chilean military officers, in “some two dozen contacts”, with the message that “the U.S. desired….a coup.”[62]Once Allende took office, extensive covert efforts continued with U.S.-funded black propagandaplaced in El Mercurio, strikes organized against Allende, and funding for Allende opponents. 
When El Mercurio requested significant funds for covert support in September 1971, “…in a rare example of presidential micromanagement of a covert operation, Republican President Nixon personally authorized the $700,000—and more if necessary—in covert funds to El Mercurio[62]:93. Following an extended period of social, political, and economic unrest, General Augusto Pinochet assumed power in a violent coup d’état on September 11, 1973; among the dead was Allende.
The Chilean Chamber of Deputies accused Allende of support of armed groups, torture, illegal arrests, muzzling the press, confiscating private property, and not allowing people to leave the country.[63] Mark Falcoff credits the CIA with preserving democratic opposition to Allende and preventing the “consolidation” of his supposed “totalitarian project”.[64] 
However, Peter Kornbluh asserts that the CIA destabilized Chile and helped create the conditions for the 1973 Chilean coup d’état, which led to years of dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet.[62]
Afghanistan 1979 
Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:
We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. 
And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. 
We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.[69]
CIA Supported Taliban and Al Queda
The supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants was one of the CIA’s longest and most expensive covert operations.[70] The CIA provided assistance to the fundamentalist insurgents through the Pakistani secret services, Inter-Services Intelligence(ISI), in a program called Operation Cyclone. At least 3 billion in U.S. dollars were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, and there were similar programs run by Saudi Arabia, Britain’s MI6 and SAS, Egypt, Iran, and the People’s Republic of China.[71]
Pakistan’s secret service, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was used as an intermediary for most of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.
The early foundations of al-Qaida were allegedly built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahadin during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country.[74] 
Turkey 1980
One day before the military coup of 12 September 1980 some 3,000 American troops of the RDF started a maneuver Anvil Express on Turkish soil.[80] At the end of 1981 a Turkish-American Defense Council (Turkish: Türk-Amerikan Savunma Konseyi) was founded. 
Defense Minister Ümit Haluk and Richard Perle, then U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense international security policy of the new Reagan administration, and the deputy Chief of Staff Necdet Öztorun participated in its first meeting on 27 April 1982.
U.S. support of the coup was acknowledged by the CIA’s Ankara station chief, Paul Henze. After the government was overthrown, Henze cabled Washington, saying, “our boys [in Ankara] did it.”[81][82] This has created the impression that the U.S. stood behind the coup. 
Henze denied this during a June 2003 interview on CNN Türk‘s Manşet, but two days later Birand presented an interview with Henze recorded in 1997 in which he basically confirmed Mehmet Ali Birand’s story.[83][84] The U.S. State Department announced the coup during the night between 11 and 12 September: the military had phoned the U.S. embassy in Ankara to alert them of the coup an hour in advance.[85]
Nicaragua 1981-1990
From 1981-90, the CIA attempted to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
Destabilization through CIA Assets
In 1983, the CIA created a group of “Unilaterally Controlled Latino Assets” (UCLAs), whose task was to “sabotage ports, refineries, boats and bridges, and try to make it look like the contras had done it.”[87] In January 1984, these UCLA’s carried out the operation for which they would be best known, the last straw that led to the ratifying of the Boland Amendment, the mining of several Nicaraguan harbors, which sank several Nicaraguan boats, damaged at least five foreign vessels, and brought an avalanche of international condemnation down on the United States.[88]
Arming the Contras
North‘s mugshot taken after his arrest
The Contras, based in neighboring Honduras, waged a guerrilla war insurgency in an effort to topple the government of Nicaragua. The U.S. played a decisive role in financing, training, arming, and advising the contras.[89] 
The Boland Amendment made it illegal under U.S. law to provide arms to the Contra militants. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration continued to arm and fund the Contras through the Iran-Contra scandal, pursuant to which the U.S. secretly sold arms to Iran in violation of U.S. law in exchange for cash used by the U.S. to supply arms to the Contras.
In 1986 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua’s harbors. 
The Court found in its verdict that the United States was “in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State”, “not to intervene in its affairs”, “not to violate its sovereignty”, “not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce”, and “in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956.” [89]
The U.S.-supported Nicaraguan contras
The Sandinista government headed by Daniel Ortega won decisively in the 1984 Nicaraguan elections.[91] The national elections of 1984 were conducted during a state of emergency officially justified by the war fought against the Contras insurgents and CIA-orchestrated bombings. 
Many political prisoners were still held as it took place, and none of the main opposition parties participated due to what they claimed were threats and persecution from the government. The 1984 election was for posts subordinate to the Sandinista Directorate, a body “no more subject to approval by vote than the Central Committee of the Communist Party is in countries of the East Bloc,” and there was no secret ballot.[92]
It has been argued that “probably a key factor in preventing the 1984 elections from establishing liberal democratic rule was the United States’ policy toward Nicaragua.” [93] The Reagan administration was divided over whether the rightwing coalition Coordinadora Democrática Nicaragüense participate in the elections or not, which “only complicated the efforts of the Coordinadora to develop a coherent electoral strategy.” [93]
The U.S. continued to pressure the government by illegally arming the Contra insurgency. On October 5, 1985 the Sandinistas broadened the state of emergency begun in 1982 and suspended many more civil rights. A new regulation also forced any organization outside of the government to first submit any statement it wanted to make public to the censorsip bureau for prior censorship.[95]
As the Contras’ insurgency continued with U.S. support, the Sandinistas struggled to maintain power. They lost power in 1990, when they ended the SOE and held an election that all the main opposition parties competed in. The Sandinistas have been accused of killing thousands by Nicaragua’s Permanent Commission on Human Rights.[96] The Contras have also been accused of committing war crimes, such as rape, arson, and the killing of civilians.[97]
“The longer they [Sandinistas] were in power, the worse things became. It was all lies, what they promised us” (unemployed person); “I thought it was going to be just like 1984, when the vote was not secret and there was not all these observers around” (market vendor); “Don’t you believe those lies [about fraud], I voted my conscience and my principles, and so did everyone else I know” (young mother); “the Sandinistas have mocked and abused the people, and now we have given our vote to [the opposition] UNO” (ex-Sandinista officer).[98]
Cambodia 1980-95
The Reagan Administration sought to apply the Reagan Doctrine of aiding anti-Soviet resistance movements abroad to Cambodia, which was under Vietnamese occupation following the Cambodian genocide carried out by the communist Khmer Rouge
The Vietnamese had installed a communist government led by Khmer Rouge dissident Heng Samrin. According to R. J. Rummel, the Vietnamese were responsible for 460,000 democidal killings during the war[99] in addition to the roughly 2 million who had been killed by the Khmer Rouge.[100] 
The largest resistance movement fighting Cambodia’s communist government was largely made up of members of the former Khmer Rouge regime, whose human rights record was among the worst of the 20th century.

Therefore, Reagan authorized the provision of aid to a smaller Cambodian resistance movement, a coalition called the Khmer People’s National Liberation Front,[101] known as the KPNLF and then run bySon Sann; in an effort to force an end to the Vietnamese occupation. Eventually, the Vietnamese withdrew.[102] Then, under United Nations supervision, free elections were held.[103

Afghanistan 2001
Hamid Karzai with Special Forces and CIA Paramilitary in late 2001
In 2001, the CIA’s Special Activities Division units were the first U.S. forces to enter Afghanistan. Their efforts organized the Afghan Northern Alliance for the subsequent arrival of USSOCOMforces. The plan for the invasion of Afghanistan was developed by the CIA, the first time in United States history that such a large-scale military operation was planned by the CIA.[115]

SAD, U.S. Army Special Forces and the Northern Alliance combined to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan with minimal loss of U.S. lives. They did this without the need for U.S. military conventional ground forces.[116][117][118]

Venezuela 2002
In 2002, Washington is claimed to have approved and supported a coup against the Venezuelan government. Senior officials, including Special Envoy to Latin America Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra figure and George W. Bush “democracy ‘czar'” Elliott Abrams, were allegedly part of the plot.[126]

Top coup plotters, including Pedro Carmona, the man installed during the coup as the new president, began visits to the White House months before the coup and continued until weeks before the putsch. The plotters were received at the White House by the man President George W. Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Special Envoy Otto Reich.[126] It has been claimed by Venezuelan news sources that Reich was the U.S. mastermind of the coup.[127]

Former U.S. Navy intelligence officer Wayne Madsen told the British newspaper The Guardian that American military attachés had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to explore the possibility of a coup. “I first heard of Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers [the assistant military attaché now based at the U.S. embassy in Caracas] going down there last June [2001] to set the ground”, Mr. Madsen reported, adding: “Some of our counter-narcotics agents were also involved.”

He claims the U.S. Navy assisted with signals intelligence as the coup played out and helped by jamming communications for the Venezuelan military, focusing on jamming communications to and from the diplomatic missions in Caracas. The U.S. embassy dismissed the allegations as “ridiculous”.[128]

Bush Administration officials and anonymous sources acknowledged meeting with some of the planners of the coup in the several weeks prior to April 11, but have strongly denied encouraging the coup itself, saying that they insisted on constitutional means.[129] Because of allegations, Sen. Christopher Dodd requested a review of U.S. activities leading up to and during the coup attempt. 
Palestinian Authority, 2006-present
Main article: Battle of Gaza (2007)
After winning Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, Hamas and Fatah formed the Palestinan authority national unity government in 2007, headed by Ismail Haniya. In June 2007 Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip[131] and removed Fatah officials. The ICRC estimated that at least 118 people were killed and more than 550 wounded during the fighting in the week up to June 15.[132]
In May 2007, U.S. officials promised to continue funding a $84 million aid package aimed at improving the fighting ability of the Abbas Presidential Guard loyal to Fatah. The U.S. insisted that all of its aid to the Presidential Guard is “nonlethal”, consisting of training, uniforms, and supplies, as well as paying for better infrastructure at Gaza’s borders.

“The situation has gotten to be quite dire in Gaza, we have a situation of lawlessness and outright chaos”, he said. “This chaotic situation is why the [U.S.] is focused on [helping] the legal, legitimate security forces in our effort to reestablish law and order.”, said Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, who was overseeing the U.S. program.[133][134][135][136]

In the April 2008 the journalist David Rose suggested that the United States collaborated with the Palestinian Authority and Israel to attempt a coup on Hamas, and Hamas pre-empted the coup.[137]

Hamas Foreign Minister Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar has echoed this view, and called the arming of Fatah by the United States an “American coup d’état”.[138] Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by many Western nations.

Somalia 2006-2007
Although the United States has had an ongoing interest in Somalia for decades, in early 2006 the CIA began a program of funding a coalition of anti-Islamic warlords.[139] This involved CIA case workers funneling payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism against the Islamic Court Union. Although the ICU was locally supported for having restored a relative level of peace, concerns have been expressed about their treatment of women and strict interpretation of Islamic law.[140]
Iran 2005-present
President George W. Bush authorized the CIA to undertake black operations against Iran in an effort to destabilize the Iranian government.[141] A 2005 article in the New York Times stated that the Bush administration was expanding efforts to influence Iran’s internal politics with aid to opposition and pro-democracy groups abroad and longer broadcasts criticizing the Iranian government. 
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns said the administration was “taking a page from the playbook” on Ukraine and Georgia. Unnamed administration officials were reported as saying the State Department was also studying dozens of proposals for spending $3 million in the coming year “for the benefit of Iranians living inside Iran” including broadcast activities, Internet programs and “working with people inside Iran” on advancing political activities there.[142]
In 2006, the United States congress passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which directed $10 million towards groups opposed to the Iranian government. In 2007, ABC news reported that President Bush had authorized a $400 million covert operation to create unrest in Iran.[143] (Terrorism via state sponsored CIA actions)
According to the The Daily Telegraph, the CIA has also provided support to a militant Sunni organization called Jundullah, which has launched raids into Iran from its base in Pakistan.[141] Alexis Debat separately claimed that the US encouraged Pakistan to support Jundullah, but his reporting was challenged after he was discovered to have allegedly fabricated numerous interviews.[144] 
Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, alleged that the US has provided funding and training to the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran and Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, militant groups opposed to the current Iranian government.[145][146] Prior to 2012, the U.S. State Department had listed the PMOI as a terrorist organizaion.[147]
Hawaii 1893 
The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii refers to an event coup d’état on January 17, 1893, in which anti-monarchial insurgents within the Kingdom of Hawaii, composed largely of American citizens, engineered the overthrow of its native monarch, Queen Lili’uokalani. Hawaii was initially reconstituted as an independentrepublic, but the ultimate goal of the revolutionaries was the annexation of the islands to the United States, which was finally accomplished in 1898.

Despite all of this evidence of the US actually overthrowing democracies and installing dictatorships as well as paying for terrorists to assassinate people overseas in other countries, pro gun believe that the LACK of guns are somehow linked to dictators taking over, in every case throughout history. They combine this theory with the supposed ‘facts’ that a dictatorship is the only thing that can happen if gun control laws are put in place. They ignore the mountain of evidence that the opposite is actually true.

As proven by the factual examples provided above, the US is possibly the biggest historical proponent of dictatorships globally. The USA is responsible for overthrowing democratically elected leaders around the world, not just once in awhile, but over and over and over again. The examples above are just the tip of the iceberg.

The USA owns and sells the most weapons of any nation globally. And despite having over 300 million guns in the hands of owners, an argument could be made that the US is losing freedoms faster than most other civilized countries worldwide, all of which have many less guns and much less gun violence than the US does.

The Small Arms Survey’s international rankings from 2007, does not show a pattern showing that a lack of guns causes dictatorships, nor the opposite.

The statistics on gun owning countries are mixed. Switzerland, the USA, Finland, Yemen and Saudi Arabia top the list of gun owning countries.

Libyans was ruled by dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. They had 15.5 guns per 100 people  in 2007. This did not seem to make any difference when it came to ordinary gun toting people wanting to get rid of their dictator and trying their best to do it. NATO air power was brought in to make a difference, because the armed citizens just could not seem to do it alone.  As a matter of fact, they would have lost miserably to a much superior Libyan army and air force.

Bahrain has continued to have revolution attempts and still has those going on today, but the dictatorial monarchy is still firmly in control, despite the population having 24.8 guns per 100 people. Bahrain is in the top 20 worldwide, in terms of guns owned per capita.   

Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist, despite the country having 34.2 guns per 100 people and being ranked 8th in the survey above. This well armed and violent country with a history of numerous invasions could not oust a US installed dictator, until they got help from the US, through TWO invasion interventions. Even one invasion did not topple this dictator. It took two different US presidents, and two different  interventions, via invasions, plus massive amounts of troops and arms plus overwhelming air power. 
Dictators have so much fire power and high tech surveillance equipment plus secret spies that can infiltrate any group that is opposed, that an armed citizenry is not really a serious obstacle to complete and absolute totalitarianism, whether the dictatorship is hidden away and corporations pull the strings, or the dictatorship is out in the open via public announcements such as Saddam in Iraq.
We have examined examples of countries with dictatorships, and how having a lot of guns did not help overthrow those dictatorships. On the other hand, let us examine some examples of countries that had dictators, but the people did not have many or any guns, but they managed to overthrow their dictators.

With only 0.1 guns per 100 people, Tunisian citizens  overthrew their dictator in 2011.

At 3.5 guns per 100 people, Egyptians using a Gandhi style peaceful revolution, managed to toss out Hosni Mubarak, despite being subjected to massive amounts of torture, political imprisonment, beatings, killings, and assassinations by the government, military and police forces. 

Stalin came to power with the Bolsheviks, and they were well armed when they did this. By studying history anyone can see that if not all, certainly many dictators came to power through the use of armed force, assassinations, and/or violent takeovers. If weapons were eliminated, dictators would have a much harder time taking over.

Pro Gun apologists argue that dictators must be feared so much that everyone should be armed. But in practice, and in history, this seems to encourage extremists both on the right and left to take violent actions, and install dictators of all flavors, shapes and sizes. 

Pro gun apologists do not seem to have any problem with the erosion of civil liberties under various Presidents, both Democrat and Republican.

National warrantless wiretapping is ok, as long as they do not take our guns.

Unlimited detentions and no right to a trial are ok for even US citizens as long as they do not take our guns.

Torturing people, including US citizens, is ok, as long as they do not take our guns. Sending US citizens overseas to be tortured in secret CIA prisons is also ok, even if they are not charged or convicted with any crime, but just leave my guns alone.

Pro gun apologists are even OK with one person heading a minority religion taking over all branches of government, installing judges ‘friendly’ to their religion, and having all mass media controlled in the same way, as long as they do not take our guns away.

Dictators love gun toting people.. because it is easy to fool people who fear a lot. Fear is the food of dictators and they feed it to the gun toting, fearful masses. Only the fearful buy guns, and only the fearful can be controlled by dictators. People fear ‘illegal drugs’. As a consequence of this fear, the USA has lost more liberties and freedoms and paid a high price in many other ways. For more information about the consequences of living a life based on fear, click on the following links…

Police Can Legally Rape Suspects In Search Of Drugs; via A Green Road 

Dictators need to control the media in order to rule. Dictators consistently take over the media so that they can rule unimpeded, free of ‘bad news’ about their actions or consequences of their total control.

History teaches us that propaganda is the method long used by dictatorships throughout history, but as long as the propaganda matches the religion and ‘free market’ belief system, pro gun apologists are ok with one extreme minority, corporate friendly viewpoint expressed on all channels.

After all of the above, it should be clear to just about any reader, that guns do not prevent dictatorships, and guns do not overthrow dictatorships. Yes, there is a GREAT, HUGE fear of dictatorships, but this fear and the belief that guns will have some impact on some potential dictatorship is either a delusion, fantasy or a ruse of some kind, but it is NOT reality. 
American Indians were all armed, but lost to ‘occupiers’ who all had weapons. The occupiers had the advantage of superior numbers. The USA is still an occupied country. Hawaii is another country that had a well established monarchy which had a well armed military, but it too was taken over through a hostile takeover by occupiers who forcibly took over the government and imposed a foreign religion on the people there.

Guns Do Not Stop Dictators, Informed People Voting Peacefully Do! via A Green Road

More articles around this subject;
Lessons From The Tragic Shooting in Newtown, Conneticut; via A Green Road

Bowling For Columbine;  Michael Moore; via A Green Road

30% of all Guns Used In Crime Come From Gun Shows; via A Green Road

Police Chief Scott Knight Talks About Gun Violence; via A Green Road

President Obama On The Rights Of Freedom Of Assembly, Happiness, Speech, Life, Liberty And Peace

Jon Stewart On Gun Violence Prevention; via A Green Road

2nd Amendment Gun ‘Right” Was Used To Suppress Black Slaves In South; via A Green Road

How To Get A Gun If You Are An Insane Serial Murderer Or Psychopath; via A Green Road

Schools, Guns And Drugs; via A Green Road

Wild West Mentality Rules Gun Industry And Gun Enthusiasts; via A Green Road

Trayvon Martin; Brutal Murder, or Justified Defense of Life? via A Green Road

Rep. Gabby Giffords Makes Statement About Children Dying From Guns; via A Green Road

What It Takes To Save Someone’s Life After Being Shot; via A Green Road

Legal History of 2nd Amendment Gun Right; Court Rulings; via A Green Road

One thought on “Guns Do Not Stop Dictators, Informed People Voting Peacefully Do!

  1. Hey! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and say
    I truly enjoy reading your blog posts. Can you suggest any other
    blogs/websites/forums that cover the same
    subjects? Thanks a lot!


Comments are closed.