by Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, Thailand June 22, 2011 - Surely a movement run by a man working with foreign interests against his own nation would be considered sedition in every sense of the word. And regardless of how well-intentioned followers of such a movement were, ultimately their efforts would be contributing to a future entirely removed from their genuine ideals of progress and change.
Progress is not only an attractive motivation for political participation, it is a responsibility for those who wish to leave future generations with something more than what they have now. However, danger arises when progress is pursued politically rather than pragmatically, where people, not solutions are hoisted to the pinnacle of our attention and efforts. This is precisely the case unfolding in Thailand, where a man, Thaksin Shinawatra, his party, and his agenda have taken to the driver's seat of a contrived social movement called the "red shirts" and ultimately threaten the destiny of the very people committed to this hoax.
Thaksin Shinawatra himself was a former adviser to the globalist equity firm, the Carlyle Group, and was literally standing in front of the CFR in NYC on the eve of his ousting from power in 2006. Since then, he has been represented by some of the largest lobbying firms on earth, including fellow Carlyle man James Baker and his Baker Botts law firm, the International Crisis Group's Kenneth Adelman and his Edelman Public Relations firm (also a corporate sponsor of the "color revolution college" Movements.org), and Belfer Center adviser and IISS trustee Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers.
Currently, Thaksin is represented by Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff, a major corporate member of the globalist Chatham House. Robert Amsterdam is concurrently defending Thaksin's "red shirt" street mob as well as the imprisoned Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky attempted to consolidate and handover Russia's resources to foreign bankers, most notably Jacob Rothschild who was sitting as a board member within his Soros-style "Open Russia Foundation."
The Land Destroyer Report, in an effort to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt not only Thaksin's connections to the global elite, but the nature of these connections, tracked down lobbying registration documents which are required by US law and maintained by the US Senate. The US Senate lobbying disclosure database provides us with irrefutable evidence that Amsterdam & Peroff, Baker Botts, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and Kobre & Kim have provided their services to Thaksin Shinawatra since 2006.
Additionally the US Department of Justice's Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) database discloses Thaksin's registration under Daniel Edelman of the Edelman PR firm. These organizations and the men behind them are the very war mongers, war profiteers, and soulless corporate entities many progressive activists are fighting against and for good reason. James Baker and the entire Bush cadre are responsible for relentless and unending war for the better part of two decades. Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and more specifically Robert Blackwill, serves as a corporate proxy commandeering legitimate causes such as environmentalism, and via organizations like Harvard's Belfer Center, pervert them into yet another corporate-financier pyramid scheme.
Edelman as well, is involved in harnessing legitimate concerns, causes, and movements, and redirecting them into profitable campaigns benefiting the globalists' coffers and agenda. Edelman is a sponsor of the US State Department's Alliance for Youth Movements, also known as Movements.org. It served as a training platform for the Egyptian April 6 Movement in 2008, who would then train under the US-funded Serbian CANVAS organization before returning to Egypt in 2010 to assist US International Crisis Group stooge Mohammed ElBaradei in overthrowing the Egyptian government. With globalization's ubiquitous "economic liberalization" and organizations funded by moral degenerate bankster George Soros literally rewriting Egypt's laws and constitution, we see just how far the real agenda diverges from the ideals of the protesters who brought it to fruition.
So then it is alarming when these nefarious agents of the global corporate-financier elite have now aligned against yet another nation, Thailand. More alarming is how the progressive activists committed to Thaksin and his political party, are seemingly so profoundly ignorant of the nature of the movement they are helping to propel along and the fact that they are indeed handing the corporate elite yet another nation to despoil.
Thaksin's "Truth Today" talk show logo emblazes many of the shirts worn by the "red shirt" movement. The logo features the images of Thaksin's long time political associates, Weera Musikapong, Jatuporn Prompan and Nattawut Sai-kua. Those that attempt to claim the "red shirts" are grassroots fail to explain why these three men are definitively the movement's leadership.
While activists may attempt to portray the "red shirt" movement as a grassroots organization removed from Thaksin, his political lieutenants lead every rally, his image is imposed "Kim-Jong Ill-style" on rally stages, and now even in front of "red villages." Thaksin himself calls into these rallies on a regular basis and his own sister now leads the party and movement in his place. The ubiquitous red shirts that define the movement generally bear the words "Truth Today" along with the images of 3 of Thaksin's long-time political associates, Weera Musikapong, Jatuporn Prompan and Nattawut Sai-kua. Activists may also be tempted to brush off Thaksin's associations with these foreign firms as merely a man seeking harmless lobbying assistance. Reading the documents themselves reveals not only the fact that US policy is being directed against Thailand and its sovereign internal affairs, but Thaksin himself is paying merely a token pittance for these services.
Thaksin-Amsterdam & Peroff's lobbying disclosure. (click to enlarge.)
Amsterdam & Peroff's registration form reveals "less than $5,000" as income for lobbying activities. Barbour Griffith & Rogers also reports "less than $5,000" as income from their client, Thaksin Shinawatra. For this meager fee, BGR claims it will "provide strategic counsel on U.S. government policy and assist with advancing the individual's desire to promote democracy in Southeast Asia."
Thaksin-BGR's lobbying disclosure. (click to enlarge.)
Eldeman reports a somewhat more realistic fee of $50,000 a month for six months, while Baker Botts reports "$80,000." For "$80,000" Baker Botts claims it will "develop and implement a strategic approach to the various internatioanl legal and political issues that confront Dr. Thaksin due to the coup of September 19. The firm will monitor the evolution of US polices towards the interim government in Thailand or the Administration's position regarding attempts by Dr. Thaksin's return to Thailand and may subsequently undertake contacts as necessary to ensure that such policies remain consistent with those currently in place."
Thaksin-Edelman's lobbying disclosure. (click to enlarge.)
Thaksin-Baker Botts lobbying disclosure. (click to enlarge.)
Considering that articles in the Economist have been written, NED funding directed toward propaganda outfits like Prachatai, the International Crisis Group's attention brought about, and biased news coverage from BBC to CNN successfully garnered for Thaksin and his movement since as early as 2009, it is hard to fathom it was all done for such meager fees. In reality, we must assume another "fee" was agreed upon behind closed doors.
A quick assessment of what is currently happening in Egypt, and the brazen admissions made amidst the pages of corporate-funded think tanks like the Brookings Institution suggests that "economic liberalization," or the complete opening and despoiling of the nation by foreign corporations upon Thaksin's return to power is the most likely answer. This should come as no surprise, as it was Thaksin himself during his time as prime minister, who attempted to ramrod through a US-Thai free trade agreement without parliamentary approval stipulating similar "liberalization."
The Real Price of Thaksin's Deal with the Globalists
Economic liberalization is neo-colonialism. One needs only to study what real colonialism looked like and compare it to modern examples of "globalization" in practice. Thailand's (then called Siam) concessions to the British 1855 Bowring Treaty included:
1. Siam granted extraterritoriality to British subjects.
2. British could trade freely in all seaports and reside permanently in Bangkok.
3. British could buy and rent property in Bangkok.
4. British subjects could travel freely in the interior with passes provided by the consul.
5. Import and export duties were capped at 3%, except the duty-free opium and bullion.
6. British merchants were to be allowed to buy and sell directly with individual Siamese.
Fast forward to today and consider the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer's (CFR) economic reformation of the broken nation. The Economist enumerated the neo-colonial "economic liberalization" of Iraq in a piece titled "Let's all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist's dream:"
1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
2. Full repatriation of profits.
3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.
Quite obviously nothing has changed but the nomenclatures used to sugar coat what is in reality the economic domination of foreign people. It is difficult to argue then, that Thailand, or any nation should embrace such "liberalization" without making a similar argument that colonialism was good for the nations and peoples subjugated by Europe's megalomaniacal empires. Ironically, progressive activists are generally the first to rightfully point out the disparity, injustice, and consequences of economic liberalization under globalization. So how is it then that these very people have become the most essential part of the globalists' plans? The short answer is, their movements have been co-opted by corporate interests.
One look at the Alliance for Youth Movements, also called Movements.org reveals a top to bottom, international collection of progressive activists. Their slick graphics, optimistic and energetic staff, and the stories promoted in the media about them have created what in all appearances looks like a progressive activist's dream come true. One look at the sponsors, however, and we see a government-funded and guided, corporatocracy controlled wolf in sheep's clothing. Many of these sponsors share memberships within a myriad of corporate-funded think tanks who work full-time engineering wars of profit and power, as well as crafting legislation to bolster their memberships' various economic monopolies. In reality it is the very last thing a progressive activist, or any average man or woman on the street would want to contribute their time and effort to.
Noble intentions, divorced from a complete understanding as to the nature of the movements themselves have led to an "army of dupes" working unknowingly against their own ideals and against their own best interests. Movements.org is but one of many corporate subsidized organizations masquerading as a progressive movement. George Soros, a billionaire bankster (banker + gangster) runs Open Society which funds an almost endless list of similar organizations. Thailand's Prachatai website leads off to several of these organizations, while it itself is funded by US money via the National Endowment for Democracy.
Thailand is but one example of genuine people being exploited by immensely disingenuous, insidious agendas. The same could be said about Serbia's Otpor, where many of the members discovered the opposition was organized and funded from abroad and were disillusioned and angered at what they had participated in. Foreign Policy reported that "Like the entire opposition to Milosevic, Otpor [now known as CANVAS] took money from the U.S. government, and lied about it. When the real story came out after Milosevic fell, many Otpor members quit, feeling betrayed."Otpor would become CANVAS, and would end up training and building fake revolutions around the world in scores of nations. Egypt, being one of them, has played out as a textbook case of inconspicuous foreign meddling leading thousands of well-intentioned people down the road toward a corporate agenda.
While activists in Thailand claim it is time for change, that Thailand's traditional institutions represent the "dark ages" and Thaksin's "red shirt" movement represents the cries of an oppressed people, in reality they are making way for a new-monied elitist to implement his own hereditary dictatorship - as the fugitive living in self-exile in Dubai literally has his sister running in his place for the upcoming July elections. Thaksin's backing by the international corporatocracy ensures that no matter how firmly in the hands of the people activists think this movement is, at the end of the day they will be exposing Thailand to unprecedented exploitation, not by an incompetent group of local aristocrats (of which Thaksin himself is counted amongst), but by a scientific dictatorship harboring a limitless amount of resources and knowledge with which to bear down upon the Thai people.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting change - change that is much needed. However the only way to ensure ownership of that change remains in the hands of the people, is to pursue local pragmatism where you know, meet, and are certain of everyone contributing to your efforts. One would be surprised by the amount of good simply getting active locally and independently can accomplish - especially pragmatically. Teaching, building, growing, and exploring ways to improve the lives of people locally have always outmatched campaign promises made by corrupt, crooked, self-serving politics. Collectively, people pursuing real local pragmatism can effect real, tangible change. Because for all the good people claim Thaksin did for the rural poor and "oppressed" of Thailand, his ouster in 2006 took with him the socialist handout "house of cards" with him. Had he really did any good for the people he exploited to get into and stay in power, they would have thrived long after he was swept from office. For real freedom is independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency, not servile dependency on one man and his generous subsidies.
There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, for it is easily remedied with facts. There is, however, something wrong with being presented with the facts and then willfully continuing down the same path in spite of them. Pride or perhaps complicity in the exploitation of these brave but misguided people now mark the leadership of these "revolutions" worldwide. And while Thailand may seem far-flung to those living in the West, Thailand's fall to the global-elite only empowers the very corporations currently lording over, and parasitically feeding on the nations of the West.
For more information on Thailand's foreign-fueled unrest, see "Globalists Fueling Unrest in Thailand."