Global Hypocrisy: France Arming Libyan Rebels

France admits to violating UNSC r.1973 by arming Al-Qaeda rebels in Libya.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand June 30, 2011 - Brazenly violating a UN resolution it itself had help push through the Security Council, France has now admitted to arming Libya's rebels with machine guns, anti-tank weapons, and RPGs. UNSC r.1973 supposedly allowed only for NATO forces to "protect" Libya's civilian populations and specifically prohibited the supplying of weapons to either side.

Since the resolution's passing on March 17, 2011, NATO has incrementally exceeded the parameters set by the already illegitimate resolution by first systematically destroying Libya's military, then carrying out targeted assassinations, to then bombing civilian infrastructure, and now talking about a full-scale military invasion. Compounding the moral bankruptcy of the "international community," is the fact that the brazen violation is not only being brushed aside, but is being used to question whether NATO should do more to "hasten the downfall" of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

Photo: French puppet-President Nicolas Sarkozy shakes hands with the globalist-inspired rebel leader Mahmoud Gibril Elwarfally. According to US-educated Mahmoud Gibril Elwarfally, interim prime minister of the contrived “Libyan Transitional National Council” in a May 12, 2011 talk before the Brookings Institution, “what’s taking place [in Libya] is a natural product of the globalizational process.”

UNSC r.1973 was passed after tenuous accusations were made against Qaddafi claiming he was intentionally targeting civilian populations during the opening salvos of the rebels' insurrection. Since then, many of these accusations have been verified as lies, and many of the very accusations made against Qaddafi have been documented first-hand amongst the rebels themselves. Casting the NATO operation in a further dubious light is that the rebels themselves are in fact affiliates of Al-Qaeda, many of their veteran fighters having just returned from Iraq and Afghanistan after battling US troops. With that in mind, the original UN resolution was unwarranted and illegitimate to begin with, not to mention recent attempts to expand upon it.

For more on Libya, please visit the Libyan archives.

"Stolen Elections" Battle Cry of the Color Revolution

Update: Globalist rag, Foreign Policy has just published an article interviewing Thaksin Shinawatra's paid globalist-liar Robert Amsterdam regarding his claims that the July 3rd, Thai elections will be "stolen." It should also be noted that Amsterdam has also filed a petition with the entirely illegitimate, Fortune 500-serving International Criminal Court against the Thai government - all standard features of a globalist hit in action.

Amsterdam, whose firm Amsterdam & Peroff populates the Fortune 500-lined globalist Chatham House, also invoked the engineered "Arab Spring." Foreign Policy reported, "Amstedam also drew parallels between the Thai opposition and recent developments in the Arab world, saying that the Red Shirts "see themselves as the beginning of the Jasmine Revolution" and wondering why the United States continues to provide support to a military whose "only successes seem to be against unarmed civilians." He also accused the Western financial press and business interests of accepting the Thai government's demonization of Thaksin and the Red Shirts."

Of course this is verbatim, the same rhetoric that proceeded and followed the initial phases of the Arab Spring before widespread admissions were made revealing the entire revolution was meticulously planned and funded by the West years in advance. It would turn out that not only was initial support for the various embattled regimes feigned, but it was feigned for the specific purpose of obfuscating US funding and support for the various uprisings.

The New York Times says it best in their article, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings" where they state, "as American officials and others look back at the uprisings of the Arab Spring, they are seeing that the United States’ democracy-building campaigns played a bigger role in fomenting protests than was previously known, with key leaders of the movements having been trained by the Americans in campaigning, organizing through new media tools and monitoring elections." So Amsterdam, preying on the ignorance of anyone still laboring under the delusion that the "Arab Spring" isn't an admitted US-backed campaign of destabilization, is attempting to establish an identical, incredibly disingenuous narrative on the eve of unrest in Thailand.

Rhetorical stage set by globalist Robert Amsterdam to destabilize Thailand.
by Tony Cartalucci

Thai Color Revolution 2011 Timeline:

May 16, 2011: Globalist-stooge Thaksin Shinawatra runs his own sister in his place for Thailand's July 3, 2011 elections, as he hides in Dubai, evading a two-year prison sentence for corruption.
June 21, 2011: Globalist lawyer Robert Amsterdam, representing Thaksin Shinawatra, already claiming Thialand's July 3rd, 2011 elections will be "stolen."
June 23, 2011: Wikileaks hit piece on Thailand penned by former-Reuters journalist Andrew Marshall released just days before the Thai elections.
June 27, 2011: CFR hails Wikileaks hit piece as a possible impetus for Thailand's total "political meltdown."

Bangkok, Thailand, June 30, 2011 - Having reported on the engineered "Arab Spring" since January, the Land Destroyer Report has attempted to accurately reveal the inner workings of foreign-funded "color revolutions" drawing both on first hand experience here in Thailand, and by sourcing the exemplary work of geopolitical analysts like Dr. Webster Tarpley and William Engdahl. Having amassed a considerable amount of insight on this phenomenon, the Land Destroyer Report believes an "Asian Summer" is imminent and that it will start right here in Bangkok, Thailand. It is unlikely that the Thai government is unaware of the totality of what it faces, and thus most likely prepared, with the "Arab Spring" in hindsight, in unpredictable ways difficult to discern.

What is certain is that the stage is now fully set with a Tunisian-Egyptian-style Wikileaks hit piece circulating through the corporate-owned media, and now the foreign-backed opposition party already attempting to decry the elections as "stolen," just as Egypt's Mohamed ElBaradei did prior to Egypt's 2010 elections and then revolution. All that can be done now is wait and see how the July 3rd, elections this Sunday play out. The Land Destroyer Report will attempt to cover these events in full detail, and while "Thailand" may not be a subject of interest to many readers, the repercussions, especially regarding China most definitely will affect everyone.

Stolen Elections: A Historical Precedent

While Egypt's revolutionary leader Mohamed ElBaradei attempts to fashion himself as an outspoken critic of Western, and in particular US foreign policy, the fact remains that ElBaradei himself sits upon one of the very US corporate-funded think-tanks making such policy. ElBaradei is also a vocal critic of Israel, even threatening to go to war with the nation recently - certainly for show however, as across the International Crisis Group's round table from him sits ICG advisers like Israeli President Shimon Peres, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Former Foreign Minister of Israel, and Stanley Fischer, Governor of the Bank of Israel.

So it should not then be surprising that ElBaradei led a US-funded revolution against Hosni Mubarak's government and is now poised to take over as Egypt's leader while his corporate backers prepare to fold Egypt's economy into their Wall Street-London "international order. ElBaradei had returned to Egypt a full year prior to the "spontaneous" "Arab Spring" to begin building a political front as well as an army of street activists to contest the inevitable election results. Surely a man working so overtly for the "international order" with an army of foreign-funded, US-trained political cannon fodder would never be allowed to win an election no matter how many votes ElBaradei's front was able to garner. Fully expecting such a loss, ElBaradei and his backers had long in advance prepared to call the elections "stolen," and with that battle cry, it became the excuse for taking to the streets, destabilizing, and toppling the Egyptian government.

Thailand's Turn

Mohamed ElBaradei's despicable treason can find its analogue in Thailand through globalist-stooge Thaksin Shinawatra. Before becoming prime minister in 2001, Thaksin served as an adviser to US equity firm, the Carlyle Group which included the Bush family, James Baker, Frank Carlucci (formally of the National Endowment for Democracy), all while holding public office as a politician in the Thai government. His time in office as prime minster, from 2001-2006 included a 3 month "war on drugs" that saw 2,500+ extra-legal executions carried out across Thailand and a 2004 attempt to ramrod a US-Thailand FTA through without parliamentary approval. His term as prime minister was cut short by a September 19, 2006 military coup which ousted him from power, on the eve of which Thaksin was reporting to the globalist Council on Foreign Relations in New York City.

Photo: Thaksin Shinawatra reporting before the Fortune 500-funded Council on Foreign Relations on September 18, 2006, the eve the Thai military ousted him from power in a peaceful, orderly coup.

Since then, Thaksin has been represented by the global monied-elite via their lobbying firms including Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group, PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR, Carlyle Group), Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (CFR), and Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff (Chatham House). Additionally, media organizations within Thailand supporting Thaksin's political movement receive direct funding from the US government via the National Endowment for Democracy, including outfits like Prachatai. Thaksin has also led two consecutive attempts to violently seize power back via street protests in April of 2009, and again in April and May of 2010. In 2010, Thakin's street movement dubbed the "red shirts" employed professional militants to balk any attempt by the Thai Army to disperse the mobs. Weeks of gun battles, grenade attacks, and widespread arson, looting, and rioting followed, leaving 91 dead.

Despite Thaksin's "red shirt" leaders themselves admitting that armed militants intervened on their behalf, and one leader, renegade general Khattiya Sawasdipol known as "Seh Daeng," even admitting to leading 300 armed men trained for ''close encounters'' and carrying M79 grenade launchers, to this day the movement blames the deaths entirely on a government initiated "massacre." Leading the accusations of massacres, illegitimacy to rule, and now accusations of a premeditated conspriacy to deny convicted criminal Thaksin and his proxy party led by his own sister a victory during the July 3, 2011 elections, is paid-liar, Robert Amsterdam.

Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff, a Chatham House major corporate member, currently represents deposed autocrat Thaksin Shinawatra, and has now published an elaborate narrative titled, "Loser Take All: The Democrats’ Playbook to Steal the Election." In this latest attempt to prime the narrative before Thailand's July 3rd 2011 elections, he claims the Thai government will "steal" the elections from his client Thaksin Shinawatra's proxy party by convicting them of vote-buying. Of course, in Amsterdam's own report he states:

"There is some dispute about whether there is any such thing as “vote buying”— in other words, whether giving a voter a small sum of money really earns a candidate or party that voter’s support. Aside from the impossibility of ascertaining what anyone does in the voting booth, voters in many constituencies often accept small cash gifts from the representatives of multiple candidates. However, there is no doubt that money plays a big role in Thai election campaigns, especially as candidates from various parties attempt to enlist the services of the most influential canvassers at the local level. Canvassers, in turn, use a portion of what they receive from the candidate as “walking around money” to pay for the campaign’s expenses and sometimes distribute the money to prospective voters. While both practices are illegal, they remain widespread and practiced widely by the Democrats themselves."

Such arguments attempt to whitewash the fact that Thaksin has built his entire support base by handing out fistfuls of cash in both socialist handouts and outright bribes come election time. Amsterdam expects his audience to believe that handing out cash around election time is entirely innocuous, and even if it isn't, the Thai government does it as well. Ultimately Amsterdam's complaint is that since the ruling party buys votes as well, his client's proxy political party should not be held accountable for their crimes.

Amsterdam might recognize this as the same sort of double standard the "international order" whom he and his client Thaksin represents, applies around the globe. For example, while the US has strafed Afghan and Iraqi civilians from the air for nearly a decade now, the mere implication that Libya's Qaddafi was doing likewise to US-backed terrorists in Benghazi earned Libya a referral to the UN Security Council and NATO's own campaign of strafing Libyan civilians from the air.

Unfortunately, Amsterdam's proposed version of reality exists divorced from the fact that his client Thaksin Shinawatra is a convicted criminal facing 2 years in prison who has spent his time since 2006 consorting with foreign governments to destabilize Thailand through violent street protests and coordinated media campaigns - the latest of which is gravitating around former-Reuters journalist Andrew Marshall's dubious Wikileaks-based "Thai Story."

It would be unimaginable to allow Thaksin and his armed band of foreign-subsidized thugs to seize back control of the nation after battling troops and murdering people in the streets for the last 2 years, burning down buildings (2010), and threatening a "people's war" (after 2009 riots) - just as it was unimaginable to allow overt US-stooge Mohamed ElBaradei to walk away a winner in Egypt's 2010 elections. The legitimacy for Thaksin and his proxy opposition party "Peua Thai" to even run in Thailand's 2011 elections is difficult to fathom, considering his criminal conviction and his overt dealings with foreign governments against his own nation. For those who attempt to portray Peua Thai and the "red shirt" movement as removed from Thaksin Shinawatra, one should know that his campaign slogan this year is, "Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai does."

Photo: Thaksin's proxy political party, "Peua Thai," led by his own sister sports the slogan, "Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai does." While Amsterdam argues that the elections will be stolen from his fugitive client, there are obvious concerns over his legitimacy to contest the elections in the first place.

Amsterdam's attempt to accuse the Thai government of "stealing" an election from his fugitive client is nothing less than an attempt to obfuscate the fact he has no legitimacy to run in the first place, and no possibility of returning to power after the myriad of treasonous, murderous crimes he has committed since his ouster in 2006. Just as with Mohamed ElBaradei, a man with no legitimacy himself, the global-elite must lend legitimacy to Thaksin Shinawatra, a task done by Robert Amsterdam and the corporate-owned media that will soon be extending their completely disingenuous coverage to focus on the imminent unrest about to grip Bangkok.

Global Implications

The Asian Summer is about to begin, and it will start in Bangkok, Thailand. Thailand is a nation of over 70 million people, with a large agrarian and manufacturing based economy and a formidable military - very similar to Egypt's stature in many ways as a regional crossroads. Just as in Egypt, the Thai military has received a substantial amount of money from the US over many years, and as explained in the corporate-funded Brookings Institution report, "Which Path to Persia?" such money is expended with the hope of cultivating officers aligned to US interests who will perform on their behalf in a moment of instability and uncertainty. While Thailand's last military coup acted against the global-elites' interests, the next one may or may not, depending on who's behalf they intervene on.

Thailand's military is far from homogeneous, and loyalties are divided. Following July 3rd's election in Thailand there are several possible ways Thaksin's foreign-paymasters may attempt to destabilize and topple the current Thai government. As explained in "Which Path to Persia?" it is most likely that all of these options will be used in tandem to create "helpful synergies." Street protests led by Thaksin's political lackeys inside of Thailand, coupled with a coordinated media campaign by the corporate-owned Western media, possible defections within the Thai military's ranks, and violent militants targeting both protesters and security forces alike to escalate the violence beyond a point-of-no-return are all likely scenarios Thailand should consider and prepare against.

Thailand has often been cited as a gateway into China. Indeed a proposed rail system connecting Singapore to China will pass through Thailand, while ports along Thailand's rivers connect Chinese and Thai traders with each other, as well as to the Gulf of Thailand. The Kra Isthmus located in southern Thailand holds the prospect of being made into a canal that could serve as a short-cut for Chinese ships to and from the Middle East and beyond. Destabilizing Thailand, or better yet, installing an indebted stooge like Thaksin Shinawatra, would allow the Wall Street-London "international order" to once again use Southeast Asia as "Lilliputians" to tie down China's "Gulliver."

Note: It is interesting to note that Amsterdam is also concurrently defending Russia's Mikhail Khodorkovsky who is now lodging in a Siberian prison for embezzling money, breathtaking displays of corruption, and his connections with the West, in particular with Henry Kissinger and "Lord" Jacob Rothschild who were sitting on what geopolitical expert William Engdahl called a George Soros Open Society-styled "Open Russian Foundation." Khodorkovsky, like Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra, was attempting to consolidate power while handing over his nation's resources and institutions to Wall Street and London's banks.

For more information on Robert Amsterdam, please see "Globalist Page: Robert Amsterdam."

CFR Hails Thai Wikileak Dump

Globalists clamoring to destabilize Thailand after July 3rd elections.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand June 29, 2011 - The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a think-tank representing the collective interests of the Fortune 500 corporations that constitute its corporate membership, and one of the many key architects of producing and implementing the global corporatocracy's agenda, has seized upon a conveniently timed Wikileaks dump regarding Thailand, just days before a controversial, highly contested Thai national election.

Joshua Kurlantzick, a CFR "fellow for Southeast Asia," hails the Wikileaks-based hit piece penned by former-Reuters journalist Andrew Marshall as "perhaps the biggest bombshell of reportage on Thailand in decades." Unfazed by the tenuous, unsubstantiated nature of the alleged cables Marshall cited in his slanted "Thai Story," Kurlantzick concludes that this collection of hearsay, baseless commentary, and repeated rumors, relying entirely on the dubious credibility of both Wikileaks and the US diplomats who supposedly composed the cables, will "open discussion of the [Thai] monarchy even more, at a time when the election campaign, the growing crackdown on dissent, and the impending demise of the king all are terrifying Thais and forcing some reevaluation of their country’s political system, perhaps leading to a total meltdown of Thai politics."

And that is the very point behind this conveniently timed hit piece penned by Marshall and released just prior to the elections. Just as in Tunisia and Egypt, where fortuitously released, and selectively reported cables were used as the rhetorical justification for what was in reality a foreign-funded plot, Marshall's rehash of years old rumors and cables that have been public for months gives the corporate-owned media a narrative to explain why US-funded rabble will soon be taking to the streets, implementing the "total meltdown of Thai politics" Kurlantzick predicts. This signifies the beginning of a third attempt to sweep away local institutions and nationalist leaders, and replace them with a stooge of the global elite's picking to implement economic liberalization (neo-imperialism) and fold the nation into the Wall Street-London centric "international order."

Video: Freedom House, International Crisis Group, globalist-stooge Kenneth Adelman pined over Thailand's disinterest in humoring America's insistence on monopolizing ideas. Adelman accused Thailand of being an "outlaw among civilized members of the international community." More on Adelman can be found on including how his feckless campaign coincided with Thaksin Shinawatra's employment of Adelman's lobbying firm, Edelman.

The globalist stooge in Thailand's case is Thaksin Shinawatra, who ironically was reporting to the CFR in New York City on September 18, 2006 the eve of his ousting from power via a peaceful, orderly military coup. Since then, Thaksin has been represented by global elitists via their lobbying firms, including Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group, PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR), Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (CFR), and Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff (Chatham House) - many of whom are either directly a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, or members of similar policy organizations working on behalf of the Fortune 500.

Additionally, these men and the organizations they are affiliated with funded and organized the opposition groups and hordes of activists that flooded the streets during the contrived "Arab Spring," The New York Times reported in their April 2011 article, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings" that, "a number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House."

The New York Times article continues by explaining, "The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department."

Considering that these same nefarious organizations are now using their networks to fill the vacuums left in Tunisia and Egypt to rebuild both nations according to their own political and economic desires, it would seem troubling indeed to see the very same organizations backing Thailand's festering "red shirt" color revolution. The National Endowment for Democracy overtly funds Prachatai, the revolution's propaganda clearinghouse, to the tune of 1.5 million baht. Other foreign-funded globalist organizations, including Freedom House and International Women's Media Foundation (IWMF) have nominated and awarded Prachatai various contrived awards for its continuing role in foreign-funded sedition against the Thai government, in an effort to lend them a semblance of sorely lacking legitimacy. For more on Prachatai, see here.

In turn Prachatai has been dutifully featuring Marshall's Wikileaks-based hit piece on a daily basis along with other anti-government and anti-monarchy rhetoric in an attempt to undermine both Thailand's current ruling government and the 800 year-old royal institution that has kept Thailand independent and free for centuries. Indeed, Thailand was the only nation in Southeast Asia to escape Western colonization. Even Thailand's neighbors to the north in China were divided and conquered by a combination of American and European interests. For centuries Thailand's royal institutions and the unity of the Thai people behind them have been cited by Thais and foreigners alike as the source of the Kingdom's long standing resilience.

It then makes perfect sense why the very symbol of Thai unity, Thai history, Thai culture, and Thailand's undisputed independence is under attack by the modern day heirs of the British Empire, operating under the guise of an "international order." In Tunisia and Egypt where autocratic strongmen held their nations together, they were targeted, attacked, and toppled. The result is now warmongering traitor John McCain touring their capitals with Fortune 500 parasites at his side, including General Electric, Exxon, Coca-Cola, and Boeing, all CFR corporate members, surveying their newly conquered lands/markets and preparing to implement an insidious "Trade for Aid" bill. Surely that is not what the average Egyptian who took to the streets had in mind, but surely it was what their leader Mohamed ElBaradei had known quietly all along. ElBaradei, who began an effort to oust Hosni Mubarak a year before the contrived "Arab Spring" and whose activist networks had been training in the US as early as 2008, fashions himself as a vocal opponent even as he sits directly on the US International Crisis Group think-tank as a trustee, representing some of the very corporations now preparing to despoil Egypt and Tunisia.

Thailand's Upcoming Elections

With Thailand's national elections looming, just as they did before Egypt's "revolution" began, all the pieces are coming into place. It is unlikely that a political movement led by a convicted criminal who openly conspires with foreigners to politically undermine his own nation, will be allowed to win elections via his overt proxy party, no matter how many votes he gets. The international corporate-owned media and corporate-funded think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations are beginning to prepare the official narrative, in the event that Thaksin's proxy party loses the elections, in an effort to foist upon the world a tale of an "oppressed people" rising up against a medieval system through grassroots activism, inspired by the "Arab Spring."

Photo: Thaksin Shinawatra's proxy "Peua Thai Party's" campaign sign reads, "Thaksin Kit, Peau Thai Tom" which translated means, "Thaksin thinks, Peau Thai does." While Thaksin's own political movement attempts to feign disassociation with him in front of informed audiences, in reality, his support is based on a carefully cultivated personality cult, where his name sells - absent of any real policy. To the sign's right, is a picture of Thaksin's sister, Yingluck Shinawatra who is literally running in his place as his "political clone."

A CNBC article attempts to portray Yingluck Shinawatra as independent by boldly declaring in a recent headline that, "Yingluck is No Clone of Big Brother Thaksin." However, nowhere in the article is any evidence given to repute Thaksin's own claim. Indeed she is a proxy, led about on stage and along the campaign trail like a pack mule carrying along Thaksin and his foreign handlers' agenda.

Of course, for those who bother to look behind this facade, they will see these "oppressed people" not as "grassroots" resistance spontaneously rising up, but as the centrally funded and organized political cannon fodder they really are. They have been indisputably led by Thaksin Shinawatra and his network of foreign supporters for years. This very moment, Thaksin's own sister, Yingluck Shinawatra is running in his place for the July 3rd elections. The "oppressed people," supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra and his proxy "Peua Thai Party," are organized into rallies by Thaksin's political lackeys and are often treated to phone-ins from Thaksin himself (as he is currently in self-imposed exile in Dubai evading a 2-year prison sentence.) The actual election slogan printed onto Thaksin's political party's campaign signs is, "Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai does."

Was the situation on the ground in the Middle East as overtly alarming as it is here in Thailand now? Based on both the precursory actions of Egypt's Mubarak, Syria's Assad, or Libya's Qaddafi, along with the global corporatocracy's own actions throughout the Middle East it would seem like a possibility. Each subsequent uprising was caught by an ever more alert ruling government. As the pieces come into place, one can only hope that the Thai government has learned something from watching the foreign-funded "Arab Spring" unfold and understands the necessity and means of neutralizing it before unwitting, well-intentioned people are brought in as cannon fodder amidst violence that has surely been planned, to destabilize and topple the nation, thus preparing the way for John McCain and his Fortune 500 retinue to visit Bangkok next.

For more on Thailand, please visit the Thailand archives.

Arab Spring brings Corporate Locusts

Egypt's next step to "freedom."
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand June 25, 2011 - As terrifying as any Biblical plague, the very corporations that funded the think-tanks and media organizations that crafted and sold the entirely engineered "Arab Spring" hoax to the world, have finally swarmed into Egypt to settle in and strip its lands clean.

US Senator John McCain recently led a delegation representing his true constituency, Fortune 500 corporations, to Egypt and Tunisia to promote "private sector growth." Traveling with McCain was a collection of corporate parasites from General Electric, Boeing, Coca-Cola, Bechtel, ExxonMobil, Marriot, and Dow who surveyed Cairo like conquering despots.

McCain's corporate leash holders' faces beam with joy as they savor the lush green fields they are now fully poised to devour. This is the fate that awaits all nations seeking US NED-funded "freedom."

The New York Times reported of the trip, "Senator McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, who were visiting Egypt with an American business delegation, said it was in the interest of the United States’ national security to see Egypt become a free and democratic country." McCain would also say, “We also suggested ways to have more economic cooperation, further assistance to Egypt’s military and hastening the legislation of proposed aid to Congress." While many labor under the corporate-media fueled delusion that the United States was caught off guard by the "Arab Spring" and has shifted into reactionary or opportunistic mode, an earlier New York Times article titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," reveals that the United States government had been funding, training, and preparing for the Mideast unrest since as early as 2008.

Such funding, training, and preparation was done through organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which in turn funds the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and Freedom House. Understanding that John McCain is chairman of the IRI which helped unseat the governments in the very countries he is now touring with big-business by his side, illustrates a complete picture, start to finish, of modern imperialism in action.

McCain (left) and Kerry (right) gesticulate as they explain their paymaster's agenda within the confines of an Egyptian Coca-Cola factory. This is part of their latest trip surveying the effects of their US-funded opposition overthrowing Hosni Mubarak's government.

Considering that many of John McCain's fellow meddlers throughout NED, IRI, NDI, and Freedom House are generally war mongers, bankers, oilmen, and corporate-funded foundation representatives, it should be no surprise that the next step on Egypt and Tunisia's "journey to freedom" is the complete economic liberalization of their economies and their full integration into the Wall Street-London centric unipolar "international order."

After the corporate-funded revolution, the corporate feast.

John McCain's tour is but a single feature of the overall plan for post-Mubarak Egypt. As early as February, 2011 the US was already preparing a package to assist Egypt's "opposition groups" to, as TIME magazine put it, "help with constitutional reform, democratic development and election organizing." It would also come out that billionaire banker George Soros, through his vast network of disingenuous "civil society" organizations, was funding the drafting a of a new constitution for Egypt. By March, a sum of $150 million had been committed by the US State Department for "quickly" building up Egypt's "democracy." The money would be used by the same organizations who organized, trained, and channeled funds to the activists that overthrew Hosni Mubarak's government in the first place, including McCain's IRI and the NDI.

Building up a suitable puppet government, presumably run by globalist-stooge Mohamed ElBaradei, to populate an equally suitable political system made to America's specifications, with American money, through American-funded organizations will now be coupled with an economic "fund" aimed at manipulating and reordering Egypt's economy. The Kerry, McCain, Lieberman S.618 bill claims that Tunisian-American and Egyptian-American Enterprise Funds will assist the people of Egypt and Tunisia in forming a "political and economic system that respects universal values" and of course makes "the investment environment more attractive to domestic and international investors." These "universal values" are determined by the current Wall Street-London hegemony and their contrived international institutions, not the Egyptian people, thus negating the possibility of any genuine progress made amidst 6 months of misguided, foreign-funded struggle and bloodshed.

The "Funds" will be managed by 4 private citizens of the US, and 3 of each respective country, appointed by the President of the United States who will select people who "have had successful business careers and demonstrated experience and expertise in international and particularly emerging markets investment activities." In other words, these "Funds" are designed to help fold Egypt into the "international order" economically, while the US State Department's NED-funded organizations fold Egypt into the "international order" politically.

The "international order," in turn, is not some altruistic progressive paragon of equality and brotherhood amongst nations, but rather as degenerate globalist policy wonk Robert Kagan puts it, a world order that "serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it." With that in mind, it makes perfect sense as to why Hosni Mubarak refused to become part of it, and why, despite managing a fairly reliable client-state in the service of the West, it was inevitable that he would have to be removed in order to implement Egypt's full integration into this "international order."

Indeed this is the end game in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, Thailand, Myanmar, and eventually China and Russia - to form a homogeneous, centrally controlled, one world government where megalomaniacs arbitrarily contrive the rules by which the rest of humanity is made to live. As seen in Libya, such arbitrary rules, and the contrived institutions that enforce them, can just as easily be cast aside when the self-serving, unaccountable agenda of the global corporate-financier elite decides. Such is the danger of absolute, centralized power and why boycotting and replacing entirely these corporations that are now parading around Egypt's Cairo must be foremost on our agenda.

To read the entire Kerry, McCain, Lieberman bill S.618 see here:

Collapsing China

1997 Neo-Con report describes containing and collapsing China.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand June 25, 2011 - Neo-Con policy maker Robert Kagan penned a fairly insightful 1997 piece in the Weekly Standard titled, "What China Knows That We Don't: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment," where he discusses the prospects of an effective containment strategy coupled with the baited hook of luring China into its place amongst the "international order." The entire piece is a spectacle to behold, where Kagan, and apparently the audience he is writing for, believes America has the right to manipulate, contain, and arrange the world's nations on behalf of the "international order" as it pleases.

Kagan, in regards to the "international order" writes, "The present world order serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it. And it is poorly suited to the needs of a Chinese dictatorship trying to maintain power at home and increase its clout abroad. Chinese leaders chafe at the constraints on them and worry that they must change the rules of the international system before the international system changes them."

Further into his article Kagan concedes that the West's goal is to collapse China's government. He writes, "Some new China hands agree that the Chinese regime is vulnerable and believe that increased ties will hasten the day when political liberalization finally catches up with economic liberalization. By embracing the Chinese, by exporting our Western ways through our Western goods, we will bring them down. By helping them expand their economy, we will exacerbate the contradictions of "authoritarian capitalism" and force their resolution in favor of more democratic forms."

Kagan continues, "There's a contradiction in this argument, one that suggests the new China hands are either naive or disingenuous. How can a policy of engagement that has as its explicit goal the eventual collapse of the regime appeal to China's leaders? Can the United States win their friendship by saying, " Engage with us so we can bring you down"? Chinese leaders are more aware than anyone that there are contradictions in their system, and they will not be comforted to know that America's policy of "engagement" contains the hope that they will be swept away by an uncontrollable tide of liberalization."

The game the West has played against China has saturated the pages of their policy, their speeches and public statements to such an extent that there is a real possibility that many in China truly believe they are the "international order's" chosen ones. There is also the very real danger that the networks and influence China is building regionally and globally can be toppled and co-opted by covert destabilizations similar to what is unfolding throughout the Middle East.

Making good on a promise.

The most striking comments, however, amidst the somewhat lengthy piece included Kagan's assessment of China's military leadership. Kagan explains, "The new China hands insist that the United States needs to explain to the Chinese that its goal is merely, as Zoellick writes, to avoid "the domination of East Asia by any power or group of powers hostile to the United States." Our treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia, and our naval and military forces in the region, aim only at regional stability, not aggressive encirclement.

But the Chinese understand U.S. interests perfectly well, perhaps better than we do. While they welcome the U.S. presence as a check on Japan, the nation they fear most, they can see clearly that America's military and diplomatic efforts in the region severely limit their own ability to become the region's hegemon. According to Thomas J. Christensen, who spent several months interviewing Chinese military and civilian government analysts, Chinese leaders worry that they will "play Gulliver to Southeast Asia's Lilliputians, with the United States supplying the rope and stakes."

From SSI's 2006 "String of Pearls" report detailing a strategy of containment for China, the evolution of Kagan's 1997 paper.
With that in mind, consider the more recent 2006 "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power across the Asian Littoral," put out by the Strategic Studies Institute. In it, like Kagan's report, Robert Zoellick's comments regarding China's integration within the global system is repeated briefly before a detailed plan for China's containment is laid out. The "String of Pearls" described in the report refers to China's logistical routes from the Middle East, where it receives the majority of its oil, back to its own ports in the South China Sea and all the nations in between where China might seek to expand its influence.

Since the 2006 report was written, China has made much headway in expanding the very influence the US had sought to hem in, while simultaneously, much of the influence the West had held throughout China's peripheries had ebbed away. With China's growing relationships throughout Southeast Asia, a naval port completed in Pakistan, and growing influence in both the Middle East and Africa it appears China stripped the globalists' baited hook. It also appears that a much more aggressive attempt is being made on the West's part to roll back China's recent expansion.
The engineered "Arab Spring" and America's attempt to overturn Africa's current order through war and staged revolutions is meant to put pressure on China via its dependency on foreign oil. Concurrently, Pakistan is facing increased aggression from US intelligence and military forces in a long planned attempt to breakup the nation via a Baluchi and Pashtun insurrection. This threatens to cut off China's Gwadar port in Baluchistan and the logistical network it is trying to establish through northern Pakistan. Similarly, efforts to destabilize China's neighbors throughout Southeast Asia have been ongoing. Thailand and Myanmar in particular have suffered the most.
When Kagan penned his 1997 piece, America still held the prospect of "tying down China" with Southeast Asia. Today that prospect has largely slipped through their fingers. With globalist-stooge Thaksin Shinawatra's ouster from Thailand in 2006, and multiple failed color revolutions in both Myanmar and Thailand since then, America has suffered a noticeable deterioration regarding its influence throughout the region. It seems the best hope the West's corporatocracy holds is to create a sufficient amount of chaos throughout the region and around the world to disrupt China's economic growth, while attempting to destabilize Beijing itself through foreign-funded sedition. China has now openly accused the West of fomenting unrest both abroad and within its own borders signifying that enticement and containment have now shifted over to a confrontation of proxies. 
It appears that Kagan's plans and those of his school of political thought have failed to contain China as thoroughly as they would have liked. It also appears that they are feverishly attempting to reclaim lost ground with their orgy of destabilization and war throughout the Middle East, a plan that seems to be losing momentum. Kagan has just recently signed his name to a letter, along with a myriad of other big-business serving, Neo-Cons imploring House Republicans to support their pet project in Libya. Should Kagan and his band of despotic slobs fail in their ambitions, we may yet be presented with a third option regarding China - respecting their sovereignty and jealously protecting our own, within our borders, as our Founding Fathers and our Constitution intended.
The people of both China and America would be wise to read the words of Kagan in 1997, the words of the Strategic Studies Institute in their 2006 "Strings of Pearls" report, and realize that the global elite are attempting to impose on us all a despotic global regime based on arbitrary laws they themselves have created, usurping both American and Chinese sovereignty and threatening the existence of both our nations. Kagan himself admits that "Western goods" are the conduit through which this modern empire expands its reach, so logically boycotting and replacing them with "local goods" and solutions is the answer.
To read Robert Kagan's full paper, click here.

PNAC-Reborn: Calling for Greater Libyan War

War criminals from the Foreign Policy Initiative implore House Republicans to ignore the people & the Constitution for continued war with Libya.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand June 25, 2011 - For those that want a list of who is responsible for what ails America and the world, one could get a good start by examining the signatories of the Foreign Policy Initiative's latest signed confession. Titled, "An Open Letter to the House Republicans" they implore House Republicans to not only support the un-Constitutional war being waged in America's name on the Fortune 500's behalf, but to "achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power." Apparently we were all lied to when we were told the goal of our intervention in Libya was to "protect civilians." As reported in May, Libya will be won at any cost, and the initial lies used to tip-toe us into the conflict were but a temporary pretense for a war of total domination.

Recycled PNAC sleaze: Now calling themselves the Foreign Policy Initiative, they constitute a full-time corporate and government subsidized war lobbying organization. Many of the signatories of FPI's latest letter include members of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Not only has the slaughter of those very civilians at the hands of NATO contradicted NATO's stated purpose for intervening, so has the fact that the US and NATO are supporting rebels who are admittedly terrorists, who are photographed on a daily basis using the same indiscriminate weapons such as grad rockets the West has accused Qaddafi of using, and committing on record the same atrocities Qaddafi is baselessly accused of committing. Now apparently the real architects behind the operation, fearing that their bloodbath may be coming to a premature end, have revealed themselves and the true "finish line" for the war in Libya.

The letter exclaims, "We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies." Utterly unfazed by not only casting aside the very international law they claim is giving them the right to murder Libyans in the first place, and having already cast to the wayside the US Constitution they are all accountable to, they reveal that indeed, they see themselves as accountable to no one. Such is the very despotic barbarism the corporatocracy, through their feckless puppet politicians and media organizations, have convinced thousands of brave Americans to go overseas and fight.

The letter concludes, "The United States must see this effort in Libya through to its conclusion. Success is profoundly in our interests and in keeping with our principles as a nation. The success of NATO’s operations will influence how other Middle Eastern regimes respond to the demands of their people for more political rights and freedoms. For the United States and NATO to be defeated by Muammar al-Qaddafi would suggest that American leadership and resolution were now gravely in doubt—a conclusion that would undermine American influence and embolden our nation’s enemies." In reality, Libya is meant to serve as an example to other nations targeted by these meddling, thuggish, unaccountable global despots. Failure in Libya would not "embolden our nation's enemies," but rather embolden those seeking justice against the signatories and architects of the current engineered unrest festering worldwide.

The following names represent not only Libya's real enemies, but America's as well. These traitors need to be watched, reported on, arrested by law enforcement, and put on trial for their crimes. Additionally, the corporations they do business with and represent need to be brought to their knees through a merciless full-spectrum boycott, and every sentator or representative that shakes their hands, deals with them, or heeds their calls (Lieberman, McCain, Graham, to name a few), voted out of office forever. Look at these names; each one has a story of treason and betrayal against the great American Republic that could fill a book. After reading each name, please contact your representatives in Congress and politely tell them that should they heed this letter from these degenerate, treasonous war mongers, they will be unemployed next election.

The names are as follows:

Elliott Abrams, Bruce Pitcairn Jackson, John Podhoretz, Gary Bauer, Ash Jain, Stephen G. Rademaker, Max Boot, Frederick Kagan, Karl Rove, Ellen Bork, Robert Kagan, Randy Scheunemann, Scott Carpenter, Lawrence Kaplan, Gary Schmitt, Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Dan Senor, Seth Cropsey, Robert Lieber, Michael Singh, Thomas Donnelly, Tod Lindberg, Henry D. Sokolski, Colin Dueck, Michael Makovsky, Marc Thiessen, Eric Edelman, Ann Marlowe, Kurt Volker, Jamie Fly, Clifford D. May, Kenneth Weinstein, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Joshua Muravchik, Paul Wolfowitz, John Hannah, Martin Peretz, R. James Woolsey, William Inboden, and Danielle Pletka.

Wikileaks Strikes Again: Asian Summer?

Editor's Addition: The use of Wikileaks cables, which are essentially nothing more than the dubious word of US diplomats, is a classic case of "appeal to authority." Appeal to authority states: Source A says that p is true. Source A is authoritative. Therefore p is true. Marshall's "Thai Story" is based on the word of US diplomats via Wikileaks cables. US diplomats have authority, therefore Marshall's "Thai Story" is true. Absent of any actual verifiable evidence, Marshall's "Thai Story" represents what is called a faulty generalization supported only by the questionable credibility of the diplomats Marshall cites for his work.

Whatever side you are on in any particular debate, when someone puts forth "evidence" with faulty generalizations, especially someone who should know better, you should look elsewhere for a more credible argument. If none can be found, you may just be on the wrong side of the debate. Unfortunately, Marshall's "Thai Story" isn't aimed at those familiar with faulty generalizations, but rather those who will soon read his Thai translation in rural villages throughout globalist-stooge Thaksin Shinawatra's political strongholds. With the coaching of Thaksin's political lieutenants, the "Thai Story" will be accepted as fact, or as Marshall himself puts it, as the "truth."

Please also note that US National Endowment for Democracy-funded Prachatai has dutifully carried Marshall's story on their propagandizing website. The National Endowment for Democracy has been credited by the alternative media and the likes of the New York Times for funding, training, and supporting Western-backed uprisings throughout the world, most recently in the Middle East's "Arab Spring."

The harbinger of foreign-funded sedition reveals itself in yet another nation.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand June 23, 2011 - When Reuters' journalist Andrew Marshall isn't piecing articles together citing paid lobbyists like Robert Amsterdam, he is sifting through Wikileaks cables looking for damning hearsay and gossip to malign Thailand's revered monarchy just days before a highly contested national election. As in Tunisia and Egypt before the US-funded "Arab Spring" was lit ablaze, Wikileaks again seems to be the harbinger of foreign-funded unrest about to unfold in yet another nation.

To illustrate just how tenuous Marshall's Wikileaks-based "work" is, consider the wording in the UK's Independent article where phrases like "alleges," "apparently," and a video that emerged "which seemed to show," punctuate nearly every sentence. This is because Wikileak cables are not verified facts, nor do they even constitute any form of real evidence. In fact, all they are, are alleged conversations, or alleged conversations about alleged conversations, sometimes as far as thrice removed from the supposed source. The only "credibility" these cables carry is as much credibility as the US diplomats that wrote them have - which admittedly isn't much.

Marshall explains his reasons for quitting his job at Reuters to write what he is calling "Thai Story" in another piece published in the Independent explaining, "three months ago I gained access to the "Cablegate" database of confidential US cables believed to have been downloaded by US soldier Bradley Manning in Iraq. There are more than 3,000 cables on Thailand. Unlike almost all reporting on the country, the cables do not mince words when it comes to the [Thai] monarchy. As I read them I realised two things. They could revolutionise our understanding of Thailand. And there was no way I could write about them as a Reuters journalist."

Just how Marshall believes the questionable word of US diplomats could "revolutionise" our understanding of Thailand, assuming we are objective people who base such an understanding on facts, not hearsay from less than credible sources, is not entirely understood. How it may serve as fodder for Thailand's struggling foreign-funded opposition is quite obvious. Marshall continues by saying, "I just could not accept giving up and ignoring the truth about Thailand. Thai people deserve the right to be fully informed, to debate their future without fear. With great regret, I resigned from Reuters at the start of June to publish my article for anybody who wants to read it." Again, how exactly the word of less than reputable US diplomats constitutes "the truth about Thailand" escapes rational explanation.

Marshall also claims, "Thailand is sliding backwards into authoritarianism and repression. And one stark indication of this is that just saying it is illegal." He cites "Thai-British professor" Giles Ungpakorn, who he claims "is living in exile in London after fleeing Thailand following accusations he defamed the palace." Marshall conveniently omits that Ungpakorn was a leading member of billionaire globalist-stooge Thaksin Shinawatra's "red shirt" movement, a confessed Marxist, and has on numerous occasions, along with fellow red-shirt leaders, suggested Thais take up arms to institute a Marxist socialist-welfare state. Either Marshall didn't do his research, or he is intentionally lying to his audience to garner sympathy and invoke emotions, rather than provide credible objective information for the rational, "fully informed" debate he claims to be seeking.

"Professor" Ungpakorn is not hiding in the UK for insulting the palace, he is a co-leader in billionaire globalist Thaksin Shinawatra's red-shirt movement and a confessed Marxist promoting the use of arms to institute a socialist welfare state. Giles Ungpakorn's raving "Red Siam Manifesto" can be read here on Socialist Worker Online.


A conveniently timed Wikileaks exposé: Not the first time.

This surely isn't the first time Wikileak cables have been conveniently and purposefully spotlighted by the corporate-owned media in order to provide fodder for struggling foreign-backed opposition groups. The US-trained activists in Tunisia and Egypt received similar "helping hands" from Wikileaks, where cables featuring the gossip of US diplomats were credited for "sparking" the revolutions. Business Insider declared, "This Is The Wikileak That Sparked The Tunisian Crisis," referring to cables featuring US diplomats talking about the corruption of Tunisia's regime - a regime the US had been funding and training activists to overthrow years in advance, along side activists from Egypt, Yemen, and Syria. Convenient indeed.

Wikileaks also has been busy post-revolution, bolstering the sinking ship of globalist-stooge Mohamed ElBaradei in Egypt who was pelted with rocks and called "an American agent" before cables "revealed" just how much disdain the US supposedly holds for the US International Crisis Group trustee. While the word of a US diplomat is fairly meaningless, and alone would be worth nothing, the Wikileaks phenomenon actually relies entirely on the corporate media's meticulous grooming of Julian Assange's credibility and the "threat" he poses to corrupt individuals. In reality, it is nothing more than a dressed up, crass stunt designed for the weakest, most impressionable of minds, and Reuters' Andrew Marshall is just the latest incarnation of this tiring gambit.

Marshall is simply serving as a clearing house for a carefully timed corporate-media exposé featuring US diplomats and their irrelevant opinions regarding their particular analysis of Thailand. Considering that the Thai opposition's leader, Thaksin Shinwatra, has been working directly with some of the largest, most influential lobbying firms in the US, including Amsterdam & Peroff (mentioned above as inspiration for an entire article by Marshall), Baker Botts, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Edelman, and Kobre & Kim since 2006, it would be safe to say these "diplomats" and their "cables" represents a United States government intent on regime change and the reinstatement of Thaksin as Thailand's leader. These diplomats and the corporatocracy they represent have an invested interest in not only criticizing Thailand and its various institutions, but undermining and dividing Thailand's long standing unity in order to overthrow and despoil the nation.

With the engineered "Arab Spring" turning into a regional war of aggression, instigated by the West via NATO, and the stated necessity of encircling and containing China, Thailand, Myanmar, and other Southeast Asian nations are next on the list for destabilization. Thailand in particular serves as a regional hub for the globalists' seditious "civil society" networks, as well as a logistical and economic hub. It has also been suffering political chaos since Thaksin's ouster in 2006 and is a logical starting point for a potential "Asian Summer." Thailand's elections are in July, expect Marshall's collection of US diplomatic hearsay to be cited, just as Wikileaks was for Tunisia, as the rhetorical excuse for what the globalists have been engineering for years.

For more on Thailand, please visit the Thailand Archives.

Corporate-funded "People's" Movement

Globalist puppets and their army of dupes.
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", 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 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 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. 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."