Sunday, 21 April 2013

Many Bostonians Love And Worship The Miltiarized #PoliceState

The video and images depicting the havoc caused in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing were undoubtedly a disturbing sight.

 Even more disturbing were the sights and sounds of Bostonians celebrating and cheering the capture of suspect number two following the implementation of a full blown militarized police state in and around Boston. These mindless sheep were cheering the suspect’s capture despite the fact that the FBI and local police forces have still failed to produce any concrete evidence proving that either of the two suspects planted the bombs. Even worse was how many of these mindless zombies were cheering the militarized police forces that put the city under a state of martial law in the name of capturing a single 19 year old young man.

It is a documented fact that these militarized police forces conducted warrantless unconstitutional door to door searches and restricted travel for no justifiable reason. These types of warrantless searches are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendmentwhich guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The actions taken by Governor Deval Patrick and the militarized police goons were unlawful according to the supreme law of the land and a misuse of government resources. 

Even after conducting these unlawful searches for hours on end the storm troopers still failed to find the suspect that they were looking for. Once the so-called lock down was lifted the suspect was found minutes later by a man who saw something suspicious near his boat after he was allowed to leave his home. If these idiots didn’t roll out full blown martial law throughout the area and simply asked for the public’s help in locating this person, the suspect would have been found much sooner. This is just one reason why it is disgusting to see how so many brainwashed robots were cheering the police forces who conducted these illegal operations.

The state of martial law in and around Boston undoubtedly resulted in a tremendous amount of revenue lost for businesses in and around the area. Of course the stooges in the corporate media won’t talk about that or the legality and the wisdom of such a boneheaded operation. The reason they won’t is because the roll out of a militarized police force in the name of safety and security is now an accepted norm in America.

People just don’t seem to understand that operations like these do not guarantee your safety or security. As I’ve pointed out in previous articles covering the Boston Marathon bombing, there was a huge police presence at the Boston Marathon. Despite the vast number of police and security forces, they still failed to prevent the bombing. When one understands that the government has a historical track record of staging attacks like these in order to justify different agendas, it makes perfect sense as to why all of these security forces couldn’t prevent the attack. However, if we were to assume that this was a real attack that wasn’t sanctioned by official channels, this was a huge police failure. Of course we don’t see anybody in the media questioning the failure of the police to keep people safe do we? Instead, we see talking head propagandists calling for more police, more security, more searches, more cameras and other assorted bull shit.

What we are witnessing is similar to what we saw after the September 11th attacks when the corporate media failed to scrutinize the obvious incompetence of military officers who failed in their duty to protect the country. Instead, many of those people who displayed gross incompetence in dealing with the September 11th attacks were given promotions. Undoubtedly this was done to keep these people happy and discourage them from blowing the whistle on the countless anomalies that occurred that day.
The bombings have also presented new opportunities for re-emphasizing the worship of the militarized police state at professional sporting events. Worshipping members of the military and police at baseball games, football games and other breads and circus spectacles has become a quasi-religious experience for people ever since the September 11th attacks. We were able to witness this in full force at the recent Boston Red Sox game at Fenway Park that took place following the capture of the 2nd suspect. 

A pre-game ceremony remembering the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing included a video presentation combining sappy music with images of American flags and police. Not surprisingly, the presentation drew a pavlovian like reaction of cheers and applause from the fans. Red Sox player David Ortiz would even come out thanking Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Boston Mayor Tom Menino proclaiming that it was their fucking city and that nobody was going to dictate their freedom. Perhaps Ortiz forgot that the same people he was thanking were responsible for putting the entire city under martial law just a short period of time ago

Footage showing the actions of SWAT teams forcing families out of their homes without any warrants or probable cause have been posted all over different video sharing web sites. Here's a clip from CNNreporting on the specifics of the unlawful searches including how they were breaking into people's homes.
The worship of police officers and members of the military being portrayed as heroic figures has become a national mental illness perpetuated by exaggerated media propaganda and fear mongering. 

Even though there might be a few good police officers who do their job and uphold civil liberties, there are far too many cases of the police abusing their authority and engaging in an assortment of illegal activities. Many police officers are nothing more than common criminals who enjoy bullying people around.

 People in third world countries already have a general understanding that the police are corrupt and shouldn’t be trusted but unfortunately it looks like most Americans haven’t quite grasped this concept yet.

Chechen Terrorist Networks Trace Back to the US State Department

With the latest developments regarding the suspects identified in the Boston Bombing, reports of the alleged perpetrators’ Chechen heritage are being used by the whole of the mainstream media to draw connections between the bombing and Islamic terrorism. Even despite the desire of mainstream magazines like Salon for the bomber(s) to have been white Americans, the narrative being paraded in front of the American collective is currently satisfied with the meme of the Chechen Muslim fundamentalist.

Indeed, in a recent report by FOX News, entitled “Ties Between Islamic Extremist Groups and Chechnya Well-Documented,” the organization states,

Reports that the suspects in the Boston bombing are believed to be from the region near Chechnya may have caught some by surprise -- rebels in Chechnya are known for their violent and long-running campaign to break away from Russia, but not for exporting terror to America.

But congressional researchers and foreign policy analysts have long tracked a connection between the Chechnya region and Islamic extremists with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. If the suspects are indeed Chechen, analysts told Fox News they may represent part of a jihadi network which has made its way to American soil.

The report also clearly states that “The ties between major Islamic extremist groups and Chechnya are well-documented, particularly pertaining to extremists' support for the separatists in Chechnya.”

Likewise, it was stated by Michael Wines of the New York Times, in an article published as far back as December 9, 2001, entitled “War on Terror Casts Chechen Conflict in New Light,” that “Chechnya's guerrillas are indisputably financed by a web of Islamic charities, banks and other organizations that have served as cash conduits for terrorist groups.”

Wines also writes,

On one hand, the Wahhabi takeover here, like much of the Chechen war, was clearly propelled by outside support. Residents say the Wahhabis also had ties to a notorious training camp that indoctrinated Chechens and foreigners alike in Islamic militancy and military tactics.

There are strong indications that the camp and its leader, a guerrilla from the Middle East known as Khattab, have ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Yet, although the narrative promoted by both FOX News and The New York Times, as well as the vast majority of the other mainstream media outlets revolves around the traditional notion of crafty Arab Muslims hiding in caves and successfully plotting to outsmart one of the most sophisticated police states in the world, as is almost always the case, these outlets are fundamentally missing the most important piece of the puzzle.

Interestingly enough, this missing puzzle piece was hinted at in 2001 by Michael Wines where he mentions that “the Wahhabi takeover” in Chechnya, “like much of the Chechen war, was clearly propelled by outside support.”

But what forces are propelling this continued conflict?

Wines and other mainstream commentators may, of course, suggest that the terrorists are “financed by a web of Islamic charities, banks and other organizations that have served as cash conduits for terrorist groups.”

However, the true source of funding, training, and arming may prove to be more difficult to fit in to the traditional mainstream narrative surrounding Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Chechen “rebels,” much like their “rebel” cousins in Syria, are, in fact, receiving training, weapons, and financial support via the very networks that so vociferously claim to oppose them – the United States and British governments.

Indeed, in order to see the direct connection between the U.S. government and Chechen terrorism, one need only look toward the leader of the “Chechen rebels,” the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Chechen Republic-Ichkeria, Ilyas Akhmadov, who resides internationally by bouncing back and forth between the United States and Britain all on the tab of the U.S. State Department ever since 2004.

Being more willing to report on the treachery of the United States than the American press, the Russian news agency KMNews was quite willing to pick up on the American bankrolling of foreign terrorists. The agency wrote,

In early August, . . . Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Chechen Republic-Ichkeria, Ilyas Akhmadov received political asylum in the USA. And for his ‘outstanding services,’ Akhmadov received a Reagan-Fascell grant,” including a monthly stipend, medical insurance, and well-equipped office with all necessary support services, including the possibility of meetings with political circles and leading US media . . .”[1]

KMNews then asked, “What about our partners in the ‘anti-terrorist’ coalition?”

The agency then went on to cite the official expressions of support by then-President George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher in order to acknowledge the seemingly bizarre hypocrisy of these officials as they prosecuted a war OF terror all across the globe. 
KMNews also pointed out that the generous grant money provided to Akhmadov by the Reagan-Fascell Foundation is nothing more than a thinly veiled payment to Akhmadov by the U.S. State Department. This is because the Reagan-Fascell Foundation is actually financed by the U.S. Congress via the budget of the State Department itself.

KMNews then tellingly explained the motivation behind the funding and support of Chechen terrorist networks. It stated,

Thus, the conclusion is obvious. Willingly or not, Downing Street and the White House provoked the guerrillas to these latest attacks [Beslan school massacre in 2004]. Willingly or not, Great Britain and the USA have nurtured the separatists with material, information and diplomatic resources. Willingly or not, the policy of London and Washington fostered the current terrorist acts.” “As the ancients said, cui bono? Perhaps we are too hasty with such sweeping accusations against our ‘friends’ and ‘partners’? Is there a motive for the Anglo-American ‘anti-terrorist coalition’ to fan the fires of terror in the North Caucasus?” “Alas, there is a motive. It is no secret, that the West is vitally interested in maintaining instability in the Caucasus. That makes it easier to pump out the fossil fuels, extracted in the Caspian region, and it makes it easier to control Georgia and Azerbaijan, and to exert influence on Armenia. Finally, it makes it easier to drive Russia out of the Caspian and the Caucasus. Divide et impera! – the leaders of the Roman Empire already introduced this simple formula for subjugation.

Yet Akhmadov was not the only separatist terrorist that was given asylum in the Western Anglo Zone. Akmad Zakayev and Aslan Mashkhadov (given asylum in London, England) were also granted protection by the U.S. and Britain in 2003. Zakayev is designated as the “special representative” of Mashkhadov.

In addition, it is also widely known within European media, political, and intelligence circles that certain leaders of the Chechen terrorist networks are closely connected to the American CIA, if not agents outright. Shamil Basayev, described as the “brutal Chechen field commander” by Webster Tarpley, happens to be one of those individuals. It should be noted that Basayev was linked to the Beslan school massacre as well.

Furthermore, as Webster Tarpley writes in his article, “Russians Blast US-UK Sponsorship Of Chechen Terror,”

As Michel Chossudovsky pointed out some years back, the Chechen leaders Basayev and Al Khattab were trained in the CIA-run camps for Islamic fighters in Afghanistan. In 1999, Putin rode to power on a backlash against Chechen terror which he had in all probability staged himself – thus judoing a long-standing US-UK capability. The key point is that the Russian press is now openly denouncing London and Washington as centers for terrorist control.

Tarpley continues by stating,

Around the time of 9/11, Putin had pointed to open recruitment of Chechen terrorists going on in London, telling a German interviewer: “In London, there is a recruitment station for people wanting to join combat in Chechnya. Today — not officially, but effectively in the open — they are talking there about recruiting volunteers to go to Afghanistan.” (Focus — German weekly newsmagazine, September 2001) In addition, it is generally known in well-informed European circles that the leaders of the Chechen rebels were trained by the CIA, and that the Chechens were backed by US-sponsored anti-Russian fighters from Afghanistan. In recent months, US-UK backed Chechens have destroyed two Russian airliners and attacked a Moscow subway station, in addition to the school atrocity. 
Some aspects of Putin’s thinking were further explained by a press interview given by Aslambek Aslakhanov, the Chechen politician who is one of Putin’s official advisors. A dispatch from RIA Novosti reported Aslakhanov’s comments as follows: “The terrorists who seized the school in Beslan, North Ossetia, took their orders from abroad. ‘They were talking with people not from Russia, but from abroad. They were being directed,’ said Aslambek Aslakhanov, advisor to the President of the Russian Federation. ‘It is the desire of our “friends” – in quotation marks — who have probably for more than a decade been carrying out enormous, titanic work, aimed at dismembering Russia. These people have worked very hard, and the fact that the financing comes from there and that they are the puppet masters, is also clear.” Aslakhanov, who was named by the terrorists as one of the people they were going to hold talks with, also told RIA Novosti that the bid for such “talks” was completely phony. He said that the hostage-takers were not Chechens. When he talked to them, by phone, in Chechen, they demanded that he talk Russian, and the ones he spoke with had the accents of other North Caucasus ethnic groups. (RIA Novosti, September 6, 2004) 
On September 7, RIA Novosti reported on the demand of the Russian Foreign Ministry that two leading Chechen figures be extradited from London and Washington to stand trial in Russia. A statement from the Russia Foreign Ministry’s Department of Information and Press indicated that Russia will put the United States and Britain on the spot about extraditing two top Chechen separatist officials, who have been given asylum in Washington and London, respectively. They are Akhmad Zakayev, known as a “special representative” of Aslan Maskhadov (currently enjoying asylum in London), and Ilyas Akhmadov, the “Foreign Minister” of the unrecognized “Chechen Republic-Ichkeria” (now residing in the USA). (RIA Novosti, September 7, 2004)

Even more than the open harboring of Chechen terrorists, however, is the fact that Western agents have themselves been caught in the act of aiding and actually conducting acts of terror. Indeed, toward the end of 2004, it was reported by RBC that a British agent who was working for a Czech Republic-based NGO was arrested for blowing up a Russian armed personnel carrier. It was also reported that other British agents were caught “instructing Chechen gangs in how to lay mines.”

Again, as Tarpley writes,

The RBC commentary goes on to cite the Economist of August 19, which contained what RBC characterizes as a virtual ultimatum to Russia. RBC notes that “the carrying out of such a series of coordinated, highly professional terrorist attacks, would be impossible without the help of qualified ‘specialists’.” RBC notes that at the end of August one such “specialist,” working for an NGO based in the Czech republic, was arrested for blowing up a Russian armed personnel carrier. Also, British “experts” have been found instructing Chechen gangs in how to lay mines. “It cannot be excluded, that also in Beslan, the logistics of the operation were provided by just such ‘specialists’,” notes RBC.
The RBC editorial concludes: “Apparently, by having recourse to large-scale terrorist actions, the forces behind that terrorism, have now acted directly to force a ‘change’ in the political situation in the Caucasus, propagating interethnic wars into Russia. “The only way to resist this, would be for Moscow to make it known, that we are ready to fight a new war, according to new rules and new methods — not with mythical ‘international terrorists’, who do not and never existed, but with the controllers of the ‘insurgents and freedom fighters’; a war against the geopolitical puppet-masters, who are ready to destroy thousands of Russians for the sake of achieving their new division of the world.” (RBC, September 7, 2004)

Regardless of the final connections regarding the Boston Bombing, the alleged perpetrators, and the connection to Chechen terrorism, one must always be cognizant of the relevant geopolitical facts in order to avoid being swindled and wholly misinformed by clouded mainstream accounts of narratives that are, themselves, entirely mythical.

The myth of an independent (of Anglo-American control) and organic al-Qaeda is one that is easily dismantled upon even a small modicum of research and investigation. From the founding of al-Qaeda by Western forces in the 1970s to the use of death squads inIraqLibya, and now Syria, it is clear that al-Qaeda is nothing less than a wholly owned subsidiary of the Anglo-American intelligence community. It is, in effect, the CIA Arab Legion.

If the United States government eventually blames the Boston Bombings on Chechen terrorists, whether legitimately or intentionally by virtue of a false flag, then such a situation is undoubtedly a two-edged sword. If the American people are ever capable of understanding that international Muslim fundamentalist terrorist networks – from the United States, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, or Chechnya – are entirely organized, directed, and controlled by Western Anglo-American powers themselves, it may prove to be the end of the imperialist foreign policy, domestic police state mechanisms, and austerity measures. If the American people, however, continue to bite the bait of terror and fear, there may be no limits to the depths the United States and the rest of the world will sink.

Self-Sufficiency: A Local Solution to a Global Problem

For an extreme in-depth look at Thailand's "Sufficiency Economy" and "New Theory" economics, please see, "Wisdom from the Orient: Self-Sufficiency." 


When thinking about "solutions" many are quick to cite organizing a protest and taking to the streets. Let's for a moment consider the mechanics of a protest, what it might accomplish, and what it may leave to be desired.

Take Glenn Beck's disingenuous 2010 "Restoring Honor" event in Washington D.C. It drew thousands of honest, well-intentioned people from all over the United States. Indeed, thousands of people filled up their Fortune 500 made cars with gas from Fortune 500 oil companies, drove countless miles, stopping along the way at Fortune 500 fast food restaurants, stayed at Fortune 500 run hotels, and stocked up on supplies purchased at Fortune 500 Walmart. They slaked their thirst under the hot August sun with cans of Fortune 500 Pepsi and Coke, and at the end of the day, they drove home, paid their Fortune 500 cable subscriptions to watch their Fortune 500 media reports, most likely on News Corporation's Fox News, a Council on Foreign Relations corporate member.

At best, all a protest will lead to, while we are so hopelessly dependent on this system, is a round of musical chairs inside the political arena, with perhaps superficial concessions made to the people. The vector sum however, will still be decidedly in favor of the global corporate-financier oligarchy.

If we understand that the fundamental problem facing not only America, but the entire world, is a global corporate-financier oligarchy that has criminally consolidated their wealth by "liberalizing" their own activities while strangling ours through regulations, taxes, and laws, we should then understand why events like Beck's "Restoring Honor" are not only fruitless, but in fact, counterproductive. We should also realize that any activity we commit ourselves to must be directed at this corporate-financier oligarchy rather than the governments they have co-opted and positioned as buffers between themselves and the masses.

While people understand something is wrong and recognize the necessity to do "something," figuring out what that "something" should be becomes incredibly difficult when so few understand how power really works and how to strip it away from the oligarchs that have criminally consolidated it.

Understanding Globalization

As of late, the expansion of this global oligarchical empire has taken a more extreme, perhaps desperate form involving staged revolutions as seen in Egypt and Tunisia, and in Libya's case, armed rebellion and foreign military intervention. However, worldwide coup d'etats have occurred before - for example, in the late 1990's under the guise of a "financial collapse" and IMF "restructuring."

Many nations fell beholden to the IMF and its regiment of "reforms" which amounted to neo-colonialism packaged under the euphemism of "economic liberalization." To illustrate how this works, it may help to understand what real colonialism looked like.

Image: Thailand's geopolitical surroundings 1800-1900. Thailand was the only Southeast Asian country to avoid European colonization.

Thailand in the 1800's, then the Kingdom of Siam, was surrounded on all sides by colonized nations and in turn was made to concede to the British 1855 Bowring Treaty. See how many of these "gunboat policy" imposed concessions sound like today's "economic liberalization:"

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.

A more contemporary example for comparison would be the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer's (CFR) economic reformation. The Economist gleefully enumerates 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%.

Read more: Egypt Today, Thailand Tomorrow

And few could argue that the IMF's rehabilitation regiments being forced upon nations all over the world after the late 90's financial crash are any different than economic colonialism both past and present. In fact, the IMF itself publishes reports at great length concerning the "necessity" of economic liberalization.

To be sure, the governments that come to power in the wake of the current Middle East destabilizations will be more servile and will undoubtedly be committed to similar economic liberalization. Brookings Institute's Kenneth Pollack already made it quite clear that "The struggle in the new Middle East must be defined as one between nations that are moving in the right direction and nations that are not; between those that are embracing economic liberalization, educational reform, democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties, and those that are not."

Siam eventually rolled back the terms of the 1855 Bowring Treaty as the British Empire waned, but as of 1997, Thailand was once again faced with similar terms, dictated this time by the bankers of the IMF.

Thailand's Answer to Globalization

Thailand's answer to the IMF, and globalization in general was profound in both implications as well as in its understanding of globalization's end game. Fiercely independent and nationalistic, and being the only nation in Southeast Asia to avoid colonization, Thailand's sovereignty has been protected for over 800 years by its revered monarchy. The current dynasty, the House of Chakri, has reigned nearly as long as America has existed as a nation and the current king is regarded as the equivalent of a living "Founding Father." And just as it has for 800 years, the Thai Monarchy today provides the most provocative and meaningful answer to the threats facing the Kingdom.

The answer of course is self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency as a nation, as a province, as a community and as a household. This concept is enshrined in the Thai King's "New Theory" or "self-sufficiency economy" and mirrorssimilar efforts found throughout the world to break the back of the oppression and exploitation that results from dependence on an interdependent globalized system.

 Image: A vision of self-sufficiency in Thailand. Agrarian values and the self-reliance they engender are the hallmarks of real freedom. 

The foundation of the self-sufficiency economy is simply growing your own garden and providing yourself with your own food. This is portrayed on the back right-hand side of every 1,000 baht Thai banknote as a picture of a woman tending her garden. The next step is producing surplus that can be traded for income, which in turn can be used to purchase technology to further enhance your ability to sustain yourself and improve your life-style.

Image: The Thai 1000 baht banknote. Left is one of the many dams controlling floods and producing electricity throughout the Kingdom. Center is the current King of Thailand. Right is a depiction of a local garden providing food in a self-sufficient manner. 

The New Theory aims at preserving traditional agrarian values in the hands of the people. It also aims at preventing a migration from the countryside into the cities. Preventing such migrations would prevent big agricultural cartels from moving in, swallowing up farming land, corrupting and even jeopardizing entire national food supplies (see Monsanto). Those familiar with the UN's Agenda 21, and the more recent UN "Climate Change Program," may understand the deeper implications and dangers of such a migration and why it needs to be stopped.

By moving to the city, people give up private property, cease pursuing productive occupations, and end up being folded into a consumerist paradigm. Within such a paradigm, problems like overpopulation, pollution, crime, and economic crises can only be handled by a centralized government and generally yield political solutions such as quotas, taxes, micromanagement, and regulations rather than meaningful technical solutions.

Also, such problems inevitably lead to a centralized government increasing its own power, always at the expense of the people and their freedom. The effects of economic catastrophe are also greater in a centralized, interdependent society, where everyone is subject to the overall health of the economy for even simple necessities like food, water, and electricity. 
Image: A slide presenting the "New Theory" depicting a manifestation of greed leading the people from their rural private property and into a "city of extravagance." If Agenda 21 had an illustrated cover, this could be it.
Image: The goal of the "New Theory" is to have people return to the countryside from the cities and develop their communities in a self-reliant manner. It is, in other words, Agenda 21 in reverse. 

Under the "New Theory," demonstration stations all across Thailand have been created promoting education in matters of agriculture and self-sufficient living. The program is competing against the contemporary globalization system, which as of now, is mired in many parts of the world with economic meltdown. The relatively self-sufficient nature of Thais in general has weathered this economic chaos fairly well. In 10 years, a plate of food still costs the same amount of money, as do many everyday commodities. This only further vindicates the value of being self-sufficient and now more than ever, in both Thailand, and abroad, it is a good time to get involved and get self-sufficient.

The West Strikes Back 

Of course the head-of-state of a nation almost 70 million strong promoting a lifestyle that cuts the legs out from under the Western corporate-financier agenda does not sit well with the oligarchical establishment. Their response to this, as it has been with all of Thailand's habitual displays of defiance is something to behold.

Perhaps the most vocal Western corporate-financier critic of Thailand is the Economist. It openly criticizes the King's self-sufficiency economy in an article titled "Rebranding Thaksinomics." It states that the economic plan is "a partial retreat from Thailand's hitherto liberal economic stance." The Economist muddles the debate by side-stepping the self-sufficient aspects of the"self-sufficiency economy." It claims that socialist handouts under deposed Prime Minister and documented Western proxy Thaksin Shinawatra somehow accomplished the exact same goals. The Economist also claims the concept of self-sufficiency is merely a "rebranding" of such socialist handouts.

The Economist article then breaks down into a pro-Thaksin rant, decrying his ousting from power and continued claims that somehow encouraging people to grow their own food is a theft of Thaksin's socialist/populist policies.

It should be noted that permanent socialism is not self-sufficiency. It is complete dependency on the state and on people who pay their ever increasing taxes. Socialism is not about growing your own garden, using technology to enhance your independence or solving your problems with your own resources. It is about taking from the collective storehouses of the state, and when you are again hungry, taking again. Socialism could only be very useful as a stop-gap measure between current problems and the active pursuit of permanent technical solutions. However, the goal of globalization is to create interdependency between states, and total dependency on global institutions, therefore, perpetuating problems, not solving them becomes the equation.

Another Western pro-corporate-financier point-of-view comes from Australia's National University's "New Mandala" blog written by academic wonk Andrew Walker. The blog itself is a clearinghouse for corporate subsidized talking points regarding Southeast Asia and is tied to the corporate-financier funded Lowy Institute. Some "contributing writers" even include Thaksin Shinawatra's hired lobbyist, Robert Amsterdam.

Walker's entire perception of Thailand seems to be derived from his time spent in a single village in Northern Thailand. From his myopic point-of-view in the minute village of "Baan Tian," he condemns entirely Thailand's self-sufficiency economy in his article "Royal misrepresentation of rural livelihoods." He suggests that "the sufficiency economy prescriptions for rural development are inappropriate and disempowering."

As with the Economist, the article breaks down into a pro-Thaksin rant claiming the entire plan is meant to keep the rural population of Thailand in their place, out of the cities, and thus out of the debate of national issues.

Of course, becoming self-sufficient is one step on the road to real empowerment. Academic wonks like Andrew Walker presume the height of empowerment is feeding a paper voting stub into a box, on your way home from a service sector job, and then relaxing behind the glow of a new plasma screen TV bought on credit. A more likely argument would be that sustaining your own existence, wrought from the land beneath your feet, and the ability to shape the world around you with an understanding of science and the mastery of multiple trades is the height of empowerment and the truest form of human freedom.

The hand wringing within the writings of the Economist and ANU's Andrew Walker is not the full extent of the West's reaction to Thailand and its wandering from foreign dominion. A full fledged "red" color revolution has been brewing within the Kingdom since at least 2009. Reading the "Red Siam Manifesto" penned by "red shirt" intelligentsia Giles Ungpakorn makes it quite clear how they view "self-sufficiency" and the need to "reform" Thailand as a "socialist welfare state." 

Ungpakorn's childish and ranting manifesto can be found on "Socialist Worker Online" here. A complete selection of the "red shirt" propaganda used within Thailand can be found here.

It should be noted that the leader of the "red shirt" protest is deposed ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra. Long before Thaksin Shinwatra would become prime minister in Thailand, he was already working his way up the Wall Street-London ladder of opportunity, while simultaneously working his way up in Thai politics. He was appointed by the Carlyle Group as an adviser, while holding public office, and attempted to use his connections to boost his political image. Thanong Khanthong of Thailand's English newspaper "the Nation," wrote in 2001

"In April 1998, while Thailand was still mired in a deep economic morass, Thaksin tried to use his American connections to boost his political image just as he was forming his Thai Rak Thai Party. He invited Bush senior to visit Bangkok and his home, saying his own mission was to act as a "national matchmaker" between the US equity fund and Thai businesses. In March, he also played host to James Baker III, the US secretary of state in the senior Bush administration, on his sojourn in Thailand."
Upon becoming prime minister in 2001, Thaksin would begin paying back the support he received from his Western sponsors. In 2003, he would commit Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq, despite widespread protests from both the Thai military and the public. Thaksin would also allow the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.

In 2004, Thaksin attempted to ramrod through a US-Thailand Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) without parliamentary approval, backed by the US-ASEAN Business Council who just before last year's 2011elections that saw Thaksin's sister Yingluck Shinawatra brought into power, hosted the leaders of Thaksin’s "red shirt" personality cult.

Image: The US-ASEAN Business Council, a who’s-who of corporate fascism in the US, had been approached by leaders of Thaksin Shinwatra's "red shirt" street mobs. (click image to enlarge)
The council in 2004 included 3M, war profiteering Bechtel, Boeing, Cargill, Citigroup, General Electric, IBM, the notorious Monsanto, and currently also includes banking houses Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Chevron, Exxon, BP, Glaxo Smith Kline, Merck, Northrop Grumman, Monsanto’s GMO doppelganger Syngenta, as well as Phillip Morris.

Photo: Deposed autocrat, Thaksin Shinawatra before the CFR on the even of the 2006 military coup that would oust him from power. Since 2006 he has had the full, unflinching support of Washington, Wall Street and their immense propaganda machine in his bid to seize back power.

Thaksin would remain in office from 2001 until September of 2006. On the eve of the military coup that ousted him from power, Thaksin was literally standing before the Fortune 500-funded Council on Foreign Relationsgiving a progress report in New York City

Since the 2006 coup that toppled his regime, Thaksin has been represented by US corporate-financier elites via their lobbying firms including, Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom HouseInternational Crisis GroupPNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR), Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (CFR), Kobre & Kim, and currently Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff (Chatham House).

To say that Thaksin Shinawatra and his "red shirts" have foreign backing would be a profound understatement.

Thaksin's proxy political party maintains the "red shirt" mobs which in turn are supported by several NGOs including the National Endowment for Democracy funded "Prachatai," an "independent media organization" that coordinates the "red shirt" propaganda efforts. Prachatai was recently nominated for the Deutsche Welle Blog Awards by the "Neo-Con" infested Freedom House, upon which former Thaksin lobbyist Kenneth Adelman sits as a member on the board of directors.

 Image: US Neo-Conservative, corporate-financier run Freedom House "tweets" their March 11, 2011 nomination of NEDfunded "red shirt" propaganda clearinghouse,

Western corporate-financier interests know what's going on already and they are moving against it while the majority of humanity still sleeps in ignorance and apathy. Thailand is but one nation of many, in China's "String of Pearls" that is targeted for destabilization and US State Department sponsored "liberation."

The key to stopping these foreign interests dead in their tracks is seizing back from them the mechanisms of civilization - and we have done that already in terms of the alternative media. Such success is necessary in all aspects of our life, and as the King in Thailand suggests, it can start with something as simple as growing your own garden.

Today and Into the Future

Of course in Thailand, agricultural self-sufficiency is coupled with technology to enhance efficiency and improve the quality of life. Even in the city, small independent businesses are adopting the latest technology to improve their production, increase their profits, and even out-compete larger corporations. Computer controlled machining equipment can be found in small workshops crammed into old shop-houses, automatic embroidering machines allow a single woman to fulfill orders for name tags on new school uniforms - rather than both businesses sending off orders to factories owned by a handful of wealthy investors. A multitude of examples can be seen walking around any city block in Thailand's capital of Bangkok.
Image: MIT's Dr. Neil Gershenfeld inside his "Fab Lab," arguably the birthplace of the personal fabrication revolution.

Bringing this sort of technology to rural people, even enabling people to create their own technology rather than just employ it, is not just science fiction but is a reality of today. MIT Professor Dr. Neil Gershenfeld has developed the "fabrication laboratory" or "Fab Lab." The Fab Lab is a microfactory that can "make almost anything." His Fab Lab has since been replicated all over the world in what he calls the personal fabrication revolution. It aims at turning a world of dependent consumers into independent designers and producers.

Video: Dr. Neil Gershenfeld presents his Fab Lab at TED. 

Dr. Gershenfeld in his own words articulates the problem of finding support amongst institutions and governments, stating that individuals are very enthusiastic about this revolution "but it breaks their organizational boundaries. In fact it is illegal for them, in many cases, to equip ordinary people to create rather than consume technology."

This indeed not only encapsulates Dr. Gershenfeld's dilemma, but describes to a "t" the mentality of oligarchs and the fears they harbor about empowering the people, a fear reflected in the "organizational boundaries" of their corporations and governmental institutions. This is a feature of oligarchy described as early as 300 B.C. in ancient Greece in "The Athenian Constitution." In it, a character referred to as "the Old Oligarch" describes his contempt for the social mobility the technology of the Athenian navy affords the lower echelons of Athenian society.

Dr. Gershenfeld goes on to encapsulate the true potential of his Fab Labs by stating, "the other 5 billion people on the planet aren't just technical "sinks," they are "sources." The real opportunity is to harness the inventive power of the world to locally design and produce solutions to local problems." Dr. Gershenfeld concludes by conceding he thought such a possibility was 20 years off, but "it's where we are today," noting the success his Fab Labs are already having around the world.

Image: The interior of a "Fab Lab" in Amsterdam, featuring a array of personal manufacturing technology.

Dr. Gershenfeld's message resonates with the current culture of Thailand and the ambitions of the "self-sufficiency economy." In many ways, Thailand's patchwork of micro-businesses, already successfully by-passing capital intensive centralized production, vindicates the work and optimism of Dr. Gershenfeld. It also, however, resonates strongly with the self-reliant traditions that had made America great. The technical possibility for this to change the world is already a reality, but Dr. Gershenfeld himself concedes that the biggest obstacle is overcoming social engineering - in other words - creating a paradigm shift in the minds of the population to meet the technical paradigm shift that has already taken place.

Self-sufficiency and the harnessing of technology in the hands of the people are the greatest fears of the corporate-financier oligarchy - fears that oligarchs throughout the centuries have harbored. Simply boycotting multinational corporations and replacing them with local solutions is something everyone can afford to do starting today. And by simply looking into Dr. Neil Gershenfeld's "Fab Lab," similar ideas such as "hackerspaces," raising awareness of the personal fabrication revolution, and even in the smallest way participating can help overcome the obstacle of social-engineering and spur a profound paradigm shift. We have begun to seize back the media, now it is time to seize back the other levers of power. Now is the time to recognize true freedom as being self-sufficient as a nation, as a community, and as a household, and start living it everyday.