Plutocracy and the globalist establishment back such a movement for the same reason that they have backed many “Leftist” movements from 1917 Russian onward: because the Left has often acted in the service of money. We might question hypothetically whether the plutocrats are promoting the Red Shirts as part of a dialectic whereby Thais will regard the oppositionist party as the only “moderate” alternative to both “Red Power” violence and military reaction. The hypothesis is not fanciful; it is the dialectical tactic that was used by the plutocrats in the USA during the 1960s with the New Left, for example, where “moderate” “student radicals” were supported as a seemingly more acceptable alternative to the likes of the SDS. The aim in using such methods is to broadly move society in a direction that establishes a new “center” that previously seemed radical.[19]

Globalists Backing Thai Oppositionists

The globalists are pushing for a “color revolution” in Thailand as they have in many other states, including those engulfed by the present tumult in North Africa and elsewhere. The same organizations are involved in a predictable scenario that seems to change but little from one side of the world to another. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in its latest published report for Thailand, states that its expenditure for 2009 comprised $210,000, which went to the Campaign Committee for Human Rights; Cross Cultural Foundation (for legal purposes);[20] Foundation for Community Educational Media (Prachatai) to publish oppositionist media; and a political agitation group called People’s Empowerment Foundation.[21]

However, this direct funding does not tell the whole story, as NED also provides funds for other NGOs for their own projects in Thailand. Hence, in 2008 the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, which specializes in creating labor movements that will work in tandem with free market advocates in targeted states,[22] received $220,181 from NED. The Cross Cultural Foundation received $50,000 for agitation through the legal processes; and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs[23] received $566,821 to monitor politicians.[24]

In 2007, the International Republication Institute[25] received $137,000 to help establish, guide, and train a political opposition in Thailand:

To assist political parties and civil society groups in identifying and responding to important public issues in Thailand. IRI will conduct a national poll on perceptions of democracy, political parties, and domestic issues facing Thailand. Subsequently, IRI will organize bimonthly focus groups to monitor the evolution of political sentiment and provide training for parties and civil society groups on the use of public opinion research in crafting outreach and communication strategies that are responsive to citizens’ concerns.[26]

The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs received from NED $283,660 for establish routable meetings throughout Thailand to discuss political reform.[27]

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations operates an affiliate, the Youth Action Fund in Thailand. The purpose of this is to support small groups of “progressive, youth-driven initiatives,” which might be defined as promoting radical youth cells. As in other “velvet” and “color” revolutions the focus is on the use of “the new media.”[28]

The ASEAN Youth Movement seems to be a spin-off of the Open Society Institute – Youth Initiative,[29] and encompasses the entire South East Asian region. It is an overt example of the manner by which young “radicals” are used by the corporate establishment. In announcing a 2010 “South East Asia New Media Camp” for Asian youth to be held in Thailand in 2010, it was stated that accommodation and meals would be provided free. The purpose was to instruct in the used of the “new social media” “to create positive social changes.”[30]

Representatives from Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam meeting in Thailand in 2009 founded ASEAN Youth.[31] Like the NED-sponsored Solidarity Center, which co-opts embryonic labor movements to the globalist cause, ASEAN Youth can be seen as a means of channeling youthful rebellion into globalist agendas. An indication of this is that there had been disquiet expressed at the ASEAN Youth conventions in regard to free trade, but that this has been overcome in favor of a free trade agenda:

…The regional economy was a major sticking point for our group’s process. Donaldson Tan’s in-depth understanding of regional politics, economics and even engineering eventually became an essential part of our critical engagement with ASEAN. Several Thai grassroots activists were initially frustrated by Donald’s insistence about economic issues, such as the inevitability of free trade and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)…[32]

Among the “alternative” news media recommended by ASEAN Youth is Radio Free Asia.[33] Among the “civil allies” of the ASEAN Youth movement is Open Thai Democracy, which supports the Red Shirt movement.[34]

It would be superfluous to continue documenting the NGOs and plutocrats involved in undermining the present Thai regime and its monarchy. It follows the same pattern as the other “revolutions” in the name of the “open society.”

Why Thailand?

The answer to the question as to why plutocrats would support “regime change” in Thailand is the same as their motives in trying to overthrow Qaddafi’s Libya and Myanmar: The Thai regime does not possess an economy that is conducive to the global economy.

Thailand maintains and strengthens the major foundations of a traditional society that requires change, according to the globalist perspective: monarchy, a farm-based economy, eschewing hedonistic and consumer-obsessed impulses, the active promotion of de-urbanization, and the self-reliant family as the basis of social order. The London Financial Times has commented that although Thailand’s sluggish economy had been boosted by US investments during the Korean and Vietnam wars, “it never fully developed an indigenous capitalist class able to compete internationally. Instead, local entrepreneurs – of whom Mr Thaksin was one – prospered by forging close relationships with politicians, carving out monopolies in service industries such as telecommunications and construction.”[35] Thailand, like Myanmar and Libya, has found its own unique method of economics. This is “The New Theory,” also known as the “Sufficiency Economy,” formulated by His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The doctrine is well explained by Thai Government sources. The King has sought to remind his people that their ancient sovereignty is more important than extravagant lifestyles. In the midst of the 1997 economic crisis, the King reminded his people in his royal address that, “In fact, I have often said… to be a tiger is not important. The important thing is for us to have a self-supporting economy. A self-supporting economy means to have enough to survive.” Diverging from orthodox economic wisdom, he stated that an export-driven economy is a problem, not a solution. The lesson was a learned from the economic crisis that Thailand should reverse its policy of trying to attract foreign capital, and repudiate the globalist economic system. The Thai Government in explaining the “New Theory” states sates:

His Majesty the King … advised a self-supporting lifestyle for everyone. Farmers should be able to feed themselves, starting with rice production. Enough rice should be grown for household consumption, with the excess harvest sold to raise income. They are also advised to change from planting a single type of crop to integrated farming. People living in the city who are engaged in business should know how to invest appropriately, starting from small businesses. Apart from self-sufficiency, he has prescribed perseverance and industriousness. Also, people should be compassionate towards one another.[36]