In the West, regimes are judged according to their proximity to parliamentary democracy, which in particular entails regular elections. No matter how sound a regime, how committed its leaders, or how prosperous and well-disposed its people; if there is not adherence to the rule of parliamentary electioneering, then that can be sufficient for a regime to be marked for change. General elections are now scheduled for Thailand in July.

Rice fields near Chiang Mai, Thailand

Rice fields near Chiang Mai, Thailand

Russia is marked for more change because it is still regarded as too “authoritarian,” especially given the actions taken against oligarchs. Myanmar is targeted for change because its authoritarian system pursues a policy of economic self-sufficiency, with the Western-backed opposition aiming to install a market economy.[1] Likewise with the Libyan regime based on the “Third Universal Theory,”[2] which for decades has not only brought the Libyans more effective means of representation from the grass-roots upward than any Western-style parliamentary electoral jiggery-pokery based on shadow-boxing parties, but has a social system far superior for its citizens than possibly any in the Western world.[3] What amount of folly and destitution has been caused in the name of “democracy,” generally leading to plutocracy? We’ve seen it in South Africa, where Saint Nelson, in the name of democracy, handed the resources of that country over to the “free market.” We saw it in Kosovo, and even in Zimbabwe where, despite the murderous rampage of the “veterans” and the “comrades” against the remaining white farmers, in the name of “equality”, the biggest landowners are a few white-skinned plutocrats who fill the coffers of Mugabe’s party.[4]

Red Shirts

In September 2010 Thailand was subjected to an abortive “color revolution” spearheaded by the so-called “Red Shirts.” The main opposition contender is the Puea Thai party, loyal to Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire businessman, who was ousted as Prime Minister by a military coup in 2006, and whose regime was rampant with corruption. Yingluck, Thaksin’s sister, is the party’s prime ministerial candidate.[5]

The red-shirted rioters who caused such chaos on the streets of Thailand last year were well funded. Thailand’s Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) investigated the huge amounts of funding received by the Red Shirts and the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship. While this was criticized for having cast its net too widely,[6] the indications are nonetheless that Big Business poured huge sums into the oppositionist movement, including the Red Shirt rioters: “Substantial funds were certainly involved in organizing such an extended mass rally in the heart of Bangkok. At issue is whether these presumed funds were attributable to all of the 83 entities and individuals to the tune of 152 billion baht.”[7]

In July 2010, as the Red Shirts became more violent, a leader in exile jubilantly stated to ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Lateline that the movement was now being funded with substantial amounts from outside – non-Thai – sources. The ABC questions posed to Jakropob Penkair, “a senior leader of the Red Shirts,” ran in part:

JAKROPOB PENKAIR: … We have been receiving, in a more natural way than before – in other words, we have had such a controlled system before, and then it’s quite a relief to see that in the past year, there are a lot more universal support too of course, but we have the duty to make it clearer to the people out there, especially foreigners.

ZOE DANIEL: So, you’re saying that others are donating financially to the cause to keep you going?

JAKROPOB PENKAIR: Yes. Yes, they have.

ZOE DANIEL: Internationally as well as Thais?

JAKROPOB PENKAIR: Especially internationally.[8]

While the CRES moves against money laundering, mostly involving Thai oppositionists and business connections,[9] what the Jakropob Penkair statement with ABC Nightline reveals is that funding goes well beyond wealthy Thais, and is provided mainly from “international” sources.

Of Thaksin, the hero of the oppositionist forces, the well-informed Tony Cartalucci writes that, at the moment Thaksin’s regime was being toppled by the military in 2006, he was lecturing before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.[10] Thaksin, states Cartalucci, was an adviser to the globalist NGO Carlyle Group. Since his overthrow, he has been represented by James Baker (Carlyle Group) of the Baker Botts law firm; the International Crisis Group’s Kenneth Edelman, whose firm is a corporate sponsor of, one of the primary globalist bodies responsible for the “Arab Spring;”[11] Robert Blackwill, a member of the globalist think tank, the Belfer Center; [12]and Robert Amsterdam, whose firm is a corporate member of Chatham House.[13] Thaksin is obviously well-connected, as have been previous “velvet/color revolution” leaders-in-waiting such as Mohammed ElBaradei.

The above named Robert D Blackwill, who served as a National Security Adviser in the administration of George W. Bush, heads Barbour Griffith and Rogers, a lobby firm that was used by Bush. Thaksin secured the services of the Blackwill and the other firms back in 2007, shortly after his being deposed. At the time, The New York Times reported:

In recent months, Mr. Thaksin has been traveling through Asia, from Hong Kong to Bali to China to Singapore to Japan, meeting with supporters and keeping his name in the newspapers at home.

He is represented in Washington by Barbour Griffith & Rogers, a prominent lobbying firm, and he has hired the public relations firm Edelman of New York to help arrange meetings with the news media.

In a telephone interview from Hong Kong, Alan VanderMolen, vice president for Asia and the Pacific at Edelman, said, “We’re working with him in his capacity as a private citizen and supporting some media outreach to support his efforts to return to Thailand.”[14]

Given the globalist involvements of Blackwill and Kenneth Edelman, it seems reasonable to conclude that their interest in Thaksin is something more profound than adding to the coinage of their weekly pay-packets.

As the military were about to intervene in Thailand, Thaksin was outlining his vision for his country before the globalist luminaries of the Council of Foreign Relations in New York:

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States has today a vital interest in supporting democracy in Asia. America is a Pacific nation, a global superpower and a trend-setting democracy. It is only fitting that the United States and Asia, and specifically the United States and Thailand, as Washington’s oldest treaty alliance, be partners in this noble process. We will continue to look towards the true friendship of the United States as we work to promote open markets and eliminate trade barriers in the region. Thailand also hopes to move forward on a bilateral free trade agreement with the United States after our election later this year.[15]

As for the Red Shirts, their choice of color might be more literal than supposed. Their propaganda alludes to communist themes, is anti-royalist, and feigns anti-capitalism. Note that, despite the anti-capitalist rhetoric, their hero remains Thaksin. One Red Shirt poster alludes to the murder of the Czar and his family.[16] So why would the globalist plutocrats back a movement that has communistic rhetoric? There are numerous threats of violence that will be meted out if the Red Shirts do not get there way.[17] One article lauds the revolt in Tunisia as an example to Thailand.[18] The propaganda is pervaded by denunciations of the monarchy, yet there is indignation when the Government acts against those who contravene the laws against anti-monarchist agitation. The so-called “Red Power” propaganda, while stating its commitment to Thaksin, is inflammatory, with frequent implications of violence.

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]

The New Theory was prompted by the predicament of the people of To Kaen Village, Kalasin Province, visited by the King in 1992. The village folk were producing rice harvest of ample quantity but of poor quality, due to unreliable rainfall. A Cattle and Buffalo Bank and a Rice Bank were established, the latter being to guarantee rice prices. Artificial rainmaking is used when necessary, and a Royal Rice Mill has been set up for those lacking milling facilities. The policy is based on four principles:

Firstly, the theory applies to small farmers holding about 15 rai, or about six acres, an average cultivation area for Thai farmers.

Secondly, farmers must be able to support themselves adequately. They must also realize the need for unity and compassion in the community so as to support one another.

Thirdly, each farm household should be able to grow enough rice for its whole year’s consumption, under the assumption that each family can be self-reliant by growing rice on an area of five rai.

Fourthly, water must be available even in the dry season, averaging about 1,000 cubic meters per rai the whole year round.

…The New Theory is in fact a land and water management method for small farms in the natural condition, both in normal times and in crisis. The theory is clearly defined and can be implemented by farmers themselves by following the steps and procedures that have been set.[37]

There are three phases to agricultural management:

1. Family self-sufficiency and well-being

2. Local economies based on cooperatives between families, co-coordinated with state and private bodies, “focusing on production, such as crop seeds and soil preparation; on marketing, in the form of silos, drying space, distribution, and rice-milling tools; on daily living, such as shrimp paste, fish sauce, and dried food; on welfare, such as health and loans; on education, such as schools and scholarships; and on social and religious affairs, such as community functions.”

3. The establishing of associated enterprises such as agencies for the expansion of commercial, activities. The farmers are involved with all levels.

The New Theory is intended to have pervasive ramifications, as for example:

The environment is improved with diverse activities, such as the planting of perennial trees and multiple and alternate crops, and the keeping of herb gardens and livestock. Diversification breaks the cycle of plant diseases and pests. Soil degradation is slowed down, and it is kept fertile from the canopy of perennial trees, whose fallen leaves and foliage can be turned into compost. Organic pesticides and fertilizers from herbal products are emphasized, replacing chemicals.[38]

Social, moral and cultural developments are important factors, one of the major aims being to reverse urban drift, and to encourage a return to the land.

Farmers’ health is improved, both their physical and emotional health, as the family is kept together, without the need to migrate for jobs elsewhere. The family has enough food to last the whole year, with continuous earnings and higher incomes. The use of chemicals is reduced, so farmers work in safer and more stable conditions. Education is improved for farmers and their children, with the learning process in the program, through consultations among themselves, and news and information monitoring. The stable incomes also enable farmers to seek better education for themselves and their children.[39]

The State operates several specialized banks for housing, agriculture and other sectors. Low interest loans are provided for farmers.[40] The Government Housing Bank provided interest-free loans for first-time homebuyers, and has taken measures to intervene in regard to credit card debt.[41]


Thailand, like Myanmar and Libya, is an example of an alternative economic system, but the existence of such alternatives systems is little known. Globalization aims to destroy such nationally-orientated experiments in the pursuit of a world system that results in a one size fits all mentality, whether it be in the type of political representation, finance, economics or culture and morality. While Thailand is far from perfect, and runs the risk of opening itself up to the blandishments of foreign investment and the IMF, it appears to have a system that is out of step with globalist demands, and is being implemented with the most idealistic of motives.

[1] K R Bolton, “Myanmar Targeted by Globalists,” Foreign Policy Journal, June 1 2011,

[2] M Qadhafi, The Green Book (1975),

[3] Gerald A Perreira, “In the Theatre of the Absurd, Libya now takes Centre Stage,” New Dawn, Australian, No. 126, May-June 2011, pp. 19-24.

[4] The chief financial backer of Mugabe is Nicholas Hoogstraten, who in 1963 met with Tiny Rowland of Lonhro Corp., and both agreed to fund the terrorists. Hoogstraten stated: “I gave Zanu-PF five thousand here and five thousand there, a lot of money in those days.” Donna Block, “An aristocrat of Africa,” Daily Mail and Guardian, November 26, 1999. Hoogstraten owns nine farms in Zimbabwe covering one million acres and a huge cattle company. He scapegoats the whites for the ruination of Zimbabwe, whom he calls “disenfranchised trash.” The Guardian comments: “His money and his friendship with Mugabe, he believes, will ensure that his properties are not the subject of attacks by war veterans.”

[5] Tim Johnston, “Thai army weighs in on election debate,” Financial Times, June 20, 2011,

[6] “The politics of funding the Red Shirts’ protest,” Bangkok Post, June 25, 2011,

[7] Ibid.

[8] Zoe Daniel, “Red Shirts now co-ordinated from outside Thailand,” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC Lateline, July 30, 2010,

[9] “CRES moves to cut UDD funding,” Bangkok Post, May 17, 2010.

[10] “A conversation with Thaksin Shinawatra,” Transcript, Council on Foreign Relations, September 18, 2006,

The Thaksin talk was co-sponsored with the Asia Society, a Rockefeller established think tank.

[11] K R Bolton, “Twitterers of the World Revolution: The Digital New-New Left,” Foreign Policy Journal, Feb. 28, 2011.

[12] Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University. Blackwill, is a member of the Center’s International Council, and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the Trilateral Commission, and a trustee of the International Center for Strategic Studies, etc.

Other council members at Belfer include Michael Chertoff; and Paul Volcker, formerly chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and current chairman of the Trilateral Commission.

[13] Tony Cartalucci, “Thailand,” Land Destroyer Report,

[14] Seth Mydans and Thomas Fuller, “Thai Army Officers held in Bombings,” New York Times, January 21, 2007,

[15] “A conversation with Thaksin Shinawatra,” Transcript, Council on Foreign Relations, op. cit.

[19] American student radical leader James Kuhnen was to remark of the offer of funding for the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) from Rockefeller and other interests: “We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the centre as they move to the left.” J Kuhnen, The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, (New York: Avon, 1970), “At the convention, men from Business International Roundtables”, pp. 130–131.

[20] Cross Cultural Foundation,

[21] National Endowment for Democracy, “Thailand,” from 2009 Annual Report (published June 2010),

[22] K R Bolton, “Is Egypt’s Labor Movement Being Co-opted by Globalists?,” Global Research, February 21, 2011

[23] National Democratic Institute for International Affairs is chaired by former US Secretary of State Albright, and is funded by US Government agencies, World Bank, Citigroup Foundation, Ford Foundation, Soros, et al. K R Bolton, “The Globalist Web of Subversion,” Foreign Policy Journal, op.cit. Also see: New Dawn (Australia) Special Issue No. 16, p. 24.

[25] K R Bolton, The Globalist Web of Subversion, op. cit.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Open Society Foundations, “Thailand,”

[29] ASEAN Youth Movement, “Youth in the 21st – SE Asia,”

[30] Ibid.

[31] ASEAN Youth Movement, “Youth Statement,”

[32] ASEAN Youth Movement, ” Our Movement,”

[33] AEAN Youth Movement, “Alterative Media,”

[34] Open Thai Democracy, ” The Movement of Red Brethren in Other Countries has Continued,” December 19, 2010,

[35] “Thailand: Faded Smiles,” London Financial Times, January 13, 2010.

[36] “The New Theory and the Sufficiency Economy,” Foreign Office, Government Public Relations Department,

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[41] “Credit Bureau backs Government scheme,” The Nation, March 19, 2011,