Egypt and the Google-organized Revolution
February 12, 2011
Alliance of Youth Movements: Color Revolution 2.0
In 2008, the Alliance of Youth Movements held its inaugural summit in New York City. Attending this summit was a combination of State Department staff, Council on Foreign Relations members, former National Security staff, Department of Homeland Security advisers, and a myriad of representatives from American corporations and mass media organizations including AT&T, Google, Facebook, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and MTV.
One might suspect such a meeting of representatives involved in US economic, domestic and foreign policy, along with the shapers of public opinion in the mass media would be convening to talk about America’s future and how to facilitate it. Joining these policy makers, was an army of “grassroots” activists that would “help” this facilitation.
Among them was a then little known group called “April 6″ from Egypt. These Facebook “savvy” Egyptians would later meet US International Crisis Group trustee Mohamed ElBaradei at the Cairo airport in Februrary 2010 and spend the next year campaigning and protesting on his behalf in his bid to overthrow the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
The Alliance of Youth Movements mission statement claims it is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to helping grassroots activists to build their capacity and make a greater impact on the world. While this sounds fairly innocuous at first, even perhaps positive, upon examining those involved in “Movements.org,” a dark agenda is revealed of such nefarious intent it is almost difficult to believe.
Screenshot from Movements.org’s supporters page.
Movement.org is officially partnered with the US Department of State and Columbia Law School. Its corporate sponsors include Google, Pepsi, and the Omnicon Group, all listed as members of the globocrat Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). CBS News is a sponsor and listed on the globocrat Chatham House’s corporate membership list. Other sponsors include Facebook, YouTube, Meetup, Howcast, National Geographic, MSNBC, GenNext, and the Edelman public relations firm.
Movement.org’s “team” includes Co-Founder Jared Cohen, a CFR member, Director of Google Ideas, and a former State Department planning staff member under both Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton.
Founding Movements.org with Cohen is Jason Liebman of Howcast Media which works with mega-corporate conglomerates like Proctor & Gamble, Kodak, Staples, Ford, and government agencies such as the US State Department and the US Defense Department, to create “custom branded entertainment, innovative social media, and tardeted rich-media campaigns.” He was also with Google for 4 years where he worked to partner with Time Warner (CFR), News Corporation (FoxNews, CFR) Viacom, Warner Music, Sony Pictures, Reuters, the New York Times, and the Washington Post Company.
Roman Sunder is also credited with co-founding Movements.org. He founded Access 360 Media, a mass advertising company, and he also organized the PTTOW! Summit which brought together 35 top executives from companies like AT&T (CFR), Quicksilver, Activison, Facebook, HP, YouTube, Pepsi (CFR), and the US Government to discuss the future of the “youth industry.” He is also a board member of Gen Next, another non-profit organization focused on “affecting change for the next generation.”
It is hard, considering these men’s affiliations, to believe that the change they want to see is anything less than a generation that drinks more Pepsi, buys more consumerist junk, and believes the United States government every time they purvey their lies to us via their corporate owned media.
While the activists attending the Movements.org summit adhere to the philosophies of “left-leaning” liberalism, the very men behind the summit, funding it, and prodding the agenda of these activists are American’s mega-corporate combine. These are the very big-businesses that have violated human rights worldwide, destroyed the environment, sell shoddy, overseas manufactured goods produced by workers living in slave conditions, and pursue an agenda of greed and perpetual expansion at any cost. The hypocrisy is astounding unless of course you understand that their nefarious, self-serving agenda could only be accomplished under the guise of genuine concern for humanity, buried under mountains of feel-good rhetoric, and helped along by an army of exploited, naive youth.Among Egypt’s scattered but triumphant opposition, the initial reaction to Mr. Mubarak’s departure and the military’s assertion of authority was ecstatic. “Egypt is going to be a fully democratic state,” Wael Ghonim, the Google executive who helped organize the youth-led protests and became one of the movement’s most prominent spokesman, said. “You will be impressed.” Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Laureate and Egyptian opposition figure said, “Egypt has been going down the drain for the last few weeks and we need to get it back to where it should be,” he said. “We need a democratic country based on social justice.” - Mubarak Steps Down, Ceding Power to Military, The New York Times, February 11, 2011
By Tony Cartalucci, LandDestroyer.com
February 11, 2011
As many honest people are still confounded over the true nature of the Egyptian protesters occupying Cairo’s Tahrir Square, yet another hero lifted up by the globocrat controlled mainstream media has turned out to be linked, knowingly or unknowingly, to a foreign plot.
Google marketing executive Wael Ghonim had gone missing on January 28, 2011, after taking part in organizing the first of the protests just days earlier. When he was freed two weeks later he was exalted a hero and served as a catalyst both in Egypt and worldwide to try and reinvigorate the faltering protest.
While Wael Ghonim is portrayed as a passionate activist fighting for the Egyptian people, his allegiances are much more specific.
Having been living abroad in Dubai, his Facebook page didn’t pop-up overnight, it was actually created nearly a year ago in tandem with Mohamed ElBaradei’s arrival in Egypt during February 2010. Ghonim also created ElBaradei’s official campaign website. Ghonim and ElBaradei then concurrently campaigned for the coming November 2010 Egyptian election and built up an opposition network in support for ElBaradei. This network included the April 6 Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the independent labor unions now making up the bulk of the protests.
After ElBaradei’s predictable loss, Ghonim shifted from campaigning to protesting. Contrary to popular belief, the protests weren’t spontaneous or even tipped off by high food prices, but rather meticulously planned by Ghonim and the “Revolutionary Youth Movement,” with members drawn from the opposition network ElBaradei had been busy building since early 2010. The date January 25, 2011 was specifically picked after the uprising in Tunisia played out.
The Wall Street Journal reported in detail how organizers selected spots where multiple protests would begin, the routes they would travel and where they would ultimately meet. They even walked the routes at different paces to calculate the time it would take to travel them. They hoped that their movement would spur others to join in before they all moved to Cairo’s Tahrir Square.
When we consider that the “April 6 Movement” was in Washington in 2008 consorting with the US State Department partnered, corporate funded Movements.org, then moved on to supporting US International Crisis Group’s (ICG) Mohamed ElBaradei beginning in February 2010 and finally organizing and participating in the protests starting January 25, 2011, it is fairly suspicious. That a Google marketing executive, returning from Dubai, was involved in identical activities also on behalf of ICG stooge ElBaradei and not being anything more than innocuous is a stretch of the imagination.
Perhaps Wael Ghonim is unaware that Google, the company he works for is a corporate sponsor of Movements.org. Perhaps he doesn’t know who ElBaradei really works for and that he consorts with the very men making the US policy he feigns to deplore. Perhaps he is unaware of what designs such men have for his “new” Egypt and has no clue that everyone involved in his protest has been networked, funded, backed, and even directed by foreigners with nothing but exploitation in mind for Egypt’s future.
For Mr. Wael Ghonim of Google, he should perhaps fire up his employer’s ubiquitous search engine and begin educating himself on who he is consorting with, what their real intentions are, and for whose benefit, before bringing another 30 years of despair and anguish upon “his” people.Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer.
AP – President Hosni Mubarak defied a quarter-million protesters demanding he step down immediately, announcing Tuesday he would serve out the last months of his term and "die on Egyptian soil." He promised not to seek re-election, but that did not calm public fury as clashes erupted between his opponents and supporters.
The protesters, whose numbers multiplied more than tenfold in a single day Tuesday for their biggest rally yet, have insisted they will not end their unprecedented week-old wave of unrest until their ruler for nearly three decades goes.
Mubarak's halfway concession — an end to his rule seven months down the road — threatened to inflame frustration and anger among protesters, who have been peaceful in recent days.
In the Mediterranean city of Alexandria, clashes erupted between several hundred protesters and government supporters soon afterward, according to footage by Al-Jazeera television. The protesters threw stones at their rivals, who wielded knives and sticks, until soldiers fired in the air and stepped in between them, said a local journalist, Hossam el-Wakil.
The speech was immediately derided by protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square. Watching on a giant TV, protesters booed and waved their shoes over their heads at his image in a sign of contempt. "Go, go, go! We are not leaving until he leaves," they chanted. One man screamed, "He doesn't want to say it, he doesn't want to say it."
In the 10-minute address, the 82-year-old Mubarak appeared somber but spoke firmly and without an air of defeat. He insisted that even if the protests had never happened, he would not have sought a sixth term in September. He said he would serve out the rest of his term working "to accomplish the necessary steps for the peaceful transfer of power." He said he will carry out amendments to rules on presidential elections.
Mubarak, a former air force commander, vowed not to flee the country.
"This is my dear homeland ... I have lived in it, I fought for it and defended its soil, sovereignty and interests. On its soil I will die. History will judge me and all of us."The step came after heavy pressure from his top ally, the United States. Soon after Mubarak's address, President Barack Obama said at the White House that he had spoken with Mubarak and "he recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable and a change must take place." Obama said he told Mubarak that an orderly transition must be meaningful and peaceful, must begin now and must include opposition parties.
Earlier, a visiting Obama envoy — former ambassador to Egypt Frank Wisner, who is a friend of the Egyptian president — met with Mubarak and made clear to him that it is the U.S. "view that his tenure as president is coming to a close," according to an administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the ongoing diplomacy.
The United States has been struggling to find a way to ease Mubarak out of office while maintaining stability in Egypt, a key ally in the Mideast that has a 30-year-old peace treaty with Israel and has been a bulwark against Islamic militancy.
Mubarak would be the second Arab leader pushed from office by a popular uprising in the history of the modern Middle East, following the ouster last month of the president of Tunisia — another North African nation.
The U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Margaret Scobey, spoke by telephone Tuesday with Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, the embassy said. ElBaradei, a pro-democracy advocate and one of the opposition's most prominent leaders, has taken a key role in formulating the movement's demands. He is also a member of a new committee formed by various factions to conduct any future negotiations on the protesters' behalf once Mubarak steps down.
There was no immediate word on what he and Scobey discussed.
Only a month ago, reform activists would have greeted Mubarak's announcement with joy — many Egyptians believed Mubarak was going to run again despite health issues. But after the past week of upheaval, Mubarak's address struck many of his opponents as inadequate.
"The people have spoken. They said no to Mubarak, and they will not go back on their words," said Saad el-Katatni, a leading member of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood. "Enough suffering. Let him go, and leave the Egyptians to sort themselves out."Ayman Nour, a former presidential candidate who is a member of the negotiating committee, said Mubarak clearly didn't get the message.
"This is a unique case of stubbornness that will end in a disaster," he said. "It is only expected that he wasn't going to run because of his age.... He offered nothing new."Tuesday's protest marked a dramatic escalation that organizers said aims to drive Mubarak out by Friday, with more than 250,000 people flooding into Tahrir, or Liberation, Square.
Protesters jammed in shoulder to shoulder: farmers and unemployed university graduates, women in conservative headscarves and women in high heels, men in suits and working-class men in scuffed shoes. Many in the crowd traveled from rural provinces, defying a government transportation shutdown and roadblocks on intercity highways.
They sang nationalist songs, danced, beat drums and chanted the anti-Mubarak slogan "Leave! Leave! Leave!" as military helicopters buzzed overhead. Similar demonstrations erupted in at least five other cities around Egypt.
Soldiers at checkpoints set up at the entrances of the square did nothing to stop the crowds from entering. The military promised on state TV Monday night that it would not fire on protesters answering a call for a million to demonstrate, a sign that army support for Mubarak may be unraveling.
The movement to drive Mubarak out has been built on the work of online activists and fueled by deep frustration with an autocratic regime blamed for ignoring the needs of the poor and allowing corruption and official abuse to run rampant. After years of tight state control, protesters emboldened by the Tunisia unrest took to the streets on Jan. 25 and mounted a once-unimaginable series of protests across this nation of 80 million.
The repercussions were being felt around the Mideast, as other authoritarian governments fearing popular discontent pre-emptively tried to burnish their democratic image.
Jordan's King Abdullah II fired his government Tuesday in the face of smaller street protests, named an ex-prime minister to form a new Cabinet and ordered him to launch political reforms. The Palestinian Cabinet in the West Bank said it would hold long-promised municipal elections "as soon as possible."
Egypt's protesters have rejected earlier concessions by Mubarak, including the dissolution of his government, the naming of a new one and the appointment of a vice president, Omar Suleiman, who offered a dialogue with "political forces" over constitutional and legislative reforms.
In an interview with Al-Arabiya television Tuesday, ElBaradei dismissed Suleiman's offer, saying there could be no negotiations until Mubarak leaves. In his speech, Mubarak said the offer still stands and promised to change constitutional articles that allow the president unlimited terms and limit those who can run for the office.
Egypt's state TV on Tuesday ran a statement by the new prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, pleading with the public to "give a chance" to his government.
The United States ordered nonessential U.S. government personnel and their families to leave Egypt. They join a wave of people rushing to flee the country — over 18,000 overwhelmed Cairo's international airport and threw it into chaos. EgyptAir staff scuffled with frantic passengers, food supplies were dwindling and some policemen even demanded substantial bribes before allowing foreigners to board their planes.
Banks, schools and the stock market in Cairo were closed for the third working day, making cash tight. Bread prices spiraled. An unprecedented shutdown of the Internet was in its fifth day.
The official death toll from the crisis stood at 97, with thousands injured, though reports from witnesses across the country indicated the actual toll was far higher.
But perhaps most startling was how peaceful the protests have been in recent days, after the military replaced the police around Tahrir Square and made no move to try to suppress the demonstrations. No clashes between the military and protesters have been reported since Friday night, after pitched street battles with the police throughout the day Friday.
Egypt's military leadership has reassured the U.S. that they do not intend to crack down on demonstrators, but instead they are allowing the protesters to "wear themselves out," according to a former U.S. official in contact with several top Egyptian army officers. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
Troops alongside Soviet-era and newer U.S.-made Abrams tanks stood guard at roads leading into Tahrir Square. Protester volunteers wearing tags reading "the People's Security" circulated through the crowds in the square, saying they were watching for government infiltrators who might try to instigate violence. Organizers said the protest would remain in the square and not attempt to march to the presidential palace to avoid frictions with the military.
Two effigies of Mubarak dangled from traffic lights. On their chests was written: "We want to put the murderous president on trial." Their faces were scrawled with the Star of David, an allusion to many protesters' feeling that Mubarak is a friend of Israel, still seen by most Egyptians as their country's archenemy more than 30 years after the two nations signed a peace treaty.
Every protester had their own story of why they came — with a shared theme of frustration with a life pinned in by corruption, low wages, crushed opportunities and abuse by authorities. Under Mubarak, Egypt has seen a widening gap between rich and poor, with 40 percent of the population living under or just above the poverty line set by the World Bank at $2 a day.
Sahar Ahmad, a 41-year-old school teacher and mother of one, said she has taught for 22 years and still only makes about $70 a month.
"There are 120 students in my classroom. That's more than any teacher can handle," said Ahmad. "Change would mean a better education system I can teach in and one that guarantees my students a good life after school. If there is democracy in my country, then I can ask for democracy in my own home."Tamer Adly, a driver of one of the thousands of minibuses that ferry commuters around Cairo, said he was sick of the daily humiliation he felt from police who demand free rides and send him on petty errands, reflecting the widespread public anger at police high-handedness.
"They would force me to share my breakfast with them ... force me to go fetch them a newspaper. This country should not just be about one person," the 30-year-old lamented, referring to Mubarak.Among the older protesters, there was also a sense of amazement after three decades of unquestioned control by Mubarak's security forces over the streets.
"We could never say no to Mubarak when we were young, but our young people today proved that they can say no, and I'm here to support them," said Yusra Mahmoud, a 46-year-old school principal who said she had been sleeping in the square alongside other protesters for the past two nights.Authorities shut down all roads and public transportation to Cairo and in and out of other main cities, security officials said. Train services nationwide were suspended for a second day and all bus services between cities were halted.
Still, many from the provinces managed to make it to the square. Hamada Massoud, a 32-year-old lawyer, said he and 50 others came in cars and minibuses from the impoverished province of Beni Sweif south of Cairo.
"Cairo today is all of Egypt," he said. "I want my son to have a better life and not suffer as much as I did ... I want to feel like I chose my president."
February 12, 2011
Egypt is still reeling in the midst of a foreign-backed color revolution. The protests led by International Crisis Group trustee Mohamed ElBaradei and his "National Front for Change," have been assembling their forces and building up an opposition for over a year. ElBaradei's April 6 Movement had actually been in the US in 2008 to attend the US State Department and corporate sponsored Alliance for Youth Movements inaugural summit, before beginning their campaign and protests for ElBaradei. There are also the independent labor unions, organized and supported by the US National Endowment for Democracy(NED) funded NGO, the Solidarity Center joining ElBaradei's calls for "change."
With Mubarak declaring his resignation and the military taking over, it will be days, perhaps weeks before we can determine if the foreign-backed color revolution was successful and to what degree. The US State Department is already preparing a "new package" of assistance to Egyptian opposition groups, specifically to reform the constitution and compete in elections. That's right, the US State Department that hosted the Egyptian protesters back in 2008 in New York City will now be funding their front ahead of elections to see their handiwork through to the end.
Who is Backing Them and Why?
The Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) is yet another tentacle of the globocrat combine crawling forth on behalf of the US Government and the big-businesses that own it. Everyone from the RAND Corporation to the Council on Foreign Relations and all the mega-corporations they represent are using AYM to literally recruit, train, organize and support an army of exploited youth activists to carry out US foreign policy abroad on behalf of corporate interests.
Like the AYM, the US National Endowment of Democracy funds many NGOs worldwide for a similar purpose. One look at their board of directors reveals a conglomerate of Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Brookings Institute, and CSIS members. These "research" organizations in turn represent the collective interests of the most powerful political figures, corporations and banks on earth.
A look at their board of trustees reveals that many of the very men involved in this "non-profit research" are direct representatives of the world's largest corporations, from the big-oil corporations poisoning the world's oceans and shores, to the banking houses plundering the world's economies, to a myriad of defense contractors fueling the endless wars the West is prosecuting globally. So then what change is it they seek to gain by creating and backing organizations like AYM or by backing unrest in Egypt? The short answer is empire.
The Long Answer
In the late 90's these think-tanks, NGOs, and research groups together with their International Monetary Fund and the World Bank made immense loans to developing nations around the world. Nations were forced to take these loans with the threat of sanctions aimed against them by the World Trade Organization should they refuse. Like a mafia loan shark, these globocrat gangsters decided to call in the loans knowing how hopelessly unpayable they were.
And like a mafia loan shark, favors were asked of those who defaulted on their payments. Target nations were called to exercise sweeping economic liberalization reforms, eliminating their control and protection over their economy, industry, infrastructure, and as a result, eliminating their national sovereignty itself. It was a new form of an old art. It was economic neo-colonialism.
This is no different than the one-sided trade deals made by the old European empires with target nations in the colonial age. These trade deals also included ownership of property by foreigners, the ability to operate a business, and travel with impunity throughout the host nation - all with minimum or no taxes imposed upon the foreign occupiers. The only difference would be that modern day concessions are forced through invasive economic policy, while colonial concessions were forced through "gunboat policy."
Thailand, 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 would be the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer's (CFR) economic reformation of the broken nation.
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%.
As you can see, not much has changed since 1855 as far as imperialist "wish-lists" go. The Economist argued, as would any 19th century imperialist, that Iraq needed foreign expertise to catch up, justifying the evisceration of their national sovereignty.
The IMF invasions of the 90's prompted leaders around the world to insulate their nation and its economy from similar attacks in the future. The prospect of using military force by these globocrat elite is also becoming more and more difficult, expensive both politically and economically.
Their proposed solution is staged color revolutions. With the help of their mass media in combination with agitators they themselves have organized via NED, Freedom House, and AYM, they can overthrow nations and install their own puppets who are sure to make favorable reforms. Not only is this accomplished without firing a shot, but it's done under the guise of a "people's power revolution" for democracy and freedom.
The key to balking these nefarious designs is to understand them and raise awareness of them before they unfold. For Egypt it may be too late. For other nations there may still be a chance.
The next high profile targets will most likely be Iran, with the AYM already gearing up, and Thailand. Thailand has balked Western ambitions toward its territory for centuries, not without making concessions, and has already put down 2 staged color revolutions in 2009, and 2010.
monthly call-ins to their rallies, and his lawyer Robert
Amsterdam co-defending them suggests otherwise.
These "red shirt" color revolutions are the work of former Thaksin Shinwatra and a myriad of foreign backers. Thaksin was a former Carlye Group member before taking up the Premiership in 2001. He pursued a campaign of power consolidation, elimination of the nation's checks and balances, and a program of economic liberalization (read: selling out the country to foreigners).
On September 18, 2006, Thaksin was in New York City standing in front of the Council on Foreign Relations giving them a progress report on "democracy" in Thailand. The next day the Thai military staged a coup and swept his treasonous government from power.
It was previously reported that since his ouster from power in 2006, he has been backed by fellow Carlyle man James Baker and his Baker Botts law firm, International Crisis Group's Kenneth Adelman and his Edelman Public Relations firm, and now Robert Amsterdam's Amsterdam & Peroff, a major corporate member of the globocrat Chatham House. His 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.
Also interesting to note is that the above mentioned Edelman PR firm is also a sponsor of AYM, and so it should come as to no one's surprise that AYM has been reporting favorably on the globocrats' "red shirts" since 2010, here and here.
The International Crisis Group, upon which Thaksin's former lobbyist Kenneth Adelman sits, has shown its support by issuing a paper on the color revolution, berating the Thai government's handling of the protests. Robert Amsterdam's Chatham House also issued a paper, in an attempt to define the "official" narrative. There are also several statements from Freedom House, a NED clone of which Kenneth Adelman is also a member, all coming to the general and unsurprising consensus that the "red shirts" demands are reasonable and should be met.
Recently the US National Endowment for Democracy funded Prachatai bemoaned the banning of a recent Economist issue in Thailand in what it calls a display of government censorship. When we consider the Economist's corporate membership within the Chatham House, a membership shared with Thaksin's lobbyist Robert Amsterdam, and the Economist's depraved reaction to the military conquest and economic plundering of Iraq in their article "Let's all go to the yard sale," it seems more of a matter of countering overt enemy propaganda than "draconian censorship."
It's these games of calling governments oppressive for reacting to intentional provocations they themselves are a part of, that allows them to then vilify a nation in the eyes of the world, for they control the global mass-media. BBC, also a Chatham House corporate member, illustrates this in their "defense" of the NED funded Prachatai.
Keeping all of this in mind, it is quite clear that the globocrats have an expressed interest in regime change for Thailand and are attempting to accomplish this through Thaksin, his political party and the mobs they command in the streets. Their goal is nothing less than it was in 1855, to turn Thailand, or Egypt, or Iran for that matter, into an extension of their business and banking empires. The only difference is that instead of gunboats, they are using color revolutions to extract concessions. It is an attempt to seal a Bowring Treaty 2.0.
Thailand's institutions, like anywhere on earth are far from perfect, but conditions in Thailand do not justify mobs coming out into the streets, conducting violence and insisting their extra-legal demands be met, especially when those demands come from a deposed traitor, backed in turn by foreign investors. Considering the largest "red shirt" protest to date gathered a mere 100,000 for less than a day, in a nation of over 70 million people (0.1%), it doesn't even intuitively appear legitimate.
As it should have been for Egypt, reform for Thailand must come entirely from within, pursuing pragmatic solutions to address specific problems independently and head-on. This is something politicians in general, worldwide are incapable of doing, and so it must come from real grassroots activism and charity, not street mobs and rigged elections.
"red shirts" run political indoctrination camps.
Demagogues leading the "red shirts" offer socialist handouts in exchange for servile dependence on their political party instead of empowering people with the education and technical skills needed to solve their own problems indpendently. What's worse is that "red shirt" leaders are not only neglecting to address the ignorance of their followers, but are compounding it by actually conducting political indoctrination camps instead.
The ruling government, for its part, has created this exploitable mass of needy, dependent people in the first place by equally side-stepping their responsibility to provide the proper education necessary for empowering society. It is real empowerment through knowledge and education that defines true freedom and is the very foundation of a sovereign society.
Many people in Thailand realize this, and it is real grassroots activism and charity that is slowly changing and improving society within the status quo and stability afforded to them by the current ruling government and Thailand's traditional institutions. It's these people that stand up for local villagers when their land is being encroached upon by industrial estates, not the ruling government, and certainly not Thaksin's globocrat-backed "red shirts."
Raising awareness of what transpired in Egypt, of what is sure to spread to Iran, Thailand, and beyond, is an essential key to balking the globocrats' plans. For each nation that falls, no matter how far from your own shores it may be, it empowers these already megalithic corporations to become even bigger and more domineering both at home in the West and abroad.