Israel on High Alert as Iranian Warships with Missiles Enter Suez Canal en Route to Syria

Iranian Naval Vessels Enter Suez Canal en Route to Syria

Associated Press
February 22, 2011

Two Iranian naval vessels entered the Suez Canal on Tuesday en route to Syria, officials said, the first time in three decades that Tehran has sent military ships through the strategic waterway.

Canal officials said the ships — a frigate and a supply vessel — are expected to reach the Mediterranean later in the day.

Israel has made clear it views the passage as a provocation. Israeli officials refused to comment Tuesday, though earlier this week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he viewed the move "with gravity."

The canal linking the Red Sea and the Mediterranean enables ships to avoid a lengthy sail around Africa. The Iranian ships are headed for a training mission in Syria, a close ally of Iran's hard-line Islamic rulers and an arch foe of Israel. In Syria, officials at the Iranian embassy said it would mark the first time in years that Iranian warships dock in a Syrian port.

The ships paid about $300,000 in fees for the passage, according to a Maritime agent. The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Iran's request to send the warships through the Suez Canal came at a particularly difficult time for Egypt as the nation's new military rulers try to focus on pressing domestic issues, including restoring security after the uprising that ousted longtime leader Hosni Mubarak.

The military rulers apparently had no choice but to grant the ships passage because an international convention regulating shipping says the canal must be open "to every vessel of commerce or of war." Egypt also cannot search naval ships passing through the waterway.

Iranian warships have not passed through the Suez Canal since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Egyptian-Iranian ties broke down following the Islamic Revolution and the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty the same year. Later, the relationship improved slightly, with contacts currently channeled through interest sections in the two capitals.

Iran Warships to Begin Suez Canal Passage Tuesday

Suez Canal officials: Iranian warships to enter waterway Tuesday, first passage in decades

The Associated Press
February 21, 2011

Suez Canal officials say two Iranian naval vessels are expected to start their passage through the strategic waterway early Tuesday.

Canal officials say the ships are expected to pay a fee of $290,000 for the crossing. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

If the ships make the passage, it would mark the first time in three decades that Iranian military ships have traveled the canal that links the Red Sea to the Mediterranean.

Israel has made clear it views the passage as a provocation.

Canal officials said Monday that the ships, a frigate and a supply vessel, are close to the southern entrance of the canal. The vessels are headed to Syria for a training mission.

'Israel on High Alert:' Iranian Warships with Missiles

Israel on high alert for Iranian warships' Suez transit. Kharg brings missiles

DEBKAfile Special Report
February 19, 2011

Tehran connived to slip the two Iranian warships through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean Sunday, Feb. 20, after a series of fake delaying tactics agreed between them to cover the flotilla's movements. Egypt's military rulers approved the passage of Iranian flotilla through the Suez Canal without inspecting their freights for banned cargo, taking advantage of the sandstorm over the region which obscured them from spy satellites and helped them to give monitors the slip. Tehran marked this landmark event with an official state TV statement Sunday that the ships had entered the Mediterranean and were on their way to Syria. Sunday, Cairo was still saying they will only reach Suez Monday.

From earlier debkafile reports: Cairo's approval for Iranian warships transit of the Suez Canal has brought Israel and Iran closer than ever before to a naval collision at sea. debkafile reports: Israel has learned that the Iranian cruiser Kharg is carrying long-range missiles for Hizballah which it plans to unload at a Syrian port or Beirut harbor.

US State Department spokesman P.J Crowley said he was "highly skeptical" of the Syrian claim that the two ships' visit was for training.

"If the ships move through the canal, we will evaluate what they actually do. It's not really about the ships. It's about what the ships are carrying, what's their destination, what's the cargo on board, where's it going, to whom and for what benefit," Crowley told a news conference.

He was responding to questions in the wake of debkafile's disclosure that the Karg was carrying missiles for Hizballah and indicating that the US and all other UN members were authorized by UN sanctions against Iran to board and search Iranian ships suspected of carrying illegal weapons.

The war ships' passage through Suez has been delayed as Cairo and Tehran spar over an Egyptian navy inspection of the vessels' cargoes.

In Israel, government and military officials were urgently casting about for a way to prevent those missiles reaching the Lebanese terrorists. Heavy US and Israeli pressure failed to dissuade Egypt's military rulers from letting the Iranian flotilla through Suez. So now the waterway has been opened wide for Iran to consign heavy weapons deliveries to Syria and Lebanon - in the first instance, and eventually to try and break Israel's naval blockade on the Gaza Strip and bring Hamas the heavy munitions that were impossible to transport through smuggling tunnels.

On February 16, debkafile reported:

Twenty-four hours after Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the Egyptian upheaval had no military connotations for Israel, Tehran applied for the Iranian frigate Alvand and cruiser Kharg to transit the Suez Canal on their way to Syria Wednesday night, Feb. 16. Their passage was termed "a provocation" by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. In Beirut, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah said he was looking forward to Israel going to war on Lebanon because then his men would capture Galilee.

Israel was closely monitoring the Iranian flotilla, whose visit to the Saudi Red Sea port of Jeddah on Feb. 6, preparatory to transiting Suez, was first revealed exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly481 on February 10.

Up until now, Saudi Arabia, in close conjunction with Egypt and its President Hosni Mubarak, led the Sunni Arab thrust to contain Iranian expansion – especially in the Persian Gulf. However, the opening of a Saudi port to war ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the first time in the history of their relations points to a fundamental shift in Middle East trends in consequence of the Egyptian uprising. It was also the first time Cairo has permitted Iranian warships to transit Suez from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, although Israeli traffic in the opposite direction had been allowed.

Iran made no secret of its plants to expand its naval and military presence beyond the Persian Gulf and Red Sea to the Mediterranean via Suez: On February 2, Iran's Deputy Navy Commander Rear Admiral Gholam-Reza Khadem Biqam announced the flotilla's mission was to "enter the waters of the Red Sea and then be dispatched to the Mediterranean Sea."

However, Israeli military intelligence which failed to foresee the Egyptian upheaval and its policy-makers ignored the Iranian admiral's announcement and its strategic import, just as they failed to heed the significance of the Iranian flotilla's docking in Jeddah.

debkafile's military sources report that Iran is rapidly seizing the fall of the Mubarak regime in Cairo and the Saudi King Abdullah's falling-out with President Barack Obama (see debkafile of Feb. 10, 2011) as an opportunity not to be missed for establishing a foothold along the Suez Canal and access to the Mediterranean for six gains:

1. To cut off, even partially, the US military and naval Persian Gulf forces from their main route for supplies and reinforcements;
2. To establish an Iranian military-naval grip on the Suez Canal, through which 40 percent of the world's maritime freights pass every day:
3. To bring an Iranian military presence close enough to menace the Egyptian heartland of Cairo and the Nile Delta and squeeze it into joining the radical Iranian-Syrian-Iraqi-Turkish alliance;
4. To thread a contiguous Iranian military-naval line from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea through the Suez Canal and the Gaza Strip and up to the ports of Lebanon, where Hizballah has already seized power and toppled the pro-West government.
5. To eventually sever the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, annex it to the Gaza Strip and establish a large Hamas-ruled Palestinian state athwart the Mediterranean, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea.
By comparison, a Fatah-led Palestinian state on the West Bank within the American orbit be politically and strategically inferior.
6. To tighten the naval and military siege on Israel.

U.S. Alliance with Egypt and Israel

Egypt OKs Iran Warships Through Suez Canal

MSNBC
February 18, 2011

Israel called it a provocation; canal official said only war could have blocked request

Egypt has agreed to let two Iranian naval vessels transit the Suez Canal, a move that comes despite expressions of concern by Israeli officials, the Egyptian-government's MENA news agency reported Friday.

An Iranian diplomat has said the vessels were heading to Syria for training and that the request to move through the canal is in line with international regulations.

Iranian diplomats have offered assurances that the two ships wouldn't have weapons or nuclear or chemical material, MENA stated.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, briefing reporters on an Air Force One flight from California to Oregon, said,

"We're monitoring that, obviously."

"But we also would say that Iran does not have a great track record of responsible behavior in the region," he said.

The move had been widely expected and Iranian officials have insisted the request is in line with international regulations.

It would be the first time since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution that Iranian warships pass through the Suez Canal, which links the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.

Egypt has been run by an army-led transition government since last week's ouster of President Hosni Mubarak in a popular uprising.

A Suez Canal official said Egypt can only deny transit through the waterway in case of war.

Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Iran's attempt to send warships through the canal was a provocation.

Israel's state-funded Channel One television said Lieberman, a stridently far-right partner in the conservative coalition, had spoken out of turn and that Israels defense ministry "had preferred to ignore" the ships' approach.

Israel considers Iran an existential threat because of its disputed nuclear program, ballistic missile development, support for militants in the region and its threats to destroy Israel.

Syria is one of Israel's neighboring adversaries. It has an alliance with Iran which has deepened along with Tehran's isolation from the West over its disputed nuclear programme, which the Jewish state sees as an existential threat. Iran is a sponsor of the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah.

U.S. Alliance with Egypt and Israel

The Nature of American-Egyptian Military Relations

By Ali Younes, Palestine Chronicle
February 14, 2011

It should come as no surprise that the ruling Egyptian Supreme Military Council announced its intent to honor all of Egypt’s regional and international treaties after it took over the reins of power from president Hosni Mubarak last week. This announcement was made to primarily assure the United States and Israel that the new post Mubarak political order in Cairo will remain formally committed to its peace treaty with Israel.

More than any other government branch; the Egyptian military owes its modern weapons, training, logistics, and equipment to U.S, military aid which came as a direct dividend of the peace treaty it signed with Israel in 1979.

In other words, the U.S is paying both Israel and Egypt for peace it sponsored between the two countries in 1979. The U.S payment to Egypt comes in the form of $ 1.3 billion military aid package and only about $250 billion in economic aid.

The Israeli Payment is worth over $3 billion dollar.

A state department cable in 2009 leaked by Wikileaks last year about the U.S-Egyptian relationship documented a meeting between a U.S. general and Egyptian military leaders. The cable sumarized relationship:

"President [Hosni] Mubarak and military leaders view our military assistance program as the cornerstone of our mil-mil relationship and consider the $1.3 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing as ‘untouchable compensation' for making and maintaining peace with Israel."

In another state department memo labeled “secret” the Egyptian military viewed "the tangible benefits to our mil-mil relationship are clear," it says:

"Egypt remains at peace with Israel, and the U.S. military enjoys priority access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace."

The U.S. mil-mil relations with Egypt are not just about paying for new military weapons for the Egyptian army. The U.S military aid to Egypt, moreover, pays mostly for upgrades of existing weapons, training Egyptian military and regular maintenance and spare parts.

This military relationship, in exchange, gives the U.S. government leverage over Egypt that the new Egyptian leaders realize as an indispensible fact of life. Without the American military aid the Egyptian military, given the size of American-made weapons it has, will degrade and fall behind its potential enemies in the region.

During the last days of the Mubarak regime, some U.S congressional leaders spoke about cutting U.S. military aid to Egypt if its new leaders moved away from the U.S. national interests. This was the first and clear initial warning that the U.S. might trim its logistical or training support to the Egyptian military which will, in that case, degrade the Egyptian military in the long run and thus weaken Egypt’s strategic value in the region.

U.S. strategic planners calculate that the Egyptian military is unlikely to move away from its alliance with the U.S. due to its total dependence on the U.S. funding to maintain and sustain its American-made weapons. The reasoning behind this thinking is the situation both Iran and the U.S. found themselves in after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979.

The Shah of Iran had acquired huge quantities of advanced U.S. weapons that were maintained by U.S .made spare parts and training programs. After the 1979 Islamic revolution, U.S advanced weapons were in position of an enemy state, but the U.S. ended its military aid programs to Iran, a decision that ultimately caused the U.S. weapons there to rust out of service.

A clear example of that is the U.S. made F-14 Tomcat fighter jets that were in service in Iran before the 1979 revolution. To this day, the Iranian air force has yet to recover from the impact of its dependence on U.S. contracts to service and maintain weapons purchased during the Shah era.

A similar situation could occur for the American-made Egyptian F-16s or its Navy frigates or tanks and armor vehicles. If the future leaders of Egypt decided to end their strategic alliance with the U.S, or end their treaty with Israel, the U.S then, can retaliate by ending its military assistance programs and deprive Egypt’s military crucial upgrades and service contracts.

A situation like that will severely damage the front line of the Egyptian air force, the F-16s, which without U.S spare parts and regular maintenance, will end up crumbling and become obsolete and will meet the same fate as the Iranian F14. In this unlikely scenario, Egypt will fall further behind Israel in its military capabilities; even if it compensated its losses with less advanced Russian and Chinese weapons systems.

For the future leaders of Egypt, the U.S. military aid to Egypt is a double-edged sword. On one hand the modern Egyptian military is almost a U.S. creation in terms of training, weapons, equipment and maintenance, and needs the U.S. support to maintain those advanced weapons systems especially that Soviet era weapons systems are on the way out. On the other hand, American military aid package will keep Egypt an American dependency and within the U.S. sphere of influence to advance the U.S. strategic interests in the region. Egypt in this case cannot chart an independent course in the Arab world much less lead it, nor can it match the much stronger Israeli army.

- Ali Younes is a writer and Middle East analyst based in Washington D.C. He can be reached at ali.younes@charter.net.

Dangerous Victims: Egyptian Revolution in Israeli Eyes

By Seraj Assi, Palestine Chronicle
February 14, 2011

The Arab World is suffering and in its suffering it threatens Israel.

'Israeli citizens are frightened,' said Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni in a moment of deep confession.

In fact, what Livni was saying, to paraphrase Franz Fanon, is this: "Mama America, see the Arab! I'm frightened! Frightened! Frightened!"

This is a typical colonial scene where the “frightening victims” are captured in a game that involves dehumanization and empowering and rendered silent and dangerous subjects at the same time. Never can they escape this colonial capacity to invite and contain contradictions and opposites.

Yet in the Israeli case the irony is far more acute. For not only does Israel see its victim as dangerous and potentially evil, but has itself become the victim. It is within this irony that the ritual of victimization came to dominate the master narrative of Israel’s colonial discourse and foreign policy. Not only has Israel become a country whose entire existence is dependent on the suppression of all Arab and Muslim peoples, but has relentlessly contributed to their suppression.

According to Israel’s imperial logic, it is only reasonable to suppress the lives of three hundred million people for the “security” of a few million Israeli Jews, no matter how fictitious this security claim is. The irony is while Israel continues to bill Egyptian revolution as a threat to its national security, its Palestinian citizens- for decades Israel’s internal “dangerous victims”- are taking to the streets to celebrate the victory of their Egyptian brothers. Motivated by human and national solidarity, they have never felt as secure as they do now.

Israel’s security is fundamentally the security of vision. And since the vision of Arab and Muslim despotism is the only guarantee for Israel’s cultural narcissism and ethnic superiority in the region, it must be preserved by any means, and precisely by brutal force for “Arabs only understand force”, as Zionists believe.

Yet Israel’s fear has a performative colonial function. Its obsessive insistence to remain “the only democracy in the Middle East” is not merely a representational fantasy, but an effective colonial strategy. It is precisely this vision that gives Israel’s colonial policies in the region its moral justification and authentic validity. Its “civilizing mission” in the region is completely dependent on its vision of Arab and Muslim undemocratic spirit.

It is Israel’s cultivated vision on Arab despotism that permits its former Prime Minister Ehud Barak to boast that “Israel is a villa in a jungle” and its President Shimon Perez to contrast democracy with peace:

“Mubarak is a great man committed to peace, but Egyptian youth want democracy.”

And when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued his paternalistic warning to Egypt from “becoming another Iran” he was operating into the same imperial logic.

Here Israel’s ambition to reorder the world by the brutal force of Zionist propaganda reaches its extreme absurdity. Indeed, it is in Israel where suppression is equivalent to stability. It is there where Egypt, its people, history and culture are all reduced to one word: Camp David. And it is in Israel where international sympathy for Egyptian struggle for freedom and dignity is violently placed under what an Israeli journalist has recently called “the betrayal of the West.”

Even when the moment has arrived to contradict these proclamations, Israel continues to see itself as the civilization custodian surrounded by uncivilized enemies and unruly protestors. There is no doubt then that Israel’s fear of any prospective democracy in the Arab world is steeped in racism. For Arab democracy simply threatens Israel’s undisputed vision of Arabs that maintained itself regardless of any historical evidence disputing it. And since the evidence this time is too visible to be denied, it becomes too intimidating for the Israeli observer. As the vision is now defeated by the narrative, as it is yielding to the pressure of history, Israel’s fear turns into collective phobia and racist hysteria. The scene of an Arab getting out of the iron cage fashioned by the Israeli observer to violate the serenity of history is precisely what frightens Israel.

On February 02, 2011, an article published in Haaretz opened with the following:

“Edward Said was right. We are all infected with Orientalism, not to mention racism. For the site of an entire people shaking off the yoke of tyranny and bravely demanding free elections - instead of uplifting our spirits, fills us with fear, just because they are Arabs.”

This clearly illustrates how, by a strange change of fortune, Israel came to inherit Western Orientalist racism and produce its own “Orientals”. Indeed, it is in Israel where, to steal a line from Naomi Klein, “Jews made the shift from victims to victimizers with terrifying ease.” This ironic legacy of Western Orientalism now produced by the Zionist racist machinery is precisely what enables Binyamin Fuad Ben-Eliezer, himself an Arab Jew born in Basra in Iraq, to lament Mubarak’s departure by claiming that "Arabs are not ready for democracy.”

Yet Israeli Jews are not alone to inherit the ironic legacy of Western Orientalism in the region. Just a week after the Egyptian revolution broke up Mubarak too introduced his version of Orientalism. Not so different from Livni’s was his message to President Obama on ABC that

"You don't understand Egyptian culture and what would happen if I step down now”.

One might wonder what was left of Egyptian culture under Mubarak regime but a bunch of corrupt muftis and semi-intellectuals. In fact, one does not need a revolution to discover that Mubarak is the last one in Egypt to understand what Egyptian culture is.

Perhaps the most hilarious scene of Mubarak’s Orientalist doctrine was his “camelization” of the demonstrations in Egypt. By unleashing his thugs riding in on camels and horses to crush and terrorize peaceful civilian protestors on the streets Mubarak was sending a clear message to his friends in the West. That is Egyptians, when left to their devices, are nothing but a bunch of unruly savages unsuited to democracy and civilization. His barbaric response to one of the most civilized revolution in the region shows how deeply he believes in what he says and does.

Mubarak’s response is an extraordinary example of how local dictators act as colonial agents towards their people and how they too feed on the irony of “dangerous victims.” Victimization in its Mubarak’s version depends on the same logic of radical inversion. That is by presenting Egyptian protestors as collaborators and foreign agents Mubarak is following the Arab proverb: “He hit me and cried, he raced me to complain.” Yet Mubarak certainly knows, as well as his Israeli and Western interlocutors, that one of the motivations behind the revolution was precisely his scandalous collaborative role in the region.

It is in this context that the revolution against Mubarak regime becomes an anti-colonial struggle. His dehumanization of his people tied with his brutal violence against peaceful civilians is an unmistakably colonial symptom. Here the recent events in Tunisia and Egypt should not make us forget how Western violence was exported to the Arab world from the dawn of colonialism up to the present day, how it was brought home by ruling elites whose links to neocolonial and postcolonial metropolises are maintained through multiple forms of agency, and how authoritarian Arab regimes continue to feed on Western hypocrisy in regard to democracy and liberty, the same slogans that have provided the foothold for Western expansion in the region.

Nor should we forget that Western political stability in comparison to the Arab world should be interpreted against the background of its exploitation of the region which provided it with the wealth to support its relatively decorous life. To make no mistake about it, the obsessive emphasis in Arab and Western media on formal U.S. announcements and responses to events in Egypt and Tunisia can only show how deeply neocolonialism is steeped in the region.

Isn’t then a bitter irony to expect the United State to liberate Egyptians from the very conditions that make it function in the region? Wasn’t this very same discourse on the liberation of Arabs what allowed its imperial venture to take place in the region? Don’t all kinds of critique of Israel’s support for Mubarak’s regime seem absurd given the fact that by supporting Mubarak Israel behaves in accordance with its colonial interests in the region and any critique of it must begin with its colonial foundations instead of its contemporary political hypocrisy?

- Seraj Assi is a PhD student in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, Washington DC. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

Globalist Fueled Color Revolutions are Attempting to Transform Entire Regions - First the Middle East and Then the World

The Middle East & Then the World

LandDestroyer.com
February 18, 2011

Beginning in North Africa, now unfolding in the Middle East and Iran, and soon to spread to Eastern Europe and Asia, the globalist fueled color revolutions are attempting to profoundly transform entire regions of the planet in one sweeping move. It is an ambitious gambit, perhaps even one born of desperation, with the globalists' depravity and betrayal on full display to the world with no opportunity to turn back now.

To understand the globalists' reasoning behind such a bold move, it helps to understand their ultimate end game and the obstacles standing between them and their achieving it.

The End Game

The end game of course is a world spanning system of global governance. This is a system controlled by Anglo-American financiers and their network of global institutions ensuring the world's consolidated nations conform to a singular system they can then perpetually fleece. As megalomaniacal oligarchs, their singular obsession is the consolidation and preservation of their power. This will be achieved through a system of population control, industrial control, and monetary control, which together form the foundation of their Malthusian policies.

These policies are on full display in the UN's "Agenda 21," and by policy wonks like the current White House Science Adviser John Holdren in his book titled "Ecoscience."

Malthusian as their policies may be, they surely do not believe the world is in danger due to over-population or the environmental hazards posed by industrial progress. Instead, like all tyrants in history, they are establishing a convincing narrative to defend the immense concentration of undue power within their elitist hands and the implementation of measures to ensure such power stays in their hands indefinitely.

The immediate dangers posed to their plans are numerous, including an alternative media increasingly exposing the true nature of their agenda, and thus awakening a vast number of people who simply refuse to go along with it. There is also national sovereignty, where nations are openly challenging this Anglo-American centric world order and refusing to implement the conditions of their own enslavement.

These sweeping color revolutions, and coordinated military operations, both overt and covert, are dealing with the latter of these two challenges, while censorship, cognitive infiltration, and a tightening police state spanning the Western world under the very false premise of a "War on Terror" confronts the former.

Red = US-backed destabilization, Blue = US occupying/stationed.
China's oil and seaways are all covered.

The Middle East

With the globalist fueled destabilization in progress, concessions and regime changes are being made from Jordan to Egypt, all in the name of "democratization." The protesters' calls are verbatim repeats of the their local US funded NGOs' mission statements. Skeptical as many may be that all of this is being orchestrated by the West, one needs only read the RAND Corporation's 2007 report titled "Building Moderate Muslim Networks" where breathtaking confessions are made to not only reorder the Muslim world according to the West's interests, but how they would follow the same model of "civil society networks" they have already used for decades during the Cold War.

Egypt's recent "transition" played out as a direct translation of RAND's blueprint for meddling in the Muslim world. From the protest organizers and NGOs to the protest leaders, to the behind-the-scenes meddling by America's military leadership, the Egyptian uprising was entirely a US production. Even the drafting of the new Egyptian Constitution is being carried out by organizations funded by George Soros and the US National Endowment for Democracy.

The regional destabilization is resetting the geopolitical board in favor for a renewed effort to affect regime change in Iran. It has been extensively covered that the globalists have intricate and extensive plans, in the form of Brookings Institute's "Which Path to Persia?" report, to fund color revolutions, support terrorism inside of the Islamic Republic and even provoke war with a nation they concede would rather avoid conflict. No sooner did North African and Arab regimes begin to crumble did the "Green Revolution" in Iran start up again. As if reiterating the summation of Brookings' report, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has recently and overtly called on the US to back the "Green Revolution."

Iran's fall to the globalists, the extraction of its wealth, and the end of its support for Chinese and Russian economic and military ambitions would isolate the so-called Shanghai Cooperative Organization further.

NATO creeping forward, suffering failures in Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia.

Russia's Encirclement

Russia, along with China appear to be the two biggest blocs of opposition to the Anglo-American establishment. Indeed there are plenty of people and organizations within each nation gladly working hand-in-hand with the globalists, who in turn, are overtly trying to tempt and coerce the two nations to integrate themselves into their global world order.

Men like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to power in Russia amongst an era of immense corruption, began building networks of NGOs modeled directly after those of the Anglo-Americans in the West, even naming this network the "Open Russian Foundation" after George Soros' Open Society Foundation. According to geopolitical researcher William Engdahl, this Open Russian Foundation included Henry Kissinger and Lord Jacob Rothschild on its board of directors and its goal was to transform Russia from a sovereign state and into something more palatable for globalist consumption.

Whatever Khdorkovsky's early successes may have been, they were cut short by Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin, who has safely confined Khodorkovsky behind the bars of a Siberian prison. Today, Khdorkovsky receives lobbying and legal services from notorious globalist lawyer Robert Amsterdam who leads international efforts to vilify Russia and justify the nation's encirclement by NATO.

After Tunisia fell and protests began brewing in Egypt, Foreign Policy magazine published the Freedom House's list of "Who's Next?" On the list was Belarus' Aleksandr Lukashenko, leader of a European nation directly bordering Russia's western border, staring Moscow in the face. NATO itself admits the reluctance of Belarus to join its now unjustified organization, while the mainstream media berates the Belarusian government for putting down protests launched after the results of recent elections that saw the Western-backed opposition defeated.

Looking at a map of Russia, not a nation touching its borders has been spared the globalist treatment, from the Ukraine and their US-backed Orange Revolution, to Georgia and its US-backed invasion of South Ossetia. For Russia, they seem more than prepared to fight back, humiliating the US-trained and equipped Georgian military on the battlefield and overseeing the results of the US-funded Orange Revolution overturned, with Ukrainian talks to join NATO halted.

By targeting the Middle East, and in particular Iran, which both China and Russia have been using to check the West's world domineering ambitions, the globalists' hope is to renew political unrest in Russia's satellite regions and complete its campaign of encircling Russia, thus forcing it to concede to its place amongst the new global order.

SSI's "String of Pearls:" China's oil lifeline.

China's String of Pearls

It is no secret China depends on oil imports to not only keep its economy growing, but to keep its vast population busy and prosperous, thus keeping the ruling government in power. This has been a long known realism by both China and the West. For China's part, they have begun building a presence on continental Africa, especially in Sudan where they have established a 1,000 mile oil pipeline from the vast nation's heartland to Port Sudan on the Red Sea. They have also provided relief to the country from UN sanctions and buys the majority of Sudan's oil exports.

China also imports an immense amount of oil from Iran. In fact, the Islamic Republic represents the world's second largest exporter of oil to China, behind Saudi Arabia.

From Sudan and Iran, across the Indian Ocean, and back to China's shores in the South China Sea, represents a "String of Pearls," or a series of geopolitical assets China is developing to protect this vital logistical route. This "String" includes a Chinese port in Pakistan's Baluchistan region, another facility in Myanmar (Burma), and expanded facilities in the South China Sea off the coast of Vietnam. China is also building up the size and capabilities of its fleet, including submarines which now shadow America's carrier groups, and the outfitting of their first aircraft carrier which is nearing completion.

The term "String of Pearls" was used as the title of the US Strategic Studies Institute's (SSI) 2006 report "String of Pearls: Meeting the challenge of China’s rising power across the Asian littoral." In this report, China's ambitions to project its power along this route is viewed as a direct challenge to American supremacy as well as a threat to the West's unipolar vision of a "new world order."

While China may not be a champion of human freedom, they do appear to favor a multipolar world where sovereign nations coexist instead of the Anglo-American unipolar world where, unsurprisingly, the British and American oligarchs dominate the planet.

To prevent such a multipolar world from coming into existence, the SSI report suggests several strategies regarding China, from engaging and enticing it to become what globalist pusher Robert Zoellick calls a "responsible stakeholder" in the "international system," to outright military confrontation and containment.

Of course this report was written in July 2006, and the ink hadn't even dried before Israel suffered a humiliating defeat in its war with Lebanon, the war with Iran stalled, and globalist minion Thaksin Shinawtra was ousted from power in Thailand in a display of jealously defended sovereignty in Southeast Asia.

It appears that the globalists, over the following years, would present China with a flattering role to play in their global order while simultaneously destabilizing nearly every nation along the "String of Pearls." The US has expanded its war in Afghanistan and is attempting to balkanize Pakistan in the process, specifically the Baluchistan region where China is establishing a naval presence. Pakistan's Baluchistan region is also the seaside starting point of an energy and logistical conduit running northward through the Himalayas and into Chinese territory. The US is also heavily involved in destabilizing Myanmar (Burma) to affect regime change and subsequently establishing a Washington dependent government.

Thailand neighbors Myanmar to the east and possesses the narrow Kra Isthmus China would like to develop into a Suez/Panama Canal-like project to shorten trips for its oil laden, China-bound tankers. Thailand also serves as an overland conduit, running north and south as in Pakistan, with a developed rail system connecting Singapore's shipping yards to Laos' capital of Vientiane. China has begun the development of a rail system through Laos and the upgrading of Thailand's rail system. Thailand also is one of the world's largest rice exporters, which makes the nation vital to China's future growth.

It is no surprise then, that Thailand, like Myanmar, has suffered multiple attempts by the US to affect regime change. Their man, Thaksin Shinawatra is an overt globalist, having formally served as an adviser to the Carlyle Group, and since his ousting from power in 2006, has been lobbied for by everyone from James Baker's Baker Botts, to ICG's Kenneth Adelman and the Edelman PR firm, to his current lobbyist and lawyer, Robert Amsterdam.

It is quite clear that Washington is using its control of the Middle East and its control of the seas, albeit challenged control, to check China's vastly superior financial and economic position. It is also clear that Washington is investing a great amount of military resources and intelligence assets to destabilize the entire "String of Pearls" to confound, contain, and leverage concessions from China, with the ultimate goal of folding the emerging Asian giant into the unipolar Anglo-American global order.

How well this strategy is working is debatable, however, the US military is politically hobbled, strategically stretched, and led by vastly incompetent leaders in Washington who have lost the faith and trust of their own population, not to mention the world. The bold and perhaps desperate gambit the US is playing out in the Middle East could be a bid to rectify years of failure against China and the Shanghai Cooperative since the SSI wrote their report in 2006. Regime change in Iran is still the linchpin in making this latest bid a success.

South America

Even South America is not spared. There has been a lull in overt American meddling, allowing South America to become a bastion of sorts against the agents of globalization, however, covert operations and staging has been ongoing.

Troubling reports coming from South America's Argentina, no stranger to the ire of Anglo-American ambitions, indicate that tension is building up between Buenos Aires and Washington. It has culminated in a diplomatic row over a recently seized US C-17 transport chalk full of suspicious equipment and an even more suspicious explanation. This is leading many, including the government of Argentina, to believe the US is staging another round of destabilization efforts in South America.

Venezuela and Bolivia have been overtly targeted by the West in recent years by efforts to undermine and even overthrow their respective governments. The muted-confused response over the coup in Honduras also raises suspicions that America has begun striking back against the wave of regional nationalism sweeping South America. A visit over to Movements.org reveals that the US State Department/corporate funded organization is backing dissidents in Venezuela and encouraging the spread of "civil society," gleefully noting the insidious effects it is having on bolstering the anti-Chavez opposition.

Conclusion

The recent US-backed wave of revolution sweeping the Middle East is just the beginning of a greater move to dislodge Iran and begin regaining ground against Russia and China after several years of disappointing results geopolitically. The ultimate goal in mind is to force Russia and China to accept their role as "responsible stakeholders" in the unipolar Anglo-American "new world order." The unipolar world of Anglo-American financier domination requires that all competition be eliminated, all nations become interdependent, and most importantly, all governments conform to the globalists' model of "civil society" which in turn answers to centralized global institutions.

Understanding the overarching plan reveals the danger of being apathetic or complacent about the current unrest in the Middle East. It will surely spread, and depending on the Shanghai Cooperative's response and their determination to remain the masters of their own destiny, greater confrontation may ensue. For the United States and its dwindling power, its meaningless offers to the world's nations to join their bankrupt, one-sided model of world governance, and their growing economic mire, there is no telling what their desperation may transform into. This unpredictability and desperation may be perhaps the only card they have left in their hand worth playing, and one that should trouble us all.

Anglosphere Plots Color Revolutions Around the World?

The Daily Bell
February 12, 2011

Hosni Mubarak has resigned. The Egyptian "color" revolution (ie: a peaceable one), carried out by heroic people risking life and limb, has been apparently been a success. I only wish it were that simple. But there is ample evidence the revolution has been manipulated and that the Anglo-American elite plans to replicate the Egyptian revolution not just in the Middle East but worldwide via the use of the Internet and swelling youth demographics.

The latest and most astonishing global gambit is called AYM and Wikipedia provides us some information about the group, as follows:

"The Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) began with a December 2008 summit in New York City to identify, convene, and engage 21st century movements online for the first time in history. The United States Department of State partnered with Facebook, Howcast, MTV, Google, YouTube, AT&T, JetBlue, Gen-Next, Access 360 Media, and Columbia Law School to launch a global network and empower young people mobilizing against violence and oppression."

According to Wikipedia,

"Founders of AYM include Jared Cohen, former advisor to both Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton and now Director of Google Ideas at Google, Jason Liebman, CEO and co-founder of Howcast and Roman Tsunder, co-founder of Access 360 Media. Speakers at the 2008 summit included actress Whoopi Goldberg, Facebook Co-Founder Dustin Moskovitz, The Obama Campaign's New Media Team, and then-current Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs of the United States James K. Glassman."

A 2010 article at Wired.com covers a recent AYM summit in breathless detail, as follows:

"I'm at the Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) summit in London, at the Intercontinental Hotel. The two-day summit, which ends tomorrow, is an impressive gathering of youth activists from more than 18 countries, NGOs and tech giants, here to learn more about using online tools to promote their extraordinary range of social movements and promote non-violent change."

The Wired article, entitled "AYM summit: A meetup for the world's youth activists," then further explains the transformative changes that the "world's youth" are capable of making:

At the opening reception last night, hosted at Google's headquarters, I met a smart bunch of people from organizations such as Blue State Digital (which ran Obama's online campaign), Howcast, Middle East peace activists One Voice, and the East London-based Young Foundation. But the highlight is an A-list bunch of conference speakers at the conference today and tomorrow – including Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP, Scott Heiferman of MeetUp, as well as top people from Google, YouTube and the World Bank. Other keynote speakers include Jeremy Gilley, the former actor who founded Peace One Day, and Joe Rospars, who was the new-media director for Obama for America.

There's strong representation here from Washington DC. This morning, Jared Cohen, of the US State Department, moderated a session titled Seizing the Moment: Responding to Crises and Mobilizing Around Key Events. That had speakers from Mobile Accord, Ushahidi, Mazahery Law, AccessNow and the Censorship Research Center. I'm now sitting in a session called Turning Video into Tangible Action, featuring experts such as Ramya Raghaven of YouTube, Levi Felix of Causecast, and Chris Sarette, Invisible Children ...

It's an inspiring event, geared towards helping activists share top-level information and making connections that lead to significant change. You can sense the scale of their practical ambition from the title of some of the sessions: one is called Tech Solutions to Repressive Regimes; another is titled Effective Strategies for Mobile Content to Increase Empowerment.

The above was a report on the third AYM Summit in 2010. Online you can find a transcription of Hillary Clinton's "Video Message for Alliance of Youth Movements Summit" that was apparently a keynote for the second AYM Summit in Mexico City, October 16, 2009. Here's an excerpt:

I want to congratulate all of you who have come to Mexico City, in person and online, to be a part of this groundbreaking summit. You are the vanguard of a rising generation of citizen activists who are using the latest technological tools to catalyze change, build movements, and transform lives. And I hope this conference provides an opportunity for you to learn from each other and discover tools and techniques that will open new doors for activism and empowerment when you return home. All over the world, young people like you are driving progress.

In Colombia, two young college graduates, fed up with the violence in their country, used Facebook to organize 14 million people into the largest antiterrorism demonstrations in history. In Iran, we saw young people using twitter and YouTube to communicate with each other and the world despite a government crackdown designed to keep them silent. And in India, a 14-year old high school student from Mumbai used social networking to link together half a million people who sought solidarity and support in the aftermath of the November 2008 terrorist attacks ...

Governments can't do it alone. Citizens, organizations, businesses, universities – everyone with a stake in our shared future must take responsibility for shaping it. That's what we call 21st century statecraft. So thank you for being on the front lines of progress, and I can't wait to see what all of you do next.

Of course what came next apparently was Africa and the Middle East: first Tunisia, now Egypt and surely other countries to come. It would seem, then, that Mubarak never attended an AYM meeting. But certainly he and his supporters have in fact discovered the limits of Western Anglo-American elite loyalties: One is useful until one is not.

So here's my supposition: Despots throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America (those who have gotten used to billion-dollar annual handouts from the US to "sustain stability" via the use of torture, famine and censorship) are probably online just this minute investigating timeshares in Lear Jets. Hillary's keynote speech is quite clear. Each AYM Summit is like a tolling of a bell. And it tolls for 20th-century thugs that cast their lot with the Anglosphere.

It's not exactly an original story. During the era of the initial Gutenberg press and the Renaissance, the Great Venetian banking families of the day suppposedly set out to destroy the power of the Catholic church. The Venetians may have funded Martin Luther and his Reformation to split the Church, and further funded other schisms. Of course it didn't work out quite as planned. The Reformation seems to have spun out of control and numerous free-thinking sects (the results of the Reformation and Protestant revolution) ended up in America, creating anarchical, horizontal societies that took Western elites centuries to stamp out. In fact, the elites ended up with one good century – the 20th. The 21st we speculate will be a far bumpier ride thanks to the next iteration of the Gutenberg press – the Internet.

Because of the Internet, it's hard to be cynical about the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. It would be my hope that these revolutions would usher in some real change. But that is not what the revolution's handlers want.

The Anglosphere's operations are being carried out in two phases.

1. First comes the revolution.
2. Then comes "aftermath" that must inevitably resolve itself into Western-centric regulatory democracies, including manipulative central banks, endless, intrusive, brand-intensive corporatism and, generally, spirit-sapping regulatory democracy.

Alternatively, the Anglosphere's revolutions end up generating Islamic republics – but that's OK too. Islamic Republics come in handy in building a larger Islamic enemy that provides justification for further authoritarian depredations at home.

The process is already at work in Tunisia. The mainstream media is not covering ongoing (considerable) unrest in Tunisia anymore because the dominant social theme – the agreed upon narrative – is that the Tunisians had their "color" revolution and now that a "unity" government is in charge, the revolution has run its course. Reform is on the way; a consensus will be reached and Western-style regulatory democracy will be installed in that small, bleeding country – unless of course militant Islam shoulders it aside.

As incredible as it is to contemplate, these manipulations apparently run even beyond the arrogance of inciting worldwide revolution. Another dominant social theme that's been launched seems to involve Julian Assange and his psyops WikiLeaks program, if that's what it is. We recently explained WikiLeaks operations as follows:

Each WikiLeaks "release" only seems to confirm the dreary conclusion that the entire enterprise is a kind of concoction intended to facilitate Western intelligence interests and further reinforce Western messaging. Is this so farfetched? It is a well-documented fact that Wall Street funds were funneled overseas (via the Red Cross) to help gain victory for the Red communist factions (and Lenin) during the Russian Revolution. And it is just as certain that Anglo-American elites created the economic conditions that allowed for the rise of Adolf Hitler – and then provided massive industrial funding as well. The American Bush family was directly involved in this latter transaction.

For this reason we identified Assange as a key figure in an upcoming global, elite promotion almost from the very beginning when we wrote a fictionalized speculation called "Comes a Blond Stranger." We weren't positive then and we won't make a definitive statement now, but the evidence continues to pile up. If we are correct, it may be in fact almost impossible to overstate the importance of Julian Assange and his role in the "history" that the elites are now busily creating. He could end up being the first leader of a world government – a six-foot-four (or five or six) inch blond rebel with an electronic cause and a commitment to global transparency (see below).

http://www.thedailybell.com/1750/Frauds-of-WikiLeaks.html

WikiLeaks has been in play for nearly a year. The gambit of "color" revolutions has been revitalized only recently. But they may have the same roots. Consider, please, Egyptian heroic rebel Wael Ghonim, conveniently of Google, an American Internet corporation that has close ties to American intel. Just yesterday, Ghonim tweeted,

"Dear Western Governments, You've been silent for 30 years supporting the regime that was oppressing us. Please don't get involved now".

This sounds quite admirable. But let's take a further look at Google's Ghonim. A summary from alternative news website Infowars:

"Having been living abroad in Dubai, [Ghonim's] 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."

Infowars informs us of information that is readily available all over the ‘Net – that the Egyptian protests were planned by Western operatives and that Ghonim and the "Revolutionary Youth Movement," were intimately involved along with an "opposition network ElBaradei had been busy building since early 2010." This information has been reported by the mainstream media as well. The UK Telegraph reported on US involvement in training Egyptian youth protests more than a week ago. The Wall Street Journal recently reported how organizers selected places for the protests and even walked the routes to figure out timelines.

More from Infowars:

"Perhaps Wael Ghonim ... 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."

And who is Mohamed ElBaradei? According to Tony Cartalucci at alternative-news site landdestroyer.blogspot.com, "ElBaradei, the self-proclaimed leader of the unfolding Egyptian protests, is actually sitting on the Board of Trustees of the Zbigniew Brzezinski/George Soros globalist think-tank, the International Crisis Group." Cartalucci adds:

The mainstream media has been backing ElBaradei's ownership of the protests, hailing this Nobel Laurette and former UN IAEA director as the potential next president of Egypt and the "hero" of the protests. The New York Times refers to him as the "Nobelist" portraying him as standing "toe-to-toe" with hundreds of riot police and promising to run for president if and only if elections were "free and fair." While ElBaradei poses as a critic of the United States, it is not because of their meddling with Middle Eastern affairs, it is because they are not meddling enough. ElBaradei berates the United States for not intervening in what he calls "social disintegration, economic stagnation, and political repression" in Egypt.

Cartalucci eventually goes off the tracks. He is convinced that the color revolutions are being fomented by the West to encircle Iran and ensure that Iran does not create nuclear devices. However as we've pointed out before there is considerably controversy over the origins of the Iranian revolution. Khomeini's father may have been a British agent (so some reports speculate) and Khomeini himself may have been trained by MI5/MI6. On the flight back to Iran, Khomeini reportedly said some nasty things about Iranians and generally didn't sound as if he was very happy about returning there. Finally, Khomeini apparently redrew various oil contracts in favor of the West when he arrived back in Iran – hard as that sounds to fathom.

http://www.thedailybell.com/1310/Maybe-US-Wants-Iran-to-Have-the-Bomb.html

It is not always clear what the Anglosphere is doing or why. But as usual in this world nothing is as it seems. I would advise those who wish to follow such things generally, (the continuing war between the Anglosphere and the Internet) to wait and see how events play out. Over time the reasons for what's happening will start to come clear. It may even happen sooner than later as the elite seems increasingly rushed.

It seems increasingly clear: Instead of taking 20 or 30 years to unpack a promotion, it is implementing them in three or four years. This leads to sloppiness. Julian Assange apparently provides us with a key to the modern-day promotions that the elite wants to emphasize. The Youth Movements may offer us insights into how the elite intends to build a new world order, one regulatory democracy at a time. For the most part, one may need pliable candidates in seats of power. And certainly the elite wants to be seen as participating in the transformative power of the 'Net. It may even be that they've realized the inevitability of convulsive change and are trying to get out ahead of it and to control it via such artifices as AYM.

The strategies of Western powers-that-be are always startling in their intricacy and boldness. But I will end this essay by pointing out that many of these global schemes were plotted, apparently, as long as a century ago, or even more. The Internet was not a consideration, then, though it surely is now. And given the haste with which the PE is operating at every level, I would argue that the Internet is exposing these plans in an intolerable way. The elites will continue with their business plan of global consolidation but much now militates against it. In the era of the Internet, it is easier to implement such plans than it is to bring them to a successful conclusion. I stand with the Egyptians in their heroic struggle and wish them well, though the hard part may be yet to come.

The Struggle for Self-Determination in the Arab World: The Alliance between Arab Dictators and Global Capital

Global Research
February 14, 2011

...The U.S. is trying to play a two-sided game. The New York Times, which is highly supportive of U.S. foreign policy, suggests that the U.S. government seeks a form of stage-managed democratization in Egypt. Ross Douthat states:

"[L]ook closer, and it's clear that the [Obama] administration's real goal has been to dispense with Mubarak while keeping the dictator's military subordinates very much in charge. If the Obama White House has its way, any opening to democracy will be carefully stage-managed by an insider like Omar Suleiman [the current vice-president of Egypt], the former general and Egyptian intelligence chief who's best known in Washington for his cooperation with the C.I.A.'s rendition program. This isn't softheaded peacenik dithering. It's cold blooded realpolitik."

As long as the current structure of the Egyptian regime remains unchanged in the wake of Mubarak's departure, neo-colonial interests will continue to be served. As long as their interests are secured, they would have sacrifice Mubarak. The face of a regime does not matter; it is the interests that it serves.

Whether correct or incorrect, the Mubarak regime has claimed that the U.S. and Israel have been behind the mass protests throughout Egypt. Iran, Hezbollah, Qatar, and Hamas have also been accused of helping orchestrate the protests alongside the U.S. and Israel by Cairo. These accusations by Mubarak's regime are meant to demonize and delegitimize the protest movement as foreign ploys and to divide the Egyptian protesters.

The U.S. government seeks to maintain the same kleptocratic status quo in place in Egypt and Tunisia, either under continued dictatorship or under an outwardly appearing democratic political system. In other words, the aim is to keep the same substance, but to change the form. Kleptocracy can work under dictatorship or "managed" democracy.

As the protests across the Arab World gain momentum, the U.S. and its allies are working to "try" to mix their own "opposition" figures amongst the protest movements and to bring their "agents" into power. In other words, the U.S. is politically hedging its bets. If the Arab protest movements are not attentive to this process of infiltration, the emerging wave of so-called democratization in the Arab World could end up being a manipulated process which retains the control of foreign powers...

Read More...

Egypt and the Google-organized Revolution

Google’s Revolution Factory

By Tony Cartalucci, LandDestroyer.com
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.

http://allyoumov.3cdn.net/f734ac45131b2bbcdb_w6m6idptn.pdf

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.

Wael Ghonim of Google Plays an Integral Gart in ElBaradei’s Bid to Seize Power

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.

Protesters Unmoved by Leader's Concession

February 1, 2011

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."

Egypt Today, Thailand Tomorrow

By Tony Cartalucci, LandDestroyer.com
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."

Colonial Southeast Asia circa 1850's. Thailand/Siam
was never colonized but made many concessions.

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.

Color Revolutions

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.

Thailand Tomorrow

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.

Some say the "red shirts" have moved beyond Thaksin - his
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.

Conclusion

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.

Instead of building real schools, Thaksin's
"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.