The Re-adjustment Bureau 2.0

Check out the new dynamic view of SiFM from Blogger App.

Australia Network program Business Today segment that aired on Oct. 12 2011, interviews Australia's Parliamentary Secretary of the Pacific, Richard Marles, who touted Australia's vaunted big brother role in the Pacific region and Fiji. (Video posted below)



Lowy Interpreter blog post from Jenny Hayward Jones articulates the objectives about the Poll and artfully defends the methodology against the unfounded assertions.

During the interview, Richard Marles played up the rhetoric about Australia's role in the region (as routinely as a sales person pitching a product). However, Marles conveniently glosses over several unmentioned stains on Australian Foreign policy. Such sins of omissions only further illustrates the sincerity of Marles in seeking dissenting opinions on regional affairs, as well as pointing out the glaring holes in his own sentiments and shortcomings of the Government's foreign policy.

Among these sins that are rapidly eroding the image within the region of the RAMSI treaty and its creator, is outlined by a recent Black and Black post.
Another unmentioned area, in the Pacific, that escaped the attention of Marles; was the magnitude of effort and costs between Australia's over extended role in  the foreign wars of Afghanistan and Iraq; when cross compared with regional priorities like the Tuvalu water shortage which is presently unfolding.

The Economist blog post, clarifies the dimensions of the water problem.

Kevin Rudd 

"So how much is this bid costing Australia? Whatever it takes, apparently. Australian Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd stated in an address to the Press Club in June this year: “The government’s view is simple—you’ve got to be in it to win it."

Foreign Policy Journal (FPJ) article: Where America Goes, Australia Goes, especially on Afghanistan- highlighted the mounting costs in the expedition to nowhere:

Military deaths, Afghani deaths, billions of dollars, war-weary constituents, declining public support, and a lack of moral legitimacy means that both Australia and America need to exit Afghanistan now. As we know in Australia, as soon as American gets out, so will we. So why is the exit taking so long?

The answer to question posed by the FPJ article, as  it now appears has been answered equivocally by Australian Defense Minister, Stephen Smith, as reported in The Australian newspaper article:

Mr Smith reiterated that Australian special forces and instructors would stay on after 2014 to continue training and supporting the Afghans. He said it was important to send a message to the region that Afghanistan would not be abandoned and that there was a comprehensive development plan for the future.

NATO, the US and the international community generally must maintain their commitment to a long term strategic partnership with Afghanistan, Mr Smith said.
"Australia has made clear it expects to maintain a presence in Afghanistan after our current training and mentoring mission has concluded, potentially through institutional training, a special forces presence, military advisers, capacity building and development assistance."

With such a lengthy deployment of troops overseas, it is no secret that the costs of maintaining such an exercise, is simply unsustainable.

Hillary Clinton on America's Pacific Century 

"We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific -- developed and developing alike -- into a single trading community. Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth[...]
And the United States and Australia agreed this year to explore a greater American military presence in Australia to enhance opportunities for more joint training and exercises[...]
How we translate the growing connection between the Indian and Pacific oceans into an operational concept is a question that we need to answer if we are to adapt to new challenges in the region[...]
As those wars wind down, we will need to accelerate efforts to pivot to new global realities.

We know that these new realities require us to innovate, to compete, and to lead in new ways. Rather than pull back from the world, we need to press forward and renew our leadership.

In a time of scarce resources, there's no question that we need to invest them wisely where they will yield the biggest returns, which is why the Asia-Pacific represents such a real 21st-century opportunity for us.
"

Given the recent progress of the Carbon Tax, that just passed in Australia's lower House of Representatives, coupled with the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, are technically supposed to create such  a windfall of taxes for Australia's treasury dept, and ultimately pay for these foreign entanglements.

US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, recently opined in Foreign Policy magazine article titled " America's Pacific Century":

 As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters.

In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values.

One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific region.

It appears that the opening sentence of Clinton's opinion article, does not exactly mesh with the Australia's Defense Minister's comments about the  draw down in troops.

Three options are on the cards. Either, the U.S and Australia both pack it up. Or the US exits and Australia is holding down the Afghanistan fort. Or both nations (including other coalition members) stay indefinitely.

Odds are heavily on the latter choice, due to the strategic aspects of Afghanistan with respect to Eurasia and the discovery of rare earth mineral deposits in-situ.

One would think, if there was oil or minerals to covet in Tuvalu or other low lying Pacific islands; the water problem among others, would have been solved years ago.

Without a doubt, there is some degree in double speak on Clinton's part, when she points out the regional ambitions for the U.S:

The time has come for the United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power, a strategic course set by President Barack Obama from the outset of his administration and one that is already yielding benefits [...] We are also expanding our alliance with Australia from a Pacific partnership to an Indo-Pacific one, and indeed a global partnership. From cybersecurity to Afghanistan to the Arab Awakening to strengthening regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Australia's counsel and commitment have been indispensable.

It is geopolitics and the tools of statecraft that are being utilized in liberal proportions. Susan Merrell's article in October's issue of Island Business under girds such politics used and abused in the Pacific region.

The excerpt of  Susan Merrell's article:


POLITICS: Courting the Pacific for a seat in UNSC Leaders meeting target of lobbying

Susan Merrell


Australia’s engagement with the Pacific is more a matter of national responsibility than national interest, said Lindsay Tanner, former Australian Federal Minister of Finance and Deregulation, during a keynote address in Sydney at an Australian Economic Summit last month. 

The summit, hosted by the Australian public policy network Global Access Partners, included in its delegation senior public servants, members of Australian parliaments both state and federal, and industry captains. Amongst this milieu, no one challenged his statement.
“All of the South Pacific countries can fit into something the size of Brunei,” Tanner explained to justify his ‘our-national-interests’-lie-with-Asia stance’.This was an interesting comment as the summit only marginally post-dated the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) meeting in Auckland.
 
Were you to judge the importance of the Pacific by the stellar international cast assembled for its 40th occurrence you may be forgiven for thinking the Pacific was of considerable interest to most of the world.
There was a 50-member strong delegation from the US; there was the French Minister of State for Foreign and European Affairs, Alain Juppé (seems the Rainbow Warrior incident has been forgotten while maybe not quite forgiven); and Asia was well represented by, amongst others, both China and Taiwan. 

There were new associate members present and more announced for next year and numerous and ever-increasing groups with observer status, including the United Nation—with the icing on the cake being the visit by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. This year, more than in previous years, PIF was ‘bigger than Ben Hur’.

Ulterior Motives
 
But ‘national interest encompasses so much more than the economic terms that largely informed Tanner’s comment; like the bid for a seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that the current Australian government is vying for in 2013, in competition with Finland and Luxembourg. (Whether a place on the UNSC is indeed in the ‘national interest’ is a debate that needs to be saved for another time.) 
In the voting, tiny Pacific nations, if a member of the United Nations, have the same weighting as larger, richer, more populous countries in the election of delegates to the UNSC—one member country, one vote.
 
With the advent of PIF, the Pacific nations were conveniently gathered in one place—sitting ducks for a spot of lobbying. (If you’re wondering why Australia is competing with the strangely dissimilar and geographically remote countries of Luxembourg and Finland, it lies in the fact that the entire Pacific falls under the category of Western Europe and Others. 

Lobbying for votes could be why Luxembourg and Finland had their own representatives hovering around the periphery of the Auckland conference. All of this, hijacked and detracted from the core business of the Forum.
 
In this ‘lobbying’, Australia was an unashamed participant. Ban Ki-Moon, for example, was in the region as Australia’s guest. He will be a crucial player in whether Australia is successful with its bid.
The Secretary-General was flown around the Pacific in an RAAF aircraft to visit Kiribati and the Solomon Islands, in the company of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Pacific, Richard Marles, ostensibly to meet with government officials and to observe first-hand the effects of global warming.
 
But more than this, it was an opportunity, not lost, to showcase what Australia is achieving in the Pacific, guided by a chaperone with considerable vested interest. To this end, RAMSI’s headquarters in the Solomon Islands was also visited.

The cost to Australia of strutting the world stage in money and integrity
 
So how much is this bid costing Australia? Whatever it takes, apparently. Australian Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd stated in an address to the Press Club in June this year: “The government’s view is simple—you’ve got to be in it to win it.” 

And, as it will take more than just the votes of the Pacific to win the bid, Australia has been courting African votes too with pledges of aid (for example, an extra $10 million was pledged by Prime Minister Gillard for the Horn of Africa, bringing Australia’s contribution to $100 million, fourth largest in the world.)—or am I just being cynical?
 
The head of the conservative Lowy Institute’s Melanesian programme, Jenny Hayward-Jones in an article titled “Rudd neglects friends in the Pacific” is equally as cynical.
She asks what relevance Luxembourg has to a Melanesian Spearhead Group meeting (to which it was invited last March) and goes on to wonder whether that’s any stranger than Rudd speaking at the African Union? Where’s the interest?
 
It’s all about securing votes. Julian Moti, a constitutional lawyer and controversial former attorney-general of the Solomon Islands who is a strong critic of Australia’s role in the Pacific, seems to be in agreement with the far more conservative Hayward-Jones. Moti told the Fiji Sun: “It is the case of the pot calling the kettle black when Australia condemns the practice of corruption in the Pacific yet resorts to buying votes to secure a seat for itself in the UNSC by dispensing billions of dollars to Africa and the Pacific in aid funds.”
 
Strutting the world stage does have its costs and Australians do not bear them uncritically. While in the Solomon Islands, Marles was presented with a Solomon Sharks footy jumper in appreciation of the Australian government’s commitment to developing sports in Solomon Islands, in particular AFL with its Australian Sports Outreach programme and Australian Volunteer positions. 

This is shaky territory for the Australian government, especially in light of the recent media attention about the failed 2022 bid to host the Soccer World Cup with allegations of improper AusAid involvement, bribery, corruption, and yes, buying of votes.
 
The UNSC lobbying is starting to feel a little like déjà vu. At what stage does lobbying becomes bribery?
“As noble as it [the dispensing of aid] might otherwise appear,” says Moti, “one cannot de-link Australia’s practice of sovereign charity from its national aspirations nor Rudd’s personal ambition to sit where H.V. Evatt once did.”
And all this raw ambition is impacting negatively on the Pacific Islands Forum that is threatening to be overrun by peripheral issues of the powerful.

Has the Forum gone beyond its original remit?
 
The Forum was set up as an offshoot of the South Pacific Commission (SPC) in 1947 to promote trade and development in the colonies. By 1971, the Pacific countries had created PIF, separate from SPC, so that they were able to debate political matters forbidden at SPC by the colonisers. 

It was why, according to Moti, that “…there was an initial resistance to their [Australia and New Zealand’s] inclusion by the Forum’s founders.” They feared the continued domination of the bigger powers.
 
Now in 2011, President Anote Tong of Kiribati has noted the manifestation of this original fear. He told the press: “If you allow yourself to be bullied, then you shall be bullied.”And there is evidence that the less powerful are intimidated by the political might of the Australian and New Zealand delegations, even within the ranks of the influential Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG). 

Immediately prior to the Pacific Islands Forum meeting, the MSG met in Nadi, Fiji. Fiji is still an active member of this group although suspended from the Forum. In a show of support for Fiji and solidarity with each other, there was only one member missing from the table and this was the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak Socialiste (FLNKS) of New Caledonia. 

PNG and Solomon Islands sent their Prime Ministers and other government ministers; there were senior government representatives from Vanuatu as well as Commodore Bainimarama. Resolutions were passed including the MSG nomination of Ambassador Kaliopate Tavola of Fiji as the joint MSG candidate for the position of PIF’s next Secretary-General.

Nevertheless, facing New Zealand’s opposition at the Forum, they elected to take the path of least resistance and go with the crowd to unanimously vote in the incumbent, Tuiloma Neroni Slade of Samoa, for a further term.
The big powers had their way as they had with the continued suspension of Fiji. Why the MSG buckled is anyone’s guess—one I’m going to attempt to make.

The Melanesia/Pacific Way
 
In my dealings in Melanesia, I’ve often been frustrated by the locals’ distaste for confrontation. Seemingly unable to say “no”, an agreement is often made that is never intended to be acted upon.
Could this be what’s happening to the 2005 PIF Agreement?Each member of the PIF (16 of them) signed the latest agreement in 2005. However, to-date, only 8 have ratified it.

Ostensibly, the agreement is much the same as the one from 2000 except the ‘Secretariat’ has been replace by ‘Forum’ and the ‘Secretary General’ replaced by the ‘Secretariat’. Also included in the new agreement is that the ‘Forum’ is “established as an international organisation.”

It seems the Forum is becoming more legalistic whereas originally it was a far more loose association.
It may be that some of the members are wondering just who these latest changes benefit and are reluctant to take this final step. I may be wrong, perhaps eight countries have just overlooked the ratification—but for six years?

And while the Pacific Islands Forum leaders have “…reaffirmed their strong and unanimous support for Australia’s candidature for the UNSC for the term 2013-2014…”, maybe their votes are another manifestation of that apparently not unique aforementioned syndrome.
 
For while tallying the promised and possible votes for Australia for the seat on the UNSC, a Sydney Morning Herald opinion columnist warned: “Some of Australia’s existing commitments will undoubtedly fall through,”—“victims of the ‘‘rotten lying bastards’’ syndrome, as Australia’s former UN ambassador Richard Butler once put it. Some countries pledge support simply to avoid the embarrassment of saying no. Others play double-games.” That sounds so Melanesian!


Other related SiFM posts on Pacific geopolitics.

Club Em Designs

Land Destroyer: Globalists' Australian Nexus

Land Destroyer (L.D) post provides a fitting follow up to earlier SiFM posts, here and here and there.
Hat tip to L.D

A globalist rat's nest amidst the rise of Asia.

by Tony Cartalucci Bangkok, Thailand July 5, 2011


Meet the Lowy Institute. Filled with big business interests and perhaps the most degenerate, depraved minds humanity has yet produced, it poses as an "independent international policy think tank," whose objective is to "generate new ideas and dialogue on international developments and Australia’s role in the world."


The word "independent" is somewhat confusing, but what is clear is that it is yet another Fortune 500 run policy and propaganda clearinghouse serving not Australia, but rather the global corporate-financier elite.


Notable corporate members include JP Morgan, Rothschild, Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, and Cheveron. While Australian brands like Qantas, BHP Billiton, and the National Australian Bank appear more "indigenous" in nature, the reality is that their boards, like everything in the globalist realm, are an ongoing game of musical chairs between all of the worlds globalist, multinational corporations. For example, BHP Billiton's board of directors alone features Jacques Nasser, formerly of Ford Motor Company and JP Morgan, John Buchanan formally of British Petroleum and Vodafone, Carlos Cordeiro formally of Goldman Sachs, David Crawford formally of Bank of America, and the list goes on and on.

The Lowy Institute's board of directors is something to behold. Sitting at the top, is 80 year-old, accused tax evader, Australian-Israeli Frank Lowy, after whom the institute is named. He currently oversees the Westfield Group, was a board member of the Reserve Bank of Australia, and sits upon the board of directors of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) - not of Australia, but of Israel. Joining him is son Peter Lowy, who is also a Lowy Institute board member, a RAND Corporation trustee, and a board member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council - not of Australia, but of the United States. Also on the board amongst several others, is Professor Ross Garnaut of the University of Melbourne as well as Australian National University (ANU), Ian Macfarlane formally of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Goldman Sachs, and Temasek Holdings, Professor Robert O'Neill of the corporate-stacked International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), and a former head of ANU's Strategic and Defense Studies Centre.

On Independence of Lowy Institute:

"Lowy Institute is nothing more than a collection of banksters, criminal conspirators, and multinational multi-corporate interests. It is a institute of big business, by big business, and for big business. What is alarming is the vast reach it has within Australia's universities and the alleged "free-press." The name Australian National University comes up more than once and various members of Lowy's staff are also contributors to both Australian and international papers and television networks."

Perhaps most disturbing however is the inclusion of Brookings Institution's Martin Indyk, the co-author of the, frankly speaking, insane "Which Path to Persia?" report where Indyk, fellow Lowy associate Michael O'Hanlon, and others conspired against the nation of Iran to fund known terrorist organizations, engineer fake street protests, buy off members of the Iranian military, and even attempt to provoke Iran into a war it was disinterested in fighting - not for national security, but for what Indyk, O'Hanlon, and others called, "American interests and influence throughout the Middle East."

It then appears that the Lowy Institute is nothing more than a collection of banksters, criminal conspirators, and multinational multi-corporate interests. It is a institute of big business, by big business, and for big business. What is alarming is the vast reach it has within Australia's universities and the alleged "free-press." The name Australian National University comes up more than once and various members of Lowy's staff are also contributors to both Australian and international papers and television networks. Also alarming is the "cross pollination" reflected in Lowy's staff between the institute and other notorious corporate-funded corporate-serving organizations like the Brookings Institution, the International Crisis Group, the fraudulent Harvard Belfer Center, and the warmongering Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Our People: Ties to globalist think-tanks and the media.

Dr. Khalid Koser: Non-Resident Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution.

Dr. Michael Fullilove: Non-Resident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, Rhodes Scholar, has published articles in The New York Times, the Financial Times, The Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune, Slate, The Daily Beast, the Los Angeles Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Australian, the Australian Financial Review, The Spectator, The Washington Quarterly, The National Interest and Foreign Affairs.

Whit Mason: International Crisis Group while in Kosovo, then speechwriter for the UN Kosovo mission, and USAID in Pakistan.

Paul Kelly: Editor-at-large of The Australian, previously Editor-in-Chief of The Australian. Is a regular commentator on ABC television (Australian Broadcasting Channel).

Dr. Michael Wesley: Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Fiona Cunningham: Interned at the Belfer Center at Harvard University and the International Crisis Group.

Fergus Hanson: Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Own Harries: Published over 200 articles in leading journals and magazines, including Foreign Affairs, Commentary, New Republic, Harper's, OrbisIt should be noted that the "National Interest," Harries' own publication, features such warmongering, illegal conspiratory articles as "Free Baluchistan," and "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis" where it is suggested that the United States should fund and arm rebels inside Pakistan to carve up the nation to balk Chinese-Pakistani relations.)

Contamination of Opinions?

"Indeed as we see, regarding just the Lowy Institute alone, it contaminates an entire region's news, media, universities, literature, research, studies, and of course, through the papers and propaganda it produces with the clout it puts behind them, the region's politics and laws as well. The global corporatocracy is everywhere, affecting everything, perhaps so profoundly it escapes one's notice.
"

Ties to the Australian National University

The Lowy Institute appears to maintain close ties with all of Australia's prominent universities. The Australian National University, however, is one that is stumbled across over and over again, with Lowy co-hosting events, tapping ANU's professors for research papers, and airing its propaganda under a pseudo-academic light. Additionally, many of Lowy's own members have been drawn from ANU's alumni as well as prominent heads of various ANU departments.

Martine Letts: Lowy Institute Deputy Directory, appointed to the ANU Council in 2004.

Professor Hugh White: Lowy Institute Visiting Fellow, professor of Strategic Studies at ANU. Also a regular columnist for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Professor Warwick McKibbin: Lowy Institute Professional Fellow, Director of ANU Research School of Economics, and also a Non-Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Dr. Milton Osborne: Visiting Fellow in the Faculty of Asian Studies at the Australian National University.

Professor Alan Dupont: Senior Fellow at ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.

The first search result that comes up within Lowy Institute's publication archives is an interesting document titled, "Thai studies in Australia." Under "Specialists Consulted," no less than 9 "specialists" came from ANU, including the notoriously intellectually dishonest Andrew Walker of ANU's "New Mandala" blog. Walker is fond of taking regional corporate agendas and shoehorning them into something resembling that of academia to lend them legitimacy they'd otherwise lack. He is also adept at giving the corporatocracy talking points a decidedly liberal spin, drawing in well intentioned people to consider his "work" when otherwise they'd be revolted.

Walker spends his time berating Thailand's self-sufficiency economy, suggesting that encouraging people to be self-reliant agriculturally, the very principle that throughout history has produced the strongest, most resilient nations on earth, somehow excludes them from participating in the "national economy" as well as participating in "electoral democracy." He and his partner, Nicholas Farrelly, post up articles promoting the very worst aspects of the corporate-financiers' NGO creep into sovereign Asia, as progressive and justified.

Right on cue, as National Endowment for Democracy-funded "Bersih 2.0" was preparing for mass demonstrations in Malaysia, Walker's "New Mandala" blog posted the following, "The biggest threat – as perceived by the present administration – to Malaysia’s internal security is a demand for free and fair elections." What Walker failed to research and tell his readership, was the fact that Bersih is on record, with organizers themselves admitting to it, having received funds from the National Endowment for Democracy-funded National Democratic Institute, as well as from globalist bankster George Soros' "Open Society" foundation. The threat then, contrary to what was written on "New Mandala" is not "free and fair elections," but rather foreign-funded sedition led by globalist-stooge, Ibrahim Anwar.

Lowy's propaganda outfit

Walker's "New Mandala" blog also dutifully hits on all the key talking points being pushed by the global corporate-financiers. When an ex-Reuters journalist penned his disingenuous, conveniently timed Wikileaks-based hit piece titled, "Thai Story," Walker was right by his side providing an outlet and badly needed legitimacy for his hackery. But in addition to Walker, there was the Lowy Institute's propaganda mouthpiece, "The Interpreter." After the July 3, 2011 Thai elections, the Interpreter chimed in with "The danger of a Thai civil war" where the globalist, degenerate-filled, elitist think-tank skipped past their client-stooge Thaksin Shinawatra, and laid the blame for Thailand's current political turmoil on the nation's revered monarchy. Citing Marshall's 3,000 unverified, unsubstantiated Wikileaks cables, who Marshall himself claims, is only "believed to have been downloaded by US soldier Bradley Manning in Iraq," the Interpreter suggests it is "journalism of the highest order."

Adding insult to injury, for those who understand how this network operates, the Interpreter cites fellow degenerate, corporate-serving globalist think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations to bolster their claim.

The Interpreter maintains a partnership of sorts with other globalist connected rags like "The Diplomat" who echo the globalist consensus on any given issue and itself boasts partnerships with corporate-funded global think-tanks like the Soros-funded Foreign Policy Centre. There is a reason why the Interpreter, the Diplomat, and Andrew Walker's "New Mandala" blog are all on the same page along with other corporate-serving propaganda outfits like CNN, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, and many others. It is because beneath the veneer of objectivity and academia, lies what is an obviously self-serving agenda propagated by a self-evident, omnipresent global despotic corporatocracy.

Conclusion

Upon the Council on Foreign Relation's seal is the word VBIQVE, Latin for "everywhere," and manifests itself in the common English word, ubiquitous. Indeed as we see, regarding just the Lowy Institute alone, it contaminates an entire region's news, media, universities, literature, research, studies, and of course, through the papers and propaganda it produces with the clout it puts behind them, the region's politics and laws as well. The global corporatocracy is everywhere, affecting everything, perhaps so profoundly it escapes one's notice.

However, upon seeing this network exposed, the people involved, their history of promoting an unaccountable, self-serving agenda at everyone's expense but their own, we can begin rendering moot the false legitimacy they foist upon society with their fancy logos, lofty titles, disingenuous liberal-esque spin, their insufferable arrogance, and entire institutions co-opted or even contrived to serve their own ends.

We can begin by exposing these charlatans, stooges, and crooks for what they really are. We can boycott the corporations that fund and perpetuate these unsavory, dubious, and often well-hidden agendas. We can also begin to replace this nefarious network they've constructed by becoming self-sufficient on a local level. There is good reason why ANU impostor-academic Andrew Walker, along with the Wall Street Journal and the Economist are so adamantly against Thailand's attempt at implementing nation-wide localism - it is because it will set a viable example for all nations to follow out from under the squatting parasites that make up the global elite.


Tony Cartalucci is a geopolitical researcher and writer based in Bangkok, Thailand. His work aims at covering world events from a Southeast Asian perspective as well as promoting self-sufficiency as one of the keys to true freedom.

Other works by Tony Cartalucci.

Club Em Designs