Dear Nok:
I agree that the Thai people are very vulnerable and the monarchy is wounded, perhaps irrevocably, but probably not.
Andrew in his book just said what needed to be said. That took enormous courage and sacrifice. (Try it yourself sometime, under your one name; I’m not being mean or mean spirited. It’s just a fact, and it’s terrifying. Then try it over a long period of time. Then try forgiveness, so we end up all on the same side instead of attacking each other.)
Images carry distinct weight in Thai society, particularly as part of royal theater. I wrote ahem several articles on this which are ahem classics in the field.
I think we can all agree on your statements and we are all concerned for the state of affairs.
The tone of my article is part satirical because the exchanges are themselves intended satire, now gone into a state of apparent madness. Fou in the French sense.
The question remains: why would Thai royals, beginning with the king, whose distinction was propriety, make a fetish of dogs, traditionally low class animals, use them to insult each other (and the CP his wife) then elevate those dogs above their subjects?
Why would their subjects, like Thai Airways staff, acquiesce? (because dogs like Foo Foo and Princess S’s dog are farang style, like biking and environmentalism?)
Someone needs to ask them. Oh wait, no one can!
This is cultural analysis. The extension of taboo re images is serious business. Why is public prostration of subjects — the “kowtow,” pretext for the Chinese Opium Wars — formerly disavowed by Thai kings and largely kept from sight in the mid- late-20th century, a taken-for granted (doxic) now by a younger generation of royals?
Is it finger in the face to farang after 200+ years of forced kriengcai and racism embedded in the colonial and post colonial eras, or is it simply $34 billion + of privilege, absolute power in a new context?
Is the dog phenomenon simply a Thai royal declaration of independence? The ultimate extension of prostration in a context and language even farang could understand?
Thai elites took a lot of merde from farang. 1893 is still remembered w revulsion. The people Thanom felt most angry at still (in the 1970s) were the French taking over the northeast border territories. Past as prologue.
There’s double or triple animus at work in these dog wars.
Sometimes we can learn from history. Tiberius, emperor of Rome (14 – 37) introduced lese majeste rules. His adopted sun and successors Caligula (37 – 41) made his horse “senator”.
“Blackmailing’ between the current royalist junta and the US would be MAD – I.e. Mutually Assured Destruction. They both likely have atomic tonnes of dirt on each other. Christine Gray is reading too much into that LM threat against US Ambassador Davis. It’s simply rabble rousing shadow play bluff.
Its a pity that a tedious Andrew Marshall has to attack any commenter he doesn’t like. I don’t agree with him, but there is nothing wrong with Agus George’s comments and they have as much merit here as do Marshall’s ravings. Gray does have a bit of Camille Paglia about her, for better and for worse. Marshall, on the other hand, by just repeatedly ridiculing and insulting the monarchy and its supporters, himself adds nothing to the debate. The Thai monarchy is in deep trouble, and the country too, and its people are very vulnerable. Understanding that takes more than silly manipulated pictures of the royal family and personal attacks on prayuth.
Here’s how the Aussies do it. Promise to build a smelter while you remove as much Manganese as quickly as possible. No tanah adat for a smelter? Drats, promise to build the smelter somewhere else and keep digging up that Manganese. When the easy cheap to remove surface ore is gone – smelter, what smelter?
Given the absurd denials of the existence of an armed militant force under the Red Shirts i do not really need to explain much at length anymore at all as debating with propagandists is fruitless and frustrating. Such claims show that all what you are proposing here are convenient opinions lacking any research.
The attacks both in 2010 and especially in 2014 were neither random nor lacked discipline, but followed strategic and tactical objectives and tried to avoid unnecessary casualties – otherwise the death toll under PDRC in 2014 would have been much higher that about 17 of the known approximately 30 killed (13 were killed by armed militants of the PDRC – a fact that PDRC supporters prefer not to acknowledge). M79 grenades, the preferred weapon of choice, will kill and maim an extra-ordinary amount of people, if used randomly and without discipline.
As to the structure of these groups, in a few years time possibly you will learn more of this, when the conflict will continue on the streets, if no negotiated compromise can be worked out between the warring sides.
Agree, the enforcement of the lese majeste law and the broader cult of the king have entered the realm of insanity and are no longer under any kind of rational control. Thai royalist is imploding.
No, what i have seen were not agent provocateur. Also i, as i will hardly need to point out, have spent much time at and beyond the barricades in the years from 2008 – the year of the first appearance of armed militants on *both* sides, up to 2014. Protection of sources forbids me to say more other than that more here than a few of the ones arrested and accused i have known for a long time.
As to being informed what takes place on the ground – i do still live here on the ground and do not fly in once a while from Australia. I am aware of some of your rather ridiculous claims, such as when you said that supposedly hundreds having been killed back in the 2009 crackdown. Absurd exaggeration does not do any service whatsoever. On the opposite, it obscures any attempt of finding the truth and is propaganda of the worst order.
It doesn’t really matter, all judges are appointed and improved by the Thai king. The royal family hates Thaksin and Yingluck. Thus it’s a moot point to talk justice in a Thai court!
The modus operandi of Thai judges has always been the same. Make determinations that please the most powerful interested party. Their behaviour exemplifies that key aspect of Thainess that oils the machinery of absolutism: moral cowardice.
The king has never said anything CLEARLY (to borrow you emphasis), and the passage you refer to is completely unintelligible. Look at it again, in its entirety. It could mean anything.
Nick Nostitz: firstly, red shirts on the street were not armed or supported militarily with weapons (what you saw were in fact agent provocateurs), especially at the massacre in May 2010. I was with them at the barricades on many occasions and saw many pro-democracy friends incarcerated and murdered over the past nine years or so, exposed to extra-judicial killings (yes –even now under Prayut) and the use of blatant judicial double standards. Trying to show that you are neutral and taking a few pics around the place with commentary does not establish your credentials as the only real voice and opinion on what is real or not real in the political sphere.
Secondly, (11.1.1.2) if you think that the “military presently is using less brutality than the implied threat of it…” – then I would have to say that you are rather poorly informed on the ground.
You’re entitled to your opinion Nick but ultimately that’s all it is.
You don’t have a monopoly on either analysis or inside knowledge of the situation in Thailand so others’ views and opinions are equally pertinent. And it’s not “ranting” to challenge you.
Nobody would deny very small elements linked to Red Shirts were armed but they were never in a “cell structure” as Head claimed, were never in a chain of command and never had the means to resist anything. In fact they were ad hoc and lacked any kind of discipline hence the random attacks, the lack of an underlying strategy and the lack of any discernible political aim when they carried out their actions. Head’s imaginary “cell structure” of armed Red Shirts – it takes a very very disciplined, well-trained force, supported by a broader movement, all based around unified military aims, to create and sustain such a cell-structure – was pure fantasy and was based in no available evidence whatsoever. All that exists are assertions based on nods, winks and rumors.
I also don’t believe you personally have access to some “pure” mode of “non-European” thought that allows you – and no-one else – to analyze the likes of the PDRC and the Thai junta correctly. It’s quite absurd you even make such a claim.
Of course Thai politics needs to be understood via the prism of Thai history. But that’s a subjective process for anyone engaging in that. You’re as much trapped by your subjectivity as anyone else.
So, as I said, you’re entitled to your opinion.
And I’m entitled to mine.
It’s my view this military junta can easily and objectively be described as fascistic.
You call them “Thai traditional military dictatorship”.
I’m not sure what that means but I’m sure you’ll explain, at length.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Dear Nok:
I agree that the Thai people are very vulnerable and the monarchy is wounded, perhaps irrevocably, but probably not.
Andrew in his book just said what needed to be said. That took enormous courage and sacrifice. (Try it yourself sometime, under your one name; I’m not being mean or mean spirited. It’s just a fact, and it’s terrifying. Then try it over a long period of time. Then try forgiveness, so we end up all on the same side instead of attacking each other.)
Images carry distinct weight in Thai society, particularly as part of royal theater. I wrote ahem several articles on this which are ahem classics in the field.
I think we can all agree on your statements and we are all concerned for the state of affairs.
The tone of my article is part satirical because the exchanges are themselves intended satire, now gone into a state of apparent madness. Fou in the French sense.
The question remains: why would Thai royals, beginning with the king, whose distinction was propriety, make a fetish of dogs, traditionally low class animals, use them to insult each other (and the CP his wife) then elevate those dogs above their subjects?
Why would their subjects, like Thai Airways staff, acquiesce? (because dogs like Foo Foo and Princess S’s dog are farang style, like biking and environmentalism?)
Someone needs to ask them. Oh wait, no one can!
This is cultural analysis. The extension of taboo re images is serious business. Why is public prostration of subjects — the “kowtow,” pretext for the Chinese Opium Wars — formerly disavowed by Thai kings and largely kept from sight in the mid- late-20th century, a taken-for granted (doxic) now by a younger generation of royals?
Is it finger in the face to farang after 200+ years of forced kriengcai and racism embedded in the colonial and post colonial eras, or is it simply $34 billion + of privilege, absolute power in a new context?
Is the dog phenomenon simply a Thai royal declaration of independence? The ultimate extension of prostration in a context and language even farang could understand?
Thai elites took a lot of merde from farang. 1893 is still remembered w revulsion. The people Thanom felt most angry at still (in the 1970s) were the French taking over the northeast border territories. Past as prologue.
There’s double or triple animus at work in these dog wars.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Sometimes we can learn from history. Tiberius, emperor of Rome (14 – 37) introduced lese majeste rules. His adopted sun and successors Caligula (37 – 41) made his horse “senator”.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
“Blackmailing’ between the current royalist junta and the US would be MAD – I.e. Mutually Assured Destruction. They both likely have atomic tonnes of dirt on each other. Christine Gray is reading too much into that LM threat against US Ambassador Davis. It’s simply rabble rousing shadow play bluff.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Great, just what this debate needs – more unpleasant personal attacks from somebody hiding behind a pseudonym. Yawn.
A state of madness
[…] have been some debates (and considerable nonsense) about how to identify and what to call this military dictatorship. We […]
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Its a pity that a tedious Andrew Marshall has to attack any commenter he doesn’t like. I don’t agree with him, but there is nothing wrong with Agus George’s comments and they have as much merit here as do Marshall’s ravings. Gray does have a bit of Camille Paglia about her, for better and for worse. Marshall, on the other hand, by just repeatedly ridiculing and insulting the monarchy and its supporters, himself adds nothing to the debate. The Thai monarchy is in deep trouble, and the country too, and its people are very vulnerable. Understanding that takes more than silly manipulated pictures of the royal family and personal attacks on prayuth.
Indonesia’s Freeport saga
Here’s how the Aussies do it. Promise to build a smelter while you remove as much Manganese as quickly as possible. No tanah adat for a smelter? Drats, promise to build the smelter somewhere else and keep digging up that Manganese. When the easy cheap to remove surface ore is gone – smelter, what smelter?
http://www.timorexpress.com/20151214085452/rote-ndao-siap-bangun-smelter-mangan
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
The Bangkok Post reports that the 99% of Thailand is happy with the government. But comrade, why such low support?
A state of madness
Given the absurd denials of the existence of an armed militant force under the Red Shirts i do not really need to explain much at length anymore at all as debating with propagandists is fruitless and frustrating. Such claims show that all what you are proposing here are convenient opinions lacking any research.
The attacks both in 2010 and especially in 2014 were neither random nor lacked discipline, but followed strategic and tactical objectives and tried to avoid unnecessary casualties – otherwise the death toll under PDRC in 2014 would have been much higher that about 17 of the known approximately 30 killed (13 were killed by armed militants of the PDRC – a fact that PDRC supporters prefer not to acknowledge). M79 grenades, the preferred weapon of choice, will kill and maim an extra-ordinary amount of people, if used randomly and without discipline.
As to the structure of these groups, in a few years time possibly you will learn more of this, when the conflict will continue on the streets, if no negotiated compromise can be worked out between the warring sides.
Southeast Asian Snapshots
In Malaysia, it’s always hard to tell the difference between a Zabibah and a golf injury.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Agree, the enforcement of the lese majeste law and the broader cult of the king have entered the realm of insanity and are no longer under any kind of rational control. Thai royalist is imploding.
A state of madness
No, what i have seen were not agent provocateur. Also i, as i will hardly need to point out, have spent much time at and beyond the barricades in the years from 2008 – the year of the first appearance of armed militants on *both* sides, up to 2014. Protection of sources forbids me to say more other than that more here than a few of the ones arrested and accused i have known for a long time.
As to being informed what takes place on the ground – i do still live here on the ground and do not fly in once a while from Australia. I am aware of some of your rather ridiculous claims, such as when you said that supposedly hundreds having been killed back in the 2009 crackdown. Absurd exaggeration does not do any service whatsoever. On the opposite, it obscures any attempt of finding the truth and is propaganda of the worst order.
Indonesia’s Freeport saga
Excellent piece. The central dilemma posited (economic need vs political inhibitions) could just as well be applied to the Philippines
A state of madness
[…] have been some debates (and considerable nonsense) about how to identify and what to call this military dictatorship. We […]
A state of madness
[…] have been some debates (and considerable nonsense) about how to identify and what to call this military dictatorship. We […]
Madness and loyalty in Thailand
It doesn’t really matter, all judges are appointed and improved by the Thai king. The royal family hates Thaksin and Yingluck. Thus it’s a moot point to talk justice in a Thai court!
Madness and loyalty in Thailand
The modus operandi of Thai judges has always been the same. Make determinations that please the most powerful interested party. Their behaviour exemplifies that key aspect of Thainess that oils the machinery of absolutism: moral cowardice.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
The king has never said anything CLEARLY (to borrow you emphasis), and the passage you refer to is completely unintelligible. Look at it again, in its entirety. It could mean anything.
A state of madness
Nick Nostitz: firstly, red shirts on the street were not armed or supported militarily with weapons (what you saw were in fact agent provocateurs), especially at the massacre in May 2010. I was with them at the barricades on many occasions and saw many pro-democracy friends incarcerated and murdered over the past nine years or so, exposed to extra-judicial killings (yes –even now under Prayut) and the use of blatant judicial double standards. Trying to show that you are neutral and taking a few pics around the place with commentary does not establish your credentials as the only real voice and opinion on what is real or not real in the political sphere.
Secondly, (11.1.1.2) if you think that the “military presently is using less brutality than the implied threat of it…” – then I would have to say that you are rather poorly informed on the ground.
A state of madness
You’re entitled to your opinion Nick but ultimately that’s all it is.
You don’t have a monopoly on either analysis or inside knowledge of the situation in Thailand so others’ views and opinions are equally pertinent. And it’s not “ranting” to challenge you.
Nobody would deny very small elements linked to Red Shirts were armed but they were never in a “cell structure” as Head claimed, were never in a chain of command and never had the means to resist anything. In fact they were ad hoc and lacked any kind of discipline hence the random attacks, the lack of an underlying strategy and the lack of any discernible political aim when they carried out their actions. Head’s imaginary “cell structure” of armed Red Shirts – it takes a very very disciplined, well-trained force, supported by a broader movement, all based around unified military aims, to create and sustain such a cell-structure – was pure fantasy and was based in no available evidence whatsoever. All that exists are assertions based on nods, winks and rumors.
I also don’t believe you personally have access to some “pure” mode of “non-European” thought that allows you – and no-one else – to analyze the likes of the PDRC and the Thai junta correctly. It’s quite absurd you even make such a claim.
Of course Thai politics needs to be understood via the prism of Thai history. But that’s a subjective process for anyone engaging in that. You’re as much trapped by your subjectivity as anyone else.
So, as I said, you’re entitled to your opinion.
And I’m entitled to mine.
It’s my view this military junta can easily and objectively be described as fascistic.
You call them “Thai traditional military dictatorship”.
I’m not sure what that means but I’m sure you’ll explain, at length.