The Media Role – Propaganda
Critical to the China sellout was manipulation of U.S. public opinion. A plethora of books and news reports perpetuated the myth that Mao’s communists were “democratic agrarian reformers,” even though, once in power, they established a totalitarian communist dictatorship, executing tens of millions of Chinese, in an orgy of atrocities that reached its height during the bloody Cultural Revolution. Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalists were portrayed as “fascist,” “reactionary,” and “corrupt.”
Soviet Prime Minister Vyacheslav Molotov outlined this strategy:
Who reads the Communist papers? Only a few people who are already Communists. We don’t need to propagandize them. What is our object? Who do we have to influence? We have to influence non-Communists if we want to make them Communists or if we want to fool them. So, we have to try to infiltrate in the big press.
The most influential U.S. writers fulfilling this were probably Edgar Snow, author of the pro-communist book Red Star Over China, and Owen Lattimore, author of Thunder Out of China, a Book-of-the-Month selection that attacked Chiang Kai-shek. Writing in the Saturday Review, Snow audaciously told readers, “There has never been any communism in China.” And he reported in the Saturday Evening Post that Chu Teh, Mao’s military commander, possessed the “kindliness of Robert E. Lee, the tenacity of Grant and the humility of Lincoln.”
In his monumental book While You Slept, John T. Flynn exposed the media bias favoring Chinese communists. Between 1943 and 1949, 22 pro-communist books appeared in the U.S. press, and only seven pro-Nationalist ones. Also, reported Flynn:
Every one of the 22 pro-Communist books, where reviewed, received glowing approval in the literary reviews, I have named — that is, in the New York Times, the Herald-Tribune, the Nation, the New Republic and the Saturday Review of Literature. And every one of the anti-Communist books was either roundly condemned or ignored in these same reviews.
One reason the pro-communist books received such favor: reviews were written by writers of other such books. Flynn documented that 12 authors of the 22 pro-Red Chinese books wrote 43 complimentary reviews of the others’ books. This cozy “in-house” system guaranteed laudatory reviews. It left the American public — which generally knew little of Asian affairs — with indelible impressions. So severe was the bias, Flynn noted, that New York Times reviews were barely distinguishable from those in the communist Daily Worker.
Overt Betrayal: The IPR
Perhaps the most sinister influence on America’s Far East policy and opinion was the now-defunct Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). The recipient of grants from the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, the institute published hundreds of thousands of pamphlets on China for U.S. public schools and the military. These pamphlets extended the myth that the communists were “agrarian reformers” and the Nationalists “fascists.” The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee eventually found IPR included 54 persons connected with the communist world conspiracy. Among them were such communists or pro-communists as Alger Hiss, Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Owen Lattimore, and John Stewart Service. Alexander Barmine, a brigadier general who defected from the Communist Army, testified IPR was “a cover shop for military intelligence work in the Pacific.”
The IPR organized a magazine, Amerasia. In 1945, U.S. officials were shocked when Amerasia published an article reprinting — almost word-for-word — a top-secret government document. Agents of the OSS (the CIA’s forerunner) invaded Amerasia’s offices and discovered 1,800 documents stolen from the American government, including papers detailing the disposition of Nationalist army units in China. The magazine had been a cover for Soviet spying.
Although the FBI arrested numerous Amerasia employees for espionage, all the cases were either completely dismissed or dispensed with fines. John Stewart Service, despite arrest for giving stolen government documents to Amerasia editor Philip Jaffe, was rewarded by Dean Acheson, who put Service in charge of State Department placements and promotions. This was not the only time powerful “hidden hands” have conspired against American interests.
“Aid” to China
With Japan’s 1945 defeat, Lend-Lease aid, sitting in India and slated for the Nationalists, was either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. By 1948, due to Marshall’s weapons embargo, the Nationalist government faced nearly inevitable defeat by the communists, who continued receiving unlimited weapons from Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador William C. Bullitt testified before the Committee on Foreign Affairs in March 1948:
The American government has not delivered to China a single combat plane or a single bomber since General Marshall in August, 1946, by unilateral action, broke the promise of the American Government to the Chinese Government and suspended all deliveries of planes…. As a means of pressure to compel Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to take Communists into the Chinese Government, General Marshall stopped all fulfillment of this program and dishonored the pledge of the United States.
Although Dean Acheson deceptively told Congress the Nationalists had received over $2 billion in U.S. aid, most was non-military or unusable. Colonel L. B. Moody, U.S. Army Ordnance Corps, clarified the realities:
- The inevitable defeat of the Nationalist army was due to their deficit in items of infantry weapons and especially ammunition, and the Communist superiority in these items.
- Military aid to the Chinese meant infantry weapons and ammunition above all else and it is “precisely these items which the United States has consistently denied, delayed or limited. Only passing reference will be made to the billions of mouldy cigarettes, blown-up guns, and junk bombs and disabled vehicles from the Pacific Islands which have been totalled up with other real or alleged aid in various State Department, Communist and leftist statements to create the impression that we have furnished the Nationalist government with hundreds of millions or billions of useful fighting equipment.”
In April 1948, Congress, apprised of the desperate situation, granted $125 million in military assistance to save Chiang’s government. However, the first of this aid did not reach the Nationalists until seven months later (when China had become an issue in the 1948 elections). By contrast, after the British defeat at Dunkirk, U.S. ships needed only eight days to be loaded with munitions bound for Britain. Anthony Kubek describes the first shipload reaching the Nationalists in late 1948:
Of the total number, 480 of the machine guns lacked spare parts, tripod mounts, etc. Thompson machine guns had no magazines or clips. There were no loading machines for the loading of ammunition belts. Only a thousand of the light machine guns had mounts, and there were only a thousand clips for the 2,280 light machine guns.
China Collapses
The embargo and subsequent sabotaging of congressionally mandated aid to the Nationalists spelled their doom. In 1949, the communists completed conquest of China. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately two million followers escaped to Formosa (now called Taiwan), where they maintained the Republic of China’s government, establishing the island as a bastion of freedom.
The propaganda myth that Mao Tse-tung was an “agrarian reformer” evaporated as he formed a totalitarian communist regime, slaughtering millions. Acheson and the State Department clique still hoped to recognize Communist China, but after Mao’s thugs seized U.S. consular officers, imprisoned and even murdered our citizens, and poured their troops into Korea to kill American soldiers, this U.S. recognition of China ended up being deferred for many years.
The China disaster did not result from “blunders.” Congressman Walter Judd, an acknowledged Far East expert, said:
“On the law of averages, a mere moron once in a while would make a decision that would be favorable to the United States. When policies are advocated by any group which consistently work out to the Communists’ advantage, that couldn’t be happenstance.”
China: Staking Claim in the New World Order
Learning to speak Chinese may be a really good investment — at least if the globalists get their way. In 2009, billionaire establishment power broker George Soros, a close ally and financier of Obama, called for the communist regime ruling mainland China to “own” what he referred to as the “New World Order.” Speaking to the Financial Times about what Obama should discuss while in Beijing, the self-styled philanthropist declared that the United States and the U.S. dollar were on their way down, and that the Communist Party regime must step up to the plate.
“I think you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, financial world order,” Soros told the Financial Times. “I think you need a new world order, that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns … the current order.”
It was hardly a slip up. The next year, while receiving the Globalist of the Year award from the Canadian International Council, Soros again called for China’s participation in the emerging global-governance regime. “They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well,” declared Soros. “Today, China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States.”
Soros, of course, is hardly the only senior globalist who has been openly celebrating the rise of Communist China’s rulers as key players in the emerging “New World Order.” From Beijing to Moscow and Washington, D.C., to London, globalists are all openly pushing for this new order, which is essentially just a euphemism for world government.
In a joint statement put out by Obama and then-Chinese dictator Hu Jintao, Obama made clear that he was fully on board with the agenda. “The United States reiterated that it welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater role in world affairs,” the declaration reads.
The internationalists’ intent to make China an integral part of the New World Order — to even “own” it, according to Soros — should tell us a great deal about the type of New World Order Soros and his ilk envision. After all, not only does the People’s Republic of China hold the distinction of murdering more people than any other regime in history, but China today still brutalizes and oppresses its citizens, from forcing women to undergo abortions in compliance with its one-child policy to persecuting believers for practicing their faith (see the related article “Chinese Tyranny 2.0“). If such a regime is “actually a better functioning government than the United States,” as Soros claims, how would Soros have the new world function? How about his fellow globalists?
Anyone who doubts that a communist regime as despotic as China’s could realistically become a leading player in the New World Order need only to survey the record to learn otherwise. This record, summarized below, includes China’s ascendency in the existing “global governance” institutions — the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and more. It also includes the new global governance architecture that China is building that will complement the already-existing structure, according to the architects themselves. Finally, the record shows that China is by no means single-handedly increasing its dominance — that Western globalists’ fingerprints are all over China’s rise.
Dominating UN Global Governance
China’s membership in the United Nations was originally held by the free Republic of China (Taiwan, ROC) not the People’s Republic of China. But much to the UN’s everlasting shame, in 1971 the dictators’ club on the East River recognized the tyrannical PRC as the only legal government of China and expelled the ROC. As a result, Communist China replaced the ROC as one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the powerful Security Council, which not only issues resolutions supposedly binding on the world’s nations but also purportedly is authorized to order military action to put teeth behind its decisions.
Despite its deplorable human rights record, Communist China possesses a seat on the UN’s Human Rights Council. Of course, at the very least this should sound an alarm bell about the UN’s concept of human rights.
Other UN agencies or programs where China’s influence is prominent include:
- UN Industrial Development Organization: The little-known UNIDO “aims to improve the living conditions of people and promote global prosperity through … sustainable industrial development” — a euphemism for limiting industrial output to what the UN deems “sustainable.” In 2013, the outfit’s members selected Chinese Communist Li Yong, the regime’s former “vice-minister of finance,” as executive director. “[The regime ruling] China will inevitably need to be given more rights in international activities, such as the right to participate and the right to have a voice in international affairs,” Li was quoted as saying by regime-controlled propaganda outlets.
- UN International Telecommunications Union: Communist Chinese agent Houlin Zhao was selected last year to lead the ITU, which promotes international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, oversees global use of the radio spectrum, and promotes and develops worldwide technical standards. It is also seeking control over the Internet. If an ITU led by a Communist Chinese operative whose bosses run a totalitarian censorship regime dubbed the “Great Firewall of China” were not troubling enough, Zhao’s comments raised even more alarm worldwide. “We [at the ITU] don’t have a common interpretation of what censorship means,” the agency chief was quoted as saying by the Korean Yonhap news agency when asked about censorship. He believes censorship is in the eye of the beholder.
- UN World Health Organization: Communist Chinese loyalist Margaret Chan is the director-general of WHO, which has been attempting to usurp increasingly draconian powers over humanity under the guise of “health” on everything from trying to impose global tobacco taxes and acquiring more draconian quarantine powers to establishing a planetary “mental health” regime. Last year in Western Africa, citing the Ebola outbreak, Chan claimed “global health authorities” would need to help impose “new measures such as deploying soldiers to quarantine stricken neighborhoods in Sierra Leone,” the Wall Street Journal reported. Now, after being “criticized” in the establishment press for not doing enough to stop Ebola, Chan is working to supersize and further empower the WHO with bigger budgets and more authority.
- UN International Civil Aviation Organization: In March of this year, the ICAO selected Dr. Fang Liu of Communist China to sit as secretary-general for a three-year term. That UN agency, among other troubling activities, has been at the forefront of the ongoing effort to impose UN “carbon taxes” on air travel under the guise of stopping alleged man-made global warming and averting a “trade war,” as The New American reported in 2012. A supposed dispute over CO2 taxes between the European Union and Beijing is what drove efforts to have the tax on air travel imposed at the global level — paid straight to the UN. Globalists all agreed that a UN tax would settle the matter, and its promoters are still hard at work.
- UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: UNFCCC executive secretary Christiana Figueres, who is Costa Rican, claims that the communist regime in Beijing is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting alleged global warming — despite China being among the most polluted nations on Earth. Figueres told Bloomberg that the Chinese regime is able to implement UN-backed “climate” schemes more efficiently because it does not have to deal with “legislative hurdles” such as those in the United States and other nations where citizens are supposed to have a say in government.
- Rio+20 Summit: The secretary-general of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in 2012 was notorious anti-American Chinese Communist Sha Zukang. In addition to openly expressing his hatred of America, Zukang had presented an award to the Chinese general responsible for massacring student protesters at Tiananmen Square.
- UNESCO: The most recent General Conference of the UN Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization was chaired by former Beijing “education vice-minister” Hao Ping. UNESCO itself, of course, is chaired by a Bulgarian Communist, Irina Bokova, who is right now considered the “frontrunner” to be the next secretary-general of the broader UN. Last year, UNESCO appointed Peng Liyuan, wife of Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, to serve as a “Special Envoy” for female education. “You are an immense role model for millions of young girls in China and beyond,” UNESCO boss Bokova told Peng at the ceremony in Paris. That UN agency is openly seeking to impose, among other ideas, global “education standards” on humanity.
- UN “Peacekeeping”: Of the five permanent UN Security Council members, Beijing is the largest contributor to UN “peacekeeping” operations, deploying thousands of Communist Chinese troops, police, and advisors around the world under UN command. Analysts and even the regime say its growing appetite for participating in UN military schemes is indicative of its rise in global prominence — both in foreign affairs and economics.
The above examples are just the beginning of Beijing’s long-term plan to accumulate power within the UN, according to the dictatorship itself. In a “blue book” published recently by the regime’s China Institute of International Studies, Beijing’s Foreign Ministry reported on April 2, “China will target a bigger role in international affairs after recent successes in global diplomacy.” Senior regime officials have been boasting for months that Beijing is training up an army of staffers to hold key positions of influence in UN agencies and other “global governance” mechanisms.
And it is clear that, for Beijing and its allies, the UN must be at the center of the emerging global order. In a 2013 joint declaration, for example, top Communist Chinese officials joined with their counterparts in the BRICS regimes — Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa — to openly push the agenda. “The UN enjoys universal membership and is at the center of global governance,” the rulers said. (Emphasis added.) “We underscore our commitment to work together in the UN to continue our cooperation and strengthen multilateral approaches in international relations based on the rule of law and anchored in the Charter of the United Nations…. We are fully committed to a coordinated inter-governmental process for the elaboration of the UN development agenda.”
Last year, a collection of over 100 of the world’s communist, Islamist, and socialist tyrants, along with some elected but mostly corrupt Third World regimes, gathered in Bolivia at the G77 plus China summit to demand what they called a “New World Order to Live Well.” UN boss Ban Ki-moon joined the anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-national sovereignty, anti-free market festivities, calling on the assembled rulers — the biggest bloc at the UN — to keep pushing “sustainable development” and global-warming alarmism. The goal: foisting what he also called a “New World Order” on humanity. And they all made clear, even in the summit’s final declaration, that the UN would be at the heart of that order.
Dominating Global Economic Governance
“As U.S. politicians of both political parties are still shuffling back and forth between the White House and Capitol Hill without striking a viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world,” wrote Liu Chang, a writer for Beijing’s espionage and propaganda agency known as Xinhua, in an undoubtedly regime-approved editorial. “Such alarming days when the destinies of others are in the hands of a hypocritical nation have to be terminated, and a new world order should be put in place…. To that end, several corner stones should be laid to underpin a de-Americanized world.” In such a world, the U.S. dollar would no longer be the world’s reserve currency, and U.S. influence in the instruments of global economic governance such as the World Bank and IMF would be diminished. China, on the other hand, would dominate.
Top Chinese officials and central bankers have long been pushing for the IMF to unveil a truly planetary currency to replace the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency. “A super-sovereign reserve currency not only eliminates the inherent risks of credit-based sovereign currency, but also makes it possible to manage global liquidity,” wrote Chinese central-bank boss Zhou Xiaochuan in his public paper calling for a world currency run by the IMF.
Communist Chinese operatives are already hard at work within the globalist economic institution, including, for example, IMF Deputy Managing Director Zhu Min, a former top official at the Chinese regime’s central bank. Zhu is right now busy trying to include the Chinese yuan in the basket of currencies that make up the special drawing rights (SDR). Now the IMF’s current boss openly says its headquarters may be moved from Washington to Beijing. “The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of these days the IMF was headquartered in Beijing,” IMF chief Christine Lagarde said at the London School of Economics last year.
Perhaps not surprisingly, more than a few U.S. allies, and even the Obama administration, have jumped on board the bandwagon to give Beijing, along with the Kremlin, a greater leadership role at the IMF at U.S. expense as the world moves toward a New World Order heavily influenced by Communist China. In fact, when then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was asked about Beijing’s global-currency proposal, he said, “We’re actually quite open to that.”
The only serious remaining obstacle now to supersizing the IMF and handing Beijing more power within it at U.S. expense is getting the U.S. Congress to agree to the “reforms,” which include doubling the taxpayer-provided resources while reducing U.S. influence (including potentially the loss of its veto) and empowering Beijing and other foreign governments. So desperate is the Western establishment to empower the IMF and Beijing’s regime that IMF boss Lagarde offered to “belly dance” for U.S. lawmakers if they would just approve the reforms. When the belly-dance offer failed to persuade lawmakers, the IMF and its member regimes began plotting how to bypass the U.S. veto. Globalists in the East and West have said they will not give up until their “reforms” become reality.
“We stress the importance of the central role of the United Nations in global economic governance,” the regime and more than 130 others said in the joint “New World Order” declaration last year, demanding a bigger say in the emerging world economic government for the G77 plus China. “New attempts must now be made to establish proper global economic governance, with the full voice, representation and participation of developing countries in discussions and decision-making.” The despot-dominated UN General Assembly, where the G77 plus China bloc controls almost two-thirds of the votes, should become the “emblem of global sovereignty” and launch “a process to reform the international financial and monetary system,” they said.
Continued on next page…
