Last week, I sat down to write about what happened in the situation behind Gen. Flynn’s resignation, the counter-coup against the coup d’état that Steve Pieczenik described in the run up to the November election, the illegality of it, and the dangers of the very real battle going on behind the scenes within the US intelligence community. Certainly, there is much there to discuss, but each time I started to write, I kept having the feeling that something was missing from my analysis. For those that have viewed my appearance on the Hagmann and Hagmann Report in August of last year, you heard me mention a political atmosphere within the intelligence community, and that atmosphere has only worsened as lines have been drawn between the two sides. As the week progressed, most of the points that I wanted to make were already being made within the free media despite attempts by the fake stream media to confuse the facts. I sat down on Saturday with my brothers in Christ, Steven Menking of the Amateur Society, and Jon Robberson, producer and associate editor of the Hagmann and Hagmann Report, to discuss issues going on within our country on the weekly On the Objective podcast and as Jon and I talked, the thought suddenly hit me. I don’t know why I didn’t see it before, but something much larger was at work here, the culmination of a long-term strategy, playing out before our eyes.
Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
To fully understand the depth of this vast conspiracy that has been worked against our nation, one must go back more than 60 years and piece together action after action on the world’s stage, and understand that players rolled in and out, some likely knowing, some possibly unwitting, to the danger that they were placing future generations in. I will go on the record here and now that I don’t have the information that proves the links between the culprit I am pointing to here and various politicians, policy makers, and organizations that will be brought up or alluded to. This is simply an examination of historical events, put together with the age-old question of “who stands to gain from this?” This analysis is crafted in the vein of critical thinking taught to intelligence community analysts that are instructed from time to time to freeze their current analysis, turn it on its head, look at it from varying angles, and then unfreeze it. Using this method, I believe that I might have something here that no one else that I am aware of has been discussing. And if true, well…imagine the anger of the American people if they ever find out conclusively who was behind the attacks of 9/11. Because this conspiracy could be much more complex and far reaching – and have an even greater impact on the lives of each and every American citizen.
To begin…what is the first thing that comes to mind when I mention the word communism or socialism? For most of the people around my age and older, the first thing that comes to mind is likely the Soviet Union. We grew up in a world where every morning we woke up and remembered the threat of nuclear annihilation hung over us in a very palpable cloud. For people of the younger generation, they likely think of the communist and socialist groups of activists and organizations that have proliferated on our college campuses, organizing for action against what they see as the evils of capitalism and our Western “democracy”. For a few, they might have even shaken off the memories of the Soviet Union and current communist / socialist regimes like those in China and North Korea might come to mind. But my point here is that those few likely are a very few…and that the younger generation has been taught that communist / socialist ideals are not something to fear or fight against, but rather an acceptable alternative political thought process. This discounts the horrible atrocities that have been committed by these regimes in the past, and the ones that are currently going on in current regimes but going underreported by a compromised and co-opted press.
In studying the communist / socialist system of the Soviet Union, there is a pattern of activity that the “revolution” seemed to take in their movement to seizure of power, and it is one that is accepted as doctrine for the revolutionaries of the communist party.
- Infiltrate and co-opt the schools – this allows for the indoctrination of the young into the communist propaganda, as well as agitate pre-existing divisions – not just between the “proletariat” and the “bourgeoisie”, but in more modern times, between the sexes, racial tensions, and between various religious bases. While communism is a godless system, it sees the value in stoking religious tension to achieve division, which makes the people easier to control, and to control the narrative.
- Infiltrate and co-opt the press – this allows for the shaping of the narrative of the people, deciding what issues are covered and in what ways they are covered. As Mika Brzezinski stated recently, and almost in direct tune with what communist propaganda artists believe, it is the job of the press to control what people think. As the children are indoctrinated in school, the parents are indoctrinated through the compromised press.
- Organize the divided groups into dissent, then offer the solution through communist leadership.
It is that simple. Certainly, there is much to do to build that up, depending on the societal situation of the country involved, but that is basically it. Infiltration of the school from elementary to college, infiltration of the press, and then stoking the divisions of the people to the point of boil.
Now, I bring this up as illustration of the point that our system has been infiltrated to the highest levels. We even, for the first time that I can remember, had a presidential candidate this past election cycle from one of the major parties that admitted to being a socialist and honeymooned in the USSR! Now take that, freeze it, hold it in place, and let’s move to the next point.
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
A brief overview of history and American foreign policy as relates to communism needs to be discussed at this point, specifically, as it relates to China. In 1937, Japan invaded mainland China in an undeclared war. Though there were neutrality acts in place to prevent US aid from going to countries at war, since it was undeclared, President Roosevelt circumvented the acts to provide aid to the Republic of China. Accounts from missionaries in China of the Rape of Nanking and the sinking of the USS Panay served to build support from the American public for the Chinese cause.
Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, and entry of the United States into World War II, aid flowed into China to counter the Japanese. However, the Republic of China was now also fighting a war against communists. General Joseph Stillwell even suggested that communication should be established with the communists to prepare for a land counter-offensive against the Japanese. But the US recognized the Republic of China (ROC) as the sole legitimate government, and therefore opted to continue support of the beleaguered state.
Following the war, open civil war occurred between the ROC and the Chinese communists. General George Marshall went to China in 1946 to try and broker peace between the ROC and the Chinese communists, but to no avail. By 1948, George Marshall was the Secretary of State and testified before Congress that there was no way the Chinese nationalists could defeat the communists in the field, and that continued support for the nationalists would invariably lead to direct US participation in the war and the depletion of US military resources would give the Soviets an upper hand. He feared that the situation could lead to another Spanish civil war scenario. By 1949, the nationalists had lost the Chinese mainland and were forced to withdraw to the island of Taiwan.
The Truman administration was prepared to recognize the People’s Republic of China (the communist state; PRC) by 1950, but the beginning of the Korean War halted such prospects. On 25 June, 1950, the Soviet-backed Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) invaded the US-backed Republic of Korea (South Korea). The Soviet Union had been boycotting the United Nations in protest over the fact that the UN Security Council had the ROC sitting on it rather than the PRC, and so it was not there to veto UNSC Resolution 82, which declared war on North Korea. American forces pushed the North Koreans out of the South, beyond the 38th parallel, and began to approach the North Korea-China border at the Yalu River. China warned the forces not to venture to close to the border, but those warnings went unheeded, and in November, China launched a massive counter-offensive that saw the US Eighth Army routed – resulting of the longest retreat of any American military unit in history.
American forces were finally able to push the Chinese forces back to the 38th parallel, but heavy casualties mounted on both sides. Chinese forces were massed along the Korean border, and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff released orders for immediate retaliatory nuclear attacks to Chinese bases if they were to come across the border. Finally, on 27 July, 1953, the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed, resulting in the divided Korea that we have witnessed over the past 60 or so years.
From 1949 until the US recognized the PRC in 1979, American aid was given to the ROC under the Foreign Assistance Act, the Mutual Security Act, and the Act for International Development. In addition, in 1954, the Sino-American Mutual Defense Act was signed between the US and ROC that lasted until 1979. The United States worked to keep the PRC off the UN Security Council and placed a trade embargo on the PRC, encouraging allies to adhere to it, as well. President Johnson considered using preemptive strikes to prevent PRC from gaining nuclear weapons, but then decided the cost could be too great and China acquired them in 1964.
By the end of the 60s, several academics and organizations such as the National Committee on United States – China Relations were sponsoring and contributing to debate aimed at closer ties between the US and PRC. While many in the US saw communist actions in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam as being sponsored by China, there were elements pushing the narrative that closer ties with China would draw it away from Soviet influence and reshape the global power structure. American businessmen were intrigued at the thought of opening the Chinese market to American goods (boy, that backfired, right?). President Nixon, assisted by National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, postured for closer ties with the Chinese. In 1971, while on a trip to Pakistan, Kissinger feigned illness for a day and took a secretly travelled to China. This led to the announcement by Nixon of his accepted invitation to visit China, which drew varied reactions around the world, as well as domestically.
Following Nixon’s travels to Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shanghai, China and the US released the Shanghai Communique, in which both nations pledged to work together to normalize relations. Liaison offices were established in Beijing and Washington, and the US acknowledged the PRC position that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is only one China, and that Taiwan is part of that China (the One China Policy).
From 1973 to 1978, the Liaison Offices established in Beijing and Washington worked toward normalizing relations between the US and PRC. Several prominent Americans that were chiefs in the Liaison Offices were David K. E. Bruce (10th US Ambassador to NATO), George H. W. Bush (41st President of the US), Thomas S. Gates, Jr (7th US Secretary of Defense), and Leonard Woodcock (1st Ambassador to China and former President of the United Auto Workers union).
Shortly after taking office in 1977, President Carter reaffirmed the US commitment to the Shanghai Communique and was encouraged by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to pursue full diplomatic and trade relations with China. Brzezinski even pushed for Carter to establish a security relationship with Beijing. On 1 January, 1979, China and the US issued the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, and the US transferred diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. American arms sales to China were initiated. In 1981, the PRC objected to continued US arms sales to Taiwan, and resulted in the US-PRC Joint Communique of 1982 in which the US stated its intent to gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan. In 1983, the US State Department, under President Reagan, changed its classification of China to “a friendly, developing nation”.
While entire series of books could be written on the Clinton White House and campaign scandals involving everything from very real Chinese influence over US presidential elections to Chinese nuclear espionage, this “article” is already turning into a novel. What I am intending to do here is show a pattern of preferential treatment existing from the time of Nixon, where individuals that had the ear of people in power, or where organizations were used to push a narrative that growing closer to China would be advantageous for security as well as financially. It has not been. But for now, again, freeze that information, and let’s move to another time period, and something that I don’t think most Americans realize.
Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
Having considered the history between the US and China, let’s now turn our attention to a very curious bit of communist history going back to the late 50s and early 60s. Nikita Khrushchev became the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1953, the same year that Joseph Stalin died. In the aftermath of his death, Khrushchev would ascend to the position of Premier in 1958 and hold the post until 1964. However, in 1956, at the 20th Party Congress, Khrushchev would deliver what came to be known as the “Secret Speech” in which he denounced Stalin’s purges. Although this was met with praise from the Party in the Soviet Union, it drew the ire of the Chinese Communist Party and led to a split between the two that is very important for us to consider in this entire analysis.
As detailed by Marxist.org, the split was based around four main points:
“Though various authors place emphases differently, it’s pretty generally agreed that the main issues separating the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) revolved around the questions of evaluation of Stalin, “Peaceful Coexistence”, “Peaceful Transition to Socialism”, and War and Imperialism. Briefly:
- On Stalin: The CPC objected to the CPSU de-Stalinization campaign, arguing that the general line of the International Communist Movement (ICM) had been correct during Stalin’s tenure, that he was not just a Russian or Soviet leader, but a leader of world stature with a world-wide legacy which could not be swept aside by the CPSU leadership, and that overall, his successes outweighed his failings.
- On War: Whereas the CPSU recognized the power of the imperialist coalition arrayed against the socialist bloc and saw disastrous consequences for the world as a whole from nuclear war, the CPC tended to disparage the imperialists, a sentiment echoes in Mao’s famous aphorism that “Imperialists are paper tigers”, and instead spoke of turning world war into revolutionary war.
- On Peaceful Coexistence: Deriving from its views on the dangers of nuclear war, the CPSU saw coexistence with the West as in the mutual interest of both systems. The Chinese saw this as capitulation.
- Peaceful Transition: The CPSU and its allied parties advocated using democratic and peaceful means to advance the struggles of the working class and toward winning state power wherever those means were available. The CPC, on the other hand, disparaged such methods and proposed that the need for revolutionary war in order to seize power was a universal law of class struggle.”
This is crucial to our case, as it points to the fact that despite Soviet assertion that there could be peaceful coexistence between Western capitalism and socialism in the Soviet Union and China, the Chinese communist party insisted that there needed to be global war and communist revolution to achieve the goal of global communism. Now, let’s take all this information and unfreeze it, put it together and add in the situation that has been developing and is developing now in the United States.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1 Corinthians 13:12
Much has been made over the past year to two years of the growing tension between the United States and Russia. I am not here to tell you that there is no need for concern – quite the opposite, it is a very alarming trend. However, as the compromised and co-opted media sends the American people into a panic of looking for Russians involved in every event within this country, I ask again the question…” who does that benefit?” Does it benefit Russia? Does it benefit the US? It benefits China significantly in the continuation of the foreign policy of the US to court China as a counter-weight to Russia. It also benefits them in that Russia has sought closer ties to China as a counter-weight to what it sees as a growing threat from the US and the West.
When we look domestically at the radicalization and proliferation of radical ideas, many people fall back to the old stand-by of blaming the Russians, or blaming Sovietization of the American system. Having been to the Russian Federation, most of the people there have no love lost for the Soviet system except the elderly that struggle on their meager pensions and the college students that wish their stipend still went as far as what their parents’ did. The point I am making here is there is still a communist power in existence in this world that holds a massive amount of influence over our media, as it buys up as much as it can like a ravenous wolf, over our politicians through campaign finance and threat, and over our economy through trade deficits and debt ownership.
There is a clear history of capitulation to the Chinese communists, a group that from their very beginning denounced the Soviet communists for stating that there can be coexistence between the capitalists and communists and instead promoting world war as a transitory catalyst towards the world communist order. Think about the rise of China, how quickly it went from being a “friendly, developing nation” in the 80s, to the economic giant WE made it into today. And one that openly threatens in the South China Sea, covertly does it through North Korea, and likely has infiltrated our media, our education system, and our political system. Through the education system and media, they have made sure that the young don’t remember the brutal realities of communism, but only the textbook definition of it. It reminds me of a conversation I had just days ago with a 20-something in the MILITARY, and when I started talking about socialism, he quipped back (and not ironically) that the Soviet Union was not “REAL SOCIALISM”.
If we don’t know who the enemy is, how can we counter them and neutralize them? The Russian Federation, for all its faults and though it does present a clear danger, is not the Soviet Union. Most of the Russians I spoke to in my time there, from Joes on the street to high-level military officers, want to find areas where the US and Russia can work together. Continued strife between the Eagle and the Bear only serves to allow the Dragon to continue to hide in the depths of its lair, waiting, feeding, and growing stronger.