China 2018-02-01T20:43:15+00:00


Although the mass media present China today as “progressive,” especially after the 2008 Olympics fanfare, it remains among the world’s cruelest regimes. The term “Red China” is not anachronistic. Though certainly less oppressive than during the Cultural Revolution, when it executed millions, China is still governed by a single regime, the Communist Party, which requires members to be atheists. It imprisons dissidents without due process, oppresses Tibet, and enforces a policy, backed by compulsory abortion, restricting most families to one child. (Since Chinese traditionally prefer male offspring, this has led to disproportionate abortion — even infanticide — of female babies, creating an artificial majority of males in China.) The government directly controls most media, blocking criticisms of itself on the Internet.  Read More...

Perhaps worst is suppression of religious freedom. Christian churches, though permitted, must submit to government control and censorship — either as part of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement or Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. Independent house churches, comprising some 90 percent of China’s Christians, face persecution. The Voice of the Martyrs reports:

The human rights record in China is one of the worst in the world. Its system of “re-education through labor” detains hundreds of thousands each year in work camps without even a court hearing…. The house church movement (unregistered churches) endures unimaginable persecution, yet stands on its commitment to preach the gospel, no matter the cost. China continued its crackdown against Christians and missionaries in 2008, as they sought to purge the country of religion before hosting the Olympic games…. Church property and Bibles were confiscated. Christians were harassed, questioned, arrested and imprisoned. Christians in prisons are routinely beaten and abused.

What surprises many Americans: the regime ruling China was largely put there by the United States.

In the 1930s, Japan, then militarily powerful, was the main barrier to Soviet ambitions to communize Asia. Benjamin Gitlow, founding member of the U.S. Communist Party, wrote in I Confess (1940):

When I was in Moscow, the attitude toward the United States in the event of war was discussed. Privately, it was the opinion of all the Russian leaders to whom I spoke that the rivalry between the United States and Japan must actually break out into war between these two.

The Russians were hopeful that the war would break out soon, because that would greatly secure the safety of Russia’s Siberian borders and would so weaken Japan that Russia would no longer have to fear an attack from her in the East…. Stalin is perfectly willing to let Americans die in defense of the Soviet Union.

In 1935, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William C. Bullitt sent a dispatch to Secretary of State Cordell Hull:

It is … the heartiest hope of the Soviet Government that the United States will become involved in war with Japan…. To think of the Soviet Union as a possible ally of the United States in case of war with Japan is to allow the wish to be father to the thought. The Soviet Union would certainly attempt to avoid becoming an ally until Japan had been thoroughly defeated and would then merely use the opportunity to acquire Manchuria and Sovietize China.

In the 1930s Japan moved troops into Manchuria (northern China). U.S. history books routinely call this an imperialistic invasion. While there is certainly truth in this interpretation, the books rarely mention that Japan was largely reacting, in its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, to the Soviets’ incursions into Asia — namely their seizure of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia. Anthony Kubek, Chairman of Political Science at the University of Dallas, wrote in How the Far East Was Lost:

It was apparent to Japanese statesmen that unless bastions of defense were built in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, Communism would spread through all of North China and seriously threaten the security of Japan. To the Japanese, expansion in Manchuria was a national imperative…. But the Department of State seemed not to regard Japan as a bulwark against Soviet expansion in North China. As a matter of fact, not one word of protest was sent by the Department of State to the Soviet Union, despite her absorption of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia, while at the same time Japan was censured for stationing troops in China.

The Chinese Republic

Chiang Kai-shek

China had been ruled by emperors until 1911, when the Qing Dynasty was overthrown. The revolution is largely attributed to Sun Yat-sen, who sought to make China a constitutional republic, led by the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party of China. However, Sun encountered extreme difficulties in unifying the enormous nation under his idealistic principles. After the emperors’ fall, China was largely ruled by local warlords, and following Dr. Sun’s 1925 death, the task of unifying China fell to Chiang Kai-shek, a Christian and Kuomintang leader.

The Soviets tried infiltrating the Kuomintang, but Chiang Kai-shek eventually saw through their schemes, and by 1928 had deported many USSR agents. That same year, 1928, Foreign Affairs, American’s most powerful foreign policy journal, published its first article criticizing Chiang. From then on, he became the enemy of both the Soviet Union and the American establishment — which had ironically sought to support communism since the 1917 Russian Revolution.

Chinese Reds: Soviet Puppets

The Chinese Communist Party was little more than a puppet of the Soviet Union, which recognized the value for communism’s future in China’s massive manpower. In 1933, the Chinese Communist Party sent this message to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin: “Lead us on, O our pilot, from victory to victory!”

Stalin encouraged the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government. However, with Japanese troops’ arrival in Manchuria in 1937, Stalin ordered Chinese communists to ease their attacks on the Nationalists because the latter were repelling the Japanese, whom Stalin considered a barrier to his own ambitions in Asia.

This order was amplified after June 22, 1941, when Germany and its European allies invaded the Soviet Union, and began decimating the Red Army. Stalin feared that Japan — Germany’s ally — would invade Russia from the East, destroying himself and world communism’s center. One may reasonably conclude that proven Soviet agents within the U.S. government — such as Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; and Alger Hiss, a leading State Department figure — shared this concern.

This author has documented in The New American that Washington had full foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, but did not warn our military commanders; and also that Washington sought to provoke the attack through such measures as a freeze on Japan’s U.S. assets; a steel and oil embargo; closure of the Panama Canal to Japan’s shipping; and humiliating ultimatums to the Japanese government (see, for example, Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not).

The U.S. war with Japan fulfilled the Gitlow and Bullitt warnings. Since Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists were also fighting the Japanese, official U.S. policy was to support them, especially after President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Chiang at the 1943 Cairo Conference. Stalin ordered the Chinese communists to help against the Japanese too — but in a very limited capacity. Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung told followers: “Our determined policy is 70 percent self-development, 20 percent compromise, and 10 percent fight the Japanese.” The Reds spent little energy against the Japanese, mostly attacking the Nationalists, whom they planned to overthrow at the war’s conclusion. This emphasis increased as Japan’s defeat, from U.S. advances in the Pacific, became imminent. Robert Welch, in his study of China’s downfall, Again, May God Forgive Us, wrote: “In Shantung in 1943, just for one illustration, they [the communists] attacked from the south an army of twenty thousand Nationalists, simultaneously with a Japanese attack from the north, and helped to slaughter the whole force.”

Roosevelt’s Betrayal

But China’s destruction came not only from communists. Fateful decisions resulted when Roosevelt met with Stalin at the Teheran Conference (late 1943) and Yalta Conference (February 1945). Stalin, though our ally against Germany during World War II, maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan. This suited Stalin, as he wished the Japanese to wear down China’s Nationalist forces.

At the Teheran and Yalta wartime conferences, however, Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his pact with Japan and enter the Far East war. Stalin agreed, but attached conditions. He demanded that America completely equip his Far Eastern Army for the expedition, with 3,000 tanks, 5,000 planes, plus all the other munitions, food, and fuel required for a 1,250,000-man army. Roosevelt accepted this demand, and 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease material were convoyed to the USSR for the venture. Stalin’s Far Eastern Army swiftly received more than twice the supplies we gave Chiang Kai-shek during four years as our ally.

General Douglas MacArthur protested after discovering that ships designated to supply his Pacific forces were being diverted to Russia. Major General Courtney Whitney wrote: “One hundred of his transport ships were to be withdrawn immediately, to be used to carry munitions and supplies across the North Pacific to the Soviet forces in Vladivostok…. Later, of course, they were the basis of Soviet military support of North Korea and Red China.”

But Stalin didn’t just want materiel in return for entering the Asian war. He also demanded control of the Manchurian seaports of Dairen and Port Arthur — which a glance at the map shows would give him an unbreakable foothold in China — as well as joint control, with the Chinese, of Manchuria’s railroads. Roosevelt made these concessions without consulting the Chinese. Thus, without authority, he ceded to Stalin another nation’s sovereign territory. The president made these pledges without the knowledge or consent of Congress or the American people.

The State Department official representing the United States in drawing up the Yalta agreement was Alger Hiss — subsequently exposed as a Soviet spy. General Patrick Hurley, U.S. Ambassador to China, wrote:

“American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta.”

The decision to invite and equip Stalin — a known aggressor — into the Far East must go down among the worst acts of U.S. foreign policy. Stalin’s divisions entered China to fight the already-beaten Japanese on August 9, 1945 — five days before Japan’s surrender. The atom bomb had already pounded Hiroshima.

After barely firing a shot, the Soviets received surrender of Japan’s huge arsenals in Manchuria. These, with their American Lend-Lease supplies, they handed over to Mao Tse-tung’s communists to overthrow the Nationalist government.

Vinegar Joe

Army General “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell

Another means of destroying the Nationalists: U.S. personnel assigned to China. Among the worst was Army General “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell. Though generally respected as a strategist, Stilwell became notorious for hatred of Chiang Kai-shek — whom he nicknamed “the peanut” — and admiration for the communists. Stilwell wrote in a letter: “It makes me itch to throw down my shovel and get over there and shoulder a rifle with Chu Teh.” (Chu was commander-in-chief of the Chinese communist armies — as he was later in the Korean War, overseeing the killing of GIs.)

Because Japan controlled China’s ports, the Nationalists had to receive supplies by air lift from India. Stilwell oversaw a campaign of Chinese troops against the Japanese in Burma, attempting to open a land supply route. When the effort failed, Stilwell demanded the operation be tried again, using 30 Nationalist divisions.

At this, Chiang balked: diverting 30 divisions south into Burma would facilitate further conquest of China by both the Japanese and the Chinese communists. General Claire Chennault, commander of the famed “Flying Tigers,” agreed with Chiang. Significantly, Stilwell did not request use of communist forces — whom he so vocally admired — for his envisioned Burma campaign.

Stilwell complained to Washington, and received a message from President Roosevelt directing Chiang to place Stilwell in “unrestricted command” of all Chinese forces, and send troops to Burma. After jubilantly handing this message to Chiang, Stilwell wrote in his diary:

I’ve long waited for vengeance —
At last I’ve had my chance.
I’ve looked the Peanut in the eye
And kicked him in the pants…
The little b*****d shivered
And lost the power of speech.
His face turned green and quivered
And he struggled not to screech.

But Stilwell’s scheme backfired. Chiang refused the directive and asked Roosevelt to replace Stilwell. Otherwise, he said, he would go it alone against the Japanese — as he had for the four years preceding Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was forced to concede. To his chagrin, Stilwell was relieved by General Albert C. Wedemeyer, who saw eye-to-eye with Chiang.

Chiang Kai-shek wrote: “Stilwell was in a conspiracy with the Communists to overthrow the Government” — an opinion shared by General Hurley, who stated: “The record of General Stilwell in China is irrevocably coupled in history with the conspiracy to overthrow the Nationalist Government of China, and to set up in its place a Communist regime — and all this movement was part of, and cannot be separated from, the Communist cell or apparatus that existed at the time in the Government in Washington.”

State Department Junta

Ambassador, General Patrick J. Hurley

What “cell” did Ambassador Hurley refer to? In China, he was surrounded by a State Department clique favoring a Chinese communist takeover. Dean Acheson, who as a young attorney had represented Soviet interests in America, became Assistant Secretary of State in 1941. As such, he ensured the State Department’s Far Eastern Division was dominated by communists and pro-communists, including Alger Hiss (subsequently proven a Soviet spy); John Carter Vincent, director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs, later identified by Daily Worker editor Louis Budenz as a communist; John Stewart Service, Foreign Service Officer in China who turned State Department information over to the Chinese communists, and was arrested by the FBI in the Amerasia spy case (about which more later); Foreign Service Officer John P. Davies, who consistently lobbied for the communists; Owen Lattimore, appointed U.S. adviser to Chiang Kai-shek but identified as a communist by ex-communists Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley; and several others.

“The Communists relied very strongly on Service and John Carter Vincent,” said Budenz, “in a campaign against Ambassador Hurley.” Hurley, an honest statesman, was shocked by the maneuverings of those under him. “The professional foreign service men,” he reported to President Truman, “sided with the Communists’ armed party.”

Hurley was compelled to dismiss 11 State Department members. Upon return from China, however, they were mysteriously promoted, and some became Hurley’s superiors — after which he resigned. “These professional diplomats,” he wrote, “were returned to Washington and were placed in the Far Eastern and China divisions of the State Department as my supervisors.”

Pro-communist Stratagems

This State Department clique employed several tactics to advance Chinese communism. Among the chief: claiming Mao’s followers weren’t communists, but merely “agrarian reformers.” Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto had commanded: “Workers of the world, unite!” But since China had little industry, Chinese communists made farmers their focus.

Professor Kenneth A. Colgrove testified that Owen Lattimore informed him that “Chinese Communists under Mao Tse-tung were real democrats and that they were really agrarian reformers and had no connection with Soviet Russia.”

The aforementioned John Carter Vincent referred to Mao and his followers as “so-called Communists.”

Raymond Ludden, another in the State Department clique, reported that “the so-called Communists are agrarian reformers of a mild democratic stripe more than anything else.”

In 1943, T. A. Bisson wrote in Far Eastern Survey: “By no stretch of the imagination can this be termed ‘communism’; it is, in fact, the essence of bourgeois democracy applied mainly to agrarian conditions.”

The State Department’s John P. Davies told Washington: “The Communists are in China to stay. And China’s destiny is not Chiang’s but theirs.” An additional tactic: portraying Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists as “fascists,” “reactionary,” and “corrupt.” General Wedemeyer conveyed this matter’s reality:

Although the Nationalist Government of China was frequently and derisively described as authoritarian or totalitarian, there was a basic difference between it and its Communist enemies, since the Kuomintang’s ultimate aim was the establishment of a constitutional republic, whereas the Communists want to establish a totalitarian dictatorship on the Soviet pattern. In my two years of close contact with Chiang Kai-shek, I had become convinced that he was personally a straightforward, selfless leader, keenly interested in the welfare of his people, and desirous of establishing a constitutional government.

While some corruption undoubtedly existed in the Nationalist regime, Wedemeyer insightfully noted that corruption existed in all governments, including ours. For China, a conspiracy on the U.S. side compounded this. Their government offices displaced by Japan’s invasion, the Nationalists had to rely on paper currency. Runaway inflation threatened China’s economy. To stabilize the situation, Chiang Kai-shek requested a loan of U.S. gold. President Roosevelt approved, but the gold shipments were delayed and withheld by Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, long since proven to be a Soviet agent. This collapsed China’s currency. One can understand why some Chinese officials, forced to accept salaries paid in worthless money, turned to corruption.

Walter S. Robertson, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, informed the
 National Press Club in 1959:

“We stood by and saw China drift into a state of complete economic collapse. The currency was worthless…. In China, we withheld our funds at the only time, in my opinion, we had a chance to save the situation. To do what? To force the Communists in.”

As a final tactic, State Department leftists demanded the Nationalists form a “coalition government” with the communists. 
This was an old communist trick. By forcing the postwar governments of Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia to form coalitions with communists, the Marxists seized control of those nations; Mao Tse-tung envisioned the same strategy for China. In his report “On Coalition Government,” made in April 1945 to the Seventh National Convention of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao predicted that a coalition would destroy both Chiang and “reactionary American imperialism.”

The State Department’s China clique echoed this call. John P. Davies wrote in 1944: “A coalition Chinese Government in which the Communists find a satisfactory place is the solution of this impasse most desirable to us.”

A more realistic assessment of coalition government — which meant combining constitutional freedom with totalitarian gangsterism — was provided by Douglas MacArthur, who said it would have “about as much chance of getting them together as that oil and water will mix.”

In fact, Chiang Kai-shek wanted a postwar government representing all Chinese parties. In November 1946, he convened a National Assembly that met for 40 days, with 2,045 delegates representing diverse views from all over China; it adopted a national constitution. However, despite their clamoring for “coalition government,” Mao’s communists refused to participate: they knew that, lacking popular support in China, they could only take power by violence.

Marshall Mission

General George C. Marshall

At World War II’s close, Mao’s troops, armed by the Russians — both from American Lend-Lease and captured Japanese arsenals — began a full assault on the Nationalist government. Mao’s rebellion would have undoubtedly failed if not for interventions by George Marshall, whom President Truman designated his special representative to China.

Marshall had a remarkable penchant for being in “the wrong place at the wrong time.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt had advanced him over dozens of senior officers to become U.S. Army Chief of Staff. In that capacity, on December 7, 1941, he absented himself from his office on a notoriously long “horseback ride,” while junior officers sought his permission to warn Pearl Harbor of the impending attack. During the Korean War, he was conveniently named Secretary of Defense; as such he overruled General MacArthur, saving the Yalu River’s bridges from destruction by the U.S. Air Force, and thus permitting Communist Chinese soldiers to invade Korea, which precluded victory by MacArthur, guaranteeing the stalemate that ultimately occurred. Regardless of where Marshall served, his actions fortified communism and defeated American interests — a record summarized by the wrongfully maligned Senator Joseph McCarthy in his book America’s Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall.

Before leaving for China, Marshall revealed he already accepted the communist propaganda line. Five-star Fleet Admiral William Leahy reported: “I was present when Marshall was going to China. He said he was going to tell Chiang that he had to get on with the Communists or without help from us. He said the same thing when he got back.” And when told Mao Tse-tung and his followers were communists, Marshall remarked: “Don’t be ridiculous. These fellows are just old-fashioned agrarian reformers.”

When Marshall first arrived in China, the Nationalists outnumbered the communists 5-1 in both troops and rifles, and were successfully driving them back. Marshall, however, imposed a total of three truces — which the communists violated, allowing them to regroup, bring up Soviet supplies, and further train their guerillas. This expanded their control from 57 Chinese counties to 310. General Claire Chennault recounted the impact of Marshall’s truces:

North of Hankow some 200,000 government troops had surrounded 70,000 Communist troops and were beginning a methodical job of extermination. The Communists appealed to Marshall on the basis of his truce proposal, and arrangements were made for fighting to cease while the Communists marched out of the trap and on to Shantung Province, where a large Communist offensive began about a year later. On the East River near Canton some 100,000 Communist troops were trapped by government forces. The truce teams effected their release and allowed the Communists to march unmolested to Bias Bay where they boarded junks and sailed to Shantung.

Marshall’s disastrous 15-month China mission ended in January 1947. Upon his return to the United States, President Truman rewarded his failures with appointment as Secretary of State. Marshall imposed a weapons embargo on the Nationalists, while the communists continued receiving a steady weapons supply from the USSR. Marshall boasted that he disarmed 39 anti-communist divisions “with a stroke of the pen.” This doomed Chinese freedom.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Building New Global Governance Architecture

In addition to accumulating more and more influence within existing international institutions, Beijing has also been creating a dizzying array of its own outfits to plug into the new “multi-polar” world order it says it is seeking. Though the new China-created institutions are now portrayed as rivals to their older Western counterparts, Chinese leaders view the globalist architecture they are constructing as complementary to the Western-built architecture.

Most recently, despite ostensible U.S. opposition, even traditional U.S. allies rushed to join the new Shanghai-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which will essentially serve as a new addition to the existing architecture of global economic governance. The massive institution, set to have an initial capital stock of $100 billion, is aimed at “scaling up financing for sustainable development,” as defined by the UN, and fostering more “global economic governance.”

The scramble by U.S. allies to join the “rival” AIIB — Taiwan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Australia, among others, all applied to become “founding members” — gave the United States what the establishment press painted as a “black eye.” But it is by no means an obstacle to the emerging New World Order. In fact, the AIIB is set to play a major role in “global governance,” according to Beijing and the UN. Some analysts even claimed its emergence signified a new era of “Pax Sinica” that is replacing the supposed U.S.-led world order of past generations. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying, however, said that the founding of the bank is a “constructive move that will complement the current international economic order and enable China to shoulder more global responsibility.”

In tandem with the AIIB, Beijing is also rolling out what it refers to as its “New Silk Road” and the “Maritime Silk Road” projects. The plans, which involve massive infrastructure expansion and new trade routes over land and sea, aim to connect Communist China directly with the rest of Eurasia and Africa so Beijing can more successfully peddle its goods and services, manufactured by its vast armies of practically slave laborers in regime-controlled “companies.” According to an article by Xinhua, the plans will produce “more capital convergence and currency integration.”

Before that, the communist- and socialist-minded regimes ruling the BRICS unveiled plans for a new international “development” bank. Now known as the “New Development Bank,” the entity also plans to provide $100 billion in upfront capital for various projects. Like the AIIB, this bank is also painted as a rival to existing global governance mechanisms. But in reality, the new bank represents merely another tentacle of the emerging world order, as Beijing and other BRICS regimes have made clear.

Last year, in its China Monitor publication, the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) highlighted Beijing’s “shadow” network of globalist outfits. The report noted that (contrary to the claims of analysts who portray the scheming as a “challenge” to existing globalist institutions) the communist regime “is not seeking to demolish or exit from current international organizations.” Instead, it “is constructing supplementary — in part complementary, in part competitive — channels for shaping the international order beyond Western claims to leadership.” It cited the BRICS, the AIIB, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and numerous other examples to make its case.

In a column about China’s “New World Order,” meanwhile, Director Lee Jong-Wha at Korea University’s Asiatic Research Institute observed that Beijing was “using its growing clout to reshape global economic governance.” Despite apparent obliviousness to the danger of having the dictatorship help design a system of “global governance,” Lee, who also led the Office of Regional Economic Integration at the Asian Development Bank, noted that “China’s approach to influencing global governance is only beginning to emerge.” The dictatorship has openly stated as much.

Beijing has also been rapidly expanding its cooperation with — and in some cases domination of — regional governments, ranging from the European Union and the African Union to the Union of South American States, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, and Putin’s Eurasian Union. China has even financed the construction of the entire $200 million headquarters of the African Union. And it is working with its own regional schemes including the Shanghai Cooperation Organ­ization, a political, economic, and military cooperation body that includes the Kremlin and other governments in the region.

Still, despite its own additions to machinery of global governance, Beijing and its allies have made clear that the UN must remain at the center. In their final “New World Order to Live Well” declaration, signed by more than 130 rulers from around the world involved in the G77 plus Communist China bloc, the regimes called for what amounts to global tyranny, central planning, and massive wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to oppressive Third World governments. From a stronger UN better able to implement its “mandates” to empowering the UN General Assembly as an “emblem of global sovereignty,” the document demands a dramatic planetary transformation to be run and led by the UN itself.

“We fully respect the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and international law,” the regimes said in the final agreement, calling for the “strengthening” of the UN for a wide variety of purposes. “We recognize that the United Nations needs to improve its capabilities and capacities to fully implement its mandates.” (Emphasis added.) The agreement, dubbed the “Declaration of Santa Cruz: For a New World Order for Living Well,” also called for empowering the despot-dominated UN General Assembly to be a sort of veto-proof planetary legislature. In other words, claims by analysts that China’s global governance projects are a “challenge” to the existing architecture of global governance are simply not credible.

Globalist Western Establishment Support

The unabashed support that Beijing enjoys from the highest echelons of the globalist Western establishment is nothing new. In fact, though full diplomatic relations between the United States and China were not established until 1978, U.S. policy decisions during and after World War II paved the way for the communist takeover of mainland China in 1949. “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta,” observed General Patrick Hurley, the U.S. Ambassador to China at the end of World War II. Numerous other senior U.S. officials have echoed those concerns. From equipping the Chinese Communists in the mid-1940s via the Soviet regime (under the guise of fighting Japan) to deliberately betraying nationalist Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek, the U.S. government and the Western establishment were crucial to the betrayal of China to communism.

The globalists were evidently pleased with their handiwork. In a 1973 op-ed in the New York Times, for example, senior globalist architect David Rockefeller actually celebrated the mass-murdering regime after a trip to China. “Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose,” he claimed, seemingly oblivious to the ghoulishness of his words. “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” The Western banking magnate neglected to mention that it also resulted in the murder of an estimated 77 million innocent people, according to University of Hawaii democide scholar R.J. Rummel.

And in the 1990s, President Bill Clinton made sure that Beijing had access to America’s most sensitive military secrets and technology as part of what came to be known as “ChinaGate,” sparking outrage among senior U.S. military officials. “President Clinton promised to restrain those who ordered the Tiananmen Square massacre, but he has now allowed these men whose hands are stained with the blood of martyrs of freedom into the highest reaches of our military defenses, and made available to them significant portions of our advanced military technology,” wrote former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer.

Without Western assistance, the Chinese Communist regime would not have been able to subjugate the mainland much less possess its present clout. Yet globalists believe it should be even more influential on the world stage. “The West has failed to accord China — not to mention the other major emerging economies — the degree of influence in today’s global governance structures that it merits,” complained globalist Javier Solana, the former secretary-general of NATO and EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. “This may be about to change.”

Throughout the piece, Solana also chastises the West for not giving the regime in Beijing even more control over “global governance.” He also calls repeatedly on “advanced countries” to “overcome their strategic mistrust of China.” “The West must still do more not only to welcome China to the table of global governance, but also to accept and cooperate with the institutions that the Chinese are now creating,” the former NATO boss continued. “China’s move into multilateral processes is good news for the world.”

Plenty of evidence suggests that the Western world’s decline and Communist China’s rise have been deliberately aided and even engineered by the globalist establishment in the United States and Europe. Again, as mentioned at the beginning of the article, billionaire George Soros, one of Obama’s most important backers, even put it explicitly, saying Communist China should “own” the “New World Order” in the same way the United States owns the fast-declining current world order. And that is exactly what is happening.

Earlier this year, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, which played a key role in China’s rise and in the emergence of the “global governance” system being imposed on humanity, came out with a new report calling for revising the U.S. government’s “Grand Strategy” toward China. “Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia — and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally — Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy,” wrote CFR Senior Fellow Robert D. Blackwill and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis.

The admission that Washington, D.C., continues to “assist” China’s “ascendancy” — even if accompanied by a recommendation against continuing to assist — was a rare moment of honesty from the CFR. The rest of the report, though, is less so. Instead of revising strategy, for example, the report mostly advocates more Big Government, more globalism, and more of the same generally. In fact, its “solutions” for “balancing” the glob­alist-backed rise of Communist China read like a wish list of extremist globalist scheming — and would almost be comedic if the implications were not so serious, and likely to accelerate the decline of the United States as China rises.

For example, the CFR report calls on Congress to “substantially increase the U.S. defense budget.” Having the federal government that is $18 trillion in debt borrow even more money from Beijing to rein in Beijing makes about as much sense as George W. Bush’s 2008 claim that he “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” Also on the agenda are more pseudo-free trade regimes. “U.S. grand strategy toward China will be seriously weakened without delivering on the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement],” the report claims. “A major push by the White House for ratification should therefore begin immediately in the new Congress, including seeking trade promotion authority.” Ironically, top Communist Chinese officials are also celebrating the TPP, expressing interest in joining while pointing out that it would serve as a steppingstone toward a broader Beijing/Moscow-led Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). Other proposals include “revitalizing the U.S. economy” (though not with free markets or honest money), passing the draconian Cyber Information Security Protection Act (CISPA), and engaging in “high-level diplomacy with Beijing.”

None of that will do anything to contain Communist China or even slow the glob­alist buildup of its might. It will, however, further damage the United States while paving more road leading toward a more Beijing-centric World Order.

As Communist China’s brutal autocrats begin to wield more and more control over “global governance,” what might the “New World Order” they admit they are building look like — a world where the veto-proof, dictator-dominated UN General Assembly acts as the “emblem of global sovereignty”? The way China’s leaders “govern” the People’s Republic of China should provide a strong clue among many.

Already, with Beijing’s and Washington’s strong backing, the UN is on the verge of becoming a dictator-dominated global government, and the IMF is openly being groomed to serve as the planetary central bank. If liberty and Western Civilization are to survive, the brakes must be slammed on the plot — and soon. Whistleblowers from within the UN system who have spoken to The New American about the issue argue that a U.S. withdrawal from the UN and the broader emerging “global governance” regime is not even enough. Instead, the UN and its tentacles must be entirely abolished.

Still, even simply cutting off U.S. taxpayer funding and U.S. government support for the UN, the IMF, and various other organizations would go a long way toward reducing the threat. Ending the U.S. government’s suicidal policies toward Beijing — borrowing trillions of dollars from it just to stay afloat, for example, or turning a blind eye to the communist regime’s massive espionage apparatus aimed at the United States — will be important as well. Americans concerned about the danger must get educated, organized, and activated. If they do not, a Communist Chinese-style “New World Order” may well become a reality, while liberty and sovereignty disappear. (Source)

Secret Societies in China

Thanks to the latest Hollywood martial arts blockbuster along with a steady stream of Hong Kong action films, audiences around the world have been entertained by wild and colourful portrayals of Chinese secret societies. These extravagant fictional tales often obscure the plain truth that for at least two thousand years secret societies did play a vital part in the dynamics of China’s political, social and religious life.  Right up to the birth of the People’s Republic in 1949, secret societies were a special characteristic of old China.

“The officials draw their power from the law; the people, from the secret societies.”

This Chinese saying sums up the centuries-old conflict between rulers and ruled, privileged and oppressed in imperial China. Secret societies were directly involved in all the peasant rebellions in Chinese history. As early as the second century, the armed uprising that eventually overthrew the Han dynasty was instigated by a Taoist sect called the Yellow Turbans, whose leader was renowned for his gift of spiritual healing and supernatural powers. The Yellow Turbans in their mixture of religion and political dissatisfaction may be regarded as the forerunners of the secret societies that sprang up all across China.

By organizing opposition to excessive taxation and the despotism of corrupt bureaucrats, secret societies gained widespread support. In the words of Chinese historian Teng Ssu-Yu, they were the “nerve centers” of opposition to the imperial government, “which profit from favorable circumstances to start insurrections and rebellions.”

The secret society formed a hidden parallel empire, a state within a state, and this was a major source of its strength. Nocturnal initiation ceremonies, arcane teachings, secret signs, symbols and passwords, all helped bind a member’s loyalty to the fraternity. As China expert Jean Chesneaux explains:

The secret societies claimed a rival order to that of emperor and mandarins. Vis-à-vis established society they constituted an ‘anti-society’ in the sense in which modern physicists talk of an anti-matter or an anti-universe…

Their rites, secrets, oaths of initiation, conventional ideograms – features of which the Triad has provided very typical examples but which are found also in all similar associations – made a powerful contribution towards the consolidation of this autonomous order.

The discipline was extremely strict, and any violation, betrayal, or collusion with the authorities was punished by death.1

One of the most influential of China’s secret societies went by the name White Lotus. It often had to change its name in order to conceal its identity, and was associated with other groups, principally the Society of Heaven and Earth (also called the Hung society or Triad). The White Lotus functioned primarily as a spiritual body, but in times of political dissatisfaction and social upheaval it quickly took on the outer characteristics of a radical political movement.

As a Chinese imperial decree written in 1813 points out:

In normal times the society was engaged in daily worship… and preached that by reciting scriptures and verses, one can escape the dangers of swords and arms, water and fire…. But in times of famine and disorder they might plot for the Greater Enterprises (the founding of a new dynasty).

The White Lotus society led one of the largest rebellions in the second quarter of the fourteenth century against the foreign rule of the Mongols. Known as the Red Turban Rebels (due to their distinctive red headbands) White Lotus members were behind the formation of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) headed by former Buddhist monk Chu Yuan-chang, who assumed full imperial powers under the title Hung Wu. According to Professor Chesneaux:

Chu Yuan-chang [Hung Wu], the leader of a peasant rebellion against the Mongol Yuan dynasty in the fourteenth century, belonged to the White Lotus sect, of Manichaean origin, and the name of the new dynasty which he founded, the Ming (which means ‘light’ in Chinese), originated in the esoteric vocabulary of the Manichaeans.2

That the Ming emperor Hung Wu was both a former Buddhist monk and a Manichaean initiate is significant because the White Lotus teachings blended Buddhism and native Taoism with Gnostic elements which had entered China from Central Asia with Manichaean missionaries.

Later secret societies venerated Hung Wu above all other historical figures and pledged their allegiance to the Ming dynasty that he established hundreds of years after its collapse. In 1644 the foreign Manchus, who had menaced the Chinese Empire for centuries, claimed the Dragon Throne and established the Ch’ing dynasty. The secret society networks were united in a common purpose: “Overthrow the Ch’ing and restore the Ming.”

By the nineteenth century the cruel and despotic misrule of the Manchus had resulted in nearly a century of political and religious turmoil, leaving China in chaos and unable to effectively confront Western incursions. In the history of all the popular rebellions the name of the White Lotus appears and disappears. They have been linked with the famous Shaolin Temple of Chan Buddhism, reputedly where Chinese martial arts originated, and the Shaolin monks who took a blood oath to resist the Ch’ing dynasty.

After the failure of the two great insurrections of the late eighteenth century, the White Lotus was the victim of violent persecution. In 1813 White Lotus members called the Eight Diagrams (named after geometrical figures used in Taoist divination) nearly took over the Forbidden City in Beijing. The Society of Heaven and Earth or Triads absorbed much from the White Lotus tradition, and is sometimes regarded as its successor. Persecuted and hunted down by government forces, White Lotus initiates either organized new societies under new names or assimilated with the Triads.

All these secret fraternities while clearly united in one political aim summed up in the slogan, “Overthrow the Ch’ing and restore the Ming,” also had their core mystical elements and ceremonial rites. They believed in, and taught, occult techniques to their members, among them the use of ‘magic amulets’ and numerology. J.S.M. Ward, an early twentieth century British expert on secret societies and bishop of an esoteric Christian community, concluded that,

“the Hung or Triad Society seems justly entitled to claim that it is a lineal descendant of the Ancient Mysteries. Its signs are of primeval antiquity…”

Bishop Ward published an exhaustive study of Triad practices, documenting the striking similarities to those of many other secret organizations. At this point it is worth commenting on a strange connection between the secret societies of the Far East and Western esotericism. In the 1880s a young French aristocrat deserted the Foreign Legion in Indochina to join a network of secret societies, the T’ien-ti hui and the Bac Lieu. These Triads were of Chinese origin and viewed as Taoist societies. Count Albert de Pouvourville (1861–1940) thus described his membership in the Triads as a “Taoist initiation.”

On his return to Paris, de Pouvourville became a successful writer and journalist, publishing under his Taoist initiate’s name Matgioi. In his writings he condemned French colonial policy in Southeast Asia and explored Chinese and Vietnamese history. He also undertook important translations of Taoist texts. At the same time Albert de Pouvourville, the Taoist secret society initiate, joined the Gnostic Church in Paris and was consecrated a bishop with the spiritual name of Tau Simon. Around 1904 he launched the journal La Voie, and published Les Enseignements secrets de la Gnose (The Secret Teachings of Gnosis).

Stanislas Guaita, another French writer and occultist, was strongly influenced by de Pouvourville, as was Rene Guenon who acknowledged him as “one of my Masters” in 1918. Through Count de Pouvourville, Guenon received a Taoist initiation and was led to write his own studies of the metaphysics of the Taoist tradition.

By the start of the twentieth century China’s secret society networks had grown into a considerable force. They had long experience of resistance to the imperial bureaucrats and could rely on the support of the peasants and the poor.

Writing in 1908, a young Chinese radical living in exile in Paris noted how throughout the Chinese Empire there existed, “secret revolutionary associations whose importance in the history of China has been great and whose activity in the contemporary [revolutionary] movement is considerable.”

The hated Ch’ing dynasty continued on until 1911 when it was overthrown by Dr. Sun Yat Sen’s Republican Party, with the considerable aid of the Triads. vA Triad member of long standing, Sun Yat Sen had made use of the secret society networks to recruit supporters, raise funds, and disseminate propaganda on behalf of the Republican cause.

The 1911 Revolution fulfilled one of the Triad’s traditional aims – “Overthrow Ch’ing.” On a visit to the tombs of the Ming emperors, China’s first president declared that the Ch’ing had finally been dethroned. Mao Zedong is known to have been a keen student of Chinese history particularly China’s numerous peasant uprisings. Mao studied the structure and role of secret societies in these tumultuous events, and used this knowledge in building the Chinese Communist Party and waging a successful guerrilla war against both the Japanese invaders and the right-wing forces of Chiang Kai-shek.

In these struggles Chairman Mao appealed directly to the ‘revolutionary spirit’ of the secret societies, urging them to join the ant-Japanese resistance and work for the liberation of China.

By Mehmet Sabeheddin, New Dawn Magazine; | Image: Chinese Royal Dragon and the Star of the “Gods” | References:

1. Jean Chesneaux, Secret Societies in China in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries;
2. Jean Chesneaux, Peasant Revolts in China, 1840-1949;

Chronology of China Related Events below:


Study Shows Christians Continue to be the Most Persecuted Religion with 90,000 Christians Killed for their Beliefs Worldwide in 2016

Christians continued to be the most persecuted group across the globe in 2016, according to a study. The upcoming report from Italian-based Center for Studies on New Religions, determined that 90,000 Christians were killed for their beliefs worldwide last year and nearly a third were at the hands of Islamic extremists like ISIS. Others were killed by state and non-state persecution, including in places like North Korea. “U.S. policy has not had a strategy for specifically addressing the persecution of Christians,” Ryan Mauro, national security analyst for the Clarion Project, told “For example, very few people are even ...
Read More

Obama Quietly Signs The “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Into Law

From ZeroHedge: Late on Friday of Christmas weekend 2016, with the US population embracing the upcoming holidays and oblivious of most news emerging from the administration, Obama quietly signed into law the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which authorizes $611 billion for the military in 2017. In a statement, Obama said that: Today, I have signed into law S. 2943, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.” This Act authorizes fiscal year 2017 appropriations principally for the Department of Defense and for Department of Energy national security programs, provides vital benefits for military personnel and their families, and ...
Read More

Rancher Levoy Finicum Murdered by FBI and Oregon State Troopers

Patriot and American hero, Levoy Finicum, who stood up to the fed's for their massive land grabbing and bullying of small ranchers, was murdered by FBI and Oregon state troopers who tried to cover up the murder. The Hammond's unknowingly reside on Uranium, metal, and mineral rich land according to a recent study by renowned terra firma researcher Dutchsinse, land that was promised to Russia by the Clinton's in exchange for big donations to the corrupt Bill & Hillary Foundation that has been a pay-to-play slush fund for their first class travels, paying off Bill's rape victims, paying large salaries to ...
Read More

Abrupt & Mysterious Closing of Several Walmart Stores

At least five Walmart stores throughout the country announced that they were closing for up to six months with little to no warning (it turns out there were many more), in some cases without even letting the city know, leaving thousands of people without jobs and sparking widespread theories as to the real reason for the abrupt closures - particularly coinciding with the Jade Helm 15 military exercises that many believe are to prepare military and law enforcement, and condition American citizens, for martial law in the U.S.. Walmart said the closures were plumbing related, but city officials say no ...
Read More

Chinese Sesame ‘Credit’ System Unveiled. Point Reward System for Government Compliance

Ant Financial introduced a universal credit score, where everybody in China is measured by how well you manage credit, and how well your political opinions are in line with Chinese official opinions, and even whether your friends’ are. Initially voluntarily, the system becomes mandatory in 2020 with sanctions for the 'less obedient'. China’s largest social networks have partnered with the country’s Communist government to create a credit score system that will measure how obedient its citizens are, a chilling prospect that could one day arrive in America if social justice warriors get their way. Entitled ‘Sesame Credit’, the program, ...
Read More

Chinese Activist Cao Shunli Dies, after UN Betrayal and Detention Without Medical Assistance by the Chinese Communist Dictatorship

Her name in Chinese means “smooth,” but her life, which ended on March 14, 2014, had been anything but smooth. On September 14, 2013, Cao Shunli was disappeared in the Exit & Entry area of Beijing Capital International Airport where she was en route to Geneva to attend human rights training. It wasn’t until late October when her arrest was confirmed. As reported by The New American, six months prior to her arrest, UN human-rights officer Emma Reilly ...had reported to the top UN human-rights official at the time that another senior UN official, Eric Tistounet, had been giving ...
Read More

China passes Mental Health Law Legalizing Caging & Drugging of Political Dissidents whom Psychiatry will Label ‘Mentally Ill’

On October 26, 2012, after working on a draft law for close to 27 years, China finally passed its first Mental Health Law; that law took effect on May 1, 2013. Hopes were that the new law would change the political psychiatry of caging, drugging, or both to political dissidents and the lack of care  for the actual mentally ill. Neither of those has changed since the law went into effect. In “Cage People,” the Chinese reporter estimates that in Hebei Province alone 100,000 'mentally ill' individuals are kept in cages as their only form of treatment.  Although the ...
Read More

Doctors Slam Big Pharma for Price Gouging Cancer Patients

A group of over 120 cancer doctors released a joint position paper condemning America’s pharmaceutical industry. The cancer specialists accuse the drug industry of ‘profiteering’, ‘price gouging’ and even being ‘immoral’. The group of doctors insists that Big Pharma is charging patients over $100,000 for life-saving drugs that cost only a few dollars to manufacture. Consider the following statistic from Yahoo Health the day the report was released, ‘Of 12 new cancer drugs that received FDA approval last year, 11 of them cost in excess of $100,000 a year—prices that the specialists attack as “astronomical,” “unsustainable,” and maybe even immoral ...
Read More

Whistleblower Emma Reilly Reports to Top UN Officials that Sr. UN Official, Eric Tistounet, had been Giving the Beijing Dictatorship Names of Chinese Human Rights Activists

As early as 13 February 2013, UN human-rights officer Emma Reilly reported to the top UN human-rights official at the time that another senior UN official, Eric Tistounet, had been giving the Beijing dictatorship the names of Chinese human-rights advocates who were planning to attend a session of the UN “Human Rights Council” in Geneva examining the Communist Chinese regime's human-rights record. Reilly believed that giving the names of those activists to the brutal dictatorship, which has a long history of mass murder and brutal persecution of dissidents, would put them in danger and potentially prevent them from appearing ...
Read More

Billionaire Globalist Puppet, George Soros, Openly Discusses the Coming New World Order

In the video below, George Soros (György Schwartz) talks about "the creation of a New World Order"; discusses the need for a "managed decline" of the U.S. dollar and he talks at length of the global need for a true world currency; that the "new world order" will be a healthy, if painful [violent] adjustment"; and that "China will be the 'engine driving it forward and the U.S. will be actually a drag that is being pulled along through a gradual decline in the dollar.'" ...
Read More

Hillary Clinton presented an Ethics Statement to the U.S. Senate Promising not to involve The Clinton Foundation in any way in the business of the U.S. State Department.”

Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin: “For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party….” They violated that agreement almost immediately. They took multi-million dollar donations from foreign governments and businesses that had interests before the State Department. Those were never disclosed. According to Bloomberg, there was ...
Read More

Zbigniew Brzinski’s Chatham House Speech: “Today It Is Infinitely Easier to Kill a Million People, Than to Control a Million People.”

(Zbigniew Brzinski - Audience applauses) Ladies and Gentlemen, Robin. Thank you very much for your as always elegant and eloquent introduction. I've heard him many times when he was running the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and if anything his eloquent and elegant has increased ever since he's been rehabilitated in the society here. (Audience laughs; ah ah ah...) I am also delighted to speak under the sponsorship of the Whitehead lecture series. John Whitehead whom I've been privileged to know for many years. I'll not talk about at length but it is advised to say, ...
Read More

WHO Issued a Global Alert Warning Through Asia for Virus Causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Were Industrial Poisons the Real Cause for the SARS Scare?

On March 15, 2003 the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a global alert warning of a new virus spreading through Asia and causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), a potentially fatal disease, similar to pneumonia. Photos from China depicting ballet dancers and bridal parties wearing white masks appeared in western newspapers while health departments across the country issued notices to hospitals detailing the symptoms of the new virus and asking for immediate notification of suspect cases. Until the global alert, reports referred to an “unknown virus” first striking in Guangdong Province, China, although some reports place the origin in ...
Read More

Daniel Dutko, who Headed the DNC Fundraising Effort when Thousands of Dollars were Illegally Funneled from China in Exchange for Technology, Has Fatal Mtn Biking Accident

Daniel Dutko, 54, the co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee fundraising effort, Leadership 2000, reportedly died from head injuries in a mountain biking accident in Aspen. Authorities said Dutko was not wearing a helmet and hit his head on the pavement twice. He was in Aspen for a fundraiser attended by President Clinton. Dutko had also been vice chairman of finance for the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1995. Dutko served as vice chairman of finance for the DNC in 1996, when thousands of dollars were reportedly funneled from a Chinese military officer to Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign. In that same year, ...
Read More

ChinaGate Fundraising Scandal: Traitorous Clintons Sells Nuclear Missiles and Satellite Technology to Russia for Campaign Dollars

The Chinagate fundraising scandal was a campaign finance controversy in 1996 in which the Clinton's illegally took money from foreign governments and military establishments. Like the Nixon administration, however, it was impossible to get the government to investigate itself, at least to any acceptable or just conclusion before the Clinton's term of office was up. Hillary Clinton was much involved in the transfer of America’s most sensitive technology, including but not limited to nuclear missile and satellite technology, apparently in exchange for millions of dollars in contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election effort and the Democratic National Committee. From ...
Read More

Former President of National Organization of Women (NOW): “I consider the Chinese government’s policy (1-child policy) among the most intelligent in the world.”

When asked about China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard, former head of the National Organization of Women (NOW), admitted in an interview, "I consider the Chinese government's policy (1-child policy) among the most intelligent in the world." - National Conference. Cincinnati, Ohio. July 22, 1989."Molly's [Yard] Keynote" ...
Read More

Tiananmen Square Political Protests and Massacre in Beijing, China

Most people in the western world remember the Tiananmen Square Massacre this way: Students protest for democracy in Beijing, China, in June of 1989. Chinese government sends troops and tanks to Tiananmen Square. Student protesters are brutally massacred. In essence, this is a fairly accurate depiction of what happened around Tiananmen Square, but the situation was much longer-lasting and more chaotic than this outline suggests. The protests actually started in April of 1989, as public demonstrations of mourning for former Communist Party Secretary General Hu Yaobang. A high government official's funeral seems like an unlikely spark for pro-democracy demonstrations ...
Read More

David Rockefeller: “The Social Experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s Leadership is One of the Most Important and Successful in History.”

After a trip to China, David Rockefeller praised Mao Tse-tung who had slaughtered over 40 million people. His report, "From a China Traveler," highlights the goals presented in UN reports such as "The Commission on Global Governance" and UNESCO's Our Creative Diversity. Both focus on lofty ideals such as peace, harmony and unity in the communitarian "global" village -- a vision that demands absolute control and universal participation in facilitated small groups (modeled by the hierarchy of "soviets" or councils in Communist lands): "One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony.... Whatever the price of the Chinese ...
Read More

Alfred McCoy Publishes his Ground-Breaking Study, ‘The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Central America’.

"The full story of how Cold War politics and U.S. covert operations fueled a heroin boom in the Golden Triangle breaks when Yale University doctoral student Alfred McCoy publishes his ground-breaking study, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. The CIA attempts to quash the book." INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 (House of Representatives - May 07, 1998) The first book to prove CIA and U.S. government complicity in global drug trafficking, The Politics of Heroin includes meticulous documentation of dishonesty and dirty dealings at the highest levels from the Cold War until today. Maintaining a global ...
Read More

CFR Study No. 7: “…building a New International Order [which] must be Responsive to World Aspirations for Peace, [and] for Social and Economic Change”

In Study No. 7 Basic Aim of U.S. Foreign Policy, published by the CFR in November, 1959, they revealed their plans for the country: "The U.S. must strive to build a new international order ... (which) must be responsive to world aspirations for peace ... (and) for social and economic change...including states labeling themselves as 'Socialist' ... (and to) gradually increase the authority of the U.N.." They also advocated secret negotiations with Russia concerning disarmament, and increased foreign aid to China. The foreign policy of the CFR seemed to mirror that of the U.S. Communist Party, only because a ...
Read More

The Vietnam War Begins (Unofficially), but Why Would America get Involved in this Needless War?

The media depicted the war as a “quagmire” begun by “right-wing hawks” who wanted to stop the spread of communism.  They said the war was “unwinnable,” dragged out because the “hawks” were too proud to pull our troops out, our military having underestimated the determination of Ho Chi Minh’s forces. Here’s what the media omitted: The roots of the Vietnam disaster trace to World War II. At the “Big Three” conferences at Teheran and Yalta, President Roosevelt asked Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin if he would break his nonaggression pact with Japan and enter the Pacific war. Stalin agreed – ...
Read More

The Korean War: Another War that Served the Illuminati Agenda, but this Time Under the Control of the Communist United Nations

On June 25, 1950, Kim Il-sung, North Korea’s communist dictator, sent his troops to invade South Korea. American forces, fighting under UN authority, came to South Korea’s defense, in a bloody three-year war that ended in stalemate. But how did Kim Il-sung and the communists come to power in North Korea? U.S. foreign policy put them there, in a roundabout way. During World War II, the U.S. fought the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in Asia. The Soviet Union, then under Joseph Stalin’s brutal rule, was America’s “ally” during this war. The Soviets, however, only fought Germany; they ...
Read More

McCarthy: “6 Years Ago There Were 180,000,000 (USSR) & 1.625 Billion (Anti-communist)… Today… the Odds Have Changed from 9 to 1 in Our Favor to 8 to 5 Against Us”.

Senator Joseph McCarthy, at a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia: "Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out the peace — Dumbarton Oaks — there was within the Soviet orbit 180,000,000 people. Lined up on the anti-totalitarian side there were in the world at that time roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only 6 years later, there are 800,000,000 people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia--an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500,000,000. In other words, in less than 6 years the odds have changed from 9 ...
Read More

At the Opening of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in Peking, Mao Zedong Outlines the New Chinese Communist Government – Thanks to U.S. Assistance!

The September 1949 conference in Peking was both a celebration of the communist victory in the long civil war against Nationalist Chinese forces and the unveiling of the communist regime that would henceforth rule over China. Mao and his communist supporters had been fighting against what they claimed was a corrupt and decadent Nationalist government in China since the 1920s. In September, with cannons firing salutes and ceremonial flags waving, Mao announced the victory of communism in China and that “Our state system of the People’s Democratic Dictatorship is a powerful weapon for safeguarding the fruits of victory of ...
Read More

Map for a New World Order on 1941 Communist World Planning – The North American Union

In October of 1941, before Pearl Harbor, Philadelphia clock-maker Maurice Gomberg completed a communist world map of future regional unions, including a continental North American Union. The name Canada is not on that map. However, the former provinces are depicted as states, re-federated into a vast "United States of America" stretching to Greenland. Maurice Gomberg sympathized with the Communist Party of America (CPA). Interestingly, Canada's recent former leader of the Bloc Québécois, Gilles Duceppe, is a "former" Marxist-Leninist Maoist communist. In April of 2010, Duceppe toured Canada urging ALL the provinces to "secede" and become States. Then, on 30 ...
Read More