Alex Lo: A genocidal warmongering nation disguised as a democracy? From its inception to the present, the US rarely distinguishes between diplomacy and war. Today, it has ambassadors working in one-third of the world’s countries, but has special force operators active in three quarters of them
Peter Klevius: Yes, the pathological symbiosis between US and UK made both of them piracy states. However, the 1971 dollar theft planted the seed for a giant step on the rogue state ladder.
Some headlines re. UK's former colony, $-freeloader US desperate attacks on China, the world's oldest civilization. After all, the world's by far oldest pottery was made in China, as was the world's oldest millet and rice cultivation. Although Western definitions of a civilization are deliberately made to exclude China, antone who seriously dig into Chinese prehistory and history, will be convince that everything point to China being more advanced earler than Sumer - and probably also being the source of later development in the West.
Listen to Chai Ling, leader of the Tiananmen riots who wanted to provoke Chinese leadership "to shed blood" while she went to US.
Peter Klevius wrote:
* Even if some of the violent
rioters really believed that "democracy" would be better for China,
history now tells them how wrong they were. Moreover, just consider
dollar embezzler (1971-) US reaction if China had become even stronger
technologically, economically, politically and morally (if the latter is
even possible for a 1.4 billion country)? That wouldn't have extended
US stolen hegemony, right.
$-freeloader
US extreme anti-China cognitive, financial, militaristic warfare is
made possible with US 1971 stolen world dollar hegemony and is a crime
against humanity and most people are too busy/ignorant to understand the
danger of the cornered US - but instead fear China which offers best
consumer goods, infrastructure etc, without imposing its system as US
does!
Sadly, many haven't understood the enormity of US
financial fraud 1971. And US economists - and some stupid US puppets
called "allies" - just "explain" away how US as the only country in the
world can prosper and militarize the rest of the world despite constant
trade deficit. "We're just so good" is Bloomberg's and others answer!
When
US 1971 stole* the world dollar it could manipulate it as it wanted and
have the world pay for its trade deficit. However, China is now back
and challenges it with superior tech which makes consumers happy.
China's capitalist reform got severely hit 1988-89 because of US Feds
chock rate increase. That caused havoc in a still extremely vulnerable
China on its path out from Maoism.
*
1944 Bretton Woods "agreement" pegged the world dollar to US dollar
which was then pegged to gold under US Feds custodianship. 1971 US was
bankrupt and arbitrarily violated the gold connection but kept the
custody over the world dollar. Although it hit poor countries the most,
China was especially vulnerable because it was in an intensive
opening-up trade development following Deng Xiaoping's capitalist reform
policy.
Peter Klevius analysis
of the US controlled media massacre of the truth about the Tiananmen
square incident by neglecting cause and effect while producing
anti-China* smear.
* No, it's
not just CCP! Undemocratic Christian theocracy US uses Sinophobia as
synonymous with "democracy", well knowing that the absolute majority of
Chinese people don't share the US view on "democracy", although young
Chinese in the late 1980s realized the difference in living standard
between US and China after Deng Xiaoping opened up the China that Mao
had closed. So when US again manipulated the world dollar it hit hard
(up to 19% 1989 inflation from 7% 1987) on China's economy.
Peter
Klevius agrees with Klaus Schwab (WEF) who said "I respect China's
tremendous achievements … over the last forty years. China could act as a
role model for many countries, but in the end, each country should be
left to make its own decision regarding the system it wants to adopt. We
should be very careful in imposing systems
but the Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a
number of countries." Peter Klevius: Especially for US!
Wu'er Kaixi (aka Örkesh Dölet) Of Uyghur heritage from Xinjiang had a leading role during the 1989 protests.
Peter Klevius: What did he think about the old Uyghur jihad battle cry "kill the Han and the Hui"?
Summary
of Peter Klevius Tiananmen analysis: There were two distinct and
mutually exclusive groups of protesters who were not distinguishable by
their appearance.
The absolute
majority were peaceful protesters. However, the rest were intent for
violence, and their leaders even openly admitted that they wanted to
provoke PLA to also use violence "so the world could see it". But even
this wasn't enough. As critics of Chai Ling’s role in the movement
point to the infamous “last words” interview she gave to US
journalist Philip Cunningham on May 28, just days before the riots.
With the movement facing an uncertain future, a deeply pessimistic
and fearful Chai gave video testimony to Cunningham in which she
described her intention to leave the square, adding “I want to live”.
But, other students would have to stay until the square was “washed
with blood,” she said.
Much of the rioters brutality was the
result of Beijing’s decision on June 2 to send in unarmed soldiers to
clear the Square. The unarmed soldiers were set upon immediately by
rioters around the Square waiting for the chance to attack the soldiers.
Beijing’s armed battalions were sent in later.
US Embassy daily reports of what was happening at the time.
The US Embassy report for June 4 notes:
“the beating to death of a PLA soldier, who was in the first APC to
enter Tiananmen Square, in full view of the other waiting PLA soldiers,
appeared to have sparked the shooting that followed.”
So it was the rioters, not the government soldiers, that started the bloody confrontation.
State Department chroniclers continue their unbiased summary of events:
“.. the initial moves against the students suggested to many that the
Chinese leadership was still, as of the morning of June 3, committed to a
relatively peaceful resolution to the crisis.”
From there we go to:
“fascinating eyewitness accounts of the disorganized and confused
retreat of PLA soldiers from the center of Beijing after their advance
on Tiananmen Square was halted by crowds of demonstrators on the morning
of June 3.’ ..the soldiers were ridiculed by Chinese citizens and
scolded by elderly women who called them “bad boys” and “a disgrace to
the PLA.”
On the day after, on June 4, however: “thousands of
civilian (rioters - not peaceful protesters) stood their ground or
swarmed around military vehicles. APCs were set on fire, and
demonstrators besieged troops with rocks, bottles, and Molotov
cocktails.”
Media reports confirmed this rioters violence.
According to the Wall Street Journal of June 4:
“As columns of tanks and tens of thousands soldiers approached
Tiananmen many troops were set on by angry mobs … [D]ozens of soldiers
were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an
intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had
been beaten to death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a
bus. Another soldier’s corpse was strung at an intersection east of the
square.”
Even ABC, later to one-sidedly dramatize cruelties by
government forces, describes how in front of the Australian embassy a
PLA solder was beaten to death, disembowelled and left with his penis
stuck in his mouth.
But those who condemn government violence at
Tiananmen need to explain the seeming hatred of the government among
protesters that triggered Tiananmen events .
Chai
Ling, like many other Tianamen rioters became Christian and welcomed in
US. Listen to her video to measure her bloodthirstiness - and
cowardice.
The "tank man" hoax*
*
The photographer used Peter Klevius favorite film camera (before F4)
Nikon Fe2. 10 years earlier Peter Klevius bought a Nikon Fe because of
its fast (for fill in flash) titanium shutter, which also handled better
in cold than Canon's slow and cold sensitive fabric shutter. Moreover,
whereas Canon A1 was useless with low battery (which was also really
expensive), Nikon Fe (and Fe2) could still do B and 1/90 mechanically.
Double exposure and good depth and field control also helped. However,
the best thing was the wonderful metering system with both manual and
auto relative to each other on the side of the viewer.
Although
the "tank man" photo is authentic, its usage is almost never. As Peter
Klevius has always said: Cameras never lie - pictures do. And in this
case it's the presentation against a background on an extremely
distorted Western presentation of the "Tiananmen massacre", that
completely eliminates the "hero" against the "evil CCP" mantra - at a
time when CCP had abandoned everything Maoist.
Peter
Klevius was first reluctant to even mention the "tank man" in the post
because he thought most people already understood the silliness in it.
However, a brief check revealed that BBC and other fake media still uses
it deeply tendentiously and polemically. According to Peter Klevius,
the incident clearly shows that PLA had strong orders to be careful with
non-violent people no matter what they did. Otherwise any army would
hav just taken the guy for interrogation - as any police would have
done in any other country. Moreover, his strange behavior can only be
described as either mad or just joking in front of the crowd. There was
nothing to "protest" against - or did he want them to park on a normally
busy street, or even worse, return to Tiananmen square?!
1)
5 June 1989 everyone in Beijing knew that PLA wouldn't hurt non-violent
civilians. Yes, that happened accidently in the chaotic battle the day
before with the rioters who deliberately started the violence (already 3
June) against unarmed PLA soldiers whom they burned alive and hanged
etc. That the PLA may have used excessive force is in line with any army
in a similar situation. Just listen to Chai Ling and understand how
deliberate the provocations from the rioters side were. Btw, also check
the Waco siege and similar incidents in US.
2) It didn't happen at Tiananmen square, and the tanks were not going against protesters but just the contrary, i.e. back home.
3) Little, or nothing is publicly known of the man's identity or that of the commander of the lead tank.
4)
An endless list of "theories" have been put forward. Shortly after the
incident, London newspaper Sunday Express named him as "Wang Weilin"
(王维林), a 19-year-old student who was later charged with "political
hooliganism" and "attempting to subvert members of the People's
Liberation Army." This claim has been rejected by internal Chinese
Communist Party documents, which reported that they could not find the
man, according to the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human
Rights. One party member was quoted as saying: "We can't find him. We
got his name from journalists. We have checked through computers but
can't find him among the dead or among those in prison."
There
are several conflicting stories about what happened to him after the
"demonstration". In a speech to the President's Club in 1999, Bruce
Herschensohn, former deputy special assistant to US President Richard
Nixon, alleged that he was executed 14 days later; other sources alleged
he was executed by firing squad a few months after the Tiananmen Square
protests. In Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, Jan Wong
writes that she believes from her interactions with the government press
that they have "no idea who he was either" and that he is still alive
somewhere on the mainland. Another theory is that he escaped to Taiwan
and remains employed there as an archaeologist in the National Palace
Museum. This was first reported by the Yonhap news agency in South
Korea.
The Chinese government has made few
statements about the incident or the people involved. The government
denounced him as a "scoundrel" once on state television. In a 1990
interview with Barbara Walters, then-General Secretary of the Chinese
Communist Party Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man. Jiang
first stated (through an interpreter), "I can't confirm whether this
young man you mentioned was arrested or not", and then replied in
English, "I think [that he was] never killed." The government also
argued that the incident evidenced the "humanity" of the country's
military.
In a 2000 interview with Mike
Wallace, Jiang said, "He was never arrested." He then stated, "I don't
know where he is now." He also emphasized that the tank stopped and did
not run the young man over.
Cui
Guozheng, was an unarmed cook in the 348th Regiment of the 116th
Division. He was murdered by rioters because he did not stay close
enough with the other troops.
Peter Klevius started as an empty
origo/singularity whose existencecentrism (mind) now is the sum of his
experience with his surroundings and due synaptic adaptations, while
also constituting part of the surroundings of others. A canvas which
doesn't have a soul/self of its own but does reflect what it has
experienced and adapted to. However, the false impression of having a
"self", "free will" etc. rests on language, i.e. the use of the word 'I'
which animals and humans without language lack. As a human with
language you are in the same position as Peter Klevius, and together we
all (incl. non-language humans) make up the total existencecentrism of
humankind - and the key to a universal human with (negative) Human
Rights without irrational exceptions and impositions. So when Peter
Klevius talks/writes/acts, he does so against a background that includes
the latest synapses combinations in his brain as well as what his other
nerve signals bring to his thalamus from his body and other
surroundings.
Peter
Klevius (1981, 1992): The ultimate question ought to be: What is it
like to be a stone? There's no difference between human consciousness
polished through living, and the "consciousness" of a stone that has
been smoothly shaped in streaming water against other rocks, stones etc.
It started its "life" as a rugged piece of rock in a mountain and
adapted to its life in streaming water down hill, or perhaps as a piece
of rock falling on a beach and polished by waves.
How US robs the world
.
