Monday, 8 June 2015


Reportedly, the CIA and its friends provided weapons to certain Chinese (above) in order to provoke the events around Tiananmen Square on 3 June 1989. 

Photo: Jeff Widener / Associated Press / June 3, 1989. The USA's decades long war against China

The 'Tiananmen incident' began with the brutal murders of a number of soldiers (photo below).

According to The Vancouver Sun, 17 September 1992:

"The CIA had sources among protestors, as well as within China's intelligence services...

"For months before the June 3 attack on the demonstrators, the CIA had been helping student activists.."

The USA's decades long war against China

Gregory Clark, at the International Business Times, writes that the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre is a Myth: a British 'Black Information Operation'.

After 'CIA provocateurs' killed a number of soldiers, a number of citizens and students were killed near the Square by soldiers.

Outside a bus, the body of a soldier killed by the CIA's 'protestors'.

However, there was apparently no massacre in the square itself.

The story that Chinese troops machine-gunned hundreds of student protesters in the square has been discredited by:

1. Many witnesses there at the time - including a Spanish TVE television crew.

2. A Reuters correspondent.

3. Protesters themselves.

Protesters reportedly say that nothing happened in the Square other than a military unit entering and asking several hundred of those remaining to leave the Square late that night.

International Business Times / Wikileaks: no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square.

The BBC's John Simpson, who has links to MI6, was active in Beijing before the Tiananmen event, reportedly.

The 'fake' story of the massacre in the Square began with an article in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post.

The story was by an alleged protester whose whereabouts have never been ascertained and whose name is not known.

The New York Times then had the famous photo of a lone student allegedly trying to stop a row of army tanks from entering the Square.

The photo was actually taken a day after the riots, and showed the tanks moving away from the square.

International Business Times

Burned out Armored Personnel Carriers.

There were photos of burning 'buses' that had been used to carry troops.

Certain 'protestors' had used petrol bombs.

The soldier's buses were torched before any shooting began.

International Business Times


  1. Apparently the police confronted the protestors only having shields, but the students killed some of them. They were sons of the rich and they wanted capitalism so they could make a fortune. They were trying to start a civil war, which could have meant thousands, if not millions dying. They were not peaceful students. I put an article about this on the Guardian readers section but they removed it.

    Recently an opposition party Russian leader, whose party is backed is backed by CIA and US NGO's, and which has only about 2 or 3 support in Russia, wrote in the Guardian that his country had become a police state, and lots of readers wrote in shocked and horrified: Bad Putin!

    I wrote in to the Guardian with an official report which showed that since 9/11 the police in the US had shot 5000 people, but this article was written in 2013. I looked up on the internet and found that hardly anyone had been killed by Russian police. The Guardian removed my post in a jiffy.

    Here you can clearly see western propaganda at work. Headlines: 'Putin 's Russia has become a police state', but the bigger story is how US police shoot up a thousand people every year.


    Though the U.S. government does not have a database collecting information about the total number of police involved shootings each year, it’s estimated that between 500 and 1,000 Americans are killed by police officers each year. Since 9/11, about 5,000 Americans have been killed by U.S. police officers, which is almost equivalent to the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in the line of duty in Iraq. [2013].

  2. Eric X Li is a Chinese venture capitalist. In the TED video below he describes how 85% of the Chinese are happy with their political system. Ordinary Chinese get a lot of say in how local public services are run. To get to the top of the communist party it takes about 30 years of hard work and only the best reach the highest positions. Only about 5 of party officials at the top came from a privileged background, and getting to the top is all about meritocracy. Compare that to the US where only money and privilege can get you elected.

    Eric X Li doesn't say that the Chinese system is the best on, it is just the one that works best for china and the Chinese people like it. Eric X Li says that the Chinese people are getting a bit annoyed at the US trying to impose its system on everyone else. They think the US system is not a fair system as it is not based on meritocracy, just on privilege.

    The Chinese are Woking hard to end corruption but the US system is built on corruption.

    The US talks about 'free markets' and 'let the market decide' but it only likes free markets when it wins. Russia supplies gas to Europe through the Ukraine, and Its gas is cheaper than anyone else's so it deserves to win those markets according to theory, but the US is blowing half a ton of crap out of the Ukraine to steal Russia's European gas markets.

    And there is the BRICS new development bank. If the world prefers this bank to the IMF and World bank then free market theory says let the market decide, but no, the US,which has been the biggest proponent of free markets, is intending to start a world war rather than let the free market ditch the petrol dollar which most of the world does not like.


    A Tale of Two Poetical Systems.

    It's a standard assumption in the West: As a society progresses, it eventually becomes a capitalist, multi-party democracy. Right? Eric X. Li, a Chinese investor and political scientist, begs to differ. In this provocative, boundary-pushing talk, he asks his audience to consider that there's more than one way to run a successful modern nation.

    1. Talking about meritocracy:

      You know, like George W Bush was an idiot. He failed in many ventures but his rich family always bailed him out and got him another job. He was once an alcoholic and did coke. People from poorer backgrounds would have never have got those sort of chances.

      He eventually became president of the US and killed millions of people in the Middle East. But Putin is the bad guy and China is the new rouge stare.

  3. The west made a lot out of Pusey Riot. It was pure propaganda. Pusey Riot are a bunch of anarchist degenerates who once held an orgy in public where one of the woman was pregnant. It wasn't a pretty site, more like Planet of the Apes.

    Then also they had a stunt where they went into a supermarket and a woman masturbated with a dead chicken. Children were present and in any western country they would have gone to prison, especially as they openly did this in front of children. But in Russia they got away with it. In another stunt they threw a load of kittens over a counter in a McDonald's. Imagine the outcry that would have occurred here?

    They have had a long list of public disturbance. If a punk bank had jumped up at the front of St Paul's shouting that Blair was a war criminal they would have soon got arrested. But Pusey Riot did this in Russia and the western press had a field day. And Madonna, Sting, and a whole load of western degenerate rock stars jumped in as well. Free speech was apparently being suppressed.

    Putin hoped they would only get a light sentence, but he didn't control the courts, he said. He also said that in a that if they had done this is a mosque in a Muslim country the police wouldn't have been able to move fast enough to protect them.

    I did find some videos of Pusey Riot's disgraceful acts but they kept leading to sex sites.

    1. Wondering how many of those hoes are Jewish or have Jewish connections in high places. I only know of one of them

    2. Apparently their leader is Jewish, and he complains about Russia's lack of freedom, but he never criticises Israel's illegal occupation of the Gaza strip and its suppression of freedom there. And he is not so much of an anarchist when back in Israel, either.