Larry Romanoff

Larry Romanoff is a Canadian writer living in Shanghai. He tends to approve of China and the Chinese. He has no compunction about abusing American politicians. He is sufficiently important for the Wall Street Journal to publish knocking copy as Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Claims It Began in the U.S. Nobody has to believe the WSJ but it is a serious newspaper read by a lot of people with power and influence. This particular piece is misleading; Covid-19 was an American attack on China.

 

Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Claims It Began in the U.S.—and Beijing Is Buying It - WSJ  [By James T. Areddy Updated March 26, 2020 1:46 pm ET
QUOTE
SHANGHAI—A Canadian writer has added fuel to a tiff between the U.S. and China over a fringe theory claiming the coronavirus originated in the U.S., an assertion that is widely denounced. Lawrence Delvin Romanoff, who is in his late 70s, produces essays that generally praise China and criticize the U.S. One essay, published in early March by a Montreal-based website that carries alternative views of events, was heartily endorsed in a tweet by Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry who has nearly half a million Twitter followers.

“China’s Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US?” the essay’s headline read. The website that published it, the Center for Research on Globalization, calls itself an independent research and media organization. It didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Zhao has used the essay as part of Beijing’s effort to reorient the discussion over the coronavirus, suggesting the U.S. military introduced it to China through an international sports competition held in Wuhan, China, last year in which American troops participated.

The essay, which paraphrases other media reports, neither cites fresh evidence nor definitively answers the question in its headline.

According to a citation in Mr. Romanoff’s essay, the suggestion of U.S. military involvement appears to be based on a few lines from the English-language website of People’s Daily, a Chinese government-run news outlet, that describe “various conspiracy theories on Chinese cyberspace” about the coronavirus.

The Pentagon has denounced the notion of U.S. military involvement as “false & absurd conspiracy theories.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized it as “outlandish rumors” aimed at whitewashing China’s role in the pandemic.

After Mr. Zhao and other Chinese officials endorsed the essay, the State Department on March 13 summoned China’s ambassador in the U.S., Cui Tiankai, to lodge a formal protest.

But that didn’t stop Mr. Zhao from perpetuating the theory.

Earlier this week on Twitter, Mr. Zhao quoted a series of tweets by a user calling herself “the lizard king” that mused on whether the coronavirus had already arrived in the U.S. late last year. The user later dismissed her musings as “my shower thoughts,” adding: “Literally nothing I said had any scientific merit. Pls stop taking it seriously.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian endorsed a denounced theory that the U.S. military perhaps introduced the coronavirus to China during a global military sports competition in Wuhan. Photo: Andy Wong/Associated Press

By then, Mr. Zhao’s tweets had gone viral, circulated by other Chinese diplomats.

China’s state-run media has promoted other assertions that the coronavirus could have appeared elsewhere before it was detected in China, including a comment from a professor in Italy stating that as early as November its doctors faced a “very strange pneumonia, very severe, particularly in old people.”

The professor, Giuseppe Remuzzi, told The Wall Street Journal he was mischaracterized and that “there is no doubt” the coronavirus originated in China.

Scientists—including Chinese virologists—have said that the virus probably jumped to humans from an animal and is genetically similar to strains seen in bats that inhabit China’s southwest. Five virologists in the U.S. and Europe told the Journal they have seen no convincing evidence that the virus originated anywhere but China.

“Beijing is seeking to sow doubt about the origins of the coronavirus as a way of distracting rising public anger over the outbreak,” said Fergus Ryan, an analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

At the same time, China has restricted foreign reporters covering the outbreak and its origins. Both China and the U.S. in recent weeks have expelled staff members of the other nations' media outlets in a tit-for-tat retaliation.

Known as Larry, Mr. Romanoff has long expressed affection for China, according to a review by the Journal of his published work. But before he began posting essays he had a multifarious background.

In 1998, a court in Canada said Mr. Romanoff pleaded guilty to a scheme that involved selling used stamps as new ones to raise money for a Mother Teresa charity. The former advertising-firm owner subsequently registered a business in Calgary’s Chinatown and an internet site to sell recordings of a group of 7-year-old singers called the Bear Children’s Choir of Hong Kong. The website proclaimed their songs “the finest Chinese children’s music produced in the world today.”

Larry Romanoff, shown in 2001, began writing political commentary favorable to China on a website he set up to distribute recordings of a Hong Kong children’s choir.Photo: David Moll/Calgary Herald

“Some Canadian guy only speaking English to sell Cantonese music is a little weird,” recalled Stewart Chan, manager of the Hong Kong ensemble, who shipped Mr. Romanoff 100 CDs to sell after Mr. Romanoff insisted.

The author moved to Shanghai in the mid-2000s, according to his online postings, and converted the site to sell Chinese cigars and self-publish dozens of essays that generally took China’s side in global topics.

On his site, which has since been taken down, Mr. Romanoff argued, for instance, that any shooting by the People’s Liberation Army during the protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989 was unrelated to pro-democracy student demonstrators, but rather in self-defense after “thugs” and “anarchists” attacked soldiers.

In a biography attached to some of his writing, Mr. Romanoff describes himself as a retired management consultant and businessman living in Shanghai who is at work on a 10-volume series “generally related to China and the West.”

Mr. Romanoff claims he has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s prestigious Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior executive M.B.A. classes. But officials at both of Fudan’s executive M.B.A. programs said they are unfamiliar with Mr. Romanoff. These officials also said they don’t recognize Larry Long, a name used on a LinkedIn profile registered to one of Mr. Romanoff’s email addresses that also cites him being a “visiting professor” at Fudan since 2006, around the time his website became Shanghai-focused.

Latest on the Coronavirus

Mr. Romanoff didn’t respond to questions sent to an email address linked to his essays. Efforts to reach him through family and friends were unsuccessful and the Journal couldn’t locate his whereabouts.

In his essay about the coronavirus this month, Mr. Romanoff suggested U.S. soldiers may have introduced the pathogen to Wuhan, the Chinese city where it was discovered, while they competed in the Military World Games, weeks before the previously unknown virus was detected.

The essay went online amid accusations by Trump administration officials that coverups in China had slowed its response to the coronavirus. Chinese officials latched on to Mr. Romanoff’s essay as an alternative version of how the outbreak began.

On March 12, Mr. Zhao, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, stated on Twitter: “It might be the US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan.”

The following day, Mr. Zhao linked to Mr. Romanoff’s essay on Twitter and wrote: “This is so astonishing that it changed many things I used to believe in. Please retweet to let more people know about.
UNQUOTE
The WSJ is not an admirer. Larry has posted on unz.com. The readers are not impressed.

 

https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/a-search-for-truth-and-understanding/

A Search for Truth and Understanding, by Larry Romanoff ex Unz Review very good
QUOTE
For much of my life I have been curious about the world, not so much wanting to know things as to understand them and, at various times I would attempt to satisfy that desire – usually by devouring every available book on the subject. I would read every book at the library that seemed useful and, since I traveled a lot at the time, I would visit every bookstore within reach in every city and buy every book that seemed to know things I didn’t know. I once had a library of many thousands of books.

As one example, I was at one time fascinated with gemstones and pearls – for no good reason that I can recall, but I followed my pattern and read and bought everything I could find. Certainly, I acquired knowledge during that process. I can easily detect flaws in a cut stone or a string of natural pearls and I am competent to challenge Tiffany on the tepid color of what they sell as emeralds. Still, in the real world I am an amateur, perhaps knowing a bit more than an average layman, but of little or no consequence to anyone in the field. Again, it wasn’t so much a search for knowledge as a quest for understanding. I wasn’t so much looking to know everything as to “understand” the world of gemstones and pearls. Nevertheless, the process served its purpose and would qualify as research.

But there is a pitfall here. When we are researching the natural world, we are mostly in a context of fact. The sciences, geography, the physical and material manifestations of nature, are largely if not often entirely factual. They don’t lie to us. There is little room for bias or opinion in what happens when we drop a bowling ball or in questions of the formation and growth of crystals or pearls. Thus, reading books written by experts or professionals can teach us all we want to know and give us all the understanding we desire.

However, things change when we enter the world of man, or at least that part affected by man, because we are no longer dealing with factual manifestations of nature but have entered a world of interpretation and opinion, perhaps as many different of these as there are men to express them. And now, the traditional method of research to acquire knowledge will fail us because we are no longer being taught but indoctrinated.

As an easy example, we can consider the book “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer, published in 1960 by Simon & Schuster in the US, the winner of awards and promoted to the ends of the earth like few books in the history of publishing. There may be few people of at least two generations who haven’t read this book, and for many it may be the only book they have ever read on the subject.

The problem is that we were not reading a book on the history of Germany and the Wars; we were instead reading an instruction manual of 1,249 pages telling us what William Shirer wanted us to think about Germany and the Wars. And that is not the same thing. Shirer’s book is biased at best, with a story line scaffolding unrelated to Germany. It isn’t quite a fairy tale because it does contain many facts, but it also twists many facts, omits many others of great consequence, weaves threads that barely exist into thick carpets, states idle opinion as fact, and interprets all of it to fit the pre-determined story line. It was Shirer who propagated the now-ridiculed idea that the Germans used Jewish fat to make soap, and he was almost entirely responsible for the delusion (obtained from Wiesenthal) that the Nazis claimed the Germans were a “Master Race”, a claim he must have known was a complete lie. In some ways, it is closer to a work of fiction than to factual history and Shirer closer to a snake-oil salesman than an author.

This is not unique to Shirer. Every history book is guilty of these accusations to some degree, and virtually all interpretations are clouded by ideology or preference or simply personal belief. They needn’t be deliberately dishonest to contain these flaws; being written by a human is often sufficient. If we consider Carroll Quigley’s tome “Tragedy and Hope”, we find the same issues. I have great respect for Quigley, and I would say that 75% of that book is accurate and valuable. But the remaining 25% is almost as bad as Shirer. It seemed to me that when directly addressing the issues of Germany and the Wars, an automatic pilot assumed control of Quigley’s mind and inserted a framework of “Germany bad” into which all facts now required insertion. Similarly, Noam Chomsky, another individual with my respect, and who has written much of great value to humanity, also has great blind spots.

I have read many books that resemble a Master’s or Ph.D. thesis in that they are simply a survey of the available literature, telling us what many others have written on that subject, but in many cases contributing little to the store of knowledge or understanding. This wouldn’t be so bad if all the disputed elements were included along with many of the so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ but this process is proscribed by the institutions. Thus, in a search for truth in history, these are the worst places to begin.

There is another complicating factor in that we humans often have a tendency to believe that if we know something, we know everything. We needn’t look very far to find a writer of one good article to suddenly believe he can write with authority on any topic. It works in reverse too, in that we too easily believe that if a person knows much on one subject, they must be an expert on everything. It is both ludicrous and painful to watch a news anchor sincerely requesting the opinion of a Steve Jobs on the Amazon rain forest – simply on the basis of the man having designed a cool mobile phone. And what does a 16 year-old Greta what’s-her-name know about anything?

What do we do now? If I am a beginner and want to learn about the history of Germany, where do I turn? Every accepted history book on the subject will have multiple serious flaws and I am in no position to know what they are or where they lie. Worse, if I read one book on any historical topic, Shirer’s Third Reich, for example, I may be colored forever by what I first read and it may prove exceedingly difficult to change my mind later in spite of discovering irrefutable evidence that contradicts my early-formed opinions and beliefs. I have no way to defend myself.

Fortunately, my interest in history was oblique rather than frontal, and I accidentally acquired much of my early education not from reading all the accepted and politically-correct textbooks, but from browsing second and third-tier websites, reading brief articles – especially those with reader comments, and similar sources. Eventually I’d seen enough of that and began doing independent research on small specific topics that interested me – such as the possibility of prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, my interest awakened from the persistent references to that prior knowledge indeed existing at the highest levels but not communicated to Pearl Harbor. None of this information appeared anywhere in respected history texts, and probably not in disrespected ones either, yet it has proven to be true.

I followed this developed pattern from that point onward, deliberately avoiding the accepted textbooks on a subject of my interest and instead pursuing other sources first. I will admit quickly that many, or even most, of those sources are at least partially if not entirely rubbish, items written by flakes, conspiracy theorists, amateurs, the uneducated, the great unwashed, the simple-minded and others similar. As well, much of it, and especially including reader comments, consists of deliberate misinformation. But not all, and in this simple fact lies a great salvation.

From perusing all these secondary and tertiary sources, I would learn which historical facts were generally accepted, and which were in dispute, and on most “facts of history” I would also encounter multiple frames of reference, hundreds of differing opinions and interpretations, and some genuine gold nuggets. Often, these nuggets would consist of little more than a brief comment in passing from an interested reader, but they would awaken me to an aspect of an historical event that I didn’t know existed.

And from all of this, it was eventually not difficult to identify the ideologues and trolls, and to sort out the rubbish from the rest. I might still not know the truth of an historical event, but I would have many facts, knowing which in dispute and which not, and I would generally know the framework of an event, one which had inadvertently been vetted by potentially thousands of people, the intelligent among them. Now, when I read Shirer’s book, it becomes immediately evident to me that he mixes opinion and fact, that important accepted facts are simply omitted from his tale, and I can see quickly that, however learned the man may appear to be, I am in fact being propagandised instead of being taught history. I am now able to defend myself.

These comments may seem strange to an average reader, but their wisdom in application is well-proven. If we look at the comments on websites such as this one, probably 95% are either off the topic or badly-flawed in some way, but we can also recognise the few intelligent and reasoned comments that are free of bias and opinion and that add not only to our knowledge but our understanding.

This latter point deserves explanation. I categorise knowledge and understanding as two very different things, similar to one seeing the trees or the forest. There are many books written on Germany or the War in the Pacific where the author clearly has a great deal of knowledge of the subject but, equally as clearly, doesn’t really understand anything about what happened or why it happened the way it did. As I wrote at the beginning, I was not so much on a search for knowledge as a quest for understanding. There are at least hundreds of thousands if not hundreds of millions of people who know more about Germany and the Wars than do I, but my overall understanding of those events might not surrender to so many of those people.

In this above context I could mention David Irving, an historian almost without equal, at least in some respects. And yet while his knowledge is admittedly extreme it is clear there are some things he didn’t understand very well. I don’t fault the man. He adhered rigidly to original documents, reporting faithfully what he discovered and documenting it beyond reproach, yet due to that same rigor he occasionally became so focused on the trees he was missing the forest.

As one example, from his documents, he concluded that about 150,000 to 200,000 people died in Dresden, but he missed many factors outside his ‘original documentation’ that should have led him to conclude the toll was many times higher. For one thing, the Americans bombed every town within traveling range of Dresden, driving refugees to that city, and bombed every alternative road and railroad that might have permitted passage in other directions. There is ample evidence that perhaps 600,000 German refugees flocked to Dresden in time for the final attack, and many reports not in Irving’s original papers that they strafed every column of refugees heading to Dresden but didn’t arrive, including ambulance convoys. They even strafed all the animals in the Dresden zoo. It is true that the final number of fatalities is in dispute, but it is arguably very much larger than Irving indicated. If he had dwelt more on the overall picture of the night-bombing and incineration-bombing, and considered all the surrounding factors, he might have come to a very different conclusion albeit one not so firmly documented as all his other pages. I would argue the man had, at least in some instances, knowledge without understanding.

It is very easy for us to find a history book on almost any topic that catches our interest, succumb to reading it and, for whatever reason, convince ourselves that we have read “the definitive work” on that subject and to then stubbornly close our minds to even the most glaring of contradictory facts, insisting to the death that we know everything about that topic when in reality much of what we “know” is either irrelevant or just plain wrong, and may omit some of the most important elements that entirely change the picture. It is not easy for any of us to maintain an open mind, especially on historical topics which evoke emotion – as most are prone to do.

I cannot end without admitting that what I have presented here is a digital image, a black and white portrait of information, while our real world is analogue – infinite shades of grey. The world of science is largely, but not entirely, factual. The world of physics, especially dealing with relativity, is sometimes overloaded with opinion and bias, as can astronomy be sometimes. And in the world of man we can identify works of minimal bias that provide trustworthy foundations for our knowledge and understanding.

Still, the generalisations hold, and for both readers and writers this requires caution. Neither can believe everything they read, but the onus is on the researcher and writer to do one’s best to retain honesty and integrity, to not classify opinion as fact, to recognise and admit theories that are in dispute and, most importantly, to either search for truth or not search at all. In my view, it is unconscionable for an author or a respected media columnist (or a famous and admired actor) to then use that platform of respect as a shill to propagandise and indoctrinate trusting readers with tales that are factually false. I could name some very big names here, and they wouldn’t like it. And for readers, the task is to avoid the temptation to look only for articles or facts that agree with our predilections and to face the possibility that everything we think may be wrong. As someone wrote, “It would be better to not know so many things than to know so many things that are wrong.”

Let’s close with one live example from the COVID-19 world:

Several authors have published articles on this platform eulogizing Sweden as the poster country for virus control, passionately praising the Swedes for their penetrating discernment and good sense in leaving the country open, and using this as irrefutable proof that quarantines and isolation are counter-productive. Simultaneously, a great many commenters offer Sweden as proof that lockdowns are detrimental to the public health.

But here are the facts:

Country Population Infections Deaths
Sweden 10,000,000 350,000 8,000
Denmark 5,000,000 120,000 1,000
Norway 5,000,000 40,000 400
Finland 5,000,000 30,000 500

I have rounded off all the numbers for ease of reading; the roundings are inconsequential to the result. You can see clearly from the statistics that while Sweden has twice the population of the other three Nordic Countries, it has between 3 times and 10 times the number of virus infections and between 8 times and 16 times the number of deaths. The other three countries imposed quarantines and other measures while Sweden did not. So, on what basis can Sweden be used as an ideal for anything? It cannot be. On this basis of comparison, Sweden is a disaster.

What conclusions do we draw from this? Mainly that neither the writers nor the readers are interested in the truth, but are instead focused only on selling an ideological point of view on the uselessness of quarantines, undeterred by the fact that their premises are not only false but ridiculously so. Few are unaware of the true statistics, and none apparently care. And yet this is the kind of “research” that makes its way daily into the MSM and annually into the history books. It is all indoctrination, propaganda, and salesmanship, its relationship with the truth tenuous at best and often totally non-existent – as in this case.

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 28 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English-language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. His full archive can be seen at https://www.moonofshanghai.com/ and http://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com.
UNQUOTE
Is Larry right or wrong? Some of his claims are checkable. 

 

https://mailstar.net/Larry-Romanoff.html

https://mailstar.net/Larry-Romanoff.html

Larry Romanoff lists the sins of White America, but airbrushes China's sins ex Mail Star - some background on Larry - it claims that he is wrong about Wuhan
QUOTE
Discussion with Larry Romanoff on White America, the Jewish Lobby and the China Lobby

by Peter Myers.

Date May 28, 2020; update June 12, 2020.

My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/Larry-Romanoff.html

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

(1) Larry Romanoff claims Covid-19 is a US bioweapon directed against China & Iran
(2) Discussion with Larry Romanoff
(3) Barry Kissin says Romanoff's footnotes do not back up his claims

(1) Larry Romanoff claims Covid-19 is a US bioweapon directed against China & Iran

Larry Romanoff is a retired Canadian businessman of Russian descent, living in Shanghai, where he was a visiting professor at Fudan University. His writings, being quite anti-American and pro-Chinese, have found a home at Global Research, where he is frequent contributor. He denies the Tiananmen massacre of 1989, and seems to have persuaded others to deny it too.

A number of his articles at Global Research claim that Covid-19 was a US attack on China.

Barry Kissin notes that Romanoff's claims were taken up by a spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry:

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/04/10/kissin-Romanoff/

Romanoff's Version of COVID-19 Conspiracy Doesn't Hold Up

By Barry Kissin (this article was rejected by GlobalResearch.ca)

On March 12, Zhao Lijian, deputy director of and spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry Information Department, issued two tweets, the first providing a link to Global Research's publication on March 4 of Larry Romanoff's "China's Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US?"[1] and the second providing a link to Global Research's publication on March 11 of Larry Romanoff's "COVID-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US."[2] Zhao says that these articles "changed many things I used to believe in" and should be read and retweeted.

On the same day, March 12, The Hill reported that "a spokesman for the Chinese government [Zhao Lijian] on Thursday promoted a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was brought to the city of Wuhan by the U.S. military. Taiwan News reported: "Coincidentally, Zhao's fellow foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang backed the conspiracy theory suggesting the virus was bio-engineered by the [U.S.]." On March 13, the New York Times published about Zhao Lijian's tweets in an article subtitled "After criticizing American officials for politicizing the pandemic, Chinese officials and news outlets have floated unfounded theories that the United States was the source of the virus." [3]
{endquote}

Kissin goes on to dissect Romanoff's evidence and show that his footnotes do not back up his claims (see item 3 below).

The Wall Street Journal has noted Romanoff's impact on Great Power politics:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/canadian-writer-fuels-china-u-s-tiff-over-coronaviruss-origins-11585232018

Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory Claims It Began in the U.S.- and Beijing Is Buying It

Chinese officials have endorsed a fringe theory that the virus came from the U.S., which American officials call absurd

By James T. Areddy

Updated March 26, 2020 1:46 pm ET

SHANGHAI - A Canadian writer has added fuel to a tiff between the U.S. and China over a fringe theory claiming the coronavirus originated in the U.S., an assertion that is widely denounced.

Lawrence Delvin Romanoff, who is in his late 70s, produces essays that generally praise China and criticize the U.S. One essay, published in early March by a Montreal-based website that carries alternative views of events, was heartily endorsed in a tweet by Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry who has nearly half a million...
{endquote}

I had a number of discussions with Larry Romanoff from mid-2018 to mid-2019. He broke off the contact because I refused to accept that the Tiananmen Massacre of 1989 never occurred.

Since then, he has become a major influence on the leftists at Global Research, persuading them that the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 did not occur, and that Covid-19 is a US bioweapon attack on China.

His portrayal of Western history and politics, whilst embarrassing to those who would rather not have their dirty linen exposed, is penetrating but one-sided. His portrayal of China's history in recent decades airbrushes the totalitarian aspects out of the picture.

I have released some details of the discussion between Romanoff and myself because his impact on world politics has made him a public figure, whose real agenda should be scrutinied.

Romanoff is part of the China Lobby. His strategy is to list all the sins of White America that he can, including its genocide of the Indians (natives) and its Jewish domination.

Yet at the same time, he airbrushes China's sins away.

Michel Chossudovsky, editor at Global Resaearch, has taken up a number of Romanoff's ideas. Only a few months ago, Chossudovsky was denying the reality of the virus.

Israel Shamir and Ron Unz likewise have accepted Romanoff's ideas.

(2) Discussion with Larry Romanoff

Rewriting History

by Larry (L. D. Romanoff)

I have seldom had much patience or sympathy with much of the historical record that is popularly available and promulgated in the West. [...]

American historians are cut from the same cloth, with their children being taught that America roamed the world only to spread freedom, vanquish tyranny and make the world safe for democracy, with no knowledge of the savage militarism that claimed tens of millions of lives and rendered hundreds of millions to misery. Jewish children are falsely taught that Israel was created and granted to them by the United Nations and that they have been persecuted not for their crimes but from prejudice. Almost none know the truths of their evictions from so many nations. The only nation that has faced the brutal aspects of its history is Germany, having for 70 years been bullied by the hypocritical Americans and the Jews who have conveniently forgotten their own atrocities by mercilessly using Germany as both poster boy and whipping boy for what are mostly their own sins. So many American and other informations sources engage in the most blatant and shameless re-writing of historical fact to propagate mythology for the ignorant. Wikipedia has proven itself virtually useless as a reference source due to its Jewish roots and heavy ideological slant, heavy censorship and shameless re-writing of historical accounts. [...]

It is particulary irritating that both the Americans and the Jews harp on accusations of China not having self-immolated in repentance for its historical mistakes while conveniently erasing their own squalid histories from current memory. [...]

The American historian Howard Zinn shared this antipathy for revisionism and made some good attempts to lay bare the fundamental truths of historical events in contrast to most US historians who 'cherry-picked' bits of American historical data and surrounded them with flowery fabrications intended at best to deceive. His truths are impossible to ignore, but the treatment of his work in universities serves mostly to undermine and diminish the impact of his work. I will repeat here two brief passages reporting on the same American historical event relating to the arrival of Christopher Columbus in America. Both passages are factually correct, but only the first appears in American history books. It is a quote, but I do not recall the source.

The traditional American version begins this way: "When Columbus landed in the New World in the 1490s, he found native people who were very primitive with no written language, practiced pagan religious beliefs, and lacked even the rudiments of civilization such as the wheel. They were awed by the sight of the large Spanish ships with men in shining armor and riding horses that had never before been seen in the Western Hemisphere. These native people welcomed the Spaniards who brought Christianity and civilization to their people."

Zinn's perspective is strikingly different. "Columbus and his men went on a great slave raid, rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children, put them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the five hundred best specimens to load onto ships. Of those five hundred, two hundred died en route. The rest arrived alive in Spain and were put up for sale (as slaves) by the archdeacon of the town, who reported that, although the slaves were "naked as the day they were born", they showed "no more embarrassment than animals."

Zinn should also have mentioned that one of Columbus' first activities was the establishment of brothels in which he prostituted fairly large numbers of of pre-pubescent native girls. From this, we wouldn't know we were reading about the same history of the same country. But it is actually worse than this because, although Zinn's books may appear in university courses, American educators typically describe Zinn as a "radical historian" which effectively consigns him to a place on the edge of normality and perhaps even sanity. "Radical" is not a compliment in the English language. One institution acknowledges that Zinn's writing will "lead to very different conclusions about the same events", but advises its students that "You do not have to believe (these historical facts), only understand them". It then continues to degrade the historical truth of its own nation by advising that the class will compare "Zinn's view" with the "more traditional" view and with "other interpretations" as well.

What can we conclude from this bit of educational treason? First, Zinn is so extreme in his views that his judgment is in doubt and perhaps his sanity as well. [...] To ensure continutation of this state of affairs, after Zinn's death in 2013, many academics and politicians across the US were busy photoshopping Zinn from the world of history and rendering the pages once again blank. As one example of many, the governor of Indiana, a man named Mitch Daniels, gleefully announced that "This terrible anti-American academic [is dead]", publicly referred to Zinn's writing as "crap", then embarked on a frantic attempt to remove Zinn's work from libraries and classrooms everywhere. He said, "... how do we get rid of [Zinn's writing] before more young people are force-fed a totally false version of our history?" But of course Zinn's version wasn't false. It was true. But it attacked Americans at their weakest point, undermining the mythical Disney cartoon-like narrative that permeates the nation. The reality is that Americans do not want to know the truths of their nation. This false and pathetic mythology is the only adhesive that holds the country together, which is why Zinn's books are now being banned from schools and libraries in America.

When Harold Pinter accepted his Nobel prize in literature, he so eloquently identified "a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed", and asked why the crimes of nations like the Soviet Union were so apparently well-known in the West while America's crimes were barely recorded, much less properly documented or even acknowledged. The US has perhaps the largest catalogue of crimes against humanity in the world's history, involving genocides and massacres, exports of torture, predation and misery, but all has been met with silence. As Pinter said, "... you wouldn't know it happened. It never happened. Even while it was happening it never happened". The history isn't really hidden, but it is deliberately eradicated from the American consciousness - and from the consciousness of the many victim societies that have suffered exposure to this revisionist American mythology. The Americans are unique in that they forcibly rewrite the history books of many other nations in addition to their own. [...]

One typical case is the Sand Creek Massacre. Briefly, this was an event where white Americans descended on a group of about 200 natives, mostly women and children, and executed atrocities in the finest tradtion of white colonialists anywhere. According to eyewitnesses, all natives were killed and scalped, including suckling infants two or three months old. The women and children all had their heads smashed in, while babies were beaten with rifle butts until their brains were spattered everywhere. Men used their knives to cut and rip open all the women, including pregnant women, while they were still alive, then all the bodies were mutilated. The Americans cut out and saved the fetuses from the pregnant women, and removed not only the natives' scalps but cut out the genital flesh and pubic hair of all the women, as well as all male genitalia, especially the mens' testicles to be used as tobacco pouches. The dead fetuses and other trophies were displayed later in many American towns where delighted citizens were regaled with endless stories of these atrocities. So it doesn't go unsaid, this was only one of thousands of similar events. [...]

Beginning in the late 1940s and continuing to the present day, the US has been engaged in an ideological war against socialism, a war driven primarily by a fear stoked in an ignorant and naive American public. This is perhaps best personified by Joseph McCarthy, an influential US Senator who used his power to instil fear into the both the government and the general population, and to implement one of the most widespread programs of Human Rights violations that has ever existed in any country.

The McCarthy era, which persisted in some ways until the 1970s, was driven by a genuine and irrational fear of socialism and communism, with disastrous results both inside the US and outside in terms of its effects on US foreign policy. By the time Russia blockaded Berlin, the US was almost hysterical with anti-communism, resulting in witch-hunts, censorship, and widespread human-rights abuses. [...]

Christopher Columbus is today venerated throughout the US with a Columbus Day holiday and even Washington's 'District of Columbia' is named after him. To support their narrative, the Americans created the myth of Queen Isabella of Spain pawning her crown jewels to finance his voyages of exploration, but none of that is true. Columbus, whose real name was Cristobol Colon, was a Jewish slave trader financed by wealthy Jewish businessmen, whose discovery of the new world set in motion a program of genocide that covered all the Americas, exterminating more than 125 million people including the entire Maya, Inca and Aztec civilisations, as well as the Carib Indians and 98% of American aboriginal peoples. To celebrate a national holiday in his name is an unparalleled obscenity, but not for the Americans. To them, Columbus created "freedom". [...]

Davy Crockett, an American frontiersman beloved by generations of small boys, was built into the epitome of a moral role model for emulation, the kids being taught he died fighting "an enemy of freedom" at the Alamo. The hell he did. Crockett was little more than a murderous goon expanding the American empire, and died trying to kill thousands of Mexicans, just as he had previously done with the natives. There were many of these so-called American heroes, mostly created from the corpses of resurrected non-descript gangsters infused with a sudden excess of Christian morality, becoming part Christian soldier and part typical American. [...]

Another current example is Steven Spielberg's unforgivably distorted portrayal of Lincoln and slavery and the American civil war. It was the Rothschild's Barings Bank that financed the slave trade, and a great many if not most of the slave traders were Jewish. Furthermore, we have adequate documentation that it was European Jewish bankers who stimulated the slavery-related rift in American society to instigate the civil war. In this context, Spielberg's movie is an especially offensive false and mythical portrayal of the true facts. As one columnist noted, Spielberg's movie "had too many negroes and too few Jews". [...]

A great many Americans "know" - because their narrative has told them - that China stole all their jobs, that China cheats on trade, that the Chinese have no "freedom" and, of course, that "all Chinese are brainwashed". Likewise, historical myths about Tibet and Xinjiang have been impressed onto gullible minds with an inflammatory emotional narrative and are now unlikely to change. [...] ==

History and Propaganda

Bernays and Propaganda

L. D. Romanoff

Many years ago, the Jewish-American political commentator Walter Lippmann realised that political ideology could be completely fabricated, using the media to control both presentation and conceptualisation, not only to create deeply-ingrained false beliefs in a population, but also to entirely erase undesirable political ideas from the public mind. [...] An Austrian Jew named Edward Louis Bernays who was the nephew of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, was one of Lippman's most precocious students and it was he who put Lippman's theories into practice. Bernays is widely known in America as the father of Public Relations, but he would be much more accurately described as the father of American war marketing as well as the father of mass manipulation of the public mind. [...]

In his main work titled 'Propaganda', which he wrote in 1928, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy in which individuals were inherently dangerous (to the rapacity of the elites) but could be harnessed and channeled by these same elites for their economic benefit. He wrote further that "No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any ... wise idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by ... those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders. Fortunately, the ... politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold and form the will of the people." He clearly believed that virtually total control of a population was possible, and perhaps easy to accomplish: "So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented, and so tenacious are they when regimented, that (they produce) an irresistible pressure before which legislators, editors, and teachers are helpless." [...]

Bernays carries the blame for more than American entry into the two world wars, having been instrumental in paving the way for the US cannibalisation and military colonisation of much of the world, and for the US installing and supporting the dozens of brutal military dictatorships around the world. [...]

In the discovery of propaganda as a tool of public mind control and in its use for war marketing, it is worthwhile to take a quick look at the historical background of Bernays' war effort. At the time, the European Zionist Jews had made an agreement with England to bring the US into the war against Germany, on the side of England, a favor for which England would grant the Jews the possession of Palestine as a location for a new homeland. Palestine did not 'belong' to England, it was not England's to give, and England had no legal or moral right to make such an agreement, but it was made nevertheless. The Jews had created in US President Wilson an intense desire to enter the war, but the American population had no interest in the European war and public sentiment was entirely against participating.

To facilitate the desired result, Wilson created a body named the Committee on Public Information (CPI), to propagandise the war by the mass brainwashing of America. The group was led by a publicist/advertising man named George Creel, and consisted of individually-selected men from advertising and the movie industry, the academic world, the media and music industry, as well as specialists in psychology. Two of the most important members were Lippman, whom we have already met, and whom Wilson described as "the most brilliant man of his age", and Bernays who was the group's top mind-control expert, both Jews and both aware of the stakes in this game. Bernays planned to combine his uncle Freud's psychiatric insights with mass psychology blended with modern advertising techniques, and apply them to the task of mass mind control. [...]

They created a similar Division for cinema that resulted in the production of dozens of outrageous and virulently anti-German movies, hate films containing completely fictional tales of atrocities and bestialities committed by the Germans. Bernays was the source of all the movie scenes where the "dirty" Germans (and later the dirtier Japanese) machine-gunned brave American pilots while parachuting to the ground. None of these tales were ever true; these and many more were total fabrications. Then, as now, the motion picture industry in the US was entirely controlled by Jews who were eager to assist. One Jewish editorial stated that "every individual at work in this industry wants to do his share" and that "through slides, film leaders and trailers, posters and newspaper publicity they will spread that propaganda so necessary to the immediate mobilization of the country's great resources". [...]

While Bernays was "making the world safe for democracy", that safety was not meant for Americans. Under the coaching of Col. E. M. House who was Wilson's Jewish handler, Wilson passed oppressive legislation including the Espionage Act and Sedition Act that were entirely fascist in content and which made illegal anything that might hinder American entry into the war. Freedom of speech and assembly, and press freedom virtually disappeared from America during this time, it eventually becoming illegal to say or write anything critical of the US government, its officials and even its "symbols". Any expression of objection to American entrance into the war would result in a fine of $10,000 (ten years' average wages at the time) or 20 years in prison, with much of the policing power given to what were in effect private vigilante groups like the infamous American Protective League that operated virtually without oversight. The suppression of public opinion and of dissent, and the control exercised on anti-war communication was universal. The Espionage Act stated "Every letter, writing, circular, postal card, picture, print, engraving, photograph, newspaper, pamphlet, book, or other publication, matter or thing of any kind containing any matter which is intended to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States is hereby declared to be non-mailable." Nothing was permitted that might prevent the successful recruitment of American soldiers for a war that only the Jews wanted.

With all of this and much more, Bernays and Lippman turned America into a hotbed of hatred for the entire German population, accomplishing the goal of the Zionist Jews to use the US military as a tool, their own private army, in the European war to fulfil their ambition for Palestine, and thus these two men changed the course of history. It is worth noting that not long after the Second World War the Jews widely accused Goebbels, the German minister of propaganda, of using 'propaganda' against the Jews in Germany. In this context, are we ourselves so indoctrinated and blind as to tell ourselves that Bernays' massive and unspeakably evil storm of Jewish hate propaganda against Germans was moral, righteous and just, while German propaganda against Jews was reprehensible? [...]

This wouldn't be the last time Lippman and Bernays would use these techniques against Germany. This massive attack was repeated little more than ten years later to destroy Germany and push it into yet another war the Germans didn't want. In the 1930s, the same Jewish European bankers with largely the same agenda wanted the US to join another war they planned to initiate against Germany. In 1933 they embarked on an extensive worldwide commercial war intended to destroy Germany financially, with newspaper headlines reading "Judea Declares War on Germany". They had already induced in Roosevelt "an intense desire for war", but were having the same problem again with the unwilling American public. Needing firm provocation to justify entering the war, Roosevelt used a wide array of tactics to bait Germany into attacking US shipping, and even sent unescorted US passenger liners into the submarine lanes, but without result. Until this time, the US was quite disinterested in Japan's activities in Asia, but since Germany had signed a mutual defense pact with Japan, an attack from that country would serve to put the US into war with both nations, so Bernays and his handlers directed their provocative tactics toward Japan. They produced a document containing a series of eight "insults" that was deemed sufficient to provoke an attack on the US, which program Roosevelt immediately put into action. In addition to the insults, the US launched a full military blockade of petroleum supplies which threatened to bring Japan's military to its knees very quickly, leaving the Japanese no alternative but to attack.

Most Americans won't want to hear this, but the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise. Sufficient documentation has now been discovered to leave no doubt that Roosevelt knew the precise location of the Japanese fleet and the time and hour the attack would take place. Many cables and other diplomatic documents have proven he received detailed information and warnings, yet refused to inform Pearl Harbor of the impending attack. The bald truth is that Roosevelt deliberately sacrificed the American lives at Pearl Harbor for the sake of justifying an entry into World War II, all for the purpose of fighting someone else's battle for them. Once again, the US was just a tool. It should be noted that the US military lost nothing of value in that attack, the aircraft carriers and valuable military assets having been pulled out to a safe distance, the remaining ships also sacrificed since they were old World War I vintage and would have been largely useless in combat against the modernised Japanese fleet.

In all of this, Lippman and Bernays were not working independently or without guidance. Prior to their massive 'war effort' in the US, they had operated a successful pilot test case in the UK, using British newspapers owned by their controllers, to determine the efficacy of their methods. The plan to mass-engineer public opinion began in a propaganda factory at Wellington House in London in the early 1900s, with Lords Northcliffe and Rothmere, Arnold Toynbee, and of course our two war-marketing geniuses Lippman and Bernays. It was from this source that the scheme was hatched to force the Rothschild's privately-owned Federal Reserve banks onto the US Congress, and that trained and coached Lippman and Bernays on the methods of molding American public opinion to push the US into the First World War for the promotion of Zionism. Bernays' book 'Propaganda' offers a clear vision of his training, not only for war marketing but for the pathology of American consumption, automobiles, the hysteria of patriotism and much more.

Wellington House eventually morphed into the Tavistock Institute, which was created at Oxford University in London by the founders of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Round Table, and was essentially a kind of mass brainwashing facility beginning as a psychological warfare bureau. It was the Tavistock Institute's studies in psychological programming that were used to create and then exploit a grand mass hysteria during the cold war, evoking fearful delusions of a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union that even led to millions of Americans building bomb shelters in their back yards. [...]

Everything we have read above about the marketing of war during preparation for the two World Wars, is from a template created by Lippman and Bernays exclusively to support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and to promote the agenda of Zionism. [...]

Among the many results of the work of Lippman and Bernays was the subsumption, of initially the Executive Branch and eventually the Legislative Branch as well, of the US government, into a global plan of the European and American bankers and their US corporate and political interests. We speak openly today of the White House and US Congress being overwhelmingly controlled by the Jewish lobby and their multinational corporations, but this forest was planted 100 years ago. By the early 1900s we already had an American government firmly under the powerful influence of, and effectively controlled by, what Bernays termed the "secret government", and which was controlled in virtually the same manner as the bewildered public herd. [...]

Among many substantial pieces of evidence of this 'secret government' control, we have not only the foreign-programmed US entry into two world wars, but the European Jewish bankers forcing onto the US government the creation of the US Federal Reserve as a private central bank that would control the nation's currency and largely control its economy as well. [...]

The success of Lippman and Bernays did not go unnoticed in many segments of American society. The universities and educators, the intellectuals, realised the potential of these new propaganda techniques to form, manipulate and control social perceptions. Schools and Universities in the US had never been viewed as an educational system but more as tools of a public disciplinary system, a method not only of social control but as a means to inculcate attitudes and beliefs most useful to the industrialists and bankers in the elite top 1%. [...]

The elite 1%, the same group Lippman and Bernays had served so well, and in whose company they travelled, founded not only universities but the family Foundations that exist to this day, and for the same purposes of social control. Institutions like the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations were primarily created "to perpetuate predatory wealth through the control of information and the sources of information", and quickly assumed missions of direct influence and control of the mindsets of many of the world's leaders, or at least influential individuals. The Rockefeller Foundation has been pre-eminent in an astonishing array of social control initiatives that included population control in the real sense through sterilisation and war. And it was both the Rockefeller and Carnegie institutes that funded and promoted the practice of eugenics we read about earlier, with the Carnegies recommending a national chain of gas chambers to eliminate the socially (and ideologically) unfit. All of this twisted ideology stemmed from the same sources.

The Rockefeller Foundation attempted to advance their ideologies by drawing cooperation from major industrial leaders and bankers, in one advertised instance holding a major conference with "representatives of some of the largest financial interests" in the US, i.e. the Jewish European bankers who controlled the US FED. [...]

Referring to the business of values again, Neal Gabler, Author of An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews invented Hollywood, wrote "What is amazing is the extent to which they succeeded in promulgating this fiction throughout the world. By making a 'shadow' America, one which idealized every old glorifying bromide about the country, the Hollywood Jews created a powerful cluster of images and ideas so powerful that, in a sense, they colonized the American imagination. Ultimately, American values came to be defined largely by the movies the Jews made." [...] ==

The Power Behind the Throne

by L. D. Romanoff

Under the guidance of the invisible people, many members of the establishment's think-tanks are increasingly, and openly, arguing that US democracy today is "incapable of meeting the challenges facing the country", concluding that the US needs a new "top down" solution that would be exercised by executive power independent of the elected Congress. Several people including NYT columnist Thomas Friedman have argued that "power should shift from contentious, ideologically diverse elected bodies subject to pressure from the 'lower orders', toward credentialed "experts" operating in Washington, Brussels or the United Nations." [...]

In similar vein, we can recall State Department employee Victoria Nuland boasting of the $5 billion spent on destabilising Ukraine and overthrowing its government during this same time of empty bank accounts. We also have her conversation on Ukraine that was posted online for the world, where she famously dismissed Europe's objections to the forcible and violent overthrow of Ukraine's government by saying, "Fuck the EU", and continued to decide the new puppet rulers of that country. Note that it wasn't the White House deciding who would be acceptable as new leaders of the Ukraine, nor was it the US Congress, and certainly not the Ukrainian people whose so-called 'democracy' doesn't even qualify as farce. Nuland's husband is Robert Kagan, who is active in the Brookings Institute and the Carnegie Endowment for Perpetual War, both of whom are neocon Zionist Jews playing Monopoly with real countries, and it was Nuland making those decisions, one sign of where the real power lies. [...]

Some years back, Paul Findley wrote a book titled They Dare to Speak Out, detailing the Jewish influence and control of the US government. In his book, Findley quoted US Senator William Fulbright, then the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who had conducted investigations into foreign control of his nation's government, and who wrote in 1973,

"Israel controls the Senate ... around 80% (of US Senators) are completely in support of Israel, and Jewish influence in the House of Representatives is even greater. Anything Israel wants (Israel will get). ...[Israel] is able to stifle free speech, control our Congress, and even dictate our foreign policy". In a CBS TV interview, Fulbright stated further, "The Israelis control the policy in the Congress and the Senate. I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews ... terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen ... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get Congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country."

Fulbright stated repeatedly that the US Senate was "subservient" to Israel and the Jews, which prevented the government from applying any pressure on Israel in its atrocities toward the Palestinian people. He claimed the US possessed sufficient leverage on Israel because "we supply all the wherewithal - or a major part of the wherewithal - to finance or to pay for everything Israel does", but he added that the leverage couldn't be applied because "Israel controls the Senate". He also stated "The Senate is subservient to Israel, in my opinion much too much. We should be more concerned about the United States interest rather than doing the bidding of Israel This is a most unusual development. The great majority of the Senate of the United States - somewhere around 80 percent - are completely in support of Israel. This has been demonstrated time and again and this has made it difficult for our government."

Rabbi Cohen stated in his now-famous lecture,

"(US President) Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act and gave us total financial power over the United States. As the sole proprietors of the FED, we control all of American commerce and pull the strings of government. Although we Jews make up only four percent of the U.S. population, over sixty percent of the Clinton political appointments have gone to Jews. As Supreme court judges, foreign ambassadors, FBI and CIA positions and Democratic Party officers, we as a tiny minority now have 80 percent control of the US Government." How can it be more clear than this? Ominously, Cohen also added this statement: "And so we shall have our revenge ... every man, woman and child of the goyim (non-Jews) must be destroyed without mercy."

Several authors have written that the Congress' constant display of allegiance to the Jews and Israel instead of to the US was both embarrassing and unpatriotic, especially considering that Israel is almost totally dependent on American frinancial and military aid. Many have further noted that the Jewish-controlled media present such a "biased and sympathetic portrayal" of Israel, and further prevent any opposing views or truths of the Palestinians' bitter suffering, that apparently only 4% of Americans are at all aware of the Jews' 70-year long brutal military occupation of the Palestinian people. The long history of US Congressional support for Israel led former Secretary of State James Baker to call the Congress "The Little Knesset" after Israel's Knesset (parliament) in Jerusalem. One US Senator lamented that he had the right to criticise his own government, but no such right to criticise the government of Israel even if its actions were against the US national interest. Paul Craig Roberts wrote "When the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony", and former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan described Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory".

In this context, and in a stunning combination of utopian pathology, propaganda, boldness, and irony, the US media produced a small flurry of noise in the person of Jewish-American Senator Barbara Boxer who obediently proclaimed she had been warned by the FBI that "Chinese citizens or government officials might try to contact her office 'in an effort to influence U.S. foreign policy'". 'Chinese officials' might try to influence US foreign policy? And what of the Jews' efforts to influence US foreign policy? Not a peep from her. As one writer pointed out, "That such double standard material can be published without ironic intent is a blazing indictment of the American mass media and current political system." No kidding.

Admiral Thomas Moorer, who was Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in 1983 "I've never seen a President stand up to the Jews. They always get what they want. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms." It was the same Admiral Moorer, America's highest ranking military officer, who could not get an honest investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. For background, the Jewish military attacked an unarmed US espionage vessel in international waters, hoping to destroy it and lay the blame on Iran. The Liberty was attacked repeatedly over a span of several hours by jet aircraft and torpedo boats, killing 34 Americans and wounding another 174, but failed to sink the vessel. The Israelis attributed the failed attack to accidental mis-identification, but all the survivors claimed that US flags were clearly flying on the ship during the attack and that in radio contact the Israelis had identified the Liberty as a US vessel. This was clearly another false-flag operation that failed in its mission by leaving survivors to testify to the truth. But the White House, on the demand of its Jewish handlers, swept the affair under the carpet to the extent that all survivors were forbidden to ever discuss the matter under pain of criminal sanction, and most were too afraid to talk even after they had retired from the US military. At the time, a White House spokesman stated that "(President) Johnson isn't going to start a war over a few dead sailors".

Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a definitive paper on the Iraq war, documenting that it was, in their words, "the Jewish lobby" that wanted - and got - the war. Libya was the same, and it is only the Jews who want the invasion and destruction of Syria and Iran, and most likely supplied the chemical weapons to the so-called Syrian rebels and provided the photo shoots as proof. [...]

In 2001, an Israeli cabinet meeting was broadcast on Israel Radio, during which a disagreement arose between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres was warning Sharon that Israel should heed American demands in their dealings with the Palestinians and that Sharon's obstinacy would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us." Sharon replied to Peres, "Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." Also in 2001, the Jewish Prime Minister Netanyahu openly mocked the US on Israeli television, saying "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." And we have Netanyahu again when he was visiting Jonathan Pollard, the American Jew who was convicted as a traitor and spy for leaking volumes of US military secrets to Israel. On leaving Pollard's prison cell, Netanyahu was quoted as having said, "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away".

In July and August of 2014, when Israel was conducting yet another savage offensive against the Palestinians, the Wall Street Journal reported that White House and State Department officials were taken by surprise to learn that the Israeli military had been securing large supplies of weapons and ammunition directly from their friends in the Pentagon, without the knowledge or approval of the White House. Both Jewish and American officials said this was yet one more indication of how little influence the White House and State Department had in terms of extractions the Jews can make from the US, the President and his White House staff essentially finding themselves on the outside looking in. The Journal reported that Israeli officials considered Obama to be weak and naive, and were just bypassing him to deal directly with the Pentagon and Congress to satisfy their wishes. They apparently said they weren't concerned about tensions with the White House or a failure to obtain Obama's approval for anything because he would soon be gone anyway, and they could just outwait him. There have been other incidents of this kind, one where the Jewish lobby managed to get possession of the only squadron of American's most highly developed aircraft which had been obtained for the US military at great expense and internal lobbying. A Defense Department official apparently told the Israelis that to ship those aircraft to Israel would be politically impossible, given the very difficult circumstances of their purchase. He claimed the Israeli response was to say, "Just get the aircraft ready. We'll take care of Congress." And they did. The aircraft were shipped to Israel, and the Americans did without.

On November 25, 1977 the Jewish Press ran an article titled 'US foreign policy is now based on how foreign countries treat their native Jews'. For background, a Russian Jew named Anatoly Sharansky had become seditious and troublesome to the Russian government and had been imprisoned. The Jews were crying for his release. The article noted that US Senators Moynihan and Javits of New York, two ardent Zionists, notified the Soviet Government that grain shipments from the US would be cancelled if the Russians failed to release Sharansky. He was released and deported to Israel. Consider for a moment the depth of the Jewish influence that would result in two Senators taking upon themselves the authority to decide and dictate a serious US foreign policy mandate to another nation on a trivial matter, and without legislative or executive authorisation.

US Journalist Helen Thomas, who covered the White House for more than six decades, was forced to resign from her position at Hearst News after saying in an interview that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine". In a published interview, Thomas said that Jews have "total control" over the White House and US Congress, that "it's not a secret. It's very open ... Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood. Same thing with the financial markets. There's total control. We are owned by the propagandists against the Arabs. There's no question about that. Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way." [...]

In early 2014 Jeff Blankfort wrote an article titled 'Rendering Unto AIPAC', in which he included this paragraph:

"Early in their campaigns, every viable candidate on the Democratic or Republican ticket will receive a visit from an AIPAC staff member requesting a statement describing his or her current position on the US-Israel relationship. For those who are short on words, AIPAC will gladly provide assistance. These statements are then made available to pro-Israel donors in the candidate's district as well as to a long list of donors throughout the country. In exchange for what is invariably a pledge of loyalty to Israel, AIPAC will see that the candidate will have no shortage of volunteers and funds, although these will not come directly from AIPAC. It was, however, the spectacle of watching Obama, Hillary Clinton, and McCain, the three individuals who were vying to become the leader of the world's only superpower, joined by House and Senate leaders of both parties, humbling themselves before the AIPAC audience, that led veteran journalist, Arnaud de Borchgrave, to reveal to readers an elemental truth about the US political process and the decision making parameters available to the next American president."

de Borchrave's "truth" in the Times article, was this: "Once a year, the Israel lobby in Washington known as AIPAC holds its annual convention where anyone who is anyone in the political world comes to render fealty, rather than homage. (For those who don't know, 'fealty' is subservient obedience and loyalty of a peasant to his feudal lord and master: Ed) It has become a political rite of passage, like a medieval contract É Anyone who doesn't pass the litmus test can forget about becoming president of the United States, or senator or even congressman."

Blankfort also detailed how, in another flashy display of Jewish political power and control of American politics, the Jewish billionnaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson "summoned" the several most likely candidates for the next Presidential election, in order to "choose" one of them. Blankfort noted that all obeyed the summons and groveled before their lord, "doing their best to to sell themselves like applicants at a job interview". Adelson apparently interrogated each ambitious candidate and demanded from each "First of all and above everything else, blind and unconditional obedience to the government of another state: Israel". [...]

The Jews boast openly about their political influence and power, Jewish publications bragging that they made Obama what he is, and one Jewish Zionist famously claiming "Barack Obama is the first Jewish President". James Petras wrote a useful article in which he quoted a Chicago Jewish News article claiming Obama had been "discovered" by a Jewish Zionist professor at Harvard when he was still studying law there, and decided he was "recruitable". She recounted how she enlisted the aid of family, friends, financiers, and helped obtain prestigious employment for him, followed by introductions to a wide array of Jewish Zionists, including financial supporters, all of whom worked to ensure Obama would be permanently "embedded" in their network. Petras also noted that as a senator, Obama shared an office with a fanatical Jewish Zionist named Ira Silverstein, who later boasted of his role in 'educating' Obama about Jews and Israel. Obama did not appear out of the blue sky as a breath of fresh air for America; he had been specifically selected, assiduously cultivated and carefully groomed by the Jews for two decades before he was presented as a 'choice' to the country, and by that time it was already much too late for the people.

It is to these people that Obama owes his allegiance, and his first acts in office were to fill the White House and many important agencies with radical Zionists, most of whom were Jewish, and also to purge these agencies of any who failed to please AIPAC. The process is very broad and deep, and includes most visible politicians and government officials. In referring to Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Petras noted they are so deeply infused with Israel-First ideology that they were "Zionized Zombies". I would concur. Truly, few people realise the depth of Jewish influence and control in Washington, especially on US foreign policy. Israel not only badly wants to destroy Iran militarily so as to eliminate a threat to its military supremacy, but it wants the US to destroy its enemies for it and, through its US lobbying power, is in fact dictating the terms under which the US military will do so. It was the radical Jewish Zionist Mark Dubowitz, who is neither an elected nor appointed government official, who wrote much of the legislation relating to sanctions on Iran.

It is not the elected Congress and not the White House, but the secret government mostly represented by its friends in AIPAC, that determines and dictates US policy for Israel and the Middle East, and for much of the world, certainly toward Eastern Europe and especially Russia and the Ukraine. AIPAC is not the power behind the throne; rather it is the public face of that power, doing the bidding of names that will never be mentioned. In this sense, it is not different from what is loosely called 'the Jewish lobby', being only one arrow in a quiver that includes the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford Foundations, the US FED and the Bank of England along with other bankers, financiers like George Soros, the Hollywood studio and mass media owners, sundry other so-called NGOs, and many multi-national corporations. They are all members of the same choir and are all singing the same song, with both lyrics and melody written by the international Jewish financiers in Europe.

An important part of this political landscape consists of organisations like the already-mentioned Trilateral Commission, which is an offshoot of the also US-based 'Council on Foreign Relations' (CFR) that the European Rothschilds created as the American version of their UK-based 'Round Table'. [...] One US Congressman stated,

"The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the US from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member of New World Order dictatorship."

This so-called council is still a subsidiary of the European Rothschild's Round Table, which was originally created by Cecil Rhodes as a mechanism for world domination, and given to Rothschild to continue, and is still controlled by the same Zionist European bankers with their "pernicious and pervasive" influence on Europe as much as on the US.

According to an official statement, "The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of Western Europe, Japan and North America to foster closer cooperation among these three regions on common problems. It seeks to improve public understanding of such problems, to support proposals for handling them jointly, and to nurture habits and practices of working together among these regions." That sounds good, but the 'private citizens' were a secret group of seventeen very powerful people that included David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, McGeorge Bundy and others from the New World Order Bilderberg Group who met at Rockefeller's New York estate to plan this monster. The Commission wasn't created in any sense to 'solve problems' but to do heavy social and political engineering, dealing with the 'crisis of democracy' and preparing a move to authoritarian fascism. The US media, again almost entirely Jewish-owned, are silent on the CFR and the Trilateral Commission and their influence and power in the nation.

Not long ago, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu attempted to increase the pressure on Obama to deal harshly with Iran by bypassing the White House and the US government altogether, and appearing on a Sunday TV talk show to appeal directly to the American public. Inserting himself directly into US politics while claiming he didn't want to insert himself into US politics, Netanyahu insisted the Americans must act quickly and forcibly to eliminate all threats to Jewish military supremacy in the Middle East. Iran, of course, is one of those threats, with Israel having been claiming for ten years that Iran was two days away from having nuclear weapons. The Jewish-controlled US media are of course silent on the one essential point which is to ask why it is okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons and be an existential threat to Iran, but it is not okay for Iran to possess the only suitable deterrent of its own weapons. Netanyahu spoke eloquently about the security of Israel but ignored the fact that Israel's military presence and extreme belligerence threaten the security of every other nation in the Middle East. The Jewish lobby has sufficient influence that Netanyahu has on occasion demanded, and received, permission to bypass the White House and address the US Congress directly, to make more clear his expectations of them. This was neither the first nor last time an Israeli prime minister had gone over a president''s head and appealed directly to Congress or the American people.

None of this is new. Jewish influence on American politicians and in particular on the White House has existed for at least most of the last century. There is no shortage of documentation of various US presidents confiding to their staff that their Jewish handlers would shortly be informing them of the appropriate decisions and courses of action to be taken. Another quote from Findley's book:

"When I lived in America, I learned that Jewish personalities, most of them rich donors for the parties, had easy access to the President. They used to contact him over the head of the Foreign Secretary and the representative at the United Nations and other officials. They were often in a position to alter the entire political line by a single telephone conversation..."

Given all of this, it is long past time for everyone to stop pretending that the Jews do not control the US government, notwithstanding the inevitable condemnation as an anti-Semite for doing so. Any examination of the American political scene is obliged to recognise that the US is closer to being a Jewish state than an American one, especially considering, but by no means limited to, the treasonous allegiance by the US congress sworn to Israel and the Jews. A dog doesn't serve two masters. Since we have already reached the stage where prominent former government officials are openly referring to Washington as "Israeli-Occupied Territory", it is long past time that someone told Americans, bluntly and to their face, that their great United States of America today is little more than a pimple on Israel's ass.

Financial power is crucial to the success of this influence. A recent article noted that in the 2012 election about 30% - nearly one-third of all 'disclosed' political contributions came from only 31,000 donors, or 0.0001 of the population, less than one ten-thousandth. It further noted that not a single member of the House or Senate was elected without financial assistance from this group, and about 85% of these politicians received more money from this tiny group than from all their small donors combined. This tiny, but rich and powerful minority of people are "the political gatekeepers of American politics". They decide which candidates are acceptable to them, which hold the 'correct' opinions and ideologies, and which will vote the way the elite want them to vote. It is not the American public who are selecting candidates to represent their interests, but this small clique buying politicians who can be trusted to carry out their agenda. The American people can do no better than vote for one of two pre-selected clones, with their choices being both inconsequential and irrelevant. By any definition of the word, democracy in America is a myth.

This influence has for long extended to appointments to a vast selection of important executive posts within many departments of government and, more often than we want to know or admit, involves elements of extortion or blackmail. Few Americans, and even fewer others, are familiar with the appointment of Louis Brandeis to the US Supreme Court, an event privately hailed by the Jews as 'their' first Supreme Court judge. President Wilson was approached by a Jewish lawyer, Samuel Untermeyer, who claimed to have a female client who badly needed $40,000 and who possessed a collection of passionate and indiscreet love letters sent to her by Wilson when they were illicit lovers, and was threatening to make the letters public. Untermeyer, knowing Wilson had no access to a sum that large, offered to pay the $40,000 out of his own pocket in return for a favor: Wilson would agree to recommend a person of Untermeyer's choosing to the next opening on the Supreme Court. That person was Brandeis and, above strenuous public objection, Wilson pushed forcefully until the appointment was confirmed. Untermeyer kept the Wilson love letters "to ensure they would never fall into the wrong hands", but also to ensure his future control over Wilson. It is probably true that the appointment of many Jews to government posts have been made willingly or on merit alone, but it is also true there have been many of the other kind.

Mike Lofgren was a high-level US congressional staff member who spent 28 years on Capitol Hill, serving on both the House and Senate budget committees, and who wrote in early 2014 a brief paper titled 'Anatomy of the Deep State', revealing his accumulated observations about the power behind the throne of the US government. There are many names for this secret entity that has existed for at least the past 100 years. I have followed Bernays' lead in calling it the 'Secret Government'; Lofgren uses the term 'Deep State'; they are the same. He began by stating, "I use the term to mean a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process". I include below a few of Lofgren's comments, edited for brevity. His intent and content are unchanged.

"There is the visible government in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading. (It) is another government concealed behind the one that is visible, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself, (and its) protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel allows them to escape the consequences (of their actions)."

"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, certain key areas of the judiciary and a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some of the defense and intelligence committees. All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. The Deep State does not consist only of government agencies. What is euphemistically called "private enterprise" is an integral part of its operations. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect (Washington) to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests."

Lofgren included the Treasury Department in the Deep State because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. He went on to write, "It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies." And here, of course, he had it absolutely right; it is the domestic and foreign bankers who are indeed the "ultimate owners" of the Deep State, but in this he failed to include the US FED and its European owners who determine and dictate both financial and political policy to the rest.

Chinese journalist Lee Fang produced some stunning facts for a research report in which he documented that individuals often receive multi-million dollar bonuses when they leave secretive Wall Street to enter the active, visible government. According to Fang, many large corporations who want to influence public policy give executives huge bonuses if they take jobs within the government. Among them are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, the Blackstone Group, Fannie Mae, Northern Trust. Citigroup even awards additional retirement pay upon leaving to take a "full time high level position with the US government or regulatory body". The Bank of America gave Stefan Seelig more than $9 million in bonus pay when he was nominated to become the Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, and Michael Froman received over $4 million when he left Citigroup to become the current US trade representative. "The fox is groomed for the chicken coop, and the Deep State grows fat on its prey."

Lofgren was correct in claiming the Deep State is an ideology that is a kind of corporatism, but in categorising it as nameless, he didn't quite connect all the dots. It does indeed have a name - the New World Order. The Deep State is extremely Right-Wing, primarily Jewish, and fervently Zionist. Many people have described portions of it, but approach from too many points of view: corporate domination, human rights, banking, surveillance, politics. It is all of these, and none of them. It is as much about the Bush's enormous landholdings in Brazil or the Rothschilds setting up a new bank to hold lands extorted from developing countries as it is about health care or the housing crisis or the NSA and DHS. This is about a small group of powerful individuals working steadily to build a farm where the people of the world are the cattle. The Deep State, the Secret Government, the New World Order, are all names and faces of the same entity which is at its core an international fascist dictatorship, with the security state and its internment camps forming an increasingly integral part. [...]

Lofgren went on to say that the Deep State's physical expansion and consolidation of power "would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken". While the US government was laying off staff, forcing unpaid vacations, closing all tourist facilities for lack of funds, there was no shortage of cash to destroy Libya or attempt the destruction of Syria, nor the $2 billion to build the NSA data storage center. He wrote "That the secret and unaccountable Deep State floats freely above the gridlock ... is the paradox of American government in the 21st century: drone strikes, data mining, secret prisons and Panopticon-like control on the one hand; and on the other, the visible parliamentary institutions of self-government declining to the status of a banana republic amid the gradual collapse of public infrastructure." He said it is true that US government is dysfunctional and broken, that it no longer works, "but somehow Obama can go into Libya. He can assassinate US citizens. He can collect all our phone records. He can even bring down a jet carrying a president of a sovereign country without asking anyone's permission. And no one seems to connect the two, the failure of our visible constitutional state and this other government that operates according to no constitutional rules or any constraint by the governed."

But these people are not interested in either government or governing, in the traditional sense of meaning of these words. They are instead arranging the parasitic extraction of wealth from the population, and want the people to remain under control. Beyond that, they have little interest. These people are vampires. They are parasites. They are venal and extractive. Lofgren again:

"The Deep State has been extracting value from the American people in vampire-like fashion. While it seems to float above the constitutional state, its essentially parasitic, extractive nature means that it is still tethered to the formal proceedings of governance. They are extracting revenue from the American people everywhere they can find a revenue stream: public schools, housing, prisons, infrastructure, pipelines, fracking, oil and gas exploration, Social Security, privatization of health insurance and health care."

We should not proceed further without noting here that this Deep State or Secret Government is the source of the destruction of the social contract that governed the US after the Second World War. It is these people who are responsible for the gutting of the American economy, for outsourcing, deindustrialisation, the destruction of labor, the evisceration of the middle class, and so much more. It is they who have launched the class war on all but the elites in the US, Canada and all of Western Europe. It is they who arranged the US$5 billion investment in overthrowing successive governments in Ukraine, and it is they who want yet again the destruction of Russia. They are also responsible for virtually all the interference in China's internal affairs and the efforts to derail China's progress. There are dangers lurking here so great as to be almost impossible to overestimate, and to ingore or dismiss them would be foolhardy in the extreme.

Supporting The Deep State

When writing of Jewish influence and control of a society's segments, most especially those in the US like Hollywood or the media or the ownership of the FED, there is always a flurry of denial even though the Jews like to boast in private of their control of these same segments. Anticipating this same response (as well as the usual charges of anti-Semitism) to claims of the Jews controlling Washington, we can expect the multitude of Jewish defense organisations to emerge with strident denials saying "No, we don't. No, we don't." Well, guys, much as I dislike contradicting you: "Yes, you do. Yes, you do." Here is a bit of accumulated evidence garnered from various publicly-available sources. It is by no means complete; a full list would contain many hundreds if not thousands of names, and I didn't have the patience to pursue this research to the end. Nevertheless, Jews do hold an enormous, and enormously disproportionate number of government positions in the US at all levels from Secretary of State to a lowly communications clerk or Bill Clinton's interns. A large number of these people have dual Israeli-US citizenship with clearly concomitant loyalties, almost all being Zionists as well. Here is a partial list from a few recent White House Administrations: [...].
{endquote}

From [email withheld]:

Peter, your claims about Russian aircraft may be true, but they are unrelated to the claims you made about the HSR trains.

China bought the trains, including full IP ownership, and paid billions of dollars for it.

Integrity is based on truth, not ideology. ==

From: "Peter Myers":

Larry,

Yes, China buys one or 50 of something, but forces the seller to part with their technology as part of the deal.

It's the same as the Soviet Union did with technology it bought or stole, eg the T34 tank. I believe it bought one, dismantled it, sent it to the USSR labelled a 'tractor'.

Antony Sutton wrote three books on it, titled Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. I have all three.

China bought jets from Russia, then clones them and sells them, undercutting Russia.

Peter ==

China an imperial power

Larry,

I agree with much of what you say.

But that does not address the question of whether China is a new Imperial power. The way it behaves with African countries, Pacific Islands, and Australia is imperial.

With regard to its cloning technology:

The Soviet Union did the same, as Antony Sutton shows.

Western companies supplied first the Soviets and then the Chinese with technology, because each company only saw a small part of the picture. Each only thought of the technology it itself was transferring, not the totality being transferred.

And China dangled the lure of its huge market, as a bait to ease their minds about technology transfer. China also played off various countries against each other. So for example it got both European and Japanese very fast trains.

It may have regarded those countries as imperial powers who owed it something. But what about Russia? Russia and China are supposedly allies, yet China has been cloning Russian military technology and exporting its products in competition with Russia.

That's why I say it's "a threat to friend and foe alike - just like Israel."

Peter ==

From [email withheld]:

I agree generally with your observations, but keep in mind that China was deliberately cut off from all Western technology, to prevent her development and her rise.

In that position, what would you have done? Lie down, resign yourself to being a third world country forever, and spend the rest of your life assembling iphones for ten cents an hour?

Nobody has the right, for purely political reasons, to prevent my growth and development. I will fight for myself in every way I can. And so would you. ==

Larry,

But I think that the sins of Western imperialism are no reason to ignore the new Chinese imperialism.

I'm against both kinds.

Peter ==

Peter,

And it got worse because, as I already mentioned, in almost every area I researched, I discovered the Jews even though I'd had no interest in them whatever. But for instance, the entire opium century in China was entirely Jewish and had nothing to do with England except that the Jews used the British military to enforce their drug trafficking. David Sassoon was given the exclusive franchise for opium distribution in China by Queen Victoria herself, and she got her military to give him Hong Kong because he needed a distribution base. The Rothschilds were growing the opium in India, the Jewish Russells (Delano and Roosevelt) were transporting it to China, and Sassoon was selling it. The HSBC bank was not started by Scotsmen as the narrative would have us believe, but was totally a Jewish venture to handle Sassoon's vast drug revenue, and Sassoon was the Chairman of the Board of that bank. The HSBC was born to launder drug money. And so on.

At first, I discarded any reference to the Jews because those intermittent appearances seemed to contaminate my story line, but then I realised they were the story line, in so many areas I had never imagined. It simply isn't possible to discuss historical events without reference to the often decisive part played by the Jews. For example, the US Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. It was imposed upon the US by the Rothschilds and other Jewish European bankers in an attempt to split the US into two weak republics instead of one strong one. It was they who incited the South to withdraw from the Union, on the pretense of protecting their slave-cotton economy, and two Rothschild arms financed both sides of that conflict. It was entirely a created war that would never have occurred on its own. And it was not only successful but profitable, beginning with a debt-free US and leaving it more than $100 million in debt by the end. ==

Peter, it isn't China that's upsetting the neighbors. You're making the mistake of believing your own media.

I've been watching this for a long time now, and the US has been behind not only the provocations but the media hype about China's increasing militancy or military buildup. The entire business about the Diaoyou Islands was concocted and encouraged by the Americans to give them more justification for their new "Pacific Pivot".

It's true the neighbors are becoming unsettled, but that's not without all the American war-mongering. The US was booted out of the Philippines many years ago, and still bitterly regrets the loss of that advantage. They are now pushing hard to re-open Subic Bay and others, but the Philippines has resisted. So, we create and concoct a "credible threat", magnify it, hype it in the media and get the Philippinos onside. Same with Japan and Vietnam.

Japan is the one that scares me the most. Their only regret is that they lost the last war, and their very dangerous Right-Wing element would love another chance. The reason Fukushima was such a disaster is that the Japanese were for years re-processing weapons-grade fuel under the reactors, and that is what was hit by the tsunami. The US has pushed hard for a Right-Wing leader to be reinstated in Japan, and they have one now. Israel and the US want a Third World War and will probably get it, and their allies will include Japan and Australia. [...]

You wouldn't know this, but the US spends more than $300 million in China every year, on the CIA, USAID, the NED, hundreds of NGOs, and much more, trying to destabilise China from within, using everything from their failed "Jasmine Revolution" to buying and paying for dissidents, and much more. It is the same in Hong Kong; hotbeds of seditious activity. The Western media are silent.

The goal of war is the New World Order, to bring all nations to heel. This is the subject of one of my books now in preparation. China and Russia will be isolated against the Western nations and Japan. I don't know how this could be avoided. ==

Re Tiananmen 1989, I sent Larry this article:

https://thesocialist.org.au/eyewitness-in-china/

Eyewitness in China: The Events in Tiananmen Square May-June 1989

By Steve Jolly

13 June 1989 ==

His Reply:

Peter, I read through the article below, and I'm sorry to tell you it's complete bullshit. [...]

The person who wrote that article should be shot.

That article you sent me, made my angry as hell. I've seen dozens of those, all by people who were never there, in some cases never been to China, but were just writing propaganda pieces for the CIA and NED. You may have noticed the supposed student comments about how they were receiving a lot of money from outside the country. That part is sure true. The student movement may have been spontaneous at the start, but it was quickly hijacked by the CIA, and managed by Robert Helvey who now works with Gene Sharp in the Einstein Institute and whose claim to fame is the destruction of Jugoslavia with his Otpor manuals for government destabilisation. I have them on my website. Helvey had at the time just returned from doing in Indonesia what he was trying to do in China, working out of Hong Kong.

In any case, a significant number of prominent Western journalists have now come out of the closet to tell the world they were there at the time and that the student protest ended peacefully. ==

Larry,

I agree with the philosophy of "Bend, but don't break".

Therefore, I think that the Tiananmen protestors went too far.

You & I will have to agree to disagree over Steve Jolly's account.

Equally, I think that Mao went too far in the Great Leap Forward & the Cultural Revolution. It was left to Deng Xiao-ping to pick up the pieces.

China was in such dire straits, when I was there for a month in 1986/7, that everyone pulled together in support of Deng's changes.

But once again, I think that China has gone too far. It's behaving as an imperial power. Yes, the US does too; but China is the up & coming power; shades of Germany a century ago.

I find China, and the Chinese people (barring the peasants), quite amoral these days. I guess that the Cultural Revolution destroyed the traditional morality.

Peter
{endquote}

THE CONTEXT

by Peter Myers, May 28, 2020' update May 29, 2020.

In 1978, when Deng Xiaoping visited Japan and saw its economic miracle, he decided to switch China's economy to that model. But for the first ten years, his workers had to do menial jobs in coastal free-trade zones, for foreign multinationals and nearly no pay.

China's transformation in the 40 years since 1978 has been a 'miracle', but it was modelled on another 'miracle', the Japanese postwar one. And that one was based on another 'miracle, Hitler's 'miracle' economy from 1933.

So, the miracle was achieved by a switch from Marxist economics to National System Economics.

Unlike other National System Economies, (Nineteenth Century USA, Postwar Japan, Australia from 1900 to late 1980s), in China's case totalitarianism remained part of the mix.

But that was also the case with Nazi Germany. Both regimes combine National System Economics with totalitarian repression. John Garnaut, an experiencedjournalist and China-watcher, son of Australia's Ambassador to China 1985-8, called China's new system "National Socialism with Chinsse Characteristics":

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/15/national-socialism-with-chinese-characteristics/

National Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

Meet He Di, the insider trying to save the Chinese Communist Party from itself.

BY JOHN GARNAUT

NOVEMBER 15, 2012, 4:50 PM ==

https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-in

Engineers of the Soul: Ideology in Xi Jinping's China

by John Garnaut

Jan 17, 2019

[...] Xi Jinping has reinvigorated ideology to an extent we have not seen since the Cultural Revolution. ... It was clear from my work as a journalist and writer in New China - to use the party speak - that the formal ideology of communism coexists with an unofficial ideology of old China. The Founding Fathers of the PRC came to power on a promise to repudiate and destroy everything about the dark imperial past, but they never really changed the mental wallpaper. [...]

Admittedly, communism and feudal imperialism are uneasy bedfellows. But they are not irreconcilable. The formula for dynastic communism was perfected by Chen Yun: their children had to inherit power not because of privilege but because they could be counted upon to be loyal to the revolutionary cause. Or, as he put it: "at least our children will not dig up our graves".

Xi Jinping has exercised an unwritten aristocratic claim to power which derives from his father's proximity to the founder of the Red Dynasty: Chairman Mao. He is the compromise representative of all the great founding families. This is the starting point for understanding the worldview of Xi Jinping and his Princeling cohort.

In the view of China's princelings - or "Revolutionary Successors", as they prefer to be known - China is still trapped in the cycle which had created and destroyed every dynasty that had gone before. In this tradition, when you lose political power you don't just lost your job (while keeping your super) as you might in our rather gentrified arrangement. You lose your wealth, you lose your freedom, you probably lose your life and possibly your entire extended family. You are literally erased from history. Winners take all and losers lose everything.

With these stakes, the English idiom "life-and-death-struggle" is far too passive. In the Chinese formulation it is "You-Die, I-Live". I must kill preemptively in order to live. Xi and his comrades in the red dynasty believe they will go the same way as the Manchus and the Mings the moment they forget. [...]

The "Great Genius" Comrade Stalin.

Mao knew Marxist Leninist dogma was absolutely crucial to his enterprise but he personally lacked the patience to wade through it. He found a shortcut to ideological proficiency with Joseph Stalin's Short Course on the History of the Bolsheviks, published at the end of Stalin's Great Terror, in 1938. According to Li Rui, when interviewed by historian Li Huayu, Mao thought he'd found an "encyclopaedia of Marxism" and "acted as if he'd discovered a treasure".

At the time of Stalin's death, in March 1953, The Short Course on the History of the Bolsheviks had become the third-most printed book in human history. After Stalin's death - when Stalin was eulogised as "the Great Genius" on the front page of the People's Daily - the Chinese printers redoubled their efforts. It became the closest thing in China to a religious text. [...]

Crucially, Mao split with Kruschev because Kruschev split with Stalin and everything he stood for. The Sino-Soviet split was ideological - it was Mao's claim to ideological leadership over the communist world. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao. It was Mao's claim to being Stalin's true successor.

We hear a lot about how Xi and his peers blame Gorbachev for the collapse of the Soviet state but actually their grievances go much further back. They blame Kruschev. They blame Kruschev for breaking with Stalin. And they vow that they will never do to Mao what Kruschev did to Stalin.
{endquote}

I have a copy of a book published by the Chinese Government called Mao Zedong: Man, Not God, by Quan Yanchi (Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1992) which says:

"As a consequence of rashness and disregard for objective reality, accompanied by attitudes prevalent in 1958, and the natural calamities that followed, China was in deep economic trouble between 1958 and 1961, with nationwide starvation." (p. 55)

The Cultural Revolution traumatised so many people that, after Mao's death, China abandoned Communism.

Of it, Mao Zedong: Man, Not God says:

'Mao did not find everything about the Communist Party or the nation which he had founded to his satisfaction, and he always tried to "do something to rectify it." In my opinion, this is one of the reasons why he initiated the "cultural revolution." Unfortunately for the Chinese nation, this "something" which he did, turned out to be a mistake which triggered ten years of catastrophe.' (p. 213)

Even though the book criticises Mao in only those two places, those are the most important words in the book.

So, whereas Deng Xiaoping cast Mao aside, Xi Jinping has brought him back: Xi is the new Mao. The goodwill that Deng established with Japan and the United States is gone; and China is regarded as a wrecker, in their trading block.

Larry Romanoff could have taken a different tack on Tiananmen 1989: he could have proclaimed it an unfortunate incident, but that without Deng's harsh crackdown China would have gone the way of the Soviet Union, sliding into chaos and poverty. That's the line Ezra Vogel takes; Perry Anderson castigates him for it:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v34/n03/perry-anderson/sino-americana

Vol. 34 No. 3 · 9 February 2012

Sino-Americana

Perry Anderson

Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China

by Ezra Vogel. Harvard, 876 pp., £29.95, September 2011, 978 0 674 05544 5

Vogel ends his new account of the Paramount Leader by asking: 'Did any other leader in the 20th century do more to improve the lives of so many? Did any other 20th-century leader have such a large and lasting influence on world history?' Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China is an exercise in unabashed adulation, sprinkled with a few pro forma qualifications for domestic effect. ...

Once Mao has died, Vogel can concentrate on the success story that it is his purpose to tell. ... Not agrarian reform, by any measure the most beneficial single change for the people of China in the 1980s, but the Open Door becomes Deng's greatest achievement ...: 'Under Deng's leadership, China truly joined the world community, becoming an active part of international organisations and of the global system of trade, finance and relations among citizens of all walks of life.' [...]

The great student rising and occupation of Tiananmen Square of 1989, with massive popular support in Beijing, naturally poses the stiffest challenge to Vogel's exercises in edulcoration. He rises to it in inimitable style. What the students, actuated by resentment that they were 'receiving fewer economic rewards for their ability and hard work than were uneducated entrepreneurs', really wanted was improvements in their living conditions. But learning from earlier failures, they 'used slogans that resonated with the citizenry ­ democracy, freedom' and the like ­ to win wider public support. A 'hothouse generation' with little experience of life, their callow orators 'had no basis for negotiating with political leaders on behalf of other students'. Wiser foreign reporters soon tumbled to the fact that most of those in the square 'knew little about democracy and freedom and had little idea about how to achieve such goals'. No surprise that Deng felt he had to put down these ungrateful beneficiaries of 'the reform and opening that he had helped to create and from the political stability that underpinned the economic growth'.

The result was a 'tragedy of enormous proportions' that stirred the West, but Chinese reactions varied greatly. After citing some that were critical, Vogel gives the last and longest word to those 'officials who admire Deng's handling of the Tiananmen demonstrations', ending: 'They acknowledge the seriousness of the tragedy of 1989, but they believe that even greater tragedies would have befallen China had Deng failed to bring an end to the two months of chaos in June 1989.' Of course, he adds unctuously, 'all of us who care about human welfare are repulsed by the brutal crackdown,' but who knows if they are not right? 'We must admit that we do not know. What we do know is that in the two decades after Tiananmen, China enjoyed relative stability and rapid ­ even spectacular ­ economic growth.' How little Vogel cares to know about the upheaval of 1989 can be seen from his extraordinary claim that there were days during it when no newspapers appeared. The imperative is to ensure that Deng's image remains intact.
{endquote}

Vogel's line, not denying the massacre but justifying it, is unexceptional; had Romanoff taken such a position, no one would have bothered. But denial is another matter.

Leftists re-thinking the Cold War, and perhaps taking the Stalinist side, should consider these words of Trotsky's widow Natalya during the Korean War:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/sedova-natalia/1951/05/09.htm

Natalia Sedova Trotsky

Resignation from the Fourth International

To: Executive Committee of the Fourth International
To: Political Committee of the Socialist Workers Party

Comrades:

You know quite well that I have not been in political agreement with you for the past five or six years, since the end of the war and even earlier. ... our disagreements make it impossible for me to remain any longer in your ranks. ...

You are even now supporting the armies of Stalinism in the war which is being endured by the anguished Korean people. I cannot and will not follow you in this.

Natalia Sedova Trotsky
Mexico, DF ­ May 9, 1951
{endquote}

Michel Chossudovsky is a Marxist. In his book Lenin and Chicherin: The Beginnings of Soviet Foreign Policy and Diplomacy (1974), he called Lenin a 'genius':

https://doi.Org/10.1177/03058298740030010101

Lenin and Chicherin: The Beginnings of Soviet Foreign Policy and Diplomacy

E. M. Chossudovsky

Edinburgh University

Millenium Volume: 3 issue: 1, page(s): 1-16 Issue published: March 1, 1974

[...] the part which the relatively small group of Bolshevik leaders played in accelerating historic processes cannot be doubted. Towering above them all was, of course, the genius of Lenin; among the men and women of exceptional ability and dedication associated with him at the time, the most notable, in matters of foreign policy and diplomacy, was without question Georgy Vassilicvich Chicherin. the centenary of whose birth was marked on 24 November 1972, and who occupied the post of People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs from early 1918 until 1930 ... Next to Lenin himself, there was no single individual who left such a deep imprint as he on foreign policy formation during the early period of Soviet statehood.
{endquote}

Subsequently Chossudovsky identified as a Maoist. He accused Deng of restoring Capitalism, in his book Towards Capitalist Restoration?: Chinese Socialism After Mao (1986).

He later wrote about that:

https://www.asia-pacificresearch.com/china-the-largest-cheap-labor-factory-in-the-world/5627731

China: The Largest Cheap Labor Factory in the World

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research 9 April 2015

Asia-Pacific Research, March 05, 2018

[...] In 1981-82, based at the University of Hong Kong, Centre for Asian Studies (CAS), I started my research on the process of capitalist restoration in China. I took a crash course in Mandarin at the HKU Language School as well as in Taiwan. This research ­ which extended over a period of 3 years ­ included fieldwork conducted in several regions of China (1981-83) focussing on economic and social reforms, analysis of the defunct people's commune and the development of privately owned capitalist industry including the cheap labor export economy.

I started reviewing Chinese economic history including structures of the factory system prior to 1949, the development of the treaty ports established in the wake of the Opium wars (1842) and came to the realization that what was being reinstated in terms of extraterritorial economic zones was influenced by the history of the treaty ports, which granted extraterritorial rights to Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and Japan. [...]

Rather than promising a new world of "market socialism," what distinguishes China today is the speed with which it has erased past egalitarian achievements and created gross inequalities and human and ecological destruction. [...]

While China plays an important balancing role on the geopolitical chessboard, it does not constitute a viable alternative to Western capitalism. Moreover, in contrast to the US, China has no imperial ambitions.

Michel Chossudovsky, February 15, 2015
{endquote}

One can agree about the inequality; but dispute the lack of 'imperial ambitions'. Martin Jacques, a supporter of China, wrote a book called When China Rules the World: The Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World: https://archive.org/stream/MyStuff77/Martin_Jacques_-__8203_When_China_Rules_the_World_djvu.txt.

Why would Chussodovsky now run a plethora of articles siding with the new China, and exclude criticism of it? Is it because Xi has rehabilitated Mao?

Why would leftist writers deny the Tiananmen Massacre 1989 and the Uighur & Tibet genocides?

For the same reason that Western Leftists in the 1930s denied the Ukraine Famine.

(3) Barry Kissin: "Romanoffąs Version of COVID-19 Conspiracy Doesnąt Hold Up"

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/04/10/kissin-Romanoff/

Anthrax False Flag Expert Barry Kissin: "Romanoffąs Version of COVID-19 Conspiracy Doesnąt Hold Up"

By Kevin Barrett -April 10, 2020134325

Senior Editorąs note: This article and other work of Barry Kissin, seen as Ścontrolled oppositioną and without substance, would normally have been rejected by VT except for the intercession of Kevin Barrett. Otherwise it would be deemed "spam." [...]

Romanoffąs Version of COVID-19 Conspiracy Doesnąt Hold Up

By Barry Kissin (this article was rejected by GlobalResearch.ca)

On March 12, Zhao Lijian, deputy director of and spokesperson for Chinaąs Foreign Ministry Information Department, issued two tweets, the first providing a link to Global Researchąs publication on March 4 of Larry Romanoffąs "Chinaąs Coronavirus: A Shocking Update. Did The Virus Originate in the US?"[1] and the second providing a link to Global Researchąs publication on March 11 of Larry Romanoffąs "COVID-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US."[2]Zhao says that these articles "changed many things I used to believe in" and should be read and retweeted.

On the same day, March 12, The Hill reported that "a spokesman for the Chinese government [Zhao Lijian] on Thursday promoted a conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was brought to the city of Wuhan by the U.S. military. Taiwan News reported: "Coincidentally, Zhaoąs fellow foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang backed the conspiracy theory suggesting the virus was bio-engineered by the [U.S.]." On March 13, the New York Times published about Zhao Lijianąs tweets in an article subtitled "After criticizing American officials for politicizing the pandemic, Chinese officials and news outlets have floated unfounded theories that the United States was the source of the virus." [3]

On March 13, the U.S. summoned Chinaąs ambassador in order to communicate that "spreading conspiracy theories is dangerous and ridiculous. We wanted to put the government on notice we wonąt tolerate it, for the good of the Chinese people and the world." Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai "in contrast to Zhao, is known for his diplomatic approach and has publicly called for US-Chinese cooperation against the pandemic." [4]

I firmly reject that conspiracy theories in general are "ridiculous." Conspiracies among the most powerful repeatedly have been factually demonstrated and covered up. But when supporting facts are insufficient, I also believe that conspiracy theories can be dangerous and can undermine necessary cooperation.

I agree with what Xinhua journalist Gao Wencheng wrote on March 9 in response to the equally unsubstantiated theory that the COVID-19 epidemic began with the leak of a Chinese biological weapon: "[D]angerously irresponsible statements are highly counterproductive at this drastic hour that demands solidarity and cooperation, and could be much more menacing than the virus itself Š it is time for countries to build a united front to win the war on the disease."[5]

Global Research has attracted international attention to its many articles on the subject of COVID-19, including not only a series of Larry Romanoffąs articles, but also articles by its editor Professor Michel Chossudovsky and others that rely upon Larry Romanoffąs work. As I write on March 18, Global Research has posted "Beijing Believes COVID-19 Is a Biological Weapon" that begins by referring to statements by Zhao Lijan and continues with a rehashing of Romanoffąs misleading evidence. The balance of this article critiques the two articles by Romanoff cited by Chinaąs Foreign Ministry Information Department. These articles are supported by insufficient evidence, worse are contradicted by their own footnoted sources.

Romanoffąs article published on March 4 has as its first contention that "Chinese Researchers Conclude the Virus Originated Outside of China." Romanoff cites in support of this contention three references set forth in his Footnotes 1, 2 and 3.

The first source is a Global Times article that does not say that the virus originated outside of China. The title of this article is "New Chinese study indicates novel coronavirus did not originate in [Wuhan] seafood market." Its conclusion is: "[B]ased upon limited samples in other countries, the source of most infections is deemed to be the same. In addition to their contact history with Wuhan, some may have been infected in South Chinaąs Guangdong Province and Singapore." [6]

The second source, CGTN, also only says that the Wuhan seafood market was not the source. Its conclusion is: "The mysterious source of the novel coronavirus outbreak has led to a divide among scientists worldwide Š The origin of the novel coronavirus is still unknown, but itąs most likely an animal reservoir, said the World Health Organization." [7]

Both Global Times and CGTN are reporting about the same scholarly study by Chinese scientists which is titled "Decoding evolution and transmissions of novel pneumonia coronavirus using the whole genomic data." [8]

In no way does this Chinese study imply that the U.S. is the original source. In one paragraph, this study links some of the American "haplotypes" to Wuhan, others possibly to Guangdong Province, others possibly to patients from Vietnam and Australia "who might be initially from Wuhan." "[S]o the sources of imported infections are complicated."

This study explains that the "currently available samples do not include the first identified infected patient and other patients from early December" and that "genomic sequencing" of such samples would "help to locate the birthplace" of COVID-19. This study concludes: "We suspect that super-spreaders mediated the spread from China to the rest of the world."

This scientific study also contradicts the other facet of Romanoffąs theory, namely that COVID-19 is man-made, bio-engineered. In contrast, the genomic analysis in this study attributes the evolving characteristics of COVID-19 to mutations.

Footnote 3 of Romanoffąs March 4 article cites the only other scientific study among his references, namely "Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China," published in The Lancet. This study says nothing about origination except to mention that the related SARS and MERS coronaviruses "were believed to originate in bats." The only potentially relevant fact adduced in this study is that of the first 41 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, one-third (including the first patient so diagnosed) did not have "directexposure to the Wuhan seafood market." (emphasis added). [9]

Footnote 4 cites Xinhua for the following statement by "renowned Chinese respiratory specialist Zhong Nanshan": "Though the COVID-19 was first discovered in China, it does not mean that it originated from China." The balance of Zhongąs statement quoted in the Xinhua article is: "We need greater international cooperation. This is a human disease, not a national disease." This hardly suggests a belief on Zhongąs part that the origin of COVID-19 is a bio-engineered virus from the U.S.

Romanoffąs next contention is that Japanese media report that "The Coronavirus May Have Originated in the US." Romanoff is referring to a report by TV Asahi of Japan which he says "presented scientific documentation." But the reference at Footnote 5 identifies only one slender fact in support of U.S. origin, namely that "it is unknown whether Americans who have already died of the influenza had contracted the coronavirus." The reference at Footnote 5 itself expresses skepticism about the meaningfulness of this slender fact. [10]

Romanoffąs next contention is "Taiwan Virologist Suggests the Coronavirus Originated in the US." This is based on "a rough translation, summary and analysis of selected content" of one particular Taiwanese newscast on Feb. 27 in which someone referred to by Romanoff as a "top virologist" explains that "the geographical location with the greatest diversity of virus strains must be the original source" and that "only the US has all the five known strains of the virus." Romanoff does not reveal the source of this "rough translation, summary and analysis of selected content," nor does he identify the virologistąs database. Strangely, the only related footnote is to a series of social media type comments posted at a Chinese "microblogging" site. [11]

The peer reviewed Chinese scientific study "Decoding Evolution Š using the whole genomic data" discussed above (that sets forth over 50 references) also engages in an analysis based on diversity of COVID-19 strains, but reaches no conclusion like that of Romanoffąs unidentified Taiwanese virologist. For example, this Chinese study points out: "The high haplotype diversity found in samples from other countries may be because the sampling dates were mostly after 22 January 2020, while those in China were before this date. In addition, the low level of radiation exposure on long-distance international flights may have accelerated mutation rates of [COVID-19]." [12]

The Taiwanese virologist is also said to believe that the COVID-19 outbreak began in September, 2019, two months prior to the infections in China, because of "the case in September of 2019 where some Japanese traveled to Hawaii and returned home infected, people who had never been to China." Romanoff cites no other reference to substantiate this case, and I could find nothing else on the internet that speaks of Japanese becoming infected by COVID-19 in September, 2019. (Reuters did report on the case of a Japanese man diagnosed with COVID-19 after visiting Hawaii, but his visit was from Jan. 28 to Feb. 7, and he is believed to have become infected in Japan before embarking on his trip to Hawaii.) [13]

Romanoffąs article published on March 11 begins by repeating points in his March 4 article and then focuses on the "CDC totally shutting down the US Militaryąs main bio-lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, due to an absence of safeguards against pathogen leakages," as if said "pathogen leakages" included leaking COVID-19.

I happen to be a long-time resident of Frederick, Maryland, the home of Fort Detrick. As an activist, I have organized opposition to the massive expansion of bio-labs at Fort Detrick, arguing that such bio-labs do not belong in the middle of what is now a densely populated community, but also arguing that such bio-labs do not belong anywhere.

The problems that resulted in the shutdown in July, 2019, began in May, 2018, "when storms flooded and ruined a decades-old steam sterilization plant that the Detrick had been using to treat wastewater from its labs." Detrick then resorted to a decontamination system using chemicals. "During an inspection in June, [2019], the C.D.C. found that procedures were not being followed consistently. Inspectors also found mechanical problems with the chemical-based decontamination system, as well as leaks." [14]

To date, there is zero evidence that said leaks had anything to do with COVID-19. My densely populated community has not experienced anything like an epidemic attributable to any kind of virus or influenza. On March 16 (2020), the Frederick County Health Department reported the first case of COVID-19 in Frederick County. [15]

Though the March 11 article promises "further evidence that the virus originated in the U.S.," there is no additional scientific evidence. Footnote 1 is to another Chinese social media site. Footnote 2 is to a Jan. 2020Sciencemagazine article which in a section titled "Where Did the Virus Come From? begins: "Almost certainly from animals, but when and how are mysteries. Genetic analyses are starting to yield some clues."

Footnote 3 is to another Jan. 2020 Sciencemagazine article essentially recapping The Lancetarticle discussed above (Footnote 3 of Romanoffąs March 4 article) and adding one Georgetown University scientistąs opinion that COVID-19 did not originate in the Wuhan seafood market. There is nothing in this article that remotely suggests COVID-19 was bio-engineered or that it came from the U.S. Footnotes 4 and 5 are to the same article in The Lancetabout "clinical features."

Footnote 6 is a mistake ­ the reference therein is completely unrelated to the text for which it is cited. Footnote 7 merely repeats that some of the first patients had no direct links to the seafood market. Footnote 8 is to an interview with the same Georgetown University scientist quoted in the Sciencearticle in Footnote 3 in which he repeats that COVID-19 "could have begun in October-November or earlier in 2019." Footnote 9 is to an article by another of the scientists quoted in the Sciencearticle in Footnote 3 who states: "We are starting to see more structure in the tree and overall the genetic data is highly suggestive of a single-point introduction into the human population Š This introduction was likely via either a single infected animal or a small cluster of recently infected animals directly into either a single human individual or a small cluster of human individuals." Finally, Footnote 10 is to a scientific analysis published in 2013 about the coronavirus MERS.

Romanoff concludes his March 11 article by repeating the logic of the (unidentified) Taiwanese virologist relied upon in his March 4 article that is critiqued above.

Conclusion

The two articles by Larry Romanoff posted by Global Research and endorsed by Chinaąs Foreign Ministry present insufficient evidence that COVID-19 originated in the U.S. as a bio-engineered virus. Most of the sources set forth in Romanoffąs footnotes contradict his theory.

Barry Kissin is a retired attorney, dedicated peace activist and columnist who resides in Frederick, Maryland, home of Fort Detrick. He is regularly published in his local newspaper, The Frederick News-Post, as well as in alternative media, including Global Research.

Notes

[1] https://www.globalresearch.ca/china-coronavirus-shocking-update/5705196

[2] https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-further-evidence-virus-originated-us/5706078

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/world/asia/coronavirus-china-conspiracy-theory.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

[4] https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2020/03/14/US-summons-China-s-ambassador-to-Washington-o ver-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory.html

[5] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-03/09/c_138859548.htm

[6] https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180429.shtml

[7] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-02-23/New-study-shows-Wuhan-seafood-market-not-the-source-of-COVID-19-OjhaHnwdnG/index.html

[8] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339351990_Decoding_evolution_and_transmissions_of_novel_pneumonia_coronavirus_SARS-CoV-2_using_the_whole_genomic_data

[9] https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2930183-5

[10] http://en.people.cn/n3/2020/0223/c90000-9661026.html

[11] https://m.weibo.cn/status/4477008216030027#&video

[12] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339351990_Decoding_evolution_and_transmissions_of_novel_pneumonia_coronavirus_SARS-CoV-2_using_the_whole_genomic_data

[13] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-hawaii/japanese-man-diagnosed-with-coronavirus-after-visiting-hawaii-idUSKBN209053

[14] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/health/germs-fort-detrick-biohazard.html

[15] https://health.frederickcountymd.gov/614/Novel-Coronavirus-COVID-19

END

More on China's switch from Marxist economics to National System Economics: China-economic-miracle.html.

National Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.. Left economists praise China, but others liken it to Nazi Germany: china-nazi.html

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

Write to me at contact.html.

 

 

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Larry_Romanoff

Larry Romanoff ex Wikispooks
QUOTE
Larry Romanoff is an ex-businessman.

Activities
Larry Romanoff writes regularly for Global Research. In 2020 he linked the sudden shutdown of Fort Detrick in Autumn 2019 to the emergence of Covid-19.[1]

Criticism
Ryan Broderick wrote for BuzzFeedNews that Larry Romanoff had "posted a bevy of misinformation about the coronavirus" on "conspiracy theory site Global Research".[2]

  A Document by Larry Romanoff

Title Document type Publication date Subject(s) Description
Document:COVID-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US Article 4 March 2020 2019 Military World Games
Fort Detrick
COVID-19/Origins
COVID-19/Pandemic		 The varieties of COVID-19 in Iran and Italy have been sequenced and declared to have no part of the variety that infected China and must, by definition, have originated elsewhere.

  A Quote by Larry Romanoff

Page Quote Date
1959 “A US Army operating manual from 1956 stated explicitly that biological and chemical warfare were an integral operating portion of US military strategy, were not restricted in any way, and that Congress had given the military “First Strike” authority on their use. In 1959, an attempt by Congress to remove this first-strike authority was defeated by the White House and bio-chemical weapons expenditures increased from $75 million to almost $350 million.” 2020


References

  • [[]]
  • https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/chinese-diplomats-are-pushing-conspiracy-theories-that-the
    • [ Chinese Diplomats Are Pushing Conspiracy Theories That The Coronavirus Didn't Originate In China.
    UNQUOTE
    Read for yourself. Think for yourself. Decide for yourself.