Tiananmen's Hidden Hands

This is a continuation of this morning’s post on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre hoax. 

Sure, there were student protests. There were incidences of violence. And there were killings. But not as we were led to believe by US propagandists. 

I managed to dig up a trove of information – and it seems that the ill-famed incident had to do with the two most important people in this story: Hu Yaobang and James Lilley. 

Hu was the Chairperson and General Secretary of the CCP. He was said to be a “reformer” and was liked by young people. And he died on April 15, 1989 – if not for his death, there would, in all likelihood, have been no drama in China that year! 

I read that university students had initially wanted to gather at Tiananmen Square to mourn his death. But that intention metamorphosized into a protest where they decided to present petitions to the government.

Within a day or two after Yaobang’s death, the US realized that hundreds of thousands of young people would be congregating in Beijing. It was the perfect time for a coup, since the rest of the world was dismantling communism that year! 

Thus, on April 20, 1989 – five days after Yaobang’s death – James Lilley was appointed as the US Ambassador to China. He was a 30-year veteran from the CIA. 

An article from Vancouver Sun dated September 17, 1992 described the role of the CIA: “The Central Intelligence Agency had sources among [Tiananmen Square] protesters”… and “For months before [the protests], the CIA had been helping student activists form the anti-government movement”. 

To facilitate the nefarious activities of US intelligence, certain individuals were roped in – and two of the prominent ones were George Soros and Zhao Ziyang. 

Soros is legendary for organizing grassroots movements around the world. In 1986, he had donated $1 million – which was a lot of money in China in those days – to the Fund for the Reform and Opening of China. Over the next three years, Soros’ group had cultivated and trained many pro-democracy student leaders, who would spring into action in 1989. 

Even the pernicious National Endowment for Democracy – another regime-change organization – opened offices in China in 1988. 

And who allowed all these western fake NGOs to infiltrate China? The blame has been attributed to Zhao Ziyang, who was the Premier of China and the General Secretary of the Communist Party. He was a big fan of privatization and Milton Friedman. His close advisor, Chen Yizi, headed China’s Institute for Economic and Structural Reform, an influential neoliberal think tank. 

By the way, after the protests, Soros and his NGO were banned in China; Zhao Ziyang was purged and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life; and Chen Yizi escaped to the US. 

Another American who played a big role in the Tiananmen Square agitations was Gene Sharp, who’s the author of Color Revolution manuals and the subject of an acclaimed documentary called “How to Start a Revolution”. He was in Beijing for nine days during the protests and wrote about it. Of course, he didn’t reveal his role, but it’s not hard to imagine. 

Sharp worked closely with the Pentagon, the CIA, NED, et cetera for decades and fomented uprisings all over the world. The influence of westerners in Tiananmen Square is obvious, looking at all the large signs in English, expressing American ideals: 

Two additional facts surfaced. The Chinese government did not impose martial law until May 20, and there were no major clashes between the military and the people until the very end. Here’s a photo of protesters giving food to the Chinese soldiers:

I’ve no intention to gloss over the fact that the students’ protests were legitimate – China was not in a good situation in the 1980s. In 1988, prices of consumer goods and food went up 26%. College tuition was also going up, and many graduates couldn’t find good jobs. Ironically, all these were the result of liberalization and rapid transition to western-style economy. 

So, idealistic young people had come out to protest and clamor for democracy – y’know, the usual free speech, free press and so forth. 

Amongst them were student leaders who had an agenda which conveniently served US interests. These ringleaders escaped from China – the CIA called it “Operation YellowBird” – right after the protests, and came to the US. I read that they went to Yale, Harvard, Princeton and other Ivy League universities, thanks to generous help from the US government. 

And then the agitators and anarchists who were at the protests to escalate tension. This strategy based on mob-rule psychology works very effectively all over the world. Some of these provocateurs even had weapons.

One of them, Chai Ling, had allegedly said this: “I wanted to tell them [students] that we were expecting bloodshed, that it would take a massacre, which would spill blood like a river through Tiananmen Square, to awaken the people. But how could I tell them this? How could I tell them that their lives would have to be sacrificed in order to win?” Anyway, she fled China a couple of days before June 4, 1989. 

Therefore, a massacre was needed to bring down the communist party. When it didn’t happen the way it was envisioned, the narrative of massacre was created. 

Because perception is reality. History is written by winners. And the people with the best narratives are the winners. 

Of course, some may ask if China will be better off with free speech, free press and more transparency? But I'll respond with another question. Which country has free speech, free press and more transparency? Not even in the US lah!

All I know is that it is the Chinese people who will determine this and on their own terms. I believe China has paved its own path.

While the Tiananmen event was tragic, there’s no doubt that the Chinese people appreciate the incredible progress the country has made since 1989.