The Constitution

May you and your contemporaries . . . preserve inviolate a Constitution, which, cherished in all its chastity and purity, will prove in the end a blessing to all the nations of the earth” (Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Nicholas, December 11, 1821).

September 17 is Constitution Day. In the past, this holiday was noted and commemorated from coast to coast. Today, however, the average person doesn’t even know that September 17 is a holiday. Worse, the average person has never taken the time to study and learn the Constitution and thus does not recognize the plethora of ways it is being violated on a daily basis by the very people – the sly oath-breakers – ostensibly representing him. This Constitution Day, I give a short tribute to the U.S. Constitution and the noble men who were inspired by Heaven to write and establish it.

The British statesman William Gladstone famously remarked that “the American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” I submit to you that this is true. Examine all the systems of government of the past or present and where do you find another that has secured to so many people as many rights and privileges and produced so much prosperity, advancement, and influence? No system in recorded human history has ever duplicated the general benefits that have resulted from the establishment of the Constitution of the United States.

America13

The United States is, by any honest analysis, the greatest, wealthiest, freest, and most powerful nation in history. No other nation has risen so far so fast, produced as much wealth, secured as much personal Liberty, or exerted as much influence on the world for good as the United States. Much of this unparalleled success stems back to the system of limited republican government established by the Constitution.

George Washington wrote of the system set up by the Constitution: “I was convinced it approached nearer to perfection than any government hitherto instituted among men” (George Washington to Edward Newenham, August 29, 1788). Another time he declared that “the Constitution is the guide which I never can abandon” (George Washington to the Boston Selectmen, July 28, 1795). And during his Farewell Address, President Washington again affirmed:

[T]he Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

Why was the Father of our Country so enamored with the Constitution? One of the reasons he was thrilled by the Constitution was that its authority centered in the People themselves, not in a monarchy, oligarchy, or formal bureaucracy. Washington stated:

The power under the Constitution will always be with the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes and for a certain limited period to representatives of their own chusing; and whenever it is exercised contrary to their interests, or not according to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be, recalled” (George Washington to Bushrod Washington, November 9, 1787).

The Constitution in fact was designed by the Founding Fathers to be an act of the People themselves. It had to be, for it would be their government. During the Constitution ratifying debates, however, some said that the Founders were not truly representing the People and therefore should not have used the phrase “We the People” in Constitution’s Preamble. However, a delegate from North Carolina, Archibald MacLaine, stated that the term was perfectly appropriate because it was the American People, and no other, that would ultimately approve the Constitution and thereby put it into force by their consent to its laws:

“[The Constitution] was to be submitted by the legislatures to the people; so that, when it is adopted, it is the act of the people” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 176).

The Constitution was and is the act of the People. The Constitution derives its powers, as Thomas Jefferson had stated in the Declaration of Independence all governments should, “from the consent of the governed.” In his brilliant book The Making of America – my pick for the best book ever written on constitutional interpretation – W. Cleon Skousen explained:

The new Constitution presupposes the complete restitution of all political power to the people, with a subsequent redistribution of certain powers to the states and certain powers to the federal government.

This explanation gives particular significance to the words of James Madison when he emphasized the relative amount of responsibility allocated to each level of government:

““The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperity of the state.”

Of course the people were accustomed to thinking of the states as the sovereign source of all political power, but the Founders wanted to educate the people to understand that they themselves are the source of all such power. James Wilson of Pennsylvania explained it as follows:

““. . . On the principle . . . of this Constitution . . . the supreme power resides in the people. If they choose to indulge a part of their sovereign power to be exercised by the state governments, they may. If they have done it, the states were right in exercising it; but if they think it no longer safe or convenient, they will resume it, or make a new distribution, more likely to be productive of that good which ought to be our constant aim.

““The powers of both the general government and the state governments, under this system, are acknowledged to be so many emanations of power from the people.

The purpose of the Founders was to assign to each level of government that service which is could perform the most efficiently and the most economically. There was a remarkable rationale behind the whole system. It went back to the “ancient principles”” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 176-177).

The “ancient principles” referred to are those which empower the People. Just as the government derives its powers from the People, the People infer their collective power from individuals. Genuine and rightful power does not come from the top down, but from the bottom up. It begins with the individual who receives his rights and prerogatives as an endowment from God Almighty, or nature, and then proceeds outward to families, neighborhoods, communities, counties, states, and, finally, the nation.

JeffersonHengistandHorsa

One side of Thomas Jefferson’s proposed seal for the United States, depicting Anglo-Saxon leaders Hengist and Horsa

This system originated thousands of years ago. It is the system revealed by God to ancient Israel. From there it spread to other areas, such as to the Anglo-Saxons. It was from the Anglo-Saxons that Thomas Jefferson gained knowledge of this near-perfect societal, governmental structure. Jefferson described it thus:

[T]he way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one; but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. let the National government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and it’s foreign & federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police & administration of what concerns the state generally; the Counties with the local concerns of the counties; and each Ward direct the interests within itself.7 it is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great National one down thro’ all it’s subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm and affairs by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. what has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? the generalising & concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the Autocrats of Russia or France, or of the Aristocrats of a Venetian Senate. and I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that Man shall never be free, (and it is blasphemy to believe it) that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher & higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers, in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical. the elementary republics of the wards, the county republics, the State republics, and the republic of the Union, would form a gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding every one it’s delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental balances and checks for the government. where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward-republic, or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs not merely at an election, one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the state who will not be a member of some one of it’s councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner than his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or a Bonaparte” (Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816).

This is the ingenious system that our Constitution was designed to safeguard and promote! It is perhaps the most succinct description of how the American system is meant to work. Each man is meant to personally govern himself, his family, and his affairs. Families were never intended to reach out to the government for help. Rather, a family’s relatives and neighbors, and local church, should be their support net.

If each family takes care of itself, and extended family and neighbors bind together to take care of each other within their wards and districts, the entire nation would easily govern itself with little need for government intervention. What need would we have for a large and invasive national government if each family and neighborhood tended to itself? There would be no welfare state with its massive bureaucratic apparatus, no need for a sprawling police force, and far fewer abuses and excesses.

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. was a lawyer, an experienced statesman who held numerous positions in government, and an influential religious leader. He was an expert in law and had an acute understanding of Freedom’s enemies. He said that our Founding Fathers understood these threats and formulated the Constitution to minimize them. Clark wrote:

We must always remember that despotism and tyranny, with all their attendant tragedies to the people, as in Russia today, come to nations because one man, or a small group of men, seize and exercise by themselves the three great divisions of government, – the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. For now a score of centuries, the nations and peoples of Western and Southern Europe – the bulk of the civilized world until less than two centuries ago – have lived under this concept (sometimes more, sometimes less) and, when the concept has been operative, have suffered the resulting tragedies – loss of liberty, oppression, great poverty among the masses, insecurity, wanton disregard of human life, and a host of the relatives of these evil broods.

The framers of our Constitution knew this history, and planned to make sure that these enemies to human welfare, freedom and happiness did not come to America. They were trained and experienced in the Common Law . . . They were thoroughly indoctrinated in the principle that the true sovereignty rested in the people. . . .

Deeply read in history, steeped in the lore of the past in human government, and experienced in the approaches of despotism which they had, themselves, suffered at the hands of George the Third, these patriots, assembled in solemn convention, planned for the establishment of a government that would ensure to them the blessings they described in the Preamble.

The people were setting up the government. They were bestowing power. They gave the government the powers they wished to give; they retained what they did not wish to give. The residuum of power was in them. . . .

The Framers, in the Government they provided for, separated the three functions of government and set each of them up as a separate branch – the legislative, and executive and the judicial. Each was wholly independent of the other. No one of them might encroach upon the other. No one of them might delegate its power to another.

Yet by the Constitution, the different branches were bound together, unified into an efficient, operating whole. These branches stood together, supported one another. While severally independent, they ere at the same time, mutually dependent. It is this union of independence and dependence of these branches – legislative, executive and judicial – and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document. The Framers had no direct guide in this work, no historical governmental precedent upon which to rely. As I see it, it was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle.

The people, not an Emperor or a small group, were to make the laws through their representatives chosen by them” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Church News, November 29, 1952, in Jerreld Newquist, ed., Prophets, Principles and National Survival, 78-80).

Republic

Some might think that this emphasis on the People means our system is a democracy. Not so. The Constitution explicitly promises a “Republican Form of Government” to the states (see Article 4, Section 4). In a democracy, the People personally administer the government. In a republican system, the People appoint representatives to oversee certain duties that are impossible for a large people to administer in-person. Furthermore, in America we enshrined the rule of law in written documents and constitutions, thus creating our own unique brand of republicanism.

Constitutional republicanism is not democracy. This is a great fallacy. Our Founders despised democracy and considered it worse than monarchy. Our system is also not authoritarian. Our system did not rest in either extreme, but was closer to the middle of the scale if one side is tyranny and the other is anarchy.

Alexander Hamilton said:

We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments – if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy” (Alexander Hamilton, Debates on the Federal Convention, June 26, 1787).

Thomas Jefferson strongly favored republicanism and stated:

The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind” (Thomas Jefferson to William Hunter, March 11, 1790).

Jefferson also told the nation during his First Inaugural Address:

We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. . . .

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government.”

Again, America was founded not as a democracy, but as a republican nation firmly rooted in rule of law as established in a written constitution. Unlike the British system that had no formal written constitution and which was thus very fluid and subject to the whims of leaders – especially the corrupt British monarchy – the U.S. government was set in stone and bound within very narrow limits and could only justly exercise a specified number of powers for limited purposes and in particular ways. Checks and balances, separation of powers, and enumerated powers were all fundamental aspects of our limited federal Constitution.

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. spoke often of the Constitution. He reverenced it, as I do, as an inspired document. He said:

The Constitutional Convention met and out of it came our God-inspired Constitution – “the most wonderful work,” said Gladstone, “ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” . . .

It gave us, for perhaps the first time in all history, a republic with the three basic divisions of government – the legislative, executive, and judicial – mutually and completely independent the one from the other, under which it is not possible for any branch of government legally to set up a system by which that branch can first conceive what it wants to do, then make the law ordering its doing, and then, itself, judge its own enforcement of its own law, a system that has always brought extortion, oppression, intimidation, tyranny, despotism – a system that every dictator has employed and must employ” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Stand Fast By Our Constitution, 187).

In other words, our inspired Constitution set up perhaps the first system that precludes tyrannical abuses, so long as it is strictly followed and the government is kept within its prescribed limits. If our elected representatives followed their oath of office, our government would never devolve into despotism because it could not. It is only when people violate their oath of office and the People let them get away with it that abuses happen. When people criticize our government, as I myself frequently do, they should make sure never to condemn the Constitution, but only its corrupt officers and the unconstitutional laws that we have allowed to be established.

Despite the brilliance of our constitutional system, our government is now a massive bureaucracy that tyrannizes us as a matter of course. It’s full of wolves in sheep’s clothing, traitors, despots, and front men for much eviler people operating and ruling from the shadows. I will cite but one reason for our fallen state: Our collective immorality.

I’ve emphasized this important factor in the past, but virtue and righteousness are essential ingredients in Americanism. I’ll cite four witness from our Founding era and commend their common sense to you with my own testimony of its pressing relevance. John Adams famously said:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798).

George Washington1

Another time he observed:

“The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies” (John Adams to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776).

One of my own ancestors, Caleb Strong, was a close associate of John Adams and is one of our forgotten Founders who participated in the Constitutional Convention and held numerous influential roles. In a speech as governor of Massachusetts, Strong stated:

[W]e are generally apt to ascribe too much to the efficacy of laws and government, as if they alone could secure the happiness of the people; but no laws will be sufficient to counteract the influence of manners which are corrupted by vice and voluptuousness; and it is beyond the power of any government to render the circumstances of the citizens easy and prosperous, if they want the habits of industry and frugality. – Government is necessary, to preserve the public peace, the persons and property of individuals; but our social happiness must chiefly depend upon other causes; upon simplicity and purity of manners; upon the education that we give our children; upon a steady adherence to the customs and institutions of our ancestors; upon the general diffusion of knowledge, and the prevalence of piety and benevolent affections among the people.

Our forms of government, are, doubtless, like all other institutions, imperfect; but they will ensure the blessings of freedom to the citizens, and preserve their tranquillity, so long as they are virtuous; and no constitution, that has been, or can be formed, will secure those blessings to a depraved and vicious people” (Caleb Strong, January 17, 1806, in Patriotism and Piety, 138).

A third witness, John Witherspoon affirmed:

Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue. On the other hand, when the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigor, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed” (John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Man,” May 17, 1776).

Finally, George Washington told the nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).

Only a moral, virtuous, just, upright, truth-loving People are capable of Freedom and ordered society. America was once good and so America was once great. We are still the greatest nation on earth, but we are have noticeably fallen from our lofty position. We need to return to our moral, Christian roots if we are to regain our unique American stature.

At the end of the day, the Constitution is not for the United States alone. Its principles are eternal and sacred. They belong to every nation. It was the Lord who raised up America’s Founding Fathers, who preserved us through the War for Independence, and who inspired the Constitution. He intended the ideas that fired the American soul to fire the world and lead to a new era of Freedom, peace, and prosperity. It is our duty as Americans to be the missionaries of this unsurpassed Freedom system.

I end by citing a rousing statement from J. Reuben Clark, Jr. He declared:

We must come with the loftiest patriotism, with a single allegiance, undivided, unshared, undefiled, for the Constitution under which we live . . . Our hearts and hands must be clean of all foreign isms and alien political cults. The Constitution and its free institutions must be our ensign. For America has a destiny – a destiny to conquer the world, – not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achievement, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole earth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of mutual patience, forbearance, and charity, in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., February 24, 1944, in Jerreld Newquist, ed., Prophets, Principles and National Survival, 60-61).

America14

Americanism is the greatest system in history. This system is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution – the most incredible political document in the world. I repeat that it was inspired by Almighty God and that Americans are the custodians of these superlative principles. It is time for us to declare with George Washington that the Constitution is the guide we will never abandon.

Zack Strong,

September 18, 2019

The Great Betrayal – How China Turned Red

“I have unswerving faith in the re-emergence of my country as a free united nation and in the eventful triumph of freedom over slavery throughout the world.” – General Chiang Kai-shek, Soviet Russia in China, 349.

In 1949, China was conquered by the communists led by Mao Tse-tung. Under Chairman Mao’s iron rule, the Reds slaughtered between 60 and 100 million innocent Chinese and threw tens of millions more in brutal labor and reeducation camps – camps still in use to this day. Naturally, the Red regime in Beijing was supported by the Soviet Union. In fact, the enslavement of China was perhaps the Moscow-based communists’ greatest victory. However, there is an aspect to this sad saga that is often overlooked – the critical role the United States played in undermining China’s Freedom movement and facilitating a communist triumph.

Chiang7

General Chiang Kai-shek

In pre-Maoist China, the legitimate leader was a patriotic general named Chiang Kai-shek. Chiang has been unjustly maligned by the Marxist Establishment as a brutal despot who impeded Chinese progress. In fact, Chiang desperately wanted a democratic government and a free China and was a staunch supporter of the United States. He fought tooth and nail against the communists almost his entire life. Fighting communism is, to the Western Elite, the same as impeding “progress.” It was precisely because of his anti-communist stance that Chiang has been smeared by Western academia. Also worthy of note is the fact that Chiang was a devout Christian – certainly not the sort of man welcome in Elite circles.

In mid-1947, as his Nationalist forces fought the communists under Mao, General Chiang stated of his Kuomintang (KMT) military:

“Regardless of what aspect we discuss, we hold an absolute superiority; in terms of the troops’ equipment, battle techniques and experience, the Communists are not our equal. . . . And we are also ten times richer than the communist army in terms of military-supply replacements, such as food, fodder, and ammunition” (Loyd E. Eastman, “Who Lost China? Chiang Kai-shek Testifies,” The China Quarterly, No. 88, 658, December, 1981).

How did a militarily superior force ostensibly aided by the United States eventually lose a civil war against the Reds? The answer is that the subversive element in the U.S. government did not support Chiang’s movement, but used their positions of influence to undermine it at every step. It was really a case of the U.S. Elite combining with the Soviets against Chiang and his Nationalists.

In his often overlooked book detailing Western involvement in the world-wide communist conspiracy, W. Cleon Skousen wrote of the fall of free China:

“General Albert C. Wedemeyer was the last commander of the Chinese Theater of Operations during World War II, and he has described in his book, Wedemeyer Reports . . . how he assured Chiang Kai-shek that the U.S. would support the Nationalist Chinese in setting up a democratic form of government after the war. But this never came about, because right at the time the delicate process of writing and adopting a constitution was in process, the State Department sent over George C. Marshall to tell Chiang Kai-shek that if he didn’t allow the Communist Chinese to immediately enter his government on a coalition basis, all U.S. aid would be terminated. General Wedemeyer wrote a comprehensive report to President Truman showing how this fantastic demand would ultimately lead to a Communist conquest of 600,000,000 Chinese. The State Department demanded that General Wedemeyer be “muzzled.” Chiang Kai-shek refused to accept the Communists in his government, and General Marshall fulfilled his threat. He wrote: “As Chief of Staff I armed 39 anti-Communist divisions (in China), now with a stroke of the pen I disarm them.” U.S. aid to China was reduced to a dribble. Both economic and military collapse became inevitable.

“We have already discussed the Establishment’s manipulation of the State Department through its Institute of Pacific Relations, which set the stage for the betrayal of China to a Communist conquest.

“By 1949 the whole mainland of China was in Communist hands and a bloodbath of genocidal terrorism was being poured out upon the people. What Americans had fought World War II to prevent the Japanese from doing to China, the State Department had encouraged Mao and Chao to go ahead and accomplish.

China17

“The next task was to keep the American people from discovering how China had been betrayed to the Reds. It was necessary to cover the tracks of the IPR and its agents who were working inside the U.S. government. Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, wrote a notorious White Paper trying to put the blame on Chiang Kai-shek and saying the State Department had been helpless to prevent the Communist coup. However, Acheson’s ambassador to China, John Leighton Stuart, wrote a book called Fifty Years in China . . . in which he admitted that he and his associates in the State Department could not escape their “part of the responsibility of the great catastrophe.” He repudiated the White Paper as a historical document and said it left out much of what really happened. Professor Kenneth Colegrove of the Political Science Department at Northwestern University went even further. He said Dean Acheson’s White Paper “was one of the most false documents ever published by any country”” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, 74-76).

Similarly, researcher John Coleman, in his phenomenal book One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship, which I cannot recommend too highly, wrote:

“Roosevelt refused to listen to intelligence reports about the activities of Owen Lattimore, and insisted on appointing him as his personal advisor to Chiang Kai Shek, which left Lattimore in the enviable position of easily betraying the Nationalists to the Communists. The Chinese Nationalist forces were further betrayed by Roosevelt appointee Lauchlin Currie, who ordered Army supplies intended for the Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalist forces dumped into the Indian Ocean” (John Coleman, One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship, 121).

Currie was acknowledged by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI to be a Soviet agent. And Lattimore was likewise a long-time Soviet spy. Nearly all the men that FDR surrounded himself with were Marxist agents. FDR, my candidate for the worst president in American history, was himself a communist! He gave us four straight terms of communism and not only fundamentally altered our country for the worse, but played a major role in the communist restructuring of the world.

One of the enduring aspects of FDR’s treason against humanity is the fact he loved mass-murderer Joseph Stalin, used American resources to literally save the Soviet Union from Hitler’s anti-communist campaign, and enabled the Soviets to come back from the brink of near defeat at Germany’s hands to spread its Satanic influence across the globe – including into China. China was the dazzling jewel in the communist crown and its conquest would not have been possible had FDR not been a closet communist, had he not surrounded himself – in defiance of intelligence reports – with known Soviet agents, and had he not appointed communists to oversee the management of China. To learn about the shocking communist takeover of our government that occurred during FDR’s reprehensible administration, read Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein.

In his book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Gary Allen wrote of Elites’ efforts to turn the world communist:

“A clique of American financiers not only helped establish Communism in Russia, but has striven mightily ever since to keep it alive. . . .

“At Versailles, this same clique carved up Europe and set the stage for World War II . . . In 1941, the same Insiders rushed to the aid of our “noble ally,” Stalin, after his break with Hitler. In 1943, these same Insiders marched off to the Tehran Conference and proceeded to start the carving up of Europe after the second great “war to end war.” Again at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945, they established the China policy . . . later summarized by Owen Lattimore: “The problem was how to allow them [China] to fall without making it look as if the United States had pushed them.” The facts are inescapable. In one country after another Communism has been imposed on the local population from the top down. The most prominent forces for the imposition of the tyranny came from the United States and Great Britain. Here is a charge that no American enjoys making, but the facts lead to no other possible conclusion. The idea that Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses is a fraud.

“. . . But if Communism is an arm of a bigger conspiracy to control the world by power-mad billionaires (and brilliant but ruthless academicians who have shown them how to use their power) it all becomes perfectly logical” (Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, 75-76).

I want to point out that communism is not an American plot. It actually originated in Europe in 1776 when Adam Weishaupt formed the Order of Illuminati. In my books, I’ve traced the ideology we know as communism back to the Illuminati. I will not repeat the details here. Suffice it to say that communism is Illuminism by another name. It is, therefore, hardly an American plot.

Additionally, many of communism’s financiers come from Europe – not simply from the United States. And Britain’s involvement is so pronounced in world conspiracy precisely because communists and Fabian Socialists took over England. Both Britain and the United States have been used by the international communists to set up bases in Russia and China from whence they carry out their world revolution.

Europe – indeed, the rest of the world – is much further down the communist rabbit hole than the United States. Despite the alarming growth of the communist cancer in our midst, we are still the last best hope for humanity and have the greatest potential for throwing off the Soviet shackles. However, it is absolutely true that Marxists imported their dogma to the United States beginning with the Illuminati-Jacobins just after the American War for Independence. Their existence was acknowledged by George Washington and other informed individuals. It has grown from there, being greatly aided by Jewish and other European immigrants.

communism36

“Bolshevism without the Mask”

Let’s be clear: The global Elite are all Marxists. And the top cadre within this group is a clique of avowed Satanists. I have discussed this at length in my books. These Elites are led by Lord Maitreya and the Ascended Masters of Wisdom – fancy names for Lucifer and his fallen angels. They direct the affairs of Satan’s earthly kingdom. Communism is their chief tool. Be very careful not to describe communism as an American or British plot. It is, rather, a worldwide conspiracy in which the super-rich, academic elitists, and other professional revolutionaries and occultists combine their dubious talents to conquer the world and subjugate humanity.

Texe Marrs has written of how Red China has been set up as another Illuminati-communist base of operations. He said:

“Red China has been chosen to be the poster child and role model for the Illuminati’s Hegelian synthesis of Communism and Capitalism. The United States, meanwhile, is being purposely beat down and suppressed. Alien philosophies and a wave of immorality are being used to destroy peoples’ minds while Wall Street operators continue their Ponzi scheme manipulation. The Federal Reserve, under Jewish banker Ben Bernanke’s direction, is regularly transmitting boatloads of electronic cash to foreign banks in China. Thanks to this infusion of dollars, along with the trillions of dollars brought in from stolen Iraqi oil use and sales, the Chinese economy is galloping ahead” (Texe Marrs, Conspiracy of the Six-Pointed Star, 202).

True it is that the Marxist Elite envision a future communist world order that combines elements of political, social, military, and religious communism with state-run monopoly capitalism (i.e. socialism). As I’ve covered elsewhere, demonic entities that have appeared to occultist conspirators around the world have relayed the message that the coming occult world order will be a fusion of the so-called best of both worlds: “The Masters advise 70 per cent socialism to 30 per cent capitalism as the best proportion” (Benjamin Creme, The World Teacher for All Humanity, 74). It is perfectly accurate, then, to call China the “poster child and role model for the Illuminati’s Hegelian synthesis of Communism and Capitalism.”

Much of what later happened in China was drawn up at the Yalta Conference of 1945 attended by the likes of Stalin and Roosevelt. These comrades essentially decided the fate of China. I take several paragraphs from James Perloff’s superb article “China Betrayed Into Communism.” He explained:

“Fateful decisions resulted when Roosevelt met with Stalin at the Teheran Conference (late 1943) and Yalta Conference (February 1945). Stalin, though our ally against Germany during World War II, maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan. This suited Stalin, as he wished the Japanese to wear down China’s Nationalist forces.

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

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

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

“The State Department official representing the United States in drawing up the Yalta agreement was Alger Hiss — subsequently exposed as a Soviet spy. General Patrick Hurley, U.S. Ambassador to China, wrote: “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta”” (James Perloff, “China Betrayed Into Communism,” The New American, July 24, 2009).

In his brilliant book How the Far East was Lost, Anthony Kubek devoted a thorough chapter to the fateful Yalta Conference and its lasting consequences. He wrote:

“Roosevelt went off to Yalta, there to buy Stalin’s entry into the war we had already won. We are still paying the price. The needless and bloody battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were immediate costs. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Asiatic civilian populations – acts which have so prejudiced the United States in the eyes of Asian people – was another. Sovietization of China and the Korean War were still others. And the end is not yet in sight. . . .

“No discussion of Yalta by those who were present at that conference, thus far, explains Roosevelt’s generosity to Stalin, why he violated his own principles of the Atlantic Charter by transferring territory from one country to another without the consent of the deprived country, or why he reneged on his promises to Chiang Kai-shek at Cairo. It must be remembered he had promised the Generalissimo all the territory Japan had taken since 1914. Roosevelt gave to Stalin at Yalta effective control of the same territory over which the United States had gone to war with Japan, and by doing so set the stage for the Communist conquest of China, and it was a prelude to the war in Korea” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 91, 111).

FDR1

Comrades Stalin and FDR

General George C. Marshall – the same who disarmed Chiang Kai-shek’s forces – was one of the prominent attendees at Yalta. He used his influence to encourage Roosevelt’s pro-Soviet sympathies:

“One may find some explanation for the Yalta give-away in a review of the men who made up Roosevelt’s delegation. The most important of these advisers was General George Marshall, Chief of Staff . . . He stood at Yalta urging the grim necessity of Russia’s entry into war against Japan. He did nothing to deter Roosevelt from embarking on his ill-starred course which ended in disaster.

“The desire to have Russia’s help in the Far East was constantly stressed by Marshall . . . It was Marshall’s mistaken estimate of Japan’s capacity for continued military resistance, after all signs pointed to enemy collapse, that fortified Roosevelt in his determination to buy Soviet entry into the Pacific war at the price of vast strategic concessions in China. This deal foreordained the loss of China to Communist control” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 94).

Yalta was a communist conference from beginning to end. Yalta was a grimy location in the Soviet Union where Stalin, who had picked it, knew he could control the narrative. And control it he did with the help of FDR’s communist delegation which included communist sympathizers and Soviet spies. And FDR must be directly blamed for the existence of this compromised delegation – it was his administration that had formally recognized the Soviet regime on 1933 when it was on the verge of collapse.

It is truly incredible that the fate of any nation – let alone one like China – could be decided by a group of communist conspirators meeting in the Soviet Union with the full consent and blessing of an American president. Yet, that is what happened. Everything that came later merely followed the Yalta script.

The U.S. government’s attitude toward General Chiang had always been hostile, though it became more apparent toward the close of World War II. A disgraceful incident describes the contempt we had for the man and has anti-communist Nationalist government. In late 1944, FDR and other U.S. military and diplomatic leaders were busy discussing the conquest of Burma which was under Japanese control. They wanted Chiang’s Chinese forces to move quickly into Burma. However, they wanted their own hand-picked General Joseph W. Stilwell to take charge of the troops. Anthony Kubek explains the shameful scenes that followed:

“President Roosevelt again urged the Generalissimo to place Stilwell in command of all Chinese forces. Chiang was willing to agree on condition that the power of distributing lend-lease supplies would remain strictly under his control. But Stilwell confided in his diary: “If the G-mo [Chiang Kai-shek] controls distribution, I am sunk. The Reds will get nothing”. . . .

“. . . Marshall submitted a blunt message to Chiang with Roosevelt’s approval. The Generalissimo was asked (1) to reinforce the Chinese armies in the Salween area in Burma and to press their offensive in conjunction with the British, and (2) to place Stilwell in “unrestricted command” of all Chinese forces. . . .

“The message arrived in Chungking on September 19, 1944, with instructions that Stilwell was to deliver it “in person.” Stilwell was full of jubilation; he had waited for this moment to deliver an ultimatum to the Generalissimo. He noted in his diary: “President’s message arrived. Hot as a firecracker. ‘Get busy, boy, or else.’ ‘Do it now.’ The Peanut will have a red neck on this one.”

“General Hurley advised Stilwell this was not the time to deliver the President’s message. To quote from his later testimony, “I said (to Stilwell) ‘You shouldn’t now, because of this firm language, pile it on him at a time he has felt compelled to make every concession that we have asked. He has made them; he is ready to go; he is ready to bring troops down from the North to reinforce you in the Salween front; he is going to appoint you commander-in-chief.” Stilwell would not change his mind. He wanted to humiliate the Generalissimo and said, “I am directed by the President to hand it to him.

“. . . When Hurley handed the message to Chiang Kai-shek, the Generalissimo read it and Hurley noticed “. . . that he looked like he had been hit in the solar plexus. . . . “ Silence followed; no one moved. Then Chiang Kai-shek reached over to his tea cup and put the cover on upside down. Stilwell, in Chinese asked, “That gesture still means, I presume, that the party is over?” Someone in Chiang’s staff said, “Yes.” Stilwell and Hurley then walked out. . . .

“Stilwell’s lack of tact and his persistent urge to aid and use Communist forces shattered any confidence Chiang Kai-shek had in placing him in command of Chinese armies . . . John Stewart Service, U.S. foreign service officer in China, had some understanding of the true meaning of the recommendations and what Chiang suspected. “This was, in effect, a proposal that the Chinese Communists be armed,” Service later testified” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 214-216).

China23

If this was a one-time event, it could perhaps be written off as a simple blunder. However, the U.S. government’s consistent pattern of behavior toward Chiang Kai-shek and China proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that FDR and his administration favored the Chinese communists and did everything they could to undermine the establishment of a free China.

I quote once more from Kubek. He stated:

“It is a tragedy we did not accept the repeated warnings of Nationalist leaders and others that the Chinese Communists were part of a Marxist movement for world domination. Perhaps some blame should be placed on the Generalissimo for not selling this point to American officials. He saw the Red threat in the Far East far better than many of our foreign service officials. As a result of our miscalculations, deliberate or otherwise, we are today faced with a formidable threat – Red China. It can be said that the serious menace we face in the Far East was not due to our lack of information. On the contrary, our tragic policy in that area can be mostly attributed to the opposition of U.S. foreign service officers and other American officials to Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Government. These Americans frustrated attainment of our traditional and unannounced aims in Asia – preservation of the “territorial and administrative” integrity of China” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 217).

Volumes of additional evidence could be cited showing the duplicity and pro-communist sentiments of U.S. government personnel and military leaders. However, for the remainder of this article we turn the spotlight on General Chiang Kai-shek’s own witness and account of the Red takeover of China. In his highly-detailed book Soviet Russia in China: A Summing-Up at Seventy, Chiang gave a sometimes day-by-day account of how the communist conquered China. In numerous locations, Chiang’s history shows the betrayal and neglect showed by the United States. I now quote at length from his book, though I’m only able to quote a small portion of what I would like to and shift the burden upon the reader for additional study. Chiang testified:

“It was a matter of great regret that our ally, the United States, should stop its supply of arms to the Chinese Government at the very moment when the Chinese Communists began their anti-American activities. Earlier, in April [1946], following the Chinese Communists’ breach of the cease-fire agreement, the American Government had stopped its US $500,000,000 loan to the Chinese Government. Now it interrupted its military aid to China. At the same time it took no action whatever against the Chinese Communists despite their violations of the cease-fire agreement. In fact, it did not even adopt any measures in the face of Soviet Russia’s arming of the Chinese Communists in Manchuria with Japanese weapons. This dealt a severe blow to the anti-Communist forces and constituted a great boost to neutralism. . . .

“By February 1947 Communist student agitators in Shanghai formed a “Federation of Associations in Protest Against Violence by American Forces in China” as headquarters for students’ anti-American activities in various parts of the country. The federation soon started a “Signature Movement by Chinese students to urge the United States to change her policy toward China.”

“The Chinese Communists launched the “Anti-Violence Movement” when the industrial and commercial circles in the country failed to respond to their agitation against the Sino-American Commercial Treaty. When the people in general again failed to respond to the “Anti-Violence Movement” they switched to a “Boycott American Goods” movement . . . its only objective was “opposition to U.S. aid” and the “expulsion of American forces from China.”

“The American Government obliged by gradually withdrawing its troops from Peiping, Tientsin, Tsingtao and other places, and by discontinuing its military aid to China. Thus, a glorious episode of Sino-American cooperation in the cause of freedom came to an end under the attacks of the Chinese Communists and their international “comrades”” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 185-187).

communism449

A common communist tactic the world over is to request “peace talks,” negotiations, cease-fires, and détentes when things are going badly. These phony “peace talks” and cease-fires serve to buy time for the communists to regroup, rearm, and adjust their strategy. As soon as the communists are fully prepared to resume hostilities, they break off talks and negotiations and violate the cease-fire. We see this tactic successfully employed year after year by North Korea and Russia-backed Palestine, to name only two. Chiang Kai-shek documented this tactic in painstaking detail in his book, giving us many pages of valuable insight. I draw forth just a few lines relative to China’s downfall as examples:

“For security reasons the Government had to conduct military operations against the Communist troops which had taken Kalgan by storm and against the others concentrated around it. Chou En-lai tried to intimidate General Marshall by saying: “If the Government does not call off its military action against Communist troops in Kalgan and in its environs, the Communists will regard it as the open declaration of an over-all rupture.” Shortly afterward he left Nanking for Shanghai to dodge further discussions.

“On October 5 I again accepted General Marshall’s suggestion and ordered a ten-day halt during which the Conference of Three would discuss the military question while the Subcommittee of Five would deliberate on the political issues.

“Simultaneous discussion of military and political questions was originally one of the Communists’ demands. When the Government finally accepted it, they reversed their position by using the Kalgan question as a pretext. Now, after the Government had announced a halt in the Kalgan area, the Communists raised their demands again. . . .

“Chou En-lai also added the following points to General Marshall in a critical tone:

““The Chinese Communists cannot agree to the United States Government giving material aid to the Kuomintang Government at a time of civil war. . . .”

“Thus General Marshall had to return to Nanking emptyhanded. This meant that the Chinese Communists had already succeeded in gaining the time they needed for preparing their all-out insurrection. It also meant that Communist smiles of welcome to American mediation were no longer necessary. This signified the virtual termination of the peace talks and military mediation centered around General Marshall as a result of the Chinese Communist sabotage. As in the six previous instances the peace negotiations, which lasted for more than one year this time, also ended in failure.

“As the Chinese Communists showed no signs of willingness to resume negotiations after the expiration of the ten-day truce, Government troops retook Kalgan. . . .

“At this juncture, leaders of parties other than Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party, and nonpartisan leaders offered to mediate as “the third side.” On October 25, 29 and 30 a series of talks were held. The terms which they produced were likewise rejected by the Chinese Communists. In the meantime the Chinese Communists and the Democratic League launched anti-American movements in Peiping, Tientsin, Nanking and Shanghai.

“On November 10, only two days before the National Assembly was due to open, Chou En-lai said to General Marshall: “Whether the National Assembly is merely postponed or convened unilaterally, in either even there will be no room for any more political discussions.” Thus it became clear that the Communists’ real purpose was to prevent the convocation of the National Assembly and the introduction of constitutional rule.

“Meanwhile, it also became very clear that they intended to sabotage the peace talks and military mediation altogether and to resort to armed rebellion to subvert the country . . . on November 11, on the eve of the convocation of the National Assembly, I made a final appeal to them in the hope that they would, whether before or during the Assembly meetings, submit a list of Communist delegates and have them take part in the deliberations to give national backing to the launching of constitutional rule. . . .

“. . . The Chinese Communists were the only ones who had refused to submit a list of their delegates. The Democratic League, which had up to now posed as an independent neutral, tore off its mask and followed the example of the Chinese Communists by refusing to attend. After the opening ceremony the National Assembly decided to call a three-day recess to wait for the Communist and Democratic League delegates to turn up, but in vain.” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 175-181).

Chiang again wrote of the international efforts to sabotage the establishment of a free China with a democratic government:

“[O]ne could see that behind Soviet Russia’s sabotage of the American mediation was her wish to replace the United States as mediator so that she could manipulate the Chinese political situation.

“In December 1946 the United States announced the end of its mediation effort in China. Shortly thereafter General Marshall went back to America and the Chinese Communists openly launched a general rebellion. During the year which followed Soviet Russia and the Chinese Communists both directly and indirectly kept on asking the Chinese Government for resumption of peace talks. In the autumn of 1947, when Government troops were advancing toward Chefoo, Weihaiwei and Penglai on the southern coast of the Gulf of Chihli, their request for cessation of hostilities and resumption of peace talks became more urgent than ever. . . .

“. . . the Chinese Communists made use of American mediation as part of their neutralist tactics. In other words, they saw in the American mediation a chance for the growth of neutralism, just as they had seen in the cease-fire agreement a convenient cover for their military movements. Once the cease-fire agreement was concluded, their purpose in accepting U.S. mediation had been achieved. After that they no longer considered themselves bound by any stipulations in the agreement.

“On the other hand, the Government’s eagerness to abide by the agreement put its troops in a passive position and made them easy prey for the Communists. Now we know that the Communists accepted American mediation in order to sabotage it and they concluded the cease-fire agreement in order to break it. This created a situation of neither war nor peace in which fighting and peace talks went on side by side. This was the practical application by the Communist International of the laws of dialectics both in its basic stratagem and in its line of action. All through the year 1946 the Communists used this stratagem to gain time to complete their preparations for a final military showdown with the Government.” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 190-192).

China19

Chiang gave us valuable insight into how the communists subverted China. His insight is detailed and specific. The Red blueprint doesn’t change much, so this history ought to wake us up because the same tactics are being used in our own nation. Chiang recounted:

“After October 1948, when the Hsuchow-Pengpu Battle was at its critical stage and when the people and those in the Government were under the spell of Communist infiltration, there came into circulation a slogan to the effect that “Unless President Chiang goes, no American aid will be forthcoming,” and that “Unless President Chiang goes, there can be no peace talks.”

“In these circumstances, I decided to retire from office. I did so on January 21, 1949. The moment I was gone both the armed forces and civilians on the mainland seemed to have lost a symbol of common purpose. Thus, the political situation, social order and the people’s minds all fell under the Communists’ invisible control. The military situation deteriorated rapidly and soon became irretrievable.

“In their political activities and social movements, both the Chinese Communists and their front organizations, especially the Democratic League, had to take certain stands and were, therefore, easily identified. The same thing, however, could not be said of infiltration by these front organizations. They penetrated deep into government organs, representative bodies and civic organizations. They even joined such anti-Communist religious bodies and secret societies as the Kolaohui [a secret society in Szechwan province]. They also got hold of military men who had fought the Communists either in or outside the battlefield and politicians who acted as go-betweens between Kuomintang and the Communists. Through infiltration or encirclement they manipulated these public bodies and individuals directly as well as indirectly in order to attain their own objective.

“It was generally thought that ex-militarists, ex-bureaucrats and merchants and brokers seeking profits through speculation would make poor Communists or fellow travelers. In seeking to subvert the country and to destroy the social order, the Communists found that the more degenerate these people were the more useful they would be in working for the Communists and in running their errands. Their task was to help shake the very foundation of society and demoralize the military and the civilians alike by such slogans as “oppose conscription,” “oppose requisition,” “oppose mobilization” and “oppose civil war.”

“Though the Government knew the latter were acting as the Communists’ jackals, it felt its hands were tied by democratic institutions, and as long as they operated under the cloak of “freedom” and “human rights,” the Government could not take any action against these religious bodies, secret societies, underworld characters, gangsters, disgruntled politicians and profiteers who had come under the Communist grip. It was in this manner that neutralism and defeatism came to spread in the Government and in the armed forces, paving the way for Communist rumors to foment dissatisfaction, to stir up trouble and to create antagonism and disunity between the Government and the people” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 188-190).

Can you see the eerie similarities in recent events in the United States? Can you see how our own so-called “representatives” are selling us out in order to benefit themselves and extend the reach of the invisible hand that controls events? Can you see the same infiltration, the same propaganda pitches, and the same feelings of despair, neutralism, and defeatism that are pervading our society? Can you see the same communist front groups – feminism, LGBT radicals, environmental extremists, Antifa, the Democratic Party – at work today to “shake the very foundation of society and demoralize the military and the civilians alike”? The game plan is nearly identical – and the results will be the same unless we wake up and fight back.

General Chiang was one of history’s staunchest anti-communist fighters. A large section of his book is addressed to the world. He learned from firsthand experience how communists conquer a nation. He personally witnessed and forever mourned China’s defeat. He desired that the rest of the world would use the store of knowledge and experience he had gained regarding communist tactics and deceptions, as well as what works and what doesn’t in the fight against intentional Marxism. Again I stress that I’m sharing only a thimble full of the wisdom contained in Chiang’s remarkable book Soviet Russia in China. Chiang warned us:

“The Communists’ camouflage, deception and propaganda war are practical manifestations of their dialectic laws of contradictions and of negation. For instance, their resort to political assault to disguise their military operations, their assumption of a defensive posture to cover their offensive action, their use of propaganda war containing nothing but casuistry and falsehood, and their combining enticements with intimidation, all these are based on the principle of “unity in contradictions.” Again, for instance, their use of peace talks to negate or undermine their opponent’s morale and their use of hostilities at the same time to negate the peace talks with their opponent, are based on the law of “negation of negations.” In short, the Communists in their propaganda war stop at nothing wicked and mean to achieve their goal, i.e., in creating suspicion and disturbances. They are particularly adept in the fabrication of stories with no factual foundations, in misrepresentation such as “pointing at a deer and calling it a horse,” in distortion and in the forging of documentary proofs all of which they consider legitimate – even virtuous. Whenever it suits their purpose, they represent Satan as God or God as Satan. What the Communists say and what they do are entirely two different things. It is obvious that they had themselves robbed the people under their control of freedoms, and yet they asked the Government for all political freedoms. In areas under Communist control, there was nothing but darkness and regimentation, an yet in their external propaganda they boasted of political democracy and of a bright future for their slaves. In Communist terminology, “people” means the Communists themselves, “liberation” means enslavement, “peace” means another form of war and “coexistence” means exclusive Communist control. It follows that the smile they put on is another facet of their evil nature. The free world should be ready to expose and attack this kind of propaganda before anyone falls prey to it.

“In their “peaceful coexistence” campaign, the Communists have developed two methods of approach, which can easily lead the free world to think that the Communists are really seeking peace, or to consider their suggestions as genuine roads to peace.

“Peace talks. To ordinary people, peace talks represent a transitional path from war to peace. Whenever the Russian or Chinese Communists ask for “peace talks,” people in the free world instantly take it to mean that they will not engage in any more war of aggression. But, to the Communists “peace talks” do not constitute a path to peace, but are just another form of war. They start peace talks not for the purpose of attaining the objective of peace, but for the purpose of attaining their objective of war. The peace talks which the Chinese Communists held with the Government were to serve the following purposes:

“Peace talks could delay attacks by Government troops. . . .

“Peace talks could cover up preparations for armed revolt. . . .

“Peace talks could enlarge the following for neutralism, and expand the reserve strength of the front organizations. . . .

“Peace talks could undermine the morale of Government forces. . . .

“Peace talks could create the impression of “two Chinas” in the free world.

“Therefore, both the Russian and Chinese Communist love protracted negotiations . . . protracted negotiations carried on by the Russian and Chinese Communists represent a method of struggle with them.

Cease-Fire Agreement. “Respite tactics” are often resorted to by the Russian Communists. To secure a needed respite, they will not only negotiate with their enemy but will sign cease-fire agreements with him and, in fact, will even go so far as to conclude a peace treaty with him. . . .

“To the Communists, it is not simply a defensive tactic. They use peace talks and cessation of hostilities to reinforce and replenish their troops in preparation for the next attack; they use them also to start a political propaganda campaign to sow suspicions between their enemy and his allies, to strike at his morale, and to shatter his internal solidarity. To the Communists, all these are positive functions of peace talks and cease-fire agreements. . . .

“If we judge the Russian and Chinese Communists’ proposals for peace talks and cease-fire in the light of the dialectic law of negation, we can immediately grasp their very essence. Why do the Russian and Chinese Communists always want to hold peace talks and sign a cease-fire agreement while at war but violate the cease-fire agreement and resume fighting after it has been signed? We must understand that in their ideology, peace talks and cessations of hostilities are the negation of war, and to sabotage the peace talks and violate the cease-fire agreement is the negation of this negation. When they cannot win by force, they stop fighting and hold peace talks instead, they may even sign a cease-fire agreement. When they succeed in splitting the enemy’s camp, shattering his will to fight and destroying his morale, they will negate their peace talks and cease-fire agreements, for the purpose of waging, and winning, the final decisive battle” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 374-377).

Chiang6

Ladies and gentlemen, you have just read some of the most eloquent and frank descriptions of communist tactics and aims you will ever read. Will you heed them? Will you rush forward to save your own country from similar collapse? Will you finally put aside alternative theories – false theories – that blame anyone else but the Satanic communists for the plight of the world? It is time, long past time, to treat the Reds as a cancer than must be quarantined and eradicated if the world, let alone our own Republic, is to survive. Communism must die if America is to survive!

We can begin on our journey by learning about communism. We can learn the history of communist conquest around the world, most prominently in Russia and China. China’s example in particular provides an excellent account of how American traitors aid the international Bolshevik movement. It proves that conspiracy exists. It proves that the people we elect and send to Washington are not on our side and couldn’t care less about Freedom. It proves that many of our “heroes,” most prominently FDR, are in fact traitors and comrades in the Red conspiracy.

If we are to heal and move forward, we must acknowledge the tragedies of the past – tragedies orchestrated by an elitist clique of Marxist gangsters who want to subjugate the world. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact. Do you have the courage to embrace and help spread the truth? Or will you self-censor because the social media giants, the controlled media, and the raucous chorus of mindless lemmings attempt to shout you down? Unless we want our fate to be Red China’s, we will endure the hate, oppose the efforts to silence us, and push back mercilessly against the communists.

Chiang Kai-shek was correct when he asserted:

“It can be said that the greatest threat posed by international Communism lies in Asia, and this threat stems mainly from the Chinese Communists. The fall of the Chinese mainland was a tragedy to the world and its seriousness is only beginning to be recognized. Had my Government remained on the mainland, there would never have been such calamities as the Korean War and the Communist occupation of northern Korea and northern Indo-China. The place to begin combating Communism in Asia, therefore, is mainland China” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 348).

As the current Hong Kong unrest shows, China’s regime is still brutal and constitutes a direct threat to free peoples everywhere. And the threat will only grow. Already our military generals are warning that China has nearly reached our level of expertise (and Russia has surpassed it in some respects). We should never have to hear the solemn declaration that “[the U.S. military] might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia” (National Defense Strategy Commission, November 14, 2018) or “China’s impressive military buildup could soon challenge the United States across almost every domain” (Admiral Harry Harris, February, 2018). Yet, that is what our generals are telling us.

President Trump, for all his host of flaws, is correct in also pointing out Red China’s currency manipulation and economic subterfuge. For years, China has been taking advantage of the West – and most often with the consent of the big business tycoons. Whether you agree or disagree with implementing tariffs on Chinese goods as a solution, it should be obvious that we must find a solution, and fast. The communist world is gearing up for their end game against the West as we crumble under the weight of Marxist subversion of our Faith, Families, and Freedom.

This war, like the one waged in China in the 1940s, can have only one of two outcomes for us: Victory or defeat. Which will it be? Will be maintain peace through strength or will we allow our nation to be bartered away to Chinese and Russian communists and their dupes here in America? Will we allow our anti-communist fighters to be insulted, denigrated, and smeared while the Elite run roughshod over the will of the People? Will we allow the communist-controlled press to demoralize us or will we catch the vision of heroes like General Chiang and resist communism to the last? Will we win or will we lose? Our fate is in our own hands.

Whatever we choose and however it plays out – and I believe things will get much darker before the light bursts forth – remember that communism is Satanism and that the Devil’s days are numbered. Christ has already won the victory! The only thing left to decide is what part we will play in this epic saga. Will we choose the right team? Will we help minimize the expansion of evil and tyranny by waking up and fighting back in our own sphere of influence? God help each of us to do so! And let each of us have the faith required to see this through to the end when the Red flag will go down and never more rise.

“I have unswerving faith in the re-emergence of my country as a free united nation and in the eventful triumph of freedom over slavery throughout the world.” – General Chiang Kai-shek, Soviet Russia in China, 349.

communism204

Zack Strong,

August 31, 2019.