Episode 297 – China and the New World Order

by | Nov 10, 2014 | Podcasts | 35 comments

Military tensions, cyber espionage accusations, a brewing currency war; with every passing day, the headlines paint a convincing portrait of an emerging cold war between China and the West. But is this surface level reality the whole picture, or is there a deeper level to this conflict? Is China an opponent to the New World Order global governmental system or a witting collaborator with it? Join us in this in-depth edition of The Corbett Report podcast as we explore China’s position in the New World Order.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).



JAMES CORBETT: Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to another edition of The Corbett Report. I’m your host, as always, James Corbett of corbettreport.com, coming to you from the sunny climes of western Japan here on the 7th day of November 2014.

Welcome to Episode 297 of the Corbett Report podcast: China and the New World Order.

And yes, if you are just tuning in from the last edition of the Questions for Corbett series, of course we did leave it up to The Corbett Report community to decide what episode 297 would be about—either about the plane crash of Total Oil CEO de Margerie or China’s position in the New World Order.

The Corbett Report community has responded overwhelmingly for the China episode, and I’m glad they did, because this is a topic that I’ve been researching in one form or another for a few years now, in earnest for the last few months and in absolute incredible detail in the past two weeks, and I have a doozy of an episode for you today. If you think this podcast has been informative or data-packed in the past, you ain’t seen nothing yet. So let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work on constructing today’s narrative.

And it starts in a position that I think most of us will be familiar with. If you are even glancingly looking at the headlines this day and age, you will note that there is an undeniable, a demonstrable, build-up of diplomatic, financial and military tensions between the NATO powers on one side and China and its allies on the other.

NEWS PRESENTER: Now new warnings over cybersecurity and the growing cyber war between the US and China. US officials charging members of a shadowy unit in the Chinese military, accusing its agents of stealing trade secrets from American companies.

SOURCE: ‘This Week’ Cyber Spying Alert

NEWS PRESENTER: . . . and the Chinese government has hit back. They summoned the US ambassador to China, Max Bacchus, for a dressing down, and they’ve also called these allegations extremely absurd.

SOURCE: China slams hacking charges

CHUCK HAGEL: In recent months China has undertaken destabilizing unilateral actions asserting its claims in the South China Sea. We take no position on competing territorial claims, but we firmly oppose any nation’s use of intimidation, coercion or the threat of force to assert those claims. The United States will not look the other way when fundamental principles of the international order are being challenged.

SOURCE: US accuses China of “destabilising’ acts in South China Sea

NEWS PRESENTER: Beijing quickly reacted to the accusations and denounced Hagel for singling out China at a public venue. The Chinese official also said the speech was completely non-constructive, and full of hegemony, threats and intimidation.

SOURCE: China censures Japan PM, US defense sec. for “provocative” speeches

NEWS PRESENTER: The Treasury’s once again criticizing China for failing to let its currency appreciate against the dollar, for the rapid buildup in China’s foreign exchange reserves, saying in this report, “both the rigidity of the Renmimbi, another name for the yuan of course, and the reacceleration of reserve accumulation are serious concerns which should be corrected to help ensure a stronger more balanced global economy.

SOURCE: U.S. Criticizes China for Lack of `Flexibility’ of Yuan

JULIA GILLARD: Tomorrow there will be a formal announcement that Australian dollars can be directly traded into Renmimbi, into the Chinese currency RMB, here in China. The third currency in the world to do so, after the US dollar and the Japanese yen.

NEWS PRESENTER: This is another small step in China’s campaign to increase international use of its currency. China has launched other new currency pairs in recent years, including the Canadian dollar, Malaysian Ringgit and Hong Kong dollar. The deal is meant to help promote business between the two countries by allowing trade without using the US dollar as an intermediary.

SOURCE: Australian PM Announces Direct Yuan-Australian Dollar Trading

NEWS PRESENTER: A US Navy patrol aircraft was stalked and then repeatedly ‘buzzed’ by a Chinese fighter jet in international airspace this week. Pentagon officials are calling it dangerous and unprofessional.

SOURCE: ‘Aggressive’ Chinese fighter jet flies dangerously close to U.S. Navy plane: Video

NEWS PRESENTER: The US and Japan issued strong statements of concern over the issue, and on Tuesday the United States confirmed it flew two B52 bombers over China’s newly established air defense zone as well as the disputed Diaoyu Islands. US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki on Tuesday expressed US concern over the issue when asked about whether the United States action should be viewed as a provocation, Psaki refused to comment.

SOURCE: Two US B-52 bombers enter China’s ADIZ 

This phenomenon, as I say, is fairly self-evident, even if you are only looking at the headlines of today’s news. But if you are only looking at the headlines, then you might have missed a very different set of data, indicating a very different and perhaps directly contradictory narrative. One that paints China and its supposed foes in the West not as allies pitted against each other but as partners, however uneasily, but in some sort of alliance that will set the tone for the 21st century.

PRESENTER: Sir Evelyn de Rothschild joins us now to talk about investing in China and his latest venture, Weather Central, here as well. Sir Evelyn, thank you very much indeed for joining us. I just want to get your views on how things have evolved. Has it become a more open society? Has it become an easier place to do business?

EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD: Oh, I think it is, no doubt. I think it’s a remarkable country. When you think of what has happened in the last 10 years, let alone 20 years, it is an achievement beyond recognition.

SOURCE: De Rothschild Says China’s Growth a “Remarkable” Story

RICHARD ROCKEFELLER: I’m Richard Rockefeller. I’m chair of the board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The sentiments that my grandfather and grandmother and actually other relatives of that generation had for China, very positive feelings for the country, passed through the generations to all of us. So China in a way wasn’t such an unfamiliar place to us as it might have felt for a lot of Americans.

SOURCE: Rockefeller Family in China: Then and Now

INTERVIEWER: What sort of a financial deal should Obama be seeking to strike when he travels to China next month?

GEORGE SOROS: I think this would be the time, because you really need to bring China into the creation of a New World Order—financial world order.

SOURCE: Soros: China Must Be Part Of The New World Order

INTERVIEWER: Sir Evelyn, what about the RMB situation? You mentioned a so-called currency problem. Do you see the day in the next five years where it’s fully convertible and flexible?

EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD: Well, you’re talking to a person who’s quite old. If I were around in five years I’d like to think that that is the case. I think we’ve all got to move towards that opportunity, and I think the challenge also is whether we should move towards an international currency.

SOURCE: De Rothschild Says China’s Growth a `Remarkable’ Story

HENRY KISSINGER: But they really are issues of the construction of a New World Order, that’s what this is about, and that’s the sort of dialogue the Chinese are generally good at. And so a partnership between us is central. A conflict between us is going to exhaust us both. In tactical exercises it cannot be conclusive.

INTERVIEWER: And the New World Order could satisfy both?

KISSINGER: It has to satisfy both, because otherwise it will lead to tensions that will exhaust us both.

SOURCE: Henry Kissinger on China and the New World Order

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: One has to give credit to President Nixon’s and Henry Kissinger’s initiative. They broke the ice, they did. But they confronted a residue of suspicion. And that suspicion was mutual and grievances were also mutual. It really took time for the relationship to become more normal, more predictable. And eventually what we accomplished was that they came, in fact, open and full, comprehensive and in fact initiated a kind of secret collaboration or even perhaps you could call it an alliance.

SOURCE: Zbigniew Brzezinski on China

And so we have on one hand the fiery and bellicose rhetoric of the would-be belligerents of the Cold War of the twenty-first century and on the other hand the conciliatory or even cooperative pronouncements of the usual gaggle of super gophers, the “Superclass” identified by Henry Kissinger protégé David Rothkopf in his recent book of the same name, that identified about 6,000 global actors able to implement transnational policy agendas, thanks to their political and financial influence.

Are these two positions, which seem to go head-on and seem to be completely irreconcilable, in fact resolvable, if we look at this not as a two-dimensional surface-level conflict taking place between nation-states or groupings of nation-states on the geopolitical chess board, but in fact as a three-dimensional problem that involves hierarchies of control vying in different levels of this game for different squares. Not just squares on a chessboard but a 3D chess board, if we can extend the metaphor.

Well, in fact, that is exactly the position I would take. And as strange as that might seem, as difficult as it might be to wrap our heads around that type of conflict which is happening at one level—which is actually cooperation at another level—it should be noted that this is not the first time in history that we’ve noticed this type of phenomenon. And in fact even within the past century we’ve noticed very, very similar analogous—one would almost say template or prototypical—examples of this very phenomenon, as identified by a researcher whom I have name-checked a number of times on this podcast in the past, so I certainly hope my regular listeners will be familiar with his work already.

I am referring of course to Antony C. Sutton, the author of such trade books as Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and FDR, but also the author of many scholarly publications, academic publications that were published under the auspices of the Hoover Institution in the 1970s and that have been well-regarded scholarly works that were even name-checked by the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski as being convincing proof of the thesis that these books were forwarding. And that thesis revolved around the idea that, in the case of, for example, the Bolshevik Revolution or the rise of the Nazis, that it was the Western powers—specifically the financial center of Wall Street and the Wall Street bankers—who were helping to fund their supposed arch-enemies, the socialists of various stripes, whether that be the Bolsheviks or the National Socialists in Germany, for their own agenda purposes.

INTERVIEWER: Dr. Sutton, you wrote three series of books while you were a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Can you give me basically the background of the content of these series?

ANTONY SUTTON: Yes, the series I wrote at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University concerned the transfers of Western technology to the Soviet Union and essentially comprised three individual books. Each book covers a period of time since 1917.

INTERVIWER: And then you wrote a second series of books on Wall Street?

ANTONY SUTTON: Yes, these were trade books. In other words, they’re not academic books, they’re written for the general public. They concerned the buildup of the three types of socialism: Bolshevik Socialism in Russia, what we might call Welfare Socialism in the United States and Hitlerian or National Socialism. And each book examines the financing and the contributions made by Wall Street by international bankers to the development of that specific form of socialism.

SOURCE: Stan Monteith Interviews Antony Sutton

But the obvious question here is “Why?” Why on earth would these crony capitalists be funding their erstwhile, supposed, nominal, archnemesis, rival enemies—their sworn enemies, the socialists? These are directly contradictory ideologies and viewpoints and economic systems. Why on earth would the capitalists be supporting the socialists in various countries?

This seems completely nonsensical if we look at it from that, again, two-dimensional surface level reality. But if we extend this out, again, into the three-dimensional hierarchical reality, we start to realize that there are agendas that can be served by the crony capitalists supporting command-and-control economical structures and political authoritarian structures in various countries.

INTERVIEWER: Just tell us all over again: Why?

ANTONY SUTTON: Why? You won’t find this in the textbooks. “Why” is to bring about, I suspect, a plan to control world society, in which you and I won’t find the freedoms to believe and think and do as we believe.

INTERVIEWER: Could these power brokers actually envision that time a one-world government that would be socialist?

SUTTON: Yes. The second statement I made was that they did not want the Soviet Union to develop into another free enterprise society and that this would offset it—aiding revolution would offset this event. That was made as a statement in 1919. You have various books, one by Gillette—the razor blade Gillette—called The City, I think it was, which laid out this corporate socialism for the world to see as early as what, 1905, 1910. So around the turn of the century you begin to see actual written statements by these internationalist businessmen and the kind of socialist empire they wanted to bring about.

INTERVIEWER: It’s there, but these books of course are not included in your . . . courses in political science and history at universities.”

SOURCE: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution – Antony Sutton

And so we’re beginning to develop a thesis that I like to think of as a revision or updating or extending of the thesis of Antony Sutton into the 21st century US vs. China paradigm, which, again looks, I think, very similar in some ways to the US vs. Russia, the US vs. Nazi Germany paradigm of the 20th century.

And I say it’s a revision, an updating, an extending, of that thesis, because I would posit that the form of the thesis that this takes when we apply it to the supposed battle between the American capitalists and the Chinese communists is in fact the agenda to forward the development of a system of one world governmental control, that involves the merger of capitalist and socialist systems into a system that basically contains the worst of both worlds.

We have the Chinese version of “Red capitalism” which represents both the command-and-control, top-down political authoritarianism and the bankster-controlled economic “crony capitalism” that is the model for the New World Order.

But do we have any evidence for this thesis? This, of course, is the meat-and-potatoes of what we are talking about today. Because for anyone who has not done any research into Antony Sutton’s work or read any of his books, I would like to assure you that these interview clips that we’ve been looking at hitherto, or that you may have seen or heard online before, are really just the summation of the years and years of extensive study that Sutton did into the State Department archives and the personal correspondence of various people involved, the poring over of receipts and economic data from various corporations.

All of that hard legwork that Sutton did for years and years developed into academic scholarly books that eventually became trade books, and we are now looking at the interviews that he did trying to summarize all of that research. The actual data in that research was pretty phenomenal, and phenomenally and convincingly put together by Sutton over a very long period of time, so no matter what this thesis sounds like or whether it makes sense or it doesn’t make sense is irrelevant. It really is the data that we have to look at.

So let’s start putting some of those pieces on this chess board and see if it makes sense as the new great game.

When Sutton was talking about the rise of the Bolsheviks, the rise of the Nazis, he was talking about the various ways in which these movements were funded and supported and aided and basically built into the position that they could become the dominant forces in those societies. Do we have a parallel with the Communist Chinese, who were obviously taking over the country in 1949 and were being bitterly opposed by the Kuomintang of Chiang Kai-shek, who of course then retreated to Taiwan, and the battle lines were then drawn, with China of course claiming Taiwan as part of its natural one-China territory and of course Taiwan declaring itself to be an independent republic.

And so things stand. And that’s of course the very uneasy position that we remain in today—the idea being that if China ever went and tried to militarily take Taiwan, then World War III is on, or something along those lines.

So from the perspective of that narrative, the US was obviously a supporter of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, it was quite obvious that this was the case; at least that’s the surface-level reality.

Is there convincing or interesting or definitive or persuasive or whatever kind of evidence to point to the contrary? [Evidence showing that,] in fact, the US—not necessarily the government but influential people in this super gopher superclass category—were actually helping to support Mao and the Communists? There are actually some tantalizing clues along that path.

I don’t think I’ve found anything that I would call definitive. I’ve heard claims, for example, of CIA station chiefs having claimed that the CIA was covertly supporting Mao. I haven’t actually seen any of those claims, though I’ve heard them talked about. But I haven’t actually tracked down the claims themselves. If anyone can help me with that, that would be much appreciated. But we’ll talk more about how you can help out with this overall investigation into China and the New World Order at the end of this episode.

But let’s take a look at just some of the crumbs on this cookie trail that I did find in this new research for this podcast episode, and we’ll start with an edition of the Yale Daily News, specifically number 96 from February 29th 1972, that is available for reading online on the Yale Library—digital library. It contains a front-page story, a very interesting one, called “Yale Group Spurs Mao’s Emergence,” and it states:

William F. Buckley was not the only Yale figure connected with the Presidential trip to China [of course referring to the then recent trip to China of President Nixon]. Without Yale’s support, Mao Tse Tung may have never risen from obscurity to command China.

Jonathan Spence, professor of Chinese history, was the first to discover Mao Tse Tung’s connection with Yale.

The professor noted, “In 1919, Mao, aged 26, was in Changsha, having finished his middle school education. He visited Peking and while there received his . . . serious introduction to communist theory in Li Ta-Chao’s Marxist Study Group.”

Now, if he was to develop a reputation in socialist circles, he had to find a form to propagate his views. At this crucial point The Student Union of Yale and China invited Mao to take over the editorship of their journal. Mao accepted the position and changed the format of the student magazine. It would now deal with social criticism and current problems and focus on ‘Thought Reorientation’.

“Thought Reorientation.” That is a very intriguing name for brainwashing or reprogramming or whatever we want to call it. But, again, a very tantalizing piece of the puzzle. There has been a certain amount of hay made from this. There was a Yale-in-China connection to Mao. And Yale, of course, the home of Skull and Bones, so there is the specter of Skull and Bones over this relationship—and again there has been some hay made of that connection. For example, perhaps most notably in an oft-cited article from the January 26, 1990, edition of The New Federalist called “Bush’s China Policy – Skull and Bones,” and this article reads, quote:

George Bush, the first US diplomatic representative to the People’s Republic of China back in 1973, was a member of Skull and Bones. So were his father, brother, son, uncle, nephew and several cousins.

Winston Lord, the Reagan-Bush administration ambassador to China, was a member. So were his father and several other relatives.

James Lilly, the current ambassador to China, was a member of Skull and Bones, as was his brother.

Except during the Carter administration, every US ambassador to Beijing since Kissinger’s deal with Mao Tse Tung was a member of the same tiny Yale cult. A mere coincidence?

MAO WAS A YALIE – Back in 1903, Yale Divinity School established a number of schools and hospitals throughout China that were collectively known as “Yale in China.” It has since been shown that “Yale in China” was an intelligence network whose purpose was to destroy the republican movement of Sun Yat-sen on behalf of the Anglo-American Establishment. The Anglo-American “Establishment” hated Sun, because he wanted to develop China. On the other hand, they loved the Chinese communists because they intended to keep China backward, and were committed to growing dope. One of “Yale in China’s” most important students was Mao Zedong.

We’ll end that article there. There’s a little bit more that you can continue reading that gets into, for example, Antony Sutton’s work. Again, a fascinating piece of this puzzle. But we should note, for example, this article in The New Federalist claims that Mao was an actual student of Yale-in-China, although the Yale Daily News claimed that he was not a student—that he was just invited, for some random reason, to edit the Yale-In-China journal, then, for whatever reason, took over and started his Thought Reorientation program that ultimately developed into the Communist Chinese movement.

So again, a very, very interesting connection, and especially interesting to contemplate the connection of all of those various ambassadors to China which, again, up to the point of 1990, every single ambassador except under Carter had been a Skull and Bones member, so that’s obviously a very interesting connection in and of itself, but not necessarily definitive of anything. I still think there’s probably more that needs to be made, in a concrete sense, in that connection, but obviously a lot to ponder there. And of course that does go back to the founding of Skull and Bones in the earliest part of it, which of course was the money from the opium trade, that the Russell Trust was the holder of, and of course that family going on to be one of the founders of Skull and Bones.

So again, a lot of interesting history there, but, as I say, nothing that definitively shows how Yale’s Skull and Bones created the Communist Chinese. But there is enough of a connection that I think more research needs to be done in that vein.

However, we can tell, from going forward from the time, when Mao took over the country and began his absolutely horrific, abominable Great Leap Forward that resulted in the deaths of at least forty million people in the starvation that occurred in that four-year window. Forty million people starving to death during the Great Leap Forward.

It is really interesting and, well, I suppose disgusting to note the cover that he received from some very important Western politicians, perhaps unsurprisingly—with one of the most notable examples being French president Francois Mitterrand, who, of course, covered for Mao during one of his visits to China. We can pick this up from The New Statesman which had a article “Mao’s Great Famine: the History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe (1958-62),” which starts by saying:

When François Mitterrand visited China in 1961, Mao Zedong mocked reports of famine in the country. There was no famine, he said, only “a period of scarcity”, an assertion that Mitterrand – who described Mao as “a great scholar known in the entire world for the diversity of his genius” – was happy to accept. Returning to France after his three-week tour, Mitterrand had no doubts about his account of events: “I repeat in order to be clearly understood – there is no famine in China.” Western politicians of the right shared the French Socialist leader’s view. After touring China in late 1960, the Conservative MP for Chester, John Temple, reported that communism was working and that the country was making “great progress.”

SOURCE: Mao’s Great Famine: the History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe (1958-62)

And as disgusting as that was, of course another very famous—or what should be very infamous—example of an influential Western figure backing that disgusting display that we saw, under the reign of Mao was of course the 1973 New York Times editorial by none other than David Rockefeller, under the title “From a China Traveler,” in which I think he infamously said:

The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.

Again, comparing that type of rhetoric to the actual actions of Mao and what was accomplished under his leadership is, well, quite the disparity. And one might ask why that would take place.

But I would like to draw people’s attention to a different part of that editorial, one that is much less cited, in which Rockefeller writes:

The Chinese, for their part, are faced with altering a primarily inward focus that they have pursued for a quarter-century under their current leadership. We, for our part, are faced with the realization that we have largely ignored a country with one-fourth of the world’s population. When one considers the profound differences in our cultural heritages and our social and economic systems, this is certain to be a long task, with much accommodation necessary on both sides.

Very interesting passage, not least of which, because one might well ponder who is exactly meant in that “we” and “our.” Is that America as a whole? Or does that have more to do with Rockefeller, his obvious banking and oil interests, his other ties to the financial and oligarchical elite? I think the latter more so than the former.

But regardless, I think this is actually, in a couched sense, a reformulation of our thesis, that ultimately the plan—the long-term game plan—has been at least since the time of the 1970s and the opening up of China. The very idea of merging China’s inward focus and its top-down control with the ideas that the West was seeking to import, in terms of economic social historical systems.

Very interesting. So how was this actually accomplished? Again, it’s one thing to talk about it in general, how about in specifics? Well, of course we’re talking about David Rockefeller and his 1973 speech or op-ed in favor of the great socialist revolution of Mao. But it’s interesting to note that the 1972 trip of Nixon to China begat the famous Vulcan phrase (for Star Trek VI fans in the crowd), “Only Nixon could go to China.” But actually the phrase shouldn’t be “Only Nixon could go to China,” because Nixon was preceded in his 1972 visit to China, in 1971 in a series of secret meetings—that were eventually revealed—of Henry Kissinger to Beijing. It was Kissinger, of course, who paved the way for Nixon to ‘normalize’ relations with China, and who is Kissinger and who does he work for? Well we don’t have to dig very deeply for this knowledge, in fact we can turn to that bastion of truthiness Wikipedia, if it’s written there it has to be true, right? It’s certainly mainstream if it’s written there so, again from David Rockefeller’s own Wikipedia entry:

In Henry Kissinger, Rockefeller found a political operative with an international and domestic perspective similar to his. They first met in 1954 when Kissinger was appointed a director of the seminal Council on Foreign Relations Study Group on Nuclear Weapons, of which David was a member. The relationship developed to the point that Kissinger was invited to sit on the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Rockefeller consulted with Kissinger on numerous occasions, as for example in the Chase Bank’s interest in Chile and the possibility of the election of Salvador Allende in 1970 . . . [interestingly] . . . and fully supported his “opening of China” initiative in 1971 as it afforded banking opportunities for the Chase Bank.

Oh, yes, in this formulation, it was Rockefeller supporting Kissinger’s initiative to open up China, rather than the other way around.

Yeah, sure, sure Wikipedia, I believe that one.

But regardless of the relationship, Kissinger, Rockefeller—two peas in a pod—with the same agenda, to open up China, from the Mao era of Great Leap Forward and then the Cultural Revolution, which was an interesting time, in which Mao did a very astute political maneuver. Let’s not say that he was a stupid man. He was a disgusting, horrible, cruel, perverse person, probably the greatest mass murderer in the history of the world, but he was not necessarily a stupid man. One does not retain control over a country for that long, in those types of revolutionary situations, without some politically astute moves. And the Cultural Revolution, in some ways—although all of this needs a large degree of fleshing out—can be seen as a type of counter-revolution instituted by Mao against the counterrevolutionary tendencies that were taking place within his own party.

Again, it was an interesting maneuver to get the people against the Chinese Communist Party, which was turning against Mao, so that he could retain his power. An interesting set-up. But at any rate the Cultural Revolution was what occurred after the Great Leap Forward—the utter disgusting, horrific failure of the Great Leap Forward, which managed to maintain Mao’s control over the country.

And then after that point, at the point where the handover took place and Mao was out of power, we started to see a new generation of Chinese leadership taking over. And this is where the story gets extremely interesting and connects again with these same figures of Chase Manhattan, of Rockefeller, Kissinger—all of these figures come together at a very interesting point, and we’ll take this from a 1986 work by Michel Chossudovsky, Towards Capitalist Restoration where he writes:

The 1979 visit of Deng Xiaoping to the US was followed in June 1980 by the equally significant encounter in Wall Street of Rong Yiren, chairman of CITIC, and David Rockefeller. The meeting, held in the penthouse of the Chase Manhattan Bank complex, was attended by senior executives of close to 300 major US corporations. A major agreement was reached between Chase, CITIC, and the Bank of China, involving the exchange of specialists and technical personnel to “identify and define those areas of the Chinese economy most susceptible to American technology and capital infusion.”

Extremely interesting. Well, now we have a very solid lead, a very specific point on which to start building our case. This is, again, a confluence of this Rong Yiren, which I am probably mispronouncing. (And let me just of course add the caveat to any Chinese speakers in the crowd that I apologize for butchering your language and every single name in this episode of the podcast.)

Rong Yiren, the chairman of CITIC, which is obviously something that deserves more scrutiny, with David Rockefeller of the Chase Manhattan Bank, three hundred major US corporations, meeting and engaging in a large agreement on technical and specialist exchange of information and personnel to identify and define those areas of the Chinese economy “most susceptible” to American technology and capital infusion.

So who is Rong Yiren? What was CITIC? Where did this come from? How does this relate to the presidency of Deng Xiaoping?

Well, let’s start boiling this down in a fascinating little piece of this puzzle that was provided by Bloomberg a couple of years ago. Of course this is not exactly hidden knowledge that was never known before this Bloomberg report, but it was interestingly summarized in a December 27, 2012, “Bloomberg Report – Heirs of Mao’s Comrades Rise as New Capitalist Nobility’.”

This is a fascinating story about a group that was known as The Eight Immortals. And yes, I am not making that up: they’re known as The Immortals. And this is a group, a new class of people who have risen, that were connected to eight people specifically, who survived the Cultural Revolution of Mao and were in high-ranking positions in the Chinese Communist Party to start implementing a very different agenda from Mao’s agenda, in the reign of Deng Xiaoping. So picking up from that article:

The people generally known as the Eight Immortals are now all dead, though all but three lived into their 90s. Their stature in China is on a par with that of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in the U.S. They are:

Deng Xiaoping;

General Wang, who fed Mao’s troops;

Chen Yun, who took charge of the economy when Mao assumed power in 1949;

Li Xiannian, who was instrumental in the plot that ended the Cultural Revolution;

Peng Zhen, who helped rebuild China’s legal system in the 1980s;

Song Renqiong, the Party personnel chief who oversaw the rehabilitation of purged cadres after the Cultural Revolution;

President Yang, who backed Deng’s order to carry out the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown; [and]

Bo Yibo, a former vice premier and the last of the Immortals to die, at 98, in 2007.

Or, in the Chinese pronunciation of these names . . . [Chinese pronunciation]

Continuing with the Bloomberg article:

They emerged from the Cultural Revolution after Mao’s death in 1976, during which many of them had been in internal exile, to find an economy in ruins. Gross domestic product in 1978 was $165 a person, compared with $22,462 in the U.S. With Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong booming, the Immortals were surrounded by capitalist success stories.

The victorious Communists had executed landlords after 1949. Farms had become People’s Communes. Factories belonged to the state.

The Immortals turned that on its head in the 1980s: Farmers could lease land. Private enterprise – at first on a small scale, later bigger – was tolerated, then encouraged. Deng took the gamble that in order to stoke growth, some “flies and mosquitoes” could be tolerated, said Ezra Vogel, an emeritus professor at Harvard, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who wrote a 2011 biography of Deng.

Alright, so there you go, there it is, in a nutshell, The Eight Immortals and their progeny, which now are still in control of so many different facets of the state-controlled economy there in China, that it is extremely interesting. The not strictly state-controlled anymore, the now private enterprise/state-controlled hybrid system that China is prototyping for the New World Order system. And it’s interesting—I mean, it’s fascinating—to look at these eight families and the way that their connections continue to wield inordinate amounts of power over the political and economic life of China. And there’s more on that in this story in Bloomberg and in other stories that have been published in Bloomberg, in various pieces of this puzzle that will be found in a million different places, which I’m going to ask your help for in hoping to connect some of those pieces later on in this episode.

But let’s continue on. Picking up that thread from The Eight Immortals and their influence, back to what we were talking about earlier, with that secret meeting in 1980 with Chase Manhattan and Rockefeller meeting with Rong Yiren of the CITIC group, well, that ties into this story of the Immortals. Reading again from that Bloomberg article:

Within months, Wang Jun, the general’s son [that’s General Wang one of the Immortals] was made head of business operations at the newly formed CITIC, known then as China International Trust & Investment Corp. The group, founded by Rong Yiren, was set up to attract overseas investment at a time when the country’s foreign exchange reserves were $840 million. He turned it into a sprawling empire to drive China’s growth. CITIC now runs China’s biggest listed securities firm, backs a Beijing soccer team and develops luxury real estate projects. China’s reserves today stand at $3.3 trillion.

840 million to 3.3 trillion! So that gives you a sense of what CITIC is and how it relates to the current Chinese hierarchy. But let’s focus even more closely in on that Rong Yiren character, who in June 1980 was meeting with Rockefeller at the top of Chase Manhattan complex in Manhattan. We can find this from an obituary to Rong Yiren that was run at the time of his death. So this obituary, entitled “The death of China’s ‘red capitalist’ and the 1949 revolution” reads, in part:

In CITIC’s first year of operations, Rong met with more than 4,000 foreign businessmen. He also enlisted Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state who established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1971, as one of the company’s main international advisors.

Rong facilitated investment by building infrastructure in the free trade zones and helping foreign firms set up operations. Philip Wong, a Hong Kong delegate to China’s National People’s Congress, told the China Daily on October 28: “If not for his [Rong’s] ability and vision in setting up CITIC, the pace of economic development in China would not have been so fast.”

By 1992, Rong’s CITIC had become a business empire, involved in shipping, power generation and construction. Today, CITIC has 200 enterprises around the world and total assets of $US6.3 billion. As CITIC developed, so did Rong’s private businesses. In 1979, he sent his son, Larry Rong, to Hong Kong to manage his investments there. In 2005, Larry Rong was named by Forbes magazine as China’s richest man, with a fortune of $1.64 billion.

Billion with a “b” . . .

Rong senior also played a key role in the further opening up of the Chinese economy after the suppression of the anti-government protests in May and June of 1989. Deng Xiaoping justified the massacre of workers and students in Tiananmen Square on the grounds that it was necessary to defend the ‘socialist system’. In reality, it was aimed at crushing the opposition of the working class to the impact of the regime’s free market policies.

“Free market”—yes, an interesting little bit of propaganda snuck in there.

In 1993, Rong was promoted to Vice President of China, as a symbol of Beijing’s determination to accelerate “market reform”. As the obituary to Rong in the British Financial Times noted: “The post was mainly ceremonial, but it sent a clear message: China’s new blend of communist politics and market economics was here to stay. And it was the ‘red capitalist’ who had shown the way.” The same year, China received $111 billion of contracted foreign direct investment—nearly four times the amount that had been invested in the entire 10-year period from 1979 to 1989.

A very interesting character and you will notice the little bits of propaganda and the little bits of the narrative that are already being inserted into this, in very, very subtle but very powerful ways. For example, it’s the free trade, it’s the capitalist aspects of this CITIC and these types of organizations that are to blame for the incredible oppression and political oppression that we saw at Tiananmen Square and that we’ve seen in various other contexts from Beijing, that’s somehow to do with the free market system with capitalism. Because of course when we’re talking about these Eight Immortals and their progeny controlling hundreds of billions—trillions of dollars ultimately if we include the Chinese reserves—in all of these various corporations—the state-controlled corporations—this is somehow free market, this is somehow the example of capitalism.

So you’ll see the way that certain pieces of the narrative are inserted here to try to create false paradigms that are, again, at that two-dimensional stage. It’s capitalism versus socialism, and they butt heads, and, oh, look what results. And there are other aspects of this that I think are worth highlighting. For example, when Heinz Kissinger himself poses something that I think is also becoming another idea that is pushed in this China vs. the US narrative, which is that, “Well, you know, when you think about militarily from the perspective of empire, the Chinese are kind of the good guys.”

HENRY KISSINGER: The Chinese believe in the superiority of their culture, the uniqueness of their culture, and they are delighted and proud if you respect it. But there’s no way you can become a Chinese. If you are not part of the Chinese culture, born into the Chinese culture, you cannot become one, so it’s hard to imagine Chinese armies intervening somewhere to make Chinese culture (inaudible) Chinese governing principles. That is not a Chinese way of thinking.

The Chinese way of thinking is that the majesty of the Chinese conduct and the achievements of Chinese society will inspire respect which leads to a cooperative action, but it’s not one that they have historically attempted to bring about by military force. They’ll use military force if they feel themselves threatened, and ruthlessly, but it’s hard for me to visualize a Chinese military strategy designed to back up a Chinese World Government, even in the name of universal peace.

SOURCE: CSIS Special Book Discussion: “On China,” with Henry Kissinger

And so here’s the narrative that becomes kind of the counternarrative to the mainstream narrative that is propagated in the West, which of course is that the US and NATO are the good guys in this Cold War scenario. Well, of course there has to be a counternarrative—an alternative narrative—that is subtly injected into the conversation by people like Kissinger, who have been intimately involved with the creation of this red capitalist system since its inception, as we’ve already detailed in various ways and which we will continue to detail. But he gets to insert certain things that become part of the counternarrative as well, like, “Oh, well, China—they don’t go out and militarily invade other countries. They’re the ‘good’ side of the New World Order.” And so I think that’s another thing that we and the alternative media really have to be careful about: What counternarratives are we propagating, and are they truly counter to the system that is being established? Are they truly counter to the megabillionaire financial elite interests that are puppeteering this butting of heads of the capitalist and socialist system?

Well, let’s continue. What specifically resulted from these increasing ties through organizations like CITIC—which very attentive listeners of this podcast will remember from our examination of the Power Corporation and the Desmarais family in Canada—which managed to get an interest in and ultimately sat on the board of CITIC Pacific, which was a Hong Kong subsidiary of CITIC, which is the same CITIC which Rong Yiren was working with Rockefeller and everyone at Chase Manhattan and the three hundred US corporations to establish this US-China tie.

So, again, the layers are so deep, there are so many different facets to this story. But they interlock, and they are fascinating when you start going down this rabbit hole.

Let’s take a look at some more specific examples of what actually eventuated from this. And in order to do that, we can look, for example, at even what is bragged about openly by the Beijing government itself. Literally, the government of Beijing specifically, which has a post on their website eBeijingGov.cn, “Fortune 500: Important engine driving Beijing’s CBD economic development’.”

And there are copious notes with links to all of the documents that we’re talking about, so that you can start to piece the pieces of this very interesting puzzle together for yourself.

But let’s turn to, again, this “Fortune 500: Important engine driving Beijing’s CBD economic development” on the Beijing government website, which notes that there has been an exceptional increase in Fortune 500 investment in China over the past decades. And then in the 1990s we have the Fortune 500 enterprises setting up investment companies in Beijing, and it goes through the history of that. And then after 2000 they set up regional headquarters in Beijing.

So you’re getting the idea: We have the gradual build-up of the financial, the economic, the productive, even the investment capacity of foreign Fortune 500, which we should read as the corporate member roster of the Council On Foreign Relations, for example, that’s all interlocking. It’s growing steadily throughout the 1970s, the opening up in the 1980s and 1990s and then the 2000-to-present region.

So we, of course, are looking at China generally from 2000 on, with its remarkable 10—15 percent GDP growth rate, just its blistering pace of economic growth over the past decade, and, as if that sprang out of nowhere and was not the concerted and deliberate product of a very regimented agenda that has been at work for decades now and that has been rigorously planned out from behind the scenes by the crony capitalists and The Immortals in China and their progeny.

So again, there’s an interesting little graph that shows some of the examples. For example, just charting the progress of various Fortune 500 enterprises, at the beginning of the opening up in the 1970s:

HP and Matsushita set up offices in 1979 in the neighborhood of the Beijing embassy;

HP China Limited was established in Beijing in 1985 and Beijing Matsushita Color CRT Co. Ltd. was established in 1987;

HP (China) Investment Co. Ltd. was established in 1995 and Matsushita (China) Ltd. in 1994;

HP bought HP Building in Beijing CBD in 1998 and moved several branches to the building;

In 2002 Matsushita (China) Ltd. was transferred to a regional headquarters.

So, again, we get the sense there is this buildup. There are just a couple of examples of some of the companies that are involved in this, but there are many, many, many more, as detailed in an article that I wrote earlier this year and that’s available on corbettreport.com—of course, again, a link in the show notes, to an article I wrote called “The Great Decoupling: How the West is Engineering its Own Downfall.”

Again more about this idea of this sort of phoney Cold War and how it’s being used for political purposes to engineer a new world order, a One World system, which notes, quote:

The Chinese industrial juggernaut did not just spring up overnight; the infrastructure for China’s economic marvel of the last decade was laid in the decade before. In the seven years from 1994 to 2001 alone, direct investment of US-based multinational corporations in China quadrupled from $2.6 billion to $10.5 billion.

In the same period, China rose from the 30th-largest target of US R&D investment to the 11th on the back of a doubling of US affiliates in the country. The list of companies that started major R&D activities or facilities in China in the 1990s reads like a ‘Who’s who?’ of the CFR-nested Fortune 500 set: DuPont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Motorola, and Rohm and Haas all had a significant stake in China by the beginning of the 21st century.

. . . and then the economic boom suddenly springs out of nowhere, right?

An interesting part of all of this is the fact that it was, of course, framed as “the offshoring of productive capacity.” Of course, we’re using China for their cheap labor, that’s why all these companies went to China. But the part of this that doesn’t make sense is the incredible boom in R&D (research and development) funding that began in the 1990s and continued through the 2000s period. Why was there all this investment in R&D in China? That’s different from the productive sort of menial labour, which one can understand, you’re going to pay basically slave labor to do menial tasks, like Foxconn or whatever. But why R&D, specifically, outsourcing that to China?

There’s an interesting report that I uncovered that deals with this problem specifically, “Drivers of Foreign R&D Investment in China and the new R&D Models” from uta.edu, and that’s a fascinating report in a lot of different ways, including the way that it tries to deal with that idea: Why were these foreign companies suddenly investing in R&D in China? It concludes, for example:

As can be seen, a great deal of research has focused on China and how global companies have moved much of their production capability to that country. However, this research has overlooked the growing amount of Research and Development that these same firms have undertaken in China. In fact, China has seen the development of new models of R&D by foreign corporations.

So again this R&D investment did not spring out of nowhere. It was, again, a part of a coordinated agenda that involved some of the largest corporations on the planet. This report also lists some of the companies that heavily invested in R&D in the 1990s: Motorola, Nokia, Siemens, IBM, Microsoft, GM, Samsung, Nortel, GE, JVC, Intel, P&G, DuPont, Ericsson, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Lucent, Bell and AT&T to name a few. All have R&D facilities in China.

Microsoft, for instance, invested $130 million dollars to establish its research institute, Microsoft Asian Technology Center in China. Motorola established eighteen R&D centers in China by the end of 2000. This included an initial $300 million investment and 1,060 research personnel, etc., etc.

Again, this economic marvel of China over the past decade did not spring out of nowhere. It is the end result of what has been happening for decades, as part of agreements that were reached decades before that. So we have to understand this deeper level of what’s going on to understand what’s happening at the surface level. And that, I think, gives further bolstering to our argument, that what’s happening is not the 2D surface reality of nation states pitted against each other but the 3D hierarchical reality of the super gophers at the top, puppeteering the system whereby they can play nation states against each other to create a global governmental system that will ultimately be this merger of capitalism and socialism, this red capitalism or whatever they want to call it. Of course, it will not be called “red capitalism.” It will not be called anything like that. But we’re seeing the merger of these systems in various ways. But, again, there’s so much to be said here.

Well, let’s talk about another key aspect of what Antony Sutton talked about when he was talking about the Western backing of the Bolsheviks or the Nazis. It was not just financial support, it was not just the development of industry, it was also technology transfers. In fact, that was the specific focus of Sutton’s early work at the Hoover Institution—the technological transfers that enabled the rise of the Soviet Union into an industrial superpower from its basically feudal society before the Bolsheviks took over. And in that regard, it was Sutton’s argument that without the US technological transfer and technological support, the Bolsheviks couldn’t have accomplished what they ultimately did. And, similarly, the Nazis couldn’t have built up their war machine without the synthetic oil that was provided under specific agreements that Standard Oil had with their German counterparts to provide the technology to create the synthetic oil that fueled the German Nazi war machine that, again, could not have functioned without that.

So is there technology transfer going on in China? The short answer is yes. There are technology transfers from the West to China that have enabled certain specific military capabilities that the Chinese now have. The question is how deep does this go and how many layers there are.

I will provide just one layer—because this is already a huge investigation, and it’s only going to expand in scope from here. But a fascinating one that developed in the 1990s, which was a series of stories about basically the transfer of nuclear technologies—technologies that helped aid China’s space program, its missile technologies, its nuclear technologies, including the transfer of microchips and things—that happened in the Clinton administration. So it was framed in that left/right debate, as if this was some sort of leftist agenda as opposed to, again, the Bushes supporting the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Clintons supporting with technology transfers. It’s left/right, blue/red, fork/spoon. It makes no difference, the agenda is the same, and it’s being forwarded by the Rockefellers and the Kissingers and people on that level, not by the political puppets who are paraded in front of us as the shadows on Plato’s cave wall.

Let’s take a look at this story in more detail. We can get this from, first of all, a good place to go would be the official report, “U.S. Commercial Technology Transfers to the Peoples Republic of China,” from The Bureau of Export Administration Office of Strategic Industry and Economic Security Defense Market Research Report, which is a fascinating report about how this technology transfer occurred, the executive summary of which reads:

The phenomenal economic growth witnessed in China since Deng Xiaoping first declared China’s “A Open Door” policy in 1978 has led many to predict China’s certain emergence as an economic superpower in the early 21st century. Indeed, China has followed a structured path toward gradual market reform of its still largely state-owned industrial sector, which has been transfused with increasing amounts of foreign capital and technology.

There have been numerous reports over the last several years, however, of US companies being “forced” to transfer technology to China in exchange for access to this enormous market. The purpose of his study is to assess the extent to which US commercial technology is being, in effect, “coerced” from US companies engaged in normal business practices and joint ventures in China in exchange for access to China’s markets. The cumulative effect these transfers may have on China’s efforts to modernize its economy as well as its industrial and military base is also examined. Finally, this study addresses the impact of US technology transfers to China on the issues of long-term US global competitiveness and broad economic and national security interests.

[. . .]

Although it is not possible to make a clear determination of the US national security implications of commercial US technology transfers to China, the continuation of the trends identified in this study could pose long-term challenges to US national security interests. This study does not identify any specific Chinese military advances made as a result of US commercial technology transfers, but does suggest that continued pressures on foreign high-tech firms to transfer advanced commercial technologies, if successful, could indirectly benefit China’s efforts to modernize its military.

This report was written in 1999. So, before the Chinese economic juggernaut got underway in earnest, it was already well known that these corporations—which were flocking to China to set up their R&D centers and to move and set up their corporate headquarters and all of these other major investments that were taking place—were being done on agreement that this would include technology transfers to the People’s Republic of China, that maybe could be used to build up China’s military base. And now, lo and behold, wouldn’t you know it, China is modernizing its military at an exceptionally rapid pace with aircraft carriers coming online, the latest aircraft carrier killer missiles that they’ve developed, the drones technology that now is fast approaching that of the United States.

Again, it’s a military juggernaut that’s still in the process of building up. But it is being built up, and how so. Again, this type of report gives us a window into a process, a process that, again, could not take place without the active support of the very financial and corporate oligarchy that has been wedded to the Chinese Immortals and the Chinese regime that’s been in place at least since the death of Mao.

Fascinating stuff, I hope you will agree. Some more specifics we can get on, for example, the Chinese military missile allegations—the allegations of specific technology transfers regarding missile technologies. There’s a Washington Post series of articles from the 1990s on this that I’ll throw in a link to. It’s an interesting compendium of dozens of reports that were compiled and filed in the 1998 time period.

I have a report, “China: Possible Military Technology Transfers from US Satellite Export Policy —Actions and Chronology,” from au.af.mil.

This is an interesting one: “Bush’s Brother Has Contract to Help Chinese Chip Maker,” talking about Bush’s younger brother Neil and his intimate ties to a Chinese chip maker and the brouhaha that caused for George W, who was in power at the time.

Also, it was Neil Bush who, just a couple of years ago, made headlines for this: “Neil Bush Communist Photo Makes A Scene On Chinese Social Media Site Weibo.” And it’s Neil Bush wearing Communist Chinese regalia, saying, “Am I doing it right?” basically. You know, it’s all funny, it’s all fun and games to these people.

That, again, is just a taste of the idea of what we’re really trying to drill down to, which is the specifics that Antony Sutton drew out in the Soviet or Nazi paradigms. We want to construct the same case for what’s happening with Communist China. Because, again, this is about the creation of the One World governmental system. And that cannot take place without:

A) the nation-state systems warring and ruining each other and, “Oh, please save us, oh.” Luckily, there’s this model, this structure, that’s already been put in place that can come and save us, some sort of UN-type structure that will function like the red capitalists of China or something of that sort and

B) this also cannot take place without the active cooperation and the financial, the corporate infrastructure that has been carefully laid out for decades now in agreements between people like Rong Yiren and CITIC and those types of groups, with such things as the US-China Business Council and other extremely fascinatingly interesting groups.

Now, as you can imagine, just sorting today’s episode out into what I’ve presented so far has been a mind-boggling event, and I’ve had to leave out all sorts of different things that would have sent us in different directions. This podcast could probably be split into ten different podcasts—a series. And I suppose it will be. What I’m going to call on all of you out there now to help engage in this task of following these different cookie crumb trails and going down the various rabbit holes and digging up what you can find.

I’m calling on the Corbett Report members, the community that is developing at the Corbett Report Open Source Intelligence News Community, to help assemble some of these facts and:

– Get some of these names,

– Follow some of these leads,

– Follow the careers of some of these characters,

– Follow the various dealings that they’ve done.

. . . to help flesh out this picture that we’re painting here—because it is an exceptionally important one—that tells a very different story to what we’re being asked to believe: that there is a US-China rivalry and that there’s going to be some war because they’re so at each others throats. That is taking place at the surface level, but there is a much deeper level of what’s taking place in the third dimension that is much more important in the overall game plan.

Do not get caught up in choosing sides, as if choosing a nation state or a NATO vs. Shanghai Cooperation Organization or one of these phoney controlled organizations is going to make a difference. At the end, it’s a dialectic, and it’s going to smash these two seemingly opposed systems into each other. And what’s going to result is going to be horrific on the scale of what Chairman Mao instituted in his Great Leap Forward.

So, it couldn’t be more important—what’s happening right now. And I think this is the perspective from which we have to view such things as what’s going on in Hong Kong right now, where people are upset at the Beijing government. Now, there are all sorts of manipulations that happen and things that are taking place in the two-dimensional nation state system version of NED and all of these usual players getting involved in this conflict, but this is part of the conflict that is planned. We have to see it at a deeper level and support the people against these various government and corporate manipulations that have been designed and are taking place.

So, this is the level of analysis that we have to get into if you really want to understand what’s taking place with China in this current day and age. And this is where I’m going to call on you for help.

I have some various things that are just suggested starting points. Obviously take this anyway you want but here are some suggested starting points for where we need to go from here.

First, we need more information on technology transfers. You could start using some of the articles that I’ve cited, you can look for your own, but I want more specifics about technology transfers that have taken place from the West to China that have enabled, specifically, Chinese military technology I find that interesting, but also the Chinese cyber capabilities—the fact that they have the most controlled internet on the planet, which, again, is a very complicated thing to do and something that I don’t think could have been done without the active support and collusion of technology companies, for example. So there’s some starting points for the investigation.

I want to find out more about the financial interlocks between specific Fortune 500 corporations and the red capitalists. And, in that regard, I think it would be extremely important to follow up on that Bloomberg article and The Eight Immortals—those eight families and their descendants and where they’ve gone and how they populate and connect with other people.

There’s an interesting article I saw that connects so many of these different characters that it was a bit mind-boggling to even glance through that I’ll include in the show notes at this precise time index so you can go and find that article and start sorting through some of those leads.

I want to look at specific organizations like, not only the WTO and IMF and other organizations that China’s a part of that are clearly part of this global governmental order, but some others that are less scrutinized but I think no less important, like the US China Business Council, which changed its name to the National Council for US China Trade.

It still exists today. It was set up 40 years ago. In my preliminary research for this podcast I could find barely any information about the historical founding of this group and who were actually its board members and when it was founded and who specifically founded it and in what way—anything to do with the history of this group. I know that a Rockefeller has been an adviser to this group. I know Kissinger has been lauded and given awards by this group.

But, specifically, there have been allegations that I’ve read that this group was founded by the likes of Rockefeller and Kissinger. If there is more information on that, more solid leads that we can take this to, that would be great.

How about thinking about this in terms of global monetary order, which is going to come out of this merging of the systems? And in that regard, we can look at the interlock between the Bank for International Settlements—the Central Bank of central banks, identified by Carroll Quigley as the absolute apex of the financial pyramid—and the PBOC—the People’s Bank of China. I’ll throw in some links to some various articles that I think are interesting with regards to, for example, some sort of symposium that took place recently, the People’s Bank of China BIS Research Conference that I think will be interesting, as well as some comments that have been made in recent years by various PBOC officials about how basically what is needed is to add the yuan to the IMF currency basket for the Special Drawing Rights—the SDR—which many people speculate is the instrument that is going to take over the US dollar as the world reserve currency. Some interesting leads.

Again, I’ll throw those links in the show notes so you can follow through with that.

A fascinating-looking debate that I haven’t had the chance to watch yet. Again, I would love to have the time to have watched this, but we’ve got to put this podcast up at some point. So it was a Munk Debate which takes place in Canada. It’s always an interesting debate from a propaganda perspective. You have to look through the propagandam but it’s interesting. And this debate was “Will the 21st century belong to China?.” On the pro side: Niall Ferguson and David Daokui Li. On the con side: Henry Kissinger and Fareed Zakaria—so a CFR-Bilderberg-globalist-super-gopher tag team there. And they ended up winning the debate, incidentally, making the argument that China will not be the power of the 21st century. Make of that what you will.

[Alternative Source: Does The 21st Century Belong To China?—ebook]

So all of those leads—again, there are so many more than we can take. This is obviously just the first report in what will be an ongoing research investigation into this. I don’t know what form it will take—more podcasts, more interviews, more articles I’m sure will result from all of this research. But it is up to you guys out there. Please help me out in this. Compile the links if you are a Corbett Report member. Please sign in to the website and leave your comments on this post so that we can start compiling this research into a more fleshed-out, detailed schematic of what we are talking about.

Again, I hope I’ve placed some of these pieces on the board in a way that the picture comes into view and that you see that this is a system that’s being puppeteered in a three-dimensional reality, not the 2D nation state system fight that we’re being asked to believe that it is.

I will leave you on one final note. Again going back to Antony C. Sutton, who wrote in 1984 in America’s Secret Establishment: “By about the year 2000 Communist China will be a superpower built by American technology and skill.”

How did Antony C. Sutton know that? Was he clairvoyant? Was he a psychic? Could he read the future? Was he informed about history? Was he, in effect, an armchair quarterback, who, like any good armchair quarterback, knows the opposing team’s playbook so well that he can reliably predict their plays?

At any rate, we will leave you there for today . . . I hope I’ve left you a lot to chew on. So, Corbett Report members, please start contributing in this Open Source investigation of China and the New World Order.

Once again, I’m James Corbett of corbettreport.com, looking forward very much to talking to you again in the very near future. Thank you for your time.

[Outro Music: Applying to join the Chinese Communist Party – music video]


  1. A masterpiece! Thanks James.

    Here is an information I heard in a Pierre Hillard’s conference, then tracked it back in a French book (page 121): the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs was founded in 1949 by Walter Lockhart Gordon, the president of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and director of Canadian Institute of International Affairs, based on the model of the CFR and Chatham House, he was helped in that task by his loyal friends MM. Chester Ronning (born in China and member of the Canadian Air Force Intelligence during WWII), Dr Paul Lin and James Endicott. The two latest were maintaining good relationships with Maoists organisations in Canada, and Chester Ronning’s good friend Huang Hua became the first ambassador of China in Canada. Gordon is also the founder of the firm Clarkson & Gordon in charge of overviewing the accounts of 3 of the 5 most important Canadian banks: Banque de Nouvelle Ecosse (of which he Gordon is the director), Toronto Dominion, and Canadian Imperial Bank.

    BTW Taiwan is not independent from China, it considers being part of China but doesn’t recognize Beijing’s regime, on Taiwanese passports is written ROC (Republic of China).

  2. Chapeau for the podcast James, great piece of work!

    Just a reference to the Sutton ‘socialism’ paradigm in the podcast, it made me think of G.Edward Griffin’s talk on Collectivism. I found there where striking resemblances to what Sutton refers to as Socialism, and how Griffin compiles all these forms into a general ideology.
    Maybe the NWO end goal is to form some new alternative form of Collectivism ? With possible nuances in control applied to different global regions depending on their culture.
    A world with ‘regional collectivism’ under the flag of the Collective NWO. Kind of what Kissinger was implying with his remarks about the Chinese culture/history in your podcast. That there are structural differences in people due to their cultural heritage.

    The G. Edward Griffin piece :

  3. Hi James,

    I bumped into an interesting character : Robert Zoellick (co founder of PNAC amongst others + a large resume). His term ‘responsible stakeholder’ concerning China has been popping up a lot in articles i’ve been collecting.

    Some interesting ones :




    Is this an interesting angle to further look into ?

  4. Being born in 1950 and raised to be one of the masses, this new information is scaring me James. You present a sane factual approach I very much appreciate. You and others like you are the flashlights needed by those who have been blinded by power that hides in darkness.

    Where are the John Birch-ers in all this?

  5. RE: US Military Technology Transfers to China (excerpts)

    Brown in Peking: US edges closer to China
    By Takashi Oka
    C.S. Monitor Jan. 08, 1980

    Defense Secretary Harold Brown has begun his visit to China with a rousing condemnation of Soviet actions in Afghanistan and a suggestion that the United States and China could respond “with complementary actions in the field of defense as well as diplomacy.”


    The highlight of Mr. Brown’s visit will be his meeting with Deputy Premier Deng Xiaoping Jan. 8, at which the Chinese response to the American initiative is likely to become clear.

    This meeting, in turn, will be followed by a private dinner hosted by deputy chief of staff Zhang Ai-ping. Detailed discussions of the kind of technology transfers the Chinese desire in order to modernize their defense establishment are expected to be part of the dinner-table discussions. Qien Xuesen, an American-educated rocketry expert and deputy chief of the scientific and technical commission of the defense ministry, will be present.

    United States defense officials accompanying Mr. Brown say categorically that there will be no arms sales to China. But technology transfers, such as that of Landsat — an earth survey satellite used, among other things, to survey crops — will be considered on a case-by- case basis.

  6. James – great work and IMHO this needs to be followed through.

    Regarding your request for further information on Technology transfers to China. During the late 1990’s – mid 2000’s I worked as a consultant for the Canadian based multi national Bombardier – working in the rail transportation division (BT).

    BT was very active during this period in not only selling to China, but actively building manufacturing and R&D capabilities within China. There was definitely resistance within BT senior executive management to pursuing this strategy on the basis of the Chinese track record of cloning (stealing) technology – these objections were firmly over ruled from the Corporate HQ in Montreal.

    Senior manager in China – note his post grad education in Montreal in the early 1990’s – perhaps he was ear marked well before the corporate strategy to move towards China was published.


    Company brochures that outlines timeline and scale of investment in China



    Whilst this is not technology transfer related to military use, it is IMHO vital technology for the development of China – your are probably aware of the New Silk Road proposals – rail is a key component of these plans.




    Hopefully of use.

  7. This article is loaded…I will post some relevant excerpts.

    Mr. Kissinger Has Opinions on China — And Business Ties — Commentator-Entrepreneur, In Wearing Two Hats, Draws Fire From Critics
    By John J. Fialka
    Wall Street Journal
    15 Sep. 1989

    NEW YORK — On June 4, after the Chinese government began to massacre students in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, ABC dispatched a television crew to Henry Kissinger’s weekend home in Kent, Conn., for a live interview with the former secretary of state, who ABC says enjoyed a “unique relationship” with the network.

    “We had first call on his services for breaking news events,” explains Elise Adde, director of news information for ABC, which paid the 66-year-old Mr. Kissinger a fee (she won’t say how much) for his services.

    “So what should America do, Dr. Kissinger?” anchorman Peter Jennings asked. Should the U.S. impose military sanctions, cut off military aid?

    “I wouldn’t do any sanctions,” Mr. Kissinger replied, stressing the importance of the relationship between the U.S. and the Chinese regime.

    A month later, Mr. Kissinger, who writes a newspaper column for the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, devoted one of his pieces to praising Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping for his economic reforms. “No government in the world,” he wrote, “would have tolerated having the main square of its capital occupied for eight weeks.”

    Most TV viewers and readers of his column probably don’t know that Mr. Kissinger has unique business ties to the Deng regime — connections that had him on the verge of earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from a limited partnership set up to engage in joint business dealings with a ministry of the Chinese government. The arrangement is legal and, in itself, proper. Nonetheless, it has elicited criticism.

    Mr. Kissinger’s interests include a limited partnership called China Ventures. It was established in Delaware to pool $75 million raised from U.S.investors for joint ventures with China International Trust & Investment Corp. (CITIC), the merchantbanking arm of the Chinese government. The fund — currently in abeyance because of the tumult in China — would be directed, for a fee, by a general partner aided by a board of limited partners. (Mr. Kissinger was designated chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the general partnership, with executive responsibility for managing its affairs.) It would invest in projects that “must enjoy the unquestioned support of the relevant PRC [People’s Republic of China] authorities,” according to an offering memorandum.

    Another of Mr. Kissinger’s personal ties is the American-China Society, a private organization formed in 1987 by Mr. Kissinger after Han Xu, then China’s ambassador to the U.S., suggested to a number of people that China needed a “lobby” to focus its support in the U.S. “I told him that was absurd, and we haven’t done it,” says Mr. Kissinger, who says the American-China Society was formed from a number of prominent people to “promote better relations between China and the U.S.” It is run out of Kissinger Associates’ Park Avenue office in New York and has held luncheons and dinners for a number of visiting Chinese officials.

    It’s hard to tell at times where such cultural activities end and Mr. Kissinger’s business interests begin. Last July, for example, he led a delegation of U.S. businessmen to Beijing on behalf of the American-China Society. Three of 13 executives on the trip were clients of Kissinger Associates. In China, their host was Rong Yiren, the chairman of CITIC, the Chinese government agency then in the midst of negotiating the deal with China Ventures.

    Mr. Kissinger adds that his public comments about China represent his sense of what is best for the U.S. national interest. And his conversations with Chinese officials, he says, are similarly motivated. “The idea that I would take a public position in order to curry favor with the Chinese government for clients is outrageous.”

    Which is not to say that his efforts aren’t helpful to commercial clients. “He is a hired door opener,” asserts Rence Lee, a Washington consultant and China expert who performs risk-analysis for corporations that do business abroad. But entree at the top, Mr. Lee says, often fails to help U.S. companies in China because many still are thwarted at lower levels of the Chinese bureaucracy.

    Mr. Kissinger’s influence does appear to have helped out ITT Corp. According to James Gallagher, ITT’s director of public relations, the company was unable to get permission for a board meeting in Beijing in June until it received an introduction through Kissinger Associates to Chen Ding, the New York representative of CITIC. CITIC thereupon agreed to play host to the ITT officials.

    “The introduction they made wound up being important and beneficial to the trip,” says Mr. Gallagher. (ITT no longer does business with Kissinger Associates, for reasons it won’t discuss.)

    Bankrolled by a number of prominent U.S. businessmen, some of whom have also been advised by Mr. Kissinger vis-a-vis China, China Ventures was supposed to get under way on June 15 but did not. And after weighing the unrest in China, the participants agreed in July to shelve the project.

    “I would say, to put it mildly, that the thing is on hold,” says William E. Simon, the former secretary of the Treasury, currently a board member of China Ventures. “It {Tiananmen Square} changed the whole game.” The board includes a number of prominent business executives who have had dealings in China, such as Maurice R. Greenberg, president of American International Corp.; Anthony J.F. O’Reilly, president of H.J. Heinz Co.: James D. Robinson III, chief executive officer of American Express; and Donald R. Keough, president of Coca-Cola Co. None would comment on Mr. Kissinger’s China dealings.

  8. James I’m trying to find info on the meetings of Chinese officials and Americans at Chase Manhattan in 1979-1980 you listed in “Interview 1039 – X22 Report.” Can you provide any more details on how to narrow my search? Dates, people etc. Thanks.

  9. COCOM
    NATO established the Coordinating Committee of commerce with communist states in 1949 by informal agreement to prevent the flow of strategic goods and technologies to Soviet bloc states. In the 1950s, CHINCOM, a similar organization regulating trade with the PRC, merged with COCOM, and Japan joined COCOM. Australia joined in October 1989. When it expired at the end of March 1994, COCOM was based in the U.S. embassy in Paris and had seventeen member states (Iceland, a NATO member, did not join). In October 1991, the United States granted Hong Kong the intra-COCOM trading status.

    At the beginning of the Reagan administration, COCOM put China in virtually the same category as the USSR even though the U.S. called China a “friendly and nonallied country.” Relaxing COCOM restrictions with respect to China was the first task for Zhang Wenjin, who succeeded Chai Zemin as the ambassador to the U.S. On March 18, 1983, he met Secretary of State Shultz, Secretary of Defense Weinberger, and other U.S. officials to point out that any concern about transfer of technology from China to the USSR was farfetched. Zhang indicated that China did not expect export restrictions to be dropped entirely. In October 1985, COCOM halved the number of items it must approve before export to China, and gave China a new classification, Country Group V In 1986 and 1987, certain items in 5 additional categories were made eligible for liberalized treatment. These changes significantly reduced the China caseload in COCOM, and sped up licensing of high-technology by the United States and other COCOM members. In the summer of 1990, COCOM slashed its overall export control list by two thirds, making former Warsaw Pact states equal with China. In June 1992, COCOM curbed nine categories of exports to China.

    Following the expiration of COCOM, the former members have invited former Warsaw Pact states including Russia to form an informal regime to restrict the flow of strategic technology to Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. China’s attitude toward and membership in such an organization is uncertain.

  10. While in the beginning the west definitely viewed China and other Asian countries as an area of cheap labour via out sourcing western manufacture, as they still do today to some extent. The bloom has come off the rose geo politically so to speak though. “America” as an imperial power seeks to totally dominate the world. “China, Russia and friends” seek to remain independent and while there is much investment between these at odds entities they are at odds both on page one and any other page. The symbiosis between America and China is no longer an actuality. While Walmart seeks the manufactured goods of Chinese factory output China has come to realize that her need of a Walmart can be met in its own internal market and the markets of other close by Asian nations. This very real fight to destabilize the BRICS or de dollarize the world is not a theatre act put on by a global businessmen’s club from behind the scenes but rather a very real tussle between oligarch’s for supremacy over one another. The proxy wars of the Middle East and the Ukraine (and other hot spots) are not just some sick joke being played on the local populations for the sake of war profits but rather the manifestations of this bitter fight between the oligarchs. To read more into it is to give these greedy MFs more credit than they deserve in my opinion. Remember Japan and the USA had great trade right up to the point of a real devastating war and war can be won by either side despite all the best laid plans changing which set of oligarchs dominates the other.

    • How is this for a reply to my own comment?I spent some time doing a little digging around and I now have to refute statements I made in my comment. While I’m not too certain how well the very top echelon get along on all decisions they definitely consult and plan with one another to coordinate actions. I doubt they let any but their most trusted know what the course for action is and this could be the reason for a Ukraine or a Syria confusing the issue or as indeed a way that these very top elites smile in each others face while vying for a greater share. The Swiss study that exposes a central unified group of bank holding companies that control the lion’s share of the planets economy and revenues was what turned my point of view. This is for me still a hard nut to get my mind around….

  11. The Beast on the 17th Floor of CITIC Headquarters

    Digging into the secretive weapons dealing company, owned on paper by CITIC, which had free-range to the PLA’s arsenal, reported directly to the PLA General Staff Department, and was alleged to be more powerful than the Foreign Ministry itself.


    • Surveillance System Sale to China Pushed

      Transfer of sensitive surveillance systems from the U.S. to China. Guess who’s buying? Poly.

      Article says the transfer was blocked for the moment because it came on the heels of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. But there are indications that the transfer eventually went through. Despite claims that the hold up of the $2 million deal surveillance system deal might sink the company, Quintron Systems Inc., they are still around and doing business today.

      Also some interesting information on the shadowy Beijing Institute of Information, and also a Bush Administration sanctioned transfer of military-grade technology to China by Boeing.

    • China arms and the Iran-Contra Affair

      According to experts, the Chinese have made their biggest sales to Iran and Iraq, and recently became the largest arms suppliers to Iran. They have sold weapons to Libya, and at one time, even made a short-lived deal with Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, the fired National Security Council aide, to send weapons to the contra forces in Nicaragua.

      The Far Eastern Economic Review, a Hong Kong-based magazine, reported that North negotiated the deal in late 1984 at a meeting with a Chinese defense attache in Washington. The Chinese later reversed themselves and cut off the contra aid after deciding to befriend the Sandinista government, a diplomat said.

      Chinese spokesmen have denied selling Silkworm missiles to Iran or small arms to the contras, but in both cases, diplomats say they have conclusive evidence of the deals

      • Iran-Contra & Wen Ho Lee

        I’m working up to something here, hang tight…

        Interesting story on how the Chinese stole the W-88 miniturized nuke from the U.S. Gov’t. Apparently it all traces back to ’84, when Ollie North let the Chinese in on the Iran-Contra weapons pipeline…

        An examination of the Reagan-Bush time frame – and particularly the Iran-contra files – reveal how Chinese military intelligence ingratiated itself with the U.S. government. In 1984, the Reagan-Bush administration was desperately seeking a source of anti-aircraft missiles that could be smuggled to the Nicaraguan contras, a CIA-backed operation that was seeking to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

        By late 1984, the U.S. Congress had prohibited additional U.S. military support for the contras, who had developed an unsavory reputation for rampaging through Nicaraguan villages, raping, torturing and murdering as they went. One contra director acknowledged the practice of staging public executions of Nicaraguan government functionaries. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Lost History.]

        Despite this congressional contra-aid ban, the White House was determined to secure surface-to-air missiles that the contras could use to shoot down Soviet-made attack helicopters that had become an effective weapon in the Nicaraguan government’s arsenal. Operatives working secretly with Oliver North, a Marine officer assigned to the National Security Council staff, settled on China as a source for SA-7 missiles.

        In testimony at his 1989 Iran-contra trial, North called the securing of these weapons a “very sensitive delivery.” For the Chinese missile deal, North said he received help from the CIA in arranging false end-user certificates from the right-wing government of Guatemala. North testified that he “had made arrangements with the Guatemalan government, using the people [CIA] director [William] Casey had given me.”

        But China was opposed to the Guatemalan government, which was then engaged in a scorched-earth war against leftist guerrillas. Because the Guatemalan army had massacred tens of thousands of Indians – including the annihilation of entire villages considered sympathetic to the guerrillas – China was not willing to sell missiles to Guatemala.

        To resolve this problem, the White House brought the Chinese communists in on what was then one of the most sensitive secrets of the U.S. government: the missiles were not going to Guatemala, but rather into a clandestine pipeline arranged by the White House to funnel military supplies to the contras in defiance of U.S. law. This was a secret so sensitive that not even the U.S. Congress could be informed, but it was to be shared with communist China.

        In fall 1984, North enlisted Gaston J. Sigur, the NSC’s expert on East Asia, to make the arrangements for a meeting with a communist Chinese representative, according to Sigur’s testimony at North’s 1989 trial. “I arranged a luncheon and brought together Colonel North and this individual from the Chinese embassy” responsible for military affairs, Sigur testified.

        “At lunch, they sat and they discussed the situation in Central America,” Sigur said. “Colonel North raised the issue of the need for weaponry by the contras, and the possibility of a Chinese sale of weapons, either to the contras or, as I recall, I think it was more to countries in the region but clear for the use of the contras.”

        North described the same meeting in his autobiography, Under Fire. To avoid coming under suspicion of being a Chinese spy, North said he first told the FBI that the meeting had been sanctioned by national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane. Then, North went ahead with the meeting to gain the help of communist China.

        “Back in Washington, I met with a Chinese military officer assigned to their embassy to encourage their cooperation,” North wrote. “We enjoyed a fine lunch at the exclusive Cosmos Club in downtown Washington.”

        • Can’t wait to see your reply because to me, so far, the only countries that can make micronukes are, according to years of research : US, Russia, Israel, Britain, France and maybe Japan or even Canada, these 2 countries don’t have nukes but could make some tomorrow as both countries share almost all existing tech with each other.

          But if they’re so small “like an orange” as Obama said in front of student crowd who were either physics or chemistry students, I guess anyone can possess some, stealing them must be easier.

          That explosion before the crash in China seemed like a micronuke going off under the chemical factories. It’s a classic way to use these apparently, if you want zero EMP and minimal flash (and there were flashes, 1 small, which had the american tourists go “OMG” and then a huge one and even larger basically lava ball and small mushroom cloud, I’m a chemist, not a particle physicist so I’m still not sure if regular explosions can form a mushroom, no matter if it a very small compared to a “real nuke” (steel turning to dust again) where they were so awestruck they said nothing for 20 seconds then said we gotta get outta this tower, which wasn’t in the danger zone, but too close for their liking. And these rows of cars….its hard to find a good video other than this one due to chinese censorship.

          For some reason though, I think the Chinese economy is going to rebound, this seems like a very similar situation as in 1997 in Asia overall.

        • Under Deng Running China Has Become a Family Affair

          OK now, if you’ve been following my train of thought, here is an article that could have some very interesting ramifications…

          “What can you do, it’s the kids,” the Chinese officials reportedly said, referring to the offspring of senior Communist leaders. But in this case, one of the kids turned out to be a man named He Ping, the son-in-law of Deng Xiaoping, China’s senior leader, the diplomats said. Mr. He, a former army attache at the Chinese Embassy in Washington, is now head of Poly Technologies Inc., an independent Government enterprise that buys and sells arms.

          Inquiring minds wonder when exactly Mr. He Ping was a military attache at the Chinese embassy in Washington. Wouldn’t happen to be in the fall of ’84 would it?

        • @AoC

          Too true, but that CIA history is of course a white wash in and of itself.

          Dai Li built his massive spy network out of a police training academy in Hangzhou, of which some of his Juntong agents, who were faculty at the academy, had actually been trained in police methodology at the University of California in 1930. (not really a technology transfer in the traditional sense but keep it in mind.)

          By 1935 Dai Li had totally transformed the police academy into his covert personal espionage training center, with recruits learning everything from Chinese boxing to explosives. Juntong agents infiltrated police precincts, ran concentration camps where they tortured prisoners, and some of them even went on to be Chiang Kai-shek’s plainclothes bodyguards. That same year, when the central government decided to disband the local gendarmeries and nationalize the police force, Dai’s academy was shuttered and his agents on the faculty were transferred to the Central Police Academy. He wasted no time though in infiltrating the new national cop school.

          It was his network of graduates from the espionage school, many of them behind Japanese lines after the war broke out, that helped connect Dai Li and American Intelligence. “Mary” Miles, OSS Chief of Station in China, actually claimed that, “…all the police in Occupied China were technically under his [Dai Li’s] command…”

          So OSS basically set up what Miles described as, “a sort of ‘pilot’ FBI school” to educate Dai Li’s Juntong death-squads in American police and espionage tactics, with American trainers; a far cry from the CIA cover story of simply raising a guerilla army. Miles himself stated that, “we were never able to seperate the police activities from guerilla activities”.

          The American trainers were headed by a man named Charles Johnston, who had apparently spent some time (15 years) prior to this assignment in the “narcotics game.” Douglas Valentine writes that it was Johnston’s team and Dai Li’s agents that worked closely with Du Yuesheng, leader of the secret society/criminal syndicate, the Green Gang. The opium smuggling activities of Du and the Green Gang are pretty well known, including his position on the Shanghai Municipal Opium Suppression Committee (SMOSC), the Kuomintang official opium monopoly, which afforded his trafficking the cooperation of government agencies like the Chinese Maritime Customs.

          Some of the sources are not available online, I will get them up at later time…

          Wakeman, Frederic E. American Police Advisers and the Nationalist Chinese Secret Service, 1930-1937. Modern China, Apr., 1992.

          Martin, Brian G. The Green Gang and the Guomindang State: Du Yuesheng and the Politics of Shanghai, 1927-37. Journal of Asian Studies, Feb., 1995.

          Valentine, Douglas. The CIA and Drugs, Inc.: a Covert History. CounterPunch, 2014.

          Mühlhahn, Klaus. The Dark Side of Globalization: The Concentration Camps in Republican China in Global Perspective. World History Connected, 2009.

  12. As Professor Sutton in one of his books stated: “Thesis versus antithesis yields synthesis (Marxian axiom). Could therefore capitalism be the thesis and communism the antithesis, with the objective of the revolutionary groups (Bolsheviks) and their backers (Wallstreet) being a synthesizing of these two systems into some world system yet undescribed?”

    China was the reasearch and synthesizing lab for the globalist elite for the past few decades. In beginning of 2020 the project was ready to being impelmented globally.

  13. Indeed, why were those companies dumping all that money in to China?

    From an ROI perspective, they already had the trained talent in placed like the United States, plus all the distribution and supporting industries.

    Why not just lobby hard to get rid of Federal minimum wage laws, Federal employee liability laws, needlessly restrictive Federal regulations, and a whole host of things that would cost less than building anew in a large and powerful totalitarian state.

    After all, those company’s analysts must have certainly been aware of what happened to the handful of successful business owners during the Great Leap Forward but had all their wealth taken from them immediately after.

    If the concern were for the well-being of the poor, why not permit more legal immigration to places like the United States, so they could also enjoy a legal structure more respectful of individual rights.

    I wonder how many of these things we can discover, if we really put our minds to it, because the thesis seems correct: the success of China was planned (as was its preceding failures).

  14. Some people became Communisty after wars and set out to try to help. Rewi Alley (born about 40 miles from me) went to Chinas to help though got imprisoned in the Cultural Revolution after working for many years in China,

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member