Jay’s Analysis
May 17, 2014

mao

It is often stated in “conspiracy circles” so-called that the Western elites help train and put Mao in power.  Is this true?  Can we find documented evidence for the claim? If so, it would put a lot of modern “conservative” and “libertarian” analyses in perspective.  In my experience, the so-called “conspiracy” sites and alternative media outlets are far more reliable (for all their shortcomings), as anyone with any sense knows, than the mainstream media, that retarded organ of Government, Inc.  Those that want to live in the Matrix can stay in the Matrix.

For those who want to know the real world, several factors are worth analyzing in regard to this question.  First, the CIA (preceded by the OSS) was set up as a result of the National Security Act of 1947 under Franklin D. Roosevelt, springing in part from the Pratt House in New York (future home of the Council on Foreign Relations), itself modelled from the British Secret Intelligence Service.  Likewise, the over-arching institutions that control and run the intelligence agencies in the West, like the Council on Foreign Relations, were modelled on the Oxford Round Table Groups and the Royal Institute for International Affairs.  Indeed, the Pratt House’s British counterpart was the Chatham House.  We read from the Council on Foreign Relation’s site as follows:

‘The Council’s home on East 65th Street, so grand when acquired after the Wall Street crash, was proving hopelessly inadequate for these expansions. In 1944 the widow of Harold Irving Pratt, a director of Standard Oil of New Jersey and a faithful Council member since 1923, donated the family’s four-story mansion, at the southwest corner of 68th Street and Park Avenue, for the Council’s use. (In keeping with a prevailing reverse snobbery, the address and front door were on the side street, not the more showy avenue.) John D. Rockefeller, Jr., led a slate of 200 members and companies who volunteered funds to convert the gracious residence into offices, meeting rooms, and an institutional library. When the Council moved into its new quarters in April 1945, Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, a member since 1938, came to New York, “to bear witness [he said], as every Secretary of State during the past quarter of a century, to the great services and influence of this organization in spreading knowledge and understanding of the issues of United States foreign policy.”

In regard to the Pratt House and OSS one should note the prominent position of Allen Dulles in moving from the OSS to the CFR.  Also important is the transition of US foreign policy from “isolationist” or perhaps non-interventionist, to openly imperial engine for the Anglo-American establishment:

In its substance, American foreign policy was similarly transformed in the first years following World War II. An isolationist frontier nation became a world power. A wartime ally, the Soviet Union, became an adversary; former enemies, Germany and Japan, became allies. The transformation did not occur without intellectual and organizational agonies—in the government and in the private associations like the Council that sought to understand and explain the changes taking place in the world.

Allen Dulles returned from the wartime OSS to assume a leading role in the Council’s business, resuming his law practice at Sullivan and Cromwell for an interim between his secret work in Switzerland and a career at the soon-to-be Central Intelligence Agency. Dulles was a Republican; working alongside him in the Council was Alger Hiss, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left-wing of the Democratic Party, but a protege of the older Dulles brother, John Foster.”

Readers of Dr. Carroll Quigley will of course be familiar with the truth that the Western establishment often aided and built up the communist and fascist regimes, but as we shall see, other sources document this trend, too.  The CFR goes on to state as follows regarding the inclusion of Soviet thinkers in 1945:

“In characteristic fashion, Council planners conceived a study group to analyze the coming world order. Notably uncharacteristic was the additional suggestion that the American members be joined by competent persons from Soviet Russia—a joint Soviet-American inquiry. In the congenial, gentlemanly atmosphere of the Harold Pratt House, ideas and visions could be shared.”

The Western elites thus had no problem in joining with the heads of the “godless Empire of evil” because they were the dialectical opposite side of the coin, and many of their own patrons had aided the Soviet cause (which the Soviets initially objected to).  William Schubart pressed for massive aid from the U.S. to U.S.S.R. in the form of billions to help rebuild:

“The chairman of the study group, Lazard Frères partner William H. Schubart, a veteran of the War and Peace Studies, pressed on. “I think we can be hard-boiled and just, without doing harm,” he told the Council. “The main thing is to be sure that we are not asking for something unreasonable” of the Soviet Union. Specifically, he was pressing for endorsement of a $6 billion loan from the United States to finance Soviet imports for postwar reconstruction. “It seems reasonable to suppose that if economic and political cooperation between Russia and the United States could be developed in peace as military cooperation between the two nations has been developed in war,” Schubart said, “the world might look forward to an era of relative stability and considerable prosperity.” Bidwell, speaking for the Council’s academic staff, concurred. “It seems to me increasingly important that we should be able to break down the intellectual blockade with which the Russians have surrounded themselves.”

The result of the 1945-46 panel on the relationship of the U.S. and the USSR known as the Franklin Draft concluded as follows:

“The chairman of the study group, Lazard Frères partner William H. Schubart, a veteran of the War and Peace Studies, pressed on. “I think we can be hard-boiled and just, without doing harm,” he told the Council. “The main thing is to be sure that we are not asking for something unreasonable” of the Soviet Union. Specifically, he was pressing for endorsement of a $6 billion loan from the United States to finance Soviet imports for postwar reconstruction. “It seems reasonable to suppose that if economic and political cooperation between Russia and the United States could be developed in peace as military cooperation between the two nations has been developed in war,” Schubart said, “the world might look forward to an era of relative stability and considerable prosperity.” Bidwell, speaking for the Council’s academic staff, concurred. “It seems to me increasingly important that we should be able to break down the intellectual blockade with which the Russians have surrounded themselves.”

And,

“We must take every opportunity to work with the Soviets now, when their power is still far inferior to ours, and hope that we can establish our cooperation on a firmer basis for the not so distant future when they will have completed their reconstruction and greatly increased their strength…. The policy we advocate is one of firmness coupled with moderation and patience.”

The panel at that time was basically split as to how to accept the proposals, with Allen Dulles remaining one of the prominent holdouts, showing Dulles at least did understand the threat of Sovietization and collectivization.  Member Frank Altschul openly fought it, declaring the need to oppose the Soviets, claiming that the council was “bending over to appease them.”  What we can see that is so crucial here is that the U.S. was already buckling to communism and collectivism as far back as the mid 1940s.  And it was the elite Western capitalists that were supporting such a move, as Quigley has noted at length in Tragedy and Hope.  Consider as well that the Franklin Report emerged in May of 1946, for May 1 is the great communist holiday, the day of the founding of the Bavarian Illuminati.  The CFR site goes on to claim that this great draft was unheeded, and the ominous Cold War began (oh, such a nasty thing!) because of hardliners that opposed Marxism.  Again, let’s stop and think about this astonishing point: the article even sites Alger Hiss, as well as other members wanting rapport with the USSR in the mid 1940s!  Senator Joe McCarthy was more than right: not only was he right about hundreds of Soviet agents in the US government, the higher entities like the CFR were also half red.

This period of the 1940s is particularly worthy of attention in regard to the initial question asked: what about OSS support for Mao and Marxist guerillas?  Absolutely: the OSS helped train Mao’s guerillas during this period. We read as follows from the CIA website:

“OSS had a difficult time winning authority or access to prosecute operations in China. The Nationalist regime in Chungking was a government in name only; Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was more China’s most powerful warlord than its national leader. He was fighting a war on two fronts—against the Japanese invaders on one side and against the Chinese Communists under Mao Zedong on the other. His secret police and intelligence chief, Tai Li, wanted American aid but had no intention of allowing Americans to operate independently on Chinese soil. American efforts to assist Chiang against the Japanese thus had to navigate a labyrinth of feuds and jealousies in Chungking before any implementation. Complicating matters still further, Tai Li demanded that American intelligence operations in China be run—wherever possible—by the office of Capt. Milton E. Miles, the commander of an unorthodox US Navy liaison unit.”

Did the OSS train the guerillas? Yes, according to the CIA:

“OSS helped to train and equip Chinese guerrillas.

Donovan in late 1943 personally told Tai Li that OSS would operate in China whether he liked it or not, but it still took a measure of subterfuge for Donovan’s officers to win a role there. The problem was bigger than Tai Li. At least a dozen American intelligence units operated in China over the course of the war, all of them competing for sources, access, and resources. Ironically, Donovan and OSS eventually “thrived on chaos,” according to historian Maochun Yu. OSS learned to provide services to American commanders that neither the Chinese nor other US organizations could match.”

And,

“Against the wishes of America’s French and Chinese allies, OSS “Mission DEER” had briefly aided Communist insurgent leader Ho Chi Minh in his fight against the Japanese in northern Indochina.”

And,

“Opinions in OSS ranged across the political spectrum, from admirers of Chiang in his struggles against Japanese invaders and Communist insurgents, to unabashed advocates of Communist leader Mao Zedong and his promise of justice for the peasantry through social revolution.”

Richard Harris Smith’s book OSS: The Secret History of America’s First Central Intelligence Agency, provides another scholarly source for Bill Donovan aiding Mao.  However, that is not all: the OSS also trained the Viet Minh:

“Among other activities, the OSS helped arm, train and supply resistance movements, including Mao Zedong’s Red Army in China and the Viet Minh in French Indochina, in areas occupied by the Axis powers during World War II. OSS officer Archimedes Patti played a central role in OSS operations French Indochina and met frequently with Ho Chi Minh in 1945.”  The wikipedia article cites this interview with Col. Archimedes Patti on OSS operations with revolutionary guerillas.

The logic here being the breakdown and control of China through opium by the Brits, and then controlling China further, using that same strategy, combined with eugenics under Mao.  But that’s not all: the West was, as everyone knows, supporting Chiang Kai-Shek, in a classic case of funding both sides in the classic British strategy of controlled opposition.  Army.mil provides a historical analysis of this stratagem as follows:

“In Southeast Asia, as in China, OSS plans to organize guerrillas were just reaching fruition when the war ended. Great distances, difficult unpredictable weather, native apathy, and U.S. ignorance of local conditions presented formidable obstacles. Furthermore, the British and French, with major colonial interests in the region, viewed with suspicion efforts to establish an independent intelligence service there. Nevertheless, after an OSS lieutenant reached Ho Chi Minh in Tonkin in May 1945, OSS headquarters in China sent a team under Maj. Allison Thomas to arm and train the Viet Minh guerrillas of Ho and Vo Nguyen Giap for service against the Japanese. The OSS men held training sessions for 200 of Giap’s best troops and supplied the Viet Minh with rifles, mortars, machine guns, and grenades. An OSS medic even cured Ho of a near fatal bout with malaria and dysentery. At the time of the Japanese surrender the Viet Minh were only beginning to establish their control over what later became Vietnam. Within twenty years they and the United States would meet again, under less auspicious circumstances.”

As for Mao, after much digging, I did find reference to Mao attending Yale-in-China (Yali), and even establishing his bookstore, “The Culture Bookstore,” in a Yali building.  The source for this is the Rockefeller-founded Asia Society, but I had to pull it up on the waybackmachine.  It reads as follows of Mao.  Keep in mind that Yale is run by Skull & Bones:

“After publishing four issues, the journal was closed down and Mao became editor of Yale-in-China’s Xin Hunan New Hunan. When this journal was also suppressed by the local warlord, Mao continued to write for a newspaper until the failure of a student strike in December 1919 forced him to flee the province.”

And,

“In his autobiography, related to Edgar Snow in 1936, Mao declared that by the summer of 1920 he “had become in theory and to some extent in action a Marxist.” In August he founded a Marxist study group. However, patriotism in Changsha was still as likely to become associated with anarchism as with Marxism. The Culture Bookstore, founded by Mao and his friends (in a building owned by Yale-in-china) in the autumn of 1920, stocked anarchist books more heavily than Marxist tracts. Anarchism also heavily peppered Mao’s involvement with a short-lived, highly emotional movement to establish an independent nation of Hunan in the say year.”

Undoubtedly, the standard argumentation provided as justification for this strategy was the threat of the Axis powers and fascism, which prompted the supposedly necessary aid provided to the guerillas and communists as a proxy.  Yet Yalta handed almost a billion people over to Uncle Joe with Operation Keelhaul.  Some western elites, however, also supported and funded the fascists, as is well-known, like David Rockefeller.

The reality is that the internationalist communists and the transnationalist westerns have much in common–enough in common that Antonio Gramsci, the famed Italian communist who argued that the reds should become capitalists to destroy the West, argued that they could join.  The goal, therefore, has always been a “third way” that combined the supposed best of both worlds, and embodied in what we see in modern China, which David Rockefeller has praised.  The convergence is the longterm goal, and the aid given in the past by the West was to bring the communists and Soviets to power, just as the aid was given to the radical Muslims and terrorists. The parallels are exactly the same, in fact, between the Cold War and the War on Terror.


NEWSLETTER SIGN UP

Get the latest breaking news & specials from Alex Jones and the Infowars Crew.

Related Articles


Comments