“As anyone who was there knows, the “Tiananmen Square Massacre” is a myth. No one was killed inside the square that famous night of June third to fourth, 1989. Instead, when the troops reached the entrance to the plaza, the armored column paused. Following negotiations with the military, most of the hundreds of thousands of people in Tiananmen Square left in an orderly, self-disciplined fashion. But some people felt they had to stay… No one was killed right in the square, though from my balcony I saw dozens killed on Chang-Ang Avenue when demonstrators attempted to reenter Tiananmen Square the next day.” (T.D. Allman, Living Well Is The Best Revenge, an article written for but not published by GQ in 1999 and later published in the book Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print, edited by David Wallace)
As anyone who studies thought control techniques understands, once a well is poisoned, no one will drink the water*. So when one source, cited above, contradicts the whole of American journalism during the time of the Tiananmen Square events of 1989, he is easily dismissed. Further, China itself is a poisoned well, so that anything they might say in their own defense is immediately disbelieved here in the United States. American news sources, however, especially television news, are automatically believed. Entrusted with this weapon, American public opinion is a closed loop between people who manage and deliver news, and people who eat it up.
I watched the events in Tiananmen Square in 1989, as gullible as anyone, and the key feature was this: All of the carnage that supposedly took place was off-camera, that is, we witnessed “Chinese authorities” come into the room where CNN was delivering the images, and shut them down. If in fact there was no massacre, it was a perfect scam. Chinese authorities would indeed not want any pictures broadcast. And since that well was already long poisoned, it was very easy to believe the later accounts of a “massacre” even though there were no images to support it.
In 1989 I was troubled and confused, but in 1999, when NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, a different well was delivering poisoned water. I knew it was no “accident,” I knew NATO was lying, but did not know why. When they later claimed that the Chinese were being used as a vehicle to transmit “Yugoslav army communications,” it became even murkier. That army could not manage its own message system? Please.Robert Rodvik, author of The Balkans: US Covert Activity and American Media Complicity (out of print), claims in an article from Voltaire.net (The USA’s Decades-long War Against China) that the bombing was indeed intentional, and that the reason was not that the Chinese were transmitting Yugoslav army messages, but rather that they were monitoring NATO traffic, and had learned of NATO war crimes such as the following:
Serb television last night revealed extracts of what it called a taped conversation of a NATO pilot being ordered to attack a civilian convoy in Kosovo last week despite seeing only cars and tractors. It said the conversation was between the pilot and an early warning radar plane [AWACS]. The extract covered the critical moment when the pilot identified the convoy. Asked if there were any tanks in the convoy, he said he could see only cars and tractors. But the other plane responds “This is a military target, a completely legitimate military target. Destroy the target…
This is strong evidence of a war crime, part of what I believe to be an illegal war of aggression for unstated purposes having nothing to do with Slobodan Milošević or purported “massacres” that prompted a “humanitarian intervention” (another “Tiananmen” event that happened off camera). In fact, by 1999 I had come so far as to realize the very concept of “humanitarian bombs” was an absurdity that only a deeply indoctrinated population would accept.
I suggest to the reader that if you have come this far in reading this blog post, and now automatically disbelieve T.D. Allman and Robert Rodvik without further investigation, that you are subject to thought control techniques, this particular one called the “Poisoned Well.”
Who to believe? We never really know, do we.
*One technique widely used in American journalism is called the “scare quote,” where words from a not-to-be-trusted source are put in quotation marks, sending a subliminal signal to disbelieve. Imagine the following two sentences:
- “Rodriguez was described as a refugee fleeing persecution by the Colombian government;” and
- “Rodriguez was described as a refugee fleeing “persecution” by the Colombian government.”