“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.
“Oops!”, said NATO
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.”
So are you saying there was no massacre in China regarding whats referred to as the tianamen square protests? Even the author who you quote says he personally witnessed it. You fault belief in this “official story” because of the lack of images on the tv screen supporting it, but you claim that 9/11 attacks did not happen (at least that planes didnt hit the WTC) despite the images on the tv screen. Seems you are moving the goal posts when it suits your confirmation bias to me.
As for the chinese embassy bombing…definitely something was up there, your author’s explanation seems plausible.
Allman says he witnessed “dozens” killed the morning after attempting to return to Tiananmen, but that there had been an orderly dispersal the night before. Number of dead ranges from 186 (Tiananmen Mothers) to 2,600 (Time Magazine, later denied) to 6-8,000, apparently a grabass number from Edward Timperlake, a US government agent. The Chinese government says that no one was killed inside Tiananmen itself, and Allman’s eyewitness account and Wikileaks releases support this.
But set all that aside – how many does the typical American think were killed that night? I would guess 10,000, and that is how a psyop works, suggestion. It is why so many Americans thought that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 … suggestion, or psyop.
And 9/11 was another psyop, but by this time technology had advanced so that CGI could be used to make it appear on TV as if planes had hit buildings.
I don’t see the inconsistency at all. As I have said elsewhere, TV is not a news medium, but rather a suggestion tool.
I think the average american probably has no clue. You are probably going to get about 25% (maybe) who even have any idea what Tiananmen square even is let alone the significance of it. Of that 25% maybe a further 2-3% actually have more than a very generalized understanding of the events that took place (or were “alleged” to take place ((scare quotes for your benefit)), and those estimates are probably generous. I would agree that most people who are aware of the events but not really up to speed on any actual details are probably under the mistaken impression that it was one giant massacre that took place within the square. My understanding was that it was a series of protests of events that took place over the course of many days if not weeks if memory serves, most of the deaths took place in street clashes on side roads and alleys. I read a good book on it a while back but for the life of me cant remember the name. If your point is that none of this is going to come through in normal american media id agree but i dont think its some active disinformation campaign or coverup the information is widely available. Im sure the american media / govt has no problem tacitly or passively encouraging people to have misconceptions about some of what took place. Stripping away all the conspiratorial angles you may try to portray this as having the US govt ultimately being complicit the point is this: Ultimately a bunch of people were killed because they were protesting in favor of having more say in the direction of their own government and to have leadership that is more representative/responsive. Thats not a good thing to happen & the Chinese government is rightfully reviled for what took place.
Read the Rodvik article. According to him, it was a textbook operation – foment unrest, claim massacre when there is a reaction, and move to overthrow the government.
That’s how it was done in Kosovo, Libya, in progress in Syria and Iran. It is all covert op, psyop, misinformation.
The fact that the American public knows squat is due in large part to the fact that the American public mostly doesn’t read or care, but those who do read and do care are misinformed too, deliberately, I would say.
Or put it another way: I’ve seen lots of disinformation campaigns, but never an information campaign. Lying is standard policy in all matters.