PJ 102
CHAPTER 7
REC #2 HATONN
TUE., JUL. 12, 1994 2:41 P.M.. YEAR 7, DAY 330
TUE., JUL. 12, 1994
THE USURPERS, Part 7: (Continued)
We do know that it is extraordinary for any Secretary of State to endure, as Dean Rusk has done, through the terms of two such very different Presidents as John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Only a few Secretaries of State in United States history have served for any length of time under two Presidents. Among the few are Timothy Pickering, who served under Washington and John Adams; John Forsyth, under Jackson and Martin Van Buren; William H. Seward, under Lincoln and Andrew Johnson; John Hay under McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. In none of these cases was the contrast between Presidents so sharp as with John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. A possible exception in the case of Lincoln and Andrew Johnson--perhaps another of the curious parallels between the two Johnsons. In every case the Secretary of State was an outstanding man. And we can say that of Dean Rusk.
Andrew Johnson could not in practice do what any President can do in theory--simply fire one of his cabinet members. He had no reason to want to fire Seward, who alone stood with him against a hostile Congress. He certainly did, however, want to fire Edwin M. Stanton, his Secretary of War. But Stanton's support in Congress was so strong that the "Tenure of Office" Act was passed, which formalized Congressional pressure to uphold the Cabinet Officer against the Chief Executive. When Andrew Johnson proceeded to try to force Stanton's removal, he was promptly the target for formal impeachment. Only the Constitutional provision that a two-thirds vote of the Senate is required to convict on impeachment saved Andrew Johnson from being himself removed from office instead of his Secretary of War. Thirty-five Senators voted against the President, nineteen for him. Had it been thirty-six and eighteen, Stanton would have stayed and Johnson would have gone. As it was, the President of the United States in 1868 was demonstrably one of the less powerful figures in Washington--not to be compared with Charles Sumner or Thaddeus Stevens.
There is today no Tenure of Office Act, but as a practical matter it seems doubtful that the President of the United States in 1968 could, if he wanted to, fire his Secretary of State. Rusk is clearly more intelligent and better educated than Johnson. But if Rusk were soft, or if his connections were anywhere weak, then, superior intelligence or not, he could have been cut down by a computer like McNamara or a Texas diamondback like Johnson. On the record, Rusk is of an enduring toughness. To appreciate that fact, do this instant replay:
The Korean War and the Vietnamese War represent a tremendous turn in the history of nations. What interests us at this moment is that Rusk is the common denominator in both wars! These wars represent, quite possibly, the beginning of the end of nationhood (to return to Rostow's phrase)--most notably for the United States, but ultimately for all other nations as well. Since nations must be ended, they say, to make way for World Government, these strange wars represent obscurely the first serious attempts to establish a world order not centering--as did the age of British Imperialism--around any national sovereignty. For the nation most heavily committed to both the Korean and Vietnamese Wars--i.e., the United States--has refused as a major point of policy to make its own national interest the measure of its conduct of either war. The United States fought in Korea under the banner of the United Nations. The United States in Vietnam, though now under its own flag, has an even less clearly defined objective than it had in Korea. In both wars the United States Government not only refused to make victory its objective, but took punitive measures against those who sought victory--against General Douglas MacArthur, against General Edwin A. Walker. Since the day that MacArthur was cashiered, no U.S. commander in any field of combat (except Oxford, Mississippi) has sought victory. And since the series of persecutions of General Walker, no officer has even spoken in recognizable terms of national victory.
It is generally admitted now that our military failure in Korea--we did fail, General Mark Clark himself said that he was the only U.S. commander in history who ever had to surrender on the field of battle--our failure was not due to superiority of the enemy, who indeed was inferior, and not due to mistakes made by our military officers. It was due completely and solely to a deliberate decision by the Administration in Washington to avoid victory and yield half of Korea to the Communists. The outstanding result of this decision by United States politicians was to make Red China what it had never been before--a great power. National prestige is greatly affected by achievement in war.
There was widespread reluctance to believe that American Communists would betray the United States to the Red Chinese and thus the stalemate in Korea and the American willingness to negotiate were accepted as evidence of previously unsuspected power in Peking. Even publication of undisputed facts showing that MacArthur had been restrained by Washington from winning the victory he could have won did not dispel the illusion of Communist China's military power, for these facts were too bizarre to be fully realized even when they were in cold intellect accepted.
To be short about the whole matter, Washington directed the Korean War in such a way as to make Red China a great power. Red China could not make itself a great power, and Soviet Russia could not make Red China a great power. Soviet Russia, could not to that end "take a dive"--to use boxer's lingo--for what would be the point in elevating Communist China if Communist Russia were downgraded in the process? But if the more or less hidden Communist sympathizers in the American government could induce Washington to "take a dive", then not only would the prestige of Red China be abruptly and enormously enhanced, but simultaneously, through downgrading of "non-Communist" America, the Soviet Union and the whole Communist bloc would be correspondingly elevated in "world opinion".
In the area of foreign affairs it is no novelty to suggest that United States officials supposed to guard the national interest have actually operated from an international point of view. The classic case is the role of our State Department and of the Institute of Pacific Relations in the revolution in China in the early days of Communist activity there. American experts--among whom Dean Rusk was a key figure--were indispensable to the assumption of power by the Communists. The misrepresentation of Mao Tse-tung and company as "agrarian reformers" could not have been intended to deceive anyone but the American public, for everybody else either knew the truth or did not care. The truth about the Chinese revolutionaries was nearer to what the State Department says today--has said since the great Sino-Soviet "split" began to be serialized on the networks. We are asked to believe that the Chinese "agrarian reformers" of 1949 are the fanatical Stalinist extremists of the 1960s! No suggestion is ever offered as to when, why, or how this radical transformation took place. The truth is that they are Communists now and they were Communists then.
The conspirators of Peking, Moscow, Berlin, London, Paris and Washington, D.C. are disciplined revolutionaries committed to the overthrow of all existing institutions. They may assume various and superficially conflicting roles from time to time according to circumstances, in order to serve more faithfully the one common purpose of universal destruction. In the 1940s American Communists were strong enough within the Institute of Pacific Relations [IPR] to make of that supposedly learned society a powerful instrument of Communist propaganda and policy-formation, with incalculable influence on the State Department's eventually decisive position on China. No single theme or catch-phrase of IPR propaganda was more effective than repeated suggestion that Mao Tse-tung's party was not really Communist, not in the ruthless style of Stalin. The Chinese Communists, we were told in 1947 and 1948, were not actually part of the sophisticated and brutal conspiracy of the Kremlin. As we have seen, they were said to be only simple agrarian reformers, indignant at the historic corruption of China, brothers under the skin with blunt, honest Americans like General Joseph W. "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell. Stilwell's disgust with his own government's support of Chiang Kai-shek had once led him to exclaim that he would like to "shoulder a rifle" with Chu Teh, the Chinese Communist--the Chinese agrarian reformer--general.
On the staff of General Stilwell in the China-Burma-India Theater in 1945 was Colonel Dean Rusk, who after World War II rose in the civilian ranks of the U.S. War and State Departments until at the time of the Korean conflict he was in a sufficiently high position--Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs--to take a decisive part in the ousting of General Douglas MacArthur. Dean Rusk's career as a government official--but not as a power in the Establishment--was interrupted by nine years of service as chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation. He had previously been close enough to this gigantic source of largesse to support a request for a grant from it to the Institute of Pacific Relations. [H: Henry Kissinger is a big player in that sector of "Pacific Relations" and has been for a long, long time.]
As recently as 1950 Dean Rusk stated publicly that the Chinese Communists were comparable to our own ancestors at Valley Forge and Yorktown--nationalistic patriots. He feared, however, that China might be threatened by "Russian Imperialism masquerading as world Communism." This prescient forecast of the now famous Sino-Soviet split is curious in that it suggests sympathy for the Chinese side--a suggestion quite compatible, of course, with the IPR line of old, but thornily incompatible with today's State Department approach toward detente with Russia, and its nervous detachment from the rigid reactionaries of Peking.
Today, Secretary of State Dean Rusk is portrayed in the press as a hard man toward Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung, but a tolerant man with reasonable men like Marshal Tito, Wladislaw Gomulka, and Alexei Kosygin. Just when it was that the sensible not-really-Communist Communists of China and the dangerous super Communists of Russia reversed their respective roles has never been explained--not by Secretary Rusk, nor any of his subalterns in the State Department, nor any of his learned colleagues in the Institute of Pacific Relations. Even the zealots of the New Left, when they attack Dean Rusk--as they do, to the enhancement of his standing with the general public which despises the New Left--they never refer to his former benign attitude toward their revered Mao. They do not accuse him of equivocation. They simply classify Dean Rusk, as they do the whole Johnson Administration, as power-mad, ruthless imperialists, killing helpless little Vietnamese babies in order to put more dollars into their grubby pockets. This kind of inverted whitewashing has not worked very well, and millions of Americans still distrust the Secretary of State, in spite of all that the New Left says against him.
The enormous historical importance of Korea and Vietnam is reflected in the fact that these are the first major wars of the nuclear age--and in them nuclear weapons have not been used. The United States refused to employ atomic bombs in Korea although by so doing it could quickly and easily have won a victory. Political authority in Washington saw to it that the military never had a chance to use them. In spite of General MacArthur, the Establishment found a "substitute" for victory. It was "nuclear stalemate"--which did not require any actual nuclear weapons in a Russian stockpile, but just a flat policy of not using any in combat from the American stockpile--on the propaganda assumption that the Russians had a stockpile.
Whatever might have been done in Korea, it is less clear that victory could be won in Vietnam by use of nuclear weapons, for it is not at all clear what would constitute victory in Vietnam. After World War II the United States retreated from victory; in Korea the United States refrained from victory; in Vietnam the United States cannot even define victory. Thus we progress toward an end of nationhood and--apparently--toward a one world establishment.
Let's consider still further the fact that the personal common denominator of the Korean War and the Vietnamese War is Dean Rusk.
By his role in the Korean War, Dean Rusk won a job as head of the Rockefeller Foundation, and by his patience in the Rockefeller Foundation Rusk won the key spot for influencing the course of the Vietnamese War. No one has stayed more consistently with the mainline of United States foreign policy since World War II than has Dean Rusk, from the time when he was on Vinegar Joe Stilwell's staff in the CBI Theater, through civilian service in the State and War Departments (apparently a protegé of General George Marshall), through presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation, through, as Secretary of State, two administrations--that of Kennedy, that of Johnson.
If Dean Rusk is not the most powerful man in the government, his career has at least coincided with the course of all the consecutive relays of critical power for twenty-five years.
Dean Rusk was Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs in 1950, when the Korean War broke out, and in 1951, when General MacArthur was recalled. The Assistant Secretaryship is, as Roger Hilsman points out, "the first level at which the Government of the United States may be committed." Rusk is said to have been the first man in Washington to whom North Korea's crossing of the 38th parallel was reported Saturday night, June 24, 1950 (it was Sunday morning, June 25 in Korea) and to have recommended the plausible but fatal action which Truman took. Rusk is thought to have been the key policy adviser in bringing about the removal of MacArthur--an act which perhaps more plainly than any other points up exquisite contempt for the sentiments--of the majority of the American people. MacArthur's removal marks a watershed between the clear patriotic feeling of the people before that time, and their bewilderment after it.
Through nine years from 1952 to 1961 Dean Rusk was president of the Rockefeller Foundation, in which position he was at the precise center of those ultra or supragovernmental activities in which there is so serious an endeavor to anticipate--to control--the future. The purpose of the Rockefeller Foundation, as stated in its charter, IS "TO PROMOTE THE WELL BEING OF MANKIND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD"--a phrase which could come to stand for the ultimate in presumptuous do-goodery, justifying the maximum of self-righteous effrontery. The main medium of the Foundation is education. The Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, and other foundations strongly set the course for what many intellectuals shall think, and from that the consequences are incalculable. [H: Why don't you nice people ask Ronn Jackson exactly who and what for is claimed: C.O.U.P.E.S.!!]
From the long-range point of view, Dean Rusk was presumably stepping down when in 1961 he left the Rockefeller Foundation to become Kennedy's Secretary of State. In the long run the Establishment would not have to worry over the nationhood of the United States, but as of the 1960s United States national sovereignty was still extant--to be used by "men of good will" if it could not yet be liquidated by them. Few events could more surely safeguard "the well being of all mankind throughout the world" than for a man who understood these things, as Dean Rusk undoubtedly does, to assume a position where he might well be able to prevent the United States from inflicting military or other damage on the rest of mankind? At the same time, with its fantastic productivity and artless generosity is it not, from that point of view, (if its foreign relations are expertly controlled) of the greatest hope? The United States must at all costs stand hitched.
Of all cabinet members and other high officials in Washington today, Rusk is the only one who has been continuously in the policy-shaping position since 1950. That does not necessarily mean that he is the most important of policy-makers today, or at any one time. For there may well be, undoubtedly are, men OUT of government who are, as he was from 1952 to 1961, more influential than is, necessarily, any governmental official. But, as indicated above, the fact that Dean Rusk may now IN government represent organized forces outside the government, may only increase his firmness.
The strength of Dean Rusk's position was shown and increased by the marriage of his daughter to a Negro. Only a supremely self-confident United States official would so flaunt three centuries of American history. Black Power Vietniks recognized their tactical defeat. "I wonder," said Lincoln Lynch of the marriage of Peggan and Guy, "to what lengths Dean Rusk has to go in order to gain support for his and Johnson's war in Viet Nam." (Time, Sept. 29, 1967.) The important thing here is that agitator Lynch never questioned that the interracial wedding would win political support for the father of the bride.
A student editor at an eastern college told Time the campus Liberals were embarrassed: "They had all these negative feelings toward Rusk, but now they have this charming story to contend with." Old RHODES SCHOLAR, Phi Beta Kappa, former college dean, Dean Rusk knows his campus Liberals. "Everybody," said somebody at a college in Iowa, "thought it [the wedding] was wonderful."
After John Kennedy had been elected President, but before he knew who his Secretary of State would be, Dean Rusk, then president of the Rockefeller Foundation, gave two lectures in the Claremont College annual Lecture Series in the Los Angeles area. The dates were November 9 and 10, 1960. The President-elect of the country and the president of the foundation had never met. Indeed, they were not to meet until after John Kennedy had been so nearly persuaded to offer Rusk the secretaryship and only one apparently perfunctory interview was required (December 8, 1960) to cement the appointment. The Establishment had its way.
The Claremont lectures are important because they show the way Dean Rusk was thinking, or at least speaking, at the time he was asked to take the number one post in the President's cabinet.
"I sometimes wonder," said the soon-to-be Secretary of State, "whether foundations might consider themselves to have a special parish in what might be called the future."
The phrase is, as Rusk's phrases seldom are, arresting--a parish in the future. The words occur in a lecture entitled: "Hard Advance Thinking on World Issues." One is reminded, ironically, of John Wesley's, "I look upon the world as my parish!" Reminded not because of a similarity, but because of dissimilarity.
That the gospel should be preached throughout the world, in the free marketplace of ideas, ideologies and religions, is not only logical, but the subject of a Divine command. And the various religions have their own compelling reasons for missionary zeal and good works. Furthermore, it may be a legitimate extension of compelling personal conviction to set up private charitable or educational foundation of worldwide scope. But to advocate that government should aim at worldwide missionary work is to ask people to render unto Caesar the things that are God's.
Dean Rusk, the foundation president, had words to Claremont College listeners which one can recommend to Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State:
The standing sin in our foundation business is the human temptation of trying to play God. It takes a good deal of thought and effort and self-criticism and bouncing back and forth with one's colleagues and people outside to avoid that corrupting influence on which Lord Acton and others have commented.
Rusk was alluding to the classic formula attributed to Lord Acton: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Well, if the Rockefeller Foundation, which spends some 30 million dollars a year in their piece of the worldwide parish, can tempt its officials to play God, what shall we think of the temptations within the Federal Government, which is spending in Vietnam alone an estimated 24 BILLION dollars a year, or 800 times as much? In itself, this makes the foundations sound puny, but we must remember that the Establishment, notably, the foundations--FORD, ROCKEFELLER, CARNEGIE AND OTHERS--SUCCEED IN GETTING MANY OF THEIR MEN INTO GOVERNMENT. This extends foundation influence tremendously, so that a large part of that parish in the future is to be reached through government. [H: Let me point out here, however, that the biggest mistakes they ever made were letting the Zionists into control of those foundations and thus directly into government. Indeed, I think it must be becoming clear to the "Committee" that some errors were made and it will take a heck of a lot of undoing to regain a measure of ability to reclaim anything--I repeat that YOU NEED ME A HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN I NEED YOU!]
The thing called the Establishment consists primarily of law firms, foundations, universities, and banks (commercial and investment). We are not to suppose, fortunately, that all of the people in these interlocking institutions are of one mind; yet obviously there is, in the Establishment, a consensus in favor of managerial expertise. But there is more than that: there is a discreet but ruthless elitism. The Establishment would not be the Establishment if it did not place its men in government. It is the function of these men to control the government while submitting to the control of the Establishment.
It was Richard Rovere who said that Dean Rusk is the head of the Establishment. Rovere pretends to have tongue in cheek, and in a sense the statement is absurd. But why did the thought occur to Rovere? William Manchester was not writing with tongue in cheek when, in Portrait of a President he referred to Rovere's article in The American Scholar in which John Kennedy is placed IN the Establishment, but NOT IN "the ‘Inner Circle'--as, for example, Dean Rusk is."
But, wherever Rusk is to be ranked within the Establishment, the fact is that he must bear immense responsibility for what happens in the Establishment-backed tragedy in Vietnam. For, behind a quiet facade, Rusk is IN CHARGE of Vietnam--that project which, as we shall see, is being made a gateway to that vast "parish in what might be called the future" where men play God.
* * *
Let us leave this book here, please. We will take up next, Robert McNamara. However, before we do so, I ask to offer the report information that "shows how Chinese outplayed the U.S.". It is just now declassified history containing transcripts of conversations between top officials in five U.S. administrations. I can't suggest we offer all of it but you had better get a good belly-full of what is going on.
Thank you.
CHAPTER 8
REC #3 HATONN
WED., JUL. 13, 1994 3:00 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 331
WED., JUL. 13, 1994
CHINA AND NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION
It has been told as scenario as to HOW China will conduct the massive encounter called "nuclear" war. It is planned and ready and there is nothing the Cosmospheres would or could do against such war--even if they wanted to do anything.
China, Korea, et al. buddies, would launch "neutron" or particle-charged warheads in full mass--but not AT the U.S. directly. They would launch the full load toward the poles--both North and South. These will be neutron loads which would be air-bursts. This would do many things--including wash [airborne] over the U.S. in a death shroud. In addition, the heat of such massive detonations will melt ice-caps and glaciers, which will then begin to devastate low-lying land masses. This will help cleanse the radiation--but will present massive waves of negatively-charged particulate which will also offer major attraction capabilities to devastating frequency transfer to the water masses which will cause all sorts of other chain reactions.
I am not here to offer chemistry or physics lectures--I just want you to know you are in major trouble and the Greenberg games are going to come to a screeching halt or I am going to have MY TEAM blow the very tops off the secrets and perpetrators. You are going to KNOW who destroyed your world, good buddies.
There is nothing on your globe that can neutralize this terrible power once unleashed--EXCEPT GOOD OLD "YOU-KNOW-WHO". I DO NOT KNOW IF I WILL EVEN BOTHER AT THE TIME. WORSE, EVERYONE WILL NOT BE OUTRIGHT KILLED--IT WILL BE A BLOODBATH OF HORROR BEYOND DESCRIPTION AND, FRANKLY, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHO DOES OR DOES NOT BELIEVE ME.
WORSE NUMBER THREE: THEY BELIEVE THEY WILL GIVE YOU A BIT OF A SHOW-AND-TELL TO COINCIDE WITH THE TRUMPED-UP PHONY "COMET THROW-OFFS".
"BUT YOU WILL INTERVENE, WON'T YOU'?" YOU ASK. NOT UNLESS SOME OF MY AGREEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT INTERFERENCE--ARE MET TIMELY. MY CLOCK SAYS THAT THOSE COMET FRAGS ARE TO START STRIKING "SOMEWHERE" ON THE 15-16 OF JULY [LESS THAN TWO DAYS FROM NOW]. So be it. Further, I have discussed this with all of you prior to this day--Ye who deny me before man--shall I deny before my Father who sent me.
The only reason I write this for the paper is that the bunch of star-peepers and psychics offer you dates of 20th, 22nd, and thus and so. That means that you have a WINDOW of possibilities. I think at this point of decision making I might go with the "probability" that I AM WHO I SAY I AM ON THE SHORT-TERM CIRCUIT, AND LONG-TERM YOU HAD BETTER GET OUT OF YOUR COCOON AND GET RIGHT CORRECTLY WITH GOD!
Through the insipid games of your Elite--THE CHINESE HAVE OUTPLAYED THE U.S. AND YOU WILL FIND THAT THEY LIKE A LOT OF YOUR "OLD EVIL EMPIRE" PLAYERS--BUT THEY HATE AND DESPISE THE KHAZARIAN ZIONIST ELITE--AND YOU RESIDE IN THAT "NEW ISRAEL" OF MR. DERSHOWITZ. Indeed, THE "Committee" needs me far, far more importantly than I need them--in EVERY RESPECT TO SURVIVAL. REMEMBER THE "AGREEMENTS", GOOD PEOPLE--THE INTENTS CAN BE DEALT WITH LATER--IF YOU HAVE A LATER. AND THAT "LATER" DEPENDS UPON WHAT YOU DO TODAY! THE CHINESE, IN ADDITION TO OTHER FACTS--DO NOT DENY THE BROTHERHOOD FROM THE SKY! IT IS WORTHY OF THOUGHT! IT PAYS TO REMEMBER THE PROVERBIAL PLAYERS IN "ARMAGEDDON"!
Before we return to The Usurpers and further speak in interactions with such as China, let us offer some sobering discourses on selected places and persons--regarding China.
THE OREGONIAN, 6/15/94, by a writer for Times-Washington Post Service.
[QUOTING:]
REPORT SHOWS HOW CHINESE
OUTPLAYED U.S.
The just-declassified history contains transcripts of conversations between top officials in five U.S. administrations.
Washington--A long-secret, two-volume history of U.S.-China negotiations, released by the CIA to the Los Angeles Times, shows how Chinese leaders repeatedly manipulated top officials, from the Nixon through the Reagan Administrations, often by playing them off against their domestic rivals. [H: Can this be trusted as valid information coming from one of their own controlled papers? NO--but you CAN know that something MORE IMPORTANT IS AFOOT OR IT WOULD NOT BE PLACED IN PUBLIC VIEW. THAT IS OFTEN FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN TRUTH OF CIRCUMSTANCES.]
The report, written by the Rand Corp. for U.S. intelligence agencies, is laced with examples of how the Chinese handled America's foreign policy elite.
Starting with Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai in 1971, the Chinese used a variety of tactics--from serving opulent banquets to playing U.S. presidential politics--to advance their interests on issues such as Taiwan and Indochina.
"The most distinctive characteristic of Chinese negotiating behavior is an effort to develop and manipulate strong interpersonal relationships with foreign officials," the report concluded.
The study contains the first transcripts of top-level conversations between American and Chinese leaders to be made public. Among them are the visit of July 1971--when Henry A. Kissinger, President Nixon's national security adviser, became the first U.S. official in more than 20 years to visit China--and Nixon's own trip to China in 1972.
Until now, scholars say, virtually all public knowledge of these events has come from the sometimes self-serving accounts of Nixon, Kissinger and other U.S. officials.
The 1985 study, which the Los Angeles Times obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit after five years of requests, paints a less heroic and less flattering portrait of the Americans than the accounts based on their memoirs.
In essence, the study shows how skillfully China conducted its diplomacy with the United States--a lesson demonstrated once again last month by Bejing's success in persuading the Clinton Administration to back away from its attempts to impose human-rights conditions on trade privileges.
From the earliest days of the Nixon-Kissinger initiatives, the study says, the Chinese tried to exploit individual insecurities, play off presidents against their domestic rivals and orchestrate meetings to maximize Americans' sense of "gratitude, awe and helplessness".
During the landmark 1972 Nixon visit, for example, Kissinger negotiated the "Shanghai communique"--in which the United States acknowledged that Taiwan was part of China--"late at night after a banquet of Peking duck and powerful ‘mao tai' liquor," the study says. In the afterglow of the sumptuous spread, Kissinger is quoted as telling his hosts: "After a dinner of Peking duck I'll sign anything."
Chinese officials tried, usually successfully, to carry out negotiations on their own turf and by their own rules. U.S. officials invariably were at the disadvantage of having to lay out their own positions first.
"We have two sayings," Vice Foreign Minister Qiao Guanhua told Kissinger in New York in October 1976. "One is that when we are the host, we should let the guests begin. And the other is that when we are guests we should defer to the host."
Kissinger, who became Secretary of State in 1973, joked about the imbalance but volunteered, "I will be glad to start."
The report says the Chinese were masters at keeping their visitors on edge and off balance. On a trip to Beijing in May 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, engaged in what Rand describes as "almost comical" exchanges with Deng Ziaoping and other Chinese leaders as he repeatedly tried over two days to inform them that Carter wanted to normalize relations with China.
The Chinese acted as if they didn't hear Brzezinski or believe him. "We are looking forward to the day when Carter makes up his mind," Deng said. Brzezinski finally burst out in frustration: "I have told you before, President Carter has made up his mind."
AUTHOR AN INSIDER
Rand completed the study in 1985. The author, Richard H. Solomon, a Rand specialist on China, had been an aide to Kissinger on the National Security Council and was a senior State Department official in the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
The report shows clearly that during the Nixon Administration's opening to China, Premier Chou En-lai and other leaders repeatedly played upon Nixon's fear that the historic first steps might be made by Democratic leaders.
As soon as Kissinger arrived in Beijing from Pakistan on his secret trip of July 9, 1971, a year and a half before Nixon's first term was to expire, Chou quietly told him, "The time that is left for President Nixon is quite limited."
"Which time period is the prime minister talking about: 5-1/2 years or 1-1/2 years?" Kissinger asked, a reference to whether he expected Nixon to be elected to a second term.
Chou replied that when Nixon came to China, "He will answer that question."
The next day Chou let Kissinger know he had "a great pile of letters (from other American politicians) on my desk, asking for invitations."
The quotes in the study also provide new evidence of the earthy, sometimes crude personality of Mao, the founding leader of the People's Republic of China. In late 1973, Mao wondered aloud to Kissinger why Americans were always "breaking wind" about Watergate.
Two years later, Mao taunted Bush, who was then head of the U.S. liaison office in Beijing: "You don't know my temperament. I like people to curse me. If you don't curse me, I won't see you."
At other times, the transcripts illustrate Mao's philosophical side and his self-proclaimed role as the embodiment of China.
"The Chinese are very alien-excluding," Mao told visiting Americans in early 1973. "For instance, in your country, you can let in so many nationalities; yet in China, how many foreigners do you see? You have about 600,000 Chinese in the United States. We probably don't even have 60 Americans here."
KISSINGER PITTED AGAINST RIVALS
China constantly tried to pit U.S. leaders against one another or to make use of frictions among the Americans, Solomon's study says.
During the Ford Administration for example, Chinese leaders played Kissinger against Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger. The study says China twitted Kissinger for years over Deng's 1974 invitation to Schlesinger to visit China.
"Don't be jealous," Huang Zhen, head of China's liaison office in Washington, told Kissinger on Aug. 18, 1976, as Schlesinger was about to make his trip. "You have been to China nine times, I believe. You even said yourself you wanted to go to Inner Mongolia."
"But I didn't get there," Kissinger answered. "I wanted to see the musk ox of Mongolia."
The Rand report makes it plain that the Chinese divided American officials into friends and enemies.
"In at least one instance, (China) actively attempted to block the appointment of an individual they comsidered to be hostile to them," the study says. That was Ray Cline, a former CIA station chief in Taiwan and a strong supporter of its interests, who was helping Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign.
When Bush, then Reagan's running mate, visited Beijing in August 1980, Deng asked tough leading questions about whether Cline's pro-Taiwanese views reflected Reagan-Bush policy, according to the report. And after Reagan's election, the Chinese, fearing Cline would be appointed assistant secretary of state for East Asia, published attacks on his views.
Cline did not get the job. In general, the study concludes, the Chinese did not try to cultivate skeptical or hostile Americans. "The Chinese seem to feel comfortable only in dealing with those who share a basic inclination to establish positive "guanxi" (relationships) at the human level," it says.
Despite China's occasional scorn, the report shows Kissinger went to great lengths to preserve the close relationship he had forged with Beijing. [H: Good grief! OF COURSE--he ran banks, American Express and Kissinger Associates IN CHINA AT THE DISPENSATION OF BEIJING!]
THE AFTERNOON OF AUG. 9, 1974, WITHIN HOURS AFTER NIXON RESIGNED AS PRESIDENT, KISSINGER ASSURED HUANG ZHEN, CHINA'S DE FACTO AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES, THAT ALL INFORMAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN NIXON AND THE CHINESE WERE CONFIRMED. [H: Informal agreements?? How long are you people going to continue to permit this? I wonder! I witness a lot of shocked eyebrows and denial as to believing--but funny thing, it is TRUTH and ME you seem to have trouble believing! So be it.] Kissinger then brought Huang in for a 15-minute meeting WITH FORD, WHO HANDED HUANG A LETTER TO MAO.
In the letter, presumably drafted by Kissinger's staff, Ford promised Mao that U.S. policy would remain unchanged, that Kissinger would stay on as Secretary of State and that Ford would give top priority to "accelerating" normalization with China.
In addition to analyzing Chinese negotiating behavior, the intelligence study was designed to serve as a secret history of the first 16 years of U.S.-China negotiations, from 1969 through 1984.
That was necessary because the classified records of top-level talks with China by the Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan Administrations were spread throughout various U.S. agencies and presidential libraries.
The Carter and Reagan Administrations had found that Chinese officials sometimes exaggerated what they had been promised by earlier administrations.
Rand was working for the National Intelligence Council, the U.S. Government's umbrella group that oversees the analytic work of the CIA and other agencies in the U.S. intelligence community.
The Los Angeles Times first sought access to the Rand report in a 1989 Freedom of Information Act request to the CIA. The CIA rejected the request last summer, releasing only part of the chronology that accompanied the study but none of the conversations or analyses.
Three months ago the newspaper filed a lawsuit against the CIA in the U.S. District Court here under the Freedom of Information Act. After reviewing the case, the CIA in late May declassified most of the study, including many of the conversations and the overall analysis.
* * *
I'm sure that the facts are that the entire documentation would be interesting--however, unnecessary because of what is REALLY taking place here. The facts are that KISSINGER and bullies ALL know that very shortly the entire industrial base, banks, corporations and other such "informal agreements" WILL BE NATIONALIZED BY CHINA. Doesn't look too comforting for such as KISSINGER, to me--but then, nobody believes an empty voice from outer space which PROVES almost ALL PREACHERS do not hear GOD--BUT SOMETHING FROM THE OTHER SIDE!
How long do you think you can grovel at the Chinese feet for commercial interests? They don't give a damn about you or your human-rights lies. Did I say lies? Come now--you "humans" DON'T HAVE RIGHTS UNDER THIS SYSTEM--WHY SHOULD CHINA PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE GREED MONGERS? INDEED, BETTER LOOK AGAIN AT THE REVELATION PROPHECIES AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN SEE! I WOULD ALSO LOOK AT THE TIMING AND CONSIDER MR. KISSINGER'S PARTICIPATION IN THE DESTRUCTION OF A WORLD QUITE CAREFULLY. BUT DON'T JUST BLAME GOOD OLD HANK--LOOK TO THE MORMON-SCOWCROFT CONNECTION. HE HAS DESTROYED THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS ALONG WITH HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE DOWNFALL OF A PLANET INTO ARMAGEDDON. YOU ARE BLIND--NOT AS BATS (WHO ARE NOT BLIND) BUT AS THE NO-EYED SALAMANDER OF ALBINO CAVE CHARACTERISTICS AND IT HAS CAUGHT UP WITH YOU FOR IT IS THE TIME OF THE LORD AND SATAN'S BEDFELLOWS ARE MEETING THE OPPONENT--AND IT AIN'T ME!!
I again urge the ones of the Elite COMMITTEE(S) to look at this very, very carefully for through these pushers and politician grabbers--YOU WILL LOSE YOUR VERY WORLD AND, WITH IT--SHALL GO YOU! I AM NOT HERE TO PICK UP YOU WHO HAVE SERVED HUMANISTIC GOALS WITH ORCHESTRATED DEMOLISHMENT OF BEINGS AND OTHERS IN YOUR PATHWAY--UNDER THE GUISE OF C.O.U.P.E.S. OR ANY OTHER LIE. YOU DON'T HAVE A WAY OFF THAT PLACE WHEN THE BIG BANG COMES AND I WILL SEE AGREEMENTS KEPT, BEFORE YOU CAN DEPEND ON "ME"! MAY WISDOM GUIDE YOUR PATHWAY AS MR. CHRISTOPHER IS CLOSE ENOUGH WITHIN THE TANGLE TO KNOW I SPEAK TRUTH.
Enough for now as I hope I have given various ones plenty of thought material. I will repeat what I told Mr. Jackson: The ending is ever so much more important than the beginning--ESPECIALLY FOR YOU WHO ARE AROUND TO PARTICIPATE! If, in addition, I be Alpha--I AM ALSO OMEGA! I believe, further, that A-17 is, in the ending--far, far MORE IMPORTANT TO ALL OF YOU THAN IS A-1!
Good day and sleep well for soon the sleep may well be very long indeed!