Bangkok's Pivot to Beijing

November 13, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Despite the common misconception that Thailand is one of Southeast Asia's staunchest US allies - the steady erosion of US-Thai relations has been underway for years. Cold War concessions Thailand made to the US during the Vietnam War have ingrained the myth of Bangkok's unquestioning loyalty to Washington in the minds of many. The past decade and a half of Washington-proxy Thaksin Shinawatra holding power has helped bolster this myth, with Shinawatra assigning Thai troops to the US occupation of Iraq, cooperating with the US in its global CIA rendition program, and the privatization of Thailand's resources on behalf of Wall Street.

However with a 2006 coup ousting Shinawatra from power, and a subsequent 2014 coup which ousted Shinawatra's sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, the shattering of this myth has begun.

No single move by the new Thai government has signified the shift away from Washington more than a recent deal with China to purchase 3 Type 039A diesel electric attack submarines. Currently Thailand lacks submarines in its navy. The purchase would put Thailand on par with other Southeast Asian nations including Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam who already possess submarines.

More significantly, the purchasing of Chinese submarines may signal a shift not only in Bangkok's geopolitical alignment, but the alignment of Asia altogether.

How Important is the Thai-Chinese Submarine Deal?

Submarines would not be the first weapons Thailand has purchased from China. It already has 400 Type-85 armored personal carriers replacing aging US-made M113's. However, submarines would require extensive training and cooperation between China and Thailand to prepare the Royal Thai Navy to employ and maintain the weapon systems. And submarines themselves carry greater significance within any nation's defensive capabilities.

China's Xinjiang Problem - Made in USA

November 10, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - China's western region of Xinjiang, a vast area home to some 21 million people, is one of several hubs of destabilization maintained by the US State Department and its vast network of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), covert programs, and overt political meddling. America's "Xinjiang game" is part of a larger, long-term goal of encircling, containing, and undermining China in a bid to maintain American hegemony across Asia.

Were one to believe the rhetoric emanating from any of these NGOs or the US State Department itself, the majority of Xinjiang's population groans under the unbearable, despotic, inhumane rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

US-based and funded NGOs claim that ethnic Uyghurs are regularly persecuted, discriminated against, and have their human rights consistently and unreasonably violated by Beijing. Of course, most of these claims are referred to by even the Western media as "allegations," not documented facts, with the vast majority of these claims coming from a handful of Uyghur groups funded directly by the US State Department through its National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

And most of these allegations are in regards to individuals and organizations directly linked to US efforts to destabilize the region.

NED's website even refers to China's Xinjiang province parenthetically as "East Turkistan," the name of the fictional state separatists seek to carve out of Chinese territory (with US backing).

Xinjiang's People - Uyghur or Han - Choose Stability 

In reality, 45% of Xinjiang's 21 million people (some 10 million) are Uyghurs, and it is likely that if even half of them felt slighted by Beijing and supported separatist movements, China's Xinjiang region would already no longer be Chinese.

China is currently developing the far flung region's infrastructure in hopes of accelerating economic growth, and providing opportunities to all of the region's people. The last thing China needs - a nation of 1.3 billion people and growing, scattered over a vast amount of ethnically and geographically diverse terrain - is a sizable portion of this terrain to become divided along ethnic lines, destabilized, and mired in chaos.

To that end, China has embarked on programs to help give Uyghurs the ability to participate in China's growing fortunes, including language courses to allow them to speak Mandarin and thus secure better jobs not only in Xinjiang, but all across China. The move was immediately condemned by the US and its proxy NGOs.

China Turns Tables on US-Backed Agitators

US impotence in the South China Sea isn't the only battle it is losing against China. 

October 30, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The Economist had published an article titled, "And the law won: The rise and fall of China’s civil-rights lawyers says much about the Communist Party’s approach to the rule of law."

The long-winded and pretentious title would have been more accurate if instead of "China's civil-rights lawyers," it said "US-backed agitators." Because that is precisely who the Economist is writing about, a deep and extensive network built upon millions upon millions of dollars of funding by the US State Department for so-called "nongovernmental organizations" across China, many headquartered or primarily backed by organizations in Hong Kong (NED support for: China, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang).

This network was in part exposed during Hong Kong's so-called "Umbrella Revolution," which failed spectacularly after the various US-backed NGOs leading it and their sponsors were exposed.

However, despite the dishonest means by which the Economist frames their article, the content itself if understood in the proper context is very informative. In fact, the content itself directly contradicts the title.

Weiquan, or Rights Protection 

The Economist first defines "weiquan," or rights protection, and explains that the most popular and successful "civil-rights lawyers" posed as working behind  this principle. However, their primary example, Pu Zhiqiang along with several others, admittedly spent most of their time attacking the Chinese government, not defending the rights of anybody. The Economist would explain:

The evidence against Mr Pu includes tweets in which he ridicules Chinese propaganda, calls China’s ethnic policies “absurd” and appears to question the legitimacy of party rule. The charges are ironic: Mr Pu made his name defending the free-speech rights of journalists and writers. He can expect to spend several years in jail, a fate already being suffered by other prominent activists such as Xu Zhiyong, a moderate advocate for legal rights, who was sentenced last year to four years in prison for disrupting public order. Gao Zhisheng, a fierce critic of the party who took on politically sensitive clients, has been repeatedly abducted, tortured and imprisoned over the last several years. He was finally released from prison in August but little has been heard of him since.

 Attacking the Chinese government or "defending" those who did, is a far cry from the principles of "weiquan" which include standing up against and exposing corruption, defending victims of land grabs and other exercises in the abuse of power. One is aimed at agitation, division and the undermining of sociopolitical stability, the other is aimed at strengthening it. And while many agitators may take on cases involving the latter, they do so only to legitimize their primary focus on the former.

US Pacific Hegemony vs. a Rising China

October 19, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The complexity and history behind the current tensions in Asia Pacific are belied by simplistic narratives underpinned by superficial nationalism. China's portrayal across the Western media as a regional "bully" versus its victims across Southeast Asia is dividing the general public down two sides of a predictable line.

On one side are those who welcome the rise of China as a counterbalance for longstanding Western hegemony across Asia Pacific, on the other are those that fear China will simply replace  a "benevolent" Western hegemony with its own brand of regional domination.

Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, but to arrive there, one must understand the true nature of the unfolding, and very unnecessary tensions in the South China Sea.

Enduring Imperialism 

The Pacific, and in particular much of China and Southeast Asia, was under the control of colonial European powers with Britain controlling Malaysia, Myanmar (then called Burma), and parts of China, and France controlling Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos.

Through British "gunboat diplomacy," the empire wrestled concessions resembling what would today pass as a highly unpopular "free trade agreement" from Thailand (then called Siam), as well as from China, including the seizure of Hong Kong. There is literally a street in Hong Kong still named "Possession Street" marking the site where the British first surveyed their newly seized lands, beginning a century and a half of occupation.

Hong Kong was seized during the Opium Wars, so called because they were fought amid attempts by China to shut down the highly destructive opium trade the British were carrying out in their territory.

The World Wars saw a significant reduction of Western power and influence across Asia Pacific. While the United States would retain hegemony over Japan and the Philippines, many other nations first ejected their colonial occupiers, then established independent nations.

Modern Western Hegemony 

The Vietnam War fought between the 1950's and 1970's was not only an attempt to maintain Western hegemony over Indochina, but admittedly an attempt to ultimately encircle and contain China. Within the so-called “Pentagon Papers” released in 1969, it was revealed that the conflict was one part of a greater strategy aimed at containing and controlling China.

Three important quotes from these papers reveal this strategy. It states first that:

…the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.

It also claims:

China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30′s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.

Finally, it outlines the immense regional theater the US was engaged in against China at the time by stating:

...there are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR “contains” China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.

The Pentagon Papers in fact provide for us today the context with which to properly view current tensions in Asia Pacific.

Know World War II, Avoid World War III

September 27, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - An Asian state aggressively expanding its military, bullying its neighbors, illegally fortifying islands, and bent on regional, then global domination - sound familiar? Are you thinking it's China 2015? No, it is Japan 1937-1944.

So shockingly similar is American propaganda regarding Japan during World War II to the propaganda being leveled against Beijing today that it seems almost intentional. Or perhaps those on Wall Street and Washington think so little of the general public's ability to discern fact from fiction, they see no reason to revise the script and are going ahead with a remake faithful to the original with only a few minor casting twists.

This US government production is titled "Why We Fight: A Series of Seven Information Films" with this particular part titled, "The Battle of China" released in 1944.

It describes Japan almost verbatim as how the US today describes China. China is depicted as a righteous victim - but as the film elaborates - it is clear that any affinity shown toward the Chinese people is only due to the fact that the US held significant economic and geopolitical interests there. Admittedly, the US military was already occupying China after extorting through "gunboat diplomacy" concessions from China's subjugated, servile government - not unlike US troops occupying Japan today, hosted by a capitulating government in Tokyo.

Japan in the film is depicted as a "blood crazed" race of barbarians, while the Chinese are depicted as noble resistors. Of course, this narrative shifted immediately as soon as US interests were ousted from China and US troops began occupying and shaping the destiny of conquered Japan after the war.

The Warning Then are Warnings Now

US Marine Corps General Smedley Butler in his book "War is a Racket" would specifically warn about a military build up aimed at Japan for the jealous preservation of American conquests in Asia Pacific. Speaking specifically about these conquests, General Butler would say:

What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000. 

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war -- a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men. 

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit -- fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well. 

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

Of provoking Japan, he would state specifically that:

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. 

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh. 

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

Incidentally, General Butler's warning of provoking war to fulfill the ambitions of lobbyists in Washington and to protect America's ill-gotten holding in Asia Pacific, would come to full and devastating fruition.

Today, a similar scenario plays out verbatim. The US seeks to expand its military in Asia Pacific to preserve what US policy makers call "US primacy over Asia," and has been intentionally provoking China, by flying, sailing, and otherwise maneuvering just at the edge of Chinese territory.

In addition they have attempted to encircle China with military bases from South Korea and Japan to as far south as Darwin, Australia, and as far west as Afghanistan, all while attempting to carve off Chinese territory in the Xinjiang and Tibet regions, destabilize Hong Kong, and stitching together Southeast Asia into an supranational bloc with which to isolate and threaten China with economically and militarily. Political subversion underwritten by the US State Department is ongoing in Xinjiang through the use of Uyghur terrorists, Tibet via the Dali Lama, Myanmar via Aung San Suu Kyi and her "Saffron monks," Thailand through the Shinawatra family and their ultra-violent "red shirt" mobs, Malaysia via Anwar Ibrahim and his Bersih street movement, and Hong Kong via the so-called "Umbrella revolution."

Despite this effort, American designs are failing, and China has likely learned many lessons before, during, and after World War II. Asian nations who seek regional peace and stability as well as cooperation with Beijing, have also learned much about the inner-working of US hegemony and how to confound it.

Beijing is unlikely to exhibit the hubris and impatience of the Japanese in World War II, or allow themselves to be provoked into an unwinnable war. Beijing is also well aware that as impressive as America's grand strategy of geopolitically and militarily encircling China may be, it is failing on all fronts.

China has learned these lessons of history, and by examining history ourselves, we can see how the US provoked, then framed the war with Japan during World War II, and how it is using precisely the same tricks today against China.

Turkish-Uyghur Terror Inc. - America's Other Al Qaeda

September 23, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - It is no longer tenable for the United States and its regional allies in and near the Middle East to claim they are backing "moderate rebels" in the proxy war raging in Syria, Iraq, and parts of Lebanon. There is the Syrian government on one side, and terrorists including Al Qaeda and its various franchises such as the Al Nusra Front and the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS/ISIL) on the other.

If one is not supporting the Syrian government, it is very clear they are supporting Al Qaeda. So obvious is this fact, that the Western press and the corporate-financier think tanks that produce for them their talking points, have begun a campaign to re-brand Al Qaeda as a lesser evil vis-a-vis ISIS. In reality, there is virtually no difference, with the US and its regional allies clearly arming, funding, and supporting both.

The most recent and obscene manifestation of this re-branding was US Army General and former CIA Director David Petraeus' open calls to use Al Qaeda to "fight" ISIS. In the Daily Beast's article, "Petraeus: Use Al Qaeda Fighters to Beat ISIS," it was reported that:

Members of al Qaeda’s branch in Syria have a surprising advocate in the corridors of American power: retired Army general and former CIA Director David Petraeus. 

The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has been quietly urging U.S. officials to consider using so-called moderate members of al Qaeda’s Nusra Front to fight ISIS in Syria, four sources familiar with the conversations, including one person who spoke to Petraeus directly, told The Daily Beast.

Within this rhetorical shift we find an admission that there is indeed no "moderate rebel" force to speak of. All that exists, admittedly, are extremists operating under the various banners of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Revelations of America's support behind Al Qaeda may not have ever been so overt, but are certainly nothing new. It is admitted that the US and its Saudi allies first created Al Qaeda as a proxy mercenary force to fight the Soviet Union in a proxy war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. In 2007, long before the current war in Syria broke out, it was warned by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh in the pages of the New Yorker that under the then Bush administration, support already began to flow to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and other extremists groups including Al Qaeda for the purpose of violently undermining the Syrian government in Damascus.

Asia: Choosing Between East and West

September 3, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Political and business circles across Asia face a shifting geopolitical environment driven by the inevitable rise of China. Several fundamental factors are driving this shift  that if fully understood should help established political orders, business interests, and ruling elite across Asia position themselves for a peaceful, stable, prosperous future. Failure to position oneself carefully as this shift takes place, can see a political dynasty or business empire swallowed whole in the fissures of geopolitical tectonic change.

What Asia Looked Like and Why It's Changing 

For centuries Asia was dominated by first European colonial hegemony, then for nearly a century, American hegemony. The United States itself admits that it possesses "primacy" over Asia and that its primary geopolitical objective in Asia is to maintain that "primacy."

For the better part of a century, maintaining that primacy was enabled by vast economic and military disparity between Washington and the collective resources of Asia. Victory in World War 2 and America's subsequent involvement in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War allowed the United States to maintain an immense military, political, and economic footprint in the region.

In the wake of the Vietnam War, however, an exhausted American Empire began its slow and inevitable retreat. In the void left by this expanding retreat, nations across the region, not the least of which is China, have built themselves up socioeconomically, militarily, and geopolitically.

US Admits It is a Losing Proposition  

American efforts to contain China have proven futile - points made in the US' own policy papers who have attempted on multiple occasions to reformulate their antiquated concept of "primacy" and impose it upon Asia. The most recent of which was published by the influential Council on Foreign Relations - a corporate-funded think tank that represents the collective interests of some of the most powerful Western corporate-financier interests on Earth.

Bangkok Blast: Who Has Ax To Grind With Thailand?

August 18, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The bombing on Monday evening, August 17, 2015, has killed up to 20 people, injured over 100 more, and stands as one of the worst single terrorist attacks in Thailand's capital of Bangkok in recent memory. The attack targeted a religious shrine popular with Asian tourists - particularly from China - who now comprise the largest demographic group of visitors to Thailand.

It is clear the attack was a precision strike on Thailand's economy, and specifically against a very precise segment of Thailand's tourist market. Commentators have admitted that many other targets with higher concentrations of tourists exist throughout Bangkok. Terrorists specifically struck the Erawan Shrine in downtown Bangkok to target Thailand's Asian tourists.

The Western media has already begun spinning theories as to who carried out the attack - focusing on separatists in Thailand's southern most provinces who have been waging a low-level insurgency for years. Many note, however, that violence rarely unfolds outside of these provinces, and has never been carried out on this scale - especially in Bangkok.

Deposed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra and his supporters have also been cited as possible suspects. While southern separatists have never visited violence upon Bangkok, Shinawatra's followers have - and often. They carried out riots that left two shopkeepers dead in 2009. In 2010, they fielded some 300 heavily armed militants on Bangkok's streets, triggering gun battles that left nearly 100 dead and culminated in city-wide arson. They again fielded these same terrorists throughout 2013-2014 to target protests aimed at Shinawatra's regime. This latest episode left nearly 30 dead and hundreds injured.

While no single attack by Shinawatra's followers has rivaled Monday's blast, the total death toll and carnage carried out by his militants in 2010, and again in 2013-2014 certainly exceeded it.

The foreign media also speculated terrorists linked to either China's Xinjiang province or even the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) may have potentially been involved - perhaps because of the large number of Chinese tourists hit in the attack, and because terrorists from China's Xinjiang province have been trafficked by NATO to Syria to fight along side ISIS.

It has been previously reported how the US and its allies have supported both Shinawatra's regime over the past decade Also reported were US-Saudi ties with Thailand's southern separatists and US-Turkish ties with China's Uyghur separatists.

With US foreign policy serving as the singular common denominator between all possible suspects, one may be led to ask, "why Thailand?" What ax has the US to grind against Thailand?

Thailand's Deadly Sins

While Thailand is perceived by many to be a stanch US ally, this originates in Cold War history, not modern reality. During the Vietnam War, Thailand found itself in the middle of a deadly regional conflict and opted to make concessions with the US rather than array itself against it. Thailand had previously used a similar strategy during World War II to mitigate war with Japan at the temporary cost of its sovereignty.

However, recently Thailand has drifted from Washington - and not just in terms of US-Thai relations alone, but within the greater context of US ambitions in Asia and in particular, in regards to its long-laid plans to encircle, contain, and "integrate" China in its American-made "international order."

China’s NGO Law: Countering Western Soft Power and Subversion

July 25, 2015 (Eric Draitser - NEO) - China has recently taken an important step in more tightly regulating foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) inside the country. Despite condemnation from so called human rights groups in the West, China’s move should be understood as a critical decision to assert sovereignty over its own political space. Naturally, the shrill cries of “repression” and “hostility toward civil society” from western NGOs have done little to shake the resolve of Beijing as the government has recognized the critical importance of cutting off all avenues for political and social destabilization.

The predictable argument, once again being made against China’sOverseas NGO Management Law, is that it is a restriction on freedom of association and expression, and a means of stifling the burgeoning civil society sector in China. The NGO advocates portray this proposed legislation as another example of the violation of human rights in China, and further evidence of Beijing’s lack of commitment to them. They posit that China is moving to further entrench an authoritarian government by closing off the democratic space which has emerged in recent years.

However, amid all the hand-wringing about human rights and democracy, what is conveniently left out of the narrative is the simple fact that foreign NGOs, and domestic ones funded by foreign money, are, to a large extent, agents of foreign interests, and are quite used as soft power weapons for destabilization. And this is no mere conspiracy theory as the documented record of the role of NGOs in recent political unrest in China is voluminous. It would not be a stretch to say that Beijing has finally recognized, just as Russia has before it, that in order to maintain political stability and true sovereignty, it must be able to control the civil society space otherwise manipulated by the US and its allies.

‘Soft Power’ and the Destabilization of China
Joseph Nye famously defined ‘soft power’ as the ability of a country to persuade others and/or manipulate events without force or coercion in order to achieve politically desirable outcomes. And one of the main tools of modern soft power is civil society and the NGOs that dominate it. With financial backing from some of the most powerful individuals and institutions in the world, these NGOs use the cover of “democracy promotion” and human rights to further the agenda of their patrons. And China has been particularly victimized by precisely this sort of strategy.

Human Rights Watch, and the NGO complex at large, has condemned China’s Overseas NGO Management Law because they quite rightly believe that it will severely hamper their efforts to act independently of Beijing. However, contrary to the irreproachable expression of innocence that such organizations masquerade behind, the reality is that they act as a de facto arm of western intelligence agencies and governments, and they have played a central role in the destabilization of China in recent years.

Thai Consulate Attacked in Turkey Latest Blow in US-China Proxy War

July 9, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - ATN) - Mobs brandishing the blue and white flag of the fictional state of "East Turkistan" located in present-day Xinjiang, China, attacked and destroyed the Thai honorary consulate-general in Turkey's capital of Istanbul. The attack came after Thailand's decision to deport Chinese Uighurs being trafficked through Thailand back to Turkey or China depending on their citizenship.

Images; Allegedly "Turkish people" stormed Thailand's consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, yet the mob was clearly carrying the blue and white flag of the non-existent state of "East Turkistan" - a region the US hopes to carve out of what is currently China's Xinjiang region. 

The Bangkok Post would report in its article, "Thai consulate attacked in Turkey," that:

It was reported the group gathered in front of the consulate to make a press statement around 11pm local time (about 3am Thai time). Then the protest turned violent and the crowd broke into the consulate building, smashed the windows and lowered the Thai flag. Security authorities later dispersed the group, it reported. There were no injuries reported. 

Security forces apparently held off until after the attack was carried out to disperse the well-prepared mobs. To understand why Turkish security forces would allow an attack to be carried out on Thailand's consulate requires a deeper understanding of the role Uighurs, Turkey, and the US State Department itself has played in undermining peace and stability in China and the changing dynamics Thailand's new government has introduced into the game.

Geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser in his article, "Turkey, Terrorism, and the Global Proxy War," lays out in detail  the role of Turkey in what is a larger global network of state-sponsored terrorism used by the United States to project power across the globe. Uighurs in particular are linked to Turkish-run networks stretching from China, throughout Southeast Asia, and all the way to the Middle East, moving Uighur fighters to and from various theaters of operation, including into Syria where Uighurs are literally fighting alongside "Islamic State" terrorists.

Images: (Top) A screenshot from NED's website refers to the non-existent state of "East Turkistan" in what is an overt sign of support for violent separatists attempting to carve off Chinese territory in a campaign of bloody terrorism. (Bottom-left) The flag for the fictional state of "East Turkistan" is blue with a white crescent moon and star often carried by (bottom-right) mobs organized around the world by NED-funded organizations to support terrorism in China's Xinjiang region. 

He also points out the immense US funding and political backing provided to separatists in China's Xinjiang region via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) who uses the term "East Turkistan" - the fictional state separatists refer to China's Xinjiang region as. The flag for the non-existent nation of "East Turkistan" includes a blue background with a white star and crescent moon, such as was carried by the mobs attacking the Thai consulate.

America's Multinational Ramadan Assault

July 1, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - It is not hard to fathom who on Earth possesses both the resources and the motivation to coordinate multiple, horrific militant attacks, ending scores of lives and provoking both fear and anger on a global scale such as seen during the recent Ramadan attacks that unfolded in France, Tunisia, Kuwait, and reportedly in China's western Xinjiang region.

Only a few nations on Earth possess the operational capacity to run coordinated, multinational operations such as this. Only one axis among them has the motivation to do so.

The Attacks 

In Tunisia, nearly 30 were killed in a brazen attack targeting British tourists with assault rifles. Tunisia, which had been for years a bastion of stability in an otherwise troubled region, saw street demonstrations and violence during 2011 amid the wider US-engineered "Arab Spring" which sought to overturn regional political orders in favor of those selected by Wall Street and Washington. After briefly ousting Zine El Abidine Ben Ali from power, his allies appear to have made a comeback. With their rise back to power, Al Qaeda and now the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) have conveniently stepped up operations within the country to match.

Tunisia is in close proximity to Libya, a nation destroyed by NATO's intervention in 2011, and one that has become a hotbed of terrorist activity, particularly in the nation's eastern most region where the US has been literally running weapons to Al Qaeda militants both in Libya and as far as Syria via NATO-member Turkey. With US-backed terrorists flowing from Libya to as far as Syria, it is clear that this terrorist nexus possesses the necessary logistics to carry out operations in neighboring Tunisia as well.

Who's Behind Asia-Pacific's Growing Tensions?

June 18, 2015 (Tony Cartlaucci - NEO) - Increasing tension in the Asia-Pacific between China and nations surrounding its territory, appears to be an unstoppable and inevitable lead-up to regional conflict and perhaps even global war. 

In reality, for those who have studied history, this is a familiar rerun. Change the characters and place current events in the context of the early 1900's and we see the lead up to World War II and more specifically, the events that set the stage for the fighting in the Pacific. 

Some may believe this is a rerun of when Japan was the sole aggressor in the region, expanding beyond its means before finally meeting its match. Predicated on this misconception, these same people would believe that China has now traded places with Imperial Japan, and is expanding recklessly at the expense of regional and global peace and stability.

However, this is indeed a misconception.

World War II: Setting the Record Straight

To make this clear, we must consider the words of a contemporary of the period before World War II and the words of warning he offered regarding the true nature of tensions at that time. He was United State Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor, and a man who fought America's wars on multiple continents throughout his entire adult life and part of his childhood - he lied about his age to enlist in the Marine Corps early.

In his seminal writing "War is a Racket," he speaks specifically of tensions in the Asia-Pacific at the time and offered advice on how to avoid what would be a catastrophic war (emphasis added):

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

General Butler alludes to the fact that America's posture in Asia-Pacific would inevitably provoke war. To answer why precisely the United States was conducting naval maneuvers off Japan's shores before the outbreak of World War II, one must consider America's openly imperialist "Manifest Destiny" which saw the seizure and occupation of islands across the Pacific, up to and including the Philippines which still to this day suffers the effects of constant US military, political, and economic meddling - but at the time the island nation was literally occupied as a conquered territory by the US.

US "Pivot" Sends Asia Fleeing Toward China

February 26, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - When former-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the US "pivot to Asia," she and the policy wonks who dreamed it up probably imagined it as a well choreographed geopolitical masterstroke. In reality, it was more like an elephant crashing through the jungle, sending all in its path fleeing for cover well ahead of its arrival.

The empty rhetoric accompanying its announcement never materialized. Reading between the lines, what the "pivot" actually meant, was the doubling down on attempts to subvert, corral and otherwise twist the arms of Southeast Asia, South Asia and East Asia into arraying themselves for Washington's convenience and gain, against the growing influence and power of Beijing.

American designs have unraveled everywhere from Malaysia to Thailand and the only steps of this pivot still in good form appear to be in Myanmar and the South China Sea where budding political subversion is growing in one and an escalating strategy of tension is growing in the other. Despite these "successes," the prospects of Myanmar resigning itself to a future with close and growing ties to Beijing are unrealistic.

Likewise, the notion of a remilitarized Japan somehow containing China is untenable and more so each passing day.

Those capitulating today to Washington's attempts to reorder Asia will only be setting their nations back in the years to come when ultimately the "pivot" fails, and all that is left is China and those nations that decided to move forward together with it on its way up.

US Attempts to Isolate China Left it More Connected Than Ever 
Washington's attempt to convert Southeast Asia into a string of client states to encircle China with has instead resulted in deals to construct new railways connecting Singapore to the southern Chinese city of Kunming, the inclusion of Chinese forces at Thailand's annual "Cobra Gold" military exercises, the complete exposure of Washington's "democracy promoters" in Hong Kong and the removal from politics of two of Washington's long-standing political proxies, Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand and Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia.

Occupy Hong Kong, Take Two

February 4, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) Were Hong Kong's street demonstrations a movie, the director's chair would certainly be placed in Washington D.C. Several independent researchers have exposed the shockingly large number of direct links between funding and political backing from Washington and nearly every prominent leader organizing street demonstrations in Hong Kong.

The yellow umbrellas winding through Hong Kong's streets, whose numbers are inflated by American and British media's expert use of tight angles and close ups, could be considered "take two." Take one wasn't fit for Washington's vision for Hong Kong, which is ironic considering the protests claim to be fighting for Hong Kong's self-determination. Regardless, the last round of protests fared poorly, with the majority of Hong Kong's residents turning on protesters who blocked roads for weeks, hurting local businesses and disrupting the lives, peace, and prosperity of the majority.

A loud, disruptive minority, disrupting the peace and prosperity of the majority, all while shouting "pro-democratic" slogans presents another irony and one that seems lost on some.

Washington's Studio Faces Stiff Competition 

The problem for Washington is that its ability to manage public perception has been drastically diminished. This, all while the ability of others, particularly nations targeted by Washington's schemes, now have the ability to bring their side of the story to a larger audience. The balance of power struck means that attempts to portray crooked, clumsy criminals, awkward academics and washed up politicians as another iteration of the global "occupy" phenomenon were destined to fail from the beginning.

US-backed Mobs Back in Hong Kong's Streets

February 1, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The bad taste left in the majority of Hong Kong residents' mouths from America's last attempt at subversion in the Chinese special administrative region, has barely begun to fade as the US State Department and its mobs of "umbrella revolutionaries" take back to the streets in a verbatim reprisal of "Occupy Central" which ended in humiliation and defeat just months ago.

Led by the exact same exposed, corrupt opposition leaders, the clearly diminished movement was unable to "occupy" any part of downtown Hong Kong. The number of protesters was put at around 5,000 by Hong Kong's police, while the movement's leadership claimed their numbers were more than double that.

The South China Morning Post would admit in a recent article that:

 Leading the charge were key figures of the Occupy Central movement including Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Chan Kin-man and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming. Others at the front included Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-Ming as well as Daisy Chan Sin-Ying.

Benny Tai, who poses as the founder of the "Occupy Central" movement, has been sufficiently exposed as a proxy of the US State Department with nearly every organization he is associated with a direct recipient of US government funding. Also mentioned by the South China Morning Post is Martin Lee, who was literally in Washington D.C. before the US State Department's foreign-sedition funding arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), appealing for aid ahead of planned unrest earlier last year.

Image: Google search results for "Hong Kong protests" are topped by sponsored ads posted by the US State Department's Freedom House - raising the absurdity and transparency of American meddling abroad and their attempts to misinform and manipulate people's perception at home.

This most recent street demonstration featured protesters carrying custom-made umbrellas in matching colors, a US gimmick used in sowing political upheaval that has earned such demonstrations the titled, "color revolution."

This latest attempt by the US to divide and subvert political order in China is particularly absurd - with Google searches returning sponsored results by the US State Department's "Freedom House" covering the "Hong Kong Protests," a clear attempt at spearheading the information war waged to confuse and misinform the general public about the true nature driving current street demonstrations.

Hong Kong: "Pro-Democracy" Protesters Reject Will of the People

Occupy Central deliberately ignores overwhelming public demands to end protests, resorts to clashes with police, violence.  

November 29, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Fully qualifying claims that the so-called "Occupy Central" or "Occupy Hong Kong" movement is little more than US-backed political subversion dressed as "pro-democracy," mobs remained in the streets, creating chaos as police worked to reopen streets and return order to downtown Hong Kong. A recent poll carried out by one of the movement's own collaborators - the Public Opinion Programme (HKU POP) of the University of Hong Kong - revealed over 80% wanted the protests brought to an end with over 60% advocating police action to clear the streets if necessary.

In direct defiance not of the government in Beijing, but the will of  Hong Kong's people themselves the "Occupy" movement claims to represent, protesters have vowed to continue disrupting order and remain in the streets as long as possible. The Western media and Western corporate-funded foundations remain the movement's only significant advocates.  
The Epoch Times would report that protesters began breaking down into smaller groups to evade police, throwing objects at officers and clashing with them, then darting in and out of businesses and roads to escape arrest.

Selfish Antics of a Dead Movement 

Occupy Central's troubles began almost with the protests themselves as the questionable nature of the movement's leadership and its funding was fully exposed as emanating from the US State Department and channeled to various organizations involved in the movement by notoriously corrupt media tycoon Jimmy Lai. 

The opacity of the movement's funding and its leadership's connections with the US State Department revealed what was supposed to be a "pro-democracy" movement as nothing more than a bid to extort from Beijing through the use of street mobs the parting demands made to the Chinese government regarding the administration of Hong Kong by the British Empire. 

Aspirations for "democracy," or the ability for Hong Kong to nominate and vote for its own politicians is in all actuality a bid for what remains of pro-Wall Street and London political movements in Hong Kong to carve out a foothold in the region and use Hong Kong as a springboard to create greater division across Chinese society. In other words, to create a neo-imperial colony for the West to use once again to influence mainland China. 

However, the degree to which the "Occupy Central" has been exposed as a foreign-backed political destabilization is so complete that there is little likelihood that such a destabilization will be possible in Hong Kong, or anywhere else inside of China well into the foreseeable future.

Leaders including Benny Tai and Joshua Wong have all been linked to US State Department funded organizations, projects, and campaigns. "Occupy Central" leaders including Martin Lee and Anson Chan literally were in Washington D.C. earlier this year lobbying for US support in front of the very organizations funding the political activity of virtually every prominent "Occupy Central" leader. Even HKU POP has been implicated in "dirty money" used to qualify an ad hoc referendum carried out by "Occupy Central" ahead of the recent protests.

"Occupy Central" was Always Driven by a Foreign, Self-Serving Agenda 

The decision to remain in the streets and create as much chaos as possible despite the desires of the local population for the protests to end clearly illustrates the true, self-serving nature of the protests and their purpose of creating chaos, not facilitating progress for Hong Kong or greater China.

Resorting to clashes and violence perpetrated against police is designed to trigger injuries or fatalities designed to justify further disorder and chaos. Hong Kong, like many other cities and nations targeted by Wall Street and London for destabilization is being led down a dangerous path toward costly division and conflict. The residents, police, and government of Hong Kong must exercise extreme caution and patience to deny the US-backed movement any opportunity to capitalize on the chaos it is now attempting to create.

For genuine supporters of what they believed was a "pro-democracy" movement, what more evidence does one need to conclude "Occupy Central" has nothing to do with democracy? The people have overwhelmingly called for the protests to end, and yet they continue on, deliberately ignoring the will of the people - the antithesis of "democracy."

Hong Kong's People Have Spoken - End the Protests

Will Hong Kong's "pro-democracy" movement heed the voice of the people and leave the streets indefinitely? Or remain there, revealing their true, self-serving agenda?  

November 20, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Despite an ongoing media circus in the West portraying a "popular uprising" in Hong Kong, China - in reality the Chinese people and particularly the citizens of Hong Kong have grown tired of the unrest.


After popular demand, the Public Opinion Programme (HKU POP) of the University of Hong Kong conducted a poll asking whether or not the "Occupy Central" movement should come to an end. An overwhelming 80% said yes with HKU POP stating specifically, "almost 80% called for an end to the occupation."

Bloomberg in their article, "Most Hong Kong People Want Pro-Democracy Protests to End Now," would also admit:

About 68 percent of 513 respondents said the government should clear the protesters immediately, according to a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong Nov. 17-18.

Surely, with "Occupy Central" claiming to be a "pro-democracy" movement, it will heed the will of the people and voluntarily withdraw from Hong Kong's streets indefinitely. However, despite the wording of Bloomberg's headline, those blocking up Hong Kong's streets are not "pro-democracy." The backlash against "Occupy Central" is not the Hong Kong public turning on "pro-democracy" protesters but rather the Hong Kong public understanding "Occupy Central" has nothing at all to do with democracy in the first place.

The degree to which the "Occupy Central" has been exposed as a foreign-backed political destabilization is so complete that there is little likelihood that such a destabilization will be possible in Hong Kong, or anywhere else inside of China well into the foreseeable future.

Leaders including Benny Tai and Joshua Wong have all been linked to US State Department funded organizations, projects, and campaigns. "Occupy Central" leaders including Martin Lee and Anson Chan literally were in Washington D.C. earlier this year lobbying for US support in front of the very organizations funding the political activity of virtually every prominent "Occupy Central" leader. Even HKU POP has been implicated in "dirty money" used to qualify an ad hoc referendum carried out by "Occupy Central" ahead of the recent protests.

Heed the Will of the People? 

Perhaps greater evidence of "Occupy Central's illegitimacy resides not in its documented financial and political ties to foreign interests, but rather the utter contempt in which "Occupy Central" leaders hold the Hong Kong public's interests.

Before street unrest even began, "Occupy Central" held a "referendum" to gauge public interest in their "proposals." Only a fifth of Hong Kong's voting public turned out for the "referendum" which intentionally left out any possible vote to condemn the entire process or the "Occupy Central" movement promoting it. With this paltry "fifth" tentatively "behind" the movement, they took to the streets to disrupt life for the entire special administrative region.

US Brings Brush Fires and Broken Promises to Beijing

November 16, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - In reality, nothing was intended to be decided during US President Barrack Obama's visit to Beijing, China. US policy regarding China has been more or less set for decades and only superficial, rhetorical changes are made year-to-year for a variety of shorter-term political reasons. 

And despite the language used to market America's foreign policy both at home and abroad, what US President Obama is bringing with him to Beijing is yet another attempt to reassert geopolitical, military, and economic hegemony over China not only directly, but within China's growing sphere of influence in Asia. 

This includes attempts to sell the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - which in reality has nothing to do with "partnership" at all and is merely an attempt to erase national sovereignty as an obstacle to Wall Street and London's Fortune 500 and their desire to expand their markets into the heart of Asia. Though China is not included in the TPP, a similar bilateral deal is being proposed by the US to open up Chinese markets to these same Western monopolies. Additionally, US domination of Asian markets through the TPP's implementation will compliment economically, the geopolitical and military encirclement the US is attempting to achieve against China.

The Brush Fires 

As Air Force One touched down in Beijing, the US State Department's ongoing political subversion in China's special administrative region of Hong Kong continued. With the leaders of the so-called "Occupy Central" movement fully outed both by critics and even by many supporters of the movement as US-backed, Beijing labors under no delusions regarding the true nature or intentions of the United States and its perception of where China falls within what Washington policymakers and pundits call their "international order."

In addition to Hong Kong, there is the restive region of Xinjiang where the United States is openly backing militant separatists who have been carrying out progressively more violent and widespread attacks across not only the troubled western province, but across all of China. 

Beyond Hong Kong and Xinjiang, there is also a general campaign headed by the US State Department and its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to sow chaos and sociopolitical division wherever and however it can across all of Chinese society - and within nations China is working hard to establish its influence economically, including across all of Southeast Asia. 

"Occupy Central's" Dirty Money, Dirtier Leaders

November 7, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A torrent of leaked documents and e-mails have exposed the already questionable "Occupy Central" leadership as engaged in unethical, opaque funding. Millions of Hong Kong dollars have been shifted around secretly without "Occupy Central" supporters' knowledge, concealing the source of the funding and the true nature of "Occupy Central's" agenda.

For weeks, Beijing, the local Hong Kong government, and analysts around the world have suggested that "Occupy Central" was far from the "spontaneous" "grassroots" movement it claimed to be and that special interests both within Hong Kong and beyond China's shores were guiding the movement. Leaked e-mails and documents, now confirmed by "Occupy Central" leaders and supporters to be authentic, have proven many of these accusations to be true.

Dirty Money, Dirtier Leaders  

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) has revealed these leaked documents and emails in an ongoing series of articles. This includes their article, "Apple Daily head Jimmy Lai donated millions to pan-democrats, leaked files show," which states:

Hundreds of records detailing millions of dollars in donations to pan-democrats by the Apple Daily's founder have been leaked to the media, a move the camp slammed as a "smear campaign".

According to the 900 leaked files, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying has donated more than HK$10 million to pan-democratic parties and politicians since last year. The donations included HK$5 million to the Democratic Party and HK$3 million to the Civic Party. 

Other donations detailed in the files include amounts totalling HK$900,000 to the Hong Kong Civic Education Foundation and Hong Kong Democratic Development Network, both co-founded by Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, an organiser of the Occupy Central civil-disobedience movement. 

Some media reports suggested the total donations since April 2012 could have been as much as HK$40 million.

Of course, "Occupy Central" co-organizer Martin Lee, is in fact a founding chairman of the Democratic Party, linking Jimmy Lai to yet other organizers of the unrest.

Neo-Cons and Corporate Fascists for Hong Kong Democracy?

Many "Occupy Central" supporters now admit the US National Endowment for Democracy's (NED) role in ongoing chaos in Hong Kong and simply say, "so what?" Here's what... 

November 4, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - James T. Griffiths of the South China Morning Post was preparing a hit piece on analysts exposing the US role behind Hong Kong's ongoing street protests organized by "Occupy Central." Through a series of various logical fallacies, Griffiths was attempting to undermine and discredit these alternative news sources that have filled in the missing pieces intentionally left out by larger, subjectively pro-Western media monopolies and reporters like Griffiths himself. 

In a conversation with Griffiths, after discussing the unscrupulous nature of his tactics, he finally conceded that indeed, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was providing cash for certain political groups to carry out their activities in Hong Kong. Griffiths would claim in response to the suggestion that "Occupy Central" taking US cash constituted sedition that: 

If you think a pro-democracy NGO handing out money to pro-democracy organisations is creepy, then sure.

Only NED is not a "pro-democracy NGO." It is a functionary of the United States government and more specifically the US State Department whose very existence is to serve US interests, not those of the many nations its various funding arms, including USAID and NED, meddle in.

Neo-Cons and Corporate Fascists for Democracy? 

Griffiths' backpedaling is typical. First denying "Occupy Central" was funded from abroad, but since forced to concede otherwise, he is now claiming that such foreign funding constitutes no conflict of interest and is merely the promotion of "democracy."  It appears, however, that Griffiths either is being dishonest, or is uninformed about the true nature of the National Endowment for Democracy. He refused to comment when presented with a full list of NED's board of directors.

NED and its subsidiaries, Freedom House, the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the National Democratic Institute (NDI), despite the lofty mission statement articulated on their websites, are little more than fronts for executing American foreign policy. Just as the US military is used under the cover of lies regarding WMD's and "terrorism," NED is employed under the cover of bringing "democracy" to "oppressed" people. However, a thorough look at NED's board of directors, as well as the board of trustees of its subsidiaries definitively lays to rest any doubts that may be lingering over the true nature of these organizations and the causes they support.
More importantly, for the many well-meaning left-leaning liberals intrigued by, and tempted to support "Occupy Central," revelations that "Occupy Central" is in fact a far-right Neo-Con corporate-fascist scheme to expand a confrontation with China and extort from Beijing geopolitical and economic concessions should at the very least give pause for thought.