Has the Mountain Moved in Recent Years?

China's human-rights record has in the past been abysmal

I originally wrote this as part of a discussion about whether Hu Jintoa remained a black hat. I then put the article aside because I didn’t want to engage in a light war.

But I now think the article itself is useful and have removed any references to the original disagreement it was a part of. I offer it as my view of what may be occurring with Hu and the Chinese leadership.

China is often represented as an immovable mountain. But a question has arisen in my mind as to whether the mountain has moved in recent years.

The task of commenting on Hu and China is exceedingly difficult for me today. When I studied the Chinese human-rights record in my last job as a refugee decision-maker, every member of the tribunal I sat on was more or less regarded as having specialized in one or more countries.

I was regarded as having specialized in Chinese human rights. However I hasten to add that that period of my life ended five years ago and I haven’t continued to study China’s human rights record since then.

It would have been my opinion at that time that China’s human-rights record was abysmal. China persecuted Falun-Gong practitioners. It administered forced abortions and sterilizations to its citizens. Its government and police force were corrupt (I didn’t study its military). It had invaded and conquered Tibet and committed atrocities there. It persecuted religions and minorities. And the list of other human-rights abuses and violations, were I to continue, would be long.

I no longer know what China’s human-rights record is.

Moreover, if I were to examine it today, I would need to reassure myself that the sources I relied on then are themselves reliable. These included the American Dept. of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (the so-called DOS Report) and the British Home Office equivalent.

Several matters make me now question the picture of the world presented in those reports. The first is the knowledge that both the 9/11 attacks and the London bombings were acts of state terrorism and that the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq begun in response to those “attacks” were illegal and exploitative in nature. You won’t find any mention of these major crimes against humanity and war crimes in either report.

Both countries issue reports on other countries, but neither investigates itself. Looking beyond the crimes I listed above, both countries have been shown to be major human-rights abusers against the citizens of other countries, engaging in torture, assassination, mind control, regime overthrow, and a list of other war crimes and crimes against humanity that are almost totally hidden from their populations.

Adding to this list, the governments and institutions of these two countries stand accused of policies such as depopulation, erosion of civil rights, the prosecution of the drug trade, chemtrails, weather warfare, wrongful incarceration, murder, and another long list of crimes against their own citizens. None of these matters will be found in their human-rights reports.

This being the case, I find myself no longer willing to simply accept unquestioningly the view of the world put out by the sources I once relied on.

So, in assessing the current practices of the Chinese government, I’d need to reassess the traditional sources of information I relied on in the past and that would make the task more difficult for me.

At the same time, I now respond to different sources of information and you and I both know that the wider world would probably not accept the sources I now take into consideration.

I now place more reliance than I would have in the past on the channeled messages of galactic and spirit sources. I’ve taken care to assure myself that the sources I rely on meet my standards of credibility. That means I rely on a smaller number of sources than many in the field that you and I both find ourselves in. Some sources regarded as credible by many others I do not post as you can see.

One of the sources I do post is Mike Quinsey’s SaLuSa. While SaLuSa does not refer to China often, in his Jan. 21, 2011 message he said:

“The signs are there that indicate that the dark Ones are rapidly losing the fight for control over you. Notice how the Chinese leaders are making concessions to the West, and that they are using their power to prevent the Illuminati from making further footholds in the East. They are a part of a growing movement to stabilize the world, and root out the influences that have tried to lead you into another war scenario.”

A second source is Matthew Ward. Again he has not referred to China often but, when he does, he does not ascribe to them the same evil intent that he does to the Western Illuminati. Here is the sum total of what he’s said.

“And these current issues: Russia will not engage in a major war and neither will China.” (Matthew’s Message, Sept. 24, 2008.)

“China is far more interested in building its own strong economic base than in destroying that of the United States, its largest trading partner.” (Oct. 13, 2006.)

“We know the natural keen interest of China and Russia relative to what the US will do, but both of those countries are first and foremost interested in their respective national development progress, not escalating any war scenario; so you could say that in the field of potential, the energy of their interest is neutral. ” (May 23, 2006.)

Readers of this site are surely aware that a significant proportion of Matthew’s messages are given over to long discussions of the record of the western cabal. Why would Matthew say nothing of China if China continued to be the corrupt regime it once was?

In terms of my own research once having left the human-rights field, my further research was more in the area of Chinese relations with the West and demonstrated, to me at least, that while China had, in many areas, achieved a significant military advantage over the United States and its allies, it had never, as far as I knew, used that advantage except to demonstrate it.

It had demonstrated its possession of carrier-busting Russian missiles. It had demonstrated its ability to tap into American military computers, even if they were standalone. It had demonstrated its ability to commandeer the Vice-President’s plane, which it did in Feb. 2007 when Cheney was returning home from Australia.

The Chinese may have caused the B-52 with nuclear weapons under its wings to land at Barksdale AFB. And American forces appear to have shown that the Chinese have installed trojans in the motherboards of all American military hardware, potentially rendering all of them inoperative under battlefield conditions. (See list of articles in footnote 1.)

With this range of impressive displays of Chinese military advantage over American forces, to the best of my knowledge, the Chinese have never used that advantage aggressively against the United States.

Moreover, I’ve commented on the fact that statements Hu and his Vice-President have made appear to show a softening of their attitude towards their own people and the West, which would seem to bear out SaLuSa’s appraisal of them and certainly shows Matthew’s sparse comments to be accurate.

So has the Chinese mountain moved recently? I’d need to have that question answered before I’d feel comfortable reaching a conclusion today.

I at least have doubts about the relevance of the traditional appraisal of the Chinese as mindless totalitarian dictators. I at least see some signs that Chinese black hats may have turned their hats around, even if I cannot be sure. The typical black and white portrayal may need to have an element of gray.

That doesn’t mean that I consider the abysmal Chinese human-rights record to have been addressed or the Chinese Communist Party to be “born again,” so to speak. I don’t know if that is the case and I’d have to be shown that it was.

You don’t need to agree with me. I recommend that you use discernment in evaluating my arguments as you would anywhere else.

But I think that, to be helpful to us today, an analysis of the Chinese leadership can no longer be as starkly defined as it has been in the past.