Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR#‘s 1178 1179, 1180: Fascism and The Uyghur Genocide Myth, Parts 1, 2, 3

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself, HERE.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work, com­plete through Fall of 2020 (through FTR #1156).

Please con­sid­er sup­port­ing THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES.

Note: This web­site is licensed for Fair Use under Cre­ative Com­mons. No mon­ey what­so­ev­er is, has been, or will be made from this web­site by Mr. Emory.

FTR #1178 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR #1179 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR #1180 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

NB: This descrip­tion con­tains mate­r­i­al not includ­ed in the orig­i­nal broad­casts.

Intro­duc­tion: The media in this and oth­er coun­tries have been dom­i­nat­ed by a pro­pa­gan­da blitzkrieg alleg­ing “geno­cide” being com­mit­ted by Chi­na in its oil and min­er­al-rich Xin­jiang province against the Turko­phone, Mus­lim minor­i­ty in that region.

 This alle­ga­tion is a well-doc­u­ment­ed polit­i­cal mythol­o­gy, which has come to dom­i­nate the polit­i­cal and jour­nal­is­tic nar­ra­tive in the U.S. because of media adher­ence to the pro­nounce­ments of a num­ber of over­lap­ping fas­cist orga­ni­za­tions.

In addi­tion to the dom­i­nance of cov­er­age of Xin­jiang by the Ger­man nation­al Adri­an Zenz, a fel­low trav­el­er of the OUN/B deriv­a­tive Cap­tive Nations Com­mit­tee, the fas­cist mind con­trol cult Falun Gong and ele­ments that have evolved from the Inter­na­tion­al Insti­tute of Islam­ic Thought are deeply involved with U.S. intel­li­gence cut-outs that have mid­wived the Uyghur “geno­cide myth.”

Pan-Turk­ist fas­cist ele­ments in Xin­jiang over­lap Al-Qae­da affil­i­ates.

An alleged U.N. report on the geno­cide stems from the alle­ga­tions of the sole Amer­i­can mem­ber of a U.N. pan­el, who pro­vid­ed no cor­rob­o­rat­ing evi­dence.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include:

  1. ” . . . . A spokesper­son from the UN Office of the High Com­mis­sion­er for Human Rights (OHCHR) con­firmed in a state­ment to The Gray­zone that the alle­ga­tion of Chi­nese ‘camps’ was not made by the Unit­ed Nations, but rather by a mem­ber of an inde­pen­dent com­mit­tee that does not speak for the UN as a whole. That mem­ber hap­pened to be the only Amer­i­can on the com­mit­tee, and one with no back­ground of schol­ar­ship or research on Chi­na. . . .”
  2. ” . . . . This is to say, one Amer­i­can mem­ber of an inde­pen­dent UN body made a provoca­tive claim that Chi­na was intern­ing 1 mil­lion Mus­lims, but failed to pro­vide a sin­gle named source. And Reuters and the West­ern cor­po­rate media ran with it any­way, attribut­ing the unsub­stan­ti­at­ed alle­ga­tions of one US indi­vid­ual to the UN as a whole. . . . ”
  3. ” . . . . In addi­tion to this irre­spon­si­ble mis­re­port­ing, Reuters and oth­er West­ern out­lets have attempt­ed to fill in the gaps left by McDougall, refer­ring to reports made by so-called “activist group” the Net­work of Chi­nese Human Rights Defend­ers (CHRD). . . .”
  4. ” . . . . How­ev­er, tax doc­u­ments uncov­ered by The Gray­zone show that a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of this group’s bud­get comes from the US government’s Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy (NED), a CIA-linked soft-pow­er group that was found­ed by the Ronald Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion in the 1980s to push regime change against inde­pen­dent gov­ern­ments and sup­port “free mar­kets” around the world. . . .”

A Gray Zone piece from a cou­ple of months ago about a major main­stream pro­mo­tion of the geno­cide claims via a New York Times op-ed writ­ten by an Amer­i­can woman of Uyghur ances­try that more or less regur­gi­tat­ed the geno­cide claims of Adri­an Zenz. The op-ed neglect­ed men­tion that the author, Amelia Pang, was an employ­ee of The Epoch Times from 2011–2016.

That paper is an organ of the Falun Gong cult.

The Gray Zone arti­cle does more than detail a major exam­ple of main­stream media cat­a­pult­ing this mis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign.

The arti­cle under­scores how the ‘con­cen­tra­tion camp’ claims from the West sud­den­ly erupt­ed in 2017, after the Trump admin­is­tra­tion basi­cal­ly made a new Cold War with Chi­na a major for­eign pol­i­cy objec­tive in keep­ing with Steve Bannon’s vision of a new Great Pow­ers war.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include:

  1. ” . . . . The author of the New York Times op-ed, Amelia Pang, hap­pens to be a for­mer employ­ee of the Epoch Times, a far-right pro­pa­gan­da arm of a fanat­i­cal anti-Chi­na cult called Falun Gong. . . .”
  2. ” . . . . Pang’s op-ed ran just days before the Trump admin­is­tra­tion for­mal­ly accused Bei­jing of geno­cide. US Sec­re­tary of State Mike Pom­peo, a far-right rap­ture-ready evan­gel­i­cal, alleged that Chi­na ‘has com­mit­ted geno­cide against the pre­dom­i­nant­ly Mus­lim Uyghurs and oth­er eth­nic and reli­gious minor­i­ty groups in Xin­jiang.’ The Pom­peo State Depart­ment pro­vid­ed no evi­dence to bol­ster its extreme accu­sa­tions, yet alleged that China’s cam­paign of ‘geno­cide’ began in March 2017. . . .”
  3. ” . . . . The report both Pang and NPR were cit­ing was not a Unit­ed Nations doc­u­ment, but rather an inves­ti­ga­tion by a far-right Ger­man aca­d­e­m­ic named Adri­an Zenz. . . .”
  4. ” . . . . To make her case that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment was guilty of “geno­cide,” Pang mis­lead­ing­ly implied that the Unit­ed Nations has accused Chi­na of the crime – a dis­in­for­ma­tion tac­tic that has become com­mon in anti-Chi­na report­ing in the West­ern media. But the UN has not done so. . . . ”
  5. ” . . . . As Ajit Singh and Max Blu­men­thal report­ed for The Gray­zone, Zenz’s esti­mate that ‘over 1 mil­lion’ Mus­lim minori­ties are held in ‘con­cen­tra­tion camps’ in Xin­jiang was based on a lone report by Istiqlal TV, an Islamist media out­let run by Uyghur sep­a­ratists based in Turkey. The out­let pro­vides a friend­ly plat­form for extrem­ist sup­port­ers of the East Turkestan Islam­ic Move­ment (ETIM), a sep­a­ratist group that seeks to build an Islam­ic state in Xin­jiang, which it calls East Turkestan. ...”
  6. ” . . . . ETIM, also known as the Turk­istan Islam­ic Par­ty (TIP), is an al-Qae­da-linked extrem­ist mili­tia that has car­ried out numer­ous ter­ror­ist attacks in Xin­jiang. ETIM, also known as the Turk­istan Islam­ic Par­ty (TIP), is an al-Qae­da-linked extrem­ist mili­tia that has car­ried out numer­ous ter­ror­ist attacks in Xin­jiang. It is rec­og­nized as a ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion by the Unit­ed Nations, Euro­pean Union, and many coun­tries. Pompeo’s State Depart­ment removed ETIM from the US government’s offi­cial ter­ror­ist list in Octo­ber 2020, as part of Washington’s inten­si­fy­ing cold war on Chi­na. . . .”
  7. ” . . . . The pho­to Pang ref­er­enced has been heav­i­ly cir­cu­lat­ed by West­ern media out­lets and NGOs, and is upheld as prac­ti­cal­ly the only image prov­ing the exis­tence of ‘con­cen­tra­tion camps’ run by Bei­jing. This char­ac­ter­i­za­tion is how­ev­er deeply mis­lead­ing. The pho­to was not tak­en by some coura­geous pris­on­er or cru­sad­ing inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist; it was pub­lished by the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment itself, in a press release from 2014 — three years before the State Depart­ment claimed the ‘geno­cide’ began in Xin­jiang. In fact, the orig­i­nal image was pub­lished on the Xin­jiang Bureau of Justice’s own WeChat account, with a water­mark iden­ti­fy­ing it as an offi­cial pho­to tak­en by Chi­nese author­i­ties. West­ern anti-Chi­na pro­pa­gan­dists have sub­se­quent­ly cropped off the water­mark and pre­sent­ed the pho­to as proof of Chi­na caught in the act. . . .”
  8. ” . . . . At the top of her per­son­al web­site, Amelia Pang adver­tis­es her book, ‘Made in Chi­na: A Pris­on­er, an SOS Let­ter, and the Hid­den Cost of America’s Cheap Goods,’ which is due in Feb­ru­ary 2021. The book’s home­page high­lights a blurb writ­ten by Orville Schell . . . . Schell also has an eye­brow-rais­ing record of work at the Ford Foun­da­tion, a CIA cut-out, in Indone­sia from 1964 to 1966, at pre­cise­ly the time when the country’s US-backed mil­i­tary dic­ta­tor­ship was enact­ing an actu­al geno­cide. With help from the CIA, Indonesia’s dic­ta­tor Suhar­to mur­dered between 1 and 3 mil­lion com­mu­nists, left-wing sym­pa­thiz­ers, labor orga­niz­ers, and eth­nic Chi­nese peo­ple, in what the CIA pri­vate­ly admit­ted was ‘one of the worst mass mur­ders of the 20th cen­tu­ry,’ along­side the Nazi Holo­caust. . . .”

Anti-Asian racism is very much at the fore­front of pub­lic con­scious­ness at the moment. It would be disin­gen­u­ous for any­one to claim that the phe­nom­e­non  was unre­lat­ed to the full-court press against Chi­na.

Exem­pli­fy­ing that racism is a mem­ber of the Pan-Turk­ist fas­cist MHP par­ty, which is front and cen­ter in the anti-Uighur desta­bi­liza­tion effort and the prop­a­ga­tion of the “geno­cide” myth. (We have dis­cussed Pan-Turk­ist fas­cism in–among oth­er pro­grams–AFA #14  and FTR #59.)

. . . . . In 2015, mem­bers of the MHP-affil­i­at­ed Grey Wolves for­mer­ly led by Alparslan Türkes attacked South Kore­an tourists in Turkey, mis­tak­ing them for Chi­nese cit­i­zens, in protest of the sit­u­a­tion in Xin­jiang. Turk­ish MHP par­ty leader Devlet Bahçeli defend­ed the attacks. ‘How are you going to dif­fer­en­ti­ate between Kore­an and Chi­nese?’ the right­ist politi­cian ques­tioned. ‘They both have slant­ed eyes. Does it real­ly mat­ter?’ . . . .”

Yet anoth­er inci­sive, coura­geous arti­cle about the myth of Uighur geno­cide was pub­lished by The Gray­zone in March.

The vehi­cle for launch­ing this pro­pa­gan­da is The New­lines Insti­tute, a sub­sidiary ele­ment of Fair­fax Uni­ver­si­ty of Amer­i­ca.

The founder of New­lines Insti­tute is Ahmed Alwani, Vice-Pres­i­dent of the Inter­na­tion­al Islam­ic Insti­tute, one of the orga­ni­za­tions raid­ed by Trea­sury Depart­ment and FBI agents on 3/20/2002 for alleged­ly fund­ing Al-Qae­da and oth­er Mus­lim-Broth­er­hood linked ter­ror­ist groups.

Key Ele­ments of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: 

  1. ” . . . . The report, pub­lished on March 8 by the New­lines Insti­tute for Strat­e­gy and Pol­i­cy, in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Raoul Wal­len­berg Cen­tre for Human Rights, fol­lows a last-minute accu­sa­tion made in Jan­u­ary by the out­go­ing Trump admin­is­tra­tion, along with sim­i­lar dec­la­ra­tions by the Dutch and Cana­di­an Par­lia­ments. It was pub­lished short­ly after the release of a remark­ably sim­i­lar report on Feb­ru­ary 8 that was com­mis­sioned by the US gov­ern­ment-backed World Uyghur Con­gress, and which alleged that there is a ‘cred­i­ble case’ against the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment for geno­cide. . . .”
  2. ” . . . . Ahmed Alwani is the founder and pres­i­dent of the New­lines Insti­tute. Alwani pre­vi­ous­ly served on the advi­so­ry board for the U.S. military’s Africa Com­mand (AFRICOM) and is the Vice Pres­i­dent of the Inter­na­tion­al Insti­tute of Islam­ic Thought (IIIT); his father, Taha Jabir Al-Alwani was one of IIIT’s founders. . . .”
  3. ” . . . . New­lines’ report relies pri­mar­i­ly on the dubi­ous stud­ies of Adri­an Zenz, the US gov­ern­ment pro­pa­gan­da out­let, Radio Free Asia, and claims made by the US-fund­ed sep­a­ratist net­work, the World Uyghur Con­gress. These three sources com­prise more than one-third of the ref­er­ences used to con­struct the fac­tu­al basis of the doc­u­ment, with Zenz as the most heav­i­ly relied upon source – cit­ed on more than 50 occa­sions. Many of the remain­ing ref­er­ences cite the work of mem­bers of New­lines Institute’s Uyghur Schol­ars Work­ing Group’, of which Zenz is a found­ing mem­ber and which is made up of a small group of aca­d­e­mics who col­lab­o­rate with him and sup­port his con­clu­sions. . . .”
  4. ” . . . . The lead­er­ship of New­lines Insti­tute includes for­mer US State Depart­ment offi­cials, US mil­i­tary advi­sors, intel­li­gence pro­fes­sion­als who pre­vi­ous­ly worked for the “shad­ow CIA” pri­vate spy­ing firm, Strat­for, and a col­lec­tion of inter­ven­tion­ist ide­o­logues. . . .”
  5. ” . . . . Just days before New­lines Institute’s report on Chi­na was released, its FXUA’s accred­i­ta­tion was once again in poten­tial jeop­ardy. On March 5, an advi­so­ry board to the US Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion rec­om­mend­ed ter­mi­nat­ing recog­ni­tion for ACICS. The Nation­al Advi­so­ry Com­mit­tee on Insti­tu­tion­al Qual­i­ty and Integri­ty vot­ed 11-to‑1 to rec­om­mend that ACICS lose the fed­er­al recog­ni­tion it needs to oper­ate. The advi­so­ry com­mit­tee made the same rec­om­men­da­tion in 2016, lead­ing to the ACICS’s recog­ni­tion being revoked under the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion, before recog­ni­tion was restored to the trou­bled accred­i­tor in 2018 by then-Pres­i­dent Trump’s Sec­re­tary of Edu­ca­tion, the infa­mous pri­va­ti­za­tion activist and oli­garch Bet­sy Devos. . . .”
  6. ” . . . . New­lines Insti­tute pub­lished its report in col­lab­o­ra­tion with The Raoul Wal­len­berg Cen­tre for Human Rights. The report’s prin­ci­pal author, Yon­ah Dia­mond, is legal coun­sel for The Wal­len­berg Cen­ter, and many of the report’s sig­na­to­ries hold affil­i­a­tions with the orga­ni­za­tion. . . .”
  7. ” . . . . The Wal­len­berg Cen­tre has become a haven for anti-Chi­na hawks, includ­ing Senior Fel­lows David Kil­go­ur, for­mer Cana­di­an Sec­re­tary of State, and David Matas. . . . Kil­go­ur and Matas have exten­sive ties to the far-right, anti-Chi­na reli­gious cult Falun GongBoth men are reg­u­lar­ly con­trib­u­tors to the group’s pro­pa­gan­da arm, The Epoch Times, a media net­work that The New York Times has described as an ‘anti-Chi­na, pro-Trump media empire’ and ‘lead­ing pur­vey­or of right-wing mis­in­for­ma­tion’. . . . ”

The pro­gram con­cludes with dis­cus­sion of the Wal­len­berg fam­i­ly, one of Swe­den’s most promi­nent indus­tri­al clans and inex­tri­ca­bly linked with both the inter­na­tion­al car­tel sys­tem, the Third Reich and–as we see below–the remark­able and dead­ly Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal orga­ni­za­tion.

The Wal­len­bergs were cen­tral­ly involved in numer­ous cloak­ing oper­a­tions for Nazi big busi­ness, and also had strong links to the Allied indus­tri­al firms under­tak­ing war pro­duc­tion.

(The sub­stance and com­plex­i­ties of the car­tel sys­tem and inter­na­tion­al fas­cism were dis­cussed in–among oth­er pro­grams–FTR#511. The over­all polit­i­cal and his­tor­i­cal con­text in which the car­tels operate–globalization–is ana­lyzed in the intro­duc­tion to the Books for Down­load sec­tion.)

Exem­pli­fy­ing the fam­i­ly’s posi­tion in the Wall Street/cartel pan­theon is George Mur­nane of the Wal­len­berg hold­ing com­pa­ny A.B. Investor: ” . . . . In Novem­ber 1940, a vot­ing trust agree­ment was set up in the Unit­ed States under which George Mur­nane was des­ig­nat­ed by the Wal­len­bergs’ Enskil­da Bank as the sole vot­ing trustee with com­plete pow­er to vote the Amer­i­can Bosch stock at stock­hold­ers’ meet­ings in the Unit­ed States. The vot­ing trust arrange­ment pro­vid­ed that if George Mur­nane should die, his suc­ces­sor should be named by John Fos­ter Dulles, senior part­ner of Sul­li­van & Cromwell, the law firm which rep­re­sents the Wal­len­bergs and the Enskil­da Bank in the Unit­ed States. . . .”

One of the most sig­nif­i­cant of the Wal­len­bergs’ oper­a­tions con­cerned its glob­al monop­oly on ball bear­ings and its ship­ment of Swedish bear­ings to off­set Nazi Ger­many’s loss­es in the cost­ly Schwe­in­furt raids.

” . . . . It hap­pened that two thirds of Ger­many’s entire bear­ing indus­try was con­cen­trat­ed in a sin­gle group of four fac­to­ries at Schwe­in­furt. Three of them, account­ing for 36 per cent of Ger­many’s pro­duc­tive capac­i­ty, were owned by VKF; and one, account­ing for 30 per cent of Ger­man capac­i­ty, was owned by the only remain­ing large inde­pen­dent, Fis­ch­er A.G.

When Amer­i­can air forces bombed Schwe­in­furt dur­ing the war, in an effort to knock out this strate­gic point in Ger­man indus­tri­al pro­duc­tion, Schwe­in­furt was dis­cov­ered to be one of the most heav­i­ly defend­ed spots in Ger­many. Ger­man defens­es inflict­ed a loss of fifty Amer­i­can heavy bombers in one raid alone. When these raids tem­porar­i­ly knocked out Schwe­in­furt, the effect was large­ly nul­li­fied by ship­ments of bear­ings from SKF in Swe­den. . . .”

It is this her­itage that under­lies the Wal­len­berg Cen­tre for Human Rights.

1.  The sole Amer­i­can on a UN pan­el, Gay McDougall, was the source of the ‘2 mil­lion in re-edu­ca­tion camp claims’, with zero evi­dence pro­vid­ed for this claim dur­ing their hear­ing.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include:

  1. ” . . . . A spokesper­son from the UN Office of the High Com­mis­sion­er for Human Rights (OHCHR) con­firmed in a state­ment to The Gray­zone that the alle­ga­tion of Chi­nese ‘camps’ was not made by the Unit­ed Nations, but rather by a mem­ber of an inde­pen­dent com­mit­tee that does not speak for the UN as a whole. That mem­ber hap­pened to be the only Amer­i­can on the com­mit­tee, and one with no back­ground of schol­ar­ship or research on Chi­na. . . .”
  2. ” . . . . This is to say, one Amer­i­can mem­ber of an inde­pen­dent UN body made a provoca­tive claim that Chi­na was intern­ing 1 mil­lion Mus­lims, but failed to pro­vide a sin­gle named source. And Reuters and the West­ern cor­po­rate media ran with it any­way, attribut­ing the unsub­stan­ti­at­ed alle­ga­tions of one US indi­vid­ual to the UN as a whole. . . . ”
  3. ” . . . . In addi­tion to this irre­spon­si­ble mis­re­port­ing, Reuters and oth­er West­ern out­lets have attempt­ed to fill in the gaps left by McDougall, refer­ring to reports made by so-called “activist group” the Net­work of Chi­nese Human Rights Defend­ers (CHRD). . . .”
  4. ” . . . . How­ev­er, tax doc­u­ments uncov­ered by The Gray­zone show that a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of this group’s bud­get comes from the US government’s Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy (NED), a CIA-linked soft-pow­er group that was found­ed by the Ronald Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion in the 1980s to push regime change against inde­pen­dent gov­ern­ments and sup­port “free mar­kets” around the world. . . .”

Sum­ming up: the UN invites a pan­el of inde­pen­dent ‘experts’ to tes­ti­fy about China’s poli­cies towards minori­ties, the Amer­i­can on the pan­el makes unsourced claims of mas­sive re-edu­ca­tion camps, and it gets trum­pet­ed across the main­stream West­ern press as a UN dec­la­ra­tion of Chi­nese con­cen­tra­tion camps. It’s a peek at how the sausage is made:

“No, the UN did not report Chi­na has ‘mas­sive intern­ment camps’ for Uighur Mus­lims” by Ben Nor­ton and Ajit Singh; The Gray Zone; 08/23/2018

Media out­lets false­ly claimed the UN report­ed Chi­na is hold­ing a mil­lion Uighurs in camps. The claim is based on unsourced alle­ga­tions by an Amer­i­can com­mis­sion mem­ber, US-fund­ed out­fits, and a shad­owy gov­ern­ment-fund­ed oppo­si­tion group.

Numer­ous major media out­lets, from Reuters to The Inter­cept, have claimed that the Unit­ed Nations has reports that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment is hold­ing as many as 1 mil­lion Uighur Mus­lims in “intern­ment camps.” But a close exam­i­na­tion of these news sto­ries, and of the evi­dence behind them — or the lack there­of — demon­strates that the extra­or­di­nary claim is sim­ply not true.

A spokesper­son from the UN Office of the High Com­mis­sion­er for Human Rights (OHCHR) con­firmed in a state­ment to The Gray­zone that the alle­ga­tion of Chi­nese “camps” was not made by the Unit­ed Nations, but rather by a mem­ber of an inde­pen­dent com­mit­tee that does not speak for the UN as a whole. That mem­ber hap­pened to be the only Amer­i­can on the com­mit­tee, and one with no back­ground of schol­ar­ship or research on Chi­na.

More­over, this accu­sa­tion is based on the thin­ly sourced reports of a Chi­nese oppo­si­tion group that is fund­ed by the Amer­i­can government’s regime-change arm and is close­ly tied to exiled pro-US activists. There have been numer­ous reports of dis­crim­i­na­tion against Uighur Mus­lims in Chi­na. How­ev­er, infor­ma­tion about camps con­tain­ing 1 mil­lion pris­on­ers has orig­i­nat­ed almost exclu­sive­ly from media out­lets and orga­ni­za­tions fund­ed and weaponized by the US gov­ern­ment to turn up the heat on Bei­jing.

A bla­tant false­hood intro­duced by Reuters and echoed across main­stream media

On August 10, the UN Com­mit­tee on the Elim­i­na­tion of Racial Dis­crim­i­na­tion con­duct­ed its reg­u­lar review of China’s com­pli­ance with the Inter­na­tion­al Con­ven­tion on the Elim­i­na­tion of All Forms of Racial Dis­crim­i­na­tion. The review, which is con­duct­ed peri­od­i­cal­ly for all 179 par­ties to the Con­ven­tion, has gen­er­at­ed a fren­zied response by the West­ern cor­po­rate press — one which is uni­form­ly mis­lead­ing.

On the day of the review, Reuters pub­lished a report with an explo­sive head­line: “U.N. says it has cred­i­ble reports that Chi­na holds mil­lion Uighurs in secret camps.”

The claim was fever­ish­ly repro­duced by out­lets such as The New York Times and The Wash­ing­ton Post to denounce Chi­na and call for inter­na­tion­al action. Even The Inter­cept’s Meh­di Hasan belt­ed out the breath­less head­line, “One Mil­lion Mus­lim Uighurs Have Been Detained by Chi­na, the U.N. Says. Where’s the Glob­al Out­rage?”

The impres­sion read­ers were giv­en was that the UN had con­duct­ed an inves­ti­ga­tion and had for­mal­ly and col­lec­tive­ly made such charges against Chi­na. In fact, the UN had done no such thing.

The head­line of Reuters’ report attrib­uted its explo­sive claim to the UN; yet the body of the arti­cle ascribed it sim­ply to the UN Com­mit­tee on the Elim­i­na­tion of Racial Dis­crim­i­na­tion. And this committee’s offi­cial web­site makes it clear that it is “a body of inde­pen­dent experts,” not UN offi­cials.

What’s more, a look at the OHCHR’s offi­cial news release on the committee’s pre­sen­ta­tion of the report showed that the only men­tion of alleged re-edu­ca­tion “camps” in Chi­na was made by its sole Amer­i­can mem­ber, Gay McDougall. This claim was then echoed by a Mau­ri­tan­ian mem­ber, Yemhel­he Mint Mohamed.

Dur­ing the committee’s reg­u­lar review of Chi­na, McDougall com­ment­ed that she was “deeply con­cerned” about “cred­i­ble reports” alleg­ing mass deten­tions of mil­lions of Uighurs Mus­lim minori­ties in “intern­ment camps.” The Asso­ci­at­ed Press report­ed that McDougall “did not spec­i­fy a source for that infor­ma­tion in her remarks at the hear­ing.” (Note that the head­line of the AP news wire is much weak­er than that of Reuters: “UN pan­el con­cerned at report­ed Chi­nese deten­tion of Uighurs.”)

Video of the ses­sion con­firms that McDougall pro­vid­ed no sourc­ing to back up her remark­able claim.

This is to say, one Amer­i­can mem­ber of an inde­pen­dent UN body made a provoca­tive claim that Chi­na was intern­ing 1 mil­lion Mus­lims, but failed to pro­vide a sin­gle named source. And Reuters and the West­ern cor­po­rate media ran with it any­way, attribut­ing the unsub­stan­ti­at­ed alle­ga­tions of one US indi­vid­ual to the UN as a whole.

In an email to The Gray­zone, OHCHR spokesper­son Julia Gron­n­evet con­firmed that the CERD was not rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the UN as a whole. “You are cor­rect that the Com­mit­tee on the Elim­i­na­tion of Racial Dis­crim­i­na­tion is an inde­pen­dent body,” Gron­n­evet wrote. “Quot­ed com­ments were made dur­ing pub­lic ses­sions of the Com­mit­tee when mem­bers were review­ing State par­ties.”

Thus the OHCHR implic­it­ly acknowl­edged that the com­ments by McDougall, the lone Amer­i­can mem­ber of an inde­pen­dent com­mit­tee, were not rep­re­sen­ta­tive of any find­ing by the UN as a whole. The report by Reuters is sim­ply false.

‘Cred­i­ble reports’ from US gov­ern­ment-fund­ed oppo­si­tion group with zero trans­paren­cy

In addi­tion to this irre­spon­si­ble mis­re­port­ing, Reuters and oth­er West­ern out­lets have attempt­ed to fill in the gaps left by McDougall, refer­ring to reports made by so-called “activist group” the Net­work of Chi­nese Human Rights Defend­ers (CHRD).

Con­ve­nient­ly left out of the sto­ry is that this orga­ni­za­tion is head­quar­tered in Wash­ing­ton, DC and fund­ed by the US government’s regime-change arm.

CHRD advo­cates full-time against the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment, and has spent years cam­paign­ing on behalf of extreme right-wing oppo­si­tion fig­ures.

CHRD is not at all trans­par­ent about its fund­ing or per­son­nel. Its annu­al reports con­tain notes stat­ing, “This report has been pro­duced with the finan­cial sup­port of gen­er­ous donors.” But the donors are nev­er named.

Pub­licly avail­able 990 IRS fil­ing forms reviewed by The Gray­zone show that the orga­ni­za­tion is sub­stan­tial­ly fund­ed by gov­ern­ment grants. In fact, in 2015 vir­tu­al­ly all of the organization’s rev­enue came from gov­ern­ment grants.

CHRD’s 2015 form 990 dis­clos­es that $819,553 of its $820,023 rev­enue that year (99.94 per­cent) came from gov­ern­ment grants. A measly $395 came from invest­ments, with anoth­er $75 from oth­er sources.

Accord­ing to its 2016 form 990, CHRD received $859,091 in gov­ern­ment grants in that year.

The gov­ern­ments that pro­vid­ed these grants have not been dis­closed. The Gray­zone did not receive a response to sev­er­al emailed inter­view requests sent to the Net­work of Chi­nese Human Rights Defend­ers.

How­ev­er, tax doc­u­ments uncov­ered by The Gray­zone show that a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of this group’s bud­get comes from the US government’s Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy (NED), a CIA-linked soft-pow­er group that was found­ed by the Ronald Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion in the 1980s to push regime change against inde­pen­dent gov­ern­ments and sup­port “free mar­kets” around the world.

In 2012, the NED gave the Net­work of Chi­nese Human Rights Defend­ers $490,000. In 2012, it got a $520,000 grant from the NED.

In 2014, the NED gave the group anoth­er $514,068.

This mas­sive stream of fund­ing con­tin­ued: $496,000 from the NED in 2015, and anoth­er $412,300 in 2016.

This NED grant in 2015 con­sti­tutes more than 60 per­cent of the $819,553 in gov­ern­ment grants CHRD received that year. The gov­ern­ments that pro­vid­ed the addi­tion­al $323,553 in fund­ing have not been dis­closed.

A search of the NED’s grants data­base fur­ther con­firms that this CIA-linked US gov­ern­ment soft-pow­er orga­ni­za­tion allo­cat­ed approx­i­mate­ly half a mil­lion dol­lars in 2014 and 2015 to “sup­port the work of Chi­nese human rights defend­ers.”

CHRD has used its gen­er­ous fund­ing to pro­vide grants to oppo­si­tion activists inside Chi­na, bankrolling dozens upon dozens of projects in the coun­try.

On its tax forms, CHRD lists its address as the Wash­ing­ton, DC office of Human Rights Watch. HRW has long been crit­i­cized for its revolv­ing door with the US gov­ern­ment and its exces­sive­ly dis­pro­por­tion­ate focus on des­ig­nat­ed ene­mies of Wash­ing­ton like Chi­na, Venezuela, Syr­ia, and Rus­sia.

Human Rights Watch did not respond to an email from The Gray­zone inquir­ing about its rela­tion­ship with CHRD.

A who’s who of right-wing oppo­si­tion activists

The Net­work of Chi­nese Human Rights Defend­ers’ forms 990 also reveal that the board of the orga­ni­za­tion is a Who’s Who of exiled Chi­nese anti-gov­ern­ment activists.

The chair of the group is the US-based activist Su Xiaokang, who pro­claimed that the Chi­nese pub­lic sup­pos­ed­ly “wants the U.S. to watch over activists, and is dis­ap­point­ed when Wash­ing­ton fails.” Fel­low US-based dis­si­dent Teng Biao is a CHRD direc­tor who has sar­cas­ti­cal­ly boast­ed of how the Chi­nese com­mu­nist par­ty dubbed him a “reac­tionary.”

CHRD’s sec­re­tary is the Amer­i­can aca­d­e­m­ic Per­ry Link, who has built on wind­ing up on the Chi­nese government’s aca­d­e­m­ic “black­list.” Link tes­ti­fied for the US House Com­mit­tee on For­eign Affairs in 2014, claim­ing that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment is threat­en­ing aca­d­e­m­ic free­dom in the US.

In his con­gres­sion­al tes­ti­mo­ny, CHRD sec­re­tary Link insist­ed the US gov­ern­ment should crack down on the Chi­nese government’s Con­fu­cius Insti­tute orga­ni­za­tion and instead fund its own pro-US Chi­nese-lan­guage pro­grams. Link char­ac­ter­ized Chi­nese-lan­guage pro­grams as a poten­tial Amer­i­can weapon against the Chi­nese com­mu­nist par­ty, argu­ing they could “very arguably do more to blunt the CPC’s advance than the [B‑2 Spir­it Bomber] air­plane could.”

These are some of the pro-US, anti-Chi­nese gov­ern­ment fig­ures who lead the Net­work of Chi­nese Human Rights Defend­ers.

Oth­er­wise, there is very lit­tle pub­licly avail­able infor­ma­tion about CHRD. It appears to large­ly be the brain­child of its inter­na­tion­al direc­tor, Renee Xia, an oppo­si­tion activist who has pub­licly called for the US gov­ern­ment to impose sanc­tions on Chi­nese offi­cials under the Mag­nit­sky Act.

Sup­port for a ‘non vio­lence advo­cate’ who loves America’s wars

The Net­work of Chi­nese Human Rights Defend­ers’ founder, Xia, was a strong sup­port­er of the impris­oned hard-right neo­con­ser­v­a­tive Chi­nese dis­si­dent Liu Xiaobo, and she cam­paigned years for his release.

An archived ver­sion of the group’s web­site shows that as far back as 2010, CHRD was vocif­er­ous­ly advo­cat­ing on behalf of Liu, while liken­ing the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment to Nazi Ger­many.

While Liu Xiaobo became a cause cele­bre of the West­ern lib­er­al intel­li­gen­sia, he was a staunch sup­port­er of colo­nial­ism, a fan of the most blood-soaked US mil­i­tary cam­paigns, and a hard­core lib­er­tar­i­an.

As writ­ers Bar­ry Saut­man and Yan Hairong report­ed in The Guardian in 2010, Liu led numer­ous US gov­ern­ment-fund­ed right-wing orga­ni­za­tions that advo­cat­ed mass pri­va­ti­za­tion and the West­ern­iza­tion of Chi­na. He also expressed open­ly racist views against the Chi­nese. “To choose West­ern­i­sa­tion is to choose to be human,” Liu insist­ed, lament­ing that tra­di­tion­al Chi­nese cul­ture had made its pop­u­la­tion “wimpy, spine­less, and fu cked up.”

While CHRD described Liu as an “advo­cate of non-vio­lence,” he prac­ti­cal­ly wor­shiped Pres­i­dent George W. Bush and strong­ly sup­port­ed the ille­gal US-led inva­sion of Iraq, as well as the war in Afghanistan. “Non-vio­lence advo­cate” Liu was even a fan of America’s wars in Korea and Viet­nam, which killed mil­lions of civil­ians.

CHRD’s most recent Chi­na report — the one cit­ed by Reuters and oth­er out­lets to give cre­dence to the alle­ga­tions of Uyghur re-edu­ca­tion camps — fur­ther high­lights the organization’s links to Wash­ing­ton and com­pro­mised impar­tial­i­ty.

Most sources on the Uighur ‘camps’ sto­ry are US gov­ern­ment-linked

A look at the sourc­ing of the Net­work of Chi­nese Human Rights Defend­ers’ research rais­es many doubts about its legit­i­ma­cy. For one, the most-cit­ed source in the CHRD report, account­ing for more than one-fifth of the 101 ref­er­ences, is Radio Free Asia, a news agency cre­at­ed by the CIA dur­ing the Cold War pump out anti-Chi­na pro­pa­gan­da, and still today fund­ed by the US gov­ern­ment.

Even The New York Times has referred to Radio Free Asia as a “World­wide Pro­pa­gan­da Net­work Built by the CIA.” Along with Voice of Amer­i­ca, Radio Free Europe / Radio Lib­er­ty, Radio y Tele­visión Martí, and Mid­dle East Broad­cast­ing Net­works, Radio Free Asia (RFA) is oper­at­ed by the Broad­cast­ing Board of Gov­er­nors (BBG), a fed­er­al agency of the US gov­ern­ment under the super­vi­sion of the State Depart­ment. Describ­ing its work as “vital to U.S. nation­al inter­ests,” BBG’s pri­ma­ry broad­cast­ing stan­dard is to be “con­sis­tent with the broad for­eign pol­i­cy objec­tives of the Unit­ed States.”

The near-total reliance on Wash­ing­ton-linked sources is char­ac­ter­is­tic of West­ern report­ing on Uighurs Mus­lims in Chi­na, and on the coun­try in gen­er­al, which reg­u­lar­ly fea­tures sen­sa­tion­al head­lines and alle­ga­tions.

In addi­tion to CHRD and RFA, it is com­mon for news reports to cite the World Uighur Con­gress, an orga­ni­za­tion fund­ed by the NED. At a recent NED event, The Gray­zone edi­tor Max Blu­men­thal inter­viewed World Uighur Con­gress chair­man Omer Kanat, who took cred­it for fur­nish­ing many of the claims of intern­ment camps to West­ern media.

Anoth­er puta­tive human rights orga­ni­za­tion whose dubi­ous reports are fre­quent­ly echoed by Radio Free Asia, the Inter­na­tion­al Uyghur Human Rights and Democ­ra­cy Foun­da­tion, is like­wise bankrolled by the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy.

This group received a stag­ger­ing $473,608 from the NED in 2009, along with $240,000 in 2010 and anoth­er $187,918 grant in 2011, putting it in the top tier of grantees those years.

The US government’s regime-change arm sim­i­lar­ly finances the Uyghur Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion. This group, anoth­er source for Radio Free Asia sto­ries, raked in $280,000 grants from the NED in 2010 and then again in 2011, along with $265,000 in 2009.

Yet anoth­er favorite con­gres­sion­al and main­stream media source for infor­ma­tion about Chi­na is the Jamestown Foun­da­tion, a neo­con­ser­v­a­tive think tank found­ed dur­ing the height of the Cold War by Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion per­son­nel with the sup­port of then-CIA Direc­tor William J. Casey. For­mer Jamestown board mem­bers include Dick Cheney and Zbig­niew Brzezin­s­ki.

The lat­est inci­dent of mis­re­port­ing by Reuters is part of a trend of increas­ing­ly hos­tile, Cold War-like cov­er­age of Chi­na by the West­ern press — one that coin­cides with Washington’s push for con­flict with Bei­jing . . . . 

2.  A Gray Zone piece from a cou­ple of months ago about a major main­stream pro­mo­tion of the geno­cide claims via a New York Times op-ed writ­ten by an Amer­i­can woman of Uyghur ances­try that more or less regur­gi­tat­ed the geno­cide claims of Adri­an Zenz. The op-ed neglect­ed men­tion that the author, Amelia Pang, was an employ­ee of The Epoch Times from 2011–2016.

That paper is an organ of the Falun Gong cult.

The Gray Zone arti­cle does more than detail a major exam­ple of main­stream media cat­a­pult­ing this mis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign.

The arti­cle under­scores how the ‘con­cen­tra­tion camp’ claims from the West sud­den­ly erupt­ed in 2017, after the Trump admin­is­tra­tion basi­cal­ly made a new Cold War with Chi­na a major for­eign pol­i­cy objec­tive in keep­ing with Steve Bannon’s vision of a new Great Pow­ers war.

Claims echoed by Zenz but orig­i­nat­ing from a a lone Uyghur sep­a­ratist media out­let in Turkey, Istiqlal TV, known for pro­vid­ing a plat­form to the al Qae­da-affil­i­at­ed East Turkestan Islam­ic Move­ment (ETIM).

Mike Pompeo’s State Depart­ment removed ETIM from the US government’s offi­cial ter­ror­ist list in Octo­ber 2020. In oth­er words, when we’re look­ing at this pro­pa­gan­da effort we’re watch­ing a coor­di­nat­ed high-lev­el inter­na­tion­al effort to legit­imize al Qaeda’s pro­pa­gan­da. Because of shared inter­ests:

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include:

  1. ” . . . . The author of the New York Times op-ed, Amelia Pang, hap­pens to be a for­mer employ­ee of the Epoch Times, a far-right pro­pa­gan­da arm of a fanat­i­cal anti-Chi­na cult called Falun Gong. . . .”
  2. ” . . . . Pang’s op-ed ran just days before the Trump admin­is­tra­tion for­mal­ly accused Bei­jing of geno­cide. US Sec­re­tary of State Mike Pom­peo, a far-right rap­ture-ready evan­gel­i­cal, alleged that Chi­na ‘has com­mit­ted geno­cide against the pre­dom­i­nant­ly Mus­lim Uyghurs and oth­er eth­nic and reli­gious minor­i­ty groups in Xin­jiang.’ The Pom­peo State Depart­ment pro­vid­ed no evi­dence to bol­ster its extreme accu­sa­tions, yet alleged that China’s cam­paign of ‘geno­cide’ began in March 2017. . . .”
  3. ” . . . . The report both Pang and NPR were cit­ing was not a Unit­ed Nations doc­u­ment, but rather an inves­ti­ga­tion by a far-right Ger­man aca­d­e­m­ic named Adri­an Zenz. . . .”
  4. ” . . . . To make her case that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment was guilty of “geno­cide,” Pang mis­lead­ing­ly implied that the Unit­ed Nations has accused Chi­na of the crime – a dis­in­for­ma­tion tac­tic that has become com­mon in anti-Chi­na report­ing in the West­ern media. But the UN has not done so. . . . ”
  5. ” . . . . As Ajit Singh and Max Blu­men­thal report­ed for The Gray­zone, Zenz’s esti­mate that ‘over 1 mil­lion’ Mus­lim minori­ties are held in ‘con­cen­tra­tion camps’ in Xin­jiang was based on a lone report by Istiqlal TV, an Islamist media out­let run by Uyghur sep­a­ratists based in Turkey. The out­let pro­vides a friend­ly plat­form for extrem­ist sup­port­ers of the East Turkestan Islam­ic Move­ment (ETIM), a sep­a­ratist group that seeks to build an Islam­ic state in Xin­jiang, which it calls East Turkestan. ...”
  6. ” . . . . ETIM, also known as the Turk­istan Islam­ic Par­ty (TIP), is an al-Qae­da-linked extrem­ist mili­tia that has car­ried out numer­ous ter­ror­ist attacks in Xin­jiang. ETIM, also known as the Turk­istan Islam­ic Par­ty (TIP), is an al-Qae­da-linked extrem­ist mili­tia that has car­ried out numer­ous ter­ror­ist attacks in Xin­jiang. It is rec­og­nized as a ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion by the Unit­ed Nations, Euro­pean Union, and many coun­tries. Pompeo’s State Depart­ment removed ETIM from the US government’s offi­cial ter­ror­ist list in Octo­ber 2020, as part of Washington’s inten­si­fy­ing cold war on Chi­na. . . .”
  7. ” . . . . The pho­to Pang ref­er­enced has been heav­i­ly cir­cu­lat­ed by West­ern media out­lets and NGOs, and is upheld as prac­ti­cal­ly the only image prov­ing the exis­tence of ‘con­cen­tra­tion camps’ run by Bei­jing. This char­ac­ter­i­za­tion is how­ev­er deeply mis­lead­ing. The pho­to was not tak­en by some coura­geous pris­on­er or cru­sad­ing inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist; it was pub­lished by the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment itself, in a press release from 2014 — three years before the State Depart­ment claimed the ‘geno­cide’ began in Xin­jiang. In fact, the orig­i­nal image was pub­lished on the Xin­jiang Bureau of Justice’s own WeChat account, with a water­mark iden­ti­fy­ing it as an offi­cial pho­to tak­en by Chi­nese author­i­ties. West­ern anti-Chi­na pro­pa­gan­dists have sub­se­quent­ly cropped off the water­mark and pre­sent­ed the pho­to as proof of Chi­na caught in the act. . . .”
  8. ” . . . . At the top of her per­son­al web­site, Amelia Pang adver­tis­es her book, “Made in Chi­na: A Pris­on­er, an SOS Let­ter, and the Hid­den Cost of America’s Cheap Goods,” which is due in Feb­ru­ary 2021. The book’s home­page high­lights a blurb writ­ten by Orville Schell . . . . Schell also has an eye­brow-rais­ing record of work at the Ford Foun­da­tion, a CIA cut-out, in Indone­sia from 1964 to 1966, at pre­cise­ly the time when the country’s US-backed mil­i­tary dic­ta­tor­ship was enact­ing an actu­al geno­cide. With help from the CIA, Indonesia’s dic­ta­tor Suhar­to mur­dered between 1 and 3 mil­lion com­mu­nists, left-wing sym­pa­thiz­ers, labor orga­niz­ers, and eth­nic Chi­nese peo­ple, in what the CIA pri­vate­ly admit­ted was ‘one of the worst mass mur­ders of the 20th cen­tu­ry,’ along­side the Nazi Holo­caust. . . .”
  1. “NY Times’ pseu­do-expert accus­ing Chi­na of geno­cide worked for far-right cult Falun Gong’s pub­lic­i­ty arm” by Ben Nor­ton; The Gray Zone; 01/28/2021

The New York Times recy­cled flim­sy claims by a right-wing apoc­a­lyp­tic extrem­ist to accuse Chi­na of “geno­cide,” in an op-ed by an Amer­i­can with 1/8th Uighur her­itage who worked for Epoch Times, a far-right, pro-Trump out­let backed by cult Falun Gong.

The New York Times pub­lished a fac­tu­al­ly chal­lenged op-ed accus­ing Chi­na of com­mit­ting “geno­cide” against its Uighur minor­i­ty. The arti­cle sourced its spu­ri­ous accu­sa­tions to a right-wing oper­a­tive who insists his research is part of a divine “mis­sion” against Bei­jing that is “led by God.”

The author of the New York Times op-ed, Amelia Pang, hap­pens to be a for­mer employ­ee of the Epoch Times, a far-right pro­pa­gan­da arm of a fanat­i­cal anti-Chi­na cult called Falun Gong. The extrem­ist group preach­es that race-mix­ing, homo­sex­u­al­i­ty, fem­i­nism, and sci­ence are Satan­ic plots, and reveres Don­ald Trump as a God-like fig­ure who was sent down from heav­en to destroy the Com­mu­nist Par­ty of Chi­na.

In a state­ment to The Gray­zone, Pang said, “The Epoch Times and the Falun Gong group do not rep­re­sent my views in any way.”

How­ev­er, a review of her five years of work at the Epoch Times shows Pang churned out hyper­bol­ic anti-Chi­na report­ing while pub­lish­ing at least 17 arti­cles pro­mot­ing the Falun Gong cult or its cul­tur­al front group, Shen Yun.

The New York Times’ deci­sion to run Pang’s com­men­tary was iron­ic in light of the lengthy fea­ture it pub­lished on the Falun Gong pro­pa­gan­da arm in Octo­ber 2020, which brand­ed the Epoch Times a “lead­ing pur­vey­or of right-wing mis­in­for­ma­tion” that is “push­ing dan­ger­ous con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries” with a “will­ing­ness to feed the online fever swamps of the far right,” and a “grow­ing influ­ence in Mr. Trump’s inner cir­cle.”

In her Times op-ed, Pang deployed her 1/8th Uighur her­itage to por­tray her­self and her fam­i­ly as vic­tims of a pur­port­ed “geno­cide” car­ried out by the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment. At the same time, she acknowl­edged that she has lived her entire life in the Unit­ed States, and there­fore has lit­tle famil­iar­i­ty with Chi­na and its soci­ety.

Pang’s op-ed ran just days before the Trump admin­is­tra­tion for­mal­ly accused Bei­jing of geno­cide. US Sec­re­tary of State Mike Pom­peo, a far-right rap­ture-ready evan­gel­i­cal, alleged that Chi­na “has com­mit­ted geno­cide against the pre­dom­i­nant­ly Mus­lim Uyghurs and oth­er eth­nic and reli­gious minor­i­ty groups in Xin­jiang.”

The Pom­peo State Depart­ment pro­vid­ed no evi­dence to bol­ster its extreme accu­sa­tions, yet alleged that China’s cam­paign of “geno­cide” began in March 2017.

The Gray­zone has report­ed exten­sive­ly on the West­ern dis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign against Chi­na, chron­i­cling how dis­crim­i­na­tion against the Uighurs and oth­er minori­ties have been spun into accu­sa­tions of geno­cide, includ­ing claims of “con­cen­tra­tion camps” hold­ing mil­lions of detainees. In near­ly every case, incen­di­ary cor­po­rate media and State Depart­ment claims relat­ed to the issue rely on ques­tion­able research by a sin­gle far-right oper­a­tive with extrem­ist views and a net­work of anti-Chi­na NGOs fund­ed by the US gov­ern­ment and the arms indus­try.

The New York Times has been a cen­tral con­vey­or belt for the trans­mis­sion of the US infor­ma­tion war against Chi­na, pro­vid­ing it with a crit­i­cal pati­na of jour­nal­is­tic cred­i­bil­i­ty and mar­ket­ing it to the lib­er­al intel­li­gen­sia that com­pris­es the Times’ read­er­ship.

For­mer Epoch Times reporter relies on far-right oper­a­tive in New York Times

The New York Times print­ed Pang’s op-ed, “It Took a Geno­cide for Me to Remem­ber My Uighur Roots,” on Jan­u­ary 10. The faulty arti­cle was a case study in how lit­tle evi­dence cor­po­rate media edi­tors require to green light a piece as long as it accus­es offi­cial US ene­mies of the most titan­ic of war crimes.

The Times trans­lat­ed the op-ed from Eng­lish into both sim­pli­fied and tra­di­tion­al Chi­nese so it could be read around the world.

In the arti­cle, Pang acknowl­edged, “I have lived in the Unit­ed States my entire life,” and “no one [in my fam­i­ly] had ever vis­it­ed Xin­jiang apart from my moth­er and one aunt, and nei­ther of them had stayed in touch with the rel­a­tives they met.”

But she wrote, “my mater­nal grand­moth­er was half Uighur” – or, her great-grand­moth­er was Uighur, which made her 1/8th Uighur. And in the hyper-iden­ti­tar­i­an neolib­er­al cul­ture that now dom­i­nates the New York Times news­room, this was enough to con­fer unas­sail­able author­i­ty upon the author.

Despite her dis­tant con­nec­tion to Chi­na, Pang char­ac­ter­ized her­self and her fam­i­ly as vic­tims of the Chi­nese com­mu­nist par­ty. “China’s forced assim­i­la­tion poli­cies still reached me,” she wrote, attribut­ing her total lack of knowl­edge of Uighur cul­ture not to her family’s fair­ly typ­i­cal sto­ry of assim­i­la­tion as Amer­i­can immi­grants, but rather to Beijing’s sup­posed cru­el­ty.

“I’m sor­ry it took a geno­cide for me to remem­ber I am Uighur,” Pang tweet­ed.

My essay in the @nytopinion on my fam­i­ly’s lost Uighur roots. I’m sor­ry it took a geno­cide for me to remem­ber I am Uighur.https://t.co/nUpmTsFKy6— Amelia Pang (@ameliapangg) Jan­u­ary 11, 2021

It is notable that the Times was so will­ing to enter­tain the accusato­ry angst of a US pun­dit with 1/8th Uighur her­itage, while it active­ly ignores and silences the many Uighurs born and raised in China’s Xin­jiang province, who sup­port the Com­mu­nist Par­ty of Chi­na and the government’s devel­op­men­tal poli­cies. The de fac­to pol­i­cy is sim­i­lar to its dis­portion­ate reliance on quotes from lib­er­al and Islamist exiles from Syr­ia while refus­ing to quote mem­bers of the country’s loy­al­ist major­i­ty liv­ing inside Syr­ia.

Mean­while, social media plat­forms like Twit­ter and Face­book have sus­pend­ed the accounts of promi­nent Uighurs and oth­er Chi­nese Mus­lims who pro­vid­ed an alter­na­tive per­spec­tive on the con­flict. In West­ern media, only one view­point is allowed: that which serves the inter­est of Wash­ing­ton and its new Cold War.

Pang’s Times arti­cle was also sig­nif­i­cant in the polit­i­cal mark­er it estab­lished: It allowed the news­pa­per of record to accuse Bei­jing of geno­cide, echo­ing the US gov­ern­ment, while main­tain­ing a veneer of inde­pen­dence by doing so through an op-ed.

In her arti­cle, Pang moved well beyond crit­i­ciz­ing Chi­nese dis­crim­i­na­tion against the minor­i­ty Uighur com­mu­ni­ty and the government’s heavy-hand­ed approach to com­bat­ing Islamist extrem­ist sep­a­ratist groups in the region, who have car­ried out a wave of ter­ror­ist attacks tar­get­ing both gov­ern­ment tar­gets and civil­ians.

To make her case that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment was guilty of “geno­cide,” Pang mis­lead­ing­ly implied that the Unit­ed Nations has accused Chi­na of the crime – a dis­in­for­ma­tion tac­tic that has become com­mon in anti-Chi­na report­ing in the West­ern media. But the UN has not done so.

“In recent years, iden­ti­fy­ing as Uighur has become a mat­ter of life and death,” Pang wrote. “What start­ed as a cul­tur­al geno­cide has pro­gressed into a lit­er­al one, as defined by the Unit­ed Nations.”

In this decep­tive­ly word­ed line, Pang linked to an arti­cle by US gov­ern­ment-fund­ed broad­cast­er NPR, titled “Chi­na Sup­pres­sion Of Uighur Minori­ties Meets U.N. Def­i­n­i­tion Of Geno­cide, Report Says.” This arti­cle is also mis­lead­ing.

The report both Pang and NPR were cit­ing was not a Unit­ed Nations doc­u­ment, but rather an inves­ti­ga­tion by a far-right Ger­man aca­d­e­m­ic named Adri­an Zenz.

The Gray­zone has pre­vi­ous­ly revealed Zenz to be an extrem­ist Chris­t­ian who oppos­es homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and gen­der equal­i­ty and claims to be “led by God” against Chi­na.

Claims that Chi­na has detained mil­lions of Uyghur Mus­lims are based large­ly on two stud­ies. @ajitxsingh & @MaxBlumenthal exam­ine these dubi­ous papers, their US gov­ern­ment back­ers, shod­dy method­olo­gies – and the rap­ture-ready “researcher” Adri­an Zenz.https://t.co/jvEy8WvrOO— The Gray­zone (@TheGrayzoneNews) Decem­ber 25, 2019

Zenz even told the Wall Street Jour­nal that his high­ly ques­tion­able work on Xin­jiang is “like a mis­sion, or a min­istry” for him. That is to say, his research is explic­it­ly moti­vat­ed by his ide­ol­o­gy, the pre­cise oppo­site of social sci­ence.

The far-right Ger­man aca­d­e­m­ic is the source for prac­ti­cal­ly every West­ern media report alleg­ing “geno­cide” and enor­mous con­cen­tra­tion camps in Xin­jiang. Zenz, who has not spent a sig­nif­i­cant peri­od of time in Chi­na, and has no evi­dent schol­ar­ly exper­tise on Chi­nese pol­i­tics, his­to­ry, or soci­ety, is not so much an aca­d­e­m­ic as he is a right-wing oper­a­tive.

Zenz has also found time to vol­un­teer his belief that God’s apoc­a­lyp­tic Rap­ture will soon come, and Jews who refuse to con­vert to Chris­tian­i­ty will, in his words, be “wiped out” and shoved in a “fiery fur­nace,” as jour­nal­ist Dan Cohen report­ed.

Adri­an Zenz, the pri­ma­ry source of west­ern media reports on Uyghur “con­cen­tra­tion camps”, is a Ger­man anti-Semi­te who believes Jews that refuse to con­vert to Chris­tian­i­ty will be “wiped out” and put into a “fiery fur­nace”.https://t.co/4iMObYmEzC pic.twitter.com/Unc7rvprCN— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) August 10, 2020

Adri­an Zenz works for the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion, a right-wing lob­by group that was found­ed by the US gov­ern­ment and is linked close­ly to the Repub­li­can Par­ty. His research on Xin­jiang is clear­ly polit­i­cal­ly moti­vat­ed by his explic­it desire to demo­nize the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment and even­tu­al­ly over­throw the com­mu­nist par­ty.

As Ajit Singh and Max Blu­men­thal report­ed for The Gray­zone, Zenz’s esti­mate that “over 1 mil­lion” Mus­lim minori­ties are held in “con­cen­tra­tion camps” in Xin­jiang was based on a lone report by Istiqlal TV, an Islamist media out­let run by Uyghur sep­a­ratists based in Turkey. The out­let pro­vides a friend­ly plat­form for extrem­ist sup­port­ers of the East Turkestan Islam­ic Move­ment (ETIM), a sep­a­ratist group that seeks to build an Islam­ic state in Xin­jiang, which it calls East Turkestan.

ETIM, also known as the Turk­istan Islam­ic Par­ty (TIP), is an al-Qae­da-linked extrem­ist mili­tia that has car­ried out numer­ous ter­ror­ist attacks in Xin­jiang. It is rec­og­nized as a ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion by the Unit­ed Nations, Euro­pean Union, and many coun­tries. Pompeo’s State Depart­ment removed ETIM from the US government’s offi­cial ter­ror­ist list in Octo­ber 2020, as part of Washington’s inten­si­fy­ing cold war on Chi­na.

Despite the mas­sive and well-doc­u­ment­ed flaws in Zenz’s research, Amelia Pang cit­ed him by name in her Times op-ed, echo­ing his work to accuse Chi­na of over­see­ing a mas­sive increase in “forced ster­il­iza­tions” in Xin­jiang.

In her arti­cle, Pang referred to Zenz sim­ply as “an expert on China’s eth­nic poli­cies,” con­ve­nient­ly over­look­ing his extreme-right polit­i­cal views and his work for a US gov­ern­ment-linked right-wing lob­by group.

Despite his wide­spread por­tray­al as an “expert,” it is not clear if Zenz even speaks Man­darin Chi­nese or Uighur. The aca­d­e­m­ic has not done any pub­lic events show­ing pro­fi­cien­cy in either lan­guage. When jour­nal­ists from The Gray­zone asked Zenz about his qual­i­fi­ca­tions, he blocked them on social media.

Mis­lead­ing­ly dis­tort­ing China’s anti-extrem­ism re-edu­ca­tion cen­ters

From the very first line, Amelia Pang’s New York Times op-ed was based on dis­tor­tions. She wrote, “The first time I tru­ly real­ized I was Uighur was just three years ago, when I saw the now-infa­mous viral pho­to of rows of Tur­kic men in dark blue uni­forms, sit­ting in a con­cen­tra­tion camp in Hotan, Xin­jiang, a so-called Uighur autonomous region in Chi­na.”

The pho­to Pang ref­er­enced has been heav­i­ly cir­cu­lat­ed by West­ern media out­lets and NGOs, and is upheld as prac­ti­cal­ly the only image prov­ing the exis­tence of “con­cen­tra­tion camps” run by Bei­jing. This char­ac­ter­i­za­tion is how­ev­er deeply mis­lead­ing.

The pho­to was not tak­en by some coura­geous pris­on­er or cru­sad­ing inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist; it was pub­lished by the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment itself, in a press release from 2014 — three years before the State Depart­ment claimed the “geno­cide” began in Xin­jiang.

In fact, the orig­i­nal image was pub­lished on the Xin­jiang Bureau of Justice’s own WeChat account, with a water­mark iden­ti­fy­ing it as an offi­cial pho­to tak­en by Chi­nese author­i­ties. West­ern anti-Chi­na pro­pa­gan­dists have sub­se­quent­ly cropped off the water­mark and pre­sent­ed the pho­to as proof of Chi­na caught in the act.

The pho­to shows a de-rad­i­cal­iza­tion pro­gram at a Chi­nese deten­tion cen­ter in Luopu Coun­ty, Xin­jiang on April 7, 2014.

The Chi­nese gov­ern­ment press release said the event fea­tured talks from local Mus­lim lead­ers and pre­sen­ta­tions focused on “social sta­bil­i­ty” and “long-term peace” which “clear­ly clar­i­fied the tra­di­tion­al teach­ings and rules of Islam and right­eous­ness; clar­i­fied the seri­ous harm of reli­gious extrem­ism and vio­lent ter­ror­ist activ­i­ties; clar­i­fied the impor­tance of the uni­ty and strug­gle of all eth­nic groups in Xin­jiang for com­mon pros­per­i­ty and devel­op­ment; clar­i­fied the impor­tance of Xinjiang’s devel­op­ment.”

Oth­er pho­tos tak­en at the same 2014 anti-extrem­ist event in Xin­jiang have nev­er been shared in West­ern media reports, and for obvi­ous rea­sons: they depict innocu­ous scenes that stand at odds with the offi­cial US gov­ern­ment por­tray­al.

While the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment has chal­lenged hyper­bol­ic accu­sa­tions of run­ning “con­cen­tra­tion camps,” it has open­ly admit­ted to oper­at­ing de-rad­i­cal­iza­tion cen­ters for Islamist extrem­ists – mem­bers of the same sep­a­ratist orga­ni­za­tions that have car­ried out scores of mass casu­al­ty attacks in the Xin­jiang region, killing state offi­cials and civil­ians alike.

It is cer­tain­ly fair to char­ac­ter­ize the tac­tics used in the Chi­nese government’s crack­down on extrem­ism and sep­a­ratism in Xin­jiang as heavy-hand­ed, and even repres­sive, but the real­i­ty is a far cry from a cam­paign of “geno­cide.”

The term “con­cen­tra­tion camp” in West­ern anti-Chi­na pro­pa­gan­da is clear­ly meant to invoke the mass exter­mi­na­tion that took place in Nazi death camps. Washington’s goal is to depict Bei­jing as a Nazi-like gov­ern­ment, in order to jus­ti­fy aggres­sive US actions against the coun­try and an even­tu­al push for regime change.

The high­ly sus­pect research from anti-Chi­na activists like Adri­an Zenz have absurd­ly exag­ger­at­ed the num­ber of peo­ple who have passed through these re-edu­ca­tion cen­ters. The bot­tom-feed­ing pun­dits des­per­ate to val­i­date Zenz’s shod­dy research have resort­ed to car­toon­ish­ly pre­pos­ter­ous pro­pa­gan­da that por­trays the sit­u­a­tion as worse than the Nazi Holo­caust.

This car­toon­ish & insult­ing pro­pa­gan­da illus­trates why @TheGrayzoneNews has chal­lenged dom­i­nant US gov’t/media claims on Xin­jiang. CJ’s “source” works w/ an NED-fund­ed sep­a­ratist group. (https://t.co/5KR3ELwaxb). Just as dubi­ous as far-right Adri­an Zenz. (https://t.co/1TSEZbXAuAhttps://t.co/bScwv9zAmx— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) August 24, 2020

Before the US ini­ti­at­ed its new Cold War with Chi­na, West­ern cor­po­rate media out­lets open­ly acknowl­edged that Chi­na faced a major nation­al secu­ri­ty threat in Xin­jiang in the form of a Wah­habist sep­a­ratist move­ment deter­mined to desta­bi­lize the entire region and ulti­mate­ly break away.

In a 2017 report titled “Uighurs fight­ing in Syr­ia take aim at Chi­na,” the Asso­ci­at­ed Press report­ed, “Since 2013, thou­sands of Uighurs, a Tur­kic-speak­ing Mus­lim minor­i­ty from west­ern Chi­na, have trav­eled to Syr­ia to train with the Uighur mil­i­tant group Turk­istan Islam­ic Par­ty and fight along­side al-Qai­da, play­ing key roles in sev­er­al bat­tles.”

The AP con­tin­ued: “Uighur mil­i­tants have killed hun­dreds, if not thou­sands, in attacks inside Chi­na in a decades-long insur­gency that ini­tial­ly tar­get­ed police and oth­er sym­bols of Chi­nese author­i­ty but in recent years also includ­ed civil­ians.”

The out­let quot­ed a Uighur mil­i­tant who said his group trav­eled to Syr­ia “to learn how to use the weapons and then go back to Chi­na.” Anoth­er extrem­ist said they were bas­ing their move­ment on Zion­ism, and hoped to cre­ate an Islamist ver­sion of Israel in mod­ern-day Xin­jiang.

“The end of Syria’s war may be the begin­ning of China’s worst fears,” the AP wrote.

While Wash­ing­ton has pre­ferred killing Islamist extrem­ists like these with drones and mil­i­tary inter­ven­tions, Chi­na has resort­ed to re-edu­ca­tion cen­ters.

For Bei­jing, the Xin­jiang region is extreme­ly impor­tant. It is a key geo-strate­gic loca­tion that lies at the heart of the New Silk Road that will pro­vide an eco­nom­ic bridge between Chi­na and Cen­tral Asia.

Wash­ing­ton has made it clear that it wants to sab­o­tage Beijing’s Belt and Road Ini­tia­tive, an ambi­tious plan to link Glob­al South nations and recen­ter Asia in the glob­al econ­o­my.

And the Unit­ed States knows it can throw a mas­sive wrench in China’s plans by encour­ag­ing sep­a­ratist move­ments in Xin­jiang.

This is pre­cise­ly why Washington’s regime-change arm the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy (NED), a CIA cutout estab­lished by the Ronald Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion at the end of the first Cold War, has poured mil­lions of dol­lars into Uighur sep­a­ratist groups.

The NED pub­licly boast­ed of its sup­port for the Uighur sep­a­ratist move­ment on Twit­ter in Decem­ber 2020.

To fur­ther #human­rights & human dig­ni­ty for all peo­ple in Chi­na, the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy has fund­ed Uyghur groups since 2004. #NEDemoc­ra­cy #Human­Rights­Day https://t.co/C0LJEyWxq1 pic.twitter.com/OqZdehdxXN— NEDemoc­ra­cy (@NEDemocracy) Decem­ber 10, 2020

The accu­sa­tions of geno­cide and con­cen­tra­tion camps in Chi­na also fail to take into account a glob­al per­spec­tive. The Unit­ed States has less than 5 per­cent of the planet’s pop­u­la­tion, but near­ly 25 per­cent of its pris­on­ers.

Careerism in the new Cold War

Amelia Pang is the author of “Made in Chi­na: A Pris­on­er, an SOS Let­ter, and the Hid­den Cost of America’s Cheap Goods,” a book advanc­ing the forced labor alle­ga­tions made against Chi­na by the US State Depart­ment.

Though she presents her­self as a lib­er­al, Pang sup­port­ed the Trump administration’s eco­nom­ic attacks on the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment, clam­or­ing for the most aggres­sive mea­sures avail­able.

In Jan­u­ary, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion announced strict trade poli­cies ban­ning the import of cot­ton and toma­toes from China’s Xin­jiang province, the autonomous region where most Uighurs live.

The right-wing Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion, which employs Adri­an Zenz and has exten­sive links to the US gov­ern­ment, claimed cred­it for help­ing to advanc­ing the new pol­i­cy.

Pang took to Twit­ter to praise the Trump administration’s eco­nom­ic restric­tions.

YES. https://t.co/WCTYEoqcf2— Amelia Pang (@ameliapangg) Jan­u­ary 14, 2021

When Pang pub­lished her op-ed with the New York Times, the news­pa­per of record curi­ous­ly omit­ted her five years of work for the Epoch Times from her bio.

Pang’s pub­licly avail­able LinkedIn pro­file shows that she worked for the pro­pa­gan­da arm of the Falun Gong cult between 2011 and 2016.

Iron­i­cal­ly, the New York Times’ report­ing on the Epoch Times acknowl­edged that many of Falun Gong’s “stri­dent accounts of per­se­cu­tion in Chi­na can some­times be dif­fi­cult to sub­stan­ti­ate or veer into exag­ger­a­tion.”

The New York Times referred to the Epoch Times as a “glob­al-scale mis­in­for­ma­tion machine that has repeat­ed­ly pushed fringe nar­ra­tives into the main­stream,” not­ing that the Falun Gong pro­pa­gan­da out­let has even pro­mot­ed the out­landish QAnon con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry.

Pang fre­quent­ly report­ed on Chi­na-relat­ed issues for the Epoch Times. Some of her arti­cles includ­ed bla­tant PR for Falun Gong, with titles like “Lis­ten: Musi­cians From Swe­den to Mex­i­co Sing for Falun Gong.”

Pang’s anti-Chi­na Epoch Times reports go all the way back to 2011, when she ampli­fied Falun Gong protests and described China’s Nation­al Day, the anniver­sary of the found­ing of the People’s Repub­lic, as a “Nation­al Tragedy Day to rebuff the Com­mu­nist Par­ty and its his­to­ry of vio­lence and atroc­i­ty.”

Pang also wrote at least 12 PR pieces open­ly pro­mot­ing Shen Yun, a dance form that is used as a cul­tur­al front for the Falun Gong cult. In one, she quot­ed an Oba­ma White House staff mem­ber who called it the “best show around the world.”

Pang also churned out a puff piece on anti-Chi­na sep­a­ratist leader Rebiya Kadeer, the mul­ti­mil­lion­aire Uighur oli­garch who, from inside the Unit­ed States, pre­vi­ous­ly ran the right-wing group the World Uyghur Con­gress, which is fund­ed by the US government’s NED regime-change arm.

In the fawn­ing pro­file, Pang herozied Kadeer as the “Dalai Lama of Xin­jiang.” Not­ing that Kadeer was “China’s Rich­est Woman” and “the sev­enth rich­est per­son in Chi­na at the time,” Pang tout­ed the Uyghur sep­a­ratist leader as “one of the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Party’s top pub­lic ene­mies.”

Not only was Pang aware of the US gov­ern­ment fund­ing for Kadeer’s sep­a­ratist activ­i­ties, she cel­e­brat­ed it in the arti­cle. “Remark­ably, Kadeer has man­aged to get fund­ing from the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy and pri­vate donors for the two orga­ni­za­tions she heads, the Uyghur Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion and the World Uyghur Con­gress,” Pang wrote.

Pang also not­ed how, in a pri­vate meet­ing with George W. Bush in 2007, the US pres­i­dent praised Kadeer as “far more valu­able than the weapons of [China’s] army or oil under the ground.”

In this Epoch Times puff piece, Pang went so far as to accuse Chi­na of “har­vest­ing the organs of live Uyghur pris­on­ers.”

As her source for the accu­sa­tion, Pang cit­ed a book by Ethan Gut­mann, an eccen­tric Amer­i­can anti-Chi­na activist who has tes­ti­fied for the CIA, US Con­gress, and Knes­set. His research has been fund­ed in part by the NED.

Gut­mann also worked for neo­con­ser­v­a­tive think tanks like the Project for the New Amer­i­can Cen­tu­ry (PNAC) and Foun­da­tion for Defense of Democ­ra­cies (FDD), key insti­tu­tion­al forces behind the Iraq War and the push for a war on Iran. Gutmann’s high­ly ide­o­log­i­cal research, which is often based on lit­tle more than rumors, was called into ques­tion even by the for­mer may­or of Taipei, Tai­wan, Beijing’s prin­ci­pal polit­i­cal rival.

The Gray­zone con­tact­ed Amelia Pang with a request for com­ment, inquir­ing if she was aware of the Epoch Times’ close rela­tion­ship with Falun Gong and if she has had any affil­i­a­tion with the cult. She replied with just one line: “The Epoch Times and the Falun Gong group do not rep­re­sent my views in any way.”

Inter­est­ing piece by @malipaquin @guardian. A Falun Gong prac­ti­tion­er seeks the Miss World crown – in Chi­na http://t.co/aesSV5NIwf— Amelia Pang (@ameliapangg) August 28, 2015

Anti-Chi­na book pro­mot­ed by influ­en­tial US regime-change activist

At the top of her per­son­al web­site, Amelia Pang adver­tis­es her book, “Made in Chi­na: A Pris­on­er, an SOS Let­ter, and the Hid­den Cost of America’s Cheap Goods,” which is due in Feb­ru­ary 2021.

The book’s home­page high­lights a blurb writ­ten by Orville Schell, the direc­tor of the Cen­ter on U.S.-China Rela­tions at the Asia Soci­ety, an influ­en­tial NGO fund­ed by the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion and oth­er foun­da­tions with his­toric links to the US intel­li­gence appa­ra­tus.

Schell also has an eye­brow-rais­ing record of work at the Ford Foun­da­tion, a CIA cut-out, in Indone­sia from 1964 to 1966, at pre­cise­ly the time when the country’s US-backed mil­i­tary dic­ta­tor­ship was enact­ing an actu­al geno­cide. With help from the CIA, Indonesia’s dic­ta­tor Suhar­to mur­dered between 1 and 3 mil­lion com­mu­nists, left-wing sym­pa­thiz­ers, labor orga­niz­ers, and eth­nic Chi­nese peo­ple, in what the CIA pri­vate­ly admit­ted was “one of the worst mass mur­ders of the 20th cen­tu­ry,” along­side the Nazi Holo­caust.

Schell under­took his Ford Foun­da­tion fel­low­ship in Jakar­ta when he was a grad­u­ate stu­dent at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia, Berke­ley – the same insti­tu­tion where an infa­mous group of Indone­sian econ­o­mists known as the “Berke­ley Mafia” were trained with Ford Foun­da­tion fund­ing in the cap­i­tal­ist shock ther­a­py they imposed on Indonesia’s for­mer­ly social­ist-ori­ent­ed econ­o­my.

The endorse­ment of Pang’s book by a fig­ure like Schell high­lights the use­ful­ness of her writ­ing to West­ern for­eign pol­i­cy elites. Her work was so use­ful, in fact, that her many years of employ­ment by a far-right pub­lic­i­ty arm for an anti-Chi­na cult that even the New York Times has lam­bast­ed was appar­ent­ly nec­es­sary to con­ceal.

———-

5. Anti-Asian racism is very much at the fore­front of pub­lic con­scious­ness at the moment. It would be disin­gen­u­ous for any­one to claim that the phe­nom­e­non  was unre­lat­ed to the full-court press against Chi­na.

Exem­pli­fy­ing that racism is a mem­ber of the Pan-Turk­ist fas­cist MHP par­ty, which is front and cen­ter in the anti-Uighur desta­bi­liza­tion effort and the prop­a­ga­tion of the “geno­cide” myth. (We have dis­cussed Pan-Turk­ist fas­cism in–among oth­er pro­grams–AFA #14  and FTR #59.)

. . . . . In 2015, mem­bers of the MHP-affil­i­at­ed Grey Wolves for­mer­ly led by Alparslan Türkes attacked South Kore­an tourists in Turkey, mis­tak­ing them for Chi­nese cit­i­zens, in protest of the sit­u­a­tion in Xin­jiang. Turk­ish MHP par­ty leader Devlet Bahçeli defend­ed the attacks. ‘How are you going to dif­fer­en­ti­ate between Kore­an and Chi­nese?’ the right­ist politi­cian ques­tioned. ‘They both have slant­ed eyes. Does it real­ly mat­ter?’ . . . .”

“Inside the World Uyghur Con­gress: The US-backed right-wing regime change net­work seek­ing the ‘fall of Chi­na’” by Ajit Singh; The Gray Zone; 03/05/2020

. . . . . In 2015, mem­bers of the MHP-affil­i­at­ed Grey Wolves for­mer­ly led by Alparslan Türkes attacked South Kore­an tourists in Turkey, mis­tak­ing them for Chi­nese cit­i­zens, in protest of the sit­u­a­tion in Xin­jiang.

Turk­ish MHP par­ty leader Devlet Bahçeli defend­ed the attacks. “How are you going to dif­fer­en­ti­ate between Kore­an and Chi­nese?” the right­ist politi­cian ques­tioned. “They both have slant­ed eyes. Does it real­ly mat­ter?” Bahceli’s racist remarks coin­cid­ed with the dis­play of a Grey Wolves ban­ner at party’s Istan­bul head­quar­ters read­ing, “We crave Chi­nese blood.” . . . . 

4. Yet anoth­er inci­sive, coura­geous arti­cle about the myth of Uighur geno­cide was pub­lished by The Gray­zone in March.

The vehi­cle for launch­ing this pro­pa­gan­da is The New­lines Insti­tute, a sub­sidiary ele­ment of Fair­fax Uni­ver­si­ty of Amer­i­ca.

The founder of New­lines Insti­tute is Ahmed Alwani, Vice-Pres­i­dent of the Inter­na­tion­al Islam­ic Insti­tute, one of the orga­ni­za­tions raid­ed by Trea­sury Depart­ment and FBI agents on 3/20/2002 for alleged­ly fund­ing Al-Qae­da and oth­er Mus­lim-Broth­er­hood linked ter­ror­ist groups.

Key Ele­ments of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: 

  1. ” . . . . The report, pub­lished on March 8 by the New­lines Insti­tute for Strat­e­gy and Pol­i­cy, in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Raoul Wal­len­berg Cen­tre for Human Rights, fol­lows a last-minute accu­sa­tion made in Jan­u­ary by the out­go­ing Trump admin­is­tra­tion, along with sim­i­lar dec­la­ra­tions by the Dutch and Cana­di­an Par­lia­ments. It was pub­lished short­ly after the release of a remark­ably sim­i­lar report on Feb­ru­ary 8 that was com­mis­sioned by the US gov­ern­ment-backed World Uyghur Con­gress, and which alleged that there is a ‘cred­i­ble case’ against the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment for geno­cide. . . .”
  2. ” . . . . Ahmed Alwani is the founder and pres­i­dent of the New­lines Insti­tute. Alwani pre­vi­ous­ly served on the advi­so­ry board for the U.S. military’s Africa Com­mand (AFRICOM) and is the Vice Pres­i­dent of the Inter­na­tion­al Insti­tute of Islam­ic Thought (IIIT); his father, Taha Jabir Al-Alwani was one of IIIT’s founders. . . .”
  3. ” . . . . New­lines’ report relies pri­mar­i­ly on the dubi­ous stud­ies of Adri­an Zenz, the US gov­ern­ment pro­pa­gan­da out­let, Radio Free Asia, and claims made by the US-fund­ed sep­a­ratist net­work, the World Uyghur Con­gress. These three sources com­prise more than one-third of the ref­er­ences used to con­struct the fac­tu­al basis of the doc­u­ment, with Zenz as the most heav­i­ly relied upon source – cit­ed on more than 50 occa­sions. Many of the remain­ing ref­er­ences cite the work of mem­bers of New­lines Institute’s Uyghur Schol­ars Work­ing Group’, of which Zenz is a found­ing mem­ber and which is made up of a small group of aca­d­e­mics who col­lab­o­rate with him and sup­port his con­clu­sions. . . .”
  4. ” . . . . The lead­er­ship of New­lines Insti­tute includes for­mer US State Depart­ment offi­cials, US mil­i­tary advi­sors, intel­li­gence pro­fes­sion­als who pre­vi­ous­ly worked for the “shad­ow CIA” pri­vate spy­ing firm, Strat­for, and a col­lec­tion of inter­ven­tion­ist ide­o­logues. . . .”
  5. ” . . . . Just days before New­lines Institute’s report on Chi­na was released, its FXUA’s accred­i­ta­tion was once again in poten­tial jeop­ardy. On March 5, an advi­so­ry board to the US Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion rec­om­mend­ed ter­mi­nat­ing recog­ni­tion for ACICS. The Nation­al Advi­so­ry Com­mit­tee on Insti­tu­tion­al Qual­i­ty and Integri­ty vot­ed 11-to‑1 to rec­om­mend that ACICS lose the fed­er­al recog­ni­tion it needs to oper­ate. The advi­so­ry com­mit­tee made the same rec­om­men­da­tion in 2016, lead­ing to the ACICS’s recog­ni­tion being revoked under the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion, before recog­ni­tion was restored to the trou­bled accred­i­tor in 2018 by then-Pres­i­dent Trump’s Sec­re­tary of Edu­ca­tion, the infa­mous pri­va­ti­za­tion activist and oli­garch Bet­sy Devos. . . .”
  6. ” . . . . New­lines Insti­tute pub­lished its report in col­lab­o­ra­tion with The Raoul Wal­len­berg Cen­tre for Human Rights. The report’s prin­ci­pal author, Yon­ah Dia­mond, is legal coun­sel for The Wal­len­berg Cen­ter, and many of the report’s sig­na­to­ries hold affil­i­a­tions with the orga­ni­za­tion. . . .”
  7. ” . . . . The Wal­len­berg Cen­tre has become a haven for anti-Chi­na hawks, includ­ing Senior Fel­lows David Kil­go­ur, for­mer Cana­di­an Sec­re­tary of State, and David Matas. . . . Kil­go­ur and Matas have exten­sive ties to the far-right, anti-Chi­na reli­gious cult Falun GongBoth men are reg­u­lar­ly con­trib­u­tors to the group’s pro­pa­gan­da arm, The Epoch Times, a media net­work that The New York Times has described as an ‘anti-Chi­na, pro-Trump media empire’ and ‘lead­ing pur­vey­or of right-wing mis­in­for­ma­tion’. . . . ”

“‘Inde­pen­dent’ report claim­ing Uyghur geno­cide brought to you by sham uni­ver­si­ty, neo­con ide­o­logues lob­by­ing to ‘pun­ish’ Chi­na” by Ajit Singh; The Gray­zone; 03/17/2021

US media hailed a New­lines Insti­tute report accus­ing Chi­na of Uyghur geno­cide as a “land­mark” inde­pen­dent analy­sis. A look beneath the sur­face reveals it as a regime change pro­pa­gan­da tool by inter­ven­tion­ist oper­a­tives at a sham uni­ver­si­ty.

Through­out March 2021, head­lines in cor­po­rate media out­lets from CNN to The Guardian blared about the release of the “first inde­pen­dent report” to author­i­ta­tive­ly deter­mine that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment has vio­lat­ed “each and every act” of the Unit­ed Nations con­ven­tion against geno­cide, and there­fore “bears State respon­si­bil­i­ty for com­mit­ting geno­cide against the Uyghurs.”

The report, pub­lished on March 8 by the New­lines Insti­tute for Strat­e­gy and Pol­i­cy, in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Raoul Wal­len­berg Cen­tre for Human Rights, fol­lows a last-minute accu­sa­tion made in Jan­u­ary by the out­go­ing Trump admin­is­tra­tion, along with sim­i­lar dec­la­ra­tions by the Dutch and Cana­di­an Par­lia­ments. It was pub­lished short­ly after the release of a remark­ably sim­i­lar report on Feb­ru­ary 8 that was com­mis­sioned by the US gov­ern­ment-backed World Uyghur Con­gress, and which alleged that there is a “cred­i­ble case” against the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment for geno­cide.

CNNThe GuardianAFP, and the CBC hailed the March 8 New­lines report as an “inde­pen­dent analy­sis” and a “land­mark legal report” that involved “dozens of inter­na­tion­al experts.” Saman­tha Pow­er, the Biden administration’s nom­i­nee to direct the US Agency for Inter­na­tion­al Devel­op­ment (USAID), also pro­mot­ed it: “This report shows how this [geno­cide] is pre­cise­ly what Chi­na is doing with the Uighurs,” the noto­ri­ous human­i­tar­i­an inter­ven­tion­ist stat­ed. . . .

. . . . The report’s authors have insist­ed that they are “impar­tial” and are “not advo­cat­ing any course of action what­so­ev­er.” But a clos­er look at the report and the insti­tu­tions behind it reveals its authors’ claims of “inde­pen­dence” and “exper­tise” to be a bla­tant decep­tion.

Indeed, the report’s prin­ci­pal author, Yon­ah Dia­mond, recent­ly called on the Biden admin­is­tra­tion to uni­lat­er­al­ly “con­front,” and “pun­ish” Chi­na for sup­pos­ed­ly com­mit­ting geno­cide, and expand sanc­tions against the coun­try. Mean­while, the think tanks behind the report have advo­cat­ed fer­vent­ly for the West to “com­bat” and sanc­tion Chi­na, and have pro­mot­ed US regime change poli­cies tar­get­ing Syr­ia, Venezuela, Iran, and Rus­sia.

A major­i­ty of the report’s “expert” sig­na­to­ries are mem­bers of the New­lines Insti­tute and the Wal­len­berg Cen­tre. Oth­ers are mem­bers of the hawk­ish Inter-Par­lia­men­tary Alliance on Chi­na, for­mer US State Depart­ment offi­cials, and ardent sup­port­ers of US mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion­ism. The report relies most sub­stan­tial­ly on the “exper­tise” of Adri­an Zenz, the far-right evan­gel­i­cal ide­o­logue, whose “schol­ar­ship” on Chi­na has been demon­strat­ed to be deeply flawed, rid­dled with false­hoods and dis­hon­est sta­tis­ti­cal manip­u­la­tion.

The reliance on the volu­mi­nous but demon­stra­bly fraud­u­lent work of Zenz is not sur­pris­ing, giv­en that the report was financed by the New­lines Institute’s par­ent orga­ni­za­tion, the Fair­fax Uni­ver­si­ty of Amer­i­ca (FXUA). FXUA is a dis­graced insti­tu­tion that state reg­u­la­tors moved to shut down in 2019 after find­ing that its “teach­ers weren’t qual­i­fied to teach their assigned cours­es”, aca­d­e­m­ic qual­i­ty was “patent­ly defi­cient,” and pla­gia­rism was “ram­pant” and ignored.

Just days before the New­lines Insti­tute pub­lished its “expert” report accus­ing Chi­na of geno­cide, an advi­so­ry board to the US Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion rec­om­mend­ed ter­mi­nat­ing recog­ni­tion of FXUA’s accred­i­tor, plac­ing its license in jeop­ardy.

“New” report regur­gi­tates old, dis­cred­it­ed “evi­dence”

The New­lines report presents no new mate­r­i­al on the con­di­tion of Uyghur Mus­lims in Chi­na. Instead, it claims to have reviewed all of “the avail­able evi­dence” and applied “inter­na­tion­al law to the evi­dence of the facts on the ground.”

Rather than con­duct­ing a thor­ough and com­pre­hen­sive review of “the avail­able evi­dence,” the report restrict­ed its sur­vey to a nar­row range of deeply flawed pseu­do-schol­ar­ship along with reports by US gov­ern­ment-backed lob­by­ing fronts for the exiled Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment. It was upon this faulty foun­da­tion that the report applies legal analy­sis relat­ed to the UN Geno­cide Con­ven­tion.

New­lines’ report relies pri­mar­i­ly on the dubi­ous stud­ies of Adri­an Zenz, the US gov­ern­ment pro­pa­gan­da out­let, Radio Free Asia, and claims made by the US-fund­ed sep­a­ratist net­work, the World Uyghur Con­gress. These three sources com­prise more than one-third of the ref­er­ences used to con­struct the fac­tu­al basis of the doc­u­ment, with Zenz as the most heav­i­ly relied upon source – cit­ed on more than 50 occa­sions.

Many of the remain­ing ref­er­ences cite the work of mem­bers of New­lines Institute’s “Uyghur Schol­ars Work­ing Group”, of which Zenz is a found­ing mem­ber and which is made up of a small group of aca­d­e­mics who col­lab­o­rate with him and sup­port his con­clu­sions.

As The Gray­zone has report­ed, Zenz is a far-right Chris­t­ian fun­da­men­tal­ist who has said he is “led by God” against China’s gov­ern­ment, deplores homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and gen­der equal­i­ty, and has taught exclu­sive­ly in evan­gel­i­cal the­o­log­i­cal insti­tu­tions. A care­ful review of Zenz’s research shows that his asser­tion of geno­cide is con­coct­ed through fraud­u­lent sta­tis­ti­cal manip­u­la­tion, cher­ry-pick­ing of source mate­r­i­al, and pro­pa­gan­dis­tic mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tions. His wide­ly-cit­ed reports were not pub­lished in peer-reviewed jour­nals over­seen by aca­d­e­m­ic insti­tu­tions, but rather, by a DC-based CIA cut-out called the Jamestown Foun­da­tion and “The Jour­nal of Polit­i­cal Risk,” a pub­li­ca­tion head­ed by for­mer NATO and US nation­al secu­ri­ty state oper­a­tives.

Trump & Biden admins base their accu­sa­tion of geno­cide against Chi­na on the bunk research of Chris­t­ian extrem­ist @adrianzenzHere’s Zenz on the show of anti-gay, Islam­o­pho­bic @FRCdc Pres. Tony Perkins: “I was actu­al­ly being pre­pared by God for this work.” https://t.co/00ZWvHBTE7 pic.twitter.com/dT8nG5oFlC— Max Blu­men­thal (@MaxBlumenthal) March 12, 2021

As his aca­d­e­m­ic mal­prac­tice comes to light, Zenz has faced increas­ing scruti­ny and embar­rass­ment, as evi­denced by his threat to take legal action against his schol­ar­ly crit­ics.

In order to shore up the report’s cred­i­bil­i­ty, and to deflect from its essen­tial reliance on Zenz’s reports, its authors have empha­sized their sup­posed “inde­pen­dence” and “impar­tial­i­ty.”

“This [is] not an advo­ca­cy doc­u­ment, we’re not advo­cat­ing any course of action what­so­ev­er”, stat­ed Azeem Ibrahim, Direc­tor of Spe­cial Ini­tia­tives at New­lines Insti­tute. “There were no cam­paign­ers involved in this report, it was pure­ly done by legal experts, area experts and Chi­na eth­nic experts.”

How­ev­er, just weeks before the pub­li­ca­tion of the report, its prin­ci­pal author, Yon­ah Dia­mond, penned a bel­li­cose call for the Biden admin­is­tra­tion to eschew the UN (which Dia­mond deems to be “behold­en to the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment”) and uni­lat­er­al­ly con­front Chi­na. Fol­low­ing the Trump administration’s dec­la­ra­tion that Chi­na was com­mit­ting geno­cide in Xin­jiang, Dia­mond argued that the US is legal­ly oblig­ed to “pun­ish” Chi­na and that “the Biden admin­is­tra­tion must now take con­crete action to that end togeth­er with U.S. allies”.

The report attempts to con­struct an appear­ance of broad expert con­sen­sus sup­port­ing its con­clu­sions, includ­ing a list of 33 “inde­pen­dent expert” sig­na­to­ries. Unsur­pris­ing­ly, this list con­sists of indi­vid­u­als push­ing for a New Cold War and con­fronta­tion with Chi­na, and who sup­port sep­a­ratist efforts to trans­form the min­er­al-rich, geopo­lit­i­cal­ly impor­tant region of Xin­jiang into a NATO-ori­ent­ed eth­no-state:

Irwin Cotler and Hele­na Kennedy — co-chairs, along with Mar­co Rubio, of the hawk­ish Inter-Par­lia­men­tary Alliance on Chi­na (IPAC). Com­posed almost exclu­sive­ly of white West­ern law­mak­ers, IPAC formed in 2020 in order to mount a “com­mon defence” against the “rise of the People’s Repub­lic of Chi­na.” Mem­bers of the World Uyghur Con­gress exec­u­tive, Erkin Ekrem and Rahi­ma Mah­mut, sit on IPAC’s advi­so­ry board and sec­re­tari­at; Adri­an Zenz also sits on the advi­so­ry board.

David Schef­fer, Beth von Schaack, and Gre­go­ry H. Stan­ton — Schef­fer and Schaack are both for­mer US State Depart­ment Ambas­sadors-at-Large, while Stan­ton is a for­mer US State Depart­ment offi­cial.

Lloyd Axwor­thy and Allan Rock — the for­mer Cana­di­an Min­is­ter of For­eign Affairs and for­mer Cana­di­an UN Ambas­sador, respec­tive­ly.

Adri­an Zenz –– found­ing mem­ber of New­lines Institute’s “Uyghur Schol­ars Work­ing Group”

Rather than con­sult a wide range of author­i­ties and aca­d­e­m­ic experts, or sub­ject its study to peer review, New­lines relied entire­ly on a nar­row­ly focused com­mu­ni­ty of like-mind­ed ide­o­logues. A major­i­ty of the sig­na­to­ries are mem­bers of the two think tanks behind the report, the New­lines Insti­tute and the Wal­len­berg Cen­tre. Far from “inde­pen­dent”, these orga­ni­za­tions are deeply par­ti­san, self-described “cam­paign­ers” that align close­ly with US and West­ern for­eign pol­i­cy goals, advo­cat­ing for sanc­tions and inter­ven­tion against Chi­na and oth­er non-aligned nations across the Glob­al South.

New­lines Insti­tute: A col­lec­tion of regime-change ide­o­logues and “Shad­ow CIA” oper­a­tives

The sup­pos­ed­ly inde­pen­dent report accus­ing Chi­na of geno­cide was pub­lished by the New­lines Insti­tute for Strat­e­gy and Pol­i­cy based in Wash­ing­ton, DC and known for­mer­ly as the Cen­ter for Glob­al Pol­i­cy. Found­ed in 2019, the think tank’s stat­ed aim is “to enhance US for­eign pol­i­cy” with a “spe­cial­iza­tion in Mus­lim states and soci­eties.”

With exten­sive ties to the US regime-change estab­lish­ment, the New­lines Insti­tute is a reli­able repos­i­to­ry of anti-Chi­na mate­r­i­al. For exam­ple, it has fea­tured the ram­blings of Robert Spald­ing, the for­mer Senior Direc­tor for Strat­e­gy to Pres­i­dent Trump and one of the archi­tects of the Trump administration’s 2018 nation­al secu­ri­ty doc­trine, which for­mal­ly reori­ent­ed US for­eign pol­i­cy from a focus on the so-called “glob­al war on ter­ror” towards great pow­er com­pe­ti­tion with Chi­na and Rus­sia.

The lead­er­ship of New­lines Insti­tute includes for­mer US State Depart­ment offi­cials, US mil­i­tary advi­sors, intel­li­gence pro­fes­sion­als who pre­vi­ous­ly worked for the “shad­ow CIA” pri­vate spy­ing firm, Strat­for, and a col­lec­tion of inter­ven­tion­ist ide­o­logues. Its con­trib­u­tors rep­re­sent a who’s who of Syr­ia regime chang­ers who cheer­lead­ed for US mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion­ism while intim­i­dat­ing and bul­ly­ing any promi­nent fig­ure that dared present a crit­i­cal per­spec­tive on the proxy war.

Has­san Has­sanDirec­tor; Founder and Edi­tor-in-Chief of New­lines Mag­a­zine — Ardent sup­port­er of US impe­ri­al­ism, includ­ing wars on IraqLibyaYemen and espe­cial­ly Syr­ia. Along with New­lines con­trib­u­tor Michael Weiss, Has­san called for the US mil­i­tary to balka­nize Syr­ia, per­ma­nent­ly occu­py its oil-rich Jazi­ra region and turn the coun­try into “an Amer­i­can secu­ri­ty pro­tec­torate.”

Azeem IbrahimDirec­tor — Adjunct Research Pro­fes­sor at the Strate­gic Stud­ies Insti­tute, US Army War Col­lege. Ibrahim is a co-author of the New­lines report.

Kam­ran BokhariDirec­tor — Pre­vi­ous­ly served as the Cen­tral Asia Stud­ies Course Coor­di­na­tor at US Depart­ment of State’s For­eign Ser­vice Insti­tute

Faysal ItaniDeputy Direc­tor — For­mer res­i­dent Senior Fel­low at the US State Depart­ment-fund­ed Atlantic Coun­cil, which func­tions as the semi-offi­cial think tank of NATO in Wash­ing­ton, DC.

Michael WeissSenior Edi­tor – A vet­er­an Israel lob­by­ist, neo­con­ser­v­a­tive activist and anti-Mus­lim agi­ta­tor-turned advo­cate of Islamist insur­gents in Syr­ia, Weiss has brand­ed him­self as an expert on Rus­sia despite hav­ing nev­er vis­it­ed the coun­try and speak­ing no Russ­ian.

Muham­mad Idrees AhmadSenior Edi­tor – In 2016, Ahmad phoned Gray­zone edi­tor Max Blu­men­thal unso­licit­ed before Blu­men­thal pub­lished a two-part inves­tiga­tive exposé on the Syr­i­an White Hel­mets, threat­en­ing him with severe con­se­quences if he went ahead. (Lis­ten to a record­ing of Ahmad’s threat­en­ing call here). A lec­tur­er on dig­i­tal jour­nal­ism at Stir­ling Uni­ver­si­ty in the UK, Ahmad recent­ly attacked Democ­ra­cy Now! for host­ing schol­ar Vijay Prashad for a dis­cus­sion on the dan­ger of a new Cold War with Chi­na.

Rasha Al Aqee­diSenior Ana­lyst — Iraq-born pun­dit who for­mer­ly worked as a research fel­low at the neo­con­ser­v­a­tive For­eign Pol­i­cy Research Insti­tute (FPRI), a neo­con­ser­v­a­tive think tank orig­i­nal­ly found­ed by white suprema­cists and Cold War hard­lin­ers that has hon­ored Iraq war advo­cates John Bolton and James Mat­tis. Like her col­league Ahmad, Aqee­di ded­i­cates a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of her time to smear­ing anti-war fig­ures on social media.

Eliz­a­beth TsurkovNon-Res­i­dent Fel­low — Pre­vi­ous­ly worked for a num­ber of neo­con­ser­v­a­tive and estab­lish­ment think tanks, includ­ing the Atlantic Coun­cil, For­eign Pol­i­cy Research Insti­tute and Free­dom House. Tsurkov served in the Israeli mil­i­tary, dur­ing Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon. Through­out the Syr­i­an proxy war, Tsurkov main­tained friend­ly con­tacts with mem­bers of the Sau­di-backed jihadist mili­tia, Jaish al-Islam, and boast­ed about links both she and Israel’s mil­i­tary-intel­li­gence appa­ra­tus main­tained with Syria’s armed oppo­si­tion.

Nicholas A. HerasSenior Ana­lyst — Pre­vi­ous­ly a research asso­ciate at the US Depart­ment of Defense’s Nation­al Defense Uni­ver­si­ty, Heras is also a fel­low at the arms indus­try-fund­ed Cen­ter for New Amer­i­can Secu­ri­ty. There, he pro­posed using “wheat [as] a weapon of great power…to apply pres­sure on the Assad regime.” In oth­er words, Heras advo­cat­ed for the mass star­va­tion of Syr­i­an civil­ians by occu­py­ing their wheat fields, a US pol­i­cy that is cur­rent­ly under­way in the country’s north­east­ern region.

Car­o­line RoseSenior Ana­lyst — Pre­vi­ous­ly served as an ana­lyst at Geopo­lit­i­cal Futures, head­ed by Strat­for founder, George Fried­man. Strat­for is a pri­vate spy­ing and intel­li­gence firm com­mon­ly referred to as a “Shad­ow CIA.” It has con­tract­ed exten­sive­ly with the US gov­ern­ment, and has trained the rad­i­cal wing of Venezuela’s oppo­si­tion and advised them on desta­bi­liza­tion tac­tics.

Robin Black­burnMan­ag­ing Edi­tor — For 12 years, Black­burn served as a writer and edi­tor with Strat­for.

Robert InksEdi­tor — Pre­vi­ous­ly served as Direc­tor of the Writ­ers Group and Spe­cial Projects Edi­tor at Strat­for.

Daryl John­sonNon-Res­i­dent Fel­low — Served in the US Army and pre­vi­ous­ly worked as a senior ana­lyst at the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty. He is the founder of DT Ana­lyt­ics, a pri­vate con­sult­ing firm for police and law enforce­ment.

Eugene ChausovskyNon-Res­i­dent Fel­low — Lec­tures on the “geopol­i­tics of Cen­tral Asia” at the US State Department’s For­eign Ser­vice Insti­tute. Pre­vi­ous­ly worked as Senior Eura­sia Ana­lyst at Strat­for for over a decade.

Imti­az AliNon-Res­i­dent Fel­low — Pre­vi­ous­ly worked as a cur­ricu­lum spe­cial­ist at the US State Department’s For­eign Ser­vice Insti­tute.

Ahmed Alwani is the founder and pres­i­dent of the New­lines Insti­tute. Alwani pre­vi­ous­ly served on the advi­so­ry board for the U.S. military’s Africa Com­mand (AFRICOM) and is the Vice Pres­i­dent of the Inter­na­tion­al Insti­tute of Islam­ic Thought (IIIT); his father, Taha Jabir Al-Alwani was one of IIIT’s founders.

New­lines Insti­tute recent­ly took steps to counter rumors of IIIT’s con­nec­tions to the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood. In an inter­nal email obtained by The Gray­zone, dat­ed Novem­ber 17, 2020, New­lines Direc­tor Has­san Has­san addressed the “accu­sa­tion” against the then-Cen­ter for Glob­al Pol­i­cy. Has­san wrote that while a dif­fer­ent “old­er enti­ty” was fund­ed by IIIT, “[t]he cur­rent one has no rela­tion to IIIT.” Has­san attempt­ed to assuage con­cerns by down­play­ing Alwani’s con­nec­tion to IIIT, claim­ing that Alwani “inher­it­ed the Inter­na­tion­al Insti­tute for Islam­ic Thought as Vice Pres­i­dent as a sort of lega­cy”, fol­low­ing his father’s death in 2018.

New­lines Insti­tute over­seen by dis­graced sham “uni­ver­si­ty”

New­lines Insti­tute is a branch of a dis­graced edu­ca­tion­al insti­tu­tion that has repeat­ed­ly vio­lat­ed state edu­ca­tion­al stan­dards, rais­ing fur­ther ques­tions about the qual­i­ty of the think tank’s work.

New­lines Institute’s par­ent insti­tu­tion is Fair­fax Uni­ver­si­ty of Amer­i­ca (FXUA), a school also found­ed and led by Alwani, and for­mer­ly known as Vir­ginia Inter­na­tion­al Uni­ver­si­ty. FXUA is a pri­vate uni­ver­si­ty in Fair­fax, Vir­ginia. Found­ed in 1998, FXUA’s short track record has been rid­dled with numer­ous aca­d­e­m­ic scan­dals and efforts by state reg­u­la­tors to shut the insti­tu­tion down.

In 2019, the State Coun­cil of High­er Edu­ca­tion for Vir­ginia ini­ti­at­ed pro­ceed­ings to revoke FXUA’s (then known as Vir­ginia Inter­na­tion­al Uni­ver­si­ty) cer­tifi­cate to oper­ate. The move came after state reg­u­la­tors found wide­spread non­com­pli­ance with state edu­ca­tion­al stan­dards.

Accord­ing to the Rich­mond Times-Dis­patch, audi­tors deter­mined that “teach­ers weren’t qual­i­fied to teach their assigned cours­es”, the aca­d­e­m­ic qual­i­ty and con­tent of class­es were “patent­ly defi­cient”, and stu­dent work was char­ac­ter­ized by “ram­pant pla­gia­rism” that went unpun­ished.

“Unqual­i­fied stu­dents reg­u­lar­ly sub­mit pla­gia­rized or infe­ri­or work; fac­ul­ty turn a blind eye and low­er grad­ing stan­dards (per­haps to avoid fail­ing an entire class); and admin­is­tra­tors do not effec­tive­ly mon­i­tor the qual­i­ty of online edu­ca­tion being pro­vid­ed”, the audit said.

“That such sub­stan­dard course­work could con­tin­ue with no com­plaints from stu­dents, fac­ul­ty or admin­is­tra­tors rais­es con­cerns about the pur­pose of edu­ca­tion at VIU [Vir­ginia Inter­na­tion­al Uni­ver­si­ty].”

Indeed, signs point to FXUA/VIU serv­ing as a “visa mill” rather than a legit­i­mate edu­ca­tion­al insti­tu­tion. As Inside High­er Ed explains, the term “visa mill” refers to a sham oper­a­tion where an insti­tu­tion “offers lit­tle by way of edu­ca­tion­al val­ue,” but instead lures inter­na­tion­al stu­dents through its abil­i­ty to offer access to stu­dent and work visas, while exploit­ing them by charg­ing exor­bi­tant tuition costs. FXUA/VIU’s accred­i­tor, the Accred­it­ing Coun­cil for Inde­pen­dent Col­leges and Schools (ACICS), has long faced accu­sa­tions of cer­ti­fy­ing such insti­tu­tions.

In 2019, Inside High­er Ed report­ed that FXUA/VIU’s “appears to exist pri­mar­i­ly to enroll inter­na­tion­al stu­dents,” find­ing that over the pre­vi­ous five years, “the per­cent­age of stu­dents from North Amer­i­ca var­ied between 1 and 3 per­cent”. Audi­tors found that the the stu­dent body was large­ly com­prised of inter­na­tion­al stu­dents with an “abysmal­ly poor com­mand” of the Eng­lish lan­guage. The stu­dents were charged $2,178 per grad­u­ate class and $1,266 per under­grad­u­ate class to receive their “patent­ly defi­cient” edu­ca­tion.

Although Vir­ginia Inter­na­tion­al Uni­ver­si­ty reached an agree­ment with state reg­u­la­tors that allowed it to con­tin­ue oper­at­ing and has rebrand­ed itself as Fair­fax Uni­ver­si­ty of Amer­i­ca, sig­nif­i­cant con­cerns remain about the uni­ver­si­ty, along with its sub­sidiary New­lines Insti­tute.

Just days before New­lines Institute’s report on Chi­na was released, its FXUA’s accred­i­ta­tion was once again in poten­tial jeop­ardy. On March 5, an advi­so­ry board to the US Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion rec­om­mend­ed ter­mi­nat­ing recog­ni­tion for ACICS. The Nation­al Advi­so­ry Com­mit­tee on Insti­tu­tion­al Qual­i­ty and Integri­ty vot­ed 11-to‑1 to rec­om­mend that ACICS lose the fed­er­al recog­ni­tion it needs to oper­ate.

The advi­so­ry com­mit­tee made the same rec­om­men­da­tion in 2016, lead­ing to the ACICS’s recog­ni­tion being revoked under the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion, before recog­ni­tion was restored to the trou­bled accred­i­tor in 2018 by then-Pres­i­dent Trump’s Sec­re­tary of Edu­ca­tion, the infa­mous pri­va­ti­za­tion activist and oli­garch Bet­sy Devos.

The Wal­len­berg Cen­tre: A haven for anti-Chi­na hawks and regime-change lob­by­ists

New­lines Insti­tute pub­lished its report in col­lab­o­ra­tion with The Raoul Wal­len­berg Cen­tre for Human Rights. The report’s prin­ci­pal author, Yon­ah Dia­mond, is legal coun­sel for The Wal­len­berg Cen­ter, and many of the report’s sig­na­to­ries hold affil­i­a­tions with the orga­ni­za­tion.

Based in Mon­tre­al, The Wal­len­berg Cen­tre was found­ed by Irwin Cotler, for­mer Min­is­ter of Jus­tice and Attor­ney Gen­er­al of Cana­da. While often tout­ed as a “human rights cham­pi­on”, Cotler is, in fact, a cham­pi­on of the “respon­si­bil­i­ty to pro­tect” and “human­i­tar­i­an inter­ven­tion” doc­trines, reg­u­lar­ly invoked by West­ern states in order to jus­ti­fy impe­r­i­al inter­ven­tions in the glob­al south.

Cotler rou­tine­ly lev­els pro­pa­gan­dis­tic accu­sa­tions of human rights abus­es, atroc­i­ties, and geno­cide in ser­vice West­ern impe­ri­al­ism, includ­ing inter­ven­tions in Libya and Syr­iaIran, and Venezuelawhere Cotler served as legal coun­sel for far-right, US-backed Venezue­lan coup leader Leopol­do López. Lopez’s wife, Lil­ian Tin­tori, holds an advi­so­ry posi­tion at The Wal­len­berg Cen­tre.

Cotler is also active in Haiti, serv­ing as the Min­is­ter of Jus­tice in the Cana­di­an admin­is­tra­tion that worked with the US and France to help over­throw for­mer Hait­ian Pres­i­dent Jean-Bertrand Aris­tide in 2004. In 2014, Cotler invit­ed Maryam Rajavi, leader of the exiled Iran­ian MEK cult, to speak on Canada’s par­lia­ment hill. Four years lat­er, he nom­i­nat­ed US and UK-fund­ed Syr­i­an White Hel­mets for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Justin Trudeau taps Irwin Cotler, the Cana­di­an ver­sion of Alan Der­showitz, as de fac­to anti-Pales­tin­ian czar. Cotler will lead the cen­ter-left gov­ern­men­t’s assault on free speech and polic­ing of Pales­tine sol­i­dar­i­ty orga­niz­ing. https://t.co/UK7HXdKGlZ— Max Blu­men­thal (@MaxBlumenthal) Novem­ber 26, 2020

Cotler is an ardent sup­port­er of Israeli apartheid and long­time advi­sor to Moshe Ya’alon, for­mer Israeli Defense Min­is­ter and Chief of Staff of the Israeli mil­i­tary. Cotler has played sig­nif­i­cant role in the Cana­di­an government’s efforts to equate crit­i­cism of Israel with anti-Semi­tism and smear the non­vi­o­lent boy­cott, divest­ment and sanc­tions (BDS) move­ment for Pales­tin­ian rights.

Cotler has long har­bored hos­tile sen­ti­ments towards Chi­na. For a num­ber of years, Cotler served on the inter­na­tion­al legal team for Chi­nese anti-gov­ern­ment dis­si­dent Liu Xiaobo, a right-wing ide­o­logue who called for the pri­va­ti­za­tion and “West­ern­i­sa­tion” of Chi­na, ardent­ly sup­port­ed for­mer Pres­i­dent George W. Bush, and cheered on US wars on Viet­nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

More recent­ly, dur­ing the coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic, Cotler echoed calls of right-wing US law­mak­ers for inter­na­tion­al legal action and sanc­tions to pun­ish Chi­na for sup­pos­ed­ly caus­ing the coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic.

In its mis­sion state­ment, the Wal­len­berg Cen­tre out­lines its right-wing, West­ern impe­r­i­al out­look in detail, explic­it­ly iden­ti­fy­ing Chi­na, Venezuela, Iran, and Rus­sia as coun­tries that it is push­ing to “com­bat” with sanc­tions.

The Wal­len­berg Cen­tre has become a haven for anti-Chi­na hawks, includ­ing Senior Fel­lows David Kil­go­ur, for­mer Cana­di­an Sec­re­tary of State, and David Matas, senior legal coun­sel for B’nai Brith Cana­da, a right-wing orga­ni­za­tion that describes itself as ded­i­cat­ed to “Israel advo­ca­cy”.

Kil­go­ur and Matas have exten­sive ties to the far-right, anti-Chi­na reli­gious cult Falun GongBoth men are reg­u­lar­ly con­trib­u­tors to the group’s pro­pa­gan­da arm, The Epoch Times, a media net­work that The New York Times has described as an “anti-Chi­na, pro-Trump media empire” and “lead­ing pur­vey­or of right-wing mis­in­for­ma­tion”. In 2019, an NBC News exposé found that The Epoch Times spent over $1.5 mil­lion on approx­i­mate­ly 11,000 pro-Trump adver­tise­ments in just six months, “more than any orga­ni­za­tion out­side of the Trump cam­paign itself, and more than most Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates have spent on their own cam­paigns.”

In 2006, Kil­go­ur and Matas were com­mis­sioned by Falun Gong to author a report which made sen­sa­tion­al accu­sa­tions that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment was secret­ly con­duct­ing a mass cam­paign of live organ har­vest­ing Falun Gong dis­ci­ples. In 2017, an inves­ti­ga­tion by The Wash­ing­ton Post deter­mined that the claims made by Kil­go­ur and Matas were unfound­ed, with experts com­ment­ing that their alle­ga­tions were “not plau­si­ble” and “unthink­able.”

5. The pro­gram con­cludes with dis­cus­sion of the Wal­len­berg fam­i­ly, one of Swe­den’s most promi­nent indus­tri­al clans and inex­tri­ca­bly linked with both the inter­na­tion­al car­tel sys­tem, the Third Reich and–as we see below–the remark­able and dead­ly Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal orga­ni­za­tion.

The Wal­len­bergs were cen­tral­ly involved in numer­ous cloak­ing oper­a­tions for Nazi big busi­ness, and also had strong links to the Allied indus­tri­al firms under­tak­ing war pro­duc­tion.

(The sub­stance and com­plex­i­ties of the car­tel sys­tem and inter­na­tion­al fas­cism were dis­cussed in–among oth­er pro­grams–FTR#511. The over­all polit­i­cal and his­tor­i­cal con­text in which the car­tels operate–globalization–is ana­lyzed in the intro­duc­tion to the Books for Down­load sec­tion.)

Exem­pli­fy­ing the fam­i­ly’s posi­tion in the Wall Street/cartel pan­theon is George Mur­nane of the Wal­len­berg hold­ing com­pa­ny A.B. Investor: ” . . . . In Novem­ber 1940, a vot­ing trust agree­ment was set up in the Unit­ed States under which George Mur­nane was des­ig­nat­ed by the Wal­len­bergs’ Enskil­da Bank as the sole vot­ing trustee with com­plete pow­er to vote the Amer­i­can Bosch stock at stock­hold­ers’ meet­ings in the Unit­ed States. The vot­ing trust arrange­ment pro­vid­ed that if George Mur­nane should die, his suc­ces­sor should be named by John Fos­ter Dulles, senior part­ner of Sul­li­van & Cromwell, the law firm which rep­re­sents the Wal­len­bergs and the Enskil­da Bank in the Unit­ed States. . . .”

One of the most sig­nif­i­cant of the Wal­len­bergs’ oper­a­tions con­cerned its glob­al monop­oly on ball bear­ings and its ship­ment of Swedish bear­ings to off­set Nazi Ger­many’s loss­es in the cost­ly Schwe­in­furt raids.

” . . . . It hap­pened that two thirds of Ger­many’s entire bear­ing indus­try was con­cen­trat­ed in a sin­gle group of four fac­to­ries at Schwe­in­furt. Three of them, account­ing for 36 per cent of Ger­many’s pro­duc­tive capac­i­ty, were owned by VKF; and one, account­ing for 30 per cent of Ger­man capac­i­ty, was owned by the only remain­ing large inde­pen­dent, Fis­ch­er A.G.

When Amer­i­can air forces bombed Schwe­in­furt dur­ing the war, in an effort to knock out this strate­gic point in Ger­man indus­tri­al pro­duc­tion, Schwe­in­furt was dis­cov­ered to be one of the most heav­i­ly defend­ed spots in Ger­many. Ger­man defens­es inflict­ed a loss of fifty Amer­i­can heavy bombers in one raid alone. When these raids tem­porar­i­ly knocked out Schwe­in­furt, the effect was large­ly nul­li­fied by ship­ments of bear­ings from SKF in Swe­den. . . .”

It is this her­itage that under­lies the Wal­len­berg Cen­tre for Human Rights.

All Hon­or­able Men by James Stew­art Mar­tin; Lit­tle Brown [HC]; Copy­right 1950 by James Stew­art Mar­tin; pp. 249–254.

. . . . On May 6, 1940, just before the Ger­man blitz swept into Hol­land, the Amer­i­can Bosch shares were “sold” with the per­mis­sion of Stuttgart to the Enskil­da Bank of Stock­holm. The bank put them under the con­trol of a finan­cial hold­ing com­pa­ny named “A.B. Investor.” The trans­fer agree­ment cre­at­ed an option to per­mit Robert Bosch of Ger­many to repur­chase the stock two years after the end of the war. At that time Mar­cus Wal­len­berg, who, with his broth­er, Jacob, con­trols the Enskil­da Bank, was also act­ing simul­ta­ne­ous­ly as agent of the Ger­man Reichs­bank in oth­er mat­ters.

In Novem­ber 1940, a vot­ing trust agree­ment was set up in the Unit­ed States under which George Mur­nane was des­ig­nat­ed by the Wal­len­bergs’ Enskil­da Bank as the sole vot­ing trustee with com­plete pow­er to vote the Amer­i­can Bosch stock at stock­hold­ers’ meet­ings in the Unit­ed States. The vot­ing trust arrange­ment pro­vid­ed that if George Mur­nane should die, his suc­ces­sor should be named by John Fos­ter Dulles, senior part­ner of Sul­li­van & Cromwell, the law firm which rep­re­sents the Wal­len­bergs and the Enskil­da Bank in the Unit­ed States.

While all this legal foot­work was keep­ing’ the legal own­er­ship of Bosch prop­er­ties abroad in the tech­ni­cal cus­tody of neu­tral cit­i­zens, Bosch of Stuttgart was not ham­pered in its con­trol over the use of patent­ed Bosch tech­nol­o­gy by non-Ger­man com­pa­nies. Even as late as June 1941, Amer­i­can Bosch was the only source of sup­ply of fuel injec­tion equip­ment for naval diesel engines.

 The Unit­ed States Navy want­ed to devel­op a sec­ond source of sup­ply, but found that Amer­i­can Bosch had no right to grant a license to any oth­er com­pa­ny to make this patent­ed equip­ment. The Amer­i­can Bosch com­pa­ny informed the navy that no such license could be grant­ed with­out the con­sent of the Robert Bosch firm at Stuttgart.

Final­ly, on May 19, 1942, the con­trol­ling shares of Amer­i­can Bosch Cor­po­ra­tion, nom­i­nal­ly held by the Swedish firm, A.B. Investor, were tak­en over by the Alien Prop­er­ty Cus­to­di­an, On Decem­ber 29, 1942, an antitrust action against the Amer­i­can Bosch Cor­po­ra­tion was con­clud­ed by a court order can­cel­ing all agree­ments between Amer­i­can Bosch Cor­po­ra­tion and Robert Bosch of Stuttgart, aris­ing out of their “unlaw­ful com­bi­na­tion and con­spir­a­cy to sup­press, lim­it and con­trol com­pe­ti­tion between them­selves through­out the world.” Amer­i­can Bosch Cor­po­ra­tion was required to issue licens­es under all of the Bosch patents to Amer­i­can man­u­fac­tur­ers with­out roy­al­ties for the dura­tion of the war.

The third case, that of the VKF bear­ings com­bine, also involved cloak­ing oper­a­tions and the Enskil­da Bank. One of the mys­ter­ies of World War ll has been the unex­plained inter­na­tion­al rela­tions of the Swedish indus­tri­al orga­ni­za­tion, A.B. Sven­s­ka Kul­lager­fab­riken, known as SKF, Swe­den’s largest indus­tri­al con­cern and the world’s largest man­u­fac­tur­er of ball and roller bear­ings. The prin­ci­pal Swedish inter­est in SKF is held by the Wal­len­bergs through their Enskil­da Bank and its invest­ment sub­sidiary, A.B. Investor. The actu­al extent of Ger­man or oth­er for­eign con­trol, either direct­ly or through the Wal­len­bergs, has not been dis­closed. For many years the active man­age­ment of SKF was in the hands of Sven Wingquist, the founder of the firm.

In 1941, he gave up the day-to-day man­age­ment but remained as chair­man of the board. From time to time, begin­ning in 1933 and 1934, Sven Wingquist came into the world spot­light as one of a col­or­ful clique of inter­na­tion­al adven­tur­ers, who gained spe­cial noto­ri­ety by their buzzing around Edward VIII at the time of his abdi­ca­tion in 1936. They includ­ed Axel Wen­ner-Gren, the yachts­man; Charles Bedaux, inven­tor of a labor speed-up sys­tem; and Jacques Ler­nai­gre-Dubre­nil, French banker and veg­etable-oil man of West Africa. Axel Wen­ner-Gren will he remem­bered as a yachts­man with a remark­able record of coin­ci­dences.

He cruised the seas through­out much of the war in his yacht, the South­ern Cross, and turned up to res­cue sur­vivors of Ger­man sub­ma­rine attacks, begin­ning with the Ger­man sink­ing of the British ship Athe­nia in 1939 and con­tin­u­ing through the Caribbean sub­ma­rine cam­paign of 1942. At the time, some peo­ple spec­u­lat­ed about how one yacht could hap­pen along so often when a sub­ma­rine spot­ted a ves­sel; but the coin­ci­dences were nev­er explained.

Charles Bedaux, inven­tor of the “Bedaux Sys­tem,” a speed-up sys­tem for forc­ing high­er labor out­put in fac­to­ries, was an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen who spent most of his life abroad. The Duke and Duchess of Wind­sor were mar­ried in the Bedaux chateau on the Riv­iera. Bedaux was cap­tured by Amer­i­can forces dur­ing the inva­sion of North Africa while busy build­ing a pipeline to bring veg­etable oil from Lemai­gre-Dubreuil’s West African domain to the Mediter­ranean to help relieve the crit­i­cal Ger­man short­age of fats and oils. Bedaux com­mit­ted sui­cide in the fed­er­al jail at Mia­mi, while await­ing tri­al for trea­son. Sven Wingquist and Axel Wen­ner-Gren had tak­en an active part after World War I in the Ger­man plans to mask the own­er­ship of sub­sidiaries abroad.

To get around the Ver­sailles Treaty, firms like Carl Zeiss, man­u­fac­tur­ers of mil­i­tary opti­cal equip­ment, set up branch­es such as the “Nedin­sco” firm at Ven­lo in the Nether­lands and car­ried on as before. The Krupp firm did the same in Spain, Swe­den, and oth­er coun­tries. In 1934 the Swedish gov­ern­ment dis­cov­ered that Krupp con­trolled a block of shares in the Bofors steel and muni­tions works through a Swedish dum­my hold­ing com­pa­ny called “Boforsin­ter­essen­ten.”

Sven Wingquist, who was chair­man of the board of the Bofors steel and muni­tions works, was one of the two Swedish cit­i­zens who had been vot­ing this stock for Krupp at stock­hold­ers’ meet­ings. The Krupp con­cern con­trolled approx­i­mate­ly one third of Swedish Bofors in this man­ner and had main­tained enough addi­tion­al vot­ing strength through Axel Wen­ner-Gren to con­trol the affairs of Bofors.

Sven Wingquist and the Wal­len­bergs have always claimed that SKF is Swedish-owned and Swedish-con­trolled. Up till 1928, no one had any rea­son to doubt this asser­tion, But in 1928 and 1929, SKF was involved in a series of moves where­by all but one of the impor­tant bear­ing firms in Ger­many, account­ing for 60 per cent of Ger­many’s bear­ing indus­try, were merged into a new con­cern, the Vere­inigte Kugel­lager­fab­riken A.G., known as VKF. When these moves were com­plet­ed, SKF showed on the record as the own­er of 99.7 per cent of the stock of Ger­man VKF.

The mys­tery is how SKF could pos­si­bly have man­aged to pay the Ger­man own­ers of the merged firms with­out giv­ing the Ger­mans either mon­ey or some sub­stan­tial stock inter­est in the Swedish firm, SKF. The man­age­ment of Swedish SKF denied that any stock was giv­en to Ger­man inter­ests; but they nev­er explained how the Ger­man inter­ests were paid off.

In a sim­i­lar deal in 1928 under which SKF had merged and acquired the prin­ci­pal French bear­ing com­pa­nies, SKF issued 14,000,000 kro­ner, par val­ue, of new SKF shares which they turned over to the French inter­ests in exchange for the con­trol­ling shares in the new French con­cern. This increase of SKF’s cap­i­tal from 92,000,000 to 106,000,000 kro­ner, by the issue of 14,000,ooo to the French, gave the French inter­ests among them a 13 per cent par­tic­i­pa­tion in Swedish SKF.

In 1929, SKF increased its out­stand­ing shares by anoth­er 24,000,000 at the time it acquired own­er­ship and con­trol of the Ger­man bear­ing trust, VKF. At the time of the com­ple­tion of the Ger­man merg­er, on Sep­tem­ber 8, 1929, the Frank­furter Zeitung report­ed that the shares of VKF would not be list­ed on the Ger­man stock exchange and went on to say, “How­ev­er, the shares of the Swedish par­ent com­pa­ny, of which a part is already Ger­man-owned, will short­ly be list­ed on the Berlin exchange.”

In 1933, a pam­phlet pub­lished by VKF explained the 1929 deal as part of a plan to assure the Ger­man firm an increased export mar­ket. The pam­phlet report­ed: “Main­ly for this rea­son, there devel­oped a vol­un­tary depen­dence on the inter­na­tion­al SKF con­cern. In spite of this depen­dence, it was large­ly Ger­man cap­i­tal which was inter­est­ed in the share cap­i­tal of Vere­inigte Kugel­lager­fab­riken A.G., amount­ing to RM 30,000,000, because the for­mer own­ers are hold­ers of the SKF con­cern shares and still oth­er shares are in Ger­man pri­vate own­er­ship.”

The case of VKF of Ger­many and its inter­na­tion­al ties through SKF of Swe­den, posed a prob­lem in the con­cen­tra­tion of Ger­man eco­nom­ic pow­er. It was like the case of Ger­man VGF and Dutch AKU in the syn­thet­ic tex­tile field. While the ques­tion of Ger­man con­trol as against “neu­tral” con­trol has nev­er been sat­is­fac­to­ri­ly answered, the “neu­tral” firm is unques­tion­ably the legal own­er of impor­tant inter­ests in the Unit­ed States which were immune from seizure by the Alien Prop­er­ty Cus­to­di­an dur­ing World War 11.

In the case of SKF, the sub­sidiaries in the Unit­ed States are SKF Indus­tries, Incor­po­rat­ed, of Philadel­phia and SKF Steels Incor­po­rat­ed, of New York. In 1940, Mar­cus Wal­len­berg came to the Unit­ed States to buy up Ger­man secu­ri­ties in the Amer­i­can mar­ket, pre­sum­ably for the Reichs­bank, as part of the Ger­man Eco­nom­ic Min­istry’s “repa­tri­a­tion”

pro­gram to buy out Ger­many’s exter­nal debt at a few cents on the dol­lar. He arranged at that time to set up a vot­ing trust which con­veyed nom­i­nal con­trol of SKF’s sub­sidiaries in the Unit­ed States to William L. Batt as vot­ing trustee. Mr. Batt is pres­i­dent of SKF Indus­tries, and, dur­ing the war, served as deputy chair­man of the War Pro­duc­tion Board.

It was Mr. Batt who called at my office in Berlin in the autumn of 1946 soon after the press report­ed rumors that we were con­sid­er­ing action to divorce Ger­man VKF from its inter­na­tion­al part­ners. He had come to Berlin to con­fer with Gen­er­al Drap­er on mat­ters of Ger­man recov­ery; but he also want­ed to be assured that noth­ing would be done to dis­turb the Swedish inter­est in the Ger­man com­pa­ny, or to reduce the val­ue of the hold­ings by per­mit­ting removal of any of the plants from Ger­many as repa­ra­tions.

It hap­pened that two thirds of Ger­many’s entire bear­ing indus­try was con­cen­trat­ed in a sin­gle group of four fac­to­ries at Schwe­in­furt. Three of them, account­ing for 36 per cent of Ger­many’s pro­duc­tive capac­i­ty, were owned by VKF; and one, account­ing for 30 per cent of Ger­man capac­i­ty, was owned by the only remain­ing large inde­pen­dent, Fis­ch­er A.G.

When Amer­i­can air forces bombed Schwe­in­furt dur­ing the war, in an effort to knock out this strate­gic point in Ger­man indus­tri­al pro­duc­tion, Schwe­in­furt was dis­cov­ered to be one of the most heav­i­ly defend­ed spots in Ger­many. Ger­man defens­es inflict­ed a loss of fifty Amer­i­can heavy bombers in one raid alone. When these raids tem­porar­i­ly knocked out Schwe­in­furt, the effect was large­ly nul­li­fied by ship­ments of bear­ings from SKF in Swe­den.

A spe­cial Unit­ed States mis­sion was sent to Swe­den to buy off SKF’s pro­duc­tion; but it was only par­tial­ly suc­cess­ful in this attempt to cut SKF ship­ments. When the time came to give up Ger­man plants as repa­ra­tions after World War 2, a large part of the plant of the inde­pen­dent bear­ing firm, Fis­ch­er A.G. at Schwe­in­furt, was packed up and shipped off, leav­ing VKF with sub­stan­tial­ly a 100 per­cent monop­oly of Ger­man bear­ing pro­duc­tion. . . .

In the con­text of Swedish indus­tri­al­ists’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work, we take note of the impor­tant role in that orga­ni­za­tion played by the Wal­len­berg indus­tri­al and finan­cial empire.

6. The Wal­len­bergs also played a major role in the Swedish com­po­nent of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion.

Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 [HC]; Lyle Stu­art Inc.; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; pp. 133–134.

. . . . An inter­est­ing side­light to this strug­gle between the Allies and Ger­many for influ­ence on Swe­den is the pecu­liar role played by Mar­cus and Jacob Wal­len­berg, mem­bers of Swe­den’s most impor­tant bank­ing fam­i­ly. Mar­cus head­ed a gov­ern­ment com­mis­sion which nego­ti­at­ed with Britain and the Unit­ed States through­out the war. At the same time, his broth­er Jacob was the chief nego­tia­tor for the Swedish gov­ern­ment with Nazi Ger­many. Thus were both sides cov­ered for Swedish busi­ness, includ­ing the fam­i­ly’s very own sub­stan­tial eco­nom­ic inter­ests. Fol­low­ing World War II, this fam­i­ly empire was to achieve its most spec­tac­u­lar pros­per­i­ty, as Ger­man invest­ments under the Bor­mann pro­gram matured in their Swedish safe-havens.

In this way, impres­sive wealth accrued to the Wal­len­bergs, as well as to the oth­er Swedish and Ger­man invest­ment groups con­trol­ling large hold­ings in the many Swedish com­pa­nies under Ger­man dom­i­nance in 1944. . . . 

7. Insti­tu­tion­al­ized as an inter­na­tion­al mar­tyr for his work res­cu­ing Euro­pean Jews dur­ing the Holo­caust, Raoul Wal­len­berg’s reput­ed work ran­som­ing legal immu­ni­ty for Hein­rich Himm­ler with those Jews is but­tressed by his rela­tion­ship with Ger­man indus­tri­al­ist Ludolph Chris­tensen and–through him–SS Gen­er­al Karl Wolff (right.)

Wolff was Himm­ler’s per­son­al adju­tant.

“‘Swedish Schindler’ death linked to Ger­many;” The Local [SE]; 1/15/2015.

Raoul Wal­len­berg was a young diplo­mat post­ed in Nazi-con­trolled Budapest dur­ing the war and he saved the lives of thou­sands of Jews by pro­vid­ing them with Swedish doc­u­men­ta­tion. . . .

. . . . Now, new infor­ma­tion links Wal­len­berg – only the sec­ond for­eign­er to become an hon­orary cit­i­zen of the Unit­ed States, after British wartime Prime Min­is­ter Win­ston Churchill – to Ger­man busi­ness­man Ludolph Chris­tensen.

In the ear­ly 1940s, Wal­len­berg was an exec­u­tive in the Swedish trad­ing com­pa­ny Mel­la­neu­ropeiska AB, which man­aged to import to Swe­den large quan­ti­ties of food­stuffs, includ­ing spe­cial­i­ty items such as cig­a­rettes and fruit, which were hard to obtain due to the war.

While these trans­ac­tions have been well-known, it has now emerged that almost all of them were car­ried out in coop­er­a­tion with Ludolph Chris­tensen, accord­ing to an arti­cle pub­lished on the web­site raoul-wallenberg.eu.

What do Swedes know about Raoul Wal­len­berg?

Chris­tensen was pro­tect­ed by Gen­er­al Karl Wolff, right-hand man of SS leader Hein­rich Himm­ler, one of the main archi­tects of the Holo­caust, which Wal­len­berg was fight­ing.

The rela­tion­ship “shows the com­plex­i­ty of trade rela­tions in times of war and could pro­vide new ways of solv­ing Wal­len­berg’s dis­ap­pear­ance,” the study’s authors, Susanne Berg­er, Vadim Birstein and Craig McK­ay, wrote.

New evi­dence uncov­ered by the researchers also shows that the Ger­man busi­ness­man also met Wal­len­berg at the start of his Budapest mis­sion, in the sum­mer of 1944. . . .

Discussion

4 comments for “FTR#‘s 1178 1179, 1180: Fascism and The Uyghur Genocide Myth, Parts 1, 2, 3”

  1. With the West­ern cam­paign pro­mot­ing a Uyghur geno­cide myth con­tin­u­ing to gain steam, here’s a recent Gray Zone arti­cle about the US branch of the World Uighur Con­gress (WUC), the Uyghur Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion (UAA), and the groups exten­sive per­son­al and ide­o­log­i­cal ties to the far right. As the arti­cle describes, the UAA appears to fit in quite nice­ly with the rest of the Trump move­ment: It’s a jin­go­is­tic, gun-obsessed group and jumps at every oppor­tu­ni­ty to issue racist state­ments about Chi­na and the Chi­nese peo­ple. And that gun-obses­sion isn’t just an obses­sion. Faruk Altay — the broth­er of the UAA’s pres­i­dent, Kuz­zat Altay, and nephew of Uyghur oli­garch Rebiya Kadeer — runs Altay Defense, a defense con­trac­tor train­ing com­pa­ny that pro­vides train­ing for elite secu­ri­ty forces pro­vid­ed by for­mer spe­cial forces mem­bers. One of those instruc­tors includes James Lang, a for­mer US Army Ranger who works as a firearm instruc­tor for the US Depart­ment of Defense.

    So as the fol­low­ing arti­cle makes clear, when we’re try­ing to assess the motives and move­ments behind groups like the WUC and UAA, we should­n’t real­ly be view­ing these groups as the lob­by­ists for an eth­nic dias­po­ra but instead as lob­by­ists for the DC regime change estab­lish­ment because that’s who these groups appear to be actu­al­ly rep­re­sent­ing:

    The Gray Zone

    “Wipe out Chi­na!” US-fund­ed Uyghur activists train as gun-tot­ing foot sol­diers for empire

    Cul­ti­vat­ed by the US gov­ern­ment as human rights activists, Uyghur Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion lead­ers part­ner with far-right law­mak­ers and oper­ate a mili­tia-style gun club that trains with ex-US spe­cial forces.

    Ajit Singh
    March 31, 2021

    On March 21, US-gov­ern­ment-fund­ed Uyghur activists were caught on video dis­rupt­ing a gath­er­ing against anti-Asian racism in Wash­ing­ton DC, bark­ing insults at demon­stra­tors includ­ing, “Wipe out Chi­na!” and “Fu ck Chi­na!” The Uyghur car­a­van flew Amer­i­can and “East Turkestan” flags and drove vehi­cles adorned signs bear­ing slo­gans such as, “We Love USA,” “Boy­cott Chi­na,” and “CCP killed 80 mil­lion Chi­nese peo­ple.”

    Real­ly wild stuff down­town. A Stop Asian Hate ral­ly is clash­ing with a Pro-Uighur dri­ve by. The pro-Uighur group is shout­ing “F— Chi­na!” The Asian ral­ly is respond­ing by call­ing them “racist.” pic.twitter.com/h8a2hB4Oqe— Nic Rowan (@NicXTempore) March 21, 2021

    Orga­nized by the Uyghur Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion (UAA), the dri­ve-by heck­ling of anti-racist demon­stra­tors drew wide­spread con­dem­na­tion on social media, includ­ing from oth­er sec­tions of the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment. Sal­ih Huda­yar, the self-pro­claimed “Prime Min­is­ter of the East Turk­istan Gov­ern­ment-in-Exile,” slammed “the UAA’s reck­less dri­ve-by” for caus­ing “severe back­lash against Uyghurs,” and insist­ed that Uyghur Amer­i­cans were “not racist.”

    The UAA has attempt­ed to dis­tance itself from accu­sa­tions of extrem­ism and racism, stat­ing that its mem­bers’ actions were mis­rep­re­sent­ed. Despite refus­ing to rescind their call for Chi­na to be “wiped out,” the UAA declared that it “con­demns any form of big­otry and stands with all vic­tims of racism.”

    Repost­ing from April 2020 — Uyghurs have been the vic­tim of state-spon­sored racism in the Chi­nese colony of East Turkestan and are fac­ing geno­cide in Chi­na. With first-hand expe­ri­ence, Uyghur Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion con­demns any form of big­otry and stands with all vic­tims of racism. https://t.co/UrCnBiQXaE— Uyghur Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion (@Uyghur_American) March 22, 2021

    How­ev­er, an inves­ti­ga­tion by The Gray­zone into the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment in the Wash­ing­ton DC area has uncov­ered a jin­go­is­tic, gun-obsessed sub­cul­ture dri­ven by the kind of right-wing ide­ol­o­gy that was on dis­play dur­ing the March 21 car car­a­van through down­town.

    Lead­ing fig­ures of the UAA oper­ate a right-wing gun club known as Altay Defense. Proud­ly dressed in US mil­i­tary fatigues, Altay Defense drill in advanced com­bat tech­niques with for­mer mem­bers of US spe­cial forces who also train pri­vate mer­ce­nar­ies and active duty US ser­vice mem­bers. Mem­bers of the mili­tia-style gun club espouse pro-Trump pol­i­tics and anti-immi­grant resent­ment.

    The UAA is the US-affil­i­ate of the World Uyghur Con­gress (WUC), an inter­na­tion­al net­work whose first pres­i­dent out­lined an objec­tive to pre­cip­i­tate the “fall of Chi­na” and estab­lish an eth­no-state in Xin­jiang. The recip­i­ent of mil­lions of dol­lars of fund­ing the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy (NED), a US gov­ern­ment-spon­sored enti­ty, this net­work works close­ly with Wash­ing­ton and oth­er West­ern gov­ern­ments to esca­late hos­til­i­ties with Chi­na.

    Despite claim­ing to rep­re­sent the inter­ests of China’s Uyghur and Mus­lim minor­i­ty pop­u­la­tions, many of the UAA’s clos­est allies rep­re­sent some of the anti-Mus­lim, far-right forces in Wash­ing­ton, from Repub­li­can Rep. Ted Yoho to the Fam­i­ly Research Coun­cil, as well as the FBI.

    Dur­ing the pan­dem­ic, the UAA and mem­bers of its affil­i­ate orga­ni­za­tions helped inflame anti-Asian resent­ment by spread­ing far-right pro­pa­gan­da refer­ring to Covid-19 as the “Chi­nese virus,” and claimed that Chi­na was wag­ing a “virus war” against the world, “[p]urposefully, inten­tion­al­ly export[ing] the virus to cause the pan­dem­ic.”

    Behind its care­ful­ly con­struct­ed image as a peace­ful human rights move­ment, the UAA and its off­shoots in the DC-based Uyghur sep­a­ratist lob­by are dri­ven by far-right ide­ol­o­gy and envi­sion them­selves as mil­i­tant foot sol­diers for empire.

    “I belong to Amer­i­ca!” Uyghur human rights leader teams up with far-right, Islam­o­phobes in anti-Chi­na cru­sade

    The UAA’s ultra-patri­ot­ic rev­er­ence of the US and fanat­i­cal anti-Chi­na pol­i­tics have been on full dis­play under the organization’s cur­rent pres­i­dent, Kuz­zat Altay.

    Altay fre­quent­ly takes to social media to make his alle­giance to Wash­ing­ton known.

    “May GOD bless you Amer­i­can Vet­er­ans! May GOD bless Amer­i­ca!” declared Altay on Vet­er­ans Day in 2019.

    Short­ly fol­low­ing the ille­gal US assas­si­na­tion of Iran­ian Major Gen­er­al Qasem Soleimani, Altay left no doubt as to where he stands: “Looks like the war just start­ed […] I belong to Amer­i­ca!”

    Amid the US upris­ings against police bru­tal­i­ty and sys­temic racism sparked by the mur­der of George Floyd, Altay chid­ed Black Lives Mat­ter pro­test­ers, say­ing that he “support[ed] peace­ful pro­tes­tors […] but do[es] not sup­port loot­ers, rub­bers [sic] and crim­i­nals”

    “Your LOVE for #Amer­i­ca should be greater than your HATE for #Trump,” Altay pro­nounced.

    The degree of Altay’s infat­u­a­tion with the US is only matched by the feroc­i­ty of his enmi­ty towards Chi­na. “The most nor­mal thing that I could ever imag­ine is anti-Chi­na activ­i­ties every freak­ing day,” Altay stat­ed on July 25, 2020. “You should help us to stop Chi­na. Chi­na is ALREADY the com­mon ene­my of human­i­ty.”

    Altay is a staunch sup­port­er of Washington’s new Cold War agen­da. Applaud­ing the Trump administration’s trade and tech­nol­o­gy war, Altay declared “[a]ll coun­ties [sic] should treat #Huawei as war crim­i­nals.”

    Despite claim­ing to be the inter­na­tion­al rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Xinjiang’s pre­dom­i­nant­ly Mus­lim, Uyghur eth­nic group, and strug­gling against reli­gious per­se­cu­tion, Altay and his com­rades have rou­tine­ly teamed up with far-right, Islam­o­pho­bic forces in the US to advance their sep­a­ratist cam­paign.

    The UAA has worked close­ly with Repub­li­can Rep. Ted Yoho, a homo­pho­bic, anti-abor­tion ultra-con­ser­v­a­tive who once told a Black con­stituent that he was not sure if the Civ­il Rights Act was con­sti­tu­tion­al. Yoho was one of only four law­mak­ers to vote against leg­is­la­tion mak­ing lynch­ing a fed­er­al hate crime. In a high-pro­file dust-up on Capi­tol Hill, he report­ed­ly called Rep. Alexan­dria Oca­sio-Cortez a “fuc king bitch.” In 2019, Yoho was one of 24 mem­bers of Con­gress to vote against a res­o­lu­tion con­demn­ing big­otry because it includ­ed anti-Mus­lim dis­crim­i­na­tion.

    Yoho has also ardent­ly sup­port­ed regime change in Venezuela, defend­ed US mis­sile strikes against Syr­ia, and pro­claimed that the “US army must defend Tai­wan” against Chi­na.

    In 2019, Altay spoke on a pan­el of US gov­ern­ment-fund­ed Chi­nese dis­si­dents orga­nized by the Fam­i­ly Research Coun­cil (FRC). The FRC has been des­ig­nat­ed a hate group by the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter (SPLC) due to its extreme anti-LGBTQ, anti-choice, and anti-Mus­lim ide­ol­o­gy.

    Retired US Gen­er­al and under­sec­re­tary for defense under for­mer Pres­i­dent George W. Bush, Jer­ry Boykin, serves as the FRC’s vice pres­i­dent. Boykin is a vir­u­lent Islam­o­phobe who believes that the reli­gion is evil and should be out­lawed, and that there should be “no mosques in Amer­i­ca.” Dur­ing a ser­mon at an evan­gel­i­cal church dur­ing the US war on Iraq, Boykin boast­ed of tak­ing on a Mus­lim war­lord in Soma­lia: “I knew my God was big­ger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol,” he declared. Boykin’s anti-Mus­lim tirades grew so extreme that he was inves­ti­gat­ed by the US Depart­ment of Defense and drew a rebuke from Bush.

    In recent years, Altay has orga­nized sev­er­al events for Uyghur Amer­i­cans in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the FBI, the fed­er­al law enforce­ment agency noto­ri­ous for its sur­veil­lance of Mus­lim Amer­i­cans and ensnar­ing count­less men­tal­ly trou­bled young Mus­lim Amer­i­can men in man­u­fac­tured ter­ror plots. In 2020, the UAA orga­nized an “FBI Work­shop for Uyghur Com­mu­ni­ty” which aimed to teach Uyghur Amer­i­cans about “the role of the FBI in pro­tect­ing Uyghurs” and how “Uyghurs [can] com­mu­ni­cate with the FBI”.

    Through­out the pan­dem­ic, Altay and fel­low lead­ers of the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment have inces­sant­ly spread right-wing con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries blam­ing Chi­na for Covid-19 and all relat­ed deaths. Such dis­in­for­ma­tion has played a key role in whip­ping up anti-Asian racism in the US and West.

    Altay’s Twit­ter page is an end­less stream of nox­ious, far-right coro­n­avirus-relat­ed pro­pa­gan­da.

    “I sup­port @realDonaldTrump’s deci­sion to call it Chi­ne­se­Virus,” declared Altay on March 18, 2020, defend­ing Trump against crit­i­cism from “[p]eople whin­ing about racism.” Altay also rou­tine­ly referred to Covid-19 as “Wuhan virus” and “CCP virus”, as have WUC lead­ers such as Dolkun Isa and Rushan Abbas.

    Altay pro­mot­ed Steve Bannon’s claims that the “CCP unleashed [Covid-19] on the world”, and would lat­er echo this sen­ti­ment. “Chi­na [p]urposefully, inten­tion­al­ly export­ed the virus to cause the pan­dem­ic,” Altay declared on July 5, 2020. “No war has kileed [sic] more peo­ple than China’s Virus war.”

    World-famous UFC cham­pi­on @TeamKhabib’s father has passed away because of #CCPVirus. Chi­na Pur­pose­ful­ly, inten­tion­al­ly export­ed the virus to cause the pan­dem­ic. 550,000 peo­ple died. No war has kileed more peo­ple than China’s Virus war. #Hold­Chi­naAc­count­able pic.twitter.com/EAayRykilr— kuz­zat Altay (@KuzzatAltay) July 5, 2020

    Altay also endorsed right-wing con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries which claimed that Covid-19 was engi­neered as a bioweapon in a Wuhan lab and the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion was con­trolled by the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment.

    ...

    Foot sol­diers for empire: Uyghur human rights activists train­ing with US mil­i­tary instruc­tors for “mis­sion readi­ness”

    Lead­ing mem­bers of UAA have found­ed Altay Defense, which arranges for con­stituents in the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment to receive arms train­ing by for­mer US spe­cial forces sol­diers and instruc­tors. The orga­ni­za­tion boasts that “[a]ll secu­ri­ty train­ing [is] pro­vid­ed by for­mer spe­cial force offi­cer!”

    A mis­sion state­ment pub­lished by Shad­ow Hawk Defense out­lines a goal to train “elite armed secu­ri­ty pro­fes­sion­als, who serve the high threat needs of the US gov­ern­ment, mil­i­tary, and intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ties,” includ­ing “host­ing and train­ing clas­si­fied secu­ri­ty per­son­nel.” The facil­i­ty employs “train­ers [who] have years of expe­ri­ence train­ing con­trac­tors for the U.S. Gov­ern­ment” with the goal of “achiev­ing mis­sion readi­ness.”

    In a recent inter­view, Shad­ow Hawk’s co-founder and Direc­tor of Train­ing, Randy Weeke­ly, described his work in detail: “I teach mil­i­tary con­trac­tors before they deploy to these ‘oth­er places’, defen­sive tac­tics, CQB [close-quar­ters bat­tle], pis­tol, rifle, bound­ing, attack on vehi­cles, all the skills that they need […] before they deploy.”

    Altay Defense receives instruc­tion from James Lang, a for­mer US Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and works as a firearm instruc­tor for the US Depart­ment of Defense. Lang also oper­ates Ridge­line Secu­ri­ty Con­sul­tants, which pro­vides firearms and tac­ti­cal train­ing to “pre­pare law enforce­ment offi­cers [and] armed secu­ri­ty pro­fes­sion­als […] to sur­vive and win dead­ly force con­fronta­tions.”

    Leav­ing lit­tle to the imag­i­na­tion, UAA mem­bers con­duct train­ing using assault rifles while dressed in offi­cial-seem­ing bat­tle dress fatigues bear­ing the US flag.

    Altay Defense is led by Faruk Altay, broth­er of UAA Pres­i­dent Kuz­zat Altay and nephew of Rebiya Kadeer, who is per­haps the most promi­nent inter­na­tion­al fig­ure­head of the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment.

    A look at Faruk Altay’s online activ­i­ty reveals him to be a far-right, anti-com­mu­nist, ultra-nation­al­ist.

    “Trump is the best!!!” Altay post­ed to Twit­ter in 2018. Altay also expressed sup­port for Trump’s bor­der wall and seem­ing­ly jus­ti­fied the “Stop the Steal” Capi­tol riot which took place on Jan­u­ary 6, 2021. He has also shared an anti-immi­grant meme com­par­ing Cen­tral Amer­i­can migrants to the inter­na­tion­al crim­i­nal gang MS-13.

    Faruk Altay flaunts his ded­i­ca­tion to the US mil­i­tary, post­ing images on social media of him­self dressed in US mil­i­tary fatigues, wear­ing a skull face mask, and hold­ing an assault rifle, with cap­tions read­ing: “I STAND WITH UYGHUR, TIBET, HONG KONG, AND FREEDOM AGAINST COMMUNISM”.

    Altay refers to him­self as a “free­dom fight­er” tak­ing “revenge for my father,” and refers to his chil­dren as “[m]y future West Point offi­cers!

    Far from a lone wolf, Faruk Altay has been joined by lead­ing fig­ures of the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment. Social media posts show UAA Pres­i­dent Kuz­zat Altay, Murat Ata­man, and Bahram Sin­tash, among oth­ers attend­ing Altay Defense train­ing ses­sions.

    Murat Ata­man is affil­i­at­ed with the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy (NED)– the fund­ing engine of the US government’s regime change appa­ra­tus – UAA off­shoot Uyghur Human Rights Project. A vet­er­an of the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment, Ata­man he works for US mil­i­tary and intel­li­gence con­trac­tor, Gen­er­al Dynam­ics, and has pre­vi­ous­ly held posi­tions at the Depart­ment of Defense, Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty and Depart­ment of Vet­er­an Affairs.

    Bahram Sin­tash is also affil­i­at­ed with the NED-fund­ed UHRP, author­ing reports which allege that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment is demol­ish­ing Uyghur mosques and shrines. Sin­tash was a key play­er in lob­by­ing efforts to urge the US Con­gress to pass the Uyghur Human Right Pol­i­cy Act of 2019, vis­it­ing more than 380 mem­bers of Con­gress.

    In his spare time, Sin­tash keeps com­pa­ny with the far-right, evan­gel­i­cal Xin­jiang researcher Adri­an Zenz. Dur­ing a meet­ing at Radio Free Asia (RFA), Sin­tash referred to Zenz as “the CIA agent,” and the US gov­ern­ment-spon­sored broad­cast­ing ser­vice as “the orig­i­nal CIA branch of RFA’s head­quar­ters in DC.”

    While Sin­tash may have been sar­cas­tic, the New York Times has described RFA in no uncer­tain terms as part of a “World­wide Pro­pa­gan­da Net­work Built by the CIA.”

    ...

    Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment cul­ti­vat­ed by the US gov­ern­ment for “top­pling” Bei­jing

    Estab­lished in 1998, the Uyghur Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion (UAA) is the Wash­ing­ton DC-based affil­i­ate of the World Uyghur Con­gress (WUC), which claims to be “the sole legit­i­mate orga­ni­za­tion of the Uyghur peo­ple” around the world. Por­trayed by West­ern gov­ern­ments and media as the lead­ing voice for Uyghur inter­ests and human rights, the WUC has played a cen­tral role in shap­ing West­ern under­stand­ing of Xin­jiang.

    As The Gray­zone pre­vi­ous­ly report­ed, the WUC is a right-wing, anti-com­mu­nist, and ultra-nation­al­ist net­work of exiled Uyghur sep­a­ratists who have stat­ed their inten­tion to bring about the “fall of Chi­na” and estab­lish an eth­no-state called “East Turkestan” in Xin­jiang. The WUC has devel­oped deep ties to Washington’s regime change estab­lish­ment and received exten­sive US gov­ern­ment-fund­ing and train­ing.

    In recent years, the WUC has worked close­ly with US and West­ern gov­ern­ments, and part­nered with fraud-prone pseu­do-schol­ars such as Adri­an Zenz to inten­si­fy their New Cold War against Chi­na, advo­cat­ing for Chi­nese pol­i­cy in Xin­jiang to be labeled ‘geno­cide,’ along with sanc­tions and boy­cott.

    The Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy (NED) has been cen­tral to the ris­ing inter­na­tion­al promi­nence of the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment. In 2020, the NED boast­ed that it has giv­en Uyghur groups $8,758,300 since 2004 (includ­ing $75,000 in annu­al fund­ing to the UAA) and claimed to be “the only insti­tu­tion­al fun­der for Uyghur advo­ca­cy and human rights orga­ni­za­tions.”

    “As a result of NED’s sup­port, the Uyghur advo­ca­cy groups have grown both insti­tu­tion­al­ly and pro­fes­sion­al­ly over the years,” said Akram Ker­am, a pro­gram offi­cer and region­al expert at NED. “These groups played crit­i­cal roles in intro­duc­ing the Uyghur cause in var­i­ous inter­na­tion­al, region­al, and nation­al set­tings against China’s false nar­ra­tives, bring­ing the Uyghur voice to the high­est inter­na­tion­al lev­els, includ­ing the Unit­ed Nations, Euro­pean Par­lia­ment, and the White House. They pro­vid­ed first­hand, fac­tu­al resources doc­u­ment­ing the atroc­i­ties in East Turk­istan, inform­ing and inspir­ing the intro­duc­tion of rel­e­vant res­o­lu­tions, sanc­tions, and calls for action to hold the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty account­able.”

    “The Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy has been excep­tion­al­ly sup­port­ive of UAA,” echoed for­mer UAA Pres­i­dent, Nury Turkel, in 2006, “pro­vid­ing us with invalu­able guid­ance and assis­tance” and “essen­tial fund­ing.” Accord­ing to Turkel, thanks to NED sup­port, the “UAA and UHRP have gained a new lev­el of influ­ence and cred­i­bil­i­ty among media orga­ni­za­tions in the U.S. and oth­er coun­tries.”

    ...

    Turkel con­firmed that the UAA aims to lever­age Washington’s sup­port to advance regime change in Chi­na. In 2006, he told his allies, “as we wit­nessed the ‘Tulip Rev­o­lu­tion’ and the top­pling of the for­mer gov­ern­ment of Kyr­gyzs­tan, our hopes were again rein­forced.” Turkel empha­sized that the US-spon­sored col­or rev­o­lu­tion sent a “strong mes­sage” to Chi­na, and recalled how he was imme­di­ate­ly sum­moned to Bishkek to coor­di­nate with the new gov­ern­ment.

    The NED helped the UAA launch the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) in 2004, serv­ing as its prin­ci­pal source of fund­ing, with $1,244,698 in sup­port between 2016 and ’19 alone. The UHRP has brought togeth­er lead­ing fig­ures of the WUC, includ­ing Turkel and Omer Kanat, and NED, with for­mer NED Vice Pres­i­dent, Louisa Greve, serv­ing as the group’s Direc­tor of Glob­al Advo­ca­cy.

    The UAA’s lead­er­ship con­sists of US nation­al secu­ri­ty state oper­a­tors includ­ing employ­ees of the US gov­ern­ment, US pro­pa­gan­da net­work Radio Free Asia, and the mil­i­tary-indus­tri­al com­plex. Past lead­ers of the orga­ni­za­tion include:

    Nury Turkel, for­mer Pres­i­dent (2004–2006) — Co-found­ed the UHRP with the NED. In 2020, Turkel was appoint­ed a com­mis­sion­er on the US Com­mis­sion on Inter­na­tion­al Reli­gious Free­dom by Speak­er of the House Nan­cy Pelosi.

    Rebiya Kadeer, for­mer Pres­i­dent (2006–2011) — A self-described oli­garch and long­time fig­ure­head of the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment. Accord­ing to The New York Times, Kadeer’s “[d]issidence brought the end of her Audi, her three vil­las and her far-flung busi­ness empire”. Kadeer’s hus­band, Sidik Rouzi, worked for US gov­ern­ment media out­lets Voice of Amer­i­ca and Radio Free Asia. Under Kadeer’s lead­er­ship, the WUC and UAA forged close ties with the Bush admin­is­tra­tion.

    Ilshat Has­san Kok­bore, for­mer Pres­i­dent (2016–2019) — Since 2008, Kok­bore has worked with noto­ri­ous pri­vate US mil­i­tary and intel­li­gence con­trac­tor, Booz Allen Hamil­ton. Edward Snow­den was employed at the firm when he decid­ed to blow the whis­tle on the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Agency’s inva­sive, all-encom­pass­ing sys­tem of mass sur­veil­lance.

    Omer Kanat, for­mer Vice Pres­i­dent – Serves as the WUC’s Chair­man of the Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee. Kanat helped found the WUC and has been a per­ma­nent fix­ture in its exec­u­tive lead­er­ship. The vet­er­an oper­a­tive has a lengthy his­to­ry of work with the US gov­ern­ment, from serv­ing as senior edi­tor of Radio Free Asia’s Uyghur Ser­vice from 1999 to 2009 to cov­er­ing the US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan and inter­view­ing the Dalai Lama for the net­work. In an inter­view with Gray­zone edi­tor Max Blu­men­thal at a 2018 NED awards cer­e­mo­ny in the US Capi­tol build­ing, Kanat took cred­it for fur­nish­ing many of the claims about intern­ment camps in Xin­jiang to West­ern media.

    Rushan Abbas, for­mer Vice Pres­i­dent — Pre­vi­ous­ly boast­ed in her bio of her “exten­sive expe­ri­ence work­ing with US gov­ern­ment agen­cies, includ­ing Home­land Secu­ri­ty, Depart­ment of Defense, Depart­ment of State, and var­i­ous US intel­li­gence agen­cies.” Served the US gov­ern­ment and Bush administration’s so-called war on ter­ror as a “con­sul­tant at Guan­tanamo Bay sup­port­ing Oper­a­tion Endur­ing Free­dom.” Fol­low­ing a dis­as­trous pub­lic­i­ty appear­ance on Reddit’s “Ask Me Any­thing” ques­tion and answer forum, dur­ing which par­tic­i­pants blast­ed Abbas as a “CIA Asset” and US gov­ern­ment col­lab­o­ra­tor, she has attempt­ed to scrub her bio­graph­ic infor­ma­tion from the inter­net. Abbas cur­rent­ly heads the WUC affil­i­ate orga­ni­za­tion, Cam­paign for Uyghurs.

    The UAA cur­rent lead­er­ship includes:

    Kuz­zat Altay, Pres­i­dent — Nephew of Rebiya Kadeer. As doc­u­ment­ed above, Altay is a rabid anti-com­mu­nist and ardent­ly pro-US. He has favor­ably com­pared the estab­lish­ment of Israel to the sep­a­ratist move­ment for “East Turkestan.”

    Elfi­dar Ite­bir, Sec­re­tary — Sis­ter of Elni­gar Ite­bir, who was appoint­ed by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion as Direc­tor for Chi­na in the White House Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil. Itebir’s father, Ablikim Baqi Ilte­bir, worked for the US gov­ern­ment media out­let, Radio Free Asia, from Feb­ru­ary 2000 to August 2017

    Arslan Khakiyev, Trea­sur­er — Pre­vi­ous­ly worked at Radio Free Asia for over 18 years. Khahkiyev’s wife, Gulchehra Hoja, has worked for Radio Free Asia since 2001.

    * * *

    The week­ly del­uge of US media reports of Uyghur oppres­sion in Xin­jiang is clear­ly designed to appeal to lib­er­al sen­si­bil­i­ties, pre­sent­ing the strug­gle of an oppressed minor­i­ty against a tyran­ni­cal gov­ern­ment, and omit­ting any pieces of con­text that might prove dis­rup­tive to the David-ver­sus-Goliath nar­ra­tive. But it is becom­ing clear that some pro­found­ly illib­er­al forces lie behind the veneer of a peace­ful cam­paign for human rights.

    ...

    ————

    ““Wipe out Chi­na!” US-fund­ed Uyghur activists train as gun-tot­ing foot sol­diers for empire” by Ajit Singh; The Gray Zone; 03/31/2021

    “The week­ly del­uge of US media reports of Uyghur oppres­sion in Xin­jiang is clear­ly designed to appeal to lib­er­al sen­si­bil­i­ties, pre­sent­ing the strug­gle of an oppressed minor­i­ty against a tyran­ni­cal gov­ern­ment, and omit­ting any pieces of con­text that might prove dis­rup­tive to the David-ver­sus-Goliath nar­ra­tive. But it is becom­ing clear that some pro­found­ly illib­er­al forces lie behind the veneer of a peace­ful cam­paign for human rights.

    Yes, despite the David-ver­sus-Goliath nar­ra­tive that is being increas­ing­ly pushed in the West­ern media, the evi­dence is that the lead­ing forces behind the Uyghur human rights move­ment are, them­selves, not exact­ly the kinds of fig­ures one would nor­mal­ly asso­ciates with human rights activism. Human rights and the far right don’t exact­ly mix. But, of course, that’s the whole point. The the sto­ry of the Uyghur Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion (UAA) isn’t the sto­ry of a human rights cam­paign. It’s the sto­ry of a regime change cam­paign formed by the US nation­al secu­ri­ty state and being con­duct­ed under the guise of a human rights cam­paign. Hence giant human rights mis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign. It’s why we don’t need to wres­tle with the con­tra­dic­tion of the UAA’s pro­fessed human rights con­cerns with the image of a UAA anti-Chi­nese racist car­a­van or the UAA’s work with some of the most anti-Mus­lim mem­bers of con­gress. There is no con­tra­dic­tion because the human rights slo­ga­neer­ing is just that. Slo­ga­neer­ing from a far right orga­ni­za­tion and noth­ing more:

    ...
    Orga­nized by the Uyghur Amer­i­can Asso­ci­a­tion (UAA), the dri­ve-by heck­ling of anti-racist demon­stra­tors drew wide­spread con­dem­na­tion on social media, includ­ing from oth­er sec­tions of the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment. Sal­ih Huda­yar, the self-pro­claimed “Prime Min­is­ter of the East Turk­istan Gov­ern­ment-in-Exile,” slammed “the UAA’s reck­less dri­ve-by” for caus­ing “severe back­lash against Uyghurs,” and insist­ed that Uyghur Amer­i­cans were “not racist.””

    ...

    The UAA is the US-affil­i­ate of the World Uyghur Con­gress (WUC), an inter­na­tion­al net­work whose first pres­i­dent out­lined an objec­tive to pre­cip­i­tate the “fall of Chi­na” and estab­lish an eth­no-state in Xin­jiang. The recip­i­ent of mil­lions of dol­lars of fund­ing the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy (NED), a US gov­ern­ment-spon­sored enti­ty, this net­work works close­ly with Wash­ing­ton and oth­er West­ern gov­ern­ments to esca­late hos­til­i­ties with Chi­na.

    ...

    The UAA’s ultra-patri­ot­ic rev­er­ence of the US and fanat­i­cal anti-Chi­na pol­i­tics have been on full dis­play under the organization’s cur­rent pres­i­dent, Kuz­zat Altay.

    ...

    Despite claim­ing to be the inter­na­tion­al rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Xinjiang’s pre­dom­i­nant­ly Mus­lim, Uyghur eth­nic group, and strug­gling against reli­gious per­se­cu­tion, Altay and his com­rades have rou­tine­ly teamed up with far-right, Islam­o­pho­bic forces in the US to advance their sep­a­ratist cam­paign.

    The UAA has worked close­ly with Repub­li­can Rep. Ted Yoho, a homo­pho­bic, anti-abor­tion ultra-con­ser­v­a­tive who once told a Black con­stituent that he was not sure if the Civ­il Rights Act was con­sti­tu­tion­al. Yoho was one of only four law­mak­ers to vote against leg­is­la­tion mak­ing lynch­ing a fed­er­al hate crime. In a high-pro­file dust-up on Capi­tol Hill, he report­ed­ly called Rep. Alexan­dria Oca­sio-Cortez a “fuc king bitch.” In 2019, Yoho was one of 24 mem­bers of Con­gress to vote against a res­o­lu­tion con­demn­ing big­otry because it includ­ed anti-Mus­lim dis­crim­i­na­tion.
    ...

    Also note that when we read about UAA pres­i­dent Kuz­zat Altay speak­ing on the pan­el of the far right anti-Mus­lim Fam­i­ly Research Coun­cil (FRC) in 2019, that pan­el was on Feb­ru­ary 6 of 2019. It also turns out that FRC pres­i­dent was appoint to the U.S. Com­mis­sion on Inter­na­tion­al Reli­gious Free­dom in 2019, but not until June of that year. So if one was tempt­ed to attribute the appear­ance of Altay on the FRC pan­el to the enhanced clout of the FRC after Perkins was appoint­ed to the
    U.S. Com­mis­sion on Inter­na­tion­al Reli­gious Free­dom, the tim­ing does­n’t pan out for that sce­nario. Altay spoke at the FRC pan­el months before Perkins got that post, mak­ing this more a reflec­tion of Altay’s far right pol­i­tics and anoth­er exam­ple of the UAA’s will­ing­ness to snug­gle up to the most anti-Mus­lim forces on DC:

    ...
    In 2019, Altay spoke on a pan­el of US gov­ern­ment-fund­ed Chi­nese dis­si­dents orga­nized by the Fam­i­ly Research Coun­cil (FRC). The FRC has been des­ig­nat­ed a hate group by the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter (SPLC) due to its extreme anti-LGBTQ, anti-choice, and anti-Mus­lim ide­ol­o­gy.
    ...

    And note how one of the UAA lead­ers, Bahram Sin­tash, hangs out with Adri­an Zenz and even referred to Zenz as a CIA agent dur­ing a meet­ing at Radio Free Asia. It’s appar­ent­ly not a secret on the inside:

    ...
    Bahram Sin­tash is also affil­i­at­ed with the NED-fund­ed UHRP, author­ing reports which allege that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment is demol­ish­ing Uyghur mosques and shrines. Sin­tash was a key play­er in lob­by­ing efforts to urge the US Con­gress to pass the Uyghur Human Right Pol­i­cy Act of 2019, vis­it­ing more than 380 mem­bers of Con­gress.

    In his spare time, Sin­tash keeps com­pa­ny with the far-right, evan­gel­i­cal Xin­jiang researcher Adri­an Zenz. Dur­ing a meet­ing at Radio Free Asia (RFA), Sin­tash referred to Zenz as “the CIA agent,” and the US gov­ern­ment-spon­sored broad­cast­ing ser­vice as “the orig­i­nal CIA branch of RFA’s head­quar­ters in DC.”

    While Sin­tash may have been sar­cas­tic, the New York Times has described RFA in no uncer­tain terms as part of a “World­wide Pro­pa­gan­da Net­work Built by the CIA.”
    ...

    Then there’s the Altay Defense para­mil­i­tary out­fit head­ed by Altay’s broth­er, Furuk Altay, who is also the nephew of Rebiya Kadeer. As an exam­ple of the Altays’s far right pol­i­tics, Furuk was post­ing defens­es of the Jan­u­ary 6 Capi­tol insur­rec­tion. It’s one thing for a lob­by­ing group to be friend­ly with the admin­is­tra­tion in pow­er because that’s how to effec­tive­ly lob­by. But in this case, we had the nephew of Rebiya Kadeer and broth­er of Kuz­zat Altay defend­ing an insur­rec­tion after it was already clear the Biden admin­is­tra­tion was going to be tak­ing pow­er. It hints at a rela­tion­ship to the US far right that go well beyond a mar­riage of polit­i­cal con­ve­nience:

    ...
    Altay Defense is led by Faruk Altay, broth­er of UAA Pres­i­dent Kuz­zat Altay and nephew of Rebiya Kadeer, who is per­haps the most promi­nent inter­na­tion­al fig­ure­head of the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment.

    A look at Faruk Altay’s online activ­i­ty reveals him to be a far-right, anti-com­mu­nist, ultra-nation­al­ist.

    “Trump is the best!!!” Altay post­ed to Twit­ter in 2018. Altay also expressed sup­port for Trump’s bor­der wall and seem­ing­ly jus­ti­fied the “Stop the Steal” Capi­tol riot which took place on Jan­u­ary 6, 2021. He has also shared an anti-immi­grant meme com­par­ing Cen­tral Amer­i­can migrants to the inter­na­tion­al crim­i­nal gang MS-13.
    ...

    And then there’s the tru­ly dis­turb­ing aspect of the sto­ry of Altay Defense and its rela­tion­ship to the UAA: the group appears to be focused on train­ing “elite armed secu­ri­ty pro­fes­sion­als who serve the high threat needs of the US gov­ern­ment, mil­i­tary, and intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ties.” And that train­ing is pro­vid­ed by for­mer US spe­cial forces mem­bers. Includ­ing James Lang, a for­mer US Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and works as a firearm instruc­tor for the US Depart­ment of Defense. In oth­er words, just as the UAA should be con­sid­ered an exten­sion of the US State Depart­ment, Altay Defense if effec­tive­ly an exten­sion of the US nation­al secu­ri­ty com­plex:

    ...
    Lead­ing mem­bers of UAA have found­ed Altay Defense, which arranges for con­stituents in the Uyghur sep­a­ratist move­ment to receive arms train­ing by for­mer US spe­cial forces sol­diers and instruc­tors. The orga­ni­za­tion boasts that “[a]ll secu­ri­ty train­ing [is] pro­vid­ed by for­mer spe­cial force offi­cer!”

    A mis­sion state­ment pub­lished by Shad­ow Hawk Defense out­lines a goal to train “elite armed secu­ri­ty pro­fes­sion­als, who serve the high threat needs of the US gov­ern­ment, mil­i­tary, and intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ties,” includ­ing “host­ing and train­ing clas­si­fied secu­ri­ty per­son­nel.” The facil­i­ty employs “train­ers [who] have years of expe­ri­ence train­ing con­trac­tors for the U.S. Gov­ern­ment” with the goal of “achiev­ing mis­sion readi­ness.”

    ...

    Altay Defense receives instruc­tion from James Lang, a for­mer US Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and works as a firearm instruc­tor for the US Depart­ment of Defense. Lang also oper­ates Ridge­line Secu­ri­ty Con­sul­tants, which pro­vides firearms and tac­ti­cal train­ing to “pre­pare law enforce­ment offi­cers [and] armed secu­ri­ty pro­fes­sion­als […] to sur­vive and win dead­ly force con­fronta­tions.”
    ...

    It’s also worth keep­ing in mind that, giv­en that the lead­er­ship of the UAA and WUC is demon­stra­bly far right and giv­en that Altay Defense pro­vides elite para­mil­i­tary train­ing, if this move­ment ever decides to start using ter­ror­ism as a tool for achiev­ing its goals — whether it’s ter­ror­ism direct­ed at Chi­na or false flag ter­ror events in the US — the group is going to have plen­ty of peo­ple with the rel­e­vant skills required to pull it off. Skills and high lev­el gov­ern­ment con­nec­tions. It’s part of what makes the UAA such a dan­ger­ous group. It’s not just dan­ger­ous because it has an extrem­ist agen­da and exten­sive capa­bil­i­ties. It’s dan­ger­ous because it has an extrem­ist agen­da, exten­sive capabilities...and is deeply con­nect­ed and pro­tect­ed.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 12, 2021, 5:04 pm
  2. It’s the itch the GOP can’t stop scratch­ing: fol­low­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s attempts to either force the sale of Tik­Tok to a US-owned com­pa­ny or ban the app alto­geth­er — efforts that ulti­mate­ly fiz­zled despite all the announce­ments of a sale — Repub­li­can mem­bers of con­gress have intro­duced leg­is­la­tion to ban the Chi­nese-owned Tik­Tok app.

    But the ban only applies to fed­er­al devices. Yes, fed­er­al employ­ees can’t have Tik­Tok on their gov­ern­ment-issued smart­phones if this leg­is­la­tion is signed into law, sav­ing the US from per­ils of Tik­Tok hand­ing over per­son­al data from fed­er­al employ­ees’ smart­phones to the author­i­tar­i­an Chi­nese gov­ern­ment. It’s the kind of the­atrics the GOP has deter­mined is a polit­i­cal win­ner, which is why we should expect leg­is­la­tion like this to become an annu­al thing. Which is already sort of is. A sim­i­lar bill passed the Sen­ate unan­i­mous­ly in 2020. It was just nev­er brought up in the House. It’s exact­ly the kind of polit­i­cal­ly charged the­atri­cal dis­trac­tion the GOP thrives on. Leg­is­la­tion that allows law­mak­ers to pre­tend that they are some­how tak­ing a mean­ing­ful stand to pro­tect the data of US cit­i­zens while effec­tive­ly doing noth­ing. It’s why we should expect a lot more of this. Point­less­ly pro­posed year after year. Like clock­work:

    The Hill

    Repub­li­can law­mak­ers rein­tro­duce bill to ban Tik­Tok on fed­er­al devices

    By Mag­gie Miller
    04/15/21 06:00 AM EDT

    Sen. Josh Haw­ley (R‑Mo.) led a group of Sen­ate Repub­li­cans on Thurs­day in rein­tro­duc­ing leg­is­la­tion to ban the use of social media app Tik­Tok on fed­er­al gov­ern­ment devices, cit­ing poten­tial nation­al secu­ri­ty con­cerns.

    The No Tik­Tok on Gov­ern­ment Devices Act would ban all fed­er­al employ­ees from using the pop­u­lar app on gov­ern­ment devices. The leg­is­la­tion was pre­vi­ous­ly intro­duced in 2020, and was unan­i­mous­ly passed by the Sen­ate in August, but the bill nev­er received a vote in the House.

    “Tik­Tok is a Tro­jan horse for the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty that has no place on gov­ern­ment devices—or any Amer­i­can devices, for that mat­ter,” Haw­ley said in a state­ment Thurs­day. “My bill is a straight­for­ward plan to pro­tect Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment data from a hos­tile for­eign pow­er, which, less than a year ago, passed the Sen­ate unan­i­mous­ly.”

    “Tik­Tok has repeat­ed­ly proven itself to be a mali­cious actor but Joe Biden and Big Tech refuse to take the threat of Chi­nese espi­onage seri­ous­ly. It’s time for Con­gress to act,” he added.

    Sens. Mar­co Rubio (R‑Fla.), Tom Cot­ton (R‑Ark.), and Rick Scott (R‑Fla.) are co-spon­sors of the leg­is­la­tion.

    The bill was also rein­tro­duced in the House by Rep. Ken Buck (R‑Colo.), who said in a sep­a­rate state­ment that the leg­is­la­tion “is in the best inter­est of our nation­al secu­ri­ty.”

    “Chi­nese-owned apps are required to report user data to the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty, that is why we can­not trust Tik­Tok with the sen­si­tive data that exists on U.S. gov­ern­ment devices,” Buck said. “It is well past time to acknowl­edge the seri­ous cyber­se­cu­ri­ty threat that Tik­Tok pos­es and enact a fed­er­al gov­ern­ment-wide ban on the Chi­nese app.”

    While the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment as a whole has not tak­en the step to ban Tik­Tok, agen­cies includ­ing the Defense and Home­land Secu­ri­ty depart­ments, along with the Trans­porta­tion Secu­ri­ty Admin­is­tra­tion, have already banned employ­ees from using the app on their fed­er­al devices.

    Tik­Tok came under close scruti­ny dur­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion, with for­mer Pres­i­dent Trump issu­ing an exec­u­tive order last year requir­ing Chi­nese com­pa­ny ByteDance, the par­ent com­pa­ny of Tik­Tok, to sell the app or have it banned from use in the Unit­ed States.

    The effort to ban Tik­Tok stalled out in the last months of the Trump admin­is­tra­tion fol­low­ing a con­tentious elec­tion, with the dead­line for sale of Tik­Tok pass­ing with no action tak­en, leav­ing the Biden admin­is­tra­tion to set its own rules on the app.

    Tik­Tok has repeat­ed­ly pushed back against con­cerns that it pos­es a threat due to ByteDance’s alleged con­nec­tions to the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment and data secu­ri­ty con­cerns, with the com­pa­ny tak­ing steps to increase its secu­ri­ty and the pri­va­cy of data.

    Com­merce Sec­re­tary Gina Rai­mon­do said last week that Jake Sul­li­van, Pres­i­dent Biden’s nation­al secu­ri­ty advis­er, was lead­ing a review to deter­mine how the Biden admin­is­tra­tion would approach Tik­Tok and oth­er Chi­nese tech com­pa­nies.

    ...

    ———–

    “Repub­li­can law­mak­ers rein­tro­duce bill to ban Tik­Tok on fed­er­al devices” by Mag­gie Miller; The Hill; 04/15/21

    The No Tik­Tok on Gov­ern­ment Devices Act would ban all fed­er­al employ­ees from using the pop­u­lar app on gov­ern­ment devices. The leg­is­la­tion was pre­vi­ous­ly intro­duced in 2020, and was unan­i­mous­ly passed by the Sen­ate in August, but the bill nev­er received a vote in the House.”

    So giv­en that Tik­Tok bans are set to be one of the GOP’s point­less the­atri­cal leg­isla­tive stunts-of-choice for the fore­see­able future, here’s a sto­ry that reminds us of per­haps the biggest rel­e­vant fact that should be guid­ing any real dis­cus­sion of how to pro­tect the data of app users: the risk posed to per­son­al data cre­at­ed by Tik­Tok is dwarfed by the risk posed by the entire­ly legal data-bro­ker­age indus­try and any gov­ern­ment, includ­ing Chi­na, is per­fect­ly capa­ble of pur­chas­ing that vast com­mer­cial­ly avail­able data. In oth­er words, if the Repub­li­cans were sin­cere about pro­tect­ing US cit­i­zens’ data from author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ments, basi­cal­ly ALL apps would have to be banned because all apps are poten­tial data leaks to the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment and any oth­er author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ment thanks to the US’s weak data pri­va­cy laws and near-com­plete lack of reg­u­la­tion of this indus­try:

    Wired

    Data Bro­kers Are a Threat to Democ­ra­cy

    Unless the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment steps up, the unchecked mid­dle­men of sur­veil­lance cap­i­tal­ism will con­tin­ue to harm our civ­il rights and nation­al secu­ri­ty.

    JUSTIN SHERMAN
    04.13.2021 09:00 AM

    YOU’VE PROBABLY NEVER heard of Acx­iom, but it like­ly knows you: The Arkansas firm claims to have data on 2.5 bil­lion peo­ple around the world. And in the US, if someone’s inter­est­ed in that infor­ma­tion, there are vir­tu­al­ly no restric­tions on their abil­i­ty to buy and then use it.

    Enter the data bro­ker­age indus­try, the multi­bil­lion dol­lar econ­o­my of sell­ing con­sumers’ and cit­i­zens’ inti­mate details. Much of the pri­va­cy dis­course has right­ly point­ed fin­gers at Face­book, Twit­ter, YouTube, and Tik­Tok, which col­lect users’ infor­ma­tion direct­ly. But a far broad­er ecosys­tem of buy­ing up, licens­ing, sell­ing, and shar­ing data exists around those plat­forms. Data bro­ker­age firms are mid­dle­men of sur­veil­lance capitalism—purchasing, aggre­gat­ing, and repack­ag­ing data from a vari­ety of oth­er com­pa­nies, all with the aim of sell­ing or fur­ther dis­trib­ut­ing it.

    Data bro­ker­age is a threat to democ­ra­cy. With­out robust nation­al pri­va­cy safe­guards, entire data­bas­es of cit­i­zen infor­ma­tion are ready for pur­chase, whether to preda­to­ry loan com­pa­nies, law enforce­ment agen­cies, or even mali­cious for­eign actors. Fed­er­al pri­va­cy bills that don’t give suf­fi­cient atten­tion to data bro­ker­age will there­fore fail to tack­le an enor­mous por­tion of the data sur­veil­lance econ­o­my, and will leave civ­il rights, nation­al secu­ri­ty, and pub­lic-pri­vate bound­aries vul­ner­a­ble in the process.

    Large data brokers—like Acx­iom, Core­L­og­ic, and Epsilon—tout the detail of their data on mil­lions or even bil­lions of peo­ple. Core­L­og­ic, for instance, adver­tis­es its real estate and prop­er­ty infor­ma­tion on 99.9 per­cent of the US pop­u­la­tion. Acx­iom pro­motes 11,000-plus “data attrib­ut­es,” from auto loan infor­ma­tion to trav­el pref­er­ences, on 2.5 bil­lion peo­ple (all to help brands con­nect with peo­ple “eth­i­cal­ly,” it adds). This lev­el of data col­lec­tion and aggre­ga­tion enables remark­ably spe­cif­ic pro­fil­ing.

    Need to run ads tar­get­ing poor fam­i­lies in rur­al areas? Check out one data broker’s “Rur­al and Bare­ly Mak­ing It” data set. Or how about racial­ly pro­fil­ing finan­cial vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty? Buy anoth­er company’s “Eth­nic Sec­ond-City Strug­glers” data set. These are just some of the dis­turb­ing titles cap­tured in a 2013 Sen­ate report on the industry’s data prod­ucts, which have only expand­ed since. Many oth­er bro­kers adver­tise their abil­i­ty to iden­ti­fy sub­groups upon sub­groups of indi­vid­u­als through cri­te­ria like race, gen­der, mar­i­tal sta­tus, and income lev­el, all sen­si­tive char­ac­ter­is­tics that cit­i­zens like­ly didn’t know would end up in a database—let alone up for sale.

    These com­pa­nies often acquire the infor­ma­tion through pur­chase, licens­ing, or oth­er shar­ing agree­ments with third par­ties. Ora­cle, for exam­ple, “owns and works with” over 80 data bro­kers, accord­ing to a 2019 Finan­cial Times report, aggre­gat­ing infor­ma­tion on every­thing from con­sumer shop­ping to inter­net behav­ior. How­ev­er, many com­pa­nies also scrape data that is pub­licly view­able on the inter­net and then aggre­gate it for sale or shar­ing. “Peo­ple search” web­sites often fall into this lat­ter category—compiling pub­lic records (prop­er­ty fil­ings, court doc­u­ments, vot­ing reg­is­tra­tions, etc.) on indi­vid­u­als and then let­ting any­one on the inter­net search for their infor­ma­tion.

    All of these unchecked prac­tices under­mine civ­il rights. Com­pa­nies that boast hold­ing thou­sands of data points on mil­lions or bil­lions of people—all for sell­ing them to whomev­er is buying—themselves rep­re­sent the aggre­ga­tion of unre­strained sur­veil­lance pow­er. This is par­tic­u­lar­ly dan­ger­ous to the less pow­er­ful. As cen­turies of sur­veil­lance in the Unit­ed States have made unde­ni­ably clear, the impact of stock­pil­ing indi­vid­u­als’ per­son­al infor­ma­tion will fall hard­est on the already oppressed or mar­gin­al­ized: the poor, Black and brown com­mu­ni­ties, Indige­nous pop­u­la­tions, LGBTQ+ indi­vid­u­als, undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants. “Peo­ple search” web­sites in par­tic­u­lar can pub­li­cize address­es and thus enable inti­mate part­ner vio­lence or dox­ing. The strong finan­cial incen­tives to sell data, with vir­tu­al­ly nonex­is­tent lim­i­ta­tions, gives these com­pa­nies every rea­son to share their data with oth­ers, includ­ing those who use it for harm.

    Law enforce­ment already buys up data from bro­kers. The Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty, includ­ing sub­agen­cies respon­si­ble for putting chil­dren in cages, have pur­chased cell phone loca­tion data on mil­lions of Amer­i­cans, home address infor­ma­tion to sup­port depor­ta­tions, and home util­i­ty data for inves­ti­ga­tions, among oth­ers. The Fed­er­al Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion has also been pur­chas­ing cell phone loca­tion data from data bro­ker Ven­n­tel. These prac­tices cir­cum­vent demo­c­ra­t­ic account­abil­i­ty: Agen­cies buy the infor­ma­tion with­out war­rants, and in doing so may bypass pro­hi­bi­tions on com­pa­nies hand­ing data direct­ly to law enforce­ment. Plus, the data may not even be accu­rate. An inves­ti­ga­tion by The Markup iden­ti­fied dozens of US cas­es over the last decade where indi­vid­u­als were denied hous­ing because screen­ing com­pa­nies used bad infor­ma­tion, often pur­chased from data bro­kers or pulled from “peo­ple search” bro­ker web­sites. Cit­i­zens also get reject­ed from jobs because of back­ground checks rely­ing on incor­rect data.

    The unreg­u­lat­ed sale of mas­sive data­bas­es of cit­i­zen information—and the unreg­u­lat­ed aggre­ga­tion and pub­li­ca­tion of that infor­ma­tion online—also under­mines nation­al secu­ri­ty. This was one of the miss­ing ele­ments of the pol­i­cy debate over Tik­Tok. If the US gov­ern­ment is con­cerned about for­eign author­i­tar­i­an pow­ers build­ing detailed pro­files on cit­i­zens, or even just on gov­ern­ment per­son­nel, then data bro­kers’ abil­i­ty to sell, share, or pub­lish inti­mate data sets on Amer­i­cans with vir­tu­al­ly no restric­tion should be of urgent con­cern too. For­eign pow­ers could buy this data through shell com­pa­nies or steal it by hack­ing. It could then be used to run micro­tar­get­ed elec­tion ads. It could be used to inform coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence oper­a­tions or iden­ti­fy per­sons of inter­est in the busi­ness com­mu­ni­ty. Crim­i­nal groups could even use this infor­ma­tion to tar­get politi­cians or judges.

    ...

    ————-

    “Data Bro­kers Are a Threat to Democ­ra­cy” by JUSTIN SHERMAN; Wired; 04/13/2021

    “The unreg­u­lat­ed sale of mas­sive data­bas­es of cit­i­zen information—and the unreg­u­lat­ed aggre­ga­tion and pub­li­ca­tion of that infor­ma­tion online—also under­mines nation­al secu­ri­ty. This was one of the miss­ing ele­ments of the pol­i­cy debate over Tik­Tok. If the US gov­ern­ment is con­cerned about for­eign author­i­tar­i­an pow­ers build­ing detailed pro­files on cit­i­zens, or even just on gov­ern­ment per­son­nel, then data bro­kers’ abil­i­ty to sell, share, or pub­lish inti­mate data sets on Amer­i­cans with vir­tu­al­ly no restric­tion should be of urgent con­cern too. For­eign pow­ers could buy this data through shell com­pa­nies or steal it by hack­ing. It could then be used to run micro­tar­get­ed elec­tion ads. It could be used to inform coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence oper­a­tions or iden­ti­fy per­sons of inter­est in the busi­ness com­mu­ni­ty. Crim­i­nal groups could even use this infor­ma­tion to tar­get politi­cians or judges.”

    Yep, the Tik­Tok pol­i­cy debate had a pret­ty sig­nif­i­cant miss­ing ele­ment. It was miss­ing the ele­ment of acknowl­edg­ing that the threat posed by Tik­Tok is posed by vir­tu­al­ly the entire data bro­ker­age indus­try that pow­ers the inter­net busi­ness mod­el. It’s kind of a big miss.

    And while this lat­est leg­isla­tive the­atri­cal stunt does­n’t actu­al­ly serve any direct val­ue to the US pub­lic, it’s worth keep­ing in mind that there is some poten­tial val­ue here: every time they make anoth­er point­less leg­isla­tive pro­pos­als like this that com­plete­ly ignores the broad­er real­i­ty of mass com­mer­cial­ized data min­ing, it’s anoth­er reminder of all the mean­ing­ful data pri­va­cy leg­is­la­tion that isn’t being pro­posed to address that real­i­ty of mass com­mer­cial­ized data min­ing. It’s the one default sil­ver lin­ing for a democ­ra­cy suf­fer­ing from the kind of bad faith rot ema­nat­ing from the con­tem­po­rary GOP: there are a lot of valu­able lessons in bad faithed disin­gen­u­ous awful­ness, if only we can see them. It’s an extreme­ly tar­nished sil­ver lin­ing.

    It’s also worth recall­ing that it isn’t just Repub­li­cans in con­gress rely­ing in these kinds of polit­i­cal the­atrics. As we’ve seen, Peter Thiel has increas­ing­ly been attempt­ing to use warn­ings about the threat from Chi­nese tech­nol­o­gy as a kind of com­mer­cial cud­gel against his com­pe­ti­tion, charg­ing Google with trea­son back in 2019 over its deal­ings in Chi­na. Thiel even called Bit­coin an poten­tial Chi­nese finan­cial weapon recent­ly. It was a rather iron­ic procla­ma­tion giv­en Thiel’s long-stand­ing sup­port of cryp­tocur­ren­cies. But there’s a far greater irony here that direct­ly relates to the ongo­ing fix­a­tion on Chi­na: it was none oth­er than Peter Thiel and Palan­tir co-founder Joe Lons­dale who helped ‘open the door’ in Sil­i­con Val­ley to Sau­di crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) in 2016 after MBS announced plann to invest $2 tril­lion of Sau­di state mon­ey into Sil­i­con Val­ley but found a lack of inter­est in tak­ing his mon­ey.

    So arguably the most author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ment on the plan­et was wel­comed into Amer­i­ca’s tech­nol­o­gy heart­land by the guys clam­or­ing the most about the dan­gers from author­i­tar­i­an Chi­na. It’s iron­ic and also exact­ly what we should have come to expect by now:

    Busi­ness Insid­er

    How the crown prince of Sau­di Ara­bia made his way into Sil­i­con Val­ley cir­cles with a $3.5 bil­lion invest­ment in Uber

    Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck
    Sep 2, 2020, 11:17 AM

    * Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck are both Pulitzer Prize final­ists and reporters for The Wall Street Jour­nal, where Hope cov­ers finance and malfea­sance and Scheck cov­ers glob­al white col­lar crime.
    * The fol­low­ing is an excerpt from their new book “Blood and Oil: Mohammed bin Salman’s Ruth­less Quest for Glob­al Pow­er” which delves into the life of Mohammed bin Salman, the 35-year-old crown prince of Sau­di Ara­bia.
    * In it, Hope and Scheck describe how the crown prince devel­oped a plan in 2016 to rein­vent Sau­di Ara­bi­a’s econ­o­my by cre­at­ing a $2 tril­lion fund to invest in up-and-com­ing indus­tries.
    * Soon, Mohammed bin Salman invest­ed $3.5 bil­lion into then start­up Uber, and was ush­ered into Sil­i­con Val­ley’s high soci­ety, where he brushed elbows with wealthy VCs and exec­u­tives like Face­book CEO Mark Zucker­berg.

    It seemed like an April Fool’s joke.

    John Mick­leth­wait, the Oxford-edu­cat­ed edi­tor in chief of Bloomberg News, went on TV on April 1, 2016, to report that Sau­di Ara­bia was going to start a $2 tril­lion invest­ment fund.

    “An amaz­ing thing,” Mick­leth­wait called it. “If you think about it, it’s enough to buy Google, Microsoft, Alpha­bet” —Google’s par­ent com­pa­ny — “the whole lot of them. War­ren Buf­fett.”

    Sau­di Ara­bi­an Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman had revealed the plan dur­ing a five-hour inter­view in which he out­lined his strat­e­gy to rein­vent the Sau­di econ­o­my. His ideas made sense, in the abstract, to for­eign econ­o­mists and busi­ness lead­ers. Mohammed would use cash from the Aram­co IPO to invest in new indus­tries, giv­ing his coun­try new sources of income beyond oil.

    ...

    Skep­ti­cal or not, the West­ern atten­tion alone was a vic­to­ry for the prince. By the end of April, he’d be on the cov­er of an issue of Bloomberg Busi­ness­week mag­a­zine detail­ing the trans­for­ma­tion plan for Sau­di Ara­bia that the con­sul­tants had pre­pared. Vision 2030 had tak­en hun­dreds of Sau­di and for­eign con­sul­tants months to fin­ish, and it laid out broad goals the Unit­ed States and World Bank had been sug­gest­ing for years. An econ­o­my with incen­tives for entre­pre­neur­ship and inno­va­tion and free­doms for women to join the work­force would cer­tain­ly cre­ate a stronger nation, the for­eign­ers argued.

    Mohammed’s plan set an almost ludi­crous­ly ambi­tious time­line for reach­ing those goals, con­sid­er­ing Sau­di Ara­bia was a coun­try with rough­ly the same eco­nom­ic struc­ture as when oil mon­ey start­ed flow­ing rough­ly a half cen­tu­ry ear­li­er. “All suc­cess sto­ries start with a vision, and suc­cess­ful visions are based on strong pil­lars,” the Vision 2030 state­ment said. The three pil­lars were mak­ing Sau­di Ara­bia the heart of the Arab and Islam­ic world, becom­ing a “glob­al invest­ment pow­er­house,” and turn­ing the coun­try into a “glob­al hub con­nect­ing three con­ti­nents” and an “epi­cen­ter of trade.”

    Once the announce­ment was made, Mohammed knew he need­ed to show progress quick­ly. In the ensu­ing weeks he grilled Sau­di offi­cials and for­eign con­sul­tants alike on how they could show their ideas were work­ing. He’d lose patience with, say, the finance min­is­ter and turn instead to the Min­istry of Econ­o­my and Plan­ning for an urgent task. “The prin­ci­pals changed every week. The wheel gets rein­vent­ed every few days,” a per­son work­ing for BCG com­plained.

    The sov­er­eign wealth fund debut showed the world Mohammed was plan­ning to spend. A month lat­er he host­ed US Sec­re­tary of State John Ker­ry on his yacht the Serene. But he still need­ed a splashy deal to intro­duce the Pub­lic Invest­ment Fund (PIF) as the new investor on the block.

    Not long before, Mohammed had been intro­duced to Travis Kalan­ick, founder of the then hot start­up Uber. The men devel­oped a rap­port — the prince would lat­er call the entre­pre­neur a friend — and Mohammed saw Uber as an attrac­tive invest­ment. The busi­ness press fawned over the com­pa­ny. It was expand­ing quick­ly all over the world and could play a big domes­tic role in Sau­di Ara­bia, with women still pro­hib­it­ed from dri­ving. Mohammed and Kalan­ick dis­cussed an invest­ment. At the begin­ning of June, the fund wired a total of $3.5 bil­lion to Uber. For that, Mohammed became the biggest investor in the world’s hottest tech start­up, and he got his staffer, the fund’s chief Yasir al-Rumayyan, on Uber’s board. He’d proven the king­dom was doing some­thing dif­fer­ent­ly.

    The invest­ment would be the first instance of many in which West­ern busi­ness­men, con­sul­tants, and bankers promised the world to the young prince but failed to deliv­er. Invest­ing in Uber did­n’t earn him a finan­cial return. Nor did Uber invest in Sau­di Ara­bia in a big way. In effect, Sau­di Ara­bia doled out $3.5 bil­lion for the priv­i­lege of announc­ing it was an investor in Uber. It would like­ly get its mon­ey back, but with­out an impres­sive return.

    A vet­er­an of Mid­dle East­ern sov­er­eign wealth funds who has grown cyn­i­cal over the years explains how it works for Gulf investors. All the best deals and oppor­tu­ni­ties are seized upon by big Amer­i­can insti­tu­tions with the help of New York City banks. The sec­ond-tier deals go to the Euro­peans. And the lemons are pack­aged up and rebrand­ed for what deri­sive bankers call the “dumb mon­ey” in the Mid­dle East. “They don’t care about us,” he said. “They only want our mon­ey.”

    Days lat­er Mohammed head­ed to Sil­i­con Val­ley.

    Exec­u­tives were eager to greet the prince. In pressed jeans and a blaz­er, Mohammed posed for pho­tos with Mark Zucker­berg and vis­it­ed Google’s founders.

    The recep­tion was less effu­sive among the ven­ture cap­i­tal­ists (VCs) whose ranks Mohammed want­ed to join. While entre­pre­neurs were hun­gry for Sau­di mon­ey, the VCs were a dif­fer­ent breed. Often pompous, dri­ving Tes­las to their low-slung offices on Sand Hill Road in the hills above Palo Alto, they spe­cial­ized in mak­ing small deals in ear­ly-stage star­tups that could pay giant returns in the unlike­ly event of suc­cess. Their indus­try was boom­ing. The last thing the suc­cess­ful VCs need­ed was a prince with hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars inflat­ing the val­u­a­tions of new star­tups and telling them how to do their jobs.

    “We don’t need your mon­ey,” one promi­nent VC told an emis­sary of Mohammed’s ahead of his vis­it to Cal­i­for­nia. “We’ve got plen­ty.” Anoth­er explained that his firm already had Sau­di mon­ey, irri­tat­ing the prince’s entourage since this mon­ey man­ag­er appar­ent­ly did­n’t know the dif­fer­ence between mon­ey from some rich Sau­di indi­vid­ual and the oppor­tu­ni­ty that Mohammed was offer­ing to man­age mon­ey for the Sau­di state.

    The only VCs who seemed tru­ly eager to meet the prince were those at the oth­er end of the spec­trum, the ambi­tious up-and- com­ers who also upset the prince’s entourage by boast­ing that they had an in with the Saud­is. One was Joe Lons­dale, a cofounder of the data ana­lyt­ics firm Palan­tir who had worked with the suc­cess­ful VC Peter Thiel.

    Ahead of the vis­it, investors recall, Lons­dale told them he had Sau­di invest­ment, when in fact he had a mod­est sum from a son of the ener­gy min­is­ter. It was far from a rela­tion­ship with the king­dom’s gov­ern­ment. Asked about the claim, Lons­dale said it was “not appro­pri­ate to share” the names of peo­ple whose mon­ey he man­aged and that he nev­er boast­ed about hav­ing Sau­di invest­ment. Lons­dale says he end­ed up not pur­su­ing invest­ments from the region. “It seems in those soci­eties many make mon­ey by ped­dling con­nec­tions, ver­sus build­ing things or apply­ing intel­lec­tu­al rig­or,” he lat­er said.

    But the more estab­lished VCs’ atti­tudes seemed to change at a din­ner at the Fair­mont Hotel atop San Fran­cis­co’s Nob Hill. “I need a bridge between Sau­di and Sil­i­con Val­ley. I need you to help our reforms,” Mohammed told a group that includ­ed Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, John Doerr, and Michael Moritz, titans of ven­ture cap­i­tal with decades of expe­ri­ence back­ing star­tups that turned into mul­ti-bil­lion-dol­lar cor­po­ra­tions.

    ...

    Excerpt­ed from Blood & Oil: Mohammed bin Salman’s Ruth­less Quest for Glob­al Pow­er, by Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck. Copy­right © 2020. Avail­able from Hachette Books, an imprint of Hachette Book Group, Inc.

    ———–

    “How the crown prince of Sau­di Ara­bia made his way into Sil­i­con Val­ley cir­cles with a $3.5 bil­lion invest­ment in Uber” by Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck; Busi­ness Insid­er; 09/02/2020

    “The only VCs who seemed tru­ly eager to meet the prince were those at the oth­er end of the spec­trum, the ambi­tious up-and- com­ers who also upset the prince’s entourage by boast­ing that they had an in with the Saud­is. One was Joe Lons­dale, a cofounder of the data ana­lyt­ics firm Palan­tir who had worked with the suc­cess­ful VC Peter Thiel.

    The crown prince shows up in town with a blank check­book and no one seemed to care. No one oth­er than ambi­tious up-and-com­ers like Palan­tir co-founder Joe Lons­dale. Recall how Lons­dale has been one of Rand Paul’s big polit­i­cal patrons in recent years. So the co-founder of one of the lead­ing com­pa­nies pro­vid­ing sur­veil­lance capa­bil­i­ties to gov­ern­ments and cor­po­ra­tions around the world is a major polit­i­cal patron of the most promi­nent self-pro­claimed lib­er­tar­i­ans in con­gress and also an eager part­ner with one of the most ruth­less author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ments on the plan­et. Because that’s how the world works. Through a sin­gle-mind­ed fix­a­tion on wealth and pow­er above all else. It’s the actu­al moral code run­ning the world, which is part of what makes all the bla­tant­ly fake jaw­bon­ing about Chi­na so dis­gust­ing.

    But it sounds like those atti­tudes about tak­ing that Sau­di mon­ey soon changed after a din­ner with a group that includ­ed Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel. MBS need­ed a bridge to Sil­i­con Val­ley and this small group of investors appears to have pro­vid­ed that bridge:

    ...
    But the more estab­lished VCs’ atti­tudes seemed to change at a din­ner at the Fair­mont Hotel atop San Fran­cis­co’s Nob Hill. “I need a bridge between Sau­di and Sil­i­con Val­ley. I need you to help our reforms,” Mohammed told a group that includ­ed Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, John Doerr, and Michael Moritz, titans of ven­ture cap­i­tal with decades of expe­ri­ence back­ing star­tups that turned into mul­ti-bil­lion-dol­lar cor­po­ra­tions.
    ...

    Flash for­ward to 2017, and we find Thiel giv­ing a speech in Riyadh, Sau­di Ara­bia, where he’s pre­dict­ing that the next decade of tech­no­log­i­cal growth is going to take place some­where out­side of Sil­i­con Val­ley. In 2019, Thiel made his first big invest­ment in the Mid­dle East in the UAE-based heavy equip­ment rental mar­ket­place Ten­dered. Thiel clear­ly has lit­tle prob­lem doing busi­ness with the author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ments of the Mid­dle East. A sen­ti­ment shared by much of the rest of Sil­i­con Val­ley based on the explo­sion of Sau­di Sil­i­con Val­ley invest­ments in recent years.

    How much more Sau­di mon­ey should we expect to flow into Sil­i­con Val­ley in com­ing years? We’ll see. It prob­a­bly depends in part on whether or not MBS actu­al­ly got some decent returns on his invest­ments so far. But one thing is already clear: no mat­ter how much Sau­di gov­ern­ment mon­ey floods into Sil­i­con Val­ley, no one is going to bat an eye or care. Because it’s not about whether or not user data falls into the hands of author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ments. It’s about whether or not user data falls into the hands of unfriend­ly author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ments. Friend­ly author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ments are just fine and the Sau­di gov­ern­ment has been deemed a friend­ly author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ment. For some strange rea­sons that have yet to be clar­i­fied.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | April 19, 2021, 3:34 pm
  3. The New Zealand par­lia­ment just unan­i­mous­ly passed a res­o­lu­tion con­demn­ing “sev­er human rights abus­es” in Chi­na’s Xin­jiang region. But the res­o­lu­tion notably did not use the word “geno­cide”, which was in the orig­i­nal res­o­lu­tion but removed in order to get the sup­port of the rul­ing Labour par­ty. New Zealand’s for­eign min­is­ter Nana­ia Mahuta defend­ed the removal of the word “geno­cide” by point­ing out that it “is the gravest of inter­na­tion­al crimes and a for­mal legal deter­mi­na­tion should only be reached fol­low­ing a rig­or­ous assess­ment on the basis of inter­na­tion­al law”, and pledged to call for inde­pen­dent observers to vis­it Chi­na and ascer­tain the sit­u­a­tion. So implic­it in the Labour gov­ern­men­t’s defense of its removal of the word “geno­cide” from the res­o­lu­tion to con­demn Chi­na over severe human rights abus­es is the fact that these charges haven’t actu­al­ly been proven or even inde­pen­dent­ly assessed:

    Reuters

    New Zealand par­lia­ment says Uyghur rights abus­es tak­ing place in Chi­na

    May 5, 2021 1:24 AM CDT

    New Zealand’s par­lia­ment unan­i­mous­ly declared on Wednes­day that severe human rights abus­es were tak­ing place against Uyghur peo­ple in Chi­na’s Xin­jiang region, spurring the Chi­nese embassy to decry the move as inter­fer­ence in inter­nal affairs.

    All par­ties dis­cussed and sup­port­ed a motion by New Zealand’s small­er ACT Par­ty, but only after it was revised to drop the word “geno­cide” from the text.

    In par­lia­ment, ACT’s deputy leader, Brooke van Velden, said she had to insert the phrase “severe human rights abus­es” in order to secure the approval of the rul­ing Labour Par­ty, led by Prime Min­is­ter Jacin­da Ardern.

    “Our con­science demands that if we believe there is a geno­cide, we should say so,” Van Velden added.

    ...

    New Zealand’s For­eign Min­is­ter Nana­ia Mahuta defend­ed the gov­ern­men­t’s deci­sion not to use the term “geno­cide”, say­ing it had raised con­cerns sev­er­al times with Chi­na, but had not for­mal­ly des­ig­nat­ed the sit­u­a­tion as con­sti­tut­ing a geno­cide.

    “This is not due to a lack of con­cern,” added Mahuta. “Geno­cide is the gravest of inter­na­tion­al crimes and a for­mal legal deter­mi­na­tion should only be reached fol­low­ing a rig­or­ous assess­ment on the basis of inter­na­tion­al law.”

    She added that New Zealand, in con­cert with oth­er gov­ern­ments, would keep up its calls for Chi­na to pro­vide mean­ing­ful and unfet­tered access to the Unit­ed Nations and oth­er inde­pen­dent observers to ascer­tain the sit­u­a­tion.

    Nations such as the Unit­ed States and Cana­da have declared Chi­na’s actions in Xin­jiang as geno­cide, but Aus­trali­a’s par­lia­ment stopped short of a sim­i­lar move this year.

    ———–

    “New Zealand par­lia­ment says Uyghur rights abus­es tak­ing place in Chi­na”; Reuters; 05/05/2021

    “This is not due to a lack of concern...Genocide is the gravest of inter­na­tion­al crimes and a for­mal legal deter­mi­na­tion should only be reached fol­low­ing a rig­or­ous assess­ment on the basis of inter­na­tion­al law.”

    It’s quite a rebut­tal: no, New Zealand should­n’t use the world “geno­cide” because geno­cide has­n’t actu­al­ly be been deter­mined. It’s hard to argue with the log­ic, but that’s obvi­ous­ly not going to stop the inter­na­tion­al ‘geno­cide’ cam­paign. As the deputy leader of the right-wing lib­er­tar­i­an ACT Par­ty, Booke van Velden, who orig­i­nal­ly insert­ed the “geno­cide” lan­guage into the res­o­lu­tion described her rea­son­ing, “Our con­science demands that if we believe there is a geno­cide, we should say so.” No mean­ing­ful evi­dence is appar­ent­ly required. You just have to believe it’s true. She may not have intend­ed to so effec­tive­ly encap­su­late the the lack of integri­ty behind this cam­paign. But com­ing from a right-wing lib­er­tar­i­an par­ty, we should­n’t be too sur­prised to hear integri­ty-free state­ments. It’s kind the far right’s spe­cial­ty these days.

    And the fact that it was a right-wing lib­er­tar­i­an par­ty that pushed this res­o­lu­tion in the first place under­scores how this inter­na­tion­al Uyghur geno­cide cam­paign has been pred­i­cat­ed on a foun­da­tion of mis­in­for­ma­tion and pro­pa­gan­da with far right ori­gins. Far right ori­gins like the works of Adri­an Zenz, al Qae­da-sym­pa­thiz­ing Turk­ish media out­lets, Mus­lim Broth­er­hood-run ‘think tanks’, and the the Raoul Wal­len­berg Cen­tre for Human Rights. So it’s worth not­ing the fol­low­ing 2020 sto­ry about the ACT Par­ty that should give us a bet­ter idea of just how sin­cere­ly the par­ty lead­er­ship actu­al­ly is when it comes to con­cerns over human rights and geno­cide:

    It was just last Feb­ru­ary, when ACT Par­ty leader David Sey­mour received crit­i­cism for accept­ing a dona­tion from Mike Allen, a Christchurch-based far right extrem­ists who threat­ened to destroy mosques after the Christchurch ter­ror attack. Allen also hap­pens to be a Don­ald Trump fan and was cre­at­ed “Make Amer­i­ca Great Again” par­o­dy hats with the slo­gan “Make Ardern Go Away”, which went viral in the coun­try after Allen was tem­porar­i­ly banned from sell­ing them on TradeMe. It turns out pro­ceeds from the sales of the hats were going towards fund­ing Face­book adver­tise­ments for far right Face­book pages.

    Here’s where the dona­tion from Allen to ACT comes in: the mon­ey Allen used to donate to ACT was raised from the sale of one of those par­o­dy MAGA hats that was signed by David Sey­mour. So Sey­mour effec­tive­ly made that hat into a scan­dalous but valu­able col­lec­tor’s item when he signed it. And Allen repaid by the favor by donat­ing the mon­ey back to ACT. All in all, it’s the mak­ings of at least a mini-scan­dal for ACT. So what hap­pened after peo­ple called out ACT for accept­ing Allen’s hat-mon­ey? Sey­mour refused to return the dona­tion and dis­missed it all as a bunch of con­cern over noth­ing:

    News­room

    Calls for ACT to return far-right dona­tion

    Activists and civ­il rights organ­i­sa­tions have called for the ACT Par­ty to return a dona­tion it received from a far-right extrem­ist who threat­ened to destroy mosques after the Christchurch ter­ror attack

    Marc Daalder
    FEBRUARY 17, 2020
    Updat­ed Feb­ru­ary 17, 2020

    ACT Par­ty leader David Sey­mour has come under fire after accept­ing a dona­tion from a far-right extrem­ist and char­ac­ter­is­ing the man’s threats to destroy mosques as “a sil­ly com­ment on Face­book”.

    In Octo­ber, News­room report­ed that a far-right extrem­ist who had threat­ened to “destroy mosque after mosque till I am tak­en out” had made a dona­tion to the ACT Par­ty by auc­tion­ing a hat signed by Sey­mour.

    Mike Allen is a Christchurch e‑bike sales­man whose par­o­dy Trump hats — which read “Make Ardern Go Away” — went viral after he was tem­porar­i­ly banned from sell­ing them on TradeMe. News­room then report­ed that the pro­ceeds from the hats went towards fund­ing adver­tise­ments for far-right Face­book pages, includ­ing the now-delet­ed page on which Allen threat­ened to destroy mosques.

    On Sun­day, left-wing activist Byron Clark called for Sey­mour to pass the dona­tion on to an organ­i­sa­tion that could make bet­ter use of it, like the Foun­da­tion Against Islam­o­pho­bia and Racism (FAIR) or the Holo­caust Cen­tre of New Zealand.

    Clark, who reg­u­lar­ly mon­i­tors New Zealand’s far-right, framed the call as a Twit­ter cam­paign with the hash­tag #Donate­David.

    “David Sey­mour said before that he can’t con­trol who’s going to vote for him and I under­stand that posi­tion, but he can con­trol whether or not he takes mon­ey from the far-right. So I’ve chal­lenged him to donate that mon­ey he received to a cause like the Holo­caust Cen­tre of New Zealand or the fund for the March 15 shoot­ing vic­tims,” Clark told News­room.

    “Peo­ple on the far-right who are see­ing David Sey­mour accept­ing mon­ey from them are see­ing it as a legit­imi­sa­tion of some of their beliefs, that a main­stream politi­cian is not refus­ing to take mon­ey from them,” he said.

    Oth­er left-wing activist groups like Auck­land Peace Action and Paparoa also ral­lied around the hash­tag.

    Sey­mour attacks ‘obses­sion’

    The same day, Sey­mour respond­ed on Twit­ter, say­ing, “Your obses­sion with some guy who made a sil­ly com­ment on Face­book and auc­tioned a hat to give ACT a small dona­tion is going nowhere. My long and strong sup­port of our Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty speaks for itself.”

    Sey­mour did not respond to a request for com­ment from News­room. In Octo­ber, Sey­mour dis­tanced him­self from Allen but refused to return the dona­tion.

    “I think it’s com­plete­ly out­ra­geous to make the con­nec­tion that because you sign a hat say­ing you want your polit­i­cal oppo­nent to go away that I am in any way asso­ci­at­ed with peo­ple who are ter­ror­ists or threat­en­ing acts of vio­lence,” he said at the time.

    “To threat­en or incite a crime such as van­dal­is­ing or destroy­ing a build­ing, espe­cial­ly one that is of sig­nif­i­cance to peo­ple, is a crime in itself. In the strongest pos­si­ble terms, I denounce that behav­iour.”

    “You are try­ing to con­flate some­thing per­fect­ly inno­cent — auc­tion­ing off an amus­ing hat — with some­body who made some dis­taste­ful com­ments lat­er and there’s no con­nec­tion,” Sey­mour told News­room in Octo­ber.

    In a state­ment, the Holo­caust Cen­tre said it “deplores Mr Allen’s com­ments that he want­ed to see the destruc­tion of mosques and says that it would nev­er know­ing­ly accept funds from some­one who used such hate speech”.

    “These kinds of com­ments, and the beliefs that under­pin them, have no place in New Zealand,” Holo­caust Cen­tre NZ chair Deb­o­rah Hart said. “Words mat­ter. The Holo­caust, and indeed the attacks against the Mus­lim com­mu­ni­ty on March 15 did not began with acts, they began with words that went unchal­lenged and that, ulti­mate­ly, is what leads to such events.”

    The cen­tre’s chief exec­u­tive Chris Har­ris said ACT “should act in a respon­si­ble man­ner and do the right thing”, but did not elab­o­rate.

    FAIR sim­i­lar­ly said it would decline to receive the dona­tion, but explic­it­ly encour­aged Sey­mour to return the funds to Allen.

    “We chal­lenge David to return this dona­tion and to make an explic­it pub­lic state­ment reject­ing sup­port of white suprema­cists,” FAIR spokesper­son Azad Khan said.

    “In accept­ing this dona­tion, David Sey­mour is say­ing that he is hap­py to accept the back­ing of vio­lent white suprema­cists. Mike Allen has said he will ‘destroy mosque after mosque’. He has also said that he is a finan­cial ACT par­ty mem­ber.

    “David Sey­mour is triv­i­al­is­ing the real fear and ter­ror that the Mus­lim com­mu­ni­ty con­tin­ues to feel fol­low­ing the [Christchurch] ter­ror attack by char­ac­ter­is­ing Allen’s Face­book com­ments as ‘sil­ly’.”

    Clark also said he would sup­port ACT return­ing the dona­tion to Allen. “I’d cer­tain­ly be hap­py with that. The main thing is not keep­ing the mon­ey,” he said.

    ...

    Dona­tion came from far-right extrem­ist

    Allen has repeat­ed­ly post­ed far-right mes­sages on his Face­book pages, includ­ing threats of vio­lence. Link­ing to an arti­cle about an acid attack in Eng­land, Allen wrote that “if this hap­pens to my daugh­ter I am destroy­ing mosque after mosque till I am tak­en out”.

    Sub­se­quent images post­ed to the since-delet­ed page show that Face­book delet­ed this post for vio­lat­ing its com­mu­ni­ty stan­dards.

    How­ev­er, Allen told News­room in Octo­ber that he had writ­ten it “after a cou­ple of beers. It was wrong and I delet­ed it”.

    In the com­ments on that post, users joked about the alleged Christchurch shoot­er. “Let him out for anoth­er go,” one wrote.

    Allen also wrote on a post about Zahra Hus­sai­ni, a Mus­lim woman run­ning for Christchurch City Coun­cil, that “Islam is the prob­lem”. He told News­room that he stands by that com­ment.

    ———-

    “Calls for ACT to return far-right dona­tion” by Marc Daalder; News­room; 02/17/2020

    “Mike Allen is a Christchurch e‑bike sales­man whose par­o­dy Trump hats — which read “Make Ardern Go Away” — went viral after he was tem­porar­i­ly banned from sell­ing them on TradeMe. News­room then report­ed that the pro­ceeds from the hats went towards fund­ing adver­tise­ments for far-right Face­book pages, includ­ing the now-delet­ed page on which Allen threat­ened to destroy mosques.”

    A guy sells par­o­dy MAGA hats to finance the adver­tis­ing of far right Face­book pages, and then auc­tions off a hat signed by ACT Par­ty lead David Sey­mour and donates the pro­ceeds to ACT. That’s the sit­u­a­tion Sey­mour was char­ac­ter­iz­ing as per­fect­ly inno­cent as he refused to return the mon­ey or donate it away. It’s the stan­dard far right gas-light­ing ask­ing us not to believe our lying eyes and ears. This was the leader of ACT mak­ing this stand, after all:

    ...
    The same day, Sey­mour respond­ed on Twit­ter, say­ing, “Your obses­sion with some guy who made a sil­ly com­ment on Face­book and auc­tioned a hat to give ACT a small dona­tion is going nowhere. My long and strong sup­port of our Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty speaks for itself.”

    Sey­mour did not respond to a request for com­ment from News­room. In Octo­ber, Sey­mour dis­tanced him­self from Allen but refused to return the dona­tion.

    “I think it’s com­plete­ly out­ra­geous to make the con­nec­tion that because you sign a hat say­ing you want your polit­i­cal oppo­nent to go away that I am in any way asso­ci­at­ed with peo­ple who are ter­ror­ists or threat­en­ing acts of vio­lence,” he said at the time.

    “To threat­en or incite a crime such as van­dal­is­ing or destroy­ing a build­ing, espe­cial­ly one that is of sig­nif­i­cance to peo­ple, is a crime in itself. In the strongest pos­si­ble terms, I denounce that behav­iour.”

    “You are try­ing to con­flate some­thing per­fect­ly inno­cent — auc­tion­ing off an amus­ing hat — with some­body who made some dis­taste­ful com­ments lat­er and there’s no con­nec­tion,” Sey­mour told News­room in Octo­ber.
    ...

    Flash for­ward to this year and we find Sey­mour tour­ing the coun­try on a ‘free speech tour’ in oppo­si­tion to pro­posed hate speech laws.

    So when we’re forced to ask just how sin­cere­ly or insin­cere­ly the ACT Par­ty is being when it issues these kinds of ‘geno­cide’ res­o­lu­tions, it’s episodes like the Mike Allen scan­dal that should give us a pret­ty good idea of where the par­ty’s real pri­or­i­ties reside and how sin­cere the cur­rent ‘geno­cide’ con­cerns tru­ly are. It points to one of the grow­ing themes of the West­’s ongo­ing Xin­jiang geno­cide pro­pa­gan­da cam­paign: the peo­ple most loud­ly call­ing for the con­dem­na­tion of the alleged geno­cide are increas­ing­ly the last peo­ple one would expect to raise con­cerns about any geno­cide at all.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 5, 2021, 4:40 pm
  4. Here’s a Counter Punch piece from back in Octo­ber that does a great job sum­ma­riz­ing key aspects of the still large­ly under-rec­og­nized chap­ter of WWII/Cold War his­to­ry where there the defeat­ed fas­cist move­ment where not just inter­nal­ized uti­lized by the US nation­al secu­ri­ty state as valu­able Cold War assets but dis­crete­ly inter­na­tion­al­ized. Fas­cism was pro­tect­ed around the world. And cru­cial, it was pro­tect­ed under the guise of anti-com­mu­nism and often under the ban­ner of a lib­er­al world order. It’s hard to think of a more impor­tant thread of 20th his­to­ry for under­stand­ing where we are today and where we’re head­ing. And in the con­text of a grow­ing new Cold War with Chi­na, it’s a his­to­ry that rais­es the grim ques­tion: so which far right extrem­ist groups are going to be cod­dled and inter­na­tion­al­ized under the guise of fight­ing Chi­nese ‘com­mu­nism’ (which is real­ly oper­at­ing as a vari­ant of state-run cap­i­tal­ism). We already know neo-Nazis in Ukraine and across East­ern Europe will be large­ly seen as accept­able when con­fronting Rus­sia. And we’re already learn­ing about the New­lines Insti­tute’s role in pro­mot­ing the Uyghur geno­cide pro­pa­gan­da cam­paign, where how the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood net­work has joined with tra­di­tion­al nation­al secu­ri­ty state hawks to pump out a nar­ra­tive seem­ing­ly designed to spark of major con­flict. And then there’s the far right nature of Chi­nese dis­si­dent groups favored by the West like Falun Gong. So giv­en that the ‘ChiCom’ Chi­nese ‘com­mu­nists’ appears to be the new uni­fy­ing men­ace for the West for the fore­see­able future, it’s prob­a­bly a good idea to start ask­ing the gen­er­al ques­tion of just how many extrem­ist groups are going to end up get­ting inter­nal­ized and inter­na­tion­al­ized in the process:

    Counter Punch

    The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fas­cism in WWII, It Dis­crete­ly Inter­na­tion­al­ized It

    by Gabriel Rock­hill
    Octo­ber 16, 2020

    “The U.S. has estab­lished itself as the mor­tal ene­my of all people’s gov­ern­ment, all sci­en­tif­ic-social­ist mobi­liza­tion of con­scious­ness every­where on the globe, all anti-impe­ri­al­ist activ­i­ty on earth.”

    – George Jack­son

    One of the found­ing myths of the con­tem­po­rary West­ern Euro­pean and Amer­i­can world is that fas­cism was defeat­ed in WWII by lib­er­al democ­ra­cies, and par­tic­u­lar­ly by the Unit­ed States. With the sub­se­quent Nurem­burg tri­als and the patient con­struc­tion of a lib­er­al world order, a bul­wark was erected—in fits and starts, and with the con­stant threat of regression—against fas­cism and its evil twin in the East. Amer­i­can cul­ture indus­tries have rehearsed this nar­ra­tive ad nau­se­um, brew­ing it into a sac­cha­rine ide­o­log­i­cal Kool-Aid and pip­ing it into every house­hold, shack and street cor­ner with a TV or smart­phone, tire­less­ly jux­ta­pos­ing the supreme evil of Nazism to the free­dom and pros­per­i­ty of lib­er­al democ­ra­cy.

    The mate­r­i­al record sug­gests, how­ev­er, that this nar­ra­tive is actu­al­ly based on a false antag­o­nism, and that a par­a­digm shift is nec­es­sary in order to under­stand the his­to­ry of actu­al­ly exist­ing lib­er­al­ism and fas­cism. The lat­ter, as we shall see, far from being erad­i­cat­ed at the end of WWII, was actu­al­ly repur­posed, or rather rede­ployed, to serve its pri­ma­ry his­tor­i­cal func­tion: to destroy god­less com­mu­nism and its threat to the cap­i­tal­ist civ­i­liz­ing mis­sion. Since the colo­nial projects of Hitler and Mus­soli­ni had become so brazen and errat­ic, as they shift­ed from play­ing more or less by the lib­er­al rules of the game to open­ly break­ing them and then run­ning amok, it was under­stood that the best way to con­struct the fas­cist inter­na­tion­al was to do so under lib­er­al cov­er, mean­ing through clan­des­tine oper­a­tions that main­tained a lib­er­al façade. While this prob­a­bly sounds like hyper­bole to those whose under­stand­ing of his­to­ry has been for­mat­ted by bour­geois social sci­ence, which focus­es almost exclu­sive­ly on vis­i­ble gov­ern­ment and the afore­men­tioned lib­er­al cov­er, the his­to­ry of the invis­i­ble gov­ern­ment of the nation­al secu­ri­ty appa­ra­tus sug­gests that fas­cism, far from being defeat­ed in WWII, was suc­cess­ful­ly inter­na­tion­al­ized.

    The Archi­tects of the Fas­cist Inter­na­tion­al

    When the Unit­ed States entered WWII, the future head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, bemoaned that his coun­try was fight­ing the wrong ene­my. The Nazis, as he explained, were pro-cap­i­tal­ist Aryan Chris­tians, where­as the true ene­my was god­less com­mu­nism and its res­olute anti-cap­i­tal­ism. After all, the U.S. had, only some 20 years pri­or, been part of a mas­sive mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion in the U.S.S.R., when four­teen cap­i­tal­ist coun­tries sought—in the words of Win­ston Churchill—to “stran­gle the Bol­she­vik baby in its crib.” Dulles under­stood, like many of his col­leagues in the U.S. gov­ern­ment, that what would lat­er become known as the Cold War was actu­al­ly the old war, as Michael Par­en­ti has con­vinc­ing­ly argued: the one they had been fight­ing against com­mu­nism since its incep­tion.

    Towards the end of WWII, Gen­er­al Karl Wolff, for­mer­ly Himmler’s right-hand man, went to see Allen Dulles in Zurich, where he was work­ing for the Office of Strate­gic Ser­vices, the pre­de­ces­sor orga­ni­za­tion to the CIA. Wolff knew that the war was lost, and he want­ed to avoid being brought to jus­tice. Dulles, for his part, want­ed the Nazis in Italy under Wolff’s com­mand to lay down their arms against the allies and help the Amer­i­cans in their fight against com­mu­nism. Wolff, who was the high­est-rank­ing SS offi­cer to sur­vive the war, offered Dulles the promise of devel­op­ing, with his Nazi team, an intel­li­gence net­work against Stal­in. It was agreed that the gen­er­al who had played a cen­tral role in over­see­ing the Nazi’s geno­ci­dal machine, and who expressed his “spe­cial joy” when he secured freight trains to send 5,000 Jews a day to Tre­blin­ka, would be pro­tect­ed by the future direc­tor of the CIA, who helped him avoid the Nurem­berg tri­als.

    Wolff was very far from being the only senior Nazi offi­cial pro­tect­ed and reha­bil­i­tat­ed by the OSS-CIA. The case of Rein­hard Gehlen is par­tic­u­lar­ly telling. This gen­er­al in the Third Reich had been in charge of Fremde Heere Ost, the Nazi intel­li­gence ser­vice direct­ed against the Sovi­ets. After the war, he was recruit­ed by the OSS-CIA and met with all of the major archi­tects of the post­war Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State: Allen Dulles, William Dono­van, Frank Wis­ner, Pres­i­dent Tru­man. He was then appoint­ed to head the first Ger­man intel­li­gence ser­vice after the war, and he pro­ceed­ed to employ many of his Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors. The Gehlen Orga­ni­za­tion, as it was known, would become the nucle­us of the Ger­man intel­li­gence ser­vice. It is unclear how many war crim­i­nals this dec­o­rat­ed Nazi hired, but Eric Licht­blau esti­mates that some four thou­sand Nazi agents were inte­grat­ed into the net­work over­seen by the Amer­i­can spy agency. With an annu­al fund­ing of half a mil­lion dol­lars from the CIA in the ear­ly years after the war, Gehlen and his strong men were able to act with impuni­ty. Yvon­nick Denoël explained this turn­around with remark­able clar­i­ty: “It is hard to under­stand that, as ear­ly as 1945, the army and the US intel­li­gence ser­vices recruit­ed with­out qualms for­mer Nazi crim­i­nals. The equa­tion was, how­ev­er, very sim­ple at the time: the Unit­ed States had just defeat­ed the Nazis with the help of the Sovi­ets. They hence­forth planned to defeat the Sovi­ets with the help of for­mer Nazis.”

    The sit­u­a­tion was sim­i­lar in Italy because Dulles’ agree­ment with Wolff was part of a larg­er under­tak­ing, called Oper­a­tion Sun­rise, which mobi­lized Nazis and fas­cists to end the Sec­ond World War in Italy (and begin the Third World War across the globe). Dulles worked hand in hand with the Agency’s future chief coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence offi­cer, James Angle­ton, who was then sta­tioned by the OSS in Italy. These two men, who would become two of the most pow­er­ful polit­i­cal actors of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry, showed what they were capa­ble of in this close col­lab­o­ra­tion between the Amer­i­can intel­li­gence ser­vices, the Nazis and the fas­cists. Angle­ton, on his end, recruit­ed fas­cists to end the war in Italy so as to min­i­mize the pow­er of the com­mu­nists. Vale­rio Borgh­ese was one of his key con­tacts because this hard­line fas­cist in Mussolini’s regime was ready to serve the Amer­i­cans in the anti-com­mu­nist strug­gle, and he became one of the inter­na­tion­al fig­ure­heads for post­war fas­cism. Angle­ton had direct­ly saved him from the hands of the com­mu­nists, and the man known as the Black Prince was giv­en the oppor­tu­ni­ty to con­tin­ue the war against the rad­i­cal Left under a new boss: the CIA.

    Once the war was over, Senior U.S. intel­li­gence offi­cials, includ­ing Dulles, Wis­ner and Carmel Offie, “worked to ensure that denaz­i­fi­ca­tion only had a lim­it­ed scope,” accord­ing to Frédéric Charpi­er: “Gen­er­als, senior offi­cials, police­men, indus­tri­al­ists, lawyers, econ­o­mists, diplo­mats, schol­ars and real war crim­i­nals were spared and put back in their posi­tions.” The man in charge of the Mar­shall Plan in Ger­many, for instance, was a for­mer advis­er to Her­mann Göring, the com­man­der-in-chief of the Luft­waffe (air force). Dulles draft­ed a list of high func­tionar­ies of the Nazi state to be pro­tect­ed and passed off as oppo­nents to Hitler. The OSS-CIA pro­ceed­ed to rebuild the admin­is­tra­tive states in Ger­many and Italy with their anti-com­mu­nist allies.

    Eric Licht­blau esti­mates that more than 10,000 Nazis were able to immi­grate to the Unit­ed States in the post-war peri­od (at least 700 offi­cial mem­bers of the Nazi par­ty had been allowed into the U.S. in the 1930s, while Jew­ish refugees were being turned away). In addi­tion to a few hun­dred Ger­man spies and thou­sands of SS per­son­nel, Oper­a­tion Paper­clip, which began in May 1945, brought at least 1,600 Nazi sci­en­tists to the U.S. with their fam­i­lies. This under­tak­ing was aimed at recov­er­ing the great minds of the Nazi war machine and putting their research on rock­ets, avi­a­tion, bio­log­i­cal and chem­i­cal weapons, and so forth, in the ser­vice of the Amer­i­can empire. The Joint Intel­li­gence Objec­tives Agency was set up specif­i­cal­ly to recruit Nazis and find them posi­tions in research cen­ters, the gov­ern­ment, the army, the intel­li­gence ser­vices or uni­ver­si­ties (at least 14 uni­ver­si­ties par­tic­i­pat­ed, includ­ing Cor­nell, Yale and MIT).

    Although the pro­gram offi­cial­ly exclud­ed ardent Nazis, at least at the begin­ning, in actu­al fact it allowed for the immi­gra­tion of chemists from IG Far­ben (which had sup­plied the dead­ly gas­es used in mass exter­mi­na­tions), sci­en­tists who had used slaves in con­cen­tra­tion camps to make weapons, and doc­tors who had par­tic­i­pat­ed in hideous exper­i­ments on Jews, Roma, com­mu­nists, homo­sex­u­als and oth­er pris­on­ers of war. These sci­en­tists, who were described by an offi­cial in the State Depart­ment opposed to Paper­clip as “Hitler’s angels of death,” were received with open arms in the land of the free. They were giv­en com­fort­able accom­mo­da­tions, a lab­o­ra­to­ry with assis­tants and the promise of cit­i­zen­ship if their work bore fruit. They went on to con­duct research that has been used in the man­u­fac­tur­ing of bal­lis­tic mis­siles, sarin gas clus­ter bombs, and the weaponiza­tion of the bubon­ic plague.

    The CIA also col­lab­o­rat­ed with MI6 to set up secret anti-com­mu­nist armies in every coun­try in West­ern Europe. On the pre­text of a poten­tial inva­sion by the Red Army, the idea was to train and equip net­works of ille­gal stay-behind sol­diers, who would remain behind ene­my lines if the Rus­sians moved west­ward. They would thus be acti­vat­ed in the new­ly occu­pied ter­ri­to­ry and charged with mis­sions of exfil­tra­tion, espi­onage, sab­o­tage, pro­pa­gan­da, sub­ver­sion and com­bat. The two agen­cies worked with NATO and the intel­li­gence ser­vices of many West­ern Euro­pean coun­tries to build this vast sub-rosa orga­ni­za­tion, estab­lish numer­ous weapons and ammu­ni­tion caches, and equip their sol­diers of the shad­ows with every­thing they need­ed. To do this, they recruit­ed Nazis, fas­cists, col­lab­o­ra­tionists and oth­er anti-com­mu­nist mem­bers of the extreme Right. The num­bers vary accord­ing to the coun­try, but they are esti­mat­ed between a few dozen and sev­er­al hun­dred, or even a few thou­sand, per coun­try. Accord­ing to a report from the tele­vi­sion pro­gram Retour aux sources, there were 50 stay-behind net­work units in Nor­way, 150 in Ger­many, more than 600 in Italy and 3,000 in France.

    These trained mil­i­tants would lat­er be mobi­lized to com­mit or coor­di­nate ter­ror­ist attacks against the civil­ian pop­u­la­tion, which were then blamed on the com­mu­nists in order to jus­ti­fy ‘law and order’ crack­downs. Accord­ing to the offi­cial num­bers in Italy, where this strat­e­gy of ten­sion was par­tic­u­lar­ly intense, there were 14,591 polit­i­cal­ly moti­vat­ed acts of vio­lence between 1969 and 1987, which killed 491 peo­ple and injured 1,181. Vin­cen­zo Vin­ciguer­ra, a mem­ber of the far-right group Ordine Nuo­vo and the per­pe­tra­tor of the bomb­ing near Peteano in 1972, explained that the fas­cist “Avan­guardia Nazionale, like Ordine Nuo­vo, were being mobi­lized into the bat­tle as part of an anti-Com­mu­nist strat­e­gy orig­i­nat­ing not with orga­ni­za­tions deviant from the insti­tu­tions of pow­er, but from the state itself, and specif­i­cal­ly from with­in the ambit of the state’s rela­tions with­in the Atlantic Alliance.” An Ital­ian par­lia­men­tary com­mis­sion that under­took an inves­ti­ga­tion of the stay-behind armies in Italy, reached the fol­low­ing con­clu­sion in 2000: “Those mas­sacres, those bombs, those mil­i­tary actions had been orga­nized or pro­mot­ed or sup­port­ed by men inside Ital­ian state insti­tu­tions and, as has been dis­cov­ered more recent­ly, by men linked to the struc­tures of Unit­ed States intel­li­gence.”

    The U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State was also involved in over­see­ing rat­lines that exfil­trat­ed fas­cists from Europe and allowed them to reset­tle in safe havens around the world, in exchange for doing its dirty work. The case of Klaus Bar­bie is but one among thou­sands, but it speaks vol­umes regard­ing the inter­nal func­tion­ing of this process. Known in France as ‘the butch­er of Lyon,’ he was head of the Gestapo office there for two years, includ­ing the time when Himm­ler gave the order to deport at least 22,000 Jews from France. This spe­cial­ist in ‘enhanced inter­ro­ga­tion tac­tics,’ known for tor­tur­ing to death the coor­di­na­tor of the French Resis­tance, Jean Moulin, orga­nized the first roundup of the Gen­er­al Union of Jews in France in Feb­ru­ary 1943 and the mas­sacre of 41 Jew­ish refugee chil­dren in Izieu in April 1944. Before arriv­ing in Lyon, he had led sav­age death squads, which had killed more than a mil­lion peo­ple on the East­ern Front accord­ing to Alexan­der Cock­burn and Jef­frey St. Clair. But after the war, the man whom these same authors describe as third on the most-want­ed list of SS crim­i­nals was work­ing for the Counter Intel­li­gence Corps (CIC) of the U.S. Army. He was hired to help build the stay-behind armies by recruit­ing oth­er Nazis, and to spy on French intel­li­gence ser­vices in the French and Amer­i­can con­trolled regions in Ger­many.
    s
    When France learned what was hap­pen­ing and demand­ed Barbie’s extra­di­tion, John McCloy, the U.S. High Com­mis­sion­er of Ger­many, refused by claim­ing that the alle­ga­tions were based on hearsay. Nev­er­the­less, it ulti­mate­ly proved too expen­sive, sym­bol­i­cal­ly, to keep a butch­er like Bar­bie in Europe, so he was sent to Latin Amer­i­ca in 1951, where he was able to con­tin­ue his illus­tri­ous career. Set­tling in Bolivia, he worked for the secu­ri­ty forces of the mil­i­tary dic­ta­tor­ship of Gen­er­al René Bar­ri­en­tos and for the Min­istry of the Inte­ri­or and the counter-insur­gency wing of the Boli­vian Army under the dic­ta­tor­ship of Hugo Banz­er, before active­ly par­tic­i­pat­ing in the Cocaine Coup in 1980 and becom­ing the direc­tor of secu­ri­ty forces under Gen­er­al Meza. Through­out his career, he main­tained close rela­tion­ships with his sav­iors in the U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State, play­ing a cen­tral role in Oper­a­tion Con­dor, the counter-insur­gency project that brought togeth­er Latin Amer­i­can dic­ta­tor­ships, with the sup­port of the Unit­ed States, to vio­lent­ly crush any attempt at egal­i­tar­i­an upris­ings from below. He also helped devel­op the drug empire in Bolivia, includ­ing orga­niz­ing gangs of nar­co-mer­ce­nar­ies whom he named Los novios de la muerte, whose uni­forms resem­bled those of the SS. He trav­eled freely in the 1960s and 1970s, vis­it­ing the U.S. at least sev­en times, and he most like­ly played a role in the man­hunt orga­nized by the Agency to kill Ernesto “Che” Gue­vara.

    The same basic pat­tern of inte­grat­ing fas­cists into the glob­al war against com­mu­nism is read­i­ly iden­ti­fi­able in Japan, whose sys­tem of gov­ern­ment pri­or to and dur­ing the war has been described by Her­bert P. Bix as “Emper­or-sys­tem fas­cism.” Tes­sa Mor­ris-Suzu­ki has has con­vinc­ing­ly demon­strat­ed the con­ti­nu­ity of intel­li­gence ser­vices by detail­ing how the U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State over­saw and man­aged the KATO orga­ni­za­tion. This pri­vate intel­li­gence net­work, very much like the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion, was stocked with for­mer lead­ing mem­bers of the mil­i­tary and intel­li­gence ser­vices, includ­ing the Impe­r­i­al Army’s Chief of Intel­li­gence (Arisue Seizo), who shared with his Amer­i­can han­dler (Charles Willough­by) a deep admi­ra­tion for Mus­soli­ni. The U.S. occu­pa­tion forces also cul­ti­vat­ed tight rela­tion­ships with senior offi­cials in Japan’s wartime civil­ian intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty (most notably Oga­ta Take­to­ra). This remark­able con­ti­nu­ity between pre­war and post­war Japan has led Mor­ris-Suzu­ki and oth­er schol­ars to map Japan­ese his­to­ry in terms of a tran­swar regime, mean­ing one that con­tin­ued from before to after the war. This con­cept also allows us to make sense of what was hap­pen­ing above ground in the realm of the vis­i­ble gov­ern­ment. For the sake of con­ci­sion, suf­fice it to cite the remark­able case of the man known as the “Dev­il of Showa” for his bru­tal rule of Manchukuo (the Japan­ese colony in North­east Chi­na): Nobusuke Kishi. A great admir­er of Nazi Ger­many, Kishi was appoint­ed Min­is­ter of Muni­tions by Prime Min­is­ter Hide­ki Tojo in 1941, in order to pre­pare Japan for a total war against the U.S., and he was the one who signed the offi­cial dec­la­ra­tion of war against Amer­i­ca. After serv­ing a brief prison term as a war crim­i­nal in the post­war era, he was reha­bil­i­tat­ed by the CIA, along with his cell mate, the king­pin of orga­nized crime Yoshio Kodama. Kishi, with the sup­port and gen­er­ous finan­cial back­ing of his han­dlers, took over the Lib­er­al Par­ty, made it into a rightwing club of for­mer lead­ers of impe­r­i­al Japan, and rose to become Prime Min­is­ter. “The [CIA] mon­ey flowed for at least fif­teen years, under four Amer­i­can pres­i­dents,” writes Tim Wiener, “and it helped con­sol­i­date one-par­ty rule in Japan for the rest of the cold war.”

    U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty ser­vices have also estab­lished a glob­al edu­ca­tion­al net­work to train pro-cap­i­tal­ist combatants—sometimes under the lead­er­ship of expe­ri­enced Nazis and fascists—in the tried-and-true tech­niques of repres­sion, tor­ture and desta­bi­liza­tion, as well as pro­pa­gan­da and psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare. The famous School of the Amer­i­c­as was estab­lished in 1946 with the explic­it goal of train­ing a new gen­er­a­tion of anti-com­mu­nist war­riors world­wide. Accord­ing to some, this school has the dis­tinc­tion of hav­ing edu­cat­ed the great­est num­ber of dic­ta­tors in world his­to­ry. What­ev­er the case may be, it is part of a much larg­er insti­tu­tion­al net­work. It is worth men­tion­ing, for exam­ple, the edu­ca­tion­al con­tri­bu­tions of the Pub­lic Safe­ty Pro­gram: “For about twen­ty-five years,” writes for­mer CIA offi­cer John Stock­well, “the CIA, […] trained and orga­nized police and para­mil­i­tary offi­cers from around the world in tech­niques of pop­u­la­tion con­trol, repres­sion, and tor­ture. Schools were set up in the Unit­ed States, Pana­ma, and Asia, from which tens of thou­sands grad­u­at­ed. In some cas­es, for­mer Nazi offi­cers from Hitler’s Third Reich were used as instruc­tors.”

    Fas­cism Goes Glob­al under Lib­er­al Cov­er

    The Amer­i­can imperi­um has thus played a cen­tral role in the con­struc­tion of a fas­cist inter­na­tion­al by pro­tect­ing right-wing mil­i­tants and enlist­ing them in the Third World War against ‘com­mu­nism,’ an elas­tic label extend­ed to any polit­i­cal ori­en­ta­tion that entered into con­flict with the inter­ests of the cap­i­tal­ist rul­ing class. This inter­na­tion­al expan­sion of fas­cist modes of gov­er­nance has led to a pro­lif­er­a­tion of con­cen­tra­tion camps, ter­ror­ist and tor­ture cam­paigns, dirty wars, dic­ta­to­r­i­al regimes, vig­i­lante groups and orga­nized crime net­works around the world. The exam­ples could be enu­mer­at­ed ad nau­se­um, but I will cur­tail them in the inter­ests of space and sim­ply invoke the tes­ti­mo­ny of Vic­tor Mar­che­t­ti, who was a senior CIA offi­cial from 1955 to 1969: “We were sup­port­ing every half-assed dic­ta­tor, mil­i­tary jun­ta, oli­garchy that exist­ed in the Third World, as long as they promised to some­how main­tain the sta­tus quo, which would of course be ben­e­fi­cial to U.S. geopo­lit­i­cal inter­ests, mil­i­tary inter­ests, big busi­ness inter­ests, and oth­er spe­cial inter­ests.”

    The record of U.S. for­eign pol­i­cy since WWII is prob­a­bly the best mea­sure of its unique con­tri­bu­tion to the inter­na­tion­al­iza­tion of fas­cism. Under the ban­ner of democ­ra­cy and free­dom, the Unit­ed States has, accord­ing to William Blum:

    + Endeav­ored to over­throw more than 50 for­eign gov­ern­ments.

    + Gross­ly inter­fered in demo­c­ra­t­ic elec­tions in at least 30 coun­tries.

    + Attempt­ed to assas­si­nate more than 50 for­eign lead­ers.

    + Dropped bombs on the peo­ple of more than 30 coun­tries.

    + Attempt­ed to sup­press a pop­ulist or nation­al­ist move­ment in 20 coun­tries.

    The Asso­ci­a­tion for Respon­si­ble Dis­sent, com­posed of 14 for­mer CIA offi­cers, cal­cu­lat­ed that their agency was respon­si­ble for killing a min­i­mum of 6 mil­lion peo­ple in 3,000 major oper­a­tions and 10,000 minor oper­a­tions between 1947 and 1987. These are direct mur­ders, so the num­bers do not account for pre­ma­ture deaths under the fas­cist-backed cap­i­tal­ist world sys­tem due to mass incar­cer­a­tion, tor­ture, mal­nu­tri­tion, lack of drink­able water, exploita­tion, oppres­sion, social degra­da­tion, eco­log­i­cal ill­ness or cur­able dis­ease (in 2017, accord­ing to the U.N., 6.3 mil­lion chil­dren and young ado­les­cents died from avoid­able caus­es linked to the socio-eco­nom­ic and eco­log­i­cal inequal­i­ties of the Cap­i­talocene, which amounts to one child dying every 5 sec­onds).

    To estab­lish itself as the glob­al mil­i­tary hege­mon and inter­na­tion­al guard dog of cap­i­tal­ism, the U.S. gov­ern­ment and Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State have relied on the help of the sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of Nazis and fas­cists it inte­grat­ed into its glob­al net­work of repres­sion, includ­ing the 1,600 Nazis brought into the U.S. through Oper­a­tion Paper­clip, the 4,000 or so inte­grat­ed into the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion, the tens or even hun­dreds of thou­sands that were rein­te­grat­ed into the ‘postwar’—or rather transwar—regimes in fas­cist coun­tries, the large num­ber who were giv­en free pas­sage to Empire’s backyard—Latin America—and else­where, as well as the thou­sands or tens of thou­sands inte­grat­ed into NATO’s secret stay-behind armies. This glob­al net­work of sea­soned anti-com­mu­nist assas­sins has also been used to train armies of ter­ror­ists around the world to par­tic­i­pate in dirty wars, coups d’état, desta­bi­liza­tion efforts, sab­o­tage, and ter­ror cam­paigns.

    ...

    ————

    “The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fas­cism in WWII, It Dis­crete­ly Inter­na­tion­al­ized It” by Gabriel Rock­hill; Counter Punch; 10/16/2020

    “The mate­r­i­al record sug­gests, how­ev­er, that this nar­ra­tive is actu­al­ly based on a false antag­o­nism, and that a par­a­digm shift is nec­es­sary in order to under­stand the his­to­ry of actu­al­ly exist­ing lib­er­al­ism and fas­cism. The lat­ter, as we shall see, far from being erad­i­cat­ed at the end of WWII, was actu­al­ly repur­posed, or rather rede­ployed, to serve its pri­ma­ry his­tor­i­cal func­tion: to destroy god­less com­mu­nism and its threat to the cap­i­tal­ist civ­i­liz­ing mis­sion. Since the colo­nial projects of Hitler and Mus­soli­ni had become so brazen and errat­ic, as they shift­ed from play­ing more or less by the lib­er­al rules of the game to open­ly break­ing them and then run­ning amok, it was under­stood that the best way to con­struct the fas­cist inter­na­tion­al was to do so under lib­er­al cov­er, mean­ing through clan­des­tine oper­a­tions that main­tained a lib­er­al façade. While this prob­a­bly sounds like hyper­bole to those whose under­stand­ing of his­to­ry has been for­mat­ted by bour­geois social sci­ence, which focus­es almost exclu­sive­ly on vis­i­ble gov­ern­ment and the afore­men­tioned lib­er­al cov­er, the his­to­ry of the invis­i­ble gov­ern­ment of the nation­al secu­ri­ty appa­ra­tus sug­gests that fas­cism, far from being defeat­ed in WWII, was suc­cess­ful­ly inter­na­tion­al­ized.

    A par­a­digm shift is clear­ly in order for our under­stand­ing of what actu­al­ly hap­pened to the ‘losers’ of WWII at the end of the war. Yes, the pub­lic has long known about the exis­tence of pro­grams like Oper­a­tion Paper­clip. But there’s a pret­ty big dif­fer­ence between the pop­u­lar fan­ta­sy idea of a few dozen Nazi sci­en­tists being brought over the help build rock­ets vs the actu­al inter­na­tion­al­iza­tion of fas­cism. The inter­na­tion­al­iza­tion of fas­cism often car­ried out under the ban­ner of the fight for lib­er­al democ­ra­cy and human rights, no less, with anti-com­mu­nism as the under­ly­ing jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for all of it. You might hear about Oper­a­tion Paper­clip in a US his­to­ry class. But you won’t learn about the post-war inter­na­tion­al­iza­tion of fas­cism. That would require par­a­digm shift first. A par­a­digm shift will like­ly nev­er hap­pen, at least not until it’s too late to mat­ter. And cer­tain­ly not before the US and the West makes the same kinds of mis­takes again, since they’re already hap­pen­ing. Again.

    But who knows, per­haps if human­i­ty does­n’t end up destroy­ing itself over the next cen­tu­ry that par­a­digm shift in our under­stand­ing of WWII/Cold War his­to­ry will final­ly hap­pen and we’ll be allowed to hon­est­ly ask ques­tions about this chap­ter of his­to­ry. Ques­tions like just how many awful groups were empow­ered under the guise of anti-com­mu­nism and what were the long-term impli­ca­tions of these deci­sions. Long-term impli­ca­tions like, per­haps, not under­stand­ing and then repeat­ing that history.Here’s a Counter Punch piece from back in Octo­ber that does a great job sum­ma­riz­ing key aspects of the still large­ly under-rec­og­nized chap­ter of WWII/Cold War his­to­ry where there the defeat­ed fas­cist move­ment where not just inter­nal­ized uti­lized by the US nation­al secu­ri­ty state as valu­able Cold War assets but dis­crete­ly inter­na­tion­al­ized. Fas­cism was pro­tect­ed around the world. And cru­cial, it was pro­tect­ed under the guise of anti-com­mu­nism and often under the ban­ner of a lib­er­al world order. It’s hard to think of a more impor­tant thread of 20th his­to­ry for under­stand­ing where we are today and where we’re head­ing. And in the con­text of a grow­ing new Cold War with Chi­na, it’s a his­to­ry that rais­es the grim ques­tion: so which far right extrem­ist groups are going to be cod­dled and inter­na­tion­al­ized under the guise of fight­ing Chi­nese ‘com­mu­nism’ (which is real­ly oper­at­ing as a vari­ant of state-run cap­i­tal­ism). We already know neo-Nazis in Ukraine and across East­ern Europe will be large­ly seen as accept­able when con­fronting Rus­sia. And we’re already learn­ing about the New­lines Insti­tute’s role in pro­mot­ing the Uyghur geno­cide pro­pa­gan­da cam­paign, where how the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood net­work has joined with tra­di­tion­al nation­al secu­ri­ty state hawks to pump out a nar­ra­tive seem­ing­ly designed to spark of major con­flict. And then there’s the far right nature of Chi­nese dis­si­dent groups favored by the West like Falun Gong. So giv­en that the ‘ChiCom’ Chi­nese ‘com­mu­nists’ appears to be the new uni­fy­ing men­ace for the West for the fore­see­able future, it’s prob­a­bly a good idea to start ask­ing the gen­er­al ques­tion of just how many extrem­ist groups are going to end up get­ting inter­nal­ized and inter­na­tion­al­ized in the process:

    Counter Punch

    The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fas­cism in WWII, It Dis­crete­ly Inter­na­tion­al­ized It

    by Gabriel Rock­hill
    Octo­ber 16, 2020

    “The U.S. has estab­lished itself as the mor­tal ene­my of all people’s gov­ern­ment, all sci­en­tif­ic-social­ist mobi­liza­tion of con­scious­ness every­where on the globe, all anti-impe­ri­al­ist activ­i­ty on earth.”

    – George Jack­son

    One of the found­ing myths of the con­tem­po­rary West­ern Euro­pean and Amer­i­can world is that fas­cism was defeat­ed in WWII by lib­er­al democ­ra­cies, and par­tic­u­lar­ly by the Unit­ed States. With the sub­se­quent Nurem­burg tri­als and the patient con­struc­tion of a lib­er­al world order, a bul­wark was erected—in fits and starts, and with the con­stant threat of regression—against fas­cism and its evil twin in the East. Amer­i­can cul­ture indus­tries have rehearsed this nar­ra­tive ad nau­se­um, brew­ing it into a sac­cha­rine ide­o­log­i­cal Kool-Aid and pip­ing it into every house­hold, shack and street cor­ner with a TV or smart­phone, tire­less­ly jux­ta­pos­ing the supreme evil of Nazism to the free­dom and pros­per­i­ty of lib­er­al democ­ra­cy.

    The mate­r­i­al record sug­gests, how­ev­er, that this nar­ra­tive is actu­al­ly based on a false antag­o­nism, and that a par­a­digm shift is nec­es­sary in order to under­stand the his­to­ry of actu­al­ly exist­ing lib­er­al­ism and fas­cism. The lat­ter, as we shall see, far from being erad­i­cat­ed at the end of WWII, was actu­al­ly repur­posed, or rather rede­ployed, to serve its pri­ma­ry his­tor­i­cal func­tion: to destroy god­less com­mu­nism and its threat to the cap­i­tal­ist civ­i­liz­ing mis­sion. Since the colo­nial projects of Hitler and Mus­soli­ni had become so brazen and errat­ic, as they shift­ed from play­ing more or less by the lib­er­al rules of the game to open­ly break­ing them and then run­ning amok, it was under­stood that the best way to con­struct the fas­cist inter­na­tion­al was to do so under lib­er­al cov­er, mean­ing through clan­des­tine oper­a­tions that main­tained a lib­er­al façade. While this prob­a­bly sounds like hyper­bole to those whose under­stand­ing of his­to­ry has been for­mat­ted by bour­geois social sci­ence, which focus­es almost exclu­sive­ly on vis­i­ble gov­ern­ment and the afore­men­tioned lib­er­al cov­er, the his­to­ry of the invis­i­ble gov­ern­ment of the nation­al secu­ri­ty appa­ra­tus sug­gests that fas­cism, far from being defeat­ed in WWII, was suc­cess­ful­ly inter­na­tion­al­ized.

    The Archi­tects of the Fas­cist Inter­na­tion­al

    When the Unit­ed States entered WWII, the future head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, bemoaned that his coun­try was fight­ing the wrong ene­my. The Nazis, as he explained, were pro-cap­i­tal­ist Aryan Chris­tians, where­as the true ene­my was god­less com­mu­nism and its res­olute anti-cap­i­tal­ism. After all, the U.S. had, only some 20 years pri­or, been part of a mas­sive mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion in the U.S.S.R., when four­teen cap­i­tal­ist coun­tries sought—in the words of Win­ston Churchill—to “stran­gle the Bol­she­vik baby in its crib.” Dulles under­stood, like many of his col­leagues in the U.S. gov­ern­ment, that what would lat­er become known as the Cold War was actu­al­ly the old war, as Michael Par­en­ti has con­vinc­ing­ly argued: the one they had been fight­ing against com­mu­nism since its incep­tion.

    Towards the end of WWII, Gen­er­al Karl Wolff, for­mer­ly Himmler’s right-hand man, went to see Allen Dulles in Zurich, where he was work­ing for the Office of Strate­gic Ser­vices, the pre­de­ces­sor orga­ni­za­tion to the CIA. Wolff knew that the war was lost, and he want­ed to avoid being brought to jus­tice. Dulles, for his part, want­ed the Nazis in Italy under Wolff’s com­mand to lay down their arms against the allies and help the Amer­i­cans in their fight against com­mu­nism. Wolff, who was the high­est-rank­ing SS offi­cer to sur­vive the war, offered Dulles the promise of devel­op­ing, with his Nazi team, an intel­li­gence net­work against Stal­in. It was agreed that the gen­er­al who had played a cen­tral role in over­see­ing the Nazi’s geno­ci­dal machine, and who expressed his “spe­cial joy” when he secured freight trains to send 5,000 Jews a day to Tre­blin­ka, would be pro­tect­ed by the future direc­tor of the CIA, who helped him avoid the Nurem­berg tri­als.

    Wolff was very far from being the only senior Nazi offi­cial pro­tect­ed and reha­bil­i­tat­ed by the OSS-CIA. The case of Rein­hard Gehlen is par­tic­u­lar­ly telling. This gen­er­al in the Third Reich had been in charge of Fremde Heere Ost, the Nazi intel­li­gence ser­vice direct­ed against the Sovi­ets. After the war, he was recruit­ed by the OSS-CIA and met with all of the major archi­tects of the post­war Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State: Allen Dulles, William Dono­van, Frank Wis­ner, Pres­i­dent Tru­man. He was then appoint­ed to head the first Ger­man intel­li­gence ser­vice after the war, and he pro­ceed­ed to employ many of his Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors. The Gehlen Orga­ni­za­tion, as it was known, would become the nucle­us of the Ger­man intel­li­gence ser­vice. It is unclear how many war crim­i­nals this dec­o­rat­ed Nazi hired, but Eric Licht­blau esti­mates that some four thou­sand Nazi agents were inte­grat­ed into the net­work over­seen by the Amer­i­can spy agency. With an annu­al fund­ing of half a mil­lion dol­lars from the CIA in the ear­ly years after the war, Gehlen and his strong men were able to act with impuni­ty. Yvon­nick Denoël explained this turn­around with remark­able clar­i­ty: “It is hard to under­stand that, as ear­ly as 1945, the army and the US intel­li­gence ser­vices recruit­ed with­out qualms for­mer Nazi crim­i­nals. The equa­tion was, how­ev­er, very sim­ple at the time: the Unit­ed States had just defeat­ed the Nazis with the help of the Sovi­ets. They hence­forth planned to defeat the Sovi­ets with the help of for­mer Nazis.”

    The sit­u­a­tion was sim­i­lar in Italy because Dulles’ agree­ment with Wolff was part of a larg­er under­tak­ing, called Oper­a­tion Sun­rise, which mobi­lized Nazis and fas­cists to end the Sec­ond World War in Italy (and begin the Third World War across the globe). Dulles worked hand in hand with the Agency’s future chief coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence offi­cer, James Angle­ton, who was then sta­tioned by the OSS in Italy. These two men, who would become two of the most pow­er­ful polit­i­cal actors of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry, showed what they were capa­ble of in this close col­lab­o­ra­tion between the Amer­i­can intel­li­gence ser­vices, the Nazis and the fas­cists. Angle­ton, on his end, recruit­ed fas­cists to end the war in Italy so as to min­i­mize the pow­er of the com­mu­nists. Vale­rio Borgh­ese was one of his key con­tacts because this hard­line fas­cist in Mussolini’s regime was ready to serve the Amer­i­cans in the anti-com­mu­nist strug­gle, and he became one of the inter­na­tion­al fig­ure­heads for post­war fas­cism. Angle­ton had direct­ly saved him from the hands of the com­mu­nists, and the man known as the Black Prince was giv­en the oppor­tu­ni­ty to con­tin­ue the war against the rad­i­cal Left under a new boss: the CIA.

    Once the war was over, Senior U.S. intel­li­gence offi­cials, includ­ing Dulles, Wis­ner and Carmel Offie, “worked to ensure that denaz­i­fi­ca­tion only had a lim­it­ed scope,” accord­ing to Frédéric Charpi­er: “Gen­er­als, senior offi­cials, police­men, indus­tri­al­ists, lawyers, econ­o­mists, diplo­mats, schol­ars and real war crim­i­nals were spared and put back in their posi­tions.” The man in charge of the Mar­shall Plan in Ger­many, for instance, was a for­mer advis­er to Her­mann Göring, the com­man­der-in-chief of the Luft­waffe (air force). Dulles draft­ed a list of high func­tionar­ies of the Nazi state to be pro­tect­ed and passed off as oppo­nents to Hitler. The OSS-CIA pro­ceed­ed to rebuild the admin­is­tra­tive states in Ger­many and Italy with their anti-com­mu­nist allies.

    Eric Licht­blau esti­mates that more than 10,000 Nazis were able to immi­grate to the Unit­ed States in the post-war peri­od (at least 700 offi­cial mem­bers of the Nazi par­ty had been allowed into the U.S. in the 1930s, while Jew­ish refugees were being turned away). In addi­tion to a few hun­dred Ger­man spies and thou­sands of SS per­son­nel, Oper­a­tion Paper­clip, which began in May 1945, brought at least 1,600 Nazi sci­en­tists to the U.S. with their fam­i­lies. This under­tak­ing was aimed at recov­er­ing the great minds of the Nazi war machine and putting their research on rock­ets, avi­a­tion, bio­log­i­cal and chem­i­cal weapons, and so forth, in the ser­vice of the Amer­i­can empire. The Joint Intel­li­gence Objec­tives Agency was set up specif­i­cal­ly to recruit Nazis and find them posi­tions in research cen­ters, the gov­ern­ment, the army, the intel­li­gence ser­vices or uni­ver­si­ties (at least 14 uni­ver­si­ties par­tic­i­pat­ed, includ­ing Cor­nell, Yale and MIT).

    Although the pro­gram offi­cial­ly exclud­ed ardent Nazis, at least at the begin­ning, in actu­al fact it allowed for the immi­gra­tion of chemists from IG Far­ben (which had sup­plied the dead­ly gas­es used in mass exter­mi­na­tions), sci­en­tists who had used slaves in con­cen­tra­tion camps to make weapons, and doc­tors who had par­tic­i­pat­ed in hideous exper­i­ments on Jews, Roma, com­mu­nists, homo­sex­u­als and oth­er pris­on­ers of war. These sci­en­tists, who were described by an offi­cial in the State Depart­ment opposed to Paper­clip as “Hitler’s angels of death,” were received with open arms in the land of the free. They were giv­en com­fort­able accom­mo­da­tions, a lab­o­ra­to­ry with assis­tants and the promise of cit­i­zen­ship if their work bore fruit. They went on to con­duct research that has been used in the man­u­fac­tur­ing of bal­lis­tic mis­siles, sarin gas clus­ter bombs, and the weaponiza­tion of the bubon­ic plague.

    The CIA also col­lab­o­rat­ed with MI6 to set up secret anti-com­mu­nist armies in every coun­try in West­ern Europe. On the pre­text of a poten­tial inva­sion by the Red Army, the idea was to train and equip net­works of ille­gal stay-behind sol­diers, who would remain behind ene­my lines if the Rus­sians moved west­ward. They would thus be acti­vat­ed in the new­ly occu­pied ter­ri­to­ry and charged with mis­sions of exfil­tra­tion, espi­onage, sab­o­tage, pro­pa­gan­da, sub­ver­sion and com­bat. The two agen­cies worked with NATO and the intel­li­gence ser­vices of many West­ern Euro­pean coun­tries to build this vast sub-rosa orga­ni­za­tion, estab­lish numer­ous weapons and ammu­ni­tion caches, and equip their sol­diers of the shad­ows with every­thing they need­ed. To do this, they recruit­ed Nazis, fas­cists, col­lab­o­ra­tionists and oth­er anti-com­mu­nist mem­bers of the extreme Right. The num­bers vary accord­ing to the coun­try, but they are esti­mat­ed between a few dozen and sev­er­al hun­dred, or even a few thou­sand, per coun­try. Accord­ing to a report from the tele­vi­sion pro­gram Retour aux sources, there were 50 stay-behind net­work units in Nor­way, 150 in Ger­many, more than 600 in Italy and 3,000 in France.

    These trained mil­i­tants would lat­er be mobi­lized to com­mit or coor­di­nate ter­ror­ist attacks against the civil­ian pop­u­la­tion, which were then blamed on the com­mu­nists in order to jus­ti­fy ‘law and order’ crack­downs. Accord­ing to the offi­cial num­bers in Italy, where this strat­e­gy of ten­sion was par­tic­u­lar­ly intense, there were 14,591 polit­i­cal­ly moti­vat­ed acts of vio­lence between 1969 and 1987, which killed 491 peo­ple and injured 1,181. Vin­cen­zo Vin­ciguer­ra, a mem­ber of the far-right group Ordine Nuo­vo and the per­pe­tra­tor of the bomb­ing near Peteano in 1972, explained that the fas­cist “Avan­guardia Nazionale, like Ordine Nuo­vo, were being mobi­lized into the bat­tle as part of an anti-Com­mu­nist strat­e­gy orig­i­nat­ing not with orga­ni­za­tions deviant from the insti­tu­tions of pow­er, but from the state itself, and specif­i­cal­ly from with­in the ambit of the state’s rela­tions with­in the Atlantic Alliance.” An Ital­ian par­lia­men­tary com­mis­sion that under­took an inves­ti­ga­tion of the stay-behind armies in Italy, reached the fol­low­ing con­clu­sion in 2000: “Those mas­sacres, those bombs, those mil­i­tary actions had been orga­nized or pro­mot­ed or sup­port­ed by men inside Ital­ian state insti­tu­tions and, as has been dis­cov­ered more recent­ly, by men linked to the struc­tures of Unit­ed States intel­li­gence.”

    The U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State was also involved in over­see­ing rat­lines that exfil­trat­ed fas­cists from Europe and allowed them to reset­tle in safe havens around the world, in exchange for doing its dirty work. The case of Klaus Bar­bie is but one among thou­sands, but it speaks vol­umes regard­ing the inter­nal func­tion­ing of this process. Known in France as ‘the butch­er of Lyon,’ he was head of the Gestapo office there for two years, includ­ing the time when Himm­ler gave the order to deport at least 22,000 Jews from France. This spe­cial­ist in ‘enhanced inter­ro­ga­tion tac­tics,’ known for tor­tur­ing to death the coor­di­na­tor of the French Resis­tance, Jean Moulin, orga­nized the first roundup of the Gen­er­al Union of Jews in France in Feb­ru­ary 1943 and the mas­sacre of 41 Jew­ish refugee chil­dren in Izieu in April 1944. Before arriv­ing in Lyon, he had led sav­age death squads, which had killed more than a mil­lion peo­ple on the East­ern Front accord­ing to Alexan­der Cock­burn and Jef­frey St. Clair. But after the war, the man whom these same authors describe as third on the most-want­ed list of SS crim­i­nals was work­ing for the Counter Intel­li­gence Corps (CIC) of the U.S. Army. He was hired to help build the stay-behind armies by recruit­ing oth­er Nazis, and to spy on French intel­li­gence ser­vices in the French and Amer­i­can con­trolled regions in Ger­many.
    s
    When France learned what was hap­pen­ing and demand­ed Barbie’s extra­di­tion, John McCloy, the U.S. High Com­mis­sion­er of Ger­many, refused by claim­ing that the alle­ga­tions were based on hearsay. Nev­er­the­less, it ulti­mate­ly proved too expen­sive, sym­bol­i­cal­ly, to keep a butch­er like Bar­bie in Europe, so he was sent to Latin Amer­i­ca in 1951, where he was able to con­tin­ue his illus­tri­ous career. Set­tling in Bolivia, he worked for the secu­ri­ty forces of the mil­i­tary dic­ta­tor­ship of Gen­er­al René Bar­ri­en­tos and for the Min­istry of the Inte­ri­or and the counter-insur­gency wing of the Boli­vian Army under the dic­ta­tor­ship of Hugo Banz­er, before active­ly par­tic­i­pat­ing in the Cocaine Coup in 1980 and becom­ing the direc­tor of secu­ri­ty forces under Gen­er­al Meza. Through­out his career, he main­tained close rela­tion­ships with his sav­iors in the U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State, play­ing a cen­tral role in Oper­a­tion Con­dor, the counter-insur­gency project that brought togeth­er Latin Amer­i­can dic­ta­tor­ships, with the sup­port of the Unit­ed States, to vio­lent­ly crush any attempt at egal­i­tar­i­an upris­ings from below. He also helped devel­op the drug empire in Bolivia, includ­ing orga­niz­ing gangs of nar­co-mer­ce­nar­ies whom he named Los novios de la muerte, whose uni­forms resem­bled those of the SS. He trav­eled freely in the 1960s and 1970s, vis­it­ing the U.S. at least sev­en times, and he most like­ly played a role in the man­hunt orga­nized by the Agency to kill Ernesto “Che” Gue­vara.

    The same basic pat­tern of inte­grat­ing fas­cists into the glob­al war against com­mu­nism is read­i­ly iden­ti­fi­able in Japan, whose sys­tem of gov­ern­ment pri­or to and dur­ing the war has been described by Her­bert P. Bix as “Emper­or-sys­tem fas­cism.” Tes­sa Mor­ris-Suzu­ki has has con­vinc­ing­ly demon­strat­ed the con­ti­nu­ity of intel­li­gence ser­vices by detail­ing how the U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State over­saw and man­aged the KATO orga­ni­za­tion. This pri­vate intel­li­gence net­work, very much like the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion, was stocked with for­mer lead­ing mem­bers of the mil­i­tary and intel­li­gence ser­vices, includ­ing the Impe­r­i­al Army’s Chief of Intel­li­gence (Arisue Seizo), who shared with his Amer­i­can han­dler (Charles Willough­by) a deep admi­ra­tion for Mus­soli­ni. The U.S. occu­pa­tion forces also cul­ti­vat­ed tight rela­tion­ships with senior offi­cials in Japan’s wartime civil­ian intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty (most notably Oga­ta Take­to­ra). This remark­able con­ti­nu­ity between pre­war and post­war Japan has led Mor­ris-Suzu­ki and oth­er schol­ars to map Japan­ese his­to­ry in terms of a tran­swar regime, mean­ing one that con­tin­ued from before to after the war. This con­cept also allows us to make sense of what was hap­pen­ing above ground in the realm of the vis­i­ble gov­ern­ment. For the sake of con­ci­sion, suf­fice it to cite the remark­able case of the man known as the “Dev­il of Showa” for his bru­tal rule of Manchukuo (the Japan­ese colony in North­east Chi­na): Nobusuke Kishi. A great admir­er of Nazi Ger­many, Kishi was appoint­ed Min­is­ter of Muni­tions by Prime Min­is­ter Hide­ki Tojo in 1941, in order to pre­pare Japan for a total war against the U.S., and he was the one who signed the offi­cial dec­la­ra­tion of war against Amer­i­ca. After serv­ing a brief prison term as a war crim­i­nal in the post­war era, he was reha­bil­i­tat­ed by the CIA, along with his cell mate, the king­pin of orga­nized crime Yoshio Kodama. Kishi, with the sup­port and gen­er­ous finan­cial back­ing of his han­dlers, took over the Lib­er­al Par­ty, made it into a rightwing club of for­mer lead­ers of impe­r­i­al Japan, and rose to become Prime Min­is­ter. “The [CIA] mon­ey flowed for at least fif­teen years, under four Amer­i­can pres­i­dents,” writes Tim Wiener, “and it helped con­sol­i­date one-par­ty rule in Japan for the rest of the cold war.”

    U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty ser­vices have also estab­lished a glob­al edu­ca­tion­al net­work to train pro-cap­i­tal­ist combatants—sometimes under the lead­er­ship of expe­ri­enced Nazis and fascists—in the tried-and-true tech­niques of repres­sion, tor­ture and desta­bi­liza­tion, as well as pro­pa­gan­da and psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare. The famous School of the Amer­i­c­as was estab­lished in 1946 with the explic­it goal of train­ing a new gen­er­a­tion of anti-com­mu­nist war­riors world­wide. Accord­ing to some, this school has the dis­tinc­tion of hav­ing edu­cat­ed the great­est num­ber of dic­ta­tors in world his­to­ry. What­ev­er the case may be, it is part of a much larg­er insti­tu­tion­al net­work. It is worth men­tion­ing, for exam­ple, the edu­ca­tion­al con­tri­bu­tions of the Pub­lic Safe­ty Pro­gram: “For about twen­ty-five years,” writes for­mer CIA offi­cer John Stock­well, “the CIA, […] trained and orga­nized police and para­mil­i­tary offi­cers from around the world in tech­niques of pop­u­la­tion con­trol, repres­sion, and tor­ture. Schools were set up in the Unit­ed States, Pana­ma, and Asia, from which tens of thou­sands grad­u­at­ed. In some cas­es, for­mer Nazi offi­cers from Hitler’s Third Reich were used as instruc­tors.”

    Fas­cism Goes Glob­al under Lib­er­al Cov­er

    The Amer­i­can imperi­um has thus played a cen­tral role in the con­struc­tion of a fas­cist inter­na­tion­al by pro­tect­ing right-wing mil­i­tants and enlist­ing them in the Third World War against ‘com­mu­nism,’ an elas­tic label extend­ed to any polit­i­cal ori­en­ta­tion that entered into con­flict with the inter­ests of the cap­i­tal­ist rul­ing class. This inter­na­tion­al expan­sion of fas­cist modes of gov­er­nance has led to a pro­lif­er­a­tion of con­cen­tra­tion camps, ter­ror­ist and tor­ture cam­paigns, dirty wars, dic­ta­to­r­i­al regimes, vig­i­lante groups and orga­nized crime net­works around the world. The exam­ples could be enu­mer­at­ed ad nau­se­um, but I will cur­tail them in the inter­ests of space and sim­ply invoke the tes­ti­mo­ny of Vic­tor Mar­che­t­ti, who was a senior CIA offi­cial from 1955 to 1969: “We were sup­port­ing every half-assed dic­ta­tor, mil­i­tary jun­ta, oli­garchy that exist­ed in the Third World, as long as they promised to some­how main­tain the sta­tus quo, which would of course be ben­e­fi­cial to U.S. geopo­lit­i­cal inter­ests, mil­i­tary inter­ests, big busi­ness inter­ests, and oth­er spe­cial inter­ests.”

    The record of U.S. for­eign pol­i­cy since WWII is prob­a­bly the best mea­sure of its unique con­tri­bu­tion to the inter­na­tion­al­iza­tion of fas­cism. Under the ban­ner of democ­ra­cy and free­dom, the Unit­ed States has, accord­ing to William Blum:

    + Endeav­ored to over­throw more than 50 for­eign gov­ern­ments.

    + Gross­ly inter­fered in demo­c­ra­t­ic elec­tions in at least 30 coun­tries.

    + Attempt­ed to assas­si­nate more than 50 for­eign lead­ers.

    + Dropped bombs on the peo­ple of more than 30 coun­tries.

    + Attempt­ed to sup­press a pop­ulist or nation­al­ist move­ment in 20 coun­tries.

    The Asso­ci­a­tion for Respon­si­ble Dis­sent, com­posed of 14 for­mer CIA offi­cers, cal­cu­lat­ed that their agency was respon­si­ble for killing a min­i­mum of 6 mil­lion peo­ple in 3,000 major oper­a­tions and 10,000 minor oper­a­tions between 1947 and 1987. These are direct mur­ders, so the num­bers do not account for pre­ma­ture deaths under the fas­cist-backed cap­i­tal­ist world sys­tem due to mass incar­cer­a­tion, tor­ture, mal­nu­tri­tion, lack of drink­able water, exploita­tion, oppres­sion, social degra­da­tion, eco­log­i­cal ill­ness or cur­able dis­ease (in 2017, accord­ing to the U.N., 6.3 mil­lion chil­dren and young ado­les­cents died from avoid­able caus­es linked to the socio-eco­nom­ic and eco­log­i­cal inequal­i­ties of the Cap­i­talocene, which amounts to one child dying every 5 sec­onds).

    To estab­lish itself as the glob­al mil­i­tary hege­mon and inter­na­tion­al guard dog of cap­i­tal­ism, the U.S. gov­ern­ment and Nation­al Secu­ri­ty State have relied on the help of the sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of Nazis and fas­cists it inte­grat­ed into its glob­al net­work of repres­sion, includ­ing the 1,600 Nazis brought into the U.S. through Oper­a­tion Paper­clip, the 4,000 or so inte­grat­ed into the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion, the tens or even hun­dreds of thou­sands that were rein­te­grat­ed into the ‘postwar’—or rather transwar—regimes in fas­cist coun­tries, the large num­ber who were giv­en free pas­sage to Empire’s backyard—Latin America—and else­where, as well as the thou­sands or tens of thou­sands inte­grat­ed into NATO’s secret stay-behind armies. This glob­al net­work of sea­soned anti-com­mu­nist assas­sins has also been used to train armies of ter­ror­ists around the world to par­tic­i­pate in dirty wars, coups d’état, desta­bi­liza­tion efforts, sab­o­tage, and ter­ror cam­paigns.

    ...

    ————

    “The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fas­cism in WWII, It Dis­crete­ly Inter­na­tion­al­ized It” by Gabriel Rock­hill; Counter Punch; 10/16/2020

    “The mate­r­i­al record sug­gests, how­ev­er, that this nar­ra­tive is actu­al­ly based on a false antag­o­nism, and that a par­a­digm shift is nec­es­sary in order to under­stand the his­to­ry of actu­al­ly exist­ing lib­er­al­ism and fas­cism. The lat­ter, as we shall see, far from being erad­i­cat­ed at the end of WWII, was actu­al­ly repur­posed, or rather rede­ployed, to serve its pri­ma­ry his­tor­i­cal func­tion: to destroy god­less com­mu­nism and its threat to the cap­i­tal­ist civ­i­liz­ing mis­sion. Since the colo­nial projects of Hitler and Mus­soli­ni had become so brazen and errat­ic, as they shift­ed from play­ing more or less by the lib­er­al rules of the game to open­ly break­ing them and then run­ning amok, it was under­stood that the best way to con­struct the fas­cist inter­na­tion­al was to do so under lib­er­al cov­er, mean­ing through clan­des­tine oper­a­tions that main­tained a lib­er­al façade. While this prob­a­bly sounds like hyper­bole to those whose under­stand­ing of his­to­ry has been for­mat­ted by bour­geois social sci­ence, which focus­es almost exclu­sive­ly on vis­i­ble gov­ern­ment and the afore­men­tioned lib­er­al cov­er, the his­to­ry of the invis­i­ble gov­ern­ment of the nation­al secu­ri­ty appa­ra­tus sug­gests that fas­cism, far from being defeat­ed in WWII, was suc­cess­ful­ly inter­na­tion­al­ized.

    A par­a­digm shift is clear­ly in order for our under­stand­ing of what actu­al­ly hap­pened to the ‘losers’ of WWII at the end of the war. Yes, the pub­lic has long known about the exis­tence of pro­grams like Oper­a­tion Paper­clip. But there’s a pret­ty big dif­fer­ence between the pop­u­lar fan­ta­sy idea of a few dozen Nazi sci­en­tists being brought over the help build rock­ets vs the actu­al inter­na­tion­al­iza­tion of fas­cism. The inter­na­tion­al­iza­tion of fas­cism often car­ried out under the ban­ner of the fight for lib­er­al democ­ra­cy and human rights, no less, with anti-com­mu­nism as the under­ly­ing jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for all of it. You might hear about Oper­a­tion Paper­clip in a US his­to­ry class. But you won’t learn about the post-war inter­na­tion­al­iza­tion of fas­cism. That would require par­a­digm shift first. A par­a­digm shift will like­ly nev­er hap­pen, at least not until it’s too late to mat­ter. And cer­tain­ly not before the US and the West makes the same kinds of mis­takes again, since they’re already hap­pen­ing. Again.

    But who knows, per­haps if human­i­ty does­n’t end up destroy­ing itself over the next cen­tu­ry that par­a­digm shift in our under­stand­ing of WWIII/Cold War his­to­ry will final­ly hap­pen and we’ll be allowed to hon­est­ly ask ques­tions about this chap­ter of his­to­ry. Ques­tions like just how many awful groups were empow­ered under the guise of anti-com­mu­nism and what were the long-term impli­ca­tions of these deci­sions. Long-term impli­ca­tions like, per­haps, not under­stand­ing this his­to­ry because it was done in secret, and then cov­ered up and repeat­ed.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 8, 2021, 2:36 pm

Post a comment