On April 30, 1975, the Vietnam War ended with the capture of Saigon by Communist forces and the surrender of General Duong Vanh Minh and his cabinet in the Presidential palace. As troops of the People’s Army of Vietnam marched into Saigon, U.S. personnel and the last American marines were hastily evacuated from the roof of the U.S. embassy. Years later a fundamental question still remains unanswered: Who won the Vietnam War?
As with all wars, the globalist are the real winners. While communism won in Vietnam, cultural Marxism won in the USA. Remember that even though the US and its allies won WWII, communism was the real winner as the ‘communist paranoid’ Joseph McCarthy (now redeemed) pointed out in 1950:
“Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out the peace — Dumbarton Oaks — there was within the Soviet orbit 180,000,000 people. Lined up on the anti-totalitarian side there were in the world at that time roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only 6 years later, there are 800,000,000 people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia–an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500,000,000. In other words, in less than 6 years the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us (communist / anti-communist). This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and American defeats in the cold war. As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, “When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.”
Vietnam never received war reparations payments from the U.S. for the massive loss of life and destruction, yet an agreement reached in Paris in 1993 required Hanoi to recognize the debts of the defunct Saigon regime of General Thieu. This agreement is in many regards tantamount to obliging Vietnam to compensate Washington for the costs of war.
Moreover, the adoption of sweeping macro-economic reforms under the supervision of the Bretton Woods institutions was also a condition for the lifting of the U.S. embargo. These free market reforms now constitute the Communist Party’s official doctrine. With the normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington in 1994, reference to America’s brutal role in the war is increasingly considered untimely and improper. Not surprisingly, Hanoi had decided to tone down the commemoration of the Saigon surrender so as not to offend its former wartime enemy. The Communist Party leadership has recently underscored the “historic role” of the United States in “liberating” Vietnam from Vichy regime and Japanese occupation during World War II.
On September 2, 1945 at the Declaration of Independence of Ba Dinh Square in Hanoi proclaiming the founding of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, American agents of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, the predecessor of today’s CIA) were present at the side of Ho Chi Minh. While Washington had provided the Viet Minh resistance with weapons and token financial support, this strategy had largely been designed to weaken Japan in the final stages of World War II without committing large numbers of U.S. ground troops.
In contrast to the subdued and restrained atmosphere of the commemoration marking the end of the Vietnam War, the 50th anniversary of independence is to be amply celebrated in a series of official ceremonies and activities commencing in September and extending to the Chinese New Year.
Vietnam Pays War Reparations
Prior to the “normalization” of relations with Washington, Hanoi was compelled to foot the bill of the bad debts incurred by the U.S.-backed Saigon regime. At the donor conference held in Paris in November 1993, a total of nearly $2 billion of loans and aid money was generously pledged in support of Vietnam’s free market reforms.
Yet immediately after the conference, a secret meeting was held under the auspices of the Paris Club. Present at this meeting were representatives of Western governments. On the Vietnamese side, Dr. Nguyen Xian Oanh, economic advisor to the prime minister, played a key role in the negotiations. Dr. Oanh, a former IMF official, had been Minister of Finance and later Acting Prime Minister in the military government of General Duong Van Minh, which the U.S. installed 1963 after the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother. Dr. Oanh, while formally mediating on behalf of the Communist government, was nonetheless responsive to the demands of Western creditors.
The deal signed with the IMF (which was made public) was largely symbolic. The amount was not substantial: Hanoi was obliged to pay the IMF $140 million (owned by the defunct Saigon regime) as a condition for the resumption of new loans. Japan and France, Vietnam’s former colonial masters of the Vichy period, formed a so-called “Friends of Vietnam” committee to lend to Hanoi” the money needed to reimburse the IMF.
The substantive arrangement on the rescheduling of bilateral debts (with the Saigon regime), however, was never revealed. Yet it was ultimately this secret agreement (reached under the auspices of the Paris Club) which was instrumental in Washington’s decision to lift the embargo and normalize diplomatic relations. This arrangement was also decisive in the release of the loans pledged at the 1993 donor conference, thereby bringing Vietnam under the trusteeship of Japanese and Western creditors. Thus twenty years after the war, Vietnam had surrendered its economic sovereignty.
By fully recognizing the legitimacy of these debts, Hanoi had agreed to repay loans that had supported the U.S. war effort. Moreover, the government of Mr. Vo Van Kiet had also accepted to comply fully with the usual conditions (devaluation, trade liberalization, privatization, etc.) of an IMF-sponsored structural adjustment program.
These economic reforms, launched in the mid-1980s with the Bretton Woods institutions, had initiated, in the war’s brutal aftermath, a new phase of economic and social devastation: Inflation had resulted from the repeated devaluations that began in 1973 under the Saigon regime the year after the withdrawal of American combat troops. Today Vietnam is once again inundated with U.S. dollar notes, which have largely replaced the Vietnamese dong. With soaring prices, real earnings have dropped to abysmally low levels.
In turn, the reforms have massively reduced productive capacity. More than 5,000 out of 12,300 state-owned enterprises were closed or steered into bankruptcy. The credit cooperatives were eliminated, all medium and long term credit to industry and agriculture was frozen. Only short-term credit was available at an interest rate of 35 percent per annum (1994). Moreover, the IMF agreement prohibited the state from providing budget support either to the state-owned economy or to an incipient private sector.
The reforms’ hidden agenda consisted in destabilizing Vietnam’s industrial base. Heavy industry, oil and gas, natural resources and mining, cement and steel production were reorganized and taken over by foreign capital. The most valuable state assets were transferred to reinforce and preserve its industrial base, or to develop a capitalist economy owned and controlled by Nationals.
In the process of economic restructuring, more than a million workers and over 20,000 public employees (of whom the majority were health workers and teachers) were laid off. In turn, local famines erupted, affecting at least a quarter of the country’s population. These famines were not limited to the food deficit areas. In the Mekong delta, Vietnam’s rice basket, 25% of the adult population consumes less than 1800 calories per day. In the cities, the devaluation of the dong together with the elimination of subsidies and price controls has led to soaring prices of rice and other food staples.
The reforms have led to drastic cuts in social programs. With the imposition of school fees, three quarters of a million children dropped out from the school system in a matter of a few years (1987-90). Health clinics and hospitals collapsed, the resurgence of a number of infectious diseases including malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea is acknowledged by the Ministry of Health and the donors. A World Health Organization study confirmed that the number of malaria deaths increased three-fold in the first four years of the reforms alongside the collapse of health care and soaring prices of antimalarial drugs. The government (under the guidance of the international donor community) has also discontinued budget support to the provision of medical equipment and maintenance leading to the virtual paralysis of the entire public health system. Real salaries of medical personnel and working conditions have declined dramatically: the monthly wage of medical doctors in a district hospital is as low as $15 a month.
Although the U.S. was defeated on the battlefield, Vietnam surrendered its economic sovereignty to its former Wartime enemy.
No orange or steel pellet bombs, no napalm, no toxic chemicals: a new phase of economic and social destruction was unfolded. The achievements of past struggles and the aspirations of an entire nation are undone and erased almost with a stroke of the pen.
Debt conditionality and structural adjustment under the trusteeship of international creditors constitute in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, an equally effective and formally nonviolent instrument of recolonization and impoverishment affecting the livelihood of millions of people.
McGeorge Bundy: article entitled “The End of Either/Or” published in the Council on Foreign Relations’ house magazine, Foreign Affairs:
“It is therefore an act of folly for any true liberal to argue that we must choose between Viet Nam and social progress. The truth is the opposite. Americans who believe in the further development of the great new departures in education and health, in the battle for better cities, and most of all in the cause of really equal opportunity – those, in short, who care for social progress – should not strengthen the hands of their opponents by accepting the notion that we must choose between persistence in Viet Nam, and full budgetary support for a strong domestic program of action . . . . Retreat in Viet Nam is not the road forward at home. The real consequence of a pullout in Southeast Asia, for our domestic affairs, would almost surely be heavy reaction.”
The ethos of the coming World Government is Socialism, but it will be a type the likes of tyrants and mass murderers such as Lenin, Stalin and Mao Zedong would approve. A World Tyranny in which everyone everywhere is ruthlessly controlled from the cradle to the grave and where dissenters or those deemed unsuitable are liquidated. To achieve this, the Global Elite conspirators, the Power Elite and its lackeys, working to bring World Empire into being have ensured that the Western world has been subject to a massive social engineering agenda whose scale and sweep is truly awe inspiring. For, the ancient ideals and conceptions that had underpinned Western Christian Civilization had to be overthrown and replaced by ideas inimical to individual freedom and liberty as well as to the notion of private property. Revolutions and wars have been used to great effect in this but so too has the Fabian Socialist approach by which Western society could be transformed by gradual, almost imperceptible, changes that would not arouse suspicion or alarm from those most effected by it. Key to this radical transformation of the West was the destruction of the ancient order in Europe founded upon royal bloodlines and dynasties and the toppling of the moral order in America founded upon Biblical principles. The first was achieved largely because of the social turmoil of contrived wars and revolutions that brought Europe to its knees: the second was largely achieved in the 1960s during the contrived war in South Vietnam. McGeorge Bundy was part of the Global Elite, the Power Elite, the Corporatocracy, who secretly control the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American extension of the secret society created in 1891 by Cecil John Rhodes.
Bundy was the chief architect of America’s Southeast Asia policy; a policy that pitched a superpower against a nation the size of Mississippi and one barely out of the Stone Age and the superpower lost! … Something was surly wrong here.
Proper study of this period reveals a hidden agenda to the Vietnam War not only because of the way in which America got embroiled but also in the manner by which it was conducted. A war that should have taken America six months to win took over ten years for it to lose. The Globalist intriguers used the war in Vietnam as a smokescreen to conceal a coordinated effort to move America and her people towards Socialism. That is, a terrible distraction so that socialist programs and other social engineered initiatives would have the least resistance possible, what Bundy termed, a “heavy reaction.” The Global Elite understand the human condition and the corrupting influence of Welfarism: they know that once people are accustomed to receiving government handouts, they will continue voting to receive them. The Global Elite also understand that throughout history Democratic Socialism has always meant the wholesale corruption of elected representatives and ultimately to tyranny. Lyndon B Johnson was the figurehead of this Socialization of America behind the slogan of the “Great Society,” a program that would otherwise face ferocious opposition from all right and proper thinking people. However, as American soldiers were dying in rice paddies in Southeast Asia all right and proper people deemed it correct to rally behind their government. Had America won the war as easily as she should have, or pulled out at a far earlier date, then all decent Americans, not distracted by the horror of the war, would have been able to see the danger and mobilize to block the “Great Society” and other legislation that attacked morality and moral civic society. A situation McGeorge Bundy understood and was gracious enough to tell it to his fellows in the CFR: “The real consequence of a pullout in Southeast Asia . . . would almost surely be heavy reaction.” Gentle reader, understand, Objective History is never related in orthodox accounts. Why? Because the wicked and evil machinations of the Global Elite will be revealed and this they will not allow for it will also alert the ordinary person to their Evil Agenda for a World Empire.
An ancient plan that demands the destruction of Western Christian Civilization, of the “Old World Order,” and its replacement by the New World Order, which is nothing less than the destruction of Natural Moral Order on Earth. Put differently, the New Age One World Conspirators that seeks the destruction of the “Old World Order,” which is Natural Moral Order on Earth set in place by the supreme Will of God. Hence, for centuries, the Confederacy of Evil has marshalled its hosts, and organised itself for its calculated assault on Natural Moral Order, its assault on the Church of Christ and its assault on Western Civilization. This ancient assault on Moral Order is multifaceted. It is the five thousand year old Luciferian Conspiracy, the Evil Agenda for the establishment of World Government, called by insiders the “Great Plan.” “The End of Either/Or” published in the Council on Foreign Relations’ house magazine, Foreign Affairs, January, 1967.
As is still widely unknown, the hippie/antiwar movement of the sixties, like today’s Soros rioters, was billionaire-funded, in this case by the Rockefellers.
In The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, student radical James Kunen described the 1968 annual meeting of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which spearheaded the war protests:
Also at the convention, men from Business International Round Tables—the meetings sponsored by Business International—tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. They are the left wing of the ruling class. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.1
Jerry Kirk, one-time member of SDS and the Communist Party, testified before the House and Senate Internal Security Panels:
Young people have no conception of the conspiracy strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below. . . . They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they are fighting the forces of the super rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don’t realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes.2
In 1970, I hawked the Phoenix (Boston’s new left-wing counterculture newspaper) on the streets (they gave hawkers a really good deal). Eventually, after the Phoenix went too commercial, some of its former staff started a spin-off called The Real Paper. (The idea was that this paper would give you the real hippie news.) But who was owner and publisher of The Real Paper? David Rockefeller, Jr. His name was right on the masthead. To resolve this “cognitive dissonance,” I think most of us assumed David Jr. was “rebelling” against his capitalist father.
Vito Paulekas was considered one of the prime founders of the hippie movement (Wikipedia even credits him with coining the phrase “freak out”). Ironically, Vito’s uncle was the father-in-law of Winthrop Rockefeller (David Sr.’s brother).3
Clearly, the Rockefellers were not adverse to the hippie movement, but embraced it.
Timothy Leary (“Turn on, tune in, drop out”), the guru of LSD and the counterculture, is suspected of working for the CIA, and eventually credited the CIA with directing the whole movement:
Just as stunning are the close links between the hippie music scene and Deep State (especially the military and intelligence communities), detailed by David McGowan in his landmark book Weird Scenes inside the Canyon. Many of the famed rock bands resided in the Laurel Canyon neighborhood of Los Angeles, a short distance from each other, and from the Lookout Mountain Laboratory, a top-secret military installation.
Jim Morrison of the Doors (whose songs I often listened to in the day) was the son of Admiral George Morrison, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Tonkin Gulf at the time of the notorious 1964 “incident” used to launch the disastrous war.
Like many sixties Laurel Canyon bands, the Doors were created suddenly. Morrison had no previous music or singing experience; none of the Doors had even been in a band before.4 Yet unlike most musicians, who must undergo years of development and struggle before success, the Doors swiftly had an array of hit songs and a recording contract. Their producer, Paul Rothchild, had served in the Army Intelligence Corps.5 Morrison’s career ended as abruptly as it began, when he died under controversial circumstances in 1971.
The defining hit of the hippie generation was probably “San Francisco,” composed by John Phillips (The Mommas & the Poppas) for his friend Scott McKenzie:
Yet like so many of the Laurel Canyon crowd, Phillips had a military background: the son of a Marine Corps captain; his sister Rosie worked at the Pentagon, as did his first wife Susie; and John himself attended elite military prep schools before going to Annapolis, from which he dropped out.6
The number-one protest song of that era may have been “For What It’s Worth” by Buffalo Springfield, who morphed into Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.
According to rock lore, Stephen Stills and Neil Young first met on the Sunset Strip in April 1966, and formed their band. Like the Doors, they had meteoric success; within three months, they were opening for the Rolling Stones at the Hollywood Bowl and released their first single. McGowan notes that Stills was “educated primarily at schools on military bases and at elite military academies,” while Crosby was the son of a major in U.S. military intelligence.7
The most hardcore counterculture figure in the music scene was probably Frank Zappa. His father was a chemical warfare specialist assigned to the Edgewood Arsenal, in whose military facilities the family lived for a number of years. Frank Zappa’s wife Gail was the daughter of a Navy nuclear weapons research specialist, and she herself had worked as a secretary in the Office of Naval Research and Development.8
Read McGowan’s book for similar details on the various other Laurel Canyon bands (and click here to read how the “Wrecking Crew” actually played the instruments on so many of the great songs). While there may have been exceptions, I don’t believe all these rockers were simply “rebelling against their parents” any more than David Rockefeller, Jr. was when he published The Real Paper.
As McGowan observes, if the Establishment (“the Man”) had really opposed these bands, how did they land recording contracts with major labels, and why were their performances showcased on mainstream radio and TV stations across the country? Why weren’t they marginalized, and forced to languish performing as unknowns in coffee houses? When Edwin Starr’s “War” hit the top of the charts in the summer of 1970, I used to blast it out the windows of our hippie house on Franklin Street in Cambridge, Mass. No way these songs made it onto mainstream airwaves without “the Man’s” consent.
The same held true for Hollywood and even Broadway. Anti-war, counterculture productions, from Easy Rider to Hair, were featured in theaters. Yet during the entire course of the Vietnam War (1961-1975), just one major film was made sympathetic to the war effort: John Wayne’s furiously protested Green Berets, which only got produced because of Wayne’s personal determination, coupled with the pull he still maintained in Hollywood. Compare that to World War II, during which Hollywood produced scores of pro-war films over a span of four years. Indeed, pro-war movies about World War II continued unabated throughout the Vietnam period, without a peep of protest. No one seemed to notice the contradiction. Sixties movies portrayed the military of the forties as valorous and virtuous, but the current U.S. military as autocratic and paranoid—Seven Days in May, The Bedford Incident, and who could forget General Jack Ripper launching a first strike on the Soviet Union in Dr. Strangelove?
Television got in on the act, debuting All in the Family in 1971, typecasting Archie Bunker as a bigoted, knuckleheaded patriot. Watch “hawk” Archie rail against gun control while his “dove” son-in-law—and canned laughter—cue the audience on how to react:
The same pattern held for the mainstream news media, which portrayed the war in Vietnam as negatively as possible, from inventing Vietcong victories to hyper-publicizing American atrocities such as the My Lai massacre. On the home front, their cameras were always focused on the protests. In 1984-85, Accuracy in Media produced a documentary, Television’s Vietnam, which—especially in Part II—busted the MSM’s misrepresentations of the war. Since the film has been flushed down one of Orwell’s memory holes, I sent a VHS copy this week to my friend at Federal Expression for a YouTube upload. It’s long, and watching is not essential to this post, but I have embedded Part II below for reference.
None of the attacks bothered the Deep State in Washington. They had no intention of winning the war, for, as Orwell has been paraphrased, “The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.” As I detailed in the first post I ever wrote for this blog, the Vietnam War was orchestrated by an elite inner circle of globalists who were not interested in defeating communism. They guaranteed that U.S. victory in Vietnam would be unachievable by imposing severe limitations on the military (“the Rules of Engagement”) that were without historical precedent. (Note: General Ripper was actually right—war should be left to generals, not politicians; his ridiculous character was put on display in 1964—same year as Tonkin Gulf—to help ensure the public would approve CFR bureaucrats running the Vietnam War instead of West Point graduates.) The Talmudic Zionists at the top of the Illuminati pyramid had funded communism from the beginning, which is why the Korean War (intended to validate the UN as peace-keeper) and Vietnam were the first wars America fought where victory was forbidden.
And what was their purpose in Vietnam? Aside from lesser motives (such as elimination of the draft, a move necessary to transform the military into an international police force—difficult to do with scruples-minded draftees in the ranks—and the usual weapons profiteering), the war was used to create a national divide. Americans faced a catch-22: they could either be “doves” and join the Rockefeller-backed, drugged-up hippies; or they could be scorned as “hawks” in the ranks of Nixon’s “Silent Majority,” favoring a war rigged to be lost.
In reality, the Deep State was deceiving both sides, though few people knew the Deep State even existed. But in the great national struggle over Vietnam, one side would wind up on top. The winner was predictable from who was universally favored by Hollywood, the music industry, and the rest of mainstream media: the “doves.” When all will power to continue the war had been inevitably exhausted, and the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, the doves could shout: “We told you so!”
While communism was allowed to win militarily in Vietnam, in America cultural Marxism won. We were changed from a Leave It to Beaver society to a Woodstock society. It hadn’t been just about Vietnam; a sweeping assault had been launched on the nation’s core Christian values, as sexual liberation—previously known as “immorality”—infected American youth, along with getting high on drugs. And having been defeated by “invincible” communism, many of my generation became political leftists, in a variation on Stockholm Syndrome.
This opened a Pandora’s Box, as a host of other counterculture agendas were piggybacked onto the antiwar movement: feminism (feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA), the gay movement, the pro-abortion movement, finally morphing into today’s transgenderism, pedophilia, and open Satanism.
Continue Reading here: https://jamesperloff.com/tag/vietnam-war/