New book reveals Tiananmen square massacre, others fabricated by US

Basic image analysis like this should have been done ages ago, but libs don't care about the truth just blind propagandizing

the Tiananmen Square Bicycle Massacre

You don't get it! Deng flattened all the people with his fat cheeks, then inflated everyone back up, then cleaned up the blood and viscera but not the bodies!

Same can be applied to Xinjiang propaganda. "Oh, the State Department now cares about Muslim lives?"

The key reason this kind of lazy propaganda works is because people want to believe it. It leverages the latent racism and capitalist realism people have internalized living in decaying western societies. The idea that a country that doesn't follow liberal ideology could be more successful is a complete anathema to these people.

Nobody is denying bloodshed. There absolutely were violent protests outside the square. The claim in question is that the military gunned down thousands of peaceful protesters in the square, which so far as I know is a claim that's exclusively made by people who were not there.

most of them by the time the actual violent clashes happened certainly werent maoists. Yeah there was a significant % of the protestors that were coming from the left of the CPC but you have to remember that the unrest span month(s) and many cities. In Tainanmen by that point in the movement and leading to that the make up of those that stayed and engaged in lynchings and clashes with the PLA and police was solidly "pro-democracy/free-s[peech/liberalism" youth. Also western intelligence focus and assets had already zeroed in in Beijing and those elements after smelling blood from the more organic initial country wide unrest.

Yeah, that was one of the more fucked up sections of the video I posted, is her crying into a camera. The way she starts crying because the students kept trying to have a peaceful resolution with the government instead of getting themselves massacred... Their entire goal was go try and get as many of their fellow students killed as possible to have as propaganda footage. Like who watches that and then sympathizes with her? Who sees someone crying, because the people under her were trying to be reasonable and not provoke a needless massacre, and thinks "Oh that poor girl. Having to deal with these people that don't want to get killed for the CIA." ?"

I always enjoy re-watching the full "Tank Man" video, with the "brutal Chinese tanks" awkwardly trying to bypass the protestor and patiently waiting him out. I think libs just see that single frame and fill the gaps with their own experiences in their countries in thinking that the guy got ran over or something. If you try that with a secret service car they might do just that.

Even wikipedia mostly admits what really happened now.

I mean Gaddafi was by many political and social measures somewhat reactionary, due to some aspects of his nationalism, religious orientation (traditional Islam is reactionary; he was resolutely anti-communist and anti-Marxist because of its perceived atheism), as well as traditionalist views of women, despite being more progressive in this respect that that conservative Islamic figures or Islamists. There was an immense concentration of wealth around Gaddafi, although there was also undoubtedly a massive restribution of wealth and improvement in quality of life, I don't think it amounted to a genuinely socialist society. In any case, the meaning of his use of the term 'socialism' was not what Marxist mean, although there were some properties in common.

Ofc you are correct that this becomes irrelevantly weaponized by Western imperialism. The reason Gaddafi was removed was because he was promoting an alterative international monetary system to the dollar, presumably underwritten by Libyan (and allied countries') oil. More generally the anti-imperialist geopolitical policy of the Libyan state clearly played a key role, having targeted foreign capital the moment he came to power. There was probably also a central role being played by the French regime's special forces and intelligence under Sarkozy, as the latter had confirmed links with Gaddafi. A lot of investigative reporting has indicated that Gaddafi was threatening Sarkozy to go public with the fact Gaddafi has brided him. If seems that French intelligence located Gaddafi and likely organized the manpower who actually merked him.

That's dope. The one thing I always find frustrating when bickering over politics is people not even caring to read or learn more. I have a lot more respect for my friends when they do, even if all it does is give more nuance to their takes.

Hell if I never decided to read more shit I'd still be a right winger with the rest of the nutcase family.

Lurker here: this was a really cool conversation to read. Much respect to you, hope you stick around the instance. Telling people to post hog is fun and all but seeing a genuine good faith conversation about some super polarizing political opinions is what makes me most glad we federated.

I love it, it feels like cth again. Some great dunks, no hogs unfortunately.

No ML denies that China is 'authoritarian'. They argue that all states are.

Almost everything Marxists say is poorly understood by their detractors and framed in a negative light in one way or another.

what as far as I can tell is the rest of the academic world that doesn’t agree with you?

This makes it seem as though you haven't read the literature and arguments of either side. If that's the case you shouldn't be coming to any conclusions at all, especially to dismiss one side outright for being unorthodox. By definition, the counter narrative is going to sound unorthodox in light of the orthodox claims. The correct approach is to read the source and judge it on its own merit and in light of other known facts.

all it takes for me to believe it is to see the fear in the faces of Chinese people when asked certain questions.

The "I talked to one person so now I'm an expert on the situation" school of historical anyalysis.

"anarchists" please stop believing state department propaganda

The country that says Iraq had WMD said China did a thing that wouldn't make any sense for them to do. That is the extraordinary claim. Why do you feel that a claim made by the US, who has only ever lied to you, is a reasonable starting point?

extraordinary claim and therefore is going to require extraordinary evidence

All it takes to prove that the massacre did happen is evidence. Where is this extraordinary evidence?

Proving that something doesn't exist is much harder. There was a liberal in here earlier though that was also saying that we're a bunch of conspiracy theorists. I gave him links, you can see them below. First hand reports from people who were actually there say that there was no massacre. This includes a CBS reporter and a Latin American diplomat.

To deny the events that unfolded at Tiananmen Square is like denying that humans have been to the moon. It’s an unfounded, in fact, disprovable conspiracy theory.

So prove it to us then. All you're doing right now is scolding us for being insane conspiracy theorists. I've never seen any evidence that anything happened at tiananmen square. Reports from people who were actually there all say that there was no massacre

The US has a very long history of lying about its enemies. There are plenty of declassified CIA docs that talk about what lies to tell the media. Why is this one different?

Edit: also, see pen names. Isn't it a little hypocritical to call us conspiracy theorists when you come to the conclusion that the book was lies written by China or North Korea because you can't find any information about the author?

The Daily NK is a South Korean newspaper that also happens to be funded by the US through the National Endowment for Democracy. It would be funny if the US were funding a North Korean propaganda outfit but somehow I don’t think that’s what’s happening.

Also, if the Tiananmen Square massacre had never happened, then why does the Chinese government continue to block any mention of it vis the firewall and censorship?

Because the purpose of the firewall is to keep the West out.

This is like asking why people who call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression" are censored/ignored. It's historically inaccurate and you deserve to be the subject of animus and suspicion if you do so.

100% more reliable as a source than Adrian Zenz and yet Im sure you believe all the Uigher genocide bullshit that almost always circles back to him or literally U.S. mouthpieces like Radio Free Asia

Why don't you read the book, investigate the citations and claims, and report back on whether the text is fabricated?

Whether or not the writer has a connection to China or the DPRK doesn't actually impact the soundness of any claim. If anything, you are taking an extreme position about academic authority that isn't reflective of reality. You should use your critical thinking skills to assess the claims in the book instead of attacking the author because they might be a Korean or Chinese national. It is kinda racist to assume someone from China or Pyongyang are unable to write on these topics without it being "propaganda"

Dude. These people are insane and not worth your time. Just block the sub like I’m about to do and never look back. They can find comfort in their eco chamber

I did a deep-ish dive on primary and secondary evidence for the time. Still have it in a google doc that could turn out an article.

I think the tl;dr is that the popular narrative (especially in Australia, where I live) is that the CPC bulldozed 10,000 protesters at Tiananmen Square with tanks in 1989 because they were protesting against the communist party. Guts squishing out of treads. The narrative obviously paints Australia's largest export partner as hideously evil (and by association every socialist project. Whether or not you accept this, a lot of Australians do).

My own research (sorry, I hate this term, conspiracy theorists ruined it) has uncovered a few things that are publicly available that throw shade on this narrative:

• Most of the journalists that were actually present (I focused on Australian ones, because that's where I live) agree that no massacre happened at the square that night. They claim to have been amongst the last to leave after the order to disperse.
• The source for 10,000 comes from two places: A journalist at a nearby hospital who estimates that 10k people could have been rushed in as casualties. More significantly, the main source for the 10k figure was an intelligence asset at the Australian Embassy IIRC who said that an internal member of the CPC had told them the 10k figure. Notably, this happened quite early in the night. This was then repeated by the Prime Minister the next day (totally to the surprise of the intelligence asset and the embassy).
• The source for tanks grinding up protesters bodies into paste come from one place, a person that the above journalists say was not present at Tiananmen Square and was in a position to flee the country a couple of hours later. Not impossible, but strains credibility. The source's claims later influenced people's memories of "Tank Man", a video of a person interacting with a column of tanks for a bit before leaving. Ballsy, for sure, but he was not being ground up into paste and neither did the tank crews seem willing to do that.
• There were separate protests going on on the highway leading up to the Square. China is a big place with a lot of people, and at the time Deng was introducing market reforms. A significant number of protesters were in both events were protesting against the market reforms that Deng was introducing (allowing more free flow of Capital to the rest of China). The majority of the deaths (that did happen, I wouldn't claim otherwise) happened on this approach. For this reason, the most senior journalist of the Australian cohort at the time regrets calling it the Tiananman square massacre as he feels it gives the CPC ammunition to discredit everything about it. He's still alive, I have an email I need to send him, or go bother him in person next time I'm in Melbourne.
• The massacre (the references to the event that did happen) was more like a roving street battle. The first casualties were Chinese soldiers, some of which were burned alive while chained to buses and APCs. There were also many protester casualties. The CPC claims a little under 300 fatalities of the entire event, including their own troops. I find this largely plausible, or at least that it's lower than the commonly believed 10k figure in my country by at least an order of magnitude.
• The biggest promoters of the various claims are people closely associated with the NED's office in Beijing. I don't know what that means to you.

Anyway, after doing this "research" I kinda figured that most people in my social circles don't want to hear it, even though the information is very publicly available. So why bother bringing it up in normal conversation? The best you're doing is probably excluding yourself from any conversation.

I still have the names of the journos, parties etc. in question if you want, as well as various links. I am just a little drunk and haven't opened up the document.

I am approaching this in as good faith as possible.