UNCOVERED: The Monks Who Committed Self-Immolation in South Vietnam (1963) Were Communist Operatives – Geoffrey Shaw

(Malcolm Browne)

One of the most shocking and enduring images of the Vietnam War is a photo of a monk who set himself on fire in the streets of Saigon. According to the leading journalists at the time (liberals), and the majority of historians who studied the event thereafter (more liberals), that particular monk, and a few others, committed these acts of self-immolation in protest of the widespread oppression experienced by Buddhists under the allegedly tyrannical, bigoted, and very mean governance of the bogeyman South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem.

However, as this article will show, there was no oppression, President Diem is neither a bigot nor a tyrant, and what the mainstream media led Americans to believe during the Buddhist Crisis of 1963 was far from what was really happening on the ground.

If one were to read and listen to the leftists’ popular coverage, the Buddhist Crisis of 1963 (where the infamous burnings occurred) would appear to be some spontaneous, grassroots movement, orchestrated by a willing and enthusiastic Buddhist majority. However, this mainstream narrative, cultivated by the leftists of that era, and carried on by the leftists of today, could not be further from the truth.

As with contemporary liberals’ coverage of issues they disagree with (e.g. President Trump, conservative views, border patrol, the police, the military, etc.), the liberals of the Vietnam era, in their coverage of the war, presented a very distorted, anti-South Vietnamese, and pro-communist spin on the tragic events of the communist-manufactured Buddhist Crisis of 1963, not to mention the war as a whole.

At that time, for reasons still beyond rational comprehension, the liberal media already wanted to see the fall of the Diem regime, and the prevalence of Ho Chi Minh and the North Vietnamese. In pursuit of that objective, the U.S. media, dominated by an overwhelming liberal majority, sought to demonize South Vietnam and glorify the communist forces. As Geoffrey Shaw’s evidence will show, the Buddhist Crisis of 1963, while orchestrated by radical groups inside Vietnam, was facilitated greatly by major leftist media outlets such as the New York Times (p. 202-3) and the Washington Post (p. 209).

That famous photo of the burning monk, the main topic of our discussion here, was one of the ways in which the media shaped the American public perception of the Vietnam War. Looking at the picture, with headlines and captions telling them that Diem and the South were to blame for the tragedy, Americans at home were horrified by what they saw. As a result, public opinion in the U.S. greatly turned against South Vietnam, even before the U.S. government under Kennedy managed to force American troops into Vietnam.

Given how the Vietnam War ended, needless to say, the efforts by the liberal media to assist the communists and bring down the Diem regime were hugely successful. Tactically similar to the mainstream media today, the media of the Vietnam War era, leftist in their views, pursued their anti-Diem agenda with smears, lies, and fake news. In the end, in wanting Diem to fail, wanting South Vietnam to fail, and wanting America to fail, the liberal media accomplished their mission. However, to their unpleasant surprise, whatever lies and perjuries committed by the liberal media, then and now, are slowly coming to light.

In The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam (2015), new research by military historian Geoffrey Shaw reveals many groundbreaking revelations about the Buddhist Crisis of 1963. Many of the information presented by Shaw in his book were either missed or intentionally ignored (you can probably guess which one) by the mainstream media at the time, during their coverage of the crisis. These important facts were then buried in the historical archives, while the leftist narrative went on to dominate public thought and the history books.

One of the most illuminating revelations about the Buddhist Crisis of 1963, as reported in Shaw’s book, is that the monks who set themselves on fire (including the monk in the infamous photo) were not common or disgruntled citizens, nor did they in any way represent the majority Buddhist population in Vietnam. In actuality, these monks were part of a fringe group of radicalized Buddhists, who, in coordination with anti-Diem forces, orchestrated a fake crisis to tarnish the Government of Vietnam under President Diem. Even more shockingly, these monks were found to be agents of the North Vietnamese, committing what they viewed as martyrdom to further the communist cause.

From the foreword of The Lost Mandate of Heaven, Georgetown University professor James V. Schall reveals the following:

After the war, the North Vietnamese acknowledged that the bonzes [Buddhist monks] who burned themselves in supposed defiance of Diem’s “anti-Buddhist” policies were their agents within minority Buddhist monasteries in Vietnam. This information never appeared in the American press at the time (p. 13).

Clearly stated above, the North Vietnamese themselves admitted that the monks who set themselves on fire were indeed part of the communist forces. Deeper in The Lost Mandate of Heaven, Shaw himself brings to light the fact that two of the monks who led the demonstrations during the crisis, Thich Thien Hao and Thich Thom Me The Nhem, were members of the National Liberation Front (p. 199), otherwise known as the Viet Cong, the brutal southern communist network that has been repeatedly confirmed as subordinates of the North Vietnamese. These monks not only met with North Vietnamese communist leaders, but were doing so with communist leaders from China as well (ibid). Furthermore, the most prominent and influential figure of this crisis, the outspoken, subversive, conniving, and now disgraced monk Thich Tri Quang, was the leader of a “small, radicalized coterie” of Buddhists, and a disciple of a North Vietnamese monk who held approval among the communists (p. 197).

Unsurprisingly, knowing the pro-communist bias and dishonesty of the liberal media, these facts were never reported to the public, and thus, everyday Americans were led to believe that the self-burning monks were part of some national resistance, of which all Buddhists across Vietnam were in support of. In reality, the Buddhist majority did not support these radicals monks. As shown above, the self-burning monks were actually communists, manufacturing outrage to manipulate public opinion in Vietnam and the United States, a scheme that received full complicity and support by the U.S. liberal media.

This position is further affirmed in Shaw’s book, with an excerpt explaining the tactics of the North Vietnamese and their allies. In regards to the communists’ fabrication of the 1963 Buddhist Crisis:

This kind of political sophistication was well within the capacities of Ho Chi Minh and his backers in China and Russia. Stephen C. Y. Pan of the East Asian Research Institute in New York City met and interviewed Ho Chi Minh, Ngo Dinh Diem, and other Southeast Asian leaders. This expert on Vietnamese politics concluded that the Buddhist crisis was indeed a communist front: “The communists knew how to cope with Diem’s appeals. Highly skilled at spreading false propaganda, they created incidents, and launched demonstrations. Masters of cold war strategy, they decided that the Achilles heel in Vietnam was the Buddhist associations. They realised the acute sensitivity of Americans, in particular, to the charge of religious persecution,” (p. 199-200).

The above explains the intricacy and skill in which the communists were able to manipulate American public opinion. Knowing what the average American cares about and is sensitive too, the communists manufactured a crisis, created fake outrage, and then used the willing and enthusiastic liberal journalist to deliver this fake outrage straight to the American public.

The New York Times, one of the most prominent U.S. news outlets covering the Vietnam War, is discovered to have falsely reported the situation in Vietnam during the Buddhist Crisis. According to Shaw, during the start of the crisis in May of 1963, reports by the New York Times blamed the South Vietnamese on explosions that occurred during a (staged) demonstration in Hue, an event claiming the lives of nine people (p. 204-5). Later on, the Time’s reporting of the incident was falsified and indicted as “based on ‘facts’ of highly doubtful authenticity,” (p. 202-3). Furthermore, the New York Times claimed that, during the crisis, President Diem imposed a discriminatory law that specifically targeted Buddhists, another accusation that turned out to be false. In researching the infamous incident, Ellen Hammer, a historian, and Marguerite Higgins, a reporter, had ruled that there was no such persecution of Buddhists by President Diem. From her discoveries, Higgins ruled that in all, the events of the crisis as described by the New York Times were completely false (p. 203).

Furthermore, it is essential to understand that the South Vietnamese security forces deployed to the protests in South Vietnam were only equipped with stun grenades and tear gas, weapons inconsistent with media coverage claiming that government forces fired on the crowd. After the demonstration ordeal, a doctor examining the dead clarified that the burns experienced by bomb victims were beyond the capacity of the government forces’ gear. He then attributed the cause to “homemade bombs… planted beforehand,” with signs that very much “indicate the handiwork of the Viet Cong,” (p. 204-5). Again, unsurprisingly, these facts were largely ignored by leftist “academics,” both journalists and historians alike.

In their coverage of the crisis, the leftist media not only lied to the American public, but repeated these lies over and over, day in and day out. According to Shaw, the distorted leftist reporting of the Buddhist Crisis was kept “on the front pages of the New York Times and other newspapers” for months (p. 210). One can only imagine the affect that these images and stories had on the American public, and how that affected the U.S.-South Vietnam war effort overall.

Though President Diem and his government, in the short term, survived the intricately crafted and viscerally effective outrage campaign of the communists and the liberal media, it would leave a permanent stain on his administration, of which he would never recover. This mark on Diem’s presidency, and the subsequent U.S.-led coup that caused the fall of his administration, was all built on a lie, concocted by the North Vietnamese, carried out by their Viet Cong wing in the south, and popularized by the liberal media.

Observing these liberal media tactics of the Vietnam era, one cannot help but think of the liberal media of today, manufacturing scandals and outrages such as Russian collusion, faux racism, “family” border separation, and Stormy Daniels against President Trump, in a concerted and coordinated attempt to bring down the Trump Administration. Make no mistake that historically, the media is a monumentally powerful entity. They have the power to shape public opinion, influence attitudes and behaviors, spur people to action, and bring down entire presidencies.

During the Vietnam War era, through lies, careful omissions, and the overall shameless dissemination of fake news, the liberal mainstream media turned the American public against the war, influenced the election of opportunist antiwar Democrats into the House and Senate, cut all funding to South Vietnam (even though the South was winning the war), and then celebrated the “victory” of the North Vietnamese.

In this era of Trump, through lies, careful omissions, and the overall shameless dissemination of fakes news, the liberal mainstream media has been trying relentlessly to turn the American public against President Trump, influence the election of impeachment-minded Democrats into the House and Senate, and all the while fantasizing about the leftist overthrow of a duly elected U.S. president, the complete undermining and erosion of American democracy, and spitting in the face of American voters. Unfortunately for the Left, after decades upon decades of unprecedented and unchecked power, the liberal media empire, the oligarchs of the western world, have finally overextended themselves. However, that is a discussion for another time.

Coming back to the Buddhist Crisis of 1963, one may benefit to know that in the midst of the crisis, President Diem reached out to the many Buddhist organizations in South Vietnam, working with Buddhist leaders, and even offering compensation to families whose loved ones died in the protests, even though his government was not responsible for the deaths. Furthermore, President Diem created a Buddhist-led commission to engage further with the Buddhist community in Vietnam, and even agreed to let an international investigation be carried out against his government (p. 206).

All of these initiatives were ignored by the liberal media (p. 207).

In their reporting of the outrage, the alleged discrimination and oppression, the liberal media, in all their boasted propensity for justice and truth, somehow conveniently failed to report any of the actions that the South Vietnamese President took to reach out to the community and soothe his people. Moreover, around this time, in the wake of the Buddhist Crisis, President Diem and his administration was soundly defeating the Viet Cong terrorist network in South Vietnam. The media conveniently failed to report this as well (p. 211).

Like the leftist journalists of today, who purposely omit President Trump’s accomplishments and noble actions (e.g. defeating ISIS, vastly cutting illegal immigration, bringing home U.S. soldier remains from North Korea, revitalizing the U.S. economy, achieving record-low African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and women unemployment, and donating virtually 100% of his salary to charity since taking office, just to name a few), the leftists of the Vietnam War era ignored the monumental accomplishments of President Ngo Dinh Diem, which include establishing a viable non-communist Vietnamese country, defeating the Viet Cong, keeping the North Vietnamese at bay, and building up essential national institutions such as the economy, the military, and the education system, just to name a few.

As the President of the Republic of Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem was viewed by all Vietnamese, Christians and Buddhists alike, as their legitimate leader (p. 17). The “iconic” picture of the burning monk, and the narrative that both leftist journalists and historians painted of Diem was contradictory to the reality.

In Diem’s Vietnam, despite being forced to sometimes take extensive measures to combat terrorism, warlord-ism, and post-colonial factionalism, there existed freedom of religion, freedom of demonstration, freedom of non-political assembly, and some freedom of the press (p. 200). Moreover, President Diem deeply respected Buddhism, viewed Buddhism as a “means to reinvigorate Vietnamese identity” after the French ruined it, and hoped that Buddhism would be a strong counter to communist influence in the countryside (p. 39).

During his administration, President Diem oversaw a Buddhist renaissance that brought the religion back from the edge of extinction after a disastrous near-century of French colonialism (p. 194). Under Diem, substantial government funds were given to the development of Buddhist infrastructure such as pagodas and schools. These funds saw the renovation, rebuilding, and new construction of several thousand pagodas, as well as the organizing of large Buddhist communities in South Vietnam, which in-turn trained and provided access to more than one million Buddhist practitioners across the country. Along with all of this, the Government of Vietnam, led by the Diem administration, also “encouraged Buddhist programs, periodicals, conferences, lectures, and libraries,” (p. 195).

These are all important facts that somehow always seem to be conveniently absent in the liberals’ coverage of President Diem, in today’s history, and yesterday’s news. From the information presented in this article, it is not hard to understand why.

None of the facts above support the leftist claim that Diem was a bigoted, anti-Buddhist dictator. As a matter of fact, the evidence presented completely obliterates that claim, which is why it can never be found in any book or article written by a liberal on the matter.

For reasons still to be discovered, the liberal media and leftists in general had a vested interest in the failing of the U.S. and South Vietnam, and the prevalence of the communists. Their anti-American, anti-South Vietnamese, and pro-communist agenda compelled them to present a distorted and fabricated narrative on the Vietnam War, one in which the communists were the good guys, and the U.S. and South Vietnamese were the bad guys.

To push this false narrative, the powerful American liberal press used all of their clout and resources to slander South Vietnam and the U.S., while at the same time glorifying the communist enemy. One of the means in which the media advanced their agenda was the promotion of the Buddhist Crisis, and repeatedly displaying the infamous picture of the self-burning monk for all Americans at home to see.

In examining Shaw’s research, including facts such as the monk’s communist affiliation, how his radical group was unrepresentative of the Buddhist population, and that the Buddhist Crisis itself was a sham concocted by the communists, this article aims to dispel some of the many prevailing myths about the Vietnam War that resonate to this very day.

Many things we have been taught about the Vietnam War is wrong. But little by little, the truth will be told.

Consider this article one more step towards telling the full truth about the Vietnam War. Major themes for this thesis include the heroism and sacrifice of the South Vietnamese and the allied American soldiers, the brutal and murderous totalitarianism of the communists, and the lies, cowardice, and deceit of the liberal media, during Vietnam and thereafter.

As always, everyone is encouraged to read for themselves the sources presented, and come to a few conclusions of their own. Academic, peer-reviewed, and written by reputable experts in their respective fields, the sources examined are reliable for research and general learning. The source this week, to reiterate, is The Lost Mandate of Heaven, by Geoffrey Shaw. It is a great read, and definitely worth your time.

 

Work Cited:

Shaw, Geoffrey. The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2015.

Advertisements

U.S. Entry, Tet Offensive, Creighton Abrams, and False Histories – Four Major Takeaways from the ‘Prologue’ in Sorley’s “A Better War”

(U.S. Army Photo)

There are a few things that one instantly learns upon opening A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam, the 1999 book by historian and U.S. veteran Lewis Sorley. Among them include some introductory facts that every person seeking to learn about the Vietnam War should know about. Here below are a few of these facts, for your convenience:

• Americans in Vietnam (1960-65): The period when U.S. involvement in Vietnam steadily rises from a primarily advisory role to one of active combat, with ground troops officially deployed in 1965 (p. xi)
• The Tet Offensive (1968): In this infamous military campaign, the allied nations of South Vietnam and the United States crushed the North Vietnamese and Vietcong invaders, yet the communists achieved an important psychological victory, by scaring the mainstream U.S. media, and consequently, the American public, which contributed greatly to the overall diminishment of public support for the war (p. xi-ii)
• From Westmoreland to Abrams (1968): The initial start to the U.S.’s active involvement in the Vietnam War under General William C. Westmoreland was one of numerous setbacks and difficulties – this all changed in the spring of 1968, when “Westy” was replaced by General Creighton W. Abrams, a more competent and capable commander that worked better with the South Vietnamese and changed the whole course of the U.S. war in Vietnam (p. xii-iii)
• Problematic Histories (Then-Now): The previous point highlights the fact that under Westmoreland (1965-68), U.S. efforts in Vietnam were riddled with setbacks and difficulties – These years represent only a fraction of the overall war, but for some reason, it is always the Westmoreland era that most historians and journalists in the U.S. love to focus on, and in the process, ignoring the great allied achievements from 1968 onward – As a result, to this day, most people in the American public are presented with a distorted representation of what really happened in the Vietnam War (p. xiv)

Above are only a few of the many insights that Lewis Sorley instantaneously presents to the reader in his book, A Better War. To acquire more information, I strongly encourage everyone to read Sorley’s book for themselves, and draw a few conclusion of their own.

There are a significant number of works on the Vietnam War out there (albeit buried in a sea of liberal trash) that present fair and balanced accounts of what actually happened in Vietnam. Sorley’s book is simply one among many, and is a very good place to start for anyone interested in studying this complex, fascinating, and ultimately misreported war.

Over the course of my research, I’ve pondered the ways in which to share my findings with you all, and it’s been hard. On the one hand, I want to be clear and concise, but on the other hand, I want to be thorough and comprehensive.

So, after much thought, I’ve decided that the best way to share my discoveries with you all is to do it little by little. In doing so, I am able to focus, a few at a time, on the myriad complex and convoluted issues associated with the Vietnam War and its historiography. With this approach, I hope to eventually establish a solid scholarly foundation, to the benefit of all who are interested in truly understanding the Vietnam War.

I once made a metaphor about a “House of Truth,” in which, brick by brick, I slowly lay the foundations with the hopes that one day, a strong and true story will be told of what really happened during the Vietnam War. Consider this article one more step in that direction, another brick in our House of Truth, placed for the entire world to see, scrutinize, and ultimately understand. As boldly put by author and retired U.S. marine Richard Botkin, “Everything you know about the end of the Vietnam War is wrong.” It is high time that we fixed that.

Hopefully you all enjoyed this brief article and found it to be an insightful read. I look forward to giving you more.

 

Work Cited:

Sorley, Lewis. A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam. New York: Harcourt, Inc. 1999.

TREASON: Communist Government Leases VIETNAMESE Lands to China for the Next Century

(Original photo via VOA)

The Communist Government in Vietnam has taken another devastating step in their quest to hand all of Vietnam over to China.

According to Asia News, the Vietnamese Communist Party, through its fake National Assembly, is preparing for a mock “vote” that will see the ceding of key Vietnamese territory over to China for 99 years, under the guise of what they are calling “special administrative economic zones.”

If the vote passes (and it will, because the communist voting process is a scam, and all decisions have been made beforehand by Party leadership), China will gain full access to several vital locations in Vietnam. These areas, which have been described as “Chinese economic hubs,” are Vietnamese territory that include, “Vân Đồn (Quảng Ninh province), Bắc Vân Phong (Khánh Hòa) and on Phú Quốc Island (Kiên Giang).”

Besides their historical significance, these regions also hold many important economic and strategic aspects, such as natural resources, tourism hubs, shipping lanes, trade routes, and border crossings. Furthermore, these three zones are evenly spread out across the northern, central, and southern regions of Vietnam, making Vietnam vulnerable on all fronts against Chinese encroachment.

The acquisition of these territories, under the pretense of economics, will give China free reign to exploit these Vietnamese lands and all of its resources, and to govern and enforce these lands as they see fit.

Many are warning that, “once in control of these three economic zones, Beijing could deploy armed forces to protect its interests. Once they have granted the concession, Vietnamese authorities will no longer have access to the territories.”

Furthermore, others fear that “By getting these territories, China could control almost all of Vietnam by 2020, exercising its ‘soft power’ on the local economy, finance and culture.”

In short, the Vietnamese Communist Party has, once again, taken a step that gives China a stronger chokehold over Vietnam and its people. The Communist Party in Vietnam are all traitors, cowards, and bastards, who have committed unforgivable crimes against the nation of Vietnam and all of its people, and will continue to do so until Vietnam is no more.

We must not let that happen.

 

CALL TO ACTION:

For anyone who currently wants to take action, but is struggling to figure out how, I would like to share something with you.

The full idea is long, complicated, and the project is still in progress, but for now, here is an introduction.

We all have different skills, tools, and conceptions on how to combat Communism and bring freedom to Vietnam. This one is mine:

Vietnamese Republicanism (Chủ Nghĩa Cộng Hòa Việt Nam) is a political ideology, one that is founded on the three pillars of Democracy (Dân Chủ), Human Rights (Nhân Quyền), and National Defense (Bảo Vệ Quốc Gia). The goal of Vietnamese Republicanism is to destroy Communism and the Communist Party in Vietnam, and establish a free, independent, and strong Vietnamese Republic in its place.

The original English version of “Chapter 1” can be reached HERE, and the Vietnamese translation of the chapter can be reached HERE.

Please give it a read (may take 10-15 minutes per chapter), and if you see merit in what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends, family, or the public. Methods of sharing can begin with social media, word of mouth, and email, but I encourage you to think of other ways, unconventional ways to spread this information.

The more people know about this Vietnamese Republicanism idea, the stronger our position in the fight against the communists will be. We want to reach the people inside Vietnam, most of all, because they have the power to fight from within the country, which is essential.

This is not the only way to fight against the communists, but it is one way, and I believe it will be effective.

If you’re looking for a way to fight against the communists, then may I propose you help spread the word about Vietnamese Republicanism (Chủ Nghĩa Cộng Hòa Việt Nam).

You can start by posting the link of Vietnamese Republicanism / Chủ Nghĩa Cộng Hòa Việt Nam to any social media platform and hitting the “share” button. Then you can come up with more ideas from there. The means don’t matter, as long as the message is delivered. Keep that in mind as you get creative, innovate, and come up with awesome new ideas to reach our ONE objective: Freedom for Vietnam.

Let’s start now.

A Solemn Thank You.

(Breitbart)

Hello All,

I’ll be honest here. I tried writing a few feature pieces for this April 30th, but none of it panned out. I wanted to do something big, bit off more than I can chew, and simply didn’t have enough time to make it good enough to share. There are certain standards that I hold myself to as a writer, and I would not put anything out unless I believe it was good enough. This is even more so on Black April, a solemn day of mourning and commemoration for a nation lost. I wanted to do a lot for this day, but in the end, this year, I came up empty.

But, it didn’t feel right to say nothing. I have to say something. How could I not?

And so, with no research or notes on hand, or a poem, or anything, all I got is what is on my mind right now, right this minute, and the only thing I can say is this:

Thank you.

Thank you to all the heroes who fought, bled, and died to defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese people and their nation. This goes out to all of the veterans. South Vietnamese veterans, American veterans, and all of our friends and allies who laid down their lives and made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom and independence. To all of the heroes, living or dead, I thank you. We thank you, and pledge to never let your sacrifices be forgotten.

I also want to thank the Boat People refugees, the Children of the South, who took that leap of faith, and faced the vast and mighty Ocean in the pursuit of freedom. To everyone who made that impossible choice to depart from Vietnam after the communist takeover, braving unthinkable danger, and enduring unspeakable pain and suffering, all for that beautiful idea, freedom, I thank you. Without you, there would be no us. Without you, there would be no hope. So thank you. Thank you for keeping it all alive. The legacy, the heritage, the roots of the Vietnamese people, all of it lives on to this day, because of you. Thank you, for giving us something that we can never repay. We will carry it with us, and pass it on to future generations, so that it may live on. Forever.

Lastly, I want to thank all the nations of the free world who took in the Boat People refugees. To the countries that took us all in, at a time when we had nothing, we thank you. You gave us freedom, you gave us hope, you gave us strength, and you gave us a future. You gave us a home. And, like the gift that the Boat People refugees have given to the future generations, we can never repay the gift that the nations of the free world have given to us all. But, we will try, every minute, every second, of every day to make the most of that gift that you have given us: Freedom. Thank you America. Thank you Canada. Thank you Australia. And thank you to all the nations of the free world who took us in and made us your own. Your kindness and compassion will never be forgotten.

And to you, thank you. Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and musings, and thank you for standing with me, as a proud, freedom-loving Vietnamese person. What’s more, thank you for keeping the South Vietnamese legacy alive. We are all in this together, and one day, Vietnam will be free again. Thank you for fighting the good fight.

Thank you.

Stephen B. Young: Nguyen Van Thieu, South Vietnam’s Second President, Was a Strong Leader Who Built Up His Country

(Virtual Saigon)

In an article last month, Stephen B. Young, executive director of the Caux Round Table and expert on Vietnam history, provided some useful information on South Vietnam and its second president, Nguyen Van Thieu. This article was published in The New York Times, because even biased left-wing media empires need to hedge their bets sometimes and provide views differing from their own, but I digress.

Much useful insight can be found in Young’s article, which covers a wide array of topics regarding South Vietnam’s perspective in the war. In this brief post, I will only focus on one portion of Young’s article, and that is his discussion on South Vietnam’s second president, Nguyen Van Thieu, and the nation’s development under his strong leadership.

According to Young, that in the greater context of Southern resistance in the face of continued Northern communist aggression:

South Vietnam’s president, Nguyen van Thieu, stepped up to provide more vigorous leadership. He replaced corrupt and incompetent officials and personally headed the recovery committee charged with rebuilding destroyed or damaged infrastructure and buildings and resettling over 500,000 people who had fled Communist control. And elsewhere in national politics, new, surprising political coalitions formed to vociferously oppose Hanoi’s aggression.

… South Vietnam’s economy grew continuously. Elections were held in all villages and provinces, and several times for the national Senate and House of Representatives, bringing into power a wide range of political outlooks, without anyone seriously proposing surrender to Hanoi’s one-party dictatorship.

As can be seen by Young’s assessment, the nation of South Vietnam had a strong and competent leader under President Thieu. South Vietnam’s economy was flourishing, half a million refugees who had fled the communist North were successfully being settled in the South, and democracy was firmly taking hold in the young nation.

This is all common knowledge to anyone who lived in South Vietnam, and knew firsthand what life was like there. Anyone who was a South Vietnamese citizen, and subsequently a “Boat People” refugee after 1975, knows very well that the Republic of Vietnam was a democratic nation, one that was steadily establishing itself as a regional power in Southeast Asia, leading the way in economy, military, education, and culture.

However, to the outside observer, and the generations who only know about the Vietnam War through western pop culture liberal propaganda (written and designed by leftists, citing leftist sources who love communism), the truths about South Vietnam and its people are still largely ignored and buried by the liberal elite, hidden in historical archives, and unnoticed by the world at large.

According to the leftist narrative, the North Vietnamese were good, the South Vietnamese were bad, the U.S. soldiers were bullies, and the radical liberals back home who protested and slandered the war effort were somehow brave, courageous, and totally not a bunch of lazy, self-righteous, cowardly, virtue-signalling losers.

For decades, liberals have dominated the conversation on the Vietnam War. They have achieved a stranglehold monopoly over the power to shape the public’s perception of the war, in any way they choose. As a result, we don’t really know much about it, except for what the Left wants us to “know.”

Well, little by little, that is changing.

Thanks to scholars such as Stephen B. Young and many others (George J. Veith, Lewis Sorley, Richard Botkin, and Geoffrey Shaw, just to name a few) whose works I am excited to share and discuss with you all, our understanding of the Vietnam War is gradually shifting.

In time, more and more truths will come out. This article is just a small piece of that puzzle. A small brick, if you will, in what I’d like to call my House of Truth.

There’s an old saying:

“If you want to anger a conservative, lie to them. If you want to anger a liberal, tell them the truth.”

Here’s to more articles pissing off liberals in the future.

P.S. Trump is president. #MAGA #KAG

Analysis: Trump’s Approval Ratings Hit 51%, Beats Obama’s at Same Point in Presidency

(Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press)

It’s been a while since I wrote something (gotta stay relevant become relevant again somehow, ha…), so here’s some news that will piss off some grumpy bitter leftists.

According to Rasmussen Reports, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, president for, not just some Americans, not just the Republican Party, but for ALL Americans, and ALL political parties (liberals: “but, but, I tweeted #notmypresident 😢”), hit 50% in his approval rating early last week, and then 51% just a few days later.

This accomplishment comes at a time when the liberal media is, and has been, doing everything they possibly can to destroy the Trump presidency. Possible reasons for the media’s constant attacks on President Trump, his family, his administration, and everything that is remotely connected with him, include: hurt feelings (liberals: “how DARE Trump win the election when I feel so strongly that he shouldn’t? 😢”), ego (liberals: “people like Trump don’t win elections, people like me [sleazy establishment types] do! 😢”), and plain, simple corruption (liberals: “if that fucking bastard wins, we’ll ALL hang from nooses” – alleged but unconfirmed Hillary Clinton quote, still funny though).

Not too long ago, the liberal media was boasting about Trump’s historically low approval ratings, trying (unsuccessfully) to hide the fact that Trump’s numbers were identical to Obama’s at the same point in their respective presidencies. Well, surprise, losers.

Liberals tend to dismiss aggressively trash Rasmussen Polls, but it is worthy of note that Rasmussen was one of the few polls to actually predict the 2016 election results accurately.

Seriously, remember when all of those mainstream news outlets predicted a “landslide victory” in favor of Hillary Clinton? These are the same people who boast about Trump’s disapproval, while at the same time ardently burying any information that counters their anti-Trump narrative.

Just a reminder here: the economy is booming, China is being confronted by the U.S. in economics and the pacific, Russian trickery in Syria is getting punished by U.S. troops (this surprised even me), Washington elites are being EXPOSED for corruption and police-state behavior, ISIS is freaking DEAD, and Kim Jong-Un, KIM JONG-FUCKING-UN has agreed to sit down and talk to President Trump about de-nuclearization.

If you regularly read news outlets like Washington Post, CNN, TIME, The New York Times, and Newsweek (just to name a few), and are wondering why you aren’t clearly informed about so many of these monumental accomplishments, the answer is clear.

The mainstream media is not here to inform you. They are here to influence you. And, if you happen to disagree with their leftist point of view, then they are here to shame you, denigrate you into submission, and hopefully sway you over to their pro-socialist agenda.

How the Left manages to constantly lie, manipulate, and ignore facts and figures, every minute, every second, of every single day, is beyond me. Moreover, how the Left is so ardently wishing for America and its president to fail, just to avenge their bruised egos (liberals: “if I don’t get what I want, then NO ONE will! 😡…😢…😡) is beyond my understanding.

Well, that’s the Left for ya.

They did this in the 1960s and 1970s with Vietnam and succeeded (more on that in future posts, hopefully), and now they’re trying to do it with Trump. However, times are changing, and these so-called “journalists” can no longer get away with putting out (or ignoring) whatever they want and expect the population to simply swallow, just because “hey, I’m a journalist 😏.”

My opinion of Trump was much different during most of the 2016 election (mostly negative, not gonna lie). But with time, and more and more shocking revelations unfolding right before my eyes, my understanding of the situation has grown, and thus, my view has changed. So, with the many insights I have acquired over the last 18 months, I am confident in my assessment, and fully stand behind the following statement: Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to the U.S. since Ronald Reagan, and I am glad that he is the President of the United States.

Vote Republican this November in the midterm elections.

Keep America Great. Again. 🇺🇸

Chinese Officials Tried To Strong-Arm the U.S. During Trump’s November 2017 Visit — General Kelly and the Boys Threw Down, Because America

U.S. Chief of Staff, and former General in the United States Marine Corps, John F. Kelly. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

This event took place during President Donald J. Trump’s visit to China in November of 2017. The small incident was kept hush-hush by both sides, on China’s end probably because of shear shame and embarrassment, while on the U.S. side likely because they don’t care. Not very many people knew about the “scuffle” until February 2018, when Axios’ Jonathan Swan provided the scoop on how events unfolded.

How it all went down, according to the Swan source, and subsequently reported by Fox, The Hill, CNBC, and other news outlets, are as follows.

On November 9, 2017, President Trump was in Beijing, China, as part of his Asia tour.

At the capital city’s “Great Hall of the People,” where President Trump and company were paying a visit, Chinese officials blocked the way of one U.S. military aide from entering the premises. The American official in question was holding an important briefcase, the “nuclear football,” pivotal for the authorization and launch of a nuclear strike.

According to The Hill, “The nuclear football is the black briefcase containing the nuclear launch codes for the president. The aide carrying it is required to remain close to the president at all times.”

In response to Chinese obstruction, another American official ran to inform U.S. Chief of Staff, former U.S. Marine General John Kelly, of the situation.

Kelly, who was in a nearby room, promptly arrived on the scene and instructed the Americans to go on through.

“We’re moving in,” were the words of General Kelly, and the Americans pressed forward.

A Chinese official then put his hands on Kelly, grabbing him, before the former U.S. General shoved the Chinese official’s hand away.

In the next instant, a U.S. Secret Service agent got involved and tackled the Chinese official to the ground.

According to Axios, while several sources familiar with the event said that the U.S. Secret Service agent had downed the Chinese official, an official statement by the U.S. Secret Service denies that anyone actually got knocked to the ground.

The situation de-escalated from there.

Everything happened very quickly, and it was over in an instant.

Later, the Chinese head of security detail apologized to Trump and the U.S. for the “misunderstanding.”

While the Chinese call it a “misunderstanding,” there is reason to doubt their claim. This is not the first time that China has overstepped their boundaries and tried to disrespect a visiting delegation, nor will it be the last.

In December of 2017, only one month after the quiet kerfuffle with the Trump delegation, Chinese guards were caught on video beating a South Korean journalist during South Korean president Moon Jae-In’s visit to Beijing. It is said that the guards were acting under direct orders from the Chinese police.

Much further back, in September of 2016, the Chinese pulled a stunt on then-U.S. president Barack Obama as well.

During the 2016 G20 summit in Hangzhou, China, then-president Obama was denied a red carpet welcome and a staircase to exit from Air Force One. As a result, Obama had to come out through a side door of his plane, “the ass” of Air Force One, before navigating his own way to the red carpet. Below, Chinese officials were clashing with Obama administration officials, with the host nation screaming at the Americans, “This is our country! This is our airport!”

The entire incident was said to be a “calculated diplomatic snub,” designed to deliberately insult and make the U.S. look weak. All the other world leaders at Hangzhou, including Britain’s Theresa May, India’s Narendra Modi, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, had received a red carpet welcome, staircase and all. The only, only country not to receive this formal courtesy was the United States and Obama. In classic Obama fashion, he just took it quietly, downplayed the insult, put a positive spin on his own feeble response, and let the Chinese get away with it.

Luckily, with Trump in the White House, this sort of thing doesn’t fly anymore. When commenting on the fiasco in 2016, then-candidate Trump was mocked by liberals for calling out China and saying he would have left if the Chinese treated him that way. Looking back now, it seems Trump knew exactly what he was talking about.

In the case of Obama, the Chinese were loud, obnoxious, and audacious about their blatant disrespect of the United States.

With President Trump, and the smackdown laid by General John Kelly and the U.S. delegation, the Chinese apologized, and quietly hoped that the Americans will not mention the event. According to the Swan source, U.S. officials were “asked to keep quiet about the incident,” but it is not specified in the report who had made that request.

Strong leadership. It makes a difference.

America.