|
|
|
|
The Dragon's Long Game: How China Is Targeting America from Within and more...
The Dragon's Long Game: How China Is Targeting America from Within
June 4, 2026 37th Anniversary — Tiananmen Square Massacre  Two women who survived China's communist machinery — one a Cultural Revolution survivor turned bestselling author, the other a libertarian activist and PRC émigré — offer a chilling, firsthand account of Beijing's ambitions on American soil. Interviews with Xi Van Fleet (American Freedom Alliance, Los Angeles, March 31, 2025) and Mrs. Li Schoolland (FreedomFest 2025) · Speech by Dr. Ming Wang (Anthem Film Festival at FreedomFest). Published June 4, 2026  Today is June 4th. In most of the world, that date means very little. In China, it means so much that the government has banned the numbers six and four from appearing together on the internet. The anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre — when the People's Liberation Army rolled tanks over unarmed students demanding democracy — is not merely a historical wound. It is, as two Chinese-American women explained in separate interviews, a template: a window into exactly how the Chinese Communist Party treats inconvenient truths, inconvenient people, and inconvenient nations.
Those women are Ms. Xi Van Fleet, Cultural Revolution survivor and author of the newly released Made in America: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Enabled Communist China and Created Our Greatest Threat, and Mrs. Li Zhao Schoolland, a PRC émigré, libertarian activist, and speaker at FreedomFest 2025. Their accounts converge on an unsettling conclusion: the CCP's campaign to weaken and ultimately dominate the West is not a future threat. It is already underway. A Book America Needs to ReadXi Van Fleet is used to being heard. In 2021, a two-minute speech she delivered to a Virginia school board against Critical Race Theory went viral, drawing comparisons between Mao's Cultural Revolution and America's woke movement. Her first book, Mao's America: A Survivor's Warning, became a conservative bestseller. Her follow-up — co-written with renowned Chinese dissident Yu Jie — goes further and deeper, tracing how American elites, over more than a century, helped build the very monster that now threatens them. 📖
Made in America — Xi Van Fleet & Yu Jie The untold story of how misguided U.S. elites transformed China from a communist wasteland into a global superpower — at America's expense. Available wherever books are sold, including Amazon.
What Communism Is Really AboutVan Fleet pushes back hard against the assumption that politicians aligned with socialist or communist ideology are simply misguided idealists who wish to improve other people's lives. That framing, she argues, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the ideology.
The question of whether Western politicians who embrace socialist rhetoric are true believers or cynical opportunists, she suggests, may be less important than the structural outcome: one-party dominance. "State like California is good," she said pointedly, "but they want the whole country that way." She also addressed the fear — common among critics of the left — that communist-style authoritarianism would require the kind of mass violence that characterized Mao's China. Not necessarily, she warns. "They don't have to kill millions. As long as they're in power, they can do all sorts of things." The Cultural Revolution's 20 million deaths, she noted, were mostly inflicted not by government agents with guns, but by ordinary citizens turned against each other — a fact she finds more disturbing, not less. The Street and the Square: A Revolutionary ParallelWhen the conversation turned to the wave of protest movements that have swept American cities in recent years — from the 2020 racial justice demonstrations to the "No Kings" rallies — Mrs. Li Schoolland drew an immediate and visceral parallel.
Xi Van Fleet, meanwhile, traced the funding behind the current protest wave to sources far closer to Beijing than most Americans realize. She pointed to investigations by journalist Asra Nomani, which reportedly traced financing for recent "No Kings" protests to American tech billionaire Neville Roy Singham — a self-described Marxist living in Shanghai who reportedly funnels hundreds of millions of dollars through a network of pro-China activist groups. "That's how China is reaching out and influencing," Van Fleet said. The Invisible OccupationPerhaps the most startling claims in both interviews concern not geopolitical maneuvering, but the physical presence of CCP influence on American soil. Mrs. Schoolland did not mince words.
She described Chinese nationals who drove luxury cars in 2020 protest parades — not out of solidarity, she argued, but out of satisfaction. "Anything that hurts the United States, they're happy about. But they're sitting in the United States, enjoying our taxpayer-funded benefits and technology and freedom. They cannot do the same thing back in China — there's no way." On the question of CCP influence within American political parties, Mrs. Schoolland was careful but clear. "I don't know, but I'm sure there's a lot of money going to candidates. A lot of influence." When asked whether she would be surprised to learn the CCP was behind funding current demonstrations, she replied: "I won't be surprised at all. Because that's what they want. They think the US is the enemy. They want to hurt us in every means." Racism, Envy, and the Psychology of a Rising PowerOne thread that runs through both interviews, and that rarely surfaces in mainstream discourse, is China's internal racial hierarchy. When critics of Chinese government policy are dismissed as "racist," Mrs. Schoolland offered a pointed rebuttal.
The goal, she argued, is not simply economic competition or geopolitical rivalry. "They want to be the world power — in control. But they also know they can't control America directly. What they can do is influence the politicians, the government. Bring America down enough that they rise by comparison." CCP Chinese tanks fire upon civilian protesters in Tiananmen Square, June 4th, 1989
 June 4th: The Wound That Must Not Be NamedWhich brings us back to today's date. Mrs. Schoolland's account of what happened at Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989 — and what has happened to the memory of it since — is perhaps the most intimate part of either interview. "Deng Xiaoping ordered tanks and nearly the entire military to Beijing," she recounted. "They killed innocent, unarmed citizens and students by the thousands." She described a woman she knew personally who lost her legs under the treads of a tank, and who was forced to tell people she had been hit by a bus. "What would happen if someone mentioned it was a government shame?" she was asked. "You disappear," she replied. "In prison — or just disappear. Some forever." The numbers 6 and 4 cannot appear together on Chinese social media. The generation that lived through it does not dare speak of it. The generation that came after does not know it happened. In Hong Kong, where annual candlelight vigils once drew tens of thousands, Victoria Park this year hosted a government-organized carnival — a deliberate act of cheerful erasure. The June 4th Museum was forced to close. Its organizers were jailed. Mrs. Schoolland pointed those who want to learn more toward several organizations: Dialogue China, the Chinese Human Rights Foundation, and the June 4th Memorial Museum. For a government that controls an economy of 1.4 billion people and a military of two million, it is telling that a few websites and a memorial museum are still considered threatening enough to suppress. What Is to Be Done?Both women resist fatalism. Mrs. Schoolland places her faith in America's libertarian and constitutional tradition — in the idea that the rule of law, properly defended, cannot be toppled by street theater alone. Xi Van Fleet places her faith in knowledge: the belief that Americans who understand what communism actually is, and what it actually does, will refuse to sleepwalk into it. "Understanding this hidden history," Van Fleet has written of her new book, "is essential for Americans in confronting the CCP's global ambitions and stopping the spread of communism at home." The word "hidden" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The history is not secret. It is simply inconvenient — and, like the events of June 4th, 1989, subject to a kind of voluntary amnesia that the CCP did not need to impose, because enough people in the West were willing to impose it on themselves. On this anniversary, two women who lost years of their lives to communist China are doing what the CCP most fears: remembering out loud. · · · Dr. Ming Wang of Nashville's Wang Vision Institute delivers inspiring Anthem Film Festival acceptance speech for his triple-award winning ,"Sight" film dramatization of real-life for individuals under societal-imposed Socialism and Communism. The film brings out the value of the freedoms we conditionally enjoy - if we continue to defend and uphold them against growing tyranny. 
Watch the interviews
Xi Van Fleet spoke at the American Freedom Alliance, Los Angeles, March 31, 2025. Mrs. Li Schoolland was interviewed at FreedomFest 2025 — search "Whistleblower: China's Agenda, Goals, and June 4th Taboo – Mrs. Li Schoolland" on YouTube.
Further resources Made in America by Xi Van Fleet & Yu Jie (available on Amazon) · Dialogue China · Chinese Human Rights Foundation · June 4th Memorial Museum    
Wisdom about civic responsibility from diverse veterans at Memorial Day Ceremony
How Argentinian-raised, Robert ("Bob") Johnson helps additional Allied veterans (living and deceased) who participated in defeating Nazism in France to receive Legion of Honor recognition at annual D-Day Ceremony there. 
How Austrian-Immigrant, Reinhard Kargl, salutes US veterans (whether alive or deceased) who contributed to defeating National Socialism and Communism. 
Zoroastrian-Iranian veteran of US Army discusses his military service in Iraq and his views of whom he considers alien immigrant men who have not contribute to America through national service.  Buffalo Soldiers enactors teach history Memorial Day at Veterans Cemetery L.A. - Major A.J. Simien  The Cost of Freedom? Korean-American Chief Warrant Officer II Steve Cho, California State Guard 
Trump Is Pushing Jew-Haters Out of the "America First" CoalitionJoe Kent Didn’t Resign. He Was Undone By His Own Anti-Zionist Rot by Bob Goldberg in The New Zionist Times, March 17th Media outlets are framing Joe Kent’s resignation as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center because of principled opposition to the Trump Administration’s war on Iran. Principles had nothing to do with it. He left (more likely shoved out), accusing the administration of entering war with Iran because of “pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby” (that’s AIPAC in case you missed the subtlety), while insisting Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. There, in one tidy little package, was the full intellectual collapse of a part of the American right: not realism, not prudence, not restraint, but the old reflex that when events become complicated, blame the Jews. This is how anti-interventionism curdles into something rancid. It begins with a sensible warning against quagmires and crusades. It ends with the suggestion that America has no enemies in the Middle East worth worrying about, only allies worth resenting. Iran’s aggression? Secondary. Its terror proxies? Background noise. Its imperial ambitions? Mere detail. The real culprit, we are told, is Israel, with its magical ability to make American officials forget where America’s interests lie. That is not foreign-policy realism. It is your run-of-the-mill Blood Libel. Kent matters because he is not your average groyper. He occupied one of the government’s top counterterrorism posts. Kent was supposed to be the serious face of “America First” discipline. Instead, on his way out the door, he sounded like a man who had absorbed too much of the Carlson catechism: every Middle East crisis is a trap, every ally a burden, every Jewish concern a manipulation. And one cannot ignore the possibility that Kent’s departure was less an act of a lonely conscience than a politically convenient separation. Officially, he resigned over the war in Iran. Unofficially, he was not just an ally of Tucker Carlson; he was, in no small measure, a Carlson creation. A quick public check turns up at least six Carlson appearances that are easy to verify in the public record—August 26, 2021; September 8, 2021; December 2, 2021; January 21, 2022; June 9, 2022; and April 8, 2023—and local coverage at the time described those bookings more broadly as “frequent appearances” that helped elevate Kent’s campaign. Carlson did not treat Kent as just another guest. He showcased him as an “America First” candidate, giving him repeated prime-time exposure while Kent was running for Congress. Tucker praised his analysis so effusively that he told him, “the fact that you’re not in Congress tells you a lot about the forces you’re up against,” before wishing him “godspeed.” He later publicly grouped Kent among the candidates he was “standing behind.” (ManoWhisper) Nor did it help Kent that he was so closely identified with Tucker Carlson, just as Carlson’s increasingly deferential posture toward Iran was coming under growing scrutiny. Joe Kent and his J’Accuse Resignation Letter  And if that wasn't enough, Candace Owens cast Kent as the man bold enough to track down how (as Owens alleges) the Trump Family and the Mossad assassinated Charlie Kirk. Public reporting says Kent reviewed FBI files to examine possible foreign involvement, alarming FBI leadership, who feared interference with the criminal case against the accused shooter. That was enough to make him a hero to the conspiratorial right, which requires very little evidence and thrives on dark insinuation. That is the pattern now. Every institution that resists these fantasies is corrupt. Every investigation that refuses to validate them is a cover-up. Every refusal to blame Israel is proof that Israel is to blame. This is not skepticism. It is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion-induced paranoia with a geopolitical vocabulary. The larger issue is not Kent himself. It is what his exit exposes. There are still conservatives who believe “America First” means a disciplined ranking of interests, a dislike of foolish wars, and a sober recognition that allies and enemies are not interchangeable categories. Then there is the newer faction, for which “America First” means something rather simpler: Israel last, Israel always, Israel somehow at fault. That faction has contributed one unoriginal idea to American politics: that every conflict involving Jews can be explained by Jewish influence. It is a marvel of economy. No need to study Tehran. No need to understand deterrence, proliferation, proxy warfare, or regional power politics. Just mutter darkly about “the lobby,” and Netanyahu being the puppet masters of the US government (along with the banks, media, etc.), the world suddenly becomes legible to the aggrieved. We have seen this before. The vocabulary changes. The animus does not. Kent’s departure should therefore be read as more than a resignation letter. It is a declaration that the President and the conservative movement have had it with Carlson’s cult of displacement, in which responsibility for the world’s disorders is shifted steadily, obsessively, almost liturgically onto the Jewish and the Jewish state. And once a political movement reaches the point where its first instinct is to look at Iran’s aggression and ask what Israel did to provoke it, the lurch is complete. It is no longer merely non-interventionist. It is anti-Zionist. It is no longer merely skeptical. It is credulous toward enemies and contemptuous toward Jews. In the end, Joe Kent’s resignation tells us less about one man than about a faction. A faction that no longer knows the difference between prudence and cowardice, between realism and resentment, between legitimate debate and the ancient pleasure of blaming the Jew. That is not just a course correction. It is, one hopes, a collapse.
U.S., Israel, Iran, & Qatar: Leverage, Timing, and the Next Phase of PowerAnalysts, Kenneth Abramowitz and Rev. Dumisani Washington on force-posture, mediation leverage, and the Iran horizon The Washington–Qatar–Israel–Iran crisis is no longer a single storyline. It is a convergence of pressure points: Gaza’s unfinished war, Iran’s nuclear trajectory, Chinese-Iranian military ties, and the role of mediators whose influence shapes what Washington considers “realistic.”
That context matters when revisiting two DemoCast interviews that now feel prescient. At the Republican Jewish Coalition Leadership Summit on November 2, 2025, geopolitical analyst Ken Abramowitz argued that ideological regimes rarely stop voluntarily. Negotiations may be attempted first, he said, but enforcement ultimately determines outcomes.
VIDEO: Ken Abramowitz Interview (Nov. 2, 2025)
Two Power Blocs, One Strategic Reality
Mr. Abramowitz frames the Middle East as shaped by two dominant ideological blocs: an axis centered around Qatar and Turkey aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran’s revolutionary regime. Whether one agrees with every descriptor, the structural observation stands. Both systems expand influence through proxy networks, financing channels, media ecosystems, and diplomatic positioning. His strategic claim was blunt: in military affairs you need capability and willingness. Israel, he argues, clearly retains both. The present question is whether the United States is pacing its use of capability — or withholding willingness.
Hostages, Mediation, and Leverage
Speaking with DemoCast at the NRB Convention in Nashville on Friday, February 20, 2026, Rev. Washington warned that frameworks relying on voluntary disarmament by Hamas were structurally unsound and that political loyalty should never override accountability. The hostage-first approach in Gaza inevitably created leverage for Hamas. If hostages are prioritized, the party holding them retains bargaining power. When bargaining power exists, mediators become indispensable. This is where Qatar’s role becomes structurally significant. Mediation itself is not malign. But when a mediator becomes indispensable, mediation can turn into leverage. The party that controls access controls tempo. Rev. Washington warned that expecting Hamas to voluntarily disarm misunderstands both its charter and its incentives. VIDEO: Rev. Washington Interview (NRB Nashville, Feb. 20, 2026)  Rev. Washington believes that if enforcement mechanisms remain theoretical, peace frameworks risk becoming messaging frameworks. China, Iran, and the Expanding Perimeter The crisis is not limited to Gaza. Reports that Iran is nearing acquisition of Chinese-made anti-ship missile systems, alongside U.S. sanctions targeting supply chains feeding Iranian drone networks, reflect a widening strategic perimeter. This does not equate to a formal proxy war between Beijing and Washington. But it does indicate that Iran’s military ecosystem intersects with global procurement and partnership channels. At the same time, homeland security assessments describe a dynamic domestic threat environment shaped by terrorism risks, espionage concerns, and potential retaliatory activation of aligned networks. Major military decisions are never taken in isolation from domestic vulnerability calculations.
Strategic Ambiguity or Strategic Leverage?
The emerging picture may not be surrender or retreat, but coercive diplomacy under guard — military assets positioned visibly enough to deter, negotiations extended long enough to test intentions, and strike capacity held in reserve. If force posture adjustments are designed to pressure Iran into ceding enrichment capacity or accepting verifiable limits, then delay may function as leverage rather than hesitation. The evidence suggests stated objectives remain intact: dismantling Hamas’s governing capacity and preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. What appears unsettled is method and sequence. Major military decisions reflect multi-theater risk assessment: Iranian retaliation, proxy activation, maritime disruption, cyber escalation, and domestic security exposure all factor into the calculus. Strategic pacing may reflect layered risk calculation rather than reversal. But pacing carries risk. Time can extract concessions — or strengthen the adversary’s depth. Deterrence does not fail when force is delayed. It fails when force is no longer believed possible. The coming weeks will determine whether current ambiguity produces enforceable constraints — or forces confrontation under less favorable conditions. Mr. Abramowitz’s warning about capability and will still stands. Rev. Washington’s warning about confusing messaging for enforcement still stands. The difference now is that the chessboard has become visible. The question is not whether the United States is deciding. It is whether its adversaries believe it will.
How Hatred Enables Tyranny: Nazi German Techniques Re-appliedOn this Holocaust Remembrance Day, which marks the 81st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, it’s worth reflecting on a disturbing pattern: how propaganda has been used to vilify Jews in different eras. The lessons we thought we learned from World War II— about the dangers of hateful narratives—seem to be fading. Today, some of the same tactics used by the Nazis are being deployed by Islamist/ Marxist movements and their supporters to turn public opinion against Israel, with worrying consequences.
What Happened in Nazi Germany
The Nazis used propaganda to convince Germans that Jews were the root of society’s problems. Newspapers, posters, and films portrayed Jewish people as subhuman and dangerous, blaming them for economic woes and cultural decay. These messages played on centuries-old prejudices in Europe, where anti-Semitic stereotypes had taken root in Christian doctrine and culture. The propaganda worked. Ordinary Germans accepted these lies, enabling the persecution and eventual genocide of six million Jews.
How It’s Happening Again
Fast forward to today, and we see a similar playbook being used by Hamas and its allies, including Qatar. Through modern media and social networks, they spread the message that Israel is an oppressor, responsible for all Palestinian suffering. Casualty figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health—controlled by Hamas—are often inflated or misleading, but they’re repeated by Western media without much scrutiny. Staged events and manipulated images also flood the internet, painting Israel as a brutal aggressor.
Phrases like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” or “Free Palestine” have become rallying cries in protests worldwide. But few stop to question the implications—these slogans call for the elimination of Israel. Meanwhile, Israel’s side of the story, including its right to defend itself against rocket attacks and terrorism, is often ignored.
Why It Matters
Just as Nazi propaganda dehumanized Jews to justify their persecution, today’s anti-Israel narratives have made it acceptable to vilify and scapegoat Jewish people once again. In cities across the West, we’ve seen people tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis, vandalizing Jewish schools and synagogues, and chanting slogans that call for Israel’s destruction.
This isn’t just about spreading lies and hatred; it’s about how those lies pave the way for authoritarian tyranny. The Islamo-Marxist scapegoating of the Jewish state echoes Nazi tactics: using propaganda to consolidate power by uniting people against a common enemy. In Nazi Germany, this propaganda enabled National Socialists to dominate Europe, suppress dissent, and commit atrocities not only against Jews but against all who opposed their rule. Today, Hamas and its allies exploit similar methods to justify their authoritarian agendas and silence diverse voices within their societies.
The Bigger Picture
What’s most alarming is how easily the media and the public have bought into this propaganda. On this solemn day of remembrance, we should ask ourselves: Have we really learned the lessons of the Holocaust? The Nazis taught the world that scapegoating Jews isn’t just dangerous for them—it’s a tool for tyranny that harms everyone. If we fail to recognize and challenge these tactics, we risk enabling the rise of new authoritarian movements that use hatred and division to manipulate society under absolute power.
 
More Recent Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
