Mao Zedong, the founder of Communist China, was a committed Marxist who supported the adaptation of such a Western ideology by Vladimir Lenin, which led to the first successful Communist Revolution, in 1917 in Russia.
When the Chinese Communists obtained full control over the nation, on 1st October 1949, they created a regime closely modelled on Soviet Russia. Initially, Mao faithfully copied Stalin’s economic policies, collectivising agriculture and introducing Five-Year Plans of industrialization.
However, after the death of Stalin in 1953 Mao refused to play by the rules formulated by the Communist leadership in Soviet Russia. He regarded Stalin’s successors as traitors to Marxism-Leninism and now Mao claimed himself the leader of a Marxist doctrine designed for world domination.
In many of his conversations, Mao poured deep scorn on his fellow Chinese. When it came to the question ‘How do you change China?’ his answer was quite emphatic: “The country must be destroyed and then re-formed”.
In 1966 Mao launched a vicious campaign directed against intellectuals and party officials. For several years China, one of the world’s oldest civilisations, was ravaged by barbarian hordes who had been taught to treat everything beyond their understanding as fit for destruction.
Some courageous officers beg Mao to be more merciful. They were rebuked with remarks like this: “You have too much mercy, not enough brutality, which means you are not so Marxist. On this matter”, Mao added, “we indeed have no conscience! Marxism is that brutal”.
Mao was quite right. The struggle for socialism, wrote Marx, would require his disciples “to eliminate the conditions of morality and circumstances of justice”.
With this idea in mind Mao concluded that destroying the Chinese culture was not enough. He had also to create a “New Chinese Man”.
Of course, changing humanity is the ultimate objective of Marxism. But Mao decided it had to be realised without delay, and he committed his entire rule to make it a reality.
Mao had inherited from Marx the ideas of destruction and violence as perfectly valid political strategies. With astonishing indifference to human life, on a visit to Moscow in 1957 he expressed his willingness to sacrifice even half mankind: “If worst came to the worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist.”
That same year, in Moscow, he shocked his Soviet comrades with comments about a possible war against Western democracies: “We may lose more than 300 million. So what? … The years will pass and we’ll get to work producing more babies than ever before.”
Although anyone in China who dared to criticise Mao risked immediate imprisonment, the Western economic oligarchy and left-wing intelligentsia openly sympathised with him and sought wisdom in his insipid writings.
One such an admirer was David Rockefeller, the American banker and chief executive of the Chase Manhattan Corporation. He claimed that Mao somehow had succeeded “not only in producing a more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose”.
Undoubtedly, Mao’s administration was deeply “efficient” in exterminating well over 60 million Chinese people, thus killing more people than any other leader in the entire history of mankind.
In all of this Mao received some considerable support. Rockefeller notoriously stated in an August 10, 1973 article in The New York Times: “Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”
Today, Western ties with one of the most intensely scrutinised organs of the regime that Mao creat, the Wuhan virus lab, are being clearly demonstrated.
It’s been reported that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by the American coronavirus tsar Anthony Fauci, gave at least $600,000 of American taxpayers’ dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Furthermore, internal emails from Dr Fauci obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has cast a spotlight on the longstanding relationship between at least one American epidemiology professor and that controversial lab.
Of course, it is quite undeniable that China is now far more prosperous and less violent than it was under Mao. But because the regime has never fully disavowed its founder, one may expect that it might still be prepared to return to some of Mao’s original methods in difficult moments.
What were then these original methods?
We should allow Mao to speak for himself: “The country must be destroyed. This also applies to mankind. … People like me long for its destruction, because when the old is destroyed, a new universe will be formed. Isn’t that better!”
Western elites have been for quite a long time talking about population control, which is a form of totalitarian control over the world’s poorest citizens. They have spoken of a “war on population growth” and used military analogies to achieve their goal.
“The war would entail sacrifices and collateral damage”, says Matthew Connelly, a historian of population control at Columbia University in New York.
Accordingly, University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka once told a meeting of the Texas Academy of Science that at least 90 per cent of his fellow human beings must die in order to “save the planet”.
Forrest Mims, Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, writing at The Citizen Scientist, reported:
Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.
He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved…
AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years.
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.
Reflecting on the so-called ancient Chinese Curse, “May you live in interesting times,”Professor Pianka confidently asserted: “We’re looking forward to a huge collapse”.
“Disease will control the scourge of humanity,” he said. “This is really an exciting time,” Professor Pianka added amid warnings of apocalypse, destruction and disease.
Thus he concluded: “Death. This is what awaits us all. Death.”
Such a language betrays a profound lack of empathy with his fellow human beings coupled with an utmost desire to bring death and destruction at a large scale.
Though these statements are profoundly disturbing, Pianka is not without abundant advocates.
What links this revered biologist might have to other equally influential members of Western elites is this: Dramatic reduction of the world’s population in order to “save the planet” is a notion they wholeheartedly embrace.
Curiously, Richard Muller, an Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California-Berkeley, is entirely convinced that COVID-19 is “a million-to-one proposition to have arisen naturally”.
Professor Muller explain that it is “extremely likely” the new coronavirus was deliberately created in that notorious lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Of course, one can only hope this persuasive theory that Covid-19 has “escaped” from that CCP virus lab is just a coincidence.
I certainly hope so. What a coincidence.
Dr Augusto Zimmermann is Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education and a former Law Reform Commissioner in Western Australia (2012-2017). He is also President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA). He is co-editor of the forthcoming ‘Fundamental Rights in the Age of Covid-19’, a book to be published by Connor Court with contributions from leading law academics and policymakers in the field. A fully footnoted version of this article is available from Dr Zimmerman directly.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.