The Vietnam War – Same old same old….
Sun 2:24 pm +00:00, 20 Jul 2025Mathis deconstructs and deciphers the Vietnam War
It’s a tour de force for all folk of my generation, particularly for those like me who became very exercised about it at the time
Ho Chi Minh [the North Vietnam “communist” leader] was a Western agent with the usual aliases
Ngo Dinh Diem [his South Vietnam “capitalist” opponent] was a Western agent too
It was all confected by the usual suspects, for the usual reasons
I’ve posted a few snippets below
For anyone with a deeper interest then, the whole piece is worth a good look
His numerous links and photos don’t copy across, you will find them at the above link
Source: https://mileswmathis.com/vietnam.pdf
At almost 62, I am about a half generation too young to have been involved directly in the Vietnam
War, but like the rest of us I have been studying it on and off for at least 50 years. Meaning I have
been propagandized concerning this War and asking myself if what I have been told is true. I have
seen dozens of promoted movies about it, read articles and books about it: the usual. You can’t be a US
citizen over 40 and not know way more than the basic story here. I hit this topic a few years ago with
my paper on Apocalypse Now, showing you what wet agitprop that always was, straight out of the
Pentagon. But the same could be said of all the other Vietnam movies, including The Green Berets,
Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Deer Hunter, and all the rest.
I will start by reminding you that—like the Korean “War”—the Vietnam “War” was just a continuation
of WWI and WWII, and that my guest writers and I have proved much of those wars was a fraud. So
as a matter of logic we should expect the same thing here, with an acceleration of the fraud.
I think the best way into this fraud is through Russia. Yes, Russia. Perhaps the strangest thing about
the entire Vietnam War story is that we are told that in the end Vietnam became a Communist country
under the protection and influence of . . . Russia. Russia, not China. The US allegedly left, spending
nothing on rebuilding, with Russia coming in and investing billions after 1975. You should key on that
because it makes absolutely no sense. Before the war, Russia didn’t even have a foot in Vietnam. It
was run by the French back to the 1880s, of course, and Japan also controlled parts of it. At the end of
WWII and the defeat of Japan, the Japanese mostly left, and France also left, turning their part over to
the Anglos in the Potsdam Agreement. According to that major treaty, the Allies led by the US and
UK would control the south while the Chinese would control the north.
In August 1945, the Allies had decided to divide Indochina at the 16th parallel to allow Chiang Kaishek of the Republic of China to receive the Japanese surrender in the north while Britain’s Lord
Louis Mountbatten received their surrender in the south. The Allies agreed that Indochina still
belonged to France. [122][123] But as the French were weakened by the German
occupation, British-Indian forces and the remaining Japanese Southern Expeditionary Army
Group were used to maintain order and help France reestablish control through the 1945–1946
War in Vietnam, south of the 16th parallel.[124]
Hmmm. Nothing about Russia there. And France is just a diversion, since they had obviously sold
their interest in Vietnam to the Anglos at some point. Note that the south is run by the English Lord
Mountbatten, not by any French general or governor. We know that Japan is a similar diversion, not
only from previous research showing Japan was always a catspaw of the Anglos, but from that sentence
at Wiki, which as usual makes no sense. If the Japanese were being expelled, why would the Japanese
Army be used to expel itself? You will say the Japanese army had been taken over by the Allies, which
is true, though I have shown you that had happened even before WWII started. The entire war against
Japan was also staged, and this is just further indication of it from Wiki.
Lord Mountbatten is another clue there. Look at that long face. He was the maternal uncle of Prince
Philip—husband of Queen Elizabeth—and second cousin of George VI. Also the great-grandson of
Queen Victoria. He was actually a Battenberg, of the German Dukes and Princes of Hesse, and a
Prince himself. Not a Lord, a Prince. His mother was Princess Victoria of Hesse, making him a
Hohenzellern as well and linking him to the Kings of Prussia. So, a top commander of the Phoenician
Navy, as you can tell from his admiral uniform. He was the First Sea Lord, which is apropos since he
comes from the Sea Peoples. Two years after heading the fake partition of Vietnam, he became the
Viceroy of India, reminding you once again this is all about the British Empire. As usual he faked his
death, I guess for insurance money, the family claiming he was assassinated in 1979 by the IRA.
Right. Can’t be true, since the IRA is also a British construct.
But my point is Russia was not even a player before the war, so how did they come out the end of it in
control of Vietnam? You would expect Communist Vietnam to be a puppet of China, which huge
country was right on its northern border, not Russia. Well, Wiki drops a big clue there as well:
and
Note the date, which is aces and eights. Beyond that, this is just to admit that they later falsified Ho’s
early bio to make him look like a revolutionary. He never was. He was a Western puppet from the
cradle, like Castro and many others we have looked at.
While working as the cook’s helper on a ship in 1912, Thành (Hồ) traveled to the United States.
From 1912 to 1913, he may have lived in New York City (Harlem) and Boston, where he claimed to
have worked as a baker at the Parker House Hotel.
Yes, and when did he arrive in Langley? Just kidding, Langley wasn’t around then, but US Intelligence
was, so we can be sure Ho was here for his training. And why do they keep calling him Thanh? His
birth name was Nguyen Sinh Cung, but we are told his father gave him the name tat Thanh at the age
of ten as part of Confucian tradition. Sounds like the usual misdirection. Thanh was his sister’s name
—so I suppose it was his mother’s name. It looks like we are being told his maternal line without
giving his mother’s full name, which is conspicuously missing. I note the maternal line appears to be
very important, indicating Jewish lines, and I also note he lived under many aliases, like everyone else
we have studied. Why would these rulers of countries need fake names? Think Stalin, Lenin, and
Trotsky, for example, who all lived under fake names. CIA code names, I guess.
Does Cung=Cohen? That would be my first guess, so we will see how it goes. We already have a hint
there, but I bet you missed it. He worked as a baker. Add an “n” to get banker, as usual. Telling me
his father probably worked in treasury, as a secretary of the exchequer or something like that. The
Parker House had no record of anyone by his names working there, proving he was doing something
else while he was here, and lied about it.
You see, you just have to read more closely.
This confirms that again:
He was also influenced by Pan-Africanist and black nationalist Marcus Garvey during his stay,
and said he attended meetings of the Universal Negro Improvement Association. [22][23]
Both those places were Intelligence fronts, so we may assume Ho was as well. He is doing exactly
what we would expect an agent to do.
He then moved to London, as an Anglo agent would, again lying about it by claiming he worked as a
pastry chef in Haymarket. But he was there for around six years, so he must have been doing
something. Who was underwriting all this, and why?
Well, we can tell by what happened next. He moved to Paris in 1919, immediately becoming the head
of Vietnamese “Patriots” there. How did he manage that? He was still in his twenties and had no
resume except “baker”, but somehow he stepped right off the boat into the waiting arms of
superwealthy spook Tay Ho, whom we now also suspect of being an Anglo puppet. Tay Ho assigned
Ho to be the face of the Patriots and their spokesman. Less than a year later Ho was a delegate at the
Tours Congress and Third International, which we have already proved was a front for the
Imperialists/Capitalists. Another year later he was sent by spook Dmitry Manuilsky to the Soviet
Union, where Ho became a high-ranking member of the Soviet Comintern. Which reminds us of John
Reed of Reds fame, doesn’t it? Wow, this ex-baker really knew how to make contacts, right?
and
But why fake it like this? If we wanted to take Vietnam as part of our world empire, why didn’t we just
do so after WWII? Why all this hoo-ha about liberation and Communism? One, because it didn’t fit
the postwar script, by which the British Empire was being mothballed and the US was now the
guardian of the free world. The age of empire, conquest, and colonialism was supposedly over, with
the British Empire allegedly a thing of the past. See Lord Mountbatten above, allegedly dismantling
the Empire while actually just taking it underground. So it wouldn’t look too good if the US, after
quashing the fake tyrant Hitler, suddenly began taking over the entire world. It would be a hard sell at
home to start with, not to speak of contradicting all the war propaganda of the previous two decades.
So they had to come up with this wild script in which this brutal subjugation of an entire country was
sold as a democratic war for its liberation. The US Army did go in there—I am not claiming they
didn’t—and they no doubt “liberated” a lot of local people of their freedom and lives, but it it wasn’t a
war since the Vietnamese were basically helpless. They had no army capable of fighting us, so it
would be like us going to war again with our own Natives, napalming the reservations to liberate them
from nefarious Canadian influence or something.
The second and more important reason we didn’t just take Vietnam after WWII is because it would be
much more expensive and time-consuming to fight a fake protracted “war” than to just waltz in and
take over, and this is what the defense contractors most desired. They didn’t want an overnight
occupation, since not only would that look bad on the news, it wouldn’t pay. With WWII over, they
needed something new to justify decades of fat defense budgets. Which is exactly what the Vietnam
“War” provided.
You see how simple it is once your brain turns on?
What about the napalm and agent orange and all that? Was that also faked? No, but it had nothing to
do with flushing Charlie from the jungles. It was about clearing the land for industrialization by the
capitalists, same as in Russia, the US, Brazil, and everywhere else. That should have always been clear
with Agent Orange, which is an herbicide. There would be no reason to spray Charlie with an
herbicide, since Charlie was not an herb. If you were attacking North Vietnam with chemical warfare,
you would use gases that targeted humans, not plants. But it just reminds us the Phoenicians have been
at war with all forests for the past three centuries as well, and still are. Pave paradise, put up a parking
lot, you know.
