China hints at reform by dropping Mao wording

I hope China does move quickly towards democracy and freedom, because I love the Chinese people, they are good people, and they deserve better than an oppressive communist party dicatatorship.

Is it possible that China could be a democracy economically(open market) and a communist by Govt. (one party rule);riding on two horses.

Americanguy, I completely agree.

The caption reads, “The subtle dropping of references to late Chinese leader Mao Zedong from two policy statements over the last few weeks serves as one of the most intriguing hints yet that the ruling Communist Party is planning to move in the direction of reform.”

One has to wonder about the IQ levels of those the Chinese Communist Party has aimed this news at? Not too high. At any rate, one-party rule in China will remain firmly in-place after the fraudulent collapse of the Chinese Communist government in several years or so.

You see folks, a dictatorship that has millions of agents reporting back on every aspect of life in China gets to create events it can control, and thanks to Western business interests Beijing would get away with the ruse, but won’t thanks to Dean Michael Jackson:

“Since at least the early 1970s, the Communist party of China has been poised to create a spectacular but controlled “democratization” at any appropriate time. The party had by then spent two decades consolidating its power, building a network of informants and agents that permeate every aspect of Chinese life, both in the cities and in the countryside. Government control is now so complete that it will not be seriously disturbed by free speech and democratic elections; power can now be exerted through the all-pervasive but largely invisible infrastructure of control. A transition to an apparently new system, using dialectical tactics, is now starting to occur.”

In order to understand the World Communist threat to our liberties, one must understand Communist strategy:

“Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to “resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge” to achieve their objectives. This advice was given on the eve of his reintroduction of limited capitalism in Russia, in his work Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder.

… Another speech of Lenin’s … in July 1921 is again highly relevant to understanding “perestroika.” “Our only strategy at present,” wrote Lenin, “is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses round you. When we have won over the masses by our reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest sense of the word.”

If you examine the backgrounds of prominent Russian figures, you will find that they have long Communist Party/ KGB or Komsomol pedigrees. Yet for some inexplicable reason, the Western media have accepted their sudden, orchestrated, mass “conversion” to Western-style norms of behavior, their endless talk of “democracy,” and their acceptance of “capitalism,” as genuine. “Scratch these new, instant Soviet “democrats,” “anti-Communists,” and “nationalists” who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents,” Golitsyn writes on page 123 of his new book [The Perestroika Deception]. In accepting at face value the “transformation” of these Leninist revolutionary Communists into “instant democrats,” the West automatically accepts as genuine the false “Break with the Past” — the single lie upon which the entire deception is based.

In short, the “former” Soviet Union — and the East European countries as well — are all run by people who are steeped in the dialectical modus operandi of Lenin. Without exception, they are all active Leninist revolutionaries, working collectively towards the establishment of a world Communist government, which, by definition, will be a world dictatorship.

It is difficult for the West to understand the Leninist Hegelian dialectical method — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to achieve an intended outcome. Equally difficult for us to comprehend is the fact that these Leninist revolutionaries plan their strategies over decades and generations. This extraordinary behavior is naturally alien to Western politicians, who can see no further than the next election. Western politicians usually react to events. Leninist revolutionaries create events, in order to control reactions to them and manipulate their outcomes.” — KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn (his 1984 book, “New Lies for Old” can be read at Internet Archive).

You ask, what does Golitsyn mean when he says, “Leninist Hegelian dialectical method — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to achieve an intended outcome”?

Simply explained, and on a tactical level, it’s called the “Scissors Strategy”, where one blade represents (for example) Putin & Company, however the other blade of the scissors–the leadership of the political “opposition” to Putin & Company–is actually controlled by Putin & Company*, which leaves the genuine opposition in the middle wondering why political change isn’t taking place. Understand this simple strategy?

On a strategic level, back in the 1960s the USSR and China played the “Scissors Strategy”, by pretending to be enemies. This strategy allowed one side to play off against the other with the West, thereby gaining political advantages from the West, which neither Communist giant could have achieved if it was believed they were united. Clever, huh?

Keep Golitsyn’s words in mind.

With KGB aka “Russian democracy” busy white-washing Stalin into a founding father figure, I doubt Mao has anything to worry about.

@DeanMJackson:
You conveniently forgot the 1970s and 1980s, when China joined us, the United States of America, shifting the balance of power and crucially resulted in the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union. So the latter part of you argument sounds like somebody who left the planet earth, traveled in space while the Berlin wall came down under Gorbachev, and when we won the Cold War with China’s help on the balance of power for those years.

Having said that, your omission does not defeat the possibility of the very first part of your argument. One has to wait an see. Being cautious is not a bad idea, just don’t cover up almost half of recent history since China became Communist when you give political advice.

jo5319 says, “You conveniently forgot the 1970s and 1980s, when China joined us, the United States of America, shifting the balance of power and crucially resulted in the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union.”

Response:

If you were aware of the “Long-Range Policy”, the “new” strategy all Communist nations signed onto in 1960 to defeat the West, you’d know that the “collapse” of the USSR was a strategic ruse. What do you think Lenin was talking about and what my comment about Putin and his “opposition” was all about?

You need to read KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn’s 1984 book, “New Lies for Old” (available at Internet Archive), the only Soviet era defector to still be under protective custody in the West. What does that tell you about the “collapse” of the USSR?

When you analyze the USSR and China (and the East Bloc nations) today, you need to do so using Lenin’s “Hegelian dialectical method”, otherwise you will be lost in the snow.

The empirical proof that the “collapse” of the USSR was a strategic ruse (as predicted by KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn):

(1) High-ranking present and “former” Communist Party members within the various Federal government branches of the post Soviet republics were never arrested in the interests of national security:

Since there was no conquest that liberated the USSR, it would have been up to the people themselves to carry out a de-Communization program, but unlike the anemic German de-Nazification example in post war Germany, the freed Soviets would have had to ensure the program’s effectiveness since:

(a) there was no occupation force to ensure the Communists weren’t still in power or could mount a violent comeback; and

(b) unlike the Nazis that persecuted minorities in Germany and were not generally hated by the dominant society, in the USSR Communists were the hated minority who persecuted the majority.

(2) Lower level Communist Party members within the 15 governments of the post USSR would have been immediately fired in the interests of national security:

The hated low-ranking CPSU members at all levels of government, who for 74 years persecuted the 90% of the population who were non-Communist, would have been fired from government positions, especially education. The freed Soviet public would then have requested assistance from the West to ensure critical services remained on-line until enough qualified freed Soviets could fill those positions.

(3) the Russian electorate these last 21 years have inexplicably only been electing for President and Prime Minister Soviet era Communist Party Quislings:

Presidents of Russia since 1991:

Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin – July 10, 1991 – December 31, 1999 – Communist.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – 31 December 1999 – 7 May 2000 (Acting) and May 7, 2000 – May 7, 2008 – Communist.

Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev – May 7, 2008 – May 7, 2012, during his studies at the University he joined the Communist Party.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – May 7, 2012 – Present, Communist:

Yeltsin and Putin would have been arrested in the interests of national security, while Medvedev would have been shunned by the newly freed Russians.

(4) there was no de-Communization program initiated after the “collapse” of the USSR to ferret out Soviet era Communist agents still in power:

The fact that there were no Allies in the freed USSR to carry out a de-Communization program, meant the freed Soviets would not only have had to take up that program themselves but ensure, unlike the German de-Nazification example in post war Germany, its effectiveness since:

(1) there was no occupation force to ensure the Communists weren’t still in power or could mount a violent comeback; and

(2) ) unlike the Nazis that persecuted minorities in Germany and were not generally hated by the dominant society, in the USSR Communists were the hated minority who persecuted the majority.

(5) not one “crime against humanity” indictment of the thousands of Soviet era criminals still alive:

Even post Nazis Germany convicted and imprisoned Nazis war criminals.

(6) the refusal of the Russian Navy to remove the hated Communist Red Star from the bows of vessels, and the refusal of the Russian Air Force to remove the Communist Red Star from the wings of Russian military aircraft, not to mention placing the hated Communist Red Star on all new Naval vessels and military aircraft:

To the ordinary Russian, the Communist Red Star was the symbol for the hated Communist regime that for 74 years persecuted the 90% of the nation who were non-Communist; and

(7) Lenin’s tomb still exists in Red Square:

Just as the people of Germany tore apart the Berlin Wall in 1989, so too the Russian people would have destroyed Lenin’s tomb on December 25, 1991. The 74-year persecution of the 90% non-Communist Russian population would have seen Lenin’s tomb destroyed.

@DeanMJackson:

You copy and paste the same argument based on that one book you read in every thread. All I know is, I’m totally getting a shirt made with ” the Leninist Hegelian dialectical method” written on it. Or I might name a band that if you are cool with that from a copyright standpoint.

@DeanMJackson:

Nothing about that argument makes sense. It’s like that episode of the Simpsons where this exchange happens:

Russian Representative: The Soviet Union will be pleased to offer amnesty to your wayward vessel.
United States Representative: Soviet Union? I thought you guys broke up.
Russian Representative: Nyet! That’s what we wanted you to think, hahahahahaha!

And then Soviet nuclear missiles and tanks appear out of nowhere in Red Square.

SpaceshipGuy says, “Nothing about that argument makes sense.”

Response: It’s very clear, there were no mass arrests of high-ranking Soviet era CPSU members after the “collapse” of the USSR. Since there was no conquest that liberated the USSR, it would have been up to the people themselves to conduct the arrests to ensure the continuity of the freed state.

If you don’t get it now, that means you’re incompetent to analyze political revolutions.

There’s a shrink around the corner for you.

This is what I would recommend you to tell the shrink.
I’m having dreams that the former Soviet Union is controlling the politics in China right now in 2012. No. I mean to say I believe it’s true. And folks are telling me it may be good for me to seek help for giving long lectures on the Internet that sound like hallucinations.