If you go against it you have reprogramming training classes.
No, that’s not a thing.
We even have Chinese police stations here in Canada
No, you don’t. That’s not a real thing, either. You’re just regurgitating Cold War II propaganda nonsense you saw on TV.
This is not me reading it on the web, this is coworkers at the house when it happens to their room mates.
Why are you making shit up? At this point I think you made the company up, too.
It woukd seem you are being paid to promote China propaganda, or you are severely deluded to what goes on there.
I think you’re projecting. Why are you peddling anti-China lies for free?
A survey of citizens that know they cannot speak ll without retribution to them or their family, will always look positive.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
Please use some critical thinking here.
I am. They lead me to believe you’re full of shit.
No, that’s not a thing.
No, you don’t. That’s not a real thing, either. You’re just regurgitating Cold War II propaganda nonsense you saw on TV.
Why are you making shit up? At this point I think you made the company up, too.
I think you’re projecting. Why are you peddling anti-China lies for free?
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
I am. They lead me to believe you’re full of shit.
What is the source for that quote about the cold war?
Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti