Tag Archives: Communism

China`s «whole-process people`s democracy» is «more extensive, more genuine, and more effective» than the American and Western democracy

People in the West like to think that democracy in the West is much better than autocracy in Russia and China. But, what if China`s «one rule» party, the CCP (China Communist Party) is a better solution than the democratic mess (according to Vladimir Putin) in the West?

Democracy is one of mankind`s greatest achievements. But, for democracy to thrive and grow it must also adapt. We need to know what a democracy is.

The word democracy comes from the Greek words «demos», meaning people, and «Kratos» meaning power, so democracy can be thought of as «power of the people». A way of governing which depends on the will of the people.

It is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. A state governed under a system of democracy.

People in the West vote for their president, political parties, politicians, and prime ministers. In other words: a democratic process. But what about China? They are ruled by one party, and that is CCP. China`s Communist Party. Is it a democracy?

Photo by Polina Kovaleva on Pexels.com

The answer is yes. But it`s more sophisticated than we like to think. People in China call it «Whole-process people`s democracy, which is a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) political concept describing the people`s participation in, and relationship to, governance under socialism with Chinese characteristics.

The term «whole-process democracy» was used to describe existing governance practices such as Chinese experiments with democratic elements in the legislative process and in local government activities.

CCP general secretary Xi Jinping first used the term publicly on November 2, 2019, while visiting Shanghai, and he stated:

«China`s people`s democracy is a type of whole-process democracy» in which legislation is enacted «after going through procedures and democratic deliberations to ensure that decision-making is sound and democratic.»

On July 1, 2021, Xi incorporated the word «people`s» into the concept during his speech at the 100th Anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party, coining the concept’s current name «whole-process people`s democracy.»

Xi tied the concept to «common prosperity.»

The addition of «people`s to the concept emphasizes the Maoist practice of the mass line.

Xi describes four components of whole-process people`s democracy, expressed as pairs relationships:

  1. Process democracy and achievements democracy
  2. Procedural democracy and substantive democracy
  3. Direct democracy and indirect democracy
  4. People`s democracy and the will of the state

According to Xi, this results in «real and effective socialist democracy.»

The concept`s emphasis on «whole-process» is intended to further distinguish the CCP approach to democracy from the procedural qualities of liberal democracy. It includes primarily consequentialist criteria for evaluating claims of democracy`s success. In this view, the most important criterion is whether democracy can «solve the people`s real problems,» while a system in which «the people are awakened only for voting» is not truly democratic.

Liberal democracy or Western democracy is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under a representative democratic form of government. It is characterized by-elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people.

To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract.

Whole-process people`s democracy also serves as a political tool to both defend the Chinese government`s governance practices and criticize liberal democracy.

In the CCP`s view, whole-process people`s democracy is «more extensive, more genuine, and more effective» than American democracy.

The CCP uses the concept of whole-process people`s democracy as a means to participate in global discourses on democracy, seeking to deflect criticism and improve its foreign relations. This ties into the government`s larger efforts to promote its global leadership.

In that regard, the Chinese government`s 2021 white paper China: «A Democracy that Works» emphasizes the whole-process people`s democracy perspective in an effort to demonstrate the country`s «institutional self-confidence.»

The white paper argues that the whole-process people`s democracy is the impetus behind China`s development and growth.

Qin Gang is a Chinese diplomat and politician, and he stated this. «Isn`t it obvious that both China`s people-center philosophy and President Lincoln`s «of the people, by the people, for the people», are for the sake of the people? Shall we understand China`s socialist whole-process democracy as this: from the people to the people, with the people, for the people?»

China practices the whole-process people`s democracy, which not only means that people engage in democratic elections, but they`re also involved in consultations, decision-making, management, and oversight.

According to CCP, people`s democracy is the lifeblood of socialism, and it is integral to China`s efforts to build a modern socialist country in all respects.

If we compare Chinese Democracy with American Democracy or Western Democracy, the key difference is that China focuses far more on substantial democracy. Western Democracy places more emphasis on procedural democracy. A Democracy in the West is equivalent to «one person, one vote, universal suffrage, and a multi-party system.»

China`s democracy focuses far more on the purpose and objectives of democracy. Especially good governance, and what they can deliver to the people.

Whole-process democracy encourages the expansion of democratic channels, and diversifies the forms of democracy, so as to ensure that people can participate in the management of State, economic, cultural, and social affairs.

It also ensures that people`s congresses at all levels are formed through democratic elections, and guarantees that people`s congresses and their standing committees lawfully exercise the powers of enacting laws, conducting oversight, making decisions, appointing, and removing officials.

It improves the working mechanisms for drawing on public opinion and pulling the wisdom of the people. And these are not only words. When Chinese leaders say something, they mean it and take action to turn that into reality.

The Chinese people`s political consultative conference (CPPCC), is China`s highest advisory body and plays a vital role in China`s consultative democracy. It encourages active participation in the deliberation, and administration of state affairs, promoting the democratic, and scientific decision-making process of the party, and the state.

The CPCC has more than 3,200 organizations at four administrative levels. National, provincial, city, and country, with more than 600,000 CPPCC members from 34 areas, including 8 other political parties, and representatives from Science and technology, literature and art, economics, sports, religion, and other areas.

According to Chair Professor at Soochow University, Victor Gao Zhikai, few people in Western countries want to acknowledge that the Communist Party of China is not the only political party at all. In addition to the CPC, there are 8 other democratic parties;

  • The Communist Party of China
  • The Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang
  • The China Democratic League
  • The China Democratic National Constitution Association
  • The China Association for Promoting Democracy
  • The Chinese Peasants and Workers Democratic Party
  • The China Zhi Gong Party
  • The Jiu San Society
  • The Taiwan Democratic Self-government League

In addition to this, there is a large Chamber of Commerce, which caters to business owners, private business owners, etc, and on top of that, there is a larger group of people called people without political affiliations.

This is the only way China has achieved such explosive productivity, efficiency, and economic, and political transformation over a short period of only about 43 years.

The legislative information offices not only promote China`s rule of law, but also practice whole-process people`s democracy by listening to the public and gathering the wisdom of the people for efficient, and high-quality National legislation.

The small grassroots legislative information office has become a significant democratic platform.

It`s all a part of a Chinese evolution. In November 1931, before the People`s Republic of China was established, the first national people`s Congress of the Soviet Republic of China was held in Zhangshi province.

In caves along the northern Shanxi Plateau, they used soybeans to cast their votes to elect the cadres. In September 1954, the first session of the first national people`s Congress was held. Marking the official establishment of the people`s Congress system as the fundamental political system in China.

After decades of practice, and exploration, China has been continually improving the people`s Congress system. People accessing their voting rights is an important manifestation of people being the masters of the country, which is the essence of democracy.

Among the nearly 3,000 deputies to the 14th NPC, 16,69% are workers and farmers. Besides the Communist Party, there are 8 other political parties that all have representation in the NPC. There are also a sizable proportion of delegates without any stated political affiliation. The 55 ethnic minorities hold 14,85% of the NPC seats.

For many people in the West, democracy means the right for each person to vote for their leaders. This is basically why they reject the idea that China has a democracy. But what people in the West don’t understand is that Chinese people are deeply involved in the elections of leaders of various levels.

Millions of urban and rural citizens do in fact directly vote for the representatives who govern their daily lives, who then make decisions that accurately reflect the needs, and desires of the people from the most fundamental level.

It`s normal for more than 90% of Chinese voters to turn out in the village, and Community elections all across China, which is much higher than in most Western democracies.

There are now over 2,7 million deputies in the people`s Congress across the country. More than 1 million registered voters have participated in county, and Township level elections.

The ultimate goal of elections is to choose the virtuous, and the capable who can solve today`s most urgent problems, and lead the country toward development.

China`s political system guarantees the rights of its people to elect their representatives, but more importantly, it guarantees that those representatives will be held accountable to the people.

The CPC leadership regards democratic supervision by the people as one of the highest priorities. Article 3 of the Constitution of the people`s Republic of China states:

«All administrative, judicial, and procuratorial organs of the state are created by the people`s congress to which they are responsible, and under whose supervision they operate.»

Democratic supervision refers to consultative supervision carried out by means of opinions, suggestions, and criticism. China has implemented several channels of democratic supervision. Today, democratic supervision is part of everyone`s daily life. People can monitor, and supervise how authorities exercise power at any place, and at any time through many kinds of democratic channels, and platforms.

China has a 1,2,3,4,5 citizen hotline service center, and that has been going on since 1987. When you call 1,2,3,4,5 to file a complaint, an operator will put you through to the right department to talk to. In 2019, the hotline was upgraded with time-sensitive feedback services.

In 2021, the mechanism was further improved and upgraded. They selected the most common issues that people called about that were hard to solve. They dedicated special task forces to focus on these issues.

About 350 cities have these hotlines, and they provide first-hand information about public opinions and concerns that City officials could hardly get in other ways.

Since the founding of New China, people have expressed their opinions on state affairs, both large and small, and party leadership has been relentlessly exploring appropriate, convenient, and diversified forms of supervision by the people.

Satisfying the public need for information, and the need to speak out is no easy task for a country of 1,4 billion people. Undeterred by this daunting task, the country`s leadership has emphasized democratic supervision throughout the whole process of performing duties.

The only litmus test of a democracy is whether it can generate real benefits. Making the country a better place to live, and making the lives of its people better.

Democracy has always been cherished by China, and its people, and it will continue to evolve in China with its own Chinese characteristics. China has lifted nearly 99 million out of poverty. It has built the world`s largest social security system, and health care system, covering more than 1,3 billion people. More than 10 million jobs have been created each year for 15 consecutive years.

China`s success is caused by one major thing: capitalism. It doesn`t matter what system you have if you don`t earn money. Even the Soviets would have succeeded if they earned money. The editor’s opinion is that the difference between democracy, autocracy, or dictatorship is very tiny. It`s all about money. It`s money that matters. Money comes first.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Putin and Xi Jinping are “dear friends” and they are both working on a New World Order

Xi Jinping visited Vladimir Putin today, and they both called each other «dear friends.» Xi says China is ready with Russia to stand guard over world order based on international law, on Moscow visit earlier today. Xi added that with Russia, China was ready to defend the UN-centric international system.

Xi pushes China to play a more dominant role in managing global affairs. China`s New World Order is on the way.

This is what the war in Ukraine is about: the new world order. The war in Ukraine is set to fundamentally transform the International order, and some people call it the world`s «de-Westernization».

A World Order is an impressive work that focuses on the geopolitical distribution of power, Henry Kissinger wrote in his book World Order.

During the 20th century, political figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill used the term «new world order» to refer to a new period of history characterized by a dramatic change in world political thought and in the global balance of power after World War I and World War II.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Pexels.com

The interwar and post-World War II periods were seen as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance by collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to resolve while nevertheless respecting the right of nations to self-determination.

Such collective initiatives manifested in the formation of intergovernmental organizations such as the League of Nations in 1920, the United Nations (UN) in 1945, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949, along with international regimes such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), implemented to maintain a cooperative balance of power and facilitate reconciliation between nations to prevent the prospect of another global conflict.

After World War II, they all said; «Never again», and the winners, led by America, drafted conventions that defined unpardonable crimes against humanity, and sought to impose costs on those committing them.

Recalling the economic disasters and human miseries that paved the way to world war, the framers of this order built the UN and other international institutions to promote cooperation and development.

Progressives welcomed international organizations and regimes such as the United Nations in the aftermath of the two World Wars but argued that these initiatives suffered from a democratic deficit and were therefore inadequate not only to prevent another world war but to foster global justice, as the UN was chartered to be a free association of sovereign nation-states rather than a transition to democratic world government.

British writer and futurist H.G. Wells went further than progressives in the 1940s by appropriating and redefining the term «new world order» as a synonym for the establishment of a technocratic world state, and of a planned economy, garnering popularity in state socialist circles.

Right-wing populist John Birch Society claimed in the 1960s that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by a cabal of corporate internationalists, «greedy» bankers, and corrupt politicians who were intent on using the UN as the vehicle to create a «One World Government».

This anti-globalist conspiracism fueled the campaign for U.S. withdrawal from the UN.

In his speech, Toward a New World Order, delivered on 11 September 1990 during a joint session of the US Congress, President George H.W. Bush described his objectives for post-Cold War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states. He stated:

«Until now, the world we`ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict, and the cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the genuine prospect of new world order.

In the words of Winston Churchill, a «world order» in which «the principles of justice and fair play …. protect the weak against the strong…..»A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.»

The New York Times observed that progressives were denouncing this new world order as a rationalization of American imperial ambitions in the Middle East at the time.

And now, everything has changed. Again. China`s New World Order is coming.

We are moving from a Unipolar world to a Multipolar world where Europe and the U.S. are less influential. The war in Ukraine is dividing opinions between people in Western nations, and those in countries like China, India, and Turkey, a new poll suggests.

The war in Ukraine has laid bare the «sharp geographical divides in global attitudes» on «conceptions of democracy, and the composition of the future international order,» according to a new survey from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).

While Western allies have «regained their sense of purpose on the global stage,» the gulf between their perspective and the «rest» has grown wider, the ECFR added.

There are different views about the general role the West will play in the future world order. Some people expect a new bipolar world of two blocks led by the U.S. and China, whereas there were signs that most people in major non-Western countries see the future in more multipolar terms.

China has always been in front. The silk road is known for all the roads from China to Europe, and nobody knows how old it is, but it can be as old as ten thousand years. The silk road was popular because the Chinese sold silk to Europe.

Today, China is still in front as they are considered to be the factory of the world. But this is probably not a surprise for people in China. Why?

For more than two millennia, nomarchs who ruled China proper saw their country as one of the dominant actors in the world. The concept of Zhongguo (the Middle Kingdom, as China, calls itself), is not simply geographic.

It implies that China is the cultural, political, and economic center of the world.

This Sino-centrist worldview has in many ways shaped China`s outlook on global governance. The rules, norms, and institutions that regulate international cooperation. The decline and collapse of imperial China in the 1800s and early 1900s, however, diminished Chinese influence on the global stage for more than a century.

But China is back. China has reemerged as a major power in the past two decades, with the world`s second-largest economy and a world-class military. It increasingly asserts itself, seeking to regain its centrality in the international system, and over global governance institutions.

These institutions, created mostly by Western powers after World War II, include the World Bank, which provides loans and grants to developing states, the International Monetary Fund, which works to secure the stability of the global monetary system; and the United Nations, among others.

President Xi Jinping, the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, has called for China to «lead the reform of the global governance system,» transforming institutions and norms in ways that will reflect Beijing`s values and priorities.

For over two thousand years, beginning with the Qin dynasty (221-226 BCE) and ending with the collapse of the Qing (1636-1911 BCE), monarchs who ruled China proper invoked a mandate of heaven to legitimate their own rule and rhetorically assert their own centrality to global order, even though they never built a truly global empire.

Even when China`s influence collapsed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Chinese elites dreamed of regaining global influence.

At the end of World War II, China became an initial member of the United Nations and seemed poised to play a larger role in the new international order. But after the Communist Party won the civil war and took power in 1949, China rejected the international system and tried to help create an alternative global governance order.

Frustrated with the existing international system, the Republic of China (Taiwan) remained seated on the UN Security Council, instead of the People`s Republic of China, Beijing promoted alternative values and institutions.

In 1953, Premier Zhou Enlai enunciated «The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence», mutual respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, noninterference in each other`s international affairs, equality, mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.

Endorsed by leaders of many newly independent former colonies, these principles formed a basis for the nonaligned movement (NAM) of the 1960s. NAM became a counterweight to Western-dominated global governance.

China returned to the international system in the early 1970s and rebuilt its ties with the United States. It accepted a weaker international role and sought to participate in the institutions and rules set up after World War II.

After the end of the Mao era, China opened up in the 1980s and 1990s, reformed its economy, and increased its role in global governance, including by cooperating with international institutions. During this time, China adapted many domestic laws to conform to those of other countries.

Deng Xiaoping, who ultimately succeeded Mao, oversaw major economic reforms in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which launched China`s growth and ultimately increased its global reach. Deng introduced market reforms, and encouraged inflows of foreign capital and technology, among other steps.

During this period, China also joined more global financial and trade institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the Asian Development Bank.

In 1989, the Chinese government violently cracked down on democracy protestors in Beijing`s Tiananmen Square, and elsewhere in the country, which resulted in widespread international condemnation.

To help rebuild its reputation and ties with other countries, beginning in the early 1990s, Beijing increasingly embraced multilateralism and integration with global governance institutions. Beijing signed multilateral agreements it had previously been reluctant to join.

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, China often proved willing to play by international rules and norms. As its economy grew, however, Beijing assumed a more active role in global governance, signaling its potential to lead and challenge existing institutions and norms.

The country boosted its power in four ways; it took on a bigger role in international institutions, advertised its increasing influence, laid the groundwork to create some of its own organizations, and sometimes subverted global governance rules.

In 2010, China surpassed Japan to become the world`s second-biggest economy and earned the third-greatest percentage of votes in the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It also created its own Multilateral Organizations.

China started to create its own Beijing-dominated institutions. A process that would expand in the 2010s. In the previous decade, Beijing had established the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which built on the earlier Shanghai 5 group, and brought together China, Russia, and Central Asian states.

In the 2010s, the SCO would become a vehicle for China to challenge existing global norms, such as pushing its idea of closed internet controlled by governments, rather than one global, open internet.

Under President Bush and Obama, Washington generally accepted that Beijing would increasingly support global governance norms and institutions. In 2005, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick publicly urged China to become a «responsible stakeholder» in the international system.

The Donald J. Trump administration, by contrast, has expressed greater concern over Chinese efforts to subvert existing norms and has pushed back against Beijing`s efforts to use international institutions to promote Chinese foreign policies and programs like the Belt and Road Initiatives.

But China challenges International norms and rules. Under Jiang Zemin`s successor Hu Jintao, China more openly challenged international norms. Beijing asserted that its sovereignty over disputed areas of the South China Sea was a «core interest,» and «non-negotiable, « despite participating in negotiations with other claimants.

Beijing also expanded its footprint in the South China Sea; it built military facilities on disputed islands and artificial features. And it expanded its aid around the world.

Since the early 2010s, as China`s economic and military power has grown, so too has its ambition and capability to reform the global governance system to reflect Beijing`s priorities and values.

Some of the priorities Beijing promotes in global governance are defensive in nature and reflect long-standing. Chinese aims: preventing criticism of China`s human rights practices, keeping Taiwan from assuming an independent role in international institutions, and protecting Beijing from compromises to its sovereignty.

Yet China also now seeks to shape the global governance system more offensively, to advance its model of political and economic development. This development model reflects extensive state control over politics and society and a mix of both market-based practices and statism in core sectors of the economy.

Xi Jinping has called for more shared control of global governance. He has declared that China needs to «lead the reform of the global governance system with the concepts of fairness and justice».

The terms fairness and justice signal a call for a more multipolar world, one potentially with a smaller U.S. role in setting international rules. The Donald J. Trump administration`s retreat from global leadership has added to China`s opportunity to fill the void and promote multipolar global governance.

China is now pushing for a bigger role in International agencies. Chinese officials lead four of the fifteen UN specialized agencies. They are also creating alternative institutions. Beijing is building its own, China-centered institutions.

In 2013, Beijing launched the Belt and Road Initiatives. A vast plan to use Chinese assistance to fund infrastructure, and boost ties with, other countries, like their neighbor Russia. Beijing`s more proactive global strategy serves the Xi administration`s dream of returning China to its past glory.

China`s evolving global governance strategy is most apparent in four major issues; global health, internet governance, climate change, and development finance.

China seeks to become a leader in global internet governance and to promote the idea of «cyber sovereignty». That a state should exert control over the internet within its borders. In October 2017, Xi Jinping unveiled his plans to make China a «cyber superpower.»

Globally, Beijing promotes its domestic cyber sovereignty approach to internet governance, which hinges on Communist Party control and censorship. Xi`s administration uses increasingly advanced technology to dominate the domestic internet and social media, blocking global search engines, and social media sites, and promoting domestic versions.

China`s domestic internet offers an alternative to existing, freer models of internet governance, and Beijing also uses its influence at the United Nations, and other forums to push countries to adopt a more closed internet.

Meanwhile, Chinese corporations such as Huawei, and CloudWalk have supplied repressive governments in Venezuela and Zimbabwe with surveillance tools like facial recognition technology.

And the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) contains a «Digital Silk Road Initiative» that includes inviting foreign officials to participate in workshops on information technology policy, including controlling the internet.

If China and Russia can set the standards for internet governance, they could pave the way for other countries to embrace cyber sovereignty, sparking a divided world with two internets. One is generally open, and the other is closed and favored by autocracies.

The world has become less democratic in recent years. Democracy is in decline. The number of people that have democratic rights has recently plummeted: between 2016 and 2022, this number fell from 3,9 billion to 2,3 billion people.

The world underwent phases of autocratization in the 1930s and again in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, people fought to turn the tide and pushed democratic rights to unprecedented heights. But what now? Can we do the same again?

A new Chinese world order is coming, and they are not democratic.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

The Stasi Surveillance is the most repressive and oppressive surveillance system ever operated

Many people around the world do not want a surveillance society, but the truth is that it has never been easier to follow different people 24/7/365. Many are looking to Communist China, and its tactics and impact on society.

But surveillance isn`t something new. The Nazis did it. So did the Communists in East Germany. The Nazis had Gestapo, while the Communists had Stasi, and Stasi is the official name for Ministerium fur Staatsicherheit (German: «Ministry for State Security»).

Stasi was a secret police agency of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Furthermore; the Stasi was one of the most hated and feared institutions of the East German communist government. It all started after World War II: in 1950, and it lasted until the end in 1990 (after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989).

Photo by PhotoMIX Company on Pexels.com

The difference between Gestapo and Stasi is that Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control only 17 million. One might add that the Nazi terror lasted only twelve years, whereas the Stasi had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion.

By at least one estimate, the Stasi maintained greater surveillance over its own people than any secret police force in history.

The Stasi employed one secret policeman for every 166 East Germans. By comparison, the Gestapo deployed one secret policeman per 2,000 people.

Stasi agents infiltrated and undermined West Germany`s government and spy agencies.

The Stasi was much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people, according to Simon Wiesnthal of Vienna, Austria, who has been hunting Nazi criminals for half a century. But, why was the Stasi so extremely good?

Many of the techniques used by the Stasi had actually been pioneered by the Nazis and in particular the Gestapo. They relied heavily on information-gathering and intelligence in order to create an atmosphere of fear and to get citizens to denounce one another. It worked extremely successfully. But, why did they do it? What was the goal of the Stasi?

The goal was to destroy secretly the self-confidence of people, for example by damaging their reputation, organizing failures in their work, and destroying their personal relationships. Considering this, East Germany was a very modern dictatorship. The Stasi didn`t try to arrest every dissident.

They had many different tactics, including questioning, repeated stop, and searches, strange noises on telephone lines, and conspicuous visits to the workplace so that bosses and colleagues were aware of the police interest.

The Stasi steamed open letters, copied them, filed them, and sent them on. They went into homes when people were out and bugged them. They tapped into the phone infrastructure of the building, maintained contacts and occasionally cooperated with West German terrorists.

The Stasi`s function was similar to the KGB, serving as a means of maintaining state authority. This was accomplished primarily through the use of a network of civilian informants. KGB also invited the Stasi to establish operational bases in Moscow and Leningrad to monitor visiting East German tourists.

The Stasi also acted as a proxy for KGB to conduct activities in other Eastern Bloc countries, such as Poland, where the Soviets were despised.

Due to their close ties with Soviet intelligence services, Mielke referred to the Stasi officers as «Chekists». In 1978, Mielke formally granted KGB officers in East Germany the same rights and powers that they enjoyed in the Soviet Union.

Between 1950 and 1989, the Stasi employed a total of 274,000 people in an effort to root out the class enemy. In 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 people full-time, including 2,000 fully employed unofficial collaborators, 13,073 soldiers and 2,232 officers of the GDR army, along with 173,081 unofficial informants inside GDR, and 1,553 informants in West Germany.

Regular commissioned Stasi officers were recruited from conscripts who had been honorably discharged from their 18 months’ compulsory military service, had been members of the SED, had had a high level of participation in the Party`s youth wing`s activities, and had been Stasi informers during their service in the Military.

The candidates were then made to sit through several tests and exams, which identified their intellectual capacity to be an officer and their political reliability. University graduates who had completed their military service did not need to take these tests and exams.

They then attended a two-year officer training program at the Stasi college (Hochschule) in Potsdam.

By 1995, some 174,000 inoffizielle Mitarbeiter (Ims) Stasi informants had been identified, almost 2,5% of East Germany`s population between the ages of 18 and 60. 10,000 Ims were under 18 years of age.

From the volume of material destroyed in the final days of the regime, the office of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records (BstU) believes that there could have been as many as 500,000 informers.

A former Stasi colonel who served in the counterintelligence directorate estimated that the figure could be as high as 2 million if occasional informants were included.

Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants (the extent of any surveillance largely dependent on how valuable a product was to the economy), and one tenant in every apartment building was designed as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo).

Spies reported every relative or friend who stayed the night at another`s apartment. Tiny holes were drilled in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed citizens with special video cameras.

Schools, universities, and hospitals were extensively infiltrated.

A large number of Stasi informants were tram conductors, janitors, doctors, nurses, and teachers. Mielke believed that the best informants were those whose jobs entailed frequent contact with the public.

In some cases, spouses even spied on each other.

The roles of informants ranged from those already in some way involved in state security (such as the police and the armed services) to those in the dissident movements (such as in the arts and the Protestant Church).

Information gathered about the latter groups was frequently used to divide or discredit members. Informants were made to feel important, given material or social incentives, and were imbued with a sense of adventure, and only around 7,7%, according to official figures, were coerced into cooperating.

The Stasi had files on everyone. They spied on almost every aspect of East German`s daily lives, and they carried out international espionage. It kept files on about 5,6 million people and amassed an enormous archive. The archive holds 111 kilometers of files in total.

The Stasi was the official state security service of East Germany, the German Democratic-Republican in short the GDR. The Stasi`s motto was «Schild und Schwert der Partei» (Shield and Sword of the Party).

«The Party» was the ruling Socialist Unity Party of Germany.

The Stasi perfected the technique of psychological harassment of perceived enemies known as Zersetzung, which is a term borrowed from chemistry that literally means «decomposition». Chemical decomposition means chemical breakdown.

For example, the stability of a chemical compound is eventually limited when exposed to extreme environmental conditions such as heat, radiation, humidity, or the acidity of a solvent. Because of this chemical decomposition is often an undesired chemical reaction.

The goal was to paralyze people, and it could do so because it had access to so much personal information and to so many institutions.

By the 1970s, the Stasi had decided that the methods of overt persecution that had been employed up to that time, such as arrest and torture, were too crude and obvious. Such forms of oppression were drawing significant international condemnation.

It was realized that psychological harassment was far less likely to be recognized for what it was, so its victims, and their supporters, were less likely to be provoked into active resistance, given that they would often not be aware of the source of their problems, or even its exact nature.

International condemnation could also be avoided.

Zersetzung (decomposition) was designed to side-track and «switch off» perceived enemies so that they would lose the will to continue any «inappropriate» activities.

Anyone who was judged to display politically, culturally or religiously incorrect attitudes could be viewed as a «hostile-negative» force and targeted with Zersetzung methods.

For this reason members of the Church, writers, artists, and members further developed in a «creative and differentiated» manner based upon the specific person being targeted i.e. They were tailored based on the target`s psychology and life situation.

Tactics employed under Zersetzung usually involved the disruption of the victim`s private or family life.

This often included psychological attacks, such as breaking into their home and subtly manipulating the contents, in a form of gaslighting i.e. Moving furniture around, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls, or replacing one variety of tea with another, etc.

Other practices include property damage, sabotage of cars, travel bans, career sabotage, administering purposely incorrect medical treatment, smear campaigns which could include subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target`s wife.

Increasing degrees of unemployment and social isolation could and frequently did occur due to the negative psychological, physical, and social ramifications of being targeted.

USUALLY, VICTIMS HAD NO IDEA THAT THE STASI WERE RESPONSIBLE.

The victims didn`t know what was happening. They were confused, and everybody around the target could watch as he or she crumbled under the relentless pressure of state harassment. Zersetzung was designed by the Stasi, and it was a form of psychological harassment to wreak havoc on an individual, without any need to arrest or torture the target.

Many thought that they were losing their minds, and mental breakdowns and suicide were sometimes the results. There is ongoing debate as to the extent if at all, to which weaponized directed energy devices, such as X-ray transmitters, were also used against victims.

A direct-energy weapon (DEW) is a ranged weapon that damages its target with highly focused energy without a solid projectile, including lasers, microwaves, particle beams, and sound beams. Potential applications of this technology include weapons that target personnel, missiles, vehicles, and optical devices.

The main goal was to give the victims a lot of pain because that was much better than putting them in prison and torturing them. One of the symptoms was called the Havana syndrome. It was a syndrome of medical symptoms reported by US personnel in Havana, Cuba, and other locations, suspected by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to be caused by microwave energy.

Some common bio-effects of non-lethal electromagnetic weapons include difficulty breathing, disorientation, nausea, pain, vertigo, and other systemic discomfort.

Interference with breathing poses the most significant, potentially lethal results. Light and repetitive visual signals can include epileptic seizures. Bection and motion sickness can also occur.

After German reunification, revelations of the Stati`s international activities were publicized, such as its military training of the West German Red Army Faction. Stasi experts also helped train the secret police organization of Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia.

They helped Fidel Castro`s regime in Cuba. Stasi officers helped in the initial training and indoctrination of Egyptian State Security organizations under the Nassar regime. They helped to create secret police forces in the People`s Republic of Angola, the People`s Republic of Mozambique, and the People`s Republic of Yemen.

The Stasi organized and extensively trained Syrian intelligence services under the regime of Hafez al-Assad. They also helped to set up Idi Amin`s secret service. They helped the President of Ghana.

Documents in the Stasi archives state that the KGB ordered Bulgarian agents to assassinate Pope John Paul II, who was known for his criticism of human rights in the Eastern Bloc, and the Stasi was asked to help with covering up traces.

The Stasi in 1972, also made plans to assist the Ministry of Public Security (Vietnam) in improving its intelligence work during the Vietnam War.

That was then, but how is it now? We must ask ourselves how our own society is built. The Stasi had a system for monitoring telephone conversations, but if they could do it in the 70s, what can be happening even today? What about social media, emails, smartphones, and computers.

A lot of people believe that China`s social system is scary. But that system is not only about China. It`s in many other countries in Europe and America. They have surveillance cameras, face recognition, and the requirements to always praise the government. It sounds like an Orwellian nightmare come true. Or a Stasi system of surveillance.

China`s social credit system affects freedom of speech, resulting in censorship and self-censorship, ultimately silencing any form of opposition. But this is not only about China. The web itself is a surveillance machine. As it stands today, you are what you click.

Once you`re logged on to your computer and have access to the internet, the system will see what you are doing, and you will be tracked by your browser, by third parties, by cookies, and by almost all the sites you are logging into.

The data you give the third party for free is aggregated and a profile about you is being created. Most of the information you give away for free is being used for targeted advertisements. But it could well be used to create a so-called Social Credit System.

Once all the data is collected, the profile is created, and it can be very difficult to change your own profile. Your profile of yours will lead to real-life consequences.

In addition, China has set up more than 100 so-called overseas police stations across the globe to monitor, harass, and in some cases repatriate Chinese citizens living in exile, using bilateral security arrangements struck with countries in Europe and Africa to gain widespread presence internationally, according to CNN.

The State Security Ministry is the principal civilian intelligence, security, and secret police agency of the People`s Republic of China, responsible for counterintelligence, foreign intelligence, and political security. The MSS is active in industrial espionage and adept at cyber espionage.

A document from the US Department of Justice described the agency as being like a combination of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Many foreign analysts describe the Communist «Part-State» and its security agencies as being left without a real ideology, relying only on repression and the stoking of Chinese nationalism, more recent works, however, highlight the increasing importance of Marxism-Leninism in the worldview, internal culture and self-image of the CCP security apparatus; Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong remain the central influences, although classical Chinese thinkers such as Sun Tzu are also studied.

1,412 billion live in China. How many agents do they have? Only 87 million live in Iran, and they have its own Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to protect the priests at the top. It is a multi-service primary branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. Active personnel last year was 210,000, while 60,000 was paramilitary forces.

According to BBC, the UK is preparing to formally declare that Iran`s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is a terrorist organization. It follows a similar decision made by the US in 2019. After a popular antigovernment protest in Iran, the number of people killed by security forces has increased.

The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized by Iranians and international human rights activists.

The Stasi was one of the most hated and feared institutions of the East German communist government. Nor is CCP so popular. Iran`s Revolutionary Guard is also unpopular. The funniest thing is that they are all funded by «the people».

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Conservatives in Europe and the United States must fight together to “reconquer” institutions in Washington and Brussels from liberals who threaten Western civilization ahead of votes in 2024

We all know that the EU is very often attacking Victor Orban and Hungary. There are a lot of things they don`t like about Orban and his conservative country. But there are also a lot of things that Orban doesn`t like about the EU and Western Europe. He talked about it in Europe`s first Cpac-speech.

Victor Orban formed his fifth conservative, Christian government in Hungary about a month ago, and a couple of days ago, he had a speech at Cpac (Conservative Political Action Conference) Hungary, where he talked about the value of the West and its future.

Orban defeated the communist regime, the liberals, and then, most recently, the international liberal left when they combined their forces against Hungary in the election. In the speech (see transcript below) Orban explained how they defeated them for the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth time, but also how they will defeat them again.

He also talked about how Hungary became a bastion of conservative and Christian values in Europe.

The problem in both America and Western Europe, Orban said, is the domination of public life by progressive liberals. The problem is the fact that they hold the most important positions in the most important institutions, that they occupy the dominant positions in the media, and that they produce all the politically indoctrinating works of high and mass culture.

They, the progressive left, tell us what is the truth and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, Orban said. And as conservatives, our lot is to feel about our nation’s public life as String felt in New York; like a «legal alien».

This was also the situation in Hungary, Orban added. Thirty years ago, the left was also in power here, and there was even a communist dictatorship.

The entire machinery of the state worked to entrench the power of the communists. Strange as it may sound, we – and I – grew up in a “woke world”. Only back then critical race theory was called “scientific socialism”, and was taught at university in the same way that woke is taught in your country. Everyday socialist dictatorship: that is what we grew up in. Political correctness, Orwellian Newspeak, state control of the public square, expropriation of private property, and stigmatization of the Right, Orban said.

In the ’80s, Orban wanted a change, and they decided that enough was enough. They wanted to regain Hungary and their freedom., but the communists did not let this pass without response: police attacks, bans, wiretaps, infiltration by state agents, threats, and blackmail.

But Orban and his friends persevered and won. Soviets out, communists down.

They thought they had finally got what they wanted, but they were wrong: under the dictatorship liberals and conservatives entered into an anti-communist pact, but at the first subsequent opportunity, the liberals sided with the communists. It turned out that in fact, they were natural allies.

If I am not mistaken, this kind of sinful covenant has also been seen in the United States. Summa summarum, public life after the first election (in Hungary after communism) was dominated by post-communists, liberals, and progressives, and the Hungarian right was floored.

When my friend Donald Trump won the US presidential election in 2016, one of his main promises was about the need to «drain the swamp».

President Trump has undeniable merits, but nevertheless, he was not re-elected in 2020. He ended up like our first conservative, Christian government in 2002: we governed outstandingly, after so many years I can perhaps indulge in that much immodesty, but we were dragged down by the swamp of the Hungarian left, Orban said.

And then, between 2002 and 2010, we saw what generally happens in such circumstances: the socialists spent the people`s money. Hungary sank into debt, the economy fell into recession, inflation ran out of control, unemployment rose and people were unable to pay their bills.

Street violence broke out and paramilitary groups were on the march. It was a long time ago, but let us not forget strings of ethnically-motivated murders outraged public sentiment. The left had cut back spending on the police so much that they were unable to maintain even the pretense of order, with the law protecting perpetrators rather than victims.

I think you have seen the likes of this, Victor Orban added. They have made a twelve point formula for Hungary, and you can read more about them in Orban`s speech below:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at the opening of CPAC Hungary

19 May 2022, Budapest

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear American Friends, and Conservatives from all over the world,

I welcome you all. And a special welcome to my friend Václav Klaus. It is no surprise that he is the most intellectually courageous man in Europe, as he is rich in years; but what is a surprise to us all is that he is still the most youthful and the freshest among us. Dear Klaus, thank you so much for coming and being with us.

I know that you all deserve a better speech than this, but we all know that one cannot swim or run a world record time in the morning. Please bear this in mind as you listen to my thoughts. Anyway, it is great to have you here. The timing is a happy accident: a month ago we scored our fourth election victory in a row, and four days ago I formed my fifth conservative, Christian government; and now I am here with you. It is always good to be able to talk among friends, and it is especially good to have something with which to back up one’s words, and we Hungarians rightly feel that we have something with which to back up our words.

My Friends,

We have come a long way. In the 1980s we read about what was happening in the United States from samizdats illegally distributed in the former Eastern Bloc; and now here we are, with Hungary hosting the most important political gathering of the Republican Party, the Grand Old Party. I clearly remember well how we envied you back then: we envied your culture of democratic debate; the freedom in which you arranged public affairs in America; we envied your President Reagan for his charisma, his drive, his wit, and his policies – and, of course, we rooted for him. All we had were the grey-suited communist functionaries and their political Newspeak, a stifling atmosphere, and hopelessness.

Dear American Friends,

If you have seen the series “Chernobyl”, you may have an idea of what I am talking about. We had forty long years of that. And today we are hosting this great event, for which I would like to thank the organizers – but most of all you, who are honoring us with your presence. On behalf of every Hungarian, I thank our American friends and those from other countries for honoring us and coming here to Budapest.

How can I contribute to today’s gathering? Perhaps if I tell you how we won: how we first defeated the communist regime; then how we defeated the liberals; and then, most recently, how we defeated the international liberal left when they combined their forces against Hungary in the election. I will tell you now how we defeated them for the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth time – and how we will defeat them again. As the supporters of Fradi [Ferencváros soccer club] chant: “More, more, more, there’s still more goals to score!” I will tell you how fervent university students succeeded in dismantling a dictatorship, then in breaking the hegemony over opinions enjoyed by the returning communists and liberals, and how they managed to end the dominance of progressives in public life. I will tell you how Hungary became a bastion of conservative and Christian values in Europe. Instead of my long speech, of course, all this could be done briefly and simply. We learned from General Patton that battle brings out all that is best and removes all that is base. This is also true on the political battlefield. Here, my friends, only the best remain standing – or, in short, the ultimate condition for victory is that we must become the best. You can win if you are the best.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let us start by saying that you politicians who love your country face a problem that we Hungarians have already tackled successfully. This problem – if I am not mistaken, both in America and Western Europe – is the domination of public life by progressive liberals. The problem is the fact that they hold the most important positions in the most important institutions, that they occupy the dominant positions in the media, and that they produce all the politically indoctrinating works of high and mass culture. They – the progressive left – tell us what is the truth and what is not, what is right and what is wrong. And as conservatives, our lot is to feel about our nation’s public life as Sting felt in New York: like a “legal alien”.

Dear American Friends,

This was also the situation in Hungary. Thirty years ago, the Left was also in power here – and there was even a communist dictatorship. The entire machinery of the state worked to entrench the power of the communists. Strange as it may sound, we – and I – grew up in a “woke world”. Only back then critical race theory was called “scientific socialism”, and was taught at university in the same way that woke is taught in your country. Everyday socialist dictatorship: that is what we grew up in. Political correctness, Orwellian Newspeak, state control of the public square, expropriation of private property, and stigmatization of the Right.

Dear American Friends and Visitors from Abroad,

Under communism, we had a joke about whether it was possible to joke under communism. And the joke was that a political joke contest was held in the Soviet Union, with the following conditions: the contestant coming third would win an all-inclusive trip to Siberia for two weeks, the runner-up for a year, and the winner for life. 

American Friends,

If you feel that this joke is becoming ever more meaningful to you, the time has come to start taking action. At all events, we rose up, and in the late 1980s, we decided that enough was enough. We wanted to regain our country and our freedom; we wanted to regain our country’s freedom. The communists did not let this pass without response: police attacks, bans, wiretaps, infiltration by state agents, threats, and blackmail. But we persevered, and we won. Soviets out, communists down. We thought we had finally got what we wanted, but we were wrong: under the dictatorship liberals and conservatives entered into an anti-communist pact, but at the first subsequent opportunity, the liberals sided with the communists. It turned out that in fact, they were natural allies. If I am not mistaken, this kind of sinful covenant has also been seen in the United States. Summa summarum, public life after the first election [in Hungary after communism] was dominated by post-communists, liberals, and progressives, and the Hungarian right was floored. When my friend Donald Trump won the US presidential election in 2016, one of his main promises was about the need to “drain the swamp”. President Trump has undeniable merits, but nevertheless, he was not re-elected in 2020. He ended up like our first conservative, Christian government in 2002: we governed outstandingly – after so many years I can perhaps indulge in that much immodesty – but we were dragged down by the swamp of the Hungarian left.

And then, between 2002 and 2010, we saw what generally happens in such circumstances: the socialists spent the people’s money. Hungary sank into debt, the economy fell into recession, inflation ran out of control, unemployment rose and people were unable to pay their bills. Street violence broke out and paramilitary groups were on the march. It was a long time ago, but let us not forget: strings of ethnically-motivated murders outraged public sentiment. The Left had cut back spending on the police so much that they were unable to maintain even the pretense of order, with the law protecting perpetrators rather than victims.

Dear American Friends,

I think you have seen the likes of this. The Scriptures say the following: “every tree is known by its own fruit.” Well, the fruit of progressive government speaks for itself: economic ruin and street violence. When a left-wing government comes to power, the story almost always ends in the same way. But, dear Friends, in 2002 we organized a popular movement and intellectual resistance with the troops left to us after our electoral defeat. We did not adopt a defensive attitude, and we did not resign ourselves to our minority status; we played to win and proclaimed the Reconquista.

Dear Friends,

The plan succeeded. In 2010 we came back. We had worked for eight years: step by step, brick by brick, we had fought and we had built. The formula is complete. Hungary is the laboratory in which we tested the antidote to dominance by progressives. We have hung up our lab coats, this spring Hungary has received its fourth dose, and I can report the following: the patient has been completely cured. The medication is open-source, free of charge, and comprises twelve points – which I will share with you now. For the benefit of our foreign friends, twelve is the Hungarian freedom fighters’ lucky number.

The first point in the Hungarian formula is to play by our own rules. The only way to win is to refuse to accept the solutions and the paths offered by others. As Churchill said, having enemies is a sure sign that you are doing something right. This is why we should not be discouraged by being defamed, by being branded as deplorable, or by being treated abroad like troublemakers. In fact, it would be suspicious if none of this happened. Please remember that those who play by their opponents’ rules are certain to lose.

The second point: is national conservatism in domestic politics. The cause of the nation is not a matter of ideology, nor even of tradition. The reason that churches and families must be supported is that they are the building blocks of the nation. This also means that one must remain on the side of the voters. We decided to stop migration and build the wall on our southern border because Hungarians said that they did not want illegal immigrants. They said: “Viktor, build that wall!” Three months later the border barrier was up. The secret is not to overthink things: the Hungarian fence is a simple chain-link structure with motion detectors, watchtowers, and cameras; but this is enough, provided people want to protect their country. The Achilles heel of progressives is precisely that they want to impose their dreams on society. But for us, that danger is also an opportunity, because when it comes to important issues, in reality, people do not like left-wing fever dreams. One must find the issues on which the Left is completely out of touch with reality and highlight them – but in a way that can be understood by people who are not eggheads. 

Third point: the national interest in foreign policy. Progressives always think that foreign policy is a battle of ideologies: a battle between good and bad, in which the course of history will be decided once and for all. But as I see it, Dear Friends, there have been at least four such “last great battles” over the past hundred years. Something is wrong with that concept. Our response should be a clear and simple antithesis to the progressives: the Nation First! Hungary First! America First! We need a foreign policy based on our interests. This is not always easy, because the world of foreign policy is often a complicated one.

Take the war in our neighboring country. Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is the victim. We condemn the aggressor and help the victim of aggression. But at the same time, we know that Ukraine is not defending Hungary. That is a nonsensical idea! Hungary can be defended by NATO and the Hungarian Defense Forces. As a proportion of our population, we have taken in the largest number of refugees, and the Hungarian people are happy to help. They are glad to help, but they do not want to pay the price of the war, because it is not their war and they will not benefit from it. They know full well that war is accompanied by sanctions, rampant inflation, and economic stagnation; they know that war always impoverishes people. We must not yield to the siren voices, however tempting they may sound. Our aim is to restore peace, not to continue the war, because that is what is in our national interest. Hungary First!

The fourth point, Dear Friends: we must have our own media. We can only show up the insane ideas of the progressive Left if we have media that helps us to do this. Left-wing opinions only appear to be in the majority when the media helps to amplify them. The root of the problem is that the modern Western media aligns itself with the views of the Left. Reporters were taught at university by people with progressive left-wing views. And as soon as a conservative figure appears in the media, they are criticized, attacked, defamed, and vilified. I am familiar with the old ethos of Western democracy, according to which party politics and the press must be separated. That is how it should be. But, dear Friends, the Democrats in the US, for instance, do not obey such rules. Just try to count how many media outlets are in the service of the Democratic Party: CNN, The New York Times, the list goes on – I could carry on into the night. Naturally, the Grand Old Party, too, has allied media outlets, but they are no match for the liberals’ dominance of the media. My friend Tucker Carlson stands alone and immovable. His show has the highest audience figures. What does this mean? It means that there should be shows like his day and night – or, as you say, 24/7.

Fifth point: expose your opponent’s intentions. As a condition for victory, media support is necessary, but not sufficient. We must also break down taboos. Perhaps I do not need to introduce this to my American friends, because what breaker of taboos is greater than President Donald Trump? But one can always raise the bar: we must not only break down today’s taboos, but also tomorrow’s taboos. Here in Hungary, we expose what the Left is preparing before they even take action.

At first, they will deny it, but success is all the sweeter when it emerges that we were right all along. For instance, there is the issue of LGBTQ propaganda targeting children. This is still a new thing over here, but we have already destroyed it. We brought the issue out into the open and held a referendum on it. The overwhelming majority of Hungarians have rejected this form of sensitization of children. By revealing at an early stage what the Left was preparing for, we forced them on the defensive, and when they attacked our initiative they were eventually forced to admit the reality of their plan. Allow me to quote General Patton again: “A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.”

Sixth point: economy, economy, economy. We all know that the Left wants to operate the economy according to abstract notions. This is a trap for the Right. Never fall for it! When we came to power, we decided that we must only pursue economic policies that benefit the majority of voters. Here in Hungary, we have a motto about this: “Even those who did not vote for us end up better off.” In this, we are the polar opposite of the progressives: even those who voted for them end up worse off. In the final analysis, people want jobs: people want jobs, not economic theories. People want to take a step forward in life, and people want a better life for their children than the life they have had. If a government of the right is unable to deliver all this, it is doomed to failure.

Our seventh point: do not get pushed to the extreme. I say this because extreme conspiracy theories rear their heads from time to time on the right – just as extreme utopias regularly rear their heads on the left. If we take a deeper look, we see that in fact, people want neither. But, dear Friends, what is the difference between the denial of science by the extreme right and the denial of biology by LGBTQ movements? The answer is simple: there is no difference whatsoever. We must render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, unto God the things that are God’s, and unto Science the things that are Sciences. We may gain immense popularity on internet forums by promoting conspiracy theories – and indeed sometimes there is truth in them; but in reality, we will alienate a large proportion of the electorate, find ourselves pushed to the margins, and eventually, we will lose.

Eighth point: read every day. A book a day keeps the defeat away. I know that this sounds strange. I am not an academic myself, but the fact is that no invention has yet surpassed the book as a vehicle for understanding and conveying ideas. The world is becoming increasingly complex, and we need to dedicate time to understand it. I, for instance, set aside one whole day every week for reading. Reading also helps us to understand what our opponents think and where their thinking is flawed. If we know that, the rest is mere technique. We must translate all this into the language of everyday action and political communication. It is true that the spin doctor is a useful species, but understanding the problem is something that must be done by us as policymakers.

Ninth point: have faith. A lack of faith is dangerous. If you do not believe that there will be a final reckoning and that you will be held to account for your actions before God, you will think that you can do anything that is in your power. So let us encourage prospective young conservative politicians to engage with faith. Initially, I did not see this as a priority, but I learned that if we devote time to our faith, success will come more easily. I have been a Member of Parliament for thirty-two years, and I am beginning my seventeenth year as Prime Minister. I heed the words of Prophet Isaiah, who said: “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.” In politics, Dear Friends, this is the law.

Tenth point: make friends. Our opponents, the progressive liberals, and neo-Marxists have unlimited unity: they have one another’s backs. By contrast, we conservatives are capable of squabbling with one another over the smallest issue. And then we wonder at how our opponents corner us.

We do indeed possess intellectual sophistication, and we care about intellectual nuance. But if we want to succeed in politics, we should never look at what we disagree on, but instead, look for our common ground. I will give an example. The Vatican is one of our most important European allies. It is an ally as a guardian of Christian values, in the support of families, and together we affirm that a father is a man and a mother is a woman. We stand together for peace and for the refugees from Ukraine. But on illegal migration, our thinking diverges. One should not look at the issues on which we can engage in heated disputes but look for ways in which we can work together. Believe me, if we do not, our opponents will hunt us down one by one.

Eleventh point: build communities. My Friends, over the years I have also learned that there is no conservative political success without functioning communities. The fewer communities there are and the lonelier people are, the more voters go to the liberals; and the more communities there are, the more votes we get. It is as simple as that. I do not need to explain this to you: The United States has the world’s best-functioning clubs, societies, and communities. What we need to understand is that a political entity must encompass such communities.

And finally, the twelfth point: build institutions. For successful politics, one needs institutions and institutes. Whether they are think tanks, educational centers, talent workshops, foreign relations institutes, youth organizations, or whatever, they should have a political aspect. Let us not forget: politicians come and go, but institutions stay with us for generations. They, the institutions, have the capacity to renew politics intellectually. New ideas, new thoughts, and new people are needed again and again. If they run out, we will run out of ammunition, and our opponent will show no mercy in laying us low.

Dear Friends, 

The whole world is undergoing huge changes. It is strange but true that the destructive ideologies of fascism and communism originated in the West. We never thought that communists could return not only from the East but also from the West. Now we see that the progressives are threatening the whole of Western civilization, and the true danger is not from without but from within.

You, Dear American Friends, are confronted with this in the United States, while we are confronted with it in the European Union. We are dealing with the same people: faceless, ideologically trained bureaucrats sitting in Washington DC and Brussels. Progressive liberals, neo-Marxists intoxicated by the dream of wokeness, those in the pay of George Soros, the advocates of the open society. They want to abolish the Western way of life that you and we love so much: what your parents fought for during World War II and the Cold War, and what we fought for when we drove the Soviet communists out of Hungary. 

My Friends,

We must take up the fight, and in this fight, we can only succeed if we are together and organized. We must take back the institutions in Washington and Brussels. We must find friends and allies in one another. We must coordinate the movement of our troops because we face a great challenge. The decisive year will be 2024: you will have presidential and congressional elections, and we will have elections to the European Parliament.

These two locations will define the two fronts in the battle being fought for Western civilization. Today we hold neither of them. Yet we need both. We have two years to prepare. The Hungarian lesson is that we have no silver bullet. We only have work. We need to do it. Let’s go out and do it! Thanks and good luck!

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Nikita Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine for free in 1954

Vladimir Putin is doing exactly what Boris Johnson and Joe Biden are doing; «Building back better.» Putin is working very hard to fix all the problems that the communist Bolsheviks made during their revolution: October Revolution.

The Russian Revolution was a period of political and social revolution that took place in the former Russian Empire which began during World War I. The Bolsheviks killed the Royal family Romanov that has ruled Russia for 302 years.

This period saw Russia abolish its monarchy and adopt a socialist form of government following two successive revolutions and bloody civil war. This socialist revolution ended the Russian monarchy and Tsar Nicholas II abdicated and stepped down, ushering in a new government led by the Russian Duma (parliament) which became the Russian Provisional Government. This government was dominated by the interests of prominent capitalists, as well as the Russian nobility and aristocracy.


People were killed by The Provisional Government, with the support of Socialist-Revolutionary Party-Menshevik leaders of the All-Russian Executive Committee of the Soviets, in Petrograd in a peaceful demonstration.

During this chaotic period, there were frequent mutinies, protests, and strikes. Many socialist and other leftist political organizations were engaged in daily struggle and vied for influence within the Provisional Government and the Soviets.

One such faction was the Bolsheviks («Ones of the Majority») led by Vladimir Lenin. The Bolsheviks gained support by campaigning on a slogan of peace, land, and bread which promised to cease war with Germany, give land to the peasantry, and end the famine caused by Russia`s involvement in WWI. These slogans had a direct effect on the growing Bolshevik popularity.

Under pressure from German military offensives, the Bolsheviks soon relocated the national capital to Moscow. The Bolsheviks had secured a strong base of support within the Soviets and, as the supreme governing party, established their own government, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR).

The RSFSR began the process of reorganizing the former empire into the world`s first socialist state, to practice soviet democracy on a national and international scale.

The Great October Socialist Revolution under the Soviet Union, also known as the Bolshevik Revolution (1917 – 1923), almost destroyed Russia as we know it today. This is why Putin is working hard to restore what the Bolsheviks destroyed.

This is where the problems in Ukraine and Crimea start. it`s also called the Soviet-Ukrainian War, or Ukrainian Civil War, which is the term commonly used in post-Soviet Ukraine for the events taking place between 1917 – 1921, nowadays regarded essentially as a war between the Ukrainian People`s Republic and the Bolsheviks. The war ensued soon after the October Revolution when Lenin dispatched Antonov`s expeditionary group to Ukraine and Southern Russia.

Soviet historical tradition viewed it as an occupation of Ukraine by military forces of Western and Central Europe, including the Polish Republic`s military, the Bolshevik victory constituting Ukraine`s liberation from these forces.

Conversely, modern Ukrainian historians consider it a failed war of independence by the Ukrainian People`s Republic against the Bolsheviks.

In Soviet historiography and terminology, the armed conflict is depicted as part of the greater Russian Civil War in Ukraine, this war was fought between the national government and the Bolshevik government (led by Lenin).

The war may be divided into three phases:

  1. December 1917 – April 1918: Revolutionary days, Bolshevik uprisings, invasion of the Red Guards formations, signing of protectorate treaty, and liberation from bolsheviks.
  2. December 1918 – December 1919: Civil war in Ukraine, invasion of the Red Army, unification of Ukraine, anti-Soviet peasant uprisings, Denikin’s Volunteer Army and the Allied intervention, loss of West Ukraine to Poland.
  3. Spring 1920 – Autumn 1921: Polish-Soviet War (Treaty of Warsaw), Russian Civil War (between Bolsheviks armies and the armed Forces of South Russia), Ukrainian guerrilla operations (First and Second Winter Campaigns), government in exile.

In October 1917 the government of Ukraine denounced the Bolshevis’ armed revolt and declared it would decisively fight against any attempted coup in Ukraine. The Kyiv Military District command tried to prevent a Bolshevik coup, leading to street fights and eventually surrendering of pro-Bolshevik troops in the city.

On November 20, 1917, the Rada declared Ukraine the Ukrainian People`s Republic as an autonomous part of the Russian Republic and scheduled on January 9, 1918, elections to a Ukrainian Constituent Assembly.

The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war primarily involving Russia, Belarus, and pro-Russian forces on one side, and Ukraine on the other. The war we see today isn`t a new one. It has been going on since February 2014 in the wake of the Revolution of Dignity and focused on the status of Crimea and parts of the Donbas, which are internationally recognized as part of Ukraine.

Nikita Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine for free in 1954. That transfer was illegal under Soviet law and violated both the Constitution of the Soviet Union and the Constitution of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. This is how Putin and Russia now are building back better.

They want to have Crimea and Ukraine back again because it has been a part of Russia. How legitimate is it that Crimea is given to Ukraine by a drunken Nikita Khruschev? It is also given to Ukraine that is also stolen during the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. The communists have done so damage to Russia, and Putin is trying to fix it. By diplomatic solutions or by war and bombs.

In a speech live on TV, on 24 February, Putin said; «The goal is to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide by the Kyiv regime for eight years. And for this, we will strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, as well as bringing to justice those who committed numerous, bloody crimes against civilians, including citizens of the Russian Federation.»

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the first Jewish President of Ukraine. He is a former actor and comedian. Another puppet on the scene with a lot of neo-Nazis hiding behind the scenes. A trick to make people blindsided.

Zelenskyy is a populist. He has also positioned himself as an anti-establishment, and anti-corruption figure. He became a President in 2019, promised to end Ukraine`s protracted conflict with Russia as part of his presidential campaign, and attempted to engage in dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The US government has alluded to intelligence indicating that the Kremlin is preparing lists of Ukrainians to be killed or put in camps. The alleged lists include journalists.

So, what Putin is talking about is what NATO and the West don`t want to talk about; Azov Battalion, which is a group of a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine. Azov initially formed as a volunteer militia on 5 May 2014 during the Odessa clashes. On 12 November 2014, Azov was incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine, and since then all members are contract soldiers serving in the National Guard of Ukraine.

According to The Daily Telegraph, the Azov Battalion`s extremist politics and professional English social media pages have attracted foreign fighters, including people from Brazil, Italy, the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Greece, Scandinavia, Spain, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and Russia.

About 50 Russian nationals are members of the Azov regiment. The group has used Facebook to recruit far-right individuals from other countries within Europe. In 2019, under Facebook`s Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, support for the group was not allowed, although this was temporarily relaxed during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting, unlawful detention, and torture.

An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that the organization had «collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrockyne from the summer of 2014 to date.

Mass looting of civilians’ homes was documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February 2015.

MSM doesn`t talk about this. What they talk about is people supporting Ukraine and that some people are moving to Ukraine to join the Nazi forces. We also see that many countries like Germany are supporting Ukraine with weapons.

This war is also a war against the European globalists.

The U.K is out of the EU with a Brexit slam dunk, and PM Boris Johnson is building back better. Biden is also building back better, but what happens if the U.S is pulling out as a leader from the West? If so, and Europe is building its own weapon arsenal, then this world will become even more dangerous, and Europe will be changed forever.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics