If one needs an example on Western writers often cannot think straight about China and CCP.

"China’s Communist Party at 100: the secret of its longevity
Ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic growth have kept it in power"
is the Headline of a Economist.com. I do not include a link. It is not necessary to waste time on it.

The Economist article name 3 secrets to explain CCP's longevity or continuous success. Namely, ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success.

Sounds good. But basically meaningless. To the extent that it makes the readers feel informed, it is making the readers dumb.

Rather than ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success, it should at least be selective ruthlessness, i.e. sacrifice the minority for the good of the majority, know when to shift to what ideology to benefit most of the people, and know when to implement what economic policy at continue economic development.

To sum up, the CCP is successful because it is doing the right thing at the right time, most of time if not always. But is this not a well known principle. Why it is suddenly a secret?

Why the Economist.com writer cannot tell its readers CCP the truth that it knows how to right thing at the right time?

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 4:25:22 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> If one needs an example on Western writers often cannot think straight about China and CCP.
>
> "China’s Communist Party at 100: the secret of its longevity
> Ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic growth have kept it in power"
> is the Headline of a Economist.com. I do not include a link. It is not necessary to waste time on it.
>
> The Economist article name 3 secrets to explain CCP's longevity or continuous success. Namely, ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success.
>
> Sounds good. But basically meaningless. To the extent that it makes the readers feel informed, it is making the readers dumb.
>
> Rather than ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success, it should at least be selective ruthlessness, i.e. sacrifice the minority for the good of the majority, know when to shift to what ideology to benefit most of the people, and know when to implement what economic policy at continue economic development.
>
> To sum up, the CCP is successful because it is doing the right thing at the right time, most of time if not always. But is this not a well known principle. Why it is suddenly a secret?
>
> Why the Economist.com writer cannot tell its readers CCP the truth that it knows how to right thing at the right time?

Clearly, you should write for the Economist.

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 4:25:22 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> If one needs an example on Western writers often cannot think straight about China and CCP.
>
> "China’s Communist Party at 100: the secret of its longevity
> Ruthlessness,

Wow, the Slave Master, the head of war-monger/killer of humanity around the world...
calling China "ruthless"!!!! What a shame!!!! Just look at the streets of America!!!
Which nation is more ruthless than the U.S.!!!! the deaths in Iraq, the whole Middle East, Vietnam, Africa, South America, the Native American Indians,... even the American Bison, disappeared from earth!!!! There is no other. America is THE number 1 in ruthlessness!!!!

> ideological agility and economic growth have kept it in power"
> is the Headline of a Economist.com. I do not include a link. It is not necessary to waste time on it.
>
> The Economist article name 3 secrets to explain CCP's longevity or continuous success. Namely, ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success.
>
> Sounds good. But basically meaningless. To the extent that it makes the readers feel informed, it is making the readers dumb.
>
> Rather than ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success, it should at least be selective ruthlessness, i.e. sacrifice the minority for the good of the majority, know when to shift to what ideology to benefit most of the people, and know when to implement what economic policy at continue economic development.
>
> To sum up, the CCP is successful because it is doing the right thing at the right time, most of time if not always. But is this not a well known principle. Why it is suddenly a secret?
>
> Why the Economist.com writer cannot tell its readers CCP the truth that it knows how to right thing at the right time?

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 7:25:22 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> If one needs an example on Western writers often cannot think straight about China and CCP.
>
> "China’s Communist Party at 100: the secret of its longevity
> Ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic growth have kept it in power"
> is the Headline of a Economist.com. I do not include a link. It is not necessary to waste time on it.
>
> The Economist article name 3 secrets to explain CCP's longevity or continuous success. Namely, ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success.
>
> Sounds good. But basically meaningless. To the extent that it makes the readers feel informed, it is making the readers dumb.
>
> Rather than ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success, it should at least be selective ruthlessness, i.e. sacrifice the minority for the good of the majority, know when to shift to what ideology to benefit most of the people, and know when to implement what economic policy at continue economic development.
>
> To sum up, the CCP is successful because it is doing the right thing at the right time, most of time if not always. But is this not a well known principle. Why it is suddenly a secret?
>
> Why the Economist.com writer cannot tell its readers CCP the truth that it knows how to right thing at the right time?

For those who don't already know, Human rights is also a ruthless game.

https://medyamagazine.com/human-rights-a-ruthless-political-game/

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:30:59 AM UTC-10, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 7:25:22 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> > If one needs an example on Western writers often cannot think straight about China and CCP.
> >
> > "China’s Communist Party at 100: the secret of its longevity
> > Ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic growth have kept it in power"
> > is the Headline of a Economist.com. I do not include a link. It is not necessary to waste time on it.
> >
> > The Economist article name 3 secrets to explain CCP's longevity or continuous success. Namely, ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success.
> >
> > Sounds good. But basically meaningless. To the extent that it makes the readers feel informed, it is making the readers dumb.
> >
> > Rather than ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success, it should at least be selective ruthlessness, i.e. sacrifice the minority for the good of the majority, know when to shift to what ideology to benefit most of the people, and know when to implement what economic policy at continue economic development.
> >
> > To sum up, the CCP is successful because it is doing the right thing at the right time, most of time if not always. But is this not a well known principle. Why it is suddenly a secret?
> >
> > Why the Economist.com writer cannot tell its readers CCP the truth that it knows how to right thing at the right time?
> For those who don't already know, Human rights is also a ruthless game.
>
> https://medyamagazine.com/human-rights-a-ruthless-political-game/

You are confusing inalienable human rights for politics and materialistic religion when it is neither. Universal human rights is the victim of politics and materialistic religion. It is never the criminal you portray it to be for your own propaganda.

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 9:06:28 AM UTC-4, Jedi Master wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 6:30:59 AM UTC-10, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 7:25:22 AM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > If one needs an example on Western writers often cannot think straight about China and CCP.
> > >
> > > "China’s Communist Party at 100: the secret of its longevity
> > > Ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic growth have kept it in power"
> > > is the Headline of a Economist.com. I do not include a link. It is not necessary to waste time on it.
> > >
> > > The Economist article name 3 secrets to explain CCP's longevity or continuous success. Namely, ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success.
> > >
> > > Sounds good. But basically meaningless. To the extent that it makes the readers feel informed, it is making the readers dumb.
> > >
> > > Rather than ruthlessness, ideological agility and economic success, it should at least be selective ruthlessness, i.e. sacrifice the minority for the good of the majority, know when to shift to what ideology to benefit most of the people, and know when to implement what economic policy at continue economic development.
> > >
> > > To sum up, the CCP is successful because it is doing the right thing at the right time, most of time if not always. But is this not a well known principle. Why it is suddenly a secret?
> > >
> > > Why the Economist.com writer cannot tell its readers CCP the truth that it knows how to right thing at the right time?
> > For those who don't already know, Human rights is also a ruthless game.
> >
> > https://medyamagazine.com/human-rights-a-ruthless-political-game/
> You are confusing inalienable human rights for politics and materialistic religion when it is neither. Universal human rights is the victim of politics and materialistic religion. It is never the criminal you portray it to be for your own propaganda.

The cited article does not dispute human rights. But the games of human rights are played out in the political arena.
Anyway, I am just trying to show "ruthless" could be applied to a wide range of human activities.