As the a surveyor's rod of impartiality
 - Gu Xiaojun ism: change China's onethousand nine hundred fifty-one

Translator:God has eyes

"Foreign Policy", the "Times":
 Commercial negotiations or political
 negotiations, the negotiations of two or more
 parties, actually looking for is - reasonable. The
 process of looking for reasonable, with a vivid
 argument, that is - to find common divisor.
 Essentially, it is - to find impartiality.
 Human society, primarily divided into two
 ideological camps: the universal values of
 freedom and democracy as the core, and the
 other is based on the worldview of socialism as
 the core. So, can these two ideological camps, to
 find common divisor? I thought: it is able to
 find. This is - just.
 Universal values, natural certainly not opposed
 to impartiality. Because democracy in the free world,
 is based on an impartial basis; impartiality,
 ubiquitous in maintaining embodies impartiality. So
 socialism, but also will not oppose impartiality.
 Inspire people to revolution "exploitation" and
 so, in essence, is an emphasis on just theories.
 Well, since everyone speaks of impartiality in an
 impartial, why not scale it? You say that freedom
 and democracy, he stresses that the major
 principles of socialism, this is not always in the
 crap?
 For example, you say "born free", said: the
 National People's Congress, was only countries.
 He said the country is greater than the
 individual, "no country can there be families.
 This is not like the "chicken and egg" it?
 Tang Fuzhen event, for example: You said that
 "private property is inviolable," he said personal
 state, the collective make way ... This is not
 unclear pull this? To impartiality as the scale, which
 is much simpler - I said: do not fight, we break
 it down: the people property value how much?
 Several million. And how much for others?
 Hundreds of thousands. Is not that unfair? That
 what is there to compete for?
 As another example, you said that democracy is
 thought, is institutional. He said that democracy
 is the style and promised to engage in inner-
 party democracy ... This is not unclear pull this?
 To impartiality for the ruler, which is much simpler - I
 say: Do not argue, I asked him: people can not
 enjoy democracy within the party? If not, is not
 that unfair to you? What is there to pull it?
 United States has done a lot of good for the
 human society. "Emancipation Proclamation", is
 a landmark in the history of human society
 literature. Again, after the victory in World War
 II, the United States does not require the
 colonies, led to the complete collapse of
 colonialism.
 "Wrong" in foreign policy and political elite
 league, I asked the "world's political elite
 alliance with the unspoken rules. "Romney
 defeat the real reason, but also strengthen the
 concept of" international political elite alliance,
 said: "This unspoken rules, bungled looking
 forward to the freedom of the people in the
 democratic system of authoritarian countries
 have not formed with democracy; United States,
 in such a political deal, big order to get what
 she needed - because negotiations with a
 government economic delegation to the
 negotiations, than with many capitalists easy,
 earn more much more. "
 Added: "as long as the international political
 elite league of unspoken rules still Romney who
 have the courage to break it, then, Romney, who
 will also lose, will once again defeat. Had no
 choice inevitable, there is no one way to change
 this - this is like one hundred and fifty years ago
 the liberation of slaves the same tough, we (all
 non-democratic countries people) are waiting for
 U.S. politicians wake up - voluntarily give up
 slavery captive in the authoritarian country
 (equivalent to slave owners of the manor) in a
 variety of different skin color slaves. "
 So, American politicians will come to realize it?
 Might, because American politicians
 "Emancipation Proclamation" with the victory in
 World War II does not require a colonial
 tradition; perhaps not, the society we live in
 private ownership, remains a fundamental
 interests. So, which requires external force - the
 power of the media.
 The media's ruler it? Is not that just - human
 society since the the gregarious beginning,
 there; so far, still deep in the inner values -
 impartiality? In addition, we can have even more
 brilliant than the political elites, and be able to
 convince their stuff?

Gu Xiaojun 2012-11-10 Nanjing