>>46389
>I don't think so. That WAS a reassuring (though hollow) thing to believe in, until they could see with their own eyes the before and after "[capitalist] socialism with chinese characteristics". Which also gives the reason to stop believing it
The more they succeed, the more they're reassured their new worldview is scientific.
>I note here that the "cultural revolution" and its ideas have been officially and explicitly condemned. So their mindset already can't be contiguous
The most extreme and disastrous components of the old worldview have been explicitly condemned, not its entirety. Mao hasn't been condemned and is still praised as having made good contributions. It's like the Soviet Union in 1956, rejecting parts of the old rhetoric but preserving continuity.
>Pathetic own goal since I think many there are catholic or affiliated to those odd "pentecostal" churches
He knows it's offensive and he doesn't care.
>Any idea whose calligraphy he was quoting?
Mao.
>Neither preserve, nor destroy (except for the secessionist elements I guess), but left to survive or wither.
Why give it any opportunity to survive? They just have to destroy it slowly. The continued existence of separate institutions is an insult to the supremacy of the Party's worldview, and their elimination is a glorious triumph.
>I reread it. You may be confusing naïveté and my non-universalist "representation of mind".
High-ranking Party members would laugh at your very concept of "privacy". Of course they're going for maximum surveillance.