Original: Yin Guoming source: wechat official account: Mingren Mingcha has been authorized to reprint
Sima Nan’s real estate investment in the United States has been speculation for some time, and the heat continues. Many people who opposed Sima Nan were excited when they heard the news, thinking that they had found an opportunity to completely ruin Sima Nan’s reputation.
There are more than 1000 or 10000 Chinese people buying houses in the United States. Only when we heard that Sima Nan had invested in a real estate in the United States, we were surprised and ran around shouting.
Are they opposed to Chinese investment in the United States? There are so many investors. Why do you focus on Sima Nan this time?
They will explain this way: they are opposed to investing and living in the United States, or their families say they love China in the United States. This is the most jerky logic I’ve ever seen, almost none of it. I have seen them use this logic to discredit Chen Ping and Zhang Weiwei. Speaking for China is still influential to a certain extent, and we must accept the test of their logic.
If you invest in the United States, live in the United States, and study in the United States, you can’t love China? Love China is not true? You’re not qualified to be patriotic? According to such vulgar standards, those who live in China, have no investment in the United States, and have never been to the United States must be patriotic and qualified to be patriotic, right?
This is to vulgarize the contention between patriotic and traitorous positions and viewpoints.
What’s the difference between this practice and the past when people were suspected of being enemy spies because they had overseas relations? The subtlety lies in the fact that the extreme left 40 years ago and the extreme right today follow the same logic.
Was it an accident? Surprise? Not at all.
Because this is a fact: the extreme left in the first 30 years and the extreme right in the last 40 years are actually the same kind of people, or even the same group of people. The writer Ding Ling once said a meaningful sentence: “I only know that the people who call me ‘left’ now are the people who hit me ‘right’
Ding Ling saw with her own eyes that some people jumped from the extreme left to the extreme right.
Such people are not alone.
For example, economist Wu Yilian was extremely leftist in the early years. When western economics was criticized, he was more revolutionary than anyone else. He actively participated in criticizing Sun Yefang, and later criticized his teacher Gu Huai in the same way. Later, the right was terrible, and he slipped into Neo liberalism. He only believed in the “invisible hand” of the market, and opposed the “visible hand” of the government’s macro-control. Even in 2019, the United States initiated supply chain restrictions on Huawei, and the next step would be to target the whole of China. He also said that he opposed China to develop chips at all costs, one of the reasons being that he thought “this matter will affect the opening up”.
There are too many people like this. If it is not because some people’s names are sensitive, I can cite a long list.
If you want to understand history, you must understand this kind of people.
Different opinions and opinions can be discussed and debated, but such vulgar methods can not be used.
This kind of practice is extremely vulgar and extremely gloomy. If Sima Nan’s investment in the United States involves violations of laws and regulations, he is free to report. If not, don’t stick to it.
The darkest thing about this is that they have set a double standard for patriots and nationalist haters. Patriots should not have problems or flaws, otherwise they will attack one point less than the others. As for the nationalist hate party, there is unlimited tolerance.
I have read a sentence saying that there is a problem in Chinese culture. It is too harsh on good people and too tolerant to bad people. A good person can become a Buddha only after going through the difficulties of 99 and 81. As long as the villain puts down his butcher’s knife, he can become a Buddha. To treat good people, as long as we find shortcomings, we will be infinitely enlarged. When dealing with bad people, as long as we find an advantage, we should write a special book. The result is that good people are not good and bad people are not bad. Without right and wrong, people are not good or bad. This is philosophical relativism.
Those who do not want China to be good are best at this. They magnify the problem of patriots, and even if there are no problems, they should spread rumors and create problems, so that they can attack one point less than the others and generalize the whole. This is true for the Patriots themselves and for the Patriot groups. In the Anti Japanese actions in various places in 2012, a U-shaped lock mob who did not know what his views were was made into the label of “Chinese Patriot” by them, and he has still been biting.
They seize the real estate and bite Sima Nan, but their target is not Sima Nan alone. If we can completely deny Sima Nan through a real estate investment in the United States. They can deny the Patriot group by denying Sima Nan.
I am too familiar with their methods.
In addition to the repeated use of “generalizing the whole” over and over again, they are also inseparable from “double standards”.
For example, Hu Shi, who advocated that China give up resistance and invented “patriotic madness” during the war of resistance against Japan, treated the country hating party and its ancestors. Guo Moruo, who still returned to China after the July 7th incident and took part in the war of resistance against Japan, was smeared with various essays.
This time, they focused on Sima Nan’s real estate in the United States. However, I have never seen them question even one word about the “attitude” of rich people such as Pan Shiyi and his wife to purchase so many real estate in the United States. I’m not opposed to them looking for problems, but I really can’t understand their naked double standards. If there are double standards, there must be ghosts.
To what extent can the “double standards” of the “hate KMT” be achieved? It definitely challenges our imagination.
Without double standards, these people can not live a day. But serious people, who can so rely on double standards? What we Chinese stress is that we should not do to others what we do not want, or even be strict with ourselves and lenient to others.
Why was Sima Nan stared at with a magnifying glass? If he is also with the nationalist hate party, does he have any real estate in the United States? Will anyone still stare at him? Absolutely not. Because a patriotic person has a moral bottom line, and he does not disdain to attack his opponent by such a mean means, mainly to refute his views and criticize his mistakes, because he has this confidence. Few patriots pay attention to where they invest and keep their eyes on it. As long as they use a legitimate source of income, as long as the money can withstand the sunshine, as long as there is no original sin.
Just because Sima Nan does not follow their wave and hate his own country, and because he still dares to say no to privatization, and even focuses on the loss of state-owned assets in Lenovo’s restructuring, he must become a “thorn in the eye”, his problems must be enlarged, and he must create “problems” even if there are no problems. Why do you keep staring at whether he has been to the United States, whether his family members are in the United States, and whether he has real estate in the United States? Because they can’t defeat each other from the point of view, and they don’t have the confidence to refute their opponents, they like to resort to this kind of inferior way.
The problem with this method is not only inferior, but also extremely insidious.
They want to prevent more people from speaking for China through this kind of precision attack. According to their logic, people who live abroad, study in the west, have investments in the west, then have family members in the west, and even those who have been to the West are not qualified to speak for China. Otherwise, it is “anti American is work, going to the United States is life, and patriotism is business”.
As long as this public opinion atmosphere is formed, many patriotic people dare not speak for China any more. According to their logic, Tan Kah Kee is not qualified to love China.
They even want to go further. Patriotic people can not do business and can not make money legally. Otherwise, they are doing patriotic business and are pretending to be patriotic. The subtext is particularly insidious: patriotism has its original sin, and only those who have a hard economic life can be qualified to be patriotic.
Do you think you can be patriotic without money? I think too much. They also prepared a set of arguments: only the poor can be patriotic.
Always, in their eyes, patriotism is all kinds of wrong and all kinds of low.
In those years, they also treated the topic of road and system disputes in this way. As long as someone speaks for public ownership, a group of people will come out and say, you should donate your own house. As long as socialism is good, they will say, give me your salary.
On the contrary, they are extremely tolerant of people who share their own views. It is reasonable for the public to use the network influence established under the banner of “Mingzhu persimmon oil” to sell and bring goods online, and even publicize the food safety of Fukushima, Japan.
The logic and practice of the hate KMT is not brilliant, but there are still some people who seem normal in ordinary times, and they have turned them into abnormal people on this issue. You can’t say that these people are unpatriotic, but they agree that the influential people in the camp have a mania for cleanliness.
Just like Wang Ming, who demanded 100% Bolsheviks in those years, they were very strict with others. If they did not meet their standards, they would have to fight cruelly. Time has proved that those who ask others to be 100% Marxist have the lowest Marxist content.
Although they are fundamentally different from the Nationalist Party, this approach is not satisfactory.
During the war of resistance against Japan, many people, including some capitalists, landlords and bandits, who had such and such shortcomings in peacetime actively resisted Japan. Should such people be beaten to death and not allowed to resist Japan?
People have shortcomings, but when the country is in trouble, it shows the great cause of the nation.
Many Kuomintang generals are stained with the blood of our Party comrades, but they have a positive attitude and made outstanding contributions to the war of resistance against Japan. Chairman Mao and they still gave a fair evaluation.
Now, for example, arbor, who has gone to the United States, used to be a public figure with radical views in China. It is not very pleasant to see China. When I went to the United States, I began to write some articles that objectively reflected the United States. There were also some criticisms of the United States, and my views on China were much more fair. Although there are still some vacillations from time to time, we still can not judge him from the perspective of the past, and we should allow him to continue to objectively reflect the United States.
Seeking truth from facts, being dialectical and objective, it is easier to know than to do.
Of course, these remarks are ineffective against some diehard nationalist parties. To hate the KMT’s treatment of those who speak to China and socialism is to use a magnifying glass to find out their shortcomings, that is, they like to use the three indiscriminate methods. Because they can’t win from the point of view, they can only take the lead.
They often make themselves as if they were all morally perfect. As for Lei Feng, they are picky in every way. As for the five heroes of Langya Mountain, they emphasized that they had eaten the radish from the hometown. As for Mao anying’s sacrifice on the Korean battlefield, they spread rumors that they wanted to eat fried rice with eggs.
The problem of these people is not only whether they love or not, but also whether they have humanity and the bottom line of life.
To put it another way, if those people really want to invest in the United States, they can’t love China. It’s not impossible. They just need to do one thing: don’t engage in double standards. Since patriots can not invest and live in the United States, they should not invest and live in China if they hate the country. They should start with themselves.
Do you dare to hate the Kuomintang?
It is more meaningful to stare at Sima Nan than Hu Xijin, who claims to have no investment in the United States. The reason is that Hu Xijin continues to play a special key role in many hot issues:
When netizens began to expose Fang Fang’s diary, Hu Xijin was silent. When Fang Fang fell into a situation where everyone shouted at him, he came out and said that “Chinese society needs to accommodate the existence of Fang Fang’s diary”.
When Lenovo’s problems were fully exposed and widely questioned by netizens, he came out to speak to Lenovo.
This year, there was a period of rebound in the epidemic situation in China. During the critical period of fierce debate on the epidemic situation policy in the domestic public opinion field, he came out to openly and secretly criticize the dynamic zero policy.
On August 15, he wrote a short essay, saying that “there should be no room for kimonos in China’s open cities”. Ignoring the fact that the topic of “kimonos” often appeared near the sensitive time between China and Japan, he described an event that did not attract much attention on August 10 as a question of whether Chinese people were tolerant of wearing. He chose to ignite this topic on August 15, diluting the public opinion theme of this day.
Even if there is no investment in the United States as he said, such Hu Xijin deserves our attention.