On the day of the change of administration, China’s Foreign Ministry announced sanctions against 28 former Trump officials, including Pompeo, and no Democratic Party politicians, including Pelosi, who is passionate about human rights in China, praised the Hong Kong protests as “a beautiful scenery” and pushed for legislation on the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and Democracy in the House of Representatives. China clearly hates Trump with a passion, so it acted on the first day of its “old friend’s return.
China has sent its largest military aircraft to disturb Taiwan in days. Biden‘s State Department responded by saying the U.S. is “concerned about China’s continued attempts to intimidate Taiwan and urges Beijing to cease its military, diplomatic and economic pressure on Taiwan and instead engage in meaningful dialogue with Taiwan’s ‘elected representatives’.” “Elected representatives” rather than the government means not inheriting Pompeo’s policy of recognizing Taiwan as a political entity and repealing the code that restricts Washington officials from official contacts with Taiwan.
Social media continues to censor speech, and some media outlets that support the encroachment have switched channels. Some of the political commentators in Hong Kong know when to support Biden or wishful thinking, and the pinkos on China’s web pages have turned. In the comment section of my article, a netizen said, “Fifty cents and anti-infringement fans are working together, Mr. Li and others are being criticized and silenced, this page is frozen over water.
In the spirit of “I do not agree with you, but I defend to the death your right to speak” this freedom of speech guidelines, I never in social media to delete “friends” or messages, despite the contradictory views and suspicion of ill will. I ignored a leftist who kept staring at Tao Jie and my articles, bearing in mind Lu Xun’s teaching that “the highest contempt is to be speechless, and not even to turn one’s eyes away”. But the day before yesterday, some online media published a “plagiarist” who “exposed” my “suspected plagiarism”, and some readers who love me wanted me to explain, so I had to make a general response here.
I absolutely admit that I am a plagiarist, and I admit that I have been a habitual plagiarist for more than 60 years since I wrote my articles. When I was young, I wrote a series of small books on “Preliminary Social Science,” “Preliminary Psychology,” and “Preliminary Logic,” all of which were written by reading some large and indigestible works and taking their meaning and explaining them in layman’s terms. It is not necessary to say that all of them are plagiarism, without much opinion of their own. When I wrote a novel, it was also an imitation after reading many novels, just as Lu Xun wrote “Diary of a Madman” and even copied the title from Gogol. Naturally, when I wrote political commentaries, I also copied from the east and the west, incorporating the opinions of previous writers and then giving them my own spin.
Should I cite the source of my opinion? Sorry, please read academic papers. Since ancient times, fluent articles are written without attribution, those who know know, those who don’t know don’t know.
Some people used to say that the world’s articles are a big copy, because any article incorporates the ideas, experiences, and literary talents of others. It is not necessary to pay attention to who said the earliest on a certain issue, only to appreciate who wrote well. Confucius said that “the statement is not made, the letter and good ancient”, meaning to speak clearly and do not care about the first, faith and love of ancient traditions.
Seeing the ancient civilization of the United States, in the pursuit of non-discriminatory equality against common sense, and the corruption of power, money and sex, I never believe that Trump will win the election, but also the only way to adhere to the “letter and good ancient”, try to explain the ancient values of civilization. The reasoning is to explain where the reasoning of conservatism lies and whether it should be defended. Of course, the long-standing reasoning is plagiarism, not one’s own opinion.
Sometimes, when I read some long-winded but reasonable articles, I will digest them and play with them as I used to do when I wrote something “preliminary”. If you want to continue reading my plagiarism, please stay. Otherwise, please move to the page of Jumping Liang Left Gum.
When I was young, a former member of Ta Kung Pao taught me the “first rule of the media”, which is: never fight with a provocateur whose readership is less than yours and whose influence is lower than yours.
Someone asked Yu Guangzhong: “Li Ao finds fault with you every day, but you never respond, why is that?” Yu replied, “Scolding me every day shows that he can’t live without me; and I don’t pay attention, proving that my Life can be without him.” He is at least a Writer with talent and can write articles.
Today, I broke the “first law of the media”, so I will not make an example. The reason is that I pity the editors who use the shoddy articles of the jumping gangsters.
Recent Comments