

Oppose Stereotyped Party Writing
The first indictment against stereotyped Party writing is that it fills endless pages with empty verbiage. Some of our comrades love to write long articles with no substance, very much like the “foot-bindings of a slattern, long as well as smelly”. Why must they write such long and empty articles? There can be only one explanation; they are determined the masses shall not read them. Because the articles are long and empty, the masses shake their heads at the very sight of them. How can they be expected to read them? Such writings are good for nothing except to bluff the naive, among whom they spread bad influences and foster bad habits. … If articles are too long, who will read them? Some comrades at the front, too, like to write long reports. They take pains over writing them and send them here for us to read. But who has the hardihood to read them? If long and empty articles are no good, are short and empty ones any better? They are no good either. We should forbid all empty talk. But the first and foremost task is to throw the long, smelly foot-bindings of the slattern into the dustbin. Some may ask, “Isn’t Capital very long? What are we to do about that?” The answer is simple, just go on reading it. There is a proverb, “Sing different songs on different mountains”; another runs, “Fit the appetite to the dishes and the dress to the figure”. Whatever we do must be done according to actual circumstances, and it is the same with writing articles and making speeches. What we oppose is long-winded and empty stereotyped writing, but we do not mean that everything must necessarily be short in order to be good. True, we need short articles in war time, but above all we need articles that have substance. Articles devoid of substance are the least justifiable and the most objectionable. The same applies to speechmaking; we must put an end to all empty, long-winded speeches.
Read More »
A video capturing a few passionate young Americans confronting a former senior White House official Matthew Pottinger and being forcefully removed from the venue has recently made a splash across social media platforms in China and the US. According to José Vega, the 25-year-old American who was being dragged out of the venue violently, Pottinger made inflammatory remarks accusing China of instigating a potential World War III during his speech at a forum on security issues relating to the Taiwan Straits recently held in New York. Outraged by these false allegations, José and his friends Simon Miller and Robert Castle felt compelled to speak out against Pottinger’s divisive rhetoric.
Young Americans recount moments angrily rebuking anti-China politician at a forum
Previously:

Related:
This term refers to self-examination of one’s own words, deeds, and inner thoughts. Introspection is a way of moral cultivation put forward by Mencius (372?—289 BC). Mencius inherited the Confucian belief that one’s moral integrity and meritorious deeds are determined by his own ethical cultivation. If his words or deeds fail to gain endorsement or appreciation from others, one should not blame them. On the contrary, one should examine himself to find out if his words and deeds as well as inner thoughts conform to standards of ethics and propriety.
The World Economic Forum has outed itself as anti-Palestinian
A few months later, I received a letter indefinitely suspending my membership. My request for the reasons for my suspension and an appeal has gone completely ignored. So much for the values of “stakeholder capitalism” and “cooperation in a fragmented world” that WEF publicly espouses. More like racism, abuse of power, and lack of transparency. I have learned firsthand that some YGLs are informants leaking private communications directly to the WEF’s leadership. Feels more like an authoritarian regime that spies on its constituency and loathes free speech than a global forum. As for my former YGLs, only a handful of true leaders actually protested my suspension. The silence of the remaining supposed “young global leaders” was deafening, but in retrospect, I realize that their silence is expressive of the exact type of Machiavellian leadership that the WEF seeks to foster.
Related:
The World Economic Forum adheres to the principles of independence, impartiality, moral integrity and intellectual integrity.
[2021] Can we improve the world by remaining impartial?
What do you do when violent conflict erupts, innocent people get killed, and human rights are being violated? I believe any person with a heart and a moral compass would feel compelled to condemn the aggressors. Not doing so feels wrong on a moral level, and could raise the risk of further escalation. Are we misguided then, as an international institution, to not speak out unequivocally when conflicts emerge, and innocent people suffer? Are we “hiding” behind our impartiality?
[2022] Klaus Schwab and Børge Brende Statement on Ukraine
We therefore deeply condemn the aggression by Russia against Ukraine, the attacks and atrocities.
You must be logged in to post a comment.