Report on Hong Kong Nov1967

N O V E M B E R   1 9 6 7 by Maynard Parker http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/67nov/hk1167.htm Expecting the worst, the visitor returning to Hong Kong would marvel at its quiet, confident calm. There are no blackened hulks of buildings, no hateful stares such as mark the burned-out ghettos of a half dozen American cities. Indeed, the jewel of Britain's colonial empire seems to sparkle with all its luster. Ferries plow across a sapphire harbor crowded with ocean-going freighters, square-sailed junks, and deadly-looking U.S. warships just in from battering North Vietnam with their cannon and planes. A new generation of Suzie Wongs, more alluring than ever in their mini-cheongsams, still pester fuzzy-cheeked sailors to buy them "one more" tea (masquerading as whiskey). Suits can still be made in twenty-four hours, and shops with showcases bulging with gold, jade, cameras, and watches still offer the luxuries of the world at a fraction of the cost paid elsewhere. Thc Hong Kong of myth, legend, and travel poster lives on. Siege Only slowly does the realization seep in that Hong Kong is a city besieged by local Communist guerrillas. Ubiquitous gray Land Rovers filled with steel-helmeted riot police armed with tear gas and carbines constantly prowl the streets. Instead of their usual wares of Tientsin rugs and carved ivory, the colony's Communist Chinese stores now plaster their windows with pictures of British police brutality, with crepe-draped portraits of slain Communist agitators, and with Maoist slogans urging the city's four million Chinese to "paint Hong Kong red from the earth to the sky."

China itself has made no overt move toward the colony -- in fact, on at least a dozen occasions Chinese Army troops have actually held back mobs of mainland Chinese hopped up on Maoist brew. But months of agitation, which has slowly escalated from labor strikes to militant demonstrations to violent riots and armed terrorist attacks, have clearly signaled the beginning of a Maoist "people's war" against the British in their own colony. The British fight with more than 12,000 police and 10,000 soldiers to preserve both the political status quo and extraordinary economic prosperity through a campaign maintaining law and order. Sortieing out from their liberated areas -- Communist storefronts, union halls, and newspaper offices, fortified with food and water and iron grills on the doors -- the Communists retaliate with propaganda, rumors, terror, labor strikes, and economic reprisals directed both against the British and against the great mass of non-Communist Chinese. Their hope is not so much to defeat the British in the streets or to force Hong Kong's Chinese through fear alone to join their side (although they dream of both), but to convince both committed and uncommitted that the British no longer have the stamina to hold on. A Labor government which only recently announced its intention of liquidating the entire British presence east of Suez by 1975 should probably not think twice about the disposal of Hong Kong should the colony cease to be economically self-sufficient. Communist laissez-faire When Hong Kong's riots first erupted in May, the reaction of the colony's residents was much the same as that of Detroit's or Newark's citizens: "How could it happen here?'' For despite the looming shadow of China, Hong Kong had always coexisted peacefully with its neighbor. China's tacit friendship was based not on love, but money. Far from creating trouble in the colony, China used its laissez-faire spirit to grub for money like any common capitalist. Although Hong Kong's Communists did operate through an intricate web which included various labor unions, newspapers, schools, and farm organizations, their main goal has always been to use the colony to earn hard foreign currency for China. To accomplish this capitalistic mission, the Communists over a period of eighteen years built up a vast network of more than 300 businesses and banks in the colony. They operated travel agencies offering tours to China, retail and wholesale grocery stores selling China's foodstuffs, department and jewelry stores peddling China's manufactures and gems, and wholesale trading companies hawking China's products to the world's buyers. Each year these hustling Communist capitalist enterprises poured more than $500 million into the Communists' most important economic organization in the colony, the bank of China. Together with $85 million in remittances collected from overseas Chinese, the bank each year transmitted to Peking more than half of China's foreign exchange. It was this immense annual profit for China which provided Hong Kong residents with sufficient confidence in the dragon next door to give birth to the colony's staggering post-war prosperity. "China will not lay a finger on Hong Kong," it used to be said, "as long as Hong Kong is useful to China." Why, then, did Hong Kong's Communists take to the streets this spring, killing the goose that laid their golden eggs and ending, probably for all time, the peaceful and profitable alliance between Hong Kong's Communist and capitalist citizens? The answer lies with Hong Kong's two neighbors, China and Macao. In China, Mao Tse-tung's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution had unleashed thousands of Red Guards to purge those opposed to his leadership. Looking and listening over the border through the eyes and ears of Radio Peking, Hong Kong's nine Communist newspapers, and the tales of returning comrades, Hong Kong's Communist leaders grew increasingly fearful. They realized that had they been living in China they would have been quickly branded as "revisionists," publicly humiliated, and purged. All rubbed hands with the capitalists each day; for all, profit was the key concern. Most important, all were named to their Hong Kong posts by the disgraced Tao Chu and the "revisionist" president of China, Liu Shao-chi. Thus, this spring, as the reverberations from the Cultural Revolution grew ever louder, the colony's Communist leaders frantically searched for a way to proclaim themselves true Maoists, to prove their revolutionarv purity, and to forestall their own purge and possible recall to China. In Macao, they had their answer. Many China-watchers in Hong Kong had long confidently proclaimed that one of the main effects of the Culrural Revolution was to take China's mind off any foreign adventures. But the blatant Chinese Communist chauvinism which the Cultural Revolution exposed, coupled with the desire of overseas pro-Peking Communists to proclaim their ardor for Mao, doomed the countries on China's rim to an eventual spillover of the Cultural Revolution. Thus, in December, 1965, when Portuguese authorities refused to allow a group of Macanese Communists to build a school, hordes of young teen-agers fitted themselves out with red armbands and red books and poured onto the streets. In a series of bloody clashes, abetted by the bungling of Portugal's colonial police, Macao's Red Guards won a string of unexpected and unhoped-for victories which abrogated Portugal's authority in the colony in all but the most routine of official matters. Looking to Macao and eager to prove their Maoist orthodoxy, the leader of the Party's infrastructure in the colony wondered whether they could pull a Macao in Hong Kong. Their chance to try came in early May when two labor unions with justified grievances called strikes against a plastic flowers factory and a cement plant and the workers marched off their jobs. Members of both unions -- one Communist and one non-Communist -- waved Mao's books and recited his quotations as they picketed. Although the colony's Communists moved very slowly in exploiting the revolutionary possibilities of these strikes, in one case taking five days to notice the Maoist workers, they finally picked up the workers' rallying cry and hurried their cadres, unionists, and striking employees into the street against the superbly trained British riot police. "People's War," with its riots, labor strikes, psychological warfare, terror, and assassination, had come to Hong Kong. But, strangely enough, it proved to be a "people's war" without people, and this alone has kept the British from having another Aden on their hands. For the most remarkable fact about the Communist effort has been its complete failure to spark a responsive chord in Hong Kong's Chinese. Unlike Burma, Cambodia, and Nepal, where Maoism has burst the bounds of the Chinese Embassy, Hong Kong is a Chinese city; it is a colony, and it is contiguous to China. It should be ripe for revolution. Yet, throughout the entire summer, the Communists have found few compatriots at the barricades. At the most, they have turned out about 5000 supporters, and as more and more of these have deserted the ranks, the Communists have been forced to pay bums, teddy boys, and sacked striking workers in order to put rioters into the streets. Peking's caution Much of the reason for the Communist failure to win mass support lies with the apparent reluctance of Communist China to come to the aid of Hong Kong's Maoists. If Hong Kong's opportunistic Chinese thought the People's Liberation Army would invade the colony tomorrow, they would be on the streets with Mao's books today. However, Peking has shown little relish for getting more directly involved in the fray than with its now depleted $10 million grant for bankrolling strikes, and the endless babble of propaganda from Radio Peking. The only cheap little victory it can claim after months of huffing and puffing is the burning of the British legation in Peking after the Hong Kong government refused to release a handful of Communist newspaper reporters jailed for leading Communist mobs in the colony's streets. No one knows exactly why China is playing the paper tiger. Certainly the current hysteria China is fomenting has erased any thought that it might call off a confrontation in order to maintain its economic interests in the colony. Some Hong Kong China-watchers believe Peking has not intervened directly because it fears a secret joint security agreement between Great Britain and the United States for the defense of Hong Kong. Others believe that the administrative and political resources of the PLA have been stretched so thin by the demands of the Cultural Revolution that it simply lacks either the energy or the desire to take the city. A more likely reason for China's failure to take an active part in the Hong Kong disturbances, however, can be found in the pure Maoist theology generated by the Cultural Revolution. To a Maoist, a revolutionary Communist can find true salvation only by liberating himself from the yoke of imperialism by the application and rote learning of Mao's thoughts. As one of Hong Kong's newspapers put it, "We should depend upon ourselves to liberate ourselves." Hong Kong can thus come into Mao's grace only by liberating itself from within. To Peking, the task of local Communists was not to sit back and call for help from across the border, but to be Marxist missionaries for Mao, carrying the gospel to Hong Kong's heathen Chinese materialists. Almost as remarkable as the Communists' failure to wage "People's War" has been the improvised brilliance of the normally lethargic British colonial government. Some observers attribute it simply to British unflappability and others to the reasonable responses of a bureaucracy; whatever, a government made up of the remnants of a defunct British colonial service has faultlessly countered every Communist strike, rumor, and riot. In doing so, as much by propaganda as by police work, the British have coolly driven a deep wedge between the hard-core Maoists and the supporters they so desperately need, Hong Kong's Chinese. Stiff upper lip The Communists had hoped to mobilize this potential mass of support by turning a Maoist confrontation against the British into a Chinese confrontation against the British. To deny the Communists a bloody incident upon which to rally the people, the government has consistently used a minimum of police force and used it only after it has succeeded in obtaining an LBJ-style consensus of "all the people." The play of each new action has contained three acts, not two. Instead of the Communists acting and the government reacting, the government has allowed the Communists to act, waited patiently for the public to demand action, and only then moved against the Maoists with the applause of the community ringing in their ears. Even during the worst of the rioting, in late July, the police initially employed only wooden projectile guns and tear gas to oppose rampaging mobs waving iron bars and heaving Molotov cocktails. The government waited patiently for two days until citizens, from street hawker to taipan, were demanding police action. With public opinion solidified behind them, the police finally acted. Slapping a curfew on the city for two succesive nights, they opened fire with carbines and shotguns and began a series of raids on Communist union halls and stores which are still continuing. The government's campaign to discredit the Maoists has been rendered easier by the fact that, except for the nine Communist newspapcrs (three of which the government has closed down), it controls most of the public media either directly or indirectly. It operates one radio station and supplies the news for the other. Although none of the thirty non-Communist newspapers are owned by the government, most publishers belong to the establishment and rarely rock the boat. Few have reported anything but the government line, and during the worst days of rioting, some did not even bother to send reporters out on the street: they simply ripped the news off the Government Information Service's ticker in their offices. With such a pablum press, the Hong Kong resident ends up reading only what the government wants him to read. For the moment, British propaganda and police work have carried the day, but the battle remains far from over. Small-scale riots still break out intermittently; terrorist attacks against public buildings and government employees grow in intensity; within the last weeks more than 1500 bombs have been planted. Although most have been duds, some have exploded, and civilian casualties from bombings have become a new fact of life in Hong Kong. Business bust To a certain extent the Communist agitation has already taken its toll. Business investment in the colony has nearly stopped. Major industrial firms have decided to build new factories elsewhere, usually in Taiwan or South Korea. The flow of dollars, which used to run $3 million a day, from overseas Chinese through Hong Kong's free money market has ebbed to a trickle. The colony's tourist business, which usually is its second largest moneymaker after textiles, has dropped off considerably as frightened travelers stay away. Hong Kong's luxury hotels have sealed off entire floors for lack of guests and one banker predicts "more bankruptcies in the tourist shops in the next six months than in all of Hong Kong's previous history." Businessmen sadly tell each other over their pink gins that "the skyline is still the same," alluding to the unpleasant fact that Hong Kong's perpetual building boom has come to an unplanned stop. Even if the Communists were to call off their struggle tomorrow, it seems unlikely that business confidence in Hong Hong would ever return to its pre-May abundance. As one businessman put it, "It's like having a wife you thought was faithful and then finding that she's cheated. She claims it will never happen again, but you can never trust her as completely as before.'' For the riots have forced those who live in the colony to face the unpleasant reality that although the anomaly of Hong Kong may have a number of lives, it will not live forever. Underscoring this new awareness of the city's precariousness have been the privately reiterated statements of colonial officials in Hong Kong that Britain will leave as soon as it becomes convinced that Hong Kong's Chinese no longer desire British rule. As one said, "Once they indicate [presumably through prolonged, massive, and widespread rioting] they want us out, we will leave. We have no imperial, colonial, strategic, or commercial reason for remaining even if Hong Kong were defensible.'' It has not been, however, the realization that Britain might leave before its lease on most of the colony expires in 1997, but the circumstances of how the British will depart that has most disturbed Hong Kong's Chinese, especially the middle class. Until now, most of these people have contemplated only two alternatives: British rule or Chinese rule following a People's Liberation Army march across the border. Upon these two alternatives they have laid plans either to run for it or to stay. Now in the wake of Macao and the colony's current troubles has come the unsettling revelation that a third alternative exists: a twilight status where there would be a sphere of British control and a sphere of Cormmunist Chinese control with a vast, no-man's-land in the area of law and order, where the capriciousness of Red Guard mob rule might decide the issues in the streets. Even those Chinese who might have welcomed an outright Chinese take-over are not prepared to live in such a continual purgatory. Those who can are trying to get out. Visa applications at the Nationalist Chinese, Canadian, and other consulates whose countries encourage Chinese immigration have shot up 330 per cent. The consulates have long since run out of printed forms and have had to mimeograph additional applications. Although the percentage of Chinese leaving is minute, those who are leaving are the very people -- doctors, dentists, architects, and scientists -- whose departure most hurts the colony. For the great masses of Chinese, however, born in Hong Kong and without passport or profession, emigration from Hong Kong is not a possibility. They must stay.

『轉』 - 《弟子規奴性思想實質與違背華夏文明內容淺析》

我們都知道，後兩千多年曆代中國人學的儒家是刪減+修改版，如果還原真實的儒家與真正的孔學絕對會讓人們“驚呆了”。但這裡要談的不是什麼良儒與腐儒犬儒之爭，真儒與假儒之辯，而是另一個所謂的“國寶”之稱的《弟子規》。

為什麼有這麼多人擁護《弟子規》？

原作者李毓秀是清朝康熙年間的秀才。我們都知道滿清入關滅了中華後，推崇儒學（腐儒派，也就是假儒家）作為國術統治漢人。 

如果說培養情懷，陶冶情操，《詩經》可謂性情之真，《論語》可謂性情之正。然而卻有很多人“棄論語而就弟子規”，甚至在我們說“論語更加純正經典”的時候，他們會一貫地以“論語小孩子看不懂，弟子規能看懂”為由予以回應。

 雖然很多學者指出吹捧《弟子規》是“奴性入骨”的表現，然而這麼一個定義是沒法解決問題的，我們的問題是——該如何說服、改變、甚至拯救“毒性入骨”的人、又該如何防止我們在其他事情上犯與他們相似的錯誤。或者問題可以歸結為： 

弟子規之流的奴性思維，其思想核心究竟在哪兒？ 
奴性思維是怎麼借《弟子規》成為可能的？ 
為什麼會存在“弟子規能看懂，而論語看不懂”的觀點？ 

我們翻閱《論語》，再對比《弟子規》，可以很明顯地看出兩者的區別：論語對“道德”只有舉例式的概括描述，而很少有明確細化的行為要求。更多的是“君子是什麼樣的人”、“君子能夠如何如何”、“做到如何如何，可以稱之為君子”這樣的表達。然而《弟子規》則與之完全相反，其中有許多諸如“在某特定場合下，該先乾什麼，再乾什麼，不該干什麼”這樣的及其詳細、及其明確的近乎法律條文式的行為要求。 

或者可以打比方說，假如一個人希望走路的樣子顯得好看，他去看《論語》，會看到很多諸如“走路好看的人常常乾些什麼事”；“能做到如何如何的人走路會好看”這樣的敘述。而去看《弟子規》，則會看到諸如“走路每步要跨25厘米；平均每秒跨0.8步；每次抬腿的角度為50度”這樣的詳細明確的要求。 

換言之，我們可以得到一個結論：《論語》更注重啟發教育，通過描述一個個鮮活的場景、記敘一段段溫潤的語句來啟發人們對道德、對人格的思考與追求，並以此培養人們舉一反三、如切如磋的思維能力與思辨精神。而《弟子規》則開門見山地針對很多現實情境直截了當地給出明確詳細的答案，甚至強調這個答案是“聖人訓”從而防止了人們反思答案是否正確。 

《論語》授人以漁，《弟子規》授人以魚。然而人在得到了道德上的“魚”之後，是很難再去尋求道德上的“漁”的。也就是說：《弟子規》將一種社會問題轉變成了另一種社會問題：將“喪失道德底線”這一問題轉變成了“喪失道德反思”這一問題。相比前者，後者的問題更加可怕。這就是開篇提到的為什麼有人說“弟子規能看懂，論語看不懂”的原因。 

寫到這裡，開篇另兩個問題的答案也就很明顯了： 

弟子規的擁護者們，大多沒有“自由之思想”，沒有“獨立之人格”，沒有“理性的力量”。遇到問題不情願獨立思考，不願通過自己的思維處理問題，而是希望直接從外界得到答案，甚至不會去反思得到的答案是否正確合理，而他們的這一特點在人生、道德這樣的重大問題上表現得更加明顯。可悲的是，《弟子規》恰恰又迎合了他們的這一特點——就人生問題直接給出答案，甚至通過強調自己的權威性（聖人訓）來讓人覺得其接近真理，不用再反思。 

培養“理性的力量”是很難的，然而自甘墮落不再獨立思考是很容易的。加之一些社會組織有目的地推廣《弟子規》，於是弟子規擁護者的人數便如爆炸一般迅速增長。在增長的同時，這部分人也很難接受自己理念上的僵化與奴性。

自由之思想，獨立之人格，理性的力量。  

《大學》有言：“致知，靠格物”。 

共勉。 

【附1：弟子規推廣組織的理論邏輯探究】 
《弟子規》一書中，除了流水線式的道德行為外，還有很強的奴性與順民思想，而這些是與崇尚人格平等的儒家思想完全違背的。可是當代弟子規教育者們則又通過諸如“弟子規是儒家的根”、“弟子規每一條都做到了就是聖人的境界”等概念強化其書的負面影響。

然而很可笑的是，當我們指出其問題的時候，弟子規教育者與推崇者們便會用弟子規內容中所涉及的部分道德行為的正當性來掩飾辯解。 
任何教義都有其發展完善的過程。某些社會組織在有目的地推廣弟子規的同時時也粉飾強化了“《弟子規》與《論語》道德一致性”的依據，使其具備了更強的理論迷惑性與洗腦效果。 
【一】、“弟子規只是啟蒙讀物，兒童長大了會去思考，去改變。” 
這是典型地照搬了“先授人以魚，再授人以漁”的經驗：認為《弟子規》是魚，《論語》等書是漁，人在得到魚之後會漸漸地求漁。在得到具體教條之後便會漸漸地尋找並反思其精神依據。

然而道德上的“魚”是沒法“吃光”的，所以得到《弟子規》這條“魚”的人也就沒有“緣魚求漁”的必要性與迫切性。更何況，《弟子規》通篇沒有任何啟發讀者反思其道德依據的語句，甚至開篇“聖人訓”這樣的權威性指示又否決了人們“因魚求漁”的必要性。而在弟子規教育者們“弟子規是儒家的根”、“弟子規每一條都做到了就是聖人的境界”等話的引導下，實現道德反思就更加困難了。所以諸如“弟子規只是啟蒙讀物，兒童長大了會去思考”這樣的話是站不住腳的。【二】、“《論語》與《弟子規》的關係就是“知”與“行”的關係，是不可分開的。”

這裡借助了一個未明確說出的邏輯前提：“《論語》是知，《弟子規》是行”，然後用“知行合一”的觀念將《論語》與《弟子規》聯繫起來。

然而“《論語》是知，《弟子規》是行”這一隱藏的邏輯前提本身就是不成立的。 《弟子規》對做人處事做出了詳細甚至苛刻的明確要求，這並不代表其能作為“行”；《論語》重視啟發式教育，重視思辨教育，也並不代表其只是“知”。

更何況，即便“《論語》是知，《弟子規》是行”，從兩書在教育理念上截然相反的態度來看，兩者也絕不屬於同一理念上的“行”和“知” 。也就是說兩者甚至根本不具備行知理念上的一致性，把兩者放在一起屬於主觀臆斷，強加關聯。 
【三】、“《弟子規》與《三字經》都是很好的啟蒙讀物，以前的人在讀，沒有人說三道四，反而現在去說，真是不可理喻。” 
其一，這裡存在一個很明顯的概念暗示，即“《弟子規》與《三字經》性質相同”，這是很明顯的錯誤。 《三字經》對於父母、子女兩方的義務都有很明確的敘述，“人格獨立”、“人格平等”的思想在三字經中多有表達。而《弟子規》則只側重一點：通過服從、隱忍、阿Q精神達到其所謂的“對人盡善”的教旨。當然這裡的“善”並非儒家文化所提倡的善。

其二，《三字經》自宋代​​產生起直到清代，其一直與《百家姓》、《千字文》並列為三大啟蒙讀物。而《弟子規》雖產生自滿清，可清人也幾乎鮮有以《弟子規》作啟蒙讀物的。 《弟子規》的興起僅僅是十幾年間的事。若論及真正的啟蒙讀物，可以考證的有《三字經》、《百家姓》、《千字文》、《幼學瓊林》、《龍文鞭影》。

【四】、“現實社會還是普通人多，老百姓只想吃飽飯，孝敬父母，養育兒女，弟子規正為此爾。如果大家都講求思辨精神了，那誰還來掃大街，誰來工廠上班？”

這裡默認了“職業有高低之分”的觀念以及“普通人不需要思辨精神”的觀念。並偷換概念，隱藏了“有思辨精神的人不願意從事掃大街等勞動”這一邏輯前提。

孟子曾說過：“君之視臣如手足，則臣視君如腹心；君之視臣如犬馬，則臣視君如國人；君之視臣如土芥，則臣視君如寇仇。”其含義便是——不同的人即便在職業方面有主序之分，在人格上也是自由而平等的。

這一觀點在當今社會方面同樣適用——職業確實是不同的，然而從事不同職業的人，其人格精神都應該是獨立、自由而平等的！ 《伍子胥逃亡》、《信陵君竊符救趙》中，即便是一位漁夫、一位看門老兵，都能擁有偉大的人文情懷——而這不正是我們所嚮往追求的人格關係嗎？所以“有思辨精神的人不願意從事掃大街等勞動”這類事本身就是不可能發生的。

這麼說來，“'授人以漁'的教育在現在的社會是否能夠實現”這樣的實踐性問題應該是能引起爭論的唯一理由了，因為其可行性與不可行性的理由都基於目前的社會現狀——社會現狀是複雜的，所以“可行”與“不可行”的觀點都能在現實中找到依據。然而社會發展走向的可操作性也是很強的，畢竟路在腳下，大有可為！

【附2：弟子規內容違背儒家思想例證示例】

【一】：《十三經註疏》：“於禮有不孝者三，事謂阿意曲從，陷親不義，一不孝也。”意思是說：有三種不孝，如果一味地順從父母，就是陷親人於不義，是最大的不孝。

《弟子規》“父母呼，應勿緩。父母命，行勿懶。父母教，須敬聽。父母責，須順承”一段意謂順從，與儒家思想違背。當然弟子規中也有規勸父母的內容，在“二”中詳解。

【二】：《論語》：“父父子子”。意思是說：父親要有個父親樣，才有資格要求兒子做得像個兒子。 《三綱》：“父為子綱，父不慈，子奔他鄉”。意思是說：父親是子女的表率，如果父親做得不像個父親，子女可以離開。

《弟子規》“親有過，諫使更。怡吾色，柔吾聲”一段，尤其是“諫不入，悅复諫。號泣隨，撻無怨”這裡形成了一個“父母有錯，只能不斷地規勸父母改，如果父母不改​​，除了順從之外別無他法”的奴性邏輯。與儒家思想相違背。

【三】：《論語》：“或曰：'以德報怨，何如？'子曰：'何以報德？以直報怨，以德報德。'”意思說：有人問孔子“以德報怨”怎麼樣。孔丘直接否定：如果用德來報怨了，那麼用什麼報德呢？所以要用正直報怨，用德來報德。

《弟子規》“恩欲報，怨欲忘。報怨短，報恩長”一段強調“以德報怨”，為孔子直接否定的觀念，與儒家思想相違背。

【四】：《荀子》“從道不從君，從義不從父，人之大行也”，意思說，應該讓行為符合道義，而不是讓行為迎合上級或長輩，這才是人真正應該追求的。

《弟子規》：“親所好，力為具。親所惡，謹為去”一段，沒有涉及“親所好的東西違背了道德該如何”的討論，然而結合“二”中所述，如果“親之所好，不合道德”卻又不願意改正，那麼依舊要順從。這裡對長輩的逢迎與順從很是明顯，與儒家思想相違背。

【五】：《論語》“志士仁人，無求生以害仁，有殺生以成仁”，《孟子》“天下有道，以道殉身；天下無道，以身殉道”，《大學》“平天下”。意思就是，見義勇為，路見不平，拔刀相助。

《弟子規》：“不關己，莫閒管”。這是孤立主義的態度。





王希賢批評《弟子規》 
首先我要講的就是什麼是中國文化？準確來講是在明代以前，我給你舉幾個人物，你看這些人物是什麼人？子路、子貢是不是豪俠之士？再看這個《史記》裡頭記載的人物，《史記》裡頭最讚揚的，是像項羽這樣的豪俠之士吧，是不是？像漢武帝手下的衛青、霍去病，霍去病是不是任俠之人士？像“荊軻刺秦”當中的荊軻，是不是也是俠客，整個故事裡面就是歌頌了一種俠義精神。你不要把荊軻解釋為抗日英雄，其實荊軻不見得就是燕國人，但就是為燕太子丹一句話，“拋頭顱，撒熱血我乾了”！這在中國古代是很普遍、很普遍的。如果你們還不信，你就看一下李白的詩，杜甫的詩，岑參的詩，是不是這風格啊？你再看看武則天，武則天是《弟子規》教育出的人物嗎？武則天當了皇帝還跟和尚談戀愛，《弟子規》可以規得住她嗎？規不住。漢武帝你能規的住嗎？你總不能說這些人就全是壞蛋吧？更不能說這些人和中華民族沒有關係……不能這麼講吧，對不對？李白、杜甫的豪邁精神什麼地方合乎《弟子規》啊？屈原什麼地方合乎《弟子規》啊？蘇東坡什麼地方合於《弟子規》啊？就是曹雪芹也不合於《弟子規》啊？曹雪芹是貴族出身，一天到晚醉酒淋淋，沒有錢的時候借錢也要喝酒。你再看一下魏晉的竹林七賢，及稽康，陶淵明諸人……，你給我舉一個在唐以前有《弟子規》作風的人，我就服了你了，一個都沒有。那說明什麼呢，那就是說明那全不是中國人？那都不是中國文化？能這樣講嗎？不能這麼講啊。那就是說只有康熙是中國人？對不對？康熙是，順治都不是中國人。為什麼？順治都搞戀愛了，皇帝都搞戀愛了。他算什麼中國人？那就是說《弟子規》裡沒有中國人，那就是中國沒人。只有康熙是人？乾隆也不是人，乾隆也是花花公子。是不是這樣的道理？康熙也不是，幾十個老婆，怎麼是《弟子規》呢？哪個中國人是《弟子規》啊。 
我們不講道理，我們就說事實，白居易是《弟子規》嗎？李商隱是《弟子規》嗎？王維是《弟子規》嗎？六祖惠能合這個《弟子規》嗎？你看六祖惠能的禪​​宗，就是當時廟裡的和尚，他也不按《弟子規》幹。我不知道《弟子規》從哪裡蹦出來的？他和中國文化有關係沒有關係？司馬遷是不是《弟子規》？不是。你從我們能夠找到的世間人，我們現在可以數到的我們的祖宗。如果按《弟子規》來說，周文王、周武王都是壞蛋，有弒君之罪嘛。因為商紂王是他們的皇帝嘛，他們是諸候，最後諸候把皇帝宰了，這合乎《弟子規》嗎？不合乎《弟子規》啊。那最後誰都不是《弟子規》了。那讓我們學什麼呢？我們是向周文王學習，周武王學習，向孔子學習，孔子也不是《弟子規》啊。大家知道孔子怎么生的嗎？那就是說孔子也不合乎《弟子規》。孔子的爸爸本身就不合乎《弟子規》。對不對？所以我說《弟子規》我看不懂。我學問太淺。我反正在中國找不出有幾個民族的精英是合於《弟子規》的。唐太宗也不合乎《弟子規》，為什麼呢？他把哥哥弟弟都殺了，如果唐太宗不合乎《弟子規》？誰合乎？劉邦、項羽、張良、陳平也不合，沒有合《弟子規》的人。這就說明《弟子規》是偽文化、偽國學。《弟子規》是在一個什麼樣的歷史條件下產生的呢？ 《弟子規》產生在清代康熙年間，是一個永遠都考不上舉人的一個窮秀才，閒得沒事，在自己家裡寫的一個東西，現在能讓我們當經典一樣的讀，太可怕了。我告訴大家我們不說他的內容，他的文字和《三字經》就沒有辦法比，拙劣到了極點，全部是語病。 《弟子規》的語病我可以挑出二百個。 
我們給我們的孩子們背誦的東西全部是語病！可怕不可怕？你們都是當教師的人，你怎麼可以選有語病的作品做範文呢？而且還要作為經典讓人背誦，這不是害人嗎？不是我貶低它。我仔細看了，都是病句。至於理論上、概念上的混亂就更厲害，盜用概念，偷換概念，無處不是。中華文化到了康熙以後，有一個巨大的變革，如果大家不信可以觀察歷史。在清朝，除了《紅樓夢》以外，《紅樓夢》那是經典的絕世大作，除了《紅樓夢》以外，你們可以舉任何一部作品和明代的所有的文學藝術比較一下，沒有一部超過明代的。 《金瓶梅》、《牡丹亭》、《三國》、《水滸》、《西遊記》……對不對？這些作品都可以說是明代的曠世傑作。清朝除了《紅樓夢》還有什麼？ 《桃花扇》是清初的人寫的，孔尚任接受的是明代的教育。為什麼到了清代中國的文化凋敝到如此的地步？兩個原因，滿清人是一個游牧部族，他到了內地來了，他是有軟硬兩手的。因為清朝的統治者不懂中國的文化，他就照搬了一些中華文化的皮毛，然後作為治國大方針。你比如說，當時的科舉定下來，只能按朱熹註解的《四書五經》作為標準答案，任何其他的不能搞。我們說朱熹老先生在中國國學上有碩大的功勞，但是他沒有老、莊、孔、孟博大的精神。他生存的時代是中國社會、中國文化開始急速下滑的時代，他是一個北宋到南宋的人，也是中國的經濟、政治大幅度衰落的時代。面對這種情況，他就沒有了當年孔、孟、老、莊博大豪放的精神。 “子在川上曰：逝者如斯夫！” “朝聞道，夕死可矣”。孔孟精神，你在朱熹身上找不到了。諸位讀經要看經文當中反映出來的聖賢心態。那種豪放、博大、包容，胸懷天下，心包太虛的精神，到了朱熹這裡蕩然無存了。雖然說做學問，朱老先生沒得說，但是他自己已經沒有那種氣魄了。所以，他的“朱注”是有很多問題的。這些問題表明是他骨子裡面的問題。但是到了清代獨尊他一家。再一個就是清代的殘酷的文字獄。清朝的文字獄絕對厲害，不知道殺了多少人。中國的國學在這個時代遭到了沉重的打擊。 
在這個時期還有一股思潮，就是所謂的顧炎武、黃遵憲思潮，這是清初明末來總結明朝滅亡的教訓的一批人。明朝有一個非常偉大的大師叫做王陽明，也是中國最後一位國學大師。王陽明當時的學說在晚明佔有絕對的統治地位，但是明朝後來亡了，這就是你們在《桃花扇》裡看到的，《桃花扇》裡面的人物吳次尾、侯朝宗，包括李香君，男的女的身上都有王陽明的精神，如果你看《桃花扇》，看不懂這一點，就白費了。他們都有王陽明的精神，是很值得歌頌的一批人。但是，在當時人顧炎武在總結的時候，說明朝之亡是亡於“心學”。一天到晚談心說性，沒有用在治國上，所以不要再搞“心學”了。正是由於這樣的歷史背景，使得中國的國學在康、雍、乾時代來了一百八十度的大轉彎。今天全中國大學教授所說的國學，實際上是清朝的國學，主要是考據之學，和王陽明時期的國學​​和朱熹時代的國學，乃至中國古代的國學是有非常大的差距的。清朝已經不准人有自由的思想了，也不准你有創造力了。怎麼辦？就鑽到古書堆裡面去考證，以為除了這個以外就沒有國學了。王陽明一直就在講“心”，用心，這個傳統在整個清代就沒有了。正是由於這個歷史背景下，為了符合於一個非常落後的民族的馬背王朝的皇帝，這就出籠了這麼一本《弟子規》。如果說《弟子規》說的內容很重要，那麼就應該是由孔子來寫，孔子沒有寫。在他的《論語》當中也沒有說類似《弟子規》的話,風馬牛不相及。曾子應該寫，曾子也沒有寫。孟子根本就沒有想到要寫這些東西。董仲舒照理說應該寫，董仲舒也沒有寫這些東西。儒學集大成者是朱熹，他也沒有想過要寫這些東西。為什麼偏偏在康熙時代，連一個舉人都考不上的秀才，讓他來寫呢？這種人能夠製作經典嗎？能夠製作範文嗎？ 
有人要從古書堆裡把這些東西翻出來是什麼意思？那就是說有兩種中國文化，一種典型代表是康、雍、乾的中國文化，最後把中國人就調教成了走一走，搖三搖，每個人後面拖著尾巴的孔乙已。能讓中國人再回到那種文化去嗎？如果中國人再回到那種文化去，八國聯軍又該來了，日本人又該來了，現在八國聯軍只能在他們國家砸我們的奧運聖火，絕對不敢到中華人民共和國來動我們一根毫***、太宗身上有沒有《弟子規》的東西？如果他們也是讓《弟子規》培養出來的，中華人民共和國現在能這樣嗎？把《弟子規》當經典傳誦，不管是古往今來從哪裡講，都沒有道理。 
一個人沒有道德，不是告訴他“什麼是道德”，他就可以做到有道德的。當一個人沒有高雅的情操的時候，你教給他道德也無用。如果純是教給他道德，等於教給規矩，那是馴獸也可以辦到的，也應該作的事。你家養了一個寵物，你也可以告訴他一些動作，動物也可以做到，這就是《弟子規》的教育。 
如果人與人之間老是算計那就不是“童心”。你是高人，我尊重你，你是領導，我要討好你……，這就是《弟子規》教的主要內容啊。我告訴你，這一套完全是日本人的教育，現在有人想藉《弟子規》搬到中國來。最後我稍帶著講一下《弟子規》，《弟子規》我概括為四個問題： 
1、文字粗糙，不堪為小孩閱讀的典範。你把《弟子規》和《三字經》對比一下，大不一樣。 《弟子規》和《三字經》是不能比的，《三字經》有一條，基本沒有語病。“人之初，性本善。性相近，習相遠。苟不教，性乃遷。教之道，貴以專。昔孟母，擇鄰處。子不學，斷機杼。竇燕山，有義方。教五子，名俱揚。”沒有語病。 
我們接下來看《弟子規》，“人問誰，對以名，吾與我，不分明”，這個是不是病句？什麼叫“不分明”？不能說“你是誰”，“我是我”。這叫“不分明”？他的表達是有問題的，這叫語病。吾與我“不分明”，說的什麼意思？吾就是我，我就是吾，怎麼叫“不分明”？這個“不分明”與“人”和“誰”之間，怎麼個關係？語言上沒有邏輯，像這種語言在漢語裡面叫做語病，《弟子規》這樣的語病比比皆是。 
“聞過怒，聞譽樂，損友來，益友卻”到底應該“聞過怒”呢還是不該“聞過怒”呢？ “聞過怒”對不對？ “聞譽樂，損友來，益友卻”到底要表達什麼？ “聞過怒”對嗎？也沒有說對，也沒有說不對。聞譽樂你也沒有說清，下面接著說“損友來，益友卻”互相之間有什麼邏輯關係，可以這麼解釋，也可以那麼解釋。語言的準確性是第一位的。這種語言怎麼能作為典範教給孩子們？你自己就沒有交代明白。 “聞過怒，聞譽樂，損友來，益友卻，聞譽恐，聞過欣，直諒士，漸相親”。文字太拗口了，可能我的水平太低，我理解不了。怎麼可以這麼說話，太彆扭了，是人話嗎？

“過能改，歸於無，倘掩飾，增一辜”什麼叫“歸於無”啊？實際上我知道他的意思，改了過錯就等於沒有犯錯，怎麼是“歸於無”，怎麼講呢？中國話能這麼講嗎？講不通啊，語病太重了。 “增一辜”，簡直是鬼話。 
再一條就是，《弟子規》束縛個性、埋沒人的創造力。 “彼說長，此說短，不關己，莫閒管”。不管閒事，把我們中國的人都變成這樣的人行嗎？背後好說人長短是不好，但也不能教我們的孩子從小學習“事不關己高高掛起”吧！這不是毒草是什麼？怎麼能這樣去教人。西藏那邊搞動亂，不關你的事，你就不關心了？ 
“見人惡，即內省，有則改，無加警”。 “無加警”是什麼意思？你們都是讀過《弟子規》的，“無加警”是什麼意思？不要加警察來？不要把警察叫過來，這也是很莫名其妙的。 
“唯德學，唯才藝，不如人，當自礪”。什麼叫做“唯德學，唯才藝”，這話通嗎？為什麼要跟人比這個長短？為什麼？讓我感覺就是莫名其妙。 
“人有短，切莫揭，人有私，切莫說。道人善，即是善，人知之，愈思勉。揚人惡，即是惡，疾之甚，禍且作。善相勸，德皆建，過不規，道兩虧”。這是什麼文字，文字不好不說，還要強調不要揭別人的短，這就是“老好人”。如果大家都成為了“老好人”，這個民族是什麼樣的民族？就是大家你好我好大家好，這個在《論語》當中是有批判的，《論語》當中把這個叫做典型的“鄉愿”，孔子一輩子都在罵“鄉愿”，《弟子規》就是要把中國人變成“鄉愿”。最後就是
誰也不管誰，我們的民族還有前途嗎？到底是要把我們的孩子變成什麼人？ 
“同是人，類不齊，流俗眾，仁者稀”這句話流露出來的就是貴族意識，在老百姓那裡沒有“仁”？你看聖人是如何教我們的，“眾生皆有佛性”。人人都是佛，就看你看懂看不懂。 《弟子規》這是宣揚的貴族意識，高人一等嘛。如果真正仁慈的人，人家不會“自威”的。難道你學仁的目的，就是讓人家怕自己嗎？你這是什麼“仁慈”？你這是狗屁。憑什麼讓別人怕你，這純粹就是作秀，真“仁者”絕對是平等待人。“不親仁，無限害，小人進，百事壞。”什麼是“親仁”你懂嗎？親近仁慈的人嗎？ ！廢話，仁慈的人誰都願意親近，這樣的“近仁”？哪個不願近仁？但那是“討好”。 “仁”在孔子那裡，不僅僅是那個人仁慈的“仁”。 “克己復禮，天下歸仁”，就是說天下的人應該服從一個仁慈的人？是這個意思嗎？如果是這個意思，孔子還叫先師嗎？還叫大成至聖先師嗎？孔子評論他的弟子，都是說“近乎仁”，包括顏回都是“近乎仁”。 “仁”在他那裡是“道”的代名詞，“道”轉化為人間事就變成“仁”。只有“道”是“大仁”，最大的“仁”是“道”本身，“道”容忍一切不仁的人存在，這和他的“禮之用，和為貴”是一樣的。你再不好你有存在的價值，你再好也有你存在的價值，誰批准你存在的？ “道”。 “道”讓你存在的，所以“道”是最大的“仁”。 “親仁”怎麼是親近仁慈的人呢？如果這個“仁”不是單指仁慈的人，就不要和“小人”對稱了。 《弟子規》從理論上就沒有搞懂國學。更重要在於整個就是泯殺童心，把兒童變成了虛偽的偽君子。對虛偽道德的強調，《弟子規》裡面很多，幾乎處處都是這樣。 
有一個人跟我講，他到廬州的一個學院，見了一些象“日本人”的中國人，見人就“嗨！嗨”！如果是按這個來，日本人是最懂“禮”的人，能是這樣嗎？如果你真到日本，最清楚這個事情，日本人對你特別客氣，但是特別小心眼，不是他壞，他小心眼。當你真正對他好的時候，他會對你無端猜疑，他總害怕你對他設陷阱。如果說中國人都變成這樣的人，對人貌似恭恭敬敬，但是肚子裡面老有“小加九”，而不是一種本色的、坦率的、真誠的，那就完了，“人有私,切莫說”。那不就是肚子裡有一個“小加九”嘛？ 
《弟子規》本身就是想把中國人變成奴才，這是我們堅決不能同意的，所以《弟子規》教育出來的人，在某一​​方面他顯示了教育者的弱智，教育者的簡單，教育者的無能，就是把人，把我們的孩子管住、再管住。除了管沒有啟發，沒有創造，沒有進取。所以他叫《弟子規》，弟子就應該規規矩矩，我們對待孩子怎麼能這樣泯滅他的天性嗎？ 
“不力行，但學文，長浮華，成何人。”這是什麼文字？狗屁不通嘛！ “讀書法，有三到，心眼口，信皆要”什麼叫做“信”？什麼叫“信皆要”？心信？眼信、口信？是這個意思嗎？口怎麼信？眼怎麼信？ “方讀此，勿慕彼，此未終，彼勿起。”這是沒有讀過書的人才會有的胡說八道。意思是讓人光把一本書讀到底，其間不要再讀別的書。我告訴大家，這絕對是一種很錯誤的讀書方法。列寧曾經說，他讀書是床頭上擺十幾本書，這本書看著，看著，不懂，不懂，放在一邊，反過頭來，從那本看。來回反复很快就可以懂很多意思。我告訴你這個是秘訣。你要不相信你就這麼看書，再難懂的書都可以懂，要鍥而不捨，也要不斷的轉移，轉移完畢了再回來，就懂了。這是為什麼？就是打斷你的執著。你轉移一下，你的智慧就可以來了，這也是類似“致良知”的根本做法。 《弟子規》沒有“致良知”的經驗，竟然要寫國學的蒙學入門書？怪哉！國學的最根本的東西就是“致良知”，《弟子規》連讀書都用道德要求，這怎麼能行？ 
“方讀此，勿慕彼，此未終，彼勿起。寬為限，緊用功，工夫到，滯塞通。”說實在的，這都是沒有讀過書，沒有做過學問的人，才會寫出這些不通的東西。這種東西在整個《弟子規》裡面還有很多。 “非聖書，屏勿視。蔽聰明，壞心志。”照這麼說那麻煩了，世界上就沒有可讀的書了。孔子就是那兩本書，其他書呢？大家焚書坑儒算了。我們現在這個時代是信息大爆炸的時代，除了聖人的書，別人的不讀行嗎？我們不讀黑格爾的書，我們不讀馬克思的書，我們怎麼知道我們的國學偉大？這不就是讓人閉目塞聽嗎？ 
所以我告訴大家，希望大家在兒童教育上，我們要為我們祖國、為我們民族的發展和未來負責。在弘揚祖國傳統文化上有兩條道路，兩條路線。一個是利用國學的精髓往前走，二是打著國學的旗號讓民族倒退。這是兩條完全不同的路線，我們絕對不允許通過中國人民浴血奮戰了一百多年，所形成的中華民族新文化的進步，讓他們假借弘揚國學毀於一旦。通過他們那樣的教育，說好了就是把現代大陸人變成台灣人，雖然台灣的文化有很多的優點，最大的弱點就是沒有創造性的氣魄。 “島民氣質”嚴重。 
我們說未來中國文化肯定引領人類文化。我們看到進入二十一世紀之後，第一個火炬在雅典，第二個火炬在中國，前一個文化是以古希臘文化為基礎，我們今天學的所有的文化都是以古希臘文化為基礎的，我們現在所有的一切人文科學、自然科學全部基礎都在古希臘文化里面，但是這個火炬要從古希臘傳遞到中國來，所以2004年的奧運會應該在古希臘召開，2008年應該在中國召開。這裡面有天意在。一句話，人類文明的聖火，要從古希臘文化傳遞到中國來，由中國在世界文明中打頭。 《弟子規》能教出這樣的人嗎？[以上內容轉自漢服吧----]

迫22間鄉村公益圖書館關上大門

這個扛槍治國的執政黨，不怕你罷課，最怕你認真把書讀了。建國六十幾年，都沒有免費教育，這又怎會是國家有錢沒錢的問題這麽簡單？自己不在鄉村辦公立圖書館，別人出錢出力辦都不行，這個執政黨，不怕你開酒吧毒害青年，最怕你認真為下代辦起文化教育的事業來！今天不求變，一兩代之後的香港人，也會變成只能接受洗腦，不許再受教育！

2014年09月23日

中國公益圖書館被關停，組織者稱受到政府壓力

VANESSA PIAO

一間曾運營一個鄉村圖書館項目的非政府機構宣布關停，表示不堪來自地方當局的「巨大的壓力」。該項目曾在全中國擁有多達22個圖書館。

自2007年，立人一直致力於為相對貧困地區的孩子們提供可供免費閱讀的書籍及培養獨立思考能力。曾在北京大學讀經濟學的機構創始人李英強從在湖北省的母校成立一所圖書館為起點，啟動了這個項目。自此，這個組織與其他小學及中學建立合作關係、捐贈書籍，並派志願者協助圖書館運營並為學生組織讀書會。一些沒有和當地學校合作的立人圖書館則由志願者在私人住宅運營。

在一封上周發佈在社交媒體賬戶的公開信中，該組織表示，自9月初，九家圖書館的運營已經終止——其中多數情況是鄉村學校終止了與立人的合作關係。在一例關停事件中，一個由河南省淮濱縣一名志願者用自家房屋運營的圖書館，被當地民政局取締。該組織表示，民政局沒有給出取締理由。

淮濱縣民政局一位只透露了自己姓簡的官員表示，這種事件由文化局處理。但是文化局一名接聽電話的職員表示他不知道這個事件。淮濱縣教育局的電話無人接聽。

已從該機構鄉村圖書館網絡中消失的圖書館增至了19個。8月，幾所學校向立人表示它們要終止合作。至9月，所有立人圖書館都經歷了來自當地文化局、教育局官員或公安局的檢查。然而，志願者說，官員們沒有發現任何違法出版物或不法活動。

在周四晚間發佈的公開信中，該組織說道：我們向「逼迫立人圖書館，關停分館，非法扣留圖書，威脅甚至遣返員工志願者的有關當局發出我們的抗議和譴責」。該機構在停止運營前有28名員工及志願者。

這封發佈於微博和微信上的公開信於周五早上被刪除，該組織說其並未刪除發文。立人理事會成員表示，他們對檢查和學校終止合作的決定很是困惑，無論是學校還是官方都未給出一個令人滿意的解釋。「實話說，我不知道為什麼我們那麼多分館都被關了，」李英強在電話採訪中說。

「我們一向非常謹慎。我們從來沒有主動尋求過境外捐贈，」他說，儘管該機構曾接受小筆境外捐贈，但捐贈都來自海外華人。接受海外資助的中國非政府組織通常會受到政府的嚴密監控。

李英強說，他基督徒的身份或許製造了一些敏感性，但他說他從未利用該機構向學生傳教。中國當局對基督教的忍耐度在近幾年一直在走下坡路。

李英強說，該組織公開設立的目標——「幫助鄉村青少年成長為健康、正常的現代公民」——可能引發了一定擔憂。「『公民』這個詞可能比較讓人擔心，」他說。「公民」一詞因其與公民權利的聯繫在中國成為敏感詞。公民權利包括言論自由。

他估計立人的關停會影響約4萬名讀者，主要是小學和初中生。

山西省澤州縣一家立人圖書館的負責人翟猛說，當地文化局官員8月對該圖書館實施了兩次檢查，都「像是衝著境外讀物來的」。

官員們挑出了一本日本漫畫、一本由一位南京捐贈者捐贈的《時代周刊》及幾期香港雜誌《鳳凰周刊》，翟猛說。他說官員們還讓立人更改其刊物《立人周刊》的名字，說「刊」這個字不應該使用。在中國，私人出版物被嚴格管制。

翟猛說，官員們想知道該圖書館是否接受過境外捐贈——他們並未接受過境外捐贈。

澤州縣教育局及文化局的電話無人接聽。

四川省下巴廟鎮下巴廟中學的校長張揚說，終止合作不過是一次職員調整。下巴廟中學近期終止了與立人的合作。

「我們現在老師多了，」他在電話採訪中說。「以前我們沒有足夠的老師來管理圖書館，所以我們讓立人的志願者去管理。現在我們可以讓我們自己的老師去管理了。」他否認政府施壓。

然而，與該校合作的立人圖書館的負責人彭雄則說，他確信終止合作的決定並非來源於校方。

「從學校談起這個事請的方式，我就能看出來，不是他們想終止合作的，」他說，儘管校長從未明確談及來自政府部門的指令。

位於廣東省的立人卓英圖書館負責人洪華挺說，學校告訴他，圖書館所在大樓將被裝修。「基本上他們的意思也就是裝修以後也不歡迎我們回來了，」他在電話採訪中說。

一些立人圖書館將把書籍留給當地學校，其他一些將把書籍帶走，志願者們說。

該組織在微博上用話題「立人圖書館被關，我有話說」發起了一個網上抗議活動——理事會成員和微博網友紛紛上傳了他們手舉標語的照片。

「多建一座圖書館，勝過建百座房地產，」一位參加網上抗議的網友寫道。

宋美齡1942年美國大西洋月刊發表文章：China Emergent

China Emergent 

In the midst of World War II, as China's Nationalist leader, Chiang Kai-shek, struggled against Japanese invaders from without and the Communist movement from within, his Wellesley College–educated wife decried the exploitation of China by the West and delineated a vision for a more democratic future.

MADAME CHIANG KAI-SHEKMAY 1 1942, 12:00 PM ET

I.

It may not seem to be the best of good sense to prepare plans for architectural improvements while the house is still afire and one is having hard work to extinguish the flames. Yet the United Nations realize that after the war is won new problems will automatically arise which will demand for their solution as much thought, devotion, and practical application of idealism as winning the war itself. While it is true that in the midst of life there is death, it is equally true that in the midst of death there is life.

We in China, though we have been harried for years by death and destruction, have been giving careful thought toward the perfection of a political and social system that will ensure in the future the greatest good for the greatest number. All the existing systems of government in the world—and this applies non-aggressive as well as to the aggressive nations—are being. weighed in the remorseless balance of war. Some we are sure will not survive the test, but all have shown weaknesses that call for drastic alterations. ‘It is only the very wisest and the very stupidest who never change,’ observed one of our sages.
We have chosen the path that we shall tread in the future. We are determined that there shall be no more exploitation of China. I have no wish to harp on old grievances, but realism demands that I should mention the ruthless and shameless exploitation of our country by the West in the past and hard-dying illusion that the best way to win our hearts was to kick us in the ribs. Such asinine stupidities must never be repeated, as much for your own sake as for ours. America and Britain have already shown their consciousness of error by voluntarily offering to abrogate the iniquitous system of extraterritoriality that denied China her inherent right to equality with other nations.
While as a nation we are resolved that we will not tolerate foreign exploitation we are equally determined that within our country there be no exploitation of any section of society by any other section or even by the state itself. The possession of wealth does not confer upon the wealthy the right to take unfair advantage of the less fortunate. But neither, as a nation, does China believe in communism or wish to obtain it in our land. We have no use for most isms which pose as panaceas for all the ills of the human race. In fact all forms of authoritarianism adopted by some European countries, Japan, and certain Latin American republics (which in late years have flirted a little, discreetly perhaps, with dictatorship) leave the Chinese people cold. We are disposed to be politely skeptical of sweeping claims such as are made by Henry George's single-taxers, who believe that all that is wrong with the world could be righted by a tax on land values.
In post-war China, although we shall not countenance exploitation, international or national, we shall grant private capital its rightful place, for it implements individual initiative, and we Chinese, being realists, fully recognize basic facts. Our age-old civilization has been developed through harmonizing conditions as they existed and as they ideally should be. But no individual will be permitted to wax rich at the expense of others. The rights of the people will be protected by progressive taxation. I maintain that when incomes exceed legitimate needs and a reasonable margin to ensure freedom from want the excess should belong to humanity. On the other hand, private capital must be given every encouragement to develop the resources and industry of the country—but only in cooperation with labor. All public utilities should be state-owned.
Any governmental policy in China ought to take cognizance of the all-important fact that we are an agricultural nation. Over 90 per cent of our people are dependent directly or indirectly upon the land—the overwhelming proportion directly. It follows that the nation cannot flourish unless the farmers are prosperous. At present they are enjoying a degree of prosperity undreamed of since the Golden Age. As a by-product of war, prices for all that comes from the land have increased so much that the standard of living of the rural population has reached a height that did not seem possible. Children are attending school who formerly would never have had a chance of education; homes that have been perforce mere inadequate protection from the elements are being made hygienic and comfortable. This is as it should be.
We want these gains held and consolidated. This vision of a better life that has been given to the backbone of our nation must not be dimmed by the policy bequeathed us by the conservative past. There has been one fly in the ointment—there always is: while those who live on and by the land have prospered, government employees and men and women classed as intellectuals have been having a hard time to make ends meet. But they represent a very small percentage of our people; when victory is won, a permanent solution of their difficulties will be arrived at. It is significant, however, that the masses of our people are now following the path of progress and happiness, from which I hope they will never swerve, certainly not as a consequence of any act of omission or commission by our government.
We are striving to institute a flexible system of political and economic development that will serve the future as well as the present. This attempt started directly China became a republic, thirty-one years ago, and has continued even throughout the war years. In order to give our people fuller and better opportunities for a well-rounded and happier life, a new kind of Chinese socialism, based on democratic principles, is evolving. It is no mere pale reflection of Western socialism. China colors all seas that wash her shores. We do not necessarily reject everything the West has to offer; to views of modern socialists we lend a willing ear, more especially as most of their ideas find their counterpart in the third of the three principles envisaged by our late leader, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, upon which our whole ideology is based. These three principles are: first, Nationalism; second, the People's Rights; third, the People’s Livelihood. Nationalism means that there should be equality among all peoples and races, and that all peoples and races should respect each other and live in peace and harmony. The People’s Rights means that the people should have these four rights: election, recall, initiative, and referendum. The People’s Livelihood means that people are entitled to proper clothing, food, housing, and communications.

II.

Westerners may be surprised to learn that China is the Columbus of democracy. Twenty-four centuries before the Christian era, Emperors Yau, Shun, and Yü succeeded each other by their subjects’ wish instead of by hereditary right. Over a thousand years before Confucius an articulate political platform proclaimed, ‘The people’s views are heaven’s voice,’ anticipating by centuries the Western adage: ‘Vox populi vox Dei.’ From earliest times a system of local government prevailed in our country, based upon subdivisions of the hen, or county, which, as I shall explain later, is the foundation upon which we now are framing—even in wartime—our constitutional government. Mencius, in the fourth century before Christ, enunciated the theory that the people rank first, the state second, the ruler last. Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract, published in 1762, rings like an echo of The Essays published by Huang Lichow in 1663. Huang, in discussing political theories, severely criticized the monarchial form of government. In a chapter on ‘The Origin of Rulers’ he dwelt at length on differences among ancient rulers and the autocrats who followed them; the former regarded their country as the hub of the universe while the latter held themselves to be of primary importance. Logically Huang urged the overthrow of such rulers in order to establish the people's government. This subject might be pursued further, but enough has been said to substantiate the observation that China, long before the West, embraced democratic ideals.

I have already referred to Chinese socialism, for our political compass shows our ship of state ploughing in that direction. Nevertheless, some people are alarmed at the very word ‘socialism,’ much as a timid horse shies away from its own shadow. Actually, though not called by that name, socialism has influenced national thought in China for decades, even amid the confusion caused by civil unrest and the present war. But it does not have any affiliation with communism. The Chinese do not accept the much-mooted theory of enriching the poor by dispossessing present owners of their wealth, nor do they believe such a step would give any prospect of an enduring alleviation of poverty and human misery. We prefer leveling up to leveling down. Before the present war started, the political tutelage which Dr. Sun Yat-sen decreed should precede full constitutional government had been put into practice for the purpose of laying sound and lasting democratic foundations for the people to build upon. Some progress had already been made when Japan forced us to take up arms to fight for freedom on July 7, 1937.
In the midst of war in 1938 the People’s Political Council was established as the precursor of a National Parliament. This body of 240 members includes not only regional representatives, some of whom are women, elected by provincial and municipal popular assemblies, but also scholars and experts appointed by the National Government. It has the power of revision and recommendation and has become an important element of our national life. One of its outstanding achievements was the adoption of a proposal to constitute the county (hsien) as a unit of self-government. As I write, greater scope of action and further popular representation have been given to the Council.
This new hsien system aims to enable people to manage the affairs of their home districts by electing their own representatives to local governing organizations. When this program for local self-government is carried out, they will be free to elect their chief magistrate. Furthermore, these assemblies, composed entirely of elected representatives, will choose delegates to a national convention for the purpose of adopting and promulgating a permanent national constitution and for the election of the president of China.
From the base to the apex the political structure will be erected by the people themselves. Thus the rules and regulations of the new hsien system are much more than a mere step toward local self-government. They are a political move forward in the direction of national democracy.
Some of our time-honored institutions such as our trade guilds will usefully complement this new pattern of national political growth. For centuries they have been a valuable feature of our social and commercial life. The provincial guilds in our large cities relieve fellow provincials in distress, settle disputes among members, thus preventing costly litigation, and help in numerous other ways. We propose to give these organizations more executive power and to obtain for the government the benefit of their experience.
Regarding civil administration, I have often expressed strong views about our civil service. I hold no brief for a system of political patronage. In our country, after the war, civil service appointments must be made on merit alone. Fitness to hold a position should in the future be the criterion for government service, not friendship or the favor of those in high and influential places. Nepotism must be completely jettisoned. This is a reform that I, for one, have always advocated, and it has been started on its way.
Their agelong experience has taught the Chinese people that all mundane things change, and even social and political systems are subject to transmutation. Chinese thinkers today are therefore content if they can so fashion the framework that the political fabric of the future can be woven and expanded in the best interests of the nation.
Chinese socialism, if you like to call it that, seeks above all else to preserve the birthrights of the individual. No state can be great and prosperous unless the people are contented. They can only be content if their dignity and rights as human beings are kept inviolate. To cherish the worth of the human personality is what we seek, and we are therefore giving the individual ever-increasing power to decide his own and the nation’s future.

III.

One of our national characteristics is not to do things without careful deliberation. Those who are privileged to direct the aspirations of a quarter of the world’s population have a wonderful opportunity but a fearful responsibility. This responsibility has grown weightier, now that China has become the leader of Asia. If their program for social and political development is carelessly planned, they will imperil the happiness of hundreds of millions of their fellow countrymen and jeopardize the very core of world society. No instrument devised by human brains can be absolutely perfect. We, however, are recruiting the wisest intelligence available amongst our people in order to ensure that the political and economic machinery which will swing into full operation in China after the war will be as nearly perfect as possible and susceptible of readjustment without causing civil unrest. To my mind democracy means representative government, and by ‘representative’ I mean representative of the steadfast and settled will of the people as opposed to the irresponsible and spellbinding slogans of political hawkers. Furthermore, in a true democracy the minority parties should not be left out of consideration. I am opposed to any system which permanently gives absolute power to a single party. That is the negation of real democracy, to which freedom of thought and progress are essential. A one-party system denies both. Freedom of thought and action should be given to minorities as long as the activities of such groups are not incompatible with the interests and security of the state.

There is no necessity, moreover, for the systems of democracy in our respective countries to be slavish replicas of each other. They must adhere to the fundamental principle, of course, but each democracy should have an order that fits truly its own peculiar requirements. Therefore, our Chinese democracy will not be a colorless imitation of your American democracy, although it will undoubtedly be influenced by the Jeffersonian views of equality of opportunity and the rights of the individual. It will be redolent of our soil and expressive of the native genius of our people. It must meet China’s own needs and be in harmony with our present environment, which is inevitably linked to the best traditions of our past.
Considering what China has already accomplished in the face of heartbreaking obstacles, we confront the future with calmness and confidence. The difficulties before us are stupendous; but with the help, from our sister democracies, of technique and capital, which we have proved we deserve, we have no doubt we can solve our problems. The fortune of war has brought China for the first time abreast of the great powers. We have won our place in the front rank by our prolonged and unyielding resistance to violence. We shall keep it by playing a major part in building a better world.
In the old world that is crumbling to pieces as I write, nations strove with each other to win supremacy in the means of destruction. The defunct League of Nations, whatever its shortcomings, had in its conception of world peace an area of thought which we should do well to cultivate. While lip-service to international equality and justice was not found wanting, signatories of the League Covenant did not have the courage actively to implement the principles enunciated so piously by their representatives round the conference table. China, Abyssinia, Spain, Poland, and other militarily weak nations became the victims of aggression, and the democracies, which should have seen their own fate from the writing on the wall, did little more than make futile protests. It is my hope, therefore, that when victory is ours we shall have learned the lesson that ‘the substance of wisdom is made out of the substance of folly,’ and profit thereby. Cannot we, in the new day whose dawn is nearing, strive together to gain supremacy in the peaceful arts of government and administration that will secure lasting happiness for the people of all races and thus create a world vitalized by new hopes and worshiping a more Christlike ideal
?

1984年宋美齡發表：給鄧穎超公開信

  1984年1月，在北京召开国民党“一大”60周年学术讨论会暨孙中山研究学会成立大会。会上，中国人民政治协商会议全国委员会主席邓颖超在讲话中建议：“只要大家都以祖国统一作为共同的前提，以诚相见，多商量，多交换意见，问题总是不难得到合情合理的妥善解决的。”她强调祖国统一是“历史的主流，分裂只是短暂的插曲”。她向台湾当局忠告：“孤悬海外，受制于人，这种局面终究是很难长期维持下去的。是非利害，何等分明。孰去孰从，不难立决。”
  宋美龄看到邓颖超的讲话后,于同年2月16日回函邓颖超，对邓讲话中谈到的祖国统一问题，这次宋美龄没有回避，而是明确拒绝。她认为，大陆是因为无力武力解放台湾，才提出“第三次国共合作”。“今日真正之中国乃在台湾”是宋美龄最得意的话题。宋美龄在信中明确提出要中国共产党“信服三民主义统一中国”。　

----------------
來源

邓颖超在纪念国民党"一大"六十周年学术讨论会暨孙中山研究学会成立大会上的讲话

尊敬的各位学者、各位同志、各位朋友们： 60年前，1924年1月20日中国国民党在孙中山先生的主持下召开了第一次全国代表大会，确定了联俄、联共、扶助农工三大革命政策，实现了第一次国共合作。这是一个很值得纪念的日子。今天，有这样多来自全国各地的学者共聚一堂，举行纪念这次大会的学术讨论会，并宣告孙中山研究学会的成立，我向大家表示热烈的祝贺! 孙中山先生是中国近代民主革命的卓越先驱。为了把中华民族从帝国主义、封建势力统治的苦难深渊中拯救出来，为着改造中国，他耗尽了毕生精力。他领导过辛亥革命，取得了推翻几千年君主专制制度的伟大胜利。但是，这次革命没有能改变中国社会的半殖民地、半封建性质。反动的逆流又重新增涨起来，国家的境况继续一天天坏下去。在那黑暗而艰难的岁月中，孙中山没有灰心，没有退却，继续顽强地奋斗着。他为一时还没有找到新的出路而感到极大的痛苦。 正在这个时候，列宁领导的俄国十月革命爆发了；接着，中国无产阶级的先锋队——中国共产党成立了。共产党人在中国人民面前第一次提出了彻底的反帝反封建的革命纲领，领导了生气蓬勃的工农运动，并向孙中山为代表的革命民主派伸出了热情的友谊的双手，建议共同建立一个民主主义的联合战线，向帝国主义列强和封建军阀开战。在这个重要的历史时期，孙中山勇敢地实行了改组国民党、重新解释三民主义、实行国共合作这一系列重大的步骤。 毛泽东同志说过：“孙中山先生之所以伟大，不但因为他领导了伟大的辛亥革命(虽然是旧时期的民主革命)，而且因为他能够‘适乎世界之潮流，合乎人群之需要’，提出了联俄、联共、扶助农工三大革命政策，对三民主义作了新的解释，树立了三大政策的新三民主义。” 实行了一系列重大步骤，是极不容易的。这需要有高瞻远瞩的识力，还需要有果断的坚强毅力。孙中山先生无愧是一个伟大的革命家。当他认清了应该走的道路以后，他是无所畏惧的。他在廖仲恺、宋庆龄、何香凝等许多国民党内的真正革命者的支持下，顶住了来自帝国主义的强大压力，排除了来自自己周围的一些不能随着时代前进的顽固分子的阻挠。国共两党，终于在谋求国家独立、民主、统一、繁荣富强的共同基础上，在国民革命的共同目标下，携手合作了。 中国国民党第一次全国代表大会是在孙中山先生亲自主持下进行的。他以极大的热情对待这次代表大会。这次大会一致通过了《中国国民党第一次全国代表大会宣言》、《中国国民党章程》和《组织国民政府之必要案》等重要议案。 孙中山先生在这次大会的宣言中对三民主义作出了适合时势要求的新解释。宣言明确指出：“国民党之民族主义，有两方面之意义：一则中国民族自求解放，二则中国境内各族一律平等。”宣言指出：“国民党之民权主义，则为一般平民所共有，非少数人所得而私也。”宣言还指出：“国民党之民生主义，其最要之原则不外二者；一曰平均地权，二曰节制资本。”孙中山在宣言中着重写道：“国民党之三民主义，其真释具如此。”可见只有这种三民主义才是真正的三民主义。这种新三民主义所解释的基本原则，是完全符合中国革命的要求的，是同中国共产党在民主革命阶段的政治纲领的若干基本原则相一致的，因而成为第一次国共合作的共同纲领。 国民党第一次全国代表大会的成功，国共合作的实现，带来了什么?我们这些当时亲身经历过来的人，都清楚地记得，它带来了广东革命根据地的巩固和发展，它促进了工农运动在全国特别是在南方各省的蓬勃高涨。它带来了新的革命武装的创立，国共两党共同努力下的黄埔建军成了这种新的革命武装的核心和中坚。它还带来了国民革命思想在全国范围内空前规模的广泛传播。那时候，到处热气腾腾，形成了一股浩浩荡荡向帝国主义和军阀势力猛烈冲击的革命洪流。 毛泽东同志在回顾这段历史时，曾经说：“中国的革命，自从1924年开始，就由国共两党的情况起着决定的作用。由于两党在一定纲领上的合作，发动了1924年至1927年的革命。孙中山先生致力国民革命凡四十年还未能完成的革命事业，在仅仅两三年之内，获得了巨大的成就。这就是广东革命根据地的创立和北伐战争的胜利。这是两党结成了统一战线的结果。” 孙中山先生在1925年3月临终时，谆谆嘱咐：“现在革命尚未成功，凡我同志，务须依照余所著建国方略、建国大纲、三民主义及第一次全国代表大会宣言，继续努力，以求贯彻。” 不幸的是，在1927年，由于国民党内一部分人背弃了孙中山先生《遗嘱》中的谆谆嘱咐，背弃了国民党第一次全国代表大会宣言中规定的道路，使第一次国共合作遭到了破坏，中国一时又回到黑暗和分裂的局面中去。可是，国民党“一大”在人们心中深深刻下的印记是任何力量抹煞不了的。 六十年过去了!在这半个多世纪的岁月里，祖国的面貌已经发生根本的变化。孙中山先生一生为实现中国的民族解放和人民民主制度而奋斗。这个目标已经由于1949年中国革命的胜利而得到实现。孙中山先生在辛亥革命以前就宣布：要使中国避免重蹈欧美的覆辙，避开资本主义的道路。到晚年，他更明确地宣布自己是社会主义的朋友。今天，社会主义在我国已不是一种理想，而成为生活中的现实。中国各族人民正在意气风发地努力把我国建设成为一个具有现代工业、现代农业、现代国防和现代科学技术的，具有高度民主和高度文明的社会主义强国。每一个爱国者、每一个忠实的国民党人都会清楚地看到：孙中山先生一生热烈追求的理想都已经得到实现，并正在继续向前推进。 在这样的时刻，我们自然更加怀念生活在台湾的骨肉同胞，祖国处于分裂状态的这种局面，再也不该继续存在下去了。孙中山先生生前多次强调：中国历来是一个不可分割的整体，国家统一是历史发展和人民意向的主流。他还反复阐述国家统一和独立、民主、繁荣富强的关系。他说:“统一是全体国民的希望。能够统一，全国人民便幸福。不能统一，便要受害。” 过去，国共两党进行过两次合作。这两次合作，实现了北伐和抗日的大业，收回了台湾，有力地促进了我们民族的进步。今天，我们的伟大民族和国家，仍然面对着一个发愤图强，自立于世界民族之林，为人类作出较大贡献的问题。为什么不能像前两次一样，把民族大义放在第一位，以国家利益为重，消除因国共两党分裂而造成的炎黄子孙的隔绝状态，来共同建设我们的国家呢?  这几年来，我们党和国家的领导人多次宣布和平统一祖国的大政方针和各项政策。去年6月，邓小平同志又同杨力宇教授谈到中国大陆和台湾和平统一的一些设想。他说:“问题的核心是祖国统一。和平统一已成为国共两党的共同语言。但不是我吃掉你，也不是你吃掉我。我们希望国共两党共同完成民族统一，大家都对中华民族作出贡献。”中国共产党人是“言必信，行必果”的。如果台湾的国民党朋友们，由于过去的长期隔绝，一时还有这样那样的顾虑，这是可以理解的，但是我希望，这种犹豫和拖延不要太长久了。只要大家都以祖国统一作为共同的前提，以诚相见，多商量，多交换意见，问题总是不难得到合情合理的妥善解决的。 我已经是八十岁的老人了。国民党“一大”前后的许多事情，我是亲眼看到的。我当时是国民党一个省党部的成员，在省党部工作过。1926年举行的国民党“二大”我是亲自参加的，在那次会议上李大钊、林祖涵(伯渠)、吴玉章、杨匏安、恽代英、谭平山等同志被选为国民党第二届中央执行委员，毛泽东、夏曦，许甦魂、董用威(必武)等同志和我被选为中央候补执行委员。第二次国共合作共同抗日，取得胜利的种种情景，至今还历历在目。孙中山先生当年那种力排众议、坚毅无畏的可敬形象，时常激励我们前进。我希望台湾的国民党人能够认真地重温一下这段历史，学习孙中山先生的伟大榜样，在认清历史的必然趋势以后，拿出足够的决心和勇气来，排除一切干扰，当机立断，作出正确的抉择。一部中国历史证明：统一一直是历史的主流，分裂只是短暂的插曲。孤悬海外，受制于人，这种局面终究是很难长期维持下去的。是非利害，何等分明。孰去孰从，不难立决。我深信，祖国大统一的千秋功业，—定能够早日得到实现。 最后，敬祝这次讨论会取得圆满的成功!

------------------------------------------

來源

1984年2月16日「給鄧穎超公開信」：

穎超先生大鑒：

數年前「四人幫」倒垮前後，聞先生曾幾遭險厄，甚至受憂受逼，將至自殉邊緣，幸率無恙，論先生在共黨中之黨齡如此資深，尚時陷朝不保夕之境地，令人惻然不已。

近閱報載，先生在我中國國民黨第一次全國代表大會六十週年紀念會中曾作一次演說，追念在我總理中山先生主持下，召開第一次全國代表大會，確立了「聯俄、聯共、扶助農工」三大革命政策，茲將當時決策之來源為先生之道之。

按當時國家處境危殆，外則有世界列強企圖恣意瓜分中國，加之個帝國主義籍不平等條約之各種特權，不斷榨取我人力、物力、資源，以填其欲壑，國內則有大小軍 

閥猖獗，生靈塗炭，民生雕敝。我總理深感於此，乃為中國在國際上享有平等待遇，呼籲世界助我自助，亦即是求取消束縛我國之平等條約，但世界列強猶如聾啞，不加理會，此時僅新起之蘇聯政權，別具新裁，予我革命基地之廣東以有限之械彈，得一箭雙雕之收穫，當時，蘇聯政權被各國歧視，地位極為孤立，其予我一臂之助，既可博得全世界受壓迫眾生之好感，並又可以之炫耀於列強之前，顯示蘇俄政權乃是由正義之政權，且在廣大之中國，順理成章，樹立一將來征服世界不絕之兵源，亦即充當炮灰之資源，假此機會肆意吸收訓練基地骨幹分子。以貫徹由蘇俄所控制之全世界蘇維埃帝國藍圖之推行措施。名利雙收，莫過於此。再者，當時大會所通過之「容共」政策，旨在聯合國內一切反軍閥反帝國主義之力量，其實，共產黨之力量，證之於當時所謂共產黨全國代表大會到會者僅十二人耳。其首腦人物當陳公博、周佛海、張國燾、董必武及毛澤東等，事實上，中國國民黨乃是中國共產黨之保姆。

蓋若非仰賴當時國民黨之掩護、育養，其便能成為後日之黨耶？且如陳公博、周佛海等終亦認為共產主義不適合中國而摒棄之，由共產主義信徒而搖身一變竟成為後日之漢奸，此亦是共產黨頭兒、腦兒對主義信仰之最大諷刺。後日之葉劍英、彭德懷、賀龍、林彪以及過去小軍閥朱德，曾任廣東時代國民黨候補中央委員及黨中宣部代部長之毛澤東等人無一不宣誓效忠國民黨，而後背叛誓言，成為反國民黨之一群。此試與中外綜理國家萬機之政治家總擁有靜穆之修養與磊落之風格相提並論，乃適成強烈對照，諒先生定必默許余言。

回憶前在重慶抗戰時期，曾與大姊孔夫人數度與先生聚首交談，徵詢先生對當時抗戰問題及國家前途之展望，余二人均認為先生認解超群，娓娓道來，理解精透，所談及之問題均無過於偏頗之處，實我當時女界有數人才，迄今思之，先生談話所代表者，言皆由衷之歟？姑不究其內容真偽，猶記曾告家姐，若穎超能為國家民族效一己之力，必脫穎而出，甚至超穎而出也。又何必沉湎於被泰半理智之猶太人所不齒之德國猶太馬克思理論所蠱惑耶？固然，1920年時代馬列理論曾在俄國得手，憑籍許多因素僥幸成功，此實於當時一般知識分子沉醉於「時髦心理」，令馬列學說彌漫於知識階層，大多自認為馬列信徒或馬列崇拜者，尤其在法國，幾乎造成任何人不能誦說幾句馬列教條，則必目為白癡或非知識分子之風氣。只要是馬列教條，即不求甚解，「囫圇吞棗」猶如天詔，（近日時代雜誌亦有敘述法國知識分子之盲從風氣）。加之，法國左派理論家沙特不時以辯證法及邏輯語彙，撰寫似是而非之文學莠言惑眾（近年已逐漸經阿宏駁斥其矯偽，至於體無完膚）。

泊聞先生所言，謂中國共產黨人是「言必信，行必果」，此乃指所謂「文化大革命」對同胞之信諾耶？抑指先生幾遭不幸而言耶？據所聞知，大陸人民名共產黨為破產黨即家破人亡之謂也。故對共產黨之言行，大陸稚子亦不予置信。

齡近聞電大陸探視返自由世界者云，其親戚竊告，「台灣人民固然反共，但更反共者，乃大陸手無武器所遭殃之人民也。」近三十餘年來，共產黨政權已早知無法再可侵蝕金馬台澎之復興基地，乃重襲統戰故伎。以惡言毀謗張本，或以蜜語騙詐為武器，企達成「三度合作」。

殊不知第一次我總理寬大容共，遂使原不過五十餘人之共產黨徒，經中國國民黨繈褓鞠育後造成騷擾動亂，凡十四年。及再次容共，乃當中日戰爭國家存亡關頭，先總裁不究既往，誠恕相待，原望其回心轉意，以抵擊外侮為重，豈知共黨以怨報德，趁火打劫，鑄成大陸的沉淪，二次慘痛，殷鑒昭昭，一而再之為已甚，其可三乎？

……

先生高壽已登耄耋，當已無所恐懼，若言出肺腑，則請規勸大陸迷途諸君，「學習中山先生之榜樣」，再次信服三民主義統一中國，復使大陸民眾，猶如台灣同胞，享有安寧、富裕、康樂，有希望有前途之生活，不然，則將如李自成、張邦昌及跪於杭州岳墳前之秦檜夫婦鐵人，永受萬世唾罵，須知今日真正之中國乃在台灣，邯鄲學步，猶未晚焉，維希三思之，即此順頌。

蔣宋美齡謹啟

民國73年(1984年)2月16日

是日，蔣經國函電宋美齡：

「長信大義凜然已交中央社向海內外發布大人每於邪惡張牙舞爪之時必定予以當頭棒喝足令『匪』膽寒心悸」^[35]

2月18日，蔣經國函電宋美齡：

「大人勸告鄧某公開信思精而旨嚴義正而語婉不獨深發世人警省亦足使『匪』類悔禍海內外無不衷誠讚嘆景仰欽慕各報及空飄揚印件容當彙呈睿察肅叩福安兒」^[36]