Chapter 66 Luo Longji denounced "three people make a tiger"

Pu Xixiu's "reveal" means that Luo Longji's backyard is on fire. In Luo Longji's backyard, in addition to Pu Xixiu's "rebellion", two other "confidantes" also "exposed" Luo Longji. These two "confidants" of Luo Longji are Shao Ciyun and Zhao Wenbi: Shao Ciyun is Luo Longji's confidential secretary; Zhao Wenbi is the deputy director of the General Office of the Ministry of Forestry Industry and the chairman of the Democratic League Branch of the Ministry of Forestry Industry, while Luo Longji is the minister of the Ministry of Forestry Industry.

Pu Xixiu, Shao Ciyun, and Zhao Wenbi all turned against Luo Longji, making Luo Longji in a state of betrayal. Facing the "reveal" of Pu Xixiu, Shao Ciyun, and Zhao Wenbi, Luo Longji called it "three people make a tiger": Do you know the idiom "three people make a market tiger"?This is a satirical and rumored story in Han Feizi's book.There are no tigers in the city.One person made a rumor that he saw a tiger in the city, the second person deliberately made a rumor based on the first person's rumor that there was a tiger in the city, and the third person said that there was a tiger in the city based on the second person's rumor.So the whole city turned pale.This is the origin of the idiom "three people make a city tiger".This is an allegory that satirizes China's unjust prisons in the past. ①

Luo Longji said sadly: "I firmly believe that the leadership of the party is true and false. However, people like you, Pu Xixiu, and Shao Ciyun made untrue reports. One is my so-called 'confidant', and the other is my close friend for ten years. , one is my confidential secretary, not only will the society take falsehoods as true, even the leading party’s revelations about you will be difficult to distinguish between true and false. Therefore, People’s Daily and other newspapers have published all the revelations about you three, This is really how much money can be melted by the mouth, and the bones will be destroyed, so I can't argue with it." ②

In fact, like Pu Xixiu, Zhao Wenbi and Shao Ciyun were under high pressure, so they said and did things against their will. "People's Daily" published a report on July 22, 1957: "Luo Longji and Zhao Wenbi colluded in an attempt to turn the Ministry of Forest Industry into an independent kingdom of the rightists" The report claimed that Zhao Wenbi was Luo Longji's "general" and "assistant", and exposed how Zhao Wenbi and Luo Longji "colluded together" in the Ministry of Forest Industry. The report exposed Zhao Wenbi's views on the Luo Longji issue:

"The hat is big and there is no content. Judging from Luo's speech at the symposium of the United Front Work Department, it is unfair to say that Luo is a rightist, and it cannot convince people." Zhao Wenbi also said: "Now there are three kinds of people, one is red and black, one is red but not black, and the other is giving charcoal in a timely manner." Zhao Wenbi said, "One should not throw stones into a well". Under the strong offensive of "People's Daily", Zhao Wenbi had no choice but to expose Luo Longji.Then, People's Daily published another report:

"Zhang Luo's evil alliance is tangible, and Luo Longji's confidant Zhao Wenbi presents factual proof" According to the report: According to Zhao Wenbi's disclosure, Luo Longji is very hostile to the Communist Party and socialism; Luo Longji is deliberately trying to eliminate the leadership of the Communist Party; his anti-communist group is not "invisible" but tangible; Formed an alliance, Zhao Wenbi proved that Zhang Bojun and Luo Longji not only had an alliance, but also that Zhang Luo and Zhang Luo were "tightened". Zhao Wenbi then talked about the Zhangluo Alliance.Zhao Wenbi said that after he arrived in Beijing, he asked Luo if he wanted him to work for the Democratic League. Luo said, "No, the situation has changed now. Bo Jun and I are very close." No, if you want to go to the central government, will Shi Liang let you go? Even if you want to go to Beijing, Wu Han’s independent kingdom won’t let you in either.”

... Zhao Wenbi also revealed that Luo Longji viciously slandered the anti-revolutionary movement. Regarding the Hu Feng issue, Luo Longji once said: "The Hu Feng issue has been messed up, offending three million intellectuals, and preventing intellectuals from being active." Luo Longji He also slandered and said: "Beijing is much better, but the lower levels are messed up. Some units have made a lot of deviations on the issue of eliminating counter-revolutionaries in order to make up the 5% figure, so they have to be rehabilitated." "People's Daily" published another report on September 3, 1957:

"Shao Ciyun Continues to Expose Luo Longji's Insidious Face and Doing Unscrupulous Deeds" The report said: Shao Ciyun said: Luo Longji once returned to China, said that he had no serious problems, but was just a "accompanying guest", and the protagonists were Zhang Naiqi and the others.So he didn't intend to explain his own problems, let alone expose other rightists, and he especially took care of Zhang Bojun. He said to me: "Ye Duyi asked me to expose Zhang Bojun. Why should I expose him? I don't know much." He also said. : "My younger brother (Luo Zhaolin) told me not to involve too many people. This is also true. When I involve others, others will expose me even more."

A key issue was written in the report.Shao Ciyun exposed it like this: After Luo Longji returned to China, he categorically denied that he had read Chu Anping's "Party World" speech, but he did not expect that Pan Dakui would reveal it to him again at the Sichuan group meeting of the National People's Congress.On June 27, he said to me nervously: "As for the issue of Chu Anping's speech, some people already believed that I hadn't read it, and the matter was already calm. But the bad thing is that Pan Dakui just said at the Sichuan group meeting that I Tell him personally that I have read it, and who doesn’t know the relationship between Pan and me. Well, if you haven’t read the manuscript, you’re just a rightist, but if you read it, you’re organized and active. Wouldn’t it be a counter-revolutionary? The higher-ups just suspect that I have an organization with Zhang and Chu. How can I admit it...” Using me to help him with the Pan Dakui signed an offensive and defensive alliance, and he said to me: "Pan must correct this matter at the Sichuan group meeting, and I can't talk to Pan. I think you can go to Pan and ask him to 'correct'. Pan lives in the Xinqiao Hotel, My lover is here too, isn’t he your teacher? It’s very convenient for you to talk to him.” Then he smiled and said: “You don’t know his wife well, it’s better to talk to his wife first…”

In this regard, Luo Longji refuted Zhao Wenbi and Shao Ciyun in his letter to Zhao Wenbi as follows: You fabricated facts in an attempt to prove that I read Chu Anping's original speech.This is a very important question for me.During my stay abroad, Zhang Bojun spread rumors and told Shi Liang that I had read Chu Anping's speech. Shi Liang and Ma Xulun actually made a public statement, saying that I had read Chu Anping's speech, and asked me to explain it when I returned home.This is how my problem started.On the day I returned to Beijing, you told me that Chu Anping had already denied this in an emergency social affairs meeting of Guangming Daily on June 15.Later I learned that Zhang Bojun had confessed his mistake to Chu Anping at the social affairs meeting.I also told you that I questioned Zhang Bojun why he was making rumors out of thin air in Kunming, and Zhang denied that he had said such things to Shi Liang on the phone.Events would have been clear.On August 10th, you came to speak at the Democratic League's rectification symposium, but you came forward to prove that I did read Chu's speech.Your proof of the facts is this: you came to see me on the morning of June 2, and I told you: "There is a problem with the rectification movement, and Chu Anping's erroneous remarks have also come out." So you made an inference based on the fabricated facts and said: " The newspaper was not published at that time, and according to later investigations, it was proved that Luo Longji did not attend the United Front Work Department’s rectification symposium on June 1. How did Luo know the content of Chu Anping’s speech in advance? He said that he had not read Chu Anping’s speech in advance. Obviously a contradiction." (See the full text of your speech published in Ta Kung Pao on August 11)

You sounded serious about what you said, and said "according to later investigation and proof".I want to ask you, have you really investigated it?This sentence just proves that you are lying.The fact is that I not only attended the symposium of the United Front Work Department on June 1st, but also gave a report at the meeting.Look at the Guangming Daily on June 2. The newspaper clearly stated (two pieces of news) that "Luo Longji, the convener of the nine-member group, reported on the process of drafting and other issues at yesterday's meeting" (see Guangming Daily's June No. 2, first edition) You have the courage to open your eyes and tell lies to expose.Isn't this a rumor?It is true that I went out to meet the former French Prime Minister Faure in the middle of the meeting that day, but then I returned to the symposium.I found out the content of Chu Anping's speech on June 1st. Is it strange?Is there really a "contradiction" like you said?The most wonderful thing is Shao Ciyun, she actually based on your lie, extended it, and made a second exposure at the symposium of the Democratic League.She is more courageous in spreading rumors than you.My schedule is all controlled by her.She actually took advantage of my position as secretary and said that I had an interview with Faur on the morning of June 1st and that I was working at the Ministry in the afternoon.On the night of June 1st, a meeting to support the Columbo Peace Conference was held in the Great Hall of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. The schedule was full, and the next morning I talked with Zhao Wenbi about Chu Anping's speech without reading the newspaper.This is the proof that I read Chu Anping's speech in advance.Since she knew my schedule, she deliberately concealed the fact that I went to the United Front Work Department for a symposium on the morning of June 1st.She dared to say that I did not attend the symposium of the United Front Work Department.Isn't this cheating?She also fabricated that I had an audience with Faur until two o'clock in the afternoon on June 1, so that she could insist that I did not attend the symposium.Is there any reason to receive foreign guests like this from eight o'clock in the morning to two o'clock in the afternoon?Are foreign guests not allowed to have lunch?She wholeheartedly wants to spread rumors, but does not analyze the evidence she forged, which is a poor technique of "seeing gold but not people".Well, guess what Shao Ciyun said, I didn't go to the symposium on June 1st, and she thought about it with her head, who were the people who came to the CPPCC auditorium on the night of June 1st.Many of the people who came to the conference were those who participated in the morning symposium.Many people discussed Chu Anping's ridiculous speech at the meeting.Am I deaf?Can Shao Ciyun forbid me to hear it?Could it be that I knew the content of Chu Anping's speech without reading the newspaper on the morning of June 2?Furthermore, Chu Anping’s speech on June 1 was such an astonishing mistake, and Chu Anping himself printed his speech and distributed it at the meeting, so after the meeting, it was widely circulated.There must have been hundreds of people who knew about this before the morning symposium.Are you and Shao Ciyun going to frame all these people for having read Chu's speech beforehand?Otherwise, if they didn't attend the symposium, how would they know about it?I made it very clear in my supplementary explanation. I said that on June 2 Pu Xixiu first told me that Chu Anping’s speech was too bold, and I immediately criticized Chu Anping to Pu. I this message.I mean, I first criticized Chu Anping on Pu Xixiu and later on Qian Duansheng.It is clearly written in the explanation.But Shao Ciyun actually said in his denunciation that Luo didn't read the newspaper, and he couldn't have met Pu Xixiu in the morning, so how could he know the content of Chu Anping's speech?Is the truth really like this?Do you really have such a simple logic?That's ridiculous. ① Luo Longji also said in his letter to Zhao Wenbi: I definitely don't blame you for exposing my mistakes.The purpose of today's socialist revolution is the complete transformation of wrong people.When you make a mistake, you should admit that others expose it to help you reform.I think that because we made mistakes today, we should behave better in the future.I want to be a man myself, and I hope that all the friends I know will be good men.Then, I hope that you will not fabricate facts and frame others in the future. ① Luo Longji also bitterly refuted Zhao Wenbi's so-called "reveal" in the letter: You fabricated it out of thin air at the symposium, saying that during the Anti-Japanese War, I dropped a small suitcase on the road from Kunming to Sichuan, and asked you to pay 5,000 yuan in compensation.This is your most absurd fabrication.What is the benefit and effect of this kind of fabrication, and what does it have to do with the struggle against the rightists?When you fabricated it, you did not realize that before 1942, five thousand yuan was not a small number.Did you get five thousand yuan at that time?No wonder the audience laughed when you said that.After I dropped the suitcase, I asked you to pay fifty cents, five cents?This passage of yours was not published in the newspaper, because it was too unreasonable to fabricate.However, from this point of view, we can infer the authenticity of all your so-called disclosures.Isn't this your own proof that you made false disclosures? ② Luo Longji also pointed out: In this anti-rightist struggle, to me, although your fabrications are not the most, they are the most serious.First, what others have fabricated is probably some historical past events, and what you have fabricated refers to current actions.In other words, it is a current thing; second, some of the other people's fabrications are about private life, for example, they fabricated that Zhou Fohai's wife came to my house and said that I introduced her as "my best friend's wife", etc. You fabricated The most important thing is political things, for example, I instruct you to abolish the leadership of the Ministry of Forest Industry as a demonstration, etc.; third, the relationship between others and me is different, but you are my "confidant" in society. Will the "confidantes" report that they will still fake it, and will they still be wronged?Because of these three reasons, your fabrication is all the more serious, and it does me more harm. ① From these posthumous manuscripts of Luo Longji, it can be seen that Luo Longji is full of resentment towards the three people who "three people make a tiger".However, in that distorted age, human nature was distorted.Those three people were forced to "reveal" under political pressure.Luo Longji was wronged.Those three people are not wronged!