李耳

清者自清，浊者自浊，通者自通，无需多言。

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

我是个劳动者，还是个共产党员。

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@DrRobertg6h @hai330777 这不叫🈷️，这个叫嫖

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@DrRobertg6h 不是都到现场确认满意后给现金的吗？
直接网上转账实属小头控制大头

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@yuerQwQ 土豆怎么这么小

[Angelo Giuliano 🇨🇭🇮🇹 @angeloinchina]

Today, June 4th — the date the West uses every year to commemorate the Tiananmen event, as if they actually cared about China.

Student leader Chai Ling exposed the real agenda in her emotional late-May 1989 interview. The 23-year-old psychology student and de facto commander-in-chief admitted the movement’s true hope was bloodshed: “What we are actually hoping for is bloodshed — the moment when the government has no choice but to butcher the people. Only when the square is awash with blood will the people of China truly unite.”

She spoke of her own plans to survive while urging students to stay and wait for the bloodbath. This wasn’t organic student idealism. It was the climax of a hijacked movement.

What began with legitimate frustrations over corruption and inflation was rapidly turned into one of the first major Western colour revolution attempts in Beijing. External forces — funding, NGOs, strategists on the ground, and media orchestration — pushed English banners for Western cameras, radical escalation, and deliberate chaos to force a violent crackdown. Classic playbook.

These operations specifically prey on young, emotional, idealistic students — naive, never held real jobs, fed Hollywood fantasies of the West, and easy to brainwash with slogans of “democracy” and “freedom.” They become useful idiots, turned against their own country while the organizers keep exit plans ready. Many later reflected: “I was young and foolish.” https://t.co/WhiHHOZege The same pattern repeated in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Hong Kong, and beyond.

Gene Sharp — the American architect of the “non-violent” colour revolution manuals — was physically in Beijing in 1989, boots on the ground for the prototype. https://t.co/505bPwZBlF
Foreign actors escalated tensions.
Violence erupted outside the square: rioters burning unarmed soldiers alive, attacks on troops. Half the deaths were soldiers. Yet the dominant Western narrative still pushes the “massacre on the square” myth. Not a single person died on the square itself during the final clearance. https://t.co/0nMB9x7QSs
The Chinese government knew very well who was behind it. They refused to become another failed state or vassal. They chose sovereignty, stability, and development.
The results speak louder than any propaganda: historic poverty reduction, national rise, and protection of its people rather than sacrificing them for someone else’s script. https://t.co/snsTz638h7
Every June 4th brings the same selective Western outrage and hypocrisy — pretending to care about Chinese lives while ignoring their own bloody interventions abroad and the regrets of those manipulated elsewhere.

Legitimate grievances get hijacked.
Youthful idealism is powerful fuel — and dangerously exploitable when outsiders brainwash kids into destroying their own future.

China learned the lesson early.

Stability won.

China thrived.

[Rachid 🇵🇸 @raslebol2026]

Tout le monde déteste Israël.

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@jianmang054A @jz1254001 @shangguanluan 大家都爱看的新闻叫娱乐节目

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@jianmang054A @routerSmith @Lawrenc09874431 这种？

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@taroinagaki025 那为什么日本人店主不多多雇佣日本人呢？

[Frank O'Callaghan @ionank]

22nd anniversary

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@Mage_Chou @qiaohuanxin 黑奴:👍🏿

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@jianmang054A @shangguanluan 如果是官方棋子还能被“民主人士”拍成照片作为工具一直被宣传吗？网上一搜全是挡坦克图片，基本没有他安全退场的完整视频。
如果是他挡坦克被捕入狱，那“民主人士”没有来采访然后大肆报道才是奇怪。
无非就是没处罚他所以没人去采访，采访了会有反效果，搞来搞去还是想要宣传效果。

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@awaawa_awaawa 日本上班族得用130日元，午餐能吃到什么，便利店饭团吗？

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@HaraldinChina 针对柴玲的采访

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@mugi_imai 日本买套餐有这个徽章送吗

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@konuno_kuzu 你父亲不就是成功案例吗

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@lukedepulford 与此同时

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@jusirthree 支持

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@roclove2020 弱智反贼以为的东升西降。

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@jusirthree 支持，快快做吧，阁下

[李耳 @_2young2simple]

@codiguillos 马克思是对的，种族矛盾和国家矛盾都是掩盖主要矛盾的，阶级矛盾才是核心，20岁时你是个贫穷的黑人所以你是左翼，40岁时你是个富有的黑人所以你成了右翼，这和智力无关。如果你始终贫穷仍然支持右翼，那才是智力迟钝。
一个富有的黑人或白人会一起歧视一个贫穷的黑人或者白人。