Hu Feng’s piece, “My Self-Criticism,” which was written in January of this year, revised in February, and to which a “postscript” was added in March, we are only now publishing together with Shu Wu’s piece, “Some Materials Concerning the Hu Feng Counter-Revolutionary Clique,” for this reason: to prevent Hu Feng from using our newspapers to continue deceiving the readers. From the materials exposed in Shu Wu’s article, readers can see how Hu Feng and the anti-communist, anti-people, counter-revolutionary clique he leads have long been hostile to, held enmity toward, and bitterly hated the Communist Party of China and non-Party progressive writers. From that letter Hu Feng wrote to Shu Wu, can readers smell even the slightest revolutionary scent? Is not the scent emanating from these letters exactly the same as what we once smelled from publications like “Social News” and “News World” published by Kuomintang secret service agencies? What “petty-bourgeois revolutionary nature and standpoint,” what “realist literature and art from the viewpoint of democratic demands and in opposition to various tendencies of feudal tradition,” what “standpoint of sharing a common destiny with the people,” what “spirit of revolutionary humanism,” what “revolutionary thought of people’s liberation that is anti-imperialist and anti-feudal,” what “conforms to the Party’s political program,” what “if not for the revolution and the Communist Party of China, I personally would not have found a place to settle down and get on with my life for more than twenty years”—can such words make people believe? If he were not flying a false banner, if he were a genuine intellectual with a “petty-bourgeois revolutionary nature and standpoint” (there are tens of thousands of such people in China, and they cooperate with the Communist Party of China and are willing to accept the Party’s leadership), would he adopt such a hostile, enmity-filled, and hate-filled attitude toward the Party and progressive writers? What is false is false, and the disguise should be stripped away. Within the Hu Feng counter-revolutionary clique, there may still be people like Shu Wu who were deceived and are unwilling to follow Hu Feng forever; they should provide the government with more materials exposing Hu Feng. Concealment cannot last long; one day it will be exposed. The tactic of shifting from attack to retreat (that is, making a self-criticism) also cannot fool people. A self-criticism must be like Shu Wu’s; a false self-criticism will not do. Lu Ling should have received more secret letters from Hu Feng; we hope he will hand them over. All those who associated with Hu Feng and received secret letters should also hand them over; handing them over is better than keeping or destroying them. Hu Feng should do the work of stripping off his false mask, not making a deceptive self-criticism. To strip off the false mask, expose the truth, help the government thoroughly clarify the entire situation of Hu Feng and his counter-revolutionary clique, and henceforth be a true person, is the only way out for Hu Feng and every person of the Hu Feng faction.