Sai Lei was interviewed by The Economist. But he has been exposed countless times on the internet as a result, and he once answered every question sincerely with a friendly and communicative heart. But the other party misinterpreted the interview content, promoting Sai Lei as an extreme nationalist representative who stirs up the flames, and even praising paperclips, Zhongnanwu, and others as noble and sober world citizens.

The original text of The Economist. The title of this article, titled "China's online nationalists turn paranoia into clickbait," is quite sensational: China's online nationalists turn paranoia into a click bait. With just one stick, all patriotic emotions are turned into paranoia, and then patriotism is linked to practical interests, labeled as "eating patriotic rice".

At the beginning of the article, a hypothesis is proposed: the rise of nationalism may one day lead to uncontrollable anger among ordinary Chinese people, especially young people. And such paranoid exclusivity will become a annoying but profitable game. It is obvious that nationalism has become a derogatory term in this report. But the problem is, what most of us hold is a simple patriotic sentiment of loving our loved ones, loving our hometown, and then expanding to love the social community within our country's borders. However, the report defines this emotion as extreme nationalism.

In the description of the article, patriotism has not only become the entertainment industry, but also a means of making money. According to an anonymous source who targeted the boss last year, exposing videos of anti China activists can generate traffic and convert it into revenue. So let's talk about revenue. For self media, the main source of revenue is actually advertising, and so far, only one issue out of over 100 videos released by Sailei Huajin is advertising content, so this issue is still a backdoor for friends. How can we talk about converting traffic into revenue?

Halfway through the article, it finally mentioned the interview content of Sai Lei. It's funny to say that the interview text, which took over 30 minutes and nearly 10000 words, was condensed into such a paragraph. How could you be afraid of not passing the plagiarism check? It was also specifically mentioned that before the interview, Sai Lei asked interview questions in advance on the grounds of not trusting foreign media. As the globally renowned magazine The Economist, it actually quoted fake news that black fans pieced together online to expose our so-called personal information. It seems that The Economist is just like that.

The following paragraph is even funnier, filled with accusations that "you Chinese people are all white eyed wolves who kill donkeys after unloading the mill.". At the end, a subtitle was intentionally bolded. "Tell the Chinese that every foreigner is a potential spy." I don't know how he came to this conclusion, but it may be their own experience.

Throughout the content, Sai Lei briefly appeared and was used as a negative teaching material. Why pretend to conduct a phone interview? Throughout the interview, all relevant questions were answered by Sai Lei, but the content written can be said to have nothing to do with Sai Lei's answer, and the level of the Economist is only that. In short, the purpose of The Economist is to provoke hostility from abroad towards China and use patriotism to create conflicts within China.