Junius Tian

这是一个非常独特的现象，似乎《国际歌》在中国人心中占据着某种不可取代的地位。自六四运动以来，几乎在任何大型反共集会中，总会有人提议，通过对着共产党当局高唱《国际歌》的方式，表达自己的“反共”决心。

他们可能是无意的，也可能是认为这样的行为能够起到某种“扛着红旗反红旗”的讽刺效果，或者是受某种高大上的西方“新潮”左翼观点影响，认为中国共产党是“国家资本主义”，而非“真正的社会主义”。但无论如何，这样的行为在各种反对共产主义的集会上实属罕见，尤其是在共产主义政权管辖范围之外的地方。

这个世界上的共产主义受害者并不少——无论是古巴、朝鲜还是越南的受害者，我们很少听说有人在反对共产主义的集会上高唱《国际歌》，更少听到逃离共产主义暴政的人在海外用高唱《国际歌》的方式来表达对共产主义政府的不满。

与其跪着死谏，何不站着抗争

我认为这种唱着《国际歌》的“反抗”方式实在不是件妥事，仿佛是中国古代那些跪在暴君面前死谏的忠臣士大夫，对高高在上的君王疾呼：“陛下！为了您的江山社稷，祖宗之法不可变呐！”

民主运动抗争与古代忠臣士大夫死谏的最大区别在于，民主活动家会以更加现代的方式理解自尊、骨气和廉耻，懂得自己与暴君同样生而为人，站在平等的人格地位上，为自身权利进行斗争；而非像士大夫那样，卑微地跪着叩头如捣蒜，张口便是孔孟周礼，哀求暴君为“江山社稷”着想。

这个世界上，不同语言的被压迫者们高唱不同的战歌，以反抗马克思主义意识形态带来的暴政。那么，为什么许多中国的反共人士偏偏要抓着《国际歌》这首充满戾气与恶毒的歌曲不放？这种心态是否是一种文化束缚综合症？

《国际歌》背后荒谬的“革命”

《国际歌》的创作背景是一场叫做巴黎公社运动的暴力政变，一场由流氓和逃兵策动、试图推翻议会民主政府、建立社会主义僭主政治的失败尝试。在中共的左翼宣传话语体系主导下，中国长期以来几乎不存在任何反对这场“进步”运动的声音，而这首僭主之歌也成了中国共产党未写入党章的事实党歌。

在《国际歌》中，我看到那些自称“伟大领袖”的煽动者，他们巧言令色，以虚假承诺换取投机者的支持。他们声称“从来没有什么救世主”，也“不靠上帝、凯撒和护民官”，讽刺的是，他们自己却傲慢地将自己当作上帝，比任何一届“凯撒”更加独断专行，比戴克里先更自以为是。

他们以“人民”的名义实行残暴血腥的统治，肆意酷刑、谋杀、绑架、屠杀不同政见者，欺软怕硬，摧毁温和的宗教信仰。他们沉迷于用更激进的口号煽动人民，以满足自己的政治野心，甚至用无数平民的鲜血构筑他们幼稚、低能的乌托邦幻想小王国。

巴黎公社的革命从来不是为了建立民主共和国，相反，它是为了推翻1871年法国全国选举授权建立的法兰西共和国政府。马克思主义者总是抱怨不同时代的资本主义政府选举“代表性不足”，可讽刺的是，所谓的资本主义政府尚且可以允许马克思主义者通过民选成为议员或首相，而当马克思主义者掌权后，他们却绝不容许任何反对声音参与政治。

选票和公共政治演讲，在他们统治下成为遥远的记忆，甚至成为令人恐惧的政治敏感话题。请问那些从中国来的朋友们，你们有几个人被授权摸过一张国家级人大代表的选票？你们见过哪怕一次在中国的合法公共政治演讲吗？

《国际歌》，一首暴政的协奏曲

《国际歌》这首被其作者自诩为被压迫者心声的歌曲，代表的却是学术无产阶级大手一挥指点江山和他人生活方式的傲慢，以及这些人隐秘又膨胀的官瘾。他们说“革命的领导权属于人民”，却狂妄的自认为自己有权代表人民，并将他人的人生变成那微不足道的“代价”。他们否定上帝与反抗者同在，可辛亥革命的元勋们却几乎无一不信仰上帝。他们口口声声呼吁“奴隶的反抗”，却致力于建立一个极权主义社会，使被剥夺就业机会者永远是贱民，国有工人永远是国有工人，合作社农奴永远是合作社农奴，而高高在上的书记和主席们永远是书记和主席。

在人类历史上，马克思主义者的暴政可谓前无古人，后无来者。即便是拿破仑三世的帝国政府，也尚且需要通过公投建立自身合法性；即便是那帝国政府，也保留了一个能够表达人民真实声音却权力相对弱小的民选议会。拿破仑三世的帝国政府通过流放政治犯的方式打压异议，然而，马克思主义者掌权后，他们不会流放反对者，而是直接杀死异见者。即便是西欧专制君主制最黑暗的那种形式，亦远不及马克思主义者建立的僭主政治那般恶毒、黑暗与恐怖。

我们要唱出那暴政下人民不能唱出的歌

一首颂扬暴力推翻民主政府的《国际歌》，究竟有什么资格代表被马克思主义政权压迫的人民？

民主运动不是在土谷祠里做“白盔白甲”的梦，不是等着为崇祯披麻戴孝的“革命党”来，跟着一起“劫富济贫，开仓放粮”；也不是水泊梁山，杀入北京，夺了习老儿鸟位和共产党党歌，换个台词再继续皇帝轮流坐今日到我家。民主运动正是要消灭书记、政委和主席这些骑在奴隶头上作威作福的压迫者，击溃那些整日装逼指导人民应该如何去做事的左翼学术流氓不堪一击的大脑，站出来为你自己以及像你自己一样的普通人，争取自由选择生活方式的权利。

反抗马克思主义暴政，我们应该大声歌唱那些让马克思主义者最厌恶、最忌惮的抗争之歌——高唱波罗的海森林兄弟之歌，高唱星条旗之歌，高唱《Ain’t I Right》。如果你是中国民族主义者，你也可以唱中华民国国歌。

但唯独，请各位不要在反共产主义政权的集会上，再播放那首令人作呕的僭主之歌——《国际歌》。

因为在共产主义政权下，那些饥寒交迫的奴隶，早已厌倦了这首象征压迫者的歌。

The Internationale has no saviour from on high delivers—Only Marxists who aspire to be masters and gods

Junius Tian

I don’t know what kind of mindset leads to this. The Internationale seems to have an unshakable grip on many Chinese dissidents. Ever since the Tiananmen protests, you can almost bet that at any big anti-Communist gathering, someone will suggest belting out the Internationale as a show of defiance against the Communist Party.

Maybe it’s unintentional. Maybe they think it’s ironic—using Communist propaganda against the Communists. Or maybe they’ve bought into some trendy Western leftist idea that the Chinese Communist Party isn’t real socialism, just “state capitalism.” But whatever the reason, you’d be hard-pressed to find another anti-Communist movement anywhere in the world that does this, especially outside the grip of a Communist regime.

Look at the victims of Communism—Cubans, North Koreans, Vietnamese. Ever seen them break into The Internationale at an anti-Communist protest? Ever heard of someone who escaped from a brutal Communist dictatorship and then, once safely abroad, started belting out the anthem of their oppressors? Didn’t think so.

Stop Kneeling, Start Fighting

This whole thing reminds me of those old imperial Chinese courtiers who, instead of standing up to a tyrant, would fall to their knees, kowtow, and beg: My master, this law is a tradition set by the late emperor. I humbly and respectfully ask that you take notice of it.

The difference between modern democracy activists and those loyal old courtiers is simple: democracy activists understand what fucking called equality. They should know themselves as a rebel, not a slave begging for mercy from their master. The courtiers? They grovel, quoting Confucius and begging a dictator to be a little less cruel, have they ever understood what dignity is?

Across the world, people oppressed by Communism have found their own anthems of resistance. So why do so many Chinese dissidents still cling to a song soaked in Communist rhetoric and violence? Is this some deep-seated mental block called Culture-bound syndrome?

The Ridiculous background of The Internationale

The Internationale comes from the Paris Commune—a failed coup in 1871, driven by deserters and street mobs who wanted to overthrow a republican government and replace it with a socialist dictatorship. But thanks to decades of Communist propaganda, most Chinese people have never heard a word of criticism about this so-called “progressive” uprising. What’s worse, this anthem of tyranny is the Chinese Communist Party’s unofficial theme song.

Whenever I hear The Internationale, I picture a bunch of self-proclaimed “people’s leaders,” slick talkers promising paradise while plotting their own rise to power. They sing, There has never been a savior, sneering at gods, caesar, and tribunes—yet they set themselves up as gods, more ruthless than any emperor in history.

They rule through terror, arresting, torturing, and murdering anyone who dares to disagree. They crush religious faith, silence moderates, and manipulate people with ever more radical slogans, all to satisfy their own ambitions. Their so-called “revolution” is nothing more than a blood-soaked fantasy, a power trip disguised as justice.

And let’s be clear: the Paris Commune was not about democracy. It was about overthrowing a legitimate republic elected by the French people. Marxists always moan about how capitalist governments “don’t represent the people,” but let’s face it—capitalist democracies still allow Marxists to run for office. But when the fucking Marxists actually seize power? They will make sure no opposition ever gets a say.

Elections? Gone. Public debate? Illegal. Tell me, friends in China—how many of you have ever seen a real, competitive national election? How many of you have ever attended a political rally that wasn’t state-controlled?

The Internationale and the Reality of Communist Rule

Rather than being a song of the people, The Internationale is, in essence, an anthem of tyrannical usurpation. These are the same people who tell you that “the revolution belongs to the people,” while making sure they get to decide who “the people” actually are. They call for “the uprising of the oppressed,” yet their dream society is one where the Opponents and ethnic minorities will forever be the untouchables in extermination camps, the privileged ‘workers’ of state-owned enterprises control the factories, the farmers remain tied to collective farms, and the Party chairmen and general secretary remain in charge forever.

In all of human history, no ideology has produced a more totalitarian nightmare than Marxism. Even Napoleon III—an actual emperor—held referendums to justify his rule. Even his government had a weak, but still elected, parliament where opposition voices could be heard. Napoleon III exiled his enemies; Marxists eliminate them. Even the worst old-school European monarchs didn’t match the sheer brutality and mind control of a Communist regime.

Throw the symbol of tyranny into the trash can

So why should let The Internationale—a song that glorifies overthrowing democracy—be the anthem of people fighting against Communist oppression?

Democracy movements aren’t about mourning a fallen emperor or waiting for a “righteous” strongman to seize power and play the role of Robin Hood. Democracy movements are not about storming the capital just to replace one dictatorship with another. The real fight is about dismantling the entire system that allows Party Secretaries, Commissars, and people’s Leaders to rule over ordinary people’s lives.

If you want to resist Communist tyranny, then sing the songs that actually scare them—sing the anthems of the Baltic forest brothers, sing The Star-Spangled Banner, sing Ain’t I Right. If you’re a Chinese nationalist, sing the anthem of the Republic of China.

But whatever you do, please stop playing that disgusting tyrant anthem—The Internationale—at anti-Communist rallies.

Because the people who still suffer under Communist rule—the ones starving, shivering, and silenced—have long since had enough of that song. Asian lives matter!

Junius Tian

这是一个上演了很久的讽刺剧，当中国的良心犯在冰冷的监狱中与亲友分离，却有着如此众多的中国“难民”自由的进出他们所声称要“逃离”的国家。他们通过庇护的手段拿到自由国家的公民身份，却又摇身一变扮作高等华人，跑到他们声称的迫害者那里，与中共统战组织推杯换盏沆瀣一气，又在中共治下的奴隶面前作威作福，纵然他们自己也曾经是那中共治下的一员奴隶。

当你问他们说：“嘿老兄，你不是逃离暴政的难民吗？你怎么似乎一点也不怕回到迫害你的地方啊？”他们总是“憨厚”的咧嘴一笑，旋即蹦出一句“富贵不归乡，如锦衣夜行，华人还是要叶落归根的。”好一句富贵不归乡，如锦衣夜行和叶落归根。那些在暴政下热爱自由者的眼泪、鲜血和现实苦难，却是一场你在自由国家打黑工赚取汇率差额回去中国暴富的美梦，却是你依仗身份带来的特权跑到中国踩在那些热爱自由者和劳苦大众头顶上做人上人的一块垫脚石。

“人皆生而平等，享有造物主赋予给他们的不可剥夺的权利，包括生命、自由和追求幸福的权利。”这振聋发聩的宣言自闻名至今已有二百四十年有余，而可悲的是，自由这项不可剥夺的权利对马克思主义政权下的人民却仍然是一项颇具现实意义的特权。享有自由者总是天然的有着与暴政国家的王公贵族平起平坐的特权，即便贵如薄熙来亦必须为谋害一个自由世界的公民而付出代价；而无德虚荣之人享有自由后，却消费着宝贵的自由谄媚远东的僭主，在失去自由的奴隶面前昂首挺胸拿猪皮充黄袍。

左翼全球主义者声称拥抱全球化，却并不是像新保守主义者那样基于一个善意、幼稚却伟大的理想。新保守主义者幻想武力能将民主自由价值播撒到世界的每一个黑暗的角落，而左翼全球主义者则是以多元化为借口享受着中国等暴政国家低人权优势为他们所提供的廉价产品，并将中国这样的不自由国家变成一个特权西方人和高等华人为所欲为的巨大的游乐场。

环绕在那左翼全球主义意识形态立场周围的中国人里，总是少不了那些离岸爱国的中国“难民”。这些曾经生活在中国，事实上深知暴政下苦难的人，却在获得自由后立即加入到压迫者和剥削者的行列，其嘴脸格外令人难以忘怀。他们拒绝自己成为暴政下的奴隶，却欣然接受并享受那些曾经像他们一样的奴隶卑微的匍匐在自己面前，每逢中共党庆和国庆之时，总少不了这些想当人上人者令人作呕的谄媚和忠诚表演，以换取成为剥削者之一的入场券。

他们扮作爱国华侨，商会侨领，全然忘记了自己是以怎样荒谬的理由成为了“华侨”，全然忘记了自己当初是如何涕泗横流向移民官数落中共种种暴行。他们遍布唐人街和中餐外卖店，把剥削劳工偷税漏税的传统在自由的土地上发扬光大像难以清除的苔藓腐蚀着自由之树用鲜血所浇灌的根基。他们视反共组织如洪水猛兽，对来自香港、西藏的共产主义受害者竖起中指，傲慢的驱赶练习法轮功的老阿姨，将关心中国人权状况的活动家驱赶进倾盆大雨中，向中共当局举报异见学生学者。

然后这样一群人却声称他们是“难民”，既然您这么热爱您的祖国——中华人民共和国，请问您逃的是哪班子难？您是等着村里发金条了再速归是吗？还是您想踩在奴隶的脖子上作威作福？

Fleeing tyranny but loving the tyrant: What are they really thinking?

Junius Tian

This is undoubtedly a darkly ironic spectacle. As China’s prisoners of conscience suffer in cold prisons, separated from their loved ones, countless Chinese “refugees” move freely in and out of the country they claim to have “fled” from. Having secured citizenship in free countries through asylum, they quickly adopt the persona of the privileged Chinese elite. They travel back to the tyrannical state they profess to have escaped, drinking and laughing with the Chinese Communist Party’s united front organisations, all the while playing their part in the tyranny stained with blood. In front of the slaves still bound under Communist rule, they assume the airs of authority, despite once being among the same oppressed people under that regime.

When you ask them, “Hey mate, weren’t you a refugee fleeing tyranny? Why does it seem like you’re not afraid at all to return to the place that persecuted you?” They always respond with an “innocent” grin, quickly followed by the Chinese saying, “Wealth and honour should not return to one’s hometown, like wearing embroidered robes in the dark.” It seems they view obtaining refugee status through asylum as a means to elevate their social standing, seeing it as a reward that allows them to flaunt their sense of superiority before those who are still oppressed. The tears, blood, and real suffering of those who loved freedom under tyranny become nothing more than a dream for some assholes: the dream of their earning a fortune by doing under-the-table work in a free country, sending money back to China to amass wealth. It is a dream built upon using the privileges granted by one’s status to return to China, stepping on the heads of those who love freedom and the hard-working masses, serving as a stepping stone to elevate oneself above them.

All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This resounding declaration has been heard for over two hundred and forty years, and yet, tragically, the right to freedom remains, under Marxist regimes, a privilege rather than an inalienable right. Those who enjoy freedom inherently possess a privilege that places them on equal footing with the aristocracy of tyrannical states—no matter how exalted, even a figure like Bo Xilai must pay the price for plotting the harm of a citizen of the free world. Meanwhile, those of little virtue or false vanity, once granted freedom, squander it in sycophantic flattery of the tyrant of the Far East. In front of those who have lost their freedom, they stand tall, draped in the sham of power, freedom for them like putting lipstick on a pig.

Left-wing globalists often claim to embrace globalisation, but not in the same way as neoconservatives, whose ideals, though naive, are based on a good vision. Neoconservatives fantasise about spreading democratic values through force to every dark corner of the world, while left-wing globalists, under the guise of promoting diversity, enjoy the fruits of cheap labour and the grace from the servitude of the oppressed in totalitarian states like China. They indirectly exploit the blood and sweat of low-wage workers in such regimes, continually sourcing inexpensive products, and transform countries like China—where freedom is scarce—into vast playgrounds for privileged Westerners and elite Chinese, they enjoy the services offered by slaves in a humble and degrading manner of those enslave, yet without any sense of guilt.

Surrounding the ideology of left-wing globalism, one often finds Chinese ‘refugees’ who claim to have fled tyranny, yet swiftly switch sides, aligning themselves with the oppressors and exploiters once they gain their freedom. They reject being treated as slaves under the Communist regime but gladly accept the services of those who, much like their former selves, are still enslaved. On every National Day of the People’s Republic of China, one can always spot these nauseating figures in Chinatowns around the world, they pay homage to the tyrants, merely to secure their ticket to becoming the new oppressors.

They transform into the “patriotic overseas Chinese” touted by the CCP’s state-run media, completely forgetting the absurd reasons they became “overseas Chinese,” and forgetting how they once tearfully recounted the atrocities of the Communist Party to immigration officers. They are scattered across Chinatowns and Chinese takeaway shops, spreading the tradition of exploiting labor and evading taxes, fostering it on free soil like an insidious moss that erodes the roots of the tree of liberty, which was nourished by the blood of heroes. They view anti-Communist organizations as a threat, flipping the bird at victims of Communist oppression from Hong Kong and Tibet, arrogantly chasing away elderly women practicing Falun Gong, expelling human rights activists concerned with China’s plight into the pouring rain, and reporting dissident students and scholars to the CCP authorities.

If you are reading this article in a fit of rage, I hope you can answer one question for me: since you are so passionate about your homeland and so eager to uphold a tradition of superiority that oppresses others, what kind of tyranny are you fleeing to become a “refugee”? Is it because you are not fucking one of the exploiters yourself?

佚名网文  

最近一篇匿名文章看似在分析民运组织的问题，实则在刻意引导舆论，制造不信任感，让人们对民主 运动彻底丧失信心。它的核心逻辑是：坐牢并不能代表正确，民运组织充满内斗，特务无处不在， 因此民运注定失败，不值得信任。这样的论调听上去似乎有理，实则是在构建一个消极无望、人人 自危的叙事，正是中共当局最希望在民主阵营中散播的情绪毒素。 

文章反复暗示，“坐牢”只是某些民运人士用来获取政治资本的手段，甚至影射部分人可能是特务 刻意“塑金身”，以便更容易渗透反对派。这一逻辑荒唐得让人瞠目结舌。现实是，坐牢是一种不可 回避的牺牲，而不是可以选择的“策略”。以朱虞夫为例：1989年因参与民主运动被捕，判刑两年； 1999年因参与中国民主党，被判刑七年；2011年因再度倡导民主，被判刑七年，出狱后仍长期被严密 监控。这会是“塑金身”的安排吗？一个人会三次选择被监禁、酷刑、被剥夺所有自由去“塑金身”吗？如果坐牢是“塑 金身”，那是否意味着被虐待致死的刘晓波、曹顺利，也是在“刻意打造悲情形象”吗？ 

类似的污名化策略，早在前苏联、东德、朝鲜等独裁政权中早有先例：他们用“叛徒—英雄—特 务”这样的循环叙事，不断瓦解反对派，让民间社会彻底丧失信任感。

现实数据也清楚地表明，“坐 牢”的民运人士几乎没有任何经济优势。目前至少2000多名政治犯仍在中国监狱（数据来源：人权观 察2023年报告，2024年一定会更多），其中大部分人在坐牢后经济困顿，家人受牵连，流亡海外者甚至无法立足。相 反，真正的“特务”，往往能拿到绿卡、稳定经济来源，并在关键时刻“反水”或“举报”，以换取更 大政治资本。如果“坐牢=特务塑金身”，为什么这么多知名民运人士在海外仍然处境艰难，甚至靠 打工、开餐馆为生？ 

该文试图通过回忆社民党分裂、海外民运内部矛盾，来得出“民运组织必然走向内斗、必然失 败”的结论，却刻意忽略了一个事实：民主政治本身就是建立在不同派别竞争、对抗、协商之上的。 

美国共和党最早起源于“废奴主义者”与“温和改良派”之间的激烈对抗；台湾民主运动在1980-90年 代，也经历了“美丽岛系”、“新潮流系”的激烈斗争，但最终推动了台湾民主化；香港的泛民主派过 去十年不断分裂，但每次大规模运动时，仍能团结对外。分裂不是失败，而是民主组织的成长过 程。 反观中共，党内斗争比民运圈残酷得多，仅在2023年，中共高层“肃清”运动中，就有至少20名副 省部级以上官员落马，包括国防部长、外交部长等核心人物。党内斗争导致数百万人遭清洗（1966- 1976年文革数据），但为何没有人用“共产党就是内斗”来全盘否定它的运作模式？

事实上，民运内 部分歧并非独特现象，而是所有政治组织的常态，关键不在于“分裂”，而在于是否能建立制度化的 协调机制。 

文章称“和、理、非组织”天生瘸腿，无药可救。但历史和现实都证明，真正害怕和理非组织的，恰 恰是独裁政权本身。美国政治学者 Erica Chenoweth 研究了 1900-2015年间 323起政治变革，发现非暴 力运动成功率为53%，暴力运动为26%。非暴力的“天鹅绒革命”成功推翻了捷克斯洛伐克共产党； 非暴力的菲律宾“人民力量革命”推翻了马科斯政权。这些政权最终倒下，而非暴力斗争被刻意贬 低，正是因为它是更可持续、更难镇压的变革方式。 

中国政府为何如此害怕非暴力抗争？1989年天安门运动、2019年香港反送中运动，最初都是非暴 力的，但政府害怕失去合法性，因此最终以屠杀、镇压收场。中共对“和理非”的恐惧，甚至超过对 暴力抗争的担忧，因为非暴力更容易赢得国内民众与国际支持，更能影响长期民意。 

那么，真正“瘸腿”的到底 是谁？是“和理非”组织，还是那个连公民抗议都容不下的专制政权？ 

文章最后的逻辑是——任何民运组织都可能被渗透，所有知名民运人士都可能是特务，因此，我们谁都不该信。但这种“极端怀疑论”，恰恰是最符合中共统战策略的毒药。俄罗斯的克格勃 （KGB），在冷战时期最成功的“心理战”就是让流亡人士彼此怀疑，最终彻底失去组织能力。

“怀 疑一切、攻击一切、否定一切”并不能击败独裁，反而让独裁者稳固统治。 试问，当所有人都因为害 怕“被渗透”而拒绝合作，民主运动还能走多远？ 真正的民主斗争，不是建立在盲目信任，而是建立在制度化的透明、监督和问责之上。盲目信任 是愚蠢的，但失去信任的政治，更是一场灾难。

如果民运有问题，那就用制度和行动去解决，而不是靠阴谋论和情绪化批判去瓦解它。这个世界上，真正渴望民运失败的，只有中共，只有独裁者。

The Reality of the Democracy Movement and the Logical Trap of Stigmatization — A Response to Recent Misguided Arguments

Anonymous Article

A recently published anonymous article appears to analyze the problems within democratic movements, but in reality, it deliberately manipulates public opinion, fostering distrust and leading people to completely lose faith in the pro-democracy cause. Its core argument is that imprisonment does not necessarily validate one’s righteousness, that democracy movements are plagued by internal strife, and that spies are everywhere—therefore, the movement is doomed to fail and is unworthy of trust. While this rhetoric may sound reasonable at first glance, it is actually constructing a narrative of despair and fear—precisely the psychological poison the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wishes to inject into the democratic camp.

The article repeatedly implies that “going to prison” is merely a political strategy used by some pro-democracy figures to gain political capital and even suggests that some may be secret agents deliberately “building a heroic image” to infiltrate the opposition. This logic is so absurd that it defies belief.

In reality, imprisonment is an inescapable sacrifice, not a chosen strategy. Take Zhu Yufu as an example:

• In 1989, he was imprisoned for two years for participating in the democracy movement.

• In 1999, he was sentenced to seven years for his involvement in China Democracy Party.

• In 2011, he was sentenced to another seven years for once again advocating democracy.

• Even after his release, he has been under strict surveillance.

Would anyone choose to be imprisoned, tortured, and deprived of all freedoms three times just to “build an image”? If imprisonment is merely a publicity stunt, does that mean that Liu Xiaobo and Cao Shunli, who died from mistreatment, were also deliberately crafting tragic personas?

This type of stigmatization strategy has been seen before in dictatorships like the Soviet Union, East Germany, and North Korea. They use the “traitor-hero-spy” cycle to dismantle opposition movements, ensuring that civil society is consumed by distrust and suspicion.

The Reality of Political Imprisonment: No Privilege, Only Persecution

Empirical data clearly shows that “imprisoned” pro-democracy activists have no economic advantage.

As of 2023, at least 2,000 political prisoners remain in Chinese prisons (source: Human Rights Watch 2023 Report), and this number is expected to rise in 2024. Most face extreme financial difficulties after their release, their families suffer consequences, and those in exile struggle to survive.

In contrast, actual government agents often secure green cards, stable economic resources, and at crucial moments, defect or provide intelligence to gain even greater political capital.

If “imprisonment = spy strategy”, why do so many well-known pro-democracy activists face financial hardship abroad, with some working in restaurants or odd jobs to make a living?

The Inevitable Tensions Within Democracy Movements

The article attempts to portray internal conflicts within the democracy movement—such as past divisions in the Social Democratic Party (社民党) and disagreements among overseas activists—as proof that “all democracy movements are destined for internal strife and failure.”

However, it deliberately ignores an important fact: democratic politics itself is built on the foundation of competing factions, disagreements, and negotiations.

Consider historical examples:

• The U.S. Republican Party originated from conflicts between abolitionists and moderate reformists.

• Taiwan’s democracy movement in the 1980s and 1990s faced intense internal struggles between the “Formosa faction” and “New Tide faction,” yet still successfully advanced democratization.

• Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp has fractured multiple times over the past decade, yet during every major movement, they have still united against oppression.

Divisions do not signify failure; rather, they are part of the growth process of democratic organizations.

Compare this with the CCP itself, where internal struggles are far more brutal.

• In 2023 alone, the CCP’s “internal purges” led to the downfall of at least 20 high-ranking officials, including the Minister of Defense and Minister of Foreign Affairs.

• During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), millions of party members were persecuted.

Yet, why does no one use “CCP internal conflict” to declare the failure of its political structure?

In reality, internal disagreements are not unique to democracy movements—they exist in all political organizations. The key is not whether divisions occur but whether an institutional framework exists to manage and resolve them.

The Effectiveness of Nonviolent Movements

The article claims that “nonviolent movements” (和理非) are inherently weak and doomed to fail. However, both history and contemporary studies prove that dictatorships fear nonviolent resistance the most.

American political scientist Erica Chenoweth analyzed 323 political movements between 1900 and 2015 and found that:

• Nonviolent movements succeeded 53% of the time.

• Violent movements succeeded only 26% of the time.

Historical examples include:

• The “Velvet Revolution” that peacefully ended Communist rule in Czechoslovakia.

• The “People Power Revolution” that overthrew Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.

China’s own history further proves this:

• The 1989 Tiananmen Movement and the 2019 Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Bill Movement both started as nonviolent protests.

• However, fearing a loss of legitimacy, the CCP ultimately resorted to massacre and suppression.

The CCP fears nonviolent movements even more than armed resistance, because nonviolence gains public and international support and influences long-term public opinion.

So, who is truly “weak”? The nonviolent activists, or the dictatorship that cannot even tolerate peaceful protests?

The CCP’s Psychological Warfare: Sowing Distrust

The article’s final argument is that all pro-democracy organizations can be infiltrated, and all prominent activists could be spies—therefore, no one should be trusted.

This extreme skepticism is exactly the CCP’s preferred propaganda strategy.

The Soviet KGB used a similar psychological warfare tactic during the Cold War: they spread distrust among exiled dissidents, ultimately paralyzing their ability to organize.

Spreading suspicion, attacks, and total rejection of all activists does not defeat dictatorship—instead, it strengthens it.

If everyone refuses to cooperate due to fear of infiltration, how can the democracy movement survive?

True democratic struggle is not built on blind trust, but on institutionalized transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Blind trust is foolish, but a political movement without trust is doomed to collapse.

Conclusion

If the democracy movement has problems, the solution is institutional reform and action—not conspiracy theories and emotional denunciations that only serve to destroy it.

In this world, the only people who truly wish to see democracy fail are the CCP and other dictatorships.

活动时间： 2025年2月15日 

活动地点： 伦敦 

主办单位： NEU (National Education Union) 

在当前国际局势依然紧张、乌克兰主权和领土完整面临严峻挑战的背景下，NEU决定于2025年2月15日在伦敦举办“Solidarity with Ukraine’s fight against Russian occupation”活动，旨在表达对乌克兰的坚决支持，同时呼吁国际社会团结一致，共同对抗侵略行为。

活动的主题“Solidarity with Ukraine’s fight against Russian occupation”寓意着团结与互助，强调在全球化时代，只有各国携手合作，才能有效维护和平与正义。 本次“Solidarity with Ukraine’s fight against Russian occupation”活动不仅展示了来自伦敦及全球各地人士对乌克兰的深情支持，也彰显了国际社会在面对不公与侵略时的团结精神。

中国民主党英国总部作为坚定支持者之一，借此次平台重申了对国际人权与民主事业的承诺。活动结束后，主办方宣布将持续跟进相关国际合作项目，推动更多形式的对话与援助，为乌克兰及其他需要帮助的国家提供实质支持。 

通过此次活动，参与各方进一步认识到：在全球化时代，和平与安全需要各国携手共进，只有团结一致，才能真正抵御外部威胁，共同创造一个公正、繁荣的未来。 

活动出席名单：何智威，成亚利，韦崇华，范可为，黄天，王建，余刚。 

中国民主党英国总部党员何智威报道

Solidarity with Ukraine’s Fight Against Russian Occupation 

Event Date: 15 February 2025 

Event Location: London 

Organizer: NEU (National Education Union) Against the backdrop of ongoing international tensions and the severe challenges faced by Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, NEU has decided to hold the “Solidarity with Ukraine’s Fight Against Russian Occupation” event in London on 15 February 2025. 

The event aims to express unwavering support for Ukraine while calling on the international community to unite in countering acts of aggression. The theme, “Solidarity with Ukraine’s Fight Against Russian Occupation,” embodies the spirit of unity and mutual assistance, emphasizing that in the era of globalization, only by joining forces can peace and justice be effectively maintained. 

This event not only showcased heartfelt support for Ukraine from people in London and across the globe but also demonstrated the international community’s solidarity when confronting injustice and aggression. As one of the firm supporters, the UK Headquarters of the Chinese Democratic Party used this platform to reaffirm its commitment to international human rights and democratic causes. 

Following the event, the organizers announced plans to continue following up on relevant international cooperation projects, promoting further dialogue and assistance to provide tangible support to Ukraine and other nations in need. 

Through this event, all participants came to a deeper understanding that in today’s globalized world, peace and security require the joint efforts of all nations; only through united action can external threats be effectively resisted and a just, prosperous future be created. 

Event Attendees: He Zhiwei, Cheng Yali, Wei Chonghua, Fan Kewei, Huang Tian, Wang Jian, Yu Gang. 

Reported by He Zhiwei, Member of the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party.

—- 王希哲再驳为界力建、兰伟、覃夕权、黎小龙等新“四人帮”政变辩护的几条谬论 

一。驳所谓“你们不革命了，不要反对（界力建们）革命” 老王答:你们只要打着“革命”旗号，就可以为所欲为了吗？就有理在中国民主党联总内部搞政变夺权了吗？只要打着“革命”旗号，就可以为所欲为，谁最会干？不恰恰是共产党吗？从上世纪20年代“土地革命”到6-70年代“文化大革命”，毛泽东共产党不就是打着“革命”旗号为所欲为，祸害人民的吗？你们号称“反共”，号称“民主”，为什么就是要学共产党呢？ 

二、网上疑似韩武来质疑老王：“汪岷前主席曾在2017年3月，在拉斯维加斯召开会议，其中一天的议程是讨论“改革已死，革命当立”。您是不是也要以此逼他退出您的党？” 老王驳:中国民主党建党党章确定的党的性质，是民主宪政政党，不是“反共革命党”。它主张“公开、和平、理性、非暴力”。即使你们企图把联总变成革命党，也不能在党内搞政变夺权。现在联总是反对你们非法搞阴谋搞政变的问题，不是你们能不能改变党的性质问题。不要偷换题目。 汪岷前主席主持的联总三大，他忽视党章确定的党性质，高调“革命，武装斗争”。我提了意见的，没有多干涉。因为汪岷毕竟是大会合法选出的主席，我必须尊重他。且他也只是空喊喊口号，并没有改写党章。但现在你韩武操纵界某等人，以为只要打出“革命”幌子，就可以像共产党一样为所欲为，非法搞政变，要推倒五大合法主席郑存柱，实现夺权，你来做后台老板，你们真正与“共匪”一路了，我才站出来反对。 

 三、界力建、黎小龙等吃国内民主党人的人血馒头，却又要蛮横剥夺他们的民主党人的资格权利，为什么？ 老王答：界力建、黎小龙等和他们的后台老板韩武说是要“革命、反共、灭匪”，我们不反对。你们可以另树一个旗号和山头“革命”去。为什么非要紧捏着“民主党”“民主党联总”的牌子旗号作宝贝不放呢？无他，因为“民主党”“民主党联总”有着近三十年国内上百入狱的老党员共计上千年刑期的“含金量”，可以在政庇生意中向美国等国移民局展示“作证”，吃他们的人血馒头，获得绿卡庇护。可是现在，他们一面吃着国内民主党人的人血馒头，一面竟无耻地简直毫无人性的宣布国内久经炼狱磨难的创党民主党人来到海外“不具海外之中國民主黨全國聯合總部成員資格，無選舉權、任職權及其他黨內權利”，他们“對中國民主黨組織的運作構成重大干擾和破壞”！界力建、黎小龙等“四人帮”呀，你们还是人吗？！ 

海外人士打着“中国民主党”旗号高调“革命反共”，早就对国内民主党人的生存和法庭辩护造成极大困扰，使国内民主党无法力争合法生存（这是民主党人本来的目标）。国内民主党组织的领导人早就无数次向海外提出过反对。王有才先生出狱后来到海外，还曾公开提出，反对海外的民主党组织喊“打倒共产党”的口号。因为“打倒”本身就是暴力口号，是共产党原创和百年高喊的口号，违背民主党的“和平理性非暴力”性质。

早期领导中国民主党的王希哲意识到这个问题，所以才建议“革命”的王炳章退出中国民主党，仅担任中国民主党顾问。 但现实问题发生。当原海外民运大批的高中级具民主理念知识分子淡出或退出民运后，近20多年的海外“民运”，其成员的基本构成已经大量的是为求政庇拿绿卡的“非法移民”。他们若不被界力建一类不断领到海外中国领事馆门口高喊“打倒共产党”的激烈“革命”口号，就难以向移民局证明自己的“反共受迫害”身份而获得绿卡。民主党怎么办？拒绝他们，洁身自好吗？这就“关门主义”，民主党势必成无源之水而陷最终消亡。 

王军涛09年纽约成立“民主党全委会”后，率他的全委会每周时代广场高调“茉莉花革命”反共，果然队伍迅速长大，财源大增；联总美西汪岷接任主席后，便较了劲与美东王军涛竞争高调，更要“武装革命反共”，队伍果然也就大增。王希哲既然退下了，且也是现实主义者，便不再上门反对他们的反共革命口号了。只向他们强调一条最后的底线:“反共不可反华”，不可支持和站队那些分裂国家的主张。一旦反华，今后，民主党就无法再向中国最广大人民作解释和寻求谅解了。 

现在你们应该明白，这就是界力建们向联总发起所谓“你们不革命了，不要反对我们革命”政变夺权的最深层原因了：他们吃惯了国内无数民主党人入狱经历的人血馒头，但一旦国内民主党人（王有才，朱虞夫等）出狱来到海外，发现他们的“革命高调”甚至反华的问题，提出异议，阻止或可能阻止他们“革命高调”甚至反华口号，因此就势必妨碍他们继续向移民局提供反共反华身份的“证据”材料，也就是断了他们财路和活路，他们又不能丢掉“中国民主党”这块含血的牌子，于是，就不得不发起政变，以“你们不革命了，不要反对我们革命”为借口，宣布朱虞夫等“不具海外之中國民主黨全國聯合總部成員資格，無選舉權、任職權及其他黨內權利”，更诬指他们“對中國民主黨組織的運作構成重大干擾和破壞”了！ 

你们明白了吗？！ 

王希哲

中国民主党联总总部海外创始人兼联总前常任主席

2025年2月16日 xz7793@gmail.com

Can Revolution Be an Excuse for Lawlessness?

Wang Xizhe’s Further Rebuttal to the So-Called “Revolutionary Coup” by Jie Lijian, Lan Wei, Qin Xiquan, Li Xiaolong, and Others

1. Responding to the Argument: “If You’re Not Supporting Revolution, Don’t Oppose Ours”

My response: Does waving the banner of “revolution” give you the right to do whatever you please? Does it justify a coup within the General Headquarters of China Democracy Party (联总, Lianzong)?

Who in history has most effectively used the banner of “revolution” to justify absolute power? None other than the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)! From the “Land Revolution” in the 1920s to the “Cultural Revolution” of the 1960s and 70s, Mao Zedong and the CCP used the excuse of “revolution” to wreak havoc on the Chinese people.

You claim to be “anti-CCP” and “democratic,” yet why do you insist on copying the Communist Party’s tactics?

2. Addressing the Alleged Questioning by Han Wu

Online, a user suspected to be Han Wu asked:

“Former Chairman Wang Min once chaired a meeting in Las Vegas in March 2017, where one agenda item was ‘Reform is Dead, Revolution Must Rise.’ Would you demand that he leave your party for this?”

My response:

The founding party charter of China Democracy Party clearly defines it as a constitutional democratic party, not a “revolutionary anti-CCP party.” The party advocates openness, peace, rationality, and non-violence.

Even if you seek to transform Lianzong into a revolutionary party, you cannot carry out a coup to seize power.

The issue today is not about changing the party’s nature—it is about your illegal conspiratorial coup. Don’t try to deflect from the real issue.

When Wang Min chaired the Third Congress of Lianzong, he ignored the party charter and loudly promoted “revolution” and “armed struggle”. I raised objections but did not interfere too much because Wang Min was the legitimately elected chairman. As such, I had to respect him, and his rhetoric remained mere slogans without altering the party charter.

However, Han Wu is now actively manipulating Jie Lijian and others, believing that by simply branding their actions as “revolution,” they can illegally stage a coup, overthrow the legitimately elected Fifth Congress Chairman Zheng Cunzhu, and seize power.

By doing this, you are the ones who are truly aligned with the Communist Party’s methods, and that is why I am standing up to oppose you.

3. Jie Lijian and Li Xiaolong Profit from the Suffering of Imprisoned Chinese Democracy Party Members While Stripping Them of Their Rights—Why?

Jie Lijian, Li Xiaolong, and their backer Han Wu claim to be “revolutionaries fighting against the CCP”, which we do not oppose. If you wish to establish a new “revolutionary” faction, go ahead.

But why do you insist on clinging to the name and banner of “China Democracy Party” and “General Headquarters of China Democracy Party” (Lianzong) like a treasure?

The answer is simple: because the name “China Democracy Party” carries enormous weight—it represents nearly 30 years of sacrifice, with over a hundred Chinese Democracy Party members imprisoned for a cumulative total of thousands of years.

This “golden credential” allows people like Jie Lijian and Li Xiaolong to use it as proof in asylum applications to U.S. and other immigration authorities, securing protection while exploiting the sacrifices of genuine dissidents.

Yet at the same time, they shamelessly declare that these very dissidents—who endured years of prison and torture—are “not eligible for membership” in the overseas China Democracy Party General Headquarters (Lianzong) and have no voting, appointment, or internal party rights.

They even claim that these veteran political prisoners “disrupt and undermine the party’s operations”!

Jie Lijian, Li Xiaolong, and the “Four-Person Gang”—do you have any conscience left?

4. The Harm of “High-Profile Revolutionary” Rhetoric to Chinese Democracy Party Members in China

For years, overseas figures have loudly proclaimed their “revolutionary” and “anti-CCP” stance under the name of China Democracy Party, which has caused severe consequences for party members still inside China.

Their high-profile rhetoric has made it even more difficult for Democracy Party members in China to argue for legal survival—the very goal of the party in the first place.

Leaders of the China-based Democracy Party have repeatedly objected to this high-profile “revolutionary” rhetoric. Even Wang Youcai, after his release and arrival overseas, publicly opposed the use of slogans like “Down with the CCP”, because the phrase itself is violent in nature and was originally coined and used by the Communist Party for over a century.

When I, Wang Xizhe, was leading the early China Democracy Party, I realised this problem. That is why I advised Wang Bingzhang to withdraw from the party and remain only as an advisor, given his preference for a “revolutionary” approach.

But what happened next?

As most of the early intellectuals and democracy advocates in the overseas pro-democracy movement withdrew or faded away, the “pro-democracy movement” over the past 20 years has been increasingly dominated by illegal immigrants seeking asylum and green cards.

For many of them, without figures like Jie Lijian leading them to the front of Chinese consulates abroad, chanting extreme “revolutionary” slogans, they would lack the evidence needed to prove “political persecution” to immigration authorities and thus fail to obtain green cards.

5. The True Motive Behind the Coup: Protecting Their Own Interests

When Wang Juntao established the National Committee of China Democracy Party (全委会) in New York in 2009, he led weekly anti-CCP protests in Times Square, including the so-called “Jasmine Revolution”, which quickly expanded their ranks and funding sources.

Not to be outdone, Wang Min, after taking over Lianzong’s West America branch, escalated even further, calling for “armed revolution” against the CCP, which also brought in more followers.

Since I had retired from active leadership and am a realist, I did not actively oppose their slogans. My only bottom line was this:

“Anti-CCP must not turn into Anti-China.”

If the China Democracy Party were to be perceived as anti-China, it would forever lose the ability to explain itself and gain trust from the Chinese people.

6. The Real Reason for Jie Lijian’s Coup

Jie Lijian and his associates have long benefited from exploiting the suffering of imprisoned Democracy Party members in China.

But as soon as figures like Wang Youcai and Zhu Yufu were released from prison and came overseas, they began to question the radical rhetoric of Jie Lijian’s faction—especially their tendency towards anti-China nationalism.

This posed a direct threat to Jie Lijian and his group, because if Wang Youcai and Zhu Yufu publicly opposed their extreme rhetoric, it would jeopardise their ability to provide “evidence” for immigration applications.

This would cut off their financial and legal lifelines.

Yet, they could not abandon the “China Democracy Party” brand, as it is their most valuable political asset.

Thus, they launched this coup, under the false pretext of “you are not revolutionary anymore, so don’t oppose our revolution,” and they illegally expelled Zhu Yufu and others.

Do you understand now?

Wang Xizhe

Founder of the Overseas Branch and Former Permanent Chairman of the General Headquarters of China Democracy Party 16 February 2025

我是中国民主党联总总部海外创始人，兼联总常任主席王希哲 

一、驳所谓“朱虞夫，原為中國民主黨大陸地區浙江籌委會之成員，然不具海外之中國民主黨全國聯合總部成員資格，無選舉權、任職權及其他黨內權利”。 你们胡说！ 1998年，国内中国民主党创党第一批和第二批领袖（包括朱虞夫先生）纷纷入狱后，为应对危难局面，中国民主党北京党部牵头，成立了中国民主党联合总部，推举了徐文立、王有才、秦永敏、王希哲为“常任主席”。因徐文立、王有才、秦永敏三人在狱中，只能王希哲一人，近十年担负起了中国民主党联总常任主席的担子。那时，不但北京党部领导人何德普，包括浙江筹委会领导人陈树庆、聂敏之等在内的国内外全部民主党组织，都在王希哲的领导之下。因此王希哲承认和宣告，国内全部的中国民主党成员，都是中国民主党联总成员。 九年后的2009年，王军涛联络王有才纽约另立山头，组织了“中国民主党全委会”。但这是中国民主党海外的派别分歧，与国内的民主党成员无关，国内民主党成员不存在来到海外“站队”问题。因此，只要国内早期的中国民主党身份可稽的党员，特别是中国民主党经狱中岁月磨练的创党领袖党员，如王有才、朱虞夫等，根据王希哲的宣告，是当然的中国民主党联总党员和中国民主党全委会党员。绝不存在界力建黎小龙等荒唐所谓的“朱虞夫，原為中國民主黨大陸地區浙江籌委會之成員，然不具海外之中國民主黨全國聯合總部成員資格，無選舉權、任職權及其他黨內權利”,这样昏天黑地的胡说八道！甚至可以反过来，不是你界力建们有权否认朱虞夫等创党领袖的联总或全委会身份，恰相反，是朱虞夫等创党领袖有权否认你们的伪“中国民主党党员”身份！ 拿黎小龙来说，你曾是国内广西的党员。但广西党部并未正式加入过联总。你凭什么可以是中国民主党联总党员？你的身份怎么确认？你拿什么证据证明？你经过常任主席王希哲批准吗？这些都没有，你根据什么可以自称你就“具有中国民主党联总成員資格”，具有中国民主党联总的“選舉權、任職權及其他黨內權利”？难道不正是因为当年得常任主席王希哲承认国内一切身份可稽的中国民主党党员都当然具有联总的身份，你才没有办过原始的加入联总的组织手续吗？要知道，联总海外的初始党员，都曾在王希哲领誓下，在孙中山像前举手宣誓入党的！同样，兰伟、覃夕权等，你们有过这样正式的入党入联总手续吗？没有！你们有什么资格有什么脸皮否认中国民主党久经监狱磨练的主要创党人朱虞夫先生的联总身份资格？界力建这下三流就更不必去说他了！ 

二、质问界力建、兰伟、覃夕权、黎小龙等，你们是根据党章哪条规定，可以有权“停止（五大当选主席)鄭存柱之職務”和委任所谓“代理主席”？ 界力建、兰伟、覃夕权、黎小龙等，你们口口声声说五大当选主席郑存柱“辞职”。你们把他的辞职书拿出来过吗？请问他的辞职书在哪里？为什么郑存柱主席反复要你们把他的“辞职书”拿出来给选举他的全党党员看看，你们始终拿不出来呢？你们拿不出来，你们却一再硬要造谣，把你们一千遍的造谣当事实，这是为什么呢？ 好，退一大步，就算郑存柱有提出“辞职”，请问党章的哪一条规定党的代表大会选出的主席提出了辞职，你们几人可以背着主席开黑会，以所谓“总部委员会”就有权私自“决议”“停止（五大当选主席）鄭存柱之職務”呢？你们煞有介事说你们是依据党章。请你们把党章给了你们这样权利的规定拿出来给我们看看好吗？不然，你们就是最卑鄙的政变！ 全党代表大会选出的主席，只有全党的代表大会有权讨论接受或慰留主席的辞职。没有任何机构可以僭越代表大会行使这项权利。特殊情况下，党的主席可以召开党的特别代表大会讨论暂行决议，但它的任何决议，仍需经下一届全党代表大会追认。何况现在，全党代表大会选出的郑存柱主席一再声明他从无要求辞职一事。 再退步，哪怕郑确曾提出辞职，但尚未经党的代表大会决议接受其辞职期间，他就收回了辞职请求，他就仍是全党合法主席，没有党的任何职能机构可以蛮横认为他不能收回。可以私自“决议”，将全党的代表大会选出的主席“停职”和擅自另委任“代理主席”。 故此，界力建、兰伟、覃夕权、黎小龙等人的所为，完全是一场阴谋而卑鄙的对党政变。 

三、界力建违法私自另行注册伪“中国民主党联总”，应受法律追诉。且其行为已属于自行脱离原中国民主党联总组织。而兰伟、覃夕权、黎小龙等人明知错误，却顽固助纣为虐，合伙政变，应督其作出深刻反省和检讨作最后拯救。不然，应将其悉数开除出中国民主党联总组织。 

中国民主党联总总部海外创始人兼联总前常任主席王希哲 2025年2月16日

A Despicable Coup – A Rebuttal to Jie Lijian, Lan Wei, Qin Xiquan, Li Xiaolong, and Others

I am Wang Xizhe, the overseas founder and former Permanent Chairman of the General Headquarters of China Democracy Party.

1. Refuting the Absurd Claim Regarding Zhu Yufu’s Party Membership

The statement that “Zhu Yufu was a member of the Zhejiang Preparatory Committee of China Democracy Party in mainland China, but does not qualify as a member of the General Headquarters of China Democracy Party overseas, and therefore has no voting rights, appointment rights, or other internal party privileges” is sheer nonsense!

In 1998, when the first and second batch of founding leaders of China Democracy Party in China, including Zhu Yufu, were imprisoned, the Beijing Party Branch of China Democracy Party took the lead in forming the General Headquarters of China Democracy Party (联总, Lianzong) to respond to the crisis. At that time, Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, Qin Yongmin, and I (Wang Xizhe) were elected as “Permanent Chairmen”. However, since Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai, and Qin Yongmin were all imprisoned, I alone carried the responsibility of Permanent Chairman for nearly ten years.

During that time, not only the leadership of the Beijing Party Branch, including He Depu, but also the leadership of the Zhejiang Preparatory Committee, including Chen Shuqing and Nie Minzhi, as well as all domestic and overseas China Democracy Party organisations, were under my leadership. Therefore, I recognised and declared that all members of China Democracy Party in mainland China were also members of the General Headquarters of China Democracy Party.

Nine years later, in 2009, Wang Juntao contacted Wang Youcai in New York to establish a separate faction—the “National Committee of China Democracy Party” (全委会, Quanweihui). However, this was merely an overseas factional split and had nothing to do with China Democracy Party members in China. There was never a question of domestic members needing to “pick sides” among overseas factions.

Thus, all early members of China Democracy Party in China, especially those founding leaders who endured years of imprisonment, such as Wang Youcai and Zhu Yufu, are automatically members of both the General Headquarters (联总) and the National Committee (全委会).

Jie Lijian and Li Xiaolong’s claim that “Zhu Yufu does not qualify as a member of the General Headquarters of China Democracy Party and has no voting rights or appointment rights” is utterly absurd! In fact, the opposite is true—it is Zhu Yufu and other founding leaders who have the authority to question the legitimacy of so-called ‘China Democracy Party members’ like you!

Take Li Xiaolong, for example. You were once a party member in Guangxi, but the Guangxi Party Branch never formally joined the General Headquarters (联总). So, on what basis do you claim to be a member of the General Headquarters? What is your proof of membership? Did you ever receive approval from the Permanent Chairman, Wang Xizhe?

You have none of these, yet you claim you have the “right” to be a member of the General Headquarters and to exercise voting and appointment rights. The only reason you were ever considered a member was because I declared that all early, verifiable members of China Democracy Party in China were automatically part of the General Headquarters.

Unlike the early overseas members of the General Headquarters, who all took an oath under my leadership before a portrait of Sun Yat-sen, you and others—such as Lan Wei and Qin Xiquan—never underwent any formal induction or swearing-in ceremony.

So, on what grounds do you deny the rightful membership of Zhu Yufu, a founding leader who endured years of imprisonment for the cause? As for Jie Lijian, there is even less to be said about his baseless claims.

2. Questioning the Legitimacy of the So-Called “Suspension” of Zheng Cunzhu

Jie Lijian, Lan Wei, Qin Xiquan, and Li Xiaolong—on what grounds, according to which article of the party charter, do you claim the authority to “suspend the duly elected Fifth Congress Chairman, Zheng Cunzhu”, and appoint a so-called “acting chairman”?

You claim that Zheng Cunzhu resigned. Where is his resignation letter? Have you ever presented it? Why has Chairman Zheng Cunzhu repeatedly demanded that you show his resignation letter to all party members, yet you have never been able to produce it?

If you cannot present the letter, yet continue to spread lies, fabricating them a thousand times over as if they were the truth—what is your real intention?

Even if, for the sake of argument, Zheng Cunzhu had submitted a resignation letter, which article of the party charter grants you the authority to convene a secret meeting behind the chairman’s back and unilaterally “suspend” him?

You claim you were acting according to the party charter—then show us the specific rule that allows you to do this! If you cannot, then you are guilty of nothing less than a despicable coup.

A chairman elected by the Party Congress can only be removed by another Party Congress. No other body has the authority to override this decision.

Even under extraordinary circumstances, the chairman may convene a Special Party Congress to discuss temporary measures, but any decision made must still be ratified by the next Party Congress.

Most importantly, Chairman Zheng Cunzhu has publicly and repeatedly stated that he never submitted a resignation letter.

Even if—hypothetically—he had at some point considered resigning, he withdrew the request before the Party Congress accepted it. Until his resignation is officially ratified, he remains the legitimate chairman, and no other party body has the power to override this.

Thus, the actions of Jie Lijian, Lan Wei, Qin Xiquan, and Li Xiaolong constitute a deliberate, sinister, and disgraceful coup within the party.

3. Jie Lijian’s Illegal Re-Registration of a Fake “China Democracy Party General Headquarters” Should Be Prosecuted

Jie Lijian’s unauthorised registration of a false “China Democracy Party General Headquarters” is illegal and should be pursued through legal action.

By doing so, he has effectively severed himself from the original China Democracy Party General Headquarters.

As for Lan Wei, Qin Xiquan, and Li Xiaolong, despite knowing this to be a blatant violation, you persist in supporting this coup. You must reflect on and correct your actions to salvage any credibility.

Otherwise, you should all be expelled from the China Democracy Party General Headquarters.

Wang Xizhe

Founder of the Overseas Branch and Former Permanent Chairman of the General Headquarters of China Democracy Party

16 February 2025

2025年2月13日，在中国外交部长王毅对英国进行正式访问期间，伦敦市中心中国大使馆前出现了一场抗议示威活动。由中国民主党英国总部的成员组成，我们聚集在大使馆外，高举标语牌，口号声此起彼伏，要求关注中国国内日益恶化的人权状况，呼吁释放政治犯，并批评中国政府对异见人士的镇压。 

在示威现场，中国民主党英国总部党员，抗议活动总指挥成小丹，副总指挥何智威分别接受了国际媒体的采访。他们在接受美国之音和自由亚洲之声采访时表示：“中国没有真正的言论自由，也没有保障基本人权。我们走上街头，就是为了让世界看到中国政府对异见声音的压制，我们必须为民主和自由发声。”另一位抗议者则用“战狼总教头”这一词汇严厉抨击王毅，认为其此次访英行程是在为中共的专制统治“披上国际外交的外衣”。 

据现场观察员和部分国际媒体报道，当日示威总体保持和平，警方在现场保持戒备，确保集会秩序不致失控。党员的举动被解读为对中国政府一贯人权记录的持续抗议，同时也反映出部分海外异见人士对中国外交行动的强烈不满。 此外，另一部分报道指出，示威活动不仅引起了英国政界和社会各界的关注，也使得外界再次聚焦于中英双边关系中如何平衡经济外交与人权议题。我们作为中国民主党英国总部的成员，代表着对中国现行政治体制和专制统治的深切批评，同时也希望借此敦促英国政府在处理中外关系时，更多考虑普世价值和人权保障问题。 

总体来看，2025年2月13日这场示威活动不仅是王毅访英行程中的一个插曲，更是海外华人和部分异见人士持续发声、呼吁政治改革的一次重要行动。中国民主党英国总部借由这一平台表达了对中国政府内外政策的尖锐质疑，也反映出国际社会对中国人权状况和民主发展问题的长期关注。 

活动组织人：成小丹、何智威 出席党员：何智威、张学美、黄俊、范可为、廖柳燕、靳雪涔、戴超、赵玉莲、韦崇华、邬勇、成小丹、刘立岩。 

中国民主党英国总部何智威报道

Protest by the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party in Front of the Chinese Embassy During Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s Visit to the UK

On 13 February 2025, during the official visit of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to the United Kingdom, a protest took place outside the Chinese Embassy in central London. Organised by members of the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party, demonstrators gathered outside the embassy, holding placards and chanting slogans to draw attention to China’s deteriorating human rights situation. The protest called for the release of political prisoners and condemned the Chinese government’s suppression of dissent.

At the protest site, Cheng Xiaodan, the chief coordinator of the demonstration, and He Zhiwei, the deputy coordinator, gave interviews to international media. Speaking to Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, they stated, “There is no real freedom of speech in China, nor are basic human rights protected. We have taken to the streets to show the world how the Chinese government suppresses dissenting voices. We must speak up for democracy and freedom.” Another protester criticised Wang Yi, referring to him as the “chief instructor of wolf warrior diplomacy”, arguing that his visit to the UK was an attempt to cloak the CCP’s authoritarian rule in the guise of international diplomacy.

According to on-site observers and reports from international media, the demonstration remained peaceful overall, with police maintaining security to ensure public order. The protest was widely interpreted as a continued condemnation of China’s human rights record and an expression of discontent among overseas dissidents towards the Chinese government’s diplomatic manoeuvres. Additionally, some reports noted that the protest drew attention from British political circles and civil society, reigniting discussions on how UK-China relations should balance economic diplomacy with human rights concerns.

As members of the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party, we represent a strong critique of China’s current political system and authoritarian rule. Through this demonstration, we sought to urge the British government to prioritise universal values and human rights protections when engaging with China.

Overall, the protest on 13 February 2025 was not just a side event during Wang Yi’s visit but a significant action by overseas Chinese and dissidents to continue calling for political reform. The UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party used this platform to express sharp criticism of the Chinese government’s domestic and foreign policies, while also reflecting the international community’s ongoing concerns over human rights and democratic development in China.

Organisers: Cheng Xiaodan, He Zhiwei

Attending members: He Zhiwei, Zhang Xuemei, Huang Jun, Fan Kewei, Liao Liuyan, Jin Xuecen, Dai Chao, Zhao Yulian, Wei Chonghua, Wu Yong, Cheng Xiaodan, Liu Liyan.

Report by He Zhiwei, UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party

时间地点： 2025年2月8日，伦敦旧皇家铸币厂前（Royal Mint Court），该地为中共拟用于建设欧洲最大“超级大使馆”的选址。 事件概述： 当天下午约2时，来自香港、藏区、维吾尔族以及英国内部各界人士约3000至4000名抗议者涌向旧皇家铸币厂前。他们高举标语、挥舞横幅，强烈反对中共政府在伦敦扩张海外影响力，并担忧新使馆将成为中共“间谍基地”及跨境镇压的工具。 

现场经过： 集结与扩散： 抗议活动自下午2时启动，多地组织者协调包车，将来自曼彻斯特、伯明翰、谢菲尔德等地的示威者送往伦敦。现场人群迅速聚集，部分抗议者因人数众多，逐步涌出预定集会区域，导致部分街道短时封闭，交通一度受到影响。 警方介入与秩序维护： 由于现场规模较大，伦敦警方迅速出动多辆警车和上百名警员前来维持秩序。部分示威者因违反公共集会规定被警方短暂拘留，确保现场秩序得以控制。 

各界发声： 现场不仅有普通抗议者，也有多位英国国会议员及地方代表到场支持。他们发言指出，中共新使馆不仅有悖于英国民众的安全与自由，更可能危及国家安全。部分议员强调，政府在面对中共压力时应坚守原则，绝不向威权势力低头。 

中国民主党英国总部的参与： 值得注意的是，“中国民主党英国总部”也派代表和党员出席了此次示威活动。该组织通过社交平台表示，此次行动是海外华人共同捍卫民主自由的重要举措，其代表在现场重申：“只有坚守自由与民主，我们才能有效抵制中共在海外的扩张行为。” 

后续情况： 随着抗议持续数小时，现场秩序在警方的引导下逐步恢复平静，但抗议者的声音和相关讨论在社交媒体上持续发酵。活动主办方表示，后续将继续密切关注英国政府对该使馆建设申请的审议进程，并计划适时组织后续行动以表达民意。 

出席党员名单：何智威、戴超、戴雪梅、赵玉莲、邓伟、黄天、范可为、周勇、胡晓、黄俊、张学美、杨溯、成小丹、成亚利、王宇峻、俞滨、程敏、魏辰雨、曾福、韦崇华、王建、邬勇、李皓博、林明强、兰子明、顾晓峰、Thomas Hao。 

中国民主党英国总部记者何智威报道

Large-Scale Protest in Front of London’s “Super Embassy” Site – UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party Actively Participates

Date and Location:

On 8 February 2025, a protest was held in front of Royal Mint Court, London, the proposed site for what would be the largest “super embassy” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Europe.

Event Overview:

At around 2:00 PM, between 3,000 and 4,000 protesters from various backgrounds—including Hong Kongers, Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other communities across the UK—gathered in front of Royal Mint Court. Holding placards and banners, they strongly opposed the CCP’s expansion of influence in London, voicing concerns that the new embassy could serve as a Chinese intelligence hub and a tool for transnational repression.

Protest Developments:

• Mobilisation and Crowd Growth:

The protest began at 2:00 PM, with organisers coordinating transport from Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, and other cities, bringing demonstrators to London. The crowd quickly expanded, and due to the large turnout, some protesters spilled beyond the designated protest area, leading to temporary street closures and minor disruptions to local traffic.

• Police Intervention and Order Maintenance:

Given the large-scale demonstration, London police swiftly deployed multiple patrol cars and over a hundred officers to maintain order. Some protesters were briefly detained for violating public assembly regulations, ensuring that overall order was controlled.

• Voices from Various Sectors:

The protest was attended not only by ordinary demonstrators but also by several British Members of Parliament and local representatives, who openly expressed support for the movement. In their speeches, they highlighted the risks posed by the new Chinese embassy, warning that it could threaten public freedoms and national security in the UK. Some MPs urged the government to stand firm against CCP influence, emphasising that Britain must not yield to authoritarian pressure.

Participation of the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party:

A notable aspect of the protest was the active participation of the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party, which sent representatives and party members to the demonstration. The organisation stated on social media that this protest was a vital effort by overseas Chinese to defend democracy and freedom. At the scene, its representatives reaffirmed:

“Only by upholding freedom and democracy can we effectively resist the CCP’s overseas expansion.”

Follow-up Developments:

The protest lasted several hours, and order was gradually restored under police guidance. However, the demonstrators’ voices and discussions about the event continued to spread across social media. Organisers stated that they would closely monitor the British government’s review process regarding the embassy construction application and plan further actions to reflect public opposition in due course.

Attending Party Members:

He Zhiwei, Dai Chao, Dai Xuemei, Zhao Yulian, Deng Wei, Huang Tian, Fan Kewei, Zhou Yong, Hu Xiao, Huang Jun, Zhang Xuemei, Yang Su, Cheng Xiaodan, Cheng Yali, Wang Yujun, Yu Bin, Cheng Min, Wei Chenyu, Zeng Fu, Wei Chonghua, Wang Jian, Wu Yong, Li Haobo, Lin Mingqiang, Lan Ziming, Gu Xiaofeng, Thomas Hao.

Report by He Zhiwei, UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party

中国民主党英国总部程敏供稿

2025年2月6日，受西藏流亡政府驻日内瓦代表桑杰嘉和驻英国代表次仁央吉邀请，中国民主党英国总部的十位代表出席了在西藏流亡政府驻伦敦办事处举行的中国民主与宗教自由交流会。独立中文笔会会长、旅英作家马建先生也应邀出席。会议聚焦于中国民主及宗教自由的过去、现状与未来，每一位与会人员都根据自身的经历与想法分享了各自的观点。

次仁央吉女士表示，为了保存藏族传统文化，西藏流亡政府自始至终追求的都是通过和平手段，愿意在一个中国的领土框架内保持高度和真正的自治，不寻求独立。所以，在这个原则下，我们要和中国人民友好相处。桑杰嘉表示，坚决反对中国政府对藏人信仰自由与生存空间的极力压迫，但是我们绝不是反对中国人。他提到，从今年9月份开始，西藏社团将举行为期一年的庆祝活动，庆祝尊者达赖喇嘛90岁大寿。他说，我们欢迎大家来参加我们的活动。他说，藏人组织长期以来鼓励藏人主动与海外追求民主自由的华人友好相处、互帮互助，团结起来面对我们共同的独裁者敌人，也即是中国共产党。黄华表示，只有在一个民主和法制的中国内，才有可能真正地解决中国的少数民族问题。

马建先生回忆了他在西藏居住赫然生活的日子。他对如何有效地宣传尊者达赖喇嘛的形象和理念提出了自己的建议。

党员们表示，我们坚信，在任何土地上，信仰自由的前提与根基都是政治的民主化，中国民主党的核心政治纲领是以和平，理性、非暴力的手段推动中国的民主化，而我们的宗教理念中第一条便是——中国民主党主张所有华人有权自由选择任何宗教信仰。我们的很多理念与西藏流亡政府不谋而合，希望未来就中国的民主化事业，可以加强双方的合作与交流，共同推动中国早日实现民主化与宗教信仰自由。

会谈接受以后，次仁央吉女士带领大家参观了办事处，并在尊者达赖喇嘛画像前合影留念。

本次活动中出席的中国民主党英国总部代表成员有——黄华、何智威、戴超，成小丹，成亚利、Yong Zhou、黄天，小朱，小韦，范可为，程敏

Discussing China’s Democracy and Religious Freedom: Promoting Cooperation and Exchange Among Overseas Anti-CCP Groups

Report by Cheng Min, UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party

On 6 February 2025, at the invitation of Sangay Gyatso, Representative of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in Geneva, and Tsering Yangkyi, Representative in the UK, ten representatives from the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party attended a symposium on China’s Democracy and Religious Freedom held at the London Office of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. The event was also attended by Ma Jian, President of the Independent Chinese PEN Centre and a UK-based writer.

The symposium focused on the past, present, and future of democracy and religious freedom in China. Each participant shared their perspectives based on their own experiences and insights.

Tsering Yangkyi emphasised that, in order to preserve Tibetan traditional culture, the Tibetan Government-in-Exile has always pursued a peaceful approach and is willing to seek genuine and high-degree autonomy within the framework of One China, without seeking independence. She reiterated that, under this principle, Tibetans should strive for friendly relations with the Chinese people.

Sangay Gyatso firmly opposed the Chinese government’s oppression of Tibetans’ religious freedom and survival space, but clarified that Tibetans are not against the Chinese people. He mentioned that, starting in September this year, Tibetan communities would host a year-long celebration to mark the 90th birthday of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and warmly welcomed everyone to participate. He stated that Tibetan organisations have long encouraged Tibetans to establish friendships and mutual support with overseas Chinese who pursue democracy and freedom, so that together, they can unite against their common enemy—the Chinese Communist Party.

Huang Hua stated that only in a democratic and rule-of-law China can the issue of ethnic minorities truly be resolved.

Writer Ma Jian shared his memories of living in Tibet, recalling his experiences there. He also offered suggestions on how to effectively promote the image and philosophy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Party members expressed their firm belief that political democratisation is the fundamental prerequisite for religious freedom in any land. They reiterated that the core political programme of the China Democracy Party is to promote China’s democratisation through peaceful, rational, and non-violent means. Furthermore, the first principle of the party’s stance on religion is that all Chinese people should have the right to freely choose any religious belief. Many of these ideals align with those of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile, and the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party hopes to enhance cooperation and exchange with Tibetans in the future to jointly advance democracy and religious freedom in China.

Following the discussions, Tsering Yangkyi gave the attendees a tour of the office and led them to take a group photo in front of a portrait of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Attendees from the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party

Huang Hua, He Zhiwei, Dai Chao, Cheng Xiaodan, Cheng Yali, Yong Zhou, Huang Tian, Xiao Zhu, Xiao Wei, Fan Kewei, Cheng Min

Junius Tian

中共政权的周围向来不缺自带干粮的“五毛”，而当代中国也恰好不乏具备“自干五”人格特质的人。

自从习近平同志的社会主义铁拳在一系列“指明方向”的举措后不断落下，我在自干五的口中听到了无数次“已觉醒”。曾几何时，自干五的“觉醒”是那样的珍贵，以至于每当一个自干五“觉醒”，都值得人们大张旗鼓地庆祝一番、感动一番。而如今，这种“觉醒”终于也变得如同中国制造一般廉价。不同的是，“觉醒”的形式各有千秋，而“觉醒”的原因却总是千篇一律。

自Covid 动态清零政策实施以来，中国经历了从全民自干五到全民“觉醒”的逆潮流发展，其迅速且富有戏剧性的程度令人惊讶。其中，中国留学生群体和精致伪小资们更是为我们贡献了其间最大的节目效果，让我们亲眼目睹了中国的Z世代是如何在短短时间内，从高喊“操你妈逼，你妈死了”迅速切换到“不要封控要吃饭，8964天安门”。

在这个全民“觉醒”的时代，一切似乎都在悄然变化，又似乎一切都始终如一。曾经的自干五高喊着与昨日截然相反的口号，却像一块刷了新漆的旧地板，仍难掩日夜发出的吱吱作响。当我们站在这个中国大门逐渐关闭的新时代蓦然回首，不禁要问：

在那个尚存推动变革希望的时代，究竟是什么让这样一个群体选择良心沉睡，为虎作伥？而在今日这长夜难明的新时代，又是什么促使他们在短短一两年内突然“觉醒”？当他们口口声声说“觉醒”时，究竟意味着什么？

忠诚教育说的荒诞

人们长期以来说着这样一个善意的谎言，中共政权的忠诚教育强大而成功，以至于那些“善良”而无知的自干五在这样的教育下长期被蒙蔽。然而，当我们摒弃自欺欺人的幻想，正视现实，就会发现——中共的忠诚教育，如同它治下的万事万物一般，始终逃不脱瓦房店化的命运。

在中国境内大大小小的教育机构中，无论是忠诚教育的执行者，还是其接受者，始终都在敷衍了事。那些做题家们口中喊着最漂亮的“自由、平等、公正、法治”，却在现实生活的方方面面处处回避与中共当局谈论“自由、平等、公正、法治”。

中共忠诚教育的实际效力，无非是一件连孩子都能轻易戳破的“皇帝新衣”。马克思主义者的傲慢使得中共政权一向吝于伪装，它的专制生硬而丑陋，统治逻辑也如所有马克思主义左棍的人格一般——鲜廉寡耻。

他们既不像普京政权那样，操控一个体面的“全民大选”以赋予自身执政合法性；也不像海湾国家那样，试图在神权和传统中寻找统治依据。他们建立了一个高喊“人人平等”，却在每个角落都渗透傲慢与优越感的社会，统治着一个声称“人民当家作主”，却连小学班长都要内定的国家。

即便如此，仍然有人坚称，自己被当局那套敷衍了事的忠诚教育洗脑长达数十年。这种说法，是多么的荒谬和讽刺。

一个人之所以成为自干五，从来不是因为接受了中共的忠诚教育；同样，一个人之所以成为自由派，也并非因为后天“觉醒”。所有的一切，只是一个简单的本质主义问题。

哪有什么“岁月静好”都是一场自欺欺人

与“觉醒”相对应的另一个词是“岁静”，即“岁月静好”之意，形容那些生于中国却声称自己不关心政治的人。然而，在我看来，“岁静”是一个伪命题，因为在左翼极权主义的统治下，没有人能真正置身事外。

我们不能苛责每一个自称“岁静”的人，因为在中国，持不同政见者也许不得不伪装“岁静”，以换取最基本的人身安全。然而，更多情况下，那些宣称自己“岁静”的人，要么是在“装外宾”，要么是在扮演“客观中立”。

中国社交媒体上充斥着“装外宾”的岁静者——那些湾区做题家和法拉盛经济移民在小红书上假装“岁静”，一方面摆出高高在上的“高等华人”姿态，在中国的劳苦大众面前炫耀优越感；另一方面，又故作客观地为中共政权低人权优势取得的经济成就沾沾自喜。

与此同时，中国各大城市CBD的伪小资们也不甘落伍的在装“岁静”。廉价的虚荣心驱使他们，即便亲身经历了极权政治带来的痛苦和压抑，仍肉麻地喊着“阿中哥哥加油”。他们假装着外宾，在极权主义的土地上东施效颦地说着欧美现代“自由派”的后现代主义潮词。

“哪有什么岁月静好，不过是有人替你负重前行。” 这句话本是中国网络审查环境下，“带路党”们为身陷囹圄的异见人士和人权活动家默默祈祷的暗语。可谁曾想到，在兔杂自干五和各路低能缝合怪的无限解构下，它竟沦为一条恶臭不堪的谄媚之词，成了奉承中共军警走狗的阿谀。

对中国的自干五而言，他们所享受的“岁静”，背后确实有人替他们负重前行。只是，这负重前行之人，并不是中共的军警，而是那些他们口中的“公知”——那些抗争恶法的709律师，那些尚存良知的网络大V，那些身陷囹圄却被他们讥讽和遗忘的“恨国”群体。他们的存在或许带不来中国的民主化，却迫使中共不得不考虑国际影响，尽力粉饰所谓的社会主义人权与法治。

即便如此，这些坚守着他人岁静的破墙，终究在自干五的欢呼声和社会主义铁拳的疾风暴雨下轰然倒塌。自干五们在日益严苛的审查下，一边自欺欺人地幻想着“岁月静好”，一边又为虎作伥，撕咬那些被打倒的“洋奴公知”。

他们不敢直视真正的暴政，却将一切苦难归咎于中国根本不存在的“资本”，但凡铁拳落下，便跪在马克思主义僭主脚下扇着自己耳光大呼“奴才该死。”可笑的是，他们的所作所为，正在亲手加速终结自己身为奴才的“好日子”。而这一切丑态，何其相似于千百年来，那些围观刑场、分食死囚血肉的京城百姓。

XX岁，已觉醒

当他们终于发现，自己无法稳坐“岁静”后，我们这群有节目效果的自干五“同胞”们，终于“觉醒”了。

他们的“觉醒”来得如此猝不及防，不知情者还以为他们要掀起一场法国大革命，谁曾想，他们不过是在搞一场维权革命——一场彻头彻尾只关乎自身利益的“革命”。

13岁，已觉醒，是康米——因为中共推出“防沉迷”游戏禁令；
23岁，已二觉，是毛左——因为恶劣的外资环境让他们“毕业即失业”；
33岁，已三觉，是安人——因为他们发现，自己千辛万苦复读考研，却对未来毫无助益；
43岁，已四觉，是社民——因为他们即将迎来中年失业；
53岁，已五觉，盼毛归——因为他们发现，社会主义政权能让他辛苦半生的银行存款一夜变为一张废纸；
63、73岁，已N 觉，白发革命——因为他们发现，自己倾尽一生缴纳的“医保”，却难“保”一辈子辛劳所致的慢性病。

他们举着毛泽东这头僭主的遗照“觉醒”了，却觉醒得像靖难之役后的明朝士子，自认怀才不遇，却依旧死心塌地忠于朱皇帝。他们拉出“先皇”的画像，嚎啕大哭：“倘若先皇朱八八还在，事情何至于此！”

他们学着鲁迅的口吻，嘲笑古人的麻木与愚昧，却转身便为自己这场盼明君、哭先皇的丑剧，披上了一层“后现代”的外衣。

他们“觉醒”后，怀念李克强，怀念薄熙来，怀念胡锦涛，怀念江泽民，怀念邓小平，甚至怀念毛泽东。他们喃喃念叨：“马克思本意是好的，都是下面的人执行歪了。”可他们却唯独没有怀念过的是，那曾为他们争取自由而遭迫害，被他们恶毒中伤过的人。从未想起那被他们揶揄过的loser赵紫阳，想起那被他们斥为洋奴尸骨无存的刘晓波，想起被他们调侃“王师还剩几个连”的民国派知识分子，想起那被他们恶毒戏称为“五对负重轮”馅饼的六四亡魂。

今天，他们在压抑的中国社交媒体上“阴阳怪气”，在大使馆前高喊“八九六四天安门”，可就在昨日，他们还曾在微博、豆瓣、贴吧上，用最恶毒、最腌臜的语言，咒骂那些曾一心想为他们带来自由的人们。

无数有良知而勇敢的人倒下，无数灵魂在痛苦的呻吟下结束了悲惨的一生，而最终，历史的回音却只有你一句——XX岁，已觉醒。

他们因何而醒？

2018年，在各路“盼明君”的自干五期盼下，习近平同志正式修宪登基，撕掉了马克思主义左棍极权统治的遮羞布。

自此，“已觉醒”和“别发外网”的笑话便在中国的魔幻现实中不断交织。Covid动态清零后，自干五们更是恨不得年均觉醒8964次。

他们“觉醒”后，自诩客观中立的分析西式民主自由是如何地效率低，讥讽王丹、魏京生这些满口民主的过时“老东西”。他们谈论着最潮、最批爆的前卫政治潮流，却向来对中共暴政下被剥夺话语权者缺乏同情心。他们对中共政权下的基本民主人权状况避而不谈，一面口口声声声援女性和性少数群体的权利，却又迎合西方大学退步左翼的论调，力挺恐怖组织和宗教极端主义。

这一次，他们彻底“觉醒”了——和古代那些动辄“文死谏”的酸腐文人不同，他们学会了伪激进式的“死谏”。高等教育质量的滑坡与学位泛滥教会他们这种人用后现代主义话术回避中共政权下民主人权状况的日益恶化，却大谈民主国家的“系统性压迫”和“种族歧视”，每每提及中共政权及该政权相关人物，却依旧不改“青天大老爷”和“先帝明君”。他们曾经如此仇恨民主与自由，每每提起必称“皿煮目田”加以嘲弄，而今在他们“觉醒”后，依旧秉持同样“质朴”的内心，高呼民主便是免费住房、免费福利、免费医疗、免费教育，而自由则是他们拥有全世界、以他们的喜怒哀乐为中心的权力。

他们因此“觉醒”，正如他们的祖辈如何为一亩三分地而双手沾满自己保护者的鲜血，正如他们的父辈如何为蝇头小利而选择坐视义人死去，厉声质问着所谓“公知”民主能干饭否，却又谦卑的向僭主交出自由的权利。

请勿二觉

自干五终于悄悄收起了“皿煮目田”，也学着“恨国党”和“50万”们讲起了“民主自由”，却依旧用社会达尔文主义来诠释他们所理解的“民主自由”。他们仍然习惯性地将人分为三六九等，依然一开口辩论就“拍房产证、亮户口本”，或像酸腐秀才般炫耀那早已滥发到毫无价值的学历。

他们与西方大学里的香槟社会主义者一拍即合，一边在互联网上声称反对他们的人是“失败者”、“低学历者”，一边又自诩代表弱势群体和工人阶级。他们自负又自大地指点江山、激扬文字，研究应如何在西方资本主义国家里搞激进左翼革命，玩弄政治正确为自己牟利。可他们却从未同情过与自己政见不合却热爱自由的弱势群体和穷人，从未用同理心感受过未受西方资本主义“文化霸权”影响的传统国家里，专制是如何的黑暗压抑，普通人又是如何血泪艰辛。

他们当然“觉醒”了——他们一直都是醒着的。自他们出生之日起，刻在 DNA 里的社会达尔文主义信仰便已觉醒；欺软怕硬、畏威不畏德的个性便已觉醒；虚荣与自以为是便已觉醒；自干五的人格便已觉醒。他们根本不必等到今天才说：“XX 岁，已觉醒。”

自干五“已觉醒”，代价是成千上万义人长眠于暴政的寒冬；其实你也不必觉醒，因为没人有兴趣看一场反复变换自我感动的独角俄狄浦斯王剧。

When the voluntary wumao say they have Awakened, what do they really mean?

Junius Tian

Many Westerners concerned with China’s democracy and human rights are familiar with the term “wumao,” referring to state-funded pro-Communist trolls. However, they may not know that there is also a group of Chinese citizens who voluntarily support the Communist Party’s rule. They call themselves ziganwu, meaning “voluntary wumao.”

In China’s online communities, there was once a large number of voluntary wumao, with anti-Western rhetoric and hateful comments towards other ethnic groups being widespread. For a long time, democracy and freedom were seen as derogatory terms by Chinese netizens. On the Chinese internet, any moderate or inclusive opinion, or sympathy for democratic values, would be reported by the voluntary wumao.

However, this trend has dramatically reversed with the implementation of China’s “Zero-COVID” policy. The voices of voluntary wumao on the Chinese internet have grown silent, while a large influx of Chinese economic immigrants has flooded the U.S.-Mexico border. Among the fastest to shift their stance are the Chinese students abroad. Just a few years ago, they were using the harshest curses against Hong Kong protesters and Chinese dissenters, yet today, they stand side by side with their former enemies, but what they shouting is “We need food, not lockdowns.”

In a striking parallel to the Western awakening movements, China has also witnessed its own version of an awakening among the voluntary wumao. Initially, many believed this movement would serve as a turning point for political and social reform in China. However, as the Chinese version of the “awakening” progressed, many came to realize that things were not so simple. The voluntary wumao lamented the economic pains their lives endured, yet directed their hatred toward “capitalism” and the so-called “imperialist forces.”

Everything in China is quietly changing, but no one knows whether this will lead the red dragon to become more open or steer it down a more conservative, traditional Communist path.

A well-intentioned lie — they have been brainwashed

In the eyes of Westerners, there is always the fairytale belief that a righteous and kind people will ultimately triumph over tyranny. When I was a child, I believed this story without question, and it played a large part in shaping me into a liberal. I loved this story, much like I loved the Brothers Grimm tales. Yet as I grew older, I came to understand a truth: political reality is not a fairytale. When we consider whether great values and political systems can be established, we cannot ignore their compatibility with specific cultures and societies. It’s like imagining that if Snow White had not met the prince, but had instead encountered China’s Dong Zhimin, the ending of the fairytale might have been very different.

Kind-hearted people are often reluctant to confront the harsh reality of things, which is why they invent fairytales. One such fairytale is “They have been brainwashed.” Many attribute the large number of voluntary wumao in China to the Communist Party’s extensive loyalty propaganda in education. However, the truth is that most of those who execute and receive this propaganda do so half-heartedly. In China’s compulsory education system, teachers also teach students some vague concepts of freedom and equality. Many Chinese students understand the meaning of these terms. Yet, on one hand, they avoid discussing freedom and equality with the Chinese authorities, and on the other, they mock the liberal democratic values of the U.S. and Western countries.

For those living in China, the Communist Party’s authoritarian rule is stark and unambiguous. Unlike Putin’s regime, which employs intricate methods to manipulate elections for legitimacy, or the theocratic systems of the Gulf states that base their rule on religious authority and tradition, the Chinese regime operates on a fundamentally materialistic form of totalitarianism. It is rooted in rigid social Darwinism and extreme self-interest.

The Chinese Marxist regime’s propaganda bears Orwellian traits of doublethink, but its methods of brainwashing lack depth, making their lies as fragile as the emperor’s new clothes. On one hand, the government promotes China as a country where the people rule, while on the other, the Communist Party openly displays its autocratic nature. They even infuse Marxist ideology’s inherent arrogance and bureaucratic traits into primary education. Anyone who has grown up in China and gone through elementary school can clearly feel how apparent authoritarianism and totalitarianism are in the country.

In the days before the Chinese authorities invested as many resources into censorship as they do today, there was a persistent undercurrent of mild criticism and subtle satire within China’s online society. In many communities with a stronger liberal atmosphere, private criticism of the Communist Party was not uncommon. However, these anti-authoritarian voices were always in the minority. During those years, many Chinese internet dissenters believed the myth that “they had been brainwashed,” and so they tirelessly explained the meaning of democratic values and debated why people needed love and fraternity instead of social Darwinism. The response they always received was: “Can democracy be eaten? Can love and fraternity be eaten?”

Voluntary wumao once mocked democratic values with the deepest malice, ridiculing how equality and fraternity were mere hypocrisies. They used the harshest social Darwinist logic to challenge the last remnants of human kindness. Now, they claim to have “awakened” and become democracy fighters. I cannot understand whether they have truly become good people, or if they have simply realized that democracy can be “eaten.”

Self-deception — when you live in China and don’t care about politics

Another of the favorite excuses of the “awakened” voluntary wumao is that they never cared about Chinese politics before the zero-Covid policy. They claim it was precisely this ignorance of politics that led them to fervently support a tyrannical regime—mocking its victims without remorse and deriding those who sacrificed their freedom to fight for other’s freedom.

But the truth is that in China, no one has the luxury of ignoring politics. Every citizen is either an unwilling cog in the machinery of totalitarianism or one of its victims. Even the most cloistered intellectual, upon switching on the television, stepping outside, or merely glancing at the omnipresent communist propaganda slogans plastered across city streets, finds it impossible to avoid political thought. Traditional autocracies silence their subjects; Marxist dictatorships, by contrast, compel participation. Dissent is not merely punished—it is publicly denounced, forcing people to declare allegiance or face ostracism.

For someone living in such a system to claim they have “never cared about politics” is to make one of two admissions: either they are flaunting their privilege, boasting that they alone can exist above the fray, untouched by oppression, or they are feigning neutrality to lend themselves an air of objectivity. Indeed, China has its own breed of modern liberals—people who mimic Western progressive rhetoric while professing disinterest in politics within their own country. The vast majority of these modern liberals, in fact, are voluntary wumao—or, as some now claim, they are former voluntary wumao but today “awakened.”

In a sense, these individuals are a paradoxical amalgamation. While they understand the nature of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule, they simultaneously pretend to live in a free and democratic country. Their mouths often utter avant-garde political concepts like feminism and LGBT rights. Yet ironically, their engagement with these ideas is not rooted in conviction but in fashion, much like the Shanghai socialites of the last century who sprinkled their speech with foreign phrases to appear cosmopolitan.

This performative liberalism has been riddled with contradictions since its inception, much like the regressive leftists and champagne socialists of Western academia. They readily condemn “systemic racism” and so-called “human rights abuses” in the United States and Europe, yet remain conveniently silent on the escalating political repression within China itself. When Hong Kongers took to the streets to demand democratic rights, these self-styled champions of tolerance—ostensibly possessing the compassion of a middle-class moralist—firmly sided with the Chinese government, clamoring for the state to use force, even torture, against pro-democracy activists.

In truth, these so-called “don’t care about politics” Chinese modern liberals care deeply about politics—but only insofar as it is safe for them to do so. They skillfully sidestep any issue that might put them at risk while seamlessly aligning their radicalism with the ruling ideology. Like their Western “woke” counterparts, they embrace performative activism—except their ire is directed not at the tyrants who rule over people, but at the democratic world that tolerates their existence.

What has caused they late “awakening”?

No matter what, those former staunch supporters of the Chinese authorities have ultimately chosen to “awakened.” They had once clearly stated to the world, on several occasions, that as long as China’s economy continued to soar, providing them with endless opportunities to make money, principles like democracy, freedom, human rights, and humanitarianism were of no importance to them. Yet today, they hypocritically tell the world how much they now care about the very values they once despised and ridiculed.

They can even transform themselves into figures of inspiration, telling a moving “awakening” story in the United States, Canada, and across the world, presenting themselves in Congress as champions of freedom to win public sympathy. Yet, they have never sincerely apologized to those they once reported to the authorities and sent to prison, nor to those they persecuted. They have never apologized to the victims of the Tiananmen massacre, whom they once mockingly referred to as “59 tank meat patties.”

Yes, they have “awakened.” Their ideologies are varied—some call themselves Maoists, some claim to be Trotskyists, and others identify as anarchists. Despite the differences in their labels, their demands are unified. They now claim that democracy means free housing, free healthcare, free welfare, and free education, while freedom is the ability to make the world revolve around their whims and desires.

Their motives for awakening, much like those of their ancestors, are driven by petty self-interest—betraying their protectors for small gains, with their hands stained by the blood of landowners and entrepreneurs. When tyranny finally descends upon them, they play the victim, begging for other’s sympathy. Yet what truly hurts them is not the loss of freedom, but the fact that tyranny can no longer provide them with their “free” handouts.

In truth, they never needed to stage an “awakening”—because they were never asleep. They have always known exactly what they wanted, and it was never freedom or democracy. From the ancient Aegean civilizations to the Magna Carta, and finally to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the values forged through countless lives, blood, and tears are, to them, worth nothing — 0 pence.