供稿人：黄天（中国民主党英国总部）

2025年5月1日国际劳工节，中国民主党在伦敦中国驻英国大使馆门前举行了声势浩大的抗议活动，呼吁中国政府切实保障劳工权益与独立工会，关闭血汗工厂，释放包括许志永、丁家喜在内的所有政治犯。

本次抗议活动由中国民主党英国总部黄天、黄俊、何智威组织。抗议活动于下午2:00准时开始。范可为、温作团、黄天、黄俊、朱嗣勇等党员代表先后发言。范可为在演讲中表示，在中国，劳动者的权益长期受到忽视和打压，并且被禁止发声，我们身在海外的中国民主党人士应当主动站出来，替因维权而身陷囹圄的人们发声。温作团在演讲中表示，中共必须亡，才能救中国，无论是深受打压的底层劳动者，还是争取民族独立的各少数民族地区，大家共同的敌人只有中共。黄天在演讲中表示，中国民主党英国总部在五一国际劳工节抗议中共剥削劳动者、镇压维权人士，不仅是因为政见相左，更是因为鄙视和唾弃中共抛弃了自己的承诺和工农联盟这一阶级基础的背信弃义的行为。黄俊在演讲中表示，真正强大的国家不应该惧怕人民的声音，更不应将捍卫法律与人权的本国公民视为敌人，历史会记录中共对维权人士的镇压，也会记住和我们一样在黑暗中点亮灯火的人。朱嗣勇通过佩戴口罩演讲的方式，嘲讽了中共压制人民发声的企图，表示中共的言论审查无法压制人们的正义与良知。

现场党员手持“自由万岁，人权万岁”、“CCP≠Chinese People”、“释放许志永、丁家喜等一切政治犯”等标语，高喊“习近平下台”、“共产党下台”等口号，表达了支持劳工权益与独立工会、声援所有在押政治犯、要求习近平与共产党下台接受人民审判的明确态度。党员们还与围观路人积极沟通，宣扬本次活动的主旨与中国民主党英国总部的政治主张与诉求，得到了英国本地民众的理解和支持。

中国民主党英国总部及组织者始终坚持和平、理性、非暴力之原则，主动维护现场秩序和环境，确保抗议活动安全有序进行。中国民主党英国总部支持党员代表于现场自由发表意见，求同存异，用实际行动彰显中国民主党英国总部与中国共产党截然不同的活动理念与行为作风。中国民主党英国总部将继续同海内外民主运动人士和组织一道，为推翻中共独裁暴政、在中国实现真正的宪政而不懈努力。

演讲名单（按演讲先后顺序）：范可为、温作团、黄天、黄俊、朱嗣勇

党员出席名单：Lingda Tan，成小丹，蔡波，林明强，张学美，侯尔斌，俞杰辉，吴志芬，Kaney Huang，王燕，董彦均，蒋蔚，黄林、孟静，白林，戴超，郭稼瑄，王建，冯林，兰子明，赵武，朱双林，邬勇，朱嗣勇，范可为，温作团，黄俊，黄天，李皓博，周环，徐伟华，韦崇华，杨溯，何智威。

UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party Holds May Day Protest

Contributor: Huang Tian (UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party)

On May 1, 2025, International Workers’ Day, the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party organized a powerful protest in front of the Chinese Embassy in London, demanding that the Chinese government genuinely protect workers’ rights, legalize independent trade unions, shut down sweatshops, and release all political prisoners—including Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi.

The protest was coordinated by Huang Tian, Huang Jun, and He Zhiwei, and officially began at 2:00 PM. Party members Fan Kewei, Wen Zuotuan, Huang Tian, Huang Jun, and Zhu Siyong delivered speeches one after another.

In his speech, Fan Kewei emphasized that labor rights in China have long been ignored and suppressed, and workers are not allowed to speak out. He called on overseas members of the China Democracy Party to take initiative and speak up for those imprisoned for defending their rights. Wen Zuotuan declared that only the fall of the Chinese Communist Party can save China, whether for the oppressed working class or the ethnic minorities struggling for autonomy—“our common enemy is the CCP.”

Huang Tian stated that the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party’s protest on May Day was not just a matter of political disagreement, but a strong condemnation of the CCP’s betrayal of its own founding promise—the alliance of workers and peasants. Huang Jun pointed out that a truly strong nation should not fear the voices of its people, nor treat citizens who defend law and human rights as enemies. He stated that history will remember the CCP’s repression of rights activists, just as it will remember those who lit a torch in the darkness.

Zhu Siyong delivered his speech while wearing a face mask, satirizing the CCP’s attempts to silence the people. He asserted that censorship cannot suppress justice and conscience.

Protesters held banners with slogans such as “Long Live Freedom, Long Live Human Rights”, “CCP ≠ Chinese People”, and “Free Xu Zhiyong, Ding Jiaxi, and All Political Prisoners”, and chanted loudly: “Xi Jinping Step Down!”, “Down with the Communist Party!” The protest conveyed strong support for workers’ rights and independent unions, solidarity with all political prisoners, and the demand that Xi Jinping and the Communist Party step down and face the people’s judgment.

Party members actively engaged with passers-by, introducing the purpose of the protest and explaining the political platform of the UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party, which received understanding and support from many local British citizens.

The UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party and its organizers adhered to the principles of peacefulness, rationality, and nonviolence, took the initiative to maintain order and cleanliness at the scene, and ensured that the protest proceeded in a safe and orderly manner. Members were encouraged to express their views freely, demonstrating—through action—the stark contrast in values and behavior between the China Democracy Party and the Chinese Communist Party.

The UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party will continue to work alongside democracy activists and organizations, both in China and abroad, to overthrow the CCP dictatorship and achieve true constitutional governance in China.

---

Speakers (in order):

Fan Kewei, Wen Zuotuan, Huang Tian, Huang Jun, Zhu Siyong

Attending Party Members:

Lingda Tan, Cheng Xiaodan, Cai Bo, Lin Mingqiang, Zhang Xuemei, Hou Erbin, Yu Jiehui, Wu Zhifen, Kaney Huang, Wang Yan, Dong Yanjun, Jiang Wei, Huang Lin, Meng Jing, Bai Lin, Dai Chao, Guo Jiaxuan, Wang Jian, Feng Lin, Lan Ziming, Zhao Wu, Zhu Shuanglin, Wu Yong, Zhu Siyong, Fan Kewei, Wen Zuotuan, Huang Jun, Huang Tian, Li Haobo, Zhou Huan, Xu Weihua, Wei Chonghua, Yang Su, He Zhiwei.

作者：中国民主党英国总部党员 程敏

众所周知，在我国当今圣上习近平多年来的勤耕不缀下，中国无论是从前引以为傲的经济增长速度，抑或是原本就少的可怜的言论自由，都在以一个飞快的速度滑向文革时期。官媒肉喇叭口中的繁荣盛世与市井小民口中的怨声载道形成了鲜明的对比。而这一幕又恰似中国政府极力宣扬的社会主义核心价值观，诸如民主、自由等，官媒提那是社会正能量，你小老百姓敢举个牌子宣传那就是不自量力的寻衅滋事了。但是有一点，无论宣传口和市井间的舆论风向反差有多大，有很多中国人似乎打心眼里觉得只要习总这个“穿新装的皇帝”下台，很多问题就会迎刃而解，甚至包括很多海外反共人士，他们也觉得中国人今天的困境来源于一个愚蠢且刚愎自用的皇帝。所以言语中总是透露出对过去几十年来中国言论自由的唏嘘怀念。

首先，我个人并不认为习近平下台对中国来说是好事，甚至从中国民主化的实际考量，我非常希望习近平能够一直连任甚至长命百岁下去，我们反贼圈子里有句俗话“一粉顶十黑”，意思是一个共产党的愚蠢拥趸对共产党造成的破坏要超过十个反贼，还有一句话“反贼骂一千句也不如我党一记铁拳”，意思是我们费劲九牛二虎之力可能也无法叫醒中国人，还会被认为是包藏祸心，妄图“颠覆伟大的社会主义政权”。但共产党不时落下的一记铁拳却往往可以立马使得死心塌地的爱国者们懵圈乃至恍然大悟自己不过是韭菜一根。在我看来，习表面上是中共的总瓢把子、一教之主，实际上根据他所做的事，他恰恰是全世界功劳最大的反贼！很多人经常打趣习为中国的“总加速师”，这是有事实依据且可以解释的。

习上台以来和他的老朋友川普一样，做过无数的大动作，他的修宪连任彻底打破了许多人对中国转型民主化的美梦，他对香港的打压吞并让全世界醒悟过来中共就是一个背信弃义、无法无天的黑社会老大。也让台湾人彻底明白所谓一国两制不过是“骗过来养熟了杀”的流氓手段。他对新冠疫情时期灭绝人性的管控措施的洋洋得意，他对中国所剩无几的言论自由的赶尽杀绝，他对洗脑教育“入身、入心、入魂”的全方位加固、他对战狼外交的推崇，他对全世界大撒币却唯独无视本国底层人口就医、教育的困境，无一不在蚕食着中共原本就所剩无几的公信力与国际信用。这也是时至今日，中国的国际声誉一落千丈的原因，外国游客不愿意来华旅游，底层人民为了生计疲于奔命，许多国家反感中国的人数比例高居不下。所以在“挖社会主义墙角”、削弱中共统治根基这一块，什么民主党，什么法轮功都得靠边站，习总绝对是彪炳史册，功盖千秋的第一人！

那我们换一个角度，既然习总在反共的赛道上如鱼得水，那么如果习总现在下台了会是什么情况呢？我大胆揣测，如果习总是正常下台，那么继任者可能会继承习总的衣钵，在“加速”的道路上继续一骑绝尘，带领中共奔向末路。而如果习总是被以逼宫这种不体面的方式赶下台，那大概率是上位者会是邓小平式的“虚伪实用主义者”，嘴上喊着“黑猫白猫抓住老鼠就是好猫”，暗地里修修补补经济、给欧美递个笑脸，假装松一松言论管制——比如让几个温和批评的声音上台面唱唱戏——给老百姓脖子上的绳子稍稍松半寸，换来一阵感恩戴德。结果呢？政治结构没变，民众意识没醒，西方为了经济利益又乐得装瞎，中国人恐怕又要沉浸在“明君再世”的美梦里了。与其这样换汤不换药还要冒巨大风险，还不如让习总继续折腾，毕竟稳定的蠢往往比又坏又蠢造成的危害要小得多。

上帝欲使人灭亡，必先使其疯狂，我希望习总在折腾道路上继续“撸起袖子加油干”、“油门踩到底加速”，习总每干一天，中共就被削弱一分、民众的愤怒就堆积一分、自由世界对中共的厌恶与警惕也会多加一分。让我们一起祝愿习总长命百岁、折腾万岁吧！至于习总把中共折腾完蛋了以后中国会走向什么样的未来，还是到那一天再说吧！

Xi Jinping’s Step-Down? A Long Life Would Be Better

By Cheng Min, Member of the UK Headquarters of the China Democracy Party

As we all know, under the diligent efforts of our present ruler, Xi Jinping, China’s once-prized economic growth and already scarce freedom of speech have rapidly regressed toward the era of the Cultural Revolution. The stark contrast between the state media’s grand proclamations of a “prosperous era” and the grievances voiced by ordinary citizens has never been more evident. Ironically, this reflects the so-called “core socialist values” that the Chinese government promotes—terms like democracy and freedom are deemed positive when used by state media, yet when an ordinary citizen dares to hold up a sign advocating for them, they are accused of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”

Many Chinese people, including even some overseas anti-CCP activists, seem to believe that if Xi Jinping, the “emperor in new clothes,” steps down, many of China’s problems will be resolved. They attribute the country’s current plight to a foolish and obstinate ruler, often reminiscing about a past when freedom of speech in China seemed less restricted.

Personally, I do not think Xi Jinping stepping down would be beneficial for China. In fact, from the perspective of China’s democratization, I sincerely hope Xi Jinping remains in power indefinitely—perhaps even living to a hundred. Within anti-CCP circles, there is a saying: “One loyal CCP supporter is worth ten critics.” It means that a die-hard CCP loyalist can cause more damage to the Party than ten dissidents combined. Another saying goes: “A thousand words from dissidents cannot compare to one punch from the CCP.” No matter how hard we try to wake the Chinese people up, we are often labeled as conspirators trying to overthrow the “great socialist system.” But when the CCP itself delivers a harsh blow—through repression or economic failure—loyal patriots are often left bewildered, sometimes even awakening to the reality that they are nothing more than expendable “leeks” for the regime to harvest.

Despite officially leading the CCP, Xi is, in practice, one of the most effective anti-communist figures in the world. Many jokingly call him China’s “Supreme Accelerator-in-Chief”—a title that is well-deserved and based on solid evidence.

The “Acceleration” of Xi Jinping

Since taking office, Xi Jinping has made countless reckless moves, much like his old friend Donald Trump. His constitutional amendment to abolish term limits shattered many people’s hopes for a democratic transition in China. His suppression of Hong Kong exposed to the world that the CCP is a faithless and lawless mafia organization. His handling of Hong Kong also made it crystal clear to the Taiwanese that the so-called “One Country, Two Systems” was nothing more than a ruse—a tactic to lure and then strangle.

Xi’s ruthless pandemic control measures, his relentless crackdown on freedom of speech, his deepening of brainwashing education, and his aggressive “wolf warrior diplomacy” have all contributed to the rapid erosion of the CCP’s already fragile credibility—both domestically and internationally. His reckless foreign aid spending, while neglecting his own citizens’ healthcare and education, has only further disillusioned the Chinese people. These factors combined have led to China’s plummeting global reputation, deterring foreign tourists and fueling widespread discontent. Today, China is viewed with growing suspicion and resentment worldwide.

In other words, when it comes to “undermining the foundations of socialism,” no democratic movement or religious opposition group can compare to Xi Jinping. He has single-handedly done more damage to the CCP than any organized resistance ever could.

What If Xi Jinping Steps Down?

If Xi were to step down under normal circumstances, his successor might continue his “acceleration” efforts, pushing the regime further toward collapse. However, if he were ousted through a coup or internal power struggle, the new leader would likely be a pragmatic “fake reformer” in the mold of Deng Xiaoping—someone who pays lip service to economic openness while making superficial concessions to the West. This new leader might loosen some speech restrictions, allowing controlled dissent to create an illusion of change. The regime could ease restrictions just enough to pacify public anger, leading to a temporary illusion of a “wise ruler’s return.”

In such a scenario, the fundamental political structure would remain unchanged. The public would remain largely unaware of their continued oppression, and the West, driven by economic interests, would eagerly turn a blind eye once again. China would sink back into its cycle of authoritarian resilience. If that is the case, why risk a chaotic leadership transition for superficial change? It would be far better to let Xi continue his self-destructive path—after all, a consistent fool is far less dangerous than a cunning manipulator.

Let Xi Jinping “Accelerate” to the End

There’s a saying: “Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad.” Xi Jinping’s continued leadership ensures that he will keep pushing the CCP toward its own demise. Every day that he remains in power, the CCP weakens, public dissatisfaction grows, and the free world becomes more wary of China’s authoritarianism.

So, rather than wishing for Xi’s resignation, let us wish him a long and healthy life—so that he may continue his work of self-sabotage. Long live Xi Jinping’s acceleration!

As for what comes next once Xi Jinping finally brings down the CCP? That is a question for another day.

2025年3月15日，位于伦敦旧皇家铸币厂（Royal Mint Court）前举行了一场大规模示威活动，反对中国政府在此建立“超级大使馆”的计划。此次抗议由多个在英港人组织联合藏人、维吾尔人及其他族群共同发起，旨在向英国政府和伦敦警方表达该地点不适合建设中国大使馆的立场。

中国民主党英国总部积极参与了此次示威，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。”

示威活动于下午3时开始，吸引了数千名抗议者，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。伦敦警方出动多辆警车和上百名警员前来维持秩序。

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。

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。

3月15号活动出席名单：戴超，戴雪梅，赵玉莲，蔡波，顾晓锋，成小丹，成亚利，许少男，杨溯，李涛，张学美，王建，郭稼瑄，黄天，范可为，黄俊，邬勇，何智威，韦嵩华，温作团。

中国民主党英国总部记者何智威报道

Thousands Gather to Continue Protesting the “Super Embassy” Plan

On March 15, 2025, a large-scale protest was held in front of the Royal Mint Court in London against the Chinese government’s plan to establish a “super embassy” at this location. The protest was jointly organized by multiple Hong Kong groups in the UK, along with Tibetan, Uyghur, and other ethnic communities. The aim was to express to the UK government and the London police that the site is unsuitable for the construction of a Chinese embassy.

UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party UK actively participated in the protest. A representative at the scene reaffirmed: “Only by upholding freedom and democracy can we effectively resist the Chinese Communist Party’s expansion overseas.”

The protest began at 3:00 PM and attracted thousands of demonstrators. The crowd quickly gathered, and due to the large number of participants, some protesters overflowed from the designated gathering area, leading to the temporary closure of some streets and disrupting traffic. The London police dispatched several police vehicles and over a hundred officers to maintain order.

Several British Members of Parliament and local representatives attended to show their support. In their speeches, they stated that the new Chinese embassy would not only undermine the safety and freedom of British citizens but could also pose a threat to national security. Some MPs stressed that the government should stand firm against pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and never bow to authoritarian forces.

As the protest continued for several hours, order was gradually restored under the guidance of the police. However, the voices of the protesters and the related discussions continued to spread on social media. The event organizers stated that they would continue to closely monitor the UK government’s review process regarding the embassy construction application and plan to organize further actions to express public opinion if necessary.

List of attendees on March 15: Dai Chao, Dai Xuemei, Zhao Yulian, Cai Bo, Gu Xiaofeng, Cheng Xiaodan, Cheng Yali, Xu Shaonan, Yang Su, Li Tao, Zhang Xuemei, Wang Jian, Guo Jiaxuan, Huang Tian, Fan Kewei, Huang Jun, Wu Yong, He Zhiwei, Wei Songhua, Wen Zuotuan

Reporter of UK Headquarters of China Democracy Party: He Zhiwei

2025年3月8日国际妇女节，中国民主党英国总部在伦敦中国大使馆外组织了抗议示威活动。这一天，全球多地纷纷举行示威活动，呼吁性别平等、反对性别暴力和一切形式的歧视。在伦敦，除了关注国内外人权状况外，一些海外华人及女权团体也借此契机发声，批评中国政府在国内外的人权问题。与此同时，在伦敦，多个来自香港和台湾的人权组织也参加了抗议活动。最高时间参加人数超过百名。

抗议活动于下午三点开始，中国民主党英国总部高举写有“释放所有女政治犯！”、“女权不息，自由永存”等口号的标语牌。总部顾问黄华首先发言。他重点介绍了国内公民女记者张展目前受中共政府迫害的紧急的情况，呼吁国际社会关注张展女士的人权状况。黄华手举喇叭，带领全体党员高喊：“释放张展！”, “习近平下台！”，“共产党下台！”, “自由万岁！”，“人民万岁！”。

现场气氛热烈、声浪高涨，但整体秩序保持平稳。 部分团体特别指出中国国内持续存在的人权侵犯问题，呼吁国际社会关注政治犯状况，并要求释放所有因政治异见而被捕的女权人士。 反对中共海外扩张：示威中也穿插批评中共利用海外机构对中国境内外民众实施监控与镇压的声音，呼吁抵制中共影响。 示威者强烈要求中国政府立即释放所有因政治立场而被关押的女性政治犯，要求终止对女权异见人士的打压。抗议者指出，这些女性因坚持争取言论自由与性别平等而遭受长时间不公正对待，其遭遇应引起国际社会的广泛关注。

当天，中国民主党英国总部也派出代表和党员积极参加其他人权组织的游行示威活动。

此次活动是海外华人联合捍卫民主自由、呼唤女性正义的重要举措，只有坚守自由和公正，才能有效抵制中共在国内外推行的压迫政策 跨群体合作 示威活动还得到了在英港人、维吾尔人、藏人、台湾及其他支持民主与人权团体的联合响应，形成了跨文化、跨议题的联合抗争局面，共同向中国政府施压，呼吁国际社会关注中国境内女性政治犯的严峻处境。 示威者在现场通过喊话、挥舞横幅表达诉求，并有代表当场发表声明，呼吁“释放所有女政治犯”，同时指出中国政府应停止对异议女性的打压。部分参与者表示，此次集会不仅是对中国政府政策的抗议，更是海外华人争取基本人权与性别平等的重要实践。 女权、民主、人权与反对中共压迫。参与者通过直接走上街头表达诉求，表明海外华人社群在争取言论自由和性别平等方面的坚定立场。

此外，各参与团体计划与更多海外人权组织建立长期合作机制，联手为释放被关押的女政治犯争取更多国际支持。 以国际妇女节为契机，跨族群、跨议题地联合抗议中国政府对女政治犯的长期打压。未来，此类跨议题联合抗议可能会成为海外华人及相关团体维护民主与自由的重要形式。 推动国际社会对中国女权政治犯困境的关注。

演讲名单：成亚利，范可为，温作团，何智威

党员出席名单：许少男，戴超，兰子明，成小丹，韦崇华，蔡波 ，张学美，郭稼瑄，王建 ，范可为，成亚利，杨溯， 朱双林，顾晓锋，朱嗣勇，温作团，邬勇，刘立岩，刘耀行，徐伟华，黄天，程敏，黄俊，何智威，李皓博，周亮，闫磊，余刚、黄华、王冠儒，卢灵飞，林明强。

中国民主党英国总部记者何智威报道

Strong Demand for the Release of All Female Political Prisoners and Prisoners of Conscience

On March 8, 2025, International Women’s Day, the UK Headquarters of the China Democracy Party organized a protest outside the Chinese Embassy in London. On this day, demonstrations were held worldwide, calling for gender equality, opposition to gender-based violence, and the eradication of all forms of discrimination. In London, in addition to addressing human rights issues both domestically and internationally, overseas Chinese and feminist groups also took this opportunity to criticize the Chinese government’s human rights violations. Meanwhile, several human rights organizations from Hong Kong and Taiwan also participated in the protest. At its peak, the event saw over a hundred attendees.

The protest began at 3 PM, with the UK Headquarters of the China Democracy Party holding banners with slogans such as “Release All Female Political Prisoners!” and “Women’s Rights Persist, Freedom Endures!”. Advisor Huang Hua was the first to speak, focusing on the urgent situation of citizen journalist Zhang Zhan, who is currently persecuted by the Chinese government. He called on the international community to pay attention to Zhang Zhan’s human rights conditions. Holding a loudspeaker, Huang Hua led all members in chanting: “Release Zhang Zhan!”, “Xi Jinping Step Down!”, “Down with the Communist Party!”, “Long Live Freedom!”, and “Long Live the People!”

The atmosphere was passionate, and the chants were powerful, but the protest remained orderly. Some groups specifically highlighted the ongoing human rights violations in China, calling on the international community to focus on the plight of political prisoners and demanding the release of all feminist activists imprisoned for their political beliefs.

Opposition to CCP’s Overseas Expansion

The protest also included criticism of the Chinese Communist Party’s use of overseas institutions to monitor and suppress Chinese citizens both domestically and abroad. Demonstrators called for resistance against the CCP’s influence and strongly demanded that the Chinese government immediately release all female political prisoners detained for their political beliefs and cease repression of feminist dissidents. Protesters emphasized that these women have suffered prolonged and unjust persecution simply for advocating for freedom of speech and gender equality, and their plight should receive urgent international attention.

On the same day, the UK Headquarters of the China Democracy Party also sent representatives and members to actively participate in other human rights demonstrations.

Cross-Community Collaboration for Justice and Freedom

This event was an important initiative by overseas Chinese to unite in defense of democracy, freedom, and women’s justice. Only by upholding freedom and justice can the oppressive policies of the CCP be effectively resisted.

The protest also received support from Hong Kongers, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Taiwanese, and other pro-democracy and human rights groups in the UK, forming a cross-cultural and multi-issue united resistance movement to pressure the Chinese government and raise international awareness of the dire conditions faced by female political prisoners in China. Protesters voiced their demands through chants and banners, and some representatives delivered speeches on-site, calling for the “Release of All Female Political Prisoners” and urging the Chinese government to cease its suppression of female dissidents.

Some participants stated that this gathering was not only a protest against the Chinese government’s policies but also an essential action for overseas Chinese in their fight for fundamental human rights and gender equality. Through direct street demonstrations, participants demonstrated the firm stance of the overseas Chinese community in advocating for freedom of speech and gender equality.

Furthermore, participating groups plan to establish long-term cooperation with more international human rights organizations to secure greater global support for the release of imprisoned female political prisoners. Leveraging International Women’s Day as an opportunity, the protest embodied a cross-ethnic, cross-issue coalition against the Chinese government’s prolonged suppression of female political prisoners. In the future, such cross-issue protests may become a key approach for overseas Chinese and allied groups in defending democracy and freedom while pushing the international community to focus on the plight of female political prisoners in China.

Speakers:

Cheng Yali, Fan Kewei, Wen Zuotuan, He Zhiwei

Attending Party Members:

Xu Shaonan, Dai Chao, Lan Ziming, Cheng Xiaodan, Wei Chonghua, Cai Bo, Zhang Xuemei, Guo Jiaxuan, Wang Jian, Fan Kewei, Cheng Yali, Yang Su, Zhu Shuanglin, Gu Xiaofeng, Zhu Siyong, Wen Zuotuan, Wu Yong, Liu Liyan, Liu Yaoxing, Xu Weihua, Huang Tian, Cheng Min, Huang Jun, He Zhiwei, Li Haobo, Zhou Liang, Yan Lei, Yu Gang, Huang Hua, Wang Guanru, Lu Lingfei, Lin Mingqiang.

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

王希哲

就徐文立兄致界力建复信，有兴趣说几句 王希哲 文立兄钧鉴: 哈，真想不到，你还给界力建那混混煞有介事回一封信了。文立呀，你是什么人？你是“中国自由民主事业的精神领袖”；界某什么人？政治小流氓地痞而已。诗云“知我者谓我心忧，不知我者谓我何求”。希哲是知道你的。但有些“不知道”你的，街谈巷议说徐文立这样的“领袖”竟给界力建这样的混混回信，真太掉格了！ 

界力建，以伪装激进的“反共”高调骗钱谋生。汪岷眼花，让他混了个“联总副主席”。为全盘抢下联总这具他足以饱吃民主党人血馒头的饭碗，据了解，在韩武背后的怂恿下，他竟伪造郑存柱主席“辞职”的谣言，网上纠集几个远在天边的所谓“委员”，背着主席，发动政变，伪“决议”免去郑存柱的主席职，由他来“代理主席”。

且不说郑存柱“辞职”纯属其捏造。也不说些历史故事，就以刘因全、汪岷所说，当年刘国凯提出辞职，社民党极力挽留；徐文立提出辞职，全联总极力挽留。总是要先行挽留，哪有什么郑存柱今天提出所谓“辞职”，明天界力建就可迫不及待逼其下台，自命自己“代理主席”这样的情事？如此狼子野心，昭昭然何须再揭？ 在全联总团结坚强回击下，界某人政变失败，走投无路，惶惶如丧家之犬。不知背后何人指点，忽想起了徐文立或可作他救星。

于是，有人为界某捉刀，啰皂近万言，把徐文立捧成了天上神明：您是“英雄”、是“中国最知名的政治犯”、“最勇敢的人士”、是“中国异议人士的教父”、是“中国民主党创党人”。“您民心所向”、“敢为天下先”、“公认您是中国自由民主事业的精神领袖”。你是“历史盟主”、“泰山北斗”、你“日出东方，普照大地”…..啊呀呀，徐文立宇宙般的伟大！那个“民运之父”魏京生，又算得哪条葱喲？！ 

徐文立伟大吗？伟大！是很伟大。但这界力建难道今天才忽然知道了徐文立的伟大？昨天呢？昨天你不知道？如果昨天前天你就知道，为什么你昨天前天不投奔徐文立，倒要作了徐文立视为对其叛逆的汪岷部的副主席？还不满足，还要政变抢它个“代理主席”作？这不是明明白白与伟大的徐文立作对么？政变失败抢不到“代理主席”了， 被联总踢出门了，才忽然想起了伟大的“中国民主党创党人”徐文立可以救命？于是化妆打扮，作出一副至贱奴才谄媚态，另覓“威虎山”，向徐文立交上投名状了。 

但流氓界力建看错徐文立了。孔老夫子论语说：“巧言令色，鲜矣仁”矣，难道更伟大的徐文立不知道？以为胡天胡地拍马吹捧一大篇，被你戴上冲天高帽的徐文立就能昏昏然为你所用，被你当枪使了？：“深知徐文立先生刚正不阿、心怀大义，一旦得知此事，必不能容忍此等恶劣行径，定会声援年轻人组成的反共中坚力量（也即声援他界力建）”。 

应该说，这背后为界力建泡文的捉刀人，确是老到有经验的。他知道当年王军涛就是把王有才抬举成“中国民主党创党人”作了招牌门面，才可以由他王军涛为所欲为另拉山头的。所以这回，要救界力建的命，如法炮制，也就必须送高帽大捧徐文立“中国民主党创党人”“历史盟主”…，才可以为了界力建把徐文立放在火炉上烤。

徐文立何等伟大，何等圣明，一眼看穿了界力建及其背后操盘黑手的用心。他对希哲说：“我不会为任何人背书”；“他（界力建背后）一定有一个班子在运作”！ 希哲对徐文立说，“希望兄不要误支持此人（界力建）”。徐文立对希哲保证：我“绝对不会！”。 界力建事了了。就必须最后说几句韩武了。 

对韩武，文立是久来持看法而颇不喜他的。而我，自世纪初韩武流亡泰国，到赴美参加联总二大及后相当一段时期，希哲都是颇看重韩武和扶助韩武的。只后来发现他很能凭空造谣， 便也对他有了看法，想不到他还能搞阴谋。这回的界力建政变事件，韩武有无在文立所指的那个“背后的班子”里具体操作？尚不知，但对界的怂恿和支持确有他！文立比希哲早早地看透了韩武，说伟大，这真是文立的伟大处，希哲佩服。

实话说，若这回徐文立不幸竟上了界力建花言巧语的当，出来支持他了，韩武必定暗中偷笑掉了门牙：“你老徐也有喝了我洗脚水的时候！”。但文立没有上当，借对界力建复信仅发表了一通历史演说，没有对界作任何承诺。他只是说：我老了，81了，“早已退休”了。“重要是看你（界力建们）做了什么”了！韩武兄就应该失望，笑不起来了。 呜呼，韩武韩武，诗云：“鱼网之设，鸿则离之。燕婉之求，得此戚施”！ 

希哲拜 2025/3/8 xz7793@gmail.com

作者：邓伟

俄乌战争3年，美国总统川普暂停了对乌克兰援助，站在国家利益层面来说，无可厚非，但是从道义上，从人类文明的价值观来说，美国作为地球上唯一的超级大国，自由、民主世界的灯塔，公认的维护世界和平、公正的警察，面对俄罗斯入侵乌克兰，这一回却选择了漠视，川普的一言一行并未让人感觉到普京是独裁者，侵略者，相反乌克兰总统在他眼里却是独裁者，实在匪夷所思！ 

乌克兰总统泽连斯基想和平，绝不是某些人嘴里叫嚣的战争贩子，屠夫，和平的条件是啥？是乌克兰人投降吗？没有一个安全的保障，面对俄罗斯这种对领土有着近乎狂热追求的恶邻，乌克兰永远得不到安全，俄乌的历史早已验证了这一切，爱好和平但绝不妥协放任侵略者，这是为自由，为下一代而战，如果真如川普所言，他能带来和平，他应该明白乌克兰人坚持的意义是什么。 

关于美乌矿产协议，这本是一件两国互惠的好事，乌克兰需要美国援助，美国需要利益，白宫的会谈最终闹得不欢而散，不去再细谈过程，每个人都有问题。

欧洲的立场，很多人执着的一点就是“欧洲一边在买俄罗斯的能源，一边在支持乌克兰”，俄乌战争以来，欧洲一直在摆脱对俄罗斯的能源依赖，在买能源是事实，这是一种无奈，不可能战争一开打完全摆脱，更何况欧洲各国都有自身利益，并不完全一致，比如匈牙利、塞尔维亚，东欧、波罗的海各国对俄罗斯的能源依赖更甚于其它欧洲国家，战争持续至今，欧洲对俄罗斯的能源已经从“高度依赖”转为“低度依赖”，至于做了哪些努力，可以自行AI，绝不是某些人口中的“一边买俄罗斯能源，一边支持乌克兰”，部分事实，以偏概全。

对于俄乌战争的走向，美国暂停援助坚持它的孤立主义，德国新总理上台后，欧洲加大对乌克兰的援助，迫使俄罗斯回到和平的谈判桌上，我不知道乌克兰人的和平诉求是否是放弃乌东4地加入北约、欧盟，但我肯定希望如此！

没有人不爱好和平，但如果和平建立在无限妥协中，那对乌克兰将是万劫不复！

Understanding the Russia-Ukraine War from My Perspective

Author: Deng Wei

Three years into the Russia-Ukraine war, U.S. President Donald Trump has suspended aid to Ukraine. From a national interest perspective, this decision is understandable. However, from a moral standpoint and in terms of the values of human civilization, the United States, as the world’s sole superpower, the beacon of the free and democratic world, and the widely recognized global peacekeeper, has chosen to turn a blind eye to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Trump’s rhetoric and actions do not convey the idea that Putin is a dictator and an aggressor; instead, he seems to view the Ukrainian president as the dictator. This is truly baffling!

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wants peace—he is by no means the war profiteer or butcher that some claim he is. What are the conditions for peace? Should the Ukrainian people surrender? Without a solid security guarantee, Ukraine will never be safe, especially when facing a neighbor like Russia, whose obsession with territorial expansion is nearly fanatical. History has already proven this. Ukraine desires peace but will never compromise by allowing the aggressor to have its way. This war is being fought for freedom and for future generations. If Trump truly believes he can bring peace, he should at least understand why Ukrainians persist in their resistance.

Regarding the U.S.-Ukraine mineral agreements, this was originally a mutually beneficial deal between the two nations—Ukraine needs U.S. aid, and the U.S. seeks economic benefits. However, the White House talks ultimately ended in discord. Without delving into the details, it is clear that both sides bear some responsibility for the fallout.

As for Europe’s stance, many critics fixate on the argument that “Europe is both buying Russian energy and supporting Ukraine.” While it is true that Europe has continued to purchase Russian energy, this is a reluctant necessity—it was never realistic to sever energy ties with Russia completely the moment war broke out. Furthermore, European nations have diverse interests and do not always align, as seen in countries like Hungary and Serbia, or among Eastern European and Baltic states, which have historically been more dependent on Russian energy than other European countries. However, over the course of the war, Europe has transitioned from “high dependence” on Russian energy to “low dependence.” For those curious about the efforts made in this regard, a simple AI search can provide ample evidence. It is by no means the simplistic claim that “Europe buys Russian energy while supporting Ukraine”—this is an oversimplified and misleading narrative.

Regarding the future trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine war, the U.S. remains committed to its isolationist stance by suspending aid, while Europe, following the appointment of Germany’s new chancellor, has increased its support for Ukraine. This could pressure Russia back to the negotiating table. I do not know whether Ukraine’s demands for peace will include relinquishing the four eastern territories in exchange for NATO and EU membership, but I certainly hope so.

No one opposes peace. However, if peace is built on endless compromise, it will spell disaster for Ukraine.

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.