——写于基本法23条通过之月
Junius Tian
“他们为何挥舞那面旗帜？这些恋殖的蠢货们！”充满精英主义傲慢的马克思主义者们晃着手中盛满香槟的高脚杯指着香港示威者这样说。
香港基本法第23条最终还是在争议声中被北京的政治傀儡们强行通过了。当流散世界各地的香港侨民哀悼香港与自由渐行渐远时，自由世界的马克思主义者们却又在吹毛求疵的寻找一个可乘之机对失去自由的香港人民施以艰深晦涩的“后殖民主义批判”。而最终，他们把目光瞄向了香港抗议者手中的龙狮旗，并欣喜若狂的宣称这是他们发现香港示威者“恋殖”的证据。而后他们推导出这样一个结论——他们心中的左翼乌托邦中华人民共和国政权，对香港的镇压是一场弱势边缘文化对强势文化殖民的反击。
马克思主义者总是以惯有的黑色幽默引经据典的为暴政辩护。他们在自由世界摆弄着后现代主义大谈压迫与反抗，却向来不屑于以同理心和平等的视角去理解暴政下人民的抗争方式。他们在学历优越感塑造的狭隘世界观中故作优雅与理性，却总是以左翼意识形态偏见评判反抗暴政者的孰是孰非。
从2014年雨伞革命到2019年反送中运动，Quora和其他有着中产阶级品味的问答平台上从来不缺少充满阶级优越感的左翼高等华人和白人古驰共产主义者对香港示威者颐指气使的评判。正如左翼分子对待劳苦大众的一贯傲慢态度一样，这些人以一副“上等人”的姿态煞有介事的指控香港示威者的所谓“恋殖情节”，而可怜的香港示威者却百口莫辩亦或面对冒犯选择沉默，就仿佛他们真的有做错什么一样。
被压迫者忍受着真实的暴政与苦难，而声音却又要被西方大学里那些伪善者长篇大论的指责声所掩盖。那些把压迫反抗叙事挂在口上却献媚暴君如平常喝水般的左翼分子就像自由女神身上丑陋的血蛭一样，大口的汲取对世人而言弥足珍贵的自由，却唾弃并嘲讽被奴役者在暴政下对自由最微弱的呼喊。
无论是为民主而斗争的香港示威者，还是塔利班统治下的女性，亦或是哈马斯枪口下战栗的同性伴侣，他们都是那缺少被左翼媒体赋权，却总是被左翼媒体意识形态偏见随意评判和定义的群体，而原因却又仅仅是因为那些压迫他们的暴政并非是什么“西方帝国主义”，而是某些被政治正确所禁止批判的东西。这些被压迫的人民和西方的马克思主义者一样生而为人，却因话语权的微弱不得不卑微的表达自己的痛苦，小心的抗议着暴政的残酷与不公，生怕一不小心便打碎了后者“反殖民主义”的道德优越感，而招致来自“批判性思考者”们铺天盖地的诋毁声。
但是相比马克思主义意识形态自诞生来对上亿人所施加的系统性种族灭绝、压迫和奴役而言，被压迫者何罪之有呢？香港的示威者又何罪之有呢？他们只是走上街头挥舞着一面龙狮旗，就像那些美国的共产主义者在美国街头挥舞印有镰刀和锤子的旗帜一样行使公民权力罢了。更何况这面旗帜背后的故事既不比切格瓦拉更血腥，亦不比镰刀锤子更残忍。
马克思主义者总是说香港在英国统治下从未实现一个21世纪的民主制度。事实的确是这样的，在1997年之前香港的确从未有机会奢侈的实施一个具备现代性的民主制度。但这座城市却为它的居民提供了一种对于东亚大陆而言全新的可供选择的生活方式。这种生活方式让这个城市的居民变得像“鬼佬”一样娇贵而难伺候，再也不能忍受野蛮残暴的法律，忘记了自己曾经也是那个可以随意被“圣人”草芥人命的刍狗。这种生活方式让这个城市的居民变得像“鬼佬”一样种族歧视，他们敢于平视着自己曾经的君主，羞辱着三叩九拜的本土传统。这种生活方式亦让这个城市的居民变得像“鬼佬”一样叛逆，以至于他们常常肆无忌惮的协助逃离专制政权或马克思主义暴政的革命者，保存点燃紫禁城和红色皇帝龙袍的火种。
倘若1997年之前的香港真的如马克思主义者所言是一个在殖民主义压迫和奴役下暗无天日的城市，那么又是什么使1841年一块不到万人的土地，最终在1997年变成了一座将近650万人口的移民城市呢？而倘若马克思主义者真的如他们自喻的那般是被压迫人民的解放者，为什么自1949年他们为中华民国治下的居民带来共产主义天堂的时候起，被他们所“解放”的人民却要冒着死亡的风险穿过马克思主义者设下的枪林弹雨和铁丝网游过深圳河来到香港这片被殖民统治压迫的城市呢？
香港示威者挥舞着一面旧日的旗帜为一种对东亚大陆而言新颖的理想抗争，而马克思主义者则用他们新潮的废话来维护旧日的专制主义。马克思主义者构建了无数有单一路径依赖缺乏可证伪性的宏大叙事式批判理论，使人们下意识地将全球的苦难与所谓的西方帝国主义或殖民主义后遗症建立联系。
然而，既然我们已经提到了苦难这个话题，那我们就不得不提及那从黄河流域到博斯普鲁斯海峡的人民在历史上所经历过的苦难。那是来自于根植本土文化暴政统治所造成的，由专制政府所实施大规模屠杀、奴役和种族灭绝为特征的一种苦难。可悲的是，这种暴政在大多数人类历史社会中竟是如此普遍，以至于忍受其苦难的人甚至忘记了如何去定义苦难。因此马克思主义者便恰逢时机的站出来骑劫被压迫者的话语权定义他们的苦难，站在受害者累累白骨上吹嘘着那些凶手血迹斑斑双手所建立的灿烂文明是如何的人道和进步于西方现代文明。马克思主义者用无数妇孺和奴隶的鲜血写下“尊重多元化”的谎言，然后转身向战栗着的人民说：“看哪，这就是爱与和平。”
反殖民主义和反帝国主义是如此方便地成为洗白暴政的借口，连受害者都迫于道德指控犹豫是否要反对这个借口背后的扯淡。因此，只要给任何事物贴上帝国主义、殖民主义的标签，就会起到让人敬而远之的效果。于是安东尼奥·葛兰西同志便发明了文化霸权理论，激励了无数傲慢的马克思主义者挪用或发明自由帝国主义之类的术语，并将其变成他们的法兰克福学派废话。
然而尽管马克思主义者摆弄着众多具有“多元化”命名特征的社会学术语，但他们最终只为向被暴政统治的人民传达他们的精英傲慢和一个“一元化”的观点。这个观点就是，民主、自由、人权等概念亦是西方文明强加于世界的殖民压迫。西方国家以外的人应该树立习近平同志倡导的文化自信，因为他们无权享受那被西方马克思主义者视为每天理所当然享有的尊严和自由。
然而仍然，就像香港抗议者对习近平观念中所谓的“文化自信”做出强烈回应一样，像我这样“恋殖”的亚洲人，又怎么能再去重新接受一个向暴君下跪和磕头的生活方式呢？我们又怎能甘愿去做共产主义天堂下的“人民”，去卑微的侍奉那些在共产主义国家享受特权的左翼白人“洋大人”？这问题的回答叫做：“没门。”
好在幸运的是，我们总能在这里找到一个让所有人都满意的折衷替代方案。马戛尔尼使团的故事告诉我们，如果一个“鬼佬”不满意下跪磕头这种具有人格侮辱性质的礼节，那么另一种被叫做单膝下跪的西式礼节亦可以作为对东方专制君主表示尊重的替代方案。然而鉴于我是一个“恋殖”的亚裔假鬼佬，我猜无论是传统的东方专制君主还是现代的共产主义僭主都不会允许像我这样没有白人特权的亚洲人获得与鬼佬相同的礼仪豁免。所以我们必须将鬼佬的单膝跪礼改进为跪姿射击，其最难能可贵的地方在于，很少有人能一辈子中接受两次来自我们如此程度的跪礼。
最后，我必须说，自由世界中那些习惯于消费自由却献媚于暴君的极左青年，并不比那些生活在狭小组屋里却热爱自由的香港年轻人高尚。那些玩弄着后殖民主义诡辩和法兰克福学派废话的马克思主义小布尔什乔亚亦不比在中共监狱里的异见人士勇敢。如果你想接受我们的下跪，那就请去未来共产暴君倒台的那个新国家和共产主义暴君一起接受我们的“下跪礼”吧！
而那之后，龙狮旗将会自由且不被评判的飘扬，飘扬在未来自由的香港。
而在那之后，革命资本主义旗帜必将猎猎飘扬，飘扬在马克思主义政权的废墟上！
献上我最好的“爱与和平”，就像卡尔马克思做的那样。
Sorry, forgive me for not kowtowing to you because I have a colonial mentality
— Written in April 2024, when Hong Kong‘s Basic Law Article 23 was passed
Junius Tian
“Why are they waving that flag? These colonial mentality idiots!” The Marxists, brimming with elitist arrogance, with their champagne-filled goblets as they pointed at the Hong Kong protesters.
Even amidst public controversy, the Basic Law Article 23 of Hong Kong was still ultimately passed through by Beijing’s political puppets. As diaspora Hong Kongers scattered across the globe mourned the fading freedoms of their hometown, those Marxist thinkers of the free world busied themselves with scrutinizing and seizing upon any opportunity to launch their postcolonial criticism upon the pro-democracy Hong Kong people. Finally, they shifted their focus to the dragon and lion flag waved by the Hong Kong protesters, jubilantly proclaiming it as evidence of the so-called colonial mentality of Hong Kong people. Subsequently, those Marxist thinkers deduced such a conclusion: their leftist utopian regime, the People’s Republic of China’s suppression in Hong Kong, is the resistance of marginalized cultures against cultural colonialism.
Marxists always defend tyranny with their cringe-dark humor. They peddle their grand narrative about oppression-resistance within the free world through a fashionable lens of postmodernism, and they consistently disdain to understand the oppressed of autocratic state struggle way from a perspective of empathy and equality. They immerse themselves in a narrow worldview shaped by their snobbish sense of high educational superiority, pretending to be elegant and rational, then judging the right and wrong of resistors through the biased lens of leftist ideology.
From the umbrella movement in 2014 to the anti-extradition movement in 2019, those middle-class taste Q&A platforms like Quora have never lacked Gucci communist elites of both Chinese and white descent, adorned with their class superiority, judging and criticizing Hong Kong protesters. Just as left-wing individuals consistently display an arrogant attitude toward the working class, these individuals, in a superior manner, accuse Hong Kong protesters of a so-called colonial mentality. Meanwhile, the Hong Kong protesters either remain silent or defend themselves with a humble attitude when they face such nauseating arrogance offense as if they did something wrong.
The truth is that the oppressed endure suffering tyranny, and those hypocrites who enjoy their coffee in Western universities overshadow victims’ voices with lengthy critical theory. These left-wing hypocrites are like the ugly leeches on the Statue of Liberty, greedily sucking up the precious freedom that is invaluable to humanity, merciless scorn and ridicule the weakest cries for freedom from those enslaved under tyranny.
Whether it’s the Hong Kong protesters fighting for democracy against Marxist regimes, females under Taliban rule, or trembling gay partners under the barrel of Hamas’s guns, they all belong to the group that lacks empowerment by left-wing media but is always arbitrarily judged by left-wing media’s ideological biases. Because the tyranny that oppresses them isn’t Western imperialism but is some certain things shielded from criticism due to political correctness, these oppressed are born as human beings as the Western Marxist but have to carefully and humbly express their pain, cautiously protest against the cruelty and injustices of tyranny. When they express their opinions, they must constantly be wary that they might accidentally shatter the Marxist moral superiority of the ‘anti-colonialism’ and incur relentless slander from the so-called critical thinkers.
But compared to the systemic genocide, oppression, and enslavement imposed on hundreds of millions of people since the birth of Marxist ideology, what fault do the oppressed have? What fault do the protesters in Hong Kong have? They are just waving a dragon and lion flag on their hometown street, just practicing civil rights like those Marxists waving the hammer and sickle flag in the USA. Furthermore, the story behind this flag is neither bloodier than that of Che Guevara nor more cruel than that of the hammer and sickle.
Marxists always say Hong Kong never achieved a 21st-century democratic system under Britain. Yes, indeed, Hong Kong before 1997 never had the luxury of implementing a modern democratic system. However, Hong Kong provided new lifestyle options unprecedented in East Asia mainland. This lifestyle is turning the city’s residents fussy like a Gweilo, who can’t endure the barbaric laws that treat human life as insignificant. This lifestyle is turning the city’s residents racist like a Gweilo, who dare to look at Chinese despots levelly, insulting the Chinese traditional etiquette called kneel three times and kowtow nine times. This lifestyle is turning the city’s residents rebellious like a Gweilo, they assist and shelter revolutionaries fleeing from despotic regimes or Marxist tyranny, preserving the spark of revolution, always ready to burn down the Forbidden City and the commie Emperor’s dragon robe.
If Hong Kong before 1997 was a city shrouded in colonial oppression and darkness as Marxists claim. So what makes a place with 7,450 residents in 1841 become an immigration city with nearly 6.5 million people by 1997? And if Marxists truly the liberators of the oppressed people as they claim, so why did the people liberated by them even risk death to swim across the Shenzhen River, crossing through the Marxist regime’s gunfire and barbed wire to a city shrouded in colonial oppression and darkness when Marxist brought the communist heaven to the Republic of China’s residents in 1949?
The Hong Kongers wave an old flag and struggle for a new ideal in East Asia mainland, while Marxists spout the trendiest bullshit to defend the old-school despotic regime. Marxists construct countless critical theories with a single path dependency and a grand narrative lacking falsifiability, making people reflexively build a bridge between all the world’s suffering and so-called Western imperialism or colonialism legacy.
However, since we have broached the topic of suffering, we must mention the historical suffering endured by the people from the Yellow River Basin to the Bosphorus Strait. It was suffering caused by despotic regimes rooted in local culture, characterized by mass slaughter, enslavement, and genocide. Sadly, such tyranny was so commonplace in most human historical societies that people who endured it even forgot how to define suffering. Therefore, Marxists opportunistically hijack the discourse power of the oppressed in defining their suffering, standing on piles of victimized bones and boasting about the so-called glorious civilization established by the blood-stained hands of those murderers, claiming it to be more humane and progressive than Western modern civilization. Marxists penned the lie of “respecting multiculturalism” with the blood of countless women, children, and slaves, then turned to the trembling oppressed and said, “Look, this is love and peace.”
The anti-colonialism and imperialism are so convenient to be an excuse to justify tyranny that even the victims hesitate to oppose the bullshit behind this excuse. Therefore, merely attaching the labels of imperialism or colonialism to anything can make people shun it. So Antonio Gramsci invented the theory of cultural hegemony, inspiring countless arrogant Marxists to appropriate or invent terms like liberal imperialism and turn them into Frankfurt School gibberish.
Even though Marxists manipulate numerous sociological terms with diverse naming characteristics, they only convey their elitist arrogance and a unification core viewpoint to the people ruled by tyranny. Their core belief is that concepts like democracy, liberty, and human rights are also colonial oppression imposed by Western civilization on the world. Those outside Western countries should establish the cultural confidence advocated by comrade Xi Jinping because they are not entitled to enjoy the dignity and freedom that Marxists take for granted in the West.
Still, just like the intense response from the protesters in Hong Kong to Xi Jinping’s notion of cultural confidence, how can that colonial mentality of Asians like me accept a lifestyle of kneeling and kowtowing to tyrants again? How can we willingly accept being humble servants to those left-wing white people who travel to and enjoy privileges in communist countries? The answer is no way.
But fortunately, perhaps we can always find a compromise alternative that satisfies everyone. The story of the Macartney Embassy tells us that if Gweilo is dissatisfied with the personal insult caused by the etiquette of kneeling and kowtowing, another Western etiquette called kneeling on one knee can also serve as an alternative for show respect to Oriental despots. But given certain circumstances, as I’m a colonial mentality Asian fake Gweilo, I assess neither traditional Oriental despots nor modern commie tyrants would allow people like me who are without white privileged to receive the same etiquette exemption as Gweilos. Hence, we must adapt the Gweilo’s kneeling on one knee into “kneeling position shooting.” Its most commendable aspect is that few people can receive such a level of kneeling twice in their lifetime.
Finally, I must say that those far-left youth in the free world who are accustomed to consuming freedom but pander to tyrants are no nobler than the young people in Hong Kong who live in cramped housing but love freedom. The Marxist bourgeoisie, filled with a sense of superiority, playing with post-colonial sophistry and Frankfurt School nonsense, are no braver than the dissenters imprisoned by the Commie regime in China. If you want to receive us kneeling, then please receive our kneeling etiquette in future China with those commie tyrants together after their downfall.
And then, the dragon and lion flag will flutter freely without judging, fluttering in the future of free Hong Kong.
And then, the revolutionary capitalist flag will surely wave, waving over the ruins of Marxist regimes.
With my best Love and peace, just like Karl Marx did.
中国民主党英国总部 