作者：汪听雨
编辑：李聪玲 责任编辑：胡丽莉 翻译：何兴强
最近几天，一个叫做“戚洪”的名字涌入了海外华人的视野，尤其是在民运圈。这位大哥的事迹并不新鲜，但影响力足够大，引起了广泛争议。据我有限的了解，他在重庆大学城通过投影的方式，把“反共标语”打在大楼墙面上，希望在93阅兵前把“自由的火种”传递给年轻人。
果然，一石激起千层浪，各大异议人士大V纷纷转发，称赞戚洪有勇有谋。同时，也涌现了许多批评的声音，比如：“他这么做就是为了政治庇护！”、“他这么做有没有想过他还在中国的亲人（他的母亲还在国内）？”、“他要是真在中国反抗还是条汉子，全家人跑路就是自私自利！”我看到这些五花八门的说法，原本以为只是中共水军带风向，普通人不会被这种话术蒙蔽，哪知道我的一些网友也开始发表负面评论。我和这些网友互相关注多年，十分确信他们不是五毛水军，也明确知道他们对中共体制非常不满，但依然对投影行为十分不认可。我这才意识到，面对反抗极权，很多国人并没有清晰的逻辑，因此很容易被水军带风向，将抗争者污名化，从而在舆论上抑制类似的抗争，降低维稳成本。
所以，我认为有必要把逻辑掰开揉碎，把事实与逻辑梳理清楚，由简入深，一步一步推理，论证戚洪的行为不但无可指责，还值得学习与借鉴。
（一）不存在一个完美的勇士
我们拿几位知名度高、普遍获得好评的异议人士来对比。比如刘晓波、阮晓寰（编程随想）、彭立发（彭载舟）。和戚洪相比，最大的区别，也是水军们最容易抹黑的点在于：前者都已坐牢、受尽虐待，甚至刘晓波死在了狱中，而戚洪选择了保全自己。问题来了：到底是谁规定勇士/抗争者必须殉道，必须抱着自杀心态去抗争呢？难道英雄不能在实现目标后，或深藏功名，或名声显赫，或安享晚年？如果要求抗争者必须准备好去死，或者彻底失去自由，那么抗争的人还能剩下多少？抗争的人越少，对谁越有利？
（二）极权的崩塌不在于一个神迹，而在于无数普通人的行动
水军又说了：“他这么搞能改变什么？共产党不可能因为这么一出倒台。”没错，1989年的学生运动不能，白纸运动也不能，放一个反共投影更像是在大海里投下一颗小石子。但根据历史经验，所有极权政府的倒台，都是由无数普通人的点滴抵抗累积而成。比如波兰，最初只是工人在造船厂罢工，要求工会独立和改善生活条件。后来“团结工会”逐步壮大，成为全国性民主运动。起初的诉求并非推翻政权，而是争取基本权利。但正是这些普通工人的坚持，撬动了东欧剧变的序幕。
再比如苏联的解体，并不是某个领导人突然下令，而是长期的经济困境、知识分子的启蒙、地方民族的独立诉求，以及一次次普通人拒绝配合体制的行动，最终让庞大的政权土崩瓦解。抽象来说，让极权和平瓦解，要满足一个不等式：统治的成本＞统治的收益。当政权发现维持统治的成本太高时，它会逐渐退缩；它的退缩导致民间力量壮大，最终由民主力量取代独裁。戚洪以及类似行动，客观上推高了中共的维稳成本——比如在政府活动前要派出大量人手逐个排查酒店，即使没活动也要定期检查；购买某些设备需要实名登记并被追踪；住酒店要被搜包，引发社会摩擦，增加了社会不稳定因素。这一切都提高了维稳成本。但高压维稳不可能无限持续，在资源枯竭时必然退缩，而成本越高，这个时间点来得就越快。因此，那种认为“小事抗争没用”的思维，客观上反而降低了维稳成本，延长了中共的统治。
（三）认识因果关系
这一层是我的一些网友想不清楚的地方，也是最容易被带风向的角度。他们会质疑，为什么戚洪不在生意做得好的时候去抗争，为什么非要在生意做不下去了才搞这么一出？问题来了，世界上到底有几个人生活过得顺风顺水，吃饱了撑的冒着被逮捕的风险挑战政府？恐怕要么是纯粹的理想主义者，要么是精神上出问题了。那么有多少人因为人生发展不顺，思考是不是制度出了问题，从而想要改变国家制度呢？实际上，不管是民主国家还是独裁国家，这样的人才是绝大多数。这就是人“穷则思变”的本性，这就是因果关系。期待一个人生赢家去冒险毁掉人生，或者期待人生逆境的人们全部内在归因，认为“我过得不好全是因为我不努力”，从而不去思变，不去改变环境，这两种思维都缺乏对人性的认识。
还有一个说法是，“勇士应该保护他人，而不应该以牺牲他人为代价抗争，这样很自私”。我认为保护他人的人当然是勇士，但是牺牲他人的人依然也可以是勇士。假设存在一支地下反抗组织，勇士作为领头人，肩负着领导所有成员的责任，有一项必死的任务，需要一个人执行。如果勇士去了就死了，很有可能刚建立起来的组织就群龙无首开始内斗了，那么勇者必须下决断到底谁去送死。如果勇者选择让他人去死，自己没有去死，是不是意味着这个勇者做的一切都是邪恶的或者无意义的？再比如，很多中国人学过语文课文《史记·陈涉世家》，陈胜，吴广带头造反，追随他们的农民很有可能全都会死，那么是不是陈胜吴广本着大无畏的精神，不挑动广大农民造反，就靠他们原本几百人的队伍对抗全体秦朝军队？
如果真的追求一种，“所有的行为都不能损害到别人的态度，否则全都是自私自利，不算勇士”的话，推导出来最自私的人应该是刘晓波，阮晓寰，彭立发这些传播自由思想的人。如果他们的文字，思想没有被广大顺民阅读到的话，很有可能，其中很大一部分人根本不会产生任何抗争思想，他们会觉得中共的统治是天经地义的，遭遇的任何坏事都是自己不努力或者极小部分贪官害的。看见不公平的事会认为天下乌鸦一般黑，日子能过就过，不去想自由民主这些有的没的。现在可好了，有了这些传播“害人”思想的异议人士，遇到不公会思考是不是制度要改，看见不公心里会愤怒，从而搞得祸从口出，更有甚者做出一些当局无法容忍的事，把自己人生毁掉，自己子孙三代进不了体制，父母养老金被无故克扣。他们的思想传播得越广，对他人的损害程度是不是越大？看吧，没有刘晓波之流，在源头上就阻止了产生更多异议人士，这样他们会过上平凡的人生，他们不会闹事，就这么安安稳稳过日子，做一颗完美的螺丝钉。在中共眼里，真的太完美了，所以，不能以“牺牲他人”为代价的说法，最大的受益者看下来是中共？
（四）无辜者因你而死，都是你的错？
我想起某本科幻小说里的情节，大反派以一颗星球的普通人的生命作为要挟，要挟主角投降，否则就要直接摧毁整颗星球。大反派边要挟，边开始试图用语言摧毁主角的抵抗意志，比如，“这些人死了，全都要算在你头上！”，庆幸的是，主角不为所动，对大反派展开了猛烈的攻势。因为他明白，如果接受了胁迫，那么获胜的永远是更加无耻的人。部分国人可悲的一点是，从小接受的社会化训练让很多人面对这种无辜者遭殃归因问题，本能地归因到“间接”责任人身上。我小学时候，老师会因为个别同学不守纪律，进而把全班留堂，放学后全都不准走。接下来，老师会开启批斗模式，通过批评个别同学，进而引申出全班同学都有责任，因为全班是一个“集体”。要是老师心情再差一些，她们会开批斗大会，让同学写小纸条，写出班里最不守纪律的坏分子，然后把名字最多的同学拉到讲台上人格侮辱。那时候绝大多数小学生，心里想的不是质疑老师为什么搞连坐，为什么要这么践踏个别同学的尊严，他们心里想的是，都怪那几个害群之马，搞得自己被牵连。他们的意识里，只要那几个害群之马同学从此遵纪守法，自己就可以免于被留堂，至于连坐制度对不对，他们不会思考，因为连坐好像是天经地义的。所以，我发现，网上骂他的人首先骂的就是他自私自利，不顾及家人，因为在逻辑上就已经把连坐制度潜移默化地认为这就是天经地义，不可撼动的规则，第一时间的感受不是骂中共无耻，而是怪罪引发“连坐”的人。
（五）人人都是代价，混沌的道德
我们再说回代价。又有人说，“我支持抗争，但是不支持会大面积波及无辜者的抗争，我痛恨中共，但是不希望抗争者像中共一样把他人作代价”。投影事件后，酒店跟卖投影仪的会遭殃，他们成了抗争的代价，这么说来这个勇士太坏了，拿别人当代价实现自己的利益。我们退一万步讲，抗争者这么做真的是为了自己的私利，然而，反问一下，高考时提升一分，比下千人，这一千人当中肯定有几个比你更需要上大学改变命运的人；找工作时比其他候选人表现突出，刷下了其他候选人，没准其中有几个人比你更需要工作，要是再找不到工作就流落街头了；公司经营不善的时候，被裁员的员工成了公司活下去的代价，是不是裁员就是邪恶的？这些行为都造成了他人利益的损失，岂不是都应该受到指责？仅仅是日常生活中的小事，都存在着一个人获益导致另一个人“受损”，为什么偏偏行使了言论自由被冠上了“极度自私”的标签。有人说因为他违法了，因为他煽动颠覆国家政权，我们就又绕回到了恶法是否非法，是否默认恶法的合理存在的问题。违反恶法把其他人作为代价实现私利是不是应该批评的？如果选择应当批评，那么批评者就站在了高墙的一边，并且在捍卫高墙，这将绑匪放在了道德高于抗争者的地位，因为绑匪永远可以用恶法来合理化绑架行为，而抗争者永远处在道德的不利地位。
（六）庇护的逻辑与个体的逻辑
最后说个边边角角的问题。有人说戚洪参与过方舱建设，非法拘禁过民众，所以他是加害者，不是受害者，不应当获得庇护。这种说法完全混淆了“抗争者的道义地位”与“个体是否应获庇护”这两个层次。抗争行为无可指责，但若抗争者个体之前确实参与了迫害，自然可以由移民官和法官审查，如果坐实，可以拒绝庇护。因为只要是因抗争遭迫害或者可能遭受迫害的人，原则上都符合国际公约里庇护的条件。
（七）总结
愿有一天，更多的国人能够真正认识到抗争的逻辑，不再被“连坐”思维和水军话术牵着鼻子走，不再轻易把本该归因于施暴者的恶，转移到反抗者身上。愿人们能明白，极权的瓦解从来不是一场神迹，而是无数普通人一次次不完美的行动累积的结果；愿人们能在纷繁复杂的指责与道德裹挟中，分清谁才是加害者，谁才是勇敢的抵抗者。若不能如此，我们将一次次重演同样的悲剧：真正的勇气被污名化，真正的恶行被合理化，而国人依旧困在混沌的道德观里，自以为守住了“善良”，却在无声中为高墙添砖加瓦。
The Struggle of the Brave and the Moral Chaos of the People
Abstract: Qihong’s projection protest has been questioned, but in fact it raises the cost of stability maintenance and demonstrates personal courage. The collapse of totalitarianism depends on countless imperfect actions; responsibility should rest on the perpetrators, not on the resisters.
Author: Wang Tingyu
Editor: Li Congling Responsible Editor: Hu Lili Translator :He XingQiang
In recent days, the name “Qihong” has surged into the overseas Chinese community’s field of vision, especially within the pro-democracy circle. His deeds are not new, but their influence is significant enough to spark heated debate. From what I understand, he projected anti-CCP slogans onto building walls in Chongqing University Town, hoping to pass on the “flame of freedom” to young people before the 93rd military parade.
As expected, a single stone stirred up a thousand ripples. Many dissident influencers shared and praised Qihong as courageous and resourceful. At the same time, criticisms also poured in: “He only did this to get political asylum!”, “Didn’t he think about his relatives still in China (his mother is still there)?”, “If he really resisted in China, he’d be a real man. Running away with his whole family is selfish!” Initially, I thought such comments were only CCP trolls guiding public opinion, and that ordinary people wouldn’t be misled. But to my surprise, some of my long-followed friends—who I am certain are not CCP trolls and who are clearly dissatisfied with the regime—also voiced disapproval. That’s when I realized: many Chinese lack clear logic when it comes to resistance, making them easily swayed to stigmatize resisters. This suppresses similar protests in public opinion, thereby reducing stability-maintenance costs.
Therefore, I find it necessary to break the logic down step by step, clarify facts, and argue that Qihong’s actions are not only beyond reproach, but worthy of study and imitation.
(1) There Is No Perfect Warrior
Let’s compare Qihong with widely respected dissidents such as Liu Xiaobo, Ruan Xiaohuan (Program Think), and Peng Lifa (Peng Zaizhou). The biggest difference, and the point most exploited by CCP trolls, is this: those figures all went to prison, suffered abuse, or even died (like Liu Xiaobo), while Qihong chose to preserve himself. But who decreed that resisters must be martyrs, prepared to die or lose their freedom? Must every hero sacrifice themselves? If resistance requires suicidal intent, how many would still stand up? The fewer the resisters, the greater the benefit to the regime.
(2) The Collapse of Tyranny Comes from Accumulated Ordinary Actions
Critics say: “What can his projection change? The CCP won’t collapse because of this.” True—1989 couldn’t topple the regime, neither could the White Paper Movement, nor can a projected slogan. But history shows: no authoritarian regime fell because of one miracle. It was always countless ordinary acts of resistance that accumulated.
Poland began with shipyard workers demanding union independence and better living conditions, which evolved into the nationwide Solidarity movement. The Soviet collapse wasn’t from one leader’s order, but from years of economic crisis, intellectual awakening, ethnic independence movements, and countless refusals to comply.
Abstractly, totalitarian collapse follows an inequality: the cost of rule > the benefit of rule. Actions like Qihong’s objectively raise the CCP’s cost of control—deploying large numbers of police to search hotels, forcing equipment sales into surveillance, constant inspections that create social friction. High-pressure control cannot be sustained forever; once resources are exhausted, retreat begins, hastening collapse. Conversely, dismissing small acts of resistance as useless lowers the regime’s cost, prolonging its rule.
(3) Understanding Cause and Effect
Some ask: why didn’t he resist when business was good, but only when it failed? But how many people, living comfortably, would risk everything to confront the regime? Most people rebel in hardship—“when poor, one thinks of change.” Expecting only life’s winners to resist is unrealistic.
Others claim: “A warrior should protect others, not sacrifice them.” But even if leaders sometimes send others to die, does that negate their courage? Should Chen Sheng and Wu Guang have refused to rally peasants against Qin, knowing most would perish? If we demand every resister harm no one else, then the greatest “selfish” figures would be Liu Xiaobo, Ruan Xiaohuan, and Peng Lifa—because their ideas inspired countless others to resist, some of whom suffered repression. Should they not have spoken? Such logic only benefits the regime.
(4) Is Every Innocent Death Your Fault?
In a sci-fi novel, a villain threatens to kill innocents unless the hero surrenders, insisting their deaths would be the hero’s fault. But if the hero gives in, evil always wins. Similarly, many Chinese, socialized under “collective punishment” in school, instinctively blame the indirect party, not the abuser. In projection case debates, people first blame Qihong for endangering relatives—not the CCP for its ruthless “guilt by association.” This misplaced attribution reflects deeply internalized authoritarian thinking.
(5) Everyone Is a “Cost”: Moral Chaos
Some argue: “I support resistance, but not if it harms innocents.” For example, hotels or projectorsellers may suffer after the projection protest. But everyday life also creates winners and losers: scoring one more point in the exam means displacing another; landing a job means someone else misses out. Even layoffs in business make some employees the “cost” of survival. Why then is exercising free speech uniquely labeled “selfish”? If the law itself is unjust, obeying it only strengthens tyranny. To condemn violators of unjust laws for “causing harm” is to defend the regime and place it morally above the resister.
(6) The Logic of Asylum vs. the Logic of Resistance
Some argue Qihong once aided CCP repression (e.g., Fangcang construction, detentions), so he doesn’t deserve asylum. But this conflates two issues: the morality of resistance versus asylum eligibility. His protest is legitimate. Whether he personally merits asylum is for immigration officers to decide based on past actions. International law protects anyone persecuted for resistance, unless directly guilty of persecution themselves.
(7) Conclusion
May there come a day when more Chinese understand the logic of resistance—not be misled by “collective punishment” thinking, not transfer blame from perpetrators to resisters. May they realize that tyranny’s collapse is never a miracle, but the sum of countless imperfect acts. May they distinguish clearly between perpetrators and brave resisters. If not, we will keep repeating the tragedy: true courage stigmatized, true evil rationalized, while people, trapped in moral chaos, believe they are defending “goodness” but silently lay more bricks for the wall.
