作者：郭泉    

编辑：李晶 校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏

       《川普逻辑》之92：川普总统说：“对于那些以主权之名行暴政之实的政权，我们的回答是：你们的‘主权’到此为止了。美国，将作为解放者，作为新秩序的制定者，为被压迫者带来曙光。这就是我们的使命，也是历史赋予我们的责任。行动继续，目标不变：终结暴政，还权于民！”

2026年3月3日，华盛顿特区。五角大楼深处，战争部长海格赛斯的办公室笼罩在一种凝重而决绝的气氛中。

窗外，首都的灯火在早春的寒意中闪烁，但室内，一场将重塑世界格局的讨论正在进行。

椭圆形办公室的主人，唐纳德·J·川普总统，端坐主位，目光如炬。环绕着他的是副总统J.D.万斯、国务卿马可·卢比奥、重量级参议员林赛·格林厄姆，以及三军参谋长联席会议主席查尔斯·Q·凯恩将军。

         空气中弥漫着硝烟未尽的气息——就在数日前（2月28日），美军对伊朗核设施及关键军事指挥节点发动了代号为“史诗怒火”的精确打击，正式拉开了这场被外界称为“第三次海湾战争”的序幕。

          此刻，国际社会，尤其是那些被总统称为“流氓国家”及其同情者，正以“侵犯主权”的罪名猛烈抨击美国。 

“先生们”，川普总统的声音打破了沉寂，带着他标志性的直率与不容置疑，“外面的噪音，那些关于‘主权’的哭嚎，我们听得够多了。他们指责我们侵犯了伊朗的主权？很好。那我们就来谈谈，伊朗政权，还有那些躲在它身后的委内瑞拉、古巴，以及他们的邪恶大boss，他们所谓的‘主权’，到底是什么东西？”

          他身体微微前倾，手指有力地敲击着厚重的红木桌面，

 “我们美国，在座的诸位以及我们的先辈，曾经在人类最黑暗的时刻挺身而出。二战，我们粉碎了希特勒、墨索里尼、东条英机的邪恶轴心。我们解放了欧洲，解放了亚洲，我们不是为了征服，是为了终结暴政！战后，我们怀着最崇高的理想，主持建立了联合国，希望它能成为维护和平、自由与正义的殿堂。我们以为，那是世界新秩序的基石。

”国务卿卢比奥适时接话，他的语调沉稳却充满力量：“总统先生，历史的教训清晰无比。我们建立的秩序，本应是保护人民免受暴政之苦的盾牌。然而，这个体系被蛀蚀了。伊朗这样的政权，它们从未真正认同自由民主的价值。它们渗透、操纵、利用联合国。它们把‘主权不可侵犯’这块遮羞布挥舞得震天响，为的是什么？”

         他环视众人，“只是为了保护它们自己！保护它们在国内肆无忌惮地压迫人民、践踏人权、发展毁灭性武器而不受惩罚的特权！联合国，在某些时刻，某些议题上，已经可悲地沦为了它们的保护伞。”

          一份报告被推到桌子中央。格林厄姆参议员，这位以鹰派立场著称的资深议员，指着文件，声音因愤怒而有些沙哑：“看看这些！不是猜测，是铁证！伊朗政权过去几年干了什么？大规模处决异议人士，数字触目惊心，被国际社会多次谴责为反人类罪行！它们系统性迫害少数族裔和宗教群体，制造恐惧。它们利用国际机构的漏洞，甚至渗透其中，试图掩盖其核野心，同时将矛头指向遵守规则的国家。当联合国下属的机构都可能成为情报泄露的通道，当监督者本身的可信度都摇摇欲坠时，”他重重拍了下桌子，“这个旧秩序，还有什么公正可言？它保护的，是暴君骑在人民头上作威作福的‘主权’！不是人民当家作主的权利！”

          凯恩将军打开了面前的战术平板，调出最新的战场态势图和情报摘要。他的声音冷静、专业，带着军人特有的务实：“总统先生，各位，军事行动按计划推进。‘史诗怒火’有效瘫痪了伊朗的核反击能力和关键指挥链。但真正的挑战，是国际舆论和旧秩序的惯性思维。我们面对的不仅是伊朗的导弹，更是根深蒂固的、被曲解的主权观念。情报显示，伊朗政权正试图利用‘主权’牌，在联合国框架内动员同情者，试图将我们塑造成侵略者。”

          副总统万斯一直凝神倾听，此刻他开口，语气坚定：“这正是关键所在，将军。我们必须清晰地定义主权。主权，它天然地属于人民！一个政权，如果不是人民自由意志的选择，如果它依靠暴力、恐惧和谎言维持统治，如果它屠杀自己的人民、威胁世界的安全——就像二战时的轴心国一样——那么，它凭什么享有主权豁免？它拥有的只是暴政的权力！伊朗现政权、马杜罗的委内瑞拉、古巴的独裁者，以及他们的大boss，它们无一不是通过压制而非选举上台，它们的存在本身就是对主权的最大亵渎。它们对内是刽子手，对外是麻烦制造者。这样的政权，不配拥有‘主权’这块免死金牌！”

          川普总统猛地站起身，目光扫过每一位与会者，仿佛要将他的意志注入每个人的灵魂。“林赛说得对，马可分析得透，凯恩将军执行得好，万斯点中了要害！这个旧秩序，这个被邪恶渗透、被懦弱纵容、被谎言包裹的旧秩序，必须终结！它保护不了无辜者，反而成了暴君的护身符。联合国在某些方面已经失灵了，它无法阻止伊朗屠杀自己的人民，无法阻止它发展核武器威胁邻国，甚至其内部机制都可能被滥用。我们不能再被这种虚伪的规则束缚手脚！”

          川普总统他走到窗前，背对着房间，望着夜色中的华盛顿纪念碑，声音洪亮而充满使命感：“二战后的秩序，是我们美国带领世界建立的，是为了防止法西斯主义卷土重来。今天，我们面对的是新的邪恶轴心——伊朗神权政权及其庇护下的恐怖网络、委内瑞拉的独裁者、古巴的压迫机器，以及他们的大boss。它们对内残暴统治，对外输出动荡。它们的存在，就是对人类良知和世界和平的持续威胁！它们不是合法政府，它们是骑在人民脖子上的犯罪集团！”

          总统转过身，眼神锐利如鹰：“所以，我们的行动，不是侵略，而是解放！是履行我们作为自由世界领袖的历史责任！当这些政权犯下反人类罪，当它们用‘主权’当挡箭牌继续作恶时，美国有责任，也有力量，去击溃它们！将权力从暴君手中夺回，交还给它们真正的主人——人民！支持当地渴望自由的力量，建立真正代表民意的、负责任的政府。这才是在废墟上建立真正持久和平与自由秩序的唯一途径！”

          总统走回座位，双手撑在桌面上，语气不容置疑：“我们正在开创的，是一个全新的世界秩序。一个基于真理而非虚伪、基于自由而非压迫、基于人民主权而非暴君特权的秩序！一个让‘主权不可侵犯’回归其本意——保护人民免受内外侵害——的秩序！对于那些以主权之名行暴政之实的政权，我们的回答是：你们的‘主权’到此为止了。美国，将作为解放者，作为新秩序的制定者，为被压迫者带来曙光。这，就是我们的使命，也是历史赋予我们的责任。行动继续，目标不变：终结暴政，还权于民！”

         办公室内一片寂静，只有总统铿锵的话语在回荡。万斯副总统眼中闪烁着认同的光芒，卢比奥国务卿郑重地点了点头，格林厄姆参议员紧握拳头，凯恩将军挺直了脊背。

         窗外，夜色依旧深沉，但在这间决定世界命运的房间里，一个打破旧枷锁、试图塑造新未来的决心，已然如同出鞘的利剑，寒光凛冽。

         他们深知前路艰险，国际社会的指责风暴必将更猛烈，旧秩序的卫道士们会拼命反扑。然而，在总统描绘的这幅“解放者”图景中，他们看到了一个以美国力量和价值观为主导的、截然不同的世界秩序蓝图正在铺开。

         这场始于德黑兰上空的战火，其目标已远不止于更换一个政权，而是要彻底改写国际规则的根基。

         泉史公作《史诗怒火赋》，赞川普公之功勋卓著，如下：伊朗狼烟，岂惟殄灭凶残；寰宇新章，实肇清夷玉宇。 

 夫天纲解纽，戾气横流。伊阙逞枭獍之威，胁苍生而盗神器；波斯沉膻腥之雾，假主权以锢黔黎。于是美利坚奋雷霆之怒，川普公秉昊天之命，爰整貔貅，恭行天罚。  

         其志也，黜伪崇真，斥虚尚实。 解倒悬于水火，岂容暴虐苟延？还明曜于幽昏，誓令自由重焕。昔者主权蒙垢，竟成独夫之盾；今兹正义张弓，终现本初之义。护兆民于衽席，御奸宄于疆垣。其行也，长戟指处，魍魉魂销。 战焰灼云，非止焚德黑兰之阙；仁旌卷地，更将塑新秩序之基。看星条耀空，裂重昏而破蛰；听惊雷震野，醒九域以苏枯。暴政之“主权”云乎？至此永绝；生民之夙愿也哉，于焉得偿！

  至若拯溺怀襄，解悬焦灼。布真理为圭臬，易压迫以和宁。使四海知主权在民，非属僭主；令八荒识威仪由法，岂任狂狷？此非一国之业，实乃万世之功。  

         伟矣哉！ 挥剑决浮云，三军气慑波斯月；举旗开正道，九域春随自由风。

诗曰：

且看波斯故地

重开玫瑰之春

更听国际新章

永续山河之盟

Liberator: The Architect of the New International Order

Author: Guo Quan

Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Zhou Min

Trump Logic #92: President Trump said: “To those regimes that practice tyranny in the name of sovereignty, our answer is: your ‘sovereignty’ ends here. America will act as a liberator, as the architect of a new order, bringing dawn to the oppressed. This is our mission and our historical responsibility. The action continues, the goal remains unchanged: End tyranny, return power to the people!”

March 3, 2026, Washington D.C. Deep within the Pentagon, the office of Secretary of War Hegseth was shrouded in a solemn and resolute atmosphere. Outside, the lights of the capital flickered in the early spring chill, but inside, a discussion that would reshape the global landscape was underway.

The master of the Oval Office, Donald J. Trump, sat in the center seat, his gaze like a torch. Surrounding him were Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, heavyweight Senator Lindsey Graham, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Q. Brown Jr.

The air was thick with the scent of gunpowder yet to settle—just days ago (February 28), the U.S. military launched precision strikes, codenamed “Epic Fury,” against Iranian nuclear facilities and key military command nodes, officially beginning what the outside world calls the “Third Gulf War.”

At this moment, the international community, especially those labeled by the President as “rogue states” and their sympathizers, are fiercely attacking the United States under the charge of “violating sovereignty.”

“Gentlemen,” President Trump’s voice broke the silence, carrying his signature directness and indisputability. “We have heard enough of the noise outside, those cries regarding ‘sovereignty.’ They accuse us of violating Iran’s sovereignty? Fine. Then let’s talk about what their so-called ‘sovereignty’—that of the Iranian regime, as well as Venezuela, Cuba hiding behind it, and their evil big boss—actually is?”

He leaned forward slightly, his fingers tapping powerfully on the thick mahogany desk.

“We in America, everyone in this room and our ancestors, once stood up at humanity’s darkest hour. In WWII, we crushed the evil axis of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. We liberated Europe, liberated Asia; we did not do it to conquer, but to end tyranny! After the war, with the loftiest ideals, we presided over the establishment of the United Nations, hoping it would become a temple for maintaining peace, freedom, and justice. We thought that was the foundation of the new world order.”

Secretary of State Rubio spoke up at the right moment, his tone steady yet full of power: “Mr. President, the lessons of history are crystal clear. The order we established was meant to be a shield protecting people from the suffering of tyranny. However, this system has been eroded. Regimes like Iran have never truly identified with the values of freedom and democracy. They infiltrate, manipulate, and exploit the United Nations. They wave the fig leaf of ‘inviolable sovereignty’ with a deafening roar—for what purpose?”

He looked around at everyone, “Only to protect themselves! To protect their privilege of recklessly oppressing people, trampling on human rights, and developing destructive weapons at home without punishment! The United Nations, at certain moments and on certain issues, has pathetically become their protective umbrella.”

A report was pushed to the center of the table. Senator Graham, the veteran known for his hawk-like stance, pointed at the document, his voice slightly raspy with anger: “Look at these! Not guesses, but ironclad evidence! What has the Iranian regime done over the past few years? Mass executions of dissidents, numbers that are shocking to the eye, repeatedly condemned by the international community as crimes against humanity! They systematically persecute ethnic minorities and religious groups, manufacturing fear. They exploit loopholes in international agencies, even infiltrating them, attempting to cover their nuclear ambitions while pointing the finger at countries that follow the rules. When even the subordinate agencies of the UN can become channels for intelligence leaks, and when the credibility of the overseers themselves is wavering,” he slammed the table hard, “what justice is left in this old order? What it protects is the ‘sovereignty’ of tyrants riding on the heads of the people to do as they please! Not the right of the people to be masters of their own house!”

General Brown opened the tactical tablet before him, pulling up the latest battlefield status maps and intelligence summaries. His voice was calm, professional, with the pragmatism unique to a soldier: “Mr. President, everyone, military operations are proceeding as planned. ‘Epic Fury’ has effectively paralyzed Iran’s nuclear counter-strike capability and key command chains. But the true challenge is international opinion and the inertia of the old order’s thinking. We face not only Iran’s missiles but a deeply rooted, distorted concept of sovereignty. Intelligence shows the Iranian regime is attempting to play the ‘sovereignty’ card, mobilizing sympathizers within the UN framework to paint us as aggressors.”

Vice President Vance had been listening intently; now he spoke, his tone firm: “This is exactly the point, General. We must clearly define sovereignty. Sovereignty naturally belongs to the people! If a regime is not the choice of the people’s free will, if it relies on violence, fear, and lies to maintain rule—just like the Axis powers of WWII—then why should it enjoy sovereign immunity? What it possesses is only the power of tyranny! The current Iranian regime, Maduro’s Venezuela, the dictators of Cuba, and their big boss—each of them came to power through suppression rather than election. Their very existence is the greatest desecration of sovereignty. They are executioners internally and troublemakers externally. Such regimes do not deserve the ‘golden shield’ of sovereignty!”

President Trump suddenly stood up, his gaze sweeping over every participant as if to inject his will into everyone’s soul. “Lindsey is right, Marco’s analysis is thorough, General Brown is executing well, and Vance hit the nail on the head! This old order—this old order infiltrated by evil, coddled by cowardice, and wrapped in lies—must end! It cannot protect the innocent; instead, it has become a bodyguard for tyrants. The United Nations has failed in certain aspects; it could not stop Iran from massacring its own people, could not stop it from developing nuclear weapons to threaten neighbors, and even its internal mechanisms could be abused. We can no longer be bound hand and foot by these hypocritical rules!”

President Trump walked to the window, his back to the room, looking at the Washington Monument in the night. His voice was resonant and full of a sense of mission: “The post-WWII order was established by us, America, leading the world to prevent the return of fascism. Today, we face a new Axis of Evil—the Iranian theocratic regime and its protected terrorist networks, the dictators of Venezuela, the oppression machine of Cuba, and their big boss. They rule with brutality internally and export instability externally. Their existence is a continuous threat to human conscience and world peace! They are not legitimate governments; they are criminal syndicates riding on the necks of the people!”

The President turned around, his eyes as sharp as an eagle: “Therefore, our action is not aggression, but liberation! It is fulfilling our historical responsibility as the leader of the free world! When these regimes commit crimes against humanity, when they use ‘sovereignty’ as a shield to continue their evil, America has the responsibility, and the power, to crush them! To take power back from the hands of tyrants and return it to its true masters—the people! Support local forces longing for freedom, and establish truly representative, responsible governments. This is the only path to building a truly lasting peace and an order of freedom upon the ruins!”

The President walked back to his seat, hands propped on the table, his tone beyond doubt: “What we are initiating is a completely new world order. An order based on truth rather than hypocrisy, on freedom rather than oppression, on the sovereignty of the people rather than the privileges of tyrants! An order that returns ‘inviolable sovereignty’ to its original meaning—protecting the people from internal and external harm! To those regimes that practice tyranny in the name of sovereignty, our answer is: your ‘sovereignty’ ends here. America will act as a liberator, as the architect of a new order, bringing dawn to the oppressed. This is our mission and our historical responsibility. The action continues, the goal remains unchanged: End tyranny, return power to the people!”

Silence filled the office, with only the President’s clanging words echoing.

Vice President Vance’s eyes shimmered with the light of agreement, Secretary of State Rubio nodded solemnly, Senator Graham clenched his fist, and General Brown straightened his spine.

Outside, the night remained deep, but in this room deciding the world’s fate, a determination to break old shackles and shape a new future was already like a drawn sword, its cold light glinting.

They knew the road ahead was perilous; the storm of international condemnation would surely intensify, and the defenders of the old order would strike back desperately. However, in this vision of the “Liberator” described by the President, they saw a blueprint for a starkly different world order, led by American power and values, unfolding before them.

This war, which began in the skies over Tehran, has a goal that far exceeds merely changing a regime; it aims to completely rewrite the foundations of international rules.

Ode to the Epic Fury

Composed by Quan Shi Gong in praise of Trump’s illustrious achievements:

The smoke of war in Iran is not merely for the extermination of the cruel; the new chapter of the universe truly initiates the cleansing of the world.

When the heavenly laws were unraveled and the aura of malice flowed unchecked, the gates of Iran displayed the ferocity of owls and wolves, threatening the common people and stealing the sacred instruments of state. The land of Persia was submerged in the mists of stench and filth, using sovereignty as a pretext to imprison the masses. Thereupon, America roused its thunderous wrath; Lord Trump, upholding the mandate of the Great Heaven, mobilized the elite warriors to reverently execute the divine punishment.

His resolve: to dismiss the false and honor the true, to reject the void and value the real. To rescue those hanging upside down in fire and water—how could tyranny be allowed to linger? To return radiance to the deep gloom, vowing to let freedom shine anew. In the past, sovereignty was defiled, unexpectedly becoming the shield of the autocrat; now, justice draws its bow, finally revealing the original meaning of the principle: to protect the millions upon their mats and bedding, and to defend against the treacherous at the borders.

His actions: wherever the long halberds point, the demons and spirits lose their souls. The flames of war scorch the clouds, not only burning the palaces of Tehran; the banners of benevolence sweep the earth, further molding the foundation of the new order. See the Stars and Stripes shining in the sky, tearing through the heavy darkness to break the dormancy; hear the startling thunder shaking the wilderness, awakening the nine realms to revive the withered. The so-called “sovereignty” of tyranny? From this point, it is severed forever. The long-cherished wish of the living people? Here, it is finally fulfilled!

As for saving the drowning and embracing the distressed, relieving those hanging in parching heat: establishing truth as the standard, replacing oppression with harmony and tranquility. Letting the four seas know that sovereignty resides in the people, not belonging to the usurper; letting the eight wildernesses recognize that majesty originates from the law, not to be left to the arrogant and willful. This is not the undertaking of a single nation, but truly a merit for ten thousand generations.

How magnificent! Swinging the sword to decide the floating clouds, the spirit of the three armies awes the Persian moon; raising the flag to open the righteous path, the spring breeze of freedom follows across the nine realms.

The Poem says: Behold the ancient lands of Persia, Where the Spring of Roses blooms again. Hear furthermore the new international chapter, Which eternally continues the Covenant of Mountains and Seas.

作者：卢超
编辑：李晶 校对：程筱筱 翻译：吕峰

最近国际局势的变化快得让人眼花缭乱。从德黑兰传出的最高领袖哈梅内伊去世的消息，到南美委内瑞拉马杜罗政权的摇摇欲坠，这些“强人”的谢幕方式各不相同，但都指向了一个核心议题：当一个高度集权的统领者突然从权力版图上消失，这个国家会走向民主，还是坠入深渊？

如果把这个剧本套用在中国身上，那场景可能会比伊朗和委内瑞拉更加复杂。

1. 权力之巅的“真空效应”

目前的中国政坛，权力已经高度集中到“定于一尊”的地步。这种模式最大的弱点在于：它极度依赖个人的政治意志。如果这个“核心”突然消失，且没有一个被各方公认的接班人，中南海会瞬间进入一个 “高度过热的真空期”。

在政治学里，这叫“威权脆断”。就像伊拉克的萨达姆，虽然他在位时看起来不可一世，但一旦顶层坍塌，底下的官僚系统、军方和特务机构会因为失去统一指令而陷入短暂的瘫痪。这时候，北京那些掌握实权的人，首先想的不是怎么治理国家，而是如何自保。

2. 精英阶层的“求生式改革”

参考委内瑞拉的例子，马杜罗的失势往往伴随着内部精英的“跳船”。在中国，如果领袖消失，那些原本在层层压力下噤声的官员和军方将领，会面临一个重大的选择：是继续抱残守缺，还是为了保住身家性命去拥抱变革？

这种情况下，中国很可能出现一种 “自上而下”的被动转型。为了防止社会秩序彻底崩溃，或者为了换取国际社会的承认（以及撤销制裁），一部分务实派精英可能会提出“恢复集体领导”、“依法治国”等口号。这种从“一人说了算”回到“大家商量着办”的转变，往往是民主进程的第一道裂缝。

3. 地方力量的“离心力”

中国太大了，各地的利益诉求完全不同。如果北京的中央权威因为领袖消失而减弱，东南沿海那些经济发达省份的“自主意识”会迅速抬头。

这有点像当年苏联解体前的征兆：地方政府发现不再需要把大笔财政上缴给一个“指挥不动”的中央，于是开始尝试独立制定经济和民生政策。这种“地方竞争式”的松动，虽然有动荡的风险，但也为基层民主和法治提供了实验田。就像伊拉克在战后努力结束“城市军事化”一样，中国的地方政府也可能在压力下开始尝试真正的村民选举或社区自治，以平息民众的不满。

4. “沉默大多数”的爆发

最关键的变量其实是每一个普通人。过去这些年，社会积压了很多情绪——无论是对经济放缓的焦虑，还是对高压管控的抵触。一旦那个维持高压的“核心”不在了，民众的胆量会瞬间变大。

如果出现类似委内瑞拉大选后的那种大规模街头抗争，而军队又因为高层内斗而犹豫不决，那么民主进程就会进入快车道。这种时候，能否避免伊拉克式的乱局，取决于中国的中产阶级和知识分子能否迅速形成共识，建立一套基本的法律秩序，而不是陷入无止境的派系斗争。

危机还是契机？

独裁领袖的消失，从来不自动等同于民主的降临。它更像是一个“潘多拉魔盒”，里面既有混乱的风险，也藏着重生的希望。

伊朗和委内瑞拉的故事告诉我们：靠恐惧维持的忠诚，在领袖合眼的那一刻就会灰飞烟灭。中国如果走到那一天，真正的挑战不在于“谁来接班”，而在于我们能否趁着那个权力真空的间隙，把权力的笼子从一个人手里，挪到法治和选票的手里。

毕竟，一个健康的社会，不应该把十几亿人的命运，系在任何一个人的呼吸之间。因为“强人”总会死，但制度可长青。

What Would China’s Democratic Transition Look Like if Xi Jinping Disappeared?

Author: Lu Chao
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Lyu Feng

Recent international developments have been changing at a dizzying pace. From reports emerging from Tehran about the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the increasingly fragile position of Nicolás Maduro’s government in Venezuela, the departures of these “strongmen” have taken different forms. Yet they all point to a central question: when a highly centralized ruler suddenly disappears from the political landscape, does the country move toward democracy, or fall into chaos?

If we apply this scenario to China, the situation could be even more complex than in Iran or Venezuela.

1. The “Vacuum Effect” at the Apex of Power

In today’s Chinese political system, power has become highly concentrated around a single “core” leader. The greatest weakness of such a model is that it relies heavily on the political will of one individual. If that “core” suddenly disappears and there is no universally accepted successor, Zhongnanhai could instantly enter a period of extreme instability—a kind of overheated political vacuum.

In political science, this phenomenon is sometimes referred to as the “brittleness of authoritarian systems.” A classic example is Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. While his rule once appeared unshakeable, once the top layer collapsed, the bureaucratic apparatus, the military, and the security services temporarily lost unified command and fell into paralysis. In such a moment, those who hold real power in Beijing would first think about survival rather than governance.

2. “Survival-Driven Reform” Among the Elite

The Venezuelan case shows that the weakening of Nicolás Maduro’s rule has often been accompanied by elite defections. In China, if the top leader were suddenly gone, officials and military commanders who had long remained silent under pressure would face a critical choice: cling to the existing system or embrace reform in order to protect their own security and interests.

Under such circumstances, China could experience a top-down, defensive transition. In order to prevent social order from collapsing—or to regain international recognition and possibly lift sanctions—pragmatic elites might advocate slogans such as “restoring collective leadership” or “governing according to law.” This shift from “one person decides everything” to “collective decision-making” could become the first crack in the existing system and the opening stage of a democratic transition.

3. The Centrifugal Force of Local Authorities

China is vast, and regional interests vary widely. If the authority of the central government in Beijing weakens after the disappearance of the top leader, economically advanced coastal provinces in the southeast could quickly develop stronger tendencies toward autonomy.

This would resemble early signs seen before the dissolution of the Soviet Union: local governments realized they no longer needed to send large fiscal transfers to a central authority that could no longer effectively command them. They began experimenting with independent economic and social policies. Such “competitive decentralization,” though potentially destabilizing, could also create space for grassroots democracy and rule-of-law experiments.

Just as Iraq after the war struggled to move beyond the militarization of cities, local governments in China might experiment with genuine village elections or community self-governance in order to reduce public dissatisfaction.

4. The Awakening of the “Silent Majority”

The most crucial variable may ultimately be ordinary citizens. Over the past years, many social tensions have accumulated—from anxiety about economic slowdown to frustration with strict political control. Once the central figure sustaining the system disappears, public courage could rise rapidly.

If large-scale street protests similar to those seen in Venezuela after contested elections were to emerge—and if the military hesitated due to internal divisions—the path toward democratization could accelerate. At such a moment, avoiding an Iraq-style descent into chaos would depend on whether China’s middle class and intellectuals could quickly build consensus and establish basic legal order, rather than falling into endless factional struggles.

Crisis or Opportunity?

The disappearance of an authoritarian ruler never automatically produces democracy. It is more like opening a Pandora’s box, containing both the risk of chaos and the possibility of renewal.

The experiences of Iran and Venezuela suggest that loyalty sustained by fear can evaporate the moment a leader leaves the stage. If China ever reaches such a moment, the real challenge will not simply be who succeeds the leader, but whether society can seize the brief window of political vacuum to transfer power—from the hands of one individual into institutions governed by law and the ballot.

After all, a healthy society should never tie the fate of more than a billion people to the breath of a single person. Strongmen eventually die, but institutions can endure.

文：张春宇

编辑：Geoffrey Jin 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

在当今中国，许多普通人并不是因为犯罪而失去家园，而是因为“发展”“规划”“城市建设”。在这些宏大的词语背后，是一栋栋房屋被推倒，是一个个家庭被迫流离失所。强拆，已经成为许多中国人心中最沉重、最愤怒的记忆。

所谓强拆，本质上是权力对个人财产权和基本人权的践踏。在很多地方，政府与开发商形成利益共同体，通过行政命令、断水断电、暴力威胁等手段逼迫居民搬离。补偿往往远低于市场价值，协商只是形式，不同意的人就被贴上“钉子户”的标签，随后面对的是警察、城管甚至黑社会的威胁。

许多被强拆的家庭经历了难以想象的痛苦。有老人被拖出生活了一辈子的房子，有人眼睁睁看着祖辈留下的家园在推土机下变成废墟。有人试图通过法律维权，却发现法院往往与地方政府站在同一边。申诉无门，媒体沉默，网络帖子被删除，受害者的声音被一层层封锁。

更令人痛心的是，强拆往往伴随着暴力和伤害。全国各地曾多次出现居民自焚、跳楼抗议的悲剧，这些极端行为不是冲动，而是绝望。一个正常的社会，不应该把普通人逼到用生命去抗议的地步。

真正的现代文明社会，应当以法治为基础。政府的权力来自人民，也必须受到法律的约束。任何公共建设都应建立在公开、公平和自愿协商的基础之上，合理补偿、充分听证、尊重居民的选择，而不是以权力压迫个体。

我们反对强拆，并不是反对城市发展，而是反对以牺牲普通人的基本权利为代价的发展。真正的进步，不是高楼林立，而是每一个人的尊严都被保护。

一个社会的文明程度，往往体现在它如何对待最弱势的人。当一个家庭为了守住自己的房子而孤立无援时，当推土机成为解决问题的工具时，这不仅是一个家庭的悲剧，也是整个社会的伤口。因此，我们必须发出声音：停止强拆，尊重产权，保障人权。没有正义的发展，终究不会长久。

When Bulldozers Roll into Your Home: Protesting the CCP’s Forced Demolitions

By Zhang Chunyu

Editor: Geoffrey Jin Proofread: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

Abstract: Against the backdrop of urban construction and development, the issue of forced evictions in some regions of China has drawn widespread attention. Many residents have been compelled to leave their homes with inadequate compensation and insufficient negotiation, facing threats such as water and electricity cuts or even violence, causing profound trauma to numerous families. The article argues that urban development should not come at the expense of ordinary citizens’ fundamental rights. Public projects must be advanced within the framework of the rule of law, ensuring residents’ property rights and dignity through transparent procedures, fair compensation, and thorough consultation. True progress is not merely reflected in the changing face of cities, but in the respect and protection of every citizen’s rights.

In contemporary China, many ordinary people lose their homes not due to criminal activity, but in the name of “development,” “planning,” and “urban construction.” Behind these grandiose terms lie rows of demolished houses and families forced into displacement. Forced demolition has become one of the heaviest and most infuriating memories for many Chinese citizens.

At its core, forced demolition is the trampling of individual property rights and fundamental human rights by power. In many places, governments and developers form collusive interests, using administrative orders, cutting off water and electricity, and violent threats to force residents to leave. Compensation is often far below market value, negotiations are merely a formality, and those who refuse are labeled “holdouts,” subsequently facing threats from police, urban management officers, or even organized crime groups.

Countless families subjected to forced evictions endure unimaginable suffering. Elderly residents are dragged from homes they’ve lived in their entire lives, while others watch helplessly as ancestral properties are reduced to rubble by bulldozers. Those who seek legal recourse often find courts siding with local governments. With no avenue for appeal, media silence, and online posts deleted, victims’ voices are systematically silenced.

Even more heartbreaking is that forced evictions are often accompanied by violence and injury. Tragic incidents of residents setting themselves on fire or jumping to their deaths in protest have occurred repeatedly across the country. These extreme acts are not impulsive, but born of despair. A normal society should not drive ordinary people to the point of protesting with their lives.

A truly modern civilized society must be founded on the rule of law. Government power derives from the people and must be constrained by law. All public projects should be built on transparency, fairness, and voluntary negotiation—with fair compensation, thorough hearings, and respect for residents’ choices—rather than imposing authority to oppress individuals.

Our opposition to forced evictions is not opposition to urban development, but to development achieved at the expense of ordinary people’s fundamental rights. True progress lies not in towering skyscrapers, but in safeguarding the dignity of every individual.

The level of civilization in a society is often reflected in how it treats its most vulnerable members. When a family stands alone in defending their home, when bulldozers become the solution to problems, this is not only a tragedy for one family but a wound for the entire society. Therefore, we must raise our voices: Stop forced evictions, respect property rights, and safeguard human rights. Development without justice will never endure.

–魏晓鸣

翻译：戈冰

当表达逐渐成为风险，沉默便成为常态。本文从个人写作经验出发，思考言论空间收缩、公共讨论消失与社会信任流失之间的关系，并提出：真正的自信，不在于消除不同声音，而在于能够面对它们。

表达原本是一项权利，却在现实中变成风险。因为当一个社会开始习惯沉默，它所付出的代价，远远超过个体所承受的压力。

我之所以持续写下去，并不是因为情绪，而是因为现实本身不允许人们假装看不见。一个普通人，仅仅因几段言论被约谈、被限制、被警告，这并非个案，而是一种结构性的常态。当公共讨论被视为“敏感”，当批评被轻易贴上“敌对”的标签，问题就不再是某个人说了什么，而是这个社会还能不能允许不同的声音存在。

言论自由的意义，从来不在于赞美，而在于质疑。赞美不需要勇气，质疑才需要。真正考验制度自信的，也不是听到掌声时的从容，而是面对批评时的态度。一个连质疑都无法承受的权力，本身就暴露出脆弱。

近年来，围绕“意识形态安全”的强调越来越频繁。官方反复提出必须维护主流舆论阵地，强调网络空间治理和舆论导向统一。在一系列治理框架下，“安全”成为高频词汇。然而，当安全的边界不断扩大，表达的空间就不断缩小。问题在于，究竟什么才是威胁？理性的批评是威胁吗？对政策的不同看法是威胁吗？普通人的疑问又算不算威胁？

如果所有不同意见都被归入风险管理的范畴，那么公共理性就会被行政逻辑取代。平台自我审查，媒体统一口径，个人学会闭嘴。久而久之，社会形成一种奇怪的共识：大家都知道问题存在，但没人公开讨论。沉默不代表认同，只代表恐惧。

恐惧会带来两个后果。第一，是社会活力的消退。没有自由讨论，就没有创新思想；没有思想的碰撞，进步也就失去了土壤。第二，是信任的流失。当人们无法通过公开表达解决问题，便只能在私下发泄情绪，信任便会逐渐瓦解。

有人会说，稳定压倒一切。但稳定从来不是压出来的，而是建立在透明和信任之上。如果批评者被视为破坏者，那么社会就只剩下两种人：沉默者与承担风险的人。这样的结构，本身难以长久维持。

继续写下去，并不是为了对抗谁，而是为了记录。当表达需要勇气时，写作就具有了见证意义。哪怕声音微弱，也意味着社会还没有完全陷入沉默。

一个真正强大的社会，应当允许人们提出问题，而不是只允许重复答案。真正的自信，不在于屏蔽不同声音，而在于面对它们时仍然能够保持从容。

如果连讨论的空间都没有，未来又从何而来？或许有人会问：这样写真的有用吗？历史给出的答案是，思想从来不会因为压制而消失，只会在沉默中积蓄力量。真正决定时代走向的，不是恐惧本身，而是恐惧之下仍然选择发声的人。

这不是终点，而是继续。因为沉默的代价，往往比发声更高。

Speaking Out Despite Fear

–Wei Xiaoming

Translated by Ge Bing

When expression becomes a risk, silence becomes the norm. Drawing from personal writing experiences, this essay explores the relationship between shrinking spaces for speech, the disappearance of public discourse, and the erosion of social trust. It argues that true confidence lies not in silencing differing voices, but in confronting them.

Expression was once a right, but in reality, it has become a risk. For when a society grows accustomed to silence, the price it pays far exceeds the pressure borne by individuals.

I continue to write not out of emotion, but because reality itself does not permit people to pretend they are blind. It is not an isolated case when an ordinary person is summoned for questioning, restricted, or warned simply for a few statements—it is a structural norm. When public discourse is deemed “sensitive” and criticism is readily labeled “hostile,” the issue transcends individual words—it becomes whether society can tolerate divergent voices at all.

The value of free speech lies not in praise, but in questioning. Praise requires no courage; questioning does. True tests of institutional confidence aren’t measured by composure amid applause, but by attitude toward criticism. A power that cannot tolerate even questioning exposes its own fragility.

In recent years, the emphasis on “ideological security” has grown increasingly frequent. Authorities repeatedly stress the need to safeguard the mainstream public opinion arena, emphasizing unified governance of cyberspace and public discourse. Under a series of regulatory frameworks, “security” has become a high-frequency term. Yet as the boundaries of security expand, the space for expression shrinks. The question remains: What truly constitutes a threat? Is rational criticism a threat? Are differing views on policy a threat? Do ordinary people’s questions count as threats?

If all dissent is categorized under risk management, public reason will be supplanted by administrative logic. Platforms will self-censor, media will adopt uniform narratives, and individuals will learn to keep silent. Over time, society will develop a peculiar consensus: everyone knows problems exist, yet no one discusses them openly. Silence does not signify agreement; it signifies fear.

Fear yields two consequences. First, the erosion of social vitality. Without free discussion, innovative ideas cannot flourish; without the clash of ideas, progress loses its fertile ground. Second, the erosion of trust. When people cannot resolve issues through open expression, they vent their frustrations privately, and trust gradually disintegrates.

Some may argue that stability trumps all. But stability is never forced; it is built upon transparency and trust. If critics are labeled as disruptors, society is left with only two types of people: the silent and the risk-takers. Such a structure is inherently unsustainable.

Continuing to write is not about opposing anyone, but about recording. When expression requires courage, writing becomes a form of testimony. Even a faint voice signifies that society has not yet fallen completely silent.

A truly strong society should permit people to raise questions, not merely repeat answers. True self-confidence lies not in silencing dissent, but in maintaining composure when confronted by it.

If there is no space for discussion, where does the future come from? Some may ask: Is writing like this truly effective? History answers that ideas never vanish through suppression; they merely gather strength in silence. What truly shapes an era is not fear itself, but those who choose to speak out despite it.

This is not the end, but a continuation. Because the cost of silence is often higher than that of speaking out.

作者：张超瑜

编辑：胡丽莉 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

宗教信仰，本质上属于个人良知与内心领域。无论信或不信，选择何种方式敬拜，都应当是公民最基本的自由之一。然而，在现实治理结构下，宗教并非完全处于社会自发状态，而是被纳入严格的行政管理体系之中。这种管理逻辑，在基督教领域表现得尤为明显。

在中国大陆，官方认可的基督教组织主要是中国基督教三自爱国运动委员会（通常简称“三自教会”体系）。这一体系强调“自养、自传、自立”，并在组织、人员任命、讲道内容等方面接受统一管理。理论上，这被解释为宗教中国化与规范化治理的一部分。

问题在于，当制度只允许一种“被管理的信仰形态”存在，而对其他自发形成的宗教聚会——例如家庭教会——采取打压、取缔、罚款乃至刑事追责的方式时，信仰自由的边界就被实质性收缩。

家庭教会并非秘密组织，其成员大多只是希望在不受行政干预的情况下聚会、祷告、研读圣经。他们的核心诉求，并非政治参与，而是宗教自主。然而，在现实操作中，未经登记的宗教活动往往被视为“非法聚会”。在某些地区，甚至出现将部分宗教团体贴上“邪教”标签的做法。这种一刀切式的定性，将行政管理问题上升为意识形态问题，使得普通信徒承受极大的法律与心理压力。

在习近平提出“宗教中国化”方向后，宗教活动更加被要求与官方意识形态的协调一致。官方解释认为，这是为了防止境外势力渗透、维护社会稳定。但从权利角度看，当信仰内容与表达方式必须符合政治标准时，宗教本身的独立性就被削弱。

信仰自由的核心，不在于是否允许“信”，而在于是否允许“按照个人理解去信”。如果一个人只能在指定场所、指定话语框架下表达宗教情感，那么这种自由更像是一种被限定的许可，而不是天赋权利。

将家庭教会一概视为风险来源，本质上是对自发社会组织的不信任。这种逻辑背后，是对社会多元性的警惕。可是，一个真正稳定的社会，并不害怕多元存在。相反，压缩空间才可能制造紧张。

更重要的是，把行政登记问题与“邪教”概念混为一谈，会严重伤害法治的严肃性。“邪教”原本指向具有强制控制、精神操控或社会危害行为的极端组织。如果普通的家庭聚会也被贴上类似标签，不仅模糊法律边界，也使得真正需要防范的极端组织难以被清晰区分。

宗教问题之所以敏感，是因为它触及人的终极关怀。越是涉及内心领域，越需要谨慎。强制整合或压制，往往不会消除信仰，只会让其转入更隐蔽的空间。历史经验反复证明，信仰无法通过行政命令消失。

一个成熟的治理体系，应当区分“非法行为”与“非官方组织”之间的界限。若没有具体危害，仅因未纳入统一管理体系便被定性为问题，这种做法无异于对个人信仰选择的间接迫害。

真正的信仰自由，并不是国家替个人选择信仰路径，而是保障个人在法律框架内自主选择。允许三自教会存在，并不必然意味着必须排斥家庭教会。二者并非天然对立，除非制度将其设定为对立。

当一个人因为选择不同的敬拜方式而承担风险时，我们就需要反思：问题究竟出在信仰本身，还是出在管理逻辑？

宗教若必须服从单一组织形式，信仰便不再完全属于个人。信仰一旦被过度行政化，自由就会退居其次。对于任何社会而言，如何在治理与自由之间取得平衡，都是一道无法回避的课题。

When Faith Is “Unified Management”: Why Religious Space Outside the Three-Self System Is Being Compressed

Author: Zhang Chaoyu

Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

Abstract: Against the backdrop of Xi Jinping’s call for “the Sinicization of religion,” religious activities in China have been incorporated into a unified management system, with the space for house churches outside the Three-Self system continuing to shrink. Unregistered religious gatherings are viewed as illegal or sources of risk, and expressions of faith are restricted.

Religious belief fundamentally resides within the realm of personal conscience and inner conviction. Whether one chooses to believe or not, and how one chooses to worship, should be among the most fundamental freedoms of citizenship. Yet within the current governance structure, religion does not operate entirely as a spontaneous social phenomenon but is instead integrated into a strict administrative management system. This management logic is particularly evident within the Christian sphere.

In mainland China, the officially recognized Christian organization is primarily the Chinese Christian Council (commonly referred to as the “Three-Self Patriotic Movement” system). This system emphasizes “self-support, self-propagation, and self-governance,” and is subject to unified management in areas such as organization, personnel appointments, and sermon content. Theoretically, this is interpreted as part of the Sinicization of religion and standardized governance.

The problem arises when the system permits only one “managed form of faith” to exist, while suppressing, banning, fining, or even criminally prosecuting other spontaneously formed religious gatherings—such as house churches. This substantially shrinks the boundaries of religious freedom.

House churches are not secret organizations; most members simply wish to gather, pray, and study the Bible without administrative interference. Their core demand is not political participation, but religious autonomy. Yet in practice, unregistered religious activities are often deemed “illegal gatherings.” In some regions, certain religious groups have even been labeled as “cult organizations.” This sweeping categorization elevates administrative management issues into ideological ones, subjecting ordinary believers to immense legal and psychological pressure.

Following Xi Jinping’s call for the “Sinicization of religion,” religious activities face heightened demands for alignment with official ideology. Authorities justify this as preventing foreign infiltration and maintaining social stability. Yet from a rights perspective, when the content and expression of faith must conform to political standards, the very independence of religion is undermined.

The core of religious freedom lies not in whether belief is permitted, but in whether individuals are allowed to practice according to their personal understanding. If religious sentiment can only be expressed in designated venues and within prescribed discursive frameworks, such “freedom” resembles a restricted license rather than an inherent right.

Treating house churches uniformly as sources of risk fundamentally reflects distrust toward spontaneous social organizations. This logic stems from wariness toward social pluralism. Yet a truly stable society does not fear diversity. On the contrary, compressing space only breeds tension.

More critically, conflating administrative registration requirements with the concept of “cult” severely undermines the integrity of the rule of law. The term “cult” originally refers to extreme organizations characterized by coercive control, mental manipulation, or socially harmful behavior. If ordinary family gatherings are similarly labeled, it not only blurs legal boundaries but also obscures the distinction needed to effectively guard against genuinely dangerous extremist groups.

Religious issues are sensitive precisely because they touch upon humanity’s ultimate concerns. The more deeply they involve the inner realm, the greater the need for caution. Forced integration or suppression rarely eradicates belief; it merely drives it into more hidden spaces. History repeatedly demonstrates that faith cannot be eliminated by administrative decree.

A mature governance system must distinguish between “illegal activities” and “unofficial organizations.” Labeling groups as problematic solely for not being incorporated into a unified management system—without concrete evidence of harm—amounts to indirect persecution of individual faith choices.

True religious freedom does not mean the state selects one’s path of belief, but rather safeguards the individual’s right to choose autonomously within legal boundaries. Permitting the existence of the Three-Self Church does not inherently necessitate the exclusion of house churches. The two are not inherently opposed unless institutionalized frameworks force them into conflict.

When individuals face risks for choosing different forms of worship, we must ask: Does the problem lie in the faith itself, or in the logic of governance?

If religion must conform to a single organizational form, faith ceases to belong wholly to the individual. When faith becomes overly bureaucratized, freedom inevitably takes a backseat. For any society, striking a balance between governance and liberty remains an inescapable challenge.

作者：胡德旺

编辑：程伟 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

我是来自安徽芜湖一个普通农民家庭。在中国生活了四十多年后，最终于2023年5月逃离了中国大陆。离开后，我才敢把在中国真实的生活经历写下来，希望让更多海外的人了解：中共所宣传的“盛世繁荣”完全是一场谎言。

一、来自长辈的血泪记忆

我的外公在上世纪六十年代所谓“三年自然灾害”中饿死。我母亲说外公的尸体停放一夜后，第二天早上她看到外公的眼睛被老鼠吃掉了。难以想象，那是个怎样饥荒的年代，老鼠饿得都能啃食人类的尸体。直到今天，她谈起这一幕仍然内心恐惧。所谓的“自然灾害”，实则是中共荒唐政策制造的人祸。什么大跃进、人民公社、大炼钢铁…….都是违背人性和经济规律的一场场闹剧。然而承担后果的确是普普通通的中国民众。在那场饥荒中有多少人被饿死，多少家庭毁灭，酿成一幕幕的人间悲剧。

八十年代，噩梦再次降临。计划生育运动如同一场国家暴力。我舅母怀孕七个月时，被人举报。干部上门威胁：要么打掉孩子，要么拆掉房子。最后，在外公万般无奈下（后外婆改嫁），舅母被迫流掉了本该健康出生的孩子。这不仅仅是一次堕胎，而是中共政府强迫家庭亲手“杀死”自己的骨肉。这是怎样的一个反人类邪恶政权？！

二、一套只为压榨民众设计的制度

中共的统治，不仅给我的父辈带来了难以磨灭的伤害，也对我的人生带来各种摧残，他们更要继续的残害我的一下代。

（一）户籍制度：

在中国，我们从农村走出来的人，虽然在城市工作生活那么多年，但我们的户口仍然是在农村，所以，我们的孩子也就只能在农村接受教育，尤其到高考时，学生必须要回到原户籍地参加高考。这就造成我们这些千千万万的所谓农民工家庭无法让自己的孩子跟着父母一起在城市上学、生活，也就有了所谓的千千万万的留守儿童，这些孩子长期不能跟父母一起生活，得不到父母的关爱，心理上是很容易出问题的。我的女儿就是一个典型的例子，到了大学一年级的时候，患上了严重的抑郁症。这就是我痛恨中国的户籍制度的一根本原因，我们在城市工作、生活、纳税，也为城市的发展作贡献，为什么我们的孩子不能跟我们一起生活、学习？这就很简单，农民工为城市做贡献可以，但城市的福利就不给农民工。这就是制度的压榨和剥削！

（二）医疗制度：

医院本应该是一个救死扶伤的地方，但中国的医院却是世界上少数的商业机构，她是要以赢利为目的的，是一个牟利的机器。我的妻子因结石就医，医生直接给出两次手术的治疗方案，费用两万元。朋友介绍民间诊所，仅一千元便治愈。在中国的医院里，很多医生首先考虑的不是用怎样有效的方法来进行治疗，能减少病人的痛苦。而是哪套治疗方案能给医院带来最大的利益，或者给医生本人带来更大收益。这就造成，能粘上边的高端医疗设备都用上了，该化验的不该化验的也都化验了，有时或明或暗的要个红包。。。。病人是什么？只是医院收割的一个对象而已！所以，为什么在中国医院有那么多的所谓“医闹”就不足为怪了！就是专业的机构和专业的医生对病人进行坑、矇、骗，有少数患者发现了倪端，讨要说法，就说你是“医闹”！我不能说每个医生都是这样的，但制度在这里，人性在这里，能有几个好的？

（三）教育制度：

我的儿子在幼儿园就被灌输仇恨教育，回家张口就是“日本坏”“美国欺负中国”。这不是教育，而是洗脑。

我们为了给孩子能上好一点的学校，每个月向政府缴2600多元的社保金，结果是，我们孩子只能上一般的小学，要上好一点的学校，必须要在当地买房产。一套房产就是一百多万，是普通人能买得起的吗？如果没有买社保金，就只能上农民工子弟学校。这就是教育资源被中共政府用来掠夺民众经济的一个见证。

（四）经济制度：

中国的法制基本就是人治，经济制度亦是如此。各种经济政策因领导一句口号或一篇讲话，就能产生根本转变。根本不以市场经济规律，或者法律法规来行事。我两次创业，先是因“环保运动”，所谓“金山银山不如绿水青山”，领导人一句口号，工厂被强拆，没有任何法律流程，更没有任何经济补偿。后因领导人一句“亲自部署，亲自指挥”疫情荒唐封控导致电商崩溃。政府随时可以改变政策，让普通人多年努力瞬间化为乌有，而他们无需承担任何责任。

所以，在这样的环境下，企业很难真正的作长远发展。有的只有投机取巧，官商勾结！

三、离开的必然选择

通过这些年来我亲身的经历，我得出一个结论：中共政权不是一个以民为本的政府，而是一个不断制造灾难、压榨民众的邪恶政权。从大饥荒、计划生育，到户籍、教育、医疗，再到“动态清零”，我们一代又一代人被迫在各种的苦难中轮回。

离开中国，对我而言不是轻易的决定。那里是生我养我的土地，也有我最亲的亲人。但一个地方若只能带来一次次的伤害和绝望，若制度本身就是为压榨民众，剥夺民众的生存权利。那么我有什么理由留下呢？逃离就是必然的选择！

Why I Fled China

Abstract: The Chinese Communist Party’s rule has not only inflicted indelible harm upon my parents’ generation but has also devastated my own life. They now seek to inflict further suffering upon my children.

Author: Hu Dewang

Editor: Cheng Wei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

I come from an ordinary peasant family in Wuhu, Anhui Province. After living in China for over forty years, I finally fled mainland China in May 2023. Only after leaving did I dare to write down my true experiences of life in China, hoping to let more people overseas understand: the “golden age of prosperity” touted by the CCP is nothing but a lie.

I. Blood-Stained Memories from Elders

My maternal grandfather starved to death during the so-called “Three Years of Natural Disasters” in the 1960s. My mother recounted that after his body lay undisturbed overnight, she saw rats had gnawed his eyes out the next morning. It’s unimaginable—a famine so severe that starving rodents would devour human corpses. To this day, the memory still fills her with dread. The so-called “natural disasters” were actually man-made catastrophes created by the CCP’s absurd policies. The Great Leap Forward, the People’s Communes, the Great Leap Forward in Steel Production… all were farces that defied human nature and economic laws. Yet it was ordinary Chinese people who bore the consequences. How many perished from starvation in that famine? How many families were destroyed? It unfolded as one tragic human drama after another.

In the 1980s, the nightmare returned. The family planning campaign functioned as state-sanctioned violence. When my aunt was seven months pregnant, she was reported. Officials came to her door with threats: abort the child or face demolition of her home. Ultimately, with my grandfather left with no choice (my grandmother later remarried), my aunt was forced to abort a child who should have been born healthy. This was not merely an abortion; it was the Chinese Communist government forcing families to personally “kill” their own flesh and blood. What kind of evil, anti-human regime is this?!

II. A System Designed Solely to Exploit the People

The CCP’s rule has not only inflicted indelible harm on my parents’ generation but has also brought various forms of devastation to my own life. They intend to continue harming my next generation.

(I) The Household Registration System:

In China, those of us who left the countryside—even after working and living in cities for years—still retain rural household registrations. Consequently, our children can only receive education in rural areas. Crucially, when it comes time for the college entrance exam, students must return to their original registered hometown to take it. This forces millions of so-called migrant worker families to separate their children from their parents, preventing them from attending school and living alongside them in the city. This creates millions of so-called left-behind children. These children, deprived of their parents’ care and affection for extended periods, are highly susceptible to psychological issues. My daughter is a prime example. By her freshman year of college, she developed severe depression. This is the root cause of my hatred for China’s household registration system. We work, live, and pay taxes in cities, contributing to their development. Why can’t our children live and study alongside us? The answer is simple: migrant workers can contribute to cities, but cities deny them access to their welfare systems. This is systemic oppression and exploitation!

(II) Healthcare System:

Hospitals should be sanctuaries for healing the sick and saving lives. Yet China’s hospitals stand among the world’s few commercial institutions driven by profit—they are machines for generating revenue. When my wife sought treatment for kidney stones, doctors immediately proposed two surgeries costing 20,000 yuan. A friend recommended a private clinic that cured her for just 1,000 yuan. In Chinese hospitals, many doctors prioritize not effective treatments that alleviate patient suffering, but which treatment plan maximizes profits for the hospital or their own pockets. This leads to overuse of high-end medical equipment, unnecessary tests, and sometimes overt or covert demands for red envelopes… What are patients? Merely targets for hospitals to harvest profits! So it’s no wonder China has so many so-called “medical disturbances.” Professional institutions and doctors exploit, deceive, and swindle patients. When a few patients catch on and demand accountability, they’re labeled “troublemakers”! I won’t say every doctor is like this, but given the system and human nature, how many good ones can there be?

(III) Education System:

My son was indoctrinated with hateful propaganda as early as kindergarten. He came home spouting “Japan is evil” and “America bullies China.” This isn’t education—it’s brainwashing.

To secure a decent school for our child, we pay over 2,600 yuan monthly in social security contributions to the government. Yet our child can only attend an average elementary school. To get into a better one, we must purchase local property—costing over a million yuan. Is that affordable for ordinary people? Without these contributions, our child would be stuck in migrant worker schools. This is proof that the CCP government exploits educational resources to plunder the people’s wealth.

(IV) Economic System:

China’s legal system is fundamentally rule by man, and its economic system follows suit. Economic policies undergo radical shifts based on a leader’s slogan or speech, operating entirely outside market principles or legal frameworks. In my two entrepreneurial ventures:

First, during the “environmental campaign”—promoted by the slogan “Green mountains and clear waters are worth more than gold and silver mountains”—my factory was forcibly demolished without legal process or compensation. Later, a leader’s call for “personally deploying and commanding” pandemic control led to absurd lockdowns that crippled e-commerce. The government can alter policies at will, reducing years of ordinary people’s efforts to nothing—all without bearing any responsibility.

Thus, in such an environment, businesses struggle to pursue genuine long-term development. What remains is only opportunism and collusion between officials and businessmen!

III. The Inevitable Choice to Leave

Through my personal experiences over the years, I’ve reached this conclusion: The Chinese Communist regime is not a people-centered government, but an evil regime that constantly creates disasters and exploits its citizens. From the Great Famine and the One-Child Policy to household registration, education, healthcare, and now “dynamic zero-COVID,” generation after generation has been forced to endure endless cycles of suffering.

Leaving China was not an easy decision for me. It is the land where I was born and raised, home to my closest relatives. But if a place can only bring repeated harm and despair, if the system itself exists to oppress the people and strip them of their basic rights to survive—then what reason do I have to stay? Escape is the inevitable choice!