Phenomena of Totalitarianism No. 9: Magnificent and Resplendent Government Office Buildings
Author: Zhang Xinggui
Abstract: This article profoundly criticizes the phenomenon where totalitarian regimes build magnificent and resplendent government office buildings, pointing out that its essence is an autocratic blood-sucking machine in modern disguise. By reshaping “new gods” and implementing symbolic violence, as well as extractive plunder and governance tactics, it thoroughly betrays modern political civilization. The true image of a nation depends on the freedom, dignity, and prosperity of its people, rather than the gilded thickness of the ruler’s palaces.
When a totalitarian regime builds government office buildings into magnificent and resplendent palaces, it nakedly proclaims: this regime is essentially a modern imperial power parasitic on the people, an autocratic blood-sucking machine under the guise of ideology. In the name of “serving the people,” it practices plunder and enslavement, forging the wealth that originally belongs to taxpayers into a golden cage to oppress them.
From “Servant” to “New God.”
Government buildings in democratic polities are functional, because power is viewed as a trust—the public temporarily surrenders a portion of power for public governance, so the buildings must be simple, transparent, and accountable. Totalitarian regimes are completely the opposite: power is possession, the permanent conquest and ownership of the entire society by the ruling clique. Government buildings must become new temples, visualized as “eternal, high above, and untouchable.” Marble, gilding, gigantic colonnades, crystal chandeliers, and grand axially symmetric squares—all these elements together constitute a spatial religion. When citizens walk in or pass by, they do not feel public service, but are forced to perform a daily ritual of submission. Individuals are instantly minimized, humbled, and atomized in the face of such scale, willingly surrendering their souls. Psychology and neuroscience have long proven that extreme scales and luxurious materials trigger the human brain’s primitive awe-obedience circuitry, making individuals instantly feel small, humble, and dispensable. In front of such architecture, people are no longer citizens, but ant-like people; no longer subjects of rights, but enslaved recipients of grace. Bourdieu’s “symbolic violence” is brought to its limit here: power naturalizes inequality through aesthetic hegemony—”The government ought to be this resplendent; questioning it is vulgar.”
The magnificence and resplendence of government office buildings is an open negation of modern political civilization. Since the Enlightenment, humanity finally managed to cast “Divine Right of Kings” into the trash heap of history, yet totalitarianism, using new terms such as “the people,” “the nation,” and “revolution,” has resurrected divine monarchical power intact. It tells us: autocracy has never died, it merely changes clothes continuously; it despises the populace, treating them as untouchables who need to look up to holy temples.
2. A Grand Sacrifice of Extractive Plunder.
Through state monopolies, land finance, invisible taxation, and currency over-issuance, it absorbs wealth created by society into the power center to the maximum extent. Then, it sacrifices the fattest portion to power’s own idol—those magnificent and resplendent buildings one after another. Why not use the money for hospitals, schools, and people’s livelihoods? Because totalitarianism does not need healthy, educated, and dignified citizens; it only needs obedient, mobilizable cogs maintained at the minimum survival line. The improvement of livelihoods is dangerous, as it nourishes independent personality and rights consciousness; whereas a luxurious building is safe, as it produces only admiration, fear, and gratitude. This is not an allocation error, but a complete reversal of priorities: the reproduction of power is always higher than human survival.
Even worse, this plunder carries inherent corruption incentives. Layer upon layer of subcontracting, massive kickbacks, and transfer of interests become the cohesion of loyalty within the ruling clique. Officials share the spoils amidst magnificence and resplendence, and unite amidst the suffering of the people—this is the governance tactic of totalitarian regimes. The ruling clique successfully binds bureaucrats and capital elites onto the same chariot: embezzling together, constructing together, sharing spoils together, and singing loudly together “serving the people.” The blood and sweat squeezed from the people ultimately turn into the brightness on the crystal chandeliers, reflecting the lowest face of totalitarianism—while shouting “common prosperity,” it piles real gold and silver on the threshold of its own palace.
The magnificence and resplendence of government office buildings is the most naked betrayal of modern political civilization by totalitarianism. It completely reverses “popular sovereignty” into “sovereignty over the people.” It uses the most gorgeous language to tell everyone: you are not worthy of possessing; you are only worthy of looking up and dedicating. Any defense still claiming “this is for the national image” or “to boost national confidence” is a double insult to intelligence and conscience. The true image of a nation comes from the freedom, dignity, and prosperity of the people, not the gilded thickness of the ruler’s palaces.
Editor: Hu Jing Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Zhou Min
香港海外社區的發展，已經不僅僅是政治組織。例如 Hongkonger Community Center（HKCC），從最初灣區的一個社區中心，逐漸發展成為覆蓋美國、加拿大、英國、德國等地的社區網絡。它連接新老香港移民，幫助新來的香港人適應當地生活，也提供職業、教育、保險、理財、體育和文化活動等服務。根據網上可查的資料顯示，目前已經至少在23個地點開展活動。這其實是一種非常重要的力量。
Reflections After the 6th Anniversary Event of the US Hong Kongers Club
Author: Guan Yongjie (Kwankwingkit / Eddie Kwan)
Abstract: The 6th anniversary event of the US Hong Kongers Club prompted the author to reflect on the cohesion of overseas Hong Kong communities, pointing out that the mainland Chinese pro-democracy movement should learn from the Hong Kongers’ experience by emphasizing community building, mutual assistance and cooperation, and cultural identity.
On September 20, I attended the gathering event for the 6th anniversary of the founding of the US Hong Kongers Club.
What was originally meant to be just an ordinary commemorative event ended up leaving me pondering a question continuously afterward: Why are Hong Kongers able to gradually form such community cohesion overseas, whereas Chinese mainland pro-democracy activists exiled overseas have consistently found it very difficult to do so?
I previously believed that the organizational capacity of the mainland pro-democracy movement could not compare to that of the Tibetans, who possess the power of faith and an overseas government-in-exile. Now, compared with Hong Kongers, I find that there is also a considerable distance.
Over the six years since its establishment, the US Hong Kongers Club has never altered its purpose: to connect Hong Kongers living in the US, pass down Hong Kong culture, and simultaneously speak out for Hong Kongers’ rights, interests, freedom, democracy, and human rights. After the 2019 Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement was suppressed, huge changes took place in Hong Kong. However, they did not believe that things had come to an end simply because Hong Kong’s resistance movement suffered violent crackdowns.
Bruce, the director of the center, spoke very directly during the event: as long as Hong Kong has not restored its freedom, and as long as this autocratic regime remains, they will continue to resist and continue to speak out for Hong Kong’s democracy and freedom.
The speech by Fang Zheng, Chairman of the San Francisco Branch of the China Democracy Party, who was invited to attend the event, also left a deep impression on me. He said that over these six years, mainland pro-democracy activists and Hong Kongers have always walked together on the path of opposing the Chinese Communist Party and opposing dictatorship. We have jointly witnessed the fall of Hong Kong’s freedom, and also witnessed the unyielding, tenacious perseverance of Hong Kongers exiled overseas. He said he hopes this kind of solidarity can continue all the way until one day Hong Kong is free, China is free, and the Communist Party collapses.
I feel that what is truly worth reflecting upon for the mainland pro-democracy movement is not these slogans, but rather why Hong Kongers are able to form such solidarity.
The development of the overseas Hong Kong community is no longer merely that of political organizations. For example, the Hongkonger Community Center (HKCC) has gradually grown from an initial community center in the Bay Area into a community network spanning the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and other places. It connects old and new Hong Kong immigrants, helps newly arrived Hong Kongers adapt to local life, and provides services such as career guidance, education, insurance, financial planning, sports, and cultural activities. According to publicly available online data, it currently carries out activities in at least 23 locations. This is actually a very important source of strength.
Because after a person immigrates overseas, what they truly need is not just a political organization, but a community where they can meet people, make friends, receive assistance, and preserve their culture and identity. And once such a community is established, political participation is no longer the business of just a select few.
During this 6th anniversary event, I also saw some Hong Kongers who usually do not publicly participate in political activities. It is not necessarily that they do not care about Hong Kong, nor is it that they lack courage. Some still have family members living in Hong Kong. They know that once their identities are exposed, the family members remaining in Hong Kong might face unpredictable pressure. Therefore, they choose to keep a low profile, or even refrain from showing their faces.
However, keeping a low profile does not mean taking no action; some provide financial support behind the scenes, some offer venues, some help organize events, and some silently shoulder various tasks. This is precisely the strength of a mature community: not demanding that everyone step to the forefront, but allowing everyone to participate within their own safe limits.
Looking conversely at the mainland pro-democracy groups exiled overseas, this is precisely where we need to reflect the most.
Many mainlanders, even after leaving China for many years, still have not truly broken free from their original information consumption environments or altered their political perceptions. The number of overseas Chinese is so vast, yet there has always been a deep rift between mainland pro-democracy organizations and ordinary Chinese people. As a result, many exiled pro-democracy figures can only rely on their own limited resources to continuously hold protests, commemorations, and solidarity events overseas, while finding it very difficult to truly organize the broader Chinese community.
The experience of Hong Kongers tells us: a democratic movement cannot rely solely on political organizations, it must also have a community; it cannot rely solely on slogans, it must also have mutual aid. This is the greatest takeaway the 6th anniversary of the US Hong Kongers Club gave me, and it is also what the mainland pro-democracy movement truly needs to learn.
Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Ge Bing
In the welcoming ceremony for former Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen’s visit to the United States, I came to truly understand “Taiwan Green” and the background of democracy
US Hong Kongers Club / Written by: Guan Yongjie (Kwankwingkit / Eddie Kwan)
Abstract: By participating in the welcoming event for Tsai Ing-wen’s visit to the United States, the author gained a renewed understanding of the identity of overseas Taiwanese expatriates. Reflecting on the current situation in Hong Kong through the lens of Taiwan’s freedom and democracy, the author calls on Taiwanese people to cherish their hard-won democracy and human rights.
On the evening of October 5, 2026, a cool autumn breeze swept through the San Francisco Bay Area. Past six o’clock, a welcoming crowd of over a hundred people had already gathered outside the Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport, all awaiting former Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, who was making her first visit to the United States after leaving office to participate in academic exchanges. This was also my first time attending a Taiwanese-related event. Beyond the excitement in my heart, what I felt even more was an urgent sense that “time was running short”—I was eager, within this brief gathering, to feel and listen more to their personal feelings and thoughts in an era of complex and rapidly changing international dynamics.
However, warm and pleasant times always pass quickly, and the process was also tinged with the complexity characteristic of this era. Before the event, when we registered with the contact person under the name of the US Hong Kongers Club, we were required to take a “test” as requested. The questions concerned political events involving Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland in recent years; as true gold fears no fire, we ultimately “passed successfully and were shortlisted.” Of course, we fully understood that the organizers’ considerations stemmed from security concerns, given that the Chinese Communist Party’s infiltration overseas in recent years has been pervasive and omnipresent. In addition, before President Tsai had arrived, I tried striking up a conversation with a young couple and a lady at the scene, but perhaps because they heard that I did not have a Taiwanese accent, they appeared somewhat guarded and reluctant to chat much. It wasn’t until 8:11 PM that President Tsai’s motorcade finally arrived; from the moment she stepped out of the car to her interactions and handshakes with everyone, the entire process lasted only a short five minutes. During these five minutes, the entire venue was immersed in an excitement and thrill bordering on frenzy.
Former Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen shakes hands and interacts with the welcoming crowd
When the welcoming ceremony came to an end and people began collecting the flags and tidying up the venue, I finally had the opportunity to ask a volunteer the question on my mind.
I asked her: “Why were the attire suggestions for participants today, as well as the majority of the flags and banners on-site, all green? Is this due to political party affiliation?”
The flag of the Taiwanese Association of America (TAA)
Her answer completely shattered my previous stereotype. She told me that the history of this green far predates the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Initially, the older generation of Taiwanese expatriates, having suffered authoritarian persecution under the Kuomintang (KMT), came to the United States. In a foreign land, in order to recognize one another and remember their roots, they used the color green—representing “Mother Earth”—to design the earliest Taiwanese association flags. The DPP’s subsequent primary color tone was actually modeled after this spiritual symbol of the overseas Taiwanese community.
Only at that moment did I realize that this shade of green overseas is not a political party label, but rather a strand connecting to the native land, an identity belonging to the overseas Taiwanese diaspora. This also resolved the misconception that we, as outsiders, had held for so long.
Beyond the impact of the color, another thing at the scene that moved me deeply was the demeanor of a former head of state.
Watching former President Tsai Ing-wen interact and shake hands with ordinary citizens at such close range overseas—in a state with almost no heavy security precautions—my heart was profoundly touched. This is by no means something to be taken for granted; this is precisely the most fundamental underlying hue of democracy and freedom.
That night, besides posting on public media, I also browsed through a vast amount of related information, among which one tweet left a deep impression on me. Someone asked under a tweet about President Tsai’s visit to the United States: “Why does there seem to be no one protesting against Tsai Ing-wen overseas?” Below it, several comments answered very thoroughly: “There are certainly many people who are dissatisfied with Tsai Ing-wen, but they don’t need to run overseas to protest; they can protest against her every day in front of the Presidential Office and on the streets in Taiwan proper.” This answer was deeply piercing to the heart! By contrast, in authoritarian and autocratic countries, people only dare to protest against their own leaders after reaching overseas, because those brave souls who protested in their home country have already been “disappeared.”
This stark contrast highlights the preciousness of Taiwan’s democracy even more. Hong Kong once possessed such freedom as well, yet today it has become the most real negative example. Taiwanese people, please be sure to cherish everything you have today; I hope Hong Kong’s experience will forever remain merely an alarm bell ringing in your ears, and never become Taiwan’s future.
A Sincere Advice from a Hong Konger to Taiwanese People
After the event, someone asked me: “Did you travel all this way here to participate just to side with Taiwan’s ‘Green Camp’?”
My answer was very simple: Whoever can make a country into a democratic, free, law-abiding, equal society that safeguards human rights and allows its people to live without fear, I will support them. What I support is not a specific political camp, but these core values.
Although this autumn evening was brief, I not only gained a renewed understanding of that shade of “Taiwan Green” representing land and identity, but also—within those short five minutes—truly felt what democracy ought to look like.
Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Ge Bing
“You can imprison my body, but you cannot remold my convictions”
Ten years and six months of prison life: The persistence and watch of a pro-democracy figure
Reporters: Jia Jia, Shen Meihua
Interviewee: Chen Shuqing
Location: Opposition Party Magazine Office
Profile: Chen Shuqing
Chen Shuqing is a Chinese democracy activist and a member of the China Democracy Party, who has long been concerned with issues of democracy, human rights, and civil rights in China.
Chen Shuqing was born into an ordinary family. Early on, through his observations of social fairness, the situation of ordinary people, and the exercise of public power in real life, he gradually developed his reflections on democracy, freedom, and social justice. The 1989 “June Fourth Incident” had an important impact on the development of his thought and also prompted him to begin rethinking the path toward China’s democratization.
Thereafter, Chen Shuqing participated in activities related to the China Democracy Party and engaged in the dissemination of democratic and human rights ideas, as well as work on related publications. Due to his participation in and promotion of the democracy movement, he suffered political suppression and imprisonment multiple times, experiencing a total of fourteen years and six months of prison life.
Amid long-term political pressure and prison life, Chen Shuqing always adhered to his democratic ideals. He believes that the process of China’s democratization cannot be accomplished by relying on a single individual, a single group, or a single force alone, but requires long-term, joint efforts from different groups at home and abroad.
Today, Chen Shuqing remains concerned about China’s cause of democracy and human rights. At the same time, he appeals to overseas democracy activists and the younger generation to, while holding fast to their ideals and paying attention to Chinese society, first take good care of their own lives, families, and health, and to continue to pay attention to and support China’s democracy and human rights cause within their capacity.
When talking about why he has been able to persevere for a long time, he summarized his life with a simple yet firm sentence:
“I’m a fighter.”
【Interview Lead-in】
Fourteen years and six months.
For anyone, this is a period of time long enough to change a life.
However, for Chen Shuqing, these fourteen years and six months meant not only iron bars and loss of freedom, but also a test of conviction, will, and perseverance.
In China’s prison system, political prisoners, like ordinary criminal offenders, are included in the so-called “educational remolding” system.
Thinking must be remolded, living habits must be remolded, discipline must be remolded, and labor also becomes part of the so-called “remolding.”
But facing all this, Chen Shuqing’s attitude has always been very clear:
“If it is something right, you don’t need to remold me, I will change it myself; if it is something wrong, even if you beat me to death, I will not change.”
This sentence almost summarizes the most core perseverance in his fourteen years and six months of prison life.
I. “Remolding” in Prison
Interviewer: You spent more than ten years in prison. What kind of experience was that?
Chen Shuqing explained that Chinese prisons have a whole set of so-called “remolding” systems for prisoners.
“Whether they are political prisoners or ordinary criminal offenders, they believe they need to be remolded.”
This kind of remolding includes multiple aspects such as ideology, living habits, discipline, and labor.
Chen Shuqing said that in the political ideology of the Communist Party, there has long been a concept that humans can be reshaped through environment and systems.
“They believe that humans can be remolded, so inside the prison, prisoners must also undergo various kinds of remolding.”
Among them, labor is an important part.
“If you go down to the workshop, you have to produce some prison labor products. Much of the labor is forced and without compensation.”
For Chen Shuqing, prison life likewise meant strict management, labor, and long-term loss of freedom.
However, he knew from the very beginning that his ideological convictions would not undergo a fundamental change simply because he entered prison.
II. “They wanted to remold me, but I cannot be remolded”
Reporter Jia Jia asked Chen Shuqing:
“You just said that Mao Zedong believed all people can be remolded. So did they succeed in remolding you?”
Chen Shuqing’s answer was very direct.
“That is what Mao Zedong and the Communist Party believed. But as for me, I cannot be remolded.”
He said that he had clearly expressed his attitude to relevant personnel very early on.
“If it is something right, you don’t need to remold me, I will change it myself.”
But if they demanded that he abandon his principles and convictions, his attitude was equally clear.
“If it is something wrong, even if you beat me to death, I will not change. I will never surrender.”
This was not an emotional expression, but rather his long-term definition of his own behavior and principles.
In his view, a person can certainly reflect on oneself and correct one’s mistakes.
However, adhering to the truth and being forced to abandon one’s convictions are completely different things.
“If I believe I was wrong, I can certainly change. But if I believe something is wrong, it is impossible for me to accept it because of pressure.”
III. Seeking a state of “peaceful coexistence” in prison
Despite refusing to abandon his political convictions, Chen Shuqing did not choose to pointlessly create conflicts.
He stated that prison management personnel gradually came to understand his attitude later on.
The two sides formed a relatively realistic way of getting along.
“Their meaning was, try not to destroy or impact their existing order as much as possible.”
Even if Chen Shuqing believed certain systems were unreasonable, the prison side also hoped he could express his opinions through certain channels.
“They said, wherever you think it is unreasonable, you can report it to the police officers or leaders. What can be changed, we will try our best to change; what cannot be changed, we will also explain the reasons.”
Regarding such an attitude, Chen Shuqing also chose to respond rationally on the basis of adhering to principles.
“So later in prison, between us, relatively speaking, we were still able to coexist peacefully.”
IV. Attention from family and overseas society
Chen Shuqing believes that the fact that his situation in prison was able to be improved to a certain extent was related to attention from multiple aspects.
“I want to thank my family, and I also want to thank overseas pro-democracy figures, as well as various organizations around the world concerned with China’s human rights situation.”
He said that international society and overseas figures’ attention to political prisoners and the human rights situation can form external supervision to a certain extent.
“If the Communist Party bullied me too severely or oppressed me too heavily, they would also worry about causing bad impacts.”
When he entered prison, a staff member once expressed such an attitude to him:
“We know for what reason you came here. It’s not that we wanted you to come, but since you are here, our place is not targeted at you alone.”
The other party also stated that within the scope allowed by prison management systems, they would try to give corresponding care as much as possible, but Chen Shuqing also needed to abide by basic regulations.
Chen Shuqing adopted a relatively rational attitude toward this.
He stated that as long as it did not involve principle issues, he was also willing to abide by basic management regulations.
V. Labor life during ten years in prison
Chen Shuqing introduced that in prison, he initially also experienced strict management and labor.
After passing through relevant management stages, he was assigned to the prison area for labor.
“I went down to the workshop and worked for about three months, and later moved to a logistics post.”
Compared with prisoners who worked in the production workshop long-term, the labor pressure he bore was relatively smaller.
“Logistics was also working every day, going out to work from morning till night. But compared with prisoners in the workshop, the production task pressure was not that great.”
He admitted frankly that labor in prison basically had no compensation.
“These labors were all uncompensated.”
Although he obtained some relatively relaxed arrangements compared to other prisoners, more than ten years of prison life could not possibly be an easy experience for anyone.
However, when talking about these past events, Chen Shuqing did not display excessive resentment.
More of the time, what he emphasized was a kind of perseverance.
VI. “I am just one of them”
During the interview, the reporters repeatedly expressed admiration for Chen Shuqing.
However, he always believed that he was only one of the many people who adhere to democratic ideals.
“Including Zhu Yufu, we have too many like-minded friends like this.”
He said that the suffering experienced and sacrifices made by many people were much greater than his own.
“Many people made greater sacrifices than I did, and did more work than I did.”
Precisely because of this, he was unwilling to excessively heroicize his personal experiences.
In his view, promoting social progress has never been the cause of a single person.
“The ultimate success of China’s cause of democracy cannot rely on the efforts of just a few individuals or a single group of people to be realized.”
VII. Overseas democracy movement is an indispensable force
Talking about overseas pro-democracy figures, Chen Shuqing expressed deep gratitude.
He believes that overseas figures who have long persevered in paying attention to China’s democracy and human rights issues have likewise experienced many unknown difficulties.
“Over so many years in the overseas democracy movement, there have also been many complex situations. It has not been easy at all for everyone to persevere.”
However, he emphasized at the same time that no matter how the outside world evaluates it, the contribution of the overseas democracy movement to China’s cause of democracy is undeniable.
“The contribution and role of the overseas democracy movement to China’s cause of democracy is very immense.”
In his view, the support of overseas figures for domestic democracy advocates is reflected not only in practical actions, but more importantly as a form of spiritual watch.
“With the perseverance of overseas friends and their attention to the domestic situation, for colleagues inside China who continue to fight for democracy, it can relieve a great deal of pressure.”
“This kind of watching out for and supporting each other can make people inside China feel more at ease and also more confident.”
Therefore, he hopes that overseas pro-democracy figures can continue to persevere.
“Your perseverance is very difficult, and your role is also very immense.”
VIII. China’s cause of democracy requires the joint efforts of everyone
Chen Shuqing believes that the future of China’s cause of democracy cannot rely on any single force.
“Relying solely on the overseas democracy movement definitely won’t work, relying solely on people inside the country won’t work, and relying solely on people within the system won’t work either.”
Real social change requires the joint participation of different groups and different forces.
“In the end, it must be the result of joint efforts from all sides.”
In this process, overseas democracy figures are an indispensable part.
“The overseas democracy movement is absolutely an indispensable force.”
Of course, he also understands the complex environment faced long-term by the overseas democracy movement.
This includes various problems such as organizational capacity, internal coordination, and external interference.
“Every one of us is an ordinary person; humans are not saints.”
Therefore, what is more important is to continuously improve oneself, enhance organizational capacity, and do what can be done as much as possible under real-world conditions.
IX. Message to overseas friends and the younger generation: First, persevere, but also take good care of yourselves
As the interview approached its end, Chen Shuqing also offered his advice to overseas friends and the younger generation.
He said that the most important thing is first to persevere.
“First of all, you yourselves must persevere.”
But persevering does not mean neglecting one’s own life.
He particularly emphasized that one should first take good care of one’s own life, family, and body.
“To manage your own life well, manage your family well, and manage your health well—this is the most important thing.”
On this basis, and according to one’s own ability, do some things for the cause one cares about.
“Where capability allows, you can pay a bit more attention to various rights-defense incidents inside China.”
This kind of attention can be a report, a repost, or continuous recording and watching.
“Across various media, one more report, one more repost, one more piece of attention.”
Chen Shuqing believes that these seemingly small actions hold important meaning for those who are still inside the country, persisting in promoting democracy and human rights.
“Especially for those struggling inside China, they can very clearly feel your help and role.”
(Photo: Reporters Jia Jia (left) and Shen Meihua (right))
【Conclusion】
As the interview was about to end, Chen Shuqing reminded young friends once again:
“You must also manage your own lives well, and take good care of your own bodies and your family members’ bodies.”
Simple, unpretentious, yet full of warmth.
Fourteen years and six months of prison life did not make him give up his convictions.
Having experienced political persecution did not make him lose hope for the future either.
When the interviewers expressed emotion over his perseverance, he did not view himself as a hero.
He said that in history, there were far too many people who were braver than him and paid far more.
In the middle of his calm words, he suddenly uttered a sentence that touched the interviewer’s soul:
“I’m a fighter.”
Perhaps this sentence is precisely the simplest yet most powerful footnote to Chen Shuqing’s life.
He might not necessarily consider himself a hero.
He simply believes that when a person determines that something is right, one should try one’s best to do it within the range of what one can bear.
Because he believes:
An individual’s strength may be limited, but the perseverance of countless people will ultimately gather into a force that changes history.
(Archive photo: (Front row from left) Zhu Yufu, Mao Qingxiang, Wang Rongqing, Wu Yilong, Chen Shuqing, etc. This photo was taken on September 14, 2010, when Wu Yilong completed his sentence and was released from prison)
【Interview Epilogue: The Name in the Liberty Sculpture Park】
The interview had already ended. When we raised our immersed eyes to look at Mr. Zhu Yufu, who had been listening quietly beside us all along, Mr. Zhu mentioned a detail.
He said that in the Liberty Sculpture Park, there is Chen Shuqing’s name.
To many people, that might just be a name.
But for people who lived through that era, behind a name lies not just a life, but a piece of real history.
From initial simple reflections on social injustice, to gradually forming firm convictions about democracy and freedom; from participating in the democracy movement, to encountering political suppression; from the first time being detained, to experiencing two prison terms totaling up to fourteen years and six months—Chen Shuqing’s life records the path walked by a Chinese pro-democracy figure.
In the interview, Chen Shuqing did not describe himself as a hero.
On the contrary, he emphasized multiple times that in the history of China’s democracy movement, there are many like-minded friends who paid more and made even greater sacrifices.
However, history will not overlook his experience because of an individual’s modesty.
Today, that name left in the Liberty Sculpture Park is perhaps precisely the quietest record of a period of history.
Chen Shuqing.
Behind those three words are years, choices, long stretches of time losing freedom, and also the convictions that a person never gave up from start to finish.
The interview ended, and that calm yet powerful voice echoed in my ears continuously:
“I’m a fighter.”
Without a doubt, this sentence is the simplest and most powerful footnote to Chen Shuqing’s life.
The name in the Liberty Sculpture Park will be seen by more people.
And the stories behind those names also deserve to be recorded, recounted, and remembered.
Because history belongs not only to those standing under the spotlight, but also to every person who once made choices for ideals, freedom, and dignity.
—— 《The Opposition》 Personage Interview: Chen Shuqing (End of Full Text)
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Zhou Min
A Record of Protesting Xi Jinping’s Visit to the U.S. in Washington, D.C.
Author: Yang Changbing
Following our East Coast trip in 2025, a year later, on September 20, we set off again for Washington, D.C. to participate in the protest activities against Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States.
Master (Wu Zhanke), Zhu Rongyao, and I drove from the Liberty Sculpture Park, covering a total distance of over 5,000 miles in eight days, arriving at our lodgings in Washington, D.C., at 2:00 AM on the 23rd. After a brief rest, the three of us drove near the White House in the morning to join members of the National Committee of the Democratic Party of China led by Chen Chuangchuang. We opposed the meeting held near the White House by the negotiation team represented by Li Chenggang. Near the building, we shouted loudly: “Down with the CCP! Down with Xi Jinping!”
At around 2:00 PM, we drove to the vicinity of Joint Base Andrews to join numerous pro-democracy organizations from New York, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and other places to jointly participate in the protest against Xi Jinping’s visit to the U.S.
Upon arriving at the site, we found seven buses carrying a large number of pro-CCP individuals. Their numbers were several times greater than ours. When we learned that half an hour earlier they had already clashed with our pro-democracy members and intentionally damaged our equipment, the police separated us from the pro-CCP group and stood by on high alert to prevent further conflicts.
We displayed the black CCP flags to express our dissatisfaction with the CCP’s extreme rule and continued our protest for about two hours. Later, noticing that the pro-CCP crowd began to disperse, we learned that Xi Jinping’s motorcade had bypassed our protest location and driven directly to his hotel.
On the morning of the 24th, our various pro-democracy organizations gathered at the West Gate of the White House to collectively protest the visit to the U.S. by the CCP led by Xi Jinping. We continuously chanted slogans such as “Down with Xi Jinping” and “Down with the CCP,” while also shouting slogans in support of Taiwan independence and Hong Kong independence.
At the same time, veteran pro-democracy figures including Mr. Wei Jingsheng, Ms. Huang Ciping, Chairman of the National Committee of the Democratic Party of China Mr. Wang Juntao, Director of the June 4th Memorial Museum Mr. Wang Dan, Mr. Chen Weiming of the Liberty Sculpture Park, Chair of the Chinese Human Rights Alliance Ms. Jin Xiuhong, Pastor Fu Xiqiu (Bob Fu), and Pastor Zhang Boli came to the site to support us and delivered speeches.
At around 3:00 PM, several of our pro-democracy organizations held a grand parade, marching from the West Gate of the White House to the North Gate. Afterward, we joined Xinjiang people, Uyghurs, Hong Kongers, and Taiwanese at Franklin Square to conduct another parade.
The number of participants in the parade exceeded one thousand. Setting off from Franklin Square, everyone marched to the North Gate of the White House, loudly chanting slogans against CCP autocracy, demanding the fall of the CCP and Xi Jinping, opposing the CCP’s violent rule and genocide, as well as its overseas infiltration and transnational repression.
It is worth mentioning that the evening of the 24th was precisely the time when Trump and Xi Jinping held a banquet inside the White House. We continuously shouted “Down with Xi Jinping” and “Down with the CCP” at the North Gate of the White House. We believe that everyone inside the White House, including Trump and Xi Jinping, could hear our protests.
We just want to let the United States and the world know that the CCP led by Xi Jinping is a highly totalitarian leader, and the Chinese people have long suffered oppression and persecution under the CCP regime. Today, the CCP has nationalized human organs, treating people as disposable grass, making anyone disappear at will just to prolong their own lives to 150 years old. They also manufactured and disseminated the COVID-19 virus to poison the world, causing the deaths of tens of millions globally. We demand that the CCP be held accountable and pay compensation to victims worldwide.
We demand that the CCP step down and Xi Jinping step down, to restore democracy and freedom to the people; we demand that the CCP immediately release Gao Zhisheng, Wang Bingzhang, Jimmy Lai, and all detained political prisoners and prisoners of conscience!
We also hope that one day, China can achieve true democracy and freedom just like the United States, allowing the Chinese people to truly enjoy democracy, freedom, human rights, and dignity.
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Shen Meihua
When young, people always believe that home is a set of coordinates to which one can return at any time. Young people always feel that scenery lies only in the distance, while home is merely an inn where one can rest when tired. It is not until one day when they have truly walked far away that they realize with a start: certain paths, once stepped upon, become a one-way street leading to the scaffold, with return hardly possible.
As the ancients said: “The wanderer travels with empty sacks, yet dares not return to his hometown.”
When first going abroad, everyone’s heart surges with lofty passions. But only after truly wandering in a foreign land does one come to understand that the price of freedom is spiritual solitude. Yet the deeper obstacle is not the abundance or scarcity of material wealth, but the fear within one’s heart. Sometimes, it is not that one does not want to cross the river, but rather that one does not know in what capacity to face the elders of Wujiang once the river is crossed.
As someone who lived in mainland China for over thirty years and personally experienced how that regime coldly operates, upon arriving in the land of freedom overseas, I took up the pen to write opinion pieces that tear through lies and call to account totalitarian tyranny. Once my thoughts became tightly bound to voicing for democracy, the word “homecoming” was no longer as simple as buying an airline ticket. Customs can be passed, but that “Wujiang River” in one’s heart may not be so easy to cross. For on the other side of the river is not a mother with open arms, but waiting falcons and hounds in full array, along with cold shackles.
I often think of the great writer Lao She. Back then, believing the United Front lies, he returned to the country full of hope, only to sink in despair into Taiping Lake amid overwhelming persecution and humiliation. Today on the internet, intellectuals like him who returned home upon invitation only to be persecuted to death are mournfully and mockingly called the “Lake-Jumping Faction.” In the past, when reading history, I always felt those were distant tragedies of an era. But I never imagined that one day, an ordinary “nobody” like myself, separated by a vast ocean, would actually receive a similar conspiratorial script inviting the “Lake-Jumping Faction” into the trap.
A few days ago, I received a phone call from a friend in my hometown. The friend said that local highway construction had occupied my family’s land, with a compensation of over one million yuan to be paid. Behind this huge sum of compensation, there lurked a subtle urgency from various parties back home pressing and exerting pressure, insisting that I must “return in person to sign and collect the money.”
The moment I hung up the phone, a chill ran down my spine. In this terrifying era of transnational long-arm jurisdiction, is that unreachable compensation of over a million yuan a belated favor from my hometown, or a KGB-style bait to lure and capture overseas voices? I dare not gamble, and even less can I afford to! For by my side, far too many bloody cautionary tales have already fallen before me.
Luo Daiqing, a young student studying in the United States, was sentenced to prison for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” upon returning to Wuhan for summer vacation, merely for posting a few tweets lampooning a dictator overseas. Zhang Yadi, a young woman studying in France, was thrown into a Changsha detention center for secret confinement under the charge of “inciting secession” upon returning home to visit family, merely for having served as an editor for a pro-Tibet platform in Paris. There was also the Chinese international student studying at the University of Sydney who was heavily sentenced to six years after returning to China, merely for attending a democratic rally in Australia in support of domestic movements. Even Zhou Qiang, alias “Zhouzhou Kan”—a self-media peer who once boasted a hundred thousand followers in New York—was greeted by years in a black jail the moment he set foot back in the motherland.
What sends an even colder shudder down one’s spine is the case of Niu Tengyu in the Esoteric Wiki case. That computer genius in his early twenties, merely because an overseas website exposed the privacy of a powerful family, was abducted across provincial lines just six days after returning home from Japan. In the pitch-black jail, he suffered barbaric and inhumane tortures including the tiger bench, suspended beatings, and having his private parts burned with a lighter, ultimately receiving a heavy sentence of fourteen years! This is not law at all; this is the nastiest, most brutal political retaliation and physical annihilation!
These bloody tragedies are not history; they are happening tangibly right at this very moment! The iron fist suspended by totalitarianism roars at every clear-headed soul overseas at all times: once you step back through that customs gate, the price is the end of your freedom, or even the extinction of your life!
In reality, a person actually has two hometowns: one is the real hometown currently being kneaded at will by power, filled with informants and bait in an era of terror; the other is the hometown in memory, forever frozen in time, where culture remains pure. The real hometown resembles an open-trap hell, whereas the hometown in memory can never be returned to again. Looking forward lies a cold foreign land; looking back lies a yesterday woven with blood and tears, impossible to approach.
I do not know when the China of the future will finally be able to wash clean the bloodstains of a century of tyranny. But I still hope that one day, all Chinese people wandering overseas, no matter what political views they hold, can return to their hometown with composure, decency, and dignity—without frantically deleting articles before departure, without hiding the voices they once uttered, and without anxiously asking themselves before setting foot on their native soil: “Will I get into trouble if I go back?”
A truly strong nation should not fear the independent voices of ordinary people; a hometown worthy of longing should even less demand that wanderers must shut their mouths and drop to their knees before they can come home. May there come a day when returning wanderers no longer carry the fear of black jails, torture, and forced disappearances. The thing that pulls most at one’s heartstrings in this world has never been an unreached distance, but rather that hometown buried deep in memory, which will ultimately regain its freedom and dignity.
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Ge Bing
Beyond Skin and Hair: On Reading a National Day Reflection by Bo Guagua
By:Ge Bing
Around National Day, a piece of text signed by Bo Guagua circulated on social media platforms. Here is the full text first:
“Today is National Day. From a historical perspective, our ‘nation’ differs from those in the West. What it condenses is the civilization and bloodline of a nation-ethnicity. Especially on this platform, where people hold many disputes over politics and system, each with their own views and opinions—as Chinese people, however, never forget: if China is not strong, no matter how well ethnic Chinese do overseas, they will never be able to stand tall. Without the skin, where can the hair attach? Even for our compatriots overseas who oppose China, the fact that they can receive so much support and sympathy from the West is also because China is strong. Personally, I yearn for a world centered on humanity, but that is likely something a hundred or a thousand years from now. At present, out of necessity, we can only take the nation as the basic unit. Regardless of political stance, or which side of the Taiwan Strait you are on, deep down, let us still pray for China’s prosperity and flourishing.”
This passage reads with a very flat tone, carrying a touch of pity and a hint of detachment, making it easy to be taken as a simple and unvarnished national sentiment. Yet, reading closely, almost every layer has issues. Let us analyze it step by step, focusing solely on the text itself.
1， The Absurdity and Logical Misplacement of the Remarks
“When China is strong, the backs of ethnic Chinese are straight”—this sounds like common sense, but it forcibly welds two separate matters together. Whether a person can stand tall overseas depends first on the rule of law and social environment of the host country, and second on their own ability, character, and contribution. The motherland’s national strength is certainly a background factor, but by no means the decisive one. When international relations are strained, overseas Chinese are actually more prone to suspicion. Strength does not automatically translate into respect.
The second half of the sentence is even less defensible. The reasons the West gives for offering sympathy and asylum to overseas dissidents have always been freedom of speech, personal safety, and asylum systems, rather than “China being strong.” The causality is actually exact opposite: they need asylum because they cannot speak safely in their country of origin. Attributing this sympathy to the dividends of a strong nation is equivalent to reversing cause and effect, as well as secretively swapping a society’s commitment to human rights principles for awe of sheer power.
2， “Victims of Power, Yet Believers in Power”
Looking further down, it becomes even more thought-provoking. The Bo family’s plight is a matter of public record: Bo Xilai was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2013 for bribery, embezzlement, and abuse of power, while Gu Kailai received a suspended death sentence in 2012 for the intentional homicide of British businessman Neil Heywood. Regardless of how people view the trials themselves, it remains a fact that a family was torn apart by power struggles.
Yet in this passage, one can hardly read any doubt regarding the way power operates itself. Those who fell from power did not question why the machine operates this way; instead, they paid tribute to the machine even more solemnly. This mindset is far from unfamiliar in Chinese history—when Han Yu wrote Ju You Cao (Song of Imprisonment) to imitate King Wen of Zhou’s state of mind while imprisoned, he ultimately concluded with “Though the minister’s crime deserves execution, the Heavenly King is wise and enlightened.” The crushed must still praise the wisdom of the crusher. The victim and the believer unite as one within the very same person.
3， Distortion of the Perception of Overseas Chinese and Modern Civilizational Values
Let us continue examining the conceptualization of overseas Chinese. This passage inadvertently portrays overseas Chinese as a dependent existence: no matter how well you do, you must rely on the motherland for backing. For countless individuals who have established themselves abroad through academics, careers, and honest labor, this is a form of slight. Their dignity stems from their own hands and the rules of the society they live in, not from anyone’s charity.
National strength certainly influences the situation of a country’s citizens in the world—there is no need to avoid mentioning this. However, this is merely a description of how the world operates and cannot be used to deduce a hierarchy of values, as if basic values of modern civilization such as freedom, the rule of law, and individual dignity were merely decorations for the strong—values to be discarded as soon as the balance of strength shifts. The author himself studied at Oxford and Harvard, residing precisely in places nourished by these values. To enjoy the fruits of these values on one hand while implying they are less real than national strength on the other represents a cognitive awkwardness that deserves notice.
4， Refusing to Be “Hair,” Refusing Dependency, and Advocating Independent Personhood
The metaphor “without the skin, where can the hair attach?” itself merits stopping to examine. Hair attaches to the skin and has no independent life of its own. Comparing citizens to hair and the state to skin presupposes a relationship of subjects: the individual is an appendage, while the state is the primary entity. The logic of a modern state is precisely the opposite. A state is a community formed by people to safeguard their own rights; humans are the end, and the state is the tool. A person can certainly deeply love their homeland, but love and dependency are two different matters. What Chen Yinke described in the monument epitaph for Wang Guowei as “the spirit of independence and the freedom of thought” is what is truly worth cherishing within a civilization. We can be citizens of a state and heirs to a civilization, but we need not be “hair” on any “skin.”
5， Stealing Concepts: Equating the “Party-State System” with “National Civilization”
There is a more subtle conceptual substitution here.
The beginning of the text states that China’s “nation” condenses the civilization and bloodline of a nation-ethnicity. There is nothing wrong with this statement per se; the problem lies in how it quietly completes a substitution: equating the party-state system of a specific period with a national civilization that has spanned thousands of years. Civilization is older and broader than any regime or system. Dynasties have changed dozens of times and systems have been altered countless times, yet civilization has continuously endured. Tying the two together is equivalent to saying that without the current regime, this nation-ethnicity would lose its soul—this is, in fact, a degradation of civilization. Even more critically, this bundling carries a consequence: criticizing the regime becomes betraying the nation. This is a form of moral kidnapping whose function is to transform the questioning of concrete power into a loyalty test of bloodline. Loving a civilization does not mean one must endorse every ruling authority.
6， The Absurdity of Identity: “Crouching in Formal Wear” and “The Consort in the Cold Palace”
The contrast in identity is truly absurd as well.
A person studies in the freest academic institutions, yet speaks the most traditional words of dependency. Dressed immaculately, with an Oxford degree and a Harvard diploma, the posture remains old-fashioned—somewhat like “crouching in a pit toilet in formal attire.” Another image is that of a “consort in the cold palace”: a neglected figure who nevertheless declares loyalty to the monarch who cold-shouldered her, claiming that regardless of her situation, deep down she prays for the prosperity of the dynasty. The posture here is less self-respect than waiting—waiting for the day the door might be pushed open again. Wrapping the most traditional dependency in the most modern credentials is the most dramatic aspect of the entire text.
7， “Political Opportunism” and the “Fantasy of a Comeback”
As for motivation, we cannot and should not make definitive assertions. Yet a text has its intended audience. “Regardless of political stance, or which side of the Taiwan Strait you are on”—this phrasing covers all bases without offending any side; the entire piece does not address a single concrete systemic issue, nor does a single word touch upon his family’s plight. Against the backdrop of a family’s fall from power, issuing a blunted declaration of loyalty on National Day can hardly avoid being read as a signal. Statements of this kind have a long-standing tradition in Chinese political culture: demoted officials write letters of gratitude and self-justification, expressing loyalty amidst phrases praising the sovereign, while also leaving room for the future. Su Shi’s Memorial of Thanks Upon Arriving in Huangzhou is a case in point. If today’s passage carries similar expectations, then the fantasy of a “comeback” lies hidden within every cautiously chosen word. Of course, this is merely one interpretation, and readers are entirely free to retain their own judgment.
8， Thoroughly Exposing the Failure of Elite Education against Totalitarian Brainwashing
People once expected that a free and top-tier education could shape an independently thinking individual. This passage provides a troubling counterexample: after studying for many years in the finest institutions, one still has not learned to distinguish state from government, civilization from system, or loyalty from dependency. A single case is certainly not enough to pass judgment on the whole, nor will the impact of education be overturned by a single text. Yet it serves as a reminder at the very least: when a person’s stance is written in advance during childhood by family, environment, and discourse systems, subsequent education may well merely add rhetoric to it without altering its core. The “brainwashing” of a totalitarian system is not completed in the classroom; it takes root in an earlier, deeper place, and elite education may not necessarily be able to uproot it.
9， The Totalitarian System’s “Alienation” of the Individual Has Reached the Extreme
All of this ultimately points to one word: alienation. Humans ought to be their own ends, yet within the power system, they become tools; they ought to speak in their own voice, yet can only repeat pre-programmed phrasing. Even the tragedies that befell one’s own family cannot be recounted in one’s own language, but can only be incorporated into the fixed narrative of “praying for prosperity.” The deepest harm a totalitarian system inflicts on an individual is not merely the deprivation of freedom, but causing the individual to gradually fail to recognize themselves, taking the constructed self for the true self. This is an imprisonment more complete than any legal verdict, and one often completed by the imprisoned person’s own hands.
Praying for China’s prosperity and flourishing is not wrong. Many critics hold the exact same wish. The disagreement lies not here, but rather in: what is the standard of prosperity, who defines it, and whether the individual within it is an end or a tool.
The original text claims that if China is not strong, ethnic Chinese cannot stand tall. We might as well read this sentence in reverse: the true strength of a nation ultimately depends on whether every single person living within it can stand tall without being dependent on anyone.
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Ge Bing
Silence and Resistance: A Documentary of “Revolution” in France’s New Era
By Liu Chang
I. The Helplessness of Parisians
I remember when I first arrived in Paris, sitting inside an immigration bureau police car. Looking out the window, I saw an intoxicated old man holding a liquor bottle in his right hand and a book in his left, loudly and frantically denouncing something in the middle of a busy downtown street. The police car quickly veered around him. While stopped at a traffic light, a homeless man came over to provoke us, kicking the front passenger door. The female police officer sitting next to me remained completely unfazed, pulling out the latest iPhone to play a game. Interested, I leaned in to watch; catching me staring, she blushed and quickly pulled up photos of her son… I could not help but sigh with emotion: in the eyes of ordinary French people, this world is revolution on one side and “romance” on the other.
Living in Paris, I happened to encounter a massive general strike. Mountains of garbage piled up on the streets. Riding the metro, an announcement suddenly broadcasted: metro strike. You were dumped bewildered at some unknown station, leaving you no choice but to wander around for quite a while before finally finding a bus stop. At first, a crowd gathered at the platform, everyone voicing their grievances and complaining about why the bus was taking so long. After a long wait, there was still no bus in sight. People dispersed one by one until only I was left. I thought to myself, forget it, let us walk—looks like the buses are on strike, too. Feeling dejected, I crossed the road, prepared to walk the long distance. Just at that moment, a bus suddenly arrived. I turned and sprinted back. Yet before I could even reach the platform, the bus drove away. At that moment, standing on the streets of Paris, I suddenly did not know whether to be angry or to laugh.
A few months later, citywide riots broke out again, with smoke lingering everywhere; one moment this warehouse was burned, and the next moment that apartment building was set ablaze. Once while smoking on the sidewalk, I saw a masked person trying to light a pile of garbage inside a market with a lighter. An older woman suddenly asked, “Que faites-vous?” The person ran away. The woman quickly notified the market manager…
The movement of the French is sometimes precisely this kind of thing: you clearly know it will happen, yet you never know in what manner it will ultimately affect your life.
Social progress is driven by movements, while movements are controlled by the people—this alone is the will and freedom of the people. If your people cannot speak with their mouths, cannot communicate with their words, and can only passively accept, then they are not people, but slaves or livestock! Of course, the French people are “true people”—they dare to be angry and dare to speak, dare to love and dare to act. Why do they “dare”? Because the law permits it, and the people support it.
II. The Silence of the Chinese and the Resistance of the Black People
France is the beacon of world democracy and the originator of democratic movements, spanning from the French Revolution to the Paris Commune, from the Communist International to the October Revolution, and all the way to the CCP’s “Liberation” War. Yet over the past century, democratic movements have long been treated by its students like a “chamber pot”—stuffed under the bed as soon as they finish using it, while forbidding anyone else from using it. And what about their revolutionary mentor, France? It remains fraught with non-stop “revolutions,” staging strikes and demonstrations at the drop of a hat. This brings hardship to the French people: one moment a metro strike, the next moment a bus strike, then a sanitation workers’ strike, and today a student movement again, severely disrupting citizens’ daily lives with garbage piling up like mountains. But what choice is there? “Revolution” is the founding bedrock of the Republic and a right bestowed upon the people by the state, passed down through generations to become a custom. The French people want revolution, and France’s Black compatriots want revolution too, actively driving and participating in it—one moment an insurrection, the next moment stores smashed and looted, bus stops smashed, and cars burned. A few years ago, when a police officer touched a Black driver’s arm during a fleeing attempt and his gun accidentally misfired, the Black community was already this agitated. However, many friends say that police in Paris have also beaten Chinese people to death, yet Chinese people kept quiet and stayed silent; after minor fussing, it all ended up swept under the rug, leading people to say Chinese people are far too disunited. But this author believes: was this caused merely by Chinese people lacking unity? The reasons are manifold, analyzed as follows:
1， A characteristic of Chinese people is “endurance.” This is the Chinese character shaped under thousands of years of imperial power and patriarchal clan system—not dwelling on trivial matters, not meddling in business that does not concern oneself, and over time, each going their own way. Are there times when Chinese people unite? Yes. During the revolutionary era, the frantic indoctrination of nationalism, classism, and patriotism generated a great deal of cohesion; the Red Guards and Educated Youth exported “revolution” to Hong Kong, Japan, and Canada, leaving mess and chaos abroad. With the collapse of June Fourth in 1989, the older generation long ago turned into castrated oxen, losing their spirit, while the younger generations have been subjected to reinforced political brainwashing generation after generation, becoming docile subjects under the Red Flag. Arriving abroad, they have indeed brought out the fine traditions of being “meek,” “tough,” and “hardworking and enduring hardships.”
The French, regardless of skin color, can jabber on endlessly at someone over line-cutting or a cigarette butt, taking “a gentleman uses his mouth, not his hands” to the absolute extreme, swearing at each other nose-to-nose—just like Chinese rural women scolding in the street—occasionally turning red-faced and craning their necks to roar face-to-face, vividly interpreting the “Gallic Rooster.” This is their right, so they do not have to endure!
2， Chinese people are considered a minority group in Europe, especially in France, with weak racial clout and feeling their numbers fall short compared to their Black brothers, resulting in a clear lack of confidence. Moreover, nurtured under the “revolutionary” tradition of the CCP, the Chinese tradition of internal infighting has been greatly carried forward; even after going abroad, they do not trust one another that much, and even guard against each other, which leads to limited numbers coupled with a lack of unity.
3， Black brothers have a history of immigration in Europe and America spanning several centuries, which is no exaggeration; both the duration and absolute numbers are incomparable for Chinese immigrants. Throughout this long period, their struggles and friction with white people have already formed customs, traditions, and instincts; they are rich in experience and have achieved considerable success—especially in the United States, where through a century of resistance, they have obtained exceptionally high social status and legal protections. As soon as an issue arises, once it escalates to racism, it catches white brothers completely off guard! Generation after generation of Chinese people lack this history of overseas “revolution,” leading to a weak revolutionary consciousness and a lack of experience.
4， Many old Black immigrants in France engage in legitimate professions such as education, law, and scientific research. However, there are also many new immigrants among whom few hold legitimate jobs; besides doing some bottom-tier work, many freeload on benefits and exploit loopholes, similar to what is defined domestically as the lumpenproletariat. Whenever something happens, this group naturally becomes the object of incitement and exploitation! This differs greatly from the majority of Chinese people who quietly and painstakingly manage their businesses. Whether they have legal status or not, being “propertied” means having “bourgeois limitations,” and thus lacking the courage for “revolution.”
5， A feature of democratic countries is that “the husband has his reason, and the wife has hers”—each side claims to be in the right. This is their right, and staging demonstrations at every turn is itself part of the work. But in the eyes of Chinese people accustomed to submissiveness and resignation, such resistance is a waste of time and energy and cannot change the overarching trend. This has also been the social climate since June Fourth in 1989: obeying the bigger picture and conforming to the grand scheme is the Doctrine of the Mean—without the grand scheme (the state), where would the individual (the family) come from? Hence, non-resistance and accepting one’s fate.
Therefore, the different forms of social expression exhibited by Chinese and Black communities when facing public events in France cannot be simply attributed to “who is more united or who is more brave.” It is jointly influenced by multiple factors, including historical traditions, political culture, length of immigration, population scale, degree of social organization, economic status, and the legal environment, while also being closely related to the long-formed values and modes of action of different groups. Silence does not necessarily mean cowardice, nor does resistance necessarily mean correctness. What is truly worth pondering is that—whether through revolution or non-revolution—expressing reasonable demands and striving for appropriate rights on a legal and compliant basis contains nothing wrong and harbors no fault; rather, it is worthy of encouragement and praise, as no democratic country should restrict its people’s expression. However, if such modes of expression escalate to fanning the flames or threatening personal safety, that must be put to an end. Regardless of race, as long as one lives on French territory, one should love this country and refrain from constantly using racism as an excuse to manufacture conflicts and turmoil, which spoils the true essence of democratic movements. The “patriotism” endlessly preached by the CCP can also be learned from by democratic countries: when people immigrate to this country, speak the same language, breathe the same air, and eat the same baguettes, they are brothers regardless of skin color. If the state treats us unfairly, we unite to oppose and express it; if the state treats us well, we unite to support it. But one must never follow the Communist Party—forcing class divisions where there are no classes, or building a wall where there are no estrangements. If people of the same ethnicity cannot even unite among themselves, how can they unite the people of the world?
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing
Multi-Ethnic Rally in San Francisco on National Day of Mourning Protests CCP Tyranny
Author: Lyu Xiaojing
On October 1, 2026, participants of diverse ethnic backgrounds attended the “Joint Protest Rally on the National Day of Mourning” in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco (Photo provided by Guan Yongjie).
[San Francisco] On the afternoon of October 1, 2026, protesters from Chinese, Hong Kong, Tibetan, and other communities gathered in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China in San Francisco for the “Joint Protest Rally on the National Day of Mourning — Speaking Up for Freedom, Human Rights, and Dignity.” Through speeches, banners, and symbolic installations, participants commemorated the victims, condemned the autocratic rule of the Chinese Communist Party, and called for the release of prisoners of conscience, an end to forced assimilation and transnational repression, and the safeguarding of regional peace.
As the Chinese Communist Party celebrated the 77th anniversary of the founding of its regime, the demonstrators chose to stand before the consulate to give voice to the suffering hidden behind official celebrations: those who lost their lives to political persecution, prisoners of conscience still languishing in prison, and families enduring forced disappearances, separation, and fear. They emphasized that a nation’s development cannot come at the expense of its people’s fundamental rights, nor can grand celebrations substitute for accountability regarding historical responsibilities.
This event was co-sponsored by organizations including the Chinese Democracy Education Foundation, the San Francisco Branch of the Democracy Party of China, the Northern California Hong Kong Club, the US Hong Kongers Club, and the Chinese Youth for Tibet, alongside related Tibetan, Uyghur, Vietnamese, and Philippine organizations.
On site, numerous flags were displayed alongside slogans written in Chinese and English. Demands such as “Freedom is not a gift, but a right,” “Freedom of speech is not a crime,” and “Stop political persecution” connected the shared experiences of different communities. Participants held up portraits of Xi Jinping marked with red crosses to express their protest against his rule, while banners reading “National Day of Mourning: Never Forget the Suffering” served to remind people to pay attention to the victims and their families who have yet to see justice served.
Diverse ethnic groups spoke out with a unified voice, addressing issues ranging from individual freedom to regional peace.
This rally was co-hosted by Zhou Yunlong, a member of the Democracy Party of China, Jack Duong, founder of the Asian Alliance Against China Occupation and Repression, along with emcees from other ethnic communities. The emcees extended greetings to participants from Chinese, Hong Kong, Tibetan, East Turkestan, Southern Mongolian, Vietnamese, Philippine, and other communities, emphasizing that although different ethnic groups have their own distinct historical experiences and contemporary concerns, they are able to stand together to defend freedom, human rights, and dignity.
In their opening remarks, the emcees condemned the Chinese Communist Party’s suppression of political participation, expression, and ethnic cultures, while putting forward three demands: restoring civil liberties, democracy, and human rights in Hong Kong and Mainland China; halting religious persecution, cultural suppression, and crimes against humanity targeted at oppressed ethnic groups and communities; and ending illegal maritime expansion while respecting the territorial integrity of sovereign nations.
On site, numerous individuals from diverse ethnic groups and communities spoke in succession, voicing their protest against the autocratic rule of the Chinese Communist Party and its related policies from various perspectives—ranging from political persecution, religious freedom, and the protection of ethnic languages and cultures, to sovereignty, security, and regional peace.
These speeches brought grand political issues back to the lives of ordinary people: whether a child can learn their mother tongue, whether a family can freely practice their faith, whether a citizen can publicly express their opinions, and whether a nation can safeguard its culture and homeland. The demands of different communities intersected in front of the consulate, echoing the theme of the event—”Different Nations, A Common Pursuit.”
Tibetan Representative: Language, Faith, and Identity Are Not Crimes.
Gangchen Wangmo, board member of the San Francisco Regional Tibetan Youth Congress (SFRTYC), stated in her speech that as the Chinese Communist Party celebrates the founding of its regime, they choose to remember the suffering, speak the truth, and condemn the forced assimilation targeting the language, religion, and culture of Tibetans.
“Our language is not a crime, our religion is not a crime, our culture is not a crime, and our identity is not a crime,” she emphasized, adding that children should be able to speak their parents’ language, understand their own history, and grow up in their own cultural traditions.
She called for disclosing the whereabouts and health condition of the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, restoring his freedom, and releasing Tibetan political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. She also criticized policies that separate Tibetan children from their families, mother tongue, and cultural traditions.
In commemorating Tibetans who protested through self-immolation, she made clear that remembrance is not about glorifying death, but demanding a future where no one is driven to such actions out of despair. She emphasized that what they oppose is oppression, not the Chinese people; diverse ethnic groups should jointly defend freedom, dignity, and the right to determine their own futures.
Giovanni Vassallo, President of Bay Area Friends of Tibet, commemorated Kelsang Namtso, a 17-year-old Tibetan nun, stating that she was shot and killed on September 30, 2006, while fleeing Tibet. He also recalled the 1987 Lhasa protests and the subsequent crackdowns, calling on people not to allow the victims to be forgotten.
Giovanni Vassallo criticized ethnic unity laws, the surveillance mechanisms known as the “red armband contingents,” as well as the pressure placed on Tibetan communities by mega-dam and mining projects. He noted that when independent reporting is restricted and the voices of local residents are suppressed, it becomes extremely difficult for those affected to either protect their homelands or seek outside help.
Expressing solidarity with the various ethnic groups participating in the rally, he concluded his speech by stating, “We will not be silent, nor will we stop fighting for freedom until Tibet is free.”
Duan Jingji, President of Chinese Youth for Tibet, expressed her protest with the statement “There is no celebration, only shame,” and voiced strong dissatisfaction with the U.S. Secretary of State extending congratulations on the National Day of the People’s Republic of China. She maintained that when political prisoners remain incarcerated and human rights continue to be trampled upon, diplomatic etiquette and economic interests should never serve as excuses to overlook suffering.
She spoke of her friend Zhang Yadi (Tara), who is currently detained in China, as well as friends in the United States who lie awake at night fearing immigration enforcement. To her, freedom and security are intrinsically linked to concrete individuals around her and the constant fear they endure every day.
Invoking the poet Hai Zi’s line, “Though thousands of people choose to extinguish their fires, I alone shall hold this fire high,” Duan Jingji expressed her determination to continue speaking out. She dedicated this fire to the political prisoners in prisons, the anonymous souls lost in disasters, and the people who have gradually grown numb under oppression, calling on everyone to resist isolation through mutual support and to break the silence through public expression.
She emphasized that although the languages and experiences of different ethnic groups may vary, they can stand shoulder to shoulder in pursuit of freedom—remembering and guarding one another even when the world overlooks their suffering.
Mourning the Victims, Questioning Unchecked Power.
Yang Chaoquan, a member of the Democracy Party of China, opened his speech by stating, “While some are celebrating, we are here mourning.” He expressed that they mourn those who lost their lives under autocratic rule, noting that behind every victim lies a family that has suffered a devastating blow.
He recalled the Great Leap Forward famine, successive political campaigns, the Cultural Revolution, and the June Fourth Massacre, while addressing the admonishment of Li Wenliang, medical access dilemmas during the Zero-COVID policy, the Guizhou bus quarantine transport crash, and the Urumqi fire. He criticized that unchecked power not only causes disasters, but also evades accountability by suppressing the truth, forcing ordinary people to repeatedly bear the cost.
In his speech, mourning was closely linked to accountability: victims should not be reduced to mere names or strings of numbers, nor should the power responsible for these harms escape accountability through collective amnesia. He expressed his demands with the chant, “Down with the Communist Party, restore our democracy; end tyranny, restore our freedom!”
Li Shuqing, a member of the Democracy Party of China, likewise called for confronting the plight of victims of political campaigns over the seventy-seven years since the establishment of the Chinese Communist Party regime. He expressed that economic and military expansion cannot offset the reality of people being deprived of their freedoms, nor should a nation’s development be built upon sacrificing fundamental rights and threatening regional peace.
He called on the international community to take concrete action to hold accountable and constrain acts of political persecution and the disruption of regional peace, demanding an “end to one-party dictatorship, and the restoration of freedom and dignity to the people.”
A cardboard installation in the shape of a coffin was also set up at the venue, with one part bearing protest slogans such as “Democracy is Unstoppable” and “Eliminate the Communist Party,” topped with a portrait of Xi Jinping marked with a red cross. Through this symbolic installation, participants expressed their demand to end CCP rule.
On the coffin-shaped cardboard installation at the rally site, a portrait of Xi Jinping was displayed, with text such as “BURY CCP” visible on its side, expressing the participants’ position in opposition to the rule of the Chinese Communist Party.
Another coffin-shaped installation was inscribed with “Democracy is Unstoppable” and “Eliminate the Communist Party,” topped with a portrait of Xi Jinping marked with a red cross.
For those who cannot speak out, and for the next generation who should not inherit fear.
Yao Rongtao, a member of the Democracy Party of China, stated that certain memories must not be forgotten, certain voices must not be silenced, and certain bottom lines must not be crossed. He emphasized: “Freedom is not a crime, and human rights are not a gift.” When truth is blockaded, dissidents are suppressed, and fundamental rights can be arbitrarily stripped away, people must persist in making their voices heard.
He called for peaceful yet firm action to strive for the rights of those who cannot be present, and to safeguard a future for the next generation where they can speak the truth and remain free from fear.
Miao Qingzhong, Director of the Propaganda Department of the San Francisco Branch of the Democracy Party of China, stated in an on-site interview that participating in this event is to remember the victims and for the future of the Chinese people. She emphasized that precisely out of love for China and concern for its people, they chose to stand up against autocracy and demand that power be constrained.
Miao Qing expressed her hope that the Chinese people can possess freedom of speech, faith, association, and political participation, and truly decide the country’s future. She noted that mourning the deceased also means protecting the living, and that the next generation must not be allowed to continue suffering the same harms.
Lyu Xiaojing, Deputy Director of the Propaganda Department of the Democracy Party of China, strongly condemned the autocratic tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party at the scene.
“No matter how grand the celebration, it cannot conceal the tears of the people! The nation belongs to the people; no political party has the right to treat the nation as its private property!” She stated that without checks on power, the freedom and dignity of the people can hardly be guaranteed.
She condemned the blocking of truth, the suppression of speech, the persecution of faith, and the pressuring of outspoken individuals’ families, emphasizing: “Telling the truth should not be a crime, adhering to faith should not face persecution, and loved ones should never become tools used to coerce us into silence!”
“We cannot allow our children to continue inheriting fear!” Lyu Xiaojing called for peaceful yet firm action to speak out for prisoners of conscience and torn-apart families, striving for a democratic system in which the people can make their own choices and power must submit to oversight.
Cross-ethnic solidarity allows suffering to be seen and forces power to be questioned.
From mourning the victims to expressing solidarity with prisoners of conscience, and from safeguarding ethnic languages and faiths to opposing transnational repression and maintaining regional peace, this National Day of Mourning rally brought together the voices of diverse communities into a unified protest against autocracy. Speakers repeatedly emphasized that freedom and dignity cannot be arbitrarily granted or revoked by power, nor should the people endure persecution for expressing opinions, adhering to faith, or safeguarding their own cultures.
In front of the consulate, participants demonstrated their determination through peaceful yet firm actions: refusing to allow celebrations to obscure blood and tears, refusing to let fear force them into silence, and refusing to let the next generation continue to bear oppression. Remembering history, demanding accountability, ending autocracy, and returning power to the people became the shared call echoing throughout the venue.
Different languages tell of a shared, inviolable dignity; different histories connect a mutual promise to watch over one another. For the participants on site, the meaning of mourning lies in taking continued action—so that those imprisoned may regain their freedom, the families of the disappeared may receive the truth, suppressed voices may find response, and every individual can decide their own future with dignity.
List of pro-democracy activists participating in this event: Fang Zheng, Hu Pizheng, Zhou Yunlong, Yang Chaoquan, Miao Qing, Dong Xinzhan, Lyu Xiaojing, Cai Xiaoli, Zhao Ming, Yao Rongtao, Li Shuqing, Liu Jingtao, Wu Zhichuang, Chen Senfeng, Zhou Junhong, Luo Yanli, Wei Renxi, Gao Zhibin, Gu Tao, among others (in no particular order).
Highlights from the event site.
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Ge Bing
