作者：杨长兵

编辑：李晶 校对：熊辩 翻译：彭小梅

每年的复活节，都会让人重新面对一个古老而尖锐的问题：当真理被处死之后，它是否还能回来？

两千年前，耶稣被钉在十字架上。那不是一场偶然的悲剧，而是一场典型的“体制性处理”——一个不掌握权力、却影响人心的人，被视为威胁，从而被清除。从政治逻辑上看，这样的结局再熟悉不过：制造一个公开的终点，让所有人相信事情已经结束。

而在当代中国，“六·四”事件，同样被处理为一个“必须结束”的历史节点。1989年，北京街头曾聚集无数学生与市民，他们呼喊的不是暴力革命，而是更基本的诉求：反腐败、要对话、要表达的权利。然而，随着武力介入，这一切被强行终止。

枪声之后，是更漫长的沉默。与许多历史事件不同，“六·四”并没有在公共叙事中被反复讨论、反思、纪念；相反，它被系统性地从教育、媒体与日常语言中剥离。

仿佛只要不提起，它就不曾发生。这正是独裁社会处理“危险记忆”的典型方式。

不仅要结束事件本身，还要结束关于它的一切可能延续。

如果说十字架是对肉体的处决，那么遗忘，就是对历史的二次处决。然而，复活节所讲述的，恰恰是另一种结局。耶稣被安放在坟墓中，封石、看守、确认死亡——一切都符合“彻底终结”的标准。但第三天，坟墓是空的。

复活的意义，不只是生命的回归，而是对“终结权”的否定：权力可以宣告结束，但无法保证结束真的发生。这正是复活与独裁社会之间最根本的张力。独裁体制依赖一种能力——定义现实的边界:什么可以存在，什么必须消失,什么可以被记住，什么必须被遗忘。而“复活”则意味着，这种定义并不具有最终效力。

回到“六·四”，从表面上看，它似乎已经被成功“埋葬”：在许多人的日常生活中，它不被提起、不被讨论、不被教学，甚至不被搜索。但在另一个层面，它却始终没有真正消失。

它存在于流亡者的讲述中，存在于海外的纪念中，存在于零散保存的影像与文字中，也存在于一代人无法抹去的记忆里。这是一种“未完成的埋葬”。换句话说，它仍然在等待一种属于历史的“复活”。

当然，这种复活不会像宗教叙述那样以奇迹的形式出现。它更可能是一种缓慢而艰难的过程：

当更多人重新了解那段历史，当沉默被一点点打破，当记忆重新进入公共空间——那一刻，就是历史的回归。

然而，复活从来不是自动发生的。在耶稣复活之后，是一群门徒选择站出来见证。他们面对恐惧，却仍然讲述所发生的事。如果没有这些见证者，“空坟墓”只会成为一个无人知晓的秘密。

同样的，“六·四”的记忆是否能够延续，也取决于是否仍有人愿意记住、讲述、传递。在一个鼓励遗忘的环境中，记忆本身就是一种行动。它也许微弱，但并非没有力量。

因此，把复活节与“六·四”放在一起，并不是简单的类比，而是一种更深的提问：当一个时代试图埋葬真理，我们是否相信它仍然可能回来。复活节给出的回答是肯定的，但也附带一个条件：必须有人，拒绝把坟墓当作终点。在独裁社会中，真正被恐惧的，往往不是一次抗议，而是那种挥之不去的记忆——它不会立刻改变现实，却会在时间中不断积累力量。因为一旦人们意识到：被压制的并未消失，被禁止的仍可被记住，那么“完全控制”的神话就会出现裂缝。

或许，这正是复活节在今天最现实的意义：你可以埋葬一段历史，但你无法保证，它不会在某一天，被重新看见。

Easter and June Fourth: When Truth Is Buried

Author: Yang ChangbingEditor: Li Jing Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Every year, Easter brings people back to face an ancient and sharp question: after truth has been executed, can it still return?

Two thousand years ago, Jesus was nailed to the cross. That was not an accidental tragedy, but a typical case of “systemic handling”—a person without power, yet influential over people’s hearts, was regarded as a threat and thus eliminated. From a political logic perspective, such an ending is all too familiar: to create a public endpoint, so that everyone believes the matter has already ended.

In contemporary China, the “June Fourth” incident has similarly been handled as a historical node that “must be ended.” In 1989, countless students and citizens gathered on the streets of Beijing. What they called for was not violent revolution, but more basic demands: opposition to corruption, the right to dialogue, and the right to expression. However, with the intervention of force, all of this was forcibly terminated.

After the gunfire came an even longer silence. Unlike many historical events, “June Fourth” has not been repeatedly discussed, reflected upon, or commemorated in public narratives; on the contrary, it has been systematically stripped from education, media, and everyday language.

As if by not mentioning it, it never happened. This is precisely the typical way an authoritarian society handles “dangerous memory.”

It is not only necessary to end the event itself, but also to end all possible continuations of it.

If the cross was an execution of the body, then forgetting is a second execution of history. However, what Easter tells is precisely another kind of ending. Jesus was placed in a tomb, sealed with a stone, guarded, and his death confirmed—everything met the standard of “complete termination.” But on the third day, the tomb was empty.

The meaning of resurrection is not only the return of life, but the negation of the “power to declare an ending”: power can declare an end but cannot guarantee that the end has truly occurred. This is precisely the most fundamental tension between resurrection and authoritarian society. Authoritarian systems rely on one capability—the ability to define the boundaries of reality: what may exist, what must disappear, what may be remembered, and what must be forgotten. And “resurrection” means that such definitions do not possess final authority.

Returning to “June Fourth.” On the surface, it seems to have been successfully “buried”: in the daily lives of many people, it is not mentioned, not discussed, not taught, and not even searchable. But on another level, it has never truly disappeared.

It exists in the accounts of exiles, in commemorations overseas, in scattered preserved images and texts, and in the memories that a generation cannot erase. This is a kind of “unfinished burial.” In other words, it is still waiting for a kind of “resurrection” that belongs to history.

Of course, such a resurrection will not appear in the form of a miracle as in religious narratives. It is more likely to be a slow and difficult process:

When more people come to understand that period of history again, when silence is gradually broken, when memory re-enters public space—that moment is the return of history.

However, resurrection never happens automatically. After Jesus’s resurrection, it was a group of disciples who chose to step forward to bear witness. They faced fear yet still spoke of what had happened. Without these witnesses, the “empty tomb” would only have remained an unknown secret.

Likewise, whether the memory of “June Fourth” can continue also depends on whether there are still people willing to remember, to tell, and to pass it on. In an environment that encourages forgetting, memory itself is an action. It may be weak, but it is not without power.

Therefore, placing Easter and “June Fourth” together is not a simple analogy, but a deeper question: when an era attempts to bury truth, do we believe it can still return? The answer given by Easter is affirmative, but it comes with a condition: there must be people who refuse to treat the tomb as the endpoint. In an authoritarian society, what is truly feared is often not a single protest, but that kind of lingering memory—it does not immediately change reality but accumulates power over time. Because once people realize that what has been suppressed has not disappeared, and what has been forbidden can still be remembered, then the myth of “total control” will begin to crack.

Perhaps this is precisely the most realistic meaning of Easter today: you can bury a piece of history, but you cannot guarantee that it will not, one day, be seen again.

旧金山民主集会通告

主题：致敬为众人抱薪者——呼吁中共立即释放所有良心犯

时间：2026年4月18日周六上午10：30

地点：旧金山中领馆（1450 Laguna St,San Francisco）

2026年4月18日 本周六 4:19

200 E Garvey Ave,Monterey Park, CA

洛杉矶线下分享会——女性政治异见者的力量。

硬糖联盟成立一周年。

距离2026年9月18日

黄雪琴 释放日

倒计时还有158天

作为女性，你是改变国家不可或缺的力量。

作者：彭硕
编辑：李晶 校对：周敏 翻译：周敏

共产主义作为一种政治与经济学说，在理论上追求消除阶级差异、实现资源平等分配。然而在不同国家的实践中，其政治形态往往演变为权力高度集中的统治结构，且多由强势领导人长期主导。从前苏联在斯大林统治时期，到波尔布特领导下的红色高棉政权，再到当代由习近平与金正恩主导的政治体系，这些领导人普遍被外界视为高度集权的独裁者。

这些案例在具体历史与国情上存在差异，但在权力结构上呈现出相似特征：当政治权力不依赖竞争性选举产生，且缺乏有效制衡机制时，权力更容易集中于个人，并逐步固化为以个人为中心的统治模式。共产主义政权的权力并非来自于选票，而是通过政党内部的权力斗争和一系列复杂的政治操作实现的，政权的获取方式并不是基于合法的民主程序。缺乏选票的支持，共产主义政权的领导人缺乏民意基础，他们的权力来源是强权和暴力。正如毛泽东所言，“枪杆子里面出政权”。这种权力来源方式，使得共产主义政权在本质上是一种独裁统治。

据最高人民法院公布的司法统计，近几年全国因贪污贿赂罪被判刑的人数，发生了显著变化，其中最引人注目的是重刑比例的持续攀升。2017年，被判处五年以上有期徒刑直至死刑的人数为2124人，到2024年，这一数字已上升至6630人，短短数年间增长超过三倍。重刑比例持续上升，这一现象表明，在高压反腐背景下，腐败问题可能并未明显收敛，而反腐在一定程度上也可能承担内部权力调整的功能，即以反腐之名来打压异己。与此同时，相关治理方式并未侧重于如公开官员财产等常见的制度性反腐手段。

据保护记者委员会（CPJ）的统计，中国长期是全球关押记者最多的国家之一，约40至50人。与此同时，根据无国界记者组织（RSF）发布的新闻自由指数显示，中国多年来持续处于全球排名末端（178/180）。从阶段性变化来看，一个更关键的差异：在胡锦涛时期，信息控制主要集中于传统媒体与关键政治议题，而在习近平时期，管控范围明显扩大至社交平台与个人表达层面，形成对内容生产、传播与反馈的全链条管理。同时，《网络安全法》（2017）、《数据安全法》（2021）与《个人信息保护法》（2021）相继实施，使信息控制进一步制度化与法律化。控制范围与方式转变为从以媒体为中心的管控，演变为覆盖整个社会的信息治理体系，其广度与执行强度均显著提升。这些变化反映出权力运行方式的进一步集中化趋势，作为“第四权”的媒体也沦为舆论宣传工具，这种独裁统治不仅抑制了社会的多样性和创造力，更导致了权力的滥用和严重的腐败问题。

习近平甚至能直接修改宪法，取消了国家主席任期限制，做终身主席。这种权力的高度集中，使得他可以肆无忌惮地推行自己的政策，而不必担心任何反对声音。这种独裁作风上行下效，导致下面的省市级官员也效仿其治理方式。在民主制度中，权力的制衡和监督机制是防止权力滥用的重要手段。司法、立法和行政三权分立，互相制衡，确保权力的行使符合公众利益。然而，在共产主义政权下，这种制衡机制缺失。政党和政府合二为一，党内的权力斗争取代了正常的政治竞争和监督机制。这种缺乏制衡和监督的体制，导致了领导人的决策缺乏透明度，没有有效的监督，领导人可以任意制定政策，而不必考虑政策的实际效果和对公众的影响。结果，社会资源被浪费，民众利益受损，比如贵州独山县人口不到40万，却欠下400亿高额负债做形象工程；类似地，雄安新区作为习近平亲自规划的项目已累计投入约1万亿元人民币，但目前人口导入进度与预期之间存在重大差距，项目在规划阶段缺乏公开听证机制，建设过程中也没有公开的审计。这类案例都指向一个共同问题：当决策缺乏外部反馈机制时，项目更容易呈现“先巨量投入、后匹配需求”的路径，这一机制在多个案例中有所体现。

在共产主义政权中，领导人对民众的责任感缺失。这不仅是因为权力集中和缺乏监督，更是因为领导人的选拔和任免机制本身存在问题。在这种体制下，领导人的升迁往往依赖于政治忠诚和派系斗争，而不是实际的治理能力和民众的支持。所以领导人并不真正关心普通民众的切身利益，加之缺乏媒体的监督，导致问题更加严重。以中国历年的抗洪救灾为例。江泽民和胡锦涛在任期间，社会舆论并没有像习近平时代这样管控程度显著增强，媒体还能批评政府。在重大灾害来临时，江、胡都会在第一时间亲自到达现场，至少在形式上表现出对灾区的关注和对民众的关怀。然而，习近平自上任以来，媒体逐渐被禁声，他很少在第一时间到达过任何重大的灾害现场，他只是发了无数的批示。权力只对权力的来源负责，不是通过选票上台的领导人，不会真正关心民众的疾苦和国家的长远发展，他们更关心的是如何巩固自己的权力和地位。

习近平通过其执政表现，亲自指挥亲自演示了共产主义的本质就是独裁。共产主义政权的虚假本质，在于其权力来源的非民主性、缺乏有效的制衡和监督机制以及领导人责任感的缺失。这种体制不仅难以实现其所宣称的平等与繁荣，反而可能导致权力滥用、腐败加剧与社会不公，并在一定程度上影响发展的质量与可持续性。

The Trend of Dictatorship in Communist Systems: Taking Xi Jinping as an Example

Author: Peng Shuo
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Zhou Min

Communism, as a political and economic theory, theoretically pursues the elimination of class differences and the realization of equal distribution of resources. However, in the practice of different countries, its political form often evolves into a ruling structure with highly concentrated power, and is mostly dominated by strong leaders for long periods. From the former Soviet Union during Stalin’s rule, to the Khmer Rouge regime under Pol Pot, to the contemporary political systems dominated by Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un, these leaders are generally regarded by the outside world as highly centralized dictators.

While these cases differ in specific history and national conditions, they present similar characteristics in power structure: when political power does not arise from competitive elections and lacks effective checks and balances, power is more easily concentrated in an individual and gradually solidifies into an individual-centered ruling model. The power of communist regimes does not come from votes, but is achieved through internal power struggles within the political party and a series of complex political operations; the method of acquiring power is not based on legitimate democratic procedures. Lacking the support of votes, leaders of communist regimes lack a basis in public opinion; the source of their power is might and violence. Just as Mao Zedong said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” This method of sourcing power makes communist regimes essentially a form of dictatorial rule.

According to judicial statistics released by the Supreme People’s Court, the number of people sentenced for crimes of embezzlement and bribery nationwide has undergone significant changes in recent years, the most striking of which is the continuous rise in the proportion of heavy sentences. In 2017, the number of people sentenced to more than five years of fixed-term imprisonment up to the death penalty was 2,124; by 2024, this figure had risen to 6,630, an increase of more than three times in just a few years. The continuous rise in the proportion of heavy sentences indicates that, against the backdrop of high-pressure anti-corruption efforts, the problem of corruption may not have significantly receded, and anti-corruption may also, to a certain extent, assume the function of internal power adjustment—that is, using the name of anti-corruption to suppress dissidents. Meanwhile, relevant governance methods have not focused on common institutional anti-corruption measures such as the public disclosure of officials’ assets.

According to statistics from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), China has long been one of the countries that imprisons the most journalists in the world, approximately 40 to 50 people. At the same time, according to the Press Freedom Index released by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), China has for many years consistently ranked at the bottom of the world (178/180). Looking at stage-by-stage changes, there is an even more critical difference: during the Hu Jintao era, information control was mainly concentrated on traditional media and key political issues, whereas in the Xi Jinping era, the scope of control has clearly expanded to social media platforms and individual expression, forming a full-chain management of content production, dissemination, and feedback. Simultaneously, the Cybersecurity Law (2017), the Data Security Law (2021), and the Personal Information Protection Law (2021) were implemented successively, making information control further institutionalized and legalized. The scope and methods of control have evolved from media-centric management into an information governance system covering the entire society, with both breadth and execution intensity significantly enhanced. These changes reflect a trend of further centralization in the way power operates; the media, as the “fourth estate,” has also been reduced to a propaganda tool. This dictatorial rule not only suppresses social diversity and creativity but also leads to the abuse of power and serious corruption issues.

Xi Jinping was even able to directly amend the Constitution, abolishing the term limits for the President of the State to become a president for life. This high concentration of power allows him to push through his own policies unscrupulously without worrying about any opposing voices. This dictatorial style is emulated by subordinates, leading provincial and municipal officials to imitate his governance methods. In democratic systems, the mechanism of checks and balances and supervision of power is an important means to prevent the abuse of power. The separation of powers among the judiciary, legislature, and executive ensures that the exercise of power aligns with the public interest. However, under communist regimes, this check-and-balance mechanism is missing. The party and the government merge into one, and internal party power struggles replace normal political competition and supervision mechanisms. This system, lacking checks and balances and supervision, leads to a lack of transparency in the leader’s decision-making. Without effective supervision, the leader can formulate policies arbitrarily without having to consider the actual effects of the policies or their impact on the public. As a result, social resources are wasted and public interests are damaged. For example, Dushan County in Guizhou, with a population of less than 400,000, incurred a high debt of 40 billion yuan to build “image projects”; similarly, the Xiong’an New Area, a project personally planned by Xi Jinping, has accumulated an investment of approximately 1 trillion yuan, but there is currently a significant gap between the progress of population introduction and expectations. The project lacked a public hearing mechanism during the planning stage, and there was no public audit during the construction process. These types of cases point to a common problem: when decision-making lacks an external feedback mechanism, projects are more likely to follow a path of “massive initial investment followed by matching demand,” a mechanism reflected in multiple cases.

In communist regimes, leaders lack a sense of responsibility toward the people. This is not only because of the concentration of power and lack of supervision, but also because the selection and appointment mechanisms for leaders themselves are problematic. Under this system, the promotion of leaders often depends on political loyalty and factional struggles rather than actual governance ability and public support. Therefore, leaders do not truly care about the vital interests of ordinary people; coupled with the lack of media supervision, the problems become more serious. Take China’s flood control and disaster relief over the years as an example. During the terms of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, social public opinion was not controlled to the significant degree it is in the Xi Jinping era, and the media could still criticize the government. When major disasters struck, both Jiang and Hu would arrive at the scene at the first opportunity, at least formally demonstrating concern for the disaster area and care for the people. However, since Xi Jinping took office, the media has gradually been silenced; he has rarely arrived at the scene of any major disaster at the first opportunity; instead, he has merely issued countless “instructions.” Power is only responsible to the source of power. Leaders who did not take office through votes will not truly care about the suffering of the people or the long-term development of the country; they are more concerned with how to consolidate their own power and position.

Through his governance performance, Xi Jinping has personally commanded and demonstrated that the essence of communism is dictatorship. The false nature of communist regimes lies in the non-democratic source of their power, the lack of effective checks and balances and supervision mechanisms, and the lack of responsibility among leaders. This system not only struggles to achieve the equality and prosperity it claims but may instead lead to the abuse of power, intensified corruption, and social injustice, and to a certain extent, affect the quality and sustainability of development.

作者：卢超
编辑：李晶 校对：周敏 翻译：周敏

2023年初，陕西宜川检察院的官方微博发了一句让人脊背发凉的话：“如果弱小是一种错，那你就只能等着被践踏。要么被践踏，要么变强大。”

这句话虽然很快被删了，但它像是一不小心说漏了嘴，把那种隐秘的丛林法则摆到了台面上。它传达了一个极其危险的信号：在权力面前，如果你不够“强大”，你的权利被践踏就是理所当然。这哪里是法治，这分明是弱肉强食的原始法则。

一、被层层包装的“大局观”

在我们的生活中，经常能听到一个词，叫“顾全大局”。

当你的房子被违规强拆时，有人让你顾全城市发展的“大局”；当你的合法言论被莫名封禁时，有人让你顾全社会稳定的“大局”；当法律程序被随意跳过时，有人告诉你这是为了效率的“大局”。

在这种逻辑下，“法制”变成了一张可以随时折叠、随时修剪的纸。权力阶层之所以一直弱化法制的严肃性，是因为法制本质上是讲“死理”的。法律讲究的是流程、是权利、是证据。而“大局”则是一个弹性的口袋，什么都能往里装。只要祭出“大局”这个旗号，法律的约束就可以被绕开，权力的运行就能变得“无拘无束”。

说白了，弱化法制，本质上是为了维持一种“不容挑战的权力意志”。

二、公民眼里的“法”与权力眼里的“术”

对于普通公民来说，法制是救命稻草。 我们之所以需要法制，是因为我们大多数人终其一生都是平庸且弱小的。我们没有通天的关系，也没有挥霍不尽的财富，我们唯一的护身符就是那本写在纸上的法律。法制社会应该保证：哪怕你是一个最底层的送外卖的小哥，你在法律面前的尊严也应该和任何一个官员平等。

但对于权力运行者来说，法制往往被看作一种“管理术”。 在这种视角下，法律不是用来约束权力的，而是用来管理百姓的。当法律方便管理时，就拿出来用；当法律妨碍了权力的扩张或某种目标的实现时，就把它晾在一边。宜川检察院那句“要么变强大”，其实就是这种权力心态的真实写照——在他们眼里，规则是给弱者定的，而强者可以制定规则，甚至超越规则。

三、为什么我们不能只靠“变强大”？

如果一个社会真的像宜川检察院说的那样，只能靠“变强大”来获得安全感，那这个社会一定会崩溃。

因为“强大”是相对的。处长比科长强大，局长比处长强大。如果大家都崇尚丛林法则，那么谁都没有真正的安全感。今天你用权力践踏别人，明天更强大的权力就能践踏你。这种人制社会的恶性循环，只会带来无穷无尽的尔虞我诈和互害。

法制社会的作用，就是把这种“强弱对比”给抹平。它告诉所有人：你不必非得变成一个浑身长刺的强者才能生存。只要你守法，你就有权利活得舒坦。

四、写在最后：

人类文明之所以进步，就是因为我们学会了把权力关进笼子，把尊严还给个人。

中共提倡的“大局”，往往是一个没有具体面孔的宏大叙事；而公民需要的“法制”，则是每一个具体的人、每一桩具体的案子、每一份具体的权利都能得到保护。人类之所以需要法制社会，就是为了让我们在面对那个庞大的、冰冷的“大局”时，依然拥有说“不”的底气。我们不需要一个逼着我们变强大的丛林，我们需要一个能让弱者也能体面生活的文明世界。这就是为什么，法制必须高于任何所谓的“大局”。

Citizens Need a Rule-of-Law Society, While the CCP Wants You to “Take the Big Picture into Account”

Author: Lu Chao

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

In early 2023, the official Weibo account of the Yichuan Procuratorate in Shaanxi posted a sentence that made people’s spines tingle: “If being weak is a mistake, then you can only wait to be trampled. Either be trampled, or become powerful.”

Although this sentence was quickly deleted, it was like a slip of the tongue that accidentally laid the hidden law of the jungle out on the table. It conveyed an extremely dangerous signal: in the face of power, if you are not “strong” enough, it is only natural for your rights to be trampled. This is not the rule of law at all; this is clearly the primitive law of the jungle where the weak are meat for the strong.

I. The Layer-upon-Layer Packaged “Big Picture View”

In our lives, we often hear a phrase called “taking the big picture into account” (guquan daju).

When your house is illegally demolished, someone tells you to take the “big picture” of urban development into account; when your legal speech is inexplicably censored, someone tells you to take the “big picture” of social stability into account; when legal procedures are skipped at will, someone tells you this is for the “big picture” of efficiency.

Under this logic, the “rule of law” becomes a piece of paper that can be folded or trimmed at any time. The reason the power class has always weakened the seriousness of the rule of law is that the rule of law, in essence, insists on “unyielding logic.” Law emphasizes process, rights, and evidence. The “big picture,” however, is an elastic bag into which anything can be stuffed. As long as the banner of the “big picture” is raised, the constraints of the law can be bypassed, and the operation of power can become “unrestrained.”

To put it bluntly, weakening the rule of law is essentially for the purpose of maintaining an “unchallengeable will of power.”

II. “Law” in the Eyes of Citizens vs. “Tactics” in the Eyes of Power

For ordinary citizens, the rule of law is a life-saving straw. The reason we need the rule of law is that most of us are mediocre and weak throughout our lives. We do not have sky-high connections, nor do we have inexhaustible wealth; our only protective amulet is that law written on paper. A rule-of-law society should guarantee that even if you are a delivery boy at the lowest level, your dignity before the law should be equal to that of any official.

But for those who exercise power, the rule of law is often viewed as a “management tactic.” In this perspective, the law is not used to restrain power, but to manage the common people. When the law is convenient for management, it is brought out and used; when the law hinders the expansion of power or the achievement of a certain goal, it is brushed aside. That sentence from the Yichuan Procuratorate—”either become powerful”—is actually a true portrayal of this power mindset: in their eyes, rules are set for the weak, while the strong can make the rules, or even transcend them.

III. Why Can’t We Just Rely on “Becoming Powerful”?

If a society truly functions as the Yichuan Procuratorate suggested, where one can only gain a sense of security by “becoming powerful,” then this society will surely collapse.

Because “power” is relative. A section chief is more powerful than a sub-section chief; a bureau chief is more powerful than a section chief. If everyone advocates for the law of the jungle, then no one has true security. Today you use power to trample others, and tomorrow an even greater power can trample you. This vicious cycle of a “rule of man” society will only bring endless intrigue and mutual harm.

The function of a rule-of-law society is to flatten this “contrast between the strong and the weak.” It tells everyone: you don’t necessarily have to become a thorn-covered “strong person” to survive. As long as you obey the law, you have the right to live comfortably.

IV. Final Thoughts:

The reason human civilization progresses is that we have learned to shut power in a cage and return dignity to the individual.

The “big picture” promoted by the CCP is often a grand narrative without a specific face; while the “rule of law” needed by citizens ensures that every specific person, every specific case, and every specific right can be protected. The reason humanity needs a rule-of-law society is so that when we face that massive, cold “big picture,” we still have the confidence to say “no.” We do not need a jungle that forces us to become powerful; we need a civilized world where even the weak can live with dignity. This is why the rule of law must be higher than any so-called “big picture.”

作者：杨长兵 编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍

2026年4月4日下午2点，自由雕塑公园再次成为见证历史的现场——“仰望星空·高智晟”雕塑正式落成。

这不仅是一场艺术仪式，更是一场对暴政的公开指认。

出席典礼的嘉宾包括美国国会及行政当局中国委员会（CECC）副幕僚长 Piero Tozzi，加州州长候选人 Che Ahn，中国著名维权律师高智晟的妻子 耿和，自由雕塑公园创办人、雕塑家 陈维明，中国民主党创党人之一 朱虞夫，美国越战老兵 Eddie Romero，中国人权执行主任 周锋锁，China Aid创办人 付希秋，中国人权联盟主席 金秀红，“六四”天安门事件受害者方政，台湾反共网红八炯，以及多位来自香港的民运人士。

他们的出现，本身就是一种立场。而这座雕塑所指向的，是一个至今仍未被回答的问题——一个人，如何能在国家机器之下，被“彻底抹去”？

高智晟，这位曾为底层民众、为宗教信仰者、为被压迫者辩护的律师，自2017年再次被强迫失踪后，至今已长达八年八个月，音讯全无。没有判决，没有程序，甚至没有一个“存在的证明”。这不是个案，这是制度。这是一个政权，对“良知”的系统性清除。

当天，数百名法轮功学员与各界人士到场。他们不是来“参加活动”，而是来证明一件事：记忆仍然存在，良知仍未屈服。

在发言中，多位嘉宾直指问题核心——中共长期以来对异见者、宗教群体及维权律师的打压，从来不是偶发事件，而是一种精密运作的统治方式。让人沉默，让人消失，让恐惧成为社会的底色。而这座雕塑，正是在打破这种沉默。它让一个被“消失”的人重新站立，让一个被掩盖的名字再次被呼喊。它不是纪念过去，而是在对抗正在发生的现实。

真正令人沉重的，并不是雕塑本身，而是它存在的原因。作为参与陈维明创作过程的一员，我亲眼见证了这件作品从无到有的诞生。但越是接近它，就越清楚——这不仅是一件艺术作品，而是一种抵抗。

在一个试图抹去记忆的体制面前，记录，本身就是反抗；

发声，本身就是行动。

他们让他消失。

而我们，让他被看见。

“Gazing at the Stars · Gao Zhisheng” Sculpture Unveiled at Liberty Sculpture Park

Author: Yang ChangbingEditor: Feng Reng. Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator:Peng Xiaomei

At 2:00 p.m. on April 4, 2026, Liberty Sculpture Park once again became a site witnessing history — the sculpture “Gazing at the Stars · Gao Zhisheng” was officially unveiled.

This is not only an artistic ceremony, but also a public identification of tyranny.

Guests attending the ceremony included Piero Tozzi, Deputy Staff Director of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC); Che Ahn, candidate for Governor of California; Geng He, wife of renowned Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng; Chen Weiming, founder of Liberty Sculpture Park and sculptor; Zhu Yufu, one of the founders of the China Democracy Party; Eddie Romero, U.S. Vietnam War veteran; Zhou Fengsuo, Executive Director of Human Rights in China; Fu Xiqiu, founder of China Aid; Jin Xiuhong, Chairwoman of the China Human Rights Alliance; Fang Zheng, victim of the June Fourth Tiananmen Incident; Taiwanese anti-communist internet influencer Ba Jiong; as well as multiple pro-democracy activists from Hong Kong.

Their presence itself is a position. And what this sculpture points to is a question that has yet to be answered — how can a person, under a state machine, be “completely erased”?

Gao Zhisheng, this lawyer who once defended grassroots citizens, religious believers, and the oppressed, has been forcibly disappeared again since 2017, and for eight years and eight months up to now, there has been no news of him. There has been no verdict, no procedure, and not even a single “proof of existence.” This is not an individual case; this is a system. This is a regime’s systematic eradication of “conscience.”

On that day, hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners and people from various sectors were present. They were not there to “attend an event,” but to prove one thing: memory still exists, and conscience has not yielded.

In the speeches, multiple guests pointed directly to the core issue — the Chinese Communist Party’s long-term suppression of dissidents, religious groups, and rights lawyers has never been an occasional occurrence, but a precisely operated method of rule. To make people silent, to make people disappear, to make fear become the background tone of society. And this sculpture is precisely breaking this silence. It allows a person who has been “disappeared” to stand again and allows a name that has been covered up to be called out once more. It is not commemorating the past but confronting a reality that is still ongoing.

What is truly heavy is not the sculpture itself, but the reason for its existence. As someone who participated in the creative process of Chen Weiming, I personally witnessed the birth of this work from nothing. But the closer one gets to it, the clearer it becomes — this is not only a work of art, but a form of resistance.

In the face of a system that attempts to erase memory, to record is, in itself, resistance.to speak out is, in itself, action.

They made him disappear.

And we make him be seen.

窗体顶端窗体底端

人权观察部 张维清 编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍 翻译：彭小梅

本期介绍被迫害人士：高智晟，1964年4月20日出生，籍贯陕西省佳县。原北京晟智律师事务所主任，2001年被中国司法部评为“全国十佳律师”。他以代理底层民众维权案件著称，被誉为“中国良心”和“维权运动先行者”。因大规模代理维权案件被吊销执照，是当代中国最具影响力的维权律师之一。

最新近况：

1、强迫失踪超 3156天：截至2026年4月4日，高智晟律师自2017年8月13日被从陕西老家带走后，已处于强迫失踪状态已达3156天。中共当局始终拒绝透露其关押地点或生存状态。

2、雕像落成：2026年4月4日，在加利福尼亚州的自由雕塑公园，多名人权活动人士为高智晟的雕像（名为《仰望星空——高智晟》）举行了揭幕，以纪念这位失踪多年的“中国良心”并呼吁各界持续关。雕塑展示了高智晟在黑暗环境下依然守望良知、追求法治的精神。

一、个人简历

1、贫寒出身与军旅：出生于陕西陕北，因家境贫寒未能读完中学，曾入伍参军，并在部队自学法律。

2、职业巅峰：1996年开始执业。2001年，因免费为底层民众代理医疗事故、强制拆迁等维权案件，被司法部评为“全国十佳律师”。

3、突破禁区：2004年起，他突破禁区代理多起政治及宗教敏感案件，包括朱久虎案、太石村罢免案，并三次上书国家领导人要求停止迫害法轮功。

二、政治立场

宪政民主支持者：高智晟在秘密撰写的著作《2017年，起来中国》中，从人权律师与基督徒的双重视角预言了中共体制的崩塌，主张在中国建立基于普世价值的宪政体制。

拒绝收买：他曾拒绝国企巨额利诱，坚持为弱势群体提供义务法律援助，主张“良知重于黄金”。

三、被捕与判刑经历

2006年：因“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”被判刑 3 年、缓刑 5 年，期间多次被失踪、酷刑。

2011年：在缓刑期满前夕，被撤销缓刑，转入新疆沙雅监狱服实刑 3 年。

2014年出狱后：回到陕西老家被长期软禁。因狱中长期酷刑及缺乏营养，50 岁时牙齿基本脱落殆尽且无法就医。

2017年8月13日：在维权人士协助下逃离陕西计划看牙，随后在山西被捕并再度失踪至今。

四、社会评价

国内维权群体尊称其为“中国良心”、“维权运动的教父”。他以一己之力公开挑战体制黑箱，展现了极高的道德高度。

五、国际评价：

诺贝尔奖提名：曾于 2008 年、2010 年等多次获得诺贝尔和平奖提名。

政府施压：美国国务院及美国国会曾多次通过决议，要求中共停止对其骚扰并恢复其律所资格。

人权组织关注：国际特赦组织、Front Line Defenders 及 Human Rights in China 等机构持续将其列为重点营救对象。

五、《在野党》人权观察部呼吁

停止强迫失踪：强迫失踪是严重违反国际人权法的行为。呼吁中共当局立即向其家属耿和及国际社会出示高智晟存活的证明。

保障基本医疗：鉴于高智晟在失踪前已满口牙齿脱落，健康状况危急，必须确保其获得专业医疗照顾。

推动法案落地：呼吁美、欧各国加速通过《高智晟法案》，利用外交及制裁手段（如禁止涉案官员入境、冻结资产）营救失踪的人权律师。

全社会关注：在每一个 8 月 13 日“高智晟失踪日”，我们呼吁所有正义人士在网络和线下为“中国良心”发声。

“In Opposition” China Human Rights Watch Brief No. 23 (April 4, 2026)

Human Rights Observation Department: Zhang WeiqingEditor: Feng Reng Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator:Peng Xiaomei

This issue introduces a persecuted individual: Gao Zhisheng, born on April 20, 1964, native of Jia County, Shaanxi Province. Former director of Beijing Shengzhi Law Firm. In 2001, he was named one of the “Top Ten Lawyers in China” by the Ministry of Justice. He is known for representing grassroots rights defense cases and is hailed as the “Conscience of China” and a “pioneer of the rights defense movement.” His license was revoked due to large-scale representation of rights defense cases, and he is one of the most influential human rights lawyers in contemporary China.

Latest Situation:

1. Forced disappearance for over 3,156 days:As of April 4, 2026, lawyer Gao Zhisheng has been in a state of enforced disappearance for 3,156 days since being taken away from his home in Shaanxi on August 13, 2017. The Chinese Communist authorities have consistently refused to disclose his place of detention or his condition of survival.

2. Statue unveiled:On April 4, 2026, at Liberty Sculpture Park in California, multiple human rights activists held an unveiling ceremony for Gao Zhisheng’s statue (titled “Gazing at the Stars — Gao Zhisheng”), in order to commemorate this “Conscience of China” who has been missing for many years and to call on all sectors to continue paying attention. The sculpture presents Gao Zhisheng’s spirit of still upholding conscience and pursuing the rule of law under a dark environment.

I. Personal Biography

1. Poor background and military experience:Born in northern Shaanxi, he was unable to complete middle school due to poverty, once enlisted in the military, and studied law by himself while serving.

2. Career peak:He began practicing law in 1996. In 2001, for providing free legal representation for grassroots citizens in cases such as medical malpractice and forced demolitions, he was named one of the “Top Ten Lawyers in China” by the Ministry of Justice.

3. Breaking forbidden zones:Starting in 2004, he broke through taboos by taking on multiple politically and religiously sensitive cases, including the Zhu Jiuhu case and the Taishi Village recall case, and wrote three open letters to state leaders calling for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong.

II. Political Position

Supporter of constitutional democracy:In his secretly written work “Stand Up, China in 2017”, Gao Zhisheng, from the dual perspectives of a human rights lawyer and a Christian, predicted the collapse of the CCP system and advocated for establishing a constitutional system in China based on universal values.

Refusal to be bought off:He once refused large financial inducements from state-owned enterprises, insisting on providing free legal aid to vulnerable groups, and advocated that “conscience is more important than gold.”

III. Arrest and Sentencing History

2006:He was sentenced to 3 years in prison with a 5-year probation for the crime of “inciting subversion of state power,” during which he repeatedly disappeared and subjected to torture.

2011:On the eve of the end of his probation period, his probation was revoked, and he was transferred to Shaya Prison in Xinjiang to serve a 3-year actual sentence.

After release in 2014:He returned to his hometown in Shaanxi and was placed under long-term house arrest. Due to prolonged torture in prison and lack of nutrition, by the age of 50 his teeth had almost completely fallen out, and he was unable to receive medical treatment.

August 13, 2017:With assistance from rights activists, he escaped from Shaanxi intending to seek dental treatment but was later arrested in Shanxi and has since disappeared again to this day.

IV. Social Evaluation

Within domestic rights defense circles, he is respectfully called the “Conscience of China” and the “godfather of the rights defense movement.” By his own efforts, he publicly challenged the opaque system and demonstrated an extremely high moral standard.

V. International Evaluation:

Nobel Prize nominations:He has been nominated multiple times for the Nobel Peace Prize, including in 2008 and 2010.

Government pressure:The U.S. State Department and the U.S. Congress have repeatedly passed resolutions calling on the Chinese Communist authorities to stop harassing him and to restore his law firm’s qualification.

Attention from human rights organizations:Organizations such as Amnesty International, Front-Line Defenders, and Human Rights in China have continuously listed him as a key rescue target.

VI. Appeal from the Human Rights Observation Department of “In Opposition”

Stop enforced disappearance:Enforced disappearance is a serious violation of international human rights law. We call on the Chinese Communist authorities to immediately provide proof of Gao Zhisheng’s survival to his family member Geng He and to the international community.

Ensure basic medical care:Given that before his disappearance Gao Zhisheng had already lost all his teeth and his health condition is critical, it must be ensured that he receives professional medical care.

Promote legislation:We call on the United States and European countries to accelerate the passage of the “Gao Zhisheng Act,” and to use diplomatic and sanction measures (such as banning involved officials from entry and freezing assets) to rescue the disappeared human rights lawyer.

Society-wide attention:On every August 13 “Gao Zhisheng Disappearance Day,” we call on all people of justice to speak out both online and offline for the “Conscience of China.”

窗体顶端

窗体底端

作者：周敏 编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍

之一：红楼梦癸酉本的浪潮是新八旗下民心的暗涌

2026年3月19日，拥有500万粉丝的网红“吃瓜蒙主”的抖音帐号被封禁。她以索隐派视角解读《红楼梦》癸酉本而短时间声名鹊起，直播间人潮汹涌。被全网封禁后，她所有的帐号包括别人搬运她内容的帐号，以及一些宣扬汉文化的帐号一并被封。她本人还现身发布了一段认罪视频，视频里表情僵硬，照本宣科地朗读。她宣读的题目是《从大一统到筑牢中华民族共同体意识》。

她被封禁的罪名就是以反清复明的角度解读红楼梦癸酉本。

她的被禁，如果仅仅当作关于清朝的新疆西藏和满洲东北的疆域传承合法性来理解，就会错过它背后真正的重量。在中国，每天都有网络帐号因为触及了中共的逆鳞而被封掉。但是这一次，动用了全套政治处理程序，包括舆论定点打压，官方媒体出面点评，当事人公开念稿，随后便全网清零，不留一点点痕迹。这套程序，通常只用于触碰到真正核心神经的案例。

一本近几年横空出世的布满争议的古典小说新版本，何以触碰到了可怕的核心神经？要回答这个问题，就要先来弄清楚，那泱泱五百万人，聚集在一个解读文学的直播间，究竟他们在寻觅什么？

红楼梦从来就不是没落贵族的爱情故事。书的开篇就说得很清楚：此书“将真事隐去，以假语村言”敷演。书里正面描述的繁华其实是背景，隐写的毁灭与凋零才是主题。正如书的另外一个名字：风月宝鉴，只能看反面，不能看正面，不然就被作者骗了去。

索隐派的核心主张是，这是一部以隐语写成的亡国史书。黛玉等人隐喻崇祯与南明，宝玉是传国玉玺与汉人正统，大观园是凋零的华夏文明。那些精心设计的谐音、象形、诗词典故、草蛇灰线，是一群亡国之人在文字狱的刀口上，把真相隐藏进了另一个不相干的故事里。这套隐喻系统的深邃与复杂度，远远超过一般读者的想象。它把密码编进了汉字结构和读音、文学易经天文中医五行和人道天道的宇宙观，是把整个华夏知识体系作为密码本，实在是呕心沥血多年才能写得出来。当你意识到密码已经编进了汉字的字形本身，你就明白了作书人的绝望有多深，有多不甘心。感叹的是，这些信号穿透了几百年的封锁，还是被今天的一些人接收到了。

风月宝鉴这个名字，繁体的风字里面有虫，隐喻后金满人；月是明的右边，隐喻大明。鉴这个字，就是让读者能以史为鉴，可以知兴替，读懂书里华夏文明最后一次的荣与辱。这个书名本身，就是一把藏在字形里的刀。那句让人送命的诗——清風不识字，何故乱翻书，杀机不只在讽刺满人粗鄙，更是那个風字里藏着的虫。在政治高压的时代，无论是满人八旗还是新八旗，连字本身都是武器。

隐喻系统之一是按五行来构建。五行里的金对应白色、肺、秋天、草木枯萎、霜冷肃杀等，书中这些元素无一不是指后金即满人，这已经不是暗喻而是明指了。人参的隐喻贯穿全书始终。人参谐音人身，指明朝军队和反抗力量。贾母早年说”人参咱家多得是”——那是明军尚有元气之时；到了后来，家里只剩陈年须末，已经失去效力——那是南明最后时刻，已经无药可救。这条线从书的开头埋到结尾，贯穿始终，每一次人参出现都是一次文明较量的隐喻，直到覆灭。

这套隐喻系统，在文化水平普遍极高的明遗民中几乎人人皆知。脂砚斋批书时写道：”能解者方有辛酸之泪，哭成此书。”他说的不是欣赏喜爱，而是一个”解”——这是破译密码的动作。他在告诉后来的读者，这本书有一把锁，你需要解开它，然后心领神会。作书人与批书人，几乎是在明示读者：以史书读之，知道自己文明从此在暴雪之下白骨如山的真相。

但对于今人，这套密码已经失去了大部分接收者。不是因为现代的中国人不聪明，是因为那个培育出这种文化水位的土壤，被系统性地破坏了将近四百年。文化素养已经被降格到四百年来最低点。满清的文字狱摧毁了敢于说话的人，中共的教育制度摧毁了能听懂的人。两次打击，方向不同，结果一致。

这不只是一本小说的失传，这是一整个文明的失忆。这片广袤土地上整体的茫然与混沌，正是满清八旗与新八旗孜孜以求的。

之二：葬花吟至今依然是现代中国人的悼词，而并非过去时

一个拥有几百万粉丝且能进行深度思考的自媒体账号，不仅仅是一个简单的网络聊天室，已经变成了一个民间的精神社区。当成千上万的人在评论区里通过癸酉本达成某种心照不宣的政治共识时，这个账号就具备了准组织化的特征。中共对任何具有组织化雏形的东西都有着PTSD。它清空账号，封口，是要强制解散这个精神阵地，让所有人重新回到孤立无援的悲观状态。

每个中国人无论有没有看过这部小说，都知道黛玉葬花。你不得不感叹这个隐喻的生命力。几百年来，葬花已经被降格为痴情，对生命无常的感伤。其实这是一帮亡国之人，在给自己的文明收尸。不让落花入水——金生水，后金之水——是最后的尊严。入土为安，是拒绝被征服者的体系所吞没。葬花词里那句”质本洁来还洁去，强于污淖陷渠沟”，不是少女的心事，是一整个文明拒绝被异族体系吞没的绝望宣言。

癸酉本版本真伪，学界争议未决。但真伪对于我们的论点其实不重要。重要的是它提供的解读框架，在2026年的中国，为什么能引爆五百万人的共鸣。

这肯定不是一部古典小说突然流行起来，而是这套索隐的思路，提供了一种在高压环境下再一次命名现实的能力。当博主分析”内鬼开门、外敌屠城”，听众想到的是什么？当她细数大观园如何从繁华走向被抄，观众看到的是什么？几百年前的隐语，与今天网络上的”毒菜”、”西朝鲜”、”两百斤”、”皿煮”，是同一种语言的两个时代版本——高压之下，真相找不到直接的出口，就以隐喻的方式从地下渗出来。

几百年过去了，手法是一模一样的。这本身，就是这个国家最深的悲剧之一。

那种命名能力之所以令人如此渴望，是因为在它缺席的地方，人们甚至失去了表达自身处境的语言。一个没办法用正常语言表达的痛苦，是没办法反抗的痛苦，因为它无法被承认。癸酉本给了那五百万人一套词语。

五百万人聚在一起，是在读一部古典小说吗？他们是在做一件政权最恐惧的事：彼此辨认。一起在文字中围炉取暖、剖析自己的来龙去脉，这是在备份记忆：这些关于文明、历史与风骨的激荡，在网络之洋中，感受到了一丝属于华夏魂魄的温度。癸酉本这份“雪下的底稿”，作者们在今人看不见的维度里，静静看着那场雪，也看着自己的后人。希望这些后人即便身处鱼肉之境，也始终保有那份惊天动地的聪慧。

原子化社会的统治逻辑，依赖于让每一个人都相信自己是孤独的异类。但当五百万人通过同一本古书，感受到同一种疼痛——这种孤独感在一瞬间崩解了。人们发现：原来真的不止我一个人看到了这场雪。

清朝和中共费尽心机想让民众看“正面”的太平盛世。而癸酉本的解读和对今天中国现状的联想，就是那面强制转到背面的镜子，让你看清白骨，看清真相，而且这面镜子无法被砸碎。

这是封号令真正要消灭的东西。不是那位博主，她只是不经意间拨动了最核心的红线，更不是癸酉本本身，而恰恰是那五百万人之间刚刚建立的、那条细如发丝却真实存在的共识的神经线。

之三：新八旗，一个需要被说清楚的结构

理解这次封号，需要先理解一个词：新八旗。

清朝的八旗制度，是以血缘和军事功勋为基础的特权体系。旗人不事生产，由国家供养，在法律、经济、政治上享有凌驾于汉人之上的系统性特权。这套制度的设计逻辑，是在征服者与被征服者之间，永久性地建立一道无法流动的身份墙。

今天的中国，这道墙换了个德国思想+苏联体制的面孔，结构如出一辙。

苏维埃、太子党、红二代、军属、高干家庭——这个群体在政治准入、资本积累、司法豁免、教育资源上的系统性优势，与旗人制度有着真正意义上的结构一致性。习近平曾在内部场合将自己所在的群体称为”红色江山的天然继承者”——这句话的逻辑，与清朝旗人援引”祖宗武功”的方式，几乎一字不差。

更深的一致性，在于两者对待被统治者的基本态度。

《商君书》说：”国强民弱。故有道之国，务在弱民（这部旨在像羊一样驯化人民的酷法始作俑者商鞅最终也死于他亲手织就的那张法网之中）。清朝通过文字狱和薙发令把这套逻辑刻进人的身体。而当代政权更是打压道家儒家宗教信仰及乡土宗祠等中国传统文化，尊崇商君书的法家之酷法，通过无休止的肉体消灭反对声音、经济压力榨干个人时间，通过算法推送的碎片娱乐稀释注意力，通过全景式监控制造永久性的严查。

今天的手段高级精密了，目标没有变：把聪慧变成奴性，把自己的子民变成财产。

马戛尔尼1793年访华，见到的正是这种驯化的成果。他在日记里写道，在过去一百五十年里，清帝国”没有改善，没有前进，反而倒退了”。他把清帝国比作一艘破烂不堪的头等战舰，之所以没有沉没，”仅仅是由于幸运”。这段写于两百三十年前的文字，今天读来，字字都像是写给当下的。

1776年，亚当·斯密在《国富论》里描述中国的富庶，那个令欧洲人惊叹的东方文明的物质成就，是明朝及之前积累的底子，是那片被铁蹄踏过之前的土壤里自然生长出来的东西。斯密看见的是遗产。他不知道那个创造遗产的文明主体，已经换了主人。斯密心目中的中国，是1644年之前的中国。

1644年直到今天，这片土地的主人，并不是在它上面几千年劳作、生育、死去的那些华夏子民。

把清朝与中共并置，很多人会反驳：清朝再不好，是中国历史的一部分；中共是中国人建立的政权，怎么能算”外来”？

这个反驳混淆了两件事：人员的本土性与文明逻辑的异质性。

满洲人的身体从东北来，马列主义的思想从苏联来——似乎不同。但两者的性质是一样的，都不是中国这片土地自然孕育出的统治逻辑。他们在中国所做的事情，更是有一个共同的核心动作：系统性地摧毁华夏文明的自然生长能力。

明代晚期，中国正在发生某种内生的变化。江南市民经济的勃兴，李贽的异端哲学，徐光启与利玛窦的文明对话，宋应星《天工开物》对技术世界的百科式记录——那是华夏文明第一次从内部触碰到某种类似现代性的边缘。这颗从自身土壤里长出来的，刚刚破土。

然后清兵的铁蹄踏过来，把刚刚发出的萌芽连根拔起。

随之而来的就是薙发令，文字狱，是《四库全书》打着修书名义进行的系统性毁书改书。外来破坏者的目的就是对本土文明记忆的定向清除——强迫一个民族用身体的耻辱来内化征服的事实，然后用篡改过的历史告诉他们：我们一直都是这样的，这就是祖法，不遵从的就是大逆不道。

一百五十年后，马戛尔尼来访，他记录下了治理的结果。再过了五十年，鸦片战争。那艘巨大而腐朽的战舰终于沉没了。

然后是民国——四百年大雪中唯一短暂融化的片刻。鲁迅的手术刀，胡适的温润，陈寅恪的傲骨，西南联大在炮火里守护的那一点文明的火种。一时间犹如新星爆发星光璀璨，在思想与科学的各个领域争辉。民国的诞生是中国尝试转向现代主权国家的惊鸿一瞥。虽然后来陷入了黑暗，但在亚洲播下了“主权在民”的火种。这段微光乍现的乱世却是这片土地四百年来最接近自由的时刻。

然后1949年，第二场雪来了。

批孔、毁庙、文化大革命——同样不是简单的政治运动，而是对民国三十余年好不容易重建起来的文明自信的彻底摧毁。岳飞从课本里消失，鲁迅从课本里消失，先秦诸子从课本里消失，民国从课本里消失。留下的，是一片重新覆盖的白茫茫大雪。

这条线索的解读揭示的一个真相就是：文明的繁荣与权力的集中，在中国历史上，一直都是反比关系。每一次”盛世”，都是另一种意义上的荒原。每一次威权松动的”乱世”，反倒是思想与创造力最自由生长的时刻。温柔富贵乡与青枫林里鬼吟哦，盛世与饿殍，翻到背面看才是真相。

康乾盛世，是马戛尔尼眼中”半野蛮”的顶点。中共的伟大复兴，是另一种盛世叙事下的每一个普通公民的荒原。

文字狱与今天的管控体系相比，是原始工具对精密机器。文字狱是点对点的恐怖——抓一个人，杀一个人，震慑一批人，它的覆盖面有限。今天的系统是预防性的：在你开口之前，算法已经知道你想说什么；在你搜索之前，那个词已经不存在了。文字狱杀的是已经说出口的话，防火墙、禁止卫星接收、党禁报禁杀的是还没有被想到的念头。

奴役的工具精密了。奴役的本质没有变。这是外来的大雪对中华大地的无情覆盖。

之四：离岸的火种——台湾的文明备份

昨夜朱楼梦，今霄水国吟。薛宝琴的原形有索隐派认为一部分是影射郑成功。

1661年，郑成功率军渡台。

表面上这是军事撤退。本质上，这是华夏文明在满清全面覆盖大陆之后，第一次成功的离岸备份。他带走的不只是军队，是汉人的衣冠，明朝的历法，那一整套被清廷正在大陆系统销毁的文明符号。

1949年，这个结构以惊人的精确性再度重演。又一批人渡海而去，带走了故宫文物、大学教授、出版社的铅字与民国积累的文明基因。台湾在往后数十年里，安静地完成了一件大陆从未被允许做的事：证明中国人在没有极权压迫的条件下，可以建立体面、自由、有尊严的现代社会。

这才是台湾问题的真正核心。领土的争议是次要的，致命的是作为参照系的威胁。

只要台湾这个文明社会存在，”没有中共统治就会乱套”的谎言就无法彻底成立。只要海对面的灯还亮着，大陆人就有一个坐标，知道那条被覆盖了四百年的路，并非从来就不存在。

所以必须切断。必须封锁。不能让大陆人看见那面镜子。

多少次在这片海峡的天空和水面挑衅，还有传闻中共不只一次蓄意破坏台湾海峡海底光缆，这是想凿掉镜子的冲动——一个自知形象丑陋的人，第一个动作就是砸掉镜子，而不是洗脸。

清朝的迁界禁海，封的是人的身体。今天的数字长城与断缆阴谋，封的是国人的眼睛。

手段进化了，金銮殿的恐惧还是没变。

郑成功守住了台湾二十年，终究敌不过施琅的坚船利炮。但今天的离岸存储，比四百年前多了一个维度：分布在全球的华夏流亡者，用母语写作、思考、记录的人，是无数个轻量化的节点。这种文明的保存，不再依赖于某一块土地，而是依赖于共识。只要共识存在，文明就没有地址可以被查抄。

之五：暗涌的方向——从情绪到觉醒，有多远

我们需要诚实地面对一个问题：这股民心暗涌，到底有多大的政治意义呢？

坦白说，癸酉本热潮目前更接近于受压抑情绪的偶然地、本能地聚焦，而不是真正意义上的政治觉醒。这两者确实有着实质性的区别：情绪只不过需要一个发泄出口，觉醒却需要清晰的主动性的方向；情绪会慢慢地被转移和疏散，但是觉醒一旦形成，就具有自我繁殖的能力。

中共非常清楚这个区别，也非常清楚两者之间转化的可能性。正因为如此，才不等情绪演变为觉醒，就在第一时间切断。这是经验丰富的政治外科手术——会在肿瘤还是良性的时候就抓紧切掉。

但这种切除，也产生一个无法避免的副作用。因为每一次封号，都在向那些还没有完全觉醒的人隐晦地传递同一个信息：这里有什么东西，是政权不希望你看到的，对威权已经产生了威胁。每一次强制念稿认错的视频，都在让那些看懂了的人，对那个此账号不存在的图片背后的精神力量，产生更清晰的感知。

镇压反倒是最好的广告。恐惧是直白的语言。清朝的文字狱杀掉了无数文人，却没有杀死《红楼梦》。它以残本、抄本、口耳相传的方式活下来，然后在数百年后，一个有着五百万观众的直播间里，又掀起了让整个政治机器都紧张起来的浪潮。

这就是暗涌的力量之处。暗涌在表面上是看不到的。它在水面以下，在那些沉默的、原子化的、貌似已经被驯化了的个体内部，缓慢而持续地积累着势能。它可以被压制，被暂时驱散，但依然目睹那艘战舰的船体不可逆地在天道下腐朽着。只要内部的结构性矛盾还在加深，这股暗涌就不会消失。

它只是在等待，静静地拍打岸滩。

然后，是这篇文章必须提出来的一个问题。中共对索隐派解读的真正恐惧，并不是关于版本考证和关于疆域传承合法性的历史争议，而是在于：一旦那套”外来政权的大雪覆盖了华夏文明”的分析框架被接受，读者会自动完成一个思维动作——把这个框架从1644年，平移到1949年。

这个平移不需要任何人教。它会自动发生。然后那个问题就会浮出水面，再也压不回去：

大清，真的亡了吗？

尾声：记录本身，就是抵抗

《红楼梦》是在政治高压下完成的巨著。作者们用一生时间，在文字狱的刀尖舞蹈，把一个时代的真相隐藏到一个伤春悲秋的爱情故事里。他们预知了这本书不能公开流传，甚至可能最终不再有人能“解其中味”。但还是一边绳床瓦灶、噎酸韲吃苦菜，一边一灯如豆一字一血地写，润色了一遍又一遍。

然后那些在清朝密室里手抄《红楼梦》的人，也一样知道抄完之后可能无处可送、无人能解，他们还是抄了。这就是文化的传灯，明知不能而依然行。哪怕以后只剩一个人读懂，他们也甘之若饴了。

这多么像今天的一些中国人，那些举起写满愤懑的白纸的人，用谐音暗语在防火墙上凿洞的人，用VPN翻墙出来与世界连通的人。都知道账号随时可能消失，自己在严密的监视下随时会失去自由。他们还是紧紧秉持着这盏灯传下去。

记录本身，就是抵抗。不是因为它能立刻改变什么，而是因为它拒绝了遗忘。

在这个时代，聪慧是原罪。清朝杀掉的是提出“清风不识字”的诗人。中共抹除的是能读懂“末世悲歌”的自媒体。这种跨越时空的相似，想要达到的目的竟完全一致：必须让华夏民族的聪慧钝化。 它要求你只能把聪明才智用在赚钱、互害和赞美上，绝不能用在觉醒上。

一个能读懂《癸酉本》的民族是不可战胜的，所以它必须让这个民族不仅读不到真本，甚至连讨论真本的空间都没有。

如果网上的“大观园”也被抄没，如果那些试图记录真相的“石头”们被迫消声，这种数字化的焚书坑儒，最终会像清朝那样导致文明的长久停滞，还是会触发某种我们尚未预见到的、更高级或更顽强的文化传承？

一夜北风紧，华夏尽白头。四百年，山河冰封。这雪，一直下到了今天。

这场雪终有停下来的一天。后来者在寻找来时路的时候，会在雪下找到这些文字。他们会知道，在那段最漫长的寒冬里，并不是所有人都睡着了。

有人醒着。有人依旧在记录。有人把四百年的积雪，一缕一片地细细数来。而你，我亲爱的朋友，在那漫天的雪下，又可曾看到了什么？

Four Hundred Years of Heavy Snow

Author: Zhou Min
Editor: Feng Reng Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Peng Xiaomei

Part I: The Wave of the Guiyou Manuscript of Dream of the Red Chamber Is an Undercurrent in the Hearts of the “New Eight Banners” Era

On March 19, 2026, the Douyin account of an internet influencer “Chi Gua Meng Zhu,” who had 5 million followers, was banned. She rose to fame in a short time by interpreting the Guiyou manuscript of Dream of the Red Chamber from a cryptological (esoteric) perspective, and her livestreams were crowded with viewers. After being banned across the entire internet, all of her accounts, including those that reposted her content and some accounts promoting Han culture, were also banned. She herself appeared in a video confession, where her expression was stiff and she read from a script mechanically. The title she read was: “From Great Unification to Strengthening the Consciousness of the Chinese National Community.”

The charge for her ban was that she interpreted the Guiyou manuscript of Dream of the Red Chamber from the perspective of “overthrowing the Qing and restoring the Ming.”

If her ban is understood merely as an issue concerning the legitimacy of Qing dynasty territorial inheritance in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Manchuria, then the true weight behind it will be missed. In China, countless online accounts are banned every day for touching the nerves of the CCP. But this time, the full set of political handling procedures was mobilized: targeted public opinion suppression, official media commentary, the person involved reading a public statement, and then complete erasure across the internet without leaving any trace. This set of procedures is usually reserved only for cases that touch the true core nerves.

How could a controversial new version of a classical novel that suddenly appeared in recent years touch such a sensitive core nerve? To answer this question, one must first understand: those five million people gathered in a livestream interpreting literature—what exactly were they searching for?

Dream of the Red Chamber has never been merely a love story of declining aristocrats. The opening of the book makes it clear: the book “conceals real events with fictional words.” The prosperity described on the surface is only a backdrop; the hidden theme is destruction and decay. As suggested by another title of the book, The Precious Mirror of Love: one must look at the reverse side, not the front—otherwise one will be deceived by the author.

The core claim of the cryptological school is that this is a historical record of a fallen nation written in coded language. Characters such as Daiyu symbolize the Chongzhen Emperor and the Southern Ming; Baoyu represents the imperial jade seal and Han legitimacy; the Grand View Garden symbolizes the declining Chinese civilization. The carefully designed homophones, pictographs, poetic allusions, and hidden narrative threads are the efforts of people from a fallen nation who, under the threat of literary persecution, embedded the truth into an unrelated story. The depth and complexity of this system far exceed the imagination of ordinary readers. It encodes meaning into the structure and pronunciation of Chinese characters, as well as literature, the I Ching, astronomy, traditional medicine, the five elements, and the cosmological worldview—using the entire Chinese knowledge system as a codebook. This could only have been written through years of painstaking effort. When you realize that the code is embedded in the characters themselves, you understand the depth of the authors’ despair and unwillingness to accept defeat. Astonishingly, these signals have penetrated centuries of suppression and are still being received by some people today.

The title The Precious Mirror of Love itself contains hidden meaning: in traditional script, the character “wind” contains an insect, symbolizing the Later Jin (Manchus); “moon” is part of the character for Ming, symbolizing the Ming dynasty. The word “mirror” means to learn from history, to understand rise and fall, and to comprehend the final glory and humiliation of Chinese civilization. The title itself is a blade hidden in the structure of characters. The fatal line of poetry—“The Qing breeze does not know characters; why does it randomly flip through books?”—is not only mocking the Manchus’ illiteracy but also refers to the “insect” hidden within the character “wind.” In times of political oppression, whether the old Eight Banners or the new ones, even characters themselves become weapons.

One layer of the metaphor system is constructed according to the Five Elements. In this system, metal corresponds to white, lungs, autumn, withering vegetation, frost, and cold severity. These elements in the book all point to the Later Jin (Manchus). This is no longer subtle metaphor but explicit reference. Ginseng is another metaphor running throughout the book. “Ginseng” sounds like “human body,” symbolizing the Ming army and resistance forces. Early in the story, Grandmother Jia says, “We have plenty of ginseng”—this represents the time when the Ming still had vitality. Later, only old remnants remain, having lost their effect—this represents the final stage of the Southern Ming, beyond salvation. This thread runs from beginning to end, each appearance of ginseng marking a struggle of civilization, until its collapse.

This metaphorical system was widely understood among the highly educated remnants of the Ming. When Zhiyanzhai annotated the book, he wrote: “Only those who can decipher it will shed tears of sorrow.” He was not referring to appreciation, but to “deciphering”—the act of cracking a code. He was telling future readers that the book contains a lock that must be opened. The author and commentator were essentially making it clear: read this as history, and understand the truth that your civilization has become bones buried under a blizzard.

But for modern people, most of the receivers of this code have been lost—not because modern Chinese are less intelligent, but because the cultural soil that nurtured such understanding has been systematically destroyed for nearly four hundred years. Cultural literacy has fallen to its lowest level in four centuries. The Qing dynasty’s literary inquisition destroyed those who dared to speak; the CCP’s education system destroyed those who could understand. Two different blows, same result.

This is not merely the loss of a novel; it is the amnesia of an entire civilization. The widespread confusion and disorientation across this vast land are precisely what both the Qing Eight Banners and the “new Eight Banners” have sought.

Part II: “The Song of Burying Flowers” Is Still the Elegy of Modern Chinese, Not of the Past

A self-media account with millions of followers capable of deep thinking is no longer just an online chatroom—it has become a grassroots spiritual community. When thousands reach an unspoken political consensus through the Guiyou manuscript in the comment section, the account begins to take on quasi-organizational characteristics. The CCP has PTSD toward anything that shows signs of organization. It deletes accounts and silences voices to forcibly dismantle this spiritual stronghold, returning individuals to isolation and pessimism.

Every Chinese person, whether or not they have read the novel, knows of Daiyu burying flowers. One cannot help but marvel at the vitality of this metaphor. For centuries, it has been reduced to sentimental love and lament for life’s impermanence. In reality, it was people of a fallen nation burying their own civilization. Refusing to let fallen petals enter water—since metal produces water, symbolizing the Later Jin—is the last dignity. Burial in earth symbolizes refusal to be absorbed into the conqueror’s system. The line “pure in origin, returning pure, better than sinking into filth” is not a girl’s sentiment, but a desperate declaration of a civilization refusing assimilation.

Part III: The “New Eight Banners” — A Structure That Must Be Clearly Explained

To understand this round of bans, one must first understand a term: the “New Eight Banners.”

The Eight Banner system of the Qing dynasty was a privilege system based on bloodline and military merit. Banner people did not engage in production and were supported by the state, enjoying systemic privileges over the Han population in law, economy, and politics. The design logic of this system was to permanently establish an immovable identity barrier between conquerors and the conquered.

In today’s China, this wall has taken on a different face—German ideology plus a Soviet-style system—but its structure is strikingly similar.

The Soviet-style elite, princelings, second-generation reds, military families, and high-ranking officials’ families—this group enjoys systemic advantages in political access, capital accumulation, judicial immunity, and educational resources. These advantages are structurally identical to those of the Banner system. Xi Jinping once referred to his own group internally as the “natural heirs of the red regime”—this logic is almost identical to the Qing Banner people invoking “ancestral military merit.”

The deeper similarity lies in their fundamental attitude toward the governed.

The Book of Lord Shang states: “A strong state, weak people. Therefore, a state with order must weaken the people.” (Shang Yang himself, who pioneered such harsh laws to tame the people like livestock, ultimately died under the legal system he created.) The Qing dynasty engraved this logic into people’s bodies through the queue order and literary inquisition. The modern regime goes even further: suppressing Daoism, Confucianism, religion, and local ancestral culture; promoting Legalist harsh laws; eliminating dissent through physical repression; draining personal time through economic pressure; diluting attention through algorithm-driven fragmented entertainment; and enforcing constant surveillance.

The methods have become more sophisticated and precise, but the goal remains unchanged: to turn intelligence into servility, to turn subjects into property.

When Lord Macartney visited China in 1793, he witnessed the results of this system. He wrote that over the previous 150 years, the Qing Empire had “not improved, not progressed, but rather regressed.” He compared it to a dilapidated first-rate warship that had not sunk “only due to luck.” These words, written over two hundred years ago, read today as if they were written for the present.

In 1776, Adam Smith described China’s wealth in The Wealth of Nations. What amazed Europeans—the material prosperity of Eastern civilization—was the legacy accumulated during the Ming and earlier periods. Smith saw the inheritance, but he did not realize that the civilization that created it had already changed hands. The China in Smith’s mind was pre-1644 China.

From 1644 until today, the true owners of this land have not been the Chinese people who lived, worked, and died on it for thousands of years.

When placing the Qing dynasty and the CCP side by side, some object: the Qing dynasty, no matter how flawed, is part of Chinese history; the CCP is a regime established by Chinese people—how can it be considered “foreign”?

This objection confuses two things: the local origin of people and the alien nature of governing logic.

The Manchus came from the northeast, Marxism-Leninism came from the Soviet Union—seemingly different. But their nature is the same: neither is a governing logic naturally produced by this land. What they did in China shares a common core action: systematically destroying the natural growth capacity of Chinese civilization.

In the late Ming dynasty, China was undergoing internal transformation. The rise of a commercial economy in Jiangnan, the heterodox philosophy of Li Zhi, the dialogue between Xu Guangqi and Matteo Ricci, Song Yingxing’s Tiangong Kaiwu—these were signs of Chinese civilization touching the edge of modernity from within. A seed had just begun to sprout.

Then the Qing conquest uprooted it completely.

What followed were the queue order, literary inquisition, and the systematic destruction and alteration of books under the guise of compiling the Siku Quanshu. The goal was to erase the memory of native civilization—to force a people to internalize conquest through bodily humiliation and then tell them, through rewritten history, that this had always been the case.

A century and a half later, Macartney recorded the results. Fifty years later came the Opium War. The giant but decaying warship finally sank.

Then came the Republic of China—the only brief thaw in four hundred years of snow. Lu Xun’s sharp critique, Hu Shi’s moderation, Chen Yinke’s integrity, and the intellectual vitality of Southwest Associated University. It was a fleeting but brilliant moment, the closest this land had come to freedom in four centuries.

Then, in 1949, the second snowfall arrived.

The campaigns against Confucius, temple destruction, and the Cultural Revolution were not merely political movements, but total destruction of the cultural confidence rebuilt during the Republic. Yue Fei disappeared from textbooks, Lu Xun disappeared, pre-Qin philosophers disappeared, the Republic disappeared. What remained was a blank expanse of snow.

This line of interpretation reveals a truth: in Chinese history, civilizational prosperity and centralized power have always been inversely related. Every “golden age” is a wasteland in another sense. Every era of loosened authority is when thought and creativity flourish.

The literary inquisition compared to modern control systems is like primitive tools versus precision machines. The former punished after expression; the latter prevents expression before it occurs. The essence of control has not changed.

Part IV: Offshore Fire — Taiwan as a Civilizational Backup

What seemed like a military retreat was in essence the first successful offshore backup of Chinese civilization after the Qing covered the mainland. Zheng Chenggong carried not only troops but also Han clothing, Ming calendars, and cultural symbols being destroyed on the mainland.

In 1949, history repeated with remarkable precision. Another group crossed the sea, bringing cultural relics, scholars, and intellectual traditions. Taiwan quietly accomplished something the mainland was never allowed to do: to prove that Chinese people can build a free and dignified modern society without authoritarian rule.

This is the true core of the Taiwan issue—not territory, but reference. As long as Taiwan exists, the claim that “without CCP rule China would collapse” cannot stand.

Thus, it must be isolated and cut off.

Part V: The Direction of the Undercurrent — From Emotion to Awakening

We must honestly face a question: what is the political significance of this undercurrent?

At present, the Guiyou manuscript phenomenon is closer to an emotional outlet than true awakening. Emotion dissipates; awakening reproduces itself.

The CCP understands this distinction and intervenes early to cut off the transformation.

But suppression has a side effect: every ban signals that something exists which power does not want people to see. Suppression becomes advertisement.

The undercurrent is invisible but accumulates beneath the surface. As long as structural contradictions deepen, it will not disappear.

Epilogue: Recording Itself Is Resistance

Dream of the Red Chamber was written under extreme political repression. The authors encoded truth into fiction, knowing it might never be understood. Those who copied it by hand also knew it might never be read, yet they persisted. This is cultural transmission: continuing despite knowing the difficulty.

Today, those who hold blank papers, who use coded language, who cross firewalls—they are doing the same.

Recording itself is resistance—not because it changes things immediately, but because it refuses forgetting.

In this era, intelligence is treated as a crime. The goal is to dull it.

A people capable of understanding the Guiyou manuscript is unconquerable—therefore they must be prevented from reading or even discussing it.

If even the digital “Grand View Garden” is destroyed, will civilization stagnate again, or will a new form of transmission emerge?

The snow has lasted four hundred years.

One day it will stop.

When future generations search for their path,they will find these words beneath the snow.

They will know that during the longest winter,not everyone was asleep.

Some were awake.Some were still recording.Some counted every layer of snow over four hundred years.

And you, my friend—beneath this vast snowfall,what have you seen?

攝影記者：關永傑

編輯：鍾然 校对：熊辩 翻译：周敏

中國著名人權律師高智晟，以長期為弱勢群體維權及代理敏感法律案件而聞名。他曾被中國司法部及官方媒體評為「全國十佳律師」，其後因維權行動及對體制的批評，多次遭受監禁與迫害。

自2017年8月13日起，高智晟處於「被失蹤」狀態，至今音訊全無。

截至2026年3月，他已被強迫失蹤超過3100天（約八年半）。

2026年4月4日，由藝術家陳維明及其團隊創作的雕塑作品《仰望星空——高智晟》，在加州自由雕塑公園（Liberty Sculpture Park）舉行落成典禮。

Looking Up at the Starry Sky: The Inauguration Ceremony of the Gao Zhisheng Statue

Photojournalist: Guan Yongjie

Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Zhou Min

Abstract: As Gao Zhisheng’s enforced disappearance exceeds eight and a half years, Chen Weiming’s team held the inauguration and unveiling of the statue Looking Up at the Starry Sky at the Liberty Sculpture Park in California to show solidarity with his plight and call for continued international attention.

Gao Zhisheng, a renowned Chinese human rights lawyer, is famous for his long-term defense of marginalized groups and his representation in sensitive legal cases. He was once named one of the “Top Ten Lawyers in the Country” by the Chinese Ministry of Justice and official media. Subsequently, due to his rights defense activities and criticism of the system, he suffered repeated imprisonment and persecution.

Since August 13, 2017, Gao Zhisheng has been in a state of “enforced disappearance,” with no news of his whereabouts to this day. As of March 2026, he has been forcibly disappeared for over 3,100 days (approximately eight and a half years).

On April 4, 2026, the sculpture titled Looking Up at the Starry Sky—Gao Zhisheng, created by artist Chen Weiming and his team, held its inauguration ceremony at the Liberty Sculpture Park in California.

與會嘉賓及高智晟律師的妻子耿和，在美國國歌奏響時肅立，現場莊嚴肅穆。

The attending guests and Geng He, the wife of Lawyer Gao Zhisheng, stood solemnly as the American national anthem was played; the scene was grave and respectful.

《仰望星空——高智晟》雕像揭幕儀式。

從左至右：傅希秋牧師、Piero Tozzi（陶智，美國國會及行政當局中國委員會副主任）、Che Ahn（加州州長候選人）、周鋒鎖、耿和、Eddie Romero（牧師、越戰退伍軍人）。

The unveiling ceremony of the statue Looking Up at the Starry Sky—Gao Zhisheng.

From left to right: Pastor Bob Fu (Fu Xiqiu), Piero Tozzi (Deputy Director of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China), Che Ahn (Candidate for Governor of California), Zhou Fengsuo, Geng He, and Eddie Romero (Pastor and Vietnam War Veteran).

從左至右：藝術家陳維明、方政、傅希秋牧師、Piero Tozzi、Che Ahn、耿和、周鋒鎖、Eddie Romero、（活動主持人）李菲、封從德。

From left to right: Artist Chen Weiming, Fang Zheng, Pastor Bob Fu (Fu Xiqiu), Piero Tozzi, Che Ahn, Geng He, Zhou Fengsuo, Eddie Romero, (Event Host) Li Fei, and Feng Congde.

印第安酋長「瘋馬」的曾孫女伊麗莎白女士，為雕像進行傳統原住民祈禱儀式。

Ms. Elizabeth, the great-granddaughter of the Indian Chief “Crazy Horse,” performs a traditional Indigenous prayer ceremony for the statue.

⸻

公園對外發言人Lise女士代表主辦方致歡迎詞。

Ms. Lise, the public spokesperson for the park, delivered the welcoming speech on behalf of the organizers.

Piero Tozzi（陶智，美國國會及行政當局中國委員會副主任）發表題為《中國共產黨對美國公民在美國本土的跨國鎮壓》的演講，傅希秋牧師翻譯（記者概述）：

感謝大家共同紀念高智晟，並向耿和致敬。高智晟以信仰為根基，堅守人權與法治。今日揭幕陳維明創作的雕像，象徵對自由的追求與對暴政的抗爭。然而，中國共產黨及習近平的影響已延伸至美國，對異見人士進行打壓與騷擾。面對跨國鎮壓，必須守護言論自由與法治，揭露真相、銘記歷史。無論出身何處，我們都應珍視自由，在這片土地上堅定地說：我們都是美國人。

Piero Tozzi (Deputy Director of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China) delivered a speech titled Transnational Repression by the Chinese Communist Party Against American Citizens on U.S. Soil, translated by Pastor Bob Fu (Journalist summary):

I thank everyone for gathering to commemorate Gao Zhisheng and wish to pay my respects to Geng He. Gao Zhisheng, rooted in his faith, steadfastly defended human rights and the rule of law. The unveiling of the statue created by Chen Weiming today symbolizes the pursuit of freedom and the struggle against tyranny. However, the influence of the Chinese Communist Party and Xi Jinping has extended into the United States, conducting suppression and harassment against dissidents. In the face of transnational repression, we must safeguard freedom of speech and the rule of law, expose the truth, and remember history. Regardless of our origins, we should cherish freedom and state firmly on this land: we are all Americans.

⸻

Che Ahn（加州州長候選人）演講，傅希秋牧師担任翻譯。

Pastor Che Ahn, candidate for Governor of California, delivers a speech with Pastor Bob Fu serving as his translator.

耿和演講，回憶與高智晟生活中的點滴，並向雕像獻花。

Geng He delivers a speech, sharing memories of her life with Gao Zhisheng and laying flowers at the statue

耿陸弢演唱歌曲《深淵中的守望者》。歌曲由一位不願具名的人士創作，獻給高智晟及所有堅守良知的人。

Geng Lutao performs the song ‘Watcher in the Abyss.’ The song was composed by an anonymous individual and is dedicated to Gao Zhisheng and all those who stand firm in their conscience.

Eddie Romero（牧師、越戰退伍軍人）演講。

A speech by Eddie Romero, pastor and Vietnam War veteran.

國際特赦組織代表宣讀總部聲明。

A representative from Amnesty International reads a statement from the organization’s headquarters.

活動主持人：李菲、封從德

Event Hosts: Li Fei and Feng Congde

周鋒鎖先生發言。

Remarks by Mr. Zhou Fengsuo.

秦兵律師發言。

Remarks by Attorney Qin Bing.

⸻

方政先生發言。

Remarks by Mr. Fang Zheng.

⸻

吳英年先生發言。

Remarks by Mr. Wu Yingnian.

⸻

台灣八炯發言。

Remarks by Ba Jiong (Taiwan).

⸻

朱虞夫先生發言。

Remarks by Mr. Zhu Yufu.

⸻

金秀紅女士發言。

Remarks by Ms. Jin Xiuhong.

⸻

金岩（代表“六·四”紀念館）發言。

Remarks by Jin Yan (representing the June 4th Memorial Museum).

周雲龍（代表中國民主黨）發言，郭斌翻譯。

Remarks by Zhou Yunlong (representing the China Democracy Party), translated by Guo Bin.

⸻

獨立作家無為先生發言。

Remarks by independent writer Mr. Wu Wei.

游飛翥律師發言。

Remarks by Attorney You Feizhu.

⸻

鄭雲女士發言。

Remarks by Ms. Zheng Yun.

⸻

藝術家陳維明致感謝詞。

Artist Chen Weiming delivers a closing statement.

⸻

嘉賓合影。

Group photo of the guests.

⸻

來自灣區的與會人士合影。

Group photo of attendees from the Bay Area.

活動工作人員及義工合影。

Group photo of event staff and volunteers.

记者：关永杰

编辑：钟然 校对：程筱筱 翻译：周敏

2026年4月5日清明节之际，中国民主人权联盟在圣荷西市政广场举行悼念活动，悼念在中国历次政治运动与社会政策中逝去的生命，呼吁铭记历史、反思悲剧。

活动发起人李海峰在开场发言中表示，此次集会不仅是纪念个别知名受害者，更重要的是悼念那些“无名无姓、无人记得”的普通人。在中国长期的政治运动中，大量个体悄无声息地消失，其遭遇未被记录，也未被社会承认。他举例提及聂耳、田汉、彭德怀、刘少奇等历史人物在政治运动中的遭遇，同时强调，相比这些广为人知的人物，更值得关注的是数量庞大的普通受害者。

李海峰还讲述了一个来源于《拾纸救夫》的故事：一名教师因课堂言论被判刑，其妻为证明其清白多年捡拾废纸寻找证据，最终在一场火灾中与孩子丧生。这一悲剧被用来象征时代中个体命运的荒诞与残酷。发言中还提到，文化大革命时期大量知识分子与普通民众遭受迫害，包括酷刑、长期监禁以及精神侮辱。一些人因无法承受压力选择自尽，例如老舍在文革期间投湖身亡。

历史上的共产主义国家，在计划经济模式下导致了全球多个国家曾出现大饥荒，饿死数以千万计的人民；为维护其意识形态的绝对统一，历史上多次的政治清洗活动，被冤枉被杀害的人也数以百万计；共产政权长期压制个人自由，破坏道德与社会关系，摧毁历史文化遗产……有观点认为，共产主义在实践中对人类文明几无贡献，但其负面影响造成的历史争议至今仍在继续。

来自山东的发言者惠汝涛回忆了1990年代部分地区计划生育政策的极端执行情况。他称，在部分县域曾出现“百日无孩”运动，对孕妇实施强制引产，甚至导致新生儿死亡等严重人道问题。

何冬玲在发言中指出，悼念历史受难者的意义在于防止悲剧重演。她强调，无论时代如何变化，维护人的基本尊严与自由应成为社会共识。

朱平则从更宏观角度回顾了中国近现代多次政治运动，认为历史中反复出现的动荡与清洗现象值得警惕。他提到包括文化大革命、大跃进以及六四事件等历史事件，呼吁公众持续关注历史记忆。

出生于1989年的发言者张真真分享了个人经历。她表示，自己在中国教育体系中成长，早年对历史教材深信不疑，直到接触互联网后才猛然发现，自己出生的那一年在公共讨论中原来是敏感年份，某些历史事件在公开叙述中被刻意回避或存在明显删改的比比皆是。她认为，信息获取渠道的拓展，使更多年轻人开始重新审视历史，并逐渐形成独立思考能力。同时，她也表达了对仍在中国社会中坚持发声者的敬意。

张勇从意识形态角度回顾了20世纪以来的政治运动，提及从苏联时期的清洗到中国历次运动的影响。他结合个人家族经历，讲述亲人曾在政治清洗中遇害的往事，并指出历史对个体家庭的深远影响。他还提到包括三反五反运动、大清洗及柬埔寨红色高棉时期等历史事件，认为不同国家的经验均值得反思。

本次活动在集体悼念与发言中结束。参与者普遍认为，对历史的记忆不仅是对逝者的尊重，也是对未来的警示。在清明这一传统纪念时刻，活动强调“勿忘历史、避免重演”的核心主题，呼吁社会持续关注历史事件中的个体命运与人权议题。

Mourning the Victims of Communism on Qingming Festival: Do Not Forget the Crimes of Communist Regimes

Journalist: Guan Yongjie

Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Zhou Min

Abstract: On the occasion of the Qingming Festival, democracy and human rights groups held a memorial activity in San Jose to remember the victims of past political movements. The event emphasized remembering history, reflecting on tragedy, focusing on the fate of ordinary individuals and human rights issues, and calling for the prevention of such tragedies from repeating.

On the occasion of the Qingming Festival, April 5, 2026, the China Democracy & Human Rights Alliance held a memorial activity at the San Jose City Hall Plaza to mourn the lives lost during China’s various historical political movements and social policies, calling for the remembrance of history and reflection on tragedy.

Event organizer Li Haifeng stated in his opening speech that this gathering was not only to commemorate specific well-known victims, but more importantly, to mourn those “nameless and unremembered” ordinary people. Throughout China’s long history of political movements, a vast number of individuals disappeared silently; their encounters were not recorded, nor were they recognized by society. He cited the experiences of historical figures such as Nie Er, Tian Han, Peng Dehuai, and Liu Shaoqi during political movements, while emphasizing that compared to these well-known figures, the massive number of ordinary victims deserves even more attention.

Li Haifeng also recounted a story derived from Picking Up Paper to Save Her Husband: a teacher was sentenced for remarks made in class, and his wife spent years picking up waste paper to find evidence to prove his innocence, eventually perishing with their child in a fire. This tragedy was used to symbolize the absurdity and cruelty of individual fates within that era. The speech also mentioned that during the Cultural Revolution, a large number of intellectuals and ordinary citizens suffered persecution, including torture, long-term imprisonment, and mental humiliation. Some chose to end their own lives because they could not bear the pressure, such as Lao She, who committed suicide by drowning in a lake during the Cultural Revolution.

Historically, communist countries under planned economic models led to several major famines across multiple nations, resulting in the starvation of tens of millions of people. To maintain absolute ideological unity, millions were also framed and killed during numerous political purges throughout history. Communist regimes have long suppressed individual freedom, destroyed moral and social relationships, and demolished historical and cultural heritage. Some viewpoints suggest that communism in practice has contributed almost nothing to human civilization, while the historical controversies caused by its negative impacts continue to this day.

Hui Rutao, a speaker from Shandong, recalled the extreme implementation of family planning policies in certain regions during the 1990s. He claimed that in some counties, “Hundred Days Without Children” campaigns occurred, where forced inductions were performed on pregnant women, leading to serious humanitarian issues including the deaths of newborns.

He Dongling pointed out in her speech that the significance of mourning historical victims lies in preventing tragedies from repeating. She emphasized that regardless of how times change, upholding basic human dignity and freedom should become a social consensus.

Zhu Ping reviewed China’s many modern political movements from a broader perspective, arguing that the recurring phenomena of upheaval and purging in history warrant vigilance. He mentioned historical events including the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, and the June Fourth Incident, calling for the public to maintain a continuous focus on historical memory.

Speaker Zhang Zhenzhen, born in 1989, shared her personal experience. She stated that she grew up within the Chinese education system and initially believed the history textbooks without doubt, until she accessed the internet and suddenly discovered that the year she was born was actually a sensitive year in public discussion. She found that certain historical events were deliberately avoided in public narratives or contained obvious deletions and alterations everywhere. She believes that the expansion of channels for obtaining information has allowed more young people to begin re-examining history and gradually form the ability to think independently. At the same time, she expressed her respect for those who still insist on speaking out within Chinese society.

Zhang Yong reviewed political movements since the 20th century from an ideological perspective, mentioning the influence of everything from the purges of the Soviet era to China’s various movements. Combining his own family history, he recounted how a relative was killed during a political purge and pointed out the profound impact of history on individual families. He also mentioned historical events including the Three-Anti and Five-Anti Campaigns, the Great Purge, and the Khmer Rouge period in Cambodia, stating that the experiences of different countries are all worthy of reflection.

The event concluded with collective mourning and speeches. Participants generally agreed that the memory of history is not only respect for the deceased but also a warning for the future. During this traditional moment of remembrance, the Qingming Festival, the event emphasized the core theme of “Do not forget history, avoid repetition,” calling for society to maintain continuous attention to individual fates and human rights issues within historical events.