作者：张维清

编辑：钟然 校对：熊辩 翻译：戈冰

一、 60秒的雷霆：神权的幻灭与暴政的终结

2026年2月28日，一个足以载入史册的日子。世界屏息凝神，目睹了一个血腥时代的戛然而止。伊朗最高领袖哈梅内伊——这个自诩“真主代理人”、统治波斯大地数十年的独裁者，在美以联军的精准斩首行动中，成为掩体下的亡魂。

这场持续仅60秒的定点清除，不仅仅是军事科技的胜利，更是一场政治图腾的彻底崩塌。多年来，哈梅内伊依靠残酷的伊斯兰革命卫队，通过秘密警察、酷刑室和公开绞刑，在伊朗构筑了一座恐惧的迷宫。他曾傲慢地宣称其统治“神圣不可侵犯”，但在高精度导弹穿透加固混凝土的那一刻，那层虚假的神圣外衣被撕得粉碎。暴君的死亡向全球残存的独裁者们发出了震耳欲聋的警告：依靠屠杀本国人民来维系的非法统治，本质上是沙上之塔，无论防御工事多么坚固，都无法阻挡正义从天而降的审判。

二、 历史的共振：从德黑兰的冷藏车到天安门的坦克

哈梅内伊的覆灭，是他多年积攒血债的必然因果。在政权倒塌的前夕，由于伊朗民众对自由的渴望突破了临界点，德黑兰街头一度演变成屠宰场。伊朗政府动用大口径机枪对示威人群进行无差别扫射，甚至由于太平间爆满，卑劣地动用冷藏车秘密转运年轻抗议者的尸体。

这种令人发指的暴行，让人们无法不联想到1989年那个血色的初夏。在天安门广场上，中共同样动用了国家战争机器，用坦克碾碎了青年学子的民主梦想，用刺刀封锁了通向文明的出口。两场横跨三十余年、相隔数千公里的暴行，其内在逻辑竟然如出一辙：当独裁者意识到自己的谎言不再起作用时，暴力便成了他们最后的“救命稻草”。

然而，中共比哈梅内伊更加狡诈。在“六·四”之后的三十多年里，他们利用全球化带来的红利作为经济诱饵，搭建起号称“金盾工程”的数字监狱，试图用物质享受换取民众的沉默，用信息防火墙抹去历史的记忆。但哈梅内伊的结局证明了一点：没有任何防火墙能挡住正义的意志，也没有任何洗脑术能平息深藏于民心的愤怒之火。

三、 连锁反应：北京红墙内的阵阵寒意

当哈梅内伊在掩体中伏法的信息传遍全球时，最感到恐惧的莫过于北京红墙内的独裁核心。中伊两国作为威权阵营的“背靠背”盟友，长期在压制人权和挑战国际秩序上同气相求。如今，伊朗这座“邪恶轴心”的重要堡垒瞬间崩塌，这种巨大的地缘政治震荡和心理冲击，正以前所未有的速度传导至中南海。

历史的清算从未消散，只是在等待合适的时机。当年坦克碾过广场，留下的不只是血迹，更是政权合法性的彻底破产。如今，随着中国经济幻影的破灭、地方债务的暴雷以及社会管控的极端化，曾经的“经济契约”已经作废。当底层民众的生存权受到威胁，当“白纸运动”的火种在灰烬中复燃，独裁者所依仗的暴力机器将面临严重的内耗与瓦解。

德黑兰的今天，就是北京的明天。这种审判或许表现为内部权力结构的剧烈崩塌，或许表现为经济危机触发的全国性觉醒，亦或是国际正义力量在全球格局重组中的总清算。当正义的铁拳挥下，那堵看似坚不可摧的“高墙”，在觉醒的民意面前将如枯槁般不堪一击。

四、 觉醒时刻：让自由的光芒照亮审判台

从哈梅内伊的倒台到中共统治的摇摇欲坠，事实反复证明：没有任何屠杀能永远阻挡自由的意志，没有任何暴政能逃脱历史的法庭。当年在天安门广场下达开火命令的罪人，以及如今在德黑兰街头扣动扳机的施暴者，最终都将被钉在历史的耻辱柱上，被万世唾弃。

这是一场光明与黑暗的终极博弈。哈梅内伊的伏法，正是全球独裁阵营全面溃败的第一块多米诺骨牌。对于每一个身处黑暗、向往自由的人来说，现在是觉醒的时刻，是呐喊的时刻！我们不仅是在见证一个暴君的消亡，更是在共同参与一个新时代的诞生。

正义或许会迟到，但当它以雷霆万钧之势降临时，任何高墙都无法遮蔽自由的光芒。让我们共同期待，在那不久的将来，天安门广场不再是坦克的领地，而是自由人民欢庆胜利的海洋。在那一天，全世界被压迫的人民将齐声宣告：暴政已死，自由永存！

Khamenei’s Death: The Death Knell for the CCP’s Tyranny

Author: Zhang Weiqing

Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Ge Bing

Abstract: Khamenei’s death during a joint U.S.-Israel operation has sparked reflection on the history of tyranny in Iran. By drawing parallels with the June 4th Incident, this article discusses the crisis facing authoritarian rule and the potential for historical reckoning.

I. 60 Seconds of Thunder: The Demise of Theocracy and the End of Tyranny

February 28, 2026, a date destined to go down in history. The world held its breath as it witnessed the abrupt end of a bloody era. Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei—the dictator who styled himself “God’s representative” and ruled the Persian lands for decades—became a corpse beneath a bunker during a precision decapitation strike by the U.S.-Israel coalition.

This targeted elimination, lasting merely 60 seconds, was not merely a victory of military technology, but the complete collapse of a political totem. For years, Khamenei relied on the brutal Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to construct a labyrinth of fear in Iran through secret police, torture chambers, and public hangings. He once arrogantly declared his rule “sacred and inviolable,” but the moment a high-precision missile pierced the reinforced concrete, that false cloak of sanctity was torn to shreds. The tyrant’s death sends a deafening warning to the world’s remaining dictators: an illegitimate regime sustained by the slaughter of its own people is, at its core, a tower built on sand; no matter how fortified the defenses, they cannot withstand the judgment of justice descending from the heavens.

II. Historical Resonance: From the Refrigerated Trucks of Tehran to the Tanks of Tiananmen

Khamenei’s downfall was the inevitable consequence of the blood debt he had accumulated over many years. On the eve of the regime’s collapse, as the Iranian people’s yearning for freedom surpassed the tipping point, the streets of Tehran briefly turned into a slaughterhouse. The Iranian government deployed heavy machine guns to indiscriminately mow down the demonstrators; when morgues became overcrowded, they even resorted to the despicable tactic of using refrigerated trucks to secretly transport the bodies of young protesters.

Such heinous atrocities inevitably bring to mind that blood-soaked early summer of 1989. In Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party similarly deployed the state’s war machine, crushing the democratic dreams of young students with tanks and sealing off the path to civilization with bayonets. These two atrocities, spanning more than three decades and separated by thousands of kilometers, share an identical underlying logic: when dictators realize their lies no longer work, violence becomes their last “straw of hope.”

Yet the CCP is even more cunning than Khamenei. In the more than three decades since “June 4th,” they have used the dividends of globalization as economic bait, erecting a digital prison known as the “Golden Shield Project,” attempting to trade material comforts for the people’s silence and erase historical memory with a Great Firewall. But Khamenei’s fate proves one thing: no firewall can block the will of justice, and no brainwashing can extinguish the fire of anger deep within the hearts of the people.

III. A Chain Reaction: A Chill Within the Red Walls of Beijing

As news of Khamenei’s execution in his bunker spread across the globe, none felt greater fear than the dictatorial core within the red walls of Beijing. As “back-to-back” allies within the authoritarian camp, China and Iran have long been kindred spirits in suppressing human rights and challenging the international order. Now, with the sudden collapse of Iran—a key stronghold of the “Axis of Evil”—this massive geopolitical upheaval and psychological shockwave is reverberating through Zhongnanhai at an unprecedented speed.

History’s reckoning has never faded; it has merely been biding its time. When tanks rolled over the square all those years ago, they left behind not only bloodstains but also the complete collapse of the regime’s legitimacy. Today, with the shattering of China’s economic illusion, the explosion of local government debt, and the radicalization of social control, the once-sacred “economic pact” has been nullified. When the right to survival of the common people is threatened, and when the embers of the “White Paper Movement” reignite from the ashes, the machinery of violence upon which the dictator relies will face severe internal erosion and disintegration.

What is happening in Tehran today is what will happen in Beijing tomorrow. This reckoning may manifest as a violent collapse of the internal power structure, a nationwide awakening triggered by an economic crisis, or a final reckoning by international forces of justice amid the global realignment. When the iron fist of justice strikes down, that seemingly impregnable “high wall” will crumble like withered wood before the awakened will of the people.

IV. The Moment of Awakening: Let the Light of Freedom Illuminate the Judgment Seat

From the downfall of Khamenei to the precarious state of the CCP’s rule, facts have repeatedly proven: no massacre can forever block the will of freedom, and no tyranny can escape the court of history.The criminals who gave the order to open fire on Tiananmen Square all those years ago, as well as the perpetrators who are now pulling the triggers on the streets of Tehran, will ultimately be branded with infamy in the annals of history and condemned by all generations to come.

This is the ultimate struggle between light and darkness. Khamenei’s downfall is the first domino to fall in the complete collapse of the global dictatorship bloc. For every person living in darkness who yearns for freedom, now is the moment to awaken, the moment to raise our voices! We are not only witnessing the demise of a tyrant, but also participating together in the birth of a new era.

Justice may be delayed, but when it strikes with thunderous force, no high wall can obscure the light of freedom. Let us look forward together to a not-too-distant future when Tiananmen Square is no longer the domain of tanks, but a sea of free people celebrating victory. On that day, the oppressed peoples of the world will declare in unison: Tyranny is dead, and freedom lives forever!

作者：司空先让

编辑：钟然 校对：熊辩 翻译：周敏

 

    在浙江有这么一个类似当年沙俄时期“十二月党人”夫人的群体，这个群体的代表人物就是中国民主党人毛庆祥的夫人胡晓玲女士。

     胡晓玲女士出生于名门之后，母亲祖上是嘉兴名门望族蒋光焴，蒋光焴，清著名藏书家。(1825—1892)当年在嘉兴赫赫有名的“衍芬堂”就是祖上在嘉兴府的府邸。

    胡晓玲女士的母亲，年轻时非常漂亮，接受过现代西方教育，加上性格活泼，更是受人尊敬喜爱。胡晓玲的母亲在民国时期就在杭州铁路公司重要部门工作。

    1947年，胡晓玲的母亲因曾无意间被同学拉进国民党的“三青团”组织，加上其出生成分不好，在共党掌权后的历次政治运动中经历过不同程度的政治迫害甚至差点送命。胡晓玲也因此从小就遭受歧视和不公，这经历对胡晓玲之后支持民主党人毛庆祥反中共政权有着不可分割的关系。

       1980年，被政治运动整怕了的胡晓玲女士的母亲当得知胡晓玲与79年“民主墙”的热血青年毛庆祥谈恋爱时，是坚决反对的。

   毛庆祥，杭州人，出生于1950年。曾在上海警备区服役，1971年服役期满，退伍后分配到杭州磁钢厂工作。

       1979年，发端于北京西单民主墙的民主运动影响到浙江，以76年“四·五”运动参与者（毛庆祥曾参与天安门“四五”运动被判过刑，后平反）为基础的浙江有志之士也纷纷行动起来，将杭州的民主墙活动搞得红红火火，并形成了一个部落“黑暗中的盗火者”，相互交流思想与认识，并萌发了许多生机勃发的民刊（起源“出自民间”“宣扬民主”故称民刊），而毛庆祥就是参与其中的杰出人士之一。

      正是这段时期，冥冥之中自有天意，有着共同志向的胡晓玲与毛庆祥在一次偶然的相遇之后，进入了爱恋阶段。在世俗人的眼里出生于名门望族之后的胡晓玲下嫁出生贫寒的毛庆祥是件不可思议的事，尽管受到家人的强烈反对，但意决已定的胡晓玲还是将户口本偷了出来毅然决然地与毛庆祥走进了民政局登记拿到了结婚证书。

      1981年4月1日，毛庆祥先生和胡晓玲女士喜结伉俪，婚后不久借蜜月之旅，花了一个多月的时间游历了福州、广州、桂林、北京、青岛、上海等地，见到了王希哲、刘国凯等民运先驱，还带回了《告各界（行业）人民书》广为应用，加强了浙江民运与全国各地同仁的交流与联系。同年8月13日，新婚不久的毛庆祥被中共当局抓走，不久，被浙江省杭州市中级人民法院杭法刑（81）47号以“反革命宣传罪”判刑三年。

      1984年8月刑满释放后，毛庆祥不畏当局的打压继续从事民运活动。

     1999年6月因参与组建中国民主党再次被捕，11月9日被当局以“颠覆国家政权罪”判处有期徒刑8年，剥夺政治权利3年，毛庆祥拒绝认罪服法，服满刑期。

      浙江自成立中国民主党以来，监狱中就一直有中国民主党人在坐牢，前后坐牢的达36人，至今仍在坐牢的有3人。这些民主党人的刑期加起来近200年。

     1999年，毛庆祥第二次被当局逮捕并判刑8年。就在毛庆祥被判刑的当年，胡晓玲上班的杭州棉纺针织厂，出台了所谓企业转制政策，就是裁减员工，让工人拿很少一点钱买断工龄，或提早退休每月拿很少一点退休金。胡晓玲选择了提早退休，可胡晓玲一个人这点退休金根本无法养家糊口，孩子还小，正是长身体需要营养的时候，孩子的学杂费等也是一笔不小的开支……没办法只能寻求再去打工上班，经好姐妹的介绍，去了一家杭州邮政器材厂工作，可没上几天班就因毛庆祥在狱中申诉，并将申诉材料在探监时交给了胡晓玲……

当时的国保为了阻止胡晓玲将“申诉材料”递交到检察院，先是威胁胡晓玲，如果递交上去的话，在狱中的毛庆祥是没有好果子吃的，胡晓玲没理会国保。可国保没过几天竟然去了“邮政材料厂”对胡晓玲进行威胁和施压……结果厂方领导一见阵势也倍感紧张，所以第二天厂领导就让胡晓玲不要去上班了。胡晓玲因此失去了好不容易得来的工作。陷入困境的胡晓玲其生活的艰难是常人难以想象的……没办法只能不时向亲戚朋友借钱，时常打点零工艰难度日。胡晓玲深明大义，独自承担起全部家庭重任。赡养父母，养育孩子，全力支持毛庆祥的民运事业。

      每当看到中国民主党人被判刑，胡晓玲心痛无比。她深知，在这个艰难的时刻，被判刑的民主党人最需要的就是家人的支持和陪伴。于是，她毫不犹豫地站了出来，主动联系其家人尽可能提供帮助和情绪安抚……在胡晓玲的带动和帮助鼓励下，不少民主党

人的夫人们也勇敢站出来，自发团结起来与当局抗争并呼吁国际社会予以关注和谴责。

    在毛庆祥坐牢期间，胡晓玲不仅要照顾年老的双亲、培育孩子、上班工作，还坚持每个月去监狱探望夫君。

就探监这事，对于中国民主党人夫人这个群体来说，是件很重要的事，因为只有通过探监，才能知道丈夫在监狱里是否遭受不公或虐待，更重要的是通过探监能安抚亲人情绪。可以想像，一个人在大牢里呆着，如果没有亲人的关心和探望，是一件多么痛苦的事！这种痛苦有时可能比坐牢本身还受煎熬！

    这里我特别提一下，民主党人吕耿松第二次坐牢11年，在浙江长湖监狱服刑期间，其妻汪雪娥每月至少一次前往探望。杭州至湖州长湖监狱为90公里，来回是180公里，刑期是11年要来回跑132次（132次x180公里=23760公里）相当于绕地球大半圈还多！

     由于组建中国民主党案同案的民主党人吴义龙是外地人，在杭州生活相当困难，胡晓玲时常给他送些钱物，在杭州的其他中国民主党人夫人群体也会伸出援助之手，让他度过艰难困苦时期。

    如今胡晓玲已70多岁了，身体也不是很好，可还经常去养老院看望照顾身陷囹圄的中国民主党人邹巍90多岁的老母亲。

     中国民主党主要创始人之一朱虞夫先生，在谈到胡晓玲帮助受难者民主党人家人时是深有体会和感触的。当朱虞夫先生第一次坐牢时，最担心的是自己的夫人性格内向懦弱，怕接受不了这突如其来的打击。朱虞夫先生托人带话给胡晓玲，希望她能帮助其夫人克服恐惧和焦虑。在胡晓玲的鼓励帮助下，朱虞夫先生的夫人走过了那段最难熬的日子。

     就这样，在浙江中国民主党人的夫人群体一直以来相互鼓励，相互支持下度过了一个个的艰难时刻。

     在民主党人毛庆祥前后获刑11年多中。胡晓玲和儿子相依为命，艰难地过着常人不可想象的日子。

     胡晓玲就靠自己的一点微薄的退休工资生活，到孩子念大学了，教育费很高，只靠这点退休金根本不够，还要打零工，跟朋友借点钱和亲友的资助。儿子13岁的时候，爸爸就不在身边，在性格等方面对孩子的成长都可能产生负面影响。

      就在这样艰难日子里，胡晓玲坦然面对现实，引导鼓励孩子要坚强，不要因为爸爸的事情而自卑，自暴自弃；培养其积极向上的性格。儿子在母亲良好品格潜移默化地影响下，非常努力地读书学习。大学毕业后，只身一人前往迪拜发展，历经千辛万苦和不懈努力终于在迪拜站住了脚跟：创办了网络媒体，传播介绍阿联酋（迪拜）和中国的历史、文化、经济、旅游、美食……成为了两国文化交流使者。

     胡晓玲以坚韧不拔的品格和实际行动不仅默默守住了心中的信念，更是守护支撑起了一个被当局击碎了的家庭。是当之无愧的中国现代版的“十二月党人”夫人！

      向中国民主党人夫人群体致敬！

  

Remembering Ms. Hu Xiaoling, Wife of Chinese Democrat Mao Qingxiang

Author: Sikong Xianrang

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

Abstract: Hu Xiaoling, a descendant of a prestigious family, held firm to her convictions in supporting Chinese Democrat Mao Qingxiang and the Zhejiang democracy movement. During her husband’s long-term imprisonments, she raised their child alone, cared for her parents, maintained their livelihood, and showed concern for the families of other Democrats. She is worthy of being called a modern-day “Decembrist” wife.

There is a group in Zhejiang similar to the “Decembrist” wives of the Tsarist Russian era, and the representative figure of this group is Ms. Hu Xiaoling, the wife of Chinese Democrat Mao Qingxiang.

Ms. Hu Xiaoling was born into a prestigious family. Her mother’s ancestors were the famous Jiang family of Jiaxing, specifically Jiang Guangyu (1825–1892), a famous Qing Dynasty book collector. The “Yanfen Hall,” which was illustrious in Jiaxing at that time, was the ancestral mansion in Jiaxing Prefecture.

Ms. Hu Xiaoling’s mother was very beautiful in her youth and had received a modern Western education; combined with her lively personality, she was highly respected and loved. During the Republican era, Hu Xiaoling’s mother worked in an important department of the Hangzhou Railway Company.

In 1947, because Hu Xiaoling’s mother had been inadvertently pulled into the Kuomintang’s “Three People’s Principles Youth League” by a classmate, and because of her “bad” family background, she experienced varying degrees of political persecution and nearly lost her life in the successive political movements after the Communist Party took power. Consequently, Hu Xiaoling suffered discrimination and injustice from childhood. This experience is inextricably linked to Hu Xiaoling’s subsequent support for the Democrat Mao Qingxiang in opposing the CCP regime.

In 1980, Hu Xiaoling’s mother—who had been terrified by political movements—resolutely opposed the news that Hu Xiaoling was dating Mao Qingxiang, a passionate youth from the 1979 “Democracy Wall” movement.

Mao Qingxiang, a native of Hangzhou, was born in 1950. He served in the Shanghai Garrison District. After completing his service in 1971, he was discharged and assigned to work at the Hangzhou Magnetic Steel Plant.

In 1979, the democracy movement originating from the Xidan Democracy Wall in Beijing influenced Zhejiang. Based on the participants of the 1976 “April 5th” movement (Mao Qingxiang had participated in the Tiananmen “April 5th” movement, was sentenced, and later rehabilitated), people of high ideals in Zhejiang took action one after another, making the Democracy Wall activities in Hangzhou very successful. They formed a group called “The Fire-Stealers in the Dark,” exchanging thoughts and understandings, which gave rise to many vibrant “folk publications” (so-called because they “originated from the people” and “promoted democracy”). Mao Qingxiang was one of the outstanding individuals involved.

It was during this period—as if destined by heaven—that Hu Xiaoling and Mao Qingxiang, who shared common aspirations, entered a stage of love after a chance encounter. In the eyes of worldly people, it was inconceivable for Hu Xiaoling, born of a prestigious family, to marry down to Mao Qingxiang, who was born into poverty. Despite strong opposition from her family, the determined Hu Xiaoling stole the household registration book (Hukou), resolutely went to the Civil Affairs Bureau with Mao Qingxiang to register, and obtained their marriage certificate.

On April 1, 1981, Mr. Mao Qingxiang and Ms. Hu Xiaoling were joined in matrimony. Shortly after the wedding, using their honeymoon trip as an opportunity, they spent over a month traveling to Fuzhou, Guangzhou, Guilin, Beijing, Qingdao, Shanghai, and other places. They met democracy pioneers such as Wang Xizhe and Liu Guokai and brought back the “Letter to People of All Circles (Industries)” for wide application, strengthening the communication and contact between the Zhejiang democracy movement and colleagues across the country. On August 13 of the same year, the newlywed Mao Qingxiang was taken away by the CCP authorities. Soon after, he was sentenced to three years in prison by the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court [Case No. Hang Fa Xing (81) 47] for the crime of “counter-revolutionary propaganda.”

After completing his sentence in August 1984, Mao Qingxiang, undeterred by the authorities’ suppression, continued to engage in pro-democracy activities.

In June 1999, he was arrested again for participating in the formation of the China Democracy Party. On November 9, he was sentenced by the authorities to eight years of fixed-term imprisonment and three years of deprivation of political rights for the crime of “subverting state power.” Mao Qingxiang refused to plead guilty or accept the verdict and served his full term.

Since the establishment of the China Democracy Party in Zhejiang, there have always been members in prison. A total of 36 people have been imprisoned at different times, and three remain in prison today. The combined sentences of these Democrats total nearly 200 years.

In 1999, Mao Qingxiang was arrested and sentenced to eight years by the authorities for the second time. In the same year he was sentenced, the Hangzhou Cotton Textile and Knitting Mill, where Hu Xiaoling worked, introduced a so-called “enterprise restructuring” policy. This involved cutting staff and forcing workers to “buy out” their years of service for a very small amount of money or retire early with a very small monthly pension. Hu Xiaoling chose early retirement, but her pension alone was simply not enough to support the family. Her child was still young, at an age requiring nutrition for growth, and the child’s school fees were also a significant expense. Having no choice, she sought work again. Through a friend’s introduction, she got a job at a Hangzhou Postal Equipment Factory. However, she had only been working for a few days when Mao Qingxiang filed an appeal from prison and handed the appeal materials to Hu Xiaoling during a visit.

To prevent Hu Xiaoling from submitting the “appeal materials” to the procuratorate, the Domestic Security (Guobao) first threatened her, saying that if she submitted them, Mao Qingxiang would have a hard time in prison. Hu Xiaoling ignored them. A few days later, the Domestic Security actually went to the “Postal Equipment Factory” to threaten and pressure Hu Xiaoling. Consequently, the factory leaders became extremely nervous upon seeing this situation, and the next day they told Hu Xiaoling not to come to work anymore. Thus, Hu Xiaoling lost the hard-won job. Falling into dire straits, the hardship of Hu Xiaoling’s life was beyond ordinary imagination. With no other choice, she occasionally borrowed money from relatives and friends and worked odd jobs to scrape by. Hu Xiaoling was deeply sensible and took on the entire family burden alone—supporting her parents, raising her child, and fully supporting Mao Qingxiang’s democracy cause.

Whenever she saw a member of the China Democracy Party being sentenced, Hu Xiaoling felt immense pain. She knew that at this difficult moment, the sentenced Democrats needed the support and companionship of their families most. Thus, she stood up without hesitation, actively contacting their families to provide as much help and emotional comfort as possible. Driven and encouraged by Hu Xiaoling, many wives of other Democrats also bravely stood up, spontaneously uniting to struggle against the authorities and appealing for international attention and condemnation.

During Mao Qingxiang’s imprisonment, Hu Xiaoling not only had to care for her elderly parents, raise her child, and work, but also insisted on visiting her husband in prison every month.

Regarding prison visits, for the group of wives of Chinese Democrats, it is a very important matter. Only through visits can they know if their husbands are suffering injustice or abuse in prison; more importantly, visits can soothe the emotions of their loved ones. One can imagine how painful it is for a person to stay in a large prison without the care and visits of relatives! This pain is sometimes more agonizing than the imprisonment itself.

Here I would like to specifically mention that when the Democrat Lyu Gengsong was imprisoned for 11 years for the second time, his wife Wang Xue’e traveled to visit him at least once a month while he served his sentence in Zhejiang Changhu Prison. The distance from Hangzhou to Changhu Prison is 90 kilometers—a round trip of 180 kilometers. Over a term of 11 years, she had to travel back and forth 132 times ($132 \times 180 \text{ km} = 23,760 \text{ km}$), which is equivalent to more than halfway around the earth!

Since Wu Yilong, a fellow Democrat in the China Democracy Party formation case, was from out of town and lived in great difficulty in Hangzhou, Hu Xiaoling often sent him money and items. The group of other Democrat wives in Hangzhou would also lend a helping hand to help him through difficult times.

Now Hu Xiaoling is over 70 years old and her health is not very good, yet she still frequently goes to a nursing home to visit and care for the 90-plus-year-old mother of the imprisoned Democrat Zou Wei.

Mr. Zhu Yufu, one of the main founders of the China Democracy Party, has deep personal experience and feelings regarding Hu Xiaoling’s help for the families of suffering Democrats. When Mr. Zhu Yufu was imprisoned for the first time, his greatest worry was his wife, who had an introverted and weak personality; he feared she would not be able to handle this sudden blow. Mr. Zhu Yufu sent a message through someone to Hu Xiaoling, hoping she could help his wife overcome fear and anxiety. With Hu Xiaoling’s encouragement and help, Mr. Zhu Yufu’s wife made it through those most difficult days.

In this way, the group of wives of the Zhejiang China Democracy Party members has spent one difficult moment after another under mutual encouragement and support.

During the more than 11 years that the Democrat Mao Qingxiang was imprisoned, Hu Xiaoling and her son depended on each other, living a life of hardship unimaginable to ordinary people.

Hu Xiaoling lived on her meager retirement pension. By the time her son went to university, the education costs were very high; the pension alone was not enough, so she had to work odd jobs and rely on money borrowed from friends and assistance from relatives. When the son was 13 years old, his father was not by his side, which could have had a negative impact on the child’s growth and personality.

In those difficult days, Hu Xiaoling faced reality calmly, guiding and encouraging her child to be strong and not to feel inferior or give up on himself because of his father’s situation; she cultivated a positive and proactive character in him. Under the subtle influence of his mother’s good character, the son studied very hard. After graduating from university, he went to Dubai alone to develop his career. Through immense hardship and unremitting efforts, he finally established himself in Dubai: he founded a web media outlet to spread and introduce the history, culture, economy, tourism, and food of the UAE (Dubai) and China, becoming a messenger for cultural exchange between the two countries.

With her indomitable character and practical actions, Hu Xiaoling not only silently held onto her inner beliefs but also protected and supported a family that had been shattered by the authorities. She is truly a modern-day Chinese version of a “Decembrist” wife!

Salute to the group of wives of the Chinese Democrats!

——写在2026年的国际妇女节

作者：张致君
编辑：胡丽莉 校对：熊辩 翻译：吕峰

三月的风吹进城市，空气带着潮湿与寒意。街角的梧桐树在风中轻轻摇晃，枝叶摩擦发出细碎的声响，像某种被压低的低语。

城市看起来依然正常：地铁照常运行，咖啡店门口排着队，商场的大屏幕滚动着广告和节日祝福。

但在中国的互联网空间里，一些声音正在悄然消失。

女性博主的账号消失了，性少数群体的讨论区消失了，脱口秀演员小帕的社交媒体账号也被封禁。她们曾经写下的文字、发出的笑声、表达的愤怒与困惑，就像被风卷走的落叶，在互联网的地面上再也找不到停留的地方。

许多人曾经相信，互联网会让表达变得更加自由。但在中国，这片海洋布满了看不见的渔网。人们看不见它，却随时可能被困住。人们以为自己在自由地游动，实际上每一步都在被监控、被记录、被计算。

中国女性与性少数群体的公共表达空间正在迅速缩小。那些曾经可以被讨论的话题——身体、婚姻、性别平等、性取向、家庭暴力——逐渐被重新划入危险的领域。

红线在移动，在收紧。而这一切，并不是突然发生的。

在中国当代政治叙事中，女性问题从来不仅仅是社会问题，它同时也是一个政治问题。

长期以来，中国官方意识形态强调一种以国家发展和社会稳定为核心的国家主义叙事。在这种叙事中，个人权利往往被置于国家目标之后，而社会角色则被赋予明确的政治意义。

女性在这种叙事中通常被定义为三种角色：母亲、妻子和家庭照顾者。

这种角色定义并非偶然。随着中国人口结构迅速老龄化、出生率持续下降，人口问题逐渐被视为国家安全与经济发展的重要议题。近年来，中国政府不断鼓励生育，从二孩政策到三孩政策，再到各地推出的生育补贴和住房奖励，国家正在试图重新塑造一种以家庭和生育为核心的社会价值。

在这种政策逻辑下，女性的身体逐渐被纳入国家治理的框架。

官方媒体频繁强调婚姻与生育的重要性，一些地方政府甚至通过行政手段鼓励女性尽早结婚生子。与此同时，一些关于女性独立、性别平等或婚育选择的讨论，却被视为“西方思想”或“极端女权”。

这种意识形态上的冲突，使女性主义与国家主义之间逐渐形成张力。

女性主义关注的是个人权利、身体自主与社会平等，而国家主义更强调人口结构、社会秩序与家庭稳定。当女性开始公开讨论不婚、不育、家庭暴力或职场性别歧视时，这些讨论往往被视为对传统家庭结构和社会秩序的挑战。

因此，许多女性主义议题在中国的公共空间中逐渐被边缘化，甚至被压制。

这种冲突并不仅仅发生在网络审查或个别案件中，而是反映出一种更深层的意识形态矛盾：当国家试图通过家庭和人口政策塑造社会结构时，女性的自主选择往往成为最先受到限制的领域。

2022年初，一段来自江苏徐州农村的短视频在中国互联网迅速传播。

视频里，一个女人被铁链锁在一间破旧的小屋里。她的脖子被粗重的铁链拴在墙上，牙齿几乎全部脱落，头发凌乱，眼神空洞而惊恐。

据当地村民说，她已经为所谓的“丈夫”生下了八个孩子。

这就是后来震惊中国社会的“铁链女事件”。

许多女性在深夜刷到这段视频时，感到一种难以言说的震动。一个现代国家，一个每天谈论科技与繁荣的社会，却仍然存在这样的场景：一个女人像牲畜一样被锁在屋里，被迫不断生育。

公众开始追问：她是谁？她从哪里来？是谁把她卖到这里？

但随着调查的展开，官方通报却一次次改变说法。地方政府先称她是“精神病患者”，后来又说她是“走失人口”，再后来又承认她可能是拐卖受害者。

几份通报之间互相矛盾，却始终没有给出清晰解释。

与此同时，大量前往徐州调查的志愿者和公民记者遭到警方阻拦，一些女性调查者甚至被警方带走讯问。互联网上关于铁链女的讨论迅速被删除。

一个女人被铁链锁住的身体，最终变成了一个被锁住的公共话题。

在铁链女事件之前，中国的女性主义运动就已经经历过一次重要的打击。

2015年3月，五名女性权利活动者计划在妇女节前夕发起反性骚扰宣传活动。她们原本只是计划在地铁和公交车上发放反性骚扰贴纸。

后来被称为“女权五姐妹”的她们，行动尚未开始，便被警方同时带走，以“寻衅滋事”的名义拘留。

这一事件引起国际社会关注。联合国和多个国家政府呼吁中国释放她们。37天后，她们被取保候审。

但这一事件成为中国女权运动的重要转折点。

许多女性主义组织被迫关闭，一些长期关注性别议题的 NGO 逐渐消失。

李翘楚长期关注劳工和女性权益。2021年，她因发布有关人权和刑讯逼供的文章被逮捕；2023年，被以“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”判刑三年八个月。

在中国，女性不仅难以讨论性别议题，也难以参与更广泛的公共事务。

2018年，中国媒体人弦子公开指控知名主持人朱军曾在央视后台对她实施性骚扰。

这一案件迅速引发中国版的 #MeToo 讨论。

许多女性开始公开讲述自己的经历。

但案件审理过程异常艰难，相关讨论在社交媒体上频繁被删除，弦子本人也遭遇巨大舆论压力。

2022年，北京法院判决弦子败诉。

这起案件在许多人看来，不仅是一场性骚扰诉讼，更像一次社会试验：女性是否能够公开讲述自己的经历。

答案令人沮丧。而发起“米兔运动”的黄雪琴，至今仍在狱中。

2021年，中国网球运动员彭帅在微博发布长文，指控一名高层官员性侵。

帖子在二十分钟内被删除。随后，彭帅从公众视野中消失。

国际社会要求调查，但在中国国内几乎无法讨论这一事件。后来，彭帅在官方安排的采访中表示自己“从未提出性侵指控”。

她在镜头前微笑。那种微笑平静得让人不安。

习近平上台后，中国多所大学的 LGBTQ 学生社团公众号被集中关闭，一些高校要求相关社团停止活动。

在官方媒体的叙述中，“性别多元”被描述为“西方文化渗透”。许多年轻人发现，她们曾经用来交流的社群一夜之间消失。

沉默再次成为一种生存方式。更多女性少数群体选择隐瞒自己的性取向，选择结婚或者形式婚姻，而性别暴力隐藏在这些不真实的关系中，许多犯罪在婚姻框架下变成“合法”。

这些现象的背后，其实还有一个更深层的政治背景：人口政策。

中国长期实行严格的计划生育政策。从1980年代的一胎政策，到后来逐步放宽为二孩，再到2021年的三孩政策。

当人口出生率持续下降时，国家的政策叙事开始发生转变。女性被越来越多地视为“人口生产者”。

官方媒体不断强调婚育责任，地方政府推出各种鼓励生育的政策——从现金补贴到住房优惠。与此同时，离婚冷静期被写入法律，一些地方开始限制单身女性冷冻卵子。

这种政策逻辑下，女性的身体再次被纳入国家治理的框架，处处彰显了中共统治下威权国家的性别政治。而在国际上中国也并不是唯一一个把性别问题纳入政治叙事的国家。伊朗的女性必须遵守严格的着装规定，2022年年轻女性马赫萨·阿米尼因“头巾佩戴不当”被道德警察拘捕并死亡，引发全国抗议。俄罗斯政府近年来强调传统家庭价值，并通过法律限制“同性恋宣传”。匈牙利总理欧尔班政府也不断强调“家庭主义”，反对性别多元政策。

这些国家的政治制度不同，但在性别议题上却呈现出相似趋势：国家试图重新定义女性角色，将其纳入民族、人口或传统价值的叙事之中。

而在这种政治逻辑下，女性与性少数群体的空间往往最先受到压缩。

从政治学的角度来看，女性运动之所以常常成为威权政府警惕的对象，并不仅仅因为性别议题本身，而是因为女性运动往往具有跨阶层、跨群体的社会动员能力。

在许多国家的历史中，女性运动往往是社会变革的重要推动力量。

女性问题几乎涉及每一个家庭。无论是婚姻、教育、就业还是生育，这些议题都与日常生活密切相关。当女性开始组织、发声和行动时，她们往往能够迅速触及广泛的社会群体。

这种广泛的社会联系使得女性运动具有一种特殊的政治潜力。

在威权体制中，政府通常通过控制媒体、压制反对党和限制公民社会来维持权力。然而，女性议题往往从日常生活出发，很难完全被政治化，也很难完全被压制。

当一个关于家庭暴力、性骚扰或拐卖人口的事件引发讨论时，它就不仅限于一个个案，也可能迅速演变为对制度的反思。

正是如此，许多威权政府往往对女性运动保持高度警惕。

在中国，“女权五姐妹”因反对性骚扰活动而被拘留，弦子的#MeToo 案件遭遇重重阻碍，铁链女事件的讨论被迅速压制，这些现象在一定程度上都反映出中共政府对社会动员的恐惧。

在中共的威权政治的逻辑中，任何能够跨越社会阶层、激发公众共鸣的议题，都被视为潜在的政治风险。

而女性运动，恰恰具备这样的力量。

当中国的女性开始讲述自己的经历、讨论自己的身体和权利时，这些看似私人和日常的议题，往往会被中共置于高度敏感的位置。

在这样的环境中，中国女性的声音就不单纯是一种社会表达，也可以被理解为一种政治行为。

历史也一再证明，极权可以压制声音，却很难彻底消灭记忆。

每一次被删除的帖子、每一个被封禁的账号、每一段被消失的讨论，都不会真正消失。它们会在人们的记忆里留下痕迹，在私人聊天、海外媒体和零散的叙述中继续流传。

铁链女的影像曾震动整个中国互联网；女权五姐妹的拘押让许多年轻人第一次意识到：性别平等也可能成为一种“敏感议题”；弦子的控诉、彭帅的失声、李翘楚的判刑，也让更多人看见权力与沉默之间的关系。

这些事件被压下了热度，但它们改变了许多人的认知。

在中共的威权社会中，权力往往试图让历史变得短暂，让公众忘记昨天发生过什么。

但社会记忆并不会完全消失。它会在新的代际之间缓慢传递，在新的语言和新的叙述中重新出现。

女性和性少数群体的声音，也许会被迫沉默一段时间，但它们不会真正消失。

因为这些声音所表达的，并不仅仅是个体的不满，而是关于尊严、身体与自由的基本问题。

三月的风仍然在城市之间吹过。

梧桐叶一片一片落下，是时间留下的痕迹。

哪怕红线不断收紧，哪怕沉默再次降临，那些微弱却真实的光点仍然存在——在记忆里，在语言里，在那些仍然愿意讲述的人心中。

Women’s Voices in an Authoritarian Era—Written on the Occasion of International Women’s Day 2026

Author: Zhang Zhijun
Editor: Hu Lili Proofreading: Xiong BianTranslator: Lyu Feng

Abstract: In China, the space for public expression by women and sexual minority groups is increasingly restricted. Feminist activism and related events are frequently suppressed, and online discussions are often deleted. State policies and governance logic surrounding population and social management politicize women’s roles, turning private issues into sensitive public topics.

The winds of March sweep into the city, carrying dampness and a lingering chill in the air. At the street corner, the plane trees sway gently in the wind, their branches and leaves rubbing together and producing faint rustling sounds—like whispers deliberately lowered.

The city still appears normal. Subways run as usual, lines form outside coffee shops, and giant screens in shopping malls roll through advertisements and holiday greetings.

Yet within China’s online space, certain voices are quietly disappearing.

The accounts of female bloggers have vanished. Discussion forums for sexual minorities have disappeared. The social media account of stand-up comedian Xiao Pa has also been banned. The words they once wrote, the laughter they shared, the anger and confusion they expressed—like fallen leaves swept away by the wind—can no longer find a place to settle on the surface of the internet.

Many people once believed that the internet would make expression freer. But in China, this ocean is filled with invisible fishing nets. People cannot see them, yet they may be trapped at any moment. People believe they are swimming freely, but in reality every step is being monitored, recorded, and calculated.

The public space for expression by Chinese women and sexual minorities is rapidly shrinking. Topics that were once openly discussed—bodies, marriage, gender equality, sexual orientation, domestic violence—are gradually being reclassified as dangerous territory.

The red lines are shifting. They are tightening. And none of this has happened suddenly.

In contemporary Chinese political narratives, women’s issues have never been merely social issues; they are also political issues.

For a long time, official Chinese ideology has emphasized a nationalist narrative centered on national development and social stability. Within this narrative, individual rights are often placed after state goals, and social roles are endowed with explicit political meaning.

Women are typically defined within this narrative in three roles: mother, wife, and family caregiver.

This role definition is not accidental. As China’s population structure rapidly ages and the birth rate continues to decline, demographic issues have increasingly been framed as matters of national security and economic development. In recent years, the Chinese government has continuously encouraged childbirth—from the two-child policy to the three-child policy, and through various local policies offering birth subsidies and housing incentives. The state is attempting to reshape a social value system centered on family and reproduction.

Under this policy logic, women’s bodies are gradually incorporated into the framework of state governance.

Official media frequently emphasize the importance of marriage and childbirth. Some local governments have even used administrative measures to encourage women to marry and have children earlier. At the same time, discussions about female independence, gender equality, or reproductive choice are sometimes labeled as “Western ideas” or “extreme feminism.”

This ideological conflict has gradually created tension between feminism and nationalism.

Feminism focuses on individual rights, bodily autonomy, and social equality, while nationalism emphasizes demographic structure, social order, and family stability. When women begin publicly discussing remaining unmarried, choosing not to have children, domestic violence, or gender discrimination in the workplace, such discussions are often viewed as challenges to traditional family structures and social order.

As a result, many feminist issues in China’s public sphere have gradually been marginalized or even suppressed.

This conflict does not occur only in cases of internet censorship or isolated incidents. It reflects a deeper ideological contradiction: when the state attempts to shape social structures through family and population policies, women’s autonomy often becomes one of the first areas to be restricted.

In early 2022, a short video from a rural village in Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province spread rapidly across the Chinese internet.

In the video, a woman was chained inside a dilapidated room. A heavy iron chain was locked around her neck and attached to the wall. Most of her teeth were missing. Her hair was disheveled, and her eyes looked hollow and terrified.

According to local villagers, she had given birth to eight children for the man who claimed to be her husband.

This was the case that later shocked Chinese society: the “Chained Woman” incident.

Many women who came across the video late at night felt a shock that was difficult to describe. In a modern nation that speaks daily about technology and prosperity, such a scene still existed: a woman locked in a room like livestock, forced to continuously give birth.

The public began asking questions: Who was she? Where did she come from? Who sold her into this situation?

But as the investigation unfolded, official statements repeatedly changed their explanations. Local authorities initially claimed she was a “mentally ill patient.” Later they said she was a “missing person.” Eventually they admitted she might be a victim of human trafficking.

These statements contradicted one another, yet none offered a clear explanation.

Meanwhile, volunteers and citizen journalists who traveled to Xuzhou to investigate were blocked by police. Some female investigators were even taken away for questioning. Online discussions about the chained woman were quickly deleted.

The body of a woman locked by an iron chain ultimately became a public issue that was also locked away.

Even before the Chained Woman incident, China’s feminist movement had already experienced a major setback.

In March 2015, five women’s rights activists planned to launch an anti-sexual-harassment campaign ahead of International Women’s Day. They intended to distribute anti-harassment stickers on subways and buses.

Before the campaign could even begin, they were simultaneously detained by police on charges of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”

They later became known as the “Feminist Five.”

The case drew international attention. The United Nations and several governments called on China to release them. After 37 days in detention, they were released on bail.

However, the incident became an important turning point for China’s feminist movement.

Many feminist organizations were forced to shut down. Some NGOs that had long focused on gender issues gradually disappeared.

Li Qiaochu had long advocated for labor rights and women’s rights. In 2021, she was arrested for publishing articles about human rights and torture. In 2023, she was sentenced to three years and eight months in prison on charges of “inciting subversion of state power.”

In China, women not only struggle to discuss gender issues; they also face obstacles in participating in broader public affairs.

In 2018, Chinese journalist Xianzi publicly accused the well-known television host Zhu Jun of sexually harassing her backstage at China Central Television.

The case quickly sparked a Chinese version of the #MeToo movement.

Many women began publicly sharing their own experiences.

But the legal proceedings were extremely difficult. Related discussions were frequently deleted from social media, and Xianzi herself faced enormous public pressure.

In 2022, a Beijing court ruled against her.

To many observers, the case was not merely a sexual harassment lawsuit—it resembled a social experiment: could women publicly tell their stories?

The answer was discouraging. Meanwhile, Huang Xueqin, a journalist who helped initiate China’s #MeToo movement, remains imprisoned.

In 2021, Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai posted a long message on Weibo accusing a senior official of sexual assault.

The post was deleted within twenty minutes. Shortly afterward, Peng Shuai disappeared from public view.

International organizations called for an investigation, but inside China the topic was nearly impossible to discuss. Later, in a carefully arranged interview with state media, Peng Shuai stated that she had “never made allegations of sexual assault.”

She smiled in front of the camera. The calmness of that smile made many people uneasy.

After Xi Jinping came to power, LGBTQ student organizations at many Chinese universities saw their social media accounts shut down simultaneously, and some universities required such groups to cease activities.

In official media narratives, “gender diversity” has been described as “Western cultural infiltration.” Many young people discovered that the communities they once used to communicate had disappeared overnight.

Silence once again became a way to survive. More women and sexual minorities chose to conceal their sexual orientation, to enter marriages or even sham marriages. Gender-based violence often remained hidden within these relationships, and some forms of abuse became “legal” under the framework of marriage.

Behind these developments lies a deeper political background: population policy.

China long implemented strict birth-control policies—from the one-child policy introduced in the 1980s to the later two-child policy, and eventually the three-child policy announced in 2021.

As birth rates continued to decline, the state’s policy narrative began to shift. Women were increasingly viewed as “producers of population.”

Official media repeatedly emphasize responsibilities related to marriage and childbirth, while local governments introduce incentives ranging from cash subsidies to housing benefits. At the same time, a mandatory “cooling-off period” for divorce was written into law, and some regions began restricting egg-freezing for unmarried women.

Under such policy logic, women’s bodies once again become integrated into the machinery of state governance—reflecting the gender politics of an authoritarian state under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party.

Internationally, China is not the only country that incorporates gender issues into political narratives. In Iran, women must follow strict dress codes; in 2022, the death of young woman Mahsa Amini after being detained by morality police for “improper hijab” sparked nationwide protests. In Russia, the government has increasingly emphasized traditional family values and passed laws restricting so-called “homosexual propaganda.” Hungary’s government under Viktor Orbán has also emphasized “familyism” and opposed gender diversity policies.

These countries have different political systems, yet similar trends emerge regarding gender issues: the state attempts to redefine women’s roles and incorporate them into narratives of nationhood, demography, or traditional values.

Under such political logic, the space for women and sexual minorities is often among the first to shrink.

From a political science perspective, women’s movements often attract the attention of authoritarian governments not simply because of gender issues themselves, but because such movements possess the ability to mobilize across social classes and groups.

In the history of many countries, women’s movements have been important drivers of social change.

Women’s issues touch nearly every family. Whether concerning marriage, education, employment, or childbirth, these issues are closely tied to everyday life. When women begin organizing, speaking out, and taking action, they often quickly reach broad segments of society.

This extensive social connection gives women’s movements a particular political potential.

In authoritarian systems, governments typically maintain power by controlling media, suppressing opposition parties, and restricting civil society. Yet women’s issues often originate in everyday life and cannot easily be fully politicized or entirely suppressed.

When an incident involving domestic violence, sexual harassment, or human trafficking sparks public discussion, it may quickly expand beyond a single case and evolve into reflection on institutions themselves.

For this reason, many authoritarian governments remain highly wary of women’s movements.

In China, the detention of the Feminist Five for anti-harassment activism, the obstacles faced by Xianzi’s #MeToo lawsuit, and the rapid suppression of discussion about the Chained Woman incident all reflect, to some degree, the Chinese Communist Party’s fear of social mobilization.

Within the logic of the CCP’s authoritarian politics, any issue capable of crossing social boundaries and generating widespread public resonance is viewed as a potential political risk.

Women’s movements possess precisely such power.

When Chinese women begin telling their stories, discussing their bodies and rights, these issues—seemingly personal and everyday—often become highly sensitive under the CCP’s political system.

In such an environment, women’s voices in China are not merely social expressions; they can also be understood as political acts.

History repeatedly demonstrates that authoritarian power can suppress voices, but it rarely eliminates memory entirely.

Every deleted post, every banned account, and every vanished discussion does not truly disappear. They leave traces in people’s memories, circulating through private conversations, overseas media, and fragmented narratives.

The image of the Chained Woman once shook the entire Chinese internet. The detention of the Feminist Five made many young people realize for the first time that gender equality could itself become a “sensitive issue.” Xianzi’s accusation, Peng Shuai’s disappearance from public speech, and Li Qiaochu’s imprisonment revealed to many the relationship between power and silence.

These events were suppressed, but they changed many people’s understanding.

In the CCP’s authoritarian society, power often attempts to shorten history—to make the public forget what happened yesterday.

Yet social memory does not vanish completely. It passes slowly between generations, reappearing in new languages and new narratives.

The voices of women and sexual minorities may be forced into silence for a time, but they will not truly disappear.

Because what those voices express is not merely individual dissatisfaction, but fundamental questions about dignity, the body, and freedom.

The winds of March continue to blow through the city.

Plane-tree leaves fall one by one, traces left behind by time.

Even as red lines tighten, even as silence returns, those faint yet genuine points of light still exist—in memory, in language, and in the hearts of those who remain willing to tell the story.

——软弱的人如何承受自由

作者：韩立华

编辑：周志刚 校对：熊辩 翻译：戈冰

阿廖沙说，耶稣是唯一一个“能够宽恕而且有权宽恕的人”，人类命运的大厦不是建立在小女孩的眼泪之上，而是建立在耶稣身上。阿廖沙说，伊凡忘记了耶稣。

伊凡说，他没有忘记耶稣，而且他还为耶稣写了一部长诗（名字叫《宗教大法官》），这就是《卡拉马佐夫兄弟》第五卷第五章中著名的《宗教大法官》。虽然他没有把这首诗写下来，但诗的内容他记得。

作为开场白，伊凡介绍了过去时代类似的诗歌和戏剧，就是“把天神引向人间”的时尚。他提到但丁，提到雨果的《巴黎圣母院》，提到俄国彼得大帝以前的时代演的戏剧，他还特别提到鞑靼人统治时代的一首长诗，叫《圣母游地狱》。伊凡认为诗中的描写不亚于但丁。

伊凡说，他的长诗也是这样的题材，就是耶稣再次来到地上，来到人间。耶稣在圣经中已经应许说：“我必快来”（启示录3：11“我必快来，你要持守你所有的，免得人夺去你的冠冕。”），但他什么时候来，“但那日子、那时辰没有人知道，连天上的使者也不知道，子也不知道，唯有父知道。”（马可福音13：32）

于是，地上的人们一代又一代地等待着他的再来，“满怀着当年的信仰和当年感动的心情在等待着他。”

十五个世纪过去了，人们已经整整十五个世纪没有得到来自天上的保证了。正巧那时候，在欧洲北部出现了一种“新的、可怕的邪教”，就是波及西欧各国的宗教改革运动。“那些邪教徒开始亵渎上帝，否认奇迹，但是虔诚如初的教徒们对上帝的信仰变得更加炽烈了。”他们一代一代地祈祷：“主啊，快降临吧”。最后耶稣终于怀着无限怜悯之情降临到祈求者面前，回到那些“受苦受难，罪孽深重，但婴儿般爱他的百姓面前”。

那是在十六世纪，西班牙南部的塞维尔（塞维利亚），耶稣再次降临人间。那是在宗教裁判制度最猖獗的时代。耶稣来到这里，“只是想看一眼他的孩子们，看一看架起火堆活活烧死异教徒的那个地方。”

就在前一天，在这个城市的广场上，“为了上帝的荣耀，一下子活活烧死了上百个异教徒。”“他悄悄地不知不觉地来到广场，但是很奇怪，大家马上认出了他。……人们势不可挡地纷纷向前拥去，将他团团围住。……他默默地在他们中间走过，脸上挂着无限同情的宁静的微笑。爱的太阳在他心中燃烧，光明、智慧和力量的光辉从他眼中闪射出来，照耀着人们，震撼着他们的心灵，向他们报以深情厚爱。”

他让一个瞎子重新看见，让一个躺在棺材里的小女孩死而复生。就像一千五百年前，他在地上三年时间所做的一样。

就在这时，宗教大法官经过广场，书中描述他的样子，“这是个将近九十岁的老人，高个子，腰板笔直，一张干瘪的脸，眼眶深陷，但目光炯炯，犹如两颗火星。”他看到了广场上发生的一切，于是他命令卫队把耶稣抓起来，押到宗教法院那幢古老大楼里的一间带穹顶的狭小而阴暗的牢房里。

到了夜里，“在一片漆黑中，牢房的铁门打开了，年迈的宗教大法官亲自提着灯，慢慢地走进监狱。他独自一人，铁门在他身后又立刻关上了。”

宗教大法官和基督就在这昏暗的牢房里面对面了，开始了他们的谈话。其实不是交谈，只是宗教大法官一个人的独白，因为从头到尾，基督一直保持沉默。

大法官也让基督不要回答，他的理由是“你也没有权利对自己说过的话再增添什么新内容”，“既然你把一切都交给了教皇，现在一切都在教皇手里，那你现在完全没有必要再来了，至少暂时不要来妨碍。”

其实，耶稣在当年受犹太的大祭司审判时就是这样一言不发。

现在，他当年亲自建立的教会，再一次地审判他，不让他开口。因为按照大法官的说法，基督现在再说什么的话，将会侵犯人们的信仰自由，因为人们是按照一千五百年前基督的话去自由信仰的。而基督又把信仰自由看得比一切都宝贵。“你们必晓得真理，真理必叫你们得以自由。”（约翰福音8：32）

大法官说，基督白天已经在广场上看到了那些信仰他的“自由的人”，他们恐惧地、顺服地跪在大法官面前，眼看着基督被卫兵抓走。

“现在，就是目前，这些人比任何时候更加坚信自己是完全自由的，而实际上是他们亲自把自己的自由交给我们，服服帖帖地把它放在我们脚下。”大法官认为这样的结果正是他和他手下的人的功劳，因为他们终于压制了自由，为了使人们得到幸福。

这就是大法官的立场：为了人类的幸福否定人的自由。

他对基督说：“对你的警告和指示的次数不能算少了，但是你却一次次不听警告，你放弃了那条唯一可以使人幸福的道路。”

他所说的“警告和指示的次数不能算少”，指的就是圣经中记载的耶稣在开始传道之前所受的魔鬼的三个诱惑（试探）。

当时，耶稣被圣灵引到旷野，受魔鬼的试探。他禁食四十昼夜，后来就饿了。那试探人的进前来，对他说：“你若是神的儿子，可以吩咐这些石头变成食物。”耶稣却回答说：“经上记着说：‘人活着，不是单靠食物，乃是靠神口里所出的一切话。’”

魔鬼就带他进了圣城，叫他站在殿顶上，对他说：“你若是神的儿子，可以跳下去。因为经上记着说：‘主要为你吩咐他的使者，用手托着你，免得你的脚碰在石头上。’”

耶稣对他说：“经上又记着说：‘不可试探主你的神。’”魔鬼又带他上了一座最高的山，将世上的万国与万国的荣华都指给他看，对他说：“你若俯伏拜我，我就把这一切都赐给你。”耶稣说：“撒但退去吧！因为经上记着说：‘当拜主你的神，单要侍奉他。’”

于是魔鬼离了耶稣，有天使来伺候他。（马太福音4：1-11）

从圣经上我们看到，基督拒绝了魔鬼的三个诱惑，照大法官的说法是魔鬼的三个警告。因为大法官认为这是一个“伟大的魔鬼”，并且他认为这三个“诱惑”是加引号的。因为在大法官眼里，魔鬼的三个诱惑不是坏东西，而是切切实实、千真万确的东西。他认为，魔鬼向基督提出的这三个问题是一个奇迹，超越了现有全部的人类智慧，而且是永恒的抽象智慧。“因为这个问题似乎把人类未来的整个历史集合成一个整体，并且预告了它的前途，同时也出现了三个形象，它们囊括了全世界人类本性中所有无法解决的矛盾。”

大法官说，“现在，过了十五个世纪以后，我们看到这三个问题所包含的一切已经被认识、被预告、被证实了，再也不能增添或删减任何内容了。”

现在，对我们来说，经过了不是十五个世纪，而是二十个世纪，特别是二十世纪中，随着极权主义的产生，魔鬼的这三个诱惑在世界历史和人的本性当中，更加直接、更加惨烈地显明出来。所以，圣经，以及宗教大法官的故事，在我们所处的时代仍然具有极为重要的意义，对于我们如何分辨真理和谎言，如何选择人生的道路具有重要的启发作用。

第一个诱惑——将石头变成面包

基督降临人间，想要人们得到自由，“但是他们由于单纯和与生俱来卑劣的天性，不可能正确理解自由，他们对自由感到害怕和恐惧。因为对人类和人类社会来说从来没有什么东西比自由更加无法容忍！”

魔鬼对基督说，“只要你把石头变成面包，那么人类就会像羊群那样跟你走，对你感恩戴德，俯首听命。”但是，这样的跟随是带着恐惧的，因为他们害怕有一天你缩回手，不再供他们面包。

基督拒绝了这种面包换来的驯服。他要的跟随是自由的，出于爱的，而不是作为生存的手段进行的交换。所以在圣经上，当耶稣行使“五饼二鱼”的神迹喂饱了五千人以后，那些人到处追着跟随他，耶稣并没有为此高兴，而是责备他们跟随他是为了“吃饼得饱”，就这样使其中大部分人离他而去。

从作为一个领袖的角度来看，耶稣这样做真是太不明智了。他完全可以先带他们“打土豪，分田地”，等事业成功了再把田地从他们手中收回来。不，基督要的不是这样的跟随者，他不愿利用人卑劣的天性；他要的是有尊严的、有人最初的荣耀形象的自由跟随他的人。所以，基督说，“人不是单靠面包活着。”（这也是中国国内一本陀思妥耶夫斯基的书信选的书名）

但是，“地上的魔鬼为了这面包可以起来反对你，跟你交战，并且战胜你，而大家会跟着他跑，赞美他。”（“东方红，太阳升，中国出了个毛泽东。他为人民谋幸福，他是人民的大救星。”）

这就是马克思主义和社会主义所宣称的：“不存在犯罪，也无所谓罪孽，只有饥肠辘辘的人”，“先填饱他们的肚皮，然后再叫他们讲道德。”

这就是斗地主、公私合营，这就是“我穷我有理”。为了所谓的均贫富，他们掀起了一阵阵血雨腥风，“在你圣殿的废墟上，将耸立起一座新的大厦和可怕的巴比伦塔。”这座新的大厦，新的巴比伦塔，或者叫人间天堂，或者叫共产主义社会，它们在二十世纪给全人类带来了无尽的混乱与苦难。

宗教大法官对人性抱持着轻蔑的看法，认为他们“软弱、渺小、无德无行、不仁不义”，他们对于基督视为宝贵的自由最难以忍受。在他们的心目中，天上的面包不能跟地上的面包相比。这里“天上的面包”指的是人的永恒的自由，他的绝对尊严，他与永恒的联系。“地上的面包”指的就是生活的安宁，肉体的满足，地上的幸福，“岁月静好”。

大法官认为，只有几万个“强者”愿意为了天上的面包自由跟随基督；而还有几百万的“弱者”不能为了天上的面包放弃地上的面包，谁给他们地上的面包，他们就跟随谁，并将自由拱手交出。

大法官指责基督是精英主义者，只把地上那几万个看重天上的面包的强者视为宝贵，而对剩下的几百万贪恋地上面包宁愿放弃自由的人不管不问。大法官说：“我们也关心弱者。”大法官和他的随从们掌管了这些弱者的自由，统治他们，并且是假借基督的名义进行统治。

也就是说，大法官的统治是建立在欺骗的基础上的。他装扮成民主主义者，弱者和被压迫者的朋友，然后声称珍惜爱护他们。他所谓的对弱者的爱其实是对他们的轻蔑。因为他不相信人的崇高来源，认为只有少数人才有能力走上崇高的生命之路，不被地上的面包诱惑，爱天上的面包高于一切。

别尔嘉耶夫说：“宗教大法官的精神，为了虚假的、尘世的爱，而不是为了天上的爱，怀疑人们有登上高山、不断提高的权利，为了同情人们，它号召与自己的兄弟分享贫穷，是贫穷而不是财富。丰富的精神生活被禁止。不准考虑永生，称其为个人主义，只称颂对暂时的关心。你们要卑贱、贫穷，永远放弃自己的自由，到那时候你们才会得到地上的面包，那时候你们才会安宁，那时候大家才会幸福。”

大法官认为弱者不配享有自由，当自由临到弱者身上，他们只想要地上的面包，这种自由对他们来说就成了一种负担和煎熬。“难道你没有想过，假如选择的自由成了他们一种可怕的负担而压得他们喘不过气来，那么他们到最后会放弃甚至反对你的形象和你的真理。”

这些弱者，只看重地上面包的人，他们不准备为自由付上代价，他们不想要真正的信仰，而宁愿选择信仰的代替品——奇迹、神秘和权威。

“世界上有三种力量，只有这三种力量才能永远征服并俘虏这些软弱无能的叛逆的良心，使他们得到幸福——这三种力量就是奇迹、神秘和权威。”

基督把这三种力量都拒绝了。

第二个诱惑——从殿顶往下跳

基督再次拒绝了魔鬼的这个诱惑。他没有跳下来，没有创造奇迹。

就像当他被那些人钉上十字架，那些人在十字架下讽刺他，嘲笑他，对他说：“你如果是神的儿子，就从十字架上下来吧”，“我们就信你。”那时候，他并没有从十字架上下来。

他没有从十字架上下来和他没有从殿顶跳下来的原因是一样的。“你没有从十字架上走下来，你没有走下来的原因还是因为你不想用奇迹征服人，你渴望自由的信仰，而不是奇迹的信仰，你渴望的是自由的爱，而不是奴隶面对将他吓得永远胆战心惊的强权而表现出来的那种奴隶式的狂喜。”

大法官说，“人一旦抛弃了奇迹，同时也就抛弃了上帝。因为人寻找的与其说是上帝，不如说是奇迹。”

这让我想到中国人的“明君崇拜”，“清官崇拜”，他们几千年来就渴望跪在上帝般的君王和官长面前，否则宁愿自相残杀，他们从未想过把领袖当成会犯错的普通人，从未想过把权力关进笼子。所以，香港某无良明星才说“中国人是需要被管的”。可能这就是中国人固有的劣根性，不知自由的宝贵，他们人生最大的目标只是“活着”。

大法官再一次指责基督过于尊重人的自由，尊重到似乎不爱他们，因为他不体贴人的软弱。

而大法官所谓的对人少一点尊重，对他的要求低一些，意思就是诉诸于人们的盲从和无知。那些没有勇气自由地信仰的人，那些不相信基督在十字架上的死是一种胜利、是唯一拯救方式的人，就只好去接受大法官带来的表面的奇迹和人造的神秘，而这一切的底下只不过是欺骗、谎言和暴力而已。

中国战国时期的商鞅有本书叫《商君书》，里面提到“驭民五术”，就和大法官的思想颇为一致：

①壹民（统一思想）

②弱民（国强民弱）

③疲民（一场接一场运动；996）

④辱民（大法官说的：软弱，卑贱；使他们互相检举，内斗）

⑤贫民（剥夺他们多余的财富，使他们每日只为生计奔波，无暇他顾）

“我们纠正了你的行为，把你的行为置于奇迹、神秘和权威的基础之上。”——“我们拥护的不是你，而是他（魔鬼）。”这就是宗教大法官的秘密。

第三个诱惑——向魔鬼下拜

“我们从他那里接受了被你愤然拒绝的东西”，“我们从他那儿接受了罗马和恺撒的宝剑，并且宣布自己是人间的王，唯一的王。”

这就是魔鬼的第三个诱惑。

“假如你听从了伟大的魔鬼的第三个劝告，你就满足了人类在地上追求的一切，那就是：崇拜谁？把良心交给谁？通过什么方式大家才能最后结成一个没有争吵、和睦一致的蚂蚁窝？因为全世界团结一致的要求正是令人们痛苦的第三个也是最后一个问题。整个人类始终追求全世界的联合。”

第三个诱惑在罗马帝国时代表现为对恺撒的崇拜，中世纪时期表现为教皇崇拜，在现代社会体现为极权、独裁国家的领袖崇拜。第三个诱惑是权力归属谁的问题。归属于某一个人，就是极权国家（纳粹德国，斯大林苏联），归属所谓的“人民”，就是多数人的暴政（法国大革命）。而将二者混合起来的就是中国的“文化大革命”。

第三个诱惑重要的体现就是国家崇拜，就是民族主义、爱国主义的甚嚣尘上。他们宣扬领袖崇拜，政党崇拜，打造民族神话，国家神话，让所谓的爱国、爱党、爱领袖变成真理本身，成为人们的集体无意识。

基督拒绝了魔鬼的这一诱惑，拒绝了恺撒的剑，拒绝作地上的王，拒绝这些自我崇拜的国家或全世界的联合，在上帝之外的联合。

这世上总有人因着骄傲和野心要在地上建造巴别塔，为了传扬自己的名。无论是扩张国土（“如果俄罗斯不存在了，我们还要世界干什么？”），还是扩张经济（全球化，一带一路），还是扩张意识形态（共产主义），都是接受了基督所拒绝的魔鬼的第三个诱惑。它的诱惑如此之大，甚至陀思妥耶夫斯基本人在他的思想里都有建立俄罗斯“第三罗马”的梦想，去维护沙皇专制。

在宗教大法官长篇独白快要结束的时候，他用一大段充满恶魔激情的话，表达了他理想中的人类生活，这也是大法官和他几十万手下所统治的数十亿弱者的幸福生活。

这些驯服的羊群，他们所享受的是只配弱者享受的幸福，他们用自由换来的幸福。他们带着恐惧战兢的心偎依在统治者周围，并为这些统治者的强大和聪明感到骄傲。他们的脑子不再胡思乱想。他们被迫劳动，他们也有劳动之余被安排好的空闲时间，用来“背儿歌，练合唱，跳天真烂漫的舞蹈”。他们甚至被允许犯罪、干坏事。

“他们再也不会向我们隐瞒任何秘密”，“我们可以允许或者禁止他们跟妻子或情妇同房，是否生育孩子——这全看他们听话不听话。”

经历过计划生育和无所不在的摄像头监控，经历过人与人互相警惕、互相举报的耳语者年代，经历过高科技的网络审查、许多的词语只能用谐音和拼音代替的时代，你就会深切感受到，宗教大法官梦想中的人类图景，在我们这个时代已经一步步变为了现实。

但是有一点不同，宗教大法官原是在自由的强者之列，他也在沙漠里呆过，吃过蝗虫和草根，后来据说他是“迷途知返”，加入到纠正基督的事业的行列中。而大法官后来的那些徒子徒孙，远比他更卑劣。比如毛泽东，从他被打造的形象来看，他几乎是一个完美的宗教大法官，伟大的舵手，伟大的导师，作风朴素，为官清廉。实际上他不是。他性格乖戾，喜怒无常，心胸狭窄，生活腐化，他连面包都不能提供给那几万万跪在他面前的臣民。

可悲的是他现在仍在被某些组织和个人膜拜着，无论出自假意还是真心。甚至还有人想要回到他统治的那个时代。这是整个民族的悲哀。

这就是宗教大法官所纠正的基督的事业，他们要在地上建造一座巴别塔来传扬自己的名，但最终无一例外的成了烂尾工程。只是在这个过程中，一代一代的人已经成为了这项工程的材料和代价，烂尾的大厦下面埋葬了累累的白骨和无尽的血泪。

在大法官滔滔不绝的言辞下，在他打着同情、爱护弱者的旗号下，我们看到他对人的极度蔑视。他们不讲道德，叛逆成性，眼睛只盯住地上的面包和自我的欲望，他们带着深深的恐惧匍匐在领袖面前，惟恐他们手上的面包重新变成石头。就是他们，为了三十块钱，出卖了自己的灵魂；就是他们，刚刚还在对着基督欢呼“和散那”，转眼就围住他高喊“钉他十字架”。那么，他们只配交出自己的自由，聚在一起成为一个蚂蚁窝吗？

圣经和基督教怎样看待这个问题的呢？怎样看待人的自由？怎样看待魔鬼的问题和人类的命运的呢？

上帝造人之初，是照着自己的形象造人，并且把自己最宝贵的属性——自由，加在了人的身上。

魔鬼是怎么来的？按照基督教的说法，魔鬼本是上帝所造的最高级的天使，只是它因心中高傲背叛了上帝，妄图取代上帝的地位，最后失败坠落地上。从此，它在地上所做的事情只有一件，就是诱惑、败坏上帝所造的人类，以体贴人的地上需要的名义，使人忘记自己神圣的来源，忘记自己跟另一个世界的联系。

上段时间，我无意中看到一部电影，叫《魔鬼代言人》。电影里阿尔帕西诺扮演的魔鬼对基努·里维斯扮演的律师说：“我从开天辟地以来就来到世上，深入人类生活。我挑动了人性一切潜在的欲望，我满足了人类需求却不批判他。为什么？因为即使再顽劣的人，我也不会拒绝他。我热爱人类，我是个人道主义者。”

听起来是不是特别熟悉？因为这就是宗教大法官的思想，甚至言词几乎都一模一样。

魔鬼和大法官所谓的“人道主义”，不过是纵容人性当中幽暗的一面。他们所界定的自由，是不受任何约束的、为所欲为的自由。

但是绝对的自由，正是绝对的枷锁。当人纵容自己的内心欲望时，人就成了欲望的奴隶。而且人不是独自存活于这个世界，当纵容欲望的人聚在一起，人和人之间，族群与族群之间就开始彼此仇恨，互相残杀。然后被大法官这样的欺骗家利用。他们交出自己的自由，结成一个没有争吵、和睦一致的蚂蚁窝。虽然大法官的理想尚未完全实现，现在的世界仍然充满杀戮和动荡，但是各样的小宗教大法官已经出现。真正的自由在这个世界成为了稀缺的东西。

那么，有没有另一条出路呢？人真的无法承受这宝贵的自由么？

回到圣经中，面对魔鬼的三个诱惑，耶稣是怎样胜过的呢？他分别使用了圣经上的三句话：

①“人活着，不是单靠食物，乃是靠神口里所出的一切话。”

②“不可试探主你的神。”

③“当拜主你的神，单要侍奉他。”

我们看到这三句话的共同点，就是面对诱惑的时候，不可忘记上帝，不可忘记和另一个世界的联系，不可忘记魔鬼只是上帝的手下败将，它所有的诱惑都带着欺骗，它应许的满足和荣光都是窃取自上帝的。它最大的目的就是领人进入地狱。

而宗教大法官，这魔鬼的随从，就“沿着那聪明的魔鬼，那可怕的死亡和毁灭的魔鬼所指点的方向前进。为此就应该采取许诺和欺骗的方法，有意识地引导人们走向死亡和毁灭，而且一路上要不断地欺骗他们，让他们不至于发觉要把他们引向何处，让这些可怜的瞎子哪怕在途中还认为自己是幸福的。”

自由人的道路是什么呢？别尔嘉耶夫的回答是：“人不是没有头脑的羊群，不是不能承受揭示秘密的重负、软弱、卑贱的动物，人——是上帝的儿女，他们被授予圣洁的使命，他们有能力承受自由的重负并能够容纳世界的真谛。”

靠着基督，这是能够的。因为两千年前，基督就在旷野胜过了魔鬼的诱惑。我们，这些有神圣来源，有自由意志，有人的尊严的人，也一定能够胜过这些诱惑。

The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor (Part II)

—How do the weak bear freedom

Author: Han Lihua

Editor: Zhou Zhigang Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Ge Bing

Abstract: Drawing on *The Grand Inquisitor* and the three temptations in the Bible, this article explores why people abandon their freedom and accept enslavement. It critiques modern totalitarian politics and the cult of personality, while articulating the true Christian view of freedom. The greatest danger to humanity lies not merely in tyranny itself, but in people’s own willingness to trade their freedom for bread, miracles, and authority.

Alyosha said that Jesus was the only one “who could forgive and had the right to forgive”; the edifice of human destiny is not built upon the tears of little girls, but upon Jesus. Alyosha said that Ivan had forgotten Jesus.

Ivan replied that he had not forgotten Jesus, and that he had even written a long poem about Him (titled “The Grand Inquisitor”), which is the famous “The Grand Inquisitor” found in Chapter 5 of Volume 5 of *The Brothers Karamazov*. Although he had not written the poem down, he remembered its content.

As an introduction, Ivan discussed similar poems and plays from past eras—the fashion of “bringing the gods down to earth.” He mentioned Dante, Hugo’s *The Hunchback of Notre-Dame*, and plays performed in Russia before the time of Peter the Great. He also specifically mentioned a long poem from the era of Tatar rule titled *The Virgin’s Journey Through Hell*. Ivan believed the descriptions in that poem were no less impressive than those of Dante.

Ivan said that his epic poem dealt with the same theme: the return of Jesus to the earth, to the human world. Jesus had already promised in the Bible: “I am coming soon” (Revelation 3:11: “I am coming soon; hold fast what you have, so that no one may take your crown.”) Yet as for when He will come, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32).

Thus, generation after generation, people on earth have awaited His return, “waiting for Him with the faith and heartfelt devotion of those days.”

Fifteen centuries have passed; for a full fifteen centuries, people have received no assurance from heaven. It was precisely at that time that a “new and terrifying heresy” emerged in northern Europe—the Reformation movement that swept across Western Europe. “Those heretics began to blaspheme God and deny miracles, yet the faith of the devout believers, as steadfast as ever, grew even more fervent.” Generation after generation, they prayed: “Lord, come quickly.” Finally, Jesus descended before the supplicants with infinite compassion, returning to those “suffering, sinful, yet childlike people who loved Him.”

It was in the sixteenth century, in Seville, southern Spain, that Jesus once again came down to earth. It was during the era when the Inquisition was at its most rampant. Jesus came here “simply to catch a glimpse of his children, to see the very place where bonfires were lit to burn heretics alive.”

Just the day before, in the city’s main square, “for the glory of God, hundreds of heretics had been burned alive all at once.” He arrived at the square quietly and unnoticed, but strangely, everyone recognized him immediately. … The crowd surged forward irresistibly, surrounding him. … He walked silently among them, a serene smile of infinite compassion on his face. The sun of love burned within his heart, and the radiance of light, wisdom, and strength shone from his eyes, illuminating the people, stirring their souls, and showering them with deep, tender love.”

He restored sight to a blind man and brought a little girl lying in a coffin back to life. Just as he had done during his three years on earth fifteen hundred years earlier.

Just then, the High Priest passed through the square. The book describes him thus: “He was a man of nearly ninety, tall and upright, with a gaunt face and sunken eyes, yet his gaze was piercing, like two sparks of fire.” He witnessed everything that had taken place in the square, so he ordered the guards to seize Jesus and take him to a small, dimly lit, vaulted cell within the ancient building of the Sanhedrin.

When night fell, “in the pitch darkness, the cell’s iron door swung open, and the aged High Priest, carrying a lamp himself, slowly entered the prison. He was alone, and the iron door closed immediately behind him.”

The Grand Inquisitor and Christ stood face to face in that dim cell and began their conversation. In truth, it was no conversation at all, but merely a monologue by the Grand Inquisitor, for from beginning to end, Christ remained silent.

The Chief Justice also told Christ not to answer, reasoning that “you have no right to add anything new to what you have already said,” and that “since you have entrusted everything to the Pope, and everything is now in the Pope’s hands, there is absolutely no need for you to return now—at least not for the time being, so as not to cause any disruption.”

In fact, Jesus remained silent in exactly this way when he was tried by the Jewish high priests back then.

Now, the church He Himself established long ago is once again putting Him on trial, refusing to let Him speak. For, according to the Chief Justice, if Christ were to speak now, it would infringe upon people’s freedom of religion, since people have been freely practicing their faith according to Christ’s words from fifteen hundred years ago. And Christ Himself regarded freedom of religion as more precious than anything else. “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

The Chief Justice said that earlier that day, in the square, Christ had seen those “free people” who believed in him, kneeling before the Chief Justice in fear and submission as they watched Christ being led away by the guards.

“Now, at this very moment, these people are more convinced than ever that they are completely free, when in reality they have personally handed over their freedom to us, placing it meekly at our feet.” ”The Chief Justice believed that this outcome was entirely due to his own efforts and those of his subordinates, for they had finally suppressed freedom in order to bring happiness to the people.

This was the Chief Justice’s stance: to deny human freedom for the sake of human happiness.

He said to Christ, “The number of warnings and instructions given to you was by no means small, yet time and again you refused to heed them; you have abandoned the only path that can lead to human happiness.”

By “the warnings and instructions were not few,” he was referring to the three temptations (tests) by the devil that Jesus faced before beginning his ministry, as recorded in the Bible.

At that time, Jesus was led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and nights, and afterward he was hungry. Then the tempter came to him and said, “ ‘If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread.’ But Jesus answered, ‘It is written: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”’

Then the devil took him to the holy city, set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

Jesus said to him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” The devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. He said to him, “ “If you will worship me, I will give you all these things.” Jesus said, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.’”

Then the devil left Him, and angels came and attended Him.

(Matthew 4:1–11)

From the Bible, we see that Christ rejected the devil’s three temptations—which, according to the Chief Justice, were the devil’s three warnings. This is because the Chief Justice regarded this as a “great devil,” and he viewed these three “temptations” as being in quotation marks. In the Chief Justice’s eyes, the devil’s three temptations were not evil things, but rather tangible, undeniable realities. He believed that these three questions posed by the devil to Christ were a miracle, transcending all existing human wisdom and representing eternal, abstract wisdom. “For this question seems to synthesize the entire future history of humanity into a single whole, foretelling its destiny, while simultaneously presenting three images that encompass all the insoluble contradictions within the human nature of the entire world.”

The Grand Judge said, “Now, fifteen centuries later, we see that everything contained in these three questions has been recognized, foretold, and confirmed; nothing can be added or subtracted from them.”

For us today, it has not been fifteen centuries but twenty—and particularly in the twentieth century, with the rise of totalitarianism, these three temptations of the devil have become even more direct and brutal in world history and human nature. Therefore, the Bible, along with the story of the Chief Justice, remains of immense significance in our time, offering vital insights into how we discern truth from falsehood and choose our path in life.

The First Temptation—Turning Stones into Bread

Christ came into the world so that people might attain freedom, “but because of their simplicity and innate baseness, they are incapable of understanding freedom properly; they are afraid of and terrified by it. For nothing is more intolerable to humanity and human society than freedom!”

The devil said to Christ, “If you turn stones into bread, then humanity will follow you like a flock of sheep, grateful to you and obedient to your every command.” But such following is born of fear, for they fear that one day you will withdraw your hand and no longer provide them with bread.

Christ rejected this kind of submission bought with bread. The following he sought was free and born of love, not a transaction conducted as a means of survival. Thus, in the Bible, after Jesus performed the miracle of the “five loaves and two fish” to feed five thousand people, and those people began chasing after him everywhere, Jesus was not pleased. Instead, he rebuked them for following him merely to “be filled with bread,” causing most of them to leave him.

From a leader’s perspective, Jesus’s actions were truly unwise. He could easily have led them first to “seize the landlords’ property and redistribute the land,” only to take the land back from them once his cause succeeded. No, Christ did not want such followers; he refused to exploit people’s base nature. He sought those who would follow him freely, with dignity and bearing the original image of God’s glory. Thus, Christ said, “Man does not live by bread alone.” (This is also the title of a collection of Dostoevsky’s letters published in China.)

But, “the devil on earth will rise up against you for this bread, wage war against you, and defeat you, while everyone will follow him and praise him.” (“The East is red, the sun is rising; China has produced Mao Zedong. He seeks happiness for the people; he is the people’s great savior.”)

This is what Marxism and socialism proclaim: “There is no such thing as crime, nor is there any concept of sin; there are only starving people,” and “Fill their bellies first, then teach them morality.”

This is the campaign against landlords, the public-private partnerships—this is the logic of “I am poor, therefore I am right.” In the name of so-called wealth redistribution, they unleashed wave after wave of bloodshed and violence: “Upon the ruins of your sanctuary, a new edifice and a dreadful Tower of Babel shall rise.” This new edifice, this new Tower of Babel—whether called the “paradise on earth” or “communist society”—brought endless chaos and suffering to all humanity in the twentieth century.

The religious grand justices hold a contemptuous view of human nature, regarding people as “weak, insignificant, immoral, and unjust.” They find Christ’s cherished freedom most intolerable. In their minds, the bread of heaven cannot be compared to the bread of earth. Here, “the bread of heaven” refers to man’s eternal freedom, his absolute dignity, and his connection to eternity. “Earthly bread” refers to the tranquility of life, physical satisfaction, earthly happiness, and “peaceful days.”

The Grand Inquisitor believed that only a few tens of thousands of “strong” individuals were willing to follow Christ for the sake of heavenly freedom; yet there were millions of “weak” people who could not give up earthly bread for heavenly bread. They would follow whoever provided them with earthly bread and willingly surrender their freedom.

The Chief Justice accused Christ of being an elitist, valuing only those tens of thousands on earth who cherish the bread of heaven, while ignoring the remaining millions who are so attached to the bread of this world that they are willing to give up their freedom. The Chief Justice said, “We, too, care for the weak.” The Chief Justice and his entourage have taken control of these weak ones’ freedom, ruling over them—and doing so in the name of Christ.

In other words, the Grand Inquisitor’s rule is built on deception. He disguises himself as a democrat, a friend of the weak and the oppressed, and then claims to cherish and care for them. His so-called love for the weak is, in fact, contempt for them. For he does not believe in the noble origins of humanity; he believes that only a select few are capable of walking the path of a noble life, of not being tempted by earthly bread, and of loving heavenly bread above all else.

Berdyayev said: “The spirit of the religious Grand Inquisitor, for the sake of false, earthly love rather than heavenly love, doubts that people have the right to climb high mountains and constantly improve themselves; out of compassion for people, it calls for sharing poverty with one’s brothers—poverty, not wealth. A rich spiritual life is forbidden. It is forbidden to contemplate eternal life; such contemplation is called individualism, and only concern for the transient is praised. ‘You must be lowly and poor, forever renouncing your freedom; only then will you receive the bread of the earth, only then will you find peace, and only then will everyone be happy.’”

The Chief Justice believed that the weak are unworthy of freedom; when freedom comes to them, they desire only the bread of this earth, and such freedom becomes a burden and a torment to them. “Have you not considered that if the freedom to choose becomes a terrible burden that crushes them and leaves them gasping for breath, they will ultimately abandon—or even oppose—your image and your truth?”

These weak ones, who value only the bread of this earth, are not prepared to pay the price for freedom. They do not want true faith, but rather choose substitutes for faith—miracles, mystery, and authority.

“There are three powers in the world, and only these three can forever conquer and captivate these weak, rebellious consciences, bringing them happiness—these three powers are miracles, mystery, and authority.”

Christ rejected all three of these powers.

The Second Temptation—Jumping from the Temple Roof

Christ again rejected this temptation from the devil. He did not jump down; he did not perform a miracle.

Just as when he was nailed to the cross, and those people mocked him and ridiculed him from below, saying, “If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross,” “and we will believe in you.” At that time, he did not come down from the cross.

The reason He did not come down from the cross is the same as why He did not jump from the temple roof. “You did not come down from the cross; the reason you did not come down is that you did not wish to conquer people with miracles. You longed for a faith rooted in freedom, not a faith in miracles. You longed for a love of freedom, not the slavish ecstasy a slave displays before a power that terrifies him into perpetual fear.”

The Chief Justice said, “Once a person abandons miracles, he simultaneously abandons God. For what people seek is not so much God as it is miracles.”

This reminds me of the Chinese people’s “worship of enlightened rulers” and “worship of incorruptible officials.” For thousands of years, they have yearned to kneel before monarchs and officials who are treated as gods; otherwise, they would rather turn on one another. They have never considered treating leaders as ordinary people capable of making mistakes, nor have they ever thought to cage power. That is why a certain unscrupulous celebrity in Hong Kong once said, “The Chinese people need to be controlled.” Perhaps this is an inherent flaw in the Chinese character—an ignorance of the preciousness of freedom. Their greatest goal in life is simply “to survive.”

The Chief Justice once again accused Christ of placing too much emphasis on human freedom, to the point where it seemed as though He did not love them, because He did not take into account human weakness.

What the Chief Justice means by “showing people a little less respect” and “lowering his standards for them” is, in essence, appealing to people’s blind obedience and ignorance. Those who lack the courage to believe freely, those who do not believe that Christ’s death on the cross was a victory and the only path to salvation, have no choice but to accept the superficial miracles and artificial mysteries brought by the Chief Justice—yet beneath all this lie nothing but deception, lies, and violence.

Shang Yang, a statesman from China’s Warring States period, wrote a book titled *The Book of Lord Shang*, which mentions the “Five Techniques for Governing the People”—ideas that align quite closely with the Grand Judge’s philosophy:

① Unify the People (Unify their thoughts)

② Weaken the People (A strong state, weak people)

③ Exhaust the People (One campaign after another; 996 work schedule)

④ Humiliate the People (As the Grand Judge says: Weakness, lowliness; make them denounce one another and fight among themselves)

⑤ Impoverish the People (Strip them of surplus wealth, forcing them to struggle daily just to survive, leaving them no time for anything else)

“We have corrected your behavior, grounding it in miracles, mystery, and authority.” — “We do not support you, but him (the Devil).” This is the secret of the religious Grand Inquisitor.

The Third Temptation—Bowing Down to the Devil

“We have accepted from him what you have indignantly rejected,” “We have accepted from him the sword of Rome and Caesar, and have proclaimed ourselves the King of the Earth, the sole King.”

This is the Devil’s third temptation.

“If you heed the great devil’s third counsel, you will satisfy all that humanity seeks on earth, namely: whom to worship? To whom to entrust one’s conscience? By what means can all people finally unite into a harmonious, conflict-free anthill? For the demand for global unity is precisely the third and final problem that causes people suffering. All of humanity has always sought the union of the entire world.”

The third temptation manifested as the worship of Caesar in the Roman Empire, as the worship of the Pope in the Middle Ages, and as the cult of personality in totalitarian and dictatorial states in modern society. The third temptation is the question of to whom power belongs. If power belongs to a single individual, it results in a totalitarian state (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union); if it belongs to the so-called “people,” it leads to the tyranny of the majority (the French Revolution). A blend of the two is what we see in China’s “Cultural Revolution.”

A key manifestation of the third temptation is the worship of the state—the rampant rise of nationalism and patriotism. They promote the cult of the leader and the cult of the party, fabricating national and state myths, turning so-called love for the country, the party, and the leader into truth itself, embedding it into the collective unconscious of the people.

Christ rejected this temptation from the devil; He rejected Caesar’s sword, refused to be a king on earth, and rejected these self-worshipping nations or the union of the whole world—any union apart from God.

There are always those in this world who, driven by pride and ambition, seek to build a Tower of Babel on earth to exalt their own names. Whether it be the expansion of territory (“If Russia ceases to exist, what use is the world to us?”), the expansion of the economy (globalization, the Belt and Road Initiative), or the expansion of ideology (communism), all of these amount to accepting the devil’s third temptation—the very one Christ rejected. Its allure is so great that even Dostoevsky himself harbored, in his thoughts, the dream of establishing Russia as the “Third Rome” to uphold the tsarist autocracy.

Toward the end of the Grand Inquisitor’s lengthy monologue, he uses a passage brimming with diabolical fervor to describe his ideal human existence—a blissful life for the billions of the weak ruled by him and his hundreds of thousands of subordinates.

These tamed sheep enjoy a happiness fit only for the weak—a happiness they have traded for their freedom. With hearts trembling with fear, they huddle around their rulers, taking pride in the rulers’ strength and wisdom. Their minds no longer wander. They are forced to labor, yet they are also granted scheduled leisure time after work to “recite nursery rhymes, practice choral singing, and perform innocent, carefree dances.” They are even permitted to commit crimes and do wrong.

“They will never hide any secrets from us again,” “We can permit or forbid them from sleeping with their wives or mistresses, or from having children—it all depends on whether they obey us.”

Having lived through family planning and ubiquitous camera surveillance, having lived through the era of the Whisperers where people were constantly on guard against one another and ratted each other out, having lived through an era of high-tech internet censorship where many words could only be replaced with homophones or pinyin, you will deeply feel that the vision of humanity dreamed up by the Grand Inquisitor has, in our time, gradually become a reality.

But there is one key difference: the Grand Inquisitor originally belonged to the ranks of the free and powerful. He too had wandered in the desert, eating locusts and the roots of plants, and later, it is said, “saw the error of his ways” and joined the cause of correcting Christ. Yet the Grand Inquisitor’s later disciples and successors were far more despicable than he was. Take Mao Zedong, for example. Judging by the image crafted for him, he was almost a perfect Religious Grand Inquisitor—a great helmsman, a great mentor, frugal in his ways, and incorruptible in office. In reality, he was not. He had a volatile temperament, was capricious, narrow-minded, and led a corrupt life; he could not even provide bread for the hundreds of millions of subjects kneeling before him.

Tragically, he is still worshipped today by certain organizations and individuals, whether out of insincerity or genuine devotion. Some even yearn to return to the era of his rule. This is a tragedy for the entire nation.

This is the work of Christ that the religious high priests have perverted: they seek to build a Tower of Babel on earth to exalt their own names, yet without exception, these projects have ended as unfinished ruins. Yet in this process, generation after generation has become the building material and the cost of this project; beneath the unfinished edifice lie heaps of bleached bones and an endless sea of blood and tears.

Beneath the Grand Inquisitor’s endless rhetoric, beneath his banner of compassion and care for the weak, we see his utter contempt for humanity. They are immoral and rebellious by nature, their eyes fixed only on earthly bread and their own desires. They crawl before their leaders in deep fear, dreading that the bread in their hands might turn back into stones. It is they who sold their souls for thirty pieces of silver; it is they who, having just shouted “Hosanna” to Christ, instantly surrounded him, screaming, “Crucify him!” So, are they only fit to surrender their freedom and gather together to form an anthill?

How do the Bible and Christianity view this issue? How do they view human freedom? How do they view the problem of the devil and the fate of humanity?

When God first created man, He created him in His own image and endowed him with His most precious attribute—freedom.

How did the devil come to be? According to Christian teaching, the devil was originally the highest-ranking angel created by God. However, driven by pride, he rebelled against God, attempting to usurp God’s position, and ultimately failed, falling to earth. From that point on, he has had but one purpose on earth: to tempt and corrupt the human beings God created. Under the guise of catering to people’s earthly needs, he causes them to forget their divine origin and sever their connection to the other world.

A while back, I happened to come across a movie called *The Devil’s Advocate*. In the film, the devil, played by Al Pacino, says to the lawyer, played by Keanu Reeves: “I have been in this world since the dawn of time, deeply immersed in human life. I have stirred up every latent desire in human nature; I have satisfied human needs without judging them. Why? Because no matter how wicked a person may be, I will never reject them. I love humanity; I am a humanitarian.”

Doesn’t that sound particularly familiar? Because this is precisely the ideology of the Grand Inquisitor—even the wording is almost identical.

The so-called “humanitarianism” of the Devil and the Grand Inquisitor is nothing more than an indulgence of the dark side of human nature. The freedom they define is a freedom without any constraints, a freedom to do as one pleases.

But absolute freedom is, in fact, an absolute shackle. When people indulge their inner desires, they become slaves to those desires. Moreover, humans do not exist in isolation in this world; when those who indulge their desires gather together, hatred begins to breed between individuals and between groups, leading to mutual slaughter. They are then exploited by deceivers like the “Grand Judge.” People surrender their freedom to form a harmonious, conflict-free colony, much like an anthill. Although the Grand Judge’s ideal has not yet been fully realized—the world remains filled with violence and turmoil—various “minor Grand Judges” have already emerged. True freedom has become a rare commodity in this world.

So, is there another way out? Are humans truly incapable of bearing this precious freedom?

Returning to the Bible, how did Jesus overcome the devil’s three temptations? He used three verses from Scripture:

① “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”

② “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”

③ “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.”

We see that the common thread in these three verses is this: when facing temptation, we must not forget God; we must not forget our connection to the other world; and we must not forget that the devil is merely a defeated foe of God. All his temptations are laced with deception, and the fulfillment and glory he promises are stolen from God. His ultimate goal is to lead people into hell.

And the Grand Inquisitor, this servant of the devil, “marches in the direction pointed out by that cunning devil, that dreadful devil of death and destruction.” “To this end, one must employ the methods of promise and deception, consciously guiding people toward death and destruction, and along the way constantly deceiving them so that they do not realize where they are being led, allowing these poor blind souls to believe, even in the midst of their journey, that they are happy.”

What, then, is the path of the free? Berdyaev’s answer is: “Man is not a mindless flock, nor a weak and base animal incapable of bearing the burden of revealed secrets. Man—as a child of God—is entrusted with a sacred mission; he possesses the capacity to bear the burden of freedom and to embrace the true essence of the world.”

Through Christ, this is possible. For two thousand years ago, Christ overcame the devil’s temptations in the wilderness. We, who have a divine origin, free will, and human dignity, can certainly overcome these temptations as well.