Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt.
Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Viking.
Dikötter, F. (2010). Mao’s Great Famine. Bloomsbury.
Yang, Jisheng. (2008). Tombstone. Hong Kong: Cosmos Books.
MacFarquhar, R., & Schoenhals, M. (2006). Mao’s Last Revolution. Harvard University Press.
Walder, A. (2019). Agent of Disorders. Harvard University Press.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.
Sharp, G. (2012). From Dictatorship to Democracy.
OHCHR (2022). Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang.
UNFPA (1998, 2002). Reports on Reproductive Rights in China.
《中华人民共和国刑法简史》. 法律出版社，2016。
《天安门文件》 The Tiananmen Papers. (2001).
Lewis Lin: Refusing to Be an Accomplice of the Chinese Communist Party
Author: Lewis Lin Editor: Feng Reng Managing Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Peng Xiaomei
Date: November 22, 2025
Abstract
This article reviews historical cases of political persecution by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), revealing how authoritarian violence is sustained through an extensive structure of accomplices. It analyzes the critical importance of ordinary people refusing to cooperate and emphasizes that “not being an accomplice” is a key moral choice for weakening authoritarianism and defending freedom and ethical responsibility.
I. Introduction
Violence in totalitarian societies is not carried out by rulers alone but is sustained by vast systems of execution. From Nazi Germany to Stalin’s Great Purge, accomplice structures have occupied a central position in all totalitarian states.
Hannah Arendt pointed out: “Totalitarian rule destroys the capacity for moral judgment by making all men accomplices in its crimes.”(Arendt, 1951)
During its seventy-five years in power, the Chinese Communist Party has institutionalized state violence through political campaigns, class struggle, and propaganda systems, resulting in the loss of tens of millions of lives. Based on academic research, this article reviews major historical cases of political persecution by the CCP and argues from ethical and political theory perspectives that refusing to become an accomplice is the most important moral imperative facing contemporary Chinese people.
II. Historical Cases and Verifiable Data:
The Formation Mechanism of “Accomplices” in the CCP’s Totalitarian System
2.1 Land Reform and the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries (1950–1953)
According to an internal summary by the CCP Central Committee in 1954, the Suppression of Counterrevolutionaries campaign “executed more than 710,000 counterrevolutionaries” (A Brief History of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, Law Press, 2016). This figure represents the minimum official estimate.
Scholars such as Ding Shu have pointed out that local cadres and so-called “activists” constituted the main execution force. By classifying people into class categories and organizing mass struggle sessions, ordinary peasants were mobilized to persecute their neighbors.(Ding Shu, Red Storm, Hong Kong, 1998)
Key features of the accomplice mechanism included:• Class labeling• Mobilizing the masses against one another• Gaining political security and material benefits through participation in violence
As the masses became accomplices of the CCP, they also helped establish the operational model for subsequent political campaigns.
2.2 The Great Famine (1959–1961): Institutional Lies and Mass Death
The most widely accepted academic estimates of famine deaths include:• Yang Jisheng, Tombstone (Hong Kong, 2008): 36–45 million deaths• Frank Dikötter, Mao’s Great Famine (2010): more than 45 million deaths based on county archives
The famine was not caused by natural disasters, but by political institutions:• Grassroots officials falsified grain output reports• “Sputnik-style exaggeration” led to excessive grain requisitions• Severe punishment of “Rightist tendencies” silenced truth-telling
This created an execution chain in which local cadres became the principal accomplices to catastrophe.
2.3 The Cultural Revolution (1966–1976): Institutionalization of Mass Violence
According to internal data from the 30-Year Commemoration Report on the Cultural Revolution (CCP Party History Research Office, 1996):• More than 2 million people were persecuted to death• Over 7 million were disabled• Tens of millions of families were affected
International scholarship estimates higher figures:• Andrew Walder (2019): at least 1.5 million direct deaths• Roderick MacFarquhar, The Cultural Revolution: over 30 million people persecuted nationwide
Red Guards, rebel factions, workers’ propaganda teams, and military propaganda teams all became accomplices to CCP state violence.
Case: “Red August,” Beijing, 1966, Official Beijing Municipal records show:• 1,772 people beaten to death(Beijing Public Security Bureau internal briefing)
The Cultural Revolution clearly demonstrates how totalitarian states transform ordinary people into agents of violence through fear and political mobilization.
2.4 The 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre: Modernization of State Violence
According to The Tiananmen Papers (2001), the CCP deployed 200,000 troops to impose martial law in Beijing.
Death toll estimates include:• The New York Times, citing Red Cross sources: at least 2,600 deaths• Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson (1990): “hundreds of casualties”• Declassified UK Embassy cables (2017): at least 10,000 deaths
The execution chain of state violence included the military, armed police, propaganda systems, television censorship, and university party organizations cooperating in repression.
2.5 Family Planning Policy:
A State Project of Bodily Control (1980–2015)
Reports by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) stated that China’s One-Child Policy resulted in “widespread forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and human rights violations” (UNFPA, 1998; 2002).
Cases include:• Chenzhou, Hunan, 1991 forced abortion case (New York Times investigation)• Heze, Shandong “Hundred-Day No-Baby Campaign” (BBC, 2013)• Internal data from China’s Family Planning Commission:336 million birth-control procedures carried out between 1980–2009
Executors included township governments, neighborhood committees, family planning offices, and women’s federation cadres — a typical example of totalitarian systems intruding systematically into private life.
2.6 Xinjiang Re-Education Camps and Religious Persecution (2017– )
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR, 2022) reported “serious human rights violations” in Xinjiang, including arbitrary detention, cultural erasure, and restrictions on religious practice.
The UN estimates that 1–1.5 million Uyghurs and Kazakhs have been detained.
The execution system includes public security forces, armed police, prison administrations, surveillance technology companies, and an extensive informant network (“grid-style management”).
III. The Political Logic of Accomplice Structures: Theoretical Analysis
3.1 Hannah Arendt’s “Banality of Evil”
Arendt argued that totalitarian systems rely on:
Hollowing out independent thought
Administrative obedience
Diffusion of responsibility
This enables ordinary people to participate in systematic violence without awareness (Arendt, 1963). This theory fully applies to CCP historical cases.
3.2 Milgram’s Obedience Experiments: Why Do Ordinary People Become Accomplices?
Stanley Milgram’s experiments (1963) showed that 65% of ordinary people would administer potentially lethal electric shocks when ordered by authority.
Within the CCP system, obedience is amplified through:• Organizational control• A culture of fear• Ideological indoctrination• Political and material incentives
Participation in persecution thus becomes socially “understandable.”
3.3 The Theory of Noncooperation
Gandhi and Gene Sharp argued that tyranny derives its power from the cooperation of the governed. Refusal to cooperate is itself resistance.
This offers a clear insight for China: when ordinary people refuse to participate in lies and persecution, the structure of authoritarian power weakens.
IV. How Can We “Refuse to Be Accomplices” in Reality?
Drawing on totalitarian studies and civil disobedience theory, nonviolent actions available to ordinary people include:
Refusing to participate in informant systems and digital surveillance(Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy)
Refusing to spread lies and political propaganda
Supporting persecuted individuals and prisoners of conscience
Overseas Chinese refusing participation in United Front systems
Safely transmitting history and truth — historical memory is the most powerful resource against tyranny(Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny, 2017)
V. Conclusion:
Refusing to Be an Accomplice Is the Most Critical Choice for China’s Future. Over the past century, the CCP has produced a series of catastrophes whose structural violence depends on massive accomplice systems. From land reform to Xinjiang re-education camps, history repeatedly proves that totalitarianism is powerful not because rulers are strong, but because people cooperate — passively or actively. Refusing to cooperate is the beginning of dismantling authoritarianism. It is the prerequisite for China’s future path toward freedom, rule of law, and human dignity.
When more Chinese people choose “not to be accomplices,” China’s violent political structure can truly collapse, and a new era can finally arrive.
References (All verifiable)
Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt.Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Viking.Dikötter, F. (2010). Mao’s Great Famine. Bloomsbury.Yang, Jisheng. (2008). Tombstone. Hong Kong: Cosmos Books.MacFarquhar, R., & Schoenhals, M. (2006). Mao’s Last Revolution. Harvard University Press.Walder, A. (2019). Agents of Disorder. Harvard University Press.Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.Sharp, G. (2012). From Dictatorship to Democracy.OHCHR (2022). Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang.UNFPA (1998, 2002). Reports on Reproductive Rights in China.A Brief History of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China. Law Press, 2016.The Tiananmen Papers. (2001).
Commemorating the Third Anniversary of the White Paper Movement
Author: Cai XiaoliEditor: Hu Jing Managing Editor: Zhang NaProofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Peng Xiaomei
Three years ago, a blank sheet of paper was raised by countless Chinese people in the darkness of the streets.
On that paper, there was not a single written word, yet it was filled with anger, helplessness, grief, and awakening. It carried the long-suppressed voice of a nation that had been restrained for far too long.
Three years later, the white paper remains white, and memory has refused to stay silent.
On November 22, 2025, outside the Chinese Consulate General in Los Angeles, the National Committee of the Chinese Democracy Party initiated the 765th Jasmine Action. Party members and dissidents from various regions once again gathered to commemorate the third anniversary of the White Paper Movement — to remember those who bravely stood up, to mourn the lives taken by fire, and to commemorate the voices of an era forcibly suppressed, a truth that the Chinese Communist Party can never completely erase.
“Commemoration is not about stopping — it is about moving forward.”
This was the shared conviction in the hearts of everyone present.
I. The White Paper Speaks Not, Yet the Heart Has Been Heard
The White Paper Movement erupted against the backdrop of extreme lockdowns and systematic repression.
When all speech was comprehensively censored, a blank sheet of paper became the final language.
The tragedy of the Urumqi fire tore open the pain that had long been suppressed in people’s hearts. It was not a natural disaster, but a man-made catastrophe — death produced by lockdown policies and cold indifference. It ignited the fire within people’s hearts. Anger surged, and people stepped forward, not to become heroes, but to preserve the dignity of being human.
That night, ordinary people holding up blank sheets of paper became the courageous force pushing history forward. They tore open a crack in the iron curtain, allowing a sliver of light to enter a dark and polluted society.
“At that moment, light pierced through the night.”
Three years later, that light has still not been extinguished.
⸻
II. Event Organizers and Supporting Units
Initiators:Yuan Jue, Cheng Hong, Cheng Xiaoxiao
Event Coordinators:Ni Shicheng, Yang Hao, He Yu
Planning:Cheng Hong, Peng Xiaomei, Cai Xiaoli, Mou Zongqiang
Security & Order:Chen Xinnan, Li YanlongWang Le, Hu Xiangfei
Media & Press Releases:Liu Fang, Huang Jizhou
Visual Design:Wang Ling, Han Zhen
Hosts:Zeng Qunlan, Zhao Jie
Organizers:• National Committee of the Chinese Democracy Party• Los Angeles Chinese Democratic Platform• Hong Kong Democratic Nation-Building Alliance• Office of the Speaker of the Hong Kong Parliament
Co-Organizers:• Opposition Party Magazine• Social Organizations Department, National Committee of the Chinese Democracy Party• Women’s Rights Department, National Committee of the Chinese Democracy Party• Henan Working Committee, National Committee of the Chinese Democracy Party
III. Selected Speeches and Key Statements
1. Jiang Jiawei
(Outside the Vancouver Consulate · Phone Connection)
He stated that the White Paper Revolution was so powerful because it revealed a fundamental truth:Human rights are not granted — they are innate.
Recalling his experience of supporting the White Paper Movement in Hong Kong, being arrested nine times, imprisoned twice, and placed on a global wanted list by the CCP, he still insisted:
“Justice should not be a crime. Speaking the truth should not be criminalized.”
He emphasized that the hearts of Hong Kong people and mainland White Paper protesters are united, and that their fates are inseparably linked:
“Restore freedom, let the people rule;Human rights are innate and cannot be taken away;No matter how long the night, justice will arrive.”
2. Huang Juan:The Urumqi Fire Was Not a Natural Disaster, but Institutional Killing
Speaking with the pain and anger of a witness, she accused:
Deaths under lockdown were not fate, but the product of an inhumane system.
“We stood up not to be heroes, but because if we did not, even the dignity of being alive would be taken away.”
She stressed that the significance of the white paper lies in reminding the world that tragedy cannot be erased, and the people will not forget.
3. Liu Fang:Do Not Forget the Light of the White Paper
She called on all those living under repression: even if one cannot speak, one must not stop thinking independently.
“We cannot forget the days of lockdown.We cannot forget the light of the white paper.And we cannot forget how a regime forced its people to that point.”
4. Cheng Xiaoxiao:
Those Who Remember Are Sparks; Those Who Step Forward Are Light
As one of the initiators of the third-anniversary commemoration, she said:
“The white paper is light, yet it carries heavy weight.It appears blank, yet it is filled with truth.As long as we do not remain silent, freedom will not disappear into darkness.”
5. Niu Pengfei: The White Paper Is a Cry Forced to Remain Blank
He stated:
“The true shock of the white paper lies in the fact that everyone knows it should have been filled with words yet was forced into silence.That blankness is not silence — it is sound at its extreme.”
6. Lu Yufeng: The Power of Wordlessness, Piercing the Stone of Silence
She recalled the streets of Urumqi Road three years ago:
“That white paper carried not a single word yet spoke louder than a thousand voices.We must continue to pass this flame onward.”
7. Yan Rongjin:
The White Paper Has No Voice, Yet It Shook Society
He emphasized:
“Those who raised the white paper were not heroes — they simply refused to remain silent.We stand here to tell the world: we have not forgotten, and we will not leave.”
8. Li Jing: The White Paper Is the Most Direct Accusation Against Authoritarianism
He summarized the essence of the White Paper Movement sharply:
• The CCP suppresses expression through censorship and fear• Civil rights are systematically stripped away• The white paper is silent resistance• It is not chaos-making, but a refusal to continue being oppressed
9. Zhang Yu:
A Simple but Razor-Sharp Sentence
“We want reform, not another Cultural Revolution.We choose citizenship, not slavery.”
IV. Conclusion: Commemoration Is Not Standing Still, but Moving Forward
Three years have passed. The white paper remains white — but it is no longer empty.
It carries:• The innocent lives lost in fire• Voices erased• Anger suppressed• The courage of ordinary people• And the awakening of a generation unwilling to remain blindfolded
Everyone who remembers is a spark.Everyone who steps forward is light.
As long as truth still needs to be spoken, and freedom has not yet returned, the white paper will never be silent.
May the winds of freedom scatter fear.May the light of truth illuminate the darkness.May the people of China and Hong Kong soon welcome a future that truly belongs to them.
V. Participants Who Attended and Spoke at the Rally
Mou Zongqiang, Han Zhen, Su Yifeng, Tang Haiming, Hu Xiangfei, Yan Rongjin, Zhao Shaojing, Ge Bing, Quan Lujun, Li Jing, Liu Fang, Niu Pengfei, Yao Qinggu, Lu Yufeng, Cheng Tangzheng, Huang Jizhou.
Editor: Li Kun Executive Editor: Zhang Na Proofreader: Wang Bin · Translator: Liu Fang
Abstract: The Chinese Communist authorities continuously manufacture “manageable hostility,” channeling public emotions into mutual attacks and thereby draining the capacity to think about real problems and pursue the truth. The author argues that the true danger is not hatred itself, but the inability to confront problems directly—and a system that perpetually redirects public attention through shifting targets and narratives.
“On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, hate Japan; on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, hate the United States; on Sundays, hate Taiwan, South Korea, and Europe.” At first glance, this sounds like a joke. On second thought, it sends a chill down the spine. Because it isn’t a joke—it is a real operating manual that exists and is rehearsed over and over again.
The core logic of diverting public opinion is actually very simple: people have limited emotional energy. As long as you continuously provide a more conspicuous, safer, and easier target for venting anger, people will not strike at the real target. Like a magician waving a bright silk scarf with the left hand to draw everyone’s eyes, while quietly switching the cards with the right. What rulers fear most has never been that the people hate A, B, or C; it is the day when all hatred converges on one place—on themselves. Therefore, “external enemies” must be manufactured continuously and rotated regularly. The enemies must even be scheduled by the week, without repetition. In this way, public resentment remains fragmented, dispersed, and controllable.
Let us sketch a simple timeline, and the pattern becomes immediately clear: 2018—U.S.–China trade war, hate the United States; 2019—anti-extradition protests, hate “Hong Kong independence”; 2020—COVID-19, hate the United States for “spreading the virus”; 2021—Xinjiang cotton, hate Nike and the Western “anti-China forces”; 2022—Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, hate “Taiwan independence” and the United States; 2023—the balloon incident, hate the United States; 2024—the Ren’ai Reef resupply confrontation, hate the Philippines; 2025—“If Taiwan is in trouble, Japan is in trouble,” hate Japan.
That is only the international side. Domestically there is a complete “internal-circulation enemy list”: public intellectuals → traitors → “haters of the nation” → paid pro-American shills → “the 500,000” → vermin → “those who ran away”… The labels never run out. Creating a new one takes only three seconds. As long as everyone is busy tearing labels off each other online, no one has the energy to ask: Why does a simple cold cost thousands at a top-tier hospital? Why do young people work themselves to death under 996 schedules and still can’t afford a home? Why must the retirement age be delayed to 65? Because anger has already been precisely diverted. The flood never reaches the dam; it is guided instead into pre-dug spillways.
This is the ultimate form of public-opinion diversion: make the governed exhaust their emotional resources fighting one another until they are utterly depleted and lose the ability to question. Some will retort: “You keep talking about diversion—surely there are real external enemies? Aren’t Japan, the United States, and the Philippines bad?” Perhaps. But the question has never been whether enemies exist; it is who selects the enemies, who amplifies them, and who decides whom to hate today and whom to hate tomorrow. When a country’s genuine governance problems pile up like mountains, yet national emotions are steered toward “boycotting Japanese goods,” “smashing KFC,” or “insulting the Philippines as a beggar state,” that itself is the highest form of diversion. Because the real enemy has never been foreign countries—it is time. Time will let children who drank tainted milk powder grow up. Time will turn post-90s youths who couldn’t afford housing into middle-aged forty-somethings harvested like chives. Time will make people who paid social security all their lives discover that their pensions are insufficient. Any problem, if dragged on for ten or twenty years, becomes a “historical legacy issue,” to be blamed on “previous administrations” or “imperfect systems,” with no one ever held accountable. The highest mastery of public-opinion diversion is to make ordinary people squander their most precious resource—time—on mutual attacks, mutual reporting, and mutual moral coercion, until all problems are reduced to “unsolvable historical debts.”
Lu Xun once wrote: “Endless distant places, countless people—all are connected to me.” But the art of diversion wants us to believe: endless distant places and countless people are all our enemies. When we hate Japan on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; hate the United States on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays; and keep hating someone else on Sundays, we have fallen perfectly into the trap.
The true enemy has never been Japan, the United States, Taiwan, those who left, or the little pinks. The true enemy is a system that trains us only to hate back and forth while forever avoiding the real problems. Breaking that system is the true coming-of-age rite for our generation.
Yang Chen: The Profound Catastrophe of the One-Child Policy on the Chinese Nation
Author: Yang Chen Editor: Zhong Ran Executive Editor: Li Congling Proofreader: Wang Bin Translation: Lyu Feng
Abstract
China’s one-child policy originated not from demography or eugenics, but from the logic of a planned-economy supply system. By placing reproductive rights under state control for decades, it produced political servility, biological degeneration, and moral collapse—deeply weakening the vitality and resistance of the Chinese nation. It stands as one of the most profound and irreversible harms inflicted on the Chinese people.
Origins: A By-product of the Supply System and Its Historical Evolution
China’s one-child policy represents one of the most devastating, far-reaching harms done to the Chinese nation—indeed, a demographic catastrophe. It did not arise from population science, eugenics, or pure economics, but from the supply-allocation logic of a planned economy, and its influence extended into political, biological, and social realms.
The policy’s earliest proponent, Ma Yinchu, was neither a demographer nor a biologist. Despite fathering several children himself, he approached population from the perspective of industrial and commercial management. While calculating supply needs under the planned-economy system, he concluded that the state could not provide essential goods for the entire population. Without market mechanisms—and even today, with big-data tools or AI—no government can accurately plan human needs. Ma’s proposal ultimately sought to control the number of people requiring food, clothing, education, and other basic goods to maintain supply equilibrium.Leaders such as Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai denounced his ideas as antihuman. Their criticism was not unfounded: his proposal reduced human beings to numbers, not lives.
The policy’s institutional roots trace back to the 1950s urban–rural dual system. Urban “state people” (国人) received state-funded benefits—retirement, education, healthcare—while rural “non-state people” (野人) were left to fend for themselves, a structure reminiscent of Western Zhou-era stratification. Urban residents consumed state-distributed grain, schooling, and cultural services; rural residents had none of these and were required to deliver grain quotas. Under Communist governance, this bifurcated system revived smoothly because it aligned with the Party’s power structure.Unlike Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, the CCP did not destroy urban populations outright—they lacked the daring—yet their governance model aspired to a similar hierarchical control.
By the early 1970s, China faced economic near-collapse and severe food shortages. Population control first tightened in urban areas. The 1979 coercive “one-child” directive was a direct response to the massive return of the “sent-down youth”: millions of urban youths sent to rural areas during the Cultural Revolution flooded back to the cities. The population squeeze overwhelmed the already-faltering economy; urban capacity reached breaking point.By 1976–1977, the economy was near collapse. The aftermath of the sent-down-youth movement helped trigger the political crackdowns of 1980–1983, targeting “counter-revolutionary speech” and democratic tendencies.
In the 1980s, strict controls focused on major cities—Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou—while rural enforcement remained relatively loose. Poor, remote regions lacked medical services and social protection, and paradoxically were allowed more births.
In the 1990s, the policy expanded aggressively into rural areas and was tied directly to GDP-based performance evaluations. Local officials, eager to reduce unemployment statistics and boost per-capita indicators, implemented brutal measures. Campaigns such as Shandong’s notorious “100 days without a single newborn” saw forced abortions and mass sterilizations reach their peak.
During this period, China transitioned from a purely planned economy to partial marketization. The CCP abandoned comprehensive public provision, but the household-registration barrier remained. Migrant workers became a quasi-serf caste—an irony for a Party claiming to represent the working class while inventing the derogatory term “nongmingong” (migrant peasant-laborer).Food coupons were phased out; the so-called “population dividend” was celebrated.Yet the policy remained unchanged because officials viewed population not as a resource but as a burden, short-sightedly ignoring future pension crises. Today, a single young person must support 1.3–1.5 elderly dependents; the social-security system is near collapse.
Three Dimensions of Disaster: Political, Biological, and Social
The damage wrought by the one-child policy appears in three domains—each a slow-acting poison corroding the nation’s foundations.
1. Political: A Reversion to Slavery and Social Enslavement
By placing reproductive rights under state control, the policy restored a form of slave-like governance reminiscent of the Shang and Zhou eras. Senior officials (at bureau-director level and above) could have multiple children, even multiple wives, while ordinary people faced strict limits. Urban residents were once forcibly “sent down” to become quasi-peasants.
In ancient China, both “state people” and “outsiders” could reproduce freely, limited only by ability to rear children. Modern China is more regressive: people require state permission to give birth.
After decades of enforcement, the public grew accustomed to seeing this antihuman measure as natural. Daily slogans, constant propaganda, and an entire bureaucracy devoted to enforcement normalized the abnormal.When an inhumane policy persists for decades, it becomes “reasonable.”
This strengthened the urban–rural dual structure and entrenched social docility, making authoritarian control instinctively accepted. Those who cry for democracy yet do not oppose the one-child policy misunderstand democracy itself:How can one speak of voting rights when even reproductive rights are denied?
2. Biological: Violating Natural Selection and Causing Genetic Decline
In natural conditions, stronger and healthier individuals produce more offspring, promoting species-level optimization—consistent with Darwinian evolution. The CCP proclaims belief in evolution yet imposed a one-child limit: the most capable and healthiest families had only one child; those with poor health or weak genetic traits, aided by medical interventions (IVF, induced labor), also had one.The numerical differentiation—crucial in evolutionary processes—was erased.
The result: homogenization, mixing of high-quality and low-quality traits, and a reversal of natural selection—“the weak outcompeting the strong.”
Historical cohort comparisons illustrate this:
Those born in the 1940s and 1950s exhibit the highest average longevity due to natural selection.
Those born in the 1960s and 1970s experienced stress and hardship, slightly lowering lifespan.
But cohorts born in the 1980s and 1990s face significant early-mortality risks in the coming decades.
Long-life genes cannot amplify (an 80-year-lifespan couple has only one child); short-life genes are averaged upward (a 50-year-lifespan couple also has one child).By age fifty, the population halves. In the past, large families amplified advantageous traits; now environmental and dietary stresses worsen biological decline.Overall physical fitness among Chinese has deteriorated markedly.
From a purely biological standpoint—setting aside morality—this policy interrupted the natural evolutionary process, causing irreversible damage.
3. Social: Destroying the Material Foundation of Justice and Resistance
As social beings, humans need morality, justice, and courage. Yet the one-child policy shattered their material basis. Upholding justice or defending the homeland requires sacrifice, sometimes life itself.Families with multiple children can endure the loss of one (e.g., in military service).But one-child families instinctively protect the sole heir, teaching:“Don’t get into trouble—just stay alive.”
This instinct is biological: adult animals protect their only offspring; survival of the bloodline takes precedence over all else. If the child dies, the family line disappears.
The consequence is moral degradation: parents lose their sense of justice or righteousness; the ethos of “better to live dishonorably than die honorably” prevails.The CCP welcomes this: one-child families are easier to govern—unlike families in Afghanistan, where many children mean parents are less fearful of sacrifice.
Voices of resistance in China disproportionately come from women: boys are pampered into fragility, raised for decades with the message “don’t cause trouble,” valued primarily as carriers of the family line. Girls enjoy relatively more autonomy.This explains why, despite sharing Confucian cultural roots, Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland’s labor-union movement) and South Korea show strong youth mobilization, while China does not. Had South Korea or Poland implemented similar one-child measures, their resistance would also have weakened.
Statistically, only a tiny fraction of only-children will stand up:
A few with extraordinary moral conviction;
Or those crushed by authoritarian repression, left with no choice.
Most remain risk-averse.
Why the CCP Will Not Truly Abolish the Policy
The CCP will only abandon birth restrictions when pensions and the education system collapse. A 2015 big-data report predicted demographic meltdown, but it was ignored—the economy had not yet collapsed, and only-children remained “useful.”
Even today’s “two-child” and “three-child” policies remain under state planning.Future coercion is possible—Romania once employed “menstrual police.”
Some Chinese workplaces already monitor menstruation cycles of women under 50. Incentive mechanisms—taxes, promotions—foreshadow coercive pronatalism.Economic decline will mask demographic damage for a time, but compulsory social insurance and rising bureaucratic pressure already signal the direction:
In the extreme, citizens may become breeding livestock, driven to reproduce.
Conclusion: Base Origins and an Enduring Warning
The one-child policy was born of a base instinct: unable to provide for the people, the state chose to eliminate future generations. It interrupted natural selection, enslaved society, and destroyed the moral foundations of civic courage—its impact rivaling political indoctrination.
For the CCP’s rule, the policy is indispensable.Ma Yinchu reduced humans to numbers and should be condemned; his failure of foresight implicates him in a crime against humanity.
The policy produced no benefits—it turned modern individuals into subjugated beings.The Chinese nation must awaken to a fundamental truth:
Reproductive freedom is the foundation of all other freedoms.Only by rejecting state control over birth can the nation reclaim its future.
“I refuse to live on my knees, stifled and humiliated”
— Interview with “Fragile Kid,” a 19-year-old Hong Kong exile, on the night of the Hong Kong Fook Wo Estate Fire Memorial Service in Los Angeles
Abstract:The devastating fire at Fook Wo Estate in Hong Kong claimed more than a hundred lives. On the seventh day after the tragedy—the traditional “first seven days” mourning period in Chinese culture—the Hong Kong community in Los Angeles held a prayer vigil to commemorate the victims. Nineteen-year-old exile “Fragile Kid,” who fled to the United States after being arrested in Hong Kong for satirizing Xi Jinping, attended the gathering and urged Hongkongers to survive and continue resisting.
Interview: Gloria Wang ResearchText Editing: Liu Fang Editor: Li Congling ExecutiveEditor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translation: Lyu Feng
Taken Away at 15, Fled to the U.S. Alone at 16
Reporter: Could you first introduce yourself?Fragile Kid: “Hello everyone, I’m Fragile Kid, I’m 19. When I was 15, I was taken from my home by Hong Kong police during Lunar New Year because I posted satirical memes about Xi Jinping online. They dragged me to the police station for interrogation. The following year, when I turned 16, I came to the United States alone to apply for political asylum. I’m now actively involved in the pro-democracy movement.”
His tone was calm, but the story carried weight.“At the time I was still a minor, yet the police turned my home upside down, photographed every room for record-keeping, and confiscated all my electronic devices. Their attitude made me realize for the first time: in their eyes, I wasn’t a child—I was a ‘threat’ that had to be suppressed.”
After the National Security Law, Even Peaceful Expression Became a Crime
Reporter: What made you bold enough, at just 15, to satirize the Chinese leader online?Fragile Kid: “The reason is simple. Even though I was just a teenager, I already knew bits and pieces of the atrocious things the CCP had done. And at that time, Hong Kong still seemed to enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I held onto a naive hope that the iron fist wouldn’t land on me.
But when the National Security Law passed overnight, I suddenly understood—they were really coming for us. From that moment, even peaceful expression became criminalized. I couldn’t accept this happening to Hong Kong, and I couldn’t accept that I had to be silent. I was 15, but I knew clearly:If I bowed my head and stayed silent, I would feel suffocated for the rest of my life.I simply couldn’t swallow that anger.”
From a Government Accountable to Its Citizens, to a Regime That Rules Like Kidnappers
Reporter: How do you view the changes in Hong Kong before and after 2019?Fragile Kid:“Before 2019, Hong Kong officials were still at least somewhat accountable to the public. Even on sensitive issues—free speech, universal suffrage—they would attempt to respond to public opinion. And with livelihood issues—construction scandals, transportation chaos, failures in public services—officials still felt obligated to explain, apologize, and make improvements.
But after the National Security Law, the Hong Kong government became a full-fledged authoritarian apparatus. Now, even if your demands have nothing to do with politics, even if you’re just trying to live as a normal human being, simply raising a concern is seen as a ‘threat.’ The government no longer listens or serves the people.It functions like a kidnapper holding society hostage.”
The Fook Wo Estate Inferno: Not a Natural Disaster, but a Man-Made Catastrophe Rooted in Systemic Corruption
He told us that the theme of the evening’s prayer service was to commemorate the victims of the Fook Wo Estate fire.
Reporter: How do you see this fire?Fragile Kid: “This is a systemic problem. This was not a natural disaster—it was a man-made catastrophe caused by structural corruption. And that corruption is rooted in the absence of free speech, which allows rot to flourish.”
He elaborated concretely:“The building was undergoing renovation. From the beginning, there were reports of pro-Beijing district councillors being involved and corruption concerns surrounding the project. Costs were reported at an inflated level, yet the protective mesh used was the cheapest, most unsafe kind—completely failing fire-safety standards.
Under normal regulations, fire-rated materials must be used. But since proper materials cost more, those involved opted for cheap, low-quality, non-fire-resistant netting. That choice directly caused the large number of casualties.
The horrific scale of death and injury was the direct result of cheap, substandard, corruption-ridden construction.”
What angered him most was not the fire itself, but the political aftermath.“The Hong Kong government has only arrested a few low-level staff and engineers. Those high-level figures with genuine corruption suspicions remain untouched. Even more absurd is that the National Security Department publicly warned about ‘anti-China forces using the disaster to destabilize Hong Kong,’ and started arresting citizens who were demanding an investigation into corruption and transparency.”
His voice was firm:“In their eyes, public safety and trust do not matter.The regime values its own authority far more than human life.”
Reporter: And what about the other issue you mentioned—citizens who simply voiced normal concerns being detained by national security officials?Fragile Kid:“This is exactly how the CCP has operated for decades. Look at petitioners across China—they’re intercepted, detained, and some even die in custody. This will only happen more frequently in Hong Kong.
It’s only been five years since the National Security Law, and we already see a catastrophe of such magnitude. I’m not exaggerating when I say that similar—or even worse—disasters will keep happening.When speech isn’t free, when journalism isn’t free, when there is no oversight, corruption becomes institutional—and disasters become inevitable.”
“My Channel Is Not Just About Videos”
Reporter: What do you think your channel contributes to democracy?Fragile Kid:“To be precise, the satirical videos encourage viewers to think—to question the regime’s authority, to challenge the manufactured image of leaders as untouchable or sacred.
On another level, I also share my asylum experience in the U.S. Many Hongkongers who just arrived need help—legal assistance, emergency support—and they reach out to me. I guess I’ve become a ‘trusted intermediary.’”
He continued:“In the pro-democracy movement, donors fear scams; those seeking help fear CCP agents who might report them to the consulate. A trusted intermediary is essential to truly support exiles who need help.”
Then he mentioned a phrase he keeps close to heart: “Those who carry firewood for the people should not freeze to death in the snow.”
“The CCP keeps telling people: ‘Even if you flee overseas for democracy, you’ll starve and be miserable.’ But if we can help exiles stand on their feet, integrate into society, and live with dignity, that becomes the strongest rebuttal to CCP propaganda.It shows that resisting the CCP does not mean your life is ruined. In fact, it might be the beginning of a better path.”
“If All the Good People Die, Only the Bad Will Remain”
Reporter: What would you like to say to young people in Hong Kong and mainland China?Fragile Kid:“Learn English well, and if you can leave, leave.You must survive if you want to fight them to the end.
In Hong Kong and China’s democracy movement, there’s always been a martyr complex. Everyone wants to be the martyr, the hero. But if all the good people die, then only the bad remain—and no one is left to protect innocent civilians.
If you truly act for society and for the people, then you have an even greater responsibility to stay alive—to fight the long fight, instead of dying for a momentary emotional impulse.”
At the end of the vigil, he looked at the candlelight and placed a white carnation in memory of the dead.He told us that remembering is a form of resistance; living is also a form of resistance. His voice seemed to speak directly to Hongkongers:“No one should ever die in a fire because of negligence.No one should be arrested for speaking.No one should have to live on their knees.”
This nineteen-year-old young man spoke with more clarity and resolve than many adults.
Mao Yiwei: The Hong Kong Fire — John Lee’s Display of Loyalty and the CCP’s Lies
Author: Mao YiweiEditor: Zhou Zhigang Chief Editor: Luo Zhifei Translator: Peng Xiaomei
Abstract:After the massive fire in Hong Kong, Chief Executive John Lee opened the post-incident press conference by thanking Xi Jinping, instead of expressing condolences to the injured or gratitude to the firefighters. This shows that the Hong Kong government is gradually becoming a part of the Chinese Communist Party, while democracy and freedom are disappearing.
The “fire of the century” took hundreds of innocent lives, and Hong Kong remains in shock and grief. Yet at the press conference following the incident, the very first words of Chief Executive John Lee were not an apology to the public, nor an announcement of launching an independent investigation, but— “Thank you for Xi Jinping’s concern.” With one sentence, a press conference that should have been about demanding accountability, exposing systemic loopholes, and addressing public safety was forcibly turned into a political show of loyalty to the higher-ups. The ones he should have truly thanked were the firefighters who rushed into the blaze and saved lives.
Who is John Lee? He is the first Chief Executive since the handover to be promoted directly from the police force, with no democratic mandate and no public legitimacy. His power comes entirely from Beijing, especially from Xi Jinping and the CCP’s approval. John Lee’s political logic today is completely “accountable upward”, not “accountable to the citizens.”What Hong Kong needs most at this moment is—answers: Why has building regulation failed for so many years? Why are contractors subcontracting endlessly, creating blurred responsibility? Why did the government ignore known building safety hazards for so long? Why do similar tragedies keep happening, yet no one bears institutional responsibility? These are questions that should have been raised at the press conference and addressed by launching an independent and transparent investigation by the Hong Kong government. However, John Lee placed “thanking the central government” at the top, pushing truth to the corner, covering systemic loopholes, and abstracting responsibility.
This is exactly the fundamental reason why Hong Kong has come to where it is today:the CCP’s lies. For decades, Beijing has repeatedly claimed “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” and “a high degree of autonomy.” But in reality, Hong Kong’s freedoms and institutional safeguards have been steadily eroded. The so-called “One Country, Two Systems,” in the eyes of the CCP, is nothing but a beautifully packaged lie, a façade masking its full control over Hong Kong. At the press conference, John Lee kept thanking Xi Jinping and the Communist Party— But what exactly was he thanking them for? For covering up the truth with false promises? For replacing accountability with political loyalty? For replacing freedom with fear and suppression?
“One Country, Two Systems” was supposed to ensure that Hong Kong officials were accountable to the people. But now it has become a joke: The Chief Executive’s power no longer comes from voters, but entirely from authorization by the central government. John Lee does not need to care about the deaths and injuries of Hong Kong people, nor respond to public anger—as long as the higher-ups are satisfied, he remains secure in his position. This is the true portrait of Hong Kong’s mainlandization: Freedom disappears; Democracy disappears; Accountability mechanisms disappear. All that remains is political loyalty and performance.
Look at this fire: The Hong Kong government’s first reaction was not to investigate responsibility, not to disclose the truth, but to arrest people, suppress speech, and silence dissent—exactly the same as in mainland China. Who dares criticize the government? Who dares co-sign four major demands? Who dares expose systemic loopholes? Anyone doing so will be treated as a threat, arrested, or punished.“Stability maintenance” becomes the top priority, while truth and public safety are completely ignored.
This fire did not only burn down a building; it burned down Hong Kong’s trust and its institutions. Freedom has vanished. Independent investigation is impossible. Public oversight is blocked. John Lee’s on-camera “Thank you to Xi Jinping” and “Thank you to the central government” was, in fact, a declaration: The source of his power is not the people, but the CCP. What have Xi Jinping and the CCP actually done?They hid systemic failures behind the so-called promises of “One Country, Two Systems,” indulged bureaucratic negligence, and turned Hong Kong into a political stage for public displays of loyalty. Is this something to be thankful for? Obviously not.
What destroys a city is not a fire, but a government that values political loyalty above human life and lies above truth. Hong Kong, once the Oriental Pearl and renowned for its rule of law, has had its institutions hollowed out, its freedoms stripped, and its public will be suppressed. The victims of the fire have become political offerings.
All Hong Kong people—both the living and the families of the dead—are waiting for an answer: Can the Hong Kong government still confront the truth? Can it still protect its citizens, instead of continuing to perform for the CCP? If it cannot, if it will not, tragedies will repeat again and again. And the supposed “One Country, Two Systems” and “high degree of autonomy” have long become the CCP’s most absurd and most lethal lies.
The destruction of Hong Kong’s freedom is the result of Xi Jinping and the CCP burning it down step by step with lies. The flames destroyed the building; politics destroyed trust. Institutions and truth were exiled. Under such a government, people’s lives and rights are pushed to the margins, and future tragedies can only continue to happen, again and again.
I Am Willing to Share the Same “Crime” as Mr. Ren Zhiqiang
Author: Wang Lianjiang Editor: Zhong Ran Executive Editor: Zhang Na Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Liu Fang
Abstract: For many years, Ren Zhiqiang openly criticized the political system, the media, and China’s reliance on land-based fiscal revenue. He advocated democracy and civic responsibility, and for speaking the truth, he was ultimately sentenced to 18 years in prison. The author reflects on social injustice through personal experiences and expresses deep respect for Ren’s courage and conscience.
Ren Zhiqiang was born in March 1951. Let us first look at the remarks, actions, and experiences of Ren Zhiqiang that I have come to know over the years.
2006: When the public angrily criticized high housing prices and developers, he pointed out that they were being misled—80% of housing costs were taken by the government. The government, he said, was far darker than the real estate companies, and developers were merely scapegoats used by the government to deflect blame.
2007: He argued that the direct cause of surging housing prices was the government’s dependence on land finance and its monopolistic control over land supply. Because policymakers failed to grasp the root cause, all macro-control policies were fundamentally flawed.
2013, Peking University: He stated that Taiwan’s democratic system was not established solely because of Chiang Ching-kuo, but because the Taiwanese people had ideals and aspirations. They wanted to build a democratic society. He encouraged university students to stand up, shoulder their social responsibilities, and push down the wall standing in front of them.
February 2015: He described the current system as a monopoly of imperial power and centralized authoritarianism.
September 23, 2015: “Do not let the Communist Youth League deceive a new generation with ignorance, and do not allow reforms to regress to the pre-reform era. I do not care if others scold me, but the Youth League must not use ignorance to mislead society.”
October 1, 2015: “This day is not the birth of a nation, but the anniversary of a new government coming into existence. This means: the CCP is the CCP, China is China, and the CCP is not China.”
February 2016: He criticized the slogan “state media must bear the Party’s surname,” insisting that the media should serve the people, not a political party.
February 2020: He wrote that someone at the top “makes no effort to hide his determination to be emperor, and his resolve to destroy anyone who stands in his way.”
March 12, 2020: He was detained. On September 22, the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court sentenced him to 18 years in prison.
In modern political civilization, a government’s authority comes from the private rights granted by the people within its jurisdiction. People not only have the right to criticize their government, but when the current government fails to meet the people’s expectations, the people also have the right to overthrow it.
The current government of the People’s Republic of China has never received its governing authority from the people—not once in all these years. Its power was seized through the barrel of a gun; it is illegal and violent. The communism it preaches is a cult. Through deception, it leads believers down a flower-strewn path into hell. Decades of Chinese and world history have repeatedly proven that wherever this ideology spreads, it brings ignorance, poverty, chaos, war, and bloody repression.
I myself come from a “rich peasant” family. During land reform, the wealth that my grandfather, great-grandfather, and ancestors accumulated over generations was confiscated. My parents suffered discrimination for decades, and my own childhood was marked by bullying. In school, I faced deceptive textbooks; after entering the workforce, I encountered unequal employment opportunities. Later came unaffordable housing, my son being unable to take the college entrance exam in Shanghai despite studying there, and my elderly parents surviving on meager pensions. These injustices in my own life made me question why society is the way it is. What kind of society is truly fair? I needed answers. Ren Zhiqiang spoke boldly and truthfully. In the era when Weibo was at its height, I followed him, learned from him, agreed with his views, respected his character, and admired his courage. He did not lack food, clothing, or comfort; he could have enjoyed his old age in peace. Yet he chose to speak out of conscience, out of concern for the people. Now he has been arrested and sentenced to 18 years—at the age of 69. What was his crime? What crime is there in telling the truth? What crime is there in criticizing an illegitimate government? He merely fulfilled the social responsibility expected of a citizen. Mr. Ren Zhiqiang, I am willing to share the same “crime” as you.
A photo of Mr. Ren Zhiqiang in prison, circulated online in August 2022.
Refusing to Yield: Xu Qinxian and the Struggle of June Fourth
Author: Mao Yiwei Editor: Zhang Yu ExecutiveEditor: Zhang Na Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Liu Fang
Abstract: Inspired by the newly released footage of Xu Qinxian’s trial, the author reflects that history never disappears, and truth can never be buried.
Recently, I came across a historical video on Wang Zhi’an’s YouTube channel—footage of Xu Qinxian’s military trial, recorded on March 17, 1990. More than thirty years later, this is the first time the full trial has been made public. In the video, Xu Qinxian faces the military court with a calm expression and a steady voice: “I do not agree to the use of force.” No fiery protest, no dramatic posturing—only an unshakeable firmness. In that moment, his composure itself was a form of silent strength, tightening the chest of anyone who watched.
In June 1989, students and citizens stood unarmed on the streets of Beijing, yet they were crushed by the violence of the Communist Party and the military. Xu Qinxian, then commander of the 38th Army, refused to lead his troops into Beijing to suppress the students and even refused to sign the mobilization order. This decision meant directly defying his superiors and facing unpredictable consequences. In the end, he was sentenced to five years in prison by a secret military court. During the trial, he neither pleaded nor defended himself. His demeanor remained cool and composed. That quiet, unwavering stance spoke louder than any outcry.。
In the footage, the courtroom appears dim, and Xu Qinxian sits before the judges with clear eyes that carry a heavy gravity. The presiding officers look expressionless. The entire room feels oppressive and still. Every small movement seems to whisper the tension and fear of that time. His choice represented the boundary of a soldier’s duty—and the boundary of conscience. After more than three decades of censorship, history resurfaced through this footage, allowing us to truly feel the complexity and brutality of that era.
As I watched the video, my thoughts drifted back to my third year of middle school. That was the year I first learned how to “climb over the firewall,” and the year I first saw images of the June Fourth crackdown. On the screen, I saw a university student wearing glasses and a red headband. His eyes were resolute as he rode his bicycle toward Tiananmen Square. He said he was going there to join the demonstration. A reporter asked why. He replied, “I think it’s my duty.” Just a few words, yet they taught me, for the first time, the meaning of responsibility and courage. He was not only a student—he was part of history, one of those who dared to stand up in that era.
The image of Xu Qinxian’s trial and the image of that student merge in my mind. One was inside the core of the military, choosing to follow conscience. The other was in the streets, choosing to step forward. Their times, identities, and environments were different, but the essence of their actions was the same: in a decisive moment, they refused to betray their judgment and refused to let their conscience fall silent. Watching these scenes, I felt a chill, but also deep respect. The courage to hold on in the face of oppression is more powerful than any words—and it reminds us that history does not disappear because of silence, nor does truth fade with time.
And as for the Communist Party that once turned its guns on students and buried truth under lies—its rule will inevitably come to an end. Blood and fear cannot suppress the human heart forever, and lies cannot cover history forever. One day, truth will break through the blockade, tyranny will be shattered, and the Party’s authority will fall. The memory and conscience of the people are the only eternal judges. History will not forget—and it will not forgive.
An Interpretation of the “Civic Constitution”: On the Future of Chinese Democracy – Part II
Article One: The Foundational Principle Author: Cheng Wei Executive Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Liu Fang
Abstract: Article One of the Civic Constitution establishes a fundamental principle: humanity precedes the state, and it is the citizens who create the state—not the state that governs citizens. By defining the chronological and logical order between citizens and the state, it derives the doctrine that citizens stand above the state. Article One further articulates five basic principles of citizenship and affirms that when a regime fails to protect these principles, citizens not only have the right but also the obligation to overthrow it.
Introduction: The Democratic Soul of the ConstitutionAnchored in popular governance, democracy, civil rights, livelihood, and national identity, the Civic Constitution sketches a grand blueprint for the future of Chinese democracy. Article One, serving as the foundation of the document, clarifies the relationship between the state and its citizens and establishes the core principle of democratic rule by the people: “Humanity came before the state; it is citizens who establish the state. The state belongs to the citizens, and it is the citizens who govern the state, not the state that rules over citizens. Citizens have no obligation to love the state; the fundamental purpose of establishing state power is to protect citizens’ rights to life, liberty, property, resistance against oppression, and suffrage—including the right to be elected—against any unlawful infringement. When the state fails to uphold these principles, citizens have the right and the duty to overthrow that regime and to establish one that protects these fundamental rights.” This article examines Article One in depth and reveals its profound implications for China’s democratic future.
I. The Core of Popular Governance: Citizens Precede the StateArticle One begins with the declaration “Humanity came before the state,” overturning traditional notions of state supremacy and establishing citizens as the primary actors in political formation. Rooted in theories of rule by the people, this principle underscores that the state is the product of citizens’ collective will, not a tool of domination imposed upon them. Citizens are not merely subjects—they are founders and governors of the state. The assertion that “citizens govern the state, not the state the citizens” clarifies that political authority flows from citizens to the government. This dismantles authoritarian logic and places citizens at the center of constitutional order. The forward-looking statement “citizens have no obligation to love the state” challenges coercive nationalism. Under this constitutional vision, patriotism is voluntary. A state that fails to serve its citizens cannot demand their loyalty. This grants citizens spiritual freedom and offers a theoretical basis for resisting unjust power, embodying the completeness of popular governance.
II. The Principles of State Authority: Safeguarding Five Fundamental RightsArticle One further declares that the establishment of state power must rest on the protection of five essential rights: the right to life, liberty, property, resistance against oppression, and the right to vote and to be elected. These rights form the core moral structure of the Civic Constitution, spanning survival, freedom, economic security, and political participation. The right to life is the most basic human right and the primary justification for the state’s existence; thus, human rights supersede sovereignty. Liberty includes freedom of speech, belief, and association, protecting the autonomy of thought and action; freedom of thought is humanity’s first and inalienable freedom. Property rights protect citizens’ economic achievements and prevent unlawful seizure, ensuring fairness and incentive. The right to resist oppression grants citizens legitimacy to oppose injustice and tyranny, transforming resistance into a fundamental human right. The right to vote and be elected ensures democratic participation and institutionalizes the principle of rule by the people. These rights safeguard individual dignity while constraining state authority. A regime that fails to protect them loses legitimacy, providing clear standards for public governance and a legal basis for citizens to supervise the state.
III. Citizens’ Rights and Duties: Overthrowing and RebuildingArticle One grants citizens a revolutionary mandate: when a regime fails to safeguard the five fundamental principles, citizens have not only the right but also the obligation to overthrow it and establish one that protects these rights. This is more than a right—it is a civic duty, reflecting profound trust in citizen agency. Citizens cease to be passive subjects and become active authors of political destiny. This design responds to historical lessons of tyranny and ensures the long-term resilience of democracy. When the state abandons its purpose of serving its citizens, citizens are empowered to restore constitutional order through lawful or revolutionary means. By linking rights with obligations, Article One stimulates civic participation and provides democracy with a built-in corrective mechanism.
IV. Implications for the Future of Chinese DemocracyCentered on popular governance, Article One redefines the relationship between citizens and the state and charts a clear course for China’s democratic development. It addresses limitations of Western democracies—such as overreliance on representative systems—while avoiding the suppressive tendencies of authoritarian governance. By placing citizens above the state, Article One offers a “third pathway” for China’s democratic future. In an era when artificial intelligence and data surveillance pose new threats to civil liberties, the constitutional protection of the right to resist oppression and the right to vote provides institutional safeguards against future abuses. Meanwhile, the declaration that “citizens have no obligation to love the state” breaks free from enforced nationalism, enabling a democratic China to embrace openness and global opportunity.
Conclusion: Toward a Democratic HorizonThrough its profound articulation of popular governance, Article One of the Civic Constitution illuminates a path of hope for China’s political future. By asserting that humanity precedes the state, it grants citizens supreme political primacy; by establishing five essential rights, it lays a foundation of democratic order; by granting citizens the right and duty to overthrow unjust regimes, it empowers democratic self-renewal. Article One is not merely the opening clause of a constitution—it is the starting point of a journey toward freedom, justice, and prosperity.
Click to view the full text of the Civic Constitution.— Written by Cheng Wei and He Qingfeng, paragons of integrity and moral clarity.
蔡晓丽-纪念白纸运动三周年-rId5-1269X846.jpeg?w=696&resize=696,0&ssl=1 "纪念白纸运动三周年")
蔡晓丽-纪念白纸运动三周年-rId5-1269X846.jpeg "纪念白纸运动三周年")
蔡晓丽-纪念白纸运动三周年-rId6-1269X846.jpeg)
