—— 参加审判九宗罪活动有感

作者：陈婷

编辑：周志刚 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：吕峰

2025年8月30日的洛杉矶，天空湛蓝明亮，阳光如洗。下午四点多，中国驻洛杉矶总领馆门前聚集了一群人。他们手里举着横幅与标语，呼喊“要求自由”，有人举着写满“九宗罪”的纸牌，也有人只是默默合十祈祷。人群中有年长的民主斗士，有年轻的学生，也有因信仰而流亡的佛教徒与基督徒。他们的背景各不相同，却因一个共同的信念站在一起——追求人权与自由。

现场主持人逐一宣读所谓“九宗罪”，包括对人权的践踏、对宗教的压制、对文化的破坏等。这些声音并不仅仅是一种政治抗议，更是一种深切的人类良知的呼喊。作为一名藏传佛教徒，当时我心中涌起许多难以平息的感受。

多年前，我和师兄们在道场里共同持诵经典的日子，是我记忆中最宁静的时光。佛陀教导我们慈悲与智慧，提醒我们无论面对何种苦难，都要以正念面对。然而，现实却并不总能允许这样的安宁。近些年来，信仰环境越来越紧缩：寺庙被迫关闭，僧侣被驱逐，甚至线上修学资源也逐渐消失。对普通信众来说，坚持修行成了一件危险的事情。

一位大德曾说过：“没有信仰自由的地方，就像没有空气的世界，人只能窒息。”这句话在今天的集会中再次印证。不同的宗教群体都曾经遭遇相似的困境：教堂被捣毁，法会被禁止，清真寺被监控。这样的打压不仅针对信仰本身，更像是对人类灵魂的一种束缚。

信仰自由，是人权的核心组成部分。人可以没有财富，没有地位，但不能没有信仰的空间。佛陀曾教导，真正的自由并非来自外在的拥有，而是内心的安住与解脱。而宗教信仰，正是帮助人找到内心安住的重要途径。

这也是为什么现场的许多人，即使来自不同的国家和宗教背景，依然能够站在一起。他们高举标语，不仅是对某种体制的不满，更是在捍卫一种普世价值：人的灵魂应该被尊重。

在洛杉矶的这场活动中，我看到年轻人与长者同声呼喊，看见基督徒与佛教徒一同祈祷。那一刻，我感受到一种超越国界、民族与宗教的力量。这种力量，正是来自对信仰自由与人权的共同渴望。

不可否认，在一些地方，宗教与文化一直受到各种限制与打压。无论是对言论的控制，还是对宗教活动的限制，都让无数信众无法自由地追求心灵的寄托。表面上，这是权力的延伸，但从更深的层面看，这是一种对人类文明多样性的损害。

作为佛教徒，我相信因果律。任何以谎言、压制和暴力为基础的制度，只能够一时维持，无法永远掩盖真相！大德常提醒我们：“对恶要清醒，对人要慈悲。”这句话对我而言意义深远。我们揭示这些问题，不是出于仇恨，而是希望人类能在更清明的环境中生活，能够自由地选择信仰与价值。

过去几十年，文化遗产也在不断遭受冲击。从“统一思想”的政策，到对多元信仰和传统文化的排斥，很多古老的智慧被边缘化甚至消失。然而，无论是儒家的仁义礼智信，佛教的慈悲与智慧，还是道家的自然与和谐，都是人类文明的重要部分。它们的价值不应被抹杀，而应该被继承与弘扬。

文化的消失不仅仅是文字与仪式的消亡，更是人类灵魂的空洞化。当人们失去文化与信仰的滋养，社会也就失去了向善与自我修正的能力。这种空洞最终会让整个民族和国家付出代价。

当天的集会在夕阳余晖中逐渐散去。人们收起横幅，有人还在低声祈祷，有人互相拥抱。那一刻，我心中有一种温暖的力量。我们或许渺小，但我们并不孤单。

我双手合十，在心中默默发愿：愿真相被更多人知晓，愿信仰自由早日实现，愿每一个受苦的众生都能离苦得乐。

这条路不会轻松，但因果不会缺席，正义也不会永远沉默。洛杉矶的集会只是一个缩影，却让人看到了希望。不同的民族、宗教与背景的人们，可以因共同的价值而站在一起。信仰自由与人权不是奢侈品，而是每一个生命应得的权利。

未来，我们仍需努力，但只要有这样的坚持，种子就会发芽，光明终将到来。

The Call for Freedom of Belief and Human Rights— Reflections on Participating in the “Nine Charges” Rally

Author: Chen TingEditor: Zhou ZhigangExecutive Editor: Luo ZhifeiTranslator: Lyu Feng

Abstract:On August 30, 2025, at a rally in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles, diverse groups of people called for human rights and freedom, exposing the Chinese Communist Party’s suppression of religion and destruction of culture, while standing together to defend human conscience and universal values.

On August 30, 2025, the sky over Los Angeles was bright and clear, bathed in sunlight. A little after 4:00 p.m., a crowd gathered in front of the Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China. They held banners and placards, shouting “We demand freedom.” Some carried boards listing the “Nine Charges,” while others stood silently, palms pressed together in prayer. Among them were veteran democracy activists, young students, and Buddhist and Christian exiles who had fled their homelands for their faith. Their backgrounds differed, but they stood together for one shared belief—the pursuit of human rights and freedom.

The host of the rally read aloud the so-called “Nine Charges,” including violations of human rights, suppression of religion, and destruction of culture. These voices were not merely political protests; they were a profound cry of human conscience. As a Tibetan Buddhist, I was deeply moved by emotions that surged within me.

Years ago, when my Dharma brothers and I chanted scriptures together in our monastery, those were the most serene days of my memory. The Buddha taught us compassion and wisdom, reminding us to face suffering with mindfulness. Yet reality does not always allow such tranquility. In recent years, the environment for religious practice has grown increasingly repressive: temples have been forced to close, monks expelled, and even online resources for study gradually erased. For ordinary believers, practicing faith has become a dangerous act.

A great teacher once said: “A place without freedom of belief is like a world without air—people can only suffocate.” That truth was echoed at the rally. Different religious communities have suffered similar hardships: churches demolished, ceremonies banned, mosques surveilled. Such repression is not merely an assault on faith itself—it is a shackle on the human soul.

Freedom of belief is a core element of human rights. A person can live without wealth or status, but not without a space for faith. The Buddha taught that true freedom does not come from external possessions, but from inner peace and liberation. Religious faith is a vital path toward that inner stability.

That is why so many people, from different nations and faiths, could stand together at the rally. Their raised placards were not only an expression of discontent with a political system, but also a defense of a universal value: the dignity of the human soul.

In Los Angeles that day, I saw the young and the elderly cry out in unison, and Christians and Buddhists pray side by side. In that moment, I felt a power that transcended borders, ethnicity, and religion. It was the power born from a shared yearning for freedom of belief and human rights.

It is undeniable that in some places, religion and culture have long faced restrictions and suppression. Whether through censorship of speech or restrictions on religious gatherings, countless believers are prevented from seeking spiritual solace freely. On the surface, this may appear to be an extension of state power, but at a deeper level, it represents an erosion of human civilization’s diversity.

As a Buddhist, I believe in the law of cause and effect. Any system built on lies, repression, and violence can survive only temporarily; it cannot forever conceal the truth. Our teachers often remind us: “Be clear-eyed toward evil, but compassionate toward people.” For me, these words carry profound meaning. We expose these injustices not out of hatred, but out of hope—that humanity may live in a more enlightened environment, free to choose its beliefs and values.

Over the past decades, cultural heritage has also been repeatedly struck. From policies enforcing “ideological unity” to rejection of pluralistic traditions, much ancient wisdom has been marginalized or erased. Yet whether Confucian benevolence and righteousness, Buddhist compassion and wisdom, or Daoist harmony with nature, each is an indispensable part of human civilization. Their value should not be obliterated, but preserved and passed on.

The disappearance of culture is not just the loss of texts and rituals; it is the hollowing out of the human spirit. When people lose the nourishment of culture and belief, society loses both its moral compass and its ability to self-correct. Ultimately, this emptiness exacts a price on the nation as a whole.

As the sun set that day, the rally gradually dispersed. People rolled up banners; some prayed softly, while others embraced. In that moment, I felt a warm strength within. We may be small, but we are not alone.

I pressed my palms together and silently made a vow: may the truth be known by more people; may freedom of belief be realized soon; may every suffering being be freed from pain and find happiness.

The road ahead will not be easy. But cause and effect never fail, and justice will not remain silent forever. The Los Angeles rally was just one small reflection, yet it revealed hope—that people of different nations, religions, and backgrounds can stand together for shared values. Freedom of belief and human rights are not luxuries; they are rights every human being deserves.

The future still demands our efforts, but as long as there is such persistence, the seeds will sprout, and light will ultimately arrive.

作者：汪听雨
编辑：李聪玲 责任编辑：胡丽莉 翻译：何兴强

最近几天，一个叫做“戚洪”的名字涌入了海外华人的视野，尤其是在民运圈。这位大哥的事迹并不新鲜，但影响力足够大，引起了广泛争议。据我有限的了解，他在重庆大学城通过投影的方式，把“反共标语”打在大楼墙面上，希望在93阅兵前把“自由的火种”传递给年轻人。

果然，一石激起千层浪，各大异议人士大V纷纷转发，称赞戚洪有勇有谋。同时，也涌现了许多批评的声音，比如：“他这么做就是为了政治庇护！”、“他这么做有没有想过他还在中国的亲人（他的母亲还在国内）？”、“他要是真在中国反抗还是条汉子，全家人跑路就是自私自利！”我看到这些五花八门的说法，原本以为只是中共水军带风向，普通人不会被这种话术蒙蔽，哪知道我的一些网友也开始发表负面评论。我和这些网友互相关注多年，十分确信他们不是五毛水军，也明确知道他们对中共体制非常不满，但依然对投影行为十分不认可。我这才意识到，面对反抗极权，很多国人并没有清晰的逻辑，因此很容易被水军带风向，将抗争者污名化，从而在舆论上抑制类似的抗争，降低维稳成本。 

所以，我认为有必要把逻辑掰开揉碎，把事实与逻辑梳理清楚，由简入深，一步一步推理，论证戚洪的行为不但无可指责，还值得学习与借鉴。 

（一）不存在一个完美的勇士
我们拿几位知名度高、普遍获得好评的异议人士来对比。比如刘晓波、阮晓寰（编程随想）、彭立发（彭载舟）。和戚洪相比，最大的区别，也是水军们最容易抹黑的点在于：前者都已坐牢、受尽虐待，甚至刘晓波死在了狱中，而戚洪选择了保全自己。问题来了：到底是谁规定勇士/抗争者必须殉道，必须抱着自杀心态去抗争呢？难道英雄不能在实现目标后，或深藏功名，或名声显赫，或安享晚年？如果要求抗争者必须准备好去死，或者彻底失去自由，那么抗争的人还能剩下多少？抗争的人越少，对谁越有利？

 （二）极权的崩塌不在于一个神迹，而在于无数普通人的行动
水军又说了：“他这么搞能改变什么？共产党不可能因为这么一出倒台。”没错，1989年的学生运动不能，白纸运动也不能，放一个反共投影更像是在大海里投下一颗小石子。但根据历史经验，所有极权政府的倒台，都是由无数普通人的点滴抵抗累积而成。比如波兰，最初只是工人在造船厂罢工，要求工会独立和改善生活条件。后来“团结工会”逐步壮大，成为全国性民主运动。起初的诉求并非推翻政权，而是争取基本权利。但正是这些普通工人的坚持，撬动了东欧剧变的序幕。 

再比如苏联的解体，并不是某个领导人突然下令，而是长期的经济困境、知识分子的启蒙、地方民族的独立诉求，以及一次次普通人拒绝配合体制的行动，最终让庞大的政权土崩瓦解。抽象来说，让极权和平瓦解，要满足一个不等式：统治的成本＞统治的收益。当政权发现维持统治的成本太高时，它会逐渐退缩；它的退缩导致民间力量壮大，最终由民主力量取代独裁。戚洪以及类似行动，客观上推高了中共的维稳成本——比如在政府活动前要派出大量人手逐个排查酒店，即使没活动也要定期检查；购买某些设备需要实名登记并被追踪；住酒店要被搜包，引发社会摩擦，增加了社会不稳定因素。这一切都提高了维稳成本。但高压维稳不可能无限持续，在资源枯竭时必然退缩，而成本越高，这个时间点来得就越快。因此，那种认为“小事抗争没用”的思维，客观上反而降低了维稳成本，延长了中共的统治。 

（三）认识因果关系
这一层是我的一些网友想不清楚的地方，也是最容易被带风向的角度。他们会质疑，为什么戚洪不在生意做得好的时候去抗争，为什么非要在生意做不下去了才搞这么一出？问题来了，世界上到底有几个人生活过得顺风顺水，吃饱了撑的冒着被逮捕的风险挑战政府？恐怕要么是纯粹的理想主义者，要么是精神上出问题了。那么有多少人因为人生发展不顺，思考是不是制度出了问题，从而想要改变国家制度呢？实际上，不管是民主国家还是独裁国家，这样的人才是绝大多数。这就是人“穷则思变”的本性，这就是因果关系。期待一个人生赢家去冒险毁掉人生，或者期待人生逆境的人们全部内在归因，认为“我过得不好全是因为我不努力”，从而不去思变，不去改变环境，这两种思维都缺乏对人性的认识。 

还有一个说法是，“勇士应该保护他人，而不应该以牺牲他人为代价抗争，这样很自私”。我认为保护他人的人当然是勇士，但是牺牲他人的人依然也可以是勇士。假设存在一支地下反抗组织，勇士作为领头人，肩负着领导所有成员的责任，有一项必死的任务，需要一个人执行。如果勇士去了就死了，很有可能刚建立起来的组织就群龙无首开始内斗了，那么勇者必须下决断到底谁去送死。如果勇者选择让他人去死，自己没有去死，是不是意味着这个勇者做的一切都是邪恶的或者无意义的？再比如，很多中国人学过语文课文《史记·陈涉世家》，陈胜，吴广带头造反，追随他们的农民很有可能全都会死，那么是不是陈胜吴广本着大无畏的精神，不挑动广大农民造反，就靠他们原本几百人的队伍对抗全体秦朝军队？ 

如果真的追求一种，“所有的行为都不能损害到别人的态度，否则全都是自私自利，不算勇士”的话，推导出来最自私的人应该是刘晓波，阮晓寰，彭立发这些传播自由思想的人。如果他们的文字，思想没有被广大顺民阅读到的话，很有可能，其中很大一部分人根本不会产生任何抗争思想，他们会觉得中共的统治是天经地义的，遭遇的任何坏事都是自己不努力或者极小部分贪官害的。看见不公平的事会认为天下乌鸦一般黑，日子能过就过，不去想自由民主这些有的没的。现在可好了，有了这些传播“害人”思想的异议人士，遇到不公会思考是不是制度要改，看见不公心里会愤怒，从而搞得祸从口出，更有甚者做出一些当局无法容忍的事，把自己人生毁掉，自己子孙三代进不了体制，父母养老金被无故克扣。他们的思想传播得越广，对他人的损害程度是不是越大？看吧，没有刘晓波之流，在源头上就阻止了产生更多异议人士，这样他们会过上平凡的人生，他们不会闹事，就这么安安稳稳过日子，做一颗完美的螺丝钉。在中共眼里，真的太完美了，所以，不能以“牺牲他人”为代价的说法，最大的受益者看下来是中共？ 

（四）无辜者因你而死，都是你的错？
我想起某本科幻小说里的情节，大反派以一颗星球的普通人的生命作为要挟，要挟主角投降，否则就要直接摧毁整颗星球。大反派边要挟，边开始试图用语言摧毁主角的抵抗意志，比如，“这些人死了，全都要算在你头上！”，庆幸的是，主角不为所动，对大反派展开了猛烈的攻势。因为他明白，如果接受了胁迫，那么获胜的永远是更加无耻的人。部分国人可悲的一点是，从小接受的社会化训练让很多人面对这种无辜者遭殃归因问题，本能地归因到“间接”责任人身上。我小学时候，老师会因为个别同学不守纪律，进而把全班留堂，放学后全都不准走。接下来，老师会开启批斗模式，通过批评个别同学，进而引申出全班同学都有责任，因为全班是一个“集体”。要是老师心情再差一些，她们会开批斗大会，让同学写小纸条，写出班里最不守纪律的坏分子，然后把名字最多的同学拉到讲台上人格侮辱。那时候绝大多数小学生，心里想的不是质疑老师为什么搞连坐，为什么要这么践踏个别同学的尊严，他们心里想的是，都怪那几个害群之马，搞得自己被牵连。他们的意识里，只要那几个害群之马同学从此遵纪守法，自己就可以免于被留堂，至于连坐制度对不对，他们不会思考，因为连坐好像是天经地义的。所以，我发现，网上骂他的人首先骂的就是他自私自利，不顾及家人，因为在逻辑上就已经把连坐制度潜移默化地认为这就是天经地义，不可撼动的规则，第一时间的感受不是骂中共无耻，而是怪罪引发“连坐”的人。 

（五）人人都是代价，混沌的道德
我们再说回代价。又有人说，“我支持抗争，但是不支持会大面积波及无辜者的抗争，我痛恨中共，但是不希望抗争者像中共一样把他人作代价”。投影事件后，酒店跟卖投影仪的会遭殃，他们成了抗争的代价，这么说来这个勇士太坏了，拿别人当代价实现自己的利益。我们退一万步讲，抗争者这么做真的是为了自己的私利，然而，反问一下，高考时提升一分，比下千人，这一千人当中肯定有几个比你更需要上大学改变命运的人；找工作时比其他候选人表现突出，刷下了其他候选人，没准其中有几个人比你更需要工作，要是再找不到工作就流落街头了；公司经营不善的时候，被裁员的员工成了公司活下去的代价，是不是裁员就是邪恶的？这些行为都造成了他人利益的损失，岂不是都应该受到指责？仅仅是日常生活中的小事，都存在着一个人获益导致另一个人“受损”，为什么偏偏行使了言论自由被冠上了“极度自私”的标签。有人说因为他违法了，因为他煽动颠覆国家政权，我们就又绕回到了恶法是否非法，是否默认恶法的合理存在的问题。违反恶法把其他人作为代价实现私利是不是应该批评的？如果选择应当批评，那么批评者就站在了高墙的一边，并且在捍卫高墙，这将绑匪放在了道德高于抗争者的地位，因为绑匪永远可以用恶法来合理化绑架行为，而抗争者永远处在道德的不利地位。 

（六）庇护的逻辑与个体的逻辑
最后说个边边角角的问题。有人说戚洪参与过方舱建设，非法拘禁过民众，所以他是加害者，不是受害者，不应当获得庇护。这种说法完全混淆了“抗争者的道义地位”与“个体是否应获庇护”这两个层次。抗争行为无可指责，但若抗争者个体之前确实参与了迫害，自然可以由移民官和法官审查，如果坐实，可以拒绝庇护。因为只要是因抗争遭迫害或者可能遭受迫害的人，原则上都符合国际公约里庇护的条件。 

（七）总结
愿有一天，更多的国人能够真正认识到抗争的逻辑，不再被“连坐”思维和水军话术牵着鼻子走，不再轻易把本该归因于施暴者的恶，转移到反抗者身上。愿人们能明白，极权的瓦解从来不是一场神迹，而是无数普通人一次次不完美的行动累积的结果；愿人们能在纷繁复杂的指责与道德裹挟中，分清谁才是加害者，谁才是勇敢的抵抗者。若不能如此，我们将一次次重演同样的悲剧：真正的勇气被污名化，真正的恶行被合理化，而国人依旧困在混沌的道德观里，自以为守住了“善良”，却在无声中为高墙添砖加瓦。

The Struggle of the Brave and the Moral Chaos of the People

Abstract: Qihong’s projection protest has been questioned, but in fact it raises the cost of stability maintenance and demonstrates personal courage. The collapse of totalitarianism depends on countless imperfect actions; responsibility should rest on the perpetrators, not on the resisters.

Author: Wang Tingyu

Editor: Li Congling Responsible Editor: Hu Lili Translator :He XingQiang

In recent days, the name “Qihong” has surged into the overseas Chinese community’s field of vision, especially within the pro-democracy circle. His deeds are not new, but their influence is significant enough to spark heated debate. From what I understand, he projected anti-CCP slogans onto building walls in Chongqing University Town, hoping to pass on the “flame of freedom” to young people before the 93rd military parade.

As expected, a single stone stirred up a thousand ripples. Many dissident influencers shared and praised Qihong as courageous and resourceful. At the same time, criticisms also poured in: “He only did this to get political asylum!”, “Didn’t he think about his relatives still in China (his mother is still there)?”, “If he really resisted in China, he’d be a real man. Running away with his whole family is selfish!” Initially, I thought such comments were only CCP trolls guiding public opinion, and that ordinary people wouldn’t be misled. But to my surprise, some of my long-followed friends—who I am certain are not CCP trolls and who are clearly dissatisfied with the regime—also voiced disapproval. That’s when I realized: many Chinese lack clear logic when it comes to resistance, making them easily swayed to stigmatize resisters. This suppresses similar protests in public opinion, thereby reducing stability-maintenance costs.

Therefore, I find it necessary to break the logic down step by step, clarify facts, and argue that Qihong’s actions are not only beyond reproach, but worthy of study and imitation.

(1) There Is No Perfect Warrior
Let’s compare Qihong with widely respected dissidents such as Liu Xiaobo, Ruan Xiaohuan (Program Think), and Peng Lifa (Peng Zaizhou). The biggest difference, and the point most exploited by CCP trolls, is this: those figures all went to prison, suffered abuse, or even died (like Liu Xiaobo), while Qihong chose to preserve himself. But who decreed that resisters must be martyrs, prepared to die or lose their freedom? Must every hero sacrifice themselves? If resistance requires suicidal intent, how many would still stand up? The fewer the resisters, the greater the benefit to the regime.

(2) The Collapse of Tyranny Comes from Accumulated Ordinary Actions
Critics say: “What can his projection change? The CCP won’t collapse because of this.” True—1989 couldn’t topple the regime, neither could the White Paper Movement, nor can a projected slogan. But history shows: no authoritarian regime fell because of one miracle. It was always countless ordinary acts of resistance that accumulated.

Poland began with shipyard workers demanding union independence and better living conditions, which evolved into the nationwide Solidarity movement. The Soviet collapse wasn’t from one leader’s order, but from years of economic crisis, intellectual awakening, ethnic independence movements, and countless refusals to comply.

Abstractly, totalitarian collapse follows an inequality: the cost of rule > the benefit of rule. Actions like Qihong’s objectively raise the CCP’s cost of control—deploying large numbers of police to search hotels, forcing equipment sales into surveillance, constant inspections that create social friction. High-pressure control cannot be sustained forever; once resources are exhausted, retreat begins, hastening collapse. Conversely, dismissing small acts of resistance as useless lowers the regime’s cost, prolonging its rule.

(3) Understanding Cause and Effect
Some ask: why didn’t he resist when business was good, but only when it failed? But how many people, living comfortably, would risk everything to confront the regime? Most people rebel in hardship—“when poor, one thinks of change.” Expecting only life’s winners to resist is unrealistic.

Others claim: “A warrior should protect others, not sacrifice them.” But even if leaders sometimes send others to die, does that negate their courage? Should Chen Sheng and Wu Guang have refused to rally peasants against Qin, knowing most would perish? If we demand every resister harm no one else, then the greatest “selfish” figures would be Liu Xiaobo, Ruan Xiaohuan, and Peng Lifa—because their ideas inspired countless others to resist, some of whom suffered repression. Should they not have spoken? Such logic only benefits the regime.

(4) Is Every Innocent Death Your Fault?
In a sci-fi novel, a villain threatens to kill innocents unless the hero surrenders, insisting their deaths would be the hero’s fault. But if the hero gives in, evil always wins. Similarly, many Chinese, socialized under “collective punishment” in school, instinctively blame the indirect party, not the abuser. In projection case debates, people first blame Qihong for endangering relatives—not the CCP for its ruthless “guilt by association.” This misplaced attribution reflects deeply internalized authoritarian thinking.

(5) Everyone Is a “Cost”: Moral Chaos
Some argue: “I support resistance, but not if it harms innocents.” For example, hotels or projectorsellers may suffer after the projection protest. But everyday life also creates winners and losers: scoring one more point in the exam means displacing another; landing a job means someone else misses out. Even layoffs in business make some employees the “cost” of survival. Why then is exercising free speech uniquely labeled “selfish”? If the law itself is unjust, obeying it only strengthens tyranny. To condemn violators of unjust laws for “causing harm” is to defend the regime and place it morally above the resister.

(6) The Logic of Asylum vs. the Logic of Resistance
Some argue Qihong once aided CCP repression (e.g., Fangcang construction, detentions), so he doesn’t deserve asylum. But this conflates two issues: the morality of resistance versus asylum eligibility. His protest is legitimate. Whether he personally merits asylum is for immigration officers to decide based on past actions. International law protects anyone persecuted for resistance, unless directly guilty of persecution themselves.

(7) Conclusion
May there come a day when more Chinese understand the logic of resistance—not be misled by “collective punishment” thinking, not transfer blame from perpetrators to resisters. May they realize that tyranny’s collapse is never a miracle, but the sum of countless imperfect acts. May they distinguish clearly between perpetrators and brave resisters. If not, we will keep repeating the tragedy: true courage stigmatized, true evil rationalized, while people, trapped in moral chaos, believe they are defending “goodness” but silently lay more bricks for the wall.

作者：王乔
编辑：王梦梦 责任编辑：胡丽莉 翻译：吕峰

对于世界上大多数女性来说，这是她们自己的选择。但在中国长达数十年的计划生育政策下，这个选择，却常常由国家替她们回答。自1980年起，计划生育全面推行，无数女性的人生被悄然改写。有的改变隐秘无声——她们的身体里被强行植入节育器；有的则暴烈残酷——她们被拖上手术台，在没有知情同意的情况下被迫流产，甚至永远失去生育能力。这些被改变的人生，至今未被系统记录，未被真诚道歉，也未被认真反思。我也是其中之一。我知道，还有许多女性像我一样，在沉默中承受身体与灵魂的创伤。今天，我愿写下这篇文字，为自己，也为她们发声。

选择被夺
在上世纪末到本世纪初，中国人口被当作“可控资源”。控制人口增长被视为国家发展的首要任务。而承受这一切代价的，首当其冲，是广大农村妇女与城市女工。在许多地方，节育被视为女性的“义务”；避孕失败却成了她们的“过错”。二胎、三胎不再是家庭的选择，而被认定为“违法”。一些人被强制结扎，一些人在怀孕数月时被拉上手术台，一些人因“超生”而被罚款、开除、公开羞辱。这并非遥远的传说，而是活生生的现实，是无数女性心底不敢触碰的伤口。

政策松动，创伤犹在
2015年，中国宣布全面放开二孩政策，一些人欢呼“终于自由了”。然而对于那些因“二胎”而被迫打掉孩子、接受强制手术、失去工作的母亲们来说，这份“自由”来得太迟。被掐断的生命无法复原，被撕裂的家庭难以重组，被侵害的身体与尊严，也从未有人承担责任。政策可以更改，法律可以修改，但历史的债务和人心的伤痛，却不能就此翻篇。

生命应记，尊严应存
那些曾经痛苦挣扎却被迫沉默的女性，至今仍在承受代价：有人因此终身不孕；有人留下严重的心理创伤；有人因维权上访而遭打压，甚至失去自由。她们不是数字，也不是“控制率”背后的变量。她们是一个个有血有肉的普通人，有家庭，有梦想，有本该属于自己的命运。她们可能成为教师、母亲、自由的女性；但在制度之下，却被剥夺了决定人生的权利。

制度当改，女性当尊
今天的中国，出生率持续走低，“鼓励生育”取代了“控制生育”。然而讽刺的是，当国家希望女性生育时，女性却选择拒绝。并不是因为她们不爱孩子，而是因为她们不愿再被当作政策的工具。她们需要的是尊重与保障，而不是一声命令。一个真正现代的社会，必须把女性视为独立的人，而不是国家发展的手段。

记忆不灭，真相长存
这篇文章，写给所有曾经经历过强制堕胎、结扎、下岗、羞辱的女性。你们并不孤单。你们的痛苦是真实的，你们的抗争是有意义的。历史可以掩盖声音，却掩盖不了真相。我们记得，也希望世界记得。

Written in the Womb’s History

Author: Wang Qiao
Editor: Wang Mengmeng Executive Editor: Hu Lili Translator: Lyu Feng

Abstract: This article exposes the trauma inflicted on women under China’s family planning policy—forced abortions, sterilizations, and public humiliation. It calls for remembering the truth, respecting women, reflecting on institutional harm, and safeguarding basic human rights.

For most women in the world, this is their own choice. But under China’s decades-long family planning policy, that choice was often answered by the state on their behalf. Since the full implementation of the policy in 1980, countless women’s lives were quietly rewritten. Some changes were covert and silent—their bodies were forcibly implanted with intrauterine devices. Others were violent and cruel—they were dragged onto operating tables and forced to undergo abortions without informed consent, sometimes losing their fertility forever. These altered lives have never been systematically recorded, never received sincere apologies, and never been seriously reflected upon. I am one of them. I know there are many other women like me, who silently endure both physical and spiritual trauma. Today, I am willing to write this piece, for myself and for them.

Choice Taken AwayFrom the late 20th century into the early 21st, China’s population was treated as a “controllable resource.” Curbing population growth was seen as a primary task of national development. And the ones who bore the cost were, above all, rural women and female workers in cities. In many places, birth control was regarded as a woman’s “duty”; contraceptive failure became her “fault.” A second or third child was no longer a family’s decision, but a violation of the law. Some women were forcibly sterilized; some were pulled onto operating tables while several months pregnant; some were fined, dismissed from jobs, or publicly shamed for “excess births.” This is not a distant legend, but a living reality, a wound buried deep in countless women’s hearts.

Policy Eases, Trauma RemainsIn 2015, China announced the full relaxation of the two-child policy, and some cheered: “We are finally free.” Yet for those mothers who had been forced to abort children, undergo surgeries, or lose jobs because of a “second child,” this so-called freedom came too late. The lives cut short cannot be restored; the families torn apart cannot be rebuilt; the bodies and dignity violated have never been accounted for. Policies may change, laws may be amended, but the debt of history and the pain in people’s hearts cannot simply be turned over like a page.

Life Must Be Remembered, Dignity Must RemainThose women who once struggled in pain but were forced into silence still live with the consequences: some became permanently infertile; some suffer severe psychological trauma; some were suppressed or even lost their freedom for petitioning in defense of their rights. They are not statistics, nor variables behind “control rates.” They are real people, with families, dreams, and destinies that should have belonged to them. They might have been teachers, mothers, or free women—but under the system, they were stripped of the right to decide their own lives.

Institutions Must Change, Women Must Be RespectedIn China today, the birth rate continues to fall, and “encouraging births” has replaced “controlling births.” Yet the irony is that now, when the state wants women to have children, many refuse. It is not because they do not love children, but because they no longer wish to be treated as instruments of policy. What they need is respect and protection, not another command. A truly modern society must regard women as independent persons, not as tools for national development.

Memory Lives On, Truth EnduresThis article is written for all the women who have endured forced abortions, sterilizations, job losses, and humiliation. You are not alone. Your suffering is real, and your resistance is meaningful. History may muffle voices, but it cannot erase truth. We remember, and we hope the world will remember too.

作者：毛一炜YIWEI MAO
编辑：钟然 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译：吕峰

最近，一段热麦克风录音引发国际关注。普京谈到器官移植和生物技术，声称“人类可以越活越年轻”，甚至“长生不老”，习近平回应：“本世纪，人可能能活到150岁。”表面上，这像是科学讨论，但仔细分析，这是一场赤裸裸的权力表演，暴露出中共与俄罗斯独裁者对个人统治的极端痴迷。

习近平和普京都是典型的独裁者。习近平在中国取消国家领导人的任期限制，把个人权力集中到顶点；普京在俄罗斯二十多年掌控政权，通过政治打压、媒体控制削弱民主。两国制度虽不同，但本质一致：权力至上，民众无权。所谓“长生不老”，不是科技理想，而是独裁者希望通过延长生命继续统治、延续个人权力的荒谬幻想。

中共统治下，中国民众被严密控制，言论自由受限，异议人士遭到迫害，普通人的生活被剥夺。习近平讨论如何活到150岁，并非为了民生，而是彰显个人权力的无限膨胀。普通百姓在教育、医疗、住房和社会不公的重压下苦苦挣扎，却看不到领导者的丝毫关心。这正是独裁的残酷：统治者只在意自身利益，人民永远成为牺牲品。

普京的俄罗斯同样如此。长期掌权的他，通过操纵政治和法律手段延长统治周期，同时限制媒体自由、打压反对派，剥夺公民参与政治的基本权利。两位独裁者的所谓对话，并非科学探索，而是权力狂妄的象征——科技被转化为延续个人统治的工具，普通民众的命运被彻底漠视。

独裁者的幻想背后，是制度的深度腐败与严重失衡。权力无限集中，法律形同虚设，社会资源被少数人垄断。习近平与普京讨论所谓的“长寿”，不过是借科技幻想掩盖独裁本质：他们无视社会公正与民众福祉，唯一关心的，是权力延续。独裁从不会以民众利益为先，它永远只是少数人利益的延伸。中共独裁不仅危害中国，也威胁世界。习近平对“长生”的幻想，象征其对权力永恒掌控的野心。普通人无法依靠幻想改变命运，必须依靠制度、舆论和行动去制衡独裁。科技不会让独裁变得仁慈，它只会让它更危险、更肆无忌惮。

习近平和普京的热麦克风事件提醒我们：独裁的荒谬，不在于科技本身，而在于其权力逻辑。民众真正需要关注的，是自由、法治和社会公义，而非独裁者的“长生梦想”。独裁者永远无视普通人的权利，他们所谓的永生，不过是延续个人统治、巩固权力的工具。

我们不能沉默。必须揭露中共和其他独裁政权的本质，让权力永远受到约束，让制度制衡个人，让公民敢于发声。独裁者的幻想绝不能凌驾于人民之上。民众的觉醒，才是守护自由、抵御独裁的根本力量。中共独裁已让中国社会付出惨重代价：言论受限、社会公平缺失、民众自由被剥夺。习近平所谓的“长生幻想”，只是权力膨胀的象征，是对独裁危险性的赤裸警示。全世界必须清醒看到，独裁不会因科技而仁慈，它只会变本加厉地压迫、剥夺和控制。唯有制度制衡与民众觉醒，才能让自由、公正与权力约束成为现实，而不被少数人任意践踏。

The Dictator’s Dream of Immortality:

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin’s Fantasy of Power

Author: Mao Yiwei
Editor: Zhong Ran Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Translator: Lyu Feng

Abstract: Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin’s talk of “immortality” is not about science but a symbol of power inflation. Both dictators disregard the welfare of their people to extend personal rule. Only institutional checks and civic awakening can safeguard freedom and justice.

Recently, a hot-mic recording drew international attention. Putin spoke of organ transplants and biotechnology, claiming that “humans can become increasingly youthful,” even “immortal.” Xi Jinping responded: “In this century, humans may live to 150.” On the surface, it sounded like a scientific discussion. But on closer analysis, it was a raw display of power, exposing the obsession of the Chinese Communist Party and Russia’s autocrats with perpetuating their personal rule.

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are quintessential dictators. Xi removed term limits for China’s top leadership, concentrating power at the apex. Putin has controlled Russia for over two decades, weakening democracy through political repression and media control. Their systems differ, but the essence is the same: power above all, people without rights. The talk of “immortality” is not a scientific ideal but the absurd fantasy of dictators wishing to prolong life in order to prolong power.

Under CCP rule, Chinese citizens are tightly controlled, free expression is suppressed, dissidents are persecuted, and ordinary lives are stripped of dignity. Xi’s musings on living to 150 are not about the well-being of the people but a manifestation of his inflated sense of personal power. Ordinary citizens struggle under the heavy burdens of education, healthcare, housing, and social injustice, yet see no concern from their leader. This is the cruelty of dictatorship: rulers care only about themselves, while the people remain perpetual sacrifices.

Putin’s Russia is no different. Having remained in power for decades, he manipulates politics and the law to extend his rule, while restricting media freedom and crushing opposition, stripping citizens of the basic right to participate in politics. The so-called dialogue between the two men was not scientific exploration but a symbol of their power-mad delusion—technology transformed into a tool for perpetuating rule, while the fate of ordinary people is utterly ignored.

Behind this fantasy lies deep institutional corruption and systemic imbalance. With power concentrated without limit, law reduced to a façade, and social resources monopolized by a few, Xi and Putin’s talk of “longevity” is nothing but a technological mirage masking the essence of dictatorship. They disregard justice and public welfare; their sole concern is the extension of power. Dictatorship never serves the people’s interest—it is always the extension of the interests of the few. The CCP’s authoritarianism not only harms China but threatens the world. Xi’s dream of “immortality” symbolizes his ambition for eternal power. Ordinary people cannot rely on fantasies to change their fate; they must rely on institutions, public opinion, and civic action to check dictatorship. Technology will not make dictators benevolent—it only makes them more dangerous and reckless.

The hot-mic incident with Xi and Putin reminds us: the absurdity of dictatorship lies not in science itself, but in the logic of power. What citizens truly need is freedom, rule of law, and social justice—not the dictator’s dream of eternal life. Dictators forever ignore ordinary people’s rights; their so-called immortality is nothing more than a tool to perpetuate rule and consolidate power.

We cannot remain silent. The essence of the CCP and other authoritarian regimes must be exposed. Power must always be constrained, institutions must balance individuals, and citizens must dare to speak. The dictator’s fantasies must never override the people. Civic awakening is the fundamental force that safeguards freedom and resists tyranny. The CCP dictatorship has already exacted a heavy toll on Chinese society: restricted speech, loss of fairness, and deprivation of citizens’ freedoms. Xi’s “immortality fantasy” is but a symbol of power inflation and a stark warning of dictatorship’s dangers. The world must clearly see: dictatorship will not become benevolent with technology—it will only intensify oppression, exploitation, and control. Only institutional checks and civic awakening can make freedom, justice, and power restraint a reality, rather than leaving them trampled at the whim of a few.

作者：毛一炜 YIWEI MAO
编辑：胡丽莉 责任编辑：罗志飞 翻译:何兴强

2025年的香港，已经再也找不到真正的反对派。民主党、公民党、社民连，这些名字曾经象征着希望与抗争，如今悉数消失。李柱铭、梁国雄等人，不是身陷囹圄，就是被迫噤声。香港社会，从一个能够争论、能够抗争的地方，沦为一言堂。

这一切并非偶然，而是共产党一步步精心筹划的结果。从一开始，“一国两制”就是一个骗局。1984年的《中英联合声明》写得再华丽，也不过是中共开出的一张空头支票。它要的不是履行承诺，而是安抚港人、麻痹国际社会，以便顺利接管香港。一旦掌握权力，承诺便可随时撕毁。

 回望过去二十余年，几乎就是一出早已写好的剧本。2003年推动23条立法，试探社会底线；2014年雨伞运动，让北京彻底打消容忍的念头；2019年反送中爆发，它索性撕下面具，以国安法将香港彻底笼罩。从那一刻起，自由的倒计时便已开始。

 共产党最惧怕的，不是经济危机，也不是国际舆论，而是自由。自由意味着有人敢质疑，有人敢监督。香港曾拥有独立的法庭、敢言的媒体，以及在议会中与政府抗衡的政党——而在独裁政权眼里，这些都是眼中钉。它要的不是一个自由的香港，而是一个绝对顺从的香港。

于是我们看到：法庭沦为政治工具，媒体一家接一家被封，《苹果日报》在一夜之间消失；选举制度被彻底改造，只剩下“爱国者治港”的闹剧；反对派或身陷囹圄，或被迫流亡，连公开说“不”的机会都被剥夺。香港从此不再是香港，而只是一个普通的中国城市。

 有人还在说“一国两制失败”。其实这并非失败，而是中共从未打算让它成功。共产党骨子里就是独裁，它的统治依靠的不是信誉，而是欺骗与恐惧，不可能容忍自由制度的存在。所谓“五十年不变”，从一开始就是谎言。今天它可以出卖香港，明天就能出卖台湾，后天就能出卖任何签下的协议。言而无信，正是它的本质。

这场变局，实则为世界敲响了警钟：不要再对共产党抱有幻想。它可以把国际条约当废纸，把承诺当笑话；说一套、做一套，依靠的不是信誉，而是赤裸裸的暴力。谁还选择相信它，谁就注定重蹈香港的覆辙。

但我始终相信，香港的精神不会被彻底抹灭。今天街头沉寂，政党解散，但海外仍有港人坚持发声，许多人依然铭记那几年的抗争。独裁能制造表面的沉默，却无法熄灭人心对自由的渴望。记忆尚在，便意味着希望未死。

 如今的香港，已彻底没有“一国两制”，只剩“一国一制”。这不是香港人的失败，而是中共独裁的自我暴露。它亲手撕毁承诺，也亲手证明了自身的言而无信。香港反对派的消失，既是一国两制的葬礼，也是中共谎言最有力的证据。中共撕毁承诺、践踏自由的事实已摆在眼前。沉默只会助长暴政，世界若继续妥协，香港的覆辙将一再重演。

The Demise of Hong Kong’s Opposition: The End of “One Country, Two Systems”

Author: Yiwei Mao
Editor: Hu Lili Executive Editor: Luo Zhifei Translator:He XingQiang

By 2025, there is no longer a genuine opposition in Hong Kong. The Democratic Party, the Civic Party, the League of Social Democrats—names that once symbolized hope and resistance—have all vanished. Figures such as Martin Lee and Leung Kwok-hung are either imprisoned or silenced. Hong Kong society, once a place where debate and dissent were possible, has collapsed into a monologue.

This was no accident, but the result of the Chinese Communist Party’s calculated, step-by-step strategy. From the very beginning, “One Country, Two Systems” was a fraud. The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, however eloquently worded, was nothing more than an empty promise from Beijing. Its purpose was never to honor commitments but to pacify Hongkongers and deceive the international community to ensure a smooth takeover. Once power was secured, promises could be torn up at will.

Looking back at the past two decades, it has unfolded like a pre-written script. In 2003, Article 23 legislation was introduced to test society’s bottom line. The Umbrella Movement in 2014 convinced Beijing that tolerance was no longer an option. By the time the 2019 Anti-Extradition Movement erupted, the mask was discarded, and the National Security Law smothered Hong Kong completely. From that moment, the countdown to freedom began.

What the Communist Party fears most is not economic crisis or international criticism—it is freedom. Freedom means people dare to question, to monitor, to hold power accountable. Hong Kong once had independent courts, outspoken media, and opposition parties in its legislature. But to a dictatorship, these are intolerable threats. What it wants is not a free Hong Kong, but a compliant Hong Kong.

And so we have witnessed: courts degraded into political tools, media outlets shuttered one after another, Apple Daily wiped out overnight. The electoral system was completely remade, leaving only the farce of “patriots ruling Hong Kong.” Opposition figures were jailed or forced into exile, stripped even of the chance to say “no.” Hong Kong ceased to be Hong Kong and became just another Chinese city.

Some say “One Country, Two Systems has failed.” But in truth, it never failed—because the CCP never intended it to succeed. Dictatorship is in its very bones. Its rule is not based on trust but on lies and fear. It cannot tolerate the existence of a free system. The so-called “fifty years unchanged” was a lie from the start. Today, it betrays Hong Kong; tomorrow, it can betray Taiwan; the day after, any agreement it signs. Faithlessness is its essence.

This upheaval sounds a warning to the world: stop harboring illusions about the CCP. It treats international treaties as scrap paper and promises as jokes. It says one thing and does another, relying not on credibility but on naked violence. Whoever continues to believe in it is doomed to repeat Hong Kong’s tragedy.

Yet I still believe Hong Kong’s spirit cannot be erased. Though the streets are silent and political parties dissolved, Hongkongers abroad continue to speak out, and many still remember those years of struggle. Dictatorship can impose silence on the surface, but it cannot extinguish the human yearning for freedom. As long as memory endures, hope remains alive.

Today, “One Country, Two Systems” is gone, leaving only “One Country, One System.” This is not the failure of Hongkongers, but the self-exposure of CCP dictatorship. It has torn up its own promises and, in doing so, proved its dishonesty. The disappearance of Hong Kong’s opposition is both the funeral of One Country, Two Systems and the most powerful evidence of the CCP’s lies. The destruction of promises and trampling of freedoms is plain for all to see. Silence only fuels tyranny. If the world continues to compromise, Hong Kong’s tragedy will be repeated again and again.

作者：华言（中国大陆）

编辑：李聪玲 责任编辑：胡丽莉

“吃饱饭，是最大的政治风险”，这不是一句玩笑，而是极权制度下隐藏的逻辑真相。它揭示了一个残酷的现实：当人民填饱了肚子，极权统治的根基便开始动摇。

极权制度依赖对社会资源的全面掌控和对个体思想的严密控制。饥饿或匮乏状态下的民众更容易被生存压力所驱使，服从权威以换取基本生存保障。这种“匮乏政治”使得极权政权能够通过分配稀缺资源来巩固权力，强化依赖关系。极权统治者深谙此道：饥饿是最好的枷锁，匮乏是最佳的统治工具。试想，在一个连面包都稀缺的社会，人民会为了什么而活？为了那一口救命的粮食，为了那一点微薄的希望。而这希望，正是统治者手中的筹码。他们用配给制、用特权、用恐惧，换取人民的顺从。极权需要的，是一个永远匮乏的社会，因为匮乏让人民低头，让反抗无从萌芽。

然而，一旦“吃饱饭”，即基本生存需求得到满足，根据马斯洛需求层次理论，民众会转向更高层次的需求，如安全、归属感、尊重，甚至自我实现。这些需求往往伴随着对自由、公平和个人权利的渴望。吃饱饭的人民，开始抬头，开始思考，开始质疑。他们不再满足于被喂食的温饱，而是渴望自由的空气、公正的天空。而这些诉求与极权制度的核心——压制异见、统一思想——相冲突，这就是极权最大的政治风险。因为一个觉醒的人民，是任何铁腕都无法锁住的。

面对这一风险，极权统治者从不坐以待毙。他们设计了一套应对之策：制造人为的匮乏，通过控制资源分配，维持民众的生存压力，限制其追求更高层次需求的空间；同时强化思想控制，宣传机器昼夜运转，强化对思想的垄断，审查无处不在，试图让人民相信极权是唯一的救赎；此外，他们还会转移矛盾，炮制外部敌人，利用外部威胁煽动民族主义情绪，转移民众对内部问题的关注，让人民将怒火投向虚构的威胁，而非真正的压迫者。

“吃饱饭是最大的政治风险”揭示了极权制度的一个悖论：经济发展是政权合法性的重要来源，但也可能动摇其控制基础。极权体制的逻辑在于通过控制资源和思想，压制民众的需求层次上升。一旦温饱解决，民众的觉醒和反抗潜力增加，迫使极权政权在开放与高压之间寻求平衡。然而，这种平衡往往是脆弱的，长期来看，压制人性需求的制度难以持续稳定。

真正的力量，不在于掌控资源与恐惧，而在于回应人民合理需求的能力。只有当温饱成为常态，思想得以呼吸，民众开始独立思考，国家才能走向良性。而看似强大的极权统治，如果仍靠人民吃不饱维系，终将不可持续，注定衰亡。

Eating well is the biggest political risk.

Abstract: Totalitarian rule is shackled by scarcity, and hunger is subject to obedience; but when the people are fed, they pursue freedom, fairness and rights, which poses the greatest risk to the regime.

Author: Huayan (Mainland China)

Editor: Li Congling Responsible Editor: Hu Lili Translator：Ming Cheng

“Eating enough is the biggest political risk”, this is not a joke, but the hidden logical truth under the totalitarian system. It reveals a cruel reality: when the people are full, the foundation of totalitarian rule begins to shake.

The totalitarian system relies on the overall control of social resources and the strict control of individual thoughts. People in a state of hunger or poverty are more likely to be driven by the pressure of survival and obey authority in exchange for basic survival guarantees. This “lack of politics” enables totalitarian regimes to consolidate power and strengthen dependence by allocating scarce resources. The politic rulers are well aware of this: hunger is the best shackle, and poverty is the best tool for domination. Imagine, in a society where even bread is scarce, what will people live for? For that life-saving grain, for that meager hope. And this hope is the chip in the hands of the ruler. They use rationing, privilege and fear in exchange for people’s obedience. What the totalitarian power needs is a society that is always scarce, because the lack makes the people bow down and the resistance can’t sprout.

However, once the basic needs of survival are met, according to Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs, people will turn to higher needs, such as safety, sense of belonging, respect, and even self-realization. These needs are often accompanied by the desire for freedom, fairness and personal rights. The people who were full began to look up, think and question. They are no longer satisfied with the food and clothing of being fed but yearn for free air and fair sky. And these demands conflict with the core of the totalitarian system – suppressing dissis and unifying ideas, which is the biggest political risk of the totopolitism. Because an awakened people can’t be locked by any iron fist.

In the face of this risk, totalitarian rulers never sit by and wait for death. They designed a set of countermeasures: create man-made scarcity, maintain the people’s survival pressure by controlling the allocation of resources, and limit their space to pursue higher-level needs; at the same time, strengthen thought control, propaganda machines run day and night, strengthen the monopoly of thought, and censorship is ubiquitous, trying to make people believe that totalitarianism is the only Redemption; in addition, they will also divert contradictions, concoct external enemies, use external threats to incite nationalism, divert people’s attention from internal problems, and make people turn their anger into fictional threats rather than real oppressors.

“Eating well is the biggest political risk” reveals a paradox of the totalitarian system: economic development is an important source of legitimacy for the regime, but it may also shake its control. The logic of the totalitarian system is to suppress the rising level of people’s demand by controlling resources and ideas. Once food and clothing are settled, the awakening of the people and the potential for resistance will increase, forcing the totalitarian regime to seek a balance between opening up and high pressure. However, this balance is often fragile. In the long run, the system that suppresses human needs is difficult to be sustainable and stable.

The real power lies not in controlling resources and fear, but in the ability to respond to the reasonable needs of the people. Only when food and clothing become the norm, thoughts can breathe, and people begin to think independently, can the country become benign. The seemingly powerful totalitarian rule, if it is still maintained by the people’s lack of food, will eventually be unsustainable and doomed to decline.