作者：张维清

2026年6月6日，一座名为《捍卫自由·乌克兰》的大型主题雕塑在南加州自由雕塑公园举行了隆重的落成典礼。那一刻，我有幸站在现场，见证了这一神圣而震撼的历史瞬间。该雕塑旨在向乌克兰总统泽连斯基及全体军民致敬，纪念他们四年多来以弱胜强、以少胜多，英勇顽强地抵抗俄罗斯侵略，坚守国家主权、领土完整以及自由民主制度的壮举。

站在雕塑前，我的思绪不禁回到了2022年2月。当俄罗斯全面入侵乌克兰时，文明世界无不义愤填膺，一致予以强烈谴责。然而，中共官方却背道而驰，高调宣称“中俄互信不封顶，战略合作不设禁区，世代友好没有止境”，在国际社会上公然表达对俄罗斯侵略行为的纵容与支持。中共为俄罗斯提供军用物资、购买俄罗斯石油、帮助俄罗斯规避制裁。对这令人窒息的黑白颠倒，我在微信上公开、坚决地表达反对，我呼吁和平，坚定地与乌克兰站在一起，声援因为在街头举牌支持乌克兰被中国警察抓捕的异见人士。因为我知道，俄罗斯的侵略以及中共对其的支持，不仅是对一个主权国家的残酷践踏，更是对人类普世价值的公然挑衅。尤其是当看到无数无辜的平民与儿童在无差别袭击中失去生命、流离失所，我作为一个尚存良知的人，无法对这种暴行保持沉默。

我反对中共支持俄罗斯入侵乌克兰更深层的原因在于，中共长期以来站在世界文明对立面的历史。自成立与执政以来，中共在国际外交中始终扮演着独裁政权最大“输血者”与“保护伞”的角色。

回顾历史，在亚洲，它曾全方位扶植柬埔寨红色高棉政权，直接导致该国多达两百万人死于非命；它长期为朝鲜世袭独裁输血，让半岛民众饱受奴役，核危机延续至今。在拉美与非洲，它用数十亿美元为经济崩溃、操纵选举的委内瑞拉马杜罗政权续命；它常年援助美洲唯一的共产独裁国古巴；甚至在曾犯下种族灭绝罪的苏丹独裁者、毁灭国家经济的津巴布韦威权统治背后，都充斥着中共免除债务、输送武器的黑影。更有甚者，它与伊朗建立全面战略伙伴关系以对抗国际制裁。

尤为讽刺且让我气愤的是，在2021年7月28日阿富汗塔利班尚未完全夺权、美军还没完全撤出阿富汗，中共时任外长王毅便在中国天津市高调接见了塔利班代表团，公开称赞塔利班政权。这种主动勾结、扶植世界公认恐怖组织并为其“站台”的行径，毫不掩饰地暴露了其与现代文明世界为敌的本质。那一刻，我对这个政权再一次感到彻底的失望与愤怒。

《捍卫自由·乌克兰》雕塑，向人们传递了一个核心信息：“支持乌克兰，不仅是在支持一个国家，也是在捍卫全人类共同的自由价值”。

我和乌克兰站在一起，乌克兰必胜，荣誉属于乌克兰。愿自由长存，愿和平永驻。

校对：孔祥庆 翻译：戈冰

Why Do I Oppose the Chinese Communist Party’s Support for the Russian Invasion of Ukraine?

By Zhang Weiqing

On June 6, 2026, a large-scale theme sculpture named “Defending Freedom · Ukraine” held its grand unveiling ceremony at the Liberty Sculpture Park in Southern California. At that moment, I had the privilege of standing on-site, witnessing this sacred and deeply moving historical moment. The sculpture aims to pay tribute to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and all his military and civilian citizens, commemorating their heroic and tenacious struggle over the past four-plus years—where the weak overcame the strong and the few defeated the many—to resist Russian aggression and steadfastly defend their national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and free democratic system.

Standing before the sculpture, my thoughts could not help but drift back to February 2022. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the civilized world was filled with righteous indignation and unanimously condemned it in the strongest terms. However, the Chinese Communist Party authorities ran completely counter to this, loudly proclaiming that “Sino-Russian mutual trust has no ceiling, strategic cooperation has no forbidden zones, and generational friendship has no limits,” publicly expressing their connivance and support for Russia’s acts of aggression within the international community. The Chinese Communist Party has provided Russia with military supplies, purchased Russian oil, and helped Russia evade sanctions. Faced with this suffocating inversion of black and white, I publicly and resolutely expressed my opposition on WeChat; I called for peace, stood firmly with Ukraine, and voiced solidarity for dissidents who were arrested by Chinese police for holding up placards in the streets to support Ukraine. Because I knew that Russia’s invasion, as well as the Chinese Communist Party’s support for it, was not only a cruel trampling of a sovereign nation but also an open defiance of universal human values. Especially when seeing countless innocent civilians and children losing their lives and being displaced in indiscriminate attacks, I, as a person who still possesses a conscience, could not remain silent in the face of such atrocities.

My deeper reason for opposing the Chinese Communist Party’s support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine lies in the party’s long history of standing in opposition to world civilization. Since its founding and its rise to power, the Chinese Communist Party has consistently played the role of the largest “blood donor” and “protective umbrella” for dictatorial regimes in international diplomacy.

Looking back at history, in Asia, it fully nurtured the Cambodian Khmer Rouge regime, which directly caused as many as two million people to die unnaturally; it has long sustained the hereditary dictatorship of North Korea, leaving the people of the peninsula suffering under enslavement and allowing the nuclear crisis to persist to this day. In Latin America and Africa, it used billions of dollars to prolong the life of the Maduro regime in Venezuela, which was plagued by economic collapse and electoral manipulation; it has continuously aided Cuba, the only communist dictatorship in the Americas; and its dark shadow of debt relief and arms shipments could even be found behind the Sudanese dictator who committed genocide, and the authoritarian rule of Zimbabwe that destroyed its nation’s economy. Furthermore, it established a comprehensive strategic partnership with Iran to counteract international sanctions.

What is particularly ironic and infuriating to me is that on July 28, 2021, before the Afghan Taliban had fully seized power and before the U.S. military had completely withdrawn from Afghanistan, Wang Yi, the Chinese Communist Party’s then-foreign minister, high-profilely received a Taliban delegation in Tianjin, China, publicly praising the Taliban regime. This behavior of taking the initiative to collude with, prop up, and publicly endorse a globally recognized terrorist organization undisguisedly exposed its essence of taking the modern civilized world as its enemy. At that moment, I felt complete disappointment and anger toward this regime once again.

The “Defending Freedom · Ukraine” sculpture conveys a core message to people: “Supporting Ukraine is not only supporting a nation, but also defending the shared values of freedom for all mankind.”

I stand with Ukraine. Ukraine will surely win, and glory belongs to Ukraine. May freedom live on, and may peace endure forever.

Proofreader: Kong Xiangqing Translator: Ge Bing

作者：杨大鹏

这些年，中国政府投入了巨额财政资金建设所谓的“天网工程”“雪亮工程”，数以亿计的摄像头遍布城市街道、车站、商场、小区、学校以及乡村路口。官方媒体不断宣传这是世界上最先进的社会治理体系，声称能够实现对社会的全面感知、精准管理和实时监控。然而，一个尖锐而无法回避的问题始终摆在人们面前：为什么在这样一个摄像头无处不在、人脸识别技术高度发达、个人信息几乎被全面收集的国家，仍然不断出现儿童失踪、人口拐卖以及长期无法侦破的案件？如果一个普通群众闯红灯，摄像头可以迅速识别身份；如果一辆汽车违章，系统可以立即锁定车主；如果有人在网络上发表敏感言论，相关内容甚至可能在短时间内被删除，发布者也可能被有关部门关注。那么，为什么一个活生生的孩子失踪之后，却常常多年没有结果？

这已经不仅仅是技术问题，而是一个涉及权力运行逻辑和政府责任的问题。中国政府长期强调“维稳压倒一切”。据公开资料显示，每年投入维稳和监控体系的资金规模极其庞大。从遍布全国的摄像头网络到大数据分析平台；从人脸识别系统到手机定位和信息追踪，普通民众的一举一动似乎都处于严密监控之下。但越来越多的人开始意识到，这套庞大的监控体系最主要的功能似乎并不是保护普通人的生命安全，而是维护权力对社会的控制。当民众上访时，监控系统能够迅速发现；当异议人士组织活动时，监控系统能够迅速锁定；当维权人士发表批评意见时，监控系统同样能够发挥作用；当政府认为某些声音“不稳定”时，相关人员甚至可能被提前约谈或限制行动。然而，当一些家庭寻找失踪孩子的时候，他们面对的却往往是漫长的等待、有限的信息以及无尽的绝望。许多失踪儿童的父母几十年如一日地寻找自己的孩子。他们走遍全国，耗尽积蓄，失去工作，甚至导致家庭破裂。有些家庭最终找回了孩子，但已经过去了十几年甚至几十年；还有更多家庭直到今天仍然没有得到任何明确答案。最令人不安的，并不仅仅是案件本身，而是整个过程中的不透明和缺乏问责。公众不知道调查进展；公众不知道案件细节；公众不知道相关责任人是否受到追究；公众不知道案件为何长期没有结果；公众甚至不知道那些失踪的孩子究竟去了哪里。在一个信息受到严格控制的环境下，各种猜测和怀疑自然会不断滋生。有人怀疑拐卖网络长期存在却未被彻底打击；有人怀疑地方保护主义阻碍案件调查；有人怀疑某些利益链条长期存在而缺乏有效监督。

无论这些猜测是否准确，它们都反映出同一个现实：公众对政府公信力的严重不信任。而这种不信任并非凭空产生，而是在长期的信息封锁、缺乏透明度以及缺乏独立监督的环境中逐渐形成的。一个真正负责任的政府，应该主动公开真相，而不是让公众在猜测中寻找答案。一个真正关心人民的政府，应该优先保障人民的生命安全，而不是把大量资源投入到对人民的监控之中。一个真正以人民为中心的社会，不应该让失踪儿童的父母在绝望中寻找几十年，却始终得不到明确交代。更令人讽刺的是，中国政府经常以“科技强国”“智慧治理”作为宣传口号，向外界展示其先进的监控能力。但对于许多普通家庭而言，他们看到的却是另一幅景象：政府拥有识别每一个普通人的能力，却无法让他们相信自己的孩子能够得到有效保护；政府拥有庞大的数据收集能力，却无法向公众解释许多重大案件背后的真相；政府拥有强大的维稳机器，却无法建立真正的社会信任。

这种矛盾暴露出一个根本问题：在缺乏监督和制衡的体制下，技术的发展未必服务于公民权利，而更可能服务于权力本身。当权力不受约束时，监控技术首先被用于维护统治，而不是保障公民安全；当政府最关心的是社会控制而不是社会责任时，再先进的技术也无法解决公众最关心的问题。

对于我而言，这种现象让我开始重新审视中国社会的运行方式。我逐渐认识到，一个缺乏独立监督、缺乏新闻自由、缺乏公开问责机制的体制，即使拥有再先进的技术，也无法真正保障普通人的权利。因为问题从来不只是技术落后，而是权力缺乏约束。一个社会最重要的，不是拥有多少摄像头，而是是否尊重人的生命价值；不是能够监控多少人，而是是否愿意对人民负责；不是能够收集多少数据，而是是否愿意接受公众监督。当遍地都是摄像头，却仍然有无数家庭找不到自己的孩子时，人们当然有权提出质疑。而当这些质疑难以得到公开回应，当批评的声音受到压制，当追问真相的人被视为“制造问题的人”而不是“寻找答案的人”时，这种沉默本身就已经成为制度性问题的一部分。一个真正值得信任的政府，不是让人民害怕被监控，而是让人民相信自己能够得到保护。遗憾的是，在今天的中国，越来越多的人感受到的是被监控，而不是被保护。

编辑：周志刚 校对：冯仍 翻译：戈冰

When Cameras Are Everywhere, Why Are There Still So Many Missing Children?

Author: Yang Dapeng

Abstract: This article discusses the reasons behind the widespread deployment of cameras in China. The frequent occurrence of missing infant cases is sufficient to demonstrate that installing cameras is not for protecting the people, but for control and exploitation.

Over the years, the Chinese government has invested massive amounts of fiscal funds into constructing the so-called “Skynet Project” and “Sharp Eyes Project,” with hundreds of millions of cameras blanketing urban streets, stations, shopping malls, residential communities, schools, and rural intersections. Official state media continuously propagandizes this as the world’s most advanced social governance system, claiming it can achieve comprehensive perception, precise management, and real-time monitoring of society. However, a sharp and unavoidable question is always placed before the public: why is it that in such a country where cameras are everywhere, facial recognition technology is highly advanced, and personal information is almost comprehensively collected, cases of child disappearances, human trafficking, and long-unsolved crimes still continuously emerge? If an ordinary citizen runs a red light, cameras can swiftly identify their identity; if a car commits a traffic violation, the system can immediately lock onto the vehicle owner; if someone posts sensitive speech on the internet, the relevant content can even be deleted within a short period, and the publisher may also receive attention from relevant authorities. Why then, after a living, breathing child goes missing, is there frequently no result for many years?

This is no longer merely a technical issue, but a question involving the operational logic of power and government accountability. The Chinese government has long emphasized that “maintaining stability overrides everything.” According to public data, the scale of funds invested annually into the stability maintenance and surveillance systems is extremely massive. From the network of cameras blanketing the entire country to big data analysis platforms; from facial recognition systems to mobile phone positioning and information tracking, every single move of ordinary citizens seems to be under strict surveillance. However, more and more people are beginning to realize that the primary function of this colossal surveillance system does not seem to be protecting the lives and safety of ordinary people, but rather maintaining power’s control over society. When citizens petition the government, the surveillance system can swiftly detect them; when dissidents organize activities, the surveillance system can swiftly lock onto them; when rights defense activists express critical opinions, the surveillance system can likewise play a role; when the government considers certain voices to be “unstable,” the relevant personnel may even be summoned for a talk in advance or have their movements restricted.

However, when some families look for their missing children, what they face is frequently prolonged waiting, limited information, and endless despair. Many parents of missing children look for their children for decades as if it were a single day. They travel across the entire country, exhaust their savings, lose their jobs, and even cause their families to break apart. Some families eventually find their children back, but more than a decade or even decades have already passed; still more families, up until today, have yet to receive any clear answer. What is most disturbing is not merely the cases themselves, but the opacity and lack of accountability throughout the entire process. The public does not know the investigation progress; the public does not know the case details; the public does not know whether the relevant responsible persons have been held accountable; the public does not know why the cases have had no results for a long time; the public does not even know where those missing children have actually gone. In an environment where information is strictly controlled, various speculations and suspicions will naturally and continuously breed. Some suspect that human trafficking networks have existed for a long time yet have not been thoroughly cracked down upon; some suspect that local protectionism hinders case investigations; some suspect that certain chains of interest have existed for a long time while lacking effective supervision.

Regardless of whether these speculations are accurate, they all reflect the same reality: the public’s severe distrust of government credibility. Furthermore, this distrust does not arise out of thin air, but is gradually formed within a long-term environment of information blockades, a lack of transparency, and a lack of independent supervision. A truly responsible government should proactively disclose the truth, rather than letting the public search for answers amid speculation. A government that truly cares about the people should prioritize guaranteeing the life and safety of the people, rather than investing massive amounts of resources into the surveillance of the people. A truly people-centered society should not let the parents of missing children search in despair for decades, yet never receive a clear accounting.

Even more ironically, the Chinese government frequently uses “technological power” and “smart governance” as promotional slogans to showcase its advanced surveillance capabilities to the outside world. But for many ordinary families, what they see is a completely different picture: the government possesses the ability to identify every ordinary individual, yet cannot make them believe that their own children can receive effective protection; the government possesses a colossal data collection capability, yet cannot explain to the public the truth behind many major cases; the government possesses a powerful stability maintenance machine, yet cannot establish genuine social trust.

This contradiction exposes a fundamental problem: under a system that lacks supervision, checks, and balances, the development of technology does not necessarily serve civil rights, but is more likely to serve power itself. When power is unconstrained, surveillance technology is first and foremost utilized to maintain rule, rather than to guarantee citizen safety; when what the government cares about most is social control rather than social responsibility, no matter how advanced the technology is, it cannot solve the problems that the public cares about the most.

For me, this phenomenon has caused me to begin re-examining the way Chinese society operates. I have gradually come to realize that a system lacking independent supervision, lacking freedom of the press, and lacking public accountability mechanisms, even if it possesses the most advanced technology, can never truly guarantee the rights of ordinary people. This is because the problem has never been a lag in technology, but rather a lack of constraint on power. What is most important for a society is not how many cameras it possesses, but whether it respects the value of human life; it is not how many people it can surveil, but whether it is willing to be responsible to the people; it is not how much data it can collect, but whether it is willing to accept public supervision.

When cameras are everywhere, yet there are still countless families who cannot find their children, the people naturally have the right to raise questions. Furthermore, when these questions struggle to receive a public response, when the voices of criticism are suppressed, and when the people pursuing the truth are viewed as “those who create problems” rather than “those who look for answers,” this silence itself has already become a part of the institutional problem. A truly trustworthy government does not make the people fear being surveilled, but makes the people believe that they can receive protection. Regrettably, in today’s China, what more and more people experience is being surveilled, rather than being protected.

Editor: Zhou Zhigang Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Ge Bing

作者：张兴贵

极权主义以“整体高于个体”“历史必然性高于个人意志”为元叙事，通过垄断现实解释权、解构自主主体性、重建全控社会结构，将人从目的性存在降格为工具。极权主义像一张无形的巨网，以国家或领袖的名义，垄断真理、控制思想、统一行动，悄无声息地笼罩在每一个人的灵魂之上，最终把鲜活的个体变成可替换的螺丝钉。在这样的体制下，人的潜力——那本应如星辰般璀璨的创造力、批判力与自我实现的能力，被系统性地压制、扭曲甚至扼杀。

首先，极权主义通过思想控制切断了潜力释放的源头。极权国家往往建立严密的意识形态机器，从学校到媒体，从家庭到职场，一切信息都必须服务于官方叙事。孩子从小被教导“只有一种正确思想”，质疑成为原罪，独立思考被视为危险。想象一下，当爱因斯坦式的好奇心被贴上“资产阶级腐朽”的标签，当乔布斯式的创新被斥为“个人主义冒头”，当无数年轻人把毕生精力用于背诵教条而非探索未知，人类的智力宝藏还有多少能被开采？历史早已给出答案：在斯大林时期的苏联，李森科伪科学横行，遗传学被禁止，农业灾难不断；在“文化大革命”中的中国，知识分子被打倒，大学停课，十年浩劫让整整一代人的潜力化为乌有。思想的牢笼，比任何物质枷锁都更牢固，它让天才变成庸人。

其次，极权主义通过恐惧与监视摧毁了潜力释放的勇气。极权统治的核心是“原子化”个体，每个人都生活在相互监视、随时可能被举报的恐惧之中。在这样的环境下，冒险、创新、表达真实自我都成了高风险行为。谁敢提出不同意见？谁敢挑战权威？谁敢在实验中承认失败？结果是普遍的“表演型人格”——表面忠诚，内心麻木；公开服从，私下消极。心理学研究表明，内在动机（兴趣、胜任、关系）是潜力释放的燃料，而外在高压则引发“习得性无助”。人的潜力需要安全感、需要试错空间、需要失败的权利，而极权主义恰恰剥夺了这一切。当每一次创新都可能被解读为“政治不正确”，当失败不再是学习机会而是政治污点时，个体就会主动降低抱负水平，转向“防御性生存策略”。它培养的不是开拓者，而是生存者；不是创造者，而是顺从者。

再次，极权主义通过资源垄断和机会封闭堵死了潜力释放的通道。在自由社会，一个人无论出身如何，只要足够努力，就有可能通过市场、教育和个人努力实现阶层流动，释放潜力。但在极权体制下，资源高度集中于权力核心，机会分配取决于政治忠诚而非能力与贡献。“关系”取代“能力”，“站队”取代“实力”。大量人才被埋没在基层、农场，而那些善于逢迎、毫无创见的人却占据高位。这种逆向淘汰机制，像一台巨大的绞肉机，把社会的活力一点点榨干。经济学家曾指出，极权国家的长期增长往往依赖粗放型资源投入和人口红利，一旦这些红利耗尽，创新乏力就会暴露无遗。反观开放社会，美国硅谷聚集了全球天才，中国改革开放后的市场活力也曾让无数草根实现梦想，这些都证明：只有当个体拥有选择权、流动权和产权保护时，潜力才会如泉水般喷涌。

最后，极权主义扭曲了人性的内在驱动力。马斯洛需求层次理论告诉我们，自我实现处于金字塔顶端，需要底层的安全、尊重与归属作为基础。而极权主义恰恰颠倒了这一切：它把“对领袖的忠诚”置于一切之上，把个体价值贬低为“螺丝钉”。极权主义在资源配置上的机制是“忠诚筛选取代能力竞争”。在市场与法治社会，价格信号、契约自由与产权保护构成“发现程序”，让潜力较高者获得更多资源，形成正向循环。而在极权体制下，分配权高度集中于官僚体系，筛选标准是“政治可靠度”。这造成双重扭曲：一是“逆向淘汰”：勇于创新、独立思考者因“风险高”而被边缘化；善于表演忠诚、规避责任者反而占据关键节点。二是“信号扭曲”：个体不再投资于真实能力建设，而是投资于“展示忠诚”的信号博弈。大量人力资本被浪费在内耗式政治学习、无效会议和虚假绩效上。当一个人把毕生精力用于证明自己“政治正确”而非追求真理，当他把幸福定义为“被组织认可”而非内心满足，他的潜力就已经被异化。鲁迅若活在言论铁幕下，或许只能写些应景的颂歌。天才尚且如此，普通人又怎能例外？

极权主义看似能“集中力量办大事”，但它办成的“大”事，往往服务于权力自我维系，而非人类潜力的普遍绽放。它在短期内可能制造动员奇迹，却在长期付出创造力枯竭、社会僵化与道德退化的代价。无数案例证明：当人被当作螺丝钉拧紧时，机器本身也终将生锈，最终是政权的合法性危机与历史性失败。当被压抑的潜力积累到临界点，或外部竞争压力增大时，系统要么通过剧烈崩溃释放，要么被迫有限开放。但代价已经付出：一代甚至几代人的生命潜能在沉默中耗尽，文明之火黯淡。

极权主义对人的潜力的扼杀，不是抽象的理论，而是无数个体命运的悲剧。真正的强大，从来不是靠控制人，而是靠解放人。唯有当每一个人都能自由地思想、勇敢地创造、真实地联结，文明之火才能代代相传。

编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍 翻译：戈冰

The Totalitarian Phenomenon II: The Failure to Develop and Utilize Human Potential

Author: Zhang Xinggui

With the meta-narratives of “the collective above the individual” and “historical necessity above individual will,” totalitarianism degrades human beings from purposeful existences into mere tools by monopolizing the right to interpret reality, deconstructing autonomous subjectivity, and reconstructing an all-controlling social structure. Like an invisible, colossal net, totalitarianism, in the name of the state or the leader, monopolizes truth, controls thought, and unifies action, quietly enveloping the soul of every individual, and ultimately transforming vibrant individuals into replaceable screws. Under such a system, human potential—that capability for creativity, critical thinking, and self-actualization which ought to be as brilliant as the stars—is systematically suppressed, distorted, and even strangled.

First, totalitarianism cuts off the source of potential release through mind control. Totalitarian states often establish a tight ideological apparatus, where from schools to the media, and from families to workplaces, all information must serve the official narrative. From childhood, children are taught that “there is only one correct thought,” where questioning becomes a cardinal sin and independent thinking is viewed as dangerous. Imagine, when curiosity of the Einstein variety is labeled as “bourgeois decadence,” when innovation of the Jobs variety is denounced as “the rearing of individualism,” and when countless young people devote their life’s energy to memorizing dogmas rather than exploring the unknown, how much of humanity’s intellectual treasure can still be mined? History has long since provided the answer: in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era, the pseudoscience of Lysenko ran rampant, genetics was banned, and agricultural disasters occurred continuously; in China during the “Cultural Revolution,” intellectuals were overthrown, universities suspended classes, and a decade of catastrophe caused the potential of an entire generation to vanish into thin air. The prison of the mind is more secure than any material shackle; it turns geniuses into mediocrities.

Second, totalitarianism destroys the courage to release potential through fear and surveillance. The core of totalitarian rule is the “atomization” of individuals, where everyone lives in the fear of mutual surveillance and the constant possibility of being reported. In such an environment, risk-taking, innovation, and expressing the true self all become high-risk behaviors. Who dares to put forward a different opinion? Who dares to challenge authority? Who dares to admit failure in an experiment? The result is a pervasive “performative personality”—surface loyalty masking inner numbness, and public obedience covering private passivity. Psychological research indicates that intrinsic motivation (interest, competence, relatedness) is the fuel for releasing potential, whereas external high pressure triggers “learned helplessness.” Human potential requires a sense of security, room for trial and error, and the right to fail, yet totalitarianism deprives individuals of precisely all of these. When every instance of innovation can be interpreted as “politically incorrect,” and when failure is no longer a learning opportunity but a political stain, individuals will proactively lower their level of aspiration and pivot toward “defensive survival strategies.” It breeds not pioneers, but survivors; not creators, but conformists.

Third, totalitarianism blocks the channels for releasing potential through resource monopolization and the closure of opportunities. In a free society, regardless of one’s background, as long as an individual works hard enough, it is possible to achieve social mobility and unleash potential through the market, education, and personal effort. Under a totalitarian system, however, resources are highly concentrated within the core of power, and the distribution of opportunities depends on political loyalty rather than capability and contribution. “Connections” replace “ability,” and “lining up on the correct political side” replaces “merit.” A vast amount of talent is buried at the grassroots level and on farms, while those who are adept at sycophancy and utterly devoid of originality occupy high positions. This mechanism of adverse selection operates like a massive meat grinder, squeezing the vitality out of society bit by bit. Economists have pointed out that the long-term growth of totalitarian states often relies on extensive resource inputs and demographic dividends; once these dividends are exhausted, the lack of innovation is fully exposed. In contrast, in an open society, Silicon Valley in the United States gathers global geniuses, and the market vitality of China after the Reform and Opening-up period once allowed countless grassroots individuals to realize their dreams. All of this proves that potential will gush forth like a spring only when individuals possess the right to choose, the right to mobility, and the protection of property rights.

Fourth, totalitarianism distorts the internal driving force of human nature. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs tells us that self-actualization sits at the apex of the pyramid, requiring foundational security, respect, and belonging at the bottom. Totalitarianism upends exactly all of this: it places “loyalty to the leader” above everything else and devalues individual worth to that of a “screw.” The mechanism of totalitarianism in resource allocation is “loyalty screening replacing capability competition.” In a market and rule-of-law society, price signals, freedom of contract, and the protection of property rights constitute a “discovery process,” allowing those with higher potential to obtain more resources and forming a positive cycle. Under a totalitarian system, however, the power of distribution is highly concentrated within the bureaucratic apparatus, and the screening criterion is “political reliability.” This causes a double distortion: first, “adverse selection,” where those courageous enough to innovate and think independently are marginalized due to “high risk,” while those adept at performing loyalty and evading responsibility instead occupy pivotal nodes; second, “signal distortion,” where individuals no longer invest in building real capabilities but instead invest in the signaling game of “displaying loyalty.” Massive human capital is wasted on self-consuming political study, ineffective meetings, and fake performance metrics. When a person devotes their life’s energy to proving their “political correctness” rather than pursuing truth, and when they define happiness as “being recognized by the organization” rather than inner fulfillment, their potential has already been alienated. If Lu Xun had lived under an iron curtain of speech, he might have only been able to write occasional songs of praise fitting the times. If this is true for a genius, how can ordinary people be an exception?

Totalitarianism seemingly can “concentrate forces to accomplish big things,” but the “big” things it accomplishes often serve the self-preservation of power rather than the universal blossoming of human potential. It may create miracles of mobilization in the short term, but over the long term, it pays the price of exhausted creativity, social ossification, and moral degradation. Countless cases prove that when humans are tightened down as screws, the machine itself will eventually rust, ultimately resulting in a crisis of regime legitimacy and historical failure. When suppressed potential accumulates to a critical point, or when external competitive pressure increases, the system will either release it through a violent collapse or be forced to open up limitedly. But the price has already been paid: the life potential of one or even several generations is exhausted in silence, and the fire of civilization grows dim.

The throttling of human potential by totalitarianism is not an abstract theory, but a tragedy in the fates of countless individuals. True strength never relies on controlling people, but on liberating them. Only when every individual can freely think, courageously create, and authentically connect can the fire of civilization be passed down from generation to generation.

Editor: Feng Reng Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Ge Bing

作者：张兴贵        

近两年来，中国每逢重大安全事故，当局的处理逻辑发生根本性转变：不再满足于撤职、降级等行政惩戒，而是迅速启动刑事程序，将相关官员直接逮捕、起诉、投入牢房。这一变化远非简单的“法治进步”，而是典型的政治罪名。在高度强调政治忠诚与意识形态效忠的全能主义体制下，官员被要求对辖区内一切事务承担无限的“全面政治责任”。许多重大事故被赋予更强烈的政治责任色彩，解读为对“两个维护”的背离，最终以牢狱之灾作为终极惩罚。这一升级的根源，深刻嵌入当前中国经济下行、社会矛盾积累的结构性困境之中。

首先是经济下行的硬约束。增长放缓、企业利润微薄、就业压力山大，资本天然趋向压缩安全、环保等“非生产性”投入，事故概率系统性上升。企业主与地方官员在保就业、保增长的KPI重压下，默契地游走于监管红线。

其次是民间愤怒情绪的暗涌。收入预期下滑、阶层固化、青年失业、房地产余震等多重因素叠加，公众对“权贵”与“体制”的不满持续发酵。安全事故因直接涉及生命，成为最易引爆舆情的导火索。当局急需一个可见、可控的“泄愤口”：抓几个官员判重刑，既能迅速转移视线、平息众怒，又能展示“为民除害”的强硬姿态。这种“表演性司法”在网络放大镜下效果显著，成为低成本、高回报的维稳技术。

第三是体制内在逻辑的必然。全能主义要求党对社会实施全面控制，要求官员无限连带责任。过去还能用行政处分缓冲，如今在“刀刃向内”“自我革命”的高压下，缓冲空间被压缩。事故不再是技术或管理问题，而是政治站位问题。这种无限责任制本质上是忠诚测试器，也是恐惧放大器。

最直接、最尖锐的后果是官员集体“战战兢兢、普遍躺平”。在“一出事就坐牢”的达摩克利斯之剑下，理性人唯一的最优策略就是：不决策、不担责、不作为。层层加码、形式主义、推诿扯皮成为新常态；宁可让项目烂尾、让问题拖延，也不愿留下任何书面痕迹或决策记录。高素质、专业化人才加速逃离高风险实务岗位，官僚体系快速平庸化、老龄化。治理能力不是在进步，而是在悄然退化。

这一躺平浪潮直接反噬经济：营商环境恶化、政策落地扭曲、企业信心进一步崩溃，经济下行加剧。企业为求生存，安全投入继续压缩，隐患积累，事故频率和烈度反而上升。当局则只能以更严厉的刑事打击回应“失职渎职”，从而形成经典的恶性闭环：泄愤式重刑导致官员恐惧躺平， 进一步导致事故增多，形成更严厉问责。体制变得空前刚性与冷酷，官员从“父母官”异化为另一种“被管控对象”，与普通民众一同置于自上而下的高压网格之中。民众面对的是经济生存压力，官员面对的是牢狱政治风险。表面权力不对等，实质上都丧失了基本的安全感与确定性，官民在“恐惧”这一维度上实现了某种畸形“平等”。

这种模式并不陌生，传统王朝晚期常用“杀贪官”来平息民愤，却往往掩盖了土地兼并、财政崩溃等结构性矛盾，最终加速王朝更迭。短期内，这种治理或许能制造“强势”假象，压制部分舆情。但长期看，公众会逐渐发现，抓再多官员，事故根源（经济增长模式、监管体制、激励机制）并未解决。  

真正的出路不在于更狠的刑罚，而在于能否重建容错机制、厘清政治责任与行政责任边界、让专业回归专业、让法治回归法治。否则，恶性循环只会继续深化，直至某一个临界点。历史最终由实践书写，它冷酷、客观，且从不缺席。

 编辑：钟然      校对：冯仍 翻译：沈美花

The Escalation of Criminalization in Accountability for Safety Accidents in China

Author:Zhang Xinggui

Abstract: Accountability for major safety accidents in China is increasingly leaning toward criminalization and politicization. Officials face higher risks in performing their duties, their tendency to avoid responsibility is intensifying, and governance capacity as well as economic vitality are being affected. This may form a vicious cycle where harsh accountability and frequent accidents mutually reinforce each other.

In the past two years, whenever a major safety accident occurs in China, a fundamental shift has taken place in the authorities’ logic of handling it: they are no longer satisfied with administrative punishments such as dismissal and demotion, but instead swiftly initiate criminal procedures to directly arrest, prosecute, and throw the relevant officials into prison. This change is far from a simple “progress in the rule of law”; rather, it involves typical political charges. Under an omnipotent system that highly emphasizes political loyalty and ideological allegiance, officials are required to bear unlimited “comprehensive political responsibility” for all matters within their jurisdictions. Many major accidents are endowed with a stronger color of political responsibility and interpreted as a departure from the “Two Upholds,” with imprisonment ultimately serving as the final punishment. The root cause of this escalation is deeply embedded in the structural dilemma of China’s current economic downturn and the accumulation of social contradictions.

First is the hard constraint of the economic downturn. With slowing growth, meager corporate profits, and immense employment pressure, capital naturally tends to compress “non-productive” investments such as safety and environmental protection, leading to a systematic rise in the probability of accidents. Under the heavy pressure of KPIs to protect employment and ensure growth, business owners and local officials tacitly navigate along the regulatory red lines.

Secondly, there is an undercurrent of public anger. With multiple factors overlapping—such as declining income expectations, class solidification, youth unemployment, and the aftershocks of the real estate crisis—public dissatisfaction with the “elites” and the “system” continues to ferment. Because safety accidents directly involve human lives, they have become the fuses most likely to ignite public opinion. The authorities are in urgent need of a visible and controllable “outlet for public anger”: arresting a few officials and handing down severe sentences can quickly divert attention and appease public wrath, while also demonstrating a tough posture of “eliminating evils for the people.” Under the magnifying glass of the internet, this “performative justice” yields significant results, becoming a low-cost, high-return technique for maintaining social stability.

Thirdly, it is an inevitable outcome of the internal logic of the system. Omnipotence requires the Party to exercise comprehensive control over society and demands that officials bear unlimited joint and several liability. In the past, administrative sanctions could serve as a buffer; today, however, under the high pressure of “turning the blade inward” and “self-revolution,” the buffering space has been severely compressed. Accidents are no longer treated as technical or managerial problems, but as matters of political standing. This system of unlimited liability is, in essence, both a loyalty tester and a fear amplifier.

The most direct and sharpest consequence is that officials collectively become “trembling with fear and universally flat-lying (lying flat).” Under the Sword of Damocles where “any accident leads to prison,” the sole optimal strategy for a rational person is: no decision-making, no assumption of responsibility, and no action. Layer-by-layer amplification, formalism, and passing the buck have become the new normal. Officials would rather let projects become unfinished (lanwei) and let problems drag on than leave any written trails or decision records. High-quality and professional talents are accelerating their escape from high-risk practical positions, causing the bureaucratic system to rapidly become mediocre and aging. Governance capacity is not progressing; rather, it is quietly degenerating.

This wave of “lying flat” directly backfires on the economy: the business environment deteriorates, policy implementation is distorted, corporate confidence further collapses, and the economic downturn worsens. To survive, enterprises continue to compress their safety investments, hidden dangers accumulate, and the frequency and severity of accidents rise instead. The authorities, in turn, can only respond to “dereliction of duty” with harsher criminal crackdowns, thereby forming a classic vicious loop: anger-venting severe punishments lead to officials “lying flat” out of fear, which further leads to an increase in accidents, resulting in even harsher accountability. The system becomes unprecedentedly rigid and cold. Officials are alienated from being “parental local officials” (fumuzuan) into another type of “controlled object,” placed alongside ordinary people within a top-down, high-pressure grid system. Citizens face the pressure of economic survival, while officials face the political risk of imprisonment. Despite the superficial asymmetry of power, in reality, both sides have lost basic feelings of security and certainty. In the dimension of “fear,” officials and the public have achieved a somewhat distorted “equality.”

This model is not unfamiliar; late periods of traditional dynasties frequently used the “execution of corrupt officials” to appease public anger, which often concealed structural contradictions such as land annexation and financial collapse, ultimately accelerating dynastic changes. In the short term, this style of governance might create an illusion of “strength” and suppress certain public opinions.

In the long run, however, the public will gradually realize that no matter how many officials are arrested, the root causes of the accidents (the economic growth model, the regulatory system, and the incentive mechanisms) remain unresolved.

The real way out lies not in harsher punishments, but in whether a fault-tolerance mechanism can be rebuilt, whether the boundaries between political and administrative responsibilities can be clarified, and whether professionalism can return to professionalism and the rule of law back to the rule of law. Otherwise, the vicious cycle will only continue to deepen until a certain critical point is reached. History is ultimately written by practice; it is cold, objective, and never absent.

Editor: Zhong Ran

Proofreader: Feng Reng

Translator: Shen Meihua

作者：钱钰琳    

很多人认为，随着时代的发展，中国女性的地位已经获得了极大提高。法律规定男女平等，女性可以接受教育、参加工作、参与社会生活。然而，当我回顾自己在中国的成长经历以及后来在海南海口一家医院担任护士期间的所见所闻时，我越来越清楚地认识到，许多针对女性的歧视和不公并没有消失，而是以更加隐蔽的方式持续存在着。

我出生并成长于中国。从小到大，我经常听到“男孩是传宗接代的”“女孩迟早是别人家的人”之类的话。虽然这些话听起来像是老一辈人的观念，但它们实际上仍然影响着许多家庭对于男女价值的判断。

后来，我在海南海口一家医院担任护士。在医院工作期间，我接触过许多来自不同地区、不同家庭背景的女性患者。让我印象最深刻的，并不是疾病本身，而是许多女性在面对家庭和社会压力时表现出的无奈。

一次深夜值班，一名三十多岁的女性被送进急诊室。她穿着一件已经被撕破的睡衣，左脸肿得很高，嘴角还残留着血迹。陪她来的邻居告诉我们，她是被丈夫打伤的。处理伤口时，我轻声问她发生了什么，她只是低着头，一句话也不说。直到后来，她才断断续续地告诉我们，丈夫喝酒后经常动手，这已经不是第一次了。当医生建议她报警时，她的眼泪一下子流了下来。她紧紧攥着病历本，小声说：“如果我报警，他出来以后会打得更厉害。孩子还在上小学，我没有工作，也没有地方去。”那天晚上，她在观察室里坐了很久，天快亮时才离开。几天后复诊时，她依然和丈夫生活在一起。

类似的情况并非个例。在医院工作期间，我曾见过多名因家庭暴力受伤的女性。有一位年轻母亲因为被丈夫推下楼梯导致手臂骨折，却对外声称是自己“不小心摔倒”；还有一位中年女性长期遭受丈夫辱骂和殴打，来医院时总是神情紧张，稍微听到大一点的声音就会下意识地缩起肩膀。她们中的许多人并非不知道自己受到了伤害，而是不知道离开之后该如何生活。

除了家庭暴力问题，我还看到许多女性在生育问题上承受着巨大的压力。我记得一位怀孕七个月的孕妇来做产检。检查结束后，她婆婆立刻把我拉到一旁，小声问：“能不能看出来是男孩还是女孩？”当我告诉她医院不能透露胎儿性别时，她明显露出了失望的神情。那位孕妇站在旁边，尴尬地低着头，一句话也没有说。后来几次产检，她都是一个人来的。一次抽血时，她突然对我说：“如果这胎还是女孩，我婆婆肯定又要闹。”说这句话时，她勉强笑了笑，但眼圈已经红了。她告诉我，自己已经有一个女儿，家里人一直希望她再生个儿子。怀孕本该是一件值得期待的事情，但在她身上，我看到的更多是焦虑和压力。还有一位产妇刚生下第二个女儿。孩子出生后，她丈夫站在病房门口沉默不语，婆婆则不停叹气，甚至当着产妇的面说：“怎么又是个女孩。”那位刚经历生产的母亲躺在病床上，眼泪顺着脸颊流下来。那一刻让我深刻感受到，在一些家庭里，女性不仅要承受生育的痛苦，还要承担来自传统观念的无形审判。

近年来发生的“铁链女”事件，更让外界看到了中国社会中长期存在而又被忽视的女性权利问题。一名妇女被铁链锁在破旧房屋内，多次生育子女的画面震惊全国。视频中，她衣衫单薄，站在寒冷的冬天里，脖子上拴着铁链，眼神麻木而空洞。公众不仅震惊于事件本身，更震惊于这样的悲剧为何能够持续多年而没有得到及时制止。

然而，比个案更值得担忧的是，当越来越多女性试图争取自身权利时，她们往往面临来自现实环境的巨大阻力。近年来，一些关注反家庭暴力、反性骚扰以及女性平等权利的活动人士遭到约谈、监控或者限制活动。网络上关于女性权益的话题经常受到限制，相关讨论有时会被删除或降温处理。一些为女性发声的人甚至成为被重点关注的对象。

这种现象让我逐渐意识到，中国女性所面对的问题不仅仅来自传统观念，更来自于缺乏独立监督和有效救济机制的现实环境。当女性受到伤害时，她们往往难以获得充分保护；当女性试图发声时，她们又可能面临新的压力。

作为一名曾经在中国医疗系统工作的女性，我看到过太多沉默和隐忍。我看到许多女性在家庭暴力面前选择沉默；看到许多女性在重男轻女观念面前被迫妥协；也看到许多女性即使遭受不公待遇，仍然不敢公开表达自己的不满。

这些经历至今仍留在我的记忆里。那些低着头不敢说话的患者，那些在病房里偷偷抹眼泪的母亲，那些明明受了伤却坚持说“没事”的女性，让我明白许多问题并不是个别现象，而是长期存在于社会中的结构性困境。

正因如此，我越来越关注女性权利问题。我认为，一个社会是否真正文明，不是看法律文件上写了什么，而是看那些最弱势的人是否真正受到保护。遗憾的是，在今天的中国，许多女性依然生活在看不见的枷锁之中。

编辑：胡丽莉  校对：冯仍 翻译：沈美花

Invisible Shackles

Author: Qian Yulin

Abstract: Some women in China still face issues such as domestic violence, a preference for sons over daughters, and reproductive pressure. Influenced by traditional concepts and the reality of their environment, they encounter difficulties in defending their rights and making their voices heard. The protection of women’s rights and interests still faces challenges.

Many people believe that with the development of the times, the status of women in China has been greatly improved. The law stipulates equality between men and women, and women can receive education, join the workforce, and participate in social life. However, when I look back at my experience growing up in China and what I later saw and heard while working as a nurse at a hospital in Haikou, Hainan, I realize more and more clearly that many forms of discrimination and injustice against women have not disappeared, but instead continue to exist in more hidden ways.

I was born and raised in China. Growing up, I often heard phrases like “boys carry on the family line” and “girls will sooner or later belong to someone else’s family.” Although these words sound like the notions of the older generation, they actually still influence many families’ judgment regarding the value of men and women.

Later, I worked as a nurse in a hospital in Haikou, Hainan. During my time working at the hospital, I came into contact with many female patients from different regions and family backgrounds. What impressed me most deeply was not the illnesses themselves, but the helplessness shown by many women when facing family and social pressures.

During a late-night shift, a woman in her thirties was brought into the emergency room. She was wearing a torn nightgown, her left cheek was severely swollen, and there were still traces of blood on the corner of her mouth. The neighbor who accompanied her told us she had been beaten and injured by her husband. While treating her wounds, I softly asked her what happened, but she just kept her head down and didn’t say a word. It was only later that she intermittently told us her husband frequently hit her after drinking, and this was not the first time. When the doctor suggested she report it to the police, her tears streamed down instantly. Clutching her medical record book tightly, she whispered, “If I report it to the police, he will beat me even harder after he comes out. The child is still in elementary school, I don’t have a job, and I have nowhere to go.” That night, she sat in the observation room for a long time and only left when dawn was about to break. When she returned for a follow-up visit a few days later, she was still living with her husband.

Similar situations are by no means isolated cases. During my time working at the hospital, I saw multiple women injured due to domestic violence. One young mother suffered an arm fracture because her husband pushed her down the stairs, yet she claimed to the outside world that she had “accidentally fallen.” Another middle-aged woman had long endured verbal abuse and beatings from her husband; whenever she came to the hospital, she always looked tense and would subconsciously flinch her shoulders at the slightest loud noise. Many of them are not unaware that they are being harmed, but rather they do not know how to live after leaving.

Apart from the issue of domestic violence, I also saw many women bearing immense pressure regarding childbirth. I remember a pregnant woman who was seven months along coming for a prenatal check-up. After the examination, her mother-in-law immediately pulled me aside and whispered, “Can you tell if it’s a boy or a girl?” When I told her that the hospital is not allowed to disclose the gender of the fetus, a look of disappointment clearly appeared on her face. The pregnant woman stood nearby, lowering her head in embarrassment, without saying a word. For the next few prenatal visits, she came alone. During a blood draw, she suddenly said to me, “If this baby is another girl, my mother-in-law will definitely make a scene again.” As she said this, she forced a smile, but her eyes were already red. She told me she already had a daughter, and her family had always hoped she would give birth to a son. Pregnancy should have been something to look forward to, but in her, I saw mostly anxiety and pressure. There was also a maternal patient who had just given birth to her second daughter. After the baby was born, her husband stood at the door of the ward in silence, while the mother-in-law kept sighing, even saying right in front of the mother, “How is it another girl?” The mother, who had just gone through childbirth, lay on the hospital bed, tears flowing down her cheeks. That moment made me deeply feel that in some families, women not only have to endure the pain of childbirth but also have to bear the invisible judgment of traditional concepts.

The “Chained Woman” incident that occurred in recent years has further exposed to the outside world the long-standing yet neglected issue of women’s rights in Chinese society. The footage of a woman locked with an iron chain inside a dilapidated house, having given birth to multiple children, shocked the nation. In the video, she was thinly clad, standing in the cold winter with a chain fastened around her neck, her eyes numb and hollow. The public was not only shocked by the incident itself but even more shocked by how such a tragedy could persist for so many years without being promptly stopped.

However, what is more worrying than individual cases is that when more and more women attempt to strive for their own rights, they often face immense resistance from the reality of their environment. In recent years, some activists focusing on anti-domestic violence, anti-sexual harassment, and equal rights for women have been summoned for talks, monitored, or restricted in their activities. Topics regarding women’s rights on the internet are frequently restricted, and relevant discussions are sometimes deleted or de-escalated. Some people who speak out for women have even become targets of key surveillance.

This phenomenon made me gradually realize that the problems faced by Chinese women come not only from traditional concepts but also from a realistic environment that lacks independent oversight and effective relief mechanisms. When women are harmed, they often find it difficult to obtain adequate protection; when women attempt to speak out, they may face new pressures.

As a woman who once worked in the Chinese healthcare system, I have seen too much silence and forbearance. I have seen many women choose silence in the face of domestic violence; seen many women forced to compromise before the concept of preferring sons over daughters; and seen many women who, even when suffering unfair treatment, still dare not publicly express their dissatisfaction.

These experiences still remain in my memory to this day. Those patients who lowered their heads and dared not speak, those mothers who secretly wiped away tears in the wards, and those women who were clearly injured but insisted they were “fine” made me understand that many issues are not isolated phenomena, but structural dilemmas that have long existed in society.

Because of this, I pay more and more attention to the issue of women’s rights. I believe that whether a society is truly civilized depends not on what is written in legal documents, but on whether the most vulnerable people are truly protected. Regrettably, in today’s China, many women still live within invisible shackles.

Editor: Hu Lili

Proofreader: Feng Reng

Translator: Shen Meihua

达知而闻天下，达善而闻己身，今天我们聊聊禁片导演娄烨。

前不久，中国导演娄烨执导与讲述武汉疫情的影片《一部未完成的电影》，获得台湾金马奖最高奖项——最佳剧情片奖，导演娄烨获得最佳导演奖。 此前的2024法国戛纳电影节上，娄烨的这部再现“武汉封城”的新作也入围了特别展映单元；与此同时，这部影片也再次在中国获得被封杀的“殊荣”。  娄烨表示，他本不在意中国国内的市场，看来他从一开始就做好了在国内被封杀的心理准备。他宁可放弃巨大的国内市场，也要将这部良心之作奉献出来，让全球观众了解中共在疫情期间，如何粗暴施政，使人们陷入无奈与悲惨的生活情景。  据报道，在戛纳电影节的现场，影片放映结束后，有人大喊：“娄烨，你是中国最伟大的导演！”一位现场观众说，到后半程，影院各处都传来啜泣，后排的观众说，每个人都在哭自己⋯⋯，“这是我心目中这十年中国最伟大的电影”

一位居住在美国的前中国影评人赵亮说，这是一部自杀性电影，娄烨不可能再在国内发展了，他已经自绝于中国政府了。首先他拍这个疫情，对于中国政府来说是非常敏感的，是绝对不能碰的题材。中国政府现在已经把医院里所有跟疫情有关的档案，都销毁了，就好像这件事没有发生过一样；把封城的所有档案，和当时的所有记录在政府里也好，医院里也好，在基层组织也好，居委会也好——所有档案都销毁，你还拍部电影拿到国际上去放，你不找死吗？  他坦言非常佩服娄烨的勇气，娄烨的作品从才华来讲可能不是最好的，但是他确实是最有思想，最有叛逆精神的，在当下的第六代导演当中很不错。第五代导演就彻底玩完了，全部下跪，一塌糊涂。很有可能，娄烨看到了那个疫情档案销毁令后，更加觉得责无旁贷，要加紧完成这部“准纪录片”电影。    业内人士爆料说，政府要求，所有资料都不能留，电脑的也不能留，打疫苗记录要删除，核酸检测记录，和整个抗疫过程中，政府一些出洋相的东西，全部要删除销毁 。虽然这个毀令是内部文件，可是从政府不敢公开销毁令本身看，就透着他们的心虚和担心。  政府心虚是因为现实表明，疫情三年多，其一切所为都是那么可笑，打着“为人民生命安全着想”的旗号，肆意妄为：包括严格且频繁的核酸检测和无处不在的核酸要求；套在每个人身上的健康码；不打不让上班上学的强制疫苗注射；为实现清零各种罔顾百姓死活的封控政策。  然而，几乎耗尽医保费用的核酸检测和封控的结果，却是疫情非但没有被防控住，反而一直在此起彼伏。在2022年底，已经无法防控住，且白纸运动兴起的情况下，政府不得不选择全面放开，刹那间，国内超过90%的人员感染，死人遍地，火葬场爆满，政府却宣称抗疫取得了“胜利”。  既然认为抗疫取得了“胜利”，从逻辑上讲，就不应该删除与疫情有关的所有资料，毕竟这是自己“胜利”历史的见证，可现实中却再度给了自己一个响亮耳光，暗中下令将疫情数据全部销毁，这不就是间接承认所谓抗疫“胜利”，其实是“失败”吗？而这大概也是销毁令秘密下达，不在媒体公开的原因。  销毁令背后的诱因是什么？近年疫苗后遗症患者大量出现，甚至死亡，政府害怕被追究责任。疫情期间，政府强迫全国所有民众打疫苗，并一再保证疫苗是安全的，打了疫苗，就可以防止感染，防止重症，相信的结果是，打了几针疫苗的民众，不仅没有防止感染，而且很多人身体出现了其它问题。如肺结节、疱疹、癌症、猝死等，而且越来越多的人相信，这极大程度上与打疫苗有密切关系。  近日，众多疫苗受害者，向全国“两会”递交《呼吁建立“新冠疫苗伤害保障救助机制”倡议书》，和2656份受害者名单，希望政府出台相关政策、重视这些“听话”的不幸群体。可是就像“呼吁申请官员财产公开”一样，本来就不是真正代表人民的“两会”，怎么可能予以理睬呢？相反，全国各地卫生局，官方机构陆续开具“关于接种新冠疫苗后发生异常反应调查诊断申请不予受理”的答复通知书，明确了民众在接种新冠疫苗后，产生包括且不限于白血病、糖尿病、肺结节、心脑血管等疾病均与新冠疫苗接种无关。且民众在接种新冠疫苗的过程中，完全遵循，“知情、同意、自愿”三大基本原则，每个接种者都必须得为自己的接种决定承担责任和后果，与政府和卫生部门无关。对于同类的申请和诉求，未来一律不予受理。  明明是政府强迫或变相强迫的，却一定要说成是自觉自愿的，你不“自觉自愿”，就不能上学上班，这不就是强迫吗？甚至连强迫隔离，都说成是人们的自愿选择，你到哪儿说理去？  警察是人民警察，法院是人民法院，银行是人民银行，代表是人民代表，它用人民的名义强迫你，而你是人民的一份子，你就是自愿的，他们的逻辑就是这样简单。  如果再联系“关键人物接二连三离奇死亡”的消息，更是对其中的蹊跷充满疑问。大名鼎鼎的防疫领军人物吴尊友死了，享年60岁；北京科兴新冠疫苗之王曹晓斌死了，享年45岁；武汉大学病毒学家吴建国教授突发疾病死了，享年66岁；之前去世的还有新冠疫苗研究专家赵振东，享年53岁；曾兵，享年52岁；刘斌，享年37岁；还有核酸检验研究专家白晓卉，享年42岁。新冠疫苗研究专家接连去世，这是咋回事？大家心知肚明，这其中肯定有很多见不得人的秘密，只有死人才能保守秘密。  回到导演娄烨身上，这次娄烨的《一部未完成的电影》在国内被禁，那是注定的事件，会不会引致他终身被禁拍片？也完全有此可能。此前，他曾因某部电影性爱和政治尺度问题，而不过审；私自参加电影节被禁拍五年，他的电影，几乎拍一部就禁一部。不是被禁，就是在被禁的路上，娄烨也因此收获了大陆“禁片之王”的称号。正所谓：娄烨出品，必属禁品。他的电影除了给影迷存硬盘用，还四处拿奖，可以说，我国地下电影的军功章有他一半！娄烨也有几部侥幸过审的影片在内地上映，很多观众冲着娄烨的名气，纷纷走进影院支持票房，那部名气很响的《浮城谜事》，是娄烨导演的一部犯罪电影，故事的真相扑朔迷离，牵涉到的人物又多，但娄烨抽丝剥茧层层递进，不但把故事讲得精彩，而且探讨了，人性、爱情、欲望和社会等多个主题，引发了观众的深刻思考。娄烨另外一部描写盲人技师生活的《推拿》，也受到观众的欢迎，但是，由于他的电影瞄准的是底层小人物，而不是宏大叙事的所谓主流电影，所以影院给他的排片总是非常少，他的好电影很快就下架了。  可想而知，这样一个不追逐满屏正能量或战狼题材的导演，谁来给他投资呢？所以他注定贫穷，但有风骨的娄烨穷且益坚，当别的艺术家纷纷回避三年疫情时，他把镜头勇敢地对准了这个敏感题材，拍摄了这部“准纪录片”《一部未完成的电影》，这样有思想、有良知的中国电影导演，屈指可数了。（中国的那些第五代导演）大部分都选择妥协、听话，甚至同流合污了，你看看陈凯歌、张艺谋之流，不厌其烦地拍摄所谓抗美援朝的题材，就会明白他们的价值观是如何的丑陋。抗美援朝本来就是中共上了斯大林的老当，做出的错误决定，中共扶持的金家王朝，不但让朝鲜人民过着猪狗不如的日子，而且他们至今对中国也是恩将仇报，事到如今，不但不反思和忏悔当年的错误行为，还在一个劲地唱赞歌。 连人之为人的基本底线都不顾了。我看到过一个口述实录，说的是朝鲜军人这样处置偷渡者的：当着中国边防军人的面，用铁丝穿过偷渡者的锁骨，一个个串连起来，比对待牲口都不如，我们当年用牺牲无数军人的生命，来扶持这样的残暴政权，难道不可耻吗？今天还在正面歌颂所谓的抗美援朝，这不是反人类吗？陈凯歌张艺谋之流，难道不知道这些基本常识吗？他们完全是自甘堕落，有人强迫你拍这样的题材吗？你可以拒绝吗？我想没人强迫吧，你完全可以拒绝吧，你们不但不拒绝，还屁颠屁颠上赶着去拍，就为了有雄厚的资金等着你们，为了金钱，加上拍马的好处，你们连反人类的电影都敢拍，这样的“影品”，比起一身正气的娄烨，他们简直就是狗屎。别看陈凯歌张艺谋之流，在某些国内的电影颁奖典礼上，被捧为座上客，可是在人类文明史的长河里，他们的软骨症，一定会和文革时期，那些哈巴狗的命运一样，最终被人们所鄙视和唾弃。    历史是公正的，它不会因为他们曾经拍过几部好电影，而不再记录他们的劣迹。当娄烨这样的导演，在为中国人民的命运而呼号，却不得不面临终身禁拍时，陈凯歌张艺谋之流，却用反人类的电影在庆祝他们的盛宴，比较之下，娄烨的身影就显得异常伟岸，让我们记住“娄烨”这个名字！

编辑：周志刚 校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏

Let Us Remember the Name “Lou Ye”

Abstract: Starting from the director Lou Ye and his film An Unfinished Film, this article recounts the darkness during China’s pandemic lockdown period, and the courage of director Lou Ye—who is fundamentally different from the lackey nature of the likes of Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou—in persisting to shoot realistic themes despite facing long-term censorship and bans.

Achieving knowledge to inform the world, achieving goodness to cultivate oneself. Today, let us talk about the banned film director, Lou Ye.

Not long ago, An Unfinished Film, directed by Chinese director Lou Ye and recounting the Wuhan pandemic, won the highest award at the Taiwan Golden Horse Awards—Best Feature Film, and Lou Ye won the Best Director award. Prior to this, at the 2024 Cannes Film Festival in France, this new work by Lou Ye, which reproduces the “Wuhan Lockdown,” was also selected for the Special Screening section; at the same time, this film once again obtained the “honor” of being banned in China.

Lou Ye stated that he did not care about the domestic market in China in the first place, and it seems he was psychologically prepared from the very beginning to be banned domestically. He would rather give up the massive domestic market to present this conscientious work, allowing global audiences to understand how the Chinese Communist Party enforced policies brutally during the pandemic, plunging people into helpless and tragic living situations.

According to reports, at the Cannes Film Festival venue, after the film screening ended, someone shouted loudly: “Lou Ye, you are China’s greatest director!” A member of the audience at the scene said that by the second half, sobbing could be heard from all parts of the theater, and audiences in the back rows said that everyone was crying for themselves… “This is the greatest Chinese film of the past decade in my heart.”

Zhao Liang, a former Chinese film critic currently living in the United States, said that this is a suicidal film, and it is impossible for Lou Ye to develop domestically anymore; he has already cut himself off from the Chinese government. First of all, his filming of this pandemic is extremely sensitive for the Chinese government and is a subject matter that absolutely cannot be touched. The Chinese government has now destroyed all archives related to the pandemic in hospitals, as if this event never happened; it has destroyed all archives of the lockdowns and all records at the time, whether in the government, in hospitals, or in grassroots organizations and neighborhood committees—all archives have been destroyed. For you to still shoot a movie and take it abroad to screen, aren’t you looking for death?

He frankly admitted that he deeply admires Lou Ye’s courage. In terms of talent, Lou Ye’s works might not be the best, but he is indeed the most thoughtful and possesses the most rebellious spirit, which is very good among the current Sixth Generation directors. The Fifth Generation directors are completely finished; they have all knelt down, a total mess. It is highly likely that after Lou Ye saw that pandemic archive destruction order, he felt even more duty-bound and hurried to complete this “quasi-documentary” film.

Insiders in the industry disclosed that the government requested that no materials be left behind, not even on computers; vaccination records were to be deleted, nucleic acid testing records, and some embarrassing things done by the government during the entire anti-pandemic process were all to be deleted and destroyed. Although this destruction order was an internal document, the fact that the government dares not make the destruction order itself public reveals their guilt and anxiety.

The government is guilty because reality shows that during the more than three years of the pandemic, everything it did was so ridiculous, acting willfully under the banner of “considering the safety of the people’s lives”: including strict and frequent nucleic acid testing and ubiquitous nucleic acid requirements; the health codes shackled onto everyone; forced vaccine injections without which one was not allowed to work or go to school; and various lockdown policies that disregarded the survival of the people in order to achieve dynamic clearing.

However, the result of the nucleic acid testing and lockdowns, which nearly exhausted medical insurance funds, was that instead of being controlled, the pandemic kept surging here and there. By the end of 2022, under circumstances where it could no longer be controlled and the White Paper Movement was rising, the government had no choice but to opt for a full reopening. In an instant, over 90% of the personnel nationwide were infected, dead bodies were everywhere, crematoriums were packed to capacity, yet the government claimed that the anti-pandemic fight had achieved “victory.”

Since it claimed that the anti-pandemic fight achieved “victory,” logically speaking, it should not delete all data related to the pandemic; after all, this is the testimony of its own “victorious” history. Yet in reality, it slapped its own face once again, secretly ordering the complete destruction of pandemic data. Doesn’t this indirectly admit that the so-called anti-pandemic “victory” was actually a “failure”? And this is probably the reason why the destruction order was issued secretly and not made public in the media.

What is the incentive behind the destruction order? In recent years, a large number of vaccine sequelae sufferers have appeared, and some have even died; the government is afraid of being held accountable. During the pandemic, the government forced all citizens across the country to get vaccinated and repeatedly guaranteed that the vaccines were safe—that getting vaccinated could prevent infection and prevent severe illness. The result of this trust was that citizens who received several doses of the vaccine not only failed to prevent infection, but many people also developed other problems in their bodies, such as pulmonary nodules, herpes, cancer, sudden death, etc., and more and more people believe that this is highly related to the vaccine injections.

Recently, numerous vaccine victims submitted the Proposal Calling for the Establishment of a “COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Relief and Protection Mechanism” along with a list of 2,656 victims to the National “Two Sessions,” hoping the government would introduce relevant policies and pay attention to these “obedient” and unfortunate groups. However, just like the “appeal to apply for the disclosure of officials’ property,” how could the “Two Sessions,” which do not truly represent the people in the first place, pay any attention? On the contrary, health bureaus and official institutions across the country successively issued response notices stating “Notice of Non-Acceptance of Applications for Investigation and Diagnosis of Abnormal Reactions After COVID-19 Vaccination,” clarifying that after citizens receive the COVID-19 vaccine, any developed diseases—including but not limited to leukemia, diabetes, pulmonary nodules, and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases—are unrelated to the COVID-19 vaccination. Furthermore, during the process of citizens receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the three basic principles of “informed, consenting, and voluntary” were completely followed; every vaccine recipient must bear the responsibility and consequences for their own vaccination decision, which has nothing to do with the government and health departments. Similar applications and appeals will not be accepted at all in the future.

It was clearly forced or covertly forced by the government, yet it must be spun as conscious and voluntary. If you are not “conscious and voluntary,” you cannot go to school or work—isn’t this forced? Even forced quarantine is described as people’s voluntary choice; where can you go to reason?

The police are the people’s police, the courts are the people’s courts, the banks are the people’s banks, and the representatives are the people’s representatives. It forces you in the name of the people, and since you are a part of the people, you are acting voluntarily; their logic is just that simple.

If one further connects this with the news of “key figures dying mysteriously one after another,” it fills one with even more doubts about the peculiarities therein. The famous leading figure in pandemic prevention, Wu Zunyou, died at the age of 60; Cao Xiaobin, the king of Beijing Sinovac COVID-19 vaccines, died at the age of 45; Professor Wu Jianguo, a virologist at Wuhan University, died of a sudden illness at the age of 66; those who passed away previously also include COVID-19 vaccine research expert Zhao Zhendong, aged 53; Zeng Bing, aged 52; Liu Bin, aged 37; and nucleic acid testing research expert Bai Xiaohui, aged 42. COVID-19 vaccine research experts passed away one after another—what is going on here? Everyone knows it well in their hearts; there must be many shameful secrets involved, and only the dead can keep secrets.

Returning to director Lou Ye, this time Lou Ye’s An Unfinished Film being banned domestically was a destined event. Will it lead to him being banned from filmmaking for life? It is entirely possible. Previously, he had failed censorship due to sexual and political boundaries in a certain film; he was banned from filmmaking for five years for participating in a film festival without authorization. Almost every single one of his movies gets banned. If it is not banned, it is on the way to being banned, and Lou Ye has thus garnered the title of Mainland China’s “King of Banned Films.” As the saying goes: Produced by Lou Ye, it must be a banned product. Aside from being saved on hard drives by cinephiles, his films win awards everywhere; it can be said that he owns half of the military medals for our country’s underground cinema! Lou Ye also had a few films that luckily passed censorship and were screened in mainland China. Many audience members, drawn by Lou Ye’s reputation, flocked to theaters to support the box office. That highly renowned Mystery is a crime film directed by Lou Ye; the truth of the story is bewildering and involves many characters, but Lou Ye peels back the layers and advances step by step, not only telling the story brilliantly but also exploring multiple themes such as human nature, love, desire, and society, triggering deep reflection among the audience. Another film of Lou Ye’s depicting the lives of blind massage therapists, Blind Massage, was also welcomed by the audience. However, because his films target ordinary people at the bottom of society rather than the so-called mainstream films of grand narratives, theaters always gave him very few screenings, and his good movies were taken down very quickly.

Conceivably, for a director who does not chase screens full of “positive energy” or Wolf Warrior-style themes, who would invest in him? Therefore, he is destined to be poor, but the principled Lou Ye remains poor yet firm. While other artists avoided the three-year pandemic one after another, he courageously turned his lens toward this sensitive subject matter and shot this “quasi-documentary” An Unfinished Film. Chinese film directors with such thought and conscience can be counted on one’s fingers.

Most of those Fifth Generation directors in China chose to compromise, be obedient, or even associate with them in bad deeds. Look at the likes of Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou, who tirelessly shoot subjects about the so-called War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, and you will understand how ugly their values are. The War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea was originally a wrong decision made by the Chinese Communist Party after falling for Stalin’s old trick. The Kim dynasty supported by the CCP not only makes the North Korean people live a life worse than pigs and dogs, but they have also repaid China’s kindness with enmity to this day. Up to this moment, instead of reflecting on and repenting for the mistakes of those years, they are still singing praises relentlessly. They do not even care about the basic bottom line of being human. I have seen an oral history account describing how North Korean soldiers deal with undocumented crossers: in front of Chinese border defense soldiers, they pierce the collarbones of the crossers with iron wires, stringing them together one by one, treating them worse than livestock. We sacrificed the lives of countless soldiers back then to support such a brutal regime; isn’t that shameful? Today, still positively praising the so-called War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea—isn’t this anti-human? Do the likes of Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou not know these basic common senses? They are completely degenerating voluntarily. Did anyone force you to shoot such subject matter? Could you have refused? I think no one forced you; you could have completely refused. Not only did you not refuse, but you also eagerly rushed to shoot it, just because there was abundant funding waiting for you. For money, plus the benefits of flattery, you even dare to shoot anti-human movies. Compared to Lou Ye, who is full of integrity, their “film character” is simply like dog feces. Do not look at how the likes of Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou are treated as guests of honor at certain domestic film award ceremonies; in the long river of human civilization’s history, their spinelessness will surely share the same fate as those lapdogs during the Cultural Revolution, ultimately being despised and spat upon by people.

History is just; it will not stop recording their misdeeds just because they once shot a few good movies. While a director like Lou Ye is crying out for the fate of the Chinese people yet has to face being banned from filmmaking for life, the likes of Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou are celebrating their feast with anti-human movies. By comparison, Lou Ye’s figure appears extraordinarily grand. Let us remember the name “Lou Ye”!

Editor: Zhou Zhigang Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Zhou Min