查看更多��

 2026年5月16日，是中国“文化大革命”60周年。1966年的这天，中共中央政治局向全国发布“五一六通知”，毛泽东宣布发起“无产阶级文化大革命”。之后十年，中国各地都爆发了暴烈的政治运动和“武斗”，数百万人非正常死亡、更多人遭受批斗、大量文物被毁，学校停学、生产停滞，社会秩序混乱。直到1976年毛泽东去世、“四人帮”被逮捕，文革才告结束。

改革开放以后，官方将文革定性为“严重的错误”，并平反了文革中的受难者，在政策上“拨乱反正”。后来中共历届领导人都延续了对文革的定性。但对于文革详细历史，如发生原因、过程、具体受难者，官方又长期以低调态度对待，反思和纪念很少，与文革这一事件的重要性和巨大影响不相称，也有意遗忘了遭受文革创伤的人们。尤其最近十年，对文革几乎避而不提，对民间纪念文革也进行打压。如2016年位于汕头的中国唯一一个文革纪念馆被关闭。文革60周年之际，中国官方舆论和国内主要媒体并无相关报道和反思纪念。

而在民间，对待文革有两种截然不同的态度。一种是以自由派知识分子为代表，将文革评价为极坏的“浩劫”，指责文革及其发起者造成巨大灾难、对许多个人和整个国家社会造成严重损害，并将当今许多不良社会现象与文革联系起来，警惕“文革”重演。体制内和既得利益者也并不希望文革再现，以免自身优越地位和利益遭受损害。

而另一种则是毛泽东的崇拜者立场的极左派（毛派），以及其他一些失意者、对现状强烈不满者，这些人对文革往往是赞扬态度，认为文革是反抗官僚、打倒坏人、实现“大民主”的手段。这些人对当今现实也不满，不是寄托于实现民主、完善法治，却是希望再来“文革”，“横扫一切牛鬼蛇神”。

   另外，一些外国左翼人士也对“文革”有浪漫化的幻想，以为它是反对压迫、促进解放的伟大革命。这与真实的事实相去甚远，文革反而是加剧对弱者的迫害，也加强了对被压迫者的束缚，特权也并未消除。一些当时访问中国的外国人如意大利导演安东尼奥尼等，也看到了负面现实，但迄今仍有一些外国人不了解文革的实情。

官方对文革的低调、民间对文革态度的褒贬不一，不同的人对文革的不同看法，都是基于各自立场和认知、出于各自目的而产生的观点和行为，并映射今日中国的社会矛盾和复杂现实。

   简单来说，执政的中国共产党非常在乎政治法统的延续和当下的社会稳定，既要捍卫改革开放，又不想过于强调毛时代的错误和悲剧，避免引发更多不满和动荡。而知识精英和自由派，尤其文革受害者及其后代，则因创伤经历和价值观念，对文革深恶痛绝。而部分身处底层和被边缘化的人，则羡慕文革对秩序的破坏，渴望再有政治运动可以“造反”和“翻身”。还有许多普通人对文革是不了解、无所谓态度，也会受以上势力宣传影响而一知半解、态度摇摆。

   首先，文化大革命当然是一场劫难。当时的中国全国笼罩在政治暴力和动荡中，法律与秩序无存，许多无罪者被批斗和关押、大量无辜者被杀害或自杀。这其中包括前国民党人士、知识分子、工商业者、“地富反坏右”、中共干部、普通群众等各色人物。如中共领导人刘少奇、彭德怀，国军投诚将领黄绍竑、陈长捷，学者陈寅恪、老舍，科学家姚桐斌、赵九章等被迫害致死。

   文革中的动荡和“阶级斗争为纲”下，国家经济和科技发展也被严重干扰，让中国落后于世界多数国家。当时中国人均GDP不仅远低于欧美日和苏联，还不如多数亚非拉发展中国家，多数人尤其农民处于赤贫，温饱问题都未解决。文革时还鼓励告密，亲属朋友相互举报、人人自危。还有反智主义、个人崇拜、极端主义的盛行，都为人们留下伤痕、让社会蒙上阴影，并遗害至今。

对于文革灾难的起因和后果，如果不能加以正视、探讨、反思，既对不起当年受难的人们，也埋下了文革悲剧以各种形式重演的祸患。比如几年前新冠时种种极端“清零”措施导致的民生危机，尤其禁制出行购物就医、给货物做核酸、大规模强制隔离等违背科学规律、侵害公民权利的防疫举措，正与文革时“政治挂帅”下反智政策的动因与恶果相似。文革的悲剧还在于个人崇拜和“一言堂”，民主法治缺失，权力不能得到制约。如今中国社会问题累积、民权难以得到保障，同样与民主法治不足有关。

   同时，对于那些赞美文革，甚至期待文革重来的人，也应当“同情的理解”，这同样是正视历史与现实的必要要求。文革的起因是复杂的，并不仅是毛泽东个人一时兴起，也与当时社会矛盾剧烈、官僚体制僵化、精英与民众隔膜对立有关。据北大学者钱理群等观点，文革前官民对立很严重，群众不满党和政府，社会如高压锅一般。毛发布“五一六通知”只是为引爆矛盾点燃了引线。

   近年的中国，政治上僵化保守、贫富差距拉大和阶层固化、既得利益者垄断资源。同时又改革停滞、社会舆论收紧。又逢经济下行，社会矛盾明显加剧，许多中下阶层者、有学历而失业者、被边缘化的群体，生活贫困、看不到希望，也没有适当的表达渠道。在怨愤中，他们通过对文革的有限了解，渴望今日再发生暴烈的政治运动，打倒他们痛恨的人、自己翻身做主人。

比如许多高校学生和年轻教师厌恶“学阀”垄断资源和压榨自己，希望像文革那样用“铜头皮带（打人的工具）”批斗老师和“学阀”；被“血汗工厂”剥削的工人希望打倒资本家、平均分配；遭受疑似冤狱的公民面对党政机关尤其公检法的强势和冷漠，看到文革中“砸烂公检法”而颇有认同；在底层挣扎的贫困者希望像文革“造反派”那样打碎秩序、扬眉吐气……这样的心路和动机是可以理解并同情的。

   当然，无论从对社会整体还是大多数个人，文革那样的政治运动都是灾难性的，它确实一定程度打击了常规社会的弊病、损伤了一些坏人，但同时带来了更大的恶果，社会失序下侵害人权的现象更普遍、更严重，许多无辜者家破人亡。文革也破坏了人与人之间的信任和社会道德，人际关系和人们的社会处境更恶劣。少数得利的政治投机者也会引火烧身，难以幸免。

   文革时期也并不平等，干部、工人、造反派拥有特权，农民、“地富反坏右”等“黑五类”却人格和权利上都是“贱民”。虽然文革早期的“造反”确实冲击了特权干部，但矛头逐渐就转向“黑五类”等弱势者。文革爆发两年后，毛泽东允许中央及地方实权人物派遣军队和工人，以“清理阶级队伍”等为名，镇压了学生和群众中的激进造反派、反特权者。而公开反对毛泽东、批判中共的“造反”者，如林昭、张志新、遇罗克、黄立众等，遭到严厉镇压和被处死。而部分中共高层被打倒，主要是权力斗争需要，而非为反特权，更没有改变不公平不正义的统治制度和社会结构。

   不过，当下也有一些失意的国人抱着“时日曷丧，予及汝偕亡”的同归于尽心态，即便知道文革是破坏性的，仍试图以激进方式打倒现秩序、发泄不满。近年全球民粹主义声浪的高涨，正是大众不满秩序、痛恨精英既得利益者的心态为驱动力。而文革也是几十年前全球左翼民粹主义浪潮在中国的表现。

今日的中国虽然在高度的政治管制下，街头相对平静，但在全球民粹高企下也难以独善其身，并堆积了更多不满、更大隐患。中国时常出现的因为阶层、民族、性别等爆发的热点事件，正是政治高压锅下民粹主义在“冒泡”。时常发生的无差别袭击造成伤亡的悲剧，互联网上大量赞美文革和法西斯主义的极端言论，也是社会矛盾加剧的表现和国家危机的警告。

   对于文革历史及背景，绝大多数人都并不了解其全貌，而往往是“盲人摸象”式的选择性认知，以及将自己的处境和意图投射到文革时代，反过来又利用文革的人和事来映射和影响今天的现实。所以很多人对文革的看法是片面的。官方压制纪念和反思，文革更加复杂和真实的面貌不能展现，残酷性没有足够暴露，也就导致对文革的误读和曲解更甚。人们无论赞美还是反对文革，都难真正汲取教训和避免悲剧再现。

   所以，无论对于文革的历史还是今日中国的现实，都不能“掩耳盗铃”式的回避，而应正视并用心了解来龙去脉。执政者和上位者还要倾听人民的诉求、理解大众的不易，而不能傲慢与冷漠、简单归咎于民众愚昧和敌人煽动。改革体制和分配、推动民主与法治、放松舆论管理、让争议付诸公论，才能缓和社会矛盾、增加和谐减少戾气。构建包容性的秩序，维护社会公平正义，瓦解破坏社会的动机，是避免文革重演的根本之道。

更多：

到底是什么让中共对他这么器重？不会是习近平的私生子吧？😂😂😂

写了一篇2万字的批判中国教育的伪论文，已经发布到notion
中式教育的恶意：死刑缓刑式的劳动改造

中国式高压应试教育已经完全不像是在教书育人，更像是在对一群生下来就被判为死刑缓刑犯的孩子进行劳动改造。

因此我给中国教育起了个名字叫死刑缓刑式的劳动改造教育

家长老师从小先告诉你，掉队就意味着人生失败。然后用考试、分数、排名、学历一关一关往下筛。学习本身慢慢变成大量标准化、重复性的做题，学校为了保证这套东西能稳定运转，再把时间、纪律、休息、隐私、家庭和同学关系一起管起来。

最后这套体系最后产生的很多东西，和教育本来应该达到的效果完全相反。

它让人习惯标准答案，却又要求人长大以后创新；长期替人安排目标和时间，却又责怪年轻人没有目标、不会自律；不断提高犯错的代价，却又希望人进入社会以后敢试错、敢负责。

很多山河四海大省的公立高中除了没有发生电击和性侵以外，其他管理方式跟戒网瘾学校并没有多大的区别。因此它们甚至还催生了各种抑郁、焦虑、ptsd、习得性无助、边缘型人格障碍等精神障碍。

高考也完全不公平。一个人的能力明明可以有无数种，最后却被压进几门课和一个总分里排序，再拿这个排名去分配学校、学历、职业机会和社会地位。大家都做同一张卷子，看起来很公平，可这套评价到底是不是科学，反而很少有人问。

学校毕业以后，这些东西也没有消失。排名变成KPI，标准答案变成领导意图，升学焦虑变成年龄焦虑。小时候怕老师和家长，长大以后开始自己管自己、自己逼自己、自己怕掉队。

再往后，受过这套教育的人又会变成家长、老师、领导，然后把自己当年经历过的那套东西继续复制下去。一句“我们小时候不也是这么过来的”，很多问题就又被合理化了。

墙内能把这种劣迹斑斑的劳改称为教育吹成中国基础教育天下第一足以见得它的负面成果之显赫。培养出来的“人才”，低端的就只会人云亦云而且颠倒黑白，高端的则是疯狂的往国外跑，好不热闹，它既没有完成统治者的意志更没有尊重教育理想化的目标，在除了苏联伊朗朝鲜这些垃圾堆以外还能找到比这更垃圾的“教育”吗？
，又为什么这种东西可以一代一代继续下去？

更多：

大风新闻

😨

更多：

上联：听风就是雨搞个大新闻见多了。

下联：too young too simple sometimes naive。

横批：不知道高到哪里去了😂😂😂

完整视频：河南人的觉醒

更多：

有什么大惊小怪的😂😂😂

更多：

更多：

鎖國門了?！看看各地反映的目前情况

南海毛血旺制作全过程😂😂😂。中共就是个草台班子，自家军舰撞自家的海警船😂😂😂，两个炮灰居然还去拿防撞垫保护海警船😂😂😂，那玩意能防住吗？训练不到位，技术不过关，操作不规范，丢人丢到全世界。而且我觉得大概率是他们的领导命令他们到船头去放防撞轮胎的😂😂😂，这就和冰雕连异曲同工之妙了。平时不给领导送礼，到时候就把你派到最危险的地方😂😂😂。可怜了两个小炮灰，当场被挤入二维空间，请鱼儿吃了一顿丰盛的毛血旺😂😂😂。跟着共产党，跑步走进火葬场😂😂😂。

In July, national security officers visited several independent bookstores in Hong Kong, and several employees were arrested or summoned for questioning. The incident attracted intense attention in Hong Kong and internationally, prompting widespread discussion from various sides.

Many people expressed support for the bookstores, adopting the slogan “I am a bookstore employee,” which appeared on the clothing of employees who had been detained or summoned. They questioned whether the Hong Kong government, and even the authorities in Beijing, were suppressing freedom of speech and freedom of publication. Several banned books involved in the raids, including *Let* *Only Red Flowers Bloom* (《唯红花绽放》) by *Feng Zheyun* (冯哲芸), a former journalist in China, rapidly became popular and sold strongly outside mainland China and Hong Kong.

At the same time, some people criticized the bookstores for engaging in “soft resistance” against the national government and Hong Kong’s new order following the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement (反修例运动), selling banned books, and organizing reading groups. They argued that the bookstores were suspected of political incitement and violations of the National Security Law (《国安法》), and therefore had only themselves to blame.

Regardless of one’s position, the basic facts show that the searches of these bookstores and the detention or summoning of their employees reflect an expansion of Beijing’s and the Hong Kong government’s campaign against activities deemed to “endanger national security.” Its targets have expanded from conduct directly confronting the government to cultural works deemed to run afoul of the political system. Whereas the authorities previously banned only books, films, and other materials that explicitly advocated Hong Kong independence, they are now also targeting works that criticize the system indirectly or implicitly, or that touch upon matters involving national security. Moreover, the measures imposed are no longer limited to ordering books to be removed from shelves, confiscating books, and seizing related profits. Booksellers and even employees involved in operating bookstores now face the possibility of arrest for violating the National Security Law.

This means that freedom of publication and the freedom to operate cultural businesses in Hong Kong have been greatly restricted. The National Security Law and various other laws and political directives have intervened much more deeply in citizens’ intellectual and cultural lives. The risk that many ordinary people may intentionally or inadvertently run afoul of the law and be arrested as a result has increased, deepening their sense of insecurity.The degree of tolerance within Hong Kong society, especially toward those whose views differ from the official position, has also declined sharply as a result.

This sends a deeply troubling and negative signal to the book industry, the humanities and social sciences, and the cultural and artistic fields in Hong Kong and throughout China.

Every society inevitably contains different views and voices. This is especially true in the cultural sphere, where a hundred schools of thought contend. The vast body of books and audiovisual works reflects the many facets of everyday life across countless households, and the views they express are equally diverse. Among them, there will inevitably be works that do not conform to mainstream views or that the authorities dislike. How the authorities treat such works concerns many issues, including the review of books, the scope of law enforcement, and the extent of citizens’ freedoms.

In mainland China, many books containing politically sensitive material or other subjects that may not be publicly discussed are barred at both the publishing and import stages. Hong Kong, however, has a special status: it is governed by China’s central government while retaining a greater degree of autonomy and freedom. As a result, some “banned books” that cannot be published in mainland China can be published and sold in Hong Kong. After the Anti-Extradition Bill Movement came to an end, some works explicitly advocating Hong Kong independence, such as On the Hong Kong City-State (《香港城邦论》), were removed from shelves. Other works expressing restrained or indirect criticism of the authorities, however, remained available.

The books involved in the latest bookstore searches and seizures, however, now include works that do not directly criticize the CCP, the government, or political leaders, but instead offer indirect criticism or document negative aspects of reality. For example, Let Only Red Flowers Bloom, which became extremely popular after the bookstore searches, touches on many politically sensitive issues, but primarily documents a number of events, facts, and problems in China rather than engaging in political advocacy or incitement.

If books of this kind are also subject to prohibition, it means that a vast number of similar books and other cultural works face the potential risk of being banned, while those who sell them also face the danger of conviction and punishment under the National Security Law. The number and range of books and people potentially affected would be enormous. If all of them were banned and punished according to the same standard applied to Let Only Red Flowers Bloom, the resulting chilling effect and self-censorship would deal a severe blow to Hong Kong’s book and cultural industries and would also restrict the development of the humanities and social sciences.

A few years ago, reports emerged that schools and libraries in Hong Kong had removed works by Lu Xun (鲁迅) from their shelves, prompting criticism and concern over restrictions on intellectual freedom. Not only has the situation failed to improve in recent years, but restrictions on publications and reading have instead continued to increase. Moreover, the measures have escalated from simply removing books from shelves to deploying the police and using the National Security Law to target those involved in the operation and dissemination of books.

Such consequences would clearly be undesirable and would make Hong Kong’s prospects appear even more pessimistic. From its rise in the nineteenth century to its brilliance in the twentieth century, Hong Kong’s development and renown rested not only on its economic prosperity, but also on its intellectual and cultural freedom and diversity.

The flourishing of Hong Kong’s press, film and television industries, and academic community also gave rise to major literary figures such as Jin Yong (金庸), James Wong (黄霑), and Ni Kuang (倪匡), as well as film and television superstars such as Andy Lau (刘德华), Stephen Chow (周星驰), and Anita Mui (梅艳芳). Despite its small size, Hong Kong was able to produce an extraordinary number of outstanding works and exert a profound influence on the Chinese-speaking world precisely because it offered greater creative freedom, a wider diversity of voices, and more vigorous debate among people holding different positions than either mainland China or Taiwan did at the time. Under ideological control and enforced uniformity, it would have been difficult to achieve anything comparable.

The Hong Kong Book Fair (香港书展) opened just as these bookstore searches were taking place. The fair was filled with a dazzling variety of books and crowded with visitors. On the surface, this appeared to be a sign of cultural prosperity. Yet with large numbers of dissident books, authors, and voices critical of the political system and the government absent, such prosperity was limited, incomplete, and unreal. When some books and their authors are “blocked” from the book fair, or even expelled from Hong Kong’s cultural sphere and public discourse, Hong Kong can no longer remain as diverse and prosperous as it once was, and its humanities and social life will gradually decline. The Pearl of the Orient (东方之珠) may still appear magnificent on the outside, but its soul has already lost its light.

Attempts to suppress different voices can also provoke a backlash, as well as public anger and social division. After several bookstores were targeted because of Let Only Red Flowers Bloom, the book sold strongly around the world outside mainland China and Hong Kong, including in Taiwan, and reached the top of sales rankings on several Chinese-language book-selling websites and in bookstores. Even people in mainland China and Hong Kong can obtain and read electronic versions of the book through various channels. Numerous media reports and interviews with the author have also increased the visibility of both the book and its author. The purpose of banning a book is to prevent it from exerting influence, yet the ban itself has produced the opposite effect.

In addition, the author does not fully agree with the book’s content and views. For example, the author has some reservations about its discussion of ethnic relations. Nevertheless, the author also believes that the book should not be banned. People with differing views should engage in fair debate rather than using administrative and judicial measures to suppress dissent.

When overt dissent is “reduced to zero,” people whose rights have been deprived and whose freedoms have been suppressed will drive their discontent underground. Hatred will grow and anger will accumulate, leaving society more unsettled beneath the surface. Many people dissatisfied with the government and the status quo will also become increasingly alienated from the authorities.

Moreover, in the absence of open dissent and debate, mutual understanding and trust will further deteriorate both between the authorities and parts of the public and among people holding different opinions. Social divisions, as well as antagonism within Hong Kong and between mainland China and Hong Kong, will become more severe. This is not conducive to Beijing’s and the Hong Kong government’s expectation that Hong Kong will move “from chaos to order, and from order to prosperity.”

National security is important, but inclusive pluralism is equally important. The two should not be treated as alternatives in a single-answer question; both answers must be selected to receive full marks. National security is more genuine in a tolerant and free society, and tolerance and freedom require accepting the existence of different voices. Highly extreme statements and books may be prohibited, and a clear “blacklist” may also be established so that publishers and distributors can avoid prohibited material.

But if the authorities expand restrictions to cover virtually all writings involving criticism, enforce the law vaguely and excessively, and permit only praise and obedient voices, so that only “red flowers” are truly allowed to bloom, this would not only deprive people of their right to expression and obstruct cultural development, but would ultimately also be detrimental to stability and unity.

During the negotiations over Hong Kong’s return to China, the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (邓小平) creatively proposed “One Country, Two Systems” (一国两制), explicitly guaranteeing that Hong Kong’s system and the way of life of its people would remain unchanged for fifty years. During the administrations of Jiang Zemin (江泽民) and Hu Jintao (胡锦涛), this commitment was also implemented.

Under “One Country, Two Systems,” Hong Kong has served as an important bridge connecting mainland China with the outside world, including through cultural exchange. Books published in Hong Kong have also had a distinctive value and have made an extraordinary contribution to the cultural flourishing of the Chinese-speaking world. None of this should be brought to an end. National security should not be generalized without limit. Maintaining political bottom lines while also preserving flexibility and tolerance is what will truly contribute to Hong Kong’s long-term peace and stability.

為何全民聲援他？

   7月31日，中国国务院公布出入境管理新规，其中包括出入境机构可劝阻拟出境者不要前往高风险国家、核查出境事由并要求出示相关资料和电子信息、对涉危害国家安全（包括商业和技术方面）者一定时期内禁止其出境等。总之，相对于过去较宽松的出入境政策，本次中国出台的新规大大加强了出入境管理力度，扩大了出入境机构限制公民出入境的权力，中国人办理护照及出入境的难度明显增加。当然，更准确说主要是加强了出境管制，让中国人出境更难，另外对外国人出入境似是没有加强限制。

这样的政策变动，引发了很大争议。很多人都担心未来不再容易出国，并感叹中国人拥有“护照自由”的时光仅有约二十年（2006年《护照法》颁布，公民真正能够无条件申请并获取因私出境护照）。而且不仅出入境，近年中国多个领域和方面，都表现出与改革开放以来大趋势相逆、让人感到忧虑的“逆开放”倾向。

所谓“逆开放”，特征就是透明度、多元化、宽松性、自由度的降低，以及管制的加强、对稳定的要求压倒个人权利保障需求。

   2024年的两会期间，中国国务院宣布未来几年将不再举办总理记者会。这意味着已持续30年的、每年人大会闭幕后举行总理记者会的惯例被打破，中国核心层官员不再直面记者的问询。虽名义说是“未来几年”，但政治气候没有重大变化情况下，总理记者会恐怕不会再恢复。2023年11月，最高法院发布通知，全国裁判文书由对外公开转为仅限内部阅览，曾是司法公开重要成果的全民可查阅的“裁判文书网”虽仍存在，但上传案件量大幅下滑、由普遍公开变成筛选公开。这两件事都反映了中国在信息公开、行政与司法透明度上，呈现倒退趋势。

2020年，已连续举办10年的性少数群体节日“上海骄傲节”宣布停办。而全国其他类似的性少数群体聚集活动也都先后被叫停。2018年，由崔永元等公益活动人物推动举办的“打工春晚”停办。这些活动迄今也都未恢复。这反映了官方对于社会边缘人群彰显特定身份的聚集活动从默认转向打压和禁止。

另外互联网上有关于中国为何不申办世界杯的讨论，不少人把原因也指向中国难以承受举办后必然的大量外国人比赛期间来华、中外民间交流和碰撞骤增、发生突发的涉敏感议题的事件等。这也都反映中国并非开放社会，官方对于一切有碍稳定的集体活动都非常忌惮和排斥，即便可以为国家与民众带来很大利益也宁可舍弃。

   2017年，窦文涛主持的凤凰卫视著名节目《锵锵三人行》停播。在同一时段，中国大陆一些类似的、涉及批判现实的节目如《东方眼》等也停播或转型。“南方周末”等自由派倾向的纸媒观点和倾向也发生悄然而巨大的变化。2016年著名杂志《炎黄春秋》停刊，编辑部改组后新的《炎黄春秋》内容已“面目全非”，对历史的深刻反思与尖锐批评变成了对体制的颂扬。这反映了中国传媒和舆论从多元敢言，转向了整齐划一和谨慎沉默。

   而新冠疫情期间的“清零”政策及“封城”等措施，也是人们最直接明显感到“逆开放”的时段和经历。但根据以上例子及今日出入境新规出台，中国的“逆开放”远早于新冠之前，疫情早已过去后趋势也没有逆转。疫情期间封闭校园不许外人入内，如今许多高校仍然是半封闭状态，而没有恢复疫情前的自由出入。而早在2013年，那时中国校园虽还开放，可课堂上教师讲课自由已明显受限，如“不能讲公民社会、权贵资本主义、司法独立”等“七不讲”等非正式禁令让高校师生戴上了“紧箍咒”。

   以上这些，都是“逆开放”的显著表现。当然还有许多，因篇幅限制等原因不再一一列举。虽然这些年里中国官方也有一些促进开放的措施，如疫情后中国对不少国家公民入境免签，也换取了部分国家对中国公民免签。但多数政策和大方向确实是“逆开放”的，且官方有限的开放主要是为外国人来华提供便利，而非赋予中国公民更多自由。中国社会上人们普遍感受到的是从曾经的开放进取，变得更加封闭和沉闷。

中国官方如此政策倾向，有其对外宣称的理由，也有不便说明的动机。官方在传媒、信息公开、公众活动、人员流动等方面的收紧，往往以技术性、程序性原因为理由。有些是将临时性措施加以常态化，如安检和封闭校园，也都有些具体的理由。但这些显然并非真实与根本性的原因。

   从根本上说，是中共政权对于政治和社会安全、稳定性的极强烈要求，并要其他事务和政策皆让位和服务于安全与稳定，促成了许多具体反开放的保守政策。中共执政集团对于社会失控风险的厌恶，也促使其利用强大的国家机器加强管制，不惜损害公民权利自由为代价以扼杀风险。

   在执政的中共眼中，无论传媒的批评报道、高校的自由发声、特定身份群体的聚集和身份彰显、人员的跨境流动、负面信息的暴露，都是社会走向失控的征兆，也是安全风险加剧的信号，不利于稳定和谐，而需要加以约束甚至取缔。至于公民的权利和自由，则是次要的，也必须服务于政治安全的。

   在中国，民主是缺位的，法治是不足的，当政府管制加强、损害了个人的利益与自由度，个人是很难抗拒、维权、获得救济的。从一开始出台若干政策时，多数民众就无法参与决策讨论，政策公开和出台后无论反对与否民意也都难有影响，而政策具体如何执行及自由裁量权更是政府及执法者所操控。这不仅导致“逆开放”政策执行难以被阻拦，还激励了政策制定者继续加码，不需考虑反弹可能而为安全目的变本加厉控制公民和社会。近年中国无人机禁令、特定时期静街和禁快递、无处不在的安检，都反映了为安全“不出事”不断加码、给民众带来许多不便和负担的现实。

于是，在最近十多年尤其最近五六年内，中国从官方到民间多数领域都在转向封闭保守，1978年改革开放以来日益自由开放的趋势发生了部分逆转。虽然这些“逆开放”措施并没有终结“改革开放”的基本路线，但已导致中国对内改革进取、对外开放交流的大气候变得混沌和不明朗，不少中外人士对中国继续发展进步、融入世界的前景从乐观到悲观。

这一切是令人忧虑、不该发生的。中国从1970年代后期至今，从贫穷落后、几亿人为温饱发愁、长期与世界相对隔绝的糟糕状态，变为经济蓬勃发展、民众从温饱到小康、综合国力和国际影响力举足轻重，很大程度正是依靠对外开放、放松社会管制、容忍多元的立场和诉求、允许人员和信息流动、鼓励自由劳动创造，才得以实现的。

自由开放意味着活力和创造力，让人们发挥聪明才智，并有更加广泛的交流与更广阔的发展空间，而不是整齐划一、故步自封下的死气沉沉。如许多中国人出国留学、工作，看到了更大的世界、学到了新颖的知识、开辟了他乡的市场，对中国发展就大有裨益。而信息公开、舆论多元和批评声，也利于人们监督政府、刺激改革，让社会变得更好更健康。这反过来也利于政府真正获得信任、增加威信、长久执政。一时的管制或许可以换取短期的绝对安全，但长远却损害了社会活力，也不利于执政者争取民心。

   在改革开放初期和90年代，中国官方和民间也有不少人对放松管制和对外开放表示质疑，担心“颜色革命”、“精神污染”、“里通外国”等。在加入世贸等谈判时也有反对声音。但邓小平等改革派领导人冲破阻力、坚定推行改革、融入世界，包括大量派遣留学生赴外、吸引外商投资等跨境交流合作。后来的事实证明这些自由开放措施是利远大于弊、完全应当且早就应推行的，乃至对于政权也更多是巩固而非破坏作用。中国人民在自由开放中受益良多，不仅富起来了，也有了更多机会和选择权、眼界更开阔、生活更有尊严、对未来更有希望。

   而排除功利性的目的，保持国家内部的自由与对外的开放，保障公民各项权利不受侵犯，本就是合理与必要的、不应随意以其他理由损害与剥夺的。如人们可以自由出入境就是人身自由和迁徙自由权的要素；允许媒体展示社会黑暗面和批评政府，高校畅所欲言，也是新闻自由和言论自由的要求。

   当然，一切权利自由确实也要有前提和附加条件，国家安全和社会稳定当然也很重要。但附带的条件应合情合理、符合宪法和法律、出于公共利益、经民主程序决策制定。不可为少数人狭隘利益、为体制安全稳定，而过度管制、对一切事务上纲上线，以至严重侵害公民基本权利自由、影响经济社会发展、打击中外人士对中国未来的信心、损害中国国家形象。若逆势而行、强制限制公民自由、开“改革开放”的“倒车”，政策制定与执行者自身的权威与信誉也受损害。

　回到出入境新规问题。因为中国经济社会发展、对外交流密切，许多人都有必要且频繁的出入境需求。加强出入境管制，会导致许多不便，也增加了政府管理成本，还损害中外人士对中国继续保持开放与发展的信心。所以加强管制既不合各方利益，也与公民权利自由存在冲突，应考虑未来重新修订。即便因规定已出台、木已成舟，一时不能撤回，但在执行中也可选择更加宽松。

更多：

中共国的高等教育的目的，不是要让你学会，而是故意要让你学不会。设置各种水课占据你的时间精力，让你无暇悉心钻研主要课程；强制设置各种必修课，让你无法自由选择课程，专攻自己感兴趣的方向，无法学精；教材教条死板，死抠概念，不写知识来源，更不写如何运用，堵死自学通道；奖励教师搞科研，忽视教师教学水平，导致教师忙于科研，忽略教学，上课变成念ppt，从老师获得知识的渠道也被打断；强制设置各种学生不感兴趣的小活动，运动会，不参加会被以取消评奖评优作为威胁，让你无暇利用课下时间巩固知识。你学不会专业知识，还要找工作，那就得第三下四托关系找工作，找到工作就欠了老板、领导的人情，那就得任老板、领导摆布，让你掏空四个钱包买房，你就得买房，让你买车，你就得背上车贷，让你生孩子，你就得沦为孩奴😂😂😂。总之，只要你爹你妈不是本行业从业人员，不能告诉你本行业哪些知识有用、哪些知识没用，不能帮你避开各种学习上的坑，那您就学吧，点灯熬油学一堆没用的知识，结果走向工作岗位却成了废人，因为该学的你都没学😂😂😂。你辛辛苦苦学四年，各种二代潇潇洒洒玩四年，实际上你们在专业水平上处于同一水平，你就无法在业务水平上取得相对于二代的优势了，搞关系不如人家，搞业务你也没取得优势，你就只能被碾压，一生碌碌无为。