2047

国安会查电脑吗？这是防止如果在墙内冲塔被请喝茶，加密部分文件和浏览器数据的程序。密码+aes256加密。自己写的，如果有什么不完美，轻点喷。完美隐藏，不惧怕刑讯逼供（大记忆恢复术 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/02fd7b90u4k11tc81roh4/main-windows.zip?rlkey=qhjjsemkim1v9fw66rx8c5q3k&st=4hx7m3q0&dl=0 https://mega.nz/file/MpZ0TC6J#AeL7L_5wg6mudDhNj5APdszYkNx2wh5oom2M8n8tQlU https://github.com/bitrump/Modifications/releases/download/v1.0.0/main-windows.zip 解压后点main。

25

对于总统继承的重要补充

我们知道，美国是一个总统制国家，总统的权力非常大，他既是政府首脑，又是国家元首。他又是国王，又是首相（沙特？）。所以“国不可一日无君”，总统继承是非常重要的，关于总统选举和继承的宪法修正案，就有十二，二十，二十二这三个修正案。但是美国历史上还是有很多副总统空缺的时期，或者是副总统本人身故，或者是总统死亡，副总统继任总统。这使得填补总统副总统空白来得非常重要。

另外一个问题是总统并没有死，他只是生病，这也会导致总统大位空缺，而此时副总统虽然按照习惯代理总统事务，但是他并没有法律授权，如果内阁成员或者议会质疑副总统，会导致行政部门无法运转，这也是有危险的。

到了六十年代，热核武器和ICBM都出笼的时代，维持一个任何时刻都能运作的行政机构就显得非常紧迫了。

在肯尼迪遇刺，林登约翰逊继任总统之后，这个问题就摆上了国会的桌子，如何在宪法里写入新的总统权力管理体系，保证在任何时候行政机构都不至于瘫痪，就是第25修正案。

修正案是1965年提出，1967年通过。修正案分四段：

第一段： In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

当总统被弹劾，死亡或辞职以后，副总统成为总统。

这条改变了宪法里原来的说法，让副总统代行总统职责。这里直接改成了副总统成为总统。不存在任何模糊因素。原来的宪法规定也让很多人成为了总统，但是这次是写清楚了，就是总统。

第二段：Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

当副总统空缺时，总统应当提名一个副总统，参众两院简单多数即可通过。

这条避免了原先副总统死亡或辞职之后导致的长期空缺，现在是有空即可填补。门槛也不高，简单多数即可，比内阁成员门槛高一点，内阁成员只需要参议院简单多数。

第三段：Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

总统可以向参议院临时议长和众议院议长提交书面声明，表示他暂时不能行总统权，并将总统权交给副总统代理，然后他还可以向这两人提交相反的书面声明，将总统权收回。

这里的参议院临时议长和众议院议长都是参众两院的议员们选出的，在参众两院都是首席。参议院因为议长就是副总统，所以不能直接交给副总统，只能交给参议院当中选出的资深议员做临时议长。这个临时议长是在副总统不在的时候主持参议院开会的。

第二条和第三条体现了美国宪法的三权制衡原则，在行政权的变动中，立法机构参与了行政权变动。相当于立法机构在监督行政权力的转移，不管是提名新的副总统，还是总统临时授权副总统代理。

第四段： Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

第四段是一个很特殊的情况，如果总统发疯了怎么办？这时候25修正案提供了一个不同于传统的弹劾的废除总统权力的路线。它的门槛比弹劾（1/2众议院，2/3参议院）要高，但是一旦运作，则可以立刻把总统的权力收回。

第一节说明了启动条件，副总统和内阁大多数成员，或者国会指定的某些部门的成员，认为总统不能履行职责，则可以向参议院临时议长和众议院议长提交书面声明，并且让副总统立刻代理总统权力。

第二节则说明总统收回权力的过程，在第一节的权力转移发生之后，总统可以向参议院临时议长和众议院议长提交书面声明，声称自己没有问题，要求收回权力，则权力被总统收回。除非副总统和上一节所述的内阁成员，在四日之内提交书面声明，声称总统仍不能履职。那么，在这个纠纷中，由国会定夺。国会须在48小时内组织会议，如果国会当时并未开会。国会在开会后21日内，需要在参众两院都达到三分之二多数，认定总统不能履职，则副总统继续代理总统，否则，总统恢复权力。

这个总统不能履职的纠纷，在宪法中是天然偏向总统的。副总统必须联合阁员，和参众两院的三分之二多数，才能封杀总统，实质性地剥夺总统权力。这比起弹劾的门槛要高得多。但是执行起来却比弹劾要快得多，一开始执行，总统就立刻失去权力，被副总统代理。而总统要求收回权力，还需要国会审查。当然如果国会就是不开会，或者开会之后做不出决议，则总统官复原职。

现有规定（美国法典第五章101条）下，这里的“内阁成员”是以下十五个岗位：Secretary of State， Secretary of the Treasury， Secretary of Defense， Attorney General， Secretary of the Interior， Secretary of Agriculture， Secretary of Commerce， Secretary of Labor， Secretary of Health and Human Services， Secretary of Housing and Urban Development， Secretary of Transportation， Secretary of Energy， Secretary of Education， Secretary of Veterans Affairs， Secretary of Homeland Security.

副总统纠集其中八个就可以发动一次“行政政变”，剥夺总统权力。但是总统可以向国会要回此权，并在国会不反对情况下可以取回此权。

显然，冒这么大风险，副总统通常情况下不会发动这样的“政变”，除非他在国会参众两院已经有足够多的盟友要搞掉总统。这通常得总统真的发疯的时候才能进行。

这也是在热核战争时期，保证不会因为斩首或者总统失心风的时候，美国的最高指挥权失控。只要总统一疯或者一旦失联，副总统和多数阁员就能立刻拿到总统权力。

当然还有一个相对温和的情况，总统并没有发疯，只是突然晕倒或者失联。这种情况下，副总统纠集阁员代理总统并非恶意抢班夺权，这种情况下，总统在恢复清醒或者恢复连接之后，就会要回总统权力，并且也不会怪罪于副总统和阁员。

24

民权的修宪

我们知道，美国内战结束后13，14，15三个修正案分别废奴，给黑人公民权，给黑人选举权，但是南方redeemers一番操作把南方黑人民权尽数作废。早在1866年的民权法案"Civil Rights Act of 1866"就已经约定了黑人享有的民权，但是实际操作下来，联邦并不能向受到歧视和迫害的少数族裔提供法律援助，所以民权也就成了一纸空文。所以南方的"separate but equal"也是合法的，人头税"poll tax"也是合法的，黑人的自由，公民权和选举权在南方遭到严重打击，因此黑人大量移居北方，也大量投入北方的工业建设当中。

但是正如我之前说的，北方白人也歧视黑人，不同于南方的是，他们对奴役黑人没有太多兴趣。但是随着黑人移民北上，北方白人反黑情绪也开始上扬。例如：“The Indiana KKK is believed to have started in 1920, where it soon grew to large prominence. For the next 15 years, a man named D.C. Stephenson spearheaded the Indiana branch, which would become the most powerful in the nation, according to the Indiana State Library. About 30% of white Hoosier men were members — including half the state Legislature and the governor.” --这一段是介绍北方州之一的印第安纳州的3k党历史。

3K党在南方属于redeemers的一部分，他们不仅反黑，也反对天主教徒和犹太人。而北方的3K党则更加单纯，他们就是不想让黑人共享他们的社区。所以各种种族隔离，种族歧视的政策，法律和社会习俗也带到了当年内战时期的北方各州。

当然对黑人的系统性歧视还是在老南方十一州为甚。为了对抗十五修正案，南方redeemers祭出了人头税大法，不交税不得投票。而这个武器的妙处在于它既可以通过收税的手段打压穷白人投票者，又可以通过祖父条款等手段，设定例外，收买安抚穷白人投票者，可以很好地分化穷白人和黑人的统一战线。在1937年的Breedlove v. Suttles案件中，最高法院一致认定虽然十五和十九修正案规定了女人和黑人都有投票权，但是具体怎么投票可以由各州决定。这其实也就是为各州压迫少数族裔的选举权大开绿灯。

虽然南方始终是少数，但是不管是罗斯福新政时期的北方民主党人（他们需要南方redeemer民主党人支持，否则就会出现1948年大选中南方跑票，共和党杜威威胁杜鲁门总统大位的事情），还是北方自由派的共和党人，他们始终无法像当年内战时期那样联合一致拉出足够多的票数压倒南方民主党人。因为美国参议院是有filibuster的，香港人俗称“拉布”，就是少数派议员为了阻碍一个议案的通过，可以在参议院发言的时候大量占用发言时间，从而让议案无法表决，而参议院需要五分之三的多数才能强行打断拉布的发言时间并进行表决，这个香港人俗称“剪布”。民主党人虽然在罗斯福新政时期占据绝对优势，但是这个优势是北方自由派民主党人和南方redeemers民主党人共同构成的，单靠罗斯福这一系，要想突破南方民主党人的拉布是不可行的。所以罗斯福新政时期的南方黑人民权问题基本上得不到解决，但是出于二战的需要和军工的需要，在美军中解除了种族隔离。同时在五大湖的重工业军工等部门，罗斯福总统的行政令也要求军工企业对黑人一视同仁。而且南方对于黑人民权的限制是综合性的，不管是人头税，识字测试还是啥的，都是为了让黑人不能投票的同时，不要直接违反十五修正案。

五十年代的黑人民权运动，相应地跌入低谷期。二战结束后的GI Bill规定的退伍军人福利，黑人退伍军人也享有。而黑人民权运动也被冷战的反共和麦卡锡主义浪潮盖过。但是这时候也出了几个重要的案子，如Brown v. Board of Education 裁定公立学校的种族隔离违宪。这是一个重要的判决，南方白人玩了一个世纪的“隔离但平等”的遮羞布开始被最高法院扯下了。但是种族隔离仅仅是十四修正案的部分，只要十五修正案的内容得不到兑现，黑人在南方实际上没有选举权，南方黑人就很难逃避被绝对优势的白人选民和白人州议会的压迫。因为法律在白人手上，就算联邦要保护黑人民权也鞭长莫及。这又回到我们说的联邦制基本分权，州和联邦分享立法权力，州立法律，联邦只能靠最高法院审查，而不是通过联邦的国会立联邦法律就能强行覆盖。而大法官们又相应地谨慎，不愿意把13，14，15三个修正案做广泛的解释。那么南方就可以继续合法奴役黑人一个世纪。

到了60年代肯尼迪总统就职了（这也是美国第一个天主教徒总统），他对老南方的浸会可不感冒，再加上南方也出了叛徒，佛罗里达州参议员Spessard Holland。他本来是反对黑人民权的，此时却跑到北方人那一边支持24修正案。这样一来，24修正案就此破局成功。

24修正案原文如下：

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

第一条，美国公民参加初选和大选的权利，包括选举总统，总统选举人，或者对参众两院的选举，不能因为欠人头税或任何税，而被联邦或州取消。

第二条，国会有权就此立法。

这其实也戳穿了美国独立战争时期十三州乱党的宣传口号“无代表不纳税”的谎言。代表权和交税完全是两码事，不是说你交了税就有代表权；也不是说你为了获得代表权就必须交税。只能说，对于交了税的人，没有代表权是很难受的。

不出意外的，不通过24修正案的主要州是老南方十一州，但是这次佛罗里达和田纳西两州跑票通过。另外怀俄明州和亚利桑那州也没有表决。在24修正案过线四分之三之后，又有数个南方州补票通过该修正案。

这里顺带提下同期亚利桑那州的共和党参议员Barry Goldwater的观念，不同于老南方的州权派完全是用州权来维护种族隔离，如阿拉巴马州州长George Wallace在1963年就职演讲里说到“反抗（联邦) 暴政，我宣布，今天，明天，我们将永远维持种族隔离”。而Goldwater则相反，是通过某种libertarianism立场，临时和老南方州权派种族隔离分子组成战略联盟。这就是1964年美国大选。共和党的Goldwater通过反对联邦扩权维护州权的主张，得到了老南方几个deep south州的种族隔离派的支持，赢得了他们的选票，这是共和党自内战以来第一次突破deep south的民主党防线。但是Goldwater与这些deep south的出发点不同，Goldwater是真心州权，而南方redeemer们则是以州权之名捍卫种族隔离和种族歧视制度。在后来Goldwater和共和党下一代明星里根会谈的时候，Goldwater也指出了里根的新自由主义是好的，但是里根为了稳定政局，向老南方的基督教原教旨主义者让步太多是很危险的。事实也的确如此，共和党人当中主张社会自由，经济自由的洛克菲勒派共和党人（以1974-1976年副总统Nelson Rockefeller为名）最后基本灭绝。现在能看到共和党人当中还有这种社会自由主张的恐怕只有无政府资本主义流派的Ron Paul了。新自由主义加原教旨基督教主张得到的是新保守主义，如小布什和切尼这种组合，或者是Goldwater本人参议员席位的继承人，John McCain. 而今天共和党的头号明星川普，也仅仅是挂里根的羊头而已。

这里插播一段McCain和Goldwater的对话，Goldwater说，“我要是1964年当选总统，你McCain就不至于坐北越的监狱了”，McCain回嘴道，“是的，我到时候就得坐中共的监狱了”。McCain的反讽其实也就是指出Goldwater这种纯粹的自由放任主义会导致的政治失控（事实上就是统战力太弱上不了台），而不管是里根，小布什，还是今天的川普，都是把新自由主义的经济政策和某些完全无关的东西捆绑起来（里根和小布什是捆绑基督教原教旨，川普捆绑的是锈带失业蓝领，吹贸易保护和孤立主义）。单推经济自由那就是洛克菲勒，单推州权就是Goldwater，根本不可能成功。

扯远了，24修正案之后就是民权1964 ，Civil Rights Act of 1964，这法律才算是把一百年前挖得大坑填上了。MLK也没有重蹈先辈Frederick Douglass的覆辙，成功成为新一代美国人偶像并获得诺贝尔和平奖。但是民权问题只是美国六十年代的半个问题，另外半个是越战。而这两个问题成功团结了反建制的黑人民权和大学生的爱与和平反战反征兵运动，还有诸如“河内简”的Jane Fonda公然为北越做文宣的事情，但是越战的故事就是下几章的话题了。

从全球范围内民主化进程来说，美国只有在1964民权法案之后，才是一个完全的民主国家，黑人的民主权利才是完整的。这就是对24修正案的总结。

本来是不矛盾的，但是梵蒂冈那边死活不让

什么样的管理意识形态就会诞生什么样的论坛。变成这样我一点也不意外，都是双向奔赴得偿所愿，管理层中不换掉一些人的话，变成品葱只是时间问题，尤其是你们可以想想，品葱和2047现在有哪些地方有共同之点

23

DC“为”州

历史上美国制宪并没有考虑首都人民的选举权，因为首都压根就没打算住人，首都里多是官员，议员和他们的跟班，要么就是进城摆地摊的马里兰和弗吉尼亚农民。但是随着联邦政府权力的逐步扩张，dc内的人口也开始增长。按照美国宪法，DC面积是"不大于十英里见方“, 而国父们也从来没想过DC会成为大都会，在一个波多马克河边圈的沼泽地里，周围都是传播疟疾的蚊子, 面积又狭小，怎么可能成为大量人口聚集的地方，这些人怎么又会要求政治权利。

但是，历史很快就证明国父们错了。因为DC不遵从任何州法律而只遵守联邦法律，在马里兰和弗吉尼亚都是蓄奴州的时代，DC成为自由黑人偏好的地点，因为虽然DC没有解放黑奴，但是1850年DC便废止奴隶贸易，内战中更是大量收容自由黑人，这导致了内战结束时DC人口暴增，而且也奠定了DC在美国省级行政区里黑人比例第一的基础。而随着美国都市化和联邦权力扩张，DC市区内部和周边地区人口暴增，使得DC市民成了二等公民，税没少交，但是市政缺乏自主权（宪法规定DC事务直接由国会决定，而国会议员又不是DC市民选出），又没有任何选举权，DC特区对总统，国会参众两院都没有选举权。在DC都市化之后，这种不公正就成了一个问题。

DC选举权问题兵分两路：一路是市政权，又称home rule, 也就是在宪法框架下，国会立法，把DC的事务授权给DC市政机构，如市长和市议会；另一路是联邦代表权，如参众议员和总统选举人。把两派主张合并起来就是DC建州，甚至有人提出来的Douglass Commonwealth这个名字(Frederick Douglass是19世纪的黑人民权领袖，堪比20世纪的MLK). 插播一段Douglass的演讲：

“He was preëminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. ”

这段是1876年的演讲。在这里道格拉斯不客气地指出林肯只是白人的总统，但是黑人们应该支持他，并借他的力量取得黑人的自由和民权。

扯远了。DC内群众争取政治权利的斗争，一开始是要求回归马里兰和弗吉尼亚，这点在河西南的弗吉尼亚部分取得了完全胜利，1847年，特区的西南部分回归弗吉尼亚，当地人的权利得到了完全的恢复。剩余的马里兰州部分，继续要求国会给他们更多自治权。

我们需要注意的是，在二战结束后的这个时间点，DC的政治气氛并不像现在这样一边倒（今天的DC是90%民主党vs8%共和党），第一当年的DC没有现在这么高的黑人比例；第二当年的DC黑人也没太多民权，所以50年代的DC只是偏向自由派。这也是23修正案能够通过的原因。如果和今天这样一边倒，另外一边的政治势力肯定会反对23修正案，DC人民也就不可能获得今天的权利。美国的制度就是奖励骑墙派而惩罚忠诚者。

23修正案只解决了DC的总统选举权问题，至于DC的home rule问题，则在1973年的District of Columbia Home Rule Act当中得以实现。

23修正案如下：

1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

第一条：DC的总统副总统选举人数=如果DC是一个州，它的参议员和众议员数目总和。但是不得多于人口最少的州的选举权。选举人不同于各州指定的选举人，但是在选举中被视为一个州派出的选举人。选举人在DC会面并按12修正案所要求的，履行选举人职责。

第二条：国会有权就此立法。

在23修正案于1960-1961年度通过之后，很快就是轰轰烈烈的美国民权运动，也可以说是迟到一百年的对老邦联的清算。23修正案的通过也是如此，在修正案表决的时候，有11个州没有通过，正是当年的邦联十一州：Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia 没有表决， Arkansas拒绝，Alabama当时没有表决，直到2002年才通过。此后的24修正案大体也是这个风景。民主党主流对老邦联意识形态，决议清算，使得民主党永久性的失去了东南诸邦的dixiecrats, 也因此改变了小罗斯福以来民主党人的巨大优势。虽然但是，此后民主党的卡特和克林顿两位总统，仍然是来自老南方的。（当时的约翰逊总统也是南方--德州人）

美国的60年代政治动荡大幕，就此缓缓揭开。

支蛆说川普，说左右时，为什么总有一股味。就像大陆支那猪讨论美国和政治，非黑既白，到处传播，它们对大爹的渴望，二元的弱智观。

一眼智力缺陷，还天天他妈的脱脂脱脂。

你永远都是支那蛆。 圣诞节，这个世界人人都笑，玩嗨了就操B，抱着娇区睡到天亮。你只能撸管，连丑陋支女，都敢嘲笑你。你从母亲怀里出生成为男孩，却变成狗都不如的太监。支女宁愿给狗插，也不愿正眼看你，因为你不是男人，支那将你变成太监和奴隶。 你玩着劣质的支那游戏，看赵家土猪给你准备的支那毒媒体，点支那猪给你准备的化学外卖，不知道那天突然像粪坑里的蛆被屎砸中死去，笑嘻嘻地度过自欺欺人的每一天。 你不是人，一点赵家土猪的排泄物，就是你的一生，购买你所有的人格。 你连狗都不如。 你是支蛆。

你永远都是支那蛆，到这里寻求身份认同，发些弱智帖子，无法承认你是支那蛆，使用群体认同身份攻击，赢得一点微薄的存在感和自豪感。 智力缺陷，只能靠吼人多群体认同身份攻击。 外貌无法让人分泌美的多巴胺，只能虚构假装，千辛万苦组建互害的支式家庭和社会，还被骗婚，老婆不知道几个派出所所长的十八手套子。

你永远都是支那蛆，在人中黄地狱里轮回。 认清图支真相，上帝的真理，放弃你那点小脑里简单自以为是的幻觉，你才能从地狱解脱，下辈子重开北欧。

嗯

香港极右都是人渣

不要纠缠台湾了 多个华人国家友好中国肩并肩多好

现在可能王培尔来了 王培尔的面相都是一种阴森拧巴难受 大包还有一种土霸王草头皇帝的坐在江山安然自得镇静

你这种人多些

这才是2047

工人在新冠疫情中的处境(二)

2023-01-02 中国无产阶级斗争报

这是一封来自广东省广州市钟落潭镇的工厂通讯：

我们厂是一个小厂，只有二百五十多人，工人占了绝大部分，厂里三个车间，每个车间大概七八十人。我们厂住宿条件十分恶劣，只有一栋三层楼的水泥宿舍楼，其中一楼和二楼是专门留给十几个脑力工作的文员和几个班长(工头)们的，只住了五个宿舍，一楼住了两个，二楼住了三个，其他的房间全部堆放了生产器材。我们工人跟班长沟通，说可不可以把二楼和一楼的物品搬走让我们工人住进去，结果那些走狗说我们工厂没有独立的仓库，因为没有地方放这些器材，所以不着急把里面的东西搬空，班长害怕这些器材经不住水淋日晒。

只有三楼住的是我们工友。这栋宿舍每层十个房间，每个房间住八个人，宿舍里面放满了床，两边墙壁没有装修，只留一条贯穿里外的过道。外面是阳台，专门晾衣服的，房间的最里面是一个小房，小房左边角落是一个蹲坑，右边是两个水龙头，房间里面没有窗户，只能靠门通风，厕所里面没有门，从过道到厕所尽头上面有一个窗户，厕所的蹲坑里面老是发着一股恶气，这股恶气从厕所里面弥漫出来时，只能通过开门才能驱散这股恶气。

相比之下，二楼和一楼的条件比三楼好很多，有扫地阿姨定期做好厕所卫生，房间里面只放两架床，住四个人，中间有一块空地，卫生间有门，有空调、热水器和一个洗漱台，两个马桶有专门的墙壁隔开，用作遮掩。

还有多出来的工人是住在三面砖墙的铁皮顶房里面，地面是没有铺水泥的，而是一地的碎石子，铁皮房里面也是放满了床只留一条过道，过道的碎石子已经被来来往往的工人踩得很黑了。铁皮房里面没有电风扇，天热的时候自费购买电风扇，墙壁上有三个插排，过道尽头的窗口上没有玻璃窗，天冷的时候工友们用纸皮捂住这个缺口，避免进风冻到自己。另有七八十个女工单独住在另一处用铁皮墙围住的铁皮房里，有三名值班的保安守门口。很多铁皮房是今年才盖起来用于闭环生产的，资本家和狗腿子宁可把两层宿舍楼拿来放器材也不给工人居住。

铁皮房没有单独的卫生间，想要解决卫生问题的人只能到公厕去解决。公厕的位置在宿舍楼的两边，右边是男厕，左边是女厕，旁边有一排水龙头，最后面三个是供应热水的。公厕里面靠着两侧墙壁有两条水渠，水渠上面竖了四面墙，就分出了五个“隔间”，两边加起来就是十个。虽然有十个坑位和一排水龙头，但是有七八十个男工住铁皮房，每到下班时间，就会有一大堆人在公厕水龙头那里排队洗头漱口、洗碗、洗衣服还有拉屎。这些“隔间”里面全部是烟头和屎尿，虽然清洁工每天清理一次，但几十人的进进出出还是让屎尿纸和烟头在水道里面堵成堆，有时候想拉个屎，只有拿放在外面的铲子铲低水道里面的垃圾，才能蹲得下去。

自从放开以来，我们厂的新冠传播速度就是靠这个排队大大加快的。

除了住宿环境很恶劣外，我们厂伙食也是很差的，一三五早上吃白粥，二四六七吃盐水煮河粉，中餐是冬瓜加几块猪肉或者是大白菜加几块猪肉，又或者是芥菜加几块猪肉。厨房里面的食材进货有冬瓜、猪肉、猪腩油、芥菜、大白菜，猪肉是很少的，还有些用作炸猪油和煮青菜的油渣，吃起来没有这么寡淡。厨房里面有一口非常大的锅，还有一个专门炸猪油的锅，大锅放在左边，小锅放在灶上，小锅旁边还有一口煮水的锅，用来在煮菜的时候更快地把水煮沸，然后倒菜和肉还有猪油和盐进去，一股脑的煮上二十分钟，直接用大勺捞到一口大盆里面，端到食堂窗口，一般要煮四盆。上菜后二十分钟就来满了工人，总共有七个窗口，很多人都挤到前面等菜和饭，有些工友怕公厕水龙头那边越来越多人，就在打好饭菜以后一边走路回宿舍、一边狼吞虎咽地把饭吃完，然后回到宿舍拿桶，拿衣物，拿洗衣粉，拿洗发水和饭碗到公厕去全部解决。

还有很多工友对这些饭菜不怎么吃的，胡乱塞几口，一倒潲水桶，马上跑回宿舍拿东西上公厕解决卫生问题了。

傍晚六点半下班吃饭，七点二十多就要上夜班了，工友们心急如焚，恨不得把洗衣洗头洗碗等全部事情一股脑做完然后安稳地上班，但是人太多了，大排长龙，通常工友们都是洗个澡和洗完衣服就要跑去上夜班了，来不及晾衣服，都是十点半下班回来了才把衣服晾到阳台上去的。工友们都很累了，回来倒头就睡，根本就不想处理这些事情了。

2022年12月8日，我们车间的微信群群主，也就是我们的班长，发了一个文字通知，意思是我们厂从今天起，不再三天做一次核酸检测，而是完完全全地放开，同时班长也要求我们自觉备好退烧药和感冒药来应对即将到来的疫情。

6点30分下班回到宿舍之后，工友们就开始三五成群走出工厂组队到附近的诊所寻药，虽然到了诊所，但是诊所有很多人，工友们拍了视频发到车间微信群里面，排队的人从诊所排到了人行道上。

在7点20多准备上夜班时，很多工友从外面回来了，纷纷在微信群里讨论谁买到了药、谁没买到药。总之，大家面对即将到来的疫情都显得很焦虑，工友们担心会不会影响到正常上班，还有部分工友讨论请假了会不会被扣工钱。

工厂附近的诊所是为有闲有时间的小资产阶级开设的，他们可以在傍晚五点下班后一直排队，而我们工人六点半才下班，七点二十多还要继续上班，一直上到晚上十点半，休息时间很短，根本没有时间排队买药。除此之外，诊所的药贩子要求只能整盒购买退烧药和颗粒，价格很贵，平时二三十块钱的药飙升到了上百元，可想而知这些药物不是面向我们工人阶级的。

刚刚过去一天，我们车间的一位中年工人上午工作时就感觉喉咙干、好像有东西老是咳不出，左腿膝盖活动时有刺痛，这位中年工友上午还在车间搬东西，下午就请了假回宿舍睡觉。同车间的工友们很担心这位工友，在傍晚下班休息时问了他的具体情况，他说有头疼、腰疼、膝盖疼、发冷和没有力气起床这些症状。

第二天早上，我们车间有一半工友出现了这种新冠前期症状，很多工友请了假，得了新冠的工友在宿舍里面问谁有药以及诉说自己的症状。班长发了一条通知，说宿舍一楼第一个房间有药卖，二楼第四个房间有药卖，三楼第三个房间有药卖。他除了说卖药的事情，还说今天和明天放假两天专门调整身体，后天开始请假的一天扣40元，两天是90，三天开单走人。

工友们病急乱投医，不管三七二十一，先到班长指定的宿舍问清楚药是怎么卖法。这几个宿舍里面是戴着N95口罩和护目镜的药贩子，他们都穿着便服，拿一个大箱子，里面装着不同包装的布洛芬、阿莫西林、头孢等药物，还有小柴胡、999感冒灵、清开灵等颗粒。布洛芬等胶囊是5块钱两粒，小柴胡等颗粒是6块钱两包，这次到厂里的药贩子还要求不能成盒买，一次只能买4粒药和4包颗粒，跟诊所正好反过来了。虽然有工友抱怨这些东西很贵，但很多工友还是排了队买药回去吃，大家都不希望因为这个病而耽误了打工赚钱。

第二天这些药的价格又被药贩子升了一升，由原来的5块两粒变到了8块两粒，颗粒由原来的6块两包变到了10块钱两包，很多工友舍不得吃了，认为这样太不值得了，所以这次来排队买药的工人少了很多，只有零星的几个去买这些超贵药，其他的工友都宁可在宿舍喝热水顶着，也不吃这些药贩子的一颗药。早上药贩子看见药不好卖，开始担心没有人消费了，又把药从8块两粒降到了5块两粒，颗粒从10块两包降到了6块两包的原本价格，这才让工友们继续购买这些高价药。

虽然工友们吃到了退烧药，但晚上仍然很难顶，因为这些药不多，只有四粒，加上颗粒也是四包，半夜三更睡不着觉，大部分工友在微信群里面聊天，大多数是没有药了以及哪里疼哪里不舒服的话题。

的确，得了新冠的不是喉咙痛得要命，就是身体热得要命，睡觉时情绪是平静的，但是身体是不安定的，心脏以最大动力向全身供血，身体为了对抗病毒开始发烧，即使自己再劳累，但面对心脏的大活动，想睡着是很困难的，再加上药物缺乏和宿舍只有开水能喝的情况，就更难受了。

两天时间很快过去，还有一些工友没买到药或者吃完了药，只能拖着乏力和高烧的身躯上班开工。很多工友在上班时没有精气神，班长就拿克扣工资来威胁工人，干得慢的那些工人被这些厂狗威胁要扣三百块工钱，有一个病重没吃药的工人扇了自己三个耳光，用疼痛来刺激自己的精神集中生产。

工友们咬牙切齿地拖着疲倦身躯去上班，不去就被监工用罚钱的“鞭子”抽打，一天40，两天90，三天开除。这些厂狗仗着自己在资本家那里博得了几分权力就在我们工人头上作威作福。为了让工人在病痛时期仍然保持平常的生产效率，厂狗在车间里放出“干得了你就干，干不了你滚蛋”的狠话。有一位工人跟这个蛮横不讲理的厂狗理论，说自己很乏力和头晕，干不了跟平时一样快了，没想到这个厂狗说“这不是个小感冒吗？你们害怕什么？吃两天药就好了，非要在这里装得病怏怏的给谁看！”有一位工人不服气，站起来说：“你自己有药我们有吗？现在大部分工友都没有药了，你自己觉得是小感冒是有药，我们没有药的呢？”那厂狗怒气冲冲地回了一句：“干得了你就干，干不了你就滚蛋，别在这跟我废话，有本事自己开厂赚钱去，干嘛还要来这个厂打工啊！”

有些工友遭不住这种十二小时的煎熬了，请假一天出厂去附近的诊所看病，没想到那些诊所门外都挂着没有退烧药的牌子，连体温计都被买空了，好不容易找到两盒布洛芬，要三百多块钱，药贩子还不给卖散装的，说要么就整盒买，要么就不要碰自己的药，到了这个节骨眼还担心有人把他的药偷走，无奈的工友只能打车去大排长龙的医院。来咨询病况的人成百上千，在医院排队挂号都得等上两个小时，工友没有医保卡，交了100多块开了两天的药。有医保卡的小资产阶级可以专享国家报销，大部分没有医保卡的工人只能给钱。

有一位二次感染的中年工人说自己想赚多点钱回家过年，孩子长大了要买新衣服，老婆常年在外打工需要吃些补品，老妈也要买几件新衣服了，还要给他父亲买几对新鞋穿。这些看似很平凡的愿望也很难实现了，因为今年的疫情把他准备好回家过年的钱全部掏光了，医院的费用高得惊人，本身就有哮喘的他更是雪上加霜，光是肺部的用药就花了两万多，再加上昂贵的住院费用和拍片费用，总共加起来花了三万多的钱。他经常唉声叹气地说今年回家过年只能借钱回去了，每次去探望这位工友的时候，他都带着失望透顶的语气，向我们诉说着他的痛苦。

还有一位阳了十多天未见好的工人，一直处于低烧的状态，他之前吃的退烧药或者是其他工友吃剩的，或者是大方的工友给的，吃了五天不见退烧，自己也顾不上这么多了，年底了要加把劲干活，想着多赚些钱。没想到就在12月27日上午十点多，这个工友干着活突然倒地不起，口吐白沫了，我们把他抬到了医院，等他打了点滴，逐渐清醒过来的时候，才知道他已经发了十多天的低烧了。虽然这位工友清醒了过来，但是他很焦急，一直说吊完这瓶药水就要回去了，自己已经好了，要下地走路回厂里面干活去。我们拦住了他，安慰他说不要急，你的身体最重要，身体好不了干啥都不行。听了我们的建议，虽然他的情绪稳定了些，但是眼神中还是充满了不安，他很害怕自己倒下了要花很多钱，这样他就不能够把钱带回家过年了。

从上面两位工人的经历就可以看出资本主义是多么罪大恶极，它用金钱衡量了一切，把我们工人当成淋巴肉，喜欢吃就煮，不喜欢吃就丢弃。我们工人在这个小资产阶级和专制政府吹嘘的平等的社会里面是奴隶和他们的下人。这些医生是穿着白衣服的屠夫，有钱的病人就笑脸相迎，没有钱的病人就被他们冷漠歧视，哪里是什么白衣天使？显然就是一帮资产阶级的佣人，专门从我们工人身上剥皮的走狗罢了。

封控的时候，医生和警察联合，按照政府布置的命令把我们工人全部封死在蓝铁皮里面，每天要求我们做核酸检测，不做核酸的工人就被赋黄码。封口停手的时候我们工人是最痛苦的，没有任何经济来源，每天的伙食费还要付钱。现在放开了，最痛苦的还是我们工人，药贩子和医院拿起了屠刀、抓着一大把急需药坐地起价，狠狠地从我们工人身上捞了一笔。工厂也不甘落后，厂狗们抄起厂规就要抽打我们工人，资本家要求我们按时上班和照常生产。我们工人得了重病还要马不停蹄地生产，哪里还有什么人权和生命至上？！显然这就是对于工人的残酷剥削，拥有健康的权利只是给予了一部分的脑力劳动者和食利阶层，也只有这些有钱有生产资料的人，才享有民主和自由，我们这些工人只能享受来自于资本主义社会的腐烂恶臭！

因此，我们工人只有砸烂资本主义社会，才能把自己从病痛中解救出来，只有建立无产阶级专政，工人阶级才能获得真正的平等和自由。红皮白心的专制政府和满口谎言的机会主义者必然被革命的无产阶级击碎，愤怒的工人将以百倍千倍的阶级血泪仇握成一个拳头，将资产阶级专制政府和一切剥削阶级打下历史舞台，建设起真正的社会主义和无产阶级当家做主的伟大祖国！

《斗争报》邮箱:

douzhengbao@protonmail.com

佳士工人声援团邮箱：

jiashigrsyt@protonmail.com

原文链接（转自中国无产阶级斗争报）： https://jiashigrsyt1.github.io/Workers-in-Epidmic2/

https://proletarianstruggles.wordpress.com/2023/01/02/%e5%b7%a5%e4%ba%ba%e5%9c%a8%e6%96%b0%e5%86%a0%e7%96%ab%e6%83%85%e4%b8%ad%e7%9a%84%e5%a4%84%e5%a2%83%e4%ba%8c/

你个白完比在这吹nm呢

恁老发表过500多帖子声望还是0就别说什么好好讨论了，俺专注发奇怪的种族仇恨极端言论都搞到了2声望

这段历史

就这样

In today’s fully automated factories, where not even lights are needed, it has become increasingly clear that the traditional slogan of “distribution according to labor” is not only impractical but entirely unrealistic. In reality, distribution has always been based on social hierarchy rather than effort or morality. This is a "low-tech world" where no one can truly rule alone. Why, then, do so many people comply? What gives power its force? The answer lies in a widespread yet flawed belief that an individual, once elevated by collective ideology or divine authority, can somehow represent the will of all. This logic is prevalent worldwide, in both the East and the West.

1. The Individual and the Collective: From Illusion to Compliance

What power does a single individual truly have? They are neither a mythical being nor a superhuman entity. Yet, when imbued with the aura of collective will or national interest, this individual is seen as representing everyone. This belief is rooted in a deep-seated illusion that values the collective above the individual.

However, the collective is meaningless without individuals. To speak of the collective while ignoring the individual is either an empty abstraction or a deceptive tactic to mask selfish motives.

In traditional Chinese culture, the relationship between individuals and the collective is envisioned not as rigid "blocks" in a grid but as concentric circles, with the individual at the center and extending outward to include family, the nation, and the world. This perspective inherently links individualism and collectivism rather than opposing them. Modern society, however, promotes the façade of individualism, which often merely serves the needs of industrial standardization, treating individuals as interchangeable parts within the machinery of production.

1. "Another Brick in the Wall": The Illusion of Modern Freedom

The lament "They are just another brick in the wall," popularized by Pink Floyd, is a sharp critique of industrial society. Modernity promises freedom — the ability to change jobs, for instance, whenever one feels dissatisfied. But where can one jump to? In reality, individuals remain standardized components of the industrial-commercial system, mere screws or bricks within a larger machine.

The Illusion of Freedom

In modern societies, the notion of freedom is relative. It liberates individuals from family, clan, and feudal constraints but rebinds them within the industrial-commercial framework. Genuine individuality is sacrificed for system efficiency. Even expressions of "freedom," like donning a Halloween costume or casual wear, are trivial compared to true freedom of thought or self-expression.

The Pseudo-Equality of Standardization

Modern society’s equality is not about genuine respect for individuals but about facilitating labor standardization. The promotion of individuality and personal liberation is relative to traditional family structures but meaningless when viewed within the context of the modern system that prioritizes efficiency above all else.

Misguided Brotherhood

Brotherhood in the modern industrial context often serves as a justification for expansion and conquest. Historical examples, such as the nationalism-driven conflicts of World War I and World War II, show how the ideal of brotherhood can devolve into exclusionary, divisive ideologies.

1. The Trap of Self-Awareness: From the Individual to the External World

True independence is not granted by societal systems but arises from inner confidence and self-sufficiency. Real equality exists innately, just as every individual owning a television does not make one person superior for watching a soap opera or inferior for watching an animated film. Genuine self-respect comes from within, not from externally imposed systems or equal distribution.

Modern society’s flaw lies in its external orientation. People rush to change the external world, colonize new frontiers, and even explore space without first resolving their inner issues. This is a manifestation of madness, inevitably leading to the trap of standardization. While modern industrial society extols large-scale collaboration, this often comes at the expense of individual creativity and diversity, sacrificing independence for conformity.

1. The Duality of Modernization

The roots of modernization, as seen in nations like the Netherlands, Britain, and the United States, stem from Calvinism’s work ethic: the pursuit of wealth as a sign of being one of God’s elect. Meanwhile, France’s values of "liberty, equality, fraternity," forged in its own cultural revolution, offered an alternative ideological foundation for industrial society.

These values, seemingly unassailable, are not without flaws. They primarily serve the needs of commercial civilization rather than genuine human well-being.

The Advantage: Modernization enables markets to fine-tune collaboration efficiency.

The Disadvantage: The relentless pursuit of expansion underpins modern systems, promoting over-standardization and quasi-military organization. This not only harms the environment but also forces humans to adapt to an increasingly regimented society, stifling critical thinking in the process.

1. A New Path for Chinese Civilization?

In industrial societies, education aims to produce standardized "screws" for the machinery of production. However, AI robots can perform these roles with greater speed and accuracy, making declining birth rates inevitable. If China’s modernization continues to embrace excessive standardization, it risks falling into the same trap.

The alternative lies in genuinely "people-centric" development. Recognizing the value of each individual’s unique genetic and personal traits is essential for achieving highly specialized collaboration. By embracing diversity rather than suppressing it, Chinese civilization could transcend the homogenizing trends of modern industrial society and forge a new path forward.

One can only hope that the future remains open to these possibilities.

Conclusion: From Inner Vision to External Perspective

Whether private, public, or state-owned, all ownership systems are merely different technical expressions of the same fundamental concept. In today’s financialized world, even private wealth is largely abstracted through institutions like banks and corporations.

What truly matters is not the form of ownership but the cultural outlook that drives a society.

Traditional Chinese culture emphasizes "self-sufficiency" and inner calm. In contrast, many foreign cultures — including Marxism, capitalism, and various religious ideologies — are preoccupied with external conquest and resource exploitation. This external focus reflects a deeper existential crisis: the inability to understand oneself leads to a desperate need to conquer the outside world.

In contrast, Chinese thought, as exemplified by figures like Wang Yangming, views everything as "within the mind." This "mind" is not the brain or thought but a stage on which life unfolds. Life, then, is not a battle for resources but a play to be appreciated.

To reclaim the essence of Chinese culture, one must move away from utilitarian concerns and rediscover the innate value of existence itself. By doing so, China might find a path that respects individual uniqueness while fostering collaborative innovation, offering a new vision for a post-modern world.

蒋能上台就说明那拨人不行。民智未开，就现在绝大多数老百姓还在做梦“明主”。反共的话，蒋不行，其他人也不行。就是中国人的劫难，熬着吧。

The world is not just limited to human society. The foundational layers of the world are like the principles behind a TV show’s plot — they are unknowable. Is it external? Is it internal? Matter? Consciousness? Tao? Nature? God? Each has its own conjectures.

I currently recommend the “energy-first principle” as a possible explanation.

Some people frequently quote this scripture: “The world is material; matter is in motion; motion follows certain laws.”

So, what laws? Which sect’s dogma are we following?

I propose the Law of Conservation of Energy. Energy is conserved; it is neither created nor destroyed, neither increases nor decreases, and there is no distinction between good or bad, clean or dirty. It only transforms or transfers. The transformation or transfer of energy implies the change and motion of matter.

When energy transforms into a less easily accessible form, it is called consumption. Therefore, what we’re really running out of isn’t resources; it’s our knowledge and technology of how to use energy.

Secondarily, the laws of thermodynamics are critical. The universe will never be the lively, action-packed place depicted in star wars or sci-fi space operas; it is destined to be extremely lonely. Earth is a rare exception. If we go too far in pursuing size, speed, and strength, what will the consequences be?

Liu Cixin (author of The Three-Body Problem) is wrong. Viewing the universe as a gladiatorial arena and assuming that the environment chooses the strong rather than the adaptable is a mistake. Human technology should be focused on the precise and efficient use of energy, not on expanding into the cosmos. There’s no real harm in that.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. There is no such thing as “consumption” in the traditional sense, and no, it cannot spontaneously emerge out of nothing. This implies there is a speed limit for spaceships — probably the speed of light (or the idea that light speed is constant may actually be a result of the energy conservation law, indicating that the speed of matter’s movement has an upper limit). It also suggests that biological energy has limits, and the number of humans will have an upper limit — roughly 9 billion, after which a negative growth phase will begin. The foundation of the Three-Body Problem is flawed, and the character Thanos in Avengers is just a product of overly dramatic thinking.

The Fallacy of Resource Scarcity in the Three-Body Problem, Thanos, and the Olympics The Three-Body Problem, Thanos, and the Olympics — these concepts have deeply permeated people's minds. Many still believe in the jungle mentality where they must fight over resources with the gangster leaders. But if they understood the law of energy conservation, they would realize that “consumption” isn’t a real issue. If we learn to use energy with precision, through electricity and semiconductors, our lives would inevitably improve, and we wouldn’t need to thank figures like Liu Bang and other opportunistic leaders.

Energy is conserved: it neither increases nor decreases, and there’s no such thing as consumption. We need to learn to use energy more precisely, especially through electricity and semiconductors, to truly improve our lives.

The Universe’s Limits and the Impossibility of Infinite Growth Energy is conserved. It neither disappears nor materializes from thin air. It does not grow exponentially. Spacecraft will never exceed the speed of light, and humanity’s population is bound to hit an upper limit, likely around 9 billion, before experiencing negative growth. As it is, China is already aging before it has fully prospered.

Looking ahead, as global modernization continues, we may find that not only large families but even small families might become a rarity. The future might consist of individuals who are replaceable components within a larger system — a world where AI robots take over, potentially leaving human beings behind in the solar system and its vicinity. These AI robots might still "plant flags" across the stars, but their presence would ultimately be meaningless.

One day, I was chatting with my son. I asked him, “Is the sky blue?” I posed the question, “Imagine an alien, like Superman, with ultraviolet or infrared vision — would the sky still look blue to him?” The sky, in reality, has no color. Without eyes capable of seeing it, the vast and beautiful universe is meaningless — a waste of space. We should question the meaning of the universe, not just the meaning of life.

In the Diamond Sutra, there’s a verse praising the eye of life, the eye of self-awareness. Ordinary creatures can appreciate beauty, but only those with self-awareness can truly marvel at it.

Human Society: From Evolution to Regression Today’s human societies are more reliant on standardized ideologies than ever before. There has been no real evolution; instead, there’s been a regression. For example, I’ve never seen anyone seriously question the logic of The Three-Body Problem or Thanos' reasoning. It seems that if something becomes popular, it must be right.

But how can there be "consumption" when energy is conserved? After all, life itself is a form of energy. It’s impossible for life to spontaneously generate in endless quantities, just as the speed of spacecraft or the energy of biological organisms must have upper limits. Similarly, why is there such anxiety about an alleged lack of resources, or why do people fear that their leaders are not ruthless enough? Is it really necessary to be so worried?

Our shortage is not one of energy, but one of new knowledge and technology about how to use energy. Standardized ideologies and a monotonous culture are detrimental to innovation. People focus too much on how the world turns, but fail to realize that science and technology are what will make life better, not politics or economics.

The Futility of Infinite Expansion and the Meaning of Evolution Biological evolution doesn’t have a fixed direction — what people call "evolution" might actually be a form of regression. Natural selection doesn't favor the strong; it favors the adaptable. Evolutionary theory is flawed. Darwinism is often incorrectly applied to human society, but the so-called “social Darwinism” is a misguided interpretation. I believe the idea of historical progress is rooted in monotheistic religions, where people expect a “happy ending” because God is all-knowing and benevolent.

This "progress" is not universal. The environment doesn’t select for the strongest; it selects for those most able to adapt. If regression is more beneficial for adaptation, then those who regress will be the ones to survive. So, competition isn’t about who is stronger or more advanced; it’s about who can adjust better to changing circumstances.

The Limitations of Modernization and Its Unforeseen Consequences Modernization is not a necessary outcome of society's development. It’s more of an accidental mutation, and it’s not entirely positive. If we only focus on the material comforts of modern life, we may miss the broader picture — that this rapid progress is mainly driven by modern commercial systems that provide goods at scale, making consumer life more comfortable. This is due to advancements in energy precision, like the use of electricity and semiconductors.

But modernization also brings its own problems. The era of standardization and industrialization, like in Modern Times by Charlie Chaplin, leads to a monotonous, repetitive life where people become replaceable parts of the machine. In the long run, this might not be an entirely good thing. The ecological collapse looms, and we must acknowledge that this doesn’t stem solely from technological advancement or economic growth, but from the rapid and unchecked pursuit of efficiency at the cost of the environment.

The Real Issue: Energy Usage, Not Growth We must focus on the precise use of energy, not the endless pursuit of more — faster, bigger, or stronger. The real wealth comes from how well we can use energy, not from merely extracting or exploiting it. As technology improves, energy that was once difficult to harness will become easier to manage. Shale oil is a prime example of this.

However, true advancement lies not in exploiting resources, but in improving our technological ability to precisely use energy — through quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and nuclear fusion. These developments are already happening and represent a promising future. So, there’s no need to panic; the future is about precision, not expansion.

Conclusion: The Deeper Questions

Society is not based on principles of evolution or competition; it is grounded in the economy and credit. The political and economic systems function on a foundation of belief — belief in the value of what they’ve built. However, most people fail to realize that these systems are not inherently just or perfect. We are all part of a larger, often incoherent social construct, and innovation thrives in an environment that questions the status quo.

Ultimately, as humanity’s dependence on society grows, we may become increasingly unable to live independently. Whether in the West or the East, these systems are founded on ideas that promote survival but not necessarily progress. The energy we need to use more efficiently is not one of scarcity, but one of better utilization. If we learn to master the tools of our time, the future could be one of real prosperity. It’s time to move beyond the limitations of our past ideologies and focus on what truly matters — precision, innovation, and the sustainable use of energy.

是的，这个正邪就是个纯疯子。真不知道这种人不封是图啥，估计是嫌论坛流量太高了。

我看了下你发的帖子，只要不是一眼水贴，基本都满足逻辑连贯，例子翔实两点。

卡卡，我支持你，来当管理员吧！

我觉得移动互联网时代导致自然舒服的美学与文化的消失 转折点在2016-2019那会

审美附属于阶级

贵族统治的时代，审美是最高级的。二十世纪以来大众民主兴起，艺术不再重要，实用等于美。二十一世纪边缘人群老鼠上桌，审美再次退化，不是瞎胡闹就是空洞无物

如果你接受左逼知识分子那套一切只会进步不会退步的理论，大部分事情都是无法解释的

敌人支持什么，我们就反对什么

你支小资优越蛆跟猫孝子高度重合，kpop小鲜肉也是

贴吧底层蛆多，非常乐见代表小资优越蛆的东西受打击

那个叫正邪的女拳恐怖分子，把所有的问题都怪中国的普通的没有权利的普通男性，无差别攻击所有男性

这种邪教魔怔人2047都不进行封禁

整个國家都是大型精神病院

What Can I Learn in Confucianism?

For any adult with a clear sense of self-awareness, the first and most significant challenge is not confronting the external world, but facing oneself. This fundamental question of self-awareness transcends cultures, yet each tradition offers a unique answer. Confucianism, a cornerstone of Chinese culture, provides an inward and engaged perspective that differentiates it from other major philosophical frameworks.

Facing the Mirror of Self The journey of self-awareness begins with a universal dilemma: the mirror of self and its reflection. Confucianism approaches this issue differently from other traditions:

Ancient Greek knowledge-seeking culture embraces the external mirror and affirms the reflection, focusing on understanding the outside world. Monotheistic redemption culture acknowledges the external mirror but denies the reflection, seeking salvation beyond worldly existence. Ancient Indian liberation culture denies the reflection by turning inward, emphasizing transcendence over engagement with the world. In contrast, Confucianism asserts that the mirror is internal, affirms the reflection, and adopts an engaged approach to life. It does not seek to escape the world but aims to harmonize with it.

The Question of "Where Am I?" The mirror-like self-awareness presents every individual with a fundamental question: “Where am I?” This inquiry becomes more profound when one realizes that the body is merely an object of possession. If the body is a possession, where is the possessor? Where is the perceiver that perceives? Where is the memory-holder that remembers?

Confucianism’s answer lies in the concept of 仁 (ren), often translated as “benevolence” or “humaneness.” For Confucianism, the self is not an isolated entity but exists within relationships—between individuals, between humans and nature, and between humanity and the cosmos. The essence of self is found in these relationships.

The Core of Confucian Thought Confucianism views the mirror not as something external but as embedded in the interplay between reflections. The perceiver is not fixed in the objects of perception but in the dynamic relationships between them. This perspective emphasizes constancy amid change and stability amid transformation—a concept encapsulated in the phrase “motion within stillness, and stillness within motion.”

This profound philosophical approach forms the essence of Confucian thought. However, much of this essence has been lost in history. The original ideals of 仁 (ren) and 义 (yi)—benevolence and righteousness—have been supplanted by narrower interpretations, such as loyalty and filial piety. What remains in many practices today is an emphasis on gratitude and obedience, rather than the active and dynamic relational harmony Confucius envisioned.

Lessons from Confucianism Studying Confucianism can teach you:

Relational Awareness: Confucianism emphasizes that your identity is inseparable from your relationships with others, nature, and the cosmos. This perspective encourages you to nurture and harmonize these connections.

Self-Cultivation: The path to personal growth is rooted in reflecting on your actions, intentions, and relationships. Self-improvement is not an isolated journey but one that affects and is affected by your environment.

Balance in Change: In a world of constant flux, Confucianism teaches that stability can be found not by resisting change but by understanding and adapting to the dynamics between opposing forces.

Active Engagement with the World: Unlike philosophies that advocate withdrawal from worldly affairs, Confucianism encourages individuals to actively contribute to society and improve the human condition through ethical actions and mutual respect.

Rediscovering Confucian Values To truly learn from Confucianism, we must move beyond its modern misinterpretations and rediscover its deeper philosophical essence. It is not about blind obedience or rigid hierarchy but about fostering meaningful relationships, embracing the interplay of change and constancy, and engaging actively with the world.

In the end, Confucianism invites us to answer the question “Where am I?” not by looking outward or escaping inward, but by finding ourselves in the dynamic and interconnected web of life.

Confucius said, "If you repay resentment with virtue, how will you repay virtue?" If a ruler is not benevolent to their ministers, how can the ministers genuinely be loyal to the ruler?

Every adult with clear self-awareness does not first face the external world but rather themselves. In other words, the first challenge is confronting the dichotomy of the mirror and its reflection. Unlike the ancient Greek knowledge-seeking culture, which affirms the reflection as coming from an external mirror; the culture of redemption, which denies the reflection as external; or the Indian liberation culture, which denies the reflection from within, Chinese culture regards the mirror as internal and affirms the reflection—it is an engaged and worldly perspective. Confucianism represents this worldview.

The dichotomy of the mirror and its reflection, along with the self-awareness established by the movement of the reflection and the stillness of the mirror, presents each individual with a profound question: "Where am I?" At a subconscious level, people often realize that the body is merely an object of possession. If that is the case, where is the possessor? Where is the perceiver that perceives? Where is the rememberer that remembers?

Confucianism offers an answer that is internal and worldly. Its central concept is 仁 (ren), which focuses on relationships—between people, between people and objects, and between humanity and heaven. The perceiving mirror is not in the perceived reflection but in the dynamic relationships between reflections. This is the idea of finding stillness within motion and constancy within change.

Unfortunately, the essence of Confucian thought has been lost over history. 仁 (ren) and 义 (yi)—benevolence and righteousness—have been replaced with loyalty and filial piety. All that remains are gratitude and obedience, stripped of the deeper, dynamic wisdom of Confucianism.

為了對抗日本殖民者，流亡朝鮮人在1919年於上海法租界成立臨時政府（韓國籌備建國政府），進行外交和宣傳活動，包括發行獨立宣傳刊物、組織武裝部隊、維持各地僑民聯繫等等。1919年9月1日，韓國臨時政府發行10美元獨立公債券，年利率為6%，許諾韓國成功獨立，恢復原本疆土範圍，並且獲得美國承認主權地位一年後兌付。

1919年9月12日，國民委員會發行了獨立公債券，也稱為「大韓民國公債券」。委員會將美洲大陸分東西兩部，各派遣一名銷售代表，同時在夏威夷、古巴、墨西哥等地也各派出一名代表，負責向韓國僑胞們銷售，以爭取支持。獨立公債券籌集的捐款被送往上海的韓國臨時政府。

1920年臨時政府的銷售總收入為69,000美元，其中個人債券銷售額占2,940美元，愛國捐款額占44,583美元，占總收入的64.6%。另外，國民委員會從美洲地區匯來的款項也達12,354美元，占總收入的17.9%。愛國捐款制度雖然被廢除，但在1920年之前，愛國捐款仍占大部分，而公債券銷售額則相對較少。李承晚堅持要直接控制美洲地區的所有財政，並要求由他本人負責發行公債券。

結果，臨時政府不得不召開國務會議，決定將美洲地區的財政事務委託給國民委員會，而不是李承晚。國民委員會決定從1920年6月開始，所有北美債券銷售款直接匯至臨時政府，總額為16,452美元，占1919年8月以來兩年間國民委員會總支出的18%。

韓國成功建國後，這些愛國公債券原本應該以公債券形式償還，但由於分裂和戰爭的影響，未能如期實現，直到1984年6月28日，獨立公債券特別償還法才得以制定，開始按債券面值加上一定的利息償還。

===============================================================

一百年前的朝鮮人發行革命獨立債券時，已經建立了完整的委員會機制，並且給予清晰的兌付承諾，禁止組織內以個人名義控制捐款。即使朝鮮半島仍未統一，韓國政府依然通過修例支付了債券。

而最近李老師和方臉發行的虛擬幣，既沒任何目標承諾、也沒實物票據支持、沒任何監督機制，銷售得益完全由李老師、方臉和徐某人支配，這樣制度性的缺陷令人無法接受。沒理由一百年前的朝鮮人能想到極力避免的制度缺陷，這些看似學識淵博、打著反共旗號的推特名嘴想不到。

怪他也没用，no warranty

我認為打賞是合理的，但是發幣不合理，尤其是打著維護新聞自由的旗號發幣

真要募資籌款的話可以成立一個財團法人基金會，接受第三方獨立會計的監督，光明正大地接受資助，或者或者發行債券之類的理財產品

發幣本身便是一個發動炒作的行為，一定有人血虧，而幾乎0成本的發行方一定會從中獲益，那麼發行方要不要為粉絲的虧損負責？怎麼負責？

沒有合理的解釋，我認為無法接受

不遵守明确建议出事怪Tor Browser安全性?

Tor对网桥的申请都取消验证码了, 就算有验证码的时候也不是每次重启客户端都要验证码.

要恰饭的嘛，谁管他吃相难不难看

不是thpad 是thphd

thpad听上去像什么新型平板电脑

大多数用户，甚至是管理员的水平之低，媲美墙内的无脑小粉红，他们甚至说不出一段完整的逻辑连贯，例子详实的话。

这个标准来看俺适合当管理员。举手申请当管理员

朝鲜那种地方平民根本用不上精神病院精神科这种服务，自生自灭

高层人士当中精神病院可以用来整人关人，真有精神疾病需求可出国治疗

田园不好吗，接地气

前两年币圈乱象多了，各种奇奇怪怪的币层出不穷，猛涨猛跌，周期一周。最近也多，反正是一涨就乱。

李老师这个毫不奇怪，不过他被多少人盯着，一翻车不仅名声不好，而且被抓住小辫子了，惹上法律麻烦。

哎，还是文化水平不行，有多大碗吃多少饭。

朝鲜医学教育中精神病治疗怎么教 朝鲜金氏劳动党政权本身就是反正常与理性 有没有真知道的 一定很有趣 以前中国有用毛泽东思想治疗精神病

听说要替代习了 第一次感觉包包还有比某个人好的

此人变成了普通人不再是党员 也是共产党 有可能还是那种八九十年代老左 习不一样 草头霸王

谁能挡得住巨额财富的诱惑

社会主义不是绝对的 革命不是宗教信仰 绝对的很容易走火入魔 修正一点无所谓

左一下 只要专政 不发扬工农大民主 会变成干部的新贵族掌权 然后这些新贵族成为官僚资本主义者 威权社会主义是错误的

资本主义下的血汗工厂 还有钱拿有质量很差的饭 大部分不限制人身自由没有人身绝对控制 比以前农村挣工分粮食义务征缴好

光头没资格反共 张作霖 龙云 陈济棠 李宗仁 阎锡山 陈炯明 自由派知识分子 民盟部分人 中国青年党 少部分北洋 国民党改组派才有资格反共

蒋光头垃圾是最基础认识 中华民国不是光头 是孙文先生设计的 国民党是宋教仁先生的 他的政府与党国本质是一个旧社会政治帮会集团 只是有国家和政党一定表层性质

After the outbreak of the Korean War, the CCP took the opportunity to do a major purge under the pretext of having no choice but to do so during wartime, almost killing off the more educated ones in the middle ranks. Mao, who claimed not to have been treated as a human being at Peking University, always viewed the so-called war of liberation as a victory of the peasants over the intellectuals. And Mao, unlike Liu Shaoqi and others, did not consider the intellectuals who joined the Party to be rehabilitated. He was more comfortable with only those he had trained himself.

Chiang's self-examination was that he wanted both, and was not bent on dictatorship. I think it was because he neglected his pen and was not good at creating new terms to cater to the people who were convinced that “the new is better than the old” after the May Fourth Incident. In addition, he was overconfident after getting the weapons that the US didn't use in Japan, and he was too eager to win quickly, he didn't encircle the CCP first, and he didn't wait for the CCP's land-grabbing style of economy to be unable to continue due to lack of motivation (if whoever is rich is unlucky, will he still do serious work?) .

Jin Guantao’s cultural perspective is profoundly thought-provoking. He suggests that by dividing cultural tendencies into two variables—“inward vs. outward” and “engaged in the world vs. transcending the world”—we can identify four distinct axial cultures. These four cultural archetypes paint a vivid picture of human civilization, each with clear representatives in global history.

Four Axial Cultures First, let’s briefly revisit the categorization of these axial cultures:

Inward and Engaged in the World: Ancient Chinese Moral Culture Rooted in ethics, this culture emphasizes self-cultivation and social responsibility.

Inward and Transcending the World: Ancient Indian Liberation Culture Focused on the soul's transcendence, it emphasizes personal purification and spiritual liberation.

Outward and Engaged in the World: Ancient Greek Knowledge-Seeking Culture This culture seeks the truth about the external world, giving rise to science and philosophy.

Outward and Transcending the World: Monotheistic Liberation Culture The most peculiar of the four, this culture combines an outward focus on external forces with a transcendental aspiration for salvation.

The Unnatural Logic of Monotheistic Belief Among these, the outward-transcendent culture is epitomized by monotheistic belief. Why does this culture adopt a monotheistic worldview, as opposed to the more intuitive polytheistic systems found in many ancient civilizations? In most cultures, the belief in the spiritual essence of external objects naturally evolves into polytheism, akin to Greek mythology, where a supreme deity like Zeus coexists with other gods.

Monotheism, however, defies this natural logic. The world is inherently dualistic—light and darkness, good and evil, constantly coexist. Monotheism's attempt to obliterate darkness and establish an absolutely benevolent deity faces an intrinsic contradiction: if God embodies absolute good, where does evil originate? This dilemma necessitates the introduction of a counterforce—Satan—and the concept of “eschatology” to resolve it. In this framework, ultimate good is promised to prevail in a final battle at the end of time.

From Religious Belief to Capitalist Transformation The implications of monotheistic logic extend far beyond theology. After the Black Death, while the faith of the religious elite wavered due to corruption in the Church, the faith of the masses grew even more resolute. The Protestant Reformation, particularly Calvinism, emerged during this period, embedding the idea of “holy war” into commerce and industry. Success in the secular world—achieved through diligence and industriousness—became proof of being “chosen by God.”

This ideology catalyzed transformative developments: modern commerce in the Netherlands and the Industrial Revolution in Britain. A global race ensued, with nations adopting varying banners but operating under the same underlying logic—victory, expansion, and efficiency as the ultimate validations of legitimacy. This “victory-first” mentality became a pervasive driving force across cultures.

The Misguided Pursuit of Cultural Assimilation This globalized logic has sparked debates about the value of self-cultural identity, even leading to notions like “脱支” (desinicization). However, such aspirations often stem from a misunderstanding. Transitioning from one cultural framework to another, or merely adopting a different external facade, fails to address the deeper issues.

Modern economic systems, with their excessive standardization, have rendered the world monotonous and uniform. Education systems, resembling militarized training camps, suppress intellectual diversity. This obsession with efficiency and expansion has inflicted significant harm, not only on cultural diversity but also on ecological sustainability. From industrial revolutions to commercial empires, humanity appears trapped in a “victory-at-all-costs” cycle, sacrificing both the environment and its intellectual depth.

A New Paradigm for the Future Amid this context, a new cultural paradigm is urgently needed. Humanity must transcend the “victory logic” of endless competition and rediscover the wisdom of coexistence between light and darkness. This balance could be the key to escaping the current cultural impasse. Instead of mimicking other systems or adopting superficial changes, societies should embrace openness, mutual learning, and a commitment to diversity.

As Jin Guantao’s theory suggests, the essence of culture lies in its diversity and equilibrium. The future demands a cultural consciousness that values coexistence over conquest and harmony over hegemony. Only then can humanity restore balance with nature and ensure a sustainable, vibrant world for generations to come.