Feng Congde: Why the Democracy Movement Has Always Failed, Three Narratives of June Fourth

In this video, Feng Congde provides a lengthy analysis centered on the "June Fourth narrative" and the reasons for the failure of the pro-democracy movement. He proposes that the history of June Fourth has formed three versions: the CCP narrative, the united front narrative, and the militant narrative. He specifically criticizes the "united front narrative," which appears in the guise of the pro-democracy movement or dissidents but inherits CCP discourse on key issues. Through the documentary "Tiananmen," the "Tiananmen Papers," certain overseas pro-democracy figures, and media narratives, it has long distorted the memory of June Fourth and suppressed true protesters and the militant faction. Feng Congde believes that the core of the pro-democracy movement's failure was not that it was "too radical," but rather a long-term intellectual disability, as historical memory was severed by the CCP's united front and cultural violence. At the end of the video, he suggests that future struggles cannot be overly centralized; instead, they should form a consensus, engage in decentralized action, and promote military mutiny and constitutional goals based on popular uprisings.

Can we start? Yes, we can.

I'll return to my theme. I've prepared too much, so I don't know if I can finish today. Thank you all for listening to my rambling.

Last year, I rambled for 12 hours on Zheng Xuguang's channel. Today's session is a continuation of last year's lecture. Later, I also spoke for half an hour with Fang Zheng at the National Memorial Museum, and the topics were basically the same.

In recent years, I have focused on one thing: June Fourth has now formed three narratives. Among these three, the most terrifying one is what I call the "united front narrative." This is a term I coined.

I'm continuing from last year. Zheng Xuguang recently seems to have reposted last year's interview with me online. Not many people watch it, but those who do should be thinking critically. Because the concepts I discuss differ greatly from how June Fourth is talked about outside now; some friends might even get angry.

However, I believe that as witnesses and survivors of June Fourth, we have a responsibility to tell the truth. Some Falun Gong friends talk about "telling the truth," and we indeed have this responsibility to bring the truth to light. Otherwise, we will continue to be deceived by the CCP.

Today, I want to talk about how June Fourth has formed three narratives.

The CCP narrative is easy to distinguish because they have a vast amount of propaganda. I now have hundreds of their books, and I've read every single one carefully. Over the last few years, I've truly looked through more than 60,000 reports, photos, flyers, and CCP documents from that time. I scanned and OCR'd every book into text to facilitate research. Therefore, my June Fourth archive database now contains hundreds of millions of words, and I've read basically all of them.

The CCP narrative is simple. After June Fourth, they produced a large amount of propaganda. Some of it is nonsense, but sometimes they accidentally reveal some real situations. For example, one we use often is "One Day of Martial Law." They had an original version, which they quickly recalled, and then released a condensed version, removing many things they felt should not be leaked, especially the atrocities committed by the martial law troops. But since several thousand copies of the original were released at the time, they can still be found now. This is very important.

But today, I mainly want to talk about the difference between the "united front narrative" and what I call the "militant narrative."

This is a long story. Last year, I spoke with Zheng Xuguang, and including his interviews with me and Chen Tianshi, we probably spoke for nearly 20 hours, but it still wasn't clear.

The "united front narrative" is a concept I only began to form last year. Four years ago, on the Clubhouse hosted by Fengsuo, I could only distinguish between "civilian narratives" and "official narratives." On the right was the CCP's internal propaganda within China, which was the official narrative; what formed overseas was the civilian narrative.

But later, I found it increasingly wrong. In reality, between the civilian narrative and the official narrative, there is another state called the "united front narrative."

I am still constantly organizing this united front narrative, as am I. Zheng Xuguang kept asking me, "You talk about this united front narrative, but is there actually a definition for it?" Because I only just started talking about it last year, I couldn't properly summarize a definition.

This year, I thought about it carefully and gave it a definition: the united front narrative is a false narrative that is told in the guise of the pro-democracy movement or dissidents, but originates from the CCP narrative.

The main form of this narrative is through people like Dai Qing, who was an agent of the General Staff Department's Second Department; through Karma, who was an overseas staff member sent by Zhou Enlai; through CCP official Zhang Liang; and so-called dissidents like Gong Xiaoxia and many others. Through over thirty years of relentless effort, and through the CCP's three networks—the intelligence network, the united front network, and the great external propaganda—they have gradually formed something that I no longer call the pro-democracy movement.

Of course, I first want to express my highest respect to those who are still struggling hard within the true democratic movement. Fengsuo is such a representative. But more of the so-called "pro-democracy movement" should be called the "pro-democracy movement of fame and profit," which exists only in the media.

People who are truly capable, like Xue Zhenlian and many other competent friends, left once they saw you all chasing fame and profit. It was meaningless. Moreover, because this is a united front narrative, people feel they cannot do this, as it becomes a matter of being deceived.

So it has formed the current mainstream narrative of the pro-democracy movement. This is the terrifying part.

This mainstream narrative has many harms, which I will explain in detail later. Objectively, besides mixing the fake with the real and confusing right and wrong, it also functions to precisely target the militant faction, and finally, it secretly helps the CCP grow and maintain stability.

Regarding these issues I'm discussing, the "fame and profit pro-democracy movement" has been playing deaf and mute for many years since I started talking about them; no one dares to debate me. Because I possess too much data. Every sentence I say is true, factual, and supported by data. But they don't dare to verify with me, they don't dare to face me, so there has been no reflection and no accountability.

Why accountability? I'll show you later.

The point I want to make today is: the pro-democracy movement originally had hope of success. Now many people say you didn't reflect. I say that's wrong; there was plenty of reflection, but the current direction of reflection is reversed. Why is it reversed? I'll explain later.

We originally could have succeeded, but where did we fail? We failed because we lost our intellect. This was the real problem in '89. This intellectual disability was caused by the united front narrative.

The united front narrative didn't just start today. The CCP took the concept of the united front from Lenin in the Soviet Union, and it's been 100 years. Starting from 1922, the Communist Party began implementing the united front, and first, the Kuomintang was finished, so the Republic of China was also finished. Many subsequent united front efforts, all the way to June Fourth, 1989, meant that we were also shrouded in the united front narrative, just as we are today.

For example, whenever we thought of the Kuomintang, we would say the Kuomintang didn't fight the war of resistance; whenever we thought of the Communist Party, we would say the Communist Party fought the war of resistance. In '89, we believed this. Or when we heard of Wei Jingsheng, we would say he was a thief. I believed this at the time. Later I learned that the CCP said he stole military intelligence, and then sentenced him. We had no idea.

Although we seemed to be students of the highest institutions, I was already a graduate student nearly finished with my studies, but I was still a fool. I feel we were fools in '89. To this day, many people are still in this state.

The CCP has a series of united front narratives. The same is true today. They have controlled our brains.

Just now, a Falun Gong friend mentioned the CCP's long-arm jurisdiction. I say it's more terrifying than long-arm jurisdiction. Besides the direct violence that controls our bodies, it has a more terrifying violence called cultural violence. I'll also talk about that later.

For example, I'll give an example that everyone can verify today: the concept of the "High-Level Student Federation" (Gaozilian) is a typical united front narrative.

I haven't spoken about this for over thirty years because many people were on that list before, myself included, and Fengsuo was also on that list. But this list was another group pulled together by the CCP. Truly powerful people, many powerful people, were not placed in this group. They deliberately marginalized these people, which is what I call the militant faction.

Of course, there are militants among these 21 people. But the CCP also planted many of their own people. I'll show you later, and it will shock many people.

Facing this situation, what should people pursuing democracy in China do?

I now practice traditional Chinese medicine, and I talk about observation, listening, questioning, and pulsing. After diagnosis, there must be a treatment plan; we must heal.

Actually, in '89, the intellectuals had a problem. We students were also considered intellectuals. But we had no real concept of democratic revolution in our heads. We had neither the true history of democratic revolution nor the strategy for democratic revolution.

We weren't even clear about democratic revolution itself. Yesterday, on May 23rd, it was mentioned why we arrested three "mountain villa scholars" from Hunan. That was where we were stupid. But regarding that event itself, there are still many blind spots, and I'll analyze the May 23rd issue in detail if I have the chance. We wrote many articles before, but people don't read them much now. Because the militant narrative part is increasingly being silenced, many people don't now know.

So I say, we suffered from Dementia, an intellectual disability, like Alzheimer's. The Chinese democratic movement has always been in a state of intellectual disability because the CCP has deliberately severed all history before and after.

As I said, in '89 I thought Wei Jingsheng was just a thief. Later I learned that the CCP said he stole military intelligence. My concept was so stupid. So I feel we were fools in '89, and to this day many people

It's the same.

By saying this, I might upset many friends. But I later concluded that we need to gradually form some consensus. Many people think we want to form an organization, and I say you can't, there are too many problems. Forming a consensus might be more realistic, more important, and more useful. Why? I will explain later.

Today's focus, I'll go through it quickly.

Those CCP scholars at the time, I no longer call them reformist scholars, I directly call them CCP scholars. Because in their minds, it's all about the CCP. Those who truly have a clear understanding of the CCP are often in prison, or on the verge of prison. Those in power are basically filled with CCP ideology.

At that time, these twelve people came to persuade us, saying not to go on hunger strike. Later, many of them, except for Teacher Yan Jiaqi, started advocating for bidding farewell to revolution and not to revolt. Dai Qing is particularly detestable. I will directly name Dai Qing later.

Why are the characteristics of the CCP narrative and United Front narrative found in the "Gao Zilian" (Beijing College Students' Autonomous Federation)? In our student movement organizations, like the "Feng Suo" (blockade), or us from '89, we wouldn't call ourselves "Gao Zilian." We called ourselves "Bei Gao Lian" (Beijing College Students' Autonomous Federation). And "Bei Gao Lian" is not what the CCP narrative and United Front narrative describe, forming "Gao Zilian" from democratic salons and Yuanmingyuan meetings.

This is how the CCP narrative comes about. The United Front narrative of the "Tiananmen Papers" also says the same. Now, most of the democracy movement's historical accounts follow this sequence. This is about the party of "Shang Zhong Wang." Why do I call it the party of "Shang Zhong Wang"? I will show you more detailed materials later.

Why is the United Front narrative used to promote certain public sentiments, destroy the entire democracy movement, and suppress the narrative of militancy? Why is this so?

The democracy movement, as mentioned earlier. But in conclusion, I remain optimistic. The trend of democracy is something the CCP ultimately cannot stop. And people within the CCP will raise the banner of democracy even faster than us. Especially their agents.

In addition to what I discussed last year, it's only in the last year or two that I've truly started to articulate things. For the past thirty-plus years, I apologize, I was mainly engaged in collecting materials. Now I have truly begun researching the June Fourth archives.

June Fourth truly requires academic research. Today, due to the sheer volume of material, I will omit my academic background. Why do I have training in history and anthropology? I was in Paris, France. Originally, at Peking University, I was researching AI, artificial intelligence, remote sensing satellites, image interpretation, and expert systems using Lisp and Prolog. But after arriving in Paris, I thoroughly realized that our history, from the moment I left, had its memory manipulated by the CCP. So I turned my focus entirely to studying history, completely switching to the humanities.

In 15 years in Paris, I started relearning from my third year of university, completed my master's thesis, my doctoral thesis, and finally received excellent training in history, anthropology, and religious studies.

Returning to '89, it wasn't 34 years ago, but 36 years ago. When I resigned as the Chairman of Bei Gao Lian, I wrote a sentence. At that time, I was already the Chairman of Bei Gao Lian. According to Wang Chaohua and Zheng Xuguang, I was the longest-serving chairman of Bei Gao Lian. The first was Zhou Yongjun for two days, then Wu'er Kaixi for two days, I served for six or seven days, and after that, there were no more chairmen, it became more administrative.

But I resigned quickly. A significant reason for my resignation was that I felt I was too stupid, too ignorant, lacked social experience, and had no training in law, politics, or people. How did we end up leading this movement? I found it strange myself. Why weren't more capable people leading it?

In June 1991, shortly after my release, I immediately wrote an article the following year titled "Confusion Amidst Reflection." There was much confusion at the time. I honestly admitted then that obstructing the dialogue on May 14th was my biggest mistake.

Looking back, this reflection is still too naive. This reflection itself fell into the trap of the United Front narrative and fueled more nonsense from the United Front narrative later. This is too detailed, I'll skip it for now.

If we broaden the scope of time and space, what I'm discussing today actually connects to a century of revolution, or even earlier, to the line starting with Sun Yat-sen's Revive China Society in 1894. China's hope was to move towards democratization, which was then called moving towards a republic. That republic was what we call democracy today.

Why has China's democratization always been so full of twists and turns? I have my own thoughts and reflections. This topic is too vast and long, and I won't focus on it today.

I will analyze three types of violence: direct violence, structural violence or institutional violence, and today I will mainly discuss cultural violence. How it controls our thoughts, how it controls our minds, making us demented, losing our intelligence and ability. This is the reason why we have consistently failed. It is absolutely related to this state of dementia.

In '89, we actually had two opportunities to succeed. But because we were in a state of dementia, it was impossible.

Let me first show you a photograph that has been completely misinterpreted. Everyone has seen this photograph. Zhang Zheng, Chen Xiaoya, and I might have different feelings about this photo than most of you here.

Has everyone seen this photo? Raise your hand if you have. Raise your hand if you haven't. Most have seen it.

But do you know it has two opposing narratives? The CCP says it shows the PLA's benevolence, claiming the tanks could have directly run over people and killed them, but the troops maintained strict discipline. The common interpretation is that it shows the courage of an individual blocking the state's violent machine. The whole world interprets it this way.

Actually, there is a third interpretation, which suggests that this person, Wang Weilin, whose name we don't even know, and some say it's a hoax.

If you read Chen Xiaoya's book, she interviewed Fang Zheng and me. I have another religious interpretation, treating it as a myth, which can express it more accurately. Even if it was arranged by the CCP, once the whole world treats it as a symbol of courage, it becomes a myth. Because we don't know who this Wang Weilin is, there are seven or eight versions: sometimes he's from Academia Sinica in Taipei, sometimes from Hong Kong, sometimes a student from Yan'an University, sometimes a Beijing worker. Old Wei says he has been shot and is dead. Many different accounts.

On the day the June Fourth archives are opened, I believe fifty Wang Weilins will come forward to testify that they are the real one.

So it has become a myth. And the truth or falsehood of a myth is less important than its symbolic meaning, what people believe it to be. The virgin birth, ordinary logic wouldn't consider it true, but believers find it meaningful. The meaning of this photograph is a symbol of courage. If only ten photographs were to be selected from the 20th century, this one would definitely be included, and it's almost always interpreted as "courage." Its true version is no longer that important; it has become a true myth.

Let's look at another one, which you may have all seen.

Dai Ling's statement, another part of which was cut short by forty minutes. She spoke for a total of eight thousand words to two reporters. This is the issue I was just discussing with someone: the most detestable part of the "Tiananmen" documentary is that it stitches together words spoken in two completely different contexts.

She said: "We are expecting bloodshed, there will definitely be bloodshed in the square, it will be a river of blood." This is one part. Of course, they translated "expecting" as "waiting for," as if we wanted bloodshed. In fact, she meant we were waiting for bloodshed. This was very common at the time. Under the CCP's education, many people had this idea.

But the most detestable part is that they cut out the second sentence, saying "I myself will escape." That's the end of it. You let others bleed while you escape. Xue Xiaoguang at the "World Journal" published the most sensational news at the time, with the headline that Dai Ling let others bleed while she escaped. This became a moral issue.

But this completely violates any documentary ethics. It's a haphazard edit, and it doesn't provide context. I call this the United Front narrative.

The most terrifying aspect of the CCP narrative and the United Front narrative is that they use truth to deceive people. This is the truth; she did say these words. But by not showing you the full picture, not showing you the whole situation, they can completely control your feelings.

So it's not just media; for the CCP, it's propaganda, it's a propaganda product.

The CCP's narrative is entirely composed of such propaganda products. But much of the content within these propaganda products is still being used in crucial places when the democracy movement discusses June Fourth. This is our most serious problem today.

I want to break these attachments. We have too many attachments regarding June Fourth.

The key point today is to discuss the United Front narrative, which is why I've named a few people. Dai Qing is one.

In the documentary "The Gate of Heavenly Peace," her most crucial statement is that these students were extremely irrational. She said that on May 14th, we went to Tiananmen Square to persuade the students to withdraw, but they didn't. Therefore, we intellectuals were caught between the extremely irrational CCP government and the extremely irrational students.

The CCP is extremely irrational; it kills people, as we all know. Her main point is actually: you students also bear responsibility; you students caused the bloodshed.

Hu Ping still claims today that the June Fourth crackdown was a conspiracy between the CCP and so-called radical students, and both sides are responsible. He used to always say that the CCP was making concessions, that Li Peng had already conceded. I had many written debates with him and even wrote a book called "The Tiananmen Controversy." I told him that your notion of "knowing when to stop while you're ahead"...

Many facts are simply not right.

He doesn't listen. And in Beijing Spring, for every article I wrote, he wrote one to refute it. By the time I wrote back, he wouldn't publish my stuff anymore. I had to turn it into a book. Now it's become my entire website. For decades, I have to prove that you are talking nonsense, and that this nonsense is helping the CCP speak. This is truly the damnation of the democracy movement.

The so-called "democracy movement," I mean the "democracy" of fame and profit, they are all for fame and profit. Many are indeed seeking fame and profit.

I can say it directly today. Dai Qing directly discussed with Hu Ping at his home: "Hu Ping, regarding your real estate in Beijing, how can I help you handle it?" Why do I know? I know many things.

Today I will begin to dismantle this united front narrative.

The united front narrative has long influenced our memory of June Fourth, especially the narrative from the movement's side. On the CCP's side, talking about who the "Eight Elders" were, how Deng Xiaoping understood, no one can verify this. But they write nonsense about the history of the student movement. Among them, Dai Qing is the most crucial.

I will show you some very detailed materials later. I will only give a few simple examples; in fact, there are numerous examples proving that The Tiananmen Papers is fake.

In 2001, The Tiananmen Papers caused a sensation. It was published in many languages, including English, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Japanese, Spanish, and Swedish. Major global media, including CBS's 60 Minutes, CNN, and The New York Times, all reported sensationally on The Tiananmen Papers. A few months later, the Chinese version was released, titled The Tiananmen Papers: The Chinese Edition of the Lost Manuscript from the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

I can now prove that this "truth" is a falsehood. And I still don't know who Zhang Liang is. He claimed to have obtained two thousand documents from the CCP, initially saying seven thousand, then reduced to two thousand. To this day, not a single document has been produced. Everything was typed out on his computer.

It deceived three of America's top experts on China. To this day, Li Anshou is still arguing with me, saying it's real. How can it be real? I will show you later. It has 55 versions.

So, in the current public perception of June Fourth, there is a narrative that starts with Dai Qing, through Karma's documentary The Gate of Heavenly Peace, through Zhang Liang's The Tiananmen Papers, and another person, Gong Xiaoxia. I have a long history with Gong Xiaoxia; through her position as Director of the Chinese Service at Radio Free Asia (RFA), she greatly influenced the democracy movement's united front narrative, ultimately affecting our current understanding of June Fourth.

So this issue is very serious. It has made us completely lose our minds.

In terms of history, we have been hijacked by the CCP's June Fourth narrative through the united front narrative. I will prove it slowly.

Why do I call it a united front narrative? Because the people telling these stories have too high a connection with the United Front Work Department.

For example, when Yan Mingfu passed away the year before last, a large group of democracy movement figures who propagated the united front narrative attended the memorial service held by the CCP. Wang Juntao, Hu Ping, a large group of democracy movement figures, including Tang Yuanjun, who was arrested by the FBI. They all went to Yan Mingfu's memorial service together.

Tang Yuanjun used to be a friend too; we all knew each other, and I never expected him to be an agent of the CCP.

Wang Juntao himself wrote that in '89, he was almost in the United Front Work Department every day. So I say, this circle of democracy movement figures who propagate the united front narrative has too close a relationship with the United Front Work Department. So close that I can truly call it a united front narrative.

Regarding Dai Qing, Hu Ping commented a few days ago that Dai Qing's Deng Xiaoping in 1989 is the best book. That is also a fake book. Its main point is that Deng Xiaoping was not only going to hand over the chairmanship of the Central Military Commission to Zhao Ziyang, but Deng Xiaoping was also going to remove the Four Cardinal Principles from the Chinese constitution. The CCP was already prepared for political reform, so you students were just making trouble.

Hu Ping said it's the best book. Dai Qing directly said that Yan Mingfu was our commander-in-chief at the time. These are her exact words. Who recorded these exact words? Chen Xiaoya. Chen Xiaoya has the recordings from that time. So this exact quote is from May 14th. The three busiest people that day were, first, of course, Yan Mingfu, second, Dai Qing, and another person you might not expect, Wang Chaohua from the student side.

Wang Chaohua said she went to the United Front Work Department six times that day, and the United Front Work Department sent cars to pick her up and take her here and there. These materials, after I reviewed over sixty thousand documents in recent years, I have basically pieced together the whole picture, with only a few small gaps, but I generally know the process. So now I dare to say these things.

Here Dai Qing says Yan Mingfu was our commander-in-chief at the time.

Last year, I began to release some research on June Fourth archives, which provided a crucial piece of evidence. This evidence is also thanks to censorship. He told me that the Tsinghua Diary was written very realistically. The censorship was from the Tsinghua Physics Department; he was in the same year as me, but a different class. We were in the same year, but different classes. Later, he often took a year off due to hepatitis.

He was very active in '89, involved in the Tsinghua radio station, and deeply involved in the Tsinghua school and the square. He specifically wrote a diary of the Tsinghua student movement, written in 1993 and published in 1994 in Huaxia Wenzhai, an overseas student publication.

The crucial piece of evidence I released came from there. For his safety, he used pseudonyms for people still in China. For example, Lian Shengde, in his 1994 published article, used the pseudonym "Guan Liansheng" for Lian Shengde. Last year I asked Lian Shengde if he knew he had this pseudonym. He said no. He didn't even know himself.

So this pseudonym first appeared in 1994. But The Tiananmen Papers claims to be internal CCP documents from 1989. How can a pseudonym from 1994 appear? Of course, it's fake.

It plagiarized many things, copied them randomly. I later found seven crucial pieces of evidence. One piece of evidence here is copied from the Tsinghua Diary, and it also copied many things from Dai Qing. It's not simple copying; it's like a mosaic, with things inserted in between.

For example, on the left are articles published in '92 and '97. How did they end up in the 1989 Tiananmen Papers? The content is almost identical.

Why did I see the problem at a glance? Because Dai Qing made a mistake in her account here. She said a person wearing glasses, looking like a student, rushed out from the crowd, didn't say hello to anyone, snatched the microphone from her hand, and then passionately shouted: "Classmates, repeat after me three times: We will go on a hunger strike."

She was talking about me.

In her 1992 article in Bai Xing magazine, she added a note saying this person's name is Feng Congde. She said she learned about this person, the famous Feng Congde, from reading articles by democracy movement figures.

Her implication was that Wuer Kaixi had already been overthrown by then, overthrown by the so-called "lobster banquet" in '91. At that time, Chai Ling was the hottest democracy movement star, and I was following her, so people knew me because they knew Chai Ling. She wanted to bring us down together.

I analyzed the real reason to be this. But why would she listen to me?

Why did she say she only knew it was me after reading articles by democracy movement figures? Before, I only had indirect information, such as Cai Chongguo saying something in '91, attributed to Su Xiaokang. This year I found Su Xiaokang's own article. He indeed said that Feng Congde immediately stood up and grabbed the microphone.

In another article in a book from June 1990, Su Xiaokang said I was reading the hunger strike letter, not the hunger strike declaration or hunger strike poems. The hunger strike letter was very long; Chai Ling alone read for almost ten minutes. How could I lead everyone to read it once and then again? Ten minutes per reading, three times would be half an hour, six times would be an hour. How could such absurd things happen?

But it ended up in The Tiananmen Papers. So when this document came out in 2001, I knew it was fake because it mentioned me. This never happened to me.

And why would I need to push through the crowd? And snatch the microphone from their hands? They had no idea what my role was at the time. I built that radio station; I gave them the microphones. They completely reversed the roles.

In another article, they mention a table, and Su Xiaokang says Chai Ling handed me a note. In the dark, he could even see the note clearly, which read, "Lead everyone to read it three times." There are too many absurd details like this; I won't go into them. I will write about them specifically later. I have already written two hundred pages and will release more detailed information then.

How could such absurd things be copied into The Tiananmen Papers? Of course, because it's fake. And its fakeness is intended to precisely target the courageous faction.

I just gave the examples of Wuer Kaixi and Chai Ling, and it incidentally brought me into it. My reflection in '91 fell into a trap. I seemed to admit that I shouldn't have done something that day. They thought, then you must have insisted on it. In fact, they had no idea that my role at the time was completely neutral.

I no longer believe that "stepping on the accelerator" was wrong. The reflections of the democracy movement today are completely reversed. They say that in '89, few people applied the brakes, and we should have stopped while we were ahead, that we were too radical, that we were all stepping on the accelerator. I don't think stepping on the accelerator was wrong now. When it's time to step on the accelerator, you should step on it. I will prove later that precisely because we didn't step on the accelerator hard enough, we lost two real opportunities to win in '89.

If we had constantly applied the brakes, like our Falun Gong friends who stopped while they were ahead, we might have suffered even worse. Because Falun Gong

Later, at least several thousand people with names and surnames died, and more victims of live organ harvesting, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, cannot be counted.

The only correct direction is to truly end the CCP's autocracy. The Black Book of Communism estimates that tens of millions died unnaturally during the CCP's decades of rule. In less than eighty years, this amounts to at least one million unnatural deaths per year. Ending the CCP's autocracy sooner is the right path.

However, what people like Dai Qing talk about all day ultimately helps the CCP maintain stability.

On May 14th, what did these intellectuals truly hear? They didn't hear the stories fabricated by Dai Qing. They truly heard opposing voices.

My role at the time was the moderator of the Free Forum. I let everyone debate. A doctoral student from Peking University opposed two of Dai Qing's points. Later, two master's students from Peking University supported Dai Qing's proposal, saying we should withdraw. So I let anyone speak; I didn't control anything.

These intellectuals heard opposing voices, so they left dejectedly. Later, they truly felt deceived by Dai Qing. Su Xiaokang said that Dai Qing had not consulted them at all. Those two points were discussed by Dai Qing with the head of the United Front Work Department.

What were these two points? First, the People's Daily would publish the scholars' speeches that afternoon. Second, if Zhao Ziyang and Li Peng came to the square and simply asked the students how they were, everyone would withdraw. These were the two points Dai Qing announced.

Su Xiaokang said she never consulted anyone. Yu Haocheng, one of the twelve scholars, said the same. Li Honglin also said this, as did Su Wei. Yan Jiaqi's wife wrote a book specifically about this, saying the same. Zheng Yi also heard this and said Dai Qing never consulted anyone; she just set a trap for everyone.

Therefore, those intellectuals isolated Dai Qing at the time, feeling she was actually representing the CCP. Dai Qing was isolated until a few days later, on May 22nd, when she rushed into the intellectuals' parade to snatch the banner. Hong Kong reporters took photos of this, and I have the photos. Zhao Yu, the overall commander of the intellectuals' parade for Zheng Yi and others, rushed up and said: "Dai Qing, go back to your own group, don't come to snatch our banner."

It was that blunt. So Dai Qing was indeed very upset at the time. She herself wrote many things, and Zhang Langlang also wrote many things about her isolation. I will skip this for now.

If we assign 100 points to the students' two demands: first, equal dialogue through live broadcast, and second, to remove the label of

It will come out. Last year, Voice of America made a mistake, but they found the recording of the establishment of the Peking University Preparatory Committee for Democracy at the Triangle area. They didn't understand this material. I will talk about this in detail later.

Many people in the Action Committee later entered the Peking University Preparatory Committee. I was one of them. During the student movement of '86, I was also arrested. Later, during June Fourth, we had so many picket lines just to prevent those people wearing duck-billed caps, pretending to be workers, from pushing us toward the police. This is a long story.

Within these United Front narratives, there is also Gong Xiaoxia. I have seen her speaking for the CCP in the US Congress. She claims to be a dissident, yet she supports the decoupling of most-favored-nation status and human rights. In 1990, she debated us face-to-face; I represented the Beijing Students' Autonomous Federation. Gong Xiaoxia wanted the decoupling; she later became the head of the Chinese department at Radio Free Asia. People like her have influenced many narratives.

Dai Qing has also been persuading people to surrender everywhere, saying that some of you should know your place, should not be radical, should stop while you're ahead, and should not overthrow the CCP. She said how great it is in prison, and even said that Chinese people do not deserve democracy and China should not implement democracy. She said one should sing songs of loyalty to the Communist Party.

Dai Qing later testified in the US Congress, supporting permanent normal trade relations, saying it would help Chinese human rights and the rule of law. Wang Dan, Wang Juntao were also there. A large number of people from the democracy movement were there. Wang Juntao was also saying that PNTR is beneficial for China's economic opening, political and religious freedom.

This is a characteristic of the United Front narrative: it acts, and its direction is very clear. First, it beautifies the United Front faction of the CCP. Second, it vilifies the militant faction of the anti-CCP movement.

It will fabricate the benevolence of the CCP. For example, how humane the Communist Party prisons are, or that as long as you stop while you're ahead, the CCP will not kill you. But the result of Falun Gong stopping while they were ahead was seen by everyone.

It will also precisely strike the militant faction. Wu'er Kaixi is, Chai Ling is, Zhang Jian is, and Xiong Yan is now being destroyed. Everyone doesn't know about Shen Zeyu; in fact, he had a great influence on us in the square, he was the true mastermind, but the CCP will absolutely not mention him. Wu Jianmin was a truly powerful student leader, but the CCP doesn't even give him the title of student, categorizing him as a worker.

Finally, I will briefly talk about hope.

I think this image best represents hope. All democratic countries, after collapsing or falling, when they democratize, they return to the First Republic. For example, after the Soviet Union, it returned to the Russian Republic; France returned to the French Republic; Germany returned to the democratic tradition after the Weimar Republic; Hungary had a similar process. According to this formula, the Republic of China should return to the 46 Constitution.

Hungary has a very interesting symbol: they cut out the Communist Party emblem from the center of the national flag. This was the symbol of the anti-Communist movement in Hungary in 1956.

In the militant narrative, I want to show you how the Soviet bloc came over. East Germany had a "Chinese solution." Yao Yilin was one of the biggest executioners besides Li Peng, advocating for the use of tanks. He went to East Germany to impart experience. Kurenz also went to Beijing to receive the CCP's experience in suppression. During the Leipzig protests in East Germany, people held banners saying: Kurenz, do not learn from the Chinese butchers. We do not want another China.

At that time, tanks had already been deployed in East Germany, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. But the key in the end was the mutiny. The key figure in East Germany was Lieutenant General Humitz, who ordered not to fire. The key figure in Romania was the Minister of Defense and Chief of General Staff Milea, who refused to execute the order. The key in the Soviet Union was the Alpha Group's refusal to arrest Yeltsin.

So the real future focus is: in '89, we pushed for large-scale civil unrest, just as the Railway Protection Movement in the four provinces during the Xinhai Revolution already had large-scale civil unrest. What we lacked was a mutiny. The Xinhai Revolution had the Wuchang Uprising. In Eastern Europe, there were mutinies, which is why democratization could succeed.

When I say mutiny, I don't mean a military coup. It can start from a squad leader, a low-ranking officer's mutiny, or it could be high-ranking officers, such as the Minister of Defense refusing to suppress.

In '89, we were close. Sometimes it's said that if the 38th Army had truly not executed the order, or if Yang Shangkun had truly acted that way, things would have been different.

Why didn't the CCP collapse, while the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe did? We didn't lack opportunities in '89, nor did we lack courage. The people of Beijing were more courageous than anyone else. We also didn't lack high-level splits, nor did we lack manpower and material resources. Hong Kong had already donated tens of millions of HK dollars, and donations for the victims of June Fourth might have totaled over a hundred million US dollars.

What we lacked was intelligence. We have been brainwashed and United Front-ed. We, the so-called intellectuals, first lacked knowledge, and second, lacked courage.

To this day, the mainstream is still shouting: you are too radical, why do you keep stepping on the gas, why not step on the brake? But if we had really stepped on the gas, there were actually two opportunities.

First, if after May Fourth, we hadn't fasted, but instead organized campus democracy, ran our own school newspapers, elected our own student unions, had professors manage the schools, and dragged it out with the CCP, the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and the Berlin Wall would have collapsed. Second, if after the martial law, we had organized campus networking, turning one Tiananmen Square into hundreds of Tiananmen Squares, it might have dragged on to the Soviet bloc's collapse.

So the current direction of reflection is completely wrong.

To the future youth, I want to say a few words. The lesson of '89 is that we were too centralized. Organizing a North High Federation, then a Capital Area Joint Conference, all concentrated in the square, which was foolish. We should have been decentralized, with each school autonomous, each doing their own thing, and the CCP would have been unable to handle it.

Now talking about city-wide networking and all-people resonance, I think these are very good ideas. Overseas consensus should be formed in advance. In '89, we organized too hastily at the last minute, and there was no time.

During the April 27th grand march, actually all the student movement organizations were against it. The North High Federation didn't want the march, and many important people also said to cancel the march. Kong Qingdong was our convener at Peking University at the time, and he blocked us from leaving the school gates. But because there was a consensus to oppose the April 26th editorial, the April 27th grand march was instead very successful.

So consensus is more important than last-minute organization.

Finally, I have always wanted to push for the Six Great Consensuses. A few years ago, I kept talking about this on Twitter. Later, my Twitter was bombed by the CCP. Suddenly one day, it sent out over 20,000 garbled characters tweets, I had only sent over 20,000 tweets in total, and had over 80,000 followers. Who could do this? Of course, it was someone playing tricks behind the scenes.

I want to say, as long as you want to talk about the militant narrative, the CCP will definitely strike you precisely. My June Fourth archives were bombed by them long ago. My independent reviews of many things I wrote are now all garbled characters. It's a pity. For over ten years, the discussions about June Fourth that I thought were reliable with friends, are now also gone.

I have spoken too long today. Thank you everyone. If you have questions, or criticism and guidance, you are welcome.

One last thing, why I have always done this research. My mentor once said a sentence: you must hurry and write down your memories. If you don't write, others will write for you, and they will write it to be unrecognizable.

These were his original words.

I wrote, and as a result, everything is still being written to be unrecognizable. From Dai Qing to the "Tiananmen Papers," they are all fabricating. This is too terrifying.

So we must speak out.