顯示具有 Information Control 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Information Control 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2026年2月15日 星期日

From Brotherhood Oath to Authoritarian Blueprint: Reading the Hongmen Thirty‑Six Oaths in a Modern Autocratic State

 From Brotherhood Oath to Authoritarian Blueprint: Reading the Hongmen Thirty‑Six Oaths in a Modern Autocratic State

1. Core logic of the oath

The Hongmen oath assumes a total community: once you join, your family becomes the brotherhood’s family, your obligations are collective, and your loyalty overrides ordinary kinship and law. This mirrors how modern autocracies often demand that party or state loyalty supersede private ties, local loyalties, or even family bonds.

Key patterns in the oath that resonate with autocratic logic:

  • Absolute loyalty and discipline (rules 1, 24, 25, 36).

  • Mutual surveillance and collective responsibility (rules 6, 18, 21, 26).

  • Secrecy and information control (rules 5, 35, 29).

  • Internal redistribution and social welfare logic (rules 2, 7, 19, 20).

  • Monopoly on violence and justice (rules 6, 20, 31).

2. Loyalty above blood and law

Rule 1 (“your parents are my parents, your wife is my sister‑in‑law…”) dissolves ordinary family boundaries in favor of a supra‑familial loyalty network. In a modern autocracy, this is analogous to:

  • Party cadres who must prioritize the party over family.

  • Informal “old comrades” networks that treat each other as a political family.

Rules 25 and 36 further demand that past grudges be dropped and that members devote themselves to the collective cause (originally “overthrow the Qing”), which resembles how autocratic regimes demand ideological unity and suppress personal vendettas that might fracture the ruling coalition.

3. Surveillance, denunciation, and “collective justice”

Rule 6 forbids “snitching” on brothers to the authorities, yet insists that internal disputes be settled by the brotherhood itself, not by the state. Rule 18 says that if a brother is captured by officials, others must not betray him.

In an autocratic setting, this can be inverted:

  • The state becomes the “brotherhood”; citizens are forbidden to expose state agents or cadres to outside powers.

  • Internal “party discipline” replaces independent courts: disputes among cadres are handled by the party, not by an impartial judiciary.

Rule 26, which forbids taking sides when brothers fight, echoes how autocratic regimes often demand that elites avoid open factionalism and maintain a façade of unity.

4. Secrecy and information control

Rule 5 prohibits passing inner secrets to family or outsiders; rule 35 bans loose talk and leaking “secret documents.” This mirrors modern autocratic practices:

  • Classified party documents, internal bulletins, and “internal references” that cannot be shown to non‑members.

  • Strict controls on whistleblowers, journalists, and academics who might expose internal mechanisms.

Rule 29, which forbids leaking a brother’s “secret” source of wealth or success, parallels how autocratic systems often hide the real channels of patronage, corruption, and rent‑seeking from public view.

5. Internal welfare and social control

Rules 2, 7, 19, and 20 oblige members to help brothers in financial distress, burial costs, or when they are persecuted. This creates a parallel social‑welfare system run by the brotherhood.

In an autocratic state, this logic can be seen in:

  • Party‑controlled unions, cooperatives, and associations that provide jobs, housing, and protection only to loyal members.

  • Patronage networks where access to resources depends on political loyalty, not open markets.

Such systems bind people to the regime by making exit costly: if you defect, you lose not only your job but your social safety net.

6. Monopoly on violence and justice

Rule 31 forbids members from using the brotherhood’s power to bully outsiders; yet the oath as a whole assumes that the brotherhood has its own informal justice system. In an autocracy, the state similarly claims a monopoly on legitimate violence, while allowing cadres and security organs to mete out unofficial punishment behind closed doors.

Rule 20, which demands that members defend a brother who is bullied, resembles how autocratic regimes mobilize party members or “mass organizations” to intimidate or silence critics.

7. Do these rules “fit” modern autocracy?

The Hongmen oath was designed for a secret, anti‑state brotherhood, yet its structure is surprisingly compatible with modern autocracy:

  • Both demand absolute loyaltycollective responsibility, and information discipline.

  • Both rely on internal justicepatronage, and parallel institutions (brotherhood vs party/state).

However, there are key mismatches:

  • The Hongmen oath is horizontal: brothers are formally equal, even if some become leaders.

  • Modern autocracy is hierarchical: loyalty flows upward, not laterally.

In practice, an autocratic regime can selectively adopt the oath’s logic—especially secrecy, surveillance, and mutual aid among cadres—while discarding its egalitarian spirit.



版本見於清稗類鈔,會黨類。亦見於平山周中國秘密社會史。


一,自入洪門之後,爾父母即是我父母,爾兄弟姊妹即是我兄弟姊妹,爾妻即是我嫂,爾子姪即是我子姪。如不遵此例,不念此情,即為背誓,五雷誅滅。

二,倘有父母兄弟,百年歸壽,無銀埋葬,有白燐飛到,求兄弟相幫,必要通知各兄弟,有多幫多,無錢出力,以完其事。如有詐作不知者,五雷誅滅。

三,各省外洋洪家兄弟,不論士農工商,江湖之客到來,必要支留一宿兩餐。如有不思親情,詐作不知,以外人相看者,死在萬刀之下。

四,所有洪家兄弟,未相識掛牌號,說起投機,必要相認。如有不認者,死在萬刀之下。

五,洪家之內事,父不能傳子,子不能傳父,兄不能傳弟,弟不能傳兄,以及六親四眷,一概不得傳。講說以及私傳衫仔、腰平以及本底,私教私授,貪人錢財者,死在萬刀之下。

六,凡我洪門兄弟,不得做線捉拿洪門兄弟。倘有舊仇宿恨,必要傳齊眾兄弟,判其是非曲直,當眾決斷,不得記恨在心。倘有不知者,捉錯兄弟,須要放他途走。如有不遵此例者,五雷誅滅。

七,兄弟患難之時,無銀走路,必要相幫,錢銀水腳,無論多少。如有不念親情者,五雷誅滅。

八,捏造兄弟有逆倫,以及謀害香主、行刺兄弟者,死在萬刀之下。

九,不得姦淫兄弟妻女及兄弟姊妹。若犯者,五雷誅滅。

十,兄弟託寄銀錢以及什物,必要盡心交妥,逮到支還。如有私騙者,死在萬刀之下。

十一,兄弟寄妻託子,或有要事相託,如不做者,五雷誅滅。

十二,今晚入洪門,年庚八字須要報真姓年月日時。如有假報瞞騙五祖者,五雷誅滅。

十三,今晚入洪門之後,不得歎息自怨入錯,當天解願。如有此心者,死在萬刀之下。

十四,私刼兄弟財物,暗幫外人搶奪兄弟財物者,五雷誅滅。

十五,不得強買兄弟貨物,以及騙買爭賣,亦不得強為。如有恃強欺弱者,死在萬刀之下。

十六,所借兄弟錢財物件,有借有還。如有欺心不還、不念情義者,五雷誅滅。

十七,或有搶刼取錯兄弟財物者,即速送回兄弟。如有欺心不送回者,死在萬刀之下。

十八,倘或被官兵捉獲,此乃天降橫禍,不得供出洪門兄弟,亦不得記念舊仇,亂供兄弟。如有亂供兄弟,不念洪門結義之情者,五雷誅滅。

十九,兄弟被捉去,或出外日久不得回家,留下妻兒子女無人倚靠,必要留心幫助,以得長大成人。如有詐作不知者,五雷誅滅。

二十,有兄弟被人打罵,必要向前,有理相幫,無理相勸。若係屢次被人欺打者,即傳知眾兄弟商議。若其家貧,必要幫助錢財,代他爭氣,如無錢者,出力,不得詐作不知。如有犯此例者,五雷誅滅。

二十一,各省外洋兄弟文書物件,有官府追拿,即時通知他途走為上。如有不知者,死在萬刀之下。

二十二,或賭博場中,不得使假吞騙兄弟錢財,以及串同外人騙賭,貪圖利己以傷兄弟。有此欺心者,死在萬刀之下。

二十三,不得捏造是非。有增言減語離間兄弟者,死在萬刀之下。

二十四,不得私做香主。入洪門之後,三年以外為服滿,果係忠心義氣,有香主傳授文章,或有三及第保舉,方可做得香主。如有私自為者,五雷誅滅。

二十五,自入洪門之後,或有前仇舊恨,不得再行記念,前事了過,無容懷恨。如有私懷恨者,五雷誅滅。

二十六,有親兄弟以及洪門兄弟相打或官訟等事,必要相勸,不得幫理一邊,總要以和為是。如有不遵此例者,五雷誅滅。

二十七,兄弟看守之地方,不得犯他,各有事業。如有詐作不知,固犯兄弟所守之地方,連累兄弟受苦者,五雷誅滅。

二十八,有兄弟劫搶偷拐或騙執之財,不得眼紅。兄弟有財帛以及物件,如有心懷恨兄弟,因以圖謀分潤者,五雷誅滅。

二十九,有兄弟發財,不得洩漏機關。如有不遵此例者,死在萬刀之下。

三十,不得以外人包押貨物,指東話西。庇外人騙吞洪門兄弟者,死在萬刀之下。

三十一,勿恃我洪家人多,倚勢欺虐外人,不得橫行兇惡,須安分守己,名守職業。如有恃眾欺人者,天地難容,死在萬刀之下。

三十二,不得因借不遂生冤,以及怪飲怪食。如有懷恨含冤於心者,此乃小人之見,五雷誅滅。

三十三,不得弄姦我洪家兄弟之幼童少女。有犯此例者,五雷誅滅。

三十四,不得受買洪家兄弟妻妾為室,亦不得以兄弟妻妾通姦,如有犯此例者,死在萬刀之下。

三十五,不得對外人亂講書句,口白宜謹慎,腰平、衫仔不得被外人看破,務宜小心,不得洩漏機關。如有犯此例者,死在萬刀之下。

三十六,士農工商各執一藝,自入洪門,必要忠心義氣為先,交結各省洪家兄弟,皆同一體手足之情,不得分彼此。或日後起義,務宜支辦軍火糧草,一同協力,殺滅㳉朝,保汨主回復,以報五祖火燒之仇,以表今日結義聯盟之情。如有二心不奮發其力者,死在萬刀之下。立誓傳來有奸忠,四海兄弟一般同,忠心義氣公侯位,奸臣反骨刀下終。

2025年9月30日 星期二

Totalitarian Crisis Playbook: Managing Scandal Under Absolute Power

The Totalitarian Crisis Playbook: 12 Response Levels


shifts the focus entirely from managing public opinion to managing absolute power and fear.

The fundamental difference is that in a dictatorship, the Cost of Admission () is always infinite (as admission implies a systemic failure, justifying regime change), and the Probability of the Lie Being Exposed () is nearly zero, due to control over media and information. Therefore, the strategy is always Denial, Attack, and Eradication.

The following responses are ranked by Severity (harshness of action) and Effectiveness(speed/completeness of crisis resolution for the regime).


This expanded taxonomy includes responses unique to regimes where the law, media, and security apparatus serve the leader's will. These responses are ranked by Severity (the harshness of the action taken against the perceived threat) and Effectiveness (the speed and completeness of resolving the crisis for the regime).


Level 1: The Un-personing/Memory Hole 👻

  • Severity Rank: 1 (Highest)

  • Effectiveness Rank: 1 (Highest)

  • Tactics: Eradication of Reality. Order the complete and immediate removal of the person, event, and related records from all photos, archives, and history books. The scandal is simply decreed to have never occurred.

  • Examples: USSR/Stalin purging images of purged officials (Yezhov, Trotsky). 1984's "Memory Hole" mechanism.

  • Psychological Tool: Existential Fear (Destroying the victim’s identity and proof of existence, instilling ultimate terror).


Level 2: Forced Self-Criticism/Confession 🗣️

  • Severity Rank: 2

  • Effectiveness Rank: 2

  • Tactics: Psychological Annihilation. Coerce the accused into publicly confessing to fabricated, ideologically driven crimes (e.g., being a "running dog," "revisionist," or "traitor"). The confession is usually televised or printed.

  • Examples: Cultural Revolution/China's public "struggle sessions." USSR Purges with show trials involving false confessions from Old Bolsheviks.

  • Psychological Tool: Humiliation & Control (Using the victim's own voice to validate the regime's reality and break their moral authority).


Level 3: Fabricate External Enemy/Sabotage 💥

  • Severity Rank: 3

  • Effectiveness Rank: 3

  • Tactics: Blame Shift. Accuse the scandal of being an act of foreign sabotage, a CIA plot, or a direct conspiracy orchestrated by external enemies. Use the scandal to justify increased internal control.

  • Examples: North Korea attributing food shortages or infrastructure failures to "imperialist plots." Stalinism labeling internal dissent as "Western influence."

  • Psychological Tool: Paranoia & Unity (Creating an 'us vs. them' narrative to consolidate internal support).


Level 4: Revenge/Collective Punishment ⛓️

  • Severity Rank: 4

  • Effectiveness Rank: 4

  • Tactics: Deterrence by Proxy. The accused person is purged, and their entire family, associates, or even their hometown is punished (e.g., relocation to a camp, job loss, forced separation).

  • Examples: USSR Gulag punishing families of "enemies of the people" (Article 58). Cambodia/Khmer Rouge targeting entire groups perceived to be tainted by association.

  • Psychological Tool: Terror (Establishing a clear, total-cost deterrent: the punishment is not limited to the individual).


Level 5: Propaganda Overload/New Truth 📰

  • Severity Rank: 5

  • Effectiveness Rank: 5

  • Tactics: Information Saturation. State media floods all channels with overwhelming counter-narratives, positive imagery of the leader, and complex, confusing "alternative facts" about the event.

  • Examples: 1984's constant shifts in who Oceania is at war with. North Korea's non-stop reports of the leader's supernatural achievements.

  • Psychological Tool: Exhaustion & Doubt (Overwhelming the populace until they give up trying to discern the truth).


Level 6: Weaponized Investigation/Legal Pressure ⚖️

  • Severity Rank: 6

  • Effectiveness Rank: 6

  • Tactics: Judicial Coercion. Launch an "investigation" led by the regime’s security apparatus (not to find truth, but to fabricate evidence), silence witnesses, and destroy the accuser’s reputation.

  • Examples: USSR/KGB using state security to "investigate" dissidents, leading directly to arrests. Communist China utilizing internal party disciplinary actions to permanently sideline the accused.

  • Psychological Tool: Intimidation (Using the façade of legal process to deliver a pre-determined, fatal outcome).


Level 7: Diversion through Conflict/Purge 🛡️

  • Severity Rank: 7

  • Effectiveness Rank: 7

  • Tactics: Shifting Focus. Divert public and party attention by launching a small-scale, internal purge or border conflict, refocusing state efforts on "security" or "traitors" and away from the core scandal.

  • Examples: Launching an immediate "anti-corruption drive" following a high-level corruption leak to refocus public anger.

  • Psychological Tool: Emotional Refocus (Channeling public anger toward a new, pre-approved target).


Level 8: Blame the Low-Level Scapegoat 🐐

  • Severity Rank: 8

  • Effectiveness Rank: 8

  • Tactics: Limited Sacrificing. Acknowledge a minor error occurred, but pin the entire blame on a low- or mid-level bureaucrat who is immediately purged (often executed). The leader/party center remains pure.

  • Examples: Yugoslavia/Post-Tito purging regional party officials for local failures while protecting central leadership. The ruthless version of the Yes, Prime Minister scapegoat maneuver.

  • Psychological Tool: Purity & Efficiency (Showing the regime is self-correcting and efficient at rooting out rot, but only at the bottom).


Level 9: The Cult of Personality Defense ⭐

  • Severity Rank: 9

  • Effectiveness Rank: 9

  • Tactics: Teflon Leadership. Dismiss the scandal as logically impossible because the leader's moral perfection is a matter of state ideology. The scandal must be a lie, not the leader.

  • Examples: North Korea/Kim Dynasty: Suggesting the leader can make an error is ideological heresy, making the leader immune to scandal by definition.

  • Psychological Tool: Deification (Using manufactured ideology to create a belief system that makes the leader immune to criticism).


Level 10: Stonewall & Wait 🤫

  • Severity Rank: 10

  • Effectiveness Rank: 10

  • Tactics: Media Control. Refuse to comment, secure in the knowledge that no external media will be reported internally and no internal media is allowed to cover it. The crisis only exists among a minority of dissidents and foreign observers.

  • Examples: Communist China's total and silent suppression of politically sensitive internal news.

  • Psychological Tool: Information Blockade (Relying on total media control to prevent the scandal from entering the public consciousness).


Level 11: Silent Removal (Demotion/Re-education) 🚪

  • Severity Rank: 11

  • Effectiveness Rank: 11

  • Tactics: Soft Punishment. The person is removed from office but is quietly relocated to a remote, harmless post (e.g., agricultural inspection). This is used primarily for long-term allies or politically connected insiders.

  • Examples: USSR/Brezhnev Era's quiet demotion of senior party officials to obscure but harmless positions.

  • Psychological Tool: Internal Cohesion (A non-fatal way to remove a problematic insider without creating a martyr or fracturing the elite).


Level 12: Resignation/Disgrace (System Failure) 📉

  • Severity Rank: 12 (Lowest)

  • Effectiveness Rank: 12 (Lowest)

  • Tactics: Systemic Collapse. The leader is only removed when a palace coup or mass revolt aligns against them, and the security apparatus switches allegiance. This is a failure of the control mechanisms, not a choice.

  • Examples: USSR/Khrushchev's Ousting by a collective Presidium vote. Romania/Ceaușescu being overthrown and executed following a popular uprising.

  • Psychological Tool: Power Vacuum (The end state, occurring only when the repressive apparatus temporarily fails or switches allegiance).