So this missile is costing $150B+ to develop, wont even enter production until 2029 and will probably be $200M+ per unit and it is less advanced than the DF-41 from 2017 not to mind China’s full missile ecosystem or the new DF-61?
Beautiful gambit from the Amerikkkans.
It’s been a farce. If you want a sort of sad laugh check the NATOpedia list of designated terrorist orgs and ctrl+f Israel.
Crackkker kkkulture
Isn’t it over 1/2 read at the level of an 11yo or lower? and slightly more than 1/5 are functionally illiterate?
The Peoples Cop*
They’re going to be so mad when they get up their and realize the one real religion died out a thousand years ago.
As if “international law” was ever anything more than a shield for imperialism and a club to beat the global south.
True I did more of a paraphrase than translate. Overall a very cute happy story even if the implications are less so.
A brief list of issues off the top of my head with his post even though its probably a waste of time: • Pretending “not formally governed” = “not Chinese.” Pre-modern states did not work like modern border states. Lack of a permanent bureaucracy does not mean lack of integration.
• Using modern Western sovereignty rules on feudal Asia. This is historical anachronism. No pre-capitalist state functioned the way modern nation-states do.
• Claiming there was “no solid contact” before the 1560s. False. There are records from Sui, Tang, Song, and Yuan periods showing contact, trade, navigation, and military expeditions in the region.
• Misusing the ambiguity of the word 琉球 to imply “maybe China never reached Taiwan.” Ambiguous naming does not equal absence of contact. Medieval geography everywhere used vague terms.
• Pretending written records are the only form of historical evidence. Material migration, trade routes, archaeology, and population movement matter more than paperwork.
• Ignoring continuous Chinese fishing, trade, and settlement activity. Taiwan was part of the Fujian maritime economy long before 1683.
• Acting like Taiwan existed outside China’s economic system. It did not. Food, labor, migrants, tools, taxes, and markets flowed from the mainland.
• Claiming the Dutch “made Taiwan Chinese.” Absurd.
• Treating Han migration as a European colonial byproduct. Chinese migration was driven by land shortages, class stratification, and coastal capitalism, not Dutch planning.
• Downplaying that most settlers came directly from Fujian. This was regional migration, not foreign colonization.
• Portraying Koxinga as only a pirate or warlord. He governed Taiwan using Ming laws, institutions, taxation, and bureaucracy.
• Ignoring that the Zheng regime explicitly identified as Chinese. It never claimed Taiwan was a separate nation.
• Framing the Qing as “foreign Manchu colonizers.” Liberal racial framing. The Qing ruled through Chinese institutions and class structures.
• Pretending the Qing were not a Chinese state. Historically false and rejected even by mainstream historians.
• Treating 1683 as “the first time Taiwan became Chinese.” It was the first time of direct imperial administration, not the beginning of Chinese integration.
• Using sensational sex scandals to replace political analysis. Tabloid storytelling instead of material history.
• Reducing historical change to personal morality and drama. This is liberal moralism, not historical explanation.
• Equating historical complexity with illegitimacy. Late incorporation does not invalidate sovereignty.
• Seemingly Ignoring Japanese colonial rule entirely. Conveniently skips the actual foreign colonization of Taiwan. (I’m not going to read his toilet paper book just going off the post)
• Ignoring US military occupation after World War II. This is central to the modern Taiwan issue.(I’m not going to read his toilet paper book just going off the post)
• Ignoring the KMT dictatorship and White Terror. Over 100,000 Taiwanese were killed or imprisoned under a US-backed regime. (I’m not going to read his toilet paper book just going off the post)
• Erasing US Cold War control of Taiwan’s political system. Taiwan’s current status is a product of American imperialism, not ancient history. (I’m not going to read his toilet paper book just going off the post)
• Pretending the Taiwan issue is about the 1600s. It is about post-1949 imperial containment of China.
• Using “Beijing doesn’t want you to read” propaganda framing. Standard Cold War marketing tactic.
• Appealing to Western audiences’ anti-China bias. The tone and structure are built to flatter liberal prejudices.
• Claiming academic authority while writing pop-imperialist content. Credentials (he doesn’t even have the right ones) used as a shield for ideology.
• Ignoring economic continuity across dynasties. Class relations mattered more than dynastic names.
Probably many more but I have no interest in reading his slop book or further digging through the post or comments.
is the least these people deserve
Materially, she cannot. Deng’s strategy was embedded in a specific conjuncture of Chinese state power, proletarian capacities, and controlled capital integration. Venezuela’s productive forces have been decimated, class structures distorted by imperialist pressures actively reshaping political power. Without socialist reconstruction of productive forces and class relations, what is being called “reform” would really be a repositioning within global capitalism. If she was to walk a Deng style path currently it would be far more apt to call her Venezuela’s Gorbachev or Yeltsin.
Translated title:“The pandas “Xiao Xiao” and “Lei Lei” have arrived home safely! The pandas on loan from Japan have safely arrived in Chengdu.”
Some happy news for a change, but this also marks the first time in over 50 years that Japan has no giant pandas.
Japan first received giant pandas in 1972 when Kang Kang and Lan Lan were sent to Ueno Zoo as a gift to commemorate the normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and China.
Could this be further marking of the move away from normalization in the wake of Takaichi, and Japan’s push for a return to militarism?
I think you are misrepresenting what I have written. I will say it again clearly. You are entrenched in an idealist framework where culture and tradition are treated as driving forces of history and development. We disagree on that at a fundamental level.
I have made arguments. You just do not accept their premises, so you treat them as if they are not arguments at all. For example, when I said bureaucracy exists across socialist and capitalist states regardless of cultural background (USSR, modern Vietnam, post-war Eastern Europe), you dismissed this by returning to civilizational continuity. When I argued that gaokao functions today due to material scarcity and labor competition, not lineage tradition, you reframed that as me denying history rather than addressing the material cause.
I have also given counter examples that were not engaged with. For instance, the Soviet Union developed deep bureaucratic contradictions without imperial examinations, Confucianism(brought up due to its deep ties to Chinese culture and tradition), or lineage culture. Patriarchy persists globally under capitalism, including in societies with little to no shared past, which shows that survival of social forms does not mean they are driven by ancient tradition.
You have clearly read many books, but reading history is not the same as applying dialectical materialism. At several points you substitute origin for causation and continuity for explanation. Where something came from is not the same as what reproduces it today.
We are arguing from different theoretical positions. That is fine. But at this point we are talking past each other because you are unwilling to let go of a cultural explanation even when material ones are presented. I think it is better to acknowledge that we simply see this differently. I would however appreciate not being bad jacketed going forward.
Thank you.
My thought process was training specifically in being grabbed for maximum time value, since in every other scenario you should be running for your life or using a weapon and the training will boost your stamina for running anyway.
Whenever a .world slop post about China is posted its always deceptichud. Do they have nothing better to do with their time than be wrong about things they don’t understand online?
Ah ok that’s my bad I’ll avoid similar jokes so from now on.
A “pirate” skull maybe…
You are right, the United States is still the world’s dominant military superpower overall, but that’s not really relevant to this specific point. In this specific case (the Sentinel ICBM versus comparable Chinese missiles) it is clearly behind. The reasons vary as you rightly pointed out: rigid doctrine, arms-control treaty legacies, extreme cost inflation, industrial constraints, and political limits on mobility and basing. All of that matters for why the gap exists, but it does not change the material outcome. China fields newer, more advanced, more survivable, more flexible systems designed for modern strategic conditions, while the US is spending almost unimaginable sums to preserve an increasingly vulnerable fixed-silo model and continue to enrich defense company shareholders.