Try this new restaurant at Castro Valley SF California, waited for 1 hour, disappointed, food not good! It cost at least 4x more than China! 試試位於加州舊金山卡斯特羅谷的這家新餐廳，等了一個小時，很失望，食物不好吃! 性價比差，最少是中國4x價錢! 所以不要以為美國人很富貴！
The flight deck of a Fujian-class carrier gleams under floodlights. Crew moves like clockwork, fuel lines, chocks, tethers, everything choreographed down to the second. Then, the deck master gives the nod. Catapult steam hisses. A low, faceless aircraft slides forward, accelerates, and vanishes into the black.
Moments later, radars three hundred kilometers away pick up a flash, an anti-radar missile detonating on a distant mountaintop where once stood a radar array. Pilots on the carrier watch their screens. No manned fighter launched, but targets are neutralized. The voice in the comms is crisp and calm: “Sharp Sword team, return to carrier for rearming.”
On the bridge, an intelligence officer taps a note: “That launch came from the deck.”
Silence follows. Then a single, loaded question hangs in the air: How many of those are on the next cycle?
This is no solo drone demonstration. This is the beginning of a new air wing doctrine, manned jets and GJ-11 ‘Sharp Sword’ UCAVs operating together from carriers to overwhelm defenses and take risks no pilot would.
The Universal Resistance to Female Leadership: Observations from Taiwan to America. By Johnson Choi on Oct 18, 2025
对女性领导的普遍抵制：从台湾到美国的观察. 作者：蔡永强 2025年10月18日
The recent election of Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) as the Chairperson of the Taiwan Provincial Committee of the Kuomintang (KMT) should be a straightforward political event. Instead, her campaign was marked by intense attacks, primarily from men within and outside her own party. Born on November 12, 1969, Cheng is an accomplished lawyer and politician. Yet, her qualifications seemed secondary to a familiar pattern of resistance faced by women seeking leadership roles.
This pattern is not confined to Taiwanese politics. It is a global phenomenon that transcends race and political systems.
I witnessed this firsthand as a member of both Rotary and Lions Clubs in the United States. When the Supreme Court ruled that these organizations could no longer exclude women, the visceral resentment from a majority of the male members was palpable. I saw it with my own eyes.
Coming from Hong Kong, and having had my first boss in Hawai’i be a brilliant Chinese woman—the 1955 Narcissus Queen—I was initially perplexed. Why did these men feel so threatened?
Watching the older male establishment of the KMT rally against Cheng Li-wun in 2025 provided a stark answer: the underlying impulse to preserve a male-dominated power structure is universal.
This same impulse fuels the systemic racism prevalent in the American workforce. Corporations often hire Asian, Black, and Hispanic employees as a form of window dressing, a superficial compliance with diversity laws rather than a genuine commitment to equity. These individuals are often placed in roles where they are highly visible but hold little real influence.
Now, with the return of Donald Trump and his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement, this problem is intensifying. For many, MAGA has morphed from an economic slogan into a cultural battle cry that often translates to “Make America White and Male Again.” In this environment, non-White women, particularly those of Asian descent, will face even greater challenges in asserting their leadership and value.
It is a sobering reality that for Asian women, places like Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore often provide more substantial and formal equality in both law and societal practice than the United States.
Many in mainland China admire an America they know only through its cultural exports. I must remind them that the United States has masterfully executed a 70-year campaign of “Cultural Colonization” through Hollywood, NGOs, and news media. This machine projects a polished, idealized image of American life that obscures its deep-seated social fractures. To understand the gap between the myth and the reality, one must look beyond the propaganda:
The Self-Inflicted Wound! Dutch government triumphantly announced it was taking control of Nexperia! 6 Billion Chips a Month: How the Netherlands Sacrificed Europe’s Auto Industry for Nothing! 自作自受! 荷蘭政府得意洋洋地宣布接管Nexperia! 每月60億晶片: 荷蘭如何白白犧牲了歐洲汽車工業
Outgoing Dutch Minister for Economic Affairs, Vincent Karremans, is now desperately seeking “talks” with Chinese officials to find a “solution.” After committing an act of economic piracy, the Dutch government is now begging for mercy from the country it provoked. This pathetic reversal encapsulates the arrogance and shortsightedness of the entire affair.
Ford Road” renamed “BYD Road,” Brazilian President receives a car on the scene! BYD Brazil’s “14 millionth vehicle rolls off the production line” was a truly impressive sight! Brazilian workers lamented: “BYD gave us dignity.” “福特路”改名”比亞迪路”，巴西總統現場提車！巴西比亞迪“1400萬輛車下線”現場太有面子了！巴西工人現場感嘆：是比亞迪給了我們尊嚴!
China’s rare earth trump card has turned the West’s Nobel Prize into a “global joke” overnight! 中國稀土王炸一出，西方的諾貝爾獎瞬間就成了“人類笑話”！
If the so-called Nobel Prize were truly as remarkable as claimed, Western powers in Europe and the United States wouldn’t be so frustrated and distressed right now.
Just imagine: if the “countercurrent extraction theory” for rare earth separation had been proposed by Western scientists, and if Academician Xu Guangxian were a Western scientist, he would undoubtedly have won a Nobel Prize—perhaps even multiple times.
In 1972, already in his fifties, he took on the military task of separating high-purity praseodymium and neodymium, with a required purity of 99.99%. How difficult were the conditions back then?
Unexpectedly, Xu Guangxian discovered the “constant mixed extraction ratio” principle in rare earth extraction, transforming the complex separation process into a precise mathematical model—as if mapping out a chaotic reaction with surgical precision.
While Western methods took six months for rare earth separation, his “countercurrent extraction theory” accomplished the same in just a few hours. What used to take three days was reduced to three hours, with purity skyrocketing from 99% to 99.99%, and costs plummeting to one-twentieth of Western expenses.
On the day the Baotou production line launched in 1976, workers wept as they watched the snow-white praseodymium-neodymium crystals flow out—this was a breakthrough after decades of Western technological blockade!
So, let’s ask: is such a groundbreaking achievement worthy of a Nobel Prize? History provides the answer. The 1952 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Synge and Martin for inventing partition chromatography, which separated amino acids and penicillin.
While their technology was useful, it pales in comparison to countercurrent extraction theory. Chromatography is primarily used in laboratories, whereas Xu’s theory reshaped the global strategic industry landscape, turning a nation from dependence to dominance—even holding the lifeline of the U.S. military in its hands.
U.S. military reports state that a Burke-class destroyer requires 2.6 tons of rare earths, and a Virginia-class submarine needs 4.6 tons. Without China’s rare earth processing capabilities, these advanced weapons would be reduced to scrap metal.
Had this technology emerged from MIT or Cambridge, Western media would have hailed the scientist as a “savior of modern industry,” and a Nobel Prize would have been a foregone conclusion, accompanied by numerous accolades.
Einstein’s theory of relativity was initially overlooked by the Nobel Committee, Mendeleev’s periodic table was ignored, and Tu Youyou’s Nobel Prize for artemisinin came decades after her discovery. Xu Guangxian’s case is just another example of this pattern.
The most striking evidence is the current situation: as soon as China tightened its control over rare earth technology, Europe and the U.S. panicked. Deutsche Welle urgently reported the situation as “extremely serious,” while The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal were filled with anxious articles, calling China’s move a “precision stranglehold.”
Why the panic? The new regulations are stringent: if Chinese rare earths account for 0.1% of a product’s value, even if processed in a third country, export requires China’s approval. Even mining and separation blueprints and technical parameters are prohibited from leaking abroad.
The West is in disarray. NVIDIA’s CEO warned that without Chinese rare earths, the company could lose $15 billion annually. TSMC’s chip production capacity is directly affected, and ASML’s lithography machines cannot be delivered on time.
The U.S. may talk big, but after investing $500 million in a rare earth separation plant, the extracted ores still have to be shipped to China for processing because they lack the refining expertise. Australian miners are even more blunt: without China, they can’t even build a refining plant, as 85% of global rare earth separation technology is in China’s hands.
They once mocked China for lacking technology, but now the tables have turned. They are scrambling for alternatives, but so-called “rare-earth-free magnets” underperform by 20% and cannot be mass-produced.
If the Nobel Prize were truly so powerful, why aren’t their Nobel-level technologies saving them now? Why are they still begging China for rare earths and technology?
Academician Xu Guangxian passed away in 2015, but before his death, he urged his students: “Rare earths should be sold at ‘rare’ prices, not ‘earth’ prices.” He never won a Nobel Prize, but he spent his lifetime building a technological fortress for China.
Today, China’s share of rare earth exports has dropped from 90% to 60%, yet its value share has risen to 80%. We have shifted from “selling resources” to “setting the rules”—an achievement far more impactful than winning ten Nobel Prizes.
In contrast, the Nobel Prizes glorified by the West are utterly insignificant in the face of real strategic technology. If the West could truly solve problems with Nobel Prizes, they wouldn’t be losing sleep over rare earth materials.
👉 Thus, China’s rare earth trump card has completely exposed the Nobel Prize. It is not the “beacon of human science” it claims to be but rather a tool for Western geopolitical maneuvering and self-promotion.
👉 Academician Xu Guangxian did not win a Nobel not because his achievements were unworthy, but because the Nobel Prize is unworthy of his contributions. The more frustrated and pained the West becomes, the more it reveals the absurdity of their “Nobel supremacy” rhetoric.
👉 True excellence isn’t validated by Western judges but demonstrated through tangible strength—through hard technology that allows a nation to stand tall and leaves its opponents with no recourse!
SCMP: Behind this gigantic symbol of China’s maritime power lies the vision of one man: Admiral Liu Huaqing, who famously said that he would not die peacefully until his country had an aircraft carrier. 《南華早報》：在這艘中國海上力量的巨大象徵背後，隱藏著一個人的遠見卓識：劉華清上將，他曾說過一句名言：除非國家擁有一艘航空母艦，否則他不會安詳地死去.
During Liu’s long and distinguished career, many international commentators compared him to Alfred Thayer Mahan, the US historian and naval officer widely considered to be the most important American strategist of the 19th century.
The aircraft carrier champion and naval genius behind China’s blue sea strategy
Did China underestimate the US’s willingness and ability to retaliate, or did it overestimate it in the past? 中國是低估了美國的報復意願和能力？還是以前高估了他?
The New York Times published an article suggesting that China’s actions indicate it is very confident and possesses substantial strength. However, the American media then shifted tone, citing expert opinions that China should be concerned about overplaying its hand, as government officials may have underestimated the strong retaliation Trump would launch.
A recent report by The New York Times has sparked widespread discussion, citing American experts who claim that China has developed a “dangerous new habit” of underestimating the U.S.’s willingness and capability to retaliate. The report also stated that China is acting too aggressively and miscalculating the strong countermeasures Trump might take.
China recently introduced new regulations on the export controls of rare earth elements. Unlike previous measures, this control covers 12 key elements, including samarium and gadolinium, and introduces 0.1% content tracking and equity penetration reviews. In simple terms, this is a precise move to tighten the supply chain for key U.S. industries such as defense and new energy.
It is worth noting that China controls 70% of the world’s rare earth mining and 90% of its processing. With this move, the U.S. has indeed become uneasy.
Trump quickly took to social media to condemn this as a “hostile” act, threatening to impose 100% tariffs starting November 1 and restrict the export of key software.
While Trump was making these threats, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent stepped in to “cool things down,” stating that China and the U.S. have already engaged in substantive communication and that the 100% tariffs might not actually be imposed. She also expressed hope for a meeting in South Korea. This “mixed signals” approach—threatening while seeking dialogue—exposes the conflicting mindset within the U.S.
On one hand, they do not want China’s export restrictions to continue and are quietly reaching out to allies to jointly exert pressure. On the other hand, the U.S. government is internally divided, with some officials seeking to overturn previous consensus and restart negotiations, while others insist on escalating confrontation.
The so-called “China underestimating U.S. retaliation capability” claimed by American experts seems more like an attempt to save face. Take tariffs, for example: earlier this year, the U.S. tried imposing 120% tariffs, but after China retaliated with equivalent measures, domestic inflation in the U.S. surged, forcing them to eventually reduce the tariff rate to 30%.
Although Trump is making loud threats this time, he deliberately left a buffer period, lacking the “act now” resolve he had earlier this year. Some Republican lawmakers have privately warned that continuing down this path could destabilize their voter base in the 2026 midterm elections—after all, tariffs ultimately burden American importers and consumers, and no one is happy with rising prices while wages stagnate.
The U.S. has also been making moves on the Taiwan issue. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act by the Senate even encourages inviting Taiwan’s navy to participate in the Rim of the Pacific exercise and seeks cooperation in military production.
This may seem like pressure on China, but it comes across more as “bluster.” In terms of actual strength, the U.S. has long lost its advantage in areas like maritime shipping and shipbuilding. Among the world’s top 30 liner companies, the U.S. has only one, with a market share of less than 0.3%, while China’s COSCO Shipping ranks fourth globally.
China’s recently introduced countermeasures on port fees precisely target ships with 25% or more U.S. equity ownership. This is using the rules familiar to the U.S. to fight back.
China’s countermeasures are not about “overestimating itself” but rather understanding the U.S.’s tactics. The U.S. has long used “long-arm jurisdiction” to deal with others, and now China is simply “fighting fire with fire,” responding with similar rules in the rare earth sector. How does this become a “dangerous habit”? If the U.S. truly had ample retaliatory capability, it wouldn’t be simultaneously threatening sanctions while hoping for negotiations.
The current situation is clear: China’s countermeasures are becoming increasingly precise, shifting from passive responses to actively setting rules. Meanwhile, the U.S. is recycling the same limited tools, with tariffs losing their deterrent effect and software restrictions instead accelerating China’s independent research and development.
The so-called “China overplaying its hand” is merely the U.S.’s discomfort after being met with proportional countermeasures, having grown accustomed to a position of superiority. If the U.S. truly wants to avoid escalating tensions, instead of having experts make statements, it should first curb its provocations on the Taiwan issue and return to the path of serious negotiations.
The 1987, 2000 & 2008 stock markets crashed, I witness many clients, friends and relatives have ended up in bankruptcy and/or divorce. Current AI bubbles worst than all of the above will wipe out your retirement funds plus more bankruptcy and/or divorces! 1987年、2000年和2008年的股市崩盤，我親眼目睹許多客戶、朋友和親戚最終破產或/和離婚。現在的人工智慧泡沫比以上所有情況都更糟糕，它會吞噬你的退休金，還會引發更多的破產或/和離婚!
Taiwan Financial Expert, Yale University Ph.D. Guo Zhengliang’s video has English subtitles: AI-related transactions: Unprecedented bubble crisis. IMF and hedge fund Citadel issued warnings that market could crash like 1987 without warnings! Current AI bubbles worst than year 2000 internet bubbles took 15 years to recover 台灣财經專家，耶魯大學博士郭正亮視頻有英文字幕：AI關聯交易 空前泡沫危機. 國際貨幣基金組織和對沖基金Citadel發出警告，稱股市可能像1987年那樣毫無預警地崩盤！目前的人工智慧泡沫比2000年的網路泡沫還要嚴重，網路泡沫復甦耗時15年！
“Guo Zhengliang Channel” is the only official channel run by Guo Zhengliang (Brother Liang). Over the next decade, the world will enter a period of unprecedented change! American hegemony faces unprecedented challenges: China’s rise, the rise of the East and the decline of the West, the rise of resource-rich nations, the restructuring of global power, the volatile international situation, and the uncertainty surrounding cross-strait relations require more professional analysis. Brother Liang will synthesize global data, analyze key details, and provide insights into the trends of the times, bringing clarity to the fog of global politics and economics.
Business Blog 