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.