Western Media’s 'Fragile Ego' Shattered by Gen Z’s “Chinamaxxing”

A fascinating wave of "extreme Sinicization" has recently taken hold on foreign social media. Some Americans catch the spotlight by cooking traditional Chinese breakfast porridge at home, beaming as they declare, "Day one of becoming Chinese." Others post videos riding motorcycles through Chongqing’s mesmerizing multi-layered traffic, full of admiration.

Still, others share homemade drinks featuring Chinese ingredients, feeling they’re living a particularly "Chinese" phase of life. These lively, everyday posts are simply young people capturing their cross-cultural experiences. But some Western media have stretched this into a so-called "cultural security incident."

A recent article in the UK's Daily Telegraph captures this paranoia perfectly—this constant urge to "see conspiracy everywhere." While noting these videos "seem harmless," the report hastily brands their creators as "unwitting pawns in beautifying China’s image," even accusing them of "doing dirty work for China."

Their script is fixed: any China-related content that doesn’t criticize its political system must be "a carefully engineered propaganda campaign." The message is clear: you can only understand China through their narrow narrative; anything else means you are brainwashed.

The report also finds it baffling that, amid ongoing warnings from U.S. and U.K. governments about security risks and geopolitical tensions with China, these videos are surprisingly light-hearted and joyful—clearly a "staged facade." Western creators uploading this content to foreign platforms end up, whether knowingly or not, "boosting China’s national image and soft power."

What’s even more absurd is the report’s attempt to link this trend to Trump-era America. It claims some young Americans, frustrated by their own country’s realities, have turned their curiosity toward China, even joking about "learning Chinese to escape a declining America."

Events like nearly half a million users flocking to the Chinese app RedNote to vent after TikTok’s U.S. ban, or Chinese products such as the toy LaBubu sparking consumer demand in the West, are interpreted as deliberate Chinese efforts to "craft a contrasting narrative," painting the United States as a "dystopian society" weighed down by poverty and cultural decay caused by capitalism.

Western Media’s Suspicion and Double Standards

Reading The Daily Telegraph's article reveals its "pre-set script for interviews":

If you come to China, you must talk politics and geopolitical tensions—otherwise you’re accused of "deliberately avoiding controversy."

You can’t simply enjoy the food and culture, or you’re "fooled by appearances."

Your videos can’t be too light-hearted or happy, because with Western governments constantly warning about the "China threat," any joyful content must be a "carefully staged facade."

To be blunt, the "qualified" Western visitor they expect isn’t here to explore but to "complete political critique assignments." Yet a British blogger told the truth: "I have no interest in Chinese politics—I’m just here for the noodles."

A laughable double standard at its core. For years, Chinese people learning English, enjoying Hollywood movies, drinking coffee, and eating steak were seen through a Western lens as "embracing universal values" and "modernization," even praised as "progress." But when the roles reverse—Western youth voluntarily learning Chinese, loving Chinese food, and showing interest in China’s technology and urban life—they are immediately suspected of ulterior motives, scrutinized as "naively misled."

From hailing "nurturing and enlightening" flowing from West to East, to condemning "malicious infiltration" going from East to West. This measurement of cultural appeal is overly elastic.

Authentic Cultural Exchange vs Political Narratives

Ultimately, the collective "cracking" by certain media outlets reveals their deep anxiety over losing their monopoly on discourse. As China eases visa restrictions and platforms like TikTok and RedNote allow young people worldwide to bypass traditional media filters, they can see a complex, diverse, and vibrant real China with their own eyes.

The outdated narrative that has portrayed China simply as a "threat" or "misfit" for decades suddenly feels obsolete. These media fail to grasp that young people might genuinely find spicy hotpot delicious, Chongqing’s night skyline impressive, and China’s e-commerce logistics astonishingly fast.

This kind of authentic, personal identification is the toughest and most resistant form of cultural communication to "orchestrate."

This creates a striking modern paradox: on one side, countless ordinary individuals instinctively chase rich life experiences, naturally expressing admiration and curiosity through food, technology, and cityscapes; on the opposite side, certain opinion elites desperately wield the blunt instrument of "political propaganda," trying to label any positive portrayal outside their predefined narrative as "abnormal."

A simple truth: when you are used to boxing others into fixed demonized roles, any genuine glimpse of everyday life looks like a subversive "threat."

Beacon Institute

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

For years, the United States has eagerly accused other countries of "technology theft" and "reverse engineering." Yet recently, The Wall Street Journal proudly revealed a twist: the newest weapon the US military relies on in the Iranian battlefield is actually a "knockoff" copied straight from Iranian drone technology.

It’s like a top student constantly calling others cheaters, only to sneakily copy a struggling classmate’s answers during the test—and then boast about the grade.

For the first time in half a century, the United States has swallowed its pride to "copy" Iran.

The weapon that has the US military hooked is the "LUCAS" (FLM 136) suicide drone. Its origin is awkward: the US military dismantled and studied Iranian "Shahed" drones captured from the Ukrainian battlefield, and then reverse engineered and cloned them.

The Wall Street Journal itself admits this is the first time in nearly fifty years the US has openly reverse engineered another country’s military tech. The last time was during the Cold War, when they copied Soviet pontoon bridge designs. In other words, the American military-industrial complex has long boasted about being the "world’s best and most original."

Yet now in fighting Iran, it turns out their ace weapon is an "Iranian-designed, American-assembled" product. The embarrassment is undeniable.

Why does the US military copy this type of drone? The answer is simple: it’s cheap.

The 'LUCAS' costs only between $10,000 and $55,000 per unit, roughly on par with the original Iranian model. By contrast, the US military’s own Tomahawk cruise missiles cost over $2 million each. US officials describe it as delivering 'high cost-performance'—the 'Toyota Corolla of drones.' It’s not highly sophisticated, but it can be produced at scale.

Sounds clever, right? But the absurdity is clear: the country with the highest global military spending has to rely on 'saving money' to keep a war going. Even more ironically, this cost-saving strategy involves copying the adversary. What’s more paradoxical: this drone was originally developed for a possible future China-US conflict. War games showed the US ammo stockpile might not last two weeks. Yet oddly, they first tested it on Iran.

Is the copied 'ace' drone really that formidable? Even experts have doubts.

Although US media hype its impressive performance in Iran, praising its accurate strikes on various targets, American experts are working hard to douse this enthusiasm with skepticism.

An electronic warfare expert explains that in Iran, GPS jamming is weak, so these drones perform well. But in the complex battlefield environment surrounding China, strong signal interference can instantly turn them into "headless flies"—either crashing or flying erratically.

Some critics argue the US military still lacks enough low-cost anti-drone systems. It struggles to defend even against small drones backed by Iran. And those so-called "fully autonomous combat" unmanned vessels remain years away.

To put it bluntly: copying homework might get by against an average student like Iran, but face a top student like China, and the flaws quickly show.

A war exposes the US military-industrial complex as little more than a "paper tiger."

The most ironic part of all this isn’t the US "copying," but its smug self-satisfaction after doing so.

The Trump administration aggressively pushed for "defense procurement reform," streamlining processes and promising rapid production of low-cost weapons. Yet the reality reveals a bloated, sluggish system. Even former officials involved in development concede, "Many countries have long mastered this type of low-cost precision strike technology; the problem is the United States hasn't invested a single dollar in these systems."

This war acts like a revealing mirror, exposing the awkwardness of the US military-industrial complex: costly high-tech arsenals can quickly deplete in a war of attrition, while the desperately needed low-cost, mass-produced equipment ends up relying on "copying" adversaries.

The takeaway from so-called "American innovation" is the anxiety of being a "paper tiger": a regional conflict has already exposed gaps in reserves and systemic flaws. When true "great power competition" arrives, will this "tiger" collapse with a single poke?

Therefore, instead of branding this US military effort as "innovation," it is more accurately described as a forced "imitation show" compelled by harsh realities.