高市早苗这位被日本右翼视为希望之光的政客，恐怕即将黯然退场。2026年刚刚开始，关于她撑不到年底的传闻就像一把寒冷的冬日火焰，迅速蔓延至东亚 政坛。高市早苗的下台似乎已成定局，现在的焦点问题就是她究竟如何退出政治舞台。2025年11月，来自中国海关的权威数据显示，中国对日本出口的稀土 磁铁达到304吨，同比增长了约34%，创下全年新高，而与此同时，中国对美国的同类出口量却出现下降。 关键在于上瘾，中国提供的是民用轻稀土，不涉及到军事相关的重稀土。日本的企业看到政策逐渐收紧，急于囤积稀土，以为自己占了便宜，但实际上，他 们已经掉入了中国精心设下的陷阱。稀土是一种你无法割舍的资源，哪怕是再高调的反华言论，一旦缺少了稀土，新能源电动车、军事雷达、导弹制导系统 等高科技产业都会停滞不前。届时，高市将如何继续推动她所谓的强硬路线？ 这一升一降，背后蕴含的战略含义不言自明。这不仅仅是一次普通的贸易波动，更是一场充满战略布局的稀土博弈。日本一方面不断挑起事端，口口声声说 着要实现稀土去中国化，并大肆传播反华言论；另一方面，日本的企业却低头抢购稀土磁铁，几乎以低价将它们运往日本的工厂。看似矛盾的局面，其实背 后有着明确的逻辑 ...

日本经济这几年一直摇摇晃晃，2025年更显疲态。日元兑美元汇率从年初的140多一路下滑，到12月已跌到156左右，12月20日甚至触及157.76的低点。央行 试图通过加息稳住局面，但市场不买账，实际利率还是负的，通胀压力没减。企业出口虽有点受益，可进口成本大增，普通人日子难过。债务堆得像山一 样，占GDP比例已超230%，利息支出吃掉预算大头，政府刺激经济又得借更多钱，形成死循环。 无核三原则是日本战后承诺，不制造不拥有不引进核武。但历史上有秘密协议，允许美核舰入港，实际已违反。右翼政客像高市早苗，早年书籍就称三原则 不现实，现在议会发言暗示干预台湾，地区紧张升级。执政党内部调整安全战略，增加导弹出口到菲律宾，加强军合作。 美国对日本核言论态度暧昧，国务院称日本是核不扩散领导者，还承诺用自家核力量保护。这等于给政治掩护，把地缘利益放首位。日本作为唯一掌握完整 核循环的无核国，能提取武器级钚，运行再处理厂，转向只需政治决定。长崎广岛幸存者团体猛批，呼吁高市放弃这观点。 中国外交部直指这类言论非孤立，显露日本军国主义苗头。北韩也批评，日本尝试拥核必须阻止。国际原子能机构报告，钚储备远超民用，扩散担忧加剧。 中俄 ...

从"边缘势力"到"关键变量" 2月23日，德国新一届联邦议院选举投票开始。图为在德国北莱茵－威斯特法伦州阿恩斯贝格，选民在 一处投票站投票。 图据新华社客户端 在12月21日举行的西班牙埃斯特雷马杜拉自治区选举中，执政党受挫，极右翼政党呼声党席位增加超过 一倍，成为组建地方政府的关键力量。 这是2025年极右翼势力在欧洲多国继续抬头的又一例证。专家认为，以欧洲为代表，极右翼在世界多地 势力上升明显，极右翼政党以"未必最大、但不可或缺"的特征，成为影响多国组阁、左右议程、倒逼主 流政党调整路线的现实力量。 极右翼抬头，是经济、民生、移民、安全等问题压力增大，民众对传统政党信任赤字累积的结果。极右 翼在"焦虑政治"中更易实现动员，推动相关国家和地区政治整体右移，持续冲击本国原有政策路线和价 值叙事。 成为关键变量 有分析指出，"未必最大、但不可或缺"正成为近年来欧洲极右翼扩张的典型特征，即极右翼政党不一定 要独立执政，但也能通过在预算案、移民、治安、教育文化等议题上抬高要价，让主流政党作出一定妥 协并在政策上被动右移。 这一趋势今年在德国有所显现。在2月份的德国联邦议院选举中，极右翼政党德国选择党以创纪录的得 票 ...

中文语境中的"民族"一词，对应英文中的nation。这一概念与17 世纪出现于西欧的"民族主义"和"民族自 决"政治运动相联系，并于晚清时期传入中国。而在东亚大陆数千年的历史发展中，很早就形成了以中 华传统文化为纽带的政治、经济与文化共同体。黄河与长江流域的中原地区始终是这一共同体的核心区 域。在中原与周边群体之间虽然有"华夷之辨"和各种冲突，但更多的是经济贸易、文化交流和血缘融 合。"华夷之辨"的核心是社会伦理与文化的分野，二者共同构成了中华传统中的"天下"体系。尽管各群 体在族源、语言、经济方式、风俗习惯等方面存在差异，但这些差异更多是文化意义上的，而非现代民 族主义意义上的血缘、地缘或语言标准。各群体经过长期的政治整合、经济往来、文化交融与血缘互 通，早已形成"你中有我，我中有你"的共生格局。这与亨廷顿在《文化冲突论》中所表述的彼此文化隔 绝、利益冲突的群体观全然不同。 马 戎 近期，网上出现所谓"1644史观""悼明论"等话题，一些自媒体通过片面截取和解释历史素材，将造成历 史劫难的原因导向明清易代所造成的所谓"华夏文明的中断"上，并以此全盘否定元清等朝代在中华民族 发展进程中所起到的作用。这种主观引 ...

Group 1 - The current Japanese Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi, has made controversial statements that have drawn strong criticism from various international figures, indicating a rise in nationalism and militarism in Japan [1][3] - Critics argue that Takaichi's call to transform Japan's Self-Defense Forces into regular armed forces and her suggestion to potentially abandon the "Three Non-Nuclear Principles" are alarming, especially for a nation that has experienced nuclear devastation [3] - There is a consensus among international analysts that Takaichi's actions could destabilize Japan's relations with neighboring countries, particularly in the context of Taiwan and China [3][4] Group 2 - The resurgence of nationalist sentiments in Japan is viewed as a dangerous trend, with calls for the international community to oppose such movements [1] - Takaichi's approach is seen as an attempt to solidify her political position domestically, but it is criticized for being inappropriate and ineffective in the face of regional tensions [3] - The timing of her statements coincides with significant historical commemorations in China, suggesting a lack of sensitivity in Japan's handling of bilateral relations [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the complex and evolving perception of Zeng Guofan, a prominent figure in late Qing Dynasty China, highlighting his transition from a revered "meritorious minister" to a controversial figure labeled as a "traitor" during the Republican era, and eventually being recognized as a symbol of traditional Chinese culture and morality in the 20th century [1][10][20]. Group 1: Historical Context and Initial Recognition - Zeng Guofan founded the Xiang Army and played a crucial role in suppressing the Taiping Rebellion, earning high praise from the Qing government, which referred to him as a "meritorious minister" [3][4]. - His contributions were celebrated during the Tongzhi and Guangxu reigns, aligning with the Qing government's narrative of "revitalization" [3][4]. - A network of Zeng's friends and former students helped shape his positive image posthumously, emphasizing his virtues and contributions [4][5]. Group 2: Media Influence and Cultural Impact - The rapid development of publishing and media in late Qing facilitated the dissemination of Zeng's works, making them widely accessible [6][7]. - Zeng's writings became fashionable among scholars and officials, with many citing him as a moral exemplar [7][8]. - His commitment to Confucian ideals and self-cultivation positioned him as a model of virtue and governance [8][9]. Group 3: Shift in Perception During the Republican Era - The rise of revolutionary sentiments during the late Qing and early Republican periods led to a reevaluation of Zeng's legacy, with some revolutionaries labeling him a "traitor" for his role in suppressing the Taiping Rebellion [10][11]. - Influential figures like Tan Sitong criticized Zeng's actions, framing them as oppressive rather than heroic [10][11]. - The portrayal of Zeng as a "traitor" became prevalent among revolutionary circles, contrasting sharply with earlier views of him as a national hero [11][13]. Group 4: Resurgence of Zeng's Image in the 20th Century - Following the establishment of the Nationalist government in 1927, Zeng's image was rehabilitated, aligning with the new political climate that sought to emphasize order and stability [20][21]. - The Nationalist government promoted Zeng as a model of moral integrity and effective governance, reflecting a shift in political needs [20][21]. - Cultural conservatism in the 1930s further solidified Zeng's status as a defender of traditional Chinese values against foreign influences [22][23]. Group 5: Contemporary Reinterpretations - In the mid-20th century, Zeng was increasingly viewed as a symbol of Chinese cultural resilience, with scholars arguing for his role in preserving traditional values [23][24]. - His legacy was framed within the context of national identity and cultural pride, contrasting with earlier revolutionary critiques [25][26]. - Figures like Chiang Kai-shek actively promoted Zeng's teachings and principles, integrating them into the Nationalist ideology [28][29].

Core Points - The article discusses the complex political and personal life of Borges, highlighting his opposition to Peronism and the impact of his family background on his political views [1][3][15] - Borges' early political stance was shaped by his rejection of nationalism and his belief in a more inclusive identity for the Argentine people [2][3] - The narrative explores Borges' relationships, particularly with women, and how these influenced his literary career and political beliefs [4][10][18] Group 1: Political Views - Borges was a vocal opponent of Peronism, which he saw as a threat to democracy and civilization [1][15] - His political views evolved from a youthful idealism to a more skeptical perspective on democracy, influenced by the political climate in Argentina [1][3] - Borges' family background played a significant role in shaping his political identity, reflecting a struggle between his heritage and his aspirations for a democratic society [1][3][15] Group 2: Personal Relationships - Borges' relationships with women, particularly with figures like Concepción and Estela, were pivotal in his emotional and creative development [4][10][18] - His romantic entanglements often mirrored the political turmoil of Argentina, with love and politics intertwining in his life [10][18] - The article suggests that Borges' failures in love contributed to his literary output, leading him to shift from poetry to prose and criticism [10][12][18] Group 3: Literary Development - Borges' early works were influenced by his political beliefs and personal experiences, reflecting a blend of personal and societal themes [4][10][12] - His literary career saw a transition from poetry to prose, particularly after significant personal losses, marking a shift in his creative focus [10][12][18] - The narrative indicates that Borges' exploration of identity and culture in his writing was deeply connected to his experiences and the socio-political context of Argentina [8][10][18]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the rise of female conservative political leaders in Japan, particularly focusing on the potential of Sanae Takaichi to become Japan's first female Prime Minister, paralleling trends seen in Europe with leaders like Giorgia Meloni and Marine Le Pen [2][6]. Group 1: Female Leadership in Politics - Sanae Takaichi is seen as a significant figure in Japan's political landscape, marking the first time a woman has led the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) since its establishment in 1955 [4]. - The emergence of female leaders in conservative parties is viewed as a response to the previous failures of liberal parties to break the "glass ceiling" despite attempts to promote gender equality [5][6]. - The article highlights the cautious stance of Takaichi on issues like "selective surname for married couples," raising questions about the advancement of gender equality under her leadership [4]. Group 2: Nationalism and Gender - The article notes a trend where women in politics are sometimes used as tools for nationalism, with Takaichi's leadership potentially intertwining national identity with gender [2][9]. - The rise of right-wing populist parties in Japan, which have a significant female representation, reflects a broader European trend of conservative parties promoting female leaders [8]. - The narrative of women as national symbols is illustrated by candidates like Kiyoka Shioiri, who campaigned on a maternal image, suggesting a blend of femininity with nationalist sentiments [10][12]. Group 3: Comparative Analysis with Europe - The article draws parallels between Japan and Europe, noting that the political landscape in Japan is influenced by the success of female leaders in European conservative parties, such as Meloni in Italy [6][8]. - The rise of right-wing populism in Japan, characterized by a focus on "Japan First," mirrors similar movements in Europe, where nationalism often overshadows globalism [12]. - Takaichi's leadership is seen as a potential shift in Japan's political image, aiming to refresh the conservative party's approach while navigating the complexities of gender and nationalism [6][12].

Core Insights - The book "The Worst Bet in the World: How Globalization Went Off the Rails (and How to Get Back on Track)" by David Lynch highlights that American workers are merely pawns in the globalization gamble, with their fates disconnected from the outcomes of this global economic strategy [1][22] Group 1: Historical Context of Globalization - Initially, globalization was viewed as an ideal utopia where capital could flow freely across borders, benefiting developing countries and creating new markets [3] - The economic turmoil in countries like Indonesia and Russia, along with the unemployment of American workers, illustrates the negative consequences of globalization [3] - The 1990s saw President Clinton promoting globalization as an "unstoppable force," despite widespread awareness that it would harm domestic workers [5] Group 2: Impact on Workers - Economists like Dani Rodrik warned that globalization primarily benefits capital and high-skilled labor, while low-skilled workers face job losses due to competition from cheaper labor [5] - Clinton's "Trade Adjustment Assistance" program aimed to support displaced workers but was poorly executed, with less than 10% of eligible workers benefiting [5][14] - The signing of NAFTA did not significantly reduce factory numbers, but workers affected by low-cost labor from Mexico suffered greatly, leading to increased anti-globalization sentiments [10] Group 3: Political Reactions and Shifts - Protests against globalization peaked during the 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle, reflecting workers' frustrations with being sacrificed for corporate interests [10][13] - Obama's push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) faced backlash due to its perceived favoritism towards corporations over labor rights [16] - Trump's election and subsequent withdrawal from TPP signified a shift towards prioritizing American workers, although the effectiveness of such measures remains questionable [16] Group 4: Current Challenges and Future Considerations - The COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, prompting a reevaluation of reliance on international production models [18] - Lynch calls for a reconsideration of globalization, urging that the needs of small-town residents dependent on factories should not be dismissed as "ignorant protectionism" [19] - While Lynch suggests increasing corporate tax rates and rebuilding social safety nets, he acknowledges the lack of concrete policy solutions to address the ongoing challenges of globalization [21]

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration plans to sign an executive order to change the name of the Department of Defense to the "Department of War," which aims to project a stronger military image, despite concerns over the implications and costs associated with this change [1][3][6]. Group 1: Name Change Details - The executive order will allow the use of "Department of War" in official communications, although formal name change requires Congressional approval [1][3]. - The Department of Defense, established in 1947, was previously known as the Department of War for over 150 years [4][5]. - The name change is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reshape U.S. military and foreign policy, emphasizing a more aggressive stance [6][8]. Group 2: Financial Implications - Changing the name and associated branding could cost billions of dollars, which may conflict with the administration's efforts to cut defense spending [6][7]. - Critics argue that the funds could be better spent on supporting military families or diplomatic efforts to prevent conflicts [7][8]. Group 3: Political and Historical Context - The name change reflects a shift in U.S. military policy, moving from a defensive posture to a more aggressive, war-centric approach [8]. - Historical context suggests that the original name change to the Department of Defense was intended to signal a focus on preventing war, contrasting with the current administration's actions [7][8].