While some might sympathize with the author's point of view, I believe his narrative is riddled with rhetoric and he has trouble with and ultimately fails at, supporting his thesis. Certain aspects of the piece feel contrived. At best, the author makes some vague social commentary but it's obvious he's coming from a post-soviet nationalist school of thinking - which makes the piece feel even less approachable.

Further, at times, the author outright lacks the evidence to support his claims. Such is true when he asserts, "Such as Dongpeng, Wrigley, the new source, Faenza, dozens of well-known brand products have both tile sanitary ware products."
In this instance the author, in an act of utter folly, suggests Faenza is the new source. But of course, it is well documented that Dongpeng and Wrigley are indeed the new sources and of course, Faenza is the oldest source in question.

To contend that "many people thought that the brand is famous Mona Lisa" without any evidence to support this claim is just another example of the author's deluded and unsupported dreams. In an independent study at the time of the event, it was found that 73% of people thought that the brand was actually Marco Polo bathroom, not Mona Lisa. The author even makes the mistake of confusing Marco Polo and Dongpeng later in the text.

I can say without reservation that the author's commentary on the French and Indian war is again, undocumented and sensationalist. Ultimately I feel that Faenza and Wrigley will be interesting to watch, but I feel Dongpeng has been discussed at dinner tables across this country for too long.