No Allies, neither side can use their air force/s.

During the PRI dictatorship period in Mexico, the sitting Mexican president had the absolute power to choose his successor (the "fingertip" or dedazo). This meant that ambitious elites didn't compete by offering better policy or institutional reform; they competed by being the most loyal to the current leader. It fostered patronage rather than competitivity.

After the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping intentionally moved away from "strongman" rule. He instituted term limits, age requirements, and a system of collective leadership. For several decades, the General Secretary was more of a "first among equals" within the Politburo Standing Committee.

Why?

To rise in the CPC, officials were often judged on the GDP growth and social stability of their provinces. This created a "tournament" where cadres competed on administrative performance. The two main factions—the Populists (led by Hu Jintao, focusing on the poor interior) and the Princelings (led by Jiang Zemin, focusing on the wealthy coast)—acted as a "bipolar" balance.

In contrast, the PRI functioned more like a massive labor union and corporate machine. It absorbed every social movement (peasants, workers, military) into "sectors." Instead of competing, these sectors were paid off through state resources. There was no "tournament" for performance; there was only a "negotiation" for spoils.

Why?

In Mexico, the PRI changed its entire cabinet every six years (the Sexenio), it provided a "safety valve" that gave the illusion of change without actually altering the underlying inclusive/extractive framework.

In contrast, in China, the CPC realized that after Mao, the party adopted traits like private property rights and market competition, when they could have just behaved like the PRI, as they had absolute power like the PRI did.

Why?

The "democratization" of Mexico in the year 2000 didn't dismantle the networks because the underlying bureaucracy and local power brokers were still the same people who had been trained under the PRI’s patronage system for 71 years.

In contrast, the CPC, despite not even pretending to be a democracy allowed for internal competition, where factions within it, like the princelings & populists kept each other in Check.

Why?

During the PRI dictatorship period in Mexico, the sitting Mexican president had the absolute power to choose his successor (the "fingertip" or dedazo). This meant that ambitious elites didn't compete by offering better policy or institutional reform; they competed by being the most loyal to the current leader. It fostered patronage rather than competitivity.

After the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping intentionally moved away from "strongman" rule. He instituted term limits, age requirements, and a system of collective leadership. For several decades, the General Secretary was more of a "first among equals" within the Politburo Standing Committee.

Why?

To rise in the CPC, officials were often judged on the GDP growth and social stability of their provinces. This created a "tournament" where cadres competed on administrative performance. The two main factions—the Populists (led by Hu Jintao, focusing on the poor interior) and the Princelings (led by Jiang Zemin, focusing on the wealthy coast)—acted as a "bipolar" balance.

In contrast, the PRI functioned more like a massive labor union and corporate machine. It absorbed every social movement (peasants, workers, military) into "sectors." Instead of competing, these sectors were paid off through state resources. There was no "tournament" for performance; there was only a "negotiation" for spoils.

Why?

In Mexico, the PRI changed its entire cabinet every six years (the Sexenio), it provided a "safety valve" that gave the illusion of change without actually altering the underlying inclusive/extractive framework.

In contrast, in China, the CPC realized that after Mao, the party adopted traits like private property rights and market competition, when they could have just behaved like the PRI, as they had absolute power like the PRI did.

Why?

The "democratization" of Mexico in the year 2000 didn't dismantle the networks because the underlying bureaucracy and local power brokers were still the same people who had been trained under the PRI’s patronage system for 71 years.

In contrast, the CPC, despite not even pretending to be a democracy allowed for internal competition, where factions within it, like the princelings & populists kept each other in Check.

Why?

Location: Some indestructible planet. Perhaps where the tournament of power took place in DB super

IIRC it was a Techno/Electronic song or at least similar to techno/electronic. It was common in YouTube vids in the mid-2000s. It’s not a "rave" song or something you'd hear at a club. IIRC one video on YT had writing on the screen referring to the song as ''The holy spirit''. which makes sense given that at least part of it had a heavenly vibe. I don't mean heavenly as in insanely good.

I am aware that the consensus is that Paul the apostle didn't write them, and these are the 3 biggest reasons.

1. Writing style
2. the author of the pastoral epistles is aware he isn't living in the end times
3. it speaks about institutionalization of the church

The first 2 reasons don't feel like smoking guns to me, personally, as Paul seemed like he was aware he wasn't living in the end times in his undisputed letters and as a writer, my writing style has changed a lot over the years, also, he may have been writing in a different style intentionally due to who he was writing to. However the 3rd reason might be a smoking gun for me. So, how do you know/why do you think, the church didn't reach the level of institutionalization spoken about in the pastoral epistles, during his lifetime? I am open minded

R2: during Sozin's comet

Like when they fought in canon, but with the exception/s I listed