I think you have it right. But, like the damaged airplane flying toward Aktau, the pilot was unable to steer the plane forward in a straight line. Instead, the plane flew a zig-zag line. Going left for a while, then tilting back to the right. It wasted time and energy. But similar to convoys taking zig-zag patterns, it was simply the only way forward. The same can be said about the human society. Even when we see the goals clearly, we can rarely steer the society straight line ahead toward the goal. Either we become authoritarian and drag the society after us and be roasted in the history book, or we get detached from the larger picture and try to get personal comfort and peace. After all, life is too short. Or we try to do what was necessary in a zig-zag. Sometimes we go left, then followed by going right.
In a sense, the right is not always right, while the left has never left. The left are usually truly evil bastards, while the right are usually hypocrites camouflaged as gentlemen. It is an endless struggle. The best we can hope for, is generation by generation, we can move ahead a little bit. Then every couple of hundreds of years, we fall back in a giant step. I am afraid we are on the brink of some large changes which would not let most people feel good. Yet the changes would be necessary. No, I don't mean the neocon, the militarization of the society, or the small minority controlling the minds of many are good things or inevitable. But rather the fight to get rid of these bad actors and factors will always be expensive, and will always take sacrifices and generate casualties.
Thank you so much for your comment—you’ve captured something profound about how society moves forward, often in a zig-zag rather than a straight line. I see where you’re coming from, and there’s definitely a meta, almost philosophical viewpoint here: life is short, and with the powers that be, how much can we as individuals really do? It’s a question I wrestle with often.
I agree with your last point—sometimes, a shake-up can lead to a wake-up. But the danger lies in the uncertainty; it might not. And while I often feel bleak or pessimistic about “human nature,” I can’t shake the hope that the human species continues to exist here—peacefully, if possible. It’s a small hope, but it’s enough to keep me thinking, writing, and reflecting on what’s happening around us.
I sometimes feel like I’m writing into a vacuum and wonder what it will ultimately bring. But for me, this process is deeply personal. My father, who passed away, wanted to write a book about geography and history. He had so much knowledge and wanted to document it. My mother encouraged me to pick up that torch and write about the historic times we’re living through now, reminding me that someone, someday, might appreciate this perspective.
So even if the road ahead is uncertain and society moves in zig-zags, I think it’s important to leave some trace of what we saw, felt, and hoped for. Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement—it’s these exchanges that remind me why this work matters and why I want to keep sharing my observations.
Yes, it is the kind of determination you showed in your response that drives the humankind forward. Most people have soft spines out of necessities. The more the oligarchs control society, the more people will be forced to bend and comply. It is not that people are born bad, let alone evil, but rather that people have emotions, and emotional attachments bend the spines of people. However, a small percentage of people will try to move forward whenever they can. A cassical attitude in ancient China, I think started by Confucis himself, can be summarized as: "when the world is beyond salvation, I will keep myself straight and decent. But if there is just a little bit of chance or room for maneuver, I will try to bring my neighbors, and maybe my fellow countrymen along with me in that journey." I believe such attitude is the fundamental difference between the original Christian teaching versus the classical Judaism. Christians are thankful that they find the light, the Jews think they are the selected class and hence different. Confucius aimed for goals very similar to the Christiann teachings but he did so based on a human-centered philosophy.
Agree 100% on what you had laid on this excellent piece. A new system is needed to address the many problems cause by the implemention of neoliberal policies.
Dear Nel, As much as i praise your work on imperialism, taking Musk as an example of all billionaires that « operate within the global oligarchy, using far-right movements to weaken democratic institutions and advance privatization agendas » is really nonsense. First we would have to look at asian billionaires, or south american ones, most of them obviously have zero chance to follow this pattern. Then if we look at France or most EU countries they wouldnt touch the far-right with a stick, let alone use it. Now perhaps you call Macron or Starmer far-right, and then we have a problem with definitions. On the contrary easily 90% of billionaires in the West are very careful to avoid ties with far-right movements. Only a very recent move around Trump, limited mostly to Musk and a few other billionaires, has seen billionaires talking to the far right, and really it is not about economics, it is foremost about preserving western culture - and in the present situation it is hardly far right, as the widening public support shows. The "far right" has never been quite so much into extreme economic policies, they are usually quite traditional in terms of politics: Trump at least announced he would promote a Hamilton-style economic policy - of course he betrayed his pledge, but that is rather better than to pledge neoliberalism straight during the campaign. If we look at Orbán his economic policy is rather better, less neoliberal, than the extreme center. So you only take one sample, and arguably not a representative one. Neoliberalism is not the most difficult problem for the West to overcome: the root is emotional manipulation, and the most powerful emotional instruments are 1 international relations - demonizing (pro) Russia+China+Iran++ - and 2 immigration - demonizing "racists". Economics nowadays is much less emotional. Media narratives, used for constant reeducation, show that domination; we can make statistics of the topics treated.
In conclusion i think your interior politics models need review - i mean to make constructive criticisms. You have alot of talent, it would be a pity to remain uncritical of such dubious takes.
Brilliant. Though I think that you should name the forces that control both greenwashing neoliberals and the blatant nationalists- they are US based special interests ie BlackRock and Blackstone who fund arms, tech, fossil fuels and animal ag (big pharma's and big agrochemical's biggest client) who have a huge vested interest in not allowing systemic root causes of neocolonialism and inequality to be addressed.
I think you have it right. But, like the damaged airplane flying toward Aktau, the pilot was unable to steer the plane forward in a straight line. Instead, the plane flew a zig-zag line. Going left for a while, then tilting back to the right. It wasted time and energy. But similar to convoys taking zig-zag patterns, it was simply the only way forward. The same can be said about the human society. Even when we see the goals clearly, we can rarely steer the society straight line ahead toward the goal. Either we become authoritarian and drag the society after us and be roasted in the history book, or we get detached from the larger picture and try to get personal comfort and peace. After all, life is too short. Or we try to do what was necessary in a zig-zag. Sometimes we go left, then followed by going right.
In a sense, the right is not always right, while the left has never left. The left are usually truly evil bastards, while the right are usually hypocrites camouflaged as gentlemen. It is an endless struggle. The best we can hope for, is generation by generation, we can move ahead a little bit. Then every couple of hundreds of years, we fall back in a giant step. I am afraid we are on the brink of some large changes which would not let most people feel good. Yet the changes would be necessary. No, I don't mean the neocon, the militarization of the society, or the small minority controlling the minds of many are good things or inevitable. But rather the fight to get rid of these bad actors and factors will always be expensive, and will always take sacrifices and generate casualties.
Thank you so much for your comment—you’ve captured something profound about how society moves forward, often in a zig-zag rather than a straight line. I see where you’re coming from, and there’s definitely a meta, almost philosophical viewpoint here: life is short, and with the powers that be, how much can we as individuals really do? It’s a question I wrestle with often.
I agree with your last point—sometimes, a shake-up can lead to a wake-up. But the danger lies in the uncertainty; it might not. And while I often feel bleak or pessimistic about “human nature,” I can’t shake the hope that the human species continues to exist here—peacefully, if possible. It’s a small hope, but it’s enough to keep me thinking, writing, and reflecting on what’s happening around us.
I sometimes feel like I’m writing into a vacuum and wonder what it will ultimately bring. But for me, this process is deeply personal. My father, who passed away, wanted to write a book about geography and history. He had so much knowledge and wanted to document it. My mother encouraged me to pick up that torch and write about the historic times we’re living through now, reminding me that someone, someday, might appreciate this perspective.
So even if the road ahead is uncertain and society moves in zig-zags, I think it’s important to leave some trace of what we saw, felt, and hoped for. Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement—it’s these exchanges that remind me why this work matters and why I want to keep sharing my observations.
Yes, it is the kind of determination you showed in your response that drives the humankind forward. Most people have soft spines out of necessities. The more the oligarchs control society, the more people will be forced to bend and comply. It is not that people are born bad, let alone evil, but rather that people have emotions, and emotional attachments bend the spines of people. However, a small percentage of people will try to move forward whenever they can. A cassical attitude in ancient China, I think started by Confucis himself, can be summarized as: "when the world is beyond salvation, I will keep myself straight and decent. But if there is just a little bit of chance or room for maneuver, I will try to bring my neighbors, and maybe my fellow countrymen along with me in that journey." I believe such attitude is the fundamental difference between the original Christian teaching versus the classical Judaism. Christians are thankful that they find the light, the Jews think they are the selected class and hence different. Confucius aimed for goals very similar to the Christiann teachings but he did so based on a human-centered philosophy.
Agree 100% on what you had laid on this excellent piece. A new system is needed to address the many problems cause by the implemention of neoliberal policies.
Dear Nel, As much as i praise your work on imperialism, taking Musk as an example of all billionaires that « operate within the global oligarchy, using far-right movements to weaken democratic institutions and advance privatization agendas » is really nonsense. First we would have to look at asian billionaires, or south american ones, most of them obviously have zero chance to follow this pattern. Then if we look at France or most EU countries they wouldnt touch the far-right with a stick, let alone use it. Now perhaps you call Macron or Starmer far-right, and then we have a problem with definitions. On the contrary easily 90% of billionaires in the West are very careful to avoid ties with far-right movements. Only a very recent move around Trump, limited mostly to Musk and a few other billionaires, has seen billionaires talking to the far right, and really it is not about economics, it is foremost about preserving western culture - and in the present situation it is hardly far right, as the widening public support shows. The "far right" has never been quite so much into extreme economic policies, they are usually quite traditional in terms of politics: Trump at least announced he would promote a Hamilton-style economic policy - of course he betrayed his pledge, but that is rather better than to pledge neoliberalism straight during the campaign. If we look at Orbán his economic policy is rather better, less neoliberal, than the extreme center. So you only take one sample, and arguably not a representative one. Neoliberalism is not the most difficult problem for the West to overcome: the root is emotional manipulation, and the most powerful emotional instruments are 1 international relations - demonizing (pro) Russia+China+Iran++ - and 2 immigration - demonizing "racists". Economics nowadays is much less emotional. Media narratives, used for constant reeducation, show that domination; we can make statistics of the topics treated.
In conclusion i think your interior politics models need review - i mean to make constructive criticisms. You have alot of talent, it would be a pity to remain uncritical of such dubious takes.
Brilliant. Though I think that you should name the forces that control both greenwashing neoliberals and the blatant nationalists- they are US based special interests ie BlackRock and Blackstone who fund arms, tech, fossil fuels and animal ag (big pharma's and big agrochemical's biggest client) who have a huge vested interest in not allowing systemic root causes of neocolonialism and inequality to be addressed.
They are, indeed, masterful.