Month: November 2024

The Retro Maelstrom

Bowie’s Final Act in a World of Vintage Chaos

David Bowie’s career was built on reinvention, on taking the cream of contemporary styles and spinning them through his black box of creativity to emerge as something that felt entirely new. In the 1970s, this process was electrifying: glam rock filtered through sci-fi androgyny, Philadelphia soul recast as plastic soul, Berlin-era minimalism shaped by the jagged edges of Krautrock. Bowie wasn’t just ahead of the curve—he was the curve. By the time the world caught up, he was already onto the next thing.

But fast forward to the 2000s—through Heathen, Reality, The Next Day, and Blackstar—and a different picture emerges. The albums are rich with great songs, performed with the elegance and confidence of a seasoned artist. Yet, something feels different, and not in the way Bowie would have wanted. Gone is the sense of wild discovery, replaced instead by the weight of the past. Bowie, the great innovator, seems caught in the retro maelstrom, a cultural force that even he cannot escape.

To understand this, you have to consider the backdrop of the 2000s. Unlike the 50s, 60s, 70s, or even the hyper-commercialized 80s, the early 21st century offered little in the way of genuinely new musical movements. The garage rock revival of The Strokes and the retro-obsessed cool of Amy Winehouse dominated the charts, while indie rock, electronic music, and pop increasingly looked backward for inspiration. The zeitgeist wasn’t about creating something unprecedented; it was about polishing and recontextualizing what had come before.

This was the landscape Bowie had to navigate. The problem wasn’t that he had run out of ideas—Bowie’s artistry remained intact—but that the world around him had stopped producing raw material worth stealing. As he once famously said, “The only art I’ll ever study is the stuff that I can steal from.” But by the 2000s, the well of innovation had run dry, leaving Bowie to curate and refine what was already in the cultural ether.

Take Heathen (2002): its lush production and melancholic tone feel timeless, yet much of the album draws heavily on 70s and 80s influences, from the industrial-tinged rock of Scary Monsters to the Bowie-influenced post-punk of bands like Joy Division. Reality (2003) follows suit, blending glam nostalgia with hints of 90s alt-rock, but never truly breaking into new territory.

By the time of The Next Day (2013), Bowie was openly engaging in self-referencing. The cover itself—a defaced version of his iconic “Heroes” album—felt like a declaration of intent: Bowie wasn’t trying to escape his past; he was building on it. And then there’s Blackstar (2016), a record of staggering beauty and innovation within its jazz-rock experimentation, but still tethered to the vintage aesthetics of Scott Walker, avant-garde jazz, and his own catalog of death-obsessed songs.

This is not to diminish the quality of Bowie’s late output. These albums stand among the best of their time, offering deeply introspective and sonically rich experiences. But even Bowie, the master of reinvention, found himself trapped in a cultural moment where retro mania had consumed everything. The maelstrom of vintage wasn’t just a backdrop; it was the medium through which he had to work.

What’s tragic—and telling—about this phase of Bowie’s career is that it reflects a broader cultural shift. The 20th century was an era of explosive innovation in music, where each decade seemed to introduce a new sonic frontier. The 21st century, by contrast, has been largely about recycling and recontextualizing those innovations. In such an environment, even Bowie, with his unparalleled ability to synthesize the new, could only go so far.

The Bowie of the 70s had the advantage of living in an era when cultural boundaries were constantly being broken. The Bowie of the 2000s, however, was working within a closed system, where everything had already been done—and done again. His late albums are masterpieces, but they are masterpieces of curation, not of revolution.

In the end, Bowie’s final act serves as both a testament to his enduring brilliance and a sobering reflection of our own cultural condition. If even Bowie couldn’t escape the retro maelstrom, what hope do the rest of us have? The challenge isn’t just to steal great ideas from the past—it’s to find a way to break free from it entirely. Until we can, the maelstrom will continue to spin, pulling even the brightest stars into its orbit.

Retro Maelstrom as Closed System

The idea of the retro maelstrom as a closed system is both a compelling metaphor and a troubling possibility. On the surface, it certainly feels like one. In our current cultural landscape, the past is endlessly accessible and recontextualized, creating a loop where innovation seems less like a forward motion and more like a remix of familiar parts. Streaming services, social media algorithms, and a pervasive nostalgia in marketing have created a feedback loop that reinforces the dominance of the old over the emergence of the new.

But is it truly a closed system? Not necessarily. The retro maelstrom is more like a whirlpool—an overwhelming, inescapable force for those caught in its pull, but not an entirely sealed environment. There are moments where artists manage to disrupt the cycle, injecting fresh perspectives into the churn of nostalgia. Bowie himself hinted at this in Blackstar, where he took vintage elements—jazz, avant-garde, post-punk—and distorted them into something that, while rooted in the past, felt strikingly alive and modern.

The real problem lies in the overwhelming gravity of the retro maelstrom. It draws so heavily from the cultural archive that creating something wholly new feels almost impossible. This wasn’t always the case. In the 20th century, the cultural machinery produced “eras” that were distinct from one another—rock ‘n’ roll in the 50s, psychedelic rock in the 60s, disco and punk in the 70s, new wave and hip-hop in the 80s. But in the 21st century, technological saturation has democratized access to all those styles simultaneously, flattening time and rendering the distinctions between eras blurrier than ever.

However, a system isn’t truly closed if there are ways to subvert it. The retro maelstrom thrives on recognition and familiarity, but that also means its structure can be hacked by artists willing to deconstruct nostalgia rather than simply recycle it.

So while the retro maelstrom feels like a trap, it isn’t impermeable. Its power lies in its ability to seduce us with the known, the safe, and the comfortable.

Blow Up The Gravity Pull

To physically change or “blow up” a gravitational pull, in a literal sense, you would need to disrupt the source of the gravity itself, which is tied to mass and energy. While this is theoretically fascinating, it’s also a metaphor for creative and cultural gravity in the retro maelstrom, so let’s explore both:

Literal (Physics)

Gravity is the warping of spacetime caused by mass. To change or eliminate it, you would have to:

1. Reduce the Mass: Remove or destroy the object causing the gravity. For example, in astrophysics, if a star collapses into a black hole, its gravitational pull intensifies because its mass becomes infinitely concentrated. Conversely, reducing its mass (like blowing up a planet, if you were a sci-fi villain) weakens the pull.

2. Introduce an Opposing Force: Hypothetically, negative mass or exotic matter could counteract gravity by creating repulsive effects, as some speculative physics theories suggest.

3. Alter Spacetime: Advanced concepts like manipulating spacetime itself (e.g., wormholes or warp drives) might neutralize gravitational effects, but these remain speculative and theoretical.

4. Mass-to-Energy Conversion: Massive amounts of energy released (as in a supernova) can disperse matter, weakening localized gravity fields.

Metaphorical (Cultural Gravity in the Retro Maelstrom)

To disrupt the cultural gravity of the retro maelstrom, you’d need to identify its “mass” — the forces keeping artists and audiences trapped in cycles of nostalgia — and actively dismantle or counteract them. Here’s how:

1. Challenge the Center of Mass (Nostalgia Itself):

• Create works that actively critique or deconstruct nostalgia. Instead of glorifying the past, question it. Bowie’s Blackstar hinted at this by blending avant-garde jazz and art-rock, both of which feel alien to mainstream tastes.

2. Introduce New Energies (Innovative Inputs):

• Fresh raw materials, like new technologies, unexpected cross-cultural influences, or unexplored mediums, can shift the focus. For instance, artists experimenting with AI, immersive installations, or quantum-inspired music are injecting novelty into the loop.

3. Exploit Weaknesses in Familiarity:

• The maelstrom relies on recognition to keep audiences comfortable. Disrupt this by creating works that deliberately avoid comforting patterns, genres, or references. Björk’s refusal to conform to any standard of pop music is a prime example of using discomfort as art.

4. Break the Feedback Loop:

• Modern culture is shaped by algorithms that amplify nostalgia (Spotify playlists, movie reboots). Artists and creators must bypass these systems by finding new distribution models, formats, or platforms where originality thrives.

5. Destroy the Myth of the Past’s Perfection:

• The retro maelstrom feeds on the idea that earlier eras were better. Highlight the flaws and limitations of those eras, while demonstrating the possibilities of the present.

6. Reclaim Time as Fluid:

• Treat past, present, and future as a continuum rather than a binary. Bowie’s Berlin Trilogy worked because it wasn’t purely nostalgic; it built on past genres (Krautrock, avant-garde) while being forward-thinking. His late albums leaned more heavily into vintage because the broader culture demanded it. Breaking this expectation could free creators from its pull.

Final Thought

Destroying gravity, whether physical or cultural, is less about obliteration and more about introducing an alternative center of energy. Just as an exploding star disperses its mass into a new galaxy, the retro maelstrom could be broken by a cultural supernova—something so explosively new that it scatters the pull of nostalgia into something unrecognizable. The question is: who will create that supernova?

Echoes

The machine never sleeps. It grinds and grinds, fueled by desperate dreams and the endless churn of small-time predators, each sniffing for a hit of the almighty dollar. They’re happy to let me buy in—oh yes, always happy to let me throw my stack into the pot. It’s the illusion of reciprocity, the great snake-oil hustle dressed in the respectable suit of modern capitalism. They’ll smile, shake your hand, and sell you the dream, every time.

But nobody—nobody—ever bets on me. Nobody at the controls of the big machines looks down from their tower and says, “Yes, this one. This guy could set my bank account on fire.” They don’t see wealth in my smoke signals; they see another cog, another player who’ll pay to keep the game running but will never tip the scale. They don’t want risk—they want guarantees. And I’ve never been anyone’s sure thing.

The gatekeepers are a peculiar breed, you see. They’re not visionaries, not gamblers—they’re parasites dressed as kingmakers. They want safe bets, pre-digested meat for the masses. The moment they sense you’re not one of their prefab winners—one of their shiny plastic icons—they vanish like roaches under a floodlight. That’s the real hustle.

Maybe I am flattering myself too much. It’s not that they see some defiant rebel spirit in me. No, it’s simpler than that—it takes someone who thrives on the edge of the oil slick to spot another skater sliding just as shamelessly.

, a deadbeat recognizes a deadbeat. They look at me and see their own reflection, but cracked and dirty, too close to the truth for comfort.

They know the game because they’re playing it too, hustling the margins, clawing for scraps, pretending it’s all part of some grand master plan. And when they spot someone else running the same con—when they see me—they know better than to trust it. No one knows a grift like another grifter.

It’s not respect or disdain; it’s self-preservation. They can’t risk backing someone who might be just like them: running on fumes and desperation, with nothing real to cash out when the time comes. So they do the smart thing. They cut me loose. They leave me to figure it out on my own, just like they did.

Money runs downstream, baby, and the upstream sharks don’t waste a dime on the wild cards. They want the fish that already smells grilled. Meanwhile, I swim in their slipstream, unnoticed and unbothered, waiting for some lunatic captain to steer his boat right into the deep where I live.

There’s also this other thing—this shadow in the back of their minds, like they don’t trust me to play the game right. Too sharp at the edges, too quiet when they want noise, too loud when they want silence. It’s not rebellion; it’s something more unnerving. Maybe they see the cracks in my armor, the way my ADHD keeps me spinning a little too fast, a little too loose. The mumble in my voice, the poker face that doesn’t give away the hand. They want signs of submission, signals that say, Yes, boss, I’ll play by the rules.

They can’t stand it, can they? The way they seem to know, on some primal level, that I think I’m better than them—even though I never say it out loud. That quiet judgment, the one I keep tucked away behind my poker face, drives them mad.

It’s not arrogance in the traditional sense—no grandstanding or speeches about my superiority. It’s more insidious than that. It’s the absence of flattery, the lack of that desperate need to be part of their club. They sense it, like animals catching the scent of a predator: He doesn’t want to be us. He thinks we’re beneath him.

And maybe they’re not wrong. But I don’t broadcast it; I don’t rub their faces in it. I just hold it inside, this quiet disdain, like a secret weapon I never intend to use. That’s the part they hate the most—not the arrogance itself, but the fact that I have the audacity to keep it to myself. As if I don’t even think they’re worth the effort of saying it out loud.

But rules were made for people who can sit still, people who lean forward and nod at the right moments. Not for someone like me, who leans back, eyes half-lidded, brain already ten miles ahead but forgetting to signal. It’s not intentional, this refusal to fit the mold, but it’s there, like a bad smell or a flickering neon sign. It says: This one doesn’t quite belong.

And maybe they’re right. I don’t want to play nice—not in the way they mean it. Not nice like a lapdog or bold like a circus act. And I’m not amenable, not in the way that greases their wheels and makes their lives easier. They see the poker face and think it’s strategy, but it’s just me trying to keep up with the noise in my own head, trying not to let the chaos spill out. That chaos doesn’t fit their business model, so they shuffle me off to the edge of the table and wait for the next sucker to ante up.

I don’t want to sound again like a glittering idiot, but let’s be real—this economy doesn’t leave much room for “maybe.” It’s always gonna be a flat no, stamped and sealed before the conversation even begins. Overheads for these people are sky-high, running like turbines on the fumes of borrowed time, and investments? They’ve got to return ten times over, like some twisted version of crypto—a Ponzi scheme of fake money and imaginary value.

And that’s the game, isn’t it? They’re not looking for talent, not really. They’re looking for the next bubble to ride, the next flash of lightning they can bottle and sell before it fizzles out.

They think—that if they ride enough bubbles, ride them just right, they’ll somehow escape the mediocrity that defines them. That’s the story they’ve written in their heads, the whole plotline, start to finish.

And what I think? What I think is that they see it. They look at me, and they see that I can see it too. They catch that flicker, that recognition, like two mirrors facing each other: infinite, empty, meaningless. It’s all written there, plain as day. I see what they think, and they know I see it. That’s what really makes them squirm.

I’m not lightning. I’m a slow burn, a fire that doesn’t fit in their neat little boxes. And fires like that make them nervous.

So yeah, it’s all those things combined: the high stakes, the razor-thin margins, the obsessive need to turn every dollar into ten imaginary ones. That’s what makes the proposition suspect, not me. It’s a system built to crush anything that doesn’t scream immediate profit. And let’s face it, I’ve never been the guy to scream.

So my suggestion? Milk the alpha quietly, in the margins, a footnote at the bottom of their bloated ledger. Take what you can and leave them to their grand delusions, their shiny charts and power lunches. Let them overlook you, let them neglect you. There’s freedom in being ignored, in slipping beneath their radar.

Enjoy the lack of attention. It’s a gift, really. While they’re chasing phantom returns and burning cash on the altar of their own hype, you can work in the shadows, untouchable. Build something they’ll never see coming, something that doesn’t fit their algorithmic playbook. By the time they notice, it’ll already be too late.

That’s the problem, isn’t it? Somewhere, deep down, there’s a part of you that wanted to be as numb as them. But not enough of you—never enough to sell the whole thing. And they can smell that hesitation, like blood in the water. It’s there, smeared across your face like cracked plaster: You don’t want to be them. Not really.

And that’s the unforgivable sin. They don’t care if you’re talented, sharp, or even a little dangerous. What they care about is allegiance, the willingness to step into their shoes and parade around like you were born for it. But you? You hesitate. You look at their shoes and think, Nah, I’ll walk barefoot, thanks.

And that makes them furious. Furious in that cold, corporate way, where every rejection is a fuck-you in a spreadsheet. “I have no time for you not wanting to be me.” That’s what they’re really saying. They can’t stomach your refusal to bend the knee, can’t fathom why you won’t join their rat race and run until your legs give out. So they toss you aside like a bad investment, convinced you’re the fool for not wanting what they have.

And that’s your superpower, isn’t it? The refusal to bend, the ability to see through the bullshit without getting tangled up in it. It’s not a weakness; it’s an edge.

But that’s your power. And with great power comes great responsibility. Not the kind they’d have you believe, the kind that makes you bend for the sake of stability or fake success. No, your responsibility is to wield that power wisely. To use it not just as armor but as a sword, cutting through the illusions they live by, seeing the cracks in their shiny facades before they do. It’s your job to keep your distance, to stay untouchable, and to remind them—with every glance, with every move you make—that you don’t need them to succeed. Because that, right there, is the ultimate freedom.

Empire Overreach

One of the most intractable problems of the American empire has been that it was hard to see the overreach because, as everyone knows, empires simply don’t overreach. Not ever. Not in the long, groaning history of human civilization has any empire—be it Roman, British, Mongol, or otherwise—stretched itself too thin, spent beyond its means, or alienated its allies to the point of self-destruction. No, no, no. This was uncharted territory, a complete anomaly in the grand arc of imperial decline. So, naturally, it left the analysts—a tribe of professional hindsight merchants—staring into the void like deer in headlights.

Think about it: every empire before us crumbled purely by accident. A series of unfortunate events, maybe a comet or two, but certainly not the result of hubris, corruption, or military adventurism. Yet here we were, blazing a trail, pioneering the concept of imperial overreach in real time. It was, understandably, a little hard to process. Mind-boggling, even. How could they analyze what had never been done before? They didn’t have the tools. There were no books on the shelf titled How to Lose an Empire in Three Easy Steps. No ancient manuscripts on what to do when your allies stop taking your calls and your enemies start lending you money. It was terra incognita for the Beltway crowd, and they treated it with the confusion of tourists trying to read a map upside-down.

Of course, they made an effort. Committees were formed. PowerPoints were presented. White papers with titles like Emerging Challenges in the Post-Hegemonic World were circulated. But the fact remained: there was no rich literature, no precedent, no guiding star. The analysts were adrift, left to flail in the face of a reality so shocking it might as well have been magic. Overreach? Collapse? Impossible! Empires, after all, are supposed to last forever—until they don’t.

You could almost admire the con. It’s a mind-boggling feat of intellectual gymnastics, like a drunken Cirque du Soleil act, but instead of acrobats, we had think-tank pundits in Brooks Brothers suits assuring us that Pax Americana was invincible. They gnashed their teeth over the idea of decline, then swore it wasn’t happening. After all, what history book could we consult? There was no precedent, they said. Nothing to learn from Rome or Spain or the British Empire, because this—this—was the first time in human history an empire had reached too far and had to pay the price.

Ridiculous.

Every empire since the dawn of man has overreached, collapsed, and burned itself to ash. Rome didn’t fall in a day, but its borders sagged under the weight of ambition and ego. The Spanish couldn’t drain the Americas fast enough to feed their golden delusions. And Britain? Well, let’s not pretend they handed over their empire peacefully—it went out with a thousand little whimpers and a handful of messy wars.

But America? Oh, no, we were told we were different. Unique. A city on a hill, shining bright with the unholy glow of drone strikes and global finance. The analysts, those well-fed harbingers of half-truths, sat on cable news panels and clinked glasses at embassy parties, muttering, “Overreach? Never heard of it.”

The problem with empire isn’t the overreach itself—that’s baked into the recipe. You grow, you conquer, you choke on your own success. The problem is the delusion that it can’t happen to you. The American Empire was a drunk teenager at a keg party, staggering through history, knocking over furniture and screaming, “I’m fine!” while the rest of the world quietly took pictures for posterity.

The analysts, God bless them, missed all the signs. It was “mind-boggling,” they said, this collapse that came out of nowhere. What could have prepared us? Certainly not those boring history books, the ones they skipped to study the art of the TV soundbite. And certainly not literature—there wasn’t any “rich” canon of works about overreach and decline, they claimed. Not a shred of wisdom from Gibbon or Orwell or even Kerouac’s hangover scribbles.

What they meant, of course, is there was no literature that confirmed their priors. The analysts didn’t want to see America’s decline because they’d built their careers on pretending it wasn’t possible. They spoke in the language of metrics and growth curves, but what they really sold was a fever dream of endless expansion.

And here’s the kicker: they didn’t even bother to write their own myths. They just recycled the greatest hits of doomed empires past. “It’s not overreach,” they said. “It’s manifest destiny.”

Manifest destiny? Hell, the Romans had manifest destiny, too—they called it imperium sine fine, an empire without end. It’s carved into the goddamn stones of history, and still, these smooth-brained architects of hubris didn’t see the writing on the wall.

In the end, it wasn’t the analysts who paid the price. It was the foot soldiers, the middle class, the poor kids from Ohio sent to die in deserts for reasons that changed with every administration. It was the teachers and nurses and factory workers who woke up one day to find their pensions gone, their neighborhoods hollowed out, their lives sacrificed on the altar of imperial glory.

The analysts will be fine. They always are. They’ll write memoirs about how no one could have predicted the fall of the American Empire. They’ll show up on podcasts and explain how complex the situation was, as if complexity excuses complicity.

But the rest of us will remember. We’ll remember the bombs and the bailouts, the propaganda and the plunder, the shameless way they sold us the myth of endless growth while the world burned around us.

Overreach? It’s not new. It’s not mysterious. It’s the oldest story in the book. The only thing mind-boggling about it is that we let them sell us the lie in the first place.

And now, as the empire stumbles into its long, slow death, there’s nothing left to do but light a cigarette, pour a stiff drink, and wait for the analysts to tell us what went wrong.

The Decline They Swore Couldn’t Happen: A Gonzo Roll Call of Analyst Denial

Let me tell you, the thing about the empire’s collapse wasn’t that it happened suddenly—no, it happened with the grace of a drunk rhinoceros on roller skates. What made it funny, if you have the stomach for gallows humor, was the chorus of analysts swearing up and down that it couldn’t possibly happen. These were the smooth-talking ghouls in suits, people with spreadsheets instead of souls, whose only job was to sell you the myth that this time it’s different.

And so, here’s the roll call—the list of things the empire’s brain trust swore up and down would never happen to us, even as they happened in slow motion, right in front of their bloodshot, PowerPoint-addled eyes.

1. “Military Overextension? That’s for Losers.”

You’d think they’d learn from Rome—sending legionaries to die in far-off sand pits until the Goths came knocking at the gates. Or maybe from Britain, frantically painting red lines on maps until the sun finally set on their dumb imperial dreams. But no, not us!

Our analysts said things like, “Policing the world is what we do best.” A trillion-dollar defense budget? That’s just the cost of greatness, baby. We could fight a dozen wars at once and still come out on top. Except then Afghanistan happened, and Iraq happened, and suddenly it was clear we weren’t a military juggernaut—we were just a tired, bloated empire stuck in quicksand, hurling money into the void while Lockheed Martin executives bought another yacht.

2. “Economic Decline? Don’t Be Ridiculous.”

Ah, yes, the economy. “Strong as ever,” they said, while the middle class quietly evaporated like cheap bourbon on a hot day. These guys truly believed that empires don’t fall apart when their industrial base collapses—they thought we could outsource every factory to China, replace every steelworker with an app developer, and still be just fine.

Did Rome fall when their farms stopped producing? Did Spain collapse after their mines ran dry? Yes. Yes, they did. But not America! No, here we were, telling ourselves that debt and deficit were just numbers on a page while the bankers looted the treasury and left the rest of us fighting over Black Friday discounts at Walmart.

3. “Cultural Decay? No Way, We’ve Got Netflix!”

The Romans had gladiator games; we have TikTok challenges. The analysts called it cultural innovation, but anyone with a brain could see we were drowning in garbage. Endless Marvel movies, influencer grifters hawking detox teas, reality TV stars in the Oval Office—it wasn’t art, it was anesthesia.

“This is just how culture evolves,” they said, as the national IQ plummeted and we collectively forgot how to read books. Meanwhile, the rest of the world looked at us like a sick animal in need of a mercy killing.

4. “Allies Will Never Abandon Us.”

Allies? What allies? You mean the Europeans who rolled their eyes every time we dragged them into another stupid war? Or maybe the Saudis, who decided China’s money smelled a lot less like sulfur?

“The world needs us,” the analysts insisted, but by the time the Pentagon realized that NATO was a house of cards and OPEC was flipping the bird, it was already too late. The periphery always revolts in the end. Ask the British. Or the Spanish. Or anyone who’s ever had a friend who says they’ve got your back but starts ghosting you when things go south.

5. “The Dollar Will Always Be King.”

Ah, the dollar. The almighty greenback. If America had a religion, this was it. The analysts worshiped it like a golden calf, smugly declaring that no currency on Earth could dethrone it.

Well, guess what? The Romans thought the denarius was untouchable, too, right up until their coinage was so devalued it became a punchline. The analysts couldn’t imagine a world where the dollar wasn’t supreme, which is exactly why BRICS started cooking up plans for a new reserve currency while America was busy printing money like a drunken Monopoly player.

6. “Internal Division? That’s Just Democracy in Action!”

Every empire has its breaking point. For Rome, it was the patricians and plebeians tearing each other apart. For America, it was a cocktail of culture wars, wealth inequality, and the complete inability to agree on literally anything.

The analysts laughed off the riots, the shootings, the insurrections. “It’s a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy,” they said, as half the country stockpiled guns and the other half doom-scrolled into oblivion. They didn’t see the cracks because they were too busy congratulating themselves on how “resilient” we were.

7. “Empires Don’t Collapse Overnight.”

No, they don’t. They collapse in slow motion, like a bad dream you can’t wake up from. The analysts said, “We’ll adapt. We always do.” But they didn’t understand that empires don’t adapt—they rot from the inside out.

Rome didn’t fall in a day, but it fell. The British didn’t hand over their colonies because they wanted to—they were bankrupt and beaten. America won’t be any different. The only question is whether the analysts will admit they were wrong before the lights go out.

So here we are, staggering toward the inevitable, while the analysts keep spinning their tales. “It’s just a rough patch,” they say. “We’ll bounce back.”

Yeah, sure we will. Right after the collapse, the breadlines, and the quiet moment when we all look around and realize the empire wasn’t killed by enemies or bad luck—it was killed by hubris, stupidity, and the self-deluded analysts who told us we were untouchable.

But if this is starting to sound like your typical reactionary rant about empire decadence—cue the marble statues, the wine-soaked orgies, and someone yelling “Carthago delenda est!”—no, no, no. Let’s not get lazy here. Let’s give credit where credit is due: to the masterminds of collapse, the architects of overreach, the big-brained think-tank stooges who sold the whole damn show for a fistful of dollars and a cocktail napkin full of bad ideas.

These are the America First crowd, the conservative think tanks with slogans sharp enough to cut diamonds but brains as dull as a butter knife. They go on about birth rates and replacement rates, yell about Mexicans like it’s their religion, and pat themselves on the back for “saving the republic” while looting the treasury like cartoon villains in suits. Here’s the twist, though: empire didn’t happen because of them. They just lucked into the driver’s seat of a vehicle they barely understood and promptly steered it off a cliff.

The empire wasn’t built by the pencil-pushers shouting about walls and demographics. It wasn’t held together by “tough talk” and tax breaks for oil companies. Empires are built on soft power—culture that seduces, ideas that travel farther than missiles, myths that make people believe. The Roman legions marched hard, sure, but it was the Latin language, the aqueducts, and the toga-clad philosophers that kept the provinces in line. The British had their gunboats, but it was Shakespeare, Dickens, and the illusion of English civility that made the colonies think twice.

But our modern empire-builders? The conservative crowd? They never understood that. They were too busy selling paranoia to care. They hollowed out soft power and culture for quick profits, leaving us with Fast & Furious sequels and populist jingles about how we’re the “greatest country on Earth.” They didn’t kill the empire—they stripped it for parts and sold the remains on eBay.

And don’t let the Democrats off the hook either, because they’re just as guilty. If the conservatives gutted soft power with a machete, the liberals came along with a scalpel, slicing away anything that couldn’t be turned into a “brand.” Instead of empire as a cultural force, we got empire as a corporate slogan. Instead of jazz, we got algorithmic pop. Instead of bold ideas, we got hollow virtue signaling and TED Talks about disruption.

Both sides missed the point: empire is self-power, culture, the ability to make others want what you’ve got because it’s worth wanting. The moment you hollow that out, the moment you reduce culture to a commodity, you’re already dead. Not right away, of course. Empires die the way stars do—long after the core’s collapsed, the light still looks strong for a while. But it’s an illusion.

We thought we could replace culture with consumerism, art with marketing, diplomacy with drones. We thought we could shout louder and bomb harder and call it a day. But soft power is like the soul—once it’s gone, it doesn’t come back. And when it goes, you’re not just an empire in decline. You’re a walking corpse.

So don’t blame decadence, or “moral decay,” or whatever the Sunday morning pundits are howling about this week. Blame the architects of collapse, the ones who never understood what they were building in the first place. They didn’t inherit Rome; they inherited a mirage. And the rest of us are left holding the bag, wondering how the hell we got here.

American invasions of Mexico to go after bandits always go well

Well, here we are again, ladies and gentlemen. Another round of America’s favorite geopolitical drinking game: Invade Mexico, Why Not? Our perennial fixation with turning our southern neighbor into a glorified shooting range has been resurrected by none other than Donald J. Trump. Yes, the man whose diplomacy skills rival those of a raccoon raiding a garbage bin now promises to “take care of” Mexican drug cartels. How? By doing what we’ve done so spectacularly well in the past: sending in the troops, making a mess, and coming home with a collective hangover of denial and debt.

Trump’s latest plan to “obliterate” cartels seems to draw inspiration from that proud American tradition of botched interventions, from Pancho Villa to Pablo Escobar. The former president has proposed using the full might of the U.S. military to eliminate the cartels, as if Mexico is just waiting for the 82nd Airborne to roll in and clean house. Never mind that this is the geopolitical equivalent of trying to kill a fly with a flamethrower. The crowd loves it. The idea of yet another righteous crusade — this time to liberate Mexico from itself — is red meat for the MAGA faithful.

Manifest Destiny: The Remix

This isn’t the first time Uncle Sam has glanced south of the Rio Grande with murderous intent. In 1916, we sent General Pershing on his infamous “Punitive Expedition” to capture Pancho Villa. You might remember how that ended — with U.S. forces wandering the Mexican desert for months, accomplishing nothing except annoying the locals and proving that, yes, you can lose a war to guerrillas on horseback. But hey, why learn from history when you can reenact it with bigger guns?

Trump’s vision of cartels as cartoon villains ripe for an American ass-kicking betrays a staggering ignorance of how these organizations work. Cartels aren’t just armed thugs — they’re deeply embedded in Mexican society, often providing jobs, security, and social services in places the government has long neglected. Waging war on them is like trying to uproot a forest by burning the trees one at a time.

But nuance doesn’t sell well at rallies. What does? Bombs, bayonets, and the promise of a swift, righteous victory over those dastardly foreigners. Just slap a couple of Predator drones on the problem, and boom — no more drugs, right?

Collateral Damage, American-Style

Here’s the kicker: Trump’s war on the cartels won’t just destroy Mexico. It’ll destroy us too. Imagine the headlines: U.S. Forces Accidentally Bomb Mexican Wedding. The fallout would be immediate, catastrophic, and entirely predictable. Millions of Mexicans fleeing violence would pour into the U.S., creating a refugee crisis that would make the current border situation look like a Sunday picnic. But don’t worry — Trump has a plan for that, too: just build the wall higher. Maybe add some flamethrowers.

Meanwhile, the cartels, who have had decades to perfect their survival tactics, would laugh themselves silly. Every missile we drop on a cartel stronghold will be replaced by two new ones. Every “victory” will give the cartels fresh propaganda to recruit new members. And let’s not forget the drug trade itself — which thrives, by the way, because Americans can’t stop snorting, injecting, and swallowing anything that gets them high.

The War We Deserve

What’s truly galling about all this is how eagerly Americans swallow the fantasy of military intervention as a cure-all. We can’t fix our own cities, can’t control our own opioids, can’t even agree on what the hell “freedom” means anymore — but sure, let’s go save Mexico from itself.

A War with Mezcalito: Hallucinations on the Borderline

Hey, but let’s pause for a moment and consider who you’re really fighting here. It’s not just the cartels, amigo. You’re picking a fight with Mezcalito. And Mezcalito, as any true seeker knows, isn’t just some dime-store hallucination. This isn’t a crack den demon or a backyard shaman’s fever dream. Mezcalito is the spirit of the land itself — the eternal trickster, the cactus whisperer, the phantom guide who sees the world’s true shape and laughs at your foolish attempts to control it.

When you declare war on Mexico, you’re declaring war on Mezcalito. And that, my friends, is a war you cannot win. Mezcalito is older than nations, older than borders, older than war itself. He’s been here long before some suit in Washington drew a line across the desert and called it sovereignty. Mezcalito doesn’t recognize your laws, your flags, or your helicopters. He recognizes the desert winds, the peyote buttons, and the sacred dance of chaos that will rip your plans to shreds.

Don Juan Was Right, You Know

If this is starting to sound like something out of The Teachings of Don Juan, that’s because it is. Castaneda had it nailed decades ago: Mexico isn’t a place. It’s a state of mind, a realm of shifting realities where nothing is as it seems. The deeper you go, the more you realize you’re not in control. You’re in Mezcalito’s world now, and he doesn’t play by your rules.

This isn’t just spiritual mumbo jumbo — it’s baked into the history of every half-cocked U.S. adventure south of the border. From Pershing to the DEA, every time we’ve tried to impose our will on Mexico, the land itself has pushed back. Not just with bullets or barricades, but with something far more insidious: entropy. Logistics collapse. Morale crumbles. The border turns into an infinite Escher staircase where no one knows which side they’re on anymore.

Enter the Era of Drugs and High-Octane Madness

This isn’t the 1910s, either. This is the age of fentanyl, psychedelics, and high-octane paranoia. Mezcalito isn’t just hiding in the desert now — he’s in every high school, every tech startup, every gleaming skyscraper where stressed-out executives microdose mushrooms to “unlock their creativity.” He’s not just a border problem; he’s a global phenomenon.

You think you’re fighting the cartels? Good luck. The cartels are just Mezcalito’s foot soldiers, moving with the precision of a Unix operating system. Yes, I said Unix, because Mezcalito knows the code better than you ever will. He’s hacked into the system, rerouting your supply chains, slipping his ghost through your firewalls. Fentanyl labs in Sinaloa? Mezcalito’s script. Bitcoin-funded coke deals? Mezcalito’s ledger. You’re not just up against drug runners with AK-47s — you’re up against a cosmic force that sees your war plans as a bad joke.

When the Dust Settles (If It Ever Does)

At the end of this war — if you even make it to the end — you’re not going to recognize either side of the border. Mezcalito’s trick is to show you the truth: that the border was always an illusion, a fragile construct designed to keep chaos at bay. But chaos doesn’t care about your fences or your checkpoints. It seeps through, carried by rivers of blood, sweat, and tequila.

Your soldiers will come back with thousand-yard stares, their minds fried not by combat, but by the sheer futility of fighting an enemy who doesn’t exist in the way you want him to. Your drones will crash. Your supply lines will vanish. And somewhere in the desert, Mezcalito will laugh, because you never understood what you were dealing with.

A War for the Ages, or Just Another Bad Trip?

So go ahead, Mr. Trump. Rally the troops. Send them south with their high-tech weapons and low-grade understanding of what they’re walking into. But don’t be surprised when this war spirals into something you can’t even comprehend. You’re not just fighting cartels. You’re fighting the spirit of the land, the chaos of the cosmos, and the relentless force of entropy itself.

And when it’s all over — when Mezcalito has had his way with you — don’t say we didn’t warn you. You wanted a war? You got one. Welcome to the desert, where nothing is what it seems and everything you thought you knew turns to dust.

Waiting for the Flood

Boomers have plenty to say, but let’s be honest—if it’s a video, you’re watching it at 1.5x speed, and if it’s a Substack or a PDF, you’re skimming it at 2x. It’s the only way to bear it. Millennials and Zoomers? You don’t bother—most of them still need to season a bit before they say anything interesting. I’m biased, of course, but it takes a rare, maladjusted Gen Xer stumbling around to uncover an interesting take now and then. The rest? Zero-interest-rate fluff.

Boomers walk off with the spoils and leave the rest of us holding the bill, basking in the largesse of a post-war boom they had no hand in creating and every hand in hoarding. They lived large, laughed hard, and left Millennials with a finely-tuned hamster wheel, sleek and efficient but going nowhere. The Millennials patch the leaks and polish the machine, convinced they are saving the world while spinning endlessly in circles, mouths full of corporate “disruption” rhetoric that goes stale before it even hit the air.

Then come the Zoomers, born into a world already on fire, crawling through the wreckage of 2008, 2020, and everything in between. They have hustle, sure, but hustling on the edge of a cliff doesn’t get you far. Precarity is their inheritance—gig work, burnout, and the permanent anxiety of a future that never arrives. The System doesn’t even bother pretending to work for them.

And then there’s Gen X—forgotten and unattended, the feral middle children of history. Raised in the shadows of boom-time decadence but left to their own devices when the world moved on, they had just enough prosperity to stay afloat and just enough neglect to stay interesting. They haven’t been drafted into the System hamsterism like Millennials or crushed by precarity like Zoomers. Instead, they linger on the sidelines, ignored with nothing much to do but brood, scheme, and waste time thinking shit. The kind of shit that don’t fit neatly into the hamster accessories playground mazes. The kind of thoughts that break loops and set fires.

The only thing Gen Z is doing, man, is either absolutely nothing, or else documenting the slow-motion collapse throwing a random masterpiece into some ancient, forgotten art form just before it surfs up the Pacific garbage patch. They sit in the kaleidoscopic firestorm of memes, TikToks, and dystopian fantasies wreckage, staring at their phones, waiting for some digital signal to break through the static, offering some kind of reprieve—while all around them, the world crumbles. It’s a generation of spectators, but every so often, they pull off something beautiful—a final scream, a bloodshot grin, a stroke of genius in the middle of the rubble. The rest of the time, though, it’s just a blur of smoke and mirrors, apathy, and apathy that mean absolutely nothing. And yet, once in a while, they’ll hit you with something so raw, so real, that it feels like the last breath of an era long dead. But then, just as quickly, they retreat back into the void, as if even they can’t bear to keep the fight going.

Bittersweet, yeah—like a fading Polaroid of a better time, warped and yellowed at the edges. They pull brilliance out of the ashes, sure, but it’s always fleeting, like they know it doesn’t matter, or maybe it’s because they know it matters too much. They create these jagged, beautiful artifacts, these masterpieces on borrowed time, but there’s no celebration, no victory lap. Just a quiet retreat, as if they’re leaving the rest of us to wrestle with what it means to witness something so stunning in a world that can’t sustain it. It’s not hope, not exactly, but it’s not despair either—just the ghost of something we might have been, lingering for a moment before dissolving back into the static.

The Ralph’s Doctrine:

Groceries, Geopolitics, and the End of Civilization

by a Drunken Lunatic with a Cart Full of Frozen Burritos

Power is unequally distributed, but it’s not supposed to be this obvious. Walk into any Ralph’s supermarket at 11:45 PM on a Tuesday and you’ll see what I mean: exhausted cashiers managing checkout lines longer than a Senate subcommittee hearing, customers wielding expired coupons like diplomatic immunity, and a self-checkout machine that might as well be an insurgent state refusing to recognize your existence.

It hit me like a sack of potatoes in the produce aisle: Ralph’s cashiers are the State Department, and we’re the wretched nations groveling for aid packages—or, in this case, two-for-one deals on Pop-Tarts.

The Frontline Diplomats of Aisle 6

The average cashier at Ralph’s has the weary demeanor of someone who’s negotiated a ceasefire in a country they can’t locate on a map. They stand at their posts like battle-hardened ambassadors, nodding diplomatically as Karen from Glendale demands reparations for the “mispriced” organic kombucha.

“Ma’am,” the cashier says with the calm of a UN delegate, “this is a coupon for Safeway.”

Karen’s face reddens. “It’s the principle! My taxes fund this Ralph’s, and I have a right to that kombucha!”

The cashier doesn’t flinch, maintaining the detached professionalism of a career bureaucrat deflecting accusations of arms deals. She hands back the coupon, offering a conciliatory smile.

The Ralph’s cashier is a master of deflection, a bureaucrat in a name tag and polo shirt, standing at the intersection of your immediate need for answers and their unwavering refusal to provide them. They are the embodiment of the State Department—so committed to obfuscation that the truth is never even considered. If diplomacy is the art of saying nothing while seeming to say something, Ralph’s cashiers are undisputed virtuosos.

The Inquiry: Where Is the Sour Cream?

“Excuse me,” you say, holding your basket like a white flag of surrender. “Can you tell me where the sour cream is?”

The cashier doesn’t look up. Instead, they perform the verbal equivalent of a press briefing. “That’s a great question,” they begin, their tone as neutral as an international peacekeeper’s.

You wait for the answer. It doesn’t come.

“I believe,” they continue, “that dairy products are usually located in the refrigerated section. But I can’t confirm that.”

Refrigerated section? That narrows it down to roughly half the store. You press for clarification. “So… is it near the milk?”

The cashier furrows their brow, as if you’ve just asked them to draw a detailed map of the Spratly Islands. “Milk is an interesting reference point,” they say finally. “But I’d encourage you to check with one of my colleagues in another department.”

And just like that, you’ve been referred to an imaginary secretary of dairy affairs.

Weapons Deals in the Frozen Foods Section

I was standing in front of the ice cream freezer, minding my own business, when I overheard two Ralph’s employees whispering in hushed tones. One of them—let’s call him “Steve”—was holding a crate of organic quinoa like it contained enriched uranium.

“The shipment goes out at midnight,” Steve said, glancing nervously over his shoulder.

The other employee nodded, sliding him a wad of cash wrapped in a receipt for avocados. “And the… other thing?”

Steve smirked. “Let’s just say there’s gonna be a price hike in Aisle 4. Get ready for some regime change.”

I left the freezer section immediately, but not before noticing that the quinoa shipment was headed to the same bunch of homeless encampment I drove on my way in. Coincidence? Hardly.

Propping Up Authoritarian Despots at the Bakery Counter

The bread section at Ralph’s is a lot like the developing world—rich in resources, but ruthlessly exploited by the powers that be. Behind the counter, the head baker is basically an autocrat, ruling over their domain with an iron whisk.

“Why is the sourdough $6.99?” I asked, holding up a loaf that looked like it had been baked during the Clinton administration.

The baker gave me a smug grin. “That’s the cost of stability,” they said.

Stability, my ass. Ralph’s has been subsidizing this overpriced bread cartel for years, funneling profits into their private-label cracker empire. Meanwhile, any attempt to introduce reasonably priced bagels is quashed faster than a grassroots revolution.

Coup d’État in the Dairy Aisle

The yogurt section is where things get really ugly. As I was looking for my sour cream terror hit me. One day, Chobani is on the top shelf, reigning supreme. The next day? Gone. Replaced by some shady new brand with vague ties to “international trade agreements.”

“Greek yogurt is no longer viable,” said a stocker who refused to give his name. “We’re aligning with Icelandic skyr now. Corporate decision.”

But I knew better. This wasn’t just a product swap—this was a coup. Somewhere in the backroom, a rogue manager had overthrown the yogurt supply chain, backed by shadowy forces from the international dairy lobby.

And the fallout? Absolute chaos. Customers wandered the aisles in confusion, clutching expired coupons for Oikos, while the cashiers enforced the new regime with the kind of ruthless efficiency you’d expect from a paramilitary force.

The Ralph’s Loyalty Program: A CIA Black Site in Disguise

You think the Ralph’s loyalty card is just a way to save 50 cents on cereal? Think again. It’s a surveillance apparatus so sophisticated, it makes the Patriot Act look like amateur hour. Every scan of that little plastic card is another data point in a sprawling network of grocery espionage.

“Oh, looks like you’re buying a lot of canned beans lately,” the cashier says with a sly grin. “Planning for something… long term?”

Before you know it, you’re flagged as a potential insurgent. The next time you try to buy sriracha, it’s mysteriously out of stock—a subtle but effective form of economic sanction.

The Final Straw: Aisle 9 Becomes a No-Fly Zone

And there I was as I witnessed the ultimate act of grocery store imperialism. A young woman was trying to buy a six-pack of La Croix when the cashier, wielding the full might of the Ralph’s empire, declared, “Sorry, this aisle is temporarily closed. You’ll have to go around.”

She protested, but it was no use. The aisle had been militarized, cordoned off with yellow cleaning signs like the DMZ. As I watched her retreat in defeat, I realized: Ralph’s isn’t just a supermarket. It’s a microcosm of global power, complete with all the corruption, manipulation, and violence of the State Department—but with better lighting and worse music.

Self-Checkout: The Failed State

The self-checkout zone is the supermarket equivalent of a collapsing regime—lawless, chaotic, and fueled by desperation. Customers scan items with the reckless abandon of warlords hoarding resources, ignoring the robotic voice barking unexpected item in bagging area like it’s the Geneva Conventions.

One man shoves an unscanned avocado into his tote bag, muttering something about inflation. “You think Kroger Corporation is gonna miss this?” he snarls, his eyes darting like a fugitive in international waters.

I half expect the cashier to slap sanctions on him, but she’s too busy brokering a fragile truce between a coupon-hoarder and a middle-aged man trying to buy cigarettes with a Blockbuster card.

You approach the cashier with a technical problem. “The self-checkout machine isn’t working. Can someone fix it?”

The cashier meets your gaze with the placid confidence of someone who has no intention of fixing anything. “We’re aware of the issue,” they say, carefully avoiding specifics.

“When will it be fixed?” you ask.

They nod solemnly, as though you’ve just asked them to comment on troop movements in Eastern Europe. “We’re actively working on a resolution,” they reply.

“How long will it take?”

“That depends on a number of factors,” they say vaguely, shuffling receipts like classified documents. “I’d recommend using one of the other machines in the meantime.”

You point out that the other machines are also broken. They pause, visibly calculating how much longer they can keep this conversation going before you give up. “I appreciate your patience,” they conclude, stonewalling with the finesse of a career diplomat.

The Geopolitics of Customer Service

If Ralph’s is the State Department, then the customer service counter is the International Criminal Court: a last resort for grievances too outrageous to ignore.

A man in a MAGA hat waves a half-empty bottle of ranch dressing in the air like a missile test. “This expired two months ago, and I demand a refund!”

The clerk stares at him with the hollow gaze of someone who’s read too many declassified reports. “Sir, you bought that at a Piggly Wiggly in Arkansas.”

“Doesn’t matter! You people are all the same!”

The clerk offers him store credit, a classic diplomatic maneuver. The man storms off, muttering something about “globalist lettuce.”

The Ralph’s Doctrine: A Lesson for the World

The truth is that Ralph’s cashiers understand power better than the actual State Department. They know how to wield it sparingly, how to pick their battles, and how to survive in a system where the rules are rigged against them. They can de-escalate a nuclear-level tantrum over expired yogurt while simultaneously scanning 40 items for a guy who’s clearly been living in his van.

But alas, the State Department isn’t Ralph’s, and Ralph’s isn’t the State Department. The world keeps turning, and somewhere in the frozen food aisle, a cashier is quietly ending a diplomatic crisis over a mislabeled pack of Hot Pockets. God help us all.

Apocalypse Warm-Up Tour

In the sweaty corridors of Washington, there’s a palpable unease. The clock ticks louder in the Situation Room, and the tension feels thicker than a barroom floor after a two-for-one night. The problem, you see, is not just the impending doom of World War III—but where it starts. Ukraine’s got the spotlight for now, but there’s a gnawing concern that Israel, the original headliner, might feel snubbed. This is a diplomatic disaster for the ages.

The State Department, that grand cathedral of American self-delusion, has been in overdrive, assuring Netanyahu that Israel’s role in the apocalypse is safe. “Don’t worry, Bibi,” you can almost hear them muttering through clenched jaws, “Ukraine is just the warm-up act. Your turn for the main event will come soon enough.” It’s like they’re negotiating the lineup for an end-of-the-world music festival—headliner, opening act, surprise encore. Everyone wants top billing for the apocalypse.

The absurdity would be hilarious if it weren’t so deadly. Ukraine, for all its heroics and its very real suffering, is playing the role of the tragic understudy, fighting valiantly while Washington’s evangelical wing squabbles about the proper venue for Armageddon. “The end of the world starts in Israel!” they cry. “It’s practically written into the script.” Never mind the facts on the ground. Never mind the trillion-dollar machinery grinding its gears in Europe.

There’s a certain comedy in it, dark as a politician’s soul. Imagine a State Department official sweating through their blazer, on the phone with Netanyahu: “Listen, we know Ukraine’s stealing the show right now, but trust us, the main event—the real start of World War III—will be yours. We just needed a warm-up act to work out the kinks.”

Of course, some will say this is all nonsense, that America isn’t starting World War III—it’s merely responding to crises, valiantly defending freedom, yada yada yada. But let’s not kid ourselves. Responding to crises? America’s been “responding” to crises with the subtlety of a sledgehammer at a porcelain auction since Truman dropped the big one. If this is a reaction, it’s the kind of reaction you have after chugging a bottle of cheap tequila and deciding to punch the guy who looked at you funny.

And yet, the propaganda machine rolls on. The idea that Ukraine is just a sideshow is absurd to anyone paying attention. The U.S. isn’t responding to events—it’s orchestrating them, pushing the pieces around like a drunken chess master who thinks every move is genius. Russia’s in the crosshairs, China’s waiting in the wings, and the world watches as the stage is set for something big, something biblical.

But here’s the kicker: The same people who swear by the Bible’s prophecies are now caught in this bizarre balancing act. To them, World War III isn’t just geopolitics—it’s destiny. The Second Coming, the end of days, the grand finale. And Israel? Israel is the Holy Land, the stage where Act Three of the apocalypse is supposed to play out. Ukraine is just an inconvenient subplot, the warm-up band you have to sit through to get to the good stuff.

It’s all so perfectly absurd. The State Department, that bastion of incompetence and hubris, now has the impossible task of juggling these delusions while simultaneously keeping the world from spiraling into chaos. “Don’t worry, Mr. Netanyahu,” you can almost hear them say, “The headline spot for Armageddon is still yours. Just let us handle the appetizers in Eastern Europe first.”

So here we are, careening toward catastrophe with all the grace of a drunk driver on black ice, while Washington reassures itself that it’s all part of the plan. And maybe it is. Maybe this is exactly what they want. After all, nothing says “global superpower” like making sure you control the opening act and the finale of the apocalypse.

But for now, Ukraine fights, Israel waits, and the world holds its breath. Because if there’s one thing we’ve learned from the long, bloody saga of American foreign policy, it’s this: The show must go on. And God help us all when the headliner finally takes the stage.

Polostan

I just finished reading Polostan by Neil Stephenson and I have the same feeling I always have with him. He is a great neo-Victorian. So there’s always the veneer of sci-fi and technology but it’s all seems to me like build on a 19th century Victorian novel or early 20th century Edwardian that has just been found and repurposed to include some sci-fi in it.

His stories often operate like 19th-century Victorian or early 20th-century Edwardian novels in the sense that they are sprawling, detail-laden, and deeply concerned with societal systems. Here’s how this analogy holds up, and why his work feels like historical fiction masquerading as speculative sci-fi:

1. Neo-Victorian Novelistic Scope

Victorian novels were known for their intricate plots, numerous characters, and exploration of society through multiple perspectives. Similarly, Stephenson’s works like Cryptonomicon, The Baroque Cycle, and even Snow Crash have an almost Dickensian density. They explore the interplay of economics, technology, and culture, with long digressions that feel more like a 19th-century narrator stepping aside to educate the reader than modern minimalist prose. The “sci-fi veneer” in Stephenson often feels like a tool to explore the same kinds of societal questions Victorians pondered—industrialization, empire, and human ambition.

2. Obsession with Systems

The Victorian novel was often preoccupied with how individuals fit into larger systems—industrial capitalism, colonialism, and moral frameworks. Stephenson takes this preoccupation and maps it onto modern (or speculative) systems of technology, economics, and cryptography. His works are less about characters changing the world than about characters being actors within systems, much like Victorian protagonists navigating social hierarchies or the industrial revolution. Even his technological inventions feel like analogues to Victorian machines—vast, intricate, and often tied to empire-building or commerce.

3. Historical Digressions

Stephenson’s tendency to weave detailed historical asides into his fiction mirrors the exhaustive research and contextualizing that was a hallmark of Victorian literature. The inclusion of real-world history and science in his novels (e.g., Newtonian physics in The Baroque Cycle or WWII cryptography in Cryptonomicon) feels like a modern equivalent to the Victorian novel’s fascination with documenting contemporary advancements, even if just to add texture.

4. Philosophical Underpinnings

Victorian literature often wrestled with the tension between scientific progress and traditional values. Similarly, Stephenson’s works grapple with the tension between humanism and technological determinism. He questions whether technology liberates us or merely recasts old power structures in new guises—a question the Victorians also faced with the telegraph, railroads, and industrial machinery.

5. Characters as Archetypes

Victorian authors often relied on archetypal characters—the ambitious entrepreneur, the eccentric scientist, the intrepid explorer. Stephenson does something similar, crafting protagonists who are less about individual psychology and more about embodying roles within a system. These characters, while vivid, often feel like players in a broader societal drama rather than deeply intimate individuals.

6. Edwardian Elegance Meets Futurism

Stephenson’s prose style has a polish that often evokes Edwardian elegance. His dialogues and descriptions could almost fit into an E.M. Forster novel, were it not for the futuristic context. This creates a fascinating dissonance, where his language anchors the reader in a kind of “old world” while his ideas push toward a speculative future.

7. The Repurposing of the Past

Your notion that his work feels like an old novel “found and repurposed” with sci-fi elements is particularly apt. Much like how steampunk retrofits Victorian aesthetics with speculative technology, Stephenson retrofits Victorian and Edwardian narrative structures with contemporary or futuristic ideas. It’s as though he’s rewriting Bleak House with blockchain or Middlemarch with metaverses—not erasing the past, but layering the future over it.

CLASS

Neal Stephenson’s work can be seen as riffing on Victorian tropes, particularly those about class and societal hierarchy, but reimagined through the lens of cyberpunk, steampunk, or even “cryptopunk.” Below is a list of Victorian tropes and how they’re repurposed in Stephenson’s work:

1. The Self-Made Man

Victorian Context: The rise of industrialism gave birth to the myth of the industrious, self-made entrepreneur who could ascend social classes through ingenuity and hard work (e.g., characters in Dickens or Samuel Smiles’ Self-Help).

Stephenson’s Twist: The self-made man becomes the coder, hacker, or engineer, wielding technological skill to carve out a place in a tech-dominated hierarchy. Examples include Hiro Protagonist (Snow Crash) and Randy Waterhouse (Cryptonomicon), who gain status not through inherited wealth but through their mastery of systems.

2. The Eccentric Genius

Victorian Context: Eccentric inventors or scientists, like Dr. Frankenstein or Verne’s Professor Aronnax, who push the boundaries of human knowledge but are alienated by their obsession.

Stephenson’s Twist: The eccentric genius becomes the hacker, cryptographer, or entrepreneur (e.g., Lawrence Waterhouse in Cryptonomicon or Eliza in The Baroque Cycle). These figures are often both admired and socially isolated, embodying a digital-age take on Victorian intellectual elitism.

3. Class As Destiny

Victorian Context: Social class defines one’s opportunities, behavior, and societal role, with clear boundaries between aristocracy, middle class, and working poor.

Stephenson’s Twist: Social class is recast as access to technology and information. In Snow Crash, the division is between corporate citizens and those left behind in a fragmented society, with “information class” characters like Hiro Protagonist juxtaposed against the technologically disenfranchised masses.

4. The Grand Institution

Victorian Context: Massive institutions like Parliament, the British Empire, or the Church loom large, dictating societal order and individual roles.

Stephenson’s Twist: Institutions are reimagined as tech conglomerates, cryptographic orders, or emergent networks. The MetaCops and Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong (Snow Crash) act as dystopian updates of Victorian empire-building, where institutions both empower and exploit their members.

5. Industrialization and Its Discontents

Victorian Context: The tension between the promise of industrial progress and its human cost, as depicted in works like Dickens’ Hard Times.

Stephenson’s Twist: Industrialization is replaced by the digital revolution or blockchain economies. His works explore the human cost of technological acceleration, whether through corporate dystopias in Snow Crash or cryptographic empires in Cryptonomicon.

6. The Adventurer and Explorer

Victorian Context: The empire-builder or scientific explorer, often motivated by the promise of discovery and expansion (e.g., Burton, Livingstone).

Stephenson’s Twist: Characters like Jack Shaftoe (The Baroque Cycle) or Dodge Forthrast (Fall; or, Dodge in Hell) take on the role of digital adventurers, exploring uncharted technological or virtual territories with the same bravado as colonial explorers.

7. The Governess and Other Marginal Figures

Victorian Context: Marginalized figures like governesses or orphans provide a lens to critique class and power structures (e.g., Jane Eyre).

Stephenson’s Twist: Marginalized figures become hackers, freelancers, or rogue agents operating on the edges of society. Eliza (The Baroque Cycle) is a prime example, a woman using her wit and guile to navigate male-dominated cryptographic and economic worlds.

8. The Moral Panic

Victorian Context: Fears of social decay or moral decline, often tied to urbanization, industrialization, or vice (e.g., Gothic horror and penny dreadfuls).

Stephenson’s Twist: The moral panic becomes techno-panic: fears of AI, corporate dystopias, and loss of privacy. The fractured world of Snow Crash reflects anxieties about technology leading to societal collapse.

9. The Mysterious Secret Society

Victorian Context: Shadowy groups like the Freemasons or secret cabals that manipulate society from behind the scenes.

Stephenson’s Twist: Secret societies are recast as cryptographic networks, guilds, or hacker collectives. The Eaters of Souls (The Baroque Cycle) and organizations in Cryptonomicon play similar roles, driving intrigue and conspiracy in a tech-dominated world.

10. The Omnipotent Tycoon

Victorian Context: Wealthy industrialists like Mr. Bounderby in Hard Times, who wield economic power as a substitute for nobility.

Stephenson’s Twist: The tycoon becomes the tech billionaire or corporate CEO, exemplified by figures like L. Bob Rife (Snow Crash), who control both wealth and the flow of information in a hyper-corporatized world.

11. Social Mobility Through Marriage

Victorian Context: Marriage as a tool for social mobility, particularly for women (e.g., Pride and Prejudice).

Stephenson’s Twist: Marriage is replaced by alliances and mergers within tech ecosystems. Romantic relationships in Stephenson’s work often mirror partnerships in business or cryptographic alliances, emphasizing transactional dynamics.

12. Urban Overcrowding and Squalor

Victorian Context: The depiction of urban poverty and slums, as seen in Dickens or Gaskell, highlighting the dehumanizing effects of industrialization.

Stephenson’s Twist: The urban squalor of Victorian London is mirrored in the virtual sprawl of the Metaverse (Snow Crash) or the chaos of globalized societies where technology exacerbates inequality rather than alleviating it.

13. Scientific Optimism vs. Hubris

Victorian Context: The belief in progress tempered by cautionary tales about overreaching (e.g., The Time Machine or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde).

Stephenson’s Twist: His work often celebrates technological ingenuity but questions whether humanity is equipped to handle the consequences, creating a dialogue between optimism and dystopian caution.

Neal Stephenson’s work feels like a 19th-century novel updated to CryptoPunk, with the underlying hardware of Victorian storytelling intact but running on a new software layer of tech and futurism. What sets Stephenson apart is his seeming rejection of many of the stylistic and thematic innovations brought by 20th-century science fiction, as they would undermine the deliberate structure of his neo-Victorian storytelling. Here’s a deeper exploration of the hardware-software analogy and the sci-fi tropes Stephenson avoids because of his Victorian outlook:

The Hardware: Victorian Storytelling

1. Elaborate Structure:

Victorian novels are sprawling, with interlocking subplots and a sense of encyclopedic scope. Stephenson mirrors this with dense, layered storytelling that prioritizes explaining systems (cryptography, economics) over fast-moving plots.

2. Didacticism:

Like Dickens or George Eliot, Stephenson often pauses the narrative to explain technical, historical, or philosophical concepts, making his works as much about education as entertainment. His “info dumps” are akin to a Victorian narrator stepping in to teach morality, science, or etiquette.

3. Characters as Cogs in Larger Machines:

Victorian characters often serve as vehicles for exploring larger societal forces, whether industrialization, class struggles, or empire-building. Similarly, Stephenson’s protagonists tend to embody broader themes (the hacker as hero, the cryptographer as revolutionary) rather than being psychologically intricate individuals.

4. Social Hierarchies and Systems:

Victorian novels are deeply preoccupied with class and societal order. Stephenson retains this focus but shifts it to the hierarchies of power created by technology and information. The new aristocracy in his novels is made up of hackers, programmers, and CEOs.

5. Moral Progress through Knowledge:

Victorian novels often link knowledge and education to moral progress, a theme Stephenson embraces. His works suggest that understanding complex systems (whether through cryptography or history) is key to personal and societal advancement.

The Software: CryptoPunk and Tech Futurism

Stephenson updates Victorian tropes by replacing the coal, steam engines, and telegraphs of the 19th century with blockchain, AI, and the Metaverse. Yet the spirit of the Victorian world—its hierarchies, its systems, and its belief in progress—remains intact. His use of CryptoPunk as a framework feels like an organic evolution of steampunk, replacing brass and clockwork with code and algorithms.

The Sci-Fi Hardware He Doesn’t Use

Here’s where the comparison gets even more interesting. Stephenson avoids many 20th-century sci-fi tropes and stylistic innovations because they clash with his Victorian sensibilities. These are the “missing” elements that define his unique approach:

1. Streamlined Narrative Efficiency:

The Golden Age of sci-fi (Asimov, Heinlein) and later works from the New Wave (Ballard, Delany) often embraced lean, efficient storytelling. Stephenson rejects this entirely, preferring the Victorian sprawl of side quests, digressions, and multi-threaded narratives.

2. Character-Driven Emotional Intimacy:

20th-century sci-fi increasingly focused on exploring characters’ internal landscapes (e.g., Ursula K. Le Guin or Philip K. Dick). Stephenson’s characters are far more functional, resembling Victorian archetypes (the entrepreneur, the adventurer, the scientist) rather than psychologically intricate beings.

3. Cosmic Awe and Existential Dread:

Modern sci-fi often delves into the sublime terror of the unknown (Lovecraftian horror, alien incomprehensibility, or posthuman singularities). Stephenson rarely traffics in this kind of existential dread. His focus is on human agency within systems, not the overwhelming indifference of the cosmos.

4. Postmodern Fragmentation:

Many 20th-century sci-fi authors, influenced by postmodernism, embraced non-linear narratives, unreliable narrators, and meta-commentary (e.g., Samuel R. Delany’s Dhalgren or William Gibson’s Neuromancer). Stephenson prefers the clear, authoritative narrator of the Victorian tradition, grounding his stories in meticulous order.

5. Alien Encounters:

While aliens are a staple of 20th-century sci-fi, they’re almost entirely absent in Stephenson’s work. Victorian literature rarely dealt with extraterrestrials; its focus was on humans and their immediate world. For Stephenson, the “alien” is often represented metaphorically as technological systems or cultural differences.

6. Utopian or Dystopian Extremes:

20th-century sci-fi frequently explores utopias (Iain M. Banks) or dystopias (Orwell, Huxley). Stephenson’s societies tend to occupy a messy middle ground, resembling Victorian societies in their simultaneous optimism about progress and cynicism about its side effects.

7. Psychological or Cybernetic Augmentation:

While many 20th-century sci-fi authors explored altered states of consciousness or cybernetic enhancement (e.g., The Matrix, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?), Stephenson tends to stick to external technologies like the Metaverse or blockchain systems, keeping the human mind “unaltered” and Victorian in its sensibility.

8. Focus on War and Militarization:

Military sci-fi, from Heinlein’s Starship Troopers to modern space operas, often foregrounds the spectacle of war. While Stephenson acknowledges conflict, his focus is on economics, trade, and technology as the true engines of power—a very Victorian concern.

9. Deconstruction of Progress:

Cyberpunk authors like William Gibson and Bruce Sterling deconstructed the very notion of “progress,” showing technology as a tool for exploitation rather than liberation. Stephenson, in contrast, retains a Victorian belief in progress, even as he critiques its unintended consequences.

10. Artificial Intelligence as an Independent Force:

Many 20th-century sci-fi works treat AI as an autonomous, often antagonistic entity (e.g., HAL-9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey). Stephenson rarely presents AI this way; his AIs and algorithms are tools, extensions of human systems, not alien forces reshaping the world.

Neal Stephenson’s work feels less like a descendant of 20th-century science fiction and more like a mutation of the 19th-century Victorian novel. By rejecting many sci-fi tropes that emerged in the 20th century, he preserves the aesthetic and thematic DNA of the Victorian era, retooled with the coding and networks of CryptoPunk. This gives his work its distinctive flavor—a sense of futurism built on the bones of an older world, where class, systems, and progress reign supreme. In this way, Stephenson’s novels feel like a kind of time machine themselves: an elegant Victorian artifact running the algorithms of the future.

Neal Stephenson’s characters—and the worlds they inhabit—often feel untouched by the profound philosophical, literary, and cultural shifts of the 20th and 21st centuries, such as postmodernism, structuralism, and existentialism. It’s as though those seismic changes never happened in his intellectual universe, leaving behind trope-laden characters and plots that resonate more with Victorian ideals than with the complexities of modern and contemporary thought.

Here’s how this plays out:

Victorian Archetypes in Modern Guise

Stephenson’s characters are often archetypal—engineered to serve the machinery of the plot and theme rather than being messy, psychologically nuanced individuals. This is a hallmark of 19th-century storytelling, where characters represent societal roles or ideals, such as:

• The Ingenious Inventor/Entrepreneur: A modern iteration of the Victorian industrialist, these are Stephenson’s coders, cryptographers, and tech disruptors. They embody the Victorian faith in individual ingenuity and progress.

(e.g., Daniel Waterhouse in The Baroque Cycle or Randy Waterhouse in Cryptonomicon)

• The Heroic Explorer: Borrowed from the Victorian fascination with imperial adventurers, Stephenson’s characters boldly chart new technological or conceptual territories, often with a sense of inevitability about their success.

• The Lady of Substance: While some of his female characters break free of traditional gender roles, they often remain defined by their function in the story, much like Victorian heroines.

These characters are detached from the postmodern ethos, which would demand a critique of their archetypal nature or subvert the very notion of heroism. Instead, they operate in a universe where their “role” feels preordained, untouched by the existential doubts that might plague a character in 20th-century literature.

Detachment from 20th-Century Philosophies

Stephenson’s narratives seem oblivious to the intellectual revolutions of the 20th century, creating a sense of anachronism.

Postmodernism (Rejected)

• Postmodernism dismantled the idea of objective truths and meta-narratives, yet Stephenson’s worlds often uphold grand systems (cryptography, economics, technology) as coherent and explainable.

• Where postmodernist sci-fi writers like Philip K. Dick explored fractured realities and unreliable narrators, Stephenson’s work is resolutely linear and authoritative. Even when he presents a “messy” system, it feels ultimately solvable, as if order will triumph in the end.

Structuralism (Absent)

• Structuralism asks how meaning is constructed within systems, often undermining the individual’s ability to shape their destiny. Stephenson, however, places individuals like coders or entrepreneurs at the center of his stories, suggesting they can master and remake systems, echoing a Victorian belief in agency and progress.

Existentialism (Ignored)

• Existentialism focuses on the absurdity of existence and the lack of inherent meaning, yet Stephenson’s characters rarely grapple with these questions. Instead, they find purpose in technology, progress, or their roles within grand narratives.

• A true existential crisis would clash with Stephenson’s Victorian-like faith in rationality, order, and human ingenuity.

Trope-y Characters as a Byproduct

By skipping over 20th-century literary and philosophical innovations, Stephenson’s characters often feel disconnected from modern realities:

1. Simplistic Worldviews:

Characters often reflect clear-cut beliefs about progress, technology, or the value of systems. This simplicity feels dated, especially in contrast to the ambiguity and moral complexity demanded of 20th- and 21st-century characters.

2. Overreliance on Expertise:

Characters are often defined by their technical expertise or competence within a system. This aligns with Victorian ideals of the industrious individual but feels reductive in an era that values emotional and psychological complexity.

3. Lack of Internal Conflict:

Many of Stephenson’s characters lack the existential struggles or postmodern self-awareness that would make them feel truly contemporary. They tend to solve external problems rather than confronting internal crises.

Detached from the 20th and 21st Century

This anachronism is most striking in the way Stephenson approaches society and technology:

• Social Progress as a Linear Path:

Victorian novels often framed progress as inevitable and unidirectional—a belief that persisted in Stephenson’s techno-utopian outlook. The messy, fragmented realities of modern geopolitics, social inequality, or climate crisis rarely unsettle his narratives to the same degree.

• Technology as Savior, Not Symptom:

Unlike cyberpunk, which views technology as a double-edged sword exacerbating human flaws, Stephenson often frames technology as a means to solve systemic problems. His Victorian optimism about innovation feels detached from the skepticism of modern sci-fi.

• Timeless Elites:

His worlds often feature new aristocracies, formed by the tech-savvy or intellectually elite. These hierarchies reflect Victorian class dynamics more than modern critiques of inequality or intersectionality.

The Victorian Underpinnings of CryptoPunk

CryptoPunk as a genre embodies Stephenson’s neo-Victorian ethos:

• The “punk” elements (anarchism, anti-establishment themes) are muted or abstracted, much as Victorian novels dealt with disruption through controlled narratives.

• The fascination with rules and systems mirrors Victorian preoccupations with industrialism and bureaucracy, recast in the language of cryptography and blockchain.

Conclusion

By skipping over the transformative philosophies of the 20th century, Stephenson’s work feels like a time capsule—a Victorian artifact dressed up in tech futurism. His characters, detached from the messy realities of the modern world, inhabit a universe governed by systems, order, and progress. While this gives his work its distinctive style, it also creates a peculiar dissonance, as though we’re reading a reformatted 19th-century novel that remains oddly aloof from contemporary thought and emotion.

Veni, Vidi, Vichy

I came, I saw, I folded like bad origami. A handshake under the table, fingers crossed behind the back, the perfect alibi for treason wrapped in the flag of survival. Opportunists slip through cracks, greased by the fat of the land they betray. One moment they’re fighting for freedom; the next, they’re filing your chains to fit better. They’ll smile, wave, and sell you out at the same time—polished smiles hiding sharpened teeth.

It’s the cocktail party in Hell, where the drink of choice is collaboration, stirred, not shaken. The room stinks of compromise—cheap cigars and expensive perfume—an olfactory dirge for principles gone to seed. Quislings sip champagne while martyrs choke on ash. “This isn’t betrayal,” they say. “It’s adaptation. We’re just surviving. Don’t be so dramatic.” They call themselves realists, but they’re nothing more than bootlickers with good table manners.

The fake anti-fascist marches in polished boots, the soles squeaking with duplicity. They carry banners of resistance but whisper logistics to the enemy. Their chants are slogans, their convictions hollow. Beneath every loud proclamation is a murmur of complicity. They build resistance movements like you’d build a pyramid scheme: a house of cards with no foundation, destined to collapse under its own weight.

The Vichy spirit isn’t a relic—it’s alive and well, lurking behind smiles and empty slogans, a shapeshifter that wears whatever mask fits the room. Patriotism, progress, peace—pick your poison. Every word is a counterfeit coin, polished until you see your face in it and forget it’s worthless.

They’ll tell you they’re saving the world while pawning off your soul. Deals struck in shadowy rooms echo through history like gunshots. The papers signed in invisible ink spell out your fate: “We the undersigned agree to bend, buckle, and break for the sake of comfort.”

But beware the day when the masks slip and the curtains rise, when the collaborators find themselves judged not as pragmatists but parasites. The opportunist loves a shifting tide, but even the tide can turn against you. They came, they saw, they sold out—and history remembers.

Yes, that’s where it’s at. The perfect ouroboros of betrayal. The collaborator-resistance hybrid—a snake devouring its own tail, leaving no evidence but a trail of lies that loops back on itself. He’s the double agent who forgot which side he’s on because it doesn’t matter anymore; the only loyalty is to survival, the only ideology is leverage.

You change sides, sure, but you don’t really leave the first side. You keep feeding them scraps of resistance, enough to keep their guard down, enough to keep your usefulness alive. And when you’re back in the resistance, you’re feeding them just enough intel to look like a hero, like someone who took unimaginable risks. To both sides, you’re indispensable. To yourself, you’re untouchable.

It’s a tightrope act over a pit of burning flags. Every step calibrated, every word measured, every betrayal calculated to be just enough to gain trust without tipping the balance. You’re the savior and the snake, the liberator and the oppressor, playing a game where the stakes are so convoluted no one remembers what the prize is anymore.

And when the resistance comes out on top? Well, you were always with them, weren’t you? The collaboration was just a cover, a deep game only someone as brave and cunning as you could play. And if the fascists win? You were their loyal servant all along, sabotaging the resistance in the name of order and security. Heads you win, tails you win, but in the end, all you’re left holding is a fistful of ashes.

What you don’t tell anyone, what you don’t even admit to yourself, is that you’re addicted to the act. The shifting loyalties, the whispers in dark corners, the thrill of walking into a room full of people who’d kill you if they knew. You don’t care who’s in charge, only that the game keeps going, that there’s always another side to play.

The resistance sings songs of victory, but your tune is discordant. You’re the off-key note, the jarring dissonance that never resolves. You’re not a hero, not a villain, not even a survivor. You’re a shadow flickering between two lights, never solid, never real.

And maybe that’s the most honest thing about you.