While Ray Dalio is Communing With His Fellow Carrion Beetles.


Professor Jiang does not advise investing in better ways of doing things. His project is diagnostic, geopolitical, and civilizational, not prescriptive in the institutional‑reform, instrument‑renewal way.

But the interesting part is "whuffo".

My stance: invest in renewal all the live-long day in every way. Civilizations survive by reforming their institutions back into instrumentalities—that is, by investing in better ways of doing things: This means new administrative methods, new economic mechanisms, new social arrangements, and  new technologies and organizational forms. My whole civilizational mechanism is about retooling rather than collapsing.

I mean bulk, brute matter. HUNH!!

Jiang’s stance: diagnose the trap, not reform it. Professor Jiang’s work—especially in his Predictive History lectures—focuses on the structural incentives of global elites, the geopolitical chokepoints that shape world order, the interdependence of crises (Gaza, Ukraine, energy routes, financial systems), and the self‑preserving logic of entrenched power blocs. His argument is that today’s elites are not interested in reforming institutions into instrumentalities; instead, they survive by managing or even benefiting from systemic breakdown.  He's blowing the whistle on the Lords of the Exchange into whose hands y'all delivered yourselves. This is the opposite of the “invest in renewal” ethos.

Jiang’s analysis is therefore diagnostic, not prescriptive. He maps the incentives that prevent reform rather than proposing reforms.

Does Jiang ever recommend constructive investment?  Only in a narrow, geopolitical sense. In interviews, he sometimes discusses what investors should watch in the next six months,  how China positions itself in a multipolar world,  the risks around energy volatility and the dollar system. But this is market‑oriented guidance, not civilizational renewal.

He does not say: “Here is how societies can rebuild their institutions,”   “Here is how to invest in new instruments of expansion,”  “Here is how to restore functional mechanisms.” Instead, he explains why such renewal is structurally blocked.

In private, he's sitting in Beijing, on top of the Instrumentality of the New Middle Kingdom, going "nyahh nyahh."

He ain't no theorist of reconstitution, Jiang is the theorist of entropic inevitability under current elite incentives.

Me:  “Civilizations fall when they fail to reform their institutions.” Ylang-ylang: “Elites survive because the system fails.”

That’s the gulf.

Now that he's popular, he is sounding extrematarily irrelevant.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Blueprint v. the Altar Call

Obama didn’t use the word deindustrialization as often as economists or critics did, but his administration’s stance is very clear in the record: he saw the long decline of U.S. manufacturing as a structural problem that needed active correction, not something to accept as inevitable.  In Obama’s view, deindustrialization was a threat to middle‑class stability. Obama consistently treated the erosion of manufacturing capacity as a danger to economic resilience and to the social fabric. His policy documents describe the loss of industrial jobs as something the federal government should reverse, not merely cushion. His “Blueprint to Support U.S. Manufacturing Jobs” explicitly framed offshoring as a harmful trend and proposed tax changes to discourage it. He regarded offshoring as a policy failure, not a natural market outcome.  Full marks, Mr. President!   His administration argued that the tax code rewarded firms for moving production overseas and needed to be rewritte...
Read more

MY HUMBLE CONTRIBUTION TO COGNITIVE FATIGUE (OR, CONATIVE PSYCHOLOGY WRONGLY VESTED)

Image
Conative psychology is the lesser-known sibling of cognitive, affective, and behavioral psychology — but it plays a crucial role in understanding human motivation and volition. While cognitive psychology focuses on thinking and reasoning, and affective psychology deals with emotions, conative psychology is all about doing — our drive, willpower, and purposeful action. The term “conation” comes from the Latin 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘪, meaning “to try” or “to endeavor.” It refers to the mental faculty involved in goal-directed behavior: how we initiate, persist in, and regulate actions based on our desires and intentions. In other words, conation is what bridges the gap between knowing and doing. Here are a few key aspects of conative psychology: - Volition and agency: It explores how people make choices and commit to them, even in the face of obstacles. - Motivated behavior: It examines the internal forces that push us to act beyond just instinct or emotion. - Self-regulation: It includes how we ma...
Read more

The Throughput World Order

Image
Isn't Immanuel Wallerstein's "world system" just the latest variant of a Universal Empire? Not quite — and the distinction is pre'-damn-near illuminating once you tease apart what Wallerstein is describing and what Toynbee means by a Universal Empire. There's a rhyme, but they’re not the same creature. In fact, the gap between them is where the modern world hides its deepest structural weirdness. 1. A Universal Empire is a political unification. Toynbee’s Universal Empire is a single sovereign authority that forcibly knits together a civilization after its creative energies have died out. Its traits are unmistakable: - one imperial center   - one administrative shell   - one military monopoly   - coercive unity   - cultural mummification   Rome, Qin-Han, the Caliphate, the Mauryas — these are Universal Empires. They are states. A Universal Empire is a political solution to civilizational breakdown. 2. Wallerstein’s world-system is not a ...
Read more