The New World Order has no order. 

You are confused, I am confused. But hope remains.

Source: Generated by GPT-4

You might be too young to have watched the Western movies I enjoyed as a teenager. You could join the movie halfway through and still understand the plot perfectly. The good guys were kind and heroic, while the bad guys were cruel and despicable. The good guys wore white hats, while the bad guys wore black ones. The good guys endured the movie until they finally emerged victorious, while the bad guys reveled in their power before getting their just punishment in a satisfyingly happy ending.

Beware of black hats in old cowboy movies

During the Cold War, I resided in a South American country perpetually ensnared in a third-world paradigm. Poverty and misery characterized the lives of a substantial portion of the population. Intellectuals, young students, certain priests, and social workers perceived the United States as an exploitative force, deliberately maintaining our impoverished and subservient status. This perception justified our backwardness. They envisioned a benevolent socialism and aligned themselves with any opposition to the »Imperium.« Che Guevara and Fidel Castro became revered heroes. Conversely, the more elderly and traditional individuals held the opposing viewpoint.

Upon commencing my studies in Germany, I encountered a similar dichotomy. A stark distinction existed between two opposing factions. Individuals aligned themselves with the perspective that resonated with their personal beliefs and preferences, thereby establishing a clear framework for distinguishing between right and wrong. At that time, Iran embarked on a tumultuous struggle against the autocratic regime of the Shah. The United States viewed Iran as a strategic ally that facilitated its dominance in the region, yet it disregarded the aspirations and needs of the Iranian people. When the Shah dared to visit West Germany, substantial street protests erupted. Ultimately, his overthrow led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic, applauded by the segment of the German population that identified as progressives. However, they were largely unaware of the calamitous trajectory the country was on.

It was so easy to choose between the good and the bad guys…

This unequivocal division between two opposing forces, one led by the United States and the other by the Soviet Union, provided a simplistic framework for comprehending the global landscape. It presented a binary opposition, with individuals compelled to choose between the two sides. This dichotomy offered a semblance of order and predictability in an otherwise complex world.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent liberation of Eastern European nations from its oppressive influence demonstrated that the purportedly orderly alignment of countries into two opposing camps was merely superficial. In reality, nations pursued diverse interests and objectives. This became evident, for example, within the dissolution of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.

Previously, once an allegiance had been chosen, it was relatively straightforward to construct a worldview based on the principle that the allies of one’s adversaries were one’s enemies, and the adversaries of one’s adversaries were one’s allies.

… but things got complicated

However, the current situation presents a paradox. Many of my left-leaning acquaintances defend Russia’s aggression against Ukraine as a self-defense measure against NATO’s perceived expansionist tendencies. Consequently, they resort to negative stereotypes about Ukrainians, portraying them as corrupt, claim that Ukrainians are actually Russians, asserting that Russia requires security, and so on. Out of older habits, they see Moscow still as kind of driving force behind progressiveness and accuse the self-preservation of Ukraine’s armed defense of being provoked by evil warmongers.

Now, the situation becomes more confusing for them as the United States becomes friendly with a still-KGB-led Russian Federation while being unfriendly with other democratic Western nations. Consequently, my former lefty friends are talking now like those extremely right positions — the enemy and the friends joining.

Habits are strong: many keep using the old templates

For some, this is overwhelming, leading to emotional outbursts. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is viewed as a proxy war orchestrated by bribed and corrupt Ukrainian elites who endanger their own people.

But who is the proxy of? Of the US administration, as usual? Didn’t it shift its stance? Of NATO? Isn’t it a merely defense body? Looks like these are just projections of people who have lost their bearings. Now, good people, bad people, black and white cowboy hats seem to be mingling on any side, confusing rational but simplistic thinking.

Consequently, the traditional binary opposition of »us« and »them« no longer holds validity. Surprisingly, the left-wingers who still maintain that aligning with the United States is inherently negative and the right-wingers who advocate for ending Western military aid to Ukraine are finding common ground. This stance suggests a willingness to consider Ukraine’s surrender or, at the very least, a temporary ceasefire, albeit one that may result in a decisive defeat.

NATO is aggressive. Is it?

Fact is, NATO is not attempting to provoke or attack Russia. I have never heard any NATO country leader express a desire to annex Russian territory. What NATO members and their citizens genuinely seek is security and peace. They even considered collaborating with Russia through trade and establishing robust connections. However, they neglected their defense spending, relying on the United States to safeguard them and address global issues. Consequently, with the commencement of the Russian invasion in February 2023, Western leaders invoked the term »Zeitenwende«, signifying a profound turning point. Regrettably, the day-to-day political landscape has eroded this sentiment, replacing it with a return to business-as-usual practices.

Similar contradictions, as philosophers often call it when really happening issues do not fit with their theories, occur with the events in the Middle East. There, defenders of an allegedly genocidally attacked group have aligned themselves with individuals who mistreat women, conceal them in dark clothing, murder homosexuals, and stone adulterers, including those who have been raped. Is this consistent with a progressive step forward for humanity? I am inclined to believe that it is not. This situation is reminiscent of my generation’s protests against the Shah while a far more oppressive regime was gaining power. In Iran today, those who fail there to adhere to the ancestral rulings of the ones in power are publicly executed on cranes. Israel, on the other hand, is not doing any good in following extreme positions, going much too far in an initially understandable intent to end the terrorist attacks from Gaza, or by colonizing forcefully portions of West Bank in detriment to the people who already live there.

The Middle East and other conflict zones present an even more confusing picture

It doesn’t help that with the internet and its social media, anything can be published. Something happens, and within minutes, you’ll find there mostly instinctively and unreflected explanations, opinions, and comments of all kinds. You’ll also have posts that follow a stringed path to force a position on someone or a group for more power or to defame those with different opinions.

Is there a way out of this conundrum?

Sure, there is. It has been proposed for generations. During the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and in the U.S. Constitution, the 30 United Nations Human Rights, and the core ideas of our world’s religions, this was underway. All these have something in common: unify mankind and dilute the poisonous effects of any extrem power concentration.

The first step toward overcoming hatred in the world can best be taken within ourselves

It begins with each and every one of us. By accepting different viewpoints without hatred, violence, discrimination, or fear that it would destroy our civilization, we can embrace a diverse range of perspectives and find joy and enrichment in the process.

Why don’t we start with this simple receipt? To have many different hats around us could be a funny and enriching experience for all of us, and it would serve as a promise of improvement for our children, whom we all love so much.