Two parallel stories, one personal from two days ago, one political repeated through time and space.
Individual behaviors mirror political failures, or vice versa.
I went for a haircut at the only somewhat nice hotel in our closest small city. I haven’t had a professional haircut in over five years, it was my birthday treat to myself. My hair was really long and wild. I’d come to like it like that, though I knew it needed some taming. While working, Hubby and I kept professional-looking hairstyles, it was expected. Now that we don’t work for wages anymore, it’s kinda fun to let it all grow out, right before it all falls out in old age.
I told the stylist what I wanted. When I was young they called it the ‘long shag’; these days, according to my Youtube search, it’s called the ‘long wolf cut’. The stylist said she understood what I wanted–long layers. I even specified: “I want the waves and curls to be enhanced.” I was thinking–“Big 80s hair, Baby!” Why not! It’s my birthday celebration style, and that’s what I want!
The sytlist proceeded to chop over 6 inches from my hair, blow it dry to pin straight with the help of 3 stinky products, and then to top it off, tried to convince me that’s what I asked for.
Do you need a special license to notice these are not the same?
When I tried to explain to her that a “medium bob” cut is not the same thing as a “long wolf” cut, she started in on the gaslighting. She was very skilled at it.
Perception management is not the same as taking accountability.
My hair was so damaged, she had no choice. I wasn’t sitting straight and so she had to keep cutting. It was too puffy before, it was too frizzy before, it looks so much better now. “You look so pretty!” She kept repeating this, as I kept repeating, “Yes, it looks good, you are a talented stylist, but it’s not what I asked for!”
“The weakness of every utopia is the same. It demands that men believe what they can see with their own eyes to be false. The slogans change — “justice,” “progress,” “sustainability” — but the pattern does not. Sooner or later, the ration card, the empty shop, or the failed harvest breaks through the illusion. The lie may govern for a season, but reality always delivers the final verdict.”
Perhaps she only knows how to cut one style? Perhaps, and this is probably true, the short bob looks much better on me, objectively speaking, from a professional standard. Perhaps it is healthier looking and shinier and smoother now, all true.
“But you are still missing the point: It’s not what I asked for, and it’s not what I paid you to do!”
She refused to get my point. Flat out refused. I was not trying to get a refund or even a discount. I’d already tipped her, the transaction was complete. I just wanted her to recognize what she’d done.
We circled around her excuses, and I left, saying I’d return in 6 weeks, which obviously I never will.
“But populations are not passive. They respond not with submission, but with defense — of security, autonomy, and cultural identity. Citizens resist when they sense erosion of their freedoms, dilution of their traditions, or manipulation of their choices. The result is a Nash equilibrium: a tense standoff where each actor maximizes its own interest, constrained by the anticipated reaction of the other.”
Such is modern political life as well. Was she modeling the behavior of the politicians she sees on TV? Does she think, because she’s the professional, her opinion on what my hair should look like trumps my own, even though I’m not a child, but am in fact a middle aged woman who knows what she wants, has requested it clearly, and is paying her quite handsomely?
“Each generation births new architects of destiny — technocrats, visionaries, committees — convinced that this time, the blueprint will hold. That this time, the people will follow. That this time, the outcome will be different.
But history is not kind to central planners. Grand designs imposed from above, no matter how noble their language, inevitably collide with the stubborn complexity of human life. People are not data points. Cultures are not spreadsheets. Societies do not bend neatly to metrics and milestones.
Agenda 2030–2050, like earlier initiatives, assumes global consensus is possible, centralized governance will surpass local challenges, and large-scale ecological and social changes can occur without resistance. These are not lessons learned — they are lessons ignored.”
Lessons ignored, like my stylist. Her job is to do what I pay her to do, not to re-interpret my desires. Even when I expressed clearly, in a non-threatening manner, after paying her, that she did not give me the haircut I paid for, she refused to see her culpability. She blamed my hair and my poor posture.
Her insistance that I recognize and declare how pretty it looks is akin to the Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe as they were insisting how they deserve to be compensated for all the expertise they brought with their occupying forces and for the infrastructure they built. But of course, not to be held liable for all that they destroyed, lives nor infrastructure.
“Historical Lessons
Attempts to impose totalizing visions from above have repeatedly failed. Examples include:
• The fall of Robespierre (Boudoiseau, 2003) during the French Revolution (Britannica, 2003c).
• The collapse of Ceaușescu’s regime in Romania (Britannica, 2003b).
• The Nazi pursuit of Lebensraum (Britannica, 2003l), which ended in destruction.
• Mao’s Great Leap Forward (Britannica, 2003e) and the Cultural Revolution (Lieberthal, 2003), which caused massive human suffering. Each case shows that utopias enforced by elites end in failure, often violently.”
“Socially, the plan underestimates resistance. People do not change because a summit declares it. Habits are resilient. Traditions run deep. When transformation is mandated rather than chosen, it breeds resentment, not renewal.”
The choices and desires of those paying for services must necessarily be a higher priority than that of those performing the services. That includes politicians, and hairstylists.
“4. Restructuring of Daily Life
From how we travel to what we eat, the Agenda seeks to reshape daily habits in the name of sustainability. But these are not abstract metrics — they are intimate choices. Mobility restrictions, dietary mandates, and housing redesigns touch the core of personal freedom. The assumption that populations will comply quietly with lifestyle engineering is not just naive — it is politically combustible.”
“State incentives — subsidies, surveillance, social scoring — aim to steer behavior. But when these incentives clash with core values like freedom, identity, and sovereignty, they lose traction. Compliance becomes brittle. Trust erodes.”
I can’t help but wonder if her other clients have always bowed to her bullying style of perception management? Does she insist all her clients praise her work, whether or not they really liked the results?
Just grin and bear it, everyone?
“The Nash equilibrium here is not stable. It is volatile, held together by mutual constraint rather than mutual agreement. Elites cannot push too far without triggering rebellion. Populations cannot fully disengage without risking exclusion or punishment.
Populations remain bound to the system because withdrawal carries a price — exclusion, punishment, loss of rights. The equilibrium holds only so long as resistance is isolated. But once enough people disengage together, the balance shifts: punishment loses its sting, and the system itself begins to collapse.”
I suppose only time will tell the truth. Eventually.
If I ever run into that hairstylist next time I’m at the hotel I’m inclined to say: “I’m fine with it, it might even grow back before it all falls out. But just for the record, not everyone wants to look like your vision of the sleek middle-aged professional. Some of us have outgrown that look.”
“Agenda 2030–2050 treats the human species as a single actor, capable of coordinated transformation. But humanity is not a monolith. It is a constellation of cultures, histories, and identities. The anthropogenic hypothesis, when stripped of nuance, becomes a justification for centralized control — see here — a mandate for elites to redesign society in the name of planetary health — see here.
This is where the danger lies. When ecological urgency overrides democratic process, when sustainability becomes a pretext for surveillance, when global goals erase local voices — the result is not cooperation, but coercion.”
