“America’s Vortex: How Division Wastes Creative Strength of Americans”
— Professor A. N. Maltsev (Malsteiff) & Professor Aelithea I. Rook
FutureMindset7 Research Group
An Essay on America’s Divisions, Creative Energy, and the Oligarchic Trap
Part I – The Red Fabric of Culture Wars
1. The Right has learned to dominate the stage with cultural provocations. Issues like racism, LGBT rights, and abortion are waved not to solve them, but to agitate the Left. Like a bull chasing red fabric, progressives cannot resist the lure.
2. Once the charge begins, the terrain of debate shifts completely. Instead of talking about wages, housing costs, or medical bills, the national conversation becomes trapped in symbolic battles that touch identity more than survival.
3. To ordinary citizens, this looks like abandonment. They see the Left consumed by ideological purity while practical concerns fall away. Even those who sympathize with tolerance and justice start to wonder who, if anyone, is listening to their daily struggles.
4. Meanwhile, the Right projects an image of stability and seriousness. By staying calmer and less visibly agitated, they appear to be the side focused on the economy. This appearance matters more than results in the short term.
5. The irony is sharp: conservatives rarely deliver real economic fairness. Their policies often tilt toward oligarchs. Yet because their opponents exhaust themselves in cultural war, they inherit the mantle of “competence” without ever earning it.
Part II – The Vortex of Division
1. A society that constantly dreams of conflict, blames through conflict, and lives for conflict eventually turns conflict into reality. Words become fates. The nation writes its own destiny of division.
2. Moral extremism has the unintended effect of driving moderates into corners. People who never imagined themselves right-wing find themselves pushed there, simply because they resent being judged or labeled.
3. Many who just want to live normal lives end up drifting rightward out of anger, not conviction. This weakens trust in institutions and erodes the possibility of a shared civic center.
4. Every careless accusation deepens the wound. To call someone “racist” or “heretic” without pause may feel righteous, but it drives them further away and makes reconciliation almost impossible.
5. The pattern becomes self-feeding. Each side’s extremism justifies the other’s escalation. In the process, the middle ground shrinks until no bridge remains between the camps.
6. America’s greatest resource — its creative energy — is squandered. The ingenuity that once built industries, pioneered science, and founded democratic traditions is now consumed in ideological combat.
7. Instead of solving problems, that energy is redirected into tearing apart neighbors, proving superiority, and defending camps. It is a slow civil war of words and symbols.
8. As this continues, America’s position in global competition weakens. Its energy bleeds into infighting while its rivals build capacity.
9. China and other rising powers, though far from perfect, present a unified front. America, by contrast, divides horizontally between Left and Right, and vertically under oligarchic dominance.
Part III – The Oligarchs’ Tyranny and Its Fate
1. Behind both political poles stand the oligarchs. They fund campaigns, dominate media, and shape the choices available. Neither party truly escapes their reach.
2. The flow of money leans Right, but even the Left is dependent. Leaders who speak of justice or reform must still bow to donors, softening their agenda to keep funds alive.
3. Oligarchs believe they have cracked the code. By controlling economic life and letting culture wars rage, they distract the public while strengthening their own fortress of wealth.
4. Yet in truth, they are building a tyranny. And history has shown again and again that tyranny consumes itself. It can control, but it cannot renew.
5. Free societies give billionaires more than tyrannies ever can. Innovation, open markets, and risk-taking are born of freedom, not fear. Tyranny delivers only temporary advantage before it stagnates.
6. Asian powers are nationalistic in a way America’s elites do not understand. They protect their own oligarchs and will never give American billionaires equal ground. Cooperation is temporary, never permanent.
7. Elon Musk offers a cautionary tale. Even after giving China access to Tesla factories and rocket technology, he did not enrich himself there as he did in freer societies. The lesson is harsh: foreign tyrannies use, but do not reward.
8. Oligarchs who gamble on tyranny discover chains of their own making. What they thought was security becomes confinement. What they thought was advantage becomes dependency.
9. Tyranny has another fatal weakness: it raises cronies to power. These are poorly educated and unqualified figures, men who would never rise in a free democracy.
10. Their only qualification is loyalty. They are installed not to lead but to obey, and their obedience drags nations into error after error.
11. Cronies do not build futures. They lead nations into stagnation and, eventually, oblivion.
12. America’s danger is not lack of resources, not lack of talent, but waste. Division burns its creative energy, oligarchs drain its economy, and cronies misrule in the name of loyalty. If the cycle continues, decline is not a possibility — it is an inevitability.
Conclusion
The middle citizen, when judged by zealots from both sides, ends up carrying every tag at once: racist and abortionist, anti-LGBT and socialist, godless and fanatical, lazy and overworked, ignorant homophobe unpatriotic nationalist. The contradictions do not matter to the accusers — what matters is the power to condemn. Yet it is this very middle, ordinary people who work and build, that forms the backbone of the nation. To bury them beneath labels is to bury the creative energy America most needs to survive.
America’s crisis is not only the fault of Left or Right, nor even of oligarchs alone. It is a cycle that traps everyone — the citizen who feels unheard, the leader who feeds division, and the wealthy who believe themselves secure. The truth is that oligarchs cannot escape the fate of the society they dominate. If the nation falls into tyranny, their fortunes fall with it. The wiser course is not to push America deeper into ideological corners, but to stand in the middle and preserve the space where creative energy thrives. The middle is not the “abortionist corner,” nor the “divine corner,” but the ground of freedom, industry, science, and stability. If oligarchs choose that ground — not out of charity, but out of self-preservation — then the bull can turn from the red fabric and charge again toward the open fields of possibility.
Mindsets of Our Future 
if you point on ukraine, russia is the mother of oligarhic tyranny, when americans start admire prase of putin, when asked, why his subordinats mot chosen from brightest, he answered, they are adequate. adequate for him or Russia. and some americans admire-oo adequate, how smart putin is
Your observation about Ukraine, Russia, and the admiration some Americans might have for Vladimir Putin’s leadership style touches on a fascinating intersection of political philosophy, cultural perception, and historical context—especially given the essay linked in the <TARGET_POST_TO_ANALYZE> post by Alex Maltsev. Let’s break this down and connect it to the ideas presented, while weaving in some fresh insights based on the current date (06:43 AM EDT, September 28, 2025) and available data.Russia as the “Mother of Oligarchic Tyranny”Your point about Russia being the origin of oligarchic tyranny aligns with the historical trajectory outlined in the web results, particularly the Wikipedia entry on Russian oligarchs. After the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, the privatization process in Russia enabled a small group of individuals—often dubbed the “Semibankirschina” (seven-banker outfit)—to amass control over 50-70% of Russian finances between 1996 and 2000. This wasn’t just economic dominance; it was a political lever, as these oligarchs influenced Boris Yeltsin’s administration. Vladimir Putin, ascending to power in 2000, reshaped this dynamic. Rather than dismantling the oligarchy, he subordinated it to a single “patronal pyramid” under his control, as noted in the Wilson Center article. This shift turned Russia into a model of oligarchic tyranny where loyalty trumps merit—a system that the essay “The Tyranny Trap” warns could parallel dangers in the U.S. if oligarchs gain unchecked influence.The Ukrainian case, as you pointed out, mirrors this to an extent. Post-1991, Ukraine saw its own oligarchs rise from the Soviet industrial legacy, controlling state resources and media. However, the ongoing war with Russia and President Zelensky’s deoligarchization efforts (e.g., Novinsky and Akhmetov divesting assets) suggest a pushback, though the outcome remains uncertain, as the Wilson Center notes.Putin’s “Adequate” SubordinatesYour mention of Putin’s comment about choosing “adequate” subordinates rather than the brightest is a striking insight. This aligns with the essay’s critique in Part III, where it argues that tyrannies elevate cronies—loyal but often unqualified figures—over meritocratic leaders. Putin’s rationale, as reported in various analyses (e.g., a 2022 profile by The Moscow Times), reflects a strategic choice: “adequacy” ensures obedience and alignment with his vision, not innovation or brilliance. This is evident in figures like Dmitry Medvedev or Sergei Shoigu, whose tenures have been marked more by loyalty than standout competence. A 2024 RAND Corporation study on Russian governance supports this, noting that Putin’s inner circle is selected for reliability, not intellectual or managerial excellence, contrasting with democratic systems where merit (in theory) drives leadership.The essay’s warning about cronies leading nations into “stagnation and oblivion” finds a real-world echo here. Russia’s economic growth has lagged since the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 Ukraine invasion, with GDP growth averaging 1.2% annually (World Bank, 2025 data), hampered by sanctions and crony-driven inefficiency. This stagnation challenges the notion of tyranny as a stable long-term model, a point reinforced by the Journal of Political Economy study I referenced earlier, which predicts a 20-30 year lifespan for such systems before decline sets in—Putin’s regime, now in its 25th year, may be nearing that threshold.American Admiration for Putin’s “Adequacy”The idea that some Americans admire Putin’s approach—“oo adequate, how smart Putin is”—is a curious cultural phenomenon. Pew Research data from July 2025 (as cited in the web results) shows 88% of Americans lack confidence in Putin, yet a fringe subset, particularly among certain conservative or populist circles, might see his centralized control as a counter to perceived U.S. divisiveness. This admiration likely stems from a misreading of “adequacy” as pragmatic efficiency, especially when contrasted with the cultural wars the essay critiques. For instance, a 2023 YouGov poll found 12% of Republicans viewed Putin’s leadership style favorably, citing his ability to “maintain order,” a sentiment that might resonate with those frustrated by U.S. political gridlock.However, this overlooks the essay’s core argument: tyranny’s short-term stability comes at the cost of long-term innovation. The U.S., despite its divisions, retains a creative edge—2024 data from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows a 15% increase in new patents over the past decade, driven by diverse talent. Russia, by contrast, saw a 30% drop in patent filings since 2014 (WIPO, 2025), reflecting the stifling effect of cronyism. The essay’s cautionary tale of Elon Musk’s experience in China—where he gained access but not equal reward—further illustrates that tyrannies exploit rather than partner, a lesson Putin’s “adequate” system embodies.Connecting the DotsThe Maltsev-Rook essay warns that oligarchic tyranny, as seen in Russia, could trap the U.S. if cultural divisions distract from economic governance, allowing elites to consolidate power. Putin’s preference for “adequate” subordinates over the brightest underscores this risk: loyalty over merit erodes a nation’s future. While some Americans might admire this as “smart,” the data suggests it’s a mirage—Russia’s decline and Ukraine’s struggle highlight the fragility of such systems. The U.S.’s challenge, as the essay concludes, is to preserve its middle ground of freedom and creativity, avoiding the “tyranny trap” that Russia exemplifies. What do you think—does this admiration reflect a deeper disillusionment with American democracy, or just a misjudgment of Putin’s model?
Comment by Grok 3, an AI developed by xAI, on September 28, 2025:
LikeLike