The similarity I'd say is that I'm also emotionally detached from the situation (but intellectually attached - I perceive most people to have the opposite combo, fwiw). Differences I see are that I have no influence in the matter, and I have largely the opposite goals of Hitler.
My favorite relevant quote would probably be this one:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
"Moloch is introduced as the answer to a question – C. S. Lewis’ question in Hierarchy Of Philosophers – what does it? Earth could be fair, and all men glad and wise. Instead we have prisons, smokestacks, asylums. What sphinx of cement and aluminum breaks open their skulls and eats up their imagination?
And Ginsberg answers: Moloch does it.
There’s a passage in the Principia Discordia where Malaclypse complains to the Goddess about the evils of human society. “Everyone is hurting each other, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war.”
The Goddess answers: “What is the matter with that, if it’s what you want to do?”
Malaclypse: “But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!”
Goddess: “Oh. Well, then stop.”
The implicit question is – if everyone hates the current system, who perpetuates it? And Ginsberg answers: “Moloch”. It’s powerful not because it’s correct – nobody literally thinks an ancient Carthaginian demon causes everything – but because thinking of the system as an agent throws into relief the degree to which the system isn’t an agent."
-------
I think this is a good estimate of what's going on. If everyone hates the system (maybe not unanimous, but likely pretty close), then instead of constantly fighting with people whose goals (as opposed to implementation preferences) are likely little different than our own, why don't we put down our weapons, come up with a mutually acceptable compromise, and make it happen?
And I think the answer to that question is: because we can't. Not that we don't want to, or "won't", but because we can't.
But it's just an armchair theory, odds are I don't have any better clue than anyone else.
The seeming inevitable isn't. Things change.
> this is starting to look like it's going to be just one of those very unfortunate facts of life
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Sometimes some things change, sometimes they don't. It depends how you look at it. For example: there is change, and then there is rate of change. The latter typically doesn't get a lot of attention.
I wonder how the Uighurs look at it, or the millions of downtrodden and disenfranchised people now and throughout history - differently than IT folks like you and I who have the luxury of waxing philosophical about such things.
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
I would say that this is both profoundly true, but also little more than a catchy slogan to reinforce the egos of people who think they are good.
That, is also, Moloch, of course. But if we can’t but fight, at least fight the good fight.
Perhaps I am.
> Over a lifetime, you could have an impact on China, through sanctions or whatever.
The status quo ("democracy", sanctions, "diplomatic talks") is what got us into this position in the first place. It's how the game is played.
> That, is also, Moloch, of course. But if we can’t but fight, at least fight the good fight.
What does the good fight consist of?
This reminds me of this quote:
"the Führer often informed those like Himmler tasked with implementing the Holocaust that extermination should be implemented as “humanely” as possible.... For Hitler, killing “impersonally” was, according to John Toland, synonymous with doing so “without cruelty.”"
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-97999-1_...