I had an instant in a Zeihan lecture where I became convinced of the same thing. He was talking about millennials, and said that the primary millennial piece of fiction is Harry Potter. As a millennial, I had to nod along, that's a true and insightful thing to say about us. Then he described the titular character as, essentially, a special snowflake that doesn't have to work for anything or figure anything out.

Which is just an incredibly bad take. Yes, Harry is a magical character that can do whatever he wants but with a handful of exceptions, so can everyone else in the setting. Harry isn't the protagonist because he can do whatever he wants, he's the protagonist because doing the right thing is scary and he does it anyway. This isn't a take requiring a college level course, that theme is repeated over and over throughout the series, Zeihan's analysis of Harry Potter would only be convincing to someone with the most cursory familiarity with the work. And it's not the kind of bad take one arrives at by skimming the work and not thinking hard enough about it. The likeliest way I see someone coming up with that take is already holding an animosity towards millennials and then coming up with a smart-sounding justification for it.

And if that's Zeihan's understanding of Harry Potter, I can only assume his understanding of the CCP's thirty-year plan is comparable.