“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split."
Robert E. Howard (American Writer of Conan the Barbarian)
History, in its broader trajectory, has consistently purified ideologies through a dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, thereby rotating the ruling classes. Given the immense bloodshed involved, it is perhaps more accurate to say that history has been cleansed with blood rather than merely purified. With every instance of mass casualty—ranging from thousands to tens of millions—the power dynamics between the ecclesiastical and the secular, the tension between the propertied and the propertyless, and the social contract between the state and the subject have either been fortified or undermined.
Should subsequent events unfold according to my projections, the adjudication of right and wrong will increasingly be determined by raw power. This struggle may manifest as a political-ideological conflict through the ballot box—where winners and losers are decided by sheer numerical weight—or as a primal struggle to silence opponents through force, or perhaps a combination of both. I anticipate that both will occur.
Such conflicts are, of course, already underway. The distinction lies in the nature of the struggle: it will shift from the current machinations between interest groups to a more visceral confrontation led by radical politicians—individuals who eschew grand narratives to mobilize their core constituencies or utilize a fervent support base as their primary political engine.
Material interests and losses will supersede the superficial constraints of morality and conscience as guiding principles. Furthermore, parochial collective egoism, divided by geography and race, will intensify—whether in the form of national collectivism in international politics or urban collectivism in domestic spheres. Just as anti-intellectualism emerged alongside the advancement of the information society, anti-cosmopolitan forces are forming as globalization progresses. While I am uncertain whether biological lineage or social nationality will take precedence in establishing collective insularity, I suspect lineage will prevail, following the axiom that blood is thicker than water.
We live in an era inundated with various forms of political correctness—a time when individuals vociferously assert their dogmas under the pretext of expressive liberty, insisting that their views are merely ‘different’ rather than erroneous. However, historically speaking, absolute propositions whose necessity remained unquestioned—the paradigms defining an era—have inevitably faced challenges. This was true for theocratic systems, papal authority, monarchies, capitalism, and communism. It stands to reason that the turn of liberalism and democracy has now arrived.
From my perspective, those who have acted as the arbiters of the status quo throughout human history can be categorized into three groups: thinkers, monarchs (the powerful), and capitalists. The nature of hegemony and the status of those who wield it have always been overturned through the struggles of the dissatisfied and the deprived. The peculiarity of modern society lies in the fact that while capitalists historically occupied the role of facilitators for millennia, they have now assumed the lead role.
In the past, money followed power. Power, in this context, is defined by the volume of mobilizable individuals, whether through coercion by status or voluntary respect. In an era where technological limitations precluded the existence of global capitalists, those managing capital had to field alternative power-holders to oppose existing ones. Thus, the hierarchical structure—where the ruler acts as the head and the capitalist as the limbs—remained constant. Just as the logistical apparatus remains subordinate to the strategic command in military operations, the commander of logistics was never equivalent in rank to the Chief of Staff.
Philosophers capable of transforming an era are rare heroes of such caliber that they are excluded from general consideration; typically, unless one became a monarch by birth, the only path to power was to become a warlord or a high-ranking official through individual talent. Today, however, power follows money, and individual necessity is beginning to supersede national necessity. The eras in which the individual takes precedence over the collective, and in which laws protect citizens from the state, represent a very brief period in human history. Although blood and tears continue to flow beyond our sight, we are, on the whole, in a transient era of peace.
I suspect I shall witness the end of this peace. In the near future, the elite classes will see their frustrations with the concept of ’equal suffrage’ explode. Concurrently, the vast majority of the populace, struggling with the intensified polarization of livelihoods, will prioritize the immediate benefit of sustenance over the abstract values such as righteousness or justice. This implies that the judgment of regimes based on morality or ethics will gradually vanish.
Furthermore, as evidenced by the unthinking multitude who flock and clamor whenever mediocre individuals signal a target, there is a growing trend of voters who receive an equal vote solely by virtue of age, despite an inability to think independently. Consequently, demagogues even more loathsome than those who have already abandoned their humanity will emerge, securing the support of the masses with sycophancy only to exploit them.
As we regress into an age of barbarism, I anticipate that social media agitators and digital broadcasters, addicted to the catharsis of the unthinking multitude’s cheers, will escalate their rhetoric until they face the ultimate physical consequence of their provocations. Yet, just as opposing regimes often require one another for their own preservation, the establishment representing the elites and the demagogues representing the masses will eventually collude to maintain their dominance. Factionalism will supersede individualism, and the methods of reaching consensus will be neither democratic nor peaceful.
In summary, we are approaching a neo-tribalistic hierarchy reminiscent of Orwellian dystopia, where the struggle for primary resources for biological sustainability dictates the new moral order.