11. To Be or Not to Be “Civilized”

– That Is Now the Most Crucial Question

Parallel to the Western tradition, its morality, and its lofty self-image, there has always been an undercurrent of voices persistently challenging the grand narrative. One might even say that internal criticism was woven into the very idea of our civilization from the very beginning. Perhaps it has only been a matter of time before this inherent skepticism would turn against the system. But don't stop reading, not quite yet, because in the end it will be all about us, about you and me.

The White House and The Rose Garden in a near future - from the film Idiocracy, 2006

For centuries, the West has burnished the image of civilization as a triumph over the chaos and barbarism of the natural order - promising decency, security, progress and, above all, order. Being civilized has long been synonymous with being decent, cultured and morally responsible. Even if these ambitious ideals have not always gone hand in hand with the harsh reality. But there is also another story - one in which civilization, with its Janus face, not only masters nature, but also stifles, controls and distorts it.

This latter trend of thought runs like a red thread from Rousseau and Romanticism, through Nietzsche and Heidegger, on to the deconstructions of postmodernism - and from there out into beatnik, pop and rock culture, the hippie movement, the anarchic spirit of punk and hip hop's revolt against established norms. The rebellion against good taste has taken many forms and often acted as a vitalizing force against cultural stagnation.

And in these narratives, civilization has been perceived primarily as a straitjacket, something to be stretched, rebelled against and finally freed from in the pursuit of freedom. This cultural undercurrent with its constant attacks has over time also succeeded in perforating the image of the West so deeply that the edifice today appears porous and fragile.

Looking back through history from the vantage point of liberal democracy, we see the soul of civilization emerging in ancient Greece, where the first steps toward science, rationality, and democracy were taken. This is the traditional narrative of Western civilization—an unbroken trajectory of progress from Athens and Rome, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, culminating in the rise of democracy in the early 20th century. It is a powerful story of advancement, one in which we have gradually cultivated respect and compassion for others, embraced the ideals of human equality, and pursued justice for all. It is this narrative that is now under attack and the question is what the alternatives that are now challenging it can give us

Because if we reverse the perspective and look at history from a stark power analysis, a completely different picture emerges. Instead of a linear development towards humanism and justice, we see a world characterized by constant power struggles, where strength and dominance have been the decisive factors. It is the story of the self-evident right of power to shape the world according to its own will - a tradition that throughout most of history has been more established and far more dominant than the democratic one.

From this perspective, democracy’s resistance to the established and natural order appears as a peripheral and marginal phenomenon. This interpretation is shared by both the left and the right—for the left, as a cautionary warning; for the right, as a confirmation of the strong’s rightful position.

At the same time, the strong and the wealthy, during periods of liberal democratic rule—primarily over the past hundred years—have been forced to submit to the laws, rules, and moral values of the collective, that is, of the weak. They have had an ethic imposed upon them, one in which brutality, greed, and plundering have been seen as animalistic and immoral. A morality the strong have never fully accepted—and one that more and more are now rebelling against.

We are now living in a time where increasing numbers openly and deliberately defy what was once considered decency and civilized behavior. And they do so with great conviction.

It is no longer just a philosophical critique of civilization, but an active counter-movement against its degeneration. It is a movement that burns with its own convictions and sees the shift of power to the stronger as a law of nature - the weak should stand back and obey, the strong should rule. Based on this logic, we can better understand, for example, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance's handling of Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House and Pete Hegseth's speech in Munich, all of which were clear markers against traditional diplomacy and the rule-based order as we are used to seeing it.

These events were no mere missteps but part of a much larger plan to overthrow the rules of the game once and for all and establish a new playing field.

Thus, from this perspective a holy war has been declared against the bastions that have so far worked to uphold and develop the key attributes of the old civilization: the UN, WHO, universities and the education system, the media, the state bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state”—as well as the judiciary, central banks, independent research institutes, and international organizations such as the EU and the World Bank. These institutions, once the foundation of the liberal order, are now seen as enemies of the people, obstacles to the right of the strong, and symbols of a decadent and weakened civilization.

This dismantling of liberal ideals is not happening by chance but follows a carefully crafted manual; Project 2025, developed by the Christian nationalist think tank The Heritage Foundation, laid out before the 2024 U.S. election a strategy for reclaiming power from bureaucrats, intellectuals, and globalists. With promises to "drain the swamp" and dismantle the administrative state, this plan has become a roadmap for how power is now being redistributed—away from the institutions that previously balanced society and toward a new, more authoritarian order.

This conservative movement has now succeeded in uniting a broad yet disparate coalition of groups that, in various ways, have felt marginalized by the democratic establishment and elite: Religious groups, which have never been true allies of either Enlightenment ideals or liberal democracy, see their chance to regain control over society’s moral compass. The precariat—the economically insecure and disregarded—are drawn in by promises of restoration and revenge against the political and economic elite they believe has betrayed them. The patriarchy, along with men who feel degraded by the new era’s strong female ideals, views this movement as an opportunity to restore old hierarchies and values. And the powerful and wealthy, who were once forced to justify their privilege and influence, now embrace an ideology that no longer requires them to apologize for their wealth—on the contrary, it allows them to present it as a natural right.

We are, therefore, at a historical crossroads where each of us must choose a side and determine the direction we will take. And for once, the choice is simple—it is an either-or situation. For those who choose to wait and remain passive will, through their inaction, still contribute to the course that will ultimately favor the winning side. And we can now clearly see which way the tide is turning.

So it is high time to ask the question: do we want to continue to be part of what we have hitherto considered a civilized world - with its laws, norms and Enlightenment heritage - or is it time to let this old order, marked by quasi-religious morality and ideological credulity, give way to something new? Do we have an option to consider the development from a pragmatic point of view?

This is the most pressing issue of our time and it can no longer be ignored. Liberal democracy can only be kept alive by the struggle of the many and the will to cooperate across all borders. And if that ambition is not strong enough in us, nature and the law of the jungle will reclaim their ancient positions with relentless force - and the only question that remains is whether we are ready to live in that world. Are you? Am I?