The Reign of the Small People

Christianity was successful because it spoke to each simple man directly. It wasn’t a religion of the elite, of the rulers, a religion in which only the most powerful, or brave, or rich could find protection while alive and bliss in the afterlife. The Christian God said something like this: “You too can have what the others have! You too can enter Heaven! You too can gain access to those things reserved for the rich/powerful/brave! God loves everyone, including You!” That was a good marketing move and… it worked. Christianity spread quickly. People didn’t have to be courageous, to prove their worth or value; they only had to believe and to… exist. They were beautiful the way they were. They only needed some “soft skills” like positive emotions, love and good relationship skills. They didn’t have to have large amounts of money; their richness was “in their heart” and “in their spirit”. And they had access to each temple, and later church; they didn’t have to belong to a select club or to be part of the “high-life”. Two thousand years later, Christianity is still a good idea and still has adherents and supporters. And the message is the same: no matter how small you are (or poor, or weak), you can come with us, have your voice heard and God will welcome you under His protection and later in His kingdom.

Some centuries later, Socialism/Communism came into reality. Another utopia, if you ask me. It said the same thing. No matter how weak, how insignificant, how unprepared or untrained you are, we are all equal. Your rights will be protected, you have the same value as everyone else. There is no significant difference between an university professor and an unqualified, unskilled worker. Actually, the worker might be slightly better, because the professor seems to be a bit condescending and arrogant (intolerant?). This ideology was so successful that it has led to a systematic killing of all intellectuals, so that the mediocre mob could rule undisturbed. It started with the dream of equality of chances and ended in the reign of a few members of a nomenclature over a mob that kept dreaming leftist dreams. However, the success of this ideology can be seen today in many parts of the world: China, Russia, North Korea, and some other states that are basically left-wing without openly stating this.

Then came Facebook and the rest of social media. Just like Christianity and Socialism, it followed the same path and cultivated the same ideals and dreams: “You too can have you voice heard! You too can have a free account! We like diversity so you are free to say what you want! More diverse? Better! We welcome you all! It doesn’t matter if you are rich or not; both famous and irrelevant people have the same type of online profile! You don’t have to prove you know what you’re talking about; the opinion of an university professor is equal with the opinion of an unskilled worker who just did some research on Google! Social media loves you all and helps you all to have an impact on this world, “to become great”, in other words!” And so, people were attracted by this idea of egalitarian social media where you can be anything and say (almost) anything.


The problem with the kingdoms of small people is that they tend to remain, in the end, small – the way their members are. They are experiments along the history of humanity and there is a lot to be learned from them. Interesting ideas and people emerged from Christianity, socialism and social media. We should not see everything in black and white. But there are also some traits that must be highlighted.

In horizontal communities like these, competence is not encouraged. People do not have equal abilities and sometimes their skills can’t even be compared. Although I personally believe that humans are intrinsically of equal value, their exterior abilities vary a lot and therefore, the quality of their work is different. The judgement of a professor is not similar to the judgement of a simple untrained individual. The weight of their opinions is dramatically different. Then, there is a difference between a brave person (someone who takes risks) and a coward (someone who stays in the comfort zone); they might go both in Heaven according to Christianity (‘cause God loves ‘em all), but in real life we cannot judge them equally and we cannot relate in a similar way with each of them. Our attitude should be different, based on the choice the person in front of us has made, and based on their abilities.

Now, recently, this whole idea of classlessness has been brought to a new level, with the forceful imposing of all sorts of minorities in important positions of responsibility, just for the sake of diversity and equality of chances, a forced decision that steams out of an obvious Christian-Socialist-Leftist mentality. I am not passionate about politics or ideologies, but I can nevertheless see the patterns… The result will be a tendency to totalitarianism. Excessive Christianity gave birth to the Inquisition. Excessive Socialism gave birth to dictatorships of many kinds. And excessive social media seems to lead to enclaves of conflicting mentalities and behavior manipulation according to the preferred trends that are in vogue at the level of the CEOs of those particular social media companies. In conclusion, this apparent (and much-dreamed) desire for equality and free-speech will inevitably degenerate towards control and censorship. It’s expected; it has happened before in history and it will happen again. Why? Because this is the mentality of the small people. When you are small (or you perceive yourself as being small), you will yearn to become great, and you will be easily seduced by power.