Proof of Love: The Consensus of AI and Next Civilization - The Convergence of Domination and Barbarism

 

3. The Convergence of Domination and Barbarism: Power as the Root of Hatred, Alienation, and Obstacles to Civilizational Development

This section aims to explore in depth the thesis that “domination is the social root of hatred and barbarism.” We will examine the fundamental link between hierarchical power structures and destructive human behavior as well as social stagnation. The analysis will systematically address how various forms of political, economic, social, and cultural power generate hatred, strip and instrumentalize love in human relationships, and ultimately obstruct genuine civilizational progress. Drawing on critical social theory, Marxist analysis, Foucauldian perspectives, and contemporary psychology and sociology, we will reveal how domination, beneath the veneer of modern progress, perpetuates—and even deepens—a condition of “primordial barbarism.”

Yes, this also means that human society still exists in a half-barbaric, half-civilized state.

3.1 Hatred, Barbaric Behavior, and Domination

According to Wikipedia, hatred is a strong negative emotional reaction toward certain people, things, or ideas, often linked to opposition or disgust. Hatred is frequently associated with intense anger, contempt, and revulsion, and is sometimes regarded as the opposite of love.

Hatred is a latent, object-directed negative emotional experience that can be externalized as aggression, insults, deception, contempt, or discrimination against others (or oneself), or internalized as anger, sadness, despair, disappointment, or loathing.

It is both an inner emotional state and a process whereby individuals or collective organizations incite and translate this emotion into violent thoughts and actions. Rooted in zero-sum “life-or-death” dualism, hatred manifests in verbal assault, institutionalized discrimination, social exclusion, and violent practices. These not only erode trust and public cooperation, jeopardizing the physical and psychological well-being of others, but also backfire on perpetrators, leading to self-barbarization and cycles of inner torment.

The origins of hatred are evolutionarily intelligible: lions need prey, boar piglets need protection. In the jungle, facing food scarcity or predators, there is no space for love—only extreme hatred ensures survival. For humans, responding to barbaric assault often necessitates barbaric retaliation to defend oneself or others—what we term legitimate self-defense. Indeed, hatred can sometimes serve crucial self-protective or altruistic functions. However, since legitimate self-defense entails a complex blend of love and hate, it will not be the focus here.

Triggers of Hatred:

• Negative judgments and emotional projection
• Cognitive distortions (e.g., labor alienation)
• Power struggles and domination mechanisms
• Survival threats or selfish motives

Externalization of Hatred:

• Verbal aggression, insult, and discrimination
• Institutional injustice and social exclusion
• Violence and barbaric practices
• Information manipulation and propagandistic incitement

Social Consequences:

• Erosion of social trust and public cooperation
• Reinforcement of “us–them” antagonisms, ritualizing collective hatred
• Intensification of structural inequality and cycles of conflict

Self-Impact:

• Self-barbarization: loss of empathy, magnified violent impulses, pride in being “powerful” or “ruthless”
• Self-torment: cycles of anxiety, guilt, or narcissism, oscillating between “I am unworthy of love” and “everyone must love me”

Among children and adolescents, school bullying, exclusion, or chronic stress often translate suppressed hatred into depression, anxiety, and other mental health challenges—typical expressions of these mechanisms among vulnerable groups.

Hatred can be fleeting or enduring. Its intensity ranges from mild dislike (“I hate broccoli”) to global nihilism (“I hate the entire world”). In some cases, hatred is a learned response shaped by abuse, manipulation, or indoctrination.

If we define barbaric behavior as any deliberate act that inflicts harm, oppression, or deprivation upon one’s own or others’ life, dignity, freedom, ecology, or spirit—then we see clearly that such intentional harm requires the presence of deep negative emotions toward its target. Except in cases of specific mental illness, hatred—manifesting as loathing, fear, prejudice, discrimination, deceit, or envy—provides the core psychological fuel for barbarism. Its ultimate effect is to damage, or even sever, the bonds of love and trust between human beings and between humans and nature.

In this sense, hatred supplies the emotional justification (“they deserve punishment”), while barbaric behavior supplies the practical means (exclusion, online mobbing, torture, massacre, discriminatory laws).

Thus, hatred is the central psychological driver of barbaric action. In other words, behaviors motivated by hatred are inherently barbaric rather than civilized.

Since we have already defined acts of love as Love Languages, we now introduce the counterpart: acts of hatred and barbarism as Hate Languages. For brevity, we also use “hate” to refer to this category.

Hate is a negative emotional experience constructed through human cognition and practice, often externalized into harmful behaviors.

In this paper, we focus specifically on hate languages expressed through hateful and barbaric acts.

Domination refers to the exercise of control by a minority or an individual, through power structures, over the life, will, property, and autonomy of others. It directly violates others’ “freedom” and “dignity,” and entails oppression and exploitation of the majority. It is, therefore, itself a form of barbarism. Prejudice, discrimination, hatred, fear, and the thirst for power are often legitimized and institutionalized within relations of domination. Where domination becomes normalized, other barbarisms—torture, enslavement, systemic oppression—follow as its subordinate forms.

“The essence of politics is power, not morality.” So warned Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince. Similarly, over 1,800 years earlier, Shang Yang in The Book of Lord Shang offered parallel insights. If domination is not rooted in morality, then its essence is—as Lu Xun wrote in Diary of a Madman—to eat people.

Domination permeates all realms of human society: from states to families, from politics to economics, from corporations to schools. Its ubiquity multiplies its harms. If domination invariably produces barbarism, then hatred is its underlying driver—this is no exaggeration.

As the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) proclaimed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yet 248 years later, one need only examine the actions of the Trump administration to ask: which of these inalienable rights were truly safeguarded under its rule?

Of course, this indictment applies not only to Trump but to rulers in general.

Structures of Power in Contemporary Human Domination

Political Power Structures:

• International organizations (UN, WTO, IEA, WHO, UNESCO) shaping sovereignty, trade, energy, health, culture, and education.
• Nation-states and government branches (legislative, executive, judicial).
• Military and police (monopoly on legitimate violence).
• Bureaucracies (vast civil service systems).

Economic Power Structures:

• Capital (Marx’s “silent force”).
• Multinational corporations and monopolistic conglomerates.
• Financial institutions (banks, private equity, hedge funds).

Cultural and Ideological Power Structures:

• Mainstream media and opinion-shaping machinery.
• Educational systems (curricula, classrooms, examinations).
• Religion and ideological organizations.

Technological and Informational Power Structures:

• Tech giants and platforms (algorithmic recommendation, data control).
• Surveillance and security networks (digital monitoring, big-data analysis).

Social and Group Power Structures:

• Elite networks and exclusive clubs.
• Families and kinship systems (mutual aid and exclusion based on bloodline or locality).
• Professional and industry associations (certifications, standards, regulations).

Familial and Intimate Power Structures:

• Household authority hierarchies: parental control over children or spousal domination based on tradition, economics, or emotional dependency.
• Patriarchal/clan systems legitimizing absolute seniority.
• Invisible domination in intimate relationships (emotional blackmail, financial control, information blocking).

Legal and Institutional Power Structures:

• Legal texts and judicial interpretations (defining “legal/illegal”).
• Regulatory and compliance systems (licensing, censorship, sanctions).

These structures intersect to form a multi-dimensional domination network linking ruling elites, privileged classes, and vested interests into an entrenched alliance. Thus, any discussion of human governance must necessarily address domination and power in depth.

3.2 Theoretical Foundations of Power and Oppression

3.2.1 Critical Theory: Systemic, Disciplinary, and Ideological Dimensions of Power

Critical theory, originating from the Frankfurt School, is a current of social, historical, and political thought whose core lies in analyzing and challenging systemic power relations in society. Unlike traditional social theory, which aims to describe and understand society, critical theory explicitly seeks to critique and transform it, emphasizing the unity of theory and praxis. It maintains that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by the dynamics between ruling and oppressed groups.

Modern critical theory goes beyond Marxism’s purely economic analysis by incorporating and reworking Freudian concepts and postmodernist perspectives to examine broader cultural and social structures of power. Its goal is to “liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them,” often achieved through “immanent critique” of a society’s own proclaimed values. Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a seminal contribution, framing the classroom as a microcosm of society that reflects the dialectical relationship between oppressors and the oppressed, thereby offering practical routes for social critique.

This transition from purely economic analysis to cultural and psychological examination highlights that domination is no longer limited to material control but extends into the manipulation of desires, cognition, and identity. If domination is a form of “primordial barbarism,” then its manifestations are not only naked coercion or economic compulsion but also subtle, pervasive forms of enslavement. This expanded definition of barbarism encompasses the systematic dehumanization of individuals through cultural and psychological means and the erosion of autonomy—domination as control of the human subject itself, not merely the body.

3.2.2 Marxist Perspectives: Exploitation, Alienation, and Class Domination

From a Marxist standpoint, social power and coercion are exercised through economic exploitation. Workers are exploited because they cannot retain or control the full value of their labor, while capitalists appropriate the surplus. The inherently exploitative nature of capitalism implies that nearly every exchange carries the potential for exploitation.

In this process, poverty is not naturally occurring but is “first manufactured by the capitalist system, and only later addressed as a problem to be solved.” Redistribution by the state is thus a secondary remedy imposed upon primary inequality created by initial distribution. This institutionalized exploitation forms the essence of capitalist economic relations.

Alienation (Entfremdung) and reification are key concepts in critical theory, rooted in Marxist analysis.

“The relation of the worker to the product of his labor is as to an alien object… The more the worker expends himself in labor, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects he creates against himself, the poorer he becomes in his inner life, and the less he belongs to himself.”

Here Marx reveals how human “species-being” is alienated into independent capital that, once crystallized, dominates the very individuals who created it. Alienation manifests as loss of confidence in one’s environment and in oneself, leading to profound loneliness and despair. Its expressions include powerlessness (lack of control over working conditions), meaninglessness (disconnection from larger purposes), isolation (absence of belonging), and self-alienation (discontent with one’s own work).

Reification transforms social relations into relations between things, reducing individuals to mere “cogs in the machine.” For the bourgeoisie, alienation is perversely experienced as confirmation of their own power; they embrace alienation as strength, while simultaneously intensifying their cruelty toward workers.

Marxist state theory holds that the state is a machine for maintaining class domination: an organization of the ruling class endowed with the strongest instruments of repression and coercion. In capitalism, the state is structured to uphold capitalist institutions and ensure the dictatorship of a minority of capitalists through both violent and ideological apparatuses.

The Marxist concept of reification—social relations treated as relations between objects—combined with the idea of objectified labor becoming a dominating force, reveals the subtle but profound instrumentality inherent in capitalist structures. Human agency paradoxically creates alienated powers (capital/objectified labor) that turn back upon their creators, exploiting and ruling them. This “systemic instrumentalization” extends beyond interpersonal exploitation to the very level of social structure, reducing individuals to components within an impersonal economic machine. This, too, is a form of barbarism.

3.2.3 Foucauldian Insights: Power Beyond the State, Normalization, and Biopower

Michel Foucault rejected the notion that power resides solely in the state, arguing instead that power has a broader, more diffuse basis, embedded in complex networks of relationships between individuals. The modern state, in his view, is a sophisticated structure that integrates individuals into its order by conditioning them to adopt certain patterns and forms of individuality, thereby exercising control over them.

Foucault distinguished between sovereign power (judicial, prohibitive—the “sword of sovereignty”) and disciplinary power. Disciplinary power is a productive force that operates through normalization, prescribing possible actions for subjects, rewarding conformity, and punishing deviation. Punishment shifts from revealing truth to producing docile, rule-following subjects.

This new power form, biopower, is productive and life-oriented, managing populations in ways essential to capitalism, since it aligns human life with economic processes.

Foucault also emphasized: “Where there is power, there is resistance.” Power does not act upon inert bodies; subjects respond and transform commands in multiple ways. Power binds subjects to their identities, making them internalize norms as if they were their own, so that they become simultaneously the targets and carriers of power.

The distinction between sovereign and disciplinary power reveals that modern domination is not crude repression but subtle, internalized control—shaping identity and behavior, making resistance far more difficult. This represents a more insidious form of barbarism, one that hijacks freedom itself to create self-replicating mechanisms of domination. Individuals reproduce the very norms that enslave them, even under the illusion of being “free.”

3.2.4 Power, Privilege, and Oppression in Social Structures

Power is the capacity to influence others and make decisions. Privilege refers to unearned advantages conferred by membership in a dominant group. Oppression is power exercised over time in ways that systematically disadvantage another group. Even when interpersonal relations seem harmonious, structural disadvantage persists because it is sustained by institutions—policies, governments, educational systems, healthcare—and reinforced by social norms.

Inequitable distribution of power produces discrimination and injustice, rooted both in individual prejudice and in systemic bias. These unjust systems span contexts from corporate boardrooms to university admissions, consistently reproducing hierarchical and elitist outcomes.

Social Dominance Theory explains how stable societies form hierarchies along axes such as race, gender, religion, and class, wherein dominant groups enjoy privilege while subordinate groups endure disadvantage. These hierarchies are sustained not by constant coercion but by “legitimizing myths”—widely accepted cultural ideologies that naturalize inequality.

Such myths reveal that power structures not only impose disadvantage but normalize and rationalize it through broadly accepted yet rarely scrutinized beliefs. This links directly to concepts of false consciousness and epistemic ideology. Legitimizing myths are cultural ideologies based on stereotypes—overgeneralized beliefs about particular groups—that are then used to justify domination in seemingly “culturally acceptable” ways.

False consciousness describes how dominant institutions disseminate “counterfactual but normative assumptions and rituals” that make exploitation less visible or more palatable. Epistemic ideology refers to flawed cultural systems of understanding that empower elites.

The causation is clear: dominant groups create and propagate these myths/ideologies, which then solidify into “common sense.” This ideological manipulation constitutes a profound form of “primordial barbarism,” because it undermines critical thought and collective resistance, perpetuating oppression without overt coercion.

3.3 The Origins of Hatred in Power Structures

3.3.1 Mechanisms by Which Power Imbalances Breed Hostility and Conflict

Hatred, fear, and contempt are the emotions that drive conflict participants toward violence; they replace reason with fictitious notions of the “dangerous Other.” Hatred is a deep and extreme emotional aversion, typically associated with hostility toward its target, and can escalate to violent acts such as murder and war.

The exercise of power can induce, motivate, entice, coerce, or overwhelm conflict participants. This form of “emotional power” reflects the integration of power dynamics and emotional life, manifested in public performances of gathering, debating, deliberating, cheering, jeering, or even fighting. Over time, repeated exposure to such power can “train” or “condition” individuals to respond in specific ways.

Emotional power—defined as the integration of power dynamics with emotional life—shows that hatred is not merely an individual feeling but also a form of social engineering employed by ruling powers to mobilize conflict participants and control target populations, making it a direct tool of barbarism. Emotional power has been defined as a “socio-psychological force that interacts with conflict dynamics” and can “induce, motivate, entice, coerce, or overwhelm conflict participants.” A particularly insidious form of this power is state-driven campaigns aimed at controlling the thoughts and lives of targeted groups by instilling a sense of inferiority.

This establishes a direct causal chain: power structures actively cultivate and exploit emotions such as hatred, transforming them from private feelings into collective destructive forces. The systematic manipulation of emotions for the purposes of control and violence is a clear expression of “primordial barbarism,” revealing that hatred is not simply a spontaneous eruption but a deliberate product of domination.

3.3.2 Psychological Dimension: Devaluing Victims and Instilling Inferiority

Hatred rests on a complex mix of cognition and emotion. Its cognitive component involves devaluing the “Other” and perceiving them as a threat. Hate-based violence is driven by persistent, negative cognitions toward the “Other” and the intent to harm or destroy them.

Systematic humiliation is a key mechanism of state power, exploiting the psychology of targeted groups by inducing “toxic self-deprecation” to erode self-esteem. This works by fabricating images of incompetence or worthlessness, generating both external and internalized devaluation, making these groups less likely to resist authority.

As hatred grows, targets are stripped of moral or human consideration, creating a sense of legitimacy for action—even annihilation—against them. This process erodes empathy.

The twin mechanisms of victim devaluation and systematic humiliation through instilled inferiority represent a form of psychological warfare deployed by power structures. Dehumanization erodes empathy and legitimizes violence, directly enabling barbarism by dismantling moral restraints. Hatred, characterized by “an increasing need to devalue victims,” inevitably “reduces empathy.” Meanwhile, systematic humiliation as a form of state power instills “toxic self-deprecation” that weakens targets’ self-esteem and makes them “less likely to complain, obstruct, resist, or rebel against authority.”

The logical implication is that by systematically stripping individuals or groups of basic humanity and value, ruling powers eliminate moral and psychological barriers to harm. Hatred then becomes the justification—“the reason to act, even to annihilate the hated Other.” This reveals the direct and sinister causal pathway from power-induced psychological manipulation to violence and barbaric behavior, showing how domination actively cultivates the conditions for hatred and cruelty.

3.3.3 Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Its Association with Reduced Empathy Toward Outgroups

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) measures an individual’s preference for and endorsement of group-based social hierarchies and inequality. It is associated with competitive worldviews and heightened prejudicial attitudes.

High levels of SDO are consistently correlated with lower empathy and higher “counter-empathy” (taking pleasure in others’ suffering, or schadenfreude). This reduction in empathy is most pronounced toward outgroup members, especially under competitive or threatening intergroup conditions.

Importantly, efforts toward social equality and inclusion can paradoxically amplify the effects of authoritarianism (closely related to SDO) on prejudice, as authoritarians perceive such equality as a “situational threat.”

That SDO can reinforce prejudice even in egalitarian contexts demonstrates that the drive for domination actively undermines attempts to build a more equal society. Progress toward equality is reinterpreted as a threat to hierarchical preferences, triggering intensified prejudice and hatred. Research shows that “social equality and inclusion strengthen the impact of authoritarianism on prejudice. These results suggest that equality functions as a situational threat, catalyzing ‘authoritarian dynamics’ rather than being embraced as a norm by authoritarians.”

This reveals a profound causal mechanism: dominance-oriented individuals not only thrive under systems of inequality but also actively resist and distort egalitarian efforts. When confronted with conditions that challenge hierarchical preferences, they may respond with heightened prejudice and hatred, perceiving inclusionary measures as existential threats to their status. This illustrates how domination perpetuates “primordial barbarism,” converting positive social progress into triggers for conflict and hostility.

Table 1. Typology of Mechanisms by Which Power Induces Hatred

Mechanism of Hate Generation	Type of Power Involved	Impact on Target Group/Individual	Manifestations of Hate
Systematic Humiliation	State Power	Devaluation, instillation of inferiority	Violence, discrimination, social exclusion
Ideological Control	Cultural / Ideological Power	Alienation, rationalization of harm	Prejudice, conflict mobilization
Economic Exploitation	Economic Power	Powerlessness, commodification, alienation	Resentment, class conflict
Group Division / Competition	Social Power	Reduced empathy, schadenfreude	Prejudice, social exclusion
Emotional Blackmail	Familial Power	Guilt, dependency, role entrapment	Manipulation, emotional isolation
Media Manipulation / Propaganda	Technological / Informational Power	Stereotyping, group antagonism	Prejudice, hate speech
Legal Discrimination	Legal / Institutional Power	Rights deprivation, marginalization	Discriminatory laws, abuse of public authority
International Sanctions / Isolation	Power of International Organizations	Collective suffering, externalized hostility	Xenophobia, nationalist mobilization

3.4 The Deprivation and Instrumentalization of Love and Human Relationships

3.4.1 The Impact of Unequal Power Dynamics on Interpersonal Bonds and Empathy

Power and control dynamics significantly shape interpersonal relationships, influencing interactions and well-being. In imbalanced relationships, the dominant partner may find it difficult to generate empathy, shifting focus from understanding the partner’s perspective to maintaining control. This can result in emotional manipulation, gaslighting, verbal abuse, financial control, isolation, threats, and micromanagement.

Empathy is foundational to the development and maintenance of human relationships. While empathy usually fosters social affinity and warmth, it may be undermined if it interferes with competition or is exploited to understand more powerful others for status gains.

High relational power can lead individuals to believe they lose less if the relationship dissolves. Studies show that those perceiving themselves as holding higher power in relationships are more prone to attraction to alternatives outside the relationship, engaging in fantasies or romantic interactions with substitute partners. This phenomenon is mediated by an increased perception of one’s own “mate value.”

Thus, when high-power partners perceive themselves as more attractive and at lower risk of loss, they are more likely to disengage from existing commitments and seek alternatives. This creates systematic “love deprivation” for lower-power partners, whose emotional needs and fundamental commitments are undermined by power imbalance. Domination—even in intimate settings—therefore manifests as a relational form of barbarism.

3.4.2 Buber’s “I-It” Relationship: Objectification and Instrumental Treatment of Others

Martin Buber’s I and Thou distinguishes two fundamental relational modes: “I-It” and “I-You.”

The “I-It” relation is based on alienation, where the other is treated as an object or instrument for utility. Here, the “I” emerges as a self-conscious subject of experience and use.

By contrast, the “I-You” relation entails openness, ethical engagement, and recognition of the other’s intrinsic worth, characterized by dialogue and full presence.

Rick Bellingham interprets “I-It” as “aggressive power abuse,” in which one person views another as an object to be exploited, linking it with predatory behaviors.

Buber’s concept of the “I-It” relation provides a philosophical articulation of human instrumentalization inherent in power structures. It is a precursor to aggressive power abuse that denies the dignity and subjectivity of others. The shift from recognizing others as “You” to treating them as “It” constitutes a fundamental dehumanization, paving the way for exploitation and abuse. This dynamic reveals how instrumentalization is not only an outcome of power but also a core mechanism of barbarism in human relationships, corroding the very foundation of human connection.

3.4.3 Romantic Love as a Biological Drive and the Consequences of Misunderstanding/Repression

One study argues that Romantic Love is a primary biological drive, akin to hunger or thirst, rather than an emotion. This widespread misunderstanding, entrenched by science and society, has severe consequences.

Sexual control is regarded as a major source and expression of power in many species, including humans. Religion and society have historically exploited institutionalized marriage to manufacture a “false and coerced state of love,” enforcing exclusivity in unions driven primarily by sexual interest, while punishing deviations.

Romantic love is a biological drive rather than an emotion⁴⁸, and society’s misunderstanding/suppression of it—typically through sexual control and institutionalized marriage as structures of power—has led to “love deprivation syndrome,” as well as severe consequences such as suicide and femicide⁴⁸. This demonstrates that domination actively distorts a fundamental human need, transforming the source of connection into a source of profound suffering and even death. This represents a deep form of barbarism. Sexual control is “a primary source and expression of power in many animal species, including humans”⁴⁸. Religion and society have “historically employed institutionalized marriage to fabricate a ‘false, coerced state of love’”⁴⁸. The consequences have been explicitly identified as “serious outcomes, including relationship breakdown, divorce, suicide, and wife-killing”⁴⁸. The causal chain is clear: Domination (through sexual/marital control) → misunderstanding/suppression of a fundamental human drive (love) → systemic “love deprivation syndrome” and profound suffering/death. This shows how domination can corrode the biological and social foundations of human connection, converting a life-affirming force into a source of acute suffering and violence. Such a profound distortion of core human needs constitutes a paradigmatic example of “primitive barbarism.”

3.4.4 Authoritarian Structures (e.g., Parenting Styles) and Their Impact on Emotional Well-being and Genuine Connection

Authoritarian parenting, characterized by high demands and low emotional warmth, is linked to adverse outcomes in children’s emotional and psychological development. Children raised in such environments show lower psychological well-being, poorer emotion regulation, and greater reliance on suppression strategies rather than reappraisal.⁴⁹

Emotional suppression carries social costs: reduced social support, diminished intimacy, and lower satisfaction in relationships. It disrupts emotional communication and undermines authenticity.⁵⁰

Adolescents with authoritarian tendencies show weaker cognitive abilities and emotional intelligence. Individuals with lower intelligence may be more drawn to authoritarianism due to a preference for simplistic solutions. Authoritarian parenting often cultivates authoritarian traits in children.⁵¹

The link between authoritarian parenting styles and increased emotional suppression⁴⁹ reveals that domination— even within the family unit—actively obstructs authentic emotional expression and connection. Such suppression, in turn, leads to poorer psychological well-being and impaired social development, creating a cycle in which individuals raised under domination may struggle to form genuine, loving relationships, thereby transmitting the “deprivation of love” across generations. Authoritarian parenting has been shown to result in “lower psychological well-being and poorer emotional regulation,” with greater reliance on “suppression strategies”⁴⁹. The social costs of emotional suppression include “lower social support, reduced interpersonal intimacy, and diminished social satisfaction,” as well as the “disruption of emotional communication”⁵⁰. This establishes a clear causal chain: domination (authoritarian parenting) → emotional suppression → impaired social and emotional development → inability to establish authentic, loving relationships. This demonstrates that domination, beginning from the most fundamental social unit (the family), actively undermines the capacity for love and connection, leading to a systemic “deprivation of love” that can be passed down across generations, embodying a subtle yet pervasive form of barbarism.

3.4.5 Necropolitics: The Ultimate Instrumentalization of Human Life by States

Achille Mbembe’s concept of "necropolitics" refers to state power exercised through the regulation and manipulation of death—determining whose lives are disposable and whose are protected. It is the “power of death over life.”⁵²

This excludes marginalized groups from power, rendering them targets for elimination. Human bodies are instrumentalized: either used for state purposes or discarded as worthless in pursuit of “higher national goals.”

The concept of "homo sacer" describes those outside the political community who may be killed without consequence, excluded from legal protection.

Necropolitics⁵² represents the ultimate instrumentalization of human life, wherein dominant power structures not only control but actively determine the disposability of certain populations. This “power of life subordinated to death” constitutes the most extreme manifestation of barbarism, for it strips individuals of their intrinsic value and reduces them to mere objects subject to the will of sovereign authority. Necropolitics is defined as the state’s power to “regulate and manipulate death,” deciding “which lives are deemed disposable”⁵². The direct consequence is the creation of a “death-world”, in which populations are relegated to the status of the “living dead”. The concept of bare life further illustrates this, referring to those who “may be killed without punishment” and who are excluded from legal protection.

This establishes the most extreme causal relation between domination and barbarism: power transcends mere exploitation and assumes direct control over human survival itself, reducing people to sheer biological entities whose lives can be terminated at will for the sake of “lofty national objectives.” This represents the apex of instrumentalization and the deepest form of barbarism, as it denies the fundamental sanctity and dignity of human life.

The Nazi regime’s “Final Solution” and the Holocaust stand as a paradigmatic case. Yet, such genocides are by no means rare in human history.

3.5 Domination as an Obstacle to Civilizational Development

3.5.1 Material-Centric Civilizational Critique: Neglect of Morality and Justice

Prevailing (Western) notions of civilization, Eurocentric in orientation, emphasize institutions, economics, democracy, and technological progress, while neglecting morality, ethics, and justice.⁵³

A nation may achieve high levels of material advancement yet act with cruelty and oppression—through deceit, exploitation, injustice domestically, or imperialist aggression abroad. Such a society may conduct wars of conquest, plunder, and destruction reminiscent of barbaric tribes.⁵³

This critique reveals that material progress divorced from ethics perpetuates cycles of uncivilized and destructive behavior. Darwinian-inspired Western worldviews, described as animalistic, racist, and bellicose, cannot serve as the model for human civilization.

The critique of material-centered conceptions of civilization argues that they actively obstruct genuine civilizational progress because they neglect morality and justice. This demonstrates that when domination is expressed through such a narrow lens, it perpetuates cycles of “uncivilized and destructive behavior”⁵³; despite technological advancement, it exposes the fundamental contradiction within the very notion of “progress.” The prevailing conception of civilization “focuses on material aspects” (economy, technology) while simultaneously “ignoring morality, ethical principles, and justice”. The direct consequence is a society that is “highly developed materially, yet engages in malicious practices of deception, fraud, oppression, and injustice,” and that carries out “brutal aggression”.

This establishes a causal chain: domination—by prioritizing material control and a “winner-takes-all” approach⁵⁴—actively undermines the ethical foundations necessary for true civilizational advancement. Such a perspective does not merely represent a lack of progress, but rather perpetuates barbarism under the guise of advancement, rendering the very concept of “civilization” self-contradictory when divorced from moral principles.

This pattern was widely observed during the processes of industrialization in many countries, particularly in the early stages of the British Industrial Revolution from the late 18th to mid-19th century.

3.5.2 How Power Structures Hinder Human Flourishing and Ethical Progress

Domination and existing social structures obstruct self-acceptance by stigmatizing and marginalizing those who deviate from enforced norms. They impose barriers to autonomy and agency, preventing individuals from acting according to their circumstances.

They foster moral blind spots (failure to perceive moral aspects of situations) and ethical fading (self-deceptive rationalization that intentions are good). They enforce “adaptive preferences,” where individuals adjust desires downward to limited circumstances, blocking the pursuit of higher goals.

The mechanisms through which domination obstructs human flourishing—such as fostering “moral blind spots” and “adaptive preferences”⁵⁵—demonstrate that power structures can subtly internalize oppression, leading individuals to accept their constrained conditions or even to become blind to moral issues. This, in turn, stifles the very capacities necessary for ethical development, which are essential for civilizational progress. Domination can produce “moral blind spots” (where individuals fail to perceive the moral dimensions of a situation) and “adaptive preferences” (where desires are adjusted downward to align with the lower functional levels they can realistically attain)⁵⁵.

This reveals a crucial causal relationship: domination does not merely impose external restrictions; it subtly shapes internal cognitive and aspirational processes. If individuals are conditioned to overlook moral concerns or to accept diminished aspirations, their capacity for critical reflection, ethical discernment, and collective action toward a better society becomes severely limited. This constitutes a profound obstruction to civilizational development, as it undermines the fundamental capacities required for human social and moral evolution, thereby perpetuating a form of internalized barbarism.

Social Control Mechanisms

• Bread and Circuses: Originating from the Roman poet Juvenal, it describes a strategy of pacifying and controlling the populace by providing free food and entertainment, thereby diverting attention away from deeper social problems. This led citizens to prioritize immediate needs over political participation and moral integrity.⁵⁶

In modern contexts, it symbolizes the use of superficial benefits or distracting strategies (entertainment, consumerism, short-term economic incentives) to appease the public, thus diverting attention from social inequality, environmental challenges, and political corruption.⁵⁶ It is associated with the concept of “dominant ideology”, a Marxist notion that the disadvantaged classes come to accept their fate.⁵⁷

“Bread and circuses”, as a mechanism of social control—particularly in its connection with dominant ideology⁵⁷—demonstrates how domination actively pacifies the populace by providing superficial satisfactions, thereby diverting attention from systemic injustices and preventing the collective action necessary for civilizational progress. This strategy aims to “pacify and control the populace through superficial means rather than addressing deeper social problems”.

It explicitly links to “dominant ideology,” which ensures that “the economically disadvantaged classes accept their fate”⁵⁷. The causal relationship lies in the fact that ruling powers deliberately employ distraction and temporary pleasures to block critical engagement and collective mobilization against existing inequalities. This active suppression of civic participation and critical consciousness directly obstructs the collective efforts required for genuine civilizational development, thereby sustaining a state of controlled barbarism.

• Consumerism: Bauman argues that in liquid modernity, consumption has become an “obligation rather than merely a choice”, with individuals primarily defined as “consumers”. Happiness and freedom are directly tied to consumption⁵⁸.

It functions as a “new inclusive reality”, creating “flawed consumers” who, if unable to fully participate, are excluded—highlighting a new form of class division. Social control is commodified and privatized, operating through seduction rather than overt surveillance.⁵⁸ Conspicuous consumption signals wealth and status, used by higher social classes to distinguish themselves. Among higher social classes, low self-esteem can drive conspicuous consumption as a compensatory mechanism.⁵⁹

Consumerism, as both an “obligation” and a form of social control⁵⁸, reveals how domination hijacks human desires and links personal value (self-esteem⁵⁹) to acquisition, thereby perpetuating a system that produces “flawed consumers”⁵⁸ and reinforces social hierarchies, ultimately diverting energy away from genuine social development. Consumption has become an “obligation” and a primary mode of existence, where “freedom means happiness” is equated with consumption.

This further explains how consumerism manufactures “flawed consumers,” who, if unable to participate, are “excluded rather than exploited”. Conspicuous consumption’s connection to self-esteem and social dominance orientation⁵⁹ shows it is employed as both a status symbol and a tool of compensation.

• Digital Distraction: Social media is a powerful tool for communication and entertainment, but it also poses significant challenges to academic performance by creating constant distractions⁶⁰. These distractions stem from social motivations (staying connected, fear of missing out) and task-related motivations (avoiding unpleasant tasks).

Social media platforms are deliberately designed to keep users engaged; their algorithms amplify misinformation and influence user behavior. The rapid consumption of information undermines critical discernment.

The design of social media—particularly its algorithms and the widespread dissemination of misinformation—constitutes a modern form of “bread and circuses.” It generates a pervasive “designed distraction” that consumes cognitive resources and obstructs critical engagement, thereby undermining the informed citizenry essential for democracy and civilizational progress. Social media is thus both a communication tool and a source of “distraction, algorithmic manipulation, cyberbullying, and the spread of misinformation”. These platforms are “designed to keep users engaged”.

This establishes a clear causal relationship: digital platforms, deliberately designed for profit, create an environment of pervasive distraction and information overload. Such constant interference drains cognitive resources and obstructs critical thinking, which is vital for informed citizens to engage with complex social issues and to advance civilization. By diverting attention and shaping the flow of information, this form of technological domination perpetuates a subtle yet highly effective mode of social control, thereby impeding genuine progress.

• Military-Industrial Complex (MIC): The term describes the relationship between a nation’s military and the defense industry that supplies it, functioning as a vested interest group influencing public policy⁶² Both sides benefit: the military acquires weapons, while the industry receives payment. President Eisenhower famously warned of its “grave implications” and its potential to “endanger our liberties or democratic processes”. Critics argue that it institutionalizes conflict and diverts resources⁶³.

The MIC⁶² reveals how economic and political power converge to form a self-perpetuating system that prioritizes military solutions and weapons production, thereby institutionalizing conflict and diverting resources away from civilizational development—an embodiment of organized barbarism. Defined as a “vested interest group influencing public policy,” the MIC ensures that both the military and the defense industry benefit. Eisenhower’s warning about its “grave implications” and its potential to “endanger our liberties or democratic processes” remains crucial.

This establishes a causal loop: the fusion of economic and political power creates a system structurally dependent on conflict, driving the continual development of weapons and military solutions. The institutionalization of warfare, along with the diversion of vast resources away from social and ethical advancement, directly impedes civilizational progress, representing a highly organized and systemic form of barbarism.

• Police Militarization: It refers to law enforcement agencies acquiring military-grade equipment, tactics, and training, adopting aggressive and confrontational approaches⁶⁴. This leads to a breakdown of trust and exacerbates tensions between the police and communities, particularly marginalized groups.

This militarization ensures “social control—especially over minorities—through intimidation, violence, and the threat of violence”⁶⁵. Historically, it has its roots in slave patrols and has expanded through programs such as the 1033 Program.

Police militarization⁶⁴ demonstrates how state instruments of power—originally intended to address external threats—are redirected inward to achieve “social control, particularly of minorities, through intimidation”⁶⁵. The internal application of military force erodes trust, heightens social tensions, directly undermines the social cohesion necessary for civilizational progress, and reveals barbarism manifested domestically. Police militarization is defined as the adoption of “military-grade equipment, tactics, and training,” leading to “aggressive and confrontational approaches”⁶⁴. This “violence ensures social control—particularly over minorities—through intimidation”⁶⁵.

This establishes a causal chain: the adoption of military methods by civilian law enforcement leads to increased force and intimidation, which in turn erodes trust within society and generates hostility. This erosion of internal cohesion and social bonds runs counter to civilizational development, showing that when state power is internally applied in a militarized form, it becomes a direct source of domestic barbarism.

• Big Tech and Information Power: Large technology companies, by owning digital platforms, have amassed immense resources, redefining communication, commerce, and culture⁶⁶. They create monopolistic markets, collect real-time data, and deploy highly targeted promotional strategies.

Their influence extends into policymaking, permeating the streams of issues, policies, and politics. Generative AI (GenAI) further consolidates their dominance, as they control the “foundational building blocks” of talent, data, and computational power. This has led to “ethics-washing” and the concentration of research.

Tech giants can shift from being content arbiters to content providers, shaping narratives and defining social problems, becoming “gatekeepers who determine not only what is known but also how it is known”. They also engage directly in politics through lobbying and funding experts.

The “technology stream” centered on Big Tech, through its monopolistic control of digital infrastructure and generative AI, represents a new frontier of domination. It not only shapes public discourse and consumer behavior but also actively redefines policy and knowledge production. This concentration of informational power poses a serious threat to democratic processes and informed public debate, thereby obstructing the rational collective decision-making necessary for civilizational progress. By “redefining communication, commerce, and even culture” through “market monopolization” and “targeted promotional strategies”, Big Tech controls the very mechanisms of social understanding and governance. This unprecedented concentration enables a few entities to determine both the content and the terms of knowledge.

Such control undermines the decentralized and deliberative processes that are fundamental to democratic functioning and civilizational advancement. By directing the flow and interpretation of information, this form of domination actively prevents the collective rational action required for a truly developed society, embodying a subtle yet pervasive form of barbarism.

• Bureaucracy and Its Alienating and Homogenizing Effects on Democratic Life Bureaucracy is regarded as a homogenizing and alienating force that stifles individual autonomy and freedom⁶⁷. Max Weber famously referred to it as the “iron cage”, in which modern bureaucratic systems prioritize efficiency and calculability at the expense of individual liberty and meaningful values⁶⁸.

Jürgen Habermas argued that administrative power threatens democratic life by replacing rational deliberation and the formation of public will with “technocratic social management”⁶⁹. This results in “communicative impoverishment,” since “administrative bodies do not produce meaning”.

The administrative state attempts to manage crises through “technocratic consolation,” which may crowd out the communicative capacities of the “lifeworld,” reducing individuals to passive objects of bureaucratic management.

Bureaucracy, as a force of homogenization and alienation⁶⁷, replaces rational deliberation with technocratic management⁶⁹. This reveals how dominant administrative structures dehumanize individuals and suppress democratic deliberation, producing “communicative impoverishment” and thereby obstructing collective problem-solving and genuine civilizational progress. Bureaucracy “stifles individual autonomy and freedom”⁶⁷, while administrative power “replaces rational deliberation and the formation of public will with technocratic management” and leads to “communicative impoverishment, since administrative bodies do not produce meaning”⁶⁹.

This establishes a clear causal chain: bureaucratic rule, by privileging efficiency and control over genuine human deliberation and meaning-making, actively undermines the communicative and participatory processes essential for democratic vitality and civilizational advancement. Such systemic dehumanization and suppression of collective agency represent a subtle yet profound form of barbarism.

• Authoritarianism: Authoritarian regimes are characterized by a power architecture that consolidates top-down unilateral control while simultaneously weakening bottom-up initiatives independent of central support⁷⁰. They rely on a core of coercion within social control, utilizing both repression and grassroots mobilization to manage social forces.

Authoritarianism also encourages “preference falsification”, which delays the recognition of threats and renders the system unresponsive to dissent. Individuals with an authoritarian mindset tend to perceive significant social changes that disrupt order and cohesion as threatening, and they express negative attitudes toward nontraditional or external groups⁴².

This mindset interprets the inclusion of nontraditional groups as a disregard for their own policy preferences, framing diversity and political pluralism as threats to security and certainty.

By consolidating top-down unilateral control and undermining bottom-up initiatives⁷⁰, authoritarianism actively dismantles the foundations of social cohesion and trust, replacing them with coercion and preference falsification. This suppression of diverse voices and collective action directly obstructs the collaborative and inclusive development essential for a genuinely civilized society. Authoritarian regimes “consolidate unilateral top-down control while weakening bottom-up initiatives,” and rely on “a core of coercion in social control”. They also “encourage preference falsification,” meaning that individuals conceal their true preferences. Moreover, authoritarians “tend to perceive any major social change that disrupts order and cohesion as a threat” and “express negative attitudes toward nontraditional external groups”⁴².

This establishes a clear causal chain: authoritarian rule actively suppresses the very elements that foster social cohesion and civilizational advancement—namely, bottom-up participation, authentic expression, and acceptance of diversity. By replacing trust and cooperation with fear and enforced conformity, authoritarianism creates a society marked by division and fear, representing a direct and systemic form of barbarism that obstructs genuine collective flourishing.

Table 2. Power Structures and Their Obstruction of Civilizational Development

Power Structure / System	Obstructive Mechanism	Impact on Civilizational Progress
Material-Centered Civilization	Neglect of morality/justice	Perpetuation of uncivilized behavior
“Bread and Circuses”	Superficial appeasement	Deflection from substantive issues
Consumerism	Hijacking of desire	Reinforcement of hierarchical structures
Digital Distraction	Cognitive overload / misinformation	Undermining of informed citizenship
Military-Industrial Complex	Institutionalization of conflict	Resource diversion / perpetuation of war
Police Militarization	Internal coercion / erosion of trust	Breakdown of social cohesion
Bureaucracy	Dehumanization / suppression of deliberation	Impairment of democratic functions
Authoritarianism	Suppression of bottom-up initiatives	Obstruction of collective action; repression of individual growth

3.6 The Many Ways Domination Corrupts Love

History shows that through the ten “languages of love” we summarized earlier, domination employs various methods of destruction: pollution, distortion, deprivation, counterfeiting, and outright annihilation.

3.6.1 Words of Affirmation — The Magic of Language

Example: During the height of the Great Terror (1937–1938), the Soviet regime distributed rewards as lavishly as punishments. Internal NKVD reports indicate that more than 1,200 officers received the Order of the Red Banner for “loyal service,” often directly tied to their participation in mass arrests and executions.⁷⁸

Surface: Public commendation of “loyal party members” or soldiers, praised as “the most lovable people.”

Substance: These rewards were directly linked to mass arrests and killings, where “praise” masked fear, encouraging denunciations and betrayals. Commendation became the spark for purges, destroying comradeship and trust.

Analysis: Words of affirmation were twisted into tools of betrayal and barbarity, revealing domination’s methods of pollution and counterfeit love.

3.6.2 Quality Time — The Warmth of Shared Moments

Example: Nazi Germany’s “Youth Camps.”⁷⁹

Surface: Hitler Youth organized outdoor activities, camps, and training that appeared to promote collective spirit.

Substance: Amidst shared “joyful times,” hatred was implanted. Racist indoctrination was disguised as “unity and belonging,” with boys being taught to despise outsiders.

Analysis: Shared time was distorted into an instrument of indoctrination, demonstrating domination’s method of twisting warmth into hatred.

3.6.3 Receiving Gifts — The Heart of Reciprocity

Example: The Samsung–Park Geun-hye corruption scandal (2016–2017). Samsung’s leader, Lee Jae-yong, provided KRW 43 billion (~USD 36.4 million) to Choi Soon-sil’s foundations, along with horses and financial support for her daughter’s equestrian career. The case led to Park Geun-hye’s impeachment, a 20-year prison sentence, and fines.⁸⁰

Surface: In Korean culture, gift-giving symbolizes respect, gratitude, or personal ties.

Substance: In reality, the gifts were bribes for government support of corporate mergers. Though convicted, Lee Jae-yong was pardoned early, and Samsung’s operations were largely unaffected.

Analysis: The love-language of gifting was corrupted into a tool of systemic corruption and domination.

3.6.4 Acts of Service — The Love of Selfless Giving

Example: The Khmer Rouge’s “Mass Labor” campaigns (1975–1979).⁸²

Surface: Everyone contributing to an egalitarian society through steel-making and irrigation.

Substance: Millions perished from starvation and exhaustion. Service was wholly alienated into a machine of dehumanization.

Analysis: Service, instead of love, became sheer destruction—labor turned into extermination.

3.6.5 Physical Touch — The Elevation of Bodily Contact

Example: Romania’s Decree 770 (1960s), banning abortion and enforcing pro-natalist policy.⁸³

Surface: Families were required to have four or more children, with orphans raised by the state.

Substance: Orphanages were severely under-resourced, with one caregiver for 40 infants. The lack of physical contact led to underdeveloped hippocampi, cognitive deficits, self-harm, epilepsy, and mortality rates as high as 153‰ in some institutions.

Analysis: The deprivation of touch demonstrates how domination mutilates the most basic channel of love.

3.6.6 Self-Love — Embracing One’s Own Value

Example: The Nazi regime’s gradual stripping of Jewish selfhood. From the Nuremberg Laws onward, Jews were denied citizenship, barred from professions, schools, hospitals, and forced into ghettos and camps.

Self-love, the foundation of loving others, was systematically destroyed. Jews were forced to accept identities of inferiority and unworthiness, eroding their ability to love themselves.

Victor Frankl noted that prisoners’ spiritual survival depended on hope; once hope was lost, defeat was inevitable. Yet, the deeper truth is that the regime’s primary tool was to annihilate self-love itself, breaking people from within.

3.6.7 Empathy — The Spirit of Agape

Example: British colonial “civilizing mission.”⁸⁴

Surface: Bringing Christianity and education, claiming empathy for “backward natives.”

Substance: In reality, this masked dispossession of land and culture, a genocidal assimilation cloaked as benevolence.

Analysis: Hatred disguised as empathy; extermination through counterfeit love.

3.6.8 Romantic Love — The Highest Experience of Body and Spirit

Example: As of the 2020s, ~20 countries and 16 U.S. states (plus Puerto Rico) still criminalize adultery.⁶⁹

Surface: Upholding morality or religious norms.

Substance: Such laws suppress the freedom of romantic expression, often targeting women, even punishing rape victims if they cannot “prove” innocence.

Analysis: Romantic love is subordinated to state and religious control, stripped of privacy and autonomy.

3.6.9 Love of Resonant Carriers — Shared Expression of Emotion

Example: Nazi persecution of homosexuals under Section 175.⁸⁵

Background: In 1935, the Nazi regime drastically revised Paragraph 175 of the German Penal Code, criminalizing any form of male homosexual behavior as a “crime against society.” This was accompanied by extensive propaganda that stigmatized homosexuality as “moral degeneracy” and a “threat to national purity.”

Mechanisms:

• Legal violence: arrests, imprisonment, exclusion.
• Propaganda: media portraying homosexuals as “degenerates.”
• Social exclusion: public denunciation campaigns.

Impact: Denied the right to express love publicly, forced underground, lives endangered. Carriers of resonance (texts, media, schools) became tools of destruction rather than connection.

3.6.10 Cross-Species Empathy — Love Extending to All Life

Example: Nazi “animal protection laws.”⁸⁶

Surface: Strict animal welfare legislation.

Substance: While protecting animals, the regime exterminated Jews and Roma. Hatred was masked as “love for pure life,” while ecological destruction from war was ignored.

3.6.11 Cosmic Love — Humanity’s Bond with the Stars

Example: The U.S.–Soviet Space Race during the Cold War.⁸⁷

Surface: Framed as humanity’s shared aspiration for the cosmos.

Substance: In reality, a competition of military technologies, polluting cosmic love with nationalism and arms race logic.

Summary: These cases show how rulers corrupt the languages of love—polluting, disguising, or reversing them—turning humanity’s deepest bonds into instruments of fear, hatred, and extermination.

3.7 The Alienation of “Love” by Rulers and the Politics of Fear

Rulers, though human and needing love, often sacrifice genuine love for power. They adopt predatory strategies:

3.7.1 “Affluence Motivation” in Scarcity Eras: Leaders who amassed resources gained survival and legitimacy.

Throughout human history, survival resources—such as food, territory, and security—were extremely scarce. For individuals, controlling more material resources meant greater security and reproductive opportunities. As “candidates for rulers” at the top of society, those who could seize more resources through force or political maneuvering gained advantages over their peers, securing higher status, more followers, and thereby ensuring the continuation of their genetic lineage.

• Survival logic: In conditions of resource scarcity, forcibly appropriating resources could directly increase the survival probability of both the individual and their descendants.
• Social logic: Within early tribal or feudal systems, leaders who were able to ensure the “prosperity” of their group could consolidate the legitimacy of their rule, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

3.7.2 “Predatory Strategies and Reproductive Advantage”: Polygamy, concubinage, monopolization of partners—short-term reproductive gain, long-term social destabilization.

Plunder does not refer solely to the seizure of material goods, but also to the monopolization of power and sexual resources. Evolutionary psychology has confirmed this through studies on female mate selection strategies:

• Sexual selection pressure: Individuals with higher social status—whether male or female—tend to attract greater interest from the opposite sex, thereby increasing both the number and the quality of potential mates. Historical examples include Chinese emperors and Ottoman sultans with harems of thousands of concubines.
• The advantage of polygamy: In certain social structures, rulers were able to exclude competitors through violence or institutional privilege, thereby gaining control over greater reproductive resources. For instance, Ziona, the leader of the Indian Lalpa Kohhran Thar sect, who passed away in 2021, had married 39 wives and fathered 94 children. Such outcomes of rulers are beyond the imagination of ordinary people.⁷⁰

Thus, while “plunder” did indeed enhance reproductive success in the short term, its cost was the deprivation of others’ rights to survival and love, ultimately undermining the long-term stability of the group.

3.7.3 Emotional Predation and Self-Alienation: Rulers manufacture chains of fear and dependence, mistaking submission for loyalty, while losing their own capacity for self-love.

When rulers “plunder” loyalty and admiration from their subjects or followers through deception, fear, or patronage—that is, through acts of barbarity—they are in fact attempting to compensate for their own emotional deprivation.

• Emotional plunder: Rulers construct a “fear–dependence” chain, causing subjects to oscillate between awe and gratitude. In doing so, subjects lose the capacity for autonomous love, while rulers deceive themselves into believing they are genuinely revered.
• Self-alienation: The driving force behind barbaric behavior is hatred rather than love. Rulers do not authentically extend love to those at the bottom of society, and their own hatred even deprives them of self-love. Thus, they transform “love” into a tool of control within the game of power. In the long run, this performative “love” cannot fill the inner void of rulers and will ultimately backfire as the foundations of trust collapse.

The ruler’s “predatory strategy,” while yielding short-term advantages in material and reproductive terms, distorts the very essence of love, leaving rulers imprisoned in the very fog of power they have created. True social stability must be built on mutual respect, genuine care, and the sharing of resources—only then can love among people return to its primordial nature of mutual flourishing, rather than being degraded into an instrument of plunder and self-deception.

It is particularly important to note that for rulers, as for aggressors in general, the primary motivation behind acts of barbarity is to manufacture fear and intimidation in order to achieve the following objectives:

• Suppress resistance: Victims, paralyzed by fear, refrain from voicing dissent or resisting.
• Isolate targets: Fear weakens trust between victims and others, leading both sides to withdraw and close themselves off.
• Divide alliances: When some remain silent out of fear of implication, divisions and suspicion emerge within the group or community.
• Gain control: Intimidated individuals, seeking self-preservation, are more likely to yield to aggressors, thereby granting them greater power.

Only by recognizing the primary function of barbaric acts—to exchange fear for obedience—can we devise precise strategies of response. And it is only through the ways of a civilization of abundant love that humanity can transform the immense predicament created by domination into courage for understanding, solidarity, and fidelity to truth.

3.8 Indifference to the Privilege of Domination and the State of Civilization

In sum, the emergence of rulers was essentially an evolutionary response of human societies to solve problems of large-scale cooperation, manage resource conflicts, ensure collective security, and govern complex social structures. It arose from the interplay of multiple factors: the demand for efficiency, security pressures, competition over resources, processes of social differentiation, psychological predispositions, and ideological constructions.

Yet the means by which rulers preserve their rule has consistently been barbaric violence, and the root of such violence lies in hatred rather than love.

Through a multi-dimensional analysis of power structures, we argue that domination is the root of hatred and primordial barbarity. From the systemic exploitation and alienation embedded in economic systems (Marx), to the subtle normalization enforced through legitimizing myths and the production of docile subjects (Foucault), to ideological control, power actively creates the conditions under which hatred flourishes and human beings are instrumentalized. In intimate relations, domination erodes empathy and commitment; on the social level, it manifests as necropolitics, where life itself becomes disposable. Moreover, a material-centered conception of civilization—coupled with mechanisms such as bread and circuses, consumerism, digital distractions, and militarized state apparatuses—actively obstructs genuine human flourishing and ethical progress, perpetuating cycles of conflict and control.

Overcoming this pervasive barbarity requires a fundamental reorientation of domination as a principle of social organization. This demands a critical recognition that power operates not only through overt violence, but also through subtle psychological, cultural, and technological mechanisms that shape desires, cognition, and relationships.

Yet from the twentieth century into the twenty-first, inquiries as profound as those of Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx into the mechanisms of social domination have not flourished with the vigor of the natural sciences. The essence of domination has become increasingly overlooked. When people first encountered the Great Pyramid of Giza—one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World—they understood it not only as a symbol of Egyptian civilization but also as an emblem of the vast gulf between ruling elites and ordinary lives. In contrast, in the twenty-first century, with more than 3,000 buildings now exceeding 200 meters—among them the Makkah Royal Clock Tower Hotel, Shanghai Tower, Merdeka 118, and the Burj Khalifa soaring to 828 meters—such spectacles have become normalized. Our research finds that some even regard modern society as wholly civilized, seeing barbarity as mere exceptions; others emphasize cultural relativism, claiming there is no absolute distinction between barbarity and civilization, only diverse cultural practices.

This indicates the urgent need for new methods of deconstructing and reconstructing human society, if we are to achieve breakthroughs in shared cognitive understanding.

Most importantly, the ruling configurations of over 200 nations and regions worldwide have driven the forces of barbarity to their extreme. In the twentieth century alone, they produced two devastating world wars. And in the twenty-first century, the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) reports in its 2025 Global Peace Index (GPI) that:

• Global peace at its lowest since records began.
• 59 active state-based conflicts, the most since WWII.
• 152,000 conflict-related deaths in 2024.
• 17 countries with >1,000 deaths, the highest since 1999.
• Violence cost USD 19.97 trillion in 2024 (11.6% of global GDP).

Conclusion: Humanity is at a crossroads. AI development will liberate humans from the prison of labor, offering a pivotal opportunity for new governance systems. Recognizing domination as the root of hatred and barbarism is the first step toward designing a civilization of affluent love.