As far as we can recall from past academic studies, around 45,000 years ago Neanderthals and Homo sapiens fought fiercely for dominance on Earth in Eurasia. While, for various reasons, the former struggled to adapt to the cold, the latter embraced technology and took refuge in caves and other natural shelters. This battle against nature, imposed upon them by climate change, led, among other things, to the near-total extinction of the Neanderthals. According to some experts, most non-African people today retain between 1% and 2% of Neanderthal DNA due to interbreeding that occurred centuries ago.

​

These conflicts that occurred in the surrounding environment—viewed from the distance of the intervening years—gave rise over time to other forms of internal struggles among human beings. Thus were forged the principles of unity and the "struggle of opposites," wielded by some philosophers of the time and which still resonate in the minds of some today, in an attempt to refine their perspectives and influence our reasoning. 

​

On this social steed rode the well-known Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels with their attempts to sow their subtle doctrines disguised as collectivist socialism and coined with their slogans of "poor against rich" - the much-vaunted "class struggle" between "bourgeoisie and proletariat" - and so, theoretically, what for some should be the engine of history, for others constitutes an absurd philosophy expounded with certain bombastic artifices, which from time to time peek out from inexperienced throats, thirsty to stand out on the social scale.  

 

Arguing with certain inconclusive opinions lacking a more convincing core, dialectical materialism asserts that everything contains internal forces that are both opposing and interconnected, vying to lead the battle between "the old and the new," while simultaneously admitting that this confrontation is the fundamental source of societal development. The topic is profound and complex, but I would still advise you, dear reader, to continue reading because I am certain you will find dilemmas worth dissecting in order to fully understand them. 

 

Let's take the racism of some groups as an example: Are there minds incapable of recognizing that we are all human beings with the right to protect our origins and culture at all costs? And what about those segments of the population with lifestyles different from our own, but who are nevertheless educated and decent people whose only aim is to have their perspectives, and sometimes gender identities, recognized, however audacious they may be? 

 

We also have the cases of the orthodox versus the heretics; or, more popularly expressed, “believers versus atheists and vice versa.” Let's explain it this way: Religion has every right to preach and pontificate its points of view; but so do those who don't believe a word of what they advocate and dismiss these teachings as outdated and irrelevant. At first glance, it seems like an ambiguous issue, but it isn't. Dozens of religious people have abandoned their initial devotions and created their own. 

 

Among them, we can cite Martin Luther in Germany in 1517 with his Protestant Reformation, by creating the Lutheran Congregation. Also, the English pastors John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, from Amsterdam, Netherlands, who extolled their beliefs about baptism in 1609 and gave rise to what are now known as "Baptists." And what about "Jehovah's Witnesses," a group founded under the title "The Watchtower" by Charles Taze Russell in 1870 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and which, in 1931, Joseph F. Rutherford, arguing for reasons of a more authentic nature, in his opinion, changed its name to "Jehovah's Witnesses." And so, like these examples, there are currently more than 4,000 different faiths worldwide, where prominent figures have created their own religious philosophies and have had relative success in their aims. 

 

But it's important to distinguish something: Opposing forces don't just fight; they coexist and recognize each other within a shared vision. And therein lies the internal and constant debate, where one force attempts to prevail over the other, leading to a sharpening of the discussion. According to some experts in the field, the purpose of all this is to highlight the cultural leap, overcoming what they describe as "the old contradiction," which they believe is what drives progress.

 

So there they are in every country, founding political parties or joining existing ones, instituting campaign slogans to attract followers, and so on, an endless number of strategies that aim to prevail in the social stage they have to live in. 

 

This is how we encounter the power of money. The goal of many who join certain political or religious groups is none other than to gain access to the potential benefits that could bring them extra money, even if they don't believe in the opinions of others at all, and in some cases, not even in their own. They know that lying without restraint, distorting the common sense of their followers, will inexorably lead them to victory in any election they face in their region. They are not in the least interested in what might benefit or harm these or those groups. What matters is that their viewpoints prevail and, above all, that they generate the sums of money for which they have planned. As the Prussian chancellor and architect of German unification, Otto von Bismarck, said: "Politics is the art of the possible." 

 

And since we've come this far, now would be the perfect time to conduct a thorough analysis of the trends shaping the modern world and, without immediately taking sides, to repeatedly examine who is lying and who isn't. And then, only then, should we face the future with dedication and support those whom our common sense, throbbing in our very bones, inspires us to respect.