"The game of history is usually played by the best and the worst over the heads of the majority in the middle"

Eric Hoffer’s observation about history presents a stark view of human affairs, suggesting that societal direction and major historical events are primarily shaped by those at the extremes rather than by the broad majority. The phrase “the best and the worst” alludes to individuals or groups occupying the furthest poles of virtue and vice, vision and destructiveness, or, perhaps, innovation and fanaticism. These polarizing forces wield the decisive influence, as leaders, revolutionaries, tyrants, or prophets, driving the momentum of change, upheaval, or progress.

Meanwhile, the majority, situated in the “middle,” often plays a more passive role. Rather than guiding the course of collective destiny, this centrist mass is swept along by the initiatives or conflicts instigated by their more passionate or ruthless counterparts. These “players” at the margins can capture the imagination of the public or impose their will through charisma, violence, or audacious vision, effectively setting the stage upon which history’s dramas unfold.

The “game” aspect highlights the unpredictability, strategy, and contest involved; history is not predetermined by reason or consensus but is constantly shaped by the clashing ambitions and ideals of those who embody human extremes. Sometimes, the “best”, those with integrity, wisdom, and courage, infuse society with hope or reform; other times, the “worst”, driven by greed, hatred, or dogma, plunge societies into tragedy or repression.

The middle majority, neither particularly good nor evil, passionate nor apathetic, tends to adapt for survival or comfort. Their collective influence often emerges only in moments of rare unity or crisis. Otherwise, they serve as the field upon which the “game” is played, bearing the consequences, both good and ill, of the triumphs and catastrophes delivered by the actors at history’s edges, seldom determining those outcomes themselves.