January 22, 2025
i’ve encountered a recent train of thought, which given a large amount of grace, boils down to the idea that to adequately protect one’s own ingroup (which comprises a tiny minority of the population) we ought to preemptively and permanently restrict the rights of a much larger group; admittedly, this group is at best ambivalent to the ingroup, and at worst actively hostile. this premise is underscored by the idea that the ingroup has exceptional traits which make them suited to control a state apparatus. now, assuming that this is true (and it is not a given), the issue is that this is historically insufficient and using symmetrical weapons, such as the state, may perpetuate further persecution.
the essential issue here and in most utopian projects is that brains alone are not enough. great plans may be devised but they lie at the mercy of a larger population which only chooses to comply as they see fit. while rhetoric may go a long way here, mass communication likely interferes with the promulgation of a leading ingroup as was possible in centuries past. rather, while ruling ingroups still exist, their support is dependent on the whims of a public with schizophrenic beliefs shaped by exposure to the collective unconscious via social media and open communication. materially, i don’t believe that oligarchs are in charge in a meaningful way nowadays; even elon musk has been captured by ideologies poisoning him against the technocapital he holds so dear.
furthermore these projects tend toward symmetric weapons. the use of bilateral authoritarian measures makes it likely that the same are used against the ingroup when the larger outgroup gains some degree of power due to their amassed force. this is not to imply that unilateral disarmament is ideal but rather implies careful selection of tactics and support strategies. local efforts and dual power building are good on a smaller scale. on a larger scale willful disobedience is most immediately effective. a degree of discretion (i.e., not talking about grey-area activities in public) is necessary.
further, some suggest depolarization as a possible answer; to untie the ingroup from its current ideological associations. i’m not sure that this is unilaterally possible – convincing the larger population that an ingroup made possible by modernity (or the economic system of its times) is not inherently against the status quo is a difficult task. cthulhu swims left dragging grand discarded catch-nets. not to say that this isn’t frustrating but the best that can be done in this space is to convince the public of some sort of soft ambivalence; that it is unimportant to waste one’s energy on such a sliver of the population. some of the backlash against rights granted to various ingroups may be a manifestation of this weariness rather than true antipathy, but this is conjecture.
minority rule is a tenuous bargain at best and most likely no longer possible with the mass flow of ideas. a larger mob wins in the current environment. thus, it needs asked what asymmetric weapons are available to protect a minority population and which deployable concepts may reduce its surface area for attack.