Why A Minority Can Save Us
The majority won't save the West from ongoing decline and potential collapse - but a minority can.
‘There is nothing permanent except change.’ - Heraclitus.
In part 1 of this series entitled: ‘Why The Majority Won’t Save Us,’ we explored the question of whether the majority can save the West from its ongoing decline and potential collapse. We did this by examining the traits of the majority, the incentives they operate under, and the power (or lack there of) that mass voting bestows upon them. If you’ve not yet read part 1, it’s best to read it first. If you have read it, then let’s proceed.
In this piece (part 2) we are shifting our focus to minorities, because whilst the majority won’t save us, a minority can.
It’s important to establish upfront what I mean by minorities. Firstly, I don’t necessarily mean them in the ethnic sense, but rather the numerical sense. Secondly, it is organised minorities we are interested in - that is a group of people who work as a mostly cohesive and focused unit to achieve their aims. Thirdly, since organised minorities are present in many fields - think for example the minority who organise your kid’s weekend sports league - we will narrow in on a subset of organised minorities, namely: ruling minorities. (For example, if we look at the ruling minority today, this includes those who wield state power, as well as their allies in the mainstream media, big business, academia, etc.)
So with that established, this piece will explore minorities in 4 parts:
1- Understanding why they rule;
2- Examining the traits that help them rule;
3- Exploring why and how to replace a ruling minority;
And lastly, we’ll take a look at our situation today.
1- Why Minorities Rule
It’s a fact that you can’t have tens or hundreds of millions of people within a country make the kinds of decisions that the state makes - including on laws, education, defence, foreign relations, private sector regulations, infrastructure, public policy, and more. It’s not just impractical, but impossible; not just undesirable, but would be absurd if it were attempted.
How could so many people agree on anything? How do sheer numbers make up for expertise on a subject? It’s possible after all for 1 person to be right about something and 1,000 people to be wrong about it. How do you reconcile everyone’s competing individual and group interests? How efficient would a process be that consulted everyone?
If we leave our idealism behind however then we don’t have to answer these questions and can instead look at things as they are. And as they are is that a ruling minority always runs the show and makes the macro decisions that impact the majority. Sometimes these decisions will be popular with the majority (for the right or wrong reasons), sometimes they’ll be unpopular (again for the right or wrong reasons), and sometimes you’ll get a disproportionate amount of either popular or unpopular decisions (today it’s mostly the latter). Additionally, a decision may be wildly popular with one group and highly unpopular with another.
Regardless of what it is however, the ruling minority will chart the course they choose, and the majority will come along for the ride.
Of course every ruling minority will justify their power to the majority in some way - be it as the divine right of kings, the Mandate of Heaven, the people’s will, the rule of the working class, the elders know best, might is right, etc - and they’ll have varying levels of buy-in from the majority, which will wax and wane through time. But when you boil it down, the minority rules for no other reason than there is no alternative. The majority are simply incapable of ruling, and any attempt by them to truly exercise power would result in societal breakdown and anarchy - which would need to be stopped by, that’s right, a ruling minority (either one in power or one challenging for it).
So by necessity, power and decisions must and will be concentrated in the hands of a minority. Even the US constitution was conceived, made law, and enforced by a ruling minority; the majority had no say in it.
At the opposite end, Communism promised a classless and stateless society, but in practice in the countries in which Communists took over in the 20th century, they ruled as a minority (an extremely corrupt and malicious one).
The fact is that no matter how much you try to upend society, revolutionise it, transform it, liberate it, reimagine it - you always end up where you started - with a ruling minority. I could go on about this, furnishing elaborate arguments to make the case, but there’s no need to because it really is this simple. It is backed up by thousands of years of collective experience across every nation and civilisation, so trying to defy it is a waste of time.
The takeaway here is, if we’re diplomatic about it, that it’s impractical, undesirable, and wishful thinking to believe a majority can be the masters of the society in which they exist. And if we’re blunt about it, it’s impossible, foolish, and delusional to think so. Accepting this is the first hurdle to overcome for anyone who wishes to change society in a meaningful way. You must shift your focus from the majority to the minority.
Let’s now examine the traits that help minorities rule.
2- Traits Of Ruling Minorities
The key features of organised or ruling minorities lie in the words I’ve used to label them.
Minority - means it’s a select group of people (not just ‘anyone’ or ‘everyone’).
Organised - means they operate in a coordinated manner with a leader or leaders at the helm.
Ruling - means they rule over their domain, be it politics, culture, entertainment, etc, and are usually motivated to maintain or expand their rule.
From these features we can deduce the following traits:
a) They’re Selective - potential recruits must meet certain qualifying criteria, which may include experience, knowledge, skills, expertise, track record, education, connections, personality traits, religious or ideological beliefs, motivation, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and anything else you can think of. For e.g. ethnicity or race are a key criteria today for the US Democratic Party who may favour Black or Latino political candidates to run for office, and in Hollywood where they may favour Jewish people to run studios.
b) They’re Networked - to get things done they need to be well connected. Firstly, connected to each other, and secondly, connected to those outside their group who can nevertheless do their bidding. Organisations like the WEF can help to create, foster, and strengthen these networks, as can many non-profits, NGOs, industry associations, and private or quasi governmental national and international bodies.
c) They’re Coordinated - ruling minorities will have their internal disagreements, but by and large they work in a coordinated manner to execute their public programs, projects, initiatives, schemes, and the like. The Covid response in the West for example was a coordinated effort - at least in so far as lockdowns, vaccines, media coverage, and messaging were concerned.
d) They’re Focused - that is they apply concentrated force, energy, and resources to achieve their desired outcome on specific issues and causes or in particular fields. This focused effort can yield both better and quicker results than the haphazard approach of the majority. Think about the introduction of Critical Race Theory in schools throughout the US; the focused efforts by a ruling cultural minority have overridden the desires of millions of parents who don’t want their kids to be indoctrinated in this false and destructive ideology.
e) They’re Committed - members of an organised or ruling minority are highly committed to their cause and are willing to go to extreme lengths to get what they want. Even politicians whom we may think believe in and stand for nothing, may have a strong commitment to their ideology (be it globalism or wokeism), or simply to maintaining their power and influence, advancing their career, or enriching themselves. What’s more, they’re surrounded by people who are just as committed to these things, which only reenforces their own commitment. We should not underestimate this for it far exceeds the commitment of the majority to stop them.
f) They’re Accountable - they are held to much higher standards of accountability than the average Joe is. This is because there is usually a lot more at stake if they make a mistake, like adversely impacting the group’s power, influence, finances, momentum, or reputation. To clarify, this doesn’t mean that they’re accountable to the majority in any way, or that they’re judged by basic moral standards - it’s accountability to their own mission or cause that matters, and it’s the morals of their group they are judged by (whatever they happen to be).
g) They’re Incentivised - ruling minorities are adept at incentivising and rewarding their members - be it through material things like perks, money, benefits, titles, power, and more, or through psychological means, including a feeling of belonging, a sense of purpose or superiority, or the promise of legacy or a reward in the afterlife, etc. This serves as a key and additional means of keeping members loyal to the group and cause. Today the woke elite make use of both material and psychological incentives, and it’s proven a win-win for them.
h) They’re Oligopolistic or Monopolistic - they seek to protect their power and influence through laws, policies, bureaucracy, overt or indirect bribery, force, collusion, absorption, and the list goes on. The key, in short, is to create an unlevel playing field - to dissuade or punish potential competitors, or else to absorb them. Today, for example, any bright and ambitious technologist, scientist, entrepreneur or creator who wants to go far would do well to plug into the woke and globalist hive mind, becoming a part of, or supporting, the ruling minority (rather than threatening it).
These traits and others characterise ruling minorities - be they in politics or elsewhere.
As for ‘would be’ ruling minorities - that is those who wish to challenge incumbent ruling minorities for power, and who have no interest in joining them, often they will start at a big disadvantage and will have to make up for this with traits like courage, ingenuity, perseverance, resilience, boldness, discipline, sacrifice, duty, and perhaps a sense of destiny and a higher calling. These traits will help them make up for their shortfalls in other areas (particularly in the early stages).
Let’s now explore why and how to replace a ruling minority.
3- Replacing A Ruling Minority
Firstly, this is easier said than done, but done it has been - many times though history. Here are some prominent examples from the modern era, which are simplified for brevity:
•The United States replaced the Thirteen Colonies.
•The French Republic replaced the Kingdom of France.
•The Soviet Union replaced the Russian Empire.
•The Republic of China replaced the Qing Imperial Dynasty. It was in turn replaced by the People’s Republic of China.
•The Republic of India replaced the British Raj.
And the list goes on.
These replacements weren’t in anyway like a party today winning an election and getting to run things for a time: these were wholesale replacements of the ruling minority and their system. A new ruling minority stepped up and established an entirely new order based on their vision, beliefs, and values.
The point then is that it’s possible to replace a ruling minority. Indeed, not just possible, but probable. It’s easy to make the mistake after all, as the present majority do, of thinking that ‘this time it’s different,’ that ‘there’s no way it could happen to us,’ that ‘we know better,’ that ‘we’re going through a rough patch but we’ll get over it,’ and that ‘we’ve reached the end of history.’
The majority may be convinced of the stability and immutability of the system in which they exist (whether they like it or not is another matter) and they may dismiss views like mine as delusional or ahistorical, but I’m 100% on the side of facts and history. It is they who are deluding themselves and who are being ahistorical. Their view however is likely no different to any other people through history, and it’s actually a good thing, for we don’t want the majority to be genuinely thinking and feeling that the system could collapse or be overturned - as it would fill them with fear and insecurity and hamper their desire to be productive or even civil. If the majority stop building, creating, striving, and plain believing in the future, then it’s the end of civilisation. So their mistaken belief is not a bad thing, and we should accept it and support it (for the most part).
This message is not for the majority then, but for those who have ears to hear, for we’re not talking about if the present ruling minority will be replaced, but when. So with this in mind we’re going to explore two points here:
1) Why to replace a ruling minority
and 2) How to replace them.
Let’s start with why. The biggest reason to replace a ruling minority is because their interests and actions threaten the survival or well-being of the people they rule over. Put simply both ruler and ruled are out of alignment with each other. Of course a ruling minority and the majority will never be fully aligned, but there is a scale - which ranges from good (or even great alignment) to terrible alignment. Where the alignment is on the scale will dictate whether the ruling minority should be replaced, and if so, how soon it should happen.
If however there were the possibility of the ruling minority changing their ways, either through choice or through being forced to, then rather than replace them, reform could be an option. But if they and/or their system are irredeemable, then replacement is the only way. (This includes for the rare case where they truly want to change, but simply can’t.)
There is a scenario too where both the ruling minority and the majority are irredeemable, i.e. they’re both as bad as each other, and in such a case a replacement would also be justified (for the good of all - even if they don’t see it that way).
So here are two examples of alignment on different sides of the scale:
Terrible alignment is where the majority are starving to death and the ruling minority are plump and well fed. That is North Korea.
Good alignment is where the majority are being supported and encouraged to maintain their culture, identity, and sovereignty and where the ruling minority are the ones providing said support and encouragement. That is Hungary.
Even with good alignment of course it doesn’t mean all problems will be solved, but it means a country or nation will be in a better place relative to the other places they could be on the scale. There’s nothing wrong either with aiming for a step above that - at great or even excellent alignment - so long as one remains level headed and accepts that to try to go further still, towards perfect alignment, will never be possible. Indeed the pursuit of perfection (or utopia) would be, not just futile, but dangerous and destructive. As imperfect beings in an unpredictable world we’re unable to ever achieve it.
Now by this point some of you may have noticed a potential hole in the logic of what I’m saying. At the start of this piece I said that one reason the majority can’t rule is because they can’t agree on anything, but now I’m talking about alignment with the majority as if they were all in agreement on what is best for them. But since they’re not, aren’t I just using my own values and moral judgements to establish what is good versus what is bad for them?
Well, perhaps. But there is no hole here, because a) there will always be a ruling minority, and b) that minority will impose their values and morals on the majority (through laws, culture, education, and more). It’s unavoidable. So you just need to put your stake in the ground and stand by what you believe.
Having said that, as humans and as adults, we tend to overcomplicate things. But if you look at life without the lens of an extreme ideology or without getting lost in a maze of intellectualising, then it seems pretty clear, for example, that having a unified culture is better than having a disjointed, conflicted, and internally contradictory one. It seems pretty clear that indoctrinating children into an unnatural gender ideology isn’t good for them or society. Whether this clarity or sense comes from god, or nature, or some universal spirit - it’s there. It is the prideful and arrogant human that closes their eyes to it.
So onto the next step. We know why to replace a ruling minority, now let’s take a look at how to replace them. A ruling minority after all won’t just quietly listen to your arguments and step aside.
If we examine this broadly, you need some combination of the following:
a) A Revolutionary Minority - this is a ruling minority in waiting who will lead the charge against the incumbent ruling minority (both overtly and covertly) and replace them at the appropriate time. This minority will need to recruit primarily from those outside the ruling minority, but also from those within it who are disaffected (but who keep their real views private).
This minority will also need to embody the traits we previously outlined, particularly those that are less concrete, but that can make all the difference, including a strong sense of duty, destiny, or of serving a higher calling. This is because it will be a hard and dangerous endeavour - and if they lack these it’s easier for them to give up or be defeated.
b) Public Sympathy - this means whilst we cannot expect the majority to save us, the revolutionary minority should sow seeds amongst specific segments of the majority to make them sympathetic or partial to the cause or movement. This doesn’t mean they need to be made aware of all plans, but simply that they be primed to support the minority (or at minimum not oppose them) when the minority deems it useful, usually at key moments in a revolution.
c) Exploit Mistakes - there’s a saying that you shouldn’t interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake, and that is true at times. But it can also be helpful to exploit mistakes made by the ruling minority, and exacerbate them. This shouldn’t be mistaken for the petty politics our current ruling minority engage in. This is instead about accelerating the inevitable. If a ruling minority after all are leading their society and people to oppression or to ruin, then why let them do it on their schedule? Why let things drag out? Or why wait until they’ve found a way to consolidate their control and defences in preparation for what is to come? It’s smarter to exploit their mistakes so that they work to the advantage of the revolutionary minority.
d) Crisis - the point at which the ruling minority are swept away usually comes at a time of crisis. This could mean war, economic collapse, reaching intolerable levels of oppression, etc. It could be something seemingly trivial that sets off the chain of events that leads to a crisis, or it could be something quite obvious (usually in retrospect). Either way, crisis provides the opportunity and cover for the revolutionary minority to take big and bold action - right at the point when the ruling minority is at its weakest.
(For the record, crisis does not mean 10% inflation or some contained overseas conflict. People must be beyond inconvenienced, they must be terrified or with their backs against the wall. It must be turmoil.)
So that’s a broad outline of the how. Ultimately however, when it comes to the how, writing or talking about it incessantly is of limited value. Here it’s about real world organisation and action.
Let’s now look at our present situation.
4- Our Situation Today
It's likely that you, like me, believe that the alignment between our present ruling minority and the majority is bad, and only getting worse. You probably also believe that our ruling minority (and their system) are irredeemable. Lastly, you might believe, as I do, that a crisis of their own making is inevitable.
If so, then the conditions for why to replace a ruling minority have been met. I do not need to go into much more detail on the why other than to say that those who sell their own people out - who poison their minds, bodies, and spirits; and who corrupt their culture, laws, and traditions - are no longer fit to rule. They and the system that empowers them must go.
The question thus shifts to what the future should look like, and most importantly to who should lead us there. We shift to this knowing that we can do significantly better than our current rulers are. And we must.
So who are the revolutionary minority? Well, not to be anti-climactic, but I will lay out my thoughts on this in a future piece (as it deserves a serious and full-length treatment). For now it will suffice to say that luck is when opportunity meets preparation. Any would be revolutionary minority has a lot of opportunity ahead, they just need to be prepared.
Is this a big endeavour? Yes.
Is it worth it? Yes.
Is there a risk of failure? Yes, as with anything. But no great movement, or business, or athlete would have succeeded if they let the chance of failure dissuade them.
So I conclude with a quote by Coco Chanel:
‘Success is often achieved by those who don’t know failure is inevitable.’
Written by Arcadius Strauss.
Watch the video version on YouTube or Rumble
Listen to the audio version via Podcast
Connect with Arcadius on Twitter