It has become fashionable to publish conversations with artificial intelligence. I am fortunate enough to be able to draw on conversations with natural intelligence. I correspond with several thoughtful readers, and these exchanges occasionally open up entirely new perspectives. Artificial intelligence can then be used to find sources or check the logic of an argument.
One of our discussions led us to the following problem. In political conflicts, the side with the most intense emotions usually wins because it is capable of greater aggression. Yet those same emotions also turn people into idiots and fanatics. What are we to do about that? Is it better to become a mindless fanatic, or is it better to keep losing?
It is therefore worth correcting, or at least refining, our understanding of fanatics and their success.
First. Aggressive groups are surprisingly often able to take control of political parties and other organizations. They provoke conflicts, create an atmosphere of hysteria, intimidate their opponents, and frequently drive them out or force them to retreat into the background. But that does not necessarily mean the organization they have taken over will be successful.
Second. Quite often, someone eventually discovers that these fanatics can be useful in advancing certain business interests. What is fascinating here is how often their capacity to slip out of control is underestimated.
What options, then, are available to those who want to be politically active without becoming brainwashed fanatics themselves? The logical answer is to concentrate on building the kinds of strength that fanatics, by their very nature, are incapable of developing.
-
Patiently analyze the structure of power, the techniques by which power is seized, and the vulnerabilities of the opposing side. This is precisely what the opponents of the liberal oligarchy are almost entirely failing to do. Instead, we see an endless flood of moralizing and outrage over the fact that the other side refuses to play by the rules we would like it to follow.
-
Work patiently, not toward the next election campaign or the next demonstration, but toward changes that can transform the balance of power in a country over, say, five years. (Do we even have any idea what those changes might be?) This, of course, requires a certain degree of perseverance.
-
Work on developing our own abilities. This is, in fact, a specific aspect of the previous point.
Let me emphasize that if we are to devote ourselves to something over the long term, we must enjoy the work itself, and it must also benefit our personal lives.
The problem is that these principles may not appeal to young people. Youth wants action. Youth wants quick success. That is perfectly natural; their brains are wired that way. But it does not give them an advantage.
Hampl’s Iron Law of History states that the strong defeat the weak, and the strong rule over the weak. Not that the rich rule over the poor. When the poor are strong enough, they simply take the wealth for themselves. Which brings us to the question of how to become stronger than the opposing side.
And that brings us right back to the need for long-term work.