This article examines supremacism as a transhistorical technology of power, breaking down its operating mechanisms, its institutional translation, and its consequences for human coexistence. It argues that supremacism, far from being a marginal phenomenon, is a recurring pattern that manifests both in historical genocides and in new forms of social hierarchy. Based on a rereading of international law and an analysis of Carlo M. Cipolla’s concept of “functional stupidity,” it maintains that no supremacism is tolerable within a humanist legal order. The text proposes normative and strategic measures for its dismantling, concluding that the fight against supremacy is not only a moral imperative but also a condition for the survival of the political community.

I. Anatomy of Supremacy: A Technology of Power

Supremacism is not a moral accident, but a technology of power designed to produce and reproduce human hierarchies. Its logic is based on three key operations that, although historically manifested through race or religion, now also operate as an ontological supremacism: a hierarchy that establishes the superiority of a group based on its alleged cognitive or moral qualities. The three operations are:

Essentialization: The act of reducing the individual to an immutable category, such as ethnicity, religion, or nation, nullifying their uniqueness (Memmi, 1965). In its contemporary form, essentialization manifests itself by reducing people to simplistic labels such as “lucid” or “stupid,” stripping them of their complexity and potential.
Hierarchization: The naturalization of a scale of human value, a process that justifies domination by categorizing individuals as “civilized” versus “backward” (Young, 1990). This principle is repeated in modern narratives that legitimize violence or exclusion based on the “rationality” of some versus the “irrationality” of others.
Administration of Violence: The conversion of inequality into public policy, instrumentalizing laws, borders, economies, and security forces to control subordinate populations (Arendt, 1951). When this logic captures the State, supremacy ceases to be an opinion and becomes a systemic infrastructure (Fanon, 1961).

II. The Genealogy of a Recurring Pattern

Europe has historically been a laboratory of supremacisms, from the “scientific” racism of the 19th century (Gould, 1996) to colonialism and the fascisms of the 20th century. This pattern, however, is not exclusive to a continent or an era. It is repeated in other contexts, with different narratives: caste, divinity, or civilization (Spivak, 1988). The logic is always the same: normalize inequality and ritualize violence.

However, the danger is not limited to great tragedies. The genealogy is repeated in the micro-violences of daily life, in modern dichotomies such as that of “influencers” over “anonymous” people, or hierarchies that oppose the rich against the poor, or “intellectuals” against the “ignorant.” At its core, all these manifestations respond to a constant pattern: the search for a justification for domination.

III. Stupidity as a Form of Functional Supremacism

Carlo M. Cipolla’s thesis on human stupidity (Cipolla, 1988), although conceived with irony, offers an analytical lens to understand a new form of supremacy. According to Cipolla, the stupid person is one who causes harm to others without gaining a benefit for themselves, and even harming themselves. Far from being an individual accident, when institutionalized this stupidity reveals itself as a functional technology of domination.

This new form of supremacism is functional for those who lack solid arguments to justify their power. Instead of engaging in an ethical debate, the system produces and mobilizes subjects who operate in a register of blind emotions and tribal belonging, rather than logic. “Produced stupidity” (Bourdieu, 1972) becomes a tool of systemic domination: a mechanism that allows elites to govern through a simplistic and harmful narrative, while their own followers applaud their ruin, just as the system needs its consumers (Fisher, 2009).

IV. The Capture of Law and the Debate on Responsibility

The crucial difference between individual prejudice and a supremacist regime lies in the capture of law. A prejudice wounds; a supremacist law organizes harm (Dworkin, 1977), creating a “desert of rights” (Shklar, 1987). A critic might argue that the defense of the State and national security justify restrictive measures. However, the line is crossed when these measures are based on a hierarchy of lives, where the security of one group is worth more than the existence of another.

In this context, the siege and destruction in Gaza cannot be seen as an isolated fact. The violation of safe zones (ICRC, 2023) is an episode in a broader genealogy of supremacy. At the same time, the case presents a functional dilemma: is it a strategic calculation of “bandits” or an act of Cipollian stupidity? The complexity lies in the fact that the persistence of a strategy that causes massive harm, erodes international legitimacy, and isolates the actor from its allies without producing a clear victory, begins to fit into the logic of the stupid. Here, the supremacism of the “bandit” merges with the logic of the “stupid,” showing that categories are not static, but can coexist in the same political action.

V. The Ethics of Limits and Institutional Demoralization

International human rights institutions were created to resist these logics (Koskenniemi, 2002), but their effectiveness depends on egalitarian foundations. The unequal application of law and selective vetoes in multilateral organizations send a devastating message: human life does not have the same value everywhere. This message demoralizes citizens and encourages other States to imitate the same logic.

There is no such thing as “benign supremacism.” Any project founded on the superiority of one group over another erodes the principle of the moral equality of all lives (Nussbaum, 2011). Borders or economic models can be debated, but the scale of human value is not open to negotiation. Moving it even a millimeter, even in the name of security or ideology, opens the door to systemic violence.

VI. Strategic Antidotes

The danger of supremacism lies not only in its acts, but in the conditions it permits: normalizing the exception, turning the warning into routine, and finding euphemisms for crimes. The fight against its modern manifestation—systemic stupidity—will not be won with data or arguments. As Cipolla anticipated, the greatest mistake of the “lucid” has been to underestimate the potential of the stupid, trying to convince them with reason when their logic operates in a register of emotions and loyalties.

The challenge is not to convince the stupid, but to dismantle the cultural and political machinery that produces them. This requires a strategic response that goes beyond moral condemnation and passivity. The antidote is not only legal, but also cultural and educational. It requires and suggests:

*Absolute legal prohibition of supremacist doctrines as a reason of State (United Nations, 1965).
*Protection of testimony through safe corridors and immediate international jurisdiction in cases of attacks on the press (OHCHR, 2022).
*Multilateral bodies without veto power from interested parties.
*Democratic conditionality in trade and cooperation.
*Active memory, civic education, and reparations to victims (Halbwachs, 1992).

Ultimately, the fight against supremacism is a fight for the hegemony of lucidity and solidarity against the “stupid narrative” that dominates public debate today. The urgency of the moment demands concrete political action to build a conscious and organized society, before the machine of hierarchies becomes irreversible.

References
Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace & Co.
Aranda, C. (2025, July). La estupidez como amenaza política y sistémica: de Cipolla a Kast. Pressenza.
Bourdieu, P. (1972). Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Droz.
Cipolla, C. M. (1988). Allegro ma non troppo. Il Mulino.
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.
Fanon, F. (1961). Les Damnés de la Terre. Maspero.
Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?. Zero Books.
Gould, S. J. (1996). The Mismeasure of Man. W. W. Norton & Company.
Halbwachs, M. (1992). On Collective Memory. University of Chicago Press.
ICRC. (2023). International Humanitarian Law and the Protection of Civilians. International Committee of the Red Cross.
Koskenniemi, M. (2002). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations. Cambridge University Press.
Memmi, A. (1965). Portrait du Colonisé. Gallimard.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard University Press.
OHCHR. (2022). Guidelines on the Protection of Journalists. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Shklar, J. (1987). The Faces of Injustice. Yale University Press.
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak?. Macmillan.
United Nations. (1965). International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.