Evolving Resistance
A Strategic Guide for the Occupied
The Bandit and the Emperor
There is an economist named Mancur Olson who offered a theory about the origin of the state that is less romantic than the version we were taught. In Olson’s telling, it goes like this: a roving bandit moves through a territory, steals everything he can, and moves on. He leaves destruction behind him and no incentive for anyone to rebuild. Then one day, a smarter bandit realizes that if he stays — if he settles and monopolizes the theft — he can extract far more over time. So he stops raiding your neighbor and starts taxing you instead. He builds a road. Not for you, but because your productivity is his income. He hires enforcers. Not to protect you, but to protect his investment in you. He calls this governance.
The theory, while simplistic, is uncomfortable because it maps closely to the historical record — from ancient warlords to feudal lords to colonial governors. The state, in this telling, does not begin with a social contract. It begins with the monopolization of theft and the rebranding of the bandit as sovereign.
But this is the origin story, not the whole story. What happened next is that people — ordinary, prosocial, cooperating people — organized. Over centuries, they forced the recognition of underlying moral principles: that authority without consent is tyranny, that the governed have inherent rights, that legitimacy flows upward from the people, not downward from the crown. These principles gave us democracy. The mechanism of consent of the governed replaced divine decree and entitlement through force. This is, by any honest measure, the greatest political achievement of our species. But it is not any single event in history — rather a long shared journey toward human enlightenment.
It is being attacked now, as it has through history, and into the future. But it remains the basis we all uphold — the standard by which we measure what is legitimate and what is not. Imprinted onto the moral fabric of every new infant, before they are nursed into culture.
To understand why it is being dismantled, we need to stop sorting people into rulers and outlaws, insiders and outsiders, red and blue. The real divide has never been partisan. It is behavioral. On one side: the prosocial — those who build through cooperation, collaboration, and the pursuit of shared meaning. Their self-interest and their social instincts are largely aligned. They create positive feedback loops that benefit the society as a whole. On the other side: the antisocial — those who achieve through domination, extraction, and competition. Not evil by nature, but primarily self-interested, devoid of prosocial motivations except where those motivations happen to align with personal gain. Their feedback loops externalize cost — pushing the price onto the marginalized, or onto the future, who have even less agency than the marginalized, since they do not exist yet.
The research is consistent. People who score high on what psychologists call the Dark Triad — narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy — are disproportionately attracted to all forms of power: coercive, economic, and narrative. They find power easier to attain because they are willing to do what prosocial people are not. And we are indoctrinated to perceive their dominance as strength, their ruthlessness as decisiveness, their willingness to exploit as leadership. This is a civilizational Stockholm syndrome. We are enamored with our captors, both personalities and institutions, and have been for so long that we mistake the captor's confidence for competence. The antisocial architect creates systems that enlist ordinary people in carrying out the agenda — but this essay focuses on the architects, not the enlisted.
This is the first act of resistance: seeing clearly. The bandit and the emperor are different in scale, not in kind. And the democracy we built to constrain them is under siege — not from a foreign enemy, but from the same antisocial behavioral pattern we have failed to confront.
— ✦ —
The Burden of the Prosocial
The goals of the antisocial ruler and the prosocial citizen are asymmetric, and this asymmetry is the foundational strategic reality of the conflict.
The antisocial fights for personal enrichment and legacy — to accumulate, to entrench, to perpetuate a system that serves them and their descendants. This is a narrow objective that requires the cooperation of many who receive almost nothing in return.
The prosocial fights for equal enforcement of the law, liberty, and meaning — not just for themselves, but for the collective. For a world that works. For the possibility that their children will inherit something better, or at minimum, something no worse. This is a broad objective that aligns naturally with the interests of the vast majority, because its origin is inherent.
Because of this asymmetry, resisting illegitimate rule is not a right that one can exercise or decline, like voting in a midterm election. It is a generational responsibility. We have the duty — not merely the option — to protect and advance the conditions of freedom for ourselves, the children, and their children to come.
The law as it is currently enforced is often a weapon of the antisocial cartel — wielded selectively, applied unevenly, structured to protect those who write it. But the law as it was intended — the social contract, the spirit of democratic self-governance — is on our side. The gap between these two versions of the law is the precise measure of how far the bandits have encroached.
And here is the harder truth: self-interested antisocial behavior makes democracy ultimately impossible to defend from autocrats and oligarchs without great personal risk. This is precisely why we must foster a prosocial society — not as a utopian aspiration, but as the precondition for maintaining the democratic structures that protect everyone. A society of isolated, self-interested individuals cannot coordinate against a predatory state. A society bonded by trust, mutual obligation, and shared moral principles can.
Again we see asymmetry — but layered. Power is brittle at the superorganism level, but at the individual level it is precise and devastating. Our strength is to coordinate based on our decentralized intrinsic moral fiber. Theirs is to attack us individually where the cost-benefit outweighs the narrative consequences. They cannot decapitate our leader, because our leader is a sense of morality. But the top-down structure of command also has advantages in coordination that we will never match directly.
Let me address the elephant. Why is it a problem if power is brittle and must constantly recycle itself? Can we just go along for the ride as it swings back and forth?
No — because that societal upheaval has a cost, and that cost is unevenly distributed and unnecessarily damaging. Instead we must aspire to more resilient systems that adapt over time, never again allowing ourselves to forget our responsibility to maintain or renew systems infected with rot.
The antisocial belligerents and resource hoarders have brainwashed the prosocial majority into complacency. It is our duty to resist them and their mind games. To retake the narrative. To remember what we, throughout our history, have built and why.
So the obligation is established. The question becomes: how does a marginalized, under-resourced, leaderless population resist a ruling class with trillions of dollars, surveillance infrastructure, and a monopoly on coercive force?
The answer begins with their weakest point.
— ✦ —
The Oligarch’s Dilemma
The ruling class projects unity. It does not possess it. Authoritarian alliances are built by selfish actors — every oligarch, every kleptocrat, every corporate sovereign is ultimately out for themselves. Their goals are roughly aligned in extraction, but their loyalties are to their own wealth and survival, not to each other and certainly not to the autocrat personally. This makes the alliance inherently brittle, and brittle things can be broken — if you know where to apply the pressure.
The strategy is not to assault the fortress. It is to peel the stones away from the wall, one by one.
We divide the antisocial elites along the lines of their self-interest — not ideology, but incentive. Just as they keep the prosocial population fractured by identity politics — red versus blue, rural versus urban, native versus immigrant — we play incentive politics on them. We target the oligarchs who are vulnerable to public economic and social pressure: agriculture, retail, physical logistics, consumer-facing industries. Not the impregnable — the tech monopolies, the defense contractors, the surveillance apparatus — those are the domain of legal constraints and institutional accountability, when that accountability has not been captured. These will largely be tied directly to the regime, and sharing the same fate they will not defect easily. We target the ones whose revenue depends on the goodwill of the population they are helping to oppress.
The tools are straightforward: boycott, divestment, and the credible threat of escalating consequences for complicity with illegitimate authorities. The approach is not ideological purity — it is strategic triage. Like plucking apples from a tree: you grab what is in front of your face first, then continue plucking. Each oligarch we peel from the autocrat’s coalition is a measurable, significant loss for the centralized structure — and a potential gain or relief for the resistance’s own distribution networks.
Many of these industries have insulated themselves from this kind of blowback. These backroom deals have been codified into law in many cases. And yet, they are still vulnerable. All agencies are made up of agents, institutions are built from individuals, and most individuals have consciences. Whistleblowers and defectors don't emerge from being targeted — they emerge from moral awakening. The middle manager who is 60% self-interested and 40% prosocial is closer to flipping than the oligarch who is 95/5.
Note the arithmetic. The ruling class is few, and they are all run top-down — centralized command, where each node in sequence is a potential point of failure. Our targets are numbered and identified. Every one of them we pressure into non-compliance with the regime is a disproportionate blow.
Compare that to decentralized masses. News travels horizontally through a liquid, and once news enters, it cannot be removed without having spread. And as a decentralized movement, we have broad, natural goals that, if not constrained by the captors of democracy, would happen organically. While the method by which news travels might not appear to be a dazzling revelation, I ask you to put that in the context of a narrative war, and reconsider the weight of the observation.
And we must address party politics: the opposition party is the other side of the same coin. A costume change, not a course correction. The state thrives in narrative control and dies in conflict — because in conflict, it is forced to play its hand, and its hand is full of cards that personally enrich or entrench power for the sake of perpetuating more of the same. Therefore, no blind allegiance to party. Use the two parties against each other to push the agenda forward. Moral allegiance belongs to just policy, just enforcement, and just action — never to a jersey.
Like the MAGA movement demonstrated, it takes fewer people than you think. Perhaps twenty percent of the population as die-hard activists — a committed, unyielding base — is enough to tip the scales. The majority follows once the direction is clear. The question is whether the twenty percent is pointing toward prosocial flourishing or antisocial extraction.
— ✦ —
The Dual Mandate
There is a problem all resistance movements face, and it must be addressed honestly.
We have allowed our life-support systems to be consolidated in the name of efficiency — which is to say, in the name of profit. We depend on fragile, centralized supply chains for food, medicine, energy, communication. Any disruption to these systems harms the public directly. The marginalized suffer first and worst. This then limits the public’s ability to engage in civic activities, and the thought of protests affecting your elder’s medicine helps to twist the narrative.
And so, if common methods of effective resistance include interrupting supply chains and clogging logistics arteries, how can we suggest clogging the arteries of the system when the blood that flows through them feeds us too?
The answer is the dual mandate. Two things must happen simultaneously, and neither works without the other.
First: the daily practice of resilience. Building and supporting localized, alternative networks of sustenance and distribution — community mutual aid, local food systems, cooperative infrastructure — even when it means sacrificing short-term convenience and profit for long-term robustness. This is not a revolutionary act. It is a lifestyle choice that becomes a strategic asset. The more resilient the parallel networks, the more the population can withstand disruption when it comes — by choice or by force.
The autocrat will use exhaustion to keep the population disengaged. The antidote to exhaustion is not ideology — it is joy. And joy is not found in commerce. It is found in human connection, in the prosocial bonds that resilience is built from. The mutual aid network is not just a supply chain — it is a source of meaning.
We must recognize that the state has been regulating parallel networks out of existence — in some jurisdictions, installing a solar panel is prohibited. This is not accidental. It is the deliberate erosion of the public’s capacity for self-sufficiency. This disadvantage was born of complacency, and we must face the consequences. My advice is to begin addressing it before you are forced to, with real consequences attached.
— ✦ —
Second: the willingness to force confrontation at chokepoints. Ports, highways, supply chains, data pipelines, financial nodes — any artery the system depends on. When citizens clog a chokepoint, they force conflict. At minimum, narrative conflict — providing a voice to resistance, forcing the issue into the public conversation. Potentially physical conflict — provoking a response that reveals the nature of the authority. And economic conflict — pressuring oligarchs whose bottom line depends on the flow continuing.
If the state ignores the disruption, they choose de-escalation — attempting to reposition and address the narrative on more favorable terms. This can go either way, but it threatens a loss of legitimacy or a polarization that works in the resistance’s favor. Most often, they will wait it out, knowing that people must get back to work or go hungry, and then reframe the narrative and punish the organizers. This is why parallel networks are critical. The autocrat that underestimates the population’s parallel logistics will commit grave errors in their calculations.
If the state responds with force, it admits the target is a threat — and admitting a threat extends legitimacy to the resistance by the very act of recognizing it. Parts of the population will sympathize with the victims of state force. Luigi Mangione resonated with millions not because of charisma, but because people recognized a moral principle underneath the act — a cause they could not fully condemn because they understood, at some level, the injustice it was responding to. Each narrative victory wins hearts and minds, while making those who commit morally indefensible acts unpalatable to support.
The economic disruption affects consumers and distribution. This is not to be taken lightly. This is why resilience comes first in the mandate — you build the lifeboats before you rock the ship. And when you have filled your basket with as many apples as you can reach, and your backup networks are in place, you clog the arteries to force an honest public conversation. God willing, you win the narrative war. The rest works itself out as a consequence. I do not say that flippantly. Instead, I would argue that we cannot plan for events beyond that point except in overly broad terms. The point is to force a counter-narrative. Once that counter-narrative is in the zeitgeist, it carries weight, and that weight builds pressure.
The system has limits. They literally cannot jail us all — yet. Note the scramble to build new detention centers, to expand enforcement capacity. While it is a massive, unprecedented scaling of the prison apparatus that should chill us all, numerically it is quite insignificant. The entire enforcement apparatus has bottlenecks everywhere. Top-down efficiency makes it fast but fragile — like a sports car: impressive on smooth road, useless on rutted mud roads in the jungle. Wars are won and lost in logistics, and the logistics of suppressing a genuinely mobilized population are staggering.
One more thing. Violent action is not inherently unjust. There are moments when it is morally defensible — when no other path remains, when the injustice demands a proportional response. But as a strategy, it is rarely advantageous in the narrative war, and it is the narrative war we must win in the long run. Especially when facing militarized police, drones, and surveillance infrastructure designed to identify and neutralize dissent. The strategic value of nonviolent discipline is not moral superiority — it is narrative leverage. Violence gives the state moral cover. Discipline takes it away.
— ✦ —
World War Meme
NATO has officially classified the human mind as the sixth domain of military operations — alongside land, sea, air, cyber, and space. This is not metaphor. It is doctrine.
What this means in practice is that there is no civilian distinction in cognitive warfare. Every citizen with a screen is inside the conflict zone. What you say in public — online, in conversation, even your silence — is a recorded shot fired in this war, whether you intended it or not. Even indifference is a data point now. Even apathy has a side.
We are fighting World War Meme.
If the domain of this war is your mind, then each of us is the supreme commander in our own resistance to the threat. By understanding the mechanics and the arc of this conflict., collectively we arrive roughly in the same place with each individual action.
The autocrat’s system is top-down and requires massive, constant energy to maintain the illusion of consensus. Manufacturing agreement, suppressing dissent, flooding the information space with noise, eroding trust in shared reality — all of this is expensive and exhausting. It works only as long as the population remains atomized, distracted, and doubting its own perception.
The prosocial advantage is that we do not need unanimous participation. We do not even need a majority — not at first. Erica Chenoweth’s research shows that 3.5 percent of a population, actively mobilized at peak, has historically been sufficient to make authoritarian governance untenable. Most successful nonviolent movements achieved their goals with even less. The twenty percent committed base is the reservoir from which that peak mobilization draws — the soil from which the 3.5 percent flowers at the critical moment.
Chenoweth’s research was based on 20th century examples. Contemporary analysis suggests that with modern technology, that number has dropped significantly, and it is possible to topple an autocrat with the number of people it takes to fill a city square, if they can persist long enough.
But breaking the current regime is only the first step. The cultural shift that prevents the next one from forming requires a broader, sustained influence on the superorganism — the shared consciousness of a population. This will require we realign our productive systems and resource distribution. This is slower work. But all of it operates through conversation, through art, through the steady accumulation of shared truths that cannot be unsaid. It is the difference between toppling an illegitimate government and healing a society.
The tools of this war are not exotic. Communication networks that combat media capture. Open-source technology that provides alternatives to proprietary, surveilled platforms. High-trust, verifiable information channels built at the local level — neighbor to neighbor, community to community — that resist algorithmic manipulation because they are rooted in physical relationship, not digital abstraction.
Every shared truth is a counterstrike. Every refusal to repeat the propaganda is a defensive position held. Every conversation that reconnects a person to their own moral architecture — the one they were born with, not the one manufactured for them — is territory reclaimed in the sixth domain.
You are already in the fight. The only question is which side you are contributing to.
— ✦ —
The Evolving Polyculture
Authoritarianism is a monoculture. It is centralized, top-down, rigid in structure. One ideology, one authority, one acceptable way of thinking. This makes it efficient for extraction — clear chains of command, rapid enforcement, minimal dissent. But it also makes it uniquely brittle. One decision at the top cascades catastrophically through the entire structure. One miscalculation, one loss of narrative control, one moment of genuine public unity against the regime, and the whole machine shudders.
A successful resistance cannot simply replace the monoculture with a better one. That is how we arrived here. A new strongman with better intentions is still a strongman, and the structure that enabled the last tyrant will enable the next one if the structure remains unchanged.
The goal is a polyculture — decentralized, networked, horizontal, and intentionally messy. A living ecosystem of prosocial human beings, organically non-uniform in structure so as not to create a single point of failure. This is the difference between an industrial crop field and a forest. The crop field is efficient and productive — until one pest, one drought, one act of sabotage wipes it out. The forest survives because its diversity IS its defense. We do not have to agree on everything — and that is, in fact, the design approach.
A broad coalition under a big tent is how it has been framed in the past. It is a catchy concept, but it has never been broad enough, and never aligned with the moral authority. Instead it acted as a gating mechanism, the opposite of the spirit of the term. We must unite on fundamentals, and we can disagree on everything else — then resolve the disagreements that even require addressing once the immediate threat is handled. And with our commitment to the fundamental moral principles, the remaining differences should be manageable without a massive defense budget.
The trap is not seeing the incentive structures that are designed to keep us from being able to coordinate and cooperate. Algorithms boost the internal divisions on the right and the left. I would suggest not taking the rage bait. Do not spend your energy attacking people who are 95% aligned with you because of a bad take. Confrontation with the intent of re-alignment is one thing, but too often it is about creators looking for a boost in their numbers, a self-serving goal. So before you attack one of your own, ask yourself if that action will further the goals of the coalition.
It would be disingenuous to suggest that I don’t find the horizontal structure slow to react and sometimes frustrating — it is. But in the context of winning a narrative war, it is the reality, and it isn’t all bad news — there are inherent asymmetrical advantages.
The autocrat’s monoculture of ideology is vertical: centralized, fragile, needing everyone on the same page. The resistance’s polyculture is horizontal: networked, distributed, resilient, evolving. The autocrat needs total compliance. The polyculture only needs to persist.
And persistence introduces the element that changes everything: time.
This is not a final boss fight. There is no climactic battle after which the prosocial world is secured forever. It is not enough to beat the current authoritarian overreach — you must continue to prevent it from returning in a new form, a generation later, wearing different clothes and speaking a different language but running the same antisocial playbook. This requires societal immune systems robust enough to recognize and reject the next wave of bandits before they can build their empires. It requires a population that remembers what it is, what it built, and what it is owed. A society capable of long-term planning and goals, beyond the length of election cycles.
Freedom is not a destination. It is a daily, meandering practice — tending to our shared humanity against the constant pull of domination, maintaining the prosocial bonds that make resistance possible and tyranny visible. One step after another. The direction matters more than the speed.
If there is no prosocial group in your area — make one. Become the grassroots movement you seek. That is the seed of resistance.
We have the tools. And our cause is just.
Enjoy today, see you Sunday.
— ✦ —
If you enjoy my work, please consider donating to my survival fund with the Kofi link below. Commenting and sharing is also appreciated.
Very interesting.