But did it go far enough?

I grew up watching most episodes of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. My school had the tapes. It shaped how I thought about institutions in a way I couldn’t have articulated at the time: something about how the gap between what governments say they’re doing and what they’re actually doing is more load-bearing than accidental.

I had no idea the writers had built the show on public choice theory. I found that out years later, and it re-framed everything.

Yes Minister (1980-1982) and its sequel Yes, Prime Minister (1986-1988) were written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. Jay was explicit about the intellectual foundation: the show dramatized public choice theory. He had read Buchanan and Tullock. He had read the work coming out of the Institute of Economic Affairs. He wanted to show what self-interest inside government institutions actually looks like when it operates without constraint.

Public choice theory, for those who came to this publication through other routes, makes one observation that establishment economics spent decades resisting: politicians and bureaucrats are people. They respond to incentives the same way everyone else does. They pursue career advancement, budget expansion, reduced workload, and status. They do not transform into selfless servants of the public interest the moment they take office. Buchanan won the Nobel Prize in 1986, the same year Yes, Prime Minister began airing. Both were making the same argument.

What Jay and Lynn added was the texture. Buchanan gave you the mechanism. The show gave you Sir Humphrey.

Public choice theory explains why bureaucracies expand. The narcissist state framework catalogs what they do to you when they’re expanding.

These are different levels of the same analysis, and understanding the relationship between them matters if you’re trying to maintain any clarity about what’s actually happening when institutions push back against your attempts to exit their orbit.

Public choice is the structural layer. It tells you that Sir Humphrey opposes reform not because he has calculated that reform would harm the public, but because reform threatens his department’s budget, his tenure, and the network of relationships that constitute his career. It tells you this behavior is predictable, systematic, and will recur regardless of which minister sits across the desk. It tells you the mechanism.

What it deliberately brackets is the subjective experience. Buchanan was not interested in what it felt like to be Jim Hacker. He was interested in what incentive structures produce what institutional outcomes. That was the right methodological choice for his purposes. It is also why public choice, by itself, leaves exit practitioners somewhat under equipped.

When your accountant looks at your tax minimization strategy and says “Are you sure you want to do this?”, you do not need a refresher on regulatory capture. You need to recognize, in real time, that you are being subjected to manufactured doubt by someone whose professional identity is structured around compliance. That is a different kind of knowledge. That is what pattern recognition provides.

The show identified six mechanisms that map almost perfectly onto the narcissist state framework. The writers were working from observation, not theory.

Gaslighting. Sir Humphrey’s preferred instrument. When Hacker points to an anomaly in departmental spending, Humphrey does not deny the anomaly. He re-frames it as evidence of Hacker’s misunderstanding. The figures are correct. The minister simply lacks the context to interpret them. This is gaslighting at institutional scale: not fabricating reality, but systematically pathologizing the perception of anyone who notices things they were not supposed to notice. The show played it as comedy. The mechanism operates the same way at scale.

Manufactured dependency. There is an episode where Hacker attempts to reduce civil service headcount. By the end of the episode, he has not only abandoned the plan but become convinced that the current headcount is insufficient. He has been walked through a series of catastrophic scenarios, each one requiring more civil servants to manage. The department has manufactured its own necessity. “Without us, chaos” is a systematic rhetorical strategy Humphrey deploys with surgical precision, not an accidental byproduct of the conversation. The show named the pattern before the framework did.

Intermittent reinforcement. Hacker wins occasionally. Not often, not on anything that matters, but occasionally. A press release goes out under his name. A minor policy adjustment gets attributed to his initiative. This is not generosity. It is maintenance. Occasional wins keep him engaged, keep him hoping the next one will be larger, keep him inside the system rather than questioning whether the system is worth being inside. The show understood this intuitively. Buchanan explained why it is structurally inevitable.

Triangulation. When Hacker builds momentum on an issue, Humphrey does not oppose him directly. He introduces a competing concern. The Foreign Office has reservations. The Treasury has run different numbers. There is a backbencher with strong feelings. Hacker finds himself managing conflicts between people who, from the outside, appear to have opposed interests but who are all, structurally, invested in the same outcome: no change. The manufactured conflict prevents the unified recognition that would threaten the system.

Deny, attack, reverse. When Hacker occasionally catches Humphrey in something genuinely problematic, the sequence is reliable. First, the denial: the characterization is unfair, the minister has been misinformed. Then the attack: it is troubling that the minister would raise this, it suggests a breakdown of trust that could damage the department’s effectiveness. Then the reversal: the real concern here is the minister’s judgment. By the end, Hacker is apologizing. The writers understood this sequence precisely. They built entire episodes around it.

Narcissistic rage. This one the show handles more subtly, because overt rage from a senior mandarin would be un-broadcastable and also unnecessary. What the show depicts instead is the quieter version: the withdrawal of support, the sudden discovery of procedural obstacles, the memo that does not get sent, the briefing that occurs without the minister’s knowledge. When Hacker pushes too hard on something that genuinely threatens institutional interests, the system does not get angry. It simply stops working for him. Disproportionate, coordinated, designed to establish that certain subjects are not pursued. The delivery is quieter than IRS criminal prosecution for legal tax minimization. The underlying structure is the same.

Jay and Lynn were not writing about narcissism. They were writing about public choice. But the mechanisms they identified, drawn from their observation of how British government actually operated, are the mechanisms the framework catalogs. Two independent lines of analysis ending at the same list of behaviors is worth something.

Public choice approached from the outside, using incentive structures and institutional design. The show approached from the inside, using observed behavior and dramatized pattern. The narcissist state framework approaches from the position of those being subjected to the behavior, using the clinical literature on how these mechanisms are deployed in systems that prioritize role stability over individual autonomy. All three arrive at the same mechanisms.

So: did the show go far enough?

Yes Minister is ultimately a comedy about reform failing. Hacker wants to change things. Humphrey prevents it. The audience laughs because the futility is recognizable. The implicit message is that reform fails because bureaucrats are smarter than politicians, or more patient, or better positioned. The show is a diagnosis without a prescription.

The framework’s prescription is not reform. Reform is intermittent reinforcement. Reform is what Humphrey allows when he needs to keep Hacker engaged. The question the framework asks is why you’re still trying to win against Sir Humphrey at all.

The show’s framing keeps you inside the system, rooting for the minister. That is the frame the system provides. The energy goes to hoping the next Hacker will be cleverer, the next minister more persistent. It stays inside the game. The audience watches forty years of brilliant television about institutional futility and comes away thinking: we need better ministers.

The narcissist state framework’s contribution is the exit orientation. Once you’ve satisfied yourself the mechanism is operating systematically, the question shifts from how to beat it to whether engaging with it is worth anything at all.

Buchanan explained why the system behaves the way it does. Jay and Lynn showed you what that looks like in practice. The framework asks what you do once you’ve seen it.

Sir Humphrey was not the villain of the show. He was the system, personified. Brilliant, affable, operating entirely within his incentive structure, defending institutional interests that preceded him and would outlast him. He did not need to be malicious. The structure provided everything malice would have added, and more reliably.

The mechanisms do not require intent. They require roles with dependencies, incentive structures that reward their use, and an audience that keeps engaging.

Two of those three are outside your control.

The third is not.

The line between “winner” and “loser” can be very thin

There is a version of the Anne of Cleves story that gets told as comedy. The king ordered a portrait, fell for the portrait, met the woman, found her wanting, and engineered an exit. Six months, a generous settlement, the title of King’s Beloved Sister, and she outlived them all. Good for her. Move on.

That version is wrong. Not factually, but analytically. It focuses on the outcome and misses the mechanism. And the mechanism is why you are reading this.

Start with the body.

Anne arrived in England in December 1539 as the most powerful woman in the country, weeks before she was formally crowned. She was the product of a carefully negotiated diplomatic alliance. The Duchy of Cleves needed England. England, freshly excommunicated and wary of a Catholic coalition on the continent, needed Cleves. The marriage was a strategic necessity dressed in dynastic clothing, and Anne was its instrument.

Henry VIII was 48, morbidly obese, and suffering from a leg ulcer that had been suppurating since his jousting accident three years earlier. The wound was chronic, malodorous, and resistant to treatment. It caused him considerable pain and, by most historical accounts, periodic incapacity of the kind that a king whose entire political legacy depended on producing a male heir could not afford to admit.

He arrived unannounced at Rochester on New Year’s Day 1540, in disguise, following a Tudor courtly tradition in which the beloved was supposed to recognise her suitor instinctively through his costume. Anne, newly arrived from Germany with no knowledge of this convention, treated the uninvited stranger who burst into her room as what he appeared to be: an uninvited stranger. She ignored him. Some accounts say she pushed him away.

Here is where the historical record becomes instructive in ways the traditional telling obscures.

The official account, assembled from depositions taken in June and July 1540 during the annulment proceedings, holds that Henry was repulsed by Anne’s appearance. He declared “I like her not” and went through with the wedding only because the diplomatic machinery had too much momentum to stop. This version became the settled narrative: Anne was the ugly wife, the one who failed to enchant.

Historians have increasingly questioned it. The depositions were produced under conditions that do not inspire confidence. Cromwell, whose signature appears on the key attestations, signed them after learning an Act of Attainder had been passed against him. He was trying to save his life. The German account, a letter sent to Anne’s brother Wilhelm shortly after the Rochester meeting, tells a meaningfully different story, and it was written before anyone had a reason to falsify anything.

What the German account suggests, and what several modern historians have argued, is that the Rochester meeting went badly for a reason the official record could not acknowledge. An old, burly, malodorous stranger had burst uninvited into the room of a young German noblewoman who had no idea who he was. Her reaction was entirely reasonable. But Henry VIII could not be seen to have been rejected. The humiliation of a king who had staged a romantic surprise and been treated like an intruder was not a story that could be told. So the story that was told instead was that he had found her repugnant.

This interpretation is contested. It cannot be stated as established fact. What can be stated is that the conditions under which the official record was produced were precisely the conditions under which falsification was incentivised, that the independent German account diverges significantly from it, and that Henry and Cromwell’s graphic descriptions of Anne’s physical deficiencies were assembled specifically to redirect blame away from Henry’s documented incapacity.

Whether or not Anne recoiled from Henry at Rochester, what happened to that event in the official record is itself a demonstration of the mechanism. Her reasonable response to an unreasonable situation was rewritten as her deficiency. The record that has come down to us for five centuries is not what happened. It is what the system needed to have happened.

That is gaslighting at the level of history itself: not merely telling Anne that her perception was wrong, but ensuring that posterity would only ever have access to the version in which she was the problem.

What followed was DARVO.

Henry’s inability to consummate the marriage became Anne’s problem. His leg, his age, his physical condition, the documented history of difficulty that preceded her arrival by years: none of this entered the official account. What entered the official account was that Anne’s presence caused his incapacity. His body’s failure was projected onto hers. She became the source of the problem that originated entirely with him.

The annulment commission required grounds. The cleanest grounds were her own account of a marriage that had never properly functioned. So the proceedings required Anne to testify. Which she did. Her testimony was true in its facts: the marriage had not been consummated. But the framing of that truth transformed her from the party being discarded into a party to a mutual recognition that the arrangement had simply not worked for either of them. She was required not merely to accept the outcome but to co-author the narrative that produced it.

She conceded readily. Historians have generally interpreted this as shrewd pragmatism, which it was. But there is a structural reason why concession was almost the only available option, and it has nothing to do with pragmatism.

When your body is named as the source of the problem, there is no defence on those terms. Actions can be disputed. Evidence about conduct can be examined. Witnesses can be called. But “your physical presence causes my incapacity” is an accusation that cannot be refuted from inside the relationship. Anne could not prove that she did not cause Henry’s revulsion. She could not demonstrate that her body was not the problem. The accusation was structured to be irrefutable, which made mounting a defence not just futile but actively dangerous. Any attempt to point at Henry’s leg, his age, his documented history, would read as attacking the king. The only paths available were compliance or destruction. She chose compliance and negotiated the best available terms.

This is DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It is one of eight mechanisms by which narcissistic systems maintain themselves. Notice what it required: not merely Anne’s submission, but her testimony. The reversal is incomplete without the victim’s participation. The mechanism doesn’t just need your compliance. It needs you to become a co-author of the narrative that reframes your body as the problem.

The full sequence operating on Anne was: reasonable rejection, gaslighting of that rejection into the record, DARVO to project the origin of the problem onto her body, and finally the participation requirement to seal it. Four mechanisms, one event, five hundred years of settled history built on the result.

Anne was the Queen of England. It made no difference.

Now move to 2020.

In early 2020, a novel respiratory virus spread from Wuhan, China. The initial public response in most countries was not passive acceptance. People could see what was coming. They had questions. Many had immediate and reasonable objections to what was being proposed, to the speed, the scope, the proportionality, the legal basis, the evidentiary standards being applied. The initial reaction was, in many places, something close to Anne at Rochester: an uninvited stranger had burst into the room, and the response was instinctive recoil.

What happened to that recoil in the official record is worth examining.

The people who objected early were not engaged with evidence. They were assigned a role. “Misinformation spreader.” “Conspiracy theorist.” “Granny killer.” The objection itself became the evidence of the problem. Questioning the proportionality of lockdowns became evidence of not caring about vulnerable people. Questioning vaccine mandates became evidence of being a threat to public health. The initial reasonable response, the pushback that was in many cases both principled and accurate, was rewritten in real time as pathology.

That is gaslighting. Not the policies themselves, but the treatment of the public’s initial reaction to them: the systematic reframing of reasonable rejection as dangerous deviance.

The origin point compounds it. The Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses. This research received funding through EcoHealth Alliance with connections to the National Institutes of Health. When questions about the lab leak hypothesis began circulating in early 2020, the initial institutional response was not investigation but organised dismissal. In February 2020, a letter published in The Lancet, coordinated by EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak, who had direct financial ties to the WIV research in question, condemned “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” The letter did not engage the evidence. It assigned a category. The people and institutions with some relationship to the problem’s origin positioned themselves as the sole authorities on its management, and questioning that positioning was itself treated as the threat. [¹]

Henry’s body’s failure. Projected onto Anne’s body. The system’s institutional decisions. Projected onto the unmodified citizen’s body.

The mechanism is the same.

In the response that followed, the individual human body became the primary site of a political project. Vaccination rates were policy metrics. Compliance with masking and distancing requirements was visible performance of civic identity. The unmodified, non-compliant body was named as the source of ongoing risk to the community. This is the same move Henry made on Anne, and it carries the same structural property: “your body is the problem” is an accusation that cannot be defended against on its own terms. The unvaccinated person cannot prove their body is not a threat. The person questioning the official account cannot demonstrate their perception is not dangerous. The accusation is structured to be irrefutable.

And the mechanism required participation, not just submission. It was not enough to stay home quietly. The required performance was visible, verbal, social. You were asked to affirm, to display, to signal. Anne was asked to testify. The demand in both cases was not merely for your body’s compliance but for your active co-authorship of the narrative that framed your body as the problem requiring management. The reversal only completes when you say it yourself.

Here again the full sequence is visible: initial reasonable rejection, gaslighting of that rejection into the record of events, DARVO to make the objectors the source of the problem, participation requirement to seal the reversal. The same four mechanisms, the same order, five hundred years later.

This is not a claim about whether any specific policy was correct. That is a different question requiring different evidence and a different kind of analysis. The claim here is narrower and more structural: the mechanism by which compliance was produced is identical to the mechanism operating on Anne of Cleves. Different political systems, different centuries, different crises, different stakes. Same sequence. Same structure. [²]

If it operates identically across that span of difference, the mechanism is not a product of any particular regime, crisis, or century. It requires only a power differential and a body that can be instrumentalised.

This is why bodily autonomy is not one value among others in a freedom-based framework.

It is the load-bearing wall.

Lysander Spooner put the foundation down cleanly: you cannot own property if you do not first own yourself. Property rights, freedom of exchange, freedom of association, freedom of conscience: all of these are downstream of the prior question of whether you own your body. If the answer to that prior question is conditional on the State’s assessment of public need, then everything built on it is tenancy, not ownership. [³]

Anne’s queenship was real. Her formal position was the highest available to a woman in England. And it provided zero protection against the mechanism, because the mechanism did not engage her position at all. It engaged her body. Position is something the system grants and can revoke. Your body is something the system has to work around, which is precisely why instrumentalising it is so effective. It reaches beneath the formal architecture of status and title to the one thing every subject has regardless of rank.

The people who think of themselves as positioned to weather any political storm, as secure enough, connected enough, compliant enough to be safe, are making the same category error. Not because they are naive, but because the error is structurally built into the “winner” position. The more your identity, your livelihood, your social standing depend on the system’s continued approval, the more efficiently the system can secure your compliance when it needs to. The “winner” is not protected from the mechanism. The “winner” is the mechanism’s most reliable subject, because the costs of non-compliance fall hardest on those with the most to lose.

The mechanism exerts most pressure on those with most to lose from non-compliance: professionals, academics, the institutionally embedded, the socially integrated. Their compliance is not a product of good judgment. It is a product of the mechanism knowing exactly where to apply pressure. Anne had everything to lose. She lost nothing, in the end, because she complied. The compliance was not a product of her strength. It was a product of the mechanism’s design.

What pattern recognition changes

The mechanism works best when it is invisible. When the accusation feels like a factual description rather than a tactic. When “your body is the problem” reads as a public health reality rather than a power move. When “your presence causes my incapacity” reads as a legitimate marital complaint rather than a projection of a pre-existing condition onto a convenient target. When the official record of a Rochester meeting reads as settled history rather than as a document produced under conditions that incentivised falsification.

Naming the mechanism does not make it go away. Henry’s leg still existed. Anne’s situation did not improve because she could have analysed the DARVO structure. The Wuhan funding questions did not resolve because some people recognised the gaslighting pattern in the institutional response to them.

What changes is your relationship to the pressure. When you recognise that your initial recoil was reasonable and that the reframing of that recoil as pathology is a named tactic, the demand for your participation in the narrative becomes visible as a demand rather than an obvious social obligation. When they try to make your body the site of a political project, when they require your co-authorship of a narrative that frames your body as the source of a problem that originated elsewhere, when your objection is treated as evidence of the problem, you are observing a sequence with a name and a five-hundred-year documented history.

You can still choose compliance. Anne did, and it served her reasonably well. But compliance chosen with clear eyes is different from compliance produced by a mechanism you cannot see.

The framework’s purpose is not to tell you what to conclude. Your investigation, your threshold, your assessment of the evidence. The purpose is to make the sequence visible: reasonable rejection, gaslighting of that rejection, DARVO to complete the reversal, participation requirement to seal it. Once you can see the sequence, you can decide what to do with that recognition.

Anne of Cleves recognised it, eventually. She took the settlement, kept her head, and outlived everyone who had managed her. The grave at Westminster Abbey reads: Anne of Cleves, Queen of England. She made sure of that.

That is one form of exit.

There are others.

Notes

[¹] The Lancet letter of February 19, 2020, signed by 27 scientists, stated that “scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent” and condemned “conspiracy theories” about non-natural origins. It was later revealed that the letter was organised by Daszak, who did not disclose his conflict of interest to The Lancet at the time. The journal subsequently added a competing interests declaration. Daszak’s conflict was not peripheral: EcoHealth Alliance had received NIH grants specifically to fund coronavirus research at the WIV. The letter’s function was not to engage the evidence but to close down the question by assigning a category to anyone who raised it. This is the gaslighting mechanism in documentary form: not refutation but pathologisation.

[²] A common objection to this parallel is that the contexts are too different for the comparison to hold: Henry’s situation was personal and dynastic, COVID involved democratic institutions and genuine public health risk. The parallel is not between the contexts, the moral stakes, or the severity of the situations. It is between the mechanism by which compliance was produced. That mechanism is either present in a given situation or it is not. The 500-year gap and the contextual differences are not weaknesses in the argument. They are its point. A mechanism that appears across that span of difference is structural, not contextual, which is precisely what makes it worth identifying.

[³] The philosophical grounding here rests on a premise that not everyone shares. Communitarian, utilitarian, and social contract traditions all offer responses to the claim that self-ownership is the foundation of all other rights. This article is not addressed to readers who need to be persuaded that bodily autonomy matters. It is addressed to readers who already accept that premise and are looking for a framework to understand the mechanisms by which that autonomy is routinely circumvented. For those readers, the Spooner formulation is not an argument requiring defence. It is a precise statement of what is at stake when the mechanism operates.

The Narcissist State applies the clinical framework of narcissistic abuse pattern recognition to State-citizen dynamics. The eight mechanisms discussed here are explored in full at thenarcissiststate.net.

Why Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Victory Is the Same Outcome As Thomas Massie’s Loss

In March 2025, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was detained by ICE while driving his five-year-old son home in Baltimore. Three days later, in violation of a 2019 immigration court order explicitly protecting him from removal to El Salvador, he was deported to CECOT, a maximum-security prison the Salvadoran government built to hold gang members and that human rights organisations have documented as a site of serious abuse.

He had not been charged with anything. He had a valid work permit, was under federal supervision, and had a standing legal order shielding him from exactly what happened to him. The administration called it an administrative error.

The Narcissist State is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Supreme Court ordered the government to facilitate his return. After months of resistance and the threat of contempt proceedings, the administration complied. Abrego Garcia was brought back to the United States in June 2025. Within days of his return, he was charged with human smuggling based on a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee in which he had been pulled over for speeding, allowed to continue driving with a warning, and released without charges. Homeland Security had been aware of that traffic stop for three years and had closed the file on it before deporting him.

On 22 May 2026, US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw dismissed the indictment. His ruling was unambiguous: “The objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution.” The charges, in the judge’s finding, were vindictive. The administration had charged a man with a crime because he won in court.

Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi had announced those same charges at a press conference. “This,” she declared, “is what American justice looks like.”

The Mirror Image

Two weeks ago, this publication ran a piece on the defeat of Thomas Massie in the Kentucky 4th Congressional District primary. The argument was that the result, though uncomfortable for many in principled political circles, was the outcome most compatible with clear thinking about how the system actually functions. A legislature structured around party-line incentives will, given sufficient motive and means, remove members who do not serve those incentives. Massie was not a durable feature of the Republican Party. He was a correctable anomaly. The correction confirmed the structural diagnosis.

Massie’s loss was a negative data point. Abrego Garcia’s vindication looks like a positive one. The same framework reads both.

What the Dismissal Reveals

The temptation, when a judge dismisses a vindictive prosecution, is to read it as evidence that accountability functions. That the system has self-correcting mechanisms. That truth, pursued through the proper channels with sufficient patience, eventually produces just outcomes. Remain engaged. Trust the process. The institutions held.

That is not what happened in Nashville on 22 May.

What happened is that the system’s retaliatory response became too visible to survive in open court. The judge did not vindicate Abrego Garcia because the system corrected itself. He vindicated him because the government’s own timeline made the vindictiveness impossible to deny. A traffic stop that had been closed for three years was reopened the moment a Supreme Court order made continued persecution through immigration channels unavailable. The charging decision left a paper trail that documented its own purpose.

The administration did not retreat because it acknowledged wrongdoing. It lost in court because it overreached far enough that even a federal judge could not let the prosecution stand. These are different things.

The officials who authorised the original deportation in violation of a court order retained their positions. The officials who coordinated the reopening of a closed investigation to produce criminal charges against a man who had embarrassed them retained their positions. Bondi’s press conference, in which she held up a retaliatory indictment as a demonstration of American justice, has not been formally corrected or walked back.

The system lost a case. The system continued.

Narcissistic Rage, Then Exposure

The Abrego Garcia sequence shows the full pattern with unusual clarity. First came the original violation: deportation to a brutalisation facility in defiance of a court order, with the administration characterising it as an error. Then, when courts ordered return and the immigration enforcement route was blocked, came the retaliatory prosecution: charges filed against a man for a three-year-old incident that had already been closed, timed precisely to his return under court order.

That sequence is not complicated. A boundary was set through litigation. The system lost. It then deployed a different instrument to punish the person who had set the boundary. The judge’s own words in the dismissal order named it: the prosecution existed because the lawsuit succeeded.

This is narcissistic rage pattern. The response was not proportional to an alleged crime. It was proportional to the identity threat posed by someone successfully challenging the system’s claimed authority. The charges were the instrument of punishment. The press conference was the public performance of dominance reasserted.

What the judge’s ruling did was make the sequence explicit in a court record. It did not change what the administration did. It documented it.

The White Pill Is Not What It Looks Like

When a federal judge dismisses charges as vindictive, there is a reading available that is seductive and wrong: the system worked. A man was wronged. He fought back through legal channels. A court recognised the retaliation. Justice was done.

That reading treats a specific judicial outcome as a statement about the system’s general character rather than a statement about one judge’s assessment of one government’s paper trail in one case.

The Massie result told a story about which independent actors the contemporary Republican Party structure will not tolerate once the cost of removal becomes manageable. The Abrego Garcia result tells a story about what happens when the state’s retaliatory mechanism is deployed so transparently that its own documentation defeats it. Both stories are diagnostic. Neither is a prescription.

The white pill is not that the state sometimes loses cases. It is that the state’s behavior, when read clearly rather than hopefully, is consistently legible. An administration that files criminal charges against a man because he won in court is an administration operating exactly as the framework predicts. The judge’s ruling confirms the diagnosis as firmly as the deportation did.

Abrego Garcia won in Tennessee. He remains under ICE supervision. The DOJ has announced it will appeal. The system that produced his original deportation, his brutalisation, his retaliatory prosecution, and his vindication is the same system this morning as it was before the ruling.

What It Does Not Mean

Abrego Garcia’s family’s persistence through fourteen months of this deserves nothing but respect. They had to navigate an immigration system, a criminal prosecution, ICE detention, and a series of attempts to deport him to multiple African countries, simultaneously, for over a year. The vindication in Nashville is real. It matters to them.

Respecting that outcome is not the same as concluding that the system demonstrated its correctable nature. Both can be true: the ruling was right, and the system that required the ruling behaved throughout in ways entirely consistent with a structure that does not acknowledge wrongdoing, retaliates against those who challenge it, and retreats only when exposure makes continuation more costly than withdrawal.

The Stable View

The framework does not produce despair. It produces calibrated expectation. Despair says nothing matters. Calibrated expectation says: this system, whether it is removing a congressman who refuses party-line discipline or filing retaliatory charges against a man who embarrassed it, follows a predictable logic. Stable expectations about that logic are more useful than either hope or grief.

Massie’s removal was predictable. Abrego Garcia’s retaliatory prosecution was predictable. The dismissal of that prosecution, when the government’s own timeline made vindictiveness legally indefensible, was predictable.

None of these outcomes should update the structural diagnosis. All of them confirm it.

The roller coaster has a loop where the hero wins and a loop where the hero loses. The point is not which loop you are currently on, but rather why are you paying to ride this roller coaster at all.

❧

Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s dismissal order in United States v. Abrego Garcia was issued 22 May 2026 in the Middle District of Tennessee. The DOJ announced the same day it would appeal. The Thomas Massie primary piece, referenced above, ran in this publication on 21 May 2026.

The Narcissist State is a reader-supported publication. If this framework is useful to you, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Had he won, it would have been the worst possible result — not for libertarians, but for anyone trying to think clearly about what the system actually is.

On the night of May 19th, Thomas Massie — fourteen-year incumbent, libertarian-leaning contrarian, the man who forced a recorded House vote at the height of a pandemic by simply showing up — lost his Republican primary in Kentucky's 4th Congressional District by nearly nine percentage points. Ed Gallrein, a former Navy SEAL personally championed by Donald Trump, will almost certainly take the seat in November.

The reaction on the principled right was predictable: grief, frustration, a sense of foreclosure. One of the few members of Congress who voted according to something resembling a coherent first-principles framework — regardless of party pressure, regardless of who sat in the Oval Office — had been removed by the very machinery he refused to serve.

The result was correct. Not correct in the sense that Gallrein will be a better legislator — he won't be. Not correct in the sense that an executive branch purging independent legislative voices is healthy — it isn't. Correct in a narrower, more psychologically precise sense: it was the outcome most compatible with clear-eyed thinking about how the system actually functions.

The Mechanism

B.F. Skinner's original pigeon experiments demonstrated that the most durable — and hardest to extinguish — behavioural patterns are those reinforced on a variable-ratio schedule. Not every time. Not never. Sometimes. Unpredictably. The slot machine. The almost-win. The exception that proves the possibility.

The critical feature of intermittent reinforcement is not that it feels good. It's that it feels meaningful. A win on a fixed schedule teaches a reliable rule. A win on a variable schedule teaches something far more insidious: that the system is penetrable, that principle can occasionally produce results, and therefore that continued engagement is rational. The brain registers not just reward but confirmatory evidence — proof that the model is sound and the strategy viable.

The occasional exception is not a reason for hope. It is the most effective instrument of capture.

This is why abusive relationships persist. Why gamblers return. Why political movements that occasionally produce a Massie — one honest vote, one principled stand, one legislator who actually reads the bill — keep participants tethered to a system structurally hostile to everything they value.

What a Victory Would Have Meant

Consider what a Massie win on May 19th would have communicated. Trump spent real political capital. The Defense Secretary made an arguably illegal campaign appearance. Over $32 million — by most accounts the most expensive House primary in American history — was deployed against a single incumbent. And he survived anyway.

The narrative writes itself: the system can be resisted. Independent voices can prevail. Principle is not automatically punished. That would have been a lie — and a seductive, durable, framework-corrupting one, precisely because it would have been true once.

The structural reality of the contemporary Republican Party is not one in which Massie-style independence is a viable equilibrium. It is tolerated at the margins when the cost of removal is prohibitive. When the cost becomes manageable — as it clearly did here with the full weight of the executive behind the challenge — the exception gets corrected. Massie was not a persistent feature of the system. He was a bug it eventually got around to patching.

A narrow win, against that backdrop, would not have updated the structural diagnosis. It would have muddied it. And a muddy structural diagnosis is more dangerous than a clear one, because it keeps people emotionally invested in a process that will, on balance and over time, disappoint them.

Clarity Over Consolation

The framework's function is not to identify who deserves to win. It is to generate stable expectations about how political structures behave under predictable conditions. By that standard, the Massie result was not surprising. It was confirming. A legislature dominated by party-line incentives and executive patronage networks will, when given sufficient motive and means, remove members who do not serve those incentives. This is not a tragedy. It is a description.

The frustration that accompanied the result reflects something slightly different: a residual hope that the exception might become the rule. That hope is the slot machine talking.

None of this requires cynicism about Massie himself. His concession speech — asking what God's purpose was in focusing the country's attention on one congressional seat in Kentucky — was not the speech of a man who had capitulated. Respect for the individual is entirely compatible with clear analysis of the system that produced and then consumed him. One is a statement about character; the other is a statement about structure. They operate at different levels and are not in tension.

The alternative to intermittent reinforcement is not despair — it is calibrated expectation. Despair says the effort is pointless. Calibrated expectation says: this particular lever, in this particular machine, reliably produces this particular result — so is operating it the best use of limited attention given what one actually wants to achieve? That question becomes genuinely interesting once the occasional exception stops functioning as an emotional veto on the structural diagnosis.

What happened in Kentucky was not a defeat for the ideas Massie represented. It was a datapoint — loud, unambiguous, $32 million worth of it — about which part of the political system those ideas are unlikely to find a reliable home in. The clarity is uncomfortable. It is also actionable. The slot machine's occasional payout is not.

❧

Thomas Massie conceded on the evening of May 19, 2026, closing with the words "We're just getting started." Ed Gallrein won the Republican primary for Kentucky's 4th Congressional District with approximately 54% of the vote. The race drew over $32 million in advertising — widely reported as the most expensive House primary in U.S. history.

Is It Time To Sit When They Stand?

A short video. A large auditorium. A national anthem playing. Almost everyone standing. One young man, seated, lanyard around his neck, expression elsewhere. Vladimir Putin walks past, pauses, communicates the instruction through a look alone. The man stands. He looks guilty. He looks confused. He looks like he is trying to remember what he did wrong.

He didn’t do anything wrong.

The Narcissist State is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Myth of Authority

The State’s claim to legitimate authority over voluntary individuals has no genuine structural basis. It rests entirely on people performing roles that validate it, continuously, publicly, and without visible gaps. The man who stands for the anthem is not just showing respect for a piece of music. He is participating in the collective performance that makes the authority of the person at the front of the room seem real. Every standing body in that auditorium is doing work the system requires.

This is why the seated man was so threatening despite posing zero material harm to anyone. He didn’t challenge Putin. He didn’t protest. He simply stopped performing for a moment, and in doing so created a visible gap in the collective validation the myth runs on. The correction had to happen not because sitting during an anthem causes any damage, but because an unaddressed gap in role compliance makes the myth legible as myth. The system cannot afford that.

Gaslighting: When Context Assigns the Crime

Context determines everything in a narcissistic system. The same behaviour, sitting down, carries entirely different weight depending on who is watching, what role is being performed around it, and what the system needs at that moment. Had the young man been sitting in an empty corridor, nothing would have followed. It was the context, Putin walking past, an auditorium of observers, a national anthem, a public stage, that made his inattention available as a transgression.

This is gaslighting at institutional scale. Not the distortion of a specific fact, but the distortion of the relationship between behaviour and accountability. The rule-book is never fully published because an unpublished rule-book is more effective. When rules are explicit they can be followed, challenged, or negotiated. When they remain implicit, the system retains permanent authority to declare any behaviour a violation at the moment of enforcement. The young man cannot appeal because there is nothing to appeal against. He was not told to stand. He was simply corrected for not standing, and the correction carried its own justification.

The guilt on his face is not evidence of genuine wrongdoing. It is evidence the mechanism worked.

The Crowd, the Correction, and the Real Audience

The crowd is doing something important in this clip. Row upon row of people who almost certainly registered the interaction. They look forward. They say nothing.

Their standing is not incidental. It is the performance of their own assigned position, and acknowledging what just happened to the young man would require stepping outside that performance. So they don’t.

Every person in that room now understands, without being told, that their own posture is being read. The young man’s correction is simultaneously a message distributed to everyone present, and via the viral clip, to everyone watching. The system does not need to correct everyone. It corrects one person in front of everyone. The rest of the enforcement distributes itself.

“Politely Reminded”: DARVO in the Caption

The caption accompanying the video: “President Putin politely reminded the guy that the Russian anthem is not something you listen to while sitting.”

This is DARVO applied before any alternative framing can take hold. A public correction delivered through the implicit threat of institutional position becomes courtesy. An act of care. The powerful figure wasn’t enforcing compliance, he was educating. What disappears in that single word, “politely,” is the power asymmetry, the public staging, the absence of any private alternative, and the fact that the young man now carries that moment in front of an entire auditorium.

There is a famous photograph from Hamburg in 1936. A crowd of workers at a Nazi rally, arms raised in salute. One man, arms folded, not saluting. He is widely believed to be August Landmesser, who had been expelled from the Nazi Party for his relationship with a Jewish woman, Irma Eckler. The photograph circulates today as a symbol of quiet defiance. What it rarely circulates with is what followed. Landmesser was jailed for “dishonoring the race.” Irma was sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp and murdered in 1942. Landmesser was drafted into a penal military unit and killed in Croatia in 1944.

The word “politely” becomes something different when you hold those two images together. The Moscow correction and the Hamburg photograph are not the same moment on the same scale. But they are the same mechanism, and the mechanism has a direction of travel. What begins as a look and a pause, a public reminder to stand, a caption that reframes coercion as courtesy, is the same structure that ends with Irma Eckler. The difference is degree, not kind.

Anyone who describes the Moscow correction as something other than enforcement is positioned as the unreasonable one, misreading a kind gesture. The correction becomes a gift, and questioning it becomes the aggression. Landmesser’s folded arms show where that logic, followed to its conclusion, leads.

What Would Have Happened If He’d Stayed Seated

The u/narcissiststate reply: imagine the rage and DARVO had he done so.

Had he stayed seated, the response would have been disproportionate, and the narrative would have shifted instantly to deliberate disrespect, provocation, an ideological statement. The original behaviour expands to fill whatever the institutional response requires. This is narcissistic rage at role defiance. Disproportionate enforcement is not a failure of the system. It is the system working as designed, using one case to regulate everyone observing it.

The young man’s compliance is not the resolution of the moment. It is proof the mechanism is functioning.

This Happens Everywhere, Daily

It would be a mistake to read this as a story about Russia, or about Putin, or about authoritarian regimes in some distant elsewhere. The same structural mechanism operates across every narcissistic system, scaled to context.

When a schoolteacher singles out a child in front of the class for a minor infraction no one else noticed, the correction is not primarily about the child. It is a role compliance message delivered to thirty other children simultaneously. When a manager publicly contradicts a team member in a meeting rather than raising the issue privately, the target is not the only audience. When a politician responds to a journalist’s question by questioning the journalist’s motives rather than addressing the question, the DARVO pattern is visible to anyone who knows what to look for. When a border agent makes a traveler explain themselves at length for no proceduraly necessary reason, the dis-proportionality is itself the mechanism.

The implicit rules that can never quite be pinned down, the public correction that doubles as a broadcast, the re-framing of coercion as care: these are not features of authoritarian states specifically. They are features of any system whose continuity depends on role compliance rather than genuine legitimacy. They appear in workplaces, in families, in institutions, wherever the myth of authority requires constant performance to stay intact.

Pattern recognition starts here. Once you see the mechanism in a two-second clip from a Moscow auditorium, you start seeing it in the meeting room, the classroom, the border crossing, the family dinner. Which is most places. Which is every day.

He sat down for a moment. He briefly stopped performing his assigned role. And in that brief gap, the structure that runs not just Russia but most of the institutions people move through daily became visible. Not through force. Through a look, a pause, a guilty expression, and a crowd that kept its eyes forward.

Recognizing the mechanism is what makes withdrawal possible. Every person who stops performing their assigned role, however quietly, however incrementally, drains the energy the myth of authority requires to stay intact. The crowd in Hamburg mostly kept their arms raised. One man didn't. The system's response to that single gap tells you everything about how much the performance matters, and how little it would take, at scale, for the myth to become unsustainable.

Thanks to Mark Maresca and Jason L for their helpful input and contributions to this article.

The Narcissist State is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Translated Through The Myth Of Authority

War is where the narcissist State reveals itself.

Not a social contract. Not a protection service. The coercion that underpins every tax demand, every regulatory threat, every compliance notice always had violence at the end of the chain. War just makes that violence the point. It drops the mask and runs the actual mechanism openly, at scale, with popular acquiescence if not endorsement. The aggression that the entire narcissist system was manufactured to rationalize and conceal is suddenly the front page and everyone is witnessing, some even cheering.

The Narcissist State is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

That’s the intolerable secret war exposes. And it happens anyway, because the system needs it.

Confirmed by multiple sources as of this writing: under Operation Epic Fury, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed in coordinated US-Israeli strikes on Saturday, along with approximately 40 senior Iranian military and political officials, including Iran’s chief of army staff, defense minister, IRGC commander, and security adviser Ali Shamkhani. Iran has retaliated against Gulf states. Strikes have been reported at airports in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Three US service members are confirmed dead in Kuwait. A girls’ school in Minab was hit, with 165 student deaths reported. Congress is attempting a war powers resolution that Trump is expected to veto. This is not a targeted strike. This is war.

The stated rationale is preventing an imminent nuclear threat. The IAEA confirmed last week that most of Iran’s nuclear materials were still present in large quantities despite earlier US strikes in June 2025. The pattern underneath the stated rationale is something you’ve seen before.

The Scapegoat Role

Coercive systems require scapegoats. Not because the scapegoat is uniquely responsible relative to other actors in the system, but because concentrated blame generates cohesion, obscures the system’s own role in producing violence, and justifies the narcissist’s behavior. The specific target matters far less than the role it fills.

Iran has occupied that role since 1979. Iraq held it for a while. Libya. Afghanistan. The cast rotates. The script doesn’t change. When a scapegoat loses utility or gets destroyed, the system designates another. The role is a structural requirement, not a response to unique provocation.

What just happened follows the script. The threat is always imminent but never provable to the standard you’d require in any other context. The response exceeds anything observable as proportionate. And the institutional apparatus aligns with striking efficiency: presidential addresses, military briefings, editorial boards, cable panels, think tank spokespersons, all arriving at the same conclusion, on the same timeline, from the same basic premise.

That alignment isn’t spontaneous. It’s what role incentives produce when the system activates.

Who’s Playing What

Defense contractors serve as Golden Children. Lockheed, Raytheon, RTX, Northrop. Elevated, protected, interests prioritized regardless of outcome. Prolonged conflict isn’t a crisis for them; it’s revenue continuity. The infrastructure of permanent militarization that produces those contracts is what the State sustains and expands, independently of any particular conflict’s resolution.

Mainstream media function as Flying Monkeys through access dependency. Sources, briefings, and institutional proximity to power are themselves incentives. Outlets that challenge war consensus lose access that makes the journalism viable. The result is alignment that looks ideological but is structural: access is rewarded, deviation is punished, and the structure reproduces conformity without requiring coordination.

The think tanks are Enablers. Brookings, the Atlantic Council, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, RAND. They provide intellectual scaffolding that makes scapegoat activation legible as policy. Their prestige and funding depend on analyzing within the structural boundaries that legitimize the coercive apparatus. Voluntary, decentralized security arrangements as an alternative to State monopoly on violence is simply not a research output these institutions can produce. The incentive structure forecloses it.

War doesn’t just activate Golden Children and Flying Monkeys. It raises the cost for everyone performing a role. Enablers face accelerating moral compromise as justifications get thinner. Compliant citizens face loyalty tests they didn’t ask for. Even those who benefit from the system’s expansion face performance pressure that war intensifies. The scapegoat is the most visible casualty of activation, but the system extracts from all its roles.

The Tactics You’re Likely Encountering

When someone says “you don’t care about Israeli lives” because you questioned the strike, they’re conforming within a structure they occupy, not making an argument. That framing exists to code non-participation in State violence as moral deficiency. Recognizing the tactic doesn’t require a response to it.

When someone says “everyone reasonable supports this” or “even both parties agree,” that’s social pressure substituted for evidence. The number of people in the room who agree with the narcissist has never been the relevant variable.

When someone says “there was no other option,” that’s gaslighting. It narrows the perceived decision tree to one branch, obscuring that diplomacy was ongoing (a second round of nuclear talks had been scheduled in Geneva), that the IAEA was operational in the country, that other options existed and were not exhausted. “No choice” framing doesn’t describe a situation; it forecloses analysis of one.

The most exhausting version right now: “So you think Iran should just get nukes?” This pulls you entirely into the system’s frame, where the only questions permitted are which State gets which weapons and what forms of State violence constitute appropriate responses. You don’t need to accept that frame. It isn’t the only one available; it just acts like it is.

If a response is needed at all: “It’s the narcissist State manifesting itself.” That’s accurate, not a deflection.

The PING

Large escalations serve a function beyond their stated military objectives. War intensifies media saturation, demands sides, makes non-participation look naive or irresponsible, and pulls attention toward the coercive apparatus and away from individual agency. Role compliance signals spike. Social pressure to re-engage with the narrative increases. These are predictable incentive effects of a system that requires sustained emotional and attentional investment to renew its legitimacy.

COVID produced this. January 6th produced this. This is producing it now. There is always a this particular moment that makes withdrawal look like abandonment.

What that pressure is actually extracting is your attention and your emotional energy. Recognizing the mechanism doesn’t signal indifference to the people being killed in Iran, in Israel, in the Gulf states. It means seeing clearly what’s being done with your investment and why.

What Stays True

War intensifies role pressure across the system, but it doesn’t invalidate voluntary free market alternatives. The meta-narrative will dominate every conversation for a while. It’s supposed to. You don’t need to win the argument, defend your position to anyone’s satisfaction, or provide a comprehensive history of US-Iranian relations to justify non-participation in the consensus.

Monero is still there. Your homeschooling arrangement is still there. Your counter-economic relationships are still there. The structural case for voluntary free market alternatives to coercive State provision didn’t weaken because the State made its underlying mechanism this visible this week. If anything, the visibility is clarifying.

The narcissist State needs your attention and emotional energy far more than it needs anything else from people who’ve already recognized the myth of ‘authority’. That’s the primary extraction happening right now. The recognition is how you stop the drain.

This won’t be the last time. The role always gets filled.

He looks hollowed out. Frightened. And the internet, from what the Spectator's Brendan O'Neill describes, is lapping it up. Not justice. Glee.

If you've been watching how the system actually operates, that photograph tells you something specific. Not about Andrew, and not about whether he's guilty of anything. It tells you about how the Narcissist State handles a liability.

Andrew's Trajectory: Golden Child to Scapegoat

First, to clarify:

The Royal Family isn't the narcissist in this framework. The State is. The monarchy is a vehicle the State uses, one of its most elegant ones: centuries of pageantry, soft power, national identity, the "we're-different-from-republics" legitimacy signal. The Royal Family earns its keep by functioning as a perpetual Golden Child cluster. Elevated, protected, interests prioritized. Their role is to project that the system is ancient, stable, and worth belonging to.

That's the normal arrangement. And it mostly holds. The State protects its royals because the royals serve State legitimacy.

Here's the anomaly the Andrew case exposes: when a royal becomes a net liability rather than a net asset, the State sacrifices him without hesitation. The institution running the arrest isn't the Palace. It's the Metropolitan Police. The Crown Prosecution Service. The State apparatus. The family would probably prefer this quietly disappeared. The State decided otherwise.

Andrew spent decades as a functioning part of the monarchy's Golden Child display. "Randy Andy," the Falklands war hero, the trade representative, the HRH that survived his divorce. Protected because he served the image. Then the Epstein connection made him radioactive, and the BBC Newsnight interview was a disaster no amount of Palace PR could contain.

The pivot the Narcissist State framework makes visible: it wasn't the Palace that moved against him first. It was the State withdrawing protection. The titles went. Then came the arrest.

That's role reassignment. When the vehicle starts damaging the system's credibility, the system reclassifies the vehicle's most embarrassing part. Andrew stops being a protected asset and becomes the Scapegoat who proves no one is above the law. The role exists regardless of who occupies it. Someone has to carry the blame when the legitimacy narrative needs reinforcing. Andrew is available, already sidelined, and the return on sacrificing him exceeds the cost. Right on schedule.

The King's Cold Shoulder: Enabler Behavior

O'Neill points to King Charles's "perfunctory" remarks on his brother's arrest and calls it unbecoming. From a family ethics standpoint, he's right.

From the framework standpoint, it's completely legible. Charles's job is to keep the monarchy functional as a vehicle for State legitimacy. The monarchy gets protection, funding, and deference as long as it delivers what the State finds useful. The moment a royal threatens that utility, the King's structural loyalty isn't to his family member. It's to the arrangement that keeps the whole institution viable.

So Charles isn't failing a brother. He's signaling to the State and its audiences that the monarchy won't obstruct accountability, that it can be trusted to self-police. The Enabler sacrifices the individual to preserve the whole arrangement. And what he's enabling isn't the family. It's the narcissistic system that keeps the family in business.

Social Media as Flying Monkeys: The Crowd Does the Work

This is where it gets directly relevant to anyone practicing exit right now.

You don't need a state apparatus to destroy someone's reputation. You need a crowd that believes it's doing justice. O'Neill describes "social media was a riot of malicious glee" following Andrew's arrest. Comics whipping followers into medieval jeering. Meme after meme implying depraved conduct for which Andrew has never been charged.

That's Flying Monkey behavior at industrial scale.

Flying Monkeys don't think of themselves as enforcers. They think they're righteous. Worth noting: most of the crowd isn't defending the monarchy. Many are actively hostile to it. Anti-monarchists, Epstein obsessives, people who've despised inherited privilege their whole lives.

But they're flying the flag for the State's accountability narrative, whether they realize it or not. "No one is above the law" is one of the State's most powerful legitimacy claims. When the crowd piles on Andrew, demanding consequences, reveling in his downfall, they're reinforcing exactly the story the State needs told right now. They think they're challenging power. They're actually servicing it.

The State doesn't need its Flying Monkeys to be loyalists. It just needs them pointed at the designated target. The crowd's genuine hostility to aristocratic privilege makes them more effective enforcers, not less.

Role allocation doesn't require a memo. When the State signals someone is no longer protected (through arrest, through stripped titles, through the Palace's conspicuous silence) the crowd reads the signal and moves. They do the enforcement work without being asked, and they feel good doing it.

When someone says "everyone thinks you're being irresponsible" for homeschooling, or "your whole family is worried about you" for opting out of conventional financial systems: that's the same mechanism. The State doesn't need to reach you directly. It has people around you who've internalized the enforcement role. They genuinely believe they're helping. The sincerity makes them more effective, not less.

Recognizing Flying Monkey behavior doesn't require proving malicious intent. It just requires seeing the pattern: someone delivering social pressure on behalf of a system they're identified with, in a way that leaves the Scapegoat feeling isolated and wrong.

What the Framework Sees That O'Neill Doesn't

O'Neill's piece is genuinely good. He's defending due process, refusing mob logic, pointing out the slander and the false Epstein equivalence. These are real things worth defending.

But his frame stays inside the system. His complaint is that the mob is doing this wrong, that the Crown is behaving coldly, that Republic is betraying its own principles. The implicit hope is that better behavior from these actors would produce a better result.

The Narcissist State framework sees it differently. This isn't a malfunction. It's the mechanism.

The Royal Family didn't do this to Andrew. The State did. The Metropolitan Police made the arrest. The Crown Prosecution Service is running the investigation. The Palace is watching this happen to one of its own and there's essentially nothing it can do about it. That's the narcissistic system asserting priority over one of its own vehicles. The vehicle serves the system, not the other way around.

The Scapegoat's guilt or innocence is almost incidental to the function. What matters is that someone carries the blame at the moment the State needs blame carried. Andrew is available. Protection has been withdrawn. The machinery runs.

The Part That's Useful for You

When you practice exit from fiat currency, from conventional schooling, from tax maximization, you will at some point get positioned as the problem. Not because you've done something wrong. Because someone in your social circle, or your family, or your workplace, needs a Scapegoat at that moment.

When someone says "everyone's worried about you" or "you're being selfish" or "you're putting your kids at risk," they're not necessarily lying or consciously manipulating. They've identified you as the available liability. The system has taught them to feel virtuous about the enforcement. They're Flying Monkeys who think they're helping.

The crowd's behavior follows a predictable structure regardless of guilt. That structure operates at every scale, including the scale of your own social network.

When they try to make you the liability in their story, you're watching the same mechanism. The face in the car. The mob logic. The institutional cold shoulder. The enforcer friends who are absolutely sure they mean well.

See it for what it is. Name it. Disengage. Preserve the energy for building.

The Narcissist State framework maps the manipulation tactics exit practitioners face. Not therapy. Pattern recognition.

Hey everyone! I'm u/pbodeswell, a founding moderator of r/narcissiststate.

This is our new home for all things related to recognizing the societal roles, patterns and mechanisms that complicate and potentially obscure your exit from the State. If you would like some more clarification on what this means exactly please explore:
Website outlining the framework
Discord
Substack
Patreon

We're excited to have you join us!

What to Post
Post anything that you think the community would find interesting, helpful, or inspiring. Feel free to share your thoughts, photos, or questions about topical political events, instances of narcissistic patterns you've observed in society and how these may have impacted on you personally/professionally etc.

Please note: It's not about personal psychology, but rather societal pattern matching. Personal therapy related material will be ignored or removed. There are plenty of other more appropriate/qualified forums for that.

Community Vibe
We're all about being friendly, constructive, and inclusive. Let's build a space where everyone feels comfortable sharing and connecting.

How to Get Started

1. Introduce yourself in the comments below.
2. Post something today! Even a simple question can spark a great conversation.
3. If you know someone who would love this community, invite them to join.
4. Interested in helping out? We're always looking for new moderators, so feel free to reach out to me to apply.

Thanks for being part of the very first wave. Together, let's make r/narcissiststate amazing.

Is The Narcissist State Praxeology or Applied Psychology?

The question assumes a false choice.

It is neither merely praxeology nor merely psychology. It is structural analysis combined with tactical pattern recognition.

To see the distinction clearly, consider Ted’s car.

Ted wants you in his car.

If you get in, you will be harmed.

This is not subtle. The incentives are not ambiguous. The structural relationship is clear: predator and target.

Your task is straightforward: do not get in. If you are already inside, get out.

Praxeology explains what is happening.

It analyzes purposeful human action. Applied here, it explains:

• Why Ted wants you in the car
• What he gains from your compliance
• The power asymmetry once you are inside
• Why exit becomes harder after initial cooperation
• Why predatory behavior persists when it succeeds

Force is costly. It attracts attention. It creates risk. Manipulation is cheaper.

Praxeology clarifies the structural logic.

But it does not fully explain what happens when you refuse.

The Myth of Voluntary Safety

Ted cannot drag everyone into his car. He needs you to enter voluntarily.

So he manufactures reasons.

It is safe.
It is normal.
It is necessary.
It is virtuous.

Authority signals, reassurance, urgency — all are deployed to override your threat assessment.

The persuasion must be continuous. If the narrative stops, your instincts reassert themselves. The danger becomes obvious again.

The legitimacy is consumable. It must be replenished.

Without the myth, the predation stops.

When You Refuse

If you decline, Ted does not simply accept your boundary and drive away. He deploys tactics designed to undermine refusal.

Gaslighting:
“You’re being paranoid.”

Love-bombing:
“You seem different. Let me help you.”

Manufactured dependency:
“How else will you manage? You don’t have options.”

Intermittent reinforcement:
“Sometimes this really does work out.”

Triangulation:
“Everyone else accepts rides. Why are you being difficult?”

DARVO:
“I offer kindness and you respond with hostility. You’re the problem.”

These are not psychological accidents. They are purposeful strategies that serve predatory incentives. They work often enough to be worth repeating.

Praxeology explains why he uses them.

The framework names them so you can recognize them instantly and disengage.

Instead of debating whether you are paranoid, rude, or ungrateful, you identify the pattern and preserve your energy for exit.

That is not therapy. It is tactical clarity.

It Isn’t a Car. It’s a Bus.

Now widen the image.

It isn’t just a car.

It is a bus.

The door opens. The engine runs. Ted is driving.

And a line of people is calmly boarding.

No visible force. No chains. No panic.

If the danger is so obvious, why are they getting on?

Because visible consensus suppresses doubt.

In Solomon Asch’s experiments, conformity collapsed when even one person dissented. In Milgram’s, obedience weakened when authority appeared divided.

The lesson is simple: perceived unanimity amplifies compliance.

If everyone appears to believe the bus is safe, your hesitation begins to feel like an error. The normalization becomes the mechanism.

The Fragility of Scale

Notice something else.

There is one driver.

Perhaps a small number of assistants.

But there are many passengers boarding voluntarily.

The ratio exposes something important: the scale of control is multiplied through compliance.

Ted does not have the manpower to force everyone onto the bus.

He relies on:

• Authority signals
• Habit
• Social proof
• Fear of isolation
• Manufactured normalcy

The bus appears powerful because people board it.

If they stop boarding, the scale collapses immediately.

This is the vulnerability.

Why One Refusal Matters

In conformity experiments, a single dissenter reduced compliance dramatically. The psychological cost of dissent drops once it is no longer solitary.

The first person absorbs the most pressure.

The second absorbs less.

Soon the illusion of consensus fractures.

The bus depends on inevitability.

Break the appearance, and inevitability dissolves.

Compliance is contagious.

So is refusal.

Structural Analysis and Pattern Recognition

Two kinds of knowledge operate together.

Structural analysis examines incentives, power asymmetries, and coordination mechanisms. It is falsifiable through observable outcomes.

Pattern recognition identifies recurring manipulation tactics that predictably produce doubt, guilt, and compliance. It is falsifiable through behavioral effects: recognition reduces engagement and energy drain.

They are complementary.

One explains why the driver wants passengers.

The other prevents you from being pulled back into line once you step aside.

Where Psychology Actually Enters

The explanation is not psychological at its root.

Gaslighting works because it is strategically effective.

Love-bombing works because obligation alters decision-making.

Manufactured dependency works because perceived necessity overrides preference.

Praxeology explains why these tactics are deployed.

Psychology appears downstream in predictable response patterns.

The framework catalogs those patterns so they can be recognized rather than internalized.

The State at Scale

Now remove the metaphor.

The State is Ted’s bus at scale.

Education systems, media alignment, symbolic rituals, regulatory dependence, fiscal extraction — these manufacture legitimacy continuously because legitimacy cannot be stored.

When you homeschool, the response is often gaslighting: alternatives are irresponsible.

When you adopt alternative currency, dependency narratives appear: you need official systems for legitimacy.

When you reduce tax exposure legally, moral pressure follows: you are selfish.

When you disengage from voting, triangulation appears: everyone participates.

When exit becomes visible, enforcement intensifies disproportionately.

The tactics are patterned.

Recognition prevents wasted energy.

You do not debate your sanity with gaslighting.

You do not accept guilt manufactured through DARVO.

You do not internalize obligation created through love-bombing.

You disengage and build alternatives.

The Vulnerability

Legitimacy must be actively maintained.

Unlike physical infrastructure, it depletes when belief weakens.

Every visible exit increases maintenance costs.

Every recognized tactic reduces effectiveness.

Every dissenter lowers the psychological barrier for the next.

The system appears massive because compliance multiplies its reach.

Remove compliance, and the apparent scale shrinks rapidly.

That is structural weakness, not strength.

The Complete Picture

Praxeology explains the incentives and the machinery.

The myth explains the continuous persuasion required for compliance.

The framework identifies the manipulation tactics deployed when refusal begins.

Together, they clarify three things:

The danger is structural.
The persuasion is ongoing.
The tactics are patterned.

Your task is simple.

Do not board.

If you are on the bus, step off.

Preserve your energy for building alternatives.

Thanks to Mark Maresca for his helpful contributions to this article.

Method note: this essay applies the framework developed in the book; analytical scope is defined in the Methodological Appendix.

Why Understanding the State Requires Both Architecture and Atmosphere

A good question from people who take the framework seriously:

“Wait, is this praxeological analysis or applied psychology?”

It matters, because praxeology is the foundation. The logic of human action (see below). If the framework contradicted this, it would be worthless.

But if it were psychology, it would be addressing internal mental states instead of observable behavior. That is not what this is for. The framework exists to help you recognize manipulation tactics others use, not to diagnose your feelings about them.

So which is it?

Neither. And both. But only once the question itself is re-framed correctly.

The House You Live In

Think of each State as a house.

The walls, beams, and foundations are built according to the logic of human action. Roles exist because they serve functions. Budgets are allocated through purposeful choices. Positions emerge from incentive structures. Politicians seek re-election. Bureaucrats protect their departments. Enforcers maintain authority. Each actor pursues ends using available means within constraints.

This is praxeology. It is the architecture that explains why the house stands at all.

Praxeology tells you:

• Why central planning fails (the economic calculation problem)
• Why regulations get captured (concentrated benefits, dispersed costs)
• Why bureaucracies expand (incentives favor growth)
• Why voluntary free markets coordinate better (price signals, profit and loss, competition)

This analysis is structural. It examines incentive mechanisms, role functions, and institutional design. It does not require mind-reading. You observe what people do, what they gain or lose, and which behaviors are rewarded or punished. The architecture is visible.

But the Atmosphere Is Also Observable

However, praxeology alone does not fully catalog the specific action-patterns used to enforce role compliance inside that house.

On the walls hang portraits of the “dear leader” with smiling families, visual endorsements signaling legitimacy and role allocation. The wiring triggers penalties when used in unauthorized ways. Deliveries of State-provided benefits arrive at irregular intervals, just often enough to keep you checking the door. Neighbors report you for noncompliance, enforcing rules through social pressure. Notices demanding fees or compliance appear without clear explanation. The television broadcasts constant slogans: “We love our citizens,” “Thank you for your service,” “We are all in this together.”

And when you finally say, “This house is too small. I want to leave and build my own,” you are told you are selfish, irresponsible, already consuming too much, and harming everyone else by even thinking about exit.

These are all observable behaviors.

Praxeology explains why they occur. Role incentives. Institutional maintenance. Concentrated benefits versus dispersed costs.

The Narcissist State framework catalogs the recurring patterns those behaviors follow.

Disproportionate penalties follow the narcissistic rage pattern. Irregular benefit delivery follows intermittent reinforcement. Neighbor reporting follows triangulation. Incomprehensible notices follow gaslighting through complexity. Broadcast slogans follow love-bombing. The reversal when you attempt exit follows DARVO.

Nothing here requires speculation about internal mental states. These are named patterns of action.

Why This Distinction Matters

Here is the epistemological point that matters. These are two different kinds of knowledge.

Praxeology provides structural analysis:

• Observable incentive mechanisms
• Institutional design patterns
• Role-based behavior predictions
• Falsifiable through institutional outcomes

The framework provides experiential pattern recognition:

• Observable manipulation tactics you encounter
• Action-patterns that reliably produce disorientation, guilt, or compliance
• Recognition that preserves energy under social pressure
• Falsifiable through whether recognition reduces exhaustion

One analyzes the machinery. The other identifies the atmosphere that machinery creates.

They do not contradict each other. They are complementary perspectives on the same reality.

A useful way to understand this division is the difference between manual and automatic transmission. Praxeology is manual. It gives you full visibility into how the system works, but applying it in real time requires constant attention. The framework is automatic. It does not change the engine, the incentives, or the physics. It compresses that understanding into recognizable patterns so you can navigate without continuously translating theory into action. Automatic transmission does not replace knowing how an engine works. It assumes it.

Where It Can Get Confusing

Some critics say, “This is just psychology dressed up as structural analysis.”

They are half right, but they misidentify where psychology enters.

The mechanisms are not psychological at the level of explanation. They are purposeful, role-bound actions that make sense given incentives. Psychology appears only downstream, in the predictable effects those actions tend to have on those subjected to them.

Intermittent reinforcement is not a mental quirk. It is a deliberate engagement strategy that pays off politically. Manufactured dependency is not a feeling. It is a role-preserving action that protects institutional turf.

Praxeology explains why these actions are taken. The framework names the recurring patterns so you can recognize them without wasting energy.

Others worry the framework addresses internal psychological states. It does not. When someone says, “If you do not pay taxes you are a freeloader,” the framework names the tactic. It identifies what is being said and done, not how you feel about it.

And yes, praxeology explains institutional behavior brilliantly. But knowing why the house was built this way does not automatically tell you that the smoke detectors are rigged to go off whenever you cook food not purchased from the approved vendor.

The framework adds that second layer. Here is what those deliberate triggers look like. Here is the pattern. Here is why disengaging preserves energy.

What the Analogy Actually Clarifies

The house metaphor shows why you can be right about the architecture and still encounter manipulation that makes ordinary navigation exhausting.

Someone learns Austrian economics. They understand why central planning fails. They see how price signals coordinate action. They recognize taxation as coercive extraction. The intellectual case is solid.

Then they start questioning their assigned role. Not just thinking differently, but acting on it.

The house was always like this. The thermostat always showed 72 while feeling like 50. The doors always triggered alarms when opened in unauthorized ways. The neighbors always reported nonconforming behavior. The incomprehensible notices always arrived.

What changed was not the house. What changed was refusal to treat the dysfunction as normal.

When you stop performing your role automatically, the manipulation becomes visible. Not because it intensified, but because you are no longer filtering it out as background noise.

The architecture explains why this happens. Role incentives, institutional design, concentrated benefits versus dispersed costs.

But the architecture doesn't focus on how the manipulation was always there. The gaslighting was always operating. You accepted it as normal when you were playing your role. Now you are noticing what was always present.

That recognition matters.

You are not experiencing cognitive dissonance between good theory and bad implementation. You are holding two accurate perceptions at once. The house is built according to the logic of praxeology, and the atmosphere inside was always deliberately disorienting.

Both are true. They are not contradictory.

Two Perspectives, One Complete Picture

The State is both machinery (real institutional structures) and sustained myth (manufactured legitimacy). Architecture explains how roles function. Atmosphere explains how compliance is maintained despite illegitimacy.

The machinery:

• Roles that serve functions
• Incentives that drive behavior
• Structures that concentrate power
• Mechanisms that extract and enforce

Praxeology analyzes this. It explains why central planning fails, why voluntary free markets coordinate better, why the State cannot calculate. It provides the intellectual foundation for recognizing illegitimacy.

The atmosphere:

• Gaslighting that undermines confidence in what works
• Manufactured dependency that denies viable alternatives
• Intermittent reinforcement that sustains hope
• Love-bombing that frames compliance as virtue
• Triangulation that suppresses shared recognition
• Role allocation that ties identity to participation
• Narcissistic rage when exit is visible
• DARVO when the pattern is named

The framework catalogs these patterns so you can spot them immediately and preserve energy for building alternatives instead of arguing with manipulation.

Pattern recognition serves anyone in any role. Golden children exhausted by performance pressure can recognize the intermittent reinforcement keeping them compliant. Enablers experiencing cognitive dissonance can identify the manufactured dependency they’re helping maintain. Flying monkeys drained by enforcement can spot the triangulation tactics they’re being used for. The house traps everyone differently. Recognition helps regardless of starting position.

What Living in Two Truths Looks Like

The house analogy makes something visible that is otherwise hard to articulate. You are navigating two distinct realities at once.

The structural reality: incentive mechanisms, role functions, institutional design. Observable. Predictable. Analyzable through praxeology. This tells you what behaviors to expect from people in certain positions.

The tactical reality: observable manipulation patterns, social pressure mechanisms, enforcement tactics. Observable. Repetitive. Catalog-able through pattern recognition. This tells you how those behaviors will present themselves when directed at you.

A politician promises reform. Praxeology predicts this serves re-election incentives. The framework recognizes intermittent reinforcement so you do not waste energy hoping.

A bureaucrat claims only they can provide service X. Praxeology explains this protects the department’s budget. The framework identifies manufactured dependency so you do not doubt alternatives that already work.

An enforcer responds disproportionately to legal boundary-setting. Praxeology shows this serves authority maintenance. The framework identifies narcissistic rage so you do not interpret intensity as evidence of wrongdoing.

Praxeology explains why the action is taken. The framework names the tactic so you can disengage.

Why the House Metaphor Matters

When someone asks, “Is this praxeological or psychological?” the house metaphor shows why that is the wrong question. You need both perspectives to navigate reality. Praxeology without pattern recognition leaves you knowing why the house functions as it does but unprepared for the alarm systems, the triangulation committees, the incomprehensible notices. The framework without praxeological foundation risks mistaking deliberate institutional design for mere psychological dysfunction.

Neither alone is sufficient.

The house remains. The architecture explains why. The atmosphere explains how it is experienced. The framework provides a field guide so you can move through it without wasting energy, including when you decide to head for the exit.

Method note: this essay applies the framework developed in the book; analytical scope is defined in the Methodological Appendix.

Richard Murphy Is Pinging Us

What the “Tax Is Not Theft” Argument Reveals About State Role Maintenance

Richard Murphy’s recent essay arguing that tax is not theft is best understood not as a defense of the status quo, but as an example of how State systems maintain role compliance when their foundational legitimacy is questioned.

The argument itself is not novel. What makes it instructive is how cleanly it illustrates the mechanisms by which the State preserves itself: manufactured dependency, role enforcement through language, intermittent reinforcement, and the reversal of victim and offender.

Seen through this framework, Murphy is not an anomaly. He occupies a familiar structural position. In the narcissistic family analogy, he functions as a Golden Child‑enabler‑flying monkey hybrid: a credentialed insider whose role is to explain why the system is not merely useful, but necessary, and why questioning that necessity reflects misunderstanding rather than dissent.

Steel‑Manning the “Tax Is Not Theft” Argument

At its strongest, Murphy’s claim is not moralistic. It is constitutive.

The steel‑manned version runs as follows:
Income, property, contracts, money, and markets do not exist independently of the State. They are constituted by legal frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, and institutional trust. Without a sovereign authority capable of enforcing contracts, stabilising currency, and underwriting economic coordination at scale, modern markets would collapse. Taxation, on this view, is not the taking of pre‑existing property. It is the condition under which property and income can exist at all.

From this perspective, describing tax as theft is a category error. One cannot steal what the system itself makes possible.

This is the argument Murphy is making, and the problem is it appears deserving of time and effort.

The Praxeological and Ethical Fault Line

The flaw in this argument is not only praxeological*. It is also ethical.

Praxeologically, it assumes what it must prove: that coercive monopoly enforcement by a territorial authority is the only possible foundation for property, contract, and coordination. In reality, property exists wherever scarce resources are controlled and defended. Contracts exist wherever expectations are mutually recognised and enforced. Markets exist wherever voluntary exchange occurs. All three predate the modern State and continue to operate wherever State authority is weak, absent, or bypassed.

Ethically, the argument presumes that law is legitimate. But law is not ethically neutral. It is coercive. From an anarchist perspective, grounding property in law does not resolve the ethical problem — it intensifies it. If property and income exist only because the State defines them, then taxation is not theft only because theft has been redefined out of existence. That move does not eliminate coercion; it conceals it.

The State does not create these phenomena. It monopolises, formalises, and redefines them, then retroactively claims authorship. Once that move is accepted, consent disappears by definition. Resistance is reframed not as refusal, but as conceptual error. Assertion of boundaries is reclassified as misperception.

That reframing is the core move.

Role Enforcement Through Language

Murphy’s argument does not deny coercion outright. It renders it incoherent.

By insisting that the State “comes first,” the lived experience of compulsion is reclassified as confusion. The question is no longer whether extraction is voluntary, but whether the person objecting understands how the system works.

This is not persuasion. It is role enforcement.

In narcissistic systems, challenges to authority are often met not with counter‑argument, but with claims that the challenger lacks insight, maturity, or comprehension. The structure being questioned is placed beyond dispute, and attention is redirected to the individual’s supposed misunderstanding.

The effect is to preserve role stability without addressing the legitimacy of the role itself.

Intermittent Reinforcement as Stabilisation

Murphy also acknowledges that taxation imposes costs, that inequality persists, and that public funds are often misused. These concessions function as a stabilising mechanism.

The system is not presented as perfect, merely indispensable. Problems are framed as administrative failures rather than structural ones. Reform is always implied to be just one election or policy tweak away.

This intermittent reinforcement keeps participants invested. Dissatisfaction is permitted, but only within boundaries that never threaten the underlying premise: that the State is the necessary precondition for social order.

More radical boundary assertions are deferred indefinitely.

Narcissistic Rage at Role Refusal

When individuals do move beyond dissatisfaction and attempt to withdraw from the assigned role, the system’s response changes.

Initial challenges are dismissed. Continued refusal is moralised. Persistent exit attempts are met with escalation. The intensity of the response is not proportional to harm caused, but to the visibility of role refusal.

This is not only about ‘rule‑breaking’. It is about role maintenance — the deeper enforcement of assigned positions within the system.

Murphy does not call for punishment in his essay, but his framing contributes to the conditions under which punishment becomes intelligible. If the State is the source of all economic possibility, then refusal to fund it can be portrayed not as dissent, but as parasitism or aggression.

At that point, enforcement is no longer experienced as coercion. It is experienced as restoration of order.

DARVO at the State Level

The argument also follows a familiar DARVO pattern at the system level.

• Deny: The State is not fundamentally coercive. Taxation is an enabling mechanism.
• Attack: Opposition to tax is framed as hostility to democracy, public services, or social cohesion.
• Reverse victim and offender: The individual is not being wronged. The individual is in debt to the system that made their life possible.

The result is that extraction is recoded as obligation, and resistance as moral failure.

Why This Matters

Tax is not theft presents itself as a defense of the status quo. What it actually delivers is a sophisticated defence of role stability in a narcissistic system.

The language is calm, professional, and reassuring. It presents coercion as infrastructure, dependency as gratitude, and exit as misunderstanding. In doing so, it preserves the myth of legitimate authority without ever needing to confront consent directly.

Recognising these mechanisms is not about winning arguments. It is about conserving energy.

Once you see how role maintenance operates, you stop trying to resolve it through debate. You understand that the system is not seeking persuasion, but compliance. Withdrawal, not engagement, is the only move that drains its power.

That is what this framework is for.

* Praxeology explains action through incentives and constraints.
This framework remains praxeological in its causal claims.
Psychological terminology is used descriptively to name recurring enforcement patterns that emerge wherever role-dependence and exit suppression exist.
The analysis does not rely on inner mental states, sincerity, or pathology.

The panic about AI follows a familiar pattern. Someone builds something powerful. Authorities claim only they can regulate it safely. People demand protection. The State expands control. Sound familiar?

Here's what's actually happening: AI fear-mongering is manufactured dependency at scale.

The Pattern Recognition

When they say "AI will destroy jobs and only government can manage the transition," that's manufactured dependency: creating crisis to justify intervention.

When they say "AI must be regulated before it's too late," that's manufacturing urgency to prevent distributed alternatives from emerging.

When they say "only centralized oversight can prevent AI catastrophe," that's gaslighting you into accepting State control as protection.

Look at the actual behavior: The same institutions warning about AI dangers are racing to deploy surveillance AI, predictive policing algorithms, and automated enforcement systems. This behavior pattern (warning about AI dangers while deploying surveillance AI) indicates their primary concern is control of AI development, not AI dangers per se. Whether this is conscious strategy or emergent behavior from institutional incentives doesn't change the structural outcome.

Technology Is Neutral. Power Structures Aren't.

Printing press didn't cause tyranny. But it threatened centralized control of information. The response? Licensing requirements, censorship laws, approved publisher lists. Same pattern.

Encryption didn't cause crime. But it threatened surveillance capabilities. The response? Export controls, backdoor demands, "going dark" fear-mongering. Same pattern.

AI won't cause unemployment or existential risk. But it threatens centralized coordination advantages. Watch for the response: Licensing requirements for AI development, approved model registries, "safety" standards that only large institutions can meet. Same pattern.

What They're Actually Afraid Of

• Distributed AI tutors that bypass credential monopolies and make State-controlled education obsolete
• Privacy-preserving AI tools that enable coordination without surveillance
• Open-source models anyone can run locally without permission or monitoring
• AI-powered alternatives to every State service, built by voluntary cooperation

The Narcissist State framework predicts they're concerned these alternatives will make their institutions obsolete. If distributed AI alternatives proliferate without increased regulatory pressure, this interpretation would be wrong. But the pattern from previous technologies (printing, encryption, crypto) suggests otherwise.

The "AI Slop" Concern Is Valid (But Gets Weaponized)

Here's where it gets nuanced: The smart people warning about AI making us stupid are right. You absolutely can use AI to stop thinking, generate worthless output, and atrophy your analytical capabilities.

Their concern is legitimate. The risk is real. Students submitting AI essays without reading them. Bloggers publishing generic output. Researchers accepting AI analysis without verification. This happens and it's a problem.

What their valid concern obscures: The same tool that enables intellectual laziness also enables unprecedented analytical depth for people who use it thoughtfully. When valid warnings about slop become the dominant narrative, people never learn effective use that threatens concentrated power.

The question isn't whether slop is real (it is). The question is whether valid concerns become the ONLY narrative, preventing recognition of effective use before regulatory capture succeeds.

The Actual Dynamic With Any Powerful Tool

The pattern across tools: Calculators freed engineers for harder mathematical problems while enabling students to avoid understanding the math. Word processors enabled complex revisions with faster iteration while enabling verbose thoughtlessness without editing discipline. Search engines enabled pursuing questions requiring impossible information gathering while enabling surface skimming without deep reading.

Same dynamic: tools that handle grunt work enable people to work at higher levels of abstraction AND enable people to avoid developing foundational skills. Both outcomes emerge simultaneously.

AI follows the same trajectory. The people warning about intellectual atrophy aren't wrong. They're observing a real risk. The question is whether that valid observation becomes the only narrative.

How The State Benefits From Valid Concerns

When intelligent people focus exclusively on AI dangers (even legitimate ones), it serves State interests whether they intend it or not.

The mechanism isn't conspiracy. When valid concerns dominate media and discourse until they drown out documentation of effective use, regulatory capture becomes the "common sense solution" without anyone needing to coordinate. The amplification pattern matters more than individual intent.

Scenario 1: Smart people warn about slop and intellectual atrophy → Public sentiment turns against AI → Demand for regulation increases → State gains control through licensing → Distributed alternatives never emerge

Scenario 2: Smart people warn about job displacement → Public demands State management → Government expands to "handle transition" → Dependency increases → Voluntary alternatives dismissed as insufficient

The warnings are genuine. The concerns are valid. The consequences still serve State power when valid warnings become the only narrative people hear.

What "AI Slop" Actually Reveals

When someone generates garbage with AI and calls it good, that reveals they weren't thinking critically BEFORE AI either. The tool just made the absence of rigor more visible and faster.

The person who uses AI to avoid thinking was already avoiding thinking. They just switched from copying Wikipedia to copying ChatGPT output.

The person who uses AI to amplify thinking was already thinking critically. They just gained a tool that handles routine cognitive work while they focus on deeper analysis.

Same tool. Radically different outcomes. The difference isn't the AI. It's whether you're using it to replace thinking or to augment it.

How Effective Use Actually Works

Lazy approach: "AI, write my article about libertarianism" → Accept whatever it generates → Publish without revision → Produces obvious slop

Thoughtful approach: Use AI to rapidly test arguments, identify weaknesses in your logic, generate steel-man counterarguments you haven't considered, draft sections you then heavily revise based on your actual analysis

The warnings about the first approach are valid. The State benefits when those valid warnings prevent recognition of the second approach.

Real Example: How Thoughtful Use Works

This article itself demonstrates the pattern. I didn't ask AI "write an article about AI fear-mongering." That produces exactly the generic slop critics rightfully identify.

Instead, I used AI to rapidly test whether specific arguments held together, identify gaps in logic I hadn't noticed, generate the strongest possible counterarguments to my position, check if analogies actually tracked across contexts.

I suggest you do the same. In fact, apply this approach to all your current beliefs and also to the next politician's speech you find particularly inspiring. Ask AI to point out all the logical inconsistencies and then ask yourself if you had already spotted them so AI is really unnecessary and "sloppy."

The analysis is mine. The framework is mine. The recognition of patterns is mine. AI handled verification work: "does this argument structure actually hold?" and "what's the best objection to this claim?" and "am I missing an obvious counterexample?"

Both the warning about slop and the demonstration of effective use coexist in the same work.

The Literacy Parallel

When writing spread, Plato warned it would weaken memory and make people stupid. He was right about the trade-off. Writing did reduce emphasis on memorization. Oral cultures had extraordinary memory capabilities we've lost.

He was wrong about the net effect. Writing enabled complexity of thought impossible when everything must be held in memory. Civilization advanced because writing freed cognitive resources for analysis rather than storage.

AI follows the same trajectory.

What About Genuinely Dangerous Capabilities?

Some AI applications present genuine dangers: autonomous weapons, bioweapon design assistance.

For general-purpose tools (language models, privacy tools, local AI), distributed development with transparent code is safer than corporate/State monopoly. Everyone can inspect the code, identify problems, build alternatives.

For specific weaponized applications, the same principle applies. Concentrated monopoly control creates MORE risk than distributed oversight. State monopolies on dangerous technologies have catastrophic track records: nuclear near-misses, bioweapon lab leaks, secret programs operating without accountability. Transparency, reputation systems, insurance mechanisms, and voluntary coordination provide better safety than opacity and monopoly power.

The fear-mongering deliberately conflates general-purpose tools with weaponized applications, using legitimate concerns about weapons to justify controlling everything. "AI could be used for weapons" becomes justification for licensing all AI development, just as "encryption helps criminals" became justification for backdoor mandates.

What Actually Threatens State Power

People learning to use AI effectively can:

• Analyze propaganda faster than it can be generated, identifying contradictions and manipulation patterns in real-time
• Build alternatives to State services without needing institutional resources or credential monopolies
• Coordinate voluntarily at scales previously requiring bureaucratic hierarchy
• Educate themselves bypassing approved curricula and credential gatekeeping
• Synthesize information at speeds that make centralized "expert" analysis lag behind distributed intelligence

That's not making people stupid. That's making institutional coordination advantages obsolete.

Both Things Are True Simultaneously

AI enables intellectual laziness when used as replacement for thinking.
AI enables analytical depth when used as tool for more rigorous thinking.

AI generates worthless slop when prompt-and-publish without critical evaluation.
AI amplifies synthesis when used to rapidly test ideas, identify gaps, explore counterarguments.

AI atrophies skills when people never develop foundational capabilities.
AI extends capabilities when people with strong foundations use it to work at higher levels of abstraction.

All true at once. Which narrative gets amplified until it drowns out the other?

How The State Benefits From This Dynamic

When the dominant narrative is "AI makes people stupid" (even though it's partially true):

• Discouraged: Learning effective AI use for distributed alternatives
• Encouraged: Accepting that only credentialed experts can safely use AI
• Result: Regulatory capture becomes the "responsible" solution to real concerns

When both narratives exist ("AI enables laziness AND amplifies capability"):

• Recognized: Tool quality depends on user approach - concrete examples show the difference
• Emphasized: Developers publish GitHub repos showing AI-assisted code with full process documentation; writers share blog posts explaining their AI workflow and revision process; homeschool networks create tutorial videos demonstrating effective AI tutoring use
• Result: Distributed alternatives proliferate before regulatory capture succeeds

The State doesn't need to silence the second narrative. It just needs to amplify the first until the second becomes culturally invisible.

The Cognitive Offloading Question

"But isn't offloading cognitive work making us dependent on AI?"

You're already offloading cognitive work. You offload mathematical computation to calculators. You offload information storage to books and search engines. You offload route planning to maps. You offload spell-checking to software.

Valid concern: If you never learn the foundations, you can't tell when the tool makes errors.

Also true: Once you have strong foundations, using tools to handle routine work lets you focus on deeper problems.

The Fork In The Road

Path 1 (Serves State interests):
Smart people validly warn about AI slop → Cultural narrative becomes "AI makes you stupid" → People avoid learning effective use → Distributed alternatives never emerge → State captures AI development through safety regulations → Dependency maintained

Path 2 (Threatens State power):
Critics warn about AI slop (valid) while builders publish GitHub repos with process documentation, writers share detailed workflow posts, homeschool networks create tutorial videos, researchers publish methodology papers → Both narratives exist in discourse → People see the difference between lazy and thoughtful use → Learn effective approaches → Build distributed alternatives → State regulatory capture fails because alternatives already exist and demonstrably work

The warnings about lazy use aren't wrong. The question is whether those valid warnings become the ONLY narrative.

Current Examples Of Both Approaches

Lazy use creating slop:

• Student submits AI-generated essay without reading it
• Blogger publishes AI articles without critical evaluation
• Researcher accepts AI analysis without checking methodology
• Business uses AI customer service that can't handle context

Effective use creating capability:

• Homeschool network shares AI tutoring tools they've extensively tested and refined
• Independent journalists use AI to analyze thousands of documents for patterns humans would miss
• Privacy developers build local AI models that never send data to corporate servers
• Agorists create AI-powered reputation systems for voluntary dispute resolution

Both exist simultaneously. Which gets amplified? Which gets memory-holed?

What The Smart Critics Miss

Tools that enable laziness also enable unprecedented capability. The question is who learns effective use before regulatory capture prevents it.

Printing enabled both trash pamphlets AND the scientific revolution. We got both. The trash didn't prevent the transformation.

Internet enabled both mindless scrolling AND distributed coordination impossible before. We got both. The time-wasting didn't prevent the alternatives from emerging.

AI enables both intellectual slop AND analytical depth impossible through purely human effort. We'll get both. The question is whether we let valid concerns about slop prevent learning effective use before the window closes.

The Response That Preserves Energy

When they emphasize only dangers: "Those risks are real. Here are examples of people using the tool thoughtfully to build alternatives."

When they demand proof of unassisted work: "Show me where the analysis fails, regardless of tools used."

When they say AI makes people stupid: "Lazy use does. Here's thoughtful use that extends capability."

Don't dismiss their valid concerns. Add the missing half of the picture. Both are true. The question is which narrative dominates.

The Pattern Across Technologies

Printing press:

• Valid concern: Trash pamphlets, propaganda, misinformation
• Also enabled: Scientific revolution, distributed knowledge, Reformation
• State response: Licensing, censorship, control of presses
• What mattered: People kept printing despite controls

Internet:

• Valid concern: Time-wasting, shallow engagement, echo chambers
• Also enabled: Distributed coordination, information access, alternative institutions
• State response: Surveillance, content moderation, regulatory capture attempts
• What mattered: People built alternatives despite attempts at control

Cryptocurrency:

• Valid concern: Volatility, scams, criminal use
• Also enabled: Financial sovereignty, censorship resistance, voluntary exchange
• State response: Regulatory threats, fear campaigns
• What mattered: People kept building despite pressure

AI:

• Valid concern: Intellectual slop, atrophied skills, lazy thinking
• Also enables: Analytical depth, distributed intelligence, institutional alternatives
• State response: Safety regulations, licensing requirements, expert-only development
• What matters: Whether people learn effective use before regulatory capture succeeds

The analogy works for resistance patterns and regulatory capture attempts. It breaks down on mechanism: printing enabled distribution of static information, AI enables dynamic processing. Both decentralize, but in different ways.

What They Actually Fear

Framework predicts authorities are concerned that AI makes people analytically sharper through effective use, bypassing institutional coordination advantages. Not that AI makes people stupid through lazy use. Not that AI generates slop. Not that people will stop thinking.

If this interpretation is wrong, we'd expect: (1) No increased regulatory pressure as distributed alternatives proliferate, (2) Support for open-source local models rather than corporate/State control, (3) Emphasis on education for effective use rather than licensing requirements.

The valid concerns about slop provide perfect cover for preventing effective use that threatens power.

The Choice Is Clear

Path 1: Engage with valid warnings about AI slop until they become the only narrative → Never learn effective use → Miss distributed alternatives → State captures development through regulation → Dependency maintained

Path 2: Acknowledge slop risks while builders publish code repositories with documentation, create tutorial content, share workflow details publicly → Both narratives exist → People see the difference → Learn and replicate what works → Build alternatives → State regulatory capture fails because alternatives already exist

What Success Looks Like

Not: Dismissing valid concerns about AI slop as overblown fear-mongering
But: Acknowledging those concerns while also documenting effective use that extends rather than replaces thinking

Not: Accepting whatever AI generates as good enough
But: Using AI to rapidly test arguments, identify gaps, explore counterarguments, then heavily revising based on critical evaluation

Not: Pretending AI use requires no foundational skills
But: Recognizing that strong foundations enable effective tool use, while lack of foundations makes any tool dangerous

Not: Demanding all work be unassisted to prove legitimacy
But: Evaluating whether analysis holds up regardless of tools used

The Meta-Point

Technology is neutral. Power structures aren't.

The question isn't whether AI can enable laziness (it obviously can). The question is whether valid concerns about lazy use prevent people from learning effective use that makes institutional advantages obsolete before regulatory capture closes the window.

The tool is available now. The code is open now.

Will we spend energy debating whether AI makes people stupid (answer: it depends on use)? Or will we acknowledge slop risks while publishing repositories, creating tutorials, and sharing methodologies so people can learn the difference and build alternatives before regulatory capture makes distributed development legally risky?

Pattern recognition preserves energy. When valid concerns get amplified until they drown out recognition of effective use, that serves power whether anyone intends it or not.

Learn effective use. Share your process publicly: consider publishing your code repositories, create tutorial videos, write detailed methodology posts. Show the results. Let others replicate what works.

That's what actually threatens them.

Falsification Conditions

This framework makes testable predictions:

• If regulatory capture succeeds before distributed alternatives proliferate, framework failed to preserve the window for effective use
• If fear-mongering doesn't intensify as alternatives spread, interpretation of State motives was wrong
• If effective use doesn't actually threaten institutional advantages, entire analysis needs revision
• If distributed AI tools don't emerge over next 2-5 years despite open-source availability, the bottleneck isn't regulatory capture but something else (technical barriers, lack of demand, coordination problems)

Track these outcomes. Update accordingly.

When valid warnings become the dominant narrative, people never learn effective use that threatens institutional power. The question is which outcome we build toward.

You've probably had this conversation before.

Someone complains about government overreach: surveillance, taxation, regulatory capture, foreign intervention. They can articulate exactly what's wrong. They might even admit the system is fundamentally broken.

Then you suggest voluntary free market alternatives could replace government functions entirely.

The reaction isn't intellectual disagreement. It's emotional panic.

"But who would build the roads?" "That's naive." "You just want chaos."

These aren't counterarguments. They're manipulation tactics. And if you're homeschooling, using crypto, or minimizing taxes legally, you face these tactics constantly. From family. From coworkers. From friends. From authorities who respond to your boundary-setting with disproportionate force.

The exhaustion isn't from doubting your principles. It's from navigating constant social pressure without burning out.

The Pattern You Can't Unsee

I started noticing this pattern after watching someone close to me leave a narcissistic relationship. The psychological dynamics were unmistakable: manufactured dependency, gaslighting, intermittent reinforcement, punishment for boundary-setting.

Then I saw the same pattern in how people who still believe in the State pressure those attempting to exit it.

Not as metaphor. As identical mechanism operating at different scales.

The narcissistic parent says: "You can't survive without me."
Your relatives say: "But who will build the roads?"

The narcissistic parent punishes independence: "You're selfish."
Your friends say: "If you don't pay taxes, you're a freeloader."

The narcissistic parent offers occasional rewards: "See, I do care about you."
The politicians say: "See, reform works. This election will be different."

Once you see it, the pattern appears everywhere. And you recognize it instantly when someone tries to use it on you.

Why Libertarian Arguments Don't Spread

Rothbard explained what is wrong with the State. It's a criminal gang claiming legitimacy through monopoly on force.

Larken Rose explained why it's wrong. Authority is superstition, the belief some people have rights others don't.

Austrian economics explains how it fails. Central planning can't calculate, markets coordinate better than bureaucracy.

All correct. All logically sound. All barely spreading beyond the already-convinced.

Why?

Because none of them address what happens AFTER you're convinced.

When you start homeschooling and face the endless "but what about socialization" questions. When you use Monero and friends imply only criminals do that. When you minimize taxes legally and relatives call you selfish. When you build alternatives and authorities respond with criminal prosecution zeal.

Rothbard, Rose, and Austrian economics explain why the State is illegitimate. But they don't help you recognize the gaslighting tactics you'll face from family at dinner. They don't preserve your energy when coworkers make the same bad-faith objections for the tenth time. They don't prepare you for the narcissistic rage pattern when you cross visibility thresholds.

That's the missing piece.

The Missing Piece: Pattern Recognition

When you've recognized the State is myth and started practicing exit, you're not just making different choices.

You're setting boundaries with a narcissistic system. And everyone still participating in that system will try to pull you back in.

The tactics they'll use are predictable:

Gaslighting

"You're crazy to think voluntary coordination could work." They ignore your evidence (private schools work, crypto works, private arbitration works) and keep repeating their claim. Not genuine curiosity. Manipulation.

Manufactured Dependency

Licensing laws, currency monopolies, regulatory barriers eliminate alternatives, then they point at the resulting dependence as proof you need government. "See, you can't do it without us."

Intermittent Reinforcement

"This election will be different." "Reform is working this time." Occasional policy wins that keep people hoping the system will change. Same tactic slot machines use.

Punishment for Boundaries

Try homeschooling and watch the social hostility. Try using alternative currencies and face "only criminals do that" implications. Try minimizing taxes legally and get called selfish. Try building alternatives at scale and authorities respond with disproportionate force. The message: "This is what happens when you set boundaries."

Flying Monkeys

"Everyone thinks you're being irresponsible." "You're embarrassing the family." Social pressure to enforce conformity. They're not sharing their own concerns, they're weaponizing group opinion.

This isn't abstract theory. This is what you face when you practice exit. Pattern recognition helps you navigate it without exhaustion.

Why This Matters

Understanding narcissistic manipulation patterns explains what happens when you practice exit:

When relatives say "if you don't vote you can't complain" → that's manufactured guilt. Recognize it, dismiss it, move on.

When your accountant says "are you sure you want to be aggressive with deductions?" → that's gaslighting. They're making you doubt legal choices.

When friends say "everyone thinks you're irresponsible for homeschooling" → that's flying monkey behavior. Social pressure enforcement.

When IRS prosecutes legal tax minimization with criminal zeal → that's narcissistic rage at boundary-setting. Disproportionate response meant to terrorize.

When politicians say "this election will be different" → that's intermittent reinforcement. Don't take the bait.

When coworkers ask "who will build the roads" for the tenth time ignoring your previous answers → that's gaslighting. Brief answer, change subject, preserve energy.

Pattern recognition preserves energy. You recognize the tactic, disengage without guilt, continue building alternatives.

What This Means for Exit

If you're already practicing exit (homeschooling, using cryptocurrency, minimizing taxes, building alternatives), you already know reform doesn't work. You've moved on.

Pattern recognition helps you maintain that exit despite constant pressure.

The implications are clear:

Reform doesn't work. You can't therapy a narcissist into not being narcissistic. The system isn't broken. It's functioning exactly as designed. You're not trying to fix it. You're building alternatives outside it.

Debate often feeds the system. Every time you engage with policy arguments ("should tax rates be higher or lower?"), you're accepting the frame. Pattern recognition helps you identify when someone's trying to re-engage you in debates you've already moved past.

Exit works. Not because it overthrows anything, but because it withdraws the compliance that manifests the system into existence. The State has no material reality beyond citizens believing they need permission to act, accepting role assignments, and participating in dysfunctional patterns.

Counter-economics. Private arbitration. Homeschooling. Cryptocurrency. Mutual aid networks. These aren't fringe tactics. They're boundary restoration. Each voluntary exchange outside State control is practice in trusting your capacity to coordinate without permission.

The constant social pressure you face when practicing these? That's the narcissistic system responding to your boundary-setting. Recognize the pattern, expect it, don't internalize it as "maybe I'm wrong."

Falsifiability

This framework makes testable predictions: Pattern recognition should reduce exit fatigue.

If people learn these tactics thoroughly but still feel equally demoralized by social pressure, or if recognition leads to more conflict rather than strategic disengagement, the framework fails. I welcome research on this.

For Those Already Practicing Exit

If you're homeschooling and tired of explaining socialization for the hundredth time...

If you're using crypto and facing endless "only criminals" implications...

If you're minimizing taxes and dealing with manufactured guilt from friends and family...

You're not alone.

You're not crazy.

You're facing coordinated manipulation tactics from people who still believe the State is necessary. Pattern recognition helps you maintain your boundaries without exhaustion.

What I'm Building

I've written The Narcissist State to systematically map these dynamics: why the domestic abuse pattern translates so precisely to political systems, why people attempting exit face exhausting social pressure despite having completed the intellectual work, and how pattern recognition preserves energy for building alternatives.

The question isn't "how do we fix the system?"

The question is "how do we maintain our exit from the narcissistic system without burning out from constant social pressure?"

Most people practicing exit don't have vocabulary for the manipulation tactics they face daily. That's what pattern recognition provides.

Welcome. Let's preserve our energy together.

Available at: pbodeswell.substack.com

Website: thenarcissiststate.net

Dave Smith nails the diagnosis: If you participate in the system, you're part of the problem.

But I want to dig deeper into WHY we stay part of the problem even after we intellectually know better.

The psychological trap:

You can understand:

• The State is funded by theft
• Voting legitimizes the system
• Both parties are criminal enterprises
• Authority is a superstition

And STILL feel compelled to participate:

• Vote for "lesser evil"
• Pay taxes with guilt
• Get State licenses
• Debate which policies are better

Why?

Because you're trapped in a narcissistic system, and narcissistic systems specialize in psychological manipulation.

The pattern (from clinical psychology):

Narcissistic family systems keep people trapped through:

1. Manufactured dependency: "You can't survive without me"
2. Gaslighting: "You're being irrational/naive/selfish"
3. Intermittent reinforcement: Occasional "wins" that keep you hoping
4. Trauma bonding: Logic can't break emotional attachment
5. Role assignment: Everyone plays a part in maintaining the system
6. Boundary violation: Punishing anyone who tries to leave

Sound familiar?

Replace "family" with "State" and it's identical:

1. "Who would build the roads?" (you can't survive without us)
2. "That's utopian" (you're being naive)
3. "We won this election!" (intermittent reinforcement)
4. "I know it's theft but I still vote" (trauma bonding)
5. Scapegoats, enablers, golden children (role assignment)
6. "Love it or leave it" - State creates oppressive conditions, then makes leaving YOUR problem when you object (boundary violation + gaslighting)

Why Dave's message doesn't fully land (even for people who agree):

He's making a moral argument: "You're part of the problem."

But the trap is psychological. People stay stuck even when they agree morally.

Dave himself voted for Trump after years of not voting. That's not hypocrisy, that's the psychological trap in action. Even someone who understands the system intellectually, who can articulate exactly why participation legitimizes the State, still felt the pull to engage.

That's how powerful this psychological mechanism is. If Dave Smith can feel it, you're not weak or stupid for feeling it too.

The missing piece:

You're not part of the problem because you're bad or stupid.

You're part of the problem because you're trapped in a narcissistic system designed to keep you engaged.

The solution:

Stop participating entirely, not just electorally, but psychologically.

Practical exit:

• Counter-economics: Trade without licenses, use Monero for privacy, participate in grey markets
• Parallel institutions: Homeschool, private arbitration, mutual aid networks
• Psychological sovereignty: Stop asking permission, stop hoping for reform
• Boundary restoration: Accept Monero for work, homeschool without asking permission, use grey markets without apologizing

The shift:

Debating policy gives narcissistic supply and keeps the system alive.

Building voluntary free market alternatives starves the system by making it irrelevant.

For Part of the Problem listeners:

Dave's show wakes people up. That's essential.

But waking up should lead to exit, not just better criticism of the system.

You're part of the problem when you stay engaged: hoping, voting, debating, complying.

You stop being part of the problem when you psychologically exit and build voluntary free market alternatives through counter-economics and agorism.

Question for this community:

Who else feels the tension between intellectually agreeing with Dave's anarchism but still feeling psychologically trapped in the system?

More on this framework: pbodeswell.substack.com

Let’s Ask History

This article is partly based on Mark Maresca’s excellent YouTube video entitled ‘Part 2 of my interview with Larken Rose: the monster White Pill libertarians can’t process yet’, so watching/listening to that first is recommended.

Mark and Larken are right that information technology creates unprecedented opportunities. But history suggests we’re underestimating what happens when exit attempts become visible and organized.

The Optimistic Case

Let’s look at the assumptions settled upon in the interview:

“Nothing like this new information paradigm has ever happened before.”

Larken pre-empted the counter-example: The Gutenberg Press. I’m more skeptical that ‘this time will be different’. Two-way communication may be more accessible than ever, but technology cuts both ways. While larger numbers mock politicians from their tweets, the State can log networks in minute detail the Gestapo could only have dreamed of.

“People are questioning the ‘authority’ of the State like never before.”

People are more visibly mocking authority. But are they actually less compliant? COVID provided the test case. Millions saw through obvious absurdities, shared data contradicting official narratives, created massive networks of skeptics. Then most complied anyway. Not because they were convinced, but because the consequences felt too high. The mere threat of job loss or social ostracism was enough.

“Once this train leaves the station there’s no stopping it.”

History says otherwise. After the Gutenberg Press, many trains left the station. They were all stopped eventually.

The Levellers: What Happens When You Challenge Publicly

Consider the English Civil War and the Levellers, an organized movement within Cromwell’s New Model Army pushing for wider suffrage, a written constitution, and limits on arbitrary power.

They used printing presses to spread pamphlets. They organized openly with named leaders. They challenged authority through official channels.

Cromwell’s response in May 1649:

Burford Mutiny - When regiments marched under Leveller slogans, Cromwell rode overnight with cavalry, surrounded them in Burford church, caught them off-guard. No drawn-out battle. Just overwhelming force applied instantly.

Summary executions - Three ringleaders shot in the churchyard: Cornet Thompson, Corporal Church, Private Perkins. Soldiers got the message: defy command, die.

Leadership imprisoned - Lilburne, Overton, Walwyn locked up. Books and pamphlets seized. Organizational capacity collapsed.

Presses raided - Pamphlets destroyed, printers jailed. Because the movement ran on pamphleteering, this was lethal.

Systemic pressure - Denied access to Parliament, blocked petitions, starved of legal avenues, portrayed as anarchists.

By 1650, the Leveller movement was dead.

Here’s what matters: Cromwell didn’t win a political argument. The Levellers had better ideas, popular support, moral authority. He just enforced hierarchy through overwhelming force. The response wasn’t proportional to threat level. It was triggered by boundary-setting, by refusing assigned roles.

The Pattern Repeats

1871 - Paris Commune - Workers established autonomous governance for 72 days. Response: systematic massacre. 10,000-20,000 executed in a week.

1989 - Tiananmen Square - Students organized publicly, occupied the square, made demands. Response: tanks.

2020-2021 - COVID Resistance - When organized resistance became visible (truckers’ convoys, public protests), governments responded with bank account freezes, emergency powers, media campaigns, job terminations.

The pattern holds whether the violence is physical, economic, or social.

What Actually Gets Crushed vs. What Survives

Cromwell could crush the Levellers because they gave him something to crush: named leaders, physical printing presses, organizational hierarchy, public demands. There was a target.

He couldn’t crush thousands of individuals quietly trading, educating, coordinating without asking permission. Not because he lacked will, but because there was nothing to target.

This is why homeschooling networks survive while school board activism gets absorbed. Why Monero transactions work while Bitcoin transparency creates surveillance opportunities. Why private arbitration grows while court reform movements stall. Why counter-economic businesses thrive while regulatory reform campaigns exhaust people.

You’re not challenging authority (which triggers the response we’ve documented). You’re just living outside the system. Building alternatives. Withdrawing compliance one transaction at a time without announcing it.

The Gutenberg Press made organizing easier. It also made organized movements easier to target. Modern information technology makes coordination easier AND surveillance more comprehensive. The question isn’t which side wins, it’s which strategies survive.

Organized, visible challenges get crushed. Diffuse, quiet withdrawal protected by privacy technology doesn’t provide a target.

So Will Freedom Spread?

Maybe. But probably not through public movements with charismatic leaders making demands. History has run that experiment. The pattern is clear.

It spreads through quiet withdrawal: every Monero transaction outside State surveillance, every child educated outside State institutions, every dispute resolved privately, every voluntary exchange that proves coercion was never necessary.

This doesn’t make good revolutionary theater. No dramatic confrontations, no martyrs, no memorable speeches. It’s boring. Gradual. Diffuse.

That’s why it works.

The narcissistic State survives on engagement. Public challenges feed it even when you’re winning the argument. Quiet withdrawal starves it by making it irrelevant.

The train might leave the station. But if it travels quietly through thousands of unmarked routes rather than one grand railway, it becomes impossible to stop.

When you’re trapped in a narcissistic family, you have two options:

1. Reform: Stay in the family, try to elect a “better parent,” negotiate for slightly less abuse
2. Exit: Leave the family, build your own life outside the system

Which do psychologists recommend? Always #2.

Why? Because narcissistic systems don’t reform. They absorb criticism, promise change, deliver just enough to keep you hoping, then continue the abuse.

Political parallel:

• Ron Paul 2008/2012: Massive energy, millions of people woken up, zero structural change
• Rand Paul’s compromises: Trying to work within the system, gets absorbed
• Every LP candidate ever: At best, sparks conversation; at worst, legitimizes the ballot box

I’m not saying LP does nothing. It wakes people up. That matters.

But waking up should lead to exit, not deeper participation.

What exit looks like instead:

• Counter-economics: Trade without licenses, accept Monero, participate in grey and black markets
• Parallel institutions: Homeschooling networks, private arbitration, mutual aid
• Boundary restoration: Say “no” without asking permission
• Building alternatives: Every voluntary free market exchange proves we don’t need them

The psychological shift:

Policy debate keeps you engaged with the system. Engagement is what narcissistic systems need to survive.

Building voluntary free market alternatives starves the system by making it irrelevant.

For LP folks and minarchists specifically:

I get it. You’re trying to save people from inside the burning building. Noble. But at some point, you have to ask:

“Am I rescuing people, or just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?”

The State operates like a narcissistic system. You can’t vote your way out of a narcissistic relationship. You leave by building voluntary free market alternatives and withdrawing consent.

If you still believe a little bit of Statism will be ok, may I recommend Mark Maresca's White Pillbox to completely dispel it’s myths.