The transition is unlikely to happen without the system fighting back. To paraphrase the early 20th century activist, Antonio Gramsci, “When the old is dying, but the new has not been born yet, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” The first challenge in dealing with them is pinning down the system. The existing system is not one thing, nor even several discrete things. Some of its aspects are everywhere, and yet it is nowhere completely. It is partly physical and partly psychological – the latter permeating not only individual psychology but also the social zeitgeist, widely accepted ideas and beliefs.
To make all that manageable, we address here three major avenues through which the resistance to change is channelled: political/state agencies, the corporate and financial sector, and system-generated populism. This is not to say that all political and governmental institutions are bad, that the entire corporate and financial sector is rotten, or that every populist movement is malignant. Black-and-white thinking is itself a product of the system, and if we fall for it, we may lose potential allies in the worlds of politics, commerce, finance and popular movements. However, there is little doubt that a big part of the political and corporate worlds, as well as some populist movements, knowingly or unknowingly serve the system. Although these forces may appear at loggerheads on the surface, they are united in resisting evolution and preserving the status quo. Let’s consider how we can withstand such pressures and protect the change – and ourselves – from them.
Political/state agencies
We should clarify first that neither the government nor the state is the same as the system. Most governments must serve the system to some extent, as they don’t want to see it collapse during their tenure, but this is almost never black-and-white. Many good initiatives that can contribute to evolution are supported and even launched by the state, particularly in social democracies. For example, co-op and social enterprise incentives, green energy and recycling projects, protection of the commons (including oceans), investment in R&D, regulation of the financial and corporate sectors, and protection from the ‘tyranny of the majority’. We need to capitalise on that and try to reach out to those in charge through existing channels of communication. Contrary to popular belief, many people, especially at the local level, still enter politics for idealistic reasons and can be helpful in supporting constructive change.
We also need to continue engaging in existing political processes. A great number of people don’t vote because they believe that all politicians serve the system, so it doesn’t really matter who is at the helm. Even if this might be true to some extent, who is in charge still matters. For example, some leaders may be less obstructive to the creation of parallel structures, or their stewardship may buy us more time to prepare for what will come next. From that perspective, it is not so important whether they are ideologically on the left, right, or centre. What matters is who has a steadier hand. This is no longer about the direction of the runaway train but who will make the decline less damaging. Let’s take the US as an example. Indeed, there is not much difference in the overall direction if the Democratic or Republican party is in charge. However, putting an inexperienced and erratic president, such as Donald Trump, in charge reduces the chances of a soft landing manyfold.
That said, it is also true that the political apparatus tries to prevent or stall any changes that affect the (not always elected) ruling elite. And it is getting more sophisticated at that. It has learned that using force and overt aggression against dissidents and activists can backfire. A passive-aggressive approach is less conspicuous and can arguably be as effective. Here are some of its tactics:
Containing and ignoring: the biggest UK protest to date was against the Iraq invasion in 2003. Two million people throughout the country. Massive but peaceful. In response, the government that was planning the invasion did precisely nothing – it just ignored us. A similar tactic was used with the Occupy movement in 2008. An initial negative reaction was followed by the closing of eyes to the ‘settlements’. After a few months living in tents and receiving little attention, most protesters grew tired and left. The remaining few were easily dispersed following claims of drug use and the appearance of guns. These public displays are still useful, though, as they unite the opposition. Years after the Iraq protests, the question “Were you there?” would frequently pop up in casual conversations and if the answer was yes, a sense of bonding and comradeship would form straightaway. So, if this is your thing, carry on, but do not expect too much in the short term.
Marginalising is a tactic used for neutralising troublesome individuals. It consists of removing them from the system (e.g. making people lose their jobs and be unable to get another one, as in the infamous anti-communist witch-hunt in the US in the 1950s). The banality of invisibility and poverty can wear one down even more than torture. However, in the age of social media, nobody can be made totally invisible anymore, so make a noise if there is an attempt to quietly marginalise you.
Discrediting (smear campaigns): the system may try to find or invent something to turn public opinion against you. Jeremy Corbyn’s smear campaign was a stark example when the mainstream media and even some elements of his own party did everything they could to make certain that he would not win the election of 2019. To make this more difficult, no movement should be identified with an individual. Individuals may play an important role, but movement should be defined by its principles and aims. The system has the resources to sift through individuals’ pasts and always find something to smear them with. We cannot stop them from doing it, but we can stop them from using it to discredit the whole movement.
Surveillance: Your phone may be tapped, your internet activity monitored, or your conversations eavesdropped via your electronic devices. If this happens, do not let it feed your ego and sense of self-importance, and most importantly, do not get paranoid. These things are an inconvenience that might be used against you, but in themselves do not harm you.
These tactics are hardly avoidable and can be frustrating. However, we must not allow them to provoke us into ‘responding in kind’ or into giving up. In both cases, they win.
If you are also interested in the larger picture – how these social processes fit within the evolution and meaning of life as a whole, please visit thesynthesis.info
The corporate and financial sector
The business world has at its disposal enormous sums of money. For example, the leader of the UK far-right Reform Party, Nigel Farage, was given a ‘gift’ of £5 million from just one person residing in Thailand. This makes fighting the regressive elements within the business world hard – but not impossible. After the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland arrested implicated bankers, financiers and politicians and closed or nationalised some parts of its financial sector. The process was, overall, relatively painless. However, Iceland is a very small nation with a population the size of a large city. Making such radical changes in countries like the USA or the UK would be much harder and would have far-reaching consequences. Society and the corporate & financial sectors are, at the moment, co-dependent, so that any radical changes would come at a price. For example, if you succeed in undermining the financial sector, your parents may lose their pensions, or your mortgage may skyrocket. Weakening the corporate sector may lead to substantial job losses and turn the public against the move if there isn’t something else on offer in its place. This is why it is important to be selective and try to get at least some elements of these sectors on your side. Not all CEOs and bankers, or, for that matter, wealthy people, are necessarily resisting change and protecting the old system. It would be a lost opportunity not to give them a chance to join and contribute to this evolution.
In 1995, philanthropist Chuck Collins co-founded the non-profit advocacy group United for a Fair Economy. Later, he formed Wealth for the Common Good, which recently morphed into Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy individuals who advocate a tax system that serves regular Americans. Resource Generation (in the US) and Resource Justice (in the UK) are non-profits that work with wealthy people ages 18 to 35 to encourage them to devote a portion of their financial assets to social causes, including addressing economic divides between the haves and the have-nots and race- and gender-based discrimination. The organisation encourages members to think beyond quick fixes and focus on using their money to address the structural issues that cause inequalities.
However, a good part of these sectors will do everything possible to maintain the status quo and deflect responsibility for the damage inflicted on people and the environment. Ultimately, businesses depend on people, so they use various tactics to influence people’s minds in their own interests.
Countering propaganda: since the early 20th century, companies have invested heavily and developed sophisticated tools to manipulate the general public. Most of advertising since has not been about informing but titillating desires and emotions. Activists, of course, do not have nearly enough resources or time to match that, but there is another way to counter corporate propaganda. Digging deeper to expose the real motives can be both efficient and effective. For example, global institutions such as the UN and the WHO have been under sustained attack by some corporations for years. Peter Thiel, the head of infamous Palantir, in all seriousness, declared that the UN is Antichrist. This can be countered by revealing who benefits and how from undermining these organisations; in this case, these are corporations that see international cooperation as an obstacle to corporate globalisation.
Revealing the motives may not be enough, though. We also need to help people recognise the value of what the propaganda machine attacks. To reach the same audience, the response must be at the same level of complexity. Simplistic undermining requires simplistic responses; complex attacks, complex responses. For example, a response to slogans such as “Federal government/UN/EU will take your freedom away!’ could be “Only federal government/UN/EU can secure your freedom against corporate tyranny.” This may sound crude, but for a game of tic-tac-toe, a chess move would not do. Of course, you can refuse to engage, but if you are going to play, you need to make a tic-tac-toe move.
Pushing back against delay tactics: the corporations know that they do not have to win the argument about safety or environmental damage to prevail – they only have to keep the argument going. Uncertainty is often sufficient to placate customers, fend off government regulations, and deter lawsuits that might squeeze profits. Central to keeping an issue seemingly unresolved is making it appear that not all experts agree (climate change being the most prominent, but not the only, example). This involves funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking those that raise questions, placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies, and seeking to discredit scientists whose views differ from theirs. Finding an obscure piece of research that aligns with their goal is a gift to them because it suggests the scientific community is truly divided. Of course, it is important to hear both sides of an argument, but we cannot allow this to be used as a delaying tactic. We must not be fooled by demands for absolute certainty. There will always be some exceptions to the general trend that some try to capitalise on. Waiting until the damage is beyond any doubt is often too late. This is why we need to adopt and promote probabilistic thinking – aim for beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not a suggestion to promote what is most likely as if it were the absolute truth, which some have done. That usually backfires as it is a form of deception. The risks, the most likely causes, and the consequences need to be communicated clearly but accurately. You don’t need to discuss every piece of research or data thrown at you just to demonstrate that the evidence for what you are arguing is stronger than the evidence against, and therefore closer to the truth of the matter. If the other side insists, you can engage on a meta-level with something like: “Why does this research/paper/view weigh more than a hundred others concluding the opposite?” On rare occasions, there may be a meaningful answer to this, but usually it only reveals confirmation bias.
Raising awareness through Investigative journalism, for example, can have a big effect in informing, debunking and pre-bunking. To build reputation and trust (and avoid potentially lengthy and costly libel actions), every claim needs to be backed by evidence. Raising awareness does not need to be only about issues, but also about tactics. For example, a very popular one nowadays is projection. In 2026, US vice president JD Vance lectured Europe on free speech, even as the administration he served was decimating it in the US. He also went to Hungary with the intention of interfering in its election and used the platform to accuse the EU of interference. These kinds of projections are favoured because they combine defensive deflection and an attack. They are also so obvious that they leave critics speechless. A response such as “So and so is actually doing what he accused the other side of doing” lacks the same emotional punch. The best way to fight this is to raise awareness and understanding of this phenomenon, so that just invoking its name is sufficient to recognise what it is. Alternative names for projection are attribution, accusation in a mirror, and mirroring. We just hope one of them catches on.
Countering social engineering can be combined with the following actions:
- Direct action (strikes and other forms of protest) is most effective when targeting specific companies rather than whole sectors. This is why it is helpful to first locate the worst offender and focus energy on that one. If successful, others may follow suit to avoid the same risk.
- Petitions can put the spotlight on culprits. For example, in the UK, petitions with over 100,000 signatures are usually discussed in Parliament. In these, as in many other cases, targeting the weakest link first, rather than the whole chain, produces more effective results.
- Boycott campaigns rely on consumer power. They encourage consumers to vote with their wallets by not buying products from unethical companies (usually those that violate human rights, degrade the environment, or collaborate with states implicated in such violations). To be effective, accurate information must be provided about which products are associated with the target. The companies have become very good at deceiving or hiding the origins of their products.
- Divestment campaigns urge other companies and organisations, such as banks, charities, NGOs, schools, co-ops, local councils, churches, pension funds, and universities, to withdraw their investments from unethical businesses. Divestment may also involve withdrawing sponsorship or participation in sporting and cultural events. Divestment can be quite effective. It played a significant role in dismantling apartheid in South Africa. We can start by checking not only whether our workplace, pension fund, or bank is ethical, but also who they deal with.
- Sanctions campaigns pressure governments and governmental bodies to refrain from doing business, ban others from doing business, or impose punitive measures against rogue companies. This may also involve ending military trade and free trade agreements, as well as suspending membership in international bodies such as the UN and FIFA. However, states typically have double standards in this respect, so political pressure may be necessary to bring them on board. For more details about the last three, see https://bdsmovement.net.
System-generated populism
It may not be immediately obvious that populism can be generated by the system. For example, the nationalism of some populist movements may seem at odds with corporate-led globalisation. Closer inspection, however, shows that these two in fact support each other. Political fragmentation and the weakening of global institutions that nationalists desire suit multinational corporations perfectly well, as individual states are usually powerless to challenge them effectively. Some populists may scream and shout against refugees, but are conspicuously quiet about corporate internationalism and trade agreements negotiated in secrecy that weaken national sovereignty much more – and more profoundly. They may be against the ‘establishment’, the ‘political elite’, or ‘experts’, but this is not because they want to change the system – it is because they feel these groups don’t do enough to preserve it. But how does the system ‘create’ populism?
Late capitalism is fertile ground for the proliferation of certain psychological traits, notably wilful ignorance, selfishness, and arrogance. We should clarify that these terms are not meant as judgements but descriptors. In this case, we are breaking with a customary etiquette that dictates the use of more euphemistic terms because they best describe the kind of mentality that flourishes in neo-liberalism. Of course, the system did not invent these traits (they existed long before neo-liberalism), but it has nurtured and encouraged them. Donald Trump and his followers, who are almost religiously devoted because they recognise themselves in him, are a representative example. Let’s examine each more closely.
Wilful ignorance is encouraged because it is easier to control and is, therefore, less troublesome. Well-informed people are more likely to recognise issues and question the system. Wilful ignorance is embraced because it is effortless – highly valued feature in the consumer society. This is combined with the Dunning–Kruger effect, which, in short, means that the more ignorant someone is, the less capable or willing they are to realise the extent of their ignorance. They easily convince themselves that they know better than others, particularly experts (hence the proliferation of conspiracy theories). Trump is a good example: he maintains his belief that he knows best by simply ignoring his often staggering ignorance. Such a mentality treats knowledge, truth, and understanding strictly instrumentally, as a means to advance one’s agenda. Only evidence that confirms what one wants to believe is considered. If facts or reason are not aligned with it, too bad. This is why those who are captured by wilful ignorance are easily taken in by leaders who tell them what they want to hear, no matter how illusory it is.
Selfishness has been legitimised by a reductionist reading of Adam Smith since the beginning of capitalism, but in the neo-liberal stage, it has been made into a virtue: “what is good for everybody must be good for me” is replaced by “what is good for me must be good for everybody”. As above, selfishness is embraced because it is effortless – taking others into account requires effort. In this case, ethics and moral standards are treated only instrumentally, when they serve oneself; otherwise, they are ignored. Trump is again a good example: he feels moral outrage about exactly the same things he has been doing to others when he thinks he is on the receiving end. Selfishness, though, runs against our innate moral sense and creates cognitive dissonance. Even the obviously selfish people do not want to admit to themselves and others that they are. This is why they often justify their actions by appealing to something greater than themselves, usually the system itself (“This is how it works”), or a collective identity (“This is how we do it”). As selfishness is associated with the individual, they seek cover in numbers. The more selfish or self-centred they are, the more likely they will justify it by using ‘we’, ‘our great country’, or similar phrases. It doesn’t matter if the majority of the group they refer to do not share their views. What matters is to legitimise their narrowness. It is not surprising that ‘us against them’ tribalism is typical of such a mindset.
Arrogance is easily combined with the above two. The system encourages people to believe in their greatness without any basis. Many adverts end with “… because you deserve it.” Similarly, politicians use flattery around elections, just to ignore those ‘great’, ‘hard-working’, ‘deserving’ people until the next electoral cycle. As the above two, arrogance is embraced because it looks like an easy shortcut. Normally, people build their self-esteem by putting effort into achieving something. However, from early education onwards, the system encourages high self-esteem without effort, but this is only skin-deep. Low self-value remains, so more air needs to be added to keep the ego inflated. This is one of the reasons why such people do not target the powerful, but the weak and less fortunate. It is an easy way to make themselves feel superior, even if there is no basis for it. If they talk against the ‘elite’, this is not because they want a more egalitarian society, but because they aspire to be seen as the new ‘anti-elite elite’. They idealise successful people such as Elon Musk because it makes them feel they belong to a club they could never be part of. The more arrogant the person they put on a pedestal, the better. Needless to say, Trump epitomises it again.
What unites system-generated populists is not so much what they are for but what they are against; Trump used it to the maximum, speaking against the Democrats, immigrants, Mexicans, Muslims, China, global institutions, environmentalism, the mainstream media, wokeness, science, etc. They are very thin on their vision of the future and are either hostile to, or don’t see any point in, societal evolution or investing in their own growth. They hanker for ‘the good old days’ and mythologise the past (as implied in the slogan ‘Make America great again’). This is why such populism can be called regressive.
Regressive populism is highly dangerous, as it leads to social fragmentation and regression, which is the opposite of human society evolving towards greater social harmony and development. If that direction prevails, we may find ourselves in a worse place than we are now, looking back at this neo-liberal era with nostalgia (if we survive as a species at all). The system-generated populism can be seen as a group defence mechanism. Naturally, those who the system enabled to effortlessly feel good about themselves, do not want to let it go.
If this is the case, we can expect it to grow as the system declines. This is why it is essential to find constructive ways of engaging with populists and help them see that there are better alternatives. To determine the most effective ways of doing it, what they stand for may be less important than how they stand for it. On this basis, we distinguish three categories of populists: soft, hard, and extreme. As this is about how, rather than what, they do not necessarily coincide with soft, hard, and extreme views. Someone may harbour extremely regressive views but hold them lightly, while somebody can pursue a progressive agenda with fanatical zeal. We would consider the first soft populist and the second one an extreme populist.
Soft populists
They adopt populist ideas without much reflection, simply because these ideas have become part of the current trend. In other words, they go with the flow of the social dynamic. For example, they may take some slogans uncritically as truth just because they are frequently repeated in the media (e.g. anti-war demonstrations being called ‘hate marches’). It is worth engaging with soft populists irrespective of how far their views are from your own. However, they easily give up, so an approach that will motivate them to remain engaged in a discussion is required:
- A 2024 study found that talking to AI can reduce beliefs in conspiracy theories, while another suggested that using a chatbot could reduce scepticism about issues like climate change. This is because AI engages in a non-threatening and affirming dialogue, which makes people more relaxed and open. We can do the same. Make conversation enjoyable and self-affirming.
- Agree with people on what you can. Rather than challenging conclusions, tease out assumptions and the way the conclusions are reached. Instead of trying to prove them wrong, expand their views with alternatives. For example, if they believe that self-interest and competition are the only driving forces in human society, acknowledge the importance of these factors, and then invite them to consider the value of mutualism and cooperation.
- Rather than focusing on the worst, focus on the best in people. You may even explicitly distinguish them from hard or extreme populists by saying something like, “I can see you share some views with X, but you don’t like their methods”. Populist movements have a disproportionate impact because they gloss over subtler differences and, in doing so, appear to have a much broader appeal. For example, the populist Reform party in the UK gained broad appeal by tapping into people’s worries about immigration; however, they are coy about how they intend to resolve the issue because they know many of their supporters would disapprove of their methods. Highlighting that difference on one hand and building alternatives based on what you share with them on the other might lead to subtle but significant shifts in their perspective.
Hard populists
Hard populists are driven by short-term desires and emotions – usually fear (of the unknown) and insecurity. This needs to be borne in mind when engaging with hard populists: they find it difficult to keep an open mind, because they can’t tolerate uncertainty. Thinking style is black-and-white, with nuances ignored (essentially the inverse of the style described in Thinking Anew). Rather than relying on rational arguments, they use various forms of defensiveness, such as accusatory and emotional language. Here are some tips on how to engage with them:
- Research indicates that understanding the power of fear and helping people feel safe through the way the discussion is conducted can be highly effective. If they treat an interaction as a box match to win, you don’t have to. They may try to provoke you into that by creating an impression they are winning; don’t take the bait. They cannot win if you don’t play that game. Demonstrate that this is not the only game in town by talking to them differently.
- If they go low, switch to metatalk – “talking about talking”. For example, “I see you feel the need to interrupt when I am bringing facts.” It may be tempting to follow this with “… Are you afraid of them?” but that will make such people only more defensive. Let them draw a conclusion in the privacy of their own minds.
- If you are stuck, involve others (e.g. “What do you think about what so and so just said?”, “Do you find this jibe persuasive?” Bear in mind that it may be more important to win the hearts and minds of those involved than to win the argument.
Extreme populists
They are driven by hate and aggressiveness. Although they don’t necessarily know what they are angry about, they know that they are angry. They are set in their ways, no matter what, and do not engage with anybody outside their echo chamber except with hostility. They are not interested in a dialogue, but in getting a kick out of attacking others and emotional abuse. Attempting to talk to or even understand the extremists of this kind is usually a waste of time. It is better to try to isolate them. The only thing that should be made clear, over and over again, is that they do not represent the people, the nation, or anyone outside their circle. Even if they have thousands of followers, that is a drop in an ocean in a country of, say, 50 million people. So, we must say loudly that they do not speak or act in our name. Even if we agree with some of their views, we should distance ourselves if the ways of achieving them are not congruent with our values. No end justifies any means. Extreme populists should be left alone with the feeling that they are, indeed, alone. Like all bullies, they thrive on reactions and attention, so depriving them of these is the best response.
If you get worked up by their provocations, think about creative ways of using that energy for a good cause: for example, in a small German town, Wunsiedel, residents and businesses, fed up with extremists marching through it, ‘sponsored’ the participants of a march in what was dubbed Germany’s “most involuntary walkathon”. For every metre they walked, €10 went to a programme called EXIT Deutschland, which helps people escape extremist groups. Similarly, French charity Calais Action encourages supporters to donate whenever they spot trolls targeting refugees with online abuse, rather than simply getting upset by it. The funds raised are then used to support migrant relief projects. In both cases, the marchers and the trolls are made aware of their contributions through pedometers and ‘thank you’ messages that indicate how much money they have inadvertently helped raise.
Pressure tactics
We have already touched on intimidation and abuse in relevant sections, but some forms of harassment cut across the board and may require additional consideration.
Online harassment and intimidation
This kind of harassment started with genuine trolls who used it as an emotional outlet. By and large, such individuals can be ignored, as most of them fizzle out and move on to the next target when they hope to get more attention. However, digital intimidation has become a big industry with sponsored trolls and bots. They can be tenacious, so considering how to counter them may be useful. The best protection is, of course, to limit social media engagements if there are other ways to reach out and engage people. If this is unavoidable, we should bear this in mind:
Sponsored trolling consists of well-organised networks, financed and sometimes set up by political, corporate and other agencies. They are more sophisticated than spontaneous trolls and may even be difficult to recognise. These are some tell-tale signs: as they need to survey and engage with many messages, discussions and chats daily, their comments are usually brief and formulaic (you can find identical comments on different feeds and platforms by apparently different individuals). Also, they usually work in pairs, trying to create a mini echo chamber in a discussion by talking to each other. Do not be tempted to argue with them. Their main purpose is to provoke you into saying or writing something that can be used against you. Only engage to correct misinformation for others’ sake, but do not address them directly.
Bots: at the very basic level, a bot is a social media account which is pre-programmed to do stuff without real people having to do much. A botnet is a group of fake accounts that can tweet, like, and post together (hence some posts that just appeared have thousands of likes or shares). Commercial botnets can have tens of thousands of fake accounts. The use of such accounts has become more advanced with the introduction of AI. The idea is that sheer quantity will produce results even if the quality is low. They are mainly used to manipulate the public and spread disinformation. Using bots to get hashtags trending on Twitter (now X) is one of their most effective ways. A small group of people can create the impression of 20,000 to 40,000 tweets in an hour and push the relevant hashtag into the trending lists. For example, it was reported that close to half of Donald Trump’s followers are bots, used to boost his image. To identify a bot, watch out for four As:
- Activity: a hyperactive account (e.g. a few hundred thousand posts in a year)
- Anonymity: a cartoon or blurred image of one’s avatar and no meaningful bio
- Advert-like posts: if a post feels like an advert, it most likely is.
- Amplification: drumming up essentially the same message over and over again.
Learning to recognise bots and, if possible, ignore or block them is the best defence.
Cancel culture (populist trolling) is a form of social ostracism and public shaming often carried out by self-styled ‘activists’. It is supposed to act as a tool for accountability, but is often reduced to “online lynching” by mob mentality that denies individuals due process. It is deliberately toxic and erodes free speech, the plurality of views, and the chance of reaching common ground through dialogue. Cancel culture spans the political spectrum, though it often centres on specific issues. Those engaged don’t have the resources to sponsor trolls. Still, they usually have time on their hands and energy fuelled by ‘moral righteousness’, which, in their eyes, justifies falsehood, aggression and threats. In fact, ‘righteousness’ often covers another motivation. When asked why he was doing it, one of them responded, “Because I can.” This indicates that the real motivation is to experience a sense of power. Many reputations and careers were unjustly ruined for that reason. Obviously, the best way to protect oneself from this is to avoid social media altogether and let your good work speak for itself. A good example was Jeremy Corbyn, who endured relentless, orchestrated attacks by mainstream media, political establishment and online trolling when he was briefly the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. After he stepped down and was subsequently expelled from the party, he continued doing what he had always done – fighting for what he believed in and helping ordinary people in the community. In 2026, he was completely vindicated by revelations about the shadowy organisation Labour Together, which was working to destroy his reputation from within the party he led. However, all that may take time, so it is better not to give the trolls any ammunition:
- Be very careful what you post and say. Never post anything while ‘drunk’ on emotions or late at night. Write down what you feel strongly about, sleep on it, edit with a clear mind, and then post it.
- Avoid reading comments or posts about yourself, and if you must, don’t take the bait and engage with senders. Just block them.
- But how can we prevent these attacks from affecting others? Remember that nothing you do will make any difference to those who want to attack you or want to believe these attacks. It is only worth doing something for those who have not made up their mind. For them, make factual information available and easy to find. If asked publicly, you can respond with something like, “I don’t engage with nonsense; you can find all you want to know about me at…” If you feel you need to speak out, avoid denials as they usually don’t work. Affirmations ‘stick’ better than denials, so turn negative statements (e.g. “I never said that”, “I did not do that”) into positive ones (e.g. “I always maintained that…”, “I carry out my work with utmost integrity.”). If you must apologise, always be specific about what you are apologising for and remain strong.
The most important thing for remaining strong is to mentally prepare. It is only human that threats, abuse, and hypercritical comments, particularly if untrue or unfair, affect our well-being. After all, that’s their point. Do not assume that you are immune. Preparing may involve creating a psychological buffer or distance so that they can’t penetrate. Inoculate yourself by exposure in imagination (imagine reading such a comment while maintaining calm until it becomes natural). Last but not least, secure social support: discuss this eventuality with your family, friends, colleagues, and fellow activists, and what to do.
Verbal abuse (in person or online)
Verbal abuse can come in several forms: shouting, talking over somebody, using language that is meant to hurt, personal attacks, etc. It is used to shut the other person down or ‘win’ an argument when it cannot be won any other way. It betrays insecurity in themselves or their position. Verbal abuse can be a challenge because of our natural urge to respond in kind, but if we do so, we lose, even if we manage to shout louder. If we cannot or don’t want to remove ourselves from such interactions, a better response is again to move to the meta-level: we can acknowledge what’s happening by saying something like: “If you had a good argument, you wouldn’t need to resort to abuse.” If they continue with abuse, that will only prove your point further – not just to you, but to them, too.
Physical violence or threats of physical violence
It is a form of intimidation and abuse that you will hopefully never experience, but it needs to be mentioned. There are many parts of the world where this is still commonly practised by the state, extremists, and, in some cases, businesses. Even in places that are supposed to be protected by human rights charters (such as the ECHR), there are instances of resorting to or violently dealing with peaceful protesters and activists. If you do find yourself in such a situation, you may face a choice to either fight back or remove yourself from it. There is no shame or glory in either; you need to think, in a cool-headed way, which is the strategically better option for yourself and others. If you cannot do either, try to minimise the damage by protecting the head and neck (tuck your chin, raise your shoulders, and cover your head with your hands; if on the ground, curl into a foetal position). If you can, record the incident or signal somebody else to do so. What happens after is what really matters. You are not beaten if you get a broken bone; you are only beaten if you have a broken spirit. Rather than feeling sorry for yourself, get public, get support, get organised better and stand up again.
The most abhorrent cases are threats of violence not only against activists but also against their loved ones (parents, partners or children). One recent example (among many) is the experience of a brave and outspoken legal scholar, human rights expert, and United Nations Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese. All the above-mentioned pressure methods were used against her. In addition, her flat was illegally confiscated, her credit cards were cancelled by the US administration, and her husband lost his job. The only time she contemplated giving up was when she received anonymous calls threatening her daughter. She chose to carry on, but this must remain a personal decision for anybody who finds themselves in such a situation.
Needless to say, we should refrain from violence, unless in defence (of oneself or others). Violence breeds violence, and it does more damage to the cause or movement than it helps because, as a rule, far from winning hearts and minds, it turns people off. So-called passive resistance (non-violent action, non-cooperation, and civil disobedience) produces better long-term results.
Instead of a conclusion
We hope that when you finish reading, you will feel motivated to engage and contribute to social evolution. To keep the momentum, you can revisit practical suggestions in the area of your interest and, most importantly, get together with like-minded and even half-like-minded people. It doesn’t matter if you don’t agree on everything – leave fighting each other for later, after dealing with the greater challenge of setting the course of social evolution in a progressive direction and diverting it from destructive or regressive paths. Modern technologies make this easier. There are already many online or meet-up groups. If you can’t find a group that matches your interests, you can start one. Whatever you do, keep going – you are defeated only if you give up.
