# How bad systems face conflicts with risks to their power

## Small opponents

Some people who witness these groups make it their personal agenda to destroy those systems. They'll [publish mass condemnation](stories-storytellers.md) of the group, gain [political](power-types.md) [power](power.md) to defeat them, and call attention to possible conspiracies.

A conspiracy is when two people or groups secretly try to do [evil](morality-evil.md) against a third. In that sense, *all* bad systems with *any* [intent](purpose.md) to destroy anyone are conspiring, and those people are often correct to draw attention to it.

APPLICATION: Many of the large-scale conspiracies are probably somewhat true. There's also not much an average person can do about it individually, but if they stand up for themselves they can frequently start a [trend](trends.md) across various [media](stories-storytellers.md), since most people *do* see it but are [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) to speak up about it.

Though it's not as common as the indirect approach, there are several ways an entity will destroy their opposition directly:

1. Take away their [power](power.md), in-system, often by demonetizing or [penalties](rules-methods.md)
2. Eject them from the group entirely
3. [attack them](people-conflicts-war.md) if they can successfully create another group

Leaders can also adapt [language](language.md) to represent the people paranoid about conspiracies as [fringe](trends.md) believers, then destroy their [credibility](image.md) in the process. In response, many of those people will often feed into their [fears](mind-feelings-fear.md) and reinforce unhealthy [bias](mind-bias.md) in their [stories](stories.md), further destroying their credibility.

Often, they'll be [portrayed](image.md) as the [martyrs of the trend](trends.md). This doesn't mean those people were necessarily [noble](morality.md), though. Those people were often [fairly](morality-justice.md) outmaneuvered by someone who out-succeeded them. Other times, they simply had a very confrontational [personality](personality.md) against *any* [authority figure](people-rules.md).

Smaller groups *do* have [options to fight back](people-conflicts-war.md), but require [creative](mind-creativity.md) and unconventional [risks](socialrisk.md) that often carry [unknown dangers](unknown.md), which typically can only succeed *outside* that large group's [influence](influence.md). And, even without direct control, large enough monopolies can usually find a way to make almost any activity profit them or prevent smaller opponents from succeeding.

A select few individuals can take a large-scale [social risk](socialrisk.md) against the bad system's purposes. By answering one of the bad system's [stated](image.md) [purposes](purpose.md) more effectively using recently developed [technology](technology.md) or [cross-cultural](people-culture.md) [understanding](understanding.md), that person can start a [trend](trends.md) that can unseat the current leaders' [power](power.md):

- North American colonists [fought](people-conflicts-war.md) and won against the British Empire by using Native Americans' guerilla warfare tactics.
- [Microsoft](computers-os-windows.md) sold a non-exclusive license to IBM, meaning other hardware companies could sell Microsoft software on cheaper hardware.
- [Military tactics](people-conflicts-war.md) *always* shift when a new [technology](technology.md) makes transporting things quicker or [safer](safety.md).

It's worth noting that the likelihood of any one of the smaller groups succeeding is infinitesimal. However, with enough of the hundreds or thousands of efforts, *someone* will succeed at their [risk-taking](socialrisk.md).

## Similar opponents

When exposed to a similar opponent, [all the principles of any other large-scale conflict apply](people-conflicts-war.md).

The only difference is that there is an unusually high amount of disloyalty from the members, meaning there are more inter-group conflicts than typical.

## Larger opponents

When another group legitimately *does* have more [power](power.md) than they do, the leadership will do one of two things:

1. Do nothing out of conceit that they are under no threat.
2. Recognize the threat and respond.

For the most part, the bad systems which survive will swear fealty to whatever greater power is present. This is a selfish attempt to [distort their appearance](image-distortion.md) as weaker than they really are.

Unfortunately, a bad system may be overtaken by a worse system, so a changing regime doesn't guarantee anything.