Political theory has long searched for the origin of domination in the wrong places.
Some locate it in divine mandate, others in electoral legitimacy, ownership of land, capital, or weapons. These explanations differ in language, but they share a common assumption: that power is something created or possessed.

This text proposes a different claim.

Rule does not originate in creation, virtue, violence, or consent alone.
It emerges when actors monopolise the channels that connect people to resources, decisions, protection, and truth.

Domination is not a substance. It is a position.

Once this position is structurally secured, the occupant may appear indispensable, natural, or even benevolent. But the power itself lies not in the person or institution, but in the intermediary function they perform — and prevent others from bypassing.

An intermediary is any structure or actor that stands between social nodes and enables interaction between them.

Intermediation is not inherently exploitative. In many cases, it reduces transaction costs, improves coordination, and increases collective efficiency. Such intermediaries are functional.

The problem begins when intermediation becomes structural and irreplaceable.

We may distinguish two types:

1. Service Intermediaries

   • Lower coordination costs

   • Transparent in operation

   • Replaceable without systemic collapse

   • Revenue corresponds to contribution

2. Extractive Intermediaries

   • Monopolise access to essential channels

   • Manufacture dependency

   • Render exit prohibitively costly

   • Extract rents independent of contribution

An intermediary becomes extractive when it ceases to serve connection and instead controls passage.

All durable systems of rule operate by capturing one or more of four fundamental social channels.

The political channel connects individuals to collective decision-making.

Capture occurs when:

• Interpretation of rules is centralised

• Delegation is irreversible

• Participation is symbolic rather than operative

Formal procedures may remain intact, yet the ability to meaningfully affect outcomes becomes conditional on passing through a narrow interpretive gate.

Rule, in this configuration, is exercised not by issuing commands, but by deciding which interpretations count as legitimate.

The economic channel connects labour, resources, and exchange.

Capture manifests as:

• Monopolisation of production access

• Bottleneck control over markets

• Financial intermediation that appropriates time-value

Producers may retain nominal freedom, yet lack direct access to tools, markets, or capital flows. Value is created at the periphery and intercepted at the centre.

What is extracted is not merely surplus, but dependency itself.

The coercive channel connects communities to protection and self-defence.

Capture occurs when:

• Means of force are separated from production

• Command structures are vertically monopolised

• Loyalty is redirected toward abstractions rather than communities

Force becomes socially detached, returning not as protection but as regulation. The capacity to resist harm exists, yet is structurally unavailable to those who require it.

The informational channel connects individuals to visibility, memory, and shared reality.

In the contemporary context, capture includes:

• Control over distribution and amplification

• Algorithmic filtration of perception

• Asymmetric surveillance and data extraction

When intermediaries control both visibility and historical record, they gain the power not merely to influence opinion, but to define what is real, relevant, or forgotten.

The extraction of rent under intermediary rule follows a simple structural logic.

R = f (Monopoly × Necessity × Exit Cost)

• Monopoly determines exclusivity of access

• Necessity reflects how essential the channel is for survival or participation

• Exit Cost measures the feasibility of bypass

Where all three are high, extraction becomes durable and self-reinforcing.

Notably, extraction persists even when intermediaries perform poorly. Competence is not required once access itself is controlled.

Law does not eliminate intermediary rule; it conditions it.

Three abstract configurations recur historically:

1. Law Above Power

   • Rules constrain intermediaries

   • Interpretation is contestable

   • Channels remain open

2. Law as Instrument

   • Law stabilises intermediary positions

   • Informal rules supersede formal ones

   • Access depends on proximity to gatekeepers

3. Law as Display

   • Law functions symbolically

   • Enforcement is selective

   • Correction requires systemic rupture

As law descends through these configurations, intermediation shifts from regulated to absolute.

Intermediary domination does not survive solely through repression. It endures because it reshapes perception and coordination.

Five stabilising mechanisms are recurrent:

• Cognitive Habituation — domination becomes normal

• Fear of Coordination Failure — removal seems catastrophic

• Manufactured Dependency — skills and access are eroded

• Fragmentation of Producers — horizontal ties are weakened

• Opacity of Channels — extraction is obscured

Over time, the intermediary position is mistaken for social necessity itself.

Civilisations correct extractive intermediation not through replacement of rulers, but through restructuring connection.

This takes multiple forms:

• Recursive representation models that prevent delegation capture

• Cooperative ownership structures that reconnect labour and production

• Distributed resilience capacities embedded in communities

• Open protocol infrastructures enabling direct coordination

Examples of such infrastructures include distributed storage systems like IPFS and anonymity-preserving networks such as Tor Project, which reduce dependence on centralised informational gates.

The objective is not disorder, but removability.

Any structure claiming necessity must pass a simple test:

If this intermediary were removed, could society adapt through horizontal recomposition?

If collapse follows, two explanations are possible:

1. Genuine absence of collective capacity

2. Artificial obstruction of direct connection

Intermediary rule depends on ensuring the second explanation is mistaken for the first.

This theory does not call for the elimination of persons, institutions, or coordination.

It calls for the elimination of a position:

The structurally irreplaceable intermediary that extracts without creating.

Where channels are open, intermediaries become servants.
Where channels are monopolised, servants become rulers.

Civilisational progress is not measured by the virtue of those in power, but by the degree to which power can be bypassed.

When connection is direct, transparent, and replaceable, domination loses its foundation — not through confrontation, but through irrelevance.

This document is intended as a structural theory, not commentary on any specific polity or historical moment.
Its validity depends solely on observable patterns of channel capture and replaceability.

Permanent archival storage is recommended on immutable infrastructures such as Arweave to preserve interpretive integrity.

Political theory has long searched for the origin of domination in the wrong places.
Some locate it in divine mandate, others in electoral legitimacy, ownership of land, capital, or weapons. These explanations differ in language, but they share a common assumption: that power is something created or possessed.

This text proposes a different claim.

Rule does not originate in creation, virtue, violence, or consent alone.
It emerges when actors monopolise the channels that connect people to resources, decisions, protection, and truth.

Domination is not a substance. It is a position.

Once this position is structurally secured, the occupant may appear indispensable, natural, or even benevolent. But the power itself lies not in the person or institution, but in the intermediary function they perform — and prevent others from bypassing.

An intermediary is any structure or actor that stands between social nodes and enables interaction between them.

Intermediation is not inherently exploitative. In many cases, it reduces transaction costs, improves coordination, and increases collective efficiency. Such intermediaries are functional.

The problem begins when intermediation becomes structural and irreplaceable.

We may distinguish two types:

1. Service Intermediaries

   • Lower coordination costs

   • Transparent in operation

   • Replaceable without systemic collapse

   • Revenue corresponds to contribution

2. Extractive Intermediaries

   • Monopolise access to essential channels

   • Manufacture dependency

   • Render exit prohibitively costly

   • Extract rents independent of contribution

An intermediary becomes extractive when it ceases to serve connection and instead controls passage.

All durable systems of rule operate by capturing one or more of four fundamental social channels.

The political channel connects individuals to collective decision-making.

Capture occurs when:

• Interpretation of rules is centralised

• Delegation is irreversible

• Participation is symbolic rather than operative

Formal procedures may remain intact, yet the ability to meaningfully affect outcomes becomes conditional on passing through a narrow interpretive gate.

Rule, in this configuration, is exercised not by issuing commands, but by deciding which interpretations count as legitimate.

The economic channel connects labour, resources, and exchange.

Capture manifests as:

• Monopolisation of production access

• Bottleneck control over markets

• Financial intermediation that appropriates time-value

Producers may retain nominal freedom, yet lack direct access to tools, markets, or capital flows. Value is created at the periphery and intercepted at the centre.

What is extracted is not merely surplus, but dependency itself.

The coercive channel connects communities to protection and self-defence.

Capture occurs when:

• Means of force are separated from production

• Command structures are vertically monopolised

• Loyalty is redirected toward abstractions rather than communities

Force becomes socially detached, returning not as protection but as regulation. The capacity to resist harm exists, yet is structurally unavailable to those who require it.

The informational channel connects individuals to visibility, memory, and shared reality.

In the contemporary context, capture includes:

• Control over distribution and amplification

• Algorithmic filtration of perception

• Asymmetric surveillance and data extraction

When intermediaries control both visibility and historical record, they gain the power not merely to influence opinion, but to define what is real, relevant, or forgotten.

The extraction of rent under intermediary rule follows a simple structural logic.

R = f (Monopoly × Necessity × Exit Cost)

• Monopoly determines exclusivity of access

• Necessity reflects how essential the channel is for survival or participation

• Exit Cost measures the feasibility of bypass

Where all three are high, extraction becomes durable and self-reinforcing.

Notably, extraction persists even when intermediaries perform poorly. Competence is not required once access itself is controlled.

Law does not eliminate intermediary rule; it conditions it.

Three abstract configurations recur historically:

1. Law Above Power

   • Rules constrain intermediaries

   • Interpretation is contestable

   • Channels remain open

2. Law as Instrument

   • Law stabilises intermediary positions

   • Informal rules supersede formal ones

   • Access depends on proximity to gatekeepers

3. Law as Display

   • Law functions symbolically

   • Enforcement is selective

   • Correction requires systemic rupture

As law descends through these configurations, intermediation shifts from regulated to absolute.

Intermediary domination does not survive solely through repression. It endures because it reshapes perception and coordination.

Five stabilising mechanisms are recurrent:

• Cognitive Habituation — domination becomes normal

• Fear of Coordination Failure — removal seems catastrophic

• Manufactured Dependency — skills and access are eroded

• Fragmentation of Producers — horizontal ties are weakened

• Opacity of Channels — extraction is obscured

Over time, the intermediary position is mistaken for social necessity itself.

Civilisations correct extractive intermediation not through replacement of rulers, but through restructuring connection.

This takes multiple forms:

• Recursive representation models that prevent delegation capture

• Cooperative ownership structures that reconnect labour and production

• Distributed resilience capacities embedded in communities

• Open protocol infrastructures enabling direct coordination

Examples of such infrastructures include distributed storage systems like IPFS and anonymity-preserving networks such as Tor Project, which reduce dependence on centralised informational gates.

The objective is not disorder, but removability.

Any structure claiming necessity must pass a simple test:

If this intermediary were removed, could society adapt through horizontal recomposition?

If collapse follows, two explanations are possible:

1. Genuine absence of collective capacity

2. Artificial obstruction of direct connection

Intermediary rule depends on ensuring the second explanation is mistaken for the first.

This theory does not call for the elimination of persons, institutions, or coordination.

It calls for the elimination of a position:

The structurally irreplaceable intermediary that extracts without creating.

Where channels are open, intermediaries become servants.
Where channels are monopolised, servants become rulers.

Civilisational progress is not measured by the virtue of those in power, but by the degree to which power can be bypassed.

When connection is direct, transparent, and replaceable, domination loses its foundation — not through confrontation, but through irrelevance.

This document is intended as a structural theory, not commentary on any specific polity or historical moment.
Its validity depends solely on observable patterns of channel capture and replaceability.

Permanent archival storage is recommended on immutable infrastructures such as Arweave to preserve interpretive integrity.