How Elites Hijack Every Movement

The Assimilation of Threats

The primary mechanism by which elites hijack movements is the assimilation of anything remotely digestible into a monetised spectacle. Liberalism is highly effective at defanging and co-opting political opposition. For instance, Donald Trump's political trajectory is a definitive instance of succumbing to the Iron Law of Oligarchy, transitioning from a genuine threat to the regime to becoming part of it.

Historically, liberalism has assimilated radical left-wing politics, as demonstrated by the widespread commercialisation of Che Guevara merchandise. The radical right was once considered totally indigestible to liberalism, alongside religious fundamentalism, but liberalism has demonstrated an ability to co-opt the latter as well.

Ideology as Justification for Power

Ideology does not drive history; rather, it is used by elites to justify their pre-existing actions and exercise of power.

An ideology must be backed by power and must find itself in action. The actual decisions and actions that are made constitute the ideology working itself out in reality. For example, the ideology of the British Empire was not driven by a sudden embrace of laissez-faire or free trade, but rather these concepts served as convenient justifications for expanding power and control over smaller entities through trade relationships. When circumstances changed, the ruling power simply rediscovered protectionism and Keynesian policies.

This aligns with Pareto's views on political justification. Ideals do not drive history; instead, it is the will of men who move history. To assert that ideals drive history is deemed a fundamentally left-wing worldview, contrasting with the agentic worldview of elite theory where people, not structures or ideas, move things.

Failures in Seeking Alternative Political Formulas

When established moral narratives, such as the post-1945 moral narrative known as Post WW2 Consensus, collapse or lose legitimacy, a vacuum is created, leading to a search for a new political formula.

Various alternative political formulas have been proposed to replace the old Cold War formula, including Return to Tradition, Stop the Great Replacement, Clear Them Out, and America First. However, these formulas face fundamental real-world difficulties that preclude their feasibility as genuine replacements.

• America First:

This formula is problematic because it is slippery and easily redefined, shifting from an isolationist policy to a kind of neo-imperial concept, such as peace through strength. Analysed through an imperial lens, America First contrasts at odds with the myth of Rome, which historically allowed provincial powers a place at the hearth. Since America is fundamentally built on the Enlightenment and Liberalism, which are ultimately part of the problem, trying to preserve America ultimately means preserving liberalism.

• Return to Tradition:

The desire to return to tradition is often contradicted by revealed preference, such as the unwillingness of people to give up modern technology like smartphones, and attempts to re-enchant the world or adopt a pre-Enlightenment worldview currently terrify most people, who like Lot's wife would look back, and prefer to return to the modern world.

• Clear Them Out / Drain The Swamp:

This approach aims for a circulation of the elites, replacing current enemies with friends. However, this the difficulty is finding uncorrupted figures. The existing power structure is highly entrenched, and the regime is orders of magnitude better organised than any insurgency who seek to clear them out.

Such a revolution requires overcoming immense coordination problems, establishing patronage networks, and dealing with the retaliation of the security state and international fallout.

The Co-option of the Online Space

Online platforms, where ideas are generated, have become areas of interest to power networks. These networks actively seek to influence, infiltrate, and pay off individuals within these spaces, meaning that not all voices are truly independent.

Discourse generated in these online spaces functions as a surrogate activity or a form of entertainment in lieu of actual politics. This includes click chasing, serving donors, and feuds between content creators, all of which assimilate politics into a monetised spectacle.

Some actors within these spaces may not work for Liberalism itself but for external interests, such as Israel, who use the online right to secure support while viewing the liberal order as problematic.

The modern culture war, despite being a distraction, is also a danger to the regime. It reflects the return of oral culture, where literacy declines, and communication formats like live streams and reaction videos thrive.

This oral culture promotes an agonistic world of contention and fighting, giving audiences a taste for conflict and moving culture toward a more antagonistic nature. This escalating conflict continually requires management and bureaucratic control.

Conclusion

Elite hijacking of movements is a continuous process, where organisations inevitably turn into structures ruled by the few.

Elites use convenient ideologies to justify their power and action, and they assimilate threats by turning authentic political discourse into monetised spectacles.

Even apparent movements against the regime, like attempts to form new political formulas or online dissidence, are either fundamentally unviable or are absorbed and controlled by existing power structures, which continually attempt to manage the Overton Window to maintain order.

The continued escalation of antagonistic conflict online, however, represents a dynamic tension that makes governance increasingly challenging for the elites, as the internet has blown the window of contained discourse wide open.

This situation suggests that while control is pervasive, it requires constant management to prevent pent-up frustration from being mobilised.

The political world operates less like a grand debate of ideals and more like a never-ending economic cycle where the biggest corporations, or in this case, the most powerful and organised elites, simply reach for the most convenient justification on the shelf to maintain their dominance.