We Are the Propagandists Now

There is an ongoing debate over what is the "online right," and is it even a real thing? I would argue it is, and it's playing an important role in the shifting power dynamics of today.

91. We Are the Propagandists Now

Again and again you will hear that there is no such thing as the “dissident right,” or that the “online right” is not really a thing. It is something made up by people as a way to convince themselves that they can meaningfully engage online and that this has a real effect on politics. We are told that populism is not a thing. All this online stuff is just a way to allow you to blow off steam. It’s a form of containment. By expending yourself online, you are not engaged in violent revolution. From the regime perspective, this would be a good thing. Now, while I do accept the general premise of the circulation of elites as a driver of political change, there are examples of populist uprisings, such as that of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution discussed by

Charles Haywood

recently. In today’s situation, though, we are confronted with the reality that we don’t have an elite class in the true sense of the word. In many ways, our system is designed specifically to prevent the rise of a true elite, and to limit its impact on the governing system as a whole.

With the rise of managerialism, that is the near ubiquitous implementation and use of technocratic administrative systems, these systems replaced and bifurcated the role in society that the old elites used to occupy. One part of this societal role is made up by the managers and their systems and the other part is taken up by propaganda. It is this second role that the online, or dissident, right in it current form is attacking and attempting to undermine. It is important to see what is happening, because there is a real effort being made to effect a circulation of those wo are currently the propagandists, to first of all disrupt them, then to replace them. This struggle is both internal among the participants and external, directed at the those who who currently control the messaging regime.

What is meant by this? Jacques Ellul, in his seminal book Propaganda: the Formation of Men’s Attitudes, offers the insight that the technocratic administrative system developed and implemented over time by the merchant and managerial class, was designed to replace the older system of “persons as leaders.” This older power structure was instantiated in the form of a hereditary self-selecting elite who presided over society and managed its political affairs. This older way of doing things, relying on the skill and ability of individual leaders cultivated among this mostly closed class of people, was intentionally replaced with administrative systems.

When you rely on the ability of persons, they can vary widely in both ability and moral quality. So a system was put in place, a series of checks and balances and a whole regime of policies and procedures that dictated how people should do their jobs. The idea was to both raise the floor in terms of the quality of administrative work across the system, and create consistent outcomes regardless of the persons in power. “The system” and not the persons who staff it and maintain it becomes the real locus of power. This is part of what is meant when we say we are governed by the “rule of law.” We subject ourselves to a set of rules agreed upon by everyone — at least in theory — and not to the capricious whims of some tyrant. The “person as leader” was replaced by “the system.” We don’t so much have leaders anymore, as we have managers. They keep all the same language of leadership, but that is no longer their role. They don’t really lead, they manage.

This creates a problem for society, though. This leadership class, these old style “persons as leaders” played a decisive social role as its moral and spiritual tastemakers. This group decided the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and thought. They were the example. People would aspire to be like the elites. The role of the “elites” was bifurcated in the modern west, especially in America, into two groups of managers, those who operate “the system” and those who produce the propaganda, who manage “the narrative.” The propaganda now fills the function of teaching people about what things they are to aspire. What to believe, what to think, how to act, your goals in life, how you behave, what you desire, how you should look, and present yourself are all set for you by the propagandists. The people doing this work are as much a part of the managerial class as are the administrative managers. This class can produce very successful and wealthy people, and people will aspire to be like them, but they are not true “elites” in the classic sense. They are as much products of and governed by the system of propaganda as are the managers. We see this all the time with movie stars and billionaires who take to the microphones and go on social media to enunciate the current messages of the day. They play the role dictated to them.

In this bifurcated role, for a true “circulation of elites” to take place without destroying the entire system as we currently know it, you must seize and occupy both the administrative mechanisms and the ideological levers, that is, control the means of making propaganda. This is doubly important because power instantiates itself across the managerial system most effectively by the use of propaganda. You don’t have to exercise direct command and control when everyone in the managerial system is a true believer in the policies and more or less implements “the agenda” willingly across the entire distributed power network that is the administrative state writ large.

The new forms of social media communication now available through platforms like Twitter, YouTube, Substack, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and more have allowed dissident voices to undermine the hegemonic control that “the regime” has exercised over the messaging carried by “The Narrative.” It has become possible to disrupt the signal being sent out. It can be subverted, challenged and competing alternative narratives can pierce the consciousness of the general population, affecting how they think and act.

This battle is a two way struggle. It is generally directed against “the regime,” the entire power network that runs everything, and the messaging it uses allows itself the freedom to act politically in ways of its own choosing without interference from the general public. As this messaging control is eroded it constrains what the power players can do in terms of agenda. Sometime they will even find themselves reacting to messaging dictated to them by the counter-messaging of the online dissidents. There is also a struggle internally among the online right to gain prominence as it gains power and influence. Clout chasing and grifting are real. There is real money and power at stake here. So people will duke it out on the online right so as to position themselves as “leaders” in this messaging battle.

Has a true circulation of the elites take place in the arena of propaganda? Not by a long shot. But when the New York Times is interviewing Curtis Yarvin, you know something is happening:

So, what is going on? There is a segment of the media complex that controls the propaganda machine writ large, everything from news, to music, to Hollywood, to television and sports, that is no longer under control of “the regime” — And even though Trump won, “the regime” is very much still in place, as is the whole managerial system. Little has actually changed. This new player, the online dissident right, must be taken seriously now, though, as a power player. They cannot dismiss what is happening any longer. The old messaging is not working the way it once did. There is an alignment problem between the people and those who govern them. As we have recently discussed, the people want and need propaganda. So they are gravitating to newer voices that help them to explain and understand what is happening in the world around them. These new voices, the people are finding, better explain to them what is actually happening in their lives experientially. The new voices ease the psychic conflict by helping them understand things in a way the old narratives no longer could.

But we must be clear, we still live in a mass society and all of these new, disruptive platforms are a new form of mass media. So, we must acknowledge that we who claim a role on the online right, who desire to be one of these emerging dissident voices, that we are attempting to replace the current propagandists with ourselves now occupying that role of “the propagandist.” The online right may not be attempting to take down the whole regime, at least not yet. Rather, they are attempting the creation of a new set of dominant message shapers. They are not really themselves “elites,” as propaganda fills that role that the elites once occupied. But they, we, are trying to push aside the current crop of managers, replacing them with ourselves, directing “The Narrative” in ways we think will be beneficial for society.

Sponsorship Partners