The Sacred Illusion: The Cult of Democracy in the Age of Digital Oligarchy

In public rhetoric, democracy is a sacred temple of freedom — a stage where the sovereign people express their will through elections. But in reality, democracy is little more than a thin veil concealing the steel skeleton of monopolistic oligarchic domination. It is not a tool of popular self-governance, but a meticulously calibrated mechanism for the usurpation of legitimacy.

Oligarchy as the True Subject of Democracy

Modern democracy is a form of political existence in which the voter chooses between brands owned by various financial-industrial conglomerates. The oligarchs don’t just play by the rules — they write them. Their resources — financial, media, administrative, and coercive — turn “equal” democratic procedures into an uneven duel with no chance of victory for the people.

The Infrastructure of Domination: From Media to the Military

Oligarchs control the entire vertical of influence over politics and public consciousness:

Money — to set the agenda;
Media — to shape perception;
Political parties — as facade structures of "democracy";
Security forces — to protect the "monopoly order";
International backing — as a guarantee of recognition and stability.

When citizens are herded to the polls, they never choose their true representative — because those who might defend their interests are, in fact, delegates of oligarchic consensus.

The People as Ritual Extras

The right to vote in the hands of the people is a simulated act — a performance of “participation” where the script has long been written, and the leading roles assigned to hereditary privilege. Imagine a gladiatorial arena where an unarmed peasant is forced to fight a titanium-armored monster loaded with every possible weapon. “These are elections,” they tell us. But where is the people’s chance to win?

Electoral Absurdity and the Marketing of Elites

The people never vote for their own candidate — they vote for the one selected by corporate-financial groups (CFGs). Citizens do not form power — they legalize the rule preordained by the CFG lobby. All so-called “popular candidates” who fail to pass the oligarchic filter are simply excluded from the race. Getting on the ballot without big capital’s blessing is like appearing on TV without the approval of the “objectively neutral” editor-in-chief.

How Much Does Democracy Cost the People?

The price of democracy for the people is the illusion of choice — paid for with their own taxes. It’s a spectacle in which the citizen always plays the role of a background actor, applauding on cue. It’s a contract where the people sign away their real agency in exchange for the opportunity to donate their money to whichever CFG happens to be the most cunning at election time — and will send the largest number of “servants of the people” to parliament.

Media as the Primary Tool of Mass Hypnosis — or Why the People Love Their Cage

Imagine democracy without media — it’s like a theater without a prompter, costumes, or press in the VIP box: absurd. Media is not the “fourth estate.” It is the system’s first line of defense — its collective “front page of truth,” carefully purged of dissent and “harmful” viewpoints.

Television as Orwell’s Hearth

When the television speaks — the people fall silent. Not because they agree, but because they hear nothing else. Every channel — even the “independent,” grant-funded, or state-run ones — is in some way owned by specific oligarchs. Thus, “democracy” is filtered through the private interests of CFGs. The people are taught that truth is whatever fits into the editor’s budget, approved at a corporate meeting.

News anchors are the priests of the new cult. They recite mantras of inevitability: “There is no better candidate,” “They all steal, but at least this one gets things done,” “That’s just how the market works.” Media no longer convey reality — they replace it with absurdities tailored to the interests of their CFG owners.

The Pyramid of Consciousness Control

Oligarch → Media Holding → Editor → Scriptwriter → Anchor → Viewer

The outcome:

automatic support for “approved” candidates;
fear of “populists” (i.e., anyone outside the system);
fetishization of stability;
allergy to radical ideas;
and most crucially — total loss of critical thinking and the very notion that an alternative might exist.

YouTube, TikTok, Telegram: New Media, Same Masters

One of the great myths is that social media democratizes information. In reality, it monopolizes it. The auto-sorting algorithms of social platforms are the new censors. What trends is not what society needs — but what the platform (or its sponsors) wants.

So don’t be surprised when an “independent blogger” endorses a candidate who just happens to belong to the same CFG as the TV channel where he also appears — only now he’s wearing a hoodie and swearing a lot.

Media as a Department of Psychological Engineering

Today’s media is not a mirror of society — it is its photo editor. It doesn’t reflect reality; it retouches it, decorates it, or suppresses it. Media has become the engineer of a new type of citizen: not a thinking one, but a reactive one; not a political subject, but a media-driven reflex.

The “Beloved Enemy” Phenomenon

Mass consciousness craves catharsis, and democracy demands simplification. Hence emerges the favorite genre of all populist media: "Enemy No. 1 of the Week."

The closer we get to elections, the more enemies appear.
The worse everyday life gets, the more vivid the villain.

His features are formulaic:

a clear visual (mustache, necktie, or a dumb quote),
a scandal easy to broadcast,
and a catchy nickname (like “thief,” “communist,” “oligarch’s puppet,” “Kremlin agent,” or “Soros stooge” — depending on the media owner's political camp).

This enemy is not meant to be defeated — only to explain why you still have no money, no future, and no energy left to vote for anyone else. The most cynical part is that switching the cast of “enemies” doesn’t change anything — your income won’t increase either way. But realizing that would require the most basic analytical thinking. And who needs that in the age of reels and reaction emojis?

The Technology of Redirected Aggression

There’s nothing more convenient than channeling public anger away from the system and toward a conveniently chosen scapegoat.
Anger is vented via memes, talk shows, and comment threads — and then promptly extinguished.

The real aggressor — the system of oligarchic oppression — remains behind the scenes. It’s not just in the media. It is the media.

The Simulation of Pluralism

Televised democracy simulates “diversity of opinion” through debates, talk shows, and so-called experts. But the entire spectrum is just a performance of intra-system disputes.
They don’t argue about changing the rules — they argue about who gets to pick the referees.

The real menu looks something like this:

Channel 1: the banker’s candidate.
Channel 2: the construction tycoon’s candidate.
Channel 3: the banker’s candidate, but with a mustache.
TikTok: a “man of the people” candidate — whose music video was produced by a holding company owned by... the same banker.

Digital Equality as a Sophisticated Form of Political Segregation

When they say “electronic democracy,” don’t imagine an Athenian agora. Picture a corporate platform with cheerful animations, where your “right to choose” is reduced to clicking a checkbox.

Digitalizing politics doesn’t equal progress — it’s the onset of a new class hierarchy where your vote counts only as much as your number of verified accounts.
And whoever controls the system — and can generate a million verified accounts (or use “dead” ones to simulate fake engagement) — is effectively god of the system.

The Erasure of the Political Body

Digital democracy eliminates the core political entity: the citizen’s body.
You no longer need to gather.
No need to argue in the square.
No need to go to a polling station.
No need to look anyone in the eye.

They can deceive you without you ever leaving your couch.
And the oligarchs save a fortune on “street campaigns.”
Digitization saves money — for the elite.
Politics loses its physicality and turns into a fragment of UX design.

It’s no longer a democratic act of will — it’s a banner ad in an app:
“Support this candidate! Tap to Like.”

Digital Participation ≠ Political Equality

We’re told that digital tools make participation accessible. In reality, they:

filter participation by tech literacy,
exclude marginalized groups (the poor, elderly, rural),
and streamline behavior through the logic of “minimum effort.”

The result?
The electorate becomes not active, but efficiently passive.
No one needs to convince you anymore — just send a push notification:
“Your precinct officer reminds you: Time to vote! Here’s your candidate.”

The Algorithm as the New Aristocrat

In the old days, the right to vote required a property, education, or race-based qualification.
Now it’s algorithmic.

Your voice enters political discourse only if:

it pleases the content moderators,
it generates enough clicks,
it can be monetized,
it’s shared by “verified” accounts.

The algorithm doesn’t discriminate directly. It just doesn’t see anything outside of what it has defined as “relevant.” Thus, the political field shrinks to what is “trending,” “mainstream,” and — ironically — “non-political.”

The New Liberal Aristocracy

In the age of digital democracy, voting rights are no longer universal — they are conditional:
If you have internet access, a smartphone, a bank card, and digital ID — you're almost a citizen. If you don’t — then someone else will represent you. Namely, whoever controls the system.

And who might that be? Precisely:
The one who owns the platform, develops the app, administers the server, or simply holds the keys to the admin panel — and is willing to offer their services to a financial-industrial group (FIG).

Elections as Simulacrum of War — A Pseudo-Battle for Pseudo-Power

Modern elections are presented as a civilized war: ballots instead of swords, debates instead of battles, and “the will of the people” instead of defeat.
But in truth, it’s not war — it’s a mass reenactment of war. All the aesthetics, none of the stakes.

The Campaign as a Military Operation

Political campaigns aren’t fought — they are executed, like a special operation:

The campaign HQ = the general staff
The candidate = “commander of the people”
Messaging = psychological artillery
Polling = reconnaissance
Volunteers = infantry

And above all: any authentic, grassroots political movement is treated as a hostile guerrilla cell — to be discredited, demoralized, and destroyed before it mobilizes.

The Simulacrum of Combat

Everything looks real:

Debates = a theatrical duel
Polls = turf battles
Smear campaigns = cyberattacks

But there is no real fight — because the “enemies” aren’t rivals, they’re contractors. These are people who might dine together the same evening, regardless of how much “dirt” was thrown on air. Because they’re actors.

It’s like professional wrestling: they scream and bleed on stage, but the script is already written — and the championship belt has been forged in the bronze of investor interests.

The People as Spectators, Not Soldiers

In this “war,” the people are not participants — they’re the audience.
They’re shown heroes and traitors.
They’re thrown scraps of “social promises.”
They’re allowed to “choose” the winner — who has already been approved.

The people are not part of the political struggle.
They are spectators of a pseudo-war who bought a ticket to Netflix Democracy.

Democracy as the Religion of Capital

Democracy is no longer a system of governance — it is a ritual of belief.
It has its dogmas, sacred texts, priesthood, heresies, crusades, and its holiest sacrament: the election.

The Ballot as Holy Icon

Once every few years, a citizen receives a small piece of paper — a paper indulgence of participation. This is their sacred moment — not because it changes anything, but because they are told to believe it does.

Didn’t vote? Heretic.
Voted for the wrong one? Fool.
Voted “against all”? Blasphemer.

The Priests of Democracy

Media figures, political technologists, and liberal faculty professors form the priestly caste.
They interpret the will of the gods — i.e., the markets, international partners, and poll numbers.
They anoint messianic figures (“a new face!”) and crucify sinners (“populists!” “radicals!”).

Heresies and Anathemas

True religions have heretics.
So does democracy:

Those who demand direct democracy = demagogues
Those who call for revolution = extremists
Those who doubt democracy = enemies of the people

Censorship is repackaged as “the fight against disinformation.” Repression is reframed as “defending democracy from the enemies of democracy.”

A Temple Without a God
Democracy, as a religion, has everything — except one thing: the God of justice. He was expelled from the temple the moment financial elites appropriated the right to call themselves “society.” Now we pray to market gods who promise stability, prosperity, and real-time tracking of every citizen.

The Citizen as Data-Point — Sociology as a Tool of Surveillance and Control

In the 20th century, sociology was presented as a tool for understanding society.
In the 21st — as a mechanism for monitoring, predicting, and managing it.

The modern citizen is no longer a voice, a deed, or a position. He is a row in an Excel spreadsheet.

Democracy as an Interface for Managing Expectations

Polls, ratings, and focus groups are no longer feedback mechanisms — they are dashboards for mood management.
Politicians no longer listen to the people — they read dashboards.
The citizen is no longer a subject of democracy — he is a data point, a plotted dot in a sentiment graph.

Polling as Soft Control

Every public opinion poll serves two purposes:

To collect data — for internal strategy teams and media targeting;
To modify behavior — because people tend to vote for the “favorite.”

The rating is the new totem.
The voter doesn’t vote by conscience — he votes by statistics.
If “he’s not polling above the threshold,” then “he’s not worth the vote.”

This is not democracy. It’s a gamble, in which the main players have already seen the other side’s cards.

The Focus Group as New Political Philosophy

Political messages are no longer forged in manifestos — but in kitchen discussions during focus groups. There, technicians measure which emotion yields the highest conversion: fear, anger, or hope.

Politics becomes a product of A/B testing — where truth is irrelevant, and performance is everything. A focus group is not a consultation with the people. It’s a lab — where the people are dissected into target segments.

The Citizen Under the Great Sociological Eye

Every like, repost, search query, Telegram response — everything becomes data.
Sociology no longer asks. It already knows — even before you know — who you’ll vote for.

This is the new form of surveillance: Not dictatorship. Not control. But predictive correction of behavior.

From Citizen to Coordinate: Democracy in the Age of Metrics

Modern democracy no longer needs ideologies — only spreadsheets. In a time where political struggle is replaced by data competition, the citizen becomes a data point: a coordinate to be measured, predicted, and emotionally conditioned.

This isn’t freedom — it’s emotional analytics with electoral conversion.

Democracy as Dashboard: Who Are You in Google Sheets?

The people are no longer “the sovereign,” no longer “the power.”
They are a dashboard, read by campaign managers like scripture:

Age 18–34: unlikely to vote.
Region: Eastern — sensitive to security themes.
Emotion: fatigue — feed them a “reliable technocrat.”

Your worldview doesn’t matter. Only your position in the message consumption matrix does.

Polls as Instruments of Behavioral Conditioning

Sociology has ceased to be a “science of society.” It has become a weapon for shaping it.

Every “new poll”:

amplifies the favorite (herd effect),
demoralizes the outsider (threshold effect),
and is presented as fact — though in truth it’s a soft manipulation of expectations.

Polling statistics are the new form of censorship. They don’t prohibit — they disqualify by lowering perceived viability.

The Focus Group as Factory of Political Language

Politicians no longer write speeches — sociologists and copywriters do. Every term (“reform,” “values,” “European choice”) is a result of focus testing, not conviction.

Politics is no longer an idea debate — it's targeted content.

A slogan doesn’t need to convince — it needs to “land.” If it doesn’t land — test another.

Control Through Prediction: The End of Freedom by Numbers

The dictatorship of the future won’t shout. It will predict:

who will vote and for whom,
whom to trigger with “fear of war,”
whom to target via TikTok push-notifications with a “political vibe.”

Politicians no longer need to meet voters — they only need behavioral patterns. Model the reaction. Adjust for regional variables. Deploy.

The citizen becomes a behavioral formula. And democracy becomes a simulator of choice for a simulated mass.

Analytical Paradise, Political Hell

All that remains of the citizen in the electoral field is:

an ID in a database,
a history of actions,
a predicted response to “opinion leaders,”
and a mobilization score (low, medium, high).

He doesn’t vote — he reacts to triggers generated by campaign engineers. He doesn’t shape the agenda — he is programmed for responses. His voice doesn’t speak — it is calculated.

Freedom of Speech and the Right to Remain Silent — Silence as the Last Act of Resistance

In the sacred canon of democracy, freedom of speech is held as untouchable. But what is declared as "freedom" often functions in practice as an obligation to speak, to represent, to explain, to justify oneself. Worst of all — silence is no longer allowed.

Freedom of Speech as the Right to Say Only What’s Acceptable

The true meaning of free speech is not in expressing what is allowed, but in daring to say what is dangerous. Yet modern democracy has bubble-wrapped the public sphere — so no one gets offended, unsettled, or emotionally destabilized.

Freedom of speech has become:

a product (to be sold better),
an indulgence (for those “on our side”),
a whip (for those “outside the discourse”).

Screaming as the Norm, Silence as a Crime

In a world of endless content flow, silence is suspicious.
Didn’t comment on the trending crisis? — You’re with the enemy.
Didn’t condemn? — Accomplice.
Didn’t retweet? — “Silence is violence”.
Didn’t choose between two evils? — You’re sabotaging the democratic process.

Free speech has turned into a duty to participate in the great chorus of useful idiots, where silence is branded as a political deviation.

Toxic Speech as a Stabilizer of the System

Curiously, in this “freedom,” you're allowed to scream about anything — as long as it doesn’t question the structure itself:

Criticize a politician, but not the system;
Insult “the other side,” but never the divide itself;
Attack symbols, but never the foundation.

Thus the system simulates freedom — allowing storms, but only within a pre-approved weather pattern.

The Right to Remain Silent — The Last Sacred Right

Everyone speaks. But who listens? Everyone broadcasts. But what is left unsaid?

In a world where everyone holds a microphone, silence becomes radical:

a refusal to play the engagement game,
resistance to the algorithm demanding reaction,
a demonstrative abstention from voting in a simulation of choice.

The right to remain silent is not escapism. It’s a boycott of a language that has been commodified.

Conclusion: Media Inquisition and Freedom as a Form of Shame

Modern “freedom of speech” is a licensed right to speak — granted only to those willing to speak in the system’s language.

You may speak, but only on terms defined by:

the platform,
the sponsor,
the algorithm,
the moral consensus.

And while you remain silent, the world grows louder. But perhaps, it is in that silence that true meaning survives.

Because freedom is not parroting an approved narrative. Freedom is being heard in a world that only listens to system-approved voices.

Digital Liberalism as 21st-Century Feudalism

Classical liberalism offered total choice. Digital liberalism offers choice from a hidden menu, at prices someone else decided.

We now live in an age where liberal rhetoric masks not markets, but hierarchy; not freedom, but dependency; not competition, but feudal loyalty to digital lords.

Code Barons and Algorithmic Peasants

Feudalism has returned, only now:

Land = platforms,
Vassals = startups,
Peasants = users with EULAs.

Digital liberalism proclaims equality for all users — but in practice grants privileges in exchange for loyalty, subscription, likes, and repetition of the approved discourse.

Google, Meta, X, Amazon — these are not corporations. They are digital fiefdoms, with rights to legislate, to banish, to fine, and to enforce digital exile.

The New Knights: Influencers and Tech-Evangelists

Feudal lords never ruled alone — they had knights and chaplains. Today, they are:

Influencers — bearing ideological banners,
Tech-preachers — evangelizing the new gospel: “Everything will be DAO, NFT, and in our Metaverse!”

They call for “equal access,” but offer premium justice for $3000 — the digital nobility convincing the poor to pay for “equality.”

Digital Rent: The Core Mechanism of Power

In feudalism, the peasant owned no land — only paid for the right to exist on it.
In the 21st century, you own nothing:

not your account,
not your archive,
not even your time — all of it is monetized.

You don’t pay for service — you pay rent:

in money (subscriptions),
in attention (ads),
in soul (data).

New Dependencies: The Digital Oath of Allegiance

You, as a person, can no longer exist independently of “your” platform. Your portfolio, reputation, bank access, voter registration, even your contacts — all are tied to platform loyalty.

To leave = to disappear.
To switch = to lose “prestige.”
To be banned = social death.

This is not a market. This is feudalism, enforced with algorithmic punishments for “behavioral deviation.”

The Illusion of Market, the Fraud of Freedom

They tell you: “You have choice!”
In reality, you can either:

Unconditionally accept the terms, or
Refuse and become an exile.

Freedom is reduced to the right to choose your master.

You’re no longer a customer with expectations.
You are a digital serf, bound to your profile, e-mail, CRM, ecosystem.
And when you vote — it’s through a feudal account, under surveillance, without anonymity.

🔚 Epilogue: Your Digital Fief Is in Your Pocket

Your smartphone is no longer a gadget.
It is your digital oath of fealty.

Inside your pocket:

the landlord of your data,
the kingdom in which you are a serf with the right to pick an avatar and a pseudonym.

Links: sourcesourcesource