The deliberate exclusion of specific journalists, newspapers, media outlets, or other observers from political discussions, debates, and forums, designed to minimise scrutiny, accountability, and critical examination of policies, statements, and allegiances. Faraging operates as a mechanism of control, ensuring that dissenting perspectives are systematically marginalised and that public discourse is filtered through a narrowly sanctioned lens. By denying access to independent voices, this practice cultivates a self-reinforcing political echo chamber, erecting what might be described as a glass ceiling of concrete and steel: impenetrable, opaque, and unyielding. It generates a form of institutionalised tunnel vision in which ideas, criticisms, and alternative viewpoints are not merely overlooked but actively obstructed, thereby concentrating power, shaping narratives, and entrenching ideological conformity within the corridors of authority. In effect, Faraging transforms the public sphere into a curated environment where debate exists in form but is severely constrained in substance, creating a controlled theatre of political perception.
Person 1: "Did you catch Farage at Capitol Hill, comparing the UK’s 'free speech' to North Korea?"
Person 2: "Yeah, and Raskin didn’t hold back, calling him out for being a Trump sycophant, a fan of Putin, and also noted how he restricted media access during his visit. Basically, making sure critics couldn’t scrutinise him properly."
Person 1: "I suppose he just doesn’t enjoy answering awkward questions."
Person 2: "Or, more likely, he’s perfecting the art of Faraging, curating who gets to challenge him so no one sees the gaping holes in his own ideology. Comparing the UK to North Korea while quietly restricting free speech around yourself… that’s next-level irony."
Person 2: "Yeah, and Raskin didn’t hold back, calling him out for being a Trump sycophant, a fan of Putin, and also noted how he restricted media access during his visit. Basically, making sure critics couldn’t scrutinise him properly."
Person 1: "I suppose he just doesn’t enjoy answering awkward questions."
Person 2: "Or, more likely, he’s perfecting the art of Faraging, curating who gets to challenge him so no one sees the gaping holes in his own ideology. Comparing the UK to North Korea while quietly restricting free speech around yourself… that’s next-level irony."
by DemocracySold September 04, 2025
Get the Faraging mug.Populobotomy denotes a systemic process in which populist movements are rendered impervious to inconvenient truths, facts, or evidence that might challenge their incessant claims. It frequently operates as a top-down mechanism, whereby elites and powerful interests propagate falsehoods through carefully orchestrated, theatrical figures who act as intermediaries, transmitting these narratives to the grassroots. The effect is twofold: citizens are not only indoctrinated but also conditioned to disregard the pressing realities of contemporary society, the growing concentration of wealth among the elite, the widening socio-economic divide, and the emergence of what increasingly resembles a “Two Nation” state. Populobotomy is therefore more than mere rhetoric; it constitutes a deliberate cognitive and social architecture, employing spectacle, selective messaging, and performative politics to suspend critical awareness, secure the perpetuation of elite advantage, and obscure systemic inequities.
An illustrative example of Populobotomy is Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. While presenting himself as an anti-establishment advocate for “real people,” Farage has received extensive backing from elites, including Richard Tice (£1m), Fiona Cottrell (£750,000), Nick Candy and Holly Valance (£50,000), as well as donors with substantial interests in oil, finance, and offshore tax havens, amounting to nearly £5 million since 2023. Farage himself, the MP with the highest parliamentary funding over this period, has received close to £1 million. This top-down orchestration exemplifies Populobotomy: elites cultivate theatrical populist figures who disseminate narratives that obscure systemic inequities, conditioning citizens to disregard the growing concentration of wealth and the widening socio-economic divide.
by DemocracySold September 03, 2025
Get the Populobotomy mug.Impartial Capturing refers to a political condition in which the ostensible lines of ideological division are not merely blurred or skewed, but disregarded altogether. Most pronounced in the United States, where lobbying groups and political action committees finance candidates and policymakers across the full spectrum, it ensures bipartisan capture and near-total domination of policy. The arbitrary distinctions so often drawn between Republicans and Democrats become little more than stagecraft, designed to perpetuate the illusion of democratic choice while masking the deeper reality of systemic subservience to well-funded interests. Organisations such as AIPAC exemplify this mechanism, distributing influence across both parties to guarantee that their priorities remain unchallenged, irrespective of electoral outcomes. Though its clearest expression is found in America, variants of this phenomenon exist in other nations, where capital similarly transcends ideology to shape consensus, leaving the theatre of politics to obscure a predetermined order imposed by financial power.
In 2024, the U.S. military lobby spent about $151 million, spreading its influence across both parties. Defence contractors and their PACs donated approximately $43.5 million directly to candidates, with Democrats receiving roughly $19 million and Republicans $22.4 million. Lockheed Martin’s PAC split its funds 42% to Democrats and 58% to Republicans, while Raytheon gave 46% to Democrats and 54% to Republicans. This bipartisan distribution ensured industry priorities would be safeguarded regardless of electoral outcomes, a clear example of Impartial Capturing.
by DemocracySold September 03, 2025
Get the Impartial Capturing mug.The calculated practice of manufacturing or manipulating scarcity for the express purpose of exaggerating and sustaining the perceived value, desirability, or exclusivity of a commodity, service, or even an abstract idea. The term takes its name from the historical strategies of the De Beers diamond corporation, which successfully fostered a cultural and economic mythology of rarity around diamonds despite their relative geological abundance. In this sense, De Beering refers to any deliberate attempt to withhold supply, obscure availability, or construct a narrative of uniqueness that serves to elevate market prices and social prestige. It encapsulates a mode of economic and cultural engineering in which scarcity itself becomes the principal product, reshaping consumer behaviour, fuelling aspirational demand, and embedding the illusion of preciousness within the collective imagination.
A clear example of De Beering could be seen in 2022, when Shell capitalised on the lingering perception of oil scarcity in the wake of Covid-19. By maintaining the narrative of shortage despite stable reserves, the company achieved a record-breaking profit margin of around £40 billion, the highest in its history. This reflected not natural market conditions but the strategic engineering of scarcity to inflate value and consolidate shareholder wealth.
by DemocracySold September 04, 2025
Get the De Beering mug.A state in which the ideological boundaries between the Left and Right become so blurred and nuanced that they appear virtually indistinguishable, raising questions about whether any meaningful difference exists at all. In greyscaled politics, the stark contrasts of partisan identity give way to a subdued spectrum, where rival parties adopt overlapping policies, share comparable economic orthodoxies, and converge on issues once thought to mark their distinctiveness. This blurring of political colour not only diminishes the clarity of ideological choice for the electorate but also encourages cynicism, disillusionment, and the sense of a homogenised political class.
Person 1: "You know what I’ve started calling Labour these days? Blue Labour. They sound more like Conservatives every election."
Person 2: "Ha! And the Tories might as well be Red Tories the way they borrow old Labour slogans when it suits them."
Person 1: "Exactly. Half the time I can’t tell who’s meant to stand for what anymore."
Person 2: "That’s Greyscaled Politics for you, when the Left and the Right blur so much that all you’re left with is different shades of the same grey."
Person 2: "Ha! And the Tories might as well be Red Tories the way they borrow old Labour slogans when it suits them."
Person 1: "Exactly. Half the time I can’t tell who’s meant to stand for what anymore."
Person 2: "That’s Greyscaled Politics for you, when the Left and the Right blur so much that all you’re left with is different shades of the same grey."
by DemocracySold September 04, 2025
Get the Greyscaled Politics mug.A conceptual framework describing society divided into three hierarchical strata. The first, the Destitute, encompasses those living in chronic poverty and extreme social marginalisation, whose life prospects are severely constrained by systemic barriers. The second comprises the working and middle classes, who sustain the economy and civic life yet face limited opportunities for upward social mobility due to structural and institutional constraints. The third, the Ascendant Nation, represents the wealthy and powerful, who consolidate resources, influence, and control over societal institutions, shaping economic, political, and cultural systems to perpetuate and expand their dominance.
The stark contrast in economic fortunes highlights Three Nationism: between 2010 and 2021, within the UK, the wealthiest 1% of households increased their wealth thirty-onefold, while the rest of the population experienced Real Wage growth of merely 1–2%. This pronounced disparity underscores how the Ascendant Nation accumulates wealth and opportunity, leaving the working and middle classes, alongside the Destitute, enduring chronic poverty, confined within severely restricted channels of social and economic mobility.
by DemocracySold September 03, 2025
Get the Three Nationism mug.A condition in which the democratic will and collective welfare of the populace are subordinated to the entrenched influence of powerful conglomerates, multinational corporations, and strategically positioned non-governmental organisations. These entities, often acting as proxies for the geopolitical and economic priorities of their respective states, exercise disproportionate sway over the political process. In doing so, they erode civic freedoms, curtail liberties, and diminish the agency of ordinary citizens within the public sphere, replacing representative governance with a system governed by private interest, elite patronage, and institutional capture.
Person 1: “So what if 13 Cabinet ministers and 180 MPs have taken money from the pro-Israeli lobby? That is just politics as usual, isn’t it?”
Person 2: “No, that is the Tyranny of the Lobbyists/ Kleptocrats, when those in power serve the interests of wealthy lobbies instead of the people who elected them.”
Person 2: “No, that is the Tyranny of the Lobbyists/ Kleptocrats, when those in power serve the interests of wealthy lobbies instead of the people who elected them.”
by DemocracySold September 02, 2025
Get the Tyranny of the Lobbyists/ Kleptocrats mug.