I would like to know-really need to know-which of our Democratic leaders know this information, and if they do: What are they alerting the public about? Or when? Those of us who are rallying, marching, boycotting, letter writing and calling need to know this so that we can hold them accountable. Intelligent people can rally and chew gum at the same time. We need to get the word out.
It's slowly getting out there. Several journalists are following this gang (Curtis Yarvin is another tech-elite who has JD Vance's ear), and getting published in the corporate media. Gil Duran is really on it, as well as Jenny Cohn.
This private chat spaces are exactly the opposite from what onAir Networks will be launching in the next month.
OnAir is a next generation online commons, a ‘coalition-building’ software platform where stakeholders of all kinds come to contribute their knowledge, learn about and discuss issues of mutual interest, and collaborate on possible solutions.
How are the online private chats via Signal different qualitatively to the private conversations between policy makers which have gone on as long as politics itself? I don’t doubt you’ve hit on something hugely problematic but I’d like to understand more how and why this is a gear shift in the behaviour of politicians and not just a change in tech from f2f or telephone conversations to messaging via phone apps.
You’re absolutely right that private conversations among political actors have always existed. Backchannels, closed-door meetings, coordination outside the public eye—none of that is new.
What’s changed isn’t that private communication exists.
What’s changed is the infrastructure of governance itself is being privatized.
Signal chats aren’t just digital versions of closed-door meetings. They’re part of a systemic retreat from public accountability into deliberately unaccountable, encrypted coordination networks—where strategic decisions that shape the public square are formed with the intention of being undetectable and undebatable.
In the past, private meetings still fed into public processes—hearings, party platforms, press conferences, negotiated legislation. Now, Signal chats often aim to replace those processes entirely, substituting manufactured memetic consensus for democratic deliberation.
This is not just secrecy. It’s a theory of politics:
Let the elites coordinate in private, then flood the zone with “organic” opinion in public.
It collapses the boundary between influence and manipulation.
And when the people doing it also control the infrastructure (platforms, media, funding, narrative injection points), it becomes a new mode of sovereignty—technocratic, unaccountable, upstream from consent.
So yes, politicians have always had side conversations.
But they weren’t replacing the public square with vanishing messages and meme drops coordinated by billionaires who openly disdain democracy.
That’s the shift.
That’s the danger.
And that’s why I’m calling it Dark Matter. Not because it’s secret—but because its gravitational pull reshapes everything, even if you can’t see it.
I’m reminded of the Nazis who replicated all official government departments with Nazi party equivalents thereby sidelining entirely the state apparatus (which still existed as a powerless facade of government) in favour of parallel private government. The official government departments still existed and carried out duties but in an increasingly empty, meaningless and performative way. Real power had transferred entirely to the party, thus effectively privatising government.
I would like to know-really need to know-which of our Democratic leaders know this information, and if they do: What are they alerting the public about? Or when? Those of us who are rallying, marching, boycotting, letter writing and calling need to know this so that we can hold them accountable. Intelligent people can rally and chew gum at the same time. We need to get the word out.
It's slowly getting out there. Several journalists are following this gang (Curtis Yarvin is another tech-elite who has JD Vance's ear), and getting published in the corporate media. Gil Duran is really on it, as well as Jenny Cohn.
Thanks for this revealing article. I worry way more about the techno-autocrats trying to rule us all than I do trump.
This private chat spaces are exactly the opposite from what onAir Networks will be launching in the next month.
OnAir is a next generation online commons, a ‘coalition-building’ software platform where stakeholders of all kinds come to contribute their knowledge, learn about and discuss issues of mutual interest, and collaborate on possible solutions.
Here is a 2 minute video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl0dsXLIfIY&ab_channel=USonAirNetwork on the onAir platform and its first model network - US onAir and its 50 onAir state hubs.
That video is a year old and only has 144 views. Is OnAir in LaLaLand?
How are the online private chats via Signal different qualitatively to the private conversations between policy makers which have gone on as long as politics itself? I don’t doubt you’ve hit on something hugely problematic but I’d like to understand more how and why this is a gear shift in the behaviour of politicians and not just a change in tech from f2f or telephone conversations to messaging via phone apps.
You’re absolutely right that private conversations among political actors have always existed. Backchannels, closed-door meetings, coordination outside the public eye—none of that is new.
What’s changed isn’t that private communication exists.
What’s changed is the infrastructure of governance itself is being privatized.
Signal chats aren’t just digital versions of closed-door meetings. They’re part of a systemic retreat from public accountability into deliberately unaccountable, encrypted coordination networks—where strategic decisions that shape the public square are formed with the intention of being undetectable and undebatable.
In the past, private meetings still fed into public processes—hearings, party platforms, press conferences, negotiated legislation. Now, Signal chats often aim to replace those processes entirely, substituting manufactured memetic consensus for democratic deliberation.
This is not just secrecy. It’s a theory of politics:
Let the elites coordinate in private, then flood the zone with “organic” opinion in public.
It collapses the boundary between influence and manipulation.
And when the people doing it also control the infrastructure (platforms, media, funding, narrative injection points), it becomes a new mode of sovereignty—technocratic, unaccountable, upstream from consent.
So yes, politicians have always had side conversations.
But they weren’t replacing the public square with vanishing messages and meme drops coordinated by billionaires who openly disdain democracy.
That’s the shift.
That’s the danger.
And that’s why I’m calling it Dark Matter. Not because it’s secret—but because its gravitational pull reshapes everything, even if you can’t see it.
Cheers Mike! Thats brilliant. I really appreciate your time to explain it to me.
I’m reminded of the Nazis who replicated all official government departments with Nazi party equivalents thereby sidelining entirely the state apparatus (which still existed as a powerless facade of government) in favour of parallel private government. The official government departments still existed and carried out duties but in an increasingly empty, meaningless and performative way. Real power had transferred entirely to the party, thus effectively privatising government.
What an eye-opener this essay is. I’m learning so much here. Thank you.