jhnsn.xyz

Crack’n Their Code: How the Authoritarian Right Hides, Manipulates, and Profits in Plain Sight

J.D. Johnson

Rise of the “Centrist” Authoritarian

Let’s be real: The authoritarian right isn’t marching in jackboots anymore. They’re showing up in Patagonia vests, black wool coats, bleached teeth and calling themselves “centrists.” They pose as neutral observers, just ‘asking questions,’ while quietly dismantling democratic norms and laying the groundwork for a full-scale power grab.

This is happening in real time. I recently had a conversation with one of these so-called centrists, and it played out like a textbook case study. This guy wasn’t shouting conspiracy theories from the rooftops—he was smooth, seemingly reasonable, and just skeptical enough to sound fair-minded. But the deeper we went, the clearer it became that he wasn’t engaging in honest debate— He was running interference for the authoritarian right.

Exposing the authoritarian playbook—before it dismantles us.

Institutions don’t just disappear—they’re hollowed out, repurposed, and weaponized. What once held power and purpose is left as a shell, waiting for the next authoritarian to claim it. photo by J.D. Johnson

Step 1. Deflection from the Core Issue(s)

The Move: When confronted with a clear democratic crisis— Dodge. Deflect. Distract. Say anything but never answer the actual question. Talk about government inefficiency, bureaucratic bloat, anything but the actual issue at hand.

The Conversation…

The following is a direct transcript from a conversation on Signal Messenger. Names have been replaced with pronouns for anonymity.

Me: “Hey man, what do you think about Elon Musk’s DOGE team gaining unauthorized access to government systems?”

Him: “It’s been interesting. I think the real dirt will take a long time to uncover. Having been in political organizations, I’m familiar with the type of misspending that they’re going after – but I also know how hard it is to really change things. Without systemic change and accountability (the very thing the people who run things don’t want – meaning Congress) I can’t see any lasting change. Best case is probably a temporary reduction in bloat.

There will be cuts that are too deep – that always happens when companies do the same thing. And there will be some bad PR because of that.

I’d be concerned that the DOGE folks piss off the wrong people and have an “accident”.

They’re dealing with people that regularly over throw governments…

I wise man would remember that…

I’ve done a lot of turnaround work – which is essentially a prioritization exercise. The changes we make are rarely sustainable after I leave. There’s too much human nature towards politicing.

I’m actually more interested in the declassifying of stuff. The MLK stuff was pretty damning. Decentralizing the FBI could be interesting as well – especially if there’s more declassifying of their domestic operations.”

The Impact: See what happened? He dodged the question, reframing a security breach as a ‘business decision’ instead of an obvious abuse of power. Rebranding a blatant power grab as ‘corporate restructuring’ is how autocrats make their moves in plain sight.

Step 2. “Whataboutism” and False Equivalence

The Move: When backed into a corner, pivot hard. Turn the discussion into a broader, unrelated grievance, preferably something vaguely anti-government.

The Conversation…

Me: “Interesting take. Are you concerned with the consequences to U.S. Democracy or the erosion of democratic norms? Vis a vis, DOGE personnel accessing classified information at the U.S. Agency for International Development without proper security clearances as well as the U.S. Treasury’s federal payment system, along with incoming senior officials in Trump’s administration questioning career civil servants at the White House National Security Council about their political loyalties?”

Him: “Well, I think the idea of career civil servants is just a PR message told by people that want to deflect accountability.
It’s a job, they get paid for it.


The exception would be those that put their lives on the line – military, police, fire. Those are servants – every other role is just a job. It’s no more noble than working at Starbucks, Amazon, or McDonald’s. It’s just a job, the employer doesn’t make it more righteous.

There’s a danger that certain classified information could get out but I think there’s a greater danger that declaring something classified to hide misdeeds is a greater risk. I’m all for shining the light into the darkness.”

The Impact: He completely ignored the security breach and instead tried to make government employees sound like disposable baristas. Then he flipped the conversation to over-classification—an unrelated but juicy enough controversy to send the discussion chasing its own tail. It’s a bait-and-switch—reframing a national security breach as a petty HR complaint about ‘government inefficiency.’

Step 3. Tactical Agreement with a Hidden Poison Pill

The Move: Pretend to agree—then slide in a caveat that completely undercuts the point.

The Conversation…

Me: “That’s a fair amount of deflection dude, but let’s go with it… I think there’s a misunderstanding about what career civil servants actually do. These aren’t just random people with office jobs like you’re implying—they’re professionals who serve across multiple administrations, they keep things running no matter who’s in power. They take an oath to the Constitution, not to a political party, which is kind of the whole point of having a stable government.  

And security clearances exist for a reason. It’s not just bureaucratic BS—it’s about protecting national security. If  anyone can access classified information without being properly vetted, that’s a huge risk. Over-classification is a problem, but you don’t just throw open the doors and let unvetted people poke around. Some information—like military and intelligence operations, diplomatic negotiations, Treasury department data—needs to be protected because lives are at risk.  

And questioning career officials about their political loyalty is dangerous territory. Government employees aren’t supposed to be party loyalists; they’re there to serve the country, regardless of who’s in office. Turning government jobs into political loyalty tests is how you end up with a corrupt patronage system where only the politically favored get to stay. That’s the kind of thing that weakens democracy, not strengthens it.  

If we want real accountability in government, the answer isn’t to throw out security protocols and purge experienced officials—it’s to have strong oversight through Congress, inspectors general, and whistleblower protections. Otherwise, we’re just opening the door for more corruption and chaos.”

Him: “I agree with almost everything you said there. And I agree that loyalty to party tests are bad. However, what I’ve seen is a re-definition of the core philosophies behind the Constitution to the point that an oath means very little since even the basic definition of what the Constitution means has become high subjective.

If we had a firm and agreed upon definition of what defending the Constitution means, I would find an oath to defend it more meaningful.

Personally, for me, someone could only be considered a civil servant if they were willing to put aside self interest. This is more easily defined in places where their lives are visibly on the line. However, it should also include being barred from future employment at the companies that they are charged with regulating.

I really don’t think there’s any grounds for calling something service without sacrifice. Don’t you think that’s fair?

I also agree that security clearances are important. However, I’ve also seen branches of government use their policies to hide their misdeeds and mistakes.

I do think that Congress should have direct oversight of the agencies they fund but what I’ve witnessed over the last few years are agencies that stonewall requests they don’t like from members of Congress.
The FBI’s policy of “not discussing an ongoing investigation” has been a tool they’ve used to hide any misdeeds done by agents.

Ideally, agencies would be more responsive and those oversight committees would be up to date but what we’ve witnessed with the consolidation of power are agencies that defy Congress (at least passively).

Generally the next step is to take away funding – which has been exceptionally difficult to do, to the point that one might believe that members of Congress have been compromised. I’m not convinced that’s the case but the behavior often suggests it.

It’s an ugly mess of corruption all-around. A problem that has been getting worse since at least the George W. days.

DOGE seems to be ripping the Band-Aid off – which isn’t an ideal way to solve issues but that’s often the only path available when things have gone too far down a path that they can’t recover themselves.

I’ve been watching a bunch of old Nixon vides lately. It’s fascinating to hear his perspective and to realize how much has changed since then. His largest political opponent was JFK but the way he speaks of him on a personal level makes you realize how far we fallen as a culture and a nation and how wide the divide between political philosophies has grown.

Side note – I was speaking with someone I know who’s background is in Constitutional Law. She told me point blank that she did care about free speech, she just wanted her friends’ healthcare taken care of.

Essentially willing to trade fundamental rights for peace and safety. I know she’s not alone in her feelings. Sad times.

This is an interesting observation I’ve had from my corporate days – organizational behavior stuff.

The consolidation of power creates an environment where politics thrive. The more powerful the hierarchy the greater the risk of both politics and attracting those that desire power to fulfill their own ambitions. I’ve seen this a lot in executives at companies. To be competitive at that level one has to prioritize one’s own self interest in order to climb the ladder. People are willing to do those things because the payoffs are so great in terms of financial, prestige, and control.

In chatting with my executive friends, the way companies fight this is by removing those who have been at the company for a long time. This takes away the power of relationships. This is why it is so hard for outside executives to be successful when hired into a company if they don’t come in with a whole class of people. One new executive will find it very hard to be successful in an entrenched system.

Another way to solve that problem is to have a much flatter organization with fewer power structures.

The way Amazon addresses that issue is they have institutionalized several behaviors.

– They don’t allow story telling, they discuss data (in an effort to remove the emotional component from decision making)

– They quickly pull the plug on programs that don’t work

– They also make it very hard to work there so that only highly motivated people are willing to stay

Nearly everyone I’ve ever spoken to that’s worked for Amazon has hated it there but also thankful for the time they worked there.

There’s another thing at play – the familiarity problem.

A friend of mine who had some legal problems in his early days made a savvy observation. He says that you never want to hire a defense attorney from the town that you’re being tried in. That hometown attorney has social obligations that will encourage him not to pull out all the stops in your defense. Afterall, he’s going to defend another case against that same DA next month and their kids probably play soccer together. That’s why you always hire a defense attorney from out of town.

When you apply that principle to let’s say Foreign Service Officers – they often work with their counterparts in other countries for decades while living in those countries. While those relationships can be great in making sure progress is made, it also reduces the likelihood that the US interest will be maximized.

So in a leadership role, it’s about picking the right tool for the job. If you’re looking to maximize a scenario – you bring in a team of outside people who will shake things up and not place nice.

If you’re looking to nurture a long term relationship, you choose the people that have worked decades to establish those relationships.

Neither is wrong, it’s about picking the right tool for the objective.

Lots to chew on there. Good discussion.”

The Impact: He’s not agreeing—he’s laying a rhetorical tripwire. By casting ‘government secrecy’ as the real villain, he justifies dismantling the very safeguards that hold democracy together.

4. Conspiratorial Undertones and the “Deep State” Narrative

The Move: Frame any opposition to authoritarian action as proof of a larger conspiracy.

The Conversation…

Me: “Subjective Constitutional interpretation is always concerning and self-serving, but the rule of law is what prevents that from being entirely subjective. The Constitution isn’t just an abstract idea, it’s a legal framework upheld through precedent, statutory law, and judicial review. While political debates over its meaning happen, government institutions and courts provide structured interpretations to ensure consistency. That’s why an oath to the Constitution carries weight, it’s not just symbolic, it binds officials to operate within established legal constraints.

On the issue of civil service, the Civil Service Reform Act explicitly establishes that career civil servants are meant to be nonpartisan and selected based on merit, not political affiliation. The Hatch Act reinforces this by prohibiting federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity in their official roles. These laws exist to ensure that government remains functional and nonpartisan regardless of which administration is in power.

As for defining service by sacrifice, I get the sentiment— as someone who swore that oath twice— but legally, public service is defined by duty to the public, not by personal hardship. The Federal Employee Ethics Rules already impose strict restrictions on conflicts of interest, including post-employment restrictions for those in regulatory roles (like cooling-off periods before joining industries they regulated). I believe those rules should be stronger and that’s a policy debate that should be happening. But under the law, public service doesn’t require risking one’s life, it requires serving the public interest under legal and ethical constraints.

If we were to require “sacrifice” as a condition of civil service, where would we draw the line? Since you never served does that make you less of a citizen than me? I don’t think you want to go there. I know I don’t. 

I believe in the rule of law because it defines and protects the integrity of public service. It ensures that government operates for the people—not at the whim of the powerful. But when institutions are bypassed, undermined, or politicized, the foundation of democracy starts to erode.

That’s exactly what we’re seeing with Elon Musk and his DOGE team. By granting unvetted personnel access to the U.S. Treasury’s payment systems and attempting to infiltrate USAID’s classified information, they are circumventing legal protections and security clearances designed to prevent corruption and abuse. This isn’t about efficiency or reform—it’s about placing power in the hands of a select few, without oversight, without accountability.

When DOGE officials push out career civil servants, override security protocols, and demand political loyalty over expertise, they are not protecting the Constitution—they are manipulating government for political and personal interests. Musk’s open hostility toward USAID and his moves to dismantle it entirely reveal a dangerous mindset— that government institutions exist not to serve the public, but to serve the will of those in power.

This is why the rule of law matters. If we abandon legal frameworks in favor of arbitrary definitions of “service” or “sacrifice,” we create a system where only the politically connected hold power, where classified information becomes a tool for political leverage, and where democratic institutions crumble under the weight of unchecked authority.

Do you stand for the democratic norms that protect your rights and freedoms, or will you let them be rewritten by those who believe the rules don’t apply to them—just because you think you might benefit? 

The fact that we can safely have this conversation means our democracy is working. In many of the places I’ve worked what we’re typing here would have landed both of us in dark cells before sunrise. Authoritarian regimes don’t fuck around and they don’t share power.

Our government is slow, bureaucratic, frustrating, and sometimes shady with how it handles information. But the rule of law exists to keep things from becoming a free-for-all. If we say, “Everyone has their own definition of the Constitution,” then we’re basically saying laws don’t matter, only power does—and that’s very very dangerous.

DOGE isn’t “ripping the Band-Aid off” in a good way—it’s gutting institutions that keep the government stable and replacing them with unvetted, politically motivated people. That’s not reform—that’s power consolidation.

And yeah, security clearances are important. The fact that some agencies misuse classification to hide mistakes doesn’t mean we should just hand over classified access to random appointees. National security isn’t something you gamble with. If government agencies are stonewalling Congress, the answer is better oversight, not breaking the system entirely.

Your corporate comparisons don’t really work here either. Government isn’t a business. It’s not about profit, it’s about serving the public under legal and democratic constraints, so the fewest amount of people get hurt. You can’t run a country like Amazon and expect it to work. Cutting out expertise, forcing political loyalty, and ignoring process doesn’t make government more efficient—it makes it more corrupt.

At the end of the day, if we want to fix corruption, the answer isn’t burning everything down—it’s enforcing real accountability, protecting nonpartisan institutions, and making sure government serves the people, not just the powerful.”

Him: “It will be interesting to see. From what I’ve seen so far, the DOGE folks are using a standard forensic accounting process – bring in your own people and look at the original accounting records. It’s a pretty typical turn around process used in business. It will be interesting to see how that pans out with classified information and if anything damaging gets leaked. Then it basically becomes an ROI calculation. Does the good that’s done out weight the damage… only time will tell.”

The Impact: He’s not just questioning government—he’s peddling the fantasy that all oversight is a conspiracy, priming the audience to see accountability as corruption. This isn’t skepticism; it’s sabotage. Wrapped in false neutrality and the “Time Will Tell” Escape Hatch, it’s the ultimate bad-faith move. By feigning curiosity, he gets to sit back and watch democracy burn—while pretending to be ‘just curious.’

Step 5. Putting it into action: Infiltration of Spaces—Corporate, Tech, Media, Creative & Artistic

The Tactic: Authoritarian actors embed themselves and their operatives into existing spaces—such as corporate, tech, media, and creative communities—under the guise of support. Their aim is to co-opt, corrupt, and repurpose these spaces to further their control and agenda. 

Similar to how bad-faith actors infiltrate government institutions, they also penetrate creative spaces by posing as patrons, investors, publishers, producers, or media executives. Their objective is to monetize, censor, or redirect artistic output to serve their agenda. This mirrors the way right-wing operatives have executed takeovers in political institutions like the Republican National Committee (RNC), school boards, and media outlets—initially appearing as allies before gradually consolidating control.

For instance, the rise of conservative talk radio in the United States significantly shaped political discourse. Following the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which had required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues, there was a proliferation of partisan programming. Prominent figures like Rush Limbaugh capitalized on this deregulated environment, using talk radio as a platform to disseminate conservative ideologies and rally support for Republican causes. Limbaugh’s national syndication in 1988 marked a pivotal moment, as his show became a conduit for conservative messaging, influencing public opinion and political outcomes. (wnycudios.org)

The Christian right also recognized the potential of talk radio to advance their agenda. Religious broadcasting, which began in the 1920s, experienced significant growth between the 1950s and 1980s. Television programs like Pat Robertson’s “The 700 Club” further amplified their reach. These platforms were utilized to promote specific narratives, aligning with Republican positions, thereby mobilizing evangelical voters. (wnycstudios.org)

Additionally, large conglomerates have acquired independent media outlets, leading to homogenized content that often suppresses dissenting voices. This corporate censorship replaces diverse perspectives with narratives favoring authoritarian interests. (The Republican Noise Machine)

In the tech industry, some platforms have been known to selectively moderate content, amplifying certain narratives while suppressing others based on corporate interests or geopolitical alignments. This manipulation can stifle activism and control public discourse. (merip.org)

In creative industries, financiers, CEOs, producers, and corporate entities dictate what gets produced, who gets compensated, who works, and which voices are marginalized. Authoritarian governments fear artists because of art’s potential to challenge authority, expose the truth, and encourage new ways of thinking. In the U.S. and other countries, artists face threats, imprisonment or worse for producing work critical of their governments. (hci.stanford.edu)

And we all watched it happen—Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (now X) wasn’t about “free speech” or “open dialogue.” It was about cracking the door open for the worst voices in the room. He reinstated banned accounts like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene, giving far-right extremists their megaphone back. The result? A platform that once made moves to curb misinformation now actively amplifies it. (cbsnews.com, apnews.com)

The Impact: This strategy goes beyond mere exploitation—it’s ideological capture. By embedding themselves into creative and intelleclual spaces, authoritarian operatives reshape culture itself—controlling narratives, marginalizing dissent, and ensuring that art, media, and technology serve their interests, often working against the public good.

They aren’t supporting these spaces; they’re taking them over. It’s a hostile, parasitic takeover of culture itself. Recognizing and resisting this tactic is crucial to preserving the integrity of creative and informational spaces, ensuring they remain platforms for free expression and democratic discourse. We have to learn how to spot the patterns. Call them  out and cut off their access. Because once they take over, they don’t let go.

Step 6. Real-time: The Musk Playbook: Real-World Implementation of Bad-Faith Strategies

The Move: These bad-faith strategies aren’t just for debate club—they’re being deployed to dismantle democracy in real time. 

We’re watching this play out in real time. Musk’s moves follow a clear blueprint. His DOGE team is aggressively implementing this strategy by:

  • Taking over the Office of Personnel Management (OPM): Installing loyalists and disrupting hiring protections to consolidate control over federal personnel decisions. (theatlantic.com)
  • Dismantling USAID: Gutting the agency’s capacity to manage humanitarian aid while aiming to fight bureaucracy, thereby weakening U.S. influence in global development. (theguardian.com)
  • Circumventing security protocols: Granting unvetted personnel access to classified and financial systems, compromising national security under the guise of efficiency. (theatlantic.com)
  • Amplifying right-wing voices on X (formerly Twitter): Musk didn’t just reinstate banned accounts—he put far-right voices back in the driver’s seat, amplifying their reach and normalizing extremism. Using his own account as a megaphone for right-wing propaganda, further mainstreaming extremism. (pbs.org)

The Impact: Musk’s moves aren’t random—they’re calculated acts of demolition, power grabs dressed up as reform. ‘Fixing inefficiencies’ is the cover story; gutting democratic institutions is the goal. The playbook is always the same: declare institutions corrupt, purge expertise, and install loyalists under the banner of ‘accountability.’ But these institutions aren’t disappearing—they’re being hijacked, repurposed, and weaponized. What once served the people is being rebuilt to serve the oligarchy—designed to shield the powerful, not the public. This isn’t efficiency—it’s autocratic consolidation in real-time.

Conclusion: Cracking the Code, Stopping the Playbook

Musk and his enablers aren’t revolutionaries—they’re demolitionists. They aren’t “draining the swamp” or “fixing inefficiencies.” They’re gutting democracy, replacing expertise with loyalty tests, oversight with grift, governance with unchecked power.

The tactics we’ve broken down aren’t just debate strategies—they’re operating procedures. The bad-faith arguments, the manufactured conspiracies, the purging of experts—it’s all part of a larger effort to consolidate control, dismantle democratic safeguards, and normalize corruption.

And it’s working…

Here’s the thing: authoritarians don’t need your loyalty—they just need your exhaustion. They count on the chaos, the misdirection, the “whataboutism” to wear you down until you stop fighting back. Until their power grabs feel inevitable.

But inevitability is a lie. Power grabs succeed when we stop calling them what they are.

So what do we do? We crack their code. We stop treating bad-faith arguments like honest debates. We name their tactics, call out their lies, and refuse to play along.

When they deflect, we refocus. When they flood the zone with conspiracies, we name the distraction. When they feign neutrality, we force them to take a stance.

This isn’t a policy debate—it’s a fight for survival and for who gets to rewrite the rules of democracy.

They want us disoriented. Cynical. Too exhausted to fight back. But we see the playbook now. And we won’t let them take and remake our lives.

Get engaged. Show up. March. Call your elected officials. Organize. Educate. Talk to your kids. Talk to your neighbors. Rigorously vet your social groups. Boycott MAGA businesses. Cut them off. Starve their profits. Build and use alternatives tools that protect your voice and your rights.

The fight isn’t coming—it’s already here.

This our time. This our fight. Be Strong.

Next Steps: What You Can Do Right Now

Exposing the authoritarian playbook isn’t enough—we need action. The fight isn’t coming; it’s here. Here’s how to push back immediately and effectively:

1. Cut Off Their Cash Flow

  • Move your banking and investments away from institutions funding authoritarian and corporate takeovers.
    • Switch to local credit unions and independent banks instead of megabanks like Chase, Wells Fargo, or Bank of America.
    • Check your 401(k) and investments for funds supporting authoritarian-linked corporations or media conglomerates.
    • Boycott companies funding far-right movements (resource: https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/).

2. Own Your Communication & Data

3. Get Active Locally—Where It Actually Matters

  • Monitor your local elections, school boards, and city councils—these are the first places extremists target for power grabs.
    • Show up to public meetings and speak out.
    • Run for local office if possible—controlling the local level prevents infiltration.
    • Volunteer for election integrity groups like Fair Fight (https://fairfight.com/).

4. Protect Independent Journalism

5. Organize Outside the Algorithm

  • Build local, in-person networks to resist online manipulation.
    • Start community meetups, reading groups, activist circles, and direct-action coalitions.
    • Use privacy-first community platforms like Discourse (https://www.discourse.org/) or Matrix/Element (https://element.io/) instead of Facebook Groups.

6. Disrupt the Playbook in Real Time

  • Call out bad-faith arguments immediately—don’t let them frame the conversation.
    • When they deflect → Refocus the discussion.
    • When they flood the zone with conspiracies → Call out the distraction.
    • When they feign neutrality → Force them to take a stance.
  • Don’t amplify their propaganda—starve it of oxygen.

7. Defend the Courts, the Civil Service, and the Rule of Law

Final Thought: This Fight is Winnable

They want you overwhelmed. They want you exhausted. Don’t give it to them.

Act locally. Secure your digital presence. Expose and disrupt bad-faith tactics. Support real journalism. Build resistance networks.

The fight isn’t theoretical—it’s happening now. And it’s ours to win.

More posts