Earlier Mindwars pieces dissected a specific academic niche of Conspiracy Theory Theorists (CTTs): Karen Douglas, Matthew Hornsey, Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues. Their output functions as a consequences factory—a diagnostic hub that converts suspicious belief into a catalogue of harms: reduced vaccine uptake, lower institutional trust, electoral hostility, climate non-compliance. “Conspiracy theorists” become a governed population, scored by their projected system impact. Together with ERC funded projects such as DEBUNKER, ELHO and CONSPIRACY_FX these are treated as a test case for a recurring elite script cycle in which deviance is named, pathologised, stabilised through rules and infrastructure, normalised into common sense, then re-encoded when new forms of resistance appear.

This work sits inside a wider funding and policy frame. The European Research Council’s 2024 report Democracy in the 21st century: mapping research frontiers for policy organises 215 ERC projects on democracy, disinformation, populism and backsliding into a single matrix of “challenges” and “tools” for EU institutions. Read alongside Overlords Part 8, it reads less like neutral stocktake and more like a field manual for a transnational Operating Class—platform executives, behavioural architects, narrative engineers and system guardians who translate elite consensus into day-to-day control over information, participation and risk.

This article joins those lines. CTTs are treated here as operators, not observers—the behavioural architects and narrative engineers for public suspicion. Their belief-governance stack (DEBUNKER, ELHO, CONSPIRACY_FX, “Are Conspiracy Theories Harmless?”) sits next to a democracy-governance stack built from the ERC democracy report, the European Democracy Action Plan, the Defence of Democracy package and the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the proposed Digital Omnibus “reforms” The same class of operators moves between both, using adjacent manuals.

This is not a hidden-cabal story—it is a description of technocratic frameworks laid out in their own documents. The CTTs define the diagnostic categories and harm templates; the ERC curates aligned projects into a ready toolkit; EU institutions convert those into binding risk regimes and enforcement expectations. For a citizen, the effect of this script is straightforward: political disagreement and suspicion of power slide from being arguments to be fought out into “risk factors” to be managed, and the space for uncontrolled, genuinely political conflict shrinks under a layer of expert administration.

For an ordinary citizen, the stakes are simple. A system is emerging that uses research, risk metrics and regulation to replace open political conflict with managed administration. Suspicion of power and electoral currents outside the approved template are turned into “risk factors” to be detected, scored and corrected.

The ERC in the EU Governance Stack

The European Research Council (ERC) sits at a critical junction in the EU’s architecture. Formally, it styles itself as “the premier European funding organisation for frontier research,” giving grantees “the freedom to develop ambitious research projects that can lead to advances at the frontiers of knowledge”, and funding “a rich and diverse portfolio of projects in all fields of science, without any predefined academic or policy priorities.” Substantively, under Horizon Europe, its executive agency (ERCEA) has been tasked to “identify, analyse and communicate policy relevant research results to Commission services” through a dedicated Feedback to Policy (F2P) framework. The ERC is, by design, a relay from academia into Commission operations.

The 2024 report, Mapping ERC Frontier Research: Democracy, is the polished product of this mandate. It presents as a benign stocktake of 215 projects “linked to democracy”, selected by keyword, then “refined” and grouped into six clusters, with highlights chosen for project maturity and “variety”. The introduction insists the ERC “does not offer any policy recommendations” and has “no predefined … policy priorities”, while stressing that these projects “can have an impact well beyond science” and “inform EU policy objectives”.

“These projects show the vital role once again of purely curiosity-driven, frontier research in shaping our understanding of the world - in this case regarding democracy and the complexities of governance in the 21st century. They couldn’t be more relevant in this significant election year and amidst the challenges that democracies worldwide are facing,” said ERC President Maria Leptin. Source: ERC

A Narrative Reconstruction and Analysis Protocol (NRAP) pass over the framing sections of the report (pages 3 & 6) shows a different function: the report operates as an operator manual for democracy governance, executing four technical moves:

1. Standardising the threat lexicon: The report does not discover problems; it certifies a taxonomy. Under the heading “On democracy: building resilience and confronting challenges” democracy is said to face a “complex array of challenges” from “socio-economic inequality”, which “poses risks of social unrest and susceptibility to populist exploitation”, from “polarisation and populism”, from “the rapid spread of misinformation and fake news” which “undermines the foundations of informed citizenry”, and from “foreign interference” which “poses a significant threat to fair and free elections”. The stress falls on information, affect and external actors—not on internal institutional design.
2. Assigning roles in the governance ritual: The narrative slots actors into fixed positions without naming them as such. The ERC and Commission-linked bodies stand as priesthood— “frontier research” producers and curators. Citizens appear as a vulnerable flock, isolated in “echo chambers”, suffering “disillusion” and “eroded … trust in politics and democracy”, whose susceptibility must be managed. Populists and foreign actors are cast as contaminants—those who “exploit” grievances or manipulate discourse.
3. The “resilience” gambit: control as empowerment: Solutions are framed through the keyword “resilience”. Positive developments are those that channel conflict into administered participation: “deliberative and participatory democracy approaches, e-government initiatives, e-participation platforms… [that] foster more inclusive governance models and give citizens greater influence over policy decisions”, alongside open data and digital activism that “enrich[es] the vibrancy of democratic systems”. Engagement is validated when it passes through designed formats.
4. Bridging to policy implementation: Finally, the report explicitly positions itself as the bridge to the “EU policy context, where the strengthening of democracy stands as a high political priority for the European Commission”, and promises to show “how research is informing EU policies on democracy” before presenting project highlights. Its institutional provenance—authored inside ERCEA’s Scientific Impact and Feedback to Policy sector with input from DG JUST, DG RTD and the JRC’s “Science for Democracy” unit, addressed to “Commission services and policymakers”—confirms the target audience.

Taken together, the framing sections of the report perform a controlled transmutation: a nominally bottom-up, curiosity-driven portfolio is recast as a top-down operator manual for managing “democracy” as a technical system, defining threats, roles and approved channels of control for the Operating Class that will work under the European Democracy Action Plan, the Defence of Democracy package and the Digital Services Act (DSA).

DEBUNKER, ELHO and CONSPIRACY_FX Inside The ERC Agenda

DEBUNKER and ELHO are the ERC’s core laboratories for policing belief and affect in electorates. DEBUNKER defines its target as “factual beliefs that are not supported by clear evidence and expert opinion”, labelling these “misperceptions” and focusing on immigration, vaccines and climate change across politics, health and science. Its fact sheet states that such misperceptions “distort public preferences and outcomes” and that prior correction work is “uniformly troubling”, because attempts to correct often “make misperceptions worse or decrease the likelihood to engage in desired behaviours”. The project is explicit about function: measure misperceptions across Europe, test techniques to correct them, and “transmit the findings back to scientists, policy-maker audiences and the public in order to aid policy design and communication efforts on important policy issues”.

ELHO runs the same logic on emotion instead of fact. It opens with the line “I hate Brexiteers, they betrayed my future” to illustrate what it calls “a growing and worrying phenomenon: electoral hostility”, defined as “negative feelings (frustration, anger, contempt, disgust) held towards individuals or groups as a result of their… electoral preferences”. Hostility is formalised as a Mokken scale that can be turned into “stages of hostility” with “far reaching consequences” for solidarity and the legitimacy of elections. Methods include 27-country panels, experiments tracking visual and physiological responses, family focus groups, election diaries and a survey of election-management bodies, culminating in a proposed “Electoral Hostility Research Centre and Observatory” with psychiatrists, ergonomists, lawyers and IGOs to explore “mitigation”.

CONSPIRACY_FX extends this axis from misperceptions and hostility to “the consequences of conspiracy theories” across democracy, vaccination and climate action—stabilising suspicion of power itself as a multi-domain risk object. Taken together, these projects cover belief accuracy, electoral affect and conspiracist framing as three dimensions of deviance inside electorates. The 2024 ERC democracy report then folds this CTT work into its wider democracy-protection grid—its clusters on polarisation, populism, disinformation and the “robustness of democracies” treat misperceptions, hostility and conspiracy as standard inputs to the democracy-risk vocabulary, not curiosities.

Within the elite script cycle, DEBUNKER and ELHO function as Phase-2 labs—identifying, quantifying and trialling corrections for “wrong” beliefs and “excessive” electoral emotions—while CONSPIRACY_FX operates as a scaling hub that packages consequences for downstream operators. The democracy report provides the integration layer, repositioning these grants as specialised modules in a broader social and democracy-protective research agenda explicitly tasked with “inform[ing] EU policy objectives.” In Overlords’ operating-class vocabulary, this is the belief- and affect-governance wing of the same democracy stack described in the ERC report, not an eccentric side portfolio.

Restaging the Five-Phase Elite Script Cycle For Democracy

The ERC democracy report sits on a script that was already mapped in the CTT domain. In Mindwars: How “Are Conspiracy Theories Harmless?” Turns Suspicion of Power into a Cognitive Crime, the harms review was read as a Phase-2 move in a broader elite script cycle—deviant belief is detected, pathologised and then used to justify new layers of informational control. Overlords Part 8 generalised that cycle to the Operating Class more broadly—platform executives, behavioural architects, narrative engineers, system guardians—and Operators Part 5 (publication pending) will show the same pattern running through health and biosecurity infrastructures. Critics of technocratic crisis management like Patrick Wood, in Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, and Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine, have traced similar arcs in other domains: crises are framed, expert rule is normalised, and control infrastructures are built under the banner of necessity. The Mindwars / Overlords / Operators stack makes that pattern explicit as a five-phase cycle.

Restated briefly:

• Phase 1 is deviance detection: experts and institutions name a class of beliefs or actors as harmful or irrational
• Phase 2 is pathology and soft problematisation: the deviance is analysed, typologised and equipped with a toolbox of mitigation techniques
• Phase 3 is coercive stabilisation: those techniques are embedded in rules, infrastructures and enforcement routines
• Phase 4 is normalisation and interiorisation: the new categories and precautions seep into everyday expectations, professional standards and self-policing
• Phase 5 is drift and fracture: new forms of dissent emerge that do not fit the existing labels, prompting a fresh round of naming and management.

The pivot here is straightforward—exactly this five-phase cycle now runs on “democracy” as an object of management, not just on fringe belief. On the belief side, misperceptions, conspiracism and “epistemic mistrust” are Phase-1 labels; on the democracy side, “populism”, “democratic backsliding” and “foreign information manipulation and interference” occupy the same slot. DEBUNKER and ELHO supply Phase-2 laboratories for misperceptions and electoral hostility; the ERC democracy report’s six clusters do the same for disinformation, polarisation and regime risk.

Phase-3 shows the convergence most clearly—the belief stack hardens through platform terms of service, fact-checking partnerships and prebunking campaigns, while the democracy stack hardens through the DSA’s systemic-risk regime, the European Media Freedom Act, the European Democracy Action Plan and the Defence of Democracy package. Phase-4 appears where CONSPIRACY_FX moves “consequences of conspiracy theories” into mainstream policy discourse, and where data-rights retreats like the Digital Omnibus open further room for AI-driven monitoring of information and participation.

Phase-5 is already signalled—new distrust formations, anti-mandate movements and post-party alignments that do not sit cleanly under “conspiracy theory” or “populism,” yet will be pulled into the next naming round as the cycle reloads.

Phases 3 and 4 are no longer speculative stages—on both belief and democracy fronts they are already visible in platform rules, EU law and the quiet internalisation of which doubts are “responsible”.

One Operating System Across Belief And Democracy

Read through the Overlords lens, the ERC 2024 democracy mapping is not a neutral inventory but a field manual for operators in the democracy domain. It first standardises a risk vocabulary: “disinformation, fake news and social media”, “polarisation, populism and authoritarianism”, “robustness of democracies”, “citizen engagement”, “human rights and the rule of law”, “elections and voting” are presented as the main thematic surfaces where democracy is endangered. It then inventories a toolset: bot and junk-news exposure (COMPROP, BOTFIND), fake-news classifiers (GoodNews), automated verification (AVeriTeC), search auditing (FARE), polarisation-aware recommenders (REBOUND), regime-trajectory dashboards (FASDEM), plus participatory pilots and standardised ethics protocols. Finally it specifies users— “Commission services” and “policymakers”—stating that ERC research “can, and should, be used to inform EU policy objectives”. Citizens are framed as vulnerable objects of intervention rather than users of the manual.

On the belief side, the deviance constructs are aligned. DEBUNKER defines misperceptions as “factual beliefs that are not supported by clear evidence and expert opinion” in domains such as immigration, vaccines and climate, then tests correction techniques and promises to “aid policy design and communication efforts”. ELHO codifies “electoral hostility” as measurable anger, contempt and disgust toward out-partisans and proposes an Observatory to monitor and mitigate it. CONSPIRACY_FX treats “conspiracy theories” as a multi-sector risk factor affecting democracy, vaccination and climate action. On the democracy side, the ERC mapping casts populism, polarisation, authoritarianism, “conspiracy-linked” movements and “backsliding” as threats to democracy within its standard clusters.

Functionally this creates two Phase-2 portfolios inside a single system—one for belief and affect (DEBUNKER, ELHO, CONSPIRACY_FX), one for democracy and information (the six ERC clusters on bots, disinformation, polarisation, regime trajectories and citizen engagement). The fusion point is easy to imagine: a “Democracy Resilience Dashboard” where DEBUNKER’s vaccine-misperception indices, ELHO’s electoral-hostility scores, COMPROP’s bot-network activity and CONSPIRACY_FX’s conspiracy-belief prevalence appear as adjacent tiles, driving both public-health messaging and platform risk-mitigation decisions. That hypothetical interface is the operating system made visible—one integrated governance stack treating belief and democracy as coupled risk fields for the same class of operators.

Ritual Structure – ERC Democracy Mapping As Liturgy

Once you treat the ERC report as an operator manual, its structure reads less like neutral analysis and more like a liturgy for a civic religion of managed democracy—set phrases, prescribed roles and ritual actions that convert political conflict into administrative ceremony.

This involves six key steps:

1. Naming the threat: The rite opens with diagnosis: “democracy is facing a complex array of challenges”, anchored in “socio-economic inequality”, “polarisation and populism”, the impact of “social media and artificial intelligence”, the spread of “misinformation and fake news”, “foreign interference” and threats to “freedom of the press and to the safety of journalists”. These become the authorised risk objects—the officially sanctioned threats around which governance must organise.

2. Cataloguing harms: The text then narrates damage—inequality “undermines fundamental principles of fairness… posing risks of social unrest and susceptibility to populist exploitation”, echo chambers “endanger… inclusivity and pluralism”, fake news “undermines the foundations of informed citizenry”, foreign interference “poses a significant threat to fair and free elections”. The six thematic clusters and early chart function as a visual harm taxonomy: every project slotted under a recognised wound in the body politic.

3. Invoking sacred values: After harm comes sanctification. In the EU policy context “democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights” are described as “founding values of the European Union”, said to underpin peace, prosperity, competitiveness, social cohesion and stability. The frame is not neutral administration; it is guardianship of a value order said to underpin peace, prosperity, competitiveness, cohesion, stability.

4. Assigning roles: The ritual depends on fixed positions: priesthood (ERC, SAM, JRC, EGE and associated panels), gatekeepers (DGs, regulators, platforms), laity (citizens—especially “vulnerable groups” and youth—figured as both endangered and in need of inclusion), and the impure (populists, “extremists”, foreign manipulators, bots). The text does not name these categories, but its casting of who diagnoses, who intervenes and who is intervened upon follows this pattern.

5. Purification rites: The rites are the tools: COMPROP/BOTFIND, GoodNews, FARE/FARE_AUDIT, AVeriTeC, REBOUND, FASDEM dashboards, PRODEMINFO/PACT, participatory and deliberative pilots, and standardised ethics and risk protocols—each offered as a way to cleanse, monitor or fortify the system against the named harms.

6. Benediction: The benediction comes in the “In a nutshell” summary: ERC frontier research “can, and should, be used” to “strengthen democracy” and “address some of the challenges that democracy faces today”.

The Operating Class enacts this script less as conscious villains than as devotees of the system’s problem-definition—professionals solving “democracy challenges” exactly as the ritual defines them, with their careers and status tied to keeping the ceremony running.

Doctrine Stack – What the Ritual Serves

If the liturgy is the ceremonial script, the doctrine stack is the dogma it protects. The ERC democracy report operationalises a set of background assumptions, treated as non-negotiable, then wires them into tools, funding and law.

• D1 – Managed liberal democracy as the standard: “Democracy” is never defined from first principles—it is silently equated with the EU’s own institutional model. “Backsliding”, “authoritarianism” and “populism” are framed as deviations from this baseline, not as rival projects. ERC topic framing and clustering lock this in, so regime conflict or sovereignty disputes can be recoded as democracy pathologies. Parliament, Council and CJEU appear as guardians of this “rule-of-law” template rather than contestants in a legitimate struggle over institutional form. This sits on an executive layer that no European citizen can directly hire or fire. The Commission President and High Representative are produced by Council–Parliament bargaining under Article 17(7) TEU, then oversee the same “democracy protection” machinery that sets standards for 27 states.
• D2 – Science for policy as neutral arbiter: ERC, SAM, JRC and EGE aggregate funded work into “evidence” that looks method-driven while inheriting D1 as baseline. The report’s stress on “frontier research” feeding policy, formalised via the Feedback to Policy (F2P) brief instructing ERCEA to “identify, analyse and communicate policy relevant research results to Commission services”, creates a standing relay from academia to the executive. DEBUNKER and CONSPIRACY_FX adopt the same posture when they promise to “aid policy design” on misperceptions and conspiracy harms. In this frame, political conflict is recast as resistance to science rather than disagreement over interests or principles.
• D3 – Information environment as primary risk surface: Principal threats are located in information flows and citizen cognition: disinformation, echo chambers, foreign interference. The COMPROP → BOTFIND → DSA trajectory is the clearest example—ERC-funded work on computational propaganda becomes junk-news dashboards, which then help define “systemic risk” obligations for very large platforms under the Digital Services Act. On the belief side, DEBUNKER, ELHO and CONSPIRACY_FX provide misperception indices, hostility scales and conspiracy-prevalence metrics that can populate the same screens. Citizens are positioned as cognitively vulnerable subjects; platforms become stewards of the democracy-risk surface.

Other doctrines—participatory innovation as resilience (D4), ethics as risk neutraliser (D5), externalisation of threat (D6)—follow as corollaries. They give the Operating Class a language for demonstrating responsiveness, laundering sensitive research through ethics protocols, and refracting internal discontent through foreign-influence narratives. The stack’s function is to make this governance model appear self-evident and self-perpetuating. Operators do not need to believe the doctrines; they need only follow procedures that render the technical administration of political life both inevitable and just.

Continuity Logic and Institutional Scripting

If the Doctrine Stack provides the dogma and the simulacrum the end-product, the system still requires a dynamic logic to perpetuate itself across dossiers, crises, and funding rounds. This continuity is handled by what we can call the Epistemic Posture Matrix (EPM)—a set of recurring stances the institutions adopt that stabilise the same governance logic under new headings. Each posture is a way of appearing to know and appearing to act that stabilises the same governance logic under new headings. In this article EPM-1 to EPM-8 track recurring stances: stocktake as neutral mirror (EPM-1), frontier science as impartial referee (EPM-2), democracy as fragile system in need of resilience (EPM-3), citizens as vulnerable cognitive subjects (EPM-5), and external actors as primary destabiliser (EPM-8). These postures are how institutions appear to know and appear to act, while keeping the same governance logic intact. Each posture can be switched on in documents, speeches, funding calls—together they provide continuity across dossiers.

The institutional script then follows a predictable sequence. First, Council and Commission issue a “democracy under pressure” cue—strategy papers and speeches framing the moment as one of compounded threats. Second, ERC steps in as cartographer—producing mappings of “democracy-relevant” research that define the conceptual terrain. Third, SAM, EGE and JRC harmonise that terrain into a standard risk grammar, turning disparate projects into a single story about vulnerabilities and tools. Fourth, line DGs (JUST, CNECT, HOME, etc) design instruments—Democracy Action Plan, DSA, EMFA, Defence of Democracy—using that grammar as justification.

Fifth, platforms and media are folded in as governed infrastructure, subject to systemic-risk duties, codes of practice and co-regulation. Sixth, citizens are positioned as a monitored field—scored by misperception indices, hostility measures, trust surveys, engagement metrics. Seventh, ethics committees and data-protection offices license sensitive research, ensuring that once the right boxes are ticked, extraction and modelling can proceed. Eighth, security and foreign-policy arms exploit influence-monitoring outputs for their own agendas—interference units, sanctions, external-action narratives. Ninth, evaluation loops report partial success and remaining gaps, justifying refinement and expansion rather than rollback.

The effect is to make the simulacrum durable—whatever the specific crisis, the same operators enact the same sequence under a different banner.

Operators in the Script – CTTs and the ERC as Part of the Operating Class

In Overlords terms, the Operating Class is the permanent managerial stratum that keeps harmonised governance running—behavioural architects, narrative engineers and system guardians whose authority comes from credentials, not elections. They rotate through universities, commissions, foundations, standards bodies and boards, carrying the same rule-sets into each posting. Conspiracy Theory Theorists sit squarely inside this layer. Mindwars already reads Douglas’s Are Conspiracy Theories Harmless? as a “harms brief”—a document that recasts suspicion of powerful actors as a psychological syndrome and prescribes population-level tools like collectivist framing, inoculation and trusted messengers. Within a year, Douglas is Principal Investigator (PI) on CONSPIRACY_FX, an ERC Advanced Grant to industrialise “consequences of conspiracy theories” across politics, vaccination and climate. That is an operator trajectory, not a detached academic one.

Reframed through Overlords Part 8, CTTs are behavioural architects and narrative engineers in the belief domain. As behavioural architects, they design inoculation, prebunking, collectivist appeals, “respectful engagement” and trusted-messenger protocols that tell states, platforms and NGOs how to manage suspicious publics. As narrative engineers, they stabilise “conspiracy theories”, “vaccine hesitancy”, “science-related populism” and “trust in scientists” as risk categories, define “harm” in system terms (turnout, trust, compliance), and assemble harms dossiers that justify further intervention— exactly what the Mindwars series has treated as staffing the Consequence Factory—a standing apparatus for turning suspicion into scored harms and prescribed corrections. In doing so, they enact postures like EPM-2 (frontier science) to legitimise their framings and EPM-7 (ethics as containment) to shield their work from political critique.

Once those frames and tools exist, ERC grants like CONSPIRACY_FX act as scaling hubs, turning them into multi-year programmes with dedicated teams, cross-domain metrics and direct policy-facing outputs. Their results feed into the wider democracy mapping, trust-in-science surveys and risk dashboards that system guardians in Brussels and on platforms use as “evidence-based” justification for categorisation, moderation and regulatory design.

The key move from Overlords Part 8 holds—this is not about villain psychology. It is about role. CTTs are one band in the Operating Class, tasked with keeping the belief and information layer aligned with the doctrines mapped earlier. They do not just study suspicion of power; they help govern it.

From Soft Rites to Hard Code – Phase-3 Hardening and Phase-4 Normalisation

With the operators, doctrines, and tools in place, the script executes its core function: transmuting soft ritual into hard machinery—first by hardening risk frames into law and infrastructure, then by embedding them into common sense and data regimes so they no longer look like a choice.

On the democracy side, the clearest Phase-3 chain runs through bots and disinformation—ERC projects like COMPROP and BOTFIND turn “computational propaganda” into visualisable bot/junk-news maps, which are then grouped under the “disinformation, fake news and social media” cluster in the ERC report and finally codified as “systemic risks” in the DSA obligations on very large platforms around bots, fake accounts and manipulation of civic discourse and elections. On the belief side, DEBUNKER’s own finding that direct corrections can entrench misperceptions justifies a shift to prebunking, targeting and cognitive-style segmentation—exactly the sort of behavioural architecture platforms and public-health agencies can operationalise at scale. ELHO’s hostility scale and proposed Observatory offer ready-made indices of “electoral hostility” for campaign rules, moderation protocols or risk flags in the name of reducing hate and preserving legitimacy.

Phase-4 is where these devices stop looking exceptional. CONSPIRACY_FX as an ERC Advanced Grant (2022–26) explicitly systematises “consequences of conspiracy theories” across democracy, populist/extremist politics, vaccine uptake, climate action and interpersonal relations, and its offspring papers begin to use conspiracy belief as a routine explanatory variable in inequality, relationship and AI-governance debates. Suspicion of power is no longer a marginal curiosity—it is a standard risk factor in mainstream models.

In parallel, the data-rights environment is reshaped to serve the same stack. The Commission’s Digital Omnibus package has been described by noyb (Vienna based NGO working to enforce data protection laws) and others as the “largest cut to privacy rights in years”, weakening personal-data definitions, expanding device access, enabling AI training on social-media histories and cutting back subject-access rights—justified by AI-competitiveness and governance needs. This move is the logical endpoint of D2 and D3: the doctrines of science-for-policy and information-risk now actively trump the EU’s own foundational rights architecture, on the grounds that more data and more modelling are required to manage democracy threats.

The lived effect is quiet normalisation— “conspiracy theory effects” become taken-for-granted reasons to distrust certain publics, privacy rollbacks are sold as necessary to protect democracy and win the AI race, and continuous data extraction plus scoring across belief, behaviour and participation turns from emergency measure into background condition of digital life.

Convergence – One Integrated Governance System

By this point the analytical distinction between “conspiracy theory management” and “democracy protection” is gone. The same Operating Class—platform executives, behavioural architects, narrative engineers, system guardians—moves between both domains, running one script off adjacent manuals. Douglas’s harms review, the CONSPIRACY_FX grant and the ERC democracy mapping do not sit as isolated academic artefacts; under the Overlords lens they read as operator handbooks for governing suspicion and political conflict through a shared risk regime.

You can see the convergence by imagining the interface rather than the rhetoric. A “Democracy Resilience Dashboard” at EU level would not be speculative fantasy—it would be a straightforward integration of already-existing project outputs:

• DEBUNKER’s indices of “factual beliefs not supported by clear evidence and expert opinion” on vaccines, immigration and climate
• ELHO’s staged scale of “electoral hostility” across 27 countries
• COMPROP/BOTFIND’s bot-network and junk-news activity over election periods
• CONSPIRACY_FX’s measures of conspiracy-belief prevalence and its links to turnout, compliance and trust
• FASDEM and related regime-trajectory and disinformation dashboards from the ERC democracy clusters.

Fed into one panel, those metrics can drive public-health communication strategy, platform content-moderation rules under the DSA’s systemic-risk articles, “resilience” training budgets, foreign-interference watchlists and funding decisions under the Democracy Action Plan and Defence of Democracy package. The separation between belief governance, democracy governance and security governance becomes a matter of column headings, not structure.

From an analytic viewpoint, the Epistemic Posture Matrix (EPM) keeps this fused system narratively coherent: stocktake neutrality makes the dashboard look like a mirror; frontier science frames the inputs as impartial; fragile democracy justifies constant intervention; information primacy, citizen vulnerability, participatory proof, ethics compliance and external-threat framing together present each new tightening as protective rather than constitutive.

Mindwar convergence, in this sense, is not a metaphor. It is the practical outcome of wiring CTT metrics, ERC democracy tools and EU regulatory powers into a single, continuously updated control surface—an integrated governance system in which suspicion and democracy are managed as coupled risk fields by the same class of operators.

The Simulacrum of Democracy

The convergence shows the wiring diagram of the system, the next step is to name what that system has become. Pulled together, the belief-governance stack, the democracy-risk dashboards and the liturgical language of “strengthening democracy” do not deepen democratic control. They stabilise a simulacrum—a managed replica that performs democratic rituals while sidelining uncontrolled popular agency.

The “democracy” being protected is the technical system defined by your doctrine stack: adherence to a particular institutional template (D1), to certified evidence pipelines (D2), and to an information-hygiene regime (D3). In that configuration:

• Conflict is recoded as pathology. Political hatred becomes “electoral hostility” under ELHO; suspicious belief becomes “misperception” in DEBUNKER or “conspiracy theory” in CONSPIRACY_FX; populist currents and sovereignty disputes are labelled “backsliding” or “authoritarian tendencies” in the ERC clusters.
• Participation is channelled into administered formats. Citizens’ assemblies, consultation platforms and e-participation tools, showcased as “innovative forms of citizen engagement”, function as D4 resilience devices—safety valves that generate evidence of inclusion without exposing core fiscal, treaty or security levers to disruption.
• The Operating Class tend the replica. Scientists, bureaucrats, platform executives and NGO managers, positioned as neutral guardians, are in practice maintaining conformance with D1–D3—identifying deviations, applying tools, feeding metrics into law and platform policy.

The tension is straightforward. An executive stratum that no European citizen can directly remove claims authority to define and enforce “democracy standards”, while a research-and-regulation stack systematically classifies dissent, suspicion and alternative projects as risk objects. The result is not open rule by a demos that can choose badly; it is post-democratic administration in which the right to argue, misjudge and fundamentally disagree is treated as a governance problem.

“Saving democracy” in this frame means preserving the simulation—keeping the appearance of democratic life running smoothly while the substance of collective decision-making is increasingly relocated to operators, dashboards and procedures.

Foreshadowing – AI Governance As Doctrinal Hard-Coding

While the “Democracy Resilience Dashboard” represents a fully integrated governance system, its operation still relies on human operators interpreting metrics and enacting the script. The next phase—doctrinal hard-coding—automates this entirely, compiling the same doctrines into AI models and scoring engines, under the cover of AI safety, AI for democracy and “trustworthy” automation.

The ingredients already exist. Classifiers such as GoodNews, AVeriTeC, FASDEM and REBOUND, bot-detection stacks like COMPROP/BOTFIND, plus misperception indices (DEBUNKER), hostility scales (ELHO) and conspiracy-prevalence measures (CONSPIRACY_FX), are all shaped as machine-readable features. Loosened data protections under moves like the Digital Omnibus expand the training pool—social-media histories, engagement traces, device telemetry—on the argument that better AI requires more data and that better AI is needed to protect democracy and security.

At that point D1–D6 stop being background assumptions and start becoming parameters: “fragile democracy”, “cognitively vulnerable citizens”, “information contamination”, “external interference”, “ethics compliance” are instantiated as labels, risk classes and optimisation targets inside models that sit behind moderation, ranking, credit, hiring, welfare and policing. The same elite script cycle runs—but with less overt deliberation and less visible responsibility.

For an ordinary citizen, the question ceases to be “What does Brussels believe?” and becomes:

• Who decides the features and thresholds of an AI-driven “democracy-risk” score applied to my speech, my associations, my finances?
• What recourse exists if an opaque model quietly tags me, my community or my movement as high-risk?
• When privacy and due-process safeguards are rewritten for AI, who decides what is “proportionate”—and on what evidence?
• At what point does “protecting democracy” mean that certain political futures are effectively unlearnable by the systems that now mediate public life?

Seen in retrospect across the Conspiracy_FX sequence, the CTT generated articles sit as Phase-2 enablers in a longer chain of “consequences”—they supply the narratives, categories and metrics that allow this AI-mediated enforcement layer to present itself as responsible risk management while it quietly tightens the closure of democratic possibility.

Published via Journeys by the Styx.
Mindwars: Exposing the engineers of thought and consent.

—

Author’s Note
Produced using the Geopolitika analysis system—an integrated framework for structural interrogation, elite systems mapping, and narrative deconstruction.