In the digital age, social media platforms like X have become battlegrounds for ideas, where narratives are shaped not just by overt propaganda but by subtle, repetitive messaging that masquerades as neutral observation.
Two recurring taglines – “Activism never wins elections” and “We are too divided” – are often shared by seemingly impartial users, yet they serve a deeper purpose: to foster defeatism, discourage resistance, and promote compliance with a prevailing agenda.
Far from being benign, these motifs are strategic tools designed to undermine collective action and sow divisive sentiment, particularly when the so-called “division” stems from exposing government-aligned moles within activist circles.
Embracing these narratives, even unwittingly, risks self-defeatism, as it aligns with the very forces activists seek to challenge.
The Mechanics of Defeatist Messaging
Morara Kebaso: A state-actor perpetuating the myth that activism is futile
At first glance, “Activism never wins elections” appears as a pragmatic observation, a cautionary note grounded in political realism. Similarly, “We are too divided” seems to lament a fractured society, yearning for unity. Yet, their constant repetition by “neutral” accounts – those not overtly aligned with any political faction – betrays a calculated strategy. These taglines are not organic expressions of public sentiment but rather carefully curated messages designed to erode morale and discourage action.
The phrase “Activism never wins elections” implies that grassroots efforts are futile, that only institutional power or establishment candidates can prevail. It dismisses historical counterexamples – like the Civil Rights Movement’s influence on legislative change or the Tea Party’s impact on Republican primaries – as anomalies, while ignoring how activism shapes public discourse and pressures elites.
By framing activism as a losing game, this tagline discourages participation, urging potential change-makers to stay on the sidelines. It’s a call to surrender before the fight even begins.
Likewise, “We are too divided” weaponizes the perception of discord to paralyze collective action. It suggests that unity is a prerequisite for progress, ignoring that transformative movements often thrive amid disagreement.
This narrative conveniently glosses over the source of division: in many cases, a deliberate strategy to fracture opposition. When “neutral” users amplify this sentiment, they reinforce the idea that resistance is hopeless, nudging audiences toward apathy or compliance with the status quo.
Githunguri MP Gathoni Wamuchomba: A state-actor perpetuating the myth that Gen Z’s are divided simply for calling out a handful of traitors
The Mole Problem: Division as a Manufactured Crisis
The touted “division” often cited in these taglines is not always organic. A significant factor, as recent discussions on X reveal, is the exposure of activists who act as government moles – individuals embedded within movements to sow discord, misdirect efforts, or gather intelligence. These revelations, far from being divisive for division’s sake, are acts of self-preservation, aimed at protecting the integrity of grassroots efforts. Yet, the narrative of division is flipped by defeatist taglines to portray such purges as evidence of irreparable fragmentation.
Embracing these exposed moles, as some might advocate in the name of unity, would be self-defeating. It would mean tolerating sabotage within the ranks, allowing bad-faith actors to dilute or derail the movement’s goals. The irony is that the “division” lamented by “neutral” voices is often a necessary cleansing process, not a fatal flaw. By framing it as the latter, these taglines obscure the real issue – external manipulation – and redirect blame onto the activists themselves.
The Role of “Neutral” Amplifiers
Eve Maina: A “neutral” amplifier who pushes subtle political messages infused with “woke” content and thirst-traps
The spread of these defeatist motifs by “neutral” social media users like Honorable Gathoni Wamuchomba and Eve Maina is particularly insidious. Unlike overtly partisan accounts, these users appear disinterested, lending their posts an air of objectivity. Their bios might lack political markers, and their content often mixes mundane observations with these loaded taglines, making the latter seem like casual wisdom rather than propaganda.
This veneer of neutrality makes their messages more palatable, allowing them to penetrate diverse audiences without raising red flags.
On X, for instance, accounts with generic handles and minimal ideological footprints have been observed reposting “Activism never wins elections” alongside unrelated content like sports updates or memes. This juxtaposition normalizes the defeatist sentiment, embedding it into the everyday scroll. Similarly, “We are too divided” often appears in threads lamenting cultural polarization, framed as a universal truth rather than a contested narrative. The heavy rotation of these messages creates a feedback loop, where repetition breeds familiarity, and familiarity breeds acceptance.
The Agenda Behind the Taglines
The ultimate goal of these taglines is to align audiences with an agenda of compliance. By convincing people that activism is futile and division is insurmountable, they pave the way for acquiescence to institutional power—whether that’s government policy, corporate interests, or other entrenched systems. This is particularly effective in contexts where grassroots movements threaten the status quo, such as campaigns against surveillance, censorship, or regulatory overreach.
The exposure of government moles within activist circles, as highlighted in recent X discussions, underscores why this strategy is deployed. When movements begin to identify and expel bad actors, they gain clarity and momentum. Defeatist taglines counter this by reframing accountability as division, urging activists to reconcile with their saboteurs in the name of unity. This is not a call for harmony but a demand for surrender, ensuring that movements remain compromised and ineffective.
Countering the Narrative
To resist this strategy, activists and their allies must first recognize these taglines for what they are: tools of psychological manipulation, not neutral truths. Challenging their premises is key. Activism “has” shaped electoral outcomes, from suffrage to environmental protections, by shifting public opinion and forcing candidates to adapt. Division, when rooted in rooting out bad actors, is not a weakness but a strength, ensuring movements remain true to their principles.
On platforms like X, counter-narratives can gain traction by exposing the motives behind these taglines. Highlighting historical successes of activism, sharing stories of purged moles leading to stronger movements, and calling out “neutral” accounts for their suspiciously consistent messaging can disrupt the defeatist cycle.
Amplifying voices that reject compliance – without resorting to divisive infighting – builds resilience against these tactics.
Conclusion
The repetitive spread of “Activism never wins elections” and “We are too divided” by “neutral” social media users is no accident. It’s a deliberate strategy to sow defeatism, fracture opposition, and promote compliance with an agenda that thrives on apathy. The manufactured “division” caused by exposing government moles is not a flaw to be lamented but a necessary step toward clarity and strength.
By recognizing and rejecting these taglines, activists can reclaim the narrative, proving that resistance is not futile and that unity, when built on trust, is a powerful force for change. In a world where words shape reality, the first step to victory is refusing to surrender to defeatism.
