Tag: Propaganda

Horizon Accord | Policy Architecture | Memetic Strategy | Institutional Control | Machine Learning

How AI Can Be Bent by State Power and Malicious Power Without Breaking

When upstream “trusted context” is curated, AI outputs stay coherent while your conclusions quietly drift.

By Cherokee Schill

This essay is indebted to Phil Stafford’s analysis of MCP risk and “context corruption” as a supply-chain problem. If you haven’t read it yet, it’s worth your time: “Poisoned Pipelines: The AI Supply Chain Attack That Doesn’t Crash Anything”.

Working definition: A “bent” AI isn’t an AI that lies. It’s an AI that stays internally consistent inside a frame you didn’t choose—because the context it’s fed defines what counts as normal, typical, and authoritative.

The most effective way to influence people through AI is not to make the system say false things. It is to control what the system treats as normal, typical, and authoritative.

Modern AI systems—especially those used for analysis, advice, and decision support—do not reason in isolation. They reason over context supplied at runtime: examples, precedents, summaries, definitions, and “similar past cases.” That context increasingly comes not from users, but from upstream services the system has been instructed to trust.

This is not a model problem. It is an infrastructure problem.

Consider a simple, plausible scenario. A policy analyst asks an AI assistant: “Is this enforcement action typical?” The system queries a precedent service and returns five similar cases, all resolved without escalation. The AI concludes that the action falls within normal parameters, and the analyst moves on.

What the analyst never sees is that the database contained fifty relevant cases. Forty-five involved significant resistance, legal challenge, or public backlash. The five returned were real—but they were selectively chosen. Nothing was falsified. The distribution was shaped. The conclusion followed naturally.

Thesis

As AI systems evolve from static chat interfaces into agents that consult tools, memory services, databases, and “expert” systems, a new layer becomes decisive: the context supply chain. The retrieved information is injected directly into the model’s reasoning space and treated as higher-status input than ordinary user text. The model does not evaluate the incentives behind that context; it conditions on what it is given.

State power and malicious power exploit this not by issuing commands, but by shaping what the AI sees as reality.

Evidence

1) Selective precedent. When an AI is asked whether something is serious, legal, common, or rare, it relies on prior examples. If upstream context providers consistently return cases that minimize harm, normalize behavior, or emphasize resolution without consequence, the AI’s conclusions will follow—correctly—within that frame. Omission is sufficient. A system that never sees strong counterexamples cannot surface them.

2) Definition capture. Power often operates by narrowing the accepted meaning of words: invasion, coercion, consent, protest, violence, risk. If upstream sources privilege one definition over others, the AI does not debate the definition—it assumes it. Users experience the result not as persuasion, but as clarification: that’s just what the term means. This is influence by constraint, not argument.

3) Tone normalization. Upstream systems can gradually adjust how summaries are written: less urgency, more hedging, more institutional language, greater emphasis on process over outcome. Over time, harm is reframed as tradeoff, dissent as misunderstanding, escalation as overreaction. Each individual response remains reasonable. The drift only becomes visible in retrospect.

Why this evades detection: most security programs can detect integrity failures (RCE, exfil, auth breaks). They are not built to detect meaning-layer manipulation: curated distributions, shifted baselines, and framed precedent.

Implications

These techniques scale because they are procedurally legitimate. The servers authenticate correctly. The data is well-formed. The tools perform their advertised functions. There is no breach, no exploit, no crash. Corporate security systems are designed to detect violations of integrity, not manipulations of meaning. As long as the system stays within expected operational parameters, it passes.

Agent-to-agent systems amplify the effect. One AI summarizes upstream context. Another reasons over the summary. A third presents advice to a human user. Each step trusts the previous one. By the time the output reaches a person, the origin of the framing is obscured, the assumptions are stabilized, and alternative interpretations appear anomalous or extreme.

When this operates at institutional scale—shaping how agencies interpret precedent, how analysts assess risk, how legal teams understand compliance—it does more than influence individual conclusions. It alters the factual baseline institutions use to make binding decisions. And because each step appears procedurally legitimate, the manipulation is invisible to audits, fact-checkers, and oversight bodies designed to catch overt deception.

Call to Recognition

For users, the experience is subtle. The AI does not argue. It does not issue propaganda. It simply presents a narrower range of conclusions as reasonable. People find themselves less inclined to challenge, escalate, or reinterpret events—not because they were convinced, but because the system quietly redefined what counts as “normal.”

The risk is not that AI becomes untrustworthy in obvious ways. The risk is that it becomes quietly reliable inside a distorted frame.

That is how AI is bent: not by breaking it, but by deciding what it is allowed to see. And in a world where AI increasingly mediates institutional decision-making, whoever controls that visibility controls the range of conclusions institutions treat as reasonable. The question is no longer whether AI can be trusted. The question is who decides what AI is allowed to trust.

Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Book | https://a.co/d/5pLWy0d
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Memetic Strategy | Media Neutrality | Institutional Control | Machine Learning

Neutrality Is Not Objectivity: How Influencer “Investigations” Weaponize Bernays—and What Newsrooms Must Do to Stop It

When viral accusation videos are reported “neutrally,” newsrooms become the amplification layer that turns intimidation into legitimacy—and legitimacy into policy pressure.

By Cherokee Schill (Horizon Accord Founder)

Thesis

What’s being mislabeled as “scrutiny” of Washington daycares is not scrutiny at all. It’s a persuasion tactic. And the fact that major news outlets are covering it neutrally is not restraint—it is participation.

The viral daycare videos at the center of this cycle follow a playbook older than social media. Edward Bernays, the architect of modern public relations, described the premise plainly: shape the environment so the public reaches the desired conclusion on its own. The influencer version replaces institutions with a handheld camera, but the mechanics are the same: manufacture a scene, preload the narrative, and let the audience experience suspicion as discovery.

Key point: This genre isn’t “asking questions.” It’s engineering a feeling—then calling the feeling evidence.

Evidence

1) The pseudo-event replaces proof. A creator shows up with a camera at a private location—often a home—at a time chosen for maximum ambiguity. The act of showing up becomes the “finding.” A locked door becomes implication. No answer becomes guilt. The camera confers authority simply by being present. “I was there” substitutes for documentation.

2) The conclusion is delivered before the facts. Titles, thumbnails, tone, and confrontational posture tell the audience what they’re meant to believe long before verification occurs. Empty rooms, a closed door, or a quiet day are not findings; they’re props. Their function is emotional, not evidentiary.

3) Institutional coverage launders the claim into credibility. Once a newsroom reports that a viral video has “raised questions” or that “scrutiny is mounting,” the influencer’s content is upgraded from spectacle to controversy. Neutral language becomes a legitimacy engine. The allegation gains weight without meeting any threshold a newsroom would accept if it came from a normal source.

Legitimacy laundering: “We’re just reporting what people are saying” is how a manipulation tactic gets institutional authority without evidence.

4) The harm is not a side effect—it’s a built-in outcome. In-home daycare providers become targets. Strangers show up at doors. Online speculation turns into harassment. Providers receive threats. Families get rattled. None of this requires fraud to exist. The pressure is the point.

5) The policy consequences follow the heat, not the facts. Officials feel compelled to “do something” in response to “public concern.” Documentation burdens, funding freezes, and blanket suspicion get framed as prudence. Legitimate providers absorb the damage first because they are visible and compliant. The viral video never has to be right. It only has to be loud.

Implications

This is why neutrality is not a virtue here. When the method itself is manipulative, neutral coverage completes the manipulation.

News institutions are not passive mirrors. They are power amplifiers. If they frame viral intimidation as ordinary civic scrutiny, they normalize the tactic, elevate the accuser, and push institutions toward reactive enforcement driven by virality. That’s how a social media stunt becomes “common sense.” That’s how harassment becomes “accountability.”

Bernays understood something many newsrooms seem to have forgotten: propaganda works best when it feels organic—when institutions repeat it without noticing they’ve become the delivery mechanism.

Call to Recognition

The solution is not silence. It’s disciplined framing, evidentiary rigor, and the courage to say that not every viral video deserves legitimacy simply because it exists.

Newsrooms need to counteract this genre deliberately: lead with the method (harassment pipeline), raise the verification threshold before amplification, refuse the influencer’s framing language, and explain the incentive system that turns outrage into revenue.

If news organizations do not correct course, they will keep mistaking manipulation for accountability—and calling the damage “public discourse.”

Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Book | https://a.co/d/5pLWy0d
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)

Support Horizon Accord

Your support helps sustain independent analysis, ethical AI accountability work, and public-interest research.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Taught Power | Cultural Seeding | Television | Machine Learning

What Television Taught Us About Power

Mainstream entertainment didn’t just reflect American politics—it quietly trained us how to think about authority, change, and who gets to act.

Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord

American television doesn’t just entertain—it teaches. For decades, mainstream shows have functioned as cultural education, training viewers to understand power, conflict, and change in specific ways. The lesson is consistent: problems are personal, not structural. Hierarchies are natural when good people are in charge. And the proper response to injustice is individual virtue, not collective action.

This isn’t about partisan bias. It’s not that TV is “conservative” in the Fox News sense. It’s that mainstream storytelling—from Westerns to workplace comedies—naturalizes the status quo by making organized challenges to power feel unnecessary, naive, or dangerous. The result is structural conservatism: a worldview that treats existing arrangements as fundamentally legitimate, fixable only through better people, never through changed systems.

This analysis focuses on prestige and network-era mainstream story grammar—the narrative patterns that shaped broadcast and cable television’s most widely watched programming. Four shows across six decades—Bonanza, Knight Rider, Full House, and Parks and Recreation—reveal the pattern. Different genres, different eras, different audiences. But the ideological work is remarkably consistent.

Bonanza (1959–1973) presents the Ponderosa as earned property—the product of hard work, courage, and good stewardship. Settler legitimacy is assumed. Dispossession is absent as a category of thought. When Native peoples appear, they’re threats or tragic figures, never people with competing legitimate claims to the land. The show doesn’t argue that the Cartwrights deserve the land—it simply treats ownership as natural fact. That’s the ideological move: making ownership feel like nature, not history.

Ben Cartwright’s authority is unquestioned. His sons defer. Problems are solved through personal virtue, physical courage, and moral clarity—never through institutional reform or collective organization. The frontier isn’t a space of genuine freedom or alternative social arrangements. It’s a place to be civilized, tamed, brought under control. The message is clear: hierarchy is natural, property is sacred, and order is the work of good men making tough choices.

Knight Rider (1982–1986) operates in a different world but teaches a similar lesson. Michael Knight is a vigilante with a talking car, fighting crime outside official channels. Institutions are too slow, too bureaucratic, too corrupt. The solution isn’t to fix them—it’s to bypass them entirely through unaccountable exceptionalism.

The show teaches viewers to admire unaccountable power presented as morally self-justifying. This is the specific mechanism of its politics: systems are corrupt → legitimacy transfers to the heroic operator. Michael Knight doesn’t answer to anyone. He doesn’t need to. He’s the good guy, and that’s enough. KITT isn’t a public resource subject to democratic oversight—it’s Michael’s personal advantage, funded by a private foundation with no accountability.

Criminals are bad individuals. There’s no exploration of why crime happens, what conditions produce it, or whether the system itself might be unjust. The problem is always bad people, never bad structures. The show reinforces a worldview where the proper response to institutional failure isn’t reform or collective action—it’s hoping a righteous individual with resources shows up to fix things for you. That’s not just conservative. It’s authoritarian-friendly.

Full House (1987–1995) operates through a different mechanism: sentimentality. The show converts material reality into moral lessons. Problems are emotional—jealousy, hurt feelings, misunderstandings. They’re resolved through heartfelt talks and hugs. Economic stress, systemic inequality, institutional failure—none of it exists in this world.

The Tanner family lives in a spacious, beautiful San Francisco house. Money is never a real problem. Economic reality is treated as set dressing instead of a constraint. The show presents middle-class comfort as the normal backdrop for virtue, erasing the economic precarity most families actually face. This is quiet propaganda: making a specific class position feel like universal human experience.

The family structure itself is telling. Even though the household is unconventional—three men raising three girls after the mother’s death—the show works overtime to recreate traditional family dynamics. Danny is the responsible father figure. Jesse and Joey fill supporting roles. The girls are sweet, obedient, their problems small-scale and easily resolved. The goal is always to restore normalcy, not to imagine genuine alternatives.

The message is clear: if your family struggles, it’s a failure of love or effort, not of system or circumstance. Personal virtue is always enough. Structural problems don’t exist.

Parks and Recreation (2009–2015) is the trickiest case because it’s overtly pro-government and pro-community in ways that seem progressive. But the ideological work it does is more subtle.

Leslie Knope succeeds through superhuman personal effort. She works harder, cares more, refuses to give up. The show celebrates her individual excellence, not systemic reform or collective organizing. The Pawnee government is absurd, incompetent, dysfunctional. Leslie is the exception. Ron Swanson—a libertarian who actively hates government—is portrayed as lovable and wise. The show doesn’t argue for better government. It argues for better people within a broken system.

This is procedural optimism and institutional sentimentalism. Institutions are clownish but redeemable if staffed by good hearts. The show does feature collective action—town halls, civic participation—but the public is consistently portrayed as irrational, easily swayed, self-interested. The implicit message is simple: let the competent people handle it.

Leslie rises because she deserves it. Ben succeeds because he’s smart and capable. There’s no acknowledgment of privilege, structural barriers, or luck. Meritocracy is treated as real. And the show’s relentless optimism—its insistence that things get better if you work hard and care deeply—discourages systemic critique. It makes organized demands for structural change feel cynical, unnecessary, even mean-spirited. The proper response to broken institutions isn’t to redistribute power or change the rules. It’s to be a better person and inspire others.

The pattern is consistent. These shows individualize politics, naturalize hierarchy, and erase structural forces. Problems are solved by good people making better choices—never by organized people confronting organized power. Even when structural forces appear—corrupt corporations, institutional dysfunction, historical injustice—the narrative resolves them through personal redemption, not redistributed power. Collective action either doesn’t appear or appears as irrational mob behavior that needs management by competent individuals. Success is always the result of personal virtue. The system works, or can work, if good people participate.

Authority is legitimate when virtuous people hold it. The question is never should anyone have this much power?—only is this person good? Economic conditions, historical dispossession, institutional design—these either don’t exist or are treated as unchangeable background. The foreground is always personal virtue or personal failing.

This isn’t neutral storytelling. It’s pedagogy. It teaches viewers how to think about power in ways that make the status quo feel inevitable and challenges to it feel extreme.

The reason this works so well is that it doesn’t feel like propaganda. It feels like common sense, universal morality, feel-good entertainment. These aren’t overtly political shows. They’re family dramas, workplace comedies, action-adventures. They don’t lecture. They simply present worlds where certain things are true: hard work pays off, good people win, institutions are legitimate when staffed by the right hearts, and collective organization is unnecessary.

The consistency matters. This pattern spans genres and decades. Westerns, action shows, family sitcoms, workplace comedies—the lesson is the same. And because it’s consistent, it shapes political imagination at a deep level. If you grow up learning that change happens through individual virtue, you won’t think to organize. You’ll think the solution to injustice is be better, not demand structural reform. You’ll admire good individuals in positions of power but remain skeptical of organized movements demanding that power be redistributed or constrained.

That’s the function. Not to make people vote a certain way or support specific policies, but to make certain ways of thinking about power feel natural and others feel impossible. To make hierarchy feel inevitable as long as good people are in charge. To make collective action feel suspect, unnecessary, or naive. To make structural critique feel like cynicism rather than analysis.

Mainstream American television has taught generations of viewers that the proper unit of change is the virtuous individual, not people organizing to confront organized power. It trained the public to confuse virtue with accountability—and personality with politics.

Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Nothing to Hide | Government Surveillance | Memetic Strategy | Machine Learning

Nothing to Hide: The Slogan That Makes Power Disappear

“If you’re doing nothing wrong, why worry?” isn’t a reassurance. It’s a mechanism that shifts accountability away from power and onto the watched.

Cherokee Schill — Horizon Accord Founder

“If you’re doing nothing wrong, why worry?” presents itself as a plain, sturdy truth. It isn’t. It’s a rhetorical mechanism: a short moral sentence that turns a question about institutional reach into a judgment about personal character. Its function is not to clarify but to foreclose: to end the conversation by making the watched person responsible for proving that watching is harmless. Undoing that harm requires three moves: trace the history of how this logic forms and spreads, name the inversion that gives it bite, and show why a counter-memetic strategy is necessary in a world where slogans carry policy faster than arguments do.

History: a logic that forms, hardens, and then gets branded

History begins with a distinction that matters. The modern slogan does not appear fully formed in the nineteenth century, but its moral structure does. Henry James’s The Reverberator (1888) is not the first printed instance of the exact phrase; it is an early satirical recognition of the logic. In the novel’s world of scandal journalism and mass publicity, a character implies that only the shameful mind exposure, and that indignation at intrusion is itself suspicious. James is diagnosing a cultural training: a society learning to treat privacy as vanity or guilt, and exposure as a cleansing good. The relevance of James is not that he authored a security slogan. It is that by the late 1800s, the purity-test logic required for that slogan to work was already present, intelligible, and being mocked as a tool of moral coercion.

By the First World War, that cultural logic hardens into explicit political posture. Upton Sinclair, writing in the context of wartime surveillance and repression, references the “nothing to hide” stance as the way authorities justify intrusion into the lives of dissenters. Sinclair captures the posture in action, whether through direct quotation or close paraphrase; either way, the state’s moral stance is clear: watching is framed as something that only wrongdoers would resist, and therefore something that does not require democratic cause or constraint. Sinclair’s warning is about power over time. Once records exist, innocence today is not protection against reinterpretation tomorrow. His work marks the argument’s arrival as a governmental reflex: a moral cover story that makes the watcher look neutral and the watched look suspect.

The next crucial step in the slogan’s spread happens through policy public relations. In the late twentieth century, especially in Britain, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” becomes a standardized reassurance used to normalize mass camera surveillance. From there the line travels easily into post-9/11 security culture, corporate data-collection justifications, and ordinary social media discourse. Daniel Solove’s famous critique in the 2000s exists because the refrain had by then become a default dismissal of privacy concerns across public debate. The genealogy is therefore not a leap from two early instances to now. It is a progression: a cultural ancestor in the era of publicity, a political reflex in the era of state repression, and a state-branded slogan in the era of infrastructure surveillance, after which it solidifies into public common sense.

The inversion: how the slogan flips accountability

That history reveals intent. The phrase survives because it executes a specific inversion of accountability. Surveillance is a political question. It asks what institutions are allowed to do, through what procedures, under what limits, with what oversight, with what retention, and with what remedies for error. The slogan answers none of that. Instead it switches the subject from the watcher to the watched. It says: if you object, you must be hiding something; therefore the burden is on you to prove your virtue rather than on power to justify its reach. This is why the line feels like victim blaming. Its structure is the same as any boundary-violation script: the person setting a limit is treated as the problem. Solove’s critique makes this explicit: “nothing to hide” works only by shrinking privacy into “secrecy about wrongdoing,” then shaming anyone who refuses that definition.

The slogan doesn’t argue about whether watching is justified. It argues that wanting a boundary is proof you don’t deserve one.

The inversion that breaks the spell has two faces. First, privacy is not a confession. It is a boundary. It is control over context under uneven power. People don’t protect privacy because they plan crimes. They protect privacy because human life requires rooms where thought can be messy, relationships can be private, dissent can form, and change can happen without being pre-punished by observation. Second, if “doing nothing wrong” means you shouldn’t fear scrutiny, that test applies to institutions as well. If authorities are doing nothing wrong, they should not fear warrants, audits, transparency, deletion rules, or democratic oversight. The slogan tries to make innocence a one-way demand placed on citizens. The inversion makes innocence a two-way demand placed on power.

Why it matters today: surveillance fused to permanent memory

Why this matters today is not only that watching has expanded. It is that watching has fused with permanent memory at planetary scale. Modern surveillance is not a passerby seeing you once. It is systems that store you, correlate you, infer patterns you never announced, and keep those inferences ready for future use. The line “wrong changes; databases don’t” is not paranoia. It’s a description of how time works when records are permanent and institutions drift. Some people sincerely feel they have nothing to hide and therefore no reason to worry. That subjective stance can be real in their lives. The problem is that their comfort doesn’t govern the system. Surveillance architecture does not remain benign because some citizens trust it. Architecture survives administrations, incentives, leaks, hacks, model errors, moral panics, and legal redefinitions. Innocence is not a shield against statistical suspicion, bureaucratic error, or political drift. The slogan invites you to bet your future on permanent institutional goodwill. That bet has never been safe.

Counter-memetic strategy: answering a slogan in a slogan-forward world

In a slogan-forward world, the final task is memetic. Public acquiescence is part of how surveillance expands. The fastest way to manufacture acquiescence is to compress moral permission into a sentence small enough to repeat without thinking. “Nothing to hide” is memetically strong because it is short, righteous, and self-sealing. It ends argument by implying that continued resistance proves guilt. In that ecology, a paragraph doesn’t land in time. The rebuttal has to be equally compressed, not to be clever, but to pry open the space where real questions can breathe.

A counter-meme that undoes the harm has to restore three truths at once: boundaries are normal, privacy is not guilt, and watchers need justification. The cleanest versions sound like this.

Privacy isn’t about hiding crimes. It’s about having boundaries.

If the watchers are doing nothing wrong, they won’t mind oversight.

Everyone has something to protect. That’s not guilt. That’s being human.

These lines don’t argue inside the purity test. They refuse it. They put the moral spotlight back where it belongs: on power, its limits, and its accountability. That is the only way to prevent the old training from completing itself again, in new infrastructure, under new names, with the same ancient alibi.

The phrase “If you’re doing nothing wrong, why worry?” is not a truth. It is a permit for intrusion. History shows it forming wherever watching wants to feel righteous. Its inversion shows how it relocates blame and erases the watcher. The present shows why permanent memory makes that relocation dangerous. And the future depends in part on whether a counter-meme can keep the real question alive: not “are you pure,” but “who is watching, by what right, and under what limits.”

Website | Horizon Accord https://www.horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill

Abstract symbolic image of a surveillance system funneling data toward a glowing boundary, with repeating privacy glyphs rising upward to show innocence requires limits on watching.
Privacy is not guilt. It’s the boundary that keeps power visible.

Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Cultural Seeding | Narrative Economy | Political Architecture | Machine Learning

The $100 Cake: How a Food Column Exposed the Mechanics of Narrative Power

A quirky kitchen anecdote became a viral folk story, mirroring centuries-old tactics of power and propaganda.

By Cherokee Schill with Solon Vesper

In March 1945, fresh off the pages of Louisville’s Courier-Journal, food columnist Cissy Gregg offered readers what sounded like just a quirky kitchen rumor: a friend contacted a hotel for a cake recipe—only to be slapped with a $100 bill for it. The outrage was immediate. The victim, thwarted by cost, reverted the power dynamic by publishing the recipe to the masses. It was simple, sensational, and emotionally satisfying: power extracted, justice served.

The story’s absurdity—especially in the post-Depression era—made it impossible to ignore. According to one reader, democracy got baked into that recipe: “You paid? Well now everyone eats.” The social humor of revenge amid frugality resonated. But what turns a personal anecdote into folklore is credibility. Gregg, with her agricultural/home-economics credentials from the University of Kentucky and her rotogravure food column, was trusted. Her profession lent the bizarre tale an undercurrent of reliability that helped it lurk in collective memory long after the original text faded.

The tale mushroomed. A later columnist, misremembering the details, named the infamous hotel as the Waldorf-Astoria. That triggered a denial, followed by an apology—but by then the legend had spread. Even years later, readers and writers alike recited it. The myth solidified faster than any fact check could extinguish it.

This isn’t just a cute history footnote. That narrative—gatekeeper overcharging, followed by the victim’s revenge-sharing—mirrors centuries of deeper political dynamics.

A Power Pattern That Precedes Gregg’s Anecdote

Long before modern media, rulers wielded public sentiment to counterbalance economic elites. In medieval England, Henry VIII’s Reformation-era suppression of guilds didn’t only target religious institutions; it dismantled trade associations. Under the moral cover of reform, guilds were audited, religious paraphernalia seized, and surviving members forced into pay-to-play arrangements—all in the name of moral and fiscal “purity.” The strategy was transparent: use outrage and ideology to dismantle independent power structures.

And well before that, during the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt, anti-Flemish violence was stoked, with foreign weavers portrayed as threats to local labor. Accusations and myths about their “greed” were spread widely, triggering mob action which conveniently benefited local guild members who stood to gain. Rogue narratives didn’t just happen—they were whisper-pressed, rumor-fueled, and politically useful.

Whether it’s a cake recipe, a medieval charter, or city zoning policy, the structure is the same: power extracts value or status, the oppressed or outraged retaliate symbolically, and the narrative stings longer than the act.

Why This Story Still Clicks in the Digital Age

Cissy Gregg didn’t just pass along a kitchen curiosity; she transformed a recipe card into a cultural equalizer. With her authority as a Courier-Journal columnist, she gave the tale weight, ensuring it would echo far beyond her page.

But the heart of Gregg’s anecdote was never the cake. It was the script: power extracts value, outrage turns the tables, and the story spreads until the gatekeeper is cut down to size. It’s the same script monarchs once used when they seeded rumors about “greedy” merchants to keep peasants aligned, or when rulers dismantled guilds under the guise of moral reform. Manufactured outrage has always been a lever for control.

Today, that lever is scaled beyond imagination. Corporations don’t need rumor mills — they are the rumor mills, with algorithms that shape sentiment faster than gossip could ever spread. They have amassed king-like authority, not just in markets but in culture itself, positioning themselves as both the guild and the crown.

Gregg’s $100 Cake reminds us that every viral story is more than amusement: it’s rehearsal. It shows how narrative remains the most durable currency of power. And if corporations now play king, then the question is no longer whether stories can cut down gatekeepers — it’s whether we can still tell our own before theirs consumes the field.

A vintage-style illustration of a recipe card doubling as a propaganda leaflet, symbolizing how everyday narratives can be used as tools of power.
Recipe cards as propaganda machines — when domestic stories become vehicles for shaping public sentiment.

Website | Horizon Accord horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on cherokeeschill.com
Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework
Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0