This is the key, I think. It's possible for an individual to start or grow a movement. It is impossible for an individual to own or control a movement, at lea

This is the key, I think. It's possible for an individual to start or grow a movement. It is impossible for an individual to own or control a movement, at least for long, because that's not what a movement is. The movement will eventually either die (which might happen) or escape control (which might also happen). The phenomenon of a movement's founders going on to reject what the movement has become (or maybe has always been) is pretty common. If I take the article's claims at face value, this is just the inverse of that. The movement became something that rejected its founder.