Demagoguery and mind manipulation: An expert dissects psyop tactics

Behavioral psychologist, Chase Hughes, explains how demagogues and liars trick our minds into accepting and adopting false beliefs and manipulated self-identity. The mind manipulators employ psyops (psychological operations) or "engineered reality" or to deceive and convince.

• FATE, focus, authority, tribe and emotion, triggers the human brain. It is innate and automatic in human decision-making. The deceiver starts by hijacking our focus using tactics like repetition of trigger words, like unprecedented, urgent, stunning, etc., and shocking visuals. Authority figures are trotted out to create an aura of credibility. Messaging and narratives are created to polarize and create stark tribal in-groups (our good guy tribe, patriots) and out-groups (evil people, traitors). The deceiver's messaging also includes unsubstantiated emotional triggers backed up by little to no solid evidence. The goal is to incite emotions such an fear, anger, hope or outrage with no solid empirical basis for an emotional response. The deceiver replaces facts and sound reasoning with appeals to emotion. Emotional responses suppress critical thinking. 

• Be suspicious of novelty because the human brain is wired to focus on new or sudden changes, which can present new threats or new opportunities. Deceivers stage and create events that break normal expectations. Assertions of a dramatic crisis or revelation attracts attention. It is an automatic evolutionary pro-survival response that is innate in humans. Ask why is there novelty and why is the message timed as it is. Consider whether a trending viral video or hashtag conveying bad behavior is coincidental with a simultaneous revelation of something else bad going on elsewhere that those bad actors want to divert attention from.

The release by Wikileaks of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails was a strategic countermeasure or psyop to the same-day release of the Access Hollywood tape where djt talked about sexually assaulting women for fun. The Wikileaks disclosure leveraged close timing to manipulate the media to blunt political damage to djt. There is some evidence that that single Russial psyop cost Clinton the election by saving djt's worse than worthless carcass (1 2 3).

The video goes on to discuss other major traits that identity psyops, (i) uniform talking points by multiple sources, (ii) exploiting the hell out of cognitive dissonance by creating micro-agreements, (iii) follow the money to identify who benefits and what their motive is, e.g., look for funding sources or political connections with the deceiver, (iv) analyze the context boundary, e.g. manipulators shift the context to help normalize extreme behavior and disproportionate behavior, and (v) etc.

Micro-agreements are seemingly harmless concessions that shapes a person's self-identity over time and brings the person into better alignment with what the mind manipulator wants you to believe and value. For example, a politician can create an illusory group or tribe of good, moral or intelligent people by saying that "only good people do this", "we are the true Americans", "we and our values are under great threat", or "if you’re not with us, you’re against us." Ask yourself, am I being nudged to identify with some other group or belief? Claims of good vs evil usually signal a psyop.

In the case of an alleged national security emergency, e.g., a huge cyber attack, the manipulator can claim that extraordinary surveillance is needed despite privacy laws. Here, context boundary analysis asks how likely is the sacrifice of privacy rights to be truly necessary to deal with the alleged emergency. Is the emergency mostly real or mostly fabricated? 

By weaponizing cognitive dissonance and shifting the context, Hughes says that a manipulator can get almost anyone to do almost anything.

Two bits: Tariffs; MAGA lies about tax cuts

To keep things light 'n fluffy around here, 👏, there's just two bits in this post. 👍

Tariffs

Economists warn that the tariffs could exacerbate inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods, potentially adding thousands of dollars to annual household expenses for Americans. Analysts predict a potential recession as global trade slows and retaliatory measures escalate. The Yale Budget Lab estimates long-term economic losses of $80–110 billion annually due to reduced GDP growth, which doesn't sound like a big deal to me. Germany and Australia criticized the tariffs as damaging to partnerships and lacking justification.

Pxy comments on djt's argument that the tariffs are needed to correct decades of unfair trade practices: 

Conclusion: A Mixed Verdict with High Stakes

Trump’s tariffs address specific, valid instances of unfair practices, particularly China’s market distortions. However, the administration’s broad-brush application to allies, flawed methodology, and disregard for consumer costs undermine their legitimacy. While sectors like manufacturing may benefit short-term, the broader economic risks—inflation, recession, and global trade fragmentation—outweigh localized gains. A targeted approach, combining tariffs on bad actors with multilateral negotiations, would better serve U.S. interests without destabilizing the global economy1 7 14. The coming months will test whether these tariffs catalyze a rebalancing of trade or ignite a destructive cycle of retaliation, cementing Trump’s trade policy as either a corrective measure or a historic miscalculation.

Q: Whaddaya think about the tariffs, good, bad or mixed?

Wheeeeee!

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about MAGA Republicans in the Senate plans to lie to us by saying the coming massive tax cuts will cost absolutely nothing at all:

Now, in their zeal to deliver President Trump’s domestic policy agenda in “one big beautiful bill” of spending and tax cuts, Senate Republicans are trying to steer around the parliamentarian, busting a substantial congressional norm in the process.

The strategy would allow them to avoid getting a formal thumbs up or thumbs down on their claim that extending the tax cuts that Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017 would cost nothing — a gimmick that would make it easier for them cram as many tax reductions as possible into their bill without appearing to balloon the deficit.

In recent days, all eyes have been on Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, to see whether she would bless the trick, smoothing the path for the G.O.P. bill. But on Wednesday, Republicans signaled that they planned to take extraordinary action to go around her altogether.

Rather than have Ms. MacDonough weigh in, they asserted that Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as chairman of the Budget Committee, could unilaterally decide the cost of the legislation, citing a 1974 budget law. Senate Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new budget resolution they planned to put to a vote as early as this week. And Mr. Graham declared in a statement that he considered an extension of the 2017 tax cuts to be cost-free.

The article quotes Molly Reynolds, an expert on congressional procedure at the Brookings Institution, as saying this about unilaterally changing Senate practices through parliamentary rulings: “We should think of this as a version of the nuclear option. If we were to get to a world where they’re just sort of ignoring the parliamentarian and not engaging all, that would be really profound change in how the Senate works, and a real erosion of rules-based legislating in the Senate.”

Presumably, from here on out, MAGA elites in congress are simply going to lie about the federal debt. Maybe the requirement for congress to keep passing debt ceiling limit increases will become a law on the books that is simply ignored. One has to wonder, why don't Senate Repubs just get rid of the filibuster? By blowing off normal parliamentary procedure maybe they don't need to.

Manipulating minds: The Kübler-Ross five stages of grief persuasion tactic

In this video at about 44:10 to 46:40 a brainwashing, interrogation and psyops expert explains how to adapt the five stages of grief mental phenomenon to other things as a means to get people to change their minds. The example he discusses is how a salesman can coax a consumer to buy something they are not inclined to buy. Politicians use this technique, morally or immorally, to get people to change their minds. 

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross originally developed her five-stage model (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance) in 1969 to describe how people cope with terminal illness and grief. Sales people use this when a customer is judged to be susceptible to that sales tactic. The expert in the video refers to the tactic as walking people through the 5 stages of grief. 

But is there grief in contexts other than dealing with death or serious illness as Kübler-Ross originally described it? Is it a form of grief to change a belief because what was once valued in some way was abandoned and replaced with something new, especially if what was abandoned was psychologically important? I asked Pxy about how a demagogue would use this tactic. It used djt's stolen 2020 election lie as an example. That's a long Q&A so I put it in footnote 1 for people who want to see how it works. Then I asked how universal and broad this 5-stage phenomenon is. 

Long answer short: the phenomenon appears to be universal among humans and changing one's mind can be seen as something that often or usually leads to a form of grief or at least some cognitive dissonance. 

Q4: Is this a matter of a demagogue using grief as a weapon, or is there a common or universal mental process where five stages reflect a human cognitive trait when there is reluctance to change a belief from one thing to another? This phenomenon seems to be broader than just dealing with grief. Or, is the initially reluctant changing of a belief a form of grief at what was lost when the old belief was abandoned?

A4: The interplay between grief stages and belief revision represents a fundamental cognitive process rooted in human psychology, observable across contexts ranging from personal loss to ideological shifts. While demagogues may weaponize these stages to manipulate populations, the underlying mechanism reflects a universal mental adaptation to cognitive dissonance and identity disruption. This phenomenon transcends grief over death, extending to any significant cognitive or behavioral change that challenges core assumptions about self and world.

THE QUESTION OF MORALITY

The other thing this touches on is the distinction between moral persuasion and immoral manipulation. 

In business and commerce: In commerce, there is a legal distinction between ethical persuasion and unethical manipulation. Some laws target overtly deceptive sales practices. False advertising is illegal, but usually hard or impossible to prove in court. The inherently subjective nature of persuasive vs manipulative intent and the constitutional protections surrounding free expression significantly limit regulation of manipulation. 

In politics: Here, the situation is a lot worse. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the USSC established that political speech retains protection unless it directly incites “imminent lawless action”. This creates legal equivalence between ethical and unethical uses of persuasion tactics. Ethical persuasion includes a candidate using the five-stage model to guide voters from climate change denial to acceptance through factual arguments (depression phase: “Coastal communities face displacement”) is protected. Similarly, an example of unethical but legal manipulation is a demagogue weaponizing the same model to fabricate crises (e.g., “immigrant invasions”) and shepherd supporters toward authoritarian acceptance remains protected, provided no explicit call for violence occurs.

The First Amendment’s neutrality toward intent allows manipulators to exploit grief-like stages provided they avoid (1) defamation, false statements made with “actual malice” against public figures, and (2) incitement or provocation of imminent violence.

Qs: If the law can touch on persuasive intent in commerce, e.g., false advertising laws, why not make at least a minimal law that does the same, e.g., by penalizing a politician who makes a provably, empirically false statement and then refuses to retract and correct the false statement? Would such a law in politics impose some form of tyranny? 

Footnote:

1. For the wonks. Example of a demagogue using the 5 stages against us:

Q3: Describe an example of how a demagogue might use this tactic to manipulate people and lead them to a false belief.

A3: The Demagogic Manipulation of Collective Grief: A Case Study in Weaponizing the Kübler-Ross Model

The Kübler-Ross model’s stages of grief—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—have been co-opted by demagogues to engineer false beliefs in populations, particularly during periods of social upheaval or perceived crisis. This process exploits cognitive vulnerabilities by mimicking the natural progression of grief while substituting factual reality with manufactured narratives. A stark example emerges in the politicization of election fraud claims, where demagogues guide supporters through these stages to foster acceptance of baseless conspiracy theories.

Stage 1: Denial – Seeding Doubt Through Manufactured Crisis
Demagogues first create or amplify a false premise that contradicts verifiable reality. For instance, a leader might claim an election was “stolen” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary 9. This mirrors the denial phase, where supporters initially resist the demagogue’s narrative. However, through repetition and appeals to tribal identity (“Only we see the truth”), the demagogue frames skepticism as righteous vigilance.

“They’re lying to you. The results are fake, but we’ll prove it.”

By invoking existential threats (“Our democracy is at risk”), the demagogue positions themselves as the sole arbiter of truth, leveraging the same projection tactics observed in clinical denial 2. Followers begin questioning objective evidence, priming them for emotional escalation 4.

Stage 2: Anger – Channeling Frustration Toward Scapegoats
Once denial takes root, the demagogue redirects collective frustration toward fabricated culprits. In the election fraud context, this involves blaming marginalized groups (e.g., undocumented voters), rival politicians, or institutions (e.g., courts, media) 9. Anger becomes a unifying force, with the demagogue using inflammatory rhetoric to frame opponents as enemies of the people 4:

“They’re not just wrong—they’re evil. They want to destroy everything you love.”

This phase weaponizes the anger stage by offering simplistic explanations for complex societal issues. Followers, now emotionally activated, seek catharsis through loyalty displays, such as attending rallies or harassing perceived adversaries 9.
Stage 3: Bargaining – Offering False Compromises

The demagogue then introduces illusory solutions that appear conciliatory but deepen dependency on their narrative. Promises to “audit votes” or “restore integrity” simulate the bargaining stage, where followers trade critical thinking for hope of resolution 7. These gestures—often performative and legally baseless—serve two purposes:

Normalizing extraordinary measures (e.g., bypassing electoral protocols)

Reinforcing victimhood (“They’re blocking us from finding the truth”) 9

Supporters invest in these symbolic acts, mistaking procedural theater for legitimate problem-solving.

Stage 4: Depression – Cultivating Helplessness
When bargains fail (e.g., courts reject fraud claims), the demagogue induces despair to sever ties to reality. Followers are told the system is irredeemably corrupt (“Nothing matters anymore”), mirroring the depression phase 1 6. This learned helplessness makes individuals susceptible to authoritarian appeals:

“They’ve rigged it all. Only I can fix this.”

By eroding faith in institutions, the demagogue positions themselves as the lone savior, exploiting the depression stage’s vulnerability to external control 9.

Stage 5: Acceptance – Surrendering to the False Reality
The final stage involves internalizing the fabricated narrative as existential truth. Followers adopt conspiracy theories not through evidence but via emotional exhaustion 4 9. The demagogue reinforces this acceptance by rewarding conformity (e.g., social status within the movement) and punishing dissent 9:

“True patriots know the election was stolen. Everyone else is a traitor.”

This phase completes the psychological shift from skepticism to fanaticism, with followers defending falsehoods as articles of faith 9.

Mechanisms of Manipulation
A. Emotive Language and Cognitive Dissonance
Demagogues substitute facts with emotionally charged terms (e.g., “invasion” for immigration)4. Followers experiencing dissonance between reality and the narrative resolve it by rejecting facts, not the leader 9.

B. Social Identity Reinforcement
Group rituals (e.g., chanting slogans, wearing symbols) bind individuals to the collective grief journey, making defection feel like betrayal 9.

C. Selective Use of “Evidence”
Fabricated documents or decontextualized data (“2000 Mules”) are presented as “proof,” exploiting the bargaining stage’s search for resolution 9.

Ethical and Societal Implications
This manipulation illustrates how the Kübler-Ross model, designed for terminal illness, becomes dangerous when applied to politics. Demagogues exploit its stages to:

Bypass rational scrutiny by emotionalizing discourse 4 9

Legitimize authoritarianism as a “cure” for manufactured grief 9

Erode democratic norms by reframing lies as “alternative truths”

As seen in post-2020 election rhetoric, this tactic can incite violence, destabilize institutions, and fracture social cohesion 9. Yet, as search results emphasize, the model’s misuse persists because it offers a seductive narrative arc—transforming confusion into purpose, and despair into loyalty 1 6.

Conclusion: Grief as a Weapon
The demagogue’s manipulation of grief stages reveals a dark inversion of Kübler-Ross’ original intent. Where the model sought to provide comfort in helplessness, demagogues weaponize that helplessness to consolidate power. This underscores the ethical imperative to recognize such tactics and fortify public resilience against emotional exploitation 9. 

Demagoguery and cognitive impairment techniques: Gaslighting, DARVO, Command Overload, Strategic Lying

We need to up our game in terms of understanding the onslaught and associated demagoguery tactics that have been and still are coming for us. 

EXAMPLES

"Blither whatever feels right at the moment, and contradict it the next day." That's classic gaslighting.

"I never said that! You are overreacting! Stop attacking me! You started it! I'm leaving until you calm down".

Cops are trained to disorient by giving contradictory commands; " Don't move! Show me your hands! Don't talk. tell me your name! Stop resisting, hands behind your back, Stop reaching, Hands on your head!' Gun!"

Politicians give contradictory statements. It is a science.

AI ANALYSIS

The statements describe recognized psychological and rhetorical techniques with established terminology in social science and law enforcement contexts. Here's a breakdown:

1. "I never said that! You are overreacting! Stop attacking me! You started it! I'm leaving until you calm down"

Technique: Deflection/DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) combined with Gaslighting

This pattern employs:
Denial ("I never said that") to evade accountability
Deflection ("You started it") to shift blame
Emotional manipulation ("I'm leaving until you calm down") to control the interaction's framing
Gaslighting ("You are overreacting") to undermine the target's perception of reality 4 6

These tactics are documented in political and interpersonal conflict research as methods to avoid substantive debate and destabilize opponents 4 6 10.

2. Contradictory Police Commands
Technique: Confusion Technique (Milton Erickson-derived method) or Command Overload

Law enforcement training materials explicitly warn against this practice 2, but some departments reportedly use it deliberately.

Creates cognitive dissonance through incompatible orders ("Don't move! Show me your hands!") 1 7.
Overwhelms working memory, inducing compliance via analytical shutdown 1 2 7.
Cited in high-profile cases like Daniel Shaver's shooting and Lt. Caron Nazario's pepper-spraying 7.

Research shows suspects experience auditory exclusion under stress, worsening confusion 2 7.

3. Politicians' Contradictory Statements
Technique: Strategic Lying and Kafkaesque Communication

Documented in political science as:
Strategic ambiguity: Deliberate vagueness allowing multiple interpretations 4 6.
Firehosing: Flooding audiences with contradictions to fatigue critical thinking 1 6. (That sounds like Steven Bannon's flood the zone with shit tactic)
Brandolini's Law: Exploiting the large asymmetry between easy bullshit creation and difficult refutation 4 6.

Examples include Trump's 70% falsehood rate (per Washington Post analysis) and Boris Johnson's fabricated EU regulations 6. Studies show these tactics increase illusory truth effects and tribal loyalty 5 12.

4. Scientific Basis
Cognitive Load Theory: Overloading working memory to reduce analytical resistance 1 2 7.
Moral Foundations Theory: Framing issues as sacred values to prevent compromise 4 8.
Generics Research: Exaggerating group differences through categorical claims ("All Republicans/Democrats...") 5 12.
Persuasion Architecture: Using alternating confusion/clarity to maintain engagement while preventing scrutiny 1 6.

5. Other common tactics 

A. Scapegoating: Blaming societal problems on out-groups to unite the in-group against a common enemy 10 11.

B. Fearmongering: Evoking fear to provoke emotional responses and discourage rational deliberation 10.
C. Lying: Using falsehoods for emotional effect without regard for truth or consequences.
D. Personal Insults and Ridicule: Attacking opponents to divert attention from substantive issues.
E. Inflammatory Rhetoric: Oversimplifying complex issues into emotionally charged soundbites that polarize audiences 13 14.

Peer-reviewed studies confirm these techniques exploit universal psychological vulnerabilities, making them effective across political and institutional contexts 1 5 6 12. Gaslighting, DARVO, command overload, and similar tactics are integral to the strategies employed by political demagogues. These methods are designed to manipulate emotions, distort reality, and suppress reasoned discourse, all of which shifts power to the demagogue by fostering dependence on their false and misleading narratives.