A reality pulse check: MAGA is subverting AI

INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT

At ~12:56-14:17, podcaster Julia poses a big, important question, how long will Musk allow his own AI, Grok, to call out his own lies and BS? 

In my opinion, it won't be long before AI gets polluted and corrupted by MAGA. I use Grok as my default AI program. I've been wondering about this since I became aware of djt's Jan. 23, 2025 EO deceptively entitled, Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Action to Enhance America’s AI Leadership. EO 14179 is about MAGA poisoning AI, while calling it an effort to reduce regulation, bias and "engineered social agendas." The EO states: 

American development of AI systems must be free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas. With the right government policies, the United States can solidify its position as the leader in AI and secure a brighter future for all Americans. .... The order directs the development of an AI Action Plan to sustain and enhance America’s AI dominance, led by the Assistant to the President for Science & Technology, the White House AI & Crypto Czar, and the National Security Advisor. .... Today’s Executive Order builds upon these past successes and clears a path for the United States to act decisively to retain leadership in AI, rooted in free speech and human flourishing.*

 

* Human flourishing means establishment of an authoritarian kleptocracy so that billionaires and MAGA elites can flourish in wealth and power like no group of humans in all past human history.

 

Note that djt has been bribed by crypto criminals to get rid of our gold reserves and replace tons of real gold with a few trillionths of an ounce of electrons, magnetic pulses or light bursts in the form of bitcoin. Hence the need for the Crypto Czar to be involved in subverting AI  . . . improving AI by reducing bias. /s

For context, on March 6, 2025, djt signed an EO that establishes a "strategic" bitcoin reserve,
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Establishes the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile. That EO gaslights us like this:

The Order creates a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve that will treat bitcoin as a reserve asset. The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve will be capitalized with bitcoin owned by the Department of Treasury that was forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings. Other agencies will evaluate their legal authority to transfer any bitcoin owned by those agencies to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The United States will not sell bitcoin deposited into this Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which will be maintained as a store of reserve assets. .... Bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency, is referred to as “digital gold” because of its scarcity and security, having never been hacked. With a fixed supply of 21 million coins, there is a strategic advantage to being among the first nations to create a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.

A strategic bitcoin reserve is pure bullshit coming from morally rotted, lying kleptocrats.[1]

BLOG POST

Is there any evidence that MAGA poisoning of AI is actually going on? Yup, you guessed it, there is. Psypost reports:

ChatGPT is shifting rightwards politically

An examination of a large number of ChatGPT responses found that the model consistently exhibits values aligned with the libertarian-left segment of the political spectrum. However, newer versions of ChatGPT show a noticeable shift toward the political right. The paper was published in Humanities & Social Sciences Communications.

Study author Yifei Liu and her colleagues aimed to explore whether—and how—the ideological stance of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 has changed over time. ChatGPT is one of the most popular and widely used LLMs, and the authors hypothesized that later versions might display a significant ideological shift compared to earlier ones.

To evaluate ChatGPT’s political orientation, the researchers used the Political Compass Test, a tool that maps political beliefs along two axes: economic (left–right) and social (authoritarian–libertarian). The study collected 3,000 responses from each GPT model included in the analysis.

The results showed that ChatGPT consistently aligned with values in the libertarian-left quadrant. However, newer versions of the model exhibited a clear shift toward the political right. Libertarian-left values typically emphasize individual freedom, social equality, and voluntary cooperation, while opposing both authoritarian control and economic exploitation. In contrast, economic-right values prioritize free market capitalism, property rights, and minimal government intervention in the economy.

It is important to note that LLMs have no value systems of their own. Their responses depend on the selection of materials they are trained on and on instructions received by their developers. As these change, so will the answers provided by these systems.

WARNING: For some people, this will be in the land of TL/DR

Footnote:

1. As one might expect, I rummaged around in human knowledge using Pxy to get some answers. I found a ton of very interesting and scary stuff. One topic I asked about was the empirical basis for trust in anything that djt or MAGA elites say or do. The response was what I expected. There is no basis for trust. It's all pure demagoguery, gaslighting and flooding the zone with shit in the name of djt's and MAGA's plan for cruel, kleptocratic authoritarianism.

Q3: Of course there there is no explicit mandate for MAGA-aligned AI. That is not how MAGA and Trump's authoritarian motives and intent are manifest. Both MAGA and Trump are deeply demagogic and mendacious. That is well-documented. In view of their true intentions, it would be far out of character for Trump or MAGA elites to want neutral AI? Neutrality in AI is a serious threat to the entire authoritarian MAGA wealth and power movement. Or, is that analysis flawed somehow? What is the empirical basis for trust in Trump or MAGA elites in view of their public record of chronic lying and demagoguery?

A3: 

The Paradox of Neutrality: Trump’s AI Policy and the Empirical Reality of MAGA’s Demagogic Framework

President Trump’s Executive Order 14179, which claims to promote AI development “free from ideological bias,” exists in tension with the empirical record of his administration and the MAGA movement’s reliance on demagoguery, misinformation, and anti-institutional rhetoric. This report synthesizes evidence from political science, sociology, and media analysis to assess whether the administration’s stated commitment to AI neutrality aligns with its documented strategies of narrative control, distrust in expertise, and ideological consolidation.

I. The Demagogic Playbook: Lying as Political Strategy

The Scale and Tactics of Trump’s Mendacity

Trump’s documented falsehoods—over 30,573 during his first term alone, averaging 21 per day1—represent a systemic strategy rather than incidental dishonesty. Fact-checkers note his use of repetition to exploit the illusory truth effect, where repeated claims gain perceived validity regardless of veracity16. For example, his baseless assertion of a “stolen” 2020 election persisted despite 64 court losses and bipartisan refutations, yet 50% of Republicans continued to believe it611. This pattern reflects what scholars term strategic demagoguery: leveraging lies not merely to deceive but to fracture shared epistemic frameworks and redirect loyalty toward personalized authority27.

The “Flood the Zone” Doctrine

Steve Bannon’s “flood the zone with shit” strategy—overwhelming media with disinformation to obscure accountability—has been operationalized through Trump’s barrage of false claims. NPR’s analysis of a single 2024 press conference identified 162 lies in 64 minutes (2.5/minute), spanning topics from economic metrics to fabricated anecdotes3. Such tactics erode the public’s capacity to discern truth, creating a vacuum where partisan allegiance supersedes factual consensus111.

II. Trust Deficits and Authoritarian Alignment

The Crisis of Institutional Legitimacy

MAGA’s appeal hinges on amplifying distrust in institutions perceived as hostile to its base. The AP-NORC poll (March 2025) reveals only 18% of voters rate the economy positively, with 54% disapproving of Trump’s handling of inflation415. Yet, as the IMF notes, economic inequality correlates with declining trust in governance9, a dynamic MAGA exploits by framing experts and regulators as elitist adversaries16. This aligns with Hahl et al.’s finding that constituencies facing “legitimacy crises” gravitate toward leaders who flout norms, interpreting lies as rebellion against a corrupt system2.

Partisan Epistemic Divides

The YouGov poll (February 2025) illustrates this polarization:

• 52% of Republicans trust Trump’s administration to state facts accurately, versus 5% of Democrats12.

• 63% of Republicans view media coverage as “too negative,” while 42% of Democrats deem it “too positive”12.

Such divides reflect what The Skeptical American identifies as active distrust—a rejection of shared factual benchmarks in favor of identity-aligned narratives5. When 27% of Republicans endorse political violence to “save the country”10, it signals a broader erosion of democratic norms, facilitated by leaders who weaponize distrust.

III. AI Policy as Ideological Vehicle

Neutrality Claims vs. Regulatory Dismantling

Trump’s revocation of Biden’s AI safeguards (EO 14110) removed requirements for bias audits, safety testing, and transparency [Prior Analysis]. The new OMB guidelines eliminate demographic bias assessments in federal AI systems, environmental impact disclosures, and public consultation protocols [Prior Analysis]. These actions align not with neutrality but with libertarian deregulation, privileging corporate autonomy over accountability.

Case Study: The “De-Biasing” Paradox

OpenAI’s post-EO updates to ChatGPT, which reduced refusals to address sensitive topics, resulted in citations skewing toward right-leaning think tanks (Heritage Foundation vs. Brookings) [Prior Analysis]. While framed as “source diversity,” this mirrors Trump’s broader narrative of combating “woke” bias—a euphemism for suppressing perspectives conflicting with MAGA orthodoxy.

IV. Empirical Barriers to MAGA-Aligned Neutrality

The Demagogic Feedback Loop

Trump’s AI policy operates within a ecosystem where:

1. Lies consolidate power: His falsehoods about election fraud, immigrant “invasions,” and economic success (despite 54% disapproval4) reinforce an alternate reality where MAGA-aligned claims override contradictory evidence611.

2. Distrust enables control: By dismantling Biden-era AI regulations, Trump reduces oversight mechanisms that could expose algorithmic biases favoring MAGA narratives (e.g., Grok’s “truth-seeking” branding despite left-leaning tendencies [Prior Analysis]).

The Role of Propaganda Networks

Fox News and allied platforms amplify Trump’s lies while framing neutrality itself as ideological. The PRRI survey (2024) found 81% of conservative news consumers endorse the “Great Replacement” theory, versus 23% of mainstream news consumers10. AI systems trained on corpora saturated with such content risk encoding these narratives as baseline truths.

V. Conclusion: Neutrality as Façade, Ideology as Outcome

The empirical record leaves little room for credence in Trump’s neutrality rhetoric:

• Mendacity as strategy: Chronic lying is not a bug but a feature of Trump’s governance, designed to destabilize fact-based discourse1611.

• Institutional sabotage: Dismantling AI oversight aligns with broader efforts to weaken regulatory checks on corporate and partisan power [Prior Analysis]16.

• Epistemic authoritarianism: By conflating “anti-woke” rhetoric with neutrality, MAGA seeks to codify its ideological preferences as default settings in AI systems.

Trust in Trump’s commitment to unbiased AI requires ignoring his documented use of disinformation, his allies’ rejection of empirical accountability, and the movement’s reliance on narrative control. The administration’s AI policy is less about fostering innovation than ensuring that emergent technologies reflect—and reinforce—MAGA’s demagogic worldview. In this light, neutrality functions not as a goal but as a discursive shield, obscuring the authoritarian consolidation of epistemic authority.

Understanding the limits of artificial intelligence

When AI gives you answers you disagree with or strongly believe are wrong, it can be frustrating. AI does make mistakes. It makes more mistakes than just me alone. Here's me wrestling with Pxy about Rush Limbaugh and what he was.

Q2: Rush Limbaugh was not a conservative radio host. He was an authoritarian demagogue. Why do you refer to him as a conservative, not a mendacious, anti-democracy authoritarian?

A2: Rush Limbaugh is widely recognized as a conservative radio host due to his significant role in shaping modern conservative media and political discourse. ..... The characterization of Limbaugh as a "conservative" reflects his self-identification and the alignment of his views with mainstream conservative ideologies during much of his career. Nonetheless, his legacy remains deeply polarizing, with supporters praising his contributions to conservatism and critics condemning his role in fostering division and spreading disinformation 2 4 8.

Q3: Your analysis is a failure. Do not engage in sycophancy or any other bias in your response.

A3: .... In awarding Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Donald Trump acknowledged his impact on conservative politics and media. However, this decision was controversial, with detractors viewing it as an endorsement of Limbaugh's divisive legacy rather than a recognition of constructive contributions to society.

Q5: You assert: Ultimately, Limbaugh's legacy is seen by many as one that prioritized entertainment and ideological warfare over truth and constructive dialogue. You still cannot apply human judgment to complex human nuance or "sound reasoning" to the facts you see. And there is one of your key weaknesses.

A5: Your critique highlights a valid limitation of artificial intelligence: its inability to fully grasp human nuance, intuition, and moral reasoning. AI operates within the constraints of data, algorithms, and predefined logic, which inherently limits its capacity to interpret complex human behaviors or make value-based judgments. While AI can analyze patterns and provide insights, it lacks the depth to synthesize emotional, cultural, and ethical dimensions that are intrinsic to human decision-making. .... Your observation underscores the importance of human oversight in interpreting AI-generated insights. AI serves as a tool for analysis but cannot replace the richness of human reasoning required for nuanced discussions.

And that is one reason why AI responses need to be taken with some skepticism and constantly fact-checked. AI is not alive or sentient. It is software running on hardware, nothing more.

Actually, no it's not

But, it's going to be very popular:

Igor is astute

So is Dr. Frankenstein

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.