The Psychology of Tyranny - Part 2

Words and phrases to watch for in government and media framing manipulation

At the end of September this year, I began writing my series on psychological manipulation by the state and its agents, including the media. In it I explored how psychological manipulation involves the use of words and tactics designed to influence, control, or shape individuals’ thoughts, emotions, and behaviours—often without their full awareness or consent. By exploiting fundamental human vulnerabilities—such as the need for survival, security, belonging, and self-esteem, (as outlined in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs)—manipulators construct narratives, provoke emotional responses, and exert pressure to guide individuals toward predetermined outcomes that are most often not in their best interests. In my first article of the series I also examined the profoundly damaging effects that psychological manipulation can have on the brain, particularly in terms of cognitive function, emotional regulation, and long-term mental health.

In this part 2 of the series I am delving into the actual words and phrases to look out for in government and media framing programmes. Before reading this article, I do suggest that people read my first article in this series for context and understanding, and if you wish to do so you can find it here:

The psychological manipulation tactics discussed in my first article—such as FOMO, carrot-and-stick incentives, othering, gaslighting, the bandwagon effect, scarcity manipulation, framing and narrative control, guilt and moral shaming, cognitive overload, authority bias exploitation, emotional priming, and desensitisation—share significant overlap with marketing strategies. Both domains aim to influence behaviour and perception. However, these tactics are not solely rooted in marketing. Their origins lie in broader psychological and sociological research, including propaganda studies and behavioural science, which have been adapted by both governments and marketers to serve strategic ends.

Marketing and government messaging often target similar cognitive and emotional vulnerabilities—fear, the desire for belonging, and reward-seeking—drawing from a shared psychological toolkit. Many of the tactics identified in my first article are staples in commercial advertising, underscoring this overlap. For example:

• FOMO: Marketers use urgency (“Limited time offer!” or “Join millions of users!”) to drive purchases, mirroring government campaigns that emphasise majority participation (e.g., vaccination drives).

• Carrot and Stick: Discounts and loyalty schemes incentivise buying, while implied consequences (“Don’t miss out!”) mirror government policies like tax incentives or penalties.

• Othering: Competitive branding (“Our product vs. their inferior one”) parallels political rhetoric that vilifies out-groups to unify support.

• Gaslighting: Though rare in marketing, deceptive advertising (e.g., misleading health claims) can make consumers doubt their judgment—similar to government disinformation.

• Bandwagon Effect: Popularity claims (“Best-selling product!”) reflect government messaging that highlights widespread compliance.

• Scarcity Manipulation: “Only 5 left in stock!” echoes resource allocation tactics (e.g., vaccine rollouts).

• Framing and Narrative Control: Brand storytelling (“Eco-friendly products save the planet”) mirrors policy narratives.

• Guilt and Moral Shaming: Cause marketing (“Buy this to save the environment”) resembles campaigns that tie compliance to moral duty.

• Cognitive Overload: Overwhelming product details push quick decisions, akin to complex regulations that encourage deference.

• Authority Bias Exploitation: Expert endorsements (“Doctor-approved”) mirror reliance on official figures.

• Emotional Priming: Ads evoke nostalgia or joy; governments use patriotic imagery.

• Desensitisation: Repetition normalises high prices or intrusive policies (e.g., surveillance).

Focus on Framing and Narrative Control

As already discussed, framing and narrative control is a psychological manipulation tactic that involves presenting information in a way that shapes perception—often by selecting specific words or phrases to evoke desired emotions or biases. Below is a curated list of 50 words, phrases, and rhetorical devices commonly used by governments and other entities to manipulate public opinion, particularly in contexts like war, policy, or social issues. These examples, drawn from historical and contemporary usage, illustrate how language subtly or overtly influences perception—often without the audience realising it.

Words and Phrases to Watch for in Framing Manipulation

Below the phrases or word I explain it’s manipulative function:

Collateral damage Minimises civilian deaths in war

Neutralised Softens the act of killing

Regime change Frames invasion as political progress

Enhanced interrogation Sanitises torture

Freedom fighters Glorifies insurgents aligned with interests

Terrorists Vilifies opponents and implies threat

Public safety Justifies surveillance and control

National security Excuses restrictions or aggression

Peacekeeping mission Frames military action as benevolent

Special military operation Downplays war

Economic recovery Optimistic spin on uncertain policies

Tax relief Positive framing of tax cuts for the wealthy

Job creators Glorifies corporations to justify tax breaks for them

Illegals Dehumanises and implies criminality for all

Crisis Amplifies urgency to push bad policy

Epidemic Exaggerates health issues for control

Pandemic Frames health threats as global emergencies

Protecting our way of life “Patriotic” appeal to rally support

Common sense reforms Implies opposition is irrational

Clean energy Positive spin on costly policies

Sustainable development Vague term for complex projects

Liberation Frames invasion as freedom

Patriotic duty Ties compliance to national loyalty

Do your part Guilt-based call to action

New normal Normalises restrictive changes

Temporary measures Downplays permanence of policy

Proactive steps Frames reactive actions as strategic

Robust response Vague term for aggressive policies

Threat to democracy Exaggerates dissent to silence it

Moral imperative Frames policy as ethically mandatory

Community standards Implies universal agreement

Protecting the vulnerable Justifies control via empathy

Economic stability Vague promise to quell fears

Axis of evil Demonises entire nations

Un-American/Anti British

Labels dissent as betrayal

Social justice Positive term used for divisive policy

Inclusion Frames bad policy as universally beneficial

Progress Implies opposition is regressive

Modernisation Frames change as inevitable improvement

Resilience Downplays hardship as heroic endurance

Sacrifice for the greater good Guilt-based compliance appeal

Existential threat Exaggerates danger to justify extremes

Humanitarian intervention Frames military action as compassion

Misinformation Discredits valid criticism or dissent

Science-based Implies unquestionable authority

Unity Calls for conformity under collective strength

Global leadership Frames dominance as benevolence

Rebuilding trust Deflects accountability with future promises

All you need to know Discourages further inquiry

I used to hate XX until I became XX Personal refraining controversy

How These Phrases Work

• Evoke Emotions: “Crisis” and “existential threat” trigger fear (Maslow’s safety needs); “unity” and “inclusion” appeal to belonging.

• Obscure Reality: Euphemisms like “collateral damage” and “enhanced interrogation” downplay harm.

• Simplify Complexity: Vague terms like “common sense reforms” or “progress” discourage scrutiny.

• Align with Values: “Patriotic duty” and “moral imperative” tie compliance to esteem and identity.

Examples in Context

• War Exploits: Using “civilians killed” instead of “murdered” (e.g., U.S. drone strikes in the 2000s) frames deaths as unintentional, reducing moral outrage.

• Policy Manipulation: “Temporary measures” during “Covid” lockdowns (2020) framed restrictions as short-term, easing public acceptance despite long-term and devasting impacts on both children and the elderly, as well as the economy.

• Social Control: “Illegals” in anti-immigrant rhetoric (e.g., Hungary, 2015) dehumanised migrants, framing them as threats to safety and belonging, allowing restrictive policies to be introduced that affected all of the countrym not just migrants.

Further Framing Phrases in Government and Media: Psychological Manipulation and Maslow’s Levers

Building on the above list of 50 framing phrases, I now explore 12 additional rhetorical devices frequently used by government and in mainstream and social media. These phrases are tailored and designed to manipulate perception by appealing to core psychological needs—particularly safety, belonging, and esteem—as outlined in Maslow’s Hierarchy.

12 Common Framing Phrases Used by Government and Media

“The Truth About…”

• Purpose: Presents information as definitive, discouraging alternative viewpoints. Appeals to safety (certainty) and esteem (feeling informed).

• Example: “The Truth About Climate Change” may highlight select data while downplaying economic or environmental trade-offs.

• Manipulation Risk: Implies exclusivity, aligning with gaslighting by dismissing dissent.

“What They Don’t Want You to Know”

• Purpose: Suggests suppression of information, fostering distrust and intrigue. Appeals to safety (fear of deception) and esteem (privileged insight).

• Example: “What They Don’t Want You to Know About Climate Solutions” — used in government-backed campaigns to promote specific green policies. It encourages public support for new initiatives whilst discouraging scrutiny of dangerous trade-offs, such as the environmental impact of renewable infrastructure or the economic burden of transition.

• Manipulation Risk: While it appears to empower the public, this tactic can oversimplify complex issues and redirect blame. It aligns with FOMO and emotional priming, encouraging people to adopt government-endorsed views without fully exploring alternative perspectives or underlying complexities.

“Game-Changer”

• Purpose: Frames developments as revolutionary, evoking urgency and optimism. Appeals to safety (hope) and esteem (progress).

• Example: “This New Policy Is a Game-Changer for Healthcare” may obscure trade-offs, dangers, costs and limitations.

• Manipulation Risk: Overpromises, masking flaws through hype.

“The Silent Majority”

• Purpose: Implies widespread but unspoken support, encouraging conformity. Appeals to belonging and esteem.

• Example: “The Silent Majority Supports Digital ID” frames controversial policies as mainstream when the public has not been consulted or even asked if they agree.

• Manipulation Risk: Marginalises dissent, aligning with bandwagon effect.

“Ticking Time Bomb”

• Purpose: Creates urgency by framing issues as imminent threats. Appeals to safety.

• Example: “The Ticking Time Bomb of National Debt” may justify austerity through fear.

• Manipulation Risk: Exaggerates risk, aligning with scarcity manipulation.

“A New Era”

• Purpose: Frames change as historic or inevitable, promoting acceptance. Appeals to belonging and self-actualisation.

• Example: “A New Era of Green Energy” downplays costs, loss of autonomy and environmental harm.

• Manipulation Risk: Normalises shifts, aligning with desensitisation.

“Common Ground”

• Purpose: Suggests universal agreement to reduce debate. Appeals to belonging and esteem.

• Example: “Finding Common Ground on Gun Control” may sideline radical or dissenting views.

• Manipulation Risk: Minimises legitimate disagreement, suppressing complexity.

“The Science Is Settled”

• Purpose: Closes debate by invoking authority. Appeals to safety and esteem.

• Example: “The Science Is Settled on Climate Change” dismisses ongoing scientific discourse.

• Manipulation Risk: Stifles inquiry, aligning with authority bias.

“Human Cost”

• Purpose: Evokes empathy to highlight emotional impact, often softening systemic critique. Appeals to belonging and moral alignment.

• Example: “The Human Cost of War” may focus on suffering while avoiding geopolitical analysis of the real causes of war, such as Western policy.

• Manipulation Risk: Diverts attention from root causes, aligning with emotional priming.

“Wake-Up Call”

• Purpose: Frames events as pivotal moments requiring action. Appeals to safety and esteem.

• Example: “The Pandemic Was a Wake-Up Call for Healthcare” pushes reforms and deeper control through unelected bodies, without addressing the deeper flaws, loss of liberty, and dangers of the same.

• Manipulation Risk: Creates urgency, aligning with scarcity manipulation.

“We’re All in This Together”

• Purpose: Promotes unity to encourage compliance. Appeals to belonging and shared purpose.

• Example: Widely used during Covid lockdowns, despite unequal and deadly impacts on vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly in care.

• Manipulation Risk: Masks inequities, aligning with bandwagon effect.

“The Real Story Behind…”

• Purpose: Suggests hidden truths, building trust. Appeals to safety and esteem.

• Example: “The Real Story Behind the Border Crisis” may selectively present causes to fit a narrative without ever discussing costs or geopolitical causes for the issue.

• Manipulation Risk: Biases information, aligning with gaslighting.

Why These Phrases Work

These phrases are effective because they:

• Simplify complexity: Making issues digestible while omitting nuance.

• Evoke emotion: Triggering fear, hope, or moral urgency.

• Appeal to psychological needs: Safety (e.g., “crisis”), belonging (e.g., “unity”), and esteem (e.g., “progress”).

Ethical Concerns

The use of framing language and phrases raises serious ethical issues:

• Distortion of truth: Euphemisms like “collateral damage” obscure moral realities.

• Suppression of dissent: Labels like “misinformation” silences legitimate critique.

• Undermining autonomy: Oversimplified narratives discourage critical thinking and informed consent.

Simply put, framing distorts truth and bypasses rational analysis, undermining autonomy. It silences dissent and normalises harm. Despite this, framing is prevalent throughout government speak and state publications as well as used in media and social media articles, due to its emotional impact. This makes the tactic ideal for headlines, opinion pieces, and clickbait. As such, framing is a key lever used to manipulate and control people, which of course creates a very serious problem: this manipulation deprives individuals of unbiased information, fosters doubt in their own beliefs through gaslighting or cognitive overload, and disconnects them from their authentic selves, as they align with externally imposed narratives for social acceptance and/or moral validation. The result is a crisis of self-identity, where people, unable to discern truth or trust their convictions, become malleable subjects rather than autonomous agents, undermining informed consent and democratic legitimacy.

Detection and Countermeasures

To help identify and resist framing tactics from government and through media:

• Watch for Emotional Triggers

Terms like “crisis,” “game-changer,” or “human cost” are designed to provoke fear, hope, or empathy. If you notice a strong emotional reaction to a story, pause and reflect. Emotional manipulation often precedes cognitive framing. Avoid rushing to conclusions—take time to assess your feelings and consider whether they’ve been deliberately activated to steer your judgment. Recognising this allows you to step back, seek alternative perspectives, and critically evaluate the narrative across multiple sources.

• Be Wary of Oversimplification

Phrases such as “all you need to know” or “the truth about” signal curated narratives. No single source can offer complete insight into complex issues. When such claims are presented, treat them as red flags—indicators that key information may be omitted or distorted. Always assume there is more to uncover.

• Interrogate Authority Claims

Statements like “the science is settled” or appeals to “common sense” are often used to shut down inquiry. While consensus may exist, science is inherently iterative and open to challenge. Don’t allow your curiosity or critical thinking to be stifled by rhetorical absolutes.

• Cross-Reference Sources

Compare coverage across diverse outlets to expose bias and framing. For example, terms like “collateral damage” versus “civilian casualties” reflect different ideological lenses. Reading perspectives from opposing sides of a conflict can reveal starkly contrasting narratives. Your role is to analyse these differences and form your own conclusions—rather than passively absorbing what you’re told, especially by media sources that may frame Western actions as inherently noble.

• Assess Narrative Intent

Personal stories such as “I used to hate [X]” can be used to deflect systemic critique. Ask why someone who previously opposed a position now claims to support it. Often, such shifts are incentivised. A more authentic change of heart might sound like: “I was critical of X, but I’ve reconsidered and now see both sides.” Genuine reflection invites balanced discussion—not persuasion disguised as confession.

Conclusion

Framing language is a potent psychological tool—strategically employed by both media and governments to shape public perception by targeting core human needs, particularly safety, belonging, and esteem, as outlined in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. These phrases are not neutral; they are carefully chosen to evoke emotion, simplify complexity, and guide individuals toward policy positions or social norms that often serve institutional and global interests, and are not for the public good.

While their emotional resonance and brevity make framing words highly effective in capturing attention and shaping narratives, they are ethically problematic—and in many cases, dangerous. When framing obscures truth, suppresses dissent, or discourages independent thought, it undermines the very foundations of informed consent, democratic participation, and personal autonomy.

In an age of information saturation and psychological targeting, the ability to recognise framing is not just a media literacy skill—it’s a form of self-defence. Ultimately, reclaiming your ability to think independently in the face of psychological manipulation is an act of resistance—and a vital step toward preserving truth, dignity, and democratic integrity. Stay vigilant, stay reflective, and above all, stay free.

What’s Next

In the next articles in this series, I’ll explore:

1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs - its relevance to understanding how manipulation exploits core human vulnerabilities

2. The effect of tribalism and polarisation - how they are leveraged for control

3. Moral relativism - how governments (and civilians) shift ethical baselines to justify actions

If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing to my Substack. All my work is now no longer behind a paywall. However, if you received value from this article and my previous work shared, you can, if you wish, make a one off donation through my buy me a coffee page which can be found here. There is no minimum donation amount - just insert what you wish to and can afford to donate. I always respond to every donation with a thank you, as your support means alot to me.