Language can be used as a powerful tool for manipulation through various techniques that shape perception, influence thought and obscure truth.
It is strategically employed by both media and governments to shape public perception by targeting core human needs, particularly safety, belonging and self-esteem.
When language is used to obscure truth, suppress dissent or discourage 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 how language is used is not just a media literacy skill; it’s a form of self-defence.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
At the end of September, Clare Wills Harrison, who writes the Substack page ‘Conscientious Currency, wrote an article describing how governments and others manipulate the public by exploiting core human vulnerabilities such as the need for survival, security, belonging and self-esteem. She described how manipulators “craft narratives, evoke emotions and apply pressure to steer people toward desired outcomes.”
She 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 a follow on to her article, Wills Harrison delved into the actual words and phrases to look out for in government and media manipulation programmes.
The Psychology of Tyranny – Part 2
Table of Contents
Introduction
The psychological manipulation tactics discussed in my first article – such as fear of missing out (“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
For the phrases or words below, I explain their 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 imply a 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: A 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 the permanence of policy
- Proactive steps: Frames reactive actions as strategic
- Robust response: A 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 an 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 reframing 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., US 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 devastating 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 country, 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 corporate 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 the 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 the 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” silence 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 people 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 governments 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 people toward policy positions or social norms that often serve institutional and global interests; they 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:
- Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – its relevance to understanding how manipulation exploits core human vulnerabilities
- The effect of tribalism and polarisation – how they are leveraged for control
- Moral relativism – how governments (and civilians) shift ethical baselines to justify actions
About the Author
Conscientious Currency is a pseudonym for Clare Wills Harrison, a former UK succession lawyer with 25 years of experience. Wills Harrison became known for her tireless fight during 2020 and the years that followed to expose the midazolam scandal. She publishes articles on a Substack page, which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.
Her articles are free to read; however, if you wish, you can support her work by buying her a coffee HERE.
Featured image taken from ‘Orwell Got it Right: Language Manipulation [+ Real-Life Examples]’, Language Trainers, 25 July 2016
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News
Complementing Wills Harrison’s excellent summary is the work of Thomas Karat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni9Kl5nrxk4