The Stanford Prison Experiment is a seminal study in the field of social psychology, offering profound insights into the dynamics of power, authority, and human behavior. Conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, the experiment aimed to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power and authority within a simulated prison environment. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment set the stage for deeper explorations of the ways in which individualist doctrines of western nations tend to overweight the role of the individual (dispensational attribution) while underweighting the role in the situation and social milieu of the setting.
The Experiment Setup
Zimbardo and his team transformed the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building into a mock prison. Participants, who were college students, were randomly assigned roles as either “guards” or “prisoners.” The guards were given uniforms, sunglasses to prevent eye contact, and batons, while the prisoners were stripped of personal identity, referred to by numbers, and subjected to various forms of psychological manipulation and humiliation designed to dehumanize them in the eyes of their faux captors.
The Unfolding
The Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment was initially planned to last two weeks but had to be terminated after just six days due to the extreme and disturbing behavior exhibited by the participants. The guards became increasingly sadistic, employing psychological torture techniques, and the prisoners showed signs of extreme stress, depression, and helplessness. The environment became so toxic that some prisoners had to be released early due to emotional breakdowns.
Ethical Concerns
The study has been widely criticized for its ethical shortcomings. Zimbardo himself acted as the “prison superintendent,” and his failure to intervene has been seen as a significant ethical lapse (he shares this sentiment, and has been vocal about examining his own role in the profoundly disturbing results of his experiment). The lack of informed consent and the emotional and psychological harm caused to the participants have also been points of contention in the academic community.
Before this study, though, I think it was counterintuitive to assume that otherwise decent, law-abiding good people could be turned into snarling sadists so quickly, in the right circumstances. And the reality of that truth disturbs us and the field of social psychology to this day.
Social Psychological Learnings
Despite its ethical issues, the Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment offers invaluable insights into human behavior and social psychology:
Deindividuation: The guards’ uniforms and sunglasses served to deindividuate them, making it easier for them to engage in cruel behavior without feeling personally responsible.
Social Roles and Conformity: Both guards and prisoners conformed to their assigned roles to a disturbing extent, highlighting the power of social roles in shaping behavior.
Authority and Obedience: The experiment showed how ordinary people could commit atrocious acts when they perceive themselves to be following authoritative commands.
Situational vs. Dispositional Factors: The study emphasized the influence of situational factors over dispositional ones in determining behavior. It argued that the environment could significantly impact how individuals act, as opposed to inherent personality traits.
Ethical Considerations in Research: The study serves as a cautionary tale for ethical considerations in psychological experiments, leading to stricter guidelines and review boards for research involving human subjects.
Implications and Legacy
The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment has had a lasting impact on psychology, ethics, and our understanding of human behavior. It has been cited in various contexts, from understanding the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison to corporate misconduct a la Enron, et al. While the study’s ethical lapses have led to ongoing debates, its findings remain a crucial part of social psychology curricula and continue to inform our understanding of the human psyche.
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment serves as both a revealing exploration of the dark corners of human behavior and a cautionary tale for ethical conduct in scientific research. It provides a complex, multifaceted look into the social psychological mechanisms that can lead ordinary people to commit extraordinary acts of cruelty or submission.
When the most common psychological defense mechanism — denial — hardens into an outer shell so impenetrable as to be worn like armor, you have yourself a clinical narcissist. They may not — and probably will never — be diagnosed as members of a group of personality disorders known in psychology as Cluster B; but unmistakably, you cannot seem to find empathy in them no matter how high or low you look.
They think of themselves as special; chosen; beyond the fray — rules do not generally apply to them, but oh do they ever to you. They tend to see the world in black and white terms, a Manichaean struggle of hierarchy vs. fairness, with strict social status to abide by and perpetuate — a world of dominance and submission, with themselves at the top.
The higher on the Cluster B scale you go (with psychopathy at the top), the less empathy these individuals possess. Without empathy, there is no basis for forming a conscience. One could say the classic defining hallmark of this group of personality disorders is that the people exhibiting them have little to no conscience. The general consensus from research to date indicates that somewhere between 4-8% of the general population has very weak or no conscience at all — a scary figure when you think of it in terms of being about 1 in 15 of the people you will meet in your lifetime.
Cluster B includes:
Narcissism — This is the root trait of all the Cluster B personality disorders. We all exhibit narcissism to some degree, and it’s a large part of childhood and teen development to learn how to balance it with sociality. As with all life skills, some develop it more or less well — and if the narcissistic phase is never fully outgrown, adults can be emotionally immature in surprising and at times dangerous ways thanks to a kind of profound psychological arrested development. When the self-absorption is so severe as to profoundly disturb aspects of their lives, that is when clinicians might say a person has a narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD. There are several types of narcissism, including covert narcissism and malignant narcissism. Park of the dark triad in psychology, narcissism is often found in conjunction with two other malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.
Borderline — Perhaps best known culturally from the movie Girl, Interrupted (1999), borderline personality disorder of BPD is characterized by intense mood swings, impulse behavior, fear of abandonment, unstable self-image, dissociation, and self-harm. One way to think of BPD is as a sort of failure to form an integrated personality.
Histrionic — The least well-known of Cluster B, histrionic personality is extremely dramatic and over the top, well out of proportion to the magnitude of events or circumstances. They have an overwhelming desire to be noticed, and will behave extremely or inappropriately to get attention.
Sociopath — Sociopathy takes narcissism and adds more sadism into the mix. A narcissist could hurt you and not really care either way, while a sociopath will derive from pleasure from it and often go out of his or her way to cause harm for the purpose of reaping that enjoyment. Though not as unfettered as psychopaths, sociopaths can be prone to violence and criminality at the worst, and are commonly cruel and mean-spirited at best.
Psychopath — The psychopath is the scariest of the Cluster B bunch. Unbelievably horrific folks like Ted Bundy and Hannibal Lecter were almost certainly psychopathic — committing horrific and murderous crimes that have shocked generations in their brutality and stomach-churling details.
Common traits and behaviors:
Projection— blaming others for your own misdeeds. Projection involves attributing one’s own undesirable thoughts, feelings, or motives to another person. It serves as a defense mechanism to avoid confronting or accepting these aspects in oneself.
Scapegoating — blaming the wrong party for a transgression; scapegoating is the practice of unfairly blaming an individual or group for a problem or fault. It often serves to divert attention away from the real issue or to absolve the blamer of responsibility.
Gaslighting— a form of psychological manipulation where the perpetrator tries to make the victim doubt their own perceptions, memories, or sanity. The aim is to gain control or induce confusion.
Stonewalling — refusing to speak or dilvulge information. Stonewalling involves refusing to communicate or cooperate, often in a relationship setting. It serves as a way to avoid conflict or evade responsibility, but it can be damaging to relational dynamics — and is prevalent in Cluster B.
Grandiosity; extremely high self-regard, often out of proportion to actual achievements. Grandiosity is an inflated sense of one’s own importance, skills, or achievements. Often seen in narcissistic personalities, it can manifest as excessive confidence, arrogance, or a belief in one’s own exceptionalism.
Love bombing — a technique in which the narcissist first showers you with affection and grand displays of positive attention early on in your relationship, in order to secure a quick bond that blinds you to their darker traits and behaviors that begin to spill out more prominently later on down the road.
Splitting — the tendency to view people or situations as entirely good or entirely bad, with no middle ground. Common in borderline personality disorder, it can lead to unstable relationships and emotional volatility.
Black and white thinking — this cognitive distortion involves viewing situations in extreme, either/or terms. It lacks nuance, often categorizing things as good or bad, right or wrong, with no middle ground. This can limit one’s ability to see alternative perspectives.
Lying — the act of deliberately presenting false information as true. While it can serve various purposes, such as self-preservation or manipulation, it erodes trust and can have significant relational consequences.
Malignant envy — this virulent form of envy is destructive and stems from a desire not just to attain what another has, but also to deprive them of it. It can lead to harmful actions aimed at undermining the envied individual.
Denial — a psychological defense mechanism where one refuses to accept reality or facts, often to protect oneself from painful emotions or situations. It can be both conscious and unconscious. Common in all of us, it is often especially pronounced in Cluster B.
Narcissistic rage — triggered by perceived threats to self-esteem or self-worth, narcissistic rage is an intense, disproportionate anger often aimed at destroying the source of the threat. It can be overt or covert, involving passive-aggressive behavior.
Cruelty — causing physical or emotional harm to others, often deriving pleasure from their suffering. It’s an extreme form of antisocial behavior that can manifest in various ways, from verbal abuse to physical violence.
Bullying — a repeated, intentional act of aggression, often exploiting a power imbalance to intimidate or harm others. It can be physical, verbal, or relational, and occurs in various settings like schools, workplaces, and online.
Sadism — the act of deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, humiliation, or suffering on others. It can be psychological or physical and is considered a concerning trait when it leads to harmful actions.
Word salad— a jumble of words and phrases that lack coherent meaning. Often seen in severe mental disorders, it can also be used manipulatively to evade questions or confuse listeners.
Narcissism is a complex psychological construct that manifests in various forms, each with its own set of characteristics and implications. It actually refers to a range of conditions that fall under the umbrella of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) — which itself falls under the umbrella of Cluster B.
Grandiose Narcissism
Grandiose narcissism is the most commonly recognized form — it’s the stereotype of what most people refer to when they think of a narcissist. Individuals with this type exhibit an inflated sense of self-importance, a lack of empathy, and a need for excessive admiration. They often believe they are special and unique, deserving of special treatment. Their self-perception is rarely grounded in reality, leading them to overestimate their abilities and underestimate the contributions of others. This form of narcissism is usually quite visible and can be disruptive in both personal and professional settings.
Vulnerable Narcissism
In contrast to the grandiose type, vulnerable narcissists are sensitive and introverted. They still have a heightened sense of self-importance but are plagued by insecurity and a fear of rejection. Their narcissism serves as a defense mechanism to protect a fragile self-esteem. Unlike grandiose narcissists, they are not outwardly arrogant but may harbor secret fantasies of greatness that they fear will never be realized.
Malignant Narcissism
This is a severe form that combines traits of narcissism, antisocial personality disorder, aggression, and sadism. Malignant narcissists are not just self-centered; they are also willing to manipulate or harm others to achieve their goals and often do so repeatedly. They lack remorse and are often deceitful, making them particularly dangerous in relationships and organizational settings.
Social psychologist Erich Fromm, who fled the Nazis in the 1930s, describes the Nazi “quintessence of evil” as an canonical case of malignant narcissism. They are among the most concerning members of Cluster B.
Covert Narcissism
Also known as “closet” or hidden narcissism, this type is less obvious than the grandiose form. Covert narcissists often present as shy, reserved, or self-deprecating. However, they share the same sense of entitlement and lack of empathy as other types. Their narcissism is expressed in more subtle ways, such as passive-aggressiveness or quiet disdain for others.
Communal Narcissism
This type is characterized by a grandiose sense of one’s own altruism. Communal narcissists believe they are the epitome of generosity and kindness. They seek admiration not for their looks or achievements but for their perceived selflessness. However, this is often a faΓ§ade to garner praise and adoration.
Collective Narcissism
This is not an individual trait but a shared belief within a group that they are exceptional or superior. It can manifest in various settings, from nationalistic fervor to corporate culture. Collective narcissism can be dangerous as it often leads to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination.
Somatic Narcissism
Somatic narcissists are obsessed with their physical appearance or bodily achievements. They may spend excessive time and resources on grooming, exercising, or undergoing cosmetic procedures. Their self-worth is tied to their physicality, and they often seek sexual conquests to validate themselves.
Cerebral Narcissism
Cerebral narcissists derive their sense of superiority from their intellect rather than their appearance. They consider themselves smarter than everyone else and seek to demonstrate this at every opportunity. They are often dismissive of others’ opinions and intolerant of intellectual disagreement.
Spiritual Narcissism
This form manifests in the realm of spirituality or religion. Spiritual narcissists believe they have a direct line to a higher power and may consider themselves enlightened or morally superior. They use their spiritual beliefs to justify their actions, even when those actions harm others. Abusive priests and handsy preachers with large hard drives fall into this group.
Eco-Narcissism
A relatively new concept, eco-narcissists are individuals who flaunt their environmentally friendly lifestyle for the sake of appearing superior. Their primary concern is not the environment but the social capital gained from appearing conscientious.
totalist thought reform; brainwashing — the ultimate in depersonalization; to replace the host’s entire personality and inner world with that of the narcissist
Chances are you’ve had an encounter with an emotional predator — whether you’re aware of it or not. Most everyone is familiar with the physical abuser: typically the man who beats his wife or female partner. But emotional abuse, and psychological abuse, are also integral components of abuse and are often present with, and precursors to, intimate partner physical violence.
Often individuals who abuse others have a personality disorder that increases their chances of becoming an abuser. Many of these personality disorders have narcissism at their roots — a psychological defense mechanism in which an individual harbors grandiose fantasies about themselves and feels selfishly entitled to having all their demands met.
Narcissists require a constant stream of admiration, or “narcissistic supply,” coming their way. They achieve this through charm, emotional and psychological manipulation, and all sorts of shady, unethical, or downright illegal tactics and behaviors. When a narcissist wants something from you, or wants you to do something, he can become a devious emotional predator who takes advantage of your good will for his own ends without thinking twice.
How to identify an emotional predator
One way to protect yourself from emotional predators is to understand how they behave, and become familiar with how to detect manipulative and deceptive behavior as early on as possible. If you see any of the warning signs below in a loved one, coworker, community member, or position of leadership, then use caution in dealings with this individual. Seek external advice and assistance in threat assessment before placing further trust in this person.
Emotional predation can take place at all levels: interpersonal interactions and intimate partnerships, within groups and organizations, as well as at much larger scales on the order of societies, nations, and — increasingly — global networks. If you feel something “off” in an interaction that feels loaded with emotional pressure, stop for a moment and do some critical thinking about whether someone is trying to prey on your emotions, and how to respond.
Emotional predators are often found leading cults (both small and large), so take a look at those who surround them and ask if they seem like mindless followers in thrall to the cult of personality of one individual. Assess whether you and/or others who interact with the psychic vampire experience the following phenomena:
Manipulating your emotions; emotional blackmail— A form of manipulation where someone uses your feelings against you to get what they want. It often involves guilt-tripping, fear, and obligation, making you feel trapped in a cycle of compliance.
Love bombing — Used to secure your loyalty in the first place, love bombing is a technique in which the emotional predator showers you with affection, admiration, and gifts in the early stages of your relationship. Their goal is to create a strong attachment quickly, that will make it harder for you to see and recognize their darker traits coming out later on.
Negging; undermining confidence and self-esteem— Negging is a tactic where someone offers backhanded compliments or subtle insults to undermine your self-esteem. The goal is to make you feel vulnerable, so you seek their approval.
Creating unnecessary chaos — Some individuals thrive on creating chaos to divert attention from their actions or to keep others off-balance. It’s a control tactic that leaves you feeling disoriented.
Consistent inconsistency; intermittent reinforcement — This involves unpredictable behavior, where positive reinforcement is given sporadically. It keeps you guessing and hooked, as you never know when the next “reward” will come; as in gambling, e.g.
Grandiosity — An inflated sense of self-importance and superiority over others. It’s often a mask for deep-seated insecurities.
One-way street — In a one-way relationship, one person’s needs and wants are prioritized over the other’s. It’s a dynamic that leaves one feeling drained and unappreciated.
Masters of deceptive and misleading stories — Some individuals are adept at crafting narratives that bend the truth, often to serve their own interests or manipulate others.
Love to play victim and hero — These individuals portray themselves as both the victim and the hero in different narratives, manipulating emotions to gain sympathy or admiration.
Diverting attention — Diversion tactics are used to shift focus away from the individual’s actions, often by blaming others or creating new issues.
Disregarding the law — Some people view laws as mere suggestions, often rationalizing illegal actions for personal gain or out of a sense of entitlement. The so-called Sovereign Citizens movement essentially codified this as an ideology the group believes in, and tries to use as legal argument in court (failing each time).
Denying plain facts; denialism — Denialism involves refusing to accept proven facts, often to protect one’s ego or agenda.
Assert the opposite of reality — This tactic involves making claims that are directly contradicted by observable facts, creating a confusing and disorienting environment.
Magical thinking — Magical thinking is the belief that one’s thoughts or actions can influence unrelated events. It’s often a way to avoid responsibility.
Projection — Assigning their own feelings or imputing their own motives into you. Projection involves attributing one’s own undesirable feelings or motives to another person, often as a defense mechanism.
See the world as with them or against them (splitting) — Splitting is a cognitive distortion where people are categorized as all good or all bad, with no middle ground or nuance.
Nurturing and maintaining enemies (paranoia) — Some individuals maintain a sense of purpose or identity by creating and nurturing perceived enemies, often based on exaggerated or imagined threats.
Moves the goalposts — Changing the criteria for success or approval, making it difficult for others to meet expectations.
Refuses to take responsibility or admit fault — Some folks deflect blame and never admit fault, often rationalizing their actions to avoid accountability.
Gaslighting — causing you to question your own sanity. Gaslighting is a form of manipulation where someone tries to make you doubt your own perceptions and sanity.
Bullying — Bullying involves repeated, intentional harm or intimidation, often to assert control or superiority over someone else.
Frequent liar / compulsive liar — Some individuals lie habitually, either to manipulate others or sometimes without any apparent reason.
Aggressive and easily angered — These individuals have low tolerance for frustration and may resort to aggression or anger to assert control or mask insecurities.
Arm yourself with as much information as you can about emotional predators and the tactics of undue influence techniques they use, as well as the real world history of cults and their consequences — and how to get people out of them via deprogramming techniques. Here’s a cults and mind control book list to get you started:
Phobia indoctrination is one of the principle ways a charismatic leader will lull potential followers into his thrall, by putting them into a state of perpetual fear and anxiety. They know, either instinctively or through training (or both), that people can be induced into a prolonged state of confusion easily, and that many people in states of confusion act quite irrationally. Abusers, cult leaders, and other controllers use demagoguery and other tricks to hide in plain sight and continue to accrue power while passing themselves off as harmless or extremely patriotic.
These chaos agents use emotional manipulation and other tactics of emotional predators as a tool of control. They whip followers up into a fear frenzy frequently enough to instill a set of phobia-like instinctual reactions to chosen stimuli. In addition to stoking fears of the enemies at the gates, they also inculcate irrational fears of the consequences of questioning their authority — invoking authoritarianism. Any doubts expressed about the leadership or its doctrine are subject to terrifying negative results. Cults use this formula to wield undue influence over followers, and prevent them from questioning or leaving the group.
Phobia indoctrination is a tool of cults
As part of a larger overall program of brainwashing or mind control, cults and destructive organizations use imaginary extremes (going to hell, being possessed by demons, failing miserably at life, race war, Leftist apocalypse, etc.) to shock followers into refusing to examine any evidence whatsoever. A form of unethical hypnosis, phobia indoctrination can now be carried out on a mass scale thanks to the internet and our massive media apparatus. Be sure to be on the lookout for any cult warning signs in groups and messaging all around you.
Sociopaths and other types of emotional predators are taking ample advantage of their advantage in time and distance over the slow pace of justice. The wielding of fear as a cudgel in American politics has reached a fever pitch, with anti-Critical Race Theory hysteria, anti-vaxxers, anti-government types, anti-science, Lost Cause-revival zombie MAGA footsoldiers screeching about the “freedom!!!” they wish the government to provide them for persecuting their enemies, and other social horrors are merely the tip of the climate changing iceberg.
Phobia indoctrination tactics
Strategies of phobia indoctrination include Repetition and Conditioning, where fears are built through constant exposure; Misinformation and Propaganda, using false information to paint something as dangerous; Utilizing Existing Fears, exaggerating known fears or anxieties; and Social Pressure and Group Dynamics, leveraging social influences to convince others that irrational fears are common.
Other tactics include Authority and Expert Manipulation, where false credentials are used to lend legitimacy; Emotional Manipulation, appealing directly to emotions; Isolation and Control, where a person’s environment is manipulated; and Media Manipulation, using media to provoke fear.
We had better get familiar with the lexicon and vocabulary of the coming era, so we can fight the creeping scourge of thought control roiling the land.
Recognizing cult warning signs can be vital in identifying and understanding the risk before getting involved with a group who may not have your best interests in mind.
Cults, in general, refer to organizations or groups that often manipulate and exploit members, typically by using unorthodox beliefs and practices. Recognizing cult warning signs can be vital in identifying and understanding the risk before getting involved with a high demand group that may not have your best interests in mind.
Us vs. Them Mentality: Cults often draw clear lines between insiders and outsiders, emphasizing that only they possess the truth. This divisive mindset encourages isolation from family, friends, and society, leading to further control over the members.
Coercive Persuasion and Manipulation: High-pressure tactics are common in recruiting and retaining members. This may include controlling information, employing guilt or fear, manipulating emotions to maintain allegiance, and other tactics of emotional predators.
Excessive Financial Demands: Many cults require significant financial contributions, sometimes even requiring members to relinquish personal assets. This financial control reinforces dependence on the group.
Rigidity of Beliefs and Practices: A cult’s ideology is often absolute, with no room for questioning or dissent. Those who challenge the beliefs are typically met with hostility, punishment, or expulsion. This fundamentalist mentality permeates the entire group’s thinking and behavior.
Unrealistic Promises: Cults may lure individuals with promises of spiritual enlightenment, exclusive knowledge, or personal success, often unrealistic or unattainable. These promises can entice individuals seeking meaning or connection in their lives.
Control Over Personal Lives: Intense control over members’ personal lives, including relationships, employment, and living arrangements, can be a clear warning sign. Such control can erode personal autonomy and self-identity.
Emotional Abuse and Fear Tactics: Cults frequently use fear, shame, and guilt to control members, creating an environment where members feel constant anxiety about meeting the group’s standards or displeasing the leader.
A Focus on Recruitment: Many cults prioritize recruitment above all else, viewing every interaction as an opportunity to bring others into the fold. The pressure to recruit can be relentless and is often a central component of the group’s activities.
Impacts on Health and Wellbeing: The demanding nature of cult involvement can lead to negative effects on mental, emotional, and physical health. This can manifest as anxiety, depression, exhaustion, or other health issues, often ignored or downplayed by the group.
Recognizing these warning signs is crucial for individuals, families, and communities to understand the potential dangers and take appropriate steps to protect themselves. The subject of cults is sensitive, often tied to deeply personal and societal fears, and it requires careful consideration and empathy.
Overview: Operated by Rick Alan Ross, an internationally known expert on cults, CEI offers extensive resources, including a database of information on specific groups, techniques for intervention, and guidelines to recognize coercive persuasion.
Target Audience: Anyone looking to educate themselves about cults, from concerned family members to academic researchers.
International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) – Website
Overview: ICSA is a global network of people concerned about psychological manipulation and abuse in cultic or high-demand groups. They offer conferences, publications, and support networks.
Target Audience: Researchers, professionals, former cult members, and concerned family and friends.
Overview: Created by Steven Hassan, a mental health counselor and former cult member, this site offers resources on combating mind control in various settings, including cults, terrorism, and human trafficking.
Target Audience: General public, mental health professionals, and individuals directly affected by cults.
Overview: Based in the UK, the CIC provides information, advice, and support to those concerned about cults. They offer educational programs and direct help to those affected.
Target Audience: UK residents, though the information is applicable globally.
Overview: This online community allows individuals to discuss personal experiences, share research, and ask questions related to cults. Moderated for respectful dialogue, it offers a more informal but still informative perspective.
Target Audience: Those looking for community interaction, shared experiences, and casual information on the subject.
The Council for National Policy is a conservative organization founded in 1981 by far-right Republican activists in the U.S. including Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie, Phyllis Schlafly, and Tim LaHaye to advance a Christian Right agenda in American politics.
Today, the CNP is enormously influential on the right and almost unknown on the left. Its secretive cabal designs policy for federal and state lawmakers to amplify or parrot, and they dutifully do. Members include a who’s who of the Trumpian rogue gallery, from Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway to Mike Pence, Jim Jordan, Cleta Mitchell, and of course, Ginni Thomas.
The CNP gave Mike Flynn an annual award. Then-President Trump spoke at their 2020 annual meeting. That tells you pretty much all you need to know about how dangerous and well-connected this organization is, and how great is the extent of the group’s influence on American politics — and it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Columbia University scholar Anne Nelson describes the primary impact of the group as βconnecting the manpower and media of the Christian right with the finances of Western plutocrats and the strategy of right-wing Republican political operativesβ in her excellent book, Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right.
CNP and the Big Lie
They go to great lengths to conceal their activities, membership rosters, and connections within the corridors of Washington as well as in state legislatures and the judiciary. For more than 40 years the CNP has united the deep pocketbooks of right-wing donors with strategists, media campaigns, and activists. The group was deeply involved in both the efforts to overturn the 2020 election, leading up to and including the January 6 insurrection — from funding and planning to propaganda and “legal” challenges.
The CNP continues to press its narrow, historically revisionist ideas about America, including efforts to influence the 2022 midterm elections and, undoubtedly, the 2024 contest. In the quest to understand this fractious moment of bitter partisanship, the Council for National Policy is one of the secret keys to unlocking the true inner workings of the right-wing political machine.
Legal statute requiring those persons lobbying on behalf of a foreign government or other entity to register such with the U.S. government.
Folks like Mike Flynn and Jared Kushner ran afoul of this law during their time in the US government.
History of FARA
The Foreign Agents Registration Act, often abbreviated as FARA, is a United States law passed in 1938. The purpose of FARA is to ensure that the U.S. government and the people of the United States are informed about the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of people trying to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws on behalf of foreign principals.
The Act requires every person who acts as an agent of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal. This includes activities, receipts, and disbursements in support of those activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons.
The Act is administered and enforced by the FARA Unit of the National Security Division (NSD) of the United States Department of Justice.
FARA does not restrict publishing of materials or viewpoints; rather, it requires agents representing the interests of foreign powers to disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances.
Originally, FARA was passed in 1938 in response to concerns about German propaganda agents in the United States in the years leading up to World War II, but its usage has evolved over time. The Act has been amended several times, most significantly in 1966 when its scope was narrowed to focus more specifically on agents working in a political context.
Non-compliance with FARA has become a more prominent issue in recent times, with several high-profile investigations and prosecutions related to the Act. The Act received significant media attention during and after the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, when it was invoked in investigations related to foreign interference in the election — particularly Russian election interference.
None in the Sedition Trial of US Nazi sympathizers (1944)
None in Fort Smith sedition trial (1988) — Louis Beam and the Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord white supremacist and Christian nationalist group
None in Hutaree trial (2010)
Does that make this the first successful sedition conviction of white paramilitaries?!
Before January 6, there came these attempts to overthrow the American government.
Christian Front trial (1940-41)
The Christian Front trial of the 1940s was a highly publicized criminal trial in the United States that took place in 1940 and 1941. The Christian Front was a right-wing, antisemitic, and pro-Nazi organization that was active in New York City in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
They are men with little imagination, who seek to exalt themselves by squishing everyone else down into a mass of un-individuated peons. One of many right-wing Big Lies is that fascism is the opposite of communism — not so. Both are forms of collectivism, in which the masses must be relegated to nothingness by the immense, overwhelming pressures of society — such that a few secular gods of Greatness Thinking may shine above all the rest.
Fascists are Dittoheads
The ethos of “copying” is a signature psychological trait of fundamentalist minds devoid of creativity. Both Trump and Koch have fashioned themselves as carbon copies of Daddy — in true Strict Father Morality style. Thus they feel completely anachronistic in modern times — where children are falling farther and farther from the proverbial trees, ideologically speaking.
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism that occurs when an individual unconsciously attributes their own feelings, thoughts, or attributes to another person. Projection is a way for people to cope with and protect themselves from unwanted or uncomfortable emotions such as guilt, anger, or anxiety. In essence, psychological projection involves transferring one’s own emotions, thoughts, or motives onto someone else, as a means to avoid confronting or dealing with them directly.
Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, initially conceptualized projection as a defense mechanism. According to Freud, the mind has various ways to protect itself from psychological distress or anxiety, and projection is one of many methods. While Freud’s work laid the foundation for understanding projection, our understanding of the concept has evolved over time, with many modern psychologists examining its cognitive, social, and emotional aspects.
Several factors contribute to the likelihood of an individual engaging in psychological projection. These factors include personality traits, social and cultural influences, and situational factors. People who are more prone to projection often have a higher level of neuroticism or difficulty regulating their emotions. Social and cultural factors can also play a role, as people may be more likely to project certain emotions or traits onto others depending on societal norms and expectations. Situational factors, such as stress or emotional conflict, can further exacerbate the tendency to project.
Types of projection
There are various types of psychological projection, including:
Complementary projection: This occurs when an individual projects their own feelings or thoughts onto someone who has a complementary role in their life, such as a partner or coworker. This type of projection can often be seen in relationships, where one person may accuse their partner of being unfaithful when, in fact, they are the ones who are struggling with feelings of infidelity.
Complimentary projection: In this form of projection, an individual attributes positive qualities or traits that they themselves possess onto someone else. This may be done to reinforce a positive self-image or to maintain a sense of self-worth.
Projective identification: This is a more complex form of projection in which an individual not only attributes their own emotions, thoughts, or motives onto another person but also manipulates the other person into actually exhibiting those characteristics. This can be seen in interpersonal relationships where one person tries to control or manipulate the other to confirm their own beliefs or fears.
Collective projection: This occurs when a group of individuals projects their shared feelings, thoughts, or motives onto another group, often as a means of maintaining group cohesion or protecting the group’s image. This type of projection can be seen in situations of intergroup conflict, where one group might blame another for problems that actually stem from within their own group.
Negative consequences of projection
Psychological projection can have several negative consequences, both for the individual engaging in projection and for those on the receiving end. For the projector, it can prevent them from taking responsibility for their actions, feelings, or thoughts, thereby hindering their personal growth and emotional development. It can also distort their perception of reality, leading to poor decision-making and strained relationships.
For those on the receiving end, psychological projection can be confusing, hurtful, and damaging. It can lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, and emotional distress. Additionally, being subjected to projection can cause individuals to question their own reality and self-worth, potentially leading to feelings of self-doubt or depression.
Projection in politics
Politicians and their supporters often engage in projection as a way to deflect criticism, discredit opponents, and maintain a positive image of themselves or their party. Projection in politics can manifest in various ways, including the following:
Accusing opponents of misconduct: Politicians may accuse their opponents of engaging in unethical or illegal activities that they themselves are involved in, as a way to deflect attention from their own actions and create doubt about the opposition (classic example: when then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich waged a campaign against then-President Bill Clinton for having an affair, while he himself was having an affair with a Congressional aide on his staff).
Misattributing motives: Politicians might project their own motives or goals onto their opponents, suggesting that the other side is pursuing an agenda driven by selfish or malicious intent. This can be a way to delegitimize the opposition’s policy proposals or campaign messaging.
Stereotyping and scapegoating: Projection can also be seen in the form of stereotyping and scapegoating minority groups or other marginalized communities. Politicians may project their own insecurities, fears, bigotries, or prejudices onto these groups, blaming them for social or economic problems, as a way to rally support and distract from the real issues at hand.
Groupthink and collective projection: Political parties, factions, or movements may engage in collective projection, projecting their own faults or shortcomings onto rival groups. This can help maintain group cohesion and reinforce a shared identity, but it can also contribute to political polarization and conflict.
Projection in politics can have several negative consequences, including the distortion of facts and reality, the exacerbation of political polarization, and the perpetuation of stereotypes and prejudice. It can also hinder constructive dialogue and compromise, making it more difficult for politicians and policymakers to address pressing issues and find solutions to problems.
To counteract the influence of projection in politics, it is essential for individuals to remain vigilant and critically examine the claims and accusations made by politicians and political parties. Media outlets and journalists also play a crucial role in fact-checking and holding politicians accountable for their statements and actions. Encouraging open and honest dialogue, promoting empathy and understanding, and fostering critical thinking can help mitigate the impact of projection in the political arena.
Emotional blackmail is a manipulative tactic used by individuals to exert control and undue influence over others by exploiting their emotions, fears, and vulnerabilities. It typically involves the use of threats, guilt, negative emotions, and other influence techniques to pressure someone into complying with the manipulator’s demands or desires.
Forms of emotional blackmail
Threats: The manipulator may threaten to harm themselves, the victim, or someone the victim cares about if their demands are not met.
Guilt-tripping: The manipulator may try to make the victim feel guilty for not complying with their wishes, suggesting that their refusal indicates a lack of love, care, or loyalty.
Fear: The manipulator may use the victim’s insecurities, anxieties, or fears to manipulate them into submission.
Obligation: The manipulator may insist that the victim “owes” them something, such as a favor or support, in order to pressure them into compliance.
Emotional predators use blackmail
Emotional blackmail can be subtle or overt and may occur in various types of relationships, including romantic partnerships, friendships, family, and professional settings. Emotional predators (often people with personality disorders) tends to use psychological manipulation techniques to get what they want from you — without much (or any) regard for your own feelings in the matter, or the ethical dubiousness of doing so.
Recognizing and addressing emotional blackmail is essential for maintaining healthy boundaries and relationships.
Negging is a manipulative tactic often used in the context of dating and interpersonal relationships. It involves making backhanded compliments or subtle insults aimed at undermining someone’s confidence and self-esteem. The term “negging” is derived from the word “negative,” and it is typically employed to make the target feel insecure or uncertain, causing them to seek validation from the person employing the tactic.
Negging is often associated with pickup artists (PUAs) and their strategies for attracting romantic partners. The idea behind negging is that by lowering a person’s self-esteem, they become more susceptible to the manipulator’s advances and more likely to seek approval or validation.
Negging examples
“You’re really pretty for a girl with glasses.”
“I like how you don’t care about what people think of your outfit.”
“You’re surprisingly intelligent for someone who talks so much.”
Negging is part of the broad pantheon of tactics used by emotional predators. It can have negative consequences on the target’s emotional well-being and can potentially lead to toxic or abusive relationships. It’s essential to recognize negging as a manipulative tactic and maintain healthy boundaries in relationships. If you encounter negging, it is crucial to assert yourself, disengage from the interaction, or seek support from friends, family, or professionals if necessary.
Negging also falls within the realm of cult warning signs. If a group engages collectively in a lot of negging and flaw-finding, you should investigate them thoroughly and closely. They may be a high control group or cult who is interested in extracting things from you in the guise of “helping” you.
Propaganda is a form of communication that aims to influence people’s beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors towards a particular cause, idea, or ideology. It involves the use of persuasive influence techniques to shape public opinion and to create a favorable image of a person, group, or organization, while discrediting or demonizing its opponents.
Propaganda can take many different forms, including posters, speeches, films, radio broadcasts, social media posts, and news articles. It can be used for political, social, religious, or commercial purposes, and it is often associated with authoritarian regimes or totalitarian societies.
One of the key characteristics of propaganda is its use of emotional appeals, rather than rational arguments, to sway people’s opinions. Propagandists often appeal to people’s fears, hopes, bigotries, or prejudices, and use catchy slogans, symbols, or images to make their message more memorable and persuasive. They may also use repetition, exaggeration, or distortion of facts to reinforce their message and to create a sense of urgency or crisis.
Disinformation at scale
Another key feature of propaganda is its use of selective or biased information to support its claims and to discredit opposing views. Propagandists may use half-truths, rumors, lies, or Big Lies to create a false or misleading picture of the situation, and to manipulate people’s perceptions of reality. They may also use censorship or propaganda techniques such as suppression of dissent, demonization of opponents, or use of fear to create a chilling climate of fear and intimidation.
Propaganda can also be used to create a sense of unity or identity among a group of people, by emphasizing their shared values, beliefs, or interests, and by portraying outsiders or enemies as a threat to their well-being. Propaganda can thus be used to mobilize people for a common cause, such as a war or a political campaign, or to reinforce existing social norms and values.
However, propaganda can also have negative consequences, such as creating divisions, fostering hatred, or suppressing dissent. It can lead to the dehumanization of other groups or individuals, and to the justification of violence or discrimination. Propaganda can also undermine democracy by limiting people’s access to accurate information and by creating a distorted view of reality.
To resist propaganda, it is important to be critical of the messages we receive, to question the sources and motives of the information, and to seek out alternative perspectives and sources of information. We should also be aware of our own biases and prejudices, and strive to be open-minded and tolerant of different opinions and viewpoints.
Cancel culture refers to the practice of publicly calling out or boycotting individuals, companies, or institutions for behavior that is perceived to be offensive, controversial, or problematic. The goal is to hold these entities accountable for their actions and to pressure them to change their behavior.
This can manifest in various ways, such as social media campaigns, petitions, or protests. The aim of cancel culture is often to create social consequences for the perceived wrongdoing, such as loss of employment, loss of social status, or loss of financial support.
History of cancel culture
The term cancel culture emerged out of the earlier concept of political correctness, and gained popularity in the 2010s alongside the rise of social media. Some scholars and media theorists trace the concept of cancel culture back to even earlier phenomena, such as the boycotts and blacklists of the McCarthyism era in the United States on the right, or the call-out culture of feminist and anti-racist movements on the left.
Cancel culture and political correctness are related in that they both involve social and cultural pressure to conform to certain norms of language and behavior. Political correctness refers to the avoidance of language or actions that may be considered discriminatory, offensive, or insensitive, often with the aim of promoting inclusivity and social justice. Both tend to concern themselves with highlighting language, stereotypes, and assumptions rooted in racism, sexism, and other common forms of bigotry throughout history.
Cancel culture vs. political correctness
In some ways cancel culture can be seen as an extension of political correctness, in that it goes a step further by seeking to hold individuals and entities accountable for violating norms of respect and social justice. The collective power of Facebook, Twitter (aka “X”), and other social media outlets has helped activists organize around ethical, moral, and political issues, and provided new tools for achieving accountability goals, through activities such as public shaming, boycotts, or other forms of social and economic pressure.
In my opinion, the right-wing critique of so-called cancel culture is grounded in an erroneous conflation between governmental action and collective organizing by groups of individuals who are themselves often associated with political activism. Cancel culture is often mentioned in the same breath with censorship, whose definition connotes government tyranny and overreach.
I think it’s important to be discerning, in these instances, about who is exercising power and why — is it really a case of the government overreaching (censorship), or is it simply a group of people reacting appropriately to the continued presence of structural racism, sexism, and many other -isms in modern society: and stubbornly so, after decades and centuries of collective social justice work?
Dominionism is a term that has been used to describe a Christian nationalist theological and political movement among some conservative Christian groups in the United States. The movement holds that Christians should strive to exert political and cultural influence in order to bring about a society that is based on biblical principles.
At its core, Dominionism asserts that Christians have a divine mandate to exercise “dominion” over society, and that this mandate includes taking an active role in politics, education, the arts, and other areas of culture. Most Dominionists believe — erroneously — that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, and that the country’s laws and institutions should reflect this Christian heritage.
Critics of Dominionism have argued that the movement seeks to undermine the separation of church and state and to impose a narrow, sectarian agenda on society. They have also raised concerns about the movement’s anti-democratic tendencies and its embrace of authoritarian forms of government. Dominionists are Christian nationalists, who seek to usher in a theocracy in America where the Bible is quite literally used as the law of the land — overthrowing the Constitution and establishing a fundamentalist religious state.
7 Mountains Movement
One popular strain of Dominionism known as the 7 Mountains Movement, or 7M, holds that Christians should seek to exert influence in seven key areas of society, which are often referred to as “mountains”:
business
government
media
arts and entertainment
education
family
religion
Advocates of 7M Dominionism argue that these areas of society are currently dominated by secular or ungodly values and beliefs, and that Christians must work to “reclaim” them in order to create a more godly society. Critics argue that the movement’s efforts to gain political and cultural influence can be seen as an attempt to impose a particular set of religious beliefs on society.
Notable Dominionists
Many advocates of Dominionism take pains to keep their involvement with the movement under wraps, or to distance themselves from the more extreme views and political beliefs of the movement — while in private continuing to advocate for a theocratic revolution in America. More recently on the Christian nationalism timeline, believers have started to speak more openly about a war on the left — supposedly bloodless, if we let it be.
Here are a few known prominent believers of Dominionism:
Rousas John Rushdoony, a theologian who is considered by many to be the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, a theological movement that has been linked to Dominionism
Gary North, a Christian Reconstructionist and economist who has written extensively on the role of Christianity in shaping economic and political systems
Jerry Falwell Sr., a prominent conservative Christian leader who advocated for Christian involvement in politics and society
Pat Robertson, a televangelist and founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, who has advocated for conservative Christian values and policies in the political sphere
Ted Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas who has been associated with Dominionist beliefs and who has advocated for conservative Christian values in politics
Sarah Palin, a former governor of Alaska and political commentator who has been associated with Dominionist ideas and who has advocated for a more Christian-influenced society.
