The Fake & Fraudulent Prophets Around the President
September 4, 2026 |
Daniel Henderson
If you spend much time on social media, you’ve likely encountered the pop-psychology term, “gaslighting”. Despite the self-help community’s overuse of this non-technical term, it’s a very real tool of abuse and manipulation. The simple definition of gaslighting is an attempt to convince someone of a false reality. Often, this is accomplished by making them doubt their own perceptions or question their own sanity, allowing the abuser to impose their preferred version of reality.
For example, a cheating husband might worry that his wife is getting suspicious about the affair when she finds lipstick stains on his shirt. To throw her off the scent, he might claim that he doesn’t see any stains and suggest that her eyesight is going bad. The wife, who’s likely already been conditioned to question her own sanity (and eyesight), might choose to trust her husband’s perceptions over her own.
While the term “gaslighting” may be relatively new, this manipulative tactic is not. For millennia, humanity has skillfully wielded appealing false narratives, not only in abusive relationships, but also in abusive groups. Political groups, religious groups, companies, and other organizations are capable of twisting perceived reality to their advantage. History’s worst tyrants have been remarkably skilled at rationalizing away their citizens’ concerns with self-serving lies.
Due to the brainwashing nature of this form of abuse, many gaslighting victims are oblivious to the exploitation being used against them. Once we’ve bought into a group’s appealing messages, it gets dangerously easy to continue believing whatever version of reality they present to us. Consequently, when someone in political power tells us to trust their judgment over our own, it should set off alarm bells. To protect ourselves from manipulation, here are a few patterns of political gaslighting we can look out for.
One of the most common means of gaslighting is to dismiss and discredit all other sources of information. For example, if a member of a political party reads a news article that reflects badly on their group’s policies, the leaders are likely to respond by simply accusing the offending news outlet of peddling “fake news”. That’s why members of controlling groups are often encouraged to get their news exclusively from the group’s preferred sources that allegedly only report the truth. This censorship of any dissenting information empowers a political group’s leaders to shape reality however they want.
Leaders who are willing to distort reality to advance their own agendas have very little interest in scientific evidence. They often directly discourage the group from trusting peer-reviewed research or listening to the experts in fields such as science, medicine, economics, psychology, etc. Ironically, these corrupt leaders often accuse the academic community of having biased motivations. Conveniently, when a gaslighting political figure presents their alternative “facts”, they feel no burden to back them up with research.
Group gaslighting and indoctrination frequently involve overused talking points, mantras, and buzzwords. Group members become accustomed to constant reinforcements of the group’s ideology and are encouraged to recite these easy-to-use catchphrases. In preparation for criticism from outsiders, members are trained to respond with practiced talking points, whether they’re relevant or not. For example, when someone criticizes the US government’s handling of mass deportations, a common conservative reaction is to pivot to discussing the dangers of “migrant crime” and the misuse of taxpayers’ money.
Abusive groups rarely empower their members to think for themselves and question the assumptions of the group. In order for gaslighting to be successful, an abusive leader must convince group members to abandon their own intuition while indoctrinating them with the group’s false reality. Often this involves bold claims about the inherent wisdom and authority of the leader. When an individual’s real-life experiences don’t align with the group narrative, they obediently invalidate their instincts, becoming active participants in their own gaslighting. For example, a corrupt government can easily silence questioning citizens by claiming to have “classified information” that’s not available to the general public.
The ultimate purpose of gaslighting is for the abuser to manipulate events and promote their agenda. When a distorted version of reality is being systematically imposed on a group, there’s always an underlying benefit to those in power. Political leaders can easily manipulate their constituents with fear and anger-inducing rhetoric that motivates the group to vote, donate, volunteer, and recruit. For example, a political candidate might accuse their rival of corruption and urge their constituents to raise money to fight against it. While publicly appearing to act in the group’s best interest, self-serving leaders can use these tactics to covertly increase their power and wealth.
Resisting the insidious power of gaslighting takes continuous effort. It’s much easier to trust the interpretations of someone in power. However, in an age where misinformation is just as readily available as facts, we don’t have the luxury of assuming our political leaders are committed to truth. Critical thinking, awareness of our biases, and listening to diverse viewpoints are all essential defenses against authoritarian regimes. These efforts empower us to make decisions that are based in reality instead of manipulative fiction.
