I have written quite a bit on cults, ideology, and psychological operations on this platform. With all the fast breaking news concerning Trump’s government reforms and the project to reshape of the world economic order to put American first, as well as the resistance to these efforts, returning to this issue has taken some time. However, I was able to finally finish an essay on the psychological systems of CBT and NLP and I report my findings in this essay.
It is important to do this work because what forms and fuels resistance to rebirth of the US Republic and the American System is a complex set of psychological operations that produces the rank-and-file corporate state activists and functionaries who help carry out the globalist agenda via the managed decline of the American Republic. In today’s essay, I provide a comprehensive analysis of these therapies and show how their inverse provides the tools for controlling the masses. I call the respective systems “Dark CBT” and “Dark NLP,” to distinguish them from applications that seek to help individuals rather than harm societies.
I therefore begin by emphasizing that, in the right hands, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) are both psychological approaches aimed at understanding and improving human thought and behavior. While they share some conceptual overlap—particularly in their emphasis on the power of language and perception—they diverge in methodology, purpose, and, allegedly, scientific credibility. While the values of CBT are extolled, NLP is dismissed as pseudoscience. At least that’s the narrative. The reason why NLP is dismissed becomes apparent when considering the application of these techniques in the wrong hands.
Part of what promoted me to write this essay is my suspicion that the alleged scientific inadequacy of NLP is because NLP’s focus on language to change perception might be perceived to be advantageous, and therefore it is useful to dissimulate its power as a potential tool of mass manipulation. Admitting NLP’s efficacy gives too much of the game away. To explore whether this may be the case, the balance of this essay explores the origins, techniques, and criticisms of both approaches, offering a comparative analysis of their distinctions and similarities. In addition to exposing the technologies of psychological operations, I have intellectual interests in this subject as both a psychologist (undergraduate) and a sociologist (PhD and professor).
CBT emerged from the clinical research of psychologists Aaron Beck and Albert Ellis (depicted above) in the 1960s and 1970s. It is sold as a structured, evidence-based therapy widely used in mental health to treat disorders such as anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. CBT rests on the idea that behaviors, feelings, and thoughts are interconnected. By identifying and challenging distorted thinking—such as all-or-nothing thinking, catastrophizing, and overgeneralizing—individuals can learn to develop healthier, more adaptive patterns of behavior. Techniques such as cognitive restructuring, exposure exercises, and thought records form the core of CBT practice.
NLP was developed in the 1970s by Richard Bandler and John Grinder (depicted below). The approach is based on the idea that by modeling the language and behaviors of enviable others, one can be like them. NLP emphasizes how language and internal representations—feelings, mental images, and sounds—shape our experience of the world. Techniques such as anchoring (associating a stimulus with a desired emotional state), mirroring (mimicking someone’s body language), and reframing (changing the context of a thought) are common to this approach. Crucially, NLP finds its primary application in business communication, coaching, and personal development rather than in formal mental health treatment. Thus, while CBT helps distressed individuals overcome their limitations, NLP is more aspirational.
A chief distinction between the two is, we are told, apparent in their scientific footing. CBT has been rigorously tested in clinical settings and is supported by a large body of empirical research and practiced by licensed professionals with standardized guidelines and training. In contrast, NLP is considered by many in the psychological community to be junk science due to its inconsistent results in clinical settings, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and unregulated training standards. Despite this, NLP maintains popularity in self-help and performance coaching due to its accessible and intuitive techniques. Where else might modeling the language and behaviors of enviable others be useful? I’ll come to that.
Another point of divergence lies in how each method uses language. For NLP, language is central—both as a diagnostic tool and a method of intervention. The premise is that by changing how someone speaks or imagines their experience, their perception and reality can shift. CBT also pays attention to language, especially in uncovering cognitive distortions, but its use of language is more diagnostic and grounded in reality-testing rather than reprogramming. Is that the problem? Is it the reprogramming piece that needs dissimulating? Would admitting the efficacy of NLP raise suspicions about CBT?
At the core of CBT lies the principle that thoughts influence feelings and behaviors, and by challenging distorted thought patterns, individuals can achieve behavioral and emotional change. But like any powerful tool—and CBT has this mighty reputation (which I am not disputing)—CBT’s principles can be inverted; instead of guiding someone toward clarity and emotional resilience, the therapy can be used to destabilize a person’s sense of reality, intensify fear, and reinforce irrational beliefs. In this “reverse CBT,” the goal would not be healing but control. I call this Dark CBT.
Imagine replacing CBT’s healthy questioning with deliberate reinforcement of cognitive distortions. A manipulator might encourage black-and-white thinking (“You’re either antiracist or racist”), catastrophizing (“If you speak out, you will lose your career”), or personalizing (“You’re responsible for the things that are happening to you”). These familiar manipulations are the very thought patterns CBT seeks to dismantle, yet in the hands of someone or some group with harmful intent, such as the need to control people, they can be implanted and strengthened to create anxiety, dependency, and obedience. This is the psychological mechanism behind techniques used in authoritarian propaganda, cult indoctrination, and gaslighting.
Reinforcement plays a key role. In helping therapy, CBT encourages repeated practice of healthier thought patterns until they become second nature. In Dark CBT, repetition serves to normalize distorted beliefs. Slogans, memes, news cycles, social cues—all serve this purpose. Emotional conditioning—linking certain thoughts or behaviors to feelings of fear, guilt, or shame—is another tool in the box. In its healthy form, CBT might use exposure, or stress inoculation, to reduce irrational fear; its dark form might use triggering imagery or words to induce fear at will. Stress inoculation here takes the form of resistance to facts and reason. This allows the resolution of cognitive dissonance to reinforce aligning behavior with programmed attitudes and beliefs rather than changing attitudes, beliefs, and actions to align with conflicting information, i.e., facts.
One of the forms this takes is “prebunking,” a strategy to counter “misinformation” by proactively exposing people to straw man versions of allegedly false arguments or manipulative techniques before they encounter them in real contexts. It aims to build cognitive resistance by teaching individuals to recognize information that challenges their worldview through examples or inoculation-like approaches, reducing susceptibility to alleged deception. This is closely to the technique of “thought-stopping,” a cognitive technique used to interrupt and halt intrusive, negative, or unwanted thoughts. It involves consciously recognizing the thought and then using a mental or physical cue to break the thought pattern. The goal is to redirect the mind back to desired thoughts, which then helps the individual experiencing cognitive dissonance manage associated anxiety and interrupt harmful thought cycles, such as critical reflection on the information presented.
In his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell anticipated this strategy by introducing the concept of “doublethink.” Doublethink is closely related to the ideas of cognitive dissonance, prebunking, and thought stopping, as it involves managing conflicting thoughts in a way that aligns with a specific ideology. Doublethink is the act of simultaneously holding and accepting two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind, while suppressing awareness of their contradiction. It’s a form of mental discipline enforced by the totalitarian regime in the novel, IngSoc (newspeak for English Socialism), to ensure loyalty to the Party, even when its propaganda contradicts logic or reality. For example, citizens might believe “War is Peace” knowing war involves conflict, yet they reconcile the contradiction through doublethink to avoid questioning the Party.
This is not a bug in CBT but a feature. We thus have a caution about the power of cognitive influence. The methods for helping people clarify their thinking can also be used to confuse it. This underscores the importance of critical thinking, ethics, and transparency, not only in therapy but in education, media, politics, and relationships. Ultimately, the mind is pliable—CBT proves it can be shaped for healing. But the same mechanisms, turned on their head, can be used to control people.
Let’s now return to NLP. Dark applications of NLP rely on its core principles—anchoring, language patterns, modeling, and reframing—not for therapeutic benefit, but for manipulation. Set aside the question of NLP’s empirical standing; what remains is a toolkit for modifying behavior and perception through language and suggestive techniques. In the hands of a skilled manipulator, these tools can subtly bypass critical thinking and embed distorted beliefs or emotional triggers, often without the target’s awareness. My hope is that readers will come to understand that CBT and NLP are really not that different, and that by combining them produces a powerful psychological weapon for mass population control.
A central technique in NLP is anchoring—linking a specific stimulus (a gesture, a phrase, or a tone of voice) to an emotional response. In a therapeutic context, anchoring is used to help clients achieve positive states on demand. But in its dark form, Dark NLP can be used to implant in the mind fear, trigger shame, and achieve submission. A manipulator might, for instance, repeatedly associate questioning authority with discomfort or ridicule. Over time, the mere act of doubting or resisting could trigger emotional unease, conditioning obedience without overt coercion. This is precisely what Orwell was warming the world about with his novel.
It follows that language patterns can be weaponized. Milton Model language—vague, hypnotic phrasing—can create confusion, lower resistance, and implant suggestions subtly. This calls the Milton Model because the technique was developed by Milton Erickson, who guided individuals into “a receptive state of mind.” In abusive relationships, cults, or propaganda, such patterns can generate trance-like agreement, nudging people toward belief or compliance without them realizing how or why. Reframing, typically used in NLP to help clients see problems from a new, empowering angle, becomes dangerous when used to invert truth: abuse is reframed as love, oppression becomes protection, doubt becomes betrayal. With the application of Dark NLP, the Orwellian inversion can be attained. “Ignorance is Strength.”
Finally, modeling—the imitation of behaviors and internal states—can be used to shape identity. In Dark NLP, a charismatic figure might present themselves as the model of certainty or enlightenment, subtly guiding others to suppress their individual judgment and replicate the model’s mindset. Over time, personal autonomy erodes, replaced by internalized scripts rooted in the manipulator’s language and behaviors. In essence, Dark NLP exploits the pliability of cognition through emotional association, repetition of stimuli, and suggestive language. Like Dark CBT, the application of Dark NLP demonstrates that the tools of influence are neutral—it is the intention behind their use that determines whether they heal or harm. In good hands, the subject knows the practitioner. In bad hands, the practitioner is dissimulated—hence the need to marginalize the efficacy of NLP.
Is there research on Dark CBT? Yes, but it’s not identified as such. Though the concept itself has not been the subject of targeted empirical research, many of its components have been rigorously studied under the banners of coercive control, gaslighting, propaganda, and psychological abuse. I want to go more in depth into these techniques and show how established research has already assessed the efficacy of Dark CBT.
In his 2009 book Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life, Evan Stark describes a systematic campaign to erode a person’s autonomy, often by reshaping beliefs and perception. The reinforcement of fear, guilt, and helplessness constitutes a program of psychological conditioning, wherein the victim learns to think in ways that support the abuser’s power. Emotional punishment, isolation, and repetition become tools for psychological entrapment. Coercive control can be understood as a real-world application of Dark CBT, wherein cognitive restructuring occurs—but always in favor of the manipulator’s aims.
Recall that a key concept in CBT is the identification and restructuring of cognitive distortions—inaccurate or exaggerated thought patterns that drive emotional suffering. In abusive or manipulative environments, CBT in reserve, distortions are amplified, introduced, and reinforced. For example, in emotionally abusive relationships, perpetrators may repeatedly blame the victim for the abuser’s own actions, thereby reinforcing patterns like personalization (“It’s your fault I’m angry”) and catastrophizing (“If you leave me, everything will fall apart”). Research by Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003) demonstrates how such emotional abuse serves to maintain control by shaping the victim’s internal narrative in ways that resemble an inversion of CBT’s goals.
Dark CBT finds a particularly sinister form in gaslighting, a technique in which a person is made to question their own memory, perception, or sanity. Gaslighting has been studied extensively in the context of intimate partner violence and narcissistic abuse. It often involves contradiction, lying, misdirection, and persistent denial to destabilize a victim’s sense of reality. Over time, the victim internalizes the abuser’s view of the world and of themselves, mirroring what CBT identified as a failure to challenge distorted thoughts—but here, failure is engineered. Repeated exposure to manipulated narratives erodes cognitive autonomy and increases dependence on the perpetrator, aligning closely with the concept of Dark CBT. (I have written quite a bit about gaslighting on this platform.)
These techniques extend beyond interpersonal relationships into larger social systems. Authoritarian propaganda and cult indoctrination both make use of cognitive manipulations. Cults use emotional conditioning, reframing, and thought-stopping techniques to override critical thinking and create dependence. Researchers such as Margaret Singer (2003) and Janja Lalich (2004) have detailed how repeated exposure to a controlled narrative and the strategic use of fear and guilt reshape followers’ beliefs. Through these methods, individuals adopt distorted worldviews that feel internally coherent, despite being externally constructed and often deeply harmful. (I have written on cults on Freedom and Reason, as well. In previous essays, I have shown that cults pursue the same techniques groomers use to disarm children for sexual exploitation.)
These mechanisms are present in media and political environments. Studies on propaganda and misinformation have demonstrated how cognitive biases can be exploited through repetition and emotional appeal. Lewandowsky et al. (2012) show that, even after misinformation is corrected, people often continue to believe it if it has been repeated enough times—an effect known as belief perseverance. Propagandists exploit this by normalizing harmful and irrational beliefs—the inverse of CBT. In such contexts, emotional triggers—disgust, fear, and shame—are deliberately associated with behaviors, groups, or ideas to shape public behavior and perception, bypassing rational deliberation. Prebunking and thought-stopping are all in play here.
Orwell anticipated this, as well. His concept of “crimestop” is the ability to stop short of any thought that could lead to questioning or challenging the Party’s orthodoxy, effectively halting dangerous or “unorthodox” ideas before they fully form. It’s a conditioned, almost instinctive reflex to avoid thoughts that might be considered rebellious or heretical, protecting the individual from committing “thoughtcrime.” Orwell describes it as a kind of protective stupidity, where the mind automatically shuts down any line of reasoning that risks disloyalty to the Party. Emotional triggers—disgust, fear, and shame—prevent any rational consideration of unorthodox ideas by associating them with visceral rejection and social taboo, short-circuiting critical thought and enforcing conformity.
It all sounds familiar, doesn’t it? While Dark CBT may not yet be a formally recognized psychological construct, its principles are visible in numerous documented phenomena. The deliberate reinforcement of cognitive distortions, the emotional conditioning of belief, the strategic reshaping of perception—all are practices seen in coercive control, cult indoctrination, gaslighting, and propaganda. The same mechanisms CBT uses to promote mental health—belief restructuring, emotional learning, and repetition—can be inverted to cloud judgment, erode autonomy, and induce compliance. This underscores a broader truth: the mind is pliable, and cognitive tools are powerful weapons in the wrong hands. Whether they heal or harm depends on how—and why—they are used.
What about Dark NLP? Recall that NLP draws on hypnosis and linguistics to harness patterns of language and thought to influence emotion and behavior. Stripped of alleged scientific pretension, NLP can be viewed as a loosely organized set of techniques for persuasion. This malleability raises concerns, particularly when these techniques are used not to empower, but to manipulate. This is the domain of Dark NLP: the deliberate use of behavioral modeling, emotional conditioning, and suggestive language to shape others’ thoughts and actions without their consent. As I detail Dark NLP, ask yourself: Where have I encountered these techniques in action? (Ask the same thing of yourself about Dark CBT.)
At the heart of NLP lies the idea that language can rewire cognition. In therapeutic or coaching contexts, this is meant to help people overcome limiting beliefs or mental blocks to achieve aspirational goals, but in darker contexts, those same techniques can reinforce distorted beliefs or behaviors for the manipulator’s benefit—to achieve the manipulator’s goals. Anchoring—the association of a specific stimulus (a gesture, word, or tone) with a particular emotional state—used ethically can help a person achieve calmness or confidence. Used manipulatively, it becomes a tool for emotional control. For example, a manipulator might repeatedly use a particular phrase or tone when inducing fear or shame. Over time, the victim may experience a conditioned emotional response to the phrase itself, even when no real threat is present. It also renders the person susceptible to emotional blackmail, even use emotional blackmail to sway those around him. This creates a subtle lever of influence that can be activated at will.
Another NLP technique is the use of language patterns, especially those derived from the Milton Model. In therapy, such language may be used to create openness and self-reflection. But in manipulative contexts, it can cloud judgment and implant ideas by suggestion rather than argument. A phrase like “You already know what the right thing is” can subtly imply agreement or certainty, steering the listener towards a desired end without their full awareness. When used in marketing or seduction without ethical guardrails, such patterns can produce belief and compliance not through rational persuasion and reason, but through the careful engineering of ambiguity and emotional resonance. That describes the advertising industry and mass media generally.
The technique of reframing, central to NLP and borrowed from cognitive therapies, is also easily inverted. Reframing involves changing the way a person interprets an experience to alter its emotional impact. Ethically applied, it can help a person reinterpret challenge as opportunity or failure as growth. In Dark NLP, reframing is used to disguise harm as virtue. An abusive act might be reframed as “tough love,” gaslighting as “helping you see the truth,” or manipulation as “guidance.” Over time, victims may come to accept harmful behavior as beneficial, internalizing the manipulator’s reinterpretation of events and abandoning their own perceptions. As I tell my students, the best way to control people is not through force, but by convincing them that your interests are their interests. This proceeds by manufacturing affinities.
Finally, the NLP principle of modeling—imitating the behaviors, beliefs, and emotional states of enviable others—can be employed to erode autonomy. A charismatic figure may present himself as the ideal, subtly encouraging others to adopt a worldview, conform to a group, or suppress dissent. Again, affinity production is central to the operation. In cults, multilevel marketing schemes, or political movements, modeling becomes a form of emotional and psychological mimicry where followers learn not to think independently, but to replicate the body language, emotional tone, or the speech patterns of a perceived authority or a desirable tribe.
Although Dark NLP has not been studied in academic literature as a formal psychological construct, its underlying tactics, as with Dark CBT, overlap with well-researched domains of coercion, manipulation, and social engineering. Techniques resembling Dark NLP have been described in research on authoritarian propaganda (Pratkanis and Aronson, 2001), cult influence (Lalich, 2004), and interpersonal abuse. These studies confirm that emotional association, language, and repetition can have powerful effects on behavioral compliance, belief formation, and identity. What NLP allegedly lacks in scientific rigor, it compensates for in rhetorical and performative potency—especially in the hands of someone intent on controlling rather than helping.
Thus, real-world experience finds NLP valid. It also finds that NLP and CBT are highly similar, especially in their dark form where they converge. The pliability of the human mind makes it possible for emotional anchoring, framing, and suggestion to be used either for growth or exploitation. While suggestibility (and gullibility) is variable across individuals, humans have evolved a common capacity for trance induction. We see this happening all around us. Dark CBT and Dark NLP are weapons the elite deploy to control the masses.
While NLP may never gain full legitimacy in clinical psychology—raising suspicions that psychologists do indeed grasp its efficacy—the technology in the wrong hands is a reminder that even the appearance of therapeutic technique can be harnessed to deceive. As with Dark CBT, grasping the significance of Dark NLP is not only about the methods themselves, but about the ethical imperative to use tools of influence with transparency and a commitment to truth, freedom, and democracy. However, there are political forces that are not committed to transparency and commitment to truth. In the hands of corporate state elites and their army of technocrats and activists, CBT and NLP merge to form a powerful weapon in the progressive and globalist arsenal of domination.
freedom and reason 