By Tim Bearly
Reader Contributor
Greetings, fellow sycophants, political hacks, grifters, desperate ladder‑climbers and podcasters with questionable funding. Welcome to my masterclass on “Narrative Control.”
Some of you, I’m sure, were sent here by the people upon whom you depend for money, so you can more efficiently shill on their behalf. Others came of your own accord, eager to refine your… “talents.” In this course, you will learn to do more than merely hollow out whatever morality you may still possess — you will acquire the subtle, professional techniques needed to siphon it from the masses, as well. By invoking terms like “personal responsibility” and “accountability,” you will cloak indifference in virtue, transforming moral abdication into a kind of performance art.
By the time we are finished, you won’t just be adept at strategically shaping how others perceive events — you will have elevated it into a spectacle, eagerly applauded by your financiers and the rest of your tribe.
Before we dive in, it is essential to remember: When engaging in sophistry — like, say, victim-blaming — your first and most crucial consideration is whether the victim (and, of course, the perpetrator) belongs to your in-group or some out-group. This single factor outweighs any actual transgressions that may have occurred and will ultimately dictate how — and to whom — blame is assigned.
Also always remember: A victim in the out-group is guilty until proven inconvenient, and a perpetrator in your in-group is innocent until expedient.
Our first topic involves attribution bias. Just as a member of your tribe shall never be held accountable for their transgressions, a victim outside your circle will be held responsible for that which they are not even guilty of.
When a fellow ideologue falters, apply external attribution liberally: “The deck was stacked against them”; “Someone was out to get them”; or, “They never intended harm.” Conversely, when a member of the opposition commits the same transgression, the cause must be internal: “They are flawed”; “They made their own destiny”; or, “They invited it upon themselves.”
When a friend loses their job, it’s the economy, automation or corporate greed at fault. When an enemy loses theirs? “Clearly, they are just lazy.”
Next, we turn to selective empathy. At first glance this may seem like a digression, but it is in fact inseparable from how we assign blame. We all claim to believe that every human life has value — of course, some lives simply count more than others. Their worth is determined not just by the group to which they belong, but by their rank within it. When one of our own is killed, we mourn loudly, sanctify their memory and elevate them to martyrdom. When someone from the opposing camp meets the same fate, we respond with indifference, justification or even celebration, quiet or otherwise.
Often, we do this openly — sometimes even proudly — while still insisting that we are the more benevolent group. And, thanks to a convenient lack of critical thinking, few will notice the contradiction.
We will also teach you how to blame individuals for the actions of institutions. Despite the fact that no one has full control over all the variables that shape their failure or success, we will carefully avoid pointing to the powerful people and systems that created the crisis in the first place. That would require change — unpleasant things like regulations, and, worst of all, democracy. Instead, we will focus on the personal flaws of the plebeians — e.g., bad choices and moral weakness.
By ignoring systemic failure and emphasizing individual blame, we ensure that the main beneficiaries of the system remain comfortably beyond scrutiny, while those it has crushed are left disoriented by the theatrical glow of the gaslight.
You will learn how to leverage disasters to advance unrelated agendas. By blaming every tragedy on the opposition, you can transform grief into political capital — winning elections, advancing your career and laundering ambition through outrage. Crises become opportunities, not to fix what broke, but to break it even more, so that you may masquerade as the savior needed to fix the problem. As Winston Churchill said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
We will fine-tune your ability to appeal to emotion. It is well understood that when emotion usurps reason, people become much easier to manipulate — willing to view any given tragedy through whatever lens you provide. Once an audience is whipped into a manic state, and its members’ critical faculties diminished, you can steer them in any direction of your choosing.
You will be given guidance on how to deploy ad hominem attacks whenever your opponent appears to be gaining traction and winning the argument. In public debate, attacking the arguer instead of the argument is by far the most effective strategy. Let your opponent waste time defending the details of some tedious proposal while you dismantle their credibility with a barrage of personal insults.
Your audience won’t care whether anything you said was actually true — they will only care that you emerged as the victor. After all, this isn’t a courtroom… this is the octagon!
Last but not least, we will master the shrewd tactic of projection — accusing the opposition of precisely what we ourselves are guilty of. When implemented with precision, observers will become bewildered and cynical, unable to tell who is actually at fault, as everyone appears to be pointing fingers at everyone else.
This concludes today’s seminar. For those interested in next week’s lesson, “Style Over Substance,” there are sign-up sheets in the back. Also, anyone who would like some refreshments, we have some Kool-Aid and Machiavellian nuts in the back.
Thank you! Now go forth, fellow scoundrels and psychopaths, and manipulate the masses! Do not burden yourselves with honesty or integrity — they are liabilities in the pursuit of wealth and power.
Remember: At the top of the pyramid, it is never about being right; it’s about being convincing!
