- Positioning Playbook
- Posts
- Necessary Illusions
Necessary Illusions
Thought control in commercial contexts

Reinhold Niebuhr. Know of him?
You should. He has shaped how you think. How you view situations.
Feeling defensive? You’ve been programmed that way. Don’t fret. Your conditioned internal dialogue will tell you I’m wrong and grant you relief. Enjoy.
To make this feel more comfortable for you, let’s project this notion onto others — he has shaped how others think.
On practically every significant political topic.
How, though? That sounds like some f**ked up Orwellian sh*t.
Niebuhr was a towering theologian and political intellectual of the 20th century. His ideas were put into practice by successive U.S. government administrations and centres of political power.
More specifically: he was a principal architect of the U.S. establishment’s moral and philosophical frameworks in the decades following WW2, core themes of which persist to the present day and have propagated throughout the Western world, and beyond.
These frameworks prescribe the manufacturing of consent for the general population to mobilise in a desired direction. This results in the construction of imperceptible thinking boundaries within society, stimulating the perception of a fluid democratic system, that instead operates within a pre-framed range of discourse.
One of Niebuhr’s concepts is “necessary illusions”. This arises from his belief that people need to be fed emotionally potent and distorted narratives to mobilise them to take action that’s in their own self-interest, as perceived by those pushing the narrative.
His reasoning: because people are primarily influenced by emotion and bias, and not rational analysis, societies require simplified and emotionally potent narratives that help them make sense of complex realities, even if they are manufactured distortions of those realities.
These narratives are designed by a ‘rational and educated class’ that fully grasp and have access to a comprehensive view of such complex realities — what he calls “cool observers”, with an agenda to press.
They determine the outcome that needs to be achieved and conceive of narrative messaging to support it. Distributing the message breaks the ‘inertia of idleness’ within society and motivates intended action.
Let’s break down the term:
Necessary: Illusions are ‘necessary’ for maintaining order, growth, and stability. They are not optional but required for the functioning of democratic societies as perceived by those in power.
Illusions: Emotionally potent and simplified narratives that distort reality, as perceived by those in power. These illusions are constructed to shape public perception, ensuring compliance and desired behaviour.
Niebuhr wasn’t some fringe figure, nor were his ideas.
If you like your history, or are over a certain age (like a boomer or whatever?), you will know he was a public personality. A buddy of the crème de la crème movers and shakers — policymakers, presidents, and powerbrokers.
In 1948, TIME slapped him on the front cover. In 1964, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his contribution to political philosophy and public discourse. In 2007, Obama referred to him as “one of his favourite philosophers”.
To a wide extent, governments and political organisations around the world have internalised the notion of manufacturing and disseminating necessary illusions to such at degree that its practise has become an innate dogma that’s rarely consciously recognised or questioned.
To put this into context, I’ll share some example narratives:
The Domino Theory: Used during the Cold War to gain support for U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia, suggesting that if one country fell to communism, neighbouring countries would follow.
Nuclear Deterrence: Framed the arms race as a peacekeeping necessity, creating an impression that mutual assured destruction was a form of stability.
War on Drugs: A narrative used to rally approval for punitive drug policies and the militarisation of police forces, framing drug use as an enemy to society.
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs): The narrative that Iraq possessed WMDs was used to mobilise backing for the 2003 invasion.
Brexit and ‘Take Back Control’: Suggested the EU was the root of all British problems, mobilising support to leave.
Chomsky
This feels like a pertinent time to mention Noam Chomsky.
Chomksy popularised the term ‘necessary illusions’ within intellectual circles in the late 80s, with his book: Necessary Illusions: Thought Control In Democratic Societies.
It reframed Niebuhr’s ideas through a more critical and scrutinising lens: that necessary illusions are a manipulative contrivance utilised by those in power to maintain and grow their power.
In other words: emotionally potent narratives are utilised to drive actions and behaviours that primarily support the ownership class, and not the self-interest of the regular folks consuming them.
Putting this into context: we, as citizens of democratic societies, are continually subjected to manipulative narratives from birth, shaping the way we think. Going against this is not only mentally frictional, we struggle to see how — as if living in a mind labyrinth with walls built from obfuscated perspectives.
To go beyond requires understanding where the boundaries are and why it was constructed that way. By whom? To achieve what purpose?
Continued subjection to these narratives creates a hardwired thinking model that’s difficult to introspect into. We mainly see the output of the model (conscious thought) and less so the principles to which it functions. A cognitive blindspot.
It’s about turning you into a passive participant in your own life. Gifting you a sense of self-agency but depriving you of true objectivity. The invisible wool dangling over your eyes, drawing your complicity into a trade of subterfuge that exchanges personal liberty for institutional power.
The trick isn’t to stop you from thinking. The trick is to make you think within a box. To give you just enough freedom to argue over trivialities — to feel like you’re participating — but never enough to question the very foundations of the system itself.
That’s what the books says, anyway.
Wanna grab a copy? You can download it from — of all places — the CIA’s website.
Feel free to kick back with it and wash down the stomach-wrenching sentiment of systemic manipulation with a refreshing cold can of Necessary Illusions ‘the beer’ (looks delish, btw).
LET’S SWITCH GEARS NOW.
I’m not writing this to go ‘all Chomsky’ on you. I’ll leave that to college campuses.
I’m writing this to detail the necessary illusions concept. Because, it’s interesting to think about and apply to a commercial context (which I will do next).
If this isn’t for you, feel free to join Cypher and head back into the matrix. Mmmm that fake steak never tasted soooo damn good.
Necessary Illusions In Commercial Contexts
‘Necessary illusions’ is a broadly applied concept in commercial contexts. Practically every company develops and uses them to some degree, mostly without being cognisant of doing so (why it’s rarely discussed).
Sometimes, this manifests more along the lines of Niebuhr’s thinking, whereby the intent is to instil a behaviour that’s in the perceived self-interest of the recipient.
Other times, it’s more along the lines of Chomsky’s thinking, which is predatory in nature and seeks to disadvantage the recipient in favour of the company disseminating the message.
In most cases, necessary illusions are utilised without fully comprehending the deliberate intent and nature of the exercise.
Why? Companies big and small unconsciously mirror the standard set by big government, further adopting this premise from each other to continually reenforce it.
Necessary illusions, therefore, have become an innate function of our society. They are practised without prescription and pre-conceived intention, like a natural reflex.
The exceptions to this rule are the situations in which they are pre-mediated, sophisticated, and plain to see. Particularly, those that overlap significantly in the political spectrum.
Consider, for example: oil and gas, BigTech, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, defence, tobacco, automotive, food, etc. It’s no secret huge corporations in these industries have been peddling their own necessary illusions for decades — “clean coal”, “filtered cigarettes”, “low fat”, “sustainable packaging”, “differential privacy”, “open ecosystem”, “gig economy”, “ethical AI”.
Corporations at this level also have close connections to government through the political industrial machine. In effect, it’s one and the same overall system. This notion has been explored at length by intellectuals and pop culture alike. No need to dive into it here, so we’ll move on swiftly…
Knock knock 👊
What’s interesting for us here, then?
I will tell you…
The role of necessary illusions beneath this ‘big politics’ level.
In other words, the 99%+ of companies that don’t have an elite PR team, pseudo-think tank, or litigious lobbying group on a texting basis with the editor of the WSJ and members of the Executive Branch.
It’s important to recognise the utility and responsible actionability of necessary illusions in this domain. Particularly, in the capacity of startups — which have been my bread and butter since 2010.
Why? Necessary illusions are needed to mobilise action. To take prospects from apathy to adoption.
In this capacity they are usually well-intentioned and subscribe to Niebuhr’s thinking (i.e. utilised in the self-interest of customers).
For example, I recently downloaded Brave browser, who in their messaging framed their value proposition as the “user-first web”.

Take a look at the claims.
“Better privacy”, “faster webpages”, and “ad free” are all perceived benefits I agree with under the unifying idea of “user-first web”.
This narrative is clear and the emotion evoked by “putting people over tech company profit” gets college students frantically hitting the download button.
However, it is not a complete view of the situation. It’s an emotion-laced oversimplification. A necessary illusion.
How so? What’s missing from the narrative — among other things — is how content creators survive financially when their ads are blocked.
Put another way: is this vision of a “user-first web” truly user-first if creators cease producing content, because they’ve been defunded by Brave?
In another interpretation of reality, one could argue funding the production of content is "user-first”. Cos, that’s what users primarily want. Most won’t think meaningfully about it though, so it works as a necessary illusion.
Conversely, on the other side of the spectrum to better-intentioned actors like Brave, there are bad actor exceptions you can point too. The naughty startups.
They set out to harmfully deceive the self-interest of customers through their necessary illusions (for example, Theranos). Fortunately, they’re in the minority and can go shove it.
However, it can sometimes be a slippery slope — what starts with good intentions can veer off track. Deception can become normalised.
In an eagerness to generate interest and excitement, the tendency to frame features and benefits in a favourable “10X” light can stray too far from a perceived reality prospects will accept. A little exaggeration here and a bold claim there, and before you know it you’re selling Juiceros. Yuck.
For these reasons, I now consider developing necessary illusions more of a conscious initiative. What do we want to intentionally design for a startup?
So, that it’s A) responsible and, B) optimally effective.
The alternative, leaving this process to some-kind of assumed and innate function, creates vulnerabilities in terms of the narrative becoming misleading or causing misaligned incentives between the mutual benefit of the startup and customer.
OK, WAIT A SECOND — what the actual f*ck am I talking about?
I consider necessary illusions in a commercial context at two levels: Company and Category.
Let’s explore both, through a startup lens.
Company

A necessary illusion at a company level is a simplified and emotionally-provocative interpretation of reality that frames the company and its value proposition desirably in the minds of prospects and stakeholders.
It’s an “illusion” because the narrative communicating the specific interpretation of reality is distorted versus how the company entirely views it. It’s distorted because it’s simplified and emotionally-provocative.
Deceptive? No. This has to be the case.
The illusion is necessary, otherwise prospects won’t get it. It’ll be too complicated and the power of the message will get lost.
There is colossal asymmetry between the company and the customer when it comes to comprehending the 'reality’ of the value proposition and the context around it.
In other words, customers know 1% of what the company does. It is critical to start from this perspective, framing it intuitively.
Complexity is confusing. You can’t communicate the 99% company view.
Unframed information is immobilising. You have to give it meaning.
In Niebuhr’s framework, the company is the rational and “cool observer” that grasps the full complexities and nuances of the situation. The customer, by comparison, is the “bewildered herd” that’s comparatively starved of knowledge and galvanised by insecurity — as Walter Lippmann put it.
Prospects must be able to recognise a pathway to resolve their insecurity. Only a clear message that’s stripped of unfocussed noise and tuned to how prospects view the situation will be effective. They are too distracted to notice anything else.
How? This approach can manifest in numerous forms, such as the use of provocative language, visuals, data, and storytelling — e.g depictions of an enemy, dramatic change in context, unlocked benefit, or loss aversion. It can also mean emphasising certain detail, omitting others, or presenting it with a more favourable frame of reference.
This is the ‘illusion’ — a distorted mirror of how the startup views reality.
Is it deceitful? It can be. The answer to this question is not binary. It’s more of a sliding scale. Up to a certain point, which is usually pretty grey, the company is presenting itself favourably (which prospects are aware of and accept). Beyond it, lying — as prospects may also determine.
As I have discussed before, there is no such thing as an objective reality.
Behaving as if there is? Loser’s game.
We are not offering objective products, we are offering perceived realities.
Example?
Consider Airbnb.
In the beginning it faced resistance from cities with strong hotel lobbies and prohibitive regulations. Local laws were often supportive of established hotel businesses, with strict rules on short-term rentals to prevent property value erosion, ensure tax collection, maintain health and safety standards, and avoid exacerbating housing shortages.
To deal with this, Airbnb designed a narrative based on community building and grass-roots economic empowerment. The company framed itself as a platform for ordinary people — “hosts” — to share their homes, make extra income, and connect with travellers in authentic ways.
The narrative emphasised a human element, reframing the commercial nature of its listings (e.g. professional landlords with multiple properties) in order to bypass the set of expectations associated with hotels. So it would be treated differently (favourably).
This “sharing economy” necessary illusion was both simple and emotionally potent. It not only helped Airbnb navigate political hurdles, it initiated customer demand.
Fast-forward to last year, 2023? 5% of Airbnb hosts controlled 33% of all rentals on the platform. Just under 50% of hosts had 6 or more units. Today, these power users are referred too as “corporate hosts”. Hotels? No way.
Category

The role of necessary illusions at the category level is far more interesting.
It represents assumptions that frame how prospects view the category. It gives it meaning, a system of navigation and evaluation to buy into, and perceived value.
Similar to a company necessary illusion, the narratives that establish it are simple and evocative (and are therefore a distortion of reality).
For example, ‘environmentally friendly’ is a necessary illusion of the electric car category. When anchored against combustion engined cars, this is an interpretation of reality that feels true and instils buying behaviour.
However, if you broaden the frame of reference to include taking a train, cycling, walking, etc, electric cars could be positioned as ‘environmentally unfriendly’.
This would represent a more objective and comprehensive view, but it’s deliberately omitted from the articulation of the proposition in order to maintain the illusion.
Many categories are like this.
We buy products based on illusions that are stuck in our minds.
Bacon’s good for breakfast? Necessary illusion
Diamonds are for proposing? Necessary illusion
Incognito mode is incognito? Necessary illusion
Where do category illusions originate, though?
The company that creates the category (e.g. Tesla for electric cars) sets in motion the chain of events that determines what the initial necessary illusion for the category is.
They lay the psychological foundation, by being first in the mind, and carry the most sway in propagating further necessary illusions for the category. Me too competitors follow, reenforcing what is already present whilst introducing their own POV into the mix.
At the category level, necessary illusions operate more akin to Chomsky’s interpretation, in terms of it facilitating an indoctrinated thinking model and an innate set of beliefs that operate within controlled boundaries. People are programmed how to think about it.
This benefits entrenched interests, such as the major companies within a category, and particularly the category leader. It mobilises bias to support and broadcast their view, including from the media, trade press, and industry influencers. Doing this supports the business models of both.
It sounds like a crazy conspiracy, but it’s actually just the outcome of free-market dynamics with concentrations of power. Through a combination of inertia and deliberate intent, incumbent stakeholders will work to uphold their vested interests cohesively.
Dominant companies establish category principles that align with their strengths and the category necessary illusions. For example: how prospects view features, pricing, terms, distribution channels, and business models. This makes it hard for competitors to muscle in.
Every company that’s prospering within the category (including the little guys) will inadvertently move together in tacit collective action to reenforce the accepted rules of engagement of the category and its necessary illusions — like a herd. This limits ambitious startups nudging in.
Competition within mature categories usually functions with minor perceived differentiation. This keeps the herd tight-knit and maximally defensible to would-be predators (startups).
The companies within them usually disagree tactically, creating an illusion of choice for prospects, but they have generally shared aims. Views that challenge fundamentally held premises and assumptions of the category, and would otherwise provide a much richer range of differentiation and choice, are mostly excluded from strategic discourse.
Anyone freshly entering the category, such as a startup armed with a new necessary illusion, is immediately at a disadvantage because the accepted terms of engagement favour the established view.
If a startup breaks the mold, they can usually be marginalised easily and shifted outside a frame of reference for purchasing consideration in the minds of prospects. Loss aversion is utilised highly effectively by incumbents to do this.
Why? Prospects struggle to see outside the programmed modes of evaluation that have been learned and taught to them, which makes breaking category rules a difficult (but doable) pursuit.
The most effective pathway to gaining traction within a category is to attack a weakness in the strength of the category overall, or, a key incumbent player within it, such as the leader. This is tough for established competitors to respond too.
Out of frustration, sometimes startups will try to create a new category in which they set the terms. When this happens, the leaders of adjacent categories will try to pull them into their category, where the game is rigged in their favour.
For example, the hotel and taxi cab industries tried extensively to pull Airbnb and Uber into their categories, so they would be forced to play by the same rules and measures of evaluation. This would also have the affect of unraveling their necessary illusions.
To escape incumbent gravity like this, startups must fully commit to creating a new category and create enough mental distance between themselves and adjacent competitors for prospects to consider them in a different light.
Final thought
Necessary illusions are just that — necessary. We can’t pretend they don’t exist and must use them wisely.
The most effective are those that benefit customers and the companies propagating them alike. In other words, they should be guiding lights that inspire action, not mirages that deceive and manipulate.
That’s it for today. I’ll be back in your inbox soon. 🤘
Martin
Did someone forward you this email? Happens allll the time.
Subscribe to receive more content like this, weekly(ish). 👇