Born from the counterpropaganda and resistance efforts of World War I, modern-day Psychological Operations Soldiers use the power of influence to shape the global security environment and achieve United States national security goals.
As the Department of Defense’s primary influence capability, members of the Psychological Operations Regiment support commanders, U.S. ambassadors, allies, and other governmental agencies.
PSYOP Soldiers typically operate in small, autonomous teams or with other Special Operations forces to develop relationships with a country’s civilian population, government figures and military and law enforcement agencies.
Experts in their field, they specialize in unconventional capabilities, cultural expertise, language proficiency, military deception and advanced communications techniques encompassing all forms of media.
As technology has grown ever more sophisticated, however, so too has the ambitions of these psychological operations grown. Whereas traditional psyops have attempted merely to intimidate, bewilder or demoralize enemies into laying down their arms, modern technologies have opened up the possibility of actually controlling the mind of an opponent directly through electronic, chemical, or other means.
Hi there, your faithful administrative assistant here. The above are just some quick notes from my bookmarks to introduce something I hope turns into a weekly continual exercise on my part. There are several topics I’ve dropped off on continuing in the last couple of years as demands on my time have increased, and my blogging and independent research efforts have decreased. My goal is to have an ongoing discussion about these many, many different operations at work on our psyches in paragraphs at a time as I observe and think about them from day to day.
The focus will be on what distracts us from and entraps us to prevent working to end the worldwide holocaust as conscious citizens. I would appreciate any relevant contributions via comments or Twitter. An important component to me is developing a distinctly 21st century understanding of how this psychological manipulation operates in a unipolar world. @zewari7 imparts some integral analysis:
With the mastery of global economics, the rules have changed drastically. This has allowed imperialism to operate in a purely ideological way beyond market related logic. It’s always annoying how people want to center the vanguard capitalist institutions as the drivers: United Fruit, Standard Oil, and today: tech giants, various conglomerates. [If you’ve] looked into the changes rolled out in the 70s in terms of monetary policies and structure of economic relations [i.e.] the federal reserve, debt based money creation and its implications [at this point] it became a mathematical certainty [that] the west can infinitely fund its war machine and aggressive institutions.
The Soviets remained shackled. From that point on, the Soviets could not achieve similar distortions at the fundamental level of economic output. The west could blitz and dazzle to prop its proxies and prosecute its pogroms [and there was] no way the Soviets could keep up, so it became a war of attrition from that point on. The massive retreat delivered so much of the global south into imperialism — nonaligned nations, everyone felt the pain.
From my understanding, it appears that the Stalin camp was attempting to counter Bretton Woods arrangement with a similar setup on their side. So imperialism worked overdrive, made empty promises to war weary elements in the Soviet camp. Imagine the political economy of that time: you just got out of a brutal war, and here you had a leadership that was adamant about maintaining a permanent war economy. Dogmatic marxists would likely rationalize that “once we achieve a level of parity, imperialism will not mess with us”; “we can be left alone to consolidate our gains and direct to other arenas”. And in that sense, [with] much of the media at the time proclaiming the Soviets as superpowers with parity etc, I felt it was part of a psyop to lull such factions into false confidence.
I think that the pivotal events around the Korean war are worth examining. My suspicion is that the US strategists urged the Soviets that they do indeed have parity and that if they got rid of Stalin, they will deliver the h-bomb to them as a gesture of detente, along with winding down the Korean war; the other part of the deal was to antagonize the Chinese and sever ties. I think this deal was struck, and the rest was history. The Soviets made the mistake of alienating China.
Mao’s faction got progressively weakened. You have to remember that it’s all about factional struggles within any party. No amount of “correct ideology” is enough to establish dominance among the apparatchik; it ultimately boils down to who commands the resources to ensure their agenda is prosecuted. So as Mao’s faction weakened to irrelevance, Deng Xiaoping’s faction ascended and the americans make their move to rehabilitate China under its orbit, using them to promote factional struggles throughout leftist bloc. This happens alongside the 70s transition to debt money system that was like a cheat code to economic theory and the USD becoming de facto oil standard money.
And the oil embargo — supposed fake resistance by Arab muppets — shocking the whole periphery into IMF/WB slavery. The Soviets were more isolated than ever before. Coincidentally, the domains of technological innovation that fundamentally contributed to the democratization of the means of production were halted and even tech innovation was restricted to just military applications; the civilian side was sent into a type of technological recession/delayed development — planned obsolescence etc.
So we go into 80s — China is literally doing everything the americans want. They support the apartheid proxies in South Africa; they support factional struggles from the anti-apartheid side. In Ethiopia, they support the rebels fighting to overthrow the communist government. It’s really quiet an indefensible capitulation to imperialism on the part of their myopic leadership’s theory being “at least we accumulate capital”.
A lot to take in and research on one’s own. And with that, I want to discuss the book I’m into now as a curiosity sparked by @hugoturner1969 posting some excerpts, another Tweep who mentioned how the author really cranks out the books lately, and coming off the heels of the supposed “reveal” of the “Russiagate” illusion:
The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik, 2017
I was itching to start this because he’s had two other titles released since this one with another to come out in June of this year and I really am curious as to what is at work here. @hugoturner1969 had tagged me in some really gripping excerpts not widely discussed, at all, about american pogroms against Soviets during WWII. It seems to me that Kovalik is writing this for liberals who are questioning themselves after it would had to have become apparent how much of a farce “Russiagate” is and was (I will never stop scare quoting this concept).
Because of this perceived slant, the better informed among us will come to identify the sorry mis- and disinformation peppered throughout which could turn off a lot from the jump. The introduction was penned by David Talbot who has become known for The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, The CIA and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. I am not wholly familiar except for what I’ve heard of it here and there, but @headisajar and others have been examining the convenient rewriting of history he presents throughout that demonstrates why the NYT and even the CIA would promote this book as a tell-all tome, or something. Telling, as in that’s all you need to know.
Talbot’s introduction struck me as instruction on why one shouldn’t read this book. What I took away from it is that as good americans we should hate Russia and Putin anyway but not for the reasons presented after the election. The early chapters following that include some grating creative nonfiction (CNF) on Kovalik’s part about him and his activist friends, him and his early conservative beliefs — and I was uncomfortable about how he relates that conservatism is basically innate to Roman Catholics throughout his upbringing to how he eventually came to recognize that gasp the CIA is Bad and Against Freedom.
Sorry for the sarcasm — because those things are obvious but not to enough of the population that they govern and control — but Kovalik clubs the reader over the head with this repeatedly along with lines like “don’t you think you should be worried about how many more we’ve killed?”. He does it so much that a more sophisticated psychotic Clinton devotee could easily point out some Internet 101 rules of logic that would make sense because the gotcha in all of this seems to me is to still attribute untold evils to “our enemies” without naming them, it’s just that the US is so much worse. What is the point of this? It reads as by design. In all fairness, Kovalik appears to be earnest in fighting for the rights of the dispossessed where he can and much of the grittier history of american genocide and war he discusses hasn’t had a wider reach like he is having currently in decades.
It really does impress upon the reader the scope of just how long this has been going on. I don’t think I’m quite halfway through, so I invite anyone else’s judgment too. Spoiler: I laughed out loud when he agreed with the company line about Gary Webb committing suicide. Unbelievable. It begins with a lot of boilerplate the neophyte would become aware of quickly regardless but rapidly builds to the more obscured. I’m just irritated by some of the devices he uses that can almost scare one away from the important history that needs to be read by the wider audience he has a line to at the moment for whatever reasons. Which brings me to:
“Russiagate” detractors: funny how much they have to rely on the much loathed mainstream media they rail about 24/7 for their bread and butter
According to Jimmy Dore et al, being against “Russiagate” is the most prescient, smartest, and important thing anyone on earth could have done since 2016. In several of his shows I’ve reluctantly subjected myself to (for science, actually), he says something along the lines of “well if a dumbass like me could figure it out,” — indeed, the guy’s a dumbass and really annoying. He’s a sensible left progressive or something he made up. I saw someone in a comments section liken his show’s setup to Howard Stern’s which was a very astute observation. The pauses, the scripted awkwardness for dramatic effect to signal there is something happening here, man, the swearing at guests to show he pulls no punches — pretty much textbook Stern.
Apparently what he and his cohort expect the rest of us to forget is that their “victory laps” are entirely predicated on what the MSM reports. Anyone with two working brain cells knew this was bullshit the minute it hit the airwaves and were more concerned with the resulting Slavophobia and antisemitism, in its many guises. But anyway we’re supposed to marvel at the sensible progressive berniecrats who for some reason, despite being everyday dumbasses who just recently got it, have developed a cult following via barely decade-old media that truly independent voices are shoved out of at any opportunity. They’ve been widely proclaiming that they have been vindicated by the psychotic architects of pseudo-reality. I repeat: the alt media figures who hate traditional media so much have been tewtally proven right by the rule of law of the great states of the “american-centered empire” (an utterly genius CateOz-ism, you would have to agree, no? wait, no? okay then) and their mouthpieces. This really blows me away.
How does this square with their support for Assange? His myth is revitalizing the false belief that prior to this perceived threat of his prosecution, there existed a “free press”
There are some heavy hitters coming out in support of Assange on both aisles and among those standing in between, and they are really, really worried about you, citizen, not having access to the free press you deserve. But let’s be real — he had support from them all along. Assange is a war criminal and without his intelligence gathering, the plunder of Libya and Syria could not have happened. One doesn’t have to search long and hard to suss this out.
The status quo is to support Assange — once again, the openly bigoted republicans huff and puff to blow the house down — and the feint at this moment is to bolster the Trumpmongering about how cur-razy one must be to distrust the media. Because the Orange Man said it, never mind his starving and bombing of civilians in the far reaches this great free press doesn’t tell you about.
Left gatekeepers’ mandated forgetting of Assange’s history is absolutely insane. All of a sudden, we’re supposed to dismiss a mountain of evidence that points to his spearheading of WikiLeaks and Anon as Nazi Trojan horses in the name of some terrifying legal precedent that was actually set long ago, that we haven’t been free of for a hundred years, because the MSM told us he’s been confined “in conditions that resemble those of a maximum security prisoner” freshly booted out from a “newly turned” client state. There are literally thousands of hits that turn up in the main-est of the mainstream outlets about him, but oh yeah, doopty doo, Pepe Escobar and other “subversives” magically spin their “ignorance” of his “plight” and we’re all supposed to nervously bite our nails till May 2, apparently, when the next chapter of this pick-a-path saga continues.
What precedent should we be worried about that Assange is in on, oops silly me! may be subjected to, yeah, that’s the ticket
Next time I’ll write a bit on Alisha Owen’s legal battles as told by Nick Bryant in The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal. After listening, as I am doing a lot of that on my commutes, I am convinced Owen is one of the most important feminist figures of the last two american generations who have come of age. She was a victim who never wavered in the face of the entire establishment, managed by the FBI, and she was mercilessly punished for it.
This is the topsy-turvy legal precedent that needs to be taken up by leftists to understand the coverups and hidden history of our time. Also on deck: more “civil disobedience” by oh so well-meaning white commie actors in Durham, NC (because their citizens can never get enough, apparently) contrasted with big data on crime the UNC school of law has been compiling; my shocking realization that people who fall for Clintonite propaganda are mostly stupid which I will relate back to Kovalik’s use of “we” in The Plot to Scapegoat Russia — where does stupidity end and complicity begin among the populace?; what the fuck is going on below the radar in Alabama?