We’ve all heard or read the news about the Pentagon ordering a review on the military’s own use of covert info war operations. The Washington Post headlined “Pentagon opens sweeping review of clandestine psychological operations”, and wrote “The Pentagon has ordered a sweeping audit of how it conducts clandestine information warfare after major social media companies identified and took offline fake accounts suspected of being run by the U.S. military in violation of the platforms’ rules.”
The same article cited how “Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, last week instructed the military commands that engage in psychological operations online to provide a full accounting of their activities by next month after the White House and some federal agencies expressed mounting concerns over the Defense Department’s attempted manipulation of audiences overseas, according to several defense and administration officials familiar with the matter.”
This came to light through the efforts by open-source researchers from Stanford University and Graphika, an internet research firm, in a report titled “Unheard Voice, Evaluation five years of pro-Western covert influence operations”.
In their executive summary, they stated:
“In July and August 2022, Twitter and Meta removed two overlapping sets of accounts for violating their platforms’ terms of service. Twitter said the accounts fell foul of its policies on “platform manipulation and spam,” while Meta said the assets on its platforms engaged in “coordinated inauthentic behavior.” After taking down the assets, both platforms provided portions of the activity to Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) for further analysis.
Our joint investigation found an interconnected web of accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and five other social media platforms that used deceptive tactics to promote pro-Western narratives in the Middle East and Central Asia. The platforms’ datasets appear to cover a series of covert campaigns over a period of almost five years rather than one homogeneous operation.”
Lo and behold, we see this report state what I have been saying all along, based on my own open source research of available information, not in the least a comparison of the official narratives with a proper look at events: “The accounts heavily criticized Russia in particular for the deaths of innocent civilians and other atrocities its soldiers committed in pursuit of the Kremlin’s “imperial ambitions” following its invasion of Ukraine in February this year.” A lot of the negative news we hear and see about Russia, is orchestrated…
Their study was based on 299,566 tweets by 146 accounts between March 2012 and February 2022, with an additional 24 accounts and 103,385 tweets from between March 2012 and August 2022 that were later added to the data set, received from Twitter, as well as 39 Facebook profiles, 16 pages, two groups, and 26 Instagram accounts active from 2017 to July 2022, forming the dataset received from Meta (Facebook).
At first glance, a few questions: “In July and August 2022, Twitter and Meta removed two overlapping sets of accounts for violating their platforms’ terms of service.” What about the fake accounts from those democrat operatives, DemCast, that were exposed by research journalist Jill Schrider, as I wrote about in Part 8 of this series?
How come only this limited group was being removed, when other, much larger groups and bot farms exist that actively operate in direct violation of the terms of service of Twitter as well of those of Meta, as was proven by Mrs. Schrider?
How come the White House suddenly expressed such concern? What is going on, for them to make such request and have their undersecretary of Defense initiate such review? Do not forget that the only accounts that were given over to these two research organizations were aimed at foreign Information Warfare. (Where it is likely important to point out that both are led by people who are firmly tied to the US/Western Intelligence world and NATO.) I am certain we aren’t being told the full story here.
Also of note, is this tidbit: “Importantly, the data also shows the limitations of using inauthentic tactics to generate engagement and build influence online. The vast majority of posts and tweets we reviewed received no more than a handful of likes or retweets, and only 19% of the covert assets we identified had more than 1,000 followers. The average tweet received 0.49 likes and 0.02 retweets.”
Which confirms another article in my series, talking about how TRUTH is at the core of believable messaging, in part 6: “Without truth, a statement will very quickly fall flat. The more close to the truth a statement comes, the longer it will survive, and the greater the long term impact.”
But unlike the info war I have chronicled, these government programs were run in foreign countries, for foreign audiences, even if they touted the same lines we were fed at home through a willingly complicit media apparatus.
For a great overview and analysis of this report, see this article by Peter Cronau from Declassified Australia, titled “Exposed: Covert Pro-Western Info Op”. Mr. Cronau dryly notes that “part of the reason the report has been effectively buried may be because it was conveniently overshadowed on the very same day of its release by another Stanford Internet Observatory release titled, “A Front for Influence: An Analysis of a Pro-Kremlin Network Promoting Narratives on COVID-19 and Ukraine.””
But this is only peanuts, low level stuff, that has been exposed by this report. Relatively low scale (only a few hundred accounts?), with relatively low impact, and all aimed at audiences outside the US.
It becomes really interesting when we look at the Information Warfare capabilities that have been arrayed against US citizens, by the US government and related entities themselves.
Remember Executive Order 13707, Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People, signed by President Obama? It states how “A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights -- research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them -- can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people,” and aims to recruit behavioral scientists to help achieve those goals. Who can be against such magnanimous aims? Help the people find and get access to government support and money?
Until you realize that gaining insight in how people ‘make decisions and act on them’ can easily be manipulated and abused by a government that doesn’t hesitate to even politicize the IRS and the FBI, among many other government agencies and powers.
In a fairly recent study in psychological science, ‘Should Governments Invest More in Nudging’, the abstract noted: “Governments are increasingly adopting behavioral science techniques for changing individual behavior in pursuit of policy objectives. The types of “nudge” interventions that governments are now adopting alter people’s decisions without coercion or significant changes to economic incentives. We calculated ratios of impact to cost for nudge interventions and for traditional policy tools, such as tax incentives and other financial inducements, and we found that nudge interventions often compare favorably with traditional interventions.”
“Nudges” are small interventions, policies, or actions that are designed to steer people in a particular direction. Not in a coercive way, but while maintaining freedom of choice for the people affected by those nudges.
It becomes more interesting when we consider what David Robson wrote in an article for the BBC on April 1, 2020, at the very beginning of the pandemic in the West.
“Daily reminders of disease may even sway our political affiliations.” And “Various experiments have shown that we become more conformist and respectful of convention when we feel the threat of a disease,” he wrote, and gave the following extra example: “But researchers at the University of Hong Kong have also primed people with scenes from the film Outbreak, which might more closely resemble some of the news reports today; the evocative images of a pandemic led them to value conformity and obedience over eccentricity or rebellion.”(highlight by the original author)
I am 100% certain that my readers are already very much aware of this particular part of the fear mongering, by now.
But before I move on to current examples and news, the following:
A study, "Overreaction to Fearsome Risks", by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) administrator Cass Sunstein (yes, THAT Cass Sunstein) and Harvard University economist Richard Zeckhauser (as summarized in a 2011 article by Reason.com), is informative, and will confirm some of the things we’ve seen happen barely 2 years ago:
"In the face of a low-probability fearsome risk, people often exaggerate the benefits of preventive, risk-reducing, or ameliorative measures." Consequently, the researchers find that "in both personal life and politics, the result is damaging overreactions to risks."
Remember the sudden toilet paper scarcity? Completely irrational… But 100% in line with this finding.
The same study continues, and explains why this overreaction happens:
"Many people will focus, much of the time, on the emotionally perceived severity of the outcome, rather than on its likelihood." They add, "With respect to risks of injury or harm, vivid images and concrete pictures of disaster can 'crowd out' the cognitive activity required to conclude and consider the fact that the probability of disaster is really small." Activating the emotional centers in the amygdala shuts down the operation of the executive functions of the pre-frontal cortex.”
An emotional response, that shuts down the rational parts of our brain. Very powerful, and very hard to counter once people are in the grip of such fear.
Why is this important today? Because the elites are very busy with yet another scare tactic.
Nuclear war.
Armageddon.
THE FREAKIN’ END OF THE WORLD, MAN!
This has been in the make for a while, and is now in full swing. And obviously, that threat of nuclear war and destruction is coming from the Russians, what else would you think? Putin is a madman, after all!
Where did that come from? As usual, from Western spinning and propaganda. We have all been exposed to it, and have seen it everywhere. Yet is it true?
Here is another perspective.
“Today the dangers that (Ukrainian President Volodymyr) Zelenskiy's regime pose for neighbouring countries and international security in general have increased substantially after the authorities set up in Kyiv have embarked upon dangerous games related to plans to acquire their own nuclear weapons," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Conference on Disarmament in a video address.”
This is not coming out of nowhere, as even a Ukrainian telegram channel, "Resident", wrote:
"Our source at the OP said that the Office of the President continues to negotiate with the UK on the transfer of nuclear weapons to Ukraine. During the Johnson premiership, agreements were reached that Ukraine would receive several charges to deter Russia if there was a threat of the use of nuclear weapons by the Kremlin. With the advent of to the power of Truss, the process of negotiations has stalled and we are forced to look for ways to create a dirty nuclear bomb."
In a speech to the Lowy Institute in Australia, in the first week of October (reported by the Austrialian News.com, Zelensky was asked what he wanted NATO to do in order to deter Russia from using nuclear weapons.
His reply was: “What should NATO do? Eliminate the possibility of use of nuclear weapons by Russia. But what is important, I once again appeal to the international community, as I did before February 24 – we need pre-emptive strikes, so that they’ll know what will happen to them if they use nukes, and not the other way around.
Don’t wait for Russia’s nuclear strikes, and then say, ‘Oh, since you did this, take that from us!’ Reconsider the way you apply pressure. This is what NATO should do – reconsider the order in which it applies pressure [on Russia].”
Zelensky openly called for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Russia. The negative reactions against that forced his spokesman to walk back Zelensky’s words, and try to tell us that the Ukrainian president was actually calling for preventive sanctions, not ‘strikes’, and definitely not nuclear strikes.
Tucker Carlson absolutely excoriated Zelensky after he gave an interview to the British ‘The Guardian’, and in which Zelensky had stated "The other nuclear states need to say very firmly that as soon as Russia even thinks of carrying out nuclear strikes on foreign territory, in this case the territory of Ukraine, there will be swift retaliatory nuclear strikes to destroy the nuclear launch sites in Russia." Tucker pointed out ‘before Russia even thinks about using nukes’. Meaning, launch those nuclear missiles to Russia NOW! No, I don’t think that Zelensky misspoke in Australia, either, and said ‘strikes’, not ‘sanctions’, on purpose.
For Tucker’s full segment, check this out (relevant part starting at timestamp 4:08):
Lastly, as sign of the propaganda level of messaging on this topic, this tweet by a Ukrainian:
The genocidal war was arguably started by Ukraine in 2014. And nuclear terrorism in the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant? Even the IAEA knows the shelling of that nuclear plant is carried out by Ukrainian troops, NOT by Russia, even if they did not have the moral courage and strength to admit that outright in their report. If their findings after their inspection of that site had even hinted at Russian involvement at those strikes at the plant, that would have been in the headlines for weeks.
A pro-Russian channel on Telegram wrote:
“It looks increasingly likely that the US regime is considering to use nuclear weapons to rescue its failed system by blaming Putin. As crazy as it sounds it is a real possibility. The Russian president never talked about using nuclear weapons in any of his speeches but if you follow the Western media he is threatening to drop nukes on the Ukraine on a daily basis, this narrative makes no sense unless they plan to use nukes and then accuse Russia afterwards, hard to find another explanation.”
Did Putin not ever talk about using nuclear weapons? Where does all that talk come from, then?
On September 23rd through September 27, a referendum was held in the Donetsk People's Republic, the Luhansk People's Republic, the Kherson Oblast and in the Zaporizhzhia Oblast, with the question if the people in those 4 regions wanted to become incorporated into Russia. This was a shrewd countermove by Putin, forcing a complete change of the gameboard. If those regions would vote ‘yes’, they would become part of Russia, and any attack on them by Ukrainian forces, would now be an attack on Russia itself, which in turn would trigger a whole new set of responses.
In his speech at the signing ceremony accepting those 4 regions into Russia, Putin said the following:
“Western countries have been saying for centuries that they bring freedom and democracy to other nations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of bringing democracy they suppressed and exploited, and instead of giving freedom they enslaved and oppressed. The unipolar world is inherently anti-democratic and unfree; it is false and hypocritical through and through.”
This is a very strong repudiation of the West, where the EU, NATO and the US first through their orchestrated color revolution ousted a duly elected president, and now rejecting the will of the people as expressed in that referendum. To illustrate the absolute hypocrisy, compare the positions of the West regarding this referendum with how they treated Kosovo…
But importantly, Putin also said this:
“We will defend our land with all the forces and resources we have, and we will do everything we can to ensure the safety of our people. This is the great liberating mission of our nation.”
With all available means. People in the West took that as a threat to use nuclear weapons, and the media happily magnified that.
Putin made it very clear that he was tired of the games, and the more and more obvious intrusion of NATO into the conflict, to the point of making this an all but openly declared proxy war. He had tried all he could since 2014 to find a way to protect the interests of the Russian speaking people within Ukraine, that would leave them firmly part of Ukraine, albeit with a certain autonomy that would help protect them. Now, however, with NATO, the EU and the US having gone all in on military defeat of Russia, using sabotage of public utility targets such as Nordstream, Putin’s patience is at an end. He declared those regions part of Russia, and simply said: we consider them fully Russian soil, and attacking them is the same as attacking any other part of our Motherland. The reference ‘with all the forces and resources we have’, then, simply showed that for Putin the games are over, and that he will not entertain any special considerations about those formly Ukrainian regions. The West had their chance for a peaceful solution within Ukraine, they actively blew it.
Scott Ritter expressed it well, during an interview with Clayton Morris on Redacted that he gave before the referendums were concluded:
“NATO needs to wake up to the fact that anything it does once the referendums have passed will be an act of war against the Russian federation— and Russia will treat it as such and respond accordingly. It will not be a slow roll out, if NATO continues to provide Ukraine with the means to attack mother Russia, which very soon will be Kherson, Zaporozhie, you know all that daily pounding of the nuclear plant? It’s over man. It’s over. Do it again when it becomes Russia, I dare you Ukraine, you will cease to exist. I’m not saying Russia is gonna use nukes against them, Russia will just simply turn off the lights.”
Where Putin and Russia at first only demanded protection of the Russian speaking population in Ukraine, and the guarantee that NATO would not expand into Ukraine (even all the way up to the Minsk agreements and Minsk II, never complied with by Ukraine), the open moves by Ukraine towards joining NATO and massing troops for a renewed offensive against Donetsk and Luhansk, among other provocations towards Russia, made Russia step in militarily. At first, very careful, as explained in my prior article ‘On the military strategies in Ukraine’ , but now, after repeated attacks that Russia characterizes as ‘terrorist attacks’, and the more and more visible direct support of NATO, even inside of Ukraine with intelligence, training and even directly commanding units, it considers the war a proxy war against NATO, and no longer just a war with Ukraine. To get out of that impasse, it is forcing the hand of Ukraine and NATO, to make a decision.
Zelensky knew what was up, and unilaterally tried to force NATO’s hand as well, and applied for an immediate acceptance of Ukraine as a NATO member. (Which would have implied immediate war with Russia the very moment Ukraine and NATO signed the membership.)
But NATO flinched, and made clear it would not step in, after the annexation/incorporation of those 4 regions. The NATO Secretary-General, Stoltenberg, said “We can't grant Ukraine membership to the alliance now”, and pointed out, diplomatically, that all 30 members of NATO have to unanimously accept Ukraine’s membership, which isn’t going to happen at this point.
But that is the origin of those claims about nuclear weapons, even if Putin indeed never directly made any such threat. (But he DID imply it, and made interference in those regions equal to attacks to Russia itself, leaving almost no grey zone for NATO to operate in.)
Interestingly, even as Biden and many in the West are sternly warning about how Putin is pushing us all towards total annihilation, they themselves don’t hold back, at all.
On October 6th, Biden said “First time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have the threat of a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going. We are trying to figure out, What is Putin’s off ramp? Where does he find a way out? […] He’s not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is you might say, significantly underperforming.”
In that same address, Biden used the word ‘Armageddon’, painting a very bleak picture of the immediate future that Putin had set the world towards.
AP reported, just a few days ago, that NATO is moving ahead with planned nuclear weapon exercises, in ‘Steadfast Noon’.
“The exercise, dubbed “Steadfast Noon,” is held annually and usually runs for about one week. It involves fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads but does not involve any live bombs. Conventional jets, and surveillance and refueling aircraft also routinely take part.”
Stoltenberg is quoted, “describ[ing] Putin’s spiraling nuclear rhetoric as “dangerous and reckless,” and he underlined that the allies “have also conveyed clearly to Russia that it will have severe consequences if they use nuclear weapons in any way.”
In another communication, Stoltenberg said this:
“The victory of the Russian Federation in the conflict in Ukraine will be a defeat for NATO and this cannot be allowed. NATO sees no signs of Russia's intention to use nuclear weapons, but remains vigilant.”
First, did he just admit, tacitly, that Russia is indeed not just fighting Ukraine, but the whole of NATO? Yes, he did! There should be no doubt, whatsoever: this IS a proxy war, and the US should be sitting at the table with Russia to negotiate peace, if they really care about peace.
And second: he admits that there is no real sign of any intent from Russia to use nukes. Yet that messaging continues to be pushed, and the Western provocations don’t end.
The British paper The Sun published this infograph, which is very clear in its stark warning, showing the different options the US could have in case the Russians use nukes. The message is clear: BE PREPARED!
So this is somehow mostly an American posturing, even if in 2016 Obama was very clear: "Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one,” as he explained why he refused to send any weapons to Ukraine. European leaders are much more careful, being directly in the crosshairs, and even if they are not directly hit, the fall-out from any nukes in Ukraine or Russia will hit and contaminate the rest of Europe, for sure.
Marcon signaled today that France would NOT use nuclear weapons against Russia in case the Russians were to launch a nuclear strike against Ukraine.
And Josep Borell, EU foreign policy chief, stated, in line with Macron, that "any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer -- not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side -- that the Russian army will be annihilated, and Putin should not be bluffing," as reported on EuroNews.com.
Of note is that Borell seemed to realize what was going on, and this time in line with various speeches by Putin (!!!), he stated earlier this week that "the United States took care of our security [...] China and Russia provided the basis of our prosperity. This is a world that is no longer there," he told the annual conference of EU ambassadors. Borrell spoke of a world under a "messy multipolarity" structured around US-China competition which co-exists within a broader divide between democracies and authoritarian regimes.”
He even admitted: "On our side, there are a lot of authoritarian regimes. We cannot say 'we are the democracies,' and the ones which follow us are also democracies -- that is not true.”
As carefully, but irrevocably budding signs of a new spring, in a stunning reversal, Europe appears to have started her own awakening, too!
But it isn’t all good news.
A post on Telegram reported that “about 55% of Polish citizens supported the deployment of US nuclear weapons in their country (IBRiS laboratory data).”
And the US doesn’t stop the rhetoric, either:
In an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN Biden had this exchange:
Tapper: "Do you think in any way discussing this type of thing, publicly, openly, Putin's possible use of nuclear weapons might have the opposite effect of what you want? It might make some of our wobblier European allies be even more scared of confronting Putin?”
Biden: "Well — no. I don't think so at all. What I am talking about, I am talking to Putin. He, in fact, cannot continue with impunity to talk about the use of a tactical nuclear weapon as if that’s a rational thing to do. The mistakes get made, the miscalculation could occur, no one could be sure what would happen and it could end in Armageddon.”
This is echoed in Belarus:
“The KGB of Belarus knows that the West is considering the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against the republic and Russia, said the head of the department Ivan Tertel on the air of the Belarus-1 TV channel."
At the same time, people in the US are blowing hot and cold, as they are aware that they are now literally playing with fire. News.AM reported this: “The United States is not seeking a conflict with Russia and will not send American troops to fight on the territory of Ukraine, White House National Security Representative John Kirby, adding that no one wants this war to escalate to the nuclear phase.”
Apart from this duality in messaging being the result of that diplomatic dance between portraying strength and not being overly provocative, this also fulfills the requirements for that emotional response by the population, enabling far-reaching ‘solutions’ to be rammed through that otherwise would have been stopped: 1) signal a very grave threat, and 2) make it unlikely to happen. Or to use the words from that Cass Sunstein sponsored study: introduce a “low-probability [but] fearsome risk”.
Straight out of an information war textbook.
But is it working?
Let’s look at what Tulsi Gabbard had to say on Joe Rogan, where she warned that “we're the political pawns to the people who have pushed us to the brink of nuclear war. […] They have their own bunkers and ways to protect themselves. There is no shelter for the American people."
And, to the shock of many, said this:
“I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are hostile to people of faith & spirituality, demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.”
I am not saying anything here about trusting or not trusting Tulsi Gabbart, but what she said IS very interesting in light of the following event, earlier this week:
During a town hall that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had organized, two people protested loudly. “Tulsi Gabbard, she’s left the Democratic Party because they are war hawks. You ran as an outsider! Yet, you’ve been voting to start this war in Ukraine,” one of them shouted, “Why are you playing with the lives of American citizens? You’re playing with our lives!”
Responding to something AOC tried to say to calm the situation down, the second protested jumped in: “There will be no neighbors if there is a nuclear bomb. You voted to mobilize and send money to Ukrainian Nazis! You’re a coward! You’re a progressive socialist? Where are you against the war? Mobilization? […] You have done nothing! Tulsi Gabbard has shown guts, where you showed cowardice!”
Watch the video, it is absolutely amazing!
Yes, this is part of the Great Awakening!
But did you notice?
Something else happened… Something rather important, I’d say. Gabbard managed to NEUTER the fear tactic, and turned it around! She resigned from the DNC, weeks from a very pivotal midterm election, as a young and female rising talent, ‘because above all [the Democrat Party is] dragging us ever closer to nuclear war”! And what happens? Instead of people rubber-stamping anything the DNC led congress or White House does to support Ukraine to further attack Russia, those people start to turn against the Democrat Party, instead! Gabbard turned the fear towards those who are creating that fear in order to harness it to get away with sending billions overseas, weakening the US.
I cannot counter this, it IS a distinct possibility. The whole saga with Tulsi Gabbard, and how it is used to now counter and absolutely destroy that other darling of the Left, AOC, is just too convenient, too well timed, too perfect, to be mere coincidence. Especially when you realize that she served in the 351st Civil Affairs Command, switching in October 2020 from the Hawaii National Guard to this Army Psy-Ops unit, suggesting she’d be well versed in these kinds of psy-ops and counter-ops. (Well, it could all be coincidence, of course. But that seems less likely, if you ask me.) For a little more thoughts about Tulsi Gabbard and some important related points, see also my next article.
So in short: Yes, the elites and their support in the media are trying their old proven fear tactics again, to keep us compliant or focused on the wrong things, as they get away with murder. But no, it is no longer working, and we see it now openly used against them.
Add to the mix the whole saga with Elon Musk and Twitter (and the interesting story about Starlink and Ukraine, as we saw in my previous article), and I cannot shake the feeling that none of this is by accident.
The counter-attack in this war for our mind that I have been chronicling, has been started months, perhaps even years ago. And we are now reaching a definite climax. The sporadic trickle we saw only a few months ago, is now a constant stream of revelations and developments, and it is so easy to miss important elements, pieces of the puzzle.
The watershed moment was months ago, and since then, water has been dripping ever so slowly through the information dam that the elitist cabal has erected in order to control us. But today, that drip is entering into a critical phase, where the dam’s structural integrity is absolutely in question, and beyond repair. The lake behind it, with all their secrets, will be drained, one way or another. The dam can’t hold it anymore.
Watch the water, they say.
Watch the dam, I say.
Do you see the wave coming?
All is well.
Nice analysis.