New Pentagon Psy-Op Report Reveals Deep State War for Your Mind
CIA says to Pentagon: "Get off my lawn!"
“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
-Jesus
First rule of reading the world’s foremost propaganda rag known as The Washington Post (tied for 1st with The New York Times): there’s always a hidden motive.
This goes especially for “bombshell” reports. WaPo doesn’t really publish bombshells. They publish pre-meditated designer hit pieces in disguise; this time it’s a CIA hit on the Pentagon — or at the very least the product of a pitiful feud between middle schoolers with access to face-melting weapons and billions of dollars.
Yesterday, WaPo published this…
In the report, the Pentagon’s psychological influence operations — some of which “involved posts from the summer that advanced anti-Russia narratives citing the Kremlin’s “imperialist” war in Ukraine” — included fictitious personas.
These accounts were easily sniffed out and reported to the government by Facebook’s director for global threat disruption, whatever that is! The Facebook guy is also former DoD and National Security Council, in case you were wondering.
The tone of the article and of the Facebook official’s report seems to condemn the Pentagon’s fictitious accounts not because they ran against the platform’s policies, but because they were so poorly run by the military’s Centcom that they could be easily identified by a foreign adversary as U.S. military propaganda.
The implication is that the Pentagon needs to do better at their psy-opping, and Facebook’s global threat disruption director is here to help.
The report goes on to admit that “there were cases in which fictitious information was pushed by the military.” In church we call that lying.
WaPo identifies a 2019 law known as Section 1631 as the foundation for the Pentagon’s latest activities, which “allows the military to carry out clandestine psychological operations without crossing what CIA has claimed as its covert authority, alleviating some of the friction that had hindered such operations previously.”
Therein lies the rub. There are entities that already do this work exceedingly well, i.e. manipulating people into believing complete horse manure no matter how much death and destruction it may cause. And they’re called CIA.
NOTE: CIA does not call itself The CIA; just CIA. Because it is a cult. I am happy to follow their naming convention.
CIA and its flower children at the State Department want the Pentagon off its turf.
“False grass roots efforts?” You mean like Q Anon? I digress…
The piece goes on to cite an American diplomat talking about how we have the moral high ground and how great our values are and how above board our methods are and that the U.S. would never condone such fakery!
All I can do is LOL.
Most of the people interviewed for the report spoke on condition of anonymity — which tells you just how “above board” these folks like to keep things.
At the end of the day, the Pentagon’s fictitious accounts apparently “did not gain much traction,” but the report says that “overt accounts actually attracted more followers.”
That’s right, openly affiliated psy-op shills like this clown…
…are better at manipulating people than anonymous and fake accounts trying to establish narrative control and consensus.
I should point out that the comment up above from Sipher, who is a “former” CIA clandestine operative, essentially confirms my thesis in this article that interdepartmental beef is playing itself out. And I’ll also note that he is open about his affiliation in the cringiest way possible because, like the report says, it actually works on people. Just look at his profile pic.
The crowd psychology part of the social media operation is to establish consensus and enforce it.
You’re less likely to raise an objection about the war in Ukraine when your street is dotted with Ukraine flags. You’re less likely to voice an unpopular opinion on social media about the war when you’ve got 20 bots reigning acerbic comments on your post.
And boy, do we have bots, according to the University of Adelaide.
Lastly, the report that fueled the Pentagon’s internal review was published by Graphika, an organization with its own history of dubious motives that we’ll just have to explore another time.
If you want more sharp commentary on matters like this, check out Kit Klarenberg, who seems to share my view on the WaPo story and whose comments helped provide some context, like that bot figure above.
Join 150 subscribers (and counting!) to The Missing Link to get reliable information and analysis from a Christian perspective you won’t find anywhere else. Thanks for reading, and share this story with friends and family!