By Virginia McClaughry
~ To undermine the enemies will and capacity to resist.. ~
Let’s have a look at that further.
That direct quote came from a declassified CIA document, and it delineates a list of psychological states (which in layman’s terms means how you FEEL). I am going to show you images of the actual document, juxtaposed with typing it out for easier reading.
The Aims of Psychological Warfare
“To undermine the enemies will and capacity to resist.”
The Two Ways
“…demoralization and encouragement or persuasion.”
“Demoralization may best be regarded as the end result of any few of the following psychological states.
- Fear and anxiety
- Hopelessness and defeatism
- Distrust of
A: One’s cause
C: Ideas and Issues
D: Information channels and propaganda
- Home-sickness, concern about family, etc.
- Horror of war
- War Weariness
- Willingness to act subversively
- Guilt feelings
- Loss of individual integrity and self-respect
- Antagonism toward or loss of faith in one’s allies.
- Sympathy for vassals, occupied peoples, etc.
- Loss of fear of surrender and desertion
- Loss of faith in associates, impression of demoralization
- Fear of punishment, reprisal, retribution etc.
- False hopes
- All devices that may engender confusion such as
A: Hesitancy and oscillation
C: Sudden unexpected events
D. Expected events that do not take place
E: Crying wolf
F: False or misleading information
G: Changing Signs
H: False Orders
I: Too Many signs to adjust to
J: Completely new, unprecedented situations
You will note, that it is acknowledged that just one of these alone, is not enough – there must be more than one directed at an enemy, for there to be any real possibility of it working. In other words, attempting to overwhelm a person with multiple negative feelings.
Next, we have the other method, Encouragement or Persuasion.
Encouragement and Persuasion
“(Techniques here should be divided in terms of those most applicable to neutrals and occupied peoples, on the one hand, and the enemy, on the other hand).
A List of some of the psychological states to be produced follows
- Faith in our cause
- The evil nature of the enemy cause.
- Will to resist.
- Conviction of our strength
- Post-war hopes
- Honesty of our leaders
- Memory of our previously given aid.
- Acceptance of the accuracy of our information
- Dependence upon us as their deliverers.”
Next, the document covers the Tactics of Psychological Warfare:
“In every case, one should start with a clear-cut conception of the psychological states of attitudes to be imparted.”
“…choosing not any ONE of the techniques available, any SINGLE medium, any ONE psychological state, but by the choice of SEVERAL at the same time, organizing them into a campaign mutually reinforcing each other.”
The part bolded in red is a VERY key point, and you would do well to note it because in order to accomplish that? It would require more than one person’s involvement and becomes one of the classic meanings of the word conspiracy.
Conspiracy – An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Subversive, in the context of this document, means:
Destructive, aggressive activity aimed to destroy your willingness to resist being forced into conforming with an enemy’s view of who they want you to be, how they want you to act, what views they want you to have, and what decisions they want you to make.
It is a military term in it’s basic origin, and is considered WAR TACTICS.
Since Psychological Warfare (in order to have any chance of working at all) requires a CAMPAIGN, you can see that such a campaign would very quickly involve more than one person covertly trying to subvert you into giving up your will to fight, and at that point?
You have a conspiracy.
This is why one of the first things trotted out by Psychological Warfare supporters, when they or someone they work for comes under fire publicly for illegal, immoral, and undeserved acts, is to call them –
The person, (and I refer to someone telling the truth here) reveals the behavior and activities of, let’s say, a Psychological Warfare campaign.
Truth is not a “theory”. The real reason this is said, is to try and get other people (friends, supporters, and what-have-you) to ideally view you as crazy, but barring that- to at least classify what you have said as a “Theory” and not the truth that it is.
See the thing is, that in most cases the people that trot out the Conspiracy Theorist term, know for a fact you are telling the truth. Or, at least too close to the truth, or too much truth. Their first priority in a well-publicized situation, is to try and prevent others from realizing that it’s true. The goal is both to discredit you with others by any means possible, and to distract from the hard, cold, truth. Their second priority, is to try and wear you down so you’ll stop. It’s always a two-pronged approach like that, and as you can see, lines up perfectly with their own guidelines for Psychological Warfare.
Sometimes, this is further complicated by that some people will publicize lies about conspiracies. They are talking about a conspiracy that doesn’t exist, or they are adding lies on top of one that does exist. When challenged on these inaccuracies, they will try and say that such challenges or “attacks” are proof that they are telling the truth.
You can also get the situation where a person who is delusional will get utilized by a Psychological Warfare intelligence person, and used to help promote the idea of “See? Only crazy people say anything like this.”
I have seen it also done this way – playing both sides. The “truth revealer” and the “attacker of truth”. An intelligence agent, a hired-gun Public Relations man (same thing in many ways) will play both roles or there will be two or more agents working together who synchronize their actions.
It can get quite complicated when you start entering liars and Black Intelligence personnel into a mix.
How do you tell which is which?
Well, that’s a good question. I don’t have an easy answer to give you – no cookie-cutter approach that will always reveal the full truth to you. In fact, for every cookie-cutter approach that someone comes up with to detect such things in action – a Psychological Warfare operative will just manufacture a FALSE situation that follows those lines just to suck people in!
I suppose the best answer I could say to the above question, is for you to understand this.
THIS being that there exists in every person, a completely accurate perception of what IS, at any given fraction of time. And things can change very fast – but so do you.
In any situation where you have, or are experiencing (however you want to word that) at least two completely different perceptions of something that exists, there is only one possibility for that. There are two sources at work, and what I mean by that is two PEOPLE, two MINDS, whichever descriptor works for you. The key is that they are distinctly different sources. Your natural view, is always the right one. The same goes for someone else. When neither are pretending they don’t know what they know, they will have the same accuracy and truthfulness about what is being looked at. So, when you have a conflict in your mind, there are only two ways that can happen – even though there are infinite possibilities on how complex you can make this. It still will always come down to these 2 actions.
And those are:
1. You are lying and pretending your own truth is wrong or “opposing” you – which it is always opposing, if you are lying about what you know
2. You are looking at your own accuracy, and someone else is opposing you doing that because it threatens their lying.
All conflicts of is it accurate or is it not, come down to this.
For example, let’s say you are telling the truth to someone about something, like what your name on paper is. So let’s see you said your name was Fred, and it is. Now let’s say the person you said it to, uses their own natural accuracy and sees that what you said is true. Fine – no problem.
But what if that person said, well, how do I know you’re not lying? The first, and extremely important thing to note about this situation as given, is that THAT PERSON JUST LIED.
They know you didn’t lie to them.
So, why did they do this? THAT is Psychological Warfare – that is how it starts. It always has to start with one person lying to another, creating conflict where there was none. Take a look at the tactics and states above and start imagining how you would try to bring these into being.
See what I mean? When it comes to a naturally accurate observation, the only way there can even begin to be a conflict is somebody has to LIE.
Now if you were to just look at the WORDS or the DATA of the situation I just described to you, (the name on paper) you could then lie yourself and say “Ok. So whenever someone else questions somebody’s information as being true – they are lying.”
What did I just tell you earlier? I told you that THINGS CHANGE. You cannot ever substitute a past situation observation for a current situation observation.
You will be that much removed from your natural (and instant) accurate perception of now. I don’t care how similar you think the past and present are.
The difficulty lies in trying to describe something that can’t really be pinned down, and certainly can’t correctly be ever fully labeled as such because it’s always changing.
The best I can do, is tell you the simplicity – which does exist.
There is always your fully accurate view of something present. ALWAYS. What you have to do, is correctly use THAT.
The next simplicity I could tell you is that when there are two or more opposing, parallel or whatever views that you PERCEIVE, then there are two.
You don’t live in a void. Other people are always doing this, that, and the other thing and you will perceive that. It’s just the way it is. Take a “feeling of having done something wrong.” You will usually have both the feeling of that you have done something wrong, and the feeling that THAT idea is wrong. They can both be TRUE in that they both exist, but they cannot both be true as to accuracy.
As long as both are present and part of NOW, you see what is, so you will see/perceive BOTH because they exist.
Here’s a popularly pushed example. Let’s say you think it’s a good idea to try and achieve “mind-quietness” and “nothing there but you” – do you see how you would have to lie in order to participate in such an activity?
You have no need for total “quietness of mind” – if what that means to you is nothing but what you want to perceive. Did all the other people just vanish? No, they did not. So why are you trying to pretend you can’t “think” unless they vanish?
Coming back to our original point, THAT is a fine example of Psychological Warfare. “Quiet your mind”. You don’t need to DO anything for your accuracy to exist, it already does. So that can’t be the problem. Do you even have a problem?
Food for thought.
And remember, it is exactly that kind of effect on a target’s mind – that is sought by Psychological Warfare tacticians.
YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.
YOU CAN’T DECIDE.
YOU CAN’T TELL WHAT IS TRUE.
Or how about this one…
Think that is a “good policy” to have?
No, actually it’s not – not as a policy, that’s for sure. It’s actually quite subversive because it presupposes that you are an idiot who can’t tell the truth about something, or that you are an idiot who just accepts whatever passing data crosses your path instantly as truth. Either or both must be taken as a given to even pre-suppose a NEEDING to “question everything”.
Well, here’s what my answer might be, to the person that invented that particular subversive policy.
OK. Why should someone “question everything” when they don’t have a question in the FIRST PLACE.
Sometimes there are things to question, but that’s not the same as actually being uncertain and needing to question in order to find the truth. It’s more of a rhetorical question.
I’ll give you a question that isn’t a question, because neither you or I have a question on what I’m about to ask. Some like to call this particular rhetorical question – the real question.
Question: Why are you trying to sell the rest of us on as that we are all inherently blind, wrong, and ignorant and needing “fixing”?
Everyone’s words don’t need to be questioned as to their truthfulness, but YOURS most certainly do.
I don’t have any question about that.
So, which one was Psychological Warfare? The policy of “question everything” or my answer to it?