This cognitive warfare does not appear to distinguish between military and civilian targets, or it targets civilian targets exclusively.
Already, social media is a proverbial war of all against all, and tends to make any public career nasty, unctuous, and short. It seems like the military wants to expand it to where mere non-participation is not sufficient to be free of it. Programs like this shift the role of the military from defending a perimiter of civilization to managing it. They are finding ways to turn aggression inward on the population. It uses the same destructive tactics they defended against during the cold war and turns them to the domestic front.
Having read more than a few books and other sources on the tactics and strategies of totalitarianism, any military that is not actively defending its nation from this constant, post-20th century global threat should be treated as compromised by one of the movements this force co-opts to its ends. The goal is to unmoor people from all truth so we can be pacified and managed in a liquid way. The objective is just as through a mix of constant minor punishment and increasing dependency, a zoo animal loses its skill to hunt and feed itself, so via similar systems of dependency people lose the ability to think for themselves and can eventually be trusted to reject any and all truth that could connect them into an identity or a potential resistance, because we know what happens to people found in posession of it.
I'm glad the military is tipping their hand on this, as people need to understand that the pervasive forever war modern states are fighting is against truth itself, and you can see it in every action, because once you take that from people, dominion is complete.
> It seems like the military wants to expand it to where mere non-participation is not sufficient to be free of it.
I noticed this about a major U.S. news program in the 2000s. Their format was to get 6-8 people on screen with a “diverse set of viewpoints” to debate. Whether intentional or not, what they were doing was debate training. The anchor hinted at the message they wanted you to promote before the debate started, usually the “right” message started first, and the “diverse viewpoints” were there to introduce you to common retorts you’ll encounter and how you can defend against them.
They were training you to go out and spread their message in your social circles. I thought it was absolutely brilliant, they figured out how to use their news program to reach folks who didn’t watch their news program. Though I was a bit frustrated since I didn’t agree with their message!
Today I would say they were called "talking points." Do you want ideas that align you to power, or ones that isolate you from it? Watching real news from reliable mainstream sources lets you digest experiences, realign your beliefs, and separate anything that isolates you from pro-social participation.
Imo, news and commentary today are just over-the-air updates for official narratives. They are argument feature packs, same as anti-virus signature updates but for ideas.
warfare does not appear to distinguish between military and civilian targets
It's war. It's not a sporting event. There's no referee. Just logic where mutually assured destruction might cause reconsidering a first strike. But the reconsideration is focused on how to beat MAD.
It's war. The means and methods of "good guys" and "evildoers" are the same. Including the propaganda to stakeholders.
> on the tactics and strategies of totalitarianism, any military that is not actively defending its nation from this constant, post-20th century global threat
To me it seems most of the countries are, at least at some degree, either totalitarian, obviously or covertly, themselves (and attack their own nation this way) or cooperate with such and supply them with necessary technologies.
What does 'totalitarian' mean then? If we redefine it to mean every implementation of every form of government, then the statement is indisputable. But otherwise, if we don't distinguish Xinjing and Scotland, we aren't saying much.
I didn't mean to say every regulation and enforcement is totalitarianism.
The only non-totalitarian ways a state can defend its people from information warfare are education (propagation of rational thinking, awareness of manipulative techniques and fallacies, factual knowledge), enforcement of mandatory fact-checking in mass media and prosecution of proven spreaders of intentionally malicious fake news.
Nevertheless many governments prefer to apply the same manipulative techniques to their own people (and avoid educating them to keep these efficient), suppress "undesirable" opinions and facts falsely labeling them as fake and spy on them (their people) as thoroughly as reasonably possible. I consider such governments totalitarian, wildly or mildly.
What if there are more than one faction within the party, neither has total control but the whole party has? To me it seems this describes many single-party states as well as some multi-party states (where the parties can be logically considered factions within "the government" party)
What if the party has sub-total yet a huge degree of control and continuously strives to increase its control by applying all offensive techniques it reasonably can on the people?
Interesting questions. I'm not going to get into fine points of definition (I posted to GP to avoid misunderstanding), which I don't think is important here. I think the significance is whether there are multiple entities who compete for power, or one that dominates everything. Of course, there are grey areas in everything.
Already, social media is a proverbial war of all against all, and tends to make any public career nasty, unctuous, and short. It seems like the military wants to expand it to where mere non-participation is not sufficient to be free of it. Programs like this shift the role of the military from defending a perimiter of civilization to managing it. They are finding ways to turn aggression inward on the population. It uses the same destructive tactics they defended against during the cold war and turns them to the domestic front.
Having read more than a few books and other sources on the tactics and strategies of totalitarianism, any military that is not actively defending its nation from this constant, post-20th century global threat should be treated as compromised by one of the movements this force co-opts to its ends. The goal is to unmoor people from all truth so we can be pacified and managed in a liquid way. The objective is just as through a mix of constant minor punishment and increasing dependency, a zoo animal loses its skill to hunt and feed itself, so via similar systems of dependency people lose the ability to think for themselves and can eventually be trusted to reject any and all truth that could connect them into an identity or a potential resistance, because we know what happens to people found in posession of it.
I'm glad the military is tipping their hand on this, as people need to understand that the pervasive forever war modern states are fighting is against truth itself, and you can see it in every action, because once you take that from people, dominion is complete.