[Mercenary]

This is a very interesting short 5 minute video about one of Vladimir Putin's closest advisors named Vladislav Surkov, and the psychological propaganda methods he supposedly created in Russia to keep Putin in power for 16 years (and counting). Methods which the film claims were so good and effective that western governments and the mainstream media everywhere, have started copying them.

Chief among these is to intentionally give an endless supply of contradictory information, fund phony "opposition" movements and generally train to public to react with a defeatist attitude to all negative events in the world. The purpose is to keep any real opposition constantly confused about what's really going on and the general public feeling helpless and demoralised.

It's made by Adam Curtis, the documentary film maker who made "The Power of Nightnames" and several other films.
At first it seems just another pro-western, anti-Russian hit piece ....but from 2:16 in the 2nd half of the video he demonstrates how the UK is also using these same exact methods.
It originally appeared on the TV show "Charlie Brooker's 2014 Wipe" in December 2014

[Kalkin]

"If you want to be an arsonist, join the volunteer fire brigade." --old saying

This documentary seems to be doing exactly what it is complaining about. I don't think that creating controlled opposition, hiding black ops behind NGOs, or disinformation are particularly Russian ploys, although I'm sure they're learning something.

The soviet union however did use some of these techniques. And millions of communist party members left the country and came to the "west".

Some of them are old British tricks, like hiding black ops behind bogus "charities". Then when the enemy catches your spies and frog-marches them to the salt mines, you scream "human rights abuse!"

The dirtiest, sneakiest trick of all, dating from approximately the 19th century but refined over a long time, is to create conflict that resolves in a controlled way. The current racial tension here in the USA is a good example. The media are intentionally throwing fuel on the flames, and wealthy donors are helping fund radical groups.

Quote:

but from 2:16 in the 2nd half of the video he demonstrates how the UK is also using these same exact methods.

Right, and the documentary itself is one example! It might seem that criticizing the "financial oligarchs" of the UK is a very straightforward thing to do. But think about the context:

* The UK is hopelessly bankrupt; it is the most endebted society in the world, if you count public and private debt.
* It has an extensive social welfare system that a high ratio of its population are dependent on.
* Funds for its social welfare system are running out.
* Service levels are low. Wait lists are long.
* The country chronically runs trade deficits.
* The country chronically runs budget deficits.

How do you rally the population of a country like that to support what would otherwise be unpopular measures like increasing taxes to reduce the budget deficit, and reducing service levels to reduce government spending? AKA "austerity measures" such as were mentioned in the documentary?

You instead rally them for "soak the rich" programs, that are a cover for every change you really want to make. The truly rich oligarchs already having most of their assets offshore, and structured in tax-resisting legal entities. It's a trick.

It's comparable to the group here in the USA, "Occupy Wall Street", and its spinoffs like "Occupy Democrats". Many of my Facebook "friends" constantly post memes sponsored by those groups. The memes call for policies like dramatically higher taxes, ostensibly for the benefit of the poor.

But that's not how it works, at least not in the USA where deficit spending is financed by monetization of debt--a hidden tax if you will. The real impetus for higher taxes include:

* making sure that bonds get paid back. Because banks make money underwriting them and/or owning them.
* dampening rising consumer prices. If your discretionary funds are all taxed away, then you're not using them to bid up prices. This is "inside-the-beltway" thinking 101. The "wage price spiral" (which is a fallacy, but never mind...)
* preventing multi-generational capital accumulation by upstarts

These are all the concerns of banks, not "the poor". The people who are spreading these memes are useful dupes.

According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky:

Quote:

The Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS) was launched by Adbusters, a Vancouver based NGO.

Adbusters is funded by the Tides Foundation. The latter is in turn funded by a large number of corporate foundations and charities, including the Ford Foundation, Gates Foundation and the Open Society Institute. Ford is known to have links to US intelligence.

While Tides makes its name by facilitating large pass-through grants to outside groups, many of Tides’ grantees are essentially activist startups. Part of Tides’ overall plan is to provide day-to-day assistance to the younger groups that it “incubates.

(https://www.activistfacts.com/organizati...es-center/)

Wall Street foundations support the protest movement against Wall Street? How convenient.

I'm not saying the documentary is wrong. I'm saying it's using the very technique that it's pretending to complain about--and furthermore ascribing it to the Russians!

Does that sound plausible?

[TooFineAPoint]

I watched Century Of Self, and unless Curtis has changed, he himself uses a lot of underlying repeated assumptions to sell his own ideology (hint: it is not for freedom).

He explores very interesting topics but the guy is not to be trusted. Watch with absolute care, and do not accept any of the asides or framing from the narration without serious consideration.

EDIT: poster above me pretty much said the same thing at the same time I was typing my reply up!

[debeguiled]

I got involved in grass roots political activism in the the early 90's and while it sounds like this Russian guy has perfected this stuff, it has been around for a while.

I was so naive, feeling like I wanted to give something back to society, so I would investigate all the hot button issues, find the one that was the most pressing, and try to help solve the problem.

I got involved locally, and there were, as there always are, opponents, both local and national, and even international. So it seemed like a clear proposition. State your position fairly and compellingly, have meaningful discussion and debate with your opponents, hammer out a solution, and get on with it.

There was no real name for the obstacles that came up again and again to whatever I tried to do, and there were no books about it that I could find, and yet there were words that popped into my head over and over again that not only seemed to describe what I was dealing with, they also made me feel very demoralized.

Words like:

Confusion

Ambiguity

Uncertainty

Misunderstandings


Sometimes I would read the literature of our opponents, and I would come away not really understanding what I had just read, except for getting a general sense that they were against whatever I was for, and maybe I wasn't smart enough to understand their argument.

This was pre internet, so I would find someone with Nexis-Lexis access and put in search terms like "Politics. . .Confusion. . .Technique." It was hard even to wrap my brain around the idea that someone would purposefully try to create confusion for something so important, and I only dimly remember getting one hit from an Eastern European intellectual, and that was it.

This was also about the time that all of the fake grass roots groups were popping up, and it was extremely confusing, even the naming of things, people would actively misname something, so a pro clear-cut environmental disaster kill-all-the-salmon group would call themselves "Wise Use," and front as if they were an environmental group.

This was also the time of the rise of the S.L.A.P.P. (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), the lawsuit that cared nothing about the merits of the case, and everything about wasting the time and the energy and the money of people you wanted to target.

It was bad enough back then. Today is a different world, and some illuminating concept I might come across back then, like "framing" and "holding frame," that would seem like a revelation, like a peeling away of the darkness and deception is only common knowledge nowadays.

I was experiencing this crap possibly in its nascent stage, and there is no telling how sophisticated it has gotten in today's world. They probably leave no tracks at all now, except when they want to, which can be demoralizing in and of itself.

It is sad that this is a truism. You don't need argument either moral or intellectual, to beat your enemy. All you need is confusion. Confused humans freeze, they do not act.

[TooFineAPoint]

Relativism and equality are the two best tools (that I can think of right now -- maybe other members can name more) to cause confusion and demoralization.

Be wary anytime ANYONE floats a concept tied to those two.

They are either confused themselves, trying to look wise (non-hostile), or trying to confuse you (hostile).

[debeguiled]

(07-11-2016 11:17 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

I watched Century Of Self, and unless Curtis has changed, he himself uses a lot of underlying repeated assumptions to sell his own ideology (hint: it is not for freedom).

He explores very interesting topics but the guy is not to be trusted. Watch with absolute care, and do not accept any of the asides or framing from the narration without serious consideration.

EDIT: poster above me pretty much said the same thing at the same time I was typing my reply up!

I love Adam Curtis, so it is hard to admit that you are probably right. Here is a video, an Adam Curtis parody I have posted this somewhere else on the forum, that will be right up your alley. This vid makes similar points to yours brilliantly:

[WestIndianArchie]

" . State your position fairly and compellingly, have meaningful discussion and debate with your opponents, hammer out a solution, and get on with it."

Even with this, the debate turns on really tapping into an unspoken premise or bias that then compels the logic.

I'm a decade plus into the business, and I've come to learn the problems with "honest communication".

Leads back to the feeling that someone is running a con on you, that you're just a pawn in someone else's game.

WIA

[Sherman]

I have thought of this before in reading history. For example, during the Revolutionary War, enough people were able to form the same consensus of reality to act despite their limited means of communications: mostly some printed material and rousing speeches given at meetings. Today, it is so confusing, nobody knows what the hell is going on. A conspiracy theorist comes up with an idea, and then the next week another conspiracy theorist says he is controlled opposition. You can't act because you don't know what reality is. The new technology creates so much confusion, that maybe the old technology was better. You have to get information from people you can touch and see.

[debeguiled]

(07-11-2016 11:33 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

Even with this, the debate turns on really tapping into an unspoken premise or bias that then compels the logic.
WIA

I think you are right, and there is no problem with this if the unspoken premise is "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "People need drinking water."

The problem, as you point out in feeling like you are being gamed, is when one side is being sincere, and the other side is only faking it and thinking you are a chump.

The even bigger problem, as we are seeing today everywhere, is that the person you are in opposition to is just as sincere as you are, only they are the one being played by someone higher up in a power structure than they are, or the useful idiots as they can be called.

Feminists, Alt-Right, BLM, SJWs at the level I am likely to meet, are as sincere as I am, their unspoken premises are beliefs that have been foisted on them by a manipulator from above.

They haven't been well reasoned out, they are articles of faith, they are unconscious, and because of this, they are even more likely to get emotional when challenged.

It can go even deeper and deeper, because even though I try scrupulously to be able to back up what I say with reason and basic morals, I as well have blindspots and can be manipulated by someone with more insight and less values than I have which gets back to the feeling you have alluded to, of being a pawn in someone else's game.

So, probably often enough, it becomes a cage match between two pawns, each with imperfect information, not to mention the limited movements available to a pawn in the chess game of life, with the real players miles away and not even paying attention, having moved on to something else, something more challenging.

By the way, happy Monday. Aloha even.

[Mercenary]

(07-11-2016 11:14 AM)Kalkin Wrote:  

I'm not saying the documentary is wrong. I'm saying it's using the very technique that it's pretending to complain about--and furthermore ascribing it to the Russians!

Does that sound plausible?

Sure....I don't think the video is a objective neutral analysis by any stretch of the imagination, and the fact that Curtis works for the BBC means you have to treat it with caution.

However, it does bring up very interesting ideas for anyone who's asked themselves "Wait a minute. What the hell is really going on here ? Are they using some of the same methods on us, that we use on girls to get them to do what we want ? Are we all just being gamed ?"

(07-11-2016 11:22 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

So it seemed like a clear proposition. State your position fairly and compellingly, have meaningful discussion and debate with your opponents, hammer out a solution, and get on with it.

"Modern" debating has not been like this for a long time....maybe it still is like that here on RVF, but nowhere else unfortunately.

The media has been scaring senseless people since the 1950s when all they could talk about was the Soviet Russian communist "threat" to the west....however now in the internet and smartphone age it's much, much worse. It's all about triggering people to provoke instant emotion laden reactions, without any time to think.

If they prevented the mainstream media from talking about threats that are only theoretical, and made a total ban showing any single person crying or shouting imagine how different our perception of the world would be.

[TooFineAPoint]

(07-11-2016 12:05 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

there is no problem with this if the unspoken premise is "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "People need drinking water."

The problem, as you point out in feeling like you are being gamed, is when one side is being sincere, and the other side is only faking it and thinking you are a chump.

The even bigger problem, as we are seeing today everywhere, is that the person you are in opposition to is just as sincere as you are, only they are the one being played by someone higher up in a power structure than they are, or the useful idiots as they can be called.

Feminists, Alt-Right, BLM, SJWs at the level I am likely to meet, are as sincere as I am, their unspoken premises are beliefs that have been foisted on them by a manipulator from above.

They haven't been well reasoned out, they are articles of faith, they are unconscious, and because of this, they are even more likely to get emotional when challenged.

It can go even deeper and deeper, because even though I try scrupulously to be able to back up what I say with reason and basic morals, I as well have blindspots and can be manipulated by someone with more insight and less values than I have which gets back to the feeling you have alluded to, of being a pawn in someone else's game.

So, probably often enough, it becomes a cage match between two pawns, each with imperfect information, not to mention the limited movements available to a pawn in the chess game of life, with the real players miles away and not even paying attention, having moved on to something else, something more challenging.

Quoted because it deserves to be re-read. Great point.

A friend of mine wrote to Thomas Sowell once. It was about spirited debate; arguing in good faith not only in the hope of bringing both parties to a peaceful compromise, but also to learn something new.

He (my friend) said that seemed impossible.

Sowell replied that, when he was younger, even at a place like Berkeley, you could vehemently disagree with someone and then after the debate go for a drink and be cool with them. Not anymore.

They will refuse to fraternize with you if you don't tow the party line.

And I suppose I am the same. Who has the time and energy?

Give me one... just ONE... belief they hold, and I will tell you their basket of beliefs for everything. Vegan, Democrat, environmentalist, Occupy, etc etc. I'm generalizing of course.

But the amount of times someone says they are a vegan, then I can turn around and articulate their beliefs on govt, economy, sex, religion, ecology, art... it's scary.

I'm seeing humans more and more as pre-programmed machines.

Like in the Vonnegut / Breakfast Of Champions sense -- so-and-so is a fucking machine, someone else is a complaining machine, I am a doubting machine, and on and on.

Our political affiliations and Meyers-Briggs results determine 99% of who we are. At least that's how it seems most days...

[debeguiled]

Quote:

Sowell replied that, when he was younger, even at a place like Berkeley, you could vehemently disagree with someone and then after the debate go for a drink and be cool with them. Not anymore.

Went to Berkeley in the 80's. Can Confirm. I remember some radicals interrupted a Gary Hart speech to demand his positions on their favorite issues and everyone was scandalized.

You don't just take over a speech and shut it down.

Hah! Those days are long gone.

I blame the invention of the high five and air guitar.

[H1N1]

It's a very strange, and quite poor video. For the most part it is complete nonsense.

Confusion and disorientation have their place in Psyops, of course. That much is nothing new. Intelligence agencies have been doing this sort of stuff since time began. It is a significant part of military intelligence too. Repackaging it as 'Nonlinear warfare', our narrator seems to be doing much the same as W. Lind with his 4th Gen. Warfare - representing established practices as groundbreaking strategy to establish oneself as an expert and presumably sell books/build an internet following.

Like anything else, this aspect of psyops has real weaknesses as well as strengths. A state of uncertainty inhibits the opposition politicians, however, it also arms them - the accusation that chaos clings to a particular government is a powerful one. Confusion and disorientation are most useful when one has a specific aim one is trying to disguise. A general state of confusion and disorientation encourages a perception of the state as being out of control, or impotent. This is particularly true with the man on the street. Most people are not, in their day to day lives, involved in global politics and international strategy. This gives them a certain clairvoyance when it comes to supposed misinformation campaigns of the kind the video suggests are happening. The man on the street needn't counter any individual event, or indeed any individual crisis. He is able to go about his life largely unaffected by all of this, and consequently is able to let it wash over him. Over time, this gives a deep, intuitive appreciation for the competence of a government.

Putin's longevity can largely be attributed to his genuine, demonstrable competence, both domestically and internationally. He is a tyrant, but a tyrant with a very real mandate.