DRESSING UP A PSY-OP
In the aftermath of the approved takeover of the internet with the proposed net neutrality law it is unfortunate that a majority of people gave their support based primarily on two words that only implied a new internet that is free and without entanglements from web companies.
The reason I am saying this is because it has been a little over 24 hours since the ruling and no one has been able to view the new rules provided in the 300+ pages in the document.
Those who are concerned about this lack of transparency are demanding that the FCC release a full copy of the regulations that it’s planning to impose on the internet and the internet providers.
What we are seeing now is a successful cover-up and word phrasing that can only be seen as doublespeak contributing to a psy-op.
The words “net neutrality” were the misleading words in the psychological operation leaving the naive to believe that this was a great thing and a breakthrough for the internet.
However the government has now demonstrated after the approval of some nebulous proposal that it will not show the people what has been proposed in the law.
I believe that the reason is apparently obvious. The words “net neutrality” were part of a psy-op provided by the government to allow for the upper hand in the midst of what can be determined to be Information warfare.
Information warfare, in its largest sense, is simply the use of information to achieve national objectives. Like diplomacy, economic competition, or the use of military force, information in itself is a key aspect of national power. Information warfare in this sense can be seen as societal-level or nation-to-nation conflict waged, in part, through the worldwide “interneted” and interconnected means of information and communication.
The buzz now on the internet has the all too familiar whim of conspiracy or cover up as people are being suspicious saying on twitter that “these new regulations should have been published by now.”
Meanwhile the internet is buzzing about another possible psy-op that is so remarkably banal that it pains me to even point it out. Many people on the internet have received a picture either in their social networks or Twitter accounts showing a dress that has white and gold trim. People are being asked what color is this dress?
Millions of people have exchanged this picture and the answers are just as bizarre as the picture. Some people are actually seeing a black and blue dress. When Buzzfeed did a poll and 69 percent see an image of white and gold.
I even see white and gold.
The fact that a single image could polarize the entire internet into two aggressive camps is ludicrous which leads me to believe that yet this is another psy-op that us being used to confuse people just like the Obama administration did with net neutrality.
This fight is about more than just social media. It’s about primal biology and the way human eyes and brains interpret what is being presented in context.
The only thing that we can say for sure is that the public opinion is product of a well crafted social engineering apparatus that creates a crisis, then points out what needs to be done to combat the crisis and then convinces the masses to participate in the established solution that has been provided by special interests that receive all sorts of benefits from organizing drastic change.
In the past, much of what has been proposed benefits only the few and there are many that were convinced to change their habits and what they think only to suffer from betrayal much later.
Information warfare, in its essence, is about ideas and epistemology — big words meaning that information warfare is about the way humans think and, more important, the way humans make decisions. It is fundamentally not about satellites, wires, and computers. It is about influencing human beings and the decisions they make.
The dress psy-op has now divided millions of social net users online as did the doublespeak of “net neutrality.” Both in a weird way are examples of tools used in both psychological and informational warfare.
In a sinister view the examples of the dress and the wording of a plan can be compared to the passage in the book 1984 where Winston Smith is confronted with a question from O’Brien.
In his diary, Winston had written that “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows.” However O’Brien, the fascist enforcer from the Ministry of Love, raised four fingers in front of Winston and asked him how many fingers he was he holding up. The correct answer was four but the answer he was looking for was five.
O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
“How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?”
“And if the Party says that it is not four but five, then how many?”
Then he received electric shock, he pain increased until Winston yelled out “Five.”
Is it a blue dress with black trim or is it a white dress with gold trim? Is net neutrality free internet for all, or will there be restrictions as the bureaucracy take a hands on approach to the net, making laws and restrictions that keep it from being a playground of creativity and expression?
You may say one thing but the party wants you to say something else and those who are hypnotized by the party have declared victory with the approval of net neutrality and yet none of those victorious souls have read one page of the proposal.
The opponents haven’t either and furthermore there now are a sense of fear that perhaps once again those who believed have now fallen prey to another trick by the party.
In the future, if the Orwellian spell worked, there will be countless party followers that will forget how easy it was to get online and surf the net. They will say while in their party’s hypnotic trance that Barack Obama saved the internet.
There will still be a small group that will remember how the internet did not need saving and that a dirty Orwellian trick was played on the American people.
It was a dirty trick that certainly was a victory in the new information warfare.
What we see now is both dresses as black and blue white and gold because we know that major weapon in the information war is the worldwide mainstream narrative provided by state run television and broadcast news. Information warfare at the strategic level is the “battle off the battlefield” to shape the political context of the conflict.
The internet will eventually become the new “battle space” it will become an “integrated battlefield” for those who struggle to present the truth and others who will be drowned out by the party propaganda.
For example, the new bureaucratic control mechanism that will eventually seize the internet has more power now to disrupt civil grievance. It will publicize and ostracize anyone who wishes to question party policy.
It will be easier to sway public opinion and with several planted selected spokespersons will be a great purveyor of disinformation provided by your government.
The goal is to continue simple psy-op tests online and further produce fictional operational environments, then, whether mass-targeted or niche-targeted, can be generated, transmitted, distributed, or broadcast by governments or all sorts of players through increasingly diversified networks.
The information potential available to states or other players with access to the universe of internetted communications will make it easier to spark, agreements on who should be scapegoated for the war effort, who should be jailed for their treasonous questioning of the party and to also use the networks over which banking information is transmitted to suggest that a “hostile” state is about to devalue its currency could easily provoke financial chaos.
Then the question will be whether your dollar can buy you a candy bar or that twenty can buy you a pound of ground beef.
Let us take just one example of how current technologies could be used for strategic-level information warfare. If, say, the capabilities of already well-known Hollywood technologies to simulate reality were added to our arsenal, a genuinely revolutionary new form of warfare would become possible.
The example can be used to describe what ISIS is doing now with their propaganda videos that use Hollywood style special effects, sound quality and close ups of carnage that are now being held under scrutiny for radicalizing already disenfranchised Muslims.
Today, the techniques of combining live actors with computer-generated video graphics can easily create a “virtual” news conference, summit meeting, or perhaps even a simulated war that would exist in “effect” though not in physical fact. Stored video images can be recombined or “morphed” endlessly to produce any effect chosen.
Have you ever wondered why some people have questioned whether or not planes really hit the twin towers during 9/11 or why some conspiracy theorists believe “crisis actors” were seen at tragic events like the Boston Marathon bombing?
Because they are already weighing in on the potential for fraud and how the internet has shaped our attitudes about events like 9/11, the Boston bombing and Sandy Hook.
Once again does anyone see the similarities between arguing over the color of a dress and whether or not a plane was seen actually hitting the Pentagon on 9/11?
Today the biggest enemy of the state is the person who asks questions. This is a very significant moment in history. The number one enemy of the empires process of takeover is the checks and balances that come with something as simple as critical thinking.
The safety and protection we have all wanted out of fear is now becoming a mandatory exercise and we are going to be under the microscope of Big Brother with state controlled medical healthcare, environmental enforcement, and further curtailing of individual freedoms.
What was once conspiracy theory is becoming our reality.
Context varies, concepts vary, perception is key, and the ability to convince you of a lie will become easier with a victory from the party and its mesmerized followers.
Net neutrality was a lie, the dress is a lie and the psy-op has worked.