Information Warfare

How the West declared war on its own people

Frank Wright

In this post – the first part of two – I will outline some of my ideas concerning the manufacture of public opinion in the West and its mechanism. In the next I shall turn to a discussion of world affairs, to see how much of reality has been obscured in this sophisticated campaign of information warfare.

Frank Wright is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Subscribe


  • The absolute state of Journalism
  • Humiliation -The Bolshevik Method of Breaking the Mind
  • The Fact/Our Values Gap – Experience versus Explanations
  • Operation COVID – An Exercise in Information Warfare
  • The Product is You – The Manufacture of Opinion
  • The Permanent Present – How the Past is Inimical to Consumer Propaganda
  • Brand Loyalism – The Attachment to Ideas over Things
  • The World as Devil’s Dictionary – Nominalism and its Discontents
  • Belief as Refuge from Reality – Why Argument Makes Enemies of Friends
  • Strange Fruit – The Information Warfare Personality

Preamble – The Absolute State of Journalism

There is very little reportage from the Ukraine war. What we get is reproduced from the ukrainian government, which itself simply rebroadcasts the message of the US State.

This itself is a dereliction of duty of the first order, an informed citizenry being the basis of democratic consent. There can be no meaningful consent in ignorance of the facts. The replacement of reporting with full spectrum information warfare, conducted on our own populations, has changed our free world into quite another.

Journalists do still exist, however, as the excellent work of Lindsey Snell shows. Even CBS attempted to do some actual reporting, before walking back their startling documentary “Arming Ukraine” with the kind of pusillanimous self criticism reminiscent of the Bolshevik show trials. It is humiliating for all to participate in such a spectacle: for the journalists themselves, and for us, the audience.

The Bolshevik Method of Breaking the Mind

Humiliation is a central plank of the ideology which rules us. It insists we respect men dressed as women, ignore the crime ridden collapse of our once high-trust societies, and compels us to celebrate ‘diversity’ without giving a single reason to do so. What is compelled to believe is contrary to the evidence of experience. We are told that our own eyes are to be mistrusted and that to be a Good Person is to echo the Party line without exception. This entails a contradiction not only of the basic facts of reality but also of the evidence of your own life. Our values – so often invoked in times of war – are the negation of personal judgement, the submission to known falsehoods. It is the humiliating obligation to disagree with the facts, and this is deliberate, for when someone has been made to deny reality itself they are broken.

Your mind does not appear to be broken. Would you like some help with that?

The Fact /Our Values Gap

This is one of the insidious goals of information warfare. It does not simply seek to replace your words with theirs, but exceeds narrative management and control by invading the individual psyche. The battlespace of informaton warfare is your mind, and its contested territory includes your decision making and self confidence. A successful campaign makes the target insecure, as it combines a dreadful risk of ostracism and ridicule with the expression of personal judgements contrary to the official line.

This is what it is to be free in the liberal democracies. It is to suffer intense personal torment at the mere suggestion you may find your views at variance with what you are told they ought to be. Information warfare therefore is psychological control at base. It seeks to dominate by implanting fear and mistrust – of your own thoughts and decision making – rendering the target unstable anxious and reliant on an outside source to provide a safe explanation of reality howsoever incredible.

The price is the surrender of personal autonomy in the deepest sense. To buy into this forced sale is to receive respite from the awful burden of thinking thoughts which are constantly linked to licensed opprobrium. To speak out, to speak your mind is to signal to others you are a legitimate target for the release of all the spite, resentment and angst that their surrender to self loathing submission has kindled in them. This too is an aspect of information warfare. Those it conquers become resentful. They know they have bought a lie for a quieter life, which only disturbs them privately. This produces tension in the subject which is released towards legitimate targets of derision – you, the person still capable of and willing to display some independence of mind.

Operation COVID

We saw this template in action in COVID, which was amongst other things a grand experiment in information warfare. Its results are telling. Far from the depressing lesson of Stasiland, which mentioned perhaps only a few dozen real dissidents in the police state of the GDR, COVID showed that at least a third, perhaps more, of the population simply would not accept it was raining when the State micturated down their necks and blamed the weather.

Nevertheless, the cost to personal mental health given the strain of noticing the obvious, and the verbotenism attached to it, was compounded by fractures in friendships and family relations. These fault lines largely corresponded – as they do with the parallel information campaign of the war – to those with and without television sets at home.

Briefly, there is a class of person accultured to the convenience of downloading the correct opinions from the mass media. This is an aspect of oversocialisation to the virtual world, meaning these people base their sense of self, of reality and of political and moral rectitude on what they see on screens. This produces a personality which disfavours interpersonal relations, so that they mistrust the experience and opinions of others as much as their own, being reliant on the safe and germ-free product of the prepackaged supermarketplace of ideas. It is as if they breeze down an aisle of ready-made opinions in an air-conditioned environment, safe from the hostile because unpredictable intrusions of the natural – the real world – outside.

This meme was a conspiracy theory in March 2022

The Product is You

Information warfare exploits this aspect of consumerism, where a freedom of choice is celebrated to conceal the vice of convenience. Just as most products in the supermarket are not food, so most of the product on offer in the sterile and comfortably simplified opinion factory is pap. It is something to fill up with, which slips down easily, favouring the habits of the distracted ruminant unwilling to suffer the inconvenient disturbance of thought. To do this is to be Right. It is to be a Good Person.

This abdication of judgement and of responsibility is attached to a sense of status. There is a social reward attached to the lazy consumption of processed thought. The manufacture of consent is a successful model because it confers reward alongside anxiety, a combination which stimulates dependence. It is a paradigm directly translated from consumerism, which ideally produces addiction to a given range of manufactured desires and their attendant product lines. Each brand has its cachet, and that of manufactured opinion comes with the stamp of official approval.

To those subject to the Just World fallacy it is enough that they agree with the authorities to feel proud of retransmitting the signals of information warfare. Each subject becomes a relay beacon of the propaganda of the State, eagerly seeking out dissent to claim a further reward of unearned and unjustified superiority. Those who do not conform are of course cranks – conspiracy theorists, even traitors.

The fact that many – if not all – objections to the COVID regime which were formerly derided as such have been quietly admitted to be true does not alter the view of the target.

The Permanent Present

The goal of information warfare is to make the target completely dependent on the reinforcement to their character provided by the officially sanctioned view. Should this view contradict the view of last week then the science has simply changed.

Here again information warfare interdigitates with factors arising from our dissolving society. In this case, it is the lack of historical continuity. The time is always now.

As we were shifted from living in nations to being consumers in a global borderless marketplace certain traditions had to be rendered undesirable, as they would hamper this transition from settled communities sharing high-trust habits derived from centuries of custom and culture. In brief, what is socially valuable is a hindrance and even a hazard to consumerism, as it provides a satisfaction which if intact limits demand for the consolations of retail therapy. Buying things to feel better is what people who do not feel happy tend to do, and more so when their connections to other people, present and past, are severed or impaired.

As you find yourself surrounded by strangers, with your social environment a management exercise, the very buildings in which your life is arranged come to resemble those of anywhere else. The dislocation of this architecture of ‘International Nowhereland’ serves to accelerate historical discontiunity, replacing local architectural vernacular with light industrial sheds and vast glittering blocks of anonymous apartments. From Astana to Austin, Texas, everywhere looks the same.

The break with a sense of the past is vital to consumerism as everything which dislocates and destabilises the individual aggravates a discomfiture. This inexpressible dissatisfaction is channeled into the manufactured desire to consume. In short, the loss of identity and of tradition promotes buying. We seek to purchase our way out of this predicament.

A break with the past, a lack of historical continuity allows for the promotion of values which underpin the notion of the world as an unrestricted marketplace. If we are all equally deracinated we can find an egalitarianism in shopping centres, on and offline. Consumerism in this extreme degree finds tremendous advantage in the destruction of all meaningful social, cultural, religious and traditional human scale bonds, with itself being the only promised source of satisfaction and even transcendence. It is a jealous cult, which resents everything that is not itself, and which promotes an urgent sense that whatever the hour, it is always me-time. A self isolated in space and time is a prime site for profit.

That consumerism is inimical to historical continuity is therefore obvious. A living link to the past, personal, family, ancestral and national is anathema to the immediate digital culture of manufactured desire and perpetual momentary satisfaction.

Brand Loyalism

Information warfare exploits this facet of consumerism. This is the reason the narrative can change without consequence, because the loyal consumer is attached to the notional and not the actual world. They gain their satisfactions from the products they consume. The forms of propaganda used to sell each type of product – ideas and iphones – are the same. Consumers are attached to brands far more than they are to things. This evidences the primacy of the notional, of the idea, over the object. This is the reason that in our times the meaning of words carry such powerful significance, as so much of the population regard names and not things as the basis of reality.

The World as Devil’s Dictionary

This reliance on nominalism – the belief that the world is made out of descriptions and not of facts – is the basis of the new identitarianism and of much of modern ‘values’. Diversity and inclusion training, the nonsense idea that words are equivalent to violence, and the absurd fact that there is now nothing more serious than a man dressed as a woman are all obvious grace notes of this discordant popular refrain. It is a siren song which leads us on to the unforgiving rocks of reality. Consumerism affords the individual a sense of freedom whilst piping them away from reality to a comforting world of avatars and of agreement. To such people the real world becomes offensive.

Belief as refuge from reality

Information warfare exploits this aversion to reality and the reliance upon even the most specious redefinitions to avoid confronting it. Combined with a kind of linguistic Lysenkoism, the predicament of the disconnected, virtualised self is to be unmoored in a shifting field of mutable definitions, permanently uncertain, forever fearful of being found out. The anxiety of the atomised, so advantageous to the addiction economy, prepares the mind of the target perfectly for the aims and methods of the means of opinion control.

Information warfare is the glove to the hand of the consumer personality, which seeks protection from the disturbing world of facts. The function of belief in this sphere is not to help explain the world but to preserve the believer from upset. At base, information warfare is a subtle and effective manipulation of emotionalism – where feeling and not fact dictate belief.

It is far more important to many people to feel wise than be so. This feeling comes from having the Right Opinions. To contradict or even question these views is not to open a debate but to offer a personal insult to the individual, who as it were has been convicted by their convictions. To doubt these beliefs is to doubt the believer.

It is for this reason your attempts to question the narrative with other people – any narrative – is often met not with curiosity but spite. There is a mechanism at work here which is again useful to the information warrior, and that is the symbiosis of personality with belief. To such people there is no distance between their opinions and themselves, as their opinions have been selected precisely because they reinforce their sense of worth.

If you are not insane by now you are winning.

Strange Fruit

This is the retail therapy of the supermarketplace of ideas. These prepacked notions are absorbed into the personality to become identical with the person. To criticise them is to commit an assault. To such people words do indeed appear to be violence, as the experience of having the basis of your reality questioned is profoundly unpleasant. The problem here is twofold: this basis is not in reality at all, but in images and sounds found onscreen, and secondly these have been chosen as foundational as the person in question is already in need of reassurance and of refuge from reality. You cannot ‘bring them back’ with argument – you can only make them resent you for being unlike them.

There is a vanity to such dependence which is offended by being noticed, as any addict often despises the name. A degree of disavowal is present in the target of information warfare, which means that on some deeper level they are aware that they are being decieved but the cost of admitting this is too great. The cost would be personal – to their vanity at admitting having been duped. It would be social – they would have to disagree with their right-thinking colleagues, and perhaps start shouting at the television. It may even be financial, as some nonsense totems are obligatory in the modern workplace. Everyone, of course, is obliged to some degree to pledge allegiance to The Party and its programme of moral and reality inversion. To speak out, to name the naked emperor can mean the end of your career. Such are the costs of noticing, which again compound the efficacy of and prepare the pyschological ground for the fructification of the bitter seeds of information war.

In the next part I shall examine in some detail specific cases of information warfare relating to the war in Ukraine and its devastating – if largely redacted – impact on the West.

Frank Wright is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


Rupa Subramanya: Despite being on the way out, travel mandates warrant judicial oversight

The government is arguing that, since most of the onerous parts of the mandates have been lifted, the lawsuit challenging them is now moot and should be dismissed. This would set a dangerous precedent

Rupa Subramanya

Publishing date:

Sep 27, 2022  

Travelers walk past a "Mandatory COVID-19 Testing" sign at Pearson International Airport in Toronto, in 2021.
Travelers walk past a “Mandatory COVID-19 Testing” sign at Pearson International Airport in Toronto, in 2021. PHOTO BY CARLO ALLEGRI/REUTERS

At long last, all of the federal government’s remaining pandemic travel restrictions will expire on Oct. 1. The feds will ditch the problem-plagued ArriveCan app, testing and quarantine requirements for those entering Canada, as well as mask mandates on trains and planes. Canada is, finally, getting closer to other major western countries, rather than being an extreme outlier in terms of how long stringent restrictions have been maintained in the face of a retreating pandemic.

The expiration of federal travel mandates may not be purely accidental. For one, new Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has for months been hammering away at the clunky and error-prone ArriveCan app. And, perhaps equally significantly, an important legal challenge to the travel mandate has been working its way through the court system.

The challenge brought by Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison, two British-born Canadian entrepreneurs, and is being litigated in the Federal Court by Toronto-based attorney Sam Presvelos. Since the federal government removed the vaccine mandates for foreign and domestic airline travel over the summer, the attorney general filed a “mootness motion” against the civil lawsuit brought by Rickard and Harrison.

In layman’s language, the government is arguing that, since most of the onerous parts of the mandates have been lifted, the lawsuit challenging them is now moot and should be dismissed. On Sept. 21, the Federal Court of Canada, under Judge Jocelyne Gagné, began hearing submissions from Presvelos and lawyers representing the attorney general, which I attended via Zoom.

In making the case that the suit should be dismissed, Robert Drummond, counsel for the attorney general, argued: “I think it’s fair to say that (there is) no evidence that such travel measures are returning. The statements made by ministers are political statements and press releases, not legal statements.”

In other words, the government’s lawyers made the extraordinary argument that what politicians say should be ignored, since such statements have no legal force. Pushing back, Presvelos argued: “My friend (the attorney general) would like this court to believe that media statements don’t matter. They are not legal statements. (I’m) not sure what type of democracy we exist in if we cannot trust the truthfulness of statements being made by government ministers.”

What’s at stake here are not just legal niceties in a civil proceeding brought by two individuals against the government, but serious issues that concern the status of charter-protected rights in Canada, and how we should understand statements on policy made by the politicians who govern us.

As for the COVID mandates, the issue is not merely theoretical or academic, as none less than Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has broadly hinted, as recently as Tuesday, in his announcement that the remaining travel mandates were to be lifted, that fresh measures may be in the works in the event that we see a resurgence of COVID. The notion that such pronouncements, by the country’s prime minister and key members of his cabinet, may just be ignored, because they don’t in and of themselves carry legal force, is preposterous and bizarre, to say the least.

The Rickard and Harrison case against the government has wider significance when it comes to public scrutiny and accountability. If the Federal Court agrees with the government that the case is moot, because the most onerous part of the mandates have been suspended, it would effectively legitimize the practice of restricting constitutionally protected rights, so long as the restrictions are removed before the courts have a chance to hold the government accountable.

If, for example, a future government measure that arguably impinges on charter-protected rights and freedoms is withdrawn just before it comes before the courts, this would surely undermine trust both in government and in our judicial system. It would allow the government to get away with anything, so long as it does so fast enough to avoid legal scrutiny.

This cannot be the basis for a healthy society that’s governed by the rule of law. As Presvelos noted to the court, such skirting around judicial oversight “incentivizes the government to take risky and constitutionally dubious measures knowing that as long as the revoke them before a hearing they can effectively act with impunity.” Indeed, let’s not forget that the Trudeau government used a version of this tactic already, when it withdraw the use of the Emergencies Act just before it came up for debate in the Senate.

More specifically, on the federal vaccine mandates for travel, the government’s heavy-handed approach created a conflict between two fundamental individual rights — the mobility rights of Canadians and their right to bodily autonomy. On the one hand, if you wanted to travel, you had to cede your bodily autonomy over whether to take the COVID-19 vaccine. If you asserted your bodily autonomy by not taking the vaccine, you gave up your right to mobility.

Such a stark choice being forced on Canadians, between two different fundamental rights, is unprecedented. A dismissal of the Rickard-Harrison case on grounds of mootness will mean that there will be no judicial scrutiny or accountability on this fundamental dilemma, which, on the face of it, appears to breach Canadians’ charter rights.

For example, the Federal Court could rule that it’s a breach of charter rights for the federal government to force Canadians to choose between bodily autonomy and mobility, making any future mandates exceptionally difficult to enact. Likewise, if it ruled that the federal government acted legally, it would hopefully provide some clarity on how far the government is able to go with such measures. In either case, an appeal to the Supreme Court would be likely, and the matter would get resolved, one way or another.

None of this is possible if the government gets its way and the case is declared moot. Shaun Rickard and Karl Harrison deserve their day in court — not just for them, but for all Canadians who cherish our constitutionally guaranteed individual liberties.

National Post

Until this COVID Pfizer & Moderna gene injection vaccine is stopped, then the pandemic will not end; never end & Francis Collins, Fauci, Bourla etc. know it; it is selecting for more lethal virulence

We warned them, Vanden Bossche did, Yeadon did, I did, McCullough did, we did, that non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies pressure the spike & drives infectious & more virulence; it is happening now!

Dr. Paul Alexander

This pandemic would have been over January February 2021, the data was clear. We needed no vaccine. We never did! We had early treatment, we knew who was at risk, we knew that COVID was amenable to risk stratification and a steep age-risk curve existed. We knew how to manage it and we knew as long as you strongly protect the high-risk e.g. elderly, then allow the rest of society to live normal lives. They would have gained baseline natural immunity and inched us to herd immunity and dealt with omicron effectively. Today we have people who were locked down too long and hard, now facing a failed injection that provides no protection (does not stop infection or transmission and does not protect the upper airways), and with the injection driving constant infectious pressure, and trying to emerge. Many are old and vulnerable. Will succumb. Please protect your elderly and I have shared about using the nasal-oral hygiene wash, it will eliminate the pathogen, you have to use it as we indicate, swish, spit, no swallow as the virus lingers in the gum line and back of the throat (povidone-iodine 10% or hydrogen peroxide both diluted, just a little is needed, if it stings means not diluted enough).

I am afraid one of the two must be stopped, either we reduce the infectious pressure (circulating virus) or we stop the vaccine. One of them. We must stop one of them NOW! and ideally both. This will all end if vaccine is stopped. Complete. We have done neither and this is the reason we are stuck. This will not end if we do not stop these failed injections that is driving infection to the vaccinated.

Be warned. This fraud failed ineffective and harmful gene injection must be stopped and never ever must you allow them to inject your child. Defend your child as the parent, grand-parent. Take them out of school, move if you have to. Protect them for Azar ensured they all had liability protection BUT your child. So now it is up to you parents! Trump was lied to, deceived, I have to believe, he is not a malevolent person like the others involved who subverted him, IMO a good man, but he was so misled to bring this, that I am warning again. Many ordinarily healthy American children WILL die from this injection. WILL die. Parents, this is your greatest battle.

There is no science, no data, no study, NONE, that shows these ineffective failed injections provide any benefit to your near zero, statistical zero risk child, though we have data to show how harmful the shot is. Again, under no condition do you as a parent inject your child with these ineffective COVID mRNA gene injections, any of them! This is your ‘hot gates’, this is your Thermopylae.

Ontario High School Teacher Seen Wearing Massive Prosthetic Bust to Class

Arwen~ Honestly, I have been stunned by this and couldn’t put a thought together to address this. Cannot remain silent on this, none of us should be quiet but political correctness is effective in shutting people down.

Dr. Jordan Peterson warned about the precedent and trajectory that was being set with the passing of BillC-16 and here we are.

Who is protecting the students, not the woke HDSB nor Oakville Trafalgar High School. Parents and other adults need to get a backbone and stand up for the children against deviant behaviour. If this teacher chooses to engage in this behaviour , that is his/her right to do so, on their own time, it should not be allowed in public schools, period.

Parents should be outraged and demanding this teacher be removed or take their children out of the school whether they are in this teacher’s class or not, they are all being exposed to this.

This is the insanity of political correctness, we must push back against this “wokeness”.

“Ludicrous. Is it more important to use correct pronouns than it is to address truthfully that you have a man wearing fetish gear in front of children? Priorities, logic, decency have all fled the room.”

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police lead Her Majesty The Queen’s 2km State Funeral Procession, riding the horses the Mounties gifted to the Queen through the years.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police lead Her Majesty The Queen’s 2km State Funeral Procession, riding the horses the Mounties gifted to the Queen through the years. Canada represents the largest Commonwealth contingent with over 100 members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP in attendance. What an incredible life of service honoured today. 🇬🇧🙏🇨🇦

%d bloggers like this: