Four years ago this month, there was an uproar among analysts (and the public) about whether Cambridge Analytica was a PSYOP. The word is triggering; it tends to get people animated, makes people think of conspiracy theories, implies a grand master plan, shadowy operators, etc.

I have a good memory of that. What's happening now re: QAnon and whether it was a PSYOP and by whom is comparable. And it's a pointless debate. Any operation that 1) does target audience analysis, 2) deploys messaging against audiences, 3) tries to alter behavior, is a PSYOP.
The origin of this particular operation is complicated, networked, and muddied by people who wish to both claim and disclaim it. But it is functionally a PSYOP, has borrowed from that heritage, and can be analyzed in those terms. Miss me with claims to the contrary.
Researchers, journalists, and historians need to get to the bottom of how it evolved (and it did evolve, vs. a unified top-down plan), and we can do that if we work in good faith together. But we have to accept the fact that these kinds of operations are now commonplace.
It also helps to use the lens of emergence; information ops evolve, and incorporate DNA from everything that has come before: LARPs, ARGs, PSYOPs, the general public's participation + gullibility. In that context, one doesn't need top-down orchestration, necessarily.
But such a phenomenon (called by some an 'egregore') can definitely be co-opted, corralled, weaponized, aimed, cajoled, funded, shaped and steered by people with sufficient motivation and financial/social capital.
We need to train ourselves away from looking for over-simple explanations and zero-sum frames that insist on a single top-down explanation when in fact we are dealing with something messy, organic, and living.
Anyway I have great respect for all of my friends and peers who are trying to minimize harm by exposing and shrinking these destructive movements. You're all heroes. And we'll be successful if we focus on crushing the spread of the mind-infection.
And for the record, Cambridge Analytica was a rebranding (created by Steve Bannon) of SCL Elections. SCL (Strategic Communications Laboratories) was, literally, a PSYOPs firm that had done work for militaries for decades, and then more recently elections work. CA was a PSYOP.
Similar cautions apply to Parler. We don't know exactly what it is, but thank you to people like @RepMaloney and House Oversight who are aiming to find out. It has many markings of being a domestic/foreign dark-money intel op. Let's shine some sunlight on it and see.
Of course, muddying the waters further (intentionally) are bozos like Bannon and Icke who are correctly suggesting QAnon functioned as a PSYOP, but attributing it to the FBI or lord knows who else — which is nonsense. Let's do the work while retaining flexibility of thought.

More from Dave Troy

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R
It is simply not correct to point fingers at wind & solar energy as we try to understand the situation in TX. The system (almost) had a plan for weather (almost) like this. 1/x


It relied on very little wind energy - that was the plan. It relied on a lot of natural gas - that was the plan. It relied on all of its nuclear energy - that was the plan. 2/x

There was enough natural gas, coal and nuclear capacity installed to survive this event - it was NOT "forced out" by the wind energy expansion. It was there. 3/x

Wind, natural gas, coal and nuclear plants all failed to deliver on their expectations for long periods of time. The biggest gap was in natural gas! The generators were there, but they were not able to deliver. 4/x

It may be fair to ask why there is so much wind energy in ERCOT if we do NOT expect it to deliver during weather events like this, but that is an entirely different question - and one with a lot of great answers!! 5/x

You May Also Like