CONTEXT via the previous open admission: DHS and the DC Intelligence Community established an information control operation, set up by General Stanley McChrystal.

Under the auspices of controlling COVID-19 disinformation, the IC construct was to control public information that outlined govt fraud and larger issues against the interests of the DC silo system.  However, as you can tell from their self-identifying Twitter handle, the real problem they saw was Donald Trump.

MAY 2020 – […] “The group, Defeat Disinfo, will use artificial intelligence and network analysis to map discussion of [opposition] claims on social media. It will seek to intervene by identifying the most popular counter-narratives and boosting them through a network of more than 3.4 million influencers across the country — in some cases paying users with large followings to take sides against [their opposition].” (SOURCE)

Just as the FBI was modified to be the DC equivalent of the Russian FSB, so too have all of the DHS elements aligned to combat those who would challenge the USA administrative state.  President Trump is the threat, and all facets of the highest-level intelligence operations have been assigned to support his removal.

The way a story is constructed and delivered is the way you identify their psy-op operation; not necessarily the facts of the event itself. A key distinction missed by most.

The intent of psy-ops is to influence opinion, subsequently influencing behavior, with a concerted effort of lies or fact twisting to frame a specific version of events.

Conservatives absolutely suck at spotting the use of this tactical messaging method, and consistently fall for it.

It would take a long thesis to explain why conservatively minded people fall for the manipulative use of psychological operations, and modern leftists do not.

In summary it would come down to conservatives, holding an ideology based on truthful principles, subsequently take things at face value and think for themselves.  Whereas leftist Marxists are comfortable inside a tribal messaging system structurally based on falsehoods and lies.

Leftist “trust” is based on pretense, they are always pretending not to know things.  However, this is also why leftist ideologies advance, and conservatives stand watching the aftermath with jaw agape.

The Intelligence Community (IC) psy-ops operations are like cognitive land mines and should be treated as such. A soldier has to train him/herself to deal with real landmines; likewise, in this information battlespace, you too need to train yourself to spot them when they appear.

When you see a story framed in such a manner that it appeals directly to your emotion, and not your intellect, STOP, pause and proceed slowly. Ask yourself what are the who’s, what’s, where’s and then, only then, move to the why’s.

In essence, like a soldier, looking at the surrounding landscape and see if you can identify the source issue in front of you.

Often it is only after review of the surrounding landscape can we notice our travel is being manipulated and influenced. We might be walking directly into a trap.

Now, I do not need to tell this audience about the inherent background of false or manipulative information, y’all simply get it.  However, there is value in sharing the examples as they surface.  The John Kelly fabrication about Trump wanting “Hitleresque generals” is a case study.

[Via Robert Sterling] – The Trump-Hitler story is a psyop.

I mean that literally, not figuratively. It’s a military-grade, multi-stage psychological operation, engineered to re-energize demoralized Harris supporters and—through stigmatization—reduce turnout among Trump supporters.

Here’s how it works:

STEP ONE: PAYLOAD

The most important component of any weapons system is the payload—that is, the material that actually detonates and causes explosive damage. In a psyop, the payload is a generally a narrative; in the case of this psyop, the narrative is that Trump is a fascist, a Hitler-sympathizer, and an outright Nazi.

If your initial reaction here is to laugh at how trite and cliched this is, you’re not wrong; you would think, after eight years of trying to will this fake narrative into existence ex nihilo (“don’t you folks get that he’s literally Hitler?!”), the Democrats and their media allies would eventually have moved on. But there are two reasons why they’ve exhumed this beaten and dead horse, and why they’ve done so just 14 days before the election:

Reason 1: They’re desperate. Kamala is behind in nearly every national poll, and, in particular, she has forfeited a meaningful level of support among Latinos, black men, and Arab-Americans. With white Americans breaking for Trump more heavily than ever before, the Harris campaign can’t afford even the slightest of shifts in voting patterns among swing-state minority demographics.

Reason 2: Unfortunately, the fictitious Nazi claim, on the margins, is effective. Most Americans, burned out on nearly a decade of continuous media hoaxes (from “fine people on both sides” to injecting bleach to the origins of Covid to Hunter Biden’s laptop), will see through it and immediately disregard it. Remember, though, that just a handful of swing states will decide this election; even more specifically, members of the aforementioned minority groups will likely be the fulcrum within those states. If, by calling Trump a fascist, the Harris campaign and the media can motivate even a small number of these people to get off the fence and support Harris, and if they can also demoralize a small number of would-be Trump voters in the same states to stay home on Election Day, it could make all the difference.

STEP TWO: THE LAUNCH VEHICLE

A weapon is no good if it can’t be delivered to its intended target. In the case of this operation, the first stage of the launch vehicle was The New York Times and The Atlantic, which published their stories within hours of each other.

Ask yourself, what are the odds that two prominent news outlets, both of which are highly friendly to the Democratic establishment but which are (notionally) independent from one another, would publish two separate articles with the same narrative, within hours of each other on a date exactly two weeks before the election?

Exactly.

STEP THREE: CHAIN REACTION

The New York Times and The Atlantic offer credibility for the narrative’s nucleus, but what they can’t offer is widespread distribution. Americans get their news from a range of sources that is wider than ever, and—as much as it might offend those who took out $200k in student loans to attend Columbia J-school—most of them don’t turn to the so-called paper of record or to a once-great literary magazine intellectually bankrupted by the widow of the guy who invented the iPhone.

Fortunately for the orchestrators of our psyop, though, if there’s one thing the media hates even more than Donald Trump, it’s missing out on all the clicks and impressions from a hot story. Within hours of the two original articles going live (within minutes, in some cases), virtually every other mainstream publication released a derivative article that summarized the salacious claims in the source articles. By the end of the day yesterday, there were hundreds of such releases, from CNN, NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, ABC, CBS, Newsweek, Axial, Business Insider, the Huffington Post, NPR, and just about any other publication one could name.

These derivative articles don’t merely disseminate the narrative’s DNA further; they also serve to reinforce it and provide it (false) legitimacy, creating the unjustified impression that dozens of outlets have looked into this, rather than just two. When Americans open up Facebook and see countless articles from countless different sources all saying the same thing, they become far more susceptible to the narrative, even if they might otherwise be skeptical. The sheer volume of logos and headlines overwhelms the mind’s natural hesitation to question propaganda.

It’s devious, but it works. And the people who engineer missions like this know it.

STEP FOUR: ITERATE AND PERPETUATE

Earlier today, Kamala Harris read a statement decrying Trump’s supposed fascism; as I type these words, she’s regurgitating these claims in her televised townhall. Biden also provided a statement about the articles today. In doing this, they essentially rebooted the news cycle for the narrative, providing it fresh life and keeping it front and center in the media.

If you’re getting a sense that the media focus comes in waves, it’s because it does (and, like everything else here, it’s deliberate and methodical). In the first 24 hours, the focus is on the original claims in the two source articles. In the subsequent 48 hours, once the original story starts to go stale, the media focus pivots to the reaction from prominent opponents of Trump, thereby creating another news cycle to reinforce the narrative. Thereafter, the media will launch yet another wave of news, this one focused on interviewing historians (all of whom will, conveniently, summarize the numerous and convenient parallels between Trump and the fascists of old), swing-state voters (all of whom, conveniently, will claim that Trump’s newly unveiled love of Hitler convinced them to get off the fence and support Kamala), and even so-called Trump supporters that have now decided not to vote for him.

The goal is to keep the narrative in front of the audience for as long as possible, giving it time and space to metastasize further and continue corroding support for Trump.

STEP FIVE: LAUNCH ANOTHER PAYLOAD

We have 13 days until the election. If you think this is the last payload the Harris campaign and the media will launch into the discourse, you have far more faith in their decency than I do.

Expect at least two more of these over the next two weeks, one of which—if I can hazard a guess—will center on fictitious claims of sexual misconduct and the second of which will focus on Trump’s business history.

Just remember: If it looks like a psyop, walks like a psyop, and quacks like a psyop, it’s probably a psyop. Remain vigilant, keep your spirits high, and, most importantly, VOTE. (link)

This is probably the only time I would agree with Pete Buttigieg: