Manipulating the Masses: Penetrating Psychological Operations
– A Primer on Global Propaganda
By Carl Teichrib
NOTE: This article was first published in 2007, in the early years of social media, and obviously well before the Covid era – and if any event exemplified propaganda, the Covid experience is a case study. And if any technology acts as a tool for propaganda, social media fits the bill. Nevertheless, I’m resurrecting and adapting this piece from my archives as its fundamental relevance is timeless.
The citizen should be molded to suit the form of government under which he lives. – Aristotle, Politics, Book VIII.1
Never before in human history have so many had such easy access to so much potential power for so many diverse purposes. – In Athena’s Camp: Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age.2
Psychological operations is not a term typically found in the lexicon of the general public. Instead, it is a military/intelligence label referring to an information operation specifically aimed at changing the behaviors and attitudes of a target group. In military affairs this has historically been enemy combatants and/or the general population of an enemy nation.
Today we live in an age wherein information is deemed central to the maintenance of political and economic power, placing the scope of psychological operations far beyond military-only applications. While this is not fundamentally new – information and its leverage has always been an instrument of power – an understanding of its manipulative importance and persuasiveness is crucial.
Psychological operations in the broad form is intimately tied to its informational cousin: propaganda. The distinction between the two is thin, and in the literature these approaches are tightly woven.
Peter Kenez, author of The Birth of the Propaganda State, writes,
To discuss the matter sensibly, we must abandon the hope of finding a definition of propaganda that would be precise, cover all acts of propaganda and only propaganda, and be usable regardless of time and space. Instead, we must accept the broadest possible definition: Propaganda is nothing more than the attempt to transmit social and political values in the hope of affecting people’s thinking, emotions, and thereby behavior.3
An older Canadian military document on psychological operations, simply titled Psychological Operations – First Draft, postulates a similar position,
Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) is the generic term used to cover all aspects of psychological activities and is defined as – planned psychological activities in peace and war directed to enemy, friendly and neutral audiences in order to influence attitudes and behaviour affecting the achievement of political and military objectives.4 [italics added]
Bridging the two concepts, the Canadian document states, “Propaganda is the primary tool of PSYOPS.”5
In featuring the value of propaganda as the leading instrument of PSYOPS, it’s important to consider the role and use of the message. A section out of Psychological Operations – First Draft, may be helpful,
A propaganda message is a communication with the purpose of bringing about an action and an attitude. Before it can accomplish its purpose, it must get a hearing by a designated receiver (target). In brief, a message must be received, be understood, be believed, offer a solution, and bring about a desired result.
Given a policy, intelligence, a target, themes, and appraisal of the desired results, the propagandist composes his message. He must construct, time, and transmit his message so that, even though in competition with considerable other material being presented to the target, it gets a hearing. The target must understand the message and give it the interpretation intended by the propagandist.
A propaganda message must arouse or stimulate needs. It must cause an action or bring about an attitude desired by the propagandist. This requires that the message tell the target how to satisfy its needs – by following the course of action desired by the propagandist. This, in turn, requires that the actions (urged openly or implied) be appropriate and important to the target. In order to get the action or attitude desired, the message must, in the opinion of the target, offer the best solution (or the only logical one) toward solving the problem addressed or in fulfilling target needs.
In essence, the propagandist must take all necessary steps to assure that the action he desires will succeed and that the action he does not desire will have the least opportunity to appeal to the target; ie, that the undesired action will fail.6
In the above text we see the intentional shaping of a group via the dissemination of specific information, the message, to meet particular target goals. Furthermore, this message-target relationship isn’t usually apparent to the audience. While situational vagueness isn’t always the case, typically the target group is unaware of the outside influences working to shape opinions, beliefs, values, and attitudes. [In the case of Covid, aroused fear and the pressure cooker of persistent messaging had their effect].
PSYOPS and Domestic Influence
An interesting admittance of military PSYOPS targeting is found in a publication released by the Command and Control Research Program, operating under the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, US Department of Defense. In discussing the importance of public support for military actions, specifically after the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu – which left 18 US service men dead – the CCRP report stated,
After Somalia, the ‘hearts and mind’ to be won over in mounting these operations were not only those of the host country – the traditional PSYOP target. They now included, perhaps predominately, the hearts and minds of the American people and Congress.7
As Peter Kenez reminds us, “propaganda often means telling less than the truth, misleading people, and lying…”8 And while the above CCRP example may or may not have a direct linkage to lying or “misleading people,” it does illustrate the aspect of public policy persuasion.
Ethical issues surrounding public persuasion abound. In an updated report released in 2005, the US Congressional Research Service examined the actions of US executive branch agencies and found numerous examples of controversial information activities. Agencies as diverse as the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency were all fingered as employing highly questionable information campaigns. Many of these campaigns were aimed at advancing government positions.
Recognizing the trust-blowback dilemma, one US Army War College report noted,
Because governments have practiced deception involving issues as important as national security, it is difficult for many in the media, and the public at large, to discount totally the possibility that government announcements could be disinformation…
…anyone engaged in deception operations, offensively or defensively, should be aware of the credibility issues inherent to this subject. Often there is more at stake than a temporary political or military advantage.9
There is a lot at stake, including the long-term trustworthiness of civic institutions. This is inherently true regarding propaganda that has been generated to swing domestic social values and behaviors; for once the mechanism has established itself into the fabric of civil life, its influence can persist long after the official program has closed. In other words, a snowball effect may continue until the misinformation is countered by reasonable voices, or until it self-destructs under the inertia of its own deceptions, or until the original PSYOPS outcome — or a variation — is achieved.
Unfortunately, the reach and intensity of propaganda has the potential to infect all levels of society, and long-term civil and social integrity suffers. Trust breaks down and cynicism mounts, and for some people, an unhealthy fixation turns into paranoia [and in the age of social media, our digital feed-back loops add to the intensity]. Institutions lose credibility and are increasingly viewed with hostility, creating a division that extends beyond the mistrust of agencies and institutions, but increasingly into forms of information tribalism that pits people-against-people.
The Soviet Model
No nation is immune from the use and abuse of propaganda, whether it is government agencies employing persuasion tactics for political ends, or elements in the private sector who have an ideological cause that’s embedded within a product or service; the entertainment industry provides more examples then we can document. It seems so normalized as to be mundane, and so universal.
One country in the twentieth century provides an interesting case study, particularly in terms of its raw and overt nature, the Soviet Union.
Professor David E. Powell, author of Antireligious Propaganda in the Soviet Union: A Study of Mass Persuasion, revealed the heart of the Soviet transformational structure,
The Party has tried to break down traditional authority patterns and relationships that it considers inappropriate to the modern world, and to develop in their place a new set of attachments. It has chosen to shape the values of an entire people through a massive program of education and indoctrination… It has tried to change the views of adults and to inculcate into younger people, who have fewer and less firmly held preconceptions and attitudes, views that it deems correct.10
‘Political socialization’ is the process by which people acquire their political standards and beliefs. It involves a wide range of institutions and individuals, from parents and teachers to the press, the courts, and the military. Through contact with these socializing agents, people modify or discard old values, acquire new ones, or reinforce their preexisting notions.11
In their effort to restructure the political culture and transform a religious people into atheists, the Soviet leaders have tried to socialize and resocialize the entire population.12
Has there been, in the Western world, forces at work attempting to “shape the values of an entire people through a massive program of education and indoctrination”? Of course. Where does one begin?
The Club of Rome, an organization who’s activities helped re-shape social values, already admitted to advancing a global change agenda in 1976,
At the highest level of world affairs, international institutions must form the prime movers of planned change. The efforts to be made by institutions at higher levels can be viewed as ‘means’ which can be mobilized to achieve desired ends. This implies that institutions control a number of ‘handles’ which can be used to guide change through efforts of individuals and smaller institutions. The control which institutions can exercise, however, is not unlimited but rather determined by the power structure in which they operate. In the case of powerful institutions, the means at their disposal are often organized into policies. As such, policies may refer either to the current operation of the socio-economic order or to action designed to execute planned change to the existing order. They can, therefore, be directed towards either reinforcing or transforming the international status quo.13 [italics in original]
This strikes at the root: managed global change. If fits within Mikhail Gorbachev’s greater vision. As the former President of the Soviet Union wrote in 2000, “New approaches are needed, new orientations in both thought and action. We must make the transition to a new [global] civilization.”14
To see how propaganda for a “new civilization” is unfolding in our modern context, we need to review examples of directed transition. Many exist; however, we will only examine one very small segment of one very large movement.
The Greening of PSYOPS
For decades the international community and like-minded environmental lobby groups have demanded massive changes in how our world operates. This includes not only economic and political restructuring, but also the reshaping of individual beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Therefore, a new global ethic is being advanced; one that embraces a neo-pagan worldview with an ethos built on strategic embellishments. And, not surprising, youth and education are top of the agenda.
Consider the following quotes, all from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), a prestigious environmental body operating in global governance circles. Note: the IISD is a private governmental organization, a government-funded organ that has the public appearance of autonomy yet is designed to forward national and international policy recommendation and decisions, paid for, in large part, by tax dollars.15
When reading the material from the IISD, watch for elements of PSYOPS aimed at national and global values change, and the means to achieving this transformation. The propaganda isn’t hard to see. Some especially audacious quotes may have to be read a couple of times to catch the full flavor.
During any ‘issue-attention-cycle’ in environmental campaigning, there is a phase in which the issue needs to be strategically exaggerated in order to establish it firmly on an agenda for action.16
Education has been advanced as significant in bringing about changes in attitudes, behaviour, beliefs and values… In order to redirect behaviour and values towards institutional change for sustainable development there is a need to investigate strategic options in relation to educational philosophies, scope for propagation and adoption, and groups most likely to be susceptible to change.17
…a new way of doing things is clearly required. Education and training goals need to be redefined and criteria of success measured in terms of advancement to the next level… A shift needs to take place: in approach, from teaching to learning; in the parameters of learning, from the confines of the classroom or training centre to elements of the socio-cultural, political and environmental contexts; and in method, from responsive or worse, passive, to proactive and participatory.18
Young people are also well positioned to push for change. Most are significantly less dependent on the economic system, which allows them room to protest. Their protests are more readily accepted as sincere and unselfishly motivated as compared to those coming from other sectors of society. As products of education and social engineering and as the inheritors of the planet, they have a right to be heard. Being linked together by educational institutions, ideas easily flourish and take root.19
…it is said that if the world is to really change, then the inspiration for that change cannot come from the modern society based on Western economic, social and political ideology. The inspiration has to come from those who see the world and its people in its holistic beauty and not from people who have internalized the material, individualistic and violent values that society has acquired through history. As youth, it is our struggle to free ourselves from the indoctrination of modern society…20
The task of education for the immediate future is to assist in activating an ethic of planetary sensitivity that will assist us in practicing disciplines that protect us from the allurements of our morbid commodity culture… We have to completely revise our western understanding of what it is to be an inhabitant of the planet Earth, our human story and the western story; for indeed our new situation reveals the true reality of what we have been doing.21
We must pass from a human-centred to an earth-centred sense of reality and value. We now must recognize the larger earth community, and not the human community, as normative as regards [to] reality and value.22
Finally, the IISD suggests that a part of the educational process of global sustainable change requires that the target group is “to feel like masters of their own thinking.”23
Classic PSYOPS.
Dealing with Propaganda
It appears that wherever one turns, an intentional slant exists to challenge and change your core values. As Peter Kenez writes, “…to rail against propaganda is useless, for it is an integral part of the modern world.”24
How, then, do we safeguard against PSYOPS/propaganda and other information deception tactics – primarily when dealing with social change paradigms?
One way is to ask reflective questions; is there a challenge to my values, attitudes, and beliefs in what I am seeing, hearing, or experiencing? What is the challenge based on, and how is the message prompting me to reorder my principles? How does the information I am receiving stand-up when measured against logic, history, and well considered and verifiable knowledge? Do subtler and deeper agendas crop up when researching the surface intent of the message? Is the message and meaning of the information inducing me to conform my behavior towards accepting or rejecting a particular agenda, product, or process?
It’s not always easy spotting a well-designed PSYOPS/propaganda package. But the above questions help in formulating the critical analysis needed. As Joseph W. Caddell, writing for the US Army War College, asserts “A comprehensive methodology for dealing with deception will never be written. It is a nebulous and ever changing field of virtually infinite proportions.”25
Nevertheless, Caddell, chiefly writing to a military audience, does offer some basic building blocks in the battle against deception.
The more that you know about your adversaries and about the events which are unfolding, the better prepared you will be to combat deception… Never rely on a limited number of sources of information or a limited number of collection methodologies. The more sources one knows, the harder it is for someone to manipulate information out of context. The more one knows, the more likely one will detect a fabrication.
Knowledge should also include knowledge about oneself. Recognize the biases and assumptions one, one’s organization, and one’s culture possesses. Beware of ‘mirror imaging’ – anytime one assumes that others will behave in a way similar to oneself, one is opening the door to self-deception.26
If this seems elementary, it is — but understanding basics is essential. The technologies and tools that deliver the message are always changing, but the fundamental concepts remain. After all, the art and science of propaganda is as old as the act of lying and manipulation.
Caddell reinforces this assertion. In discussing the seemingly simple countermeasures to deception, such as knowledge and sound analysis, he closes with this remark,
“These observations may seem self-evident to even a casual student of deception. Therefore, one might wonder why these obvious statements need repeating. The answer is simple. In successful deception operations, the perpetrator hopes that one or several of these self-evident observations will be over looked.”27
Endnotes:
Aristotle, Politics, Book VIII, Part 1. An online version of this book exists under the domain of the MIT Internet Classics Archive. See Aristotle’s quote at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.8.eight.html.
Brian Nichiporuk and Carl H. Builder, “Societal Implications,” In Athena’s Camp: Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age (Santa Monica: RAND/National Defense Research Institute, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1997), p.295.
Peter Kenez, The Birth of the Propaganda State: Soviet Methods of Mass Mobilization, 1917-1929 (Cambridge University Press, 1985), p.4.
Issued on the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff (Canadian Department of National Defence), Mobile Command Headquarters, Psychological Operations – First Draft, CFP 315(5), 1988, p.1.1.
Ibid, p.1.3.
Ibid, p.3.14/3.15.
Kevin Avruch, James L. Narel, and Pascale Combelles Siegel, Information Campaigns for Peace Operations (DoD C4ISR Cooperative Research Program/Command and Control Research Program, 2000), p.14.
Kenez, The Birth of the Propaganda State, p.2.
Joseph W. Caddell, Deception 101 – Primer on Deception (Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2004), p.5.
David E. Powell, Antireligious Propaganda in the Soviet Union: A Study of Mass Persuasion (MIT Press, 1975), p.1.
Ibid, p.5.
Ibid, p.6.
Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome (E.P. Dutton, 1976), p.100.
Mikhail Gorbachev, On My Country and the World (Columbia University Press, 2000), p.73.
For a history of the IISD, including early Canadian federal and Manitoba provincial support, see IISD Timeline, www.iisd.org/about/timeline.asp [Note: this link is no longer functional, but remains in this endnote as it stands when this article was first published]. To view IISD government funding from Canadian sources and other governments, including the United States and European nations, see the IISD annual report for 2005-2006. Tabulated Canadian tax-generated funds given to the IISD since its inception in 1990 runs into the tens of millions. IISD annual reports going back to 1996 are located at the IISD website. The author of this article also has hard copies of the annual reports prior to 1996.
Robin Mearns, “Environmental Entitlements: Towards Empowerment for Sustainable Development,” Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Toward Operational Strategies (International Institute for Sustainable Development/Fernwood Publishing, 1995), p.51.
Naresh Singh and Vangile Titi, “Empowerment for Sustainable Development: An Overview,” Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Toward Operational Strategies, p.27.
Gretchen Goodale, “Training in the Context of Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development,” Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Toward Operational Strategies, p.83.
Youth Sourcebook on Sustainable Development (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1994), p.60.
Ibid, p.79.
Budd Hall and Edmund Sullivan, “Transformative Education and Environmental Action in the Ecozoic Era,” Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Toward Operational Strategies, p.102.
Ibid, pp.102-103.
Naresh Singh and Vangile Titi, Empowerment for Sustainable Development, p.19.
Kenez, The Birth of the Propaganda State, p.4.
Caddell, Deception 101, p.15.
Ibid, pp.15-16.
Ibid, p.16.