Ukrainian totalitarianism: there will be no peace? (Translated) Phoenix Program 2.0 and What I Fear Most.

This is a great video that offers glimpses into what happened in Ukraine, though, as always, I don’t agree with everything presented. While I don’t agree with it all, I do agree with much of it. Psychological manipulation and social engineering are subjects I am deeply interested in. I have written before that the most important war is the war for your mind! What the speaker describes here connects directly to my most recent post.

Douglas Valentine on the CIA as Organized Crime (must watch) and education: “Structural violence is the tool of the professional.”

The first part, where Valentine speaks about the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, especially connected to this video:

Tactical military intelligence is designed to determine where the enemy is and where they are going to be so that an attack can be launched against them. Early in the Vietnam War, if the military believed a village contained enemy soldiers, the situation often turned into a massacre. They would send in companies of men to wipe out everyone in the village, or they would deploy B-52 bombers to destroy the area entirely.

By 1967, when the Phoenix Program was instituted, officials realized that these horrific operations were failing to win the 'hearts and minds' of the villagers or build support for the government. The Phoenix Program was implemented as a way to bypass large-scale military operations that utterly destroyed villages. Instead, they shifted toward psychological warfare and targeted terror.

This new approach involved bringing individuals into interrogation centers or sabotaging their livelihoods. For example, the CIA might inform a school administrator that an employee supported the Viet Cong, leading to that person being fired and left in poverty. Much like how people in the United States may avoid political action for fear of losing their jobs, the Phoenix Program used economic and social pressure to terrorize the population. They employed a vast array of these tactics to maintain control; that was the fundamental design of the Phoenix Program.

We must remember that the Phoenix Program started in 1967 and was quite primitive then. Considering they never stopped these practices, imagine the advancements made in such operations today. What occurred in Ukraine after 2014 was a modern version of the Phoenix Program, with social media serving as one of its most vital tools.

While we are constantly told that we have freedom of speech, what is often omitted is that freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of reach. You may be allowed to say or write whatever you want, but what does it matter if they ensure no one sees or hears it? You end up communicating into a void. Algorithms on social media decide what will be seen; they are curated rather than based on what is most popular.

Why ban someone outright if you can shadow ban them to ensure their posts or videos are never seen? This is not a new phenomenon. People I respect - such as Michael Parenti, Douglas Valentine, Gary Webb, and Peter Dale Scott - had their work suppressed for years. It didn't matter if they could write books if no one would publish them. Today, because of the internet, they can no longer suppress speech through publishing houses as they once did, so they achieve the same result through algorithms.

I’ve gone on a bit of a rant again, and I don't want this post to be too long, so let me get back to the main point.

Here is the corrected version of your text with improved grammar, punctuation, and flow, while maintaining your original meaning and perspective:

My Disagreement with the Author

While I really like this video and find it very informative, I do not agree with everything the author says. My primary disagreement lies in his blaming of the Ukrainians themselves for what has happened. I believe the author reached this conclusion because he does not fully understand the human mind.

For me, Nazi Germany is the greatest example of this; Germany was a highly intellectual nation with a high level of culture, yet we saw what happened during World War II. Unlike some, I do not blame the German people themselves because I understand how the human mind works and the extent to which it can be manipulated. I have written many times that if I had to point to the subject I am most interested in and knowledgeable about, it is the human mind, which I have studied through philosophy, psychology, and behaviorism. Studying these subjects helps one understand how many of the things we believe to be our own thoughts and decisions are not truly ours. Realizing this is the first step toward freeing your mind.

Nazi Germany serves as a significant case study because, just as in that era, most people today do not know what is happening or what is being done in their name. The same applies to Ukraine and, to a lesser but growing extent, Israel - which, in my opinion, is much further along in its indoctrination. The population of Nazi Germany was very similar to that of Israel today and, to a lesser extent, Ukraine, which is simply in the earlier stages of the same indoctrination process.

This is why I disagree with the author’s claim that it is the Ukrainians' fault. Unlike others, I do not blame the Germans for what happened in Nazi Germany, nor the Israelis for what Israel is doing. The author also claims that external forces are not to blame, which I believe is incorrect. He likely thinks this way only because he has not studied things like the Phoenix Program or the extent of the MKUltra program. I have written about these topics in many of my posts, but since I am a "nobody," people often don't believe me. Therefore, I would like to present a video by Professor Jiang, as I know he is currently popular.

I agree with much of what Professor Jiang says, and his analysis is very similar to mine, though we do differ in some areas. In my opinion, the mistake Professor Jiang makes is implementing too much ideology - for instance, I think the "Osiris" material is wrong. However, I agree with him regarding psychologists. I have argued with people who defend the profession, but in my view, it is scary how little most psychologists actually know about the human mind. Instead of helping, they often make things worse.

For anyone who thinks my talk about MKUltra is foolish because I lack status, perhaps you will take Professor Jiang seriously. He says similar things to what I have been writing for a long time. Unfortunately, it often doesn't matter if you are right; it only matters if you have authority. Since I am not a professor, my words are often dismissed, so perhaps you will listen to him instead:

So, while I don’t agree with everything Professor Jiang says, he shares my views on the extent of the MKUltra program and the reality of human manipulation. He also shares my view that much of modern psychology is nonsense. I am obsessed with understanding exactly how propaganda and psychological manipulation work and how they created this "world of the naive." Only by understanding the exact methods they use can we hope to stop them.

I suspect the author of the main video does not understand the extent to which people can be manipulated, which is why he blames the Ukrainians and undermines the role of external influence. All those nationalist hooligans who terrorize people are only able to do so because of external financing. This funding allows them to skip traditional work and instead focus on exercising influence over the population, while their wealth attracts others to join them. This entire nationalist, fascistic indoctrination could only happen because of external support and financing.

What I Fear Most

Understanding the extent to which people can be manipulated does more than just stop you from blaming common people; it makes you realize that your own society could be next. If you believe, as the author of the video does, that what happened is the Ukrainians' fault, you might falsely assume you have nothing to worry about because your society isn't like theirs. I would point again to Nazi Germany: the German population was highly educated and cultured, yet that did not stop the indoctrination that took hold there.

What I fear most is the current rise of Islamophobia in the West. In my opinion, this is being intentionally stoked in the same way Russophobia was stoked in Ukraine. I believe this is a "psyop" (psychological operation). While I am not saying there are no individuals within the Muslim population who are problematic or evil, I am saying that this friction is being intentionally engineered by the ruling oligarchy.

Our rulers control the algorithms. In my view, they feed the Muslim population content about "cleansing infidels" from Europe, while simultaneously feeding the native Western population content claiming that Muslims want to rape their daughters. Consider this: the forum TheDuran is suppressed and inaccessible in Poland, yet videos of imams calling for Jihad and the cleansing of Europe are often left unblocked. Why is that?

My research suggests that one of the most important tools for controlling a population is the creation of an internal enemy. In Nazi Germany, it was the Jews; in Israel, it is the Muslims; in Ukraine, it was the Russians. Because the Russian threat does not scare the broader European population the same way it scared Ukrainians, a different enemy is needed. If an internal enemy does not exist, one must be conjured.

I do not believe the immigration crises in the U.S. and the EU were mistakes; I believe they were designed. A friend of mine suggested that the Chinese or Arabs are importing people to implode the West from within, but I disagree. I believe our own leaders are doing this intentionally to create the fear and psychosis which is necessary to manipulate us. They create laws that benefit foreigners at the cost of the native population to create resentment, and they fail to prosecute crimes of foreigners to deepen that anger. Everything happening in the West seems designed to make us hate foreigners, specifically Arabs and Muslims.

Later, this manufactured hate and fear will be used just as the fear of Russians was used in Ukraine. You will see groups of hooligans attacking Muslims, and people will cheer for it, just as nationalist hooligans attacked Russian-speaking Ukrainians. This hatred will then be used to manipulate Westerners into sending their children to the Middle East to "protect" the West from a "Muslim Caliphate," when the true goal is controlling Middle Eastern resources.

In the end, citizens will be asked: "Why don't you want to send your children to fight in the Middle East? Do you want a Caliphate established here?" This mirrors the situation in Ukraine, where people are asked: "Why don't you want to send your children to fight in the Dombass, Pokrovs or wherever?Do you want the Russians to establish Muscovite rule?" When you see tragedies, like an individual driving a car into a crowd in Germany, I do not believe it is a natural occurrence; I believe it is by design. Our rulers have full surveillance; they know everything. Do you truly think these things could happen if they didn't want them to? By radicalizing people through specific content and ensuring they aren't stopped, they create the "threat" they need.

Even the Bondi Beach shooting is a most obvious example: why would extremists attack a country like Australia when it was supporting Palestine instead of attacking a country which supports Israel and is against Palestine? In the end, it pushed Australia back toward Israel. There are Israeli documents suggesting that stoking Islamophobia is a key strategy for changing public opinion. If you fall for this manipulation, you are doing exactly what they want you to do.

The way people speak about Muslims now, and the resentment that has been so carefully cultivated, truly scares me. What happened in Ukraine is not the fault of the people, and we may end up just like Nazi Germany or the current state of Israel. Eventually, you will be told: "Give up your rights so we can protect you. If you don't, you must want the 'Evil Muslims' to win."

I will end it here thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

“The only difference between you and the children in Brave New World—who are conditioned to hate flowers, beautiful things, and books—is that your conditioning is happening while you are wide awake. Or is it? Is the current lifestyle of the consumer, in fact, a kind of waking dream?

What Huxley understands only too well are the conditions under what we might call "late capitalism"—in other words, the neoliberal capitalist societies we inhabit today. Huxley realized that in an economy defined by consumption, where advertising serves as the primary form of behavioral conditioning, everyone will remain perfectly passive as long as their needs and their wants are conflated in their own minds.

That is very much the world we are living in. You don’t need to be a Marxist to understand that you have become a victim of commodity fetishism; you simply need to recognize that you have been conditioned to be conditioned. I think that is the real genius of the dystopic future Huxley summons in Brave New World: it is a world where there is no strife and no angst, because every desire is manufactured and immediately satisfied.”

― Will Self

“Needs and their wants are conflated in their own minds.” Wants are infinite, whereas needs are finite. As long as we perceive our wants as needs, we will be perpetually distracted—chasing infinite desires under the illusion that they are necessities.

“Orwell made one error when looking into the future: he thought that the act of "fatal compression" would happen through the elimination of lexical elements—the words themselves. What we have seen instead is that you can achieve the same power of thought control and language compression—and with it, the elimination of argument—through the compression of speech.

We live in the age of social media and platforms like Twitter, where we have seen in the most frightening way possible that the only people who can manipulate these means effectively are those with an autocratic or authoritarian vision. You may have heard of a leading politician who uses Twitter exclusively as his means of communication precisely because the limited number of characters—our own "Newspeak"—makes it impossible to have what is essential to liberal democracy: a developed argument. In a true democracy, one provides a premise, then evidence, and then a revision. On these platforms, however, all you can do is make an authoritarian assertion, and all you can do in return is make a counter-assertion. In the act of making that counter-assertion, you yourself necessarily subscribe to the nature of authoritarian discourse. There is no way to have an extended, reasoned argument on Twitter; you can merely have a shouting match. This is exactly what Orwell understood: the corruption of language leads to the impossibility of real political argument.

The second thing Orwell understood, which he projects forward to us beyond the specific details of 1984, was the power of hatred. More subtly and potently, he understood how the power of hatred depends on the manipulation of memory. We must always have another "other" to hate—whether it is Eastasia, Eurasia, Islam, or the "bad hombres" coming across the border. It is essential to the authoritarian imagination that the "proles"—the "Epsilons" of whom Orwell speaks—are focused on a threatening "other" rather than on the powers that be or the structure of power itself.

This is only possible if the past itself becomes meaningless. We can only effectively shift the object of our rage and fear if we no longer have a reliable grasp on our own history. At one moment in 1984, Winston is sure he has seen a newspaper photograph of three purged Inner Party members who are now "non-persons" and supposedly never existed. He is convinced that if he can only share this information—this simple fact that there was a past where things actually happened in a specific way, and not merely how authority decrees—he can hold onto his sanity and his sense of self. Yet, even with his beloved Julia, the woman for whom he has risked everything, he cannot convey how essential it is to have a secure grasp of what once happened.”

― Adam Gopnik

For me, that “newspaper photograph” was, for years, the truth about 9/11. As long as I “can only share this information—this simple fact that there was a past where things actually happened in a specific way, and not merely how authority decrees,” I “can hold onto” my “sanity and” my “sense of self.”

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one… Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture… In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.” — Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

They were both right at the same time.

Orwell feared the banning of books (relevant information). Huxley feared that there would be no reason to ban a book because no one would want to read one. Today, we are drowning in a sea of irrelevance (irrelevant information and entertainment), while simultaneously, the truth is concealed from us (through censorship and propaganda). We are captive to a culture of triviality. We are controlled by the infliction of pleasure (entertainment, money, status, etc.) and, at the same time, by the infliction of pain and punishment—as seen with figures like Julian Assange or Gary Webb who sought to provide us with relevant information.