On the methods of information warfare

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

All Soviet history in its current official interpretation is based not on facts, but on interpretations.

A classic example is the literary activity of the fugitive traitor Vladimir Rezun, who writes under the pseudonym "Viktor Suvorov".

In fact, there is a well-founded opinion that the concept of a preventive war of Nazi Germany against the USSR was not developed by Rezun, but is the result of the collective work of propaganda war specialists from the British SIS.

But in this case, the authorship of the doctrine is not at all important, it is important to understand the principles on which it is based.

So, Rezun is broadcasting that Stalin, they say, was going to infect the whole world with the communist plague, and for this he unleashed a common European war in order to attack Germany at a convenient moment. But Hitler got ahead of him and, at the cost of the German Empire he created and his own life, saved humanity from the red infection. Therefore, the USSR lost the Second World War, because the goals that Stalin pursued were not achieved and tens of millions of lives were given in vain in the name of an antihuman Marxist utopia.

In this case, a completely virtual event - the preparation of the USSR for the invasion of Europe on a titanic scale. The evidence presented by Rezun in favor of his doctrine is extremely speculative and completely absurd. Only because of this his concept looks harmonious, that the speculative postulates are based on speculative reasoning.+

For example, Rezun considers the fact that the Red Army was saturated with offensive weapons before the war, not defensive weapons, as evidence of aggressive Soviet intentions - a good third of his writings are devoted to substantiating this thesis. This is such an absurd argument that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFY IT.

Well, there is no classification of weapons as defensive and offensive! Imagine that the soldiers, repelling the attack of the enemy, do not rush after the retreating enemy, but sit in the trenches. The company commander, having heard the swear words of the angry battalion commander on the phone, rebuffs him with a murderous argument: they say, it is impossible to counterattack, the cartridges with which we are shooting are defensive, and the offensive cartridges have not been delivered yet.

Tanks according to Rezun are a purely offensive weapon. Why, then, did the Germans build a record number of tanks in 1944, when they did not attack anywhere and did not even plan? The pre-war regulations of the Red Army, they say, were based on offensive tactics, which clearly demonstrates the aggressive aspirations of the Soviets. Let me tell you a secret: in all the combat manuals of all the armies of the world at all times, the offensive was determined by the main method of combat operations. Any defense is understood exclusively as a stage of preparation for an offensive.

The division of weapons into defensive and offensive exists only in Rezun's imagination, but this illness of the mind tends to be transmitted through reading his books. Yes, so far the mass consciousness is not ready to accept the idea that the USSR lost the Second World War, despite the fact that the rezunist sect has acquired a mass of adherents in Russia.

But this is only for now. For example, the fact that the Finnish war was lost by the Soviet Union is hardly disputed anymore. There was a war, but the Soviet defeat in it - virtual parasitic growth on historical realitygradually replacing reality in consciousness. It's only strange that the Finnish winners have signed the peace on the terms of the vanquished, abandoning part of its territory in favor of the USSR. And the losses attributed to the Red Army are virtual.

The assertion that stupid Russians who do not know how to fight, they say, have lost more soldiers than were in the entire Finnish army, smacks of monstrous insanity. Especially considering that at the first stage of the campaign, the most successful for the Finns, they had a numerical superiority over the Soviet troops. A third of the official Soviet losses are missing. Where could they disappear if the battlefield remained behind the Red Army, and the theater of military operations itself was very small? Most likely, the missing are virtual losses. +

Collectivization is a very fertile ground for creating a false historical alternative.

Why was collectivization carried out in the countryside in general? Its sole purpose was to mechanize agriculture, which made it possible, Firstly, significantly increase labor productivity and, Secondly, free up millions of hands for industry.

After the revolution, the land, being state, was transferred to the use of the peasants. But the peasant, owning a small allotment, could not buy a tractor or a combine. Moreover, he did not need them.

The kulaks, which appeared en masse after the peasantry acquired land, could theoretically create a demand for agricultural machinery, but in practice for this it was necessary to physically liquidate the multimillion peasant mass and create a layer of small farmers. In conditions of land scarcity and poverty of the main peasant mass, it was much more profitable for a kulak to hire a dozen laborers to plow a field than to buy a tractor. And who will serve him in the village?

Only collective farms could create real demand for agricultural machinery, and only because of this they were created. But do historians talk about this? No, they tell horror stories that the tyrant Stalin needed the collective farms in order to break the back of the Russian peasantry, turn free farmers into serfs, squeeze all the juice out of the village, etc. They say it was difficult to take grain from each individual household. It is much easier to assign a plan to the collective farm and clean up the grain from the collective farm barn, and to appoint the chairman of the collective farm responsible, who can always be shot if the grain procurement plan is not fulfilled.

To make the horrors of serfdom faded against the background of collective farm slavery, historians give nightmarish details. They say that the passports of the peasants were taken away, and they could not leave the village anywhere. Actually exactly at this time, tens of millions of peasants moved to cities, entered universities, became workers, officials, generals and cultural workers … And the lack of passports did not prevent them from doing so.

Moreover, no one took the passports of the poor collective farmers, because they did not have them as they were completely unnecessary. It was in tsarist times that a peasant could not leave the district without straightening his passport, for without a document he was considered a fugitive slave. And in the USSR, no one restricted the movement of citizens around the country.

But historians, like real shamans, bring themselves to a hysterical state, describing the horrors of the nightmare famine, which, they say, claimed millions of lives (in the number of millions who died, historians disagree, calling numbers from 3 to 15 million). Ukro-historians are record-holders in this sense - they estimate the official number of victims of the genocide of the Ukrainian peasantry organized by the Muscovites at nine million souls, adjusting this figure depending on the gas prices set by Gazprom.

Where is the virtual historical bubble here? Collectivization was, and not always the peasants, very conservative by their very nature, enthusiastically accepted such radical changes in the way of rural life. And there was hunger too. Where there is hunger, there are diseases and an increase in mortality. But there was no mass pestilence caused by hunger. And even more so, it is impossible to link hunger with collectivization.

Mass collectivization began in 1929. In 1930, after the well-known Stalinist article "Dizzy with Success", the practice of administrative-violent collectivization was suspended, and even temporarily there was an outflow of peasants from collective farms. The emphasis was placed on economic methods to stimulate peasants to join collective farms. And the famine allegedly took place three or four years later after the highly conflicted 29th.

One can talk about the causes of hunger for a long time, but we are not interested in the famine itself in the countryside - a phenomenon for the beginning of the 20th century. completely ordinary, and its consequences - were there millions dead or not? If there was a mass death, then there must be mass graves. Archaeologists find mass graves of the 12th and 15th centuries, and they confidently determine the cause of the pestilence - whether it was the plague, cholera, or the townspeople died of hunger during a long siege. It would seem that there should be no problems with evidence of the Holodomor. But no, not a single mass grave of old people and children who died from starvation was found in Ukraine.+

The situation is similar to the Holocaust myth. No matter how many historians yelled about the millions of Jews killed in concentration camps, not a single mass grave of Holocaust victims can be found. And even the victims themselves are impersonal - no names, no place of residence. Mass graves of Red Army soldiers who died in concentration camps are abundant, but no one has yet managed to dig up at least ten thousand typically Semitic skulls in one place.

Actually, they are not looking for them. And if someone tries to pick Jewish graves, then the Jews themselves raise a wild horror. Say, Yahweh categorically forbids disturbing the ashes of the deceased. Don't you dare! This, for example, happened in Poland, when the authorities set out to exhume the bodies of the murdered inhabitants of the ghetto in Jedwabne.

Holocaust propagandists claim that local residents beat to death with shovels and burned two thousand sons of God's chosen people alive in a barrack. And they will be very upset if not two thousand, but only a hundred skeletons are dug out of the ground.

In addition to the burials of the famine-mongers, there must be documents certifying the fact of mass mortality. There are papers that speak of hunger (not only in the countryside, but also in cities); there are documents that testify to the provision of assistance to the starving. But historians do not cite any documentary sources allowing to draw conclusions about millions of deaths from hunger.

Recently in Ukraine they began to publish books of memory with lists of victims of the Holodomor, and then a scandal happened - it turned out that in some cases, voter lists were published as such, and even living citizens were among the victims of the Moscow "holocaust".

In general, an amazing thing - all the books about the Holodomor were written in the USA and Canada in the 60-70s of the last century on the basis of the oral stories of several "miraculously surviving eyewitnesses."

True, the Holodomor was not invented by the Americans, and not even by Ukrainian emigrants, and Dr. Goebbels. In 1941, a propaganda campaign was carried out in Ukraine, the highlight of which was the accusation of the Jewish Bolsheviks of starving seven million Ukrainian peasants to death, but this action was not successful and was quickly curtailed.

Today's Ukrainian historians are mentally weak, they are not able to come up with new horror stories, and therefore they brazenly steal ideas from Goebbels, only the number of victims of the Stalinist genocide is adjusted upward. This is understandable - in 1941 it was difficult to convince people that eight years ago there was a massive pestilence in front of their eyes. And now you can safely lie - there are practically no contemporaries of those events.

Historians cannot abolish industrialization, because all the industrial giants that exist in the Russian Federation were built in Soviet times (after the collapse of the USSR, only the de-industrialization of the country takes place). But here, too, they strive to screw everything up. In any newspaper article, in any TV show, for one word “industrialization” there are three or four mentions of the words “Gulag”, “slave labor”, “millions of prisoners”, on whose bones, they say, the industrial might of the country rests. Any schoolchild today is firmly convinced that convicts worked at all shock construction sites of socialism, and in general, all labor in the country was exclusively compulsory. But this army of slaves, which made the Soviet Union an industrial power, turns out to be completely virtual in reality.

In 1940 the population of the country was 193 million people (by the way, despite the First World War, the Civil War, the famine in the Volga region of 1921 and the "Holodomor" of the 33rd, the population increased by more than 30 million souls in comparison with 1913). There were 1.2 million citizens in the Gulag, including exiled settlers who worked without a vokhra and who were serving a sentence at their place of residence without imprisonment (25% of their earnings were withheld in favor of the state). Total in "slaves" can be written on the strength of 0.5% of the country's population. True, under the terrible Stalinist regime, even prisoners worked for money, participated in socialist competition and received orders for outstanding achievements. But historians prefer to keep silent about this..+

But they are very fond of talking about the terrible Stalinist repressions that claimed millions of lives (for some reason, the number of millions taken away is not specified). The word "repression" is pronounced so often that the poor man in the street does not understand at all what it is about when historians keep talking about the "repressive Stalinist regime."

Repression is a punishment applied by the state. Any state is an instrument of repression. If the traffic police inspector imposes a speeding ticket on you, then you are subject to reprisals. Today, almost a million citizens of the Russian Federation are imprisoned - more per capita than under Stalin's "tyranny" … But it never occurs to anyone to groan about the repressive "Putin-Medvedev regime" that has eclipsed the horrors of the Gulag.

The question is whether the repression of the 1930s was legal. As you know, in 1939 at the initiative of the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs Beria was revised according to various sources from 120 to 350 thousand criminal cases of the period of Yezhovism. This does not mean that a third of a million people have been found not guilty. For many, sentences were only commuted. I admit that the percentage of innocent convicts reached 5% or even 10% of this number, and even half.

And this is called the "Great Terror"? True, historians are trying to present the case in such a way that the insidious Stalin initiated not just illegal repression, but repression on a political basis. There were repressions. And political repression took place. But why are they called illegal? +

To understand what illegal political repression means, try going out into the street with a poster "Down with Democracy!" Count how many minutes you can use your constitutional right to expression, freedom of thought and speech. When riot police kick you in the kidneys with boots, and the court solders a couple of years probation for extremism (be glad that not 12 years of strict regime for inciting a violent change of the constitutional order) - then you can proudly consider yourself illegally repressed for political reasons.

And in the 30s for the slogan "Down with Soviet power" the term was hanged quite legally, because anti-Soviet propaganda was banned. Don't like such harsh laws? So that's another question. From the point of view of the public in the Netherlands, giving five years of "stricter" for smoking weed is barbaric cruelty. But on this basis, it cannot be argued that 50% of all our convicts, who are chased under the notorious 228th article, were convicted illegally. Therefore, we can summarize: illegal political repression, which took the lives of millions of convicts, is a virtual outgrowth on the real history of Soviet law.

The expression "phantom history" supporters of the concept of New chronology denote a reflection of real events that arose during an erroneous shift on the chronological scale due to incorrect dating of ancient chronicles. Phantom - in Greek phantasma - a vision, a ghost. It is quite possible that the description of the ancient Trojan War was a phantom reflection of the storming of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 or the capture of it by the Ottomans in 1453. It is quite possible to assume that the Scythians, Polovtsians, Sarmatians, Huns, Khazars, Pechenegs and Kipchaks are the same people or, more likely, a group of related tribes that lived in the Great Steppe at about the same time, but found in chronicles of different languages under different names.+

Is it possible to create a phantom history of recent events? Quite possible. But in this case, we are not talking about the erroneous interpretation of ancient sources, but about purposeful falsification. If someone is interested in specific technologies for creating historical phantoms, I recommend referring to my book "Secret Protocols, or Who Falsified the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" ("Algorithm", Moscow, 2009)

Are you surprised to think that it is impossible to falsify events of this magnitude? It is possible, and the technology is still the same - a virtual outgrowth is formed on a real event, which gradually absorbs reality in the mass historical consciousness. On August 23, 1939, a Soviet-German non-aggression pact was signed in Moscow, and not at all a pact, according to which the two powers allegedly cut Eastern Europe between themselves. This story was launched into propaganda by the American special services in 1946.

From the same opera, the falsification of the so-called Katyn case about the execution of 20 thousand captured Polish officers by the NKVD in April 1940. The Germans shot the Poles in the winter of 1941/42. In 1943, the corpses were dug up and announced that the brutal mass murder was committed by the Bolshevik Jews. To be more convincing, they published a list of Jewish executioners and organized excursions to the exhumation site.

And Goebbels, of course, fanned the scandal in full. Even his detailed instructions on how to cover this case and how to prevent the truth from leaking out - for example, to provide journalists with only well-trained “witnesses” from among the local residents, have even survived. The Gestapo trained witnesses, and these guys will train whoever you want. A detailed analysis of this falsification was carried out by Yuri Mukhin (see the books "The Katyn detective", "Anti-Russian meanness"), Vladislav Shved and Sergey Strygin ("The Secret of Katyn").

If the nonsense of historians, monstrous in scope, has a clear system, internal logic, then this is no longer nonsense. No matter how moronic the division of weapons into offensive and defensive may seem, this concept is formulated meaningfully and logically justified (even if the logic is purely speculative). A sick mind is not capable of this.

That is, we are dealing with deliberate manipulation. Constructing phantom perversions of real events is a task that requires remarkable mental abilities and deep knowledge of the material. I'm not even talking about how difficult it is to put into circulation the falsified documents on which the phantoms are based. Is it possible to assume that hundreds of historians will rave absolutely identically? No, we are not dealing with the antics of marginal writers, but with a targeted attack on the mind.

Many categorically refuse to admit this, claiming that a purposeful conspiracy against Russian history is impossible in principle. Say, the conspiracy theory is anti-scientific and delusional. And who is talking about some kind of conspiracy? These are fairy tales for impressionable inhabitants. We are talking about the use of a special weapon against the enemy, called conscientious. This concept has come into wide use recently and means a weapon that strikes consciousness (from the Latin conscient - consciousness).

However, the conscientious weapon has been used for a long time. Even Napoleon spoke of his great role: “Four newspapers can do more harm to the enemy than an army of one hundred thousand.”

In the past century, Hitler already attached strategic importance to propaganda operations to undermine the enemy's morale. The capture of Czechoslovakia without firing a single shot is the supreme success of the new military doctrine. Yes, the West surrendered the Czechoslovakians to Hitler, but what paralyzed the will of the Czechs and Slovaks themselves to resist? The Albanians were incomparably weaker than them, but they fought desperately against the Italians and Germans continuously throughout the war.

Distortion of history, deformation of historical consciousness are the most effective methods of consistent aggression. After all, tens of thousands of scientists, designers, engineers, technologists, workers, technicians, testers can work for twenty years to create and improve a combat fighter. Why is it that several hundred people cannot purposefully create and use a weapon that damages consciousness? After all, it allows you to solve the same tasks as military aviation, only through much lower material costs.

The problem is that the conscientious weapon works unnoticed. But this does not give a reason to deny the very fact of its application. After all, we do not see radiation, but it can kill a person very quickly. We don't see electricity, but it does exist. The same is with the conscientious weapon: we cannot see it, only the effect of its use is visible.

You can consider the effect of the impact of conscientious weapons on such an example. Any war is now being waged not only with military means, but also with such weapons as propaganda. When leaflets with a detailed description of the sweet life in captivity are scattered over the enemy's trenches, this is an example of propaganda. Here, the very moment of the use of propaganda weapons can be easily recorded and even objectively assessed its effectiveness - if after the scattering of leaflets in a given sector of the front, desertion increased by 12% - this is the effect of enemy propaganda.

Now imagine that even before the start of the war, the enemy bought a dozen TV channels and large newspapers in your country (what's the problem if you have a market and democracy?) hazing, that military equipment is outdated, etc.

Mothers will start to scare the army of adolescents who do not do well in school (if you don’t go to college, they will wander), the prestige of the armed forces in society will fall, the morale of soldiers who perceive service as punishment will not be at all fighting.

How much will such an army fight? There is no need to fantasize, just evaluate the results of the first Chechen war of 1994-1996. In this case, we are not dealing with the propaganda of Chechen separatists calling on snotty conscripts to surrender in order to save their lives, but with an example of a long-term propaganda influence on the consciousness of the entire society.

Skeptics will object to me that the fact of massive buying up of our media by the West did not take place in reality, and therefore I am speculating. But why should the abstract West buy up our media? It is enough for a Western bank to issue a loan to the owner of the TV channel, and you can turn it around as you like. And if you promise him American citizenship or an amnesty for exported capital (stolen credit), he will move mountains for the sake of "a can of jam and a pack of cookies."

The fact is that not only private, but also formally state-owned media held a pronounced pro-Western position in the 90s. After Putin's purge, the media radically changed their position on the Chechen issue. In this case, everything is clear - the new owner forced his subordinates to serve his interests - some with a whip, some with a carrot. But until that moment, did journalists express their own point of view and use “freedom of speech” to express their “civic position”? Of course not. But, as the famous song of Makarevich says, “just how sometimes it’s a shame that the owner is not visible …”. +

The main difference between conscientious weapons and primitive military propaganda is the camouflage of actions, and the very impact on the enemy's consciousness is not direct, but mediated. The fact that skeptics are unwilling to notice its impact is their problem.

Imagine this picture: a man walks across a field, suddenly his head cracks like a pumpkin and he falls dead to the ground. Someone claims: this cannot be the result of the action of an enemy sniper, because we did not hear the sound of a shot. Such a person simply does not know about the existence of silenced sniper rifles. And what do our skeptics know about the tactical and technical characteristics (TTX) of conscientious weapons in order to deny its very existence? This is one of the aspects of the TTX of the conscientious weapon I will now tell you about.

Recently, clever people often use the slang word "discourse" in their reasoning. But what it means, no one can really explain. Literally the Latin word discursus means running back and forth; movement, circulation; conversation, conversation.

As ironically noted in the encyclopedia "Krugosvet": "There is no clear and generally accepted definition of 'discourse' covering all cases of its use, and it is possible that this is what contributed to the wide popularity that this term has acquired over the past decades: various understandings connected by non-trivial relations successfully satisfy various conceptual needs, modifying more traditional ideas about speech, text, dialogue, style and even language."

Simply put, everyone is free to put into this word any meaning that he sees fit.

The term “discourse” has also found its place in the manipulation of mass consciousness. The best, in my opinion, its definition in the technologies of the formation of historical consciousness was given by the network publicist Magomed Ali Suleimanov: “Discourse is the opposition to a rigorous analysis of historical facts (concepts of development) not facts and arguments, but critical images and emotions. In this case, what matters is not what we know about the object, but how we relate to it."

Indeed, it does not matter what position you take in relation to discourse, you accept it unconditionally, or begin to argue with it. By adopting the very discursive formulation of the question, you have already lost. The quintessence of discourse is contained in just a few words.

Here is a classic example of a discourse expressed in the words “crimes of the communist regime”.

This discourse is filled with specific content depending on the situation. For example, if you are delivering a speech to the intelligentsia, then the introduction of discourse can begin with the words attributed to Lenin, about the fact that the intelligentsia is the shit of the nation. Next, you can immediately jump over to the theme of 1937 and moan that the damned communist regime deliberately destroyed the intelligentsia, so that it would be more convenient to push around cattle. If necessary, you can sing a song about the eradication of the peasantry, about how the damned Stalinists destroyed the flower of national science or wiped out the top of the Red Army before the war.

You can argue with the discourse about the "bloody Stalinist regime" to the point of losing your pulse. It can be convincingly proved with reference to archival materials that the tales of the millions of victims of the GULAG are the delirium of a madman; that 38 thousand retired commanders from the two-million Red Army in 1937-1939. (for length of service, for health, for misconduct) cannot be declared repressions, all the more so to say that the retirement of an elderly colonel causes catastrophic damage to the country's defense capability.

But even if you prove the theses of the discourse to be false, the discourse itself cannot be killed, because it exists outside of logic and all rational sense. It has long been exposed a lie about the shooting by the NKVD of captured Poles in Katyn. So what? In Poland, the discourse about Stalin's bestial hatred of the Poles did not suffer from this in the least. And set up a NATO crusade against Russia, the Poles will shoot Russian prisoners with the words: "Here's to you for Katyn, psya krev!" Try, standing at the wall, to explain to them that they are poisoned by the poison of anti-Russian propaganda.

It cannot be proved that the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop protocols did not exist (the absence of anything is impossible to prove at all). It is necessary to talk about the falsification of secret protocols - only this will put the manipulators in a vulnerable position.

Otherwise, a very sad picture turns out: moronic patriots, trying to cleanse themselves of accusations of collusion with Nazism, scream heart-rendingly: there was nothing reprehensible in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the countries of the West concluded much more disgusting agreements with Hitler.

For example, the Munich Agreement …. and further in the text. These idiots readily swallow the bait of discourse, and instead of discussing the fact, they try to change the attitude towards it. Morons can’t imagine that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact never existed, that it was pure discourse.

The enemies of Russia, operating with discourse, only rub their hands happily: here, they say, look - even Russian patriots admit the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. No one will hear the pitiful attempts to justify themselves, and even if they do, they will see nothing in them except attempts to justify.

Arguing with discourse is absolutely pointless. Discourse is a departure from the fact, from reality to the programming of consciousness. Even if it is possible to form a positive attitude towards lies - to the same mythical secret protocols of Molotov - Ribbentrop, then what will you achieve by this? A lie won't stop being a lie. Tomorrow, a more skilled manipulator will turn that lie against you again. But in general, discourse is initially constructed in such a way that the one against whom it is directed cannot use it to their advantage. It is like trying to swim against the turbulent current of a mountain river; but from above it is very convenient to send logs against you.

Discourse is a way of forming an attitude towards an object in the absence of the object itself. An image of a glass of vodka is created in your mind (this is a reason to declare you a pathological alcoholic). You can spend a lot of energy and convince you that the glass is not vodka, but apple juice. Can you quench your thirst with imaginary juice from a non-existent glass? That is why I say that there is no point in arguing with discourse. A wedge is knocked out like a wedge, but discourse cannot be defeated by another discourse.

You can protect your consciousness only by completely denying discourse as a method of thinking.… But for this one must learn to distinguish when the manipulator substitutes discourse for reality.

Here's the simplest trick. If they start broadcasting to you about the crimes of a bloody communist regime, imagine how absurd the phrase “crimes of a bloody democratic regime” sounds.

The democratically elected US President ordered the atomic bombing of several tens of thousands of peaceful Japanese people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Before that, 200,000 civilians in Tokyo were killed. A little earlier, one and a half million Germans were destroyed by carpet bombing of German cities.

These were not the costs of the war, but the deliberate massacre of the civilian population, committed despite the recognition by the murderers of various international conventions on the methods of warfare.