Russia’s War Against Psy-Ops is Our War – Part I: The Empire or Us

Russia’s War Against Psy-Ops is Our War – Part I: The Empire or Us

This is the first of a series of short essays exploring the relationships between the rise of the Psy-Op State, Covid-19, and NATO’s proxy war against the Russian Federation.

The series will highlight psychological operations (psy-ops) in both, the forces driving them, and their implications.  It is hoped that a synthesis of the common foundations of the falsehoods behind the Covid and Ukraine psy-ops can lead to more effective action by concerned citizens to protect health, national sovereignty, liberty and survival.

As resistance has grown to CDC, FDA, and WHO corruption, the Covid 19 pandemic—rightly characterized by a few perceptive thought leaders at its outset as a “plandemic”– has been revealed as a psy-op—a costly, well-planned deception aggrandizing the few, exploiting many, strengthening government’s power to manufacture consent, and further corrupting the civil institutions upon which a complex society depends for survival.  It is a prime example of what the writer James Sebastian McClurg has called a “paradigm-shifting operation.”

Just as the false narratives and hidden agendas of the Covid event were coming to light, an even more serious psy-op appeared, to imprint a false interpretation of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.  A bloody-shirt campaign was rolled out against Vladimir Putin’s Russia to justify a NATO response to the supposedly unprovoked war raging in Ukraine.  Incompatible facts and alternative interpretations were suppressed, as if none existed.  All memories of US invasions and atrocities—including those still currently underway– were wiped clean by the hypnotically imprinted message of Putin as Enemy.

That the campaign was a psy-op and not a rational argument for military assistance is apparent in the emotional appeals of the messages and the absence of any weighing of the national interests at stake.  There was no questioning of the importance of our maintaining world hegemony.  The messages included copious references to Russia’s gross inferiority to the U. S. (which would imply we are not endangered); to Putin’s alleged personal financial corruption (also not a threat to the US or a reason for war); his unpopularity at home (despite Gallup Poll evidence to the contrary), his physical illness and fragility in power (highly unsubstantiated, and irrelevant to whether foreign intervention was justified)—as if any of these, if true, would justify sending billions worth of weapons to stoke conflict in Europe.  Until irrevocable steps had been taken there was no mainstream discussion of the costs and risks to America of embarking on an all-out campaign to destabilize Russia—despite our recent debacles in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq.  The campaign quickly expanded to include videos that appeared to show Russian atrocities against women and children, and evidence of Russian military defeats and humiliations.

The provenance of the atrocity photos was rarely questioned, and the evidence of defeats was based on the assumptions of Ukrainian or U. S. analysts without knowledge of actual Russian plans.  Nevertheless, in a time of impending financial crisis, both political parties joined in voting for military support to Ukraine.  For two months (until one week after a $40 billion arms aid bill was approved), the media were full of claims that the courageous Ukrainians were defeating the Russians, and that sanctions on Russia were likely topple Putin from power.   Only a few months later, almost all this “evidence” was debunked.  Russia had been effectively banished forever from Europe.

The Ukraine and Covid events have much in common, but one major difference is that in the Covid episode, there was no state actor opposing the official narrative.  In the conflict between NATO and Russia over the Ukraine, a powerful state actor, committed to defending its sovereignty, was involved.  (The Ukrainian government also invoked sovereignty, despite its having been installed by a U. S.-funded “color revolution.”)  In contrast, In the Covid operation, at the outset only isolated individuals resisted the demand for compliance with lockdowns, mandates, and vaccinations.  Even now in June 2022, no major party or government, no mainstream publication has completely rejected the official narrative.

At this writing, Russia is winning the war in Ukraine, and Western Europe is just starting to see the consequences of following the US lead in imposing sanctions.  But in the Covid War, it is not yet clear whether human rights will survive in their struggle against a new paradigm of tyranny.  The outcome of the Covid War may depend upon the war currently being fought in the Ukraine.

How can two such different issues be connected?  What are the stakes?  What are we as Americans called upon to do?  The forthcoming essays will highlight why those interested in defending the principles of medical freedom should follow closely the NATO-Russia struggle, connect dots, and apply the lessons emerging from the latter in the struggle for the former.   Those focused on the dangers of nuclear war inherent in the NATO gambit should also reflect on the need to make common cause with those more concerned with the Covid assault on families, livelihoods, and freedoms.   In many ways, the two struggles are one.