Very interesting article. One quote comes to mind, “Consider the source”. How do we source information in a woven world of multiple threads in a Gordion Knot of unknown origins?
Thank you Cathie that is such a crucial question. You are right, the "Gordion Knot of unknown origins" is the perfect metaphor. The time honored advice to "consider the source" presumes a world where sources can be clearly traced, which is no longer the case.
The NATO reports I drew on suggest the answer can't be purely individual anymore. The SFA23 report describes our environment as "Complex, Congested, Commercialized, Contested, and Confused." In that kind of chaos, the burden has to shift to building systemic resilience. This means developing new technologies to help verify information, training people to recognize manipulation tactics (not just false facts), and creating public-private partnerships to defend our shared information space. It’s less about untying the knot and more about forging new tools to cut through it. If that fails Harari states in his book 21 Rules, read the peer reviewed science literature published in reputable journals, but I guess that can be wrong sometimes!
Such a good point, however as a society we seem to gravitate towards “who do you trust” rather than the verity of the source. So many incompetent influencers who express views in domains they are ignorant, but trusted by thousands. It’s easier to determine who not to trust than who to trust.
"Cognitive warfare will play a critical role in shaping public perception and decision-making, requiring countermeasures".
This used to be the province of a free press. The lamestream media is now part of the problem.
//
"...the scope of the threat destabilizes the very epistemology on which defense planning rests".
MAYDAY! MAYDAY! SOS!!!
//
"...how do you protect a mind that does not want to be protected?"
Willful ignorance. We're seeing this play out in real time here in Trumpland.
//
"...the deepest threat cognitive warfare poses is not state collapse or military defeat, but the quiet disintegration of shared reality. And that, if unaddressed, is a form of surrender from which no alliance can recover".
It might already be too late. We have multitudes all over the world who have guzzled the Kool-Aid. Fascism is on the rise. It's all so vexing.
Thank you for this powerful comment. You have highlighted the core anxieties that these strategic reports are beginning to formally acknowledge. Let's break down your points.
"Cognitive warfare will play a critical role in shaping public perception and decision-making, requiring countermeasures". This used to be the province of a free press. The "lamestream" media is now part of the problem.
This is a critical point. The NATO reports I've drawn from implicitly agree that the traditional guardians of information are struggling. The Strategic Foresight Analysis 2023 points to an environment of "declining trust in governments" and a congested information space where countless narratives compete. This erosion of trusted intermediaries is exactly what makes cognitive warfare so potent. The defense can no longer be outsourced to a "free press" when the press itself has become a battlefield.
"...how do you protect a mind that does not want to be protected?" As you write "Willful ignorance. We're seeing this play out in real time here in Trumpland."
You have put your finger on what is perhaps the single greatest challenge. The NATO technical report on cognitive warfare (TR-HFM-ET-356) moves beyond the idea of simple "ignorance." It frames the problem in more clinical terms: adversaries are systematically exploiting known "cognitive biases," emotional responses, and the mind's inherent vulnerabilities. It's less about a population choosing ignorance and more about their cognitive architecture being actively targeted and weaponized. The "willful" part is often the result of successful, repeated manipulation that reinforces a person's existing biases until they become a fortress.
"...the deepest threat cognitive warfare poses is not state collapse or military defeat, but the quiet disintegration of shared reality... It might already be too late."
This is the existential conclusion, and your fear is not unfounded. However, while the reports paint a terrifying picture, they do not conclude that it's too late. Instead, they signal a major shift in strategic thinking, an admission that the old ways have failed and a new defense is required.
Their proposed path forward isn't about winning a single argument or debunking a single "fake news" story. It's about building long-term, systemic resilience. The "House Model" framework from the report is a blueprint for this. It calls for a multi-disciplinary defense that involves:
Understanding the Human: Deepening research in cognitive neuroscience and behavioral science to understand how the brain is being targeted.
Training for the New Environment: Developing sophisticated training tools, like social media simulators, to help soldiers and civilians alike recognize the tactics of manipulation, not just the content.
A Whole-of-Society Approach: Recognizing that this isn't just a military problem. The reports emphasize public-private partnerships and the need for new legal and ethical frameworks to govern this new domain.
The "MAYDAY" call has been heard at the strategic level. The challenge now is translating these high-level frameworks into a real-world defense for a public that has, as you say, "guzzled the Kool-Aid." It's a monumental task. But the recognition that we need a new kind of defense, one for the mind, is the first, critical step away from surrender.
We certainly have our work cut out for us. Now that NATO has finally officially acknowledged this mind warfare, it seems to me at least that we need to acknowledge this isn't new - it's been happening for decades. It can easily be traced back to the McCarthy era.
The congested information space reminds me of the Trumpkopf misadministration's "flood the zone" tactic. One might call it information pollution.
This will indeed be a monumental task. Recognizing the problem and creating a framework, the house model, looks to be a good first step in combating it. We're in this one for the long haul.
For me to come to a shared understanding of reality, the most useful datapoint is the fruits of a nation. We must ask ourselves, "what are the fruits of US foreign policy and actions?" One answer: The executive branch was able to bomb the tar out of a foreign nation without congressional approval AND without declaring war on said nation.
The story about the powers of war resting with Congress is, in my view, a lie.
I keep coming back to this theme. The damage done to trust in institutions is not primarily achieved by disinformation campaigns. The damage is done when those institutions act disgracefully and lose our trust.
As a former Mormon, many of them want to say the exmormon crowd are "fueling disinformation", but when you give them the common courtesy of trying to see the world from their perspective, you open your mind to the possibility, "maybe the LDS church is not the organization it claims to be".
The 1930s pamphlet "War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler is one of those catalysts for me when it comes to my government. Too many of the stories I was taught in school are factually incorrect or at least incomplete to put much stock in them. I understand that a government is going to try to control it's population via propaganda at every age, but ours is so comically paper thin when you first think to scrutinize it.
A reverence for the declaration of independence and the founding fathers is probably the only thing I hold dear to anymore aside from faith in God. The constitution seems like a great idea, but it's ignored to the point of irrelevance (see opening comment) and no Russian troll needed to intervene to make that connection.
To win cognitive warfare we must start by having transparent, accountable, and beneficial institutions. To know whether ours meet that criteria you'd need top secret clearance and need to know. That's your biggest hint as to the reality on the ground
The Declaration enumerates the founding principles that once defined us, and were so powerful as to spread around the world. The concept of the United States of America is far greater than the nation itself.
Unfortunately, as you point out, cognitive warfare has been around since humanity learned to speak. Even more unfortunately, it's been supercharged by the advent of technology.
That the framers created a Constitution resting on an honor system was a failure of their imaginations. They couldn't imagine someone with no honor and no shame ascending to the throne.
If we manage to pull ourselves out of this mess, it will be contingent on us to rectify this situation.
You state this well, "that the framers created a Constitution resting on an honor system was a failure of their imaginations. They couldn't imagine someone with no honor and no shame ascending to the throne." I agree, it is the reason for the state of society's demise today. The burden of passing on that honour system at that time was predominately with parents, and within the community expectations and standards, and much less so with any formalized education system.
The world is moving too fast and furious for this old fella to make sense of...
I have a sense it's time to hit the streets...only the streets make sense...not the pretty words of the constitution, the TV, the newspapers, interwebs, see you all out on the streets brothers and sisters...we have skin in the game. And that's what it is...a game...we either play it one way or another way... The street will sort it all out!
It's unfortunate that even multiple generations of Constitutional Scholars didn't realize it until it was too late. Now we have to clean up the mess and start from scratch.
Probably both. It's true we're not starting totally from scratch, but the restoration will have to be from the ground up. We can't just go back to business as usual. We've now seen how easily it can be exploited.
I agree. So the question become: how can we rebuild with this awareness of how easily it can be exploited. Human qualities and behaviours causing the exploitation are not disappearing. Have you read articles or books recently that addresses how to restore from the ground up?
Colin, I sincerely appreciate your ongoing series on Cognitive warfare. I'm taking time this week to read these sources, and review the other three posts in the series. There is much to digest and ponder.
I presume there will be more posts forthcoming that address how "we will teach people not what to think, but how to think again”. You've posted on this before, yet it requires a strategic response, when viewed through the lens of warfare. As you said, “It requires cultural renewal." Pedagogy is easier to create, as a cultural renewal requires, well, what does it require?
Would it be helpful to analyze the ways culture was impacted in the past, and ways so widely and expertly wielded today? Yes, many are glaringly obvious. But, the ways and means today, thanks to algorithms plus our extensive knowledge of human physiological and psychological characteristics, make it far more effective and ubiquitous.
If propaganda played a monumental role in losing battle after battle, then how may we use these tools much more effectively, especially when you suggest that the minds we want to protect do not (seem) to want to be protected ?
Is that where the battleground should be focused, with those who have less regard for their cognitive capability and easily cede their minds? As Winston stated, two hundred years ago, it would be hard to imagine people who would not have honour or value their mind. That included the ‘lower class’, that less educated group, many who read and dialogued at a higher level than many teens do today.
Or should we be focused first on a battleground that forms a stronger alliance with those who share concerns, focused on those who see the "House Model " as a beginning yet insufficient, focused on those for whom deep reflective thinking is habitual and desired.
Certainly, this choice is not truly a binary; it is both, for the battle must be fought in both arenas. Yet, with time finite, and with time of the essence in this battle, where is the winning battleground where the pivotal battle that regains our cognitive agency most profoundly possible?
Wendy, thank you for such a deep and thoughtful engagement with the essay and its sources. You've framed the challenge perfectly: where do we focus our efforts?
Your question about "cultural renewal" versus pedagogy is central in my view. Creating a new curriculum is a manageable project; renewing a culture is a generational struggle. You are right to point out that the modern tools of influence, powered by algorithms and our own biology, make the challenge exponentially harder than in the past.
So, to your central question: Where is the pivotal battleground? Is it a direct engagement with those minds that "do not (seem) to want to be protected," or is it in consolidating a stronger alliance of those who are already concerned?
While, as you correctly state, this isn't a true binary, I believe the NATO reports guide us toward a phased, strategic answer about prioritization.
The Pivotal Battleground (The Short-to-Medium Term): Fortifying the Concerned
The immediate, winning battleground is consolidating and empowering the alliance of the concerned. Without a secure base of operations, any campaign to win over the disengaged is destined to fail. This is the cohort you describe as those who see the "House Model" as a starting point and for whom deep, reflective thinking is habitual.
This isn't an elitist retreat, but a strategic necessity. This group, spanning policy, technology, academia, security, and civil society, is the human network that must design and build the very countermeasures we need.
They are the ones who can operationalize the "House Model". They will conduct the research into cognitive neuroscience, develop the behavioral interventions, and lead the cultural analysis required for a robust defense.
They are the ones who can form the public-private partnerships called for in the Strategic Analysis report to develop AI-driven tools that can counter disinformation at scale, something the individual citizen cannot do.
This group serves as the initial, resilient node in the network. Their first task is to build the tools, the language, and the strategies for the next phase. This is the intellectual and institutional high ground from which the longer battle must be waged.
The Decisive Campaign (The Long Term): Reclaiming the Environment
The campaign for the minds that "do not want to be protected" is the long, hard war of cultural renewal. A direct assault on deeply held, emotionally-charged beliefs is often counter-productive, triggering the very "backfire effect" that cognitive science warns us about.
Therefore, this battle isn't won through direct confrontation, but by changing the environment in which those minds operate. This involves:
Using the tools developed by the "fortified alliance" to reduce the sheer volume of manipulation. This means better platform governance, AI that detects and flags coordinated inauthentic behavior, and securing our digital infrastructure. It's about lowering the background radiation of disinformation.
As you noted, this is key. The "Education and Training" chapter of the NATO report suggests moving beyond simple media literacy to sophisticated training using tools like the "Somulator" social media simulator. The goal is to create a kind of cognitive muscle memory, helping people intuitively recognize the tactics of manipulation.
Perhaps the most crucial element of cultural renewal is offering a better story. The allure of authoritarianism and conspiracy is often rooted in a sense of powerlessness. A renewed democratic narrative must be one of active, meaningful agency, where individuals see themselves not as passive consumers of information but as vital participants in a shared reality.
I will write future posts on these 3 instances.
I think that the pivotal battle that is most "profoundly possible" right now is to inform and connect the alliance of the concerned. They are the strategic reserve. Their success will not be the end of cognitive warfare, but it will create the necessary conditions for the longer, tougher campaign of cultural renewal that lies ahead.
I now know that this and the other post's have been passed around at NATO, so hopefully they will become more engaged and update the House Model for better public dissemination and conversation.
Very interesting article. One quote comes to mind, “Consider the source”. How do we source information in a woven world of multiple threads in a Gordion Knot of unknown origins?
Thank you Cathie that is such a crucial question. You are right, the "Gordion Knot of unknown origins" is the perfect metaphor. The time honored advice to "consider the source" presumes a world where sources can be clearly traced, which is no longer the case.
The NATO reports I drew on suggest the answer can't be purely individual anymore. The SFA23 report describes our environment as "Complex, Congested, Commercialized, Contested, and Confused." In that kind of chaos, the burden has to shift to building systemic resilience. This means developing new technologies to help verify information, training people to recognize manipulation tactics (not just false facts), and creating public-private partnerships to defend our shared information space. It’s less about untying the knot and more about forging new tools to cut through it. If that fails Harari states in his book 21 Rules, read the peer reviewed science literature published in reputable journals, but I guess that can be wrong sometimes!
Such a good point, however as a society we seem to gravitate towards “who do you trust” rather than the verity of the source. So many incompetent influencers who express views in domains they are ignorant, but trusted by thousands. It’s easier to determine who not to trust than who to trust.
Very well said Jo.
Keep writing and doing research on how we make sense beyond and within the noise. Thank you!
Terrifying.
"Cognitive warfare will play a critical role in shaping public perception and decision-making, requiring countermeasures".
This used to be the province of a free press. The lamestream media is now part of the problem.
//
"...the scope of the threat destabilizes the very epistemology on which defense planning rests".
MAYDAY! MAYDAY! SOS!!!
//
"...how do you protect a mind that does not want to be protected?"
Willful ignorance. We're seeing this play out in real time here in Trumpland.
//
"...the deepest threat cognitive warfare poses is not state collapse or military defeat, but the quiet disintegration of shared reality. And that, if unaddressed, is a form of surrender from which no alliance can recover".
It might already be too late. We have multitudes all over the world who have guzzled the Kool-Aid. Fascism is on the rise. It's all so vexing.
Thank you for this powerful comment. You have highlighted the core anxieties that these strategic reports are beginning to formally acknowledge. Let's break down your points.
"Cognitive warfare will play a critical role in shaping public perception and decision-making, requiring countermeasures". This used to be the province of a free press. The "lamestream" media is now part of the problem.
This is a critical point. The NATO reports I've drawn from implicitly agree that the traditional guardians of information are struggling. The Strategic Foresight Analysis 2023 points to an environment of "declining trust in governments" and a congested information space where countless narratives compete. This erosion of trusted intermediaries is exactly what makes cognitive warfare so potent. The defense can no longer be outsourced to a "free press" when the press itself has become a battlefield.
"...how do you protect a mind that does not want to be protected?" As you write "Willful ignorance. We're seeing this play out in real time here in Trumpland."
You have put your finger on what is perhaps the single greatest challenge. The NATO technical report on cognitive warfare (TR-HFM-ET-356) moves beyond the idea of simple "ignorance." It frames the problem in more clinical terms: adversaries are systematically exploiting known "cognitive biases," emotional responses, and the mind's inherent vulnerabilities. It's less about a population choosing ignorance and more about their cognitive architecture being actively targeted and weaponized. The "willful" part is often the result of successful, repeated manipulation that reinforces a person's existing biases until they become a fortress.
"...the deepest threat cognitive warfare poses is not state collapse or military defeat, but the quiet disintegration of shared reality... It might already be too late."
This is the existential conclusion, and your fear is not unfounded. However, while the reports paint a terrifying picture, they do not conclude that it's too late. Instead, they signal a major shift in strategic thinking, an admission that the old ways have failed and a new defense is required.
Their proposed path forward isn't about winning a single argument or debunking a single "fake news" story. It's about building long-term, systemic resilience. The "House Model" framework from the report is a blueprint for this. It calls for a multi-disciplinary defense that involves:
Understanding the Human: Deepening research in cognitive neuroscience and behavioral science to understand how the brain is being targeted.
Training for the New Environment: Developing sophisticated training tools, like social media simulators, to help soldiers and civilians alike recognize the tactics of manipulation, not just the content.
A Whole-of-Society Approach: Recognizing that this isn't just a military problem. The reports emphasize public-private partnerships and the need for new legal and ethical frameworks to govern this new domain.
The "MAYDAY" call has been heard at the strategic level. The challenge now is translating these high-level frameworks into a real-world defense for a public that has, as you say, "guzzled the Kool-Aid." It's a monumental task. But the recognition that we need a new kind of defense, one for the mind, is the first, critical step away from surrender.
We certainly have our work cut out for us. Now that NATO has finally officially acknowledged this mind warfare, it seems to me at least that we need to acknowledge this isn't new - it's been happening for decades. It can easily be traced back to the McCarthy era.
The congested information space reminds me of the Trumpkopf misadministration's "flood the zone" tactic. One might call it information pollution.
This will indeed be a monumental task. Recognizing the problem and creating a framework, the house model, looks to be a good first step in combating it. We're in this one for the long haul.
It is the long haul, but they should be accelerating programs and communicating much better with the public.
Communicating to the public is critical. It should be interesting to see how NATO leaders delegate the task.
For me to come to a shared understanding of reality, the most useful datapoint is the fruits of a nation. We must ask ourselves, "what are the fruits of US foreign policy and actions?" One answer: The executive branch was able to bomb the tar out of a foreign nation without congressional approval AND without declaring war on said nation.
The story about the powers of war resting with Congress is, in my view, a lie.
I keep coming back to this theme. The damage done to trust in institutions is not primarily achieved by disinformation campaigns. The damage is done when those institutions act disgracefully and lose our trust.
As a former Mormon, many of them want to say the exmormon crowd are "fueling disinformation", but when you give them the common courtesy of trying to see the world from their perspective, you open your mind to the possibility, "maybe the LDS church is not the organization it claims to be".
The 1930s pamphlet "War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler is one of those catalysts for me when it comes to my government. Too many of the stories I was taught in school are factually incorrect or at least incomplete to put much stock in them. I understand that a government is going to try to control it's population via propaganda at every age, but ours is so comically paper thin when you first think to scrutinize it.
A reverence for the declaration of independence and the founding fathers is probably the only thing I hold dear to anymore aside from faith in God. The constitution seems like a great idea, but it's ignored to the point of irrelevance (see opening comment) and no Russian troll needed to intervene to make that connection.
To win cognitive warfare we must start by having transparent, accountable, and beneficial institutions. To know whether ours meet that criteria you'd need top secret clearance and need to know. That's your biggest hint as to the reality on the ground
The Declaration enumerates the founding principles that once defined us, and were so powerful as to spread around the world. The concept of the United States of America is far greater than the nation itself.
Unfortunately, as you point out, cognitive warfare has been around since humanity learned to speak. Even more unfortunately, it's been supercharged by the advent of technology.
That the framers created a Constitution resting on an honor system was a failure of their imaginations. They couldn't imagine someone with no honor and no shame ascending to the throne.
If we manage to pull ourselves out of this mess, it will be contingent on us to rectify this situation.
You state this well, "that the framers created a Constitution resting on an honor system was a failure of their imaginations. They couldn't imagine someone with no honor and no shame ascending to the throne." I agree, it is the reason for the state of society's demise today. The burden of passing on that honour system at that time was predominately with parents, and within the community expectations and standards, and much less so with any formalized education system.
The world is moving too fast and furious for this old fella to make sense of...
I have a sense it's time to hit the streets...only the streets make sense...not the pretty words of the constitution, the TV, the newspapers, interwebs, see you all out on the streets brothers and sisters...we have skin in the game. And that's what it is...a game...we either play it one way or another way... The street will sort it all out!
It's unfortunate that even multiple generations of Constitutional Scholars didn't realize it until it was too late. Now we have to clean up the mess and start from scratch.
Unfortunate or allowed? I'm never certain.
We are not truly starting from scratch. After all, it existed once, I am hoping with determined effort , it can again.
Probably both. It's true we're not starting totally from scratch, but the restoration will have to be from the ground up. We can't just go back to business as usual. We've now seen how easily it can be exploited.
I agree. So the question become: how can we rebuild with this awareness of how easily it can be exploited. Human qualities and behaviours causing the exploitation are not disappearing. Have you read articles or books recently that addresses how to restore from the ground up?
Destruction of Reality ~ Michael Polanyi 1962
https://youtu.be/5qepopZFqgs?si=FHlpcqfDbMR1FXYV
Thank you Todd. Polanyi was right
Colin, I sincerely appreciate your ongoing series on Cognitive warfare. I'm taking time this week to read these sources, and review the other three posts in the series. There is much to digest and ponder.
I presume there will be more posts forthcoming that address how "we will teach people not what to think, but how to think again”. You've posted on this before, yet it requires a strategic response, when viewed through the lens of warfare. As you said, “It requires cultural renewal." Pedagogy is easier to create, as a cultural renewal requires, well, what does it require?
Would it be helpful to analyze the ways culture was impacted in the past, and ways so widely and expertly wielded today? Yes, many are glaringly obvious. But, the ways and means today, thanks to algorithms plus our extensive knowledge of human physiological and psychological characteristics, make it far more effective and ubiquitous.
If propaganda played a monumental role in losing battle after battle, then how may we use these tools much more effectively, especially when you suggest that the minds we want to protect do not (seem) to want to be protected ?
Is that where the battleground should be focused, with those who have less regard for their cognitive capability and easily cede their minds? As Winston stated, two hundred years ago, it would be hard to imagine people who would not have honour or value their mind. That included the ‘lower class’, that less educated group, many who read and dialogued at a higher level than many teens do today.
Or should we be focused first on a battleground that forms a stronger alliance with those who share concerns, focused on those who see the "House Model " as a beginning yet insufficient, focused on those for whom deep reflective thinking is habitual and desired.
Certainly, this choice is not truly a binary; it is both, for the battle must be fought in both arenas. Yet, with time finite, and with time of the essence in this battle, where is the winning battleground where the pivotal battle that regains our cognitive agency most profoundly possible?
Wendy, thank you for such a deep and thoughtful engagement with the essay and its sources. You've framed the challenge perfectly: where do we focus our efforts?
Your question about "cultural renewal" versus pedagogy is central in my view. Creating a new curriculum is a manageable project; renewing a culture is a generational struggle. You are right to point out that the modern tools of influence, powered by algorithms and our own biology, make the challenge exponentially harder than in the past.
So, to your central question: Where is the pivotal battleground? Is it a direct engagement with those minds that "do not (seem) to want to be protected," or is it in consolidating a stronger alliance of those who are already concerned?
While, as you correctly state, this isn't a true binary, I believe the NATO reports guide us toward a phased, strategic answer about prioritization.
The Pivotal Battleground (The Short-to-Medium Term): Fortifying the Concerned
The immediate, winning battleground is consolidating and empowering the alliance of the concerned. Without a secure base of operations, any campaign to win over the disengaged is destined to fail. This is the cohort you describe as those who see the "House Model" as a starting point and for whom deep, reflective thinking is habitual.
This isn't an elitist retreat, but a strategic necessity. This group, spanning policy, technology, academia, security, and civil society, is the human network that must design and build the very countermeasures we need.
They are the ones who can operationalize the "House Model". They will conduct the research into cognitive neuroscience, develop the behavioral interventions, and lead the cultural analysis required for a robust defense.
They are the ones who can form the public-private partnerships called for in the Strategic Analysis report to develop AI-driven tools that can counter disinformation at scale, something the individual citizen cannot do.
This group serves as the initial, resilient node in the network. Their first task is to build the tools, the language, and the strategies for the next phase. This is the intellectual and institutional high ground from which the longer battle must be waged.
The Decisive Campaign (The Long Term): Reclaiming the Environment
The campaign for the minds that "do not want to be protected" is the long, hard war of cultural renewal. A direct assault on deeply held, emotionally-charged beliefs is often counter-productive, triggering the very "backfire effect" that cognitive science warns us about.
Therefore, this battle isn't won through direct confrontation, but by changing the environment in which those minds operate. This involves:
Using the tools developed by the "fortified alliance" to reduce the sheer volume of manipulation. This means better platform governance, AI that detects and flags coordinated inauthentic behavior, and securing our digital infrastructure. It's about lowering the background radiation of disinformation.
As you noted, this is key. The "Education and Training" chapter of the NATO report suggests moving beyond simple media literacy to sophisticated training using tools like the "Somulator" social media simulator. The goal is to create a kind of cognitive muscle memory, helping people intuitively recognize the tactics of manipulation.
Perhaps the most crucial element of cultural renewal is offering a better story. The allure of authoritarianism and conspiracy is often rooted in a sense of powerlessness. A renewed democratic narrative must be one of active, meaningful agency, where individuals see themselves not as passive consumers of information but as vital participants in a shared reality.
I will write future posts on these 3 instances.
I think that the pivotal battle that is most "profoundly possible" right now is to inform and connect the alliance of the concerned. They are the strategic reserve. Their success will not be the end of cognitive warfare, but it will create the necessary conditions for the longer, tougher campaign of cultural renewal that lies ahead.
I now know that this and the other post's have been passed around at NATO, so hopefully they will become more engaged and update the House Model for better public dissemination and conversation.