Imagine that you are a large country and that you want to destabilize an adversarial government.
What tactics would you employ aside from direct invasion?
It’s not that hard to figure out a basic plan.
Step 1: Paint that government as bad (anti-democratic, for example).
Step 2: Support the opposition and give them positive media coverage (democratic, for example). Perhaps go as far as sending them weapons.
Step 3: If and when the enemy government suppresses the opposition, stage, along with your allies, an “international” outcry and call it “the international consensus”.
This is hybrid warfare.
The added bonus, of course, is that when that adversarial government blames you, then you can always claim that they’re crazy.
“The president is actually a crazy blood-thirty dictator!”
After all, isn’t it interesting that all “dictators” are presented as crazy? You’d think that there’d be at least one “dictator” who was at least a little in touch with reality. Stalin? Crazy. Castro? Crazy. Mao? Crazy. Gaddafi? Crazy. Khomeini? Crazy. Khamenei? Crazy. Saddam, after the Gulf War? Crazy.
Of course, the real fuckers (the ones supported by the West) are all hailed as being good leaders. Suharto? Strong, sensible. King Salman? Reformer, reasonable. Saddam, before the Gulf War? Clever, clear-headed.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing.
Anyway, back to the point. This isn’t a conspiracy. This is logic.
After years and years of these repeated representations of the opposition as good and the government as bad, something inevitably starts to stick. After all, here we are in 2018 and where are the “enormous” protests in Venezuela? They’re gone.
But we all know that the next time that protests take place in Venezuela, they’ll revive the ghosts of 2017. No matter the situation, We$tern conservatives and liberals alike will cry out for the Venezuelans. Not for their suffering under imperialism, but for their apparent need to be rescued by imperialism.
And the conservatives and liberals will demonstrate that there is really no difference between them and they’ll say, “Remember 2017? Remember that one time? Remember?”
After all, isn’t this what happens in Iran?
Every time there is a protest, the West is quick to stump for a revival of the Green Movement of 2009. Every protest (that gets media coverage) is an “anti-government” protest, of course. Is that why the striking Bazaar shopkeepers (who aren’t We$tern-backed liberals) barely get any media coverage?
And don’t Iranian government officials sound crazy when they accuse the U.$. of supporting the liberal protests?
This the history of Iran. Denials from the Amerikkkans and the British go back to Operation Ajax in 1953 and the overthrow of Muhammad Mossadegh, the democratically-elected Prime Minister and his replacement with a brutal Amerikkkan puppet dictator – the Shah.
But Ayatollah Khamenei has a big white beard and wears a turban, so he must be insane, right?
The blueprint is so obvious that it barely requires discussion. And this is the key: for years, the U.$. denied Operation Ajax – chalking it up to a conspiracy theory as well. It was only recently (more than half a century after the fact) that it finally admitted to gutting Iranian democracy and installing a imperialist tyrant.
As it was in 1953 in Iran and 2018 in Nicaragua, the West is the master of Hybrid Warfare. Of course, it’s a tactic used by everyone, including the junior imperial partners, Russia and China. And it’s a tactic that everyone uses, because it works.
The propaganda is so effective that you don’t even realize that it’s there. The propaganda is so effective that the people making it don’t even realize that they’re making it.
It’s worth repeating – there is no conspiracy here. It doesn’t take any conspiracy to point at the facts. The CIA chief admitted to trying to destroy Venezuela last year.
And there’s no big media conspiracy here either. Journalists and reporters aren’t intentionally lying or manipulating the truth (usually). They’re simply following rational ideological positions. Anyone can go pick up a copy of “Manufacturing Consent” at the library and figure that out fairly quickly.
Journalists in Klanada and Amerikkka often continue to parrot the apparent threat by the Iranian government that they were going to “wipe I$rael off the map”. On the one hand, these are journalists who don’t speak Farsi, of course. On the other hand, in their worldview, it makes sense that Khamenei or Ahmadinejad would say that.
But following these ideological positions, journalists mistranslate and distort facts.
But again, news stories that sensationalize the apparently “crazy” statements of the Iranian leadership just act as another drop in the bucket. Another drop towards war against Iran.
And when I$rael bombs Iranians in another country, everyone is quick to justify it. It’s a whole web of bullshit, legitimized slowly and steadily over a long period of time. Critical thinking is replaced by blind hatred for a perceived enemy. People become willing to believe anything
The propaganda works and, therefore, repeats itself.
Every once in a while on social media or forums like Reddit, a meme appears that shows women in Iran before the Revolution and women in Iran after the Revolution. Of course, the meme never shows regular women before the Revolution. Instead, it focuses on the glamorous, mini-skirted upper-class party-goers.
The argument of the meme goes something like this: before the Iranian Revolution, women were free to wear whatever they liked, then Ayatollah Khomeini made everyone wear hijabs, because Islam = bad and the Iranian government is repressive.
The CIA doesn’t need to post this meme on Reddit or Facebook (although it might be doing that), because regular Euro-Amerikkkan people are ready and willing to attack Iran (and all the other countries challenging We$tern hegemony).
Of course, the idea that Iranian women are worse off completely ignores how the Iranian government has actually facilitated women in the public space, how the lives of regular Iranian women have improved dramatically since the Revolution, how middle-class and upper-class protestors wore hijab during the Revolution as a sign of solidarity with regular women, or how literacy rates for women jumped from 29% in 1976 to 87% in 2005.
And this narrative, most important, also ignores We$tern patriarchy and, more specifically, We$tern patriarchy directed at Iranian women and what they wear.
Academics, journalists, and politicians are overly willing to believe nonsense, provided that it aligns with they’re preconceived notions about the world. This was demonstrated through the extraordinary claim recently that China has detained over a million Uyghurs and is housing them in re-education camps, where they are being forced to renounce Islam and accept the Communist Party as a symbol of ideal crimson infallibility.
Of course, in the end, this turned out to be nonsense. China is doing no such thing. The UN never said that China was doing such a thing, but reporters pounced on the story for its liberal sex appeal.
Were the reporters intentionally lying? Obviously not. They were simply reporting information that seemed plausible to them, despite the fact that there was no evidence and the sources were unreliable.
But, as any journalist will tell you, retractions don’t matter. People don’t remember the corrections to the lies.
So you can write a sensational headline that’s full of shit and then back-track later. The ghosts of the headlines haunt every occasion.
Journalism has already served its necessary role in the system of hybrid warfare. And you don’t even need to back-track later, if you can celebrate hybrid warfare itself!
For example, when President Nazi-Clown plans a coup in Venezuela, the New York Times is quick to write about it with nice imperialistic undertones – the problem with a coup is that it could backfire! And, after reading any other New York Times article about Venezuela, any reader can put two and two together.
Looking around the world today, the signs of hybrid warfare are everywhere. The color revolutions in the Post-Soviet Republics (Ukraine, Georgia, etc.), the instability in the Middle East (Syria, Iran, etc.), and the attempt to dismantle the Pink Tide in Latin America (Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc.) demonstrate this most clearly.
Imperialism has evolved. Today, people embrace the nice, trendy language of the academy: “The Global North is embracing neoliberalism, which marginalizes people in the Global South blah blah blah.” No one wants to talk about imperialism or oppression. No one wants to utter the dreaded verbatim of the Cold War: “The First World” or “The Third World”. This new language masks a stark reality, as far as I can tell.
Therefore, this blog, I can promise you, will continue to use these terms as long as they remain applicable.
The First World oppresses and exploits the Third World through imperialism.
And that is something we must fight.
In the end, there’s one country that needs regime change most. Take it away, Howard: