Yes, mindwar is a thing in its own right, and it extends far beyond the physical battle’s periphery occupied by psychological warfare, in which cruder forms of propaganda (leaflets, flyers, bootleg radio broadcasts) are presented externally to an enemy to discourage him from continuing his fight. Get ready for some abstruse stuff: the essence of Mindwar is the control of what information the target thinks to be true; moreover, engineering the mental steps the target must be taught to undertake so that he arrives at the preformulated version of the way things are. Mindwar is not the mere telling and repeating of a lie, rather it is the intellectually violent overthrow of the mind to make it more receptive to lies, and to develop those habits of mind whereby, with minimal prompting by the mindwarrior, the target populace confects and believes lies all of their own. Let’s take a look at the text linked above.
“MindWar is the deliberate, aggressive convincing of all participants in a war that we will win that war.”
Taken from the context of Neocon Gulf War II, the use of the term all participants seems to indicate the undifferentiated aggression against both enemy and home front populations. “It is aggressive because opinions and attitudes must be actively changed from those antagonistic to us to those supportive of us if we are to achieve victory.” Changing of opinions and attitudes occurs conspicuously irrespective of truth, and the intellect’s faculties of knowing seem clearly to be subordinated to victory.
Essentially you overwhelm your enemy with argument. You seize control of all of the means by which his government and populace process information to make up their minds, and you adjust it so that those minds are made up as you desire.
Notice the loaded phrase, “the means by which his government and populace process information to make up their minds.” After our screens are flicked off and the firehose of information on the Web saturates the senses, what is the ultimate means of making up one’s mind, but the action of the mind itself? Let’s consider some of the author’s applications of Mindwar
…and recently even more obviously during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In both instances extreme PSYOP was directed both against the object of the attack and upon U.S. domestic public perception and opinion, in 2003 to the extent of “embedding” journalists with military units to inevitably channel their perspectives and perceptions. The impact of even these minor techniques of MindWar was remarkable. A psychological climate of inexorable U.S. victory was created and sustained in both the United States and Iraq, which accelerated that victory on the ground.
By controlling the perceptions of embedded reporters, viewers at home unquestioningly internalize these same perceptions. The effect on the target’s thinking: mission accomplished. Of course, and although not cited by the author, similar results can be achieved on the dialectically opposite, cultural Marxist extreme. There moral absolutes are systematically subjectivized to cause a plurality of the target populace’s belief that marriage equality as not only proper and good, but a conclusion at which they erroneously conceive that they have come to by thinking for themselves. Have critical questions on that? The Mindwarrior will unleash the Facebook mob to rebut. IN 2003, Mindwar thus not only bound the warfare home front like a fasces, but also today divides and conquers when deployed in service of the cultural revolution.
Mindwar is both an attack against thinking objectively, according to reality in the Thomistic sense, and the absolute anathematizing of critical questioning of a proposition. Further, because of its premise, that false doctrines can be imposed upon the minds of the masses as a sort of prefabricated reality, Mindwar is intellectual violence of the most brutal sort, constituting both military strategy and domestic policy.
What about Catholics?
Is Mindwar used by the Bergoglio faction against the Catholic Church? Quite possibly. Consider the objective. Whether Rosicrucian or Jesuit (is that redundant?), the enemy understands by his countless defeats that Church Militant cannot be eradicated. Proximately therefore, is an attempt being made to so cripple and deform Holy Mother that restoration be made impossible?
In the arena of doctrine, which She infallibly proclaims, how would a Mindwar be prosecuted? Recall, that by inference, the essence of Mindwar is the recasting of habits of minds to cause them to arrive at conclusions preselected by the Mindwarrior. For both the original Vatican II sect and that singularly cartoonish cheeseball Bergoglio, the erroneous mental habit instilled is to acknowledge doctrine with the lips, witness its destruction in fact, all while making oneself oblivious to the polar opposition between the two. This deadening of the Catholic mind to the polarized disjunction between word and deed has been at the heart of the novus ordo tyranny.
This combination-punch of hypocrisy and apathy explains why Catholics defend and thank Father Wonderful for his obliterating the growing shoots of Tradition as soon as he gets a mitre. It explains how so many novus ordites just (freaking) sit there when the Catholic Priest is shipped out and newly ordained Father Barry-the-Human-Jackhammer shames the congregation into completing his social justice projects while he’s stealing money out of their pockets and spending it on his boyfriend. It also explains how otherwise conscientious priests manage to stay so obediently silent in the rapidly materializing doomsday scenario of forced Eucharistic sacrilege.
Battling Back: Thomism and Critical Thought
As far advanced as the novus ordo Mindwar may be, Thomism remains undefeated and simply necessitates that we deep clean its bore and bolt, look sharp, and send some high velocity truth down range. Philosophically, the Saint gave us a system beautifully consonant with common sense. Many Catholics who have studied it have also done a great job explaining it. Formulating critical questions as to why an innocent priest should allow himself to be sacked, (and why his flock would not merely submit, but actually thank the Bastard Bishop who does the hit) can be a good start. Why obey a prelate who disobeys Christ? (Correct answer: No one should.) Well, then what? That’s up to us. First, we need to expand the pool of people who understand that Christ is to be obeyed through His Impeccable Bride’s beautiful doctrines, and when Bishop Bump-Me-From-Behind so egregiously breaks Faith, he himself is not to be obeyed. So if you’re not sure how to weaponize Thomism for the sake of the restoration, find a source you trust and study up a bit, and then you can mix it up in the com-box, or counter the canned platitudes of neo-Catholic papolaters lurking about after Mass.
When laics and clergy finally repair their intellectual wounds, you’ll hear others say, “you can stay with us, Father,” or “the Figbys have a wonderful RV garage and asked us to offer it for use to say the Roman Rite of Mass.” We’ll really be rolling when Father says in reply, “I’ll be down in fifteen minutes with my bags packed.”