Narrative Warfare

What do you know about narrative warfare ?twUhFDzP.jpg-large

Marxists use an attack technique I refer to as “narrative warfare.” I characterize narrative warfare as constructing a narrative that is intended to cause a public backlash against a particular group. These narratives are then delivered using a large public platform like media or the education system, so as to cause social eruptions. Narrative warfare is used to agitate the general population, instigate riots and incite violence. It can also be used as a means of weakening an entire society by using perpetual guilt narratives and conditioning its population to be submissive, no longer defend themselves or their way of life and prepare to disappear.

When a group is targeted with narrative warfare, one will notice the steady and continual release of negative narratives from highly visible and influential platforms; these narratives are designed to result in social backlash against the target group.
Even if the narrative is old, told thousands of times already and all sides of the public are tired of hearing it, the Marxists continue to distribute and use it over and over again because it still works, and continues to cause new attacks on their target.

This is usually why there is a fight over who gets to tell the story. The person who controls the narrative has immense power. The words chosen and narrative constructed can be used as a weapon because of how it will cause the population react. This is also the reason the Left guards the public platform with great hostility and tries to block counter narratives by de-platforming, censorship tactics or accusations of “hate speech” so that the narratives they have constructed can not be challenged or invalidated. As long as they control the narrative that is shown to the general population, they control what the population thinks and how they will react to certain situations.

Who uses narrative warfare ?

Narrative warfare is used by individuals and organizations on the left who have contempt for a society and seek different ways to destabilize and destroy that society, its people and their entire way of life, from within. Take Marxists for example, they destroy society by any means necessary and utilize narrative warfare to use the men, women and children of the general population as their disposable weapon. Since Marxists make up a small percentage of the general population, they are unable to win a physical war as they are grossly outnumbered, but they can create and circulate narratives that will get one part of the population to carry out revenge attacks against another part of the population for them, resulting in mutual destruction, and weakening the host nation from within.

These narratives can be made up of false accusations or “hollow circular arguments” and to the general public on the receiving end, these narratives are assumed to be truthful and often treated seriously. Well-intentioned people spend countless hours researching statistics and trends in attempt to document any proof for some of the most wild accusations. But, to the Marxist who made up the argument, it was never about being truthful; it was about accomplishing their goals.
The Marxists real intention is to make up arguments and narratives that will cause one part of the population to react by carrying out retaliation attacks against another part of the population (doing their destructive work them). While we have seen tons of well-meaning citizens in the media pour their heart out or make a large effort to make things right, you’ll notice the Marxists lack true empathy; they act as if nothing will ever be good enough for them and sometimes, you’ll see them enjoy watching the other person toil away, wasting their energy because they are unaware that they have been tricked by nothing more than a cleverly worded argument.


What are some of the platforms used for delivery ?

Uses in Media :

We have all noticed certain manipulation patterns in media reporting over the years.

We have noticed when articles decide to list what color a perpetrator is versus when they will use a euphemism like “teens, youths or protesters” to conceal their identity and motive.

We all notice which stories get reported nationally, and which stories get ignored and how this dependable pattern determines which populations receive public backlash and criticism for their behavior and which populations get a free pass.

We see bogus agitation articles structured to self-justify by using tricky opening remarks like “there are calls for this and that, or anonymous sources say ….” but we’re never told who is making these mysterious “calls“ and have no way to know if the so-called anonymous source actually exists or if it’s a fellow activist sitting at the table next to whom ever wrote the article. This method works well with a deploy and amplify strategy. Certain activist groups who are good at crafting narratives designed to manipulate the population in to conflict hand off to a media platform that’s used to amplify that narrative and instigate a public commotion. They just claim those magic words “anonymous sources say” and they seem to escape accountability. Then they repeat the process.

Consider all these fake “hate crimes” and “staged racism”. An activist group and a media platform partner up using the deploy and amplify strategy knowing it’s the host population who will be automatically suspected by the general public and targeted with the social backlash when, for example, a swastika is randomly painted on a wall somewhere or little string nooses are planted on college campuses. Media shouts the lie on the front page and then whispers the correction a week or two later on the back page somewhere at the bottom, long after the “racial justice” attacks have occurred, and their mission has been completed.

Just think of the large-scale destruction one person is capable of if they were to immigrate to another society, and use a media platform to continually show that population movies or distribute articles that are highly sensitive and agitating to the people there. Research their history, revive old forgotten tensions or past wrongs between various groups and produce articles that will manipulate those groups in to conflict. If you want to destroy the nation from within, circulate articles that will urge splinter groups in the population to unite and carry out joint retaliation attacks against the main host population. Run article after article packed with Marxist-style arguments making up any random reason you can think of to vandalize and tear down all of their cultural symbols, ban their national flag, attack traditional values, subvert their immigration system and release weaponized ideologies that will destroy their family structure to stop them from replenishing their population.

This is also a clever means for one ethnic sub-group to carry out indirect attacks against its host nation. Lets say your group makes up a very small percentage of the population there and just happen to hate that society and its people. There is no way you can wage a physical war because you are grossly outnumbered and destined to lose. You can, however, manipulate other portions of the population to carry out some attacks against the host nation for you, and weaken that society from within. Just continually make and release movies and articles that will agitate random disparate groups and cause them to carry out revenge attacks against the host nation. If this is done repeatedly and for a long period of time, you can actually destroy an entire nation by causing it to rot from the inside out. No need for an army or physical forms of warfare, just use “narrative warfare” to circulate false, invented narratives that will continually cause riots and other forms of conflict. This way, you destroy the country from within by using their own men, women and children as your fodder—while keeping your own ethnic group safe in the process.

See how this works ? The agitation agent just needs a large visible platform to deliver the narrative and can enter the society posing as a movie star, late night talk-show host or even a comedian. As long as the platform reaches enough people, the agitation agent can use it to continually deliver the agitation narratives and simply wear the job title of comedian or talk-show host as a beard.

Something to consider when analyzing media. The next time you see someone on television using tactics that agitate the general population or denigrate your cultural symbols, identity, holidays, norms or religion. Research that person’s identity and locate which ethnic sub-group they belong to. See if they subject their own sub-group to the same treatment or if they’re only doing this to other groups. If they protect their own group from these tactics while simultaneously using these tactics on other groups, then you must further question if this was really just comedy or entertainment, or if their TV personality title is just a disguise and their real purpose is to carry out one-sided attacks on your population and weaken your society from within.


Uses in Education:

Do teachers use narrative warfare? Yes, activist teachers can engage in narrative warfare because academic freedom lets them choose which collection of narratives to use and determine the social effect they want to have on their students.

The education platform has been used to create many splinter groups through specialty studies programs ranging from feminism to ethnic studies, all of which are united on a common theme of resenting and degrading the host society, its founding population and their norms.

Ethnic studies programs provide a good example. Most of the lesson plans have been constructed by Marxist teachers who choose a collection of stories that will result in resentment against the host nation. Stories that highlight past partnership or would inspire coexistence and mutual respect are intentionally excluded. It’s easy to prove this is done deliberately because the teacher controls what literature is used and whether or not they want their class to feel resentment towards the host society, and inspire acts of aggression against it. Their real intention is clear, activist teachers use the education platform to condition a part of the general population and create a demographic weapon that can be used to carry out internal attacks. This also explains the decades long use of “one-sided slave narratives”. The real intention was never to teach our population about slavery but to conceal conflicting narratives and only choose a collection of stories meant to radicalize one portion of the population and mobilize it to carry out continuous revenge attacks against the host population.

The collection of stories and narratives used in classrooms are mainly controlled by a group of teachers who combine to make up the “curriculum committee”. Along with the Dean of curriculum, this committee decides which collection of stories will be allowed in the pool of literature teachers can select from to use in their classrooms. This curriculum committee also has the power to ensure that the entire pool of literature that the teachers can select from, only contains narratives that will condition students to feel angry and resentful.

That said, you’ll notice special treatment is given to the groups of students who become agitated from this collection of narratives, and engage in hostile behavior. The teachers encourage these special treatment groups to retaliate and rename their acts of aggression to “justice”. Most special treatment groups are given a free pass from behavioral requirements and discipline which by design, seems to create an atmosphere of perpetual unrest and destabilization on campus.

In addition, there is also an established “campus caste” in which some groups are taught to be critical of other groups, but not the other way around. Special treatment groups are given a platform plus on site training to create and deliver narratives that will cause retaliation against other groups, but the other groups whom are targeted are denied equal training and strictly forbidden from doing the same thing back.

How is such a biased atmosphere allowed? Upon investigation you’ll see most policies and laws function in sync with narrative warfare because they are creatively worded to only provide their protections to the special treatment groups and not provide equal protection to the host population. Since no policies have been written to protect the host population from the attacks carried out by the special treatment groups, the school admin is only required to respond and enforce a system of one-sided surveillance and one-sided behavioral discipline which has resulted in synthetic dominance on campus.

The end result ? The special treatment groups are trained to target others with various forms of harassment and those on the receiving end who do not receive special treatment or protections are unable to get out of striking distance because of the forced association policies currently in place.

My question to you, the reader. Consider the comedians, talk-show hosts or media companies who exhibit the pattern of only discussing topics or reporting stories that will result in retaliation attacks against the host population, or the politicians who use guilt narratives against their own people to force things on them that they would otherwise reject and ask yourself. What sort of public reaction do they deserve to experience once the general population figures out what has been done?