Seeing and Observing geopolitics in times of cognitive warfare

Many operate under the illusion that "cognitive warfare" is a top-down psychological operation that operates like the government and mainstream media lying to the public. But cognitive warfare is more than that and often unconscious. Following sociologist Karl Mannheim’s concept of "total ideology," we must recognize that every speaker, analyst, and citizen is framed by their own historical, geographical, material, and social context. (And, yes, this derived from Marx idea of class consciousness, and that consciousness is shaped by material conditions.)

When we attempt to interpret global events without an awareness of the "total ideology" we ourselves exist within, we can become unwillingly become combatants in the empire's cognitive war.

Dialogue is Necessary

To counter this, we cannot simply claim to possess objective "truth." Because we all have material and historical blind spots, the act of decoding the world cannot be a solitary exercise.

In the sociology of knowledge, understanding is inherently a dialogue. It is a shared, political process. We must collectively look at the explicit and implicit layers of communication that shape our world, invite others into the process, and allow the friction of dialogue to reveal our own blind spots. In other words, theory-building is a collective act of political solidarity. Understanding world events is a collective endeavour.

To that end, we must develop a tool to understand empire: a systematic, shared method for interpreting the communications of the imperial apparatus and its local collaborators as strategic operations within a broader cognitive war. Thus, not taking everything at face value, or dismissing everything as lies.

I would argue that these could be some steps and questions that can help us when looking at world events and processes:

1. A Class Analysis of the Speaker (or Author)

Who is speaking? What faction of the ruling class do they represent? What are their material interests?

This goes for both the imperial ruling strata and the targeted state. And, no, this is not about ceasing to support the Resistance. It is rather to understand the imperial mode of cognitive warfare which includes calculating what is said in the targeted state through its ruling strata.

2. An Institutional Analysis of the Platform

Where is the statement being made?

Institutions and platforms are not neutral vessels. For example, Foreign Affairs is not merely an objective academic journal; it is the premier signaling organ of the transatlantic foreign policy elite. For an interview, we ask, where and with whom is the interview taking place, who is the audience or the audiences?

3. An Analysis of the Discursive Field

What can be said, and what cannot?

The boundaries of legitimate discourse are themselves a domain of struggle. Reading the boundaries of what is left unsaid is just as vital as reading the text. One faction can say and use words in a specific manner “peaceful”, “sovereign.” And another faction or ruling strata of another country might place a different meaning on these words. Further, if a certain statement is publicized repeatedly “We need to defend X”, “We need to destroy X”, can the opposite be said and if not, why not? What does it mean for the global context, or the domestic context what is being said and what cannot be said?

4. A Functional Analysis of the Statement

What does this statement do?

We must stop asking what a diplomatic statement says, and start asking what it achieves or attempts to achieve.

For example, the US Ambassador's claim of a "performance-based MOU" achieves the legal framework required for the US to continue its kinetic strikes without officially declaring war.

And also, let’s consider that some statements function as signals, that now this or that process can start.

Blindspots & Seeing Together

Without these tools, we are navigating an ocean of statements without a compass. Statements, documents, agreements, deals,…all of that can become more legible, hybrid operations can become a little more visible, and the multi-layered cage can become a little more mappable.

I just want to say that without theory—without a rigorous, multi-dimensional framework that can see processes, institutions, classes, and cognitive operations—analysis, observations, interpretations becomes much harder. And, sometimes we let ourselves get carried away by the waves of cognitive warfare without even noticing.

In any case, this is an invitation to collective observation. By sharing these tools, confronting our own blind spots, and engaging in rigorous dialogue, the fog can begin to clear.