How to Win the Modern Information War
A light touch is better than a sledgehammer.
Having looked on with frustration at the ineffective or even detrimental tactics often used in the modern information war, especially online, for a long time, I have finally decided to put my own theory on how it might be won into writing.
This guide is intended to be ideologically neutral, my goal is to raise the level of discussion across the board, not create a secret “playbook” locked away in one clubhouse or another.
Despite being a guide on “info ops”, this essay is entirely declassified, it should not be a liability to be known to be familiar with or have employed the tactics within.
Safety First and Second
The first principle of our information warfare doctrine is safety in a twofold sense.
The first sense is external safety, while carrying out an operation we should aim to work in plain sight to the greatest extent possible, while facing the least risk of physical, social and legal repercussions.
The second sense is internal safety, our messaging should always be one of hope and be communicated to the target in a physical and mental space of comfort, converting to our worldview should never be an experience of despair or pessimism.
Neither should it encourage paranoia or revulsion for the opposition, we should always have the deepest level of empathy, even for our “enemies”.
Read the Opposition Literature
The only way to debunk a narrative is to become an expert on it.
You need to understand it better than the people who believe it, and to do that you need to read the opposition literature, listen to the opposition podcasts and watch the opposition videos.
No matter what niche you are in, there is likely a “bible” laying out “this is what our enemies believe”.
It’s up to you whether you choose to read this book before engaging with opposition material, however, don’t try to substitute it for looking into the other side yourself.
If everyone just looks at the handbook, mistakes won’t be corrected and tactics won’t evolve.
Besides, if you can’t confront the best the opposition has to offer, maybe they are right and you shouldn’t be spreading what you currently believe?
Don’t Self-Marginalize
Self-marginalization is when someone adopts a view of themselves as anti-social, suspicious or dangerous.
If you are Russian, it’s a bad idea to upload a video titled “10 Things Putin Doesn’t Want You To Know” to Rutube, such a title announces that the content is forbidden knowledge and invites censorship, or worse.
The regime police might be in the business of labeling subversive thought, but don’t do them any favors by slapping the sticker on yourself, either explicitly or implicitly.
It is better to frame your information as an addendum to the official narrative, rather than a takedown.
Adopt the aesthetic of a purveyor of “water is wet” level facts whenever possible.
Your Target’s Feelings Matter, Yours Don’t
While it’s true that “facts don’t care about your feelings” in the literal sense, the people who convey the facts always should.
If your target brings up an emotional reason why your worldview doesn’t satisfy them, rather than a logical argument against it, don’t ridicule them.
Instead, try to restate your case to show how, actually, it does accommodate what they are talking about.
“The customer is always right” applies especially in information warfare, it’s their mind and they get to decide at what price they are willing to accept your sorry excuse for a "weltanschauung”.
Whatever demands the target puts forth logically or emotionally you should strive to meet them, never attack their standards, it‘s a losing fight no matter how rubbish the sales pitch for their stuff is.
If the target makes impossible demands, it’s likely because they don’t want to be convinced for a different reason than the one they are stating, find and address it.
Don’t Vilify the Enemy
It’s tempting to make the enemy out to be as evil as possible and rage against all their crimes (censorship, lies, etc.). However, evil people are powerful and powerful people are relevant.
Relevant is the last thing you would like to portray the opposition as, because it gives them oxygen.
The best way to win is to treat them like they already are what you want them to be, a relic of the past.
Make Acceptable Criticisms
In information warfare, it is always better to only make “acceptable” criticisms, meaning that your arguments are not offensive, even to those who believe they are mistaken.
When speaking to the target, don’t act like you are in a battle, instead, pretend that you are, for example, two Modern Monetary Theory enthusiasts discussing the finer points of macroeconomics over lunch.
It might seem that acceptability puts heavy restrictions on what you are allowed to say, but really it is more about presentation than content.
One key difference between acceptable and unacceptable criticisms is often the attribution of intent, it’s more likely to be acceptable to assert that the opposition’s negative impact is being made inadvertently, rather than maliciously.
There is symmetry to this, in that in order to have the enemy assume you are acting in “good faith”, you need to assume the same of them.
Don’t Tell the Target How to Feel
Keep your language value free and speak in specifics, rather than generalities.
Make your argument into an experience the target lives through you, rather than an abstract set of facts.
In the screenwriting business this is what they call “show, don’t tell”.
A personal story can be a great starting point to build your case around, which experiences have you had that couldn’t be real unless your worldview was correct?
Never Miss a Chance to Agree with the Target
The best reason to be on the lookout for points of agreement with your target, is that they are probably right.
Worldviews don’t come out of thin air, there likely is a context in which it applies, if it’s wrong it’s probably because it’s incorrectly applied or being overgeneralized.
Another reason is that disagreement is costly, each point of disagreement opens a new frontline you will have to spend time and effort maintaining.
“Yes, but” is always a better reply than “No”, the latter is a stone wall, the former a clever flanking maneuver.
Of equal importance is identifying ways in which the target already agrees with you, if they hold a belief in alignment with your worldview, especially one considered heretical by the opposition, jump on it and expand it to further points of concession!