Nice use of AI! Looks like Perplexity AI? The problem is that it's hallucinating. The problem is you trusted it like you trust your other sources. Slow down, read what I wrote, and stop looking into a mirror.
P.S. if you spent a hot minute looking at the content on this site, or even the links I shared in this article, you'd see how silly your comment is. I don't like to dunk on people but your spamming the hell out of my comments section. Maybe start here?
This is a really good post and I like the approach. I remember when I was much younger I was coming out of an alcoholic fog and getting sober and clean. As I was trying to figure out the world, I was reading everything from Ayn Rand to Karl Marx. I had a friend who was recruited by the CIA as an electronics wiz. He never revealed too much, but was working on surveillance. We got together one time and he saw a copy of the guardian, not the same guardian as today, but a much more left-leaning newspaper. It freaked him out.
I struggled with trying to figure out what was true as I knew all the messages from every angle were trying to hook me. Ultimately, I personally thought Rand was a heartless person and Marx was an idealist and his philosophy was perverted by so many regimes.
So now here I am today, at 60 years old, where I definitely lean more on the left. But what’s fascinating is that I am deeply involved in activism and recognize the limitations of motivating others through logical (logos) arguments, I try that as a basis but the path of passion (pathos) is more effective.
I try to limit my consumption of news and social media to maintain sanity and try to focus more on critical thinking, however, my wife and I were watching MSNBC although we know it was an echo chamber, jokingly she said it was like a warm hug!
Treating everything like a PSYOP is a great way to check myself.
When the transcript is included word for word in the article you are being critical of, and the entire confirmation hearing is on YouTube for anybody to watch, you still can't decipher fact from fiction?
You're dodging the point. We included the full transcript word for word in the article — no spin, no tricks — alongside a publicly available video of the hearing. That’s not gaslighting; that’s transparency. Calling us manipulative for simply presenting the evidence with colorful language is just you avoiding accountability.
If you're confident in your claims, engage with the content directly. If you can’t — and this response suggests you can’t — then maybe the problem isn’t manipulation… it’s that the facts don’t support your narrative.
I did engage with you directly. It's all laid out in the article. You provided a great example of highly manipulative content/ As to the transcript and video. I watched them and that why I called you out for what you did. What are you having a hard time understanding?
You're running right from the Russian IRA playbook. If you are really trying to share news, try it in a way that doesn't mirror a PSYOP. It's that simple.
Michael, let’s break down our commentary step by step to address your concerns.
Our description of Merkley walking in “like a man who’d just been told his car got keyed” is colorful but doesn’t alter the facts. It sets the tone, describing Merkley as prepared for confrontation. It’s commentary about his demeanor, not manipulation.
Describing Landau as looking “like he hadn’t slept since Inauguration Day” and Whitaker as someone who “still brags about his high school bench press record” is humorous but harmless. It paints a picture of how they presented themselves without distorting their actions.
Our statement that Landau and Whitaker offered “weak, sweaty excuses that couldn’t outrun a three-legged dog” is editorializing, but not deceptive. The transcript shows Landau dodging the question and Whitaker pivoting to blame Biden. The metaphor reinforces their evasiveness without changing what they said.
Our description of Merkley’s approach as “setting mousetraps in a room full of blindfolded rats” is a colorful way of illustrating Merkley’s methodical questioning. The transcript shows Merkley calmly yet persistently cornering Landau and Whitaker. The metaphor emphasizes Merkley’s calculated approach — it doesn’t distort the facts.
When we describe Merkley’s blunt question — “Is President Trump a Russian asset?” — as him “kicking the door open,” it’s an accurate reflection of how unexpectedly direct his question was. Merkley’s line is presented exactly as he said it.
Our statement that Landau’s response was essentially “Please don’t ask me anything else” is interpretation, but again, the transcript supports this. Landau’s vague answer dodged Merkley’s central point. Our description reflects Landau’s evasiveness — it doesn’t invent anything.
Saying Merkley’s list of Trump’s actions “sounds conspiratorial until you start listing the evidence” reflects Merkley’s strategy. Merkley laid out a series of actions that align with Russian interests — our commentary highlights that without distorting what Merkley said.
Each of Merkley’s points is presented as stated. Our commentary — such as comparing Trump’s diplomatic moves to “showing up to a poker game and tossing your entire stack of chips across the table” — is our way of emphasizing Merkley’s argument. It doesn’t alter the facts; it underscores Merkley’s frustration and concern.
Describing Merkley as “reading Putin’s wish list” is sharp but fair. Merkley himself laid out actions that aligned with Putin’s goals. The facts are accurate; our wording simply emphasizes Merkley’s argument.
Our reference to Landau’s exaggerated praise for Trump as “an exceptionally gifted dealmaker” is accurate — Landau did say that. Our remark about Trump being “the only individual in the entire universe” mocks Landau’s over-the-top praise but doesn’t change what he said.
When Whitaker pivoted to blaming Biden, our line — “That’s polite for ‘You’re embarrassing yourself — let’s try someone else’” — reflects Merkley’s calm dismissal of Whitaker’s dodge. Our commentary highlights Whitaker’s failure to address the actual question.
Our final remark — “If Trump isn’t a Russian asset, he’s sure putting in the effort to look like one” — is an editorial conclusion based on Merkley’s five points. Since we presented those points accurately and included the full transcript, this conclusion is grounded in what Merkley argued. It’s commentary, but it’s supported by facts.
Our writing is sharp, but it’s not manipulative. Every instance of strong language is backed by facts, with the transcript and video provided so readers can judge for themselves. Our commentary reinforces Merkley’s argument without inventing events, distorting quotes, or misleading readers.
If you believe we twisted the facts or misled readers, point to a specific example where that happened — not just where our language upset you. Otherwise, this isn’t about deception — it’s about you disliking our style.
I agree with everything. On an individual basis, I know manipulating language is used to sway a person’s views. But to be a PSYOP, does it need to be a bigger institutional effort? Like, government agencies or industry using the media to parrot the same talking points. Reminds me of the compilations of all the news agencies saying the same thing over and over. It would be great to include a link of those videos as examples. Also, any “news” media with a panel of people giving their opinions seem to be a PSYOP too. They all agree with each other and has the effect of the viewer being apart of an inclusive group with the same views. And, they inform the viewer on what interpretation of the information is acceptable. I guess I’m just asking or making the distinction between individual manipulative behavior (the serpent and Eve), and institutional behavior (the originators of the PSYOP).
Also, when I hear someone using the same catchphrase words and exact talking points I hear from the media “Russian agent” “Christian nationalist” or “threat to democracy” “safe an effective”, it’s a red flag to me that I’m talking to a PSYOPed individual. And that goes for the left and the right. The left is just more visible with their activist nature.
I mean, at a certain point it's a matter of scale. Gaslighting is a key component of PSYOPs and that can be individual. In general, I don't trust much of it. It's like how @closer to the edge is doing the work the Russian Internet Research Agency has done in the past. Are they part of the IRA? I've seen enough to say it's probably more likely they're an agent than Trump is an asset.
Claiming Closer to the Edge is “doing the work of the IRA” is reckless and absurd. If you have evidence to back that up, let’s see it. Otherwise, you're just lobbing accusations to deflect from the fact that we’ve presented verifiable information — including the full transcript and a public video of the hearing — which you’ve conveniently ignored.
Now, you’re claiming “gaslighting” because we pointed out those facts? That’s not gaslighting — that’s accountability. If transparency is suddenly a PSYOP tactic, we’d love to hear your explanation.
Instead of inventing conspiracy theories, why not engage with the content itself? If you can refute the facts, do it. But calling us manipulative because you can’t is just lazy.
What you're doing is straight from the IRA handbook. It's exactly what they did in 2016 and again in 2020. I'm claiming gaslighting because you keep twisting and contorting and then freak out when called for it.
As to why I'm not engaging with the 'facts' it's because it's not about the facts. Your language distorts facts into something they're not.
As I pointed out in the article, which you seem to be glitching over:
"Two things to note right off the bat. First, this is just the start of a longer post, and it leads with incredible priming language used to trigger biases. It’s a masterful example of emotive language that goes far beyond how most authors, outside of creative writing, articulate critical information like the proposed threat that the President of the United States is a Russian Asset. It’s important to note that all this language is wrapped around nuggets of things that are true, but the framing of that language completely changes our interpretation, just like in the Garden of Eden."
So, it's not the 'facts'; it's your perversion of the facts with Histronic language and then the attempt to gaslight after the fact.
→ Baseless accusation. If you genuinely believe Closer to the Edge is following Russian disinformation tactics, back it up with evidence. Otherwise, this is just you tossing out buzzwords to discredit us without substance.
2. "Twisting and contorting facts..."
→ Prove it. We've published full transcripts and linked to primary sources. If you think we've distorted something, point to a specific example and explain how. Vague accusations don't cut it.
3. "You're glitching over my article..."
→ No, we're not. We've read your article, addressed your points, and refuted your claims. Repeating the same argument louder doesn’t make it stronger.
4. "Emotive language distorts facts..."
→ Emotive language doesn’t invalidate facts. Descriptive language helps readers engage with complex issues, but it’s still anchored in truth. If you think our tone is too sharp, that’s fair — but attacking style doesn’t change the accuracy of what’s presented.
5. "It's not the facts; it's your perversion of the facts..."
→ Wrong. You’re conflating vivid writing with manipulation. We’ve been transparent with our sources and content. If you think our framing distorts reality, point to the distortion — not just the tone.
In short, Michael, you’re throwing accusations without evidence, dodging the content itself, and spinning this as some grand manipulation to avoid confronting facts that don’t fit your narrative. If you have something real to challenge, we’re here — but this dance around buzzwords and vague claims is wearing thin.
Dude, I love this! You've done exactly what I asked people to do in the essay. You've responded delightfully to my comments here. Now go back and do the same in your reporting. Your response is perfect. Now, hold yourself to the same level of accountability.
Michael, let’s break down our commentary step by step to address your concerns.
Our description of Merkley walking in “like a man who’d just been told his car got keyed” is colorful but doesn’t alter the facts. It sets the tone, describing Merkley as prepared for confrontation. It’s commentary about his demeanor, not manipulation.
Describing Landau as looking “like he hadn’t slept since Inauguration Day” and Whitaker as someone who “still brags about his high school bench press record” is humorous but harmless. It paints a picture of how they presented themselves without distorting their actions.
Our statement that Landau and Whitaker offered “weak, sweaty excuses that couldn’t outrun a three-legged dog” is editorializing, but not deceptive. The transcript shows Landau dodging the question and Whitaker pivoting to blame Biden. The metaphor reinforces their evasiveness without changing what they said.
Our description of Merkley’s approach as “setting mousetraps in a room full of blindfolded rats” is a colorful way of illustrating Merkley’s methodical questioning. The transcript shows Merkley calmly yet persistently cornering Landau and Whitaker. The metaphor emphasizes Merkley’s calculated approach — it doesn’t distort the facts.
When we describe Merkley’s blunt question — “Is President Trump a Russian asset?” — as him “kicking the door open,” it’s an accurate reflection of how unexpectedly direct his question was. Merkley’s line is presented exactly as he said it.
Our statement that Landau’s response was essentially “Please don’t ask me anything else” is interpretation, but again, the transcript supports this. Landau’s vague answer dodged Merkley’s central point. Our description reflects Landau’s evasiveness — it doesn’t invent anything.
Saying Merkley’s list of Trump’s actions “sounds conspiratorial until you start listing the evidence” reflects Merkley’s strategy. Merkley laid out a series of actions that align with Russian interests — our commentary highlights that without distorting what Merkley said.
Each of Merkley’s points is presented as stated. Our commentary — such as comparing Trump’s diplomatic moves to “showing up to a poker game and tossing your entire stack of chips across the table” — is our way of emphasizing Merkley’s argument. It doesn’t alter the facts; it underscores Merkley’s frustration and concern.
Describing Merkley as “reading Putin’s wish list” is sharp but fair. Merkley himself laid out actions that aligned with Putin’s goals. The facts are accurate; our wording simply emphasizes Merkley’s argument.
Our reference to Landau’s exaggerated praise for Trump as “an exceptionally gifted dealmaker” is accurate — Landau did say that. Our remark about Trump being “the only individual in the entire universe” mocks Landau’s over-the-top praise but doesn’t change what he said.
When Whitaker pivoted to blaming Biden, our line — “That’s polite for ‘You’re embarrassing yourself — let’s try someone else’” — reflects Merkley’s calm dismissal of Whitaker’s dodge. Our commentary highlights Whitaker’s failure to address the actual question.
Our final remark — “If Trump isn’t a Russian asset, he’s sure putting in the effort to look like one” — is an editorial conclusion based on Merkley’s five points. Since we presented those points accurately and included the full transcript, this conclusion is grounded in what Merkley argued. It’s commentary, but it’s supported by facts.
Our writing is sharp, but it’s not manipulative. Every instance of strong language is backed by facts, with the transcript and video provided so readers can judge for themselves. Our commentary reinforces Merkley’s argument without inventing events, distorting quotes, or misleading readers.
If you believe we twisted the facts or misled readers, point to a specific example where that happened — not just where our language upset you. Otherwise, this isn’t about deception — it’s about you disliking our style.
Dear God, you truly are useless. Have you never come across Gonzo Journalism as a style?
It's what makes Closer to the Edge fun to read ffs!
There is no factual distortion, no gaslighting, no manipulation, merely the excellent use primarily of metaphor to make an event more fun to read about.
It tries to be Gonzo Journalism but he's not Hunter S. Thompson. The problem is that it's creating social division, as I pointed out. It's Histrionic and let to a friend of mine, drawing a line in the sand around hyperbole, not facts.
HTS was controversial, but he was at least open about what he was doing. He was more like the Babylon Bee of the time than he was to your own writing. There was obvious satire. Your writing comes across as a pearl-clutching millennial mom. Gonzo Journalism is something that takes skill to pull off well. Anyone can shitpost.
Michael, let’s break down our commentary step by step to address your concerns.
Our description of Merkley walking in “like a man who’d just been told his car got keyed” is colorful but doesn’t alter the facts. It sets the tone, describing Merkley as prepared for confrontation. It’s commentary about his demeanor, not manipulation.
Describing Landau as looking “like he hadn’t slept since Inauguration Day” and Whitaker as someone who “still brags about his high school bench press record” is humorous but harmless. It paints a picture of how they presented themselves without distorting their actions.
Our statement that Landau and Whitaker offered “weak, sweaty excuses that couldn’t outrun a three-legged dog” is editorializing, but not deceptive. The transcript shows Landau dodging the question and Whitaker pivoting to blame Biden. The metaphor reinforces their evasiveness without changing what they said.
Our description of Merkley’s approach as “setting mousetraps in a room full of blindfolded rats” is a colorful way of illustrating Merkley’s methodical questioning. The transcript shows Merkley calmly yet persistently cornering Landau and Whitaker. The metaphor emphasizes Merkley’s calculated approach — it doesn’t distort the facts.
When we describe Merkley’s blunt question — “Is President Trump a Russian asset?” — as him “kicking the door open,” it’s an accurate reflection of how unexpectedly direct his question was. Merkley’s line is presented exactly as he said it.
Our statement that Landau’s response was essentially “Please don’t ask me anything else” is interpretation, but again, the transcript supports this. Landau’s vague answer dodged Merkley’s central point. Our description reflects Landau’s evasiveness — it doesn’t invent anything.
Saying Merkley’s list of Trump’s actions “sounds conspiratorial until you start listing the evidence” reflects Merkley’s strategy. Merkley laid out a series of actions that align with Russian interests — our commentary highlights that without distorting what Merkley said.
Each of Merkley’s points is presented as stated. Our commentary — such as comparing Trump’s diplomatic moves to “showing up to a poker game and tossing your entire stack of chips across the table” — is our way of emphasizing Merkley’s argument. It doesn’t alter the facts; it underscores Merkley’s frustration and concern.
Describing Merkley as “reading Putin’s wish list” is sharp but fair. Merkley himself laid out actions that aligned with Putin’s goals. The facts are accurate; our wording simply emphasizes Merkley’s argument.
Our reference to Landau’s exaggerated praise for Trump as “an exceptionally gifted dealmaker” is accurate — Landau did say that. Our remark about Trump being “the only individual in the entire universe” mocks Landau’s over-the-top praise but doesn’t change what he said.
When Whitaker pivoted to blaming Biden, our line — “That’s polite for ‘You’re embarrassing yourself — let’s try someone else’” — reflects Merkley’s calm dismissal of Whitaker’s dodge. Our commentary highlights Whitaker’s failure to address the actual question.
Our final remark — “If Trump isn’t a Russian asset, he’s sure putting in the effort to look like one” — is an editorial conclusion based on Merkley’s five points. Since we presented those points accurately and included the full transcript, this conclusion is grounded in what Merkley argued. It’s commentary, but it’s supported by facts.
Our writing is sharp, but it’s not manipulative. Every instance of strong language is backed by facts, with the transcript and video provided so readers can judge for themselves. Our commentary reinforces Merkley’s argument without inventing events, distorting quotes, or misleading readers.
If you believe we twisted the facts or misled readers, point to a specific example where that happened — not just where our language upset you. Otherwise, this isn’t about deception — it’s about you disliking our style.
Do you even know the meaning of due diligence or is there some bastardised Anerican-speak definition I'm not aware of?
Ctte writes in the style of HST all the time, it's not for the author to have to explain their command of the English language to the reader but for the reader to interpret it.
Interesting how you characterize bias as "style", but that's not being manipulative.
Fortunately, your opinions do not change the formal Logic upon which Language operates. Opinion is inherently fallacious.
Your bias is palpable ffs! Hate Trump much? Are you sure that you don't want to lick Merkley's loafers?
Look, I was born and raised in Oregon to an Oregon Trail Pioneer family. My roots here are deep and strong. That's bias.
I would like to kick Jeff Merkley's fucking teeth down his GD throat, for far too many GD reasons to list, but you're not Oregonian. Fuck that worthless POS career politician! He's a fucking moron of Civic Law suffering from TDS! That's bias.
You two are hilarious Nether of you have any formal training, education, or experience in Psychological Operations, and you're both full of egotistical bullshit!
When you graduate from Special Forces PsyOps school let me know. Good luck with that FBI background investigation, psych eval, information security training, and the IQ test. You're gonna need it.
When Michael used his tech skills to take a screenshot, he conveniently omitted the last two paragraphs of our About Us page — the ones that clarify our core values:
"That said, we encourage skepticism—real skepticism, not the brand sold by right-wing grifters who slap “DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH” on whatever lunatic conspiracy they’re peddling this week. If something seems off, don’t take our word for it—dig deeper, cross-check, and, above all, don’t let anyone spoon-feed you a narrative just because they slapped a blue checkmark on it.
"At the end of the day, Closer to the Edge isn’t here to make friends, kiss the ring of corporate media, or play nice with people who think “fake news” is anything that makes Trump look bad. We’re here to rip the mask off, call out the bullshit, and stay one step ahead of the mob. If that makes some people uncomfortable, good. It means we’re doing something right."
By cutting these paragraphs, Michael deliberately ignored the part where we emphasize our commitment to truth and skepticism. Leaving those out wasn’t just an oversight — it was an attempt to frame us as dishonest while conveniently ignoring the values we promote.
Sounds like we agree. So why don't you follow your own core value? You shouldn't lead with "no sources" and then follow with that. Especially when your writing violates it to hell and back. My lady doth protest too much.
I'm referring to the about page in general, not the specific case, which, given your pedantic nature, you already know so... Now you're just proving my point which I appreciate 👊🏽
A quick watch of the actual event would have told you at once that Closer to The Edge's post was an accurate report in the style of Hunter S. Thompson - I'm assuming you've both heard of and read him.
Now let's look at you.
What is your actual point here using Closer to the Edge's post? It's instantly checkable, verifiable very quickly and easily. What matters isn't anonymity nor citation but whether what is promulgated can be quickly verified as fact. If you haven't worked out how to fact check using various search engines or how to access peer reviewed articles etc then you really must.
Closer to the Edge reports on current affairs and events in a style which I enjoy. They're not written in any way to manipulate the reader given that the said events are usually all over the mainstream media anyway.
There is absolutely nothing exciting let alone 'Fantastical' about the post regarding Senator Merkley's questioning, you can watch it in its entirety on YouTube.
So, Michael, what is your point?
If you want us to have any credence in your mediocre ramblings, I would strongly suggest using an article that might indeed be fantastical and involve a degree of manipulation rather than one that doesn't.
This essay is about the humans I love and interact with and helping them deal with the chaos of divisive politics. This isn’t about Closer to the Edge. This is about the very real world of social division that leads to chaos. Try re-reading the essay, look for the point. CttE just happens to have been a real world example that a friend of mine reposted in a divisive way.
Yeah well, the pgate thing is true. Ofc agents were dispatched to manipulate and put out fake info, fake victims, fake stories, etc etc. They do that every time they are exposed in any way. But the core of the story is factual.
How much of this is opinion, and how much of it is actual education and study?
Are you familiar with Edward Bernays?
I have a U.S. Army Special Forces education in Psychological Operations. Special Forces has operated the SWCS Psychological Operations School at Fort Bragg for the better part of a century. Moreover, the Army has expanded Psychological Operations to be it's own branch of the Army with its own group of Military Occupational Specialties. During my time in service it was just a few battalions, working mostly with Special Operations.
PsyOps school is only available to those with a Top Secret Clearance, and a need to know.
I had to sign a 40 year NDA when I out processed from the Army, as a result of my clearance and confidential training.
Suffice it to say, your idea of Psychological Operations, and mine are in some ways similar, but not the same. Unfortunately I still have a couple of years on my NDA. So this is as far as I go in the discourse.
I'll just sit on the sidelines bemused, if not amused.
These are pretty good counterintelligence rules of thumb. Not really getting the objections to them.
Having a look at Closer To The Edge's disdaining of them:
" Emotionally charged language isn’t manipulation — it’s writing."
No, it's both. Writers use emphasis and emotional charge in order to elicit the desired response from the reader. And this is legit--up to a point. It's more of a fiction narrative technique--or a rhetorical technique. It adds "reader engagement"--but also has the liability of aiding in twisting the facts.
That's part of what makes police report paperwork so dry--the absence of rhetoric. The writer is depicting a nonfiction event as dispassionately as possible. A depiction of bare facts does not the make for the most engaging writing, but it's the most accurate. And every reader should have the ability to mentally do that with any report of a nonfiction event. Only after that should the rhetorical part can be added in and assessed by the reader, for whether the narrative frame is warranted. The first priority: Who What When Where Why and How. As many of those questions settled as possible, based on the weight of evidence. Factual support.
"Woudenberg accuses Closer to the Edge of being anonymous and, therefore, untrustworthy. This argument is weak and ignorant of how investigative journalism works."
Nah, he's just exercising skepticism, and insisting on a higher standard of evidence for anons. Although in my pur-view, a REAL skeptic wonders whether the same author was writing both Substack pages %^D
I have no opinion on the PB vs. CTTE dispute, as yet. I just got here. Don't know when or where it began, or about what. Just sticking with the post on this page, and the post that I'm quoting.
"And while Woudenberg insists we refuse to cite sources, that’s false. Closer to the Edge consistently references credible reporting, government records, and verified accounts."
Point CTTE, unless they isn't accurately characterizing Wouderberg's opinion. Woudenberg maintains that at least some of the information provided by CTTE is not sourced in a way that can be confirmed. This is only borderline acceptable in the case of, say, Seymour Hersh. And even then, skepticism is required. Even Sy Hersh has a history of having been taken; his inside sources have agendas of their own. His track record of finding leads to developing stories that bear fruit as actual scoops is pretty high. But not perfect. Seymour Hersh does use his own name as his byline.
"This mindset is self-defeating. It flips the burden of proof, demanding that anyone who challenges Woudenberg’s accusations must somehow prove a negative."
Point CTTE--but only if the assertion is accurate, and not an unwarranted inference. CTTE is referring to the gambit of Non-Falsifiability, which constructs logical trap door exceptions to shift the burden of proof in the direction of infinity. The problem here is that PB--Woudenberg--has already brought up the non-falsifiability problem in the post supposedly being refuted. Which in turn implies that PB's skepticism advice is not to keep endlessly trying to Prove Psyops. PB's point that it's imperative to assume a default of skepticism even when one would prefer that the information be true also argues against the notion that he's recommending the "psyops suspicion" as an excuse to dismiss any claim that conflicts with one's preferred preconceptions and opinions.
"Woudenberg’s “PSYOP, until proven otherwise” mantra is where his argument completely falls apart. While skepticism is healthy, assuming everything is manipulation unless you personally can disprove it isn’t critical thinking — it’s paranoia."
It's only paranoia if it turns into a Conclusion. If it's used as a beginning rather than an end, it's a useful screen. A sense of humor is imperative, of course.
The objections from Closer to the Edge were that they weren't a real 'PSYOP.' They're likely a 22 year old creative writing student channeling Hunter S. Thompson. However, they're playing right into classic PSYOPs playbooks and creating legit social division with a friend of mine.
So in this case, it was proven otherwise and to your point, it also provided a great case study to see how to apply counterintelligence rules of thumb. 😆
When I link on this topic*, I don't go to any particular site, I just put up the search results page for logical+fallacies+list. Which works especially well in this case, because the lists all agree! Some are more comprehensive and detailed, that's all. As I've noted, this refutes the commonly heard claim that "there's no such thing as Objective Truth." Objective Truth may not as a rule be accessible to humans. simply because of the limitations of perspective and parallax problems. But there is such a thing as an Objective Truth Zone. That's where the discipline of Impartiality comes in. The key to mastering logical fallacy detection is to grill their own positions with it. Ruthlessly.
*which I do a lot, because learning those rules is THE remedy for the "misinformation/disinformation" problems of social media, the Internet, and basically everything read or said. The more people who learn the rules of logical fallacy detection, the saner the Internet will get. No censorship of ideas required.
I agree. The use of logical fallacies is very useful. Ironically, "PSYOP, until proven otherwise." does suffer from the burden of proof fallacy because it makes an accusation. However, I view it more like the ability to check myself, confirm whether or not it is triggering a reaction that isn't warranted, and then move forward. I suppose knowing that I'm usefully using an idea that can fall into a logical fallacy is still useful on many levels.
Two lists I love because of there simplicity:
"The Cognitive Bias Codex"
The List of "Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies"
The "MK-ULTRA" conspiracy allegation--that the psychedelic youth counterculture was a setup all along, pre-designed by some nefarious network* with tentacles in CIA and MI6-- looks to me like a Psyop whose game is making allegations of a Psyop.
By the time that claim first showed up on my screen, I already knew enough factual history to see through it. I also realized that the details used to construct the story were approximately 100% cribbed from a handful of books that came out in the late 1970s, written by much more thorough and responsible researchers who didn't draw that conclusion at all. The Conspiracy Media Complex that continues to peddle this line continues to take the investigative reportage of others and fit it into their mold, mostly by using it very selectively. And also by conjuring mountains out of molehills.I just have to laugh when I see lists of alleged Conspirators that base their charges of Counterculture Conspirator participation entirely on the data points "had close family relations in the military or the government + counterculture pop fame". https://fadilama.substack.com/p/mass-psychology-in-geopolitics-6
(*The target of the Psyop isn't really a small group of collaborating conspirators. Upon closer examination, the Villain turns out to be mid-20th century Anglo-American Liberalism. And, above all, Drug Legalizers--even though the only thing ever required for government control over the counterculture has been the laws that have criminalized everyone knowingly in the vicinity of a forbidden substance.)
The problem is that if someone reads the actual primary sources after being exposed exposure to the Allen Dulles-Tim Leary-Jim Morrison-Charlie Manson counterculture conspiracy narrative, they might inclined to read the material through that frame--especially if they're only skimming. It takes a while to debug the misleading story. I find the real story of MK-ULTRA to be more intriguing. Hopefully some of it remains to be told, because there are definitely some mysteries. Reading a bookshelf full of history provides the most accurate outline of the real story (some street time from "back in the day" also helps a lot.) But as an introduction to the real history, The Memory Hole has a Substack that provides a lot of primary source material and bibliographic leads.
lol, no one ever challenges me when I mock the MK-ULTRA-Laurel Canyon Counterculture Conspiracy hypothesis for the clickbait bunk that it is. Maybe all of the True Believers are convinced that I'm a flak-catcher for the ongoing operation, and if they try to expose me by contesting my claim they'll be tracked on NSA satellites for their valorous act of countering the Psyop....ooo--eee
2. Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties (https://amzn.to/4kSVwZE)
They're interesting but there's so much bullshit as to be insane. As for conspiracies, I follow Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice what can be properly explained by incompetence."
Outstanding article (although I gather there's more entertainment to be had in the comments section..). I just happened upon this publication yesterday and I like what I see.
The comment about us not being rational beings, but rather rationalizing beings who don't like being wrong..that is so true and I hate it! I know that if I examined my circumstances and actions with a more rational eye on a day-to-day basis I'd be a lot further ahead. How that pertains to manipulation is fascinating, and this world of dopamine-release idiocracy is just rife for that kind of thing.
In a sense, I'm removed from a lot of it. Traveling southeast asia. Ignoring the news. Focused on my own healing work and writing about it, and hopefully helping others to disconnect a bit more and look to the inner light. Still, it affects me. Of course it does. It's meant to!
A friend made a crack that he thought the whole covid thing was one giant psyops and that wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure the powerful and the manipulative learned a thing or two about just how far they can push, that's for sure. Seems like 'pretty goddamned far' is the answer to that. What can you do, really? Right?
Awesome to have you hear and yes, the comments did not disappoint especially from my example subject.
COVID was interesting because, just says prior, I was at a Threat casting where we proposed the idea of a societal autoimmune response as a tacting for geopolitics.
I don't know if COVID or an autoimmune response were the plan but that's how it certainly played out!
Nice use of AI! Looks like Perplexity AI? The problem is that it's hallucinating. The problem is you trusted it like you trust your other sources. Slow down, read what I wrote, and stop looking into a mirror.
You protest too much!
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/looking-into-a-mirror
P.S. if you spent a hot minute looking at the content on this site, or even the links I shared in this article, you'd see how silly your comment is. I don't like to dunk on people but your spamming the hell out of my comments section. Maybe start here?
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/embracing-my-white-belt
This is a really good post and I like the approach. I remember when I was much younger I was coming out of an alcoholic fog and getting sober and clean. As I was trying to figure out the world, I was reading everything from Ayn Rand to Karl Marx. I had a friend who was recruited by the CIA as an electronics wiz. He never revealed too much, but was working on surveillance. We got together one time and he saw a copy of the guardian, not the same guardian as today, but a much more left-leaning newspaper. It freaked him out.
I struggled with trying to figure out what was true as I knew all the messages from every angle were trying to hook me. Ultimately, I personally thought Rand was a heartless person and Marx was an idealist and his philosophy was perverted by so many regimes.
So now here I am today, at 60 years old, where I definitely lean more on the left. But what’s fascinating is that I am deeply involved in activism and recognize the limitations of motivating others through logical (logos) arguments, I try that as a basis but the path of passion (pathos) is more effective.
I try to limit my consumption of news and social media to maintain sanity and try to focus more on critical thinking, however, my wife and I were watching MSNBC although we know it was an echo chamber, jokingly she said it was like a warm hug!
Treating everything like a PSYOP is a great way to check myself.
Thank you
I'm glad it resonated. It's so hard to separate fact from fiction especially with information overload. Thanks for the great insights!
When the transcript is included word for word in the article you are being critical of, and the entire confirmation hearing is on YouTube for anybody to watch, you still can't decipher fact from fiction?
Gaslighting is another tactic of PSYOPS. You're doing great! 👊🏽
You're dodging the point. We included the full transcript word for word in the article — no spin, no tricks — alongside a publicly available video of the hearing. That’s not gaslighting; that’s transparency. Calling us manipulative for simply presenting the evidence with colorful language is just you avoiding accountability.
If you're confident in your claims, engage with the content directly. If you can’t — and this response suggests you can’t — then maybe the problem isn’t manipulation… it’s that the facts don’t support your narrative.
I did engage with you directly. It's all laid out in the article. You provided a great example of highly manipulative content/ As to the transcript and video. I watched them and that why I called you out for what you did. What are you having a hard time understanding?
You're running right from the Russian IRA playbook. If you are really trying to share news, try it in a way that doesn't mirror a PSYOP. It's that simple.
Michael, let’s break down our commentary step by step to address your concerns.
Our description of Merkley walking in “like a man who’d just been told his car got keyed” is colorful but doesn’t alter the facts. It sets the tone, describing Merkley as prepared for confrontation. It’s commentary about his demeanor, not manipulation.
Describing Landau as looking “like he hadn’t slept since Inauguration Day” and Whitaker as someone who “still brags about his high school bench press record” is humorous but harmless. It paints a picture of how they presented themselves without distorting their actions.
Our statement that Landau and Whitaker offered “weak, sweaty excuses that couldn’t outrun a three-legged dog” is editorializing, but not deceptive. The transcript shows Landau dodging the question and Whitaker pivoting to blame Biden. The metaphor reinforces their evasiveness without changing what they said.
Our description of Merkley’s approach as “setting mousetraps in a room full of blindfolded rats” is a colorful way of illustrating Merkley’s methodical questioning. The transcript shows Merkley calmly yet persistently cornering Landau and Whitaker. The metaphor emphasizes Merkley’s calculated approach — it doesn’t distort the facts.
When we describe Merkley’s blunt question — “Is President Trump a Russian asset?” — as him “kicking the door open,” it’s an accurate reflection of how unexpectedly direct his question was. Merkley’s line is presented exactly as he said it.
Our statement that Landau’s response was essentially “Please don’t ask me anything else” is interpretation, but again, the transcript supports this. Landau’s vague answer dodged Merkley’s central point. Our description reflects Landau’s evasiveness — it doesn’t invent anything.
Saying Merkley’s list of Trump’s actions “sounds conspiratorial until you start listing the evidence” reflects Merkley’s strategy. Merkley laid out a series of actions that align with Russian interests — our commentary highlights that without distorting what Merkley said.
Each of Merkley’s points is presented as stated. Our commentary — such as comparing Trump’s diplomatic moves to “showing up to a poker game and tossing your entire stack of chips across the table” — is our way of emphasizing Merkley’s argument. It doesn’t alter the facts; it underscores Merkley’s frustration and concern.
Describing Merkley as “reading Putin’s wish list” is sharp but fair. Merkley himself laid out actions that aligned with Putin’s goals. The facts are accurate; our wording simply emphasizes Merkley’s argument.
Our reference to Landau’s exaggerated praise for Trump as “an exceptionally gifted dealmaker” is accurate — Landau did say that. Our remark about Trump being “the only individual in the entire universe” mocks Landau’s over-the-top praise but doesn’t change what he said.
When Whitaker pivoted to blaming Biden, our line — “That’s polite for ‘You’re embarrassing yourself — let’s try someone else’” — reflects Merkley’s calm dismissal of Whitaker’s dodge. Our commentary highlights Whitaker’s failure to address the actual question.
Our final remark — “If Trump isn’t a Russian asset, he’s sure putting in the effort to look like one” — is an editorial conclusion based on Merkley’s five points. Since we presented those points accurately and included the full transcript, this conclusion is grounded in what Merkley argued. It’s commentary, but it’s supported by facts.
Our writing is sharp, but it’s not manipulative. Every instance of strong language is backed by facts, with the transcript and video provided so readers can judge for themselves. Our commentary reinforces Merkley’s argument without inventing events, distorting quotes, or misleading readers.
If you believe we twisted the facts or misled readers, point to a specific example where that happened — not just where our language upset you. Otherwise, this isn’t about deception — it’s about you disliking our style.
I agree with everything. On an individual basis, I know manipulating language is used to sway a person’s views. But to be a PSYOP, does it need to be a bigger institutional effort? Like, government agencies or industry using the media to parrot the same talking points. Reminds me of the compilations of all the news agencies saying the same thing over and over. It would be great to include a link of those videos as examples. Also, any “news” media with a panel of people giving their opinions seem to be a PSYOP too. They all agree with each other and has the effect of the viewer being apart of an inclusive group with the same views. And, they inform the viewer on what interpretation of the information is acceptable. I guess I’m just asking or making the distinction between individual manipulative behavior (the serpent and Eve), and institutional behavior (the originators of the PSYOP).
Also, when I hear someone using the same catchphrase words and exact talking points I hear from the media “Russian agent” “Christian nationalist” or “threat to democracy” “safe an effective”, it’s a red flag to me that I’m talking to a PSYOPed individual. And that goes for the left and the right. The left is just more visible with their activist nature.
I mean, at a certain point it's a matter of scale. Gaslighting is a key component of PSYOPs and that can be individual. In general, I don't trust much of it. It's like how @closer to the edge is doing the work the Russian Internet Research Agency has done in the past. Are they part of the IRA? I've seen enough to say it's probably more likely they're an agent than Trump is an asset.
Claiming Closer to the Edge is “doing the work of the IRA” is reckless and absurd. If you have evidence to back that up, let’s see it. Otherwise, you're just lobbing accusations to deflect from the fact that we’ve presented verifiable information — including the full transcript and a public video of the hearing — which you’ve conveniently ignored.
Now, you’re claiming “gaslighting” because we pointed out those facts? That’s not gaslighting — that’s accountability. If transparency is suddenly a PSYOP tactic, we’d love to hear your explanation.
Instead of inventing conspiracy theories, why not engage with the content itself? If you can refute the facts, do it. But calling us manipulative because you can’t is just lazy.
What you're doing is straight from the IRA handbook. It's exactly what they did in 2016 and again in 2020. I'm claiming gaslighting because you keep twisting and contorting and then freak out when called for it.
As to why I'm not engaging with the 'facts' it's because it's not about the facts. Your language distorts facts into something they're not.
As I pointed out in the article, which you seem to be glitching over:
"Two things to note right off the bat. First, this is just the start of a longer post, and it leads with incredible priming language used to trigger biases. It’s a masterful example of emotive language that goes far beyond how most authors, outside of creative writing, articulate critical information like the proposed threat that the President of the United States is a Russian Asset. It’s important to note that all this language is wrapped around nuggets of things that are true, but the framing of that language completely changes our interpretation, just like in the Garden of Eden."
So, it's not the 'facts'; it's your perversion of the facts with Histronic language and then the attempt to gaslight after the fact.
Let’s take a moment to address whatever that was.
1. "Straight from the IRA handbook..."
→ Baseless accusation. If you genuinely believe Closer to the Edge is following Russian disinformation tactics, back it up with evidence. Otherwise, this is just you tossing out buzzwords to discredit us without substance.
2. "Twisting and contorting facts..."
→ Prove it. We've published full transcripts and linked to primary sources. If you think we've distorted something, point to a specific example and explain how. Vague accusations don't cut it.
3. "You're glitching over my article..."
→ No, we're not. We've read your article, addressed your points, and refuted your claims. Repeating the same argument louder doesn’t make it stronger.
4. "Emotive language distorts facts..."
→ Emotive language doesn’t invalidate facts. Descriptive language helps readers engage with complex issues, but it’s still anchored in truth. If you think our tone is too sharp, that’s fair — but attacking style doesn’t change the accuracy of what’s presented.
5. "It's not the facts; it's your perversion of the facts..."
→ Wrong. You’re conflating vivid writing with manipulation. We’ve been transparent with our sources and content. If you think our framing distorts reality, point to the distortion — not just the tone.
In short, Michael, you’re throwing accusations without evidence, dodging the content itself, and spinning this as some grand manipulation to avoid confronting facts that don’t fit your narrative. If you have something real to challenge, we’re here — but this dance around buzzwords and vague claims is wearing thin.
Dude, I love this! You've done exactly what I asked people to do in the essay. You've responded delightfully to my comments here. Now go back and do the same in your reporting. Your response is perfect. Now, hold yourself to the same level of accountability.
Michael, let’s break down our commentary step by step to address your concerns.
Our description of Merkley walking in “like a man who’d just been told his car got keyed” is colorful but doesn’t alter the facts. It sets the tone, describing Merkley as prepared for confrontation. It’s commentary about his demeanor, not manipulation.
Describing Landau as looking “like he hadn’t slept since Inauguration Day” and Whitaker as someone who “still brags about his high school bench press record” is humorous but harmless. It paints a picture of how they presented themselves without distorting their actions.
Our statement that Landau and Whitaker offered “weak, sweaty excuses that couldn’t outrun a three-legged dog” is editorializing, but not deceptive. The transcript shows Landau dodging the question and Whitaker pivoting to blame Biden. The metaphor reinforces their evasiveness without changing what they said.
Our description of Merkley’s approach as “setting mousetraps in a room full of blindfolded rats” is a colorful way of illustrating Merkley’s methodical questioning. The transcript shows Merkley calmly yet persistently cornering Landau and Whitaker. The metaphor emphasizes Merkley’s calculated approach — it doesn’t distort the facts.
When we describe Merkley’s blunt question — “Is President Trump a Russian asset?” — as him “kicking the door open,” it’s an accurate reflection of how unexpectedly direct his question was. Merkley’s line is presented exactly as he said it.
Our statement that Landau’s response was essentially “Please don’t ask me anything else” is interpretation, but again, the transcript supports this. Landau’s vague answer dodged Merkley’s central point. Our description reflects Landau’s evasiveness — it doesn’t invent anything.
Saying Merkley’s list of Trump’s actions “sounds conspiratorial until you start listing the evidence” reflects Merkley’s strategy. Merkley laid out a series of actions that align with Russian interests — our commentary highlights that without distorting what Merkley said.
Each of Merkley’s points is presented as stated. Our commentary — such as comparing Trump’s diplomatic moves to “showing up to a poker game and tossing your entire stack of chips across the table” — is our way of emphasizing Merkley’s argument. It doesn’t alter the facts; it underscores Merkley’s frustration and concern.
Describing Merkley as “reading Putin’s wish list” is sharp but fair. Merkley himself laid out actions that aligned with Putin’s goals. The facts are accurate; our wording simply emphasizes Merkley’s argument.
Our reference to Landau’s exaggerated praise for Trump as “an exceptionally gifted dealmaker” is accurate — Landau did say that. Our remark about Trump being “the only individual in the entire universe” mocks Landau’s over-the-top praise but doesn’t change what he said.
When Whitaker pivoted to blaming Biden, our line — “That’s polite for ‘You’re embarrassing yourself — let’s try someone else’” — reflects Merkley’s calm dismissal of Whitaker’s dodge. Our commentary highlights Whitaker’s failure to address the actual question.
Our final remark — “If Trump isn’t a Russian asset, he’s sure putting in the effort to look like one” — is an editorial conclusion based on Merkley’s five points. Since we presented those points accurately and included the full transcript, this conclusion is grounded in what Merkley argued. It’s commentary, but it’s supported by facts.
Our writing is sharp, but it’s not manipulative. Every instance of strong language is backed by facts, with the transcript and video provided so readers can judge for themselves. Our commentary reinforces Merkley’s argument without inventing events, distorting quotes, or misleading readers.
If you believe we twisted the facts or misled readers, point to a specific example where that happened — not just where our language upset you. Otherwise, this isn’t about deception — it’s about you disliking our style.
Dear God, you truly are useless. Have you never come across Gonzo Journalism as a style?
It's what makes Closer to the Edge fun to read ffs!
There is no factual distortion, no gaslighting, no manipulation, merely the excellent use primarily of metaphor to make an event more fun to read about.
It tries to be Gonzo Journalism but he's not Hunter S. Thompson. The problem is that it's creating social division, as I pointed out. It's Histrionic and let to a friend of mine, drawing a line in the sand around hyperbole, not facts.
It doesn't know the meaning of half the terms it uses.
It's decided it's correct, your wrong, stamped its foot and is currently standing and pouting in the corner of the sandpit.
It really is silly how Closer to the Edge is reacting is it?
HTS was controversial, but he was at least open about what he was doing. He was more like the Babylon Bee of the time than he was to your own writing. There was obvious satire. Your writing comes across as a pearl-clutching millennial mom. Gonzo Journalism is something that takes skill to pull off well. Anyone can shitpost.
You should consider getting a job as an SNL sketch writer.
To suggest that something as glaringly obvious as a q&a session widely reported across the media is comparable to the work of the IRA is comedy gold.
The only thing you're really doing is life is depriving a well meaning village somewhere of their prize idiot.
I appreciate that. There's an irony in that complement. 👊🏽 Can you figure it out?
Michael, let’s break down our commentary step by step to address your concerns.
Our description of Merkley walking in “like a man who’d just been told his car got keyed” is colorful but doesn’t alter the facts. It sets the tone, describing Merkley as prepared for confrontation. It’s commentary about his demeanor, not manipulation.
Describing Landau as looking “like he hadn’t slept since Inauguration Day” and Whitaker as someone who “still brags about his high school bench press record” is humorous but harmless. It paints a picture of how they presented themselves without distorting their actions.
Our statement that Landau and Whitaker offered “weak, sweaty excuses that couldn’t outrun a three-legged dog” is editorializing, but not deceptive. The transcript shows Landau dodging the question and Whitaker pivoting to blame Biden. The metaphor reinforces their evasiveness without changing what they said.
Our description of Merkley’s approach as “setting mousetraps in a room full of blindfolded rats” is a colorful way of illustrating Merkley’s methodical questioning. The transcript shows Merkley calmly yet persistently cornering Landau and Whitaker. The metaphor emphasizes Merkley’s calculated approach — it doesn’t distort the facts.
When we describe Merkley’s blunt question — “Is President Trump a Russian asset?” — as him “kicking the door open,” it’s an accurate reflection of how unexpectedly direct his question was. Merkley’s line is presented exactly as he said it.
Our statement that Landau’s response was essentially “Please don’t ask me anything else” is interpretation, but again, the transcript supports this. Landau’s vague answer dodged Merkley’s central point. Our description reflects Landau’s evasiveness — it doesn’t invent anything.
Saying Merkley’s list of Trump’s actions “sounds conspiratorial until you start listing the evidence” reflects Merkley’s strategy. Merkley laid out a series of actions that align with Russian interests — our commentary highlights that without distorting what Merkley said.
Each of Merkley’s points is presented as stated. Our commentary — such as comparing Trump’s diplomatic moves to “showing up to a poker game and tossing your entire stack of chips across the table” — is our way of emphasizing Merkley’s argument. It doesn’t alter the facts; it underscores Merkley’s frustration and concern.
Describing Merkley as “reading Putin’s wish list” is sharp but fair. Merkley himself laid out actions that aligned with Putin’s goals. The facts are accurate; our wording simply emphasizes Merkley’s argument.
Our reference to Landau’s exaggerated praise for Trump as “an exceptionally gifted dealmaker” is accurate — Landau did say that. Our remark about Trump being “the only individual in the entire universe” mocks Landau’s over-the-top praise but doesn’t change what he said.
When Whitaker pivoted to blaming Biden, our line — “That’s polite for ‘You’re embarrassing yourself — let’s try someone else’” — reflects Merkley’s calm dismissal of Whitaker’s dodge. Our commentary highlights Whitaker’s failure to address the actual question.
Our final remark — “If Trump isn’t a Russian asset, he’s sure putting in the effort to look like one” — is an editorial conclusion based on Merkley’s five points. Since we presented those points accurately and included the full transcript, this conclusion is grounded in what Merkley argued. It’s commentary, but it’s supported by facts.
Our writing is sharp, but it’s not manipulative. Every instance of strong language is backed by facts, with the transcript and video provided so readers can judge for themselves. Our commentary reinforces Merkley’s argument without inventing events, distorting quotes, or misleading readers.
If you believe we twisted the facts or misled readers, point to a specific example where that happened — not just where our language upset you. Otherwise, this isn’t about deception — it’s about you disliking our style.
Here's the raw video:
https://youtu.be/ibfVfAETlmA
You're slowly getting there. This is the sort of due diligence I'm asking for. Why don't you write like this more?
Are you serious?
Do you even know the meaning of due diligence or is there some bastardised Anerican-speak definition I'm not aware of?
Ctte writes in the style of HST all the time, it's not for the author to have to explain their command of the English language to the reader but for the reader to interpret it.
🤩🤩
Thanks for the great laugh 🤣!
Interesting how you characterize bias as "style", but that's not being manipulative.
Fortunately, your opinions do not change the formal Logic upon which Language operates. Opinion is inherently fallacious.
Your bias is palpable ffs! Hate Trump much? Are you sure that you don't want to lick Merkley's loafers?
Look, I was born and raised in Oregon to an Oregon Trail Pioneer family. My roots here are deep and strong. That's bias.
I would like to kick Jeff Merkley's fucking teeth down his GD throat, for far too many GD reasons to list, but you're not Oregonian. Fuck that worthless POS career politician! He's a fucking moron of Civic Law suffering from TDS! That's bias.
You two are hilarious Nether of you have any formal training, education, or experience in Psychological Operations, and you're both full of egotistical bullshit!
When you graduate from Special Forces PsyOps school let me know. Good luck with that FBI background investigation, psych eval, information security training, and the IQ test. You're gonna need it.
When Michael used his tech skills to take a screenshot, he conveniently omitted the last two paragraphs of our About Us page — the ones that clarify our core values:
"That said, we encourage skepticism—real skepticism, not the brand sold by right-wing grifters who slap “DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH” on whatever lunatic conspiracy they’re peddling this week. If something seems off, don’t take our word for it—dig deeper, cross-check, and, above all, don’t let anyone spoon-feed you a narrative just because they slapped a blue checkmark on it.
"At the end of the day, Closer to the Edge isn’t here to make friends, kiss the ring of corporate media, or play nice with people who think “fake news” is anything that makes Trump look bad. We’re here to rip the mask off, call out the bullshit, and stay one step ahead of the mob. If that makes some people uncomfortable, good. It means we’re doing something right."
By cutting these paragraphs, Michael deliberately ignored the part where we emphasize our commitment to truth and skepticism. Leaving those out wasn’t just an oversight — it was an attempt to frame us as dishonest while conveniently ignoring the values we promote.
Sounds like we agree. So why don't you follow your own core value? You shouldn't lead with "no sources" and then follow with that. Especially when your writing violates it to hell and back. My lady doth protest too much.
If you haven't worked out how to type Senator Merkley questions Lando into Google then you've got a problem.
Sources requiring citation are only really necessary where the source isn't obvious or findable, or in academic writing.
Something quite as obvious as Merkley questioning Lando really doesn't require a citation unless your incredibly lazy or below average intelligence.
And it's 'The lady doth protest too much' at least try and get your quotes correct.
I'm referring to the about page in general, not the specific case, which, given your pedantic nature, you already know so... Now you're just proving my point which I appreciate 👊🏽
What a load of absolute bollocks.
Assume everything is a PSYOP.
OK.
A quick watch of the actual event would have told you at once that Closer to The Edge's post was an accurate report in the style of Hunter S. Thompson - I'm assuming you've both heard of and read him.
Now let's look at you.
What is your actual point here using Closer to the Edge's post? It's instantly checkable, verifiable very quickly and easily. What matters isn't anonymity nor citation but whether what is promulgated can be quickly verified as fact. If you haven't worked out how to fact check using various search engines or how to access peer reviewed articles etc then you really must.
Closer to the Edge reports on current affairs and events in a style which I enjoy. They're not written in any way to manipulate the reader given that the said events are usually all over the mainstream media anyway.
There is absolutely nothing exciting let alone 'Fantastical' about the post regarding Senator Merkley's questioning, you can watch it in its entirety on YouTube.
So, Michael, what is your point?
If you want us to have any credence in your mediocre ramblings, I would strongly suggest using an article that might indeed be fantastical and involve a degree of manipulation rather than one that doesn't.
This essay is about the humans I love and interact with and helping them deal with the chaos of divisive politics. This isn’t about Closer to the Edge. This is about the very real world of social division that leads to chaos. Try re-reading the essay, look for the point. CttE just happens to have been a real world example that a friend of mine reposted in a divisive way.
Yeah well, the pgate thing is true. Ofc agents were dispatched to manipulate and put out fake info, fake victims, fake stories, etc etc. They do that every time they are exposed in any way. But the core of the story is factual.
How much of this is opinion, and how much of it is actual education and study?
Are you familiar with Edward Bernays?
I have a U.S. Army Special Forces education in Psychological Operations. Special Forces has operated the SWCS Psychological Operations School at Fort Bragg for the better part of a century. Moreover, the Army has expanded Psychological Operations to be it's own branch of the Army with its own group of Military Occupational Specialties. During my time in service it was just a few battalions, working mostly with Special Operations.
PsyOps school is only available to those with a Top Secret Clearance, and a need to know.
I had to sign a 40 year NDA when I out processed from the Army, as a result of my clearance and confidential training.
Suffice it to say, your idea of Psychological Operations, and mine are in some ways similar, but not the same. Unfortunately I still have a couple of years on my NDA. So this is as far as I go in the discourse.
I'll just sit on the sidelines bemused, if not amused.
These are pretty good counterintelligence rules of thumb. Not really getting the objections to them.
Having a look at Closer To The Edge's disdaining of them:
" Emotionally charged language isn’t manipulation — it’s writing."
No, it's both. Writers use emphasis and emotional charge in order to elicit the desired response from the reader. And this is legit--up to a point. It's more of a fiction narrative technique--or a rhetorical technique. It adds "reader engagement"--but also has the liability of aiding in twisting the facts.
That's part of what makes police report paperwork so dry--the absence of rhetoric. The writer is depicting a nonfiction event as dispassionately as possible. A depiction of bare facts does not the make for the most engaging writing, but it's the most accurate. And every reader should have the ability to mentally do that with any report of a nonfiction event. Only after that should the rhetorical part can be added in and assessed by the reader, for whether the narrative frame is warranted. The first priority: Who What When Where Why and How. As many of those questions settled as possible, based on the weight of evidence. Factual support.
"Woudenberg accuses Closer to the Edge of being anonymous and, therefore, untrustworthy. This argument is weak and ignorant of how investigative journalism works."
Nah, he's just exercising skepticism, and insisting on a higher standard of evidence for anons. Although in my pur-view, a REAL skeptic wonders whether the same author was writing both Substack pages %^D
I have no opinion on the PB vs. CTTE dispute, as yet. I just got here. Don't know when or where it began, or about what. Just sticking with the post on this page, and the post that I'm quoting.
"And while Woudenberg insists we refuse to cite sources, that’s false. Closer to the Edge consistently references credible reporting, government records, and verified accounts."
Point CTTE, unless they isn't accurately characterizing Wouderberg's opinion. Woudenberg maintains that at least some of the information provided by CTTE is not sourced in a way that can be confirmed. This is only borderline acceptable in the case of, say, Seymour Hersh. And even then, skepticism is required. Even Sy Hersh has a history of having been taken; his inside sources have agendas of their own. His track record of finding leads to developing stories that bear fruit as actual scoops is pretty high. But not perfect. Seymour Hersh does use his own name as his byline.
"This mindset is self-defeating. It flips the burden of proof, demanding that anyone who challenges Woudenberg’s accusations must somehow prove a negative."
Point CTTE--but only if the assertion is accurate, and not an unwarranted inference. CTTE is referring to the gambit of Non-Falsifiability, which constructs logical trap door exceptions to shift the burden of proof in the direction of infinity. The problem here is that PB--Woudenberg--has already brought up the non-falsifiability problem in the post supposedly being refuted. Which in turn implies that PB's skepticism advice is not to keep endlessly trying to Prove Psyops. PB's point that it's imperative to assume a default of skepticism even when one would prefer that the information be true also argues against the notion that he's recommending the "psyops suspicion" as an excuse to dismiss any claim that conflicts with one's preferred preconceptions and opinions.
"Woudenberg’s “PSYOP, until proven otherwise” mantra is where his argument completely falls apart. While skepticism is healthy, assuming everything is manipulation unless you personally can disprove it isn’t critical thinking — it’s paranoia."
It's only paranoia if it turns into a Conclusion. If it's used as a beginning rather than an end, it's a useful screen. A sense of humor is imperative, of course.
The objections from Closer to the Edge were that they weren't a real 'PSYOP.' They're likely a 22 year old creative writing student channeling Hunter S. Thompson. However, they're playing right into classic PSYOPs playbooks and creating legit social division with a friend of mine.
So in this case, it was proven otherwise and to your point, it also provided a great case study to see how to apply counterintelligence rules of thumb. 😆
The most foundational principles of counterintelligence are the rules of Logical Fallacy Detection, which provide an outline of the Truth Zone by discrediting its counterfeits. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=logical+fallacies+list&ia=web
When I link on this topic*, I don't go to any particular site, I just put up the search results page for logical+fallacies+list. Which works especially well in this case, because the lists all agree! Some are more comprehensive and detailed, that's all. As I've noted, this refutes the commonly heard claim that "there's no such thing as Objective Truth." Objective Truth may not as a rule be accessible to humans. simply because of the limitations of perspective and parallax problems. But there is such a thing as an Objective Truth Zone. That's where the discipline of Impartiality comes in. The key to mastering logical fallacy detection is to grill their own positions with it. Ruthlessly.
*which I do a lot, because learning those rules is THE remedy for the "misinformation/disinformation" problems of social media, the Internet, and basically everything read or said. The more people who learn the rules of logical fallacy detection, the saner the Internet will get. No censorship of ideas required.
I agree. The use of logical fallacies is very useful. Ironically, "PSYOP, until proven otherwise." does suffer from the burden of proof fallacy because it makes an accusation. However, I view it more like the ability to check myself, confirm whether or not it is triggering a reaction that isn't warranted, and then move forward. I suppose knowing that I'm usefully using an idea that can fall into a logical fallacy is still useful on many levels.
Two lists I love because of there simplicity:
"The Cognitive Bias Codex"
The List of "Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies"
You can search both and find very useful tools.
The "MK-ULTRA" conspiracy allegation--that the psychedelic youth counterculture was a setup all along, pre-designed by some nefarious network* with tentacles in CIA and MI6-- looks to me like a Psyop whose game is making allegations of a Psyop.
By the time that claim first showed up on my screen, I already knew enough factual history to see through it. I also realized that the details used to construct the story were approximately 100% cribbed from a handful of books that came out in the late 1970s, written by much more thorough and responsible researchers who didn't draw that conclusion at all. The Conspiracy Media Complex that continues to peddle this line continues to take the investigative reportage of others and fit it into their mold, mostly by using it very selectively. And also by conjuring mountains out of molehills.I just have to laugh when I see lists of alleged Conspirators that base their charges of Counterculture Conspirator participation entirely on the data points "had close family relations in the military or the government + counterculture pop fame". https://fadilama.substack.com/p/mass-psychology-in-geopolitics-6
(*The target of the Psyop isn't really a small group of collaborating conspirators. Upon closer examination, the Villain turns out to be mid-20th century Anglo-American Liberalism. And, above all, Drug Legalizers--even though the only thing ever required for government control over the counterculture has been the laws that have criminalized everyone knowingly in the vicinity of a forbidden substance.)
The problem is that if someone reads the actual primary sources after being exposed exposure to the Allen Dulles-Tim Leary-Jim Morrison-Charlie Manson counterculture conspiracy narrative, they might inclined to read the material through that frame--especially if they're only skimming. It takes a while to debug the misleading story. I find the real story of MK-ULTRA to be more intriguing. Hopefully some of it remains to be told, because there are definitely some mysteries. Reading a bookshelf full of history provides the most accurate outline of the real story (some street time from "back in the day" also helps a lot.) But as an introduction to the real history, The Memory Hole has a Substack that provides a lot of primary source material and bibliographic leads.
lol, no one ever challenges me when I mock the MK-ULTRA-Laurel Canyon Counterculture Conspiracy hypothesis for the clickbait bunk that it is. Maybe all of the True Believers are convinced that I'm a flak-catcher for the ongoing operation, and if they try to expose me by contesting my claim they'll be tracked on NSA satellites for their valorous act of countering the Psyop....ooo--eee
Lol. How many layers are in there! That's why I just treat it like a PSYOP about a PSYOP trying to get you believe a PSYOP did nor didn't exist.
Though two books I found interesting in that vein are:
1. Legacy of Ashes - About the CIA midadventures (https://amzn.to/4c3PEZr)
2. Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties (https://amzn.to/4kSVwZE)
They're interesting but there's so much bullshit as to be insane. As for conspiracies, I follow Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice what can be properly explained by incompetence."
I’ve read both of those books.
The tough thing about Hanlon’s Razor are those edge cases!
This is a good approach. Sometimes you see stories that are so emotional, you start to wonder. Especially if they evoke fear. Fear controls.
Exactly. I start reading sometimes then just try to see if there's a point beyond the gross emotion and, if not, I stop reading.
Outstanding article (although I gather there's more entertainment to be had in the comments section..). I just happened upon this publication yesterday and I like what I see.
The comment about us not being rational beings, but rather rationalizing beings who don't like being wrong..that is so true and I hate it! I know that if I examined my circumstances and actions with a more rational eye on a day-to-day basis I'd be a lot further ahead. How that pertains to manipulation is fascinating, and this world of dopamine-release idiocracy is just rife for that kind of thing.
In a sense, I'm removed from a lot of it. Traveling southeast asia. Ignoring the news. Focused on my own healing work and writing about it, and hopefully helping others to disconnect a bit more and look to the inner light. Still, it affects me. Of course it does. It's meant to!
A friend made a crack that he thought the whole covid thing was one giant psyops and that wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure the powerful and the manipulative learned a thing or two about just how far they can push, that's for sure. Seems like 'pretty goddamned far' is the answer to that. What can you do, really? Right?
Thank you for this. Loving your take on things.
Awesome to have you hear and yes, the comments did not disappoint especially from my example subject.
COVID was interesting because, just says prior, I was at a Threat casting where we proposed the idea of a societal autoimmune response as a tacting for geopolitics.
I don't know if COVID or an autoimmune response were the plan but that's how it certainly played out!
Looking forward to more of your insights.