U.S. Army Fights "Cognitive Threats" (You)
The Army Research Office has sent $5 million to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to “evaluate and defend against emerging cognitive threats”. One might be forgiven for wondering what a ‘cognitive threat’ is exactly. Most people want the military to be involved in dealing with physical threats from external forces. That is, after all, their purpose.
Dr. Nitin Agarwal, founding director of the Collaboration for Social Media and Online Behavioral Studies (COSMOS) Research Center, clarifies:
“Narratives on social media could be easily weaponized and propagated at frighteningly fast speeds… Such insidious threats that attempt to influence beliefs and behaviors need to be considered as modern weapons of cognitive hijacking. We need to develop scientific approaches to combat these emerging threats in a global context, equip our warfighters with these capabilities, and strengthen community resiliency.”
The threats that apparently need military intervention are “narratives,” because they might influence beliefs. Well, yes, when an idea is shared, some people may be convinced and come to agree. At risk of confessing to criminality, that’s the very purpose of this Substack. In a prior age, that was considered to be rather normal.
The report goes on to complain that people who have been influenced by narratives can then engage in illegal acts, like violent protests or cyber warfare. However, this sum of money was not given to act on those criminalities — but on misinformation. Thus, the alleged fear of criminal acts is merely a justification for what is actually indefensible. “Misinformation” is one of the most misused and abused words of the 21st Century. Elitists wield it as a weapon against the lower classes — those of us who can’t be trusted to discern the information that they find, and who must thus be “protected” by government projects and censorship on private platforms.
What we are actually seeing is how the government is working to prevent people from promoting ideas that are counter to what it espouses. Nobody seriously believes that the government is seeking to crack down on those who argue in favor of modern gender theory and critical race theory. Yet, those people are trying to “influence beliefs and behaviors” too. They do so in a way that the government approves of, and which protect the State’s unspoken civic religion.
It’s common in the modern age to refer to an opponent’s rhetoric as ‘misinformation’ because it provides an artificial moral high ground from which to attack. It would be more honest to simply show why the opponent is wrong. Alas, the art of rhetoric has been all but vanquished in contemporary times. Military spending is being used to stifle what little remains.
At the root of the problem is that the government itself is not a moral body. It does not recognize the source of morality. Thus, those whom it targets in such actions will be those who practice the true Faith and embrace traditional values. We saw that when the FBI was exposed for targeting traditional Catholics, which it briefly explained by saying that such Catholics are “anti-LGBT.” We will continue to experience minor persecutions as the State targets its ideological enemies. As time goes on, such acts will get more extreme, especially as fewer people identify among the Faithful, making us more vulnerable.
Do not be misled into believing that a government that defends child mutilation will only target truly egregious individuals on the Internet. It considers the moral to be the egregious.
Very insightful article, Sarah. I suppose, therefore, that each of us, as Christians, should pray for God's blessing to be the best "cognitive threat" that the Holy Spirit can make us. We should also pray that God might grant us the ability to spread "misinformation," once known as the truth of the gospel, to all tribes and nations. Indeed, it is ironic to be called a "bigot" for upholding Biblical standards of marriage and family or called a "threat" for affirming Christian "narratives" that might "influence the beliefs and behaviors" of others. That all human beings are morally responsible to God and in need of grace is just such a "narrative." It is an unpopular narrative these days in some quarters, one associated with pro-life views (e.g., "The unnecessary sacrifice of innocent life is always morally wrong") and anti-LGBT+ opinions (e.g., "Men cannot be women; and women cannot be men"). The unreflective arrogance of the government grant to the University of Arkansas is astonishing. Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said, "The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children." One should remember that Bonhoeffer was considered a "cognitive threat" by the Third Reich.
Is it unfair to mention this in a discussion criticizing questionable U.S. government programs? Well, when the FBI targets pro-Life Catholics for legal harassment, the burden of proof shifts to the federal government to prove that the comparison is inaccurate. In 2021, A swat team of twenty armed federal agents arrested Mark Houck, a pro-life, Catholic leader, in the middle of the night. The only things missing were the brown shirts and German accents. In January 2023, Houck was acquitted in federal court of the charges that the DOJ brought against him, but the government action has sent a chill through the pro-life community. Though “weaponized” narratives seem curious targets for a military grant, the government intimidation of pro-life advocates by weaponizing government enforcement agencies is real enough. Mark Houck and his wife are now suing the federal government for malicious prosecution. Let us pray for a decision in their favor.
This is why the founders believed that the majority of the nation’s military defense should be in the hands of the civilian militia, consisting of all able bodied males. They recognized the need for a small body of well trained professionals, hence the military academies.