The Pentagon spokesperson who has been accused by Elizondo of fighting UFO disclosure efforts wrote a thesis justifying the use of psychological manipulation on the American public

Exploring the History and Ethics of Strategic Influence in U.S. Policy: Insights from a Pentagon Spokesperson’s Scholarly Work

In recent discussions surrounding government transparency and information influence, a revealing academic thesis has come to light. Authored by a Pentagon spokesperson accused by Luis Elizondo—former Pentagon official and UFO researcher—of opposing efforts to disclose unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) information, this thesis offers a deep dive into the historical application and ethical considerations of strategic influence campaigns conducted by the United States.

A Historical Perspective on Strategic Influence

The thesis underscores that strategic influence is not a novel phenomenon; rather, it is a longstanding element of U.S. strategic policy. Since the nation’s inception, the United States has engaged in influence campaigns designed to shape perceptions both domestically and internationally. These efforts have experienced fluctuating fortunes—oscillating between aggressive implementation and periods of reticence—guided by evolving attitudes towards morality, ethics, and effectiveness.

The American Ethical Dilemma

One of the central themes in the thesis is the American ideological reluctance to embrace psychological and influence operations openly. The narrative suggests a cultural view that employing persuasion or psychological tactics on a national scale conflicts with democratic ideals. Many have historically perceived such methods as ‘immoral’ or ‘dirty,’ premised on the belief that transparency alone suffices in conveying a nation’s values. This perspective espouses that demonstrating the United States’ virtues through factual presentation should naturally garner admiration and emulation, rendering influence campaigns unnecessary.

Counterexamples and Propagandist Stigma

However, the thesis acknowledges that American policymakers’ skepticism towards strategic influence has been influenced by external factors, including the propaganda successes of adversaries like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. These regimes’ propagandist efforts left an enduring stain, leading many in the U.S. to associate influence operations with morally questionable tactics reserved for ‘the bad guys.’ Consequently, overt psychological warfare became stigmatized, seen as incompatible with American democratic values.

Recognition of the Need for Influence Campaigns

Despite these moral reservations, the thesis notes a pragmatic shift across the latter half of the 20th century—most U.S. administrations recognized the utility and importance of strategic influence. This acknowledgment reflects an understanding that, in complex international landscapes, perception management and psychological tactics can be essential tools in achieving national security objectives.

Implications for Current Discourse

The publication and analysis of this thesis shed light on the nuanced debate surrounding government influence