admin
Carl Higbie told millions on his Newsmax program that ordinary Americans are being run through what looks very much like a coordinated psychological operation designed to shape beliefs and mute dissent. He didn’t whisper this as a conspiracy theory — he said it plainly on Monday’s Carl Higbie FRONTLINE, warning viewers that elites in the media and politics are using modern tools to manufacture consent. If you care about liberty, you should take that warning seriously and start asking who benefits from the narratives you’re fed.
Let’s be blunt about what a psy-op actually is: the military and intelligence definitions show psychological operations are real tools meant to influence minds and behavior, usually aimed at foreign audiences and wartime objectives. The Department of Defense and analysts have long treated PSYOP as a disciplined craft — and they emphasize that those capabilities are supposed to be directed outward, not used to manipulate domestic political debate. That distinction matters because when the same playbook gets weaponized at home it becomes a direct threat to self-government.
We’ve seen how this can play out in plain sight: the so-called Twitter Files and other internal tech disclosures exposed how platforms and authorities handled politically sensitive material like the Hunter Biden laptop story, and raised uncomfortable questions about who flags content and why. Conservatives were right to point out that private platforms and connected government actors exercised enormous control over what tens of millions of Americans could see during crucial moments. Whether you call it censorship, coordinated messaging, or a psy-op in modern packaging, the effect is the same — information is being curated away from the people.
The federal government’s own flirtation with a Disinformation Governance Board illustrated the danger of granting officials more sway over speech under the guise of “security.” The botched rollout and quick backlash proved that Americans will not tolerate an opaque bureaucracy deciding which stories live and which are buried, and critics on both sides warned it could become a propaganda tool rather than a defender of truth. This is why vigilance matters: government programs that start with good-sounding names can easily be repurposed to influence domestic politics.
Big Tech’s inner workings, exposed by whistleblowers and major reporting, only reinforce Higbie’s alarm: algorithms, selective moderation, and the suppression of inconvenient facts are the modern infrastructure of persuasion. Conservatives should stop pretending this is merely a series of isolated mistakes and start treating it as a sustained effort by an aligned cultural-political complex to shape outcomes. The remedy is simple and patriotic — demand transparency, support independent conservative media that won’t fold under pressure, and make clear to Congress that Americans will not accept their free speech being quietly engineered away.
