The Definition of Strategy of Tension
Expanding Our Vocabulary to Describe the Reality We Experience
Democide and Menticide are two terms I recently came across during the pandemic. These concepts provide an accurate framework to understand our reality and give us the language to describe what we are experiencing.
While these terms are largely unknown to the general population (fewer than 0.000001% were familiar with them in 2019), understanding and vocalizing them helps us gain a clearer perspective on society.
Similarly, the term Strategy of Tension was something I encountered only a few months ago. Initially, I had no idea what it meant, though I was familiar with related concepts like “Psyops” and “False Flags.”
This curiosity led me to research the topic further, including a deep dive via ChatGPT. Below is my conversation with ChatGPT on the Strategy of Tension with emphasis (bold and italics) from me.
PS: It was a long sessions so I will only copy and paste key sections while leaving the link to the full session here. Also feel free to jump to conclusion for my commentary and feedback.
Question and Answer with ChatGPT
Me: I’ve heard psyop and false flag, but what is “Strategy tension?”
ChatGPT: “Strategy tension” isn't as commonly used as terms like “psyop” or “false flag,” but it generally refers to a deliberate technique in geopolitical or corporate contexts where conflicting strategies or policies are purposefully deployed to create controlled friction.
The aim is often to destabilize an opponent, encourage certain behaviors in a population, or prevent unified opposition.
By fostering “tension” between strategies, this approach can divide focus or resources, making it harder for the target to coordinate an effective response.
Think of it as setting up controlled opposition, where different factions or groups are encouraged to push against one another—keeping them preoccupied and less able to challenge the one who set the tension in motion.
Me: Tell me more about this
ChatGPT: The strategy of tension is a psychological and political manipulation technique designed to control populations by fostering fear, division, and mistrust.
By orchestrating or allowing destabilizing events, those in power can use the public’s reaction to steer society in a desired direction.
This approach relies on creating a continuous sense of crisis, making people feel that their safety, stability, or values are under threat. It’s often employed to justify authoritarian measures, enhance surveillance, or push policies that might otherwise face public opposition.
Origins and Historical Context
The strategy of tension is most famously associated with Italy during the “Years of Lead” (1960s–1980s), a period of intense social and political conflict marked by terrorism, violent protests, and political assassinations.
Many of these acts were originally attributed to extremist factions on the left and right, such as the Red Brigades and neofascist groups.
However, evidence later suggested that elements within Italian and foreign intelligence agencies might have supported, provoked, or even carried out some of these attacks to keep the population in fear and sway them toward conservative, pro-government, and anti-communist sentiment.
For example, in 1969, the Piazza Fontana bombing in Milan killed 17 people and injured over 80. Initially, the bombing was blamed on leftist groups, but later investigations pointed toward neofascist extremists allegedly linked to NATO’s secretive Operation Gladio—a Cold War-era initiative intended to counter communism in Europe through clandestine activities. (No surprise that the CIA was involved here)
The idea was to associate violence with leftist causes to shift public support toward the right and maintain the status quo.
Mechanisms of the Strategy of Tension
This tactic is designed to provoke specific emotional and psychological reactions from the public:
Fear and Anxiety: By causing violent events or spreading rumors of potential threats, the strategy keeps people in a state of fear, making them more likely to support measures they believe will restore security.
Polarization: Encouraging divisions within society—often along political, ideological, or ethnic lines—distracts the public and makes it harder for them to unite against common causes or recognize manipulation.
Disorientation and Distrust: When events are unpredictable and responses from officials seem inadequate or misleading, people become unsure of whom to trust. This atmosphere can lead to general apathy, where people become more willing to accept top-down control.
Modern Applications
While the strategy of tension is linked to Cold War tactics, variations have appeared in contemporary times. Examples include:
Media Amplification of Violence: Today, news cycles amplify violent incidents, which can make rare events seem frequent and inevitable, contributing to a heightened sense of threat.
Terror Alerts and Security Measures: Since 9/11, color-coded threat levels, travel restrictions, and widespread surveillance have been introduced as responses to terror threats, reinforcing the need for control to maintain safety.
Social Media and Misinformation: With the advent of digital media, divisive narratives and fear-based content can be spread widely, often anonymously. This can exacerbate social tensions and create a sense of instability that governments or other groups might exploit to justify restrictive policies.
Criticisms and Ethical Implications
The ethical implications of the strategy of tension are profound. Critics argue that it erodes trust in democratic institutions and undermines civil liberties by normalizing authoritarian measures.
It also manipulates people’s emotions and perspectives, fostering a climate where they are less likely to question authority. (No duh! Notice how ChatGPT doesn’t have any support for it, but doesn’t downright say its wrong)
The strategy of tension is a potent reminder of the psychological power structures can wield over society.
By maintaining a continuous atmosphere of tension, those who use this strategy effectively shape public perception, influence behavior, and strengthen their grip on power, often with long-lasting effects on social cohesion and democratic freedoms.
Me: Gimme examples of strategy of tension in the united states in the last 20 years
ChatGPT: In the U.S., examples often seen as applying the strategy of tension involve events and policies that heightened fear and division across the political spectrum.
These include government responses to terrorism, public shootings, surveillance expansions, and divisive media campaigns. Here are some prominent instances from the past 20 years:
1. Post-9/11 War on Terror and Patriot Act
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, fear of terrorism surged across the U.S. This led to the enactment of the Patriot Act, which expanded government surveillance powers, allowed indefinite detentions, and increased police authority, justified as essential for national security.
This period kept the public on high alert, with constant media coverage about terrorist threats, color-coded threat levels, and new security protocols at airports.
The atmosphere of fear led many to accept significant curtailments of privacy and freedom, all in the name of safety.
2. 2003 Invasion of Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Claims
The invasion of Iraq was justified to the American public as a preemptive action against a looming threat of WMDs. In reality, these weapons were never found, and later intelligence revealed that the threat was exaggerated.
However, the campaign served to heighten public fear about global terrorism, linking it with Iraq as a way to garner support for the war.
The sustained tension between national security and foreign threats kept people in a state of fear, supporting military action abroad and domestically expanded security measures.
3. Financial Crisis of 2008 and Occupy Wall Street
The 2008 financial crisis was a major shock to the American economy, leading to widespread fear of economic collapse.
The government’s response, particularly the bailouts for large financial institutions, fueled social and political unrest.
This unrest culminated in the Occupy Wall Street movement, which, while aiming to challenge corporate greed and income inequality, resulted in intense polarization.
The media and political discourse amplified the divides, with portrayals of “99% vs. 1%” tensions, creating a climate where people felt both angry and fearful about the economic system and its governance.
4. Mass Shootings and Gun Control Debate
High-profile mass shootings, such as those in Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Las Vegas, have had a profound psychological impact on American society, triggering repeated, intense debates over gun control.
Each of these incidents is followed by immediate media cycles emphasizing fear, often resulting in sharp divisions between gun rights advocates and those calling for stricter regulations.
The heightened fear and polarization following these events create an atmosphere of ongoing crisis, leading to political impasses and keeping the public on edge about safety in schools and public spaces.
(Number 5 was cut. Full version in ChatGPT link above)
6. COVID-19 Pandemic and Public Health Controls
The COVID-19 pandemic marked another strategy of tension, as fear of the virus spread and significant restrictions were imposed, including lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination requirements.
The public health measures divided people sharply along political lines, amplifying distrust of the government and even friends, family, or neighbors with different views.
The high-stakes rhetoric around compliance vs. non-compliance led to fear on both sides: fear of the virus for some and fear of government overreach for others, which furthered public distrust and polarization.
7. 2020 Protests and “Law and Order” Rhetoric
In the wake of George Floyd’s death, widespread protests against police brutality and racial injustice swept across the country, alongside riots and incidents of violence.
The protests provoked intense responses, with government officials deploying National Guard troops and pushing “law and order” agendas. The resulting tension divided public opinion and kept people fearful of either police or violent protests.
This dynamic led to a heightened state of unrest and insecurity, with the threat of violence or government suppression used to justify increased security measures.
Each of these examples illustrates how, through a strategy of tension, the U.S. government and media have contributed to an environment of sustained fear and division.
This atmosphere, in turn, can foster public support for policies, restrictions, or other measures that would typically face opposition, as people prioritize security and stability over broader freedoms and unity.
Me: so all of these can be tied to the us government?
ChatGPT: While many of these events involve the U.S. government in some capacity, not all are directly attributable to deliberate government actions as part of a formal strategy of tension.
Some events result from complex socio-political factors, while others involve private-sector influences, media dynamics, and organic societal divisions.
However, the U.S. government—and often its agencies or policymakers—has been involved in shaping public responses to these events. Here’s how each one ties back to government action or influence:
1. War on Terror and the Patriot Act
The response to 9/11 was unquestionably government-led, with the Patriot Act representing a deliberate expansion of surveillance and security powers.
Public fear was leveraged to justify these sweeping changes, and the Department of Homeland Security was created, all aimed at reinforcing security at the cost of civil liberties.
This response exemplifies how the government shaped a fearful atmosphere to justify expanded powers, in line with a strategy of tension approach.
2. Iraq Invasion and WMD Claims
The government used the threat of WMDs in Iraq to rally support for the 2003 invasion, which later proved to be based on faulty or exaggerated intelligence.
This event shows how perceived threats can be escalated by government messaging, leading to public fear and support for military actions abroad.
Government influence was central, as intelligence agencies and key figures framed the war as necessary for national security.
3. 2008 Financial Crisis and Economic Bailouts
While the financial crisis stemmed from complex economic factors, the government’s bailout of large banks highlighted perceived priorities favoring corporations over individuals.
This fueled public anger and distrust, sparking movements like Occupy Wall Street.
Although the government may not have (or may have) orchestrated the crisis, its handling of the aftermath created a sense of inequity and tension, reinforcing divisions between the elite and the general public.
4. Mass Shootings and Gun Control Debate
The U.S. government has struggled to address mass shootings and gun violence, largely due to political gridlock.
While the government doesn’t create these tragic events (or it may under psyops and false flags), political leaders and agencies often frame these incidents in ways that fuel public division.
Repeated calls for gun control vs. gun rights keep tensions high and intensify polarization, a phenomenon the government has been unable or unwilling to mitigate effectively.
5. Domestic Terrorism Warnings and Expanded Surveillance
Increased warnings about domestic terrorism have led the government to expand its surveillance on U.S. citizens and monitor domestic groups.
Agencies like the FBI and DHS have played prominent roles here, invoking security concerns to justify increased scrutiny of citizens’ activities.
While this surveillance is justified as protective, it adds to societal divisions and suspicion, reminiscent of tactics in the strategy of tension.
6. COVID-19 Pandemic and Government Restrictions
The government’s pandemic response involved wide-ranging public health measures, from lockdowns to mask mandates and vaccination campaigns.
This fueled debates on individual freedoms versus public safety, with state and federal guidelines often polarizing the population.
Although the virus itself wasn’t government-created, the government’s response (and sometimes mixed messaging) amplified social tensions around compliance and trust in public health institutions.
(Number 7 was cut. Full version in ChatGPT link above)
8. Media-Driven Polarization and Culture Wars
While media is largely private, the government often collaborates with media outlets for messaging and framing.
Additionally, politicians actively exploit media narratives to rally their bases, heightening cultural divides.
Government figures frequently play into these culture wars, capitalizing on division to secure voter loyalty. In some cases, public and private sector overlap reinforces these narratives, subtly aiding a strategy of tension by stoking divisive issues.
While these events don’t all involve direct government orchestration, government response and influence in shaping the public narrative plays a substantial role in keeping societal tension high.
Whether deliberate or incidental, this contributes to an environment where fear and division are pervasive, allowing for greater control, surveillance, and political manipulation—features often associated with the strategy of tension.
Me: so since responses from officials seem inadequate or misleading, people become more willing to accept top-down control? how?
ChatGPT: Yes, when official responses seem inadequate, inconsistent, or misleading, it can lead people to feel disillusioned, fearful, or distrustful, which ultimately makes them more willing to accept—or even desire—top-down control. Here’s how this process unfolds:
1. Erosion of Trust and Need for Security
When people see that responses from officials are either slow, contradictory, or ineffective, they lose faith in the government’s competence to handle crises.
This mistrust fosters a sense of vulnerability, and in such a state, people tend to seek stability and safety above other concerns, even at the cost of certain freedoms.
As fear and uncertainty grow, people become more receptive to authoritative solutions that promise security and order, even if these solutions impose stricter control over their lives.
Me: so “they lose faith in the government’s competence to handle crises and then this mistrust fosters a sense of vulnerability, and in such a state, people tend to seek stability and safety above other concerns, even at the cost of certain freedoms” from the government?
ChatGPT: Exactly. This dynamic often plays out as a paradox where people lose faith in the government’s competence yet simultaneously look to the same or similar authorities for stability and solutions.
Conclusion
To close, this article highlights the strategy of tension as a critical tool for population control, which has a significant history here in the United States.
One particularly fascinating aspect is how government or authority figures can deliberately create tension by appearing uncertain or uninformed about a situation. This manufactured fear and anxiety primes the population to accept solutions offered later, often presented as miraculous fixes.
We saw this play out during the pandemic:
from initial uncertainty (“We have no idea what to do about this virus”)
to the sudden rollout of a vaccine created at record speed, accompanied by an expectation of widespread compliance.
By understanding the Strategy of Tension, we can become more mindful when tension is deliberately created in society. Recognizing these patterns allows us to critically assess the narratives being pushed and make decisions that align with our best interests and those of our families.
If you found this article insightful and want to support more unorthodox analyses like this, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Paid subscribers gain access to premium and archived articles, as well as exclusive content.
For a deeper dive into my worldview, check out my book, An Unorthodox Truth, which unpacks the historical forces that shaped the modern world.
And if you enjoyed this article and want to show appreciation, you can buy me a coffee through my tip jar.
Thank you for your time and attention. Wishing you an amazing day.
Ashe,
Franklin O’Kanu — The Alchemik Pharmacist
Highly recommend the movie, "The Jones Plantation" for anybody willing to comprehend the psychology behind the Western Republics...Puppets of the Imperialists now openly institutionalizing their 'SLAVE ECONOMY' based in Techno-Feudal Fascism mirroring China/CCP which they planned, experimented with, supported and FUNDED for the last 75 years.
That AI scrapes Google to spit facts. But might be programmed to feign ignorance and stall out...
Have you ever tried using Grok? I'd be interested to "hear" what that AI has to say but I don't know how to use either so good onya Franklin.