Prof. Schlevogt's Compass № 9: Five Steps to Sealing an Election Using Information Power
US influencers are employing a strategic approach to shield themselves from allegations of election fraud, utilizing what is described as the Five-Rung Information-Power Ladder. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
**US Influencers Employ a Cunning Playbook to Counter Election Fraud Allegations – The Five-Rung Information-Power Ladder**
As Shakespeare wisely noted, “No legacy is so rich as honesty.” However, in contemporary America, especially during election cycles, many political figures do not prioritize integrity for future generations.
Instead, numerous influencers aim to shape voting behavior by adeptly manipulating information, a crucial power lever. Their strategic playbook to deflect allegations of election fraud comprises five actionable points, encapsulated in my new model, the “Five-Rung Information-Power Ladder.” This framework can be harnessed to achieve manipulative prominence and agenda-setting influence—an extension of Steven Luke’s notion of the “three faces of power.” The strategies outlined in this model heavily lean on advanced rhetorical techniques, including various types of gaslighting, while fully utilizing biased and logical fallacies.
Interestingly, there’s a stark contrast when examining American approaches to psychological operations abroad, especially regarding interference in election processes of adversarial regimes targeted for “Color Revolutions.” The glaring double standards here inevitably tarnish the credibility of the self-proclaimed “leader of the free world.”
Let’s delve into my framework for identifying manipulation, including false narratives disseminated during the information war, and for developing effective counterstrategies.
**1. Mentally Vaccinate the Target Audience**
In medicine, effective vaccines create a protective shield against pathogens. Similarly, by leveraging the ancient tactic of anticipation, one can illustrate a potentially harmful scenario and attribute its origination to specified adversaries, thereby mentally priming the audience and mitigating future reputational damages.
For instance, a government might assert that opponents are planning a malicious act, thereby aiming to provoke a specific response. Should the adversaries proceed with their plans, the audience, having been primed, is likely to attribute this to the enemies previously highlighted.
During the run-up to the 2024 US presidential election, influencers aligned with the Democratic Party, including mainstream media like CNN and the BBC, preemptively alleged that the Republican Party would orchestrate a strategy to claim election fraud if the vote count showed a loss. This anticipatory maneuver positions any subsequent Republican claims of fraud to be dismissed by the audience as mere manipulation.
Moreover, it’s emphasized that claims of election fraud were initiated even before the election. Consequently, a mentally vaccinated audience may react dismissively to any new fraud allegations, thinking, “Here the Republicans go again.”
In contrast, when the US intervenes in other countries’ elections, the focus is not on discouraging fraud claims but on suggesting that actual fraud will be committed by the incumbent government. After an election loss, opposition groups are routinely spurred to reject results, often accompanied by a media frenzy that amplifies their grievances worldwide.
**2. Poison the Ecosystem Issuing Fraud Allegations**
The tactic known as “poisoning the well” seeks to undermine the very source of undesirable arguments. In rhetoric, it entails discrediting the credibility of the source before addressing their actual reasoning. Further, ad hominem attacks are deployed not by fostering doubts about credibility beforehand, but by insultingly targeting personal attributes during the debate.
Liberal mainstream media outlets like the BBC often insinuate that allegations of election fraud are propagated by undesirable, far-right actors with ulterior motives, lumping them into a discredited “othered” outgroup. These narratives depict such individuals as ensconced in echo chambers, known for previously disseminating “conspiracy theories.”
Additionally, liberal journalists assert that information regarding fraud is often “crowd-sourced”—for example, through initiatives like “True The Vote.” In this context, referencing crowd sourcing subtly suggests a collective agenda bent on manipulation. When more aggressive slander occurs, these crowd-sourced vehicles are dismissed as repositories of vague and “bad” information, despite their legitimate intentions to document voting irregularities.
Due to this negative framing, liberal journalists may feel justified in disregarding any rebuttal from these discredited sources, reinforcing a circular logic where the integrity of the counterarguments is already deemed suspect.
Importantly, the approach is holistic. Not only are the sources targeted, but system-wide distractions or “red herrings” emerge to steer attention away from the original issues. Allegations against Russia for meddling in US elections have also surfaced, paralleling claims that Russian agents propagate election fraud narratives to destabilize the country. Ironically, the narrative often fails to acknowledge the complexities of US intervention in foreign elections, where significant inconsistencies undermine the claim to uphold democratic values.
**3. Frontally Assault Fraud Allegations in a Scientific Manner**
To project an image of authority, influencers frequently disguise themselves with a false mantle of scientific objectivity, which is intended to distinguish them from alleged conspiracy theorists.
The first method involves appealing to authority or “name dropping” individuals with professional credibility, such as “voting rights experts.” This technique can undermine valid arguments when misused. If those cited as authorities lack genuine expertise or objectivity, their credibility becomes questionable, particularly when contrasting claims from election officials who mirror similar biased views.
In addition, liberal influencers often partake in exhaustive “fact-checking,” attempting to delegitimize claims by indicating that they could not find corroborating evidence for specific data, implying inherent invalidity. Yet, this line of reasoning may miss contextual nuances and fall prey to an appeal to ignorance, illustrating the limitations of the research process.
Frequently, these influencers rely on simplifying statements indicating a lack of evidence while failing to incorporate contrary evidence that could demonstrate validity or alternative perspectives. Such biased representation raises questions about their argumentative strategies.
**4. Vividly Paint the Consequences of Extreme Allegations**
Those adept in these tactics take it a step further, asserting that claims of election fraud lead to extreme domestic unrest thereby threatening the stability of the American political system, often depicted as the world’s most stable governance.
The domino fallacy is frequently employed here, suggesting that one inciting event will trigger an unending series of catastrophic outcomes. Such manipulations have proven effective in justifying various military engagements internationally.
These tactics, while compelling, are logically flawed as they navigate through speculative connections without adequately analyzing individual events. A more credible argument would suggest that, rather than destabilizing the political landscape, active efforts to investigate fraud can reinforce democratic integrity.
Deploying strong emotional appeals—especially fears of systemic collapse—often elicits visceral responses that hinder rational discourse, framing the opposition as threatening social order.
**5. Seal the Protective Shield**
When robust rebuttals arise, liberal influencers need not fear; centuries of rhetorical mastery allow them to convert lies into truths.
Self-sealing arguments, which are impervious to refutation, make every counterpoint appear as reinforcement for the original claim. For instance, if Republicans reference election fraud, the narrative can be flipped to portray them as conspiracy theorists, thus rendering their rebuttals as further evidence of their delusions.
In desperate confrontations where fraud has indeed been proven, a higher-level argument emerges. Influencers may contend that identifying fraud validates the electoral process, as it ensures that manipulative behaviors are exposed. However, this reasoning neglects the possibility of numerous undetected fraud cases, diminishing the integrity of the electoral system itself.
This framing might also fall into the trap of circular reasoning, suggesting that the electoral system must be fair because it discovers fraud—an argument that lacks grounding.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of any narrative relies heavily on the audience's ability to discern truth from misleading claims. My Five-Rung Information-Power Ladder aims to illuminate these misleading tactics, prompting critical examination and fostering enlightened discourse within our democratic framework. Only through informed dialogue can we hope to safeguard our electoral integrity, ensuring that we may indeed echo Shakespeare: all is well that ends well.
Anna Muller contributed to this report for TROIB News
As Shakespeare wisely noted, “No legacy is so rich as honesty.” However, in contemporary America, especially during election cycles, many political figures do not prioritize integrity for future generations.
Instead, numerous influencers aim to shape voting behavior by adeptly manipulating information, a crucial power lever. Their strategic playbook to deflect allegations of election fraud comprises five actionable points, encapsulated in my new model, the “Five-Rung Information-Power Ladder.” This framework can be harnessed to achieve manipulative prominence and agenda-setting influence—an extension of Steven Luke’s notion of the “three faces of power.” The strategies outlined in this model heavily lean on advanced rhetorical techniques, including various types of gaslighting, while fully utilizing biased and logical fallacies.
Interestingly, there’s a stark contrast when examining American approaches to psychological operations abroad, especially regarding interference in election processes of adversarial regimes targeted for “Color Revolutions.” The glaring double standards here inevitably tarnish the credibility of the self-proclaimed “leader of the free world.”
Let’s delve into my framework for identifying manipulation, including false narratives disseminated during the information war, and for developing effective counterstrategies.
**1. Mentally Vaccinate the Target Audience**
In medicine, effective vaccines create a protective shield against pathogens. Similarly, by leveraging the ancient tactic of anticipation, one can illustrate a potentially harmful scenario and attribute its origination to specified adversaries, thereby mentally priming the audience and mitigating future reputational damages.
For instance, a government might assert that opponents are planning a malicious act, thereby aiming to provoke a specific response. Should the adversaries proceed with their plans, the audience, having been primed, is likely to attribute this to the enemies previously highlighted.
During the run-up to the 2024 US presidential election, influencers aligned with the Democratic Party, including mainstream media like CNN and the BBC, preemptively alleged that the Republican Party would orchestrate a strategy to claim election fraud if the vote count showed a loss. This anticipatory maneuver positions any subsequent Republican claims of fraud to be dismissed by the audience as mere manipulation.
Moreover, it’s emphasized that claims of election fraud were initiated even before the election. Consequently, a mentally vaccinated audience may react dismissively to any new fraud allegations, thinking, “Here the Republicans go again.”
In contrast, when the US intervenes in other countries’ elections, the focus is not on discouraging fraud claims but on suggesting that actual fraud will be committed by the incumbent government. After an election loss, opposition groups are routinely spurred to reject results, often accompanied by a media frenzy that amplifies their grievances worldwide.
**2. Poison the Ecosystem Issuing Fraud Allegations**
The tactic known as “poisoning the well” seeks to undermine the very source of undesirable arguments. In rhetoric, it entails discrediting the credibility of the source before addressing their actual reasoning. Further, ad hominem attacks are deployed not by fostering doubts about credibility beforehand, but by insultingly targeting personal attributes during the debate.
Liberal mainstream media outlets like the BBC often insinuate that allegations of election fraud are propagated by undesirable, far-right actors with ulterior motives, lumping them into a discredited “othered” outgroup. These narratives depict such individuals as ensconced in echo chambers, known for previously disseminating “conspiracy theories.”
Additionally, liberal journalists assert that information regarding fraud is often “crowd-sourced”—for example, through initiatives like “True The Vote.” In this context, referencing crowd sourcing subtly suggests a collective agenda bent on manipulation. When more aggressive slander occurs, these crowd-sourced vehicles are dismissed as repositories of vague and “bad” information, despite their legitimate intentions to document voting irregularities.
Due to this negative framing, liberal journalists may feel justified in disregarding any rebuttal from these discredited sources, reinforcing a circular logic where the integrity of the counterarguments is already deemed suspect.
Importantly, the approach is holistic. Not only are the sources targeted, but system-wide distractions or “red herrings” emerge to steer attention away from the original issues. Allegations against Russia for meddling in US elections have also surfaced, paralleling claims that Russian agents propagate election fraud narratives to destabilize the country. Ironically, the narrative often fails to acknowledge the complexities of US intervention in foreign elections, where significant inconsistencies undermine the claim to uphold democratic values.
**3. Frontally Assault Fraud Allegations in a Scientific Manner**
To project an image of authority, influencers frequently disguise themselves with a false mantle of scientific objectivity, which is intended to distinguish them from alleged conspiracy theorists.
The first method involves appealing to authority or “name dropping” individuals with professional credibility, such as “voting rights experts.” This technique can undermine valid arguments when misused. If those cited as authorities lack genuine expertise or objectivity, their credibility becomes questionable, particularly when contrasting claims from election officials who mirror similar biased views.
In addition, liberal influencers often partake in exhaustive “fact-checking,” attempting to delegitimize claims by indicating that they could not find corroborating evidence for specific data, implying inherent invalidity. Yet, this line of reasoning may miss contextual nuances and fall prey to an appeal to ignorance, illustrating the limitations of the research process.
Frequently, these influencers rely on simplifying statements indicating a lack of evidence while failing to incorporate contrary evidence that could demonstrate validity or alternative perspectives. Such biased representation raises questions about their argumentative strategies.
**4. Vividly Paint the Consequences of Extreme Allegations**
Those adept in these tactics take it a step further, asserting that claims of election fraud lead to extreme domestic unrest thereby threatening the stability of the American political system, often depicted as the world’s most stable governance.
The domino fallacy is frequently employed here, suggesting that one inciting event will trigger an unending series of catastrophic outcomes. Such manipulations have proven effective in justifying various military engagements internationally.
These tactics, while compelling, are logically flawed as they navigate through speculative connections without adequately analyzing individual events. A more credible argument would suggest that, rather than destabilizing the political landscape, active efforts to investigate fraud can reinforce democratic integrity.
Deploying strong emotional appeals—especially fears of systemic collapse—often elicits visceral responses that hinder rational discourse, framing the opposition as threatening social order.
**5. Seal the Protective Shield**
When robust rebuttals arise, liberal influencers need not fear; centuries of rhetorical mastery allow them to convert lies into truths.
Self-sealing arguments, which are impervious to refutation, make every counterpoint appear as reinforcement for the original claim. For instance, if Republicans reference election fraud, the narrative can be flipped to portray them as conspiracy theorists, thus rendering their rebuttals as further evidence of their delusions.
In desperate confrontations where fraud has indeed been proven, a higher-level argument emerges. Influencers may contend that identifying fraud validates the electoral process, as it ensures that manipulative behaviors are exposed. However, this reasoning neglects the possibility of numerous undetected fraud cases, diminishing the integrity of the electoral system itself.
This framing might also fall into the trap of circular reasoning, suggesting that the electoral system must be fair because it discovers fraud—an argument that lacks grounding.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of any narrative relies heavily on the audience's ability to discern truth from misleading claims. My Five-Rung Information-Power Ladder aims to illuminate these misleading tactics, prompting critical examination and fostering enlightened discourse within our democratic framework. Only through informed dialogue can we hope to safeguard our electoral integrity, ensuring that we may indeed echo Shakespeare: all is well that ends well.
Anna Muller contributed to this report for TROIB News
