Narrative Warfare: "Breakpoint", Rogue Soldiers, & Collapsing Empires

After watching Russian Badger's latest video about this game, I bothered to watch the trailer done to introduce the villain. Anonymous Conservative, please come to the white courtesy phone. Anonymous Conservative to the white courtesy phone, please.

When a Canadian AAA developer presents a narrative wherein an American Special Forces operator decides to go rogue, take over an isolated island, and go to war against the empire he once served in the hopes of accelerating its collapse and does so with Hollywood actors and budgets to match you're not just looking at a videogame offering. You're looking at a Narrative Warfare move.

This is not a new scenario. Back in the '90s, Jerry Bruckheimer made his bones in part with a movie dramatizing this sort of thing: The Rock. What got my attention here was not that we had a rogue soldier scenario, but the rhetoric written for our actor to perform- and he did his part well. In addition to other Hollywood productions of this sort over the last decade or so, I'm wondering if some folks in the shadows aren't so much concerned about if a collapse comes so much as trying to shape one to their liking.

Anonymous Conservative routinely talks Narrative Warfare, but he's focused mostly on the political and economic reporting and not so much on the cultural end, but this should get his attention. What he routinely emphasizes is that the real fighting, as per Sun Tzu, goes on well before a single shot is fired. I'm thinking this game--in addition to being a legit videogame product--is also meant to shape the battlefield to come where it counts: in the minds of the population, especially the young adult men who will bear the brunt of any conflict.

I'm not talking about some Col. Grosman "Muh Murder Simulator" bullshit. I'm talking about defining the terms, and thus the boundaries, of a conflict well before anything jumps off; in short, I'm talking the Frame Game. By taking all of the legit and valid criticisms of the Anglo-American Establishment and tying them to the villain of this game, the hope is to create a subconcious association of that criticism with both the villain's actions and his proposed solutions therefor, and by beating that villain to create a discrediting of those criticisms. In short, "I win because I'm right; you're wrong, so you lose." and thus (a) invert cause and effect in order to (b) invert the moral level of the conflict to make the pro-globohomo side--the side the players support in this game--appear to be the moral one.

I wouldn't point this out if I hadn't seen it before, and I know this wouldn't be tried if it didn't work previously. Someone's trying to win a war before it starts here. Anon, if you see this, I want you to give your take on it; Secret Society or no, and how?