Last Updated on April 10, 2025
The extractive industry has long used a variety of psychological warfare tactics as a boon to their economic ventures. However, this complex and insidious dimension of corporate power dynamics is only marginally understood by the public. With campaigns like “Ethical Oil” easily driving to the forefront of the tar sands debate, we urgently need to develop a deeper understanding of why these techniques are deployed and how we can safely navigate around them.
Tendencies of psychological warfare (U.S. Army War College):
Effects of psychological warfare (U.S. Army War College):
Introduction to Psychological Warfare
Psychological warfare isn’t just for spy movies or political campaigns, to be sure. In point of fact, it’s a fairly basic tool for any corporate body that needs to manipulate public perception, undermine opposition, sway regulators, develop local community buy-in or secure a green light regardless of any project risks.
One need only look to the tar sands to find a variety of perfect examples. Indeed, oil companies and their allies have sucessfully suppressed damaging reports, discredited doctors, and dismissed health concerns as a fair trade off for a few hundred jobs. Several lawsuits have also been thrown out court with minimal effort–and that’s just for starters.
The “Ethical Oil” campaign is a particularly valuable example with its bold assertion that drilling for oil is tantamount to defending democracy in “the free world”.
While the notion of ethical oil may seems absurd at first glance, it is in fact a carefully-crafted effort to gaslight the public. Jay Taber, a long-time contributor at IC, hinted at this in his recent analysis of the Ethical Oil ad that first appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Network in August 2011.
… one is hard pressed to comprehend how the oil companies in Canada actually believed their television ad Ethical Oil could succeed in duping American liberals into believing the Tar Sands nightmare equates to a human rights initiative. Then again, it wasn’t all that long ago that a candidate for US President ran on a platform of hope and change that had liberals swooning.
“…No matter how fraudulent, immoral, or simple minded,” he continuers, “Madison Avenue has the upper hand when it comes to baffling liberals. All they have to do is invoke saving the panda, children, women or whales, and liberals will fall all over themselves to support warmongers and planet destroyers without a second thought.”
However, Taber’s concerns run much deeper than liberals simply being hoodwinked. He goes on to point out how “the Harper administration and the extraction companies he works for might be able to mobilize resentment against indigenous peoples and thus foment violence. Secondarily, I am concerned that neutralized liberals might let it happen.”
Paul Linebarger, who literally wrote the book on the subject, takes us a little further down the dirty well. He explains that psychological warfare or “psywar” is a continuous process rather than a single event like a television ad. Psywar, says Linebarger, “has in private media facilities, in an open society, a constantly refreshed source of new material” that is selectively deployed for the task at hand.
Discussing the mechanics of psywar, Taber explains that a company like Shell or Enbridge will carefully select their target audience, the response they want to craft and the motivation for that response. After they have that key intel, they will design a black op (counterfeit), a gray op (misleading), or a white op (forthright) to reach their target goal.
It is also a viable option to take a short-term hit that may offer long term gains. Indeed, one step forward and two steps back is still one step forward.
“Using the Ethical Oil ad as an example, we might determine that it was a gray op, since the premise was true (Saudi Arabia is not a democracy), but the conclusions were not (killing Cree is not ethical, destroying Alberta will not make Canada energy independent, Americans do have a stake in this issue due to transshipment, etc.).”
Careful analysis can also determine whether the present motive is to deny, delay, deceive, disrupt, destroy, exploit or neutralize their intended target using whatever means they see fit.
Taber continues,
“Since the TV ad was broadcast on Oprah Winfrey Network, we can assume the target audience was liberal American women. The intended response was likely to get them to back off demanding Obama and the oil companies not build the pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico. Motivation is human rights consumerism, something that is a powerful force when deployed intelligently and courageously–something liberals rarely if ever do.”
“Ethical Oil” provides other examples. In addition to the troubling effects of the ad that Taber highlights, a new launched well-funded organization was launched to the forefront of the tar sands debate in an attempt to undermine the credibility of effected communities and organizations peacefully opposing the tar sands.
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver took it even further by asserting in an open letter that foreign-funded “radicals” were trying to undermine Canada’s economy.
“Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade,” Oliver proclaimed. “Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.”
The respected environmentalist David Suzuki said in a statement to the CBC that he was “puzzled” by Oliver’s language. “Environmentalists want to ‘live within our means,’ ‘save some for tomorrow,’ think about the ‘legacy we leave for our children… That’s what environmentalists are concerned about and the minister’s diatribe prevents us from having this important discussion of values and balance.”
Mission accomplished. In the world of psychological warfare it is safe to claim that water flows uphill even if the notion is patently absurd; because, in this particular instance, the truth is quite literally beside the point.
The point is to sew dissension and mistrust, undermining the moral agency of anyone standing up to the tar sands.
Dr. Pamela D. Palmater, a Mi’kmaw lawyer and member of the Eel River Bar First Nation in New Brunswick, took a more satirical stand against Oliver’s assertions.
[…] Imagine the level of sophistication, planning and education that allowed such a dangerous group to read and understand those millions of regulations. The sheer level of dedication to their terrorist plot to protect the environment, the health of the residents or Indigenous lands is astounding.
Don’t let this insurgent group’s reliance on research data, scientific studies, academic publications, and internationally recognized reports fool you. They are not basing their ideology of sustainability and human rights on “facts” — they are, instead, blindly following a radical ideology which is intent on destroying Canadians — i.e., those that voted Conservative in the last election.
Dr. Palmater’s words ran the risk of misinforming any reader who isn’t well-acquainted with satire; but it was more than appropriate, given how she appears to be an object of investigation for the stance she takes–along with hundreds of other individuals, organizations and communities across the country. For the past 5 years, the Harper government has been proactively spying on Indigenous Peoples and anyone else they deem to be “of interest” including opponents to the tar sands.
Last December, Defenders of the Land warned that the RCMP is even sharing its findings with private industry. The average person isn’t so lucky. When Dr. Palmater found out that Cindy Blackstock, a well-rounded advocate for First Nations children, was being spied on, Dr. Palmater decided to approach CSIS, INAC, RCMP and DND to find out if she was also being targeted. “To date, only CSIS has responded,” Palmater notes, in her recent article, CSIS and me. However, CSIS was only willing to release a few tidbits of information.
[…] They would not release the whole file so as to protect Canada from my alleged ‘subversive or hostile” activities. This, to me, is like being judged without knowing what I am accused of, and then being sentenced to ongoing spying on undisclosed activities for an undetermined amount of time so as to reduce the security risk to Canada in relation to my peaceful Indigenous advocacy activities.”
The psychological effects of this ongoing surveillance operation are threefold:
1. While some may wear it like a badge of honour; in others it generates doubt, suspicion, distrust and fear.
2. It sends a clear message to the general public that they need to “be careful” because “they are dangerous”. After all, the government doesn’t investigate law-abiding citizens, right?
3. It lays a foundation from which companies, lobbyists, the government and the media can launch countless new offensives.
Speaking of new offensives, Gerald Amos, former Chief Councilor of the Haisla First Nation warned that a series of attack ads had been launched in northern communities, “where opposition to the Enbridge project is fiercest”, Amos observed. It’s a “desperate attempt”, said Amos, “to change the minds and hearts of the hundreds of thousands of people who oppose this project. It is also, clearly meant to divide and weaken public resolve.
To that point, Taber recommends that we pay no mind to these would-be distractions. Rather, he says, we should remain laser-focused on the core objective: protecting the water, the trees, the animals, as well as the families, communities and nations that would be harmed by the proposed projects.
“The pro-tar sands apologists, official and advocacy org’s, are on the ropes in the court of public opinion. That’s why they’re trotting out such lame PR. My advice to activists and analysts is to stay the course, not become defensive and allow the industry and corrupt officials to set the terms of the debate. This requires discipline, restraint, and intelligence, not something in abundance in most advocacy groups (IEN being an exception to the rule).”
“The inflammatory terms radical and hijack are standard red-baiting remarks that are best left ignored,” he reiterates. “Remember, repetition sinks in to psyches. Repeating your enemy’s accusations works to their advantage, not yours. Better to stick with the message and documentation of irresponsible industry, government fraud, and willful violations of human rights and international law. The rogue state status of Canada as anti-Kyoto/anti-Indigenous is readily available.”
It’s alot like taking down a wall with a toothpick they provided. You can try, but as Taber recommends, it is best to leave their tools to their own devices. “Let them attack the whistleblowers” and avoid taking a defensive posture such as that of Suzuki. “He’s a good man, and knows his science, but not the science of psywar.”
Indeed, the proverbial wall is an illusion that serves its purpose as long as we volunteer our time an energy trying to take it down with their weak weapons.
By staying informed, resilient, and united, we can stand outside these coercive tactics and keep public discourse in alignment with truth and justice. If we fail to do this, we run thew risk of being drowned at our expense out like so many ducks in oil.
Across the world right now, Indigenous peoples are facing a renewed assault on their lands, rights, and ways of life.
From extractive industries pushing deeper into ancestral territories, to governments rolling back hard-won protections,
the threat is global—and it is growing.
What makes this moment especially dangerous is how little attention it receives.
Stories like this are disappearing in real time. Mainstream media
barely covers it and the coverage is fragmented. The public is left without the context
needed to understand what is truly at stake.
That is exactly why IC Magazine exists..
For more than 20 years, IC has reported on Indigenous struggles worldwide — consistently, independently, and without compromise.
We don’t follow news cycles; we trace patterns. We don’t sensationalize; we provide context.
And when the world looks away, we stay focused.
But this work is increasingly difficult to sustain.
We refuse to lock our reporting behind a paywall. We don’t sell access through subscriptions.
And we don’t answer to advertisers. IC Magazine survives solely because readers like you choose to
support independent Indigenous journalism.
Please donate today if you can. Every contribution helps us to continue this crucial work.
Thank you,
John Ahni Schertow
Founder and Editor in Chief
