The Politics of Memory: When History Becomes a Cognitive Weapon

The Politics of Memory: When History Becomes a Cognitive Weapon

Abstract

This paper analyzes the relationship between historical memory, cognitive warfare, and contemporary transformations of antisemitism, using an emblematic case of the political use of an authentic colonial image as a starting point.

Starting from the observation that images and historical memories are increasingly used as tools for symbolic mobilization within contemporary information ecosystems, this paper offers a reflection on the role of memory warfare and cognitive warfare in the construction of simplified political narratives.

The article argues that certain representations of colonialism and Western history today tend to be embedded in polarized interpretive frameworks that transform real historical events into tools for contemporary ideological legitimization. In this context, the paper advances the hypothesis of the emergence of a form of “Globalized Antisemitism,” distinct from traditional European and religious forms of antisemitism.

This phenomenon appears to be characterized by the transformation of Jews into a global symbolic category to which abstract responsibilities are attributed regarding complex economic, political, and geopolitical processes. Through a comparative approach that takes into account Europe, the Russian Federation, the Middle East, China, India, and Southeast Asia, this paper explores the ways in which ancient stereotypes are adapted within the modern dynamics of global cognitive competition.

The central thesis is that the new anti-Semitism does not stem exclusively from the persistence of pre-existing hostile traditions, but also from the growing transnational circulation of geopolitical and conspiracy narratives that use Jews as an explanatory symbol for global phenomena perceived as threatening or uncontrollable.

Theoretical Introduction  

1. Memory as a Strategic Resource

Contemporary geopolitical competition is not limited to the military, economic, or technological spheres, but increasingly encompasses the dimension of historical memory as a strategic resource.

In this context, the past does not function as a neutral archive of events, but as a field of selection, reworking, and political mobilization.

Collective memory thus becomes a mechanism through which state and non-state actors construct legitimacy, identity, and mutual delegitimization.

2. Cognitive Operational Layer

The transformation of memory into a political tool occurs through a second dimension: cognitive warfare.

It does not simply influence opinions, but rather the interpretive frameworks that structure the perception of reality.

At this level, the following operate:

• highly emotionally charged historical images
• narrative simplifications
• symbols of identity
• digital infrastructures for the circulation of information

The result is the gradual replacement of historical complexity with cognitive frameworks characterized by a high degree of causal reduction.

3. Transnational Amplification Systems

The third level concerns the transnational circulation of narratives.

In a globalized information ecosystem, representations of the past do not remain localized but are adapted, hybridized, and reused in different geopolitical contexts.

This process produces a phenomenon of “structural decontextualization,” in which:

• local memories become global narratives
• historical events are recoded as universal symbols
• categories of identity are abstracted from their original context

4. Analytical Synthesis: Globalized Antisemitism (Heuristic Model)

Within this framework, this study introduces the concept of “Globalized Antisemitism” as an analytical hypothesis—not as a stable historical category, but as a heuristic tool.

It describes the possible emergence of interpretive patterns in which Jews are not represented as situated historical communities, but as a global symbolic category associated with complex economic, geopolitical, and cultural processes.

This dynamic does not imply:

• linear historical continuity
• geographical uniformity
• or monocausal explanations

but rather emerges from the interaction between:

• • geopolitical polarization
  • digital information ecosystems
  • transnational conspiracy narratives
  • the reactivation of pre-existing symbolic repertoires

Text

The debate that inspired this article stems from the circulation of a post accompanied by a particularly dramatic and authentic historical image dating back to the colonial period. It is a visual testimony that, precisely because of its immediate impact, deeply affects the viewer and highlights the brutality of certain dynamics associated with colonial rule.

However, it is precisely the emotional power of such materials that often leads to their being used in narratives that go beyond their original meaning. In many cases, in fact, real and historically accurate images are placed within broader interpretive frameworks that tend to transform specific episodes—however authentic and painful—into tools for a generalized condemnation of the West, following patterns typical of contemporary ideological communication.

It is at this intersection of historical evidence, emotional impact, and narrative construction that the following reflection takes place.

That British colonialism caused profound suffering on the Indian subcontinent is a historical fact that is difficult to dispute. The British Empire’s rule over India entailed economic exploitation, racial hierarchies, political repression, and famines exacerbated by administrative and structural decisions. No honest account of the period can afford to ignore or downplay this

However, the opposite risk is that of transforming legitimate historical criticism into an equally simplified and ideological narrative. Attributing slavery, violence, and oppression exclusively to the West amounts to replacing one oversimplification with another. Slavery, throughout its long history, is not a phenomenon confined to a single civilization: it has spanned eras and continents, from the societies of the ancient Mediterranean world to African kingdoms, from the Arab-Islamic world to many Asian and pre-Columbian societies.

The same is true of antisemitism, which cannot be reduced to a single historical episode or a single national context. Although it reached its most tragic peak in 20th-century Europe, it has deep and widespread roots in many parts of the world and in various cultural and religious traditions.

From this perspective, the point is not to absolve or condemn entire civilizations, but to reject the idea that history can be read as a sequence of immutable collective guilt. History is not a moral tribunal in which some peoples remain eternally guilty and others eternally innocent, but a complex field of interactions and transformations.

Yet, in contemporary debate, this complexity is often sacrificed. Historical memory sometimes tends to be reworked through simplified frameworks, where diverse phenomena are compressed into binary moral narratives. This process does not concern only the colonial past or European history, but more generally the way in which contemporary societies construct their relationship with history.

One of the most evident expressions of this trend can be observed in certain contemporary cultural and ideological currents generally attributed—with all due caution—to the so-called “woke” movement. Beyond the many definitions and inevitable terminological controversies, what matters here is not so much the political phenomenon itself as a specific way of interpreting history. 

From this perspective, the past tends to be reinterpreted through contemporary moral categories that divide the world into structurally oppressive groups and structurally oppressed groups, attributing to the former a permanent historical guilt and to the latter an almost exclusive status as victims.

The problem with this approach does not lie in the desire to bring real historical injustices to light, but in its tendency to replace the complexity of historical processes with a moralized, binary narrative. In doing so, history ceases to be a tool for understanding reality and gradually becomes an identity-based and political mechanism geared toward the search for collective culprits rather than toward an understanding of historical dynamics.

One example is public reception in the post-World War II period. The Nuremberg Trials played a decisive role in the emergence of international law and in documenting Nazi crimes. However, its subsequent cultural interpretation has contributed in part to crystallizing the idea of antisemitism as a phenomenon almost exclusively linked to Nazi Germany, obscuring its broader and more layered historical spread across the European continent and beyond.

In the contemporary world, these simplifications are not confined to historical debate. They gradually end up fueling a broader narrative ecosystem in which the past is reinterpreted through absolute moral categories and used as a tool for political legitimization in the present.

When history is reduced to a permanent dichotomy between oppressors and the oppressed, between rulers and the ruled, there is a risk that the search for historical accountability will give way to the search for those responsible in the present. It is precisely at this juncture that memory can become a cognitive weapon.

Simplified grand narratives, in fact, require subjects to whom responsibility for historical, economic, and political processes perceived as unjust can be attributed in a uniform and continuous manner. In this context, old stereotypes can reemerge in new forms and adapt to the language of the present.

It is on this ground that a new, emerging form of antisemitism is taking shape—one that differs from the classic forms of the past but is no less insidious for that.

The central question, then, becomes understanding why, in historical and geographical contexts that are extremely different from one another, the search for a global culprit frequently ends up converging on Jews or entities associated with them—whether in reality or in the imagination.

The answer does not lie in the existence of some occult power actually wielded by a supposed international Jewish collective, but rather in the extraordinary adaptability of an ancient stereotype. 

For centuries, Jews have been portrayed—depending on the era—as symbols of usury, cosmopolitanism, finance, modernity, revolution, capitalism, Bolshevism, or globalization. Historical contexts change, but the tendency to transform a real minority into a political metaphor capable of explaining complex phenomena through an apparently simple cause persists.

It is precisely this symbolic flexibility that makes antisemitism particularly compatible with modern conspiracy theories. In an era characterized by increasingly complex economic, technological, and geopolitical processes, the temptation to attribute these dynamics to the coordinated action of an identifiable entity continues to exert a strong psychological and political pull. 

The real Jew gradually disappears from the narrative, replaced by a symbolic figure that takes on the role of a universal explanation for the contradictions of the contemporary world

This new form of antisemitism does not necessarily manifest itself through the explicit forms of the past, but tends to appear in a more ambiguous way: through the revival of ancient stereotypes, the spread of global conspiracy narratives, and the portrayal of Jews as a unified and omnipotent collective entity responsible—thanks to the active presence of an all-powerful lobby based in the United States of America—for global political and economic balances. 

This is a qualitative transformation, in which the language has adapted to the codes of digital and geopolitical communication, but the underlying mental framework remains recognizable.

In some cases, this dynamic is amplified precisely within contemporary geopolitical rivalries and so-called “cognitive wars,” where the manipulation of perceptions and narratives becomes an integral part of the conflict between state and non-state actors. In such contexts, antisemitism can be exploited as a multiplier of polarization, harnessing the emotional power of historical stereotypes to weaken social cohesion in Western societies.

This context also encompasses certain forms of political-religious rhetoric found in specific currents of Shi’ite political Islam centered in Iran, which have at times incorporated these narratives into their ideological and geopolitical discourse, in some cases gaining traction and resonance even beyond their core base, including among segments of Western public opinion.

For this reason, the challenge is not merely historical or academic, but profoundly contemporary: to recognize the new forms that antisemitism can take without confusing them with legitimate criticism of political and economic powers, and without reducing the complexity of the world to simplistic and all-encompassing explanations.

Only by maintaining this distinction can we prevent historical memory from becoming a tool of perpetual conflict rather than a foundation for shared understanding.

All of this is historically true only in part, but it becomes misleading when transformed into a sweeping and one-sided narrative. Slavery, for example, was not a phenomenon exclusive to the West: those who argue otherwise either ignore the complexity of global history or reduce it to a simplified ideological framework. Forms of slavery, subordination, and exploitation have existed in different eras and contexts, spanning civilizations and continents, far beyond the European colonial experience.

It is precisely on this boundary between historical fact and ideological interpretation that a certain form of contemporary communication operates, using real images—often authentic and deeply painful—to construct, however, simplified and polarizing narrative frameworks. The problem does not lie in the existence of the documented suffering—which is real and undeniable—but in the way it is selected, isolated from its context, and inserted into an overarching narrative that tends to reduce history to an absolute moral dichotomy between “perpetrators” and “victims.”

In this process, historical complexity is gradually replaced by an emotional and immediate interpretation, in which even true events become rhetorical tools to support general arguments that are not always supported by the full body of historical evidence. This is a typical dynamic of contemporary digital communication, where the power of imagery and emotional impact tends to prevail over critical contextualization.

The result is a form of storytelling that not only simplifies the past but also risks distorting our understanding of the present, preventing a balanced interpretation of historical and political phenomena. Understanding these mechanisms does not mean denying the injustices of colonialism or other systems of power, but rather preventing their representation from being transformed into a tool for the ideological reduction of historical complexity or into a mechanism for permanent polarization.

As for the new global anti-Semitism, the most interesting fact concerns the unique circumstance that it does not coincide with 19th- or 20th-century European anti-Semitism, nor with traditional European anti-Semitism, and even less so with religious-based Islamic and jihadist anti-Semitism. Rather, it emerges as a byproduct of growing geopolitical polarization and the spread of transnational conspiracy narratives. In this context, very diverse actors—Western and non-Western, state and non-state—can contribute to the circulation of stereotypes that once again transform Jews into an abstract symbol of political, economic, and cultural processes perceived as threatening. 

And this requires paying particular attention—when discussing a “new anti-Semitism” emerging outside Europe and the traditional Arab world—to avoid assuming that it is—a rather simplistic view—merely an “export” of historical European forms. 

In many parts of the world, in fact, different phenomena are emerging, which at most share some classic stereotypes of antisemitism, yet arise from distinct cultural and geopolitical contexts where everything suggests that what is emerging is a “globalized” form of antisemitism, fueled less by local religious tradition and more by the transnational circulation of political, media, and conspiracy narratives—which, as always in times of crisis, serve to redirect popular resentment that would otherwise be directed primarily at local, regional, and/or global power brokers.

In this regard, as a first step toward a systemic approach, consider the following with reference to certain geographic areas and countries of particular interest in this context.

China

China is a special case. Historically, it has not experienced anti-Semitism comparable to that in Europe. Jews have not played a significant role in Chinese social history and were long viewed in a relatively neutral or even positive light.

In recent years, however, two parallel phenomena have emerged:

• • a fascination with so-called “Jewish success,” often accompanied by essentialist stereotypes;
  • the spread on social media of narratives attributing to Jews or Zionism a disproportionate influence on the United States, global finance, or international politics.

This is not necessarily, therefore, classic antisemitism, but rather a cultural landscape that can easily transform, when needed, into hostility when positive and negative stereotypes share the same essentialist logic.

India

India is perhaps the most interesting case.

Historically, the country has been home to Jewish communities without developing structured antisemitism. However, the geopolitical developments of recent decades have quietly introduced new dynamics.

This conclusion follows from the observation that, in this regard, while on the one hand there has been growing cooperation with Israel and a certain sympathy toward the State of Israel in Hindu nationalist circles, on the other hand—especially in circles influenced by global anti-Western rhetoric—narratives have emerged that identify Israel, Jews, or “Zionism” as central elements of an alleged system of world domination.

India could thus become a space where political pro-Israel sentiment coexists with the spread of anti-Semitic stereotypes—a combination that appears contradictory but is not historically unprecedented.

Southeast Asia

Here, a distinction must be made.

In countries such as Singapore or Vietnam, the phenomenon appears marginal.

In Muslim-majority countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, however, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has fueled the circulation of images and stereotypes that sometimes go beyond political criticism and take on characteristics attributable to antisemitism.

Here, too, however, the main source is not the European tradition of antisemitism but rather the interplay between the Middle East conflict, religious identity, and global media.

MENA (Middle East and North Africa)

The MENA region is probably the most complex area.

Historically, relations between Muslims and Jews have been extremely variable and cannot be reduced to either harmonious coexistence or permanent conflict.

In the 20th century, however, the Arab-Israeli conflict fostered the spread of forms of hostility that in some cases incorporated elements of modern European antisemitism, including conspiracy theories and texts imported from Europe.

Today, two opposing trends can be observed:

• • on the one hand, diplomatic normalization between some Arab countries and Israel;
  • on the other, the persistence—and in some contexts, the intensification—of antisemitic narratives spreading through traditional media, social media, and regional political actors.

Europe

In Europe, the phenomenon is particularly complex because historical antisemitism originated and developed to a large extent right here.

Today, at least four strands can be identified:

1.Traditional far-right antisemitism

• • appeals to ethnic nationalism;
  • historical revisionism;
  • conspiracy theories about “globalism.”

2. Islamist anti-Semitism

• • the importation of narratives developed in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
  • the overlap between radical anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish stereotypes.

3. Far-left anti-Semitism

• • not as criticism of Israel—which is perfectly legitimate—but when Israel is transformed into a metaphysical category of evil and Jews are collectively associated with the choices of a state.

4. Digital conspiracy-based antisemitism

• • the spread of theories attributing control over Western finance, media, or politics to alleged Jewish elites.

This last strand is probably the most interesting for the present analysis because it is the one that lends itself most to the dynamics of contemporary cognitive warfare.

Russian Federation 

The situation in Russia is different.

Historically, anti-Semitism has long been present in the Russian Empire and subsequently in the Soviet Union, albeit in different forms.

Today, one cannot simply speak of an openly anti-Semitic state. Relations between Moscow and Israel have long been pragmatic, and the Russian leadership has officially condemned antisemitism.

However, some scholars note that the following narratives can gain traction in the Russian media ecosystem and pro-Russian information space:

• • anti-globalist narratives;
  • portrayals of Western elites as secretive and coordinated groups;
  • conspiracy theories that sometimes draw on stereotypes historically associated with anti-Semitism.

The interesting point is not so much to determine whether such narratives are always or necessarily anti-Semitic, but rather to observe how they can create an environment conducive to the reactivation of familiar interpretive frameworks.

The real news

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is not the spread of antisemitism in individual regions, but its transformation into a transnational phenomenon.

For centuries, antisemitism was primarily a European and Middle Eastern phenomenon. Today, thanks to social media and the globalization of information, stereotypes that once circulated in limited contexts can be adopted, adapted, and disseminated by actors who have no direct historical connection to Jewish communities.

This leads to a potential research thesis that must begin by acknowledging that the new global anti-Semitism does not stem primarily from the concrete experiences of Jews in various societies, but from their transformation into an abstract symbol within geopolitical, anti-Western, anti-American, or conspiracy-theory narratives. In other words, the object of hostility no longer seems to be necessarily the real Jew, but rather a symbolic figure constructed within contemporary cognitive and ideological conflicts that ultimately result in what is true being superseded by what one wishes to be true and can make true—as long as it is perceived as such by the masses.

This interpretation, in light of the facts, already appears to be the most original interpretive framework to be developed in the remainder of this work, which—for obvious methodological reasons—aims to avoid monocausal explanations and not to attribute the phenomenon to a single geographic area or a single political actor, a claim that would be absurd to maintain not only historically but also logically.

Methodological Note and Limitations of the Analysis

This paper adopts a qualitative and interpretive approach based on the comparative analysis of historical, communicative, and geopolitical dynamics.

The objective is not to formulate rigid causal generalizations, nor to propose an exhaustive explanation of the phenomena analyzed, but to identify possible emerging patterns at the intersection of historical memory, political communication, and cognitive conflict.

The analysis has inevitable methodological limitations, including:

• • the heterogeneous nature of the sources considered
  • the difficulty of empirically measuring cognitive and narrative phenomena on a global scale
  • the risk of overlap between descriptive and interpretive levels
  • the contextual variability of the observed phenomena

Consequently, the arguments presented here should be understood as open analytical hypotheses, subject to verification, falsification, or refinement through further empirical and comparative studies.

Bibliography:

Colonialism, British Empire and Colonial Memory

• William Dalrymple, The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence and the Pillage of an Empire http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562941/the-anarchy-by-william-dalrymple/
• Shashi Tharoor, Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Inglorious-Empire/Shashi-Tharoor/9789386832387
• Ashley Jackson, The British Empire: A Very Short Introduction http://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-british-empire-a-very-short-introduction-9780199605413
• Itay Lotem, The Memory of Colonialism in Britain and France http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-63719-4
• Amanda Behm, Imperial History and the Global Politics of Exclusion http://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/978-1-137-54850-4

Global Slavery and Comparative History

• Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death http://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674815834/slavery-and-social-death
• Ira Berlin, Many Thousands Gone http://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674830653/many-thousands-gone
• Marcus Rediker, The Slave Ship: A Human History http://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780143114250/the-slave-ship/
• James A. Rawley, The Transatlantic Slave Trade http://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Transatlantic+Slave+Trade-p-9780393971123
• Amalia Ribi Forclaz, Humanitarian Imperialism http://global.oup.com/academic/product/humanitarian-imperialism-9780198733034

Historical Memory, Memory Politics and Memory Warfare

• Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/O/bo3684442.html
• Michael Rothberg, Multidirectional Memory http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=20679
• Max Silverman, Palimpsestic Memory http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title/SilvermanPalimpsestic
• Jie-Hyun Lim, Mnemonic Solidarity http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-57669-1
• Yifat Gutman & Jenny Wüstenberg, The Routledge Handbook of Memory Activism http://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Memory-Activism/Gutman-Wustenberg/p/book/9780367644137
• Nina Krickel-Choi, Memory and Conflict in International Relations.
• NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, studies on strategic narratives and memory politics. https://stratcomcoe.org

Information Warfare, Cognitive Warfare and Strategic Narratives

• Thomas Rid, Active Measures http://www.farrarstraus.com/books/active-measures/
• P. W. Singer & Emerson T. Brooking, LikeWar http://www.houghtonmifflinharcourt.com/books/likewar/
• P. W. Singer & Emerson T. Brooking, The Information War http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/565470/the-information-war-by-p-w-singer-and-emerson-t-brooking/
• David Kilcullen, The Dragons and the Snakes https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-dragons-and-the-snakes-9780190265685
• Lawrence Freedman, The Future of War https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1119687/the-future-of-war
• NATO Innovation Hub, Cognitive Warfare (2020). https://www.innovationhub-act.org
• NATO Allied Command Transformation, Countering Cognitive Warfare reports. https://www.act.nato.int

Antisemitism: History, Transformation and Contemporary Dynamics

• Deborah E. Lipstadt, Antisemitism: Here and Now http://www.houghtonmifflinharcourt.com/books/antisemitism-here-and-now/
• Walter Laqueur, The Changing Face of Antisemitism
• http://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-changing-face-of-antisemitism-9780195341218
• Steven Beller, Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction http://global.oup.com/academic/product/antisemitism-a-very-short-introduction-9780198724834
• Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/2090/the-origins-of-totalitarianism-by-hannah-arendt/
• Robert S. Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/196853/a-lethal-obsession-by-robert-s-wistrich
• David Hirsh, Contemporary Left Antisemitism https://www.routledge.com/Contemporary-Left-Antisemitism/Hirsh/p/book/9781138235309
• Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Contemporary Anti-Semitism in the Digital Era.

Globalized Antisemitism, Conspiracy Theories and Geopolitical Polarization

• Andrei Soldatov & Irina Borogan, The Compatriots.
• Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy

https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520276821/a-culture-of-conspiracy

• Cass Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures

https://scholarship.law.harvard.edu/faculty_scholarship/367

• Natan Sharansky, writings on the “3D Test” of antisemitism.
• Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy https://isgap.org

Digital Media, Social Networks and Collective Memory

• Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/133593/amusing-ourselves-to-death-by-neil-postman/
• Adam Badawy & Emilio Ferrara, The Rise of Jihadist Propaganda on Social Networks http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02263
• Ruth García-Gavilanes et al., Memory Remains: Understanding Collective Memory in the Digital Age http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02621

Institutional Sources

• United Nations http://www.un.org/
• United States Holocaust Memorial Museum http://www.ushmm.org/
• International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance http://www.holocaustremembrance.com/
• UNESCO – Memory of the World Programme

http://www.unesco.org/en/memory-world

• European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights – reports on antisemitism in Europe https://fra.europa.eu
• RAND Corporation – studies on information warfare and strategic narratives

https://www.rand.org