Cognitive Warfare: How a Violent Event Can Generate an Ecosystem of Hate

by Andrea Molle

A recent article published by the Israel Democracy Institute on the antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach provides a useful point of departure for understanding a dynamic that extends well beyond the individual incident. The analytical value of the case lies not so much in the act of violence itself as in the speed with which the event was immediately absorbed, distorted, and repurposed within a hostile information ecosystem, one already primed to generate disinformation, invert responsibility, and mobilize emotional responses. It is precisely in this transition—from the physical event to its cognitive reprocessing—that the geopolitical dimension of MDMH becomes most visible (MDMH stands for “Misinformation, Disinformation, Malinformation and Hate Speech”).

Within the MDMH paradigm, violence is no longer a terminal point but a trigger. The attack does not close a cycle; it opens one. The physical act produces an emotional spike that is immediately exploited to saturate the information space with alternative narratives—often contradictory, yet united by a common function: preventing the stabilization of facts. In this sense, disinformation does not primarily aim to persuade, but to disorient. Truth is not replaced by a coherent counter-truth; it is dissolved into a plurality of competing versions that make a shared reconstruction of reality impossible.

Within the MDMH paradigm, violence is no longer a terminal point but a trigger. The attack does not close a cycle; it opens one

This mechanism lies at the core of contemporary cognitive warfare. The objective is not adherence to a specific narrative, but the erosion of trust in the very process by which reality is established. When every event is instantly reframed as an “operation,” a “provocation,” or a “false flag,” the outcome is not informational pluralism but cognitive paralysis. Citizens no longer know what to believe and, in this state of permanent uncertainty, become more vulnerable to emotional, identity-based, and Manichean frames.

A decisive element highlighted by the Bondi case is that this dynamic is not spontaneous. It is not the product of disordered reactions by isolated users, but of structured information ecosystems, characterized by cross-platform synchronization, repeated reuse of decontextualized content, algorithmic amplification, and continuous migration of the same narratives across social media, private messaging channels, short-form video platforms, and generative AI tools. In such an environment, the distinction between information, opinion, and propaganda becomes functionally irrelevant.

From a geopolitical perspective, MDMH represents a form of low-intensity but high-persistence conflict, in which state and non-state actors can operate at low cost, with plausible deniability and significant cumulative impact. Antisemitism, in this context, is not merely a historical prejudice resurfacing periodically, but a particularly effective cognitive vector: it is emotionally charged, easily recognizable, cross-cultural, and immediately deployable to explain complex events through simple schemas of blame and malign intent.

In such an environment, the distinction between information, opinion, and propaganda becomes functionally irrelevant

One crucial aspect of the analyzed case concerns the role of artificial intelligence. When automated systems participate in the real-time synthesis of events—summarizing, answering, suggesting interpretations—they become cognitive actors in their own right. They are not neutral tools: they operate within an already polarized environment and can amplify its distortions. Errors, omissions, or improper associations do not merely produce misinformation; they contribute to shifting moral responsibility, rewriting context, and legitimizing hostile narratives under the appearance of technical neutrality.

This introduces a significant rupture with the past. In classical propaganda, intentionality was identifiable and attributable. In MDMH, manipulation is often emergent, distributed across human actors, algorithmic incentives, and automated processes. Responsibility fragments, while political effect remains. It is a form of power that does not impose an official line, but instead configures the environment in which all lines become possible—and therefore equivalent.

When automated systems (e.g. AI) participate in the real-time synthesis of events—summarizing, answering, suggesting interpretations—they become cognitive actors in their own right

From this follows a fundamental strategic implication: regulatory neutrality is no longer sustainable. Treating the information ecosystem as a purely private space, self-regulated by commercial platforms, amounts to relinquishing any form of cognitive security. Within the MDMH framework, algorithmic design, content moderation, recommendation systems, and generative AI are not neutral technical choices but decisions with geopolitical consequences. They shape which events emerge, which emotions are activated, and which groups are perceived as threats.

The Bondi case illustrates how a single local episode can be immediately integrated into a global narrative of hate, and how this integration occurs faster than factual verification. This reverses the traditional analytical sequence of “event → interpretation → reaction.” In MDMH, interpretation precedes the event because the frame is already in place. The event merely serves to fill it.

From this perspective, speaking of security without incorporating the cognitive dimension is analytically insufficient. The protection of communities, the prevention of radicalization, and the stability of pluralistic societies increasingly depend on the ability to defend the information space as critical infrastructure. This is not a matter of censorship, but of recognizing that freedom of expression presupposes an environment in which facts are at least able to attempt to emerge before being overwhelmed by manipulation.

From this perspective, speaking of security without incorporating the cognitive dimension is analytically insufficient

MDMH therefore forces us to reconsider the relationship between violence, information, and power. Attacks are no longer merely acts of force, but cognitive operations designed to produce indirect, durable, and difficult-to-attribute political effects. Ignoring this dimension means continuing to respond to a twenty-first-century conflict with twentieth-century categories.