War | Variations Worldwide

18 03 2010

A declaration of war was made against Man, Family, Home and Nation’ status worldwide long ago, with the Masters of the Universe seeking to install an authority higher than God Almighty.  One that excludes the many and consists of the few, where Earth PLC’s Faceless stockholders can decide the fate of the world away from the prying eyes of us mere tenants.

Order out of Chaos (and Confusion)

Democracy has run its course, will be the message and a new form of Government Representation will take Her place.  One where the Leaders are selected and nurtured into the ways of enlightenment, prepared to rise above such petty things as family, nation, culture, even genocide.

Not a conspiracy theory but fact.  The destruction of close-knit communities, kinship, even the sanctity of family with the most sinister tactics has been deliberate.  Wars, laws and misery with no more effort than a pen stroke.

the battle for ‘our’ hearts and minds has involved oppression and persecution from the very people who swear to protect us and is by no means a conventional war.  So scared of the possible repercussions for opposing the Faceless, the Parliamentarians  settle for the ‘funded’ life assisting the Devil in His work.

The various explanations of tactics are from Wikipedia so are not exhaustive but I have edited it and given my own recent or current examples, so this wasn’t no simple cut and paste job.

Power behind the throne

The phrase power behind the throne refers to a person or group that informally exercises the real power of an office.  In politics, it most commonly refers to a spouse, aide, or advisor of a political leader (often called a “figurehead”) who serves as de facto leader, setting policy through influence or manipulation.

Examples:  Most visible one to mention would be Lord Mandelson, the barely visible probably Nat Rothschild and the least visible, well, only the Devil knows that.

Shadow government

The term shadow government has two distinct uses with entirely different meanings. The first refers to a government-in-waiting composed of members of the opposition party in a parliamentary chamber such as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. In this example the Shadow Cabinet ‘opposes’ by means of dialectical debate and argument the government in power.

In its other use the phrase refers to what is sometimes called “the secret government” or “the invisible government” which postulates that contrary to popular belief, real and actual political power does not reside with publicly elected representatives (for example the United States Congress or the UK Cabinet) but with persons unknown to the general public who are exercising power behind the scenes.  In this sense the official elected government is in reality subservient to the shadow government who are the true executive power.

Examples:  The faceless and nameless Power-brokers of the International circuit.

Divide and rule

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.

In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites “Divide et impera” in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule.

Typical elements of this technique are said to involve:

  • creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to forestall alliances that could challenge the sovereign.
  • aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign.
  • fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers.
  • encouraging frivolous expenditures that leave little money for political and military ends.

The use of this strategy was imputed to administrators of vast empires, including the Roman and British, who were charged with playing one tribe against another to maintain control of their territories with a minimal number of imperial forces. The concept of “Divide and Rule” gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire, but was also used to account for the strategy used by the Romans to take Britain, and for the Anglo-Normans to take Ireland. It is said that the British used the strategy to gain control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, taking control of petty princely states in India piecemeal.

Examples:  When the ‘working men and women’ got the vote, they had to be divided for the Establishment to maintain power.  Hence encouraging large political, cultural and religous differences and mass immigration.  And so long as Paul was paid enough, Peter could be robbed all day long.

Social conditioning

Social conditioning refers to the sociological phenomenological process of inheriting tradition and gradual cultural transmutation passed down through previous generations.  Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including education, entertainment, popular culture, and family life.  Social conditioning can be understood as representing the role of ‘Nurture’ in the Nature vs. Nurture debate, while the ‘Nature’ aspect is represented by the phenomena described by sociobiology.

Examples:  The entire education-media-political complex, controlling every aspect of our lives, be it through the threat of the law or the indirect prodding from the ‘in’ crowd.  If done right, the population will not even notice.  Climate Change State-sponsored guilt-trips.

Lawfare implications

Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare.  Lawfare is waged via the use of international law to attack an opponent on moral grounds, with an objective of winning a public relations victory.

Lawfare is one of several alternative war-making concepts outlined in the 1999 Chinese book Unrestricted Warfare, which is principally concerned with the new variety of offensive actions available to an international actor that cannot confront another power militarily.

Origin of the term

Perhaps the first use of the term “lawfare” was in a manuscript, Whither Goeth the Law – Humanity or Barbarity. The authors there argue the Western legal system has become overly contentious and utilitarian as compared to the more humanitarian, norm-based Eastern system.  They opine the search for truth has been replaced by “lawfare” in the courts.

A more frequently cited use of the term was coined by Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. in a 2001 essay he authored for Harvard’s Carr Center.  In that essay, Dunlap defines lawfare as “the use of law as a weapon of war.”  He later expanded on the definition, explaining lawfare was “the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting” a superior military power.

Examples:  The UK Government’s EHRC persecution of the British National Party.  The EU meddling with the internal democratic affairs of Switzerland.  The implementation of Laws Against the Nations ‘tackling’ Climate Change, Holucasut Denial Laws to stiffle internal debate and even the secret family courts which attack the family.

A look at asymmetric warfare

Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.

“Asymmetric warfare” can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other’s characteristic weaknesses.  Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the “weaker” combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.  Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized.  This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.

Examples:  The Race Relations Industry, blaming ‘percieved’ injustices due to discrimination, creating an atmosphere of fear and entitlement dependent on ‘group needs’.

The dreaded psych-ops

Modern psychological warfare operations

In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. troops used music, most commonly American heavy metal or rock music to confuse or scare insurgents.

However, most uses of the term psychological warfare refers to military methods, such as:

  • Distributing pamphlets, e.g. in the Gulf War, encouraging desertion or (in World War II) supplying instructions on how to surrender.
  • Propaganda radio stations, such as Lord Haw-Haw in World War II on the “Germany calling” station
  • Renaming cities and other places when captured, such as Ho Chi Minh City
  • Shock and awe military strategy
  • Projecting repetitive and annoying sounds and music for long periods at high volume towards groups under siege.
  • Use of loudspeaker systems to communicate with enemy soldiers.

Most of these techniques were developed during World War II or earlier, and have been used to some degree in every conflict since. Daniel Lerner was in the OSS (the predecessor to the US CIA) and in his book, attempts to analyze how effective the various strategies were.

He concludes that there is little evidence that any of them were dramatically successful, except perhaps surrender instructions over loudspeakers when victory was imminent. It should be noted, though, that measuring the success or failure of psychological warfare is very hard, as the conditions are very far from being a controlled experiment.

Lerner’s categories of psychological warfare

Lerner divides psychological warfare operations into three categories:

White [Omissions + Emphasis]

Truthful and not strongly biased, where the source of information is acknowledged.

Grey [Omissions + Emphasis + Racial/Ethnic/Religious Bias]

Largely truthful, containing no information that can be proven wrong; the source may or may not be hidden.

Black [Commissions of falsification]

Intended to deceive the enemy.

Examples:  The current game of political ping-pong between the World Powers over Iran.  The recent assassination that was allegedly carried out by MOSSAD, who will remain quiet even if it wasn’t them. In fact, any major geo-political event in the last hundred years.  And the biggest one of all, the never-ending ‘War on Terror’.

Like Tony Montana said, “..first you get the money, then you get the power..” And while all that economic power rests with the Corruptibles, those Bastards will continue unabated. Now all we need is a way to counter all that.  That though is for another day so will part with a wonderful question to ask ourselves from the mind of Aldous Huxley:

“How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man’s Final End?”




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: