Defending Against Info-war Attack
Ed Komarek
October 17, 2007
This article is the third of a series on articles on Info-war. Colonel John Alexander, U.S. Army (retired) has a chapter in his book Future War called Information Warfare. Colonel Alexander is widely considered the Darth Vader of the national security state by leading exopoliticians, one who long ago succumbed to the dark side of the force. One well known individual involved in the UFO/ET field was rumored to have called him the most dangerous man on the planet, an exaggeration of course, but I have and still do consider him a formidable adversary in the ongoing Info-war within and without the UFO/ET community.
One of the main tenets of war is to learn from the adversary, so I consider John a teacher from the dark side. To me John is a microcosm of the national insecurity state and to understand how he thinks is to understand the national insecurity state itself. In the movie Star Wars, Darth Vader was seduced by the dark side of the force to believe that to fight evil and win one must use evil means. I realize that John and others like him believe they are doing the right thing, as do many of those working in the areas of national security around the world, but to me he is just another casualty of a cosmic info-war that extends right down into every mind on this planet. When John receives this I hope he is paying attention. :-) I learn quickly.
On page 111 John says, "In preparing for conflict, perception management is essential. The adversary should be led to believe that he is vulnerable and will lose if war is initiated." John goes on to say, "To deceive the enemy is a fundamental tenet of war. However, it was not until 1994 that doctrine on deception was published, and that was in response to the burgeoning field of command and control warfare. The target of the deception is the enemy's decision-making process. This may be done by directly influencing the leaders, or by manipulating the beliefs of the people who must support them"
This is such an important statement because when America's national security apparatus in World War Two and through the cold war used the same unethical means to destroy the adversary that the adversary was using, it moved the evil without into the evil within. As that happened the national security state became the national insecurity state and inadvertently began attacking its own public. One is reminded of Creon in the Greek Tragedies who destroyed his own family for the state, only to realize as a old man that his family was the state. The ancient Greeks were very aware how fundamental conceptual errors subvert the decision making process and leads to great suffering.
What John and the national insecurity state fail to understand is that the target of deception is the destruction of anybody who uses it!!!! It contaminates the mental battlefield and injures everybody. The true basic tenet is that in a conflict or in any other situation deception will attack and harm anybody who uses it for any reason. In the short term it may win a battle even a war, but in the long run it's corrosive and as a mental poison it will eventually damage and even ruin all those who use it.
John goes on to quote Colonel Richard Szafranski. His considerations for attacking include, "Every means by which an adversary arrives at knowledge or beliefs in that context." "Szafranski carries that argument to a logical conclusion, targeting every element in the epistemology of an adversary. This means attempting to undermine the organization, structure, methods, and validity of knowledge of that adversary. Deprived of valid information, a means to evaluate information properly, or a stable and reliable mechanism for decision-making places the adversary at great risk." John goes on to discuss manipulation of the media, how to do this properly without blowback.
I have to ask, is this not exactly what has been going on ever sense the national security apparatus began using deception against its enemies. I believe it is a basic tenet of war that to the degree that the national security state uses deception against the enemy it also correspondingly attacks it's public body incurring a corresponding loss of confidence by the public. One could also state that, to the degree that the national security apparatus uses ethical means and tactics against the enemies unethical means and tactics there is a corresponding increase in confidence, trust and support from a better informed and secure public.
Fanatical thinking just illustrates a very important point and that is in fighting evil with evil one unknowingly becomes evil oneself. John is an ultimate cold warrior and he reflects the thinking of the national security establishment elite that won the cold war through unethical means against a unethical adversary, thereby transferring the evil without into the evil within. The national security apparatus that was formed to fight the cold war in America is now the threat to true national security and stability everywhere. In fighting one beast with unethical means one has only created an even more powerful beast. Its all based on the lie that the end justifies the means. It's a lie because there is really no separation between past and future, the means and end are one.
This is information warfare at its most sophisticated, how do such errors of logic and conception get into our minds? Christians personify the corruption and inversion of the truth as Satan's domain. Did a group of immortals or very long living space beings lose a space (heaven) battle to be confined to earth in underground bases (hell) to haunt mankind to the end times as Christians believe?
Are these errors in logic something inherent in mankind or has mankind itself been under a info-war attack for thousands of years? Are people like John Alexander unwitting pawns believing they are doing good but in fact doing just the opposite. John is talking here about mind control. I wonder if it has ever crossed his mind that his own mind and the mind of the national security state itself is in fact conditioned and controlled by powers higher up the autocratic pyramid. Who really occupies the eye in the pyramid?
So John, the question is, is there a better enlightened way to deal with a info-war adversary that uses destructive means against us. It's right there in the bible John, in the teachings of Christ. The way to defeat (reform)a unethical adversary is not to use unethical means but to use ethical means. This way one does not become the evil that one wars against! When an adversary uses a lie, then expose that lie with the truth. If one is deceived, then expose that deception. If the media is the weapon then disarm it through information warfare techniques of conceptualization and articulation of context projected into the media and internet to reintroduce coherence rather than incoherence!
My blog: http://exopolitics.blogspot.com/
One of the main tenets of war is to learn from the adversary, so I consider John a teacher from the dark side. To me John is a microcosm of the national insecurity state and to understand how he thinks is to understand the national insecurity state itself. In the movie Star Wars, Darth Vader was seduced by the dark side of the force to believe that to fight evil and win one must use evil means. I realize that John and others like him believe they are doing the right thing, as do many of those working in the areas of national security around the world, but to me he is just another casualty of a cosmic info-war that extends right down into every mind on this planet. When John receives this I hope he is paying attention. :-) I learn quickly.
On page 111 John says, "In preparing for conflict, perception management is essential. The adversary should be led to believe that he is vulnerable and will lose if war is initiated." John goes on to say, "To deceive the enemy is a fundamental tenet of war. However, it was not until 1994 that doctrine on deception was published, and that was in response to the burgeoning field of command and control warfare. The target of the deception is the enemy's decision-making process. This may be done by directly influencing the leaders, or by manipulating the beliefs of the people who must support them"
This is such an important statement because when America's national security apparatus in World War Two and through the cold war used the same unethical means to destroy the adversary that the adversary was using, it moved the evil without into the evil within. As that happened the national security state became the national insecurity state and inadvertently began attacking its own public. One is reminded of Creon in the Greek Tragedies who destroyed his own family for the state, only to realize as a old man that his family was the state. The ancient Greeks were very aware how fundamental conceptual errors subvert the decision making process and leads to great suffering.
What John and the national insecurity state fail to understand is that the target of deception is the destruction of anybody who uses it!!!! It contaminates the mental battlefield and injures everybody. The true basic tenet is that in a conflict or in any other situation deception will attack and harm anybody who uses it for any reason. In the short term it may win a battle even a war, but in the long run it's corrosive and as a mental poison it will eventually damage and even ruin all those who use it.
John goes on to quote Colonel Richard Szafranski. His considerations for attacking include, "Every means by which an adversary arrives at knowledge or beliefs in that context." "Szafranski carries that argument to a logical conclusion, targeting every element in the epistemology of an adversary. This means attempting to undermine the organization, structure, methods, and validity of knowledge of that adversary. Deprived of valid information, a means to evaluate information properly, or a stable and reliable mechanism for decision-making places the adversary at great risk." John goes on to discuss manipulation of the media, how to do this properly without blowback.
I have to ask, is this not exactly what has been going on ever sense the national security apparatus began using deception against its enemies. I believe it is a basic tenet of war that to the degree that the national security state uses deception against the enemy it also correspondingly attacks it's public body incurring a corresponding loss of confidence by the public. One could also state that, to the degree that the national security apparatus uses ethical means and tactics against the enemies unethical means and tactics there is a corresponding increase in confidence, trust and support from a better informed and secure public.
Fanatical thinking just illustrates a very important point and that is in fighting evil with evil one unknowingly becomes evil oneself. John is an ultimate cold warrior and he reflects the thinking of the national security establishment elite that won the cold war through unethical means against a unethical adversary, thereby transferring the evil without into the evil within. The national security apparatus that was formed to fight the cold war in America is now the threat to true national security and stability everywhere. In fighting one beast with unethical means one has only created an even more powerful beast. Its all based on the lie that the end justifies the means. It's a lie because there is really no separation between past and future, the means and end are one.
This is information warfare at its most sophisticated, how do such errors of logic and conception get into our minds? Christians personify the corruption and inversion of the truth as Satan's domain. Did a group of immortals or very long living space beings lose a space (heaven) battle to be confined to earth in underground bases (hell) to haunt mankind to the end times as Christians believe?
Are these errors in logic something inherent in mankind or has mankind itself been under a info-war attack for thousands of years? Are people like John Alexander unwitting pawns believing they are doing good but in fact doing just the opposite. John is talking here about mind control. I wonder if it has ever crossed his mind that his own mind and the mind of the national security state itself is in fact conditioned and controlled by powers higher up the autocratic pyramid. Who really occupies the eye in the pyramid?
So John, the question is, is there a better enlightened way to deal with a info-war adversary that uses destructive means against us. It's right there in the bible John, in the teachings of Christ. The way to defeat (reform)a unethical adversary is not to use unethical means but to use ethical means. This way one does not become the evil that one wars against! When an adversary uses a lie, then expose that lie with the truth. If one is deceived, then expose that deception. If the media is the weapon then disarm it through information warfare techniques of conceptualization and articulation of context projected into the media and internet to reintroduce coherence rather than incoherence!
My blog: http://exopolitics.blogspot.com/
Print
Email
