Information Warfare is not "Optional"

Nations without information warfare capabilities in the 21st century are like nations without armies and navies in the 20th century. They are defenseless. 

May 29, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Imagine a nation without an army, a navy or an air force. What would its prospects be of defending itself against even moderate aggression? What if it had an army, even a formidable one, but was missing an air force and/or navy? Would its chances be any better?


Before the invention of human flight, war was fought in two dimensions by armies and navies upon the surface of the planet. With the introduction of aircraft to warfare, a new dimension was added. Nations that fell behind the curve building and rebuilding their air forces would find themselves consistently at a disadvantage. Those nations that stayed ahead of the curve would cite air power as key to their victories throughout recent history.

Today, undoubtedly, information warfare is no longer a novelty. It has been honed into a weapon of devastating effect able to confuse, divide and destroy nations in a dimension conventional warfare often cannot even reach.

The use of the Internet and information warfare soared to new heights during the Arab Spring. Hardly the spontaneous uprising it was portrayed as across the Western media, for years beforehand the US State Department together with tech-giants Google and Facebook prepared armies of information warriors to disrupt, divide, confuse and take over the information space in the respective nations the US targeted for regime change in 2011.

Like an air force entering undefended airspace, the US State Department's information warfare capabilities met little resistance and quickly overwhelmed and assumed control over information space in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. Only Syria and Egypt's immense conventional military and political power prevented tragedies like that which unfolded in Libya from repeating itself elsewhere. However, it cannot be denied that across the region, information warfare was neglected and unnecessary leverage was conceded to the US amid a much larger theater of conflict.

Vulnerabilities in the Information Space 

While the Internet and its use in information warfare is relatively new, information warfare is not. The US and the British before them have spent over the decades, and for the British, centuries, investing in whatever forms of media existed at the time to ensure their voice among it was loudest if not the only voice to be heard.

The Feigned and Future Demise of Big-Oil

May 17, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Four of the top five Global Fortune 500 corporations are involved in petroleum refining. Together with big-finance and industrial giants like big-auto and utility monopolies, big-oil dominates the global economy.


The monopoly it enjoys grants it the unwarranted power and influence it has wielded throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. And because big-oil is integrated into big-finance and other corporate-financier monopolies through various mutual interests, its influence reaches even further still.

The ability to manipulate prices in the markets, starve or bolster any particular nation by targeting energy essential for modern civilization constitutes a weaponization of energy. However, despite this immense power, there are some who claim big-oil's days are numbered. On one hand they are wrong, on the other, they are absolutely right.

The Feigned Demise of Big-Oil 

In the lead-up to the US-engineered "Arab Spring" and a number of other engineered political subversions executed around the globe with varying degrees of success, oil prices had been skyrocketing. Articles like the BBC's March 2011, "Oil price: Should we fear the latest rises?," claimed that:
With populations and incomes steadily increasing in Asia, there seemed to be an inexorable rise in global energy demand. 

And with a finite limit to the amount of hydrocarbons in the ground, "peak oil" - the point where global oil production reaches its highest practicable rate - became the buzzword.

When prices were rising in 2008 and then again before and during the so-called "Arab Spring," the world was expected to believe growing populations and increasing demand versus "peak oil" meant high prices would endure indefinitely. Yet today, prices are again at extraordinary extremes - dropping rather than skyrocketing. Did the population suddenly shrink? Did the population continue to grow but suddenly stop using energy?

Image: Big-oil, big-finance, utilities and auto manufacturers dominate the global economy. Energy is big business and until recently it was a business easily monopolized because of the high entry barriers and capital-intensive nature of the industry. 

Despite the BBC and other Western media narratives, oil prices are not necessarily driven by supply and demand alone. Often they are manipulated on a global scale because, since the advent of petroleum driven economies, but a handful of powerful monopolies have controlled both the production and distribution of oil, as well as its price in the markets.

Just as "peak oil" was used as a canard to explain manipulated prices at extreme highs last decade and early this decade, the collapse of big-oil is being used as a canard to explain the manipulation of low oil prices today.

In reality, Western-controlled big-oil corporations are attempting to kill off smaller competitors and geopolitical rivals including Russia and Venezuela. It can be likened to chemotherapy where the entire body is poisoned in hopes that the body is strong enough to survive, while the smaller tumor within perishes. Likewise, big-oil hopes by dropping oil prices through the floor, despite the devastating effects it will have on its own health, it will survive even if just barely, while its rivals perish.

But just because today's feigned demise of big-oil is a canard to explain this otherwise cynical politically-motivated hegemonic manipulation of global oil markets, doesn't mean that big-oil's future is secure. On the contrary, it is anything but.

Standing Up To Multinational Big-Ag: Nepal, Monsanto, & USAID

May 24, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Throughout history, controlling India was the key to controlling Nepal. British control over the landlocked nation was an extension of its control over India itself. Today, imperialism is far from a distant memory. It did not go "extinct," rather, it merely "evolved." Today, imperialism looks like national and international "aid programs" which are used as fronts and vectors for corporate special interests.



USAID, the World Food Programme, and others, for instance, serve as fronts and vectors for corporations like Monsanto. In turn, Monsanto seeks a monopoly over world food production and the immense wealth and influence associated with such control. Just like the British East Indies Company did for centuries (1600's-1800's) the West is using a combination of corporations and foundations to project geopolitical power. And few other sectors engender such sought-after geopolitical power like control over a nation's agriculture.

The story of corporate-financier interests attempting to conquer Nepal through this method is not new. In 2011, when "Maoist" rebels finally took control of the country and Western-style "democracy" foisted upon the Nepali people, Western corporations were already positioned to overrun the levers of power by controlling the nation's infrastructure.

In the immediate aftermath of years of fighting, USAID along with Monsanto and a corrupt, weak, and vulnerable Nepal government began a "pilot program" indoctrinating some 20,000 farmers in the use of patented, poisoned, economy-wrecking GMO crops, and in particular Monsanto's infamous hybrid maize breeds. The program had also received backing from members of neighboring India's government who had already helped introduce Monsanto's GMO crops throughout their country -beginning the wholesale destruction of India's food security and domestic farming industry.


Al Qaeda: Heroes of the Empire

May 22, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Syrian President Bashar al Assad would seem like a natural ally to the United States and the European Union. He heads a secular government and presides over a secular nation. It is a nation where extremist political factions like the Muslim Brotherhood are outlawed and armed terrorist groups hunted down and eliminated. There was even a point in history before the 2011 war began within and along Syria's borders that Washington even feigned such an alliance with Damascus.



The London Telegraph in its article, "John Kerry and Bashar al-Assad dined in Damascus," reported:
Mr Kerry visited Damascus in February 2009, when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He said in a press conference during the visit: "President Barack Obama's administration considers Syria a key player in Washington's efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process.

"Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region."

Mr Kerry met with Mr Assad at least six times, and on one occasion – seen in the photographs – dining with the two men's wives at the Naranj restaurant in central Damascus.
Though the US considered at the time Syria to be a "state sponsor of terrorism," that was only because of its support of Lebanon's Hezbollah, not Al Qaeda and its affiliates who the US Army's own reports indicate the government was working against even during the US occupation of Iraq when Syria was used as an entry point into the country along its southern borders. Ironically, the US Army's reports would indicate that many of the networks now considered "rebels," were involved in facilitating Al Qaeda's transit through Syrian territory into Iraq to kill Americans using Saudi cash.

Al Qaeda Goes to Syria: How to Build an Emirate Overnight

May 20, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose you want to create your own army in say, Syria. You live in Pakistan. You are also a listed terrorist organization allegedly being hunted by multiple nations around the world including both the United States and the EU. How do you suppose you "move" to Syria and build your army or even something as grand as an "emirate?"


With what money? With what political support? How do you pass the various borders between Pakistan and Syria to even arrive in your new "emirate?"

Like a narrative of a Saturday morning cartoon, the New York Times article, "Al Qaeda Turns to Syria, With a Plan to Challenge ISIS," asks us to suspend belief, reporting:
Al Qaeda’s top leadership in Pakistan, badly weakened after a decade of C.I.A. drone strikes, has decided that the terror group’s future lies in Syria and has secretly dispatched more than a dozen of its most seasoned veterans there, according to senior American and European intelligence and counterterrorism officials. 
The NYT also claims:
The operatives have been told to start the process of creating an alternate headquarters in Syria and lay the groundwork for possibly establishing an emirate through Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, the Nusra Front, to compete with the Islamic State, from which Nusra broke in 2013. This would be a significant shift for Al Qaeda and its affiliate, which have resisted creating an emirate, or formal sovereign state, until they deem conditions on the ground are ready. Such an entity could also pose a heightened terrorist threat to the United States and Europe. 
It is extraordinary that Al Qaeda can openly announce this, so openly it is covered in the New York Times, and that there is any chance of it actually taking place (assuming the Western World really is fighting a "War on Terror"). It is equally extraordinary that the New York Times would make such an announcement without enumerating just what this "emirate" entails or with what resources Al Qaeda had to implement it with.

DIY Emirate 

The NYT describes Al Qaeda's "emirate" as a "formal sovereign state," and little else. A formal sovereign state requires many things the New York Times failed to mention, among which are:
  • Energy production;
  • Schools;
  • Manufacturing;
  • Money; 
  • Healthcare; 
  • Police;
  • Army;
  • Government (national, provincial, and municipal);
  • and much, much more. 
Even for existing nation-states, getting all of this right is an immense challenge. Yet Al Qaeda and its Syrian franchise Al Nusra seem to have made great progress already laying such groundwork. For instance, Al Nusra has police, runs schools, has hospitals and clinics, obviously has an army, and clearly has no trouble finding money. The real question is, how have they managed to do this?