Congratulations. As we approach 2023, you are now completing and have survived the third year of the largest, most globally coordinated psychological warfare operation in the history of mankind. During this period, on a daily basis, you have experienced the US Government and many western nations deploying highly refined, military-grade fifth generation warfare technologies against their own citizens. For those who have avoided the jabs which are neither safe nor effective, you deserve a medal for your ability to see through the fog of information warfare. Those, like me, who trusted the FDA and took the initial jabs only to suffer the adverse effects of same, perhaps a purple heart for being wounded in battle. For the millions of battlefield dead, the excess mortality documented by Ed Dowd and so many others, a moment of silent mourning is in order.
Quoting from “Your Guide to Fifth-Generation Warfare”
by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
March 27, 2022
“Fifth-generation warfare is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”
Fifth-generation warfare (5GW) is not waged against standing armies of nation-states or guerrilla insurgents, but against everyday citizens. This form of war is not fought in a battlefield somewhere, but in the mind. Your mind. As previously discussed, Twitter is a 5GW weapon, not a business.
If, after reading the recent coverage regarding the “Twitter Files”, you have any remaining doubts that the US Government “Administrative State” lead by the Uniparty is waging fifth generation warfare against American citizens, then this October 07, 2022 article by Becker News titled “President Biden Revokes Executive Branch Rules Against Spying on American Citizens”should dispel those. As Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at the Internet Accountability Project and the Article 3 Project, put it on Twitter: “Joe Biden just rescinded executive branch rules that prevent spying on American citizens.”
What is Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW)?
Returning to Dr. Qureshi and his seminal 2019 academic paper:
The composition of warfare is changing. The traditional aspects of waging a war are evolving: conventional techniques of warfare are in decline, and newer tactics and tools of warfare, such as information warfare, asymmetric warfare, media propaganda warfare, and hybrid warfare, are filling the gap, consequently blurring the lines between combatant and noncombatant, and between wartime and peacetime. The basic framework of modern warfare was elaborated by Carl von Clausewitz in his magnus opus On War. He defined modern warfare between states as “a duel on larger scale,” and explained its purpose as “a continuation of politics by other means,” with core elements of “rationality of the state, probability in military command, and rage of the population.”
William S. Lind distinguished between four generations of warfare since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, each generation representing a way of fighting war. Daniel H. Abbott continued this by propounding fifth-generation warfare as a battle of perceptions.
First-generation warfare, which was fought between 1648 and 1860, introduced the monopoly of a state to wage war. Before that, tribes and businesses could also wage war. First-generation warfare marked the culture of order, with identifiable rules of ranks and military uniforms to counter the increasing disorderliness in the battlefields. This generation of warfare was mainly dominated by mass manpower.
The second generation of warfare was introduced by the French army and it ended with World War I. This generation introduced artillery, airplanes, and heavy gunfire, while preserving the culture of order established during the first generation. Second- generation warfare soldiers were relieved of hand-to-hand combat and obedience guided by rules took precedence over self-initiatives. This generation of warfare was mainly dominated by firepower.
The third generation, maneuver warfare, was a German product and it was used during World War II. This generation of warfare introduced the tactical warfare of surprise, applying the motto “bypassing and undermining” the enemy. In this generation, initiative was preferred to obedience guided by self-discipline. This generation of warfare was mainly dominated by maneuver tactics of warfare.
Fourth-generation warfare (4GW)—which rose to prominence over the last five to six decades—brought the most radical change since the Peace of Westphalia by introducing non-state actors in warfare and by denying the state a monopoly. … Fourth-generation warfare is mainly dominated by the asymmetric tactic of using non-state actors. This generation ended the state monopoly of the use of force and included cultures, tribes, sects, and mercenaries into warfare, going back to pre-Westphalian era warfare. In 4GW, there is no distinction between wartime and peacetime, because non-state actors use force both during war and in peacetime through asymmetric strategies, using mainly unlawful force and blurring the lines for the lawful use of force by taking refuge behind human shields and by blaming collateral damages on the state. This practice also merges combatants with noncombatants and vice-versa; asymmetric warfare strategies are this generation’s default mode, and 4GW lasts a long time. Lind correctly believes that currently there exists no military solution to 4GW; as Michael Howard found, modern warfare strategy is not purely a military undertaking but instead consists of political, social, economic, cultural, and psychological elements and actions.
Note that the United States has consistently lost 4GW wars from Vietnam to the present, which have primarily been fought in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The catastrophically mismanaged Afghanistan withdrawal is the latest example proving the point. From this we can conclude that 4GW is an effective strategy when engaging in asymmetric battle with a technically superior (from a 3GW perspective) Imperialist foe. Good to know. Park that for future reference in the event that the Globalists succeed in having their way with us.
Fifth-generation warfare (5GW) is the battle of perceptions and information. 5GW is also a cultural and moral war, which distorts the perception of the masses to give a manipulated view of the world and politics. ….
Slog defines 5GW as the secret deliberative manipulation of actors, networks, institutions, states or any [0GW, 1GW] 2GW/3GW/4GW forces to achieve a goal or set of goals across a combination of socioeconomic and political domains while attempting to avoid or minimize the retaliatory offensive or defensive actions/reactions of 2GW, 3GW, 4GW powered actors, networks, institutions, and/ or states. (Purples Slog, 5GW Working Definition, 0.91, in THE HANDBOOK OF 5GW 213, 213 (Daniel H. Abbott ed., 2010))
5GW is the battle of perceptions and information. In 5GW, violence is so discreetly dispersed that the victim is not even aware that it is a victim of war and the victim is not aware that it is losing the war. The secrecy of this warfare makes it the most dangerous warfare generation of all time. This warfare hides in the background, and “the most successful [fifth generation] wars are wars that are never identified.”
5GW is also a cultural and moral war, which distorts the perception of the masses to give a manipulated view of the world and politics. By contrast, 4GW has mainly used asymmetric means, such as the use of non-state actors. Lind’s portrayal of 4GW in moral and cultural territory is somewhat similar to Abbott’s analysis of 5GW, which departs from the cultural rage of the population as depicted in 4GW, and which considers the perception of the conflict’s context as a main focal point of analysis. The 5GW of perception and context combines the “rage of the people” and the “rationality of the state” to form an intended outcome of warfare, rendering military command useless.
5GW exploits cultural icons and religious sentiments to defeat an opponent. Any means of creating political support of the masses is a valid tactic, similar to other military warfare tactics, like the troop surge in Iraq. Abbott argues that an enraged mob, professional soldiers, and other irregular means can constitute destructive forces. According to him, information proliferation in warfare has technologically designed practices of warfare that obviate the requirement of violence and the direct physical involvement of the aggressors; instead, the information through networks and surveillance manipulates and exploits the public’s general perceptions. Sun Tzu defines this tactic of altering the perspectives of the world as the “acme of skill [a victory without fighting].” The effectiveness of 5GW depends on its disparity: it does not require any unity in its efforts and instead, the more a warfare is dispersed in its efforts, the more immune and effective it becomes.
Wars of perception are 5GW, with information being the weapon, due to increased technology of cyberspace, media, social media, the noticeability of these tactics of deception and propaganda backed by identity construction and misperception, and the power of shaping the will of the adversary.
Since the proliferation of information decides the ultimate victory of future wars, centricity is less effective than the absence of weak links. 5GW is the battle between the absolute concentration of power (aggressor) on one end, and the absence of power on the other, and this battle compels the enemy to achieve the desired outcome without using violence. Information about the desired political world perspective is entrenched through manipulating the culture at the unconscious level, rendering it impossible for the conscious mind to even detect it and heavily influencing the political division to obtain the desired outcomes.
Adversaries are powerless to defend themselves against this infiltration of perspectives, and if they understand this change and infiltration, they will often mistake the aggressor’s true political motivation with distorted perceptions and with the manipulated information of diplomacy and propaganda. In effective 5GW, the embedded influence of perspective is harmonized with violence. This warfare of perspective makes the fifth generation “an influence, an idea, a thing invulnerable, intangible, without front and back, drifting about like a gas.” This is a kind of silent war, a “war where the war and political desires are visible but the combatants and the strategic forms of power used in the war are invisible, [not truly energetic] and lean towards . . . influence.” This concept of [silent] war was developed by Kautilya, as explained by Boesche:
“[S]ilent war is a kind of fighting that no other thinker I know of has discussed. Silent war is a kind of warfare with another kingdom in which the king and his ministers—and unknowingly, the people—all act publicly as if they were at peace with the opposing kingdom, but all the while secret agents and spies are assassinating important leaders in the other kingdom, creating divisions among key ministers and classes, and spreading propaganda and disinformation. . . . . In silent warfare, secrecy is paramount, and . . . the king can prevail only by “maintaining secrecy when striking again and again.”
Previously, war aimed at gaining greater visibility of violence and energy, but currently the desired outcome is to influence rather than being visible, with the defeated target not knowing the fact that it is being attacked, how it is being hit or even or that that the enemy exists.
In this battle of the minds, a cyberwar is taking place, turning ordinary people into insurgents against their own governments through propaganda and misinformation. This tactic creates leaderless resilience comprised of a phantom cell structure without any headquarters or hierarchical orders; where people within the movement have the same general outlook, the same philosophy, and where they react similarly and target perceived tyrannical state governments.
Every independent person has the responsibility of acquiring the skills and intelligence to be able to execute a mission by himself, coordinated by an emergent network, connected through [o]rgans of information distribution such as newspapers, leaflets, computers, etc., which are widely available to all, keep each person informed of events, allowing for a planned response that will take many variations. No one need issue an order . . . . . Those idealist [sic] truly committed to the cause of freedom will act when they feel when the time is ripe, or will take their cue from others who precede them. According to Beam’s definition, 5GW manipulates the perception of reality of the adversary, stealing the identity of the adversary and the identity of the host in the process, and works on an identity-constructivist framework of international politics.
Resisting Fifth Generational Warfare.
Returning again to Dr. Qureshi.
Fighting 5GW can be characterized as counterinsurgency. Counterinsurgency liquidates the ideological and ethnic perceptions created by 4GW, breaking the social relationship between non-state actors/insurgents and the general public. The counterinsurgent must drive societal change, target the cultural values of insurgents and the general population, fight on an intellectual level, and deny insurgents an enemy to fight against, rendering it impossible for the public and insurgents to identify the counterinsurgents’ intentions. These tactics form a non-hostile relationship between counterinsurgents and the people; as a result, it protects civilians’ well-being and survival. Counterinsurgency creates a safe space, popular security and cooperative identities. However, paradoxically this counterinsurgent involvement contributes to the dependence of the population on counterinsurgents. Therefore, states must instead resist this neocolonial Raj of imposed perspectives in shaping ideologies in the hopes of resolving all political matters.
The ways of waging a war are evolving, owing to a decline in the traditional way of waging wars and the emerging globalization and advancement in technology and communication. Therefore, wars through asymmetric means, information, and covert operations are on the rise, with non-state actors being prominent on the battlefield. A strategy to counter these new generations of warfare is to combine conventional tactics with the new innovative techniques of DIMEFILCH (full integration of Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic, Financial, Intelligence, Law enforcement, Cultural and Humanitarian capabilities), and to develop a tight coordination among military, diplomatic, judicial, and economic institutions, while also working with foreign counterparts and international institutions. More importantly, we need to change our mindset to be able to counter and understand the newly emerging threats and their asymmetric purposes. It is imperative to know the enemy and to know ourselves, to understand why and how the enemy works, and for what purposes.
Additionally, a loophole exists in the prohibition on the use of force in the UN Charter: following Nicaragua, aggression and use of force now include supplying arms and financial support to insurgents, rebels and other non-state actors working against the state but to be held accountable, it has to established that the non-state actors are under the direct control of the state-aggressor, which in practice is hard to do. That loophole is exploited by aggressive states when they employ hired guns to do the dirty work of their political will and leave no fingerprints. Thus, the aggressor cannot be held liable: they avoid direct engagement to circumvent the requirements of the international laws of using force.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this essay, you are now completing and have survived the third year of the largest, most globally coordinated 5GW psychological warfare operation in the history of mankind. During this period, on a daily basis, you have experienced the US Government, and many western nations (in close cooperation with the Pharmaceutical industry) deploying highly refined, military-grade 5GW technologies, strategies and tactics against their own citizens.
As described by Dr. Qureshi, these methods and techniques were developed to combat overseas adversaries, but have now been turned against the citizens of western nation-states to advance globalist agendas which are shared by the Imperial Administrative State and its Uniparty political allies. What we have all experienced is the new innovative techniques of DIMEFILCH being deployed against all of us to advance a broad range of pharmaceutical, commercial, financial and political control objectives collectively referred to as “The Great Reset”. So wake up and get with the program. Understand what is being done to you, and who is doing it.
5GW is the fusion of military and “intelligence” operations, strategy and tactics, and your mind, your thoughts, your emotions are the battleground being fought over. Aligned with best 5GW practices, the objective is to win the war to advance a new centralized, command economy-based world order which you have not voted to endorse, one in which the very concept of autonomous sovereign nation-states is considered obsolete, and to do so without your even being aware of what is being done.
What is “Swarm Consensus”?
“Swarm Consensus” is a term recently popularized by the brilliant writer and analyst Mary Harrington, who writes for “UnHerd”. Swarm Consensus primarily operates at the level of the Virtual caste, as the Physical caste is currently fragmented and disorganized, and therefore unable to readily achieve its own consensus on the future direction of the Nation and the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” being so actively advocated and “shaped” by the World Economic Forum and its thought leaders. But the Virtuals have their social media tools and the backing of both the Silicon Valley Overlords as well as corporate media. Which brings us back to the 5GW weapon known as Twitter.
<An aside, what is going on with this new wave of brilliant female analyst/Authors? Mary Harrington, Whitney Webb, and my partner Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone come to mind, but there are many others. Why have these powerful female intellectual voices been missing in the past?>
According to Mary Harrington, writing in her essay titled “Musk is becoming a true Caesar. The Twitter Files are a weapon of the new authoritarianism”, “swarmism is a kind of post-democratic democracy: a mutant form of liberal proceduralism, characterised by collective decision-making in which no one is ever individually accountable.”
No-one is ever individually accountable. Which means that our outdated legal system and compromised legislature will never be able to provide any sort of justice or restitution for those who have been damaged by the actions of the swarm. This also happens to be what is going on within the US DHS and HHS, and why the bad actors responsible for the COVIDcrisis in those administrative agencies will never be brought to justice. Swarmism as a basis for decision making. Swarmism is analogous to the ultimate Imperial Administrative State confidential oversight committee, which by its very design can never be held accountable for actions taken. Which comes back to the central characteristic of the Virtual caste – in their world, reality and morality are subjective, context dependent, and opportunistic. The ends justify the means, and for virtual true believers, you (and objective reality) are whatever you “hope” or believe them to be. Hope can be readily substituted for data in decision making, because reality is akin to a Salvador Dali’s 1931 painting “Persistence of Memory”.
Here is an extended cautionary quote from her article which helps illuminate what Mary Harrington is writing about:
Is it okay to be authoritarian, as long as it’s in the name of the right moral values? Some “post-liberal’ conservatives would say so. America might have been founded on the liberal separation of church and state, the argument goes, but that’s running out of road. Instead, to save the American polity and way of life, church and state should once again draw together.
But if there’s one lesson we should take from the ongoing spectacle surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop, it’s not the avalanche of claims and counter-claims about censorship or bias, or the sulphurous accusation of stolen elections. It’s that polite proposals about a bit more Christianity in the public square are hopelessly behind the times. All of politics is already post-liberal, and mainstream power has already explicitly embraced a faith-based moral order.
That is: American Church and American State have already ended their three-century separation. And Laptopgate is most significant in what it reveals about the contest now on for a suitable post-liberal political regime: a battle that pits the “human” against something more like a “swarm”.
She goes on to develop her thesis by focusing on the tension between Elon Musk (as a new Cesar) and the elitist Uniparty “swarmists”.
The Biden administration is fond of talking about “democracy” versus “autocracy”, but it might be more accurate to talk about swarmism and Caesarism. Swarmism is a kind of post-democratic democracy: a mutant form of liberal proceduralism, characterised by collective decision-making in which no one is ever individually accountable. Instead, consequential decisions are as far as possible pushed out to supposedly neutral procedures or even machines. When NGO officials whom you can’t vote out of your political ecosystem talk about “our democracy”, they’re talking about swarmism.
Caesarism, on the other hand, looks substantially the same at lower levels. The main difference is that you get named humans in key decision-making roles — complete with human partiality, eccentricity, and occasional fallibility. Twitter was, until recently, a key vector of elite swarmism. And to swarmists, such rule by a named individual, rather than a collective and some committee-generated “guidelines”, is by definition morally wrong. This core assumption oozes, for example, from this report on the takeover, with its empathetic depiction of the anonymous, collegiate collective of sacked Trust and Safety workers sharply contrasted with the autocratic, erratic individual Elon Musk.
Some defenders of Twitter decision-making over the Hunter Biden case point to the fact that the emails reveal no overt demands for censorship from the CIA or any other political agency. But this is the point: swarmism doesn’t work like that. Consensus-formation is mystified and de-personalised at every turn. The Twitter Files are explosive because they afforded a peek under the purportedly neutral swarmist carapace, revealing not just the named individuals involved in steering it but also human fallibility and political affinities.
Guiding development and managing the consensus of Twitter’s blue check “swarm” is one of many examples which illustrate the strategy, tactics, and objectives of the 5GW which is being waged against citizens by the Imperial Administrative State and their Uniparty politician allies.
But have no illusions about this: your mind, opinions, and emotions are the battlefield being fought over. Your only options are to either get educated about 5GW and work hard to ferret out the lies, opt out (and consider opting into virtual communities), or just concede your (and your children’s) autonomy and sovereignty to the Uniparty and their globalist Overlords. Your choice, their future.
