A Camouflaged World War

Will a Third World War exceed the previous ones when it comes to weaponry, human loss and material destruction – or has warfare taken a new form?

Most wars are related to expanded access to resources or the protection of them. One of the definitions of war also mentions that all warfare, in the end, is about reigning. In other words, it is about one state’s attempt to reign over another or several others – and hence expand its access to resources and servants. Therefore, it’s a restructuring of reigning parties.

For all historical wars, the main factor has been the exertion of military power. Due to the methods and aftermath of the First and Second World War, most people associate a hypothetical Third World War with an Armageddon-like military scenario. This impression has been molded further by such coverage in literary, cinematic and computer game products.

What is then being overseen, as a reality, is that for the last decades there has been going on several silent wars without significant usage of military arms.

Instead of bombs, there is a fabrication of situations. Instead of nuclear bombs, there is an orchestration of financial shockwaves and indebtedness of states. Instead of sending one own’s soldiers, other’s soldiers are assisted while civilians are forced into refugee. Instead of traditional propaganda, there are psychological operations in modern media. Instead of territories, battles are over information and market shares. Instead of external states, the target can be the population itself. Instead of an obvious offender, the main actors may well be camouflaged.

With the exception of human loss and material destruction, the outcome is the same as with a larger war. Economy, employment, welfare systems, and trust are brought down so that the nation(s) under attack become subdued to the attacker’s commands and consumption. As with the outcome of all wars; nations and their citizens are left with a mountain of debt. Since there are no visible weapons nor any obvious enforcers, the people don’t know what should be done or how to call for help.

The main factors for this warfare’s advantage is access to information, to capital and to a complex power apparatus.

The consequence of some situations is instrumental while others are domino effects. Both are to a large degree predictable for the groups of people who can dedicate all their time for speculation and planning of such dynamics. Large power structures give a lot of impact on the one hand and obfuscation of responsibility on the other. The population’s access to or influence on the power structure is minimal and its mechanisms are hidden and hazy.

In addition, there is a huge delay from when those with useful information execute their agenda until the many with useless information suspect something. Warfare executed by hidden actors is accomplishable when a busy population doesn’t have time to or capacity to obtain useful information. The same is achieved if they are engaged in useless information or get overwhelmed by fabricated situations. This has been known since “bread and circuses” were initiated in ancient Rome.

Pretty much all geopolitical narratives seem to have two purposes. One is the apparent purpose, also called the official story, which will make it acceptable to the people. The other is the actual and sneaky purpose, which is to fulfil a larger agenda.

Congressman Ron Paul stated in 2012 that the neoconservative policy has paved way for a too interventionist and provoking agenda, which hasn’t worked as claimed and have caused an escalated violence (in the Middle East). He pointed out that new wars are initiated by international coalitions, while the Congress and proper authority are ignored – without people objecting.

There are several nations that are pulling strings for increased influence in the Middle East and in Europe, and there are many indications pointing to common journalism not digging deep enough to reveal which actors attempt to run the show. Perhaps there is too much focus on the apparent purpose and the established truths.

Expanded access to resources and servants isn’t just in the interest of certain nations, but also of interest of large financial or corporative actors. The more speculative historians affirm that this was always in their interest, with politicians and dictators as mere middle leaders.

Professor Carrol Quigley, historian and author of the book “Tragedy and Hope“, is hereby quoted: “The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” This extensive piece from 1966 is likely just as descriptive of today’s world.

The best shield against the actors in a Third World War, which isn’t just a military war, is likely to politically protect the sovereignty of nation-states, resource management and welfare systems achieved over several generations. In addition, democratizing of useful and fact-based information will reveal psychological operations as ridiculous and make ongoing actors visible. National monetary systems and economy that are less vulnerable for fabricated financial shockwaves will also be essential. The best weapon is a resonating population that desires to expand its insight – and who calls out when threats are observed. Combined with alliances of neighbor countries, and with consideration of the near and global environment, peace can be maintained through good intentions.

Sources of inspiration: “Tragedy and Hope” (Carrol Quigley), “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars” (unknown/fabrication), “Debt – How the West fooled itself” (Christian Anton Smedshaug) and “Globalization that works” (Joseph Stiglitz).

[Norwegian version published in Dagsavisen, October 2015]