The Practical Lawful Dissent process based on the Lawful Instructions of Article 61 which are to 1. Take the Oath. 2. Declare your lawful sanding under Article 61. 3. Collect evidence of treason and crimes. 3. Report evidence of treason and crimes. 4. Hold those committing treason and crimes to account. 6. Seek remedy and redress.
The following is an outline of the 5 notice process we use to notify government employees and judges we are under Oath of Article 61, with lawful standing and excuse not to comply with their legislative nonsense. We have a process that must be completed to notify government employees – Process for no demands. We have a process for demands, with the first notice being a Notice of conditional acceptance and 4 remaining notices remain the same. Please persist and read through the notices, with a view to learn, and understand we are reporting the treason against the whole Commonwealth world, past and present, not one country.
Richard is one of THE ONLY gutsy people exploring how we win this war. Every episode of his videos and podcasts are phenomenal and witty. Even to Google him is a revelation. DiVA
The world is an odd place at the moment everything you thought you knew is clearly not right. I am pondering the mysteries, questioning the narrative and trying to get at the truth. Hoping to uncover some of the secrets. I’m not an expert but just using a little critical thinking, some common sense with a touch of the whimsical” Richard Vobes
Although we do not want to perpetuate the Regimes sick agendas and propaganda, we must learn to identify treason against the people and look deeper into the facts and learn from history.
The Regime could be defined as anyone wanting to take away sovereignty, a foreign army/corporation or treasonous tyrant, or anyone making unlawful demands on a living man, or anyone other than the peoples elected democratic will of government imposing legislation/laws on the people. The tyrants of the regime have infiltrated our parliament, constitutions and establishments, and it becomes obvious their agenda is solely, to take away our constitution, our sovereignty, our freedom and our rights, with the ultimate goal of, enslavement by deception and to destroy our Commonwealth Realm. Unless you are on their side, you will be forever grateful for the existence of Magna Carta 1215 and the insight of our For-fathers, and the Barons and Knights of old.
We are becoming more aware of the deceptions, and the silent weapons being used against us now and throughout history, to enslave humanity, and to deceive the masses. Because of article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, we have a Law to stand under to protect the rights and liberties of mankind. Other than the bible, there is nothing like Magna Carta 1215 to ensure equality, regulate society, identify treason and to hold individuals accountable by promoting common sense and common law among the people. Our Realm and Commonwealth structure is based on the peoples sovereignty and Magna Carta 1215, is the nemesis of the satanic cabal and regimes who thrive on war, greed and misfortune. Imagine if Magna Carta and Constitutions did not exist, we would have been totally enslaved centuries ago. It has shaped our society and the governmental structure we have to day, with Royalty and public servants who swear an oath to protect the people. Although that too is being destroyed.
The current Regime run close parallels to the Nazi war machine and Eugenics programs proliferated throughout the last war, and is occurring throughout the world. They are using Terrorism, Covid and Climate Change to entrap the world.
This page presents information and historical accounts of the Crown of England and poses the questions, what exactly is the Crown and what does it represent? How has the Crown changed over the history of the English Realm? (Please note the media’s interpretation of the truth about the Crown and our Sovereignty becomes more and more obvious who their allegiance is with. The peoples crown pictured in front of QEII and on a chair. These very important changes have been neglected and fobbed off with narratives like the crown was too heavy for the Queen to wear and the truth about why they changed it is compelling.
The Queen keeps an eye on the Crown. BBC. Interesting how the Queen traded our Crown for a hat that resembles the European Union Flag.
Why is the Crown preceding the Queen? Because she was dethroned by Article 61 on 23rd March 2001 for treason.
The Imperial Peoples Sovereign Crown.Treasonous St Edwards Crown
The Crown Jewels BBC
A single jewel in the Tower of London has seen the rise and fall of more empires, caused more bad luck and been more prized than any other precious stone on Earth. The Kohinoor is the most famous – and infamous – diamond in the world, but it’s only one of tens of thousands of jewels and numerous crowns that make up Britain’s most valuable treasure, the Crown Jewels. Now, to mark the Queen’s historic platinum jubilee – 70 years on the throne – Clive Myrie explores the objects that symbolize her authority.
Collected over centuries by British kings and queens, these objects are now used on ceremonial occasions including the coronation, where they announce the arrival of every new monarch. With unprecedented access and the latest technology, Clive reveals the magnificent, astonishing, complicated thousand-year history buried within the Crown Jewels. These jewels – some of the most beautiful objects ever crafted – reveal the complicated story of our island over the last millennium.
The death of Queen Elizabeth II and the inheritance of the British throne by her eldest son Charles, can either be viewed as a significant event holding the possibility of positive change, or the further manifestation of a beguiling and deceptive show of imperial/colonial self importance.
It’s too early to know which way the pendulum will swing, but well over half the British public still supports the existence of a monarchy and turns out in large numbers to express their approval of the theatre that remains an enduring part of the British love affair with tradition and the uncompromisingly expensive and pompous spectacle that surrounds the great majority of royal occasions.
King Charles III takes the throne at a time of great uncertainty and insecurity for all people, not just the population of Great Britain. The United Kingdom, like many other countries, is locked into a seemingly insoluble set of political and economic upheavals, all symptomatic of the dominant globalist regime of the past three/four decades.
Most of what provides the appearance of worldly significance for the UK comes from what is referred to as its ‘special relationship’ with the USA. This means letting US top brass decide the UK’s role in the geopolitical machinations of an international power struggle and then entering into collusion with UK officialdom over how this will be financed and spun by the global media.
The brutal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria were largely Anglo-American planned and executed events taken up later by the European Union as a show of what is called ‘international solidarity’.
But recently a whole new dimension of power has imposed itself on the socio-economic and cultural pattern of the UK, Europe, North America and beyond. This power heist is that of the World Economic Forum (WEF) operating in full collaboration with the United Nations (especially its World Health Organisation) along with the corporate giants that dominate the global economy.
This is especially true when it comes to the machinations of the privately controlled and debt-creating central banking system that’s led by the secretive and almost unknown Bank for International Settlements (BIS).
Controversially, King Charles III has been revealed to be in very close collaboration with the WEF’s executive director Klaus Schwab. In 2020, Charles gave the opening address to the WEF Summit at Davos where The Great Reset was formally announced.
The Great Reset, let us remind ourselves, comprises ‘The Green New Deal’, ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution’, the UN’s seventeen ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ and the ‘Zero CO2’ global warming/climate change imperative that originated at the Club of Rome, itself an active participant in this small cabal of ‘hidden government’ which seeks total domination of global affairs and global wealth.
The vast majority of the public have no idea that their new king appears to support the imposition of The Great Reset, which according to Klaus Schwab, involves merging human beings into digitally controlled ‘trans-human’ cyborgs that will represent ‘a great advancement’ of civilisation here on Earth. Indeed, Schwab’s chief advisor, Yuval Noah Harari, recently stated “We will create non-organic humans … we will do better than God”.
As Prince, Charles made a name for himself as an upholder of environmental causes, traditional architecture and organic farming. How is it possible that he could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Klaus Schwab giving support to his widely stated claim that, as part of The Great Reset, the human race will have to live on a diet of petri-dish propagated laboratory foods and processed insects? Not to mention Schwab’s now famous declaration that under The Great Reset “You will own nothing, and will be happy”.
Many see Charles as having a broadly humanitarian outlook and a certain ease with working class people and farmers. But, as a stated supporter of The Green New Deal, he is putting his weight behind the end of independent family farming by introducing in its place sterile robotic agricultural mechanisms, synthetic laboratory foods and ‘rewilded’ countryside, likely offering shooting and hunting opportunities for the privileged, but little artisan or useful silvicultural activity for those skilled people who traditionally provide the stewardship of our countryside and rural communities.
The new king was schooled in the ‘environmental sustainability’ movement of the 1980s and 1990s. Leading non-governmental figureheads of this movement adopted an elitist view on how to manage the resource base to counteract so-called ‘global warming’. They believed in the false science of the government-backed International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its wholly contrived rhetoric that global warming is the result of excessive CO2 production of industrial nations and that only a major cut back in the use of fossil fuel could ‘save the planet’.
This belief is the basis of the WEF’s entire policy agenda, including achieving ‘Zero CO2’ by 2040.
Stopping global warming is the excuse for collapsing the present economy and shifting all energy production into a fake green programme of centralised and corporate owned ‘alternative’ power sources, drawing heavily on scarce finite resources of rare minerals and use of high energy demanding metals for the construction of large scale wind and photovoltaic energy farms.
Could Charles, famed for his support of organic agriculture, really be in support of the WEF’s plan to subject the general public to a diet of insects, cultured fake meat and dairy products to replace real food by 2030? Is he so high-tech appeased to believe in the proclamation by Schwab that “At the end, what the Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological bodies.”
As Charles takes the throne an extraordinary clash of powers are playing out their end game agenda. On the one hand, the vast corporate global power matrix is backing a frighteningly mechanistic, digital and algorithmically controlled future. A future dominated by weaponised 5, 6 and 7G electromagnetic wave pulses powering control grid based ‘smart cities’ to be inhabited by disenfranchised country dwellers.
On the other hand, a new wave of awareness is rising which holds Man as sacred and his environment as a priceless gift in need of a whole new form of benign and common sense stewardship that contains the true and human-scale values of real ecology.
King Charles will swear his Coronation Oath on his official day of inauguration. His mother did the same at her Coronation in 1953. This oath states that the King will remain loyal to protecting the well-being and safety of his subjects and to guard the independent sovereignty of the nation.
His mother, for whatever reason, failed the citizens of Great Britain in this respect. She sold out to the globalists and supranational authority of the European Union.
UK citizens have clawed back one of these losses. Will King Charles III be true to his Coronation Oath? Will the rulings of 1215 Magna Carta re-emerge from their present obscurity and be proclaimed as the foundation for the future of the British Isles? Will the never-revoked constitutional Common Law of the people rise up to force the lawless elite cabal off their Masonic pedestals of power?
Perhaps the people of Great Britain will finally wake up to the fact that the royal chimera played out daily on their TV screens is nothing but a tool of simple deception that’s designed to soften and obscure the stark realities of a world governed by fascist sentiments and an advanced array of high-tech weaponry for the imposition of the digital hypnosis of the masses.
Whichever way it goes, ‘waking up’ remains the highest imperative and we, the people, need to recognise—and act on—our rightful and lawful authority to lead, and not leave it to the unelected and unaccountable masters of pomp and spin.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. He is President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside and Co-founder of the Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology HARE. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind—Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is strongly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info
Western governments in the NATO military alliance are developing tactics of “cognitive warfare,” using the supposed threats of China and Russia to justify waging a “battle for your brain” in the “human domain,” to “make everyone a weapon.”
NATO is developing new forms of warfare to wage a “battle for the brain,” as the military alliance put it.
The US-led NATO military cartel has tested novel modes of hybrid warfare against its self-declared adversaries, including economic warfare, cyber warfare, information warfare, and psychological warfare.
Now, NATO is spinning out an entirely new kind of combat it has branded cognitive warfare. Described as the “weaponization of brain sciences,” the new method involves “hacking the individual” by exploiting “the vulnerabilities of the human brain” in order to implement more sophisticated “social engineering.”
Until recently, NATO had divided war into five different operational domains: air, land, sea, space, and cyber. But with its development of cognitive warfare strategies, the military alliance is discussing a new, sixth level: the “human domain.”
A 2020 NATO-sponsored study of this new form of warfare clearly explained, “While actions taken in the five domains are executed in order to have an effect on the human domain, cognitive warfare’s objective is to make everyone a weapon.”
“The brain will be the battlefield of the 21st century,” the report stressed. “Humans are the contested domain,” and “future conflicts will likely occur amongst the people digitally first and physically thereafter in proximity to hubs of political and economic power.”
The 2020 NATO-sponsored study on cognitive warfare While the NATO-backed study insisted that much of its research on cognitive warfare is designed for defensive purposes, it also conceded that the military alliance is developing offensive tactics, stating, “The human is very often the main vulnerability and it should be acknowledged in order to protect NATO’s human capital but also to be able to benefit from our adversaries’s vulnerabilities.”
In a chilling disclosure, the report said explicitly that “the objective of Cognitive Warfare is to harm societies and not only the military.”
With entire civilian populations in NATO’s crosshairs, the report emphasized that Western militaries must work more closely with academia to weaponize social sciences and human sciences and help the alliance develop its cognitive warfare capacities.
The study described this phenomenon as “the militarization of brain science.” But it appears clear that NATO’s development of cognitive warfare will lead to a militarization of all aspects of human society and psychology, from the most intimate of social relationships to the mind itself.
Such all-encompassing militarization of society is reflected in the paranoid tone of the NATO-sponsored report, which warned of “an embedded fifth column, where everyone, unbeknownst to him or her, is behaving according to the plans of one of our competitors.” The study makes it clear that those “competitors” purportedly exploiting the consciousness of Western dissidents are China and Russia.
In other words, this document shows that figures in the NATO military cartel increasingly see their own domestic population as a threat, fearing civilians to be potential Chinese or Russian sleeper cells, dastardly “fifth columns” that challenge the stability of “Western liberal democracies.”
NATO’s development of novel forms of hybrid warfare come at a time when member states’ military campaigns are targeting domestic populations on an unprecedented level.
The Ottawa Citizen reported this September that the Canadian military’s Joint Operations Command took advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic to wage an information war against its own domestic population, testing out propaganda tactics on Canadian civilians.
Internal NATO-sponsored reports suggest that this disclosure is just scratching the surface of a wave of new unconventional warfare techniques that Western militaries are employing around the world.
Canada hosts ‘NATO Innovation Challenge’ on cognitive warfare
Twice each year, NATO holds a “pitch-style event” that it brand as an “Innovation Challenge.” These campaigns – one hosted in the Spring and the other in the Fall, by alternating member states – call on private companies, organizations, and researchers to help develop new tactics and technologies for the military alliance.
The shark tank-like challenges reflect the predominant influence of neoliberal ideology within NATO, as participants mobilize the free market, public-private partnerships, and the promise of cash prizes to advance the agenda of the military-industrial complex.
“Cognitive warfare seeks to change not only what people think, but also how they act,” the Canadian government wrote in its official statement on the challenge. “Attacks against the cognitive domain involve the integration of cyber, disinformation/misinformation, psychological, and social-engineering capabilities.”
Ottawa’s press release continued: “Cognitive warfare positions the mind as a battle space and contested domain. Its objective is to sow dissonance, instigate conflicting narratives, polarize opinion, and radicalize groups. Cognitive warfare can motivate people to act in ways that can disrupt or fragment an otherwise cohesive society.”
NATO-backed Canadian military officials discuss cognitive warfare in panel event An advocacy group called the NATO Association of Canada has mobilized to support this Innovation Challenge, working closely with military contractors to attract the private sector to invest in further research on behalf of NATO – and its own bottom line.While the NATO Association of Canada (NAOC) is technically an independent NGO, its mission is to promote NATO, and the organization boasts on its website, “The NAOC has strong ties with the Government of Canada including Global Affairs Canada and the Department of National Defence.”
The researcher who wrote the definitive 2020 NATO-sponsored study on cognitive warfare, François du Cluzel, participated in the event, alongside NATO-backed Canadian military officers. The October 5 panel on cognitive warfare, hosted by the NATO Association of Canada
The panel was overseen by Robert Baines, president of the NATO Association of Canada. It was moderated by Garrick Ngai, a marketing executive in the weapons industry who serves as an adviser to the Canadian Department of National Defense and vice president and director of the NAOC.
Baines opened the event noting that participants would discuss “cognitive warfare and new domain of competition, where state and non-state actors aim to influence what people think and how they act.”
The NAOC president also happily noted the lucrative “opportunities for Canadian companies” that this NATO Innovation Challenge promised.
NATO researcher describes cognitive warfare as ‘ways of harming the brain’
The October 5 panel kicked off with François du Cluzel, a former French military officer who in 2013 helped to create the NATO Innovation Hub (iHub), which he has since then managed from its base in Norfolk, Virginia.
Although the iHub insists on its website, for legal reasons, that the “opinions expressed on this platform don’t constitute NATO or any other organization points of view,” the organization is sponsored by the Allied Command Transformation (ACT), described as “one of two Strategic Commands at the head of NATO’s military command structure.”
The Innovation Hub, therefore, acts as a kind of in-house NATO research center or think tank. Its research is not necessarily official NATO policy, but it is directly supported and overseen by NATO.
In 2020, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT) tasked du Cluzel, as manager of the iHub, to conduct a six-month study on cognitive warfare.
Du Cluzel summarized his research in the panel this October. He initiated his remarks noting that cognitive warfare “right now is one of the hottest topics for NATO,” and “has become a recurring term in military terminology in recent years.”
Although French, Du Cluzel emphasized that cognitive warfare strategy “is being currently developed by my command here in Norfolk, USA.”
The NATO Innovation Hub manager spoke with a PowerPoint presentation, and opened with a provocative slide that described cognitive warfare as “A Battle for the Brain.”
“Cognitive warfare is a new concept that starts in the information sphere, that is a kind of hybrid warfare,” du Cluzel said.
“It starts with hyper-connectivity. Everyone has a cell phone,” he continued. “It starts with information because information is, if I may say, the fuel of cognitive warfare. But it goes way beyond solely information, which is a standalone operation – information warfare is a standalone operation.”
Cognitive warfare overlaps with Big Tech corporations and mass surveillance, because “it’s all about leveraging the big data,” du Cluzel explained. “We produce data everywhere we go. Every minute, every second we go, we go online. And this is extremely easy to leverage those data in order to better know you and use that knowledge to change the way you think.”
Naturally, the NATO researcher claimed foreign “adversaries” are the supposed aggressors employing cognitive warfare. But at the same time, he made it clear that the Western military alliance is developing its own tactics.
Du Cluzel defined cognitive warfare as the “art of using technologies to alter the cognition of human targets.”
Those technologies, he noted, incorporate the fields of NBIC – nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science. All together, “it makes a kind of very dangerous cocktail that can further manipulate the brain,” he said.
Du Cluzel went on to explain that the exotic new method of attack “goes well beyond” information warfare or psychological operations (psyops).
“Cognitive warfare is not only a fight against what we think, but it’s rather a fight against the way we think, if we can change the way people think,” he said. “It’s much more powerful and it goes way beyond the information [warfare] and psyops.”
De Cluzel continued: “It’s crucial to understand that it’s a game on our cognition, on the way our brain processes information and turns it into knowledge, rather than solely a game on information or on psychological aspects of our brains. It’s not only an action against what we think, but also an action against the way we think, the way we process information and turn it into knowledge.”
“In other words, cognitive warfare is not just another word, another name for information warfare. It is a war on our individual processor, our brain.”
The NATO researcher stressed that “this is extremely important for us in the military,” because “it has the potential, by developing new weapons and ways of harming the brain, it has the potential to engage neuroscience and technology in many, many different approaches to influence human ecology… because you all know that it’s very easy to turn a civilian technology into a military one.”
As for who the targets of cognitive warfare could be, du Cluzel revealed that anyone and everyone is on the table.
“Cognitive warfare has universal reach, from starting with the individual to states and multinational organizations,” he said. “Its field of action is global and aim to seize control of the human being, civilian as well as military.”
And the private sector has a financial interest in advancing cognitive warfare research, he noted: “The massive worldwide investments made in neurosciences suggests that the cognitive domain will probably one of the battlefields of the future.”
The development of cognitive warfare totally transforms military conflict as we know it, du Cluzel said, adding “a third major combat dimension to the modern battlefield: to the physical and informational dimension is now added a cognitive dimension.”
This “creates a new space of competition beyond what is called the five domains of operations – or land, sea, air, cyber, and space domains. Warfare in the cognitive arena mobilizes a wider range of battle spaces than solely the physical and information dimensions can do.”
In short, humans themselves are the new contested domain in this novel mode of hybrid warfare, alongside land, sea, air, cyber, and outer space.
NATO’s cognitive warfare study warns of “embedded fifth column”
The study that NATO Innovation Hub manager François du Cluzel conducted, from June to November 2020, was sponsored by the military cartel’s Allied Command Transformation, and published as a 45-page report in January 2021 (PDF).
The chilling document shows how contemporary warfare has reached a kind of dystopian stage, once imaginable only in science fiction.
“The nature of warfare has changed,” the report emphasized. “The majority of current conflicts remain below the threshold of the traditionally accepted definition of warfare, but new forms of warfare have emerged such as Cognitive Warfare (CW), while the human mind is now being considered as a new domain of war.”
For NATO, research on cognitive warfare is not just defensive; it is very much offensive as well.
“Developing capabilities to harm the cognitive abilities of opponents will be a necessity,” du Cluzel’s report stated clearly. “In other words, NATO will need to get the ability to safeguard her decision making process and disrupt the adversary’s one.”
And anyone could be a target of these cognitive warfare operations: “Any user of modern information technologies is a potential target. It targets the whole of a nation’s human capital,” the report ominously added.
“As well as the potential execution of a cognitive war to complement to a military conflict, it can also be conducted alone, without any link to an engagement of the armed forces,” the study went on. “Moreover, cognitive warfare is potentially endless since there can be no peace treaty or surrender for this type of conflict.”
Just as this new mode of battle has no geographic borders, it also has no time limit: “This battlefield is global via the internet. With no beginning and no end, this conquest knows no respite, punctuated by notifications from our smartphones, anywhere, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”
The NATO-sponsored study noted that “some NATO Nations have already acknowledged that neuroscientific techniques and technologies have high potential for operational use in a variety of security, defense and intelligence enterprises.”
It spoke of breakthroughs in “neuroscientific methods and technologies” (neuroS/T), and said “uses of research findings and products to directly facilitate the performance of combatants, the integration of human machine interfaces to optimise combat capabilities of semi autonomous vehicles (e.g., drones), and development of biological and chemical weapons (i.e., neuroweapons).”
The Pentagon is among the primary institutions advancing this novel research, as the report highlighted: “Although a number of nations have pursued, and are currently pursuing neuroscientific research and development for military purposes, perhaps the most proactive efforts in this regard have been conducted by the United States Department of Defense; with most notable and rapidly maturing research and development conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA).”
Military uses of neuroS/T research, the study indicated, include intelligence gathering, training, “optimising performance and resilience in combat and military support personnel,” and of course “direct weaponisation of neuroscience and neurotechnology.”
This weaponization of neuroS/T can and will be fatal, the NATO-sponsored study was clear to point out. The research can “be utilised to mitigate aggression and foster cognitions and emotions of affiliation or passivity; induce morbidity, disability or suffering; and ‘neutralise’ potential opponents or incur mortality” – in other words, to maim and kill people.
The 2020 NATO-sponsored study on cognitive warfareThe report quoted US Major General Robert H. Scales, who summarized NATO’s new combat philosophy: “Victory will be defined more in terms of capturing the psycho-cultural rather than the geographical high ground.”
And as NATO develops tactics of cognitive warfare to “capture the psycho-cultural,” it is also increasingly weaponizing various scientific fields.
The study spoke of “the crucible of data sciences and human sciences,” and stressed that “the combination of Social Sciences and System Engineering will be key in helping military analysts to improve the production of intelligence.”
“If kinetic power cannot defeat the enemy,” it said, “psychology and related behavioural and social sciences stand to fill the void.”
“Leveraging social sciences will be central to the development of the Human Domain Plan of Operations,” the report went on. “It will support the combat operations by providing potential courses of action for the whole surrounding Human Environment including enemy forces, but also determining key human elements such as the Cognitive center of gravity, the desired behaviour as the end state.”
All academic disciplines will be implicated in cognitive warfare, not just the hard sciences. “Within the military, expertise on anthropology, ethnography, history, psychology among other areas will be more than ever required to cooperate with the military,” the NATO-sponsored study stated.
The report nears its conclusion with an eerie quote: “Today’s progresses in nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC), boosted by the seemingly unstoppable march of a triumphant troika made of Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and civilisational ‘digital addiction’ have created a much more ominous prospect: an embedded fifth column, where everyone, unbeknownst to him or her, is behaving according to the plans of one of our competitors.”
“The modern concept of war is not about weapons but about influence,” it posited. “Victory in the long run will remain solely dependent on the ability to influence, affect, change or impact the cognitive domain.”
The NATO-sponsored study then closed with a final paragraph that makes it clear beyond doubt that the Western military alliance’s ultimate goal is not only physical control of the planet, but also control over people’s minds:
“Cognitive warfare may well be the missing element that allows the transition from military victory on the battlefield to lasting political success. The human domain might well be the decisive domain, wherein multi-domain operations achieve the commander’s effect. The five first domains can give tactical and operational victories; only the human domain can achieve the final and full victory.”
Canadian Special Operations officer emphasizes importance of cognitive warfare
When François du Cluzel, the NATO researcher who conducted the study on cognitive warfare, concluded his remarks in the October 5 NATO Association of Canada panel, he was followed by Andy Bonvie, a commanding officer at the Canadian Special Operations Training Centre.
With more than 30 years of experience with the Canadian Armed Forces, Bonvie spoke of how Western militaries are making use of research by du Cluzel and others, and incorporating novel cognitive warfare techniques into their combat activities.
“Cognitive warfare is a new type of hybrid warfare for us,” Bonvie said. “And it means that we need to look at the traditional thresholds of conflict and how the things that are being done are really below those thresholds of conflict, cognitive attacks, and non-kinetic forms and non-combative threats to us. We need to understand these attacks better and adjust their actions and our training accordingly to be able to operate in these different environments.”
Although he portrayed NATO’s actions as “defensive,” claiming “adversaries” were using cognitive warfare against them, Bonvie was unambiguous about the fact that Western militaries are developing these tecniques themselves, to maintain a “tactical advantage.”
“We cannot lose the tactical advantage for our troops that we’re placing forward as it spans not only tactically, but strategically,” he said. “Some of those different capabilities that we have that we enjoy all of a sudden could be pivoted to be used against us. So we have to better understand how quickly our adversaries adapt to things, and then be able to predict where they’re going in the future, to help us be and maintain the tactical advantage for our troops moving forward.”
‘Cognitive warfare is the most advanced form of manipulation seen to date’
Marie-Pierre Raymond, a retired Canadian lieutenant colonel who currently serves as a “defence scientist and innovation portfolio manager” for the Canadian Armed Forces’ Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security Program, also joined the October 5 panel.
“Long gone are the days when war was fought to acquire more land,” Raymond said. “Now the new objective is to change the adversaries’ ideologies, which makes the brain the center of gravity of the human. And it makes the human the contested domain, and the mind becomes the battlefield.”
“When we speak about hybrid threats, cognitive warfare is the most advanced form of manipulation seen to date,” she added, noting that it aims to influence individuals’ decision-making and “to influence a group of a group of individuals on their behavior, with the aim of gaining a tactical or strategic advantage.”
Raymond noted that cognitive warfare also heavily overlaps with artificial intelligence, big data, and social media, and reflects “the rapid evolution of neurosciences as a tool of war.”
Raymond is helping to oversee the NATO Fall 2021 Innovation Challenge on behalf of Canada’s Department of National Defence, which delegated management responsibilities to the military’s Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) Program, where she works.
In highly technical jargon, Raymond indicated that the cognitive warfare program is not solely defensive, but also offensive: “This challenge is calling for a solution that will support NATO’s nascent human domain and jump-start the development of a cognition ecosystem within the alliance, and that will support the development of new applications, new systems, new tools and concepts leading to concrete action in the cognitive domain.”
She emphasized that this “will require sustained cooperation between allies, innovators, and researchers to enable our troops to fight and win in the cognitive domain. This is what we are hoping to emerge from this call to innovators and researchers.”
To inspire corporate interest in the NATO Innovation Challenge, Raymond enticed, “Applicants will receive national and international exposure and cash prizes for the best solution.” She then added tantalizingly, “This could also benefit the applicants by potentially providing them access to a market of 30 nations.”
Canadian military officer calls on corporations to invest in NATO’s cognitive warfare research
The other institution that is managing the Fall 2021 NATO Innovation Challenge on behalf of Canada’s Department of National Defense is the Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM).
A Canadian military officer who works with CANSOFCOM, Shekhar Gothi, was the final panelist in the October 5 NATO Association of Canada event. Gothi serves as CANSOFCOM’s “innovation officer” for Southern Ontario.
He concluded the event appealing for corporate investment in NATO’s cognitive warfare research.
The bi-annual Innovation Challenge is “part of the NATO battle rhythm,” Gothi declared enthusiastically.
Gothi reassured corporate investors that NATO will bend over backward to defend their bottom lines: “I can assure everyone that the NATO innovation challenge indicates that all innovators will maintain complete control of their intellectual property. So NATO won’t take control of that. Neither will Canada. Innovators will maintain their control over their IP.”
The comment was a fitting conclusion to the panel, affirming that NATO and its allies in the military-industrial complex not only seek to dominate the world and the humans that inhabit it with unsettling cognitive warfare techniques, but to also ensure that corporations and their shareholders continue to profit from these imperial endeavors
John Lock has produced an enormous amount of facts and information about Manga Carta 1215 and Article 61 on a video series and podcasts for easy listening.
Absolute Zero is the amount of freedom and quality of life and enjoyment we will experience in 2050 if this despotic plan goes ahead. This is all part of the EU UN WHO Agenda 21 2030 2050 to remove our sovereign freedoms, liberties and rights and to dictate our lives.
Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city.” I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.
It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.
First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?
Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.
In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.
Once in a while, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy – the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.
This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well-being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.
Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.
When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don’t really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.
For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.
My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.
Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.
All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.
The phrase ‘modern slavery’ would ordinarily bring a person to imagine a child in shackles in some faraway land. However, the reality is far more complex and closer to home. It is a phrase that has gained traction in international political discourse, promoted into the spotlight through the work of organisations such as the Walk Free Foundation and the International Labour Organisation. Despite its newfound fame, the phrase’s true meaning and its practical application remains unknown to many. In truth, the phrase ‘modern slavery’ is an umbrella term which includes various forms of exploitation such as slavery, forced labour, human trafficking, child exploitation, slavery-like practices and servitude.[1]
Sadly, while we may like to associate slavery with the past, modern slavery is ever-present and can be seen all over the world. There has been a reintroduction of the slave trade by ISIS, who trade Yazidi women in Syria and Iraq as sexual slaves.[2] In Australia, a couple has recently been jailed for holding a woman as a slave for eight years.[3] In addition, the Walk Free foundation has declared that 40.3 million people are victims of modern slavery.[4] Clearly, the phrase still has a place in the present. However, there has been a recent pivot in attention towards the business landscape, which requires us to re-imagine the preconception of a faraway child in shackles. The links between big brands and modern slavery, especially forced labour, have been brought into the spotlight. Events like the Rana Plaza disaster of 2013, which killed 1,138 workers in Bangladesh who were producing materials for some of the best known labels,[5] have revealed the importance of assessing all levels of global supply chains for malpractice.[6] But in a world where corporations reign supreme, how can we expect them to hold themselves accountable? The answer: we cannot. That is where the law needs to step in.
There has been some progress made by Australia in this regard. After the UK enacted the Modern Slavery Act2015,[7] Australia followed suit with the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) (‘Commonwealth Act’).[8] It should be noted that this legislation does not appear to define what modern slavery is; instead, it refers to several international conventions, as well as the Commonwealth Criminal Code1995 (Cth) which detail offences such as trafficking.[9] This goes to show how the term itself has come to encompass a number of different exploitative practices, rather than having a concrete legal definition of its own.
The substance of the legislation is focused on a business-led approach to controlling modern slavery. The Commonwealth Act makes two main changes. Firstly, it states that entities with a consolidated annual income over $100 million are ‘reporting entities’, as long as they are an Australian entity which carries on its business within Australia.[10] These entities are required to create a ‘modern slavery statement’ which covers the criteria under s 16 of the Commonwealth Act.[11] This includes reporting on the risks of modern slavery within the entity’s operations, as well as any efforts taken to combat this. Other entities may also voluntarily submit statements even if they do not meet the income threshold.[12] Secondly, the Commonwealth Act establishes a Modern Slavery Statements Register, which is run by the Australian Border Force, where all statements must be registered to allow for public access.[13] This can be contrasted with the approach taken by the UK initiative, where statements need to be made available by each entity.[14]
On the plus side, this allows the phrase ‘modern slavery’ to add the punch that is desired. Companies are forced to lay bare any blights in their supply chain, and the transparency of the register allows consumers to access this information. Additionally, the government can name and shame the entities that do not adhere to this requirement— which will further encourage compliance.[15] Nonetheless, companies are ultimately not bound to lodge their statements, because the legislation expressly removes any civil or criminal penalties which may have otherwise flowed from such an omission.[16] Therefore, it is left up to businesses and corporations to comply; each having to take the initiative to look into their own supply chains to determine how they may act to eradicate any form of modern slavery present. This may seem like the government is pulling their punches when it comes to regulating businesses, and instead depending on rhetoric and a ‘woke’ society to pull corporations into line. Here we see further indications of a global arena where corporations can do as they wish, with minimal government intervention.
However, there is hope for the future. The NSW government introduced its own Modern Slavery Act2018 (NSW) (‘NSW Act’) which is not yet in force.[17] To avoid any constitutional conflict with the Commonwealth Act, this applies to entities which report a revenue between $50 million and $100 million. There is one fundamental difference which presents the NSW Act as a stronger front. Rather than simply allowing the minister to publicly name and shame non-compliant companies, as the Commonwealth Act does, the NSW Act imposes active punishment. Companies face a penalty of up to $1.1 million if they fail to prepare and publish a modern slavery statement, or provide false and misleading information in this respect.[18] This presents an important step forward in the fight against modern slavery, since it goes beyond mere rhetoric and creates a legal obligation for businesses to prevent exploitative practices within their supply chains. The Commonwealth Act is also up for a review in 2021, and it is possible that greater enforcement mechanisms will be implemented.[19]
There are also positive signs if we consider an international lens. The second draft of the Treaty on Human Rights and Business has been discussed by the United Nations Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights. If this treaty comes into force, it will become a legally binding document which will promote further state regulation into the activities of businesses.[20] Furthermore, this treaty promotes due diligence on human rights which appears to expand beyond modern slavery— requiring businesses to assess a broader range of impacts, such as environmental footprints.[21] Looking elsewhere, Canada is seeking to introduce legislation which will impose a duty of care on businesses to not only report modern slavery present in their supply chains, but also take active steps to prevent it. This will include expansive investigative powers and large fines for non-compliance.[22] In addition, Germany has passed the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act 2021 which creates obligations for companies to assess, document and prevent against human rights violations that occur in their supply chains. Importantly, this can be enforced through penalties.[23]
Therefore, it is clear the world is starting to notice that the shackles we imagine when we hear the phrase ‘modern slavery’ are more complexly connected than we would think. Indeed, they are linked to businesses that we interact with every day. The magnitude of this connection is why it is essential that supply chains are kept transparent, and corporations are held accountable for exploiting people all over the world. Hopefully, with more legislation and regulation in this growing area, the shackles will eventually be broken.
Image: Skill Cast
References:
[1] Nicola Piper, Marie Segrave and Rebecca Napier-Moore, ‘Editorial: What’s in a name? Distinguishing forced labour, trafficking and slavery’ (2015) (5) Anti-trafficking review 1.
[2] Samar El-Masri, ‘Prosecuting ISIS for the sexual slavery of the Yazidi women and girls’ (2018) 22(8) The International Journal of Human Rights 1047, 1047-1048.
[18] Standing Committee on Social Issues 2020, ‘Modern Slavery Act 2018 and associated matters’, report 56.
[19] Commonwealth Act Act 2018 (Cth) s 24.
[20] UN Open-ended Intergovernmental working group on transitional corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, 46th sess, Agenda Item 3, UN Doc A/HRC/46/73 (22 February – 19 March 2021).
[21] Legally Binding Instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises second revised draft 2020 (not yet in force) arts 6.1 and 6.3.
Malinthi Mallawa is a third year Law/Arts student majoring in Human Rights. She is part of the Progressive Law Network and is a Paralegal at the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre. She is very interested in international human rights law and how it can be used domestically to further social justice initiatives. Having recently completed some studies in Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, this is an area that she finds particularly
