How to hijack the last sovereign power of western states

Wales Summit Declaration, issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council, §72 : 

"We affirm therefore that cyber defence is part of NATO's core task of collective defence. A decision as to when a cyber attack would lead to the invocation of Article 5 would be taken by the North Atlantic Council on a case-by-case basis."

BUT, as Robert Madelin, director general of the European Commission’s Communications Networks, Content and Technology (CNECT) department,  stated it recently:

"... there are hundreds of [cyber] attacks every day of the year. Knowing where they come from is one of the big problems."

By the way, who are the representatives of the states at the NAC ? Head of states ? Prime Ministers ?

No, not at all. Here they are. All of them are non-elected persons. None of them report to the peoples. None of them have a democratic mandate.

This means that you can NOW have any NATO deep state (they are specialized in false flag attack since a century or more) launching a cyber-attack (even against his own state), providing the same kind of proofs they've shown you with MH17, or with Iraq WMD, or Assad chemical attack... yes you've never seen anything conclusive and more and more deception, that's right.

This cyber-attack would trigger a NAC summit... some nice slides with photos of computers will be shown to an audience with no forensic expert in IT security, and an official will say abruptly that "we are absolutely sure this attack comes from Russia/China/any BRICS ally, and it is an offensive against our national security". 

No independent expert will be allowed to examine the collected "proofs". If allowed, whatever his expertise and time, he would never be sure the data provided were not forged, or for whose side did the hackers really worked. As Robert Madeline said, you can make hundreds of these cyber attacks every day. You can so easily make and announce "one massive WTC like attack per day".

The fact that to be sure of where they are coming from is nearly impossible is a chance for the ones behind the false flag attacks. The only truth will be what some official will say, and the civil society will have no right neither opportunity to challenge these conclusions, never.

And according to Article 5 if US/UK insist to enforce it, this would mean all NATO States would be required to use military force against Russia, without asking previously to national Parliaments, Defense Ministers (NATO ambassadors are often diplomats with strong relations with Foreign Affairs department), only perhaps to their Head of States...
The last remaining sovereign power of European states, that is to say to declare war, would have been hijacked.

Because the decision to use Article 5 is not required to be agreed by every member of the Alliance, we anticipate a few states will resist this hijacking at the last minutes. Then we will not see a major NATO war OR the breaking of NATO Alliance. We will see a declaration of war AND the breaking of NATO at the same time. This declaration of war will be the dissolution act of NATO. 

NATO is not any more a defense alliance, because it has lost since 20 years against its utter most enemy within. It is now a puppet organisation, apparently moving but collapsing as soon as it will move too far from its strings.

Update 10/14/2014 :
I had the opportunity today to discuss this question with an european  general, who is daily involved with NATO. He recognized all the facts above, but said the article has been introduced "only to be prepared to new threats". He's personally believing this NATO article will not be used in case of an offensive limited to cyber attack, but only if the cyber offensive is used together with others tangible attacks.
In this case, why this important remarks have not been included into §72 ? This declaration was the longer ever produced by NATO summit. This §72 as it has been released includes a loophole, a juridical flaw which can be used to start a war on so-called legal basis. How was it possible ?

The Ukrainian War and the spirit of the peoples

[Cet article a d'abord été diffusé en français.]

It is still difficult today to discuss the lack of freedom within the Western mainstream media without being accused of extravagance or without being convinced to be Putin’s nephew. 

Yet, among other things, this freedom is just one of simple freedom`s multiple faces, and our determination to defend it will only be understood if there is the will to admit that, actually, there is no other way to really win this war in which the NATO rulers want to rush Europe.

Regarding the barriers put today to the freedom of thought, Chomsky(1), Bourdieu(2), Orwell(3), de Sélys and Collon(3b), Scott(4) or Joly(5) and many others previously have also spoken about it long before we said it and will say it again. Particularly, the principle of consent manufacturing, once it has been imposed, leads to the fact that in this respect the feelings of the masses depend on the deleterious influence of the few, pushing everyone toward rushing things, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear. All this demonstrates better than anything else the degree of recklessness we have reached.

One of the good precepts of a philosophy worthy of this name is to never spread useless wailing while facing inevitable situations. Nowadays, the problem in the West is no longer how to preserve the freedom of the press. It is to seek ways of keeping citizens free in front of the suppression of such freedom. The issue is no longer the governments’ concern. It involves the civil society and, first of all, the individuals.

Yet, what would please us most of all here would be to define the conditions and means by which, on the edge or within the war and its easements, freedom can not only be preserved, but also shown. These means are four in number: lucidity, refusal, irony and stubbornness.

Lucidity is the engine of our own freedom

Lucidity supposes resistance ahead of hatred workouts and fate worship. In the world in which we live now, and with all the experience we have, it is certain that everything can be avoided. The war itself, which is a human phenomenon, can be at all times avoided or stopped by human means. Just knowing the history of the previous years regarding European politics is enough proof that wars, of any kind, have obvious causes. This clear view of things excludes blind hatred and chaotic despair. A free citizen, in 2014, does not despair and fights for what he believes to be true as if his action could influence the course of events. If he is a writer, whatever the medium, he would definitely not publish anything that could produce hatred or cause despair. All this is in his power.

Surrender sovereignty, or else refuse to give up

Still, a citizen can also be a state representative. The American and British governments  tried ten years ago to discredit the ideals of the United Nations and to dishonour all the guardians of our collective conscience with lies, deceit and injustice(6) by drawing them into the war in Iraq, only to be prevented in extremis by the will and courageous voice of a French minister(7). These same governments are now trying again to pull the strings in order to rush us into the war in Ukraine, and soon also against Russia, using the same infamous, shameless methods(8). However, they want to use NATO to bypass the Security Council of the UN, having learned from their 2003 failure. The NATO Summit in Wales on 4 and 5 September, bringing together 28 allied member states, has no other purpose than to replace in the public eyes a resolution of the Security Council on the next intervention in Ukraine, which will be preceded by the arrival of the American troops in Eastern EU bases(9), and also in Italy, Holland and Germany. That's nothing other than a reoccupation of Europe by the United States Army. The European states have actually not left their colonial status during the past 70 years, except during brief respites like the Gaullist period. In this respect, the TTIP and the recent fines applied to the European banks are only ways to restore the direct taxation of Europeans after the indirect taxation manifested through purchases of American Treasury bonds by all states.

Which man will find the courage to walk in the footsteps of Dominique de Villepin at the next summit and to refuse loudly that his country follow the fatal path where the United States and Britain want to lead the alliance? Who, without giving into haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear, will remember the words of Democritus, “a man's character makes his fate”? In the framework of this summit, the heavy responsibility and immense honour they have, should induce them to give priority to the disarmament of the opponents in Ukraine, with a peace that would not be in an Orwellian language, but instead in collaboration with the Eurasian Union.

Should we serve the lies or the freedom ?

Facing the rising tide of stupidity, it is also necessary to oppose some refusals. All the constraints of the world will never allow for some truthful minds to accept to be dishonest. Nevertheless, if only one knows the mechanism of information, it is easy to check the authenticity of any news. That is where a free journalist and a citizen must give full attention, because even if he can’t say what he thinks, he is allowed to not say what he does not think or what he believes is false. This is how a free newspaper is measured, by what it says and by what it doesn’t say. This freedom defined by the negative is, by far, the most important of all, if we know how to keep it, because it will therefore pave the way to true freedom. Accordingly, an independent newspaper shows the sources of its information, helps the public to evaluate them, repudiates the ballyhoo, removes invective comments, and overcomes the standardization of information through comments. In short, it serves the truth as humanly as possible. This measure, as relative as it is, allows him at least to deny something that no force in the world could push him accept: to serve lies.

This is what we expect from all contributors and columnists at the end of the next NATO summit.

Stubbornly cherish the truth

This is where things get ironical. As a principle we can say that any mind which has the taste and the means to enforce the constraint is not subject to irony. One can hardly imagine Kerry, Netanyahu, Fabius, Ashton, Yatsenyuk, taking just some examples among others, using the Socratic irony. Irony remains therefore an unprecedented weapon against the powerful. It complements the refusal by allowing not the fallacy rejection, but the truth presentation. A free journalist, in 2014, does not imagine his oppressors to be too intelligent. He is pessimistic regarding human beings. A truth stated dogmatically is censored nine times out of ten in mainstream news outlets. The same truth said pleasantly is censured only five times out of ten. This explains why French newspapers such as Le Canard Enchaîné can regularly publish the brave articles we all know. So, a free journalist in 2014 is necessarily ironic, although many times still unwillingly. Yet, truth and freedom, demanding mistresses as they are, have few lovers.

As a matter of fact, this attitude of mind that we have briefly defined is not efficiently sustained without a minimum of obstinacy. Many obstacles are placed in the path of the freedom of expression. The most severe are not the ones discouraging the people’s mind, as threats, suspensions, and lawsuits generally produce the opposite effect than the one initially intended. Yet, we must admit that there are discouraging obstacles: the constancy of ignorance, organized cowardice, aggressive stupidity, ostracism, and so on and so forth. Those are major obstacles that people must overcome. In this respect stubbornness is a cardinal virtue. By a curious but obvious paradox, it supports objectivity and tolerance.

Independent minds influence history

Here is a set of rules meant to protect freedom from becoming servitude. And after that? one will ask. After that? Let's take it easy, though. If only every Western country’s citizens were willing to maintain in their own sphere whatever they believe to be true and just. If only they wanted to contribute individually to the maintenance of freedom, resist the abandonment and make their will known, then and only then the war would be won, in the deepest sense of the word.

Yes, it is often unwillingly that a free spirit of this century shows its irony. Is there anything funny in this world on fire? Yet, the virtue of man is to face all that denies him. Nobody wants to start all over again today the twice bad experiences of 1914 and 1939. We should therefore try a different method, that of justice and transparency, under the auspices of the United Nations, since NATO can’t take on the UN’s responsibilities, in order to lead to inspections and peaceful disarmament. Yet, justice is only expressed in open hearts and still clairvoyant minds. Train these hearts and minds, wake them up, for it is the modest and ambitious task that belongs to the independent human beings. This is something we should keep in mind without looking further. History will or will not reflect these efforts. But they will have been made.

Even though, despite all our efforts, a new war ultimately occurs, Europe once again being destroyed within the most terrible years of its long history, we must work today for its future reconstruction. It will start by instilling the spirit and courage, and honour. Then future generations will remember our voices, will find our spirit and will walk in our footsteps long after NATO will have been swallowed by history. Countries that will cultivate these values do not cease to raise up history and mankind.

Dr. Bruno Paul, after the Manifesto by Albert Camus.

Translation by Georgeta Moldovan.

_________________

(1) ‘Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media', Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, 1988.

(2) ‘Sur la télévision’, Pierre Bourdieu, 1996.

(3) '1984', E.A. Blair, a.k.a George Orwell, 1949.

(3b) 'Attention Médias ! Mediamensonges du Golfe. Manuel Antimanipulation’, Michel Collon, 1992

(4) ‘The deep politics and the deep state’, Conscience-Sociale.org, 03/2014.

(5) ‘Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu’, Maurice Joly, 1864.

(6) a) « Colin Powell’s speech in front of the UN Security Council », 05 February 2003 ; 
b) Ever since 2004, the US inspections led during the war say that Iraq had abandoned its nuclear, chemical and biological programme after 1991 (Iraq Survey Group Final Report, GlobalSecurity.org, 2004) ; 
c) ‘Colin Powell : comment la CIA m'a trompé’, Nouvel Observateur, 03/2013.

(7) Dominique de Villepin’s speech at the UN on February 14th 2003 ; video.

(8) “Russia Invades Ukraine”, Strategic NATO Public Relations Stunt. Where are the Russian Tanks?, Global Research, 08/2014.

(9) published a few hours after our article’s first release : 'Europe de l'Est: l'Otan veut déployer cinq nouvelles bases', RiaNovosti, 31/08/2014.