Determining whether a conflict qualifies as a world war can involve examining the role of external actors, such as a global elite profiting from orchestrating disputes between nations. This elite, often operating beyond the constraints of sovereignty and above the law, wields influence through immense wealth, granting them the power to navigate and evade the negative consequences of their actions across borders.

Sometimes referred to as “The Council,” this unelected group is believed to have roots in organizations like the Illuminati and to operate through secretive networks as front groups established through from the use of party houses to established and sometimes prestigious institutions that groom individuals for positions of “power,” conditioned as puppets acting through the wills of The Council. Their influence is metaphorically described as “the third hand,” an invisible force shaping global events from behind the scenes.

“All warfare is based on deception” The Art of War by Sun Tzu

No war has ever garnered the unwavering support of its allies and citizens without employing deception. Since World War II, wars have often been sold to the public under the guise of false pretenses, false flag events and carefully crafted narratives. Today, a strategy known as “divide and conquer” is being used with alarming effectiveness between Television and Social Media algorithms contributing to creating echo chambers, resulting in a confusion habituated in the minds of the public by “doublethink.” Around the world, we find ourselves as passive observers—complicit, perhaps—while information is manipulated to fuel division, foster hostility and incite violence. Such deliberate tactics, if executed skillfully could plunge nations like the United States into civil unrest and conflict, setting the stage for the conditions and justifications necessary to implement martial law.

Doublethink is a term coined by George Orwell in his dystopian novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four. It refers to the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and accept both as true. In the context of Orwell’s fictional totalitarian regime, doublethink allows individuals to accept propaganda and contradictions without question, fostering blind loyalty and obedience to the Party.

Key aspects of doublethink include:

• Cognitive Dissonance: Reconciling opposing ideas without mental discomfort.
• Manipulation of Truth: The deliberate forgetting or re-writing of inconvenient facts to align with a preferred narrative.
• Emotional Control: Suppressing logic in favor of loyalty to authority.

In Orwell’s novel, doublethink enables people to accept contradictory slogans like:

“War is peace.”
“Freedom is slavery.”
“Ignorance is strength.”

It reflects how a regime can control the populace by undermining critical thinking and fostering reliance on state-endorsed “truths.”

Examples of modern doublethink—the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously while accepting both as true—can often be observed in how wars are justified and sold to the public. Here are some notable examples, and much in a way how the US and NATO concerns their excuse of war and replacing leaderships under the often false-notion of war and economic hit-men in the name of spreading democracy.

1. Fighting for Peace
Contradiction: “We must wage war to achieve peace.”
Explanation: Military interventions are often framed as necessary steps to secure peace and stability, even when the reality of war often creates chaos, displacement, and long-term instability. For instance, campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan were justified as efforts to bring democracy and peace to the region, despite prolonged violence and instability.

2. Protecting Freedom by Limiting It
Contradiction: “We need to curtail civil liberties to protect your freedoms.”
Explanation: During wartime or under the threat of terrorism, governments often implement surveillance programs, curtail free speech, and suppress dissent. These actions are justified as safeguarding freedoms, even though they directly infringe upon individual rights.

3. Defending Sovereignty by Violating It
Contradiction: “We must invade another country to protect its sovereignty.”
Explanation: Military actions are frequently framed as interventions to uphold the sovereignty of a nation or protect its people. For example, NATO’s intervention in Libya was justified as protecting Libyan civilians, but it involved bombing campaigns that undermined the very sovereignty being defended.

4. Humanitarian War
Contradiction: “Bombing for humanitarian purposes.”
Explanation: Wars are often justified as humanitarian interventions to stop atrocities or protect human rights, while the military actions themselves often result in significant civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure, worsening the humanitarian crisis.

5. Weaponizing Peace Agreements
Contradiction: “We must break peace agreements to ensure future peace.”
Explanation: Breaking treaties or agreements is sometimes justified as a means to pursue better conditions for peace. For example, actions such as withdrawing from arms control treaties are presented as strengthening national security, even though they escalate arms races and increase tensions.

6. Blaming Victims for Instigating Conflict
Contradiction: “We are forced to retaliate because of their aggression.”
Explanation: Governments often frame their actions as defensive responses to provocations, even when the initial context involves their own policies or actions that provoked the response. For instance, narratives surrounding conflicts in Gaza or Ukraine are often simplified to justify military actions while ignoring the broader historical and political complexities.

7. Support for Troops, but Not the War
Contradiction: “We support our troops, but we oppose the war.”
Explanation: Citizens are encouraged to display unwavering support for military personnel while simultaneously being critical of the wars they are deployed to fight, creating a cognitive dissonance about the purpose and consequences of those conflicts.

8. Economic Prosperity Through War
Contradiction: “War boosts the economy and creates jobs.”
Explanation: While war spending does stimulate certain sectors, the destruction and long-term destabilization caused by war often negate these economic benefits. Still, this rationale is frequently used to justify massive defense budgets and military action.

9. Freedom of Press vs. State-Controlled Narratives
Contradiction: “We value free press, but media must align with the national interest.”
Explanation: During times of war including shadow wars, governments often suppress dissenting media narratives while claiming to uphold freedom of the press. Embedded journalism, for example, ensures that reporting from the frontlines aligns with state narratives, which limits unbiased perspectives.

These examples illustrate how doublethink is employed to mask contradictions and rally public support for war, often by appealing to moral or patriotic and democratic sentiments while obscuring inconvenient truths.