NATO-Linked ‘Fictional’ War-Strategy Scenario Sees Human Mind as Ultimate Domain to Conquer
An independent French institute, apparently with zero media fanfare, has produced a “war game” scenario that sees the human mind itself as the next and perhaps most important domain to conquer.
Put together by Herve le Guyader, a researcher for “Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Cognitique,” in Bordeaux, France, this “essay,” while it was initially issued in February of 2020, describes what it calls largely fictitious scenarios and policy goals in a 2018-2040 time frame. Its disturbing theme: “The Weaponization of Neurosciences.”
The report’s hypothetical developments center on NATO—the military alliance formed in 1949, ostensibly for protecting “free Europe” from the Soviet Union / Warsaw Pact alliance.
Of course, in real life, NATO, hell-bent on keeping itself relevant amid the announced end of the Cold War, quickly expanded beyond its initial stated purpose; it has even made overtures with South American nations to extend the alliance’s reach.
Guyader’s paper posits that in-depth research on weaponizing neuroscience—transcending the traditional warfare realms of land, sea, air etc.—will culminate in a for-now fictional NATO summit July 17, 2026 in Brussels, Belgium. The report suggests the summit will be entitled: “The Human Mind: The 6th Domain of Operation.”
The 33-page paper’s opening text is a disclaimer, claiming this stuff is mostly make-believe:
This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. The views and opinions expressed in this essay are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any institution.”
The Executive Summary adds:
While it has been said that everything could be weaponized, neurosciences and, more broadly speaking, Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Sciences (NBIC) are clearly providing state and non-state actors [with] some true game-changers.”
The paper refers to utilizing a few provocative “dramatization tricks” in order to keep things interesting but, fictional aspects aside, it does seek to answer real geo-strategic questions. It goes on to clarify that, in reality:
• “Yes, [the] ‘Human mind’ should be NATO’s next domain of operation;”
• “Yes, AWACS’ [early-warning systems’] successor must address NBIC;” and
• “Yes, global security is what’s at stake today, and it will take more than professionals of the defense, security and military sectors to address it efficiently.”
Page 5 refers to policy matters set in the year 2019, curiously entitled, “Responding to Cognitive Security Challenges —the ‘Hacking Humans’ Report.” This scenario involves an apparently fictional “NATO STRATCOM COE 6” paper highlighting a “massive threat NATO nations, in particular, were exposed to.”
It concluded that this massive threat consists of:
. . . the risks and threats that social media use may pose to liberal democratic systems. This is followed by a discussion on possible future options for public policy . . . . Social media give users the power to spread and receive contaminated information. Threats to cognitive security should not be overlooked. Technological innovations are used to exacerbate deep-seated weaknesses that can destabilize our societies . . . [In the interest of the] safety of our nations and our Alliance.”
Cognitive security? Whose cognitive security? Moreover, there’s no consideration that social media is simply a neutral platform, or medium, that can be used for good outcomes. By all indications, this scenario fears social media because it can, and does, disseminate increasingly popular and influential news narratives free of the centralized control and of the fraudulent, heavily biased pro-globalism news and information exerted by entities at the highest levels of corporate and government power.
As this writer has long understood, “liberal democratic systems” in this context means systems under strident internationalist governance that support radically liberal social agendas, wherein national autonomy is branded “illiberal” and uncritically equated with “authoritarianism.” Thus, nationalism is strangely and automatically declared to be a species of virtual Hitlerism, and alternative news narratives accordingly are seen chiefly as products of the dreaded “far right.”
MORE ‘FAKE NEWS’ FEARS
Page 4 of the French institute’s paper refers to an ambitious project set in the year 2018, whose goal was to “understand the cognitive layer of cyberspace and investigate potentially relevant methods and technologies for use by intelligence analysts . . .”
Interestingly, to achieve that goal, eight scientific objectives were identified, one of which is “fake news recognition,” along with “exploration of attack vectors and effects of cyberattacks at the cognitive layer,” among six others.
Clearly, global planners see alternative news as an existential threat to their so-called “liberal democratic order” that protects entrenched banking, pharmaceutical and news-information interests, proving the adage that all warfare is informational before it ever gets physical.
The report summarizes:
Security is not merely a military issue. Global security is a society issue, but the public at-large is simply not aware of it. NATO, nations and their partners must realize that the constant undermining (the “one thousand cuts” reality) they are suffering from, together with the unique opportunities NBIC offer to their competitors for hybrid, ambiguous warfare, create existential threats that cannot be addressed just by professional defense and security personnel.”
It’s also noteworthy that, in the spring of 2025, the Trilateral Commission’s major annual plenary meeting in Washington D.C. included the topic, “Neuro-Technologies and the Battle for Your Brain.”