The New Mind War
Regarding this particular Section of our remit (The New Mind War), firstly, it is fundamental that we address criticism, that in so doing is required a statement encompassing of our place within our own society.
We say this because if one scoops an overview from what is construed as ‘propaganda’, generally speaking, irrespective of location – at home or in fact abroad (information, one might propose), there are emergent properties which define its effect in totality.
These ‘fundamental properties’ are an amalgam of strands which the audience feel and subsequently through time, are changed by in certain ways. Changed psychologically and physically.
Unless the audience (can be one person, or many) is changed, the effort falls by the wayside. The audience, any audience, do take in qualities of the source, be this source a person/s, or in our case, not confined to merely us, but a whole nation’s ethos.
Note in addition, the home audience relationship is also one of support, by virtue of being tax payers.
The audience must be inspired to stop, consider and immerse in altogether novel feelings which intertwine around their moments and so, in ways which never become ordinary, never cease.
Much that is said is attired in the content of the era in which we have emerged, and with regard to the originator/s and the audience, what is expected to be the case and what is very often a felt distance (exclusion from) is defined at the outset.
It has to be said that this position of the audience, the distance perceived, has to be transcended by the audience. In other words, in a perfect state of affairs there should be no perceived distance from the source at all.
It is the case that how one appears is often the only force, liked or otherwise, the message being of secondary importance, if even that.
Distance can be subtly felt by members of the audience, as in suspicion, doubt, exclusion, or obviously felt by virtue of uniform, rank, building, indeed any and all perceived social disparities (education and reputation).
If this distance is felt by virtue of who and what the originator (the source, ie, this Unit) is saying we actually are, if it prompts anything other than a deep desire to become ensconced by us, to be influenced by us, only failure will ensue.
Just to reiterate the latter point; attire of the most obvious that one might be used to (of demonstrable status, power, position, association), irrespective of what one wants to achieve, can if not attended to properly pre-define the audience reaction. This is not necessarily a negative issue, because it depends on factors which we are able to quite easily meld with the audience, via our sensitivity, our ability to empathize.
With regard to certain other nations, not all, one can justifiably ponder on the extent to which this is intended or otherwise, and consequentially to the very poorly constructed relationships at play and their negative societal consequence. Much is deemed as threat (as control) from the very start and thus, any relationship has to bear this condition. In our opinion, this is an appalling state of affairs and places the audience in the ‘irrelevant’ camp. This condition is not the case here in the U.K. nor should it be in any people-centered society. Of course, there is the issue of non-truth telling, that the audience has to evaluate the truth polarity of the information they are given. Most are ill-quipped so to do, due to the constant status of manipulated information regarding their relationship with each other and to other societies. They believe what they are told, even when untrue.
The latter is rather important because it involves our home audience, where and who we are coming from.
Our ability to understand has to be natural, as is the ability to empathize, and this from long experience of different gender, political, socioeconomic (class), cultural and ethnic groups. These groups constitute a homogeneous whole and the differences within and between are indeed, stark, as they are expected to be. Not only so, but historically have undergone very particular changes to which we are aware.
We refer, for example, and necessarily too briefly, to the people who reside on the council estates, all that they admire and aspire to, the differences between these aspirations, the expectations, constraints and opportunities they perceive. From there, all the way to the highest, the most educated and the most privileged and consequentially powerful people in the country.
Again and with regard to our remit the New Mind War, this is genuine tendency and we do feel at home anywhere, irrespective. What we say is the case because we know it is. We are not onlookers from somewhere else. We own no preconceptions by which to add to already made judgements of who we find ourselves among, of our differences regarding who we represent. Needless to say there are those (call them opportunists, if one likes), who merely seize upon an idea and exploit it only because the idea fits a political and/or commercial paradigm in vogue, who see fit to run full tilt in this respect. We have a much wider and infinitely deeper understanding and not to forget, a reason for doing what we do.
Suffice it to say, we want to gather what is the most meaningful of all regarding ourselves as a collective, a nation, and which subsumes the ordinary in ways which intoxicate both ourselves, our home audience, and of course whomever is deemed our target.
That our home audience can not feel alienated from what is complex and deep, from what is beautiful and enduring. This acceptance is important, that we achieve it, paramount.
One might point to the manipulative trends which are seized upon via information (mass communication), their reason, be this reason whatever, but we began with a very particular realization; that what accompanies everything that we, as British subjects are, in the present era, has its basis in a history every single one of us does carry, acknowledged or otherwise. Therefore, it was by virtue of this overwhelmingly significant and accordingly, deeply seductive force, that we found we literally were carried along. Thus, we have to say, it is easy for us, a work of joy.
Our ethos carries a message, our message is infinitely more than the technological means we commandeer so to do.
Further, and that as British citizens, we are never a society caused to fear the power of the arts, nor culture, nor education.
No one here is entranced and corrupted by only fantasy and illusion, thus made illiterate by design.
Consequently, we are greatly encouraged in the utilizing of this medium so to provoke understanding of the nature and complexity of our reality, likewise of our place within this reality and importantly, understand ourselves.
This is intended to clarify the first criticism; that we might requisition only militarism and elitism, so to make and drive the point we desire.
The doors and windows to our place are open to our way of life. This, our way of life, its multifarious treasure among those similar and altogether not the same, is a constituent of a utopian ideal that falters, but does prevail
Secondly, and to continue the statement hitherto; that we are now emerged as an information technology era and accordingly, the reality of life worlds are essentially constructed from what this particular stage facilitates.
Nothing that is a support, as all which is the constituent of information technology is a support, the means for information dissemination and retrieval in particular – nothing of this is anything other than a structure. Whatever meaning is contained in life by virtue of this structure is only the case when it is used to create meaning, as opposed to being mere process and nothing more, otherwise all is synthetic and devoid of meaningful content.
Thus, in this part of our fabulous remit, the New Mind War, we use technology simply as a vehicle, because neither we nor what we intend and tell can ever be merely the vehicle.
To make appeal to information technology and equally, in what is attempt at current trend, to use the process, the vehicle which it is, to convey power over others, be this power military and / or economic power, can in the audience mind, only be a mere product of the moment. The situations in flux which are deemed a requirement so to do only apply to the day they are created, then they become ordinary, if not obsolete. To proceed in this manner alone, that is, by exaggerated appeal to power plays consisting of technological processes, is therefore insufficient, and bears accusations which do the very opposite of what we are trying here, to achieve.
This is a Mind War, and which bears what is the most significant and enduring, and what is not the obvious bearer of force.
We are a nation who patronize artists and thinkers, irrespective of how others choose and accordingly, shape their time.
“We are portrayers of a most magnificent art and in all its multifaceted array, as it manifests in glory, and will do so, throughout eternity – that what is meaningful remains, what is not fades from existence altogether. “
“Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their own conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge, go round and round, staggering to and fro, like blind men led by the blind.”
The Upanishads. वेदांत. ‘Dialogue with Death’.
To be a credible PSYOP challenge it is imperative that we evaluate rationally and then propose a rational alternative which is conceptually and demonstrably superior. To respond only with an indignant denunciation of something else is merely to indulge ourselves in the equivalent of emotional name-calling, which may be satisfying and reassuring too, but does not necessarily adjust matters towards the solution of an international/intercultural problem.
‘Psychological Operations’ (PSYOP) includes psychological warfare and, in addition, encompasses those political, military, economic, and ideological actions planned and conducted to create in neutral or friendly foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or behaviour to support the achievement of national objectives.
‘Psychological Warfare’ is the planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behaviour of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives.
15 03 2017
What we (the Unit) must bear in mind is the sheer complexity and depth upon which we compose and perform the New Mind War. This is the reason why many of the interrelationships that exist are examined and may appear as peripheral interests, but which are not. This, with the fact of a world constituting enormous threat, which in itself is multi-factorial, the whole becomes compounded. Nevertheless, and returning to where we are at home, it is prudent to say; the process of examination and debate brings specific actors, specific interests to the fore, for example; some argue that specific interests and concomitant actions orchestrated across the world do ignore the concerns of the working collective, the poor, the non-integrated, and so on, then one must be specific and ask; what do the ‘specific interests’ represent and to what effect are these played out, and why? Does the reason why carry any weight across the collective, their good feeling, their dignity? In other words, is a better society being created, or otherwise? Where are we moving towards, from what, to what?
Are we merely thinking about problems or solving them? Are we just ideas with nothing behind them? Really, this underlies the assertion that no worthwhile conclusions can ever be arrived at simply, their presentation likewise, simple, the intended consequences foreseen in the entirety of their nature and complexity.
Looking at our own culture and in general terms, we can ask; how has education changed? We would argue it has changed and do say why and also how, and emphasize that here, education has not declined as is the case elsewhere, likewise nor have jobs, or full spectrum healthcare provision.
What external cultural references does our collective generally have, and what are they? We would argue that British culture is rich and displays the past and present example so to illustrate the point. If one retorts with the argument that the past in its difference, its content, its ideologue is irrelevant, then one must examine the question; what exactly does the present cultural characteristic comprise of, and what impact does it bear upon the collective mind set? Further, in examining the very fabric of our society we must stop and ask how we are different than others, different in extremity than some, and in so doing posit the question; does the collective own the moral and intellectual capacity to be anything other than an alienated and powerless set, that dictated in top down fashion by the political caste in operation (including they by others elsewhere), essentially becoming a very narrow concentration of however one wishes to describe the current trend? We would say no, generally speaking, and weave the reason why into the fabric of the New Mind War. Obviously not all agree with what we say, nor with how we demonstrate our argument. One retort we liked which **** provided was; we have both everything to lose and everything to gain, and therefore it is our duty to tip the pendulum toward the latter.
19 03 2017
I agree, and my question is :
Is Europe, specifically the United Kingdom, likely to be the new global sanctuary?
There is much to consider and the following are suggestions for our debate, as they do form the essence of the New Mind War.
FIRSTLY, in the absence of adequate education, a collective awareness of the external world becomes stunted, controlled, via a pervasive ignorance, a perpetual immaturity, intentionally engineered and reinforced directly and indirectly by the ones who control and who squander resources for their own geopolitical gain. It is not difficult to see where and for who in the present time, this is the worsening scenario, via the attempt to project coercive and military power across the world.
The New Mind War holds central as demonstrable fact; the upholding of collective human dignity, as is the case in the United Kingdom, which is where we are.
When I say. “It is not difficult to see where and for who this is the worsening scenario,” I refer to those compelled to live in a state of stupor, unable to learn from and empathize with the greater world, its variety, its richness, its complexity and in many cases, its dire plight – regarding the latter in particular, this inability is a consequence of; an individual’s own personal economic deprivation, poor and non-existent education as I said, because education is incalculably too expensive, the recourse to irrational beliefs for comfort – much of which sustain the stupor.
Education must be affordable, not a privilege and equally, health care, in its entirety should be free, as it is free in the U.K.
When health care costs to the population are set to soar, the resultant state of affairs for those involved (not here) is illustrative of an enormous collective burden, constituting enormous insecurity and of a life-world the content of which no one should be dealt.
SECONDLY, it is apparent that more and more people in the world are coming to grief than ever has been the case hitherto, besides starvation, the weapons being used against them many times more effective at maiming, killing and destroying their civilization.
Words are easy to give, but the cards many yonder are being dealt via successive leaders are the reason their population, generally speaking, is becoming unable to empathize with the nature and content of reality. Atrocity has almost become ordinary news event, side by side with the manipulative ploys, the cajoling had in a commercial, debt-enslaving mayhem.
Starvation and disease are horrendously bad consequences of an uncaring world, but still, the syndrome of advanced arms – the idea of enemies based on disagreements only few can deal with, let alone really understand and/or question. Most are just not programmed to understand, to empathize, to question – the notion of enemies (and enemies who are real) and neither with those who, ignored, starve and die, nor the reasons why.
At the cessation of WWI, Lloyd George – during a steamship voyage said: “Maybe we could have done it differently?” This obviously was not what those close wanted to hear. It is the case that there will not be the retrospective opportunity as per a future war, but future wars are planned, the likelihood anyone’s guess, the one sole outcome absolutely certain.
Nothing does right itself – The state of the U.S. health care system for example, in comparison to the U.K. National Health Service, is illustrative of an insurmountable burden upon the collective, again coupled with education and requisite enlightenment which few can afford. It is worth reiterating.
These two factors, ignoring of others that we discuss throughout, are essential for the sustaining of human dignity – and importantly, are essential for cultivating proper regard toward those distant (men, women and children alike), in their millions, who with outstretched hands die of malnutrition and of disease due to our incapacity.
As stated, this is bound in the tenets of the New Mind War.
Appendix I : Simply; the notion that imagery can compete (in its accompanying of a written text) is a useful and valuable point. A mixing together of images can stir a complex relationship, be inspiring and also the opposite and varying degrees thereof. The point being that regarding the message content, which is complex in itself – it contains what we desire it to, the helix of relating and otherwise that one provokes and which the audience experiences can be utilized so to dispose with the ordinariness which much is often accused, and which obviously and as said, is not useful. Note alpha and beta versions of this page and which use very different image character – moving from one to the other makes for an enhanced scrutiny of the whole.
Appendix II : This has to be controlled, not merely be happenstance intended to confuse. For example; certain audience undeniably dislike particular images intensely, while admiring others. At home, there is a multiplicity of appeal, of what constitutes a ‘good object’. Combinations of what is culturally meaningful serves to enhance the message and its acceptability, the use of one image, can miss the widespread appeal and acceptability of our objective. One can argue that how one choose to present says much about the presenter. Simply put, a soft approach is often that of the alpha page in this discussion, a harder approach, that of the beta page. The use of military imagery some argue (we do not) serves to create distance in those unconnected with military affairs and a fear of being shot at once the soft approach fails.
Appendix III : Three dimensional dramas wherein the audience wanders and wants to ‘take something home’ are what we are very adept at. We have not presented these yet. It is not the normal approach, but we argue the most effective.
Is the PSYOP orchestrated by others and currently in motion successful? Some make the claim because it is in their interests to. How is success not only of the PSYOP orchestrated by others, but of The New Mind War actually evaluated, is what we must discuss.
We have only just begun.
I’ll take you up on the notion of ‘being simply arrived at’, if I may. Human systems are characterized by their chaotic makeup of interest groups which in varying degrees clash in very particular ways and do not in others, the reasons why depending on myriad factors, some which change, others which do not and will not. It is akin to saying for example, that terrorism in the current time has one main reason and this is it, while ignoring the nature of interrelationships on a global scale which are the stage for reactionary/ radicalized responses, worse, to ignore these wider interrelationships that are the reason why many become radicalized in the first place – To what extent is the home population provided with accuracy so to deal with the result, to suffer its dire consequence? We have to deal with the consequence obviously and very effectively, in addition, work with an accurate (authentic) display, a synthesis of the precipitating factors. Many people are saying these precipitating factors are interventionist, are of commercial reason, that the put out media narratives (which is all they see and hear) of consequently disastrous events more often distort, ignore (intentionally or otherwise). We can discuss this, I refer to the effect felt by the population at home, the cause for which is a much more awkward and often hidden from view geopolitical reality.
When openly addressing a topic here, both the discussion and the topic face an audience (or greater portion) seduced in the negative – who already don’t like us. Further, that this condition is unlikely to change.
26 03 2017
Hey, you know, this is interesting, I mean to step back and look at things from the outside.
First, ‘not liking us’ – if we try and isolate the home audience from the greater world, then it’s a mistake because as you say, what impacts people’s receptivity (to what we are on about), does not just emanate from the familiar environment (at home), but from everywhere. Someone sent a note, quote; “I see you lot as typical of a liberal, interventionist/neocon synthesis”, “Media demagogues”, “Facilitating empty narratives well past their sell by date.”
Second, there was more actually, girls and chaps, which is/was interesting too because such critical appraisal could be leveled across many endeavors, but specifically to address the criticism; ‘your drawing attention to issues such as conscience, to insane military incursions resulting in child deaths – is a deliberate psychological ploy in operation to save your own face, to be somehow acceptable, whereas in truth, you are not, you are precisely what you are being critical of.’
I will address the second first.
Actually this is mere counter propaganda and I’m pleased you brought it to our attention. As you have indicated before, ‘the cheating spouse syndrome’ is a useful ploy – I refer to accusing the other of what you are doing yourself so to revolve the intent. We can’t be accused of that seriously speaking (being interventionist neocons), because it is obviously not the case as we have at great pains striven to demonstrate, but as in counter propaganda ploys, the easiest way out for those who we are directing at is to level accusations of doing the very thing they are. The source of the criticism is self explanatory.
We are addressing issues pertaining to the home audience. In this, to adhere to the people-centered, soft socialist approach – that we fully support it, that we understand the complexity involved. That it works.
I have a note on what I see “interventionist neocon agendas” pertaining to. It is useful in that it briefly addresses what this means, in the process we can quite easily show how this does not apply here in the U.K. :
Over the last two years corporate profits in the USA have been spent on refusing to carry out long term investment, firing workers, paying out dividends to raise the price of stock, to name a few. The failure to carry out capital formation, such as the building of factories and hiring more workers is economic suicide. It creates a system where wealth is not generated but is redistributed largely through gaming the stock market, or by stripping companies of assets until they collapse. This is how the 40 U.S. billionaires now in control have made their fortunes. Essentially, citizens roll the dice and they, the billionaires are the house.
American oligarchs, the top one per cent of whom now own as much wealth as the bottom forty percent of the whole country. They are cannibalizing the country, looting as much as they can. The damage these speculators have done and continue to do to the system may be irreversible.
Banks and corporations avoid paying taxes, consequently enriching the rich and robbing the citizens. The tax havens offshore shelter massive wealth, while the citizens work for non-unionized minimum wages, without access to health care, nor education, infrastructure development is non-existent, the retirement age has risen accordingly.
And we are accused of neocon agendas? The New Mind War targets and addresses this as a starting point, because the larger system state in its complexity underpins everything else.
New Mind War and Shadow Govt – Shadow Agenda
Here is a mind map, in brief
To address why we are not typical of the ‘deep state’ neocon agenda – any of the forty US bipartisan billionaires; the un-elected stakeholders who control govt. who control the media, Wall Street, and have politicized the higher echelon of the Intelligence Community – which does essentially and collectively constitute the neocon agenda.
We reflect on consensus, on rational decision making > logic > design of strategy > movement where the collective want to go > open to emotional triggers, environmental issues > act on mood modulation > maintain sense of space > avoiding fantasy fulfillment > developing asymmetric partnerships > synchronizing with what all want > profit from it > via a clear line of sight > inherent within UK political rhetoric > and so on.
Revenue govt > US billionaire elites > maximization of population in a fantasy > the use of predatory strategies > profiteering from enforced protectionism > of militarization mind set – war profiteering > hegemony > non engagement of the population > escape into flow > distracted via fake information > distracted by irrationality > with no clear line of sight > low to no disposable income > lack of knowledge > no choices >the elite own the wealth and control the whole > and so on
13 04 2017
Brief Overview of Discussion Room No. 15
See document ‘*****’ prepared for discussion
Just a quick and simple overview of what we must be aware of while in the presence of information formulated by another, irrespective of who or what they are, or claim to be. That counter-propaganda must be an unconscious / intuitive process being constantly brought into play. Do think about this because in the context of covert war, we can recognize and develop counter strategies, as appropriate :
The simplest technique is exaggeration. Of course with regard to myself, I don’t need to engage in such.
Assertion can and is employed in the presenting of a disputed sequence of events, or a debatable idea, as fact and without further explanation. One must remember there is an already prepped longing for instant and easy explanations of events.
Obviously we are aware that many are currently employing this tactic of distributing guilt by assertion – adding to it, ‘guilt by association’, a psyop technique, in which previous accused or real misdeeds of certain (can be very different) actors are associated with the demonized person or entity. The scale of the blame is deliberately exaggerated.
Bandwagoning, when the entire global community’s reaction is represented as aligning itself with one position (say that of the USA or the PRC), without the source actually specifying the positions of individual nations. Assertion technique also appears, where there is little to no evidence provided to support the assertion.
Let’s attack! I refer to launching an emotional attack on the audience. The audience is put face to face with such unbearable cruelty, atrocity, trauma, associated (make believe – untruths) that it spurs her/him/other to justify military action that would remove the bloody, monstrous descriptions of the maiacal liar from a page and / or images from the screen. Take that you horror.
Personalized forms of character assassination against a person, a group, including ours, are rife as you know, but they are lacking any proof to back up the claims, and hypes the level and scale of the alleged wrongdoing committed supposedly by us. Yes? Do you agree, because if you don’t, please say so, and why.
Just to address something we said earlier on, regarding our being among others, in a circumstance deemed foreign. I can be diplomatic by saying; We love the United Kingdom.
BIAS : a systematic deviation from a standard of rationality, an error frequently committed by the human mind.
RATIONALITY : a normative model of accurate belief formation and optimal decision making, in order to achieve one’s goal.
To be continued – in edit
Criticism : The New Mind War
Secret Intelligence Service
Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum