Extract From a Conversation Between (C-I) and (C-III)
Questions in the Realms of Insanity
The extract is from an ongoing discussion taking place in various locations and contexts in the United Kingdom, some formal, others not so formal.
These are questions, perhaps not the right ones and certainly not answers.
“We have the audacity to speak of virtue, honor, reason, thereby one is compelled to ask the question;
Is thought even capable of translating any one of these into a substance?”
A deranged state of the mind, usually occurring as a specific disorder such as schizophrenia.
Such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents the person from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction.
Extreme folly or unreasonableness. Something utterly foolish or unreasonable.
And what of liars in public places? Those in control of certain nations? Those who know the truth because they create and sustain circumstance and feed their twisted and baseless morality to the masses, for reasons known to themselves? This, in awareness of how many there are who they need to convince and those who, as a sad consequence, become so?
What of the providing of assistance to terrorist groups; those who are murdering without conscience, men, women and children alike and the using of phony propaganda to hold these scumbags as somehow being ‘helpers’, ‘allies’, ‘moderates’ because it suits someone’s interests so to do? – To create lies regarding who really is fighting terrorism, demonstrably fighting terrorism, without argument to the contrary that can be applied by an adequately sane person, to have the audacity to hold them, in their humanitarianism accountable for atrocity, to spin their intention otherwise, is the true evil hiding behind the veil of ‘exceptionalism’.
This is the most insane era, for its sophisticated commercialism, for its engaging in uncaring and murdering carnage. It is that there is no way out from policies construed in deranged minds and consequently, the deranged courses of action promoted as being somehow right, by virtue of a painted veneer of supposed justification. There are those as we, who see it for what it really is, thankfully.
(C-I) What you have to be aware of is proffering an answer and post-mortem proffering reasons for the answer which contain convoluted certainties. It’s a common thing to do because such factors as where one is perceiving an issue from flowers reasoning with a multiplicity of factors born in that origin, – the extent to which someone is doing this needs to be taken into consideration. The origin can be a nation state, a micro-culture within and/or individual. It sounds simple, over generalized, but the crux of the matter is that the polarities and the complexities wherein people interact with each other should make for unpredictability as far as perceived answers or outcomes are concerned, but often by virtue of how answers are introduced, they do not. Of course, there are those who make a case for not doing this, but when you listen to them, their side taking for example, it ranges from a subtle veneer to that of being obvious. It’s not necessarily obvious to the person concerned, the owner of the supposed answer.
In a situation where the members are very different, these differences manifest by virtue of what they think, believe, say and behave, we are presented with an enormously difficult task in resolution of conflicts. Sensibly, the ‘resolution’ might only be a palliative, one operative for a short period of time.
Take the growth of radicalism which is a world-wide phenomenon., one whose polarity and magnitude is both in a state of flux because of differences of the members within it, this does not mean to say there not emerging characteristics, the ones we see and react to, because there certainly are. The point being that you have to be careful with ideas which, in their formulation, claim to scoop up all of the factors, they don’t because they can’t.
What we have to be alert to are answers, one stop resolutions if you like, that are born of those in powerful positions, in the military and or politics and really who are psychopathic and whose concomitant narcissism leans them toward attributing the view that the ‘enemy’ are such and such, simply because that’s how they perceive, I mean their beginning with that attribute. This is an extremely dangerous tendency and leads to confrontations, or if not that, the desire to engage in them. The psychological makeup of such people can, via requisite information manipulation, become to be the view of the majority and in the world there just cannot be a super power confrontation that has the potential to escalate into war. This is madness of the worst possible order and indicative of a psychopathic personality that ends up in the minds made ready for it.
A useful question to ask is; Who is mentally ill? Bound with this; how is the condition of mental illness attributed and by whom? According to what benchmark? Within what collective/culture?
The awareness of the multiplicity and diversity of what and where we are within the passing of time as it is significant, is so minuscule, so infinitesimal, to be unworthy of a value attributable to it, yet we live with paradigms, often competing, which not only ignore this status, but claim supremacy over it based upon supposed certainties, appeals to the transcendental for guidance, which are comical, stupid.
When mental illness filters down into the minds of the susceptible within a collective, the results are there for us to see. Really, when it appears in domains close to home and among who one who prefer to regard otherwise, the effect is disturbing to say the least – but the crux of the matter is, whether person or persons XY are ever understood as pathological? Perhaps as being mere misled decision makers?
Obviously many most are certainly pathologically afflicted – irrespective of who is the judge and from what place. For example the radicalized, but the condition and the way it manifests is not hitherto confined to that group.
To argue for a war, for example the Iraq invasion, where at the outset it is known unequivocally that one and a half million people were certain to die, including women and children (collateral damage), this decision is pathologically afflicted to the nth degree and thus, by implication, a morally reprehensible state of being.
So why do others fall for it?
When defence becomes offence, what case does this present?
As I said, we rightly judge terrorists as being severely afflicted morons, because they are, wherever one is judging them from, but we engage decision making which culminates in arguably the same outcome – huge loss of life and commensurate irreparable emotional damage. This is contentious, but what end state is achieved in so doing?
The talk of ‘hot war’ coming from those who command military strategic resources – this diatribe engaging the prospective deployment of tactical nuclear weapons against for example The Russian Federation and/or China, speaks for itself. In addition, the acutely afflicted can only judge reality from within in a very narrow parameter wherein resides gross distortion. Asking for displays of empathy, the desire and capacity for sharing is not a factor in the distortion.
We are headlong on the path to war
Let me just reiterate and as I have said before; it is not a view born of treachery, not weakness, to state that to invent enemies, as is the inclination of ‘certain people’ and they know who I am referring to, and proceed to orchestrate a war, such that something is proven, that some outcome is envisaged, one they envisage, is complete madness. If we are left on a raft in the middle of the ocean when the whole country has ceased to exist you would justifiably have to ask what meaning there could ever have been in the arguments that precipitated this certain conclusion. No one would survive the war and to assume somehow there would be meaning after is typical of psychopathic logic. The invented enemies, even if in some capacity it is shown they are so, by virtue of economic criteria, geopolitics or whatever, – we cannot seek for perfection in human systems after all – they, our made hostile responders would, by virtue of their enormously vast capacity, ensure this outcome and so, in its entirety. You would assume that the ones here who are familiar with modern weaponry would know this; more often this is not part of their psycho-pathological rationale. It is the case that genocidal views are masquerading as morality, though now they are clinging to those of the suicidal maniac.
Actually what was said earlier is very relevant because ‘interests,’ be these of a collective or individual, become the answer, and the reasons for the interests, their underlying motivations become the supposed reasoning. You see this happening all of the time and it’s propped up by propaganda. Not all are aware of what the real nature of the interests are – strategic, fiscal, ideological, religious and/or a mixture thereof – these are owned by few, kept secret. The aforesaid are insignificant in the unequivocal reality that is the complete eradication of our species and which modern weapons will ensure.
Time Out (continued below)
(C-III) Can we focus attention on one particular group?
(C-I) OK. Let’s talk about the man or woman on the street. Let’s wander in their paradigm which is what politicians and/or controllers of the armed forces tend to avoid doing by riding over the heads of those who vote for them, pay taxes, et cetera. Let me say that if hatred is propounded, it can be harnessed into a propaganda effort. Hatred in varying degrees brings with it justifications and these justifications can be reinforced, can offer rationale for atrocity. Hatred is a feeling that overwhelms the person/s concerned. When intolerant perceptions are bound with it, you have to be prepared for the results, especially if they are aimed at you. What I mean by being prepared forms the justification for my job.
You know, a useful way of creating an appropriate ‘receptacle/container’ is to bring people together in sensible presence, and importantly, to ensure that they feel brought together.
This is obviously possible now in many more ways due to the sharing on a global stage that the internet elicits. But looking at groups such as the Islamic State, for example, and to highlight one or two of what they are seemingly very adept at, for example, their adherents hold a particular heraldry and they chant, in so doing are given messages to repeat that are very powerfully imbued with sentiment. It does sound quite medieval but the process can have a very profound effect on those concerned, on those who are not concerned too. The same transpires across the US, among evangelicals and who feel the need to single out certain sectors of society for hatred. The point being, to what extent does our society engage in this? I mean does it facilitate harmony and not fracture, sectarianism, schism, dichotomy? Simply stated, does our society do as much as it could to bring people together and hold them there? It depends how you look at it. We enjoy freedom and in this freedom we revel in choices of our own, but in freedom there are always those who fall through the cracks and require support in whatever ways it is deemed. If we ignore the cracks and I don’ t think we do ignore them, but for those who feel otherwise, they can become endemic, seen as racial intolerance, poverty, unemployment and so on. The latter is an argument for saying that we are doing the groundwork for the Jihadist, or any other anarchistic tendency who sees fit to move in, including that of the evangelical nutcase.
There are fractures based upon race, gender, ideology, and the socioeconomic, real or imagined differences. Though there is much that binds, there is also that which works for the opposite effect. This latter, is an open invitation to the cohesive group, the indoctrinated, the highly motivated, the bonded – to use the problems however they are perceived or distorted or invented, thus our supposed fractured society creates fuel for what they advocate.
You’ve got to remember that it’s not simple at all while our freedom to live is being used as a felt precursor to outright rejection. What we are free to engage in, the processes we harness in our endeavors, whatever, can be too, the groundwork laid out on a plate for Jihadist who accuse it of facilitating existential threat – aloneness, rejection, poverty, ostracism and so on.
But why would engaging in atrocity be attractive even if our society is deemed antagonistic or some other condition, the two are opposite polarities, extremes to the nth. degree. There is something more that we must isolate and examine.
Another point in brief; if there is a social phenomenon be this phenomenon outside ostensibly, as the Islamic caliphate is outside, it doesn’t mean to say that there will not be those within our society with allegiance to it, who act as its silent supporter or whatever you would like to call them, will fight tooth and nail for what it proposes as a way of life, the meaning inherent within that way of life – because there are many as you well know. This is not revelation. I’m not only referring to psychological contracts but to monetary contracts. There are those potential, those seeking, consciously or they might not even have begun articulating the desire for fulfillment, those feeling cast out, disenfranchised by the greater collective that they are in fact members of. Unfortunately and you might not agree, it is the case that there are those arguing that these individuals justifiably are caused to want for such allegiance. I’m not justifying this, it makes me feel uncomfortable, but the pull to Jihad, and you must realize this, I’m saying that from one point of view and it’s not the only one, that the preconditions can be seen as being those of our own making, a reason born in our model, be the preconditions multi-factorial.
Comment : By virtue of our advanced ideas and great wealth, what can be more wrong than being party to circumstances of atrocity and equally, being ambivalent, uncaring? We must alter what has become our collective psyche, we, as members of the most insane of all eras. We are nothing while we are among enthusiastic killers, when most are to blame because we become unable to resolve conflict situations. Basically, we are led by yonder sanctimonious liars, those greedy and the altogether pathetic of human beings.
If a person, by virtue of factors we ignore because they are alien to us, becomes radicalized, is our ignoring, our inability to understand likely ever to change? Possibly, it plain and simply cannot. To what extent can the mind build bridges and walk over them? Does history suggest this ability and/or in the present time are all cultures and subcultures rife with human conflict? Is this the way it is destined to remain, after all we have a few centuries we know about where it certainly has never changed.
The difference now is the command of WMD along with advances in military technology which has rendered the soldier, the human on the battlefield as redundant, ie. cannot survive thereupon, not for a mere moment and certainly will not be returning home.
Why wield this scenario as a weapon against those who we judge as enemies via little to no understanding at all of their nature – namely China and Russia? It is because we are guided by those yonder and away who are mentally ill. This is one version for this discussion and not the only one, obviously. This is a discussion, so we have to address many assertions.
On the topic of the jihadist
A very simple way of saying it, I like simple, is; ‘does the person in question feel that they are a part of something and if so, what? The assertion of ‘something’ is fundamental. I think if you took a random sample from any city in the UK, the answers would indicate that many didn’t feel part of ‘something’, moreover were resentful of the system in part or the whole thing. What we do not want are those that answer in the affirmative by using their allegiance to the groups we are trying to isolate as being precursors to radicalism, as a basis for being part of ‘something’.
One should justifiably ask the question;
When atrocity, be this rape, torture, mutilation and killing is perpetrated by who are sadistic psychopaths, what are the psychological mechanisms which trigger allegiance to this?
It should be what all human spectators would see for what it is and nothing else and react accordingly. However and very worryingly, the shift toward an altogether different perception and response, that atrocity is somehow acceptable, merit worthy, is commonplace.
Above : Copyright (c) 2016 courtesy AFP
I was never given anything in this way; I intuitively knew that the road I perceived was right for me. There were roads being offered then just as there is now, if I had chosen to look, that likely would have led me off to who knows where, doing who knows what in a plethora of immoralities inherent. The capacity within people to become affected is innate to an extent, and we’ve talked about this before. There is no erasing the desire which is the instinct to kill. I chose to channel my developing ingenuity into what my intuition told me was meaningful. Unfortunately this is the very process that works for the opposite. You have to remember that the prospect of engaging in atrocity for some is a means of killing the very machine that is or was working against them, that disadvantaged them, and in their view attempted to destroy them. This is what some are being told and helped to feel. We can question this from our view of insanity, psychopathology – but what they are experiencing is not abnormal to them. Many rightly assert that it is abnormal to slice someone’s throat and/or cut their head off and genuinely believe in the reason for doing it – if there are those who feel something inspired them, sustained them and so continues on in their quest, then we must examine what that ‘something’ is. If we don’t, it will come knocking on our door. Yes, there are those who advise that it won’t, and/or claim that the Islamic State will morph into something else, but they don’t know what exactly. This is not a useful way of approaching the issue. The advocates are not at street level, they have not felt the power that is being wielded in this particular paradigm, not to forget the determination and psychological skill of its proponents.
(C-III) Olga, do you think that responses we make, responses to a threat, an act or whatever, are often flipped by the perpetrators simply by virtue of our acknowledging them?
(C-I) There is much to be said for viewing it that way. It’s very complicated though because anything stated whether that statement/s attempts objectivity or contains emotion does actually extend the stage of the ‘perpetrators’ as you called them. The media can’t turn a blind eye just because their reporting is what terrorists will read, because that’s who we are talking about, terrorists, I mean. Also let me just say this before I forget; it becomes very awkward when there is a collective personality presenting itself and within it are explanations regarding how things are done. When I say things I’m referring to the specifics regarding how counter-terrorism is approached, how strategies are formulated, why they are, by whom, where and so on. All this is flipped on its head by terrorists because they learn precisely how to become effective as a result. It takes more by way of explanation than what I just said, but that’s the gist of it.
(C-III) You are saying that an anti-Jihad propaganda effort that is in operation can be used as a basis for the very thing it is being designed to prevent? That sounds odd.
(C-I) No that’s not it, there has to be a multifaceted effort in operation to offend the efforts by Jihadists who are seeking to become attractive as it were. But while they are familiar with our approaches they also become familiar with what to say to work against them and how.
(C-III) So if we jump straight in here; showing the act of murder say by decapitation to an audience and explaining how it insults our moral code not to forget our sensibilities, can become a tool of Jihad because they take it as assurance that their actions have achieved the desired effect and in addition, that it brought to a wide audience on their behalf?
(C-III) Yes, in a nutshell. They seize upon what you referred to as ‘insulting to our moral code’, turn it around and tell their own target audience that this is what offends us – together with flowery language to make it more effective. If we are telling them what hurts us the most it’s obvious they will take it.
As a civilization it is not where we have moved from, but what we have moved to (C-I)
(C-III) What’s the answer?
(C-I) By virtue of whatever methodology we employ, we have to build something into it that is more than just stating what offends us – that displaying atrocity works on the minds we want them to and in the ways we want them to. It doesn’t always and the effect is hard to quantify.
When I say build something in I’m referring to what makes terrorists fearful and what does not give them ammunition. However, these are not the only factors very obviously, in what is a global Jihad, nor should we underestimate who we are talking about. We certainly shouldn’t assume how they or anyone will respond and as I said, whatever our intention, however fearful we might make it, the whole thing can come back at us attired differently. Any and all ideas can be a gift essentially to our opponents in the information war.
(C-III) If our society is fractured, as you referred to it, – does not bind collective minds together, what do you consider are the major precipitating causes of this?
(C-I) I think talking macro-politics and global military strategy does not form a single part of the average citizen, nor should it. What is of paramount importance is their dignity, their safety and well-being. If by virtue of the powers in place there are attacks upon these conditions, real or imagined, the ground work begins forming by itself. You can’t have a population who feel powerless, who feel poor and suffer indignity. This is what the Welfare State was designed to avoid and if it is being changed to one that thrusts free enterprise in the place of the person’s needs, the result will be insecurity. I mean in the present time there are issues that directly affect the collective composure at street level.
(C-III) This is a wide question. Tell me what you think of the support mechanisms – funding channels in place for ‘moderate groups’ in Syria and Iraq. Do you think that in this, the sanctity of human life is overlooked in favor for what you referred to earlier as geo-strategic interests?
(C-I) Yes, it is a wide question and you answered it in the asking. What do I think? Well, the sanctity of human life has never been a factor when there is a perceived reason for a course of action. I was just thinking more of ‘ego-centric’ interests actually, because the interests that you pointed to are not the interests of the majority, only the few and who can’t bear to lose, or more accurately be denied their desires. The rest is the stuff of literature and the sad status of human history.
(C-III) We’ll return to that, but there’s something I want to get your reaction to, it’s an actual event from Iraq, dated, 30/01/2015 :
The terrorists of the Islamic State posted a video on the web, which threatened to behead President Obama, at the White House.
If you would visualize: Terrorists are on the streets of Mosul, close to them is a captured Kurd. The Kurd was brutally executed at the end of the video.
The executioner, in Kurdish. refers to Obama; “Know, Obama, we get to America and cuts your head, and America has become a Muslim province. And our message of France and her sister, Belgium – we go to you with the car bomb and a suicide bomber’s belt.”
(C-I) I say the rose has become sicker now than ever. A bundle of thoughts – and at their core are very powerful emotions. First though, rather than declaring that such is a gross and cruel insult to nature, is to try and grapple with what is profoundly difficult for me. It causes me to retreat to my personal space and where I can make certain appeals. What I’m trying to say is that in order to respond, first I have to enact a sequence of events and not delete anything that I can’t bear to think about because of its potential for extreme distress and secondly, to wander in the periphery of the event, its circumstance. The first is the most difficult by far because of what is being done, but it tells me a lot and I can apply it to others same and similar. Does that make sense?
I tend to think people generally, and you can’t blame them, dissociate completely from the worst, but we have to be able to move into what is there at the extreme of extremes, otherwise we are just an audience. Some say that’s what we are, an audience, but within such an extreme psycho-pathological state, I’m referring to the victim, from the array of atrocious facets that cannot be presented and scrutinized post-mortem, we have to try and blend with where we are going in our strategy. A strategy which is formulated only by appeals to action in this respect, are insufficient.
(C-III) I think you are a very deep thinking person and more.
(C-I) Thanks! I know jokes too, just to lighten things a little.
(C-III) Later. Do you want to talk about the victim, and then the perpetrator? The two are separate as I see it. I want to ask you what you think the disagreements are to some of what you’ve said.
(C-I) Disagreements….Well, one factor to bear in mind is that the mentally afflicted, be it one person or swathes of people, do not see their distortions or the behaviors they inspire as such, because they can’t.
This discussion is in progress. To be continued
(c) 2017 All rights reserved
Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum