Secret Intelligence Service
Room No. 15
ENEMY / FRIEND DISTINCTION IN THE CONTEXT OF
(C-I) (C-II) (C-V)
(C-I) Here are the statements for the examination, expansion and debate :
Enemy – Friend Distinction in the Context of Malcontent
“We cannot distinguish very easily between friends and foes, not merely on the basis of trust, but potentially the psychological status of both is open to the intention to harm us. Is this true and if so, might we have only enemies in the first instance? The latter self limiting statement is available for consideration, elucidation and possible reappraisal.”
“The farcical nature of human existence is NOT in dispute. Our being members of the aforesaid collective, requires that we must negotiate accordingly such qualities of; fantasy, liars, greed, intimidation, pointlessness, fear, and hatred. So, what are friends and foes, given this undeniable state of being?”
The world is changing rapidly, in the ideal context of the global economy and despite political and cultural differences everyone would be on very same interconnected page.
After all, global growth has an impact on everyone. However, and one must wonder; who is very effectively ignoring attainment of this ideal and will continue using the friend/foe distinction for reasons of maintaining their own power, protectionism and elitism? This, while the effect is denial of their own citizens access to the simplest of social needs, while citizens of those offering friendship, openness and sharing take for granted the highest standard of living in the world?
1. It is the case that the potential for hatred is ignited by the very fact of our example, and because we cause changes in systems whose rigidly held convictions are inseparable from political control.
2. I can therefore ask the question; what does it mean to have ‘conviction’? Does it mean anything in a substantive way? Is conviction a by-product of the capacity to make words and express thoughts such that anything can be the case and the invention subsequently assumed to be ‘real’?
3. I think the mind-set that is steeped in conviction is steeped in the potential for terrorism. That, if you like, conviction is an open gate and terrorism can be a path from it to wherever the convicted wish it to go. Along the way are built monuments.
4. I can imagine other gates and other paths, all of the same design, but certain are larger than others, the largest being religious radicalization, and the widest road that of terrorism stemming from it. Upon these roads and in varying capacities are ‘armies’ of thought and action.
5. Ideally, I want to examine the underlying structure of conviction, its bricks and mortar because by so doing I can ascertain how best to undermine it and sufficient that I can, when it is used as a means of attack, try to cause it to fall apart.
6. However, can there be an undermining of rigidly held *conviction? It is not possible to affect conviction through economic threat, nor military threat.
* Nota Bene : Convictions in whatever form are not necessarily a negative psychological or societal issue, they are a natural characteristic. It is what convictions are used for, ie. by their appeal to supposed certainties, they are seized upon as a vehicle for inflicting harm and therefore, it is the reason for so doing that has potential for there being an issue.
7. And remember, not all people within our nation are of the same mind. There are those who constitute the most dangerous seed beds within. Seedbeds including those home-grown, who want-to-be jihads, hell-bent on indiscriminate acts of mass-murder.
8. We must understand who are the most dangerous bearers of hatred and construe the means by which they can be undermined. We have to identify the inputs from these sources exactly for what they are and act accordingly. At our disposal as a weapon is our oppressive power.
9. We are all in this together, irrespective. While there are hate bearers who seize upon perceived differences to subtly or otherwise interject their hatred into others for whatever contrived and stupid justification, be it of ; national, ethnic, religious, educational, sexual orientation, age, sex, indeed, any characteristic – then there has to be awareness that the divisions which do result are divisive, and serve only that purpose.
(C-I) When you take a broad sweep, it should be very obvious to anyone that we in the United Kingdom are of multifaceted nature and that multiculturalism is a facet of our collective.
Propagandizing notions of inequality having justification has been against the moral code we live by for a very long time. Suffice it to say that propagandizing the ostracism of sub-groups for any reason, inclusive of hatred and worse, gets the bearer a prison sentence.
There are no armed group formations in the United Kingdom resorting to convoluted word plays with meanings that do not apply and which the bearers are more often than not ill-capable of articulating.
Our political/ideological/economic system embraces everyone, irrespective, and does not and never will employ arguments leveled against any sections of society with the intention of undermining their equality.
This is not the case in other nations and we are the arbiters of freedom to live as one does wish.
The tolerating of the intolerant is a crime in itself and recognized as such which is why it has no place of abode.
What is intolerance? It is a three dimensional picture, of convoluted members, whom the bearer assumes support his/her distortion, bigotry and crime. What is made in the mind becomes the real world wherein there are waiting high walls and a 10 x 6 ft. room.
However a person sees fit to live, for example and equally, however they choose to believe, is their right and this right is upheld without question. There is no arbiter whose appeal holds sway the dictates of totalitarianism, a one person psycho-pathology.
MI6 (Secret Intelligence Service) along with the MOD is one of the UK’s largest employers of LGBT personnel. MI6 is the world’s foremost intelligence machine.
From 1847; the 34-year-old philosopher Søren Kierkegaard observed a pervasive pathology of our fallible humanity, explaining the same basic psychology that lurks behind contemporary phenomena such as bullying, trolling, and the general assaults of self-appointed critics, colloquially and rather appropriately described as haters.
Here it is;
“There is a form of envy of which I frequently have seen examples, in which an individual tries to obtain something by bullying. If, for instance, I enter a place where many are gathered, it often happens that one or another right away takes up arms against me by beginning to laugh; presumably he feels that he is being a tool of public opinion. But lo and behold, if I then make a casual remark to him, that same person becomes infinitely pliable and obliging. Essentially it shows that he regards me as something great, maybe even greater than I am: but if he can’t be admitted as a participant in my greatness, at least he will laugh at me. But as soon as he becomes a participant, as it were, he brags about my greatness.
That is what comes of living in a petty community.”
Søren Kierkegaard. (May 5. 1813 – November 11. 1855)
(C-III) Here are a few useful definitions to crank the thing up – not that it needs it. The point I want to make is that hatred can be an internally selective sensation, ie. felt in certain respects as however apply and not in others – as it is felt by others.
HATRED : The sensation felt by one who hates; intense dislike, extreme aversion, hostility.
1. loathe, execrate; despise. Hate, abhor, detest, imply feeling intense dislike or aversion toward something. Hate, the simple and general word, suggests passionate dislike and a feeling of enmity: to hate autocracy. Abhor expresses a deep-rooted horror and a sense of repugnance or complete rejection: to abhor cruelty; Nature abhors a vacuum. Detest implies intense, even vehement, dislike and antipathy, besides a sense of disdain: to detest a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Abominate expresses a strong feeling of disgust and repulsion toward something thought of as unworthy, unlucky, or the like: to abominate treachery.
Abhorrence; abomination; detestation; execration; loathing; odium (hate coupled with disgust)
Enmity; hostility; ill will (the feeling of a hostile person)
Despisal; despising (a feeling of scornful hatred)
Murderousness (a bloodthirsty hatred arousing murderous impulses)
Misopedia (hatred of children)
Misoneism (hatred of change or innovation)
Misology (hatred of reasoning)
Misogynism; misogyny (hatred of women)
Misogamy (hatred of marriage)
Misanthropy (hatred of mankind)
Malevolence; malignity (wishing evil to others)
(C-I) It is the case that hatred has degrees of sensation, somewhere within is ‘indifference’, but you know, a question one has to ask is; with regard to others, how you would know the full extent of their felt sensation? I ask because often it’s not prudent for someone to admit to it. Politicians often mask hatred because they want votes from those they hate. I mean if they are sufficiently clever. People usually are not.
(C-III) I agree and it requires perspicacity on our part. For those who don’t mask hatred there are laws in place (thankfully) which defend against, for example; hate speech, provocation such that others are inspired likewise, and so on.
(C-I) An intentional inspiring of others who act in accordance to the hatred that they are made to feel. The intention here is what we can study, if you would like. It is interesting because often it’s made to seem otherwise because the vehicle that its wrapped in is, what can I say, ‘otherwise’. The use of religious belief in this is rife. I mean with regard to singling out certain societal groups. It’s a particularly ******* evil thing to do, if you ask me. It’s nothing short of domestic terrorism.
Societal groups are singled out for reasons that are non-existent. They become existent because the hatred creates a form, as I said, the garment it’s attired in is anything at all the hater can use, but the most often choice is some difference in belief, but within are too, a plethora of indices added on. I don’t care whether there are those who hate me, I don’t give a ****.
(C-III) Quite. Moving from the societal, which presupposes a micro consideration, to the wider international concern. While observing what people choose to say, for example on social media, and in that, their intended projection – hatred, to whatever extent is felt, it becomes very apparent that much of what is seized as being supposedly fact, is mere supposition that the hater uses to level. The way that geopolitical statements are seeped in this is quite remarkable.
(C-I) I agree and you know, the sentiment appears to work its way down the ladder, from those who determine foreign policy to the ‘want to be expert’. It’s bound up with some kind of allegiance the haters own (plural, because it becomes a shared contagion, through the mechanisms at work that ensure it), be this patriotism, delusion, I mean believing the propaganda they are fed and believe, or whatever. Having very limited access to actual facts, if any, regarding the complex interplay of any nation, leaves the door open to creative hate that they call ‘analysis’. I read this sort of thing a lot. Those whose axe to grind is not honestly stated, if they are even aware of it.
(C-III) AB is caused to demonstrate hatred toward nation XYZ, because of some association, and does so via any and all intellectual tools at their disposal. These tools are distorted perceptions of reality that become the median, above and below which are those who read, watch and hear what they assume is true and feel a watered down hatred in the process. Sounds simple but we do observe it, as you say.
(C-I) The complexity is in the distorted perceptions because as you can imagine, there is a great deal based upon supposed / machinated threat to power and dominance, ideological incompatibility, economic criteria, what is pertaining to doctrine.
(C-III) Do you think the distinction between the wider global stage and what is within our society is fuzzy? I ask because what transpires on the micro /societal stage, because it is where our values reside, can dictate the hate response on a grander stage, ie. elsewhere, in fact anywhere?
(C-I) Of course. They hate us because we are a mixture of this, that and the other and within which are what is completely unacceptable to some, though they do business with us, because it is in their interests so to do. A question is; what of the handshake and smile, what is really the case?
(C-III) Let’s discuss malcontent.
(C-I) OK. First, let me summarize my thoughts; what is a natural proclivity of human beings – the harnessing of the instinct to cause “the others” to cease to exist, ie. to kill them, has been the case throughout evolution.
Regarding malcontent, a good example but very bad scenario is when copies of Mein Kampf begin re-circulation, along with Nazi symbols. Malcontent is seized upon to cause and justify action – it’s the fuel for the mechanism whereby anarchy is the envisaged end point.
Harnessing the basic instinct – hatred, intolerance, tailoring the whole thing to suit whatever ends.
Can’t control it, nor what it does, being complicit – is very significant because the source is not physically present at the slaughter that ensues, but is so, in very significant ways.
In this, the idea of some argument or other being somehow true is a joke.
The desire to kill us but can’t is the reality we live with, if they, whomever they might be could, they would try and if owning the advantage would perhaps succeed.
The bombing scenarios come to mind where the absolute poorest nations on earth are completely decimated, the whole population displaced, women and children slaughtered. Very obviously there is nothing at all to be gained by these actions, with regard to the stupid justifications tendered, rather – it’s enjoyment of the force the instinct provokes in the human frame, the instinct that is running amok where it can.
(C-III) It sounds rather simple, only because the cause of hatred is simple, it is the baggage it carries and the ingenuity it fosters which is not simple at all.
Do you think that malcontent could be both a product of the nature of those whose role in society is to control and in the same way the product of that same nature which responds. A two way process.
If a course of action is put in force and that action whether consciously or unconsciously intended for what it really is, lines the pockets of the few, empowers the few, thus creating a widening demarcation ideologically, the same appeal to instinct which is the reaction tends to follow. Again that sounds simple but when you consider how the reasoning for many proposals is dressed up in spin and falsity intended to dupe, it’s not simple because blame for wrong doing can be leveled against those who react. Thus a perpetuation of malcontent. A good example was during the seventies and eighties here in the UK, where the industrial relations issues or lack thereof in the motor industry (British Leyland – now defunct) and later mining industry (The NCB at the time, now almost defunct) fostered malcontent and facilitated the division which elsewhere at the time (in Germany, for example) was not the case because of the collective bargaining system in place to avoid it. Malcontent does not stay put because it involves more than one group and members of same spread far and wide.
(C-I) Hey, I know what you mean, where you have separate canteens for the ‘low class’ workers, har har and nice places to eat for the supposedly higher class staff. Where those who do manual work are never empowered, rather are tightly controlled by those higher up the scale who often know less about the job. The result is a spanner in the works and duff cars, if you ask me.
When you say for what it really is, is that what you meant?
(C-III) Basically. Reflective of one word; difference.
(C-I) The recourse to (mechanisms for) working on the societal and thus multifaceted substance of malcontent is now strongly in place here in the UK. Unfortunately it’s not so over the blue sea to *******. A ‘suck it society’ is one that can only react minimally and usually internally and is kept so via enforcement policies in place.
(C-III) What is a good example of a ‘mechanism in place’ here in the UK?
(C-I) The social security system, the NHS, but an example to mention is the system of work and training. I mean, training for jobs, getting a job, being paid while doing so, even to attend interviews. I mean the ‘travel to interview scheme’ which if you mentioned it to Americans they’d think you were nuts. It’s all there such that anyone can aspire, empower, actualize…call it what you like. Consider how a different / foreign system who, despite it’s hype, offers none of this at all – how it deals with the malcontent that powerlessness and the non-event of life fosters. The said government who collects taxes pours little to nothing back, rather doles out the usual misbegotten hype about it being ‘all up to you’. Thus passing back the symbolic buck. Har. Har.Whether the made misbegotten believe it is a good question, they usually do to some extent because knowing a different example, one which by their supposedly informed standards is deemed to be one of ‘doling out support’, is unlikely.
The point is, the less appeals to anarchy the better. Anarchy is a dangerous phenomena.
Of course there are those (mostly away, but some near) doing their level best to foster the latter (malcontent, anarchy) via all means, and there are some interesting issues around the attempts made.
(C-III) Let’s discuss a few of those issues. In addition, you said, with regard to a foreign government, “...how it (the foreign govt.) deals with the malcontent that powerlessness and the non-event of life fosters.” What do you mean?
(C-I) This is a very complex question, not so much because of the strategies, deliberate ones I mean, put in place, but how they are dealt with in minds, which is anything but simple and incidentally and importantly;
It has to be stated categorically, that often what appears even to us as one strategy in particular is often a mask for an altogether different one and which is foreign policy / economically led. The latter often viewed by those who decide them as being necessary in the world, such as is according to them, determinate vis a vis economic influence or even survival in this highly competitive, volatile, geopolitical world.
(C-III) Are you referring to sustaining theological rifts via aligning with certain ‘orientations,’ thus uniting against others for economic prosperity / gain, and it’s the activity of doing this which the greater majority at home are not aware? They just see the rifts / dichotomies / incompatibilities / schisms / sectarian divides and not the truth that is feeding them. The same is the case for what motivates the schisms at home, they just see the world in similar or be it somewhat blinkered, simplistic ‘us and them – them, thinking something different’ criteria. This is their experience forming the basis for how they view a world and in its hugely complex interplay which they know little to nothing about.
(C-I) It depends where you are referring to by ‘at home’. The UK and the USA – pivotal Western powers, are not the same place at all. The US wants to sustain its influence which is heading down the toilet due to the Eastern economic and military onslaught, not to forget their multi-polar reality, so everything becomes tailored accordingly. We do not have the same position in this ‘influence agenda’ and we have aligned to a far greater extent than the US would like, with China, ie. the East.
Have we shifted off course? I was going to address the question you asked earlier, how malcontent is dealt with in certain foreign countries, namely the US, because it’s a good example to use. More a micro question than where we were just heading, I think, – though the machination has significance beyond the national boundary for its use of the power to influence and control minds.
Firstly, if you keep the powerless happy, I mean those whom are caused to be that way, you have to look at the strategies that have been adopted.
You know, it was Frederick Nietzsche who said, “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” If in the US, which is my example, it appears prudent to alter what is the potential for the masses to think freely via encouraging what embraces malcontent and shoves it out the door, they are very clever.
The minimum wage across the US is equivalent to just over four pounds per hour, and this is what adults earn, without anything whatsoever akin to the supports the UK public take for granted. That level of earning is what teenagers delivering newspapers get here. Not all are at this level of dispossession, but very many are, especially across the south and mid-west and this can’t be argued because we observe it. It’s in our interest to observe it.
There has, since the war and certainly during the US / USSR Cold War period, been much interest in facilitating ways to circumvent what would, if there were no strategy in place so to do, produce manifest malcontent. In the US, is what is a very strange phenomena to Europeans and which is a collective capacity to dwell in the ether, I mean not to accept that obvious things should really be much, much better for the tax dollar paid, but conversely that things are good because there is the non-substantial playing a greater part than all that is apparent.
(C-III) Would you care to be a little more frank? I’m not sure what you mean.
(C-I) OK. If you observe how faith in what is non-apparent, a fantasy attired as certainty, has become endemic – a bastardized and updated form of ideas, it provides a comfort to what is really undeserving of that condition (comfort).
(C-III) Mind control?
(C-I) In effect, yes. To prevent malcontent and its ramifications, its the idea vehicle. However, it’s not so easy to control what the masses do with it because it brings with it the instinctual desire to marginalize, hate and even destroy others. Jim Jones was a good example of the CIA supporting this strategy and arguably its hold brought these qualities and which led to the downfall of the whole thing. There are other examples but they are not so important, what is, is the way that what is the precondition for avoiding manifest malcontent is given support, is reinforced and rewarded, supposedly. It would not work here to anything like the same extent because the preconditions for malcontent are not apparent, namely because of the Welfare State model to which we all adhere.
(C-III) I hadn’t thought of it like that. I suppose because I’ve had no reason to. I assumed they were a religious nation and without questioning why. You do realize that they would not agree, they would say that this worldly experience was secondary to the hereafter.
(C-I) Give me a break. They are not the only example in this, tarred with the same, similar and different brush, a fact which is obvious. The point is that there are poor, estranged and stagnant lives fed **** **** which they hold as certainty and which rides over the real issues which more often than not they don’t know exist. While observing it in operation it becomes apparent that it works, if you can bear the diatribe.
(C-III) Do you think the concept of insecurity would be argued via the same premise?
(C-I) That they are not insecure? Who cares? I don’t. What I object to is the bizarre falsity they argue as being fact and which serves to ride rough shod over very ******* obvious dispossession and proper virtue. It’s the most morally corrupt and hypocritical form of manipulation and we ought to know. But it does work.
Let’s move away from this topic, it’s irritating me.
(C-III) Quite. What do you think that response is indicative of? You give up because you don’t like it?
(C-I) Yeah. Yeah. I know, grace under fire – a rattle throwing failure. Are you ticking off a list?
(C-I) You know, somehow I don’t believe you.
(C-III) That’s acceptable. We’re all under scrutiny.
(C-I) OK. (laughter).
I want to continue with two topics and their relationship is what you might want to discuss. The first is what I’ve written about and which is ‘illegal armed group formations’ and the second; the perception by some that we have become a society feminized in character. The second is bound up with how certain people are arguing (accusing us) with regard to our dealing or lack thereof, of the characteriological difference brought by migrants who have been granted asylum, not just here but other EU countries too.
(C-III) The fact that firearms are completely illegal has implications for what constitutes an ‘armed group’. I think you are heading toward the motivation that prevails toward the acquisition of firearms. Not on our soil because as I said, illegality is the case and rightly so. What was the second question?
(C-I) That our dealing with migrants who are characteriologically different has brought accusations that we are a feminized society, that we don’t deal with the difference from a male perception to action.
(C-III) What exactly do you mean by characteriological difference?
(C-I) The status of the female for people migrating into our society can be or is qualitatively different, specifically that there are facets that women project that are forbidden to them, and with regard to malcontent, the adapting to our difference generally (not specifically any facet of our nature) presents awkward responses some of which can be disrespectful attitudinally, illegal and dangerous.
(C-III) I’m trying to tie them together as you asked. Are you saying that there is a proclivity toward arms as a means of protection? This has been the case in Germany, but it won’t ever be here. Or are you saying that because we do not tolerate firearms in any way, shape or form, the same ‘group formations’ arise, which elsewhere are likely to acquire firearms? This obviously fits the criteria for domestic terrorism.
How we deal with all issues, irrespective, reflects our collective nature. If this is feminine to those who come from societies that certainly are not, we have to manage assimilation in the proper way.
(C-I) I want to say that we have, in a great many respects, emerged as a feminine society, but what exactly is this suggesting? This is how it should be, in my opinion, which is hardly a surprise, I know. To me, the feminizing manifests in appeals to emotion, to the arts, to what could be viewed as weakness to the male presentation of power, domination and enforcement.
(C-III) As you’ve said before; aggression is a natural consequence of our evolved state, but it’s obviously more complex than a short statement suggests because for instance, aggressive people can display emotional traits. For example not being able to cope with the consequences of aggressive acts.
(C-I) That’s true. I think that we have emerged into a higher state, though the traits that deal effectively with aggression have come along too and can manifest as secondary because that’s how we are. Perhaps it is the case that we are in conflict with the pull backwards, to where aggression is the norm and encouraged as the most worthy trait collectively. If some see this as feminization, it’s not that at all.
(C-III) Do you think the argument that firearms create a mutually respectful society is utterly ridiculous?
(C-I) Of course, because that is a facet of a collective trait we do not value. We never have.
I’m thinking of how, at the cessation of WWII, the cinematographic techniques effectively pioneered by the Nazis was taken and utilized by the US, and how, some will argue the point, the product of that utilizing found it’s way here and has since. Within this is a propaganda element, as can be expected, but the main point being that there began a bombardment of something containing ingredients that found their way into what was very different. I suppose you could say that we became Americanized, how easily and to what extent you would need to consider. Without wishing to regard our ally in a derogatory manner.
(C-III) The way you delivered the last comment – along with the nonverbal, speaks multitudes, it’s a very effective method of saying what you think by taking the neutral stance. Do you want to say that we forced with what submerged a nature with very distinct characteristics – these characteristics (ours) could be viewed as having been much more feminine to very male dominated cultural norms.
(C-I) And what was in that cluster of cultural norms that we were subject? Hmm? What about the present time? Hmmm, again?
In some respects there is the male hero, the male trait supremo, et cetera. But my thought on that is more of a clash with what was and is equally as powerful. We have not lost our way. We are still feminine, if that’s the most accurate evaluation of our nature. And another point worth stating is that we are a ‘giving culture,’ characterized by the Welfare State, as opposed to one where the fittest survive, a kind of weak dichotomy but it illustrates my point. I think the emotionally supportive nature of our society is at odds with the ethos of the male calling the shots and men delivering, where fighting to get the top or even to survive is valued because that’s the way it is.
There are behaviors that are rightly against the law, such as promoting discord, for example; not regarding equal status on the basis of gender, orientation, race, class, belief, need, or any perceived difference. In the presence of the orchestrated and determined pull toward what contains intolerance to any of these, be this a shared male trait however manifest and to whatever extent, there will occur an equal and likely more powerful opposition. Even given the attempts, if that’s what they are or have been, coming from all forms of media, including the internet.
Conversations from Room 15
(C-I) Let’s just recap on what we’ve said by looking at ; ‘Cradling the desire to kill‘. – A very quick skip over the topic. If you would.
(C-III) But is this an old argument you are assuming?
(C-I) What difference is there between an argument that’s old and one that’s here in the moment? The rose has always suffered and now its sicker than ever, is the point. What I want to introduce are two issues. The first is that the instinct toward killing is innate and second, the fact and fact it is, that the instinct finds sanctuary in entertainment. When it is contained, – the laws in place being the container, the release is the watching of it second-hand and by doing this many actually join in. When I say ‘join in’ I mean the many different facets of emotion associated with the killing act are brought into play.
(C-III) If it’s human nature to engage in conflict because that’s the wider framework for the act of killing, what is there to be done?
(C-I) The inclination can be channeled into something else. You have to accept this premise first. Many don’t because it has become part of the very fabric of our collective. Just take a look around, don’t you see that the worst kind of violence is attired as entertainment – as comedy, even. Those who are the purveyors of the extreme become mentors too. They do, because their audience has been socialized into accepting these traits as being worth value. They are not. By the same token, it’s taboo to show a female nude.
(C-III) I’ll go with the latter. You can’t see a woman’s breasts, but cutting of someone’s head after it’s been set on fire is funny and fine for that reason.
(C-I) Things have moved on over the past decade in that access to immediate gratification in this respect is manifold greater than it was. You have to watch someone suffer slowly first, deliberately humiliated and savagely killed, usually gradually. You see the instinctual mechanisms at work in the creators and in the audience.
(C-III) Do you think it’s worse than the war films of the sixties and seventies?
(C-I) Of course it is, I just said so. It’s not only worse for the reasons I outlined but it’s available in multiple frameworks of presentation that are extremely realistic and the ‘slasher movie’ is not just a movie – it include its audience in the pain and indignity. And banal as it might appear, you can’t see the victim naked while victim of the torture, this is what the viewer is left to desire, to act it out in completeness in the world. As soon as there is a possibility to live it out, the vehicle provided by whomever, many are off like a shot and those who do not or can’t are left here to harbor malevolent inclinations.
C-III) Do you think it’s too late to shift the journey, now that the road has been built? Multiple roads?
(C-I) I’m talking about the worst offenders, the sick that peddle their pathology to whomever, as soon as the jihad waves it’s hand and book and offers fulfillment in this and in other respects, what do you expect to happen?
(C-III) It’s not just susceptibility, more that it’s a desire living within that becomes a rage?
(C-I) The word ‘rage’ is useful but not how you are using it. The rage is the hatred that comes with the invitation to jihad, they are bound together.
(C-III) The ones that feel their fulfillment lies in countries such as Syria and Iraq could, if society was different, have wanted for something else very different, constructive rather than destructive?
(C-I) Of course. They become switched on to atrocity very early on, they watch executions, examine the emotions they feel while in the process, dwell on them, seek out more – accept it as something valuable. It’s not valuable at all and we have to look very closely at our society when there are people going away from it to rape and murder women and their children. How many are there left here in their multitudes and feel left out? What when someone comes along and says in effect, “This is what you can do, this my brother and sister is the reason”, and they back up the reasoning until its detail saturates the mind.
(C-III) Do you think when bonding, I mean the ‘brotherhood situation’ is introduced, this acts as a reinforcement and a support?
(C-I) Of course it does. Of course there are those who use the ‘brotherhood’ as a tool of the indoctrination processes they employ. The fifth columnists and those who make no secret of their intentions.
(C-III) Do you think that the urge to commit atrocity rides through whatever else becomes the case? That it’s the desire to go and cut throats that is overwhelming?
(C-III) I’m just wondering what someone being overwhelmed actually is? The mental state denoted by the accusation; ‘overwhelmed’?
(C-I) That the urge becomes impossible to contain, that it seeps into all living moments, that it has to find consummation, if not the bearer will cease to exist. It is seen and felt in everything and in effect, is there in everything. Couple this with all that arrives and remains – in the form of diatribe, bonding and whatever else, the promise of another life lived in a ‘better reality’.
(C-III) If someone disagreed with what you are saying, what do you think would be the reason for their disagreeing?
(C-I) Those who have a vested interest in what they have created and continue to feed, I’m referring to the commercial machine. Some would say we were hypocritical, that soldiers kill people and all of that. My response to the latter would be if we were not capable of preventing, protecting and responding then we would with absolute certainty become enslaved, if we survived sufficiently long. That this (their) way has sanction, to rid of the pedantry to which I belong. Just bear in mind that this is not my opinion, it’s what we are being told in no uncertain terms. It sounds bizarre, but it’s quickly gaining ground not just geographically but ideologically, politically, psychologically, call it what you like. We are a part of a free collectivity of people but there are those who cannot accept the assertion which resides at the core of freedom, which is that this stake, this temporal and living sensual swell, infinitesimal in the midst of perpetuity is the responsibility of me, the owner, to cultivate and grow its meaning.
I think faiths and allegiances espoused by those who are masquerading as being somehow virtuous are delighted that what they are telling others can be made easily available so to be commandeered by what is the latent predisposition of human beings.
This is what Wyndham-Lewis said to me one day, when I asked him if he thought we might actually fail:
“I say that you can observe ‘immoral, unjust and infamous things’ and perceive them as human inclination, whereupon dangles appeal and which, is fraud. The latter if it is an attempt to hold counsel with the non-existent, I refer to the transcendent, because human thoughts and actions remain where they are. The ‘immoral, unjust and infamous’ transcends nothing because nothing is its home here and one incompatible with others myriad, wherein whose home is the ‘moral and the just’. One can ask whether the latter becomes less as the days pass because there appears an inevitability that their days will become likewise, stained.” from Stephen Wyndham-Lewis. London. September. 2014
These are my thoughts;
“An important condition for improving the effectiveness of countering the ideology of terrorism and extremism is to develop a comprehensive program that includes not only law enforcement, but also political, social, ideological, propaganda, information and other aspects, the adoption of measures to address the social conditions conducive to the spread of the ideology of violence in any of its forms, stable and conscious rejection of extremism and terrorism, as well as the involvement of the public to participate in countering terrorism.” (C-I) from way back when, London. January. 2015
(C-I) Very briefly and simply, because we cover this very extensively elsewhere :
A Path to Radicalization:
The emerging and extensive hatred and concomitant violence as necessary means to defend religion (though not confined to) is what we must focus upon.
A four-stage model:
The point of origin for individuals before they begin the radicalization process. It is their life situation before they were exposed to and adopted jihadi-Salafi ideology as their own ideology.
The phase where individuals, influenced by both internal and external factors, begin to explore Salafi Islam, gradually gravitate away from their old identity, and begin to associate themselves with like-minded individuals and adopt this ideology as their own.
The phase in which an individual progressively intensifies her/his beliefs, wholly adopts jihadi-Salafi ideology and concludes, without question, that the conditions and circumstances exist where action is required to support and further the cause.
While the initial self-identification process may be an individual act, association with like-minded people is an important factor as the process deepens.
The phase in which members of the cluster accept their individual duty to participate in terrorist activities and self-designate themselves as holy warriors or mujahedin.
Ultimately, the group will begin operational planning for the terrorist attack. These “acts in furtherance” will include planning, preparation and execution.
Today, terrorists groups such as the Islamic State and Al Qaeda consist of more than a mere handful of operatives directed by a leader. They comprise an ideology of violence which persuades ‘alienated’ Muslims that Islam is under attack and must be defended by any and all means.
As a result, a new generation of terrorists has been born – a simmering phenomenon. What has been hatched is a terrorist horde, doing their own thing, for one purpose, and it is obvious what this could become.
This,arguably and not confined to the vision of Abu Mas’ab al Suri, – the jihadists’ innovative trainer and ideologue who left behind a 1,605-page doctrine intended to guide terrorism’s future.
Al Suri’s “Call for Global Islamic Resistance” is a strategic document that details a “leaderless resistance” based not on an organization or even a network, but on a system. The system al Suri defined offers a vision of fifth-generation warfare ie. self-selected, unconnected and empowered cells and individuals with enormous destructive capacity.
The plan is to inspire ‘alienated’ Muslims to kill Europeans and Americans wherever and however they can – to unleash this terror horde.
Some doubted that al Qaeda could trigger a widespread violent uprising. The vast majority of Muslims DO reject violence. However, there have been the beginning signs of unrest. A Pew poll carried out in the US found that 7 percent believed suicide bombings to be sometimes justified in defense of Islam. This, in the U.S. where Muslim Americans are integrated into society, thus, these trends cannot be ignored. *There are more subsequent polls.
What is driving the disaffection is not only religion. What is driving radicalization in the Muslim world is an almost universal rejection of foreign policy, the support of Israel, support for authoritarian Arab regimes, and the wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and so on. Not exactly a revelation but the radicals have seized on this sentiment and have been recruiting alienated Muslims through the Internet.
Importantly, are we capable of providing a counter-narrative plausible to radicalizing Muslims? That’s just what we must do if we are to prevent the horde. What is urgently needed is a new narrative, a strategic communications strategy to drive a wedge between the violent extremists and the Muslims they seek to radicalize, and consequently, as we are witnessing, do radicalize.
We must reach out to mainstream Muslims with every element of national power; diplomatic, economic, educational, etc. Ideas will prevent radicalization, not military power. To defeat a global Islamist insurgency, we need nothing less than a global counter-insurgency.
If we do not define ourselves to the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, the radicals will continue to define us and successfully recruit their new horde. Muslims must have a major stake in defeating a global insurgency. They must understand the radicals to be the detestable criminals they really are, and that al Qaeda, the Islamic State and so on, are seeking to hijack their religion. The vision of a world governed by 7th-century puritanism would lead to economic depression, poverty and violent conflict that would plague Muslim families for decades, if not for centuries.
The Muslim community has a very proud history. The Muslim community has led major scientific and cultural achievements. If Muslims join the rest of the world in peacefully promoting the fruits of globalization, this will flourish to much greater heights.
We have a responsibility to engage the Muslim community in a dialogue, so to break down barriers and end the bitterness that often divides. To do that there has to be a political consensus domestically that currently and arguably eludes. If we fail, we risk relegating future generations to terrorism, fear and diminished civil liberties.
These observations are neither fear mongering nor profiling but an appraisal of trends we all wish would go away. They are not going away. So it is a call to all; we are running out of time to halt this terrorist train. The changing of minds of those not yet radical is the only answer to this great issue that threatens global stability.
The Islamic State seems to be moving toward a more asymmetrical confrontation – the use of state of the art propaganda videos, against its ‘ideological enemies’. * (ref; Counter-Terrorism Library).
It is estimated that at least 1,700 French citizens and 800 British have departed Europe to volunteer for the group. It is unclear how many of them are still alive.
But even without recruits hardened in the battlefields, Islamic State has been able to rely on seemingly maladjusted European and US residents (but by no means not confined within this description), so to carry out its jihad in a string of high-profile attacks.
France has been worst-affected with over 220 deaths since the beginning of last year, the latest coming a month ago, recall two men with knives executed two people, including an elderly Catholic priest in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, in Normandy.
An Algerian man armed with a machete also unsuccessfully attempted to attack two policewomen in Charleroi in Belgium on 06/09/2016, and was shot dead – as reported in the media.
One of the most disturbing trends is the rising use of children (‘Cubs of the Caliphate’) to carry out suicide missions, due to their suggestibility, and the lack of senior fighters. The recent bombing of a wedding in Gaziantep in Turkey, which resulted in over 50 deaths, was carried out by a child aged 14 years, or under.
The distinction of friend is very significant; the most significant of all
Presentation/edit by (C-V) Admin Liaison Officer
Secret Intelligence Service
ROOM No. 15
Secret Intelligence Service
Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum