Secret Intelligence Service
Copyright (c) 2016. All rights reserved
Who are are the most suspicious of all?
Who remain unconvinced, careful, cautious and guarded?
So, who is it that are lacking in worldly wisdom, and/or informed judgment?
Why are they?
What are the consequences for their naivete?
(C-I) (C-III) ed. (C-V)
Twenty-five minutes before the assassination of JFK, someone phoned the Cambridge Evening News in the UK warning of ‘big news’ and suggesting the paper called the US Embassy in London.
When this story emerged it was claimed the phone-call was anonymous.
However, later that day a CIA officer based in London sent a telegram to their office in Washington, claiming that ‘some similar phone-calls of strangely coincidental nature previous had been received in this country over past year, particularly in connection with the Dr. Ward case in the U.K. – the Profumo prostitution scandal.’
(C-I) I’ll begin by asking a question so to try and look at this from a different angle. What appears as being naive, be this a decision to engage in a course of action with all the requisite understanding implicit, can often not be indicative of naiveté on the part of those responsible, it is better that it be assumed to be. Of course, you would only know this to be the case if you were either responsible or closely linked in some way. This of course requires elucidation because what is this way, and why is it?
This is different than naiveté on the part of the instigator and known to be. Naiveté on the part of those whom something is directed toward covers a whole gamut of subject but to stay within the remit. What of naiveté with regard to the process of radicalisation? Firstly those who enter into the process and those who do not but live in an apoplectic / ineffectual state.
(C-III) You mean because time moves on and people gradually get used to/become familiar with what’s happening around them? Some might be annoyed, voice that reaction but it does nothing to stem the problem, ever increasing?
(C-V) I think people have a right to be naive, why should they be required to be party to what is not in their makeup?
(C-I) Because there is a price for naiveté – I’m not just talking about the real dangers of terrorism, the consequences of which don’t need to be spelled out. There is a world akin to a nest of vipers intending to pounce and take people for a ride. It’s obvious who these are. I’m more interested in courses of events which to the onlooker appear as naively engineered, foreign policy events by certain nations, but when you look at whom precisely is responsible it is kind of far-fetched to attach that label to them. This leads to the question what the outcomes which appear that way and resulted in chaos did actually achieve. I ask because most don’t know, they just see the mess.
(C-V) Perhaps chaos has a value most don’t perceive?
(C-III) That is a good point. Destabilization and which brings with it every conceivable abuse perpetrated by the worst of the worst can have a ‘value’ attributed. The ones attributing the value are few and this is alarming because it means anything at all can be made to happen in the guise of a mistake. But as you say, only those responsible will know it for what was intended. Most will see it as a course of events gone awry.
(C-I) True, but most won’t see how some kind of value can be attributed to chaos, they just and rightly, see the abuses which transpire.
(C-V) How would you quantify value in this respect?
(C-I) Good question.
Copyright (c) Courtesy of RIE & Robert Gaylon Ross, Snr
(C-III) Certain people are not naive, but the course of events they set in motion are uncontrollable – not able to envisage their full extent or even the shape of the outcome. Those affected, as onlookers/subsequent participants, might argue this as naivety from their standpoint, but the instigators are not naive people. Quantifying is in terms of the extent to which the outcome or outcomes deviate from the original plan.
I think and having read through the first article that the main issue is tied to the implications of naivete when people mis-predict their future behavior. People are more apt to own naive beliefs about their own future and present-bias. A more basic and satisfying criterion for risk aversion is a person’s preference for receiving the expected value of something rather than exposing oneself to its uncertainty. The optimal timing of when to become committed depends on whether the person is sophisticated or naive regarding the degree of their present bias.
A more naive person is typically more optimistic about their future behavior ex ante (that is, less temptation averse) yet less disciplined in actual behavior ex post (that is, is less virtuous).
What you referred to as ‘a right to be naive’ is too simplistic.
(C-V) OK. When knowledge is owned by few individuals because of its nature/ level of complexity, extent, application and / or it’s secret, I would say that there is an argument for justifiable naivete on the part of the excluded majority. Regarding the latter, the commitment here could be to courses of events set in motion which you could refer to as becoming ‘ensconsed’ or non-mindfully carried along. This is what we said earlier on. It’s a kind of unawareness where there is no critical stance from the outside.
(C-I) There can’t be a critical stance, even given the compulsion, one resides in blissful ignorance. Perhaps without the bliss. This can be changed via careful manipulation, of course. Actually in order to discover one’s opposite force or degrees thereof – is to offer out snippets of information. You see this a lot on social media, especially with regard to attacks, and with the responses comes a avalanche of useful information. This requires more elucidation.
(C-III) Working with misinformation. Do let me read:
In humans, there are several limitations in the processing of information that can be included in plans for a disinformation operation – among them the law of small numbers and addictive with a gradual impact.
The name “law of small numbers” was coined Tver and Kanmanom (A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “The Belief in the Law of Small Numbers, 1971) – to describe a pathology in intuitive reasoning. Originally, the name was given to the analysis of the shortcomings in psychology experiments which purport to show that these scientists were seriously distorted understanding of the magnitude of the error and inaccuracy inherent in a small set of data. This cognitive distortion of consciousness seems to be quite common.
It is not difficult to find examples of this phenomenon at the political and military decision-making: the loss of vigilance before the invasion by German troops in Normandy (in the German headquarters of the faith based on the previous landing of the Allies that the weather is an important factor as to the Allies were not trying to land in bad weather conditions), Stalin’s belief that Germany issued an ultimatum before the attack (until 1941 Germany practiced ultimatums to other countries before the attack), the conclusions of some US analysts that Khrushchev did not place missiles in Cuba (placement of medium and long-range missiles range in the satellite countries, according to analysts at odds with the policy of the USSR).
In each case critical conclusions were based on a very small set of data on the previous operations of the enemy. An interesting statement.
Another limitation in humans when processing information is the frequent absence of the ability to detect small changes in the object of observation even if the aggregate, over time, – these changes are large. Habituation or gradual adaptability of human consciousness plays a big role in the planning of a disinformation operation.
One classic example is the breakthrough of three German ships from the port of Brest in France and wiring them through the Channel [Operation “Cerberus”]. “It was carried out reconnaissance carriers coastal radars and their approximate geographic location, developed transmitters interference (for blinding indicators enemy radar), the points where they are based and verified timetable for their inclusion (the opponent does not have to guess about the operation). Since January, transmitters It included a short time, and the British gave the impression of unexplained phenomena in the atmosphere. ” Every day while the transmitter interference slightly lengthened. By February, the British radar operators already familiar bored during these disturbances and reported on them as atmospheric.
Another weakness of the human mind in the processing of information is that people tend to consider low probability events as impossible. This concept covers the bold and creative strategies, such as Hannibal crossing the Alps or the Incheon landing operation and leads to the following paradox: “The higher the risk, the less it seems to be and the less risky it becomes in fact.”
Surprise can be achieved by different components. The clashes, these components include terrain potential, intention, style and timing. If the circumstances do not favor or prevent the use of all forms at once, it may be at least possible to use at least one form to achieve surprise. For example, if the goal can not be hidden, it may be still possible to hide the terms, the place of attack, force involved or the type of surgery.
Assumption for the most part is self-explanatory. An interesting aspect of the debilitating effects of false alarms is clearly seen in operations such as the attack on Pearl Harbour, Darwin, in Korea operations, Vietnam and Israel in 1973. No doubt the effect of a false alarm is an essential element of the set warning indicators. At the same time, clearly of particular interest to this effect is substantiated by historical data.
Statistical analysis of historical events, including the communication of misinformation, false alarms and as a result achieved surprise shows that surprise was achieved in 92% of cases. In cases of misinformation without the effect of false alarms surprise was achieved in 67% of the transactions. A significant difference in the practical and statistical sense. Empirical findings (although not confirmed by statistics) are also consistent with the hypothesis that the overall effect of false alarms used in conjunction with other factors, will be much, than if it was used in isolation.
Often, the effect of a false alarm is not part of the plan of operation, and is shown as a side effect. A good example is the habit of German scientists and engineers at the site in Peenemunde to the Allied raids on other nearby targets. Here is what Professor Werner von Braun in his diary: “After the sirens warning. I first went to my room, you could not be in a hurry, this time was not the first and all previous appeared just a false alarm .. . a group of people were standing looking at the sky and grass jokes. ” This attack occurred August 17, 1943 when 8 out of 597 British bombers aimed at Peenemunde lured 203 German fighters in the sky over Berlin, while others bombed by German rocket range (40 lost, 32 damaged). All but 26 bombers dropped bombs on the landfill.
Indeed, rather than expend direct or consequential effort to achieve the effect of a false alarm, addictive enemy may arise as a result of the pattern of other operations which may be modified or extended without any noticeable change. In this case, the effect of self-deception can occur in conducting operations as a result of an erroneous interpretation of their actions.
Misleading becomes more difficult with the increase in the number of information channels of the object exposure. However, within reasonable limits, the greater the number of channels controlled by incoming information, the greater the likelihood that misinformation is believed
This principle was called “Jones lemma” most clearly articulated by Professor Jones (R. V. Jones, British scientific intelligence), who was a key figure in British intelligence in the field of science during the Second World War. The following comment by Jones further explains this idea:
“The task of the falsification detection is greatly facilitated when different test channels are used at the same time is why cheating on the phone so easy to pass -. No accompanying visual attributes needed to verify chaff were successfully used against radars operating on the same frequency on the other hand, the best results achieved – sea mines detonating of different types of signals – electromagnetic, hydrodynamic and acoustic received simultaneously from these considerations, in this case, we can draw an important conclusion on the detection of targets in the defense and attack:. the maximum amount of the available funds should be involved at the same time is possible. for this reason, in certain circumstances, it is better to create two or three independent channels of detection and verification of information than to throw all their forces to develop one. “
Wherever possible, the aim of the operation of disinformation to be an understatement of uncertainty in the mind of the person exposed to force him to cling to unrealistic understanding of the events surrounding both the right thing and not to reduce his confidence in the true state of affairs, but to develop his confidence in a particular lie. However, increasing the number of alternatives and / or supporting any data stream of the many alternatives to false (so-called noise) and may have been applied in cases where the exposure object already has more elements of reliable data.
According to the classification of Donald Daniel (Donald Daniel, Naval Postgraduate School) misinformation is divided into two types: N-disinformation (H – uncertainty [in English A – ambiguity, A-deception.]) And D-disinformation (D – random orientation [in English. M-misdirection, M-deception]). H disinformation designed to develop the uncertainty in the mind of the person exposed and reduce the possibility of a correct perception of the event by the “dilution” or increase the alternatives. D-disinformation designed to reduce uncertainty in the mind of the person exposed by his beliefs in a particular lie. “Any type of misinformation can be applied using only truthful information.” Ronald Levin, an expert in the field of E-deception. (Ronald Lewin, Ultra Goes to War 1978).
H-Misinformation can be done by changing the probabilities of different outcomes related to developments in the minds of the enemy, diluting or hiding useful information in the noise and / or by changing the number of options available in the object impacts and their consequences. The operating principle of the H misinformation elegantly and simply outlined in a book by Eric Ambler (Eric Ambler “Send No More Roses”) brooding protagonist phrase: ” – we gave him a kaleidoscope for the games, and he used it as a telescope.”
In the simple example of attack and defense can be traced to the principle of H-disinformation in action. Suppose the attacker has a choice between two objects. Similarly, the defender may choose the defense of either of the two objects (for this example we do not include the separation of forces for the protection of objects). The success of the operation is defined as an attack unprotected position. The chances of the attacker’s 50 to 50 in order to select an unprotected object. But what if an attacker can convince the defender that there are three possible targets for attack? Consequently its chances of success are increased to 66% and 34%, respectively, and so on. Of course, it is important that all the options together and separately credible the object of exposure. From a practical point of view, the number of threats should not grow arbitrarily.
In contrast, H-misinformation, disinformation-D (D – random orientation) reduces the uncertainty of the impact of the object, the ultimate goal of this stratagem is the implementation of the opponent in a pretty confident, determined and very misleading. In the above game attack / defense is meant to convince the enemy to defend one object, and attack the other.
Usually in practice, both types are used together misinformation, but is dominated by one type or another.
(C-I) When talking about ‘values’ attached to chaos, going back to this point, what about practically a whole society whose characteristic is naiveté , yet naiveté is given sanctuary in the embrace of other symptoms of ************* ?
(C-V) What do you mean?
(C-III) Keeping the majority of people in a state of ignorance is what she’s referring to. But before she elucidates, remember not all societies are the same in this. There is a massive difference between the United Kingdom and the USA.
(C-V) What never had is never missed?
(C-III) Something on those lines.
(C-I) It’s true, if they’ve never experienced life to the full how are they going to know what’s being denied? Notice I’m referring to our supposed parallel, har har. Anyway, just let me say that ‘value’ is tagged to whoever is attributing the value to the process and outcome (their perception/s), where they are and when. Secondly, and to answer your question with a question; you need to ask, to what extent is a population ignorant and what are the means employed to keep them that way? The same group who create chaos are the controllers of ignorance. More chaos, the greater the ignorance.
Listen, there was a questionnaire administered to random Americans in ten different cities. Random, – different age/socio-economic groups, sex, and you have to examine the methodology employed, the differences between location, how the north does on certain questions compared to the west, vice-versa, et cetera. Not so fascinating, but the gist of it is that a good amount, I’m not going to say the exact percentage and break that down, say where they were located, but that ‘good amount’ I mentioned could not point on a map and say where Syria was, nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq, China either. A few didn’t know where the USA was. Some thought that Europe was a country ‘somewhere’, that Bashar al-Assad was a wrestler, and WWII a film.
(C-III) Do you think by ‘ignorance’, you incorporate the process of engaging in fantasy? To be specific, the tendency to deny reality because it contains psychotic violence as the norm? Neither does it contains what can be had?
(C-I) Yes, I’d say the ‘fullness of reality’, but there is a commercial underpinning for much that is fantasy – I’m thinking more of what romanticizes reality. You can’t present a case for a utopian situation no matter where nor when, because of all of the events that the situation exists within. If someone thinks/accepts that a situation is otherwise or was otherwise, or will be otherwise, is a fool. Remember human nature fills the world of experience and seeks to do whatever it will for whatever gain is the preferred. A TV series that engages idealized situations and characters, makes a case for the creator’s world view is out of touch, but not with the commercial reason for it.
(C-III) Do you think the dichotomy that separates the liberal arts from the scientific/techno paradigm has reason other than they being just different disciplines?
(C-I) Of course, you know the answer. The value placed upon scientific and/or technological knowledge and its application consists of threat/counter-treat scenarios, and these have to be supported by this knowledge type and its application. There is the obvious politico-economic involved. The liberal arts have less status to non only because of the nature of societies in their multifaceted rampage over time. How many residences in the USA have books as opposed to gun collections? You can include the access to a knowledge base as opposed to access to what is bound up with gun ownership. Actually apart from our point of view and UK law – sense, you have to ask what we would view each gun fetishist f**** nut collector household as being, because any such case here would be an illegal armed group and absolutely rightly so. I only mention the latter because it suggests facets of a particular collective psyche.
(C-III) I don’t think the division that exists across the pond is as general as you suggest, it will shift from group to group – those who, probably not so high in number, huddle together and define the character that prevails, somewhat. It’s not a division in the UK. We have a rich history in the liberal arts which won’t allow itself to be ignored. Regarding what you are saying, an argument you could apply is that the reason people own certain world views, engage in courses of action based upon these, is because they are calculatingly fed, those who are responsible for the feeding are active in creating the very social climates which supports their arguments, their products and ultimately, their profit. You can see the power in operation.
(C-I) Sad ******. I say ‘swooned over’ rather than ‘calculatingly fed’. Only because swooning has certain loving connotations – breast feeding, essential nutrition, but with weapons rather than milk, though the effect is similar, if not the same. Pathetic.
(C-III) There is a biological need for nutrition, there is, if you appeal to Freud’s views on instinct, which I know you do, a biological need for instruments of death.
(C-I) So, when someone goes on a shooting rampage, given the availability of weapons and ammunition in the US, it should not be a surprise, because it’s a manifestation of a particular society’s evolution. The supposed right to bear arms dumps heartache of epic proportion in the laps of those who suffer as a consequence. You’d have to be a psycho-loony to argue that gun ownership brings mutual respect. Nuts.
(C-I) Sure. Zero toleration is the only way to deal with that, which is what we have in place.
(C-III) What about the example where a population doesn’t want or like something, so they aren’t told everything about it. Voters care about nationality, food products, working hours, safety, etc. – while ‘trade deals’ which affect them immensely are judged as beyond the voter, the ordinary person. Top down, it belongs in the domain of oligarchy, – can’t trust the voter to support what affects them.
(C-I) I think we touched on this when we discussed socialism and capitalism with regard to defense. But I think when trade deals have the effect of biting the population in the ass, the effect is a demanding for change. In a socialist system the population are, or should be, included in what affects them, not the super rich who in the cause of free enterprise control everything come what may and ‘there’s the *******g door if you don’t like it’. The population pay the taxes and support those who represent them, but if the latter screw the population by doing what you say, keeping what directly affects the population’s safety and well-being secret from them and benefiting from adversely affecting it to a huge extent. Are we moving off course?
(C-III) It’s good to hear your views. What about this example, and yes, we are moving off course. It’s regarding the 28 redacted pages of the US Congressional Report on 9/11. These pages do directly and profoundly affect the whole population of the US and of course the wider global community too, especially the families of 9/11 victims in the US and here, everywhere, – they want the pages de-classified, as you know. The interesting aspect is that one particular Saudi member of the royal family is worth more than the combined wealth, including negative equity, of all US citizens, yes all added together. If you consider what this means with regard to control of power and this, the extent of power’s key driving force, that the population the victims own none then the consequence is that their desires go unheeded.
(C-I) Suspended ignorance – caused while at the same time this state could be put right, but isn’t, is not good for the collective psyche. There is no mechanism at hand to examine and debate, when the substance so to do is absent.
Another example; these who write books on something entirely made up, and because of its cleverly presented seductive messages, jumps from obvious fantasy (stupid muck) into the realms of the every day world. The weird thing is for what I’m talking about, the accusation gets leveled at the rational who disregard, that they are the naive ones for actually disbelieving /disregarding it.
(C-III) Is it your view that holding certainty – whatever that certainty is claimed to consist of, is naivete at its best? There are degrees of difference between articulators and between respondents to note, but the general point is that being convinced is the issue.
(C-I) Totally convinced, totally naive. ‘Articulators’, as you say, may themselves have been convinced and use that as substantiation for whatever they state as being fact. We’ve talked about this earlier. But I assume you’re saying its not a case of deliberate misinformation.
Another example of made suspended ignorance is the health service argument, here it’s all free but if there were secret machinations in place to sell it off so to become an American concept – it would take epic work to create a population who agreed doing that would be a good idea. Naivete can be leveled against the progenitors if they actually believe it to be a workable course to pursue and anyone who for some bizarre reasoning agrees. The pursuing of a certain completely disastrous course and painting it with roses so that the susceptible swallow it is not a new strategy. The extent of the information made available in this, is minuscule.
Also, in a system that demands your money and your labor and tells you it’s all otherwise, har, har, where there is no maternity leave like there is here in the UK, and you end up giving birth in the office elevator while the janitor and whoever is there delivers it – because you have to work to almost the last day and you can’t afford the 7000 bucks hospital fee anyway – give me a break.
(C-I) Just to shift emphasis a little and before we move on, I received a note from a colleague following my request that he consider naivete, this is what he said;
“Naive in relation to what, or who? It is better that individuals remain in oblivion because there is nothing to warrant the desire for emancipation. That precious state which holds what matters most of all in life, one lost, can never be had again.”
(C-I) You know the statement flickers in my mind from one polarity to another, I agree and the reasons why are these . . . and; I do not agree and the reasons why are these . . .
First; The notion of never emancipating from unawareness should not imply that what exists ‘out there’ does not exist. Though there is a question; if it’s not known about then what exactly is the status of unawareness – its makeup? Is it a blank (complete or partial) or a conscious decision made to ignore?
Second; If a person/collective is wholly unaware of what, who and where is the case ‘out there’, can it be a realistic assessment? Because to be unaware suggests an abnormal psychological state not shared by the majority. A child-like (innocent) state perhaps, or that indicative of a psychosis?
Third; what, who and where is the case ‘out there’ impinges, this is because of the intentions that send it.
Fourth; There are very obvious experiential cues which the person/collective are subject, the multiplicity and multifaceted nature of which cannot realistically be ignored.
Six; To manipulate the information via whatever means there are can only ever be partially successful. However, if it can be shown that information is ‘censored’ then what means of censorship would prove to be most successful?
Seven; Who is the censor and for what overriding reason?
Eight; Blissful ignorance is a romantic notion and it does have a precious element/s at its core. When you look at what is ‘out there’ is it any wonder that such a romantic notion would attract, however unrealistic it is to attain? The world is a beautiful place, I do think, but the people in it invariably are far from beautiful and some/many are the worst scum conceivable. Being in a state of blissful ignorance should not imply the dangers have gone away. There are those who take advantage at every opportunity they are given, who would, if allowed, torture and blow us to smithereens. They are not allowed which is why we cannot typify William Wordsworth. It is unfortunate, but it is undeniable reality.
Nine; I often think that in certain ways ignoring is not actually ignoring per se, but a blending with already held experiences. Arguably we live in an age that does not differentiate between atrocity as entertainment and atrocity that is real and presented via the same vehicle; films, internet, et cetera.. More specifically, there is little ‘out there’ that is not already here and already felt. People are primed to an extent, to be unresponsive. Many would disagree. To put it bluntly, my view is that you see and respond to the thoughts and behaviors of complete scum (however they are attired) and it is arguable that you can push these out.
(C-I) In addition, here is something else to comment on :
Norms of being human –over the past three decades these have changed very quickly by virtue of the technological leash upon societies – our society. There are a plethora of not just novel forms of information carrier and that delivered, but the assimilation of the content of this information – ie, the capacity to deal with it is an interesting issue. The point is that change demands more than mere attention; there is the emotional connection and requisite deliberating over it which various very obviously between and within groups, but what presents as threat (because this is how it appears and subsequently felt to be) beckons an appeal to what are referred to as ‘core values’. What presents shakes people and what could as a consequence have been a progression toward meaningful and useful social states, because of the sabotage – the manipulation, these states are more toward a refusal to compromise. Simply put, if there is a holding on to existing experience fashioned this way via powers who control what people and collectives of people experience, the nature and extent of this experience, then the controlling powers hold destiny and faith of the followers in that destiny – the latter who in varying degrees if not wholly think and act accordingly. For example the future might well bring an understanding and commitment to the danger looming with regard to climate change, but only so if those who own power **** (see footnote) are not thwarted, if they are thwarted –‘ interests’ are compromised, the collective awareness will be fashioned toward not caring less, or caring what they are fashioned to care about, and in whatever way. There are multiple methods of achieving the latter – maintaining states of insecurity, of poverty, of low to no education at all, and as I’ve said already; what the masses are told and importantly how they are told. In other words, in a free market economy, for example, the onset of electric vehicles currently being manufactured in China and which constitute a handshake with common sense because they typify all the criteria thereof. However, collective attitudes (these spread across continents) are not typically formed via common sense attributes especially when economics and geopolitics, ie, ‘interests’ are deemed to be at stake. If the Chinese are viewed as being a threat, or indeed, is anyone else, in whatever capacity, it wouldn’t matter what they invented or its application because it would not appeal to those who are made to perceive them this way, rather, emotional threat brings appeal to ‘core values’ of nationalism, of viewing ‘strong’ leaders as icons and their traits internalized, et cetera. Rampage over the world’s natural resources come what may is instinctively adhered with glue into the psyche of the collective when the relationship with so doing is bound with perceived threat, which requires commitment to action, which requires certain courses of action, which require resources, and so on.
*** The owning of power is obviously not only attributable to economic and political criteria, but also to those whose charisma and ministerial/evangelical/gross maniacal psychopathology, not necessarily in that order, fashion others with the same delusional status. Hate group leaders (there are over 600 across the USA, all of which would be deemed illegal terrorist groups in the UK), terror cell leaders, significant others (parents) with obsessive disorders (violent, war, gun fetishists), conspiratorially convinced film directors, media controllers with distorted/psychopathic associations, significant others (teachers) with world views who single out certain others for praise and others for persecution, liars, and so on.
***In process page
Control Room. Cuban Missile Crisis 1962
Secret Intelligence Service
Copyright (c) 2016. All rights reserved
Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum