.

.

Secret Intelligence Service

.

The New Mind War

___________________________________________________________________________________

.

Criticism

Regarding this particular Section of our remit (The New Mind War), firstly, it is fundamental that we address criticism, that in so doing is required a statement encompassing of our place within our own society.

We say this because if one scoops an overview from what is construed as ‘propaganda’, generally speaking, irrespective of location – at home or in fact abroad (information, one might propose), there are emergent properties which define its effect in totality.

These ‘fundamental properties’ are an amalgam of strands which the audience feel and subsequently through time, are changed by in certain ways. Changed psychologically and physically.

Unless the audience (can be one person, or many) is changed, the effort falls by the wayside. The audience, any audience, do take in qualities of the source, be this source a person/s, or in our case, not confined to merely us, but a whole nation’s ethos.

.

The audience must be inspired to stop, consider and immerse in altogether novel feelings which intertwine around their moments and so, in ways which never become ordinary, never cease.

.

Much that is said is attired in the content of the era in which we have emerged, and with regard to the originator/s and the audience, what is expected to be the case and what is very often a felt distance (exclusion from) is defined at the outset.

It has to be said that this position of the audience, the distance perceived, has to be transcended by the audience. In other words, in a perfect state of affairs there should be no perceived distance from the source  at all.

It is the case that how one appears is often the only force, liked or otherwise, the message being of secondary importance, if even that.

Distance can be subtly felt by members of the audience, as in suspicion, doubt, exclusion, or obviously felt by virtue of uniform, rank, building, indeed any and all perceived social disparities (education and reputation).

If this distance is felt by virtue of who and what the originator (the source, ie, this Unit) is saying we actually are, if it prompts anything other than a deep desire to become ensconced by us, to be influenced by us, only failure will ensue.

Just to reiterate the latter point; attire of the most obvious that one might be used to (of demonstrable status, power, position, association), irrespective of what one wants to achieve, can if not attended to properly pre-define the audience reaction. This is not necessarily a negative issue, because it depends on factors which we are able to quite easily meld with the audience, via our sensitivity, our ability to empathize.

With regard to certain other nations, not all, one can justifiably ponder on the extent to which this is intended or otherwise, and consequentially to the very poorly constructed relationships at play and their negative societal consequence. Much is deemed as threat (as control) from the very start and thus, any relationship has to bear this condition. In our opinion, this is an appalling state of affairs and places the audience in the ‘irrelevant’ camp. This condition is not the case here in the U.K. nor should it be in any people-centered society. Of course, there is the issue of non-truth telling, that the audience has to evaluate the truth polarity of the information they are given. Most are ill-quipped so to do, due to the constant status of manipulated information regarding their relationship with each other and to other societies. They believe what they are told, even when untrue.

The latter is rather important because it involves our home audience, where and who we are coming from.

Our ability to understand has to be natural, as is the ability to empathize, and this from long experience of different gender, political, socioeconomic (class), cultural and ethnic groups. These groups constitute a homogeneous whole and the differences within and between are indeed, stark, as they are expected to be. Not only so, but historically have undergone very particular changes to which we are aware.

We refer, for example, and necessarily too briefly, to the people who reside on the council estates, all that they admire and aspire to, the differences between these aspirations, the expectations, constraints and opportunities they perceive. From there, all the way to the highest, the most educated and the most privileged and consequentially powerful people in the country.

Again and with regard to our remit the New Mind War, this is genuine tendency and we do feel at home anywhere, irrespective. What we say is the case because we know it is. We are not onlookers from somewhere else. We own no preconceptions by which to add to already made judgements of who we find ourselves among, of our differences regarding who we represent. Needless to say there are those (call them opportunists, if one likes), who merely seize upon an idea and exploit it only because the idea fits a political and/or commercial paradigm in vogue, who see fit to run full tilt in this respect. We have a much wider and infinitely deeper understanding and not to forget, a reason for doing what we do.

Suffice it to say, we want to gather what is the most meaningful of all regarding ourselves as a collective, a nation, and which subsumes the ordinary in ways which intoxicate both ourselves, our home audience, and of course whomever is deemed our target.

That our home audience can not feel alienated from what is complex and deep, from what is beautiful and enduring. This acceptance is important, that we achieve it, paramount.

One might point to the manipulative trends which are seized upon via information (mass communication), their reason, be this reason whatever, but we began with a very particular realization; that what accompanies everything that we, as British subjects are, in the present era, has its basis in a history every single one of us does carry, acknowledged or otherwise. Therefore, it was by virtue of this overwhelmingly significant and accordingly, deeply seductive force, that we found we literally were carried along. Thus, we have to say, it is easy for us, a work of joy.

Our ethos carries a message, our message is infinitely more than the technological means we commandeer so to do.

.

Further, and that as British citizens, we are never a society caused to fear the power of the arts, nor culture, nor education.

No one here is entranced and corrupted by only fantasy and illusion, thus made illiterate by design.

Consequently, we are greatly encouraged in the utilizing of this medium so to provoke understanding of the nature and complexity of our reality, likewise of our place within this reality and importantly, understand ourselves.

.

This is intended to clarify the first criticism; that we might requisition only militarism and elitism, so to make and drive the point we desire.

.

Secondly, and to continue the statement hitherto; that we are now emerged as an information technology era and accordingly, the reality of life worlds are essentially constructed from what this particular stage facilitates.

Nothing that is a support, as all which is the constituent of information technology is a support, the means for information dissemination and retrieval in particular – nothing of this is anything other than a structure. Whatever meaning is contained in life by virtue of this structure is only the case when it is used to create meaning, as opposed to being mere process and nothing more, otherwise all is synthetic and devoid of meaningful content.

Thus, in this part of our fabulous remit, the New Mind War, we use technology simply as a vehicle, because neither we nor what we intend and tell can ever be merely the vehicle.

To make appeal to information technology and equally, in what is attempt at current trend, to use the process, the vehicle which it is, to convey power over others, be this power military and / or economic power, can in the audience mind, only be a mere product of the moment. The situations in flux which are deemed a requirement so to do only apply to the day they are created, then they become ordinary, if not obsolete. To proceed in this manner alone, that is, by exaggerated appeal to power plays consisting of technological processes, is therefore insufficient, and bears accusations which do the very opposite of what we are trying here, to achieve.

This is a Mind War, and which bears what is the most significant and enduring, and what is not the obvious bearer of force.

We are a nation who patronize artists and thinkers, irrespective of how others choose and accordingly, shape their time.

.

“We are portrayers of a most magnificent art and in all its multifaceted array, as it manifests in glory, and will do so, throughout eternity – that what is meaningful remains, what is not fades from existence altogether. “

(C-I)

.

Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their own conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge, go round and round, staggering to and fro, like blind men led by the blind.”  The Upanishads. वेदांत. ‘Dialogue with Death’.

.

Note :

To be a credible PSYOP challenge it is imperative that we evaluate rationally and then propose a rational alternative which is conceptually and demonstrably superior. To respond only with an indignant denunciation of something else is merely to indulge ourselves in the equivalent of emotional name-calling, which may be satisfying and reassuring too, but does not necessarily adjust matters towards the solution of an international/intercultural problem.

‘Psychological Operations’ (PSYOP) includes psychological warfare and, in addition, encompasses those political, military, economic, and ideological actions planned and conducted to create in neutral or friendly foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or behaviour to support the achievement of national objectives.

‘Psychological Warfare’ is the planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behaviour of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives.

.

15 03 2017

(C-III)

What we (the Unit) must bear in mind is the sheer complexity and depth upon which we compose and perform the New Mind War. This is the reason why many of the interrelationships that exist are examined and may appear as peripheral interests, but which are not. This, with the fact of a world constituting enormous threat, which in itself is multi-factorial, the whole becomes compounded. Nevertheless, and returning to where we are at home, it is prudent to say; the process of examination and debate brings specific actors, specific interests to the fore, for example; some argue that specific interests and concomitant actions orchestrated across the world do ignore the concerns of the working collective, the poor, the non-integrated, and so on, then one must be specific and ask; what do the ‘specific interests’ represent and to what effect are these played out, and why? Does the reason why carry any weight across the collective, their good feeling, their dignity? In other words, is a better society being created, or otherwise? Where are we moving towards, from what, to what?

Are we merely thinking about problems or solving them? Are we just ideas with nothing behind them? Really, this underlies the assertion that no worthwhile conclusions can ever be arrived at simply, their presentation likewise, simple, the intended consequences foreseen in the entirety of their nature and complexity.

Looking at our own culture and in general terms, we can ask; how has education changed? We would argue it has changed and do say why and also how, and emphasize that here, education has not declined as is the case elsewhere, likewise nor have jobs, or full spectrum healthcare provision.

What external cultural references does our collective generally have, and what are they? We would argue that British culture is rich and displays the past and present example so to illustrate the point. If one retorts with the argument that the past in its difference, its content, its ideologue is irrelevant, then one must examine the question; what exactly does the present cultural characteristic comprise of, and what impact does it bear upon the collective mind set? Further, in examining the very fabric of our society we must stop and ask how we are different than others, different in extremity than some, and in so doing posit the question; does the collective own the moral and intellectual capacity to be anything other than an alienated and powerless set, that dictated in top down fashion by the political caste in operation (including they by others elsewhere), essentially becoming a very narrow concentration of however one wishes to describe the current trend? We would say no, generally speaking, and weave the reason why into the fabric of the New Mind War. Obviously not all agree with what we say, nor with how we demonstrate our argument. One retort we liked which **** provided was; we have both everything to lose and everything to gain, and therefore it is our duty to tip the pendulum toward the latter.

.

19 03 2017

(C-I)

I agree, and my question is :

Is Europe, specifically the United Kingdom, likely to be the new global sanctuary?

There is much to consider and the following are suggestions for our debate, as they do form the essence of the New Mind War.

FIRSTLY, in the absence of adequate education, a collective awareness of the external world becomes stunted, controlled, via a pervasive ignorance, a perpetual immaturity, intentionally engineered and reinforced directly and indirectly by the ones who control and who squander resources for their own geopolitical gain. It is not difficult to see where and for who in the present time, this is the worsening scenario, via the attempt to project coercive and military power across the world.

The New Mind War holds central as demonstrable fact; the upholding of collective human dignity, as is the case in the United Kingdom, which is where we are.

When I say. “It is not difficult to see where and for who this is the worsening scenario,” I refer to those compelled to live in a state of stupor, unable to learn from and empathize with the greater world, its variety, its richness, its complexity and in many cases, its dire plight – regarding the latter in particular, this inability is a consequence of; an individual’s own personal economic deprivation, poor and non-existent education as I said, because education is incalculably too expensive, the recourse to irrational beliefs for comfort – much of which sustain the stupor.

Education must be affordable, not a privilege and equally, health care, in its entirety should be free, as it is free in the U.K.

When health care costs to the population are set to soar, the resultant state of affairs for those involved (not here) is illustrative of an enormous collective burden, constituting enormous insecurity and of a life-world the content of which no one should be dealt.

SECONDLY, it is apparent that more and more people in the world are coming to grief than ever has been the case hitherto, besides starvation, the weapons being used against them many times more effective at maiming, killing and destroying their civilization.

Words are easy to give, but the cards many yonder are being dealt via successive leaders are the reason their population, generally speaking, is becoming unable to empathize with the nature and content of reality. Atrocity has almost become ordinary news event, side by side with the manipulative ploys, the cajoling had in a commercial, debt-enslaving mayhem.

Starvation and disease are horrendously bad consequences of an uncaring world, but still, the syndrome of advanced arms – the idea of enemies based on disagreements only few can deal with, let alone really understand and/or question. Most are just not programmed to understand, to empathize, to question – the notion of enemies (and enemies who are real) and neither with those who, ignored, starve and die, nor the reasons why.

At the cessation of WWI, Lloyd George – during a steamship voyage said: “Maybe we could have done it differently?” This obviously was not what those close wanted to hear. It is the case that there will not be the retrospective opportunity as per a future war, but future wars are planned, the likelihood anyone’s guess, the one sole outcome absolutely certain.

Nothing does right itself – The state of the U.S. health care system for example, in comparison to the U.K. National Health Service, is illustrative of an insurmountable burden upon the collective, again coupled with education and requisite enlightenment which few can afford. It is worth reiterating.

These two factors, ignoring of others that we discuss throughout, are essential for the sustaining of human dignity – and importantly, are essential for cultivating proper regard toward those distant (men, women and children alike), in their millions, who with outstretched hands die of malnutrition and of disease due to our incapacity.

As stated, this is bound in the tenets of the New Mind War.

.

To be continued – in edit

.

Criticism : The New Mind War

Unit

MMXIX

.

Secret Intelligence Service

Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum

___________________________________________________________________________________