Islamic State Child Soldiers
An Extract from a Discussion on the Subject of Cradling the Desire to Kill.
(C-I) (C-III) (C-V)
Location : Harrogate. North Yorkshire
(C-III) Isn’t this a somewhat old argument?
(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 it’s 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, and fact it is so, 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 so doing, 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 the collective. Just take a look around, don’t you see that the worst kind of violence is attired as entertainment, as melodrama – as comedy, even. Those who are the purveyors of the extreme become mentors after the fact. 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. The latter makes money via the wide audience appeal.
(C-I) Things have moved on over the past decade in that access to immediate gratification in this particularly sick respect is manifoldly greater than ever. You have to watch someone suffer slowly, being deliberately humiliated and savagely killed, usually gradually. You do see the instinctual mechanisms at work in the creators and in their 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 includes its audience in the pain and indignity. And banal as it might appear, you can’t see the victim naked while being a victim of the torture, this is what the viewer is left to desire, to act it out in completeness in the world made sick. As soon as there is a possibility to live this out, the vehicle provided by whomever, many are off like a shot and those who do not or can’t are left behind to harbor the most 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. Many 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 any society when there are people going away from it to rape and murder women and their children. How many are there left behind in their multitudes and feel cheated, 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.
**************************** part deleted
The investigation is correlates with those prior showing that violent video games can desensitize individuals to real-life violence, including violence against women. More important, it moves beyond the question of whether violent games are harmful per-se, to address the important questions of whom is most likely to be harmed by violent-sexist video games, and through what mechanism does the harm occur.
Who specifically are we referring to are players that identify with the violent-sexist game character. Results support the prediction that playing violent-sexist video games increases masculine beliefs and decreases empathy for female violence victims, especially for boys and young men who highly identify with the male game character. Previous investigations have shown that video games are especially likely to increase aggression among players who identify with violent game characters, and that a reduced empathy is one of the major predictor for aggression against women. Exposure to media violence is one of the many factors that can influence empathy levels
(C-III) Do you think when bonding, I mean the brotherhood scenario is introduced, this acts as a reinforcement and a support?
(C-I) Of course it does. Of course there are those who use allegiance 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, I mean 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?
(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. Couple this with all that arrives and remains – in the form of diatribe, bonding and whatever else, the concocted 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 not only to the terrorist makers, but to the wider 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 is 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 collective 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 to 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.” Stephen Wyndham-Lewis. London. September. 2014
These are my thoughts on countering extremism, greatly redacted;
“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 very 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) London. January. 2015
(C-I) A defensive mind is not an offensive mind, the tactics, the very reasons for these states live at extremes of difference, wherein questions of remorse and of conscience reside. We do discuss this difference, its ramifications, because we have to.
(C-III) There is the argument that civilized nations devise and enforce laws which protect freedom, which control and limit certain behaviors, and this is true because they must. The argument that nations, even the ones ostensibly civilized, perform the very acts abroad which they penalize at home. This is the next discussion.
(C-I) Before you go fetch me another drink, I was thinking about what Bertrand Russell said while in London just before the outset of the First World War. He was watching people taking to the streets, crowding, seemingly overcome by the desire to go and fight, which they did. His remark was that who he was looking out toward were he regarded previously as being peace loving people.
(C-III) Do you think this is the case now, a tinderbox waiting to be ignited?
(C-I) It depends where in the world, to which countries you are referring, but conflicts become all encompassing pretty quickly. However, the means to end any conflict once and for always prevents that social phenomena. Well, I like to think that and blustering illustrative rhetoric remains just that.
(C-III) One result being in certain nations – an emerged social fabric that is not at war, but is at war via media, via fantasy situations, via acting out those situations and all the mental and physical ramifications of so doing, the engaging in hero worship of disturbed mentors submerged in this very syndrome?
************** part deleted
(C-III) The big ‘guy’ with a gun being a disturbed mentor, as opposed to the man who values more emotional, dare I say feminine attributes, who questions through thought, the point of behaviors which others cannot dissociate themselves from?
(C-I) That fits, but the disturbed becomes the normal and the ones who do not value the norm are viewed as abnormal. Which countries patronize the gun industry, as opposed to the arts? How many there want an assault weapon as opposed to a course in literature? Rather simply stated, old chap but it is how I view it.
************** part deleted
************** part deleted
(C-I) Hold on, I’ve got something on what is happening in the emotions in those who are cradling the desire to kill. I thought it was like a severe addiction process. I’ll dig it out, tomorrow. Fancy a game of darts?
(C-III) This is an interesting place we’ve arrived at. I can remember when I began University, and to some extent while at the school I attended, I was immersed in an international and extremely mixed social world and what came home to me, was that the ones I was newly among were not at all as you just described. Their trait of questioning states of mind and actions was obvious to me, the taken for granted of the multitudes who, in contra-distinction do not question because they cannot, was also evident. Though in general at University, and in a defensive capacity, they were far more capable of hostility, and altogether not the kind wearing such afflicted inward states on the exterior.
(C-I) We should continue this conversation because psychopathic traits are often valued even though they are not so obviously displayed. Such, with a uniform, badge and gun, is not a good combination as far as we are concerned, but elsewhere this is normal and the results as you see/read/hear.
(C-III) How would you describe the instinct which wants to fully unhinge itself?
(C-I) As an intoxication.
(C-III) That and the rage fed by significant others, who seize upon certain events.
(C-I) Yes, a coalition airstrike which kills and injuries scores, including women and children. Because of social media, and the hyper-speed of information dissemination it is increasingly difficult for massacres/atrocities/events that should never happen, to go unnoticed and not be fed to made susceptible minds. This kind of action (atrocity) on the part of any supposed counter-terror agent, besides being irresponsible and pathetic, as I said, is literal petroleum to the fire already burning. It precipitates outcomes which are extremely counter-productive, makes everything infinitely worse. What else might the killing of women and children possibly achieve? The question should never have to be asked of the ‘civilized.’
(C-III) The desire to kill and the complete detachment from the atrocity, is not civilized, it’s barbaric.
(C-I) When I envisaged the psychological warfare remit for the New Mind War – what it would entail, I saw that we had the opportunity to achieve far, far more and compliment acceptable morality, rather than destroy it and ourselves in the process.
(C-I) I agree.
************** part deleted
2017. Secret Intelligence Service
Recorded and edited by C-V Admin Officer
Secret Intelligence Service
ADVERSITATE. CUSTODI. PER VERUM