Secret Intelligence Service

Seninar Topic

Harrogate. o6 o8 2015

Liars in Public Places

“Generally speaking; liars are bothersome to me but arguably of much importance, but liars in public places are disgusting because they know very well the extent to which they deceive. The sentiment that drives them is vanity bound with self-serving greed.” (C-I)

(C-III) Do you think that there is a difference between a conviction and a lie?

(C-I) We’re moving quickly into narcissistic and anti-social personalities and there are so very many factors to engage, so basically, just let me start by saying, it is not sufficient to merely think about the changes one would wish to see around oneself, it is the putting of positive and compassionate thought into action that makes all the difference. Note the use of ‘positive and compassionate’ – it’s almost as though these traits are judged as weakness, trampled on by the heavy feet of those who see and use any ploy to achieve – often ends that are not articulated because they can’t be, but the means go along with their psycho pathological traits. You see this in action whereby someone in a powerful role such as a Commander of NATO offers supposed resolutions (changes to a status quo) that are not resolutions at all, but mere courses of action and which are indicative of, peculiar to, a certain personality. The end result that others envisage and which who we are referring to can’t is disregarded, not tolerated. Such people are very dangerous because they want others to be receptacles for their onslaught, those who offer resistance are gotten rid of. There is a great deal of pent up frustration because the system as arranged keeps them in check.

I’m trying to draw a distinction between liars and anti-social personalities. It’s not so clear cut. To purposefully and without any remorse whatsoever tell others something untrue is itself ant- social. However I would say that the anti-social person acts according to character and thus is led to wider array of the pathological. With the latter advocating courses of action that are madness because the person is mad is a simple example, as I said just now. With the liar however, I would say we are entering into notions of trust, because a lie if discovered renders the liar to never being believed and all that went before and all that comes after being suspect.

(C-III) Can you give me a definition? So I can write it down.

(C-I) OK. Let me think. Well, Machiavellian is a term used to describe a certain person’s tendency to deceive and manipulate others for their personal gain. The psychopath exhibits callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy together with a gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. You meet with the malignant types who idealize aggression, show sadistic features of the pathological in their grandiose self. The psychopath displays more antisocial features, the malignant narcissist desires unlimited power. Malignant narcissism is a key area when it comes to the study of mass, sexual, and serial murder.

I see an idealization of the aggressive, the sadistic and grandiose almost every day. I see this in the hawking of the idea of over-admiring powerful people, more in the use of sadistic images to make the point.

The intention to identify with other idealizers of powerful figures so to create a group with qualities of loyalty, bonding and so on. The narcissistic impulse for power being an underlying foundation. Peddle the idea that there is some contribution being made. I become gratified via intellectual endeavor in this regard here within. Et cetera.

You might contrast this with what I alluded to as being my own motivating force that drives me forwards into a new future thereby allowing companionship of hope, joy, peace of mind, inner happiness and an unwavering gaze ahead to achieve whatever is my heart’s desires. I know you’re thinking ‘what kind of world does she think she’s living in?’ But the point I’m making is I can step out and see others in their contrast, their complexity and extent to which some obviously differ.

(C-III) Can you give me a simple definition of instinct, a sentence will do.

(C-I) Think of it this way; it is that a principle is such that it resides within social protocol and the instincts that are the chariots of thought and of behavior seek opportunities and when they come out to race, when protocols change, it is this aspect of human character that in fact never changes.

(C-III) This is a big question but how would you approach the tenet; nearly everything is a lie? I mean the content of minds which are seized and changed via purposeful, calculated … lies.

(C-I) Golly gosh. That is a big question. Might I answer with regard to what is happening now and has what you just said bound in its substance. Religion/s generally, but the Jihad specifically, are very powerful vehicles for the worst instincts as history amply demonstrates and is doing so most notably during the present. Religion/s include believers in their tenets which is an extremely seductive ploy. They are told what tightly embraces their fears of insignificance together with more added on ‘material’ (emotion laden), the latter acting as very powerful controllers and reinforcers. When a collective belief comes into conflict with another it makes no difference because the ‘supports’ are well in place, to the extent that they are part of the infrastructure itself. By criticizing such excited folk all that will transpire are the reactions you see, because it is akin to trying to hurt their imaginary friend, made very real and certain, to come between them and the idealized lover, their savior, granter of immortality, et cetera, – so they put up a fight. You can’t say that ideas and or beliefs are not certainties, that their construction takes place in someone’s head and via use of analogy, flowery metaphor, is purposefully unleashed onto the susceptible. I mean you can say it, but they won’t accept it, not at all.

You could just as easily make the same case for advertising, or for the power of soap operas to dictate cultural characteristics. Those who design advertisements and write such scripts are fully aware of their agenda.

You have to consider the wielding of power and the control of individuals in this frame.

(C-III) Is there a way out of any of this?

(C-I) Sometimes I think it’s awkward to know what to deal with, as per the origin and nature of things, of situations and people within them. The issue is bound with what I see as notions of how to live, how to make sense of one’s own life. That there is not one single solution, as some do advocate and enforce, because different people have other solutions. People hold to different points of view and create and sustain human activity systems bound with these. Basically, there are different meanings inherent within lives. My own stance is pluralistic in that I acknowledge no single answer in operation, but many answers, many processes involved in the search for answers. How I do view things proceeds on from my own talents, my sensitivity to the immediacy of my life. I express my own points of view, along with others and in ways that are meaningful. These have varied from stage to stage of my development. I am not necessarily obliged to say I am at a more advanced stage now than as I began. I am inspired to to satisfy values and ideals that are very important to me as a human being. So where do these ideals and values come from? They do not come from beyond nature but within our nature, yours and mine.

I therefore am compelled to ask; is there one final answer, one political ideology? This is a different way of perceiving than the one I outlined, the psychopathic. Hopefully.

(C-III) Can we discuss trust. How do you think the assertion trust nobody fits in to what you just said? Doesn’t it hold distrust at its heart, that others are very likely exaggerators, liars and so treat them accordingly, without exception?

(C-I) You like asking me the most complicated questions.

(C-III) I know, it’s a habit.

(C-I) Yes well, first of all what comes to mind are those who say what they really think, in honesty, as opposed to those who don’t because they can’t for certain reasons of protocol imposed upon them, and those who just say things to satisfy the status quo. Neither are to be trusted at all, but the first case, that of someone who speaks their mind is a rare treasure. I speak my mind.

Extracts to be included below






Secret Intelligence Service. ‘Extract from briefing; on the subject of trust’. July 2013.

Instructor; Stephen Wyndham-Lewis.

“Gentlemen and briefly, trust; why is this state absolutely critical in importance, how is it attained and how is it reinforced? Firstly; if you consider the obvious, which is that we are not as other organizations where the requirement to be trusted is not high on the agenda simply because the intrinsic nature of what we are entrusted with dictates the extent of the trust bestowed upon us, which as you know is total. You can’t go blowing the whistle, placing a spanner in the works, so to speak or indeed wandering from job to job. Not only can you not do it, you can’t feel inclined to. What of the examples that the media like to brandish as those who have? Well, the fact that they were bestowed with the highest level of trust and they chose to work contrary to that bestowal and indeed the Official Secrets Act, or in the USA, the Espionage Act says everything about them. Whether what they had to tell of was anything worth paying attention to is worth scrutiny as we’ve discussed already, because invariably it isn’t. The fact of their supposed revelations places them in the creative use of the truth category because we can’t defend by adding validity, credibility or anything else to their statements. That aside, we trust and this trust is a reciprocal state that we attain. We attain it due to concerns pertaining to national security and the well-being of our colleagues. What goes wrong, you might ask, when a person’s ‘allegiance’ turns to that of ‘traitor’. We have to be aware of this possibility and have in place the means to absorb it, heaven forbid should it begin to occur, and this is achieved by virtue of the relationship between myself as supervisor and yourselves, gentlemen. This state is extremely valuable and one that contains certain ingredients which again are central to the nature of the work we do and in this, these ingredients are bound with me. I am charged with the maintenance of your psychological state of mind and this has to contain what is both different and far greater in value than any inducements from outside might promise or how close they become. You might ask; different in what way precisely. The answer is not that dissimilar to how the most valuable among the population are sought and kept. I have to have your respect and admiration and the knowledge without qualification that I am trusted by you and that the faith I place upon you in return overrides anything and everything that might attempt to question it. The longer the duration away the more the possibility of melding with those who began as objects of our curiosity. This is not a profound suggestion, nor is it admittance on my part that my trust in you and your respect and admiration of me wanes, but the nature of social relations can and does shift from that of émigré to familiarity and comfort. It has become much easier now to remain in contact with me through the machine of dedicated/secure intelligence routes as well as other means and these will be explained in great depth forthwith, via my colleagues. I have to reiterate that the human element is paramount and the machinery is secondary in character. If you do not trust and indeed admire and respect me, no manner of technological apparatus would change that. I am familiar with what is the fundamental requirement to facilitate the aforesaid admiration and respect and through these days we spend together this will cement itself very forcefully into your minds, I do assure you. Have I ever failed in this you might ask, I can only answer by appeal to what the context was and state that here, in this most highly secret place and time, I have not.”  Wyndham-Lewis.

Copyright (c) 2015 All rights reserved

 Addendum II

 Partial paper delivered to the *** **** Society (I): ‘On Psychopathy’ 2nd. April 2014. *** **********

On Psychopathy

Good evening madam secretary,  ladies and gentlemen. May I thank you for this opportunity to address the society while I am on assignment here from the US. It was with haste I prepared this paper so my apologies for its surface gesture, if it appears that way. I know other members will cover this topic in very great depth which is why I asked to present first.

I shall begin by saying that all considerations are complex, multi-factorial, because the source of study is this. We have the pleasure of a new society’s complexity so to compound the issue. There is the requirement to look from where we are and ask questions and I ask; where are we looking, at individuals close and afar, collections of individuals close and afar? Is there a uniform way to tease out what we seek to understand or must we be flexible sufficient to be able to apply our methodologies where there are differences in extremity? By the latter I refer to cultures that are unlike ours. A simple question to ask, but are we really able to do this? A person or group grossly abnormal to us is not so elsewhere and it is we who appear to them as abnormal.


What does being anti-social suggest? I prefer the description to that of psychopath and will say why later on. Well, before I attempt an answer, this came to mind. I was in the village ****************** not far from here and I was observing a girl in the car park whose car wouldn’t start. She was a very pretty girl and I was reluctant at first to approach her for obvious reasons. Eventually I did approach her and while talking to her she said something to me about the surrounding area and those she knew who lived here. It was probably sparked by my being an American. She said, “I want only beauty in my life, so I’m not so bothered about leaving.” Why is this significant in the context of this discussion? I was thinking about her saying this and the chemical and biological weapons program, because *******************************************. (omitted) ***********************************************************************************************************************************************. (omitted)

Are we anti-social in that we create these or is there some other consideration such as the weapons and the reasons for them, their capacity to kill are otherwise than such a consideration? I had to think about this because the girl I mentioned appeared to me as a tap on the shoulder, an input from the world I have become estranged from or that’s how it felt and you know, I really have no clear answer yet.
To shift my focus a little, I have other questions that I formulated in my mind. The first is; do we create those whom we castigate in this way (anti-social) by referring to them thus? By ‘we’ I refer to the society we are members of? To use a simple example, if there is no alternative but to accept debt as a relief and the ones peddling it do so by means that are seductive, subtly manipulative at the extreme and the subsequent result is debt (enslavement), who is the antisocial one? Is it the one owing money and judged as anti-social or those peddling the debt? Of course there are those who use the opportunity without intention of honoring the debt but I was thinking not so much of intentionality in this but of students, our most valuable resource who are subject and later in the day when our eyes are upon them they have all melted into the blend. Many avenues this modern era employs, the entertainment industry most notably, to seduce, result in a person’s soaking up the fullness of the content and in this, the force of the messages intended and these often are not healthy, in fact result in the anti-social syndrome. Again, simply asked and yes there is a moral judgment intended because if the doctor can’t recognize his own illness he won’t see his illness in others.

“Hear, hear.”

Where does this leave us, for our work in intelligence? This is very difficult to address but I will attempt to see the question from more than one point of view.
Back home in the US, anti-social personality is a persistent pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others.

“Hear, hear.”

To be diagnosed, an individual must be age eighteen or older, as well as have a documented history of a conduct disorder before the age of fifteen. Those showing antisocial personality disorder are often labeled sociopaths or as is more akin to movie parlance these days, as being psychopaths. It appears the latter label has more power, the hero doesn’t have the impact as being merely anti-social, he or she is a fully fledged ‘psycho – killer’ and is employed for this ‘valuable’ trait. Whether or not he or she is in real life used for whatever purposes deemed useful is a good question and I see a variety of suggestive responses in my audience.

“Hear, hear.”

Thank you. I want to talk a little more on something related to this latter point but first I made notes on components that I see do relate to anti-social personality. These are reflecting of;
A failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
Untrustworthiness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
Bad temper and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
A reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
Consistent irresponsibility, indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
A lack of remorse, indicated by being indifferent to having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
A callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
A gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
An incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
A very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharges of aggression, including acts.
An incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
A markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.

(omitted) *********************************************************************

In a world where we face the sharp end of the sword what are we to do? What are we to employ? Does what we do make us the same as those who the list is tagged to, or different? Does it matter if the end justifies the means? If what is at stake is everything, then whatever comes into play to protect and defend its continuity must necessarily be of a different consideration? Is this correct or are we all victims of our makeup? The pretty girl in the car park who wants only beauty in her life would put us all in the same camp regardless, whatever argument we offered in defense. She would say our using and supplying weapons to those who use them to kill women and children makes us murderers of the worst degree, that we see something other than the true reality, something we invented and subsequently came to believe.  Again, does it matter considering what is at stake? What exactly is at stake? What is achieved? Is it worth it?

“Hear, hear.”

“Long live the Queen!”



Partial paper delivered to the Society (I): ‘On Psychopathy’ 2nd. April 2014

Copyright (c) 2015 All rights reserved


Seminar Topic. Harrogate. o6 o8 2015

Secret Intelligence Service