E London District

 

Secret Intelligence Service
The United Kingdom

.
Context – Discussion. The New Mind War

.

Welcome

.

06. MMXVII
R2OR6d

.

This is intended as a ‘mind map’, a presentation of sweeping concerns. We include them because of the appeal of debate, in that not all which appears conclusive is arrived at via agreement and if so, the varying degrees thereof become apparent.

While the intention underlying the effort is to create anti-jihadist sentiment through ameliorating very particular facets of ourselves and in doing this we be successful, there is the opportunity to exploit and display a three-dimensional, multifaceted and living world behind the engineers of the New Mind War project.

This presentation cannot appeal to the conventional; it has to contain more than mere sufficient force of attraction, and in order to achieve this does relax considerably the usual comply with professionalism expected in such matters.
Thank you

(C-I) Olga Rubenskaya

.

Go to Page TWO

.

Preamble – The New Mind War

Aims and Objectives – The New Mind War

The Future State Project

Contact this Unit

Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum

.

E5112152great078637949_n

.

It is dangerous to let people peek behind
the curtains of illusions. People become easily
disillusioned and then they get angry,
because it was the illusions they loved
W. Somerset Maugham (1874 – 1965)

.

(C-I) (C-III) C-V)

(C-III) I’m pleased we are together on this, at least for now. I’ll ask Olga if the question whether it’s not only that what we want to show is complex, but who we’re showing it to. We have to demonstrate that we know our target group.

(C-I) Olga. Well, it’s not possible to confine who sees and reacts, is it, but the main group are extremists who are engaging in a propaganda campaign and who are successful at indoctrinating.  .Whoever they are aiming at. I have to say again, that the New Mind War is not confined to jihadists as you know. There is a further geo-strategic intention, old chap.

(C-III) That’s a good point and there has to be a continual appraisal of our success with regard to the primary target group. How do you see us doing that?

(C-I) Olga. I was going to say, before you interrupted me, that if anyone requires a deep insight into extremist groups and how we must deal with their intentional influence, the Counter-Terrorism Library, in fact all of the Sections, are most useful in this respect. But this particular remit needs to cover new ground. It’s a psychological warfare project that has to be ongoing, changing in its face, so to be continuously novel in nature and effect. I must say that I don’t want us to get into trying to display analysis of the efficacy of what we’re doing because, not only is it not amenable to much of that, the process is as dry as a bone, worse even than watching paint dry, and no one would ever read it, not even us. This is important, it has to fascinate (me). If it doesn’t fascinate (me), it won’t do anything at all. One thing I can say though is we can monitor effects from what the target group and others say in response. Our doing this is better than including stats, or something akin to that, and need not form part of the presentation. Does that make sense?

(C-V) Olga, do you think it’s the case that something of this nature is seen as coming from one particular place, not from what most might view as a collective face?

(C-III) Take a look around here, she’s wearing fatigues and this room is as sterile as it gets. It’s not a set for a film.

(C-I) Olga. It’s not intended to be, is it? At this stage our discussion is the important thing. What’s wrong with my fatigues anyway?

(C-III) Nothing, just that it shows how cut off we are.

(C-I) Olga. That’s utter rubbish. There isn’t a single thing that does not have input from everyone in society. We are the most connected of all. I know that was a test comment.

(C-III) The Islamic State?

(C-I) Olga. I know what you’re getting at. Here in the UK, a certain part, if you want, has a very specific responsibility, a very serious remit, I must add. It’s not the case that everyone, collectively contributes, they aren’t required to. What they do is go about their affairs in safety and are free to realize their ambitions. The jihadist threat is very real, it is potentially catastrophic in nature, but having said that, one cannot and should not expect its somber reality to preoccupy all because if it does, it has achieved its objective. Life here is not about that. Some might not agree, and point to collectives where all are in it together, but it’s the question of what we are in that is the issue. We are in a propaganda war that is intended to hurt, to destroy confidence and indoctrinate the susceptible. Anything else?

(C-III) There’s a heck of a lot more.

(C-I) Olga. I’m pleased you think that.

(C-V) I think what he was getting at is that we only use certain elements, those we see as the most useful to display, but perhaps some might see these as being out of touch with the wider context of things.

(C-I) Olga. I don’t see it that way. Because we choose to lift certain facets from the complex arrangement of ‘things’ does not mean to say they are estranged elements that most are disconnected from. It’s the same with films; these take a small part but most see that part, that drama, as about them in some way that is personal. Does that make sense?

(C-III) You mean the esprit de corps?

(C-I) Olga. Yes and it’s important that in the Preamble at the very least, we address this and we do it in similar fashion to how during the past, certain symbols, adornments, were used to convey power of presence, because they were very brightly colored – symbols meant to display allegiance to the Crown, and so on.

(C-III) We’ve mentioned films a few times, talk about those.

(C-I) Olga. What do you want me to say?

(C-III) You could begin by making a parallel with a film. The Islamic State propaganda machine is basically one long film.

(C-I) Olga. Films are ideal vehicles for conveying a powerfully displayed message which is indicative of their being an intention at the outset to do that. Obviously the content of certain films has a negative polarity because the audience sees intention even if it’s there or not. The line between fantasy and reality is really very blurry because of what is taken as intentional. For example; if there are scenes of drones taking out hospitals, wedding parties or whatever, say as mistaken targets, and the attitude is one of ambivalence, then the notion of fantasy becomes something else in the minds of certain who are not necessarily looking for that. Those who are already seeped in contempt for Western values, then that contempt can become reinforced considerably. A showing of military force arguably has that same effect, because it can cause the enemy – extremist groups, terror groups, to want to acquire the same capacity for destruction via the same means, which is weaponry, advanced in certain instances, and they can acquire it, it’s no secret.

Appendix (I)  Extremism in the UK : Al-Muhajiroun and the 7/7 London bombings

Just to summarize on what just said; I know that the freedom to speak is an important issue, freedom to speak as one will and taking into consideration, if this is acceptable to the speaker, the possible ramifications with regard to who will see it, in this case  films are what we are on about.
When a viewer is presented with a drama, a living world, a geopolitical concern, it can touch upon much by way of sensitivity in the viewer. This is obvious, but what isn’t obvious is the nature of the intention, so how does the viewer assimilate this – as intentional statement of threat – one played out in gruesome fashion, or as being reflective of the machinations that the world has become embroiled in?
My answer is that any film coming from a Western mind frame is judged as an intentional message in varying extents of force. Therefore, if that intentional message contains physical attacks upon the viewer (the group – members of), combined with justifications and ambivalence regarding the action (seen to be not caring, even if a mistaken target is hit), there is only one response, in varying intensities, that can be envisaged. Minds are very receptive, very sensitive and it’s very easy to inspire emotions, many which are very negative. Emotions fuel actions and we can well do without those.
It’s the nature of the person, specifically the threat lurking both outside and inside our boundary and to provoke this in a film is not merely negative, it’s irresponsible at the extreme. It’s not just commercial films in this, but certain computer games too. Basically it’s a very complex issue.

(C-III) Yes, complicated and a blanket statement such as ‘minds are very receptive’ doesn’t offer much elucidation. What do you mean by saying minds are very receptive, why, to what? You can’t make a case for a state of affairs without explanation.

C-I) Olga. I shall. The interrogator in you speaks. I’m not intimidated. I shall neither confirm nor deny my association, so there. I’m not intimidated. There is a great deal to address and we need to march slowly. Is that acceptable? Hmm? Disagree, if you want, I don’t mind you slapping me but untie my wrists would you?

(laughter)

(C-III) Yes.

(C-I) Olga. On the subject of films; if you clump viewers of films together, all become subject to the same face of atrocity. Though it’s atrocity called ‘entertainment’, as I’ve said before, a question to consider is –  who and to what degree there are affected minds, specifically those who, in the sensible presence of humiliation, shooting, slashing, stabbing, dismembering people, are unable to make a distinction between the film content and the film content of the atrocities being continuously put out by the Islamic State. Film ‘’’actors’’ in both frames become mentors, icons, leaders. In addition, though it’s absolutely not the case here in the U.K. the same weapons are easily obtainable, though via the film medium the internalizing of extreme violent acts certainly is the case, via the internet and in games too.
The desire can be teased out, the means to engage multifarious.
The idea in Western society where to be a man involves owning and displaying certain attributes, I don’t need to spell these out, is rife. Appearance and behaviors associated with this syndrome are rife, whether the owners are aware or they are not.
I want to talk about the latency that lives within all, because we have to.

(C-III) Latency? What do you mean? Explain.

(C-I) Olga. Wrists? Please. I’d like to sit up too.

(laughter)

(C-I) Olga. Yes, I want to talk about instinct.  I want to talk about leadership too and how, psycho-pathologically, the deliberately manipulated image of the leader is engaged by practically all.

(C-III) I think I know where you’re going. Some would hotly disagree with their world being seen as a possible precursor to what you call psycho-pathological thoughts and behaviors, I mean those that the Islamic State are showing to us on a daily basis being essentially the same, though obviously their reason is different. There might be an assimilation issue and coupled with other subject matter in films, which you’ve introduced to us already, I’m referring to drone strikes, targeted killings and so on, then a certain and very hostile, extremist attitude can be ignited. This attitude among certain groups in society who are already prey to extremists.  If that’s what you’re saying.

(C-I) Olga. Lots has to be said, so we can consider the threads. There are no certainties and remember, we are in the process of countering what is being presented – cleverly manipulative and extremely powerful jihadist propaganda and we have to understand not only the nature of this presentation, but the mental mechanisms set in motion throughout both the wider audience and among those deemed most susceptible. If we are to deter mechanisms that result in felt hatred and subsequent action then how are we to proceed, with what?

Appendix (II) The Islamic State Terror Machine. nb. 18+

(C-III) I think we should keep it simple, at least for now. I know you want to get into the mental mechanics of compulsion, identification and allegiance, but there are a few more issues we should pull out of the bag. I am thinking of what’s very close to home and effectively working against any effort of this nature.

(C-III) Olga. Mental mechanics, you mean psychology?

(C-III) If you like.

(C-I) Olga. OK. Well I think nothing is simple, even what is on the face of it, simple. The reason being and you’ve already hit me with it; we have to look at what underlies outward behavior.

(C-III) Yours too?

(C-I) Olga. What do you mean?

(C-III) You should talk about yourself, it should come easily, point to why you feel compelled.

(C-I) Olga. That’s a good idea. Why we are wonderful and every moment of our time is highly charged. There is the ‘diary’ I wrote or parts of one; I mean which was intended to show what it’s like to be me in this context. What I think and feel while I am doing things.

(C-III) That’s an important consideration, to allow others who don’t know anything about you to wander in your psyche, your personal space; they can’t help but like you, want to be like you are. This is good strategy.

(C-I) Olga. I agree on that, but we have to tailor what we say.

(C-III) Even so, there’s a great deal of how can I describe it, what is more than just information or what might come over as ‘expected’. So that has to be worked through.

(C-I) Olga. You want to know all about my personal affairs, but that’s natural inclination, I’d say.

(C-III) Psychological warfare is usually considered as a shock and awe tactic, is there a parallel?
Your hours become a kind of psychological leaflet drop?

(C-I) Olga. Something of that nature. What do you think, ****?

(C-V) Without sounding too simple minded, the world is not as it was fifteen or ten years ago, I think the essence of a message has changed dramatically because of the ways the message can be delivered. Basically it’s about social media platforms which have the most incredibly powerful effect on a massive audience. The entire world can be influenced whereas prior to social media there were more of what you’d call cumbersome, restrained by form and function, targeted by their requirement and not to forget costly delivery systems.

(C-I) Olga. Yes and think of who is using these new platforms and very effectively to their own advantage, not only jihadists, fifth columnists of whatever conviction.

(C-III) Be specific

(C-I) Olga. Whistle blowers too and I wanted to introduce whistle blowers.

(C-III) Do. I’m here to critique what you say. I have to listen.

(C-I) Olga. Oh, that’s very good of you. I’ve to attend my aikido class at 18.00, so only have an hour left. I have to have to drink coffee first. So I have twenty minutes really. It’s my routine, can’t change it. Sorry.

(C-III) Do you want to meet later, after?

(C-I) Olga. No.

(C-V) What were we discussing? I know you’ll be back.

(C-III) We were discussing whistle blowers. In addition to whistle blowers, how many multilingual jihadist websites, blogs and other forms of commentary there are now. So first,  I’ll state case for whistle blowers. They have caused and continue to cause irreparable damage via their effect. Having been given our trust and all the privileges that accompany that trust, we now view them as colleagues of the worst of who want to undermine us, through incitement of distrust and even hatred leveled against us. The wide audience of others, including enemies, pick up on everything they say and the snowball effect is what we’ve seen. To right this is almost impossible because they keep doing it, changing the message through time. The question is; are whistle blowers less easy to topple than extremists? I don’t think they are because of the claim to insider information, supposed negative intentions on behalf of their employers directed toward the population. If the population distrusts the government, in some degree this is the intended result via the whistle blower’s effort, why would the population empathize with anything said to them, even to the extent that an effort of this nature is perceived as being built on false premise? False premise is what the government are being very wrongly accused of.

(C-I) Olga. Wow. Why are people more inclined to believe the whistle blower than the organizations they work for? I know but have to provoke you.

(C-III) Because of the claim to insider information, state secrets, which they have the audacity invent and then exaggerate. The accusations are what foreign powers love to hear. What they don’t want to hear is how commendable our efforts are and without which all that looms on the horizon, its menace, would become commonplace. The intrinsic and horrendous nature and intended consequence of these threats are not what citizens should be consumed by, that’s our role, to be consumed by them and to become subject to accusations that the threats are somehow not the case and there is a red flag thread running through, is diabolical abuse of all they were entrusted with.

(C-I) Olga. No government trusts a whistle blower, no matter whatever supposed sanctuary they find and try to call home. They all discover the ramifications of this fact. They learn very quickly that the utopia they descry so very convincingly, or through their efforts so would appear is nowhere else. To turn ones back on the United Kingdom is to turn away from the highest form of life. This form of life is the irrefutable basis of everything we do, and it carries us through.
I have to leave but will report back in two hours, is this acceptable? I can’t miss my aikido class. Before I go I want to introduce the power of association, and what instills this in a person’s mind, bonding, allegiance and so on. I want to talk about the efforts of terror groups to instill this, via simple but extremely effective methods. The gift shop in Mosul, for one.

(C-III) Gift shop?

(C-V) Olga. Yes, there’s a worldwide demand for black flag paraphernalia, including weapons and those used to cut people’s heads off. Everything that can bear the hallmark can be ordered, clothes, hats, cups, writing implements, blankets, pillows, even nappies. The reason I mention it is more to say; what we have as not just parallel, but a superior form of attraction. That we must keep saying what it is.

(C-III) You referred to the utopia that whistle blowers turn their backs on and very effectively sacrifice for hardship and insecurity. We should list these:

(C-I) Olga. OK. Quickly and I’ll keep it simple:

Democracy, personal safety including while at work, income support, free training for the unemployed, jobs galore, security via a first class police force working on behalf of all, free health care for all, a first class education system, public transport systems, patronage of the arts, freedom to live as one wants and irrespective, forty hour working week with seven weeks holiday, high wages – contrast this with the minimum wage imposed across other nations which maintains collective stagnation, estrangement and insecurity, we are at least twenty-five thousand pounds a year better off than our American counterparts without even getting out of bed, the obvious progress of scientific, technological, economic development and in which all have a stake, company cars. I’ll think of more as I go on.

I’ll just say that I adore the country, I love everything about it and to the nth degree. I have an absolutely fabulous job, an employer who cares about me, who trusts me and whose virtues were born in me. Every single moment of every day is fantastic. I have a free uniform, boots. Ha. Ha. Ha. I talk more in my diary.

(C-III) Now she’s gone we can talk about her. Actually how she wants to proceed is worth considering because it wanders through meanings, not merely saying what is the case. I don’t think you see this so very often.

(C-V) What does it mean to be a British citizen? What special meaning intrinsic?

(C-III) By wandering with her in her personal space, the values she attaches to things and the way she describes them, this comes over strongly. What she says covers a broad spectrum, not only during the present time because the esprit de corps is not only made from the present time. She’s correct.

(C-V) It will be interesting to explore various ways to convey this.

(C-III) Yes, it will but the detail of it all is best conveyed via text, via writing I mean so to avoid superficiality. The images we’re using are superb actually.

(C-V) From which direction do you think criticism will arrive?

(C-III) That’s a good one because it’s hard to say at this point. I think from those who feel that socioeconomic inequalities are the mainstay of life here. We should be able to show the extent to which the meaning of life enjoyed here far surpasses anything of that sort. There will be some who object to the freedoms now commonplace, such as those of equality and justice. We now lead the way in LGBT equality. Without doubt, we will be accused of elitism but it isn’t necessary to defend this, because not only as servants of the crown, but as citizens of the United Kingdom, we are elite. I agree with Olga on this, as do you. This is why I’m inspired by what she’s saying. However we have to be careful with appearance, tempting the accusation that we’re coming from one place where we  see the world only in the terms defined by that place. I’m not saying we’re doing this, but it’s a consideration.

(C-V) I’m not sure I understand what you mean, because isn’t ‘the place’ as you say, where we are and yet it is the differences that exist in the social system as a whole that we acknowledge? We can’t appear as an amalgam of everyone here, but who and what we’re saying we are to be accepted, respected and trusted by everyone or at the least, by most?

(C-III) Yes, but there will be a tendency in some to assume we see everything in militaristic terms because it’s the only way we are able. The way to solve a conflict situation being via appeal to military intervention. We can avoid this obviously by demonstrating the extent to which we understand who we are looking toward and among them how they formulate their strategies, what beliefs they own and how they vary. If we can do this we can also begin to think about a very effectively designed psyop. There are two issues; over simplification with respect to who and what we say we are, and not understanding who is threatening us and why. On the latter group, in addition to the Counter-Terrorism Library, there are a few articles in particular, written by Islamic scholars, on the subject of Jihad, and which I thought were enlightening. There are many articles as you know, but I picked these for a reason. Here they are, we can read them and maybe talk about them a little before she comes back. I think such a contrast is useful in respect of what she’s said already about what it means to be British and her commitment to this meaning. I have her comments here too, I trust you don’t object to my reading and copying them. I have to follow what she’s saying to elsewhere and to you, as you probably have surmised. These are the articles:

Questions about Jihad

Defence or Aggression?

Defence, the Quiddity of Jihad (in essence, what Jihad is)

Notes : On jihad – So do we understand it?

Psychopathic sadism – Shariah Court : Execution of young boys

A detail I did become curious about, while reading one of your conversations, was what she said about how belief and language are essentially social phenomena. The implications for an inner world being an outer, social reality and only the dictates of this.

Another thread I picked up on, was what she said about human instinct. Briefly, that its latency lives in all human beings, but how it becomes manifest is not the same in all. The ideal vehicle for the manifesting of the desire to kill being the freedom and power so to do without recompense, and the justification for so doing more often via machinated faith that it is right.

I’m jumping ahead.

Time Out

.

(Appendix : Relevant / Basic notes around the topic – C-I)

(Appendix : Basic notes II)

.

Discussion Continued

Wider Perspectives – Information Warfare Leveled Against the UK

(C-I)  OK. In addition, there is the effect upon ourselves of the strategies aimed back through media and whatever other channel, and though the sources of such do often masquerade as friends we know they are not, though it suits our purpose to cajole them along. I don’t care for the word ‘interests’ because in a broader application the pursuing and maintaining of interests can and does often ride full tilt over moral obligations, I refer to what is right and proper. You can’t outright lie to people, to the world in point of fact, but more often to your own, by turning complete falsehoods into something meritorious, because you believe what is achieved as a result matters more. It does not, not to us. Such strategies are difficult to maintain unless who you are aiming at are already estranged, enslaved and powerless. This is NOT the case in the UK, but very obviously is so elsewhere. For example, I have had the opportunity to study other nations from a distance and via direct contact and the first facet that appears to me is the stark reality of experience in comparison to our own. It goes on from there while the cajoling and the deceits are reinforced. What is worthless is painted as the opposite and it is believed. We react to this muck because we see it precisely for what it is. We are not a nation of deprived people who know nothing beyond maintained stagnation, no matter where you look and therefore you cannot get away with treating people as though they are such. What we say has to reflect the truth of our rich and multifaceted experience.

Back to the effect upon ourselves, I can say it is comedic more than anything is our dealing with grossly inflated often animated lies hurtling from ‘third world’ situations, the latter living in ‘first world’ nations.

It is worth exploring, is the question; How do you tell people that their experience is rich when it obviously is otherwise, that they have it all when they are denied everything? It’s a simple question to ask but it embraces a huge psycho-political agenda, the essence of which is alien to ourselves. I say ‘how’ but some would suggest ‘why’ was more relevant. I’ll stick with how, because I can refer to what is seen, acts as data, rather than theoretical.

How? Well, to achieve acceptance of something told when it is other than the truth of the state of being of a collective requires very calculated strategies, these incorporating continually reinforced seductive ploys that are very difficult to remain aloof from because they bond, align and support people in some utterly bogus vision of nationhood. The latter employing the simple to us, associations, that there is more than they are and can be, and in this ‘more’ they are bonded in some kind of cosmically meant drama. I’m trying to be diplomatic here and it’s difficult. Much that is said resides in this latter domain. It sounds completely ridiculous to us, but the way it is packaged as certainty and delivered such, is very cleverly done. Actually by appealing to the ‘cosmically meant’ –  it becomes a vehicle for not just seduction, but also for enslavement, hatred, intolerance and divide. The possibility of those affected changing in some way and thinking for themselves, in this case in question, for wanting more, wanting what we have, is extremely unlikely.

(C-III) You are not separating propaganda confined in a state of war from what is typically commercial, you’re saying that the whole is a war phenomena, with global supremacy as the goal and we are and have been the subject.

(C-I) It’s true. When certain foreign controlled media, especially now,  uses all means at its disposal to corrupt and undermine via ‘three-dimensional seductive dramas’ if you like, – unless we are both aware and are engaged in counter-attack, asymmetrically speaking, we run the risk of thinking and acting exactly as the dramas intended to seduce.

(C-III) So you are broadening the game from commerce – to include emotional ties to the elements that comprise nationhood. There is enormous power in visions played out (in various forms) with ambition and supremacy at the heart, people are receptive, do you think?

(C-I) Yes, people are very susceptible to dominating power decorated with all manner of ribbons, not merely made of rhetoric, but to images played out as ‘stories’ supposedly reflective of the foreign power’s character, example, cause, call it what you like. Unless the truth is known and which is unlikely for most, it will be effective. As I said, it works on the ‘folks at home’ at the same time as the target nations, namely ours. Have we become undermined, yes, in certain quarters, we have. If a state of confusion persists regarding what sustains us, while the supposed better example is shoved down our throats, what do you expect to happen? Built into this state of affairs are all manner of certainties which are not really of meaningful substance at all.

(C-III) Why would feelings of inadequacy exist, such that something continuously being fed successfully works to define us? Basically, why would we want to be someone else?

(C-I) When I referred to ‘what sustains us’ you have to look at how people are predisposed toward identifying themselves with certain foreign ‘dominating power’ muck. This predisposition, while at the same time having been caused to feel that one’s own situation in all its multifaceted and dare I say privileged complexity, does not exist – is a worrisome reality when you consider all that we have been and are about, what is here to be enjoyed and is taken for granted.

(C-III) And it’s prowess propaganda that titillates, while . . . both submerges and rescues?

(C-I) Something like that. The point being that what lives behind the propaganda is literally nothing, not in any facet. It’s phony, disruptive and manipulative junk, how can a ‘rescue situation’ exist when there is nothing to give us, is a good question. Neither economic model, social engineering nor military prowess. The latter is a redundant concept, but it’s still being peddled. Economics and social engineering, all I can say on that is; give me a break.

If you took someone from here in the UK., someone seemingly convinced by the soap opera broadcast at five o’clock on Saturday, that it’s all happening in this ‘superpower’ that sent it, and dumped them there, on their soil, the first thing they’d go asking for would be services, “Dear chap, you, could you tell me where is the train station,?”and the response would be such that a strange request should even be considered in the asking – “Services, you mean church?” – would be what you’d get. The idea of going and asking for anything at the council or anywhere charged with supposedly caring for welfare of taxpayers and the needy would be a joke. “You want what….money, you expect a house, here, you pay, you get!” The question of personal safety would arise as soon the proverbial feet hit the muck because of the gun toting supposed ‘normals’…..fetishists and the naive who are inspired by movie characters who get up after being shot and never thank the suckers watching for their inflated cheques that keep them doing it. Throw in an execution or two, longer the suffering, where everyone gets retribution and wants to watch. A TV evangelist spouting off the most bizarre mental asylum BS.  A job with a car means a job with your own*****  car. Suck it or die. These are just basic stuff of life issues, I guess, that are taken so much for granted here. I know a lot gets lost in talk of foreign policy – but I can say that when foreign policy eats the very life out of the population – the Pentagon take 50 per cent of every US tax buck, it’s easy to be perturbed by the attempts at sugar coating the purgatory – stagnation, distress, unemployment and employment (un-jobs) equal to the pay of a newspaper delivery schoolchild in the UK – 30 million on food stamps. The resurfacing of a road is reported as becoming a major transport communication system. Healthcare that’s a ****** joke because the idea of affording it is like – “Yeah, sure, where do you think this is, England?” It’s the same with education, leave school and know **** *** and wander in the syndrome for the rest of it. Where is the facility to negotiate? One might ponder over the non-existent.

(C-I) And. . .

(C-III) I thought you’d finished with the attack?

(C-I) Ha! I simply adore these two photographs, both are the most loaded psyop. The first is the former Prime Minister David Cameron drinking a pint of beer with the Chinese President Xi Jinping, at a pub in Princes Risborough. It was taken during the state visit. 22/10/ 2015. The second is the Kennedy Cupcakes Dance Troupe – United Kingdom, of course.

.

interesting courtesy Kirsty Wigglesworth Reuters

 Photograph copyright © 2017. courtesy of Kirsty Wigglesworth – Reuters

.

EEASQEmma Corcoran with Carol McLean and Katrina Noble The Kennedy Cupcakes go all PARA

Copyright (c) 2017. Crown Copyright

.

(C-I) My dear chap, there are issues up the wazoo to consider, and the one foremost in my mind is the sheer power of imagery. It’s true, photographs can deploy and deliver, not only three- dimensional worlds, wherein are geopolitical and strategic re-alignments in the fashion of a nuke,  but also payloads of feelings in their millions and in this context, be devastating.

And hey, those who deny, that they do not see the point, that they are not affected – these are the ones affected the most.

.

 

************The discussion that took place on the essence of Jihad to be added forthwith

Go to Page Two

.

The New Mind War

Secret Intelligence Service

Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum

.

EEEEEEEE0255_n

.

Go to Page Two