Conversations in Room No. 15




(C-I) (C-III)

Updated 01/07/2016

Stephen Lewis document : On Trust

Insider Threats – Document

(C-I) Let’s examine trust in judgements made by certain others and ask; whether trusting and not understanding the nature of those trusted is a grave mistake? As a consequence, the legitimacy of the argument that they should never be trusted at all should be examined.

Regarding Istanbul Ataturk airport terror attack.  28/06/2016 where 43 people were killed and over 100 seriously injured.

The mastermind of the attack was a Chechen Islamic State terror recruiter; Akhmed Chatayev.

The Russian FSB had named this person as a main recruiter of Islamic State terrorists to Russia and European countries. In late 1990s to early 2000 when Russian govt waged two anti-terror campaigns in the north Caucasus, this is when Chatayev came to prominence (lost an arm during Chechen war).

Chatayev fled Russia 12 years ago and was granted refugee asylum status in Austria.

Chatayev has been on the Russian wanted list since 2003 for supporting terror.

He freely traveled in Europe and post-soviet satellite states for 13 years

Despite Russia’s warnings he was welcomed into the West with open arms and by no means was he lying low during this time

Chatayev was arrested numerous times across various countries ;

In 2003 as stated, he was granted asylum in Austria

In 2008 he was added to the Interpol database by Russia

In Sweden he was arrested with guns and ammunition in a car – jailed for one year

After release (2010)he  was arrested in Ukraine, with bomb manuals and photographs of terror victims.

Russia demanded extradition

Human rights groups opposed the move

Amnesty International urged the Ukrainian authorities not to extradite a Chechen refugee – at risk of ‘human rights violations.’

In 2011 he was arrested at a checkpoint on the Bulgarian – Turkish border.

His extradition to Russia again denied.

In 2012 he was arrested in an anti-terror operation and charged with illegal arms possession.

Extradition again refused.

In 2015 entered Syria where he joined the Islamic State

Finally he was placed on the US terror list (2015) – on Russia’s wanted list since 2003 – despite numerous warnings that this person poses a great danger and which subsequently was ignored.

Russia ; The people they brand as being ‘of interest’ (ie.terrorists) from the North Caucasus are being welcomed by the West  – branded as ‘freedom fighters’ by the Western press – shielded via protection laws.

He is one of a number of people branded by Russia as terrorists yet able to move around with impunity.

Apparently those who were asked for extradition didn’t consider themselves at risk.

Way of thinking is that Chechens were targeting Russian targets and not targets outside, now there is a situation where they have targeted a NATO member – This is significant because the FSB ant-terror warnings were not taken seriously at all.

Now it should be. Perhaps a global effort to unite against this threat. A question worth asking but also to consider the geopolitical climate. Neutral on this issue.


Close cooperation? Likely? eg. between the US and Russia? Perhaps.

A recent proposal by US for ‘Joint operations’ against Jabhat al-Nusra ie. al Qaeda in Syria.

Russians asked to stop bombing groups it does not regard as terrorists – specifying geographic zones that would be safe for air strikes – the problem is the groups that Russia considers as terrorists and the US does not

‘’Good rebels’’ from terrorists? – wrong position. Good rebel equals rent a scum.

No one should negotiate with terrorists.

These particular  groups 

Ahrar Al-Sham

Jaysh Al-Islam

have demonstrated terrorist methods and they cooperate with al-Nusra, as well as to an extent with Islamic State which is why they sensibly deserve to be labelled terrorists.

Both are party to ongoing  atrocities, accused of mass killings, abductions, using human shields, chemical attacks  – not legitimate arguments coming from Western minds that these people are understood for what they really are and even less that they can be trusted.


On Judgements that we Make


Prior  topic :

(C-III) To change course. There is an implied question, which is; can I rely / depend on my colleague? Asking whether trust should be universally applied is not necessary because the answer is very obvious, you can’t.

(C-I) Stephen was stating as unequivocal fact; that we trust him unconditionally and likewise, that condition applies in our trust placed upon him. This is not the topic really, what is, is what you just said and I think you are pointing it toward those who enjoy our confidence and are not worthy of it. The term traitor, leaker, whistle blower and so on comes to mind. But you don’t know who potentially is of this persuasion.

I suppose that this question is easily asked but not easily answered. There are the levels of security vetting (clearance) that are in continual operation as you know, yes obviously, but this is not what you are referring to. I mean that by satisfying certain conditions and these, at the levels of application which they are set. Some would say that these vetting procedures are designed to indicate the psychopathologies, such as you refer, but I guess there is more/ additional and this is where you are with it.

(C-III) Does the attainment of the highest level of security clearance mean a person is trustworthy?

(C-I) Well it should because what else have we? This latter answer is not intended to assume an accepted conclusion.
How much can or should be invested in scrutiny and this scrutiny be of an orientation that is deeply analytical? It is fascinating because there are indicators (situations) where someone is subject to this latter invasive scrutiny and it takes place in ‘social situations’ that are not thought to be for that purpose, nor are they assumed by those involved to be for that purpose either. There is an altogether different way of entering the psyche than what tests and checks can produce and these what I’m referring to are employed along with the tests and checks.

An interesting scenario would be if a person who is a demonstrable genius in a certain field of interest would fail the security clearance because say, situational factors are the case. Yet this person can offer the same reliance-dependability, verifiable via the perspicacity and insight of those charged with the task of finding out. Yes I suppose that some would argue with this and assert the system’s capacity to do the same, but does it, can it?

I think somewhere here (I’m referring to a past meeting that we had), there is a ‘situation’ where a conversation is had in a corridor and where it appears to be very ordinary/casual, of normal protocol and so on, but it’s not ordinary/casual at all, one party is an accomplished actor whose public demeanor elicits ease in the other, trust, is not of threat, but you can see that the conversational topics are not at all innocent, they are intended to delve into the very deepest places in the psyche (to produce responses that are not obvious at all to the person giving them). They do, because the others presence (the investigator, if you like) causes this and the one under scrutiny is left to ponder over why there was such emotion that was spread across time and the intimate/personal content of that time teased out.

I asked someone here, about this issue today, and this was what I was told might be a good answer;

A state of mind is a state in multifaceted flux, existing in four dimensions (time being the 4th). The notion of reliability as perceived to be the case via observers/colleagues, as with all that is happening in the psyche, is a manifestation of a myriad mental journeys all continuously replaying themselves, some to a greater extent than others and they overlap, intertwine. An outward manifestation (as all manifestations) is not a consistent one, nor can it be expected to be. >Though it has to appear to be to satisfy social protocols< It will change because these mental journeys that are taking place at once remind of certain destinations and associated pockets of profound emotion.

(C-III) Who did you discuss it with?

(C-I) Mind your own business.



(C-III) Briefly. There is a disturbing theme emerging. This would appear to be highly suggestive of questioning the consistency by which we adhere. To not know the self has implications for actions that are performed such that the ‘affect’ hidden or otherwise comes into play. We cannot, if this accepted, predict anything to do with human behavior with certainty. A curriculum vitae (resume) of a person is thus an assembly of detail which is not a great deal of use in this respect and likewise are batteries of tests that purport to predict how a person will act. Ostensibly we cannot read minds but you are saying that we can, indeed that we do this and I have to say, the ramifications are huge.
This is the essence of Psyop, such that we manipulate thoughts because we can, and with reasonable certainty, become aware of their precursors.

(C-I) Yes. The strongest and the most steadfast can be the victims of a fragility that has meandered throughout their days hitherto. On a scale from little to completely, individuals can be destroyed.

Can a person be relied on? It depends what you mean by ‘relying’ because we have to know and understand what would cause a person to fragment and deal with this by presenting an external world that suits. In the absence of doing this, it is not possible to rely on a person.

There is the need/requirement and the want. These together and apart constitute the relationship with dependability. The former is laid in specifics such as are the items to which one must conform as in a job specification where skills, experience, rules of personal conduct and affair apply. The latter (want), is not as down to earth because it is not written so to coral and intend adherence, it dwells in the domain that holds person hood at its core and is bound in emotionality. We want to depend, we want to feel that we can and construe a consistent pattern of emotions with regard to the other/s.

However, there is a question to examine and which is related to the degree of make-believe because this make-believe teases and dismisses the looming disappointments that cannot be tolerated. These disappointments that appear as suspicions, what-ifs, are dismissed because the requirement to create consistency between the self and others is paramount. Often it is the case that during fragrant attacks that occur on this requirement the defenses against it come into play.

In regarding a CV (resume), an interview, – all batteries of tests are adequate in their significance to place a person/s in a specific role but after that they cannot predict how others respond. The faith in such and such offering certainty that the case desired is actually the case, is worthy of consideration. What else do we have? Are we in disagreement with polygraph interpreters, psychological evaluators, recruiters and so forth? I would say only in so far as the findings of these latter are only constitutive of the beginning. Whether as a consequence of these the faith placed thereupon requires resources that are not available cannot be our concern here. What is our concern is the denial that resides, is pervasive and which results in massive errors of decision ie. ‘we thought we knew, we never expected that to happen, we never thought they were really that way, we never thought and so on and so forth.

In a wider sense, the wanting holds sadness, yes, in that you see this in operation across our collective and because it sits very comfortably with the unscrupulous attired otherwise who use it for any and all intents and purposes. The fear of being left alone as it were is cast aside in an onslaught of images and diatribes constructed so to make relationships that do not exist. Advertising is an obvious example and you have to ask yourself the question; whether the wanting is no different wherever it exists, whether with the recruiter, the team, or the consumer. The CV (resume) and whatever a person states is the case holds within its frame the same as the advertiser and its intent, whether it conforms to rules, requirements or whatever, is the same.

(C-III) How close are we to answering the question? To be honest, I see the answer you’re giving as one versed in a kind of trepidation, nervousness, incertitude, insecurity almost. We should examine whether the trust issue is not only context specific but one of geography, I mean are we as Brits different in what we sense as a virtue than are Americans? Are the differences based upon what is gauged as being a means to an end and the journey from start to finish versed in what is different for them in that the virtue is sensed otherwise?  Is so, why? It’s a broad issue because who are we on about? Which is why I said we have to examine the context specific to the requirement of trust and what’s at stake.

There is also the issue of impact, the dynamic, how you feel around suspicion, in this regard.

(C-I) Yes. In addition is the issue of trusting someone’s judgement during a specified task which I suppose is contained within the last part of your summation.

(C-III) Trusting is not necessarily the same as assurance? Doing something right, in the proper manner?

(C-I) Yes. Can I just refer to my notes?

(C-III) By all means.

(C-I) As you said, there are lots of ways to approach this question just as there are reasons for doing so, but I just want to home in on one further issue. I am referring to that of worry and concomitant anxiety. I think you touched on it earlier but I want to broaden it and include the ones we have to trust. I mean try and look at it from their point of view.

(C-III) OK. I’m in.

(C-I) Worry . . . it appears to be rampant in our society, it is the result of living in a fast-paced, high-pressure, rapidly changing world. People worry mainly about their children, job security, relationships and health, but there are other, smaller worries that gnaw on us all. Distant events such as wars and famines in other countries, air disasters, crime and random acts of violence, even volatility in the stock market.

So the question is; might there an issue with regard to depending on someone prone to worry?

(C-III). That seems relevant.

(C-I) The Neuroticism factor, it is often referred to as emotional stability

It is sometimes called emotional instability. On tests, those who score high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in a bad mood. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish the ability of a person scoring high on neuroticism to think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress.

At the other end of the test scale, individuals who score low in neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings.

Sample (and simple) neuroticism items as follows:

I am easily disturbed
I change my mood often
I become irritated easily.
I become stressed out easily
I become upset easily
I experience frequent mood swings
I worry about things
I am relaxed most of the time

Question; Can we rely on someone who scores high? What of situational factors in this – the content, intensity, duration, variability of these factors?

Importantly, what does relying on someone mean with regard to the intelligence cycle as a whole? What are the considerations?



(C-I) (C-III)

Room No. 15


(C-I) Just to orient toward a different take on the subject of trust, what about; Could you trust a spy? Who is the ‘you’ in the question?

There are certain interpersonal dynamics bound with the discovery that a person one has a relationship with is a spy. This covers a vast array of types of relationship and degrees thereof and so on, but what are these dynamics and how are they dealt with? This is awkward if considered from the point of view of being a spy, but it is interesting to consider how relationships are affected by the other party or parties. There is a degree of trust that is central to a relationship (arguably), but what does this mean if the other is a spy? Does it mean that nothing is ignored, that every nuance is noted and certain facets fed elsewhere, that by implication the spy is an accomplished actor/actress and there is little if anything discrete? What of the allure that the spy holds? Can this ever override the feelings directed at the great surveillance capacity that indeed does watch and note everyone’s behavior? If the spy is close at hand and shares thoughts and feelings, might these thoughts and feelings carry the very character and intention of the ‘big brother’/’big sister’? Might they further add to the spy’s allure?

(C-III) This has something very ‘old school’ about it, of the Cold War, where the interpersonal reigned above and beyond technological means and sophistication thereof. We aren’t machines, but arguably it is the machine that has replaced who or what you are referring to as a spy. So do carry on.

(C-I) Thanks. Well, I don’t altogether agree with that, I would say that the machine works in tandem, it hasn’t replaced human drama, just altered it. Anyway, where was I?


Yes, in a relationship, I say that the notion of trust can be multifaceted in that the trust is bound with, is an amalgam of, many degrees based on as many reasons for desiring it, and these are always in flux. If there is a degree of mistrust then this can be counter balanced/compensated for by trust that is focused elsewhere. No two people are alike in their psychological capacity to bear and often the ‘relationship’s on the face of it continuity’ is the major concern, I mean for practicalities of life as they do present especially with regard to marriage. The uncertainty of walking away from the relationship can hold less allure than staying put, given the insecurities that are likely to ensue. Of course the notion of trust we are referring to requires a particular evaluation and as I said, the person who is the intelligence officer (I prefer the word spy, as it’s easier to say) cannot be trusted in the normal expectation because there is allegiance to something else and this allegiance acts as an all seeing capacity that does peer out through what is one’s veil (mask of the everyday). No, it is the case that I cannot be trusted if I am expected by the unwitting to bear whatever that I see or hear without recourse to scrutiny on my part and analysis by others. I can smile and I can whisper the endearments but at the same time I am a conduit for who takes it all away for what I just said. I am no different than are others in this either because unless we were this way we would be doing something else.

(C-III) Please allow me to quote you, “There is allegiance to something else and this allegiance acts as an all seeing capacity that does peer out through what is one’s veil – one’s mask of the everyday.” You know this really does brush aside the notion of technological dependency.

(C-I)  Well, it is the case that often (ideally always) others are unaware of the extent of the ‘designation’ and the power that is bound with that ‘designation’. People (us) are noticed going to work and knowing where they (us) are going is not exactly revelation, but the actual nature of the work has to be. There are so many instances of this that all I can hold as example is myself, so will say that others are not aware, nor are ever informed of the true extent of my vocation. It is important to stress that I would not expect ‘the other party’ whoever they are, to trust me if the expectation was their confidence in the telling of anything and everything remaining between us. It would not remain between us.

I do suspect that this (as I just briefly engaged) would bother some and they would try to override it through the power the other party assumes does prevail in a relationship. I can use this too because it provides a stage where the performing of the other party is given my applause (is reinforced) and thus the assumption carries on. This leads to a status of trust that is indeed something else, I mean is thought of as being the case and this forms the basis of a  satisfactory condition, though all the time the other party remains assured (wrongly) that I would not shoot him or her in the back. Bang.

(C-III) Excellent. It reminds me of the early James Bond films.

(C-I) Do you mind not going there. I’m  distracted now and you’re making me feel old.


(C-I) I am thinking of the allure that the difference of such magnitude (one’s being a spy) likely holds in certain other people. I can say something about this too and be as detailed as what is multifarious does demand. That as far as the other party is concerned there does undoubtedly enter (come with it) certain intentions and emotions intertwined; physical desire (sex), fixation, perception/expectation of role continuity, power that underlies the latter, comfort in the assurance that the ‘threat’ can become ‘neutralized’ and so on. The threat notion is fascinating for me as a woman because this can add considerable force to the other party’s feelings. The novitiate can become charged via a ‘magical mystery tour’ (!) that does ‘come and take them away’, I mean that other relationships do not espouse. Couple this with certain idiosyncrasies/eccentricities of character on my part, then there you have it. Of course and as I said, this can, if it is necessary, be a mere fantasy mind-scape and bodily charade orchestrated and managed by myself.

Please allow that I consider this complexity a little more before my entering fully into its capacity to be devastating, as far as the deeper drama of life is concerned. This holds fascination for me so I will.

By the way here is one of my favorite quotes, note the use of the word ‘my’ as I wrote it :  “I am the ruby red that dwells with the horizon, the world in me is shining. Come, be as the red rose that sings unheard in my hair…..“.

I wanted it to capture the essence of our esprit de corps.

(C-III) It certainly does achieve that. There’s more?

(C-I) Lots more, my British genius is unquestionable. Here it is in full : *************************** *************************************************






Return to previous page / list

Contact Unit


Secret Intelligence Service



ROOM No. 15

Adversitate. Custodi. Per Verum